Fascinating article about Putin/Russia (1 Viewer)

[Gandalf the Grey]

Hopefully this hasn't been posted anywhere already. Article is very long, I found it to be a very interesting chronicle of the evolution of our current relationship with Russia.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/11/watching-eclipse

 

[cstu]

In the end, one leading Russia expert, who has worked for two Administrations, told me, “I think Obama is basically a realist—but he feels bad about it.”

Obama in a nutshell.

 

[cstu]

Putin demanded that the U.S. cede to him the former Soviet republics—Ukraine above all—as a Russian sphere of influence. He felt that the United States had, in the glow of post-Cold War triumphalism, pushed Russia around, exploiting its weakness to ignore Yeltsin’s protests and bomb Belgrade and Kosovo. Gorbachev had always said that the U.S. had promised that, in exchange for his acquiescence to the reunification of Germany, NATO would not expand to the east. In 2004, NATO absorbed seven new countries—Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and the three Baltic states, which Putin took as a particular offense and a geopolitical threat. And then, later that year, came the Orange Revolution, in Ukraine, which Putin saw as a Western project and a foreshadowing of an assault on him.

Totally out of touch with 21st century.

 

[cstu]

In 2008, state television broadcast a cheesy docudrama called “The Destruction of an Empire: The Lesson of Byzantium,” which was hosted and produced by Tikhon Shevkunov, a Russian Orthodox priest whose church, the Sretensky Monastery, is just down the street from Lubyanka, K.G.B. headquarters. Shevkunov, who has known Putin for many years, is widely rumored to be the Russian President’s dukhovnik, his spiritual adviser.

The film purports to be a history of the Byzantine Empire’s fall at the hands of the perfidious West, and not, as scholars have it, to the Ottoman Turks, who conquered Constantinople in 1453. The film is a crude allegory, in which, as the Byzantine historian Sergey Ivanov points out, Emperor Basil is an “obvious prototype of Putin, the wealthy man Eustathios is a hint at the jailed oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, while Bessarion of Nicea is easily associated with another tycoon, Boris Berezovsky,” and so on. Shevkunov’s film was, in effect, about the need to resist Western influence and to shore up central authority in Russia.

One thing I do take issue with is the claim that Byzantium was the world's longest empire, when it fact it was actually the Roman Empire. When the split between The Holy Roman Empire and Byzantium happened, both were the Roman Empire so even after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire the Roman Empire continued to exist until 1453 as Byzantium.

 

[T Bell]

Putin demanded that the U.S. cede to him the former Soviet republics—Ukraine above all—as a Russian sphere of influence. He felt that the United States had, in the glow of post-Cold War triumphalism, pushed Russia around, exploiting its weakness to ignore Yeltsin’s protests and bomb Belgrade and Kosovo. Gorbachev had always said that the U.S. had promised that, in exchange for his acquiescence to the reunification of Germany, NATO would not expand to the east. In 2004, NATO absorbed seven new countries—Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and the three Baltic states, which Putin took as a particular offense and a geopolitical threat. And then, later that year, came the Orange Revolution, in Ukraine, which Putin saw as a Western project and a foreshadowing of an assault on him.

Totally out of touch with 21st century.

Or perhaps he's very much in touch with many centuries of history in that region and we're out of touch for ignoring how inflammatory our actions have been. I'm not saying he's right, but just reminding that most of the rest of the world not only thinks historical hatreds and alliances are a big deal, they live them day to day.

 

[cstu]

Putin demanded that the U.S. cede to him the former Soviet republics—Ukraine above all—as a Russian sphere of influence. He felt that the United States had, in the glow of post-Cold War triumphalism, pushed Russia around, exploiting its weakness to ignore Yeltsin’s protests and bomb Belgrade and Kosovo. Gorbachev had always said that the U.S. had promised that, in exchange for his acquiescence to the reunification of Germany, NATO would not expand to the east. In 2004, NATO absorbed seven new countries—Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and the three Baltic states, which Putin took as a particular offense and a geopolitical threat. And then, later that year, came the Orange Revolution, in Ukraine, which Putin saw as a Western project and a foreshadowing of an assault on him.

