Visa Waiver Program for Ukraine

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You do realize, this all but ends the space program for NASA, at least until the next generation of manned spacecraft goes into production, in a decade or two.

How much money does that save?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How much money does that save?

I am with you there.

[Abell 11]

Great Kremlin talking points! You forgot to deny that Russian troops are even in Ukraine. Such preposterous propaganda would be hilarious if its perpetrators weren't actually trying to push it off as serious. No rational person gives it a hint of credibility. Go back to drinking your vodka Vlad.

you believe western propaganda doesn't work as good as russian one? so your position here is the only right and unbiased position about this situation?

there is no much reason to even watch russian tv but just see some videos of what was going on on maidan to see what is going on

I don't really care if russian troops are there or not, they have their bases there and can be there, unless we see russian flag in their hands that is nothing more then assumption that their who they are

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

you believe western propaganda doesn't work as good as russian one? so your position here is the only right and unbiased position about this situation?

there is no much reason to even watch russian tv but just see some videos of what was going on on maidan to see what is going on

I don't really care if russian troops are there or not, they have their bases there and can be there, unless we see russian flag in their hands that is nothing more then assumption that their who they are

Whether or not they are Russian troops, or merely being given direct support from Russia is irrelevant. Crimea is of strategic importance to the Russian Navy as a warm water port, although Russia does not have an uncontested route through which to enter and exit the Black Sea. But I doubt the Russians will be happy just annexing Crimea. Economically, and strategically, Russsia needs to maintain control of the routes through Ukraine by which natural gas flows to the european subcontinent,

[RhettVoe 281]

Handing over the VWP to Ukraine would be a disaster. It is hard to believe that all those 'proud' Ukrainians would just shrug and stay put in their country, while their economy and politics crumble. Of course that would happen......not. They would not be coming here to establish business connections - they could do that now electronically, and yet they don't. So why do they need to be 'face to face' to do the same task they don't do now?

No, they would come here to find work via other Ukrainians who 'forgot' to be proud and return home, like they were supposed to (in accordance with those western laws and values they supposedly want to emulate...if only they could be given a visa or the VWP privilege).

I don't owe a single Ukrainian citizen anything. Neither do the rest of American taxpayers. If the Ukraine is going to hell in a hand basket, that is not my responsibility nor is it the responsibility of the United States of America. Handing out visas or the VWP won't change the poor leadership in the Ukraine. It would only harm our middle class and siphon off more tax dollars to people who do not deserve them.

[Dakine10 5,452]

If the Ukraine is going to hell in a hand basket, that is not my responsibility nor is it the responsibility of the United States of America. Handing out visas or the VWP won't change the poor leadership in the Ukraine. It would only harm our middle class and siphon off more tax dollars to people who do not deserve them.

Actually the US taxpayer is going to end up doling out a big chunk to fix all this. The cost of destabilizing a government and influencing the successors is enormous. It just doesn't have anything to do with the VWP.

[RhettVoe 281]

then Ukraine does not need the VWP. If it were up to me, I would not spend a nickel to help fix another country's problems...our own country has numerous problems that are not being addressed. I don't see Ukraine offering us anything, except headaches.

[Dakine10 5,452]

then Ukraine does not need the VWP. If it were up to me, I would not spend a nickel to help fix another country's problems...our own country has numerous problems that are not being addressed. I don't see Ukraine offering us anything, except headaches.

I agree. Some in our government really wanted Ukraine in NATO. That won't come cheap. Same with EU membership. Without Russian capital going in, you have a completely unstable state that will need constant handouts just to balance on the edge of bankruptcy.

IMO, our government will continue to bail out Ukraine for years rather than risk them sliding back toward Russia's influence. Unlike Poland and some of the other FSU countries that have done well, Ukraine has been on the edge since the breakup of the USSR. It's going to be ongoing and there's no reason to think Ukraine will ever be any closer to the VWP. It will be many years before that happens.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

I agree. Some in our government really wanted Ukraine in NATO. That won't come cheap. Same with EU membership. Without Russian capital going in, you have a completely unstable state that will need constant handouts just to balance on the edge of bankruptcy.

IMO, our government will continue to bail out Ukraine for years rather than risk them sliding back toward Russia's influence. Unlike Poland and some of the other FSU countries that have done well, Ukraine has been on the edge since the breakup of the USSR. It's going to be ongoing and there's no reason to think Ukraine will ever be any closer to the VWP. It will be many years before that happens.

Can you explain something to me? You said "without Russian capital going in..." Does that mean Russian trade or Russian aid? You make it seem like Russia gives Ukraine aid in return for influence etc and that Ukraine doesn't want Russian money any more and wants western aid instead?

