DU's New Cold Warriors

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Thu Jan 23, 2014, 06:57 PM - Edit history (1)

That's my term for the small, but vocal group that seems to be emerging here calling for a return to perpetual confrontation with Russia in the name of "supporting the protesters".

They don't remember what the 1949-1989 era was like.

Some of the protesters have legitimate issues, and there was no excuse for the anti-protest law, which should be repealed immediately.

They don't get it that, if the West pushes in Ukraine like they want the West to do, ALL the Cold War bullshit will come back.

And they especially don't get it that, if the Cold War bullshit does comeback, any and all possibility of progressive change anywhere will be gone.

They didn't study their history...now they want it repeated...never mind that it can only repeat as (bloody)farce.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. I confess I don't remember pre-1989 (I was 1) but I'm pretty sure the Cold War

was not about NATO encroaching on the USSR. The Berlin wall was the Soviets imprisoning a democratic Berlin. The Soviets were the ones who used barbed wire, machine guns and gulags to subjugate their people and tens of millions died as a result. If I'm not mistaken Stalin starved 6 million Ukrainians.

If there is a significant portion of the Ukrainian population that has decided it does not want to geopolitically align themselves with the nation that was the genesis of those atrocities I fail to see how anyone can demand they be thrown to the wolves to accommodate our squeamishness. The Russians have no right to bully others out of their right of self-determination.

I'm not saying we need to rush in and set-up a NATO base or anything of that sort but the Ukrainians have a right to democratically decide for themselves.

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. Hyperbole much?

Why are you shrieking about a return to the Cold War? Neither Putin nor the West would benefit from that. The Soviet bloc is no longer an entity. Russia remains a force in world politics but it isn't the behemoth it used to be.

As far as the West intervening directly in the Ukraine, that would be a mistake. The situation there is a complicated one. There are 3 main factions that make up the protesters.

The country has a 50/50 split between the Russian supporters and the European supporters. The industrial workers in the eastern half favour closer ties with Russia, they speak the language and have the same religion. In the western half, they have closer ties with Europe. Many are Roman Catholic and they speak Ukrainian.

These are the ones who want to leave Russia in the past and create stronger ties with their European friends, they are led by the three main opposition leaders - Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleg Tyagnybok.

http://www.news.com.au/world/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-protests-in-kiev-ukraine/story-fndir2ev-1226808390931

Tyagnybok is the far right neo-Nazi leader who has pushed for violence since day one. His faction has been responsible for a lot of the violence from protesters. He wants to create a far right country that is extremely regressive. I don't support him in the least.

However, the factions lead by Klitschko and Yatsenyuk are pushing for more European style reforms. (Yatsenyuk represents the party of jailed leader Tymoshenko.) These are the protesters I side with.

You stated

"And they especially don't get it that, if the Cold War bullshit does comeback, any and all possibility of progressive change anywhere will be gone."

Seriously? All possibility of progressive change anywhere will be gone? Anywhere? All possibility?

I am not a Cold Warrior as you put it. Your mischaracterization of those who support the protesters fails to take into account the complicated nature of Ukrainian politics and why some of us support the protests albeit with reservations about some of the protesters.

It is a volatile and dangerous situation. It is also a mixture of many with different views. It's not Cold Warriors vs Russia.

[Ken Burch]

3. The only change that came DURING the Cold War era came against the will of the "anticommunists".

They had to be forced to support the civil rights movement. They backed the Vietnam war until the bitter end. The gave the Contras everything they wanted and turned Nicaragua into a hope-free dead zone as a result. And they kept apartheid in power decades longer than it would naturally survived by screaming about "Communist influence" in the ANC...as though blacks had to be told by guys from Moscow that what the South African government was doing to them was bad.

That's what it was like then. That's what it would be like again if we got as confrontational with Putin as some of these people want.

We should criticize Russia for what its doing in Ukraine and to gays...but do so in the same tone as we would with Uganda or some other country...not in the old "bipolar world" tone that assholes like Nixon and Reagan used.

Nothing is worth going back to anything that our leaders said to Russia in the 1949-1989 era. That shit nearly got the planet vaporized.