Totally out of touch with 21st century.

Or perhaps he's very much in touch with many centuries of history in that region and we're out of touch for ignoring how inflammatory our actions have been. I'm not saying he's right, but just reminding that most of the rest of the world not only thinks historical hatreds and alliances are a big deal, they live them day to day.

Putin sees the world changing and Russia losing its influence. It's difficult for him to accept that Russia is just another country now. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union he thought of the ex-Union countries as vassals, now with them being brought into NATO he's seeing that no longer the case. For as tough as Putin acts, the truth is he's afraid.

 

[mr roboto]

Can someone explain why the author uses umlauts when a prefix doubles up a vowel with the root word? Example:

When Obama was reëlected, in 2012, McFaul was among those who pressed him to visit Moscow

 

[rockaction]

Can someone explain why the author uses umlauts when a prefix doubles up a vowel with the root word? Example:

When Obama was reëlected, in 2012, McFaul was among those who pressed him to visit Moscow

That's some New Yorker style there. They always do that. I haven't looked at the article, but that is a grammatical practice that is accepted, if archaic. I think. I'd look that up.

eta* Yeah, idiot me didn't even look at the link. It is the New Yorker. They've long done that, and long been made fun of for it.

 

[T Bell]

Putin demanded that the U.S. cede to him the former Soviet republics—Ukraine above all—as a Russian sphere of influence. He felt that the United States had, in the glow of post-Cold War triumphalism, pushed Russia around, exploiting its weakness to ignore Yeltsin’s protests and bomb Belgrade and Kosovo. Gorbachev had always said that the U.S. had promised that, in exchange for his acquiescence to the reunification of Germany, NATO would not expand to the east. In 2004, NATO absorbed seven new countries—Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and the three Baltic states, which Putin took as a particular offense and a geopolitical threat. And then, later that year, came the Orange Revolution, in Ukraine, which Putin saw as a Western project and a foreshadowing of an assault on him.

Totally out of touch with 21st century.

Or perhaps he's very much in touch with many centuries of history in that region and we're out of touch for ignoring how inflammatory our actions have been. I'm not saying he's right, but just reminding that most of the rest of the world not only thinks historical hatreds and alliances are a big deal, they live them day to day.

Putin sees the world changing and Russia losing its influence. It's difficult for him to accept that Russia is just another country now. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union he thought of the ex-Union countries as vassals, now with them being brought into NATO he's seeing that no longer the case. For as tough as Putin acts, the truth is he's afraid.

You can cast it as fear rather than as ambition, but it makes no difference. Putin's doing what czars have done for centuries - consolidate their power within eastern Europe and Central Asia against threats and attempt to exert influence as far west into Europe as possible. The closer to Moscow the issue is, the more of a stake Russia has in the outcome (versus the West) and the better access Russia has to it geographically than the West. The more things change...

The interesting thing here is Russia's severe population problem. They've got massive territory filled with tremendous natural resources (especially energy) and few people to fill it. Meanwhile, China, who people forget is very much a rival in Asia, is ascendant. Russia's trying to strike energy deals with China to make nice, but I think that's ultimately placating them and it's just a fig leaf on a big problem for Russia.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In 2008, state television broadcast a cheesy docudrama called “The Destruction of an Empire: The Lesson of Byzantium,” which was hosted and produced by Tikhon Shevkunov, a Russian Orthodox priest whose church, the Sretensky Monastery, is just down the street from Lubyanka, K.G.B. headquarters. Shevkunov, who has known Putin for many years, is widely rumored to be the Russian President’s dukhovnik, his spiritual adviser.

The film purports to be a history of the Byzantine Empire’s fall at the hands of the perfidious West, and not, as scholars have it, to the Ottoman Turks, who conquered Constantinople in 1453. The film is a crude allegory, in which, as the Byzantine historian Sergey Ivanov points out, Emperor Basil is an “obvious prototype of Putin, the wealthy man Eustathios is a hint at the jailed oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, while Bessarion of Nicea is easily associated with another tycoon, Boris Berezovsky,” and so on. Shevkunov’s film was, in effect, about the need to resist Western influence and to shore up central authority in Russia.

