How Does Romney Handle the Ukraine Crisis?

[Expat]

Anyone want to take a stab at this?

 

[OnlyAlb]

Same as Obama but in a more "credible position" because there won't be any "red line" comment.

 

[MikeTurcotte]

No different than Obama in terms of actual impact; perhaps slightly more rhetoric about how useless the European Union is.

Apart from a direct, bi-lateral agreement to station US troops in the Ukraine - an impossibility for many different reasons - I think the Ukraine is done. Russia will absorb the eastern parts; the remainder will be a puppet state firmly under Moscow's control.

I wonder who the Russians will take next? At this point, they merely have to wait for the Europeans to figure how all of this is (somehow) America's fault, and exit NATO before they can continue their westwards expansion.

 

[DG Valdron]

Romney is fairly unprincipled, tends to go with the flow, and seek his own advantage, basically an opportunist. I'm basing this on assessment of his business and political career.

Given the Ukraine crisis, I imagine that he'd assess things, decide that there's no way to stop Putin without spending more time and money than he's willing to part with, so he'd actively work to sell out the Ukraine while extracting the best possible terms from Putin for his compliance.

 

[BigDave1967]

No different than Obama in terms of actual impact; perhaps slightly more rhetoric about how useless the European Union is.

Apart from a direct, bi-lateral agreement to station US troops in the Ukraine - an impossibility for many different reasons - I think the Ukraine is done. Russia will absorb the eastern parts; the remainder will be a puppet state firmly under Moscow's control.

I wonder who the Russians will take next? At this point, they merely have to wait for the Europeans to figure how all of this is (somehow) America's fault, and exit NATO before they can continue their westwards expansion.

I could see Russia absorbing Belarus,Georgia and or Azerbaijan. I don't think the Baltic states will be touched(for now)as they are NATO members

 

[Expat]

I should probably make another thread for this, but what about a 2nd term McCain?

 

[Kung Fucious]

I should probably make another thread for this, but what about a 2nd term McCain?

Shit gets real. We'd probably see some kind of serious push for an armed intervention, or at the very least some NATO troops moving in to Ukraine to dissuade Putin from making a play for the East.

 

[Somua2]

Go with what you know.

Consult with neo-conservatives...Invade Iraq. ---- Just kidding.

 

[MikeTurcotte]

I could see Russia absorbing Belarus,Georgia and or Azerbaijan. I don't think the Baltic states will be touched(for now)as they are NATO members

Agreed - for at least as long as NATO lasts (or for as long as America is in NATO). I think NATO is probably ending - so I think all the Russians need is a little patience...then they can have what they want in Europe ...

 

[Spare Change]

It is a bit of a trick question, like answering how would prevent Detroit from declaring Bankruptcy in 2013? Well the trick is to take steps before 2013 or it is too late.

Luckily Romney told us what he would done in March 17th WSJ op ed.

To quote Excerpts:

Why are there no good choices? From Crimea to North Korea, from Syria to Egypt, and from Iraq to Afghanistan, America apparently has no good options. If possession is nine-tenths of the law, Russia owns Crimea and all we can do is sanction and disinvite—and wring our hands.

My point up above.

In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, "a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries."

more in this vein. Now what would he have done?

When protests in Ukraine grew and violence ensued, it was surely evident to people in the intelligence community—and to the White House—that President Putin might try to take advantage of the situation to capture Crimea, or more. That was the time to talk with our global allies about punishments and sanctions, to secure their solidarity, and to communicate these to the Russian president. These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion.

Yes Monday Morning Quarterbacking, However my Dad said basically the same thing during the OLympics. Obama and the EU was caught flatfooted. If my Dad could predict what would happen then anybody who reads the NYTimes could have also.

Able leaders anticipate events, prepare for them, and act in time to shape them. My career in business and politics has exposed me to scores of people in leadership positions, only a few of whom actually have these qualities. Some simply cannot envision the future and are thus unpleasantly surprised when it arrives. Some simply hope for the best. Others succumb to analysis paralysis, weighing trends and forecasts and choices beyond the time of opportunity.

What ever his other failings, Romney is considered a top flight manager. Basically this is basic proactive manager 101.

Now the partisan dig

Their failure has been painfully evident: It is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for America today than when President Obama took office, and now Russia is in Ukraine. Part of their failure, I submit, is due to their failure to act when action was possible, and needed.

So there is your answer.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Agreed - for at least as long as NATO lasts (or for as long as America is in NATO). I think NATO is probably ending - so I think all the Russians need is a little patience...then they can have what they want in Europe ...

Belarus and Georgia yes, but Azerbaijan? The Turks would go crazy, they see them as brothers. Am i wrong?

 

[MUC]

Belarus is practically a Russian protectorate. No reason to invade them.
Georgia was beaten already a couple of years ago. They won't make the same mistake again to piss off Putin.

 

[BigDave1967]

Belarus and Georgia yes, but Azerbaijan? The Turks would go crazy, they see them as brothers. Am i wrong?

Putin wants all the old USSR provinces back. He said that losing them was a tragedy. I think he would try to grab Azerbaijan and the central Asian states even though that might provoke Turkey and their friend Iran. I think the Russia Putin wants is going to be more like Czarist Russia than the USSR.

 

[Kung Fucious]

*snip*

Fair point, but like you said there's a decent amount of Monday Morning quarterback mixed in there. While Romney did say that Russia was America's No.1 Geopolitical foe during the campaign, I think that came more from messaging than any genuine belief in foreign policy direction.

Honestly, it's kind've a toss up. From what I've read Romney can be both equally eager to hear all sides to an issue, while at the same time being utterly ignorant about his own shortcomings/blind spots (apparently he was genuinely befuddled about why his wealth and success couldn't connect with voters).

If we use his Presidential campaign to judge a hypothetical Romney cabinet (along with a few names floated for Cabinet positions, such as John Bolton for Secretary of State), than you'd have a real danger of ending up with a Romney Administration that is both a) seriously out of touch with reality (again: John Bolton for Secretary of State) and b) very prone to believing what they wanted to believe ("Double Down" revealed that they were caught completely off guard by the loss, and had expected a blow out win based on "Unskewed Polls").

As for how such an Administration handles the Crimea, it's really a toss up. He could either cut his losses and try and work out a deal, or listen to the Neo-Cons and make some aggressive moves with NATO. Of course, that could blow up in his face if, say, Germany decides not to play ball.

 

[MikeTurcotte]

Belarus and Georgia yes, but Azerbaijan? The Turks would go crazy, they see them as brothers. Am i wrong?

I hadn't thought of Azerbaijan. Does it have any resources? Or just position? Frankly, I think Putin's ambitions run west rather than south, I think his middle-term goal is the Oder and his long-term goal the Channel - at least the part of Channel north of France.

Russia's economy is a one-horse show - resource exploitation. To be sustainable, to be strong, Putin needs technical expertise and an educated workforce. Those things exist within easy striking distance - Europe. Europe has no military to speak of - they rely on the United States. As the United States draws down its military - and the acrimony between the United States and Europe increases, Putin merely needs to wait for the process play itself ou to the logical conculsion - a breach between the United States and Europe.

Once the United States is separated from Europe, Putin can strike. I have no doubt that the Polish, Rumanian and German militaries will resist - and they will be crushed. They are tiny, tiny compared to the Russians, and beset by internal difficulties as well. France and Britain have the nuclear deterrent, so they are safe, but the rest of Europe does not. If the Russians strike hard and fast enough - they will win before their opponents can mobilize, and win before the United States can intervene - if in fact it does.

Mike Turcotte

 

[BigDave1967]

I hadn't thought of Azerbaijan. Does it have any resources? Or just position? Frankly, I think Putin's ambitions run west rather than south, I think his middle-term goal is the Oder and his long-term goal the Channel - at least the part of Channel north of France.

Russia's economy is a one-horse show - resource exploitation. To be sustainable, to be strong, Putin needs technical expertise and an educated workforce. Those things exist within easy striking distance - Europe. Europe has no military to speak of - they rely on the United States. As the United States draws down its military - and the acrimony between the United States and Europe increases, Putin merely needs to wait for the process play itself ou to the logical conculsion - a breach between the United States and Europe.

Once the United States is separated from Europe, Putin can strike. I have no doubt that the Polish, Rumanian and German militaries will resist - and they will be crushed. They are tiny, tiny compared to the Russians, and beset by internal difficulties as well. France and Britain have the nuclear deterrent, so they are safe, but the rest of Europe does not. If the Russians strike hard and fast enough - they will win before their opponents can mobilize, and win before the United States can intervene - if in fact it does.

Mike Turcotte

Azerbaijan has oil I believe

 

[Expat]

Snip

It would be nice to get some political context thrown into this rather than just regurgitated, as you term it, Monday morning quarterbacking.

