Eastern Europe/Ukraine

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Apr 2014 10:28

Jhujar wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/world ... asion.html
MOSCOW — No less an authority than Gen. Philip M. Breedlove of the United States Air Force, NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, has said Russia could overrun eastern Ukraine in three to five days. In other words, Russia could basically achieve its goal of creating a neutral, weak Ukraine almost instantly.

Yet the reasons for Mr. Putin to refrain from further military adventurism make a longer, more tangled list: the cost of a huge occupation force and the responsibility for the welfare of millions more people; the effect of new, more severe Western sanctions on an already weak economy; the possibility of significant Russian casualties caused by an insurgency in eastern Ukraine; a new, implacably anti-Russian western section of Ukraine; and likely pariah status internationally.On balance, the negatives would seem to outweigh the positives, analysts said.
“Military intervention from Putin’s point of view is Plan B,” Mark Galeotti, a New York University professor and expert on Russia’s security forces currently doing research here, said recently. “It is not off the table, but it is not the ideal outcome.”However, any conversation or briefing paper about Russia’s next moves begins with a broad caveat. Few expected that Mr. Putin would seize Crimea in a matter of weeks.There are signs that Russia seems poised to invade.

Vladislav Zuboka Russian Cold War expert teaching at the London School of Economics who has been researching the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, said senior Soviet officials were panicked at the prospect of losing both Crimea and Ukraine’s industrial heartland. So the current crisis has deep roots.

“Ultimately, analysts said, it is much more advantageous — and far cheaper — for Russia to manipulate a low-grade mutiny with occasional flare-ups.That will achieve the goal Mr. Putin wants: keeping Ukraine just destabilized enough that it remains an unattractive partner to the European Union or NATO. Russia played out the same script before in Georgia and Moldova.
“It would be a tank-free invasion,” said Cliff Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group in Washington. “That is his long game. I think he will try that before he invades.”

Russia could overrun eastern Ukraine in three to five days. In other words, Russia could basically achieve its goal of creating a neutral, weak Ukraine almost instantly.

With this Russia can create unstable underbelly inside Europe and weaken the EU remotely.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 27 Apr 2014 10:31

Philip wrote (page 40 of this thread):

What has been the most disturbing of all in the Ukranian crisis has been the
blatant open use of neo-Nazi thugs like the "Right Sector" by the Western
sponsors of the Kiev putsch. It is astonishing that so-called democracies who
preach from the pulpit the virtues of democracy and preach, practice the very
opposite .

It is very disturbing indeed, and it is a deliberate act on the part of
the US/EU, knowing well what kind of memories and emotions these Nazi thugs
will rekindle with Russians. It is part of the psychological warfare against
Russia (like a red rag to a bull): the US/EU/NATO had hoped the prominence of
Nazi's in the violent overthrow of the previous (elected) government and in
the new setup in Kiev would enrage the Russians and provoke an irrational
response from Moskow, then the US/EU/NATO would use that to further corner
Russia. As it happened President Putin and his team anticipated this perfidy.

habal posted this article, page 41:

Fearing West, Putin pledges biggest military buildup since cold war

Vladimir Putin, less than two weeks away from presidential polls, pledged
$772 billion on arms over the next decade.

"The processes of global transformation currently underway may carry all
sorts of risks with them, many of them unpredictable," Putin wrote Monday in
the government-owned Rossiskaya Gazeta. "In a situation of global economic
and other kinds of hardships, it may be very tempting for some to resolve
their problems at others’ expense, through pressure and coercion…. It is no
wonder that we already hear some voices saying that it is 'only natural' that
resources of global significance should soon be declared as being above
national sovereignty.… We must exclude any such possibility, even a
hypothetical one, with respect to Russia. This means that we should not tempt
anybody with our weakness."

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2 ... e-cold-war

President Putin's razor sharp understanding of the mindset of the US/EU
countries: old habits die hard, especially if they are so profitable.
This crisis is not about the Ukraine, ultimately it's about weakening Russia
through all kinds of subversion, replacing the patriotic leadership with
robber barons (like under Yelsin: it was President Putin who cracked down on
the robber barons, many of them fled to London, Israel and the US) who loot
the country for their western partners. To accomplish this they wouldn't
hesitate to break Russia in smaller parts and allow the Eastern most parts
tho come under Chinese influence or outright Chinese control (induct Chinese
co-operation in this project and share the spoils with them).

Philip wrote (page 41):

When and not if,Putin decides to "pull the plug",he should go for the jugular,take out Kiev. The hard core of the Western maidan marionettes are located in Kiev. As long as Kiev is in control of the facsist neo-Nazi CIA sponsored thugs,tand helos terorising the eatsern people there will be no peace.

Absolutely! Under no circumstances should the Nazi's be allowed to hold on to Kiev if and when Russia is forced to send in troops.

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Apr 2014 11:12

I think that USA, UK, Saudi combine is trying to prevent the emerging axis of EU and Russia which can change the world order.

member_28352 · Post by **member_28352** » 27 Apr 2014 12:21

For the EU Russia alliance to have any value, Germany will need to come out of EU and NATO and ally with Russia. In that case the Polish goose will be fully cooked.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 27 Apr 2014 12:53

There is no emerging Russia-EU axis. Russia is too large and powerful, too "different" from the Germans and French to be considered as a "respectable" and "trustworthy" partner. They see Russia mostly as a "threat". And west European countries are too much tied to the US to consider such an axis.

The fact that EU countries depend on Russian energy and other natural resources doesn't make Russia a prospective strategic partner for the EU.

Russia, both under Yeltsin and Putin, tried to be accepted as an equal, a true partner of the NATO/EU, but NATO/EU were not interested.

Russia is both a threat and a juicy prey for the US/EU, if they can "neutralize" the threat (neutralize as in make Russia a weak country, so they can avail of her natural resources).

For the EU Russia alliance to have any value, Germany will need to come out of EU and NATO and ally with Russia. In that case the Polish goose will be fully cooked.

Why would Germany do that? Germany is the prime mover within the EU, it is at the heart of the EU. And why would Germany leave the NATO when Germany fully depends on NATO for it's security?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Apr 2014 17:25

Germany will not leave NATO but they will also play their own game. Russia is not the pariah for them that West wants. They have their own issues with Russia but those are based on Germany interests and not dictated by "West".

