It's a great article -- I have one question ...

OPINION FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Garry Kasparov: It’s a War, Stupid!

Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63 Aug. 30, 2014

This vocabulary of cowardice emanating from Berlin and Washington is as disgraceful as the black-is-white propaganda produced by Putin’s regime, and even more dangerous

As Russian troops and armored columns advance in Eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian government begs for aid from the free world it hoped would receive it and protect it as one of its own. The leaders of the free world, meanwhile, are struggling to find the right terminology to free themselves from the moral responsibility to provide that protection. Putin’s bloody invasion of a sovereign European nation is an incursion, much like Crimea — remember Crimea? — was an “uncontested arrival” instead of Anschluss. A civilian airliner was blown out of the sky just six weeks ago –—remember MH17? — and with more than 100 victims still unidentified the outrage has already dissipated into polite discussions about whether it should be investigated as a crime, a war crime, or neither.

This vocabulary of cowardice emanating from Berlin and Washington today is as disgraceful as the black-is-white propaganda produced by Putin’s regime, and even more dangerous. Moscow’s smokescreens are hardly necessary in the face of so much willful blindness. Putin’s lies are obvious and expected. European leaders and the White House are even more eager than the Kremlin to pretend this conflict is local and so requires nothing more than vague promises from a very safe distance. As George Orwell wrote in his 1946 essay on language right before starting work on his novel 1984 (surely not a coincidence): “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” The Western rhetoric of appeasement creates a self-reinforcing loop of mental and moral corruption. Speaking the truth now would mean confessing to many months of lies, just as it took years for Western leaders to finally admit Putin didn’t belong in the G-7 club of industrialized democracies.

Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko just met with President Obama in Washington, but Obama’s subsequent statement showed no sign he’s willing to acknowledge reality. Generic wishes about “mobilizing the international community” were bad enough six months ago. Hearing them repeated as Ukrainian towns fall to Russian troops is a parody. (If legitimacy is what Obama is after, Russia is clearly in violation of nearly every point of the 1974 UN Resolution 3314, “definition of aggression.”) Perhaps Poroshenko should have matched Obama’s casual wardrobe by wearing a t-shirt that read “It’s a War, Stupid.” As Russian tanks and artillery push back the overmatched Ukrainian forces, Obama’s repeated insistence that there is no military solution in Ukraine sounds increasingly delusional. There is no time to teach a drowning man to swim.

The United States, Canada, and even Europe have responded to Putin’s aggression, it is true, but always a few moves behind, always after the deterrent potential of each action had passed. Strong sanctions and a clear demonstration of support for Ukrainian territorial integrity (as I recommended at the time) would have had real impact when Putin moved on Crimea in February and March. A sign that there would be real consequences would have split his elites as they pondered the loss of their coveted assets in New York and London.

Then in April and May, the supply of defensive military weaponry would have forestalled the invasion currently underway, or at least raised its price considerably — making the Russian public a factor in the Kremlin’s decision-making process much earlier. Those like me who called for such aid at the time were called warmongers, and policy makers again sought dialogue with Putin. And yet war has arrived regardless, as it always does in the face of weakness.

As one of the pioneers of the analogy I feel the irony in how it has quickly gone from scandal to cliché to compare Putin to Hitler, for better and for worse. Certainly Putin’s arrogance and language remind us more and more of Hitler’s, as does how well he has been rewarded for them. For this he can thank the overabundance of Chamberlains in the halls of power today — and there is no Churchill in sight.

As long as it is easy, as long as Putin moves from victory to victory without resistance, he gains more support. He took Crimea with barely a shot fired. He flooded Eastern Ukraine with agents and weaponry while Europe dithered. The oligarchs who might have pressured Putin at the start of his Ukrainian adventure are now war criminals with no way back. The pressure points now are harder to reach.

The Russian military commanders, the ones in the field, are not fools. They are aware that NATO is watching and could blow them to bits in a moment. They rely on Putin’s aura of invincibility, which grows every day the West refuses to provide Ukraine with military support. Those commanders must be made to understand that they are facing an overwhelming force, that their lives are in grave danger, that they can and will be captured and prosecuted. To make this a credible threat requires immediate military aid, if not yet the “boots on the ground” everyone but Putin is so keen to avoid. If NATO nations refuse to send lethal aid to Ukraine now it will be yet another green light to Putin.

Sanctions are still an important tool, and those directly responsible for commanding this war, such as Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu must be held accountable. Sanctions must also broaden. The chance to limit them only to influential individuals and companies is over. The Russian people can change Putin’s course but have little incentive to take the great risks to do so under current conditions. Only sanctions that bring the costs of Putin’s war home can have an impact now. This was always a last resort, and it wouldn’t be necessary had the West not reacted with such timidity at every step. (The other factor that is already dimming the Russian people’s fervor are the Russian military casualties the Kremlin propaganda machine is trying so hard to cover up.)

As always when it comes to stopping dictators, with every delay the price goes up. Western leaders have protested over the potential costs of action Ukraine at every turn only to be faced with the well-established historical fact that the real costs of inaction are always higher. Now the only options left are risky and difficult, and yet they must be tried. The best reason for acting to stop Putin today is brutally simple: It will only get harder tomorrow.

Kasparov is the chairman of the NY-based Human Rights Foundation.

http://time.com/3227869/garry-kaspar...-a-war-stupid/



My question : in face of such aggression and land grab on the very doorstep of Europe , why has NATO not invited

Ukraine to be a part of that organization ? I said this months ago , and I am still at a loss for an answer.

NATO : The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense
in response to an attack by any external party

I am fairly certain , if that beleaguered country was to become a part of that defensive collective , Putin would very

seriously reconsider his bully tactics against this sovereign nation.


As a side note : the Russian Ruble has hit a record low yesterday. Clearly the Russian economy will be in trouble (more

trouble than it already is in) , but unfortunately that will play into Putin's hand -- for a while at least .

: He will very successfully play the 'Us against Them' card on the home front , and blame the West for any economic hardship.

Will be just like in the bad old days.


If the West has the power to prevent such invasion , should it not ??

Just by inviting Ukraine to join NATO , could Putin not be stopped ?

Which country will be next ?

Attachment 101296...................

There has been support for Ukraine to join Nato. Bush when president was in favour of it

http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...1/nato.georgia

Bush talked about Georgia joining Nato in April 2008, Russia send troops into Georgia August 2008.


Ukraine government "deposed" by western looking leaders talk about joining EU , Russia sends troops into Ukraine.


So would inviting Ukraine to join Nato push Russia back or encourage them to take more drastic steps to prevent this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fltboy

Attachment 101296...................

---

Clearly that bus is aiming to go in the EU direction , and Russia is impeding it .. by force , by aggression.

Good cartoon though.

Would have been more relevant a few months back , when the original protest/uprising/ousting of pro-Russian prez happened.

Reuters : http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0GS10C20140831

In effect , Russia is invading Ukraine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny2011

There has been support for Ukraine to join Nato. Bush when president was in favour of it

http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...1/nato.georgia

Bush talked about Georgia joining Nato in April 2008, Russia send troops into Georgia August 2008.


Ukraine government "deposed" by western looking leaders talk about joining EU , Russia sends troops into Ukraine.


So would inviting Ukraine to join Nato push Russia back or encourage them to take more drastic steps to prevent this.

---

Would Putin go against NATO ??

That'd be WW III !

Surely he wouldn't ?

Then again , his actions are not that of a rational man , as it is ..

What's the solution ? Is there one ? Stand by and allow him further , and farther into Europe ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny2011

There has been support for Ukraine to join Nato. Bush when president was in favour of it

http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...1/nato.georgia

Bush talked about Georgia joining Nato in April 2008, Russia send troops into Georgia August 2008.


Ukraine government "deposed" by western looking leaders talk about joining EU , Russia sends troops into Ukraine.


So would inviting Ukraine to join Nato push Russia back or encourage them to take more drastic steps to prevent this.

---

I think leisurely polite conversation and mulling over of 'inviting' Ukraine would elicit a very different response than

simply getting that country into NATO now xx

The first may escalate aggression , whereas the second may put the brakes on imo .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephanie

My question : in face of such aggression and land grab on the very doorstep of Europe , why has NATO not invited

Ukraine to be a part of that organization ? I said this months ago , and I am still at a loss for an answer.

---

Because the West , quite rightly, does not want a war with Russia over Ukraine. I would not allow my son to die sorting out Ukraine/ Russia problems.

My understanding is that the West originally fudged the issue of Ukraine joining NATO precisely in order to avoid having to defend it militarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merryman

Because the West , quite rightly, does not want a war with Russia over Ukraine. I would not allow my son to die sorting out Ukraine/ Russia problems.

My understanding is that the West originally fudged the issue of Ukraine joining NATO precisely in order to avoid having to defend it militarily.

---

Imo it is no longer a local issue.

Just as Ebola is not a local issue.

Just as Isis is not a local issue. Etc.


Unfortunately with all the benefits of globalization , we also need to deal with the drawbacks -- for a more harmonious world .

Never easy , mostly costly and painful , but it won't get better on its own , it won't go away.


In your opinion (hypothetically) at which point would Russia's aggression and land grab become more than a local misfortune ?

Invasion of Poland ? Invasion of other neighboring countries ? When will it be serious enough to take it seriously ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merryman

Because the West , quite rightly, does not want a war with Russia over Ukraine. I would not allow my son to die sorting out Ukraine/ Russia problems.

My understanding is that the West originally fudged the issue of Ukraine joining NATO precisely in order to avoid having to defend it militarily.

---

i doubt they want to risk war especially on each others doorsteps over sectarianism in ukraine.

If the Ukraine hadn't of disposed of all the nuclear weapons they inherited after the collapse of the USSR then they wouldn't have Russia invading and they wouldn't need NATO either. Lack of foresight on behalf of their leaders has led to this, they believed the West would protect them.