Good afternoon to you, Comrade.
>
> I think that for this debate's duration, I'm going to think of you and
> rayrena as the 'I'm Not Listening Brothers'.
>
Listening, not buying, you see? Listening and shocked at the naivete. Listening and rejecting out of hand, because it makes no sense.
>
> Your playbook, so far, consists of:
>
>
> * Not listening to what your debating opponents are actually saying
>
> but instead
>
> * Using whatever they write as a launch pad for your pet ideas
>
It has nothing to do with "pet ideas". Russia is a colossal petro-power. That's a huge fact hanging over this entire issue and you're ignoring it in favor of a Kremlin fairy tale.
There is NO EVIDENCE EXTANT that Vladimir Putin cares about ethnic minorities, except when they are politically convenient. Did he care about the Chechens? No. He bombed them. Did he care about the Kosovars? No, he wanted the Serbs to keep dominating them.
Does he care about the Khyrghyz? Tadjiks? Turkmen? No.
The Turkmen are particularly interesting here. They, of course, were ruled for many years by a well-known maniac and now the sucessor to a well-known maniac, but the Turkmen have the misfortune of living on the *other* side of the Caspian. Ah well, no Putin-to-the-rescue for the Turkmen.
Putin is showing an interest in the Kurds, however. And in the South Ossetians and Abkhaz who just happen to be between Europe and a LOT of oil and gas. I just have to ask whether or not you actually think that is a coincidence - just to get my bearings here.
>
> So, in this case boddhi, no one's been cheerleading for Putin.
Well, I think that's obviously untrue. Chris Doss goes to absurd lengths to dismiss anything that is even remotely anti-Putin and everyone seems to be following his lead. Doss has become one of the most determined and creative Putin apologists I've ever read.
I, of course, remember how he *used* to write, so I'm pretty sure he is "talking his book". Business is business.
>We've
> only said that given the circumstances, Moscow's actions were
> understandable.
And I also said Putin's actions were understandable - in as many words. You can understand them, if you understand them in the context of oil. If you don't understand them in the context of oil, you don't understand them. That is my point: oil is not the only context, but it's lunacy not consider it to be one of the most important one.
Going forward, in terms of the global situation, it is probably by far the most important.
That, unless Putin is so sentimental about the South Ossetians that he would take a terrible risk with his country's national security and the risk is petro-based.
The West could very well respond to this action with a strategy to secure Caspian petro-assets and that would be really bad for Russia. So I'm assuming - I think safely - that Putin is not inspired by sentimental or humanitarian concern for the South Ossetians relative to his responsibility to the Russian people and their position in the world.
>You interpret this to be the cry of people who're
> "...badly frustrated, maintaining hope in a world that seems
> hopeless."
>
> Which is sweet, in a totally wrong sort of way. Because, embedded in
> that surface kindness is the condescending idea that we're all a bunch
> of jabrones who -- like a group of kids reading their first Chomsky
> essay -- are running around, declaring 'the enemy of our enemy' to be
> our friend.
Yes, but in a nice way.
>
> Well, I've got news for you superhombre, we moved past that point long
> ago. Even Chris Doss, who you often J'accuse of being some sort of
> Putin fanboy, has only stated what should be obvious: people's lives
> improved, that means something. Very simple and direct and not at all
> like Yoshie's, er, enthusiasm for Tehran.
I agree with you there. Yoshie is a mad idealist for idealism's sake Doss is talking his book.
>
> I'm calling shenanigans on your surface equanimity which is very much
> like the 'bless yo heart' Southern style of insult shag has explained.
>
>
> In closing, I still note the curious fact that you seem more concerned
> about pipelines and what have you than with the hard-ass facts on the
> ground.
>
Again, it's not that *I* am concerned about pipelines, although it is a bit of an issue. It's that PUTIN is concerned about pipelines, Moscow stating that BTC is politically motivated and stating: "The United States of America and other Western countries are planning to settle their soldiers in Caucasus on the pretext of instability in regions where the pipeline passes through."
That, Comrade is some hard-ass facts for ya.
>
> I'm picturing you in the middle of a firefight, reaching for whatever
> book will determine the ethical thing to do.
I'll bet I have more guns than you do.