Hoover Roundtable: Perspectives On Russia’s Hybrid War On Ukraine And US Foreign Policy

Hoover Institute ^ | March 10, 2015 | Paul Gregory.

[tlozo]

On March 10, the Hoover Institution held a roundtable discussion on “Perspectives on Russia’s Hybrid War on Ukraine and US Foreign Policy."… General Mattis noted that Russia at first hoped that it could occupy East Ukraine without loss of life as it did in Crimea but was surprised by the Ukrainian forces fighting back with vigor. Russian military had to increase its logistic and military support for its rebel forces and then, in August, had to use regular troops to save the encircled Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics” from defeat. With regular Russian forces involved, Ukrainian forces have been outmatched, notably by deadly artillery weapons (such as dual-purpose missiles, banned by the United States) that explode multiple warheads overhead…The U.S. supplying lethal defensive weapons would represent a major breakthrough… He believes that Putin desires “anarchy protection” (which others have called frozen conflicts) on its borders… Alexander Yarim-Agaev denied that military action in east Ukraine is a civil war growing out of dissatisfaction with the Maidan revolution, for there were no problems with ethnic or linguistic divisions before the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime. The eastern regions controlled the top three positions in Ukraine national government… what we are seeing is not a civil war but a war between two forces: Russia versus America and Western democracies on the other... Hence, Ukraine is not merely another country that we support but our ally in this global conflict, fighting on the front line. Putin’s Russia is our enemy, whether we like it or not. Russia considers the United States its main enemy, and if we are Russia’s enemy then Russia is our enemy… We should provide lethal military assistance… The main communist structure, the KGB, was left nearly intact. Having come back to power, it is intent on restoring the Soviet Union…

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks tlozo.

[SeeSharp]

Alexander Yarim-Agaev denied that military action in east Ukraine is a civil war growing out of dissatisfaction with the Maidan revolution, for there were no problems with ethnic or linguistic divisions before the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime.

The logic of that argument escapes me.

[Joe Boucher]

Remember that little message the quota boy sent to puttie.
After this next election i will not have another and will be free to do anything i want.
Meaning throw America and Isreal under the bus.
What a piece of crap this moosie fag is.

[lodi90]

The logic of that argument escapes me.

---

He’s saying is is no genuine civil war in Ukraine. There was no “civil war” in east Ukraine until Russians arrived and started killing. There is now no civil war in the parts of Ukraine the Russian nationals have been kicked out of. No Russians, no Ukrainian “civil war”. Understand?

[GeronL]

Bump

[SeeSharp]

That is not what he said. He said the conflict cannot be about Maidan because there was no conflict before Maidan. Maybe there is a problem with the translation, but the argument as stated is incoherent.

[tlozo]

Alexander Yarim-Agaev denied that military action in east Ukraine is a civil war growing out of dissatisfaction with the Maidan revolution, for there were no problems with ethnic or linguistic divisions before the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime. In fact, the eastern regions controlled the top three positions in Ukraine national government.

The only losers from Maidan were local and regional officials of the Yanukovich administration who feared losing power and privileges. Their attempts to organize protests failed (despite Russian assistance) until the Russian intervention that put Russian citizens or local “marginals” in control of occupied cities. These occupations resulted in economic collapse and terrorization of the population, as paratroopers, many of them Chechens and Ossetians, patrolled the city and detained and arrested people without cause. Yarim-Agaev noted that both he and his wife had been stopped by armed men and his wife was threatened with being shot.

[SeeSharp]

You are simply repeating his ridiculous argument. Yanukovich got into office because a majority of the voters in Ukraine voted for him. Everyone who did so lost something when he was ousted. He is arguing that the present conflict couldn’t have anything to do with the coup because no one was mad before the coup. Really?

[tlozo]

“He is arguing that the present conflict couldn’t have anything to do with the coup because no one was mad before the coup. Really?”

He is saying that no one was “mad” in eastern Ukraine.(there were no problems with ethnic or linguistic divisions)

“Yanukovich got into office because a majority of the voters in Ukraine voted for him”

Thats very true, the problem is that you ignore Yanukovich actions as president. He changed the constitution to make himself a “super” president. Then for a year and a half he and his ministers promised to sign the EU Association Agreement. When he went back om his promises that led people to go out onto the streets with mass demonstrations of 500,000 people in downtown Kiev.

[Krosan]

Yanukovich campaigned with the promise of EU trade deal. This was one of the things he went 180 on an people were really sick of him due to him not doing what he promised and huge mismanagement of the country.