Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[Firn]

More informations about the way the Kremlin has icreasingly assumed control over the relevant media, translated by Pierre Vaux and orginially posted on Lentu.ru:

Today, the 12th of March, the owner of the Afisha-Rambler-SUP company, Aleksandr Mamut sacked the editor-in-chief of Lenta.ru, Galina Timchenko. Alexei Goreslavskiy, the deputy director-general for external communications, has been made the new editor-in-chief.

Unfortunately, this is not a staff reshuffle, so it needs some explanation. We believe that this reassignment represents direct pressure on the editorial office of Lenta.ru. The dismissal of an independent editor-in-chief, and the direct orchestration of the reassignment of someone from the Kremlin cabinet, is a violation of the law on media, which discusses the inadmissibility of censorship.

Over the last couple of years, the space for free journalism in Russia has shrunk dramatically. Some publications are directly controlled by the Kremlin, some through supervisors, and others by editors who are afraid of losing their jobs. Some media oulets have closed, others will be closing in the coming months. The disaster is not that we have nowhere to work. The disaster is that it looks like you have no more to read.

We certainly expected them to come for us.

We don’t believe this will last forever. In any case, you, our dear readers, should know about it.

We hope that we’ll meet again soon.

Your dear editors.

This has of course allowed the Kremlin to increasingly control what the great majority sees and hears and allows them to use massive propaganda to brainwash them. If you throw vast quantities of mud around the clock from all sides, something will stick.

On a different note the European political non-opponents seem to be in simplistic terms either on the far right or the far left. The first because they love to hate the EU and the second because the do the same with the USA.

[AmericanPride]

I'm skeptical about the efficacy and sustainability of any sanctions regime against Russia. Given the size of and structure of Russia's economy, sanctions are really small ball tactics at this point; and frankly, nobody thinks Crimea or Ukraine are worth risking torpedoing the global economy as it still slowly distances itself from the recession. Normalization of relations between Europe and Russia is a political necessity that will return in the near future. What this really demonstrates is that despite all the hype about soft power, smart power, et al, at the end of the day hard power is what creates facts on the ground and drives decision-making. Whatever the merit of Moscow's justifications and actions, there's no option of sufficient force to alter their course other than war.

[carl]

I'm skeptical about the efficacy and sustainability of any sanctions regime against Russia. Given the size of and structure of Russia's economy, sanctions are really small ball tactics at this point; and frankly, nobody thinks Crimea or Ukraine are worth risking torpedoing the global economy as it still slowly distances itself from the recession. Normalization of relations between Europe and Russia is a political necessity that will return in the near future. What this really demonstrates is that despite all the hype about soft power, smart power, et al, at the end of the day hard power is what creates facts on the ground and drives decision-making. Whatever the merit of Moscow's justifications and actions, there's no option of sufficient force to alter their course other than war.

I don't think the Poles will agree that it is isn't worth risking economic disruption if Russia moves into the Ukraine north of Crimea. They may just upset the group comity.

[AmericanPride]

I don't think the Poles will agree that it is isn't worth risking economic disruption if Russia moves into the Ukraine north of Crimea. They may just upset the group comity.

Unfortunately, despite Poland's ascendence since the end of the Cold War, it still has not been able to overcome its historical geographic obstacle - namely, being caught between two much stronger centers of power in Central Europe and Moscow. Warsaw has nowhere to turn if Berlin, Paris, and London strike a deal with Moscow that does not satisfy Poland's legitimate security interests. And that's the dilemma created by accepting the entrance of Poland (and the Baltic states) into the EU and NATO.

You wouldn't know it from the various spokespeople and media in Washington and Europe, but the West has no choice but to negotiate. From the New York Times:

The outlines of the sort of political settlement the United States is seeking emerged on Wednesday when President Obama and Ukraine’s interim prime minister, Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk, suggested that they would be willing to support expanded autonomy for Crimea if Russia were prepared to reverse its military intervention. Mr. Yatsenyuk also said his government would affirm an agreement that permits Russia to maintain a naval base there.

If Washington is in the stronger political position, why is it making concessions to Moscow? The sanctions exist to (1) posture for a better negotiating position, which is desperately needed and (2) signal to the various domestic audiences that action is being taken to save face. I don't think anyone seriously believes that the sanctions will compel Moscow to alter its course. As the 8th largest economy in the world, Russia is in a better position to resist sanctions but also to retailate as well than say, Serbia or Iraq.

[carl]

American Pride:

Your comment about Poland and the Baltic States is interesting. First it seems the Poles are helpless. They may not agree. Second, and even more interesting, is your apparent opinion that the disadvantage of having Poland and the Baltic States in NATO is that it makes it harder to sell them out.

I guess will see if that siloviki kleptocracy that is Russia can weather what may be coming their way.

[AmericanPride]

American Pride:

Your comment about Poland and the Baltic States is interesting. First it seems the Poles are helpless. They may not agree. Second, and even more interesting, is your apparent opinion that the disadvantage of having Poland and the Baltic States in NATO is that it makes it harder to sell them out.

I guess will see if that siloviki kleptocracy that is Russia can weather what may be coming their way.

Are the Poles "helpless"? No. But Poland is not exactly a superpower, either. Poland entered NATO to defend itself from Russia, but by doing so, it also put its security interests in the hand of Germany and France. Washington and Berlin can make an agreement with Moscow over Warsaw's objections - what recourse would Poland have if that were to occur? Could it leave the EU? Or suspend military cooperation with NATO? Absolutely not. That's the disadvantage for Poland entering into the EU and NATO. In realist IR and alliance theory, the utility of institutions and alliances like NATO are determined by their strongest members; i.e. the United States; and so the organization's interests largely reflect their interests. This is a disadvantage for Poland, which is clearly a weaker partner in the alliance, and politics is about trade-offs. The gain for Poland is the assurance of security, hence all the talk about "credibility" in Washington and elsewhere. So, the dilemma created by Polish membership is that Poland's security interests can be in direct contradiction with Berlin or Paris or Washington interest in avoiding or minimizing confrontation with Russia.

[davidbfpo]

Mirhond,

Your photo of flags is rather curious. It appears - on a quick check - to date back to July 2011, not recently. One press report refer to:

Organizers filming historical film "Match" have created a realistic and historically true situation the occupation of Kiev and Kharkov German fascist invaders.

Link:http://tol-nabat.info/main/7013-oni-...o-golubym.html