Blogs
Mar 2, 2014 at 11:59 am
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
the EU could refuse to use Russian natural gas. but that would mean getting it from somewhere else, or doing without. neither of which are easy.
BTW, fuck the Republicans who are calling Obama weak on this one. What would have they done? Lobed a nuke at Moscow? Oh wait...never mind.
The country with room and reason to move here is the UK. Disturbingly large swaths of London have become ghost towns, essentially investment vehicles for dirty Russian and Arab money - too expensive for mortals to live in, but not occupied by the owners. This is justifiably pissing off the proles, so anything that freezes out the Russians is going to be popular politically.
The UK is not in the Schengen zone and set their own visa policies, so EU politics don't come into play. What makes UK intervention unlikely, unfortunately, is the present Conservative government of upper-class twits.
We're used to you saying stupid shit, but really?
You know why nobody gives a shit what Obama says about Putin invading the Ukraine? Go on. I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with My Sack.
Maybe, juuuust maybe, if Bush hadn't flouted 50 year old alliances and lied his ass off to invade Iraq - costing us trillions of dollars and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people - the EU and our strategic partners might care what WE have say about Putin invading Ukraine. But since we're giant fucking hypocrites, nobody cares what we say.
you've got the president you deserve.
suck it.
When the Russians invade a region with a majority of people who identify as ethnically/nationally Ukrainian (regardless of what is their primary language), anyplace in the whole rest of Ukraine, that will be a different event altogether. I expect it would get pretty bloody on both sides.
I'm not ready to call the Obama/Kerry State Department dumber than the Cheney/Rice one yet, but they're certainly making a decent run at it here.
The historical reality is even if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Ukraine is in what Russia, since the days of the Muscovy era, feels is rightfully there's. Russia is steeped in centuries of amazing insecurity about their borders and that region is one that they think they need to have for their protection. It's not rational but that's part of what we are seeing.
From what I can tell, the Ukrainians have laid a bed of roses on their streets to welcome Russian troops to come in and maintain order. The majority of them had no idea who or what the rioters were or what they stood for. Dying in the street just to join the EU? Right...that doesn't happen.
Again, the point is to present our adversaries formidable if not intimidating considerations before they take action.
One note of interest: the Beeb has created a Twitter feed of all its reporters working on stories of the Ukraine; you can follow here (goes back to 2/25).
An aside: all of this should pretty effectively strangle any discussion of reining in the U.S. defense budget, which (not counting "black" budgets) is still more than 2.5X that of China and Russia combined, 7.5X that of Russia alone, and more than a third of the world total. That should make the American oligarchs very happy.
The people welcoming the Russian troops taking over in Crimea are ethnic Russians who are a majority because Stalin ethnically cleansed the entire population of Crimean Tatars from the region in 1944 and replaced them with Russians. The Crimean Tatars were shipped to other areas of the Soviet Union and over 40% of them died in the process.
Shit, what a screwed up a-historical citizenry the U.S. has. You'd think the wide range of internet news and easily viewed sources like wikipedia would effect the profound generalized ignorance, but it doesn't seem to. The population is becoming stupider everyday.
John Kerry actually said this: "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text."
This was a foreign policy fiasco on Kerry's part.
He could have embraced Putin and backed up his effort to restore order and made an alliance with a prime business partner and stabilizing economy in that part of the world.
Instead he antagonized one of the world's most powerful and popular leaders.
@ Raindrop I see you took at least half of my suggestion hopefully evidence of you taking the other half may show itself in time. (you do realize you have to read the books right? and actual primary sources i.e Burke's actual writing. Oh and a serious biography of Burke not something written by a partisan hack.)
As for your comments on this topic in this thread, get your tongue out of Dick Chaney's ass. This isn't Nixon or Reagan era cold war gamesmanship. Besides George W. Bush burned our sole superpower card. Bismark would be a better conservative political player for you to look to for guidance in this game.
