Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

The next time the bamster threatens Putin/Russia with [insert threat here], if I were a Russian politician, I'd say something along the lines; "We were ready to negotiate, but your president was busy at the time."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...caa-tournament

meh,
Enjoy the Crimea, please stop there.

If the current helplessness and cluelessness of the West shows one thing, then it is that the West has lost its ability to think in terms of "Realpolitik". Dealing with states and anticipating their actions on the basis of their real interests, their real spheres of influence, their real vital and non-negotiable red lines. The term "Realpolitik" has become a foul word, it is used in talkshows to defame unwanted opinions and reminders of critics about unwelcomed facts and realities, instead one wallows in sentimental sweet-talking about how nice it is to reasonably talk as if no collision of interest were there and all states were just one happy family with same interests. All conflicts and all dissenting views that violate the collectively demanded "majority consensus" get ignored and either defined as being symptoms of mental illness or social irresponsibility, or as simply being non-existent. Over the years, also in this forum, when I mentioned the need for more Realpolitik, the term was returned sometimes as an offence, a derogatory defamation, a way of ridiculing an opinion or assessment the other happened to disagree with. And this happens all the time in the media as well, especially when calling back to mind some facts that question the canon of ordered views and opinions as demanded by the EU, or when questioning the socialist dogma and calculating that economically it cannot be maintained much longer. Realpolitik, we hear, is a term that guys like Bismarck Hitler or Stalin thought in, and it is a thing of the past, of the 19th and 20th century, it is so much out of date and not en vogue, hell, how could one dare to think in terms of Realpolitik?

Well, Putin send us the bill for our stupidity. Now we turn stubborn even more, and refuse to accept the lesson. Instead, we should be thankful in the meaning of that he shows us where we have gone fundamentally wrong, so that we would have the opportunity to correct our course. But no, that would mean to admit that we have gone wrong indeed, and so it is better to carry on with the self-deception.

Two lessons are to be learned. First, our militaries need to be brought back into better shape, especially in Europe. Second, we need to re-learn to think in terms of Realpolitik, and to see Russian vital interests from the Russians' point of view, not ours. Demonising Putin and thinking it all would be better with Russia if Putin would not be in command, leads us nowhere. We also have to see that the Russian hefty reaction to the events in the Ukraine, although a reaction that has been prepared, is due to the many bad experiences Russia has had with the West since 1989. The russians were promised by the Germans that Eastgermany would stay demilitarised. The Russians were promised by the Americans that NATO would not move into Poland and the Baltic states and would not crawl upon Russia national borders. The Russians were told the EU would not try to creep into the Balkans and the territories of now Ukraine, Belarus.

We betrayed them every time. And now we wonder that they have learned their lessons and play tough over Georgia, Iran, Syria, Crimea, Moldavia? What did we expect, having cheated them that often and at their massive strategic cost?
All that is not about sympathy for the Russians, or Putin. It's about Realpolitik.

I doubt they are too impressed with their growing isolation, instead I assume they feel quite comfortable in that role, for Russia since centuries thinks of itself as a power that can stay autark and alone all with itself, indicating the world that it is strong enough that it does not need them. This view has always been present in Russia's self-definition, but has found an additional reviving boost when Putin took over from - extremely weak - Yeltzin.

We are lucky that we only deal with Putin, not with a guy like Stalin, Krushchev (whom we have to thank for today's Crimea crisis, btw), or some of the ancient Tsars. The demonisation we conduct regarding Putin, borders hilariousness. Russia and the world could have had it worse. Much worse. On the determination that Putin shows, I recommend this: a strong dose of "Realpolitik" - in how we deal with him, and how we interpret his determination and anticipate to Russia's next actions. It'S either that - or continuing with follies and illusions that all will just boomerang against us.

