Why Russia buys Putin’s lies

MOSCOW — The outside world knows Russian-backed militants shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, using missiles supplied by Moscow, even if few leaders are yet willing to say outright that Vladimir Putin has blood on his hands (again).

“It’s obvious the Ukrainians did this, the separatists don’t have the weaponry or the ability to shoot down aircraft at that altitude,” a partner at a major law firm told me.

Never mind that the “separatists” had shot down at least two Ukrainian planes in the week before, or that the Ukrainians had no reason to shoot at any plane because the militants have no airpower.

Then there’s an economist at the Ministry of Finance: “The Ukrainians are fascists, of course they’re responsible.”

One university professor was a bit more honest: “You don’t understand. We’re Russians, we will never admit guilt to outsiders, especially to Americans. Even if we know we’re guilty.”

In the outside world, people know the “rebels” have done all they could to impede any impartial investigation even seizing the bodies of the 298 innocent victims, and that the missile launchers were quickly pulled back into Russia after the atrocity.

But this is a schizophrenic society. People distrust their own government, but they distrust and hate foreigners even more. Many understand that Russia is probably responsible, but they’ll never admit it; it’s not a society given to self-criticism or honesty.

I agree in general, and you may be right specifically regarding Ukraine. But Putin has managed to do something rather unprecedented: Thoroughly P.O. a majority of the Ukrainian population, pretty much disrupting the long link / history of Russian / Ukrainian closeness. If Ukraine can gain back and hold most or all their territory in Eastern Ukraine, that will likely:

1) Give the present gov’t a popularity boost for some time, making attempts at subversion by Russia much more difficult.

2) Give most Ukrainians in general confidence about their own independence.

Now, I have been wondering if Ukraine will succeed in closing the remaining 20 miles or so of border with Russia (and at most two significant roads across the border.) There seems to be little progress on this front, although I’ll grant that accurate & unbiased news about that aspect of the fight is hard to come by. Perhaps it is a sign of Ukrainian weakness, or the strength of the effort by Russia to support the separatists, or both, that there seems to be a stalemate.

But — and I know I’m going pretty far out on a limb here — what if there is more to it?

What if the Western “powers” are privately content with stalemate for now, choosing to only keep Ukraine afloat economically, while bleeding Russia: A sort of war of attrition for a while? Obviously this gets dicey as winter draws nearer.

Or, consider: The Ukrainians in the past have suffered losses and terrors most of us can’t imagine. Even what England went through in WW2 does not compare to the horrors the Ukraine went through. Although I reject the label of “Nazis” that Moscow slaps on Kiev, what if the leadership in Kiev are or are becoming hard-nosed to the tune of finding current casualties acceptable in the context of a longer term plan? I can think of multiple possibilities: One would be the bleeding described above, to erode Putin’s position in Russia, Afghanistan style, while consolidating their own political power in Ukraine. Another might be a sort of limited ethnic cleansing, in which large numbers of the separatists are pushed (or flee) across the border to Russia, altering the political dynamic in Ukraine by a small amount — but enough to (again) keep the current power structure in the clear majority for some time. Or perhaps Kiev feels their kill ratio is high enough that they are content with killing Russians and pro-Russians for a while (vengeance), just so long as Europe keeps them afloat economically (and therefor politically.) Any of these strategies are risky, but would they be more risky than typical Ukrainian politics?

Moving back “in” on that branch :-) , I mostly agree with your assessment of U.S. ability to project power, tho’ I think it’s presently more a question of will than ability. In any event, US weakness is beyond risky: At least some medium powers will arm in response (some are already moving that way); some will likely go nuclear (approx. 25-30 countries are considered capable of joining the nuclear “club”, some more quickly than others of course.) Barring the major change in US policy that you (and I) hope for (in 2017), we will have created the road to disaster, and it may not be possible to get off.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.