He's Living In The Past

For quite some time, I have suspected that Putin was living in the past - quite specifically, the Cold War. His "State of the Nation" speech today confirmed that.  

Most news outlets are pointing out two major features of the speech:  

1.  Putin blaming "The West" for the war in Ukraine

2.  The suspension of Russia's participation in the "New START" nuclear arms treaty.

There are other dimensions to his speech, a lot of it being pretty much classic, old school propaganda tropes. Playing to the notion of "Russia the Great", and boasting about the regions of Ukraine that Russia annexed (but doesn't really control at this point).  

For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, this is all old hat. Not a single part of this pattern of propaganda is surprising - it's all happened before with different Soviet leaders at one time or another.

Chilling Words

Ever since Putin started massing troops along Ukraine’s eastern border, I’ve been wondering exactly what Russia’s objectives really were. 

Put aside the propaganda from Russia about Ukraine posing some kind of threat, and one is left wondering exactly what Putin’s goals are in invading Ukraine. Russia’s claim is that Ukraine hasn’t lived up to its commitments in the Minsk Protocol. I’m not really close enough to what’s going on to assess that, but that seems to me rather a contrived excuse at best. 

Putin’s foreign policy has long struck me as being filled with barbs intended to re-ignite the Cold War that formed much of Putin’s early career. He’s made a number of feints in that direction, the most blatant in my opinion was the annexation of Crimea, but there have been others. 

The military picture in this case bears paying attention to. As part of the former Soviet Union, Ukraine forms part of the border buffer between what was Soviet Russia and its arch rival Western Europe. It is entirely possible that Putin’s current goal is to re-establish the boundaries of the old Soviet Union by once again occupying a line of states that run from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, and operating them as puppet governments.

It’s possible, that those are his goals, but somehow I think it’s far more pernicious. On the news this morning, the Soviet Foreign Minister was quoted as saying “Russia won’t stop until the Western threat is removed” (I’m paraphrasing here - it was on the radio).  This is classic Cold War rhetoric - but it sheds a glimmer of light on Russia’s unstated goals here. 

It’s far more likely in my opinion that this is a “war of honour” in Putin’s mind. It’s the fight to re-establish Russia’s “greatness” on the world stage after the humiliation of the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1980s.  If this is true, then the only way this ends is when Putin either breaks NATO, or Putin’s ambitions exceed what his oligarch allies can support.

On Syria and Western Involvement

In response to the following editorial on the mess that is Syria:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/by-giving-up-on-syria-us-hands-kingmaker-role-to-putin/article28747502/

I wrote the following:

I will politely disagree with a couple of points at the end:

the U.S. is also undermining its own role and influence, not to mention the reputation of all those associated with its ramshackle coalition against IS.

US (and Western) credibility in the Middle East has been dubious to non-existent since Bush II decided to invade both Afghanistan and then Iraq. Our own country’s decade of “loudspeaker support for Israel” wasn’t exactly helpful either. Fundamentally Western interventions in the region have repeatedly created the adversaries we find ourselves facing a decade later. In Afghanistan during the 1980s, western powers funded the Mujahideen, which ultimately gave rise to the Taliban and then al Qaeda. The shadows of war in Iraq (in particular), the unwillingness to call out Israel’s use of white phosphorous against the Palestinians, and the heavy-handed way the Americans conducted themselves in both Iraq and Afghanistan gave rise to ISIS.

The second point that the article alludes to, but quietly sidesteps is the reality that Russia in general has long standing social, cultural and economic ties with the Persian Gulf region in particular, and the Middle East in general. Russia has always been a more natural ally for the Arab states than the western european powers. There are long (as in centuries old) standing ties and connections at all levels. I might personally think Putin is a rather nasty piece of work, but in terms of credibility and understanding of the region, Russia has long had a far more subtle, nuanced understanding than Western powers. 

I’ve argued this before, and I will continue to do so. Western interests in the region are purely trade related. We would do well to focus on those issues, and step out of direct military intervention. Provocations from the likes of ISIS are like a teenager trying to poke an adult into giving a reaction. If we react, they win - their propaganda machine makes huge gains from the heavy handed interventions we’ve used in the past. It’s much harder for them to use the Russian interventions in the same way simply because of the connections into Russia that go back centuries. The Western powers represent the “unknown”, and thus easily demonized, factors. To date, ISIS’ provocations amount to rendering unstable the puppet government that Bush II set up in Iraq and capitalizing on the “Arab Spring” destabilization of Syria.