[Oberon]

Bring our militaries into better shape with what money? Do we co-operate as part of a EU based military force (if America is heading towards a more isolationist approach then surely a non-NATO based European defence force is needed) or each develop a military with our own limited funds? If the latter is to take place and the EU disbanded then what is to stop an inter-European conflict?
Unfortunately, if we are going to face Russia, and consider it a threat to Eastern Europe then I think that it is inevitable that a combined European Defence Force will have to be created using the funds and resources from every EU nation. At the moment the heavy-hitters of the EU, financially, are Germany and the UK, and neither of our nations have particularly large military forces at the moment, nor are there plans for future development of them beyond the current scope.
I know this goes against everything that the Euro-sceptics believe in, but I don't think that this is something that can be conducted in a manner that the economics in the EU have been conducted until now, and if America is going to stay out of European matters in the future and we're back to a 1930s Charles Lindbergh, America First Committee style sentiment amongst the US populace then we've got to get our act together or just hand over spherical control of Europe to Russia.

If the current helplessness and cluelessness of the West shows one thing, then it is that the West has lost its ability to think in terms of "Realpolitik". Dealing with states and anticipating their actions on the basis of their real interests, their real spheres of influence, their real vital and non-negotiable red lines. The term "Realpolitik" has become a foul word, it is used in talkshows to defame unwanted opinions and reminders of critics about unwelcomed facts and realities, instead one wallows in sentimental sweet-talking about how nice it is to reasonably talk as if no collision of interest were there and all states were just one happy family with same interests. All conflicts and all dissenting views that violate the collectively demanded "majority consensus" get ignored and either defined as being symptoms of mental illness or social irresponsibility, or as simply being non-existent. Over the years, also in this forum, when I mentioned the need for more Realpolitik, the term was returned sometimes as an offence, a derogatory defamation, a way of ridiculing an opinion or assessment the other happened to disagree with. And this happens all the time in the media as well, especially when calling back to mind some facts that question the canon of ordered views and opinions as demanded by the EU, or when questioning the socialist dogma and calculating that economically it cannot be maintained much longer. Realpolitik, we hear, is a term that guys like Bismarck Hitler or Stalin thought in, and it is a thing of the past, of the 19th and 20th century, it is so much out of date and not en vogue, hell, how could one dare to think in terms of Realpolitik?

I think the problem you face with peoples reception of your "realpolitik" is the completely contradictory avenues you take, which you reverse on a whim, or as you adopt a new ideologogy which you see as the latest ultimate truth you have read about, Egypt being a prime example.
Nasty dictator, no friend of the west, creeping islamification, persecution of Christians, the west really needs to wake up and do something about this...fast forward to all hail the new dictator who is the same as the old dictator and the west had better not do anything about this.

Two lessons are to be learned. First, our militaries need to be brought back into better shape, especially in Europe.

Now I seem to remember an individual complaining about military spending in Europe and how European countries were wasting their money on weapons that they couldn't possibly need. That wouldn't have been you would it?

[Tchocky]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...t_through.html

Fred Kaplan.

The things that President Obama and the European Union have done—relatively mild sanctions, the exclusion of Russia from an upcoming G-7 (formerly G-8) meeting, the shoring up of defenses in Poland and the Baltic nations, and presumably more actions of this sort to come—are proportional steps worth taking.

But no one should suffer the illusion that any of this will prod Putin to send the troops in Crimea home (most of them were already stationed there) or give the land back to Ukraine. To pretend that it might—as some of Obama’s rhetoric about “costs” and “consequences” has implied—works only to Putin’s benefit; it makes him seem stronger (he’s withstood the American sanctions!) than he really is.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Bring our militaries into better shape with what money?

Exactly!

The dilemma is that we want to play a bigger role and claim to be a bigger geostrategic actor, than we can afford.

When you ask - ther correct, needed and essential - question "With what money", one should not only ask that regarding military, but also regarding the ongoing project of the EU to grow, to expand, to become bigger, to include more. There, nobody asks "with what money". Which is strange. There are already more Eu members that cost more money than they give in return. Many members are no strengthening of the union, but a weakening of the union. But still, the EU wants more. Some even want it to include North Africa, and the Middle East. Some very daring minds even claim the Russia one day should become EU member. Then Europe will share borders with China and Japan. They want Turkey in, if only there would not be Erdoghan. Then we share borders with some real warzones. "With what money"? I would add: "with what determination to confront these challenges"?

Let'S face it, the EUcrats want more - for their personal glory - than what European states can afford. And much of the anger about Russia is owed to the fact that the EU wanted to claim Ukraine for itself, a plot now spoiled by the Russians.

