Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[wm]

Are you in denial that appeasement is at the core of the current response to Russian military aggression?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Nice double question fallacy on your part.

PS: cowards always seek to rationalise their behaviour - to respond to your question[/I]

I fail to see how this is an answer to my question--This response does not speak in any way to how the 6 reasons for appeasement of Hitler and Nazi Germany are germane today WRT to Putin and Russia.

[OUTLAW 09]

wm---come on dude---check CNN both online as well as their ongoing International Desk.

Do you really read anything other than........whatever is your view point.

Secondly, if you read German then this goes to what JMA is talking about ---read it on the German Huffington Post---taken from a close associate to Putin 2000-2005---the last sentence reinforces what JMA has been saying.

Putins Ziel sei es, ein Russland wie unter Zar Nicholas II. oder Stalins Sowjetunion wiederherzustellen. "Seiner Ansicht nach ist es seine Aufgabe, zu beschuetzen, was ihm und seinen Vorfahren gehrt", sagte Illarionov der schwedischen Tageszeitung. "Putin beansprucht Teile Georgiens, die Ukraine, Weirussland, die baltischen Staaten und Finnland."

Russland koennte etwa die Unabhngigkeit von Finnland 1917 bestreiten und sie als "Verrat nationaler Interessen" anfechten. Weil Finnland nicht Teil der Nato ist, wuerde jede militrische Aktion gegen das Land nicht unbedingt eine Antwort des Westens hervorrufen, schreibt der britische Independent.

Eine Invasion ist laut Illarionov allerdings nicht auf Putins aktueller Agenda. "Aber wenn niemand Putin stoppt, wird das frueher oder spaeter passieren", warnt Putins Ex-Berater.

[OUTLAW 09]

wm---what is with this comment referencing "fallacy"---the last time we had this use of the term it was from mirhond if I recall correctly about four hundred postings ago on this thread and he would use it in the same exact way if I recall his comments---you were not in the same class with the same teacher by the way?

"Nice double question fallacy on your part."

This comment also reminds me of mirhond---who I am assuming you do not know or actually you might in fact know him.

"By the way your prior post about Breedlove commenting on Russia's ability to sprint across the Ukraine (my poor paraphrase of your post) came to light in an article in the NY Post--not exactly a quality source unless you are looking for scandal and innuendo."

So I guess in the true mirhond fashion you do not like NYT writers for what reasons---poor English grammar, poor research etc.

By the way the Breedlove comment was carried by NATO's own homepage as well as CNN as well as the Kiev Post as well as der Spiegel who I am assuming you feel that they are all looking for scandal and innuendo.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Outlaw, along the same lines of Putin's emphasis on Russain ethnic identity as being the basis for action, Putin highlighted another Pro Russian enclave in his call to the President:

While not mentioning Crimea, the Kremlin drew attention to Ukraine’s blockade of Transnistria, a breakaway, pro-Russian region of Moldova, another former Soviet republic to the south. Frozen for years in an international limbo, neither accepting Moldova’s rule nor formally part of Russia, Transnistria has relied on land access through Ukraine for crucial imports.

It is hard to tell if this is 1) for domestic consumption, and therefore a way to back out of a potentially bad situation; 2) part of a real concern for ethnic Russians; or 3) a way to justify a push into Eastern Ukraine in order to protect Transnistrian Russians.

What concerns me is that we are not in a position to make a realistic determination of which of the above three options (or combination of them) are actually Putin's motivation for bringing up the subject.

What is clear is that Russian ethnic identity is helping Putin's status in Russia.

[Stan]

What is clear is that Russian ethnic identity is helping Putin's status in Russia.

Similar to Bush jr., approval ratings worked well til all the dead soldiers returned home

He managed to rouse ethnic tensions here too, but not sufficient to snap half of an EU and NATO country.

A little too soon and overrated in my opinion.

[OUTLAW 09]

TC----check out the ongoing comments between myself and Bill M over on the blog side concerning Russian nationalism under the Open Letter to Obama.

It is deep- it is there- and we in the West have basically not seen it nor maybe not wanted to see it in our moves towards soft power.

Bill had some interesting comments concerning the ethnicity (Russian) of the citizens currently inside the Russian Federation which he pointed out is relatively high for a country and then look at the enclaves he is going after and it also includes Finland as Russian nationalism has been preaching against the 1917 Finnish agreement.