Putin will be a pain to deal with, but in some ways, Russian leadership represents the bridge between western interests and Arab interests from a diplomatic perspective. Russia has strong cross-cultural connections with both regions. It is perhaps time to work with Russia, and use that to develop a trade-centred approach to the region instead of trying to intervene militarily in the geopolitical mess.

Thoughts on the Ukraine Situation

There has been an enormous amount of speculation around the Ukraine situation on social media today.

First, let me be abundantly clear:  I do not support the Russian actions towards Ukraine in recent days.  Russia would be far wiser to allow the Ukraine to have an open election or referendum focused on the issues that started the riots in Kiev (or Kyiv - I've seen both spellings and I'm not sure which is more correct).

My personal speculation is that Putin is working to do two major things.  First, he wants to reignite the old cold war hostilities.  He knows full well that the western powers are unable or unwilling to intervene directly in a conflict with Russia, and the fact that he has very successfully embarrassed the US on both Syria and Iran in the recent past has bolstered his ego.

Second, I suspect that Putin is trying to rebuild what we often referred to as the "Iron Curtain" from the Soviet era.  This has been quite apparent in the way that he has gone after conflicts in several former Soviet republics in recent years.  As much as possible, he will try to make these "bloodless" takeovers.  He wants nominally friendly "puppets" in place for now.  That's all he needs.

Putin knows full well that the spectre of the cold war era has not been forgotten in the west.  If he can push things back to their old cold war footings, it allows him to play on a field that he knows very well.  The cold war situation serves Putins immediate and long term interests quite nicely.  It gives an enemy that he can "demonize" in much the same way that the Bush II presidency went after "terrorism" - the enemy is so abstract that you can accuse it of anything and nobody will call you out for it.  That allows Putin to "shadow box" with this enemy and look as if he is being a hero, which plays fairly well in Russia itself.

Rebuilding the "Iron Curtain" is another hero moment for Putin.  He can claim that he is taking Russia back to its grand status as the anchor of an empire, returning it to its former glory.

Is he likely to try invading across the north pole into Canada or Alaska?  I seriously doubt it.  The logistics of doing so are enormously complex, and there would be little to be gained compared to the costs of such an invasion and occupation.  The threat will be present, but for the same reasons that the old Soviet Union regularly flew heavy bombers over the pole.  It's easier for Putin to gain control over the old satellite states of the Soviet Union, and there is more political gain to be had for doing so.

In terms of the Ukraine itself, I expect Putin will end up splitting it, keeping the eastern third of the country which borders Russia itself, and allowing the remainder to align with the EU for now.  The one thing that will stay Putin's hand in this matter will be the political cost of trying to put down the uprising that has already begun in western Ukraine.  He can make an argument for taking control of the eastern portion of the country that would be at least moderately palatable to his allies on the world stage, and what he is taking over isn't something that the western powers would be terribly interested in trying to do anything about. 

Apparently Ms. Landolt Doesn't Read Her Own Words

Over at LifeSite News, we find REAL Women Canada's Gwen Landolt trying to backtrack on what she said so publicly last week.

The pro-family, pro-life conservative organization REAL Women of Canada is calling a CBC report “absolutely not” accurate that quoted president Gwen Landolt as if she tacitly approved Uganda’s contemplation of the death penalty for practicing homosexuals. 

“I don’t know if the CBC did this deliberately or whether it was accidental and they misunderstood [my position],” said Landolt to LifeSiteNews.com. “My whole life I have been utterly opposed to capital punishment and I would never make homosexual execution the exception.”

Yes, well, when your own press release states rather unequivocally the following:

Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, has abused his position as a cabinet minister to impose his own special interests in the foreign countries of Uganda, Kenya and Russia. 

He awarded $200,000 of Canadian taxpayers’ money by way of the Department of Foreign Affairs to special interest groups in Uganda and Kenya to further his own perspective on homosexuality.  He also insulted the speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, at a meeting of the International Parliamentary Union in Quebec City when he criticized Uganda for its position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  In response, Ms. Kadaga stated that Uganda was a sovereign nation and not a colony of Canada, and no one could tell Ugandans what to do. 

In case Ms. Landolt hasn't been paying attention, Uganda is proposing a bill which would result in the imprisonment or execution of LGBT people in Uganda.  Let's not mince words here - LGBT people in that country face the most severe punishments possible under law for simply being alive.

