International law is so diluted by US actions in recent years claiming exceptions in the name of interests claimed and defined by us, that one would have a hard time finding a fair and honest judge who would not at least believe the Russians make a similar case.
These laws are more contracts between sovereign parties than binding codes anyway - and when parties act unchecked outside the terms of a contract they change the terms of the contract iaw said conduct.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
We've already had this conversation about your misuse of the term 'neo-imperialism'.Originally Posted by outlaw
What does the views and experiences of the 'common man on the street in Paris' have to do with Putin's own perceptions and decision-making?
Actually the mainstream criticism of Washington policy towards Russia since 1991 has been that the U.S. not taken into account any of Russia's words, legitimate or not. The U.S. has more or less assumed that Russia is no longer a big deal. And, we've also already discussed your misuse of the term 'fascism'.
Playing fast and loose with the concepts doesn't help anyone, but I'm pretty sure you're not here to actually have a conversation about Russia.
As I've already explained, it's about perception, and that perception is also within the context of historical continuity. I know, difficult concepts. World War II (you know, that conflict that killed up to 25 million Soviet people or 14% of the population) put Russian security paranoia into overdrive and it has not abated much since. It's called national or transgenerational trauma and it's deeply rooted in Russian foreign policy and national security. Combine that with the deficit between Russia's perceived and ascribed status and you have a reciepe for risk-taking in foreign policy.
Like neo-imperialism, fascism, and state risk-taking, I've also already answered this question.
That's your interpretation. I've never used the word 'victim'. And that terminology doesn't provide any value-added to understanding Russia's motives.
And I'll ask my question once again that you have repeatedly avoided: if Russian leadership is "not reacting as normal sane thinking humans" or if they are "irrational" and live in an "altered state of reality", how can you be confident that any Western response will produce the desired results in Russian behavior? You can't have it both ways: either Russia is a rational, predictable state and countermeasures can elicit a predictable response, or Russia is an irrational state and countermeasures will produce unpredictable responses.
Last edited by AmericanPride; 10-22-2014 at 03:41 PM.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
See again AP you cannot get the wording correct---in the world of international relations when a country uses the term "humiliation" the "presumption" is that the country is a "victim" of something---or has that not changed in the English language usage these days?
We've already had this conversation about your misuse of the term 'neo-imperialism'.
What does the views and experiences of the 'common man on the street in Paris' have to do with Putin's own perceptions and decision-making?
Actually the mainstream criticism of Washington policy towards Russia since 1991 has been that the U.S. not taken into account any of Russia's words, legitimate or not. The U.S. has more or less assumed that Russia is no longer a big deal. And, we've also already discussed your misuse of the term 'fascism'.
Playing fast and loose with the concepts doesn't help anyone, but I'm pretty sure you're not here to actually have a conversation about Russia.
As I've already explained, it's about perception, and that perception is also within the context of historical continuity. I know, difficult concepts. World War II (you know, that conflict that killed up to 25 million Soviet people or 14% of the population) put Russian security paranoia into overdrive and it has not abated much since. It's called national or transgenerational trauma and it's deeply rooted in Russian foreign policy and national security. Combine that with the deficit between Russia's perceived and ascribed status and you have a reciepe for risk-taking in foreign policy.
Like neo-imperialism, fascism, and state risk-taking, I've also already answered this question.
That's your interpretation. I've never used the word 'victim'. And that terminology doesn't provide any value-added to understanding Russia's motives.
And I'll ask my question once again that you have repeatedly avoided: if Russian leadership is "not reacting as normal sane thinking humans" or if they are "irrational" and live in an "altered state of reality", how can you be confident that any Western response will produce the desired results in Russian behavior? You can't have it both ways: either Russia is a rational, predictable state and countermeasures can elicit a predictable response, or Russia is an irrational state and countermeasures will produce unpredictable responses.
Secondly, really really go back and reread the article concerning the use of the word "humiliation".
She lists a number of "humiliation arguments" that Russia claims to be "aggrieved" on.
Then she takes each one of those "aggrieved complaints apart" and behold it is nothing more nothing less that a standard Russian "myth" used to push it's own geopolitical agenda.
Truly go back and reread then answer the authors arguments.
Thirdly--if you really think the sanctions, sinking oil price, and free falling Rubel has not reigned in nor gotten the attention of Putin and his advisory crew then absolutely nothing will.
