ok what the fuck is happening in ukraine

Apparantly, fracking-gas from the US will be able to be delivered to Europe from 2015. Perhaps Ukraine can get some of that?

Meanwhile, Ukraine commander reports some of the self-designated self-defense groups gave a deadline for getting out of Crimea or joining the Russian military:

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-crimea-ukraine-troops-20140318,0,1415462.story#axzz2wGyC1mlz

And now the exchange of deadly fire begins (with some beating and robbery of Ukraine soldiers as well) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26637296

i do wonder for how long ukraine will have to maintain the rhetoric of crimea as illegally wrested from their country (which it was, but now it's a fait accompli rather than an act in progress). i guess it'll be like those other long-contested zones in asia where one country has had effective power for decades but the uncertain status remains a "diplomatic hurdle" or whatever that contributes to a general freeze (see e.g. india/china). i wonder if kyiv will appoint "shadow governments," etc. in the crimea and if so for how long.

2 interesting things i heard on the radio today:

1. a pro-Ukrainian activist using a Russian idiom I've never heard before to refer to pro-Crimean (non-military) "defenders": "like monkeys holding hand grenades" - quick google turned up an official last August using the same expression to refer to American interventions in Islamic countries.

2. no-godwin, http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/165408,Polish-FM-Anschluss-in-Crimea-needs-EU-response

"Unfortunately instead of de-escalation we have anschluss of Crimea, which cannot be left without a response," the 'Poland in Europe' group tweeted Radoslaw Sikorski as saying before a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday morning, referring to the German word for the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938.

Sikorski clarified that he doesn't think this is going to erupt into a WW3 but i had thought of the anchluss comparison a couple days ago so i thought it was interesting to see other ppl noticing at least some (superficial?) similarities.

Yeah, I think the anschluss-thing is underlying a lot of this discussion (notice TWU calling SV 'chamberlainesque' upthread). The key difference to me is that Russia would lose WW3 in a heartbeat, though also nukes, I guess...

This article on Putin's speeches was interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/world/europe/ukraine.html?emc=edit_th_20140319&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=62580219

Anschluss isn't a special word, btw; it's a good cognate for the English word "annexation". The key difference to me between the two annexations is that I think Hitler's was less controversial among Austrians at the time.

Also, the annexation of Austria led to a World War. That really seems like 'the key difference' to me...

thus far ya

We're not headed towards WW3.

War is war.

But a World War is not just a War.

right, i don't mean anything special about the word itself but more the historical evocation -- the annexation of a historically national (German/Russian) territory filled w/ ethnic citizens whose majority are enthusiastic about the merger. and i think the really unspoken element of the comparison is - does this augur further territorial ambitions. obv if putin takes czech peeps are going freak (joekz, there are more obv targets like latvia/estonia/etc).

Radek Sikorski (and his wife Anne Applebaum) have had a longstanding fear / paranoia about Russia becoming a major global power again. The key driver for opposition to Anschluss at the time wasn't concern for the rights of Austrians, I think, it was the fear that Germany would regain and misuse its former might. That is probably the key driver for lots of fairly hawkish critics with Crimea as well - although obviously not the only one.

on that note, i've been meaning to finish reading applebaum's iron curtain book. now seems as good a time as any tbh.

Honestly don't think that most Russians are fussed about Baltic states, other than with Estonia as a pointer of what can happen when Russian-speakers don't have a strong defence of their rights. Crimea is special to them. There was a poll last year asking people whether they thought various places 'were part of Russia' and eight times as many people said yes to Crimea than Chechnya.

really interesting to see who actors/speakers in this thing try to cast as the "right wing" or the imperialist. seems slightly different from a more standard rhetoric of claiming the other to be merely the "aggresssor"

maybe they're *all* right, heh

i don't think anyone considers putin a leftist, but i wonder if Russian conflicts w/ the west (EU) have a historically built-in bias for leftists who have a lot of practice swinging for the entity to the north over the capitalist colonialists in europe proper. ymmv etc.

Don't think we're anywhere near WW3, but if we did hit WW3, the annexation of Crimea seems like a perfect textbook catalyst, a la assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Just in the generic we all look back, in retrospect, and say "duh" sense, after WW3 happens, which is not happening.