Do we co-operate as part of a EU based military force (if America is heading towards a more isolationist approach then surely a non-NATO based European defence force is needed) or each develop a military with our own limited funds? If the latter is to take place and the EU disbanded then what is to stop an inter-European conflict?

NATO must understand to be a defence aliance of a certain specified geographical region. Europe must regain the ability to make any Russian attack so costly that it is not worth it. this ability we should seek without needing america, which is reorienting to the Pacific. We cannot only meet the Russians in a believable fashion if we meet them from a popsition of strtength, and not this pathetic weakness we currently show. We also need to understand that military operations outside the alliance'S territories, should have no place on the agenda. America tried to turn NATO into a global intervention force. Which was a huge and very costly mistake. A lot has been said in past years on that NATO has lost its identity, has no purpose, lost its reaosn to exist. If anyone needed a reminder, Yugoslavia could have been it - our reasons to attack Yugoslavia were misled, the pit is that we needed the Americans again to deal with this issue on our own continent. . If anyone missed that lesson, the Crimea today should serve as a sufficient reminder now for why we need NATO. And it miust be a believable threat if it is to intimidate any aggressor so that he will not attack a NAOT member. But we also must prevent overstretching, and we should not want to raise unneeded trohbels and conflciuts with Russia by violating their natural, vital interests - by creeping onto their borders again, for example. What the Russians do in yria, is Realpoltik in poure form. I have no illusions about thgeir sympoatyh for Assad and the terror he spills out, thery do not like it. But they want that naval base, and want to maintain this thorn in NATO's flank. For that strategic interest, they take the horror into account. It's not nice, but it is how the world runs. States have no morals. States have interests.

Unfortunately, if we are going to face Russia, and consider it a threat to Eastern Europe then I think that it is inevitable that a combined European Defence Force will have to be created using the funds and resources from every EU nation. At the moment the heavy-hitters of the EU, financially, are Germany and the UK, and neither of our nations have particularly large military forces at the moment, nor are there plans for future development of them beyond the current scope.

Again, we need to become more modest in our demands, both the EU and NATO. Focussing on the core business of NATO, stopping all these global missions that especially the Germans run to ease their moral conscience. As in the past the goal must n ot be to destroy Russia, but just to make any military action extremely costly for them. This is not becasue I assume the Russians are planning to militarily engage the Baltic states or Poland. I am quiote certain they don'T. But we need to add sufficient substance to our claims in order to be believable. Currently, we are only ridiculous, a bad joke that is laughed about.

So regarding the funding, parts of those funds at least must be brought up by limiting the scope of our focus. Afghanistan for example has no place there, nor any missions to Africa or elsewhere. That is not NATO's business.

We also must prove to the Russians to become more reliable partners, that do not break promises opportunistically, and cheat them. Then, in a not so near future I fear, maybe closer cooperation with the Russian military can become possible again, but only if we do not constantly try to hack away at issues that are of vital interest to them. They have had enough of us - that message we really should have gotten by now.

I know this goes against everything that the Euro-sceptics believe in, but I don't think that this is something that can be conducted in a manner that the economics in the EU have been conducted until now, and if America is going to stay out of European matters in the future and we're back to a 1930s Charles Lindbergh, America First Committee style sentiment amongst the US populace then we've got to get our act together or just hand over spherical control of Europe to Russia.

I'm split over the prospect you outlione, althogih I see the logic and reason in your argument - and by ölogioc and reason, I even agree. It's just that I know that the EU elites will try all they can to make a united defence just another tool to tighten their cedntrlaistic power and control even further. I'm trapped between hammer and anvil there.

Maybe the Swiss model can serve as an precedence. Somehow they always managed to maintain sufficient deterrances that nobody dares to really take on them, not even Hitler'S Wehrmacht. The mountains certainly helped in that, something that is true for huge parts of Norway, too. I mean a different model of an army, a militia style army, with modern stings to deliver blows to any aggressor. We have seen how inferiorly armed gangs of armed men and militias have frustrated and finally driven out "superior" armies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and for long time to come I doubt that anyone dares to try invading them again. In the end, shoulderpads are cheaper than fighters, ATGMS are cheaper than tanks - we are talking about a different military paradigm, however.

And there is the cyberwarfare component.