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 27 Apr 2014 19:17

West threatens Russia with more sanctions, but trade relations complex

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/busin ... e-in-step/

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 27 Apr 2014 19:48

The Associated Press ‏@AP 7h

Obama: U.S. will have more leverage against Putin if world is unified on Russia sanctions: http://apne.ws/QQJLol

Saury saar why should I spend my energy on your foreign policy goals?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Apr 2014 22:03

Living behind the CNN curtain

Good Bye, Lenin! is a 2003 German tragicomedy film. Directed by Wolfgang Becker captures the confusion inhabitants of East Germany (the GDR) had after the Berlin Wall came down and the West suddenly flooded in.

What the East Berliners didn't appreciate, to comic effect, was how incredibly behind the times they had become. Consumer culture and technology had leaped dramatically during the preceding Cold War years in ways that were unimaginable.

I am reminded of this film whenever I hear Secretary of State John Kerry or presumptive Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speak. Their words appear to come from a time warp from a previous era before the US middle class fell behind Canada's when measured in terms of standard of living; before America's press freedom dropped to 46 on the Reporters Without Borders league table, and before the America's prison population skyrocketed to over 2 million to swell the profits of private prison operators like Corrections Corp. of America.

What those living behind what I call the 'CNN Curtain' in America, a population that represents 5% of the world's population miss, is that the other 95% has been busy these past 15 years (post China entering the World Trade Organization) inventing a post-America future. Many think that the past 15 years has been notable for an uptick in globalization but I would posit that the modern growth of financialization is more important; and the commensurate gapping of wealth and income that we've seen - resulting in the most extreme concentration of wealth amongst the new robber barons of Wall St. and the City of London in history.

In many ways, since China joined the WTO, we've witnessed a de-globalization in terms of a breakaway from the dominant ideology of the 20th century that drove American soft power and global hegemony. Instead of a unipolar world, we've seen a fracturing and a move away from the 'freedom and democracy' meme emanating from Washington D.C. and the rise of the so-called BRIC nations of the East and 'Global South' who see the world quite differently and have the resources and capital to shape their own destinies.

This is why, at the moment, we are witnessing a gross caricature of America's previous global ideological grip - in the persons of Kerry and Clinton - who appear remarkably out to touch with the times; their news conferences attempting to justify America's latest incursion into Ukraine, become instant verification for the world's 'other 95%' that the US is clueless.

Living behind the CNN curtain

Just like the people living in East Germany pre-Berlin wall coming down, gradually lost touch with the outside world to the point of a comical disconnect, as portrayed in "Good Bye, Lenin," so too Americans and their leaders appear comically out of the loop. The reason being: they watch CNN and actually believe CNN's narrative about Russian advances into Ukraine, the sanctity of Wall St., and the wholesomeness of American culture as a 'shining city on a hill' as Ronald Reagan called it.

Living behind the CNN curtain means that 330 million Americans are gradually seceding from the rest of the world - that is now happily moving on - creating their own financial system, their own culture, their own destiny.

There's John Kerry again talking as if America just landed on the moon and the USD is the unimpeachable stalwart and world reserve currency backed by a growing economy with little debt and lots of gold. HAHAHAHAHA! Sometimes the effect is even more detached. Sometimes it's as if John Kerry's words have been broadcast from a planet 20 or 30 light years away and are now just reaching us.

Will the US ever, 'tear down that CNN wall' as Reagan may have put it, and rejoin the world community?

I would like to see America once again be a thought leader and lead by example. It would be great if the U.S. didn't resolve all their disputes with drones and autocratic fiat dictates that authorize summary executions of political enemies in the U.S. and abroad; including US citizens.

It would be nice to not feel embarrassed every time a John McCain, John Kerry or Hillary Clinton speaks in public. I hope that day comes again.In the meantime, watch RT and see what the other 95% are up to.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Apr 2014 22:13

I'm confused, can anyone help me?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 27 Apr 2014 23:29

Austin bhai,

that article needs to posted in full
http://rt.com/op-edge/west-leaders-ukra ... cracy-600/

I'm confused, can anyone help me?

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. Follow him on Twitter

I'm confused. A few weeks ago we were told in the West that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine was a very good thing. These people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media commentators, were 'pro-democracy protestors'.

The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.

Now, just a few weeks later, we're told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not 'pro-democracy protestors' but 'terrorists' or 'militants'.

Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why was the use of force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

Pro-Russian activists gather outside the secret service building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lugansk on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / Dimitar Dilkoff) Pro-Russian activists gather outside the secret service building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lugansk on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / Dimitar Dilkoff)

The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received visits from several prominent Western politicians, including US Senator John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State Department, who handed out cookies. But there have been very large anti-government protests in many Western European countries in recent weeks, which have received no such support, either from such figures or from elite Western media commentators. Nor have protestors received free cookies from officials at the US State Department.

Surely if they were so keen on anti-government street protests in Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of 'democracy', McCain and Nuland would also be showing solidarity with street protestors in Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

A thousand people gather in front of fences blocking the street leading to the Spain's parliament (Las Cortes) during an anti-government demonstration in Madrid (AFP Photo / Javier Soriano) A thousand people gather in front of fences blocking the street leading to the Spain's parliament (Las Cortes) during an anti-government demonstration in Madrid (AFP Photo / Javier Soriano)

A few weeks ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of State John Kerry who said, “You just don't invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.” But I seem to recall the US doing just that on more than one occasion in the past 20 years or so.

Have I misremembered the 'Iraq has WMDs claim'? Was I dreaming back in 2002 and early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits came on TV every day to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal? Why is having a democratic vote in Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the brutal, murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion which has led to the deaths of up to 1 million people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

AFP Photo / Pool / Mario TamaAFP Photo / Pool / Mario Tama

We were also told by very serious-looking Western politicians and media 'experts' that the Crimea referendum wasn't valid because it was held under “military occupation.” But I've just been watching coverage of elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation, which have been hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as a “historic moment for Afghanistan” and a great success for “democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan vote celebrated? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

An Afghan policeman keeps watch as Afghan voters line up to vote at a local polling station in Ghazni on April 5, 2014. (AFP Photo / Rahmatullah Alizadah) An Afghan policeman keeps watch as Afghan voters line up to vote at a local polling station in Ghazni on April 5, 2014. (AFP Photo / Rahmatullah Alizadah)

Syria too is rather baffling. We were and are told that radical Islamic terror groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security and our 'way of life' in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to be destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless 'War on Terror' against them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such radical groups in their war against a secular government which respects the rights of religious minorities, including Christians.

