Tag Archives: Putin

Taking sides.

If anything, the crisis in Ukraine grew hotter this week, and it’s getting kind of scary. Through it all, though, there has been a persistent tendency in the media to support the maximalist position of the U.S. government and our European allies – namely, that the Ukrainian opposition is fully legitimate and essentially beyond any critical scrutiny, that the Russians are engaging in bald aggression of a kind not witnessed in decades (!), and that the violators of human rights in Ukraine are all on the pro-Russian side.

Okay, well … a few points that probably need addressing:

Coup or no coup. Russia calls what happened in Kiev a few weeks ago a coup; Washington does not. In the United States, labeling something a coup triggers legislation designed to impede the delivery of U.S. aid to coup regimes. Our administrations of both Sensitivity training, American style.parties typically do an end-run around this by simply avoiding the word when it’s inconvenient. We’ve done this with Egypt and with Honduras. When it’s someone we don’t like, it’s a coup, plain and simple. In Kiev, the elected leader of the country was ousted without due process, in the midst of a negotiation over rebalancing of political authority and early elections. It’s not outlandish to call that a coup, regardless of how kleptocratic the old regime may have been.

Who killed who? The killing of oppositionists by sniper fire on February 26 has often been cited as a primary rationale for the ouster of the Ukrainian leader. Those killings were chalked up to the regime. However, this past week, The Guardian and others have reported on claims by the Estonian Foreign Minister that the shooters were hired by the opposition. The new Ukrainian government is reluctant to open an investigation into this.

Atypical aggression. Really? This can be reported with a straight face from a country that invaded Iraq ten years ago? In this category, we haven’t a leg to stand on.

My point is, before we rush in to aid this new government, let’s be honest about what our interests are in that region. And let’s not paint one side virtuous and the other evil before we know the facts.

luv u,

jp

Persistent truths.

As I write this post, the parliament in Crimea has just voted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, to which it belonged until the mid 1950s. The Russian parliament, in turn, is considering legislation to enable it to accept new provinces, an ominous turn to Where's America in this picture?be sure. There is a referendum on Crimean secession scheduled for later this month, and the new Ukrainian government is crying foul. So … are we on the brink of a new Crimean War? Charge of the Light Brigade, anyone?

The “Putin is Crazy” narrative is dominating the news cycle here in the United States. I can hear it right now, on the evening news. Even supposed activist liberal shows like Rachel Maddow are playing this as a crisis for which Russia is solely responsible, and strong evidence of Putin’s departure from reality. He’s living in another world, the German premier suggests, and that claim is being hammered home, day after day, on every network, every news channel, every media outlet. One would think no one had ever occupied a square mile of foreign territory before. (Ummm …. Afghanistan? Guam?)

I hate to be the lone dissenting voice on anything, but this thing is obviously spinning out of control, and the potential consequences are enormous. Despite his autocratic tendencies, Putin is not hard to figure out, friends. He doesn’t want another Syria as his next door neighbor. With the ouster of Yanukovych, he sees the potential for civil conflict, possible failure of the central government, etc. Putin sees the United States and Europe as having stoked the opposition, and in all frankness, it’s probably true that we did. We regularly support political movements in other countries to an extent that we would consider unacceptable should another country attempt the same on us. Now we openly support the revolution in Ukraine.

Is is about supporting democracy? Well, that’s certainly not a prerequisite for U.S. support. See Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc., etc. In all honesty, I think it would be a really good idea to work towards a diplomatic solution with greater energy. There is a tendency to fall into old cold war habits – a fact that reveals the bankruptcy of our obsession with communism back in the day. It’s really just about great power competition, and that should be considered illegitimate, particularly when so many lives are at stake.

Between us, we still have thousands of nuclear weapons. This is not something to fool around with.

luv u,

jp

Friend of my enemy.

No, I won’t employ the convenient Yogi Berra-ism that the press has been so fond of since its coining, but I can’t help but feel like we’re treading the same ground we did decades ago during the height of the cold war. It seems like every time I hear a news report, whether on NPR or some network television outlet, there’s talk of Russia, Russia, Russia. The uprising in Ukraine is really a Russia story here in the States. NBC’s Brian Williams describes it casually as a “personal” matter for Vladimir Putin; an artifact of the ongoing demonization campaign against the Russian president, who is no saint and has dictatorial tendencies, but is not the monstrous freak our government/corporate media complex seem determined to make him out to be.

