Perhaps surprisingly, Minsk II has been... well, somewhat successful. It was understood when the agreement was signed that one of the particular problem areas was not going to go away without an incredible amount of work and diplomatic effort - that of the critical transportation depot of Debaltseve.
For the most part, the rest of the front lines have been quiet, but that particular town was always going to be an issue.
What's interesting to me is how 'close,' relatively speaking, it is now possible to be to these wars. Not in the physical, proximate sense, but in the information sense. For instance, during WWII, much news was conveyed to the public through newsreels - before films, on the radio, etc. They were often not immediate releases, they had to be scripted, produced.
Nowadays, however - and this was no more clear than on saturday as I followed the truce and details on twitter - updates are instantaneous. Anyone with a cell phone connection, with the application, can put out a message that says x is happening, or y is happening.
That is not to say that these messages are any more accurate then anything else was back in the day, but it lends a tension to it that would not, I think, have been possible in the past. Everything is immediate - instantaneous. Which lets it hit closer to home - and unsurprisingly, creates opportunities for increased distortion.
Russia, has, I believe, used this to great effect. The entirety of Russian media has been devoted to creating, and maintaining, the idea that Russia is fundamentally threatened by the west. In the ceasefire, the very first reports of it being broken came in from separatist news organizations and mouthpieces, picked up by Russian journalists and spread to the wider world. Their claim was that Ukrainian forces had fired on them, and they would begin returning fire immediately. Yet, western journalists on the ground in Debaltseve, reported no such firing on twitter - and heard no outgoing fire.
Ultimately what we have here is a narrative that Russia has scripted - Ukrainians bad, separatists good, they fired on us first, yada yada. It has become a relatively common metaphor in the west to claim that Putin's playing chess, the west is playing checkers; but this is not the case. A more apt comparison might be to films - Russia's writing and directing, and the west can't find the plot. Despite the death and destruction, the Ukraine conflict isn't a war, its a production. Once the EU and US realize that, they might be able to come up with a better way of dealing with it.
I'd recommend talking to Hollywood, they've plenty of experience with the stories Russia's spinning.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Ceasfire?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the run up to the ceasefire in the Ukraine there have been significant advances on both sides of the proposed ceasefire area - Ukrainian backed forces (I hesitate to say Ukrainian military) pushed north out Mariupol - or have tried / are trying to, while Seperatists have been shelling Debaltseve pretty regularly. The idea there being that Debaltseve should fall before the beginning of the truce, thus securing separatists a significant transportation hub.
Apparently the entire reason the ceasefire did not start immediately was to give the rebels the chance to take the town - and Putin had to be bargained down from a 10 day gap to the more conservative, but no less dangerous 3 day gap between Minsk and the start of the ceasefire.
So what happens now is anyone's guess - chances are the Ukrainian forces are completely surrounded in Debaltseve, and at the federal level, its not entirely clear that Kiev is in charge of the forces in Mariupol. Instead, the Right Sector (ultra-nationalists), have vowed to keep fighting independent of any treaty, judging it, "unconstitutional." So there's a chance that would basically play right into Putin's hands - and it's not clear that the west would actually note the Azov Battalion's forward movement as 'breaking the ceasefire.' Keep in mind these are the people some American's want to arm.
In other news, Russian media doesn't exactly cover the ongoing battle over Debaltseve - and only have the best things to say about the DHK and LHK militias and how willing they are to participate in the ceasefire. So there's that.
Here's hoping this works. There's about 45 minutes left until the ceasefire is supposed to take effect, but DHK militia have already stated that Debaltseve will likely remain under bombardment until the Ukrainians there are forced to surrender.
Apparently the entire reason the ceasefire did not start immediately was to give the rebels the chance to take the town - and Putin had to be bargained down from a 10 day gap to the more conservative, but no less dangerous 3 day gap between Minsk and the start of the ceasefire.
So what happens now is anyone's guess - chances are the Ukrainian forces are completely surrounded in Debaltseve, and at the federal level, its not entirely clear that Kiev is in charge of the forces in Mariupol. Instead, the Right Sector (ultra-nationalists), have vowed to keep fighting independent of any treaty, judging it, "unconstitutional." So there's a chance that would basically play right into Putin's hands - and it's not clear that the west would actually note the Azov Battalion's forward movement as 'breaking the ceasefire.' Keep in mind these are the people some American's want to arm.
