-
Posts
544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by Shady Ray
-
One of the things that was really weird last week at the CIS Summit in St. Petersburg was that Putin met separately (publicly and privately) with current KZ President Tokayev, as well as former KZ pres Nazarbayev (who was the autocrat from the post-Soviet days through 2019 and still controls the security services). There was speculation at the time that there could be some internal tensions going on that Putin was trying to mediate, as Nazarbayev and Putin go way, way back.
-
It absolutely will. German news radio reporting within the past 2 minutes that Kazakhstan has requested Russian assistance under the auspices of the Collective Security Treaty Organization.
-
Yeah, this is the wild part. I can't believe that I am about to type this, but German politics might actually be unpredictable and exciting in 2022. The Greens are in a tough spot, but so is the SPD. The CDU just elected old-school hardnose operative Freiderich Merz - the German version of Darth Vader - as party leader, who is a far cry from the weak, bumbling Armin Laschet who squandered a massive post-Merkel lead in the September elections. And Merz is already circling. So a collapsed government would likely bring in another Grand Coalition between the SPD and CDU, likely led by the CDU, as I honestly don't think the Germans are digging this first attempt at a three-party coaliton and won't want to try it again if it goes south. At the same time, this very likely is the only chance that the Greens are going to have in government for a long time. The more the real impact of Germany's misguided energy policy rises to the top of discourse, the worse their electoral chances are. Like I said a few pages ago, all the German parties outside of the loons with the AfD have been involved in this anti-nuke idiocy, but for some reason the Greens are going to end up with it around their necks. So, unless they are content with being relegated back to their 8-9% opposition role that they typically have, they can't walk from the coalition nearly as easily as they might like, regardless of how much Scholz jerks them around. Meanwhile, the FDP is sitting quietly in the corner, legalizing recreational pot and ensuring that the budget is balanced, letting the two left-wing parties murder each other in the press. This is very unlike German politics. And honestly, I didn't think little ol' Whisperin' Scholz had the stones.
-
I think we might be talking past each other. I agree that the Georgian deal spurred parties to act to get the final elements of a long, long negotiation between the Poles and Americans closed out, but your statement that: "The Bush-era proposed missile defense proposal included radar in the Czech Republic and silo-based interceptors in Poland. That’s what Bush wanted, not Patriots" and the Patriots were an "add-on after the invasion" is what I disagree with. The Bush-era defense proposal did, in fact, eventually offer Poland Patriots, albeit for a fixed one-year deployment, weeks prior to the Russian invasion and the Poles had rejected that offer of a one-year Patriot deployment based on their desire for a permanent fixed deployment. So the offer of Patriots to Poland was not made in response to the invasion. Now, if you are saying that the Poles were willing to walk away from the deal entirely and host nothing whatsoever prior to the invasion, I can see your point. And yeah, that is definitely an own-goal, as you said. But I think by that point, the missile defense deployment in general was the problem anyway, regardless of the specs of it and the Russians viewed the continuous march towards an agreement as essentially a done deal.
-
That's incorrect. The US had already offered to place Patriots in Poland in early July of 2008. The open question under negotiation between the Poles and the US in early July was whether the Patriot deployment would be temporary or permanent. The Poles wanted it to be permanent and openly said it was not for Iran, but rather directly related to Russia, and the US said it would be temporary and wanted the Poles to stop saying it was for Russia, because it was blowing up their poorly-constructed Iran narrative. The hostilities in Georgia didn't occur in July by anyone's timeline, and the invasion occured on August 8th. Per Reuters on July 11th, 2008, which was well before even the most generous interpretation of when the war in Georgia began. JULY 11, 2008 6:05 PM "Last week, Prime Minister Donald Tusk rejected as insufficient a U.S. offer to base a Patriot battery on Polish soil for just one year, but the negotiations are continuing. The Patriot is a long-range, high-altitude, all-weather system designed to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. “We want this (Patriot) battery to be placed on our territory permanently,” Defence Minister Bogdan Klich told the Dziennik daily in an interview. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-shield-poland/poland-says-u-s-shield-deal-hinges-on-patriots-idUKL1123584120080711 IFRI issued an in-depth paper on the negotiations. Relevant portion: The war in Georgia started on the night of August 7th, and the Russian counteroffensive and subsequent invasion started at 2:30 PM on August 8th, as per the official report issued by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia. The initial "tit-for-tat" sniper fire/improvised explosive attacks didn't start until August 1st in any version of events. Not even the Georgians have claimed that the Russian build up occurred prior to the conclusion of the joint US-Georgia "Immediate Response 2008" exercises, which occurred in late July. We can certainly agree on the fact that Russia did itself a disservice in invading Georgia after the shelling of South Ossetia, but it was public knowledge at the time of the invasion that the US had agreed on moving Patriots to Poland for at least a temporary term at the latest on July 4th, when Tusk first mentioned the offer publicly. Edited to say that I do agree with you that the hostilities backfired, though, and probably got the Poles a better deal. But it didn't open the door to the introduction of a Patriot battery being deployed.
