I have been very busy with work and, as I’ve said before, blogging is basically a reactive medium and there hasn’t been much to react to.
The Washington Post is absolutely convinced that we can boost the U. S. economy by importing minimum wage and sub-minimum wage workers. They’re written an editorial on the subject and now their columnists are beginning to join in the charge. That makes perfect sense as long as you only look at one side of the ledger. When you look at the costs as well as their earnings, it’s quite obvious it makes no sense. If we were importing families of professionals, we’d be fine. Families of minimum wage workers, not so much. And then there’s the housing! Where are they going to live? The housing units we’re building are not for low wage workers.
I genuinely wish the various writers who are absolutely convinced that Russia is poised on the brink of invading all of Europe would actually make a case for that. The only way I can see of arguing that is to consider only Ukraine and extrapolate from that. When you even look at the recent past, just the last 35 years, it actually makes a pretty good case that Russia’s concern about NATO expansion is well-founded. NATO has gone from being a defensive alliance to I don’t know what.
I’m not following Trump’s legal woes particularly closely because a) I don’t care much about Trump and b) even when the verdicts come down the outcomes are far from assured.
Re-authorizing FISA? I think that civil service reform is a much higher priority. FISA should only be re-authorized with stringent penalties for abuses. How do you you accomplish that without serious civil service reform?
I was chatting with my nextdoor neighbor the other day. She’s about as regular a Democrat as you can find and she thinks that Mayor Johnson is a total loss as mayor. A lot of Chicagoans want to recall him. As I’ve said before I think we need a Constitutional amendment allowing any elected official to be recalled. Here in Illinois just about the only elected official we can recall is the governor and that isn’t even mandatory. That was part of the special “Get rid of Rod Blagojevich” reform of about 15 years ago.
I’m typing this while in a meeting. I wish I didn’t have to show my face at these meetings. It would make it a lot easier to concentrate while writing.
“invading all of Europe would actually make a case ”
I haven’t seen anyone claim that. I have seen people claim that Putin wants to re-establish the Russian Empire, which he has actually said himself. Others, just recently lets see, Georgia, Crimea an attempt to take all of Ukraine now centered on Eastern Ukraine.
NATO? Yup, those Baltics with what, 50,000 total troops are a major threat. Wonder why so many of Russia’s want to join NATO? Wonder why Ukraine is willing to sacrifice so many lives to avoid being ruled by Russia?
“The Washington Post is absolutely convinced that we can boost the U. S. economy by importing minimum wage and sub-minimum wage workers. ”
The US business sector certainly seems to think they can boost their income by hiring these people like they have been doing for years.
Steve
Actually, Russia’s apparent goal is to recover all the ethnic Russians. If the Tsarist empire were the goal, then they would want to recover all of the Baltics, half of Poland, and Central Asia.
This war was started by the US in 2014, when we overthrew the legitimate government in Ukraine, and installed the current neo-nazi junta. That junta has spent 10 years bombarding civilians in the Donbas. Much of the Ukrainian population east of the Dneipr and on the Black Sea coast wants to rejoin Russia, because they are Russians, and the junta conducts pogroms against them.
By the way, Zelensky’s presidency, which is illegitimate anyway, by reason of the 2014 coup, becomes doubly illegitimate when his term runs out in a few weeks. He suppressed the required elections, as well as all the opposition parties, and their publications and radio and TV stations.
As I have highlighted in the past Russia has several persistent and consistent national interests (in declining order):
– defense of Russia
– defense of ethnic Russians
– champion Orthodox Slavs
– champion Slavs
Those have been Russian priorities for about as long as the U. S. has been a country. They aren’t Putin’s goals. They are Russians’ goals. Disagreeing with them is completely reasonable but denying that those are Russian national interests as seen by the Russians is not.
In its history NATO has conducted roughly 20 military operations. Of those only a handful (mostly related to 9/11) are actual defensive operations. The balance are attacks on countries that have not attacked a NATO country. As such they are seen by some (like Russia and China) as aggressive in nature.
You haven’t been paying attention. Mike Pence has said that. Gen. Cavoli has said that. Andrew Michta has said that. The Prime Minister of Poland has said that. The list goes on.
I am aware and recognize that Putin has said that he “regrets” Russia’s loss of territory that formerly belonged to Russia. I believe he has characterized it as a “tragedy”. I don’t know that he has threatened to reclaim all of that territory. I’d appreciate references on that.
I could certainly be wrong about this but I don’t believe that Putin or Russia intends to reclaim Ukraine west of the Dnieper. The breakaway “republics”, yes (Luhansk and Donetsk). Crimea, yes. All of Ukraine? I’d need some substantiation of that.
NATO exists largely because we always knew that Russia would likely at some point try to expand back to its past empire’s limits (though we dont know which empire and time period they would view as most legitimate). So I went back and re-read Michta’s statement. He didnt say Russia was going to invade all of Europe but that is likely Russia will want to continue expanding and Europe ends up at war with Russia. How can you not believe that?
Putin has said he wants to re-establish the empire. You counter with a list saying Russia believes it has the right to protect ethnic Russians, Slavs and Orthodox Slavs. What country in Europe has none of those. Heck, I had 2 ethnic Russians working for me.
Putin, and you, claim Russia wont attack any NATO country. Putin, and you, claimed they wouldn’t attack Ukraine. Since I think it more important to judge by actions than words, I would assume they are a legitimate threat.
Besides which, my personal take is that this has a large dollop of good old fashioned power politics. Putin needs to wrap up his desires to expand in ideas that Russians, and their enablers in the rest of the world, will accept.
Link goes to list of NATO operations. About half are related to 9/11 and I suspect you dont consider the Pakistan airlift an aggressive action. The rest is all Bosnia, Kosovo, Yugoslavia stuff. Most of that was no fly zones and blockades. However, feel free to correct me, none of those was an attempt to invade and permanently take over territory. For sure some mistakes were made, but it was largely an attempt to stop the killings and prevent the expansion of the conflicts. Aggressive is Crimea, Georgia and Ukraine, not trying to police a civil war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations
Steve
As a bonus if you want I can provide a link to Russia calling for the disarming of UCK fighters, one of those supposedly aggressive actions by NATO.
Russia annexed Kherson which is bisected by the Dnieper and at most 14% Russian, with strong support for being part of Ukraine.
It’s pretty clear that Putin’s first goal was to topple the Ukraine government and replace it with a puppet, and it’s fall-back goal is to capture the Black Sea coastal areas without regard to whether there are significant Russian minorities present or protest movements.
Russia has made formal claims to territory that are clearly specious, and are far more responsible for the loss of life and human suffering than Ukrainian claims of sovereignty to its own territory.
Is that what he said? When and where? I think that he said what I said he said.
I fully acknowledge that I was wrong about Russia’s invading Ukraine and have done so many times. However, you are incorrect in your attribution. I am not saying that Russia won’t attack any NATO country. I am asking for evidence that it will attack Poland or Germany. I am also asking for evidence that it will attack the Baltic countries without provocation, e.g. attacks on ethnic Russians who are citizens of those countries.
I think aid to Pakistan was a humanitarian operation. However, intervention in the Yugoslav civil war was aggressive as was intervention in the Kosovo civil war, the Libyan civil war, and other actions. I don’t think I understand your view of the invasion of Afghanistan. Was it self-defense or not? If it was self-defense, why is restoration of the status quo ante not a threat calling for an attack on Afghanistan? If it wasn’t self-defense, then it was aggressive.
My own view of the invasion of Afghanistan is that it was always futile and unnecessary—the legitimate objectives could have been accomplished by raids in force.
If you want my view of the war in Ukraine it is:
1. We fomented it by encouraging the overthrow of the legitimately elected government of Ukraine, ignoring Russia’s security interests, and ignoring the rather obvious fact that the ethnic Ukrainians wanted to establish an ethnic state in the boundaries of the old Soviet republic of Ukraine,something it had never been.
2. The Russians were never going to relinquish Crimea.
3. The Russians were going to “defend” the ethnic Russians in Ukraine (see above).
4. The bloodshed could have been ended long ago along the lines of the Istanbul communique but we and the Brits blocked it.
5. Nonetheless I support Ukraine’s continued existence as an independent country and our aid for its support. Russia was wrong. It should not have invaded Ukraine. It should have pursued its claims through the UN.
6. Our objective should be as quick an end to the conflict as possible (again along the lines of the Istanbul communique).
PD:
That’s a good case in point. I believe that indicates that the longer the conflict goes on the more territory the Russians are likely to seize. At this point it looks like they’ll landlock Ukraine.
I think their claims to Donetsk and Luhansk are iffy at best and likely specious. Both have large ethnic Russian minorities. Freedom House which I consider a pretty good source, produced a white paper that found that the post-2014 Ukrainian government was tacitly allowing persecution and ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians in those provinces. I’ll see if I can lay my hands on it but a lot of critiques of Ukraine have vanished from the Internet.
If one looks at the 2010 Ukrainian elections (the last one of Ukraine before violence erupted and a soft form of “ethnic sorting/migration” started); Kherson voted 60:35 for the Pro-Russian candidate.
Remember if Putin wanted to annex Ukraine; he could have pursued that course in 2014 (when Ukraine was very weak). Instead, he stuck with the Minsk process for 8 years. I think Minsk showed his goals after Maiden; full recognition of Russian (the language), the Russophone population, and a relatively weak Ukrainian state (but independent). Before Maiden, I think Putin didn’t want to annex Ukraine either, but did want Ukraine as part of the Russo-sphere, somewhat like Belarus.
I think that’s about right. I still don’t think that Putin/Russia wants to annex Ukraine. As John Mearsheimer put it, I think they’re trying to “wreck” it. Making it landlocked fits right in with that. Putin/Russians would be happy for the rump Ukraine to be the EU’s/our albatross.
“However, intervention in the Yugoslav civil war was aggressive as was intervention in the Kosovo civil war, the Libyan civil war, and other actions”
In none of those did we invade with the intent of taking over territory. As noted, I have provided the link of Russia demanding the disarming of the UCK. So on one hand you are saying this would be viewed as aggression by Russia while OTOH Russia is demanding that action. While we made some errors in those civil wars actions were not aggressive as in they were intended to take territory or to institute NATO rule, very much different than what Russia and China do.
Afghanistan is different. First, Russia also invaded Afghanistan so at worst we are even with them on that issue. However, this is from memory so likely wrong is some ways, Russia was not attacked by Afghanistan. They went to support the communist government running the place at the time. In our case a NATO country, US, was attacked by an entity in Afghanistan. Responding to that attack is justified and not aggression as practiced by Russia. Now, our staying and trying to turn the place into Sweden was a mistake and if really stretched I guess might be taken as some form of aggression, but again we weren’t trying to annex the place or even make money off of it. We lost money.
#1- That seems like a very Russo-centric view. I dont think we had that much influence in the overthrow and you ignore the actions of Yanukovych.
2- You just assume Russia has the rights to a part of another sovereign country.
3- You again ignore how many if not most got there. Kill and deport a bunch of people, import your own then claim you have rights to that land forever. Rinse and repeat elsewhere.
4- Russo-centric again. Next you will be nominating Putin for sainthood.
6- Ukraine actually knows what it’s like to be ruled by Russia. We know that Russia has set up conditions, as you outline above, to invade anywhere it wants. Rather than arbitrarily insist upon ending as soon as possible, ie supporting Russia, we and the EU should provide support and let Ukraine decide when it has reached its limits.
Steve
https://www.rferl.org/a/1091551.html
You are taking the position that there are only two possible views: a pro-Russian position and an anti-Russian position but I think there is a third—a non-interventionist position and that’s what I think is the correct course, particularly for the U. S. That explains my 1, 2, and 4. I think we should pursue our own interests rather than inserting ourselves into the ethnic conflicts of other countries. You apparently see animosity towards Russia as a core American interest. I don’t. I see opposition to invading other countries as a core American interest. That’s why I agree with providing support for Ukraine.
The Ukrainians also know what it’s like to be ruled by Ukrainians—about the same as being ruled by Russians. No freedom of the press or speech, sham elections, lots of corruption.
I also don’t believe that your description comports with what’s actually going on in Ukraine. They have a conscript army and they’re finding it hard to fill the ranks at that. Millions of young Ukrainian men have left the country. The number of surrenders to the Russians is increasing rapidly. That doesn’t sound like letting “Ukraine decide” to me. It sounds like letting a few Ukrainian ultra-nationalists decide.
And my position is basically the same as Francis’s. I don’t believe he’s put Putin up for sainthood.
@Curious, I don’t agree that the 2010 elections evidence where pro- and anti- Russian divides exist. The winner of that election promised to pursue a free trade zone with the the EU, hardly a pro-Russian view, but was popular with a majority of Ukraine. If voting for Yanukovych in the second round in 2010 makes one pro-Russian, Putin would be claiming all the territory east and south of Kiev. Perhaps that’s what Putin’s actual goal is.
@Dave, tanks rolling towards Kiev are pretty strong evidence that he wants to annex Ukraine . . . if possible. And Putin’s refusal to negotiate the resolution of Russian annexed territory indicates his territorial aspirations are beyond what Russia occupies.
