Anyone following the events in Ukraine? The tension that was building up seems to have snapped. Hopefully this won't turn into a full-blooded (pun not intended, enough blood has been shed already) civil war.. word is, some of the corrupt politicians are already fleeing the country.
There was a support rally here in Prague today:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/mru161.jpg)
Quote from: Rinaldo on February 20, 2014, 02:07:41 PM
There was a support rally here in Prague today:
When I was in Prague (2001-02), lots of Ukrainians were living there. In fact the term "Ukrainian" was becoming a shorthand for
Gastarbeiter ("I hired a Ukrainian to fix my roof").
Lots of these Ukrainians were highly educated and skilled, which didn't say much in favor of Ukraine's economy.
Oh look, there's a mo$$ad ageant and a see-aye-yay! ageant acting like Yook-Rain-Ians,... whoops didn't mean to spoil the party! :-[ Gotta get those pipelines.
This is starting to get old. >:D
From what I've read there are serious geographic and ethnic complications to the Ukraine situation--the western portion dominated by ethnic Ukrainians who want greater ties to the EU contrasted with the eastern portion in which are found a large number of ethnic Russians who prefer greater ties to Russia.
Although I don't see why the Ukraine can't have both. But then I don't live in that part of the world.
And there's another country that's not exactly calm, cool and collected right now: Venezuela.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 20, 2014, 06:14:07 PM
From what I've read there are serious geographic and ethnic complications to the Ukraine situation--the western portion dominated by ethnic Ukrainians who want greater ties to the EU contrasted with the eastern portion in which are found a large number of ethnic Russians who prefer greater ties to Russia.
That's basically true, although within that overall situation, there are various gradations. For example, a lot of the people in the east are not ethnic Russians but Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who would like a closer association with Russia but would not want to give up Ukrainian independence.
Quote from: Velimir on February 20, 2014, 07:43:41 PM
That's basically true, although within that overall situation, there are various gradations. For example, a lot of the people in the east are not ethnic Russians but Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who would like a closer association with Russia but would not want to give up Ukrainian independence.
And of course there's the historical complication that at one point, before the rise of Moscow, the great city of Russia was Kiev and the core of the Russian state was really the Ukraine. Of course, that was a thousand years or so ago, but still it does point to a situation wherein the Ukraine is far more central to Russia than, say, Scotland and Wales are to England.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 21, 2014, 09:48:54 AM
And of course there's the historical complication that at one point, before the rise of Moscow, the great city of Russia was Kiev and the core of the Russian state was really the Ukraine. Of course, that was a thousand years or so ago, but still it does point to a situation wherein the Ukraine is far more central to Russia than, say, Scotland and Wales are to England.
The original state of Rus', which formed around the 9th century or so, had its de facto capital in Kiev. Its territory comprised parts of what is now Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. So all 3 of these countries originate from that medieval state.
Quote from: Velimir on February 21, 2014, 10:05:24 AM
The original state of Rus', which formed around the 9th century or so, had its de facto capital in Kiev. Its territory comprised parts of what is now Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. So all 3 of these countries originate from that medieval state.
And let's not get into the complications of what used to be Poland and Lithuania, and what was not.....My mother's parents were from various nooks and crannies of that area, although more to the Belarus portion, I believe. Exact location is hard to pinpoint, since all I know is the name of the village my grandmother was from, and not even that much for my grandfather (they met and married in Boston back in 1911).
Meanwhile, please don't forget the violence in Venezuela....
Quote from: Velimir on February 20, 2014, 04:25:45 PM
When I was in Prague (2001-02), lots of Ukrainians were living there. In fact the term "Ukrainian" was becoming a shorthand for Gastarbeiter ("I hired a Ukrainian to fix my roof").
Lots of these Ukrainians were highly educated and skilled, which didn't say much in favor of Ukraine's economy.
Yeah, that stills stands. Lots of Ukrainians at the rally, as well as Czechs - myself, I view the current situation as quite simple: back in December, Janukovyc tried to scatter peaceful protesters with force but they didn't back down and it escalated from that point. The blame is on him and his corrupt government (and Putin, who's pulling the strings, obviously).
As for Venezuela, I'm seeing the news and I have zero clue about what's going on.. need to educate myself on that region.
Quote from: Rinaldo on February 21, 2014, 11:45:27 AM
As for Venezuela, I'm seeing the news and I have zero clue about what's going on.. need to educate myself on that region.
This may be of help. The blogger is, obviously, anti-chavismo.
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/
For me, Venezuela bulks larger than the Ukraine, because I'm in South Florida. In fact, a few members of my synagogue are from there, so I may hear more tomorrow after services.
Quote from: North Star on February 20, 2014, 01:43:13 AM
Ukraine clashes kill 21 more, EU talks shifted (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/20/us-ukraine-idUSBREA1G0OU20140220)
(http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20140220&t=2&i=843301687&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=700&pl=378&r=CBREA1J0OIS00) (http://www.buzzhunt.co.uk/wp-content/2014/01/Orthodox-priest.jpg) (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/ukraine_clash_getty.jpg?itok=Kao0tQnb)
(http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/files/2013/12/Kiev-1124.jpeg) (http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/ad127687975kiev-ukraine-f.jpg) (http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzAyLzE5LzY2L0tpZXZFVS5hMzk3Yi5qcGcKcAl0aHVtYgk5NTB4NTM0IwplCWpwZw/5dc62ede/18a/KievEU.jpg)
(http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2014_08/195666/140219-ukraine-kiev-square-915a_e456528dc335cf09c004934470a248fb.jpg) (http://scd.france24.com/en/files/imagecache/france24_ct_api_bigger_169/article/image/ukraine-kiev-police-forces_0.jpg) (http://i0.wp.com/blogs.pjstar.com/eye/files/2014/02/ukraine05.jpg?resize=950%2C654)
There's an article today where they arrestred a c i a agaent in the U working with protestors. But no one here cares about that? Yissyrel and US black ops out of the You-crane. Is this a conversation problem here? They're being caught all over the place... can anyone here say agaent provocatooooor? And yes, with the way things are going these days, why SHOULDN'T I cover my writing?
So maybe at least next time- the next country that erupts- maybe you'll remember this point when they start finding agaents there too. Wake up people, there's sayyaneem everywhere working in darknesse- apparently it's just a fact. gaaaaaaaaaah ::)
Then they came for the Americans...
Coming soon to a strip mall near you? Wait till the 47% realize they've been looted- can't get their free food and (most importantly) their psychotropic drugs. Craaaa-zeeee!!!
Well, talk about a quick and surprisingly "calm" resolution.. at least for now. Fingers crossed for Ukraine using the revolutionary momentum for righting itself - even if it means the country splitting, just like Czechoslovakia did few years after the Velvet Revolution.
Quote from: Rinaldo on February 22, 2014, 02:46:54 PM
Well, talk about a quick and surprisingly "calm" resolution.. at least for now. Fingers crossed for Ukraine using the revolutionary momentum for righting itself - even if it means the country splitting, just like Czechoslovakia did few years after the Velvet Revolution.
Except it could be more like Korea or Germany after WWII.
Quote from: Rinaldo on February 22, 2014, 02:46:54 PM
the country splitting, just like Czechoslovakia did few years after the Velvet Revolution.
The Velvet Divorce went smoothly because:
1. There was already an established border between the Czech and Slovak parts
2. No territory or assets to be fought over
3. Czechs and Slovaks don't hate each other
Unfortunately these conditions don't apply in Ukraine.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 21, 2014, 10:24:10 AM
And let's not get into the complications of what used to be Poland and Lithuania, and what was not.....My mother's parents were from various nooks and crannies of that area, although more to the Belarus portion, I believe. Exact location is hard to pinpoint, since all I know is the name of the village my grandmother was from, and not even that much for my grandfather (they met and married in Boston back in 1911).
This is incredibly similar to the story of my own grandparents.
WOO HOO
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DLZ7pWtyLCY&feature=youtu.be
Toppling statues of Lenin. This just never gets old.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26302572#TWEET1051753
Here is a marvellous timeline/blog on yesterday's events. I guess it is now over to Russia to see what action they will take.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on February 22, 2014, 11:35:47 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26302572#TWEET1051753
Here is a marvellous timeline/blog on yesterday's events. I guess it is now over to Russia to see what action they will take.
Mike
Good read there Mike,
Maybe Putin will step in and add some pressure, but not before the final of the Bobsleigh.
Good point Tony, though the pressure may be the supply of insurgents into the Russian sector to stir up trouble.
Mike
And so is Putin doing (and probably even more)...
A state that severely victimizes a group of people through amoral laws annexes part of a sovereign country because it needs to "defend its racial minorities".
Party like it's 1938.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 01, 2014, 11:16:13 AM
Party like it's 1938.
Let's guard against over-simplification, shall we?
Ian Welsh makes some good points, here:
http://www.ianwelsh.net/some-perspective-on-russian-intervention-in-the-ukraine/
Quote from: Velimir on March 01, 2014, 12:20:20 PM
Let's guard against over-simplification, shall we?
Ian Welsh makes some good points, here:
http://www.ianwelsh.net/some-perspective-on-russian-intervention-in-the-ukraine/
Oh, absolutely. I just have a hard time stomaching Russian hypocrisy.
If Crimea wants to go, let them! But not like this.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 01, 2014, 01:16:51 PM
Oh, absolutely. I just have a hard time stomaching Russian hypocrisy.
If Crimea wants to go, let them! But not like this.
+1
Oh, and replacing Germany, Sudetes or Austria in Welsh's text is fun 8)
Quote from: Velimir on March 01, 2014, 12:20:20 PM
Ian Welsh makes some good points, here:
http://www.ianwelsh.net/some-perspective-on-russian-intervention-in-the-ukraine/
Not really. Mostly 'so what' sort of points. Although, I disagree on #1 - Putin would happily conquer what he can. He has now shown that twice. Putin's ambitions are now available for the world to see and as the smart man he is, he is taking advantage at Ukraine's weakest moment.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 01, 2014, 01:16:51 PM
If Crimea wants to go, let them! But not like this.
It was obvious as soon as Ukraine became independent that Crimea would eventually be a problem. All the more so as much of the Russian navy is based there. If the Ukrainian nationalists had been smart, they would have got rid of Crimea long ago.
It was not always so Russian as an area. I can't see why a country should be chopped up due basically to the megalomania of one man, who in some respects is indeed acting like Hitler. He had an hour and a half by phone with Obama yesterday telling him he would do whatever he decided to do. We are in a position where he has for several years been fighting a proxi war in Syria, now he intends to expand his territory. The pattern and the methods have been well learned.
But I don't think any country has the stomach to take him on yet, understandable. So in this round, he will get away with annexing part of someone else's country with a further possibility of sparking a civil war. What next I wonder?
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on March 01, 2014, 06:55:28 PMI can't see why a country should be chopped up due basically to the megalomania of one man
While Putin is an autocrat and engages in blatant aggression in other countries, I'm not sure that any Russian leader would be willing to let the Crimea go. It is too important strategically to Russia, and I fully understand why Russia would go to war to keep it. To many western eyes, it may look like Ukrainians want democracy and Russia is thwarting that, but Europe expanding eastward directly threatens Russia. European powers have not always been peace-loving neighbors from a Russian perspective. This time is probably different, but what Russian leader would want to take that chance?
Aside from stern warnings, some stiffly worded memoranda, and some pointless UN resolutions, there's not really anything any other country can do, unless the US wants to move a big chunk of its Atlantic fleet to the Black Sea and risk a large-scale conflict. The Ukraine is not worth that.
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2014, 07:55:31 AM
While Putin is an autocrat and engages in blatant aggression in other countries, I'm not sure that any Russian leader would be willing to let the Crimea go. It is too important strategically to Russia, and I fully understand why Russia would go to war to keep it. To many western eyes, it may look like Ukrainians want democracy and Russia is thwarting that, but Europe expanding eastward directly threatens Russia. European powers have not always been peace-loving neighbors from a Russian perspective. This time is probably different, but what Russian leader would want to take that chance?
Aside from stern warnings, some stiffly worded memoranda, and some pointless UN resolutions, there's not really anything any other country can do, unless the US wants to move a big chunk of its Atlantic fleet to the Black Sea and risk a large-scale conflict. The Ukraine is not worth that.
I have been struggling to crystallize my POV, I think you have summed it up nicely. While I completely sympathize with the Ukrainian cause, it is very difficult to see what material support can be offered short of provoking a major world conflict. I have to ask myself; if I were an Ukrainian, would I:
A - take the 95% of my country already in hand and cede Crimea to Russia, or would I:
B - go to war with Russia over a small piece of territory mainly inhabited by Russians who wish to be Russians and not 'Ukrainians' even though the land is strategically priceless?
Clearly my own answer would be A.
I realize this is rather simplistic, but when you take away the trappings and get to the nut of the matter, this is where the issue lies.
GB
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2014, 07:55:31 AM
While Putin is an autocrat and engages in blatant aggression in other countries, I'm not sure that any Russian leader would be willing to let the Crimea go. It is too important strategically to Russia, and I fully understand why Russia would go to war to keep it. To many western eyes, it may look like Ukrainians want democracy and Russia is thwarting that, but Europe expanding eastward directly threatens Russia. European powers have not always been peace-loving neighbors from a Russian perspective. This time is probably different, but what Russian leader would want to take that chance?
Aside from stern warnings, some stiffly worded memoranda, and some pointless UN resolutions, there's not really anything any other country can do, unless the US wants to move a big chunk of its Atlantic fleet to the Black Sea and risk a large-scale conflict. The Ukraine is not worth that.
There is nothing there I disagree with. But I think Putin could have struck a deal with a stable government. He can't walk away from the vital port and if he did it would send out signals that would get him more of the same. But he has immediately decided on confrontation. It will mean loss of life and possibly decades of damage to his neighbour.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on March 02, 2014, 08:23:26 AM
There is nothing there I disagree with. But I think Putin could have struck a deal with a stable government.
But Ukraine doesn't have a stable government. The elected president was just driven out in a de facto coup d'etat, largely funded by our (US) tax dollars. ($5 billion is the figure publicly admitted to by our meddling neocon diplomat on the ground, Victoria Nuland.) Much of the country is in chaos, with the eastern parts refusing to obey any instructions coming out of Kiev.
Under such circumstances, with the possibility of losing control over your own military bases, what would you do?
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 02, 2014, 08:16:01 AM
While I completely sympathize with the Ukrainian cause,
And what is "the Ukrainian cause" anyway? There are at least two: the Western Ukrainians (pro-EU) and the Eastern Ukrainians (pro-Russia).
Quote from: Velimir on March 02, 2014, 08:40:01 AM
And what is "the Ukrainian cause" anyway? There are at least two: the Western Ukrainians (pro-EU) and the Eastern Ukrainians (pro-Russia).
