The Mess in The Ukraine.

[Scrapper]

Breitbart, Breitbart, Breitbart...

Now that was a very intellectual response. Par for the course.

Unlike you... who runs and hides with your tail between your legs when you get called out on your BS?
http://www.roguevalleyforum.com/forum/sh...#pid335987

[MarkM]

Looks like Putin is rethinking his strategy. He wants a way out. Putin called Obama Friday. They talked for an hour. Here's how he is going to save face.

The Kremlin also has said large numbers of Russian speakers both in Crimea and the eastern part of Ukraine have been vulnerable to attack. The interim leaders in Kiev, the Ukraine capital, have denied these accusations.

The Kremlin described the Friday telephone call in a statement on its official website, saying that Mr. Putin “drew Barack Obama’s attention to continued rampage of extremists who are committing acts of intimidation towards peaceful residents, government authorities and law enforcement agencies in various regions and in Kiev with impunity.”

“In light of this,” the Kremlin said, “the President of Russia suggested examining possible steps the global community can take to help stabilize the situation.”

The Kremlin said “specific parameters for this joint work” were to be discussed by Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lavrov.

Good thing we didn't waste lives, money, political capital, and good will by invading. We didn't so much dodge a bullet that is Putin; we dodged one that is our own homegrown Republican Party.

[orygunluvr]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Londo...ine-Crisis

Nigel Farage Is Right: It Was the EU, Not Russia, Which Provoked the Ukraine Crisis

Nigel Farage has accused the European Union of having "blood on its hands" over the Ukraine.

Does that sound over the top?

Well it might if you've been taking your cue from much of the media this last month. Mostly it has been following the line that Putin is a warmongering bully whose incursion into the Crimea was entirely unprovoked.

But you really don't need to be a massive Putin fan to acknowledge that Farage has a point. It was the EU that provoked this crisis in the Ukraine, not the Russians.

To appreciate how, you have to go back to documents like this, which outlines the strategy for absorbing Ukraine into the EU. First step is an Association Agreement like the one signed, behind closed doors, by its acting prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in Brussels last week. Full membership normally follows later.

Well, that was the EU's plan and it has been working on it for some time. The Ukraine was to form the jewel in the crown of the EU's Eastern Partnership programme, which would see Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus brought closer to the bosom of the EU.

This was what David Cameron was endorsing last year when, at the time of Croatia's accession to the EU, he described his dream of seeing a European Union which stretched "from the Atlantic to the Urals."

Could Cameron not appreciate how provocative this statement would seem in certain quarters? Clearly not - which just goes to show how out of touch with reality most of the leaders in the West are these days. And that would certainly include Barack Obama, whose speechifying on Europe this week speaks volumes about his blind infatuation with the pan-socialistic EU project but shows a characteristically pitiful grasp of the broader geopolitics.

The short-sightedness of the EU's plan to expand its empire right to Russia's borders calls to mind the great planning meeting held by the various commanders, British, American and Polish, prior to the disastrous Operation Market Garden. (Arnhem; the Bridge Too Far; etc).

Everyone present agreed the plan was a jolly splendid idea, until the Polish Major-General Sosabowski piped up that there was one vital element the planners had failed to take into account: "The Germans."

In the same way, the EU's plan - currently masterminded by the aptly named Štefan Füle, Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy - appears completely to have overlooked how the Russians might feel about having a neighbour and trading partner dragged from their sphere of influence without so much as a by-your-leave.

This, as Richard North rightly notes, was a hugely provocative action which no Russian leader could allow to go unchallenged. Again, what you think of Putin's regime is immaterial here. Even were Putin the gentlest, most kitten-loving, gay-rights-obsessed, immaculately incorruptible, scrupulously democratic leader in the entire world, he would still have acted much the same as he did because he's Russian and Russian pride is very much at stake here.

Putin hinted as much to Baroness Ashton - the former Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament campaigner who in 2009 was promoted way above her pay grade to the position of the EU's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy - when he warned her in January not to make any more appearances on the barricades in Kiev with anti-Yanukovych protestors.




