Ukraine

A section to discuss matters not related to Chess in particular.
User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8781
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Ukraine

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:49 am

Thanks for the photo, Paul (and thanks to others for their thoughts as well). The whole thing about 'staring at the screen in sheer disbelief' and days that no-one 'could [ever] have imagined' and 'Amazement at [...] the speed at which they occurred' makes me wonder if things can change at that speed in today's world? The events in the Middle East, with the 'Arab Spring', also unfolded with sudden speed, resulting in what is now called the 'arc of instability'. In both cases, there were underlying pressures that broke through and drove the events in question, but the action of individual world leaders and people, and national governments, also had an effect as well.

On whether Russia is an expansionist power, the fault lines seem to be drawn with the EU and NATO. The Baltic states (which never recognised the USSR and are successor states to the states that existed before the USSR) do in some cases have a large Russian population, but Obama and NATO are taking a much firmer line there. Well, they have to, as those are NATO member states. It is the expansion of NATO that really riled Russia long-term. It got me wondering why, long-term, the aim wasn't to have Russia be a full partner with NATO - there were efforts at some points along those lines, but it never came to much.

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Ukraine

Post by Arshad Ali » Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:19 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:It got me wondering why, long-term, the aim wasn't to have Russia be a full partner with NATO - there were efforts at some points along those lines, but it never came to much.
NATO was a military alliance spearheaded by the USA whose raison d'etre was ostensibly to counter the USSR and its Warsaw Pact "allies" (i.e., vassal states). This raison d'etre vanished with the collapse of the Soviet Union, when it became revealed -- hehe -- that NATO was a military alliance of the USA and its vassal states (Germany, UK, France, etc) against the rest of the world, but continuing to be against Russia. Of course the Americans can't acknowledge this openly -- thus, for example, when questioned about the US anti-missile shield in Poland, Hillary Clinton argued that it was designed to, er, dissuade the Iranians from launching missiles. There would be no logic in including Russia In NATO, when one of its purposes is to reduce Russia to a vassal state.

Now if I recall correctly -- my memory admittedly ain't what it used to be -- the USA did promise the Russians there would no NATO enlargement into what was historically Russia's sphere of influence. This the USA reneged on almost immediately in the days of Yeltsin. And now it has reached the very borders of Russia. And people are saying Russia is expansionist? It reminds me poignantly of La Fontaine's fable of the wolf and the lamb:

http://www.aestheticrealism.net/poetry/ ... ntaine.htm

Putin, as I understand it, is interested in maintaining some modest Russian sphere of influence, and in maintaining a viable Russian state. To that extent he can be termed "revanchist." As Pavlovsky argues in the following interview in the current New Left Review:

http://newleftreview.org/II/88/gleb-pav ... ld-outlook

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8781
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Ukraine

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:39 pm

Arshad Ali wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:It got me wondering why, long-term, the aim wasn't to have Russia be a full partner with NATO - there were efforts at some points along those lines, but it never came to much.
NATO was a military alliance spearheaded by the USA whose raison d'etre was ostensibly to counter the USSR and its Warsaw Pact "allies" (i.e., vassal states). This raison d'etre vanished with the collapse of the Soviet Union, when it became revealed -- hehe -- that NATO was a military alliance of the USA and its vassal states (Germany, UK, France, etc) against the rest of the world, but continuing to be against Russia. Of course the Americans can't acknowledge this openly -- thus, for example, when questioned about the US anti-missile shield in Poland, Hillary Clinton argued that it was designed to, er, dissuade the Iranians from launching missiles. There would be no logic in including Russia In NATO, when one of its purposes is to reduce Russia to a vassal state.

Now if I recall correctly -- my memory admittedly ain't what it used to be -- the USA did promise the Russians there would no NATO enlargement into what was historically Russia's sphere of influence. This the USA reneged on almost immediately in the days of Yeltsin. And now it has reached the very borders of Russia. And people are saying Russia is expansionist? It reminds me poignantly of La Fontaine's fable of the wolf and the lamb:

http://www.aestheticrealism.net/poetry/ ... ntaine.htm

Putin, as I understand it, is interested in maintaining some modest Russian sphere of influence, and in maintaining a viable Russian state. To that extent he can be termed "revanchist." As the following interview in the current New Left Review argues:

http://newleftreview.org/II/88/gleb-pav ... ld-outlook
Fascinating. To return (briefly) to chess, the Russian term for castling is used there:

"A week after the announcement of the rokirovka—the ‘castling’, the Medvedev/Putin swap in September 2011..."