If as you argue they are "rational thinking human beings"---then one would say totally defying the laws of economics in the face of a fully collapsing economy is intensely damaging to one's career if you are a leader of a "normal thinking" country.
That is another perfect example of the term you really hate to use "altered state of reality". So if they are not "rational thinking beings" THEN what is driving them to avoid being one?---ethno neo imperialism cloaked in the simple term fascism or DO you have an explanation for the eight Russian mercenary groups which are truly Russian fascists fighting in the Ukraine against from Russia alleged to be Ukrainian Nazi's?
Think about it.
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-23-2014 at 05:38 AM.
AP---think about the term "Russian humiliation" for a moment.
Here are two further examples of Russian annexation moves which if one takes the "normal view that human beings act in normal fashions" goes completely against the view of "Russian humiliation" and towards Russian expansionism ie neo imperialism driven by ethnicity.
1. In addition to the annexation of the tiny Yaya Island located in the desolate Laptev Sea------in the Artic and never Russian territory and never "threatened by NATO moving eastwards since 1991"
2. Russia stated yesterday they are signing legal documents with the Georgian enclaves which are basically a half step away from total annexation and under Russian law lay the groundwork for total annexation---AND AP not a single peep from the west
And that is what "Russian humiliation" or simply Russian expansionism at work?
Oh--forgot -it was caused by NATO's eastward movements right?
AP---let us go back and revisit your concept of "rational thinking human behavior" for a moment.
I think you might agree with me for a moment that any leader of a country that is "rational thinking" in the face of a "free falling economy" WOULD in fact do everything possible to 'save" his or here country.
BUT what if he or she takes a completely different stance---meaning a military geopolitical victory takes precedence over virtually everything else.
IS that leader "acting rationally or ill rationally"?
As you can see the Russian economy is dangerously starting to repeat the free falling crash of 1998.
#Russia Central bank trying to save the RUB from collapse, sold > $ 1 billion for the last one hour (!)
pic.twitter.com/KoY849ipuB
Oil slump leaves Russia even weaker than decaying Soviet Union | via @Telegraph http://fw.to/6tkC8lK
OR AP does this signal that in fact Russia wants to annex the eastern Ukraine or what Putin called three times in Milan---New Russia.
#BreakingReport Russian military experts are in #Donbas to help "DNR" and "LC" create a "unified military command" and structure
#Ukraine positions came under fire 30times w/in 24hrs. Heavy fire n Debaltseve, #Donetsk, #Mariupol
#Putin signed a law to compensate families of #Russia soldiers, who went missing on maneuvers
Missing in maneuvers? Never happened to #NATO (By the way AP it is European bloggers who are stating and have been stating the MIAs number in the hundreds---and not a word from western media ---ever wonder why?)
SO AP---just what maneuver did the Russian soldier sgo missing on? ---if a Russian maneuver then they were inside Russia and no one can find them in Russia?---come on AP "rational and or ill rational thinking/actions"?
Appears to me Putin is not interested in a solution other than what he dictated in his DUMA speech six months ago.
AND yet what does Putin do---threatens Georgia with further annexations, still sends Russian troops into the Ukraine as confirmed today by two respected UK Moscow journalists on the ground seeing them there and the Russian FM stating today Russia might not accept nor honor the Ukrainian elections from this weekend because the junta threw out the former President "illegally".
#Russia has taken serious measures derail whatever it costs #Ukraine Upper Rada election under false flag / pretext.
pic.twitter.com/hyOdduve2g
Ukrainian intelligence finds large weapons cache in #Novoaidar to disrupt the elections on Sunday
pic.twitter.com/XZVQs6KtMc
Rational thinking leader and or ill rational thinking leader?
AND yet you seem to not want to accept the term "altered state of reality" or some in the interrogation world would call it "cognitive dissonance" if you do not like altered state.
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-23-2014 at 09:18 AM.
AP---"Russian humiliation or no humiliation" some others see Russia as much as a threat as I do and I went through the Cold War here and thought in 1991 it was going to be a thing of the past.
George Soros: Russia poses existential threat to Europe
http://bit.ly/1sSkBEE
One can argue all day long judicially---put it is always countered by reality on the ground as physical actions taken by any country regardless of ideology have always spoken louder than international laws/agreements regardless of actor and or actors involved.
This Russian FM statement sentence goes to the heart to the Russian info war and they have repeated it so often they actually believe it.