One thing I do take issue with is the claim that Byzantium was the world's longest empire, when it fact it was actually the Roman Empire. When the split between The Holy Roman Empire and Byzantium happened, both were the Roman Empire so even after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire the Roman Empire continued to exist until 1453 as Byzantium.

Russia also traditionally has viewed (or promoted) itself as the heir to the Byzantine Empire. That dissipated under the USSR but Putin has revived the old Tsarist rhetoric.

A good deal of British blood, treasure, and intrigue was spent for a century trying to keep Russia from infiltrating into Asia Minor (Afghanistan, the Caucasus) and Turkey right up through 1919.

It's an open question what the impact on the mideast would have been if we, the west, had just let this Christian Orthodox nation reassert Christian influence under the Tsars especially.

 

[T Bell]

In 2008, state television broadcast a cheesy docudrama called “The Destruction of an Empire: The Lesson of Byzantium,” which was hosted and produced by Tikhon Shevkunov, a Russian Orthodox priest whose church, the Sretensky Monastery, is just down the street from Lubyanka, K.G.B. headquarters. Shevkunov, who has known Putin for many years, is widely rumored to be the Russian President’s dukhovnik, his spiritual adviser.

The film purports to be a history of the Byzantine Empire’s fall at the hands of the perfidious West, and not, as scholars have it, to the Ottoman Turks, who conquered Constantinople in 1453. The film is a crude allegory, in which, as the Byzantine historian Sergey Ivanov points out, Emperor Basil is an “obvious prototype of Putin, the wealthy man Eustathios is a hint at the jailed oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, while Bessarion of Nicea is easily associated with another tycoon, Boris Berezovsky,” and so on. Shevkunov’s film was, in effect, about the need to resist Western influence and to shore up central authority in Russia.

One thing I do take issue with is the claim that Byzantium was the world's longest empire, when it fact it was actually the Roman Empire. When the split between The Holy Roman Empire and Byzantium happened, both were the Roman Empire so even after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire the Roman Empire continued to exist until 1453 as Byzantium.

Russia also traditionally has viewed (or promoted) itself as the heir to the Byzantine Empire. That dissipated under the USSR but Putin has revived the old Tsarist rhetoric.

A good deal of British blood, treasure, and intrigue was spent for a century trying to keep Russia from infiltrating into Asia Minor (Afghanistan, the Caucasus) and Turkey right up through 1919.

It's an open question what the impact on the mideast would have been if we, the west, had just let this Christian Orthodox nation reassert Christian influence under the Tsars especially.

a/k/a "The Great Game".

Afghanistan has been the rocks upon which a lot of foreign armies have been smashed. Such a strange, secluded, backwards place that would be completely irrelevant were it not centrally located in South Asia.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Putin putting the moves on the Chinese First Lady

 

[higgins]

OP, thanks for posting.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hopefully this hasn't been posted anywhere already. Article is very long, I found it to be a very interesting chronicle of the evolution of our current relationship with Russia.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/11/watching-eclipse

This article is too long to post in full, but it is definitely worth teh read.

It's really sad what has happened in Russia. We have lost a great chance for the world and ourselves. It's a mistake fo Americans to think we can influence and control all outcomes in the world but it sure would have been better if some combination of Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama had managed to keep Russia on track.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I posted the above and revived this thread because of this:

21st Century Cold War Has Began; US House Of Reps Passes Resolution 758 Even As US Tells Russia To Stop Self-isolationThe United States has effectively pushed the button of the 21st century Cold War era. On Thursday, its House of Representatives passed Resolution 758, a decree telling the U.S., Europe and its' allies to "aggressively keep the pressure" on Russia and its President Vladimir Putin until such measures "change his behaviour."

On Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama claimed Mr Putin is "isolating Russia completely internationally" and knows the Russian leader is not going to "suddenly change his mind-set ... which is part of the reason why we're going to continue to maintain that pressure." As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged Russia not to isolate itself during a meeting of the 57 members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in the northern Swiss city of Basel, Resolution 758 had called for the reinforcement of NATO and the sale of U.S. natural gas to Europe, alluding away from Russian energy exports.

The resolution has likewise effectively given the government of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko the go signal to launch military actions against the "separatists" in Eastern Ukraine. Resolution 758 has called on the U.S. President to "provide the Government of Ukraine with defense articles, services and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty."

"It is not only a declaration of a U.S. Cold War against Russia but it is a declaration of war for Kiev against Donetsk and Lugansk," Daniel McAdams, executive director at the Ron Paul Institute, told RT News. Resolution 758, described as a decree that strongly condemns Moscow's aggressive actions against its neighbours, was a document that had opened Pandora's box of global military conflicts.

McAdams said he finds the resolution comical in the sense that as it accused Russia of holding fraudulent elections in Ukraine, it greenlighted an all-out war urging the U.S. and NATO forces when, it fact, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. He added the bill mentions chapter five of the NATO Treaty several times, but he is unsure if Congress understands what it means. Under the guise of Resolution 758, the House of Representatives urged Mr Obama to check and review the readiness of the U.S. and NATO armed forces under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty.

On Thursday, Mr Putin said Resolution 758, which he described as a "deterrence policy" against Russia by other states, was just formally instituted. But he believes the deterrence policy has always been in place towards Russia "for decades, if not centuries," and would be turned on immediately if other states feel Russia is becoming too powerful and independent.

He blasted the U.S. for manipulating the relations of Russia's neighbours. "Sometimes you don't even know to whom it is better to talk to: the governments of certain countries or directly with their American patrons." U.S. House Resolution 758 was passed with an overwhelming 411-10 votes by the 113th Congress.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/574969/20141205/cold-war-house-resolution-758-russia-isolation.htm#.VIXc-sk69JI

Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I cannot find one mainstream US site or news source that verifies this.

Is this true?

 

[Doug B]

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/574969/20141205/cold-war-house-resolution-758-russia-isolation.htm#.VIXc-sk69JI

Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I cannot find one mainstream US site or news source that verifies this.

Is this true?

There was an actual H.R. 758 that passed in the House last Thursday. Here's info from the U.S. Library of Congress website.

However, all these Russian-based news sources are wildly exaggerating what's in the resolution. It's a condemnation, nothing more.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/574969/20141205/cold-war-house-resolution-758-russia-isolation.htm#.VIXc-sk69JI

Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I cannot find one mainstream US site or news source that verifies this.

Is this true?

There was an actual H.R. 758 that passed in the House last Thursday. Here's info from the U.S. Library of Congress website.

However, all these Russian-based news sources are wildly exaggerating what's in the resolution. It's a condemnation, nothing more.

Ok thanks, actually I was told this was originally in Russia Times (questionable).

I see the article 5 obligations and a call to supply Ukraine with arms and aid, etc., but no authorization of use of force by the US. Thanks.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

I've been drawn to articles about Russia/Ukraine/anything to do with the sanctions over the past few months. Not sure why I find this so interesting. I know it hasn't been ignored by the media per se but the whole mess with Russia doesn't seem to have quite enough significance attached to it. The more I read, also, the less confident I become that Westerners are being provided an accurate picture of the nebulous "truth". There are so many fascinating angles, another one of which is Russia's apparent tip towards a very conservative worldview. And maybe that's not a "tip" at all, I admittedly have only superficial knowledge of Russian history/culture.

Anyways, I thought this article was very interesting-it characterizes current events in Russia as the beginning of a "holy war" with the West.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-is-on-a-holy-mission-and-the-west-doesnt-get-it-2015-1

I may keep posting articles involving Russia in here. I've been reading quite a bit about their activity in the Arctic lately also, as well as articles involving modernization of their military.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I find the developments in Russia to be the most depressing and challenging FP disappointment of our time, even more so than terrorism and AQ & ISIL. We had this, what happened?

