Tag Archives: Russia

In The Ukraine there are apparently two sides to the story

Posted on by
Reply

I went looking for an analysis that would provide something like the Russian perspective on the events in The Ukraine, and by coincidence the video was sent to me at the very same time. The vid is from 2015 but once you watch many bits fall into place. This is the notes that come with the vid:

The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis

John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in Political Science and Co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, assesses the causes of the present Ukraine crisis, the best way to end it, and its consequences for all of the main actors. A key assumption is that in order to come up with the optimum plan for ending the crisis, it is essential to know what caused the crisis. Regarding the all-important question of causes, the key issue is whether Russia or the West bears primary responsibility.

And again I emphasise that the vid is from 2015 in a discussion of an earlier conflict in the same area with the same two sides involved. The first twenty minutes of the video provides a pretty good summary. 

I also went looking for something on my own and went to DuckDuckGo, but the news reports that it has gone google seem to be true. Virtually everything was from some Western “news” source, which to me meant that you cannot rely on a word they write. Eventually I found this: What Russia Wants In Ukraine from The American Conservative whose tagline is this:

Russia’s position has been remarkably consistent for nearly three decades, especially when compared to the West’s.

We are just spectators here, but if we are going to have a nuclear war, might as well understand why.

China is the real danger

Posted on by
Reply

Finding critics of the pile-on over Russia’s attack on The Ukraine is almost impossible, and that is in itself a cause for worry. Since I still do not know why Russia invaded, what their purpose is or why they took on such a massive task, I will just watch to see what comes up.

Meanwhile there was this from Peter Hitchens which at least explains some of it: The West acts tough with Russia because we’re just too feeble to stand up to our real enemy… China. Here’s how he ends.

I have never seen any attempt by anyone to reply to the urgent condemnation of this decision, made in 1998 by one of the greatest diplomats who ever lived, George Kennan. Mr Kennan, inventor of the successful strategy of ‘containment’ of the Soviet Union, came out of retirement to protest.

He said Nato expansion was folly, and correctly predicted it would create nationalist backlash in Moscow. Did the neo-conservatives who created this policy really think Russia, with its huge intelligence services and vast, sophisticated foreign policy establishment, would not notice that it was being targeted?

Russia guards its interests, as do all nations, just as rain falls downwards and water is wet. Out of this realisation came Vladimir Putin, the direct consequence of the Wolfowitz doctrine. We created him.

In fact, Wolfowitz and Clinton were simply wrong. China was the real danger. Think about this. In 1989, the Soviet Empire gave way to mass demonstrations in Prague and East Germany. It could have massacred protesters in Leipzig, Dresden and Berlin, but it did not. After a few nasty but feeble attempts to fight demands for independence in the Baltic states and Georgia, Russia gave up its enormous empire in Europe and Asia. In return, Russia was treated like a pariah by the EU and Nato when it sought a civilised relationship with them.

That same year, China’s Communists answered their people’s demands for freedom by murdering them on the streets of Peking.

I cannot see how this will ever work to the advantage of the Russians. In the end, this can only work to the advantage of China and Joe Biden, two of the greatest enemies the West has ever had.

There is also this by Pat Buchanan which follows the same sort of path: Did We Provoke Putin’s War in Ukraine?.

When Russia’s Vladimir Putin demanded that the U.S. rule out Ukraine as a future member of the NATO alliance, the U.S. archly replied: NATO has an open-door policy. Any nation, including Ukraine, may apply for membership and be admitted. We’re not changing that.

In the Bucharest declaration of 2008, NATO had put Ukraine and Georgia, ever farther east in the Caucasus, on a path to membership in NATO and coverage under Article 5 of the treaty, which declares that an attack on any one member is an attack on all.

Unable to get a satisfactory answer to his demand, Putin invaded and settled the issue. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia will become members of NATO. To prevent that, Russia will go to war.

Peace in our time, but only on our terms.

