Support NeoGAF

[commedieu]

Has this been posted already ?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...-martin-condemns-russian-incursion-crimea-rt/

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=103141175&postcount=4087

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/03/no_contest_ukraine_obama_putin

Ouch

Seems like a good article, had to copy and paste it into an email before the registration screen happened.. though..

Moreover, Russia has spent the last 20-plus years watching the United States and its European allies expand NATO eastward and deploy ballistic missile defenses there, to boot, with near-total disregard for Russian interests and complaints. Because Americans never see themselves as potential aggressors and haven't had a great power in their own hemisphere for over a century, they have trouble imagining how these acts looked from Moscow's vantage point. But any good realist could have told you that Russia would regard these developments as a long-term security challenge. Imagine how Washington would react if a powerful China were one day to cultivate close security ties with Canada or Mexico, and you'll appreciate Putin's perspective a bit more.

Not only is Ukraine much more important to Moscow, its geographic proximity made it easy for Putin to act as he did and makes it hard for us to do anything about it. News flash: Ukraine and Russia share a long border, and Crimea is thousands of miles from the United States. Russia may not be a global military power (its defense spending is about one-sixth the size of the U.S. defense budget), but it is strong enough to occupy Crimea. The United States and NATO aren't going to assemble an expeditionary force to push them out, so don't expect to see a replay of the 1991 liberation of Kuwait. The bottom line: Putin was never going to see Obama's warnings as more than just a hollow bluff.

Any opposing opinions to these tidbits?

 

[midramble]

Surreptitiously interfering in the domestic affairs of countries around the globe by fostering revolt is not in the interests of regional or global stability. I don't know how you can look at the Middle East and not see that the West has been actively destabilising that region for the past decade. They don't care about destabilisation if their greater interests are being satisfied. They have no concern for how that chaos may affect the people of those countries. If they did, they wouldn't be backing street mobs and terrorists in the region over governments in power.

We've seen this narrative play out many times now. And it will play out again in Ukraine. People there will soon realise who they've made a deal with. Nothing good will come of this coup.

.... Interesting. In the past decade (two years ago in fact) I was a member of the Stability Team for RCSouth (regional command south) in Afghanistan as a member of the US military. Our entire job was actively stabilize our ordered region. We personally knew provincial and district governors. We knew who was corrupt and who wasn't and aided in supporting good governance and rule of law as peacefully as possible.

I tend to be quite apologetic for many of the rough actions that the US takes and don't stand by them, but don't let heightened anti-american sentiments cloud your judgement to the point where you believe all Americans and American policies are aggressively self serving.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Does anyone have a link to John Kerry's full press conference?

EDT: Found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGPbVKQ2UXI#t=398

 

[Nivash]

You're not making the slightest bit of sense. Mubarak was the mother of all western puppets, and somehow the evil US got the CIA to put millions of people in the streets just to replace him with the muslim brotherhood?

The whole thing happened three years ago, hopefully you just have a very short memory instead of being completely ignorant.

Exactly. The west keeps interfering whenever there's a popular uprising because we have a massive cultural bias towards viewing such things in very romantic and Eurocentric terms. Particularly the US because of the myth of the American revolution.

I'm not saying that's the wrong thing to do because I'm a western liberal that shares that particular bias. What I am saying is that we can't accept that there are uprisings where none of the sides are the good guys, we just assume the popular side is the good one. Historically, most of the revolutions were this way - including for example the French revolution that went from monarchic dictatorship to mob rule to imperial dictatorship.

And I'm still going to support our continued meddling because I don't want to live in a world where dictators and authoritarian leaders are free to massacre their populations when said populations are fed up with the world standing by doing nothing at all.

 

[Scott32020]

Russia test-fires ICBM, hits target in Kazakhstan.

http://www.trust.org/item/20140304184241-xtvm6

 

[pigeon interrupted]

Exactly. The west keeps interfering whenever there's a popular uprising because we have a massive cultural bias towards viewing such things in very romantic and Eurocentric terms. Particularly the US because of the myth of the American revolution.

I'm not saying that's the wrong thing to do because I'm a western liberal that shares that particular bias. What I am saying is that we can't accept that there are uprisings where none of the sides are the good guys, we just assume the popular side is the good one. Historically, most of the revolutions were this way - including for example the French revolution that went from monarchic dictatorship to mob rule to imperial dictatorship.

And I'm still going to support our continued meddling because I don't want to live in a world where dictators and authoritarian leaders are free to massacre their populations when said populations are fed up with the world standing by doing nothing at all.

Time is a bastard. It makes fools of us all.


EDIT:
Fuck me, I sound like a bag of fortune cookies. Sorry

 

[captainnapalm]

You're not making the slightest bit of sense. Mubarak was the mother of all western puppets, and somehow the evil US got the CIA to put millions of people in the streets just to replace him with the muslim brotherhood?

The whole thing happened three years ago, hopefully you just have a very short memory instead of being completely ignorant.

If the US truly wanted Mubarak to stay in power, if he truly was an important player to them, they never, ever would have supported his removal. It never acts altruistically like that on the world stage. It always protect its interests. So hard as it may be to believe, they wanted him gone.

Nice try picking the one coup that seemed to work contrary to American interests, though - although time has shown that's not the case.

 

[cyberheater]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/03/no_contest_ukraine_obama_putin

Ouch

Thanks. A great big pop up asking me to pay obscured the whole article.

 

[commedieu]

Does anyone have a link to John Kerry's full press conference?

I found a picture of the summary;

Thanks. A great big pop up asking me to pay obscured the whole article.

if you refresh it, you can copy/paste the article into a text editor and read it. Or, zoom out and read around the popup.
Pretty good read..

 

[East Lake]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/03/no_contest_ukraine_obama_putin

Ouch

Almost like the protesting Ukrainians don't exist.

 

[cyberheater]

I found a picture of the summary;

if you refresh it, you can copy/paste the article into a text editor and read it. Or, zoom out and read around the popup.
Pretty good read..

Thanks but none of that seems to work on my mac using safari.

 

[Nivash]

Time is a bastard. It makes fools of us all.


EDIT:
Fuck me, I sound like a bag of fortune cookies. Sorry

Hardly the worst thing in the world. I got this gem off a fortune cookie generator just now: "You have an unusual equipment for success, use it properly."

Will do, fortune cookie. Will do.

 

[commedieu]

Thanks but none of that seems to work on my mac using safari.

check pm...

 

[cjp]

Russia test-fires inter-continental ballistic missile in southern Astrakhan region, state-run news agencies report #ICBM

and just now

Russian Foreign Ministry threatens response to US "threats to punish Russia" over #Crimea - via @BBCSteveR bbc.in/1dn57li

 

[Paches]

and just now

Good thing I just turned 26.

 

[captainnapalm]

.... Interesting. In the past decade (two years ago in fact) I was a member of the Stability Team for RCSouth (regional command south) in Afghanistan as a member of the US military. Our entire job was actively stabilize our ordered region. We personally knew provincial and district governors. We knew who was corrupt and who wasn't and aided in supporting good governance and rule of law as peacefully as possible.

I tend to be quite apologetic for many of the rough actions that the US takes and don't stand by them, but don't let heightened anti-american sentiments cloud your judgement to the point where you believe all Americans and American policies are aggressively self serving.

All Americans self serving? No. American foreign policy? Absolutely.

 

[Nivash]

and just now

What is it with Russia being unable to issue measured responses over this? I get that this is basically Russia's Iraq and that tensions are high and that Russian nationalism is at something of a fever pitch right now, but essentially reminding the world that they can nuke us all is a bit extreme. This is North Korea levels of diplomatic escalation.

 

[Kadayi]

Thanks. A great big pop up asking me to pay obscured the whole article.

Sorry didn't realise it was behind a sign up. Here it is in full: -

The Obama administration was clearly taken by surprise when Russia decided to seize Crimea by force. The real question, however, is why Obama and his advisors thought the United States and the European Union could help engineer the ouster of a democratically elected and pro-Russian leader in Ukraine and expect Vladimir Putin to go along with it? This remarkable combination of hubris and naiveté is even more striking when one considers that Washington has few, if any, options to counter Putin's move.

To be sure, ousted president Viktor Yanukovych was corrupt and incompetent and the United States and the European Union didn't create the protests that rose up against him. But instead of encouraging the protestors to stand down and wait for unhappy Ukrainians to vote Yanukovych out of office, the European Union and the United States decided to speed up the timetable and tacitly support the anti-Yanukovych forces. When the U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs is on the streets of Kiev handing out pastries to anti-government protestors, it's a sign that Washington is not exactly neutral. Unfortunately, enthusiastic supporters of "Western" values never stopped to ask themselves what they would do if Russia objected.

There's plenty of room for finger-pointing and blame casting here, but the taproot of the debacle in Ukraine was a failure to distinguish between power and interests. Power is a useful thing to have in international politics, but any serious student of foreign policy knows that the stronger side does not always win. If it did, the United States would have won in Vietnam, would have persuaded India, Pakistan, and North Korea not to test nuclear weapons, and would have Afghan President Hamid Karzai dancing to our tune. In the real world, however, weaker states often care more about the outcome than stronger states do and are therefore willing to run more risks and incur larger costs to get what they want.

Unfortunately, U.S. leaders have repeatedly lost sight of this fact since the end of the Cold War. Because the United States is so powerful and so secure, it can meddle in lots of places without putting its own security at risk. United States officials tend to think they have the answer to every problem, and they reflexively assume that helping other societies become more like us is always the "right thing to do." Because we've become accustomed to our self-appointed role as Leader of the Free World, Washington is quick to proclaim redlines and issue high-minded demands, convinced that others will do its bidding -- if it barks loudly enough.

Unfortunately, America's remarkably favorable geopolitical position also means that the outcome of many global disputes don't matter all that much to Washington, and still less to the American people. The result is a paradox: primacy allows the United States to interfere in lots of global disputes, but many of the issues it gets involved in are of secondary importance and not worth much risk, blood, or treasure. Why? Because the United States will be fine no matter how things turn out. It has the power to act almost anywhere, but its vital interests are rarely fully engaged.

That is certainly the case in Ukraine, a country whose entire economy is about the size of Kentucky's. Last year, total U.S. trade with Ukraine was a measly $3 billion, less than the city budget of Philadelphia and about .00018 percent of America's gross domestic product (GDP). Ukraine's political system has been a mess ever since independence in 1991 and its economy is nearly bankrupt and needs massive outside assistance. It would be nice if Ukraine developed effective political institutions, but neither the security nor prosperity of the United States depend on that happening, either now or in the foreseeable future. Put simply: Ukraine is not an arena on which America's future depends in the slightest.

For Russia, however, the situation vis-à-vis Ukraine is quite different. Russia is much, much weaker than the United States -- in every significant dimension of national power -- and its long-term demographic and economic prospects are not bright. That is why any prudent Russian leader would want friendly regimes on its borders and would be sensitive about any area where ethnic Russians are a significant fraction of the population. Ukraine is right next door, there are deep historical ties between the two countries, and ethnic Russians account for about 20 percent of Ukraine's population and nearly 60 percent of the population in Crimea. Add to that mix Russia's naval base in Sevastopol and you can see why Putin sees the retention of Russian influence there as a vital interest indeed.

Moreover, Russia has spent the last 20-plus years watching the United States and its European allies expand NATO eastward and deploy ballistic missile defenses there, to boot, with near-total disregard for Russian interests and complaints. Because Americans never see themselves as potential aggressors and haven't had a great power in their own hemisphere for over a century, they have trouble imagining how these acts looked from Moscow's vantage point. But any good realist could have told you that Russia would regard these developments as a long-term security challenge. Imagine how Washington would react if a powerful China were one day to cultivate close security ties with Canada or Mexico, and you'll appreciate Putin's perspective a bit more.

Not only is Ukraine much more important to Moscow, its geographic proximity made it easy for Putin to act as he did and makes it hard for us to do anything about it. News flash: Ukraine and Russia share a long border, and Crimea is thousands of miles from the United States. Russia may not be a global military power (its defense spending is about one-sixth the size of the U.S. defense budget), but it is strong enough to occupy Crimea. The United States and NATO aren't going to assemble an expeditionary force to push them out, so don't expect to see a replay of the 1991 liberation of Kuwait. The bottom line: Putin was never going to see Obama's warnings as more than just a hollow bluff.

Mind you: I'm not defending Putin's action or relishing Obama's discomfiture. No one should take pleasure from this unilateral violation of international law or the likelihood that Ukraine faces more years of political instability and economic hardship. Nor should we neglect the possible fallout from this blunder in other areas -- such as the ongoing negotiations with Iran -- as the GOP is certain to seize upon this incident to cast doubt on the administration's entire approach to foreign policy. I just wish someone in the administration had thought this through before they decided to help ease Yanukovych out of power. Did we really think that power politics was no longer relevant in the 21st century, and that the spread of democracy, free markets, rule of law, and all that other good stuff meant that other states were no longer willing to defend their own security interests?

Sadly, this case provides another vivid reminder of why tough-minded realism is a better guide to foreign policy than feckless liberal idealism or neoconservative bluster. Since 1992, the U.S. approach to Russia and Eastern Europe has been guided by the assumption that Western-style democracy was the wave of the future and that the United States could extend its reach eastward and offer security guarantees to almost anyone who wanted them, but without ever facing a serious backlash. Even after the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia revealed the limits to what Moscow would tolerate and what the West could impose, some U.S. leaders continued to think they could draw more former Soviet bloc states into America's orbit without provoking stiff Russian resistance.

By contrast, realism tells you major powers care a lot about security and are often ruthless in defending vital interests, especially close to home. It recognizes that great powers ignore international law when it gets in their way (as the United States has done repeatedly), and it sees relations between major powers as a ceaseless struggle for position, even when that struggle is waged for essentially defensive reasons. Realists also know that diplomatic contests have no finish line and that every foreign policy initiative inevitably invites a counter-move. It's for this reason that those responsible for foreign policy need to think two or three moves ahead: "If we take this step, what are other states likely to do and what will our options look like then?"

Nobody in Washington or Brussels seems to have asked that question as they watched (and helped) Ukraine unravel, and that's why their options today are limited to angry denunciations and symbolic protests. It's possible that Putin has bitten off more than Russia can comfortably swallow, and the economic costs may prove to be too much for the fragile Russian economy to bear. But great powers are usually willing to suffer when their security is on the line, and that's likely to be the case here. If you thought the era of power politics was behind us, think again.

The bolded part links to an article at the NYTimes: -

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/russia-to-pay-not-so-simple.html?hp&_r=0

main article is here (for those looking to comment to the author) and sign up: -

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/03/no_contest_ukraine_obama_putin

Delete if necessary mods. It's an interesting article, seems foolish to hide it behind an obnoxious sign up screen.

 

[Terra]

What??
I understand that it´s Pravda and all...but?
Yanukovych dead?

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/04-03-2014/127011-viktor_yanukovych_dies-0/

 

[bonesmccoy]

What is it with Russia being unable to issue measured responses over this? I get that this is basically Russia's Iraq and that tensions are high and that Russian nationalism is at something of a fever pitch right now, but essentially reminding the world that they can nuke us all is a bit extreme. This is North Korea levels of diplomatic escalation.

Russia's viewed NATO expansion and interference as an existential threat since World War 2, and longer if you just call it 'Western'. And it's had it's own version of r2p (specifically for ethnic Russians) for a long time as well. Putin and his political cadre probably see this as the only way to remind the West of these things.

edit: Yanukovych might be dead? Holy Moses!

 

[Tripon]

Sorry didn't realise it was behind a sign up. Here it is in full: -



The bolded part links to an article at the NYTimes: -

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/russia-to-pay-not-so-simple.html?hp&_r=0

Delete if necessary mods. It's an interesting article, seems foolish to hide it behind an obnoxious sign up screen.

If I understand this right, the NY times thinks Putin is mad at the U.S. because they gave out free pastries?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This guy is a US Senator

@GrahamBlog
It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression. #Ukraine

 

[Yoda]

He didn't seem ultra resolute at that hour and a half press conference he held. Seemed wishy washy too me. I think he over-played his hand, if he escalates it will force the Euro's to give into sanctioning bank assets, possibly natural gas contracts as well. The domestic financial market is already taking a hit on the speculation of this, if it actually happens then it will crash.

 

[bonesmccoy]

This guy is a US Senator

The whole 'If only Obama was more bloodthirsty...' argument has to be the most ghoulish thing to come out of Westerners' mouths thus far.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

This guy is a US Senator

Legit thought that was Ellen for a split second.

 

[perineumlick]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=103141175&postcount=4087



Seems like a good article, had to copy and paste it into an email before the registration screen happened.. though..




Any opposing opinions to these tidbits?

I thought it was pretty spot on. American foreign policy has always been terrible in my eyes. We foster a lot of resentment by constantly trying to police the world and spread our democratic influence to regions who can't or won't be bothered with it.

 

[And_Gignac]

If I understand this right, the NY times thinks Putin is mad at the U.S. because they gave out free pastries?

That's a terrible way of over simplifying an evident support of US and EU to the protesters.

 

[Resident_UA]

That's a terrible way of over simplifying an evident support of US and EU to the protesters.

What evident support? Did I miss something?

 

[Tripon]

The whole 'If only Obama was more bloodthirsty...' argument has to be the most ghoulish thing to come out of Westerners' mouths thus far.

Like everything else, it's a talking point the opposition is trying to use to score political points. If Obama tried to put troops on the ground already, then Send. graham would have said he was too hasty and didnt ask for permission to go to war.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...st-who-criticised-Kremlin-sent-to-Crimea.html

RT anchor says she's not going to Crimea. LOL

Legit thought that was Ellen for a split second.

I have no idea who it is. I just googled some gifs. I need to learn to Tumblr better

 

[Kinyou]

Sorry didn't realise it was behind a sign up. Here it is in full: -



The bolded part links to an article at the NYTimes: -

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/russia-to-pay-not-so-simple.html?hp&_r=0

main article is here (for those looking to comment to the author) and sign up: -

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/03/no_contest_ukraine_obama_putin

Delete if necessary mods. It's an interesting article, seems foolish to hide it behind an obnoxious sign up screen.

So what exactly did the west actually do during the protests against Yanukovich? In the article it sounds like the protesters would never have managed to get rid of him by themselves.

 

[Terra]

Apparently (Source: Sky News) Russia properly announced and reported the missile test to the U.S before they executed it.

 

[Azih]

If I understand this right, the NY times thinks Putin is mad at the U.S. because they gave out free pastries?

No it says that Putin is mad because the US was not neutral and was actively supporting an anti-Russian ouster of a Russian friendly president in a country right on Russia's doorstep. The article isn't saying what Putin did was right, it's saying that the US should have seen Putin's reaction coming.

 

[Terra]

No it says that Putin is mad because the US was not neutral and was actively supporting an anti-Russian ouster of a Russian friendly president in a country right on Russia's doorstep.

This is probably pretty spot on.

 

[And_Gignac]

What evident support? Did I miss something?

As in moral, non neutral opinion. I didn't mean like guns or financial support. But who knows what's going on behind the curtains.

 

[Albino_Samurai]

Apparently (Source: Sky News) Russia properly announced and reported the missile test to the U.S before they executed it.

Yeah, because if they didn't anounce the launch before hand , NORAD would have found out and it would result in real War Games.

 

[Psychotext]

Russia test-fires ICBM, hits target in Kazakhstan.

http://www.trust.org/item/20140304184241-xtvm6

Because what we needed was some more tension. That'll help I imagine.

 

[Atlagev]

This guy is a US Senator

@GrahamBlog
It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression. #Ukraine

You know, maybe I'm remembering wrong, but there used to be a time where we could be divided domestically, but unified internationally. The efforts of most Republicans to undermine Obama's international standing -- no matter the cost -- is absolutely disgusting.

 

[Tripon]

That's a terrible way of over simplifying an evident support of US and EU to the protesters.

Sure. I was going for snark to be frank. However, to use the benign support individuals have out as a tactic implication that the U.S. and the EU supported the protesters as a cause to go to war is at best an escalation that didnt need to happen. Its like saying the US should have gone to war with the Soviets once they supported Cuba, a country the Soviets did give official aid too.

Putin frankly made a mistake by not recognizing that the situation in Ukraine had changes and that they needed to adapt. This brute force shot is going to cost them more than they gained because all of their economic partners know that Russia won't play ball to keep the current situation stable.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Apparently (Source: Sky News) Russia properly announced and reported the missile test to the U.S before they executed it.

Which is why people talking about World War are stupid.

 

[RedShift]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...st-who-criticised-Kremlin-sent-to-Crimea.html

RT anchor says she's not going to Crimea. LOL

'Miss Martin however told the Telegraph: "I am not going to Crimea despite the statement RT has made."'

This is pretty hilarious actually. Slightly scary as well.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Because what we needed was some more tension. That'll help I imagine.

Russia planned this test a while ago, and it was fully reported to the US and other nuclear/ICBM powers.

 

[Resident_UA]

As in moral, non neutral opinion. I didn't mean like guns or financial support. But who knows what's going on behind the curtains.

Oh. OK. I mean looking at Yanukovich's actions any sane person would provide moral support.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You know, maybe I'm remembering wrong, but there used to be a time where we could be divided domestically, but unified internationally. The efforts of most Republicans to undermine Obama's international standing -- no matter the cost -- is absolutely disgusting.

Your misrembering. Parties have always attacked Foreign Policy. Maybe not to this extreme but the 'politics ends at the ocean' was always wrong.

 

[Nivash]

Apparently (Source: Sky News) Russia properly announced and reported the missile test to the U.S before they executed it.

Of course they did, they aren't suicidal. No-one wants another Able Archer.

 

[andycapps]

You know, maybe I'm remembering wrong, but there used to be a time where we could be divided domestically, but unified internationally. The efforts of most Republicans to undermine Obama's international standing -- no matter the cost -- is absolutely disgusting.

That time existed for a short period after 9/11. Other than that, I don't recall it ever being the case in my lifetime. Politics is disgusting. Both parties attempt to undermine the other side of who is in power in the White House.

 

[Paches]

'Miss Martin however told the Telegraph: "I am not going to Crimea despite the statement RT has made."'

This is pretty hilarious actually. Slightly scary as well.

Sounds like she might be going to the Gulag instead.

 

[Tripon]

No it says that Putin is mad because the US was not neutral and was actively supporting an anti-Russian ouster of a Russian friendly president in a country right on Russia's doorstep. The article isn't saying what Putin did was right, it's saying that the US should have seen Putin's reaction coming.

Countries pick sides all the times and they don't then try to start an international crisis over it. Its why even China, is saying to cut this shit out.

 

[Tex117]

You know, maybe I'm remembering wrong, but there used to be a time where we could be divided domestically, but unified internationally. The efforts of most Republicans to undermine Obama's international standing -- no matter the cost -- is absolutely disgusting.

You are right. Democrats were unified in Bush's international standing, no matter the cost. It always amazed me the outpouring of support the Democrats had for Bush's international standing when they disagreed internally so much.

THAT JOKE ASIDE, the quoted poster says what I mean.

That time existed for a short period after 9/11. Other than that, I don't recall it ever being the case in my lifetime. Politics is disgusting. Both parties attempt to undermine the other side of who is in power in the White House.

Im with your underlying sentiment that domestically we can quarrel all we want, but internationally we should have a unified front regardless of politics.

And really, the rest of the world pays a lot less attention to what minority senators...etc...says than you think.

 

[e_i]

Russia test fires a ICBM:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/..._n_4892417.html#210_russia-test-launches-icbm