Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
It may be relatively easy for Russia to re-route its oil trade stream towards Asia, primarily, China, although this would mean lower prices and higher delivery costs. I am not so sure about Russian natural gas, though.

I agree that any restrictions limiting use of the global financial and banking system (which I mentioned as similar to the sanctions Iran is subject to), would immediately affect Russia's industries exposed to foreign trade, and indirectly all others, including consumer market. Russia is much less self-sufficient and far more integrated into the global economy than the USSR ever was.

As for deploying NATO contingent in Ukraine, I see multiple issues with this. First of all, the alliance doesn't have a mandate for the presence of its troops in the country. Setting up a legal basis for this may take significant amount of time, and I'm not sure all member countries will get on board. Second, what government would be willing to commit its troops that are, for all intents and purposes, unable to even defend themselves?

Besides, Russian military would make its move into Ukraine at first signs of NATO potentially coming in there.

by aquilon (albaruthenia at gmail dot com) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2014 at 08:59:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Russia does not need to export anything for its economic well being during a crisis situation.  It is an essentially self sufficient country. Exports are gravy, and that's why economic consequences are simply not very important to Putin. Securing Russia from what he, and most Russians, see as a Western invasion is what matters to Putin with respect to the Ukraine. A hostile government in the Ukraine is an existential threat to Putin's capacity to govern in Russia, so he needs to be ruthless and take risks to secure the threat, something he has done exceedingly well so far.

NATO, relying on US assets in Europe, could have US airborne forces deployed in key transit sites within about 3 hours, which is how such an operation would likely go, with a secret request from Ukraine announced only afterward.  Russia would not be able to react in time to a US deployment without actually having to risk shooting US troops already in place, in which case it would be "game over" for Putin (and potentially for a lot more than him), just as it would have been "game over" for Ukrainians if anyone had shot Russian troops in Crimea (or, vice versa, if Russians had shot Ukrainian troops). That's the gamble of that strategy.  

Neither the US nor Russia has ever, historically, seriously relied on legal mandates for anything determined important enough to use military forces, so legal issues just aren't a serious factor here. Laws are a discursive, diplomatic tools, not a actual restrictive impediments, at the level of world powers like the US and Russia.

Putin risked the possibility of nuclear war in Crimea already, as well as the lives of his undefended and unmarked troops. That means, strategically, using simple Prisoner's dilemma game theory, only a similar willingness to risk such a thing on the part of the US can secure Ukraine from Russian tanks. Because Ukraine really isn't very important to the US, however, it's unlikely that Obama would sign off on that gamble, and all appearances are that the US would rather risk losing at least the eastern part of the Ukraine in an effort to satisfy Putin's needs, at least being able to claim the partial success of having installed a government hostile to Russia in Kiev, which was a major defeat for Putin from which he partially recovered with the invasion of Crimea. A unified Ukraine is less important to NATO, and Russia, than a buffer state Ukraine at this point, so I don't expect to see NATO forces deployed there, and I do expect to Russian forces entering eastern Ukraine at some point if the current set of Ukrainian Ukrainian leaders remain in Kiev.

by santiago on Wed Apr 2nd, 2014 at 02:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps the situation in Kiev will 'improve', from Putin's point of view, over then next few months, so he does not feel impelled to invade. And after a year of so of IMF 'aid' much of eastern and southern Ukraine will be clamoring for union with Russia, and much of the Ukrainian military might support them.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2014 at 02:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, if by self-sufficiency you mean Russia's ability to survive adversity, then I am on board with this. The nation has demonstrated it numerous times throughout its history. However, if you are talking about the Russian economy shrugging off sanctions, especially, as stringent as in Iran's case, I respectfully disagree. Export makes up 1/5 of Russia's GDP, and brings cold hard cash to support various ambitious programs, like socio-economic development of the Arctic zone, or space exploration. Even without any serious sanctions in effect right now, Russia already faces outflow of investments and a possibility of zero or negative growth this year. Once living standards start go down, Putin's popularity will take a hit, and dissenting voices become louder.

Yes, unlike NATO, the U.S. government can fast-track decisions on use the military to "protect national interests". But making a case that Ukraine falls into this category in a war-weary country requires Houdini skills.

by aquilon (albaruthenia at gmail dot com) on Thu Apr 3rd, 2014 at 10:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
 aquilon:
Yes, unlike NATO, the U.S. government can fast-track decisions on use the military to "protect national interests". But making a case that Ukraine falls into this category in a war-weary country requires Houdini skills.

Practically, it may not require, but it is certainly much easier for a Republican President to make that case. At present Republican warmongering is conflicted by the desire to make Obama and the Democrats 'look weak' on defense. I would bet that Putin has taken that into account.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Apr 13th, 2014 at 07:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Putin risked the possibility of nuclear war in Crimea already, as well as the lives of his undefended and unmarked troops. That means, strategically, using simple Prisoner's dilemma game theory, only a similar willingness to risk such a thing on the part of the US can secure Ukraine from Russian tanks.


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 4th, 2014 at 04:32:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Putin risked the possibility of nuclear war in Crimea already, as well as the lives of his undefended and unmarked troops. That means, strategically, using simple Prisoner's dilemma game theory, only a similar willingness to risk such a thing on the part of the US can secure Ukraine from Russian tanks.
Well put.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 4th, 2014 at 04:36:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see nuclear war having been mentioned a few times in this discussion. Frankly, I'm puzzled where it comes from. Nukes starting raining down because of Russia's takeover of Crimea? Sorry, I simply don't buy it.
by aquilon (albaruthenia at gmail dot com) on Sat Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:29:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How I agree.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Apr 5th, 2014 at 03:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I almost agree. Obama is either a pragmatist or simply doesn't care. Therefore, no nuke threats.

But that wouldn't have been true of President Palin, or some other future president of a similar stripe.

I wouldn't be surprised if Putin considered the US election cycle in his calculations.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 09:06:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I'm positive that was the case. Actually, even on the right fringes of GOP there has been no audible talk so far, about direct military support for Ukraine, let alone a nuclear strike. President Palin? As long as independent votes are a majority in the U.S., this is an unlikely scenario, even considering the two-step election process. The current GOP polls leader Rand Paul has seemingly inherited some libertarian genes from his father, and doesn't look inclined to get the nation too actively involved in European affairs this far to the East.
by aquilon (albaruthenia at gmail dot com) on Fri Apr 18th, 2014 at 12:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series