I'm thinking of the Western cause, actually. Without denying the other, of course. Does not a similar situation exist in most countries that are multicultural? But what I am really getting at is if Ukraine is supposed to be an independent country (it
is supposed to be, last time I looked) then the desire to stop being a satellite of Russia in a situation reminiscent of the Soviet days is certainly a valid one. Just because a segment of the population is culturally Russian, doesn't mean the country itself needs to be a
de facto part of Russia or has to bend to Russia's will. Or maybe the country itself is simply too large to accommodate diversity and still maintain unity. In which case, there will be even more disruption. Sad to say... :(
8)
About one fifth of the population is of Russian extraction. Substantially they are second or third generation in Southern Ukraine which was packed by Russian emigration to service Soviet requirements in the area. The figures ignore the history, whereby the Russian Soviet gov exploited the country and many millions died due to Russian actions even before the 2nd world war. So, to my mind the Ukraine cause is of self determination. But, effectively, they have just lost Southern Ukraine, it has been invaded, with Ukrainian soldiers hemmed into their own barracks by Russian soldiers and the port blockaded by Russian navy. The least bad way out of this will be to allow the ethnically predominant part of the country to vote for separation, which of course it would.
So, basically yesterday was probably the last day of the country being intact, mind you, there is land just over the borders with Russia that was historically theirs. Rather as with Finland the Russians expanded the size of their land by simply throwing out the natives and taking it over at the end of WW2. So, I suppose, what happened yesterday and today is just another bite at the cherry by a pretty much unremittingly hostile neighbour.
Even if arrangements are made, the Russians will depend on the Ukrainians for gas and oil supplies, but no doubt they will be able to extort them into submission.
Mike
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 02, 2014, 09:16:36 AM
I'm thinking of the Western cause, actually. Without denying the other, of course. Does not a similar situation exist in most countries that are multicultural?
The last time we had such a situation, the result was a civil war. Just sayin'.
Quote from: knight66 on March 02, 2014, 09:32:12 AM
Even if arrangements are made, the Russians will depend on the Ukrainians for gas and oil supplies, but no doubt they will be able to extort them into submission.
Huh? The gas and oil come
from Russia and go
through Ukraine via pipelines on the way to Europe. Unless I'm missing something?
If the southern tip of Ukraine goes to Russia, the pipeline to the south will have to go across Ukrainian land as now, so, that may provide some bargaining power to the Ukrainians depending on whether Russia leaves them any clothes at all. They need a bail out now, but as things have developed the World Bank will not be able to lend, nor the EU and nor would Russia. So, bleak whichever likely outcome you care to contemplate.
Mike
The US concedes the obvious. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/02/us-russia-crimea-ukraine-putin) And who knew John Kerry was so cheeky? Said the Secretary of State: You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext[.]
But who says he stops there? It is quite maddening. The claim that Russians in the region were somehow under threat is laughable.
The Western response has been utterly pathetic. They simply do not understand Russia or the Russian mentality. They look weak, they act weak, and as long as they do so, Putin will just keep doing it. They are enabling him.
"They are enabling him."
No they are not. Putin is able, the West is not.
From The New Republic, a comment that gets it right:
The West has already begun to threaten Russia with political and economic isolation, but this stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of Putin's power. For example, Western analysts say that "Russia will not invade Crimea because Russia's economy is in bad shape and this would only weaken it further." They are mistaken. Putin no longer needs economic growth. He has grasped the contradiction between economic growth and the consolidation of his own power, and he has made his choice. He understands very well that in 2011-2012 it was the most economically active and wealthy segments of the population that protested against him. He understands that millions of entrepreneurs and workers of the knowledge economy had already emigrated to the U.S. and European Union during his reign. And he understands that a solution which simultaneously halts economic growth and strengthens the patriotism of the poorest segments of the population is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.
Quote from: drogulus on March 02, 2014, 07:23:11 PM
"They are enabling him."
No they are not. Putin is able, the West is not.
From The New Republic, a comment that gets it right:
The West has already begun to threaten Russia with political and economic isolation, but this stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of Putin's power. For example, Western analysts say that "Russia will not invade Crimea because Russia's economy is in bad shape and this would only weaken it further." They are mistaken. Putin no longer needs economic growth. He has grasped the contradiction between economic growth and the consolidation of his own power, and he has made his choice. He understands very well that in 2011-2012 it was the most economically active and wealthy segments of the population that protested against him. He understands that millions of entrepreneurs and workers of the knowledge economy had already emigrated to the U.S. and European Union during his reign. And he understands that a solution which simultaneously halts economic growth and strengthens the patriotism of the poorest segments of the population is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.
You misunderstand. They are enabling his use of force by not reacting strongly enough to it. Where does Europe get its oil and gas? Do you seriously think that Europe will threaten that? How does the US get access to Afghanistan? What happens to Syria if both turn against Russia? Are these more important than the invasion of one country by another? Where does it stop?
The response of 'political and economic isolation' is pretty laughable from the Russian point of view. They will just send their oil and gas to China (barring some temporary logistical issues) and China (and other countries) can absorb lots of their heavy industries.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian army issued a general mobilization order, and only 1.5% of soldiers bothered to show up. As if that weren't enough, the chief admiral of Ukraine's navy declared his loyalty to separatist Crimea.
Remember the old hippie slogan "what if they gave a war and nobody came"?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 02, 2014, 07:41:56 PM
They are enabling his use of force by not reacting strongly enough to it.
How should the West react?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 02, 2014, 07:41:56 PMWhere does Europe get its oil and gas? Do you seriously think that Europe will threaten that?
? ? ?
Then I'm not misunderstanding, am I? Putin has the advantage in the Crimea for the reasons you state, as well as his own grasp of what he can and can't do to maintain his power.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 02, 2014, 07:41:56 PMThey are enabling his use of force by not reacting strongly enough to it.
And what type of response would be appropriate, what type of response would be strong enough? The response of 1956? Of 1968? There is no military option that the US or Europe can pursue, international institutions are powerless, and economic sanctions will have little to no impact, not least because European powers will be less enthusiastic than the US in enforcing them because in the short run they cannot. Ukraine has been either controlled by, or heavily influenced by, Russia for centuries. The US and Europe have no real options. Putin may not stop at Crimea. He could take Kiev. But he is shrewd. His actions in Georgia seem to indicate he will pursue only limited objectives and stop when immediate strategic goals are achieved - at least for now. (That may mean all of the eastern part of Ukraine, who knows, other than Putin?) The US and Europe fomented upheaval in Ukraine, foolishly, and they appear to have made no plans to counter Russian military action. Perhaps the most important lesson here is to know when to stop. Henry Kissinger stated or wrote something along the lines that in the end peace can be achieved only by hegemony or by balance of power. Hegemony is no longer an option. Sure, let Kerry, Obama, and others flap their jaws about violations of international law and what not, but since 1991, the influence of the US and Europe has expanded to include most of the old Soviet sphere of influence. The world does not belong to the West. Perhaps a more cold-hearted realism is needed now. Perhaps it is time for the West to stop.
Amusing that Obama chided Romney for stating that Russia was the biggest strategic threat to the US. Not that he or any other president would have many options in this situation, either.
There is a possibility Ukraine will fight a war of limited objectives, not to hold the Crimea but to bloody Putin. The Russian also have determined foes in the Crimea itself.
Order of battle stuff:
Russia has an overall military force of about 845,000 troops against Ukraine's 130,000. Russia's military spending is also vastly greater than Ukraine's, $40.7bn last year compared with $1.4bn. But the Ukrainian forces are still formidable, better-trained, engaged over the last decade in international peacekeeping missions and established close contacts with western counterparts.
Brigadier Ben Barry, a specialist on land warfare at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: "If there was ever military confrontation, the question is how much the morale and fighting-power of the Ukrainian forces would be boosted by fighting for their country."
The small armed forces surrounding the two Crimea airports had no markings on their uniforms to identify them. Moscow denied responsibility but Kiev claimed the armed group at the Belbek airport, which is used by the Ukrainian air force and is close to Sevastopol, was made up of Russian marines.
Once you get past the elite (the guys at the airports) units the Russian military is a mess. Their air and sea advantages may not avail them much, and fighting in the Crimea makes it difficult for Putin to fight by "Hama rules" like the Syrians. Furthermore an embarrassing early defeat is a nightmare for Putin. No man so widely hated can afford a moment of weakness.
Quote from: drogulus on March 02, 2014, 08:48:34 PMThere is a possibility Ukraine will fight a war of limited objectives, not to hold the Crimea but to bloody Putin.
Recent events cited by Velimir do not bode well for this type of wishful thinking.
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2014, 08:52:55 PM
Recent events cited by Velimir do not bode well for this type of wishful thinking.
Are they events, or wishful thinking? The possibility of war remains if Putin miscalculates his advantage. Right now he might get away with acting only through intimidation and his Crimean proxies. He should look reluctant to act and willing to settle for only what he can get without overt violence. He has the advantage but it may be more precarious than is widely thought. Putin is cautious, and he's not stupid, so I think he'll see that it's not in his interest to get into a shooting war. Russia has a long distinguished history of ignominious defeats against supposedly inferior foes.
Quote from: Velimir on March 02, 2014, 08:40:01 AM
And what is "the Ukrainian cause" anyway? There are at least two: the Western Ukrainians (pro-EU) and the Eastern Ukrainians (pro-Russia).
Lately the Eastern Ukrainians have spoken like they didn't want Russia to come there any more than the Westerners do.
In Finland, after an extremely bloody civil war between Whites and Reds, when Soviet Union was about to try and invade Finland, the Reds (or their sons) were fighting with officers that had been involved in killings of their brothers and fathers, as a unified army.
Quote from: North Star on March 02, 2014, 09:29:33 PM
In Finland, after an extremely bloody civil war between Whites and Reds, when Soviet Union was about to try and invade Finland, the Reds (or their sons) were fighting with officers that had been involved in killings of their brothers and fathers, as a unified army.
The lesson we should take away from this is—if your country is plagued by civil war, invade Finland. That'll re-unify everyone right quick.
Quote from: amw on March 02, 2014, 09:34:02 PM
The lesson we should take away from this is—if your country is plagued by civil war, invade Finland. That'll re-unify everyone right quick.
Perhaps that's what Putin is trying to achieve with sending troops to Ukraine. :P
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 01, 2014, 01:16:51 PM
I just have a hard time stomaching Russian hypocrisy.
Who is more hypocritical, I wonder. The Russians who have never made a secret of their determination to keep in, or bring back to, their sphere of influence those former Soviet republics who didn't manage or didn't want to place themselves under the umbrella of EU and NATO? (Georgia and Moldavia have already suffered either invasion or war by proxies, now it's Ukraine's turn) Or the Americans and the EUropeans who claptrap all day long about "freedom" and "making the world safe for democracy" but who, when it comes to the real thing, the former take actions (misguided to the core, or guided least of all by the above mentioned slogans) only against such countries as Iraq, Serbia and Afghanistan that are not exactly noted for their military capacity, while the latter could not even agree about what they want or mean?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 02, 2014, 07:15:03 PM
The Western response has been utterly pathetic. They simply do not understand Russia or the Russian mentality.
Hear, hear!
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 02, 2014, 07:15:03 PM
They look weak, they act weak,
Look? They
are weak. Let's see just who could have confronted Putin on equal terms. Obama, as weak a president as America has not seen since Jimmy Carter? A phantom like Herman van Rompuy? (in the very likely case you've never heard about him, the guy goes by the title of President of the EU) A dull and shallow bureaucrat like Jose Manuel Barroso? A playboy like Francois Hollande? The Italian PM, whatever his name, who's not even sure next week he'll still be in office? The Spanish PM who governs an essentially ungovernable country? Or perhaps Frau Merkel, whose country is utterly dependent on Russian oil and gas? Did I forget anyone? Oh, yes, David Cameron... no, wait, who?
Wherever you look, you see only weakness and, which is worse, cowardice. Fuck the EU, bring back the Iron Lady! Fuck the G8, bring back The Gipper! Better yet, fuck Putin, bring back "the six hundred"! ;D ;D ;D
You ask what we should do now. My bigger point is what we should have done while we still had a chance (the opportunity missed) and the tone we should have taken. The US response should have been decisive and immediate. Instead, it was post-fact and wishy-washy. Well, we did say there would be consquences. I bet that was a big deterent (with sarcasm). At this point, a lot will depend on the Ukrainian response.
What can they do? Here are some things: http://news.yahoo.com/mccain-punish-putin-000600943--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEVzrBgBRTviAAWCFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ajk2cnNqBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM3Ml8x (http://news.yahoo.com/mccain-punish-putin-000600943--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEVzrBgBRTviAAWCFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ajk2cnNqBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM3Ml8x). They now need to focus on the value of the ruble and put pressure on the banking system. These are weak areas in Russia (and as I type this morning I see the ruble is already under significant pressure with the Central Bank stepping in).
Quote from: drogulus on March 02, 2014, 09:21:20 PMAre they events, or wishful thinking?
They are events, and you are engaging in wishful thinking. What if Ukraine defeated Russia in a skirmish? Do you think Russian troops would withdraw from Crimea? What's the old adage? Russia is never as weak as she seems; Russia is never as strong as she seems. She is stronger than Ukraine, though.
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2014, 02:21:15 AMWho is more hypocritical, I wonder. The Russians...Or the Americans and the Europeans who claptrap all day long about "freedom" and "making the world safe for democracy" but who, when it comes to the real thing, the former take actions
It is not even close. The hypocrisy is evident in some of the responses here. Perhaps some people suffer amnesia, though. To refresh memories: the US trumped up charges before invading Iraq the second time - with a lot of support from Congress. But that was pristinely democratic, you see. Similar actions by Russia were for show, you see. The US helped spearhead the carving up of Sudan by supporting South Sudan - where almost all of Sudan's oil was, though one can almost hear the apologists say that probably didn't influence decisions as to the geography of the breakup - and now it does nothing as what is left of Sudan starts to dissolve into utter chaos. It's not in the news cycle anymore, so why think about it at all? The US and EU helped get rid of Gaddafi, because he was no longer useful. He was weak, too. Democracy will take
time in these countries; we must be
patient, and we may need to use undemocratic means to support democracy if they have trouble with it. It will be for their own good.
In Ukraine, the US and EU provided funds and support to agitators, which included some quasi-fascists, by the way. But now there are consequences for those actions. It might make sense to stick to manipulating weak countries with little or no support.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 03, 2014, 04:21:04 AMWhat can they do? Here are some things: http://news.yahoo.com/mccain-punish-putin-000600943--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEVzrBgBRTviAAWCFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ajk2cnNqBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM3Ml8x (http://news.yahoo.com/mccain-punish-putin-000600943--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEVzrBgBRTviAAWCFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ajk2cnNqBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM3Ml8x). They now need to focus on the value of the ruble and put pressure on the banking system. These are weak areas in Russia (and as I type this morning I see the ruble is already under significant pressure with the Central Bank stepping in).
