"And yet as we gather here today, we know that this vision is threatened by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. It is a brazen assault on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, a sovereign and independent European nation.
"Now, let’s put to rest once and for all the distortions or outdated thinking that has caused this crisis. Our NATO alliance is not aimed against any other nation.
"It was not the government of Kiev that destabilized eastern Ukraine. It’s been the pro-Russian separatists who are encouraged by Russia, financed by Russia, trained by Russia, supplied by Russia and armed by Russia. And the Russian forces that have now moved into Ukraine are not on a humanitarian or peacekeeping mission. They are Russian combat forces with Russian weapons in Russian tanks."
"As a result of state-run propaganda, many Russians have become convinced that the actions taken by their government is strengthening Russia."
"...trying to reclaim lands lost in the 19th century is surely not the way to secure Russia’s greatness in the 21st century. (Applause.) It only shows that unrestrained nationalism is the last refuge of those who cannot or will not deliver real progress and opportunity for their own people at home."
"Let’s also be clear where we stand. Just as we refuse to accept smaller European nations being dominated by bigger neighbors in the last century, we reject any talk of spheres of influence today. And just as we never accepted the occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic nations, we will not accept Russia’s occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea or any part of Ukraine."
Strong, man. No equivocal meaning there. He's talking to NATO, to Europe, and to Putin there and he sounds genuinely angry, outraged. Like he has had enough.
"...the rights of peoples and nations are upheld and can’t simply be taken away by brute force. This is what’s at stake in Ukraine. This is why we stand with the people of Ukraine today.
Standing with the people of Ukraine though does not mean military action by the U.S. as he says below. So what does it mean?
Not true. It was, it is, aimed at Russia.
We’re an alliance of democracies dedicated to our own collective defense. Countries like Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania are not post-Soviet territory."
That is ambiguous. He doesn't say, "Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania," he says "countries like." Is Ukraine a country like the Baltics? Is that what he means without coming right out and saying it? No, because he says in this speech that NATO and the U.S. will intervene militarily to protect a fellow NATO member. He says below the invasion of Ukraine cannot be solved militarily. Very strong on the "not post-Soviet territory." I and smart people "explained" Russia's invasion of Ukrainian Crimea as loss-of-empire "phantom limb" syndrome. Obama has thought it through and says "BULL-shit" to that notion. But it is not clear from this passage to which countries he is saying that is a bullshit notion. The Baltic countries are democracies, were invaded by the Soviet Union and are now NATO members. If those are three necessary conditions for "countries like" them then that would include Poland, the Czech Republic, and whatever.
"The protests in Ukraine on the Maidan were not led by neo-Nazis of fascists. They were led by ordinary Ukrainians...And they did not engage in an armed seizure of power."
I remember reading, in the Guardian, and elsewhere precisely these criticisms of the Maidan. Putin says this repeatedly. Putin said Ukraine's surrounding of the Russian invaders in the east "reminds me of the siege of Leningrad." With Communists, with Nazis, up is always down, the truth is always a lie, an invasion is not an invasion. This is an anti-propaganda speech too.
Very strong, very good anti-propaganda.
Both times that I read that, I thought what was going to come after "convinced" was something like "there was no Russian invasion of Ukraine." Both times I thought "is strengthening Russia" was off-key, the meaning unclear. It sounds like a re-write, an editorial revision.
"Unrestrained nationalism" led to war in the 19th--and 20th--centuries. "Progress and opportunity?" That's not what the 19th century, the 20th century, the Ukraine invasion or the vision of a "Greater Russia" is about.
What is he talking about here? The entire Eastern Bloc, from East Germany through to Ukraine was dominated by the Soviet Union in post-war Europe. The Soviet Union invaded Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and neither the U.S. NATO nor Western Europe attempted to prevent any of it. The key word here in this passage is "accept." Read in context, the most reasonable connotation to "refuse to accept" is some action verb, "stop," "prevent," "reverse." Obama does not mean that. He has told Putin personally that the U.S. would never "accept" the annexation of Crimea. Used here, by him, "refuse to accept" means "no military action," he means in the intellectual sense he doesn't "accept" it. It is like a father saying he "refuses to accept" that his son is gay. There is nothing the father can do about it, the father's refusal to accept doesn't alter the reality but that is all it means and that is how Obama uses "accept" here. He's saying he refuses to accept that Putin is a 'Mo.
more
