Hacker News Reader

I agree in the longterm that Russia is simply not in a position to be the world power it wants to be, and this doesn't change that; indeed, it is likely to be a step backward for them in the longterm as the world begins taking the idea that Russia is essentially a rogue state very seriously, and adjusting their economics to this reality, which Russia is not going to like.

However, in the short term he is still being very successful in making the West look feckless with its total shock that this happened and complete unpreparedness for it. It is simply not a credit to our foreign policy wonks that they are apparently so narcissistic that it appears they are unable to comprehend the idea that Putin would actually do this, despite the fact our foreign policy wonks would never see it as a good idea. For an ideology that is ever-preaching "diversity" it seems to have a really hard idea with the idea that there are people who do not merely have beliefs that superficially differ from it, but that profoundly differ from it.

"look feckless".. so you agree with the idiot columnists?

If we were Russia, we would absolutely see it as a good idea to make sure we controlled Crimea. It's like 70% Russian-speaking, was part of the Russian empire until the 50s and indirectly Russian from then on, and Sevastopol is one of the most important military locations in the world to them, as well as a historic Russian city.

Of course they're going to make sure they keep Crimea. But that's all they're keeping, as opposed to the whole Ukrainian nation being under their influence. That's a loss for them, and people who don't track US domestic politics for a living can see that.

Russia's not a 'rogue state', they're just looking after their interests here. The US has used a lot more military force for a lot worse reasons, and recently.

'"look feckless".. so you agree with the idiot columnists?'

Oh, sorry, my mistake. The West has been a well-oiled machine in response to this, with clear goals and a strong, unified message that clearly indicated their preparation for this.

Could you refresh my memory on what that strong, unified message is again? Wading through the diplospeak pretty much seems to come out to "Uhhhhh.... whatever, dude."

You're still hung up on messaging.

As far as preparation.. I'm sure, if necessary, we have an extensively prepared joint military plan with our allies to fight over the Black Sea. I'm also sure we're not going to do that. What else do you want? You think different messaging would change those facts? I'm prepared to snort and chuckle.

No, I'm talking about messaging, on purpose. Generally speaking, getting the messaging right is significantly easier than getting a military response somehow set up.

Yes, different messaging would indeed be helpful. Not being so surprised would be helpful. In particular, having a clear message for the Ukranians would be helpful. Certainly something better than what, say, the Syrians got. Or the Iraqis that stood with us. Or the Afghanis that stood with us.

I recognize that the correct answer to things is not a military one, by all means, but vague promises that we still have no intention of keeping despite their vagueness, such as "Vice President Biden just spoke with Prime Minister — the Prime Minister of Ukraine to assure him that in this difficult moment the United States supports his government’s efforts and stands for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic future of Ukraine." [1] No, we don't. He can't count on us for anything more expensive than words, at least in the short term. I'd appreciate it if we stop assuring people of how we're going to help them, only for us to just hang them out to dry later when they actually think we're serious. We've done an awful lot of that in the past decade.

[1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02...

That whole message is damn near meaningless when unwrapped from the diplospeak. I had to search for anything that even resembles a statement of what actions we might take, which is what I quoted, and even that is basically meaningless (certainly very unspecific, and in diplospeak that's not an accident). We can't even muster up a sufficient level of concern to do more than broadly promise consequences... we certainly don't have anything like a plan to actually impose even the faintest of economic sanctions for this. (My browser reports that the word "sanctions" doesn't even appear in that text.)

Perhaps something more concrete will come out later; if so that would support my thesis that we were unprepared.

(Of course, unpacked from the diplospeak, the only alternative other than "Uhh... whatever." that that could translate to is a declaration that Russia is welcome to the Ukraine, it's fine with us. "Uhh... whatever" is the charitable reading of this statement....)

Well, on public diplospeak, people don't want to tie their hands in the future with clear public statements, so they're going to deliberately say nothing while the real action happens in private.

On preparation.. well, my opinion is that there are a lot of potential situations that can happen in the world, in order to have a 10-country-coordinated gameplan for every possible situation, kept up to date between the countries as governments change.. you're not going to have a script for this. What they can have is exhaustively updated briefs and intelligence on as many relevant players/interests as possible and really good communication between allies, both enabling leaders to 'wing it' as effectively as possible.

i was talking to a ukrainian woman the other day, and asked her this:

"so are you russian or ukrainian?"

she answered the following:

"that's an interesting question. i was born in kiev, i speak russian. some day they told us, you're not russian anymore, you're ukranian."

That's still not what's relevant here. To make sense of the situation you have to put these pieces of the puzzle together:

* Putin is the 'charismatic leader' of a military powerhouse in financial decline.

* He has been actively radicalizing his citizens through a well-oiled fully state controlled propaganda machine.

* He believes he has Europe in his pocket through the oil supply and massive proceeds from corruption stashed away in European assets (and so far he's been right.)

* He seems increasingly divorced from reality and reports are circulating he seems to be fed propaganda as truth by his close advisors; something with seems the Occam's Razor-explanation for his decidedly strange public statement just hours ago.

* He has started to attempt to expand his empire to return to his Empire's old glory.

As far as Crimea is concerned: only a bit over 50% Russian-speaking and only 23% support(ed) joining Russia.

They have also been watching Russia state news which shows propaganda such as:

* Kiev protests as all paid by the West (definitely not true)

* hundreds of thousands fleeing to Russia (no activity at the border)

* spontaneous pro-Russian takeovers (masked men using Russia military vehicles)

* mass Ukrainian defections (disarmament at gunpoint)

* massive pro-Russia protests (brought in buses by the unemployment agency and disappearing completely after 60 minutes)

> his decidedly strange public statement just hours ago

I'm interested, what was this statement? Thanks

This is the first article written on it: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116852/merkel-was-right-p...

You can take a look at my twitter list at https://twitter.com/mtrimpe/lists/ukraine for more information (just ignore the EastOfBrussels, UkraineInEurope and Opinieleiders; they're pro-West propagandists but still find some good stuff occasionally.)

Shaun Walker from Guardian, who's been the most thorough reporter so far, is working on one too (https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/440865355767234560) which will probably be the best source of info on it.

"As far as Crimea is concerned: only a bit over 50% Russian-speaking"

Citation needed. I think it would be indeed not easy to find anyone living in Crimea for whom Russian is not the main communication language (and yes, that includes Crimean tatars).

Disclaimer: I've spent around six weeks in Crimea over a few years. Sevastopol and south coast mostly.

> However, in the short term he is still being very successful in making the West look feckless with its total shock that this happened and complete unpreparedness for it. It is simply not a credit to our foreign policy wonks that they are apparently so narcissistic that it appears they are unable to comprehend the idea that Putin would actually do this,

What military advisers were unprepared for this to happen? I'm betting they (US military) planned for this months ago as a hypothetical if the Ukraine moved closer to the the EU.

2) Ukraine is not in position to join EU economically. Accepting them is another time-bomb. Which probably suits USA if they can push it.

4) Russia still have their Belarus.

I was actually debating whether to mention Belarus, and edited it out to preserve space and get my point about dumb US political writing across. Thanks for chipping that in :)

As far as joining the EU.. I think political concerns will rule the day as France/Germany/UK will have a compelling reason to consolidate the 'ukraine is not russia' fact on the ground. But who knows, I didn't get any guarantees with that crystal ball, it could be that concerns about a flood of ukrainian guest workers stop it from happening. Maybe they find a way to have a slower economic integration to lessen the shock, or maybe I had things flipped and Ukraine will join NATO before the EU. I'm reasonably sure, though, that the US/UK/FR/DE will be working together to marry Ukraine into the alliance some way or other.

>I read a George Will column this morning that blamed Putin's invasion on Obamacare

Not sure about your reading comprehension there.

"Large presidential failures cannot be hermetically sealed; they permeate a presidency. Putin's contribution to the miniaturization of Obama comes in the context of Obama's self-inflicted wound — Obamacare, which simultaneously shattered belief in his competence and honesty, and may linger as ruinously for Obama as the Iranian hostage crisis did for Carter."