He is in fact chasing the Czarist dreams of an all Russian empire--nothing more nothing less and he has a military force able to implement with short lines of communication and after 13 years of chasing jihadi's NATO has nothing to counter with.

The messaging concerning Breedlove's coming back to NATO today was to the point---"we do not trust what you are telling us" about the alleged exercise---when one hears the term "lack of transparency"---that is not a good sign in the world of power politics.

[kaur]

To Outlaw about snipers.

Here are some videos about that shooting episode. First you have to consider chronology. In the morning that day 20.02 UA interior ministry reported that there was sniper fire against police forces. There were wounded policemen.

1. video (in Russian) and you see not regular police unit moving forwar at Insitutskaja street. Their barricade was at corner of Intitutskaya and Olhynska street. You can hear intensive shooting and guys with optical rifles instruct each other to observe windows (sounds very much like counter sniper action) and this unit is moving forward http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B4OgynH-7Is

2. video. I think that this video shows the same unit moving forward towards Maidan square street institutskaja and filmed from other side. They were shooting to the ground and forcing crowd to move back to Maidan. One moment they started to retreat back to their initial position. Then the killing started by the hotel Ukraina.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JVc1hzi_r_Q
Maybe they started retreat after their casualty? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iICzRf8m21w

3. video. Video says that head of Alpha sniper unit claims that they were on the roof of cabinet of ministers and didn't fire a shot http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3A1u49lRwr8

Map of the area http://varlamov.me/2014/-/rev_2014_02_18_41.jpg

My thought. If you look at the number of policemen and the number of Maidan guys, then I speculate that police opened fire to prevent overrun of their positions and they carried out mission of protection of government district. At the same time EU ministers were negotiating truce talks between president and opposition inside this area. Result was so called 21.02 agreement.

[JMA]

[QUOTE=wm;154280]

Are you in denial that appeasement is at the core of the current response to Russian military aggression?[?"QUOTE]
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Nice double question fallacy on your part.

I fail to see how this is an answer to my question--This response does not speak in any way to how the 6 reasons for appeasement of Hitler and Nazi Germany are germane today WRT to Putin and Russia.

You try and do a list of the reasons why as applicable to this scenario... afterall you seem to be on the side of those who see no threat from Russian military adventurism.

[JMA]

Again one wonders what is your source??? I ask because according to the Senate Armed Services Committee web page, the hearings are still on for April 1st.

You are being ridiculous.

U.S. sends top general back to Europe over Ukraine crisis

U.S. Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel considered Breedlove's early return "the prudent thing to do, given the lack of transparency and intent from Russian leadership about their military movements across the border," a Pentagon spokesman said.

Ukraine crisis: top U.S., NATO general recalled to Europe

Gen. Philip Breedlove, who is both NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the head of the U.S. military's European Command, had been due to testify before Congress this week. He arrived in Europe Saturday evening.

I suggest you offer an unreserved apology to Outlaw and readers here for trying to be a smart ass.

By the way your prior post about Breedlove commenting on Russia's ability to sprint across the Ukraine (my poor paraphrase of your post) came to light in an article in the NY Post--not exactly a quality source unless you are looking for scandal and innuendo.

NATO Commander warns of Russian military building on Ukraine border

Nato general warns about Moldova, Baltics

He also warned the current number of troops amassed along the eastern Ukrainian border may pose a threat for Moldova and its separatist region of Transniestria, which last week requested to be incorporated into Russia on the Crimean model.

Again, you have been exposed for the ..... you are. If you are nor man enough to apologise to Outlaw publicly then at least do it by private message.

[Fuchs]

Yes this rings a bell...

From Chamberlain and appeasement

I ceased to pay attention when some anglophone person mentions "appeasement". They almost never get it right, and the context is almost always utterly unsuitable.

[JMA]

I ceased to pay attention when some anglophone person mentions "appeasement". They almost never get it right, and the context is almost always utterly unsuitable.

Sorry if I touched a nerve there. It must be embarrassing to be a German at the moment.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Similar to Bush jr., approval ratings worked well til all the dead soldiers returned home

He managed to rouse ethnic tensions here too, but not sufficient to snap half of an EU and NATO country.

A little too soon and overrated in my opinion.

Stan,

The dynamics of Nationalism in a individualistic democracy (Bush) and Ethnicity or Religion in a communal society (Putin) are different. Ethnic wars can go on for centuries but Democracies lose interest in Nationalistic fights in about 5-7 years. When I have more time I will provide references, but don't confuse the two, they are not the same.