Sanctions will be minimally effective, or not effective at all. Attempting to apply pressure to Russia's banking system won't work, either, because Russia's big customers will still need to transact with the Russians. Beside that, it is nothing other than the favored tool of attempted imperial control by the West. And really, expand the missile shield to Eastern Europe? That decades old black hole of cash for defense contractors? Never miss an opportunity to pay back favored donors, and to promote destabilizing weapons, I guess, right? That's good for peace, or some such. Of course, Putin may be interested in things other than maximum cash flow to Russia in the next few years. Such actions could also complicate matters with Iran.
Quote from: North Star on March 02, 2014, 09:29:33 PM
Lately the Eastern Ukrainians have spoken like they didn't want Russia to come there any more than the Westerners do.
The Eastern Ukrainian position has been fairly consistent for years. They want good relations and fairly close association with Russia, while preserving Ukrainian independence. They have a sound economic reason for this stance: amalgamation with Russia could cause a collapse in Ukraine's domestic industry, and loss of Eastern Ukraine's primary source of power.
Beyond that, they want respect for Orthodoxy and Russian language and culture from the Ukrainian authorities. Since independence they have not gotten much of that from the nationalists in power. The very first act of the revolutionaries after throwing out Yanukovich was to overturn a law allowing regional use of the Russian language. This is not a good way to win hearts and minds in the East of Ukraine.
Quote from: drogulus on March 02, 2014, 09:21:20 PM
Putin is cautious, and he's not stupid, so I think he'll see that it's not in his interest to get into a shooting war.
Another potential restraining factor is that China has big investments in Ukraine and wouldn't take kindly to the place being shot up. Russo-Chinese relations right now are cozy. Both sides want to keep them that way.
Some good background from Jack Matlock, last US ambassador to the USSR:
http://jackmatlock.com/2014/03/ukraine-the-price-of-internal-division/
Quote from: Velimir on March 03, 2014, 06:35:55 AMSome good background from Jack Matlock, last US ambassador to the USSR:
A good link. Perhaps Barry O or his advisers could read and reread the part about not issuing warnings to others. Obama's speak loudly but carry a twig policy has not been faring well.
"Israeli army vet led Ukrainian militia unit (street fighters)"
Huh, from H'aaretzm,,, looks like I was right on Page1. Haven't seen any other members mention this. Huh. I guess it really didn't happen then?
Maybe I'll just get this over with now: THE NEXT TIME,... THE NEXT COUNTRY... I say to you now, they will find MOS-C-I-A-AD to have started that too. So, just for future reference, when there is an oil pipeline to be had.
DID I MENTION OIL PIPELINE????????????????????????
Seriously people, call a spade a spade around here won't ya?!?! "Only democracy in the middle east" I mean, give-me-a-break
It's from H'aaretz, haha, not stormfront, gaaah. >:D
Quote from: snyprrr on March 03, 2014, 06:57:19 AMSo, just for future reference, when there is an oil pipeline to be had.
Then what's the hold up with Keystone?
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2014, 06:58:49 AM
Then what's the hold up with Keystone?
Mu$$ad agaents are easier to spot in Wyoming?????
I guess the populace here is more readily able to fight off the oil interests than your average European or Middle Easterner?
Or are the oil interests so wrapped up in foreign oil that the home-grown just isn't worth it to their bottom line?
I mean, they CAN make a car with much higher mileage than they have- they just won't make it. If there's a cure for "cancer" (copyright protection) I'm sure it will never see the light of day because of said profits.
So, I guess profits are the only hold-up?
Quo bono????
Frankly, sometimes I'm forced to hear Hannity go on about Keystone as if he were on the payroll. Oh that AM reception...
Don't get me wrong- Hannity's a Marxist in my book, soooo,...... (ok, "fascist", but I'm not one to put distinctions between those two words) "You're a Great American Todd" oy vey- have you ever heard the brain dead housewives on ANY talk show??... ack!!!
I'm a Theocratic Monarchist, so, filter accordingly.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 03, 2014, 07:41:52 AMOr are the oil interests so wrapped up in foreign oil that the home-grown just isn't worth it to their bottom line?
US oil production seems to be going pretty well. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-oil-pira-idUSL1N0I51IX20131015) Finish Keystone, and "liberalize" or "reform" Pemex (ie, allow ExxonMobil, et al to get involved in its operations), and the US - sorry, North America - will become a net energy exporter within the next decade or so, with significant implications for US strategy.
Quote from: Velimir on March 02, 2014, 08:10:29 PM
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian army issued a general mobilization order, and only 1.5% of soldiers bothered to show up. As if that weren't enough, the chief admiral of Ukraine's navy declared his loyalty to separatist Crimea.
Remember the old hippie slogan "what if they gave a war and nobody came"?
I am told that there are long lines to join. Don't know any numbers though.
Tanks appear to be massing on the boarder near Kharkiv and Lugansk regions.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 03, 2014, 06:57:19 AM
"Israeli army vet led Ukrainian militia unit (street fighters)"
Huh, from H'aaretzm,,, looks like I was right on Page1. Haven't seen any other members mention this. Huh. I guess it really didn't happen then?
Maybe I'll just get this over with now: THE NEXT TIME,... THE NEXT COUNTRY... I say to you now, they will find MOS-C-I-A-AD to have started that too. So, just for future reference, when there is an oil pipeline to be had.
DID I MENTION OIL PIPELINE????????????????????????
Seriously people, call a spade a spade around here won't ya?!?! "Only democracy in the middle east" I mean, give-me-a-break
It's from H'aaretz, haha, not stormfront, gaaah. >:D
Actually, given the large number of people who emigrated to Israel from the exSoviet Union after the collapse of Communism, it's quite possible, and no more meaningful than if the person in question had been a guestworker in the Czech Republic or Germany.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2014, 05:55:39 AM
It is not even close. The hypocrisy is evident in some of the responses here. Perhaps some people suffer amnesia, though. To refresh memories: the US trumped up charges before invading Iraq the second time - with a lot of support from Congress. But that was pristinely democratic, you see. Similar actions by Russia were for show, you see. The US helped spearhead the carving up of Sudan by supporting South Sudan - where almost all of Sudan's oil was, though one can almost hear the apologists say that probably didn't influence decisions as to the geography of the breakup - and now it does nothing as what is left of Sudan starts to dissolve into utter chaos. It's not in the news cycle anymore, so why think about it at all? The US and EU helped get rid of Gaddafi, because he was no longer useful. He was weak, too. Democracy will take time in these countries; we must be patient, and we may need to use undemocratic means to support democracy if they have trouble with it. It will be for their own good.
In Ukraine, the US and EU provided funds and support to agitators, which included some quasi-fascists, by the way. But now there are consequences for those actions. It might make sense to stick to manipulating weak countries with little or no support.
Excellent examples.
Romanians have a proverb:
Lord, preserve me from my friends, for against my ennemies I can defend myself all right. ;D
Quote from: snyprrr on March 03, 2014, 07:41:52 AM
I'm a Theocratic Monarchist
You should move to Saudi Arabia then. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2014, 10:53:29 PM
You should move to Saudi Arabia then. ;D
Why? Don't the Saudis and the Israelis both run the US? So, I'm in a protectorate. Home sweet home...
snypsss, threads like this are a bad idea for you, aren't they? ;)
We do not know at the moment whether or not the new government in Kiev has majority backing in the country, so we should not even speak of freedom and democracy. Once upon a time there was the Orange revolution - where is it now? It seems the country is fairly evenly divided, so why should the people of Crimea submit to an undemocratic electoral body?
Quote from: Ten thumbs on March 04, 2014, 01:55:00 PM
We do not know at the moment whether or not the new government in Kiev has majority backing in the country, so we should not even speak of freedom and democracy. Once upon a time there was the Orange revolution - where is it now? It seems the country is fairly evenly divided, so why should the people of Crimea submit to an undemocratic electoral body?
Superficially true, except that the previous regime could not be called free and democratic, and Putin's Russia is even less so. The new regime in Kiev may not be free and democratic in a pristine way, but it's certainly more democratic and more free than the old one, or Putin's.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on March 04, 2014, 01:55:00 PM
We do not know at the moment whether or not the new government in Kiev has majority backing in the country, so we should not even speak of freedom and democracy. Once upon a time there was the Orange revolution - where is it now? It seems the country is fairly evenly divided, so why should the people of Crimea submit to an undemocratic electoral body?
The Parliament, which chose the current government, was elected. The people in that Parliament are made up from a majority that were from the President's own party.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 04, 2014, 04:30:27 PM
Superficially true, except that the previous regime could not be called free and democratic, and Putin's Russia is even less so. The new regime in Kiev may not be free and democratic in a pristine way, but it's certainly more democratic and more free than the old one, or Putin's.
Yes, comparatively speaking but I don't think the Americans would accept it at home. Given a similar scenario, the U.S. would do exactly what Putin is doing, otherwise their president would certainly be castigated as weak. That's not to say that it is right but it is a pragmatic policy. The real cause of all this trouble is the terrible economic situation in Ukraine. The West are now offering an aid package. It's a pity this couldn't have been done before but as has been revealed, there was corruption in high places.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on March 05, 2014, 01:47:41 PMThe West are now offering an aid package. It's a pity this couldn't have been done before but as has been revealed, there was corruption in high places.
I thought it was done before, just the West only offered $800 million to Russia's $15 billion. In fact that seems to be what started this whole Euromaidan thing if I recall correctly.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2014, 05:55:39 AMThe hypocrisy is evident in some of the responses here. Perhaps some people suffer amnesia, though. To refresh memories: the US trumped up charges before invading Iraq the second time - with a lot of support from Congress. But that was pristinely democratic, you see. Similar actions by Russia were for show, you see. The US helped spearhead the carving up of Sudan by supporting South Sudan - where almost all of Sudan's oil was, though one can almost hear the apologists say that probably didn't influence decisions as to the geography of the breakup - and now it does nothing as what is left of Sudan starts to dissolve into utter chaos. It's not in the news cycle anymore, so why think about it at all? The US and EU helped get rid of Gaddafi, because he was no longer useful. He was weak, too. Democracy will take time in these countries; we must be patient, and we may need to use undemocratic means to support democracy if they have trouble with it. It will be for their own good.
In Ukraine, the US and EU provided funds and support to agitators, which included some quasi-fascists, by the way. But now there are consequences for those actions. It might make sense to stick to manipulating weak countries with little or no support.
There's a difference between having a problem with the West going to war on trumped up charges / making terrible decisions worldwide (and I sure DO have a problem with that) and having a problem with Russia - a state that inches towards dictatorship every day - stepping wherever it wants.
And by the way, the vast majority of people who rebelled against Yanukovich's cleptocracy were regular folks simply fed up with the corrupt goverment. They protested peacefully until the president commanded the use of force and things escalated from there. Yeah, a bunch of hooligans & quasi-fascists showed up, but what would you expect? A revolution doesn't cherry pick its participants.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 06, 2014, 04:02:08 PMThere's a difference between having a problem with the West going to war on trumped up charges / making terrible decisions worldwide (and I sure DO have a problem with that) and having a problem with Russia - a state that inches towards dictatorship every day - stepping wherever it wants.
Not really. Russia's aggression in recent years has been limited to the Caucasus and Ukraine, territories traditionally (ie, the last several hundred years) dominated by Russia. Since the Cold War, the US has engaged in war, or military action if war is deemed too harsh a word, in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and it has engaged in clandestine activity in more countries. The flowery language of democracy cannot make up for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the ongoing, remote-control murder of whomever is deemed an enemy combatant. It is the US that operates wherever it wants, that kills wherever it wants. Putin is an autocrat, to be sure, but that doesn't automatically make his actions any worse.
As to those who protested in Ukraine, what proportion of the population was involved, and do they really represent the majority or even a significant minority of Ukrainian citizens? I have doubts that they represent the feelings and desires of "the people", and I have even greater doubts that they would be able to set up a responsible government.
Quote from: Todd on March 06, 2014, 06:12:41 PM
The flowery language of democracy cannot make up for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the ongoing, remote-control murder of whomever is deemed an enemy combatant.
There's a common assumption that democracies are peaceful and authoritarian states are expansionist, but that's based on a very selective reading of history. If one begins with the age of European exploration and colonization, some of the most aggressive, expansionist states have been those that were most liberal and democratic for their time (in rough historical order: the Netherlands, Great Britain, France, and the USA). While I can think of plenty of monarchies and dictatorships that minded their own business.
Quote from: Velimir on March 06, 2014, 07:36:00 PM
There's a common assumption that democracies are peaceful and authoritarian states are expansionist, but that's based on a very selective reading of history. If one begins with the age of European exploration and colonization, some of the most aggressive, expansionist states have been those that were most liberal and democratic for their time (in rough historical order: the Netherlands, Great Britain, France, and the USA). While I can think of plenty of monarchies and dictatorships that minded their own business.
Sweden in WWII for instance.
Speaking of selective lists, where's Portugal, Spain, on yours?
Quote from: Ken B on March 06, 2014, 08:22:56 PM
Speaking of selective lists, where's Portugal, Spain, on yours?
Yes, Portugal and Spain were not particularly liberal when they were expanding. But the overall point is that you can't predict international aggressiveness from form of government, and being democratic is no guarantee that country X will respect the integrity of country Y.
Quote from: Ken B on March 06, 2014, 08:22:56 PM
Sweden in WWII for instance.
Well that was just common sense.
Quote from: Todd on March 06, 2014, 06:12:41 PM
Not really. Russia's aggression in recent years has been limited to the Caucasus and Ukraine, territories traditionally (ie, the last several hundred years) dominated by Russia. Since the Cold War, the US has engaged in war, or military action if war is deemed too harsh a word, in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and it has engaged in clandestine activity in more countries. The flowery language of democracy cannot make up for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the ongoing, remote-control murder of whomever is deemed an enemy combatant. It is the US that operates wherever it wants, that kills wherever it wants. Putin is an autocrat, to be sure, but that doesn't automatically make his actions any worse.
Superpowers will be superpowers. And I tend to be on the side of those that
are democratic. There's nothing flowery about it - I just prefer my world police to be from a land with free elections, free press and free speech. Russia has none of that nowadays.
QuoteAs to those who protested in Ukraine, what proportion of the population was involved, and do they really represent the majority or even a significant minority of Ukrainian citizens?
This answer is simple: yes.
