|
Ukraine: As Economic War Escalates, Fighting May Resume Soon
The ceasefire of Minsk between the Ukrainian coup-government and the federalists of east Ukraine was something both sides needed.
The Ukrainian army was on the verge of completely loosing it. It was temporarily defeated and needed to rearm and reorganize. While the federalist insurgents were successful and probably able to continue their fight for a few days their forces were overstretched and needed to consolidate.
But many on the insurgent side did not like the ceasefire. It did not give them the federal autonomy they demanded. The neo-nazi "national-guard" battalions on the other side also criticized the ceasefire. They want the total destruction of their enemy and ethnic cleansing of all Russia-affine Ukrainians.
Russia had pressed for the ceasefire to avoid further sanctions. It was an offer to the "western" side to step back from the cliff of an economic war. Obama and NATO tried to sabotage the ceasefire through false claims of a Russian invasion and other propaganda. But the Ukrainian president had to ignore the pressure from Washington and Brussels or he would have lost another city, Mariupol, to the insurgents.
The main Russian reason to support the ceasefire, to hold back sanctions, has now vanished. Three days ago the EU, against the will of several of its members, decided on new sanctions on Russia:
The European Union adopted new sanctions against Moscow on Monday despite the leaders of Russia and Ukraine vowing to uphold a truce aimed at halting a devastating five-month war.
…
In Brussels, the EU formally approved fresh sanctions against Russia but said they would not come into force for a few more days, effectively delaying the measures to see if the current truce will hold.
The truce held and despite that facts and its earlier claims the EU today announced that the new sanctions will be implemented immediately:
The European Union has agreed to impose further sanctions on Russia on Friday over its role in the Ukraine crisis, diplomats say.
The move is aimed at maintaining pressure on Russia, the sources said.
Russia says it is preparing a response "commensurate with the economic losses" caused by the EU sanctions.
This is another catastrophic and escalating EU move with regards to Ukraine and Russia. This turns the conflict into an economic war between the EU and Russia in which no side can win. Only the United States and China will profit from it.
Additonally Poland had the crazy idea of supplying gas which it purchases from Russia to Ukraine which is not willing or able to pay for direct deliveries from Russia. This is a breach of contract as the deliveries from Russia to Poland are not allowed to be resold to other Russian gas customers. Russia allegedly responded by lowering the volume of gas it supplies to Poland and Poland immediately folded and stopped the reverse gas flow to Ukraine:
Russia’s OAO Gazprom limited natural gas flows to Poland, preventing the European Union member state from supplying Ukraine via so-called reverse flows.
Polskie Gornictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo SA, or PGNiG, got 20 to 24 percent less fuel than it ordered from Gazprom Export over the past two days and is compensating flows with alternative supply, the company said today in an e-mailed statement.
Poland halted gas supply to Ukraine at 3 p.m. Warsaw time today, according to Ukraine’s UkrTransGaz.
We can be not sure that this is the whole story though. Gazprom says it provides all the gas Poland ordered through its pipelines but hints that Ukraine, where those pipelines cross, may be the party which is taking the gas:
Russia has denied that its state-run gas giant Gazprom has been limiting flows to Poland.
"Reports by news agencies on the reduction of volumes of gas supplies by Gazprom to Poland's PGNiG are incorrect,” Itar-Tass reported Gazprom spokesman Sergey Kupriyanov as saying. “The same volume of gas as in previous days – 23 million cubic meters a day – is being supplied to Poland now."
Before Gazprom issued its statement, Uktransgaz’s Prokopiv blamed Russia for trying to “derail” the plan for Poland to supply Ukraine with “reverse” gas, while Ukraine refused to pay its debt to Gazprom and is currently cut off from Russian supplies, and accused Russia of limiting the supply of gas.
…
In August, Russia’s energy minister, Aleksandr Novak, warned that in the upcoming winter Ukraine may begin siphoning off Russian supplies intended for Europe if it fails to build up its reserves.