The United States and the European Union have repeatedly accused Russia of meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs and escalating the crisis, but Moscow has repeatedly denied these allegations.
They never tire of stating we have done nothing inside the Ukraine---we do not provide materials and weapons, we do not provide actual troops and mercenaries, we did not shoot down MH17, we did not shell across our borders and our borders are secure--- thus we are the "aggrieved party" nothing more nothing less.
When a nation repeatedly is trapped in it's own "rationality" that it creates to explain it's actions and cannot turn loose of that "rationality" there will never be a political solution and the military solution is the only option.
Aggressive Russians in London demand Putin's war in Ukraine because "We, Russians are f...... oppressed in Latvia!"
http://totall.me/video/826509
When a country decides to define it's external actions on ethnicity and languages and has a finger on and threatens the use of nuclear weapons to back up that ethnicity claim then we might as well rewrite international affairs and state that all country borders world wide are fair game to be changed meaning the strongest neighbor rules---and that leads us where?
It leads us to this.......so does western media and western leaders openly ask themselves the following simple question---What the heck is a Russian uniformed and Ryssian Navy ID carrying Marine doing in eastern Ukraine when the Russian FM above stated "we are being wrongly accused by the West and we are not meddling"?
OR have they gotten so use to the Russian lies they simply go on with business as usual and think nothing of it as experience has shown them in the last six months nothing will change the Russian version of "reality"--not all the talking, not all the negotiations---only sanctions, sinking Ruble and oil prices BUT that does not even get the attention of Putin.
BREAKING In #Nikishyne detained #Russian marine fr #Novorossiysk
https://www.facebook.com/SecurSerUkr...49020428661290 …
pic.twitter.com/8enTNtEHwv
BREAKING #Ukraine army detained yesterday in #Nikishyne #Russian marine fr #Novorossiysk, army document ID #12910, born May 12 1983
BREAKING #Russian terrorists brought to #Telmanove 4 (2 wks ago) to 7 (per y'day) GRAD vehicles, dug in. Looking for crew, offer 5000UAH/mth
PM of Donetsk Republic prophecies battle for Sloviansk & Mariupol
Donetsk Forces Plan to Retake Slaviansk, Kramatorsk, Mariupol
http://en.ria.ru/world/20141023/1944...-Mariupol.html … via @ria_novosti
And we the West have the agreements Minsk 1 and 2 and claim things are "looking great"?
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-23-2014 at 09:40 AM.
Good for you. I don't think anyone on this board has stated that Russia is not a 'threat' to U.S. interests. The difference remains in the extent and causes of that threat.
There are alot of tangled assumptions in that statement. 'Rational thinking' only means that there is a logical connection between motive, opportunity, and means. That's it. Now what we think is rational from an outsider's perspective for Russia's political elite will be different from what they determined to be rational from their point of view. Humans are also rationalizing - meaning that their decisions are shaped by previous decisions and their own perceptions. Not every decision is made on its own merits but is made within the continuity of all the decisions before it, starting with the anchoring positions and assumptions. This is why people "throw good money after bad" or "throw the baby out with the bathwater".
Additionally, we also have to consider the consequences of collective and bureaucratic decision-making. There is a 'collective rationality' produced by the outcomes of internal debates and deliberations between key personalities and bureaucracies. Sometimes this 'collective rationality' generates sub-optimal outcomes when compared to the assumption of monolithic state decision-making. So the Putin administration may in fact be doing 'everything' they think possible to "save" the Russian economy.
It depends how a "military geopolitical victory" fulfills the desired objectives of the Putin administration. It may be that the outcomes of such a victory (say, consolidation of state powers or control of the state by Putin and his allies) are more important to the decision-makers than the consequences, such as recession. Generally speaking, domestic interests trump international ones, and sometimes directly dictate foreign policy decisions. Even with the economic consequences, Putin has managed to consolidate state powers and sustain high public opinion, even for him. This probably reinforces Russia's intrasgience when it comes to Ukraine.
Now when a state is commited to a course of action, the issue becomes less about the course taken and more about the credibility of the state. One of your arguments is that Russia's actions have encouraged NATO solidarity, and is therefore 'irrational' since the assumption is that Russia wants to break NATO. That may be true. But it also may be true that the Russian elite on some level welcomes NATO's perception that Russia is a threat because it indicates that Russia is being taken seriously as a world power. Reversing course now would give credence to the argument that Russia is impotent.