Take for example, the US and Germany. The US fought a war 60 years ago with Germany but we don't equate it as a war with the Germans but as a war with their misguided leadership. I don't think the Russians see their conflict with Germany the same way, although I think they have morphed it into a distrust and hatred of Fascism.

Probably the closest American's came to this was the sustained mistrust of the Russians as the leaders of the Soviet Union. But the idea of hating a people based on their identity goes against the core values of a individualistic, liberal democracy. That is why we have to believe that this is all Putin's doing and if the people of Russia were not living in a police state they would understand what a dictator Putin really is. We HAVE to believe that, because the alternative threatens the very basis of our value system. It is this value distinction that matters and allows identity to play such a undying role in Russian social dynamics.

[wm]

Putins Ziel sei es, ein Russland wie unter Zar Nicholas II. oder Stalins Sowjetunion wiederherzustellen. "Seiner Ansicht nach ist es seine Aufgabe, zu beschuetzen, was ihm und seinen Vorfahren gehrt", sagte Illarionov der schwedischen Tageszeitung. "Putin beansprucht Teile Georgiens, die Ukraine, Weirussland, die baltischen Staaten und Finnland."

Russland koennte etwa die Unabhngigkeit von Finnland 1917 bestreiten und sie als "Verrat nationaler Interessen" anfechten. Weil Finnland nicht Teil der Nato ist, wuerde jede militrische Aktion gegen das Land nicht unbedingt eine Antwort des Westens hervorrufen, schreibt der britische Independent.

Eine Invasion ist laut Illarionov allerdings nicht auf Putins aktueller Agenda. "Aber wenn niemand Putin stoppt, wird das frueher oder spaeter passieren", warnt Putins Ex-Berater.

A quote (or misquote?) from a Swedish daily--who knows for sure as yet again you do not source your quotation.
"Putins Ziel sei es, ein Russland wie unter Zar Nicholas II. oder Stalins Sowjetunion wiederherzustellen. " While Putin's goal may be to recreate the Russian Empire of Nicholas II or Stalin's USSR, wishing something does not make it so. In fact he might be careful what he wishes for--look what happened to Nicholas II.

I think the most revealing point in your quoted text comes from the highlighted last sentence as well: "warnt Putins Ex-Berater" ("warned Putin's ex-advisor")--for those readers who do not speak German. Perhaps Putin would be in a better place had he not alienated Illarionov with his return to totalitarianism--Vlad might at least have some cogent economic advice right now.

[wm]

wm---come on dude---check CNN both online as well as their ongoing International Desk.

Do you really read anything other than........whatever is your view point. A case in point follows.

I read a lot from all sides and do so quite carefully. One wonders about your ability to quote accurately. A case in point follows.
Youi said:

Add now the return of the Senior NATO Commander (US) back to NATO this evening due to "the lack of transparency" on the part of the Russian intentions. Interesting as he was in DC for Senate hearings which he cancelled and then suddenly left.

Here's the CNN story's excerpt

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the top U.S. commander in Europe back to the continent because of the "growing uncertainty in Ukraine," Pentagon press secretary Rear. Adm. John Kirby said Sunday. Gen. Phil Breedlove was in Washington, where he was supposed to give annual testimony before Congress later this week.

"More broadly, he felt it was important for General Breedlove to continue our efforts to consult with NATO allies, and to discuss specific ways to provide additional reassurance for our NATO allies in Eastern Europe," Kirby said of Hagel's decision to cut short Breedlove's stay in Washington.

"While it does not foreshadow imminent military action in Ukraine, the general's return will allow him more time to confer closely with his staff and our allies and partners, and to better advise senior leaders," Kirby said.

The reason I asked for your source was to see how badly you had distorted the news story you were sourcing. And, not surprisingly, the distortion is pretty apparent. Despite your assertion to the contrary, a US COCOM Commander does not have the prerogative to cancel Congressional hearings. GEN Breedlove did not act on his own initiative. He was told to go back to Europe by the SecDef. And GEN Breedlove could easily be back in DC for the Tuesday hearings.
Having GEN Breedlove back in Europe gives the folks back in DC the right level of clout at NATO to see and report on what the rest of the alliance leadership is thinking. I do not see anything here about a lack of transparency or any of the other fear-mongering stuff you cited previously.

