Archives for posts with tag: Ukraine
Newer Entries »

Manipulation. A Crash Course.

March 3, 2022 //
0

1. Sow doubt.
2. Drop a loud fact. Or two… This will simultaneously ‘water’ the previously planted seed and act as a ‘foot in the door’ for your next move.
3. ‘Miss-interpret’ another fact.
4. Mention an universal human emotion, inviting your audience to identify itself with the ‘victim’.
5. Squarely state what you want your audience to believe.

1. ‘The Soviet Union didn’t crumple under its own weight. It was dissolved by Yeltsin so that Gorbachev’s position would disappear.
Leaving Yeltsin as the top dog of the day. Even if at the helm of a little smaller empire…’

2. ‘After the Cold War had ended, the West should have treated the ‘defeated’ as Germany, Italy and Japan had been treated after WWII. The West should have helped the Soviet Union to overcome the transition hurdles by extending to it an equivalent of the Marshall Plan.
Instead of that, the Americans had come up with the Wolfowitz – later Bush, Doctrine.’

3. ‘Gorbatchev was told by James Baker that NATO will not move an inch eastward’

4. “…1998, Yeltsin, late Yeltsin: ‘you promised not to do this! So, how do we trust you, if you make a promise?’ “

5.1. Vladimir Putin has been created by the United States.
5.2. The so called free media in general – and New York Times in particular, cannot be trusted to provide honest information.

Pozner’s discourse is far more ‘byzantine’ than the ‘stream-lined’ version I used to illustrate what skillful propaganda looks like. Skillful maskirovka, more likely?

This post has become long enough. Let me wrap it up.

The main question here being ‘did he actually say it? Did Baker actually promised Gorbachev that “NATO will not move an inch eastward” ‘?

“Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev.
Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”“

‘So he actually said it!’…

“the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”“

The Soviet Union is long gone, all the states which have been admitted into NATO are ‘in’ because they had asked themselves to join – and are now extremely glad to be protected by the famous 5th article – … while the only (frustrated) ‘agent’ who ever cried foul was Putin.
Not only cried foul but eventualy acted out his frustrations!

But Putin is not exactly alone…

“Putin’s Munich speech was the first explicit warning of serious trouble if the West did not abandon its increasingly aggressive posture toward Russia; the Kremlin’s latest demands for security guarantees and a NATO military pullback from Russia’s borders may be the last warning. The United States and its allies are backing Russia into a corner, and that is profoundly unwise if the goal is to avoid war with a heavily armed great power.“

Ted Galen Carpenter, Senior Fellow, Cato.org January 24, 2022

Trump: “How smart is that?”
Pompeo: “I have an enormous respect for him!”

Pozner seems to be somewhat right, after all.
His arguments don’t stand – as he had framed them – but he does have an inkling…

And yes, you can – and actually should, analyze my post following the steps I already mentioned.
Then please read this:

Manipulation: useful tool, mortal sin or what?!? April 27, 2015
‘Causing’ Circumstances March 1, 2022

Tags , , , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, arrogance, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, Trust

End Game

March 1, 2022 //
0

There’s chess and there’s bridge.

There’s managing your resources – on your own, while trying to outsmart – out, in the open, your opponent.

And there’s team-work. An attempt to make the most of what lady-luck had put on the table by exchanging information. With your partner and in the presence of the competing team. This time only the conversation is out in the open, the resources themselves remain hidden. During the initial phase of the competition and, partially, during the end game.

Until WWI, war was more like chess than anything else. Resources were, more or less, out in the open. The soldiers had no other role but to do and die. The whole responsibility belonged to the guys who called the shots. One for each side…

WWI had ended indecisively. Hence WWII.

Each of the winning parties – there had been two victors, had learned something different from the experience.
The Western allies had learned the value of cooperation while the Eastern ‘block’ had reached the conclusion that brute force trumps everything.

The Americans had started playing bridge with the Brits and taught the game to the rest of the world.
The Russians had honed their skills at playing chess. Something they were already very good at.
For a while, the Americans have tried to compete with the Russians. Remember a guy named Fischer? Bobby Fischer?