"The protesters represent every group of Ukrainian citizens: Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers (although most Ukrainians are bilingual), people from the cities and the countryside, people from all regions of the country, members of all political parties, the young and the old, Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Every major Christian denomination is represented by believers and most of them by clergy. The Crimean Tatars march in impressive numbers, and Jewish leaders have made a point of supporting the movement. The diversity of the Maidan is impressive: the group that monitors hospitals so that the regime cannot kidnap the wounded is run by young feminists. An important hotline that protesters call when they need help is staffed by LGBT activists."Timothy Snyder: Fascism, Russia, and Ukraine (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/20/fascism-russia-and-ukraine/)
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 07, 2014, 11:43:22 AMI just prefer my world police to be from a land with free elections, free press and free speech. Russia has none of that nowadays.
Russia is not acting as the so-called world police, whatever that is; Russia is pursuing a narrow, limited, strategic action. Do you really subscribe to the bizarre, almost perverse morality your post implies? That is, are minor Russian actions that have so far resulted in no, or few, deaths somehow worse than, or at best morally equal to, wars that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands (or at least over one hundred thousand using conservative estimates) because those wars were undertaken by a democratic power using a variety of pretenses, some of them false? Are Russian actions now really worse than the US continuing to murder people in a method that is increasingly viewed as illegal the world over (ie, drone strikes)?
The US does not act as the world police. The US pursues actions that advance its interests, above all its economic and strategic interests. If the US really were to act as some type of world police, it would have acted immediately to stop the bloodshed in Yugoslavia in the 90s; it would have sent troops into Rwanda, possibly preventing the carnage in the Congo; it would have been, and would be now, more directly involved in Congo; it would actively join the French in Mali; it would take action to oust Omar al-Bashir and set up an effective government that could prevent what remains of Sudan from collapsing; it would oust Robert Mugabe; and so on. It does not. The countries I mentioned were of little or no consequence to the US. Little or nothing was or will be done. And of course doing the things I mentioned are themselves of dubious legality.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 07, 2014, 11:43:22 AMThis answer is simple: yes.
"The protesters represent every group of Ukrainian citizens: Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers (although most Ukrainians are bilingual), people from the cities and the countryside, people from all regions of the country, members of all political parties, the young and the old, Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Every major Christian denomination is represented by believers and most of them by clergy. The Crimean Tatars march in impressive numbers, and Jewish leaders have made a point of supporting the movement. The diversity of the Maidan is impressive: the group that monitors hospitals so that the regime cannot kidnap the wounded is run by young feminists. An important hotline that protesters call when they need help is staffed by LGBT activists."
sm, Russia, and Ukraine[/url]
I didn't see anything in the article that supports your answer, and your selected quote does not, either. Because the small number of protestors happen to have a satisfying degree of (so-called) diversity to western eyes does not mean that the protestors represent a majority or significant minority of the population. The article and response strike me as wishful thinking.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 07, 2014, 11:43:22 AM
I just prefer my world police to be from a land with free elections, free press and free speech. Russia has none of that nowadays.
Having lived in Russia 2005-2012, I have to say that this is a gross oversimplification. Russian life often has a dizzying amount of freedom, sometimes bordering on anarchy. The country's problems lie elsewhere.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2014, 12:15:58 PM
I didn't see anything in the article that supports your answer, and your selected quote does not, either. Because the small number of protestors happen to have a satisfying degree of (so-called) diversity to western eyes does not mean that the protestors represent a majority or significant minority of the population. The article and response strike me as wishful thinking.
I suspect that Snyder is trying to get on the good side of NYRoB readers - the sort of people who value "diversity" and "tolerance" above everything. Whether all these diverse groups add up to a coherent movement that resonates with the majority of the population is a different matter.
Quote from: Velimir on March 07, 2014, 12:22:52 PM
Having lived in Russia 2005-2012, I have to say that this is a gross oversimplification. Russian life often has a dizzying amount of freedom, sometimes bordering on anarchy. The country's problems lie elsewhere.
Russia may have economic freedoms (corruption aside), but it does not have a very free press or free political system, which is what Rinaldo said.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2014, 12:15:58 PM
Russia is not acting as the so-called world police, whatever that is; Russia is pursuing a narrow, limited, strategic action. Do you really subscribe to the bizarre, almost perverse morality your post implies? That is, are minor Russian actions that have so far resulted in no, or few, deaths somehow worse than, or at best morally equal to, wars that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands (or at least over one hundred thousand using conservative estimates) because those wars were undertaken by a democratic power using a variety of pretenses, some of them false? Are Russian actions now really worse than the US continuing to murder people in a method that is increasingly viewed as illegal the world over (ie, drone strikes)?
The US does not act as the world police. The US pursues actions that advance its interests, above all its economic and strategic interests. If the US really were to act as some type of world police, it would have acted immediately to stop the bloodshed in Yugoslavia in the 90s; it would have sent troops into Rwanda, possibly preventing the carnage in the Congo; it would have been, and would be now, more directly involved in Congo; it would actively join the French in Mali; it would take action to oust Omar al-Bashir and set up an effective government that could prevent what remains of Sudan from collapsing; it would oust Robert Mugabe; and so on. It does not. The countries I mentioned were of little or no consequence to the US. Little or nothing was or will be done. And of course doing the things I mentioned are themselves of dubious legality.
I didn't see anything in the article that supports your answer, and your selected quote does not, either. Because the small number of protestors happen to have a satisfying degree of (so-called) diversity to western eyes does not mean that the protestors represent a majority or significant minority of the population. The article and response strike me as wishful thinking.
Just a factual question. Is your 100k based on the discredited Lancet article?
I'm not here to debate, just to know what to make of your sourcing. People toss around more numbers than anyone can verify.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 12:33:51 PMJust a factual question. Is your 100k based on the discredited Lancet article?
No. The (low) 100K figure comes from the Associated Press and the United States Army separately. The Lancet report is something along the lines of 600K+. Those figures are through 2009 only.
Quote from: Brian on March 07, 2014, 12:33:11 PM
Russia may have economic freedoms (corruption aside), but it does not have a very free press or free political system, which is what Rinaldo said.
There are plenty of newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs etc. which are "free" in exactly the same way as their Western counterparts - i.e. they are privately owned and express a range of opinions, often critical of the government. The "Putin controls the media with an iron hand" notion that's widely believed outside of Russia only really applies to television.
A lot of these notions are based on the lazy idea that Russia is reverting to the Soviet model, which is not only untrue, but often the exact opposite of the truth.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2014, 12:39:06 PM
No. The (low) 100K figure comes from the Associated Press and the United States Army separately. The Lancet report is something along the lines of 600K+. Those figures are through 2009 only.
Thanks. I think though you have tipped their unreliability. The war was in 2003. Ascribing deaths in the Korean War to WWII is incorrect. Ascribing influenza deaths to WWI similarly. Counting deaths through 2009 similarly. Even worse counting hypotheticals.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 12:48:32 PM
Thanks. I think though you have tipped their unreliability. The war was in 2003. Ascribing deaths in the Korean War to WWII is incorrect. Ascribing influenza deaths to WWI similarly. Counting deaths through 2009 similarly. Even worse counting hypotheticals.
Actually, in the sense that political violence has gone on ever since 2003, varying only in the intensity, and left substantial numbers of dead, means the war is not over. It's simply now a civil war with lack of uniforms and with minimal US involvement. But the violence has never actually stopped. Same for Afghanistan. So to include all those deaths is, I think, legitimate.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 12:48:32 PMThanks. I think though you have tipped their unreliability. The war was in 2003. Ascribing deaths in the Korean War to WWII is incorrect. Ascribing influenza deaths to WWI similarly. Counting deaths through 2009 similarly. Even worse counting hypotheticals.
Your analogies are not apt, and your timeline is incorrect. The Iraq war did not begin and end in 2003. The so-called Surge did not occur until 2007, for instance. The US did not remove combat troops until 2011 - with a sizable contingent going to Kuwait, by the way. The US was engaged directly in hostilities in Iraq for eight years. The low end estimates of violent deaths in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 are just over 100,000. There were more through 2011. (The US Army does not often go in for hypotheticals.) While the US military did not kill all of the people, the US invasion
directly led to the conditions in which the deaths occurred. Factoring in non-violent deaths over the same time (starvation, disease, etc), the total rises. Your response seeks to absolve the United States of responsibility for its actions; the dead died because of the US invasion and its aftermath. You seem to want to minimize the number, and the impact.
This also excludes the deaths in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia as a result of US military action. The figure of foreign war dead in US wars is higher than 100K this century. How significant that is depends on whether you are one of the dead or not, I guess.
May I ask, what figure are you comfortable with?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 07, 2014, 01:06:58 PM
Actually, in the sense that political violence has gone on ever since 2003, varying only in the intensity, and left substantial numbers of dead, means the war is not over. It's simply now a civil war with lack of uniforms and with minimal US involvement. But the violence has never actually stopped. Same for Afghanistan. So to include all those deaths is, I think, legitimate.
Whether it is legitimate or not is a judgment. It is a moral judgment too in your case, as can be seen from your phrasing. So the number tells me more about the person making the moral judgment does about who died when. It's not a statement of fact yet it is wielded as if it were one.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2014, 01:08:00 PM
Your analogies are not apt, and your timeline is incorrect. The Iraq war did not begin and end in 2003. The so-called Surge did not occur until 2007, for instance. The US did not remove combat troops until 2011 - with a sizable contingent going to Kuwait, by the way. The US was engaged directly in hostilities in Iraq for eight years. The low end estimates of violent deaths in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 are just over 100,000. There were more through 2011. (The US Army does not often go in for hypotheticals.) While the US military did not kill all of the people, the US invasion directly led to the conditions in which the deaths occurred. Factoring in non-violent deaths over the same time (starvation, disease, etc), the total rises. Your response seeks to absolve the United States of responsibility for its actions; the dead died because of the US invasion and its aftermath. You seem to want to minimize the number, and the impact.
This also excludes the deaths in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia as a result of US military action. The figure of foreign war dead in US wars is higher than 100K this century. How significant that is depends on whether you are one of the dead or not, I guess.
May I ask, what figure are you comfortable with?
One reason I don't want to debate is reflexive ad hominem such as your response. I explained why I discount your number: it is literally not true. You can if you want ascribe all the blame for all the fighting to one group, side, or action if you wish. But that is a judgmennt not a fact. The number tells me who you think should be blamed for what, which is not the same as telling me facts I can use to make my own judgment. Yet you elide this distinction and when it is challenged resort to insults.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 01:18:33 PMI explained why I discount your number: it is literally not true.
Alright then, since you are supposedly interested in facts, and facts alone, please provide factual evidence as to the true number of deaths. You have made a very clear, almost categorical statement - ie,
it is literally not true - so surely you must have some type of evidence that supports such a claim. And by the way, it is not my number, it is the number of the AP and the US Army.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2014, 01:23:22 PM
Alright then, since you are supposedly interested in facts, and facts alone, please provide factual evidence as to the true number of deaths. You have made a very clear, almost categorical statement - ie, it is literally not true - so surely you must have some type of evidence that supports such a claim. And by the way, it is not my number, it is the number of the AP and the US Army.
Did you say the number counts, via whatever method and criteria, deaths in 2009? Then my point is proven. It is necessarily conjectural that those deaths were caused by the invasion in 2003. Those deaths involve more players making choices than George Bush in 2003.
To answer your question I do not know the number. I do know that just last year some sources counted the death of an elderly woman in Hiroshima against the 1945 bomb. And i know that is not literally true.
Let me make my point another way. Let us say I accept the evidence, which is actually pretty strong, that capital punishment has a deterrent effect. Let us say I accept the number that the deterrent effect is about eight murders deterred per execution. Then I calculate how many people have been tried for murder that have not been executed that might have been, multiplied by eight, do this back to the time when Harry Blackmun wrote his decision, and ascribe all of those deaths to Blackmun. Would you take my number is a simple statement of fact? Or would you conclude that I put a lot of assumptions behind that number?
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 01:34:13 PMDid you say the number counts, via whatever method and criteria, deaths in 2009? Then my point is proven. It is necessarily conjectural that those deaths were caused by the invasion in 2003. Those deaths involve more players making choices than George Bush in 2003.
What? The 100K violent deaths occurred between 2003 and 2009, when the US (and its allies, to be fair) was actively engaged in war in Iraq, as they would be for another two years afterward. Are you literally stating that violent deaths in Iraq during the period that the United States was actively engaged in war are not attributable to that war? Sure, there may have been some good old fashioned homicides due to crimes of passion, robbery, etc, but your assertion is disconnected from reality. Unless, of course, you are attempting to play some type of semantic game. Allow me to be more precise: In 2003 the US invaded Iraq, which it proceeded to occupy for eight years, and it engaged in warfare in Iraq, which, when combined with with sectarian violence in Iraq during the same period, resulted in at least 100,000 violent deaths. This is a factual statement. The US is at least partly responsible for war related deaths, and I would argue far more than partly, due to its actions. This is a judgment.
Your Hiroshima analogy is even less apt than your prior ones.
[EDIT: reworded some of the post.]
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 01:45:09 PMLet me make my point another way. Let us say I accept the evidence, which is actually pretty strong, that capital punishment has a deterrent effect. Let us say I accept the number that the deterrent effect is about eight murders deterred per execution. Then I calculate how many people have been tried for murder that have not been executed that might have been, multiplied by eight, do this back to the time when Harry Blackmun wrote his decision, and ascribe all of those deaths to Blackmun. Would you take my number is a simple statement of fact? Or would you conclude that I put a lot of assumptions behind that number?
Yet another extremely poor analogy. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the US military was engaged in warfare in Iraq for eight years.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2014, 01:48:20 PM
Yet another extremely poor analogy. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the US military was engaged in warfare in Iraq for eight years.
Are those deaths all from US bullets? If not it's an excellent analogy.
Anyway Todd I think we each know all we need to here. At least I do.
Todd and select others might be interested in this geopolitical analysis utilizing Mackinder's pivot as its linchpin. Damn good strategic analysis:
http://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/currency-currents/2014/03/03/
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 01:57:47 PMAre those deaths all from US bullets?
No, some were from US bombs.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2014, 02:13:06 PM
No, some were from US bombs.
Your flippancy proves my point.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 01:34:13 PM
Did you say the number counts, via whatever method and criteria, deaths in 2009? Then my point is proven. It is necessarily conjectural that those deaths were caused by the invasion in 2003. Those deaths involve more players making choices than George Bush in 2003.
The war did not end in 2003.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 01:57:47 PM
Are those deaths all from US bullets? If not it's an excellent analogy.
Anyway Todd I think we each know all we need to here. At least I do.
