Putin's interview with Newspaper Journalists from G8 Member Countries

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not saying that Putin smells of roses, and nor was I saying that Uzbekistan's alliance with the US/UK bothered me. I appreciate the update, btw. Might it be argued that the deal with Uzbekistan had served it's purpose, therefore there was room for scruples to be applied?

I love the "would it be alright with you if I found some flimsy excuse to continue blaming the US?"

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Frankly, Serb, I am offended by your posting this in defense of Putin. You will have to search for a very!! long time to find a more anti-democratic leader

Are you serious? Or does your world not extend very far from Denmark's borders?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Since the poster was (IIUC) a citizen of Denmark, why exactly is the govt of the USA implicated in this?

The USA leads NATO. The USA is pushing for the missile defence program. The USA is insisting that it has the right to over-rule international law and award countries to secessionists as it sees fit - with potentially adverse consequences for Russia and other states.

The US Government is therefore at the front of the current confrontation with Russia, hence my reference to its role here. If Denmark is persuing an independent policy within NATO then please excuse me for not being familiar with that. :humble:

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cort Haus

I'm not saying that Putin smells of roses, and nor was I saying that Uzbekistan's alliance with the US/UK bothered me. I appreciate the update, btw. Might it be argued that the deal with Uzbekistan had served it's purpose, therefore there was room for scruples to be applied?

I couldnt exclude that, though I dont think the base in Uzbekistan had been essential since January of 2002. The preiod when its purpose was important was quite short. It had more to do with the actions of the Uzbek regime, and a brief period when advance of democracy was at the forefront of Bush foreign policy, in between the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, and the return of the realists to prominence in 2006.

Lest anyone misunderstand, I'm not making a moral case for Putin, as much as firstly putting his actions into perspective, and arguing that some western reaction to him is either disproportional, or driven by other agendas.

Personally I think it has a lot to do with the hopefulness many of us felt about Russia in the early Yeltsin years, when it looked like Russia was going to be liberal AND democratic AND an ally. At least here in the US and UK.

For folks in east central europe, and in scandinavia, it has a lot to do with proximity, which makes them rather more sensitive to what goes on in Russia, than in say Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe.

If anyone is trying to restart the cold war, I don't believe it is Russia.

I dont know if Putin is trying to. Hes certainly taking actions and making statements that flirt with it, even if his real goal is to get domestic traction while avoiding a cold war. Its certainly NOT the goal of the US govt to restart the cold war. There are SOME elements in the US that would like to restart one (not most mainstream neocons, BTW, though they are plenty suspicious of Putin) but thats at least as true of Russia.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


The USA leads NATO. The USA is pushing for the missile defence program. The USA is insisting that it has the right to over-rule international law and award countries to secessionists as it sees fit - with potentially adverse consequences for Russia and other states.

The US Government is therefore at the front of the current confrontation with Russia, hence my reference to its role here. If Denmark is persuing an independent policy within NATO then please excuse me for not being familiar with that. :humble:

1. NATO has no official leader, its an alliance. Are you referring to SACEUR being traditionally an American? Other key posts have traditionally been held by Europeans.

2. You are taking a partisan view of the international legal situation in Kosovo today. In any case, any "award" will be made at and by the UN, which has been left with de facto control of Kosovo for the last ten years, in the wake of mass killings, which were denied at the time by many, but which turned out to be true. Russia and others who oppose independence for Kosovo will be part of that process, as will supporters of independence for Kosovo, which include many states other than the USA.

3. Denmark, like other Scandinavian countries, is more interested in the situation in and around the Baltic, than in the Middle east,east asia, and elsewhere. To attribute every reaction and over reaction of every individual who is a citizen of a NATO country to the USA is profoundly unfair and misleading.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I'm not saying that Putin smells of roses, and nor was I saying that Uzbekistan's alliance with the US/UK bothered me.

If that alliance did not bother you, and you only raised uzbekistan as an example of a worse dictatorship, why did you feel a need to mention the shortlived US alliance?

Why not mention such states as Sudan, which has been committing ethnic cleansing, and has diplomatic support from Russia?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

The USA is insisting that it has the right to over-rule international law and award countries to secessionists as it sees fit

Which areas is Russia planning on ethnic cleansing?

BTW, at the G8 conf, UK, France, Italy, Canada and the US all took the same position on Kosovo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070608/...ia_kosovo_dc_4;_ylt=ApPYOupddcV29dxpJ4rYxRF_5GIA

[Heresson]

Why do we care about Russia that much? Can't we just ignore it? Russia is the troll of Europe. It lives on the attention given to it. Ignore it, ignore it, give proper responce if it breaks any rules.


What is it doing in G7 anyway?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If that alliance did not bother you, and you only raised uzbekistan as an example of a worse dictatorship, why did you feel a need to mention the shortlived US alliance?

Why not mention such states as Sudan, which has been committing ethnic cleansing, and has diplomatic support from Russia?

I wasn't attempting to launch a comprehensive debate on the 'despot-of-the-year', as much as briefly illustrating the short-sightedness of the charge made against Putin by a particular poster. You have provided many other examples.

I was actually genuinely curious as to the current state of Uzbek-US relations.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. NATO has no official leader, its an alliance. Are you referring to SACEUR being traditionally an American? Other key posts have traditionally been held by Europeans.

Are you seriously sugggesting that the US is not de facto leader of NATO?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


I wasn't attempting to launch a comprehensive debate on the 'despot-of-the-year', as much as briefly illustrating the short-sightedness of the charge made against Putin by a particular poster. You have provided many other examples.

I was actually genuinely curious as to the current state of Uzbek-US relations.

Your contest with that particular poster, a Dane, somehow involved, on your part, many references to the United States, a country that poster didnt mention once, IIRC.

As for not looking comprehensively for despot of the year, thats good, for you will find many, from Turkmenistan, to Belarus, to Zimbabwe, to Burma, to Sudan, who are either A. pals with the lovely Putin or B. Pals with Putin's Chinese friends or C. Countries nominally allied with the US, where US leverage toward human rights is significantly lessened by the Russian and Chinese alternatives (Uzbekistan, Pakistan) or by the presense of local adversaries backed by Russia and its friends (Egypt and KSA vis a vis Syria and Iran)

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
2. You are taking a partisan view of the international legal situation in Kosovo today. In any case, any "award" will be made at and by the UN, which has been left with de facto control of Kosovo for the last ten years, in the wake of mass killings, which were denied at the time by many, but which turned out to be true. Russia and others who oppose independence for Kosovo will be part of that process, as will supporters of independence for Kosovo, which include many states other than the USA.

We both have a partisan view of that dispute. I will at some point try to dig out an appropriate quote to suggest that there are those who do not seek to be bound by the UN's decision.

Meanwhile, here's a quote from an AP piece which illustrates why a number of countries, including Russia, oppose the setting of a precedent, and why some seperatists around the world are in favour.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/05/17/other_separatists_buoyed_by_kosovo_push/

Although the European Union also insists that Kosovo is no precedent, some of its member states have their own restive regions to contend with -- Catalonia and the Basque country in Spain, Flanders in Belgium, Hungarian nationalists in Slovakia and Cyprus' breakaway Turkish Republic. Analysts note that even Mr. Putin's Russia has separatist movements within its borders that could take Kosovo as an inspiration.

A parliamentary spokesman for the Basque Nationalist Party, the main party in the regional government of northern Spain's Basque region, sees the Kosovo plan as "a very positive development."

"We think this could be a very good precedent, and someday we could aspire to something similar," said Josu Erkoreka.

Mr. Othman, the Iraqi Kurd, said it is inaccurate to argue Kosovo is somehow special.

"Just like Kosovo, Iraqi Kurdistan has also been under international protection [since the 1991 Gulf War]. There is no difference," he said in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

Any move by Iraq's Kurdish provinces to break free would create a major political headache for Washington and invite armed intervention from neighboring Turkey, which has its own restless Kurdish minority.

Footnote : You may continue to suggest that mass killings make this a special case, but over four years work at the Hague was unable to establish that any mass killings were by the hand of the state. The side seeking independence have also been accused of mass killings, ethnic cleansing, sex slavery, drug and gun running, attacks against the UN and more, so I would argue that the moral case for independence doesn't stand. FWIW, I am not entirely opposed to independence, as the outcome would at least finally reveal the naked truth about the character of the secessionsts to the world, though the consequences for minorities in the province/country would be fatally terminal. The consequences for the west may also be highly unfavourable though.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Your contest with that particular poster, a Dane, somehow involved, on your part, many references to the United States, a country that poster didnt mention once, IIRC.

If the two references I made to the US in that post, a country that is not unconnected to the overall debate here, were to be omitted, the main points I was making would still stand.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

We both have a partisan view of that dispute. I will at some point try to dig out an appropriate quote to suggest that there are those who do not seek to be bound by the UN's decision.

yes, so? You are the one saying that the Wests POV on Kosovo is not merely legally incorrect (about which we can disagree) is so extreme, as to make the US (interestingly not France, Germay, Italy or Canada) central to any discussion of Russia, including by a Dane.

