Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,075

    Default Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    Well, leave it to a punk rock chick from Pussy Riot to say something brilliant and make everything absolutely clear. They say that all politics are domestic, with something ad hoc lying underneath even at the international level.

    Putin is acting defensively in Ukraine

    At the heart of the crisis in Ukraine lies a simple truth about Vladi*mir Putin. Who better to say it than Nadya Tolokonnikova, who before turning 25 has experienced Russian prison, whippings by Cossacks, Western celebrity — and of course life in the punk protest group Pussy Riot, of which she is a founder.

    Putin, Tolokonnikova said, “is using foreign policy to solve problems inside Russia.”

    Yes, the Kremlin strongman would like to prevent Ukraine from integrating with the European Union, and to bite off as much of it as possible for his would-be Eurasian Union, a kind of Soviet Union lite. But ultimately Putin is acting defensively. He knows that if Ukraine’s democracy movement succeeds and the country prospers, it will become a model for Russia and his own autocracy will be doomed.

    “Putin is trying in Ukraine to set an example for Russia — to show that the result of a political change is a state of chaos,” said Tolokonnikova. “The main thing he is worried about is that what happened in Ukraine” — where mass protests forced Putin ally Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country — “will happen in Russia.”

    Tolokonnikova and Masha Alyokhina, who spent 21 months in prison for taunting Putin in a Pussy Riot stunt, were in Washington last week to underline that point and the equally simple conclusion it leads to: One of the best ways for the West to answer Putin’s aggression in Ukraine is to support his democratic opposition inside Russia.

    That is not so easy to do, precisely because of Putin’s paranoia. Since returning to the presidency two years ago, he has expelled U.S. aid programs, forced Russian groups that receive Western funding to register as foreign agents, stopped broadcasts by U.S.-funded Radio Liberty and demonized U.S. democracy promotion as a CIA plot. A domestic crackdown, meanwhile, has sent several leaders of the Russian opposition into prison or exile and all but eliminated independent media.

    Ukraine has made it all worse. “The government’s hands are untied,” said Alyokhina. “The attitude is that with the spotlight on foreign policy, they can do whatever they want at home.” As the two women travel Russia to promote the prisoner’s rights organization they created after leaving prison last December, they have been repeatedly attacked and beaten by state security thugs.

    There is, however, a readily available means by which the United States can defend Russia’s dissidents — one that the Obama administration has inexplicably shunned. A law passed by Congress in 2012, known as the Magnitsky Act, mandates sanctions against Russian officials who are implicated in human rights violations. After resisting passage of the bill, the administration applied a visa ban and asset freeze to a small number of officials last year. But in December, the White House set aside a second list of up to 20 of Putin’s enforcers that had been prepared by the State and Treasury departments.

    Congress was told at the time that the administration didn’t want to provoke Putin just before U.S. athletes headed to Sochi for the Winter Olympics. But with the Olympics long over and Ukraine under attack, Obama still keeps the human rights list on ice. That timidity has provoked senators from both parties, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who sponsored the Magnitsky Act. Cardin and three other senators, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and ranking Republican Bob Corker (Tenn.), used a Magnitsky Act provision to petition the administration to add two Russian officials to the sanctions list. The administration is required by the law to respond by next Monday.

    Tolonnikova and Alyokhina came to Washington to lobby for a positive response. They appeared with Cardin at a Capitol Hill news conference and touted their own list of suspecsts suitable for sanctions. Many are connected to the suppression two years ago last week of the “Bolotnaya protest,” an opposition march in Moscow on the eve of Putin’s presidential inauguration that was attacked by security forces; eight protestors were subsequently sentenced to prison terms. One Pussy Riot sanctions target is also on the senators’ list, as well as the State--Treasury list frozen by the White House: Alexander Bastrykin, Putin’s head prosecutor.

    Would sanctions on these police, prosecutors and judges have any impact? The Pussy Rioters think so. Bastrykin, they point out, has property in the Czech Republic. “Why shouldn’t he be forced to take his vacations in Crimea instead of Prague?” asked Alyokhina. Putin himself demonstrated his sensitivity to Western pressure by releasing a number of political prisoners before the Sochi games, including these young hipsters.

