Bitcoin Forum

Steve Pifer is a good friend and a treasured colleague. And Strobe Talbott is my boss—so it goes without saying that I greatly admire his work. But as important as friendship and job security are to me, I still can only conclude that their proposal to arm Ukrainians will lead only to further violence and instability, and possibly a dangerous confrontation with Russia.

Steve and Strobe’s article (and the supporting report with several other prominent authors) rings with fury at Russian actions. And Russian actions are indeed outrageous. But moral indignation, no matter how righteous and satisfying, is not a strategy. A strategy needs to describe just how provision of American arms would make the situation better.

Rather than such a description, the article suggests that a just cause and the Ukrainian need and desire for weapons are enough to justify their provision. But it is hardly surprising that the Ukrainians want American arms in their war against Russia and Russian-backed separatists—they face the possibility of territorial dismemberment and would run any risk to preserve their state intact.

The Ukrainian calculus is one of immediate desperation. But the United States needs to think for the longer-term. And if U.S.-provided weapons fail to induce a Russian retreat in Ukraine and instead cause an escalation of the war, the net result will not be peace and compromise. There has recently been much escalation in Ukraine, but it could go much further. As horrible as it is, the Ukrainian civil war still looks rather tame by the standards of Bosnia, Chechnya or Syria. Further escalation will mean much more violence, suffering and death in Ukraine.

The report authors counter that if the United States does not stand up to Russia in Ukraine, the Putin regime will be emboldened to make similar mischief all over Europe and beyond. This is the familiar credibility argument that gave us the war in Vietnam, among other misadventures. In fact, U.S. credibility is not enhanced by making bluffs that we will not ultimately fulfill or by embarking on wasting wars that we do not need.

In any case, Ukraine is a unique situation, both for the Russians and for the United States. It is culturally and geographically supremely important to the Russians and yet for the United States it has no intrinsic geopolitical importance and is not a treaty ally. The Russians would be foolish to judge U.S. credibility in responding to provocations in areas of greater importance to the United States on the basis of its non-military response to Ukraine. And there is no evidence that they are that foolish.
...

A new report from The Brookings Institution, The Atlantic Council, and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs urges the administration to be reckless and arm Ukraine.
...
The argument for arming Ukraine is just as awful as it was last year. It is the result of insisting that Western governments must “do something” about the conflict in Ukraine and then overestimating the ability of Western governments to do something that will hasten the end of the conflict. Providing weapons to the weaker side in a lopsided conflict certainly is inconsistent with the search for a peaceful solution, since it encourages the weaker side to continue fighting when it has no chance of prevailing.
...
Notice that the authors of the report fail to acknowledge of the potential costs of this course of action to Ukraine or to the governments that are expected to provide the military aid, nor do they take seriously the possibility it could spur Russia to more aggressive action. If Western governments help to fuel the conflict with arms shipments, they are guaranteeing that Ukraine will be exposed to a longer war that will inflict even more damage on the country.
...
If it is not the worst foreign policy idea of the last decade, it is certainly in the top three.
...

Among Cold War presidents, from Truman to Bush I, there was an unwritten rule: Do not challenge Moscow in its Central and Eastern Europe sphere of influence.
...
That Cold War caution and prudence may be at an end.

For President Obama is being goaded by Congress and the liberal interventionists in his party to send lethal weaponry to Kiev in its civil war with pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk. That war has already cost 5,000 lives—soldiers, rebels, civilians. September’s cease-fire in Minsk has broken down.
...
Late last year, Congress sent Obama a bill authorizing lethal aid to Kiev. He signed it. Now the New York Times reports that NATO Commander Gen. Philip Breedlove favors military aid to Ukraine, as does Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. John Kerry and Gen. Martin Dempsey of the joint chiefs are said to be open to the idea.

A panel of eight former national security officials, chaired by Michele Flournoy, a potential Defense Secretary in a Hillary Clinton administration, has called for the U.S. to provide $3 billion in military aid to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, reconnaissance drones, Humvees, and radar to locate the sources of artillery and missile fire. Such an arms package would guarantee an escalation of the war, put the United States squarely in the middle, and force Vladimir Putin’s hand.

