PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

[gwynedd1]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

I don't know. Just pointing out that these type claims have been going on since recorded history. The claim of self determination is simply a ruse to explain the fact that these decisions are usually decided by who has the most tanks, planes, and artillery. Anyone think Putin is doing this for the good of Crimea?This merely shows what a thin, impotent veneer modern international law is. Things will continue to be solved like they were in 1066. Check and mate.

Putin is doing it for the good of me. That is because as I have said before, democracy has become politically weaponized. Just as the US uses populism and democracy to topple regimes so has Putin learned to weaken the US by preserving our democracy. In other words you are not cynical enough to make a pragmatic use of it.


http://www.scotclans.com/scottish_hi...learances.html

The clan system regarded the land as belonging to their community, worked areas being passed down through the family while additional lands could be rented. As the generations passed, the clan chiefs became more wealthy and detached from their kinsmen, regarding them as their effects rather than their family. By the 18th century it would have been hard to find a clan chief with the same accent as his clan, and harder still to find a clansman with any legal or humanitarian rights.

Agricultural ‘improvement’ by removing humans from their lands and replacing them with sheep was found to be very profitable across the Lowlands in the mid-1700s. The large Cheviot and Blackface sheep that were given the lands generated more wealth than the landowners could ever have squeezed from their clan tenants.

The people were told to fish at the coast and work the kelp to pay the rents for their new locations. They built themselves homes called crofts and their lifestyles became known as crofting.

At least we got Bourban and Canadian whiskey out of it.

So called globalization first began as "reagonalization". Once the clans fell under the rule of England after Culloden there as no need for a strong clan anymore than need for plumber on a fixed pipe. If Russia falls its one less place to go. My leaders, puppets of FIRE, are my enemy, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Russia's Changes

Putin's first life was head of the KGB. What kind of person is head of the KGB?

And what does it say about a nations political environment that such a person has very high approval ratings,
and remains in control perpetually?

Russia is not a police state, but girl bands are put in jail for shaming the leadership. Journalists are killed on a regular basis.

The Soviets were a narc state. Russia is not what I would call a police state. That is why a homosexual may be beaten with impunity because under the right circumstances so can you. Why? because its no police state.



http://atethepaint.blogspot.com/2011...-russians.html
11: There are a lot of police in Russia, most of whom do nothing.

What has not changed: Russians want an authoritarian government which bullies foreign states.

They care more about this than good roads, schools, or public health.

With all due respect, you speak with confidence about things you know nothing about......That is a very American trait...

It fits my theory that there can be no peasants without nobles . In a land of equality everyone is a petty tyrant.

[don]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

While the Western dogs bark …

Russia and China are strategic partners - at the G-20, at the BRICS club of emerging powers and at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Their number one objective, in these and other forums, is the emergence of a multipolar world; no bullying by the American Empire of Bases, a more balanced international financial system, no more petrodollar eminence, a basket of currencies, essentially a "win-win" approach to global economic development.

A multipolar world also implies, by definition, NATO out of Eurasia - which is from Washington's point of view the number one reason to interfere in Ukraine. In Eurasian terms, it's as if - being booted out of Afghanistan by a bunch of peasants with Kalashnikovs - NATO was pivoting back via Ukraine.

While Russia and China are key strategic partners in the energy sphere - Pipelineistan and beyond - they do overlap in their race to do deals across Central Asia. Beijing is building not only one but two New Silk Roads - across Southeast Asia and across Central Asia, involving pipelines, railways and fiber optic networks, and reaching as far as Istanbul, the getaway to Europe. Yet as far as Russia-China competition for markets go, all across Eurasia, it's more under a "win-win" umbrella than a zero-sum game.

On Ukraine ("the last battlefield in the Cold War") and specifically Crimea, the (unspoken) official position by Beijing is absolute neutrality (re: the UN vote). Yet the real deal is support to Moscow. But this could never be out in the open, because Beijing is not interested in antagonizing the West, unless heavily provoked (the pivoting becoming hardcore encirclement, for instance). Never forget; since Deng Xiaoping ("keep a low profile") this is, and will continue to be, about China's "peaceful rise". Meanwhile, the Western dogs bark, and the Sino-Russian caravan passes.

Pepe Escobar

[vt]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

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

[lakedaemonian]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

Can you please provide a link; something I certainly did not know about.

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-e...ts-314313.html

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1058754.html

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/...errillas-1940s

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...l-1447065.html

Apparently, Soviet soldiers posted to Ukraine post WWII experienced a rather serious combat/hardship posting.

