Puyin - Ideolgy over economics - The return of the Soviet Union

[steve_bnk]

It would appear the Crimean referendumwas bought with promises. And now Russia is stuck with a welfarestate.


Services cut, authoritarian control ofthe economy, trains no longer running, a client state who's onlymarket is Russia...sounds like Putin has restored the Soviet Union.




http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/08/o...nd-ukraine-andrey-kurkov/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


'...Under pressure from the Kremlin,Russian airlines -- the only ones now flying to the peninsula -- haveslashed prices on flights. I think Russian oligarchs will soonreceive an order from the Kremlin to buy holiday packages to Crimeansanitoriums and resorts for their employees.


Otherwise how will the Kremlin get 8million Russian visitors promised to Crimea this summer?


And if all of Russia's citizens dodecide to support Crimean hotels and resorts this summer, then whowill visit the newly built super-resort of Sochi?


But the summer season in Crimea onlylasts a little more than three months. And after that, what? Crimeaproduces wine and grows fruit. They can only export it to Russia, butRussia has enough wine and fruit of its own.


Putin will have no other choice but tofollow Europe's example and subsidize farmers and winemakers so theydon't grow anything and reduce wine production.


The impact of this "acquisition"on Russia's budget looks scary. No wonder that the pre-referendumpromise to quadruple pensions for Crimea's residents has beenreplaced with one to reconsider it starting from January 2016.


Currently tram and trolleybus driver'ssalaries are frozen, the number of suburban trains had been cut andpeople are trying to figure out how to keep on living...




For the last 20 years Crimea has beenknown for its love for everything Soviet. Strictly speaking, Crimeahas remained Soviet. Against the background of south Crimea's trulystunning coast, lovingly preserved Soviet monuments look very odd. Myfavorite one -- a big statue of Lenin in Koreiz, not far from Yalta-- has him standing on the cliff looking sternly in the direction ofTurkey...'

 

[arkirk]

steve: I agree with you that this is not a good turn of events, but then nothing happening in Ukraine today is particularly good. Yesterday, people in their legislative body had a fist fight. The political climate in Ukraine is extremely intemperate and such an environment is perfect pickins for somebody like Putin. Putin has all the earmarks of a petro power glutton with the added qualities of homophobia and pussyphobia.

 

[steve_bnk]

Now that I think of it, Crimea and Ukraine are in some ways similar to Berlin in the blockade.Russia tried to starve Berliners into going over to the soviets.

Foiled by a massive international airlift. It was a defining moment in the Cold War. I'd say if you are post Cold War and think it was much ado about nothing, take a look at Putin. The sequel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade


'...Their aim was to force the western powers to allow the Soviet zone to start supplying Berlin with food, fuel, and aid, thereby giving the Soviets practical control over the entire city.
In response, the Western Allies organized the Berlin airlift to carry supplies to the people in West Berlin.[1][2] Aircrews from the United States Air Force, the British Royal Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal New Zealand Air Force, and the South African Air Force[3]:338 flew over 200,000 flights in one year, providing up to 4700 tons of necessities daily, such as fuel and food, to the Berliners.[4]

By the spring of 1949 the effort was clearly succeeding, and by April the airlift was delivering more cargo than had previously been transported into the city by rail. The success of the Berlin Airlift brought embarrassment to the Soviets who had refused to believe it could make a difference. The blockade was lifted in May 1949 and resulted in the creation of two separate German states.[4] The Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) split up Berlin.[4] Following the airlift, three airports in the former western zones of the city served as the primary gateways to Germany for another fifty years...'

Putin is a product of the Soviet system. I think Putin caught people in the west by surprise in going so overtly back to the old Soviet ways of doing state craft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

 

[boneyard bill]

Frankly, I don't see the similarities. I think Putin's response in Crimea was about the minimum that could be expected. Far from supporting the democratically-elected government in the Ukraine, the West supported an armed mob that seized power in Kiev in a coup d'état. Putin had tolerated a West-leaning government in Kiev for a long time when it came to power by constitutional means, but once the West pulled off its coup in Kiev, Putin did the one thing Russia absolutely needed to do which was to secure its naval base in Sevastopol. That was easy enough to do since Russia was allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea by treaty, and the majority of Crimeans are Russian-speaking anyway. There was no Russian "invasion" and there was no Russian aggression. There was Russian intervention in Crimea, but there was Western intervention in Kiev. The Russian intervention was triggered by the Western intervention.

