@P33 STEM - folks?

So, Putin, how much do get paid to spread Russian propaganda on the web?

Now, at last, I understand where Putin is coming from:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/russias-online-comment-propaganda-army/280432/

Less than you get paid by the NED, surely. Look at all the anti-Russian commentators on Russian media sites like Voice of Russia, how come you don't accuse them of being paid? Look at the media coverage of the Sochi Olympics and all the nonsense and distortions perpetuated by the western media during it. Was this deliberate? Of course any suggestion that it is has been met with guffaws from people like you who immediately invoke the 'crazed conspiracy theorist card'. Yet who is the one now spouting conspiracy theories?

We all know, from the document Which Path to Persia, that the US government and its allies deliberately aim to stir up internal instability as an pretext for intervention. They've admitted as much and the money trail from their agencies to insurgencies in the CIS is well documented. The case of Ukraine is no different. Unfortunately for them Russia actually has the capability to do something about it in situations where their destabilization operations are in their backyard.

So I'll enjoy the Dirges of the world lashing out and accusing me and whoever dares disagree with Dirge's narrative of events as being part of a paid conspiracy. The irony is delicious, and it's a sign of how desperate the water carriers of western power have become.

"2. I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that THIS is why we need a Jewish state--Jews aren't safe so long as they're guests in other nations. The sentiment against "the Jewish media" has clearly been brewing there for some time...hm...where ELSE have I heard this charge against "Jewish media" as a not-so-veiled form of antisemitism...hm..."

Sorry I don't take any of this seriously from you. You feign concern for Ukrainian Jews only because it justifies your uncritical support for Israel. The fact that Jews fled Kiev and their synagogues are being bombed by Ukrainian nationalists has hitherto not been a concern of yours, instead your overwhelming concern has been how much and how frequently can you bash Russia.

And remarkably, in a conflict between what you admit to be violent anti-Semites and Russia, you still remain *undecided*, which completely erodes any credibility you have on your supposed concern for Jewish security in Europe.

"@P33 STEM - folks?"

Science/Technology/Engineering/Math

The so-called 'hard science' and math folks conspired to keep Samuel P. Huntington out of the National Academy of Sciences.

Putin has historically understood and used heavy-handed diplomacy and is just continuing down the same road. A strong show of force to protect his interests and a reluctance to back down for what it would cost him politically and Russia in general. As has been pointed out previously, it involves a port that is very important to Russia, a port that doesn't freeze over in winter . He doesn't want war.

He'd probably do just as well as a president of the U.S. of A., another "might makes right" country (stirring the pot some more). If not (other than right of birth), why not? He's smart enough, politically.

I find putin33s comments to be quite insightful.

^thanks.

some drink the putin cool-aid

why did kaner just thank himself?

nah, just had an un-refreshed page up. Thanking putin33 for explaining what STEM stood for.

"As has been pointed out previously, it involves a port that is very important to Russia, a port that doesn't freeze over in winter "

The port is vastly overrated and if Russia really cared about it that much they would have modernized its facility and forces there a long time ago.

Why is it so hard for the west to believe that Russia cares about Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine and doesn't want to see them attacked? Evidently on humanitarian interventions are credible when NATO is meddling with Libya or Syria.

Just curious, does anyone consider India's intervention in E. Pakistan in 1971 an act of aggression or provocation of a conflict? There are significant parallels between the two cases. Both involve regional powers intervening in a neighboring state that has significant demographic overlap. India's action is widely considered to be a benign defense of a persecuted minority. At any rate, anytime you have demographic overlap combined with incomplete state-building you have a recipe for conflict. Which is why wars have broken out across the length and width of post-Soviet space since 1991.

I consider it an act of aggression, though I can see the parallels you mention. Also, it wasn't a persecuted minority. More like an unrepresented plurality. Bengal accounted for 53% of Pakistan's population, iirc.

True, Bengalis were the majority at the time. I keep forgetting that since Bangladesh is now about 25 million people fewer than 'rump' Pakistan.

Goldfinger, I focus on the coup because that's the most relevant information and the west wants to sweep this fact under the rug and claim Russian activity is illegitimate. If you want to defend violent coups as being 'revitalizing', so be it, but such a defense cannot be reconciled with any semblance of support for democracy or the rule of law. And I dare say that the millions of people who have been victimized by coup governments, as in Indonesia or today's Honduras, would greatly disagree with your assessment about their supposed positive effects. This isn't a coup against an already authoritarian government, it's a blow against an electorally competitive system. This is retarding not developing Ukraine. These events have turned Ukraine, an already weak polity, into a failed state. It has turned electoral competition into an all-or-nothing zero-sum game between ethno-national communities. Good luck to Ukraine when they try to put the pieces back together and convince Russians that electoral competition doesn't mean that if the nationalists lose, they'll simply attack the government with violence. This coup has brought disaster to Ukraine which they will not recover from even if the nationalists get their way.

I would hate for Ukraine to spiral down as you're saying it would. But coups have happened before in democracies which have revitalized them. South Korea is the best example of this. Of course, General Park later on went down the path of authoritarianism, but the "democracy" (if you can call it that) of Rhee's government was holding South Korea back. Had things gone differently in Pakistan in the 1960s, we might say the same thing of a coup driving from power a "democratic" government which had spent its whole time in power marginalizing the Bengali population.

I'll grant you that many coups don't work out well for the population. Most probably. But there are many exceptions to the rule littered about. Hopefully, Ukraine will be added to that list and can pull out of this

It was the coup in Pakistan in the 1950s which marginalized the Bengali population. It was precisely because Bengal was gaining too much influence that the coup took place in 1958 to begin with. The Punjabi elite which dominated the military could not tolerate the Awami League and its pro-India, pro-Marxist politics. It would put their entire arrangement with SEATO in jeopardy. It was the military government that kept postponing elections in Bengal because they didn't like the fact that Bengali nationalists were poised to win. Of course, the PPP didn't help matters either. I think Yahya Khan was on the brink of compromising but Bhutto was unwilling to do so.

Anyway, the point is Pakistan is a great example of coups retarding development. Of course it was more than just the coups, Pakistani political elites could never get their act together on passing a constitution. One wonders what would have happened had Liaquat Ali Khan not been assassinated.

"Of course, General Park later on went down the path of authoritarianism, but the "democracy" (if you can call it that) of Rhee's government was holding South Korea back."

Unclear about the sequence here but wasn't Rhee gone well before General Park took over?

I agree that in some cases military governments have been developmentalist and modernizing, and in many cases electoral systems have been corrupt and dysfunctional. However Ukraine isn't a military coup and the leaders of the new authorities aren't non-partisan. They represent only a fragment of the Ukrainian population, not all Ukrainians.

****************************************************************************************************
Just a comment related to the Ukraine thing, back to OP so to speak:

Russia keeps issuing warnings that if Europe and America continue to take a strong stance on its occupation of Crimea, we risk a "second Cold War".

...

Am I the only one to whom that sounds like an incredibly tempting offer? The west won the first one without firing a shot, I'm sure the third Russian Empire will once again fall under the dysfuntioning of its economy, with Russia ending up with even more influence in the world than it already had.

The absolutely worst-case scenario I can think of is losing Russian oil and gas contracts. So, I'll be taking shorter showers, wearing warm sweaters indoors and take the bus instead of my car every now and then until we adapt to renewable and eco-friendly energy sources quicker because of this financial incentive. I can understand this terrifies the political leadership of western nations whose reelection depends on cheap energy, but for me as a person?

Cold War II, bring it on.

*ending up with even LESS influence. Sorry.

I think that Europe should make a stand for once and put its principles before its bank balance. If any European nation had, to chose an example entirely at random, been foolish enough to build a couple of extremely expensive helicopter carriers for the Russian navy it would be only right for said nation to cancel the order and scupper the vessels, regardless of cost.

While I don't entirely disagree, redhouse--

1. I'd be careful about romanticizing the idea of another Cold War...that wasn't exactly humanity's finest hour, and

2. If w were going to engage in that, the West would need to both be a LOT more united than it is right now (just look at the dysfunction between France/Germany, the UK and the US at present) and I think it's going to need a change in attitude...Vladimir Putin's willing to push this to a degree which I'm not sure Western leaders have the stomach for.

That's certainly what he's banking on, anyway--

I would hope we can match him, but I'm not sure popular opinion and political weakness will allow that to happen. Putin's winning via his divide-and-conquer strategy right now.

Putin doesn't need a strategy (although he does have one, and it's good). He is winning because he is on the side of democracy, the people (in Russia and the parts of Ukraine he's taking action in at least), logistics (he can do a lot more than we ever could purely because he is next to them), and common sense. The Russian leadership look at its neighbour Ukraine and say "Something must be done!". We peer at the distant and unfamiliar Ukraine and say "Erm, I guess we should do something for the look of the thing..."

Europe is not divided. It is united in its common unwillingness to do anything rash in support of people who look suspiciously like the bad guys.

"The absolutely worst-case scenario I can think of is losing Russian oil and gas contracts"

Not a very furtive imagination, I can think of far worse scenarios.

People are getting caught up in the personalities and viewing this through the prism of US-Russian security competition. It's not this at all. It's a classic case of an ethnically divided developing country turning into a failed state, and a regional power taking an interest in the case due to demographic overlap. These cases have existed the world over. People are just caught up in the personalities because it's hip and edgy to Putin-bash 24/7.

"I would hope we can match him"

So you've thrown in your lot with the coup, still. That whole fascism thing wasn't quite dissuasive. Interesting that anti-semitism can be overlooked when it suits you.

I agree Ukraine was turning into a failed state.

If you have a man like Yanukovich at the helm you're turning into a failed state.

Yanukovich, Kuchma, Yushchenko, Tymoshenko.

Take your pick. Why single out one?