|
|
You mean the same Condoleezza Rice that served eight years as the Bush administrations security adviser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice#Iraq
Rice was a proponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. After Iraq delivered its declaration of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations on December 8, 2002, Rice wrote an editorial for The New York Times entitled "Why We Know Iraq Is Lying".[54]
lol, just lol
|
Someone is citing Mrs.Rice hahaha, omg.
|
|
|
Not really. As soon as you read the name Condi Rice in the authorship, you pretty much knew what her talking points were. They are as full of bland and mediocre diagnoses on Russian foreign policy as they ever were. Her gossip about her conversations with Lavrov in 2008 are not to be taken at face value.
Her preamble alone illustrates how aloof she is from reality: Yanukovych was not Putin's "man", and relations between them had been strained for years prior to the outbreak of the protests. When Putin signaled his readiness to dump Yanukovych and support new leadership in the Ukraine, he was more or less sincere.
The optimal line to take now is not to force a Russian puppet into the Ukrainian leadership, but to make sure that the interests of the anti-EU/Russian-leaning portions of the country are duly represented in a new government. Through this means, the Russians can block further Ukrainian association with the EU/NATO while upholding the principle of "democratic legitimacy"
|
|
|
Yeah people should stop calling Yanukovich a Russian puppet. He was stealing for himself and Russians didn't really like him.
|
That does not change the fact that Yanukovich was the one who opted for Putin's economic deal in spite of support for the EU one.
|
On March 08 2014 23:57 MoltkeWarding wrote:Not really. As soon as you read the name Condi Rice in the authorship, you pretty much knew what her talking points were. They are as full of bland and mediocre diagnoses on Russian foreign policy as they ever were. Her gossip about her conversations with Lavrov in 2008 are not to be taken at face value. Her preamble alone illustrates how aloof she is from reality: Yanukovych was not Putin's "man", and relations between them had been strained for years prior to the outbreak of the protests. When Putin signaled his readiness to dump Yanukovych and support new leadership in the Ukraine, he was more or less sincere.
I found the analysis pretty bland too, and she has a torn reputation to begin with. When it comes to Yanukovych I think it is obvious that Yanukovych was not as popular as she thinks. However a readiness to dump him would entail getting someone positionend to follow in his footsteps. If I look at ukrainian politics, I see a lot of different degrees of nationalists in western Ukraine who will make the ukrainian import of workers and goods to Moscow harder and generally are a no-go for him. There are very few obvious picks from eastern Ukraine, since many of them are from the spintered Party of Regions. The best and only pick from east would probably be the chokolade king, but he is a moderate politically and evil tongues (RT) will know that he supported Right Sector during the dethronement of Yanukovych, so Kremlins opinion of him seems clear.
Edit: nvm
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On March 09 2014 00:20 farvacola wrote:
That does not change the fact that Yanukovich was the one who opted for Putin's economic deal in spite of support for the EU one.
Gotta pick the thing that gives you more money. His aim was money after all.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
given what we've seen yanukovich was most likely personally bribed by russia for the deal.
|
On March 09 2014 00:20 farvacola wrote:
That does not change the fact that Yanukovich was the one who opted for Putin's economic deal in spite of support for the EU one.
When Yanukovych jettisoned the Vilnius accords in November, polling in the Ukraine showed that support was split on the question: https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/poll-ukrainian-public-split-over-eu-customs-union-options-332470.html
Furthermore, the "deal" Putin offered Yanukovych was the real failure of Russian diplomacy, for its intention was not only to secure the impression that Yanukovych made the rational decision, but that Russia was a more generous benefactor than the West. Instead, it entrenched within the minds in the opposition the impression that Putin was drawing Ukraine into his orbit, and that Yanukovych in his piligrimage to Moscow, had committed himself to joining the Russian Customs Union, a measure which was repeatedly denied by Yanukovych.
However, the illusion drawn by the West that the triumph of Maidan demonstrates that Ukrainians largely "support the EU" is precisely the line of argument the Russians have been attacking: "support" cannot be determined by who owns the streets. What was achieved by rioters in Maidan was the expressed will of the vocal minority, at the expense of the silent majority. The only way to make sure of the government's democratic legitimacy is proper elections which ensures that the voices of the other side are properly expressed. Once expressed, the Ukraine will fall back into its split orientation, which will mean that in all probability, the Ukraine will be kept out of the EU association agreement unless Russia is dealt in on the deal.
|
Russian Federation24 Posts
Poor military observants, they under such stress. Its hard just to write in twitter that they cant do anything. Guess in 1998 they done such great job, its still rings.
|
The purported splitness of the Ukraine remains to be given proper evidence from either side of the fence.
|
|
|
Ultimately, whether the split is 50-50 or 60-40 or 40-60 does not matter. What matters is which faction controls the pulpit, and whether they can block the opposition from issuing their arguments. Once they have a monopoly on the expression of opinion, they can claim to speak in the name of the "people."
In the past few weeks we have heard one canned line after another about the poor "people" of the Ukraine. Everyone: the Russians, the provisional government, Yanukovych in exile, Western News anchors, are with "the people." But the "people" for all concerned is merely a personalised abstraction through which their own wishful thinking is filtered. "Evidence" in that sense is rather a rhetorical tool than a epistmeological one.
|
|
|
Such is the case with many concepts in IR and governance; that does not change the fact that any assurances as to the future national direction of the Ukranian people are almost certainly not worth the breath that give them air.
|
They are really invading the rest of Ukraine ?
|
On March 09 2014 01:29 Faust852 wrote:
They are really invading the rest of Ukraine ?
Only a pessimist would say that. But I have noticed that in the last week, pessimism is a pretty accurate methodology for predicting Russia's next act.
|
This is getting pretty scary. Especially considering how it resembles certain historical events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