Meanwhile, Putin hasn't resorted to appeals to communism or even to the old Soviet Union to justify his actions. He has appealed to Russian nationalism and even to the Russian Orthodox Church even though Putin has never been known to be a believer.

 

[steve_bnk]

Good point, we had a knee jerk response to support the coup. That too would be a throwback to the Cold War. Any enemy of Russia is a friend of ours.

 

[bilby]

The Cold War is over.

The Soviet Union isn't coming back.

No matter how much some Americans would like it to.

Real geopolitics does not organise itself to minimise the learning effort required for unimaginitive former cold warriors.

Learn the new way of the world, or resign yourself to being repeatedly, and often disastrously, wrong.

 

[boneyard bill]

Good point, we had a knee jerk response to support the coup. That too would be a throwback to the Cold War. Any enemy of Russia is a friend of ours.

I don't think it was "knee-jerk" response. I think it was planned and orchestrated by the US. The events in Kiev have "CIA covert operation" written all over it. The US had to stop the peace agreement that the EU had negotiated to end the protests. That was the point of Victoria Nuland's comment, "Fuck the EU."

 

[arkirk]

Frankly, I don't see the similarities. I think Putin's response in Crimea was about the minimum that could be expected. Far from supporting the democratically-elected government in the Ukraine, the West supported an armed mob that seized power in Kiev in a coup d'état. Putin had tolerated a West-leaning government in Kiev for a long time when it came to power by constitutional means, but once the West pulled off its coup in Kiev, Putin did the one thing Russia absolutely needed to do which was to secure its naval base in Sevastopol. That was easy enough to do since Russia was allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea by treaty, and the majority of Crimeans are Russian-speaking anyway. There was no Russian "invasion" and there was no Russian aggression. There was Russian intervention in Crimea, but there was Western intervention in Kiev. The Russian intervention was triggered by the Western intervention.

Meanwhile, Putin hasn't resorted to appeals to communism or even to the old Soviet Union to justify his actions. He has appealed to Russian nationalism and even to the Russian Orthodox Church even though Putin has never been known to be a believer.

There is more than one empire fighting over that territory. Would it not be best to sit down at a table and divide up this disparate territory into units that had more people happy just what they belonged to? At this point there is just a bankrupt set of squabbling parties. I cannot side with Putin. I cannot side with Obama or the IMF or anybody seeking to dominate anybody there. Some are recalling Putin's comment about the tragedy of the demise of the Old Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union is dead. Putin admitted its demise and now is working with good old fashioned oligarchs in his own country like Obama is in his. The people paying for all this discontent....the Ukrainians. My heart goes out to all of them regardless of what side they think they may be on. The U.S. is not an innocent player in this matter. Ukraine is actually a carcass of a country and not much of a prize for the empire builders. At some point we should take pity on the people who live there and quit tearing it further apart. I remember the story of Solomon and a couple of bitches fighting over a baby. We will probably end up cutting this baby in half. Sorry about that.

 

[boneyard bill]

Here is another article which I think clearly captures exactly the wrong way that the US is looking at the Ukraine situation:

http://news.yahoo.com/how-putin-is-losing-in-crimea--a-reality-check-180005512.html

On that day, at the same time Russian President Vladimir Putin was signing a treaty finalizing the annexation of Crimea, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk was putting his own signature down: on a partnership pact between Ukraine and the European Union (EU).

It was precisely this agreement — and the refusal of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to sign it — that led to the bloody demonstrations in Kiev that forced Yanukovych from power and spurred Russia’s seizure of Crimea.

It’s the kind of trade that looks bad for Russia on the surface — and will only look worse in the future. Russia’s political influence in Ukraine and its dreams of creating an economic union to compete with the EU lies in tatters. Rather than push the U.S. and EU away from his western border, Putin’s actions have practically invited them in by strengthening the bonds between Kiev and the West. It is yet another reminder that Putin’s decision to seize Crimea, rather than serve as a triumphant moment, is far more likely to end up a disaster.

I don't know if this is just horrible logic and misinformation or whether it is a deliberate attempt at propaganda, but the implication is that Putin's annexation of Crimea caused the Yatsenyuk government to come to power in Kiev when, in fact, the exact opposite is the case.