A difficult situation we are in. But again, we waste much moeny in poltical overstretching, why not relaocate those funds, as a provisory measure, to modernising the miliutary, while shrinking ourselves to more healthy and efendable dimensions? The EU is hopelessly overstretched, so is the American military. As Sun Tsu should have said: He who tries to defend all, will loose all.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Unless I miss what you're trying to say, this seems to be a point you make to others but avoid yourself.

Hi Steve,

That's fair from you to ask yourself about that.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The point I take is that this gentleman (and you yourself) advises everyone to see American and European propaganda (which I don't deny exists) while ignoring that this very article is propaganda of the strongest sort.

No, Sir. Especially NOT. First, I'd like to mention I live on the same side of the world as you do, and so I'm forced to eat and accept the same things/news as the truth. And in fact, I started my post with some rant related to the lack of neutrality of the news (coming from all sides) in order for everyone to take in consideration the fact that absolutely everything needs to be taken with that pinch of salt I'm talking about : so that article had to be considered the same way as I consider western news.
Living in the world we do, I must be honest with you, and would like to say I tend to feel sympathy for traditionalists countries still working with the one and only ultimate authority over everyone and everything, making a country able to act the fairest way towards most things and people around : God (and let me free to stay neutral here, keeping aside the way our beloved western media is doing its best to make us see a big part of the Middle East and northern Africa : that part of the world being populated only by no more than Al-Qaeda militants believing in a certain god whose only interest is to make all Muslims go for the Jihad).

As to what anyone is supposed to consider as truth and propaganda...

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Russia has crossed the borders of a sovereign nation and imposed what is tantamount to martial law. What does "western aggression have to do with that? Is Putin protecing Ukraine from America? The Ukrainians don't seem to think so.

I was indeed expecting someone to react that way, but I didn't suppose you were going to be that one, Steve.
We're on the internet now, and you're free to check out the news as to what's happening in western Ukraine these days, when it comes to IMF and all, so I won't even take the trouble to speak about that actually.
I'll let you think the way you like, out of respect for yourself, just as I would towards anyone else. But accepting as truth any kind of news coming from one side, without cross-checking with news from the other side, is what any authority needs you to do, so to be able to send your youth to the abattoir on any foreign soil which you are needed to consider as the enemy so for you to end up sticking out your chest considering it a noble thing from yourself to have let your children (not talking about your own children here, Steve) leave their beloved homeland never to see it again.
Feel free to take some little time now and then to check out the news from some other sites not standing up for western values only, I'm sure you'll end up being a little bit surprised by the way the other side/"the enemy" sees the situation, and I won't say more actually.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So Alex, you warn us against swallowing certain propaganda, and rightly so, but you then seem to accept the opposite propaganda as Gospel Truth, and push it on us without questioning your own cherished beliefs. That "pinch of salt" works both ways.

That is absolutely right.
I'm not considering anything as Gospel Truth, Steve.
Speaking about the West here, as I just said : to me, most people just live everyday with a certain degree of credulity and ingenuousness making them think everything their politics/army/country's elite do gets to be done with no more than their national interest in mind.
And the only thing I'm saying here is that it is not the case all the time [I'll keep things short here, or our good Tribesman - who's a well-educated man whose opinion I value more than a bit - will react the same way once again towards myself, for the simple reason he's certainly got his mind filled with anti-racism **** to the point he doesn't even dare to keep his ears open when it comes to what kind of people is reaping the benefits of unrests happening here and there in the world].
Watching tv everyday or so, most people from the West got their brain lying down in their bathtub filled with self-righteousness, caring only about what they think themselves, just as if the West was more virtuous than any other part of the world. And you've reacted the way I expected any Western guy to while reading this kind of article I've posted above : anyone living in the West gets to be very surprised and pretty much shocked, thinking something going along the lines of "hey, wtf, wth is that, so you can find people thinking another way than we do in the West... Incredible ! How the hell is it possible, I can't believe that, that's propaganda".
I don't hold any opinion on that article myself, really : the only thing I know is that its author has got to write it trying to see things from a certain point of view which is not the West's. And since I can't pretend to know exactly where propaganda starts, personally the only thing I do is no more than trying to rise up a little bit checking news from both sides, in order to be as neutral as anyone can be, instead of doing no more than eating bbc and daily mail news everyday as if it came from the skies.

