Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#977
#977
This is surprising:

At home, this intervention looks to be the one of the most unpopular decisions Putin has ever made. The Kremlin’s own pollster released a survey on Monday that showed 73% of Russians reject it. In phrasing its question to 1600 respondents across the country, the state-funded sociologists at WCIOM were clearly trying to get as much support for the intervention as possible: “Should Russia react to the overthrow of the legally elected authorities in Ukraine?” they asked. Only 15% said yes – hardly a national consensus.
Click to expand...

How Putin's Ukraine Invasion Is a Disaster for Russia | TIME.com
 
#978
#978
volinbham said:
I find it comical that people referring to what W did or didn't/would or wouldn't do as cover for Obama. W was horrible at FP.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I've not been attempting to cover for Obama necessarily. I just don't like the whole nation-state chest-beating model that people are trying to hold him to.
 
#979
#979
volprof said:
For those championing the Romney and Palin statements that apparently "proved them right," I posit this:

What do you think this situation would currently look like had a Romney presidency taken effect, accusing Russia as being our number one geopolitical enemy? Perhaps Russia backs off, although I personally think Putin couldn't give a **** about Romney either, but suppose they wouldn't. With all of Romney's "admirable" chest-beating, in your assessment, there might be even more pressure on the US in this moment. And while I'm hesitant to say it would necessarily lead to this, even the war rhetoric could be louder right now.

Again, all speculative, but something to consider.
Click to expand...

Given that Romney would have just had 1 year in office to set the tone of US/Russian relations I don't know that it would make much difference.

I have zero concern that his "chest-beating" (which he wasn't doing of course - he was making an assessment) would worsen relations with Russia and Putin. Hell, Putin may actually have more respect for Romney but I don't know that would buy much given again the brevity of the new tone in relationship.

These events don't emerge in days - they emerge over years. What we hoped Russia would do with the reset is not what Russia has done. In retrospect the reset was pollyannish.

Palin would have been a disaster but of course she wasn't running for POTUS so it's a moot point.

Bottomline, Romney's assessment was more correct than Obama's vis-a-vis Russia and the US. I believe he should be credited for that assessment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#981
#981
volprof said:
I agree. And I've not been attempting to cover for Obama necessarily. I just don't like the whole nation-state chest-beating model that people are trying to hold him to.
Click to expand...

I understand but we have perfect world and we have reality world. The I'm Okay, You're Okay view of things just doesn't match the reality of Putin or Iran or North Korea or Syria or...

A NYT article on Ukraine quoted members of the administration saying Putin is living in the 20th century and he needs to realize we are all connected globally. That's all well and good but Putin does what Putin does and crafting strategy on how you think he ought to behave (in line with your world view) isn't an effective strategy. If you know he's living in the 20th century you have to treat him that way to get where you want to get.
 
#982
#982
volinbham said:
Given that Romney would have just had 1 year in office to set the tone of US/Russian relations I don't know that it would make much difference.

I have zero concern that his "chest-beating" (which he wasn't doing of course - he was making an assessment) would worsen relations with Russia and Putin. Hell, Putin may actually have more respect for Romney but I don't know that would buy much given again the brevity of the new tone in relationship.

These events don't emerge in days - they emerge over years. What we hoped Russia would do with the reset is not what Russia has done. In retrospect the reset was pollyannish.

Palin would have been a disaster but of course she wasn't running for POTUS so it's a moot point.

Bottomline, Romney's assessment was more correct than Obama's vis-a-vis Russia and the US. I believe he should be credited for that assessment.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on several counts here, not least of which is that you're right in Romney identify the key geopolitical foe.

Of course, this is all mere speculation on our part, but one really has to wonder how Romney's approach to Russia would have affected his presidency during this crisis. My use of the term "chest-beating" was perhaps an exaggeration, but any incoming president speaking strongly about another country as a foe is due for some reckoning at some point. And his or her campaign rhetoric may only aid the situation.
 
#983
#983
volprof said:
I agree with you on several counts here, not least of which is that you're right in Romney identify the key geopolitical foe.

Of course, this is all mere speculation on our part, but one really has to wonder how Romney's approach to Russia would have affected his presidency during this crisis. My use of the term "chest-beating" was perhaps an exaggeration, but any incoming president speaking strongly about another country as a foe is due for some reckoning at some point. And his or her campaign rhetoric may only aid the situation.
Click to expand...

How about if you speak of citizens of another party as a foe and enemy to be punished...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#984
#984
volprof said:
Oh, I don't take it as a troll post. Just a legitimate question. To be clear though, I disagree with this whole model of international politics, regardless if it actually increases a nation's power or standing. The nation-state model to international diplomacy creates more problems than it solves,in my opinion. And the US has been as equally culpable in serving this model as Russia.

To the point of your question though, I'm no expert in Russian politics, but here's how I read Putin's rise: I see Putin as a neo-czarist autocrat. That is to say, he's extremely nationalist and has co-opted oligarchic capitalism (read aristocracy). With the help of these individuals, I think he's been able to consolidate power, renew nationalist zeal, and enable the Russian economy, for better or worse. And anytime such a model becomes intertwined with nationalism, you can create a moment of increased national power. The question is how long such a moment will last. There are suggestions that it may not last very long, but Putin can stall the inevitable with his vast natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas.

Honestly, I've been debating over and over in my head whether or not Putin is a neo-czarist autocrat as I suggested earlier or if he's some sort of bizarre neo-fascist. He's certainly not a communist, although he does project the nationalism of the Soviet model, but these sentiments were in place before the Soviets. Hell, the Soviets should have been internationalists, rather than nationalists.

And here is the BBC article. Brief and not very analytical, but certainly suggests that Putin's approach has some serious flaws. Will he fix them or be able to overcome them? We'll see.

BBC News - Russian rouble hits new low against the dollar and euro
Click to expand...

Ultra-nationalist, sure. Neo-czarist...maybe. There really isn't an aristocratic class over in Russia these days like there was under the Czars or even the Soviets, so I'm not sure what ruling class would emerge in Putin's pocket on this so I'm not sure if the analogy would be entirely correct. But he certainly is a Russian first.

Point to ponder about the Soviets being international instead of national. The former Soviet republics like the Ukraine, the Stans, Lithuania, etc were generally forced into the Russian way of doing things. Instead of taking their culture into the Soviet, Russian culture was built into theirs. So even though many kept traditions and cultures of their own, Russian influence was forced into them.

I always have compared the Russians after the fall of the Soviet to the family that went from riches to rags and suddenly found the stock certificates that would allow them to regain their former glory, even if it is a somewhat shaky start. Private business has flourished in Russia and this is something I don't see Putin ever putting a stop to no matter how much he grew up under the nationalized system of the Soviets. He knows the key to regaining Russian influence in a global scheme is to be militarily, politically and economically powerful. Russia has the resources needed to compete as a powerhouse in a global market and is politically less volatile than say the Middle East or Southern Africa. We need a stable Russia more than they need us as it would appear. And this is something Putin seems to understand completely. And along the way if he is able to modernize his military using petrodollars and foreign capital? That's just dandy. And the political portion is being played as we speak. If he can show the world he can (and it appears is) besting the US and to a lesser degree the EU on the global political stage, he can solidify his position as a dealer of power and a world leader.

So with Russia competing against the EU and US for control of spheres of influence like Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states, one has to be bold and show the world they are a power to be reckoned with. Which is what I see Putin doing right now. And in this situation, there are very few avenues that he can lose.
 
#985
#985
volinbham said:
I understand but we have perfect world and we have reality world. The I'm Okay, You're Okay view of things just doesn't match the reality of Putin or Iran or North Korea or Syria or...

A NYT article on Ukraine quoted members of the administration saying Putin is living in the 20th century and he needs to realize we are all connected globally. That's all well and good but Putin does what Putin does and crafting strategy on how you think he ought to behave (in line with your world view) isn't an effective strategy. If you know he's living in the 20th century you have to treat him that way to get where you want to get.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not claiming my model doesn't present its own problems. Every model does. My model doesn't create a senseless war wherein an estimated 100,000-500,000 Iraqis are dead though, not to mention coalition forces.
 
#986
#986
volprof said:
Oh, I'm not claiming my model doesn't present its own problems. Every model does. My model doesn't create a senseless war wherein an estimated 100,000-500,000 Iraqis are dead though, not to mention coalition forces.
Click to expand...

