MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
This is how we spooked Putin: What the New York Times won’t tell you about the American adventure in Ukraine
By A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 03/05/2016 - 10:50am |All of a sudden, straight out of nowhere, Ukraine creeps back into the news. There is renewed fighting in the rebellious eastern regions. There is political warfare in Kiev. There is paralysis in the upper reaches. There is some new formation called the Revolutionary Right Forces occupying the Maidan—the very same Independence Square where, two years ago this past Sunday, months of protests tipped into violence and an elected president was ousted.
URL:
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/23/this_is_how_we_spooked_putin_what_the_new_york_times_wont_tell_you_about_the_american_adventure_in_ukraine/
- Add new comment
- 6208 reads
Comments
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 03/05/2016 - 10:52am
I don't see a big deal. Ukraine will enter when it's ready. The last thing the EU needs is another Greece to bail out. The few billion we're talking about to help Ukraine are not a lot of money. Corruption in Ukraine won't go away in a night. Observer status moving towards EU norms is perfectly fine, however long it takes.
As for NATO, I don't think NATO membership is critical, and probably exacerbates things more than helps, both for Ukraine and for NATO's commitment to defense.
PS - the Salon article was as close to unreadable as I can remember - too much attempt to be clever, nowhere an urgency to get to the fucking point. Still have no idea what he wanted to say, aside from "everything's bad, just panic".
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/05/2016 - 11:30am
Ukraine has gone from political crisis to armed conflict to humanitarian crisis with no break in the regress since the American-cultivated coup in February 2014. And that the crisis has resulted in six-figure casualties, mass deprivation, a divided nation and a wrecked economy. The Poroshenko government is on the brink of collapse, neo-Nazi extremists have forced it to renew hostilities in the east and there is no letup in the blockade Kiev imposes on rebelling regions. I imagine you found it very hard to read because it is largely beyond dispute.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 03/05/2016 - 7:57pm
While the US was cultivating the opposition in Ukraine and even many of the Maidan groups it seems that Putin was influencing events and was well prepared to harvest the choicest rewards produced by the coup and even may have accelerated events with a few Spetsnaz snipers.
There have been costs for Russia from this conflict but their gains appear to more than cover the costs. Ukraine before the coup was a corrupt financial black hole for Russian and was already drifting towards Europe and there was little Putin could do to influence the Kleptocrats running the country like a Mob fiefdom.
The rapid and almost flawless takeover of Crimea by the Little Green Men showed there was planning well in advance of the coup for the picking of this choice geopolitical plum knowing the West could not and would not respond in any meaningful way. This left the West on the hook and required they prop up the bankrupt remainder of the country freeing Russia of this never ending drain on their economy.
The separatist movement and development of the People's Republics in the Donbass was probably unanticipated by Putin and it was certainly unwelcome as Putin's repeated demands that they submit to rule by Kiev illustrates. Because they refused his demands Putin allowed their destruction by the UAF and cut off arms whenever they showed the ability to go on the offensive. The stalemate and now frozen conflict serves Russia's needs quite well, it drains the Kiev government's coffers, stifles the Commie People's Republics and eliminates the expansion of NATO for the foreseeable future.
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 03/06/2016 - 12:47pm
Putin may have accelerated events by ordering sniper fire that ignited the violence but that would mean he had deliberately started a violent upheaval that could only damage his own interests. It is obvious that there was sniper fire, strong evidence that the snipers fired at both protesters and police, there was the presence at the scene of far right fascistic nationalistic gangs that are known to use violence, and Kiev authorities seem to be going after exposure and punishment of the culprits about as seriously as our justice department went after the Wall Street criminals.
The little green men had been stationed in Crimea for a long time. They avoided conflict with the Ukraine forces and maintained possession and control of a plum they had already possessed and controlled for a very long time and one they certainly would have fought to keep. But, it was easy for them because Crimea is about as Russian as Russia is and the Crimean people supported what Putin did and wanted the results they got.
I believe your last paragraph is just an incorrect interpretation of events. I do not think Russia has benefited, except maybe by nailing down Crimea, from events in Ukraine or in Syria. They would have liked the corrupt leaders that tilted Moscow's way to stay in power rather than to have been put in the spot they were in. I think they are paying a high price, one the US hopes they cannot sustain, but one Russia believes necessary. I cannot see that what we, the US, is doing is helping any Ukrainian except for the usual suspects, one bit.
Last sentence edited to change the word "Crimean to "Ukrainian".
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 03/07/2016 - 12:30am
They have achieved "facts on the ground" in Donbas similar to that they got in Abkhazian and South Ossetian parts of Georgia, and the Transnistrian part of Moldova. I imagine Putin expected the West would be much more complacent in letting Donbas go as out of their sphere/too hard to influence, and likely the depth of the sanctions was a huge surprise. He was largely able to reverse the Orange Revolution a decade before with no one in the West caring.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/07/2016 - 1:05am
I've read every statement Putin has made about the Donbass conflict and he has never even hinted at supporting their goals of being annexed by Russia. He warned them not to vote for secession and has repeatedly stated they should submit to rule by Kiev with protections for Russian speakers in a united Ukraine, sans Crimea. The bill that was introduced in the Russian congress addressing the People's Republics call for annexation was shelved and will never see a vote while the bill to annex Crimea was passed and activated in one day.
Until the very last statements Putin made about this conflict he never acknowledged or identified the Peoples Republics by name and that may be because, his being a good Capitalist, he would despise any development of a new Commie entity on his border.
The only 'facts on the ground' evident in the Donbass is that much of their infrastructure and economy has been destroyed and they are dependent on Russian aid for survival while the frozen conflict and rejection of their annexation request means they will remain in this condition.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/07/2016 - 11:44am
The situation is almost identical with Georgia and Moldova breakaway regions.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/07/2016 - 1:57pm
I doubt anyone would try to twist the story so far as to suggest that the residents of Donbass destroyed their own houses and infrastructure but now you seem to be suggesting that Russia is shirking its responsibility by not annexing Donbass.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 03/07/2016 - 2:53pm
I'm puzzled about what kind of tale you are trying to spin but the leaders in the Donbass certainly misjudged their relationship and importance to Putin compared with Crimea and the people there have suffered greatly because of that miscalculation.
As i stated before Putin never displayed any desire to promote or annex any People's Republics in Ukraine and I never expected him to change that position. The only real hope i had for the People's Republics was that when they showed they could defeat the UAF troops they could march west and gaining local support overthrow the Junta government in Kiev but Putin shut them down twice when this happened and instituted the frozen conflict that is in effect now.
by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 03/08/2016 - 1:44pm
I've read every statement Putin has made about the Donbass conflict and he has never even hinted at supporting their goals of being annexed by Russia. He warned them not to vote for secession and has repeatedly stated they should submit to rule by Kiev with protections for Russian speakers in a united Ukraine, sans Crimea. The bill that was introduced in the Russian congress addressing the People's Republics call for annexation was shelved and will never see a vote while the bill to annex Crimea was passed and activated in one day.
Until the very last statements Putin made about this conflict he never acknowledged or identified the Peoples Republics by name and that may be because, his being a good Capitalist, he would despise any development of a new Commie entity on his border.
The only 'facts on the ground' evident in the Donbass is that much of their infrastructure and economy has been destroyed and they are dependent on Russian aid for survival while the frozen conflict and rejection of their annexation request means they will remain in this condition.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/07/2016 - 11:47am
My comment about the snipers was speculation, as is yours, but the rest of my comment is based on the observed reality of the outcome of this coup, Russia got Crimea and their permanent naval bases, a huge and valuable geostrategic asset and the West got a permanent pile of merde.
I almost swallowed the apologia that ' Crimea is about as Russian as Russia' when it was rolled out but being an anti-imperialist there seemed to be some hypocrisy in that claim. The fact is that the Russian Empire annexed Crimea, probably over the objections of the majority Crimean Tartar population and set about to populate the region with Russians and when that demographic imperialism proved too slow the USSR under Stalin rounded up and deported tens of thousands of the remaining Crimean Tartars to ethnically cleanse the 'Russian' Crimea. Some of the deported Crimean Tartars or their descendants have returned to Crimea and i doubt many if any voted to be annexed by Russia.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/07/2016 - 1:04pm