There is more conflicting news. The Ukrainian president Poroshenko claimed that most of the "Russian troops", which no one, including the OSCE observers in the area, has ever seen, have left Ukraine:
“Based on the latest information I have received from our intelligence services, 70 percent of the Russian troops have moved back across the border,” Poroshenko said. “This bolsters our hope that the peace initiatives enjoy good prospects.”
NATO, likely fearing that Poroshenko was again moving towards a peaceful solution, disputed the claim:
"The reported reduction of Russian troops from eastern Ukraine would be a good first step, but we have no information on this. The fact of the matter is there are still approximately 1,000 Russian troops in eastern Ukraine with substantial amounts of military equipment and approximately 20,000 troops on the Russian border with Ukraine," the NATO military officer said.
Push, push, push for war …
But some parts of the "western" media are slowly waking up to the fact that not all is well with Ukraine and the "western" strategy. They note that Ukraine can not afford the IMF's 'Shock Therapy' and needs money without conditions which it will likely never pay back:
Absent this "bail-in" of foreign creditors, Ukraine will simply be taking on more debt that it lacks the capacity to service, risking a long-term compound debt spiral for the country and practically guaranteeing a wholesale default down the road — and continuing political instability.
After months of ridiculing anyone who pointed to neo-nazis within Ukraine's regime and military forces as "Putin lover" reports about those neo-nazis now pop up in several "western" media.
Russia best reason to hold the insurgents in east Ukraine back from further fighting has vanished. The economic war is escalating no matter what Russia does or does not do. As the media have more time to look into the real issues in Ukraine the state of the sorry affair will become more clear and "western" public support for Ukraine will decline. This is a threat to "western" warmongering and to again escalate to fighting is the best method to suppress such news.
Hawks on both sides now have reason to restart the fighting. Expect the ceasefire to completely fail very soon.
Thank you Fete, for your regular contributions.
MR: Cat lover is a good thing!
@Demian: Yes, time is an element in any build-up of Novorussia. I do believe that strong cells are already in place in Kharkov, Odessa, and Zaporizia. Dniepropetrovsk will be the hardest nut to break.
Marc, et al.: I am quite aware of Saker’s prejudices and where they diverge from mine. And some of his posters definitely come from where you claim! I’m also not crazy about his “AngloZionist” construction, as are many of his readers. But I read from as wide a range of sources as possible, since history is made by all people together, not just the ones I agree with. I already know what I believe to be true in the world, so if I only read that which I agree with, I would never grow.
Among the many sources I have followed around the Ukrainian issue:
Here, Vineyard Saker, Kremlin Stooge (where I just won first prize in a caption contest!), Odessablogger, Russia: Another viewpoint blog, Alexander Mercouris, Mark Sleboda, Colonel Cassad, Slavyangrad blog, Brad Cabana, RFE Power Vertical (don’t laugh), Yevgeny Feodorov, Joaquin Flores, Borotba, Russian and Ukrainian english language media, Jack Matloff, BalkanBlog, DaRussophile, Mark Adomanis, Niqnaq, El Murid, Electric Politics, etc.
In any event, I think that covers a good range of the political spectrum. Then I have to trust myself to make my own mind up — which also changes with the flow of events.
The longer analyses of Flores and Feodorov, I consider to be fundamental grounding knowledge, as I do believe Russia to be a potential target of planned destabilization.
I also recently completed a formal conflict mapping of the situation, which resulted in five pages of small print notes. It is a good technique, which can be helpful for organizing and prioritizing one’s thoughts and knowledge about a conflict — such as identifying actors and stakeholders, levels of conflict, interests vs. goals, etc.
Here is a recent quote from the Kremlin Stooge blog: “yalensis (poster): Like all people, Russians have a jumble of thoughts and ideologies in their heads, some mutually contradictory: A possible synthesis was revealed by the forces of Novorossiya, what Strelkov calls the “Russian Spring”. Among the Novorossiya forces you have an ideological potpourri of Reds, Whites, communists, nationalists, internationalists and even (gasp!) a couple of reformed fascists, like Gubarev (who now speak of nationalizing the oligarchs).”