    They do look the part; but there’s a lot of quiet courage behind Alyokhina’s outsize blue glasses and Tolonnikova’s green-and-red painted nails. Asked if they planned to return to Moscow after their latest anti-Putin tour, they simply shrugged. “Of course,” said Alyokhina. “That’s where we live.”
    I basically had similar ideas all along, that Putin invading Crimea was a way for him to whip up nationalistic support for his presidency in Russia. However, the idea that Putin's real intent in causing unrest in Ukraine via the separatist groups is to show his own people that regime change amounts to unwanted chaos - in an effort to preserve his own semi-autocratic rule - makes him a truly Machiavellian figure.

    Sorry, ghost of Machiavelli, I had to use that word; we all know you weren't evil.

    So is this the main impetus for Putin funding and equipping separatist groups in eastern Ukraine? Not so much because he wants to curb the EU's influence and have a sphere of Russian influence abroad, but because he fears he'll be toppled himself in a similar manner to Yanukovych?

    I guess this idea could be extended to the idea of why leaders prefer to engage on certain topics in the international arena, so instead of posting this in the Mudpit, I will put it in the Political Academy.

  2. #2
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    I would rather pick Putin than Russian mafia, Pussy Rioters just need some Russian mafia bosses to whip them hard enough so they know who is better boss of Russia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  3. #3
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Coventry, England, UK, Europe.
    Posts
    1,048

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    I would rather pick Putin than Russian mafia, Pussy Rioters just need some Russian mafia bosses to whip them hard enough so they know who is better boss of Russia.
    What an utterly disgusting, vile, misogynistic thing to say.
    If I had to choose between betraying my friends and betraying my country, I hope I would have the guts to betray my country.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    Ukraine is an example of a regime change in a post-soviet state without the lustration, a.k.a. no actual regime change, just power passing from one plutocrat to another.
    Also chaos in Ukraine was also inevitable due to fundamental conflicts that existed in Ukraine due to almost half of the country not being historically Ukrainian. Not to mention that there is very little evidence of Putin actually providing aid to the rebels there, he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.
    Also there are rumors in Russia, that the whole Pussy Riot thing is actually Kremlin's project to distract and divide the actual opposition. Given how biggest PR to Pussy Riot was given by Gazprom-owned media, it makes sense.

  5. #5
    Geronimo2006's Avatar TAR Local Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,400

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    Putin is a classic dictator seeking refuge from domestic troubles e.g. slowing economy, protests, in foreign policy adventurism. Any police state depends on the enemy without and the enemy within. Trials for political offencees are increasingly laced with prosecutorial references to "Maidan". Likewise Argentine dictator Galitieri used the Falklands war in a similar way. The French Jacobins used the Revolutionary Wars to justify the suspension of the 1791 Constitution and the Reign of Terror. Already we are seeing a raft of new anti-protest and propaganda laws going through the Duma - some of it officially sponsored by MPs who claim their signatures were forged. For example Ilya Ponamarev says this happened to his signature on an anti-protest law drafted shortly after Yanukovych was deposed.

    Putin came to power on the back of a war in Chechnya too which was used to justify the first clampdown on the media e.g. NTV was taken over because it criticised the war (though the excuse was debts to Gazprom). The Russian people fall for it every time just as Americans blithely accepted the Patriot Act and (for a long time) the Iraq War to fight terror after 911. The difference is that Americans found out the truth e.g. no WMD in Iraq, because of the Constitutional freedom of the press (5th amendment). In Russia virtually all the media is owned by the Kremlin.
    Last edited by Geronimo2006; May 12, 2014 at 01:03 AM.
    Colonialism 1600AD - 2016 Modding Awards for "Compilations and Overhauls".



    Core i7 2600 @ 3.4ghz - NVIDIA GTX950 2GB

    Colonialism 1600 AD blog

  6. #6

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    I think the annexation of Crimea was much more an emotional response by Putin than the result of cool headed political calculation. If you look at the timeline of events, and read Putin's speech to the Duma, what comes through is a strong sense of righting historical wrongs. Of undoing the injustices wrought upon Russia during the Yeltsin era, and to putting an end to Western nations carving deeper into the Russian sphere of influence. I actually think the Crimean episode provided the clearest insight into Putin's mind, his motivations, his sense of history and how he sees himself in it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...f19_story.html

