Russia Prepares for Naval Drills with China, India, ASEAN

VLADIVOSTOK, February 26 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s Pacific Fleet in the next six months will take part in three large-scale international naval exercises, including joint drills with the navies of India, China and member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the fleet’s spokesman said Wednesday.

According to Capt. 1st Rank Roman Martov, Russia and India are holding talks on preparation for INDRA-2014 naval exercises scheduled to be held in the Sea of Japan in summer.

Martov said the drills will start with a visit of a group of Indian warships to Russia’s far-eastern port of Vladivostok in July.

Since 2003, India and Russia have conducted seven large exercises under the so-called INDRA series of joint ground and naval drills. The last such exercise was held between Russian and Indian army units in October at India’s Mahajan field firing range.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140226/187914604/Russia-Prepares-for-Naval-Drills-with-China-India-ASEAN.html

because there are a hell of a lot more well-armed people on the other side, with good reason to scoff at the USA and it's abandonment of all rule of law and reason.

They are going to be mad as hell, and not taking it anymore. The petrodollar is dying as we speak, and with the death of the petrodollar, the American Empire dies a quick and brutal death.

Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night.

And talking about the mad as hell and the petrodollar dying, they went after Ukraine and didn't get the prize, just an area on the brink of default. Crimea is a done deal, it didn't even figure in the results of the talks yesterday. Resource-rich areas to the East, 9 of them last time I counted, are trying to break away and the US and EU are now stuck with huge bills of the West. Their overdue gas debt, at the old prices, for this year alone is $2.2 billion now with 4 more weeks to pay before they get switched to a prepayment plan.

My seat-belt's fastened tight because the US and EU have gone this far and we're not going to give up gracefully after shooting ourselves in the foot so spectacularly.

Tell me your Ukraine and I will tell you who you are. The Ukrainian crisis is a political Rorschach test, not just for individuals but also for states. What it reveals is not encouraging for the West.

It turns out that Vladimir Putin has more admirers around the world than you might expect for someone using a neo-Soviet combination of violence and the big lie to dismember a neighboring sovereign state. Russia's strongman garners tacit support, and even some quiet plaudits, from some of the world's most important emerging powers, starting with China and India.

During a recent visit to China, I kept being asked what was going on in Ukraine, and I kept asking in return about the Chinese attitude to it. Didn't a country that has so consistently defended the principle of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of existing states (be it former Yugoslavia or Iraq), and that has a couple of prospective Crimeas (Tibet, Xinjiang), feel uneasy about Russia simply grabbing a chunk of a neighboring country?

Well, came the reply, that was a slight concern, but Ukraine was a long way away and, frankly speaking, the positives of the crisis outweighed the negatives for China. The United States would have another strategic distraction (after Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Iraq) to hinder its "pivot" to the Asia-Pacific region and divert its attention from China. Cold-shouldered by the West, Russia would be more dependent on a good relationship with Beijing. Ukraine sells China higher-grade military equipment than Russia has been willing to share with its great Asian ally, but the new Ukrainian authorities have quietly assured the Chinese that Beijing's failure to condemn the annexation of Crimea would not affect their future relations. What's not to like in all that?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0418-garton-ash-putinismo-ukraine-20140418,0,2030239.story

to be providing some shockingly poor maneuvers. ( I am not of the persuasion that this entire
episode falls onto one player..I hesitate b/c, you say something bad about the US and people think you are
taking sides.)

snip*STEPHEN COHEN: You left out one thing that he said which I consider to be unwise and possibly reckless. He went on to say that Russia wouldn’t go to war with us because our conventional weapons are superior. That is an exceedingly provocative thing to say. And he seems to be unaware, President Obama, that Russian military doctrine says that when confronted by overwhelming conventional forces, we can use nuclear weapons. They mean tactical nuclear weapons. I don’t think any informed president, his handlers, would have permitted him to make such a statement. In fact, depending on how far you want to take this conversation about the Obama administration, I don’t recall in my lifetime, in confrontations with Russia, an administration—I speak now of the president and his secretary of state—who seem in their public statements to be so misinformed, even uninformed, both about Ukraine and Russia. For example, when Kerry testified last week to Congress that all the unrest in Ukraine was due to Putin’s meddling and his provocations, he denied the underlying problem which has divided Ukraine. I mean, everybody knows that history, God, whoever’s responsible for our destiny, created a Ukraine that may have had one state, but wasn’t one country. It may be two, it may be three countries. But for John Kerry to say that all this conflict in Ukraine is due to Putin simply makes a resolution of the problem by denying the problem. Or let me ask you a question: What in the world was the director of the American CIA doing last Sunday—