"I can only imagine what the reaction would be if in the heat of a crisis in Greece or Cyprus, our foreign minister came to an anti-European rally and began urging people to do something. This would not be good," he said.

When the EU's leaders ignored Putin's heavy hints that Ukraine was a problem best sorted out locally, the Russian intervention was inevitable.

There is almost no end to the reams of weapons-grade drivel which have been spewed out by Western commentators on the Ukraine in the last few weeks. Here is a choice example from the Washington Post's Fareed Zakaria, who claims:

The crisis in Ukraine is the most significant geopolitical problem since the Cold War.

No it's not. Not even close. It has been a huge fuss about remarkably little which the West has handled very badly indeed.

Not least among the disastrous consequences of our headless chicken response is that, as Christopher Booker notes, we have increased the likelihood of the Ukraine splitting into East and West. The economically productive Eastern Ukraine, where all the heavy industry is, would of course end up with the Russians.

[cletus1]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Londo...ine-Crisis

Nigel Farage Is Right: It Was the EU, Not Russia, Which Provoked the Ukraine Crisis

Nigel Farage has accused the European Union of having "blood on its hands" over the Ukraine.

Does that sound over the top?

Well it might if you've been taking your cue from much of the media this last month. Mostly it has been following the line that Putin is a warmongering bully whose incursion into the Crimea was entirely unprovoked.

But you really don't need to be a massive Putin fan to acknowledge that Farage has a point. It was the EU that provoked this crisis in the Ukraine, not the Russians.

To appreciate how, you have to go back to documents like this, which outlines the strategy for absorbing Ukraine into the EU. First step is an Association Agreement like the one signed, behind closed doors, by its acting prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in Brussels last week. Full membership normally follows later.

Well, that was the EU's plan and it has been working on it for some time. The Ukraine was to form the jewel in the crown of the EU's Eastern Partnership programme, which would see Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus brought closer to the bosom of the EU.

This was what David Cameron was endorsing last year when, at the time of Croatia's accession to the EU, he described his dream of seeing a European Union which stretched "from the Atlantic to the Urals."

Could Cameron not appreciate how provocative this statement would seem in certain quarters? Clearly not - which just goes to show how out of touch with reality most of the leaders in the West are these days. And that would certainly include Barack Obama, whose speechifying on Europe this week speaks volumes about his blind infatuation with the pan-socialistic EU project but shows a characteristically pitiful grasp of the broader geopolitics.

The short-sightedness of the EU's plan to expand its empire right to Russia's borders calls to mind the great planning meeting held by the various commanders, British, American and Polish, prior to the disastrous Operation Market Garden. (Arnhem; the Bridge Too Far; etc).

Everyone present agreed the plan was a jolly splendid idea, until the Polish Major-General Sosabowski piped up that there was one vital element the planners had failed to take into account: "The Germans."

In the same way, the EU's plan - currently masterminded by the aptly named Štefan Füle, Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy - appears completely to have overlooked how the Russians might feel about having a neighbour and trading partner dragged from their sphere of influence without so much as a by-your-leave.

This, as Richard North rightly notes, was a hugely provocative action which no Russian leader could allow to go unchallenged. Again, what you think of Putin's regime is immaterial here. Even were Putin the gentlest, most kitten-loving, gay-rights-obsessed, immaculately incorruptible, scrupulously democratic leader in the entire world, he would still have acted much the same as he did because he's Russian and Russian pride is very much at stake here.

Putin hinted as much to Baroness Ashton - the former Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament campaigner who in 2009 was promoted way above her pay grade to the position of the EU's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy - when he warned her in January not to make any more appearances on the barricades in Kiev with anti-Yanukovych protestors.




"I can only imagine what the reaction would be if in the heat of a crisis in Greece or Cyprus, our foreign minister came to an anti-European rally and began urging people to do something. This would not be good," he said.

When the EU's leaders ignored Putin's heavy hints that Ukraine was a problem best sorted out locally, the Russian intervention was inevitable.

