ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, February 23, 2015

US defeat in Ukraine

Waging war by proxy runs the risk of being defeated by proxy too:
In less than a year, the United States has toppled the democratically-elected government of Ukraine, installed a Washington-backed stooge in Kiev, launched a bloody and costly war of annihilation on Russian-speaking people in the East, thrust the economy into a downward death spiral, and reduced the nation to an anarchic, failed state destined to endure a vicious fratricidal civil war for as far as the eye can see.

Last week, Washington suffered its greatest military defeat in more than a decade when Ukraine’s US-backed army was soundly routed in the major railway hub of Debaltsevo. Roughly, 8,000 Ukrainian regulars along with untold numbers of tanks and armored units were surrounded in what came to be known as “the cauldron.” The army of the Donetsk Peoples Republic led by DPR commander Alexander Zakharchenko, encircled the invading army and gradually tightened the cordon, eventually killing or capturing most of the troops within the pocket. The Ukrainian Armed Forces suffered major casualties ranging between 3,000 to 3,500 while a vast amount of lethal military hardware was left behind.

According to Zakharchenko, “The amount of equipment Ukrainian units have lost here is beyond description.”

Additionally, the US-backed proxy-army saw many of its crack troops and top-notch units destroyed in the fighting leaving Kiev unable to continue the war without assistance from allies in the US or Europe. The full impact of the defeat will not be known until angry troops returning from the front amass on the streets of the Capital and demand Petro Poroshenko’s resignation. The Ukrainian President is responsible for the massacre at Debaltsevo. He was fully aware that his army faced encirclement but ordered them to remain in order to satisfy powerful right-wing elements in his government. The disaster is even more terrible due to the fact that it was entirely avoidable and achieved no strategic purpose at all. Extreme hubris frequently impacts outcomes on the battlefield. This was the case at Debaltsevo.
Most people outside of Eastern Europe aren't paying much attention to this, but the fact of the matter is that Russia is militarily obliterating Ukraine and they are mostly doing so by the same sort of war-by-proxy in which the USA is engaged. The DPR is a Russian proxy, but then, the Ukrainian army is a US proxy, and so far, the Russian proxies are winning.

That's why you're not seeing much about it on the US news.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is soon another coup and the US puppet Poroshenko is thrown out of power, whether it is by Right Sector or someone else. The Russians have won on the moral level and now their Novorossiyan proxies are winning on the material level as well. Poroshenko's failure to withdraw his troops from the Debaltsevo Pocket was a strategic mistake of the sort one usually only sees labeled Fuhrerbefehl; to the left is an image of what the Pocket looked like back on 25 January when 8,000 troops still had the chance to retreat from within that yellow peninsula in the middle.

From Reuters: The loss of Debaltseve is so huge only because Kiev turned it into a symbolic redoubt, said Gustav Gressel, a specialist on Eastern European defense policy and a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. Poroshenko’s biggest mistake was not to withdraw earlier, according to Gressel. The battle for Debaltseve is reminiscent of the futile struggle for the Donetsk airport, which Ukrainian forces finally gave up in January after months of bitter fighting.

Labels:

163 Comments:

Anonymous ZhukovG February 23, 2015 3:15 PM  

I have heard that the separatists have been aided by Cossacks of the Don Host crossing the border to volunteer.

Anonymous Soga February 23, 2015 3:16 PM  

And our elites won't take that as a hint to keep their noses out of foreign businesses.

Nor our idiot public.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 23, 2015 3:19 PM  

This is a Nuland-order: not one backward step!

In accordance with the spirit of Drang nach Osten and the principle of the iron will, all fighters in the so-called "cauldron" will resist not only to the last bullet but to the last drop of blood. No retreat!

Heil Nuland!

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 3:25 PM  

This is a convoluted and shortsighted attempt by US and EU political leadership to prop up failing monetary regimes. In the long run it achieves nothing, and eventually, the piper will be paid.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 23, 2015 3:27 PM  

Soga: "And our elites won't take that as a hint to keep their noses out of foreign businesses."

Of course not. The occupation of America will continue, and the mass immigration and repression will be increased.

Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson are agreed, and Mark Zuckerberg concurs; therefore dissent is antisemitic and must be dealt with by the ADL, the SPLC the FBI etc..

Anonymous Anubis February 23, 2015 3:28 PM  

They forgot to mention that the US made 33 tones of gold disappear & Joe Biden's cocaine snorting son used his "JWhite privilege" to be in charge of the Ukraine's natural gas. Homeee caught with crack couldn't get a job like that right after not going to jail.

Anonymous ZhukovG February 23, 2015 3:28 PM  

The Ukrainian Army is in tatters having wasted itself in a disastrous offensive that started in January. The latest Mobilization (Draft) has been resisted by the Ukrainian people and is failing to even provide a tithe of the 100,000 conscripts the Ukrainian govt was hoping for.

This is probably why Poroschenko wants EU peacekeepers to come to Ukraine.

The Chocolate Tsar is probably doomed and this is probably what Putin has been working towards. Poroschenko is likely to be replaced by Bandarists, a group that is too odious for even Merckel to support without suffering a heavy backlash at home.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 23, 2015 3:31 PM  

Noah B.: "This is a convoluted and shortsighted attempt by US and EU political leadership to prop up failing monetary regimes."

You mean, by conquering Ukraine for the Tribe and taking its gold out of the country? That seems to have worked.

Noah B.: "In the long run it achieves nothing, and eventually, the piper will be paid."

Wasn't the problem that the Germans' gold had to be repaid as the exact same bars of gold? Last time I looked that promise wasn't there any more, and replaying the Germans with gold plundered from the Ukrainians should be fine now.

Anonymous Daniel February 23, 2015 3:34 PM  

I won't be surprised if the DPR verifies the existence of phosophorous or other WMDs in the cauldron. Yes, it could have just been hubris, but I wonder if the Ukrainians were ordered to stay in order to cover up hardware shenanigans.

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 3:35 PM  

One thing I haven't heard lately is the status of Russian gas deliveries to Ukraine and the rest of Europe. Have the sanctions left these cut off completely, and if so, how close is Europe to running out of nat gas? There was some talk of the US making up for the shortfall in supply, but the last analysis I saw tended to indicate that this was an entirely unrealistic prospect, requiring years to implement.

ZH was covering this several months ago but I haven't seen them address this lately.

Blogger dw February 23, 2015 3:36 PM  

Good Lord the Ukrainian army is pathetic. Aided by the U.S. and EU and they still manage to lose an unimportant battle?

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 3:42 PM  

My read was that the gold plunder was a side benefit and that the primary purpose of intervention was to gain control over Ukrainian gas fields and pipelines. Primarily, they wanted to ensure that Europe's gas purchases could be denominated in euros for the foreseeable future.

Blogger sykes.1 February 23, 2015 3:45 PM  

Nearly every single senior US and UK official is urging Ukrainian policies that would lead to a general war in Europe, a war that would inexorably go nuclear and spread to the US mainland. Kissinger appears to be the only one urging restraint. Fortunately, for now Merkel (with Hollande) is preventing a wider war.

If Poroshenko is removed by a coup, can her position be safe?

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 23, 2015 3:49 PM  

Titus Didius Tacitus
“This is a Nuland-order: not one backward step!”
Or maybe you know, Ukrainians didn’t want to lose another part of their country to Russia? For some reasons citizens don’t like it tend to turn against politicians who are giving ground to the enemy?
Also: I distinctly remember reading on this blog something about denying agency to people, you know like white people making black people poor because slavery. So everything that happens happens because some people in Washington want to happen? Stupid decisions made by Ukrainian High Command are really the fault of some neocon conspiracy? Said High Command is infested by people who are where they are only by accident, meaning they had bad luck to be posted to bases in Ukrainian SSR when Ukraine went independent. So they made career in Ukrainian Army. Now they command in war against Russia.
A question Vox: how many elections must pass before a government is deemed democratic? Poroshenko’s government is not ideal, but I have distinct impression that it is a bit more representative than Yushchenko’s.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 23, 2015 3:53 PM  

Should be:

"Or maybe you know, Ukrainians didn’t want to lose another part of their country to Russia? For some reasons citizens don’t like it and tend to turn against politicians who are giving ground to the enemy? "

Also the comment box for some reason ate paragraph breaks. Bad box.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 23, 2015 3:53 PM  

Washington has largely won the information war, having persuaded Congress and the American people that US policy in Ukraine is “just”, but on the ground, where it counts, Washington has encountered one catastrophic failure after another. This process will undoubtedly persist until the costs are too exorbitant to bear.

Like so many other policies of the occupying regime.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 23, 2015 3:55 PM  

Noah B.: "My read was that the gold plunder was a side benefit and that the primary purpose of intervention was to gain control over Ukrainian gas fields and pipelines. Primarily, they wanted to ensure that Europe's gas purchases could be denominated in euros for the foreseeable future."

Ah, I gotcha now.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza February 23, 2015 4:01 PM  

All that matters is that V Putin remains in power over Russia. This proxy horrorshow will not continue for much longer. No, the media didn't talk about Dyn Corp cutting staff either or how nearly every authoritarian with a title or badge is above the law. In Ukraine and Russia it would not fly.

Isn't it true that Ukraine wanted to go with the bankers and join the failed EU?

Blogger Jourdan February 23, 2015 4:06 PM  

Not surprising and very foreseeable.

After all, not only have U.S. proxies failed in the post-WWII era in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. itself has not won a war in that same era.

"No department of defense has ever, or will ever, win a war" wrote Heinlein in 1958.

He was right then, still right now.

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 4:09 PM  

"Isn't it true that Ukraine wanted to go with the bankers and join the failed EU? "

That was largely true of Western, but not Eastern, Ukraine. And the democratically elected leadership of Ukraine was opposed to joining the EU, which was the CIA's cue.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 23, 2015 4:10 PM  

Bies Podkrakowski: "Or maybe you know, Ukrainians didn’t want to lose another part of their country to Russia?"

Ukrainians already had 100% of Ukraine before the coup, and a great deal of Russia (Crimea) too. They had a winning hand and they threw it on the ground.

Why? I think it's because the people who made the decisions either don't care what's good for Ukrainians or actually hate them. We heard the intercepted communications, including Victoria Nuland picking the government of her choice -- one with the proper Jewish connections of course.

Bies Podkrakowski: "So everything that happens happens because some people in Washington want to happen?"

No. The conspiracy stuff went great; they have a talent for it. But the war stuff isn't going to plan. That's where we came in. It isn't so easy when you're not fighting Arabs at American expense.

Bies Podkrakowski: "Stupid decisions made by Ukrainian High Command are really the fault of some neocon conspiracy?"

Bad advice from a proconsul is hard to resist. We saw the high-level CIA input. We see decisions that show contempt for the national interest, like letting the nation's gold be carried off. We see people with power positions, like the junior Biden, who would be nowhere near anything important in Ukraine was really a self-governing country.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 23, 2015 4:17 PM  

Noah B.

Actually the supply of gas is sufficient and the winter is mild. What’s more important Ukrainian adventure is costing Russia real money. As a result Moscow had to stop developing Arctic oilfields. It has also put an end to dreams about sending oil and gas to China through Siberia. Russia is unable to diversify its customers and this gives Europe advantages in bargaining. What’s is even more important this means that Russia is forced to rely on old oilfields. With oil prices going down and Ukrainian war sucking billions there is no money to modernize and develop new infrastructure.

This means that even if Putin now wins on Ukraine in a few ears Russia may simply implode. Great!

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 23, 2015 4:19 PM  

Maybe the "Americans" didn't demand this useless belligerence. Maybe they had nothing to do with that specific decision.

But the overall anti-white (including anti-Slavic) Drang nach Osten -- that comes from the Nudelman / Kagan / Nuland gang, that is the neocons.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 23, 2015 4:20 PM  

One of the conspiracy theories floating about was that Putin and his cronies had a working deal with the Banderite types of de legitimizing the current oligarch stooge.

Blogger Chris Gerrib February 23, 2015 4:25 PM  

I'm not sure how much (if any) influence the US has with Ukraine, nor have I seen Obama advocate anything even tangentially likely to start a major war. (Putin won't go to war over sanctions.)

Be that as it may - the big advantage of fighting a war by proxy is that you can fight to the last of the proxy's men and not really care if they win or lose. Nations have fought proxy wars in the past merely to keep their enemies busy.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 23, 2015 4:28 PM  

I guess that the two posts above are from the net troll stooge factory, I really doubt from what I have seen that the Russians have billions involved in fighting the half ass army of Ukraine. I guess that the Novoruskies have won on the physical, mental and moral levels. I think they negated the armor and mech advantage and that would be very interesting as to how they did it or if the Ukey fucks did it to themselves. I wonder if the Russians handed over something equivalent to the Javelin?