That's all I'm saying.

Besides, we need to be DONE with fighting Russia. That should be part of the past. Let's deal with other issues...things that can have GOOD endings...not fights between shades of right-wing nationalist dreariness. If the protesters were progressive humanists, if they were fighting for workers' rights, against bigotry, against inequality, then they'd be great. But they have no positive agenda. And, given what we know about Slavic history, there's no reason to think that, if they got into power, the protesters would do anything better. If they ended up pushing Svoboda into power, that would be WORSE than the current situation...but, as long as they were "anti-Russian", I doubt many of their supporters here would care.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. If the concern is ppl clinging to anachronistic patterns in spite of current political realities

Then don't be that guy.

1. Civil rights and anti-communism are not mutually exclusive prospects. If the concern is about intransigents using communism as a bogeyman then rest assured if it isn't the Russians they will find another bogeyman. That is, after all, the point of bogeymen: they are fictions that are created to coerce a preferred behavior.

2. The Soviets absolutely were worth opposing. Communism has slaughtered more people than Nazism. They weren't merely a bogeyman, they were a real threat.

3. The Berlin wall came down within the span of my admittedly brief life. To claim "Don't fear the commies, that was ancient history." would be a misstatement of how recently they actually posed a threat to the world. Add to that the fact nobody would be so bold as to suggest that The Golden Dawn and other fascists organizations ought to be discounted merely because the defeat of Nazi Germany was even more ancient history. Let's not create a bogeyman that abandons the principle that the people are entitled to self-determination.

4. The Ukrainians are entitled to democratic self-determination and if the government abolishes democratic processes then it loses its legitimacy. Governments serve the people, not vice versa. I'm sure you agree; and that be said, what more needs to be said?

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. Do you have a remote clue who Vitali Klitschko is and what his positions are?

If you did, you would not make some of your statements.

Klitschko is in favor of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union.[74][75] He sees the European Union as Ukraine's "model for our future political and economic development."[76] He believes current President Viktor Yanukovych and his Government are "deliberately destroying the integration (into Europe) prospects of Ukraine"[77] and that Ukrainian politicians have no right to let them "rule after 2015".[74] Klitschko is also in favour of NATO-Ukraine cooperation.[78]

Klitschko's main concern is social standards and the economy of Ukraine.[79] He believes "the issue of language is not the top priority".[79] Klitschko wants less corruption and more transparency in Ukrainian politics.[76][80] He also advocates lower taxes to stimulate the economy of Ukraine.[76][79] Klitschko did accuse in October 2011 President Yanukovych and the Azarov Government of "doing everything to manipulate the rules to stay in power longer";[80] furthermore (in December 2011) he assert(ed) "every statement of the government" as "a continuation of lies and disinformation."[77] He has also taken part in rallies for former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko release.[74][81][nb 3]

In December 2011 Klitschko described the judicial system of Ukraine as "complete degradation" and accused it of violating human rights and humiliating its prisoners.[83] According to him Ukraine lacks independent and unbiased judges because "The Ukrainian judiciary is currently a closed clan; lifelong judges and appointments through administrative leverage".[79] He wants to ensure the independence of judges by switching from a system of appointed judges to a system of elected judges.[79]

In July 2012 party-leader Klitschko stated his party UDAR will not cooperate with the Party of Regions in the Ukrainian Parliament.[84]In early April 2013 Klitschko called for early presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine.[85]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_Klitschko

Sources for all these positions are at the site linked.

This is not about shades of right wing protesters. There are people there with a positive agenda. You continue to oversimplify the situation.

In addition, I have long believed that the US and others have an aggressive knee-jerk reaction to countries labelled as communistic. If we had really looked at these governments and tried to work with them so that the Soviet Union was not their sole source of vital help, we probably would have made more progress.

[Ken Burch]

11. Klitschko is center-right, based on that.

If he wants the EU deal, he's for privatization, austerity and all the rest of the shock therapy agenda. It's noy possible to sign on to the EU and back any real program of social transformation. Joining that group means agreeing, basically, never to be even a millimeter to the left of Angela Merkel.

There's nothing in any of those positions that Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum wouldn't support.