Had the US not invaded Iraq in 2003, those deaths would not have happened. Therefore, the US is responsible for those deaths. There is nothing possible to argue with in that, unless you intend to invent your own version of reality.
My earlier post was very strictly a statement of fact, which I purposefully phrased to avoid any moral judgments; that you mistake my statement of fact for a moral judgment in turn tells me some significant things about how you view facts. But because I wish to remain friends with you, I will refrain from saying anything more.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 07, 2014, 05:28:31 PM
Had the US not invaded Iraq in 2003, those deaths would not have happened. Therefore, the US is responsible for those deaths. There is nothing possible to argue with in that, unless you intend to invent your own version of reality.
My earlier post was very strictly a statement of fact, which I purposefully phrased to avoid any moral judgments; that you mistake my statement of fact for a moral judgment in turn tells me some significant things about how you view facts. But because I wish to remain friends with you, I will refrain from saying anything more.
Some would some not, and others might have. And other actors were involved. Lots can happen even in the absence of Americans. Agreed?
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 05:34:10 PM
Some would some not, and others might have. And other actors were involved. Lots can happen even in the absence of Americans. Agreed?
Agreed, But certain things would not have happened in the absence of an American invasion.
1--There would not have been a war.
2--Sunni jihadis and Shi'ites would have not had a chance to engage in violence against each other. And since most of the people who died by violence in Iraq since 2003, died because of that violence against each other, it's a statement of fact to say our invasion of Iraq was responsible for their deaths.
If we were to use your logic, all the people who died in the Reign of Terror did not die as a result of the French Revolution.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 07, 2014, 05:53:23 PM
Agreed, But certain things would not have happened in the absence of an American invasion.
1--There would not have been a war.
2--Sunni jihadis and Shi'ites would have not had a chance to engage in violence against each other. And since most of the people who died by violence in Iraq since 2003, died because of that violence against each other, it's a statement of fact to say our invasion of Iraq was responsible for their deaths.
If we were to use your logic, all the people who died in the Reign of Terror did not die as a result of the French Revolution.
They didn't die as a result of the Tennis Court oath.
2is a perfectly respectable claim, that by over throwing the repression of the Baath party the extremists had freer reign. But that is like my Blackmun number. You can make a case, but the numbers are not facts, they are conjectures. They don't count other lives saved, and they don't allow for the possibility of civil war, or even more violent civil war, happening anyway. Syria. Egypt. Lebanon. You really cannot be so sanguine that Saddam would have kept order, not killed a lot of people doing it, or not started another war.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 06:22:53 PM
They didn't die as a result of the Tennis Court oath.
2is a perfectly respectable claim, that by over throwing the repression of the Baath party the extremists had freer reign. But that is like my Blackmun number. You can make a case, but the numbers are not facts, they are conjectures. They don't count other lives saved, and they don't allow for the possibility of civil war, or even more violent civil war, happening anyway. Syria. Egypt. Lebanon. You really cannot be so sanguine that Saddam would have kept order, not killed a lot of people doing it, or not started another war.
If I want to read speculative history, I will go read to the sci fi section of Barnes and Noble.
In the sense that everyone dies of something, then the death of those people is not due to the American invasion, in the same way that the death of Abraham Lincoln was not due to John Wilkes Booth.
But we did invade Iraq, and all those people did die as consequences of that invasion, and that makes us responsible. Inventing alternate scenarios does not absolve the US of that responsibility. The only result of your efforts is to make me suspect you are a criminal defense lawyer in real life (except that you've said what your real career is.)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 07, 2014, 06:38:00 PM
If I want to read speculative history, I will go read to the sci fi section of Barnes and Noble.
In the sense that everyone dies of something, then the death of those people is not due to the American invasion, in the same way that the death of Abraham Lincoln was not due to John Wilkes Booth.
But we did invade Iraq, and all those people did die as consequences of that invasion, and that makes us responsible. Inventing alternate scenarios does not absolve the US of that responsibility. The only result of your efforts is to make me suspect you are a criminal defense lawyer in real life (except that you've said what your real career is.)
I'm talking what numbers mean Jeffrey, and how they may or may not mean what is claimed for them, and whether they are reliable, not absolving anyone of anything.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 06:56:09 PM
I'm talking what numbers mean Jeffrey, and how they may or may not mean what is claimed for them, and whether they are reliable, not absolving anyone of anything.
At least a hundred thousand people died as a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq.
Inventing alternate ways in which they may have met death but which never happened in reality does not change the fact that they died as a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq. If John Wilkes Booth did not shoot Lincoln, then someone else might have killed him, or he might have died peacefully in his bed at any point in time after April 1865. But John Wilkes Booth did shoot Lincoln, and therefore was responsible for his death.
I repeat: At least a hundred thousand people died as a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq. If you can not accept a fact as basic as that, then discussion is useless.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 07, 2014, 07:08:51 PM
At least a hundred thousand people died as a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq.
Inventing alternate ways in which they may have met death but which never happened in reality does not change the fact that they died as a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq. If John Wilkes Booth did not shoot Lincoln, then someone else might have killed him, or he might have died peacefully in his bed at any point in time after April 1865. But John Wilkes Booth did shoot Lincoln, and therefore was responsible for his death.
I repeat: At least a hundred thousand people died as a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq. If you can not accept a fact as basic as that, then discussion is useless.
If A kills B because C killed D I don't count B's death against A unless C was also involved in killing B. You do. That is the crux of the dispute. I'd like to see numbers that don't count B is all. All the numbers here count B.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 07:35:28 PM
If A kills B because C killed D I don't count B's death against A unless C was also involved in killing B. You do. That is the crux of the dispute. I'd like to see numbers that don't count B is all. All the numbers here count B.
B counts because if C had not killed D, A would have not been able to kill B.
If I read you correctly, you want to limit the casualties to those people who died as a direct result of being hit by American bullets and bombs. That's the not the real world. The real world includes all the people who died as a result of American actions, a number that is at least 100,000. Or 650,000, depending on your source (I just saw that number mentioned on Reason's website.) And since the violence still continues, that number has not yet stopped growing, because the sectarian violence continues, and the sectarian violence is directly due to American actions.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 07, 2014, 07:50:47 PM
B counts because if C had not killed D, A would have not been able to kill B.
If I read you correctly, you want to limit the casualties to those people who died as a direct result of being hit by American bullets and bombs. That's the not the real world. The real world includes all the people who died as a result of American actions, a number that is at least 100,000. Or 650,000, depending on your source (I just saw that number mentioned on Reason's website.) And since the violence still continues, that number has not yet stopped growing, because the sectarian violence continues, and the sectarian violence is directly due to American actions.
No you don't read me correctly. But I do distinguish between B and D, and I want to draw my own conclusions based on the numbers and not to be expected to accept someone else's criteria or numbers.
And I do think counterfactuals matter. Consider this if you disagree. Your argument about sectarian killings depends on the counterfactual assertion that it would not have happened had the US not invaded. Right or wrong you are doing a counter factual comparison to alternate history to get that conclusion. That is different from the direct effdcts of American bullets.
I didn't read what the whole argument has been about between Ken, Jeffrey, Todd, but whatever it is it's certainly not worth the trouble IMHO. The bottom line is it doesn't matter if 60 or 1,000 people died in a war and how or whom did the killing because it's done under tragic circumstances any way we want to look at it. Nobody, unless they're inflicting violence and killing innocent people, deserves to be gunned down for any reason whatsoever. War doesn't solve anything nor does arguing about it, because, in the end, no one wins.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 07, 2014, 08:12:23 PM
I didn't read what the whole argument has been about between Ken, Jeffrey, Todd, but whatever it is it's certainly not worth the trouble IMHO. The bottom line is it doesn't matter if 60 or 1,000 people died in a war and how or whom did the killing because it's done under tragic circumstances any way we want to look at it. Nobody, unless they're inflicting violence and killing innocent people, deserves to be gunned down for any reason whatsoever. War doesn't solve anything nor does arguing about it, because, in the end, no one wins.
I think John's advice is good. So I for one propose to move on to different topics.
Todd and select others: A simply brilliant piece coming from the political realist school. Very apt analysis. http://www.thenation.com/article/178655/time-realism-and-common-sense-ukraine#
As an aside, Stephen Walt's blog is required reading for anyone who is interested in high level analysis of issues pertaining to political science.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/voices/walt
In fact most everything offered up for perusal on Foreign Policy is worth a look.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 07, 2014, 11:43:22 AM
Superpowers will be superpowers. And I tend to be on the side of those that are democratic. There's nothing flowery about it - I just prefer my world police to be from a land with free elections, free press and free speech.
If I were an Iraqi, an Afghan, a Serbian or a member of whatever nation has been attacked by US in the last 2 decades (not to say the last 2 centuries...), I couldn't care less about the free elections, free press and free speech of the Americans, because all three combined could not prevent me, or members or my family, or my friends and neighbors to be maimed and killed and have our property destroyed and our lives ruined.
If I were a member of whatever nation which during the last 100 years have had dictatorial and authoritarian regimes supported and financed by US, I couldn't care less about the free elections, free press and free speech of the Americans, because all three combined couldn't make for the lack thereof in my own country.
As Todd said, US is no world policeman at all, because a true policeman at least tries to arrest, or deter, all thugs in town, while US is very selective in his actions. US simply does what any other superpower in history has done: promotes and defends its own interests
manu militari and props up all those proxies that are of service to them. The difference being that US is, arguably, the most hypocritical superpower the history has ever known.
QuoteDo you really subscribe to the bizarre, almost perverse morality your post implies? That is, are minor Russian actions that have so far resulted in no, or few, deaths somehow worse than, or at best morally equal to, wars that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands (or at least over one hundred thousand using conservative estimates) because those wars were undertaken by a democratic power using a variety of pretenses, some of them false? Are Russian actions now really worse than the US continuing to murder people in a method that is increasingly viewed as illegal the world over (ie, drone strikes)?
I don't think Russian actions are minor. Russia may not exort its military force like the US does (although Georgia and Ukraine show a lot of promise - talk about false pretenses!), but it continues to support dictatorships all around the world and does a lot of harm undermining human rights efforts through vetos and other means.
Yes, things like drone strikes do worry me a lot BUT at least I know any transgressions will be eventually reported by journalists, discussed in the open and there's a possibility to vote out the people responsible.
Quote from: Florestan on March 08, 2014, 01:01:32 AMIf I were an Iraqi, an Afghan, a Serbian or a member of whatever nation has been attacked by US in the last 2 decades (not to say the last 2 centuries...), I couldn't care less about the free elections, free press and free speech of the Americans, because all three combined could not prevent me, or members or my family, or my friends and neighbors to be maimed and killed and have our property destroyed and our lives ruined.
Well, if you put all these military actions in one bag like they're comparable (for example, the NATO strikes were perfectly okay in my book - it was the last resort to stop Milosevic)..
Quote...while US is very selective in his actions
No cop can stop all crimes. Going to war with, say, the North Korea would sadly be nuts. And since we're counting bodies, how many people there die / spend their entire life in concentration camps because Russia uses countries like North Korea as political leverage, instead of taking a strong stance against them?
To sum up my views, while the US often acts like
an elephant in a porcelain store, there's also a lot of good being done (even the godforsaken Iraq war could've turned okay-ish, if it was planned by people who actually understood the region). But I dread what a country like Russia would be doing in America's place.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 08, 2014, 02:37:06 AM
the NATO strikes were perfectly okay in my book - it was the last resort to stop Milosevic..
So in your book, the last, and perfectly okay, resort to stop a dictator is to maim and kill his innocent subjects and destroy their personal and communal property... That's a very fine example of that "bizarre, almost perverse morality" Todd was alluding to.
And talking about selective actions (and double standards), ethnic cleansing conducted by Serbians against Croatians, Muslim Bosnians and Albanian Kosovars was an abomination, while ethnic cleansing conducted by Croatians, Muslim Bosnians and Albanian Kosovars against Serbians was all right, as can be inferred from the fact that no such last resort was ever used against Tudjman or Izetbegovic or UCK. You seem to subscribe to the simplistic and false view that in the Yugoslavian wars the Serbians were the bad guys and the Croatians, Muslim Bosnians and Muslim Kosovars were the good guys.
Quote
No cop can stop all crimes. Going to war with, say, the North Korea would sadly be nuts. And since we're counting bodies, how many people there die / spend their entire life in concentration camps because Russia uses countries like North Korea as political leverage, instead of taking a strong stance against them?
Russia don't take a strong stance against North Korea because NK serves, directly or indirectly, Russia's own interest. Just as US, and for the very same reason, didn't take a strong stance against Shah Pahlavi or Augusto Pinochet.
Quote
To sum up my views, while the US often acts like an elephant in a porcelain store, there's also a lot of good being done (even the godforsaken Iraq war could've turned okay-ish, if it was planned by people who actually understood the region).
You're wrong. If the US Dept of State had people who actually understood the region then the war would not have been started in the first place.
Quote
But I dread what a country like Russia would be doing in America's place.
I agree that it is better (for us Western and Central Europeans, that is) to live under US' hegemony than under Russia's, but (1) this doesn't blind me neither to the American blunders, errors and aggressions nor to their immorality and hypocrisy and (2) I fear not the latter ever becoming as powerful as the former and replacing it as THE superpower.
Quote from: Florestan on March 08, 2014, 03:37:15 AM
So in your book, the last, and perfectly okay, resort to stop a dictator is to maim and kill his innocent subjects and destroy their personal and communal property... That's a very fine example of that "bizarre, almost perverse morality" Todd was alluding to.
And talking about selective actions (and double standards), ethnic cleansing conducted by Serbians against Croatians, Muslim Bosnians and Albanian Kosovars was an abomination, while ethnic cleansing conducted by Croatians, Muslim Bosnians and Albanian Kosovars against Serbians was all right, as can be inferred from the fact that no such last resort was ever used against Tudjman or Izetbegovic or UCK. You seem to subscribe to the simplistic and false view that in the Yugoslavian wars the Serbians were the bad guys and the Croatians, Muslim Bosnians and Muslim Kosovars were the good guys.
No, I don't see the world as good guys vs bad. But from my point of view (and I know views on this subject differ A LOT) the Serbs started it all way back in the eighties and in the end, they took the majority of punishment for their actions. The bombing didn't target "innocent subjects" and it succeeded in stopping the genocide. It came to either military action or sitting back, sending Milosevic sternly worded notes and watching him do whatever he felt like doing.
In any case, double standard sure ain't pretty, but it's inevitable in our world. The fact that you can't fix
everything shouldn't stop you from trying to fix
something.
QuoteRussia don't take a strong stance against North Korea because NK serves, directly or indirectly, Russia's own interest. Just as US, and for the very same reason, didn't take a strong stance against Shah Pahlavi or Augusto Pinochet.