Anyway look at it this way if parts of the Uke turn into blue eyed Somalia they could be a source of armaments for European freedom fighters once ISIS and groups like it become uncontainable by the failing States of the West.

Anonymous Alexander February 23, 2015 4:32 PM  

Baghdad Bies! Even when the Russians win, they will lose!

I don't buy it. Russia has bought a massive amount of gold the past couple of years, which indicates a great deal of foresight before they started pushing back against the west. And it's not like this caught them unawares - Georgia, the Czech/Polish missile system... Putin knew confrontation was coming in eastern Europe, and that they'd have to pay the bill.

So the idea that a war-by-proxy in eastern Ukraine is going to catch the Russians off-foot? Nope. Or at least, not when the other side has Kerry and Obama playing the role of America's A team.

Remember, Continental Europe couldn't even maintain a bombardment of bloody Libya. They couldn't deal with Bosnia. Europe today is incapable of responding to shit that goes on in its own back yard.

But Russia is going to lose this one to the EU? Nah.

You're going to need to do a lot better before I count the Russians out. Especially when the battlefield is within the territory of All the Russias.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 23, 2015 4:35 PM  

Had the Ukrainians refused to listen to liars that hate them, had they chosen the path of national unity and retaining all their territory, they might have had a great future. With mass importation of non-whites driving Western Europe down, in a hundred years or two leadership might have moved quite naturally to Kiev.

What is happening, this fratricidal war, is a crime, a disaster and a big missed opportunity.

Blogger Robert What? February 23, 2015 4:46 PM  

Let's hope the American public are smart enough not to let the neocons talk them into a war with Russia. Doh! What an I saying? Of course they're not smart enough.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 23, 2015 4:57 PM  

“Titus Didius Tacitus:

“Ukrainians already had 100% of Ukraine before the coup, and a great deal of Russia (Crimea) too. They had a winning hand and they threw it on the ground.”

Did they? Every sign indicates that before Maydan Ukraine was Russian satrapy slowly losing few vestiges of independence it has had. Russians stared their preparations for annexing Crimea (which was Ukrainian) and (probably) Donetsk around 2008 or 2009. Yushchenko tried to maneuver between EU and Moscow but at the end of 2013 he reached the end of what was politically possible for him. He made his decision and it turned out he overestimated patience of his subjects.


“ But the overall anti-white (including anti-Slavic) Drang nach Osten -- that comes from the Nudelman / Kagan / Nuland gang, that is the neocons.”

You really think Ukrainians and Russian need such convolute reasons to start killing each other? With their history? Especially Russians. Their propaganda simply overflows with contempt toward “Ukrs” (or Ukes , as some are calling them here). Subhumans, fascists, country bumpkins which dared to raise hands against their betters in Moscow… traitors. This last charge is especially interesting. Russians cannot forgive that people they consider their younger, less cultured brothers speaking with funny country accent don’t want to go back to Mother Russia.

“Had the Ukrainians refused to listen to liars that hate them, had they chosen the path of national unity and retaining all their territory, they might have had a great future.”

Well, it’s not fault of Ukrainians that some people in Donetsk decided to side with Russians.

Anonymous cheddarman February 23, 2015 5:01 PM  

they need to send in Kratman with a couple of dozen crucifixes to sort this sh^t out with the Ukranian General Staff.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 23, 2015 5:03 PM  

Youtube is full of video of the hulks of Ukey armor and mech, my guess is that they have poor coordination with infantry and they are forced to take their death boxes up ahead without security, too bad they have to die for the oligarchs, that has to suck.

Anonymous ZhukovG February 23, 2015 5:08 PM  

Ukraine now has an economy only a sub-Saharan African could love. The EU cannot afford to save them and neither can Russia. I don't know what Bies is smoking but he should share.

Like Titus Didius Tacitus said, the Ukrainians had the whole of their country and could have enjoyed membership in the Eurasian Trade Union, but they traded future prosperity and security for a chance to make the Republic of the Congo look good.

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 5:10 PM  

"Russians cannot forgive that people they consider their younger, less cultured brothers speaking with funny country accent don’t want to go back to Mother Russia."

And the US and EU just see Ukraine as their next meal. It's a horrible position, much like Poland in 1939.

Blogger Chris Gerrib February 23, 2015 5:15 PM  

It's worth remembering that the Russian military is but a shell of its Cold War self - going from over 100 divisions to 25, for example. And they still have all that old Cold War junk, and the nasty habit of relying on draftees with 12 month enlistments.

In short, there's a reason Putin's not sitting on top of a tank in downtown Kiev.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 23, 2015 5:17 PM  

“Baghdad Bies!”

Here, where I live we also accuse people of being trolls. It is a popular pastime. But ours came from Moscow or are home grown traitors. However if Vox is right and time of trouble comes we may at last have a chance of decorating a few lamp posts.

I don’t deny that Russia was long preparing. But its economy simply cannot bear the weight of Putin’s policy. Not for long The prices of food are rising, Russia had to stop its expansion in Arctic, army modernization program is delayed, etc.

Try to patch leaking oil pipe with gold in Siberian winter. Or repair pump build in Seventies that operated long past its warranty because money were spend on war with Ukraine. Even if you could buy machinery and expertise required (and because o sanctions it is difficult) you simply cannot make up for decades of neglect and corruption in a few years even if you used all this Russian gold.

Blogger Mekadave February 23, 2015 5:20 PM  

And the US and EU just see Ukraine as their next meal. It's a horrible position, much like Poland in 1939.

And Poland is not happy about this AT ALL. They haven't forgotten what Russia does to countries they set their eyes on. They've been freaking since the whole situation started and they don't want to share a border with a Russian puppet state. They think they'll be next.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 23, 2015 5:28 PM  

Noah B.

“And the US and EU just see Ukraine as their next meal.”

I don't know about USA but EU wants Ukraine to go away and stop making trouble. Stupid Ukrainians disrupt commerce (can there be a greater crime?) irritate our friend Putin and spoil last years of golden decadence.

Anonymous Anubis February 23, 2015 5:31 PM  

"That was largely true of Western, but not Eastern, Ukraine. And the democratically elected leadership of Ukraine was opposed to joining the EU, which was the CIA's cue."

One think to keep in mind was they had just finished building up their gold reserves to 33 tons when Soros cast his malignant eye their way. If the gas was that important why try to shove Joe Biden's cocaine snorting son into a position to control it?

What's the status of Russian China oil trade, and is Greece taking Russia's free market offer?

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 23, 2015 5:51 PM  

Mekadave

Actually the next in line are Baltics.

Anonymous RedJack February 23, 2015 5:53 PM  

The reports of the poor condition of the Russian army is, well, odd.

And in the end, it doesn't matter. The EU/US can't project power into the region to stop them anyway.

Anonymous RedJack February 23, 2015 5:56 PM  

If you are interested, read up on a guy by the name of Aleksandr Dugin. One of his ideas is to split up the region into German and Russian spheres of influence. Poland, the Baltic States, and much of the old Austrian empire would be split up, and the two powers would then focus on the US block of Western Europe and Japan.

So far, Putin has been following the play book. And there is little we can do.

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 5:58 PM  

"If the gas was that important why try to shove Joe Biden's cocaine snorting son into a position to control it?"

Because what is required is someone without morals who will do as he's told, not someone with any particularly great abilities.

"What's the status of Russian China oil trade..."

ZH reported last November that a deal had been made, but a major pipeline still needed to be built. Realistically, it's not a done deal.

Blogger Markku February 23, 2015 6:00 PM  

True. Putin is going to take the Baltics, and thereby demonstrate that NATO won't do jack shit about it, dealing the death blow to its credibility.

Blogger Mekadave February 23, 2015 6:08 PM  

Oh, I'm sure the Baltics are right there on the menu. The Poles are still freaking out and thoroughly unhappy with the whole situation.

Blogger Mekadave February 23, 2015 6:15 PM  

If you are interested, read up on a guy by the name of Aleksandr Dugin. One of his ideas is to split up the region into German and Russian spheres of influence. Poland, the Baltic States, and much of the old Austrian empire would be split up, and the two powers would then focus on the US block of Western Europe and Japan.

Oh, that'll go over like a lead balloon in Poland. Partitioned by Russia again after spending the 19th century divvied up? Won't go down very well.

Blogger Chris Mallory February 23, 2015 6:18 PM  

"For some reasons citizens don’t like it tend to turn against politicians who are giving ground to the enemy?"

You could give New England and the Eastern Seaboard from DC north, to Canada, Russia, or just let Israel have title to what they have paid for and most Americans would celebrate.

"In short, there's a reason Putin's not sitting on top of a tank in downtown Kiev."

Because that has never been his goal.

Anonymous zen0 February 23, 2015 6:22 PM  

There is a interesting blog covering the Russian side of the civil war.

Vineyard of the Saker


I will be honest with you, every time I see one of the Novorussian commanders on the frontline, I am personally horrified and appalled. I got all my military training in the West were a general belongs into a hardened bunker packed with advanced communication gear and protected from pretty much anything short of a nuclear strike. But I also have to admit that having the commanders in the front lines makes a huge difference. This has always been a Russian military tradition for many centuries, and this has also been a German one (during WWII German general did fight with their men in the front lines). I recognize the superiority of that approach, but it still horrifies me (-: This is what you get for being born in old Russian military family but having been trained in western Europe: a strong cognitive dissonance when your two cultures take radically different positions :-)

Lastly, I really feel sorry, from the bottom of my heart, for the men uselessly killed in Debaltsevo. Did you get the part when Vysota said that when the Ukies tried to evacuate their *wounded* they all got killed by the Novorussian artillery? Can you imagine being wounded in a battle you cannot win, then being evacuated in trucks only to die being ripped into shreds or incinerated by artillery strikes?

May God rest the souls of these poor men who suffered and died in horrible circumstances and for nothing other then the political arrogance, ambitions and incompetence of a junta of Nazi freaks.

The Saker

Blogger Azimus February 23, 2015 6:23 PM  

dw February 23, 2015 3:36 PM Good Lord the Ukrainian army is pathetic. Aided by the U.S. and EU and they still manage to lose an unimportant battle?

Oh, I don't know. Ukrainians are a fairly martial people. It seems more that they are poorly led. Sort of like WW2 Italian Army: the individual soldier is brave, resourceful, cunning. Anybody over the rank of colonel was old, fat, and spent far too much time and effort looking splendid in their uniform to concern themselves with the course of the war.

With the airport (was that in Donetsk?) and now Debaltsevo, the common Ukrainian soldier must be cognizant that the guys running the show are just a little too willing to make symbolic stands to the last man...

Blogger ChicagoRefugee February 23, 2015 6:26 PM  

The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back. Wasn't that Romney guy a hoot? What a rube! All the cool kids know that Russia is totes our friend and strategic partner and stuff now.

Blogger Mekadave February 23, 2015 6:28 PM  

Yeah, maybe that "reset button" will work if they press it again!

Blogger Markku February 23, 2015 6:33 PM  

Well, let's remember the typo in that reset button. In Russian, it said "overcharge".

Hey, it worked.

Blogger Azimus February 23, 2015 6:38 PM  

Jourdan February 23, 2015 4:06 PM Not surprising and very foreseeable.

After all, not only have U.S. proxies failed in the post-WWII era in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. itself has not won a war in that same era.


Well, since WW2 was the last declared war, that would be difficult.

But that said, if WW2 - the total mobilization of the earth for war - is your metric, yeah, you're not going to win many like that. Especially when 15% of the global population tops takes on 85%, and maybe 25% of economic output takes on 75%. You just don't usually have enemies that dumb.

Anyway the discussion is regarding proxies. US has won plenty of proxy wars: look at Israel, just to name one. You could argue the Libyan proxy war that killed off Qadafi was a win, though I'm not entirely sure what/who was the proxy we supported. There are plenty of others, but it takes digging a little deeper.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis February 23, 2015 6:51 PM  

Ukrainians are a fairly martial people. It seems more that they are poorly led. Sort of like WW2 Italian Army: the individual soldier is brave, resourceful, cunning. Anybody over the rank of colonel was old, fat, and spent far too much time and effort looking splendid in their uniform to concern themselves with the course of the war.

I'd say that is it. Military hardware can only go so far to make up for poor command, spirit or other deficiencies. Even if the US openly started sending arms and material to Ukraine I doubt it would make much of a difference in regards to Ukraine's ability to fight the novorussians.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 23, 2015 6:57 PM  

Interesting.

That’s mine description of Russian propaganda about Ukraine:
“Subhumans, fascists, country bumpkins which dared to raise hands against their betters in Moscow… traitors. This last charge is especially interesting. Russians cannot forgive that people they consider their younger, less cultured brothers speaking with funny country accent don’t want to go back to Mother Russia.”

That one is provided by Zeno:

“May God rest the souls of these poor men who suffered and died in horrible circumstances and for nothing other then the political arrogance, ambitions and incompetence of a junta of Nazi freaks.”