-
The last SPD Chancellor, Gerhardt Schroeder is currently the Chairman of the Board of BOTH Nord Stream AG AND Rosneft (Russian State Oil) , Russia's second largest state-company. Second only, of course, to Gazprom (Russian State Gas). In Germany, you have two choices to lead your government: The CDU (Merkel's party), which will roll over for Gazprom. Or you can reject them and go with the SPD, which will roll over for Gazprom. Edit: And just to clarify for context, the Greens are hardliners on Putin. They want to kill NS2 and they even mentioned providing arms to Ukraine, which they eventually walked back due to them taking a pounding in the polls for making the statement. But nevertheless, they are very anti-Putin and very Pro-US/NATO.
-
Relatively significant news just now coming out re the German position on Russia policy. Sorry for the goofy translation, but Bild is Germany’s largest publication by circulation and it is very typical that the biggest governing partner leaks to it, but it is not the most “high brow” German..."speed over form" with the Bild. Anyway, Scholz going full "Merkel-vellian" and formally taking the Russia portfolio away from Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, as well as the core portfolio of Energy Policy from her Green Co-Leader, Energy and Commerce Minister, Robert Habeck. They fought like hell for these spots for those exact reasons in the coalition negotiations a few weeks back, so Big Kraut Industry must be really stepping up the pressure on Scholz. Other outlets saying direct talks between Scholz and Putin set for later this month, as Putin has said he will not talk directly to the EU, but only with the US, with an exception for Germany on the basis of it being a huge gas customer. Greens are gonna absolutely flip, as even by Merkel's standards, this is brutally hostile to a coaltion partner...particularly in a coalition less than a month old. Their left flank is going to be apoplectic over this, as this is exactly what they predicted would happen.
-
Yeah, that's actually what I am talking about, as well. But my point is that while the Obama did indeed pull it back, I don't think we can discount how critical the announcement of that expansion was in the calculation re Russia's actions in 2008, because at the time of that decision (and, IMO a time of reasonable Russian insecurity given what all our leadership had been up to from 2003 onwards in other areas completely unrelated to 9/11) it hadn't been pulled back. This was mainly the context of my post to @atomheartbevo, in which I said the 2008 Russo-Georgian war was the point where my IMO the NATO-Russia relationship completely ruptured and this is what Lavrov was referring to in the Burns memo. 
 And yeah, you are completely right. Obama's pull back really pissed off the Central Europeans, but the original unilateral announcement of the expansion that kicked the thing off infuriated the Western Europeans. Seems like a recurring theme in this stuff. So, the MIM-104 Patriot System that the US announced in 2005/2006 (after being condemned by the EU), and agreed formally with the Poles in 2008, was set to unilaterally deploy in Poland and Czech (radar in Czech, Patriots in Poland) - over the strong objections of Russia, France and Germany as being unnecessarily provocative by the US. So, only with the luxury of hindsight can we say “but, they weren’t deployed until years later”. In my view, that is irrelevant when considering the Russian perspective at the outbreak of the Georgian-Russian conflict, which no one disputes was the first instance of military hostilities between Russia and a former Soviet neighbor. The fact is that we HAD announced our intended missile deployment, even though we never once said that they had behaved aggressively or improperly between 1992 and that time (if my recollection serves me...could be wrong on that, but I can't think of a situation). In fact, we based the expansion on a terribly flimsy "justification" regarding Iranian nukes being lobbed at Southeastern Europe. So, one can’t remove that completely disastrous decision from the context of 2008 just because Obama ultimately (and wisely IMO) saw it for the complete bullshit neocon provocation that it was and scuttled it over a year later. That is not to say that the eventual positioning of those systems in later years was not justified due to subsequent Russian behavior after August of 2008, or definitely after 2014, as I agree with you there. But by that point we were down the rabbit hole with Moscow. But IMO the actions by Russia in Georgia in 2008 were not foregone conclusions by any stretch and I believe that 2008 the point that we crossed the rubicon, fueled considerably by a terrible decision to move those missiles which many policy makers in Europe, as well as on the American left, were warning us against. 
 But so what reason was given that justified that expansion? No one on the US side even claimed that there was Russian aggression towards its neighbors at the time because it would have been seen as complete bullshit, even to a largely inwardly focused American public. In fact, US 3-Star General Henry Obering and Condoleeza Rice came over here and stressed over and over that the expansion has nothing to do with Russia, who Obering praised in private NATO meetings and to the German Foreign Ministry as being constructive in its relationship with its neighbors and operating positively within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council. 
 So without the Soviet aggressor, which was sorely needed to justify this type of expansion in Europe, they needed another one, so they went with the ol’ trusty “American-Hostage-Takin' Mullahs in Iran” as justification to the largely geographically uninformed American public. This reasoning was completely for domestic US consumption and was laughed off the stage here…it wasn’t even treated seriously in the European debates that raged on for a couple of years before the unilateral decision went into force in 2008. Here are Der Spiegel and Deutsche Welle’s contemporaneous pieces on it. Dated from early 2017 after the absurd proposal had been under public debate for quite some time. Notice how little Iran is even mentioned. This was seen even by US allies here as a total smokescreen designed to pull a neocon move into the East at a time when they could get by with it. By the US’ own admission, Iranian missiles at the time were insufficient to reach Western Europe, which was already “covered” by its two existing NATO-BMD systems. Furthermore, Poland and Czech themselves were also protected by the existing systems (to the extent possible, as BMD systems are, of course, notoriously unreliable), as acknowledged by the US Defense Department. So the proposed scenario was - ahem - that Iran would someday get nukes and that they would someday lash out by, uh, attacking Eastern Europe/Balkan countries, ensuring their complete annihilation…because, uh, reasons. 