I note that El Murid, the communist blogger, is a friend of the monarchist, Strelkov. Strelkov, before he stepped down, was reported to have greatly changed and opened his political views in talks with Commies, Socialists, Reds, Internationalists, etc. who were fighting (and willing to give their lives for their beliefs) under his command.
Despite my own personal radical left leanings, I am a firm believer in the “big tent” theory of political change. After all, we all have to live together with one another now, don’t we? So, it behooves us to attempt to build grand inclusive coalitions to effect change. In the days of the .006 of 1% having all the wealth and power, and with great need across the land, this task should be child’s play. As the saying goes, “The People United Will Never Be Defeated.” (Have any of you classical music fans heard Fredric Rzewski’s moving composition? Highly recommended.)
As far as the AI vs. ES theory: I have read every range of opinion on it from absolute truth to bunkum. I take it as one (and a strong one) of the many narratives, some contradictory, which motivate people in Russian society. I have also heard opinions of Putin as fitting in all over the spectrum. I see him as clearly tilting towards the ES siloviki. and Russian independent Nationalism.
Marxism tells us that people are motivated by material conditions. This is true to a certain extent: A starving man is surely motivated by food. But, with one’s essential needs taken care of, the sciences of psychology and public relations readily demonstrate to us that man is primarily an emotional actor, easily swayed but all manner of manipulation of the deep forces of want, fear, desire, love, abandonment, and belonging, among other emotions.
According to Michael Parenti, “Much of politics is the rational manipulation of irrational symbols.”
He has a very good article about fascism which covers this subject: Fascism: A False Revolution by Michael Parenti. Even though written almost 20 years ago, it remains relevant to current fascist movements in the Ukraine, and the ISIS formation (despite the fact that our host and Peter Lee are, in their political ignorance, ready to call them anti-imperialists).
I will close my thoughts with a few brief quotes:
“Fascism is a false revolution. It makes a revolutionary appeal without making an actual revolution. It propagates the widely proclaimed New Order while serving the same old moneyed interests.
In fascism, these irrational, atavistic appeals go back to the mythical roots of the people: for Mussolini, back to the grandeur that was Rome; for Hitler, the ancient volk. Then there’s the cult of the leader: Il Duce, the Führer. With leader worship and state worship came the glorification of militarism, war, and conquest-basically conservative symbols to get people distracted from their own immediate political/economic class-interests and get them galvanized into war, the conquest, militarism.
Fascist doctrines stress one people, one state, one leader. The people are no longer to be concerned with class divisions, but must see themselves as part of a harmonious, authoritarian whole, a view that supports the socioeconomic status quo. In contrast, a left agenda advocates a sharpened awareness of class injustice and class struggle, the articulation of popular demands and the self-generated participation of popular forces.
As in all reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital.
What distinguished fascism from ordinary right-wing autocracies was the way it attempted to cultivate a revolutionary aura and give the impression of being a mass movement. Fascism offers a beguiling mix of revolutionary sounding mass-appeals and reactionary class politics. The Nazi party’s full name was the National Socialist German Workers Party. Both the Italian fascists and the Nazis consciously tried to imitate the left: youth organizations, mass mobilizations, rallies, parades, banners, symbols, slogans, uniforms. And I think for this reason, too, many mainstream writers treat fascism and communism as totalitarian twins. But most workers and peasants could tell the difference. Industrialists and bankers could tell the difference. And certainly the communists and the fascists could tell the difference.
Western capitalist states have tolerated and cooperated with fascism. After World War II, the Western capitalist allies did little to eradicate fascism from Italy or Germany except for the Nuremburg trials, but the police, the courts, the military, security agencies, the bureaucracy have remained largely staffed by those who had served the former Nazi regimes, or their ideological recruits, and that remains true to this day.”
Posted by: Malooga | Sep 13 2014 9:27 utc | 137
Demian @ 132, further to mine @ 140.
