
Putin's Crimea Grab Shows He Misunderstands 21st Century Power - ytNumbers
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-putins-crimea-grab-20140303,0,357565.story#axzz2v0CzSZn7
======
jbooth
This whole situation has really highlighted what gossip rags our media are.
90% of the news articles on the subject are just using it as a proxy for the
same-old domestic political narratives. I read a George Will column this
morning that blamed Putin's invasion on Obamacare.

I looked into my crystal ball and came up with some predictions:

1) Russia will annex Crimea, and we won't do a thing about it.

2) The pro-western government in Kiev will survive, join the EU, and possibly
NATO

3) A month from now, we'll have pushed our cultural/economic borders 500 miles
to the east of where they were in 2013, right up against Russia's, and maybe
our military borders as well, while depriving Russia of their last remaining
european client state. Without lifting a finger. While Russia had to mobilize
to salvage one of their most important ports and keep the situation from being
a total loss for them.

4) Columnists will write opinion pieces about how Putin is the real winner
here, because of his toughness, the set of his jaw and the captivating, cold
stare of those blue-gray eyes.

~~~
jerf
I agree in the longterm that Russia is simply not in a position to be the
world power it wants to be, and this doesn't change that; indeed, it is likely
to be a step backward for them in the longterm as the world begins taking the
idea that Russia is essentially a rogue state very seriously, and adjusting
their economics to this reality, which Russia is not going to like.

However, in the short term he is still being very successful in making the
West look feckless with its total shock that this happened and complete
unpreparedness for it. It is simply not a credit to our foreign policy wonks
that they are apparently so narcissistic that it appears they are unable to
comprehend the idea that Putin would actually do this, despite the fact our
foreign policy wonks would never see it as a good idea. For an ideology that
is ever-preaching "diversity" it seems to have a really hard idea with the
idea that there are people who do not merely have beliefs that superficially
differ from it, but that _profoundly_ differ from it.

~~~
jbooth
"look feckless".. so you agree with the idiot columnists?

If we were Russia, we would absolutely see it as a good idea to make sure we
controlled Crimea. It's like 70% Russian-speaking, was part of the Russian
empire until the 50s and indirectly Russian from then on, and Sevastopol is
one of the most important military locations in the world to them, as well as
a historic Russian city.

Of course they're going to make sure they keep Crimea. But that's all they're
keeping, as opposed to the whole Ukrainian nation being under their influence.
That's a loss for them, and people who don't track US domestic politics for a
living can see that.

Russia's not a 'rogue state', they're just looking after their interests here.
The US has used a lot more military force for a lot worse reasons, and
recently.

~~~
mtrimpe
That's still not what's relevant here. To make sense of the situation you have
to put these pieces of the puzzle together:

* Putin is the 'charismatic leader' of a military powerhouse in financial decline.

* He has been actively radicalizing his citizens through a well-oiled fully state controlled propaganda machine.

* He believes he has Europe in his pocket through the oil supply and massive proceeds from corruption stashed away in European assets (and so far he's been right.)

* He seems increasingly divorced from reality and reports are circulating he seems to be fed propaganda as truth by his close advisors; something with seems the Occam's Razor-explanation for his decidedly strange public statement just hours ago.

* He has started to attempt to expand his empire to return to his Empire's old glory.

As far as Crimea is concerned: only a bit over 50% Russian-speaking and only
23% support(ed) joining Russia.

They have also been watching Russia state news which shows propaganda such as:

* Kiev protests as all paid by the West (definitely not true)

* hundreds of thousands fleeing to Russia (no activity at the border)

* spontaneous pro-Russian takeovers (masked men using Russia military vehicles)

* mass Ukrainian defections (disarmament at gunpoint)

* massive pro-Russia protests (brought in buses by the unemployment agency and disappearing completely after 60 minutes)

~~~
GotAnyMegadeth
> his decidedly strange public statement just hours ago

I'm interested, what was this statement? Thanks

~~~
mtrimpe
This is the first article written on it:
[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116852/merkel-was-
right-p...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116852/merkel-was-right-putins-
lost-his-mind-press-conference)

You can take a look at my twitter list at
[https://twitter.com/mtrimpe/lists/ukraine](https://twitter.com/mtrimpe/lists/ukraine)
for more information (just ignore the EastOfBrussels, UkraineInEurope and
Opinieleiders; they're pro-West propagandists but still find some good stuff
occasionally.)

Shaun Walker from Guardian, who's been the most thorough reporter so far, is
working on one too
([https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/440865355767234560](https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/440865355767234560))
which will probably be the best source of info on it.

------
camino020
Putin: goes into Crimeea, doesn't kill anyone, doesn't steal anything. Openly
supported by the population. Media: "Bad guy, aggressor, doesn't understand
power, etc."

Nato/US: goes into Irak, kills millions, destroy country, steal all resources,
then goes into Libya - does same thing; working on the same in Syria. Planing
the same for Iran. Drone-ing hundreds of children in Pakistan and Afganistan.
Media: "Liberators,spreading democracy."