    The subsequent events in Eastern Ukraine and Russia's involvement are much more realpolitik. I think the reaction in the capital markets quickly sobered up Putin and the oligarchs who run the Russian economy. Russian tanks could have rolled halfway through Ukraine and established a new de facto border in less than a week if so ordered. The threat of Western sanctions probably prevented that as the EU could collapse Russia's exports (and thus it's economy) if it chose to. Indeed, I think public opinion is actually ahead of what Putin is willing to do when it comes to Eastern Ukraine. I think Putin is angling to create a Transniestria situation in Eastern Ukraine, rather than actual annexation. You can see this in his negative response to the local referendums inviting Russian annexation.
    Last edited by Sphere; May 12, 2014 at 12:04 PM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    A lot of Russians don't believe Putin exercises much control or influence over the country. The Putin regime was successful in concentrating wealth and authority on the Moscow-Leningrad axis. But that's really a very, very tiny part of Russia. There are vast stretches of the country that are literally out of touch with any central authority and rule on their own, regional prerogative. Dagestan for instance is basically Kadyrov territory.

    Personally I think Putin is a trembling man who is sick and tired of his position and wishes to exit if he could, but he knows that the moment he steps down he will be literally eaten alive. People who swallow up the rather lousy stream of propaganda think Putin is some kind of judo inspired calculative genius, (ala Paul von Oberstein if you catch the reference) but those in the know within Russia and outside, hardly see how any of his actions benefited Russia's national interests. He puts on a facade of an iron fisted strongman, but behind it lies a powerless figurehead. That's why he's trying to keep power by any means possible, even if it requires harming the relations with his western partners. Funny thing , the cleverest thing USA could do is offer Putin and Medvedev asylum, like he did to Snowden. At least over there they can live together in peace as an openly gay couple.
    Last edited by Carl Jung was right; May 21, 2014 at 03:04 AM.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    The speed with which Crimea was disstablizied and taken over would indicate that a long term plan had been put into motion.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  9. #9
    YuriVII's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texian Cossack Hetmanate
    Posts
    3,007

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    I dont think it was so long-term in that I don't think they had plans to act until maidan started up. I half agree with the Pussy Rioters statement. I think the Crimea operations were a primarily geostrategic move. I wouldn't exactly call her commentary brilliant. Maybe she should stick another chicken up her .

  10. #10
    Col. Tartleton's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cape Ann
    Posts
    13,053

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    Nadya Tolokonnikova is an attention whore.

    Sometimes you've got to smack a hoe. The sexist part is not hitting her as hard as a man.
    Last edited by Col. Tartleton; May 29, 2014 at 05:52 AM.
    The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
    The search for intelligent life continues...

  11. #11

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    Hmmm, so you say that US is invading all those countries, invented the notion "Terrorist" and is causing unrest all over the world, to distract the population at home and give a reason as to why they can't do enough for their own citizens? Interesting... Old news, though. Also, this is just one of the reasons.

  12. #12
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,075

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    Except the difference in the case of the United States is that it actually had Boeing 767 airliner jets flown into its World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11th, 2001, followed immediately by the invasion of Afghanistan. In that case the threat of terrorism wasn't imagined. For Russians, the threat of "Nazis" in Kiev towards Russia and the Russian people is entirely imagined. Yet I'd venture to say that most of the ethnic Russians who stormed government buildings in eastern Ukraine did so because their guy in office, Yanukovych, was ousted in a revolution. They were not too happy about that.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Putin causes unrest in Ukraine for defensive purposes at home

    Dusting off the Karaganov doctrine

    Posted in: Articles on Thursday, 17th April 2014 – by Marijke Vermeulen
    Russia’s present policy vis-à-vis Ukraine and Crimea builds on intellectual foundations that were laid decades ago. Already in 1992, one of Yeltsin’s advisors named Sergei Karaganov argued that Russian meddling in other countries within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is justified if the human rights of Russian compatriots are believed to be at stake. Soon afterwards his ideas were labelled the ‘Karaganov doctrine’. The vague description of who those compatriots were and when their human rights were at stake make it possible for Russia to use their compatriots as a tool to gain influence in its so-called ‘Near Abroad’. As Russia claims exclusive interests in the ‘Near Abroad’ and does not tolerate Western influence in this region, the Karaganov doctrine constitutes the key to understand Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the European Union (EU) must give Ukraine the required breathing space to prevaricate between Russia and the West.
    The Yeltsin period