That led me to this blog:

http://behindthenytimes.blogspot.co.uk/ ... rovka.html

Plenty of chess metaphors there (I'll pop it in the media comments on chess thread).

Really worrying, was what I read here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29066072
BBC News wrote:"A recent article by Russian strategist Andrey Piontkovsky caused shock in many European capitals, positing that Mr Putin's aims were "the maximum extension of the Russian world, the destruction of Nato, and the discrediting and humiliation of the US". It added that Nato countries such as the US and Germany would not stand by the Baltic republics, and that, if necessary, the Kremlin would carry out a limited nuclear strike in Europe in order to break apart the two sides of the Atlantic alliance. [...] In military exercises in 2009 and 2013, the Russian army openly practised a nuclear attack on Warsaw."
Really? Is that just scaremongering? :shock:

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Ukraine

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Sep 05, 2014 3:06 pm

Frankly, Arshad, that is all utter bo**ocks. NATO has not harmed Russia in any way whatsoever. The fact that former Warsaw Pact states and former republics of the USSR have joined NATO, and are continuing to clamour for membership, says everything about how they continue to perceive Imperial Russia. As for expansionism, Russia's Anschluss now includes large parts of Georgia and the Ukraine. That's just for starters. For a better picture of how to treat former colonial powers, just look at the UK, which is allowing Scotland a completely free vote on whether to continue to remain a part of the kingdom. That's not how Russia has treated any part of its own federation which has sought independence (e.g. Chechnya, which was subjected to the most extreme brutality imaginable). It is extraordinary how Old Tankies persist in their delusionary view of the world.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8781
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Ukraine

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Fri Sep 05, 2014 3:22 pm

Old Tankies?

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... r_tor.html
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/201 ... conference

"'Tankies' is a disparaging phrase used to refer to those on the left who supported the Russian invasion which crushed the Hungarian Uprising of 1956. As a result it came to be associated with the Communist Party and those who continued to support it afterwards, though in other countries, notably Italy, Socialist parties also had groups of 'Tankies'."

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Ukraine

Post by Arshad Ali » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:46 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:NATO has not harmed Russia in any way whatsoever.
Yeah, sure, right, absolutely. Whatever you say. Incidentally, you are aware of the war lobby in the US that is clamouring for escalation against Russia? You are aware of US intelligence analysts who have sent a memo to Merkel:

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/01/wa ... ion-intel/
The fact that former Warsaw Pact states and former republics of the USSR have joined NATO, and are continuing to clamour for membership, says everything about how they continue to perceive Imperial Russia.
This is a piece of disinformation I have to savour.
As for expansionism, Russia's Anschluss now includes large parts of Georgia and the Ukraine. That's just for starters.
Starters? Aren't both in the Russian sphere of influence?
For a better picture of how to treat former colonial powers, just look at the UK, which is allowing Scotland a completely free vote on whether to continue to remain a part of the kingdom.
Ah. The LRB has good recent article on this:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n17/lrb-scotla ... referendum
Scotland has long been a nation. We shall soon find out whether its citizens now wish that nation to become a state. I hope they do. It will not only open up new opportunities for their own country but will break up the atrophied, decaying British state and reduce its efficacy as a US vassal. Hence the appeals from Obama and Hillary Clinton to vote ‘No’, a sentiment Blair fully shares but dare not admit to, fearing that his intervention might tip the balance in the opposite direction. There is no issue of principle here, just imperial interests. The US accelerated the break-up of the old Soviet state, first the Baltic republics, then Ukraine and Central Asia. This was followed by the destruction of Yugoslavia. If Latvia and Slovenia, why not Scotland? After all, the SNP has (regrettably) decided to stay in Nato.

It was intellectually exhilarating during two trips to Scotland this summer to witness and participate in the serious debates taking place in meeting halls, kirks, streets, pubs and homes. What a contrast to dreary old England where all three parties and every single media outlet are against Scottish independence. The ‘No’ campaign lacks both sense and subtlety, being based exclusively on fear.
That's not how Russia has treated any part of its own federation which has sought independence (e.g. Chechnya, which was subjected to the most extreme brutality imaginable). It is extraordinary how Old Tankies persist in their delusionary view of the world.
Dear me, how short and selective memories are. The Russians let the Baltics go, let Ukraine, Georgia and the various -stans go their own way.