Besides which, if Svoboda is in the protests, Klitschko is basiczlly irrelevant. Svoboda being allowed in the protests now means none of the protesters will even try to stop Svoboda later.

[pampango]

4. I don't think anyone, anywhere (the West or Russia) should push Ukraine or Ukrainians.

Many democratic countries in eastern Europe and the former Yugoslavia have chosen to establish closer ties with the EU or actually become members of it. Others (at least Belarus and Kazakhstan - which probably would not qualify as the most democratic countries in the world - and perhaps others) have linked with Russia in a customs union.

I don't believe in a 'sphere of influence' politics that requires countries near Russia to be linked to Russia and countries near the US to be linked to the US. (Mexico has a 'free trade' agreement with the EU which does not seem to bend the US out of shape.) The Monroe Doctrine (and the Russian version of it) is dead and buried. And I certainly do not believe that a "bloody farce" crackdown by a beleaguered government is somehow justified by a doctrine that people don't matter as much as geo-politics and 'spheres of influence'.

[Ken Burch]

6. Major difference there, though...Mexico never invaded the U.S.

Russia's "sphere of influence" fixation is driven by the fact that, in 1812, 1919, and 1939, there were completely unprovoked and unjustified Western invasions of Russian territory(all with reactionary and purely ugly intent).

We might at least try making a "we won't invade you guys again" promise to them, coupled with a collective apology for all the past Western invasions of Russia. That would do a lot to reduce Russian popular support for Putin.

[pampango]

7. I don't think Putin feels threatened by an EU army. If all he wants from the EU is a

'"we won't invade you guys again" promise', I think the EU would be happy to provide one.

Right wing nationalists play to old national grievances to generate support for conservative policies. Liberals seek to move beyond old grievances to form a better world. An example is the EU itself.

France was invaded by Germany in 1914 and 1939. Rather than playing on old national rivalries and grievances after WWII, Germany, France, the UK and other European countries put the past behind them and moved on to a better world. Liberals did that. Even today, conservatives do not like it.

[Ken Burch]

18. France essentially CAUSED its second invasion by Germany.

France pretty much brought Hitler to power by extracting massive economic reparations from post-World War I Weimar Germany, a Germany that was trying to build civilian democracy for the first time in its history. Democracy requires economic prosperity and the reparations made prosperity impossible, creating both the crushing social misery AND the sense of unjustified humiliation(the war ended in a negotiated stalemate and was actually equally the fault of ALL European countries)that gave Hitler the material to work with.
After World War II, divided Germany was totally crushed and in no possible position, present or future, to invade anyone. It's not that impressive or forward-looking to make trade deal with a nation in ruins.

[pampango]

20. You're giving Hitler a bit of a pass there. He was not forced to invade France in 1940.

Germany had abrogated the Versailles Treaty long before 1940 and had not followed its requirements for years since at least 1935. The Treaty was a stupid attempt to crush Germany that went against Wilson's 14 Points that Germany had agreed to end the war.

However, to let Hitler off the hook and say that "France essentially CAUSED its second invasion by Germany" is an exaggeration. Hitler had already annexed Austria since no one stood up to him; invaded Poland in 1939 (was that Poland's fault, too)

As I posted:

Right wing nationalists play to old national grievances to generate support for conservative policies. Liberals seek to move beyond old grievances to form a better world. An example is the EU itself.

You don't get much more of a right-wing nationalist than Hitler. He kind of set the standard. He, of course, "played to old national grievances to generate support for conservative policies" (like reinstating the draft, remilitarizing the Rhineland, annexing Austria and invading Poland, then France.

Some significant violations (or avoidances) of the provisions of the Treaty were:

In 1919, the dissolution of the General Staff appeared to happen; however, the core of the General Staff was reestablished and hidden
In March 1935, under the government of Adolf Hitler, Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles by introducing compulsory military conscription in Germany and rebuilding the armed forces.
In March 1936, Germany violated the treaty by reoccupying the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland.
In March 1938, Germany violated the treaty by annexing Austria in the Anschluss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#Violations

After World War II, divided Germany was totally crushed and in no possible position, present or future, to invade anyone. It's not that impressive or forward-looking to make trade deal with a nation in ruins.