There is almost no end to the reams of weapons-grade drivel which have been spewed out by Western commentators on the Ukraine in the last few weeks. Here is a choice example from the Washington Post's Fareed Zakaria, who claims:

The crisis in Ukraine is the most significant geopolitical problem since the Cold War.

No it's not. Not even close. It has been a huge fuss about remarkably little which the West has handled very badly indeed.

Not least among the disastrous consequences of our headless chicken response is that, as Christopher Booker notes, we have increased the likelihood of the Ukraine splitting into East and West. The economically productive Eastern Ukraine, where all the heavy industry is, would of course end up with the Russians.

Breitbart's ignorant rantings still haunt us from the grave. His minions can rant on, but those of us that can think independently cringe at the crap you still like to share with us.

[orygunluvr]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Londo...ine-Crisis

Nigel Farage Is Right: It Was the EU, Not Russia, Which Provoked the Ukraine Crisis

Nigel Farage has accused the European Union of having "blood on its hands" over the Ukraine.

Does that sound over the top?

Well it might if you've been taking your cue from much of the media this last month. Mostly it has been following the line that Putin is a warmongering bully whose incursion into the Crimea was entirely unprovoked.

But you really don't need to be a massive Putin fan to acknowledge that Farage has a point. It was the EU that provoked this crisis in the Ukraine, not the Russians.

To appreciate how, you have to go back to documents like this, which outlines the strategy for absorbing Ukraine into the EU. First step is an Association Agreement like the one signed, behind closed doors, by its acting prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in Brussels last week. Full membership normally follows later.

Well, that was the EU's plan and it has been working on it for some time. The Ukraine was to form the jewel in the crown of the EU's Eastern Partnership programme, which would see Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus brought closer to the bosom of the EU.

This was what David Cameron was endorsing last year when, at the time of Croatia's accession to the EU, he described his dream of seeing a European Union which stretched "from the Atlantic to the Urals."

Could Cameron not appreciate how provocative this statement would seem in certain quarters? Clearly not - which just goes to show how out of touch with reality most of the leaders in the West are these days. And that would certainly include Barack Obama, whose speechifying on Europe this week speaks volumes about his blind infatuation with the pan-socialistic EU project but shows a characteristically pitiful grasp of the broader geopolitics.

The short-sightedness of the EU's plan to expand its empire right to Russia's borders calls to mind the great planning meeting held by the various commanders, British, American and Polish, prior to the disastrous Operation Market Garden. (Arnhem; the Bridge Too Far; etc).

Everyone present agreed the plan was a jolly splendid idea, until the Polish Major-General Sosabowski piped up that there was one vital element the planners had failed to take into account: "The Germans."

In the same way, the EU's plan - currently masterminded by the aptly named Štefan Füle, Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy - appears completely to have overlooked how the Russians might feel about having a neighbour and trading partner dragged from their sphere of influence without so much as a by-your-leave.

This, as Richard North rightly notes, was a hugely provocative action which no Russian leader could allow to go unchallenged. Again, what you think of Putin's regime is immaterial here. Even were Putin the gentlest, most kitten-loving, gay-rights-obsessed, immaculately incorruptible, scrupulously democratic leader in the entire world, he would still have acted much the same as he did because he's Russian and Russian pride is very much at stake here.

Putin hinted as much to Baroness Ashton - the former Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament campaigner who in 2009 was promoted way above her pay grade to the position of the EU's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy - when he warned her in January not to make any more appearances on the barricades in Kiev with anti-Yanukovych protestors.




"I can only imagine what the reaction would be if in the heat of a crisis in Greece or Cyprus, our foreign minister came to an anti-European rally and began urging people to do something. This would not be good," he said.

When the EU's leaders ignored Putin's heavy hints that Ukraine was a problem best sorted out locally, the Russian intervention was inevitable.

There is almost no end to the reams of weapons-grade drivel which have been spewed out by Western commentators on the Ukraine in the last few weeks. Here is a choice example from the Washington Post's Fareed Zakaria, who claims:

The crisis in Ukraine is the most significant geopolitical problem since the Cold War.

No it's not. Not even close. It has been a huge fuss about remarkably little which the West has handled very badly indeed.

Not least among the disastrous consequences of our headless chicken response is that, as Christopher Booker notes, we have increased the likelihood of the Ukraine splitting into East and West. The economically productive Eastern Ukraine, where all the heavy industry is, would of course end up with the Russians.

Breitbart's ignorant rantings still haunt us from the grave. His minions can rant on, but those of us that can think independently cringe at the crap you still like to share with us.

So you dispute what's in the article? Or just being your typical linear thinking ass self again?

[csrowan]

FROM http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monk...intervene/

The less Americans know about Ukraine’s location, the more they want U.S. to intervene


Where’s Ukraine? Each dot depicts the location where a U.S. survey respondent situated Ukraine; the dots are colored based on how far removed they are from the actual country, with the most accurate responses in red and the least accurate ones in blue. (Data: Survey Sampling International; Figure: Thomas Zeitzoff/The Monkey Cage)



Since Russian troops first entered the Crimean peninsula in early March, a series of media polling outlets have asked Americans how they want the U.S. to respond to the ongoing situation. Although two-thirds of Americans have reported following the situation at least “somewhat closely,” most Americans actually know very little about events on the ground — or even where the ground is.

On March 28-31, 2014, we asked a national sample of 2,066 Americans (fielded via Survey Sampling International Inc. (SSI), what action they wanted the U.S. to take in Ukraine, but with a twist: In addition to measuring standard demographic characteristics and general foreign policy attitudes, we also asked our survey respondents to locate Ukraine on a map as part of a larger, ongoing project to study foreign policy knowledge. We wanted to see where Americans think Ukraine is and to learn if this knowledge (or lack thereof) is related to their foreign policy views. We found that only one out of six Americans can find Ukraine on a map, and that this lack of knowledge is related to preferences: The farther their guesses were from Ukraine’s actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene with military force.

Ukraine: Where is it?
Survey respondents identified Ukraine by clicking on a high-resolution world map, shown above. We then created a distance metric by comparing the coordinates they provided with the actual location of Ukraine on the map. Other scholars, such as Markus Prior, have used pictures to measure visual knowledge, but unlike many of the traditional open-ended items political scientists use to measure knowledge, distance enables us to measure accuracy continuously: People who believe Ukraine is in Eastern Europe clearly are more informed than those who believe it is in Brazil or in the Indian Ocean.

About one in six (16 percent) Americans correctly located Ukraine, clicking somewhere within its borders. Most thought that Ukraine was located somewhere in Europe or Asia, but the median respondent was about 1,800 miles off — roughly the distance from Chicago to Los Angeles — locating Ukraine somewhere in an area bordered by Portugal on the west, Sudan on the south, Kazakhstan on the east, and Finland on the north.

Who is more accurate?
Accuracy varies across demographic groups. In general, younger Americans tended to provide more accurate responses than their older counterparts: 27 percent of 18-24 year olds correctly identified Ukraine, compared with 14 percent of 65+ year-olds. Men tended to do better than women, with 20 percent of men correctly identifying Ukraine and 13 percent of women. Interestingly, members of military households were no more likely to correctly locate Ukraine (16.1 percent correct) than members of non-military households (16 percent correct), but self-identified independents (29 percent correct) outperformed both Democrats (14 percent correct) and Republicans (15 percent correct). Unsurprisingly, college graduates (21 percent correct) were more likely to know where Ukraine was than non-college graduates (13 percent correct), but even 77 percent of college graduates failed to correctly place Ukraine on a map; the proportion of college grads who could correctly identify Ukraine is only slightly higher than the proportion of Americans who told Pew that President Obama was Muslim in August 2010.

Does accuracy matter?
Does it really matter whether Americans can put Ukraine on a map? Previous research would suggest yes: Information, or the absence thereof, can influence Americans’ attitudes about the kind of policies they want their government to carry out and the ability of elites to shape that agenda. Accordingly, we also asked our respondents a variety of questions about what they thought about the current situation on the ground, and what they wanted the United States to do. Similarly to other recent polls, we found that although Americans are undecided on what to do with Ukraine, they are more likely to oppose action in Ukraine the costlier it is — 45 percent of Americans supported boycotting the G8 summit, for example, while only 13 percent of Americans supported using force.