...But if U.S. cargo planes start arriving in Kiev with Javelin anti-tank missiles, Putin would face several choices.

He could back down, abandon the rebels, and be seen as a bully who, despite his bluster, does not stand up for Russians everywhere. More in character, he could take U.S. intervention as a challenge and send in armor and artillery to enable the rebels to consolidate their gains, then warn Kiev that, rather than see the rebels routed, Moscow will intervene militarily. Or Putin could order in the Russian army before U.S. weapons arrive, capture Mariupol, establish a land bridge to Crimea, and then tell Kiev he is ready to negotiate.

What would we do then? Send U.S. advisers to fight alongside the Ukrainians, as the war escalates and the casualties mount? Send U.S. warships into the Black Sea? Have we thought this through, as we did not think through what would happen if we brought down Saddam, Gadhafi, and Mubarak?

America has never had a vital interest in Crimea or the Donbass worth risking a military clash with Russia. And we do not have the military ability to intervene and drive out the Russian army, unless we are prepared for a larger war and the potential devastation of the Ukraine.

What would Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon or Reagan think of an American president willing to risk military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia over two provinces in southeastern Ukraine that Moscow had ruled from the time of Catherine the Great?

What is happening in Ukraine is a tragedy and a disaster. And we are in part responsible, having egged on the Maidan coup that overthrew the elected pro-Russian government.
...
Rather than becoming a co-belligerent in this civil war that is not our war, why not have the United States assume the role of the honest broker who brings it to an end. Isn’t that how real peace prizes are won?
...

If the Americans arm the Kiev junta, it will just encourage the Russians to pour in more and more advanced weapons to the militia. The war will never end and the civilians will suffer terribly.

personally, I except that at one point the Russian will move to outright terrorism... (like they supported in Syria, from the regime aircraft and the growth of the various group to get support)

let's not start ww3 over a quarrel between far away peoples of which we know nothing, didn't we learn the last time

Steve and Strobe’s article (and the supporting report with several other prominent authors) rings with fury at Russian actions. And Russian actions are indeed outrageous. But moral indignation, no matter how righteous and satisfying, is not a strategy. A strategy needs to describe just how provision of American arms would make the situation better.

Rather than such a description, the article suggests that a just cause and the Ukrainian need and desire for weapons are enough to justify their provision. But it is hardly surprising that the Ukrainians want American arms in their war against Russia and Russian-backed separatists—they face the possibility of territorial dismemberment and would run any risk to preserve their state intact.

The Ukrainian calculus is one of immediate desperation. But the United States needs to think for the longer-term. And if U.S.-provided weapons fail to induce a Russian retreat in Ukraine and instead cause an escalation of the war, the net result will not be peace and compromise.

I think Ukraine should immediately give Lwow back to Poland. Hasn't Poland suffered enough, between Hitler's nazi goons and Stalin's bolshevik goons?- that it has to suffer from Hitler's progeny in Kiev now?

Ukraine has no claim over Lwow. Give it back, you abortion of a nation of Demjanjuks!

Western Ukraine to Poland, Eastern Ukraine to Russia! Leave a little concentration camp somewhere in the center, herd them all into it and set it ablaze! Justice will finally be done.

I always thought that Kiev was born out of Kievan RUS. 500 AD Are you saying that Romanian settlements around Kiev are older than this?

I always thought that Kiev was born out of Kievan RUS. 500 AD Are you saying that Romanian settlements around Kiev are older than this?

I always thought that Kiev was born out of Kievan RUS. 500 AD Are you saying that Romanian settlements around Kiev are older than this?

War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

In which case I can see US going in full monty, as they are are doing now. (you don't have the accreditation necessary to understand yet what full monty means. I don't know what you will tell your loved ones when you will discover it, however I am not sure you will the time to share this new knowledge with said people)
...

What we have in Donbass Syria, are people, who have lived there for centuries, and who have nowhere to go. Yes, they are Russian Semites by ethnicity, so yes, what KievDamascus-nazis do with US Russian support is in effect an ethnic cleansing. But the people of DonbassSyria are fighting back for their own land and for their right to live, not for Russia the Empire.

Unless the aim of fomenting that quarrel over the last 25+ years by use of various American "democracy-promoting" grants, was exactly to start a WW3... In which case I can see US going in full monty, as they are are doing now.