So, Canada isn't supposed to protest what is clearly a violation of fundamental human rights in Uganda?  Apparently not, Ms. Landolt says the following:

Landolt stated that REAL Women would “never support the death penalty in any circumstance.”
“I would never ever in a hundred years say the execution of people is suitable and appropriate. Never,” she said.

Funny.  Out of one side of her mouth, she says that she doesn't support the death penalty, and yet Baird, acting on behalf of Canada at a diplomatic summit, shouldn't raise these issues?  Her logic is circular to say the least.

Saying nothing is tacit approval - especially of laws which have been so widely publicized on the world stage during their formulation.

CBC interviewed Landolt at the time, reporting: “When asked about reports that Uganda has considered the death penalty as punishment for having homosexual relations, Landolt said, ‘It may be unwise by Western standards, but who are we to interfere in a sovereign country?’” 

Landolt told LSN that her original comment to CBC was about the newly enacted Russian law to eliminate homosexual indoctrination of minors, which allows for jail terms for offenders of up to three years. 

Landolt said that she told CBC that while she didn’t think Russia’s move was “necessarily a human rights violation” she did think however that it was “unwise by Western standards” adding as an aside, “but who are we to interfere in a sovereign country?” 

Having read through Landolt's original press release, it is my opinion that she is lying through her teeth trying to undo some of the damage she did to her own organization.

Frankly, whether Landolt's comments to CBC were "specific to Russia" or not is irrelevant.  The laws recently passed in Russia are every bit as flawed and damaging as those proposed in Uganda.  About the only difference is the severity of the punishments.  The laws in Russia have rightly been criticized for being so loosely worded that just about anyone could be convicted of "homosexual propaganda".

Further, the presupposition of such a law is that there is such a thing as "homosexual propaganda" in the first place.  Let me be emphatically clear here - it is only in the minds of those who are irrationally opposed to homosexuality that there is any notion that homosexuals "recruit" people.  If you think a "pride parade" or a rainbow flag is somehow "propaganda", then chances are you haven't exactly got a clear understanding of the purpose, place and history of such things. 

Reasons For A Boycott Of The Sochi Games

In light of John Baird's recent comments regarding Russia's recently-passed anti-gay laws which basically outlaw any "gay propaganda" (such as two people of the same sex holding hands), I'd like to spend a bit of time talking about why a boycott of the Sochi games, along with generally isolating Russia politically is needed right now.

Baird described how he saw the roots of the issue take hold during a meeting of G8 foreign ministers in May 2012. 

“I can recall being in Washington when (then U.S. secretary of state) Hillary Clinton was chairing the G8 foreign ministers meeting and we put, as part of our statement, support for sexual minorities. Russia put an asterisk beside it saying they were not on board,” he said.

“This did not just pop out of nowhere.”

 He's right about one thing - this didn't "pop out of nowhere".  While Canada's Foreign Affairs minister cannot point the finger at the source of this vile piece of legislation, I can.  Take a look south of the US border, in particular to one Scott Lively, who has been exporting the American evangelical version of homophobia since the 1990s.  In the mid-2000s, Lively made a speaking tour of Russia where he started the process of advocating for stricter anti-gay laws.

Make no mistake about it, Lively even goes so far as to try taking a significant amount of credit for the laws that Russia has recently passed in one of his columns for WND.

I am personally very pleased to see this development, having called specifically for legislation of this sort in my speaking tour of the former Soviet Union in 2006 and 2007. During that tour, which began in the Russian eastern city of Blagoveschensk and ended in St. Petersburg, I lectured in a variety of venues including numerous universities, churches and conference halls, and met with numerous government leaders at various levels of influence. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/the-key-to-pro-family-victory-if-we-really-want-it/#O7T36fR8MIvCQfQ0.99 

Now, the fact that this is an export of the worst aspects of American-style religious evangelism is almost secondary to the discussion.  LGBT people in North America are well aware of who Scott Lively is, and just what he represents.

However, this is the first of the reasons that I am going to raise as to why something stronger than diplomatic arm-twisting is required.  Whether we like it or not, Canada's current government is rapidly becoming seen as no better than the US when it comes to foreign affairs.  The positions taken are ridiculously absolutist, and worse often end up tacitly condoning activities which the majority of its population do not approve of.  Both the United States and Canada need to be seen to be moving definitively against these laws for one basic reason:  failure to do so gives the extremists at home the excuse they need to push towards similar laws here.

