Russian group ‘intercepts’ US drone over Crimea
“The drone was flying at about 4,000 metres (12,000 feet) and was virtually invisible from the ground. It was possible to break the link with US operators with complex radio-electronic” technology, said Rostec in a statement.
The drone fell “almost intact into the hands of self-defence forces” added Rostec, which said it had manufactured the equipment used to down the aircraft, but did not specify who was operating it.
“Judging by its identification number, UAV MQ-5B belonged to the 66th American Reconnaissance Brigade, based in Bavaria,” Rostec said on its website, which also carried a picture of what it said was the captured drone.”
International reports of intimidation and Russian military presence in Crimea ahead of Sunday’s referendum coupled with takeover of the media by Russian channels does not bode well for what many are seeing as an inevitable coup by Putin.
US confirmation of the Drone’s presence or interception has not been available surfing the internet at this point.
Personally, I am very troubled by these developments and wonder what the thinking is here? Is POTUS handling this situation or is the situation handling the US? I am confident in Secretary Kerry’s skills and very concerned about Putin’s capacity for global harm.
Just saying. The drone program may be one of the worst wastes of whatever good will the USA had left, and in my eyes it is cowardly, sneaky, and violates what I consider both integrity and statesmanship principles. Just UGH.
As to the Crimea, we should all remember that the Crimea was part of Russia as recently as 1954, contains more than 90% Russian speakers [as compared to speakers of Ukrainian) and no plebiscite was held prior to transfering the Crimea to the Ukraine [among many other sad bits of history it also had its original inhabitants removed by Stalin]. There is a reason that part of the world, including Byelorussia and Moldava are called “The Bloodlands” by some historians.
It’s 58% ethnic Russian, 24% ethnic Ukrainian, 12% Tartars who used to be the majority before Stalin evicted them to Siberia and they’ve only resettled recently, and 8% other. Citation here
I might add a decent chunk of the Russian population does not want to join the repressive Putin regime or give power to his puppet prime minister in the region. I might add also that this incursion, plebiscite, and annexation all violate the founding articles of the UN Charter and the troop movements along the entire Russian border violate the NATO charter as well. Poland and Turkey invoked the third emergency meeting in NATO history
I respect Bill Maher, some old history teachers of mine and others wary of US intervention abroad, but let us not equate support for international law and a truly liberal order in world affairs with neoconservatism or American aggression and let us not pretend the thugs running Russia or Venezuela are American victims deserving of our sympathy.
And how do you rationalize against the self-determination wishes of these peoples? Scotland will probably vote out of England next year and there are stirrings again in Quebec to have another referendum on same. And where were you when we were bombing the shit out of Kosovo to support the self-determination of the non-Serbs? I think that 90+% support at the polls means something. And it doesn’t bother you that the so-called liberals here accept that fact that Yanukovich was ousted illegally, after a legal election? You may change your tune when the followers of Stepan Bandera have an important position in the new Kiev government)))))))
Scotland and Quebec definitely already have their own governments for internal affairs and I believe there is some regional governance in Spain as well. As long as the people are fairly represented in the national government there is no cause for secession. Otherwise, we would have to justify the actions of the Confederate States in the 1860s.
I’ll wager that EVERY “national government” asserts that its dissident region is “fairly represented”. The action of the Confederate States just prior to the American civil war were just as legitimate as those mentioned by Edgar.
I think a more helpful distinction is to look at how the various nations were formed. Nobody dragged the Confederate states into the US kicking and screaming. They were not annexed or conquered, and the US was not formed as a result of the collapse of a major world power.
I think what we’re seeing in the Ukraine is an object lesson in the reality that the real world does not play out according to US cold war mentality. “Free elections” and “democracy” do not always result in outcomes consistent with the global socio-political interests of the US.
I don’t know what the best outcome for the Ukraine is. I don’t even know that the Ukranians know what the best outcome for the Ukraine is. I am reasonably confident, though, that neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Obama know what the best outcome for the Ukraine is — I am also reasonably confident that neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Obama care very much about the best outcome for the Ukraine.
Which is why I think the US should move VERY slowly in the region.
Are the people throughout the country represented by the same standard? That is are constituencies reasonably equitable in terms of population, or are subnational entities such as states in the case of the US represented equally? Between the House and the Senate the US uses both models. If anything given the ability to count slaves who couldn’t vote as 3/5 arguably the South was overrepresented in the House, and by extension the Electoral College.
Are the elections for these legislative seats open to multiple candidates and parties which are required to adhere to ballot access and campaigning rules which apply to everyone? At least in theory anybody who runs for office needs to have a shot at winning with no legal thumbs on the scale.
What it definitely does not include is what the British Parliament called “virtual representation” of the American colonies since Americans had no say over who was sitting in Parliament.
Not losing their territorial integrity, not having their treaties get violated, and not having their protests crushed by an outside military force. Why is this so hard for liberals to understand? We aren’t talking about Bush unilateralism or even Reagan style adventurism against a Russia but a concerted multilateral and institutionalist response to active aggression in blatant violation of the UN Charter.
don’t take this as an insult, but the fellow on WEEI who is sort of a right wing rabble rouser is using the same arguments as you re the Crimea this morning. Only in his case he is using this business about “protests crushed by an outside military source” as fodder for his anti-Obama agenda. I think we finally have a president who is not owned by the neo-cons or the military industrial complex. And if all of this hawkish response is true why are the Western Europeans doing absolutely nothing–except their usual bullshitting and waiting for us to carry the ball for them?
…so far they’ve been a lot less violent than the US at the Bay of Pigs when the CIA led the invasion of Cuba to re-establish Mafia sovereignty.
Important to remember is that Russia, Ukraine and Crimea are intertwined as USA is to Puerto Rico and Mexico. “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives” by Zbigniew Brzezinski called for the cutoff of Ukraine from Russia to achieve the demise of Russia as a Eurasian power. Written almost 20 years ago, it looks as if the US is trying to follow through. Oh, the “Great Game” can be dangerous, but that’s what we seem to be playing.