What this seems to be about, rather, is the declining US hegemon lashing out wildly and uncontrollably, with the UK trotting meekly behind.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Ukraine

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:55 pm

So its the US "lashing out" right now rather than Putin?? Nice one......

When he and his minions rant, as they so often do, about "restoring the glory" of "mighty Russia" - is it any wonder their neighbours collectively s*** themselves??
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Ukraine

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:04 pm

Arshad Ali wrote: Starters? Aren't both in the Russian sphere of influence?
That I rather think is the point. Just because you are a state bordering Russia, why should you not be free to pursue your own economic and political alliances?

John McKenna

Re: Ukraine

Post by John McKenna » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:45 pm

RdC>... Just because you are a state bordering Russia, why should you not be free to pursue your own economic and political alliances?<

Here's why such states are not really "free to pursue [their] own economic and political alliances" -

There's an old (Gillray?) cartoon showing Napoleon and Pitt with a spherical plum pudding decorated with a map of the world on its surface. Napoleon is taking a slice that contains Europe while Pitt has carved off half of the rest of the world. Today Napoleon is Russia and Pitt is the USA.

If you look at a map of the word there are only two main landmasses - Eurasia and the Americas (North & South). The latter is clearly the exclusive province of the USA. The other is currently divided mainly between Russia & China (with India having a corner) The 'arms' of the USA keep all others nations' military land forces out of its hemisphere by what was know as the Monroe Doctrine (1823), which still applies in modern times - as was seen in the Cuban crisis of the early 1960s.

Russia is now a mainly a Eurasian land power - reduced to buying new carriers from France - unlike the USSR which was a global power on land and sea . The USA remains the only truly global power - a superpower - that lacks only the will to use its conventional military to its full extent to completely intimidate any other nation on Earth, at present, including Russia and China if it chose to do so overtly. Instead it has long had a policy of semi-covert containment of the two principal military powers on the Eurasian landmass and the prevention of the rise of any third - such as an Islamic one in the south.

The Eurasian landmass is encircled by the 'arms' of the USA - in the east, S. Korea is the forward base and Japan the backup. In the west, Germany was, and Poland is now the forward base with the UK the backup. Two world wars - both won by the USA in the sense that they paid little blood but gained a great deal of treasure - and the end of the Cold War have allowed the USA to reach this peak of power - a global empire by stealth.

Don't be fooled into believing that it is primarily to protect its allies that the USA does what it does. Rather its allies are there to provide protection to the USA and its interests around the globe, just as the Warsaw Pact's primary aim was the protection of Russia and its interests in Europe. Parts of the Ukraine are having to be sacrificed on the altar of EU-NATO expansion because the Ukrainians themselves insisted on it by starting an experiment that involved slapping a dictator across the face - guaranteed to make him mad. Pity countries such as the Ukraine and Korea that are between the hammer of oriental despotism wielded by Moscow and Beijing and the anvil of occidental imperialism set up by Washington and Brussels.

[I did take exception to two words in Paul's exposition, above. Not "utter bo**ocks", but "completely free". How can those words be appropriate when, in Scotland, people are being whipped into Yes & No camps by local politicians and their supporters. Not to mention being threatened with economic ruin amd currency deprivation by England. I also object on the grounds that it is probably costing the English taxpayer a considerable amount to have this referendum without having any say in the matter. Certain important Scots were bribed to join the United Kingdom in 1707 and now all Scots are being blackmailed to stay. Is it really "a completely free vote"?]
Last edited by John McKenna on Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Ukraine

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:09 pm

Arshad Ali wrote:
The fact that former Warsaw Pact states and former republics of the USSR have joined NATO, and are continuing to clamour for membership, says everything about how they continue to perceive Imperial Russia.
This is a piece of disinformation I have to savour.
In what way is it disinformation? Is it not true that Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all recent Russian colonial possessions, have all joined NATO, all as fast as they possibly could? Is it also not true that they eschewed their membership of and obligations to the Warsaw Pact the very instant that they could? And furthermore do Georgia and Ukraine not desire membership of the North Atlantic treaty as soon as they might be accepted?

