Monday, March 24, 2014

P.S.--what the real Ambassador thinks

   It is interesting to compare my imagining of what Kennan might have advised the government with today's op-ed by our most recent Ambassador to Russia.  In my opinion it displays all the worst aspects of contemporary American diplomatic thinking: an utter inability to grasp that Putin might have a case, an eagerness to escalate the confrontation further (see his comments on Ukraine), and a vain fantasy that the Russian people are not, in fact behind what Putin is doing.  The Ambassador feels it is our duty not to rest until the entire world has accepted that Washington knows best.  That is not the kind of diplomacy I learned to appreciate first hand as a kid.


CrocodileChuck said...

"That is not the kind of diplomacy I learned to appreciate first hand as a kid." (snip)

That's because it isn't diplomacy

Its agit-prop.

NB above the fold in the so called 'newspaper of record

note how far the USA has fallen.

Bruce Wilder said...

I hope you see this:

Unknown said...

I have been trying to figure out what the west wants in this whole affair. Everytime I turn on the news it is disinformation and prejudice. You could think that Russia invaded Crimea killing tens of thousands and imposed a dictatorship and that a popular revolt overthrew "ceaucescu" in Kiev. This was not Hungary in 1956 with thousands dead and tanks in the streets, Czechoslovakia in 1968, or even Poland in 1981 with Soviet troops in the background letting Jaruzelski quell dissent.

20 years of building up of support at the local level by CIA and western NGOs against corrupt leaders, Russian and Ukrainian got a mob of normal people and extremists in the mood for a fight. McCain, Westerwelle, Nuland, Hollywoood actors all visited Maidan and sent greetings to overthrow "Pro-Russian corrupt regime" (note that "Kremlin" and "Regime" are sole terms for Russian Govt. in Western press) After Orange revolution in 2004 Timoshenko got voted out of office as she did nothing much good either.

Churkin's latest speech at the UN is very sensible in its content:

"Churkin said holding elections would be particularly risky at a time when “Ukraine lacks a new constitution that would make all regions and political forces certain about their future.”

The Russian envoy said that he explained that situation to the UN Security Council members in very clear terms.

On Friday the Security Council heard a report by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on his trips to Moscow and Kiev on March 20-22. Churkin said there was “a rather detailed discussion over the general situation involving Ukraine. “I believe that the discussion was not useless, but I would prefer not to say that our Western colleagues have changed their mind regarding the further line of action in relation to the Ukrainian issue,” Churkin said.

In his opinion, “some members of the UN Security Council have been trying to create an atmosphere of an international crisis around Ukraine and waiting for Moscow to take steps to ease the tensions.
“We drew their attention to the fact that there is no international crisis on the agenda. There is a crisis in Ukraine, and we have a very clear idea of how the Ukrainians should negotiate that crisis - through a dialogue, through convening a constitutional assembly, through holding a referendum and through adopting a new constitution and then holding a presidential election - precisely what the February 21 accord provided for,” Churkin said.

He expressed regret Russia’s Western partners “are appealing to some general ideas that are very far from the Ukrainian realities.”

“This is possibly the reason why the crisis in Ukraine has gone so far,” Churkin said."

So a lot of propaganda in the West is concentrating on Russian toop buildup and Crimea but not on the Ukrainian crisis as such, which preexisted all of this a long time(think of Yugoslavian type situation since WWI or much earlier). No one person as president is accetted by the whole country due to ethnic divisions. A constituztional convention, a referendum and new elections, agreed to by a Troika from EU before Coup d'état(21st Feb. 2014) would be the way to go. This would have avoided annexation by Russia out of fear of safety for Russian citizens. The CIA or whoever gave the signal to Right sector or whoever killed all those people "Jumped the gun" and miscalculated Russian response.

Unknown said...

(a bit more)

Without a Russian and Western dialogue leading to a new constition which both parties in Ukraine can accept any elected govt. in Ukraine will not be accepted by the people as no one will go to the polls. Perhaps a devolution as in Scotland, Wales,etc. would be good with a loose federation. In Germany the Verfassungsschutz("Constitional oversight") watches over antidemocratic forces to exclude parties like neonazis(Svoboda, right sector) and similar since WWII and a federal state allows Bavaria, etc. breathing room for its regionalism and stops a centralized dictatorship from gaining hold.

Even finding what Churkin said to quote here was not possible i Western press. This is irresponsible. I had to go to Irtar -Tass. It shows that the West in general is not interested in constructive dialogue to solve the situation . I think it shows that the whole West is obsessed with its economic problems and looking to find someone to blame, to lash out at. This is sad. Russia has no debt and has overcome many orblems and is in a quet pahse of its history trying to fit into the global system. Since 2008 the West is falling apart and the economy is not coming back properly so they lash out instead of solving their own problems through reforms on banking, etc. This is irresponsible. Just keep starting new wars but don't solve internal problems.