'Attempted' annexation of Crimea latest in US 'diplospeak' euphemisms

[Jesus Malverde]

By now, most people know that Russian President Vladimir Putin took over the neighboring Crimea region of Ukraine and formally annexed it after a hastily called referendum there that drew outrage from across the globe.

U.S. officials don’t dispute what happened — they saw the Russian celebration of the “return” of Crimea and heard the challenge to Western domination in Putin’s speech — but the official government lexicon hasn’t caught up to the facts on the ground. The State Department’s latest verbal twist is to refer to Putin’s land grab as an “attempt” at annexation, to underline U.S. opposition to a move it considers illegitimate.

Such language causes eye rolling among foreign policy specialists, some of whom harbor more serious concerns that the empty wording also signals a lack of policies that factor in the uncomfortable realities of places such as Ukraine, Syria, Egypt and China.

“Isn’t this already a fait accompli? It’s already taken,” a reporter pointed out at a recent State Department briefing where spokeswoman Marie Harf defended the use of “attempted annexation” for the Crimea crisis.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/attempted-annexation-of-crimea-latest-in-us-diplospeak-euphemisms-1.277418

[jakeXT]

1. One battle lost, the war isn't over mentality ?

http://rt.com/news/158028-ukraine-water-supply-crimea/

[Jesus Malverde]

2. Pretty sure the mentality is recognition equals legitimacy.

It's similar to Iraq where the invasion itself wasn't enough. Saddam and his heirs had to be eliminated to ensure there was no alternative narrative for legitimacy.

I think most interesting is there seems to be a little disdain from the military. I was surprised to see this article is appearing in stars and stripes.