That's probably not what you meant, but could you explain Russia's monetary influence on Ukraine in recent years? Thanks.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Can you explain something to me? You said "without Russian capital going in..." Does that mean Russian trade or Russian aid? You make it seem like Russia gives Ukraine aid in return for influence etc and that Ukraine doesn't want Russian money any more and wants western aid instead?

That's probably not what you meant, but could you explain Russia's monetary influence on Ukraine in recent years? Thanks.

Russia is not going to follow through on their 15 billion aid package to Ukraine unless the government reverts to the Feb 21st agreement, which would include Yanukovich returning as president until an election date is set. I don't see that happening.

Ukraine is also several months behind on payments for natural gas purchases and currently pays a reduced price, about 30% below market price. Russia has indicated they will stop supplying gas until Ukraine pays it's bill and they will revert back to market price in future. Catch 22 since Ukraine needs the financial aid to pay for the gas.

It's both aid and trade. Russia wants Ukraine in their economic union, the EAU, and there are financial incentives for that and the political influence that goes along with it. Many in Ukraine don't want to return to anything that resembles the USSR, so they want to join the EU. Either way, Ukraine is close to bankruptcy and they are unlikely to get economic incentives and aid from both Russia and the west. It will be one or the other.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Putin will win this one. europe is feckless, well, except for Turkey, and I am waiting to see how that turns out. (Not that Turkey was ever considered part of europe since the vestiges of the Roman Empire abandoned the subcontinent to the savages). The US is unwilling to directly intervene, at least under this President, and that is probably a wise choice. Allowing Russia to continue to stabilize economically is probably better than an unstable and desperate Russia. A well-fed animal is easier to tame, than one that is scared and hungry.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The real sad part is that this President, and his staff, enabled this course of event by their indirect intervention.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Russia is not going to follow through on their 15 billion aid package to Ukraine unless the government reverts to the Feb 21st agreement, which would include Yanukovich returning as president until an election date is set. I don't see that happening.

Ukraine is also several months behind on payments for natural gas purchases and currently pays a reduced price, about 30% below market price. Russia has indicated they will stop supplying gas until Ukraine pays it's bill and they will revert back to market price in future. Catch 22 since Ukraine needs the financial aid to pay for the gas.

It's both aid and trade. Russia wants Ukraine in their economic union, the EAU, and there are financial incentives for that and the political influence that goes along with it. Many in Ukraine don't want to return to anything that resembles the USSR, so they want to join the EU. Either way, Ukraine is close to bankruptcy and they are unlikely to get economic incentives and aid from both Russia and the west. It will be one or the other.

So Ukraine isn't solvent and must reply on foreign aid to survive? Was Russia's aid package a one-time thing for this "revolution" or did they continually fund Ukraine in these amounts?

And if so, why isn't it solvent? Do they have old debts to pay or do they just continually bleed money? Political gamesmanship or bad laws? Sounds precarious for so many reasons.

[RhettVoe 281]

Ukraine is not solvent because they do not have the VWP privilege. If they did, everything would instantly turn around and become just peachy.....or least, that's the argument of some....

Ukraine is not solvent due to poor leadership and management...no surprise there....other countries and half of our states and cities have the same issues...too much short sightedness by our politicians, who spend far too much time trying to get re-elected instead of actually accomplishing something....and the only 'somethings' that get accomplished are often those whose backers funneled bucket loads of cash into the campaign coffers of the aforementioned politicians. As long as money and politics (as well as money and religion) keep mixing, very little progress will be made by any governmental body, whether local, state or national.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Putin will win this one. europe is feckless, well, except for Turkey, and I am waiting to see how that turns out. (Not that Turkey was ever considered part of europe since the vestiges of the Roman Empire abandoned the subcontinent to the savages). The US is unwilling to directly intervene, at least under this President, and that is probably a wise choice. Allowing Russia to continue to stabilize economically is probably better than an unstable and desperate Russia. A well-fed animal is easier to tame, than one that is scared and hungry.

Putin has lost this one already. There's no win to be had here for Putin.

Putin Is Losing In Ukraine And That's Our Biggest Problem Right Now

As Putin moves his troops into Crimea and threatens to invade Eastern Ukraine, President Obama warns of “costs”. Many believe that if we had a stronger hand at the helm, the Russian President wouldn’t have dared such a gambit.

Yet to understand how ridiculous that notion is, you only have to go back to 2008, when Putin invaded Georgia. I was traveling through Georgia during the spring of that year and saw some of the troop movements. It was clear that war was in the air. Yet when the tanks started rolling in August, the Bush administration seemed genuinely surprised.

Bluster got us nowhere then and it will get us nowhere now. In fact, due to a much firmer alliance with Europe and somewhat renewed moral authority in the world, we are in a much better position to deal with this crisis than we were back then.

Yet still, the situation is very dangerous and we must proceed extremely carefully, taking into account the realities of the world and not falling prey to Cold War fantasies.