“I’m glad I’m not Brezhnev. Being the Russian leader in the Kremlin. You never know if someone’s tape recording what you say.” –Richard M. Nixon
I don’t think this cuts along liberal/conservative lines.
It looks to me as though the residents of Crimea fully support the separation from the Ukraine. Maybe not the “96.7%” claimed by Russia, but still an overwhelming majority.
What territorial integrity would you have us preserve? Who drew the lines of that territory, and when? Did the Crimeans have a voice in those treaties?
I just don’t think this has as simple an answer as you suggest.
What’s hard for this liberal to understand is why you see this situation as much different than the situations that were the purported “cause” of American interventionism over the past three decades. I see most of our military interventions as justified largely as a reaction to “territorial integrity” issues. You may just be too young to remember these American interventions?:
1) The Iran-Iraq War (“A rapprochement with Iran, of course, must await at a minimum Iran’s abandonment of hegemonic aspirations in the Gulf.” – Kissinger, 1982)
2) The first Gulf War (“Iraq will not be permitted to annex Kuwait. And that’s not a threat, not a boast. It’s just the way it’s going to be. – George H.W. Bush, 1990″)
To me the greatest lesson Hitler taught us is not to sit by as one country just rolls over their neighbor’s borders to annex the territory. We were right to go into Kuwait as such actions should never be tolerated. Other factors may determine exactly how we react, however.
Unless the Crimean referendum is totally bogus (which may be true, I don’t know), then the situation in the Ukraine is not comparable to Kuwait.
The factors that led to Hitler’s acts are harder to tease apart. While not in any way defending Hitler’s invasions, I think the events of 1933-39 need to be understood in the context set by WWI and its aftermath. In addition, Russia and the Soviet Union was a significant player and to some extent the border countries were pawns in a larger geo-political struggle between Germany, Russia, and the west.
It seems to me that this is yet another situation where America MUST avoid the ready-fire-aim approach to foreign policy that has created so much tragedy in our recent past.
My gut says it was a vote at gunpoint, and I’m fairly certain the Ukrainian government did not authorize it, which is what international law requires and I’m fairly certain is the case with the pending Scotland vote or referenda Puerto Rico and Quebec hold from time to time regarding independence.
Do you really think everyone should weigh what your gut says equally with actual sources of information? If you have a reason to think the election was rigged, let’s hear it. Your gut is not a reason.
But I turn to the Grey Lady for my info on this crisis, and the Guardian. Both have clearly reported that this vote was a fraud rife with intimidation and rigging.
Plus are you seriously NOT going to be suspicious of a vote that was quite that lopsided? As long as I’m just shooting the breeze on a blog and not making actual policy decisions I reserve the right to go with my gut from time to time.
“sites” should be “cites” in the above title – mea culpa.
Go with your gut, if that’s how you make decisions. You might want to consider that telling us that it’s your reason for holding an opinion makes you sound kind of silly. While you may think you only do it “from time to time,” my gut says the interval is really short – you seem to do it in almost every thread you’re in.
I really don’t know what you’re problem is, but I sense a huge chip on your shoulder about this. Besides, in this case others have backed it up.
This wasn’t a real vote, you can’t possibly think that. It’s about as real as the vote Saddam had prior to the Iraq War that showed 98% of the country re-electing him. Or the vote he actually did hold shortly after invading Kuwait and installing a puppet prime minister on getting it annexed to Iraq as the 19th province. When your country is occupied by a foreign army that has installed a local patsy dictator it is hard to call it a free vote. Not to mention we know Putin rigs elections in his own country, why wouldn’t he for regions he wants to add to his empire?
…at least from the Soviet/Communist era. I believe there were “votes” to set up puppet governments in the Eastern Bloc post-WWII. Even Greece and Italy which never were subsumed entirely may have abolished their monarchies based in part on Communist-rigged elections.
Why can’t we possibly think that? You don’t offer any evidence, other than your saying it’s just like something that happened decades ago in some other country. I notice you provide a link for that, but the link does nothing to support your allegations about this election. If you have evidence, let’s see it.
You seem to be confusing passive isolationism with opposition to foolhardy American engagement. Like President Obama, I don’t oppose all war, just dumb wars.
Because in this situation an undemocratic aggressor attacked a democratic country and tried to seize it’s land in violation of multiple international agreements. We are treaty bound to Ukraine in a 1992 treaty where they became the only country to voluntarily give up it’s nuclear arsenal in exchange for an iron tight commitment that the West would step in to protect it in event of invasion. The EU is also bound to protect is as it protected the former Yugoslavia. Britain and Turkey are bound to protect Crimean integrity due to the treaty ending the last Crimean War. The Russians themselves gave up the territory in 1954 and again in 1991 in exchange for military leases that they are now violating. Defying international law should have consequences. Just because America lost credibility on that front due to the foolhardy Iraq War and GWOT detentions and abuses does not mean we surrender that credibility now or allow others to abuse it even more flagrantly by attacking their neighbors.
I don’t see why liberals should defend a homophobic, theocratic regime like Putin’s which seeks to subvert the liberal democratic progress made in countries once under the Iron Curtain.
And the first Gulf War is a good analogy as far as I’m concerned since Russia is behaving just as poorly as Iraq was and we need a concerted international effort to contain Russia.
You, Tom, and others seem to be overlearning the lessons of Iraq.
I want to be sure I accurately convey just how undecided I am about all this. For what it’s worth, if I am overlearning lessons, it is from Vietnam rather than Iraq. Ho Chi Minh was NOT the villain he was caricatured as by the US government during the 1960s and 1970s.
I’m just reluctant to frame this in good-guy/bad-guy terms, at least right now. I’m particularly reluctant to accept “lessons” from pre-war Germany.
I really don’t know what the right answer is, and that makes me very reluctant to advocate the use of military force.
