Return of the Cold War, but it's Getting Warmer

Canada is sending six CF-18s and military personnel to assist NATO in operations in Eastern Europe.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was to announce the measures Thursday morning.  The move comes following a request from NATO amid increasing tensions in Eastern Ukraine.

Make no mistake - this is political posturing, a show of force that's intended to send a message to Putin: we mean business, so think what you do next carefully.

Over the weekend I was in East Germany for services commemorating the liberation of Buchenwald Concentration Camp where Ukranians, Poles, Jews, Russians and countless others were executed together.

At one point I got to have a long conversation with an acquaintance who is Russian.  I grilled him hard on homophobia, but focused primarily on the Ukraine.

The fellow's take was this: it's NATO, not Russia, that's escalating the problem.  By moving into more countries, they are moving closer and closer to Russia.  By placing American missiles and bases on Russia's doorstep, it's the West threatening expansion, not Russia.  Russia is simply looking to defend itself and Putin has played a well-constructed tactical game.

I deconstructed my friend's analysis and pointed out that the West wasn't interested in expansion, unless it's of markets.  There's no economic value in a war on Russia any more than there is public appetite to enter into another costly war.  

Through empathy, query and provision of alternatives, I got my friend to question the official story he'd been spouting, which was a positive sign.  For my part, I gained some perspective on the other side of the wall, which was helpful.

All of that was before this happened.

Jews being forced to register in the Ukraine?  There's frightening precedent for where this trend leads.

This is where we get into really dangerous territory.  It's bad enough that Ukraine's turning into an ethnic powder-keg and the rest of Europe is ripe to catch fire - there are many more relationships to take into account here. 

Israel will have clear interest in protecting Jews in the Ukraine and elsewhere, and for good cause.  It's allies in NATO are already positioning themselves against Russia, who is allied with Iran, who would is not a friend of Israel's.

What's this all mean?

It means that our leaders damned well better get their heads out of their partisan-positioning asses and realize that play time is over.  The decisions they make now are going to have significant long-term consequences, some of which could lead to World War III.

Call me an exaggerator if you must.  That's what they said about Churchill.  I'd rather speak up now and be derided later than sit silent now and regret it when it's too late.

Which, if we continue down this path, it will be soon enough.

Obamawan Kenobi

There are two paths that Russia can take at this point.  Actions on the ground in Crimea are deeply troubling but what is also true is that over time, this will be a costly proposition for Russia.  Now is the time to consider whether they can further their interests with diplomacy as opposed to force.

When you're dealing with a bully, it's hard to find words that will have any impact.  "On the wrong side of history" was a great line - Russians have something of a relationship with history.

The quote above, though, was brilliant. 

Think it through for a second.  Putin is a tough guy, hyper confident in his ability to swat down any opponents.  His pride is important to him.  If the US simply threatens consequences, so what?  It becomes a pissing match. 

But in the predatorial rush for conquest and the blindness of pride, Putin hasn't thought his position through as thoroughly as he might have (or, more likely, thought less of his potential opponents). 

This brings us back to "wrong side of history."  If Crimea is his Anschluss, Putin has good cause to look at what happened to Europe's last minority-hating, expansionist leader.  When you're facing unceasing resistance from within that gets worse the more oppressive you become, combined with external pressure (arms, economic), the long-term sustainability of neoTsardom becomes less tenuous - and therefore, less appealing.

Meanwhile, it's not just about short-term economic losses until and unless the world accepts the Russian Anschluss - if other countries kibosh arms trade with Russia, they're not going to wait to find new sellers.  China's got its sights on a couple of Russian market opportunities already.

Coming off of whatever high Sochi gave the Russian people, they probably won't be so excited to see themselves as being on the wrong side of history.  Especially as Russia's felt pretty wronged itself in the recent past.

Fierce resistance, foreign state consequences, low internal morale and permanently lost economic opportunities - all for one man's stubborn ego?  It's a bum deal and everyone knows it.  Except maybe Putin.  But those in his inner circle won't be so naïve.

It may be that no argument will sway Putin from a destiny with self-destruction.  That's unfortunate.  But there will always be someone close to the centre of power who recognizes the trend-lines of history and will consciously choose to land on the ride side.

You offer a way out to the person in charge.  When they refuse, you offer it to the man next to them.

Obama may not be as conniving in his planning as all that, but by at least framing the internal consequences of his action, Obama has given Putin time and cause to back down. 

Come, Putin, Crimea's not worth the effort.  Let's talk about the Arctic instead.