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/17/we_are_not_beginning_a_new

I was appalled when I read that.

The US Government does not speak or act with one voice or one mind in foreign affairs. It's been that way for a long time. I cannot remember a Democratic President who was not sabotaged by his own minions on foreign policy, I'd have to go back to FDR, and I was not born then.

used and it is troubling he would not have refused such a method...if in fact he found himself
in disagreement with it in the first place.

It was better than I expected, in terms of finding a stable solution. I particularly liked the petulant tone.

I'm not willing to get into it now, it could all change, everybody is reluctant, except perhaps Putin, who got what he wanted and paid little for it, thanks to Ms. Nuland and the Neocons and their habit of over-reaching. I don't want to give anybody ideas.

The next question is do the "rebels" in the East get disarmed, with violence if necessary? Does the government start dialog with its enemies? Do they accept compromise that rises to allowing regions to form their own economic ties and future? Does Russia refrain from stirring the pot, evidence a real desire to calm the waters? Does the West cough up more money? Everybody has made commitments. Are they willing and able to carry them out?

Putin wants a war. I stand by that, and the other players need to stop with the bullshit too
b/c it is dumb to poke Putin...and why I found Obama's language disturbing.

When are we ever going to learn??

I detest what Putin has done, it is shocking and disturbing to watch him succeed but we
need to recognize our own mishandling due to our over reach as you say, and imo, that is an
understatement. The agreement can have a good outcome, to me, it is rare to see all the players have
the ball at the same time...of course Putin still having the obvious advantage. I hope Obama uses
that to his advantage.


With that said, there is a recent update:

Eastern Ukraine militants snub Geneva deal on crisis
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27076226

Nobody is in a position to force the issue at acceptable costs. You can theorize they are crazy, but then you are done, crazy is unpredictable. If you theorize they are rational, they all have to work it out, so all this noise and dick-waving is negotiation, and the guy who holds the best cards gets the most of what he wanted. I don't think any of them are crazy. There are some crazy people running around, more than a few, quite a few really, but they don't appear to have the means or the backing to carry the show, so far anyway.

I don't think they are crazy either, but smart? I am not sure about that any longer.
I don't like some of the approaches I have read so far..they seem at best, counter
productive. You try and look strong but then you end up looking incompetent.

Cut your losses and realize your opponent will work with you enough to settle this
mess.

Reading the Badass Putin OP, among other aspects, what a blow to the Russian dissenters. He is
puffed up right now...Russia has a terrible government and they seem to have an ever increasing up hill
battle.

On Snowden and Putin, I am not sure I get what was not to appreciate about it...seemed to me
Mr Snowden now has Putin on the record, not that anyone would buy his nonsense about respecting
the law before this..but I like documents, and they can come in handy when you least expect it.

I am curious about this fellow Mr Snowden, he seems more intelligent than some give him credit for.

I think Putin somewhat stumbled into the situation, rather than planned it. Everybody is in their own little bubble and dumbfounded by it all, but Putin is the one that came up golden. Isn't that peachy? And they are all playing with other peoples lives.

I think the Putin-Snowden thing is a tempest in a teapot. It will change nobody's opinion.

Snowden, like him or not, has guts. He took on his boss, the NSA.

Of course it was scripted, so? If Putin wants to talk about surveillance, why the heck not? It seems like something he should address.

Exactly, so what. Yea, I don't see the down side to having Putin on the record, for if there are future
leaks of corruption pointed in Putin's way the Russian dissenters have a paper trail with Putin's own words
on it.

