Diplomacy-Free Speech
Whom is the Russian government trying to convince with the tough talk?
Back in the day, a frustrated US commentator once said of US-Soviet relations that the Soviets were playing chess while the US played checkers. Now it appears that the US is still playing checkers, but the post-Soviet Russian government is playing Chapayev (basically tiddlywinks on a chessboard).
As evidence, try Putin's recent blandishment of the US (by itself not likely to harm Russia's international image) which eventually segued into a rebuke of NATO, the OSCE, and the EU. The result was that he garnering for himself near-unanimous rejection by the US and European countries.
This rebuke from Western Europe was matched by a double one from Ukraine. First Putin managed to unite the Ukrainian government against him in a way rarely seen these days: by suggesting the country should give up some of its control over its gas transit system to Russia. This got the Ukrainian Parliament to vote 430 to none (of 450) to bar any type of transfer of ownership.
Even more telling, if much less significant, is the rebuke the Russian government has gotten from Yushchenko for barring entry into the country to Petro Poroshenko. The argument for the restriction, that this is tit-for-tat against Ukraine for barring Zhirinovsky nine months ago, seems particularly weak. Not only for the age of the issue, and the change of government that has happened since, and the lack of any warning, but also because Zhirinovksy was trying to get to Crimea with the expressed interest of inciting protesting locals against the Ukrainian government. How about a raise of hands from everyone who thinks Poroshenko was planning on acting similarly in Russia?
All in all, since the Russian government has been playing the brinkman, trying to force issues to the limit in the hopes of a favorable outcome, and failing, its behavior should actually help nations like Ukraine (and Moldova and Georgia) on the receiving end.
Dan McMinn
18 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (18)
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/oped/26110/
I think Yanu is more aggressive in courting support, got burned by the Russian political technologists from 2004, and it mainly has been Pubs who have been willing to help him out. They are firm believers in the freedom of $peech.
dlw
Like Poroshenko has been so Putin friendly.
It's an honest tit for tat as far as tit for tats go.
Is Zhirinovsky the only Russian barred from Ukraine?
As per Crimea, how about those rable rousers from Galcia who peridically go there to stir up their agenda. Like promoting Tatar rights. Where are they when it comes to the Carpatho-Rusyns?
Yes, this is a holdover from the misguided policies of the extreme faction within the Orange gorouping. All the more reason to junk it.
Ukraine is trying to develop a democracy.
Putin and Rossiya are clearly trying to rebuild an empire. Ukraine's democracy is "inconvenient" for Putin and Rossiya.
Russia conducts trade wars with everyone, including Ukraine and Georgia.
Even Lukashenko has now openly squared off against Putin.
Putin has been list as number 20 in the list of the world's worst dictators by Parade.
Russia kicked the Tatars out of Crimea. I think that these days, the Tatars have the right to say something about that.
'definition' and 'naming' are the cornerstones of manipulation in communication because they go straight to the core of whether someone will agree or disagree with what is being said. (Classic ex. is 'one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.' or (although this does not work so well via written word) you say potatoe, I say potato.)
I am not desirous of getting into a
'it is',
'it is not',
'it most certainly is',
'it most certainly is not', ...
esp. with Michael.
(As IMHO, he is poorly informed when it comes to Ukrainian matters, parrots the Russophile line on any and all issues but most damming of all!, his main interest is self-promotion by pushing traffic to his own articles on other blogs.) (I hate marketers.)
My only words to this is that I believe that the readers of this blog are intelligent and can judge for themselves and decide for some themselves.
Right after the last Ukrainian presidential election, Kuzio predicted an end to Russian influence in Ukraine and the "Party of Russia", when Mike said not so.
The Tatars were not in Crimea before the Slavs. They arrived afterwards and suppressed the Slavs. That is a historical fact, overlooked by anti-Russian extremists and others misinformed by them.
Elmer's other points are overly subjective and misinformed. Many in Ukraine like Russia and Yanuk is Ukraine's most popular politician. Face it, that freak show is over.
"Right after the last Ukrainian presidential election, Kuzio predicted an end to Russian influence in Ukraine"
Thanks.
He said as much in a Feb. PBS NewsHour segment which I wrote about it at http://english.intelligent.ru
Unfortunately that site is down (at least for the moment). There's a transcript to that segment. Here's a cache of that article:
http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=5956272614300&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE
In Jan. of that year, in Newsday, Karatnycky likened Yushchenko to Mandela and if I'm not offhand mistaken Walesa and Martin Luther King. Shorlty thereafter, Newsday posted/published my slam dunk on that one.
(alot of mud-slinging going on)
--------------------
In response to Dan's ques. "Whom is the Russian government trying to convince with the tough talk?" ...
"The Russian president's speech to the 43rd Munich Security Conference and his interview for the Al-Jazeera channel have been assessed as the beginning of a new cold war between Russia and the United States."
http://www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=205&NrSection=4&NrArticle=18315
while in the US
"WASHINGTON, February 15 (RIA Novosti) - The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs approved a draft document Thursday promoting future NATO expansion eastward. ...
The bill also affirms U.S. readiness to consider, and if all applicable criteria are satisfied, to support efforts by Ukraine to join NATO, if Ukraine declares its willingness to meet the responsibilities of membership in the alliance."
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070215/60807888.html
while in Ukraine from Feb. 16 article
"Some politicians in Ukraine also think that the deployment of anti-missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland will be a threat to Russia.
After his meeting with US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor, Ukraine`s Minister of Defense Anatolii Hrytsenko expressed the opinion that the US has lost the information campaign on the possible deployment of their NMD elements on the territory of the Czech Republic and Poland. Hrytsenko said that Europe`s reaction to the deployment will depend on the purpose of these systems."
http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-184489.html
Let us see about the history of Crimea
===============================================
In ancient times Crimea was known as Chersonesus Taurica, from the name of a tribe, the Tauri, who were descendants of the Cimmerians. Between the 7th and 5th centuries bc the Greeks of Miletus colonized the territory, founding many cities and towns. These were united in 438 bc to form the kingdom of Bosporus. In 114 bc the kingdom accepted the overlordship of Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus, as a protection from tribes of Scythians. For nearly three centuries after the defeat of Mithridates by the Romans, Crimea was under the nominal suzerainty of Rome. The region was conquered by the Goths in ad 250. This was the first of a series of successive invasions by the Huns, Khazars, Byzantine Greeks, Kipchaks, and Genoese, extending over a period of nearly 1,000 years. In 1475 the peninsula was overrun by the Ottoman Empire, which, with the cooperation of the Tatar princes controlling part of the area, retained possession of it until 1777. As a result of a Russian victory over the Ottomans and Tatars in that year, Crimea in 1783 became part of the Russian Empire. The peninsula was embattled from 1854 to 1856, during the Crimean War and figured prominently in the civil war that took place after the Russian Revolution of 1917. In 1921 Crimea was established as an autonomous republic for Crimean Tatars within the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) of the Soviet Union. In 1941 Crimea was invaded by German armies. The Germans completely occupied the republic after the fall of Sevastopol’ in July 1942, holding it until the spring of 1944. That year Crimean Tatars were deported en masse to Central Asia by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Crimea was demoted in status from an autonomous republic to an oblast in 1945. It was made a region of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) in 1954 by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
University of Texas at Austin Institute of Classical Archaeology has been conducting archeological digs and exploration at Chersonesos - and have been trying to get World Heritage status UNESCO. For anyone interested, I believe they accept donations for their work in Ukraine as they are seriously underfunded for what needs to be done.
http://www.utexas.edu/research/ica/chersonesos/index.htm
While it was in the Crimea that the oldest known representation of the Christian cross was found, the latest from the digs at Chersonesos is that may have discovered the oldest known Christian graves.
Very interesting stuff!
I need one of you umbrellas!
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@279.f3JQa1A07Tr.12@.77480649/6881
Wiki also puts into question the idea of Tatars being in Crimea before the Slavs.
Encarta does mention various invasions.
And Encarta is not wearing a chip on its shoulder about Russia. It appears to be very factual and very neutral.
Much like what the Albanians say of themselves in relation to Kosovo.
Yes, the Albanians were in the Balkan region before the Slavs. However, Kosovo wasn't one such area in that region.
And you are reading things into the Encarta summary that are not there.