Anybody look at Ukraine lately?

[Cain]

Blair's derp is, apparently, infectious:

The solution to the crisis in Ukraine lies in part in Syria. It is time for US President Barack Obama to demonstrate that he can order the offensive use of force in circumstances other than secret drone attacks or covert operations. The result will change the strategic calculus not only in Damascus, but also in Moscow, not to mention Beijing and Tokyo.

Because, you see, an illegal military strike on a nation done in the name of humanitarian reasons but in all probability mostly done for geopolitical ones would totally dissuade a an illegal military strike on a nation done in the name of humanitarian reasons but in all probability mostly done for geopolitical ones.

Not to mention focusing US military and intelligence attention on Syria would totally help the Ukraine situation, because Russia...uh, routes intelligence via Damascus or something.  I dunno.  I'm not as good at crazy as neocons, or their liberal doppelgangers.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Cain, where the hell is the payoff for the UK and the USA, here?

I mean, other than measuring dicks with Putin.

[Cain]

Putting missile bases and anti-missile weapons systems in Kyiv would totally neuter Moscow's ability to project westward power in any military form.  Had Putin not taken Crimea, the Black Sea fleet would've been dismantled as well.

The western backed politicians there are also overseeing "IMF reforms", which is of course code for "opening the Ukrainian market, jealously protected by its oligarchical masters, to western firms".  Probably not all forms of business, the western oligarchs have their own interests to protect, but certainly a freer hand for business fits into the calculus.

It also puts Belarus, Europe's last dictatorship, in a NATO pincer.  Belarus is not only a dictatorship, but also still has a Soviet-era economy.  Which is annoying, considering the Pripyat depression is full of oil and oil shale, not to mention an underdeveloped agricultural, mining and commercial sector.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Putting missile bases and anti-missile weapons systems in Kyiv would totally neuter Moscow's ability to project westward power in any military form.  Had Putin not taken Crimea, the Black Sea fleet would've been dismantled as well.

The western backed politicians there are also overseeing "IMF reforms", which is of course code for "opening the Ukrainian market, jealously protected by its oligarchical masters, to western firms".  Probably not all forms of business, the western oligarchs have their own interests to protect, but certainly a freer hand for business fits into the calculus.

It also puts Belarus, Europe's last dictatorship, in a NATO pincer.  Belarus is not only a dictatorship, but also still has a Soviet-era economy.  Which is annoying, considering the Pripyat depression is full of oil and oil shale, not to mention an underdeveloped agricultural, mining and commercial sector.

Now it makes sense.  Thanks.

[Cain]

No problem

[Cain]

The New York Times is pushing propaganda

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/23/nyt-retracts-russian-photo-scoop/

Two days after the New York Times led its editions with a one-sided article about photos supposedly proving that Russian special forces were behind the popular uprisings in eastern Ukraine, the Times published what you might call a modified, limited retraction.

Buried deep inside the Wednesday editions (page 9 in my paper), the article by Michael R. Gordon and Andrew E. Kramer – two of the three authors from the earlier story – has this curious beginning: "A collection of photographs that Ukraine says shows the presence of Russian forces in the eastern part of the country, and which the United States cited as evidence of Russian involvement, has come under scrutiny."

In the old days of journalism, we used to apply the scrutiny before we published a story on the front page or on any other page, especially if it had implications toward war or peace, whether people would live or die. However, in this case – fitting with the anti-Russian bias that has pervaded the mainstream U.S. press corps – the scrutiny was set aside long enough for this powerful propaganda theme to be put in play and to sweep across the media landscape.

[Cain]

Oh Roger, here's more on the economic angle in Ukraine

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/24/beneath-the-ukraine-crisis-shale-gas/

Ukraine has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. While for years U.S. oil companies have been pressing for shale gas development in countries such as Britain, Poland, France and Bulgaria only to be rebuffed by significant opposition from citizens and local legislators concerned about the environmental impacts of shale gas extraction – including earthquakes and groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" – there has been considerably less opposition in Ukraine, a country that has been embroiled in numerous gas disputes with the Russian Federation in recent years.

Russia's state-owned Gazprom, controlling nearly one-fifth of the world's gas reserves, supplies more than half of Ukraine's gas annually, and about 30 percent of Europe's. It has often used this as political and economic leverage over Kiev and Brussels, cutting gas supplies repeatedly over the past decade (in the winters of 2005-2006, 2007-2008, and again in 2008-2009), leading to energy shortages not only in Ukraine, but Western European countries as well. This leverage, however, came under challenge in 2013 as Ukraine took steps towards breaking its dependence on Russian gas.

On Nov. 5, 2013 (just a few weeks before the Maidan demonstrations began in Kiev), Chevron signed a 50-year agreement with the Ukrainian government to develop oil and gas in western Ukraine. According to the New York Times, "The government said that Chevron would spend $350 million on the exploratory phase of the project and that the total investment could reach $10 billion."

[LMNO]

Did someone say oil?
              /

       \
BOMB THEM!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Did someone say oil?
              /

       \
BOMB THEM!

In this case it's Putin saying "invade them" and then us saying "stop the invasion".

[Cain]

Or, to get even more nuanced, it's us saying "let our proxies take control of the government to sell this valuable natural resource to our companies" and Puting saying "I'd rather the incompetent oligarchs who were in power before keep in charge, because they are stupid and corrupt and it means a greater market for actually existing Russian oil, a key plank of our geopolitical and economic influence".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Or, to get even more nuanced, it's us saying "let our proxies take control of the government to sell this valuable natural resource to our companies" and Puting saying "I'd rather the incompetent oligarchs who were in power before keep in charge, because they are stupid and corrupt and it means a greater market for actually existing Russian oil, a key plank of our geopolitical and economic influence".

Point.   

[hirley0]

latel

[Cain]

As morally reprehensible as the fire in Odessa was, it may also be a smart move.

The fire allows for bodies to be recovered - which may allow for identification.  If dental records can show the dead are, say, Spetsnaz, and not citizens of Odessa...well, that would put Russia in a much more difficult position.  It would completely blow apart Putin's lies about the uprisings being entirely spontaneous and natural.

[Cain]

The CIA and FBI are currently acting as counterinsurgency advisors to the Ukrainian government, according to the German press.

Troubling, if true.  Right Sector formations have been folded into the National Guard, paramilitary units under military command designed to replace the loss of the disbanded Berkut riot police who would otherwise be dealing with these rebellious cities.  Right Sector could charitably be called "Ukrainian nationalist" or, less charitably, "neofascist" in orientation.

Given the history of US cooperation with far-right groups acting as counterinsurgency troopers, this is really not a good thing.

[Junkenstein]

That is somewhat troubling. Given the nature of the insurgents, I can't see this leading to much apart from bloodshed and death.

By proxy though, which makes it OK somehow, apparently.