The question is: if you were soldier would you prefer your enemy to describe you in negative terms or one who softly sobs over you while it kills? First is at least honest.

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 7:05 PM  

"The question is: if you were soldier would you prefer your enemy to describe you in negative terms or one who softly sobs over you while it kills? First is at least honest."

The reality of large scale war is that the soldiers fighting under opposing banners usually have more in common with one another than with the politicians they serve. For obvious reasons, this view of war is seldom emphasized in the media or state-operated schools.

Blogger Markku February 23, 2015 7:08 PM  

Zeno is a Canadian, and as far as I know, his ethnicity is Asian (in the Amercan meaning of the word; Oriental.) He's not an enemy, for any sensical definition of enemy.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis February 23, 2015 7:22 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Markku February 23, 2015 7:24 PM  

You are clearly under the impression that we are calling them Nazis and Fascists because we have bought Russian propaganda and are now parroting it. That's so cute.

Here's a post from ten years ago:

http://voxday.blogspot.fi/2005/03/back-in-eussr.html

http://voxday.blogspot.fi/2005/03/back-in-eussr.html

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Hitler used tanks, the EU used banks. But the end result is the same, fascist rule across Europe. It is a mystery to me why it is considered more desirable that one's totalitarian rulers be faceless bureaucrats instead of ranting lunatics. At least with the ranting lunatics, they'll tell you what they're going to do ahead of time.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 23, 2015 7:28 PM  

Markku
It wasn’t my idea to describe Zeno as an enemy – I was referring to the author he quoted. And to him I was referring as an enemy of Ukrainians, not mine. I should be more precise.

Noah B.
“The reality of large scale war is that the soldiers fighting under opposing banners usually have more in common with one another than with the politicians they serve.”
Yes and no.
Some of the soldiers fighting against each other in Donetsk speak the same language, year ago they could be friends and neighbors. Even those from Russia speak very similar language and share similar culture and faith. Twenty five years ago they lived in the same country.
And yet this isn’t regular war. This is civil war. So those bastards on the other side are traitors (traitors of Ukraine or traitors of Slavic culture, fascist, invaders, western mercenaries, etc). Those people on the other side aren’t at all like us. There is special hate here.

Anonymous zen0 February 23, 2015 7:29 PM  

The north-south ethnic split is so obvious in the Ukraine territory that as soon as the coup took place, the sensible thing to do would be recognize the split and avoid the civil war, but humans can't seem to avoid doing everything the hard way.

You will end up with the same result, but kill a lot of people in the process.
Well, at least the armaments manufacturers will celebrate.

Blogger Markku February 23, 2015 7:31 PM  

I see, yes. Didn't realize he was quoting someone.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell February 23, 2015 7:34 PM  

The Novorossiyans were on the edge of defeat in August, then all of a sudden they absorbed some Ukrainian attacks and then advanced onwards when the Ukrainians didn't have the troops in place to stop them. They were even on the verge of surrounding Mariupol until they agreed to the ceasefire and pulled back.

The Ukrainian army is essentially falling apart. Not really in the sense of losing their front-line personnel, but certainly their equipment is running low and desertions are really picking up. Ukraine didn't exactly take good care of their military in the 90s or 2000s, but then again they didn't really have a need to since they spent a lot of time as a de facto Russian ally.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell February 23, 2015 7:37 PM  

"Actually the next in line are Baltics."

This is a pretty good sign that whoever is talking about Russian intentions has absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 7:38 PM  

"Those people on the other side aren’t at all like us. There is special hate here."

That is what military leadership always wants its soldiers to think about their enemies. Without exception. Do keep that in mind.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 23, 2015 7:44 PM  

Markku

“Hitler used tanks, the EU used banks. But the end result is the same, fascist rule across Europe. It is a mystery to me why it is considered more desirable that one's totalitarian rulers be faceless bureaucrats instead of ranting lunatics. At least with the ranting lunatics, they'll tell you what they're going to do ahead of time.”

Let’s turn this around. At least when you are conquered by fascist banks you are still alive and have chance to do something. With lunatics you are dead, your family is dead, your culture is dead.

Within a radius of two kilometers from the place I am writing this there were two forced labor camps for Jews, there is also one mass grave for people shot by Germans in retaliation for the actions of resistance, prison with torture chambers, and few cemeteries with many tombstones where you can read: died in Auschwitz. I think I prefer soft, decadent fascist European banksters.

Anonymous PA February 23, 2015 8:10 PM  

The "soft, decadent fascist European banksters" destroy nations more permanently. If unopposed, they'll ensure that your grandchildren are either never born, or they are brown.

Anonymous zen0 February 23, 2015 8:33 PM  

OT

Innocent white woman shot by black cop...........where are the riots? Where is the white Al Sharpton???

Carolina Mother shot dead after calling 911

Blogger Matamoros February 23, 2015 8:43 PM  

This means that even if Putin now wins on Ukraine in a few years Russia may simply implode.

There is a lot going on that isn't getting a lot of airplay. The US has sent more Abrams tanks to "Europe", more fighters, more troops and recently reintroduced the A-10 tank busters into the European theater.

Can we really think that this scenario was not wargamed out by the Pentagon think tanks and prepared for? Is the US sucking Putin's army into Ukraine where it can be decapitated?

Meanwhile, as Bies noted Putin is bleeding Russia dry to support his vision of the Novy CCCP. There are more and more tales of repression in Russia, as the citizenry balks against the destruction of their livelihoods again.

Costs of basic foodstuffs has risen 50% - sugar for example going from 30py to 60py. Not only that, but Russian families are largely one child; and they are protesting the sending of their boys to Ukraine to be killed.

Consequently, the Russian forces in East Ukraine have brought in mobile crematories to burn the bodies, and many are being sent to Crimea for the same purpose, so they don't have to send the body's back home.

Given Russia's demographic collapse, the loss of these thousands of men who have already died, and the thousands more to come, this will result in an even earlier economic and societal collapse.

All this did not have to be, except that Putin needed a land bridge to Crimea, which he got before Ukraine realized what was going on.

It is a matter of conjecture who will collapse first, Russia or Ukraine. If Europe and the US prop up Ukraine, it will surely be Russia. Especially if the US advanced weaponry begins flowing into Ukraine in large quantities.

Here is a cogent analysis of Russian chances:
http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/02/23/moscow-military-analyst-russian-army-currently-unprepared-modern-war/

Blogger Matamoros February 23, 2015 8:55 PM  

"Actually the next in line are Baltics."This is a pretty good sign that whoever is talking about Russian intentions has absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

Actually they do. For the Novy CCCP Putin needs a land route controlled by Russia to Kaliningrad (Koenigsberg), and the Baltic states are in the way. So it is definitely in the plans to invade the Baltics unless NATO mans up.

Here's some Russian war propaganda in this regard:
http://goo.gl/3onrmo

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 9:01 PM  

@Matamoros

Russia certainly has its share of problems. Meanwhile, the US is experiencing the largest land invasion in human history, and the US government is expediting it. The rate of social, moral, economic, and legal disintegration here is nothing short of astounding, even though most people don't seem to understand what is happening. It's difficult to know which country is in the weaker position.

Blogger Hunsdon February 23, 2015 9:14 PM  

Bies said: There is special hate here.

Hunsdon said: Good God, man, do you not watch any of Zakharchenko's videos? Or Mozgovoi's? There are constant appeals to the Ukrainian forces to surrender, where they will be well treated, constant appeals: "we are brothers, let us live on our land."

I don't know if your Polish hatred for Russia prevents you from seeing the basic justice of the Novorossian cause (and the basically humane way they're fighting, including decent treatment for POWs), or if you're simply engaging in partisan spin.

Blogger Hunsdon February 23, 2015 9:18 PM  

All these Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine---I keep hearing about them. People keep promising to provide photographic proof. When photographic proof turns up, said proof turns out to be from Geogria (Gruzia) in '08, or something like that. Have the Russians really perfected stealth tank technology? Immune to photography, immune to video?

(That sounds snarky, and to a degree it is, but to a very real degree, that's a genuine and honest question: I'd love to see a site that provides solid evidence, not even proof, just solid evidence, of regular Russian Army units operating on Ukrainian territory.)

Or I could just take Psaki and Breedlove's word for it.

Anonymous zen0 February 23, 2015 9:27 PM  

All these Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine---I keep hearing about them. People keep promising to provide photographic proof. When photographic proof turns up, said proof turns out to be from Geogria (Gruzia) in '08, or something like that. Have the Russians really perfected stealth tank technology? Immune to photography, immune to video?

Well put. I am convinced it is total BS from what I can find. Mostly to cover up the fact that NATO mercenaries are with the Ukes.

I am willing to entertain the idea if given conclusive evidence, but none is forthcoming. Its all just bald statements by politicians invested in a certain outcome, much like trolls in a thread.

Blogger Hunsdon February 23, 2015 9:39 PM  

One other sincere question. Our gripe with Russia seems to be that Russia is providing material support to an anti-government group which is fighting against a legitimate recognized government.

Query: how does this differ from what we are doing in Syria? Are we not openly providing material support to "moderate anti government elements" in Syria? And, more than that, using air power to restrict the ability of that government to oppose such rebels?

(We will leave aside the potential that some of our material aid ended up in the hands of ISIS. Regardless of what one thinks of the Novorossians, I would not put them into the same camp as ISIS.)

Is the standard for morality "when the US does it, it's not illegal"? (Playing off of Nixon's famous statement about the presidency.)

Blogger Corvinus February 23, 2015 9:49 PM  

@Hunsdon

Actually, that parallel isn't quite fair... Ukraine's government has less legitimacy than Assad.

Also, if you think about it, it's interesting how the rebels have carefully documented the war with video footage, blogs (like Colonel Cassad), and maps, whereas the Ukrainian government does not.

@Matamoros
I don't think Russia has any intention of touching the Baltics. I suppose they could try fomenting a rebellion, but Estonia and Latvia as a whole only have about as many people as the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics respectively, and their Russian minorities have a considerably higher standard of living.

Anonymous zen0 February 23, 2015 9:58 PM  

Is the standard for morality "when the US does it, it's not illegal"? (Playing off of Nixon's famous statement about the presidency.)

American exceptionalism, much like SJW exceptionalism.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a Cluster B personality disorder[1] in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process. It is estimated that this condition affects one percent of the population, with rates greater for men.[2][3] First formulated in 1968, NPD was historically called megalomania, and is a form of severe egocentrism

How perfect that the President mirrors the traits of the society as a whole.

Blogger Hunsdon February 23, 2015 10:07 PM  

Corvinus:

I was phrasing that as carefully and as generously as I could.

Blogger Matamoros February 23, 2015 10:13 PM  

Russia certainly has its share of problems. Meanwhile, the US is experiencing the largest land invasion in human history

So is Russia. Russia is being inundated with Muslims, Koreans, Chinese and what have you. You have to go there a see it from the ground. It is worse than what we are experiencing. A land wave Camp of the Saints scenario.

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 10:17 PM  

Watch out for that linear thinking... Russia offers to sell advanced AA missiles to Iran.

Blogger Frank Brady February 23, 2015 10:22 PM  

Bies Podkrakowski and other neocon trolls. Having outsmarted yourselves by cutting off Europe's winter energy supply and after wasting $5 billion installing your Ukrainian sock puppet "government", you'll have to find another way to start your next war. Putin kicked y our as.

Blogger Frank Brady February 23, 2015 10:22 PM  

Sorry, make that "ass".

Anonymous Noah B. February 23, 2015 10:24 PM  

"You have to go there a see it from the ground. It is worse than what we are experiencing. A land wave Camp of the Saints scenario."

Makes sense, I hear Novosibirsk is nice this time of year. Seriously though, if you have to see it from the ground -- where in Russia in this happening, and where and when did you see it?

Anonymous Sir Brian February 23, 2015 10:45 PM  

OT, but what sort of credence would you give to the claims that ISIS doesnt even exist and is the Wests "Wag the Dog" moment?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 23, 2015 10:53 PM  

Titus Didius Tacitus: "Ukrainians already had 100% of Ukraine before the coup, and a great deal of Russia (Crimea) too. They had a winning hand and they threw it on the ground."

Bies Podkrakowski: "Did they?"

Yes they did. Before the coup, Putin was doing nothing. Even after, he hesitated. When the new government made its hostile intentions clear, it was on.

Bies Podkrakowski: "Yushchenko tried to maneuver between EU and Moscow but at the end of 2013 he reached the end of what was politically possible for him. He made his decision and it turned out he overestimated patience of his subjects."

Victoria Nuland's five billion dollar coup struck down an elected government that was trying to have it all: Western connections and Russian ones too.