In other news, Russian media doesn't exactly cover the ongoing battle over Debaltseve - and only have the best things to say about the DHK and LHK militias and how willing they are to participate in the ceasefire. So there's that.
Here's hoping this works. There's about 45 minutes left until the ceasefire is supposed to take effect, but DHK militia have already stated that Debaltseve will likely remain under bombardment until the Ukrainians there are forced to surrender.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Minsk II - Or, Minsk: there and back again
So the second batch of Minsk Agreements recently finished in Belarus, after a 16 hour session that was, incidentally, the longest single bit of negotiation that these leaders have probably ever undertaken. There, Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko and Putin negotiated a cease-fire (Poroshenko's main goal), while Putin wound up with a lot of what he was looking for, but maybe not the whole of it. Various sources suggest he wanted to have the ceasefire start in 10 days, rather than this Sunday - largely to allow the seperatists to take Debaltseve, a transportation hub that they currently have almost completely surrounded.
However, Merkel did suggest that Putin was able to really put some pressure on the rebels to accede to the Minsk ceasefire, round 2 (hah), and chances are that they'll end up with the rail hub regardless, as apparently Ukrainian and Russian authorities are meeting with each other through mediation by the Organization for the Security and Co-operation Europe (OSCE) in order to figure out a way to extract them.
Debaltseve itself is in no great shape, with most residents having moved on, and, like much of Ukraine's southeast, it's been shelled to heck.
Apart from this, no one is really sure what's really going to happen. My concern is that while Russia plays a large hand in what's happening - as does the Ukraine, no one is 100% in control of the forces on the ground. The rebels may have to answer to Russia if they do something, but it seems as if they don't necessarily have to ask - meanwhile on the Ukrainian side, you have a variety of Oligarchs sponsoring their own home-grown battalions in an effort to regain their lost wealth (factories, etc.). Of these, the Ukrainian oligarchs worry me the most, largely because they do not necessarily ask- or answer- to Kiev, they fight for themselves, their wealth, and their status - and pay other people to do so for them. Ultimately, if we sent weapons to the Ukraine (which incidentally, is more or less bankrupt), this is who we'd be supporting. Oh yes, lets also not forget the Azov Battalion - a far-right (read neo-Nazi) group of men who also operate under the aegis of the Ukrainian government - for the most part.
So this is more or less the situation on the Ukrainian side - an army that is experiencing significant desertion rates, is financed generally by oligarchs to reclaim their lost factories and wealth, which occasionally falls on the side of neo-nazism. Meanwhile, on the rebel's side, we have groups propped up by Russia in order to protect a 'Russian speaking population' from Kiev's 'tyranny' (not so sure about that...), but who are more or less working for Russia to preserve the Russia leaning proclivities of the Ukraine itself (autocracy, corruption), and keep it out of the EU and NATO orbit (and associated benefits of increased transparency, democracy, etc.).
Which is ironic if you think about it too much.
However, Merkel did suggest that Putin was able to really put some pressure on the rebels to accede to the Minsk ceasefire, round 2 (hah), and chances are that they'll end up with the rail hub regardless, as apparently Ukrainian and Russian authorities are meeting with each other through mediation by the Organization for the Security and Co-operation Europe (OSCE) in order to figure out a way to extract them.
Debaltseve itself is in no great shape, with most residents having moved on, and, like much of Ukraine's southeast, it's been shelled to heck.
Apart from this, no one is really sure what's really going to happen. My concern is that while Russia plays a large hand in what's happening - as does the Ukraine, no one is 100% in control of the forces on the ground. The rebels may have to answer to Russia if they do something, but it seems as if they don't necessarily have to ask - meanwhile on the Ukrainian side, you have a variety of Oligarchs sponsoring their own home-grown battalions in an effort to regain their lost wealth (factories, etc.). Of these, the Ukrainian oligarchs worry me the most, largely because they do not necessarily ask- or answer- to Kiev, they fight for themselves, their wealth, and their status - and pay other people to do so for them. Ultimately, if we sent weapons to the Ukraine (which incidentally, is more or less bankrupt), this is who we'd be supporting. Oh yes, lets also not forget the Azov Battalion - a far-right (read neo-Nazi) group of men who also operate under the aegis of the Ukrainian government - for the most part.
