![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Putin's sticking to the same playbook in Eastern Ukraine as he did in Crimea. WaPo reports:
So far the playbook seems to go roughly like this:
Anyone who's been paying attention to our own sycophantic media, and to the History Channel, may recognize here the same plan that Hitler used to justify his conquests of Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc., and most especially Poland. What's less obvious is that this is the same plan that the United States played out in the Balkans in the 1990s, in Afghanistan in the 1980s and again in the 2000s, and so on. In fact, this is exactly what we tried in Ukraine, last year and earlier this year, only in that situation we didn't send troops, we sent diplomats. Now Putin is one-upping us by sending not diplomats, but troops. The only way the United States stops this is by sending troops to defend the Western half of Ukraine, now, before the invasion begins. Which, logistically, politically, strategically, is simply not going to happen.
Still, the question must be asked: SHOULD the United States intervene? Putin is an autocrat who cracks down on his dissenters by hook or crook, but he is nowhere near the dictator that Saddam Hussein was, let alone Hitler or Stalin. Meanwhile, Ukraine, if they stick with current plans and Russia doesn't conquer them, is going to owe the IMF billions and be subject to Greek-style austerity soon. In neither scenario does Ukraine end up "free." Those are, by the way, the two BEST case scenarios. The WORST case scenario is a long, bitter war that leaves Ukraine a ruin. We don't need to look particularly far to see how that looks: Afghanistan since the collapse of the Soviet Union, or Iraq today, both give us good ideas of how this looks. As such, the best move for the United States, to prevent further expansion, would be to send troops to NATO members Albania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Romania, Hungary, and Turkey. In fact, if the US cares at all about NATO, this is the MINIMUM they need to do. Then we see how this new cold war plays out.
MOSCOW — The Kremlin is receiving “thousands” of calls for assistance from Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine, and it has not yet decided on a response, a spokesman said Saturday, as Ukrainian authorities continued to move to push back separatists who have taken over key cities in the region after Ukraine suffered its bloodiest day in nearly three months.
So far the playbook seems to go roughly like this:
- Identify sympathetic, preferably Russian-speaking, populations in the target country. (Done)
- Use/send in agents to organize, train, and agitate those populations. (Done)
- Start a revolution, such as to inspire a crackdown on those populations. (Done)
- Make lots of noises about heeding the cries of the cracked-down-upon population, through the usually sycophantic media outlets. (Done)
- Apply the full power of the state so as to take over the region. (Coming soon)
Anyone who's been paying attention to our own sycophantic media, and to the History Channel, may recognize here the same plan that Hitler used to justify his conquests of Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc., and most especially Poland. What's less obvious is that this is the same plan that the United States played out in the Balkans in the 1990s, in Afghanistan in the 1980s and again in the 2000s, and so on. In fact, this is exactly what we tried in Ukraine, last year and earlier this year, only in that situation we didn't send troops, we sent diplomats. Now Putin is one-upping us by sending not diplomats, but troops. The only way the United States stops this is by sending troops to defend the Western half of Ukraine, now, before the invasion begins. Which, logistically, politically, strategically, is simply not going to happen.
Still, the question must be asked: SHOULD the United States intervene? Putin is an autocrat who cracks down on his dissenters by hook or crook, but he is nowhere near the dictator that Saddam Hussein was, let alone Hitler or Stalin. Meanwhile, Ukraine, if they stick with current plans and Russia doesn't conquer them, is going to owe the IMF billions and be subject to Greek-style austerity soon. In neither scenario does Ukraine end up "free." Those are, by the way, the two BEST case scenarios. The WORST case scenario is a long, bitter war that leaves Ukraine a ruin. We don't need to look particularly far to see how that looks: Afghanistan since the collapse of the Soviet Union, or Iraq today, both give us good ideas of how this looks. As such, the best move for the United States, to prevent further expansion, would be to send troops to NATO members Albania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Romania, Hungary, and Turkey. In fact, if the US cares at all about NATO, this is the MINIMUM they need to do. Then we see how this new cold war plays out.