Soon, too soon, the Americans had given up.
After building a computer smart enough to outsmart all human chess players…

The even worse part was that the Americans had given up bridge too!
And forgot the most important lesson of WWI and WWII. That the victor needs to take care of the vanquished if they want to enjoy peace. To actually win the peace process after they had already won the war.

Which brings us to the end of the Cold War.

Communism – and practically all communist states, had crumpled under its own weight.
The westerners assumed it was something they had done themselves. Declared victory.
And the end of history…

Having already given up bridge, they forgot to take care of the vanquished… and allowed Russia – the party who had taken most of the blame over their shoulders, for reasons to be discussed some other time, to slide down the slope inaugurated by post WWI Germany.
Did I mention that Russia was still fond of chess? Very much in love with brute force? And not very fond of respectful cooperation?

Now, that we all try to peek into the future – attempting to figure out how the current aggression ordered by Putin will end up, we need some people to learn about bridge.

Putin cannot launch by himself the nuclear missiles he had been brandishing lately.

Now, can those around him reset the chess board on which they are but pawns into a bridge table?
And invite the rest of the world into the game?

Will the rest of us understand the invitation?
If, and when, it will come?

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, altruism, authoritarianism, awareness, collective identity, cooperation, evolution, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Mindset, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, Trust

First they came for the Ukrainians

February 25, 2022 //
0

Quite a lot of people around the Internet are considering that ‘Ukraine is of little interest for the US’.
Even some of the Europeans are considering that isolating Putin’s Russia from ‘SWIFT’ is a too steep price to be paid, by them, for Ukraine’s independence.

I remind them, all of them, of what Martin Niemoeller had to say on this subject.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, democracy, effective communication, evolution, fail better, Frames of mind, human rights, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, Trust

Geopolitical Whataboutism

February 23, 2022 //
0

Now, that Putin had recognized Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states, I keep hearing that ‘if NATO hadn’t integrated the former socialist states in the Eastern Europe, Russia wouldn’t have occupied Crimea nor encouraged the ‘freedom fighters’ in Luhansk and Donetsk’.

NATO, and UE, are not perfect. Far from it.
Yet the former USSR had been even less perfect.

What drove me to this conclusion?
Well, both NATO and the EU are thriving. People and countries flock to join in. The very present conflict in and around Ukraine had been sparked by Putin’s ‘unhappiness’ with the Ukrainian people insisting in joining both NATO and the EU.
Meanwhile, the USSR is no longer with us. Had collapsed, under its own weight, some 30 years ago.

The second difference between these supranational entities – NATO and the EU on one side and USSR on the other, is the ‘small’ matter of how a member got to join the club.

In NATO’s case – valid also for the EU, a prospective member state has to ask for it first and then wait to be accepted.
The USSR had been organized under the ‘invitation only’ principle. If you were invited, you had to join. Regardless…

CSI, the Community of ‘Independent’ States, is organized under the same principle!


Btw 1.
Did I mention that the USSR had crumbled under its own weight?
By allowing self serving callous political operators to grab too much power?
Too much power for their own selves as well for their country’s well being?

Could we attribute the demise of the USSR on the fact that the bolsheviks were ‘house broken’ into ‘toeing the line’ while here, in the West, some people still dare to speak up their minds?

“Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., a Trump critic who he is targeting for defeat this fall, responded Tuesday: “Former President Trump’s adulation of Putin today — including calling him a ‘genius’ — aids our enemies. Trump’s interests don’t seem to align with the interests of the United States of America.”“

Btw 2.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, collective identity, cooperation, effective communication, evolution, fail better, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology, Trust

Anul pregătitor

January 26, 2022 //
0

Spune cineva pe net că filmul se termină cu discleimărul:

“UK a mai câștigat un an de pregătire și, în cele din urmă, a învins”

Nu l-am vazut. Nici n-am de gând…

Dacă se vede cineva cu scenaristul, vă rog să-i transmiteți din partea mea că anul ăla de pregătire a fost valabil și pentru Hitler.