Or that he wants Russia to win decisively. I hope not. We’ll see. Where I hope that we can agree is that the longer the conflict continues the greater the likelihood of that happening.
PD; 2010 wasn’t the only election.
Every parliamentary election from 2002 to 2012 clearly showed the “Party of Regions” was the dominant party in a broad belt in the South and East of Ukraine. The party had as its signature policy, making Russian an official language of the country.
I guess the question is what is pro-Russian? If you define it as rejoining Russia; then I agree I don’t think that existed. If you define it as “open and even desirous” to have close economic, cultural ties with Russia, comfortable with being in the “Russo-sphere”, and opposed to imposition of Ukrainian nationalism; then that had the support of about 50% of 2002-2012 Ukraine.
It can also be said, a better label is instead of “pro-Russian”; they were “anti-Ukrainian nationalists”.
I don’t think support for free trade with the EU meant Yanukovych was a Ukrainian nationalist. He probably represented the question not as an exclusive choice; that he would pursue closer ties with both the EU and Russia. Ukrainian nationalists generally wanted to pursue closer EU ties in exclusion to Russia ties.
The Ukrainian nationalist were so ham-fisted they didn’t recognize the antipathy they generated in 2014 in the aftermath of Maiden that it made much of this group open or at least indifferent to Russian “protection”.
“You are taking the position that there are only two possible views: a pro-Russian position and an anti-Russian position but I think there is a third—a non-interventionist position and that’s what I think is the correct course, particularly for the U. S.”
So as I’ve said, I’m no foreign policy expert. But this seems like a food fight. As usual, Steve just slavishly adopts the Dem view. Juvenile. Others make interesting observations.
But I cut and pasted with intent. That’s the issue. And I can see multiple views. At sea on definitive policy views. This is important stuff.
Too bad it’s being debated in partisan vs US interest terms.
In 2010, Yanukovych received 40.4% of the vote in the first round in Kherson, a smaller proportion than 8 other voting districts including Donetsk (76.0%), Luhansk (71.1%), and Crimea (61.1%)
https://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/countries/u/ukraine/ukraine-presidential-election-2010.html
To get elected in a national election with a runoff, the candidate has to appeal outside his/her base. Or at least be the lesser of two evils. For one thing, his opponent supported joining NATO, which unlike EU relations was not popular nationally, at least at the time.
I brought up Kherson in light of Dave’s claim that Russia is defending something called “Russians,” but only east of the Dnieper. “Russians” in this context are whatever Putin wants them to be, like “NAZIs.” Not that they don’t exist, but the term is used with maximum flexibility in furtherance of goals of territorial aggrandizement, including west of the Dnieper.
Again, PD, look beyond the 2010 Presidential election.
In parliamentary elections for Kherson throughout 2000-2012, the “Pro-Russian” parties (Party of Regions, Communist Party) were winning 50% of the vote compare to about 30% for “Ukrainian nationalists” (Ukraine used proportional voting for parliamentary elections).
If your point is Putin took advantage of the antipathy the majority in the South and East of Ukraine had towards the imposition of the “Ukrainian nationalist” political program; I agree. Don’t underestimate the antipathy that was there, the counter demonstrations to the Maiden, the initial stages of the Donbas revolt, that “Pro-Russian” parties consistently got half the vote during that decade, those were “imagined” into being by Russia, Russia was supporting something that existed.
Dave- I dont think hostility towards Russia should be our default, but neither should we be naive about their intent. The whole reason NATO exists is because we knew that sooner or later Russia would invade some of its neighbors. I think you are trying to present stuff from the Russian POV but you are doing it by taking their claims at face value. So, for example, the claim that we caused Yanukovych to be overthrown. AFAICT our involvement was mostly limited to providing encouragement to leaders opposed to Yanukovych. I cant find any evidence of material aid. (The claims about what Nulled said are nonsense.) Such a claim ignores the actions by Yanukovych, unless you want to claim we secretly convinced him to piss people off so much by acting as a Russian stooge rather than acting in the interests of Ukraine.
Or take your claim about #4. It’s just not believable that Russia bears no blame. It is selectively believing pro-Russian sources. Besides I believe you once said actions are more important than words and when by actions has Russia shown it will accept peace with anything less than the territory it already controls?
Drew- I dont think there is an official Dem position but this is easy for you since you dont have to know anything or think about it, just believe whatever Trump tells you.
Of course Russia bears blame. My point was not that Russia bears no blame but that we do, too. You draw too many conclusions from what I do not say.
But Curious you were the one that brought up the first round of the 2010 Presidential election in the first place.