~~~
skylan_q
Most people inside the US don't understand the perception of the US from the
outside. This is one of the reasons why Ukraine will be completely lost by the
US and become a place where Russia and the EU can have a lot of common ground
and realize a closer relationship.

------
mercurial
I think Putin's Crimea grab shows he understands exactly what he can get away
with. The UK and Germany seem both reluctant to do anything harsh, and I don't
see France doing anything different.

~~~
jordanb
The UK's position is particularly shameful. Their goal is to "protect the
city". They're afraid a pullout of Russian money would hurt the stock market
and it'd certainly pop the housing bubble. It's all highly cynical and quite
corrupt.

~~~
mercurial
Agreed, it's pretty sad to see. Unfortunately, politics is a lot about
posturing and little about principles.

------
interstitial
Or maybe the Latimes misunderstands 21st Century Power.

------
agrostis
Oh, he seems to understand it well enough. Iraq '03 and Libya '11 have been
excellent examples of 21st Century Power. (I'm omitting Serbia '99, as it was,
formally speaking, 20th century, but that example was very spectacular, too.)

~~~
WesternStar
I think they were. You have to look at the situation the US was in a the time.
Long quagmires are politically untenable in the US and Afghanistan is the most
tactically difficult terrain in the history of the world. Additionally my
enemies really aren't states so much as a political movement who survives
largely through the tacit support of the surrounding population. I need an
easy war and I need a place to kill terrorists and expose the indifferent to
the effects of their violence. Whether or not that was the stated purpose that
was the effect of the Iraq war. I would argue that excluding the real dollar
cost it was probably one of the most successful wars in American history.

As for Libya well to be honest it is no longer in America's interest to ensure
stability in the middle east. In fact given the long reach of unhappy middle
eastern people its our job to make sure they express that unhappiness right at
home. The Libyan people are doing that right now.

~~~
mercurial
> Whether or not that was the stated purpose that was the effect of the Iraq
> war. I would argue that excluding the real dollar cost it was probably one
> of the most successful wars in American history.

Wait, what? Al Qaeda was [surviving] "largely through the tacit support of the
surrounding population" [of Iraq]? Saddam was not a major terror sponsor. But
the net effect of this little experiment in nation-building is at the very
least 100k dead civilians, and the build-up of insurgencies movements
throughout the region, who have by now good weaponry and plenty of veterans.
Oh, and fantastic PR for the western world, too.

~~~
WesternStar
I didn't discuss Saddam because he was largely irrelevant to our strategic
goals. The supporter I'm referring to is the ordinary citizen who helps to
facilitate and fund the jihadi. Those 100k civilians were the medium for the
message.

If those insurgents are largely focused on local state control that is a net
win for the United States in my opinion.

~~~
mercurial
There was no insurgency in Iraq before the invasion. The net result of which
was triggering a bloody civil war, fuel hatred of the West for decades,
destabilize the whole area and reinforce Iran. I don't see how this furthers
the US' strategic goals. My understanding is that the only message that has
been taken home is that the Bush administration had as little understanding of
the country as it had regard for the rule of law.

------
chj
Who's out of touch with reality here? Putin or latimes?

~~~
Shivetya
My question has been this all the long. Really, why is this uprising
democratic in nature as many Western news sources claim? They drove off an
elected government. One of the heroines of this movement is a monster who was
similarly driven out of power in the preceding Orange Revolution (or whatever)

If anything its only an issue because Putin has not decided to play ball like
the others want. He went his own way in Syria and came off as the side with
the sensible alternatives. He is not drawing red lines in the sand only to
have other countries ignore them, heck he ignores them.

You have a large country on your borders with a very large military do the
freak out twice in ten years, yeah I would be concerned. Better yet, since
there are many ethnic groups that share similarities across borders, if not
merely separated by past Soviet political games, there are some valid concerns
to be addressed. Let alone there are Russian military bases are there by
treaty and lease in Crimeria, there is also a large contingent that has been
trying to align with Russia since the Soviet Union broke up.

So its not all cut and dry as many in the West would like. Considering the US
recent history with Libya, Syria, and drone assassination programs, its not
like we have the moral standing to chastise them

~~~
pekk
You are GRAVELY misinformed and you are destroying all nuance because you are
in such a rush to change the subject to condemning "the West".

