Vladimir Putin’s rusty iron curtain: Editorial

[LarryW]

Canadian press opinion which IMO makes a lot of sense.

Vladimir Putin’s rusty iron curtain: Editorial

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/08/29/vladimir_putins_rusty_iron_curtain_editorial.html

Little by little Russian President Vladimir Putin is drawing a rusty iron curtain back across Europe at Ukraine’s expense, 25 years after the old one fell apart. He has seized Crimea, provided comfort and aid to pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk, and now he is sending Russian troops across the border to threaten Mariupol and the Sea of Azov region.

This brazen aggression in what Putin ominously refers to as “New Russia” aims to bring all of Russified, heavily industrialized southeastern Ukraine under Moscow’s intimidating shadow, if not into outright annexation. Frustrated in his bid to bully Ukraine into a Moscow-led Eurasian Union, Putin is planting the imperial flag where he can. And Russians are proud of his cynical audacity.

Against Putin’s serial invasion and the loss of 2,600 Ukrainian lives, the cautious response from U.S. President Barack Obama and the European Union looks feckless. No one is prepared to go to war for Ukraine, at least for now. So the Kremlin can continue with impunity to destabilize Ukraine’s government, demoralize its people and threaten its integrity.

That’s Putin’s short-term calculation, at any rate. But he is taking Russia down a calamitous path by attacking a neighbour and turning his back on 25 years of bridge-building with the West. He has isolated Russia and dragged it into a ruinous, long-term confrontation with far superior military and economic powers.

Putin had an option. He could have recognized the legitimacy of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s new government, accepted Kyiv’s decision to join the European Union economic zone, and held Poroshenko to his pledge to give Ukraine’s ethnic Russian regions more political and economic autonomy. Instead, Putin opted for aggression.

The decision to send regular Russian troops, tanks, missile launchers and artillery into Ukraine this past week to come to the separatists’ aid will have profound consequences.

Politically, Putin has sealed Russia’s isolation from its closest European neighbours and trading partners, and made Russia unwelcome in the powerful Group of Eight club of leading industrial democracies.

Militarily, Moscow’s adventurism has forced the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization to strike a tougher stance. American and Canadian forces have been scrambled to Europe. There are plans for new forward bases, and moves to strengthen NATO’s rapid reaction forces. While only Ukrainians can defend their turf, pressure is building in advance of the NATO summit in Wales next week to help out with military advisers and weapons. And Kyiv wants to be admitted to the alliance.

Economically, Putin has set up Russia for yet another punishing round of sanctions that can only undermine the devil’s bargain that the public has struck with him to tolerate his corrupt autocracy in exchange for better living standards. Compared to the G-7’s $35-trillion output, Russia’s struggling $2-trillion economy is badly outmatched. And the oligarchs who surround Putin know it.

If ordinary Russians haven’t yet felt the pinch in lost jobs, lower living standards and unpaid salaries and pensions, they soon will.

Officials in Moscow acknowledge that economic growth has fallen to “close to zero,” a far cry from the 7- to 8-per-cent growth of Putin’s early years a decade back. Meanwhile, American, British, German and other major foreign lenders are denying Russia the credit it needs to refinance its debt, upgrade infrastructure and increase energy production. Capital is fleeing at an annualized rate of $200 billion. Foreign direct investment fell by $50 billion this year, a vote of non-confidence in the economy. Consumer prices are soaring, along with interest rates. And the ruble has crashed to an all-time low.

Russian economists fear a harsher downturn than during the global economic crisis of 2009 when output plunged 8 per cent, and thousands of Muscovites rallied behind red banners under a statue of Karl Marx, calling for a return to Communism. There is real hardship ahead.

None of this is much consolation to Ukraine’s beleaguered people, bullied by their cousin and neighbour. But over time Russia stands to pay the heavier price, as Putin walls it off again.

[Remington Raidr]

"Who wants to die for Danzig?" - Marcel Deat


History repeats itself.:rolleyes:

[Wiseman]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vladimir-putin-continues-soviet-rhetoric-by-questioning-kazakhstans-created-independence-1463460

Well looks like Vlad wants to regain all of the territories of the former Soviet Union. Ukraine is just step one.

[LarryW]

IMO you're right, Wiseman.

The NATO Summit in Cardiff, Wales will have a lot on it's plate for just a 2-day outing. The Baltic States are wary of who's baby will go out with the bathwater. The Brits have an agenda, but it probably doesn't include golf. Putin didn't stop in Georgia, neither has he hesitated in Ukraine, and he most certainly has no reservation about slowing down in the Baltics, or in any of the Stans for that matter. Thus far he has tested the political water, the will in the west and opinion at home. Stand by for a Putin cannonball in the kiddie-pool in damned short order. When a gangster wants something do sanctions and rhetoric slow him down?

(Come on, man!)