UPDATE 4/3/14: The trip wires must be laid out in plain sight, so that there can be no doubt as to the consequences if Russia crosses them.

Yup.  Set the field of battle and you often don't need to fight the war.  It's basic Sun tzu.

Syria: The Milgram Experiment

I could go on and on with examples of limbic, reactive, defiant or protective behaviour that goes contrary to the facts.  I don't need to, though, because you see them in the headlines every day.

Case in point?  Syria.

Mostly, however, those who are unmoved by the victims in the Aug. 21 attack - those who are indifferent about our collective obligation to punish the use of chemical weapons - have simply said one thing, over and over: Prove it happened.  "I doubt/deny it happened."

Forget Marxism - Randian objectivism is the major political philosophy at play today.  Couched in "heroic" terminology, the essence of Rand's philosophy is this - self-interest is the only noble pursuit and a fancy justification for "my mind is already made up, don't confuse me with the facts."  She misuses the term axiom (a premise so true that it is universally accepted without controversy) in a way that the laissez-faire crowd has latched on to with pride.

We're back to Syria.  Sitting in a coffee shop or 'round the kitchen table or boardroom table somewhere in North America, how do we really know what's happened in Syria?  It's in our best interest not to get involved in other people's business, even where innocents are being slaughtered - that's a bit too much like committing sociology.

Footage on TV could be faked - or, it could be misrepresented.  There's nothing axiomatic about what we're seeing, right?  I used a fancy word, so my position is validated!

Reports from Doctors Without Borders?  They're pointedly not assigning blame, so that doesn't help us any, does it?

Lots of people are saying Assad bombed his civilians with chemical weapons - Assad agrees chemical weapons were used, but says it was the other guys that did it.  How can we know for sure who's guilty on our side of the pond?

This is where the Milgram experiment comes in:

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process.  Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible wit fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

Or as Adalbert Lallier admitted: "I pretended not to have seen, I pretended not to have heard because I didn't want to be responsible."

Here's what'll happen if Obama caves in to "the Russian proposal."  Having already said he hasn't used chemical weapons, Assad's stockpile will be overlooked, moved, made inaccessible and therefore, the existence of them will prove unaxiomatic - you can't believe in what you can't see, right?

Meanwhile, word will spread that the rebels have chemical weapons that they received from Saudi Arabia or whatever.  That's how self-interested players in power operate, after all - present rumour as fact and make your opponents work to prove it's false.  With the Syrian and Russian governments, probably with some nods from China, point to this as evidence that they've been right all along, Western citizens looking for excuses not to get involved will defer to the "authorities" and dismiss the faceless, unelected rebels as deceitful.  The burden of proof, after all, always lies with the weak.

Believing what they want to believe - that there's no reason for them to take any responsibility - more and more Western citizens will demand their governments stay out of the fray.  For his part, though, Assad will have two tools at hand; one, a discredited opposition that he can continue to call out as liars, regardless of the facts and two, ammunition that he needs to escalate his attacks - after all, you have to fight fire with fire, right?

It's a story we've seen before, that we continue to see played out across the world and in our very own backyard.  North Korea?  Not our problem.  Falun Gong?  They're a bit airy-fairy, so you can't take their arguments seriously.  Ethnic violence and systematic abuses faced by Roma-Sinti?  Honestly, can you trust a Gypsy?  Abused and missing First Nations' women?  Drunks, drug-addicts and if anything is being done to them, it's by their own kind, so not our problem.  

If any of this was of real concern, why, the authorities would be doing something about it.

Wake up, people - we are the authorities of our own actions and, in a democratic system, our governments'.  It's not "do unto others as your governments dictate" - it's "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." 

What Rand described as consciousness - being aware of something - is really just awareness.  True consciousness is the realization you can do something about it.

There's only one way to get ahead of these avoidable tragedies that we all wear by our inaction as much as our action; that's to own up to our responsibility to society, both here and abroad.  

Syria is as good a place to start as any.

UPDATE: I've been asked about what I would like to see us do, so in broad brushstrokes, here you go.

We (the West or just Canada if no one else is ready to pony up) should get in on the ground in the hot zones.  The goal wouldn't be to threaten one side or the other, but to put ourselves in the line of fire - with the risks and responsibilities that entails.  If we place our troops around the civilians with a mandate to protect themselves and those behind them, it forces aggressors to decide how committed they are to killing their own people.  If Assad kills Canadians/Western troops in the process, they are essentially declaring war on all of us.  Either way, he's forced to own the consequences of his actions.

Canadians can help out with mediation on the diplomatic side, but if aggressive defence is called for, we are skilled at that, too.  Is it interventionist?  Absolutely.  If we believe in protecting the innocent, intervention is called for.