In the Euromaindan, the rioters recived helmets, weapons, medical aid, regular pay and support. Who provided these things? You could ask, but the Jews' Media had no intention to answer, because the same people (ethnically) running the media were running the coup.

Bies Podkrakowski: "You really think Ukrainians and Russian need such convolute reasons to start killing each other? With their history?"

With the history of Jewish involvement in the Holodomor? That isn't complicated at all; it's a matter of persistent ethnic conflict.

Titus Didius Tacitus: "Had the Ukrainians refused to listen to liars that hate them, had they chosen the path of national unity and retaining all their territory, they might have had a great future."

Bies Podkrakowski: "Well, it’s not fault of Ukrainians that some people in Donetsk decided to side with Russians."

They became hirelings of Jewish trouble-makers with a history of ethnic histility to Ukrainians, and things inevitably went bad, so yes it is their fault that in the nation that they tore asunder, not everybody took their side.

ZhukovG: "Like Titus Didius Tacitus said, the Ukrainians had the whole of their country and could have enjoyed membership in the Eurasian Trade Union, but they traded future prosperity and security for a chance to make the Republic of the Congo look good."

That's exactly my position.

I don't take pleasure in it. This is a crime, a disaster and a missed chance.

Anonymous testors February 23, 2015 11:08 PM  

One two

Anonymous blume February 23, 2015 11:35 PM  

I am sorry you are wrong. The Russian arctic oil fields are expanding on schedule. I have a friend who is working for a company designing the modules. There is no slow down as of today on the project.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 24, 2015 12:19 AM  

Looks to me like Ukraine stuck its dick in the grinder.

Blogger Akulkis February 24, 2015 12:24 AM  

I'm 1/8th Ukrainian. There's a reason my ancestors left the Kiev region... for the same reason that the Russians left Kievan Rus ... because Kiev is corrupt, solidly, to the core.

Ukraine is not, and never has been worth defending ever since they started *ss-kissing the Mongols.

Russia is the former Kievites who fled from that corrupt land... digging holes in the ground as living quarters (certainly easier than building a log house when you have no axe or saw) because they were desperate to get away from Kiev and what it had become when the Mongols arrived, and continues to be to this day.

Blogger Akulkis February 24, 2015 12:34 AM  

"The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back. Wasn't that Romney guy a hoot? What a rube! All the cool kids know that Russia is totes our friend and strategic partner and stuff now."

The ONLY reason that Russia is not our friend is because the current administration keeps provoking them. The U.S and Russia are natural allies. Hell, the Russian Navy was started by nobody less than John Paul Jones, the probably greatest hero of the U.S. Navy -- you know, the man who said, as his ship was sinking, "I have not yet begun to fight" and actually CAPTURED the British ship which just sank his ship.

The ONLY time we have been at each other's throats was during the Cold War [Because Russia was being 100% run by Talmudist Jews and the U.S. wasn't, yet] ...and during the Obama administration.

Blogger Shibes Meadow February 24, 2015 12:54 AM  

On one hand: if Putin takes Ukraine, few will care. But if Putin takes the Baltics, it's war.

On the other hand: John Titor predicted that the Russians would nuke the Federal Entity out of existence in 2015, leaving Real America to form a better government.

On the Gripping Hand: Natalia Poklonskaya

New post up at the Shibes blog, btw.

Anonymous redsash February 24, 2015 12:55 AM  

Had a look at some old maps of Russia. There is no Ukraine. Just Russia bordering Poland. Come to think about it, in northern California there is a Russian Orthodox Church, blessed by Russian monks. Who knows? One day Russia may extend from Konigsberg to Sacramento. Good luck and God bless their efforts.

Let's play a game. How many nukes could the US endure before surrendering? I'll start off with two fusion weapons on DC and NYNY delivered during state of union address .

Blogger Akulkis February 24, 2015 1:01 AM  

"American exceptionalism, much like SJW exceptionalism.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a Cluster B personality disorder[1] in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process. It is estimated that this condition affects one percent of the population, with rates greater for men.[2][3] First formulated in 1968, NPD was historically called megalomania, and is a form of severe egocentrism

How perfect that the President mirrors the traits of the society as a whole."



But he exhibts so much more.
Sexual identity disorder
Substance abuse
Pathological liar
Psychosis
Sociopathy

That adds up to Borderline Personality Disorder.

*ALL* BPDs exhibit full-blown NPD.

Blogger Jmac February 24, 2015 2:10 AM  

"The ONLY time we have been at each other's throats was during the Cold War [Because Russia was being 100% run by Talmudist Jews and the U.S. wasn't, yet] ...and during the Obama administration."

That's a pretty big time frame, plus you are forgetting the Bush II years as well. (Georgia war?, the Rose Revolution, Kosovo independence?). Sixty out of the last seventy years or so.

The US and Russia are not "natural allies" because states don't have natural (permanent) allies, they have only interests. Russia has a vital interest in Ukraine, and its near abroad, the US has an interest in Ukraine as well (less so than Russia's). Great Powers are going to clash because their interests will never completely align.

It is meaningless to discuss what happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when the US was a backwater. Now, the US is a Great Power, as is Russia, so clashes are inevitable.

Anonymous map February 24, 2015 2:21 AM  

Bies Podkrakowski,

In the Ukraine, Russians control most of the upper echelon jobs. For example, advanced study at a Ukrainian university is conducted in Russian, not in Ukrainian. This is what irks the Ukrainian people and why they wanted the old regime kicked out.

Ukrainians hate Russians for these acts of Russification that threaten to stamp it out.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 3:05 AM  

Shibes Meadow: "On one hand: if Putin takes Ukraine, few will care. But if Putin takes the Baltics, it's war."

The only reason it's difficult to predict whether Russia would act against the Baltics is it's difficult to predict if the neocons will foster Baltic coups and impose radically anti-Russian governments that Russia will automatically be at odds with. Otherwise Putin or his successor will leave well enough alone, because Russia is busy.

Anonymous aaaturkey February 24, 2015 3:11 AM  

Map.

No, you are wrong. There is currently no russification in the Ukraine. There is Ukrainisation though, now more than 80% of education institutions teach only in ukrainian, this is a higher figure than native ukrainian speakers.

Ukraine doesn't have a federalised system and was unwilling to do so. Primarily because as Poroshenko said, paraphrasing, the modern Ukrainian identity is formed by Galicians.

The EU has done worse to Latvia and the baltics than Russia would ever do anyway, since joining they've lost 30% of the population, and mostly the young intelligent ones. The neoliberalisation there has simply seen large amounts of wealth extracted from their country into the German, Austrian and Dutch banking sectors.

Also Bies. Yuschenko's presidency ended in 2010. The hero of the orange revolution was a total failure.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 3:30 AM  

Jmac: "The US and Russia are not "natural allies" because states don't have natural (permanent) allies, they have only interests."

States do have natural allies, they just don't have permanent allies. The two things are not the same. Even the continents move, in time.

A natural ally is a state you can bandwagon with, without self-harm. Bandwagoning is as natural as buck-passing or direct competition, but not every strong state is a suitable candidate, partly because of the nationalities problem and partly because of cultural issues.

You can't just define any strong state as your "great and powerful friend," or you can but it won't work. (Their behavior won't be friendly, or due to clashing cultures and incomprehension it won't have the stability and predictability necessary for serious diplomacy.) You have to pick from the natural potential allies that are available.

It's in your lasting interest to have some natural potential allies available, and to preserve the interests and character of the ones you have.

If the key point about your state is that it's "the most Christian" then a state has a very different status as a potential ally depending on whether it's of the same confession, a "heretical" confession, or an ISIL-type "most Islamic" state. You can decide that this is irrelevant, and statesmen have often laid their plans accordingly, but these plans tend to go wrong and come to nothing, because the friction is too much.

Naturally if you cease to be Christian, that changes things. This is why natural allies are not permanent.

Again, if the key thing about your state is not religion but a certain race, tribe or culture (say Latin), and you lose yourself, whether to some other dominant culture or to sheer cosmopolitanism, that changes things too.

But while these factors stay stable, they matter. It was not possible for South Africa or Rhodesia to have had the diplomatic advantages that a black state with the same territory, wealth and military strength could have had. And again, you can ignore this, but to your peril.

Blogger Jmac February 24, 2015 4:36 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Jmac February 24, 2015 4:38 AM  

"States do have natural allies, they just don't have permanent allies. The two things are not the same. Even the continents move, in time.

A natural ally is a state you can bandwagon with, without self-harm. Bandwagoning is as natural as buck-passing or direct competition, but not every strong state is a suitable candidate, partly because of the nationalities problem and partly because of cultural issues."

I see you've read Mearshimer, Walt, and Waltz. Natural allies is a nebulous concept. What's a natural ally? You claim there has to be some kinship but any state can bandwagon or balance with or against any other given the proper historical )economic, military, etc.) circumstances. Hell the diplomatic revolution saw a complete 180 in alliances in Europe. No, you can't really convince me that there is such a thing as natural allies. It is a phrase policy makers use to justify an alliance that they already seek.

Anonymous MICHAEL DEAN MILLER February 24, 2015 5:42 AM  

.

I only hope more Americans take General George Washington's advise and avoid all these "entangling foreign alliances".
.
This area is Russia's backyard. Stay out of it.

.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 5:53 AM  

Jmac: "Natural allies is a nebulous concept."

Lots of nebulous rather than mathematically neat concepts matter in practice. You can dismiss ideas like "masculinity" and "femininity" as vague too, but if you act accordingly you'll get bad results. So too with ignoring the cultural and sometimes racial factors that facilitate or impede bandwagoning.

(Of course Mearsheimer prefers to minimize such factors as much as he can, and that's right. But he still has to acknowledge them back-handedly from time to time as the "nationalities problem" reasserts itself, like a long-ignored witch.)

Jmac: "What's a natural ally? You claim there has to be some kinship but any state can bandwagon or balance with or against any other given the proper historical )economic, military, etc.) circumstances."

First, I don't claim there has to be some kinship, indeed my first example was based on religion not relatedness. Now...

"Can" maybe, but what matters to the statesman is "will". That's a matter of odds, and the odds pull for some alliances and against others. As for how those differences in likely outcomes can be counted in a simple, practical way, Samuel P. Huntington wrote a nice article in The Atlantic, but since you boast you can't be convinced regardless, you can do your own research if you want to.

Jmac: "No, you can't really convince me that there is such a thing as natural allies. It is a phrase policy makers use to justify an alliance that they already seek."

Since you boast that I can't really convince you I won't try.

But I'll continue to laugh when diplomatic geniuses like Paul Keating come up with ideas such as: Australia's future will be all about an Australian / Indonesian alliance that he dreamed up -- and sealed secretly, because the terms would inevitably have been unpopular with white, Christian Australians, and arrogant, touchy Javanese Muslims would not tolerate white, Christian Australians having an open discussion on that or many other matters. (How was that always going to end? The way it did end, duh!)

These unreal, mathematically neat genius dreams, built on the assumption that human beings are calculating machines waiting for a super-brain to make their sums of "interest" add up in a new way, regularly fail and come to nothing.

You are free to ignore and deny that. But you have no more right to have your state of denial accepted as dogma than those who deny differences between the sexes or the races have to have their will to disbelieve taken as fact.

I will say that to bandwagon with Russia would have been a fairly good option for Ukraine, as long as the Russians remained uninterested in contesting Ukraine's magnificently generous borders (as they were), and more importantly as long as the Russians remained uninterested in g-wording the population of Ukraine via non-white mass immigration and forced assimilation (as they also were, because it would have harmed themselves). For a lesser power to have an ally that tolerates its population, its culture and its borders, though desiring deference in other ways, is far from being the worst outcome weak states have to fear in the anarchic world of power politics.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 5:57 AM  

MICHAEL DEAN MILLER: ".

I only hope more Americans take General George Washington's advise and avoid all these "entangling foreign alliances".
.
This area is Russia's backyard. Stay out of it.

."

Yes.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 24, 2015 6:44 AM  

OK. I think understood it now. Russia is seen by many commentators here as an force for good. Country that IS a mission. So no matter what it does, who it invades, crushes and loots it is irrelevant, because it was done in order to fight a good war. Anybody who tried defend itself against such good is by definition evil. Ukrainians now. Baltics tomorrow. Thirty five years ago it was polish fascist from Solidarity that stood against global march for a better world (with the help of dirty CIA funds). Of course this march for better word was then supported by leftist “useful idiots”. Who now rule the West. How times change. And yet nothing changes.

Of course, there is Russian army on Ukraine. Whole battalions, they don’t bother even with removing their badges anymore. If you don’t want to believe in it, after six months of almost direct Russian intervention, that’s OK, you ale half world away and safe.

I for example don’t believe that USA is now in the midst of invasion by South Americans. That is some interesting delusion.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 24, 2015 6:48 AM  

Corvinus

“Actually, that parallel isn't quite fair... Ukraine's government has less legitimacy than Assad.”