“It would be a great thing to have a good relationship with Russia, Trump said”

Posted on by
Reply

PDT is afraid of nothing. Here they are, out to railroad his presidency because of some alleged form of pre-election collaboration with Putin and Russia, and here he is, just yesterday, collaborating with Putin and the Russians: Putin and Trump talk Syria, election meddling at brief meeting. The US and Russia working together against a common enemy works for me, and apparently for them as well.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed a statement on Syria during a brief meeting at a summit in Vietnam on Saturday and Putin again dismissed allegations of meddling in last year’s U.S. election.

And walking into the media-Democrat Lion’s den, this is how the article ends.

“It would be a great thing to have a good relationship with Russia,” Trump said.

It would indeed. It would be great if the relationship between Russia and the United States could somehow be reset. It would be a true benefit if the President could have more flexibility now that the election is over, if you know what I mean, which no Democrat following the party line would ever do.

And then there’s this, in late-breaking news: South Korea, China agree to manage North Korea issue peacefully, in stable manner. It would be great to have a good relationship with China too.

Some call it sleep

Posted on by
Reply

Has it really come down to this. From an article titled, Why Europe Sleeps but is actually about how it is now in a coma:

It is not only cleanliness, but concision that is next to godliness. In theory, then, Twitter should promote near-godliness, for it encourages people to express their thoughts in few words. A good example of such admirable concision was the tweet from Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, reproduced in the electronic version of Le Monde on March 19, 2014: “On the one hand we cannot imagine delivering arms to Russia, on the other there is the reality of employment” (the French have a $1.7 billion deal to build a miniature aircraft carrier for the Russians). This will hardly have Russian president Vladimir Putin quaking in his shoes; on the contrary, it will set him laughing and reassure him that he can mock Western Europe to his heart’s content.

Putin has four things on his side, at least in the short-term. The first, of course, is military power. The second is his increasing control of the media and over public opinion in Russia. The third is that his policy appeals to nationalist passion which, apart from ethnic hatred, is probably the strongest political passion of all. The fourth is the weakness of his European opponents.

Stop laughing, this is serious

Posted on by
Reply

susan rice at un

And this is some of the text that went with the picture:

There’s an amazing picture taken a few days ago at the United Nations.

Russia had just vetoed America’s diplomatic proposal for Ukraine. So Ambassador Samantha Power, the former Harvard professor appointed by Barack Obama, who is also a former Harvard grad himself, walked over to Russia’s ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, to give him a piece of her mind.

Churkin didn’t even stand up. He just looked at her. And his aides, standing behind him, laughed.

They weren’t laughing at the ironically named Ambassador Power. They were laughing at their good luck; that they had the good fortune to get into the invading business when a feckless man like Barack Obama was in charge of the free world.

Meanwhile, Russian forces storm Ukraine naval HQ in Crimea. Can’t really be much of an issue since so little attention is being paid to it. There’s perhaps not much you can do but to me the response from the West still looks like slow motion insanity. Next stop, Estonia?

UPDATE: Remember this quote and then watch the video below:

“One cardinal rule of the road is, we don’t watch CNN, the news or MSNBC. We don’t watch any talking heads or any politics. We watch SportsCenter and argue about that,” Obama told The New York Times.

What you are watching is the President of the United States right this minute choosing his bracket, that is choosing which college team will win the NCAA Basketball tournament which is about to start.

What was that about answering the phone at 3:00 am?

Posted on by
Reply

The state of play on the Eastern Front. From Drudge:

Crimea votes for Russia union…
60,000 troops massed on border…
Putin’s Popularity Soars…
Goals reach far beyond peninsula…
REPORT: Russia Downs US Drone…
Obama rejects vote results…
Soros Predicts Ukraine Could Ruin EU…
State TV says Russia could turn USA to ‘radioactive ash’…
Threatens switch to other currencies over sanctions threat…

You think this isn’t back to the Cold War? If this is from “State TV” this is semi-official.

A leading anchor on Russian state television on Sunday described Russia as the only country capable of turning the United States into “radioactive ash”, in an incendiary comment at the height of tensions over the Crimea referendum.

Kiselyov made the comment to support his argument that the United States and President Barack Obama were living in fear of Russia led by President Vladimir Putin amid the Ukraine crisis.

His programme was broadcast as the first exit polls were being published showing an overwhelming majority of Crimeans voting to leave Ukraine and join Russia.