---

The following bit of the OP article is still conformant to the mainstream Western propaganda line:


The real intellectual break-through in the West will be when they realise that Russia is not present in Ukraine and is not at war with Ukraine. Rather Ukraine is in an imaginary war with Russia. So there is no Russia to retreat in the first place.

What we have in Donbass, are people, who have lived there for centuries, and who have nowhere to go. Yes, they are Russian by ethnicity, so yes, what Kiev-nazis do with US support is in effect an ethnic cleansing. But the people of Donbass are fighting back for their own land and for their right to live, not for Russia.

The "outrageous" actions by Russia so far include: peace brokerage, several hundred thousand tonnes of humanitarian aide, split over 13 convoys, being host to close to a million refugees from the war-zone, and now taking in thousands of young men from Ukraine of conscript age, who don't want to die in a war, imposed on them by Western-backed Nazis.

what Kiev-nazis do with US support is in effect an ethnic cleansing.

It's funny you talk about western propaganda while using language like this:


Amidst the other Russian propaganda in your post. You have no credibility to talk about propaganda when your own posts are so full of it.

Ooops! Transcarpathia is ancient Hungarian land :)! (...and I'm pretty sure Romanians will also discover some evidence of ancient daco-romanian settlements around Kiev.)

Is that happening anytime soon ?

i believe the only solution is after consulting with nato etc, we secretly propose an economic blockade of russia..let them annex the crimea and land to the russian border , sign a peace agreement and again put things back in order..
or, the US and all Nato countries blockade Russia by refusing to do business with Russia and ANY COUNTRY which imports or exports to russia. No banking, no oil, no food, nothing..this means telling every country at a specific time, , you do business with russia, you end all business with us..
they would quickly settle in private and we would save men and resources

Sounds dangerous. They will become even more isolated, and their thoughts and opinions even more inbred. I think it's important to keep engaging in dialogue, even if the Russians appear to be idiots.

i believe the only solution is after consulting with nato etc, we secretly propose an economic blockade of russia..let them annex the crimea and land to the russian border , sign a peace agreement and again put things back in order..
or, the US and all Nato countries blockade Russia by refusing to do business with Russia and ANY COUNTRY which imports or exports to russia. No banking, no oil, no food, nothing..this means telling every country at a specific time, , you do business with russia, you end all business with us..
they would quickly settle in private and we would save men and resources

i believe the only solution is after consulting with nato etc, we secretly propose an economic blockade of russia..let them annex the crimea and land to the russian border , sign a peace agreement and again put things back in order..
or, the US and all Nato countries blockade Russia by refusing to do business with Russia and ANY COUNTRY which imports or exports to russia. No banking, no oil, no food, nothing..this means telling every country at a specific time, , you do business with russia, you end all business with us..
they would quickly settle in private and we would save men and resources

i believe the only solution is after consulting with nato etc, we secretly propose an economic blockade of russia..let them annex the crimea and land to the russian border , sign a peace agreement and again put things back in order..

Good luck with that :D

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/09/20140901_isolated.jpg

Total crap trying to assert fears about what Russia might do.  It has nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with Ukraine.  That's what's missing here.  Ukraine is sovereign.

or, the US and all Nato countries blockade Russia by refusing to do business with Russia and ANY COUNTRY which imports or exports to russia.

It's not called propaganda, it's called stating the obvious, stating the facts. And I don't need to post any kind of propaganda at all - I make do sticking to verifiable truth.

For the quote above, that you designate as propaganda, please study the following articles:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine
http://fortruss.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/ukraine-we-target-civilians-separatists.html

In conjunction they factually cover my statement pretty well.

But once we are on the topic of propaganda, can you, please, point out exactly the other cases of it in my post - you sound as if it's full of it.