Which was wrong, of course. The whole Iran affair is a despicable Western fuckup - but that was decades ago and America, under Obama, seems to have finally learned a lesson. NK, on the other hand, is a current tragedy (on an entirely different level than anything Pinochet ever did) and it just adds up with all the other things that I can't stomach about Russia and its politics, both national and international.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 08, 2014, 06:17:56 AM
No, I don't see the world as good guys vs bad. But from my point of view (and I know views on this subject differ A LOT) the Serbs started it all way back in the eighties and in the end, they took the majority of punishment for their actions. The bombing didn't target "innocent subjects" and it succeeded in stopping the genocide. It came to either military action or sitting back, sending Milosevic sternly worded notes and watching him do whatever he felt like doing.
Don't forget about Croats (and Albanians) murdering Serbs during WW II.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 06:22:53 PMis a perfectly respectable claim, that by over throwing the repression of the Baath party the extremists had freer reign. But that is like my Blackmun number. You can make a case, but the numbers are not facts, they are conjectures. They don't count other lives saved, and they don't allow for the possibility of civil war, or even more violent civil war, happening anyway. Syria. Egypt. Lebanon. You really cannot be so sanguine that Saddam would have kept order, not killed a lot of people doing it, or not started another war.
This is contrafactual musing. Contrafactual musing is intrinsically incorrect. It is therefore of limited value, and that is being generous.
Quote from: Ken B on March 07, 2014, 08:03:10 PMAnd I do think counterfactuals matter. Consider this if you disagree. Your argument about sectarian killings depends on the counterfactual assertion that it would not have happened had the US not invaded. Right or wrong you are doing a counter factual comparison to alternate history to get that conclusion. That is different from the direct effdcts of American bullets.
This is false. Attributing deaths to a US invasion and war absolutely does not rely on contrafactual assertions that the deaths would not have happened otherwise. The "lives saved" argument happens to be both morally perverse and contrafactual.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 08, 2014, 02:37:06 AMI don't think Russian actions are minor.
In comparison to recent actions by the US, they are. As to voting people out, well, Obama campaigned on hope and change, yet he escalated the use of drones and expanded it to more countries, has not shut Guantanamo, and still commands a war in Afghanistan. He did pull out most troops from Iraq, and he did partly scale back missile defense, but his hands have blood on them. (Figuratively speaking, of course.) The probability that the next president will be more peace loving is minimal.
Quote from: Florestan on March 08, 2014, 01:01:32 AMThe difference being that US is, arguably, the most hypocritical superpower the history has ever known.
Even the establishment journal Foreign Affairs acknowledges US hypocrisy. (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140155/henry-farrell-and-martha-finnemore/the-end-of-hypocrisy)
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 08, 2014, 06:17:56 AMThe fact that you can't fix everything shouldn't stop you from trying to fix something.
I see this type of argument from time to time, but what I do not see is an accompanying statement of principles that would determine what types of situations would be addressed. It's in essence a flowery statement defending inconsistency and arbitrary use of force.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 08, 2014, 06:17:56 AM
from my point of view (and I know views on this subject differ A LOT) the Serbs started it all way back in the eighties
This is wrong, the troubles in that region date back to at least the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918, but that's quite a different matter altogether and I'm not going to derail the thread.
Quote
The bombing didn't target "innocent subjects"
Oh yes, they were just unavoidable "collateral victims".
Quote
and it succeeded in stopping the genocide. It came to either military action or sitting back, sending Milosevic sternly worded notes and watching him do whatever he felt like doing.
Remember August 1968? Just what did the US do to stop the Soviets from invading your country and bringing it back in the Soviet camp while killing civilians in the process? Exactly nothing, unless you count "watching Brezhnev do whatever he felt like doing" as their last resort. But then again, Brezhnev had nuclear weapons while Milosevic didn't even dream of acquiring them.
QuoteThe fact that you can't fix everything shouldn't stop you from trying to fix something.
Agreed in principle, but interestingly enough, US tries to fix almost exclusively countries weak enough not to pose any real and present danger to its own security and which, coincidentally, are also rich in oil, natural gas or other natural assets.
Quoteall the other things that I can't stomach about Russia and its politics, both national and international.
I am Romanian and therefore not quite prone to defending Russian international politics. But they are at least sincere: they openly state that their goal is to preserve the glory of "Mother Russia" and her vital interests; they never ever pretended to act in order to expand "freedom" or to "make the world safe for democracy" (the only instance of their acting as if in a disinterested and humanitarian way --- which of course it was not --- was in the 19th century when they claimed to protect the Christian people oppressed by the Ottoman rule). Contrast this with the way US wrap their equally hegemonic and expansionist foreign policy (actually not equal at all, since US operate on a much larger scale than Russians ever did) in the tired and tiresome verbiage of which the two aforementioned slogans are just a small portion.
Look, for strictly pragmatic reasons I too side with the US and I'd rather have them control and influence Romania than Russia; but a higher moral ground than Russia they simply don't have.
Quote from: Philo on March 07, 2014, 09:29:15 PMTodd and select others: A simply brilliant piece coming from the political realist school. Very apt analysis. http://www.thenation.com/article/178655/time-realism-and-common-sense-ukraine#
Given the practical reality that the US is, in fact, in relative decline implies that at some point in the not too distant future the US must assume a more realistic foreign policy. It cannot happen soon enough.
I read the Matlock piece a few days ago, and his line
whatever slim hope that Moscow might avoid overt military intervention in Ukraine disappeared when Obama in effect threw down a gauntlet and challenged him. This was not just a mistake of political judgment—it was a failure to understand human psychology—unless, of course, he actually wanted a Russian intervention, which is hard for me to believe is intriguing for its conspiratorial possibilities. What if Obama issued his warning hoping that Russia would act as it has, decreasing confidence in Russia's ability to be a stable, predictable energy supplier for its European clients? The US might be able to help. snyprrr, you reading this?
Quote from: North Star on March 08, 2014, 06:25:12 AM
Don't forget about Croats (and Albanians) murdering Serbs during WW II.
If you want to take that road, we can go back to BC ages.. same as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's a downward spiral and trying to beat the other side with who-did-what leads nowhere.
But it was Milosevic who played the nationalist card and sparked a new era of terror. The recent blood is, in my opinion, on his hands.
Quote from: Todd
In comparison to recent actions by the US, they are. As to voting people out, well, Obama campaigned on hope and change, yet he escalated the use of drones and expanded it to more countries, has not shut Guantanamo, and still commands a war in Afghanistan.
Well, he's cleaning a lot of Republican mess, isn't he? While having to deal with a stalemate in the congress to boot. But you can protest his policies freely, you can report on them freely. You can speak your mind without the fear of being beaten, thrown in jail or at least fired from your job (as did happen few days ago to Andrey Zubov, a Russian historian who wrote a scathing article against the Russian invasion). I'm probably biased, because I come from a country that suffered 40 years of orwellian oppression, but I value these freedoms very highly - and I'm doubly irritated by any country that stomps on them.. and then adds a new round of violent, nation-wide homophobia just to spice things up!
Quote from: Florestan
Remember August 1968? Just what did the US do to stop the Soviets from invading your country and bringing it back in the Soviet camp while killing civilians in the process? Exactly nothing, unless you count "watching Brezhnev do whatever he felt like doing" as their last resort. But then again, Brezhnev had nuclear weapons while Milosevic didn't even dream of acquiring them.
You answered yourself. Going to war at that time would result in a nuclear confrontation. Unlike trying to stop Milosevic by military means, it was unthinkable (just like going to war with NK).
Quote from: Florestan
Look, for strictly pragmatic reasons I too side with the US and I'd rather have them control and influence Romania than Russia; but a higher moral ground than Russia they simply don't have.
Understood. I don't share your view - call me naive, but I believe American foreign policies aren't influenced solely by resources - but I see where you're coming from and you certainly made a point about the moral high ground.
(I hope I don't come out too cross in discussions like these - I truly enjoy reading different opinions even on matters I'm very strong-minded about)
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 08, 2014, 07:16:39 AMWell, he's cleaning a lot of Republican mess, isn't he? While having to deal with a stalemate in the congress to boot. But you can protest his policies freely, you can report on them freely. You can speak your mind without the fear of being beaten, thrown in jail or at least fired from your job (as did happen few days ago to Andrey Zubov, a Russian historian who wrote a scathing article against the Russian invasion). I'm probably biased, because I come from a country that suffered 40 years of orwellian oppression, but I value these freedoms very highly - and I'm doubly irritated by any country that stomps on them.. and then adds a new round of violent, nation-wide homophobia just to spice things up!
The first statement is questionable (especially as it pertains to drone use), and the others are true, or at least true-ish, but so what? Professed motivations and internal political institutions are of secondary importance in foreign affairs.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 08, 2014, 07:16:39 AM
I come from a country that suffered 40 years of orwellian oppression,
Me too, and that's exactly the reason I just hate Newspeak even if employed by the great transatlantic democracy. ;D
Quote
but I value these freedoms very highly
Me too, but I think freedom and democracy are very ill served by divorcing them from morality, by making them mere slogans or by trying to impose them (forcibly if necessary) on other nations.
Quote
(I hope I don't come out too cross in discussions like these - I truly enjoy reading different opinions even on matters I'm very strong-minded about)
No problem for me.
Quote from: Florestan on March 08, 2014, 06:58:10 AM
I am Romanian and therefore not quite prone to defending Russian international politics. But they are at least sincere: they openly state that their goal is to preserve the glory of "Mother Russia" and her vital interests; they never ever pretended to act in order to expand "freedom" or to "make the world safe for democracy" (the only instance of their acting as if in a disinterested and humanitarian way --- which of course it was not --- was in the 19th century when they claimed to protect the Christian people oppressed by the Ottoman rule). Contrast this with the way US wrap their equally hegemonic and expansionist foreign policy (actually not equal at all, since US operate on a much larger scale than Russians ever did) in the tired and tiresome verbiage of which the two aforementioned slogans are just a small portion.
There is a deeper problem here. I am not a mind-reader, but evidence suggests that some of the key players in American foreign policy
really do sincerely hold the neocon position that all peoples on earth are ready for democracy right now (whatever their level of economic or cultural development), and we should give it to them, by force if necessary. Allied with this is the belief that democracies in hostile countries will automatically produce the results we want, because, y'know, "freedom" and "everyone really wants to be American," etc. It's not just
Realpolitik disguised with cynical rhetoric. It's ideological thinking of the most naïve and ignorant kind, and the fact that it has led to a series of disasters doesn't seem to have occasioned much re-thinking on the part of these folks.
The good thing is that the broader American public is now completely sick of war, as the reaction to Syria showed. At least the common folks are showing some common sense.
Quote from: Todd on March 08, 2014, 07:08:21 AM
Given the practical reality that the US is, in fact, in relative decline implies that at some point in the not too distant future the US must assume a more realistic foreign policy. It cannot happen soon enough.
I read the Matlock piece a few days ago, and his line whatever slim hope that Moscow might avoid overt military intervention in Ukraine disappeared when Obama in effect threw down a gauntlet and challenged him. This was not just a mistake of political judgment—it was a failure to understand human psychology—unless, of course, he actually wanted a Russian intervention, which is hard for me to believe is intriguing for its conspiratorial possibilities. What if Obama issued his warning hoping that Russia would act as it has, decreasing confidence in Russia's ability to be a stable, predictable energy supplier for its European clients? The US might be able to help. snyprrr, you reading this?
Could not agree more, especially in this post-realist world. I mean one can really look back at the fall of the Soviet Union as the tipping point to which the United States began its decline. Unipolarity is never a state the international community desires to be in. It's always unhealthy, as actors tend to be looking out for their own self-interests, but the US still has not caught up to the times. When the US begins to acknowledge liberalism (UN, WTO, ICC, etc.), I think that'll be the point that the US can again make more efficient, and more importantly effective, moves.
I'd hope that Obama not fall into that sort of trap, in regards to energy. The EU already knows the fickleness of Russia, and even the Ukraine, in regards to supplying consistent energy. Neither are currently wholly dependable, and Ukraine sometimes doesn't even have the capability or capacity to deliver what needs to be delivered. It will be interesting where the EU places itself. Personally, I think they need to start worrying about their own self-interests and less what the US says is in their best interest.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 08, 2014, 07:16:39 AM
fired from your job (as did happen few days ago to Andrey Zubov, a Russian historian who wrote a scathing article against the Russian invasion).
Turns out this did not actually happen. He came under a lot of pressure, but still has his job. I'm not surprised, because in the last 10 or so years I've encountered dozens of examples of things that didn't actually happen in Russia, but were reported by foreign media.
Quote from: Velimir on March 08, 2014, 05:42:19 PM
Turns out this did not actually happen. He came under a lot of pressure, but still has his job. I'm not surprised, because in the last 10 or so years I've encountered dozens of examples of things that didn't actually happen in Russia, but were reported by foreign media.
Good to know. Would you say that cases like these make outside view of Russia distinctively skewed?
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 08, 2014, 06:04:38 PM
Good to know. Would you say that cases like these make outside view of Russia distinctively skewed?
It was reported in the Moscow Times that he said he was fired. The next day it was reported there the rector denied the firing. There was a furor between these events. What the truth is is unclear, except I suppose to those with super powers, but it seems simplest to assume, on the basis of this reporting from Russia, that he was either told he was to be fired and the furor led to a change, or he was told something he took that way.
Quote from: Rinaldo on March 08, 2014, 06:04:38 PM
Would you say that cases like these make outside view of Russia distinctively skewed?
Yes, definitely. Let's take one notorious example: murders of journalists.
As is well known, Russia is a dangerous place to be a journalist. As a result, a sort of legend has sprung up, repeated endlessly in the Western press, that "Putin the dictator" is ordering these murders or is behind them in some way. It is believed that Putin destroys freedom of speech in Russia by murdering journalists.
In fact, the reasons for these murders are a lot more mundane and systemic: the widespread corruption, the poorly functioning legal system, and the persistence of gangsterism (although this last factor has been diminishing, thankfully). Basically, Russia is still a place where a crooked businessman or bureaucrat can order a hit on someone and get away with it fairly easily. In that way, it has similarities to Mexico, where journalists also get killed quite frequently; but I never hear the Mexican president being blamed for that. These factors are common to post-Communist countries, but are worse in former Soviet republics than in the countries that are now EU members (something you can probably verify from your own experience).
A detailed report on this subject is available here:
http://www.ifj.org/assets/docs/104/092/b4ec068-fe7585c.pdf
Note for instance that Chart 1 shows how journalist murders have been a problem in Russia ever since communism collapsed, and long predate Putin's arrival on the scene. Illogically, "Putin murders journalists" is a belief that coexists with "Putin controls the media." If he actually controlled the media, he wouldn't have to murder journalists. In Soviet times, when the government really did control the media, it used censorship, demotion and other "administrative measures" to keep journalists in line. It didn't shoot them in back alleys, and you couldn't just order a hit on someone as you can today. This is just one example of why the claim that Russia is reverting to Soviet-type rule is nonsense.