 It was even acknowledged at the time that Turkey, Greece and Romania could not be protected by this third proposed European BMD expansion, so we literally are talking about entering into a destabilizing expansion to cover the Balkans, Ukraine and Hungary from some Bullshit fantasy Iranian attack. Iran firing off weapons into Europe was believed by idiots and Fox News viewers…but I guess I repeat myself there. But a whole lot of people in Western Europe saw it as playing around on fundamental fault lines with Russia, fault lines that up to that point were largely calm and unimpeded - so Brussels, Berlin and Paris at large told the US, meh, fuck off with this stupid idea. Russia of course strongly voiced its objection to this on the grounds that it would destabilize the region, threaten their national security, and then Putin offered Bush the idea of opening a joint Russian-US missile defense/radar operations facility at their existing Gabala facility in Azerbaijan, to help protect against this Iranian “threat”. The Western Europeans supported this compromise, but the US said, “nah, thanks, but no thanks. We want it in Poland”. So what did the Bush Admin do? Those paragons of honesty and thoughtfulness Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and the neocon crew just decided to deploy them unilaterally outside of the formal NATO process. Why? “Because Iran’s gonna nuke us all and Ayatollah Khamenei and Saddam were the 19th and 20th hijackers or somethin’…cue some Toby Keith y’all…Todd Beamer said let’s roll, appeaser homo tapered-jeans wearin’ Europe loves terrorists yeeeeeeeeeet.” They never once mentioned Russian aggression as rationale...because they couldn't. Because there had been none. So, just to be clear, none of this justifies Russia’s current position IMO. I fully support the full spectrum of diplomatic/non-military tools at our disposal if Russia invades. But I stand by my position that the Bush administration unnecessarily escalated tension all over the world - including wrt Russia - in the post 9/11 due to their blind adherence to the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine which sought to exploit our understandable rage, fear and insecurity as a result of the 9/11 attacks to accomplish large scale (and long sought after) geopolitical moves in completely unrelated geographical areas. Again, the behavior of the US is always seen by its own citizens in a light that is extremely self-benevolent and forgiving, without recognizing that to a whole lot of other countries we were justifiably viewed as irrational aggressors under the Bush Administration.
-
This is the only thing that has worked for me, as well, and I am back on the wagon today. I am 6'3" and 240. Dropped the booze and did OMAD with dirty Keto to start 2021 and got down to 207, and then fell off the wagon due to the boredom of being relatively locked down all year (my office is a very strict WFH unless on-site is required, which basically is reserved for manufacturing/operations, so, not me). That has really driven me to ruin wrt to calorie intake/diet. I basically cracked open a few cold ones every weekday starting around 4:30 and killed the boredom by cooking "new and interesting" (read, unhealthy) meals that weren't doing me any favors, so I gained 20 back. Irritated with myself. So, I am "embracing the suck" today with an eye on just getting 4 days with no beers and strict keto under my belt. Typically, once I do that I am off to the races and don't want to fuck up my streak.
-
Oh, and to add to that already completely insane saga, now a diplomatic row has broken out between the pro-Western/pro-NATO Ukrainian head-of state (who apparently isn't busy with that whole Russia thing), and the pro-Western/pro-NATO Georgians, as Ukraine now says that Saakashvili should be freed from prison after his coup attempt on Georgia, and returned to Ukraine on humanitarian grounds to be rehabilitated after Saakashvili did his best impression of a PCP-addled perp on COPS and fought the guards trying to move him from the hospital to his prison cell. So the former-Georgian President, who was then twice found to have attempted to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Western Government, who was for some reason pardoned by the new pro-Western Ukrainian government, who then returned to Georgia to try and overthrow Georgia's newly elected, pro-Western government by calling for his followers to storm Tbilisi, is now a matter of dispute between these two NATO aspirants. And now, the Ukrainians have requested the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, to step in and mediate. Great look, guys. Great fucking look. Volodymyr Zelensky: I receive letters from Saakashvili ... Charles Michel is involved https://report.ge/en/politics/volodymyr-zelensky-i-receive-letters-from-saakashvili-charles-michel-is-involved/ You really can't make this shit up. Hospitalized Saakashvili Refuses Prison Transfer https://civil.ge/archives/464654 Ukrainian MFA Tells Georgia Not to Endanger Saakashvili’s Life https://civil.ge/archives/464894
-
I think there is also a discussion to be had regarding not only NATO's geographic expansion, but also "how" it expanded. For me, one of the big rationales that I struggle with understanding is the "forward operating deployment/weapons system" issue within the new NATO countries in the early 2000s, which is what truly upset the Russians. I am not saying that expansion was unjustified, but in retrospect, I can't see what warranted that at the time, and I think it did immeasurable damage for no reason. Prior to the 2008 Georgian War, they hadn't shown any military aggression toward their neighbors as their 15 years as the Russian Federation. They had played ball with us internally in the 1990s under Yeltsin - much to their own detriment, if one is being honest - and were even cooperating with us by letting us use their former Soviet bases in Central Asia to carry out the post 9/11 Afghanistan operations. Yeltsin had a good relationship with the US, and Putin and GWB has famously started off on good terms. Yes, Russia had mixed it up in Chechnya, but ultimately, that was an internal matter with Russia attempting to keep a rebel province from breaking away. And in light of how brutal, humiliating and critical the First War in Chechnya was, it wasn't a good look for us - particularly John McCain (of course...who else) to regularly meet with Chechen leaders, support them from a PR perspective, and for us to even give political asylum (and then provide National Endowment for Democracy grants) to senior Chechen leader Ilyas Akmadov, with McCain, Madaleine Albright and Zbignew Brzezinski praising him as a peaceful democrat, which really furthered the deterioration of that relationship. As well as our allies in the Mid East sending the Chechens US weaponry (which I tend to believe was more of a Saudi/Wahhabi project as opposed to a fully-sanctioned "Operation Timber Sycamore-style" US one). This really concerned them, but I digress. So, when I try to understand "how we got here", which I view as a series of "salami slicing" events stretching from the 1990s to let's say 2014, I think we were at a sustainable point after the 2005 expansion, where Russia had accepted the security guarantees of the Baltics, Poland, Romania and the other lesser-controversial ones like Czech, Slovakia and Hugary. And, Lavrov said, he understood and agreed that the NATO alliance had "legitimate" interests in the region, and we could have and should have called it a day there and held off on forward operating bases absent overt hostile acts coming out of Moscow. (and I agree with you...the Russians don't care about the last four you mentioned, but using 2005 since it was the last expansion prior to the toxic 2008 NATO Bucharest Ukraine/Georgia announcement). They had just had their asses handed to them in Chechnya before finally prevailing in a brutal war...they were still fighting terrorist insurgencies in the Russian Caucasus, and no one reasonably felt that they were in the mood for any more smoke from anywhere else, particularly to those countries with security assurances from the US. So why the cutting edge, advanced weapons systems in forward operating bases? Did anyone seriously think that Russia in the mid-aughts was going to lob missiles into Warsaw or Bucharest? It isn't like it takes years to expand defensive protection Eastward if Russia started to get horsey, so why was it so urgent to accomplish when NATO was already extremely established in Western Europe? Did we really think that a Russia that was completely bogged down in its southern provinces was just going to go buckwild on the Poles? How did we not see that those otherwise relatively calm diplomatic lines were going to get real muddy, real fast with the Russians by doing that, particularly, when they were actively telling us that through the NATO-Russian Council? Of course, the surefire rationale for this was brought to us by the exact same individuals who brought us those timeless hits such as "Nigerian Yella Cake", "WMD Errrrwhere ya Look", and my personal favorite "We Gonna Be Greeted as Liberators", so I guess it makes sense. Per Lavrov's position captured in Burns' early-2008 "Nyet Means Nyet" memo prior to moving forward with Ukraine Georgia accession, which was of course never meant for public consumption (so I put more stock in the apolitical/no-spin-job nature of it) the Russians were willing to accept NATO in its current configuration, but that the forward deployments deep into the former Soviet Union had caused them real concern: "Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat. Russia might believe statements from the West that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential. Lavrov stressed that maintaining Russia's "sphere of influence" in the neighborhood was anachronistic, and acknowledged that the U.S. and Europe had "legitimate interests" in the region." Furthermore, a fact that is hugely significant but often overlooked, was Lavrov specifically stating to Burns that they were planning on relocating the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol/Crimea and relocating to Novorossiysk ahead of their stated 2017 timeline, but that they hadn't yet had time to de-couple their defense infrastructure from Crimea. This is clearly a Russia that was withdrawing to shore up its own "house" at the time. Isn't that exactly the position where we would love for Russia to be now? I really think we underestimate how objectively atrocious the Bush administration handled Russia, as many of the issues weren't as front and center as their other "Great Achievements."
-
1. Drop 15 lbs 2. Give my liver a breather until at least April 1 3. Spend less time working so that I can re-engage with some long lost hobbies. I am fortunate to be in a place where I love my job, but I have found that I am having difficulty feeling content while not working, and shutting it off is becoming harder and harder.
-
Your childhood dream job vs your currrent career? Any ragerts
Shady Ray replied to Im_smarter_then_you's topic in Lulz
My little brother got Channel 7's Connor Vernon's autograph on his brand new Spurs jersey while we were eating at the old CoCos on IH35 and 290 when he was about 10 years old. So for a year or so in the early-90s there was a kid in NW Austin running around in a David Robinson jersey with a KTBC weatherman's signature on it. I never figured that one out, but this hits close to home nevertheless. -
Oh, for sure. I didn't mean to come across like that at all. I don't know of anyone, personal or private, who thinks the Czechs or Slovaks are anything other than perfect, model parts of the EU. And yeah, they have their shit wayyyy more together than the Austrians or others. No doubt about that. If I mischaracterized the Central Europeans, that was definitely an accident. Edit: And also agree on your other point. Orban or PiS are not models, but they are lightyears better than Putin.
