PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

[BadJuju]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

sorry, other side of sanity/rationality - or perhaps just turned into a flamer - it was his unqualified assertion that there will be nuclear war over this that discredits his judgment on this IMO (of course if he's right, I'll fully apologize, but we may be dead ....)

It wasn't just that. It was basically all of what he was asserting. It is obvious that he is a shill for Russia here. He is actually trying to say Russia did not invade Ukraine. He might as well be a lead anchor for RT.

[don]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

sorry, other side of sanity/rationality - or perhaps just turned into a flamer - it was his unqualified assertion that there will be nuclear war over this that discredits his judgment on this IMO (of course if he's right, I'll fully apologize, but we may be dead ....)

It appears Paul has, at least at times. been pushed over the edge. Not hard to understand . . .

[vinoveri]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

From the wikis

Under the new doctrine, Russia continues to develop and modernize its nuclear capability. "Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened."^[12]

Does the U.S. have an official policy on when it may use nuclear weapons? If so, I suspect it goes like this (or at least we want another nations to perceive our stance as such):

The United States will use nuclear weapons WHENEVER IT DAMN WELLS PLEASES - WE DID IT BEFORE SO YOU KNOW WE WILL - NOW STFU

Let's face it, any dominant nuclear power (e.g., USA, Russia) that does not promulgate to the world a position that it will use its nuclear capability when "necessary" or conversely specifically disclaims the right to use them under certain conditions is self-neutering itself and has not learned game-theory 101

[don]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

Don't overlook the Nixon "Crazy" theory . . .

[gwynedd1]

Re: Hudson: Go West, Young Man!

Let no one ever say I do not know when to raise the white flag and retreat. Your history is way better than anything I have learned in the past; with the one saving grace; by sparking the debate, we get at answers.

Hi Cris Coles,

I am glad I said with all due respect since you are deserving of it, and I will be sure to vouch for you. Feel free to take revenge in challenging me since I must use my real meager resources over my reputation like any junk yard dog. I just happen to know this in some depth. So give me a scar to remember anytime that I am well deserving. I became aware that Eastern European history had become a blind spot as a casualty of the cold war. My favorite find in all my pursuits was the Zaporozian sich.





http://libcom.org/history/makhnovist...sack-influence

The most fiercely independent of the Cossacks was the Zaporozhian Host. This group established their capital, or Sich, “beyond the rapids” [za porogy] in the islands of the lower Dnieper, near what would become the city of Alexandrovsk (modern day Zaporozhye). Voline describes the Zaporozhians as “men in love with liberty” who had “struggled for centuries against the attempts at enslavement by various neighbours.” [16, p. 544] The physical location of the host was integral to their free way of life providing a natural defence against Russians and Poles to the north and Turkic Tatars to the south. By the mid-17th century the Zaporozhians occupied an independent buffer zone in what would later become the provinces of Ekaterinoslav and Kherson. [8, p. 15] It is telling that the Zaporozhian and Makhnovist regions of influence correspond to a great extent.
While the Zaporozhians were great allies in war, they were considered a disruptive presence during peacetime by the imperial powers. Frequently the Cossacks rose in rebellion, with the surrounding peasantry following suit “as if to an arranged signal.” [9, p. 181] The last centuries of Zaporozhian independence witnessed the famous Cossack rebellions of Stenka Razin, Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Emelian Pugachev. The Zaporozhian Sich also served as a supply and recruitment base for the right-bank haidamaky movement in their struggle against the Polish nobility. (15, 192) Despite their resistance to all outsiders, an encroaching Russian Empire gradually eroded Cossack independence through the cooption of the leadership and the recognition of special rights in return for military service. Those who refused these terms were violently repressed. Using Pugachev’s rebellion as a pretext, Catherine the Great ordered the Zaporozhian Sich destroyed in 1775. In the process, the Zaporozhian leadership was exiled. Some relocated to the Kuban region while the remaining population was gradually enserfed.