He is a curious man that Mr Snowden, and aside from his alleged relationship with Putin, the story
is no where near over...for that I am grateful to him and wikileaks.

I had this pic up from an article Kiev promises Russian language status choice as military op enters ‘inactive phase’


Barricades outside the City Hall, Kramatorsk. (RIA Novosti)

I was surprised there was so much street level awareness about it.

Hi ya Catherina

despite the corporate media's deliberate effort to suppress inconvenient things or warp them.

Hi ya Jefferson23!

that a person in Snowden's position (and given his stated views) would necessarily script himself for a public questioning of a head of state.

OTOH, I don't doubt that RT would have pre-screened his question or put Snowden on a time delay. That's very different than concocting a set-piece.

The Russian response was initially confused and scrambled to interpret a complex English query.

Personally, I think the naysayers are demonstrating a knee-jerk Russophobia here. One telltale sign is the assumption that our nation's initiatives are the result of understandable political 'complexity' while the 'others' represent an implacable monolithic will of some sort.

Snowden scripts himself, or there is some pre-arrangement, who cares? I have a hard time believing he got through by chance. And it was whatever way Putin wanted it. What tells is who freaked out about it.

I didn't watch it, got rid of TV, but it's interesting what you say, that it was a surprise, if it was. Surprises can be scripted too, but that way lies paranoia.

I pre-screen everything I say in public too, or try to. It's a good idea.

It's the "monolithic will" i get stuck on too, I look at these guys and I see people flailing around, some better at it than others, but damn few really in control, and even there it's a wasting asset constantly in need of refreshment. And the giant egos.

But yeah.

found it a rather odd breathless commentary. That's why I looked up his background.

It was an interesting read. Thanks.

You can tell that by the tone I mentioned. Which particular part of the oligarchy he occupies would have interested me at one time, but now I just assume it when I see it.

I'm not criticizing you, sorry if I gave that impression. I'm paying bills an things and it bleeds over into my tone. Like the guy who wrote the petulant piece I posted. It's hard to mask.

I suspect that both Obama and Putin are only figure heads while the oligarchs in both countries, with the EU Oligarchs thrown in, are the real power brokers at the table in the back room.

What will happen as this goes forward is up to the oligarchs carving up the bits they want and doing some horse trading as situations on the ground change. The mighty MIC and Global Business Interests have been at this for decades but have almost perfected their games by now. Much of the rest is theater.

But, then that's just my cynical observation at this point in time.

Nothing cynical about recognizing the truth. Either way capital wins. The rest is Kabuki theater.

Check this out:

I'm not sure what will go on with the arms technology but last year Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's Deputy PM in charge of Defense Industry, warned Ukraine that it would removed all sensitive production, especially aircraft, rocket, missile engineering, atomic, shipbuilding, facilities from Ukraine, for national security reasons, if the EU deal was signed. I think recent developments make that a done deal. How much will they share with China now is the real question but I think it's going to be quite a bit over time. And India and other BRIC countries too during this geopolitical realignment.

Just today Rogozin met with China in Vladivostock to explore cooperation related to Russia's satellite navigation systems and will be meeting regularly from now on. Heavy helicopters and joint long-haul aviation is on the tale too.

Not entirely, but to some extent. And some of it is just happening anyway, the warming up with the other BRICS.

But it's not convenient for either Russia or E. Ukraine to just sever all ties, so I think if the new government and constitution allow it, they won't. And it's not at all clear that Putin would allow that to happen. And that's a question I'd as soon leave unanswered.

And it's worth remembering that the weight of population and the economy is in the East, and that can't be parted with by the Kiev government, which also cannot enforce its will directly. So I expect compromise.

I don't think they'll severe all ties and don't think they should either. The US, Russia, EU and Ukraine had an unpublished discussion about the constitution yesterday. I hope they reach a realistic agreement that all sides are comfortable enforcing.