-
This is completely (and demonstrably) wrong. The Georgia/Ukraine NATO timeline is public, it is exhaustive and it is indisputable. The invitation to Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO as agreed upon and publicly stated began well before that 2008 War and Russia’s subsequent invasion. But yeah, let’s talk about that war. Because what whole thing was fucking absurd and I am honestly not surprised that the US media (unlike ours here, which actually reports on it) just kinda says “ehhhhh, Russia invaded Georgia ... hey, look over there guys!” and sweeps it under the rug, because the truth of the ordeal is a fucking embarrassment..to us, to NATO, and to our credibility in Western Europe. I mean, there legitimately could be compelling HBO series made about this complete shit show...and particularly the time since the ceasefire. Jesus Christ its insane. First, the timeline: The timeline as per official US State Department cable dispatches*, Georgian Government/NATO press releases, and THE official investigative report by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, which was the authoritative investigatory commission set up by the Council of the EU (adopted as official by the UN) and carried out by esteemed Swiss Diplomat Heidi Tagliavini**,: February 14, 2005: NATO begins the official membership track with Georgia with execution of NATO PfP process. March 16, 2005: NATO and Georgia sign agreement authorizing them to act as host and transit country for NATO forces March 26, 2006 : NATO Individual Partner Action Plan (IPAP) implementation team arrives in Tbilisi for implementation of IPAP April 13, 2006 the IPAP implementation assessment is presented to the larger NATO 26+1 format Mid-January, 2008: Russia is formally notified through the January 2008 Burns-Lavrov discussions of our intent move forward with a Membership Action Plan (MAP) for Ukraine and Georgia, as evidenced by the infamous January 30th “Nyet Means Nyet” cable sent to the Joint Chiefs, NATO, NSA, Sec Def, Sec State by then-Ambassador to Russia, and current CIA Director, William Burns, which was later leaked by Wikileaks. I have attached that cable below. April 4th, 2008: NATO’s Bucharest Summit. NATO officially announces that Ukraine and Georgia would join saying, “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO” in the official Summit Declaration. Mid-July, 2008: The U.S. carries out joint military exercises called “Immediate Response” with the Georgians in Georgia in mid-July 2008 involving approx 2,000 troops from the US, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. Late July/Early August 2008: The Russians respond by carrying out their own drills in their own North Caucasus Military District and on the Black Sea; First week of August 2008: South Ossetians and Georgians ratcheted up hostilities with tit-for-tat car bombings and sniper fire. It is amost certains that Russians were also involved in this. Night of August 7th to 8th: As per the IIFFMCG Official Report, “hostilities commence with the Georgian military operation consisting of “massive shelling” of Tskhinvali during the night of August 7th and 8th" (although the report does note that there was a long period of tensions, provocations and incidents on both sides prior to the Georgian military action). August 8th, 2:30 PM: Russians commence invasion of Georgia. They get to within 10 miles of Tbilisi before stopping August 12th: Ceasefire agreement negotiations commence August 16th, Condoleeza Rice travels to Tbilisi, where Saakashvili, signs ceasefire in her presence. Dmitry Medvedev signs next day in Moscow. August 17th: Russians pull back to their South Ossetian positions and both sides swap POWs. Fin (all dates are correct...for ease of sourcing, I will post to Wikipedia for the pre-war history, and the BBC hosted version of the IFFMCG report for post invasion dates) So, no. NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia was in no way a response to the Russo-Georgian War in August 2008. That’s not even something that reasonable minds can disagree on. That process was far, far along before shit kicked off in 2008. *This diplomatic cable is worth the read for a variety of reasons, most notably that the tone and rationality of each side towards the topic is a far, far cry from what it is today. Plus, at least for me, it was absolutely fascinating in general. They explicitly discussed the fact that Georgia and Ukraine were moving forward with an official MAP in that Memo and you can literally read in Burns’ own words that Russia had accepted the current state of NATO, and recognized NATO’s legitimate regional interests, but Lavrov explicitly communicates that the entire NATO-Russian relationship would change if those two - especially Ukraine - were admitted because of the deep, deep threat perception/difficulties/instabilities/internal Russian domestic impact that would be perceived by such an action. It is literally in black and white in that State Dept. cable. The entire cable spoilered below: **Tagliavini’s credibility is impeccable. She has been everything from Swiss Ambassador to Moscow to the Personal Representative of the OSCE in the Caucuses, to Swiss Ambassador to Bosnia and Herz during the 1990s/early 2000s and head of Diplomatic Affairs for the Swiss Dept of Foreign Affairs. She was the Chief of Mission for the UN Observer Mission in Georgia for years before the war - observing the implementation of the 1993 agreement - and has been the Special Representative of the General Secretary of OSCE wrt the Ukraine-Russia conflict and was essentially responsible for the original ceasefire and subsequent Minsk Protocols. She is literally at the highest echelon of European diplomats. And as is known, the Swiss are badasses when it comes to diplomacy. The Carnegie Institute for Peace - Moscow, which Burns cites as subject matter experts on the topic of Russian-NATO expansion in the Nyet Means Nyet memo, says that there is no question who fired first, and that it was the Georgians. But more importantly, they go on to say that one of the single biggest factors in that war was that Georgian PM Saakashvili (dear loooord, this fuckin' guy)*** misread GWB’s willingness to defend Georgia should they attack. When he did, and we didn’t defend him, he was fucked. This is EXACTLY what we are running the risk of doing now in Ukraine. Biden seems to be very, very aware of this and it seems that his