News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[nsaspook]

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan of their own accord. Prior to the invasion Afghanistan had a relatively stable monarchy and parliament, for that part of Asia, which was relatively forward looking both for women and education. It was the Soviets that destroyed the monarchy, inserted a communist government and wrecked the country. Only after the take over did the US supply weapons to the Afghans. I say Afghans because I've never seen any evidence that those weapons made it to the Arab foreigners like Bin Laden who came to fight the Soviets.

I don't want to go too far off topic but Brzezinski was then and is now deeply involved our policy with what is now Russia.

Senator McCain ... 1980's US-Afghan operation. Neither was Brzezinski. Whatever his opinion now, then he was in power when US policy was to deter the Soviets by pulling out of the Olympics.

Then:

What we saw then was the difference in NSA (national security adviser) and State/CIA on the policy of Russia. (Zbigniew Brzezinski vs Cyrus Vance/Turner)

* 1966-68 - Member of the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State
* 1968 - Hubert H. Humphrey presidential campaign, chairman of the Foreign Policy Task Force
* 1973-76 - Trilateral Commission, Director
* 1976 - James Earl Carter, Jr. presidential campaign, foreign policy advisor
* 1977-80 - James Earl Carter's NSA (national security adviser)
* 1985 - Ronald Reagan's Chemical Warfare Commission , member
* 1987-88 - NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, member
* 1988 - George H. W. Bush National Security Advisory Task Force, member
* 1987-89 - President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, member

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/brzezinski2.html

INT: How did you interpret Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you think should be done about it?

ZB: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive.

INT: What happened?

ZB: We weren't passive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone#The_program

On 3 July 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[2] Following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December Operation Storm-333 and installation of a more pro-Soviet president, Babrak Karmal, Carter announced, "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War".[12]

Brzezinski gives his view of the limits of the July finding support and his views about our actions during the 80's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGjAsQJh7OM&feature=relmfu
Now:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/what-obama-should-tell-americans-about-ukraine-106277.html#.U2ZnFnblAW0

If we are to deter the Russians from moving in, we have to convince them that their aggression will entail a prolonged and costly effort. But it will be such only if the Ukrainians resist. Thus, we should be making an effort to negotiate with Russia even as at the same time we should be more open to helping the Ukrainians defend themselves if they’re attacked. The Ukrainians will fight only if they think they will eventually get some help from the West, particularly in supplies of the kind of weaponry that will be necessary to wage a successful urban defense. They’re not going to beat the Russians out in the open field, where thousands of tanks move in. They can only beat them through prolonged urban resistance. Then the war’s economic costs would escalate dramatically for the Russians, and it would become futile politically. But to be able to defend a city, you have to have handheld anti-tank weaponry, handheld rockets and some organization

So what is the end-game for such a strategy, a completely destroyed country like Afghanistan after a 30+ years of fighting? We need to deescalate the level of violence even if it means in the short term total Russian control of the area to regain stability.

 

[mheslep]

Was Mohammed Daoud Khan, the first president of Afghanistan and the immediate successor to king Mohammed Zahir Shah, a communist installed by the Soviets? Cite your sources.

Does it matter? Khan's party, the PDPA, was unquestionably communist.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sZn7q85rWlUC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[mheslep]

Russia had an obvious interest in securing their black sea naval base in Crimea. I seriously doubt they have any other hidden agenda in Ukraine.

Russia already had access to the Black Sea via their naval base in Crimea, yet Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine. Why would you doubt their agenda in Ukraine, given their troops, weapons, and aircraft are already in Ukraine?

 

[jim hardy]

today I'm somehow a little despondent. Thinking about that old movie "All quiet on the Western Front" and its observation that wars are thought up by old men for young men to fight.

As much as i respect Brzezinski's intellect i cannot help thinking he was profoundly influenced by his childhood.

The Second World War had a profound effect on Brzezinski, who stated in an interview: "The extraordinary violence that was perpetrated against Poland did affect my perception of the world, and made me much more sensitive to the fact that a great deal of world politics is a fundamental struggle."[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski , link 7 is unavailable in US.

Kennedy and Kruschev worked out a missile swap.
... surely grown men can do better than a "Lord of the Flies" ending to this one.

 

[mheslep]

I don't want to go too far off topic but Brzezinski was then and is now deeply involved our policy with what is now Russia.
Then:

What we saw then was the difference in NSA (national security adviser) and State/CIA on the policy of Russia. (Zbigniew Brzezinski vs Cyrus Vance/Turner)

* 1966-68 - Member of the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State
* 1968 - Hubert H. Humphrey presidential campaign, chairman of the Foreign Policy Task Force
* 1973-76 - Trilateral Commission, Director
* 1976 - James Earl Carter, Jr. presidential campaign, foreign policy advisor
* 1977-80 - James Earl Carter's NSA (national security adviser)
* 1985 - Ronald Reagan's Chemical Warfare Commission , member
* 1987-88 - NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, member
* 1988 - George H. W. Bush National Security Advisory Task Force, member
* 1987-89 - President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, member

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-17/brzezinski2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone#The_program
Brzezinski gives his view of the limits of the July finding support and his views about our actions during the 80's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGjAsQJh7OM&feature=relmfu
Now:

...

So what is the end-game for such a strategy, a completely destroyed country like Afghanistan after a 30+ years of fighting?

I pointed out previously how this mis-characterized Afghan history. The Soviets, unopposed, destroyed Afghanistan as a nation, bringing in the foreigner Arabs all before the US was substantially involved.

We need to deescalate the level of violence even if it means in the short term total Russian control of the area to regain stability.

Deescalate? What are you talking about? Russian control would be "short term"? Why would that be so? Stability under Russia? Like the stability and Peace for Our Time granted by the Munich Agreement?

I really don't see much coherence here. An assertion, alone, that the way to peace and self determination is for the US/NATO to do nothing is dogma, not an argument that doing nothing will achieve any of the stated goals.

Re Brzezinski, when he say's "he told the President" *before the invasion* in '79, he is talking about Carter. Now how much did Carter do militarily in Afghanistan? After he and Carter, left office, what more can he do but talk? He doesn't make policy.

...now deeply involved our policy with what is now Russia

Sorry, you are mistaken. Many former US cabinet and NSA officials of the US government have positions in various think tanks and councils. Brzezinski is an 86 year old man and the fact he sits on some talking head panel or writes blog posts for Politico does not mean he has any direct determination of US policy.

 

[mheslep]

...wars are thought up by old men for young men to fight.

Note that Chamberlain was also an old man.

As much as i respect Brzezinski's intellect i cannot help thinking he was profoundly influenced by his childhood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski , link 7 is unavailable in US.

I certainly hope he was influenced by first hand experience of the Nazis. You?

Kennedy and Kruschev worked out a missile swap.
... surely grown men can do better than a "Lord of the Flies" ending to this one.

Interesting comparison. Kennedy and Kruschev both had first hand experience with World War II, and that missile swap came after a blockade of Cuba, which is a defacto declaration of war, overflights of Cuba by US aircraft, and strong not-going-to-stand public declarations by the US government.

 

[nsaspook]

Re Brzezinski, when he say's "he told the President" *before the invasion* in '79, he is talking about Carter. Now how much did Carter do militarily in Afghanistan? After he and Carter, left office, what more can he do but talk?

After 1980 The era of détente was over at the start of the 'Carter' Doctrine.

Carter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2xJq4fYdGQ#t=65

Carter actually did quite a lot in Afghanistan, his CIA setup the bases and supply routes in Pakistan, recruited Arab fighters from Saudi Arabia and Yemen and bought massive amounts of non-us weapons from third parties to supply those troops against the Soviets. I would estimate we were spending close to a billion a year in that area by 1981. Reagan took over a fully functional operation that started supplying US made weapons later.

He doesn't make policy.

Thank goodness for that.

 

[voko]

Does it matter?

If it does not, why did you bring it up?

Khan's party, the PDPA, was unquestionably communist.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sZn7q85rWlUC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=false

I do not see in your source that Khan was a communist installed by the Soviets, or that the PDPA was Khan's party. In my opinion, your source says that the PDPA was not Khan's party, and, moreover, that there was severe antagonism between Khan and the PDAP, to put that mildly.

Once again: was Mohammed Daoud Khan, the first president of Afghanistan and the immediate successor to king Mohammed Zahir Shah, a communist installed by the Soviets? Cite your sources.

 

[voko]

I pointed out previously how this mis-characterized Afghan history.

No, you did not. Your account of Afghanistan's recent history is highly dubious and not supported by widely available sources, such as Wikipedia, for example. The source that you cited contradicts, as far as I can see, your statements that you say are based on that source.

The Soviets, unopposed, destroyed Afghanistan as a nation, bringing in the foreigner Arabs all before the US was substantially involved.

You have not been able to demonstrate that so far.

 

[mheslep]

If it does not, why did you bring it up?

Khan? I did not.

 

[mheslep]

You have not been able to demonstrate that so far.

That the Soviets wrecked Afghanistan?

The demographic impact of the war in Afghanistan is analyzed, using data from surveys conducted among the refugees in Pakistan in 1987. The data indicate that by the end of 1987 approximately nine percent of the population had been killed during the war, totalling between 1 and 1.5 million persons. Consideration is given to trends in mortality over time, the demographic characteristics of those killed, emigration, and geographical differences in war-related mortality. - See more at: http://www.popline.org/node/358657#sthash.d2XL3PvM.dpuf

In addition to the fatalities, these references indicated 5 million refugees, mostly in Pakistan, and 3 million wounded.

Also see
http://www.nonel.pu.ru/erdferkel/khalidi.pdf

 

[jim hardy]

Note that Chamberlain was also an old man.


I certainly hope he was influenced by first hand experience of the Nazis. You?


Interesting comparison. Kennedy and Kruschev both had first hand experience with World War II, and that missile swap came after a blockade of Cuba, which is a defacto declaration of war, overflights of Cuba by US aircraft, and strong not-going-to-stand public declarations by the US government.

I don't buy comparing Putin to Hitler. He's tough but not crazy. Only folks out for world domination now are radical islam.

If the rumors about Nato sidling up to Ukraine to get missile silos there are true (whom do we believe on that one?) ,
then Putin is being more proactive than Ike was with Castro.

Not that i like big countries overrunning little ones

just I'm not sure what started all this . Our news is "He said-She said...

 

[mheslep]

I don't buy comparing Putin to Hitler.

Ok

He's tough but not crazy.

I don't buy calling Putin just "tough". Thug and tyrant is closer to the truth. He's invaded two neighboring countries, Georgia and Ukraine, seized part of both them. He clamps down on the press, imprisons people who oppose him politically, kills political opponents abroad.

 

[mheslep]

Picture taken last week at sunrise from the USS Donald Cook, the guided missile destroyer sent into the Black Sea last month and later buzzed by a Russian jet.

 

[nsaspook]

Picture taken last week at sunrise from the USS Donald Cook, the guided missile destroyer sent into the Black Sea last month and later buzzed by a Russian jet.

A very weak propaganda story from Russia. http://indian.ruvr.ru/2014_04_21/Russian-Su-24-scores-off-against-the-American-USS-Donald-Cook-5786/

After the incident, the foreign media reported that "Donald Cook" was rushed into a port in Romania. There all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation. It seems that all 27 people have written that they are not going to risk their lives. This is indirectly confirmed by the Pentagon statement according to which the action demoralized the crew of the American ship.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Secu...ircraft-buzz-US-Navy-destroyer-How-big-a-deal

The Russian aircraft flew within 1,000 yards of the ship and made roughly a dozen passes, but it did not fly over the destroyer, according to Pentagon officials.

“That is about as tame a flyby as you can get,” Harmer says. On the more aggressive end of the spectrum is a flyover of a ship such as an aircraft carrier, which happened on more than one occasion during Harmer’s time serving at sea.
...
“You both just stare at each other,” Harmer says. “It might seem exciting, but it’s actually very boring.”

We would make signs for them to photograph from their recon aircraft/ships so they would have something to laugh about. At times the troops would moon them also but that's not something that goes in the log book or the official record.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1968752/replies?c=57

 

[voko]

Khan? I did not.

Yes, you did. You said: "It was the Soviets that destroyed the monarchy". Khan was the successor to the monarchy, and he was directly involved in ending it. I have asked this twice and I repeat again: was Mohammed Daoud Khan, the first president of Afghanistan and the immediate successor to king Mohammed Zahir Shah, a communist installed by the Soviets? Cite your sources.

That the Soviets wrecked Afghanistan?

There was a very specific statement you made that I said you had not been able to demonstrate. I quoted it, please quit trying to change the subject now.

 

[voko]

He clamps down on the press, imprisons people who oppose him politically, kills political opponents abroad.

The links provide no evidence of Putin's involvement in what you just ascribed to him. Your implicit claim that Litvinenko was Putin's political opponent is not substantiated, either, and since you keep citing the Litvinenko case as a veritable act of Putin's tyranny, it is about time that you substantiated it. Please do, and that is about all your claims quoted in this message, and cite your sources.

 

[Borek]

Just to remind you: this thread is not about Khan, not about Afghanistan, not about Georgia, but about situation in Ukraine.

 

[Chronos]

Similar claims are made about the CIA, and probably about as credible. I view it as geopolitical spin. Putin is tough, but, no fool. Allowing Ukraine to join NATO and compromise a highly strategic naval base in the black sea was untenable. Seizing additional parts of eastern Ukraine would be a useless economic drain, IMO.

 

[darkwood]

Here's my input...

Eastern Ukraine are manufacturers of parts for weapons that cannot be got anywhere else in the world and they are heavy suppliers to Russia and China so the thought to Putin that Ukraine could fall into the hands of the EU is very worrying to him as it could effectively change the position as a military power Russia holds in the world and punch a big hole in China's position too.

This situation is partially a kneejerk reaction to the events in Syria where Russia with China's support has backed Assad's regime in defiance at the blatant atrocities seen daily there, Syria is purely for military strategic values and Russia could not guarantee any new government would want to play along with Russia's military interests. This brings us back to Ukraine where they have played there hand and taken over a section of Ukraine again for the same military reasons as it holds a key strategic position for Russia's fleet and a position they cannot afford to lose. Now as events roll on from the Syria situation and Russia is finding itself more isolated from the rest of the world (with the exceptions of China who is playing the silent partner now), Putin finds himself in a desperate situation where he only see his own military position in the world been his advantage for getting what he wants and its now under threat... let me speculate here and see if you agree -to ensure Eastern Ukraine stay suppliers of crucial military parts he cannot afford a pro-European government to take over and put sanctions in place so the whole situation from day 1 has been fuelled by Putin...local Pro- Russians are been reported to be seizing and taking over key buildings and propaganda is becoming rife within these areas against pro-European supporters ..let just say Putin has a bigger hand in all this and the thought of losing Eastern Ukraine to European policy is a very worrying thing for Putin.

If you reflect on what I have said then events in the Ukraine don't seem so random after all and more engineered to ensure Putin keeps his supply of Arms safe.

 

[voko]

Similar claims are made about the CIA, and probably about as credible. I view it as geopolitical spin. Putin is tough, but, no fool. Allowing Ukraine to join NATO and compromise a highly strategic naval base in the black sea was untenable. Seizing additional parts of eastern Ukraine would be a useless economic drain, IMO.

Crimea as is is in all likelihood going to be a massively useless economic drain. It would probably have cost Russia much less to relocate its fleet to Novorossiysk, as was the plan a while ago. That would likely have been a safer and cheaper, long term, base for the fleet, that being Russia's mainland.

I doubt very much that the entire Crimea affair had much to do with economy or military - except perhaps as something secondary in importance or even an afterthought, or a plausible cover. I think that was something else, not entirely rational, so I would be very cautious making any comparisons with Eastern Ukraine, which may well involve irrationalities, too.

All of the above is strictly my opinion.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I don't buy comparing Putin to Hitler. He's tough but not crazy.

I don't buy calling Putin just "tough". Thug and tyrant is closer to the truth

Putin is tough, but, no fool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMj8Er6uh5c
http://www.youtube.com/embed/KMj8Er6uh5c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gkD2C3YeKI
http://www.youtube.com/embed/8gkD2C3YeKI

Anyone care to elaborate... paranoia?


Sir Tim Berners-Lee

Tip of the 'CIA iceberg' (in UK/Switzerland/CERN)...

 

[russ_watters]

Allowing Ukraine to join NATO and compromise a highly strategic naval base in the black sea was untenable.

Why?

Why would Ukraine joining NATO compromise the base?

Seizing additional parts of eastern Ukraine would be a useless economic drain, IMO.

Then why is he working on it?

My understanding is he has two things to gain:
1. A land bridge to Crimea.
2. An industrial base.

And my understanding is that Crimea is a drain, but eastern Ukraine would not be.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

My understanding is he has two things to gain:
1. A land bridge to Crimea.
2. An industrial base.

3. Show the opposition in Moscow that he is capable of any craziness (including a potential WW3 threat) to stop all violent opposition against his dictatorship.
4. Show his supporters that he is the new "Red Superman".
5. In the turmoil that follows, tighten the laws in Russia, and make life even more miserable for the opposition that's left, behind the smokescreen of a potential WW3 threat.
6. Regain a little bit of the living nuclear/war shield that has been Ukraine's main 'assignment' since 1945.
7. Get a "terrible and dangerous enemy" (US) for the nation to gather against.
8. Enjoy latest ratings.

 

[mheslep]

A very weak propaganda story from Russia. http://indian.ruvr.ru/2014_04_21/Russian-Su-24-scores-off-against-the-American-USS-Donald-Cook-5786/

After the incident, the foreign media reported that "Donald Cook" was rushed into a port in Romania. There all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation. It seems that all 27 people have written that they are not going to risk their lives. This is indirectly confirmed by the Pentagon statement according to which the action demoralized the crew of the American ship.

Good story though Russian Radio missed the follow up, which was that all US military forces worldwide surrendered immediately following the incident. All hail Vlad.

 

[Dotini]

3. Show the opposition in Moscow that he is capable of any craziness (including a potential WW3 threat) to stop all violent opposition against his dictatorship.
4. Show his supporters that he is the new "Red Superman".
5. In the turmoil that follows, tighten the laws in Russia, and make life even more miserable for the opposition that's left, behind the smokescreen of a potential WW3 threat.
6. Regain a little bit of the living nuclear/war shield that has been Ukraine's main 'assignment' since 1945.
7. Get a "terrible and dangerous enemy" (US) for the nation to gather against.
8. Enjoy latest ratings.

9. Receive Time "Man of the Year" award.
10. Collect Nobel Peace Prize.
11. Acquire choice cameo role on Game of Thrones.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

12. Win all medals in the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, alone.
13. Move 2018 Winter Olympics to North Korea, and invade South Korea.
14. Take his Lada car on 2,000,000 km trip in outer space, bare-chested...

 

[Czcibor]

Similar claims are made about the CIA, and probably about as credible. I view it as geopolitical spin. Putin is tough, but, no fool. Allowing Ukraine to join NATO and compromise a highly strategic naval base in the black sea was untenable. Seizing additional parts of eastern Ukraine would be a useless economic drain, IMO.

But you know... in Ukraine the support for joining NATO was quite low (like maybe 20%). It clearly wasn't something that could happen in foreseeable future. At least until very recently... The only thing that made the support boosted is contemporary creeping Russian invasion.

 

[Czcibor]

Some very interesting research concerning attitude of Ukrainians:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08...rnance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

 

[Czcibor]

It seems that true official Russian estimates concerning turnout in Crimean referendum were published. In spite of all sent soldiers and heavy media propaganda roughly 30% of allowed people voted, approximately half of them for secession.

Yesterday, however, according to a major Ukrainian news site, TSN.ua, the website of the President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights (shortened to President’s Human Rights Council) posted a report that was quickly taken down as if it were toxic radioactive waste. According to this purported report about the March referendum to annex Crimea, the turnout of Crimean voters was only 30 percent. And of these, only half voted for the referendum–meaning only 15 percent of Crimean citizens voted for annexation.

The TSN report does not link to a copy of the cited report. However, there is a report of the Human Rights Council, entitled “Problems of Crimean Residents,” still up on the president-sovet.ru website, which discusses the Council’s estimates of the results of the March 16 referendum. Quoting from that report: “In Crimea, according to various indicators, 50-60% voted for unification with Russia with a voter turnout (yavka) of 30-50%.” This leads to a range of between 15 percent (50% x 30%) and 30 percent (60% x 50%) voting for annexation. The turnout in the Crimean district of Sevastopol, according to the Council, was higher: 50-80%.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...lection-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/

 

[voko]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...lection-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/

The article opens with an outright lie: "No international observers were allowed."

While it is known that international observers were both invited and present.

The lies then continue. The linked document is specifically not "the Council’s estimates of the results of the March 16 referendum". The document begins with a preface, which states clearly quite clearly that the document does not represent the Council's estimates.

The passage "in Crimea, according to various indicators" is another lie. The original says: "По мнению практически всех опрошенных специалистов и граждан". That means "in the opinion of virtually all the interviewed specialists and citizens". That is not "multiple indicators", that is just an opinion, and only of a small group of people.

It is quite rare that I see an article so full of lies and misinformation.

 

[Czcibor]

The article opens with an outright lie: "No international observers were allowed."

While it is known that international observers were both invited and present.

The lies then continue. The linked document is specifically not "the Council’s estimates of the results of the March 16 referendum". The document begins with a preface, which states clearly quite clearly that the document does not represent the Council's estimates.

There were no observers. There were just a few Putin's guests. We may start analysing those people. Let's start with the only Polish, a post-communist member of parliament - Adam Kępiński. He as officially stated was representing: "wyłącznie własną osobę" (only himself).

Anyway as Adam Kępiński said in his official statement:
"Referendum na Krymie i to, co zobaczyłem, stanowi złamanie prawa międzynarodowego, przekreślenie wszelkich procedur i zasad. Stanowi ono niebezpieczny precedens, który zagraża integralności wielu państw, także Europy Zachodniej i polskiej racji stanu. W naszym interesie leży bowiem wolna, niezależna i integralna Ukraina. Zapewniam, że jako Poseł do Sejmu RP doskonale to rozumiem"

"The referendum on Crimea and that what I have seen was was a breaking of international law, violation of every procedures and rules [...]"
http://www.polskatimes.pl/artykul/3370279,sld-nie-ukarze-posla-adama-kepinskiego-ktory-byl-obserwatorem-referendum-na-krymie,id,t.html

(You know, if he insist that he was an international observer, than you have also to admit that international observers did not treat the so called "referendum" as fair or honest in any respect)

 

[voko]

There were no observers.

Please stop spreading misinformation. There were observers and that is documented in the source I cited. Whether those observers suit your political agenda is another thing, but the presence of the observers is a fact.

There were just a few Putin's guests. We may start analysing those people. Let's start with the only Polish, a post-communist member of parliament - Adam Kępiński.

You are going off on a tangent here. I hope this is a bona fide mistake on your part, not a deliberate attempt in the red herring tactics.

 

[Czcibor]

The lies then continue. The linked document is specifically not "the Council’s estimates of the results of the March 16 referendum". The document begins with a preface, which states clearly quite clearly that the document does not represent the Council's estimates.

It seems that you do not read scientific papers. (at least in economics) Practically every paper hedges in case of scandal, that all authors work for XYZ agency, however it does not represents views XYZ agency. Just something like: "it may contain nuts" on every food product.

OK, so:
Was Adam Kępiński invited or not? (In Poland that was scandal about him going to Crimea, but of course it might have been Polish propaganda ;) )

How according to you his official comment should be translated into English: ""Referendum na Krymie i to, co zobaczyłem, stanowi złamanie prawa międzynarodowego, przekreślenie wszelkich procedur i zasad"?

 

[Czcibor]

Please stop spreading misinformation. There were observers and that is documented in the source I cited. Whether those observers suit your political agenda is another thing, but the presence of the observers is a fact.

I mean that those guys suit political agenda of Putin, but in spite of that the size of fraud was in some cases even too big for them.

You are going off on a tangent here. I hope this is a bona fide mistake on your part, not a deliberate attempt in the red herring tactics.

? (may you rephrase what you mean?)

 

[voko]

It seems that you do not read scientific papers. (at least in economics) Practically every paper hedges in case of scandal, that all authors work for XYZ agency, however it does not represents views XYZ agency. Just something like: "it may contain nuts" on every food product.

What are you trying to say here? That the document does represent the Council's viewpoint? That would be a lie. It is about time that you admitted that you posted an article full of lies.

Was Adam Kępiński invited or not?

I do not know, and I do not know who this guy is. This is irrelevant, anyway.

 

[voko]

I mean that those guys suit political agenda of Putin, but in spite of that the size of fraud was in some cases even too big for them.

Please cite the source of your information on the alleged fraud and its extent. The article you posted earlier does not qualify for one, and is demonstrably and factually wrong.

? (may you rephrase what you mean?)

In simple terms: stay on topic. You posted misinformation here. Admit that, do not detour into related but irrelevant circumstances.

 

[Czcibor]

What are you trying to say here? That the document does represent the Council's viewpoint? That would be a lie. It is about time that you admitted that you posted an article full of lies.

I can only admit that indeed in one place the translation was not done especially well. And that you use low quality sophistry, while dealing with such typical hedging phrase. (one more example if you still don't understand: "for entertainment purpose only")

I do not know, and I do not know who this guy is. This is irrelevant, anyway.

You mean you:
1) invite for foreign observers - or at least a bunch of people from abroad, who you (and Russian gov) insist were foreign observers, while no one in the West treat them seriously
2) some those foreign observers said that this referendum was not OK
3) Now you say:
- that there were foreign observers (which I object, because they were properly selected people, not accepted by their govs, invited with intention to confirm Putin's lies)
- its irrelevant what exactly they said

So inviting foreign observers as kind of irrelevant ritual and tourist promotion, unrelated to referendum?

So maybe you google him?

 

[Czcibor]

Please cite the source of your information on the alleged fraud and its extent. The article you posted earlier does not qualify for one, and is demonstrably and factually wrong.

Once again, Adam Kępiński quotation, who was one of those alleged international observers.

In simple terms: stay on topic. You posted misinformation here. Admit that, do not detour into related but irrelevant circumstances.

It's you who posted misinformation here with existence of those alleged international observers, I just show who exactly was invited. (and in that case what exactly one of those people said)

 

[Dotini]

Predictably, a trade war is beginning. Russia is cutting the US off from its rocket engines, and is laying the groundwork for cutting the EU off from Russian oil and gas by seeking new deals with energy-hungry China.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/15/us-space-military-programme-russia-sanctions

Oh, what a joy it is to see the fruits of regime change appearing before your eyes!

"F**k the EU!", said US ambassador to the EU, Victoria Nuland, wife of neocon Robert Kagan.
When Germany dies on the vine for lack of natural gas, and the whole of the European project collapses in a miasma of energy austerity, then you will know - oh too late - the extent of your f**kjob.

 

[Czcibor]

Predictably, a trade war is beginning. Russia is cutting the US off from its rocket engines, and is laying the groundwork for cutting the EU off from Russian oil and gas by seeking new deals with energy-hungry China.

Russia has been negotiating with patient China a big gas contract for last 11 years. Sure, they can sign it tomorrow, but so far Chinese demanded better prices and better conditions than those offered to Europe. (so if Russia was to sign those contracts it would have presumably to back down)

"F**k the EU!", said US ambassador to the EU, Victoria Nuland, wife of neocon Robert Kagan.
When Germany dies on the vine for lack of natural gas, and the whole of the European project collapses in a miasma of energy austerity, then you will know - oh too late - the extent of your f**kjob.

I know the quotation, but I don't know how its relevant here nor what you intended to express as its conclusion.

 

[Dotini]

...I don't know how its relevant here nor what you intended to express as its conclusion.

Oh, what a joy it is to see the fruits of regime change appearing before your eyes!

 

[Czcibor]

Some "cargo 200" was sent from Ukraine to Russia to be buried by their families. I'm only a bit surprising for me is that instead of sending Slavic looking Russians, Putin has sent Chechens who would in Ukraine stand up from crowd as foreigners because of their darker color. (Maybe Chechens are expendable?)

 

[SW VandeCarr]

This may be a good sign, but I won't hold by breath.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...243a82-3051-43cd-9340-7b3fbad3760e_story.html

EDIT: The story above has changed. The original story was Putin's request that parliament revoke his power to intervene in the Ukraine. The present story (2:45 pm (14:45) PDT) is about a significant violation of the cease fire.

The original story (if it doesn't change) is below:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=putin+asks+parliament&tbm=nws

 

[jim hardy]

A few years ago i stumbled across "Halford MacKinder" who suggested in 1904 that Eurasia was the key to ruling the world.

Crazy as it sounds, I'm darned if it doesn't look like his old theory has driven east-west politics ever since.
http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/articles/00summer/fettweis.htm

The world today hardly resembles the one that Sir Halford Mackinder examined in 1904, when he first wrote about the advantages of central positioning on the Eurasian landmass. His theories would have influence throughout the century, informing and shaping US containment policy throughout the Cold War. Today, almost a century after his "Heartland" theory came into being, there is renewed interest in the region that Mackinder considered the key to world dominance. The Heartland of the Eurasian landmass may well play an important role in the next century, and the policy of today's lone superpower toward that region will have a tremendous influence upon the character of the entire international system.

Eurasia, the "World Island" to Mackinder, is still central to American foreign policy and will likely to continue to be so for some time. Conventional wisdom holds that only a power dominating the resources of Eurasia would have the potential to threaten the interests of the United States. Yet that conventional wisdom, as well as many of the other assumptions that traditionally inform our policy, has not been subjected to enough scrutiny in light of the changed international realities. Many geopolitical "truths" that have passed into the canon of security intellectuals rarely get a proper reexamination to determine their relevance to the constantly evolving nature of the system. Were the world system static, no further theorizing would be necessary. Since it is not, we must constantly reevaluate our fundamental assumptions to see whether or not any "eternal" rules of the game, geopolitical and otherwise, truly exist.

I don't see peace there until all the old guys who studied Mackinder in mid 20th century have moved on. Kissinger and Brzezinski both still are directors of big US think tanks.

Anyhow - point being - an awareness of Mackinder made it easier for me to understand why supposedly rational men would behave as they do.

Implications for Policy and Theory

One of the reasons that Mackinder is being resurrected yet again is because policymakers are searching for ways to conceptualize and deal with the heart of his Heartland--Central Asia and the Caspian Sea--which is a region that has the potential to become a major source of great-power contention in the next century. Some analysts estimate that the fossil fuels in the region will transform it into a "new Saudi Arabia" in the coming decades.[24] Its vast deposits made the Soviet Union one of the largest exporters of oil during the last decades of the Cold War, and new reserves have been discovered through intensive exploration since. An apparent power vacuum within the region is once again the subject of rivalry from without, and a new "great game" (an analogy to which we will return) seems to be unfolding, with Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, and the United States as the players. Desire for fossil fuels and the wealth they create has the potential to damage relations between the global and regional powers, if diplomacy is mishandled.

His influence on Brzezinski is obvious in "Grand Chessboard" .Saul Bellow's "Ravelstein" was a glimpse into that world of men who play tiddlywinks with continents. Caution, it's unflattering.

old jim

 

[Dotini]

If Russia were to attack other countries with which it shares a border, ie Norway, Poland, the Baltic states, should that also be left to them to solve?

Ignoring the fact that there is no shared border with Poland nor all the Baltic states, the answer would seem straightforward. It depends on the terms of treaties obligating other countries to come to the defense of the attacked state(s).

However, there is the problem of WWI. A cascading series of interlocking treaties required a whole world to go to calamitous war over the assassination of an obscure figure in an obscure place.

Going to war should never be an automatic reflex. We should carefully consider if our vital interests are well-served by committing great, open-ended acts of violence. If they are not, then the parties involved should settle it amongst themselves.

 

[mheslep]

Yes Poland and all the Baltics share a border with the Russian Federation
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast

 

[Cyril141795]

I wonder what this whole thread about. The war in Ukraine is an example of simulacrum. Nobody actually knows what happens. People make conclusions from rumours and fragments of information. Mass media obviously aren't independent. One will have different point of view whether he or she lives in pro-USA or pro-Russian country.

Who has started this war has own interests in it and I think they are too simple and as old as time. It's imposible to know the truth now so it's senseless to speak about it.

 

[Dotini]

The revolution in Ukraine now appears to be entering yet another phase - collapse of the original revolutionary junta.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/24/ukrainian-prime-minister-yatsenyuk-to-resign/

"Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has announced his resignation, Fox News confirms.

Yatsenyuk made the announcement from the dais of the parliament after two parties said they would pull out of the governing coalition. "I am announcing my resignation in connect with the collapse of the coalition," Yatsenyuk said.

He said the parliament could no longer do its work and pass necessary laws.

The nationalist Svoboda party and the UDAR movement led by former boxer Vladimir Klitscho pulled out of the group of legislators that took over after former President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted by protesters seeking closer ties with the European Union."

 

[Czcibor]

I wonder what this whole thread about. The war in Ukraine is an example of simulacrum. Nobody actually knows what happens. People make conclusions from rumours and fragments of information. Mass media obviously aren't independent. One will have different point of view whether he or she lives in pro-USA or pro-Russian country.

Who has started this war has own interests in it and I think they are too simple and as old as time. It's imposible to know the truth now so it's senseless to speak about it.

Weird. Maybe just you don't get it? Anyway, in era of (freeish) internet is it Russian propaganda so hard to avoid problem?