May be more than a bit OT, so I guess we better stop there or switch to PM eventually.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Alex

I was indeed expecting someone to react that way, but I didn't suppose you were going to be that one, Steve.

I don't accept anything as the truth, ever. As far as I'm concerned it's all propaganda until verifiable facts are shown. Russia walked into the Ukraine and the Ukraine had no choice but to let them. Russia's motives? I don't know, but Putin is a politician just like any other and he will put his own spin on things, just the same as Obama or any other world leader. They all have their own agenda, and will say just about anything to further it. Russia does have a history of taking over countries in the area, and to me this doesn't look much different. Of course I don't know what's really going on behind the scenes, but I'm betting you don't either.

The problem I have with your arguments is that you have a record of being anti-US. Perhaps you have good reason, or think you do. I do observe that your opinion of what's going on anywhere is influenced by this, and I think most here will agree that anything you say should also be taken with that "pinch of salt" because of the bias you show. That doesn't mean what you say isn't true, just that I and many others tend to see what you say as propaganda too.

This isn't meant to be a criticizm of you personally, just a statement of the reason I tend to not trust what you say, and what you quote, any more than I do Putin or Obama, or any of the rest of them.

As for PMs, I think this is very much on-topic, and you brought it up first with your claims of "propaganda". If one side of it is good enough for you to show, you can't turn around and want to take it private just because somebody disagrees with you.

[Dread Knot]

Or as the old bumper sticker used to say:

QUESTION AUTHORITY.
OH YEAH? SEZ WHO?

[Sailor Steve]

I did not know that one.

And the only thing I'm saying here is that it is not the case all the time [I'll keep things short here, or our good Tribesman - who's a well-educated man whose opinion I value more than a bit - will react the same way once again towards myself, for the simple reason he's certainly got his mind filled with anti-racism **** to the point he doesn't even dare to keep his ears open when it comes to what kind of people is reaping the benefits of unrests happening here and there in the world].

Oh dear.
I keep my ears open Alex, I don't simply accept what politicians or the media tell me .
I keep an open mind and adapt my views in relation to facts.
On the other hand a neo Nazi who believes in a global conspiracy where the jews run everything can never have an open mind on any subject as he honestly believes there is a global conspiracy where the jews run everything, and so his views on every topic in the world is coloured by his belief that there is a global jewish conspiracy behind everything in the world.

[CCIP]

coming back to the original topic, here is a (Russian/Ukrainian) song and video that I posted a translation of on my blog that I think is very striking, touching, and focuses on the human side of the tragedies that happened on the Maidan, with some excellent video footage:

http://russongs.tumblr.com/post/8012...uest-of-an-old

Take a moment to reflect on what was a violent, sad and terrible situation no matter how you look at it.

[Bilge_Rat]

anyone seen this...





guess what the next target will be.




So who is glad the F-35 program was NOT cancelled?


.................

non sequitor

[Skybird]

I read that two major newspaper in China which both are very close to the party and one of it being associated with the Chinese intelligence agency (indicating that both papers act and write and publish with approval by and in the name of the political leadership) published editorials that are seen as hints that behind the curtain of international politics Russia and China are establishing very close ties in diplomatic cooperation and military partnership.

Already in the past Moscow had tried to gain Chinese support for a coordinated attempt to attack the dollar as a lead currency and to wreck US bonds trading. Back then, Bejing rejected that. I am not so sure that it would reject that again in principle, since I see it like Bejing preparing since some time now to torpedo the dollar and replace it with a Chinese currency, I do not even rule out that China is preparing a gold-standard currency.

A coordinated flooding of markets with the dollar reserves and US bond assets from both Russia and China, at the same time - would be a disaster and cause a fiscal chain reaction that the US in no way is strong enough to counter.

The two Chinese papers are quoted with boasting that Europea and the US failed in correctly identifying Russian vital interests, and that both are unable to enforce their interests against a Russian-Chinese alliance. Which I think is true. Militarily this is a close call, but I think the Chinese see it in financial and economic terms anyway. And on those terms, the West is not only weak - but utmost vulnerable.