Diferența dintre cele doua spații socio-culturale fiind că nazismul era deja ‘copt’ în timp ce englezii nu erau, încă, pregătiți din punct de vedere psihologic pentru un ‘nou’ război.
În anul ăla de pregătire, Hitler a construit tancuri și avioane în timp ce englezii s-au obișnuit cu gândul că vor trebui să mai învingă odată Germania.
Hitler a început războiul tocmai în 1939 pentru că abia atunci a avut la dispoziție suficiente arme. Dacă le-ar fi avut in 1938, intra atunci în război.

Cam același lucru se întâmplă și acum. După WWI, americanii s-au retras dincolo de Atlantic, englezii dincolo de Marea Mânecii iar francezii au impus despăgubiri imense de război Germaniei învinse. Economia germană s-a scufundat în mocirlă iar mizeria rezultată a constituit ‘îngrășămantul natural’ în care au înflorit aberațiile lui Hitler.
După WWII, americanii au fost mai isteți. Și-au dat seama că dacă se mai retrag odată, Europa va relua ciclul. Poate cu alți actori, doar că războiul s-ar fi întors cu aceiași regularitate. Așa că planul Marshall și NATO. Europenii, care învățaseră și ei lecția, au constituit UE. Aranjament care a ‘conținut’ comunismul în spatele Cortinei de Fier, unde s-a prabusit sub propria greutate – precum toti colosii cu picioare de lut.
Odată cu sfârșitul Războiului Rece, am reintrat în ‘necunoscut’. “Neconoscut” pentru că l-am uitat deja, dacă l-om fi înțeles cu adevărat vreodată…
Euroatlanticii au clamat victoria – vezi ‘sfârșitul istoriei’ prevăzut de Fukuyama, analist la State Department pe vremea când i-a venit ideea, în Martie 1989 – iar postsovieticii au refăcut traseul urmat de naziștii nemți. Au dat vina pe trădătorii interni – adică pe ‘Gorbaciov’- refuzând să recunoască – cu toate că abia ce se confruntaseră cu ele, ‘limitările’ intrinseci modelului autoritar.

Din păcate, euroatlanticii au uitat de învațămintele trase la sfârșitul WWI. Au lăsat spațiul ex-sovietic să se descurce singur. Și pentru că shit happens… it did!

Revenind la Hitler, francezii ar fi trebuit să reocupe Germania în 1936. Când Hitler a intrat in Renania, încâlcând brutal tratatul de la Versailles. Doar că ‘elitele politice’ franceze și britanice ale momentului nu erau ‘pregătite’. Drept pentru care a venit momentul 1938. Nici atunci nu ar fi fost târziu. Armata germană încă nu era suficient dotată pentru a face față unui asalt hotărât, declanșat de toate țările din jurul Germaniei. Dar, din nou, elitele politice nu erau suficient de ‘pregătite’.

Suntem, iarăși, în aceiași situație.
Ne punem, din nou, aceiași întrebare. Merită să-l înfruntam pe dictator?
Mai ales că acum dictatorul ne poate distruge.
Și pe el s-ar putea să nu-l intereseze ce rămâne in urma lui!

Întrebările la care trebuie să găsim răspunsuri sunt următoarele:

Cât de departe sunt dispuși să meargă cei din jurul dictatorului?
Cei care fac posibilă dictatura ‘internă’.

Iar după ce vom fi aflat răspunsul la prima întrebare va trebui să ne uităm în sufletele noastre și să ne întrebăm

CUM DRACU’ DE-AM AJUNS, DIN NOU, ÎN ACEASTĂ SITUAȚIE!?!

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, autoritarism, ce alegeri facem, comunicare efectiva, constiinta de sine, cooperare, Cu pielea la bataie, Democratie, evolutie, identitate colectiva, In limba Romana, Omul ca masura a tuturor lucrurilor, psihologie, rationalitate limitata

Present day Russia

October 9, 2015 //
2

Hardly a day passes by without Putin, Russia’s current ruler, being present at the top of every major news channel.

While sometime ago he was lionized on the cover of many glossy magazines nowadays he is the star of a lot gloomier articles.

Happier days (last month). Photographer: Vasily Maximov/AFP/Getty Image

What’s going on there?

About a week ago a prominent Russian journalist addressed an open letter “to President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, where he discusses his case and the significance its abandonment has for Russia as a nation“,

Oleg Kashin, the author of the open letter, which can be read here in English, had been beaten to a pulp some 5 years ago and “Last month, on September 7, 2015, after a surprisingly exhaustive investigation by Russian police, Kashin revealed the names of his alleged attackers. The men appear to be linked to Andrey Turchak, the powerful governor of Pskov, and ex-employees of the security department of “Zaslon,” a company owned by Turchak’s family that designs and produces aircraft electronics and weapons-targeting systems. Though the evidence against Turchak and his entourage has mounted in the press, he remains free and in office. He hasn’t even been questioned.”

Well, Kashin’s case is the perfect illustration for what Adam Michnik has mentioned last August: “Russia non è uno Stato totalitario, ma è un sistema autoritario”  (Russia is not a totalitarian state but an authoritarian system).

This observation solves perfectly an apparent paradox. How come the Russian police discovers, after five years, who had beaten – following orders given by one’s of Putin’s own protegees – a political dissenter?!?
Simply because there is an important difference between an ‘authoritarian system’ and a totalitarian state.

The authoritarian leader cannot act, not yet at least, like a totalitarian one. He is not in full control of everything under the sun in his country.

This apparently small thing is of paramount importance. Sooner or later more and more Russians will figure out for themselves that Putin is bad for them. Bad for Russia’s long term future.
Meanwhile the rest of the world has to thread this situation very carefully. Every time one of us wants to say anything about what’s going on in Ukraine or in Syria we must use “Putin” instead of “Russia”. It wasn’t Russia – but Putin – that annexed Crimea, encourages the Ukrainian separatists and supports the Syrian dictator by bombarding the Syrian moderate opposition.

By mentioning them separately – Putin distinct from Russia – we send a very powerful signal to the Russian people. That we understand they are not personally responsible for Putin’s acts and that we know they are not yet able to change anything.

If we fail to do so we’ll fall into Putin’s trap.

Our failure to understand, and insist upon, the simple fact that Putin is not Russia is the only thing that enables him to portray the rest of the world as nothing but a bunch of callous people who are devilishly conniving against Mother Russia – and himself as the only possible savior of the Russian People.

Adam Michnik, La sfida di Mosca al mondo e sempre piu imprevediblie, La Reppublica, http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2015/08/18/news/p-121206360/
Adam Michnik, While we Praise Ukrainian Restraint, Putin Builds His Neo-Soviet Empire, New Republic, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117462/adam-michnik-putins-post-soviet-empire-threatens-ukraine
Oleg Kashin, A letter to the Rulers of Russia, Global Voices, https://globalvoices.org/2015/10/04/a-letter-to-the-rulers-of-russia-from-oleg-kashin/Marc Champion, Why Russian Jets are Buzzing Turkey, Bloomberg View, http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/why-putin-s-russian-jets-in-syria-are-buzzing-turkey,
Better Failling, BBC dropped Clarkson. How much longer till Russia drops Putin?, Nicichiarasa, https://nicichiarasa.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/bbc-dropped-clarkson-how-much-longer-till-russia-drops-putin/
Michael Shaw, Reading the Pictures: Putin &Sochi: Let the FU’s Begin, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-puti_b_4699356.html

Tags , , , , ,
Categories authoritarianism, Choices we make, politics, The kind of world we live in

Rape culture

July 12, 2015 //
2

Or ‘what can be learned from a stand-up comedian’s long standing career?’:

OK, there are at least two sides of this and until recently there was no sure fire way of ascertaining either:.
1 – he did it and then we have to ask ourselves how come nothing came up for so long or
2 – he didn’t do it and then we have to ask ourselves how come such an obscene thing can happen to a ‘pillar of the society’: “You’ve got to stop beating up your women because you can’t find a job, because you didn’t want to get an education and now you’re (earning) minimum wage,”

Now, after “newly unsealed court documents revealed that the comedian has admitted to giving at least one woman quaaludes before sex”, we have to answer a very clear question. One that every rape victim that has not yet find justice has been yelling at us since the moment of her being violated:

“Why are we so willing to overlook the really aberrant behavior of the perpetrator while attempting to make excuses that throw the guilt on the victim?”