When the bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and innocent people are killed there is no condemnation from our leaders: their only condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which is fighting radical Islamists and which our leaders and elite media commentators are desperate to have toppled. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

AFP Photo / Amr Radwan Al-HomsiAFP Photo / Amr Radwan Al-Homsi

Then there's gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and backward country because it has passed a law against promoting homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf states where homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.

Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors? Why, if they are genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and not countries that imprison or execute gay people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

US President Barack Obama shakes hands with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb) US President Barack Obama shakes hands with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)

We are told in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its rise is a cause of great concern, even though it is not even in the government, or likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists do hold positions in the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in the West enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right played a key role in the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government in February, a ‘revolution’ cheered on by the West. Why are ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary but very acceptable in Ukraine? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

Chairman of the far-right parliamentary JOBBIK (Better) party Gabor Vona (C) reacts for the result of the parliamentary election with his party members at Budapest Congress Center in Budapest on April 6, 2014. (AFP Photo / Peter Kohalmi)Chairman of the far-right parliamentary JOBBIK (Better) party Gabor Vona (C) reacts for the result of the parliamentary election with his party members at Budapest Congress Center in Budapest on April 6, 2014. (AFP Photo / Peter Kohalmi)

We are told that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and that NATO's concerns are about opposing the Russian ‘threat’. But I looked at the map the other day and while I could see lots of countries close to (and bordering) Russia that were members of NATO, the US-led military alliance whose members have bombed and attacked many countries in the last 15 years, I could not see any countries close to America that were part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian military bases or missiles situated in foreign countries bordering or close to the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the ‘aggressive one’. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?

i wanted to bold the entire article.

It exposes how the elite of US brainwashes their people with its unrivaled propaganda machinery and those brainwashed are served as cannon fodder for their elite.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 28 Apr 2014 07:38

OT but I think relevant:imho,the masses will always believe the elite of their nation,unless the elite has been undermined by other interests.While it is acceptable rhetorical flourish to grieve for the 'unwashed abduls' of west,its unlikely that mango abduls would have any dog in the foreign policy machinations of the DC mandarins which are guided by US interests as the professionals see it.Just see the views of Johann or TS Jones here.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 28 Apr 2014 08:03

sanctions expected as early as today. Mostly, it will be a coordinated US,EU sanctions list.

Russia will be keenly waiting for new news... and I am thinking that they will be working upwards in the night to get their own second list ready. Retaliation!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Apr 2014 12:18

Virupaksha wrote:i wanted to bold the entire article.

It exposes how the elite of US brainwashes their pe‘Drone strikes killed more civilians than publicly acknowledged’ – UN investigatorople with its unrivaled propaganda machinery and those brainwashed are served as cannon fodder for their elite.

Indeed if you want to judge US to put it mildly with the same benchmark as you do to the Russians.

1 ) Then US Government should be tried for Genocide and Crimes against Humanity for crimes committed against Iraqi including their children , Dont need to remind Albright "worth it" comment on Iraqi children dying off Hunger and Malnutrition due to sanction

2 ) From the thousand innocent killed due to random drone strike in Afghanistan , Pakistan Yemen and other places something confirmed by UN
‘Drone strikes killed more civilians than publicly acknowledged’ – UN investigator

In the end Ukraine has become a Geopolitical game due to Washington $5 billion investment something confirmed by Victoria Nuland ......the EU is simply sucked into the game willingly or unwillingly.

From what I have heard in Russia even the Liberal who are mostly anti-Putin support his stand on Ukraine and see the Western Hypocrisy ....so even if sanctions come they will be able to bear it and they can refocus their trade in East with China , India and others where real growth is happening

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Apr 2014 13:34

US banks fear Russian hackers’ vengeance for extra sanctions

US authorities and security experts are warning that Russian hackers may retaliate new sanctions planned by the US and EU by attacking the computer networks of US banks and other companies, all the more so since Russian hackers previously attacked US servers more than once.

As Bloomberg reports, the group responsible for the White House review of the effects of further sanctions on Russia didn’t respond to questions about whether the study explores the risk of cyber-counterattacks. Sources state, however, that the study involves revisiting previous classified exercises in which small numbers of computer experts showcased high level of expertise and knowledge, enough to cripple the US economy in a few days.

Cybersecurity specialists put Russian hackers in the top of world’s best at infiltrating networks, spreading malicious software.

“A cyber-attack is a real concern that we all need to have,” head of the technology policy division of the Washington-based Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. Paul Smocer said. “Nation states’ ability to launch cyber-attacks is certainly real nowadays, and so in any conflict, I think that the possibility exists as we worry about escalation.”

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Apr 2014 13:36

If I am not wrong any Economic Sanction by a particular state outside UN mandate can be declared as an Act of War by the receiving state and can be countered by similar sanction or other means deemed appropriate.

So a partial or full scale cyberwarfare between Hackers is also a possibility

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 28 Apr 2014 14:13

U.S. Weighs Harder Line on Russia Than European Allies

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/world ... ussia.html

WASHINGTON — As President Obama and his national security team struggle to increase pressure on Russia over its intervention in Ukraine, they have become entangled in a tense debate over how much emphasis to put on unity with European allies more reluctant to take stronger economic actions against Moscow.

So far, Mr. Obama has opted to stick close to the Europeans to maintain an undivided front, even at the expense of more punishing sanctions and quicker responses to Kremlin provocations. But some inside and outside the administration argue that the United States should act unilaterally if necessary, on the assumption that the Europeans will ultimately follow.

The issue came to a head in recent days as American and European leaders tried to coordinate a new round of sanctions after the collapse of a Geneva agreement to de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine. Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a blistering public attack on Moscow on Thursday night for not living up to the agreement, but the plan to follow that up with sanctions on Friday fell apart while Washington waited for Europe, postponing action until Monday at the earliest.