Why do you think that? There were at least a few elections since Viktor Yanukovych was deposed.

Frank Brady

There are no problems with gas supply. Europe at the present remains the only viable market for Russian oil and gas. And I am not in any way connected with your neocons. I simply offer you another take on what happens on Ukraine, from Central European point of view. That’s disturbs you?

Alkukis

When Russians left Kievan Russ? As far I know Moscow was always interested in conquering Kiev. The cradle of Rus lands, and all that. And if Kiev is corrupt after being ruled by Russia by most of its history… whose fault it is? Besides, those Mongols didn’t stop on Kiev and went to subjugate Moscow and remade it into their image. So where are people who run from corrupt Moscow?

Titus Didius Tacitus

"Ukrainians already had 100% of Ukraine before the coup, and a great deal of Russia (Crimea) too. They had a winning hand and they threw it on the ground."

“Yes they did. Before the coup, Putin was doing nothing. Even after, he hesitated. When the new government made its hostile intentions clear, it was on.”

So, Ukrainians could keep their country if only they would do what Putin wanted. How generous of him.

“In the Euromaindan, the rioters recived helmets, weapons, medical aid, regular pay and support. Who provided these things?”

You mean firefighter helmets, flagstones, medieval catapult build by reenactors and some first aid kits send by Polish-Ukrainian Diaspora?

“They became hirelings of Jewish trouble-makers with a history of ethnic histility to Ukrainians, and things inevitably went bad, so yes it is their fault that in the nation that they tore asunder, not everybody took their side.”

If only Ukrainians could understand what is good for them. How they could cling to such outmoded concepts like national sovereignty and pride. There are Jews conspiracies to fight and global march of tranzis to stop. So your main complaint against Ukraine is that the don’t want to fight a fight you want them to?

Anonymous PA February 24, 2015 7:03 AM  

"for example don’t believe that USA is now in the midst of invasion by South Americans"

The USA and most Western countries are undergoing a program of population replacement by means of mass immigration. Secondary elements of this program involve a cultural demoralization, economic displacement, and legal disenfranchisement of their native populations.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 24, 2015 7:10 AM  

“The USA and most Western countries are undergoing a program of population replacement by means of mass immigration.”

Nah. From where I stand this invasion looks photoshopped. Probably from pictures made in Georgia.

Blogger Jmac February 24, 2015 7:20 AM  

"Lots of nebulous rather than mathematically neat concepts matter in practice. You can dismiss ideas like "masculinity" and "femininity" as vague too, but if you act accordingly you'll get bad results. So too with ignoring the cultural and sometimes racial factors that facilitate or impede bandwagoning."

Heh, it's not just a matter of dismissal we have 1500 years of history to go by as well. Prussia and Austria, culturally, linguistically, should by rights be "natural allies." Yet Bismarck had no compunction about attacking Austria. Ukraine and Russia should be "natural allies" and yet here we are. Mearshimier minimizes the "nationalities problem" because it doesn't play as significant a role as interests do,

"First, I don't claim there has to be some kinship, indeed my first example was based on religion not relatedness. Now..."

And religion isn't relatedness, a common bond? Perhaps not ethnically, although one could argue that, but It is one of the factors that people (broadly speaking) tend to identify themselves as.

"Can" maybe, but what matters to the statesman is "will". That's a matter of odds, and the odds pull for some alliances and against others. As for how those differences in likely outcomes can be counted in a simple, practical way, Samuel P. Huntington wrote a nice article in The Atlantic, but since you boast you can't be convinced regardless, you can do your own research if you want to."

Oh I've done plenty of research on this topic, years and years, post-graduate work even. I dare say I know a great deal about it. Political will is important, not trying to minimize that factor, but we are looking at the long haul here right? Hundreds upon hundreds of years of state interaction, and projecting into the future? There are lots of shifting alliances.


"Since you boast that I can't really convince you I won't try.

But I'll continue to laugh when diplomatic geniuses like Paul Keating come up with ideas such as: Australia's future will be all about an Australian / Indonesian alliance that he dreamed up -- and sealed secretly, because the terms would inevitably have been unpopular with white, Christian Australians, and arrogant, touchy Javanese Muslims would not tolerate white, Christian Australians having an open discussion on that or many other matters. (How wasegime that always going to end? The way it did end, duh!)"

Regime type, and even ideology are far more reliable indicators of alliances then relatedness, but interests trumps all. You are familiar with the Cold War? If Australian and Indonesian interests align and Indonesia is considered more or less democratic then I wouldn't be surprised if they did align.

"These unreal, mathematically neat genius dreams, built on the assumption that human beings are calculating machines waiting for a super-brain to make their sums of "interest" add up in a new way, regularly fail and come to nothing."

Give me some historical examples.

"You are free to ignore and deny that. But you have no more right to have your state of denial accepted as dogma than those who deny differences between the sexes or the races have to have their will to disbelieve taken as fact."

So what does this little diatribe have to do with the topic? Are people different? Yes I don't dispute that, however people don't make policy. People are generally not very smart that's why we need policy makers and they follow their state interests, which can vary over time.

Blogger Jmac February 24, 2015 7:20 AM  




"I will say that to bandwagon with Russia would have been a fairly good option for Ukraine, as long as the Russians remained uninterested in contesting Ukraine's magnificently generous borders (as they were), and more importantly as long as the Russians remained uninterested in g-wording the population of Ukraine via non-white mass immigration and forced assimilation (as they also were, because it would have harmed themselves).,,"

Russia needed Ukraine to be Belarus, a compliant authoritarian regime.Those two countries are the most vital to Russian security according to their White Papers, but then Madian happened and the regime changed, thus hostility.

You're close in your understanding, but "natural allies" by definition cannot really exist in an anarchic world. Natural allies by my understanding would have too much commonality to fight each other. The whole crux of the democratic peace theory is based on an assumption like this: "democracies don't and never will fight each other because their regime types are too similar." I don't buy that argument any more than I buy your natural allies because Christian, white, Islamic, black, etc. argument.

It is still a state driven world despite what Huntington said or Lind says about 4th generation warfare, until that changes states will align according to their interests rather than relatedness.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 7:24 AM  

Bies Podkrakowski, the reason it's frustrating and even pointless talking to you is that over and over you "interpret" what your interlocutor has said as being anything other than what they said, and even the opposite of what they said.

For example: my objection to the Ukrainians who signed on to Victoria Nuland's five billion dollar coup, her anti-Russian agenda, and the consequent civil war, all to the sundering of their nation and the reduction of its borders, is not that they didn't get involved in some war but on the contrary that they didn't refuse the option of war when they should have folded their arms and kept the strong position and extensive borders they already possessed. Don't be a Mussolini! Don't throw away an excellent condition of uncontested security, and gamble everything on a conflict in which your weakness may be found out!

"In the Euromaidan, the rioters received helmets, weapons, medical aid, regular pay and support. Who provided these things?"

Bies Podkrakowski: "You mean firefighter helmets, flagstones, medieval catapult build by reenactors and some first aid kits send by Polish-Ukrainian Diaspora?"

I mean what can be seen in scores of old YouTube videos: those men handing out helmets, body armor, weapons, food and everything, far beyond what a regular citizen would have, and radically beyond what would be needed if the real aim had been non-violent protest.

Sure we know now that five billion dollars can cover that and a lot of other "democracy promotion" including regular wages for the persistent, well-equipped rioters, so the mystery has vanished, but at the time the lack of interest of the Western mass media in obvious questions was amazing.

It's frustrating to talk to someone who denies obvious facts, as well as what you just said.

Blogger Hunsdon February 24, 2015 7:27 AM  

Bies said: Of course, there is Russian army on Ukraine. Whole battalions, they don’t bother even with removing their badges anymore.

Hunsdon said: Where's the evidence? This is an honest question. I have no doubt that Russia opened the voentorg to Donbass. I have no doubt that there are Russian volunteers (or even "volunteers") in Donbass. But I've been paying pretty close attention, and I've seen no credible evidence that the Russian Army per se is in Donbass.

Bies: Nah. From where I stand this invasion looks photoshopped. Probably from pictures made in Georgia.

Hunsdon said: Now you're just trolling.

Query: Do you agree that the Soviet Union invaded Ukraine and Germany during WW2?

Query: Do you agree that Auschwitz was liberated by the Ukrainians in the form of the Ukrainian Front, as the Polish Foreign Minister recently asserted?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 7:36 AM  

population replacement by means of mass immigration. Secondary elements of this program involve a cultural demoralization, economic displacement, and legal disenfranchisement of their native populations."

Right.

That's a heck of a price tag, if you're a patriotic statesman, and you're thinking: "will it be in the best interests of my nation in the long run to pay the price of being an American ally in good standing?"

Anonymous starr February 24, 2015 7:52 AM  

Of course, there is Russian army on Ukraine. Whole battalions, they don’t bother even with removing their badges anymore. If you don’t want to believe in it, after six months of almost direct Russian intervention, that’s OK, you ale half world away and safe.

Since the trouble began in the Ukraine over a year ago you can bet the US and other NATO countries would be covering the area day and night with satellites, drones and anything else they could make use of, and you can bet they would love nothing more than to have pictures of Russian troops in the Ukraine. Yet in all that time not a single solitary credible photo has emerged.

But despite that we should take your word that there a battalions of Russian troops, with badges no less. You know Jen Psaki moving on to a different role, you should apply for her old position, you'd fit right in

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 8:19 AM  

Jmac: "Political will is important, not trying to minimize that factor, but we are looking at the long haul here right? Hundreds upon hundreds of years of state interaction, and projecting into the future? There are lots of shifting alliances."

Right.


Jmac: "Regime type, and even ideology are far more reliable indicators of alliances then relatedness, but interests trumps all."

Except when that doesn't happen, such as with America's alliance with Israel.

Still, my point is not an objection to the primacy of interest, but to the false cliche that nations don't have friends, only interests. They do have interests, but that's not all they have.


Jmac: "You are familiar with the Cold War? If Australian and Indonesian interests align and Indonesia is considered more or less democratic then I wouldn't be surprised if they did align."

And the tension, friction and potential for an abrupt breach would be higher than in a relationship between powers with more compatible cultures.


"These unreal, mathematically neat genius dreams, built on the assumption that human beings are calculating machines waiting for a super-brain to make their sums of "interest" add up in a new way, regularly fail and come to nothing."

Give me some historical examples.

Why don't you like the ones I already gave you? Paul Keating's grand alliance, and the diplomatic problems of South Africa and Rhodesia? Or how about the difficulties Israel has in cashing in its military supremacy for bandwagoning Arab allies? Or how about the difficulties of different peoples in the path of the Mongols in working together as allies, which is what they needed to do if they wanted to avoid being slaughtered? That we must all work together doesn't mean that we can. Or how about the difficulties of the Double Kingdom of England and France, which for all its military strength could never get enough support from the French and Burgundian aristocracy to consolidate its power. The English might have thought it was irrelevant how bad their cooking for a banquet was, but the French thought otherwise, and there goes the goodwill you thought you had won. Culture clashes count!


"You are free to ignore and deny that. But you have no more right to have your state of denial accepted as dogma than those who deny differences between the sexes or the races have to have their will to disbelieve taken as fact."

Jmac: "So what does this little diatribe have to do with the topic? Are people different? Yes I don't dispute that, however people don't make policy. People are generally not very smart that's why we need policy makers and they follow their state interests, which can vary over time."

I think people do make policy.

They make policy with biases that don't go away because they got to wear the crown. These biases, like those that operate between men and women and between different races, don't lend themselves to a neat calculation of interest in every case, but they sway powerfully which relationships will stay steady and which will be fragile and unmanageable.

Stability and predictability are valuable goods in alliance politics, and it takes sentiment as well as calculations of interest to make them "stick". (Ideally you want cool policy, calculations of chances and mass sentiments of approbation and disapprobation or of affection or hostility all lining up in the same direction. That's not easy, and it's at least mildly desirable to have it not be particularly hard in a given case, particularly one on which your national security will depend.)

I do not accept that the repetition of "nations don't have friends, only interests" settles all these questions.

Anonymous ZhukovG February 24, 2015 8:39 AM  

There are BBC correspondents on the ground in E. Ukraine. There are numerous OSCE inspectors there as well. If there were ‘Battalions’ of Russian troops they would have seen them and we would have copious video and photo evidence. So unless the Russians have developed some really cool stealth technology I call BS. I also note that the Commanding General of the Ukrainian Army has himself said that there are no Russian Army units in Ukraine.

On a more grand strategic level, there is a war between the remnants of Christendom and the forces of Progressive Materialism going on and it may be moving towards a climactic battle.