    When Yeltsin became the first president of the Russia in 1991, he attempted to address the challenge of establishing a national identity. Importantly he opted for a civic and non-territorial definition of Russian nationhood. By doing so, the Russia could claim the protection of Russian citizens living outside the Russian territory (also called ‘compatriots’). A series of events occurring in 1992 effectively forced Yeltsin to address the issue of the Russian compatriots in Russian foreign policy. These events included the Estonian refusal to grant Russian citizens in Estonia automatic citizenship and the onset of Russia separatism in Abkhazia and in the Dniester region of Moldova. Shortly after Karaganov made his case, Yeltsin in January 1993 issued the first ‘Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation’. This document heralded the development of the Russian ‘Near Abroad’ policy. Yet the economic reforms by means of which Yeltsin sought to introduce a free market system met with the strong domestic opposition. The chaotic state Russia found itself in soon pushed the Karaganov doctrine and the Near Abroad policy into the background again. Domestic turmoil and a weak Russian economy effectively prevented the implementation of an aggressive foreign policy.
    Russian minority protection under Putin

    Economic growth under Putin enabled a more assertive Russian foreign policy. In this context, the Karaganov doctrine became an important underpinning for a more active stance towards the Russian Near Abroad. Frome the Russian point of view Ukraine is of crucial importance for the realization of the Russian interests and Russian sphere of influence. Kiev was the first capital of Kievan-Rus, the roots of the Russian empire. This shared cultural heritage is an important reason why Russian influence in Ukraine is a priority in Russian foreign policy. Western influence in Ukraine is therefore perceived as a threat to the Russian national interest. Consistent with the Karaganov doctrine, any Western move in Ukraine should trigger Russia to use the Russian citizens in Ukraine as a pretext to re-establish their exclusive zone of influence in Ukraine.
    This is exactly what happened after the Maidan revolution in Ukraine. Protecting the human rights of Russian compatriots in Crimea served as the perfect excuse for the Russian annexation of Crimea. In early March Sergei Karaganov wrote a commentary entitled ‘Russia needs to defend its interests with an iron fist’. Unsurprisingly, the article seeks to justify Russia’s intervention in Ukraine’s politics.
    Putin’s meticulous preparations for this move made a smooth annexation possible. Russia distributed passports and sponsored Russian media in Crimea to ensure the constant dissemination of Russian ideas. Russian investments (through the leasing of Sebastopol and cheap Russian gas) underlined the importance of collaborating with Russia. The strengthening of the ties with the Russian compatriots is an important precondition to make their protection an effective tool to undermine the state sovereignty in the Russian Near abroad. On the 31st March, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev announced the creation of a Russian Ministry for Crimean Affairs. This illustrates that the development of Crimea is a priority for the Russian government.
    In this light, the proposal by the interim-government to abolish the status of Russian as a regional language was not a clever move, especially because the use of the Russian language is not limited to ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Following the proposal, Crimean Prime Minister Sergej Aksenov officially asked for Russian support. Although interim-president Yatseniuk refused to enact this legislation, Aksenov’s official request made it possible to appeal to the Karaganov doctrine as well as to international law to justify the Crimean invasion. The appeal to international law illustrates the very selective (even creative) interpretation of international law by Russia because the annexation of Crimea was beyond the scope of merely protecting the rights of Russian citizens abroad.
    The EU enters the arena

    The EU’s offer to sign the Association Agreement at the Vilnius summit in November 2013 forced Ukraine to choose between the European and the Russia-dominated Eurasian integration project. The Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) coupled with the Association Agreement is not compatible with the legislation of Russia’s Customs Union. The imposed choice transformed Ukraine into a battleground of clashing European and Russian interests, norms and identities. Furthermore, Russia has started a propaganda war claiming that the Maidan Revolution was – just like the Orange Revolution – the result of Western influence in Ukraine. The hostile attitude towards Western influence in combination with the use of Russian minorities as a tool for protecting Russia’s exclusive interests in Ukraine, make the EU’s activity in its Eastern neighbourhood a delicate matter. The only way for the EU to promote the European values of democracy, human rights and rule of law is to leave Ukraine enough room for manoeuvre to balance between the EU and Russia. The EU’s decision to split the Association Agreement into a political chapter and postponing the signing of a more far-reaching DCFTA is an example of a more cautious approach. This is an important development because an imposed choice between EU and Russia will undoubtedly trigger Russia’s aggression under the pretext of protecting the Russian compatriots. Crimea is the first case in which Russia actually annexed the territory, but it set a dangerous precedent for other regions with a significant Russian minority like Eastern and Southern Ukraine, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

    http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/2...anov-doctrine/
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •