Streetwise Professor

Russia is distributing passports in Crimea. Particularly ominous in light of Medvedev’s shrieks about Ukrainian oppression of “Russians.”  This was a Russian stratagem before the Russo-Georgian War, allowing Russia to claim that it was invading to protect Russian citizens.

Russian special forces reinforce Sevastopol, and adjacent areas on the Russian coastline:

Russia’s large landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov has arrived near the Russia Black Sea Fleet’s base at Sevastopol, which Russia has leased from Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The ship is reported to be carrying as many as 200 soldiers and has joined four additional ship carrying an unknown amount of Special Forces troops. Flot.com also reported over the weekend that personnel from the 45th Airborne Special Forces unit and additional divisions had been airlifted into Anapa, a city on Russia’s Black Sea coastline.

Again, Russian armed intervention is not ordained.  But Putin and the Ставка are assembling the forces, and building the case to use them.

But I’m sure one more Kerry call to Lavrov will make everything copacetic.

Although some have expressed relief that Russian tanks have yet to roll into Ukraine, and taken note of the absence of a Putin rant, and from this concluded that Russia will respond to the events in the country in a patient, benign and constructive way, such a judgment is wildly premature.

The only certainty in the situation currently prevailing in Ukraine is wild uncertainty.  And as real options theory teaches, typically the best alternative in such a situation is to wait and see how things develop.  Putin may not think explicitly in such terms, but he is a savvy enough customer to understand that fools rush in where angels fear to tread.  So I think he is biding his time.

He also realizes that it is best for the supreme leader to remain silent in such circumstances, so as to not commit himself prematurely, and to permit him to keep his future options open.

But his placemen and proxies are shrieking apocalyptic descriptions of the situation in Ukraine, thereby laying the predicate for future Russian intervention of some form. Lavrov has vented to Kerry and European foreign ministers.  The Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement roundly condemning in harsh terms the new government in Ukraine and the process by which it took power.  Medvedev also sharply criticized the process and outcome by which the opposition seized power.  Medvedev also warns that the opposition has threatened Russians and Russian interests.  Medvedev and the FM blame the West for meddling and taking a hand in overthrowing the legitimate government of Ukraine.

There are several themes here.  Most notably, that the opposition reneged on a duly authorized agreement with Yanukovych, and hence their seizure of power is illegitimate and the government is illegitimate.  Moreover, the Russian government officials routinely portray the opposition as balaclava wearing (there’s irony for you!), Kalashnikov brandishing (more irony!) thugs and terrorists and pogromists and tools of the West.

This is all right out of the standard Russian playbook for establishing the justification for armed intervention.  Just look at Chechnya (both in 1994 and 1999) and South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  They checked all the same boxes then.

I am not saying that the tanks will inevitably roll.  But Russia is building the case to justify it.  This is also useful in justifying other actions short of war, including particularly economic pressure (embargoes on Ukrainian goods from the entire Eurasian Union, cutoffs of gas and oil).

Yanukovych’s whereabouts are unknown.  (As I tweeted Friday: “Where in the world is Victor Yanukovych?”)  Current rumor has him in Russian hands.

Putin no doubts despises Yanuk, not least for blowing the management of the situation in Ukraine (though Putin himself is almost surely primarily culpable-but that can’t be admitted, can it?).  But he is the elected President of Ukraine, and the Russians will say that he is the only legitimate authority in the country.  If they do roll in, Yanukovych will be in their baggage train.  Yes, in the event he will be discarded like last week’s leftover fish after he serves his purpose.  But right now he is the Russian’s main claim to legitimacy in Ukraine, and they have every interest of keeping him from the hands of the current government, which has indicted him for mass murder.

Things are still extremely fluid.  The Maidan has accomplished the easy part.  Now the real work begins, and given the debilitating legacy of the Soviet experience, the country’s pervasive corruption, and its lack of any credible institutions, the prospects for a easy transition are bleak indeed.  Especially given that this transition will have to take place under substantial Russia pressure of one form or another.

The most pressing difficulty is economic.  The country’s debt is crushing, and reserves are short.  The US, EU, and IMF have pledged assistance, and their words need to be turned into deeds-and ducats.

