3 ms·

"look feckless".. so you agree with the idiot columnists? If we were Russia, we would absolutely see it as a good idea to make sure we controlled Crimea. It'

by jbooth 13y ago

"look feckless".. so you agree with the idiot columnists? If we were Russia, we would absolutely see it as a good idea to make sure we controlled Crimea. It's like 70% Russian-speaking, was part of the Russian empire until the 50s and indirectly Russian from then on, and Sevastopol is one of the most important military locations in the world to them, as well as a historic Russian city. Of course they're going to make sure they keep Crimea. But that's all they're keeping, as opposed to the whole Ukrainian nation being under their influence. That's a loss for them, and people who don't track US domestic politics for a living can see that. Russia's not a 'rogue state', they're just looking after their interests here. The US has used a lot more military force for a lot worse reasons, and recently.

jerf 13y ago
'"look feckless".. so you agree with the idiot columnists?' Oh, sorry, my mistake. The West has been a well-oiled machine in response to this, with clear goals and a strong, unified message that clearly indicated their preparation for this. Could you refresh my memory on what that strong, unified message is again? Wading through the diplospeak pretty much seems to come out to "Uhhhhh.... whatever, dude."
- jbooth 13y ago
  You're still hung up on messaging. As far as preparation.. I'm sure, if necessary, we have an extensively prepared joint military plan with our allies to fight over the Black Sea. I'm also sure we're not going to do that. What else do you want? You think different messaging would change those facts? I'm prepared to snort and chuckle.
  - jerf 13y ago
    No, I'm talking about messaging, on purpose. Generally speaking, getting the messaging right is significantly easier than getting a military response somehow set up. Yes, different messaging would indeed be helpful. Not being so surprised would be helpful. In particular, having a clear message for the Ukranians would be helpful. Certainly something better than what, say, the Syrians got. Or the Iraqis that stood with us. Or the Afghanis that stood with us. I recognize that the correct answer to things is not a military one, by all means, but vague promises that we still have no intention of keeping despite their vagueness, such as "Vice President Biden just spoke with Prime Minister — the Prime Minister of Ukraine to assure him that in this difficult moment the United States supports his government’s efforts and stands for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic future of Ukraine." [1] No, we don't. He can't count on us for anything more expensive than words, at least in the short term. I'd appreciate it if we stop assuring people of how we're going to help them, only for us to just hang them out to dry later when they actually think we're serious. We've done an awful lot of that in the past decade. [1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/28/there-will-be-costs-text-of-obamas-statement-on-ukraine/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02... That whole message is damn near meaningless when unwrapped from the diplospeak. I had to search for anything that even resembles a statement of what actions we might take, which is what I quoted, and even that is basically meaningless (certainly very unspecific, and in diplospeak that's not an accident). We can't even muster up a sufficient level of concern to do more than broadly promise consequences... we certainly don't have anything like a plan to actually impose even the faintest of economic sanctions for this. (My browser reports that the word "sanctions" doesn't even appear in that text.) Perhaps something more concrete will come out later; if so that would support my thesis that we were unprepared. (Of course, unpacked from the diplospeak, the only alternative other than "Uhh... whatever." that that could translate to is a declaration that Russia is welcome to the Ukraine, it's fine with us. "Uhh... whatever" is the charitable reading of this statement....)
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Well, on public diplospeak, people don't want to tie their hands in the future with clear public statements, so they're going to deliberately say nothing while the real action happens in private. On preparation.. well, my opinion is that there are a lot of potential situations that can happen in the world, in order to have a 10-country-coordinated gameplan for every possible situation, kept up to date between the countries as governments change.. you're not going to have a script for this. What they can have is exhaustively updated briefs and intelligence on as many relevant players/interests as possible and really good communication between allies, both enabling leaders to 'wing it' as effectively as possible.
rjzzleep 13y ago
i was talking to a ukrainian woman the other day, and asked her this: "so are you russian or ukrainian?" she answered the following: "that's an interesting question. i was born in kiev, i speak russian. some day they told us, you're not russian anymore, you're ukranian."
mtrimpe 13y ago
That's still not what's relevant here. To make sense of the situation you have to put these pieces of the puzzle together: * Putin is the 'charismatic leader' of a military powerhouse in financial decline. * He has been actively radicalizing his citizens through a well-oiled fully state controlled propaganda machine. * He believes he has Europe in his pocket through the oil supply and massive proceeds from corruption stashed away in European assets (and so far he's been right.) * He seems increasingly divorced from reality and reports are circulating he seems to be fed propaganda as truth by his close advisors; something with seems the Occam's Razor-explanation for his decidedly strange public statement just hours ago. * He has started to attempt to expand his empire to return to his Empire's old glory. As far as Crimea is concerned: only a bit over 50% Russian-speaking and only 23% support(ed) joining Russia. They have also been watching Russia state news which shows propaganda such as: * Kiev protests as all paid by the West (definitely not true) * hundreds of thousands fleeing to Russia (no activity at the border) * spontaneous pro-Russian takeovers (masked men using Russia military vehicles) * mass Ukrainian defections (disarmament at gunpoint) * massive pro-Russia protests (brought in buses by the unemployment agency and disappearing completely after 60 minutes)
- GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
  > his decidedly strange public statement just hours ago I'm interested, what was this statement? Thanks
  - mtrimpe 13y ago
    This is the first article written on it: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116852/merkel-was-right-putins-lost-his-mind-press-conference http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116852/merkel-was-right-p... You can take a look at my twitter list at https://twitter.com/mtrimpe/lists/ukraine https://twitter.com/mtrimpe/lists/ukraine for more information (just ignore the EastOfBrussels, UkraineInEurope and Opinieleiders; they're pro-West propagandists but still find some good stuff occasionally.) Shaun Walker from Guardian, who's been the most thorough reporter so far, is working on one too (https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/440865355767234560 https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/440865355767234560) which will probably be the best source of info on it.

by jbooth 13y ago

jerf 13y ago

'"look feckless".. so you agree with the idiot columnists?' Oh, sorry, my mistake. The West has been a well-oiled machine in response to this, with clear goals and a strong, unified message that clearly indicated their preparation for this. Could you refresh my memory on what that strong, unified message is again? Wading through the diplospeak pretty much seems to come out to "Uhhhhh.... whatever, dude."

jbooth 13y ago
You're still hung up on messaging. As far as preparation.. I'm sure, if necessary, we have an extensively prepared joint military plan with our allies to fight over the Black Sea. I'm also sure we're not going to do that. What else do you want? You think different messaging would change those facts? I'm prepared to snort and chuckle.
- jerf 13y ago
  No, I'm talking about messaging, on purpose. Generally speaking, getting the messaging right is significantly easier than getting a military response somehow set up. Yes, different messaging would indeed be helpful. Not being so surprised would be helpful. In particular, having a clear message for the Ukranians would be helpful. Certainly something better than what, say, the Syrians got. Or the Iraqis that stood with us. Or the Afghanis that stood with us. I recognize that the correct answer to things is not a military one, by all means, but vague promises that we still have no intention of keeping despite their vagueness, such as "Vice President Biden just spoke with Prime Minister — the Prime Minister of Ukraine to assure him that in this difficult moment the United States supports his government’s efforts and stands for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic future of Ukraine." [1] No, we don't. He can't count on us for anything more expensive than words, at least in the short term. I'd appreciate it if we stop assuring people of how we're going to help them, only for us to just hang them out to dry later when they actually think we're serious. We've done an awful lot of that in the past decade. [1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/28/there-will-be-costs-text-of-obamas-statement-on-ukraine/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02... That whole message is damn near meaningless when unwrapped from the diplospeak. I had to search for anything that even resembles a statement of what actions we might take, which is what I quoted, and even that is basically meaningless (certainly very unspecific, and in diplospeak that's not an accident). We can't even muster up a sufficient level of concern to do more than broadly promise consequences... we certainly don't have anything like a plan to actually impose even the faintest of economic sanctions for this. (My browser reports that the word "sanctions" doesn't even appear in that text.) Perhaps something more concrete will come out later; if so that would support my thesis that we were unprepared. (Of course, unpacked from the diplospeak, the only alternative other than "Uhh... whatever." that that could translate to is a declaration that Russia is welcome to the Ukraine, it's fine with us. "Uhh... whatever" is the charitable reading of this statement....)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Well, on public diplospeak, people don't want to tie their hands in the future with clear public statements, so they're going to deliberately say nothing while the real action happens in private. On preparation.. well, my opinion is that there are a lot of potential situations that can happen in the world, in order to have a 10-country-coordinated gameplan for every possible situation, kept up to date between the countries as governments change.. you're not going to have a script for this. What they can have is exhaustively updated briefs and intelligence on as many relevant players/interests as possible and really good communication between allies, both enabling leaders to 'wing it' as effectively as possible.

rjzzleep 13y ago

i was talking to a ukrainian woman the other day, and asked her this: "so are you russian or ukrainian?" she answered the following: "that's an interesting question. i was born in kiev, i speak russian. some day they told us, you're not russian anymore, you're ukranian."

mtrimpe 13y ago

That's still not what's relevant here. To make sense of the situation you have to put these pieces of the puzzle together: * Putin is the 'charismatic leader' of a military powerhouse in financial decline. * He has been actively radicalizing his citizens through a well-oiled fully state controlled propaganda machine. * He believes he has Europe in his pocket through the oil supply and massive proceeds from corruption stashed away in European assets (and so far he's been right.) * He seems increasingly divorced from reality and reports are circulating he seems to be fed propaganda as truth by his close advisors; something with seems the Occam's Razor-explanation for his decidedly strange public statement just hours ago. * He has started to attempt to expand his empire to return to his Empire's old glory. As far as Crimea is concerned: only a bit over 50% Russian-speaking and only 23% support(ed) joining Russia. They have also been watching Russia state news which shows propaganda such as: * Kiev protests as all paid by the West (definitely not true) * hundreds of thousands fleeing to Russia (no activity at the border) * spontaneous pro-Russian takeovers (masked men using Russia military vehicles) * mass Ukrainian defections (disarmament at gunpoint) * massive pro-Russia protests (brought in buses by the unemployment agency and disappearing completely after 60 minutes)

GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
> his decidedly strange public statement just hours ago I'm interested, what was this statement? Thanks
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  This is the first article written on it: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116852/merkel-was-right-putins-lost-his-mind-press-conference http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116852/merkel-was-right-p... You can take a look at my twitter list at https://twitter.com/mtrimpe/lists/ukraine https://twitter.com/mtrimpe/lists/ukraine for more information (just ignore the EastOfBrussels, UkraineInEurope and Opinieleiders; they're pro-West propagandists but still find some good stuff occasionally.) Shaun Walker from Guardian, who's been the most thorough reporter so far, is working on one too (https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/440865355767234560 https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/440865355767234560) which will probably be the best source of info on it.