Major events are always waiting around
the corner to grab our attention. Recently there have been a number
that have caught mine. I just thought I'd share a few and also some
brief thoughts.
Just today there has been the recent
news of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. For the
United States this is huge, especially given that it is an election
year. Scalia was a prominent member of the conservative component of
the court. His death raises the possibility of tilting the court to
a more liberal bent depending upon the result of this year's election,
thus having far reaching consequences for the future of America. I
understand that Obama will nominate someone, but it is doubtful that
the Republican dominated Senate will confirm someone before
election day. This is something people may want to keep in mind when
they vote. As in, do you want someone who is nominated by Trump, for
example?
During the past week we have learned of
the confirmation that gravitational waves do exist, as was theorized
by Albert Einstein. A scientific break through that furthers our
knowledge of space and our existence. A credit to human intelligence
and creativity. And for all science geeks out there a Christmas
present in February. Yeah, I was going to go with different
phrasing there, but thought I'd keep it G-rated. Lol!
The refugee crisis in Europe continues,
with fresh streams of people continuing to flow out of Syria. While
there have been so many people out there willing to blame the United
States for all of the problems in the Middle East, I can't help but
feel that the cause of this latest chapter in the Syrian war saga
should be laid directly at Putin's door. I have grave doubts about
any so called cease fire that Russia is willing to participate in.
I really can't end this on such a
depressing note, so I will add an ending for Valentine's Day. Unlike
Iran, with leaders who are apparently so afraid of the West that they can't even allow a simple Valentines Day celebration,, President Obama
and his wife Michelle were sweetly vocal about their feelings for
each other.
Okay, maybe it was a little cheesy,
but it's the thought that counts, and if they're happy then that's
all that matters. :)
74 comments:
I suspect nobody mentioned the Syrian "Peace Plan" last week because nobody here took it seriously. I'm noticing now that nobody took it seriously. The war rages on. The Turks and the Saudi are actually making noises about expanding their involvement. (I see little good that can come from that.)
The Turks and the Saudi are actually making noises about expanding their involvement. (I see little good that can come from that.)
You and me both. While I don't want to see the Russians continue on the path they are taking, the insertion of other troops from the region risks just widening the conflict even further.
I noticed the other day that the Russians and the Syrian government seemed to be quite willing to bomb some more hospitals that Doctors Without Borders are involved with. I am awaiting the screaming and gnashing of teeth that should follow these events, such as we saw after our mistake in Afghanistan.
There also seems to be some notice being taken of the fact that Russia could very easily roll over, let's see, was it Slovakia, Lithuana and, dang I forget the other one. The US does not have as meany troops on the ground in Europe as it had in the past, so many of those countries would be on their own in any initial possible conflict with Russia.
I am thinking that between the millions of new inhabitants Europe has acquired recently, and a stalking bear on its border, that Europe is caught somewhere between a rock and a hard place.
Thing is: The Saudi and the Turks will go in under cover of noises about attacking Da’esh, and then not attack Da’esh. They'll go after Assad instead. (Turks probably ramp up efforts against the Kurds as well.)
"I am awaiting the screaming and gnashing of teeth that should follow…"
Yeah, right.
"…dang I forget the other one."
Estonia? Latvia? In any case, the Euroweenies will need to come to some consensus about their relationship with Russia. Their perceptions of the scope of the "common defense" no longer match ours. Their perception is that, in the end, we are obliged to bail them out of whatever mess they negotiate themselves into with Russia. I disagree. Cold War's over; Soviet Union is no more; we can afford to take the risk of them falling under Putin's dictates. That'll at least give ‘im somethin’ to keep ‘im busy.
They'll go after Assad instead.
Yup, and that will put them up against Russia. So the US could end up with an ally and a member of NATO stumbling into a war with Russia. It would leave us with some difficult decisions. The same possibility could arise with Europe. It depends on how far Putin is willing to push.
Estonia? Latvia?
