Ukraine 17: I really wanted to use the "Where's Putin" subtitle, dang it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

And allowing him to break up the "liberal club" sounds excedingly dangerous.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Guyfromthevale

It is, if you think beyond the basic premise that every person on earth just wants to live like the average middle class Westerner does.

I have seen many guys dying for their countries, or for nationalist causes, or for glory, or religion, but I haven't seen anyone sacrifice his life yet to be just another schmuck in the rat race.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Ser Scott

Quite possibly, yes. But many people don't like the direction the world is going. So they are not necessarily against the risk that this would entail, up to a point.

[The guy from the Vale]

Guyfromthevale

It is, if you think beyond the basic premise that every person on earth just wants to live like the average middle class Westerner does.

I have seen many guys dying for their countries, or for nationalist causes, or for glory, but I haven't seen anyone sacrifice his life yet to be just another schmuck in the rat race.

Yes. I've seen them too. I think those are dumb reasons to die, on their own. Dying for a just cause is one thing, but nations are rarely just causes on their own.

I'm not claiming there are no conflicts of interest. I don't even think we'll ever go entirely without war.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Guyfromthevale

Yeah. That's the thing. Different paradigms.

Anyway, 80% of the Russian population seem to share Putin's paradigm at the moment.

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, then I'd still like to get some insights into the nationalist mindset, because I frankly don't understand it all that well :)

The question about those Russians is, at least in part, one of cause and effect. Particularly, the fact that the nationalist propaganda was never seriously challenged in Russia, because even the "communists" there were nationalists.

[Biglose]

Yes. I've seen them too. I think those are dumb reasons to die, on their own. Dying for a just cause is one thing, but nations are rarely just causes on their own.

I'm not claiming there are no conflicts of interest. I don't even think we'll ever go entirely without war.

How many people are fighting against ISIS or Boko Harma for the rights of minorities or women?

How many western feminists have set sail?

The point is, that more western women fight for ISIS than against.(Just THINK about what that means!)

So sorry for saying that, but factually I think you are "lying". You hold dear an illusion to make you feel better for yourself but if push would come to shov you would probably fight for your tribe, nation or personal intrests or just to make you feel good. But not for the betterment of humanity.

And thats why all around the globe the "pro-West" coalitions get their ass kicked, if they are not backed up by US Troops.

[The Iceman of the North]

Just to clear that up too, I did not mean to imply justification. I mearly wanted to hint, that there is a tradition to call adverseries "nazis" among other things to draw support or even attention. This happens in private conversations as well as in political once. (This lead to some "funny" or scary finding about what children thought "nazis" are...)

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you heard a Western politician refer to adversaries as 'Nazis'? (Unless you refer to political parties with roots in the Nazi- or Neonazi-movements?)

In the west, you might encounter someone on the far left referring to the police as nazis or fascists, but I somehow doubt that's what you're referring to.

As I understand it, it's not unheard of within Israeli politics. But outside of Israel?

[Biglose]

Well, lets take Fischer talking about the balkanconflict and using "never again" to arguee for intervention or now in the US-congress with regards to Iran. And sometimes comparing Putin to Hitler and for example Steinmaier to Chamberlain, done by McCain.

[The Iceman of the North]

Well, lets take Fischer talking about the balkanconflict and using "never again" to arguee for intervention or now in the US-congress with regards to Iran. And sometimes comparing Putin to Hitler and for example Steinmaier to Chamberlain, done by McCain.

Eh, he didn't use 'Nazi'. Next you'll tell us that there were no ethnic cleansing during the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Western politicians didn't use this term in the conflict until there had been several documented massacres. As for Iran who have used 'Nazi' or 'holocaust' in regards to Iran?

As for your lame attempt at referring to Putin/Hitler comparisons, they have all been comparison of actual actions. Or do you believe that when discussing aggressive behaviour in Europe, referring to the last time someone did something similar should be verboten because that guy happened to go by the first name Adolf?

[JoeyBanana]

Yes, but the government in Kiev is supporting Azov. Azov is fighting the Russian separatists on behalf of the government of Kiev. The current President has admitted that only Azov is willing to fight there. And the US government is passing bills that allows for these neo nazis to get weapons.

The Russian contention is that they are fighting Neo-Nazis. And they are not wrong.

No one is excusing the Russian separatists who are involved in their own kind of human rights violations. But the claim that the Kiev government and the west don't have anything to do with the neo-nazis is false.