The Baltic states: Echoes of the Sudetenland

The Baltics look to NATO for protection
Mar 29th 2014 | RIGA AND TALLINN

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21599828-baltics-look-nato-protection-echoes-sudetenland

WE FEEL uneasy, but we must not get in a hysterical mood,” says Edgars Rinkevics, Latvia’s foreign minister. As the Ukrainian crisis continues, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, the three Baltic states, are increasingly exposed to Russian pressure, for historical, geographic and linguistic reasons. If it weren’t for their NATO membership, the Baltic trio would feel almost as vulnerable as in 1938-39, after Hitler had annexed the Sudetenland under the pretext of needing to protect the local German population and during the run-up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Speaking of parallels between then and now, Mr Rinkevics notes that: “For us, there are a lot of emotions.”

Few countries know Russia as well as the Baltic states do. They were part of the Russian empire for centuries and were subjugated by the Soviet Union for 50 years. Around a quarter of Estonia’s people and 27% of Latvia’s are native Russian-speakers (see map), though nearly all Balts speak some Russian and many are bilingual. In Latvia one in five marriages is mixed.

Even so, Baltic leaders’ warnings about Russian expansionism have tended to go unheeded by their allies in NATO and the European Union. They were often dismissed as paranoid or Russophobe. “We said so many times: Russia is not a new Russia,” says Marko Mihkelson, chairman of the foreign-affairs committee of the Estonian parliament and a former Moscow correspondent for an Estonian daily. Russia continues with its expansionist tradition, according to Mr Mihkelson; the war with Georgia in 2008 was just a first step.

Although the West’s attitude has changed with Russia’s annexation of Crimea, most west Europeans still disagree with the Balts (and Poles) about what to do. The European Union has penalised some Russians with travel bans and asset freezes. But the Balts are scathing: “The list of 21 is a joke and it’s not even the right people who are on the list,” says an official at the Latvian foreign office. Diplomats in all the Baltic states argue that only robust economic sanctions, combined with strong signals about the West’s military commitment to the Baltic states, will deter Russians from further expansionism. “We would like to see a few American squadrons here, boots on the ground, maybe even an aircraft-carrier,” says a Latvian former minister.

Economic sanctions will come at a high price for the Balts. Russia is Lithuania’s largest trading partner, accounting for 25% of its total trade; the figure for Estonia and Latvia is around 10%. Agriculture and food-processing are especially dependent on Russian business, as are ports, transport and logistics. Most of all, the Baltic states depend on Russian energy, particularly gas. If Russia turned off the taps, a gas-storage facility in Latvia could bridge the gap for some months for the three countries (and for almost three years for Latvia alone), but it would take several years to find and route sufficient alternative gas supplies to the region.

Baltic leaders expect pressure to increase in proportion to the strength of the West’s response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea. The Russians may use targeted sanctions, they say, such as a ban on certain Latvian imports or an increase in the gas price for Lithuanians. They will intensify their propaganda war (especially via Russian television, widely watched by Balts), possibly use cyber-warfare and try to destabilise everyday life. “Some Russians here live in a Russian bubble,” says Viktors Makarovs, a Russian at the Latvian foreign office. One survey finds that as many as two in three Russians in Latvia support Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Trying to look on the bright side, Baltic policymakers hope that Russian revanchism has awakened the West to the importance of their region—and the need to protect it. They hope it will encourage Sweden and Finland to join NATO and discourage their governments and those of other EU countries from more defence cuts. And—who knows?—today’s fractious EU may even unite around a more coherent security policy.

[Wiseman]

One thing is sure,if Vladimir's adventure continues, Russian speakers are going to be in demand.

[RomanCandle]

This is my opinion so please take it as it is and it is said with respect. I would hope that Western leaders wouldn't have such a flippant attitude towards conflict in those areas (Although listening to them clearly they do not)

Obviously many of you are more than familiar with the amount of US/ NATO bases situated around the world vs the amount of Russian bases. It doesn't take massive powers of observation to see where the expansion is coming from. Of course the Russians have an interest in an area that borders their country and of course they feel that there is an aggressive attempt by NATO to encircle them and of course there is going to be a certain amount of pushback.
I wonder what the US governments reaction would be if Canada and Mexico decided to engage in an open military/ economic alliance with China or North Korea. I think we all know that this expansion and all the rhetoric has nothing to do with "freedom" or "human rights" but everything to do with money and resources and Geo politics rules the day.

I have said it before and I'll say it again here. I am constantly astounded that so many regard their own leading elected politicians as being virtually criminally incompetent when it comes to their own country's management yet seem to rally behind them when it comes to wreaking havoc in various theaters around the world including the latest escapades in (to name but one) the Ukraine, where a coup was supported to oust a corrupt but democratically elected leader and install with the help of Nazis in the form of the Right Sector a president who is a western ally who has unleashed a military offensive that has expressly targeted Russian speaking civilians.

Everyone needs an enemy to justify their raison d'etre and it seems that many Western politicians and NATO have found theirs, with a citizenry which is so brainwashed they will run with any nonsense no matter how many times it has been proven to be a manipulative lie.

[RomanCandle]

Expansion? There is no moral equivalency between the United States/NATO and Russia. And the only reason Russia doesn't have so many bases right now is because their empire collapsed. They were a full-on actual formal empire, the Soviet Union, a group of countries held to Russia by force with a number of overseas colonies. Their empire was built on force and oppression. The United States/NATO has no such system.