India stubbornly refuses to become too close with Western powers. It will never be a Western anchor in the region.

Russian and Chinese diplomats already work on a far-reaching treaty which is also about massively boosting military cooperation as well. Their shared interest is to confront the West and keeping it away, and even more: to get rid of the much hated dollar as the globe's leading currency. So far, the only argument there I hear is that it would cost the Chinese some sacrifices. But every chess player knows that the goal of the game is not to preserve your pieces, but to checkmate the opponent's king, even if the combination leading to that includes sacrificing all your pieces - mate is mate, and then lost pieces mean nothing anymore to the victor.

I say America can delay it a bit. But sooner or later, the dollar is done, so are state bonds. Swedish Rijksbank already has banned the trading of US bonds several years ago.

Once that bomb goes off, America will face a very bad and severe the-morning-after-the party-headache. Middle East powers as well will refuse to accept doing oil deals in dollar any longer, then. Needless to say, the shockwave will devastate much of Europe'S fiscal nightmare landscape as well.

Double check, and mate.

BTW, the Ukraine has been Chinas third biggest weapon seller. If it falls under EU influence, the political climate may change so that China does not get those weapons anymore. Therefore there is a Chines einterest to keep the ukraine unde rRussian infleunce. Onbe can expect, so writes Der Spiegel, that Moscow will cancel its hesitation to sell even ultramodern platforms to china that so far have been kept back as a concession to Western demands. I am quite certain that such deals also are in preparation at those negotiations between both countries. Then the US will pay for sanctions over the Ukraine by a huge increase of risks to its military and naval presence in the disputed waters in the Far East. Superquite Russian submarines and missile-carrying nuclear submarines are high on the Chinese wishlist. Greetings and a big box of Aspirin to the admiral of that CVBG group.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

So who is glad the F-35 program was NOT cancelled?

It so reassuring to have a hightech army with so many modern weapons that all include chips made in China in their electronics. By the time that plane enters service in huge numbers, the Russians will have translated the Chinese F35 manuals into Kyrillic already.

[MH]

That is absolutely right.
I'm not considering anything as Gospel Truth, Steve.
Speaking about the West here, as I just said : to me, most people just live everyday with a certain degree of credulity and ingenuousness making them think everything their politics/army/country's elite do gets to be done with no more than their national interest in mind.
And the only thing I'm saying here is that it is not the case all the time

Most of the people here can agree with that.

Watching tv everyday or so, most people from the West got their brain lying down in their bathtub filled with self-righteousness, caring only about what they think themselves, just as if the West was more virtuous than any other part of the world. And you've reacted the way I expected any Western guy to while reading this kind of article I've posted above : anyone living in the West gets to be very surprised and pretty much shocked, thinking something going along the lines of "hey, wtf, wth is that, so you can find people thinking another way than we do in the West... Incredible ! How the hell is it possible, I can't believe that, that's propaganda".

People in different places think differently about same issues obviously.
Generally speaking every one cares for his side of pond , his own country or his family and so on.
Nothing new , just banal truth.
In some countries with relative hardship , limited freedom poor living conditions those feelings are fed to the people more than elsewhere with minimum possibility of self criticism.
In the west people are fed bull as well yet are free to criticize if they chose to.
For most part people simply live their lives and walk along populist lines and all is good.
Yet we have a choice to see things in different way.
You on another hand take it to extreme and imagine that you see the light...
In countries you defend you would get your ball stuck in your mouth with your attitude or if feeling like wasting resources you would be send to mental institution...probably in the more liberal one of your favorites.
So what drives you?
I can relate with Bashar Assad of Syria and his tribe but why should i?
Possibly the crude way Syria or Iraq had been run was the only way to maintain stability and some sort of "normal" life in those countries but then again... it does not mean i should agree with their point of view or relate to it...those people murdered and tortured own citizens with their tribes acting as the elites you like to complain so much about....
No other tribes are murdering them and each other...or it is Suni vs Shi"te ...another day in ME.

The only reason a free person can defend those regimes is by having agenda or common interest -plain and simple.
Might be insanity or stupidy as well...maybe you want attention at all coast..trying to be original-not like rest of the crowd??
It is not empathy for sure.

So lets now weep for Kim Jong-il he deserves to have his own views after all.