I listened live to Putin’s speech yesterday with great interest. Here is my own analysis, for what it is worth.
Putin was strongest in his accusations of western hypocrisy. His ironic welcoming of the West having suddenly discovered the concept of international law was very well done. His analysis of the might is right approach the West had previously adopted, and their contempt of the UN over Iraq and Afghanistan, was spot on. Putin also was absolutely right in describing the Kosovo situation as “highly analogous” to the situation in Crimea. That is indeed true, and attempts by the West – including the Guardian – to argue the cases are different are pathetic exercises in special pleading.
The problem is that Putin blithely ignored the enormous logical inconsistency in his argument. He stated that the Crimean and Kosovo cases were highly analogous, but then used that to justify Russia’s action in Crimea, despite the fact that Russia has always maintained the NATO Kosovo intervention was illegal(and still refuses to recognize Kosovo). In fact of course Russia was right over Kosovo, and thus is wrong over Crimea.
I was very interested that Putin made distinct reference to the appalling crimes against the Tartars in the 1930’s, but also to the terrible suffering of Ukrainians in that period. His references were not detailed but their meaning was clear. I was surprised because under Putin’s rule there has been a great deal of rehabilitation of Stalin. Archives that were opened under glasnost have frozen over again, and history in Russian schools now portrays Stalin’s foreign policy achievement much more than his crimes (and it is now again possible to complete your Russian school education with no knowledge the Stalin-Hitler pact ever happened). So this was both surprising and positive. Designed to be positive was his assurance that Crimea will be trilingual. We will see what happens; Putin’s Russia is in fact not tolerant of its ethnic populations in majority Russian areas, and in fact contains a great many more far right thugs than Ukraine – probably about the same percentage of the population.
The 97% referendum figure is simply unbelievable to any reasonable person and is straight out of the Soviet playbook – it was strange to see Putin going in and out of modern media friendly mode and his audience, with their Soviet en brosse haircuts and synchronized clapping – obviously liked the Soviet bits best.
The attempt to downplay Russia’s diplomatic isolation was also a bit strange. He thanked China, though China had very pointedly failed to support Russian in the Security Council. When you are forced to thank people for abstaining, you are not in a strong position diplomatically. He also thanked India, which is peculiar, because the Indian PM yesterday put out a press release saying Putin had called him, but the had urged Putin to engage diplomatically with the interim government in Kiev, which certainly would not be welcome to Putin. I concluded that Putin was merely trying to tell his domestic audience Russia has support, even when it does not.
But what I find really strange is that the parts of the speech I found most interesting have not drawn any media comment I can see. Putin plainly said that in his discussions with Kuchma on the boundaries of Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they hadn’t wanted to open any dispute with what they expected to be a friendly neighbor, and that therefore the boundaries of Ukraine had never been finally demarcated. He said twice the boundaries had not been demarcated. That seemed to indicate a very general threat to Eastern Ukraine. He also spoke of the common heritage of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in a way that indicated that he did not accept that Ukraine might choose a political future away from Russia.
Secondly, he said that on the day the Soviet Union broke up, Russians in many places had “woken up to find themselves in a foreign country.” Again from the context in which he said it, this referred not just to Crimea, and not just even to the rest of Ukraine, but to Russian nationals all over the Former Soviet Union. I would be worrying a lot about this part of the speech if I was Kazakh, to give just one example. Putin seemed to be outlining a clear agenda to bring Russian speaking areas of CIS countries back in to Mother Russia – indeed, I see no other possible interpretation of his actions in Georgia and Ukraine.
I think that we should start listening much more carefully to what he says. I also think that the weakness of the EU’s response to events gives Putin a very dangerous encouragement to pursue further aggrandizement. I posted a few days ago:
The EU I expect to do nothing. Sanctions will target a few individuals who are not too close to Putin and don’t keep too many of their interests in the West. I don’t think Alisher Usmanov and Roman Abramovic need lose too much sleep, that Harrods need worry or that we will see any flats seized at One Hyde Park. (It is among my dearest wishes one day to see One Hyde Park given out for council housing.) Neither do I expect to see the United States do anything effective; its levers are limited.
The truth is of course that the global political elite are in the pockets of the global financial elite, and while ordinary Russians are still desperately poor, the money the oligarchs rip out of Russia’s backward commodity exporting economy is parceled around the world financial system in ways that make it impossible for the western political classes to do anything. Whose funds would the hedge fund managers look after? Whose yacht could Mandelson and Osborne holiday on?