This isn't even taking into account the public debate in Sweden and Finland concerning their historic and constitutional policies of neutrality, which had long been dormant until the recent and ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. That debate is is now active and earnest, albeit cautious and mindful of a broad range of public attitudes. Finland was also, of course, a former colonial possession of Russia.
Arshad Ali wrote:
As for expansionism, Russia's Anschluss now includes large parts of Georgia and the Ukraine. That's just for starters.
Starters? Aren't both in the Russian sphere of influence?
You really need to extract your head from Vladimir's arse and stop watching RT.

What is this "Russian sphere of influence"? A guarantee of armed aggression, bloodshed and loss of territory, if any of its neighbours' fail to display the most complete and craven obedience to the Kremlin.
Arshad Ali wrote:
That's not how Russia has treated any part of its own federation which has sought independence (e.g. Chechnya, which was subjected to the most extreme brutality imaginable). It is extraordinary how Old Tankies persist in their delusionary view of the world.
Dear me, how short and selective memories are. The Russians let the Baltics go, let Ukraine, Georgia and the various -stans go their own way.
The Russians had little choice, their economy collapsed and their ability to oppress no longer existed.

Speaking of short and selective memories, what was this nonsense you were spouting about the so called "Russian sphere of influence", just two paragraphs earlier? It's 1984 all over again. Slavery is freedom.

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Ukraine

Post by Arshad Ali » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:30 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Arshad Ali wrote: Starters? Aren't both in the Russian sphere of influence?
That I rather think is the point. Just because you are a state bordering Russia, why should you not be free to pursue your own economic and political alliances?
Do Mexico and Canada have their own economic and foreign policies? For that matter, does Britain have its own foreign and military policy or is it a very junior partner in Pax Americana? This is realpolitik I'm talking about.

Meanwhile, a propos the "wounded beast" lashing out, a piece by my chums at Counterfire:

http://www.counterfire.org/articles/ana ... ower-today

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Ukraine

Post by Arshad Ali » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:33 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:You really need to extract your head from Vladimir's arse and stop watching RT.
Ah, the insults start. The resort of those who haven't got a leg to stand on. I hope you're being paid well for your efforts here.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Ukraine

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:34 pm

Arshad Ali wrote: Do Mexico and Canada have their own economic and foreign policies?
I would have said so, to the extent that any country in a global and interlinked economy can do so. They aren't at risk of military intervention or "soldiers on leave" in support of separatists in favour of union with the USA, or the USA intervening to protect the interests of "American speakers". In other words just the normal relationship you expect between a large power and its smaller neighbours
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Ukraine

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:37 pm

Arshad Ali wrote:Do Mexico and Canada have their own economic and foreign policies?
Yes, clearly.
Arshad Ali wrote:For that matter, does Britain have its own foreign and military policy or is it a very junior partner in Pax Americana?
Yes, again clearly.
Arshad Ali wrote:This is realpolitik I'm talking about.
Inserts Babelfish... what Russia wants, its neighbours must give, know your place

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Ukraine

Post by Arshad Ali » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:38 pm

John McKenna wrote:Don't be fooled into believing that it is primarily to protect its allies that the USA does what it does. Rather its allies are there to provide protection to the USA and its interests around the globe, just as the Warsaw Pact's primary aim was the protection of Russia and its interests in Europe. Parts of the Ukraine are having to be sacrificed on the altar of EU-NATO expansion because the Ukrainians themselves insisted on it by starting an experiment that involved slapping a dictator across the face - guaranteed to make him mad. Pity countries such as the Ukraine and Korea that are between the hammer of oriental despotism wielded by Moscow and Beijing and the anvil of occidental imperialism set up by Washington and Brussels.
Couldn't agree with you more.
[I did take exception to two words in Paul's exposition, above. Not "utter bo**ocks", but "completely free". How can those words be appropriate when, in Scotland, people are being whipped into Yes & No camps by local politicians and their supporters. Not to mention being threatened with economic ruin amd currency deprivation by England. I also object on the grounds that it is probably costing the English taxpayer a considerable amount to have this referendum without having any say in the matter. Certain important Scots were bribed to join the United Kingdom in 1707 and now all Scots are being blackmailed to stay. Is it really "a completely free vote"?]
Hehe, he'll be telling you to get your head out of the arse of Alex Salmond. What powers of persuasion ....

Post Reply