It might have been Estonia. Could be either one. They tend to run together in my mind (my apologies to the countries in question).
Their perception is that, in the end, we are obliged to bail them out of whatever mess they negotiate themselves into with Russia.
My impression is that they seem to prefer appeasement. A dangerous inclination. It didn't work very well before.
Strange how we seemed to think that all of the Cold War era feelings had passed. Human nature hasn't changed. And really, neither has Russia.
"And really, neither has Russia [changed]."
Proves up my contention that political spectrum curves, the far-left dictatorships eventually meet up with the far-right dictatorships and in the end, there's no practical difference between them. Putin's fascist Russia is getting into bed with the right-wing political parties springing up all across Europe. It's their common inclination towards autocracy that brings them together in the end.
More info on the Russian airstrikes that hit the hospitals.
And French charity Doctors Without Borders (MSF) claims that at least eight staff are missing after rockets hit a hospital that it supported in the province of Idlib in north western Syria.
In a statement, MSF said the hospital was hit with four times in at least two attacks. It said the attacks were minutes apart, adding that at least eight members of staff are currently missing.
'This appears to be a deliberate attack on a health structure, and we condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms,' said Massimiliano Rebaudengo, MSF's mission chief.
Today Turkey accused Russia of acting as a 'terrorist organisation' in Syria and vowed to deliver a 'decisive response' to its bombing campaign in support of Bashar al-Assad.
And it does appear that you are right about Turkey's concern about the Kurds.
It also warned it would not allows the town of Azaz to fall into the hands of a Kurdish militia and its fighters will face the 'harshest reaction' if they approach it.
It's their common inclination towards autocracy that brings them together in the end.
Indeed.
That's also one reason I've never bought into the theory that groups like AQ or a dictator like Saddam couldn't work together. While they may have different ideologies they are of the same ilk when it comes to how to run a country.
This is a good synopsis of the various alliances in the Syrian conflict and the current situation around Syria's northern border with Turkey.
More detail there on the Kurds' recent advances than most people give.
I was thinking the same thing. I was also thinking their advance seems to be being helped by more than us.
The Russians seem to be very adept at chess. Whether it will give them the result they are seeking, I don't know. Or will it merely prod Turkey into some extreme action that will land us all in the soup?
The plot thickens...
And yet, I've been reading a bunch of neo-con op-eds lately which seem to collectively agree that the fact that we're not already hip-deep in that mess is somehow ‘proof’ that Obama's foreign policy is aimless, and feckless, and less of whatever macho they seem to think is called for in the face of a free-for-all that doesn't directly involve us (yet).
It looks like Russia's economic situation may be catching up with Putin.
...a free-for-all...
It is starting to remind me of some serious mud wrestling. Unfortunately it will have serious long term consequences for people in the region and for areas who receive those fleeing the various conflicts.
And yet, I've been reading a bunch of neo-con op-eds lately which seem to collectively agree that the fact that we're not already hip-deep in that mess is somehow ‘proof’ that Obama's foreign policy is aimless, and feckless,...
If he had intervened their argument would have been something entirely different. They are the anti-Obama.
They do seem to need Obama to get involved in Syria so they still have things to blame on him in a couple of years. (When he's out of office I expect he may start reminding them that Libya was actually an English/French project undertaken at the behest of Italy, and he didn't get us involved in it until they came howlin’ for American backup and munitions.)
South Carolina Republican primary tomorrow. That probably deserves an exclamation point, maybe two. !!! Toss in a third for good measure. Trump's gonna take first; probably Cruz takes second; then likely Rubio takes third. Rubio really needs to take second to put some distance (and Cruz) between himself and the other also rans, but he's likely gonna come up short.
The Syrian doctor in Aleppo wasn't asked, so he felt it necessary to volunteer the information:
"After all, the US supports the [Russian bombing] attacks."
Der Spiegel
(moderately long)
It is long, but worth the read.
"After all, the US supports the [Russian bombing] attacks."
In the Middle East perception is everything. The United States is a strong military power who has said it wants the removal of Assad. Yet it has done nothing, really, to further that goal. So what else are the people of the region to assume?
I understand Obama's hesitation to become further involved in a region where we have just managed to extricate ourselves, for the most part, from. It is currently a free for all mud wrestling match between various factions in the region, with the Russians bombing willy nilly anything that moves in a scorched earth policy that has little regard for human life, even that of children. But I tend to agree that the picture would look different if we had acted differently in the past. Whether or not it would have been an improvement over what we see now, I don't know. But I think the writer of your article is right in that Russia is using this as a way to weaken Europe. Whether that will in the long run get them the result they desire is questionable, but it still seems to be what they are aiming for. They were adept at using this opportunity that was handed to them on a silver platter.
" The United States is a strong military power who has said it wants
the removal of Assad."
It does not logically follow from there that the U.S.A. supports the Russians bombing Aleppo in support of Assad.
I'm of the opinion that the good doctor would be seized of the same theory if Obama had said nothing on the subject.
I recall Alaa, ‘The Messopotamian’ once explaining thusly: In the mindset of the denizens of the Middle East, all things happen either because the United States caused it to happen, or because the United States allowed it to happen. In either case, all things happened because the United States willed it to be so.
I think that is partly it. I also think that people believe that if they complain long and loudly enough the United States will step in.
Our opportunity to step in with minimal consequences has passed, I think. If we do step in now we will have to be prepared to deal with Russia.
Honestly, this whole situation is starting to remind me of the run up to WWII, with a Europe that seems to think appeasement will work with a bully and a United States that doesn't really want to get involved.
"I also think that people believe that if they complain long and loudly
enough the United States will step in."
I suppose there may be some of that at work.
But, I don't see analogy to WWII working. ISIS is hardly a powerhouse to match Nazi Germany; neither is Russia. If there is a working analogy it's probably closer to the run-up to WWI, where decrepit, sclerotic ‘old’ empires kept siding up and making and remaking shifting alliances until they gradually dragged everybody in.
It's a little early in the evening yet, but the Associated Press has already called the Nevada Caucuses for Hillary, by around 5% points. You may remember I said earlier that if Bernie could pull off a win in Nevada, then we'd have to consider we had a real contest on our hands. Well, he didn't manage that, but 5% points isn't enough of a margin for Hillary to feel good about it either. (She'll almost certainly win South Carolina next week.) Be interesting to see if Bernie can keep up his folks' enthusiasm in the face of a string of losses. He may be a nuisance to her all the way to the end.
AP has also called South Carolina for Trump. Looks like Rubio may be giving Cruz a real run for second place--too early to call that one.
Looks like Rubio pulled out second place. By something like .2 percentage points (22.5% to Cruz's 22.3%). This is bad news for Cruz, but not a killer, yet. And Bush is history; his voters in states not yet voted will probably go mostly for Rubio, but maybe some to Kasich, who has no real reason to get out of the race. He can't win, but he can get delegates and maybe make himself a person to be reckoned with at the convention.
But, I don't see analogy to WWII working.
It was more the behavior of Europe and the United States that reminded me of that.
If there is a working analogy it's probably closer to the run-up to WWI, where decrepit, sclerotic ‘old’ empires kept siding up and making and remaking shifting alliances until they gradually dragged everybody in.
This I can agree with. Nazi Germany's actions were more of a reaction to what transpired from WWI. Russia's actions now seem to be an effort to revive what they perceive as past glory. You could toss Turkey into that mix as well, even though it appears they are obsessed with the Kurds. ISIS will eventually die from natural causes, while Russia and Turkey are states that will live on. It is just a question of how they do so. But meanwhile I can see others being dragged into an escalating conflict if they are not careful. And it appears they have no intention of being so.
He can't win, but he can get delegates and maybe make himself a person to be reckoned with at the convention.
He might make a good VP. I listened to him a little bit a couple days ago. He didn't seem to be too much of a wing nut, from what I heard. Of course that doesn't mean he isn't. lol!
Be interesting to see if Bernie can keep up his folks' enthusiasm in the face of a string of losses. He may be a nuisance to her all the way to the end.
I can see where some of the things he says would appeal to people, especially younger voters. I just can't see where he is going to pay for it. Unless he can get a Democratic controlled Congress.
"He might make a good VP."
Trump, Cruz, Rubio… I can't see him serving as Veep for any of those clowns. (It is conceivable that I could have voted for him (I've been listening to him too. He hadn't won me back to the Republicans, but it is conceivable that he might yet have pulled that off.) which makes it fairly inconceivable that he could ever win the nomination in today's Republican party.)
"Our opportunity to step in with minimal consequences has passed, I think."
‘Minimal consequences’ you say? Perhaps you want to re-think that one?
‘Minimal consequences’ you say? Perhaps you want to re-think that one?
Believe me, I've been thinking about this for a while now. I really don't like what we seem to be sliding into. I don't mean the Middle East, as bad as that is, but Russia and Putin's behavior. He has seemed to be testing us for years now, beginning with George W's administration. I have some concern about where that situation is headed. I tuned into Fareed Zakaria's show a little too late this morning. He had Thomas Friedman on, speaking on just this topic, but I missed the first part. The part I did catch was where he expressed some misgiving on Russia too. I may have to see if I can find a video of his show later to see what exactly Friedman had to say.
So when I mean minimal consequences I mean comparatively speaking to where we may be headed.
I just zipped over to look at Zeyad's maps and noticed that Russian airstrikes seem to be concentrated mostly in rebel, not Daesh, held territory, except for those clustered around Deir ez Zour. I also noticed that, if I am seeing the color coding right, most of the airstrikes are of low confidence classification.
I'm going to a play today so will have to run and get some cleaning done. *sigh* Time just seems to fly away.
I notice Marcus seems to have disappeared. He is either otherwise occupied or has gotten tired of our chatter.
"…Russia and Putin's behavior…"
I firmly believe that Putin is leading Russia into another collapse. We don't have to do much except wait for it; it's coming fairly soon (five years maybe and it'll either have happened or we'll all know it's inevitable). Happily, Putin is enough of an old-line Soviet type that he can reasonably be relied upon to not launch the nukes in frustration.
"I notice Marcus seems to have disappeared."
Yep.
Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institute has a long (very long) argument in favor of a much greater American involvement in the Middle East. His basic thesis is that we need to step up and police the locals forever and for free.
I don't know that I am so concerned about a nuclear war, as I tend to agree that even Putin has some sense, but I am a little concerned with the creation, or widening, of conflicts in various areas.
I'll have to read the Pollack piece later. I'm running late tonight.
P.S.
The friend I went to the play with has been watching this election with more than a little concern. She doesn't like Trump and will, if it comes to pass that he is the GOP nominee, make sure she goes to the polls to negate her sister's vote. Her sister, unfortunately, seems to like Trump.
You Yanks won't be so familiar with the Eurovision Song Contest though I've mentioned it before here. It's a weird anachronism, going for over fifty years, but seems to have reinvented itself as a kitschy almost self-parody with a large gay following. However, it gets a seriously large audience of 200 million TV viewers, and as such is quite a focus of national PR. (The winning country becomes the host for the following year).
The last two years have been politically frought, with hosts having to ask the live audience not to boo the Russian entry. This year should be just as peaceable ;-0
Jamala (Susana Jamaladinova), of Crimean Tatar descent sings the Ukraine song, '1944', about Stalin's deportation of the Tatars.
I'd say it's more than just the usual increasing Eurovision homogenisation that the verses are in English. Jamala says she "wants to tell Europe an unknown story". One suspects it's not about 1944 either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1yzjoNTokk
Wow, that was long. I just finished the article, Lee. I think I will sleep on my response.
One suspects it's not about 1944 either.
I suspect that you are right.