However, the further our respondents thought that Ukraine was from its actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene militarily. Even controlling for a series of demographic characteristics and participants’ general foreign policy attitudes, we found that the less accurate our participants were, the more they wanted the U.S. to use force, the greater the threat they saw Russia as posing to U.S. interests, and the more they thought that using force would advance U.S. national security interests; all of these effects are statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level. Our results are clear, but also somewhat disconcerting: The less people know about where Ukraine is located on a map, the more they want the U.S. to intervene militarily.

[MarkM]

At least we all know that New Zealand is right out.

[Wonky]

At least we all know that New Zealand is right out.

What? Kiev is not in New Zealand?

Holy cow. I've been sending care packages there for the protesters.

[Wonky2]

At least we all know that New Zealand is right out.

What? Kiev is not in New Zealand?

Holy cow. I've been sending care packages there for the protesters.

Not "as funny" as when I posted it.
Serious stuff, and I only hope we can keep Senator McCain from fermenting the brew and sending our troops once again into harms way.

[KateBush]

...and where'd mark go?

[Wonky2]

...and where'd mark go?

I don't have a clue. Maybe toked up a big doobly and fell asleep in his recliner.

More to the point: Why are you asking.

[KateBush]

Because he is smart, funny, and elegantly dismantles wingnut arguments with ease.

[Scrapper]

...and where'd mark go?

Mark?

[KateBush]

MarkM-see above

[Scrapper]

MarkM-see above

Ohhh... durrr! Sheesh! My apologies to MarkM for forgetting him.

[Tiamat]

Crimea is an autonomous province with it's own government. One viewpoint is that an unpopular and ineffective, but democratically elected politician was removed from power by a mob of protesters, and the new unelected parliament briefly passed a law saying that only Ukrainian can be the official language of the Country, even though many speak Russian. This new government wants to become part of the EU, which, could possibly bring NATO missiles to Russias borders, which of course, would be unacceptable to Russia. (We didn't like it too much with Cuba).

Now, on the other side, a tyrannical leader, who ordered the murder of peaceful protestors, was in turn, chased from power and replaced by a government that will transition Ukraine towards free and fair elections. To which, Russia responded by invading Ukraine. Russia has it's interests to protect, including it's naval power in the Black Sea.

Ukraine is autonomous but not stable. It is involved in a decades long tug of war between Europe and Russia and yet has not been able to create that long term stability independent of either.

The US may condemn Russia for this, but personally, if it were another scenario, I could see the US responding in EXACTLY the same manner.

[Wonky2]

Crimea is an autonomous province with it's own government. One viewpoint is that an unpopular and ineffective, but democratically elected politician was removed from power by a mob of protesters, and the new unelected parliament briefly passed a law saying that only Ukrainian can be the official language of the Country, even though many speak Russian. This new government wants to become part of the EU, which, could possibly bring NATO missiles to Russias borders, which of course, would be unacceptable to Russia. (We didn't like it too much with Cuba).

Now, on the other side, a tyrannical leader, who ordered the murder of peaceful protestors, was in turn, chased from power and replaced by a government that will transition Ukraine towards free and fair elections. To which, Russia responded by invading Ukraine. Russia has it's interests to protect, including it's naval power in the Black Sea.

Ukraine is autonomous but not stable. It is involved in a decades long tug of war between Europe and Russia and yet has not been able to create that long term stability independent of either.

The US may condemn Russia for this, but personally, if it were another scenario, I could see the US responding in EXACTLY the same manner.

You neglected to cite the source of that little tome.
I'd be curious to known how the writer came to these conclusions (some are suspect) and what history this pundit has with respect to other political struggles.

[Cuzz]

Crimea is an autonomous province with it's own government. One viewpoint is that an unpopular and ineffective, but democratically elected politician was removed from power by a mob of protesters, and the new unelected parliament briefly passed a law saying that only Ukrainian can be the official language of the Country, even though many speak Russian. This new government wants to become part of the EU, which, could possibly bring NATO missiles to Russias borders, which of course, would be unacceptable to Russia. (We didn't like it too much with Cuba).

Now, on the other side, a tyrannical leader, who ordered the murder of peaceful protestors, was in turn, chased from power and replaced by a government that will transition Ukraine towards free and fair elections. To which, Russia responded by invading Ukraine. Russia has it's interests to protect, including it's naval power in the Black Sea.

Ukraine is autonomous but not stable. It is involved in a decades long tug of war between Europe and Russia and yet has not been able to create that long term stability independent of either.

The US may condemn Russia for this, but personally, if it were another scenario, I could see the US responding in EXACTLY the same manner.

You neglected to cite the source of that little tome.
I'd be curious to known how the writer came to these conclusions (some are suspect) and what history this pundit has with respect to other political struggles.

I assumed that was Tia stating her take on the situation. Other then interchanging "Ukraine" and "Crimea" I'd say it's not far off.

Seems to me Ukraine, the EU and now US have flung the gauntlet down in front of Putin, in a decidedly internationally public fashon. I don't think this can end well for anybody.

[Tiamat]

Crimea is an autonomous province with it's own government. One viewpoint is that an unpopular and ineffective, but democratically elected politician was removed from power by a mob of protesters, and the new unelected parliament briefly passed a law saying that only Ukrainian can be the official language of the Country, even though many speak Russian. This new government wants to become part of the EU, which, could possibly bring NATO missiles to Russias borders, which of course, would be unacceptable to Russia. (We didn't like it too much with Cuba).

Now, on the other side, a tyrannical leader, who ordered the murder of peaceful protestors, was in turn, chased from power and replaced by a government that will transition Ukraine towards free and fair elections. To which, Russia responded by invading Ukraine. Russia has it's interests to protect, including it's naval power in the Black Sea.

Ukraine is autonomous but not stable. It is involved in a decades long tug of war between Europe and Russia and yet has not been able to create that long term stability independent of either.

The US may condemn Russia for this, but personally, if it were another scenario, I could see the US responding in EXACTLY the same manner.

You neglected to cite the source of that little tome.
I'd be curious to known how the writer came to these conclusions (some are suspect) and what history this pundit has with respect to other political struggles.

I'm commenting on the thread title. "The mess in Ukraine". Perhaps I really didn't want to get entrenched in a nasty little side discussion involving SF. I'd like to hear about the ones that are "suspect". Remember. I simply said these are two possible viewpoints.

[Tiamat]

Crimea is an autonomous province with it's own government. One viewpoint is that an unpopular and ineffective, but democratically elected politician was removed from power by a mob of protesters, and the new unelected parliament briefly passed a law saying that only Ukrainian can be the official language of the Country, even though many speak Russian. This new government wants to become part of the EU, which, could possibly bring NATO missiles to Russias borders, which of course, would be unacceptable to Russia. (We didn't like it too much with Cuba).

Now, on the other side, a tyrannical leader, who ordered the murder of peaceful protestors, was in turn, chased from power and replaced by a government that will transition Ukraine towards free and fair elections. To which, Russia responded by invading Ukraine. Russia has it's interests to protect, including it's naval power in the Black Sea.

Ukraine is autonomous but not stable. It is involved in a decades long tug of war between Europe and Russia and yet has not been able to create that long term stability independent of either.

The US may condemn Russia for this, but personally, if it were another scenario, I could see the US responding in EXACTLY the same manner.

You neglected to cite the source of that little tome.
I'd be curious to known how the writer came to these conclusions (some are suspect) and what history this pundit has with respect to other political struggles.

I assumed that was Tia stating her take on the situation. Other then interchanging "Ukraine" and "Crimea" I'd say it's not far off.

Seems to me Ukraine, the EU and now US have flung the gauntlet down in front of Putin, in a decidedly internationally public fashon. I don't think this can end well for anybody.

True enough. The autonomous Republic of Crimea is/was part of the Ukraine. Although that is now in territorial dispute.