Germany was an economic powerhouse before WWI and rebuilt its economy into a military powerhouse before WWII. The Russians stripped German industry from East Germany and made sure it did not rebuild its industrial potential. The Allies did nothing of the sort in West Germany. They facilitated the reindustrialization of West Germany. I think everyone knew that Germany would be an economic power again in a fairly short period of time which is what happened.

Germany ... in no possible position, present or future, to invade anyone.

Germany has the third largest manufacturing sector in the world and has for many years. If they wanted to convert that capability to military purposes, I can assure you they be in position to invade anyone they wanted to. Fortunately, the development of an open and united Europe has prevented that from happening.

You seem to blame the French for being too harsh on Germany after WWI but then giving them no credit for accepting Germany (despite its historical antagonism towards France) as an economic partner after WWII. France was stupid after WWI in its policy of retribution towards Germany, but it was quite visionary to open its border to Germany after WWII despite the history of German invasions and the knowledge that Germany would rebuild its economy one day.

[Ken Burch]

21. My point was that the treaty had essentially put Hitler in power.

Versailles made it impossible for German democracy to take root, and a democratic Germany would never have invaded France in 1939.

I wasn't giving Hitler a pass(although it is pretty clear that he would never have voluntarily avoided making the worst choices about anything). I was talking about why Hitler ended up in power in the first place.

[geek tragedy]

19. 1939 was 75 years ago.

That's no excuse for Russia trampling and bullying its neighbors, who by the way also suffered in those past invasions.

[Ken Burch]

23. Only a person whose country has never been invaded by another country

would say that 1939 was too long ago to matter.

And I wasn't offering an excuse...I was offering an explanation. There's a massive difference.

THiS country will still be traumatized by 9/11 in 2076...and that was just three planes on one day.

[geek tragedy]

25. i hope to goodness we're over 911 by then. NYC is pretty much over it already nt

[JVS]

5. Are you sure about that?

It seems to me that a significant contingent here longs for a political evironment in which the democratic party is not expected to deliver any change.

Otherwise great point, but I think yoy may be misjudging motivation.

[Fumesucker]

12. I would amend that slightly

A significant contingent longs for a political environment in which the Democratic party is not expected to deliver positive change for the 99%.

[Ken Burch]

14. Fair enough. n/t.

[jakeXT]

8. I wonder how much the naval base pisses them off, it played a role in the last Syria showdown

The agreement signed on 21 April 2010 between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents demonstrates the will to go forward in their relations, a kind of ‘reset’ for the Slavic states. In the economic field, if joint projects in nuclear energy, aviation and in other strategic sectors are achieved, they will help the integration process that could be beneficial for both countries and offset, to a great extent, the ‘exorbitant’ price of US$40 billion sacrificed by Moscow. Also, it should put Ukraine on the right track to robust and sustainable growth, consequently helping President Yanukovych to secure a second term.

In the political field, Russia is the undisputable winner. Sevastopol, which has been home to the Russian Black Sea fleet since it was set up by Catherine II the Great at the end of the 18th century, will continue to be so until 2042. Consequently, given the fact that NATO’s charter prevents country members from having foreign military bases on their territory, Ukraine will not become a member of the Western military alliance until the lease expires or is subverted.

http://www.diploweb.com/Russia-s-Black-Sea-fleet-in.html

[Fumesucker]

13. Some of us think the threat of Communism was the only thing keeping the capitalists in check

Things have certainly gone to hell economically for the 99% since the fall of the Soviet Union. A case can be made that the capitalists once they lost their fear of Communists were free to turn the rapacity up to eleven and break off the knob.

[snooper2]

16. that explains a LOT

thanks!

[Adrahil]

15. So let's feed Ukraine to Putin and hope that keeps him happy?

yeah.... that won't work.

[geek tragedy]

17. what kind of authoritarian bunk is calling them 'so-called protestors'?

Their rights are being trampled upon--severely and in the spirit of dictatorship-by Putin's puppet in the Ukraine

[Ken Burch]

24. I deleted that phrase. You're right to have responded as you did.

I was wrong to have used that phrase...let my anger about those trying to drum up war fever twist me on that. It was a stupid thing to write and I'm sorry.

[1000words]

22. How is this not a call-out?

Bad form, in any event.

[MNBrewer]

26. I support the Ukrainians who are for closer ties to the EU

[Ken Burch]

27. Doing that is pretty much just switching from one empire to another empire.

It might get them some new jeans, but it can't liberate anyone.

Ukraine needs genuine independence...the EU doesn't give them that.

And it's reactionary to want to join NATO. NATO should have been disbanded after Yeltsin came in(the dismantlement could have started in 1989, since the end of the Warsaw Pact destroyed any reason for NATO's existence.

It's silly to have ANY Cold War-era institutions still in place anywhere. We should let the world be beyond that.

[pampango]

28. If they want to link up with someone, they should choose the EU but it is their choice.

The EU is more prosperous. There is a much more equitable distribution income. There is much more personal freedom. There is a much better safety net.

Other than keeping a big, powerful and angry neighbor at bay, there is not much reason for them to choose Russia. But that is me talking. The choice should be theirs democratically.

[Ken Burch]

29. Wasn't saying they should choose Russia...they should choose neutrality.

Alliances are a fairly reactionary and useless concept in this era.

[Adrahil]

34. They're no talking about joining NATO, ya know...

They want closer economic ties to the EU.

[Ken Burch]

36. Vitaly Klitschko wants NATO membership

It was reckless and provocative enough to let the old Warsaw Pact states join. We weren't going to have a stable, peaceful relationship with Russia by taking an official "you can't EVER be trusted" policy towards them like that-a policy that was designed not only to goad Russia but humiliate it as well.

NATO should never have been expanded east of the German border at all.

[Adrahil]

37. Why not?

If the Russians aren't a threat anymore, who cares? And if they are, then I'd say those former Pact nations NEED protection.

[Ken Burch]

39. Would Russia have become "a threat" if the "winners" of the Cold War, like the "winners" in 1918

(in truth, both conflicts ended in hopeless stalemates with one side getting coerced into being "the loser" and taking full blame for conflicts that both sides were equally to blame for) hadn't humiliated the new, democratic Russian state that was trying to build itself, hadn't unjustly held that state responsible for the crimes of its Stalinist predecessors, and hadn't done all they could to prevent the new democratic Russia, like the democratic Germany of the 1920s, from taking root by denying both new democracies any way of building economic prosperity?

Our leaders in the West were never innocent bystanders in any of this.

And expanding NATO to the East sent an official message to Russia that, no matter what it did, no matter how peaceful its approach to the outside world would be, it would never, under any circumstances, be treated as a civilized honorable nation that could be assumed to act rationally.

Expanding NATO sent the message "1991 doesn't matter...we're STILL going to treat Russia as 'the enemy'. We STILL won't move on...ever".

How could that possibly be a responsible message for the West to send? And how could sending it have ever had any other effect but to drive Russia to chose someone like Putin to run things. France caused Hitler by what it did then...the U.S. and Europe caused Putin by what OUR leaders have done since 1991.

You can't disrespect, humiliate and impoverish a nation and then expect it to be anything and hostile to you. THAT was the lesson of World War One...and it seems our leaders have forgotten it.

Or, perhaps, that they WANTED to goad Russia into taking a dark path because they just couldn't LET the Cold War be truly over.

[Adrahil]

40. Man...

1990s Russia was treated nothing like 1920's Germany. What we have is leadership longing for a restored empire. Screw Putin and his ilk.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. Yes. Why the hell should we care about civil rights in other countries?

Let Russia stop protests. Let them throw gays in prison, or put them to death like several African countries have tried to do. Let them throw thousands into Gulags for no crime but loving the wrong person or protesting unfair government policies. It is what they deserve for living in Russia.

[Ken Burch]

31. I wasn't saying give them a pass.

I was saying don't bring great power politics into it-don't make it into "our side is better". The point should be people, not which geopolitical faction gets to claim victory.

It's possible to speak out on those things without sounding like Nixon in the "Kitchen Debate".

And it's possible to do so without giving aid and comfort to those who want more nukes in Europe and a bigger war budget.

Anything that makes our foreign policy ever get more hawkish can only have negative, right-wing outcomes-especially if it pushes our country even slightly towards the use of force against Russia.

It's impossible for anyone other than the Russian people themselves to bring Putin down. It'd be dishonorable and imperialist for US to do it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

32. We engaged in the Cold War because the US and the old Soviet Union emerged

as the great powers after WWII. The Soviets lost the Cold War, and after converting to a Capitalist System, under Putin they are moving to re emerge as a competing Super Power. Criticizing their lack of civili rights isn't gong to speed that up or slow it down. It is the Russian leadership that will decide if they want to go back to being one of the few big boys on the block. Everything they do indicates that they are dong just that. We should expand civil liberties here at home and criticize those elsewhere who do not expand liberties and civil rights to their citizens, whether they be Super Powers with thousands of nuclear weapons or small African Countries without a pot to piss in, militarily.

[Ken Burch]

33. but do it without causing World War III

If we ever get into a direct military conflict with Russia, civil rights won't exist anywhere, because you don't have any rights after most of the human race has been killed.

Rights, and anything else even vaguely connected with human values, would be forever lost if that happened.

Life for the remaining few would just be a perpetual funeral.

[Agnosticsherbet]

35. Calling Russia on their failures in civil rights will not get us into a war.

They do the same things to us, as this report blasting us for our failures in Civil Rights shows.

http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/ns-dgpch.nsf/8f29680344080938432569ea00361529/2ab49ff642baf0c244257aa000254663/$FILE/Report.doc

If we get into a war with Russia, it will be through one of our entangling alliances, not because we criticize their civil rights. When Obama spoke about attacking Syria after the Chemical Attack, Russia moved a fleet, including a ship designed to kill Air Craft Carriers, into the Mediterranean. They were willing to go to war over Syria, and went to the negotiation table to stop a US Intervention, but their negotiation was backed with a fleet of warships and the implied threat of war. Their alliance with Syria is critical to their international prestige, their national security, and their power. Interfering with that is what can get us into a war.

[Ken Burch]

38. You've just made the case for dissolving NATO...doing so would only help.

This situation would be much less dangerous if we no longer had any Cold War institutions in place. NATO should have ended at the same moment the Warsaw Pact ended...we should just have let the Cold War be over rather than be arrogantly fixated on claiming "victory&quot which is an ugly and outdated concept in the post-1945 international relations anyway).

Putin is a bastard...and, like Hitler, he is in power in his country as a response to unjustified post-1991 braggadocio and economic looting on the part of the winners(our "allies" in this scenario basically played Post World War One France to post-1991 Russia's Weimar Germany). And both times, what could have been a peaceable democracy was strangled in its cradle by greed and diplomatic coat-trailing.

Can we PLEASE learn from this, folks?

[William769]

41. People, don't be fooled there is a underlying message here.

All you need to do is follow the paper trail (and yes there is one).

[Pretzel_Warrior]

42. Huh?

Lol. Ok...

[grantcart]

43. Right because Russia is embracing human rights and Europe

Except this happened only 10 days ago and DU's legion of Russia dictatorial apologists raised no concern whatsoever.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/13/russia-expels-american-journalist-david-satter

Russia has expelled a US journalist living in Moscow for the first time since the cold war, in a move that is likely to strain relations with Washington on the eve of the Sochi Winter Olympics.

David Satter – a distinguished former correspondent with the Financial Times and the author of three well-received books on Russia and the Soviet Union – was told on Christmas Day that he had been banned from the country.

Satter had been based in the Russian capital since September. Last month, he travelled to the Ukrainian capital Kiev to renew his visa where Alexy Gruby, a diplomat at the Russian embassy, read him a prepared statement that said: "The competent organs have decided that your presence on the territory of the Russian Federation is not desirable. You are banned from entering Russia."

The "competent organs" are the Federal Security Service (FSB), President Vladimir Putin's powerful domestic spy and counter-intelligence agency. Such language is usually used in spy cases.

But he wasn't murdered so there is that.