Robust response by the Ukraine
A report that the Ukrainian state authorities are taking robust police action:http://www.interpretermag.com/ukrain...otection/#2008
davidbfpo
David, it is obvious the Ukrainians are rank amateurs.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
If there was any paramilitary/military competence they could have snatched a selection of 'Russian' rioters and after suitable coercion had them on National TV spilling the beans as who they are and who their puppet masters are.
In the absence of this, one must assume that the conspiract theory of Russian manipulation is being exaggerated.
BBC TV News has just reported that the Russian Foreign Minister has dismissed the occupations etc and stated they are an internal matter. Not on website yet.
davidbfpo
It's ironic that here you are arguing that Russians are not free to do as they please but on the other forum regarding the Second Amendment, everyone should do as they please. Anyway, the attitude of "what's mine is mine" is typical in anarchial politics where the power of the strong is the determinant of the outcome since there's no process to actually find, implement, or enforce a just solution. Talk about integration means building linkages and incentives to conform to a specific range of behaviors and norms; clearly the seizure of another state's territory and it's annexation through referendum is unacceptable in the Western context (at least as it applies to Ukraine but not Yugoslavia or Sudan). And that's because Russia is not a part of the political and economic structures of the West - sure, it has connections with it, but only in the way that one house might be connected to another, rather than being governed by the same 'house rules' so to speak. That window was during the early 1990s and possibly a smaller one in the early 2000s but clearly the Kremlin is flushed with confidence now and sees no reason for compliance.
And why should the Russians be at all concerned about Western norms? If we're talking about encouraging Russia to be a responsible state party in the Western-led international system, alienating it from the institutions that constitute that system is not the logical course.
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
Opposing views in Forbes... sort of a litmus check on the discourse among the financially concerned, just as Foreign Affairs is a good point to look in on the debates among the foreign policy elite.
What could be called a "neocon" side:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...pe-and-the-us/
And a "paleocon" opposing view:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougband...nse-to-europe/
For views that don't end in "con" we have to go somewhere other that Forbes.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
My 2 cents (from the blog) were
(Gates and his column were merely a pretext, of course. And I should have added ", preferably with weapons" to "confrontation".)When all you have is a hammer ...
... all problems look like nails to you.
I'm not impressed by Gates' display of intellect a.k.a. his recent Wall Street Journal column.
Him about Putin:
How stupid or dishonest is a man who was secretary of defence during the occupation of Iraq and still writes this? "reverence for international law"?He also has a dramatically different worldview than the leaders of Europe and the U.S. He does not share Western leaders' reverence for international law, the sanctity of borders, which Westerners' believe should only be changed through negotiation, due process and rule of law.
Right now I want an arena, Gladiator-style, full of Iraqi women who lost their sons in the war of aggression against Iraq in 2002, and Mr. Gates in the centre. I'd donate the shoes. Heavy, steel-capped work shoes.
Quite to the contrary; what Mr. Gates bemoans is not that Putin is unlike Western politicians; he bemoans that Putin has become like Gates' own ilk.
Do a thought experiment: Think of U.S. foreign politicians, White House folks under GWB and foreign policy commentators. Now imagine what policies they would advocate if they were Russians.
There are somewhat more sensible accounts of why and how Putin came to behave like this, and they don't dismiss the legitimacy of Russian grievances as easily as Gates. They rather paint a picture in which Western hypocrisy and "containment" policy (if not encroachment) have provoked Russia to behave as it does now. The high energy commodity prices of the last decade have helped Russia economically and made it more stable, more powerful. Now it asserts the right to be just as aggressive and hypocritical as some Western powers.
We've got many people who think they're brilliant enough to do foreign policy or to give advice on it. And too many of them aren't that brilliant, but rather fool themselves. They aren't even smart enough to comprehend backlash. Too many of them are one-trick ponies, capable of thinking in but one direction: Confrontation.
- - - - -
For sure, the majority of countries and people want a rules-based foreign policy world if they made up their mind about foreign policy at all. Others - with much military potential on call - think that rules are for the weak. The weak shall obey the rules, while the powerful do what they want.