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

I find the developments in Russia to be the most depressing and challenging FP disappointment of our time, even more so than terrorism and AQ & ISIL. We had this, what happened?

When Yanukovich (sp) was toppled-did we foment the unrest that led to that? I know Ukraine was kind of split in terms of leaning to the West or towards Russia. If we fomented that unrest I think it was a mistake. We had an uneasy but workable relationship with Russia that I think may have evolved into a true partnership. There are a lot of potential outcomes of the events happening now that may be significantly worse for the West/United States than leaving Ukraine to Russia.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I find the developments in Russia to be the most depressing and challenging FP disappointment of our time, even more so than terrorism and AQ & ISIL. We had this, what happened?

When Yanukovich (sp) was toppled-did we foment the unrest that led to that? I know Ukraine was kind of split in terms of leaning to the West or towards Russia. If we fomented that unrest I think it was a mistake. We had an uneasy but workable relationship with Russia that I think may have evolved into a true partnership. There are a lot of potential outcomes of the events happening now that may be significantly worse for the West/United States than leaving Ukraine to Russia.

No, actually what happened was that when Yanukovich came to power in elections he promised that Ukraine would be joining the EU or some form of trade pact with them at the least. What he did instead was secretly negotiate a pact with Putin bringing Ukraine into the absurd new Putin Russia/Belorussia/Kazachstan pact which no one wanted. Needless to say when this announcement was made the people went crazy, they got very angry and it was Yanushenko who moved troops in on his own people, killing some of them. That's the stuff of "High Crimes" and treason. Putin has been busy trying to prove some sort of lesson ever since.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

I find the developments in Russia to be the most depressing and challenging FP disappointment of our time, even more so than terrorism and AQ & ISIL. We had this, what happened?

When Yanukovich (sp) was toppled-did we foment the unrest that led to that? I know Ukraine was kind of split in terms of leaning to the West or towards Russia. If we fomented that unrest I think it was a mistake. We had an uneasy but workable relationship with Russia that I think may have evolved into a true partnership. There are a lot of potential outcomes of the events happening now that may be significantly worse for the West/United States than leaving Ukraine to Russia.

No, actually what happened was that when Yanukovich came to power in elections he promised that Ukraine would be joining the EU or some form of trade pact with them at the least. What he did instead was secretly negotiate a pact with Putin bringing Ukraine into the absurd new Putin Russia/Belorussia/Kazachstan pact which no one wanted. Needless to say when this announcement was made the people went crazy, they got very angry and it was Yanushenko who moved troops in on his own people, killing some of them. That's the stuff of "High Crimes" and treason. Putin has been busy trying to prove some sort of lesson ever since.

I know that is what our media has told us. And I don't necessarily doubt that, and I think that Putin is a corrupt megalomaniac. But there are other views that believe the West instigated and perpetuated that unrest. And Yanukovich was elected. One also cannot blame Russia for opposing Western presence on their doorstep. None of this is to say it's reasonable to support their actions in any way, just that it gets harder and harder to discern the truth. This looks like it could end up very bad.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I find the developments in Russia to be the most depressing and challenging FP disappointment of our time, even more so than terrorism and AQ & ISIL. We had this, what happened?

When Yanukovich (sp) was toppled-did we foment the unrest that led to that? I know Ukraine was kind of split in terms of leaning to the West or towards Russia. If we fomented that unrest I think it was a mistake. We had an uneasy but workable relationship with Russia that I think may have evolved into a true partnership. There are a lot of potential outcomes of the events happening now that may be significantly worse for the West/United States than leaving Ukraine to Russia.

No, actually what happened was that when Yanukovich came to power in elections he promised that Ukraine would be joining the EU or some form of trade pact with them at the least. What he did instead was secretly negotiate a pact with Putin bringing Ukraine into the absurd new Putin Russia/Belorussia/Kazachstan pact which no one wanted. Needless to say when this announcement was made the people went crazy, they got very angry and it was Yanushenko who moved troops in on his own people, killing some of them. That's the stuff of "High Crimes" and treason. Putin has been busy trying to prove some sort of lesson ever since.

