Putin Learning What U.S. Didn’t

[Purveyor]

By Nicholas Wapshott
April 23, 2014

After America’s ignominious defeat and hurried departure from Vietnam in 1973 — when the world’s richest and mightiest nation was humbled by the stolid determination of ill-equipped, ideologically inspired peasants — it was generally assumed the United States would not wage war again until the lessons of the Viet Cong victory were taken to heart.

When Soviet forces hastily retreated with a bloody nose from their nine-year occupation of Afghanistan in 1989, similar lessons were suggested about the impossibility of militarily holding a country with a universally hostile population.

In his stealth occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin of Russia appears to have learned the lessons of both Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Successive U.S. presidents, however, seem to have failed to understand how military strategy was forever changed by what happened in those two chastening conflicts. Rather, they have gone on to repeat their predecessors’ mistakes.

more...

http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2014/04/23/putin-learning-what-u-s-didnt/

[dipsydoodle]

1. Putin Strategy With Ukrainian Separatists Differs From Crimea

STATE DEPARTMENT — Russian President Vladimir Putin's approach to pro-Russian militants destabilizing southern and eastern Ukraine differs from his strategy on Crimea, where Russian forces took a more active role in breaking away the peninsula from Kyiv.

Massing Russian soldiers along the Ukrainian border mirrors the troop build-up that preceded Moscow's annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

Putin appears to have a different approach, however, to Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the southern and eastern provinces, some of whom want him to send troops to protect them.

American University professor Keith Darden said Putin sees those separatists not as future Russians, but more as a lever to influence what happens in Ukraine.

"Whereas Crimea he saw as a strategic asset that was important to pull away, the strategic value of the south and the east of Ukraine is within Ukraine as a bulwark against Kyiv turning further to the West, joining NATO, engaging more actively with the European Union. So he wants to keep them in Ukraine but more powerful," said Darden.

http://www.voanews.com/content/putin-strategy-with-ukrainian-separatists-differs-from-crimea/1899664.html

[Blue_Tires]

2. That writer is all over the place

Some half-decent points, but a lot of silliness and simplistic thinking -- I'll just start with his biggest fallacy of Crimea/Ukraine being compared to Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan:

For starters, Crimea is geographically closer to Russia as opposed to the U.S. sending troops to the other side of the world, and Crimea has very similar ethnic/religious demographics, culture, language, etc. in common...And I haven't even gotten into the larger geo-political factors in play in the 1960s or post-9/11...

[BlueMTexpat]

3. I heartily concur with your biggest fallacy point and others, but yes,

there are some half-decent points in the article as well.

Even the Russian invasion of Afghanistan certainly had more a more justifiable geopolitical rationale than our own did - not that I necessarily agree with it. After all, while 2001 Afghanistan may have been where Al Qaeda was headquartered, lots of A-Q funding came from Saudi Arabia, etc. None - not one - of the 9-11 hijackers was an Afghan. And our only ME target became Iraq. Again, not one 9-11 hijacker was an Iraqi.

But you know that too.

We have such selective justification for our own international meddling, but attribute the worst possible motives to others. Projection perhaps? Unfortunately for the US, Faux Noise propaganda doesn't hold up too well at all when confronted with the global realities those of us outside the US - and thankfully, many inside as well - can see quite starkly.