The reality is that Russia is far more dependent on selling oil and gas to Europe than Europe is on buying oil and gas from Moscow. If the Russians try to play hardball with European countries — in retaliation for sanctions — they will pay the biggest price. And with an economy already on the precipice of free fall, that’s hardly a choice that Russian leaders want to be making.

The even worse potential outcome is that irrespective of what Russia does, European countries may wake up to the reality that their dependence on Russian oil is also feeding Russian militarism — and respond accordingly.

While Russia is very dependent on Europe for its sales of oil and gas, there isn't much chance that Europe would be willing to suffer the cost of refusing to buy from Russia, (And they have openly stated that they won't), and as far as the long-term consequences are concerned, Russia already has a deal with China and is beginning construction of pipeline there that will be ready to service the Chinese market far sooner than Europe would be able to find alternatives to Russian gas.

OK, so maybe things don’t look so great with the economy, but hey the Russians have Crimea — that must be worth something, right?

While the peninsula does offer some strategic benefits and certainly safeguards the Russian fleet that has been docked there since the end of the Cold War, Crimea might as well be the Russian word for “millstone.”

According to one analysis, Moscow could be looking at a bill as high as $20 billion over the next three years to fully integrate the peninsula into Russia.

Unquestionably, the annexation of Crimea will be costly to the Russians, but not nearly as costly as what Ukraine is going to cost to the West. In fact, Russia had offered Ukraine $15 billion in aid and a discount on their natural gas purchases which probably would have come to more than they're going to need to spend in Crimea. But Ukraine actually needs $37 billion just to make it's current payments, and all of that will now have to come from the West.

But what is really missing from this picture is the idea that anyone really profits from this confrontation. Putin didn't annex Crimea because he wanted it, he annexed it because he needed it, and the West's coup in Kiev forced him to act. The $20 billion he might have to spend in Crimea is small cost compared to the loss of security involved in the loss of Sevastopol.

If Putin had really wanted territory, he would have invaded Ukraine. Remember, it was the parliament, controlled by Yankovych's own party that removed him from power. But they did not do so by constitutional means. Yanukovych was not impeached, and even if he had been, the parliament did so under duress. They were surrounded by armed mobs, and Yankovych had to flee for his life. So Putin could have sent in troops on the grounds that he was just restoring the legitimate president to power. That's exactly what Clinton did when he forced the return of President Aristide to power in Haiti. (Except that the troops never had to land because the junta fled before that became necessary).

Unfortunately, the geniuses running our foreign policy cannot figure out that the West really doesn't have anything to gain from this either. I suppose they have some cockamamie dream of finally admitting Ukraine to NATO, but it's likely that calmer heads within NATO would prevail, and NATO would reject that proposal just as they did the last time. Such a move would merely provoke Putin to annex Eastern Ukraine as well.

But I don't think Putin wants Ukraine or even Eastern Ukraine. He wants a neutral Ukraine as a buffer zone with NATO. Ideally, he wants a loose Ukrainian federation with an autonomous East and an autonomous West region.

 

[arkirk]

Boneyard: Do you really think you can say what Putin wants? About the only thing I see him wanting is to be younger. These current actions of his are forced on him by his oligarch handlers. I think you are right that Russia is very insecure regarding any possibility of NATO expanding into any country bordering Russia. Peoples' opinions on this matter are like assholes....everybody's got one and when trouble threatens they cling onto them for dear life.

 

[boneyard bill]

Boneyard: Do you really think you can say what Putin wants? About the only thing I see him wanting is to be younger. These current actions of his are forced on him by his oligarch handlers. I think you are right that Russia is very insecure regarding any possibility of NATO expanding into any country bordering Russia. Peoples' opinions on this matter are like assholes....everybody's got one and when trouble threatens they cling onto them for dear life.

Of course, I'm not a mind-reader, but neither are all of our "deep thinkers" inside the beltway. I can only infer what Putin wants by his actions and his statements, but what I've said is the product of that inference. I think Putin is much more independent of Russian oligarchs (He threw a lot of them in jail, remember), than Obama is independent of ours. Despite huge evidence of criminal fraud, the Obama Justice Department refuses to prosecute the Wall Street bank executives. Meanwhile, we have a foreign policy that is clearly driven by special interests, not the national interest. The national interest should be apparent to anyone:

Whatever else you do, DO NOT drive Russia into a alliance with China.

So what are we doing in almost every area of our involvement overseas with both our diplomacy AND our economic policies?