Hey, americano! Do you know Kuzkinu Mather? Russian Kizkinu Mother!
Here is it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2hvObzZt0g
Good luck! We are waiting you, americano.  :D

"Obama, Kerry and Stoltenberg are die-hard commies

...
Now to get to the real point. I was listening to this while driving as it was less depressing to listen to NPR’s propaganda than to listen to the Christian-Zionist preachers. In the previous hour NPR had presented listeners with three reports about civilian deaths in the break-away provinces in eastern and southern Ukraine. The first time I heard the report, the NPR presstitute recounted how explosives had hit a hospital killing 5 people in the break-away Donetsk Republic. The presstitute did not report that this was done by Ukrainian forces, instead suggesting that it could have been done by the “Russian-supported rebels.” He didn’t offer any explanation why the rebels would attack their own hospital. The impression left for that small percentage of informed Americans capable of thought is that presstitutes are not allowed to say that the Washington-backed Ukrainians attacked a hospital.

In all three reports, Secretary of State John Kerry was broadcast saying that the US wanted a diplomatic, peaceful solution, but that the Russians were blocking a peaceful solution by sending tank columns and troops into Ukraine. On my return trip, I heard over NPR Kerry twice more repeating the unsupported claim that Russian tanks and troops are pouring into Ukraine. Obviously, NPR was serving as a propaganda voice that Russia was invading Ukraine.

Think about this for a minute. We have been hearing from high US government officials, including the president himself, for months and months about Russian tank columns and troops entering Ukraine. The Russian government denies this steadfastly, but, of course, we cannot trust the now-demonized Russians. We are not allowed to believe them, because they are positioned as the Enemy, and good patriotic Americans never believe the Enemy.

...

Washington and its fawning presstitutes branded the elected Ukrainian government that was a victim of Washington’s coup, “a corrupt dictatorship.” The replacement government consists of a combination of Washington puppets and neo-nazis with their own military forces sporting Nazi insignias. The American presstitutes have been careful not to notice the Nazi insignias.

I call them Kiev-Nazis, because that's who came to power in Kiev through a violent coup d'etat. It's a case of calling a spade for a spade.

Ethnic cleansing... How else would you like me to call killing off of the population of Donbass that is based on the language and nationality attribution? The case that a term is loaded does not deprive it of its describing accuracy. But if you prefer: "premeditated killing of Russian population of Dobass".

13 humanitarian aid convoys are well-documented. The rest of the supposed "Russian actions" are pure speculation, devoid of any evidence. Should such evidence exist even remotely, it would be on the front pages of all the Western papers...

I call for Western propaganda only the baseless, factless accusations coming from Western MSM, who parrot the lies, coming from Kiev and don't bother sending their own reporters to Donbass to see what is going on there for themselves. There are Western reporters who don't toe the line, but they are not given air time in MSM. Wonder why...
Believe me (or don't - it's your choice), I lived in the Soviet Union and was on the receiving end of propaganda. I know how it looks and smells like, and just like many other clear-thinking Soviet people, learnt how to look past it, to filter it out. It's sad to see the same tricks being adopted by the free West.

Now, why don't you come up with your own counter-arguments and facts, refuting my points, instead of just saying that it's "propaganda, move along".

EDIT: If you really want a bit of propaganda, let me try writing the following example:

"Obama, Kerry and Stoltenberg are die-hard commies, supporting the tyranny of the Soviet Union legacy. How else can you explain them fighting tooth and claw for the territorial legacy of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 (the first "colour" revolution - red), where Lenin took out chunks of Russia - Malorossia and Novorossia - and turned them into Ukraine, while Stalin took other bits of Russia - South Ossetia and Abhasia - and gave them to his own Georgia. Both acts in violation of all feasible laws."

Well, how about it? Only the first part of the above turned out to sound like propaganda, while I slipped back into truth in the second part. Sorry. Writing real propaganda is hard.

You haven't stated many things that will pass as facts. Facts are objective. "Kiev-nazis" is not objective. "Ethnic cleansing" is not objective, it's a propaganda phrase both sides use in every almost every conflict to rally outrage. Your posts are heavily subjective (asserting as facts things that aren't), and pointing that out is enough to discredit them.

Also, I proposed to use instead of "ethnic cleansing", a more specific and objective " systematic killing of population of the Eastern Ukraine, which is predominantly ethnic Russian".

And one of the more know statements to that end. The translation of the quote goes: "Most of the population of the south east must be simply killed. They are not needed.":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_eZfieMGDo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiVXkfgjPcs

I already asked you to show me which of my statements were not grounded in facts. You failed to do so, so we are going in circles...