Central Perk: 7 feb. 2015

sâmbătă, 7 februarie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

US Warmongers vs. Merkel; Why Ukraine is None of Our Business

Posted: 07 Feb 2015 12:59 PM PST

A huge rift between Europe and the US has opened up in regards to dealing with the situation in Ukraine. The US hawks led by Senator John McCain want to send arms to Ukraine, but German chancellor Angela Merkel sees things much differently.

Chancellor Merkel says Ukraine Crisis Won't be Solved by Military Means.

Speaking at the Munich security conference on Saturday, the German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not against it.

Germany has opposed aiding Ukrainian troops for fear of worsening the conflict, which has already cost more than 5,000 lives, but the idea has many supporters in Washington.

"I cannot imagine any situation in which improved equipment for the Ukrainian army leads to President Putin being so impressed that he believes he will lose militarily," Merkel said. "I have to put it that bluntly."

Merkel, Hollande Visit Putin

On Friday, French president Francois Hollande and Chancellor Merkel took the unusual step of flying to Russia to meet with Russian president Vladimir Putin. The five-hour meeting ended with a Promise of More Talks. Details are scant which likely means little progress was made.

McCain Blames US for Ukraine's Use of Cluster Bombs

Meanwhile back in the states, head warmonger Senator John McCain says US Partially to Blame for Ukraine's Use of Cluster Bombs.

The US is partially responsible for Ukraine's indiscriminate use of cluster bombs in the country's east, US Senator John McCain told Russia's Sputnik news agency. According to McCain, it is due to the US failing to send Kiev other arms.

"I think that if we had provided them with the weapons they need, they wouldn't have felt they had to use cluster bombs. So, it's partially our fault," said McCain.

Lawmakers to Obama - Arm Ukraine Now

Congress seldom unites on anything but war. And here we go again. The Hill reports Lawmakers to Obama - Arm Ukraine Now.

The White House came under bipartisan pressure from both sides of the Capitol to provide weapons to Ukraine Thursday.

Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee made a big push on the issue, while a bipartisan group of House members called for the same course of action in a letter.

"The United States must act with urgency to provide defensive lethal assistance to Ukraine," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

"Russia's invasion of sovereign territory of Ukraine, which has continued unabated in the face of political and economic sanctions, is the gravest threat to European security in decades," he said.

Meanwhile, the group of House lawmakers said that the administration needed to provide weapons to Ukraine to deter further Russian aggression.

"We are calling on the Administration to increase its support for Ukraine. Tighter sanctions and greater humanitarian assistance should be part of that support, but now, more than ever, the U.S. must supply Ukraine with the means to defend itself," they said in their letter.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Intelligence committee, was the lead signatory on the letter. He was joined by more than 30 Republicans and Democrats.

McCain Calls for Bill Requiring the President to Arm Ukraine

Reuters reports McCain calls for bill requiring U.S. arms to Ukraine if Obama does not act.

U.S. lawmakers will write legislation requiring the United States to send arms to Ukraine if President Barack Obama does not move to send weapons, Republican Senator John McCain said on Thursday.

McCain led about a dozen Republican and Democratic senators at a news conference in pressing Obama to send arms to help Kiev defend itself against a Russian-backed separatist movement.

"We'll be looking at marking up legislation that calls for it," McCain said.

Dead-on-Arrival

That's yet another ridiculous dead-on-arrival proposal.

Why Ukraine is None of Our Business

A CATO Institute commentary by Doug Bandow accurately explains U.S. Should Stay Out of the Russo-Ukrainian Quarrel: Why the Conflict in Ukraine Isn't America's Business.

Fighting over the Donetsk airport between Ukraine's military and separatist forces backed by Russia has flared anew. The U.S. has begun providing heavier weapons as well as personnel training to Kiev. The conflict could go on for a long time, with Kiev and Moscow locked in a small hot war and the U.S. and Russia stuck in a larger Cold War lite. An extended confrontation would be in no one's interest, especially America's.

The U.S. has made a habit of promiscuously meddling around the world. The results rarely have been pretty. Thousands of Americans have been killed, tens of thousands have been wounded, hundreds of thousands of foreigners have died, and a multitude of international furies have been loosed.

At least none of these conflicts involved a real military power. In contrast, advocates of confrontation with Russia over Ukraine want to challenge a nation armed with nuclear weapons and an improving conventional military, steeped in nationalist convictions, rooted in historic traditions, and ruled by a tough authoritarian. No one should assume that in a military showdown the Kremlin would yield to Washington or that war with Moscow would be a cakewalk.