In this context I don't want to be partisan either. I just can't imagine that Romney in the White House is going to have the same answer as Romney in the Wall Street Journal. I was looking for original insight into the matter. You seem like a sharp fellow, I think you could probably provide some if you try.

And the partisan dig was completely unnecessary, and I might add, totally specious.

 

[Jbenuniv]

Once the United States is separated from Europe, Putin can strike. I have no doubt that the Polish, Rumanian and German militaries will resist - and they will be crushed. They are tiny, tiny compared to the Russians, and beset by internal difficulties as well. France and Britain have the nuclear deterrent, so they are safe, but the rest of Europe does not. If the Russians strike hard and fast enough - they will win before their opponents can mobilize, and win before the United States can intervene - if in fact it does.

This is a foolish statement Russia's conventional armed forces are easily matched by Europe's conventional armed forces. I say conventional because I don't think anyone wants to turn that into a nuclear fight.

Russia's military expenditures are about $90 billion. The UK and France both spend $60 billion, Germany $45 billion, Italy $34 billion.

Those numbers, by themselves, tell you the story in broad strokes. Russia does not have the conventional capacity to take Europe on. Any Russian mobilization capable of seriously threatening Europe cannot go unnoticed. At best, they might be able to launch a sneak attack and take the Baltics, eastern parts of Poland, and Finland without a mobilization being noticed.

You also forget that not only do France and Britain have a nuclear deterrent, but Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy are all armed with US provided nuclear weapons under the nuclear sharing agreements.

 

[Kung Fucious]

This is a foolish statement Russia's conventional armed forces are easily matched by Europe's conventional armed forces. I say conventional because I don't think anyone wants to turn that into a nuclear fight.

Russia's military expenditures are about $90 billion. The UK and France both spend $60 billion, Germany $45 billion, Italy $34 billion.

Those numbers, by themselves, tell you the story in broad strokes. Russia does not have the conventional capacity to take Europe on. Any Russian mobilization capable of seriously threatening Europe cannot go unnoticed. At best, they might be able to launch a sneak attack and take the Baltics, eastern parts of Poland, and Finland without a mobilization being noticed.

You also forget that not only do France and Britain have a nuclear deterrent, but Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy are all armed with US provided nuclear weapons under the nuclear sharing agreements.

Plus, there is no way in holy hell the US is going to see a Russian invasion of Easter Europe, let alone Western Europe, and shrug and say "Well shit, you guys are on your own, it's not our problem!". At the very least you'd see a Lend-Lease agreement, with the US shipping France, Germany, the UK, etc. arms and materiel. Even an absolute catastrafuck of a President would realize that another land war in Europe, even as one sided as an EU vs. Russia fight would be, would necessitate US involvement.

 

[Incognito]

Paranoia Levels At Max!

Belarus and Georgia yes, but Azerbaijan? The Turks would go crazy, they see them as brothers. Am i wrong?

Azerbaijan used to be part of Persia but are IIRC is populated by Turick people; Turkey backed Azerbaijan during their war with Armenia IIRC because Armenia had border dispute with Turkey.

I hadn't thought of Azerbaijan. Does it have any resources? Or just position?

Is it that hard to look up nations you are talking about? What do you base your opinions on if you don't know what you're talking about?

Frankly, I think Putin's ambitions run west rather than south, I think his middle-term goal is the Oder and his long-term goal the Channel - at least the part of Channel north of France.

Russia's economy is a one-horse show - resource exploitation. To be sustainable, to be strong, Putin needs technical expertise and an educated workforce. Those things exist within easy striking distance - Europe. Europe has no military to speak of - they rely on the United States. As the United States draws down its military - and the acrimony between the United States and Europe increases, Putin merely needs to wait for the process play itself ou to the logical conculsion - a breach between the United States and Europe.

Once the United States is separated from Europe, Putin can strike. I have no doubt that the Polish, Rumanian and German militaries will resist - and they will be crushed. They are tiny, tiny compared to the Russians, and beset by internal difficulties as well. France and Britain have the nuclear deterrent, so they are safe, but the rest of Europe does not. If the Russians strike hard and fast enough - they will win before their opponents can mobilize, and win before the United States can intervene - if in fact it does.

Mike Turcotte

Ever considered a career as a writer for Call of Duty?

I think the Russia Putin wants is going to be more like Czarist Russia than the USSR.

Ok, I'll bite. Care to explain how "Russia Putin wants is going to be more like Czarist Russia than the USSR"?