Personally I should like to see a complete financial freeze on the entire Russian oligarchy. The knock on effects would only hurt a few bankers, and city types and those who depend on them (cocaine dealers, lap dancers, Porsche dealers, illegal domestic servants). Sadly we shan’t see anything happen. They won’t let Eton go bust.
“Spot on John and I like your cartoon.”
Thanks Mary. Just a bit of imaginary fun for those with a sense of humour.
The war mongering General Strangelove, sorry Breedlove.
Russian troops poised to ‘run’ into Moldova, Nato commander warns
A pro-Russian enclave of Moldova could be Moscow’s next target after Crimea, Nato warns
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/moldova/10717260/Russian-troops-poised-to-run-into-Moldova-Nato-commander-warns.html
‘Gen Breedlove issued his warning at event in Brussels held by the Marshall Fund, a German think-tank. On Tuesday, the government of Moldova warned Russia against any moves to annex Transdniester, following comments from the speaker of Transdniester’s parliament urging Moscow to incorporate the enclave.’
~~
The German Marshall Fund of the United States, to give it its full name.
http://www.gmfus.org/
The Board of Trustees names and faces
http://www.gmfus.org/about-gmf/board-of-trustees/
The President and CEO is Craig Kennedy
http://www.gmfus.org/expert/experts_dirc/craig-kennedy/
‘Mr. Kennedy has also expanded GMF’s programs in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Two major accomplishments of that effort have been the launch in 2003 of the Balkan Trust for Democracy and the Black Sea Trust for Democracy in 2007.’
What work do those two trusts perform? Connections??
Where do the links you provide at 1:40 p.m. support this outrageous lie.
Look at the timelines, look at the lists of the murdered – you will see that a number were shot in January. I didn’t make anything up – please bother to check properly before making accusations, nit that has stopped you in the past.
I am awaiting Mr Goss’s apology – I haven’t made anything up – seek and you shall find.
Sorry, you really cannot work it out, can you. You said:
“John Goss
It is fairly clear that there was shooting on the streets of Kyiv well before the shootings which Ashton discussed.”
What does ‘fairly clear’ mean to you ‘totally indistinct’. Yes January 22nd I think it was when the shooting started. Paet phoned Catherine Ashton a month later following his visit to Ukraine where he was informed about who did the shooting by a doctor who treated them. Ashton was referring to the month of violence, based on the testimony of a doctor who treated the injured and examined the dead. He obviously only saw what happened when he was there which is why he relied on evidence from the doctor. Now do you get it?
These are Europeans, Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton. Paet said he thought there should be an investigation, to which Catherine Ashton agreed. Russia has called for an investigation. But those who did it don’t want one. I wonder why?
This was from a report on 23 January, the day after the shootings.
“Medics have extracted the bullets from the bodies of the two dead men. It has been established that one of the victims was killed by a shot from a Degtyarev sniper rifle with a 7.62 mm caliber bullet. The second man was mortally wounded by a 9 mm bullet, apparently from a Makarov pistol, local espreso.tv said.
Police stressed that whoever shot the man, it was not one of their officers.”
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-riot-police-diplomats-013/
I have long held the view that the Real Trolls on here are not myself, resident Dissident and one or two others but Mr John Goss (Order of the Red Banner), Mary, Herbie, Mr Doug Scorgie and various other Eminences.
All the evidence is there : hijacking threads, diversionary tactics, insults and threats, false feelings of entitlement.
I would not be surprised if many of them were paid by someone or another to post in such a way as to bring the blog into disrepute.
Glad that others seem to have noticed this as well.
Mr Goss
Please do not be so disingenuous the Jan 22 shootings were not the 18 February sniper shootings being discussed by Paet and Ashton – and of course we are not mentioning the beatings and torture inflicted by the authorities since the start of the Euromaidan. Some of this have been following this whole matter for rather longer than you, and I’m afraid if you are going to keep your useful idiot status in the eyes of Mr Putin you are going to need to try a lot harder.
Why do you think that Richard Seymour, whose politics is an awful lot closer to yours than mine, can recognise that there is rather more to the Ukrainian protests than a US inspired fascist plot.
Habba
I disagree I don’t think Putin would be daft enough to pay some of those you name – and if he did he would want his money back. The real KGB goons are pretty easy to spot.
I am waiting Resident Dissident’s apology.
“The real KGB goons are pretty easy to spot.”
You were a lot easier to spot in your ESLO guise.