[TheCurmudgeon]

TC----check out the ongoing comments between myself and Bill M over on the blog side concerning Russian nationalism under the Open Letter to Obama.

Outlaw, I have been following it. I think you and Bill have gotten it right. The problem as I see it is not that people don't understand Putin's using ethnicity to push for Russian empire. The problem is that Westerners don't really understand the power of ethnicity. They think it is only a tool use by political leaders and the "elite" or the "Oligarchs" to confuse the people, but it exists on its own. They did not create it. They only use it.

I am preparing a short paper trying to explain that the problem is not them, it is us and how we perceive the situation. It is basically taken from my work on Legitimacy. It goes over some of the basic research by Inglehart, Hofstede, ans Schwartz that I cite in that article. I was going to send it to SWJ but they seem to have a fairly large backlog so I am not sure where I will send it. (I have a piece I was told would be published soon on how we try to mix democratization with stabilization and end up doing neither well that includes a more in depth analysis of values called Schizophrenic Doctrine but they have not had a chance to publish it - the editors here are understaffed).

I will keep up with the conversation there.

Thanks

[wm]

wm---what is with this comment referencing "fallacy"---the last time we had this use of the term it was from mirhond if I recall correctly about four hundred postings ago on this thread and he would use it in the same exact way if I recall his comments---you were not in the same class with the same teacher by the way?

"Nice double question fallacy on your part."

A fallacy is an error in reasoning. Unlike mirhond, to whom you inappropriately compared me, I do not to just drop the fallacy bomb whenever I feel like it. I chose to point out that JMA had committed a significant fallacy with the text I quoted. He made assumptions that "appeasement is at the core of the current response" and that I knew this to be the case. He then proceeded to ask whether I denied the truth of these two unproved assumptions on his part. My response include the double question "Have you stopped beating your wife" To answer yes would affirm that he had previously beat his wife but now has stopped. To answer no would be to say that he is still beating his wife. Now I do not know whether JMA is married, but I suspect he would not like one to assume that he has ever been a wife beater, which one must accept by answer the question I posed. I did not want to be painted in to such a corner, which is what his question did.

]"By the way your prior post about Breedlove commenting on Russia's ability to sprint across the Ukraine (my poor paraphrase of your post) came to light in an article in the NY Post--not exactly a quality source unless you are looking for scandal and innuendo."[/B]

So I guess in the true mirhond fashion you do not like NYT writers for what reasons---poor English grammar, poor research etc.

I attributed the source as the NY Post--a far different newspaper than the NYT (aka New York Times) And thanks for the second unfounded slur. As a quid pro quo for that comment, I quess it is appropriate to ask when we can expect you to start quoting from the Weekly World News, People Magazine, WonderWall's web site and the National Inquirer.

By the way the Breedlove comment was carried by NATO's own homepage as well as CNN as well as the Kiev Post as well as der Spiegel who I am assuming you feel that they are all looking for scandal and innuendo.

Do you not get that the purpose of most media is to make money? A secondary goal is swaying opinion to their financial/governmental sponsors' point of view. Telling the truth is at best only tertiary.

[wm]

You try and do a list of the reasons why as applicable to this scenario... afterall you seem to be on the side of those who see no threat from Russian military adventurism.

As you so often accuse others, it now seems to be your turn to be unable to state a concrete position and instead just do some Google searching followed by selective cutting/pasting to support your backward looking search for the responsible parties who should be blamed for their mistakes.
For starters, perhaps you could justify your assuming that I see no threat from Russian military adventurism. In point of fact I see a significant threat--and not just from the Russians. I also see a threat from a ill-considered knee-jerk response to that adventurism which, as I previously posted, could devolve into a nuclear-armed "Guns of August." Your posts seem to paint you as a fan of historical parallels (whether they appropriately apply or not). Here's one for you. The last "War to End All Wars" started in a year whose last two digits were 14.

[Dayuhan]

He is in fact chasing the Czarist dreams of an all Russian empire--nothing more nothing less and he has a military force able to implement with short lines of communication and after 13 years of chasing jihadi's NATO has nothing to counter with.

Whoa, hold on... a few posts back Putin was trying to resurrect the Soviet Union (I believe that was presented as "a given"). Now he's trying to resurrect the Russian Empire. Which is it? Surely we are not pretending that the two were the same thing.