Un-thought-through thoughts on the global perspectives:

What really seems interesting to me today, caused by reading about Putin's responses, is that this might be the first time since 89 where the global system is becoming fundamentally less integrated. It will probably be seen as the greatest setback for globalism in 25 years. China will have to choose sides, and they could very well choose to turn away from the west and more towards Russia as well.

And this next thought is caused by reading another article in todays Times on the effect of Globalization: For the vast majority of people in the west, a less global economy is a good thing. It's really only the elite who has benifited from the global restructuring. This can be seen most clearly in Britain, where London City is very much opposed to sanctions, as Russian money is very important. The benifiters of the last 25 years has, to a large extent, been the newly created middle class in the developing countries. However, the leaders of these countries might very well want to stop this development now. After all, the urban middle class were the people who opposed Putin in 2012, more educated middle class would mean more trouble.

i don't think anyone considers putin a leftist, but i wonder if Russian conflicts w/ the west (EU) have a historically built-in bias for leftists who have a lot of practice swinging for the entity to the north over the capitalist colonialists in europe proper. ymmv etc.

Couple of different things going on I think:

Assumption that anyone defying the US is probably right. Residual affection for Putin for going against Iraq /Syria invasion.

Belief that this was a crisis engineered by US /EU.

Belief that this is a neo-con power grab to asset strip Ukraine (which is kind of true but ignores fact that Yanukovich was also an asset-stripping neo-con).

Perception of 'mainstream media bias'.

Unease at Fascist-packed Ukrainian government.

Lots more besides. Putin is an odd figure because, while clearly a jackal, he's almost certainly the *best* leader Russia has ever had. I mean, he has no real competition in that regard. The position often taken by the left is that Russia was completely destroyed, deliberately and ideologically, by the World Bank / US / IMF with a view to putting state assets in the hands of literally anyone who wasn't the state - irrespective of whether they were mafia dons - and with no regard for how many would die in poverty as a result. Putin has not fully reversed that but he has capped the power of the oligarchs and raised living standards for pretty much everyone. Balancing that against his authoritarian streak is a major challenge though. He is not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination but he's a different kind of rightist than Yeltsin and wildly popular in most of Russia as a result.

Obviously best is relative here. Russia had never had any remotely decent leaders. And many Chechens would disagree, etc.

China will have to choose sides, and they could very well choose to turn away from the west and more towards Russia as well.

i wonder why they would do this, when there are so many more people/potential trading partners among the countries now lined up in opposition to russian expansionism. the USA alone has more people and a stronger economy, add to that the EU, much of Asia e.g. Japan, Brazil (who I also can't imagine siding w/ Russia over US/Europe)...

also all these theories about long-term geopolitics might be moot when half of world's capitals are underwater and most countries can only feed a portion of their citizens.

no one really speculating more than 5 years old i don't think and i doubt half world's capitals will be underwater by then.

5 years out* i mean

like sanctions are starting to happen now, space between annexation of austria + invasion of poland was only like 1 year apart iirc,etc

Wouldn't the annexation of the Sudetenland be a closer parallel than the Anschluss, if we're looking to apply Godwin's Law?

China will have to choose sides, and they could very well choose to turn away from the west and more towards Russia as well.

i wonder why they would do this, when there are so many more people/potential trading partners among the countries now lined up in opposition to russian expansionism. the USA alone has more people and a stronger economy, add to that the EU, much of Asia e.g. Japan, Brazil (who I also can't imagine siding w/ Russia over US/Europe)...

― espring (amateurist), 20. marts 2014 02:12 (14 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, first of all, China will apparantly by Russia's gas-leverances which would have gone to the West. Also, China and Russia walk hand in hand on most international questions, on Libya, Syria, etc. So if sanctions escalate, they would prob rather have a political partner than economical? Also, China, like Russia, will have to deal with rising, demanding middle class, if they integrate further with the west.

good morning moldova!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26662721

can anyone here recommend a good book on the fall of the Soviet Union, and the formation of the independent nations?

like, I was in hs when it happened but didn't really understand what was going on. And now I read about say Moldova and its conflicts at the time, and I don't remember anything about that

I think this is supposed to be good but I haven't read it -

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1347735474l/295847.jpg

9780804722476

what is that number is that a code

da da plan is go roll the tanks

isbn?