I don't necessarily agree with everything above. admittedly the USSR had nothing good going for it. The US was not purer then the driven snow at the time either. Becoming involved in several misadventures. Destabilizing Nicaragua in the 80's The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs debacle are some examples of how the US at the time handled perceived inroads by the Soviets on their doorstep. How are the Russians supposed to act today when faced by NATO/ US encroachment on their borders and bordering nations. As for NATO not using a system of force and oppression?
Recent observations of the chaos that has ensued in several states after NATO/ Coalition involvement is testimony in itself not to mention the overt support while it suited them of dictators and oppressors. Several gulf states are not exactly paragons of human rights either yet are supported vigorously. So IMHO its a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have not seen any moves by Putin or Russia that could suggest that he is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union or militarize the region. In fact I would put it that the opposite is true. The war talk is coming from the West.


I think it has to do with both in that money, resources, and geopolitics are tied to the protection of human rights. And there is a huge difference between in U.S. allies engage in alliances with highly oppressive, militaristic countries versus liberal democracies that respect human rights engaging in alliances with one another.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that the Russians are engaging in alliances with oppressive militaristic countries while the US is engaging with liberal democracies that respect human rights?
I think that is highly simplistic thinking on the level of "Cowboys = Good. Indians = Bad" just my interpretation. You are of course right, talking about countries like Iran, Cuba, North Korea? maybe even China etc. The Russians also have very progressive economic relations with Western European countries Germany being possibly the largest. It could be that the Russians don't take kindly to have a gun pointed to their heads (in a manner of speaking) and forced to impose sanctions on another country simply because the US wishes it. (Ask the French an ally who's largest bank may go out of business due to penalties imposed). Of course most western countries incl the US are not above importing manufactured goods from Asian countries like China, Bangladesh etc who are quite happy using 5 year old child labour. So I think the situation is a little more gray all round as opposed to simply black/ white or good/ bad.

On the other hand the US hardly limits itself to alliances and support of the pious and benevolent leaders. Ask the Egyptians who lived under Mubarak until it suited a certain State Dept to depose him. Ask a citizen any one of a number of Gulf states who use Western arms and ammunition to suppress those who demonstrate or use social media to demand freedom of speech. No those are valuable allies but certainly not "liberal democracies that respect human rights".


Many do not support any wreaking of havoc throughout the world. But that can be a subjective term.

Agreed. But not so subjective to the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc who are societies defined by culture and tribal boundaries who have had statehood imposed upon them firstly under "Kings" and various other despots and now are having Democracy bombed into them.

Don't know much about this, however, are you sure there was a Western-backed coup or is that Russian propaganda? Also, it seems to me that the only military offensive here is from the Russians, not the Ukrainians.

If you only listen to the one side or the other you will only get to hear that sides propaganda. However the Russians didn't make the State Dept and their various spokespersons make very vocal statements in support of the Right Sector led Coup d' etat on the Maidan. A search of you-tube will bring up numerous examples. You will also see how said State officials warned Yanukovych not to use force against said protesters and he didn't police largely unarmed were shot and beaten by right wing crowds. After the anti Yanukovych coup succeeded a counter- coup was mounted by those protesters who felt that they had gotten rid of him only to see him replaced by the Right Sector supported oligarchs. This time however (you-tube again) the Rhetoric was pro Oleksandr Turchynov justifying any amount of force to fight off this time "Pro Russian" protesters, culminating in the rhetoric we see today encouraging the all out military assault on Eastern Ukrainians who are Russian speakers and don't wish to live under what they regards as a Nazi regime. The Russian rhetoric seems to have been very low key in contrast.

Why do you think that the only military offensive has been from the Russians? I have not seen any credible indication that the Russians are involved. Yes the Eastern Ukrainians have taken up arms declaring that they do not wish to live under Neo Nazi's who have banned Russian as a speaking language in Ukraine and have expressed a wish to exterminate them. Where is the evidence or proof that they are part of a Russian military plot? Who has been shelling Civilians to death in major urban centers? The Russians? Have the Eastern Ukrainians been shelling their own families? They don't think so. The people being massacred don't think so either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/25/in-latest-wiretapping-leak-yulia-tymoshenko-appears-to-say-nuclear-weapons-should-be-used-to-kill-russians/

At this point the Russians probably should become involved. Poroshenko is warning that Russian troops in Ukraine could destabilize the whole of Europe. Really? So Far the eastern Ukrainian rebel forces have defended their own territory. There has been no advance onto "Western Ukraine" or Kiev. It has been a very one sided assualt upon east Ukraine so I ask you who is the aggressor here? Who is destabilizing the region. Why has the State Dept chosen to come out entirely on the side of an aggressive military assault against civilians without a word on restraint and without a single mention of the ever popular "human rights". Its because they see it as a proxy war against Russian interests in the area. These are just questions but I think the answers could tell a very different story to the Russia on the Rampage stories we are being fed.


Which part is a manipulative lie as you see it?

The way I see it is that the call to launch a military campaign using "freedom, democracy and human rights" is one big smoke screen to sell it to the citizenry. After all that's a much more palatable marketing ploy than coming out and saying: "Well we're going after them because that area is of economic and strategic importance to us" or "Saddam thinks he can change the oil reserve currency from the USD to the Euro? We'll show that bastard. Raze his country to the ground and rebuild it in our image!" or "Hey guys, we need to get involved bombing Libya post haste to get rid of Quddaffi" as opposed to "its a humanitarian mission - for the children." good article on that little escapade : [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/15/global-justice-nato-libya

What I was saying is that based upon observations of the aftermath of most of these military/ rebuilding missions a reasonable person might think "Well either that was an epic fail or we got taken" and maybe reconsider before jumping back on the battlewagon. Maybe even ask for an explanation or two. After all surely the folks that control the future of most of the world shouldn't be allowed to be either that incompetent or that dishonest?

[RomanCandle]

There is a difference between "not being purer then the driven snow" versus being an oppressive empire. Most of the misadventures of the U.S. during the Cold War-era were due to trying to counter the Soviets. If it hadn't been for the Soviets, much of that stuff would never have happened in the first place. As for the Russians, the Russians should know that the West has no interest in trying to conquer them, that the West is just seeking to keep itself secure. You seem to again be making a moral equivalency between the U.S. and the Russians. If the Russians start putting forces near the U.S., that is not the same as the U.S. having forces near Russia and China.

Answer:
I think your last sentance sort of sums it up. I think they dont quite see it the same way. As for Russia knowing that they are in no danger and the west just wanting to protect itself? Massing forces of a military allianceon a countries border probably is not going to get that message accross. Maybe they feel that the US/ NATO is aiming to curtail their influence through military threat in an area where they feel that they have a legitimate interest.



The U.S. has given overt support of dictators and oppressors when it had to choose between the lesser of multiple evils, as sometimes that is all one can choose between. And especially during the Cold War when the Soviets were trying to spread communism everywhere, this was something that sometimes had to be done. So I do not agree that it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Answer:
Yeah it has to be done no doubt . But dont expect anything less than a certain amount of cynissism when democracy and freedom for the citizens is used as the prime reason to launch a campaign which then inexplicably morphs into something else. Also decades after the cold war it is still happening. Talking about a lesser of two evils, why on a diplomatic level is no pressure being applied to certain allied countries to improve their own human rights record? No I think it has more to do with political and economic expediency.


As for Putin trying to rebuild the Soviet Union, well his taking Crimea and now more of Ukraine is a good start. I would be interested as to why you think his moves mean the opposite. Remember, Putin made a speech in I think 2005 it was where he said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.

Answer:
Dont know if you realize this but the Crimea is populared primarily by ethnic Russian who voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. It was annexed by Russia from the Ottomans in 1783 where it remained untill tranferred in 1954 by the Russian Soviet Fed. of Socialist Republics under Khrushchev to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Russians were not about to hand over the port but they also had enough popular support to do it As they apparently do in the east of Ukraine.


And the "war talk is coming from the West?" Putin is the one doing the invading. How would you feel if the U.S. decided to invade a country in the same way Putin has? (and Iraq doesn't count because that is not a similar example---the U.S. did not go into Iraq and formally colonize it, exploiting its resources for its own use).

Answer:
Where is the invasion. I think you have maybe listened to a lot of opinions instead of looking at what people on the ground in east Ukraine are saying. I'll ask again: who is shelling civilians in
Luhansk, Donetsk, Horlivka etc. Why are the locals who are being shelled saying it is the Ukraine military? Why are these refugees fleeing to Russia? I think the invasion is non existant. Im not saying they are not lending aid (hell I dont think the Ukrainians got their Multicam uniforms in a bulk buy from optactical either) but an invasion? Right from the word go the US state dept has been accusing russia of invading. Now that the Ukraine army is on the back foot so many months later?

As to the US not formally colonise Iraq. Well Im not sure what you mean by "formally" the term "at gunpoint" comes to mind. Im not sure that that doesnt qualify as "formally" I'll admit that the subtlty is a bit lost on me.


To some degree it can be gray, but there is also a lot of plain black and white IMO. What country are you referring to that the Russians were forced to impose sanctions on? And the Russians never had a gun pointed at their head. They were the ones being the aggressors. They always have been the aggressors. Poland and Czech Republic were a bit antsy about having the missile defense placed into their countries, then Putin invaded Georgia, partially as an intimidation tactic on them. But it didn't work and they then agreed to the missile shield. Then Obama pulled the rug out from under them and undid the missile shield. And that did nothing to stop the Russians from behaving as they always have.

Having a gun pointed at their head is precisely what Russia needs to keep it in check IMO.