Russia clearly engages in propaganda when they attempt to characterize the entire Ukrainian government and military as neo-nazis, when that is not the case.

The west does have little to do with Azov, though. That's just a silly and ridiculous claim, unless you're talking about civilian support from ideologically affiliated groups and individuals. Again, the west doesn't support chechen terrorism and patricide either just because volunteers with questionable motives/convictions have decided to join the war. A war, by the way, which the west has been trying to end the moment it began. You know, that's what all that seize fire stuff and angry negotiating with Moskau was about.

This is the equivalent of saying "Yeah we send in ISIS to do our dirty work and we give them the weapons and money to go kill people, but we really don't support what they stand for so it's no big deal!"

No, it isn't.

[Mr Fixit]

Editing gone wrong. Damn. I don't have the time nor will to do it again, but I have assembled a big fat post full of links of Western politicians likening Saddam, Gaddafi, Milosevic, Assad, Ahmadinejad, and Putin to Hitler and/or Nazis. Not that I need to. Anyone who follows news knows that words like Hitler are being thrown around like candies on Halloween.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Eh, he didn't use 'Nazi'. Next you'll tell us that there were no ethnic cleansing during the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Western politicians didn't use this term in the conflict until there had been several documented massacres. As for Iran who have used 'Nazi' or 'holocaust' in regards to Iran?

As for your lame attempt at referring to Putin/Hitler comparisons, they have all been comparison of actual actions. Or do you believe that when discussing aggressive behaviour in Europe, referring to the last time someone did something similar should be verboten because that guy happened to go by the first name Adolf?

The actions themselves are so directly comparable too. Putin is using the Russian minorities living in neighboring countries (as a result of Soviet/Russian imperialism) as reasons to invade and annect them, which is exactly what old Hitler did with his policies of protecting the "Volksdeutsche" living in the former German Empire parts of Eastern Europe against "Slavic oppression". Which led to WW2.

[Biglose]

Eh, he didn't use 'Nazi'. Next you'll tell us that there were no ethnic cleansing during the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Western politicians didn't use this term in the conflict until there had been several documented massacres. As for Iran who have used 'Nazi' or 'holocaust' in regards to Iran?

As for your lame attempt at referring to Putin/Hitler comparisons, they have all been comparison of actual actions. Or do you believe that when discussing aggressive behaviour in Europe, referring to the last time someone did something similar should be verboten because that guy happened to go by the first name Adolf?

Before the west entered...If I am not misstaken not by the definition of the word.

[The Iceman of the North]

Before the west entered...If I am not misstaken not by the definition of the word.

Sorry, what do you mean by this?

[snake]

Interesting analysis. For the most part holds to the view that we must look to peace and away from conflict with Russia. A common sense approach no doubt but one that hawks would find hard to swallow. And it also opines that the Baltic states have nothing to fear from Russia and that seems much more realistic than Russia trying to recreate the USSR or some other Russian empire.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

What does this mean for the NATO Baltic States, which are seen as being as vulnerable as Ukraine? First, St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad provide access to the Baltic Sea, so there is no pressure on Russia to find another port. Why would Putin test NATO’s resolve through an action against one of the Baltic States? Protecting the Russian minorities was a convenient lie used in Ukraine to cover the real reason for intervening — to secure the naval and military bases in Crimea.

Because, for whatever reason, Putin is terrified of NATO. Forcing a confrontation over the Baltics could break NATO to splinters if the core nations are unwilling to defend the Baltic republics from strong Russian thrust. I fear Putin is willing to risk a strong NATO response if he believes failure or surrendering the Baltics would destroy the NATO alliance.

[Arakan]

Eh, he didn't use 'Nazi'. Next you'll tell us that there were no ethnic cleansing during the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Western politicians didn't use this term in the conflict until there had been several documented massacres. As for Iran who have used 'Nazi' or 'holocaust' in regards to Iran?

As for your lame attempt at referring to Putin/Hitler comparisons, they have all been comparison of actual actions. Or do you believe that when discussing aggressive behaviour in Europe, referring to the last time someone did something similar should be verboten because that guy happened to go by the first name Adolf?

Fischer and Scharping did much worse than comparing someone to Hitler (they did it indirectly btw with Milosevic). They justified the Kosovo War with Auschwitz. They compared the civil war in Kosovo, on an emotional level, with the crimes committed in the Holocaust.

Fischer is a egomaniac sell out. Everyone is bashing Schröder for his friendship with Putin and his Northstream involvement while Fischer, THE face of the Green Party for decades, became the biggest lobbyist for Nabuco pipeline. Fischer is definition of evth going wrong in politics. A disgrace of the highest order.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

Here's a bit more on this subject. Here’s an Op-Ed from Ted Galen Carpenter a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute arguing the US should not defend the Baltics if Russia attacks:

http://www.newsweek.com/baltic-states-are-not-serious-about-defending-themselves-293493

From the Op-Ed:

The geographic vulnerability of the Baltic states, combined with their continuing military weakness, should underscore to U.S. leaders that such “allies” are strategic liabilities, not assets. Washington is drifting into confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia over countries that have little economic or strategic relevance to the American republic.

U.S. officials need to consider carefully whether it makes sense for this country to incur such risks on behalf of so-called allies that seem unwilling even to make serious efforts on behalf of their own defense. It is a stretch to argue that the United States should care so much about the defense of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that we must be willing to risk war, but it is preposterous to argue that we should care more about their defense than they do.

From Jaro Limnell:

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/will-nato-protect-all-members-equally/

From the article:

The Baltic states and Poland in particular have in the past few months asked for “additional security guarantees.” These countries want to be certain that in the case of military aggression that other NATO countries will support them – even in the face of deniable cyber and guerrilla attacks that let an aggressor hide behind proxies and blur traditional lines between peace and war. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Barack Obama have emphasized publicly that NATO commitments do not solely exist on paper; the Wales summit will reportedly ratify an earlier declaration that cyberwarfare could constitute an “armed attack” under the Atlantic Treaty; and yesterday news broke that NATO would create a (modest) “rapid reaction” force of 4,000 troops to protect its eastern members. Nevertheless, suspicion is in the air in the alliance.

Especially in Poland, there has been discussion about what each member state’s commitment under Article Five to aid a victimized ally with “action as it deems necessary” means in reality. Would, for instance, the United Kingdom be willing to send its elite troops to Poland? Would the United States uncover its hidden offensive cyber capabilities in order to guarantee Latvia’s security?

From Reuters:

(Reuters) - NATO would struggle to defend the Baltic states from any Russian aggression "with conventional means", Germany's Spiegel magazine reported on Sunday, citing sources close to the organisation and a draft of a NATO planning document.

Eastern European states are nervous about Russia after it annexed Ukraine's Crimea region and massed 40,000 troops on Ukraine's borders.

The United States has sent 600 soldiers to the three Baltic countries - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - and Poland to take part in exercises to bolster NATO's presence in eastern Europe.

"Russia's ability and intention to undertake significant military action without much forewarning poses a far-reaching threat for the maintenance of security and stability in the European-Atlantic area," the weekly magazine said, citing a NATO defence planning committee document.

Russia is capable of building up a local or regional military threat at short notice and at an arbitrary spot, the draft document continued.

However, Europe at the end of the Cold War had concluded that "it could reduce its capabilities for fighting conventional, large scale and high intensity conflicts in Europe".

Russia has the opportunity to destroy the “encircling alliance” it fears so much if it pushes its conventional warfare advantage against one of the Baltic Republics. NATO’s Eastern and Central European members would flee en mass if NATO decides to feed the Baltics to the Russian Bear. I fear that is a roll of the dice Putin is willing to try to get the “big win” of a complete or even partial collapse of NATO.

[Arakan]

Snake,

Here's a bit more on this subject. Heres an Op-Ed from Ted Galen Carpenter a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute arguing the US should not defend the Baltics if Russia attacks:

http://www.newsweek.com/baltic-states-are-not-serious-about-defending-themselves-293493

From the Op-Ed:

From Jaro Limnell:

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/will-nato-protect-all-members-equally/

From the article:

From Reuters:

Russia has the opportunity to destroy the encircling alliance it fears so much if it pushes its conventional warfare advantage against one of the Baltic Republics. NATOs Eastern and Central European members would flee en mass if NATO decides to feed the Baltics to the Russian Bear. I fear that is a roll of the dice Putin is willing to try to get the big win of a complete or even partial collapse of NATO.

Scot,

don't be afraid. Mighty Vlad will not conquer the world.