No doubt Iraq was over the top posturing on our part but that's an extreme and rare outcome
 
#989
#989
lawgator1 said:
I'm still waiting for a coherent argument as to what we should do here differently and why....
Click to expand...

Bomb the crap out of the Russian forces in the Crimea.

Why? Because 'Murica, that's why.

Happy? That's coherent enough reason I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#990
#990
Russia lost 60 billion in stock value today. If this continues, it's only a matter of time until significant protests arise in Russia.
 
#993
#993
Putin's either a very diminutive man in physical stature or Ukraine's "ex-president" is a giant. Probably somewhere in between.
 
#994
#994
Just so there's no confusion, I think Obama's handling of Syria mixed. For one, he didn't risk feet on the ground and given his actions in Libya, one wonders how the right would have criticized more "unnecessary spending" amid the rising debt. Nonetheless, to the point many of you have been making, yes, the "line in the sand" was ridiculous. He handled that miserably.

Also, Benghazi was handled miserably. Although I've heard that the embassy had denied additional protection (take that for what you will), the administration's handling of the aftermath was detestable.
 
#996
#996
lawgator1 said:
I'm still waiting for a coherent argument as to what we should do here differently and why....
Click to expand...

Well, if I'm President, I have someone with military background as my Secretary of State. This person would be respected by both parties and by other members of the international community.

I then make it understood that negotiations will always be open above diplomacy and military intervention. I also make it understood that I would not hesitate to do either of the last two if pushed.
 
#997
#997
Grand Vol said:
Ultra-nationalist, sure. Neo-czarist...maybe. There really isn't an aristocratic class over in Russia these days like there was under the Czars or even the Soviets, so I'm not sure what ruling class would emerge in Putin's pocket on this so I'm not sure if the analogy would be entirely correct. But he certainly is a Russian first.

Point to ponder about the Soviets being international instead of national. The former Soviet republics like the Ukraine, the Stans, Lithuania, etc were generally forced into the Russian way of doing things. Instead of taking their culture into the Soviet, Russian culture was built into theirs. So even though many kept traditions and cultures of their own, Russian influence was forced into them.

I always have compared the Russians after the fall of the Soviet to the family that went from riches to rags and suddenly found the stock certificates that would allow them to regain their former glory, even if it is a somewhat shaky start. Private business has flourished in Russia and this is something I don't see Putin ever putting a stop to no matter how much he grew up under the nationalized system of the Soviets. He knows the key to regaining Russian influence in a global scheme is to be militarily, politically and economically powerful. Russia has the resources needed to compete as a powerhouse in a global market and is politically less volatile than say the Middle East or Southern Africa. We need a stable Russia more than they need us as it would appear. And this is something Putin seems to understand completely. And along the way if he is able to modernize his military using petrodollars and foreign capital? That's just dandy. And the political portion is being played as we speak. If he can show the world he can (and it appears is) besting the US and to a lesser degree the EU on the global political stage, he can solidify his position as a dealer of power and a world leader.

So with Russia competing against the EU and US for control of spheres of influence like Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states, one has to be bold and show the world they are a power to be reckoned with. Which is what I see Putin doing right now. And in this situation, there are very few avenues that he can lose.
Click to expand...

Good post, although I disagree with several things you mention. Namely, your last paragraph assumes that, for one, this model is desirable and even sustainable. Given what I call the "penis inadequacies" of current international politics, often dictated by nation-states, however, you're right in that this model is desirable. Key question I suppose is if Putin's approach is sustainable. Which leads me to my last issue here: you say there are few avenues he can lose. I think it's too soon to make such a claim. You may be right, but I think there is suggestion that the current Russian approach may not be able to sustain itself unless significant changes are made.
 
#998
#998
volprof said:
Good post, although I disagree with several things you mention. Namely, your last paragraph assumes that, for one, this model is desirable and even sustainable. Given what I call the "penis inadequacies" of current international politics, often dictated by nation-states, however, you're right in that this model is desirable.
Click to expand...

Lots of phallus talk up in here!
 
#1,000
#1,000
vol4eva said:
Russia lost 60 billion in stock value today. If this continues, it's only a matter of time until significant protests arise in Russia.
Click to expand...

Tough day in the markets. However it's largely the price of oil that keeps the Russian government afloat.
 
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top