Answer:
Im referring to your previous reference to oppressive regimes that you previously said Russia is allied to. I'll take the liberty to assume one of those for example is Iran. Now as you know the US has vigorously driven sanctions againts Iran. Now I am not debating the merits of this. I am pointing out the fact that because the US has driven sanctions against Iran, woe betide any nation that does business with them. This is the "gun" im referring to and would say it really puts their nose out that countries like Russia reserve the right as a sovereign nation to decide their own policies.
When you say Russia has always been the aggressor. When Russia invaded Georgia it was in response to Georgia launching an attack on South Ossetia whether right or wrong they left shortly thereafter. Living in the past id agree that the USSR was indeed aggressive. Moving on. Russia is no longer the USSR. Since the end of the cold war there's been one government that has show a willingness to act aggressively accross the globe and occupy territories not remotely geographically related to them.
As to the missile sheild I wonder whether the Czechs or Poles really think that the missile sheild is meant for their wellbeing. Some Russians feel that it is meant not as a sheild against a first strike but rather as a sheild against a counter strike.

Some might think your last comment rather ironic.



Yes, by liberal democracies I was referring to the European nations. You are correct that the U.S. in other parts of the world supports oppressive regimes, but again this is generally for reasons of realism, to prevent terrorism from taking control and getting access to things like nuclear weapons and/or to check the Soviets during the Cold War.

Answer:

Well based on the above premise one could justify anything. So how much leeway do you allow yourself? Again all of the above has everything to do with granting oneself special powers to police the world. All one becomes then is an occupying power destined to be continually perplexed that you are not regarded as the liberating power that they regard themselves.

cont'd...
Please excuse my lack of colour differentiation. Im cuurently working off a tablet which makes managing text a bit awkward. I'll rectify soonest.

[RomanCandle]

Much of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is/was due to fighting the terrorists, not the people themselves.

Answer:
Thats an interesting comment. Are you saying that as a country the invasion wss supported, or were there certain demographics who supported it and others that were against it. Was the invasion not spearheaded in areas controlled by NA because that is where allies could be found. Were areas dominated by tribes with ties to the Taliban considered hostile? What about when residents of those areas rallied in support of the Taliban. Im not debating the merits of attacking the Taliban at all. I am interested in the simplistic veiwpoint put forth however because its easier to lend support if you can compartmentalise issues and disregard that these things are complicated and would profoundly affect the population as a whole especially after the initiall invasion carried out by SF was replaced by big military follow up and occupation and the insurgency started.


Be careful of Youtube though as that can have a lot of nonsense on it. As for the Russian rhetoric, I think that highly depends. In the Russian media, they have the Russian people thinking exactly as you claim, that the pro-Russian forces are fighting Nazis essentially.

Answer:
Indeed. But it was not a trick of the camera that had various officials from Obama, Kerry, Nuland, Psaki etc cheerleading the Ukrainian military assault on the east. Nor video taken of dead civvies all over cities in the east. If you think that the fact that the Right Sector is a major or leading role player is simply Russian propaganda, you may have fallen for propaganda yourself. Why have you not asked what the people on the ground have said?


There is very credible evidence that Russia is invading Ukraine. That is one of the reasons why the pro-Russian Ukrainian forces have had things turn around for them, because they were losing to the Ukrainian military until Russia began sending in more forces. As for who is the aggressor, that is the Russians and the Russian-backed forces, and I would say it is one-sided in favor of the Russian-backed forces, as the U.S. has not been supplying the Ukrainians with arms. No offense but you sound like the Russian media.

Answer:
The pro Russians as theyve been dubbed (actually according to them they are ethnic Russian Ukrainians) have seemingly recently turned the tide. State Dept has been saying that Russia invaded at the beginning? So what changed? When did they actually invade. The State Dept and MSM would have you believe that Russians were hiding in aid convoy trucks in spite of inspection by customs of both Russia and Ukrane as well as the Red Cross. Any number of stories that come from those sources have not been accompanied by a shred of "evidence" where the meaning of evidence is something other than media reports or unfounded State Dept statements.

You say the US has not armed the Ukraine. I'll refer to the Multicam uniforms currently worn by the Ukrainian soldiers? Bulk buy from a commercial vendor? Also some research will show that both the US and NATO have pledged military support for Ukraine.

No offense taken, I am just trying to look at it from a different POV based on what I see. I personally think that some of the Russian media has a more honest outlook on this than the MSM. I try and look at both sides and all I hear from the MSM is second or third hand opinions no actual real journalism is taking place there. Thats not to say that I swallow everything that media of any sort says. Just look at what they say vs what they actually show while on theground with camera and mic. As opposed to those that report from cushy studios and cut and pasre reports.



I agree that for certain things, different language is used, but I do not agree that Iraq was attacked to get at Saddam over oil, it was because of the belief that he had WMDs. Congress never would have voted to invade if it was solely over oil.

Answer:
I think the world at large remains quite sceptical about that but of course this is my opinion. Hell if I applied that much due dilligence in my business as they did before attacking another country Id be in prison.


Iraq was a won war, but we have a President who essentially tossed away the fruits of victory. And he also messed up the effort in Afghanistan.

Answer:
That pretty much makes my point. Going in without any real plan as to managing the aftermath. It really doesnt matter that one can win a war but lose the plot afterwards. Its too late to say: "Our president messed it up". He's about to do it again and when you go with it and it goes south as it will to turn around and say: "Well he messed that one up" doesnt help. Remember he wont be there to manage or be accountable for his actions today. Maybe you'll get another bad one. Maybe you'll get a good one. Either way he'll be left carrying the can created by a guy who meddled in Europe when he wasn't even up to the task in several third world countries.

There was a high price paid winning the war against AQ in Iraq by the various task forces clearing safe houses etc. I wonder how they feel about the situation now? If the situation had been thought through AQ may never have gained a foothold there in the first instance. My point is whyhave to go and fix a stuff up that should have been thought through and managed.



Again battling to manage text will rectify soonest. Thank you for allowing my my opinion here.

[RomanCandle]

If I may Ill respond when Im in front of a laptop this device makes managing texts tedious.

Thanks

[RomanCandle]

If I may Ill respond when Im in front of a laptop this device makes managing texts tedious.

In the meantime here is a nice synopsis of the conflicts in the region which I found. Gives a reasonable reference to the diametrically opposed viewpoints of east and west re these conflicts also with reference to the Georgian conflict and aftermath.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64602/charles-king/the-five-day-war


Thanks

[RomanCandle]

Al-Qaeda declared war on the U.S. after the invasion. I am not saying that all the people in Iraq supported the invasion, but they didn't all begin fighting the U.S. after the invasion either.

Answer:
Actually I was referring to afghanistan.


What makes you think pictures of dead civilians is due to the Ukrainians?

answer:
Because thats what the people crying hysterically next to their dead relatives are saying. Did you take the time to watch the video posted a short while ago? There are a few that get posted but most seem to get taken down by the host shortly.

Additionally I cant see a reason to think that the separatists would bomb their own families and homes. Would you?


The columns of tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, troops, etc...crossing the border into Ukraine is one sign of Russia's invasion. Obama himself acknowledged this, but wrote it off basically.

Answer:
Can you show pics of this categorically showing the border and that these are Russian vehicles and not Ukraine army vehicles. Do you believe everything Obama says? If not why do you believe him now?

In fact since I have not been following closely for just over a week it could be that they have in the last week mobilised a limited force. Id still like to see some irrefutable proof other than vague photos in undisclosed locations. I would be surprised that Russia took this long to get involved if indeed they have. Although time and time again they have asked for a diplomatic solution whilst the east has been laid waste.


Uniforms are not arming Ukraine though. Obama has said that he doesn't think that sending arms to Ukraine will do them any good (the Ukrainians have said otherwise) and the administration is also afraid that doing so will start a war in the region. Obama even mocked the idea of sending them arms, to which it was pointed out that the strategy worked in allowing the Turks and the Greeks to drive back the Soviets (this was a big part of the Truman Doctrine).

Answer:
Actually they have pledged military support. So iether the gentleman is for turning or the reports were wrong.



The media will always distort things, but I would be highly distrustful of the Russian media. They answer to Putin and have made some very egregious claims, such as showing footage of U.S. tanks rolling around outside of bases and claiming that the U.S. is on the verge of civil war to trying to compare the U.S. treatment of the Occupy Wall Street protesters to being the same as Putin's treatment of protesters of his regime. The Russian media are basically a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. You will not, for example, find anything negative about the Russian taking of Crimea by the Russian media.

Answer:
Agreed I think you will find overwhelming support withing Russian society of both the Crimean affair and the east Ukraine succession. Refer to the interesting and informative link I posted. (Its not pro Russian or Russian media. I think it is quite balanced and succinct.)

I think this board has more than enough commentary on the way that certain constitutional rights are being swept away. I guess governments have more in common than theyd like to admit I wouldnt like to be a dissenter in either regime.


What "the world" things is irrelevant IMO. What matters are the facts. Congress has separate sources of intelligence than the White House. They are not going to vote to take the country to war based solely on what the White House is saying. That the Congress and so many prominent Democrats voted to go to war shows that the intelligence of the time showed that Saddam Hussein was a threat and had WMDs.

Answer:
To me to think that what the world thinks is irrelevant is disingenious and I'd venture quite arrogant (no offense intended) Considering the sh#tstorm that is now taking place in other folks back yards. Yup congress listened to a bunch of people who IMO were lying. There are people that should be tried for war crimes over it. I think its quite flippant to say "Oh well hey sh#t happens lets move on folks". Especially considering the menace that has taken hold there now. How Many Americans thought that the war was a retaliation for 9/11 and were whipped into a frenzy to attack. Congress wouldn't have been so quick off the mark if 9/11 wasnt so fresh in the collective mind.

Thank goodness the mood had changed by the time they wanted to go to war in aid of the Syrian Rebels albeit the "moderate" ones. Some of those guys are running around with some serious 1st world hardware now in Iraq.

The facts are that some really clever guys weren't as clever as they thought they were and I agree that those facts matter.


It was a won war though. Obama completely threw it away due to his ideological outlook. I agree that before invading it might be wise to take into account that war plans tend to go awry. The assumption that it could just be a quick "in-and-out" invasion, i.e. invade, topple Hussein, establish a liberal democracy, and leave, was rather enormously optimistic, but even though it was a much longer project, it was, in the end, successful. Then Obama threw it away.

Sort of like with South Vietnam IMO. U.S. troops had been out of South Vietnam for two years and it was holding up on its own. Then Congress cut the funding for the South Vietnamese government and the North went in and slaughtered a bunch of people.

Answer:
Sorry I would disagree. The battles were won but the war is lost. The war only ends when you have acheived your political end not just your military objectives. Surely war can only be considered the sharp edge of diplomacy with the end goal in this instance having been to establish a democratic government who would be favourable to the US. Would consider all, Shia, Sunni, Kurd, Marsh Arab etc. This not because it is right and democratic but because its the only way any leader could possibly dream about staying in power and keeping chaos at bay. Its also wishful thinking at best. An easy sell to a western constituant by politicians but not happening in Iraq and not going to happen IMO.

As for Obama, he cant take all the blame, the GWB administration Brenner, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld etc were very hasty in dismantling the security apparatus which had it been managed correctly could have assisted with avoiding many issues that have plagued Iraq since. That wasnt just an oops.

And the lesson re Vietnam is? To me it would be to be wary when a great power comes to "help" you, because depending on political expediency or the mood at home or economic factors they can and will pull that plug and watch you bleed out in the blink of an eye. It happenned again in Iraq after the Gulf War so not a one time only deal.



Thanks

[RomanCandle]

Afghanistan was invaded because of 9/11. The U.S. didn't have much choice there.

Agreed. I'm not saying it didn't have to be done just pointing out some of the issues that have come up. To me its an entirely different situation than Iraq being invaded upon a false pretext. Incidentally AQ didn't exist in Iraq prior to the ousting of Saddam and his Ba'athist regime.


What makes you think the people crying though know for sure who exactly is shelling them? They are just innocents caught in this, they probably wouldn't know either way who is shelling them.

Well they were having a bit of a tirade in every piece of footage. Again I think it is disingenuous to say that they don't know who is shelling them. The separatists are manning checkpoints and assisting many to get to the border. Seeing as they are the separatists families and kinfolk I seriously doubt they'd be shelling them. In fact from what I've seen I flat out don't believe it. If your State decided to secede and the Federal Government arrived in force with mech, artillery and infantry to quell the secession you'd know who was shelling you right?


I don't know the mindset of the separatists on that. They have placed some of their strongholds though in civilian areas.

They live there. actually according to Russian media most moved out months ago to draw fire away from town. That didn't succeed. I'm not sure which areas you are referring to. I don't even think the Ukrainians have accused them of that. The Ukrainians flat out deny that they are firing at civilian areas period.



On that, yes. It wouldn't make sense for him to just make up something like that to the rest of the world, which would only make him get called out rather quickly as making stuff up if it was so obvious that it wasn't actually happening. It also doesn't help his image for people to think it is happening and he not doing anything.

There are satellite images of Russian forces operating inside of Ukraine: LINK (http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-satellite-photo-evidence-russia-lying-about-ukraine-2014-8)

Not NATO satellite images. They are from a commercial satellite company Digital Globe. Why wont NATO show proper images from their own satellite coverage. These are not evidence. There is no evidence that they are Russian or where exactly they are stationed.

Russia has absolutely zero interest in a diplomatic anything. Hence Putin's just taking Crimea by force. Russia's idea of a "diplomatic solution" is to advance by force further into Ukraine, then ask for a "cease-fire" (i.e. they keep the territory they have gained by force).

Actually Russia did take Crimea rather diplomatically. By asking the population to vote in a referendum it was a lot more diplomatic then the western backed coup d' etat in Kiev. I still see no evidence of Russia advancing by force into Ukraine. Please provide this and I will change my view but until then I disagree. I would strongly disagree that Russia has absolutely no interest in diplomacy, so far I have seen a lot of aggressive talk even ranting from some leaders in the west whereas I have seen Putin say numerous times that the only solution is a diplomatic one.

I am not suggesting that Putin is not maneuvering for East Ukraine. I think at that he'd be mad not to from a political perspective its just that he seems to understand the concept and the west seems a bit like they feel not in control.


"Military support" is not necessarily arms though. It is in this case advice, intelligence, rations, etc...

Hopefully and up until now it appears so. But we know they always tell the truth.



Now you are doing what the Russian media does, making a comparison between the two countries that is very weak. You are trying to compare being a dissenter in America to the American government with being a dissenter in Russia. Try having a Fox News for example in Russia.

No, Im just saying I'd prefer not to be a dissenter in either country. There even seems to be some sort of consensus on this board that there is a steady erosion of rights. Journalists being arrested and roughed up in Ferguson etc.

All I am doing is looking at it from a different angle. You said before that I sounded like the Russian media but the comparison could apply the other way round too. I watch the media of both side and do a little research of my own because I know that media in general wants to chase sensationalism. The funny thing is the rhetoric that I have seen coming from the US and Euro leaders has been aired in Western media not so much in Russian media. I'm not really to concerned with what any of them say because they are diametrically opposed at this point.



I never said that the U.S. should not be concerned with what the world thinks with regards to making policy, I mean that "what the world thinks" as regards the reasons for the invading of Iraq are irrelevant. That "the world thinks" that Iraq was invaded for oil, for example, is irrelevant as to what the actual reasons were.

Basically I reason it like this:

Me: "Iraq was not invaded over oil."
Other Person: "Most of the world thinks that it was."
Me: "Who cares? That has nothing to do with what the facts are."

Great I understand. What are the facts? That they were sincere but sincerely wrong? That's conjecture not fact. The fact that they attacked another country not in accordance with international law? The fact that the place is a disaster that should have been avoided and much advice was not heeded to avoid it? the fact that it is now a breeding ground the like of has never been seen before? Now those are facts.

And the sources of Congress and the White House were not necessarily lying, they were just wrong. Or they were right and Hussein managed to move his WMDs out of the country at the last minute. Nor has anyone said we should just move on over Iraq, as if it was some natural disaster or something. The menace that has taken hold there now is a result of President Obama, who pulled the troops out of Iraq, leaving no residual force there, and then regarded ISIS as being the equivalent of a "JV team."

Everything you say could be true. Or they were not truthful.



No one ever wanted to go to war Iraq-style in Syria.

Nope they just wanted to bomb it Libya style to oust Assad so it could be a 100% ISIL run terrorist state. They wanted to replace one really nasty character with a million or so even worse. Of course it will be said that the real intention was to bring peace and democracy to Syria. Right.



I agree.



I agree that the political end was not attained, but the outcome was still much better than what it could have been when the war seemed lost in 2007. Obama went and flushed everything down the toilet.

I won't dispute that. But to not pull out you'd have to be their for the rest of eternity.



For the chaos Iraq has descended into since the U.S. was pulled out by Obama, I'd blame him squarely for that.

I think for the guys that brought it back under control it must be infuriating.


I agree there, but that is from the standpoint of the foreign power. It was completely avoidable. Also the U.S. didn't just go to help the South Vietnamese, it was about countering communism. The reason why the Domino Theory didn't take hold was because of the Vietnam War.

I wont dispute the countering communism angle. It had a bad end for many that threw their lot in though.



In replying to your posts and because we clearly don't agree on many of these, by highlighting many issues I kind of feel like its become a debate over which country or bloc if you will is right and which is wrong. From my POV I would like to be clear that that's not my intention. It was really to try and point out that there are two sides to this whole thing and I think it is steeped in propaganda which is readily swallowed depending on which side of the spectrum one sits.

I personally feel, and of course it is my own opinion, that we are being fed a lot of propaganda about the rise of Communism and the return of the USSR. I think NATO is desperate for relevance. The US is feeling threatened by an economically resurgent Russia and a rapidly gaining China and maybe feel the need for containment. Russia on the other hand is desperate not to see the small states around it become too aligned with the West economically or other and will do what they need to in order to thwart US/ Euro encroachment in what they consider is their area of influence. Europe. Particularly some of the small previously USSR states are caught in the tug-of-war.

To my mind the west has taken a stance of supporting regime changes to install friendly governments which they can support and vice versa whereas Russia has taken the stance of trying to gain popular support in areas where they want to gain or maintain influence. Maybe they feel that supporting a government can be a short term prospect whereas having popular support is a much more stable platform for growing a friendly government from.

[LarryW]

There is propaganda from both sides, but I do believe that one side is right and the other (Russia) is wrong in this. Russia's goal is to oppress. They have been oppressing Ukraine since forever, and wish to continue to do so. It is about expanding empire for Russia.

I don't know about communism re-rising, but Putin is an old-fashioned KGB agent who is Cold War in his ways and said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. He is intent on rebuilding Russia militarily and rebuilding a Russian empire. Russia is not resurgent economically and presents no threat to the U.S. in this sense. There is concern about China, but that is because China is an oppressive bully that is threatening free nations in the region who are U.S. allies.


Concur with Broadsword.

Putin is a KGBer. He is subject to his rearing no less than anybody else. He was raised and educated and served a nation that believed the individual was a tool of the State. Regardless of whether this was a justifiable tenant of the Proletariat rebellion against a terribly oppressive and stagnant Czarist Empire, or from the fear of being conquered by the western powers of 1917, or the stars in their courses, the fact remains that Putin was raised to perceive the citizenry first and foremost as an element to and of the State. The tiger can't change his stripes. (Neither can the skunk.)

Propaganda? Oh, hell yes. There's always that smelly bastard in everybody's room. No political nation is exempt from the presence or the lure of it. It happens that the Great Soviet wielded propaganda so overtly and complacently that they were ultimately clubbed to death by it. You can only lie to yourself so much. Come on, man!

Who's more corrupt? Russia or the West? In this instance in Ukraine, and IMHO, Russia is falling victim to the old Soviet paranoia, and at a time when they could bring so many good things to the world table. That is the tragedy of todays Russia. The potential is there for either Russia or the West (or both) to be brutally wrong. Right now it's Putin's turn at the plate, and he's doing one helluva job.