Why even hint at nuclear war but there you are. The one-world progressives, our leading elites across the West, never even saw it coming. As for Sarah and Mitt, well that’s another story.

President Pussy Kitten threatens Russia

Posted on by
Reply

More red lines? More empty gestures? Who is this cypher to go arounds pretending strength and resolve? From the Associated Press:

President Barack Obama is warning Russia “there will be costs” for any military maneuvers it launches in Ukraine, a move U.S. and Ukrainian officials say they believe to be already underway.

So what are these costs?

Officials say Obama may retaliate by canceling a trip to Russia this summer for an international summit and could also cut off trade discussions with Moscow.

Or as Charles Krauthammer has said:

The Ukrainians, and I think everybody, is shocked by the weakness of Obama’s statement. I find it rather staggering.

Anyway, if the lights are going out all over Europe and the West, it will be because of our war on fossil fuels. If there’s another kind of war coming it will be because of American weakness, not because of its strength. Meanwhile, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine appears to have begun. But what needs to be treasured is this:

In 2008, when she was the GOP vice presidential nominee, Palin questioned in a speech whether then-Sen. Barack Obama would have the foreign policy credentials to handle a scenario in which Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. . . .

The former Alaska governor was happy to highlight her prediction on Friday and scold those who criticized her 2008 comments.

“Yes, I could see this one from Alaska,” she said on Facebook. That remark was a reference to a 2008 interview in which Palin argued that Alaska’s proximity to Russia helped boost her foreign policy experience.
“I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as ‘an extremely far-fetched scenario’ by the ‘high-brow’ Foreign Policy magazine.”

In October 2008, Foreign Policy labeled Palin’s prediction as “strange.”

Does the left ever get anything of importance right?

UPDATE: To which must be added this:

Oh they are shaking in their boots [with laughter] in Moscow tonight. Can’t somebody show up to work at the White House and tell this Jello-spined juggalo that his warning and threats just aren’t making it? I mean really. This tough guy spiel is just an embarrassment:

“The Obama administration is evaluating whether President Barack Obama will go forward with plans to attend an international summit in Russia this summer amid reports of Russian intervention in Ukraine. A senior administration official says it’s hard to see how Obama and European leaders would attend the G-8 summit in Sochi, which is scheduled for June.”

So let me get this straight. The “penalty” for Russia if it keeps its hold on the Ukraine is that it doesn’t get to waste precious summer days in June in the presence of this cowardly little narcissist and his entourage of fluffers and fellators? Well, yes, that would certainly make any leader of Russia give up the security of his fleet’s access to the Crimea, the Black Sea, and from there into the Mediterranean. Let’s not forget that Russia lost the Crimean War in the middle of the 19th Century [not that long ago in the Russian mind] which took about half a million lives on all sides. In that war, most of the fighting took place for control of the Black Sea, with land battles on the Crimean peninsula in southern Russia. Deja vu all over again? Why not? That’s the history of Russia writ large.

Simply put, if Russia cannot maintain control of the Crimea and Sevastopol it cannot maintain the Black Sea Fleet.

The Black Sea Fleet is considered to have been founded by Prince Potemkin on May 13, 1783, together with its principal base, the city of Sevastopol. Formerly commanded by such legendary admirals as Dmitriy Senyavin and Pavel Nakhimov, it is a fleet of enormous historical and political importance for Russia.

The Black Sea Fleet enables Russia to control and dominate its close in “backyard” of Georgia as well as have access to the Mediterranean and, hence, the Middle East and Suez. Without the Crimea and Sevastapol, Russia ceases to be a nation with global reach. This is something Putin will not do. Ever. This is one of those annoying strategic situations in which trying to force Russia to step back can easily become a trigger for thermonuclear war. And Russia is still in the strategic nuke business.

Instead of understanding how history lives in the present and shapes the future, this pig-ignorant “president” doesn’t have a foreign policy, all he has is a series of poses and postures; none of which are all that butch.

Indeed, it would seem that the only group on the planet that are afraid of this putz are D.C. Republicans. And I’m not too sure about them any longer.