Think I'm kidding?  Take a look at the tone of LifeSite's article on Russia's laws:

While Russians certainly do not want to encourage homosexuality, by no means do they criminalize homosexuality, nor do they discriminate against homosexuals, as some media have claimed. Homosexuals enjoy the same privileges as all other Russians, but they may not promote homosexuality as something positive among children in the same way as Mayor Bloomberg wants to eliminate sugary drinks, and Michelle Obama wants to get unhealthy foods out of school cafeterias.  

The media has been portraying the law as an unreasonable measure pushed by “radical religious groups.” But this cannot account for why the lower house of the Russian parliament approved the bill unanimously, with only one abstention. Russia can hardly be described as a religious nation, but the law has overwhelming support in the legislature.
Russians have consistently denied homosexual groups parade permits, sparing its children and the public at large the ludicrous and disturbing behavior on show in the squares and streets of Europe and America. 

Similarly the news reports have highlighted episodes where some LGBT persons were victims of violence, without highlighting that the vast majority of the demonstrators at the parliament while the law was being passed were in favor of the law, and that the violence had nothing to do with the vast majority of demonstrators. 

The law prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality among children simply codifies that Russia truly is interested in protecting its children, not that is interested in persecuting homosexuals. The fact is, that homosexuality is associated with almost a 20 times higher risk of HIV/AIDS, and other bad health statistics like higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and even suicide. It is no wonder that Russians want to protect their children from embracing homosexual lifestyles. 

What the articles authors conveniently leave out is that the definition of "homosexual propaganda" used in the Russian legislation is so broad that it effectively outlaws being gay.  Full stop.  The notion of propaganda includes holding hands, having or displaying the pride flag, or even just looking gay when it comes down to it.  Legitimate political advocacy, such as speaking out for human rights on behalf of LGBT people is considered propaganda, as is providing educational content.  In short, while being gay in Russia isn't strictly illegal, they have made any expression of homosexuality whatsoever illegal ... it amounts to the same thing.  (I'm not at all sure how these laws play when we are talking about the transgender population - especially transsexuals - I suspect it could get really nasty fast).

Which brings me to the second reason why I think that a boycott of the Sochi Games is a reasonable response.  Quite frankly, the IOC's own charter would justify yanking the Sochi Games entirely.

1. Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious developmentof humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.

I think that when a country moves against its own citizens as blatantly as the Russians have, that country is in violation of the very fundamental principles in the first two clauses of the Olympic Charter.

Since the IOC has been reluctant to speak out against the Russian laws, especially since we have considerable reason to believe that these laws will be enforced against foreign athletes and spectators during the games,  speaking up with a boycott of the Sochi Games sends a message to both Russia (whose pride and honour is resting upon the success of the Sochi Games), and the IOC, that laws which unreasonably attack the freedoms and civil liberties of a nation's citizens are not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

I have heard others in the LGBT rights movement in Russia say that they do not agree that a boycott of the Sochi games is appropriate.  I disagree.  Isolating the Russian power structure, both through diplomacy and direct action against the state is a clear statement:  "You will not attack your own citizens without it being noted, and you will absolutely not endanger the citizens of any other nation either".

The third point that I would raise is that in today's era, it is long past time to take laws of this nature and expose them for what they truly are.  We've been through this before in recent history - whether we are discussing Stalin's overly heavy handed authoritarianism, or Hitler's maniacal "Final Solution".  Both boil down to the state attacking its own people.

Under no circumstances should the world look upon this and simply try to shrug it off.  This is criminal and it endangers otherwise peaceful members of the society.  Such a law is as unacceptable in Russia as it is in Canada, the United States or Uganda.

It is time for the world community to stand up and be heard ... before we have another genocide.

Starting Another Cold War

After last week's invasion of Georgia by Russia, Poland and the US signed a missile defense pact to allow the US to deploy a an assortment of armaments on Russia's doorstep.

Then, perusing BBC today, I see Russia is getting in bed with Syria. If this pattern sounds familiar, it should - it strongly reflects patterns that were common in the cold war era.

But why? Well, simply put, post-communist Russia is still a big country, and one that doesn't entirely trust the US on a good day. (and few in the Russian power structure think that there have been many 'good days' since GWB came to power)

As for Bush, well, he's interested in one thing - creating another enemy for the Rethuglicans to demonize in the coming months. Just as he didn't see anything wrong with starting a second front of war in the Middle East, his objectives are focused on power, and maintaining power. The spectre of totalitarian russia isn't far removed from most people's minds these days, and that makes it an ideal propaganda tool.