people (particularly Jake Sullivan) to continuously convey our position to an increasingly despearate Zelensky. ***Saakashvili. Dear. God. This guy. And what became of Saakashvili - that same Georgian President that was found by the IIFFMCG to have triggered the war by shelling Tskhinvali, thus getting his country buttraped by the Russians? Ohhhh, let’s just talk about the Journey of Lil’ Misha Saakashvili. I am going to spoiler this for those who don't care, but if you want to read the wildest, batshit crazy part of this whole ordeal, AND the part that is critically important wrt the Western European insistence to stay out of this mess, read about this guy. Read about the oh-so-western, oh-so-democratic, oh-so-stable leader of Georgia in 2008 and what wild and crazy adventures this fuckstick has been on in the years following. And remember while you read this...every single voter in Germany or Fance or the Netherlands knows who this guy is by name and knows the entire story of this great, great man who the US championed as a freedom fighter. Anyway, back to the 2008 war: It is my opinion is that Russia was “being typical Russia” and thus lying in wait, fully prepared to exploit Georgia’s stupidity (and most certainly instigating it with low-level provocation), but Georgia played right into their hands by shelling South Ossetia and got in way over its head and ultimately paid the price. And this is EXACTLY what bothers me…the very real risk that their neighbors get stupid and silly when neighbor relations are viewed through the lens of having the world’s biggest and baddest military is in their corner. Russia’s neighbors have ancient disputes with Russia…they couldn’t act on them based on their own power, but they sure as fuck can feel empowered when they think that A10 Warthogs and the US Marines are in their corner. The worst thing one can do when dealing with smaller, underdeveloped countries is to give them the big bad stick and tell them that we've got their back. We can - and should when the time is right - defend non-NATO members based precisely on the circumstances at hand - and we can do that with Ukraine and Georgia if the situation is right - but giving guarantees...giving Article 5 protection to this basket full of chowderheads is insane. Furthermore, according to the findings of the IIFFMCG (which were only findings of fact, as the mission was not a tribunal), which was investigated over 9 months by a whole slew of distinguished Western European political/military/legal experts, no one involved in this was innocent. Neither party was justified and both sides violated international law: Details of the report spoilered: Bottom line, “Russia Bad, Little Russian Democratic Neighbors Good” is a naive way to view geopolitics here. So no, the Germans don’t see their worldview towards Russia as “sophisticated” or “self-centered”…they are simply informed. As opposed to what passes for foreign affairs coverage in the English Language Media. 956 mentioned a great man in an earlier post...Vaclav Havel...or we can also use Lech Walesa. When we entred into these important relationships with these countries and guaranteed their safety, they were led by wise, experienced, and (pardon the cheese) Great Men. They had experienced hardship. They knew the horrors of war and they knew the value of their freedom. They weren't about lining their own pockets, or carrying out coups, or balls deep in shady dealings etc. They were about bringing real, meaningful security for their people. We literally have people over there now who would make Donald Trump blush when it comes to their corruption, incompetence and audacity. God, we are gonna waltz into something bad here, aren't we? I see that Putin and Biden are having an urgent call today to discuss. I am not feeling nearly as optimistic as I was that we are going to avoid something over there...there is no reason to have this call with the January 10th call already set. Something isn't good. Well, it's 3:00 PM for me...and while the Germans say "Kein Bier vor Vier"...I'm giving myself 90 minutes grace. Edit: Sorry all, but I don't know why the fuck this random screen cap of the cable is stuck below, but I can't figure out how to get it removed without fucking up my spoiled cap of the cable, so I am just leaving it.
-
You raise a very good point here. I have mentioned this before, I think, but I have a team of attorneys reporting to me across Europe practicing in the area of Government Relations. Three of those reports are in Russia and they are very, very plugged into the scuttlebutt in Moscow. There is definitely talk in Moscow circles that Putin is - at a minimum - not well and that part of this entire Ukraine deal is tied into his desire to sew up the Ukraine issue before he is seen as too terribly weak. He will go as long as he can, but he is not afraid to go early IF he can ensure the compliance of his successor...basically, the same deal as the Yeltsin-Putin handoff. The Ukraine deal is a huge, huge open issue that they desperately need tied up. The entire senior leadership there…Putin (69), Lavrov (71), Shoigu (66), and the hugely important Valery Gerasimov (66) are not only past standard retirement age, (and Gerasimov is significant, as he should be mandatorily pushed out by now, but has nevertheless been kept on, likely due to this pending military issue...he has capable replacements, but no one close to his chops) but getting close to that nasty ol’ grim reaper. As there is not an heir apparent there, (outside of Shoigu, who would be bad news for us, but is IMO the most likely replacement candidate) and there is an anticipated power vacuum coming - one that will not be filled by Medvedev (who is seen as suspiciously pro-western) so the intention in senior leadership is to at least create an environment where that is duked out legitimately amongst the potential heirs and not subject to the possible influence of outside influence. As my top direct report over there says, “Putin is a corrupt, kleptocratic, authoritarian gangster…but nevertheless, he genuinely is a true Russian Nationalist who seems to feel that his reign has been ordained from some higher power…and his influence in the provinces is that he genuinely appears to love Russia.” This entire leadership is going to look very different in 5 years, max, and our intelligence agencies surely aren’t discounting that when it comes to predicting their behavior.