At some point in time I would think that Russia's actions will come back to bite them. The anger they are fostering by their actions would make that inevitable.
I'd say it's more than just the usual increasing Eurovision homogenisation that the verses are in English.
It is a way to send a message. Yes.
"Wow, that was long."
I did warn ya.
I would not have expected you to read an article that took that long to say things you didn't wanna hear, like how it doesn't make good sense for us to police the Middle East forever and for free--no matter how much they might theoretically benefit, short-term, from being policed; and how we don't make a good imperial power; never did; probably never will. Aren't any good at it; don't wanna get good at it.
Never mind the fact that he glosses neatly over their very probable violent resistance to being recolonized.
""I notice Marcus seems to have disappeared."
Yep."
Marcus is scuba diving south of Phuket, Thailand, since it's February and the weather in Sweden sucks. Will be back though.
I would not have expected you to read an article that took that long to say things you didn't wanna hear,...
I think he made a good case for either action on the part of the United States. Intervention in the Middle East is not an uncomplicated thing. Weighing the pro's and con's is very important. We have not gotten it right in the past, there is no guarantee that we will get it right in the future. All I know is that what is happening there now is starting to cause some serious problems for other regions of the world. Perhaps we need to factor that into whatever actions we decide to take. I don't think Obama has gotten it right any more than George W. did.
...we don't make a good imperial power; never did; probably never will. Aren't any good at it; don't wanna get good at it.
I agree, as I think most Americans would. Intervention by the United States would need to come more in the form of support for those in the region who are at the moderate end of the spectrum.
Marcus is scuba diving south of Phuket, Thailand, ...
Sounds nice and warm. :)
"I think he made a good case for either action…"
His case for getting deeper involved, in policing the neighborhood had no end game. It had no end in sight at all. And, he ignored all the downsides. We have reached the end of the line on that compromise that traded for regional stability. The autocracies are no longer stable; the natives have had enough of it (hence the alure of political Islam, the jihadi types), and the old autocracies can only be maintained by force. Our force will meet with resistance, both native and from the rest of the world, he doesn't acknowledge that.
Two "L's" in ‘allure’.
Obama has announced a new plan for closing the Guantánamo Bay prison (which I support). His plan calls for coöperation from the Congress (which he will not get).
‘calls for’ = requires
Ain't gonna happen.
His plan calls for coöperation from the Congress (which he will not get).
His plan calls for bringing some of the prisoners here to the States. Congress does not approve. I heard that there were some who have already been moved. I don't know if this is fact or if the newscaster was stretching things.
I do not know if the President can act without the approval of Congress in this matter? How much latitude does he have?
His case for getting deeper involved, in policing the neighborhood had no end game.
I think that ultimately, if we were to get more involved, this is the end game:
In all four civil wars, the United States and its allies will also have to undertake major political efforts aimed at forging equitable power-sharing arrangements.
But all of this would take more patience, commitment, or ingenuity then any American government may have.
The parties do not want equitable power sharing arrangements. The parties want dominance. They want to win. This ain't gonna end until their citizens decide not to fight for the kings and imams and dictators anymore, and that's gonna take a lot more bloodshed before they give that up. (There was a piece on PBS just the other day--the citizens who're getting hammered in Aleppo didn't want a truce; they wanted better weapons for their side is what they wanted. They made that very clear.) It's gonna keep on going until they get tired of it; equitable power sharing arrangements be damned.
I must admit to underestimating Trump's appeal to the Republican primary voters. He beat the take for both Rubio and Cruz combined totals in the Nevada caucuses yesterday; impressive feat that. I thought the Republican primary voters would come to their senses when it began to appear that Trump might actually win, and they had to consider that possibility as real instead of it being merely a protest vote. I was mistaken. I'm gonna havta change my odds again.
In order…
1. Trump wins the nomination before the convention.
1. Nobody wins and they have to sort it out in Cleveland at the convention.
(tie for first place there; once it gets on the convention floor it's anybody's guess where they go)
3. Cruz wins the nomination before the convention.
4. Rubio wins the nomination before the convention.
There appears to be an argument going on among Europeans about how much their emerging right-winger parties are supported by Putin's Russia and how much of their admiration and support of Putin is simply a native, home-grown fascist inclination recognizing Putin's Russia as a sympathetic power.
I must admit to underestimating Trump's appeal to the Republican primary voters.
You gave too much credit to them I'm afraid. But, then, so did I. I never thought he'd get this far. *sigh*
I wonder what Bridget is thinking right about now? I can't see her voting for Trump.
But as Moscow builds its army of useful idiots, European and U.S. policymakers would be well advised to invest significant resources in research to uncover Moscow’s methods of influence in Europe. Doing otherwise leaves the E.U. wide open to Russia’s brand of unconventional warfare — a vulnerability that Europe, caught in a moment of crisis, can ill afford to overlook.
Hmmm...it's been a while since I've visited The Saker. I wonder what he's been up to?
(For some reason he just popped into my head.)
Syrian "ceasefire"
"I wonder what Bridget is thinking right about now?"
Has it perhaps occurred to you to ask her?
"Syrian ‘ceasefire’"
Serious skepticism is called for.
David Dukes, infamous (in America) former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, has urged ‘European Americans’ to get out there and volunteer and vote and elect Donald Trump. He says voting for anybody else is ‘treason to your [white] heritage’.
Has it perhaps occurred to you to ask her?
You know, that's not a bad idea. I'll just quick do that...
Serious skepticism is called for.
Indeed. It really just sounds like Russia and Assad want to have their cake and eat it too.
David Dukes, infamous (in America) former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, has urged ‘European Americans’ to get out there and volunteer and vote and elect Donald Trump.
Not an endorsement I would want.
I'm listening a little bit to the Republican debate at the moment. Trump is pontificating on his wall between the US and Mexico, which he insists Mexico will pay for, and which the Mexicans have basically said go take a long walk on a short pier. Okay, yeah, I cleaned that up a little bit. lol!
Ahh...geez, now I'm going to have to go Google Donald Trump and Polish workers. Seriously...?
"You know, that's not a bad idea."
I'm more curious ‘bout whether she sees herself supporting Trump in the event he walks out of the Cleveland convention with the Republican nomination in hand. But, it may be a little early pose that question.
We'll see if she responds to my email.
Fell asleep. And I was gonna start on a new post. Oh well.
Night.
Cruz and Rubio (especially Rubio) made some serious efforts to scuff up The Donald in last night's debate. So far nothin’s affected the affection with which Trump's supporters view him. This may very well be of no particular moment either.
In what I consider must be a bit of a mischief for the fun of it, Chris Christie has endorsed Donald Trump. (Christie is, perhaps, a little bit bitter about his failure to reach launch velocity.)
‘…effected the affection…’
Yeah I saw that; finally just had to fix it.
Chris Christie has endorsed Donald Trump.
Maybe hoping for a VP call up? Actually they seem like they might get along rather well together. Both have a certain blunt way of putting things.
"Maybe hoping for a VP call up?"
Maybe; but I'd have held out for the Supreme Court nomination.
More serious speculation is that Christie was offered the nomination for Attorney General.
Speaking of the Supreme Court….
The Republicans are already preparing to ‘light up’ whomever is Obama's Supreme Court nominee. They have no intention of actually considering any nominee for confirmation, but they've made it clear they do want to inflict maximum pain on whomever gets nominated anyway--just for the fun of it. Teach Obama, and anybody who's willing to assist him in this process the equivalent of a political "lesson" about crossing the Republicans.
"‘It’s likely not to be a serious nomination. If a person wants to go
down as part of a fight that they never had a chance to win … I
suppose you might want to step up and be willing to be a part of this,’
said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)."
Politico.com
The Republicans are already preparing to ‘light up’ whomever is Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
That might prove rather amusing if Obama nominates a...Republican.
Post a Comment