Ukraine in turmoil

[North Star]

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.

[Todd]

is 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.

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.

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. 

I 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.

The difference being that US is, arguably, the most hypocritical superpower the history has ever known.

Even the establishment journal Foreign Affairs acknowledges US hypocrisy.

[Todd]

The 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. 

[Florestan]

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.

The bombing didn't target "innocent subjects"

Oh yes, they were just unavoidable "collateral victims".

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.

The 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.

all 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.

[Todd]

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#

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?

[Rinaldo]

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.

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!

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).

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)

[Todd]

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!

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. 

[Florestan]

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. 

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.

(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.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.

[Philo]

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.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.

[Rinaldo]

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?

[Ken B]

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.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.

[Rinaldo]

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).

Indeed. We had our stint of 'gangsterism' but it thankfully never went full scale over here.

This 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.

[Florestan]

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. 

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.

[Philo]

Belarus-Russia-Ukraine: http://m.belarusdigest.com/story/belarus-refuses-support-russias-invasion-ukraine-17082

[mc ukrneal]

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).

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.

[mc ukrneal]

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.