AP----let's take the Wikipedia definition as a starting point.Originally Posted by AmericanPride
Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.
1. Ruled by authoritarian regime---would argue that Putin with the new anti Maidan and internet laws has in fact established an authoritarian regime
2. Sponsor terrorism—would argue that the initial Georgia and Moldavian adventures started out as “terrorist” activities against ethnic Russians—was really a false flag used as the geo political reasoning for armed invasions, Crimea was in fact along the same lines and one could in fact define the sending of irregular/mercenary manpower/weapons into eastern Ukraine as both terroristic in nature and or an armed irregular invasion
3. Proliferation of WMD—one can in fact argue that weapons such as the BMs 21/27 used against civilian targets are in fact WMD, one can argue the use of a Buk missile system to down a civilian airliner killing 298 is in fact WMD, one could argue by using irregular/mercenaries inside another country and randomly well maybe not so randomly killing, torturing, pillaging/plundering and destroying key infrastructure as WMD
Heck AP we define a home made bomb in Boston as WMD these days so why not a Buk or BM 21/27?
A common presumption applied to rogue states is that they do not necessarily behave rationally or in their own best interests. In political theory it is generally believed that a stable nation, ruled by a leadership that is subject to broad scrutiny (though not necessarily democratic scrutiny), will tend to act in its own best interests and will not take actions that are directly contrary to its own interests, particularly not to its own survival. Rogue states, however, may not be subject to this assumption and, as such, relations with them may be more complicated and unpredictable.
Would argue that Russia has not acted rationally since the Georgia events –actually even before that in their direct violation of the INF. Why did they violate the INF—it came out yesterday in a number of press releases after the US charges—the treaty hurts Russia, the treaty is not good for Russia etc. The underlying assumption by the hardliners is ---that was done under weak SU leaders and we are strong thus want to change it now.
We can go further back and look at their violation of the OSCE treaties they signed for the destruction of a set amount of tanks and APCs—they argued to the OSCE that they could not accomplish it due to the ongoing jihadi issues in the ‘stans. But that was over eight years ago and no one has called them on it.
Those OSCE scheduled to be destroyed T64s that Russia agreed to are now fighting in eastern Ukraine.
Then we can look at how their violated the Memorandum on the Ukraine which they signed.
If you really look deeper into these events you will find a single argument—these agreements were done by weak SU leaders in a weak period of the SU and that hurt the new Russia so therefore we no longer hold to them.
NOTE: Stalin one said at a private high level CP meeting---yes we will sign treaties and agreements but and this is critical but we can/will change them when we want to in order to fit the new environment. AP see the continuance of thoughts from Stalin until 2014? So AP then what treaties/agreements that Russia has signed since 1994 do they hold to be valid now in 2014 or better yet will in fact Russia hold to any treaty they sign based on past performance?
The follow on assumption then is we the "new Russia" do not think that former leaders of the SU concluded a “good deal” for the now Russia so therefore we will do what we want to restore the now Russia to renewed superpower status.
Was and or is that not the argument Putin used in annexing the Crimea in a number of his statement just before and after the annexation and still is using when he talks about never giving back the Crimea?
This whole argument about NATO enlargement is a smokescreen and has always been a smokescreen as well as the argument about containment has been a smokescreen since the 60s. It is a smokescreen that allows for increasing their military and strengthening their internal authoritarian population controls.
Since 1994, countries in Europe were free to go their separate ways and conclude agreements that were beneficial to their populations—now we have rouge nation who is redefining the concept of ethnicity/culture/language as a smokescreen for imperialistic nationalistic expansion under the guise of “we want to play again with the big boys” BUT we do not want to play “big boy games” meaning accept responsibility for our actions in the international relations game.
Did you notice that in both the Korean airliner shot down and now MH17 the then SU and now Russia has in fact copied the exact playbook—“ain’t our responsibly” even if somehow someone ran a Buk missile system through our “enhanced border security” that was guarded by both the FSB/GRU and Border Security Services.
If “those independence fighters” are Russians carrying Russian passports---“ain’t our responsibility”, if the international community cannot get to the crash site---it’s the fault of the Ukrainians “ain’t our responsibility”, the fighting is killing civilians then it is the fault of the Ukrainians because we “told” them to negotiate and settle on our terms ie Federated States---ain’t our responsibility” , those T64s/BM21/27/Buks crossing our border--"ain't our responsibility", what somehow we are being blamed for our Army troops shelling Ukrainian positions---"ain't our responsibilty', and the list goes on.
AP recognize by the way the actual events mentioned above?
Now ask yourself the following question and I would like you now to answer it since you wanted a definition of rouge state---does this sound like the actions of a sane, rationally clear thinking participant country in either Europe or Eurasia? Or a sane rational acting country at all?
Thus my statement they are a rogue nation—you can throw in the criminal just based on the Yukos event and the resulting court decision, the killing of the former KGB COL in the UK who was a bitter critic of Putin, and the cyber activities which have never stopped since 1994.
By the way concerning cyber and it is getting worse by the hour and that is why I today have a company combatting it—actually Russian criminals are a great job enhancer these days—check the arrest of a Russian citizen who is now in Guam---and whose mother is the Deputy Duma leader and close supporter of Putin. Then check the Russian citizen recently arrested in Italian---check the amount of personal financial damage done to US citizens/companies.
AP--from Interfax today --another great "it ain't our responsibly" by a Russian sanctioned company. By the way in the current Russia there is some distinct difficulties based on Russian laws and countless shadow/fake companies just who owns these companies or are they in fact just new forms of the old Soviet style state owned companies?
Almaz-Antey chief reacts to company's inclusion on EU sanctions list.
MOSCOW. July 31 (Interfax-AVN) - The European Union's sanctions against the joint-stock company (JSC) Concern Almaz-Antey prove the great importance of the company's products in providing national defense, said Yan Novikov, the General Director at Almaz-Antey.
"The EU decision to impose sanctions against JSC Concern Almaz-Antey causes a dual feeling. First of all, a sense of pride for the company in relation to such a rating of its importance for the country," he said, according to a company's press release obtained by Interfax-AVN on Thursday.
At the same time, "there is a sense of regret for this hypocritical EU decision," he said. "With no evidence of possible involvement of militias, let alone Russia, in the tragedy of the Malaysian Boeing 777 above the Donetsk land, they resort to all sorts of tricks by blaming the designer of the weapon for what happened," Novikov said.
Rouge has been now answered. Debate concluded.
Bookmarks