I know that is what our media has told us. And I don't necessarily doubt that, and I think that Putin is a corrupt megalomaniac. But there are other views that believe the West instigated and perpetuated that unrest. And Yanukovich was elected. One also cannot blame Russia for opposing Western presence on their doorstep. None of this is to say it's reasonable to support their actions in any way, just that it gets harder and harder to discern the truth. This looks like it could end up very bad.

Actually I got that impression that I just wrote about from a Russian studying here in NO (at UNO). He went on to say that Russia's - read Putin's - big fear is that the US & NATO are trying to encircle Russia, that after the EU comes NATO automatically and that they believed they were under the impression that after the fall of the USSR their standing down meant that NATO would not move foreard.

Reality is that Putin is essentially the gatekeeper for the kleptocracy that bloomed under Yeltsin. I suggest you watch a very good PBS Frontline show about that, and I wouldn't say Frontline is a mouthpiece for anyone, especially not neocons.

I would also direct you to Putin's "coming out" speech in which he pulled off the cloak after the Crimean annexation and ran through his litany of complaints, beginning but not ending with our recognition of Kosovo's independence.

I agree about the "very bad" part.

 

[jamny]

I find the developments in Russia to be the most depressing and challenging FP disappointment of our time, even more so than terrorism and AQ & ISIL. We had this, what happened?

When Yanukovich (sp) was toppled-did we foment the unrest that led to that? I know Ukraine was kind of split in terms of leaning to the West or towards Russia. If we fomented that unrest I think it was a mistake. We had an uneasy but workable relationship with Russia that I think may have evolved into a true partnership. There are a lot of potential outcomes of the events happening now that may be significantly worse for the West/United States than leaving Ukraine to Russia.

No, actually what happened was that when Yanukovich came to power in elections he promised that Ukraine would be joining the EU or some form of trade pact with them at the least. What he did instead was secretly negotiate a pact with Putin bringing Ukraine into the absurd new Putin Russia/Belorussia/Kazachstan pact which no one wanted. Needless to say when this announcement was made the people went crazy, they got very angry and it was Yanushenko who moved troops in on his own people, killing some of them. That's the stuff of "High Crimes" and treason. Putin has been busy trying to prove some sort of lesson ever since.

I know that is what our media has told us. And I don't necessarily doubt that, and I think that Putin is a corrupt megalomaniac. But there are other views that believe the West instigated and perpetuated that unrest. And Yanukovich was elected. One also cannot blame Russia for opposing Western presence on their doorstep. None of this is to say it's reasonable to support their actions in any way, just that it gets harder and harder to discern the truth. This looks like it could end up very bad.

Actually I got that impression that I just wrote about from a Russian studying here in NO (at UNO). He went on to say that Russia's - read Putin's - big fear is that the US & NATO are trying to encircle Russia, that after the EU comes NATO automatically and that they believed they were under the impression that after the fall of the USSR their standing down meant that NATO would not move foreard.

Reality is that Putin is essentially the gatekeeper for the kleptocracy that bloomed under Yeltsin. I suggest you watch a very good PBS Frontline show about that, and I wouldn't say Frontline is a mouthpiece for anyone, especially not neocons.

I would also direct you to Putin's "coming out" speech in which he pulled off the cloak after the Crimean annexation and ran through his litany of complaints, beginning but not ending with our recognition of Kosovo's independence.

I agree about the "very bad" part.

Just watched that the other day. Putin's Way.

Really informative piece.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

I find the developments in Russia to be the most depressing and challenging FP disappointment of our time, even more so than terrorism and AQ & ISIL. We had this, what happened?