The deliberations in the West came as pro-Russian forces in Ukraine on Sunday continued to defy international demands to stand down. An antigovernment militia paraded eight detained members of a European military observer mission before cameras, while protesters seized a regional government television station and declared they would use it to air Russian newscasts.

The display of the captive European observers underscored the challenge for Washington and Brussels in defusing the conflict. The observers, who were seized at a checkpoint on Friday, were led into an auditorium in the eastern city of Slovyansk by masked gunmen. The self-appointed mayor refused to discuss conditions under which they might be released beyond mentioning a prisoner exchange, although one of the observers was later freed for health reasons.

The sanctions to be announced as early as Monday would single out more people close to President Vladimir V. Putin as well as certain companies. Among them are likely to be Igor Sechin, president of the state-owned Rosneft oil company, and Aleksei Miller, head of the state-owned energy giant Gazprom, American officials said.

The measures will also block certain high-technology exports to the Russian defense industry, officials added, without elaborating. But while some of Mr. Obama’s advisers want him to impose sanctions against whole sectors of the Russian economy, the president has decided against it for now, cognizant of the resistance of European nations that have far more at stake economically, officials said.

During internal deliberations, Jacob J. Lew, the secretary of the Treasury, and other officials have argued for caution, maintaining that, while action is needed, more expansive measures without European support might hurt American business interests without having the desired impact on Russia, according to people informed about the discussion.

Mr. Obama has been particularly intent on not getting too far in front of Europe to avoid giving Mr. Putin a chance to drive a wedge in the international coalition that has condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and destabilizing actions in eastern Ukraine.

“The notion that for us to go forward with sectoral sanctions on our own without the Europeans would be the most effective deterrent to Mr. Putin, I think, is factually wrong,” Mr. Obama told reporters in Asia, where he is traveling. “We’re going to be in a stronger position to deter Mr. Putin when he sees that the world is unified.” He added: “For example, say we’re not going to allow certain arms sales to Russia — just to take an example — but every European defense contractor backfills what we do, then it’s not very effective.”

Some officials, however, privately argue that the administration has made coordinating with Europe too high a priority and that effectively deferring to the 28-member European Union is a recipe for inaction. The United States, these officials contend, should move ahead with more decisive action on the theory that Europe wants leadership from Washington and historically joins in eventually.

“While imposing sanctions together with the E.U. would be nice, the U.S. simply has to lead and not waste more time trying to present a united approach,” said David J. Kramer, president of Freedom House, an advocacy group, and a former Bush administration official, reflecting views expressed inside the government. “It’s easier for us to do so than it is for the Europeans, and they will follow, as long as we lead.”

A task force of Russia specialists that includes Mr. Kramer sent the White House a list of possible sanctions targets, including Russian officials and business leaders as well as nine of its most significant companies.

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, made a similar proposal. “Hitting four of the largest banks there would send shock waves into the economy; hitting Gazprom would certainly send shock waves into the economy,” he said Sunday on “Face the Nation” on CBS.

Antony J. Blinken, Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was booked late Friday onto Sunday talk shows to defend the president’s approach. Mr. Blinken said existing sanctions were having an impact on the Russian economy. “All of this is creating a dynamic in which what Putin has promised to his people, which is growth and prosperity, cannot be delivered,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The administration also signaled that even if Russia backed down in eastern Ukraine, the United States would not lift sanctions as long as it controlled Crimea. “Sanctions imposed because of its actions in Crimea will remain so long as those actions continue,” Tom Malinowski, the assistant secretary of state for human rights, wrote on the department’s blog.{Not that any proof was required but see how human rights is just another political tool used to secure American interests.}

The fate of the European military observers remained uncertain. The observers, who come from Germany, Denmark, Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic, were brought before reporters, and the group’s leader, Col. Axel Schneider of Germany, was allowed to answer questions, although clearly under duress.

With erect posture, the colonel referred to himself and his team as “guests” under the “protection” of Vyachislav Ponomaryov, the self-appointed mayor of Slovyansk, and said they had suffered no violence. “We are not prisoners of war,” he said.

Colonel Schneider said the team was held in a basement for a day and then moved on Saturday to better quarters. He flatly rejected any characterization of the group as spies and denied that it carried ammunition and reconnaissance equipment. “The only thing we had was a regular business-type road map, scale one-to-one million,” he said, along with “small-scale cameras.”

While Russia’s representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has called for the team to be freed, Mr. Ponomaryov said he had received no word directly from Moscow. Colonel Schneider made clear they were detainees. “Our presence here in Slovyansk is for sure a political instrument for the decision-makers here in the region, and the possibility to use it for negotiations,” he said.

Separately, anti-government militants detained three men they claimed to be members of Ukraine’s intelligence services. The officers were displayed to Russian media and photographed blindfolded in their underwear, hands bound and heads bloodied.

Officials from the self-styled Donetsk People’s Republic allege that the men, members of Ukraine’s elite “Alfa” unit, were sent to capture a militia commander in Horlivka before being detained and transferred to the separatist stronghold of Slovyansk. Igor Strelkov, the commander of the Republic’s forces whom Kiev has called a Russian operative, told Russian media that the Ukrainian officers would be held “until the end of the war.”

In Donetsk, pro-Russian protesters clad in balaclavas and armed with bats demanded that a television channel that they had seized broadcast Rossiya-24, a Russian state channel. “There was a harsh conversation,” Oleg Dzholos, the station’s general director, said outside the captured building. “I would say we were given an ultimatum.”

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 28 Apr 2014 15:11

ABP News ‏@abpnewstv 2h

Pro-Russia gunmen seize another east Ukraine town: AFP http://www.abplive.in/World/2014/04/28/ ... 14NQ1fqsdU …

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Apr 2014 15:41

Beijing says sanctions against Russia unlikely to help resolve Ukraine’s problems

BEIJING, April 28. /ITAR-TASS/. Sanctions against Russia on the part of the Group of Seven will unlikely help resolve the Ukrainian problem and may whip up tensions instead, Qin Gang, an official spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, told ITAR-TASS.

“Since the outbreak of the crisis in Ukraine we are engaged in an active dialogue with the G7 countries and we have made our position on the issue clear-cut,” he said. “China objects to threats and sanctions. We think the sanctions will hardly help resolve the problem and they can even add fuel to the tensions.”