One interesting angle here is that Russian banks have a substantial exposure to Ukrainian debt, public and private.  That represents a substantial source of leverage of Ukraine and the west, and a very real potential flashpoint in conflict between the new government and Russia.

If there is an online equivalent of writing blog posts in pencil, this is the time to use it.  Things are very volatile, and could change quickly.  It is precisely this volatility that makes it dangerous indeed to take a lack of Russian action as a sign of Putin’s acquiescence to defeat.  As I said the other day, what has just transpired is the end of the beginning.  And to mix military aphorisms, Vladimir Putin has not yet begun to fight.

Events are unfolding at a furious pace in Ukraine.  I decided not to blog about them last night, because I knew that whatever I wrote would be superseded within minutes, and that was definitely the case.  The same is probably true now, but enough has transpired to justify some comment.

Yesterday saw the negotiation of a deal between the opposition leadership and Yanukovych in which the president made major concessions, including a return to the 2004 constitution (with much more limited presidential powers), the resignation of the interior minister, and the creation of an independent investigation overseen by the EU.  But his concessions were insufficient for the crowds assembled at the Maidan.  The opposition leaders were nothing of the sort: they led only themselves, having lost whatever influence they had over the Maidan the moment they commenced to negotiate.  When they went to the Maidan platform to announce the deal, their ostensible followers reacted with rage.  They were-and are-willing to accept nothing less than Yanukovych’s resignation.

Then the really wild rumors began.  First, it was reported that Yanukovych had fled Kiev.  But where?  Initially, the claim was Harkiv.  Then, a plane allegedly carrying Yanik was tracked flying south.  Sochi?  No: the plane flew on and on, eventually landing in the UAE.  But was Yanukovych on it?

Apparently not.  He was apparently in Harkiv after all, where an assemblage of regime loyalists was meeting.  Then came the second rumor: that Yanukovych had resigned.

That rumor lasted a good 90 minutes, and then Yanukovych appeared on television, saying he had not resigned and would not resign.  He accused the opposition of being Nazis who were mounting a fascist coup like Hitler’s in 1933.

In the meantime, the police left the streets of Kiev.  Berkut units brought to the capital returned to Sevastopol and other cities.  The parliament passed a series of new laws, naming a new acting PM and new ministers, and demanding Yanukovych sign all the laws it had passed and the constitutional change or resign.  A law releasing Tymoshenko and invalidating the law under which she had been jailed also passed.

And as I write, the Rada has voted to remove Yanukovych from office, and Tymoshenko has left the hospital where she had been imprisioned.

The deal struck yesterday was midwifed by the EU, but although it deserves some credit, the laboring mother was the Ukrainian people, not just on Maidan, but throughout the country.  Why did Yanuokovych make so many concessions?  I surmise that he was stunned that the campaign of sniping that killed dozens only seemed to increase the determination of the opposition crowds rather than send the scurrying home.  The seizure of government buildings throughout the country and the switching of sides by police and interior units in various cities made it plain that he had insufficient strength to control the country.  And the firing of the commander of the army suggests that he wanted the military to intervene, but it refused: as I noted from the very beginning, the actions of the army and security forces would be decisive.  Thus stymied, Yanukovych tried to buy time and made concessions, but clung to power hoping that he could reverse matters in time.

Now it appears that he has retreated to his eastern redoubt, and is planning to wage a civil war from it.  Separatist rallies are occurring in the east.

Given his rhetoric-which dovetails perfectly with that coming out of Russia-it is only a matter of time before he calls on the fraternal support of big brother Russia.

How will Putin respond?  I don’t know, but the rhetoric emerging from Russia-including threats to attack the Crimea if “Ukraine breaks apart,” which is exactly what is happening-makes it plain that there is a substantial likelihood of Russian intervention, at least in the east.  Moments ago Russia announced that the opposition had violated the deal which the EU had guaranteed, thereby creating the predicate for an intervention.  (Though, interestingly, the Russian representative did not sign it, leaving in a huff.)  Russia’s UN ambassador Churkin has blamed the “western powers” for destabilizing Ukraine. This further suggests an intervention is in prospect.

Which makes Obama’s reaction all the more shocking.  Obama had a phone call with Putin yesterday.  Afterwards, the White House announced that the conversation had been “constructive and workmanlike.”  The administration made it sound like Putin was in agreement with Obama, and that he has a genuine interest in a peaceful outcome in Ukraine.

He might, but only on his bloody-minded terms.  His actions have been and continue to be anything but constructive.  Indeed, they have been nothing but destructive and threaten to become even more so.

It is astounding that Obama is publicly acting as if Putin is not ultimately and primarily responsible for this entire catastrophe in Ukraine, because that is exactly the reality.   By validating Putin as a constructive force in Ukraine Obama is enabling the Russian president’s impending intervention and will make himself and the United States look utterly foolish when that happens.  Just like in Syria.

From the early days of this, I anticipated that civil war was a very possible outcome in Ukraine.  It looks for all the world that this possibility is about to become a reality, although I have been repeatedly surprised at the path to that outcome.

This is a tragedy.

Слава Україні.  Godspeed to the Ukrainian people.  May we do what we can to give them a chance at independence and freedom.  But I fear that there is a mismatch of will and capability-especially will-and that the ultimate outcome will be a partition of the country, with Yanukovych ruling over a rump state in the east (until Putin tires of him), and with Putin scheming to find the way to achieve his ultimate objective of gaining control, de facto or  de jure, over the entire nation.

This is the end of the beginning, at most.  As bad as things have been, they are almost certain to get worse.  There is a real possibility that Ukraine will emerge free, but I fear that Ukrainians will have to fight for that freedom.

In his solipsistic way, Obama believes that if he isn’t fighting, there’s no war.  This is most notable in Iraq, and is his plan for Afghanistan.

What Obama fails to recognize is that the enemy has a say.

Today Ukraine is spiraling into bloodshed and anarchy.  The violence on the streets of Kiev gets most of the attention, but the rest of the country-particularly the western portion-is descending into civil war.  Although the immediate author of this tragedy is Yanukovych, he is little more than Putin’s puppet.  The pattern is all too clear.  Putin, primarily through financial blackmail, has compelled the Ukrainian president to unleash his forces against those protesting against his rule–and protesting against Russian dominance.

To Putin, the Cold War isn’t over. Pace Faulkner, to Putin the Soviet past isn’t dead: it isn’t even past. Or to put it differently, he wants to reverse the results of the Cold War, and the resulting humiliation (as he sees it) of Russia.  Restoring Russian suzerainty over Ukraine, as dysfunctional as it is, is the linchpin of that effort.

Putin further perceives that his main adversary in achieving this goal is the United States.

Alas, he’s probably wrong in this, at least to January 2017, because the president of the United States is in denial and advertising his non-adversarial nature:

“Our approach in the United States is not to see these as some Cold War chessboard in which we’re in competition with Russia,” Obama said.

“Our goal is to make sure that the people of Ukraine are able to make decisions for themselves for the future, that the people of Syria are able to make decisions without having bombs going off and killing women and children,” he said.

The disconnect in that statement is jaw-dropping.  It is hard to imagine a president of the United States of America making a more callous and idiotic assertion.  Jesus H. Christ, could it be more obvious? The overriding obstacles to Ukrainians and Syrians being “able to make decisions without having bombs going off and killing women and children” are Putin and Russia.  Full stop.

If Obama’s goal is really to save lives and secure freedom and autonomy for Ukrainians and Syrians, then he has to confront the simple reality that this goal cannot be achieved without confronting Putin.  Ukrainians and Syrians are dying first and foremost because Putin is still fighting the Cold War.  If you want to prevent their cruel deaths, you have to take to the lists.

But, of course, the reason Putin is emboldened to fight these battles is that he has taken the measure of his non-adversarial adversary.  He knows Obama has no stomach for confrontation, but will content himself to fiddle and diddle and spout fine phrases and drone on about red lines or lines without colors while Ukraine and Syria burn.

There is a saying attributed to Trotsky: “You may not be interested in the revolution, but the revolution is interested in you.”  Obama is preciously little interested in the revolutions occurring in Ukraine and Syria (not to mention Venezuela-another Putin ally/project).  But Putin, who is stoking these revolutions, is very interested in confronting the United States.  Obama does not want to go back to the days of the Cold War, but Putin is a revanchist par excellence.

