There is no doubt of it, the CNN photo above shows it, NATO says there are about 1,000 Russian troops involved, in addition to the tanks, the artillery batteries, the military transports: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Kremlin of course denies it; Lavrov said NATO's photos were from a computer game, but there is a reluctance to call an invasion an invasion even in the West. The American government's "quasi-official"* house organ, The New York Times, puts it this way:
"there is no longer any doubt: Russian troops are in Ukraine..."
Yes...Yes, that is true, however, it is like saying a burglar is in your house or a rapist is inside a woman. Lack of consent is missing from the Times characterization and that is a distinction with a difference! When a friend or guest is in your house we do not call that a "home invasion." When a woman has consensual sex we do not call that a "personal invasion," rape. The Times, following the lead of President Obama, refuses to use the "I"-word:
QUESTION: Do you consider today's escalation in Ukraine an invasion?
OBAMA: I consider the actions that we've seen in the last week a continuation of what's been taking place for months now. As I said in my opening statement, there is no doubt that this is not a homegrown, indigenous uprising in eastern Ukraine. The separatists are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia. Throughout this process, we've seen deep Russian involvement in everything that they've done. I think in part because of the progress that you had seen by the Ukrainians around Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia determined that it had to be a little more overt in what it had already been doing, but it's not really a shift. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcriptpresident-obamas-aug-28-remarks-on-ukraine-and-syria/2014/08/28/416f1336-2eec-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html
NATO uses a different "I"-word, "interference." German Chancellor Angela Merkel characterizes it as:
"reports of an increased presence of Russian soldiers"
That's a double avoidance. "Reports" suggests "not confirmed" and "increased presence" is too many house guests.
Why? Different reasons for different seasons. For Putin, it is not only the moral component of invading another country. Admitting you are invading another country is a confession of wrong-doing. Soviets and Nazis never admitted to invading other countries. But the present season is not as cold as the season was in Hungary in 1956, nor during "Prague Spring" in 1968. Those were cold, that was the Cold War. Putin, a former Soviet KGB officer, knows cold. Putin is a Soviet Cold War veteran, Putin is a lot of things, but Putin is now the democratically elected head of the Russian state. He cares about what his constituency thinks. They think a lot of him now, 83% approval, up 29% since before Crimea. But a similar poll shows that only 5% of Putin's constituency favor sending Russian troops into eastern Ukraine. And there's this: most Russian people get their news from TV, which in Russia is state-controlled, and most Russian people believe Russian state-controlled TV. So
the Russian people believe Lavrov's lies, Putin's lies, the Kremlin's lies. If Putin admitted to an invasion of Ukraine, that would be, like, covered on Russian TV and Poot-poot's popularity would be
poop-poop.
For official and quasi-official Europe, so dependent on Russian trade, so dependent on Russian-controlled energy, so afraid of Russia and of war, they don't want any more sanctions, they had to be cajoled into the sanctions now in place--for three months! If it's called an invasion, new sanctions kick in automatically. For Europe this is unpleasant. Make it go away.
For America, for Obama, there is real moral angst, it is most unpleasant, it shows up Obama's sanctions to restrain Russia as having failed, but there is real commitment to that strategy. Rightly, the president has stated clearly and often that America will not go to war with Russia over Ukraine. Obama has his constituency too and the American people would not have that.
There is then, in Russia, in official and quasi-official Europe, in official and quasi-official America, denial. They are in denial. They are all playing the same game. Nobody except Russia wants a Russian invasion of Ukraine and nobody, including the Russians, wants to call an invasion an invasion. The consequences are most unpleasant for Russia and for Europe. But what unpleasant consequences are there for America?
The game of denial is a game of deceit. When we deny reality we deceive others and ourselves. We deny truth. Most of us believe most of the time that that is immoral, at least amoral. Obama's denial of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is identical to his denial that the Egyptian military staged a coup in 2013. The consequences with Egypt were said to be a loss of American influence because American taxpayers would not be giving the Egyptian military billions of dollars in annual aid. ? That was unconvincing. We had to look after our own interests in Egypt, that was another consequences of calling a coup a coup. Same ? with that one. We had to "get the most out of the situation," that was another one articulated by another quasi-official American government mouthpiece at the New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman. That was just craven. All those consequences were viewed as more undesirable than the undesirability of engaging in deceit, in refusing to call a coup a coup.
I don't know what consequences the Obamas feel are more undesirable than again engaging in transparent Big Brother doublespeak and deceit in refusing to call the Russian invasion of Ukraine an invasion. I don't see it. We are already sanctioning Russia. We are not going to get militarily involved. One undeniable consequence, a casualty, of both denials is the truth. That is seldom good for democratically elected leaders because their constituencies don't like to be deceived. It undermines legitimacy. With Russia, how does America playing the denial game help it's strategy of sanctions? Pravda does not even have to censor the remarks of the president. If Obama doesn't say it's an invasion, that helps Putin! Obama does not want to help Putin. It seems to me, an idiot blogger, that there is no downside to calling an invasion an invasion. It has the comfort of being the truth and it would seem to help the case for additional sanctions. Not calling it an invasion undercuts the case for additional sanctions. It seems to me.
*"Yes, I’ve heard about the notion that I should be nominated as Treasury Secretary. I’m flattered, but it really is a bad idea...the main point, as I see it, is that it would mean taking me out of a quasi-official job that I believe I’m good at...The New York Times isn’t just some newspaper somewhere, it’s the nation’s paper of record...being an op-ed columnist at the Times is a pretty big deal...and those who hold the position, if they know how to use it effectively, have a lot more influence on national debate than, say, most senators." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/the-outside-man/
"there is no longer any doubt: Russian troops are in Ukraine..."