Thus I can certainly understand that Ukraine is the beyond the rapids of the Dnieper River but not to Crimea. In 1994 the collapsing Soviets had as much negotiating power as any victim of extortion. Meanwhile the residents of Crimea are finding themselves a province of Germany or the 51st state which will bring them many gifts. They may not have more than 600 sq feet efficiency apartments but they will have gay marriage. They may not have much choice in food but its a fast bucket of chicken. They may have to give up their Kvas but Coke looks similar. The quality of the content will go down but quantity of channels will go up. That is to say nothing of Western Ukraine who have been duped as well.

[Woodsman]

Re: Hudson: Go West, Young Man!

Hi Cris Coles,

Ilya Repin's "Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks" - one of my favorite paintings by my favorite Russian painter. It must have been a hoot to stage!

[gwynedd1]

Re: Hudson: Go West, Young Man!

Speaking of Soviet premiers just tossing certain ethnicities over to their loyal base, never have I seen the West so eager to follow their wisdom.

where it existed for about 200 years before, according to Solzhenitsyn, a drunk Khrushchev of Ukrainian ethnicity moved southern and eastern Russian provinces into Ukraine.

You would think that is bad enough but apparently Stalins partitions are just as precious.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200809--2.htm

The basic facts are not seriously in dispute. South Ossetia, along with the much more significant region of Abkhazia, were assigned by Stalin to his native Georgia. Western leaders sternly admonish that Stalin’s directives must be respected, despite the strong opposition of Ossetians and Abkhazians. The provinces enjoyed relative autonomy until the collapse of the USSR. In 1990, Georgia’s ultranationalist president Zviad Gamsakhurdia abolished autonomous regions and invaded South Ossetia. The bitter war that followed left 1000 dead and tens of thousands of refugees, with the capital city of Tskhinvali “battered and depopulated” (New York Times).

So there ya go. Obviously the West is on very firm ground using the template of Soviet dictators, except that is when it has to do with the deported Crimean tartars that is who had an impressive business indeed.

[Woodsman]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

sorry, other side of sanity/rationality - or perhaps just turned into a flamer - it was his unqualified assertion that there will be nuclear war over this that discredits his judgment on this IMO (of course if he's right, I'll fully apologize, but we may be dead ....)

Funny. That's exactly what Jack Kennedy said of LeMay and the Chiefs during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

“These brass hats have one great advantage,” the president said. “If we … do what they want us to do, none of us will be around later to tell them that they were wrong.”

Of course, this isn't the Cuban Missile Crisis and won't be.

Roberts is an older man at the twilight of his years. I believe for most people there is going to be a degree of psychological transference between a sense of their own end and their perception of The End. I guess as an old dude myself, I calibrate for that. Deep, I know.

Way I come to this; Roberts was a fixture of the mainstream center right press and has impeccable bona fides in government and academia. But at some point it becomes okay for respectable people to call him names and question his sanity on public forums and he's left to publish in the likes of Alex Jones and Russia Today. What changed, I wonder? Did Paul or did Washington/New York?

This is what he said at the time:

A number of readers have asked me when did I undergo my epiphany, abandon right-wing Reaganism and become an apostle of truth and justice. I appreciate the friendly sentiment, but there is a great deal of misconception in the question.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/02/06/my-epiphany/

Good thing it's just one man's opinion and we can post it, debate it, agree and disagree in whole or part without our patriotism or sanity being brought into question, right?

So let's have at it. Use of nuclear weapons in a war over Ukraine? Cloud coo-coo land, or actual war plan?



The wiki article I posted points to the Russian defense ministry's own published doctrine that says it goes to the mattresses for stuff like:

• occurrence of sources of inter-ethnic (inter-faith) tensions [like Ukrainian vs Russian language speakers?], activity of international armed radical groups [like those in Ukraine?] in areas adjacent to Russia and its allies [like Ukraine?], growth of separatism [like west Ukraine?] and forcible extremism [see above] in various regions of the world
• presence of sources and escalation of military conflict in territories adjacent to Russia and it allies [like Ukraine]
• territorial claims against Russia and its allies [like Ukraine?] and interference in internal affairs [like Crimea]
• attempt to destabilize the situation in various states and regions and undermine [Russian?] strategic stability
• ...moving NATO infrastructure closer to Russia's borders [the plan, no?]

And so on, but you get my point.