So if Obama wants to advance the ideals he spouts, he has to concede that the United States is in competition with Russia.  Unless he jocks it up, Syrians and Ukrainians (and Venezuelans) will be ground under Putin’s heel.  He cannot vote present.

Obama portrays himself as a progressive, but he is the ultimate reactionary in foreign policy.  His policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are rooted in a reaction against Bush.  His policies regarding Russia are rooted in a reaction against American Cold Warriors, notably Ronald Reagan, the president during Obama’s freezenik college years.  He defines what he is primarily by what he is not.  Such an obsessive focus on avoiding the errors others have supposedly made is usually a perfect recipe for making your own very special errors.

At least Ron Paul’s isolationism (“Ukraine is their business, not ours“) does not presume to strive for lofty goals while eschewing the hard and bitter work required to achieve them.   Obama taunts Ukrainians and Syrians by claiming to have their interests at heart, while doing nothing to advance those interests.  Paul’s isolationism is unleavened by hypocritical idealism.  One cannot say the same of Obama’s policies in Ukraine and Syria, such as they are.

The situation in Ukraine has reached something of a denouement. The opposition leadership and the regime have reached an agreement whereby the government will amnesty arrested protestors, and the protestors will end the occupation of government buildings and permit traffic to move on Hrushevskyy Street, although they will not dismantle the barricades altogether.

This deal has been met with some dismay (and in cases, anger and bitterness) on Maidan, and with good reason.  The protestors have given up their main leverage, and although they have threatened to re-occupy the buildings and Hrushevskyy Street if Yanukovych’s regime backslides, this is likely an empty threat.  The regime was surprised once, but is unlikely to be surprised twice, and will be ready to respond aggressively to any attempt to take the buildings again.

Conversely, the government can easily re-arrest those that it has amnestied-and many more to boot.  There is thus a pronounced asymmetry between the concessions made by the government, and those made by the opposition.

In brief, although Yanukovych has not triumphed, the threat to him has abated considerably and the correlation of forces has shifted palpably in his direction.

Perhaps reflecting this, Putin has relented and will proceed with the purchase of the next tranche of $2 billion in Ukrainian Eurobonds.

Truth be told, the real threat to the Yanukovych regime is economic.  The Ukrainian currency, the Hryvnia, is the best readily available indicator.  It has plunged from 8.2 to the dollar at the beginning of Maidan, to 8.8/8.9 to the dollar at present.  Although it rallied to 8.4 a week ago, when the outlines of a deal were in prospect, and when Ukraine imposed capital controls, it weakened almost immediately thereafter.  The current depressed level augers poorly for Ukraine’s future prospects.

And here is the tragedy.  An economic collapse, which would be accompanied by a further collapse in the currency, would be the most likely cause of Yanukovych’s political demise.  But then the opposition would inherit a horrible situation which would require it to take measures that would inevitably lead to it becoming hated and despised.  It is also not an environment conducive to the completion of the constructive economic and political reforms the country so desperately needs.  Think of Russia ’91-’92, or ’98-’99.   The reformers ended up totally discredited and hated, paving the way for the emergence of Putinism.

The end result is unlikely to be a Ukraine that resembles Poland, on a path to converging with the EU. A more likely outcome is a perpetual Sovokistan, and one that is a satrapy of Russia to boot.

An incipient collapse would put Putin in a hard place.  He would be forced to double down and increase economic assistance-likely throwing bad money after worse-or to stand aside and watch the whole thing collapse.

Cynic that he is, perhaps he would stand aside, on the calculation that he could take advantage of the collapse, and swoop in and pick up the pieces of a shattered country.  And a prostrate Ukraine would hardly be attractive to the EU.

It pains me, but I just can’t see a clear path forward for the unlucky country.  Belarus-light on the upside.  Perpetual basket case as the middle  scenario.  Economic collapse and revolutionary chaos as the worst case

The Sovok legacy is too powerful: the country’s institutions are weak and fundamentally corrupt.  Europe is feckless and disinterested, long on soaring rhetoric, short on  Euros and will.  Obama doesn’t give a rat’s rump about foreign policy generally, except for his Iranian legacy project: if he won’t bestir himself over the daily slaughter of hundreds in Syria, he’s not going to lift a finger to keep Ukraine from sullenly settling into a Russian orbit.  In contrast, Putin is far more motivated, driven by his dream of undoing the results of the Cold War.  He views Ukrainian independence from Russia as a historical monstrosity.  He would no doubt prefer to eliminate Ukrainian sovereignty de jure, but would no doubt settle to eliminate it de facto–for now.

Ukraine is too close to Putin-and subjugation of Ukraine is a goal too close to Putin’s heart.  Ukraine is far from the EU, farther still from the US, and farther still from the help of God.

I wish this weren’t so.  I pray I am wrong.  But as much as I admire the idealists on Maidan, and pull for their victory, I can’t see it happening.  The mutilating historical legacy of the USSR is too powerful,  a malign Russia is too close, and succor is very, very far away.

American foreign policy continues its triumphant march from humiliation to humiliation.  To the shock and amazement of the world (not really) the Syria “peace” talks in Geneva have failed.  Utterly.  So utterly that the Assad regime put the Opposition’s delegation to the talks on a terrorist list.

This left Obama’s foreign policy Sancho Panza, John Kerry, spluttering in impotent rage against Assad:

“It is very clear that Bashar al-Assad is continuing to try to win this (on) the battlefield rather than to (go) to the negotiating table (with) good faith,” said Kerry, speaking in the Indonesian capital during a trip to Asia and the Middle East.

That was clear before the talks began.  Reuters claims that it appears that Kerry is “trying to tighten diplomatic pressure on Assad.”  I’m sure the Chinless Ophthalmologist is quaking in his Guccis.

He is also spluttering against the Russians:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry accused Russia on Monday of enabling the Syrian regime’s stepped-up military campaign by providing President Bashar al-Assad with more arms, undercutting efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

The sharp criticism from Mr. Kerry reflected growing U.S. frustration with Moscow’s continued support of the Syrian president. Mr. Kerry said Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah have likewise increased their support for the Syrian regime, allowing him to expand his military campaign.

“Russia needs to be a part of the solution and not be contributing so many more weapons and so much more aid that they’re in fact enabling Assad to double down, which is creating an enormous problem,” Mr. Kerry told reporters at a joint news conference in Jakarta with his Indonesian counterpart. His comments came on the final stop of a five-day Asia tour.

Mr. Kerry said it was important for the international community to consider in the coming days “exactly what steps can now be taken in the face of this intransigence.”

Again, this was all known, and totally predictable, when Kerry was high-fiving The Tarantula in Geneva at the announcement of the talks oh-so-many deaths ago.

Speaking of The Tarantula, Lavrov had an answer for Kerry.  Short version: f*ck off.  Longer version:

In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hit back, citing “evidence that certain sponsors of the opposition are starting to create a new structure” bringing in Assad foes who have left the main opposition National Coalition.

“In other words, a course is being set to move away from the negotiations track and once again place bets on a military scenario,” Lavrov said at a joint news conference after talks with his Eritrean counterpart.

He also faulted the United States for failing to ensure the presence of a broadly representative opposition delegation at the Geneva talks, saying that Russia had done its part in getting Assad’s government to the table.

“Russia is always being urged to make more of an effort to resolve the Syrian conflict,” Lavrov said. “When we hear that Russia must take some steps, it’s necessary to remember one simple truth: We have done everything we promised.”

Given the failure in Geneva, Obama says he is “considering” new policy options, but according to the Reuters piece, provided no details.

Sure.  Take your time.  It’s not like people are dying or anything.

In point of fact, Don Quixote is too focused on Iranian windmills to pay much attention to Syria.  Indeed, the most reasonable inference is that he believes that doing anything that would undermine Assad would also undermine his Iran initiative, given that Assad is essentially a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Iranian Pasdaran.

But there is some good news for Kerry.  The Chinese are planning to build a replica of the Titanic, and to reenact the disaster.  So after retiring from public life (I won’t say service) he can apply for the furniture rearranging position.

