"The Russian seizure of control of the Crimean Peninsula, a clear violation of the very international law Putin likes to invoke, has turned Ukraine into a European tinderbox. Sarajevo and the Sudetenland: Europe’s ghosts hover. Putin argues he is protecting Russian-speakers from the usurpers of Kiev, a pro-European government seen in Moscow as the undercover agents of a predatory West whose talk of liberty is mere camouflage for the advance of its interests."
...
"Putin’s Crimean message to President Obama and the West is clear: Not one inch further. After NATO’s expansion into the Baltic states (and how critical NATO’s protection looks now to Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia), after the European Union’s embrace of the likes of Poland and Romania (freed, like the Baltic states, from the Soviet empire), after the humbling by NATO of Serbia (Russia’s Orthodox ally), after the West’s perceived manipulation of a United Nations mandate to have its way in Libya — after all this the Russian president, as he has already made clear in Syria, is saying: “Game over.”
When it was first published earlier this week, Roger Cohen's column in The New York Times was the front-runner for the MVC award, Most Vitriolic Commentary on this subject, which subject grows like dropsy, from Ukraine-Russia to Russia-U.S., former Soviet Union-U.S., East-West, Cold War, NATO, the Baltics, World War II, pre-World War II, Hitler, World War I, pre-World War I...I started this sentence intending to finish it with "but Cohen has lost his front-runner status to others since" but now that I write the sentence, no, he's still the front-runner. Really, has anyone topped Putin as Gavrilo Princip? Is it even possible to top Putin as Gavrilo Princip? No, it's over. We're closing the competition. Roger Cohen wins the MVC.
I was so taken, taken aback, by Cohen's column that an earlier draft, exclusively on this column, was the original "Back to the Future" post, which post I didn't finish, giving the title to another post on all the contenders for MVC, those comparing Putin to Hitler. It seemed to me that Cohen's column was so ill-conceived, ill-written, so emotional, personal, hysterical, that it's chief worth were as psychic palimpsest. It seemed to me there were indeed "ghosts" that were about and that they haunted Cohen personally and that he was spooked. It seemed to me thus and so I wrote but I didn't know and it then seemed to me that that was too much on one guy's ghosts when so many others were seeing mustaches too. So I didn't. Then Cohen wrote a subsequent column in which he told us that his family were Lithuanian Jews--"how critical NATO's protection looks now to Lithuania..."--and then I did know and so decided again to write about it. Which I'm doing now
"Not one inch further:" Hmm. Curious phrasing. D'ems fightin' words to Cohen. Cohen thinks Putin thinks he must contain the West, starting with Ukraine. Putin has drawn a line in the sand, to coin a phrase, at Ukraine. Why would Putin think that?
NATO by year:
1949-1982: U.S., Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, U.K. 1952: Greece, Turkey. 1955: Germany. 1982: Spain.1999: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland. 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia. 2009: Albania, Croatia.
Putin might think that because NATO membership at founding in 1949 was 12; because during the entire Soviet era it maxed out at 16; because since the end of the Soviet Union and hence the Cold War NATO added as many countries as it had at founding and got all its new members, including Cohen's Old Country, Lithuania, from the Soviet's Warsaw Pact. NATO's expansion was aimed at Russia. So, that's why Putin might think that.
I (Public Occurrences) argued early and often that NATO, a Cold War construct, should have ceased to exist when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Why did NATO expand, three different times, closer to Russia? Cohen's answer:
"Since 1945 America’s security and prosperity have been tied to the steady spread of liberty in a Europe made whole and free. There is a vital U.S. interest in not seeing this process reversed — not in the land of Yalta and the corpse-filled ravine of Babi Yar."
"Security and prosperity," brought to you since 1945. Cohen is one of those "pursuit of happiness" guys, what's good for U.S. business is good for the world. Capitalism must grow, it must expand, or it must die.So now there is a "vital U.S. interest" in Ukraine: $$. It is not American "security" that is implicated in Ukraine, American "security" does not require gobbling up countries ever farther from home, it is capitalism. Who's security is implicated in Ukraine? Ukraine's, not America's.Whose security is implicated in NATO today? Here are Cohen's words: "[H]ow critical NATO’s protection looks now to Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia." Lithuania's security, not America's. "[A]fter the European Union’s embrace of the likes of Poland and Romania (freed, like the Baltic states, from the Soviet empire)." Poland's security, not America's. "[A]fter the humbling by NATO of Serbia (Russia’s Orthodox ally)." Slovenia's security, Croatia's security, not America's. "Not one inch further," it may be for Putin and if it is, I don't blame him!
"Not one inch further" is good encapsulation of the U.S. policy of "containment" during the Cold War. Communism could exist where it was, "but not one inch further." Thus all the proxy wars of the Cold War, e.g. Vietnam. Cohen says Putin is now employing the West's old containment policy toward the Soviet Union against the West. Cohen may be right. But if Cohen is right, Cohen shouldn't be seeing ghosts. Containment, "not one inch further," leaves the evil empire intact, it just forbids its expansion. Lithuania is safe.
"If Ukraine were subjugated to Moscow once more, or dismembered through a Russian annexation of Crimea in flagrant violation of Russia’s own commitments in 1994, Obama would become the president who presided over a watershed diminishment of the trans-Atlantic bond."
...
"Putin’s Crimean message to President Obama and the West is clear: Not one inch further. After NATO’s expansion into the Baltic states (and how critical NATO’s protection looks now to Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia), after the European Union’s embrace of the likes of Poland and Romania (freed, like the Baltic states, from the Soviet empire), after the humbling by NATO of Serbia (Russia’s Orthodox ally), after the West’s perceived manipulation of a United Nations mandate to have its way in Libya — after all this the Russian president, as he has already made clear in Syria, is saying: “Game over.”
When it was first published earlier this week, Roger Cohen's column in The New York Times was the front-runner for the MVC award, Most Vitriolic Commentary on this subject, which subject grows like dropsy, from Ukraine-Russia to Russia-U.S., former Soviet Union-U.S., East-West, Cold War, NATO, the Baltics, World War II, pre-World War II, Hitler, World War I, pre-World War I...I started this sentence intending to finish it with "but Cohen has lost his front-runner status to others since" but now that I write the sentence, no, he's still the front-runner. Really, has anyone topped Putin as Gavrilo Princip? Is it even possible to top Putin as Gavrilo Princip? No, it's over. We're closing the competition. Roger Cohen wins the MVC.
I was so taken, taken aback, by Cohen's column that an earlier draft, exclusively on this column, was the original "Back to the Future" post, which post I didn't finish, giving the title to another post on all the contenders for MVC, those comparing Putin to Hitler. It seemed to me that Cohen's column was so ill-conceived, ill-written, so emotional, personal, hysterical, that it's chief worth were as psychic palimpsest. It seemed to me there were indeed "ghosts" that were about and that they haunted Cohen personally and that he was spooked. It seemed to me thus and so I wrote but I didn't know and it then seemed to me that that was too much on one guy's ghosts when so many others were seeing mustaches too. So I didn't. Then Cohen wrote a subsequent column in which he told us that his family were Lithuanian Jews--"how critical NATO's protection looks now to Lithuania..."--and then I did know and so decided again to write about it. Which I'm doing now
"Not one inch further:" Hmm. Curious phrasing. D'ems fightin' words to Cohen. Cohen thinks Putin thinks he must contain the West, starting with Ukraine. Putin has drawn a line in the sand, to coin a phrase, at Ukraine. Why would Putin think that?
NATO by year:
1949-1982: U.S., Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, U.K. 1952: Greece, Turkey. 1955: Germany. 1982: Spain.1999: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland. 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia. 2009: Albania, Croatia.