Tymoshenko was NOT driven out during the Orange Revolution. She was one of its
leaders. But since you seem to support the Orange Revolution, why was that
democratic in nature?

Since you claim that ethnic Ukrainians were prone to carry out a pogrom
against ethnic Russians, provide any evidence for that claim.

Russia has a port in Crimea and there are some Russian-aligned people there,
that is fine, actually the US position was that Putin should pull back to his
bases.

Somehow you missed the part about marching a large army into Ukraine and how
that violates existing treaties and the sovereignty of Ukraine.

The existence of drones does not invalidate all treaties. If your problem with
drones is violation of international law, you must at least oppose other
violations of international law. It doesn't make sense to be selective.

~~~
Mikeb85
By the way, according to the Russia-Ukraine treaty Russia does have a right to
be in Crimea, and the head of state of Ukraine asked Russia for assistance,
further bolstering their legal right to be in Ukraine.

------
hnriot
What terrible journalistic analysis. Putin _is_ 21st century power. He
understands it just fine.

------
ck2
Here's a scary thought, what if he reinstates Viktor in the Ukraine?

Can you imagine the riots? He then has the Russian troops there to force it to
happen and end it with violence that might start a civil war.

Because that's what he seems headed towards:

[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/putin-ukraine-
unconsti...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/putin-ukraine-
unconstitutional-coup-yanukovych-legitimate-leader-article-1.1709894)

~~~
Mikeb85
He doesn't need to. Yanukovych can retire to a country home in east Ukraine or
Russia, and they simply need elections free from US and EU interference, and
whoever the new Party of Regions candidate is will win.

UDAR, Fatherland, and Svoboda will split the pro-EU vote (as they did in the
most recent elections), and the Party of Regions will wind up winning again.

Given free elections, Putin doesn't even need to rig anything, the PoR
actually is the dominant political party in Ukraine (which is why the
opposition overthrew them - they knew they couldn't win). Yanukovych came to
power when the opposition controlled things, if anyone doesn't remember...

------
skylan_q
_Sure, the United States and the European Union have no inclination to send
troops to defend Ukraine, but they have economic weapons that could severely
undermine Russia’s tottering economy._

No, they don't. Germany, for instance has a huge energy deficit and gets about
a third of it's energy from Russia at a discounted rate primarily through the
Nordstream pipeline.

The low debt load and the fact that Europe depends on it as a source of energy
means that the economic ball is more in Russia's court than the EU's.

The US can block all trade between Russia and itself, and all that would do is
hurt vodka sales.

~~~
ithkuil
Is it there anything that Russia might need to import from US or US owned
companies around the world?

------
junto
Picture a small yappy poodle (Britain) hiding behind a rottweiler (US), who is
tied to a tree staring down a bear (Russia) with a sore head, who has been
baited for the last 20 years by the rottweiler.

Meanwhile an old German shepherd dog (Germany) sits inside on the rug in front
of the fire, pricks his ears up, listens and goes straight back to sleep.