Yes...Yes, that is true, however, it is like saying a burglar is in your house or a rapist is inside a woman. Lack of consent is missing from the Times characterization and that is a distinction with a difference! When a friend or guest is in your house we do not call that a "home invasion." When a woman has consensual sex we do not call that a "personal invasion," rape. The Times, following the lead of President Obama, refuses to use the "I"-word:
QUESTION: Do you consider today's escalation in Ukraine an invasion?
OBAMA: I consider the actions that we've seen in the last week a continuation of what's been taking place for months now. As I said in my opening statement, there is no doubt that this is not a homegrown, indigenous uprising in eastern Ukraine. The separatists are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia. Throughout this process, we've seen deep Russian involvement in everything that they've done. I think in part because of the progress that you had seen by the Ukrainians around Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia determined that it had to be a little more overt in what it had already been doing, but it's not really a shift. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcriptpresident-obamas-aug-28-remarks-on-ukraine-and-syria/2014/08/28/416f1336-2eec-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html
NATO uses a different "I"-word, "interference." German Chancellor Angela Merkel characterizes it as:
"reports of an increased presence of Russian soldiers"
That's a double avoidance. "Reports" suggests "not confirmed" and "increased presence" is too many house guests.
Why? Different reasons for different seasons. For Putin, it is not only the moral component of invading another country. Admitting you are invading another country is a confession of wrong-doing. Soviets and Nazis never admitted to invading other countries. But the present season is not as cold as the season was in Hungary in 1956, nor during "Prague Spring" in 1968. Those were cold, that was the Cold War. Putin, a former Soviet KGB officer, knows cold. Putin is a Soviet Cold War veteran, Putin is a lot of things, but Putin is now the democratically elected head of the Russian state. He cares about what his constituency thinks. They think a lot of him now, 83% approval, up 29% since before Crimea. But a similar poll shows that only 5% of Putin's constituency favor sending Russian troops into eastern Ukraine. And there's this: most Russian people get their news from TV, which in Russia is state-controlled, and most Russian people believe Russian state-controlled TV. So
the Russian people believe Lavrov's lies, Putin's lies, the Kremlin's lies. If Putin admitted to an invasion of Ukraine, that would be, like, covered on Russian TV and Poot-poot's popularity would be
poop-poop.
For official and quasi-official Europe, so dependent on Russian trade, so dependent on Russian-controlled energy, so afraid of Russia and of war, they don't want any more sanctions, they had to be cajoled into the sanctions now in place--for three months! If it's called an invasion, new sanctions kick in automatically. For Europe this is unpleasant. Make it go away.
For America, for Obama, there is real moral angst, it is most unpleasant, it shows up Obama's sanctions to restrain Russia as having failed, but there is real commitment to that strategy. Rightly, the president has stated clearly and often that America will not go to war with Russia over Ukraine. Obama has his constituency too and the American people would not have that.
There is then, in Russia, in official and quasi-official Europe, in official and quasi-official America, denial. They are in denial. They are all playing the same game. Nobody except Russia wants a Russian invasion of Ukraine and nobody, including the Russians, wants to call an invasion an invasion. The consequences are most unpleasant for Russia and for Europe. But what unpleasant consequences are there for America?
The game of denial is a game of deceit. When we deny reality we deceive others and ourselves. We deny truth. Most of us believe most of the time that that is immoral, at least amoral. Obama's denial of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is identical to his denial that the Egyptian military staged a coup in 2013. The consequences with Egypt were said to be a loss of American influence because American taxpayers would not be giving the Egyptian military billions of dollars in annual aid. ? That was unconvincing. We had to look after our own interests in Egypt, that was another consequences of calling a coup a coup. Same ? with that one. We had to "get the most out of the situation," that was another one articulated by another quasi-official American government mouthpiece at the New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman. That was just craven. All those consequences were viewed as more undesirable than the undesirability of engaging in deceit, in refusing to call a coup a coup.
I don't know what consequences the Obamas feel are more undesirable than again engaging in transparent Big Brother doublespeak and deceit in refusing to call the Russian invasion of Ukraine an invasion. I don't see it. We are already sanctioning Russia. We are not going to get militarily involved. One undeniable consequence, a casualty, of both denials is the truth. That is seldom good for democratically elected leaders because their constituencies don't like to be deceived. It undermines legitimacy. With Russia, how does America playing the denial game help it's strategy of sanctions? Pravda does not even have to censor the remarks of the president. If Obama doesn't say it's an invasion, that helps Putin! Obama does not want to help Putin. It seems to me, an idiot blogger, that there is no downside to calling an invasion an invasion. It has the comfort of being the truth and it would seem to help the case for additional sanctions. Not calling it an invasion undercuts the case for additional sanctions. It seems to me.
*"Yes, I’ve heard about the notion that I should be nominated as Treasury Secretary. I’m flattered, but it really is a bad idea...the main point, as I see it, is that it would mean taking me out of a quasi-official job that I believe I’m good at...The New York Times isn’t just some newspaper somewhere, it’s the nation’s paper of record...being an op-ed columnist at the Times is a pretty big deal...and those who hold the position, if they know how to use it effectively, have a lot more influence on national debate than, say, most senators." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/the-outside-man/