Throughout the centuries Christendom has been saved by the blood and sweat of rough men who were prepared to defend her. Charles Martel was one such, and at the Battle of Vienna it was Poland’s King Jan Sobieski who routed the Ottoman Army. Today the ‘rough’ man may be Vladimir Putin. He has restored The Church (Russian Orthodox) to its rightful position at the center of Russian Culture and even knowledgeable opponents acknowledge that he is either a sincere Russian Orthodox Christian or a very good actor.

As a Roman Catholic I have a great love for the Nation of Poland, it saddens me to see her choose to align herself with the modern Ottoman.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 24, 2015 8:51 AM  

Titus Didius Tacitus

Yes, I also find you frustrating and unreasonable. But the reason you find me frustrating is not because of my alleged “interpretations”. It is because you and I represent irreconcilable viewpoints. All the facts are only justifications and can be reinterpreted according to our worldview.

You see lunatic Jewish conspiracy. I see a country trying to break away from Russian sphere of interests. And I sympathize.

So lets see:

Anti-Russian agenda is quite reasonable if your country is sliding into being satrapy, and being said satrapy offers nothing apart economic subjugation and slow russification of your culture. It must be especially hard for Ukrainians, who had their own independent country only second time in their history (and the first lasted only year or so).

Victoria Nuland's five billion dollar coup. So Ukrainians managed to get outside help. Good for them. Washington wants something for their help? Hard, but this is the way the world works.

Consequent civil war. Russian started it. Their operatives infiltrated Ukraine, building on existing tensions and changed what should only be a internal crisis into open war. Then they flooded the area with equipment, emptied their prisons and sent their occupants into combat, sent Chechen mercenaries and at last regular troops. Then said to the world in the best Soviet fashion: look what those evil Ukrainians are doing.

So you watched YouTube and haven’t noticed gas masks improvised from scarfs, steel pipes as a close combat weapons, stones as a missiles? There was some police equipment later, but it came from police arsenals from western Ukraine.

And there maybe is lack of interest in western media about Maidan, but not here. It was reported quite exhaustively, and if there are any questions left - those are for example: did Russian operatives really started shooting at both protesters and government troops?

“That's a heck of a price tag, if you're a patriotic statesman, and you're thinking: "will it be in the best interests of my nation in the long run to pay the price of being an American ally in good standing?"

Or being Russian ally? What they offer that is better than America has to offer?

So, you see we have quite irreconcilable view points. I prefer to call my viewpoint as being wholly rational, patriotic and reasonable. What about yours?


First query: not, they went after the invaders, so it’s hard to call this invasion. However Soviet Russia invaded Ukraine twenty years before, and helped Germany start the war.
Second query: there were Ukrainians present. But poor insane Schetyna in his praiseworthy attempt to stick to the Russians made a serious mistake of using inappropriate historical arguments.

What would you consider honest evidence? There is presence of Russian volunteers sent on “leave” from their units. There is Russian military equipment in gigantic quantities. Separatist are armed better than many countries. There are satellite pictures of convoys crossing Russian-Ukraine borders.

Fast link: http://www.defence24.pl/news_debalcewo-zajmowali-rosyjscy-zolnierze

It is in Polish, but Google Translate should give you enough idea. “Kommiernsat” journalist admits presence Russian troops in Debalcewe.

“Hunsdon said: Now you're just trolling.”

So in other words I don’t want to see allegedly irrefutable evidence? Funny.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 24, 2015 8:59 AM  

ZhukovG
This magical, mystical Russia. No mater who it rapes or conquers it always manages to find its admirers and defendants quick to absolve Moscow from any wrongdoing. It was done for greater good. It was for their own good, they were after all only Catholic savages. It was to defend world from Nazis, from godless capitalist America, from kulaks, from Islam…

So Central Europe should go gladly back into chains, so the world can be safe from Islam?

Anonymous PA February 24, 2015 9:12 AM  

"Or being Russian ally? What they offer that is better than America has to offer?"

Contrast the Olympic opening ceremonies in London and Sochi.

"We have quite irreconcilable viewpoints"

Not necessarily. Advocating for a balance of power between two hegemons rather than unipolar global politics can be a reasonable place to compromise.

Blogger Matamoros February 24, 2015 9:16 AM  

Akulkis Russia is the former Kievites who fled from that corrupt land

No, it is not. You need to study some real history. Russia is an entirely different people than the Kievan Rus.

And Frank Brady outs himself as a disinformatsiya troll. "Sorry, make that "ass"." Describing yourself by projection, Frank, or can't conduct a polite conversation?

Anonymous PA February 24, 2015 9:22 AM  

"So Central Europe should go gladly back into chains, so the world can be safe from Islam?"

Point one: under Soviet domain, Poland almost doubled its native population in just two generations. Under American domain, its population is plummeting

Point two: do you remember popular entertainment on Polish television in the 70s or 80s? The programming assumed a moral ad intelligent audience, even (especially) children's shows. In contrast, post-90 Polish television imitates American vulgarity. Or is a vehicle for multicultural is and feminism like the popular show "Ranczo".

Those two points are not an endorsement of communism. They are an illustration of the kinds of chains Central Europe bound itself in after throwing off the old, Soviet chains.

Blogger Matamoros February 24, 2015 9:28 AM  

I am really surprised by all the hate America bile spewed by many of these trolls; who say they'd rejoice with America nuked.

Need we say anything else other than disinformatsiya agents of a foreign state?

Those people who cannot look at old maps, or even maps circa 1918 and see Ukraine are willfully ignorant. Those who never go outside the U.S. but buy the arguments of U.S. evil and Russian good, while sipping their beer and snacks, while better men in Ukraine fight to preserve their country from invasion and subjugation at the costs of their lives. Who cannot be bothered to look at BBC, Reuters and other foreign news agencies showing Russian tanks, crews and involvement while declaiming that they haven't seen any photos.

You remind me of Walter Duranty who went to the Soviet and said in the middle of Stalin's gulags and starvation program for the Russian and Ukrainian kulaks that he didn't see any starvation.

You don't see because you don't want to see.

The Russian people deserve better. Putin was once good for Russia, perhaps he will be in the future. But his Ukrainian incursion has cost Russia $123 billion and counting. The Russian people have lost their prosperity and are losing their sons, and their freedoms, to this undeclared war.

Recognize disinformation when you hear it. If you won't support Ukraine for its sake, support it for Russia's sake.

Anonymous PA February 24, 2015 9:34 AM  

"You remind me of Walter Duranty"

The American establishment IS Walter Duranty.

Blogger Bies Podkrakowski February 24, 2015 9:54 AM  

PA

I am old enough to remember misery of this supposedly enlightened times. Yes we were free from many temptations of the western world. You know what "chocolade-like product" was? Or food stamps are? In a nation that was for centuries a breadbasket for whole continent? What was life expectancy in eighties? Environmental damage?

Point one: yes. Poland had a period of population growth. Like other countries in the world. But it was slowing down. Russia which was farther on the way to communist paradise was experiencing demographic bust even before the fall of communism. Poland would after the despair of martial law end like Russia. Communism eats its subjects much faster than capitalism.

Point two: so what? People got what they wanted. I don’t want to watch TV (most of my contemporary doesn’t watch it, preferring instead the filth of the Internet). I prefer reading sites like this and others. Under the old management this would be impossible. Internet access would be censored and you wouldn’t have the pleasure of my company.

So maybe there are chains but those are kind which w
hole world bears. And they are much lighter than Moscow’s. You can now even buy a lotion to ease the chafing.

I would prefer of course living without chains but return into Russian embrace doesn’t offer anything better. Even in its present state West is much better than what Russia has to offer.

Anonymous Porphyry February 24, 2015 9:57 AM  

"If the gas was that important why try to shove Joe Biden's cocaine snorting son into a position to control it?" cause if shit goes south you just blame it on the cocaine. gees first rule of diplomacy.

Blogger Jmac February 24, 2015 10:03 AM  

Titus, we may be arguing semantics on this but I will go through your post briefly.

"Except when that doesn't happen, such as with America's alliance with Israel."

America's alliance with Israel dates to the Cold War to counterbalance the Soviet backed states in the region, i.e. interests. Today Israel is still considered more democratic than its neighbors and the US has a blind spot for promoting democratic values all over the world (ideology, regime type). Still there are cracks in this alliance.

"Still, my point is not an objection to the primacy of interest, but to the false cliche that nations don't have friends, only interests. They do have interests, but that's not all they have."

They have friends when their interests coincide.

"And the tension, friction and potential for an abrupt breach would be higher than in a relationship between powers with more compatible cultures."

I don't think that's necessarily the case. The US and Japan are pretty culturally different and yet... Australia and Indonesia have conflicting interests, disputes which prohibit at this stage a lasting alliance between them, however these disputes are not cultural in nature.


"Why don't you like the ones I already gave you? Paul Keating's grand alliance, and the diplomatic problems of South Africa and Rhodesia? Or how about the difficulties Israel has in cashing in its military supremacy for bandwagoning Arab allies? Or how about the difficulties of different peoples in the path of the Mongols in working together as allies, which is what they needed to do if they wanted to avoid being slaughtered? That we must all work together doesn't mean that we can. Or how about the difficulties of the Double Kingdom of England and France, which for all its military strength could never get enough support from the French and Burgundian aristocracy to consolidate its power. The English might have thought it was irrelevant how bad their cooking for a banquet was, but the French thought otherwise, and there goes the goodwill you thought you had won. Culture clashes count!"

Dammit it they do don't they! Look, I'm mostly talking about the nation-state system that developed from 1495 or 1648 (take your preference) in terms of alliances. But even in all of your examples I could point out that interests trumped culture.


"I think people do make policy."

No they don't. When was the last time you had a say in your country's policies? I mean a real say not a vote.

"They make policy with biases that don't go away because they got to wear the crown. These biases, like those that operate between men and women and between different races, don't lend themselves to a neat calculation of interest in every case, but they sway powerfully which relationships will stay steady and which will be fragile and unmanageable."

Does your model hold for people in non-democratic states? People believe what they are told to believe. (Thirty years ago): Those damn Ruskies we hate them, (Fifteen years ago): Russia is our friend and pal now. (Today) Those damn Ruskies we hate them.

“Stability and predictability are valuable goods in alliance politics, and it takes sentiment as well as calculations of interest to make them "stick". I do not accept that the repetition of "nations don't have friends, only interests" settles all these questions.”

You should read Alliance Politics by Glenn Snyder. Alliances are ever shifting because there isn’t stability or predictability in alliances, and because interests change, as well as the fortunes of the respective nation-states. There is no trust, none completely, regardless if you see commonality in another state’s people. But interests are the guiding principle that drives states in an anarchic world. You don’t have to believe me but at least re-read your Thucydides. Why did Sparta attack Athens, a city-state they shared a religion, a language, an ethnicity with?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 10:31 AM  

"That's a heck of a price tag, if you're a patriotic statesman, and you're thinking: "will it be in the best interests of my nation in the long run to pay the price of being an American ally in good standing?"

Bies Podkrakowski: "Or being Russian ally? What they offer that is better than America has to offer?"

Blood, which is the nation itself, matters more than details of culture.

Long ago, the Scots in effect made a deal, to give up Gaelic and speak English, and to take a place as equals in the British Empire. It was a good deal and the nation thrived, both in the United Kingdom and in the Scottish diaspora. A sensible people accepts such things. But if what the English had wanted was to flood Scotland with dusky Hindus, and for the Scots to assimilate with them and to cease to exist, it would have been better for the Scots to fight till all of them were dead than to take that fatal bargain.

The American line, "if not for us you'd be speaking German!" is ridiculous. Suppose that Scottish history went from Gaelic to English and then to German, so what? But mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation is the end, and the Americans promote that.

Apply the same thinking to Ukraine. "If not for Victoria Nuland's coup you'd all be speaking Russian (in time)" is ridiculous. First, I don't believe it, but more importantly, if "slow Russification" (including of the language) was going to happen, so what? If Ukraine with its great borders remained the exclusive possession of its nation, there was every basis for the nation to survive and thrive. (Time was on its side, if only because ages of peace would naturally knit the nation closer together.) But the EU is anti-white. The price of being a member of that alliance system in good standing is non-white mass immigration and assimilation, which is national death. A sensible nationalist should understand that this is not a tough call.

What Ukraine needed was not the sort of leadership it got, but something like Henry IV of France, a good king determined to spare his nation (more) useless war, and never mind what fanatics thought of his doctrinal purity. With leadership like that, the odds would have been greatly improved that in a hundred years time "Ukrainian" would be a strong national identity referring to a united and powerful people with untroubled borders.


Bies Podkrakowski: "So, you see we have quite irreconcilable view points. I prefer to call my viewpoint as being wholly rational, patriotic and reasonable. What about yours?"

In an age where w-word g-word thing-that-shall-not-be-mentioned is the supreme issue, I am all for the survival and the flourishing of every historically white nation, subject only to the common interests of the white race, among which interests the first is the avoidance of war. I call this position "white internationalism" in repudiation of the idea that each white nation going it alone as an enemy of all the others is an adequate way to counter a potent, global anti-white network with a strong, cohesive, talented, internationally networked non-white ethnic core. I also call my position "non-g-word-cidal" in contrast to the eliminationist anti-white agendas, and because my position doesn't require that any people ceases to exist, only that one family of nations continues to live.

Anonymous PA February 24, 2015 10:31 AM  

A big reason why these discussions involve people talking past each other is because Americans cannot relate to a brutish dictatorship of stupid co-ethnics, and Eastern Europeans cannot relate to the horror of racial anarcho-tyranny.

This is why the only viable strategy for weaker central European states is to promote a balance of power between USA and Russia.

Anonymous PA February 24, 2015 10:44 AM  

"Even in its present state West is much better than what Russia has to offer."

There are two criteria by which such 'offers' are judged. One, by the very legitimate question of "what's better for me now." By that metric, liberal West delivers the material goods... for now.

The second criterion is, "what's best for my grandchildren." By this criterion, America promises Rotherdams instead of Lubyankas and dark-skinned masses instead of quietly garissoned red army soldiers.

Blogger Marissa February 24, 2015 10:58 AM  

I find it difficult to believe that Slate has my best interests at heart, article titled "Why the West Must Save Ukraine and Stand Up to Putin". When did the left become so martial? If George Bush was president, no one would give a fig about Ukraine.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey February 24, 2015 11:15 AM  

Go Russia! I raise my glass to the Novorossiya freedom fighters.

Anonymous ZhukovG February 24, 2015 11:24 AM  

Bies,

Poland need not be in chains to anyone. She has chosen to enslave herself to the Progressive Materialist West when she could have stood tall, possibly leading a new group of non-aligned Eastern European nations. At least that was what I hoped when the Soviet Empire fell. The chance do this on her own may have passed, but the opportunity is not lost. Ironically, Putin’s Russia would, no doubt, be happy to help make this happen. The West, of course, will never tolerate a free Poland and will stop at nothing to make sure you behave.

But of course that may be alright with you. I know little about you. Maybe you are a Progressive Materialist who desires exactly what has happened to Poland.

Look, I understand that Poles have some bad memories where Russians are concerned, but that is no reason to live in fear. Unless his hand is forced Putin’s Russia has no desire for war or conquest, anyone who thinks otherwise is just not paying attention or is willfully deceitful.

Poles perhaps should look to themselves and their own potential. Remember Jan Sobieski, remember Josef Pilsudski and the ‘Miracle on the Vistula’, remember the Lvov Eaglets. Remember that Lvov used to be Polish, before the Bandarist Ukrainians began their massacres of Poles (Expulsion of Poles was finished by Stalin, mainly to pacify the Ukrainians).

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 11:39 AM  

Jmac: "Titus, we may be arguing semantics on this but I will go through your post briefly."

OK.

I know we are arguing past each other on a vital definition. I carefully defined "natural ally" at the outset, as a potential ally with characteristics that facilitate bandwagoning. I say that exists. You later defined "natural ally" as a "permanent" (not merely durable) ally that one absolutely could not ever fight, nor could one ever possibly be fought by. You say that doesn't exist. I agree: that doesn't exist. (And if it did, my prudential warning against wrecking one's natural allies would lose some of its point, since it would somehow be impossible to fight a "natural ally" whatever the ruler thought. )


"Still, my point is not an objection to the primacy of interest, but to the false cliche that nations don't have friends, only interests. They do have interests, but that's not all they have."

Jmac: "They have friends when their interests coincide."

Some nations are inclined to be friends, even if frustrated by a clash of interests; others are inclined to be enemies, even though a concordance of interests may require that old quarrels be put on hold. In marginal cases, this can affect what gets to be a crisis and what doesn't.

Woe unto the prince who goes to war to assure the victory of a state that is inclined to declare a jihad on him whenever opportunity offers.


"And the tension, friction and potential for an abrupt breach would be higher than in a relationship between powers with more compatible cultures."

Jmac: "I don't think that's necessarily the case. The US and Japan are pretty culturally different and yet... Australia and Indonesia have conflicting interests, disputes which prohibit at this stage a lasting alliance between them, however these disputes are not cultural in nature."

Many years back, when we had more freedom of speech than we do now, all it took for a major diplomatic "incident" was for Australian newspapers to discuss Indonesian behavior in a less than servile way, and publish letters to the editor; because the Indonesians absolutely did not accept that we had a tradition of free speech. They insisted on taking everything as either an official policy position or a state affront to them, which had to be put right forthwith! by telling the (assumedly) state-controlled newspapers to toe the line or else - the way Javanese would have done it. It was absolutely their business to tell us what discussions we could have among ourselves. We were not having these kinds of problems with the English, for instance, even when clashes of interest moved us away from the English. Relations with the English were about as steady as they could have been under the circumstances, while with the Indonesians any little thing can become "a clash of interests".


Jmac: "Look, I'm mostly talking about the nation-state system that developed from 1495 or 1648 (take your preference) in terms of alliances."

Fair enough.

Jmac: "But even in all of your examples I could point out that interests trumped culture."

And I would continue to point to cases of culture swaying events, supplementing the dominant effect of interest.


"I think people do make policy."

Jmac: "No they don't. When was the last time you had a say in your country's policies? I mean a real say not a vote."

All those who make policy are people. Not all of the people make policy. Consider how British military policy on the continent changed after the Glorious Revolution. British interests hadn't changed. The royal line and the prejudices of the king had.


Jmac: "Does your model hold for people in non-democratic states?"

Yes.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 11:41 AM  

Jmac: "You should read Alliance Politics by Glenn Snyder."

First, you're right (again), this time about who I haven't read. But can you offer an alternative with a Kindle edition?



Jmac: "You don’t have to believe me but at least re-read your Thucydides. Why did Sparta attack Athens, a city-state they shared a religion, a language, an ethnicity with?"

I understand that the Spartan kingship could go lame, and the war king could decide that Sparta was sui generis and could as easily and suitably ally with Persia against Hellenes as with Hellenes against Persia. It could, in sum, refuse the position of the leader of the Hellenes.

But I would predict that this would not work out for the best.

I would have the same sort of advice for the white elites of traditionally white nations, who (the elites) have signed up with or are signing up with an anti-white coalition that wants all our states to go the way of Rhodesia. You definitely can do that. But I predict that the consequences will not be for the best.

I do not think my advice in that respect is any more romantic than that which Machiavelli would have given.

Blogger Mekadave February 24, 2015 11:54 AM  

Look, I understand that Poles have some bad memories where Russians are concerned, but that is no reason to live in fear. Unless his hand is forced Putin’s Russia has no desire for war or conquest, anyone who thinks otherwise is just not paying attention or is willfully deceitful.

From what I've seen, I think "bad memories" is putting it mildly. My wife can't stand Civic Platform and the rest of the pro-EU progressives and thinks PiS is too spineless (In fact, she actually likes Nigel Farage! Go figure, right?). But as far as Russia goes? The words "trust" and "Russia" don't belong in the same sentence for her or her family.

Anonymous Hunsdon February 24, 2015 12:28 PM  

Matamoros said: I am really surprised by all the hate America bile spewed by many of these trolls; who say they'd rejoice with America nuked.

Need we say anything else other than disinformatsiya agents of a foreign state?

Hunsdon said: Excuse me? Can you point to any time I have said I hate America? Have I ever said I would rejoice with America nuked?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 24, 2015 1:56 PM  

In Fred Saberhagen's Berserker-verse, my advice to living rulers would be that they could, in a perfectly unprejudiced, free and rational way, ally as readily with Berserkers against life-forms as with life-forms against Berserkers, each ruler with a heart set cold as space against all other living rulers and populations. They could. But I would not recommend it.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 24, 2015 2:32 PM  

The Baltic countries have as Lind has wrote bought into the NATO myth and now have toy armies and a docile population ready for Porn and slavery. The Novorussians have picked up weapons they have a slim chance at a full meaningful life. Go look at their videos of old hard men who are ready for battle.

Anonymous Discard February 24, 2015 3:21 PM  

Bies Podkrakowski: No invasion of the U.S. by South America? The evidence is photoshopped? As one who lived in California for over 50 years and watched its decline, I tell you that you really ought close your mouth about things you have no knowledge of, if only to keep your credibility about things you do know about. My impression is that you get your news of America from what we call the Mainstream Media (MSM), a refined version of the Soviet press of the 1970s. And websites like Salon are just the MSM for younger people. Same lies, different box.

The former satellite states of eastern Europe ought have organized themselves into an independent block, rather than allying themselves with Western governments that hated them almost as much as they hated their own people. And yes, Western governments do hate their own people. Why else do they work to replace them with Third Worlders?
I think that PA has got it right, that Westerners cannot grasp brutish dictatorship and Eastern Europeans cannot grasp the multi-cult evil.

Blogger Mekadave February 24, 2015 3:26 PM  

@Discard, I'm not trying to be a white knight or anything, but from previous comments, I think Bies is sarcastically comparing the US southern border invasion with the people who say that there are no Russian troops operating in Ukraine.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. :-p

Blogger Doom February 24, 2015 4:19 PM  

Please. Russia's economy is crushed. It's wars of aggression have just become a problem it won't be able to sustain. The wounded dog may bite and snap, but with it's guts rolling out of it's midsection, and blood showing in it's foaming mouth, it has little in the long run, to offer. It will die a quick painful but merciful death or whimper off to lick it's wounds with some hope of attacking the world again through it's Mordor gates.

Anonymous Hunsdon February 24, 2015 5:16 PM  

Doom said: Please. Russia's economy is crushed. It's wars of aggression have just become a problem it won't be able to sustain.

Hunsdon said: Wait. Russia's wars of aggression?

Blogger Matamoros February 24, 2015 5:25 PM  

There is another dimension to the Ukrainian/ Russian problem, the spiritual. Our Lady came to Fatima in 1917 to warn the world against the “errors of Russia”, and asked Catholics to pray for the conversion of Russia.

...I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world”.

Russia has not yet been consecrated, though some partial consecrations have been made which contributed to the fall of Communism and prevention of World War III. We know that everything as not yet been done because Russia has not yet been converted to the Catholic Faith.

Some information on this and what has been prophesied concerning Russia and her actions, which will only be stopped when the Pope consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart according to her directions.

http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr82/cr82pg11.asp
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0131-salza-fatima-chastisement.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIEQ3XEhdB4#t=418

It will be noted specifically that Our Lady of America in the 1950s talked about America’s mission and the coming dangers to America and her mission. “Our Lady promised that greater miracles than those granted at Lourdes and Fatima would be granted here in America, the United Stares in particular, if we would do as she desires.”

She said: “I desire to make the whole of America my shrine by making every heart accessible to the love of my Son."

Our Lady warned that:
“…unless the United States accepts and carries out faithfully the mandate given to it by heaven to lead the world to peace, there will come upon it and all nations a great havoc of war and incredible suffering. If, however, the United States is faithful to this mandate from heaven and yet fails in the pursuit of peace because the rest of the world will not accept or co-operate then the United States will not be burdened with the punishment about to fall.” (Pg. 38) It is evident that the Forces of Evil are enveloping the world. Their hatred, however, is now particularly focused on the United States because of the Divine Mandate given to it to lead the world to peace.

We must never forget the divine plan and Satan's enmity to mankind in all of this.

Anonymous map February 24, 2015 5:57 PM  

Titus Didius Tacitus,

Look, I understand what you are trying to say. There is a war on white people going on in the West and you see Russia as a bulwark against that. You think that the Ukrainians should allow the Russians to lead in this respect.

The problem with this interpretation is that Ukraine has a long history of being pillaged and subjugated by Russia. They don't want that anymore. Whatever designs Victoria Nuland and her ilk have on Ukraine, does not change any of the grievances that Ukraine has toward Russia. Ukraine wants a Ukraine for Ukrainians, not a Russian-dominated satrapy.

One of the readers above doubted the Russification project going on. Well, I know someone whose daughter tried to study a subject at a Ukrainian university and that subject was taught in Russian. You can imagine how angry Americans get at having to press 1 for Spanish. Imagine how mad you will be if entire universities were taught in Spanish.

Yes, it would be much better if a pan-Orthodox Union emerged, stretching from Athens to Moscow, but that is not going to happen.

Blogger Hunsdon February 24, 2015 8:55 PM  

Doom: Formal question. What wars of aggression has Russia waged since the collapse of the Soviet Union? Are you referring to the Chechen Wars? The Russo-Georgian War of 2008? The Ukie fiasco of 2014?

The country that seems---and I'll be willing to argue the point with any and all comers---to be waging aggressive war these days is my home land, the United States. Oh, I suppose we could dress it up as reluctantly being forced to intervene in the name of Goodness and Niceness if you want to, but Goodness and Niceness have been asking an awful lot lately.

I believe our host just recently pointed out that Nobel peace prize winner POTUS Obama had directed the killing by drone of more human beings, in a considerably shorter period, than were killed by the Spanish Inquisition.

Why am I reminded of "True Lies" and Arnold saying, "But they were all bad"?

Anonymous Curtis February 24, 2015 9:58 PM  

And remember, all the arms captured by the rebels are Russian. Russia is arming the rebels!

Blogger Akulkis February 25, 2015 12:59 AM  

"Of course, there is Russian army on Ukraine. Whole battalions, they don’t bother even with removing their badges anymore."

Badges? Badges?!?! We don't need no steenkeeng badges!

Blogger Akulkis February 25, 2015 1:22 AM  

The only wars of aggression the Russians might have ever fought would be against the Turks. I don't recall any other Russian (as opposed to Soviet, which is to say, Jewish-hijacked government) wars being aggressive wars. All the others were defensive.

Russians, are EXTREMELY harsh on invaders. The saying goes, "It is good that our leaders are so hard on us, because they will be even harder on our enemies." Enemies being any army foolish enough to invade Russia.

Blogger Akulkis February 25, 2015 1:26 AM  

"One of the readers above doubted the Russification project going on. Well, I know someone whose daughter tried to study a subject at a Ukrainian university and that subject was taught in Russian. You can imagine how angry Americans get at having to press 1 for Spanish. Imagine how mad you will be if entire universities were taught in Spanish."

Oh, please, when was the last (or even first) time you dialed a company or government office, and heard, "DIal 2 for Appalachian."

Anonymous MikeH February 25, 2015 1:43 AM  

I don't count the Israeli's as having won anything recently. Gaza was an attack on a defenseless militant people with no real way of defending themselves. Now the last Israeli engagement that mattered was the attack against Hizbollah. That did not go well at all.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 25, 2015 3:40 AM  

map: "Titus Didius Tacitus,

Look, I understand what you are trying to say. There is a war on white people going on in the West and you see Russia as a bulwark against that. You think that the Ukrainians should allow the Russians to lead in this respect."

Yes.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 25, 2015 3:41 AM  

Not at the expense of the national patrimony of course. But I look at the map of pre-coup Ukraine, and I think: "where is the grievance? You've got it all!"

You know the story about the Chinese king with the greedy neighbor? The neighbor wants some of the king's fine horses, and the king says, "give him the horses." The neighbor wants some of the king's beautiful women, and the king says, "give him the women." The neighbor wants only the tiniest patch of the kingdom's land, and the king says, "War!" Perfect attitude.

If I was a statesman for Ukraine, with what they had, a beautiful and talented people and undisputed possession of such spacious territories, my attitude would be that as long as nobody questioned that all this land was for us alone the future would belong to us, and in the meantime, "what-does-Putin-want-well-give-it-to-him." He could have Ukrainian auxiliaries to help put down Chechens for all I cared; as long as the land stayed ours alone it would all be good.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 25, 2015 3:44 AM  

Have I supported Australia taking an equally deferential attitude to American foreign policy? Yes. (Right up to when I understood that mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation means the end of the Australian nation, and the Americans support that.) So the meal I'm recommending to the Ukrainians tastes good to me. And if I could have the Russians -- not demanding that we be blended out of existence -- be our patrons, I'd take that deal in a heartbeat. And if the price they wanted for our exclusive, undisputed possession of our extensive lands was that we speak Russian: "Da! Is that how you want us to say yes? Am I getting the accent right? Whatever suits you."

(By the way, Jmac, this is the kind of deal I see a nation that needs to bandwagon striking with a potential friend. A nation that is less suitable to bandwagon with would add something like, "the language is a start, but naturally we also require that round-eyes be eliminated within what must become Chinese territory. Which will be all of it." If you've gotta deal you've gotta deal, but some deals are much worse than others, and culture comes into that, and ethnic genetic interest may too. I think focusing on the decisions of potential hegemons is a good idea, but it obscures how significant the terms they get are for the bandwagoning nations.)

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 25, 2015 3:46 AM  

I don't understand or accept the attitude of people who tore their nation to pieces and created conflicts with a strong neighbor that threatened and has now diminished the security of the nation's generous borders. Especially since this strong neighbor consisted of relatives. And since the EU does demand mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation to wipe out the national gene pool, while the Russians do not demand that, and it would not be in their interest to do so. This is such a no-brainer: just wait, and let everything mature in your favor.

Especially since this was at the behest of the Jews, who have grievances against Ukrainians. I don't know who has an excuse to think that the Jews are their very best friends and there is no bad history and there are no bad feelings, but Ukrainians of all people have no excuse to imagine that. And are the Jews stupid? Do you think they will not be able to guess whether this civil war they are fostering will help or hurt people they hate? So how could this ever have worked out for the best?

I see hostile paymasters and bribed nation-wreckers. That's how this adds up for me.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 25, 2015 3:51 AM  

map: "The problem with this interpretation is that Ukraine has a long history of being pillaged and subjugated by Russia. They don't want that anymore. Whatever designs Victoria Nuland and her ilk have on Ukraine, does not change any of the grievances that Ukraine has toward Russia. Ukraine wants a Ukraine for Ukrainians, not a Russian-dominated satrapy."

I have a problem with that. This is if we said: "Australia needs to be really Australian," and under out breath we added, "and real Australians are like Victorians and the New South Welsh." Then we had a coup in Canberra and set out to remake Australia as "really Australian." How do you think West Australians, Queenslanders etc. would take that? It would get bloody. And we have no historic grievances. This is what the coup plotters did to those Ukrainians living to the East of them.

I have a second problem. We need to forgive our ethnic kin for ancient wrongs, or we're not going to make it. I can see borders that are in the wrong place right now as a problem. But subjugation in a previous century? Don't you think the Welsh etc. have things to cry out about? If we are all to survive as nations, we have to get over it.

I have a third problem. That is, the Russians (or for those with grievances against the English, the English) remain forever guilty for everything, and it seems that remains the focus, while with the Jews, who were up to their hips in the Holodomor and are fully involved in mass non-white immigration and multiculturalism too, it's like people are wearing blinders. If you always blame your relatives and you never blame the strangers who set you against each other, how can you live?

But the immediate problem is the first one. If you do that, there will be trouble.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 25, 2015 3:53 AM  

map: "One of the readers above doubted the Russification project going on. Well, I know someone whose daughter tried to study a subject at a Ukrainian university and that subject was taught in Russian. You can imagine how angry Americans get at having to press 1 for Spanish. Imagine how mad you will be if entire universities were taught in Spanish."

I don't have to imagine my attitude to Scots in the late 20th Century (not making it into the 21st, alas) still speaking Gaelic on regular occasions to make the point that the English, against whom we have historic grievances, are not us, and their language is not ours. "Get over it! Knock it off!"

You can't retell Glen Coe forever. Unless we learn to forgive each other and work together we are all dead. And maybe we will be, but we should at least try.

I do not care whether entire universities are taught in Gaelic, English, German, Spanish or Russian. If the people are the same people, owing descent to the same ancestors, I do not care whether we say "this land is ours!" in Hungarian, Basque or Swedish.

You can't speak Old English forever anyway. Linguistic change will come regardless.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 25, 2015 3:55 AM  

map: "Yes, it would be much better if a pan-Orthodox Union emerged, stretching from Athens to Moscow, but that is not going to happen."

OK; I accept you are right on that one.

But something new and good needs to come from somewhere. It's not coming from Hollywood, Washington and New York. And time is not our friend.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 25, 2015 6:31 AM  

What would genuine friends have advised, instead of what the Department of State has advised? "Keep the peace, you fools -- and keep all your territory for yourselves!"

I wonder if future generations of Western Ukrainians will be stupid enough to say: "those people who advised us to start a coup and a civil war, and get involved in a proxy war in which we lost a lot of our territory -- they were really our friends!"

It would be nice to think that people would have to wake up sometime. But some people never do.

Blogger Jmac February 25, 2015 8:41 AM  

“I know we are arguing past each other on a vital definition. I carefully defined "natural ally" at the outset, as a potential ally with characteristics that facilitate bandwagoning. I say that exists. You later defined "natural ally" as a "permanent" (not merely durable) ally that one absolutely could not ever fight, nor could one ever possibly be fought by. You say that doesn't exist. I agree: that doesn't exist. (And if it did, my prudential warning against wrecking one's natural allies would lose some of its point, since it would somehow be impossible to fight a "natural ally" whatever the ruler thought. )“

If natural allies are not permanent, and we both agree that they are not, than the phrase “natural ally” has no meaning other than as a talking point. Alliances will only last as long as the interests of the members to remain in the alliance exist, whether it is via bandwagoning, balancing, buck passing, tethering, Omnibalancing or whatever strategy the states are employing. The terms alliance and allies have specific narrow definitions in international relations. The shorthand: An alliance is a national security arrangement and allies are members of an alliance. It doesn’t bleed into any other form of political arrangement.

“Some nations are inclined to be friends, even if frustrated by a clash of interests; others are inclined to be enemies, even though a concordance of interests may require that old quarrels be put on hold. In marginal cases, this can affect what gets to be a crisis and what doesn't.”

States become friends because it is to their mutual benefit to do so. States become enemies because they don’t trust each other anymore, or they may gain more, for example shoring up a weak regime at home by demonizing a once friendly state.

External threats are also important to forming an alliance, if there is a threat great enough to your example of Indonesia and Australia then they may find it in their mutual interest to ally. Remember though there is also distrust in the international system, but this is due to the anarchic structure and not to cultural differences.

“And I would continue to point to cases of culture swaying events, supplementing the dominant effect of interest.”

Well I still haven’t seen any cases yet. You mention South Africa and Rhodesia, two white minority governments in sub-Saharan Africa battling Communist-backed black guerrilla groups at the height of the Cold War, at the same time the Portuguese African empire was imploding. Whatever “diplomatic clout” those states had has to be seen in the proper context.

“All those who make policy are people. Not all of the people make policy. Consider how British military policy on the continent changed after the Glorious Revolution. British interests hadn't changed. The royal line and the prejudices of the king had.”

Let’s not be pedantic here. The people broadly speaking are not going to make policy. A person (POTUS in US case) and/or a small cadre usually make policy, the rest attempt to advise, influence, cajole, acquiesce, ignore, rant and rave, or otherwise implement said policy.

“Yes”

See above on policy-making, except the only real option the people broadly speaking have in non-democratic states is revolution. Even then that only changes the government, not necessarily the policy in question.

Blogger Jmac February 25, 2015 8:44 AM  

“First, you're right (again), this time about who I haven't read. But can you offer an alternative with a Kindle edition?”

Read Walt’s The Origins of Alliances, or Miller’s Shadow of the Past: Reputation and Military Alliances before the First World War

“I understand that the Spartan kingship could go lame, and the war king could decide that Sparta was sui generis and could as easily and suitably ally with Persia against Hellenes as with Hellenes against Persia. It could, in sum, refuse the position of the leader of the Hellenes.

Persia was seen as a greater threat which forced the Greeks to work together. You’ll probably claim it was a cultural difference between the Greeks and Persians and I’ll say it was because of their interests that forced them to work together.

“I would have the same sort of advice for the white elites of traditionally white nations, who (the elites) have signed up with or are signing up with an anti-white coalition that wants all our states to go the way of Rhodesia. You definitely can do that. But I predict that the consequences will not be for the best.”

So what does this slippery slope have to do with alliances? Alliances are temporary phenomena. If a traditionally white state allies with an anti-white coalition it will be to gain some security benefit (this could include tethering the coalition- keep in mind that states don’t necessarily always bandwagon with states that don’t threaten them but rather with states that do, or could), and when the benefits end the alliance ends.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 25, 2015 10:19 AM  

Jmac: "Read Walt’s The Origins of Alliances, or Miller’s Shadow of the Past: Reputation and Military Alliances before the First World War"

Thanks.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 25, 2015 3:18 PM  

Some patron states impose, in effect, conditions on their aid. Your chances of getting help from France are drastically different according to whether you speak French or not. The Russians like it if you speak Russia, and some feel this is a key issue in the fight in the Ukraine. (That is: Russification is a key grievance.)

Such prices can be seen as cultural, or as a matter of interest. The acceptability of such prices can also be seen as cultural, or as a matter of interest.

Blogger Matamoros February 25, 2015 7:50 PM  

A good article illustrative of 4th Gen warfare on the information front.

American Misadventures of Putin’s Puppets
http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/02/26/american-misadventures-of-putins-puppets/

Blogger Vladimir Tepes March 15, 2015 8:33 AM  

Russia has real soldiers on their border and no gay pride marches in their army... imagine that.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts