Ends and Means
Jul 21, 2014 Guest Post by David Holland
The tragic event of Friday reminded me of a lunch-time chat that I had with a Russian, at the London meeting at which Ross McKitrick presented the Fraser Institute’s independent analysis of AR4 in February 2007. Like others, I had been disappointed that the Russians had signed up to Kyoto and even more disappointed at the horse trading over gas prices that had led to it. I had heard of Andrei Illarionov and knew he had been a close advisor to Vladimir Putin. However, I must confess that I thought some of the shocking and frightening things that he said of Mr Putin might have been sour grapes. Over the years since, and particularly after Friday, I have realised that Dr Illarionov was perhaps too soft on him.
President Vladimir Putin yesterday reversed months of fervent opposition to the Kyoto protocol and agreed to speed up Russia's ratification of the treaty.The change of heart - which provides the ratification necessary for the protocol to come into effect - follows a decision by the EU at a summit in Moscow yesterday to drop its objections to Russia joining the World Trade Organisation.“The fact that the European Union has met us halfway at the negotiations on membership in the WTO cannot but influence Moscow's positive attitude towards ratification of the Kyoto protocol. We will accelerate our movement towards ratifying this protocol,” Mr Putin said at the summit.
When the EU asked Russia to join in on Kyoto, not surprisingly, “Russia said: What's in it for us?” explains Annie Petsonk, international counsel for Environmental Defense (ED). Russia wanted more than the dollars from emissions trading, it wanted EU support for its entry into the World Trade Organization.“But the EU wanted Russia in Kyoto badly enough to compromise and support its WTO membership bid. Europe will allow Russia to keep natural gas prices lower at home -- as long as Russia agrees to slowly raise them. The Continent's companies also realized that having Russia sign on to Kyoto would help them because they could meet their own Kyoto targets more cheaply by buying Russian emissions reductions.”
Reader Comments (70)
"Putin's fans, please move to Russia ASAP."
I guess that I'm included in that somewhat outdated injunction. I've never been a 'fan' of Putin, and nobody here has said anything remotely fan-like.
He knows how to deal with Greenpeace, though.
I disturbing result of MH17 terrorist attack is the number of conspiracy theorists who repeat propaganda from RT, Russia's western propaganda outlet. The first few posts here were OK, they these crackpots took over the comments. Same thing in every conservative UK paper and Breitbart UK.
Putin is a psychopath, he's been lying about Ukraine ever since the revolution. Sure there were a few Ukraine nationalists, but they are now quiet or shot. The Russian nationalists on the other hand have terrorized the east and killed over 1000 civilians. Shame on you Putin puppets.
Ukrainian-Russian Nationalists != Russia != Putin
I do not wish in anyway to belittle the appalling downing of MH17, but in war the first casualties are innocence and tructh. There is definitely a propaganda was going on, and the reporting in western MSM is accordingly biased. I am at least to some extent with Ian h on this.
The undertone of this was cast along time ago when Europe went on an expansionist drive. Whilst Russians after the war hoovered up what are now the former soviet bloc countries, Europe, following the break up of the Sovet State, is laying stake to these and attracting them with 'bribery' and 'corruption' and financial inducements 9whatever you want to call it). And Europe's aims are federal, so it will be just one large country.
The West has been destabilising western Ukraine for quite some time, and Russia gave warnings that this would lead to consequences. Obviously, Russia wants to be surrounded by neutral countries, if possible, keeping NATO away from its boarders. Ukraine is particularly strategic, and it is no coincidence that Russia has anchored its Black Sea fleet there for quick deployment into the Med and Indian Ocean.
The West naivively under-assessed the significance of Ukraine, and did not see the blinder that Putin played with Crimea. Crimea already had a referendum scheduled on which it was being asked whether it wanted more devolution. Putin brought forward that referendum and changed the question. Now there was about 95% turnout with 95% of those voting to join with Russia. An absolutely overwhelming majority. Under normal circumstances, the West would be supporting self determination and the expressed will of the people. But of course, we were not expecting that, it was not want we wanted and we are licking our wounds. Hence the biased coverage on Crimea and Russian annexation. J
Just consider the Scotish referendum, no one is suggesting that since what is being determined is the existence of the UK, that all UK citizens should have a vote. No one suggests that it is wrong for the Scots alone, to determine their own future even if that determination causes part of the UK to be hived away from it. There is nothing particularly and fundamentally illegitimate about the referendum that took place in Crimea, and just look at the way we report it.
But going back to Ukraine, we put the cat in the menagerie, and we cannot express surprise and outrage when a catfight breaks out. If we had not sought to deliberately destabilise western Ukraine, with the long term view of alligning it with Europe with (distant) prospects of becoming a member and moving NATO into that country, there would not now be a civil war between East and West Ukraine. It is our seeds that are being reaped.
Now obviously those who fired the missile are responsible for their actions. Whilst there is little doubt that Russia has aided the seperatists in the East, and has armed them, that alone does not make Russia responsible for what happens with those weapons.
The West frequently arms countries, does that mean for example that 'we' are responsible for the action that Israel is now taking in Gaza? Should the world be holding Obama to account for this because they are using american hardware to carry out there operations, and Israel often gets special deals on equipment and financing?
Logically, Russia only carries some additional responsibility if they were directing the use of the missile launcher and had day to day operational control over it, or gave it to the seperatists instructing them to take dowwn commercial planes. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any of that. this is an action by the seperatists, not an action by Russia and the mere fact that Russia has aligned geopolitical interests with the seperatist does not change that fact.
We all know that bad things happen in war. I doubt that the seperatists intended to shoot down a commercial airliner, and it was probably mistaken for what they considered to be a 'legitimate' military target. It was a mistake with tragic consequences (I do not subscribe to the view that a mistake over the identity of the victim excuses the perpetrator, in circumstanceswhere the perpetrator formed an intention to kill someone, but would not have acted had he known the victim's true identity).
Whilst I am no fan of appeasement, I consider it a mistake to ramp up things with Russia. It is doubtful that the economic sanctions will inflict much damage, will only serve to sour what are already difficult relations, and we should be endeavouring to encourage Russia to be more responsible and to take a responsible role in world affairs.
I don't think it is that likely that Russia will turn off the gas, but gas is an easy product to sell and Russia will be able to find other takers (inndeed, it has just signed a significant contract with China), so squeezing gas supplies to europe just a little can't be ruled out.
The problem is that winter is not far away. Last winter was mild but there were still problems with supply. If we get a cold winter this year, things could quickly become critical given the decommissioning of so many power stations. Whilst Germany is turning to coal (to replace its nuclear), it takes time for those to come on stream.
Our own energy demands the exploitation of shale. But that is years in the future even if the Government did a U-turn and sought to fast track it.
Finally, I would add that it appears that Russia was right on Syria, that the rebels fighting in Syria were extreme islamist groups and arming them would be a grave mistake. It now appears that ISAS were a considerable componenet of the rebels that we the West were so keen to arm, and had we armed them, we would have seen our arms being used to captire large swathes of Iraq.
The world is a complex place, and we should, as far as possible, stay out of other people's affairs. The foreign policy of Western Governments is a complete mess. One can expect to see less US involvement in the Middle East given that teh Middle East is no longer of such strategic importance to the USA because of shale. This is why USA took a back seat on Libya, and took no action on Syria. If the UK can become energy self reliant because of shale, we can also have the luxury of being able to take a back seat position onn foreign affairs. Given all our recent failures, that would be a very good thing.
Jul 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM | Unregistered Commentersteveta_uk
"..The extraordinary policitcal outrage at the likely unintended deaths of just under 300 poeple in the Ukraine is in extreme contrast to the slimy retoric from the politicos concerning over twice that number deliberately killed by Israel...."
////////////////////////////
I do not like the expression collateral damage and consider it inappropriate when it refers to the direct and inevitable consequence of an action. So I do not view the civilian casualties as colateral damage, but at the same time, Isreal did not intend to kill the civilians; but, of course, it knew that such deaths would be inevitable.
But the problem is that wars today are very different to the two world wars of last centrury and we have yet to face up to that. The change was becoming apparent in Vietnam. There is no longer some 'legitimate' state target and rarely an identifiable and isolated military target. Wars for the main part are being fought by freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorists whatever you want to call them, and it is often difficult to identify them and to isolate and seperate them from civilians. Often, put a weapon down and they are civilian, moments later, pick up the weapon and they are a dog of war. This was seen a lot in Afghanastan.
This is further compounded by the fact that it is their policy to base themselves within the civilian population, and to fight out of civilian strong holds. Civilians are deliberately being used as camoflague and protection.
The upershot of this is that unless they can be taken out with the surgical precision of a sniper riffle, there will always be civilian casualties. If a dog of war is based in appartment 4d on the 4th floor of a 20 storey block of flats, that 'soldier' cannot be taken out by missile or air attack without causing extensive damage (and hence casualties) to those in the block of flats and may be the near surroundings as rubble falls and glass shatters etc.
If 'we' accept that war can be conducted by air and missile attacks, then it is necessary to rewrite many of the convenctions of war since extensive civilian casualties is inevitable given the manner in which today's wars are conducted by both sides.
It is right that we should always be appalled by war, since we will have lost all humanity if that is not the case. War is always horrendous, and should be viewed very much as an act of last resort, but unfortunately there are many hawks in Washington and Whitehall.
I am an optomist in most things, but the Israeli/Palestian conflict will probably still be festering on throughout the majority if not the entirety of this century.
Jul 23, 2014 at 4:26 AM | Unregistered Commenter richard verney
Well said, it looks very much like 'The West' was trying to destabilise the Ukraine and succeeded, so surely that must be a result to someone. On a more blog related topic, there must be a reasonable chance that this will lead to a focusing on energy needs for the UK and Europe. Aren't there plans for a major Russia/China pipeline still.
David Holland, You err when you say the world owes a great debt to Russia for WWII. The majority who died fighting the Germans on the Eastern front were NOT Russian. The largest number were Ukrainian. If you want to be at least comprehensive, call it Soviet. It's a bit like calling Scots Englishmen ... you could at least call it Great Britain and them British ...
Philip Foster on Jul 22, 2014 at 11:11 PM
I agree that while Putin is not to be trusted, (who is?), we need to workout where we, Britain, stands in relation to the foreign powers involved, such as Russia, the USA and the EU.
Our new Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated very soon after the MH17 crash that the investigation should be carried out by international organisations and that Britain's experts would be available to help. It was a good call; nothing given away, but allows some time for creating a suitable response. It soon transpired that there are more questions than answers, even though some answers have several, contradictory, responses.
We then find that the USA believes that Putin did not have direct control over the incident and everyone acts in a way that gives cause that no-one really knows the full picture.
What we must NOT forget is that Baroness Ashton, along with the EU, signed up the Ukraine to ever closer union - something to which the majority of Britain objects, see ARTICLES 4 and 7:
"... This will promote gradual convergence on foreign and security matters with the aim of Ukraine’s ever-deeper involvement in the European security area."
and
"The Parties shall intensify their dialogue and cooperation and promote gradual convergence in the area of foreign and security policy, including the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) ...."
http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/archives/9167
Then we see this, AFTER the Foreign Secretary's good holding statement:
“The EU is preparing further sanctions against Russia for backing Ukraine’s separatists, who are accused by the West of shooting down a Malaysia Airlines passenger plane.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28400218
He, obviously, wasn't in the loop.
Remember the new EU slogan, from 'our' president:
Juncker: When it gets serious you have to lie.
Well worth a watch!
Britain's Responsibility in 1914 and Its Relation to Our Current World Situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1yJ0zID_xw
(I inadvertently 'created my last post' and then didn't have time to complete it!)
History may be a guide to current behaviour, re WWII etc, but, closer to the present, do not forget that the EU helped to topple a democratically elected, if Russian friendly, president, to be replaced by a very anti-East-Ukrainian president, an area that is tied socially, economically and industrially, with Russia, who then banished the Russian language from official business and media. Would the EU dream of doing that to Welsh in Britain? Not a chance! Their actions, collectively, highlight their incompetence. Ukraine lost the Crimea because of EU and their stooges' incompetence.
That is the reality. It's not a question of being fair or not fair. It is plain incompetence, just as they are with 'climate change', farming, fishing, you name it, they are incompetent in it, apart from lying. And even then, they will be found out, the EU and their British agents, the LibLabCon Party.
That is more important to us than Putin's current popularity/credibility/saintliness rating.
husq on Jul 23, 2014 at 2:59 PM
"Well worth a watch!"
But it is OVER TWO HOURS long! Any chance of a precis of what is in it, its agenda?
This doesn't really give anything away:
"In this talk, Terry Boardman, who has been drawn to the subject of the causes of the First World War since 1964, will show what is at stake in today's struggle for the truth about the reality of 1914."