-
You raise a lot of great points here. And I am not being facetious when I say that I genuinely appreciate them. Your posts are some of the most edifying on this site IMO. But as I said, this is not about morality, or history or right and wrong…anymore. We all know that Central Europe was a victim. We all know that Germany was an aggressor. We all know that the Soviets were aggressors. We all know that they started shit off together under Molotov-Ribbentrop. That is indisputable. No one paid more of a price than the Central European states wrt to the European theatre. But morals in 1939 don’t matter. But what is indisputable is the fact that regardless of their morality in prior times under the USSR, Russia remains a powerful, nuclear-armed power that we must deal with on the terms of their current status. And that current status must be viewed beyond the lens of secure, fat-and-happy Central Europe. It is quite simply a geopolitical calculation. We have far, far more important issues in the world than the third-world dumpster fire that is Ukraine. Because of certain (very, very personally invested) people’s insistence that Ukraine be brought into the NATO fold, we have squandered massive levels of equity in areas that are critical for us in the future. Despite what the idiot talking heads say, Russia was never a natural ally of China. Never. But now they are. Balls deep. We have completely undone the Sino-Soviet (er, Russian) split so that we can fuck around with neo-Nazi regiments and babushkas in Ukraine. Russia is completely dependent on Chinese largesse…completely dependent on their industry, completely dependent on their financial system particularly once SWIFT goes offline for them, which is why they have spent millions over the past couple of years developing SPFS, essentially binding themselves to China. They were never geopolitically inclined to be our adversary in the Middle East. They had no desire to go to war alongside China in Asia. They had no intention of binding their entire future with the Chinese - who are our most serious adversaries. As you know, there are border disputes in Asian Russia with the Chinese and the Russians historically have been every bit as skeptical of Beijing as it has been of Brussels. As Kissinger (barf) said...and as was the case as recently as GWB...we had a wedge there. They wanted to be with us, if the conditions were right. But our stupid, stupid, stupid policies in Ukraine and Georgia, of all worthless places on the planet - coupled with our sanctions and threats - have pushed Russia so far into China’s camp that historians will laugh about our stupidity. And for what? Ukraine. Or in Georgia...some piddly territory in the Caucasus wedged between Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia that we will never be able to control? Come on, man. /NoBiden I cannot stand Kissinger, but gottdam he was effective. And even his old ass has commented about how disastrous this is. Piddly ass ex-Soviet Europe is not a vacuum. Russia has massive influence in the Mid-East. They have massive power in Syria. They have massive influence in Iran. Massive influence in Central Asia. And a natural aversion to China. But what are we doing? Pushing them into China’s arms for what? Fuckin’ Ukraine…the Congo of Europe. Literally the most worthless area of Europe for us, and the most valuable area of Europe for them? We are being completely short-sighted here.
-
Yeah, I have a pretty good grasp of the relevant history here. I wasn’t in any way discounting the legitimate impact of the Soviet invasions on Central European countries, because you are exactly right…those experiences are completely, absolutely, 100% valid from the Czech/Polish etc. perspective. I am approaching this from a post-Cold War view (since the concept of some transatlantic “security guarantee” that you referenced wasn’t even a “thing” prior to the 1990s). My central point is this: Re the 1990s, I think that the immediate post-Cold War era was precisely the time to reset the table across Europe and not to perpetuate the endless cycle of historical grievances, reaction/counter-reaction cycles by dividing Europe into yet another "us vs. them". This has never served Europe well. The US had full spectrum power then, and we could have completely re-set Europe. We didn't do that. We squandered that chance. And now, we don't have it anymore. So, if we are talking about invasions prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union as justifications for current geopolitical worldviews of Central Europeans, then you can't simultaneously claim that the repeated (and relatively recent) historical experiences of invasion/aggression experienced by Russia arising precisely through the geographic area currently at issue in Ukraine are somehow invalid, dismissing their concerns as illegitimate wrt the expansion of NATO into Ukraine. Particularly given NATOs complete shitshow and erratic behavior over the past 20 years. We have not inspired confidence as rational actors whatsoever. As I know you know, Russia-proper lost 15,000,000 people…the Soviets a total of approx 28m over a four year period which occurred right between the events that you cited as justifications for NATO expansion. This was due entirely to their loss of territorial control of that exact stretch of real estate that we are discussing now in Ukraine. So, if the Czechs and Poles are (justifiably) traumatized from their experience to a degree that it impacts their geopolitical calculus, it is least understandable that the Russians draw on their own traumatic history to do the same. And as the sole superpower at the time this realignment went down -dealing with an insecure, but heavily nuclear-armed regional power - we should have considered that a lot more than we did. Moral justifications don't matter when dealing with contries with 5,000 nukes. Practicality matters. As the lone superpower at the time - and a non-European one at that - we could have at a minimum paused the idea of NATO expansion in light of Russia’s peaceful abandonment of the Warsaw Pact- particularly given that NATO was designed to contain the Communist USSR and not to contain a