I don’t even think Sen. John “Bomb Iran” McCain or Lindsey ‘BENGHAZI!’ Graham uttered anything about military force. What we have done as of today is issued personal sanctions against the cardinals of the Kremlin, and hopefully with EU cooperation we can expand it to really nail the oligarchs themselves and start to isolate the gas imports-possibly by ramping up US exports. The Russians are pulling out of START and will reject US inspectors to enforce it, I see no reason why we shouldn’t reinstate the missile defense sites Obama pulled out of Poland and the Czech Republic. I also don’t see why we can’t start moving assets to Poland and to the Baltic states which have been under constant cyberattack since the start of this crisis, and with White Russia being used a staging ground for possible exercises.
And I’d give Ukraine’s defense forces our best intel and defensive weaponary as soon as possible as Rye and Sabutai suggested. Moving fleets to EMS, ideally CBGs, and activating the NATO rabid deployment force and having it stationed in an adjacent state (perhaps Turkey) just so they know we are drawing a line. If we can put serious economic pressure to bear-especially on the gas front-we can really squeeze them for 6-12 months until we offer to end it all if they just withdraw to pre-incursion status. This is how deterrence works, and it’s an economic form of compellence which this administration has done quite successfully with Iran, the first of it’s kind to work actually. Since Russia is a great power that is nuclear armed, military compellence, even of a light sort, would be totally out of the question.
Another avenue entirely unexplored has been bringing the Chinese on board. Typically they vote in lockstep against the US with Russia in the UNSC but on this issue, territorial integrity and staying out of internal affairs, they definitely would be in favor of Ukraine.
If Obama even suggested to Putin this was on the table, Putin would simply respond by supplying Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight our soldiers. Why do you thing the sanctions today by Obama, are laughed at by Moscow?
The answer to Crimea and the Ukraine conflict is real simple, just let it go.
Pretty sure the Russians have zero leverage with Islamists in Adghanjstan. AQ was eliminated there and the Taliban is focused on domestic consolidation and they don’t want to arm Chechnyans since they have their own Islamist problem.
We can’t just leave it be, what is to stop Putin from taking Eastern Ukraine or the Baltics? How unstable would this make Europe?
How the US armed Bin Laden with weapons to fight the Soviets? I would submit to you, Putin holds a grudge for what we did, remembers the thousands of Russians that died in that war, and would have no hesitation to arm the Taliban or AQ fighting the US in Afghanistan if we armed the Ukranians. Don’t kid yourself, Putin likely told Obama this.
If Europe is concerned about the Baltics, they can send their kids to confront the Russians.
Not enough of glorious war yet? Not enough graveyards? Not enough maimed and scarred youth? Let those that beat the war drums fight.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” –Ernest Hemingway
You guys are reminding me of the generation so scarred by WWI it let Hitler roll over Europe. “Let’s the Polish boys defend themselves”. You’re over learning the lessons of Iraq and becoming isolationists. There are no boots on the ground or a prospect of an American War, that’s just BS DFW and you know it. So is the Putin AQ hotline about as specious as the Saddam-OBL connection.
We are talking about the strongest possible economic sanctions used by a multilateral alliance against Russian aggression. It cannot stand and they cannot behave this way and we will compel them to withdraw. Failure to do so erodes all the gains Eastern Europe made after the Cold War. Getting bogged down in brush wars shouldn’t blind us to our international obligations under NATO, the UN Charter, and treaties we actually signed with Ukraine guaranteeing its sovereignty. Of we sit down and do nothing then none of our red lines on Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea are credible.
I largely agree with the points you make, I find your arguments persuasive — until you jump to this comparison.
The Ukraine is NOT pre-WWII Europe. Putin is not Hitler. Russia is not Germany. The attempted comparison misses the mark on both substance and optics.
I think Americans need to be able to ask questions like “If this is so clearcut, why is America the only nation who sees it?” Or questions like “If there is to be a consensus to support economic sanctions, why shouldn’t Europe form and lead that consensus?”
America is no longer the only or even the foremost judge-and-juror in the world. America wholeheartedly abandoned that role when we invaded Iraq (the second time), flagrantly lied to the world about our motivations, committed a long list of war-crimes commanded from the Oval Office, and then refused to even investigate — never mind prosecute and punish — the perpetrators of those crimes.
I am no isolationist. The points you make about our international obligations are strong ones. Nevertheless, there is an enormous middle ground between being an isolationist and “running point”.
So long as GITMO remains open and full of inmates that WE tortured, some other nation will need lead the world’s moral brigade.
How? He is basically calling Kiev the birthplace of Russia (harkening back to the 9th century Kiev-Rus kingdom) and using his military to protect the pockets of Russian speakers in Crimea and the Ukraine. Quite similar to how Hitler did the Anschluss and his claims for Sudetenland. It is important we don’t view this as exclusively Europe’s problem or trust Europe to solve it, the American leadership vaccumn in the 1930s was a key contributor to the Second World War. I agree with you that we entered WWI with specious reasoning and ended it in a way that ’caused’ WWII. But the failure of WWI did not justify the failure to respond more aggressively to rising Germany, as the failure in Iraq does not justify surrendering leadership here.
I don’t think Goodwin’s rule applies when the historical analogy actually makes sense as opposed to Glen Beck harping about Hitler favoring socialized medicine and nutrition standards. I know you have a German wife and are probably quite sensitive to these comparisons, I honestly cannot think of a global political example similar to this off the top of my head, other than maybe Iraq annexing Kuwait. But that was a rogue state and not a great power, and thus, an international military response made sense. Similarly North Korea in the 50s makes less sense since it was an honest to goodness invasion and it was a client state of two other great powers (Russia and China), which is not the case with Russia.
I really hate this argument. Just because Bush FUBAR’d the GWOT and surrendered our moral capital with Iraq, a surrendering and FUBARing that Obama has continued in some instances, doesn’t mean we lose our credibility worldwide or forever. It doesn’t mean we give up on being an America that follows and also enforces international law.
Who is that ‘some other country’? It’s clearly not China which is violating it’s own internal affairs doctrine so as not to alienate Russia, it’s clearly not the chickenshit EU on it’s own, and we see how great NATO and the UN act without America leading the way (Libya in the former and Sudan in the latter). Liberals can and should still have the Rooseveltian and Trumanian faith that we are an indispensable nation, that does not lend itself to the Wilsonian or Bushian idea that we are the infallible nation. We have to be pragmatic and realistic in assessing the limits of our power and how we can best respond, but we should never limit our ideals simply because we have failed to live up to them in the past.
My wife’s standard for when it’s time to leave someplace is when mobs are roaming the streets breaking windows, looting stores, and setting fires, and those mobs are encouraged and egged on by uniformed troops. My concerns about the comparison to Hitler are my own, not hers.
I’m thinking more of the hyper-inflation, wide-scale economic collapse, and so on.
I really don’t know what to make of the current situation. The most recent round of unwarranted military invasions have come from the US, not Russia. I don’t know whether the Ukraine government that came to power after the fall of the former Soviet Union has been genuine and democratic, or if it has been a ruse along the lines of South Vietnam.
I just think that the more we attempt to view the situation through lenses of good-guy/bad-guy, hero/villain, and so on, the less likely we are to appreciate the nuances of a situation that I suspect will be more important in establishing a sustainable outcome.
Which is why assumptions that America has to be the bad guy and/or it’s none of our business due to x,y, or a past failed or immoral or
illegal policy also lacks nuance and sense. Hey I get it. It is precisely because of George W Bush that we are stuck with a lot of messes on our hands internationally-I might add he turned a blind eye to Chechnya and did even less than Obama on Georgia not to mention backing down during the spy plane crisis with China. A lot easier to act tough when you are bombing caves with cruise missiles or decimating a fourth rate military, a lot harder to go eyeball to eyeball with a great power. Those actions have cost us a ton of credibility not to mention lives and treasure that have immeasurably hurt Americans appetite for foreign policy-even when the course is the right thing to do. To the extent that Obama can be accused if managing an American decline it is a decline we can lay right at the feet of George Bush and his Iraq War. But I would argue the world still needs and looks towards the US for leadership-and prudent leadership relies on multilateral diplomacy, international institutions, and deterrence rather than pre-emption. On that basis I think we are acting prudently and could even be doing more. It is Putin who is playing by the George W play book and will lose jus as badly.
An example of the nuance I mean is the entire Edward Snowden and NSA spying scandal.
I’m not defending Mr. Putin, I’m only saying that a major effect of the entire ordeal has been to say loud and clear to the world (and especially Europe) that Russia and Mr. Putin represent sanctuary and the US and Barack Obama represent massive government spying combined with a ruthless pursuit of any who expose the truth. In the Edward Snowden affair, we played the part of Stasi and Mr. Putin played the part of the west.
We should not forget the Wikileaks debacle that preceded Mr. Snowden’s actions. Our behavior there as well reinforced the perception that America is far more concerned about getting caught than about doing the right thing.
Europe cares a great deal about privacy, far more than the US. It was Germany who prosecuted Google for invasion of privacy, not the US.
There is sadly, a very long list of issues that affect every European for which we in the US have made ourselves at best fools and at worst villains. That list includes (but is not limited to):
– Encouragement of monopolistic and predatory business practices (see Microsoft)
– Little or no regard for individual privacy (whether invaded by government or by private business)
– Global warming
– Formal policies of the kidnapping, abuse, and torture of those who oppose us or those who we believe (rightly or wrong) oppose us
– Steadfast refusal to investigate, prosecute, and punish wrongdoing by US military personnel in overseas assignments
When we strive to do the right thing, even if it IS the right thing, in a situation like the Ukraine, it is very hard to get more than cursory attention from the rest of the world. Whether cynical or not, whether deserved or not, the rest of the world has a strong tendency to roll their eyes and speculate about what self-interest “the Americans” are pursuing this time.
Barack Obama was poised to reverse this process when he was elected. His initial pre-election overseas tours were met with warm and sincere enthusiasm.
Barack Obama, sadly, betrayed all that as he betrayed so many of us when, after being elected, he continued the substance of so many of those hot-button issues.
The Edward Snowden affair happened on Mr. Obama’s watch, not anybody else. The relentless international pursuit of Mr. Snowden is championed by Mr. Obama, nobody else.
All these make our protests against what we fear is happening in the Ukraine ring all too hollow.
I would suggest that we Americans need to regain our position as champions in the world of the values we proclaim at home before we will have much leverage (besides military) in places like the Ukraine.
When an American president is known internationally for the tough and effective positions America takes on issues like the ones I mention — especially when we demonstrate our own willingness to sacrifice the immediate financial gain of our wealthiest few for the greater good of the many throughout the world — then that President will be listened to and heeded when he or she calls out a foreign power.
Sadly, Barack Obama is not that President.
Snowden has not said a word that has surprised any foreign government at all. They may have been shocked to confront it, but there’s no way they were really surprised.
If our government were relentlessly pursuing Snowden, he would have been home months ago. Russia itself would have handed him over to avoid annoying us. We never asked. Obama has clearly decided he’s better off taking a (relatively) soft line on Snowden.
And finally, our cause is bigger than Snowden, with way more history behind it. Our image took a hit, but Europe likes us way better than they like Russia.
I’d be shocked to find any western European leader who thinks that “Russia and Mr. Putin represent sanctuary.” I think they’re just as cynical about Putin’s reasons for taking Snowden in for a while. In a pinch I’d say western Europe would still choose the U.S. over Putin’s Russia in a heartbeat. That does not mean, of course, that I condone the NSA’s incredibly intrusive and overbroad program.
Manning endangered the lives of the people she and I (at State as a Foreign Service Fellow) served with and actually hurt the State Department’s ability to make foreign policy. Now it’s in the hands of the more ‘trustworthy’ from a leak proofing perspective, DoD, DIA, CIA, and NSA. Great move Manning!
As for Snowden the revelations are incredibly important, but at least Ellsburg had the balls to be willing to go to jail for his convictions. I’d trust and appreciate Snowden and his actions a whole lot more if he didn’t go on the run, faced his accusers, and advocated that he was a protected whistleblower. I think his case, even with post-9/11 paranoia, would’ve been good for the country and he might’ve won as Ellsburg did. Instead, he ran right into the arms of a dictator, embraced him almost laughably as a protector of human rights and international law, and surely his aslymn isn’t free (you bet your asses FSB was all over his laptops and information, doubt they know anything most of us didn’t already know, but we don’t know and likely never will).
Unlike Manning his leaks unveiled a specific illegal program and benefitted the public, but unlike Manning, he didn’t have the courage to face his accusers and defend his principles on high ground.
All the advantages and weapons are with the government. Snowden was plenty courageous for me, given the malicious acts the security/military/intelligence apparatus has historically shown itself capable of. Remember, manning was essentially tortured while awaiting trial. You are setting a standard you yourself would probably never be able to rise to.
I would question his sanity. It’s amazing that you can talk about Manning, and in the next breath say that Snowden should have submitted himself to that same fate. I am sure you know what I’m talking about:
Ellsberg acted in a different time, when our government was less blatant about taking revenge on US citizens who inconvenienced it.
In no way am I defending the pre-trial treatment of Chelsea Manning or the attempts to try her using post-9/11 shennanigan’s (in much the same way they will try the surviving Boston Bomber), but Chelsea was subject to the military code of justice as a member of the military. Unlike Ellsburg, her leaks actually endangered troops, and more importantly, diplomats and covert agents in the field. This is not to justify the treatment but simply to say that in my view, Snowden was a civilian contractor that had a specific leak regarding a specific illegal program that had committed demonstrable harm to the American people and their liberty. This was not the case with Manning. It’s truly an apple and oranges comparison.
Snowden clearly is claiming to be a martyr and political activist, if he had come back to the US he would have been tried as a civilian and subject to civilian courts, and his supporters, which number more than Manning’s would’ve been able to defend him. Instead he seeks arms in two of our great power rivals, neither of whom come anywhere close to our transparency or democratic systems, and declares them saviors of human rights (ask a Tibetan, Uighyur or Chechan that) and likely had to give them intelligence as a price to pay to fund his rather cushy self-exile. He lost a lot of credibility with me by doing that, and the irony is by doing so he actually is more likely to be treated with kid gloves back home in a Frank Abernathy situation. They want to know how the leak happened, how to stop future leaks, and what he gave up and what intel he might’ve gained-if he came back now it would be far more likely he sells out than goes to jail.
I agree with Tom, the Snowden stuff is a bit of a tangent (albeit one he introduced) and meriting it’s own thread.
I strongly deplore neoconservative foreign policy ideas, unilateral actions, and much of the foreign policy of Bush and to the extent that Obama has continued it, the current incumbent as well. But, using multilateral alliances and institutions to enforce the rule of law is wholly opposite what we did in Iraq and other parts of the world post-9/11, and if anything the US is slowly regaining it’s credibility and returning to it’s former role as leader of the free world. We have to defend Ukranian sovereignity and contain Putin. It’s not an academic question or one that requires us to re-examine our entire history. There is no government in human history without blood on it’s hands, some of it unjustly taken, and ours is no exception.
Because we were once one of the worst slave traders does that mean we abrogate our role to stop international trafficking to a non-slave owning state? Because we illegally detained prisoners at Guantanamo, engaged in torture, and had extrajudicial assasinations does that mean we can’t condemn the worse actions of worse regimes regularly conducting the same against their own people? Because we illegally and foolishly invaded Iraq does that mean we can’t stop Russia from doing the same in Ukraine using diplomacy and economic sanctions?
I am not proponent of a pure American exceptionalism, but we are the freest power capable of projecting power on a global scale and just because we have used that power to do evil in the past does not abrogate our responsibility to use it to do good in the present.
Al-Qaeda is no fan of Russia, in case you haven’t noticed.
We could spend all our time pointing out that DFW says idiotic things.
Then BMG would return to being the DFW Mass Group the way it was a couple months ago.
If that happened, it seems as likely that the weapons would be used against Russian forces in Chechnya as against American forces in Afghanistan.
We’re so far down in the nesting that I can’t follow the exchanges (who is responding to who), and I don’t want to worsen the confusion by adding more.
I think this is an important topic, though. I wish I had time to write a diary myself — sadly, my day-job prevents it.
n/t
Is that the UK and Canada allowed a true referendum with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (or in the cause of Quebec the infamous ‘oui’ campaign) option and also no military troops or paramilitary groups intimidating voters. They also allowed equal time on television for both sides, instead of a one sided propaganda blitz. They also had (or will have in the case of Scotland) international observers.
I responded to the Bandera canard below. And Yanukovich jailed opponents, ordered troops to fire on protestors, and clearly embezzled hundreds of millions from the treasury to live as opulently as he did. A better parallel would be EDSA II where the Filipino’s overthrew a legitimately elected kleptocrat.
The Stepan Bandera influence is no canard, despite what a British newspaper reporter may say. Yes, Yanukovich jailed people who acted up in the first Maidan protests, but unlike true despots like Assad he did not torture and kill them. In fact, he would still be in power had he acted that way. As far as embezzlement goes, you are obviously not aware of the fact that Ukraine has more than its share of Oligarchs, including Yulia Timoshenko who really looted the treasury after the so-called Orange Revolution. She and her husband were guilty of large scale theft. And really the most problematic of all is the fact that a large percentage of Ukrainians, both Russian speakers and Western Ukrainians, still have the old Soviet mentality of “what can the government do for me?” Why do you think that this country is so far in debt? I would not be in a hurry to piss away money there until there is a change in attitude among the majority of people. That is probably why Western Europe is waiting for us to take the bait.))))) The last time that I was in Eastern Ukraine I saw little old ladies sitting on the side of the dusty road to the village where I was staying all sitting by the road selling the wares from the “factory” where they worked to produce metal serving plates. That is all they had; they worked in a useless factory producing useless goods that they could not even give away–they were selling this crap because there was no money to pay them, so the dear factory bosses decided to pay them in “goods.” Believe me, this is a very complicated situation.
I’m not denying it’s complicated or that there is a lot of grey. There may even be no “good guys” for us to back. But the central question is who’s a worse ‘bad guy’ these Ukranians or Putin? I’d say Putin is. And we should pressure and stop him as best we can. I back the President and his economic and diplomatic containment over the do nothing foreign policy of the Paul’s.
As too, sanctions. I wonder if any adults are in Washington. Who runs the place? The Russians are not the Afghans. For the most part they don’t live in caves and do have the power to turn you into radioactive ash. Dr. Stangelove, anyone?
President Merkin Muffley: [to Kissoff] Hello?… Uh… Hello D- uh hello Dmitri? Listen uh uh I can’t hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?… Oh-ho, that’s much better… yeah… huh… yes… Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri… Clear and plain and coming through fine… I’m coming through fine, too, eh?… Good, then… well, then, as you say, we’re both coming through fine… Good… Well, it’s good that you’re fine and… and I’m fine… I agree with you, it’s great to be fine… a-ha-ha-ha-ha… Now then, Dmitri, you know how we’ve always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb… The *Bomb*, Dmitri… The *hydrogen* bomb!… Well now, what happened is… ahm… one of our base commanders, he had a sort of… well, he went a little funny in the head… you know… just a little… funny. And, ah… he went and did a silly thing… Well, I’ll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes… to attack your country… Ah… Well, let me finish, Dmitri… Let me finish, Dmitri… Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?… Can you *imagine* how I feel about it, Dmitri?… Why do you think I’m calling you? Just to say hello?… *Of course* I like to speak to you!… *Of course* I like to say hello!… Not now, but anytime, Dmitri. I’m just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened… It’s a *friendly* call. Of course it’s a friendly call… Listen, if it wasn’t friendly… you probably wouldn’t have even got it… They will *not* reach their targets for at least another hour… I am… I am positive, Dmitri… Listen, I’ve been all over this with your ambassador. It is not a trick… Well, I’ll tell you. We’d like to give your air staff a complete run-down on the targets, the flight plans, and the defensive systems of the planes… Yes! I mean i-i-i-if we’re unable to recall the planes, then… I’d say that, ah… well, ah… we’re just gonna have to help you destroy them, Dmitri… I know they’re our boys… All right, well listen now. Who should we call?… *Who* should we call, Dmitri? The… wha-whe, the People… you, sorry, you faded away there… The People’s Central Air Defense Headquarters… Where is that, Dmitri?… In Omsk… Right… Yes… Oh, you’ll call them first, will you?… Uh-huh… Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Dmitri?… Whe-ah, what? I see, just ask for Omsk information… Ah-ah-eh-uhm-hm… I’m sorry, too, Dmitri… I’m very sorry… *All right*, you’re sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well… I am as sorry as you are, Dmitri! Don’t say that you’re more sorry than I am, because I’m capable of being just as sorry as you are… So we’re both sorry, all right?… All right. –Dr Strangelove
It wasn’t a drone bomber, it was an intelligence asset.
I don’t have an issue with ‘spy’ drones flying over invading armies and I don’t think other people should, either. Materially, it’s little different than satellites, except (I assume) it provides a better look.
I think the drones that deserve scrutiny are the ones that drop bombs on targets without trial. That’s a different story.
If we want to understand what’s going on in Crimea, we need to have a way of seeing it. Drones provide that capability, with some clear flaws as demonstrated above.
Our “intelligence” agencies if we need drones to tell us what is going on in the Crimea.
We’ve been using spy planes for decades. Advocating for a robust human intelligence capability is fair, but drones, like other aircraft, gives us a unique view. Were you also not a fan of the U2 spy plane?
I have never been a U2 fan)))))). Our intelligence groups are a disgrace. And we even had to terminate our latest ambassador after a short two year assignment there because of all the damage he did to our intelligence contacts there.
….bloody shame.
Debunked days ago.
With a one sentence denial from Pentagon. Is it not odd that there was and is so little information from US on this alleged incident? The accusation went global and US has not countered the claim with anything other than flat denial it ever happened…….which apparently the international community does not believe.
Is this another denial to be denied until the point when denying can’t denied?
I am exploring this incident because I truly do not know what it true, real, propaganda and/or fiction…..and the information is elusive……which leaves me wondering what is really going on?
I agree that the situation in the Ukraine is tense and confusing, and bears continued and close scrutiny.
I don’t see the US use of a drone as surprising. While I’m sympathetic to the complaints about using drones to kill people, this was by all accounts a surveillance drone. It seems to me that ANY mechanism for gaining real-time objective intelligence about the situation in the Ukraine is a good, not bad, thing.
If it’s the use of a drone to gather intelligence that concerns you (it certainly DOES concern me), it seems to me that the DOMESTIC use of drones — right here in Massachusetts — is far more immediate and harmful.
Just so that folks understand, Massachusetts is a national center of drone development. More importantly, the image of a drone as a large ungainly glider-looking model-airplane-like thing with big wide wings is like thinking of a “train” as a steam locomotive or a “plane” as a biplane.
Fits in a backpack
A “drone“, today, fits in a backpack — and MIT is already demonstrating “nano-drones” the size of insects.
CIA Nano drone, mockup at Langley Headquarters
The privacy implications of swarms of these devices, whether under public or private control, are immense. Would that the legislature demonstrate as much concern for THIS invasion of privacy as for some pervert taking pictures of bloomers on a subway.
I guess that perverts on the Green Line are an easier target than Lincoln Labs, MIT, and Raytheon — the former don’t make campaign contributions and wield significant influence on entire industries.
Evil is the use to which things are put. Fertilizer in a car bomb is no different than fertilizer in a garden. We all know that. Doesn’t mean we should ban fertilizer.
Spying on one’s own citizens for no purpose is evil. Keeping an eye on what is a theatre of cold war and threatens to become a theatre of hot war isn’t. Do you think the government of the Ukraine would be upset that the US had drones over Crimea? Hell, we’re probably showing the government a lot (I doubt all) that those drones see.
With Russia invading a village outside the Ukraine, there is real question if they will content themselves with this peninsula. What I keep wondering is at what point will the people financially supporting Putin get tired of what he’s doing to their bank accounts. He’s becoming unhinged with untrammeled power (see Chavez, H) and isn’t benefitting anyone at this point.