Yet Ukraine's most fervent advocates assume that any American who fails to believe that, say, inaugurating global nuclear war to save their distant ethnic homeland is a Putin troll, Russian agent, friend of dictators, pro-communist fellow traveler, or even worse.

there is at least a Baker's Dozen of good reasons for America to stay out of today's messy, tragic, and bloody conflict involving Ukraine and Russia. The first six are reason enough:

Ukraine isn't important geographically
Russia matters more than Ukraine to America
Blame is widely shared for Ukraine's travails
Washington never guaranteed Ukraine's security
Vladimir Putin is not Hitler and Russia is not Nazi Germany (or Stalin's Soviet Union)
There's no genocide

Bandow goes over every point in detail. Please give it a read.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Is Colonel Cassad Accurate? Reader Q&A; Huge Trap?

Posted: 06 Feb 2015 11:42 PM PST

Reader comments are sometimes quite amusing. At other times they are quite on target. Of course, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

For example on February 3, reader Yuri Sergeev asked "WHAT HAPPENED TO THE "ENCIRCLED" Illovaisk Ukrainian troops? Did I tell you that Colonel Cassad is a simple pro-Kremlin troll who is full or crap? I did? Well, here you are."

Are bold caps meant to impress, or do they mean something else?

Meanwhile reader Fedwatcher commented "It is important to know when you have lost and need to step away from the table. Because neocons run our government (yes Obama is also a neocon), we keep digging the hole deeper and weaken our position. We can afford to lose this battle while Putin cannot."

Let's examine those questions and comments starting with Yuri Sergeev's question on encirclement.

Map of Major Military Operations February 4, 2015

click on chart for sharper image

I ask reader Yuri "What the hell is it about that map that you dispute?"

Personally, I do not give a damn what Colonel Cassad stands for or what side he is on. All I care about is the accuracy of what he says. And unlike most of Western news media, Cassad is not all one sided.

When the separatists take a hit, Cassad says so. That immediately raises Cassad's stature (in regards to accuracy of reporting) in my eyes.

That map is a few days old, taken roughly at the time Yuri made his comment. From a Kiev perspective, I am sure a chart looks worse today.

Rebels Advance

On Friday, Reuters reported Advancing Ukraine Rebels Appear to Capture Frontline Town.

Pro-Russian rebels appeared to be in full control on Wednesday of one of the towns that has been a principal target of their advance, as they attempt to surround a nearby garrison of Ukrainian forces.

The apparent fall of the town of Vuhlehirsk would be a setback for Kiev, which has been trying to defend it and the larger neighboring town of Debaltseve, an important rail hub, from encirclement by advancing rebels.

A military spokesman in the capital said Vuhlehirsk was still contested. But Reuters journalists on the ground were freely able to enter about 60 percent of it and saw no sign of areas controlled by Ukrainian troops. Rebels patrolled casually and were in a boisterous mood, using positions in the town to fire artillery on Debaltseve.

Point in Dispute

Kiev reports Vuhlehirsk is "contested". Reuters says "Rebels patrolled casually and were in a boisterous mood, using positions in the town to fire artillery on Debaltseve."

If you are a fool or a mindless Kiev troll, then no doubt you side with Yuri Sergeev. Otherwise, the map (and in this rare case - Reuters) speaks for itself.

Huge Trap

I am not a military expert. But please study the above map carefully. Note the expansion at the top of the map increasing the distance Ukrainian support lines have to go.

It appears as if the separatists have purposely left the main road open to entice more Ukrainian military forces to their doom.

Finally, please note the contraction in the middle, increasing the need for Ukraine to send supplies to the nearly-encircled Ukrainian forces to the southeast.

Undoubtedly, such thoughts make me a Kremlin Troll as well.

Military experts, please feel free to weigh in.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Seth's Blog : We don't care enough to give you constructive feedback

We don't care enough to give you constructive feedback

But if we did, it would take a lot to speak up in a useful way. It's difficult to be a generous skeptic. Not only do we have to be clear and cogent and actionable, but we cross a social boundary when we speak up. We might be rejected, or scolded, or made to feel dumb. And of course there's the risk that we'll get our hopes up that something will improve, only to see it revert to the status quo.

So, most of the time, we don't bother.

But when someone does care enough (about you, about the opportunity, about the work or the tool), the ball is in your court.

You can react to the feedback by taking it as an attack, deflecting blame, pointing fingers to policy or the CEO. Then you've just told me that you don't care enough to receive the feedback in a useful way.

Or you can pass me off to a powerless middleman, a frustrated person who mouths the words but makes it clear that the feedback will never get used. Another way to show that you don't care as much as I do. And if you don't care, why should I?

One other option: you can care even more than I do. You can not only be open to the constructive feedback, but you can savor it, chew it over, amplify it. You can delight in the fact that someone cares enough to speak up, and dance with their insight and contribution.

Because then, if you're lucky, it might happen again.