So this is more or less the situation on the Ukrainian side - an army that is experiencing significant desertion rates, is financed generally by oligarchs to reclaim their lost factories and wealth, which occasionally falls on the side of neo-nazism. Meanwhile, on the rebel's side, we have groups propped up by Russia in order to protect a 'Russian speaking population' from Kiev's 'tyranny' (not so sure about that...), but who are more or less working for Russia to preserve the Russia leaning proclivities of the Ukraine itself (autocracy, corruption), and keep it out of the EU and NATO orbit (and associated benefits of increased transparency, democracy, etc.).
Which is ironic if you think about it too much.
Monday, February 9, 2015
On Disappearing 'Proxy War' Articles
As noted, I spend a good deal of time doing things I shouldn't (trawling TASS, Moscow Times) articles, and not doing things I should (thesis). I came across something interesting most recently - an article headlined "Russia Would See U.S. Moves to Arm Ukraine as Declaration of War" on Moscow Times.
The article goes on to make a number of assertions - that Russia would probably escalate any conflict if the U.S. did so, such as persuading Iran to go to war with Saudi Arabia, or selling defense equipment to China. This from a variety of analysts with the Russian Defense Ministry - who remain anonymous, of course.
The article is interesting for a couple different reasons. For one, when it first appeared, instead of war, it was "proxy war."
Yet, in order to be a proxy war, Russia would have to agree that it was supplying arms to Ukrainian separatists - which they have thus far vigorously denied. An escalation of said war would therefore break the narrative that Russia has so far stuck to - which would be bad from the Kremlin's perspective in that they would then have to admit back home that they are in fact, in Ukraine.
The second reason this article is interesting is because it vanished. It is still on the Moscow Times site (as you can see above), but all links to it have apparently vanished - it is not in the News section, nor is it listed under the Author's articles.
Additionally, it has been the only article on any Russian site to make this assertion, so far that I've seen. My guess is that someone really messed up over there. You can't mess with the narrative - otherwise the farce crumbles.
I'm wondering if that's what we're seeing here.
The article goes on to make a number of assertions - that Russia would probably escalate any conflict if the U.S. did so, such as persuading Iran to go to war with Saudi Arabia, or selling defense equipment to China. This from a variety of analysts with the Russian Defense Ministry - who remain anonymous, of course.
The article is interesting for a couple different reasons. For one, when it first appeared, instead of war, it was "proxy war."
Yet, in order to be a proxy war, Russia would have to agree that it was supplying arms to Ukrainian separatists - which they have thus far vigorously denied. An escalation of said war would therefore break the narrative that Russia has so far stuck to - which would be bad from the Kremlin's perspective in that they would then have to admit back home that they are in fact, in Ukraine.
The second reason this article is interesting is because it vanished. It is still on the Moscow Times site (as you can see above), but all links to it have apparently vanished - it is not in the News section, nor is it listed under the Author's articles.
Additionally, it has been the only article on any Russian site to make this assertion, so far that I've seen. My guess is that someone really messed up over there. You can't mess with the narrative - otherwise the farce crumbles.
I'm wondering if that's what we're seeing here.
King v. Burwell
So here's a case that is incredibly depressing, and just speaks to the depravity and selfishness of a tiny, tiny portion of the population.
King v. Burwell is one of a series of cases developed by the CATO institute (that libertarian think-tank) that hinges on a very specific reading of the Affordable Care Act, one that essentially no one - even those that brought the case - believe. The thrust of the argument is this - that the affordable care act was designed with a carrot / stick approach to the states, such that those states that did not agree to set up Healthcare exchanges would be punished by not receiving subsidies for those that signed up for the federal exchanges. This is based on the reading of a single sentence, outside the context of every single other part of the Act. Nevertheless, the intent of the Act is clear: the Affordable Care Act was developed so people could get healthcare, no matter where they live or their conditions in life.
For the most part this incredibly specific reading has been shot down by district courts across the nation, because its absurd. There is some ambiguity in the wording of the sentence, but Supreme Court precedent - which is what many of these Courts worked with - suggested that the subsidies should flow due to the deferral to the implementing agency in questions of ambiguity.