So no, I don't fault Roberts for the assertion and I think it is far from crazy. Unlikely, but not out of the realm of possible outcomes given the right circumstances and leadership.

Why would he say it? Well, there's my arm chair psychology gambit FWIW. But to be on more solid footing, I think being an old school Sovietologist, Roberts takes doctrine seriously. He knows what he's talking about because probably went through the stuff in the original Russian back in the day. If he's invested in a worst case, surely his knowledge of Russia and Russian history and culture informs it. He takes it seriously because it's serious stuff.

Do I think the assertion is over the top and hyperbolic give the present circumstances? Duh, yeah, least of all because I retain my childhood faith that somewhere in the chain of command there is a responsible and sensible adult who will say no. But does the mere assertion discredit Roberts now and forever? No, at least not for me.

I'm just another doddering old nutjob too, I guess. Only thing is, war-wise, we've been reasonably good at rolling over states like Iraq and Afghanistan (with the bazillion obvious qualifications necessary to say such a thing with a straight face). But if that "success" gives the neocons running the global full spectrum dominance asylum any confidence that they can push around states like Russia, well that gives me pause.

[Andreuccio]

Re: Hudson: Go West, Young Man!

Ilya Repin's "Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks" - one of my favorite paintings by my favorite Russian painter. It must have been a hoot to stage!

The actual reply itself is pretty funny on its own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_o...zhian_Cossacks

I'd never heard any of this, or seen this painting. Thanks to Woodsman, gwynedd1, and Chris Coles for the education.

[vinoveri]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

Do I think the assertion is over the top and hyperbolic give the present circumstances? Duh, yeah, least of all because I retain my childhood faith that somewhere in the chain of command there is a responsible and sensible adult who will say no. But does the mere assertion discredit Roberts now and forever? No, at least not for me.

I'm just another doddering old nutjob too, I guess. Only thing is, war-wise, we've been reasonably good at rolling over states like Iraq and Afghanistan (with the bazillion obvious qualifications necessary to say such a thing with a straight face). But if that "success" gives the neocons running the global full spectrum dominance asylum any confidence that they can push around states like Russia, well that gives me pause.

PCR has had good insight over the recent years, and I appreciate his no-holds barred commentary, which by the way think is very patriotic. Love your country, don't trust your government and all that. We need voice like his, and I hope he is not marginalized anymore or feels he must ever increase the crisis rhetoric (even to extreme levels as in the nuclear war inevitability) to be heard which of course will backfire.

The neocons scare me more that the Russian's in all this

[gwynedd1]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

The neocons scare me more that the Russian's in all this

The Russians reacting to the neocons scares me. The neocons know the history. They know the Russians at the very least think they have solid claim to Crimea and only tolerated a friendly Ukraine. Even if it were not true they know the Russians will not give up Crimea for the same reason they fought to get it in the first place. So why can't the West live without it? Why are they deliberately provoking it? The answer is because they are lunatics.

[Woodsman]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

The answer is because they are lunatics.

The sleep of reason produces monsters

[Chris Coles]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

This also turned up today and is a very thought provoking end to a long list.

Major Joe Blair was the director of instruction at the U.S. School of the Americas (SOA) from 1986 to 1989. He described the training he oversaw at SOA as the following: "The doctrine that was taught was that if you want information you use physical abuse, false imprisonment, threats to family members, and killing. If you can't get the information you want, if you can't get that person to shut up or stop what they're doing, you assassinate them—and you assassinate them with one of your death squads."
The stock response of U.S. officials to the exposure of the systematic crimes I've described is that such things may have occurred at certain times in the past but that they in no way reflect long-term or ongoing U.S. policy. The School of the Americas was moved from the Panama Canal Zone to Fort Benning, Georgia, and replaced by the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in 2001. But Joe Blair has something to say about that too. Testifying at a trial of SOA Watch protesters in 2002, he said, "There are no substantive changes besides the name. They teach the identical courses that I taught, and changed the course names and use the same manuals."

A huge amount of human suffering could be alleviated and global problems solved if the United States would make a genuine commitment to human rights and the rule of law, as opposed to one it only applies cynically and opportunistically to its enemies, but never to itself or its allies.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He wrote the chapter on "Obama At War" for the book, Grading the 44th President: A Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader
http://www.alternet.org/world/35-cou...tter967415&t=2

[Forrest]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

Way I come to this; Roberts was a fixture of the mainstream center right press and has impeccable bona fides in government and academia. But at some point it becomes okay for respectable people to call him names and question his sanity on public forums and he's left to publish in the likes of Alex Jones and Russia Today. What changed, I wonder? Did Paul or did Washington/New York?

I don't see Paul changing much...because he was a middle of the road guy, with excellent performance records. Washington and New York, on the other hand, are simply more blatantly corrupt, and indifferent to the people they are affecting.

This is what he said at the time:

Good thing it's just one man's opinion and we can post it, debate it, agree and disagree in whole or part without our patriotism or sanity being brought into question, right?

So let's have at it. Use of nuclear weapons in a war over Ukraine? Cloud coo-coo land, or actual war plan?

Going to the mattresses is really more of ground war reference to fighting within cities. Nukes would be pointless, and relatively useless as well. Chemical weapons would work better, but even the Russians don't really want that messy of a war right now. Putin wants to push Obama around, and make him look ridiculous (which isn't hard, these days), while tricking everyone into thinking he's the only goodguy standing on the question of the Ukraine.

Unfortunately, he mobilized just a tad quickly for the restrained look of a considered approach to the conflict. It would have better for him had he shown some reluctance first, and then be pushed into it by a few eastern Ukrainians. Still, he may pull it off despite all the popping up of resistance, and the sudden coalitions of one set of groups against another.

The wiki article I posted points to the Russian defense ministry's own published doctrine that says it goes to the mattresses for stuff like:

• occurrence of sources of inter-ethnic (inter-faith) tensions [like Ukrainian vs Russian language speakers?], activity of international armed radical groups [like those in Ukraine?] in areas adjacent to Russia and its allies [like Ukraine?], growth of separatism [like west Ukraine?] and forcible extremism [see above] in various regions of the world
• presence of sources and escalation of military conflict in territories adjacent to Russia and it allies [like Ukraine]
• territorial claims against Russia and its allies [like Ukraine?] and interference in internal affairs [like Crimea]
• attempt to destabilize the situation in various states and regions and undermine [Russian?] strategic stability
• ...moving NATO infrastructure closer to Russia's borders [the plan, no?]

And so on, but you get my point.

So no, I don't fault Roberts for the assertion and I think it is far from crazy. Unlikely, but not out of the realm of possible outcomes given the right circumstances and leadership.

Why would he say it? Well, there's my arm chair psychology gambit FWIW. But to be on more solid footing, I think being an old school Sovietologist, Roberts takes doctrine seriously. He knows what he's talking about because probably went through the stuff in the original Russian back in the day. If he's invested in a worst case, surely his knowledge of Russia and Russian history and culture informs it. He takes it seriously because it's serious stuff.

Do I think the assertion is over the top and hyperbolic give the present circumstances? Duh, yeah, least of all because I retain my childhood faith that somewhere in the chain of command there is a responsible and sensible adult who will say no. But does the mere assertion discredit Roberts now and forever? No, at least not for me.

I'm just another doddering old nutjob too, I guess. Only thing is, war-wise, we've been reasonably good at rolling over states like Iraq and Afghanistan (with the bazillion obvious qualifications necessary to say such a thing with a straight face). But if that "success" gives the neocons running the global full spectrum dominance asylum any confidence that they can push around states like Russia, well that gives me pause.

It should...the neocons are not up to the job. They foment rebellion, and pay off people to do their bidding, but Russia is not a small country on the brink of falling apart, which is what the neocons seem to like messing with, or have any talent at. It would not be so bad if they actually resolved to finish what they start, and then roll out the military in full force, but they know they can't get the funding for a decent response. The Politicians may go with the flow for a while, and then peel off as the way becomes difficult. And so, doing much but aggravating Russia doesn't seem in the cards, which since I don't like military solutions unless there is an attack first, pleases me.

[gwynedd1]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

The sleep of reason produces monsters

I see that I am not the only one with a weakness for the iconic art of history.