I went back and did a little research, a little rushed earlier. I was impressed by this whole series, not just the two he cited in analyzing Strelkov. The particular discussion I thought of, however unclearly, is here Russia and Islam, part one: introduction and definitions
I think this short quote sums up what I saw in the Saker’s very astute capsule tour of the problem of coping with promise and threat of the West. It’s a staple of Russian history that varying groups of West European powers attempted to exploit, conquer, aid, and/or ally with Russia. Which and for depend on the period, some are more likely to do one or the other. “I would even claim that the entire Soviet experiment was also an attempt to westernize Russia, albeit not along the usual Papist or Masonic models, but along a Marxist one. What all these models have in common is a visceral dislike for the real Russian culture and spirituality, and a obsessive desire to ‘turn Russia into Poland'”.
You’re right, the Saker doesn’t mention the Slavophiles. This particular installment of the series caused me to think — “he’s really a contemporary Slavophile.” He has their profound believe in the particular Russian “Genius,” as understood in the sense Romantic era nationalism. Each particular people has value as making their own particular contribution to human society; no one size complete fits all, so to speak.
Romanticism being a European-wide response to Napoleon and Enlightenment rationalism, clearly Russia is part of Europe. And clearly part of Asia, too, if “only” through geography, and a second set of period invaders.
It always includes, if memory serves, Orthodoxy as part of that contribution. And in some variants, part of that genius is autocracy. The Romanovs thought so, and patronized the Slavophiles, at least some, at some times.
And I think we would all agree, definitely, vodka. Generally, I don’t like the taste of white liquors, rum, gin, etc. But to drink “po russkii” (in the Russian manner or style) means — shots. So you never taste it, rapidly forget how many you’ve had, and get, well, a little tipsy. Or at least, that’s the way it works for me. I’d prefer georgian brandy, if I could find it, but any port in a storm.
Anyway, that installment is from Feb., so I erroneously attributed my passed flash of connection to the Saker. Sorry for the inadvertent misdirection.
Marc @ 124 — I don’t know if I would go so far as to say and out and out Romanov revivalist, but I would agree he does have a certain respect, perhaps indeed nostalgia for the tsarist past. I would also agree that has a visceral dislike of the victorious Bolsheviks. Won’t get down in the weeds (well, at least now) on chapter and verse.
You might be aware that no. of Whites returned, for much of the pre-WWII period, to aid the defense of Mother Russia; many paid for it, of course. Some never left. It was not a small no., I’d be more than glad, again, to provide citations if needed. I’d need to rummage around a bit.
Bottom line, I may not agree with the Saker’s preferred solution or some of his historical, but I respect him for his expertise in the gruesome business of war, and his understanding of the broader context. His SitReps and knowledge of the hardware are invaluable.
Disclaimer — I have done some small amount of editorial work for the Saker and the Oceania variant. I am too modest (no, seriously, limits to my self-promotion) to cite the links, I will if y’all can’t find them. As part of the Russian translation team, I made a few contributions to the translation of a news video on Russian ties with Argentina and Brazil. And on oceania, I edited and annotated a text on “For a Franco-Russian Alliance.” Maybe more to follow there soon.
And now off to listen to a little music. PS to demian, my reactions to a few of your musical suggestion on a future open post.
Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 14 2014 3:20 utc | 148
Vineyardsaker website skirts journalistic standards, scrubs comment section
Many of you are familiar with the Vineyardsaker website. He runs one of the most important sources of news and opinion for those of us English speakers interested in following Russian, and anti-empire, affairs these days. He has been steadily blogging on a number of issues, although mainly focusing on geopolitical concerns, for about seven years now. He has proven himself over time to be an excellent and knowledgeable analyst and writer, as well as a delightful and sensitive human being. His following has grown exponentially since the beginning of the destabilization of the Ukraine. He has also attempted, with some success, to expand the community, and the range of topics covered. All of these efforts are highly laudable. However, in attempting to do so much, so rapidly, he has been wearing himself a little thin as of late, and his health, equanimity, and the quality of his work have visibly suffered.
The other day, the Saker posted the following lines on his blog:
I have heard the news that Igor Strelkov has been found dead, apparently hanged. A lot of you have emailed me. While I cannot prove a negative, so far NOT A SINGLE RUSSIAN OR NOVORUSSIAN SOURCE HAS CONFIRMED THIS including his friend el-Miurid. So I suggest that we take a deep breath, say a prayer, and wait before coming to conclusions
By leading with news of a death, and failing even to supply a source for the information — despite the presence of a trailing disclaimer, the Saker violated ethical and journalistic standards, and created an outcry.
As I observed yesterday at moonofalabama.org:
In journalism, there is the concept of “burying the lead” of a story. We all understand what that means and why it is done.
Saker, on the other hand, chose to lead with the burial! And then he is dismayed and indignant at the furor he caused.
The host of the prominent Novorussian blog, Slavygrad.org, Gleb Bazov, formerly a staunch supporter of Saker, had this to say:
I WILL REPEAT. All rumours of #Strelkov’s death are false. Reporting them is irresponsible & nefarious. “Grist to the mill of the enemy”
Others involved in analyzing the conflict in the Ukraine were similarly upset with Saker’s precipitous actions.
Rather than apologizing for the uproar he created, and stating that he intended to become better acquainted with journalistic standards, the Saker, a professed observant Russian Orthodox Christian, became defensive, and slightly paranoid — huffily justifying his behavior, and holding even more firmly to the ethical correctness of his actions. He argued angrily:
For the life of me I cannot imagine how anybody mentally sane could take a paragraph containing the following and conclude that I was announcing Strelkov’s death (emphasis added)… [The quote I’ve led the story with followed here. Malooga] Maybe a drooling idiot can, but not somebody mentally normal. Alas, it appears that drooling idiots are the least of my problems.
I am sorry to announce that I have come to the conclusion that the people “systematically misunderstanding” what I write here are neither idiots nor trolls. There is a group of individuals which have embarked on a campaign to slander and discredit me. If they only called me names, that would not be too bad, the problem is that they systematically distort what I actually write here and “creatively re-interpret” it in order to make me say things I never said.
It is clear from this quote that the Saker has sought to deflect attention away from his flouting of ethical journalistic standards in even conjecturing about a death, and onto a (real or imagined) “campaign to slander and discredit” him.
Furthermore, in violation of his professed commenting policies, several published comments critical of his actions, but not hostile to him personally, were purged. (Unfortunately, I did not expect this behavior, and don’t have a download of the webpage.) Perhaps his vindictive behavior in erasing comments which, in his troubled emotional state, he was unable to perceive as being benign and intended to help him, was hinted at in this quote:
My second warning is that I will not answer any strawman posts or comments. If some folks cannot read what it actually says, they need to learn that skill before reading this blog. As for those who deliberately try to twist my words, I have nothing to say to them anyway.
It should be noted that after the great rise in popularity of his blog, the Saker initially attempted to run his blog without moderation, and then after this failed, with minimal moderation. This has often resulted in scores of comments, many poorly written, that are off-topic, spiteful, or hateful.
Additionally, two friendly posts I had sent the Saker encouraging him to bone up on journalistic ethics were never published.
I did copy one post (not mine) which was purged, impressed with its succinctness:
“Saker don’t circulate unsubstantiated rumours, especially rumours of someones death !
Adding a cautionary note does not make it OK…”
A comment of mine which, was never published, went in part:
Welcome to the news business. You may think you are “running a blog,” but these days with your content you are in the news business. I suggest you search out a few hoary reporters in your neck of the woods and talk to them about this. (You don’t have to disclose who you are.)
You will find out… that this was the treatment one would expect for what you published.
Next, if you want to continue doing what you do on this blog, I would befriend one of those reporters and get some free training in the kind of sticky wickets one can find oneself in doing the work you do, and how to handle it. Once you have a little more knowledge, these things will not have to waste your time and energy throwing you or the community.