“We call on the sides to settle their differences through negotiations and to defuse the Ukrainian crisis politically,” Qin Gang said.

member_28440 · Post by **member_28440** » 28 Apr 2014 16:09

US backed elite ‘Rape-Murder’ Alpha Squad captured in Ukraine

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 28 Apr 2014 17:17

More Sanctions on Russian individuals.
http://www.voanews.com/content/obama-an ... 02548.html

What a poor joke this is turning out to be.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 28 Apr 2014 21:49

William Booth ‏@BoothWilliam 2h

Mayor of 2nd largest city in Ukraine shot in back. Unclear whether he was shot swimming or bicycling. http://wapo.st/S1nR2R @washingtonpost

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Apr 2014 22:06

Russia: The U.S. won't 'impress its cronies' ( via CNN )

Sergey Ryabkov, Russia's deputy minister for foreign relations, called the sanctions "meaningless, shameful, and disgusting."

"It will only intensify all the processes in Ukraine which it intends to change or stop," Ryabkov told CNN, speaking English. "It is yet another sign of a reckless behavior of the U.S. administration. No lessons are learned from the past. The U.S. does literally nothing to impress its cronies and clients in Kiev on whom there is full responsibility for constant deterioration of the situation in Ukraine. This is what needs to be changed and not the policy of Russia.

"A response of Moscow will follow, and it will be painfully felt in Washington D.C."

The sanctioned include a Putin 'trusted ally'

The seven officials named are:

-- Oleg Belavantsev, Russia's envoy to Crimea.

-- Sergei Chemezov, who oversees Russia's high-tech sector as head of state-owned corporation Rostec and is "a trusted ally of Putin," according to the White House.

-- Dmitry Kozak, deputy prime minister.

-- Evgeniy Murov, director of Russia's Federal Protective Service.

-- Aleksei Pushkov, deputy of the State Duma.

-- Igor Sechin, president of Russia's leading petroleum company, Rosneft.

-- Vyacheslav Volodin, Putin's first deputy chief of staff, one of the advisers who encouraged Putin to move into Crimea, according to the White House.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 29 Apr 2014 00:22

Several wounded in protest clashes in Ukraine’s Donetsk

http://www.firstpost.com/world/several- ... 00723.html

DONETSK Ukraine (Reuters) - Several people were wounded when pro-Russian separatists attacked a rally in support of Ukrainian unity in the separatist-held city of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine on Monday, a Reuters reporter said.

Dozens of men dressed in military fatigues and wielding baseball bats waded into the rally of some 2,000 people in Donetsk, heart of a separatist uprising against Kiev. They lobbed fire-crackers and what appeared to be at least one stun grenade.

A Reuters reporter saw at least five people with head injuries, including both protesters and separatists. The wounds did not appear to be life-threatening but the violence was a fresh sign of the spiralling tensions and disorder in the east.

The protest, during which people chanted "Donetsk is Ukraine!" and waved the Ukrainian flag, dispersed after the violence.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2014 08:16

Moscow assures US it will not invade Ukraine

Russia has assured the United States that it will not invade Ukraine, the Defense Department said Monday, AFP reports. "Secretary of Defense (Chuck) Hagel spoke today by phone with Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoygu (and) Shoygu reiterated his assurance that Russian forces would not invade Ukraine," spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said.

Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu has called on his US counterpart Chuck Hagel to try to do something for anti-Russian rhetoric in connection with the situation in Ukraine to lower.

In his recent phone talk with Mr. Shoygu, Mr. Hagel expressed concern about Russia’s plans to dislocate more forces near Ukraine’s border and to hold military maneuvers near this border. In response, Sergey Shoygu said that rumors that these steps of Russia are allegedly aimed at destabilization of the situation in Ukraine are totally groundless.

This is what the press service of the Russian Defense Ministry reports.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2014 10:22

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier talks to SPIEGEL about military escalation with Russia, which he describes as the "worst crisis since the end of the Cold War," Vladimir Putin's long-term goals and how NATO is adapting to a difficult new reality.

Interview: Foreign Minister Steinmeier: 'Russia is Playing a Dangerous Game'

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 29 Apr 2014 10:54

From the interview of FM Steinmeier:

SPIEGEL: Do have a notion of what Vladimir Putin is planning on the short and long term?

Steinmeier: It's anyone's guess whether the Kremlin has a master plan or if the Russian leadership is making decisions as it goes. But it seems clear to me that when President Viktor Yanukovych fled in a panic from Kiev on Feb. 21, it set off a dynamic whose consequences we must now deal with. That this course of action has -- at least in the short term -- wide popular approval, complicates matters.

I find it irritating that people naturally assume that Yanukovych panicked and fled. Its not as if his bladder seemed full and he had to hurry the hell out to relieve himself and the nearest bathroom was in Russia. He was ousted. As simple as that. Implying it as anything else might be great for the media but paints a pretty poor picture.

Apart from this, his interview is a very sensible one, IMO.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 29 Apr 2014 11:00

To add on, intelligent people in the know (and who are supposed to know better) tend to forget that the EU, Ukraine, Russia, US etc came into a deal just about a few hours before he panicked and fled. If he really were to have panicked, fled, bled or had a full bladder, he will NOT have got into an agreement a couple of hours before he was ousted at all. That will have been a bummer. Yanukovych might be a stupid man, but being a guy in politics and also a businessman, he surely will have known trouble when there was one and will not have got into the agreement unless the agreement at least had a fighting chance of survival.

Boy, the kind of statements we see in the western media sometimes borders on the incredulous. Do they even believe their own statements?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2014 11:29

Yanukovych did two cardinal mistakes

1 ) First he listened to Putin and signed a deal with Euro/Maidan for Agreement & Election before Dec , He wasnt keen to sign the agreement as that would mean he had to give up many of his powers.

2 ) Second he did not listen to Putin who told him to keep the Berkut and other forces in the capital after the agreement is signed till some time the situation normalises , He naively removed all the forces thinking he got the deal and this promped the Maidan to run over the government offices and he had to fled.

Looking back I think he did the smart thing running away ..either he would have been in prison or would have been killed by Maidan only the two fate awaited him... he mentioned his car was shot while he was travelling away from Keiv and it was only because one of his faithful security officer he managed to safely go to east of ukraine.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2014 14:15

Russia won't repeat 'Crimea scenario' in southeastern Ukraine - Russian Deputy FM

Russia is not going to repeat “The Crimean scenario” in southeastern Ukraine, said the country’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.

“I think what happened in Crimea turned out to be a big shock for Western partners. They can’t tolerate it. And they see the same scenario in southeastern Ukraine,” he told Gazeta.ru.

According to Ryabkov, the Kiev authorities should give people from southeastern Ukraine a chance to participate in shaping the future of their own country.

“It’s a normal desire [to decide your country’s future]. It is the basis of any democratic process,” he added.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 29 Apr 2014 14:39

BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 1h

New EU list of officials targeted by sanctions over Ukraine includes Russian army chief of staff, but not businesses http://bbc.in/1mTvPbb

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 29 Apr 2014 15:34

a fair point @ Austin. More like pt 2 was the bigger mistake. Putin did ask him to be firm and he was a bit lax. Totally true.

Pt 1 was also quite forced and he thought it will give him leeway without realizing that the leeway DEMANDED that he keep the Berkut on standby for a credible power projection. Missed a big trick there. However, as you mention, if he could really have cut a deal where his powers were not diluted and elections weren't called for in Dec of 2014, it would have be ideal... but the way, the sitation was unfolding then, it didn't look like a feasible solution that time around [to not give in to reduced powers / call for fresh elections, I mean].

However, all said and done, the very fact that the hasty agreement was scrapped in a matter of few hours stinks to the high heavens. [Someone passed on a nice link with Arseniy interview where he says they gave in and signed the agreement so they could go for the jugular once the agreement was hammered. I got the idea that he basically doesn't seem to feel very embarrassed about how it turned out.]

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 29 Apr 2014 15:42

Biting wit courtesy Stratfor

The United States announced new sanctions on seven Russian government officials April 28. A long-used tactic, sanctions can yield unpredictable effects or have no effect at all, depending upon how they are crafted. It is commonly assumed that sanctions are applied when a target country's actions are deemed unacceptable. The sanctioning nation presumably chooses sanctions to avoid war when war would be too costly or could result in defeat.

Sanctions' stated purpose is to induce behavioral changes in a target state by causing economic pain. To work, sanctions must therefore cause pain. But they must not be so severe that they convince the target state that war is more desirable than capitulating to the demands of the sanctioning nation.

When Sanctions Work Too Well

In July 1941, when the Japanese invaded Indo-China, the United States responded by freezing all Japanese assets. The United Kingdom and the Dutch East Indies (today's Indonesia) followed suit. The sanctions were quite effective, and Japan wound up cut off from the bulk of international trade, losing 90 percent of its imported oil. Japan had to respond, but instead of withdrawing from Indo-China, it attacked Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese example is worth considering. The United States placed Japan in a situation where its oil supplies would be depleted in months, at which point Japan would cease to be an industrial power. Tokyo could have accepted the American terms, but once it did this, it would have established a U.S. veto over Japanese decisions.

The Japanese did not trust the United States and were convinced that any capitulation to sanctions would simply lead to more U.S. demands. Tokyo understood the risks of war but calculated that these risks were lower than the risks of complying with U.S. demands (though the Japanese might well have been wrong in this calculation, and Franklin Roosevelt might well have known that Tokyo would choose war over capitulation). Faced with sanctions that would cripple the nation, Japan chose war.

Sanctions perform better against nations that lack retaliatory options, including the option of waging war. Iran is an example of a perfect target for sanctions. Without a deliverable nuclear device, it lacks the option to wage war, and it has few other ways to retaliate. (Even with countries like Iran, however, sanctions can have a limited effect if the target can find ways to get around the sanctions.)

Precision-Guided Sanctions

Placing effective sanctions on a country such as Russia is much more complicated than placing them on countries like Iran or the Central African Republic because the Russians have potential military responses. They also have the ability to retaliate by seizing Western assets in Russia: There are many Western companies doing business in Russia with significant equipment, factories, bank accounts and so on. Moscow also has the power to cut energy supplies to Europe. Whether it would be prudent for Russia respond in those ways is an important question, but the mere fact Russia has a range of retaliatory options is an important consideration.

Partly for that reason and partly because of a theory of sanctions that has emerged in recent years, the United States and some European countries have largely opted out of placing sanctions on Russia as a whole. Instead, they have place sanctions on individuals and a small number of companies in Russia deemed responsible for actions in Ukraine that the United States and Europe find objectionable. We might call these "precision-guided sanctions," or sanctions intended to compel a change in direction without inflicting collateral damage or risking significant retaliation.

The idea of placing sanctions on regimes rather than on nations originated with the obvious fact that if successful, sanctions on nations harm the entire population, most of whom are innocent and powerless, while leaving the leaders who have created the crisis in power and free to shift the burden to the population. The Iraq example is frequently cited. There, a strong regime of economic sanctions was imposed on the country, severely diminishing Iraqis' standard of living while allowing the leadership to profit from various loopholes intended to ease the burden on the public.

The idea of sanctions against specific leaders to avoid harming the general public emerged from this and other experiences. This approach has dominated the Western response to Russian actions in Ukraine. By attacking the economic interests of key Russian leaders, or at least of their inner circles, the West appears to be trying to force changes in Russian policy toward Ukraine. This raises a number of important questions.

Limits to Sanctions on Russia

First, there is the question of whether Russian leaders care more for power or for money. In the 1990s, money generated power, but the two are more aligned now: Those with power and those with money are the same. It is therefore hard to imagine that the Putin regime will shift policy -- and thereby admit weakness, a fatal error for anyone in power -- to preserve part of its members' fortunes.

Moreover, the Russian leadership has kept some of its money inside Russia to avoid seizure by Western governments. Certainly, some of the leadership's money has flowed out of Russia, but not all of it. The people who have been targeted will not suddenly be hurled onto the welfare rolls in Russia because of the current sanctions. The targeted individuals will respond to the U.S. sanctions with indifference. They may lose some assets in the ensuing treasure hunt. But their resulting domestic popularity boost will offset this, a boost perhaps costing no more than a high-power Washington public relations firm might charge. And given their positions, they can certainly earn back whatever they lose in seizures.

Second, there is the question of intertwined assets. Russian leaders have invested in many Russian companies with interests in Western companies. In some instances, they are involved in joint ventures with Western companies.

To illustrate the Western dilemma, let's assume there is a joint venture between Rosneft and a Western oil company. How exactly does the West proceed with sanctions in such a situation? Does it seize all or just some of the assets of the joint venture? What liability does it inflict on other shareholders, Western and Russian, who are not on the sanctions list? Now go further and consider an investment in a U.S. private equities firm by a Mexican fund with investors from Cyprus who may include people on the sanctions list. In modern capitalism, investment paths can be twisted indeed.

One might be able to track down assets in a relatively small country with limited assets. But Russia is the eight-largest economy in the world, and its wealth is intertwined with the targets of the sanctions, greatly complicating the challenge of crafting effective precision-guided sanctions.

Third, there is the political question. Russian President Vladimir Putin's popularity has soared since the Russian annexation of Crimea. As in the West, Russian leaders appearing to act decisively in foreign crises enjoy higher approval ratings, at least initially. Putin may find it difficult not to respond to the sanctions because if he fails to act, he could lose some of the popularity he gained by his appearance of strength.

Intentionally Ineffective Sanctions

In addition, the United States doesn't want to threaten regime survival in a country with massive military power. Nor does it want to engage in an action that would trigger an invasion of Ukraine and force the United States to either back away or join a war it is unprepared for. It also will try to avoid mistakenly seizing U.S. and European assets -- assets deployed by Russia deliberately to bait Washington into making just such a mistake.

The Obama administration has a final major reason to avoid effective sanctions. If someone had said a year ago that U.S.-Russian relations would reach the present point, they would have been laughed at, something I can attest to. Foreign investment is a major component of the U.S. economy, and distinguished political leaders are an excellent source of capital. If you are the leader of China, Saudi Arabia or India, all of which have problems with the United States that could conceivably mushroom, you might think twice before investing your money in the United States. And there are more countries than those four that have potential conflicts with the United States.

The U.S. sanctions strategy is therefore not designed to change Russian policies; it is designed to make it look like the United States is trying to change Russian policy. And it is aimed at those in Congress who have made this a major issue and at those parts of the State Department that want to orient U.S. national security policy around the issue of human rights. Both can be told that something is being done -- and both can pretend that something is being done -- when in fact nothing can be done. In a world clamoring for action, prudent leaders sometimes prefer the appearance of doing something to actually doing something.

Read more: The U.S. Opts for Ineffective Sanctions on Russia | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2014 16:35

CrossTalk: Containment 2.0? (ft. Stephen Cohen & John Mearsheimer)

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 29 Apr 2014 19:14

BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 1h

Large pro-Russian crowd storms regional government headquarters in Luhansk in eastern Ukraine http://bbc.in/1fMpMgV

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 29 Apr 2014 20:16

The more this entire Ukraine situation goes on the more the west exposes it's underhand methods and it's duplicity.

The situation in ukraine is linked to the situation in Syria, and the reason for the situation in Syria has nothing to do with this bogus western concern for "Human Rights" "Democracy" bull$hit.

The reason is the huge gas field discovered off the coast of Israel:
http://www.offshore-technology.com/proj ... ne-israel/

The saudiBarbarians/qatari's want to get their hands on it, they will reach some sort of accomodation with Israel.
They can then build the pipelines across Syria, across saudi etc and ship it east. The wests leaders will do what their paymasters tell them too.

I have just read through various articles on the sanctions they are imposing against Russia as a nation and Russians as individuals. Is it not strange that thet never imposed such sanctions on the paki's despite the fact that US/western citizens and troops had been killed by pak sponsered taliban??

If they can get the Ukraine into their western orbit (EC/NATO), then they can try to close the Russian navy port at Savastopol. The Russians won't tolerate this.

Western leaders are fools. The threat lies in saudi and pak.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 29 Apr 2014 20:42

Its so nice to see how excited some people on this thread are for the Kremlin, and how they wildly they cheer them on. It really is just like the old days. But I digress.

- As expected, the Russians have made it clear they aren't willing to openly invade eastern Ukraine if they think they might actually face combat resistance and a severe diplomatic and economic reaction. They'd much rather try to achieve and consolidate de facto control ahead of a referendum. The Geneva agreement seems to have been intended to a) reassure parties that they aren't going to invade and de-escalate internationally b) buy more time for the men in masks to seize control. The dilemma for the Kremlin is that a prolonged crisis is not something it particularly wants, but escalation which might in theory get it what it wants sooner is also dangerous and expensive.

- In the short term the current government in Kiev filled with the same old political faces from before will face trouble from many of the same people who supported the protests against Yanukovych in the west and centre of the country because in the short term economic pain of reform and dislocation from Russia's punitive actions will be high. http://libcom.org/news/report-visit-kie ... 4-29042014 for a more detailed view of class and ideology in the original protest movement.

- A lot will come down to how well Kiev and Brussels work to smooth the transition as you can see from the following. EU processes are normally slow and bureaucratic not just because they are consensus driven, but because they're meant to bring about deep and lasting change. It is a dilemma because faster EU integration decreases Ukrainian pain at the hands of Russia, and helps stabilise the situation. But when harmonisation processes are rushed for political reasons, for example in letting Greece and Cyprus in to the monetary union, they're not as effective in bringing fundamental positive change. This is a small sample of the hundreds of issues that need to be carefully sorted out:

http://www.globalmeatnews.com/Industry- ... conditions
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/im ... 80556.aspx

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 29 Apr 2014 20:57

Why the sanctions against Russia probably won’t work

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... wont-work/

Do economic sanctions work?

In Russia, maybe not. Russia is sitting on roughly half a trillion dollars in foreign exchange, and it exports about 9 million barrels a day of crude oil bringing in about $330 billion a year — not including its sales of natural gas.

It has will as well as means. Russian President Vladimir Putin seems content to suffer some economic damage for the sake of correcting what he sees as a historical wrong and bringing Crimea and perhaps more of Ukraine back into the Russian fold.

“The whole idea that we are going to defeat Russians by imposing hardship on them boggles my mind,” said Clifford Gaddy, a Russia expert at the Brookings Institution, noting that the Russian economy contracted 40 percent after the fall of the Soviet Union.

“It’s not a matter of how much pain you can impose, but how much they can tolerate. And how much they can tolerate depends on the motivation for behavior,” he said, adding that Russia’s dispute with the United States and Europe was a “matter of national interest and survival” and not just greed.

This is bad news for foreign companies operating in Russia for whom the gradual tightening of sanctions on Monday by the United States and Europe is worrisome. So far the Obama administration has tried to zero in on top officials and advisers to Putin. And trade with Russia outside the energy sector is relatively small; U.S. trade with Russia accounts for less than 1 percent of U.S. overall trade.

Still, some international companies have big stakes there.

The biggest U.S. investor in Russia is Exxon Mobil, which has an oil and gas production facility off Sakhalin Island in northeastern Russia and which has joined with Russian oil giant Rosneft to explore the country’s Arctic region. It also has an operation extracting natural gas from complex geological formations. Russia accounts for about 6 percent of Exxon Mobil’s global production, according to oil analyst Pavel Molchanov at the investment firm Raymond James.

London-based oil giant BP is even more exposed to Russia. It owns a 19.75 percent stake in Rosneft, whose chief executive Igor Sechin was just added to the U.S. sanctions list. The stake is valued at about $13 billion, about 9 percent of BP’s total market capitalization. The Rosneft holding also accounts for about 30 percent of BP’s production, 36 percent of its reserves and contributes about 15 percent to the firm’s net income, Molchanov says.

Royal Dutch Shell has a stake in a Gazprom oil and gas field in Siberia and is a partner in Sakhalin 2, which has a liquefied natural gas terminal that in 2012 supplied a tenth of Japan’s gas needs. The company’s chief executive, Ben van Beurden, in Russia for the 20th anniversary of the project, met Putin on April 18 to discuss expanding the facility.

“We also know that this is going to be a project that will need strong support to succeed,” he said, according to Russian media. “So one of my purposes of meeting with you, Mr. President, is to also secure support for the way forward on this project.”

Weatherford, a U.S. oil services company, is also deeply involved in Russia. As of March 2014, Weatherford had 346 rigs, 74 percent of its international rig count, operating in Russia, Molchanov said.

Outside the energy sector, international companies with investments in Russia range from those selling luxury consumer goods to those investing in other natural resources. Putin, like other countries’ leaders, has insisted that automakers have certain levels of domestic content if they are selling in Russia. Ford and General Motors both have plants in Russia.

But so far, the United States and European Union have targeted Russian individuals and companies. The intention is to make clear to Russians that the target is Putin and his close allies, not the Russian people overall.

Gaddy doubts that will work either. “We are targeting the very best of Russia, the part that’s most modern, most eager to integrate into the global economy, most progressive,” he said. “Sanctions will tend to hurt them.”

Russia joins a long list of countries that have been subjected to international sanctions, and the track record is mixed, at best. Even where effective, they work slowly.

The U.S. embargo of Cuba has lasted more than half a century, and the Castros still rule there. The embargo of North Korea has inflicted suffering and starvation on the populace, but the Kim family remains in power. Both countries received oil and economic support from Russia and China respectively.

The U.S. Congress imposed sanctions on South Africa over President Ronald Reagan’s veto in October 1986, prompting many U.S. companies, such as General Motors and Mobil Oil, to withdraw. The sanctions contributed to ending apartheid, but domestic foes of apartheid had already shaken the country for two years with demonstrations, consumer boycotts and strikes, sparking a flight of capital, no-shows for military service and a reassessment by influential members of the ruling National Party.

The United States and European nations are currently negotiating with Iran, which is widely seen to have been brought to the bargaining table by tight sanctions on oil exports and transactions by Iran’s central bank. But the United States imposed sanctions on Iran after the 1979 hostage-taking, and other countries added sanctions after Iran resumed its uranium-enrichment program in 2005. Sanctions were tightened again in 2012, leading to a sharp drop in Iranian oil exports that provide the bulk of government revenue.

But Molchanov argues that Russia is different.

“Even if Russia were to cross the border into eastern Ukraine , it would be hard to imagine a full embargo on Russian exports because the world needs the oil,” he said. Iran at its peak was exporting about 2.5 million barrels a day, and the embargo eventually cut that to about 1 to 1.5 million barrels a day.

“The world can lose a million barrels a day from Iran, and it’s not especially painful,” Molchanov added. “But if it lost 9 million barrels a day from Russia, there is no supply elsewhere that could fully compensate for that loss immediately. If Russian exports went to zero tomorrow, there would be a global oil crisis.”

One argument in favor of imposing economic sanctions on Russia is the theory that Putin has made a bargain with the Russian people (similar to the implicit bargain made by China’s Communist Party): The Russian people give him power, and he will give them better living standards.

But Russian living standards weren’t that great before the Ukraine crisis. Moreover, many Russia experts think that is the wrong way to look at Russia.

Gaddy says that Russians want a better standard of living, but not if it means they aren’t treated as a great power. He said that given a choice of being Sweden or Russia, most Russians would sacrifice Sweden’s comforts and choose Russia for its great-power status.

Mark Medish, a National Security Council adviser on Russia and Ukraine under President Bill Clinton, believes Putin’s behavior has been reckless, but he also doubts the effectiveness of economic sanctions.

“Sanctions may cause economic inconvenience and reputational pain for the targets, and imposing sanctions may also make us feel correct, that we have done the right thing,” he said.

But he warned that “the stated objective of sanctions is to get Russia to change its behavior, and this is unlikely to work. Sanctions are more likely to galvanize the will of the other side.” He added that “great powers, especially nuclear superpowers, do not allow themselves to be extorted.”

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 29 Apr 2014 21:24

Its so nice to see how excited some people on this thread are for the Kremlin, and how they wildly they cheer them on. It really is just like the old days.(For new comers like us,can you clarify what you mean here But I digress.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Apr 2014 21:31

svenkat wrote:
Its so nice to see how excited some people on this thread are for the Kremlin, and how they wildly they cheer them on. It really is just like the old days.(For new comers like us,can you clarify what you mean here But I digress.

WHy do you ask such questions. Some unknowns come here and make a blanket statement of posters here with no substantiated info. Who are people to comment if people here or else where in India get excited.

Indians have to think for the Indian interest and not for some other powers in distant lands.
In the case of Ukraine crisis it is about India. Indian interest has to be protected.