First, the obvious. War in Ukraine would be horrific. Many of the fine young men I worked with there would be conscripted into the army. Some would surely die, others would never be the same. My family and friends there would face danger of the worst kind.

Yet, Russia wouldn’t fare much better. Ukraine is no pushover.

I’m not a military expert, but the western personnel I have spoken to consider the Ukrainian forces to be more prepared than their Russian counterparts. One way to understand the difference in quality is to look at the the ratio of professional soldiers to conscripts. Ukraine’s armed forces are 60% professional; Russia’s only 30%.

Further, when the Soviet Union broke up, much of its arms industry was located in Ukraine, which even today remains the world’s 9th largest arms supplier. And Ukraine would most likely receive support, both overt and covert, from NATO allies on its borders—Poland especially—and electronic intelligence from the United States.

Of course, Russia’s armed forces are far larger, but there would be no easy victory. In the meantime, harsh sanctions would surely go into effect. Many of Russia’s elite would see their assets frozen and travel visas revoked. Its banks would be cut off from the international financial system. Trade with the West would grind to a halt. Within weeks, shoppers in Moscow would start to see empty shelves.

And that’s what makes recent events so scary. Putin knows all this and he still seems determined to press his luck. He isn’t, as some would believe, playing the role of a chess master, but that of a desperate man with nothing left to lose.

To understand how things most probably look from Putin’s point of view, take a look at the Black Sea, where Crimea is located.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union dominated the region, controlling all of its coastline except for Turkey in the south. Today, Bulgaria and Romania are NATO allies, Georgia is actively seeking membership and it’s likely that Ukraine will soon do so as well.

That dynamic continues to play out on every front. A decade ago, with the US mired in two wars and subject to international condemnation over Iraq, Russia sought to split the Atlantic Alliance. Further, as Europe’s primary supplier of natural gas, Putin could exert pressure whenever he needed to impose his will.

Yet it was the EU, not the US that was Putin’s chief adversary in the latest crisis and as The Washington Post reports, ten years of gas politics have resulted in dramatically reduced demand for Russian resources. Even Ukraine has cut consumption by 40%. Russian coffers have lost billions in the process.

Now, the change in Ukraine’s government has left Putin’s dream of a Eurasian Customs Union to rival the EU in tatters. He faces growing opposition at home, a continuing crisis in the Northern Caucasus and poor economic prospects. A significant drop in the price of oil could send his economy into freefall.

President Obama says that we shouldn’t view events through the lens of a Cold War chessboard and he’s right. We control nearly all the pieces and have little ground to gain. Putin, on the other hand, is down to his last few pawns.

So yes, we should be firm. We should be clear that Putin’s recent behavior is unacceptable and will incur further costs. Yet we should also give him a way out of the crisis and do our best to help him avoid humiliation.

Putin cannot win. I would suspect that even he knows that. What we need to do now is diminish his determination to impose a price on the rest of the world.

Updates: In addition to those posted below, I will be posting additional updates in a follow up article: 5 Important Facts That The Western Press Is Getting Terribly Wrong In Ukraine

Update 1: Reuters reports that markets in Moscow are in near free-fall on Monday. Stocks are down more than 10%. $10 billion of reserves have been burned through and interest rates have been hiked. The Ruble has fallen 2% to historic lows and there are reports of dollar shortages at street vendors. Russia still has massive foreign reserves of nearly $500 billion, but if the crisis persists, things are sure to get worse.

Update 2: The New York Times reports that after speaking with Putin by phone, German Chancellor Angela Merkel wasn’t sure that he was in touch with reality and that he seemed as if he was “in another world.” So, it’s not clear how the now obvious consequences will figure into his decision making. Russia could very well be entering an economic crises not seen since the 90′s.

Update 3: The Kyiv Post has released a list of 20 Ukrainian officials who will face asset seizures, including Viktor Yanukovych, his son and former Prime Minister Azarov. Bloomberg View has published a helpful summary of how similar tools can be used to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine. All G-7 nations have suspended preparations for the summit in Sochi, which might be a prelude to a more comprehensive sanctions regime.

Update 4: There’s been a lot of wild assertions of “fascism” in Ukraine. Anybody with even a passing familiarity with the country knows these are inaccurate and should be refuted by the prominence of Jewish officials in the interim government. Timothy Snyder has done an able job of unmasking the propaganda in his latest piece.

Now The New York Post quotes the former chief Rabbi of Kiev: “The Russians are going to look for justifications for what they are doing,” said Rabbi Yaakov Dov Bleich, who is originally from Brooklyn. “The Jews want to be with Ukraine. They want the Ukraine whole.”

I would hope that would put an end to the unsubstantiated claims, but I’m afraid that is hoping too much.