I've no doubt that Putin goes to bed at night dreaming of resurrected grandeur and potency, and of a return to imaginary glories that never really existed. He's hardly unique in that. I suspect that he wakes up to reality. He might, if he is presented with or able to contrive sufficient opportunity, be able to break off and reclaim a few Russian-dominated enclaves... it he and his elite inner circle are willing to put up with some pain and some risk. That would hardly equate to reconstituting the Russian Empire and would certainly not equate to a reconstituted Soviet Union.

What I think you're skating around here is the reality that an effort to build some sort of entity encompassing all Russian speakers and built on Russian nationalism is not even vaguely recreating the threat of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a threat to the US because it represented an ideology that had, at least in theory, the capacity to root and grow in any environment, and to seek to control any nation. Russian nationalism is not Communism, nor does it represent an equivalent threat.

If we speak of threat, we obviously have to ask who is threatened. In this case, nations bordering Russia that have significant Russian-dominated enclaves have every reason to feel threatened, especially if those enclaves are restive or have a separatist history. Nations that were once under the Soviet boot but have no significant concentration of ethnic Russians would be concerned, but might not perceive a direct threat. Western Europeans may not feel threatened at all, and we'd be hard pressed to define any direct threat to the US.

The key for the US, I think, is to remain calm, resist the wailing and rending of garments that goes with that "return of the Cold War" mantra, and remember that the nations of Europe are individually and collectively mature, capable, and very much able to make their own determinations about threat. Finland has been mentioned as a potential target... but do we need to go dashing out to tell the Finns how threatened they ought to feel? Of course not. The assessment of threat to Finland is for the Finns to determine. If they feel they need help, they will ask for it, and if they do, we should provide it, to the extent that it's compatible with our objectives and capacities. The same applies to others who believe they are (or are not) threatened.

There's a difference between trying to place a threat in a reasonable perspective and denying that any threat exists.

[Dayuhan]

Here you go again.

And there you go again, resorting to ad hominem in the absence of substance

This sounds like a repeat of your comments at the start of the Syrian crisis. You were 100% wrong then and with that track record I remain amazed you have the gall to try to sell your arguments on this thread. You have a very thick skin.

Out of curiosity, I looked at early posts (mid 2011) on the Syria threads. The opinion I expressed then was that while Syria was likely to devolve into a stellar mess, the US had no critical or even pressing interests at stake, US involvement was unlikely to make things better and could easily make them worse, and that the US should therefore STFO. I certainly don't think that was "100% wrong"; I retain the same opinion to this day. I am very happy that the US had the wisdom to avoid wading into that particular mess.

Funny how I read the international press and when you next post see you repeating the same line. You ever have original thoughts?

I don't know what you read of "the international press". From what I've seen much of the opinion writing on the Ukraine reflects the same bizarre tendency I see here: speaking of the issue as a confrontation between the US and Russia or even between Obama and Putin, and disregarding the role that Europe needs to play.

I see little need to revise an opinion simply because others share it. If somebody were to present compelling and well substantiated arguments against that opinion, that would be another story.

[OUTLAW 09]

wm---here is a single comment from yourself which shows that yes you seem to be attempting to quote accurately, you seem to like to take comments apart as does mirhond and Dayuhan which is actually an easier route to go.

"Despite your assertion to the contrary, a US COCOM Commander does not have the prerogative to cancel Congressional hearings. GEN Breedlove did not act on his own initiative. He was told to go back to Europe by the SecDef. And GEN Breedlove could easily be back in DC for the Tuesday hearings."

Have I quoted it accurately?

Happy you agree that yes between yourself and mirhond you both argue in the same fashion.

The comment that reflects you seem to not understand the relationship between a Commander and the Sec Def---Breedlove was directed by the Sec Def to return in fact yes as the Sec Def is his Commander ---that order dictates what he does and the hearing was cancelled by his boss the Sec Def--he will not be back on Tuesday as the meeting was formally cancelled---he is back in NATO simply because of the threat of Russian troops who are not being withdrawn by the Russians and that is the US message he is carrying in his person--you can check the multiple reporting from the Kerry meeting which confirms that simple fact---so where is in theory the difference in what I said and what you write? He is back right and the meeting cancelled right and he is not going back on Tuesday right----come on wm get it right if one critiques others.

I could go all day in taking each of your sentences apart---but I am more interested in what you are saying not in the how you are saying it and lately you are all over the map---that is the inherent problem when trying to dissect each sentence and statement---much as mirhond did and Dayuhan does.