Syria is just one example of Putin beating on Obama like a big bass drum.  There are many others.  Obama’s retiring ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, watched Putin’s drum solo for five years (and who took a few personal beatings of his own), but nonetheless thinks that Obama should strive for another Reset. Because, of course, repeating the same thing that has failed miserably is a sign of genius, not insanity.

Maybe for his next appointment should be as ambassador to Sweden, because he evidently has Stockholm Syndrome.

And here’s the sobering news people: Putin is on his good behavior now.  Wait until the cleanup after the closing ceremony at Sochi begins.  More on that later.

For weeks the Russian and Ukrainian governments have been pushing the narrative that the opposition movement in Ukraine is nothing but a creature of the United States.  That the movement is nothing more than a US backed coup.

Today that narrative took a far more sinister turn. Kremlin advisor Sergei Glazyev announced that the US involvement justified a direct Russian intervention in Ukraine:

Protesters expressed their fears as a senior U.S. diplomat arrived in Kiev to try to help find a resolution to the country’s political crisis, and an adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened Ukraine with attack.

Sergei Glazyev accused the United States on Thursday of funding the Ukrainian “rebels” by as much as $20 million a day for weapons and other supplies. He urged the Ukrainian government to put down the “attempted coup,” or Russia may have to intervene under the terms of a 1994 agreement between the United States and Russia, according to the Ukraine edition of the Russian daily Kommersant.

Glazyev was alluding to the Budapest Memorandum, a treaty in which Ukraine agreed to turn over a nuclear arsenal on its soil left over after the fall of the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was a part until it dissolved in 1991.

In return, the United States, United Kingdom and Russia, nuclear powers all, guaranteed to respect the independence and the borders of Ukraine and reaffirmed their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action should Ukraine become a victim of an act of aggression.

The memorandum, which is not binding, refers only to “nuclear aggression” and it requires the signatories to consult each other if other unspecified aggression arises.

Glazyev said the agreement binds Russia and the United States “to intervene when conflicts of this kind arise. And what the Americans are doing now, unilaterally and crudely interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine, is a clear breach of that treaty.”

Many in the west hastened to say that Glazyev does not speak for Putin.  That sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me.

It is especially dangerous to discount his statement given that it occurred almost simultaneously with the release of a recording of a conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.  Nuland and Pyatt discussed US conversations with opposition figures, strategies regarding the opposition, and frank assessments of the opposition and its leadership.  More than enough to be twisted to fit the Kremlin narrative, and to provide a justification for direct Russian intervention along the lines of what Glazyev advocated.

There are no coincidences, comrades.  The Glazyev message and the leak of the Nuland tape complement each other perfectly.

Notably, the Russians were not shy about making plain that they were the ones that recorded the conversation.  The first news about the tape was tweeted by the Russian government: it’s as if they were saying, “yeah, we taped you and we’re releasing the tape.  Whatcha gonna do about it?”

Astoundingly, the State Department-and eventually the White House-laid blame for the recording on the Russians.  Will miracles never cease?  Yes, it’s more than I would have expected, but more is needed.  (And I have to say.  What the hell were Nuland and Pyatt doing communicating in this fashion on an insecure line that they had to have known the Russians were monitoring?  Sometimes our stupidity-or is it naïveté?-drive me around the bend.)

Maddeningly, virtually all the headlines and story ledes about the Nuland tape focused on her frustration at the EUnuchs’ fecklessness in Ukraine: “Fuck the EU,” she said.  Unfortunately, she apologized later.  Unfortunately, because the EU deserves to be heaped with scorn.  Maidan-which consciously refers to itself as EuroMaidan-is looking to the EU for help. In return, they get tepid rhetoric.  EC Council President de Rompuy said that “time is on our side” with respect to Ukraine.  Herman: The opposition does not have the luxury of time.  They are being brutalized by nightriders and daily face the prospect of a crackdown.

But by focusing on the “Fuck the EU” quote, and overlooking the symbiosis between the Glazyev broadside and the leak of the tape, too many journalists and editors are playing right into Putin’s hands.  They are sowing further dissension between the US and its allies.  Relations are already frayed due to Snowden, and this just exacerbates that.

I don’t believe that the primary reason for the Russians to release the tape was to drive deeper the wedge between Europe and the US.  That’s a bonus.  They could no doubt release a tape a day that would have some American official venting at the EUnuchs.  Surely, the Russians are hardly upset that the “Fuck the EU” quote is dominating coverage, but that wasn’t the main reason they released the recording, IMO.

Instead, Russia is laying the predicate for direct intervention in Ukraine.  That is the main reason to release this tape, with little effort to conceal the source.  The “Fuck the EU” fallout is just gravy to the Kremlin.  And journalists clueless about Russian active measures-including now the use of social media-are playing right into that.  Journalists who focus on this aspect of the story are like the carriers of a contagious disease. Unwitting vectors of harm.  Obscuring the true message of the leak, and advancing Russian agitprop that sows dissension among the US and its allies.

A little historical perspective is in order.

If you recall the lead-up to the Russian invasion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the day that the 2008 Olympics began on 8/8/8, you will remember a crescendo of propaganda, including repeated accusations that Saakashvili was an American puppet.  In the lead up to war, the Russians assiduously constructed a narrative about Georgian misdeeds in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  They raised the rhetorical and physical pressure, and when Saakashvili buckled in response they leapt in with both feet.  Indeed, as I wrote at the time, I am still convinced that the Russians were on the move before the Georgians fired a single artillery piece at the Russian “peacekeepers.”  Once the invasion occurred, the Russians used the narrative that they had constructed so carefully in the weeks and months before to justify their actions.

And sadly, it worked.

The same thing is happening now in Ukraine.  A hypothesis: Glazyev mentions the US spending $20 million per week in Ukraine, including money spent on arms.  What are the odds that if the protests persist, a cache or caches of American weapons is “found” in Ukraine, and Yanukovych appeals to the Russians for “brotherly assistance” to resist an impending US-backed coup?

The only question is: during Sochi, or after?  But I would lay pretty high odds that this will eventually come to pass.  And looking back, the events of February 6 will be viewed as the ominous harbinger.

And the basis for that was laid today, and the Russians will continue to weave that narrative tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and the day after that.

Would that western journalists look beyond the f-bomb dropped by Victoria Nuland, and see what is really happening here.

John Kerry has delivered a stirring speech on behalf of those struggling against the corrupt regime in Ukraine:

The United States and the European Union “stand with the people of Ukraine” in their fight for the right to choose alliances with countries other than Russia, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday.

His comments come after a week of political tumult in which Ukraine’s Prime Minister and Cabinet have resigned, a controversial anti-protest law has been repealed and the President has signed off on a contested amnesty bill for anti-government protesters.

“Nowhere is the fight for a democratic, European future more important today than in Ukraine,” said Kerry, speaking at the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

“While there are unsavory elements in any chaotic situation, the vast majority of Ukrainians want to live freely in a safe, prosperous country. They are fighting for the right to associate with partners who will help them realize their aspirations — and they have decided that means their futures do not have to lie with one country alone.

“The United States and EU stand with the people of Ukraine in that fight.”

Can elmer or Gordon please translate this into Ukrainian?: “Be afraid.  Be very afraid.”

For we’ve seen Kerry (and Obama) speak strong words criticizing dictators and pledging to help those struggling for freedom.  Most notably, in Syria. Kerry compared Assad and his clique to the Nazis, and was making the case for military intervention, until the US backtracked completely, conceding to Assad and his Russian supporters the ability to slaughter indiscriminately by conventional means, as long as he gives up his chemical weapons.  He pledged to do so, but predictably, is slow walking his compliance.  Only an estimated 5 percent of his disclosed stocks have been removed, and there is widespread belief that there are substantial stocks that he has not disclosed.   The June deadline for destruction looks impossible.

So now Kerry is reduced to begging the Russians to press the Syrians to pick up the pace:

“Secretary Kerry pressed Foreign Minister Lavrov to push the regime for more progress on moving the remaining chemical weapons within Syria to the port in Latakia,” the US State Department official said.

Yeah.  I’m sure Lavrov is going to get right on that.  Right after he stops laughing uncontrollably.

Moral of the story: Kerry’s talk, and Obama’s talk, is very cheap.  They are not looking for confrontation, and will look for any way out of having to back up their words with deeds.

Ukrainians should take heed of something else.  Because of Syria, and the insane effort to negotiate with Iran, the US is highly dependent on Russia.  The administration has staked a great deal on these efforts, and Russia can make mischief in both.  Meaning that Obama will be loath to get into a confrontation with Putin over Ukraine.

So about all Ukraine can really expect is some lofty words from Kerry and Obama.

Which calls for some more translation help: “You’re on your own.”

The last remaining Russian independent, liberal television station is Dozhd (“Rain”) TV.  The channel has been removed from several major cable distributors, which is likely a death sentence because it is only available on cable and on the Internet.  An investigation for “extremism” that was launched a few days ago has been closed, but the damage has been done.  The station is now a leper.

The ostensible reason for Dozhd’s likely demise is its temerity in running a poll asking whether the Soviets should have surrendered Leningrad, rather than endure a siege that cost a million Russian lives, including 630,000 or so civilians.  The poll ran on the anniversary of the lifting of the siege.

But this was no doubt a pretext.  The Kremlin has waged an unrelenting campaign against all independent media voices.  Moreover, this particular media voice had publicized Navalny investigations about the corruption of Russian officials, notably Putin’s First Deputy Chief of Staff Vyacheslav Volodin.

The question was a legitimate one.  Although the Leningrad front did tie down some German forces, it is doubtful that this gain was worth the horrific cost in Russian lives, or the suffering that the survivors endured for three years.

More secure nations can debate these questions.  Russia, apparently not.  And contrary to the vituperations of those who attacked Dozhd, the question is not a slur on the bravery and sacrifice of the besieged: it is a question about Stalin’s judgment and humanity.  Apparently the greatest mass murder in human history is sacrosanct in Russia, or official Russia anyways.  Duly noted.

But it is more likely that this is a cynical exploitation of the Cult of the Great Patriotic War. The martyred of Leningrad are being used to advance the political interests of the current Kremlin elite, and to stifle voices that call attention its utter venality.  World War II is a near religious subject in Russia, and anyone who questions in any way the accepted dogma is vulnerable to a charge of blasphemy.

But not every questioner is so charged.  Instead, such charges are used opportunistically by the regime to destroy those who it dislikes.  And since the more liberal voices are likely to challenge the faultlessness of the judgment of Stalin and the Stavka, it is a perfect knout to rain blows down upon those who oppose the regime’s metastasizing authoritarianism.

So who stopped the rain?  Putin did, obviously.  If not by direct order, in a “will no one rid me of this meddlesome TV channel” sort of way. Regardless, the Putin python has squeezed the life out of another independent voice.

PS. Not a big CCR fan, and Who Stopped the Rain is probably my least favorite of their major hits.  But the title seemed just to apt not to use.

A couple of follow-ups regarding Ukraine.

First, Yanukovych called in sick on Thursday, allegedly suffering from a respiratory ailment.  There were reports that he looked really bad when he came to the Rada to browbeat wavering Party of Regions deputies into voting for his faux amnesty bill.  This was widely considered to be a delaying tactic, although he did eventually sign the legislation repealing the anti-protestor laws.  Now there are rumors that he has been moved to intensive care (h/t @libertylynx).

My initial thought upon hearing news of his illness is that a coup is in process.  Remember that in the 1991 coup against Gorbachev in the USSR, the putsch plotters announced that the USSR’s president and the CPSU Party Secretary had been forced to step down due to serious illness.  The current situation with Yanukovych echoes this.  Have little doubt who is in control of him.  I would actually imagine that it suits Putin’s interest that Yanukovych remain in office and under control: removing him altogether would create complications.  By having him remain president, but effectively quarantined, he can play Charlie McCarthy while Putin plays Edgar Bergen.  If Yanukovych remains out of sight, the logical conclusion is that Putin has taken direct control of what is going on in Ukraine.

Second.  Follow the comments, including comments on older posts on Ukraine.  Commenter elmer is providing valuable information, including first person accounts that he is receiving from people in country.