Tens of thousands were killed on all sides combined in Ukraine Post WWII until about 1952 or so.

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians were forcibly deported/relocated.

The early CIA and MI6 were supporting the Ukrainians, but were betrayed by Kim Philby.

There were allegations that the UPA and related Ukrainian groups included Nazi collaborators and participants in events such as the massacre of Polish officers/soldiers in Eastern Poland/Western Ukraine.

I reckon much like Finland(but less fortunate in their geography/ability to maintain independence) it meant supporting one evil to stop another evil, but certainly hard to find the lesser of those two.

Or maybe Ukrainian guerrillas simply got screwed like Filipino guerrillas post war…….meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Or maybe western history focuses a little bit more on the rough mirror image of Ukraine in the form of the late 40's Greek Civil War.

Personally, I don't see conventional weapons and the people who use them as A or THE solution to Ukraine moving forward.

I think the internet has potential to be a central tool in helping the Ukrainian people(as well as others) ultimately defending/protecting themselves(albeit possibly after the use of conventional Russian weapons used to stand over them for a period).

One very interesting development in recent years was the Russian cyber attack on Estonia in 2007, the world's most connected country by some measures.

Estonian private citizens quickly stood to the Estonian Cyber Defense League alongside the template of the Estonian Defense League(defense militia like a mashup between the boy/girl scouts and the national guard).

All of it just a mashup by private Estonian citizens in the IT industry(I have the founder, now an advisor to the Estonian President, on LinkedIn) who self organised and partnered with government for legitimacy.

And it's certainly NO coincidence that NATO established their Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence in Estonia:

https://www.ccdcoe.org

I reckon the internet is going to play a considerable role in affecting a positive outcome if leveraged appropriately in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Or maybe that's just my hope.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Russia's Changes

No, he wasn't. Putin never rose above a KGB lieutenant colonel. His station was Dresden where he worked on turning students into KGB illegals and where he worked under the cover of a translator and interpreter. His biggest known job was to get some US Army sergeant to sell him an unclassified manual. He "quit" (scare quotes because at a certain level no one ever really gets out) as a result of the 20 August 1991 Coup against Gorby. It wasn't until 1998 that Yeltsin appointed him the head of the FSB, a post he held for a year.

Probably the MOST important part about Putin's KGB career isn't the omnipotent super spy ninja Hollywood public perception of those who serve in intelligence services(regardless of whether they are clerks or actual agent handlers), but of the potential for those personal networks developed over a 15 year career to be used for malignant purposes.

Here's a great article from a resource that when combined with iTulip can provide some great perspective:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...rvices-in-peru

GAFES in Mexico turned into the illicit Zeta Cartel

Kaibiles in Guatamala working for the highest illicit network bidder

Venezuala's senior military Cartel of the Suns with quiet clandestine pseudo legitimacy protected by government out of mutual support

Peru's Montesinos destroying the Shining Path terrorist/insurgent network while concurrently infiltrating his own illicit network into the fabric of Peruvian government and senior leadership with Fujimori.

Heaps of examples where professional military/intelligence personal networks are turned into malignant illicit networks for acquiring money/power.

I reckon the example in the linked article most relevant to Putin is Peru's Montesinos……because it includes national/international overt legitimacy having evolved from an illicit network to BEING the establishment.

I reckon THAT's where Putin's KGB background, and specifically his personal network, is relevant.

[Chris Coles]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

I reckon the internet is going to play a considerable role in affecting a positive outcome if leveraged appropriately in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Or maybe that's just my hope.

Thank you very much; very revealing .

[flintlock]

Re: PC Roberts on the Ukrainian Question

Putin is doing it for the good of me. That is because as I have said before, democracy has become politically weaponized. Just as the US uses populism and democracy to topple regimes so has Putin learned to weaken the US by preserving our democracy. In other words you are not cynical enough to make a pragmatic use of it.


http://www.scotclans.com/scottish_hi...learances.html

The clan system regarded the land as belonging to their community, worked areas being passed down through the family while additional lands could be rented. As the generations passed, the clan chiefs became more wealthy and detached from their kinsmen, regarding them as their effects rather than their family. By the 18th century it would have been hard to find a clan chief with the same accent as his clan, and harder still to find a clansman with any legal or humanitarian rights.

Agricultural ‘improvement’ by removing humans from their lands and replacing them with sheep was found to be very profitable across the Lowlands in the mid-1700s. The large Cheviot and Blackface sheep that were given the lands generated more wealth than the landowners could ever have squeezed from their clan tenants.

The people were told to fish at the coast and work the kelp to pay the rents for their new locations. They built themselves homes called crofts and their lifestyles became known as crofting.

At least we got Bourban and Canadian whiskey out of it.

So called globalization first began as "reagonalization". Once the clans fell under the rule of England after Culloden there as no need for a strong clan anymore than need for plumber on a fixed pipe. If Russia falls its one less place to go. My leaders, puppets of FIRE, are my enemy, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

"These go to eleven"

-Spinal Tap

[Woodsman]

Re: Russia's Changes

Probably the MOST important part about Putin's KGB career isn't the omnipotent super spy ninja Hollywood public perception of those who serve in intelligence services(regardless of whether they are clerks or actual agent handlers), but of the potential for those personal networks developed over a 15 year career to be used for malignant purposes.

Here's a great article from a resource that when combined with iTulip can provide some great perspective:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...rvices-in-peru

GAFES in Mexico turned into the illicit Zeta Cartel

Kaibiles in Guatamala working for the highest illicit network bidder

Venezuala's senior military Cartel of the Suns with quiet clandestine pseudo legitimacy protected by government out of mutual support

Peru's Montesinos destroying the Shining Path terrorist/insurgent network while concurrently infiltrating his own illicit network into the fabric of Peruvian government and senior leadership with Fujimori.

Heaps of examples where professional military/intelligence personal networks are turned into malignant illicit networks for acquiring money/power.

I reckon the example in the linked article most relevant to Putin is Peru's Montesinos……because it includes national/international overt legitimacy having evolved from an illicit network to BEING the establishment.

I reckon THAT's where Putin's KGB background, and specifically his personal network, is relevant.

All quite interesting, but little relevance to Putin or the KGB/FSB in terms of specifics in the article or the events in the Ukraine. There's no suggestion that the FSB is financing or supporting these groups illicit activities. Because if there were even the scantest of evidence (real or engineered) we would be seeing endless news reports to that effect. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read and raises some questions.

1. Was it Russia that created, trained and provided leadership to the Mexican, Guatemalan, Peruvian and (until Chavez) Venezuelan special forces and intelligence agencies?
2. Is it Russia that has bi-lateral security agreements with said forces, providing for joint exercises, training in the host nations facilities, equipment and financial aid, etc?
3. Is it Russia who historically places its agents within these services, either in an open capacity or under some official cover?
4. Does Russia provide said services with intelligence and logistical support?

Ever read the work of Alfred W. McCoy or Douglas Valentine? Does the name Michael Jon Hand ring a bell? Do you have any familiarity with the name Edwin P. Wilson? Ever heard of Adler Berriman Seal? How about Hedayat Eslaminia, Manuel Noriega, or Juan Matta-Ballesteros?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Russia's Changes

All quite interesting, but little relevance to Putin or the KGB/FSB in terms of specifics in the article or the events in the Ukraine. There's no suggestion that the FSB is financing or supporting these groups illicit activities. Because if there were even the scantest of evidence (real or engineered) we would be seeing endless news reports to that effect. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read and raises some questions.

1. Was it Russia that created, trained and provided leadership to the Mexican, Guatemalan, Peruvian and (until Chavez) Venezuelan special forces and intelligence agencies?
2. Is it Russia that has bi-lateral security agreements with said forces, providing for joint exercises, training in the host nations facilities, equipment and financial aid, etc?
3. Is it Russia who historically places its agents within these services, either in an open capacity or under some official cover?
4. Does Russia provide said services with intelligence and logistical support?

Ever read the work of Alfred W. McCoy or Douglas Valentine? Does the name Michael Jon Hand ring a bell? Do you have any familiarity with the name Edwin P. Wilson? Ever heard of Adler Berriman Seal? How about Hedayat Eslaminia, Manuel Noriega, or Juan Matta-Ballesteros?

I think you are missing the point.

This is not about KGB/FSB activity.

In fact, I believe the KGB/FSB is irrelevant to the thread.

This is about the professional/personal networks developed while in the employ of the state and leveraged for personal gain.

If you look behind the curtain of Russia you will find Russia's version of crony capitalism chocker full of PRIOR service KGB/FSB.

Crony capitalism being what would otherwise be defined as legitimised and/or protected criminal activity sanctioned by the state.

I provided the examples of Mexico's GAFES/ZETAs, Guatamala's Kaibiles, Venezuela's Cartel of the Suns run by senior military leadership, and Peru's senior leadership as simply escalating examples of professional/personal networks being used for personal gain.

1)Irrelevant, I think I've explained clearly above why I included the examples
2)Irrelevant
3)Irrelevant
4)Irrelevant

To the rest….rather than going completely off on a tangent, let's bring things back to the relevant topic about the relevance of Putin's KGB/FSB experience.

It isn't relevant.

But his professional/personal network developed during his time with the Russian intelligence service is highly relevant as he has leveraged that network to considerable professional/personal gain as exemplified by the high correlation of former KGB/FSB personnel in his inner circle as well as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin's_Palace

Same as the Central/South Americans examples I provided in the linked article.

The difference of course being that Putin's network has evolved into a more resilient form of sovereign legitimacy, in a completely different but analogous flavour to entrenched US special interests.

[Woodsman]

Re: Russia's Changes

I think you are missing the point.

This is not about KGB/FSB activity.

In fact, I believe the KGB/FSB is irrelevant to the thread.

This is about the professional/personal networks developed while in the employ of the state and leveraged for personal gain.

If you look behind the curtain of Russia you will find Russia's version of crony capitalism chocker full of PRIOR service KGB/FSB.

Crony capitalism being what would otherwise be defined as legitimised and/or protected criminal activity sanctioned by the state.

I provided the examples of Mexico's GAFES/ZETAs, Guatamala's Kaibiles, Venezuela's Cartel of the Suns run by senior military leadership, and Peru's senior leadership as simply escalating examples of professional/personal networks being used for personal gain.

1)Irrelevant, I think I've explained clearly above why I included the examples
2)Irrelevant
3)Irrelevant
4)Irrelevant

To the rest….rather than going completely off on a tangent, let's bring things back to the relevant topic about the relevance of Putin's KGB/FSB experience.

It isn't relevant.

But his professional/personal network developed during his time with the Russian intelligence service is highly relevant as he has leveraged that network to considerable professional/personal gain as exemplified by the high correlation of former KGB/FSB personnel in his inner circle as well as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin's_Palace

One of us is most definitely missing the point. I think iTulipers are smart enough to decide which one.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Russia's Changes

One of us is most definitely missing the point. I think iTulipers are smart enough to decide which one.

Sigh.

I agree.

Although the high frequency of tangental points can make "the point" hard for some to differentiate.

[Raz]

Re: Russia's Changes

No, he wasn't. Putin never rose above a KGB lieutenant colonel. His station was Dresden where he worked on turning students into KGB illegals and where he worked under the cover of a translator and interpreter. His biggest known job was to get some US Army sergeant to sell him an unclassified manual. He "quit" (scare quotes because at a certain level no one ever really gets out) as a result of the 20 August 1991 Coup against Gorby. It wasn't until 1998 that Yeltsin appointed him the head of the FSB, a post he held for a year.



What it says about Russia is that they have a centuries old history of autocratic leaders and precious little experience with democracy and representative government.

Turn that same eye on the political environment you're most familiar with and ask yourself what does a captured regulatory apparatus, an imperial presidency, an unresponsive legislature, and intelligence agencies that spy on congress and store every one of its citizen's communications and transactions say about us? We have precious little ground to stand on as critics of other political systems.



Sure it's not and we're a democracy where citizens rule. Russia is a kleptocratic and lawless police state run for the benefit of a tiny elite. But as more and more have come to learn over the past decade, that hardly makes it unique among nations.



Really? How many countries has Russia invaded since 1991? How many have we? Some people in Russia might desire that, sure. Lots of folks in our camp feel precisely the same way. All that proves is that idiots transcend national and ideological boundaries.



That's a pretty ignorant statement, PS. You know better.

+1.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Russia's Changes

Sigh.

I agree.

Although the high frequency of tangental points can make "the point" hard for some to differentiate.

Hi lakedaemonian,

The problem I have with the BBR(Big Bad Russia) motif is not one over politics. If I may quote The Godfather Part III - finance is the gun, politics is knowing when to pull the trigger - Russia is clearly very skilled in many of the old ways of espionage. However they just don't have the 21st century warfare capabilities in propaganda and finance. Its not even close. All Russia has done is the equivalent of the US moving a few battalions in parts of Canada with Canadians welcoming them with open arms. They don;t have the old Warsaw pact countries. They don't have many of the old Soviet SSRs. They just are not a credible threat with the except of an out right escalation to heavy, nuclear weaponry. And......The funny thing is that all we have done is push them in China's sphere of influence, more or less creating the threat that never was there.

The US is clearly not acting in its national interests. It is acting for the sake of powerful international interests.

[vt]

Re: Russia's Changes

What about people yearning to be free? Russia has a poor Bill of Rights. Plus this was a violation of a treaty they signed.