Nevertheless, this sentence was enough for conservative plaintiffs to bring the case to the conservative Supreme Court, where deliberations will be held sometime in March, with a ruling due in June.
Apart from all that, it must be made clear what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of King. Basically, a complete, utter shit show. Millions of individuals would be kicked from the federal exchanges as subsidies would stop, and healthcare would once again be unattainable to millions of people living in federal exchange states (mostly red states). This would mean tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, skyrocketing insurance bills, and quite possibly the collapse of the healthcare industry in these states. As an aside, its instructive to look at who's filed briefs on the side of the plaintiffs. Though there are over two dozen red states that have expanded medicare and work through some form of the affordable care act, only 9 states with republican governors have filed in favor of the lawsuit. Most have not. These governors know what the ACA has done for them, and they are not excited to see the outcome of this case.
As to why its incredibly selfish, here's a hint. The ACA pulls funds from a slight increase in the tax rate of wealthy individuals - a roughly 3% increase. For that, the U.S. has managed to expand healthcare to millions of people who would otherwise not have had it, while at the same time stopping the ever-increasing cost of healthcare and reducing the deficit. Because of this, the ACA will be fought; tooth and nail, by those organizations that carry water for that tiny percentage of the American public. To these people, it does not matter if the claims are bunk (they exist in their own, tightly cloistered reality), and nevermind the tens of thousands of preventable deaths. Healthcare should not be expanded, because freedom.
King v. Burwell is one of a series of cases developed by the CATO institute (that libertarian think-tank) that hinges on a very specific reading of the Affordable Care Act, one that essentially no one - even those that brought the case - believe. The thrust of the argument is this - that the affordable care act was designed with a carrot / stick approach to the states, such that those states that did not agree to set up Healthcare exchanges would be punished by not receiving subsidies for those that signed up for the federal exchanges. This is based on the reading of a single sentence, outside the context of every single other part of the Act. Nevertheless, the intent of the Act is clear: the Affordable Care Act was developed so people could get healthcare, no matter where they live or their conditions in life.
For the most part this incredibly specific reading has been shot down by district courts across the nation, because its absurd. There is some ambiguity in the wording of the sentence, but Supreme Court precedent - which is what many of these Courts worked with - suggested that the subsidies should flow due to the deferral to the implementing agency in questions of ambiguity.
Nevertheless, this sentence was enough for conservative plaintiffs to bring the case to the conservative Supreme Court, where deliberations will be held sometime in March, with a ruling due in June.
Apart from all that, it must be made clear what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of King. Basically, a complete, utter shit show. Millions of individuals would be kicked from the federal exchanges as subsidies would stop, and healthcare would once again be unattainable to millions of people living in federal exchange states (mostly red states). This would mean tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, skyrocketing insurance bills, and quite possibly the collapse of the healthcare industry in these states. As an aside, its instructive to look at who's filed briefs on the side of the plaintiffs. Though there are over two dozen red states that have expanded medicare and work through some form of the affordable care act, only 9 states with republican governors have filed in favor of the lawsuit. Most have not. These governors know what the ACA has done for them, and they are not excited to see the outcome of this case.
As to why its incredibly selfish, here's a hint. The ACA pulls funds from a slight increase in the tax rate of wealthy individuals - a roughly 3% increase. For that, the U.S. has managed to expand healthcare to millions of people who would otherwise not have had it, while at the same time stopping the ever-increasing cost of healthcare and reducing the deficit. Because of this, the ACA will be fought; tooth and nail, by those organizations that carry water for that tiny percentage of the American public. To these people, it does not matter if the claims are bunk (they exist in their own, tightly cloistered reality), and nevermind the tens of thousands of preventable deaths. Healthcare should not be expanded, because freedom.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Ukraine, Russia, and Other Concerns
So I spend a great deal of time worrying about a great deal of things - much of which end up getting bottled up and ultimately costing me days of time. I imagine this blog as something of an effort to get those worries out, so I can have explored them more concretely then simply jumping from article to article that ultimately say the same thing.