You could get a youtube downloader and watch it at your leisure. But here are some links for the 1stWW and the Syria crisis
Sir Edward Grey, Liberal Imperialism and British Responsibility in 1914 – From the British Empire to the American Empire:
http://threeman.org/?p=865
On the Avoidability of World War One:
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_4/on_the_avoidability_of_world_war_one.php
Why did Great Britain go to war in August 1914? - Pt 1
http://tim-slater.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/why-did-great-britain-go-to-war-in.html
Syriana? Part 1:
http://threeman.org/?p=1739
Part 2:
http://threeman.org/?p=1765#comment-73
Going back to WW1, I did not realise there had been a previous, failed attempt on the Archdukes life.
;
Philip, For the US, Abu Ghraib was a big deal and rightly so given reasonable humanitarian standards ... but Abu Ghraib represents a minor peccadillo compared the the widespread and much more significant atrocities committed by Russia in their various wars. Equating them, as you've done, is mind boggling and states a lot about you.
Robert Christopher ... You're forgetting that the Ukrainian language has been banned on over 100 occasions in the last 400 years. Even in the past year, a boy was killed in Crimea just for speaking Ukrainian. In Ukraine there are hundreds of Russian language schools (with instruction only in Russian). In Russia, where there is a significant Ukrainian minority there aren't any Ukrainian language schools. The law you speak of did not ban the Russian language, people could still speak whatever they wanted to speak. Even so, it was a mistake given the sensitivity of the issue and the way it could be misrepresented and misused. Most Ukrainian speakers will willingly speak Russian to any person who respects the Ukrainian language. The problem is that many Russian speakers refuse to acknowledge Ukrainian as a legitimate language and will ostracize anyone who speaks it.
MikeP,
I am aware of the great loss of life in the Ukraine in WWII. However, I was responding to Ben’s statement that “climate sceptics should not get caught up in Russophobia”. We owe debts to many nations and people for our eventual victory.
David, I understand, but it's very offensive to non-Russian peoples to have their sacrifices labeled Russian. Russia has a long history of taking credit for things. Many people in Russia still believe that a Russian discovered radio, a Russian father and son combo invented the steam train, etc. etc.
Robert Christopher is strident about 'reality' but his distorted version of it is not recognisable to the Ukrainians I know. There are clearly pro-Russian and Pro-EU citizens but they are not mutually exclusive. Mostly they co-existed happily prior to Putins militaristic involvement. Most folk seemed to want to join the EU without excluding Russia - or at least that was the case before Russia annexed Crimea using Russian troops and mercenaries disguised as so-called 'separatists' (as even admitted by Putin on TV). Now, as Illarionov reports, and as I have seen with my own Ukrainian family members, even former pro-Russian Ukrainians now turn away from Russia, partly because of the sheer depth and breadth of nasty lies spread about Ukrainians on Russian TV and the net, partly by now fully seeing the militaristic and tyrannical mindset of the man they now call Putler, but mostly because, more than anything else, Ukranians do not want war. Putin - and his brainwashed minions, on the other hand,seem to relish it.
Whether Yanukovitch was democratically elected or not (an issue very much in doubt in Ukraine), he was widely regarded as a criminal usurper by almost everyone and Ukraine is still trying to recover the billions he stole. He was ousted not because of the EU but because he ordered snipers to kill unarmed protestors in Maidan. Poroshenko, who actually was democratically elected, has said that the partial ban on Russian language was wrong. he is prepared to discuss almost anything but is not prepared to give in to Russian and Russian-backed state terroristm. That is the reality!
The EU don't necessarily want another basket case to join up so they have no reason to foment any dissent. Similarly the US would much rather do trade with Russia than have another cold war -regardless of what Putlers propaganda machine says. Spreading more lies (whether deliberately or due to rank ignorance) is not conducive to finding a peaceful solution and folk like Ianh, Ben Pile and Robert Cristopher and others here should desist from that and do a bit more talking and listening to Ukrainians before ranting on about stuff they clearly know nothing about.
There's more than one dog in this fight.
Zbigniew Brzezinski recommends how Russia should be militarily weakened and intimidated. He is convinced that the best way to achieve it is by destabilizing its border regions, a political strategy that aroused the interest of former presidential candidate John Kerry’s team who recruited his son Mark Brzezinski as its foreign policy adviser.
Voltaire Network | 22 October 2004
http://www.voltairenet.org/article30038.html
“We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas — a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”
- Russian President Vladimir Putin, Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/07/directing-war-strategies-from-the-shadows/
husq
If I was Putin, my strategy would be to encourage Americans to buy even more guns, take even more psychiatric drugs, watch even more gay pornography, torture even more prisoners to death and basically wipe themselves off the face off the earth ASAP.
Belgian Neutrality and the British Decision for War:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kbseZkdM3E