Transdniestr is a really weird place. In theory it's a separatist region hostile to Moldovan rule but it's home of Moldova's biggest football team and the national side plays lots of its matches there. It's effectively a corporate state run by the Sheriff Company.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff_(company)

Slightly surprised that they want to be part of a country that might actually scrutinise them.

Tbh, I've always thought that Transdnistr joining Russia and Moldova joining Romania might be a win-win for everyone. I have a lot of affection for the place but it's the least functional country in Europe by a million miles and probably needs the EU to sort it out. Not sure who would get Gagauzia, probably Russia.

wonder what the kurds think about all this, or the baloch. or the ghosts of garibaldi and the '48ers... Ethnic Nationalism, Pretty Weird When You Think About It.

he has capped the power of the oligarchs

Sharivari, just asking---If Putin has done this, then how come the U.S. slapped asset friezes on four businessmen linked closely to Putin as well as a Russian bank that provides them support

Isn't he now seeking more money from the wealthy, only because of the impending sanctions?

russia handed out targeted sanctions on 'harry reed' and 'john beyner'

http://www.nndb.com/people/020/000043888/john-byner.jpg

Sharivari, just asking---If Putin has done this, then how come the U.S. slapped asset friezes on four businessmen linked closely to Putin as well as a Russian bank that provides them support

The oligarchs are still hugely powerful and, in many cases, very closely tied to Putin but it's not the same situation you had back when Berezovsky was pretty much able to decide who would lead Russia and government policy was largely decided on what worked best for a small cabal of gangsters. Putin used the oligarchs to get into office but the Yukos affair was the turning point when political power reasserted its dominance over capital.

Bear in mind under Yeltsin the oligarchs were able to engineer a situation in which the state effectively paid them for taking away assets worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

I think it's difficult to judge Putin's performance as a leader until we have some historical perspective. One big risk is that by centralizing power and weakening democratic institutions with no clear successor he may be setting the country up for someone much less talented and/or more corrupt following him and undoing whatever good the stability of his rule has provided.

I'm not even sure he has actually weakened democratic institutions - they were in pieces when he took over - but yes it's never good when that kind of authoritarianism becomes the long term norm (or when it becomes this popular).

obama threatens putin that if he invades more of southern or eastern ukraine there will be more sanctions. honestly, i was a huge fan of obama when i voted for him, partially bc i thought he made a lot of sense on foreign affairs, but this is some weak-chin bullshit. i understand it's probably not a good idea to do more but why not just keep his mouth shut instead of making these empty threats that i can't imagine impress putin? like maybe he could be like "we're letting our allies in europe take the lead on this one." instead of OH HORRORS sanctions???

also lol:

European leaders will meet on Thursday in Brussels at an emergency summit to wrestle with the dilemma of what to do about Vladimir Putin. The EU described the Russian seizure of Crimea this week as "an act of aggression" – but it does not know how to respond.

A crisis that started with an EU summit fiasco three months ago may reach its climax on Thursday with an EU summit failure as Putin's short-term hard power collides with European longer-term soft power and leaves the EU looking weak and feckless.

The Italians and the French do not want to punish Putin. The Swedes and the east Europeans take a hard line. The British government is worried about the impact on the City of London and losing the capital's big-spending oligarchs. German industry is lobbying strongly against imposing sanctions on Russia.

And while Washington talks of isolating Russia because of Ukraine, Berlin is saying the opposite, stressing engagement and keeping channels open to the Kremlin.

we don't even have fucking support for our policy towards putin from the EU ffs

what the fuck do you expect? the eu has to live with russia nextdoor and can't afford to alienate it, russia knows this and europe knows it

i expect that if you can't even get EU to agree to sanctions then just keep your fucking mouth shut mr. leader of the free world + stop these empty threats

Yeah, let Europe deal with this. Or not.