You ask these questions like I care about Russian propaganda.
First, to say that there are 'laws of economics' to be defied is absurd. There are causual relationships between inputs and outputs that sometimes hold true under some circumstances given specific conditions.
Second, Russia's economy is not 'fully collapsing'. It's heading towards recession. There is no way to predict how long the recession will last or the depth it will go.
And third, the recession may or may not be 'intensely damaging' to Putin. Political leaders have survived worse, even in reliably democratic countries. More likely, Putin will find a scapegoat to direct any public resentment - probably the West since the majority of Russians view the West as the enemy.
I've answered this question elsewhere already.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
And this is the eastern Ukrainian Russian mercenary response to the Russian claims of "humiliation".
So again just was that "humiliation"?
Press conference Donetsk: "Very soon we'll simply wipe ukraine from the political map of the world."
pic.twitter.com/Lk80yCnRRt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1lKv18Bw4k … 'We'll be retaking [#Ukraine's] #Sloviansk,#Kramatorsk,#Mariupol,' warlord #Zakharchenko says
pic.twitter.com/J1y0VEqgbL
Russia continues to obstruct expansion of OSCE mission on its border with Ukraine - @usosce
http://osce.usmission.gov/oct_22_14_press_release.html …
pic.twitter.com/NlyrXlELjD
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-23-2014 at 04:28 PM.
See again AP--absolutely not reading the Washington Post story that triggered the "humiliation" questions leads to many of your comments or lack of answers to many of my questions placed to you.
If you had read the article---then does the following resemble any form of Russian "humiliation"--especially since what the author wrote in her article has been repeated multiple times by Russia just before and right after the Crimea annexation and Putin's Duma speech.
BUT surprisingly Russia has not mentioned any of the same "humiliation" statements since Russian troops crossed into the Ukraine. interesting is it not?
But if you had really understood Putin and all of what he has stated/written since 2002 ---- the "humiliation" accusations are just another Russian effort to define what Putin's geopolitical goals are actually.
1. Putin wants the destruction of NATO thus no longer a perceived military threat to Russia
2. Putin wants the EU split from the US thus the total reduction of US influence in all of Europe
3. Putin wants the EU to be destroyed as an economic/legal power in Europe as he views western liberalism to be an evil thing for the Russian culture ie the EU general legal protection of homosexuals is a massive Russia dislike right now--down to refusing any mail coming into Russia from Finland if the stamp has a nude man on it
If you really took the time to analyze the macroeconomics of Russia's dislike of the EU Association agreements--you will be light years ahead in your thinking-ever wonder WHY?
WHY--because any country that has joined the EU must go through all of their own laws and reform them, cancel them and or rewrite them to match the standard EU legal/economic law requirements WHICH goes totally against Russian State owned enterprises and the Russian oligarchs. The matching of EU laws would effectively limit the Russia gas weapon currently being used by Putin.
Secondly it would force Russia to reign in their old line Soviet current corruption practices which led to the fortune that Putin himself hides.
For the record: No treaties prohibiting NATO expansion were ever signed with Russia. No promises were broken. Nor did the impetus for NATO expansion come from a “triumphalist” Washington. On the contrary, Poland’s first efforts to apply in 1992 were rebuffed. I well remember the angry reaction of the U.S. ambassador to Warsaw at the time. But Poland and others persisted, precisely because they were already seeing signs of the Russian revanchism to come.
When the slow, cautious expansion eventually took place, constant efforts were made to reassure Russia. No NATO bases were placed in the new member states, and until 2013 no exercises were conducted there. A Russia-NATO agreement in 1997 promised no movement of nuclear installations. A NATO-Russia Council was set up in 2002. In response to Russian objections, Ukraine and Georgia were, in fact, denied NATO membership plans in 2008.
Meanwhile, not only was Russia not “humiliated” during this era, it was given de facto “great power” status, along with the Soviet seat on the U.N. Security Council and Soviet embassies. Russia also received Soviet nuclear weapons, some transferred from Ukraine in 1994 in exchange for Russian recognition of Ukraine’s borders. Presidents Clinton and Bush both treated their Russian counterparts as fellow “great power” leaders and invited them to join the Group of Eight — although Russia, neither a large economy nor a democracy, did not qualify.
So AP get back to the actual articles' acutal assumption---there was no Russian "humiliation" which was the core argument presented to the West as the core reason for Russian annexation of the Crimea and the creation of "New Russia".
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-23-2014 at 04:25 PM.
AP---these are the actions of what "rational thinking" leaders who stated there must be negotiations--which were then Minsk 1 and 2.
I recall even you pushed the theory of negotiations did you not?
You got them but did the negotiations work? No ceasefire in the fighting---AND Russia never even attempted to implement anything in Minsk 1 and 2 --and the two agreements carried the Russian signatures.
#BREAKINREPORT
2800 Ukrainian troops and fighters remain POW and MIA in #Donbas.
Only 1300 were freed and exchanged since the #Minsk treaty.
By the way AP---this was a key element of Minsk 1 and was to be completed within 24 hours after signing Minsk 1.
#BREAKINGNEWS Ukrainian intelligence expects large scale Russian invasion army offensives around or after the Ukrainian elections. -
#BreakingReport Russian invasion forces - hundreds of Chechens and Cossacks with new Russian army equip - prepare offencive vs. Vuhlehirs'k.
Russia May Plan Provocation Passing Off Its Tanks for Ukrainian. PHOTOS
http://24today.net/open/183610
pic.twitter.com/5TSlH7vDzb
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-23-2014 at 04:45 PM.
Another great example of Russian "altered state of reality"
From Interfax today:
20:30 SERGEI IVANOV EXPRESSES SUPPORT FOR PLANNED ELECTIONS IN DONETSK PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC, LUHANSK PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC
15:34 Lavrov: Implementation of Minsk on eastern Ukraine should grow into nationwide dialogue
DPR premier: Militia plans to seize Kramatorsk, Mariupol, Slovyansk
DONETSK. Oct 23 (Interfax) - Self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko has announced the militia's plans to regain control over a number of Donbas cities and warned that fierce hostilities may resume.
"Kramatorsk, Mariupol and Slovyansk will be ours. We intend to take them, to regain them. So, I do not rule out the possibility that there will be fierce hostilities again," Zakharchenko told reporters on Thursday.
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-23-2014 at 04:58 PM.
Simply amazing how well western media is so well informed on Ukrainian events--they still have not picked up on the German President of their CIA giving a false statement concerning the shot down of MH17 two days ago.
When Reuters says it has evidence of direct Russian military involvement in Ukraine, everyone jumps. Nevermind YOUR/OUR efforts over months!
Exclusive Reuters: Charred tanks T-72BMs in #Ukraine point to #Russia|n involvement.
http://reut.rs/12i9mN2 #Ukraina
pic.twitter.com/rFXrwgaJcH
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-23-2014 at 05:22 PM.
Repeatedly trying to kill the messenger is humorous at best.
All of these are unverifiable assumptions. You use words like 'destruction', 'total reduction', 'destroyed', and 'evil thing' - common terms when viewing through an absolutist prism where things are either one way or not. But in reality, Russian foreign policy is far more nuanced and limited than global domination. More realistically, the current Russian leadership is probably primarialy concerned first with preserving Russia's perceived sphere of influence and second, with decentering international power from the U.S. and building a more multilateral system where Russia can exercise more influence.
Nobody ever claimed that negotiations are either 100% effective or that they not long, drawn-out, dramatic affairs. Negotiations are a process, not an event, and they can at times be as unpredictable as conflict. But negotiations more often than conflict produce sustainable agreements afterwards - again, how many conflicts end with negotiations and how many end with capitulation? The difference between Georgia and Ukraine is that there are a far larger number of stakeholders in the negotiation, and the principal belligerents (Ukraine and Russia) do not have absolute control over them or even over the negotiation process. Minsk 1 and 2 provide the framework, and obviously more work needs to be done, but their partial implementation is not indicative of the sufficiency of negotiations. If that were the case, then every failed war would be an argument to abolish war...
Also note that the conditions on the ground appear to have less of an impact on negotiations' pace than 'external' conditions: economic situation in both Ukraine and Russia, war weariness among the public, and the approaching winter season.
It's been the position of Moscow since the start of the conflict that the eastern provinces should have more autonomy, so it is not surprising that they are angling to capitalize on the coming elections in that territory to push that agenda. What is surprising is that as a self-proclaimed expert you are so dismissive of clearly stated Russian policy positions while simultaneously embracing Russian propaganda at face value as demonstrations of an 'altered state of reality'.
Last edited by AmericanPride; 10-23-2014 at 05:30 PM.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks