Kerry privately urges Poroshenko to provide evidence of Kremlin involvement with separatists in Ukra

[happyslug]

61. I read that Article, and I seriously has doubt on the author's position.

Lets look at one paragraph:

The United States can threaten economic sanctions, expel Russia from the G-8 and consider a range of other measures, but the Kremlin must have already discounted these possible countermeasures well before it executed its carefully planned takeover of Crimea

carefully planned takeover????? Even Kissinger admits that Putin did not spend million hosting the winter Olympics to blow all he had gain by taking the Crimea right afterward. Putin was REACTING to what was happening in Kiev, not causing what happened.

Now, her article starts out with this paragraph:

For Moscow, the drama that has been unfolding in Ukraine for the past three months is a domestic and an international issue. After all, if a revolution can unseat an unpopular, corrupt government in Kiev, why not in Moscow?

Now, that projection if I have ever read projection. As long as the Red Army is united it can put down any revolt or coup. Right now they is NO movement with the Red Army other then to support Putin. Thus any possibility of a "Orange" type revolution in Moscow is about the same for one in Washington, i.e. Zero. Putin has a strong support, and his main opposition is the Communist party, which is presently supporting what Putin is doing in the Ukraine. I think the author wants a revolution in Moscow and she wants it run by the "Liberal" opposition that gets less votes then the Communists, but they have no support from the Red Army, the bureaucrats that run the Government, the Orthodox church or any other nation wide organisation. The Liberal opposition is as large is it is going to get for to get larger it has to win support from people presently supporting Putin or the Communists, and once the liberals do so, they have to give up on many of the programs they base of support demands. i.e. to get larger they have to adopt a program much more like the Communists and Putin, but if they do they base of support today will leave them.

Thus if anyone is going to replace Putin it is the Communists. They are strong at the local level and in the bureaucracy and in the Army (and has strong connections with the Orthodox Church). In many ways they followers still want to have more government control over the assets of Russia then does the Putin and his supporters, they want increase spending on the poor and other social spending (in which they are supported by the Orthodox Church). Putin strength has been to provide these services himself and cut back on any support the Communist get for advocating these programs. The main difference is the Communists want to crack down on the Oligarchs, who Putin see as his main source of support (and again the Communists are supported by the Orthodox Church is this matter). The Oligarchs see Putin as the Strong leader that can do what is needed to stay in power and thus preserve they power (When Yeltsin was replaced by Putin, it was do to the fact the Communists were set to win the next election do to the Russian people rejecting Yeltsin's adoption of radical capitalism in the 1990s, the people brought the line they had to sacrifice for almost 10 years, but it was finally getting to a point the the people were saying NO and prepared to vote the communists back in. Yeltsin was out, Putin was in and with Putin all types of Social Programs were adopted, Pensions were increased, old people had enough money so that they no longer had to go on the street to try to see what they had in their homes. Putin even made sure the Army was feed (if you remember reports from the 1990s, you had Russian Soldiers begging for food on Russian Public Highways).

My point is Putin is secure, for no one wants the Communists in Control and the liberal opposition is to weak for anyone to worry about. Thus a revolution is Moscow is almost impossible. Thus the author claim of a concern by Putin of such a revolution amounts to wishful thinking on the part of the Author. Putin may be replaced, but it will be by someone just like him and who will carry out his program.

As to the quote the Author used, it is almost the same comment I have made about the area between the Mountains of Silesia and the Pacific Ocean, the various nationalities are concentrated along the rivers between those two pieces of geography, with the people of both intermixing in the flat areas between those rivers drainage area. The Poles are along the Vistula, the Ukrainians along the Dnieper, the Russians along the Volga. Moscow is between three rivers and is the center of Russia, which spread down all three rivers, the Volga (the largest River in Europe heading for the Caspian Sea), the Northern Dvina (heading to Archangel and the Arctic Ocean) and the Neva- Lake Lagoda-Volga-Baltic Waterway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neva

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Ladoga

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga-Baltic_Waterway

All three river systems have been connected by man made canals since the early 1800s, and before that by ox draw wagons between the three river systems (the areas is all flat. Moscow is more or less in the center of these three systems, thus since the 1200s they have been more or less treated as the best way to move cargo around Russia and all three systems combined is the heart of Russia.

The biggest problem with the Russia system is the Don. The Don is connected by canal to the Volga, and thus connect the above system to the Sea of Azov and thus into the Black Sea. The Don is a Russia River, but its main tributary is the Donets which flows from the Ukraine into the Don. The Donets is also that part of the Ukraine where people speak Russian not Ukrainian. In many ways the Don has been so close to the Volga that it is part of the Volga system. In many ways this explains the high number of Russian Speakers in that area, it is overflow from the Volga.

Thus the heart of Poland is the Vistula, the heart of Ukrainian is the Dnieper, and the heart of Russian is the Volga AND the Northern Dvina AND the Neva- Lake Lagoda-Volga-Baltic Waterway AND the Don.

in the flat lands where the drainage areas of these rivers overlap is where the people of these waterways also overlap. This is not like in Western Europe where the Alps isolate Italy from France, Germany and Slovenia, Where Spain and France is divide by the mountains in between. Where France was defined for centuries as not including anything the flowed into the Rhine (Louis XIV was the one who pushed the French border to the Rhine, and that German Speaking part of France has been a problems ever since). Mountains make excellent borders, Rivers, lakes and small sea do not (people use water transportation if it is available thus River, Lakes and Small Seas unite people through trade not divide them by the geographical fact of they existence).

Now, as you go further East, you run into rivers that flows NORTH into the Arctic. The Ural is the last river the flows south, and then into the Caspian Sea, an inland sea. The Ural was for centuries the de facto border between Russia and the remains of the Mongol Empire, till the later was taken over by Russia. As the population of Russia grew, its ability to raise troops to attack and occupy what is now Siberia grew. By the time of Catherine the Great, Russia had reached the Pacific and was doing its best to stop the raids into Russia from what is now Kazakhstan (Catherine finally decided she had to spend the money and conquer what is now known as the Former Soviet Central Asiatic Republic, to stop the slave raids into Russia. She was about to launch such an attack when she died and succeeded by her son Paul, who dropped the plan. Since it was 1796 Paul and after his death in 1801, Nicolas I. Central Asia had to wait till after Napoleon was defeated. The Russian finally got around to taking over those areas in the late 1800s.

My point is Russia's Natural Borders overlapps Poland's, the Ukraine, and even Belarus. Now Belarus is a unique country, it is basically the Pinsk Swamps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinsk_Marshes

Being in the middle of a swamp, Belarus is really not part of any of the countries around it, but at the same time drawn to those countries. Thus holistically this has always been a border area, mostly between Russia and Poland, with the border shifting between the two depending on which was stronger. This had an effect on the Ukraine, for the Pinsk Swamps flows into the Pinsk River which flows into the Dnieper. At the same time the swamps made the area impassible in summer (Thus when attack, the smart invader did it is winter, the ground when frozen became a huge frozen highway).

As far as the Ukraine is concern, Belarus is its northern neighbor, being a close ally of Russia makes the existence of an independent Ukraine, without permission of Moscow, a meaningless term. What I mean by that is Russia can accept an independent Ukraine, but not a hostile Independent Ukraine. And what is important is NOT how the people of the Ukraine sees they relationship with Moscow, but how Moscow sees that relationship.

Now, if you read the above carefully you will see that each of these countries are centered around rivers. The problem is as you get away from those Core Rivers, the population tend to mingle. Thus what is Ukrainian, what is Poland, what is Russia, what is Belarus is at best ill defined in this part of the world. Thus Putin's statement about the Ukraine has an element of truth to it. In many ways it extends to far into Russian speaking areas (i.e. the Donets and the Don) and in some ways to much into Polish speaking areas and in areas of people speaking Belarusian. Stalin when he drew up the borders of the Ukraine, wanted as many Russia speakers as he could put in the country, thus its high Russian Speaking areas of Eastern Ukraine. Stalin had done that in 1924, in 1945 Poland gave up those parts of then Eastern Poland that spoke mostly Ukrainian to the Ukraine. This upset Stalin's plan of 1924, but enlarging the Soviet Union was more important to Stalin then maintaining high Russian population percentage in the Ukraine.

Thus the borders of Eastern Europe are at best arbitrary. The heartland of the Ukraine is the Dnieper River, the real question is how far east and west does it go? Is the Donets really in the Ukraine or is it Russia? The Donets flows into the Don, a Russian River.

And lets not forget the reverse argument, does the Ukraine include the Don? Today, the Don is a 100 % Russian River, but the Donets flows into the Don from the Ukraine. You have Ukrainians speakers in the area (through most mostly speak Russian for that is what most people speak).

As to the Western Ukraine, that was part of Poland before WWII, should it not be Polish today? Polish Speakers still exist in the area.

Here is a map of actually spoken langagues:



Map of "Legal" Languages. Notice Alsace Lorraine in the above map it is shown speaking German, in the map below it is show speaking French. It is NOT illegal to Speak German in France (including Alsace Lorraine) but it is illegal to do any official act in any language other then French (including going to School, thus French is imposed on non French Speakers in France, and that has been the case since Louis XIV).



http://indo-europeanlanguages.blogspot.com/2012/08/languages-and-linguistic-map-europe-2012.html

I bring the situation up in Alsace Lorraine for I can use it to make a point as to Eastern Europeans and not get to many people mad at me. What is the official language and what is taught in schools, may NOT be what is spoken at home. That appears to be the case in Eastern Europe to a much higher degree then shown on the map. On the other hand the map is the best evidence we have so I am using it, for it does include Three Polish speaking areas in the Ukraine and Two Ukrainian speaking areas inside Poland.

The areas have been more or less stable since 1850, but in 1850 a lot more overlap (please note Stalin did the most to "solve" the problems of such overlap, he was the one who removed a lot of minorities from all over Eastern Europe. The Germans out of Silesia and Prussia in addition to Czech Republic.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3hQpdyNPpuA/S9vg3rmY_OI/AAAAAAAACOE/DjVgqRnyGDU/s640/Languages+europe_1850c_1901c.jpg

Slavic Languages of Europe:



I bring up the issue of language, for language is what drives most nationalities and something the author ignores for it upsets her world view of Russia.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ALVbofYd_q8/UIvfgpCh1DI/AAAAAAAAFMI/aki-VXb076w/s1600/Dialec+map+in+Europe+-+Belarusian.png