Glad to see other liberals want to ensure international law is upheld and enforced. America may have undermined its credibility defending international law during the Iraq War, but it is precisely because we abrogated our duty then that we should accept it now. The choice between isolationism and unilateralism is a false one. Multilateral containment worked in the Cold War and can work again.
Is anyone else getting flashbacks to the U-2 incident in the Eisenhower years?
And after some discomfort, nothing horrible happened.
Russia needs the West as much as it might not like it. If the West doesn’t buy their gas, the regime would last maybe 18 months? They’re afloat on oil money right now, using revenues to buy off the middle class. But as long as Russia can do whatever it want to the Ukraine with no real consequences, why would it stop? At least this might give some indication that the US gives a vague interest in what’s happening.
Ike didn’t know the Russians had captured Francis Gary Powers, the pilot. So the whole thing was exposed and a black-eye for trust in the word of the US. Today, I don’t think anyone is naive enough to believe anything the US government says now. There seems to be no downside for the lies government people give, so they continue.
“History is a set of lies agreed upon.” ― Napoleon
I suppose that settles that. Congrats to all the Crimeans who voted and hope for a peaceful transition.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA1Q1E820140316?irpc=932
Staging a potemkin election.
So it’s only fake voter fraud that angers you, not the real thing?
You prefer riots and bodies dragged in the streets like in Lybia?
One thing I can say about President Putin, he fights “wars” that he knows he can win, unlike Obama who still wages war and sends soldiers to die in Afghanistan, a policy that he himself, doesn’t believe in (according to Gates).
Clearly, Putin believes in what he is doing, buffer zones in Georgia, and now a section of the Ukraine. And he enjoys strong support back home.
I’m not a big fan of secession votes in representative governments.
about DFW?
Could we not refer to him in the second person?
Could we please mostly ignore him?
Instead of replying to each individual post I think it’s important to discuss a few things to establish a broader context
1) Crimea
Was partitioned into Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954, and has a far more diverse ethnic population as I posted above. Most if the Ukrainian soldiers in Crimea are trying to man their posts and a lot of Russian soldiers retired there to enjoy the more open society Ukraine has to offer. The vote was boycotted by most if the opposition, ‘yes’ was the only option and paramilitary thugs and Russian soldiers were guarding the voting booths. Nobody can call this democratic and a secession vote violates Russia’s own treaty with the US and Ukraine over the Crimea and all the compacts it’s signed with its neighbors since the last Crimean War. It can’t be part of Russia since it’s only land connection is via Eastern Ukraine. Appeasing Putin with Crimea won’t be enough and he is already launching raids and incursions into Eastern Ukraine. It would also be unfair to say they want to be a “part of Russia” since even though they backed Yanukovich many of them are also
Nationalist about Ukraine and don’t want to be part of Putins orbit. We don’t abide other countries just annexing places and our failure to stop this could have bad consequences via a vis Taiwan and South Korea. We have to stand firm here.
2) International Law
Liberals should support the enforcement of international law and defend the UN Charter-one of the greatest achievements of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt who should be our heroes. Liberals should have opposed the Iraq War precisely because it was in violation of that law. Opposing Bush’s violation of said law and American hypocrisy shouldn’t endear ourselves to backing Putin when he does the same. If anything we restore our credibility by vigorously supporting internationalism and multilateralism in the face of his unilateral aggression.
3) it’s none of our business
Actually it is. This would have massive destabilizing effects on Europe and the EU and on our own economy. It is already leading to Turkey and Poland taking defensive positions and if we failed to stop him in peripheral Georgia and then in strategically vital Ukraine he will assume we won’t stop him from rolling over the Baltic states (which he has already committed illegal and devastating cyberwar fare against). It harms the integrity and relevancy if NATO and the UN and emboldens neoconservatism rather than stops it. We make their arguments for them if we fail to use our alliances to contain the situation.
4) No military intervention
Containment requires diplomacy and a strong military deterrent but deterrence by definition is a defensive posture. We aren’t going to liberate Crimea but we can shore up the rest of Ukraine to deter Putin from expanding further. Failure to do so is a surrender of American global leadership. Obama and Kerry deserve our support on this one.
5) Liberals should oppose Paul and isolationists
It pains me that the New Left and the Old Right oppose
any kind of American involvement in the world at large has “imperialism”. It is not imperialism to defend human rights or international
Law but the opposite and our failure to do so allows true imperialism like the kind conducted by Russia in Crimea. Gore Vidal personifies the knee jerk isolationist and Bill Maher is continuing as his successor on the left agreeingn with Paultards and Buchanninites that we should stay home. This means eventually leaving the UN, NATO, and ending world aid and world involvement. Opposition to foolhardy wars and interventions should not entail blanket opposition to any kind of global geopolitical involvement.
6) Containment is the Liberal Option
Containment was the policy behind the Truman doctrine and Marshall Plan that successfully rebuilt Europe and created a peaceful post-war order. To date we have had no great power war since the Second World War and this is largely the result of containments success. Vietnam was not part of
containment but was a failed intervention to prop up a failed state. Containment is JFKs cool handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and defending West Berlin for almost 50 years. It was a liberal idea, and to the extent that Reagan “won” the Cold War it was by embracing this liberal idea.
7) defending democracy
I’m enough of a realist to believe that our interests should always trump defending democracy. Containment worked against Iraq post Gulf War and rollback to impose democracy failed. Trying to save the failed state of Syria and make it democratic would have also failed. But it
Is hard to argue as some are that these puppet votes are democratic in any honest sense of the term or that Yanokovich was a democrstoc
Leader overthrown by in democratic means. He jailed his opposition, censored the press , robbed hundreds of millions from the state treasury, and ordered his troops to fire on unarmed protestors. He was no democrat and his ouster restored the democracy Ukraine had with the orange revolution, a democracy threatened by Russian aggression. The fascist party is a small and insignificant one-the actual opposition leaders are western and liberal. Moreover it is not just defending democracy but our interests to contain Russian aggression and force Putin to pay the price.
Containing Russian aggression is what every liberal President ever did and what must be done again. Would you all have protested Carter when he defended Afghanistan? Kennedy for defending West Berlin and disarming Cuba? Truman for the Marshall plan and Berlin Airlift?
Returning to the Henry Wallace/McGovern school of isolationism would be a disaster for our party and the world. Let’s not learn the wrong lessons from Iraq.
rejecting the very premise of the ‘referendum,’ which only allowed respondents to say yes or yes.
It means rejecting a vote where armed thugs and troops refusing to identify themselves parade the street and only let people with Russian passports through.
It means rejecting a referendum brought to us by a parliament that didn’t exist before the Russian invasion, a parliament that has armed troops guarding it to ensure no opposition is allowed in.
It means rejecting a vote that refused to allow any observers and was scheduled with only 3 weeks in advance for something so important as statehood.
The media has done an absolutely atrocious job covering this “referendum,” utterly failing to make the point that this was not in anyway a democratic process.
This was as free and fair an election as any Egyptians had in the Mubarak era, in which the choices were Mubarak or Mubarak. It’s as far as any votes that took place for the rank and file in the Soviet Union.
The press should be ashamed of itself for not making these things clear. It should never have been referred to as a “referendum” in the press, it should have been called an undemocratic referendum or a illegal referendum enforced by armed troops.
And I’m getting real sick of friends on Facebook defend Putin against ‘American aggression’. On a reality based blog there should be room on the foreign policy spectrum for a policy that does more than ‘do nothing none of my business’ or ‘WWIII’. That is a false dichotomy that I am sick of arguing. Nobody, not even on the neocon right, is calling for an armed liberation of Crimea by American troops or a shooting war with Russia. Calling for sensible, multilateral, sanctions, and yes establishing a defensive perimeter in accordance with our NATO and UN treaty obligations with Eastern Europe, is not conservative or ‘right wing WEEI talking points’ as Edgar called it above. It is precisely what a good liberal does in the tradition of our party on these issues.
I don’t recall Jimmy Carter taking us to WWIII, I do recall his leadership helped in the house by a great liberal named Charlie Wilson ensuring that the Soviets bled out until they were forced out of Afghanistan.
I don’t see why we can’t help Ukraine defend itself from this naked aggression. And I completely agree about the referendum being totally illegitimate and the media once again failing to do it’s job. Just because they were elected does not mean they are democrats or liberals in any meaningful sense of the terms. And the fascist thing is a huge canard, so says that erstwhile neocon rag the Guardian
the kinds of things he can do. I don’t see anywhere to criticize him.
I do think that as Russia has stepped up its boldness (an incursion beyond Crime; the illegal and farcical “referendum” that was a complete joke, etc.) that the US has to step up our actions.
My thinking is we’re getting past the point of freezing assets of ‘top leaders’ and have to go after the Russian oligarchs. Then we have to seriously consider trade sanctions and military aid dollars going to Ukraine — enough that we make the point that if Russia furthers its invasion, the West will bankroll Ukraine so it makes Russia bleed.
My thinking is Putin doesn’t want that kind of war. He’s not going to shoot at anyone who can shoot back, so I’m 100% in favor of ‘selling’ Ukraine some weapons that go boom.
There has to be a goal to our actions though — not simply tic for tat, but rather actions designed to make it economically and politically not worth it for Putin to continue on this insane path. We can bring immense pressure to bear economically if we want.
And I honestly don’t get the overreaction on the Left, or from the likes of the Pauls and Maher’s to these kinds of steps. We have enough natural gas to help the EU and Ukraine through a 6-12 month boycott of Russian gas and most estimates say the regime couldn’t survive economically past that anyway. That brings pressure to bear, so does giving the Ukranians the aid package they already would have agreed to last October as well as shoring up their meager defenses with a variety of aid and equipment. Continuing to station air and naval forces in the Eastern Mediterranean and on Polish bases also sends a message. Freeze out the oligarchs and they will turn on Putin.
We can use all sorts of diplomatic pressure and military deterrence to ensure he does not continue his reckless actions. But all of Rye’s steps make perfect sense and seem to be what Obama is doing. One of the main reasons McCains angry op-ed last Friday in the Times was so laughable since his “solutions” to Obama’s “weakness” were the things Obama was already doing.
And calling bullshit on the Crimean vote. A whopping 60% of Crimeans opposed the referendum according to polls on the eve of the vote.
See? You don’t have to raise the specter of Saddam Hussein when you have a reputable source of information.
I was worried the downrate was because you thought the Putin vote was free and fair. I guess that was a somewhat poor comparison for a plebiscite of this nature. On a sidenote, it’s pretty cool they’ve been up and running for just a day and have a lot of great articles and even on the ground polling in the Crimea*.
*Disclosure: I have a friend and former debate colleague working at 538
This quote is from Ron Paul. He goes on to say “our own Constitution, which does not allow the U.S. government to overthrow governments overseas or send a billion dollars to bail out Ukraine and its international creditors.”
I first saw Ron Paul back in 1988 when he went on The Morton Downey Jr Show. He got lots of guff, especially from Mort, and I thought he was a whacko. Now having watched the clip of the show on YouTube, he was so ahead of his time. I do look forward to voting for his son for president.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/17/crimea-ukraine-russia-ron-paul-editorials-debates/6544163/
As in Neville Chamberlain. The whole point of having a UN is for at least the leading countries to behave, play by the rules and avoid yet another World War. I realise this doesn’t mix well with your “ME, ME, ME” philosophy.
When Russian radio proclaims they can turn the US into radioactive ash, I listen, don’t you? When Russian officials call Obama a “prankster” b/c of the weak sanctions he imposed, we should all be embarrassed.
It’s not Neville Chamberlain, it’s being a realist and acknowledging what is.
and as a prime member of the United Nations, it is the business of the US.
He is a crack pot. He actually suggested bringing back “Letters of Marque” to fight terrorism. He doesn’t know the first thing about real foreign policy or diplomacy.
No Iraq War, no Obama Surge of death in Afghanistan. Lots of Americans would be alive today, so I think Ron Paul has it about right.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GCxDrfs4GtM
if RightWing Knobs calling themselves Libertarians were in charge, either in the 1770’s or the 1860’s.