International Events Next-

[Darzin]

On 9/22/2023 at 1:55 AM, Maithanet said:

Interesting.  Much of my information comes from Thomas Thiener, a former NATO defense guy living in Kyiv.  He has been pretty well informed on Ukraine matters, but his takes on the Nagarno-Karabakh conflicts feel very simplistic and anti-russian.

I've been disappointed with a lot of Western commentary regarding the breakaway republics of the former Soviet Union. They tend to treat them on par with the Donetsk and Luhansk republics, but those all formed much more organically then the Donbass republics, with many erupting into rebellion almost immediately as the Union disintegrated. If Georgia wasn't forced to stay in the USSR I don't see why the Abkhaz ASSR should have been forced to stay in Georgia for example. Now most of these breakaway statelets have become pawns of Russia by virtue of being tiny and unrecognized, but that wasn't always the case.

I don't see why we should cheer the Georgian "reunification" with Abkhazia any more than a Chinese "reunification"  with Taiwan and yet many Western commentators do. It's a small hypocrisy that annoys me.  

[Bironic]

2 hours ago, Darzin said:

I've been disappointed with a lot of Western commentary regarding the breakaway republics of the former Soviet Union. They tend to treat them on par with the Donetsk and Luhansk republics, but those all formed much more organically then the Donbass republics, with many erupting into rebellion almost immediately as the Union disintegrated. If Georgia wasn't forced to stay in the USSR I don't see why the Abkhaz ASSR should have been forced to stay in Georgia for example. Now most of these breakaway statelets have become pawns of Russia by virtue of being tiny and unrecognized, but that wasn't always the case.

I don't see why we should cheer the Georgian "reunification" with Abkhazia any more than a Chinese "reunification"  with Taiwan and yet many Western commentators do. It's a small hypocrisy that annoys me.  

Basically since World War I there is the idea that each "people/ethnicity/nation" should have a right to selfdetermination and independence while shortly afterwards (in the interwar period) the idea came about and has been roughly followed since WWII that borders are not changeable by force (or any other means). Now obviously these two ideas are at odds with each other. With the first idea there is also the additional problem that there is no clear rule what exactly constitutes "people/ethnicity/nation" and how would you draw a border when people of different ethnicities live basically side by side in the same settlements. So generally in international politics as well as legally we tend to follow the rule that whatever borders we have settled on (usually roughly by 1945) are the borders that exist now.

Now to the specific case of the USSR. AFAIK the USSR was at least nominally and legally a voluntary union of independent states (not so dissimilar to the EU, basically all these Socialist republics could at least in theory secede from that union), in practice no one did that because they were all ruled by the communist party and dominated economically and militarily by the Russian Socialist Soviet Republic (todays russian federation), that prevented any such action. But when the grasp of the communist party over the USSR started to crumble in the period 1985-1991, all these republics, spearheaded by the baltics, declared secession and independence from the USSR which was then recognized internationally. The Members of the USSR were the Russian, Belarussian, Ukrainian, Moldovan, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Georgian, Armenian, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirgistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan Socialist Soviet Republics. Now Regions such as Abkhazia, Adjaria, south & north Ossetia, Transnistria, Nagorno Karabakh, Nachitchevan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Tatarstan, Dagestan, Karapalpakstan, Gorno-Badakshan etc. were not Members of the USSR directly but subordinate entities of their respective socialist soviet republics, so legally they had no right to independence. So while some of those regions also declared independence from the USSR during the dissolution of the latter, they were generally not regarded as legitimate and thus not recognized internationally.

Now obviously Russia has used some of these independence movements to get a foothold in these regions and used them to pressure countries like Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan. Since Feb 24.2.22 most people in the west hope that Russia loses these regions, which means that they would return to their "legitimate" owners, in the above mentioned case Georgia.

OTOH various nations (including western ones) have no problems of turning a blind eye in places like Morocco (occupying large swaths of Western Sahara), Israel (occupying parts of the West Bank and the Golan Heights), Turkey (occupying northern Cyprus etc)... or cases like ROC (Taiwan claiming all of PRC China), PRChina (claiming Taiwan and the Islands in the south and east China Sea, parts of India and the former USSR), North and south korea claiming the whole of Korea, India and Pakistan claiming all of Kashmir, Serbia claiming Kosovo etc. This basically boils down to a mix of power politics, opportunism, pragmatism, realism, economical & financial interests, lack of knowledge, lack of interest, lack of cultural closeness etc.

Now do I think that Abkhazians are a distinct people from Georgians, yes I do, do I think they should have a say if they want to become independent or be part of georgia yes I do. Do I think the Georgians that were driven from this region should have a say too, yes. Do I think there should be any Russian troops, military bases, PMCs, Volunteers or little green men there no I don't. And as long as the last part is not fulfilled I'll probably rather settle for Georgian control over these regions.

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Bironic

[Zorral]

It's the same story across the globe.

Years of Graft Doomed 2 Dams in Libya, Leaving Thousands in Muddy Graves
Repair work was agreed but never finished and Derna paid the price. Experts say infrastructure projects have long been neglected, with officials focusing instead on lining their own pockets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/27/world/middleeast/libya-flooding-derna-corruption.html

 

[Padraig]

3 hours ago, Bironic said:

Basically since World War I there is the idea that each "people/ethnicity/nation" should have a right to selfdetermination and independence while shortly afterwards (in the interwar period) the idea came about and has been roughly followed since WWII that borders are not changeable by force (or any other means).

Very good post.  Some of those regions were semi autonomous regions inside the USSR republics too.  So there was a formalised separation already existing.  Just not enough (and in other cases, there obviously was no separation existing).  

It is quite complex.  I do sympathise with the Armenians.

[Bironic]

2 hours ago, Padraig said:

Very good post.  Some of those regions were semi autonomous regions inside the USSR republics too.  So there was a formalised separation already existing.  Just not enough (and in other cases, there obviously was no separation existing).  

It is quite complex.  I do sympathise with the Armenians.

It is a very complex region, always has been. I do sympathise with the Armenians, they are certainly the underdog in this moment, suffer immensely and have been the punching bag for greater powers in the past 200 years at least, while the azerbaijani leader Alyiev is the same kind of nationalistic authoritarian dictator as is Putin, Erdogan or Orban.

But I do at least partially blame the Armenian leadership of the period 1985-2018 for what is happening now. They were actually quite similar to the Putins and Alievs of this world, being corrupt nationalist authoritarians, but unlike Alyiev they were also deluded and had no grasp of reality whatsoever. They really somehow thought they could hold on to Nagorno Karbakh and the other azerbaijani territories they conquered, and if the Azerbaijani would try to regain it a combination of russian intervention and Armenian fighting spirit would carry the day.

I mean some people say Putin was deluded in thinking he could conquer or annex at least parts of Ukraine but I would say, Russia holding on to some Ukrainian territory is or at least was a halfway realistic scenario. Armenia somehow holding on to Azerbaijani territory never was.

And in 2018 when the Armenian people finally realized that their leadership might not be the best they could get, they misjudged Putins reaction to this "betrayal" completely. And Paschinjan was basically facing a grim reality of being entirely without allies and in an absolute strategic disadvantage compared to Aliev, and Aliev knew that. Which is why he is now dictating the terms. And at least some Armenians seem to blame Paschinjan for the failures of their leaders between 1985-2018, which is just unfair.

The only "good" thing I can see about this disaster is that Putins gamble that the inevitable loss in a war of Armenia against Azerbaijan under the leadership of Paschinjan would basically bring his old cronies back into power in Armenia seems to have backfired completely. Armenia moves slowly out of Putins orbit and with the Azerbaijani reconquest of their territories and Putins invasion of Ukraine he has also lost his power over Azerbaijan. Putins position in the southern caucasus got significantly weaker.

 

[Ser Reptitious]

One thing I've been wondering is why Moldova wants to hang on to Transnistria? Historically the Dnister has always been the eastern border of the principality of Moldova, so why keep claiming it? All it does is create a frozen conflict that prevents Moldova from being seriously considered for NATO and EU membership. Just let it go. What am I missing? 

[Bironic]

52 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

One thing I've been wondering is why Moldova wants to hang on to Transnistria? Historically the Dnister has always been the eastern border of the principality of Moldova, so why keep claiming it? All it does is create a frozen conflict that prevents Moldova from being seriously considered for NATO and EU membership. Just let it go. What am I missing? 

I assume there's many reasons... if you look around the world there's many regions where you probably could ask why are they not just letting them go...

Historically the transnistrian population was mixed, but for the last 250 years or so the biggest group were the Moldovans. Over the past century their percentage has declined from around 45% to 28% while the russian percentage has risen from 8 to around 31 %,there are also around 22 percent Ukrainians and 2 percent Bulgarians and 1% Gaugazians (a turkish people that also lives in an autonomous region of Moldova proper). I assume Moldova see themselves as the representatives of the Moldovan and Gaugazian population there and maybe to some degree of the other nonrussian ethnicities. And those ethnicities might prefer to be part of Moldova (or Ukraine maybe?IDK) rather than be part of Transnistria or Russia.

AFAIK transnistria also actually has some industry since Soviet times while Moldova is more rural. Maybe there are economical interests. And the population in both regions is rapidly aging and shrinking, old people that see that their power is going down tend to cling to things.

And not all the moldovans (in "Mainland" moldova) are pro EU, roughly half of them are prorussian (mostly the older half)...

It's also legally theirs, I don't know how it works with renouncing a claim on a territory.

Also I think many in the EU are actually happy that they can claim the transnistrian conflict prevents them from being considered from being an EU member. A lot of people in Europe do not want another country that is extremely poor and corrupt (moldova is in the bottom 5 of European countries) and has not much value joining. So even without Transnistria the chance of Moldova joining the EU are slim.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Bironic

[Zorral]

This is far worse than the Special Period ever was. Cuba’s pirogued university and college due to lack of oil. Students and teachers can't get to classes.  This is what happens when a nation's been locked out of the international banking system. In the meantime Cuba's gummit has still tried to force tourism -- which is utterly blocked by the gummit here for us -- instead of developing agriculture.  You want to see a class system creation in progress: the nightlife is hoppin' for those with money/privilege, the state won't pay the musicians, so they play only 'private' events, where they can get money.  Biden didn't roll the fuckin' regs back as he promised because he was placating Menendez . . . so about 5% of the Cuban workforce got into the US or elsewhere.  No more confidence of the people in the government, no sense of solidarity, which was very very strong during the Special Period.  W/o Fidel it's all fallen apart.

[Ser Reptitious]

9 hours ago, Bironic said:

/snip

Thank you for the thorough explanation. Much appreciated! 

[Padraig]

19 hours ago, Bironic said:

Also I think many in the EU are actually happy that they can claim the transnistrian conflict prevents them from being considered from being an EU member. A lot of people in Europe do not want another country that is extremely poor and corrupt (moldova is in the bottom 5 of European countries) and has not much value joining. So even without Transnistria the chance of Moldova joining the EU are slim.

Very interesting.  I hadn't seen the demographics before, especially the increase in Russian population, although I suspected that.  And it will be interesting to see how the next election goes in Moldova itself.  The prior government was much more pro-Russian.

One thing though.  Conflict alone doesn't stop Moldova joining the EU (that's a NATO thing).  It's candidature was recently accepted.  Cyprus was allowed to join, despite the issue with the northern region.

But you are correct on the corruption angle.  Moldova has a long way to go to fulfill the accession chapters.  I'd imagine there is at least a 10 year timeline here (probably much longer).  And if a pro-Russian government comes into power in the meantime, that will reverse things.

There has been a few cases where countries agreed to separate.  Sudan being a recent enough example.  Czechoslovakia being an older example.  So if there was a will, a template could be found.  But as you say, few countries are willing to give up land.  And there probably is a sense that Russia is manipulating things behind the scenes (even before the Ukraine invasion), rather than there been a pure desire for independence.  Nobody wants to reward that.

[Zorral]

Much of what is accounted in modern China, and contemporary China, in this book is hideous -- as all autocratic governments anywhere anytime accomplish.  Yet, there is this conclusion at the end of this very long article on the book, which connects to the Confucian Way's transmission into the present, naturally struck me/historian hard:

" ...  As Hu Ping said, history is the true religion of the Chinese. ..."

How China’s Underground Historians Fight the Politics of Amnesia
A new book pays tribute to the writers, the scholars, the poets, and the filmmakers who have committed themselves to unearthing and preserving the forbidden memories of the past.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/02/sparks-chinas-underground-historians-and-their-battle-for-the-future-ian-johnson-book-review

Alas, this is behind a paywall, no gift links.  It is a very long piece.

Quote

 

.... Such technological optimism should be treated with a little wariness. Similar assumptions have been made before. W. H. Auden once wrote about the tape recorder, “In the old days only God heard every idle word, today it is not only broadcast to thousands of the living but also preserved to gratify the idle curiosity of the unborn.” But, as we know from Hitler’s use of the radio, or Donald Trump’s of Twitter, the power of politicians to exploit new technology to broadcast lies and bury dissent can be greater than the power of the dissenters to spread their ideas.

Still, the underground historians are playing the long game. One might compare them to resisters under the Nazis. Often ineffective in its own time, their moral example can be the basis of national reconstruction and renewal once the occupation or dictatorship comes to an end. In Johnson’s words, the dissidents “know they will win, not individually and not immediately, but someday. In essence, the Chinese Communist Party’s enemies are not these individuals but the lasting values of Chinese civilization: righteousness, loyalty, freedom of thought.” ....

 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Zorral

[Werthead]

Serbia attacking KFOR troops in Kosovo would be seemingly unwise.

The US is monitoring a large build-up of Serbian troops, tanks and artillery along the border with Kosovo. This apparently follows a request by Serbian authorities that KFOR (NATO peacekeeping troops) forces take over security and border monitoring in northern Kosovo from the local authorities, whom Serbia no longer regards as reliable. NATO has flatly refused that.

A Serbian invasion of Kosovo would require Serbian forces to fire on NATO troops, which would result in the comprehensive obliteration of Serbian forces within hours of that happening. Serbia seems to be thinking it has better air defences then it had in 1999 (when it still managed to shoot down a stealth bomber), including some interesting high-tech Chinese models, which might be true but won't save them from being hit from every side simultaneously by cruise missiles and drones before aircraft even get involved.

The hope is that this is an intimidatory tactic only and not a colossal misjudgement by the Belgrade administration.

One possible tactic is that the Serbians might try to establish control of the border area where they would enjoy widespread support from pro-Serbian forces (and thus be welcomed) and then encourage a de facto division of Kosovo with the border moved to the south of the majority-Serb area, banking on a lack of willingness in NATO to actually stop them. Ironically, if this was pre-February 2022 they'd probably a have a reasonable chance of succeeding, but I think right now NATO is in the "find out" mood to show its willingness to stand up to any challenges.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Werthead

[Zorral]

Elon Musk attacked German support for migrants and promoted the AfD, a racist, extremist party, to put a stop to it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-immigration-migrants-germany-far-right-extremism-twitter-x-2023-9?

Quote

.... AfD is Alternative for Germany, a far-right political party that campaigns against migration to Europe — and has strong ties with right-wing extremists, including those of an "outright neo-Nazi nature," per an investigation by Der Spiegel. The party attracted 22% support in an opinion poll this month, compared to 16% for Chancellor Sholz's center-left Social Democrat Party, a rise that has alarmed some historians of Nazi Germany. ....

 

[JGP]

57 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Elon Musk attacked German support for migrants and promoted the AfD, a racist, extremist party, to put a stop to it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-immigration-migrants-germany-far-right-extremism-twitter-x-2023-9?

 

He reminds me of Choda Boy sometimes. 'Cock rocket!' 

[House Balstroko]

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

Elon Musk attacked German support for migrants and promoted the AfD, a racist, extremist party, to put a stop to it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-immigration-migrants-germany-far-right-extremism-twitter-x-2023-9?

 

An important reminder that we’re never in the clear when it comes to extremist parties gaining traction. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Ok, Slovakia's election results are depressing.

Edited October 1, 2023 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Tywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Ok, Slovakia's election results are depressing.

That's the downside of parliamentary systems. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

That's the downside of parliamentary systems. 

Well, yeah. But usually, people who were forced to step down over alleged mafia ties resulting in the murder of a journalist and his fiancee don't get second chances. His pro Moscow stance fits right in.

Well, fitting prelude to Poland's election, I think.

[Tywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Well, yeah. But usually, people who were forced to step down over alleged mafia ties resulting in the murder of a journalist and his fiancee don't get second chances. His pro Moscow stance fits right in.

Well, fitting prelude to Poland's election, I think.

Welcome to the new norm. It should make us all ask if we should also be as corrupt as possible to get ahead. 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Bironic]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Well, yeah. But usually, people who were forced to step down over alleged mafia ties resulting in the murder of a journalist and his fiancee don't get second chances. His pro Moscow stance fits right in.

Well, fitting prelude to Poland's election, I think.

I think there is one main difference to the polish election though I think. Fico will have to govern in a coalition and the partners he will have are more moderate and will tone down some of his worst qualities. 
 

Also I think that Europe is hit very hard on all levels by the Ukraine war and even some of the previous disasters such as COVID, Afghanistan, Brexit, Financial Crisis, some of these had much greater impact here than in North America…