An Act of Madness

[Deleted96908]

Nope, there's been no Crime 'Ere

Ukraine crisis: Kiev bans Russian airlines' flights

Following Ukraine's decision to ban Russian airlines from its airports, Russia responded by claiming that it was is an act of madness.

Pot calling the kettle black I thought, but perhaps they have a point.

Given Ukraine's reliance on Russian energy, is autumn the right time to be doing this? Or, is that their intent? Push Russia into a response which in turn causes a winter humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and voila, the annexation of Crimea is front page, all over again.

 

[markjay]

With Russia and Iran managing the war against ISIS in the Middle East... and the US and EU influence in the region marginalised.... Putin even shook hands with Nethanyahu on a deal to allow military coordination in the region... no wonder the Ukrainians feel abandoned by their allies and fearful of their neighbour. The West no longer looms like a source of measurement.

 

[markjay]

......The West no longer looms like a source of measurement.

'reassurance.'!

 

[Deleted96908]

'reassurance.'!

Makes more sense now

Interesting what you say and you have to wonder if this very rare overt action by Russia in the ME, is nothing more than an attempt to open a second front diverting attention away from Crimea - or if not, a trade off between the rights of Ukr against the West's needs/desire to defeat Isis - (Their need, I don't necessarily see it that way).

It won't be the first time a county located between Germany and Russia was sacrificed so that an alternative agenda could be met.

Poland, 1940 on.

 

[Deleted96908]

* It won't be the first time a country located between Germany and Russia was sacrificed by the west so that an alternative agenda could be met.

 

[Dryce]

* It won't be the first time a country located between Germany and Russia was sacrificed by the west so that an alternative agenda could be met.

Doesn't matter what the west does they always take the blame.

Do something: get blamed.

Do nothing: get blamed.

Something happens elsewhere: get blamed because of some past action from generations ago.


Meanwhile China and Russia take the wrap for f*** all.

 

[markjay]

...a trade off between the rights of Ukr against the West's needs/desire to defeat Isis...

^^
this

America did the same with Iran re Nukes vs ISIS.

And we have already heard Obama say that Assad can stay as long as he is 'not part of a long-term' solution.... ahhm... that's a U-turn if I've ever seen one

 

[Dryce]

And we have already heard Obama say that Assad can stay as long as he is 'not part of a long-term' solution.... ahhm... that's a U-turn if I've ever seen one

It's a bit more poignant than that.

The west has lost hope as far as the ME is concerned.

So any odious dictator or odious regime that gives some sort of stability is quietly considered better than the apparently inevitable even more odious alternatives.

Given the hordes leaving the ME then they seem to have lost hope in the region too.

 

[markjay]

It's a bit more poignant than that.

The west has lost hope as far as the ME is concerned.

So any odious dictator or odious regime that gives some sort of stability is quietly considered better than the apparently inevitable even more odious alternatives.

Given the hordes leaving the ME then they seem to have lost hope in the region too.

Shame the locals killed Ghadafi and Saddam then... guess we could have used them now. At least Egypt managed a successful transition from one faux-Democratic leader to another faux-Democratic Leader. Also, King Abdullah's regime seems safe (for now).

 

[Dryce]

guess we could have used them now.

It's not a matter of tolerating or thinking that you are using something - just a matter of understanding that outsiders may cause a ripple in the pond but ultimately make no difference to its state of decay or change the underlying causes of this.

Egypt chucks out one regime, votes for another dodgy regime, and then that is ousted by a version of the first.

 

[markjay]

It's not a matter of tolerating or thinking that you are using something - just a matter of understanding that outsiders may cause a ripple in the pond but ultimately make no difference to its state of decay or change the underlying causes of this...

To a point... Jordan still enjoys ongoing stability since Churchill created the Emirate of Transjordan, and Abdullah I of the House of Hashim was appointed King.

In other places stability was achieved through the long-term rule of military officers who took power by force from the Kings left behind by their ex-Colonial masters - e.g. Nasser, Ghadafi, Saddam, Assad, etc.

Perhaps this was an era where British Diplomacy and Military Prowess were at their peak...

 

[MoAMG]

To a point... Jordan still enjoys ongoing stability since Churchill created the Emirate of Transjordan, and Abdullah I of the House of Hashim was appointed King. In other places stability was achieved through the long-term rule of military officers who took power by force from the Kings left behind by their ex-Colonial masters - e.g. Nasser, Ghadafi, Saddam, Assad, etc. Perhaps this was an era where British Diplomacy and Military Prowess were at their peak...

Till this day, Nasser is regarded as the greatest leader in Egypt and he was military... Some even swear by Gaddafi and Assad. Perhaps the west should stop trying to dictate the region and everything will be ok?

 

[Dryce]

Perhaps the west should stop trying to dictate the region and everything will be ok?

It should but the west is irrelevant to the underlying problems - so it won't make any difference.

 

[MoAMG]

It should but the west is irrelevant to the underlying problems - so it won't make any difference.

One could argue that the west is to blame for these underlying issues to start off with. Take the Balfour declaration as a prime example of how the west seem to think they can simply control the region. It is, of course, a great coincidence that these countries are also all rich in natural resources...

 

[markjay]

One could argue that the west is to blame for these underlying issues to start off with. Take the Balfour declaration as a prime example of how the west seem to think they can simply control the region. It is, of course, a great coincidence that these countries are also all rich in natural resources...

To be fair, it is difficult to judge decisions made during the historic Colonial and Madatory rule in late '19 and early-mid '20, with today's standards.

The Middle East was largely under Otoman rule for half a milenium proir to WW1, devided into regions but not as autonomous states.

Africa and the Middle East largely had no countries or states as such, just tribal areas, emirates, and 'kingdoms', and to make things even more complicated many tribes were nomads, making it very difficult to link peoples and land.

The Sykes–Picot Agreement created the legacy that we have today, of artificial Middle East countries whose people have loyalty to their own leaders but not to the State.

Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq are good examples. In fact, if you look at the map of the Medde East and Africa, wherever you see a border that runs in a straight line it usually 'cuts' one tribe or other into two, or simply runs through nomad territory.

The result is an unpleasant choice between Dictatorship and Civil War... Democracy can only exist where the people's loyalty to the State comes before their loyalty to their own tribal or religious leaders.

 

[MoAMG]

To be fair, it is difficult to judge decisions made during the historic Colonial and Madatory rule in late '19 and early-mid '20, with today's standards. The Middle East was largely under Otoman rule for half a milenium proir to WW1, devided into regions but not as autonomous states. Africa and the Middle East largely had no countries or states as such, just tribal areas, emirates, and 'kingdoms', and to make things even more complicated many tribes were nomads, making it very difficult to link peoples and land. The Sykes–Picot Agreement created the legacy that we have today, of artificial Middle East countries whose people have loyalty to their own leaders but not to the State. Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq are good examples. In fact, if you look at the map of the Medde East and Africa, wherever you see a border that runs in a straight line it usually 'cuts' one tribe or other into two, or simply runs through nomad territory. The result is an unpleasant choice between Dictatorship and Civil War... Democracy can only exist where the people's loyalty to the State comes before their loyalty to their own tribal or religious leaders.

I can accept that. However, that still doesn't address the elephant in the room, why does the west think that it is their place to get involved in the region? If they want to live in tribes, let them? However, if you get involved in other people's business and they retaliate, why do we get so surprised and why do we start tossing the terrorist card around? Surely this is subjective and to them, the west does come across as the terrorist (or the obsessive, controlling and manipulating ex-partner).

Let's take Egypt as a prime example here, primarily because I'm well versed with the situation there but also to highlight the complexity of external 'intervention', why do people in Egypt tip Nasser as the greatest leader of all time, even though he was military and even though he had many documented standoffs with the Muslim brotherhood? If people in Egypt were more loyal to a "tribe or religious leader" then surely they would have ousted him. More so, why would they oust the brotherhood after a 30 odd year power struggle?

I'm not saying that what you have stated is incorrect, but I am merely highlighting that it doesn't necessarily apply to all the states in the region. The majority of Egyptian people do not have any loyalties to a specific tribe nor do they have any loyalties with a specific leader, yet I will be the first to admit that democracy would not work. The people just aren't ready for that level of freedom yet.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I can accept that. However, that still doesn't address the elephant in the room, why does the west think that it is their place to get involved in the region? If they want to live in tribes, let them? However, if you get involved in other people's business and they retaliate, why do we get so surprised and why do we start tossing the terrorist card around? Surely this is subjective and to them, the west does come across as the terrorist (or the obsessive, controlling and manipulating ex-partner).

Let's take Egypt as a prime example here, primarily because I'm well versed with the situation there but also to highlight the complexity of external 'intervention', why do people in Egypt tip Nasser as the greatest leader of all time, even though he was military and even though he had many documented standoffs with the Muslim brotherhood? If people in Egypt were more loyal to a "tribe or religious leader" then surely they would have ousted him. More so, why would they oust the brotherhood after a 30 odd year power struggle?

I'm not saying that what you have stated is incorrect, but I am merely highlighting that it doesn't necessarily apply to all the states in the region. The majority of Egyptian people do not have any loyalties to a specific tribe nor do they have any loyalties with a specific leader, yet I will be the first to admit that democracy would not work. The people just aren't ready for that level of freedom yet.

100% agree, there's an arrogance around certain democracies which makes them think they can go around changing hundreds of years of stability under the cloak of 'liberating' the people when the reason is more often than not some resource (usually oil).

You only have to look at South America to see what a disaster the imperialists created by sticking their oar in; Pinochet being the prime example.

 

[Deleted96908]

if you buy into Fukuyama's Origins of Political order, land ownership (or more correctly guardianship) only began to surface when we started to settle and bury people, and communities in turn wanted continuing access to ancestors' graves and they did that by annexing land which eventually, as land became scarce, was considered an asset and therefore tradable.

sounds like an academic making things rather more complicated than they need to be.

The above is an exchange between Dryce and myself in Grober's VAT Scam thread. Given Dryce generally doesn't make throwaway remarks, I wanted to consider what he'd said. And looking back at his comments and the very good observations made by you all here, I don't think we make enough of these issues. We need more study, not less, and preferably by individuals taken from by those with most to lose, given we spend inordinate amounts of time trying to solve things, but little it seems considering our actions before we take them.

Look at the interference in the ME, Persia and N Africa during Churchill's various tenures. Bear in mind Churchill was probably the most experienced of all contemporary imperialists - given he had his mother buy his commissions in various parts of the Empire, subsequently positioning him personally in the bloodiest battles, he still made god like decisions on the future of peoples with barely an idea of what it meant to be nationals of those countries. I say nationals notionally, recognising MarkJay's comments on the true nature of the ME prior to our line drawing exercises. In saying that, if we look further back, cultural, if not political boundaries, identified states long before the British Isles was barely populated.

Continuing on the theme of not enough thought, I was watching a fascinating, although one sided view of Donald Rumsfeld's political career, The Unknown Known. Best documentary I've seen for a long time, even if it was a little too one sided. Rumsfeld is clearly an exceptionally smart guy and he kept talking about lack of imagination being the root cause of so many global issues, citing numerous examples in the US govt over the past 80 years - and how these led to short sighted decisions causing long term problems.

 

[Deleted96908]

Till this day, Nasser is regarded as the greatest leader in Egypt and he was military...

If you go to Alexandria you can see Egypt in all its Nasser splendour.

Some even swear by Gaddafi and Assad.

Indeed. Conventional, in my view enlightened, thinking has it that proxy totalitarianism is much better suited to emerging economies than inertia suffering democracy.

A Goldman Sachs study from around 2008/2009 suggested the following combined attributes best described poverty stricken third world countries.

1/ Landlocked
2/ Democracy

Perhaps the west should stop trying to dictate the region and everything will be ok?

Not sure being totally hands on or hands off is the answer. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I was in North Africa in my 20s (Egypt and Sudan, before heading off to Asia) and was shocked at what I saw. Well, in truth, I wasn't, but when I look back, I am.

Here's a photo I took at Helwan Helicopter base, aged 20 in 1980, overlooking some of the remnants of Russia's military assistance to Egypt.

Those MiGs abandoned like a pile of junk, not a bad metaphor for interventionist politics gone wrong.

 

[Dryce]

One could argue that the west is to blame for these underlying issues to start off with.

It doesn't wear with me any more. They'll still be pointing the finger at the west in 100 or 200 years time.

It's not as if Europe has been without major crises and problems or had static boundaries and relationships in the last 100 years.