The feelings of those quoted above were not unique, by any means. Reporting news, or rumors, of a death is a very serious affair. Not only one’s readers, but people who know the person reported on have deep interests and strong feelings in this matter. Because of these issues, many specialists in journalist ethics urge caution in these matters. The website “journalismethics.info,” warns of some negative effects of change, as “new” and “social” media gain in prominence:
• Rise in “journalism of assertion”: unsubstantiated opinion and rumor which harms journalistic credibility; lack of restraint among online writers
• Pressure to lower ethical standards and sensationalize stories
• Public complaints about how a “ubiquitous” media violate personal privacy
The London School of Economics Website quotes Deborah Hargreaves, Business Editor of The Guardian, as saying, “It’s a difficult thing to cover, because you don’t report on rumors unless you can stand them up.”
The prestigious Poynter Institute (for reporting) suggests concerned reporters consider using Poynter’s 10 ethical questions:
1. What do I know? What do I need to know?
2. What is my journalistic purpose?
3. What are my ethical concerns?
4. What organizational policies and professional guidelines should I consider?
5. How can I include other people, with different perspectives and diverse ideas, in the decision-making process?
6. Who are the stakeholders — those affected by my decision? What are their motivations? Which are legitimate?
7. What if the roles were reversed? How would I feel if I were in the shoes of one of the stakeholders?
8. What are the possible consequences of my actions? Short term? Long term?
9. What are my alternatives to maximize my truthtelling responsibility and minimize harm?
10. Can I clearly and fully justify my thinking and my decision? To my colleagues? To the stakeholders? To the public?
Clearly, the Saker did not consider many of these questions before going to print. The effect on other stakeholders was immediately apparent, as was the effect on his journalistic reputation. In contrast, his journalistic purpose in rushing to promulgate unsubstantiated rumor remains unclear, as he has not seen fit to explain what positive purpose it may have served. Question # 7 — putting oneself in the other’s shoes — is particularly relevant to this matter. Yet, judging by his defensive reaction, if the roles were reversed, and somebody reported his unsubstantiated death to one of his family members — let’s say his wife — it is clear that he would not be quite as understanding of the reporter involved as he expects his readers to be of him. What if a member of Strelkov’s family were to read his blog that morning? It is the careful consideration and handling of these ethical concerns that separates the best, most highly respected and trusted ace reporters from the destructively careless young cubs prowling the beat.
Finally, the NPR reporters ethics site warns,”Don’t just spread information. Be careful and skeptical.”
When determining whether to pass along information being reported on social media sites by other news outlets or individuals, be thoughtful. When we point to what others are saying, in the eyes of many we are effectively reporting that information ourselves. This is true whether the platform is an official NPR social media webpage, a personal blog or a Twitter page that is written by an NPR journalist…
We challenge those putting information out on social media to provide evidence. We raise doubts and ask questions when we have concerns — sometimes “knocking down” rumors circulating on the Web is of enormous value to our readers. And we always ask an important question: am I about to spread a thinly-sourced rumor or am I passing on valuable and credible (even if unverified) information in a transparent manner with appropriate caveats?
Above all, proceed with caution, especially when news is breaking and accounts vary widely about what is happening. Reach out to other sources for confirmation. And the general standard is simple: Tweet and retweet as if what you’re saying or passing along is information that you would put on the air or in a “traditional” NPR.org news story. If it needs context, attribution, clarification or “knocking down,” provide it.
One hopes that the Saker would read this post and consider some of the ethical issues involved. One hopes that the Saker would take the time to familiarize himself with basic journalistic standards, and the responsibility he has to those he writes about. And finally, one hopes that the Saker will apologize to those he has hurt, rather than hurting his own credibility by defending an indefensible action. These are all productive steps which will only make the Saker’s reporting stronger, and trust in him firmer in the future. We wish him the best in continuing on with his very valuable endeavor.
Posted by: Malooga | Sep 14 2014 8:23 utc | 154
|