And amidst all the nonsense talk about an "unipolar" world with but one "superpower" [blatherblather] these people fooled themselves into believing that their own party is the only one which can break the rules and get away with it (officially). Too bad Russia proves that others - shielded by the very same nuclear arms threat and the very same UNSC veto power - can break the rules as well and get away with it (officially). Now they're crying foul and rally to reduce this other power to a weak power which has to obey the rules.
Fools.
The NATO members had a unique opportunity to shape the world from a position of strength, to have the self-discipline and foresight to submit to rules as do the supposed weak powers. Instead, the steering wheel was given to warmongers in exactly the wrong countries and now we've got this mess with a hypocritical mixture of great and small powers, rule of force and rule of law.
We all pay the price by living in a world with unnecessary rivalries, hostilities, waste of resources and instability. At the very least we should punish the warmongers and make sure they won't be able to act as if they were wise experts on foreign policy any more.
Mark,
Dead on the money !
Our criminal police rounded up over 270 "non State actors" and sent them home packing. It happened so fast, that by the time Moscow began screaming, the Russian boys were already across the border
Remembering what Estonian President Ilves said to Obama.
This should have happened at the border, long before these "tourists" made it in.Chase down their money and be suspicious of every Russian passport holder.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
An interesting article on what Putin and his FM are demanding that the Ukrainians anchor in their new constitution---the idea of federalization.
Two things are at the core of their argument 1) the Ukraine needs a new constitution to reflect the Russian areas and 2) it must be anchored in the concept of federalization.
If one digs deeper into the many comments Putin and his FM has stated under federation the individual regions would also be allowed to work out their own economic treaties and international contacts independent of the central Ukrainian government's basic rights as a government to do the same thing.
Interesting that Russia/Putin and the FM keep referring to the 21 Feb. agreement which if anyone wants to look it up was not signed by Russia who just sent their Human Rights Commissioner to observe the 21 Feb meetings.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinio...ne/497680.html
If they don't get their act together fast... really fast, 09 May will be a nightmare for the population.
Victory Day is basically a bunch of BS unless you are a restless Russian leader with his heart set on yet another victory
Despite our developed security, we still have problems although short lived.
The only way out now is to billet about 10,000 UN troops with a bunch of friends flying in from all over creation.
Damn guys, get your Sierra together now !
If you want to blend in, take the bus
In view of recent events and Stan's comment I want to ask again about Polish capability for unconventional warfare in the Ukraine, do they have any? Will they use it?
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Carl,
Perhaps a little off the mark here with my pesky opinions, but then, we’ve been there, done that.
The Polish SF is on a par with most NATO units. But, why SF units and their capabilities ? Most SF units are trainers and we’ve past the point of training.
Looking back, what we should have had were a gazillion blue helmets running around and observing and protecting, all the while with a few military platoons and fighting vehicles for effect.
Victory Day will be a serious excuse and Putin knows that. Whatever happens instigated or otherwise, will only cement his profound impressions and warnings.
What we really need in the Ukraine now is several thousand peace keepers all over creation. Putin enjoys anonymity and he can’t do that with the borders closed and a bunch of freaky Westerners hanging about.
The trump card, much like in Zaire way back when, is to play into their hands with something they never wanted nor expected.
They need to shut their borders down, get rid of any Russian passport holders and re-take their buildings.
Alternatively, similar to the Baltic States, pay no attention to those that are occupying buildings. It is but symbolic and if you pay no attention, they will eventually go home to have lunch.
This is not Africa, but it is damn close to genocide if we play into Putin’s hand.
They can’t go it alone and we know that. What in God’s name Obama is doing puzzles the bejesus out of me.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
That box was blown wide open with the dismantling of Yugoslavia, culminating in the unilateral independence of Kosovo. The US has often been a proponent of self-determination (Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, South Sudan) but also regularly opposed it (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kurdistan, Crimea, Puntland). I don't recall the US position on East Timor.
Irredentism is not a new concept although its use as a deliberate foreign policy to break apart rivals is probably fairly recent. The eastern European states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, with the exception of Poland, never had formal independence prior to either the end of the USSR or the Russian Empire. So their current independence is not rooted in recognition of a long history of political independence but on the justification that nations (i.e. peoples) deserve states. And if we accept that each nation ought to have a state, then it follows that the state should contain the whole of the nation. Is Ukraine's territorial integrity justified by its organization as a Ukrainian state or is it based upon the borders given to it by the Soviet Union? Neither really offer substantive argument for retaining Crimea in Ukraine, and if we follow the nation-state argument, then either Russians need to emigrate to Russia or Russian borders need to change. So, we can say Ukraine's territorial integrity is inalienable "just because..."?
Mexico is a bad example - if only because the Mexican 'nation' is different in character than other nations; just as I would argue there's no true American 'nation'. At one point, the Mexican Empire stretched from the current Canadian border to Panama. And historically, this has been the norm - the creation of multi-ethnic empires (Mexico, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, etc). Russia is not a state in the Westphalian sense, even though the West tries to pretend it is, but it never has been an Westphalian nation-state.
I think there's some credibility to the theory that the final product of irredentism is generally peace; at least we have the example of post-World War 2 Europe with the massive population transfers and border exchanges, solidified further by two opposing military alliances. But now one of those alliances has disappeared and so has one of the multi-ethnic empires governing it, so there's alot of unresolved disputes, and new disputes, that have emerged. But as I've stated irredentism is great for nation-states, and I do not think Russia is a nation-state in the Westphalian context. So how do we get Russia from an imperial state (in the sense of one center ruling over multiple other peoples) to a Westphalian state in practice?
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
A great question with no Western answer.
We refuse to listen to people that have dealt with Vovo for years.
What's the big deal in admitting you have not a friggin clue and just spout BS via diplomatic channels as if you were somebody ?
Even the playing field and do as they do. That's the only thing they understand and the only way we can get by. Nobody wins BTW.
We better accept the fact that we will not win. Unless we want to entertain 2 million soldiers locked in a nuke war.
Only then, can a compromise be had.
Last edited by Stan; 04-08-2014 at 06:19 PM.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
carl---they in fact have a very good airborne unit we watched during the cold war days and they have a very good SF ability who has had extensive experience with NATO/US SF. And their officers are definitely not proRussian.
To everyone who posts here---Putin and the Russian FM keep mentioning over and over that there is a 150 man group from a western security company somewhere in the Ukraine.
Has anyone seen anything anywhere written about this supposed western security company---whatever the Russians are "seeing" is bothering them.
This goes back actually to the 1968 Czech thing that the SU claimed US SF from Germany were inside Czechoslovakia and involved in Prague.
Maybe they are "seeing" shadows again or maybe their own spatnaz teams have in fact "seen" US counterparts on the ground.
Reference this response from the Ukrainian government.
April 08, 2014 18:42
No U.S. security forces in southeast Ukraine - Kyiv
KYIV. April 8 (Interfax) - Ukraine's acting chief of the presidential administration Serhiy Pashynsky has denied claims that foreign mercenaries are involved in the Interior Ministry's operations in east Ukraine.
"I responsibly declare: there is no Right Sector, let alone U.S. security forces, in Kharkiv, Donetsk or Luhansk," Pashynsky said.
He joked, pointing at himself and Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov standing beside him: "American spies, two American security officers, are standing in front of you."
Later the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry denied that any foreigners were involved in handling the situation in southeastern Ukrainian towns.
"The police measures currently in place in the eastern regions of Ukraine involve solely Ukrainian law enforcement," Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Yevhen Perebyinis said at a briefing on Tuesday.
"We are surprised by such Russian claims," he said.
Last week the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry already denied such information from a blog, he recalled. "Of course, it got no confirmation," the diplomat said.
On April 7 the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that the Ukrainian Internal Troops and National Guards forces "with participation of militants from Right Sector, an illegal armed group," were moving to the southeast regions, including Donetsk. "They have the task of cracking down on protests of the country's southeastern residents against the policies of the current Kyiv authorities," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
Also, "particular alarm" is raised by the reports that this operation involves "about 150 U.S. specialists from the private military organization Greystone, disguised in Sokol special forces uniforms," the ministry said.
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 04-08-2014 at 08:27 PM.
The other thing to consider is that the conception of 'democracy' and what it means is different in the Russian tradition than the Western one (whether it's French, American, etc). Russians had their first taste of a democratic practice with the introduction of the Duma under the Czar, and it's powers were extremely limited. This was briefly replaced by a provisional republican government immediately prior to the October Rebolution, and then followed by then Soviet government and the CPSU with its emphasis on "democratic centralism" and organization by council. Even the Stalin Constitution formally granted rights and implemented democratic mechanisms although these were never respected in any sense acceptable in the West (due mostly to the consolidation of power, officially and mostly unofficially, by Stalin through the domination of the CPSU, as opposed to the actual relationships of the state bureaucracies). And at least in these early formulations of 'democracy', even when the CPSU approved candidates and many short-lists only had one name, citizens had a genuine confidence in the system of voting. Of course that revolutionary zeal eventually faded, until the Soviet system was replaced by the chaos of the oligarch model under Yeltsin, which in many ways was no more democratic in practice than the USSR - the elite just stopped paying lip service to the working class.
So now last week we have this latest about how Russians view democracy, and it's again clear that the Russian tradition of democracy is not at all like the Western one. Political order and social stability are priorities and civil rights and freedom of speech are treated more like bonuses instead of inalienable rights. If Putin is a criminal, evil, corrupt, a rogue, and whatever other characterizations provided of him, what's the source of his legitimacy in Russia? And if Russian democracy is formulated differently than in the West, and we are to respect political sovereignty, then how do we reconcile the differences in policy outcomes?
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
Oh, come on! Why do you still bother? I'm a KGB agent - of cause i'll send you a fake ID! There is no evidence in the entire Universe to disprove your claim, even the Divine Intervention won't help, I suppose.
Well, the source is the same magic which legitimized Hitler's power over German nation, the charms he casted upon the will of his people. Don't laugh, I've heard this explanation from German once.
Last edited by mirhond; 04-08-2014 at 08:20 PM.
Still awaiting it---and you have not responded to the "scientific" comments on Putin being an ethnic nationalist when you claimed he is not a nationalist---he simply lusts for power.
So now explain to us the reasons why you think he is not an "ethnic nationalist" using scientific arguments and as well explain why there is a belief by yourself that he is "lusting for power all by himself".
Should be an interesting comparison as I have never seen a "scientific" explanation of "lusting for power" by a national leader democratically elected to his position unless the entire population he is representing is "also lusting".
Unless Putin was not democratically elected?
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 04-08-2014 at 08:33 PM.
Some argue that our misunderstanding of Russia and of our relations is sufficient to seriously damage our national interests.
I am no academic and share only my personal views based on real experience, not often accepted elsewhere.
We blew it in Africa and we are blowing it now thinking we are smarter. We are not, and we are not on an even playing field. If there was ever a time we should be listening to the people who manged to understand and manipulate Putin, now would be a good time to do said.
I'm disappointed that some feel all of this is but a cultural misunderstanding.
You are however correct. We don't get it and the Russians are better at deception.
On 9 May, much like in all the former Soviet countries, the tiny group of former Soviet military - regardless of age and sex - will converge in some symbolic place and cause mayhem. It has happened every year and will continue, whether we understand it or not.
No secret formulas nor rocket scientists. I doubt even Abraham Maslow would have figured out what was going on.
If they don't get their act together soonest, we will no longer be having this conversation.... regardless of who got it right
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Who was in the USSR plus?
In Post 961 AmericanPride referred to, cited from a long passage:This puzzles me. Are you referring to the countries with the USSR / Russian Empire? Or the wider membership of the Warsaw Pact?The eastern European states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, with the exception of Poland, never had formal independence prior to either the end of the USSR or the Russian Empire.
Poland was not within the USSR, it was a Warsaw Pact member and IIRC its frontiers were endorsed, agreed whatever by the WW2 allies in the Yalta Agreement.
To Westerners and maybe others the 'satellite' countries in Eastern Europe may not have had independence by our standards, but history has ample examples of some not being guided from Moscow. Such as the decision by Hungary to allow East German tourists to exit for West Germany in 1989 is regarded by many as a critical event.
davidbfpo
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks