Kremlin Apologist or Useful Idiot ? (or maybe I just don't want to die in a nuclear holocaust...)

Never did finish/post piece I intended on Russia & US Elections, but the Russian bear does still loom even larger than usual in Western political discourse, so I should probably say something, even as my suspicion that I may eventually end up regretting defending Russia grows...

I'll start thusly...As a Westerner I don't particularly fear Vladimir Putin...at all.  The man some want to paint as a Siberian candidate, soon to be POTUS Trump, a thin-skinned mentally deranged narcissist bully and confessed sexual predator OTOH...That sumbitch in control of not just the most powerful military of the planet, but also in possession of the codes to the US nuclear arsenal fucking terrifies me.  Why the difference ?  Because one, I judge on his past behaviour to be a rational actor, whilst the other...well, his words and actions rather speak for themselves.

I was vaguely hopeful up until the general election even that Trump, who prides himself on his unpredictability, might surprise us, that the incompetence & recklessness shown during the campaign might turn out to have been an act, but at this point, listening to commentators on the BBC mere days before inauguration still holding out promise that he can change, and insisting that we should give him a chance, give him the benefit of the doubt, I have do ask What are they smoking ?  Will the chattering classes still six months from now, eighteen months from now still be denying the obvious ?  That the man is exactly who he has shown himself to be, the last two years of the campaign...The last seven decades of his life ?  FFS !

Anyways...Putin...Russia...I've written here before on what I think about/how I feel about events in South Ossetia, in Ukraine & Crimea.  How I feel that Russia's geopolitical strategy is, certainly from their point of view, primarily defensive, and an attempt through fostering frozen conflicts, to establish buffer-zones between themselves, and what they see as Western encroachment/encirclement.  And it's a smart strategy.  Russia, despite what the USSR may or may not have been, and despite attempts at modernisation, is likely not as powerful militarily as they would have us believe, and even before falls in the price of oil & natural gas*, hardly an economic powerhouse.

What does it cost Russia to maintain frozen conflicts around Georgia & Ukraine ?  How many military assets does Russia need to sustain a minimal presence in South Ossetia or Abkhazia ?  How much does it cost to fund a simmering uprising in the East of Ukraine, to send over the occasional advisers or armaments ?  The cost of fortifying and rebuilding the infrastructure of Crimea I would imagine are substantial, but of the territories in question, this is the only one of true militarily strategic value to the Russians, so I'd be surprised if they didn't spend there, whether they have the money or not.  It's an investment in the future.

And so long as the unrest simmers in Eastern Ukraine, so long as Ukraine declines to relinquish its claim to Crimea, Ukraine is stuck/frozen.  No EU membership for Ukraine, no invitation to join the NATO umbrella.  Same for Georgia so long as it maintains its claims to Abkhazia & South Ossetia.  (Perhaps another non-European nation will be the first instead to take the EU out of the actual European subcontinent...if the European experiment even survives the next few years...) Cheap & effective.

Know what wouldn't be cheap ?  Rolling tanks into fucking Poland.  Or even Kiev.  This is the fear, right ?  Not that Russia might have slightly more influence in its own backyard, might maintain a buffer holding back western expansion, not even that Russia might have some influence in Europe, but that...the Russkies are coming any moment now to kill us all !

What would it cost the Russians to invade, conquer, and then occupy European countries...or any other hostile territories** ?  To destroy entire armies, to maintain infrastructure, to suppress likely ongoing violent resistance ?  And, in the event of attacking NATO nations (there's the rub in a bit...), risking outright nuclear war ?  For what ?  'Cos evil Vladimir Putin ('Vlad the Impaler' as Russophobic idiot Randi Rhodes has taken to calling him) wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire ?!!  I have no doubt that Putin does want to restore what he sees as Russian pride, as Russian honour, as respect for Russia.  As no doubt, do most ordinary Russians.  But where is the evidence for imperial ambitions ?

I could be wrong, of course, but when has Putin acted irrationally, when has he shown himself to be anything other than the cool calculating pragmatist, acting in what he rationally sees as the best interest of the Russian people ?  Empires are expensive.  (And even the most successful, even the mightiest eventually collapse under their own weight.)  If Putin truly is the psychopath some would make him out to be, maybe he doesn't care, but there's no evidence of this.  Russia, economically, is still largely in a state of  contraction.  Putin can puff his flabby chest out all he want, but Russia is no Rome, no industrial Britain.  Russia, large as it is, doesn't have the resource-constraints of an island Britain or a Japan to drive it on to overseas conquests.  And it doesn't have the ideological motivation of a Nazi Germany or its own predecessor the USSR for empire-building, nor even the putative motivation of US empire in 'spreading democracy.'  Why, unless Putin is a complete maniac, would Russia be so stupid as to roll out the tanks into Europe ?

I meant it, that I don't fear Vladimir Putin.  I don't like the bastard, I don't think he's 'a good person', I despise his treatment of the LGBT community, his record on civil liberties, his targeting of political enemies, and I don't trust him as such, but I do on the basis of his past action see him as a rational actor.  As he moves the various (likely to him, disposable) pieces around on the chessboard, Putin is a ruthless player, but not so far as I can tell, ever a reckless one.

---

Now, for the caveat: Donald Fucking Trump.

I don't know to what degree the Russians may have worked with his campaign, or whether they might have some hold over him via bribery or blackmail.***  The fact that they not so much wanted him as President per se, but far more obviously Did Not Want Fucking Russophobic Warmonger Hillary, I don't blame them for, and the idea that of all the factors in the election, from Hillary's own inappropriateness as a candidate to the GOP suppression of the vote, we would focus on supposed Russian hacking as responsible for Hillary's loss, I find laughable.  And ooh, CIA goons, shock horror, RT is involved in producing state-propaganda, that tends to favour Russian interests over the West ?...No Shit !  But...if only via Paul Manafort, there do seem to be ties between the Donald and the Kremlin; there is reason for suspicion.

And, I have to say this...Trump potentially changes everything.  Trump is the wildest of wild cards, and could destabilise the global order seven ways from Sunday with any given tweet, never mind access to nukes.  And Trump is on the record, questioning the relevance or necessity of NATO.  Personally, I'm not sure myself whether NATO should have continued post Cold War****, but all my past calculations regarding the actions of Russia & other possible hostile powers have been posited at least in part on an assumption that the shared military & nuclear deterrent of NATO would hold.  Disbanding or neutering the NATO deterrent at this point in time would seems to me incredibly reckless (more so or less so than massing NATO forces on Russia's border as idiot Obama & the EU currently doing debatable), let alone in concert w/encouraging nuclear proliferation in the Far East & Middle East, but...idiot Americans decided to elect maniac Trump, and such ill-thought-out policies does he bring.

I still don't particularly fear Putin, but then again, I don't live in Eastern Europe...  I couldn't blame them back in the (well, still technically in for a few more days) relatively safe era of Obama for being wary of Putin & the Kremlin at least.  Back when I assumed the NATO alliance would endure well into the foreseeable future.  If that alliance goes away, or is significantly weakened...if the immediate threat of Mutually Assured Destruction is removed ?...

Well, I still don't think it likely that even then Putin would be stupid enough to invade & occupy the Baltic states, never mind Poland...Germany...  Empire, as I said, is Expensive.  But...some more localised disturbance, on the pretext say of protecting Russian citizens, Russian speakers, some version of the strategy of frozen conflicts ?  Some interference in the political process, an attempt to install political figures friendly to Russian interests...?  If I lived in the Baltics right now, in the soon-to-be Trump era, yeah, I'd be at least a little worried.  Live nowhere near, and I'm fucking terrified, but again, in my case,...of Donald, not Vlad.

The point of all of this ?  Nothing more than to set out where I stand on these issues currently, how I see events possibly playing out.  And, even in the era of the Cheeto King Trump, advising caution, that we treat Putin and the Russians generally as respected adversaries, and as proven rational actors, rather than as cartoon-supervillains.  Putin's hold on power won't last; Nor will Trump's.  One way or another, the earth will dawn on a day neither of said authoritarian arseholes hold sway over their respected peoples.  I'd rather the reason therefor were not the nuclear annihilation of all human civilisation.



* And if you believe that there wasn't a coordinated effort between the US & Saudi in this regard...

** Hint, hint...South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea...not only not hostile territory to Russia, but friendly.

*** If the CIA et al do have any further potentially damaging info. or rumours on Trump, I would suggest they release it post haste, to pre-empt any blackmail, and to let Trump deal with the embarrassment whilst he still lacks actual nukes at his disposal.

**** It could have been maintained as more of a Northern alliance, if we had pursued closer friendlier relations & possible alliance w/a certain large country of similar cultural origins, but neither here nor there now...

Salon: Putin might be right on Syria

Meant to have this up much earlier, but editing this b* down is not easy, which is a compliment.  The best option ended up being to simply lop off the latter part, which referred to the wisdom of Messrs. Gordon Adams & Stephen Walt on said crisis.  Maybe just read what they have to say and ignore anything below...

...

Very simply, we have one secular nation helping to defend what remains of another, by invitation, against a radical Islamist insurgency that, were it to succeed, would condemn those Syrians who cannot escape to a tyranny of disorder rooted in sectarian religious animosities. And we have the great power heretofore dominant in the region hoping that the insurgency prevails. Its policy across the region, indeed, appears to rest on leveraging these very animosities.

Now we can add the names back in.

In the past week Russia has further advanced its support of Bashar al-Assad with intensified bombing runs and cruise missiles launched from warships in the Caspian Sea. Not yet but possibly, Russian troops will deploy to back the Syrian army and its assorted allies on the ground. This has enabled government troops to begin an apparently spirited new offensive against the messy stew of Islamist militias arrayed against Damascus.

It was a big week for Washington, too. First it pulled the plug on its $500 million program to train a “moderate opposition” in Syria—admittedly a tough one given that Islamists with guns in their hands tend to be immoderate. Instantly it then begins to send weapons to the militias it failed to train, the CIA having “lightly vetted” them—as it did for a time in 2013, until that proved a self-defeating mistake.

The fiction that moderates lurk somewhere continues. Out of the blue, they are now called “the Syrian Arab Coalition,” a moniker that reeks of the corridors in Langley, Virginia, if you ask me.

In Turkey, meantime, the Pentagon’s new alliance with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan government starts to play out just as the Turkish prime minister intended. All the persuasive signs are that the government was responsible for bombs that killed more than 120 people in Ankara last weekend as they protested Erdoğan’s renewed violence against Turkey’s Kurdish minority. The Middle East’s crisis has just spread into another country.

*

Since Russia reinvigorated its decades-old support for Damascus last month, the vogue among the Washington story-spinners has been to question Putin’s motives. What does Putin—not “Russia” or even “Moscow,” but Putin—want? This was never an interesting question, since the answer seemed clear, but now we have one that truly does warrant consideration.

What does the U.S. want? Why, after four years of effort on the part of the world’s most powerful military and most extensive intelligence apparatus, is Syria a catastrophe beyond anything one could imagine when anti-Assad protests egan in the spring of 2011?

After four years of war—never truly civil and now on the way to proxy—Assad’s Syria is a mangled mess, almost certainly beyond retrieval in its current form. Everyone appears to agree on this point, including Putin and Sergei Lavrov, the Russian leader’s foreign minister. There is no putting this humpty-dumpty back on any wall: The Russians readily acknowledge this, acres of groundless journalism to the contrary notwithstanding.

In the meantime, certain realities are essential to recognize. The Assad government is a sovereign entity. Damascus has the beleaguered bones of a national administration, all the things one does not readily think of as wars unfold: a transport ministry, an education ministry, embassies around the world, a seat at the U.N. In these things are the makings of postwar Syria—which, by definition, means Syria after the threat of Islamic terror is eliminated.

Anyone who doubts this is Russia’s reasoning should consider the Putin-Lavrov proposal for a negotiated transition into a post-Assad national structure. They argue for a federation of autonomous regions representing Sunni, Kurdish and Alawite-Christian populations. Putin made this plain when he met President Obama at the U.N. last month, my sources in Moscow tell me. Lavrov has made it plain during his numerous exchanges with Secretary of State Kerry.

Why would Russia’s president and senior diplomat put this on the table if they were not serious? Their proposed design for post-Assad Syria, incidentally, is a close variant of what Russia and the Europeans favor in Ukraine. In both cases it has the virtue of addressing facts on the ground. These are nations whose internal distinctions and diversity must be accommodated—not denied, not erased, but also not exacerbated—if they are to become truly modern. Russians understand the complexities of becoming truly modern: This has been the Russian project since the 18th century.

In the past week Washington has effectively elected not to support Russia’s new effort to address the Syria crisis decisively. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s latest phrase of the moment is “fatally flawed.” If he said it once he said it a dozen times: The Russian strategy is fatally flawed. We heard you the third time, Ash.

As to Obama, he rejects any notion that Washington has effectively ceded leadership on the Syria question—with potentially wider implications—to Moscow. In his much-noted interview with 60 Minutes last weekend, he found Putin foolhardy for risking the lives of Russian soldiers and “spending money he doesn’t have.”

Say what?

Whose strategy in Syria is fatally flawed, Mr. Carter? I assume there is no need to do more than pose the question. (Memo to SecDef: Get a new scriptwriter, someone who allots you more than one assigned phrase a week.)

As to Obama’s remarks, one wishes he were joking. We are $5 trillion into the mess that began with the invasion of Iraq a dozen years ago, and we are counting the fatalities one side or the other of a million. There are roughly 4 million Syrian refugees by the latest count. And Putin’s at fault for risking lives and blowing money? Who puts a smart guy like you up to this, Mr. President?

...

I'm not at all convinced that the Russians really know what they are doing here, or what the endgame looks like, but as for the Americans...

T'would seem that the Obama administration inherited from Bush & Co. the rather naïve view that if various tyrannical despots in the Middle East could be removed with the support of  Western military-aid, that the populations would immediately and unhesitatingly embrace both the West, and secular democracy, despite the historical record, in which revolutions, even well-meaning ones as often as not, if not more often, create worse outcomes than that which went before.  And despite both the existence of relatively widespread animosity towards the United States and the West generally in many of these countries, and the lack of a democratic tradition (the latter a problem for post-Soviet Russia also as we have seen).

The Arab Spring seemed liked it might be going well for a while (as perhaps did the War in Iraq early on), and having seen Qadaffi & Mubarak fall, Western leaders (who had previously sucked up to the same), decided to turn on al Assad, only...he didn't fall right away, and decided to fight instead.  Fight to the death perhaps if it came to it.  Which left the West rooting for the downfall of Assad in a civil war that involved various occasionally overlapping anti-Assad elements, some of which were explicitly Islamist, some more secular, some more or less concerned with ethnic or nationalistic factions, lining up as much against one another as against Assad.

And then the West (by which of course I mean the US) chose the amorphous opposition, not knowing into what it might morph as its champion against Assad a) assuming incorrectly as it happened that Assad would fold quickly, and b) with no awareness of whether the forces arrayed against Assad would ultimately be dominated by more Western-leaning more secular forces, or by the likes of Al Qaeda or ISIS.  Not like we have the history of living memory to look back on or anything for advice...

And so the West bet against Assad, (the now much denounced but recent ally still of the US), and by proxy for an ever amporphous coalition of groups, some of which are no doubt secular and democratic, but others of which would very much like to establish an Islamic caliphate all the way to Spain thank you very much, and if they can do it with donated US weapons, thanks that very much more.

Some of the non-ISIS-aligned & non-al-Qaeda aligned elements may still exist in the coalition against which Russia is currently fighting alongside the 'regime-forces'* & Iranians, but whom would we ask ?  Where/who/what is the leader of the Free Syrian Army ?  Where are the five or six (by most ambitious official military estimates) of the tens of thousands of US-trained opposition-forces meant to be in place by now ?

The US' official position is that Russia's involvement is prolonging the conflict unnecessarily, as if the conflict hadn't already been going on for four years with the US' involvement, and no end in sight.  I read somewhere (some beltway hackery no doubt) some speculation that the Russian involvement might in fact unite the various anti-Assad faction against the foreign 'imperialist' forces, and hasten Assad's removal.  Doubt it much, but even if that were the case, who would put money on the current conflict ending without either a) Western ground-forces having to intervene (likely to no avail in the long term), b) Assad remaining in power for the foreseeable future at least, or c) a victory for Islamist extremists ?

For our more Russophobic friends, we've seen how even the most relatively peaceful transitions from authoritarian dictatorship, can simply replace one dictator with another.  How in the absence of a concerted committed long-term international coalition dedicated to long-term liberal democratic reform, any hopes for a more progressive future may be dashed, even in historically liberal societies... Anyone think the US is willing or able to commit to a Marshall plan for Syria ?

* As in the still legitimate government of Syria under international law

** PS Fuck you any one who is still this far into the twenty-first century defending the mind-blowing incompetence of Microsoft Inc.

*** I hate the very notion of WYSIWYG, at least at it's implemented by our (consistently proven)-not betters.

No More Ferry 'Cross the Kerch ?

Russia will be handing back Nikita's gift to the Ukrainians...any...moment now....right, Vicky ?


Honestly, I'd almost forgotten about the bridge, and am suprised they've made as much progress as this video suggests.  Wonder if the Chinese are providing advice on those artificial islands between the individual spans ?

So, We Support the Guys in Green, Right ?

Via an article on the Beeb re-assuring us on Obama's behalf that '"Assad must go" to ensure IS defeat'.  I might cry if I were still capable.

And we'll give them arms and train them, only for that materiel & those (very very) few personnel to end up on the other side fighting against us.  I can see now why the UN gave Obama a pre-emptive Nobel Peace Prize.

Our Allies and Enemies

From an article in the Graun. on the continuing disarray (never mind possible first step towards dissolution) of the European Union over the 'refugee crisis'.*

Merkel singled out Turkey as the key to a crisis management strategy and Juncker said the fund-raising would include a billion euros for Ankara.

But Tusk, just returned from Turkey, said money “is not the big problem. It is not as easy as expected.”

Ahmet Davutoğlu, the Turkish prime minister, wrote to the EU leaders on Wednesday demanding bold concessions from the Europeans as the price for Turkey’s possible cooperation. He proposed EU and US support for a buffer and no-fly zone in northern Syria by the Turkish border, measuring 80km by 40km.

This would stymy the Kurdish militias fighting Islamic State in northern Syria and would also enable Ankara to start repatriating some of the estimated 2 million Syrian refugees it is hosting. The militias are allied with the Kurdistan workers’ party (PKK) guerrillas at war with the Turkish state for most of the past 30 years. Ankara reignited the conflict in July after the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) lost its parliamentary majority in a general election.

“There are many people who doubt the sincerity of their motives,” said a senior EU official. “They’re not offering too much.”

Ah, our good friends in Turkey.  Not ones they to let a crisis go to waste.  Why not use the situation with the refugees as an excuse to further their military-campaign against the Kurds, to date, one of our few effective allies in the fight against ISIS ?  It's not as if the warzone in question were the source of most of the refugees in the first place, after all...Not as if undermining the Kurds would strengthen ISIS and help prolong the fucking war.  And a chance to bully the members of the union they so desperately want to one day join themselves into the bargain ?  Genius.

Er, we did check with the Russians didn't we about where they are operating in the country ?**  Might be good to know before we start trying to enforce a no-fly zone.  Oh, that's right.  We're not talking with Russia...or Iran...or Assad.  'Cos we don't like them.  They not nice.

Fucking grow up already.  Okay, so we have to work with Turkey, because they're 'our ally'...supposedly...not that that should extend to militarily supporting their ongoing efforts to deny the Kurds an independent state.  But just how many countries and factions are fighting in Syria now ?  Just how much more complicated is this likely to become ?  And whilst we are flinging bombs back and forth with abandon, then feigning surprise when vast swaths of the country become depopulated, who are the players on the ground here ?

• Pro-government forces ('Our Enemy')
• ISIS & related jihadist groups ('Our Enemy')
• Iran ('Our Enemy')
• Russia ('Our Enemy')
• The Kurds (Would-be allies, except that we'll sell them out to Turkey)
• Some random rag-tag non-jihadi anti-govt. forces.

No-one see a problem here ?  Not even a little bit ?

Psst...Kerry & Co...So this strategy of yours of not talking to forces we don't like...I'm not sure it's working out so well.  I'm not sure in the context of the current conflict that it isn't in fact totally fucking insane.

Ask yourself these questions: Is getting rid of Assad more important than defeating ISIS ?  Is constraining Russian or Iranian influence more important than defeating ISIS ?  What are our priorities here amidst the rise of this incredibly radical violent group that wants to establish an Islamic Caliphate, and amidst the biggest refugee-crisis since the Second World War ?  And would you not acknowledge that an end to this bloody war in which somehow you a) Limit Iranian & Russian influence in the region, b) Forcibly remove Assad, and c) Defeat ISIS, whilst d) Avoiding US so-called 'boots on the ground' is ever so slightly un-fucking-likely ?

Never mind the inherent lunacy of having the US & Russia acting in the same theatre of war without the strictest cooperation, without clear shared goals.

Admit you fucked up already.  Then get over it...and get serious.  We need pragmatism here, not pride.

* Not to say that there isn't a refugee-crisis, just that what European countries refer to with that phrase, is more to do with the hundreds of thousands crossing European borders, as opposed to the overall crisis to which everyone simply turned a blind eye, so long as it was occurring somewhere else.

** Rhetorical question

*** Feel obligated to include an image of some kind, if only for the mobile version of Blogger.  And that 'toon is Rall at his edgiest best.

You Don't Say

John Kerry softened America’s demand yesterday that Syria’s dictator must step down, declaring that the timing of Bashar al-Assad’s departure was open to negotiation.

The US secretary of state retreated from the earlier US position that Assad’s removal must be the first step towards resolving Syria’s civil war.

He spoke as the regime carried out a series of air strikes near the ancient city of Palmyra, which has fallen into the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil). The Syrian air force flew as many as 25 sorties, killing perhaps 26 people on the ground, including Isil fighters.

Assad has been emboldened by Russia’s decision to provide direct military support. In recent weeks, Russian tanks and troops have been deployed in Syria, along with a small number of advanced jet fighters.

Russia’s goal appears to be to prevent Assad from suffering more battlefield defeats while also complicating any escalation of America’s air campaign against Isil targets in Syria....

Just admit you fucked up already.  Overplayed your hand.  Turning against Assad so soon was a mistake.  And the notion of democracy easily sweeping the Middle East folly.  It's not too late.


And, while we're on the subject of your ineptitude, about Ukraine...

RT on the Many Failings of the F-35

Not that you should trust the former Russia Today on, well...anything.  Their story is based upon a damning report from the 'National Security Network' which you can read in its entirety here.

Not the North Pole ! What will that Dastardly Vlad Do Next ?

Ah, the Daily Express, my number-one source in determining the major threats to our civilisation, to our way of life, to our survival.  That paragon of journalistic integrity and accuracy.  Do tell.  Do tell.

Vladimir Putin: Russia owns the NORTH POLE - and the UN needs to give it back to us!

VLADIMIR PUTIN has made his most audacious land grab bid yet after claiming that Russia owns the NORTH POLE.

Not content with just spreading his power base into Ukraine, the eccentric president has now submitted a bold claim to a large portion of the Arctic.

Russia has long had eyes on the Arctic ice, which it is thought could contain vast reserves of oil, precious gems and minerals. 

Putin recently announced plans to bolster the country's naval presence in the region, sparking fears that the country could attempt a military-led land grab.

Those would be the plans would they to restore a fraction of the former Soviet presence in the region, at a time when all interested parties are staking their claim to the far North, and at least one Western oil-company is actively planning to drill in the Arctic ?  I can't imagine why they would be doing that.

Now Russia has submitted a claim to the UN for a large swathe of Arctic ice covering an astonishing 500,000 square miles, parts of which have already been claimed by Denmark. 

Gasp !

Russian officials claim tectonic plate maps show that the disputed territory is part of Russia's "continental character".

...

In a statement outlining the claim, the Russian government stated: "The outer borders of the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean is based on the scientific understanding that the central Arctic underwater ridges…have a continental character."

Moscow will now ask the UN Commission on the Limits and the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to rule on the boundaries of the contintental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. 

They asked a UN body specifically tasked with advising on continental boundaries to...advise on continental boundaries ?!!  The cads !  The bounders !

Denmark’s submission to the commission, made on behalf of Greenland, was the first attempt to claim outright ownership of the North Pole. 

Wait, what ?  Back up just a second there...Denmark did what ?

That has provoked the response from Putin, who would be unwilling to see potentially lucrative lands falling into western hands. 

When Denmark submitted its bid in December 2014, a leading expert on Arctic sovereignty predicted that Russia would retaliate. 

Er, *cough* Crimea *cough* Eastern Ukraine *cough*.

Canadian professor Michael Byers said: “It is ironic that the only country that right now could be said to be acting provocatively in the Arctic is Denmark. That is out of character with the country’s tradition of constructive diplomacy." 

Erm, what was our headline for this article again ?  I don't recall any mention of Queen Margrethe or Mister Rasmussen.  Weren't we talking about a certain Russian fellow ?

Under UN rules states are entitled to claim the continental shelf extending to 200 nautical miles from their coast. 

The Danish government expects its claim to be processed by 2027 after spending more than £31million in research. 

Canada has also said it will try to extend its territorial claims in the Arctic to include the North Pole, although it hasn't yet fully mapped its claim....

The monsters !  Oh wait, Canada isn't an officially designated villain in this story, is it ?  Canada's actions are inherently benign then.

...Last month Russia announced that its navy will deploy a fleet of new icebreakers to the Arctic tasked with sidestepping traditional Nato security patrols. 

We're politicising ice-breakers now ?  When did then happen ?


I dunno, this shit is hilarious, but what percentage of the idiots reading the Express will just see the headline and believe it implicitly without even bothering to read the story ?

What percentage, as evidenced by certain comments on the story, will click on the link, not bother to actually read the story, and then, despite not having read the Express' own words on the matter, post a comment publicly, based solely on the hyperbolic headline ?


Meanwhile, the Express also has a highly perceptive story to offer in which they note that all-out nuclear war between Russia and the West would create a 'dystopian future where London ceases to exist'.  No !  You don't say !  Illustrated throughout with images based upon some stupid movie (30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, baby !), that basically involve taking pictures of actual London, and simply blackening them a little, and adding some smoke & fire.  Despite their own 'futurologist's rather generous comment in the article that 'If anything, [the images] were a little optimistic. Things like The Shard on fire, if you had a Third World War it would be a pile of rubble - it wouldn't be on fire.'  Er, no shit.


What would we do without such fine journalism ?

Look At Me, Look At Me !

Oh how the Russians were mocked when they put out a guide to 'safe selfies' as it were.

Those crazy Russians, posing with dangerous weapons, and in front of dangerous animals.  But then again, maybe the Russian government is just a little ahead of the curve on this.

A series of injuries at Yellowstone National Park has officials warning tourists that selfies and bison don't mix.

A 43-year-old Mississippi woman was thrown into the air recently after she turned her back on a bison to take a photo of herself with it.

Four other tourists have been hurt in similar incidents this year, Yellowstone officials said.

Previously bison attacks had been unusual, they added.

"The (woman) said they knew they were doing something wrong but thought it was OK because other people were nearby," park spokeswoman Amy Bartlett told the Associated Press.

"People are getting way too close."

Selfies with bisons.

But hey, it's like a wild cow (as if a cow couldn't kill ya), right ?  I didn't realise it was dangerous...

Westerners surely wouldn't be stupid enough to take pictures with:

• Grizzly Bears ?
• Tigers ?
• Polar Bears ?
• Sharks ?
• Alligators ?
• Crocodiles ?
• Rattlesnakes ?

Well, okay, then.  But westerners wouldn't do something dumb like pose for selfies with guns, would they ?

What a species we are.

My first #bearselfie of 2015 & hopefully not last! #alaska #bristolbay #katmai pic.twitter.com/ty2BoVzPG3

— Louisa Chu (@louisachu) July 2, 2015

Update: Story at http://www.cnet.com/news/people-taking-bear-selfies-closed-this-colorado-park/ on bear-selfies states regarding the same tweet above that the 'photo was actually taken from a Katmai National Park platform with rangers present.'

This Will Catch on any Moment Now

So, if you haven't seen, United Russia* has developed what the media is characterising as a counter to the 'gay-pride' rainbow-flag.  The design of which being stolenborrowed from a French group opposed to same-sex marriage, La Manif Pour Tous, except that the Russian version has one extra child, which is supposedly symbolic of traditional Russian values.

I had thought that the three kids was a little optimistic for ya know...Russia, but checking the stats., turns out Putin has instituted various bribes to would-be mothers that have helped bring the birthrate up now to a rate of 1.7 children, which is apparently better than other European countries.  Who knew ?

Not sure at what event the flag of the French group is flying, but it looks ever so slightly better attended that the Russian event, which I gather from Russian sources, was expected to attract more than a thousand families.  Perhaps would-be supporters were put off by the fact that they found the flag just a little bit 'gay' for their liking...

But, still, I'm sure it'll take off on the internet and go viral any moment now...

The slogan on Putin's ruling party's anti-gay flag is "#realfamily": #настоящаясемья Here are some improved versions. pic.twitter.com/afCBhlj0wW

— Ystri Ya (@ystriya) July 10, 2015

All families where love rules are #realfamilies #настоящаясемья pic.twitter.com/78idnNMKtm

— 茶色猫 (@biglittlecat) July 9, 2015

Love you internets #настоящаясемья via @dim_stoff pic.twitter.com/9W3O1y1shu

— Laura (@LauraHuu) July 9, 2015

Oh dear.


* IE, the one party of the increasingly one-party state.  IE, the party that Putin represents.

Wishful Thinking at its Best

Report: Russia's right wing is egging on Texas' secessionist movement

By John-Henry Perera | June 23, 2015 | Updated: June 23, 2015 11:46am

A Russian newspaper conducted an interview with Nathan Smith, a representative of the Texas Nationalist Movement, who just happened to be in St. Petersburg for a right-wing convention in Spring 2015.

Google Translate is a little rusty when it comes to the Cyrillic alphabet, but Smith's interview is more or less a repeat of everything we've heard before from pro-secessionists: Why should we be part of a union that takes but never gives back? U.S. policy is bad for Texas. We can do better on our own.

Politico writer Casey Michel notes that Texas' homegrown movement is delicious for Russian right wingers who blame much of the country's ills on the U.S., particularly after the recent sanctions on the country following the Crimean invasion in 2014. It also plays well with the country's long-term strategy of destabilizing the west.

"Cheered primarily by Igor Panarin, a former KGB agent and head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's diplomatic academy, the theory posits that a fractured United States, akin to the Soviet Union's demise, would disintegrate entirely, with nearby nations hoovering the assorted states."

The Russians cannot possibly be this stupid...can they ?


Although I see where the Russian's are coming from in the current tensions with the West, although I understand their point of view regarding maintaining influence in their backyard, and although I agree with much of their criticism of NATO, I think there's one thing they maybe misunderstand: Much as people throughout the world may harbour some distrust of the United States and its motives, including many in the West, and even in the United States itself, they don't necessarily hate the US.  And many of them share that distrust of America with a desire to be American themselves.

Russia, on the other hand, isn't exactly beloved by many of its neighbours, to say the least (never mind how the rest of the world sees the country, fairly or not), and for the many states that left the Warsaw pact and/or the Soviet Union after the latter's collapse it was very explicitly a question of liberation from what they saw as a decades-long* oppressive foreign influence.  An opinion that would be held in many of those countries by a clear majority.


The occasional mutterings of discontent in states like Texas, Alaska, Arizona, or wherever in the US, are little more than a temporal political protest, usually against the particular policies at one point in time of one ruling party.  The Texans aren't going to secede today any more than the so-called 'blue-states' were after the Bush-Gore decision in 2000, however much gnashing of teeth there may have been at the time.


And yet, even if the Russians aren't stupid enough to think that a secession of Texas or any other American state is remotely likely, they sure do put an awful amount of money and effort into their anti-Western  and Western-targeted propaganda outfits, possibly the jewel in the crown of which is RT (formerly Russia Today).  RT is a well-financed, slick media outfit, staffed with many Western presenters, that just so happens to specialise day after day after day in reporting on stories that make the West (The US & UK especially) look bad (some more justifiably, some less)

And there's an audience for the type of thing they cover.  An audience that occasionally includes me for that matter, well aware of the propagandistic agenda as I may be.  And there's a fair number of mid-level media-personalities in the West (usually either of the more slightly radical lefty or the more libertarian political persuasion) that flock to work with RT, eager as they are to get any coverage of opinions that they know are increasingly locked out from the mainstream corporate-media in the West.

But the vast majority of people in the West don't care what those individuals say, don't watch RT, don't read Sputnik or the Moscow Times, and won't be touched by the comments of Putin's keyboard-armies on the pages of the Telegraph or the Indy or on CiF on the Guardian.  The criticism of the West (some of it justified) never quite reaches them, whilst daily they absorb the news & the jokes from the mainstream media that reinforce their inherited view of Russians as inherently evil two-dimensional cartoon-villains.

I suspect that the Russian government just fundamentally hasn't come to terms with how to either successfully manipulate or to interpret public opinion in the age of social media.  And I don't really know why, other to assume that it's that age-old question of no-one wanting to tell the emperor that he may have ever-so slightly imagined his own attire.

Whatever.  We're all be dead soon if we keep the idiotic wargames up at the current rate.


* Or more.

Survey on Europeans' Views of Ukraine

War, Russia, Poverty: Europeans ‘negative’ view of Ukraine

It was French writer Gustave Flaubert who said there is no truth, only perception. According to the Institute of World Policy in Kyiv, Europeans have a rather negative image of Ukraine.

In a recently released report war, Russia and poverty appear to be the three key words that average citizens of Europe’s most populous countries associate with the country.

The Orange revolution appears to be better known by the respondents than the Maidan protests which spun Ukraine towards Brussels, but European perceptions of Ukraine are beginning to change, if slowly, according to Olena Hetmanchuk, head of the Institute of World Policy.

“I don’t think that they (the Europeans) associate or consider Ukraine to be a part of Russia as they perceived some time ago. In my opinion, the association with Russia is primarily related to Russia’s aggression. That’s a logical association as this issue has been one of the main topics of European media for the last year.”

On the subject of Ukraine eventually joining the EU, the French are the most skeptical while, the British are largely indifferent.

In order for Ukraine to create a better image in these countries, political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko told euronews the country “needs to compensate for this with the successful implementation of reforms in the country; the promotion of Ukraine’s history that should be considered as a part of European history. That will increase the percentage of people who will perceive Ukraine as a part of Europe, not only geographically, but also politically and historically.” * **

It's actually somewhat surprising to me that they chose to headline this survey the way they did, given that the results they report overall paint a picture of a European populace very open to Ukraine joining the EU in the future, Russia be damned.  Of course, this is a report from an organisation whose 'vision is that Ukraine should be integrated into the EU and NATO', and the report itself was funded by the US government (USAID), so take it with a grain of salt if you will.

Oh, and as for this:

The survey will help to identify problems in the EU-Ukraine relations and to bring to light concerns of ordinary Europeans. These findings are strikingly important in terms of Russia's powerful efforts to sow division among European nations fracturing their unity with respect to Ukraine.

Europeans can make up their own minds thank you very much.  Kremlin propaganda be damned.  American propaganda be damned.  And what the fuck is this 'unity with respect to Ukraine' of which you speak ?  What unity ?  Since when ?


Anyways, it's an interesting survey, propaganda or not, and I do love me a nice word-cloud:

Almost thought they'd forgotten Yulia, but no, there she is.  They're still missing one important word though: IMF.


* In other words, erase the long history with Russia going all the way back to the Rus' ?

** Bolding mine.  Text from the EuroNews site is almost, but not exactly a transcript of the video.

Fair Observer* on Ukraine's Financial Difficulties

Ukraine on Brink of Financial Collapse

Will Europe allow a bankrupt Ukraine to fall back under Russian domination?

Ukraine is lost either way.  It's become an expendable pawn in the new Cold War.  Sorry.

Ukraine is on the brink of financial collapse. The country is unable to meet interest payments. Its gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 6.8% in 2014 and is expected to fall by an even greater extent this year. Meanwhile, it has to defend itself against a neighbor that guaranteed its borders as recently as 1994.

That sucks.

Instead of stepping forward to help Ukraine financially, the European Union (EU) and the United States are both leaving the job to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

I'm shocked.

The IMF is offering Ukraine $40 billion, whereas the EU says it can only manage $2 billion.

No !  Not the IMF !  Never !

The European Union has already extended 40 times as much credit to Greece as it has given to Ukraine, whose population is four times that of Greece. If this ratio reflects the EU’s real priority, it is unbalanced. GDP per head in Greece is about three times that of Ukraine.

Did I not mention already that the West doesn't give a shit about the people of Ukraine ?

Like Greece, Ukraine has a lot to do in order to create a functioning and efficient legal and administrative system, stamp out corruption and collect taxes fully and fairly. But Ukraine has to do this while recovering from the effects of a communist system that was imposed on it from outside since 1919, whereas Greece has been the democratic shaper of its own policies for many years.

Fuck you.

Of course, Greece is in the EU and the euro and Ukraine is not, but both countries are in Europe and aspire to a democratic European future.

Aspire away, do...for so long as the Union lasts anyways.

Furthermore Ukraine had it borders guaranteed in the Budapest Declaration of 1994 by EU countries, Russia and the US, in return for giving up nuclear weapons.

Ukraine trusted the West to come through on its promises ?  Bless.

Despite this, Ukraine was invaded and a portion of its territory was annexed in 2014 by Russia, because Kiev wanted to make a modest cooperation agreement with the EU.

That's what happened alright.

Notwithstanding this, the EU is now being stingy in helping Ukraine manage its financial crisis, while instead being fixated on the drama in Athens.

Urm, it was stingy, then.  No, 'stingy' doesn't do it justice.  They were willing to let Ukraine crash and burn rather than work with Yanukovych on any kind of open terms.  They willingly let Putin hold the country's economy hostage.

Ukrainians believe they have a European destiny and are prepared to die for it.

Are they really ?

The Russian leadership, on the other hand, believes that Ukraine, with its Russian-speaking minority, is in their sphere of influence. Moscow sees a link up of Ukraine with the European Union as a form of foreign interference in its own backyard.

Yup.  That's exactly right.  And they made that 100% clear from the beginning.

One would have to respond that this view is not in accordance with Russia’s guarantee to Ukraine in 1994, nor with international law.

Nuclear weapons trump international law every time.  Nations seek them for a reason.  The established powers want to maintain a monopoly on them for a reason.  Oh, and the Russians lied.

The entire post-World War II European security order rests on acceptance of international law. Similarly, any prospect of voluntary nuclear disarmament in the future depends on solemn obligations—like the 1994 Budapest Declaration—being honored.

Clearly, we're fucked.


*  No, I'd never heard of them before either.

What Happened to the Dinosaurs, Daddy ?

America needs to replace a rotting arsenal of nuclear weapons and counteract an increasingly boisterous Russia, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Tuesday. For these reasons, it must consider the long-taboo prospect of building new nukes.

“Can we have a national conversation about building new nuclear weapons?” Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said in remarks at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. “That’s something we haven’t been able to even have a conversation about for a while, but I think we’re going to have to.”

“Russia obviously retains the right if needed to deploy its nuclear weapons anywhere on its national territory, including on the Crimean Peninsula,” Mikhail Ulyanov, head of the Russian Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, said in early June.Just last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his plans to boost the former Soviet power’s nuclear arsenal with 40 new missiles. The plan follows a string of provocative comments from top Russian officials who consider a nuclear weapon the most effective method of countering what they consider NATO’s provocative actions in Eastern Europe.

Thornberry said Tuesday this is more than enough justification for considering a new supply of offensive nukes.

None of this had to happen.  We had peace.  We had reason for hope.  We also had idiotic Russophobic politicians who treated Russia like shit after the end of the last cold war, and helped enable the rise of Putin.  Five decades somehow survived without destroying the world, and, having learned nothing from history, we immediately started sowing the seeds of the next war.  Sigh.

Speaking of...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !

So Punchable

Aw, this guy...!

You want to punch that face, don't you ?  Even if you don't know why yet.

Is this would-be Bieber also known for his YouTube videos ?  Well, yes...

RICH kid Grisha Mamurin has provoked a storm of protest by paying girls to flash their boobs in public and then to kiss him.

The controversial 16-year-old, grandson of Russian billionaire Igor Nekludov, is making a series of videos about people’s humiliation and what they would be prepared to do for money.

In his latest video, he gets smashed to the ground when he tries to bribe someone to drink a jar of his urine.

The intended victim was so angry he punched the cocky teenager so hard he knocked him off his feet.

Earlier in the video a man takes him up on his offer and Mamurin can be seen peeing into a glass before handing it over.

Towards the end of the video he picks on safer targets, luring young women to kiss him and expose their breasts.

His videos have been watched more than 850,000 times with mixed reactions.
At the beginning of his new video he says: “Today, we will check what crazy things girls can do to earn some money.”

Then he goes and annoys girls who are walking alone asking them: “Can you show me your breasts for cash?

And then he moves on to a bunch of homeless guys, and further hilarity ensues...

Thanks news.com.au !  I'd remained blissfuly ignorant of the existence of this asshole until now, despite his having apparently made the news elsewhere back in May.

His video sparked a wave of online criticism, but Grigory defended his decision saying the video showed what society 'is ready to do for the sake of money'.

Speaking through a personal press officer, he said:  'I don't understand why people are so negative about me. We have seen similar shows on MTV, various practical jokes.

'I can say that every fourth person agreed to do something crazy like this. The video is genuine. I should have been at least Spielberg to stage something like this.

...Grigory said he did not tell his parents about the project as he was not spending their money.

He said: 'Of course, originally this is their money but this is also my savings. I got the money from my parents for my birthdays and saved quite a lot.

'It is also a joint project, the money of my friends is here too. It is not like "Granddad, give me 100,000 roubles and I will make people drink urine".

He promised a follow-up in which 'a girl who agreed to lick the bottom of his boot from one end to the other for 10,000 roubles'.

He added: 'I do not criticize these people. I think each of them has problems which makes them do this.

'We don't know what we would have done if we had had the same problems. If to talk about me - I don't think I was ever in a situation when I would drink urine.' 

Unearned wealth (and most vast accumulations of wealth tend IMO to be largely if not mostly unearned, relying more on the exploitation of others and corruption than personal effort or ability) does tend to breed sociopathy, whether in Russia, America, or anywhere in the world.

Still, this particular embarrassment belongs to Russia, and Putin's Russia at that, son of an oligarch may he be.  And as long as he has wealth and avoids criticising the government, he can probably ride this particular game of exploiting the desperate for fleeting fame on YouTube a good while yet.

And after all, he's doing a public service, right ?  Exposing the cruel realities of modern capitalistic existence for...journalism...for...art...for..for.  No, he's just an asshole.

Just Madness Everywhere

2015, and we still seemingly have racially motivated attacks on historically black churches in the Southern United States. Wonder what the cooling-off-period is between a shooting and the inevitable right-wing response that it all could have been prevented if only everyone were armed.  Elementary Schools, Universities...why not Churches ?  Arm the congregation and clergy alike.

Elsewhere in the news, Hong Kong still seemingly hasn't come to terms with the consequences of returning to mainland-rule and the fact that the PRC never had any intention whatsoever of allowing actual democracy to prevail under its rule, even in its special administrative regions,...NATO is continuing its lunatic tit-for-tat escalation with Russia by acting out war-games off the coast of Kaliningrad,...and bankers Goldman Sachs are attempting to show how humane they are and how great their concern for their staffinterns desperate for any foothold on the jobs-ladder to pay off student-debt, by insisting that they only work a maximum seventeen-hour workday.

And then there's this:

The increasingly tense relationship between the United States and Russia might be about to face a new challenge: a Russian investigation into American moon landings.

In an op-ed published by Russian newspaper Izvestia, Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the government's official Investigative Committee, argued that such an investigation could reveal new insights into the historical space journeys.

According to a translation by the Moscow Times, Markin would support an inquiry into the disappearance of original footage from the first moon landing in 1969 and the whereabouts of lunar rock, which was brought back to Earth during several missions.

“We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened,” Markin wrote, according to the Moscow Times translation.

Er, what, why ?.

So, why is Investigative Committee member Markin speculating about conspiracy theories surrounding US moon landings that happened decades ago? In his op-ed, the Russian official also emphasized that “US authorities had crossed a line by launching a large-scale corruption probe targeting nine Fifa officials,” according to the Moscow Times.

We're descending to this level of pettiness in our new cold war already ?

Well, why ever not ?  The US hadn't even started its war in Iraq (you know the one I mean, don't quibble) before it was going after its own erstwhile allies with that 'freedom fries' & 'old Europe' nonsense.  This is how we do geopolitics in the twenty-first century apparently.  The grownups left the game long ago.