(I used quotation marks because I borrowed this from a FB wall. I didn’t provide a link because the owner of that wall has a ‘friends only’ policy. Nevertheless, this is my way of offering thanks for a very well asked question. So well asked in fact as to prod the following answer:)

The fact is that we, modern humans, are so entangled between two conflicting emotions that we sometime behave quite erratically.
On one hand we admire success and successful/powerful figures and on the other we hate/fear failure.
This conflict that tears us apart drives some of us to admire the ‘predators’ – at least as long as they are not caught – and to despise the victim – as long as it is not one of ‘us’.
This might appear as a perversion but maybe this is exactly what we need to do in order to survive as conscious human beings: to constantly adjust our behavior as close to the straight and narrow as possible.
After all it is us who came up with the concept of ‘the end justifies the means’… which, seen from the other side, might be read as ‘Be careful what you wish for, lest it comes true’.

Some of Cosby’s victims might have doubted not only the ability of the judicial system to adequately take care of the matter (“The district attorney on the case told the Daily Mail that at the time, he thought Cosby was probably guilty, and he wanted to arrest him, but he didn’t have sufficient proof of the alleged assault.”), the consequences of filing a complaint but also their value as a person: “What could I say? I was 19 years old. I felt, ‘He’s Bill Cosby. He’ll lawyer himself up. I don’t have a lawyer. It’s going to be he said, she said, and they’ll look at me like I’m crazy.’ … My reputation would have been ruined.”

There is also a way bigger problem. This attitude of ours, the inner conflict, manifests itself in even more pernicious ways.
The German culture is a very strict one. It’s almost inconceivable for a German national to offer a bribe to a fellow German. Yet Siemens had no qualms to shower graft money on foreigners: “Siemens and the battle against bribery and corruption“.
Same thing is valid for the US. Most of the world thinks, backed by the very strong anti-corruption legislation that has been put in place there and by the insistence with which American government officials preach abroad on this subject, that the Union must be a corruption free heaven. Yet things are not exactly as they should be. “An associate warned him that he’d have to “pay to play” “, “Judge Gets ‘Life Sentence’ for Prison Kickback Scheme”, and “Lockheed Wants Out of 40-Years-Old Disclosure Demand”.

This attitude also influences International politics. Putin was lionized in the Western media up to the summer of 2014 despite his ‘antics’ (or rather because of them?!?) and even now almost 22% of the Americans still have confidence in him…not to mention his huge popularity at home, bolstered precisely after the latest events.

The explanation is quite simple. What happened in Putin’s case, as well as in the Siemens/Lockheed Martin developments, follows the pattern we can discern in the dual career of Bill Cosby – stand up comedian and sexual molester. For as long as the perpetrators are seen as being successful, they garner strong collections of fans. As soon as enough of those fans understand that it’s precisely those ‘successes’ that jeopardize the general well being – including their own, the erstwhile fans suddenly wise up.

” “Completely disgusted,” tweeted singer Jill Scott, who had vociferously defended her mentor.” 
PS. Now what about this:
“Bill Cosby’s private art collection at Smithsonian withstands controversy”
““It just raises a little eyebrow that a trustee of a museum is lending [her] own collection, funding part of the exhibition and the exhibition is highlighting works … by less well-known artists whose work is considered by some to be undervalued,””
Normal development or over-reaction?
Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories altruism, Choices we make, corruption, Frames of mind, Psychology, Social justice
Newer Entries »