When Yanukovich (sp) was toppled-did we foment the unrest that led to that? I know Ukraine was kind of split in terms of leaning to the West or towards Russia. If we fomented that unrest I think it was a mistake. We had an uneasy but workable relationship with Russia that I think may have evolved into a true partnership. There are a lot of potential outcomes of the events happening now that may be significantly worse for the West/United States than leaving Ukraine to Russia.

No, actually what happened was that when Yanukovich came to power in elections he promised that Ukraine would be joining the EU or some form of trade pact with them at the least. What he did instead was secretly negotiate a pact with Putin bringing Ukraine into the absurd new Putin Russia/Belorussia/Kazachstan pact which no one wanted. Needless to say when this announcement was made the people went crazy, they got very angry and it was Yanushenko who moved troops in on his own people, killing some of them. That's the stuff of "High Crimes" and treason. Putin has been busy trying to prove some sort of lesson ever since.

I know that is what our media has told us. And I don't necessarily doubt that, and I think that Putin is a corrupt megalomaniac. But there are other views that believe the West instigated and perpetuated that unrest. And Yanukovich was elected. One also cannot blame Russia for opposing Western presence on their doorstep. None of this is to say it's reasonable to support their actions in any way, just that it gets harder and harder to discern the truth. This looks like it could end up very bad.

Actually I got that impression that I just wrote about from a Russian studying here in NO (at UNO). He went on to say that Russia's - read Putin's - big fear is that the US & NATO are trying to encircle Russia, that after the EU comes NATO automatically and that they believed they were under the impression that after the fall of the USSR their standing down meant that NATO would not move foreard.

Reality is that Putin is essentially the gatekeeper for the kleptocracy that bloomed under Yeltsin. I suggest you watch a very good PBS Frontline show about that, and I wouldn't say Frontline is a mouthpiece for anyone, especially not neocons.

I would also direct you to Putin's "coming out" speech in which he pulled off the cloak after the Crimean annexation and ran through his litany of complaints, beginning but not ending with our recognition of Kosovo's independence.

I agree about the "very bad" part.

I don't disagree with any of this. From what I've read lately-and it's mentioned in that last article-I linked- the Kleptocracy is out of favor and wielding little influence nowadays.

I've also read numerous references to the other piece you mention, that there was an "understanding" with the U.S. that we wouldn't be encroaching on their sphere of influence, an "understanding" that we reneged on.

I will have to look for the Frontline show.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Another good article on Russia and the West.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russias-aggression-in-ukraine-is-part-of-a-broader-and-more-dangerous-confrontation-with-the-west-2015-2

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another good article on Russia and the West.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russias-aggression-in-ukraine-is-part-of-a-broader-and-more-dangerous-confrontation-with-the-west-2015-2

Even without Ukraine, Mr Putin has said, America would have found some other excuse to contain Russia.

I don't know if that's true. Ukraine and the Maidan represented a serious problem for Putin, if it could happen in Kiev it could happen in Moscow.

Russia, by contrast, "has always been a state civilisation held together by the Russian people, the Russian language, Russian culture and the Russian Orthodox church."

He forged his alliance with Orthodox nationalists only during mass street protests by Westernised liberals in 2012, when he returned to the Kremlin. Instead of tear gas, he has used nationalist, imperialist ideas, culminating in the annexation of Crimea and the slow subjugation of south-east Ukraine.

This is not getting mentioned much. Russia has a bit of a Christian holy war going on. And it is also pure tsarism, the Tsars rode this horse for a couple centuries at least, maybe all four.

By 1993, when members of this coalition were ejected by pro-Yeltsin forces from the parliament building they had occupied in Moscow, they seemed defeated. Yet nationalism has resurfaced. Those who fought Yeltsin and his ideas were active in the annexation of Crimea and are involved in the war in south-east Ukraine.

Alexander Borodai, the first "prime minister" of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, who fought with anti-Yeltsin forces, hails Mr Putin as the leader of the nationalist movement in Russia today.

In old Europe they used to call this revanchism. This looks like this is exactly what happened.