Meanwhile, here's a quote from an AP piece which illustrates why a number of countries, including Russia, oppose the setting of a precedent, and why some seperatists around the world are in favour.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/05/17/other_separatists_buoyed_by_kosovo_push/

Although the European Union also insists that Kosovo is no precedent, some of its member states have their own restive regions to contend with -- Catalonia and the Basque country in Spain, Flanders in Belgium, Hungarian nationalists in Slovakia and Cyprus' breakaway Turkish Republic. Analysts note that even Mr. Putin's Russia has separatist movements within its borders that could take Kosovo as an inspiration.

A parliamentary spokesman for the Basque Nationalist Party, the main party in the regional government of northern Spain's Basque region, sees the Kosovo plan as "a very positive development."

"We think this could be a very good precedent, and someday we could aspire to something similar," said Josu Erkoreka.

Mr. Othman, the Iraqi Kurd, said it is inaccurate to argue Kosovo is somehow special.

"Just like Kosovo, Iraqi Kurdistan has also been under international protection [since the 1991 Gulf War]. There is no difference," he said in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

Any move by Iraq's Kurdish provinces to break free would create a major political headache for Washington and invite armed intervention from neighboring Turkey, which has its own restless Kurdish minority.

Footnote : You may continue to suggest that mass killings make this a special case, but over four years work at the Hague was unable to establish that any mass killings were by the hand of the state. The side seeking independence have also been accused of mass killings, ethnic cleansing, sex slavery, drug and gun running, attacks against the UN and more, so I would argue that the moral case for independence doesn't stand. FWIW, I am not entirely opposed to independence, as the outcome would at least finally reveal the naked truth about the character of the secessionsts to the world, though the consequences for minorities in the province/country would be fatally terminal. The consequences for the west may also be highly unfavourable though.

1. In virtually no case (for example Spain) is this situation at all applicable. No de facto control was established by the international community.

2. Iraqi Kurdistan is more similar, in that Iraq no longer had de facto control after 1991. However the Iraqi Kurds who did HAVE de facto control, did not declare de jure independence, and even used their territory as a rendesvous point for non-Kurdish members of the Iraqi opposition on at least one occasion. The analagous situation would be Taiwan, more than Kosovo.

3. IIUC the Hague tribunal was attempting to prosecute guilty individuals, NOT to engage in truth finding wrt to the role of the Serbian/Yugoslav state. Mr Milosevic died before his trial was complete, a trial delayed by technicalities.


Note - ethnic cleansing did NOT make a moral case for independence per se. What it did do, was to make the moral case for international intervention and occupation. That intervention and occupation ended de facto Serbian control. Prior to the UN charter, under international law, IIUC, de jure sovereignty was generally expected to pass to the de facto ruler, once that was settled. Certainly powers often took land from one another for many reason after the Peace of Westphalia. Westphalian soveriegnty was a way to limit arbitrary beginnings to war in certain instances, not an eternal guarantee of territorial borders. It was the UN charter that banned the acquisition of territory by force. The authors of the charter certainly envisioned a high degree of cooperation on the Security Council, and I think did not envision the guarantee of territorial integrity being used as a shield for genocide/ethnic cleansing. That it has become so is a sign that the current international law does not deal well with the problems of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Unfortunately the international community had not dealt with them by the time the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo started. Now the world community is stuck with a 10 year old occupation, and a well organized, nationally conscious population that will resist the reimposition of Serb soveriegnty by force. It is necessary to reconcile that with the desire to protect the rights of the ethnically Serb population in Kosovo - a protection that goes beyond what they would receive if Kosovo were simply being recognized as independent like any other state. If Russia wants to negotiate the details of that, thats fine. It would certainly be better if an agreement could be reached that the Govt of Serbia would agree to. But if the govt of Serbia is going to insist on a solution that leads to the renewal of war, that would be an undesirable outcome to be avoided.

[Cort Haus]

Firstly, I contest the claim that the Albanian refugees who departed Kosovo well after the bombing campaign had started were ethnically cleansed. Maybe one day we could discuss this ad nauseam on another thread, but I don't think it should be here as it will take forever.

However, you seem to suggest that the start of the attack on Yugoslavia was in response to the refugee crisis, which of course it wasn't. The bombing started after an impossible-to-meet and non-negotiable Rambouillet ultimatum (which could have been inspired by the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum of 23rd July 1914) was inevitably rejected. In the same way that WMD suddenly became unimportant in Iraq compared to toppling Saddam, the reasons for war in Kosovo changed as events unfolded.

The logic, however, is inescapable - and this is the point which is central to the Russia debate of this thread. If the Basques can't follow Kosovo's lead because they're not under IC occupation, then they have to first achieve this. Following the KLA model, they have to start shooting policemen and civilians until the state clamps down with some harsh measures. This should escalate, until they can get massive external intervention and occupation - at which point they would be entitled to their independence.

This is the scenario feared by countries like Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus and of course Russia.