Quote from: Velimir on March 08, 2014, 07:48:43 PMThese factors are common to post-Communist countries, but are worse in former Soviet republics than in the countries that are now EU members (something you can probably verify from your own experience).
Indeed. We had our stint of 'gangsterism' but it thankfully never went full scale over here.
QuoteThis is just one example of why the claim that Russia is reverting to Soviet-type rule is nonsense.
I don't subcribe to the "CCCP is coming back" line of thought, but the signs of what a person like me perceives as diminishing human rights just keep piling up - the persecution of homosexuals, the whole Pussy Riot fiasco.. combine that with that laughable macho image that Putin builds around himself and it just makes my blood boil.
Quote from: Velimir on March 08, 2014, 11:06:31 AM
There is a deeper problem here. I am not a mind-reader, but evidence suggests that some of the key players in American foreign policy really do sincerely hold the neocon position that all peoples on earth are ready for democracy right now (whatever their level of economic or cultural development), and we should give it to them, by force if necessary. Allied with this is the belief that democracies in hostile countries will automatically produce the results we want, because, y'know, "freedom" and "everyone really wants to be American," etc. It's not just Realpolitik disguised with cynical rhetoric. It's ideological thinking of the most naïve and ignorant kind, and the fact that it has led to a series of disasters doesn't seem to have occasioned much re-thinking on the part of these folks.
IIRC, many neocons are former Trotskytes. They simply shift their allegiance from the permanent communist revolution to the permanent democratic revolution. ;D
Quote
The good thing is that the broader American public is now completely sick of war, as the reaction to Syria showed. At least the common folks are showing some common sense.
That's good news but it's a long way until common folks really influence US foreign policy.
Belarus-Russia-Ukraine: http://m.belarusdigest.com/story/belarus-refuses-support-russias-invasion-ukraine-17082
Quote from: Velimir on March 08, 2014, 07:48:43 PM
In fact, the reasons for these murders are a lot more mundane and systemic: the widespread corruption, the poorly functioning legal system, and the persistence of gangsterism (although this last factor has been diminishing, thankfully). Basically, Russia is still a place where a crooked businessman or bureaucrat can order a hit on someone and get away with it fairly easily. In that way, it has similarities to Mexico, where journalists also get killed quite frequently; but I never hear the Mexican president being blamed for that. These factors are common to post-Communist countries, but are worse in former Soviet republics than in the countries that are now EU members (something you can probably verify from your own experience).
But this is an egg or the chicken type issue. Corruption can be erradicated (if there is the political will to do so). There are clear policies and legislative changes (as well as internal rules) on how to greatly reduce corruption. You can do this a number of ways, all of which will generally improve FDI (foreign direct investment). These can include: standardized tenders (subjecting them to competition), reducing opportunities for gov't officials to 'intervene', simplifying rules and regulations, reducing the number of 'inspections', simplify tax regime to reduce 'free interpretations' by tax inspectors, reduce the size of government, and reform the civil service. There are more, but you get the drift I think. Putin does not seem to care too much about things based on the limited government reforms that have been implemented over the years. By the way, enforcement is important too, which is where some other Eastern European countries have issues (for example, some that have joined the EU).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 10, 2014, 10:10:01 AM
These can include: standardized tenders (subjecting them to competition), reducing opportunities for gov't officials to 'intervene', simplifying rules and regulations, reducing the number of 'inspections', simplify tax regime to reduce 'free interpretations' by tax inspectors, reduce the size of government, and reform the civil service.
From this list, the single most important thing Putin did was to institute a flat tax of 13%. This made it possible to do business more honestly in Russia and diminished the role of organized crime in the economy. But beyond that, he hasn't done much to tame the huge bureaucratic monster.
Quote from: Velimir on March 10, 2014, 10:37:22 AM
From this list, the single most important thing Putin did was to institute a flat tax of 13%. This made it possible to do business more honestly in Russia and diminished the role of organized crime in the economy. But beyond that, he hasn't done much to tame the huge bureaucratic monster.
Yes - that was a big step, but not enough on its own. It also helped bring some payrolls out of the shadow.
Ukraine Revolution 2014 in Color
Photographs by Alfred Yaghobzadeh (https://www.lensculture.com/articles/alfred-yaghobzadeh-ukraine-revolution-2014-in-color)
He'd get my vote! (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ukraine-darth-vader-turns-up-3301360)
Am I the only one who thinks Putin is out of his mind for good? ;D
Quote from: Florestan on April 24, 2014, 06:56:05 AMAm I the only one who thinks Putin is out of his mind for good?
I doubt he's out of his mind, and he's certainly up to no good. (And he and his advisers may be a clever lot (http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/03/14/did-russia-just-dump-its-treasury-holdings/), though Obama and his advisers are on the clever side, too (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21601051-there-more-could-be-done-punish-russia-turning-taps).)
Quote from: Florestan on April 24, 2014, 06:56:05 AM
Am I the only one who thinks Putin is out of his mind for good? ;D
The poor guy is just misunderstood - here, let him explain himself!
https://www.youtube.com/v/vXTY93RaF4U
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/11/world/europe/ukraine-russia-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Well I guess that won't stop until Ukraine is wiped off the map.
Ah ! Munich !
(http://img1.fold3.com/img/thumbnail/52623001/400/400/0_0_433_594.jpg) (http://www.ielanguages.com/photos/cartes/IMG_0679.JPG)
I don't think Godwin's law applies here, since :
- Godwin's law doesn't mean two comparable situations should not be eventually compared (I'm not accusing Wilhelm Kempff to be a nazi because his piano playing is a massacre, which would be a clear Godwin point), for instance the invasion of Ukraine today, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland a few decades ago,
- I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but the comparison is between Merkel, Hollande, Cameron etc. and Daladier, Chamberlain etc., not between Putin's nationalism and Hitler's ideology.
Quote from: Cosi bel do on November 12, 2014, 06:53:20 AM
I don't think Godwin's law applies here, since :
- Godwin's law doesn't mean two comparable situations should not be eventually compared (I'm not accusing Wilhelm Kempff to be a nazi because his piano playing is a massacre, which would be a clear Godwin point), for instance the invasion of Ukraine today, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland a few decades ago,
- I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but the comparison is between Merkel, Hollande, Cameron etc. and Daladier, Chamberlain etc., not between Putin's nationalism and Hitler's ideology.
You brought up Munich and appeasement. That evokes the Nazis, as it is specifically designed to do. Your attempt to explain why it doesn't rings hollow. If you want to offer a serious point about appeasement, or whatever the best description of the policies being pursued with respect to Ukraine may be, don't bring up Munich.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 07:00:48 AM
You brought up Munich and appeasement. That evokes the Nazis, as it is specifically designed to do. Your attempt to explain why it doesn't rings hollow. If you want to offer a serious point about appeasement, or whatever the best description of the policies being pursued with respect to Ukraine may be, don't bring up Munich.
I supposed you might be trolling here, but I'm still going to respond, just in case you're serious.
I don't see why one should be forbidden to bring up Munich when comparing two similar situations. So if I make a historical point not involving Nazis (let's say, Agadir 1911 for instance, even if it has less relevance here) it would be okay, but any comparison with the 1933-1945 period is forbidden ? Isn't that a little absurd ?
And, by the way, it's not because you don't understand something that it is "hollow".
This distorted use of Godwin's law might be a good example of Greenwald's law actually.
Quote from: Cosi bel do on November 12, 2014, 07:09:59 AMI don't see why one should be forbidden to bring up Munich when comparing two similar situations.
It isn't forbidden. It is inaccurate.
It appears that you still don't know what the word "trolling" means, and it is a distinct possibility that you never will.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 07:14:19 AM
It isn't forbidden. It is inaccurate.
It appears that you still don't know what the word "trolling" means, and it is a distinct possibility that you never will.
It is very accurate, on the contrary. Two comparable situations can be compared, whatever the role of the Nazis in one or another of these situations.
Trolling, as in "to attempt to lure others into combative argument for purposes of personal entertainment". As I said, I thought you might be trolling. It appears you aren't and I'm sorry (that you are serious about all that, I mean).
Quote from: Cosi bel do on November 12, 2014, 07:21:17 AMIt is very accurate, on the contrary. Two comparable situations can be compared, whatever the role of the Nazis in one or another of these situations.
You have not shown how European policy responses with respect to Ukraine in 2014 are comparable to appeasement with the Nazis in Munich in 1938. You linked to a CNN story and then asserted the situations are comparable. That does not make them comparable.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 07:29:04 AM
You have not shown how European policy responses with respect to Ukraine in 2014 are comparable to appeasement with the Nazis in Munich in 1938.
Are you denying there is a similarity or are you asking for the case to be laid out? Or something else?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 12, 2014, 08:44:44 AMAre you denying there is a similarity or are you asking for the case to be laid out? Or something else?
I'd like to see someone write a reasoned argument how appeasing the Nazis in 1938 is similar to the policies being pursued now by European leaders with respect to Russian actions in Ukraine. Such a comparison should, one would think, take into account the different strategic realities faced by Germany in 1938 and Russia in 2014. It has been commonplace to compare any number of countries' actions to Nazi actions for seventy years, but that doesn't make the comparisons accurate. It makes them a form of scaremongering. Likewise, comparing any given leader's or leaders' actions to Neville Chamberlain's, say, is just a more polite, apparently non-Godwin's law way of doing the same thing.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 09:16:19 AM
It has been commonplace to compare any number of countries' actions to Nazi actions for seventy years, but that doesn't make the comparisons accurate. It makes them a form of scaremongering.
Thank you for saying that. I sometimes get the impression that Hitler is the only historical figure many people are aware of, so overused is this argument. In this case there are more pertinent analogies, like Bismarck or Catherine the Great.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 09:16:19 AM
I'd like to see someone write a reasoned argument how appeasing the Nazis in 1938 is similar to the policies being pursued now by European leaders with respect to Russian actions in Ukraine. Such a comparison should, one would think, take into account the different strategic realities faced by Germany in 1938 and Russia in 2014. It has been commonplace to compare any number of countries' actions to Nazi actions for seventy years, but that doesn't make the comparisons accurate. It makes them a form of scaremongering. Likewise, comparing any given leader's or leaders' actions to Neville Chamberlain's, say, is just a more polite, apparently non-Godwin's law way of doing the same thing.
So now Godwin's law applies to Nazism, Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier, eeeeer... Germany, Czechoslovakia, France, Britain... eeeer... well let's say any kind of comparison of any current fact with any historical situation in Europe falls under Godwin's law, that will be more simple.
Quote from: Cosi bel do on November 12, 2014, 11:17:21 AM
So now Godwin's law applies to Nazism, Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier, eeeeer... Germany, Czechoslovakia, France, Britain... eeeer... well let's say any kind of comparison of any current fact with any historical situation in Europe falls under Godwin's law, that will be more simple.
You are the one who brought up Munich in 1938, and then tried to explain how that is not a reference to Nazis. That is incredible, in the strict sense of the word.
But perhaps you can explain how they are equivalent, or even materially similar. You have not done that yet. You only made a weak proclamation.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 11:27:07 AM
You are the one who brought up Munich in 1938, and then tried to explain how that is not a reference to Nazis. That is incredible, in the strict sense of the word.
But perhaps you can explain how they are equivalent, or even materially similar. You have not done that yet. You only made a weak proclamation.
If you can't understand how comparing the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, in order to "free" the "Russians of Ukraine", and the absence of reaction from European leaders, can be compared to the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 by Germany, in order to "free" the "Germans of Sudetenland", and the absence of reaction from European leaders back then, I can't really do anything for you.
(Anyway, anyone who has read a few of my posts in the music sections know I love comparisons :P)
Quote from: Cosi bel do on November 12, 2014, 11:50:16 AM
If you can't understand how comparing the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, in order to "free" the "Russians of Ukraine", and the absence of reaction from European leaders, can be compared to the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 by Germany, in order to "free" the "Germans of Sudetenland", and the absence of reaction from European leaders back then, I can't really do anything for you.
It is good to see that you read articles here or there, though evidently only articles with one basic outlook, and that you can repeat superficial similarities, but you offer no proper historical context, no comparative strategic analyses, or anything else. And you rely on a variant of the tired Nazi analogy, though you are evidently convinced that by attempting to shift the focus to Chamberlain vs Merkel you are not doing so - but the pictures you posted tell another story altogether.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 12:08:27 PM
It is good to see that you read articles here or there, though evidently only articles with one basic outlook, and that you can repeat superficial similarities, but you offer no proper historical context, no comparative strategic analyses, or anything else. And you rely on a variant of the tired Nazi analogy, though you are evidently convinced that by attempting to shift the focus to Chamberlain vs Merkel you are not doing so - but the pictures you posted tell another story altogether.
I appreciate all the contempt I can receive from a self-proclaimed Yankee Republican :)
Quote from: Cosi bel do on November 12, 2014, 12:16:23 PM
I appreciate all the contempt I can receive from a self-proclaimed Yankee Republican :)
Whoa Nelly! Although Canadian I suspect I am much more a Republican (a South Park Republican) than Todd, and I agree with
you.
Your post was a sardonic comment on the fecklessness of the modern western leaders. Ironic that Todd should object to anything sardonic, but there it is.
I don't know what the best policy is. The
worst is announcing we will stand with Ukraine and then not doing so, in the hope of peace. I think that is Your (Cosi) worry and that worry the reason for Your sardonic comments. Well justified I think.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 12:08:27 PM
It is good to see that you read articles here or there, though evidently only articles with one basic outlook, and that you can repeat superficial similarities, but you offer no proper historical context, no comparative strategic analyses, or anything else. And you rely on a variant of the tired Nazi analogy, though you are evidently convinced that by attempting to shift the focus to Chamberlain vs Merkel you are not doing so - but the pictures you posted tell another story altogether.
I don't really understand what you want. He gave you the bare outline. To be honest, I would have listed a bunch of events that would have drawn some similarities, but I can see you have poo-poo'd that as insufficient. For example, one can draw parallels with the invasion and subsequent annexation of Crimea followed by the invasion of Ukraine, the crack down on opposition and laws on various groups (gays for example) and the full frontal PR war being waged by Russia today. Just how much further does one have to go until you will be satisfied (not that I intend to necessarily do try to do so)?
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 06:42:14 AM
Ah! Godwin's Law!
Ah! Nonsense upon stilts!
Godwin's Law is about comparing your opponent to Hitler. Cosi is comparing elected leaders to deluded fools.
