Putin's Counter Revolution

[David Morris]

.

On Sunday, March 16, 2014, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> I was talking about your atomic weapons theory which sounds nuts to me.


Right. Nuts. Little divided nation gets invasion welcomed by the side being
invaded. Other side pushes button? Crazy!  It's good they gave up their
nukes, otherwise the whole world would have to jump in: instant WW3


>   If Russia should be punished shouldn't the US be punished over the  Iraq
> invasion ould punish right back?


There you go again. Iraq is way over there, populated by them. Ukraine is
next door. This is much more personal to the EU. "Should" isn't ever really
the issue. Personal and strategic interests determine, not abstract morals.

Yes I am an idealist if by that you mean an advocate of democratic or
> consensus based  peaceable conflict resolution. I don't regard it as
> realistic to bully and bomb people and expect good to come from it.


Thank God no bombs at play here.  Putin and Russia will lose this game
because they are just playing an outdated game of nostalgia for power w/o
any real power except oil which won't last long.  They have no real army
and no real money. This play by Putin was a desperate and stupid one. He
can't punish the US economically. Alice is correct about that.

David Morris


> On Mar 16, 2014, at 3:34 PM, alice malice wrote:
>
> > My reading of it is honest and is supported by the facts and by
> > history. You are naive and idealistic.  Anytime someone here shows you
> > the facts you call them a right wing talk show host. Why is that?
> > Can't you argue the facts? The agreement that Russia signed was not
> > nullified by the change in government. Ukraine is a sovereign state
> > and was promised protection if it surrendered the weapons. Putin
> > violated the agreement. Now he will have to pay the price. How is that
> > a right wing position? Should thugs like Putin be allowed to threaten
> > their neighbors? Is this what Left Wingers support? No. The world
> > needs to defend Ukraine. Not because it has a government we admire or
> > hope to see succeed, but because Russia is threatening the peace and
> > Putin must pay a price for his aggression.  This is a sensible and
> > logical approach, the one most likely to be implemented.
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> >> The agreement was made with an elected government that is gone. What
> they have there in Ukraine was made up last week.  Your theory is nutty
> anyway , just utterly paranoid true believer armageddon stuff . You sound
> like Rush Limbaugh or Curtis LeMay.
> >> On Mar 16, 2014, at 12:23 PM, alice malice wrote:
> >>
> >>> They will. Of course they will. The spread can't be stopped. Brasil is
> >>> deep into it. Who or what wil threaten there interests and security
> >>> in the future is hard to say, but we can be sure that it will happen.
> >>>
> >>> The logic is supported by history. Read that chapter from M-D. Loose
> >>> fish will be made fast.
> >>>
> >>> Land, like the islands off Argentina (remember that?), resources,
> >>> fishing rights, water...air space....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ukraine agreed to give them up and look  what happened there. Even
> >>> Putin would have to think twice if all those nukes were still in
> >>> Ukraine.
> >>>
> >>> It's expensive. The American Empire will make them pay dearly for it,
> >>> but, as you say, logic, ego-politics, will drive the spread of nukes
> >>> on a global scale.
> >>>
> >>> The anti-proliferation objective may continue a pace, as weapons are
> >>> dismantled, bu the spread of weapons, of nukes, can't be stopped.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:34 AM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>> And by that logic, Venezuela, and most of Latin America, for that
> matter,
> >>>> should nuke up to defend themselves against the US tendency to depose
> and/or
> >>>> murder elected presidents.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/17/usa.venezuela
> >>>>
> >>>> LK
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: David Morris
> >>>> Sent: Mar 16, 2014 10:45 AM
> >>>> To: alice malice
> >>>> Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org"
> >>>> Subject: Re: Putin's Counter Revolution
> >>>>
> >>>> You think if Ukrane had nukes that would have changed the current
> situation
> >>>> in Ukraines favor? So a new government in Kiev would have threatened
> to
> >>>> launch the Big Ones if Russia stepped into Crimea?  That sounds like
> crazy
> >>>> talk. Nukes versus boots on ground? God save us from that equation.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sunday, March 16, 2014, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's was needed, as Mearsheimer argued convincingly only a few
> years
> >>>>> ago, was a greater nuclear deterrent; he was right that Ukraine
> needed a
> >>>>> nuclear arsenal to defend itself against Russia's superior
> conventional
> >>>>> army. Water under the bridge.  But the west has to punish Putin now.
> Punish
> >>>>> his markets and economy. Let him have the mess in Syria. Iran won't
> turn
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20140316/5a8528aa/attachment.html>