David---key sentence is here:Originally Posted by davidbfpo
In addition to a lack of good-faith participation by Russia, the negotiations have three structural weaknesses: the exclusion of key actors, the narrow scope of the talks and the illogic of pursuing a cease-fire.
There was some interesting comments being made around the bloggers yesterday to this.
There has been a lack of good faith participation by Russia for the simply reason they assume they will win in the end due to their being currently in a phase six of their New Generation Warfare and the West still outside of sanctions has not responded--coupled with the simple fact that since the Russian military has now fully engaged inside the Ukraine they cannot simply pull back as that would be assumed in their eyes and in the eyes of the hardliners as a "defeat". and sine 1945 they have not suffered a defeat---even AFG was spun to be a win.
A defeat is not in the cards as long as the Russian military has it's say in the decision making.
What is not mentioned in the article is how do you negotiate when in fact there are four groups of decision makers in the game---the military, the security services, the oligarchs, and the Russian mob---Putin is just a meditator among them all who has been great at balancing them and driving them forward. Notice all his former liberal tending advisors are not longer around him--all hardliners driven by a hatred of the West and western values.
Also not mentioned in the article---how does the West negotiate when in fact the core driver ethno nationalist imperialism built on a perceived failure by the last Communist leaders is not being addressed inside Russia itself.
Just as in the Sunni/Shia clash until that single driver is fully addressed and worked out internally Russia will remain aggressive in their belief the West is responsible for everything.
One needs to fully understand what is driving Putin and company and we in the West seem to not to want to address that as many feel nationalism under any flag died in 1994 but 20 years later it seems to be still there.
Noticed also a failure in the article to discuss what I feel is the core underlining fact for Putin and company---the 23.8.1939 secret agreement where Stalin virtually annexed five countries--even in Russia this annexation is still being denied for what it was--a blatant land grab not a merging of brotherly communists who wanted to join the SU.
Notice the countries "given to Stalin" and where Russia is pushing now--therein lies for Putin his current legitimacy as he "feels" he is channeling Stalin these days in the revival of the former SU that he has been driving since 1999 if one really goes back and reads all his interviews over the years--it is there to be read---we Americans and many Europeans simply do not take the time.
He is easy to understand--but one must read as it is all there and open source.
Still surprised how little history seems to be considered in the current thread --it is as if the statement one must learn from history is not fashionable these days?
NOTE: There is something more critical that many are not following--when the authors state about NATO and revitalization and potentially moving new bases in and around say the Baltics and Bulgaria---notice how suddenly Germany states no and references the 4 plus 2 agreements.
Really read those agreements and one will then fully understands just where the German politics with Russia go.
A really small comment that was fully over looked was made by Putin in his Duma speech which is one of the most important articles to read if one wants to understand the current events.
Putin quietly stated ---remember Germany we were the ones who allowed and supported your reunification efforts--which if one is honest and correctly looks at western leader statements to include the US---the west was not all that hep to support German reunification.
He used this comment in conjunction on his explanation of the why the Crimea was to be returned to Russia ie similar to German reunification.
Bookmarks