Quote from: Ken B on November 12, 2014, 01:18:13 PMYour post was a sardonic comment on the fecklessness of the modern western leaders.
I suppose it's seeing the lazy and inaccurate comparison to Nazis, supposedly not in this case though (though with a Hitler pic and mention of Munich), that's irksome. A sardonic comment deploying propaganda should be replied to. There was only one Hitler, and he's dead.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 12, 2014, 01:30:08 PMHe gave you the bare outline.
Yes, he parroted the line about saving Russian populations. I suspect I know at least some of the events and actions you would have listed, as you have commented on Russia before.
In any event, implicit in any comparison to Nazis, direct or indirect, is the fear-mongering "what next"? Russia will not be satisfied with either annexing Ukraine (which seems unlikely) or maintaining a good old fashioned sphere of influence (which is much more likely), and therefore
something must be done. For the Ukrainian people. For
Democracy. You know, stuff like that. But what I see is aggressive expansion by the US and EU right up to Russia's border, and with it, had it succeeded, control of one of the most strategically important regions for Russia. I'm not at all surprised by Putin's reaction. Russia has legitimate security concerns. I see Russian actions as mostly defensive, and Ukraine is far more important to Russia than it is to the EU or US. Putin is a detestable autocrat, but that doesn't mean the strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia isn't real.
Quote from: Ken B on November 12, 2014, 01:51:47 PM
Ah! Nonsense upon stilts!
Godwin's Law is about comparing your opponent to Hitler. Cosi is comparing elected leaders to deluded fools.
And the deluded fools were dealing with Nazis. Claims that dredging up Chamberlain and appeasement are somehow separate from this are, as I stated before, incredible.
Incidentally, Godwin himself stated that his "law" merely relies on a gratuitous references to Nazis, not directly comparing someone to Hitler. Plopping in an ancient newspaper with a picture of, yes, Hitler, sure seems gratuitous to me. Maybe not to you.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 02:12:32 PM
I suppose it's seeing the lazy and inaccurate comparison to Nazis, supposedly not in this case though (though with a Hitler pic and mention of Munich), that's irksome. A sardonic comment deploying propaganda should be replied to. There was only one Hitler, and he's dead.
Yes, he parroted the line about saving Russian populations. I suspect I know at least some of the events and actions you would have listed, as you have commented on Russia before.
In any event, implicit in any comparison to Nazis, direct or indirect, is the fear-mongering "what next"? Russia will not be satisfied with either annexing Ukraine (which seems unlikely) or maintaining a good old fashioned sphere of influence (which is much more likely), and therefore something must be done. For the Ukrainian people. For Democracy. You know, stuff like that. But what I see is aggressive expansion by the US and EU right up to Russia's border, and with it, had it succeeded, control of one of the most strategically important regions for Russia. I'm not at all surprised by Putin's reaction. Russia has legitimate security concerns. I see Russian actions as mostly defensive, and Ukraine is far more important to Russia than it is to the EU or US. Putin is a detestable autocrat, but that doesn't mean the strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia isn't real.
Invading a country is defensive? Even when they signed a treaty agreeing to respect the territorial intergrity of said country? That makes little sense. The irony is that the Ukrainian people were always very pro-Russia for the most part. At least half of the country are now lost in this respect.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 02:12:32 PM
I suppose it's seeing the lazy and inaccurate comparison to Nazis, supposedly not in this case though (though with a Hitler pic and mention of Munich), that's irksome. A sardonic comment deploying propaganda should be replied to. There was only one Hitler, and he's dead.
Yes, he parroted the line about saving Russian populations. I suspect I know at least some of the events and actions you would have listed, as you have commented on Russia before.
In any event, implicit in any comparison to Nazis, direct or indirect, is the fear-mongering "what next"? Russia will not be satisfied with either annexing Ukraine (which seems unlikely) or maintaining a good old fashioned sphere of influence (which is much more likely), and therefore something must be done. For the Ukrainian people. For Democracy. You know, stuff like that. But what I see is aggressive expansion by the US and EU right up to Russia's border, and with it, had it succeeded, control of one of the most strategically important regions for Russia. I'm not at all surprised by Putin's reaction. Russia has legitimate security concerns. I see Russian actions as mostly defensive, and Ukraine is far more important to Russia than it is to the EU or US. Putin is a detestable autocrat, but that doesn't mean the strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia isn't real.
Actually, yes.
Stuff like that. Russia has
intelligible security concerns. Not a legitimate warrant for invading a country, stifling its democracy, or rounding up its citizens. Even assuming you are right about Putin's motives.
But if Russia has security conerns, don't Poland or Finland, or Latvia, or Germany? Or Ukraine? Is it really that clear these are best met by aquiescing to anything Putin does in Ukraine?
There were two photos posted by Cosi. Both had banners about Peace. Both had pictures -- of Neville Chamberlain. I suggest you are missing the lede.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 12, 2014, 03:33:10 PM
Invading a country is defensive? Even when they signed a treaty agreeing to respect the territorial intergrity of said country? That makes little sense. The irony is that the Ukrainian people were always very pro-Russia for the most part. At least half of the country are now lost in this respect.
Reminds me of the time we defended your White House. Well, it wasn't white then. 8)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 12, 2014, 03:33:10 PMInvading a country is defensive?
That is the logic behind preemptive war.
But let's stick with Russia and Ukraine: With respect to slowing, or halting, additional expansion of the EU, yes. Ukraine is a proxy battlefield. It has the misfortune of being one of the latest playthings of great powers.
Quote from: Ken B on November 12, 2014, 03:37:54 PMBut if Russia has security conerns, don't Poland or Finland, or Latvia, or Germany? Or Ukraine? Is it really that clear these are best met by aquiescing to anything Putin does in Ukraine?
Of course all countries have security concerns. Your last question would only have meaning if anyone suggested that anyone acquiesce to anything Putin does. I'm not sure who has suggested that here. Please, point out where someone did.
What serious and credible offers have been made with respect to guaranteeing Russian security in the event it decided to withdraw from Ukraine completely? Is there a serious offer to allow it permanent use of the Crimea, say on a long-term lease basis? What types of mechanisms are included in whatever proposed treaties may be on offer in the event that Ukraine or Russia violates terms of the agreement? It is essentially impossible to see how any Russian leader would let Ukraine fall completely out of its sphere of influence. Letting the country get carved up, sure, that can make sense, but having a potentially hostile power right up again Russia, and one that would allow a massive front to open, while being stripped of a warm water port, would be strategically disastrous for Russia. Now, of course, this relies on less positive views of the EU and specific European powers, and the US, than many here apparently hold.
Russia is still a great power, and it acts like one. You know, just like the US. I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Stanley Kubrick, where he stated that great powers act like gangsters and small powers act like prostitutes.
Quote from: Ken B on November 12, 2014, 03:37:54 PMThere were two photos posted by Cosi. Both had banners about Peace. Both had pictures -- of Neville Chamberlain. I suggest you are missing the lede.
The photos have value only because of the subject matter - appeasement of Nazis. 'Tis gratuitous.
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 02:12:32 PM
what I see is aggressive expansion by the US and EU right up to Russia's border
Aggressive expansion by the EU? I must have missed the news about EU troops being deployed in, and taking control of, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - these being the only recently admitted EU countries bordering Russia.
You want relevant comparisons? Here is one for you. When Germany invaded Belgium in 1914, thus violating the 1839 Treaty of London, the German Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg dismissed it a "scrap of paper". Well, take a look at another scrap of paper:
Quote from: Budapest Memorandum
Budapest, 5 December 1994
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.
This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.
Signed in four copies having equal validity in the English, Russian and Ukrainian languages.
Now, that any treaty or memorandum bearing Russia´s signature (be it Imperial Russia, USSR or the Russian Federation) is not worth for them more than the paper it is written on, I as a Romanian know only too well. I am only sorry to notice that the diplomatic honor, or the honor period, of the US and UK is just the same: a mere scrap of paper...
Quote from: Todd on November 12, 2014, 04:21:30 PM
I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Stanley Kubrick, where he stated that great powers act like gangsters and small powers act like prostitutes.
Maybe, but there is a huge moral difference between the prostitutes who are left with no other option for surviving, and the gangsters who took away from them all other options.
Well, the events as they happened tend to show that no form of appeasement would have stopped the National Socialist Party's continued violent aggression. Recent events suggest that maybe Putin and his supporters may be no more prone to "listen to reason."
Quote from: Florestan on November 14, 2014, 01:46:40 AM
I am only sorry to notice that the diplomatic honor, or the honor period, of the US and UK is just the same: a mere scrap of paper...
You only just now realized this? Members of a lot of Indian tribes would laugh at such naivete. Treaties only matter if you have the force and will to back them up.
Harper meets Putin. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-15/harper-uses-handshake-to-tell-putin-he-must-get-out-of-ukraine-.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-15/harper-uses-handshake-to-tell-putin-he-must-get-out-of-ukraine-.html)
I believe that USSR should be returned
Quote from: LapsangS on November 17, 2014, 02:17:26 AM
I believe that USSR should be returned
And I suppose you are only too willing to join it as the Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic... ;D
Quote from: LapsangS on November 17, 2014, 02:17:26 AM
I believe that USSR should be returned
To the fiery chasm from whence it came, you mean? 8)
I'm not sure if this belongs here or European Politics. But since we are talking about Russian invasions Putin's totally justified, purely defensive reaction to the shocking aggression of the Finns, Poles, and Belgians, I chose here.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/11/17/putin-targets-the-scandinavians/ (http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/11/17/putin-targets-the-scandinavians/)
A very interesting article, thanks. My neice is just back from Estonia and she told me the atmosphere there is one of fear and an assumption that once Ukrane is out of the way, it will be their turn next.
Mike
Bump-bump
- but as some here know, I´ve been quite interested in the Ukraine situation, and there are now a few underreported, but very interesting signs that Russia is working for a way out, though it´s too early to say if it will really happen:
recent quotes from the Kremlin and Putin apparently showing an interest in UN peacekeepers in the region, even by the Russia-controlled borders to the separatist statelets, which currently see a steady flow of arms and military.
And now rumours that their leaders are to be replaced by somewhat softer newcomers:
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/kremlin-rumored-ready-replace-leaders-donbas.html?utm_content=buffer2ff1b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The Russian financing of the statelets (including now the major parts of the fragmentary wellfare and state apparatus there, and of course their massive armies), plus the sanctions, has been extremely expensive.
There are however also those doubting the sincerity regarding the UN peacekeepers, seeing it as maybe an excuse to place Russian military there officially:
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russia-s-peacekeeping-proposal-in-ukraine-is-a-sham#.Wbo9nBmmLwl.twitter
Let´s hope that Ukraine can continue its road to better life for all there, after this awful - and still ongoing - war.
Flight MH17 investigation approaching its final conclusions, apparently quite close to what has been presented by say Bellingcat and other sources.
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/10/16/74192-the-purpose-is-to-bring-this-matter-to-court
Quote from: Turner on September 14, 2017, 12:12:20 AM
Let´s hope that Ukraine can continue its road to better life for all there
Certainly not for better and not for all. Ukraine's Parliament (Rada) has recently voted, and President Poroshenko signed, a law that cancels the ethnic minorities' (among which the largest is the Romanian) right to education in their own languages save for primary school only. Hungary and Romania tried in vain, by diplomatic means, to make them come to their senses. Accordingly, the matter will be presented to the Council of Europe for investigation.
Russian nationalism should not blind us to the equally pernicious Ukrainian one.
Quote from: Florestan on October 18, 2017, 11:50:47 PM
Certainly not for better and not for all. Ukraine's Parliament (Rada) has recently voted, and President Poroshenko signed, a law that cancels the ethnic minorities' (among which the largest is the Romanian) right to education in their own languages save for primary school only. Hungary and Romania tried in vain, by diplomatic means, to make them come to their senses. Accordingly, the matter will be presented to the Council of Europe for investigation.
Russian nationalism should not blind us to the equally pernicious Ukrainian one.
I agree that new Ukrainian laws and reforms under Poroshenko have been a very mixed bag, some good, some not. Nationalism, and also some pressure on the media, compensating for the Russian invasion, has been extensive and too much in some cases. There has been a slight recovery as regards the overall economy and a few good corruption initiatives, resulting in more transparency at least (lawmakers must now go public about their wealth and earnings). The picture is still quite chaotic. Add to this a traditional, widespread scepticism among the general public, based on previous experiences, oligarchy, corruption and huge income differences ...
Today the parliament is debating oncoming, important health and electorate reforms, as well as lifting the immunity of deputees, with various opposition people demonstrating and putting up tents outside the building.
Quote from: Turner on October 19, 2017, 12:20:42 AM
I agree that new Ukrainian laws and reforms under Poroshenko have been a very mixed bag, some good, some not. Nationalism, and also some pressure on the media, compensating for the Russian invasion, has been extensive and too much in some cases. There has been a slight recovery as regards the overall economy and a few good corruption initiatives, resulting in more transparency at least (lawmakers must now go public about their wealth and earnings). The picture is still quite chaotic. Add to this a traditional, widespread scepticism among the general public, based on previous experiences, oligarchy, corruption and huge income differences ...
Today the parliament is debating oncoming, important healh and electorate reforms, as well as lifting the immunity of deputees, with various opposition people demonstrating and putting up tents outside the building.
Yes, but the news frequently portray the evolutions there as a fight between Ukrainians and Russians, thus brushing under the carpet the fact there are other nations too living in Ukraine and their own interests and rights are trampled under foot by both parties.
Quote from: Turner on September 14, 2017, 12:12:20 AM
Bump-bump
... And now rumours that their leaders are to be replaced by somewhat softer newcomers:
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/kremlin-rumored-ready-replace-leaders-donbas.html?utm_content=buffer2ff1b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The Russian financing of the statelets (including now the major parts of the fragmentary wellfare and state apparatus there, and of course their massive armies), plus the sanctions, has been extremely expensive.
Rather surreal events in the Luhansk statelet yesterday, with new "little green men" including identified troops from the Donetsk neighbour statelet, suddenly invading the Luhansk capital, in what appears to be a power struggle between fractions within the statelets. The new troops support the Luhansk interior minister, according to some with assistance from the Russian security services, whereas the old leader Plotnitsky is apparently still supported by the Kremlin advisor Surkov.
My daughter is there working for MSF. Based in Kyiv but often going to Mariupol for medical projects including working with TB patients in a prison and with people psychologically traumatised by war. As her father I worry about her a lot but am also very proud of her. Kyiv is such an interesting place - visited it earlier this year.
More reports of Plotnitsky fleeing to Russia with his trusted 'staff' members.
If so, the possible scenarios include a future merge of the two separatist 'republics'.