So, current concerns are with regard to Russia and Ukraine. I suppose I fall upon the side of the Europeans in this regard, I don't think sending any military assistance to Ukraine is called for, nor do I think it will help the situation. For one, anything significant enough to make a dent in Russian supported advances would be outside the capabilities of the Ukrainian military - who appear to be mostly conscripts at this point rather than a traditional, and trained, force. If this is the case, then there's little actual reason, and many good reasons, not to send further assistance - it will only delay the inevitable. Poroshenko has to understand that no amount of help will actually allow him to beat the separatists. None. He should now solely be concerned with protecting those Ukrainians that are outside the current battle lines, and securing the safety of the people of Mariupol - even if that means pulling the Ukrainian military out of the city. If they stay, it will be attacked, and he will lose - and thousands of lives will be lost.
To receive aid, then, Ukraine has to give the impression that they are in better shape then they actually are - which means, potentially, lowering the amount of casualties that they are experiencing. This is something that the German Security Forces seem to understand, and have to challenge. In order to back up Merkel, they have to convince Ukraine and the United States that any attempt to bolster Ukrainian arms is one that is pointless, as the Ukrainian military is coming apart at the seams. Merkel's unfortunate task is to force Poroshenko to agree to terms that are anathema to him, but are nevertheless the ones he is being offered. If he's smart, he'll accept them. He has to deal with the situation as it is, not as he wants it to be.
As for Putin - I am somewhat less concerned about him than most are. I believe that he's been supporting the Ukrainian separatists - which he denies - but not that he will necessarily advance farther than that. What seems to be happening is a significant misunderstanding of where his thinking is coming from. If he sees Russia under threat, from NATO expansion or what have you, he will do what he can to prevent that threat. It is very clear that NATO and Russia do not see eye to eye on this, and that's a worldview problem more than anything else. In any event, sending weapons to Ukraine (that they wouldn't be able to use), would feed right into the Russian narrative. Not that it already hasn't - see Putin and the separatists accusation of 'NATO legions' in Ukraine. But should we really be giving him a stronger hand?
A better strategy, then, is to work for peace, and set up information infrastructure like Voice of Europe, etc. that could be used to counter Russian propaganda. Moreover, there should be a focus on firming up the relationships in the Baltics among Russian speakers and the local governments. It should be made incredibly difficult for Russia to get a foothold in those areas in the same way that happened in Crimea/South-East Ukraine.
Anyway, Merkel and Hollande are in the right of it. Everything must be done to end this situation diplomatically. Arms will not help - and Poroshenko must understand that he has lost, and adjust to that reality. Otherwise more will die, more will flee, and wider war might break out.
To receive aid, then, Ukraine has to give the impression that they are in better shape then they actually are - which means, potentially, lowering the amount of casualties that they are experiencing. This is something that the German Security Forces seem to understand, and have to challenge. In order to back up Merkel, they have to convince Ukraine and the United States that any attempt to bolster Ukrainian arms is one that is pointless, as the Ukrainian military is coming apart at the seams. Merkel's unfortunate task is to force Poroshenko to agree to terms that are anathema to him, but are nevertheless the ones he is being offered. If he's smart, he'll accept them. He has to deal with the situation as it is, not as he wants it to be.
As for Putin - I am somewhat less concerned about him than most are. I believe that he's been supporting the Ukrainian separatists - which he denies - but not that he will necessarily advance farther than that. What seems to be happening is a significant misunderstanding of where his thinking is coming from. If he sees Russia under threat, from NATO expansion or what have you, he will do what he can to prevent that threat. It is very clear that NATO and Russia do not see eye to eye on this, and that's a worldview problem more than anything else. In any event, sending weapons to Ukraine (that they wouldn't be able to use), would feed right into the Russian narrative. Not that it already hasn't - see Putin and the separatists accusation of 'NATO legions' in Ukraine. But should we really be giving him a stronger hand?
A better strategy, then, is to work for peace, and set up information infrastructure like Voice of Europe, etc. that could be used to counter Russian propaganda. Moreover, there should be a focus on firming up the relationships in the Baltics among Russian speakers and the local governments. It should be made incredibly difficult for Russia to get a foothold in those areas in the same way that happened in Crimea/South-East Ukraine.
Anyway, Merkel and Hollande are in the right of it. Everything must be done to end this situation diplomatically. Arms will not help - and Poroshenko must understand that he has lost, and adjust to that reality. Otherwise more will die, more will flee, and wider war might break out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)