The Kiev gov't got de facto recognized, Crimea's status got de facto ignored. The language on dialog, federalization, and unity was emphatic. The statement on the authority of the Kiev government was emphatic. Russia has to stand down too. If they invade, they will turn the Ukrainian people against them. Putin did that in Chechnya, he won't do that again. That would be a disaster for him, and lead to the severing of relations we discussed. He's got an image to maintain.

But that doesn't mean everybody will shut up and get in line. It's a lot easier to stir things up than to tamp the fire down again.

As a Russian diplomat said a few days ago to an Australian reporter, no way that Russia will invade. In addition to the image, if you invade, you have to support the population that you invade with jobs; no jobs, they will soon turn against you. Secondly, invasions are expensive. Third, it is not good PR, plus you got the saboteurs working against you. Lastly, any deaths will be blamed on Russian troops by the western media.

Now all theses responsibilities rest with the EU and the US and their Kiev government. I think some people were itching, and still are, for Russia to invade but I don't see it at all. Do you?

Watching US politics has caused me to doubt reason as a guide in these things.

I don't think that's what Putin wants, to rebuild the USSR, he want his economic zone, and for that he needs Ukraine independent and "friendly", and stable, he wants it to be stable. He has learned that renting is better than owning.

I think he took what he wanted right away. Crimea was the low-hanging fruit. Ms Nuland's coup against Yanukovich, or whatever one wants to call it, was the excuse and the provocation he needed to take it.

Russia's public position has been consistent, and it seems aimed at what I just said.

I've been somewhat in doubt about his intentions (see para. #1 up there), but the results of the 4-way talks make me more confident about my view.

Edit: and the thing here is Putin has to stand down now, he has to back off, or the other guys won't be able to.

This is what I like about talking with you, we're so close on principles and worldviews that when you say something like that, I care why. I think Putin gave them a lot of room to maneuver and they won't take it because they've gone this far and exposed just how worthless the reset offer of friendship was.

After an agreement of this import is reached, the State Dept usually tries to pump up the postive and play down the negative. Not so with its head, John K (I'm no longer using his name because that only invites his staffers to show up in the thread and take it off on some tangent). As soon as he was done with his statement he missed no opportunity to score points with the reporters and put the entire burden of enforcing the agreement on the Russians.

I think the EUSA plan to grab Ukraine overlooked that East Ukraine wouldn't meekly to go along and instead of admitting that our plans backfired, we're pushing the crisis to more dangerous levels- either just to save face or to resolutely go along with our 35 year plan of isolating Russia.

What do you think Putin should stand back from? And how? He didn't instigate the coup in Kiev and is just reacting out of existential interests. Why shouldn't the instigators of the coup who stacked the meeting without even a single representative from the southeast Ukraine region and who agreed to those conditions back down at the same time? I think Putin learned his lesson and accepted we reached a point of no return when the exact same players grossly twisted the UNSC agreement on Libya and upgraded the "no fly zone" to a free-fire zone to bomb the shit out of Libya. Putin said that's when he realized the West couldn't honestly be negotiated with and had to be stopped. Then we tried that little game with Syria but he threw a cog in the works, thinking he was giving us a graceful exit from the mess we created and instead of a discrete thank you to work together better, we moved on to Ukraine.

Anyway I'm very interested as to why you say Putin has to stand down first or the other guts won't be able to. I don't think the other guys have any intention of standing down at all, not when I read the Kiev government saying they're not disarming a thing, despite what they agreed to, on the pretense that their militants are "legal".

But nobody wants to look "weak" see, so the posturing continues.

But here:

All Ukranian naval ships leave Crimea http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201404191437-pol-ren1018-all_ukranian_naval_ships_leave_crimea

Does this sound like you are getting ready for war?

Nothing should impede normalisation of Russia-West relations: Putin

http://digitaljournal.com/news/world/nothing-should-impede-normalisation-of-russia-west-relations-putin/article/381542

Does this sound like a guy trying to gin up some war fever?