Conservative? Yep.The national corporate media conversation on Ukraine seems to center on what we are going to do about it, but the fact is, we are supporting the opposition in that country – likely not because our government has overriding sympathy for them, but because they are acting against Russia’s interests. This is reminiscent of the “conversation” that was had last year over Syria, in which articulate opinion was broadly in favor of American strikes while the vast majority of Americans were against it. Again – Russia is on the other side. (We are, of course, aligned with groups in Syria that are in a de-facto alliance with Al Qaeda-inspired militants.) In our ongoing economic/political campaign against Iran, Russia is also on the other side. Sense a pattern?

What interests me, particularly, is the fact that Putin is regularly characterized in the media as a man steeped in the confrontational ideology of the Cold War. Russia has, in fact, moved on from its Soviet past. And yet we in the United States, priding ourselves on having “won” the Cold War, have not changed our approach to the world since those dark days. In many ways, we are far more deeply entrenched in a Cold War mentality by virtue of the fact that our empire still stands, more or less, while our rival’s has disappeared. It is almost an autonomic response to Russia’s relatively recent return to international prominence that we should look upon them as rivals once again … and upon their friends as our enemies.

Of course, that doesn’t make it right. Time to dial it back.

luv u,

jp

Exceptionalism.

When people consider themselves exceptional, they make themselves potentially dangerous. That’s the gist of what Vladmir Putin had to say in his N.Y.Times op-ed piece, and people of many different political stripes here in the United States seem to have taken exception to this. I happened to be at the dentist the morning of its publication; the flat-screen t.v. above my dental couch was playing Fox & Friends, and they were throwing Stalin in Putin’s face. No surprise there. (What else can you expect from a clown parade headed by Michele Malkin?) A lot of t.v. liberals didn’t like it either. Frankly, though, for all of his failings as a leader, it’s not hard to see what Putin was getting at.

Funny story...We have, under the banner of American Exceptionalism, invaded any number of third-world countries over the past century and a quarter. The results have not been positive. (Just ask them.) Putin and others are approaching us as if conducting an intervention; trying to keep us from repeating the same bad behavior, over and over again. You know you have a problem when it takes Russia and China to talk you down. One can only hope that they succeed. This Syria intervention is just a crazy, bad idea, and one that the president seems very attached to. It’s a kind of madness, executive power, and it’s long since taken hold of old Barry-O.

What is kind of amazing is that the notion of striking Syria is really deeply unpopular from the get-go. This is so clearly the case that many conservative Republicans in congress really don’t know whether to shit or wind their watches. I heard one dancing around like a little wind-up toy on the radio a few days ago; they sooooo want to support an attack, but they sooooo need to undermine Obama, and their constituents are pushing them hard. This is the new pacifism: 20-25% of the country is opposed to war with Syria because they are against anything Obama wants, no matter what it is. Half of the centrist-liberal-left spectrum is firmly against it. That leaves neocon Republicans, “muscular” interventionist liberals, and other armchair bombardiers. I guess that means having a Democratic president makes us less likely to intervene in these polarized times.

Whatever keeps this disaster from happening can’t be all bad.

luv u,

jp

Week that was (again).

I’m not going to focus hard on one topic this week, friends. At least I don’t think I will. I never know until I get down to the third paragraph, so we’ll see.

Snowden. Was asylum for Edward Snowden worth canceling a summit about? The administration says that is not the only reason, but there can be little doubt it was a (if not the) deciding factor. Our own senator in New York, Schumer, used some pretty incendiary language about Russia, saying they had “stabbed us in the back”, which is way over the top for him. This is not a place we want to go.

Our greatest creationBest remind ourselves that the Russia we have today is the one we worked toward building yesterday. Putin is the beneficiary of a strong presidency established by Yeltsin in the 90s with our enthusiastic support (back when we had them privatizing state assets for pennies on the dollar and creating what was then the most dramatic demographic self-implosion in many decades). Remember how he shot the Russian Parliament full of holes? Well, now we’re just staring our own blinkered foreign policy in its beady eyes. The authoritarianism, the anti-gay laws – it’s pretty disgusting. But then, have we broken with Saudi Arabia yet? Their laws are worse.

At the movies. Network biopics are almost invariably stupid and disposable, particularly about political figures. So the proposed NBC mini-series about Hillary Clinton seems like a dumb idea to me, and the right (including rare food disease Reince Priebus) is using this nebulous project as a talisman for all of their fantasies about the liberal bias of Hollywood, network television, etc. It’s always someone else’s fault when you lose, isn’t it, Reince? Last we heard from Republicans on biopics about Hillary was how overjoyed they were about the hatchet job served up by Citizen’s United, the litigation over which had such a happy outcome in the Supreme Court. Then there was the whining about a proposed miniseries about Reagan that wasn’t hagiographic enough for their tastes. Get a life, for chrissake.

Right. Not a lot to say, but I said it.

luv u,

jp