fledgling democratic Russia that at the time was being led literally by a compliant leader in Yeltsin. This would have given the Russians an opportunity to demonstrate their willingness to move into the international community, which they were trying to do under Yeltsin (and even in the early years of Putin post 9/11, when Russia gave us use of their military bases in Central Asia to carry out the Afghanistan invasion). We would have had no problem snuffing out any revanchist Russia during that time should they have gotten squirelly. It was a time to start fresh in Central/Eastern Europe and only someone deliberately blinding themselves would not see that it would have been spun by Russian nationalists as their prideful nation being punched while it was down and trying its best to recover. But hey, those rocket-surgeons Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby literally created this doctrine in 1992 in our official post-Cold War policy doctrine, which was followed from 1992 through the GWB years as official policy, so it must have been well thought out, because as history shows, those guys always got it right. True fucking statesman. Giants in the craft. Like you, I lived in Russia when Putin came to power. I remained there through 2005, watching the 2004 nato expansion unfold, and I saw a ton of my young, professional, pro-western-inclined colleagues in Moscow immediately sour on the US when the expansion came into place. That was a huge, huge deal there. It was a terrible look for us and we could have handled it much, much better. One takes its nuclear-armed-power adversary as one finds them, and when the US pulls the whole “Russia is irrational for feeling insecure here”, it is discounting their loss in fighting the Nazis as our allies, as well as truly viewing NATO’s post-Cold War irrational interventions/destablizations (which are objectionably atrocious) in the most self-benevolent light imaginable. As if NATO has been some paragon of well-reasoned, well-planned, well-executed foreign interventions over the past 20 years. It most certainly has not. Regardless of whether you and I agree on NATO expansion in the 1990s, which I imagine we never will, ultimately, what we do agree on is that "what’s done is done" and Russia should not be allowed to redraw existing Iines in NATO under any circumstance. And they are absolutely not the Russia of the 1990s any longer, so they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt…but we must recognize the fire that we are playing with here and we need to find a way to manage the Ukraine situation, because they aren’t joining the EU or NATO, so we need to find a way from keep it from becoming more of a shitshow than it already is.
-
Agree with both of you here. Even if the risk is low that they get bogged down into a shitshow, the fallout of that domestically within Russia would be catastrophic for Putin. And maybe it isn't as much about taking Ukraine east of the Dnieper in full, but rather slicing off the valuable parts along the Black Sea coast. Looking at the maps, it really reinforces the idea that there are three possible invasion and subsequent occupation options if they decide to actually go in. 1) Work out of the Donbass to the Southwest, keeping Ukrainian forces occupied with activity out of the north/east with an ultimate objective of stopping at Crimea, thus effectively taking the entire Sea of Azov (rational, and also solves the headache of the fresh water shortage due to the Ukrainian's damming of the North Crimean Canal a few years back); 2) Move all the way down the Black Sea coast, hoping to minimize losses until effectively taking the area all the way to Odessa and depriving Ukraine of Black Sea access. Which will immediately collapse the Ukrainian government, if it hasn't already (risky and ambitious, but possibly worth it if their intel looks good...from an internal geopolitical perspective, this would obviously devastating for a post-ceasefire Ukraine moving forward). Supply would be much more manageable there given proximity to existing infrastructure in Crimea; 3) Go full Leeroy Jenkins and cross the Dnieper and try to go deep into Western Ukraine (can't imagine they would do this...suicidal). From what I understand, the most likely place where the Russians would cross the Dnieper is at Kherson for a variety of logistical/practical reasons. I guess theoretically, they could set out an initial objective to accomplish #1, and then see where things stand before deciding on whether to pursue #2. But the second they start moving towards that red mass, the risk skyrockets. But I am an idiot when it comes to military tech and shit, so what the fuck do I know.
-
With respect to Ukraine and Georgia, absolutely, Russia has shown aggression towards them since the 2008 announcement was made by GWB that their NATO accession was on the table. But I really don't see how you can say that the big, "problematic enlargements" (at least in the eyes of the Russians) in 1999 and 2004 were fueled by Russian aggression pushing Central Europe into the arms of NATO for a security guarantee. Now, there may have been some geopolitical benefits to the US in undertaking such an expansion, but it wasn't as a result of an expansionist Russia threatening its neighbors...Russia was completely inwardly focused on keepings itself together at the time. I point to the incomparable diplomatic titan/legend/chief architect of US Cold War policy, George F. Kennan, when interviewed by the NY Times about the initial tranche of englargment back in 1998: Now this doesn't mean things haven't changed, but the bulk of NATO expansion had nothing to do with Russian aggression. And Kennan, even in his last decade of life, proved himself to be as prescient as ever.
-
The big US-Russia meeting is now set for January 10th...first working day after Orthodox Christmas. Followed by Russia-NATO direct talks on January 12th, and Russia-OSCE meetings on the 13th. Definitely some urgency in that timeline. https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20211228-us-russia-to-hold-talks-on-arms-control-ukraine-on-january-10
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!