I was in Russia at the time of the Sarajevo Market Place shellings – I remember very well how the nationalist and old Communist elements also jumped very quickly to the false flag/provocation position that the same elements continue to be keen on using. Subsequent investigations pretty much demonstrated that the claims were lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markale_massacres
The gullible can continue to believe that RT is a reliable newsource when it comes to the interests of the Putin regime.
Wikipedia, put together by ordinary people is a better source? Why should Russia Today lie about the bullets? The report itself is very favourable towards the protestors and against the police. Or did you not read it? Again?
That’s the trouble with people who do not examine things objectively. Still there’s always time to learn.
For me, the argument on this thread typifies what I find wrong about politics and political debate. Each “side” has already decided its position, and as argument proceeds the attitudes of the contributors harden and become entrenched, such that each “side” treats, and apparently considers, contributors from the other “side” as being of evil intent.
The spirit of enquiry is not alive here.
Mr Goss
I will apologise when I get something wrong.
The transcript of the Paet/Ashton telephone – intercepted by your friends in the KGB no doubt – http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/ has no reference whatsoever to Ashton referring to the month of violence. They are clearly discussing the sniper shootings a few days previously.
You have quite clearly made up the reference to “Ashton referring to the month of violence” – this is yet another lie on your part – the second this week. You have also accused me of lying and I have demonstrated that I was not. You also said “At least if I make a mistake I admit it, but to deliberately lie, and then not apologise is pretty despicable..”
“Why should Russia Today lie about the bullets? ”
Do I really have to spell that out to you? I’m sure if challenged they would just say they were quoting the words of Kiev’s defenders against fascism.
Clark
I have already pointed to Richard Seymour’s post on the Ukraine twice – if people are not prepared to engage with the views of those with whom they agree most of the time (I could also add Craig to that list) I have my doubt whether there is much spirit of enquiry on their part.
Clark, I would agree that my view is entrenched. I believe, know, that the west funded the coup in Kiev. All this needs to be exposed before the elections (if they take place). People who support the fascists and their colleagues who have stolen power illegally are below my respect. I have always tried to uphold the rule of law and taught my children to do the same. It is particularly galling that those entrenched on the other side have previously been anti-fascist but not a word of criticism from them against the Svoboda thugs that forced under gunpoint the chief executive of a television station, Oleksandr Panteleymonov, in Kiev to resign. These are the shady gun-carriers those with an opposing view to mine support, and their views in supporting such thugs are equally as entrenched as mine in opposing them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26653295
You’re in denial RD. You can’t help it. What makes you think people on the west would support somebody, Richard Seymour, who believes in splitting the left. I believe in left unity.
http://socialistunity.com/andrew-murrays-reply-richard-seymour-ukrainian-crisis/
“on the west” = “on the left”
Resident Dissident; “Why do you think that Richard Seymour, whose politics is an awful lot closer to yours than mine, can recognise that there is rather more to the Ukrainian protests than a US inspired fascist plot”
You are behind the curve on Seymour, he turned into another turncoat Neocon Apologist some time ago;
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1394980439.html
John Goss, I strongly suggest that you spend some time exploring the following Wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_crisis
Don’t take the articles at face value; Wikipedia suffers from bias, especially on current events, by its reliance on what are considered “reliable sources”, many of which are corporate media sources. This tends to be corrected over time as academic, medical, legal, governmental and human rights/NGO reports are compiled and become available.
It is also well worth looking at the History and Talk Pages of Wikipedia articles. Propagandists from all sides are active on Wikipedia; they edit out sourced contributions that contradict their preferred narrative, but the record remains in the History page, and the removed material can still be accessed. Interesting links that are not from sufficiently authoritative sources are often found on Talk Pages.
Also please pay some attention to the people who comment here with personal contacts and direct experience; Evgueni, who is from Ukraine and is in contact with friends and relatives there; Phil, who received e-mails from his friend in Kiev; Uzbek in the UK, who has direct experience of living in a country under severe Russian influence, and Craig Murray himself, who has extensive experience working at the British embassy in Poland and of course in Uzbekistan. Remember that Craig’s adversary Alisher Usmanov is a typical example of one of these oligarchs from the former-USSR.
The great strength of Wikipedia is the diversity of its contributors and the sources they reference.
