Winter Is Coming
Is There Even a Humanitarian Plan for Ukraine?
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    “Western statesmen would look less foolish and pusillanimous to their constituents—and perhaps to themselves.”?
    Surely you jest? It’s the middle of October and no way in heck that coal substitution can be implemented before winter. Given Putin’s threat to reduce supplies to Europe if Ukraine diverts gas destined for Europe the only practicable humanitarian option available is the distasteful one of paying Ukraine’s past due bills. There’s a word for the Western “statesmen’s” action regarding Ukraine, and it’s not foolishness or pusillanimity but outright malfeasance.

    • NWOD

      It is always malfeasance to overthrow another government, particularly by violent acts of a small but radical mob. it is further malfeasance when you support the coup leaders when they kill large numbers of civilians who are opposed to the coup to try to terrorize them into submission.

      I have to say there is a whole lot of malfeasance here.

      • Tom

        Because, as we all know, the Maidan Square incident was all the fault of the eeeeeeeviiiillllllll protestors, and had nothing to do with heavy-handed tactics used against them…

        • NWOD

          Yup they were pretty evil. Certainly the group that shot the Heavenly Hundred, probably Right Sector grouping but who knows? Ukraine is not really investigating, they don’t really want to know who did it – b/c it is very clear it was not Yanukovych’s forces.

          In any case, even if it were (and I re-emphasize, it wasn’t) the Berkut that shot the protesters, it does not mean Yanukovych ordered it. He did order the troops to prepare for an anti-terrorist operation, but recall that an armory had been lotted the night before outside L’vov and numerous military weapons had been confiscated and were being brought to Kiev. Having snipers, etc. ready in case they were used is a rpudent thing to do under the circumstances, but does not mean he ordered them to shoot unarmed protesters. It doesn’t even make any sense, given that the day before he had reached an agreement with UK, France and opposition.

          • Tom

            A. Your sarcasm detector needs work.
            B. You don’t understand what I was talking about. I was referring to the 30 November incident, the one that even Yanukovych’s Interior Minister said was an abuse of power. Y’know, the one that really cranked up this whole mess.

          • NWOD

            A. I know exactly what you meant, I just disagree with your point.
            B. For Nov. 30 incident you sure were being obfuscatory. But sure, there was excessive use of force. Not unusual by European standards by any means (compare e.g. the 20-some peaceful Kurdish protesters recently shot to death by Turkey without even a peep from EU). But this is not what led to the violent overthrow, which happened months later. There was a whole lot of Western interference, threats and support in the interim.

        • Andrew Allison

          Feeding Trolls only encourages them ;<)

  • NWOD

    All this hysteric anti-Russian propaganda is decidely anti-American. Americans – the real ones, not the greedy, brutish tyrants that constitute our ruling class – have no conflict with Russia or her people. Our oligarchs, however, are totally pissed that Russia is not the obsequious vassal state they want the whole world to be.

    Those of us who cherish liberty and freedom, and oppose tyranny, must act consistently, even when it is our government actring tyranically toward foreign countries.

    The US caused the Ukraine crisis by funding and orchestraing the coup that overthrew the elected government, and has 100% supported the coup ever since. It is funny how all the Americans typically clamoring for the US to spread democracy at the point of a rifle and at the strike zone of a bomb suddenly get all excited when the US helps overthrow an elected government. Ukraine even had a peaceful method of removing the president, just as the US does – called “impeachment”. But no, the US had to support the radical nationalists (a/k/a neo-fascists) and screw the country horribly. (Spare me the lecture that you didn’t like the elected leader – either you like democracy, or you don’t.)

  • lukelea

    Putin has consistently outmaneuvered his opponents in the West in this crisis, and his leverage over Ukraine is orders of magnitude greater now than it was during the previous two times (2006 and 2009) that Russia cut Ukraine’s gas. This time around, Ukraine quite literally lacks the ability to keep the lights and heat on.

    All this was quite obvious from the beginning, which is one of the reasons why US support for the coup was such a diplomatic blunder.

    • NWOD

      Hardly outmaneuvered, he is fighting a rear-guard action. Russia made it clear to the US in 2008 that Ukrainian NATO membership was a “red line” for them (this per US cables released by Wikileaks). A month later, US invited Ukraine (and Georgia) to join NATO – and that push has been going on ever since.

      Russia is not at all happy with this situation – they would gladly rewind a year and have the US stop stirring the sh1t in Ukraine.

  • זאב ברנזון

    russia cannot lose a geo political contest in ukraine and belorussia
    like america cant lose in canada and the uk
    like germany cannot lose in austria and switzerland
    like china cannot lose in taiwan and hong kong
    blood is thicker than water
    common history and culture matter in the willingness to sacrifice for a cause
    the ukraine was a lost cause for the west from the start
    good intentions # good results

  • Sibir_RUS

    Sergey LAVROV, Russian Foreign Minister: «As regards the content of the new stage in humankind’s development, there are two basic approaches to it among countries.
    The first one holds that the world must gradually become a
    Greater West through the adoption of Western values. It is a kind
    of “the end of history.” The other approach – advocated by
    Russia – holds that competition is becoming truly global and
    acquiring a civilizational dimension; that is, the subject of competition
    now includes values and development models.»
    “Enshrined in the UN Charter the principle of unanimity among the five permanent members of the Security Council in fact meant capturing the CONCEPT(!) of a multipolar world. The cold war brought it to bipolarity. Now everything is back in place.”

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    All of the Authoritarian Countries are engaged in strategic overreach, because the incredibly weak Obama will never do anything and they know it, and the paper tigers of Europe are too weak to do anything. This is one of the things that happen during a Great Depression, horrible wars that destroy trade and make the depression even worse. It’s unfortunate that the Worst President in American History Obama was in office during the first 6 years of Great Depression 2.0, but fate often gives us extremes altogether.
    As for the problem of Ukrainians getting cold this winter, I think heavy clothing would work better than expecting help from the west.

    • NWOD

      You have it backwards – the US *is* the authoritarian country. Tyrant of the world, euphemistically referring to itself as the “police of the exceptional people”. Sorry, the correct term is “global tyrant”.

      And in US, you can see it is complete authoritarianism. Although people voted for “hope” there will be “change”, we just get more of the same. It doesn’t matter who you vote for – it’s just political theatre. The elites rule completely, and allow the sheeple to choose between two of their loyal agents every 4 years.

      • Tom

        Which is still a better situation than Russia, wherein no choice is given. Putin, or Putin’s sockpuppet?
        Sorry, Mac. You’ll find no takers here.

        • NWOD

          Russians don’t care AT ALL what you want. They’ve elected Putin; and yes there were choices, 5 candidates, or about 3 more than we get in the US. Why do you Russophobes keep spreading such stuipid lies all the time? My God you guys just live in fantasy land. You’re worse than the ugliest anti-Semites.

          If they could they would probably keep electing him. I don’t blame them – not that it’s my business.

          • Tom

            Excuse me while I laugh my head off.

            http://www.politics1.com/p2012.htm

            16 parties, Mac. Count ’em. 16 choices. And the people mostly voted for the Repubs and Dems. Give it a rest.

          • NWOD

            None of them was on my ballot except for two (and ballot access in US is extremely difficult). None of them got any media attention, except two. What percent of Americans could even name one of those “other 14” parties? Face it, the US election system is a sham.

            How many of these parties have a governor? A member in Congress? A mayor even?

          • Behind_You1

            None of them was on my ballot except for two (and ballot access in US is extremely difficult).

            Your profile says you’re in California. Here’s a sample ballot from the 2012 election from Fresno county that lists six candidates for POTUS (see page 6). What county did you vote in?

            How many of these parties have a governor? A member in Congress? A mayor even?

            Well…

            Since the end of Reconstruction, there have been a total of 30 U.S. Senators, 111 U.S. Representatives, and 28 Governors that weren’t affiliated with a major party. Currently, there are two U.S. Senators (King and Sanders), and four major city Mayors. Hundreds of third-party officeholders exist at the local level (including those in nonpartisan positions who are affiliated with a third-party), including 146 Libertarian Party members and 131 Green Party members.

          • NWOD

            Ballot access is a huge issue in US, you can do easy research on that yourself. California is one of the best at permitting third party access, but a California win isn’t going to make someone president. But ballot access is only one of many reasons there are no third parties.

            I note you said nothing about media representation, federal funds matching, etc., not to mention structural issues like Citizens United that essentially permit oligarchs to bribe politicians and buy elections.

            As to your comment on third party representatives, without having verified the numbers (Wikipedia is quite unreliable and politicized), your data shows that in over 100 years, over 50 states (most of that time) and 100 cities, only a small handful of third parties have had a chance. Well if you look at Russia, for example, there are currently *120* serving in Duma (equivalent of US’ House) that are not of the two major parties (United Russia and Communist). The Federation Council (equivalent of US Senate) does not use parties (hooray!).

            And to get back to the basic point, I was responding to Tom’s comment saying in Russia the electors’ choice was only “Putin” or “his sockpuppet”. This thinking just reflects the ignorance of Tom, of course, but it is the context of this discussion. My point is, in US you have Twiddledee and Twiddledum, with hardly a difference between them (aside from some rhetoric during the election cycle meant to confuse people into thinking there is some marginal difference).

          • Behind_You1

            As to your comment on third party representatives, without having
            verified the numbers (Wikipedia is quite unreliable and politicized),

            If you clicked the links within that blockquote, you’ll see I linked to the Libertarian and Green Party websites.

          • NWOD

            146 Libertarians + 131 Greens = 277. Is that even 0.1% of office-holders? I mean, they are counting school boards, fire district boards, sanitation boards, etc. in every city, county, state in US! You only prove the point that there are only 2 parties in US!

          • Behind_You1

            Actually, I proved there are at least four parties that hold office in the US.

            Well if you look at Russia, for example, there are currently *120*
            serving in Duma (equivalent of US’ House) that are not of the two major
            parties (United Russia and Communist).

            If we’re really going to be honest, it’s more like one major party (United Russia) and three smaller parties, and one of those is basically fascist.

            And where did you get that presidential ballot that only had two parties on it?

          • NWOD

            Yeah, sure, US is a vibrant democracy, just like China. LMAO.

            Yes in Russia one party is very popular, largely b/c Putin is very popular. I suppose now you will claim having a popular leader is anti-democratic? And United Russia was formed just a few years ago. In US the party monopoly extends back 100 years. I don’t think there is a single “Western” country less democratic than US – it really is more like China, except US has split the “sole party” into two twins.

          • Behind_You1

            Yeah, sure, US is a vibrant democracy, just like China. LMAO.

            Which brings us back to the question:

            Where did you get that US presidential ballot that only had two parties on it?

          • NWOD

            If you want to see a two-candidate presidential ballot, see http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/491660/tulsa-county-sample-ballot.pdf

          • Behind_You1

            Was it yours? Is Tulsa where you cast your ballot?

          • Behind_You1

            Criticism of Russian politics isn’t Russophobia, NWOD…

          • NWOD

            No of course not. Constructive criticism is very good. Russia has a lot of problems it needs to solve. But most of the critiques I hear are not constructive but essentially agitating for war and colonization, which I do find Russophobic. They rely on flagrantly false accusations, such as Putin is a “dictator”. When I see the word “Putler”, I find that Russophobic – bearing in mind that Hitler was responsible for VASTLY more Russian deaths than, say, of Jews, and given that the analogy is flawed on countless levels.

          • Behind_You1

            When I see the word “Putler”, I find that Russophobic

            By that definition, everyone who compared Bush or Obama to Hitler is anti-American.

            More to the point, and not to jump to the defense of statements I didn’t make, but Tom didn’t call Putin “Putler”, and said nothing about “war” or “colonization”. Simply that the choice in Russia was either Putin or some lackey of Putin (Medvedev, in all likelihood). After all, does any party other than United Russia have a realistic chance of holding the presidency?

          • NWOD

            Comparing Putin to Hitler is one thing (even if particularly insensitive since he lost family to Nazis and Russia was Nazis’ biggest victim) but calling him Putler is a special kind of stupid and Russian hatred, particularly given his enormous popular support.

            Medvedev did not run for President last election. So the observation is just 100% wrong factually. For a list of candidates, see the (openly hostile to Russia) Wikipedia entry – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012#Candidates

            I don’t know what your last question means. Putin is very popular, so he will likely win the election regardless of his party. [ EDIT: Indeed the party was founded only 14 years ago, it’s not like its an “Establishment” party like Republocrats or Demopublicans. It’s popularity is based almost entirely on Putin’s popularity. ]

          • Behind_You1

            Comparing Putin to Hitler is one thing (even if particularly insensitive
            since he lost family to Nazis and Russia was Nazis’ biggest victim) but
            calling him Putler is a special kind of stupid and Russian hatred,
            particularly giving his enormous popular support.

            And I understand that. My point was that Tom didn’t call Putin “Putler”.

          • NWOD

            So? Are you accusing me of accusing him of that? Or what is your point?

          • Behind_You1

            You accused him of hatred of the Russian people based on his criticism of Russian politics. I’m just telling you that there is no evidence in Tom’s posts that they were driven by such a hatred.

            And you still haven’t told us what county you cast a US presidential ballot that only had two candidates on it.

          • NWOD

            You have me confused with someone else, or your reading comprehension has failed you. Anyway this is getting to be a petty discussion, bye.

          • Behind_You1

            My reading comprehension is perfectly fine. I simply object to the idea that any criticism of Russian policy is based on hatred of the Russian people. Drive safely.

          • NWOD

            It’s not “criticism of Russian policy” when you criticize anti-Russian stereotypes that have nothing to do with reality but reflect an ongoing campaign of Russian vilification which is nearing the point of a catastropic hot war. (Somewhat surprisingly in this regard, it seems Kissinger has called off the war dogs in the media and politics.)

            To say the 2012 election was between Putin and “his sockpuppet” is either based on gross ignorance, or an affirmative desire to spread anti-Russian propaganda, which I consider Russophobic. So perhaps Tom is just grossly ignorant, but he did not object to my charaterization of him as a Russophobe.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.