If Putin has calculated that he's be better off isolating Russia from the rest of the world and re-creating a situation like the Cold War but this time with Russia in a much weaker position, then nothing we do will prevent him from accomplishing that goal.
And if he hasn't made that calculation then this will all blow over in time. So long as we don't go off half-cocked by trying to 'do something' about it.
The next week will be telling, Putin got his surprise attack but there is only so far he can push it. History is a bitch in that region, the Tartars (Muslims) have serious issues with the Russians and Turkey has as much historical claim to Crimea as the Russians do, just older. Putin has slapped his dick on the table to be sure, but Slapping Your Dick on the Table means its out there. This is not Georgia.
If we keep turning a blind eye, why would Putin's think he has to stop with Crimea.
Did ANYONE think Crimea would be invaded on Friday?
Still, I don't think anyone was thinking about Dick Cheney's ass until you brought it up.
What’s interesting and potentially more dangerous is what happens in eastern Ukraine. Hopefully the new government and Russia will be able to reach an understanding and have some stability in their relationship going forward; otherwise there’s potential for a civil war that NATO may be dragged into.
Here's the deal Putin will offer: butt the fuck out of Ukraine and I won't put a Russian base in Cuba - for a little while anyway.
I tuned in to "Meet the Press" this morning, and I started hearing all this talk about the Ukraine crisis being a test of Obama's leadership, and I got so angry hearing this, I couldn't watch anymore. I wish these Beltway talking heads cared 1/10th as much about the Ukrainian people and actually checking Putin as they do about trying to make our own president look bad.
This is what's so remarkably out-of-touch about the kind of juvenile, brain-dead partisanship of someone like raindrop @7. How narrow your mind must be, how puny your imagination must be, how stultified your emotional development must be, that, when you see what's going on in Ukraine, instead of having some kind of empathetic human reaction--your first thought is, "How can I blame Obama?"
I feel weird even dignifying such a pathetic comment with a response, but I have to ask myself, are the political types in Washington, DC really all that much more evolved than this dim-witted loser commenting on a blog?
Putin is counting on some of his adversaries being impetuous and overstepping their limits. He wants us to bait the Russian bear. But other than Crimea, Russia has no claim whatsoever on the majority-Russian-speaking portions of another sovereign nation. If you think Russia seizing Odessa and Kharkiv and installing a puppet regime has anything to do with self-determination--well, you really don't want to go there. There's a difference between standing firm against Russia in a measured way and escalating tensions in a way that gives the Russians the excuse to invade "Ukraine proper."
"George W. Bush burned our sole superpower card. "
it is just a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.....
and we have to admit, you girls never cease to amaze.
with your feckless stupidity.
even The Troll didn't think you would REALLY blame Bush....
So someone wrote here: "George W. Bush burned our sole superpower card." There's a little thing called "manifest destiny" that shredded our moral authority card long ago; Iraq was just the latest episode. And about the USA somehow no longer being a superpower, while I'm sick of us trying to be the world's policeman, the reality is we still are. And we better continue to be, because if we aren't, what's the alternative? China?
I meant: "And about the USA somehow no longer being a superpower, while I'm sick of us trying to be the world's policeman, the reality is we still are a superpower."
@53 No worries I am an assman.
@57 mmmm Panama .... yeah to an extent.
@75 Nope G.W. Bush burned that card. Oh we still have the biggest military by far but what G.W.B did was add a "So What" to the end of that statement. Yeah our military is big, super even, but a sledge hammer has a limited utility. GWB showed the world that limit. Hence that bluff is gone.
Those ties are still there even if they are 10 generations old. Most are around 3 or 4 (ok thats a bit of a guess) and increasingly stronger now that we can communicate with "family back home" in real time. We as Americans forget this all the time. Yet it moves our foreign politics all the time.
Yeah its a subtle wave in the larger stream of things but it is always there. No matter where it is in the world some group of Americans has family history there and that matters to them. So they call and lobby their Reps. It is both our blessing and our curse as a nation.