And on the other hand we have:

Ukraine Calls An Easter Truce In Clash With Militants

So you have both sides trying to make nice, while all and sundry are stil talking tough.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/19/304905585/ukraine-calls-an-easter-truce-in-clash-with-militants

towards either disarming and dispersing the pro-EUSA protesters in Kiev. Instead they've just been given "legal" status as if the agreements don't apply to them. And instead of disarming (as was just requested by the OSCE) the new National Guard that's made up of rightwing militants, they're being sent out to the East, to stamp on legitimate demonstrations by fellow Ukrainians, after being co-opted into the armed forces and given a veneer of legitimacy- all talk of an Easter Truce in the Western press withstanding. So much for a truce.

It's going to have to be both sides agreeing (more difficult to do when East Ukraine wasn't even represented at the talks to agree to anything) and backing down at the same time, at the same speed, or so much for an agreement. Right Sector is still standing outside the Rada "guarding" it, except that now they're guarding it against original Maidan protesters who feel they were used. When do they move? It's dishonest to confer "legitimacy" on them to exempt them from the agreement and then declare some sort of a weird truce.

Which takes us back to your excellent point in post 25, paragraph 2.

I don't think Putin is gunning for war but I fear the EUSA are boxing everyone into a nasty corner while giving Academy Award performances on looking "tough". And what's with all this sudden talk of terrorists in the NPR link? That's all you hear since Brennan's trip last week.

Here's what I'm really afraid of. Kiev and the US/EU don't control the situation anymore than Russia does, not with that many genies running around loose now, so how can anyone fullfill this agreement? It's like an agreement on controlling Al Qaeda in Afghanistan 20 years ago.

Yats doesn't have the means, and Putin has agreed to support the Kiev government in it's attempts to conduct a dialog leading to a new constitution & government.

Hence the protesters (either set) will not be removed, yet anyway. I think eventually the ones in the East will be removed by force, when Yats has the means, and they lose public support, if they don't join the dialog. Attacking the Maidan again will always be a stupid idea.

But Putin is the guy I'm watching, if he wants a stable Ukraine, he has to cooperate to suppress the violence and resistance, not just give it lip service. He'll get a civil war if he doesn't, among other bad things.

with the difference that, unlike the people in the East who had no voice at the talks despite Russia's request to have them present, Andrii Deshchytsia was there in an official capacity and obligated Kiev. Yats and his people found the means to arm their militants and bring them under the umbrella of the National Guard. They'll have to find the courage to disarm them if they want this to work. And Kiev certainly has the means to stop shipping them off to the East. Today they sent even more people and military shipments to the East, specifically Lugansk, instead of putting things on halt. Such moves aren't reassuring.

The OSCE is ready to assist both sides, all Yats has to do is accept the offered help if this is beyond him.

Cause and effect are very problematical and subjective when people are involved, and bashing politicians you don't like can be fun, but it just muddies things up, which is why propagandists like it so much. People ask me what I think and I try to be polite, and sooner or later they start telling me where I am wrong, and then we are done.

---

The Geneva agreement requires all illegal armed groups to disarm and end occupations of public buildings, streets and squares, but with the separatists staying put in the east and Ukrainian nationalist protesters showing no sign of leaving their camps in the capital's Maidan Square, it was not clear that either side would be willing to move first.

Enacting the agreement on the ground will be difficult, because of the deep mistrust between the pro-Russian groups and the Western-backed government in Kiev. This week has already seen several people killed in violent clashes.

The fact a deal was reached in Geneva came as a surprise, and it was not clear what had happened behind the scenes to persuade the Kremlin, which had shown little sign of compromise, to join calls on the militias to disarm. It rejects Ukrainian and Western accusations of orchestrating the gunmen.

President Vladimir Putin overturned decades of post-Cold War diplomacy last month by declaring Russia had a right to intervene in neighbouring countries and by annexing Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula of Crimea.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/ukraine-separatists-reject-diplomatic-deal-to-disarm/498413.html

From the Moscow Times no less. The leaders have an agreement, can they get the led to play along?

Ukraine is a monumental mess created by false assurances right now. And I'm not so confident all the little genies can be controlled.