Resident Dissident and Habbabkuk, you would have more credibility with me if you hadn’t so blandly promoted the 9/11 Commission report. I know this is off-topic; I don’t have much to say to you about your stance on Euromaidan because John Goss and others are giving you such an easy time by being so gullible in their acceptance of obvious Russian propaganda. But your acceptance of the 9/11 Commission report indicates that you accept elements of the “dominant narrative” without appropriate questioning, just as John Goss seems happy to let RT reports pass without appropriate scrutiny.
The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail.
A 28 page section of the report was redacted and never made public.
The 9/11 Commission report is based in its most critical chapters on confessions extracted under torture, and indeed more torture was committed in response to the Commission’s requests for further information:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080407223205/http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx
Strange, because I thought that, among the people responsible for ‘splitting the left’ were the leaders of the SWP. I see Andrew Murray cavalierly dismissing the ‘alleged rape’. I also see Mark Steel, among decent others, objecting.
http://marksteelinfo.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/oh-good-lord-what-has-the-swp-gone-and-done-now/
I see Resident Dissident making the point that not ALL of the problems in the Ukraine are down to Western backed fascists. Is this not an entirely reasonable position?
John Goss
Another post another smear – where I have ever expressed support for Svoboda – you just fail to understand that there was a lot more opposition to Yanukovych and the oligarchs, (and to the oligarch master in Moscow) in the Ukraine than Svoboda. Your view that the vast majority of Ukrainians are incapable of thinking for themselves and forming views without the West or other outside forces really is verging on racism.
The only left unity you believe is unity behind what you believe, which should just about fill a telephone kiosk.
The latest moves on the chess board.
Russian officials inspect US nuclear arsenal amid crisis
As Washington imposed sanctions against Moscow over the Ukrainian crisis, a group of Russian officials arrived in the United States to inspect the US strategic nuclear arsenal.
The surprise inspection earlier this week of the nuclear arsenal in San Francisco was agreed to under the 2010 New START arms control treaty, The Washington Post reports.
Under the treaty, Russia and the United States each agreed to reduce their nuclear warheads to 1,550 by 2018.
Russia strongly objects to US missile plans in Eastern Europe and has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the treaty which, among other things, allows 18 surprise inspections by both sides each year.
The latest inspection came as the dispute over Crimea intensified and the White House worried that Russia might move to annex more of Ukraine.
Russia’s seizure of the Black Sea peninsula, home to one of its largest naval bases at Sevastopol, has triggered the worst East-West crisis since the Cold War.
The US and Russian presidents subsequently imposed sanctions on each other’s top aides, but officials on both sides emphasize they would like to keep it that way and continue with bilateral cooperation in other areas.
President Barack Obama announced additional sanctions against 20 Russian political and business leaders Thursday and issued a new executive order to authorize penalties against “key sectors of the Russian economy” if necessary.
On Saturday, Russian troops used armored vehicles and automatic gunfire to seize a Ukrainian airbase in Crimea, a day after President Vladimir Putin signed laws completing the annexation of the peninsula.
The White House says intelligence from the field indicates that Moscow might engage in military incursions into more of Ukraine in the coming days, CNN reported.
HRJ/HRJ
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/03/23/355737/russian-officials-inspect-us-nuke-arsenal/
“you would have more credibility with me if you hadn’t so blandly promoted the 9/11 Commission report”
I didn’t I juts made the point that there had been a Commission of enquiry into 9/11 when someone else said there hadn’t and that it was critical of the failure in intelligence by the CIA. You are wrong in taking that for a complete acceptance of the report or its promotion. You can still believe that 9/11 was conducted by Al Queada and be critical of the US handling of the war on terror. There are rather more shades of opinion on this matter than just the two that are assumed here.
(Hello Clark!)
“you would have more credibility with me if you hadn’t so blandly promoted the 9/11 Commission report”
– ?. I mean, not everyone can investigate everything. Personally, having seen that rotten film which had subliminal whispering under it – can’t remember what it was called – I gave up even thinking about it, apart from the horror. I know about Northwoods, of course. But whatever 9/11 was, apart from a tragedy, it was still no excuse for state bombing and murdering and torture, and the surveillance terror states which have followed – and this is, I think, the important thing.
John: would you like to clarify your linking to Andrew Murray’s piece, in the light of Mark Steel’s piece?
Could this be player behind the putsch in Ukraine Viktor Pinchuk.He bankrolled his buddie Arseniy Yatsenyuk the puppet prime minister of Ukraine along best friends being the Clinton’s plus the motley crew of US ,UK EU politicians
http://www.voltairenet.org/article182303.html