~~~
hnriot
Inaccurate for one and I'm not sure what your point is. You underestimate
England and have a very recent view of history.

~~~
junto
> You underestimate England and have a very recent view of history

Ok, I'll bite:

1\. It was a joke.

2\. I'm British. UK or Britain, but not "England". Please. We don't have an
English Army. We have an English football team, but that is a different story,
and "the Germans always win".

3\. The British Armed Forces strength (especially its navy) has been severely
depleted in the last 20 years. They currently only have two aircraft carriers,
HMS Illustrious and HMS Ocean. Illustrious was refitted to cover for Ocean
whilst in refit (still ongoing), and then would be decommissioned afterwards
(sometime this year). The Royal Navy decommissioned the awesome but expensive
Harriers [ii]. They (we) have no fixed wing aircraft carriers anymore [iv].
This is all due to the Strategic Defence and Security Review [i] in 2010 in
order to save £38 billion. David Cameron went to town and stripped the British
Armed Forces to its bare naked minimum as part of this review and stated that:

    
    
       "From a strategy over-reliant on military intervention to a
       higher priority for conflict prevention. From concentrating 
       on conventional threats to a new focus on unconventional threats. 
       And from armed forces that are overstretched, under-equipped and 
       deployed too often without appropriate planning to the most professional 
       and most flexible modern forces in the world, fully equipped for the 
       challenges of the future."
    

So, in summary, Britain doesn't have the capability to defend itself without
the US backing it. It can't even service its own Vanguard submarine Trident II
missiles. The UK is a mouth piece. It is that little child that repeats
everything the teacher says - in that annoying "I told you so" voice. However,
out in the playground he gets bullied and has the seven shades of shit knocked
out of him until the teacher steps in.

Amusingly Margaret Thatcher (another Tory) stripped the Navy back in
1980/1981, only to find out that she needed them after all. When they needed
to go to the Falklands, she didn't have ships. The fascinating story from
behind the scenes can be read in full here:

[http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/01/falklands-war-
that...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/01/falklands-war-
thatcher-30-years)

This would have been a very different tale without US support [v].

[i]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review)

[ii]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15876745](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15876745)

[iii] [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/19/uk-can-no-
lo...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/19/uk-can-no-longer-mount-
military-operations-like-iraq)

[iv] [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/19/david-
camero...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/19/david-cameron-
defence-cuts-decade-aircraft-carriers-no-jets)

[v]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War#The_US_officially_comes_down_on_the_side_of_the_British)

~~~
pekk
The UK is still one of the wealthiest and, yes, best-armed countries on Earth.
Few even have one aircraft carrier - China, which everyone sees as a world
power, just got a refitted Ukrainian one. (Humorous coincidence there).

I guess that still isn't a big enough military for you.

You didn't NEED to go to the Falklands at all, it was a splendid little war
for you though.

~~~
junto

      You didn't NEED to go to the Falklands at all, it was a
      splendid little war for you though.
    

Did I say I agreed with it? Um, no I didn't.

Did I say I think we should have a huge military budget? No.

I _purposefully_ avoided stating my opinion.

What I was said was that the UK it it's current state is unable to respond
militarily in this conflict. David Cameron decided that Britain would be
focusing on "unconventional threats". I.e. terrorism and not "big bad" Russia.

I was simply drawing parallels between the Tory government in 1981 and the
current Tory government in 2014.

------
happyscrappy
The whole thing is rather pathetic with Russian officials waving around a
piece of paper saying Yanukovych asked our military to come take charge and
save us from Nazis. Meanwhile Yanukovych's former aide states that is
unlikely. Sad.

~~~
Mikeb85
What's pathetic is the west supporting a coup d'État and passing it off as
democratic...

------
jordanb
I think it was an act of panic on his part. He's popular in Russia because
he's a strong man and he makes Russians feel powerful.

Yanukovych was Putin's boy in Ukraine and they kicked him out on the ass he
rode in on. If Putin can't even keep his puppets in power in former SSRs then
what kind of strongman is he?

Now Putin needs to 1) make this look like a victory without 2) too many
negative international consequences. Given that he controls Europe's natural
gas he actually has a lot of leverage to get a decent deal, so my bet is that
he'll be able to get some sort of change in political status for Crimea.

That may seem kinda pointless given Crimea lacks any sort of strategic
importance but remember that Putin's goal is not to gain a better strategic or
political position for Russia but rather, to not look impotent to his domestic
audience.

~~~
higherpurpose
Exactly the problem with dictatorships. You can't have the ruler "look bad"
even for trivial stuff, and he'd rather send thousands or tens of thousands of
people to their death, than be embarrassed himself.

We can argue whether Russia is a dictatorship or not, but I'd say it's a lot
closer to one than to democracy, especially when opposition leaders and
protesters are arrested, and everyone else in the Parliament votes for
whatever Putin says, out of fear for their lives, and elections are being
robbed like there's no tomorrow, while Putin gets to interpret the
Constitution as he's being allowed to rule virtually forever in Russia.

If Russia had a functioning democracy and Parliament, it wouldn't matter that
Putin was "embarrassed" and made to look like a fool (which I don't think
anyone thought that, at least not from outside of Russia, but it seems to be
more of a thing in his mind).

~~~
Mikeb85
I think you underestimate Putin's popularity. I have a lot of Russian friends,
all of them are various degrees of pro-Putin...

~~~
skylan_q
And most of those who don't like Putin are supporters of all the other parties
which are much less likely to get along with the West in any capacity.