A sad proof of this is how little internal pressure the US government gets with regards to Africa. The dislocation was soooo violent.
What I mean is that Russia is not invading Ukraine because it want's to prove some point to America, or because of something related to the cold war. International news seems always to relate back to how it relates to America's geopolitical actions. We're a very insular nation.
Not really disagreeing here. I have no doubt Putin has sinister motives; I also have no doubt Putin is entirely rational, albeit without being immune to miscalculation. So while it would be a horrible thing for Ukraine and, less so, for Europe if Russian troops were to invade the Russian portions of Ukraine proper, it would be a potentially horrible thing for Russia too. Putin's evil, but he's not crazy. I recall some interesting comments delirian made in an earlier thread about the downsides for Russia of a split of Ukraine. For one thing, Ukrainian-speaking Ukraine comes running into the arms of the EU and--worse than that--NATO.
It's so hard to imagine how this plays out, but I think Machiavelli makes a great point @83. Suppose Russia annexes Crimea but leaves the remainder of Ukraine alone; somebody like Klitschko gets elected president; and a unified Ukraine minus Crimea starts gradually shifting toward the European model and orbit. This will be an absolutely unacceptable outcome for Russia. But Russia doesn't necessarily have any good options itself.
I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln's line, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The Civil War happened because the United States couldn't remain part slave and part free indefinitely. It eventually had to go one way or another. A unified Ukraine can't go on forever sitting on the fence between Europe and Russia--between liberal democracy and authoritarianism--it's got to go one way or another. (I stand in awe of the ordinary Ukrainians who gave their lives in the name of liberal democracy.)
What if Russia said, " we had our top lawyers check to make sure this was legal, and they said it was, so that is the end of that".
America, meet mirror.
First off lots of soft power stuff, bureaucratic, banking, boarder crossing, stuff that will never hit the news media but will slow things down and cause discontent. I don't think Americans fully appreciate the role the elite and aristocracy play in Europe and Russian and how incestuous they are. Slowing down Russia's ability to trade in those markets, threatening it, will send a message and is easily done. We can hit your wallet.
This includes making moves to yank the G8 summit. Putin needs that to feed the Russian need for stature.
Second Religion, remember there are some 300,000 Tartars in Crimea and Turkey has a claim to it at least as valid as Russia's. Add that to the fact that Russia has it's own Muslim issues. That is a wild card we have little influence over but will play. Although I suspect in a minor way.
Staying with Religion, Pope Francis isn't without influence here. Yeah I know Eastern Orthodox not Catholic whatever... All of Christendom still moves as Rome moves. Again those talks will never see the light of day but they are happening (JP II, had a lot more to do with the fall of the Iron Curtain then Reagan ever did).
3rd, harder power, push the EU and NATO out in front. Germany has the real leverage. The UK has some game too as do the French so encourage them to have at it.
4. lay the ground work to move a carrier group into the black sea.
5. Wait.
Russia will split the Ukraine and there is jack shit we can or will do about it. it's not a 19th century action. it's a classic action from the 1st 2d 3d through 21st centuries, including oh wait, Georgia! you want a fucking battle between our carrier and the Russian ships in the black sea, what the fuck!!!!!!! we are going to let Russia take half of Ukraine. Russia in Ukraine is a story of conquest, domination, exploitation, rapine, genocide, annexation for CENTURIES. Russians are taking their Crimean base now, then will expand spots of control to take all eastern Ukraine. why wouldn't they? world popular opinion?
Ask the Japanese.
Yet, the new parliament banned the use of Russian as a 2nd official language the day after they booted Yanukovich. Jonathan Steele makes few good point in his column including: "Since independence, every poll in Ukraine has shown a majority against Nato membership, yet one after another the elites who ran the country until 2010 and who are now back in charge ignored the popular will. Seduced by Nato's largesse and the feeling of being part of a hi-tech global club, they took part in joint military exercises and even sent Ukrainian troops to Iraq and Afghanistan."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree…