Perhaps the most tiresome part of the Crimean move to join Russia is the rhetoric on both sides. On the Russian side, we have Putin, who has long railed against states being broken up, starting with Kosovo; on the other side we have the Americans and Europeans nattering on about how no state can be broken up when they broke up Serbia, forcibly removing Kosovo from it.
States can be broken up—when it suits the West, or Russia. But when the West does it, we hear a heck of a lot less caterwauling
I remain unconvinced that starting a new cold or hot war, or imposing significant sanctions and suffering the Russian retaliation, is worth keeping Crimea in the Ukraine, when the majority of its population most likely wants to leave and it was part of Russia for centuries. The sheer hysteria of the Western response bores me: this is not the end of the world, unless we make it such.
It is also not about whether Obama is “tough enough to stand up to Putin”. As Sean-Paul Kelley has repeatedly pointed out, that’s infantilizing. There are actual issues here, around NATO expansion, around whether States can be broken up and when, around Russian economic ties to Europe; around the fact that Ukraine is practically a failed state; around the strong neo-Nazi presence in the new Ukrainian government; around the IMFs intention to impose terrible austerity on the Ukraine; on whether protesters have the right to overthrow a government and expect the rest of the country to accept it; and so on.
There interests at play here: oil and natural gas for Europe; Russian money for London; Russian military orders for France; American access to Afghanistan through Russian territory; Syria; the implicit deal for the Russians not to arm insurgents around the world with SAMs which can take out American drones; and so on.
These are issues that should be discussed, not whether Obama is “tough”. What is in America’s interest, Russia’s, the Ukraine’s, Crimea, and the people in the Ukraine who don’t want to be part of a Ukraine run by the protesters?
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
The Raven
Look at the other side of this: is there any state in the Russian sphere of influence that does not hate Russia?
There has been a two-century Russian program of ethnic cleansing in Crimea, culminating in the forced deportation of the remaining Tatars under Stalin. Some 30,000 (says Wikipedia) died. Tatars returned as soon as Crimea was no longer part of the USSR and today comprise 12% of the population. Now, effective intervention may not be possible. Even if it is possible, it might make matters worse. I do not know enough to say. But let’s not whitewash what was done in Crimea, or deceive ourselves about the likely conduct of Russia should it it succeed in holding Crimea at this time.
par4
I’m glad that the U.S. and it’s Euro puppets acknowledge that armed insurrection by a minority is an acceptable way to change elected government. It worked for their ideological brother Franco. Remember how “Der Libruls” howled about Jonah Goldberg’ magnum opus? Rather ironic that their President supports neo-Nazis in Ukraine not to mention Al-Qaeda in Syria.
shargash
Raven, you do know that Stalin (who deported the Tartars) was not Russian, he was Georgian. You do know that the state that Stalin headed was the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation. Evidently you do not know that the Tartars were permitted to return to the Crimea under Perestroika in the 1980s by Gorbachev, who was an ethnic Russian, though not the head of a Russian state.
It does not help to conflate the Tsars, the Soviets, and the Russian Federation as if they were the same state.
shargash
Ian, I’m not sure that Putin actually wants the Crimea to be part of Russia. The Crimea represents about 1 million pro-Russian votes in the Ukrainian parliament. Along with the pro-Russian votes of the industrial East, that has ensured a neutral-to-slightly-pro-Russian Ukraine. The West (not to mention the Crimean people) may wind up forcing his hand, however.
Jerome Armstrong
Other than transforming their organic and not allowing GMO’s, I don’t see Russia as having much good going on. There’s really not much of a future for the EAU.
Anyway, the US knew that Russia was going into Crimea 10 days before it happened. With the US getting booted from Afghanistan, this is convenient for the pentagon and surveillance corporations of our government.
Russia gets Crimea, the Pentagon gets some cold war propaganda to justify its bloated budget, Monsanto gets Ukraine’s wheat, Shell gets the gas under Ukraine, and the people of Ukraine… they get to pay the IMF bankers.
Celsius 233
Here’s a link to a thoughtful, round table discussion, of what’s going on in Ukraine/Cimea;
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/7/roundtable_as_crimea_threatens_secession_does?autostart=true
Celsius 233
^Above should be *Crimea*
Here is another very informative interview with Robert Parry over at fair.
http://fair.org/counterspin-radio/robert-parry-on-ukraine-luke-charles-harris-on-my-brothers-keeper/
Celsius 233
“It is also not about whether Obama is “tough enough to stand up to Putin”. As Sean-Paul Kelley has repeatedly pointed out, that’s infantilizing.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not agree; I’ve made those comparisons and I was talking about character, not macho bullshit.
Obama lacks character, IMO, because he constantly says one thing and does the opposite; whereas, Putin says pretty straight out what is what and is pretty predictable in fact.
Is Putin a nice guy? I’ll bet some think so. Is Obama a nice guy? His public persona would give yes as an answer. But he’s a guy who said, “It turns out I’m pretty good at killing people”.
And I wonder just who has killed more people, Obama or Putin. Or put differently; in the last 13 years, who has killed more people? Russia or the U.S.
Larry
“It is also not about whether Obama is “tough enough to stand up to Putin”. As Sean-Paul Kelley has repeatedly pointed out, that’s infantilizing. “
Agreed. The feigned concern about how democracy suffers if we allow the Russians to absorb the Crimea ignores the reality that democracy is already under assault right here in our own back yard by an ever growing plutocracy.
Bill H
“It is also not about whether Obama is “tough enough to stand up to Putin”. As Sean-Paul Kelley has repeatedly pointed out, that’s infantilizing.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I do not agree; ”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think you actually do but that you are talking about two different things, and I agree with both of you.
Sean-Paul is talking about the situation rather than the men. You are talking about internal strength of character when you refer to how Obama “constantly says one thing and does the opposite,” while Putin “says pretty straight out what is what.” That is an astute observation; Obama is an empty suit, a man prone to empty threat. It’s embarrassing to realize that Putin is by far the more effective leader of the two.
But what Sean Paul is saying is that the situation is bigger than the confrontation between two men. There are much larger forces in play here. Reality is, in fact, that Obama is trying to play the lead role in a play in which he is not even in the script.
Ché Pasa
Oh but the received wisdom is that Putin is crazy(!) and desperate(!) to reestablish the Soviet Union. He’s the New Stalin, the New Hitler(!). Crimea is the Sudetenland(!), Ukraine proper is Poland.(!) America MUST(!) stand up to this international renegade, hostage-taker, terrorist and bully. (!)
This was the standard of anti-Russian/anti-Putin propaganda as the Yanukovych government melted down under the assaults of the neo-Nazi (and other) shock troops in the Maidan (and elsewhere).
While the shock troops were firebombing the police and taking over or destroying public buildings and other facilities, the crowds in the square — crowds that apparently never numbered more than 20,000 in a city of nearly 3million — were harangued and demagogued non-stop from a giant stage that was apparently never subjected to official efforts to remove it or even to cut off electricity to it. The speeches, the denunciations, the calls to overthrow the government, the lists of grievances, the testimonies of victims and the priestly blessings of all of this were only interrupted occasionally by rock bands and other entertainments, all of which was carried live world-wide on a number of very slick and professional livestreams proudly proclaiming Euromaidan Revolution.
Putin was crazy? Desperate?
Or did he know too much, and know much more than he let on?
cripes
Victoria Nuland and others have made clear the role of the US and Nato in choreographing yet another “color revolution” in Ukraine with the help of NGO’s and domestic skinhead neo-nazi’s, carpetbaggers and those hoping to profit from IMF liberalization.
What we could consider also is the degree to which they have succeeded in enlisting the support of Ukranian citizens with legitimate greivances against the deposed government, basically to “vote” against their interests, as Thomas Frank describes in “What’s The Matter With Kansas?”
It’s not just local oligarchs standing around in Maidan.
Anyone?
montanamaven
Bill H.
This is my vote for quote of the day. Another contender for quote of the day: Dimitry Orlov was interviewed by Max Keiser and had a hilarious observation about John Kerry. He said that every time John Kerry makes a pronouncement, it’s like there are subtitles that say, “Harumph, Harumph, Harumph. http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/episode-571-max-keiser-082/
Sharon
Just to re-echo what Ché Pasa said, ‘Putin is crazy(!) and desperate(!) to reestablish the Soviet Union. He’s the New Stalin, the New Hitler(!). Crimea is the Sudetenland(!), Ukraine proper is Poland.(!) America MUST(!) stand up to this international renegade, hostage-taker, terrorist and bully. (!)’
Jerome Armstrong
Hitler, nazi, or neo-nazi. As many supporters the internet claims he has still, you’d think he won or something.
Celsius 233
This from TomDispatch.com (Tom Englehart).
This just gobsmacked me;
“Meanwhile, in foreign policy, the din has been thunderous when it comes to Vladimir Putin and events in Ukraine. Denunciations of the Russian president have rung from every quarter in Washington. Sanctions against individual Russians have been issued with broader sanctions threatened and Secretary of State John Kerry has led the way. But so far it’s been a Charge of the Lite Brigade. Kerry actually had the chutzpah to say of the Russian troops sent into the Crimea, “You just don’t in the twenty-first century behave in nineteenth-century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pretext.” And the former senator, who had voted for the invasion of Iraq (to deal with Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction program), did it straight-faced. Had the situation not been so grim, it would have been pure stand-up. ”
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175816/tomgram%3A_david_bromwich%2C_the_leader_obama_wanted_to_become_and_what_became_of_him/#more
Celsius 233
@ MM
Reality is, in fact, that Obama is trying to play the lead role in a play in which he is not even in the script.
Bill H.
This is my vote for quote of the day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, that was a nice turn of phrase.