 

[Jayrod]

Another good article on Russia and the West.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russias-aggression-in-ukraine-is-part-of-a-broader-and-more-dangerous-confrontation-with-the-west-2015-2

This part was particularly unsettling, IMO. Seems quite aggressive.

There have also been at least two near-misses between Russian military aircraft and Swedish airliners. This is dangerous stuff: Russian pilots do not file flight plans. They fly with transponders switched off, which makes them invisible to civil radar. On January 28th two Russian, possibly nuclear-armed, strategic bombers flew down the English Channel, causing havoc to commercial aviation. Such behaviour is intended to test Western air defences, and was last seen in the cold war. Mr Stoltenberg calls it "risky and unjustified".

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Another good article on Russia and the West.http://uk.businessinsider.com/russias-aggression-in-ukraine-is-part-of-a-broader-and-more-dangerous-confrontation-with-the-west-2015-2

This part was particularly unsettling, IMO. Seems quite aggressive.

There have also been at least two near-misses between Russian military aircraft and Swedish airliners. This is dangerous stuff: Russian pilots do not file flight plans. They fly with transponders switched off, which makes them invisible to civil radar. On January 28th two Russian, possibly nuclear-armed, strategic bombers flew down the English Channel, causing havoc to commercial aviation. Such behaviour is intended to test Western air defences, and was last seen in the cold war. Mr Stoltenberg calls it "risky and unjustified".

They've been doing all kinds of this stuff. There were reports of a "mini-sub" in Swedish waters a while ago, speculated to belong to Russia. Extensive searches did not find it. The number of intercepts of Russian aircraft in numerous countries has skyrocketed in the past few years. Another worrisome suggestion from the article is that the constant Russian forays into other countries airspace-beyond the idea of testing air defenses/responses-is that it may "lull" responses as just another petty provocation. Russia also apparently kidnapped an intelligence officer from (I think?) Estonia, or maybe Lithuania? I forget, who was supposedly investigating drug smuggling on their border with Russia. I believe he's still in a Russian jail and reports said it was a setup by Russia (false tip to lure him to the border, etc.).I liked that article because it kind of sums up what Russia has been doing on a number of fronts. The "hybrid warfare" as it was called. Reaching out and supporting political extremes in a number of countries, escalating propaganda, reaching out to other countries like India, Egypt, even Japan and South Korea, Brazil, of course China.

It's fascinating watching this stuff unfold (and worrisome of course). I don't see any way "The West" "wins" this. Russia holds all the cards. There's no doubt the latest cease fire in Ukraine will not hold (it's already failed basically). Russia will inevitably get the land bridge to Crimea they want and the buffer zone they want and there is absolutely nothing the West can do about it. There will be another arms race, increased military spending in NATO countries and increased NATO presence in Eastern European/Baltic countries. And of course the chance of a "spark" occurring becomes much greater-a collision of planes, more escalation in countries with Russian ethnic minorities, etc.

Another thing I thought interesting in that article was the mention of Russian "trolls" who are paid to comment on articles in the media. I always read the comments in these articles and it's almost as if you can spot these people.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another good article on Russia and the West.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russias-aggression-in-ukraine-is-part-of-a-broader-and-more-dangerous-confrontation-with-the-west-2015-2

This part was particularly unsettling, IMO. Seems quite aggressive.

There have also been at least two near-misses between Russian military aircraft and Swedish airliners. This is dangerous stuff: Russian pilots do not file flight plans. They fly with transponders switched off, which makes them invisible to civil radar. On January 28th two Russian, possibly nuclear-armed, strategic bombers flew down the English Channel, causing havoc to commercial aviation. Such behaviour is intended to test Western air defences, and was last seen in the cold war. Mr Stoltenberg calls it "risky and unjustified".

So is this:

Nearly a quarter-century after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West faces a greater threat from the East than at any point during the cold war. Even during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, Soviet leaders were constrained by the Politburo and memories of the second world war.

Now, according to Russia's chief propagandist, Dmitry Kiselev, even a decision about the use of nuclear arms "will be taken personally by Mr Putin, who has the undoubted support of the Russian people".