Putin might think that because NATO membership at founding in 1949 was 12; because during the entire Soviet era it maxed out at 16; because since the end of the Soviet Union and hence the Cold War NATO added as many countries as it had at founding and got all its new members, including Cohen's Old Country, Lithuania, from the Soviet's Warsaw Pact. NATO's expansion was aimed at Russia. So, that's why Putin might think that.
I (Public Occurrences) argued early and often that NATO, a Cold War construct, should have ceased to exist when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Why did NATO expand, three different times, closer to Russia? Cohen's answer:
"Since 1945 America’s security and prosperity have been tied to the steady spread of liberty in a Europe made whole and free. There is a vital U.S. interest in not seeing this process reversed — not in the land of Yalta and the corpse-filled ravine of Babi Yar."
"Security and prosperity," brought to you since 1945. Cohen is one of those "pursuit of happiness" guys, what's good for U.S. business is good for the world. Capitalism must grow, it must expand, or it must die.So now there is a "vital U.S. interest" in Ukraine: $$. It is not American "security" that is implicated in Ukraine, American "security" does not require gobbling up countries ever farther from home, it is capitalism. Who's security is implicated in Ukraine? Ukraine's, not America's.Whose security is implicated in NATO today? Here are Cohen's words: "[H]ow critical NATO’s protection looks now to Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia." Lithuania's security, not America's. "[A]fter the European Union’s embrace of the likes of Poland and Romania (freed, like the Baltic states, from the Soviet empire)." Poland's security, not America's. "[A]fter the humbling by NATO of Serbia (Russia’s Orthodox ally)." Slovenia's security, Croatia's security, not America's. "Not one inch further," it may be for Putin and if it is, I don't blame him!
"Not one inch further" is good encapsulation of the U.S. policy of "containment" during the Cold War. Communism could exist where it was, "but not one inch further." Thus all the proxy wars of the Cold War, e.g. Vietnam. Cohen says Putin is now employing the West's old containment policy toward the Soviet Union against the West. Cohen may be right. But if Cohen is right, Cohen shouldn't be seeing ghosts. Containment, "not one inch further," leaves the evil empire intact, it just forbids its expansion. Lithuania is safe.
"If Ukraine were subjugated to Moscow once more, or dismembered through a Russian annexation of Crimea in flagrant violation of Russia’s own commitments in 1994, Obama would become the president who presided over a watershed diminishment of the trans-Atlantic bond."
Talk to Frank-Walter Steinmeir about "the trans-Atlantic bond!" The German Foreign Minister opposes kicking Russia out of the G8. Germany and the EU do far more happy business with Ukraine and Russia than does the U.S. Talk to Angela Merkel, whose phone NSA bugged, about "the trans-Atlantic bond!" Talk to the Brits about the "trans-Atlantic bond!" They're not on board with ousting Russia from the G8, either.
"Pivot to Asia cannot mean abandonment of Ukraine. Every form of diplomatic, trade and economic pressure should now be mustered by Obama to isolate Putin (China may be ready to help, given its commitment to noninterference); every political means used to buttress the Kiev government; and NATO’s readiness to defend its members should be ostentatiously underscored."
"Pivot to Asia cannot mean abandonment of Ukraine. Every form of diplomatic, trade and economic pressure should now be mustered by Obama to isolate Putin (China may be ready to help, given its commitment to noninterference); every political means used to buttress the Kiev government; and NATO’s readiness to defend its members should be ostentatiously underscored."
"Every form." "Diplomatic:" Should we sever diplomatic ties, recall our Ambassador? Did we bird pump on accepting Russian assistance with Syria? Should we cease to involve Russian assistance with Iran? "Trade:"
Should we cancel all agreements? "Economic:" I don't know, but we should do everything.
Should we cancel all agreements? "Economic:" I don't know, but we should do everything.
"Every political means" ("buttress" Kiev): I don't know...everything.
"Ostentatiously underscore"
_________
_________
_________
_________
"NATO readiness to defend its members:" Does Cohen know that Ukraine is not a member of NATO? He does. He wants NATO to ostentatiously underscore its defense of Lithuania. It's the ghosts.