Two Simple Questions for Team Assad

“The Syrian government will not change position even if there is World War III. No Syrian can sacrifice the independence of his country,” he reportedly told AFP.

Is that what this is all about?  Independence?  I think not.  The majority of the rebels are Syrians - they're being stomped on with toxic prejudice because, ostensibly, they are a threat to Syria.  Assad's regime is willing to kill women and children to protect his Syria from them.

Now, we're hearing that his government is willing to watch the world burn, turning Syria into this century's Sarajevo - all in the name of protecting Syria's independence. 

Here's a news flash, Team Assad - when you can only maintain control through the murder of your own populace and by threatening external forces, you ain't leader any more.  You're a dictator.

Assad's life is increasingly in danger, his country is in ruins and a whole new generation of Syrians will be scarred for life by the trauma of war.  The Syria Assad claims he wants to protect is gone.  Everything you say you stand for is fiction you're selling yourself as much as everyone else.

Put your critical thinking caps on, Team Assad, let's do an objective assessment.

What does victory look like to you?  A nation that loves you, the respect of your international peers for being a tough leader, a velvet-draped palace to hold court in?

Is that victory in any way achievable?  It isn't.  The most you can hope for is Scenario A - you hunker down behind your firewalls as your countrymen burn around you; eventually, someone's gonna break that wall down.  You know what happens next. Scenario B - Assad gets out with the hope for asylum somewhere.  He holes up in relative luxury and publishes his memoirs.  Someone needs to wear the war, though, and if it ain't the boss...

But there's no point in talking to Assad; he's got the dictator complex, like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi before him.  How'd that work out for them?

There's no hope for Assad - one way or another, this will end badly for him.  It doesn't have to for his lieutenants.  History will never remember you if you continue to back your leader; he'll be vilified, you'll be forgotten.  Looking down the road you have death, humiliation and loss awaiting you, with nothing to show for it in the long run.  Is that what you want?

Think about it, fellas - do you want to go down with the ship, or are you still hopeful you can gain something out of this; money, power, the love of the people, the respect of peers?  It's only impossible for as long as you continue to back Assad. 

Something to think about.

Vladimir Putin Reads WAKATA

The Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the official government newspaper, published the presidential decree Friday, listing an array of measures tightening security in the Olympic host city, including the ban on public assemblies. All "gatherings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets" that are not part of the Olympics or the Paralympics will be prohibited in Sochi from Jan. 7 to March 21, the decree said.

First, there was Martin Goldfarb.  Then came Stephen Harper.  I have a sneaking suspicion Bob Rae might have paid me a visit.  But this trumps 'em all.

The day after I post on the inevitability of LGBTQ protests in Sochi and how bad it'll be for Putin, he puts out a notice that protests are banned.  Yay for me, I've influenced Russian policy!  (It's at least a possibility - I have had 206 hits from Russia so far this week.  That's gotta count for something.)

Alas, even if I have inspired Putin to action, the poor fellow seems to have missed the meat of my advice - stifling dissent isn't going to work.  Not in a forum like the Olympics.  They'll never be able to screen out all protesters, nor scare everyone into submission.  With celebrity interest in the event there will inevitably be people of global profile poking the bear over gay rights and doing so in a public way, making Putin look like the tyrannical stick-in-the-mud he is.

How he'll respond to that communications crisis will be interesting, but even more important will be the international community's response to him.  We've had a lot of vague protests from Western governments against an increasing number of volatile, civilian-threatening situations in the world, but that's been about it.  Should, say, American or Canadian citizens are mistreated while defending human rights in Russia, they (and the IOC) are going to have to show some sterner stuff.  Their constituents will demand nothing less.

The simplest way for the West to head-off any difficult scenario around the Olympics would be to push for them to instead be held in Vancouver.  Russia would definitely respond to such a slight, though - and it wouldn't do anything to address the root cause of the conflict.  

The best long-term solution would be for Putin to have a Damascus moment, quit being a thug and start showing some true leadership by rescinding the law and promoting equality for all Russians.

If he keeps on reading WAKATA, I'm sure he'll find something to help him along his way.

UPDATED: Wrestling with Russia: There's Something Queer About the Sochi Olympics

The letter still leaves open the question of what would happen to Olympic athletes or fans if they make statements or gestures that could be considered propaganda.

It doesn't take a genius to see where this is headed.

The Olympics is an international event meant to unite the world in a spirit of friendly competition.  Everyone is equal regardless of where they come from or what they look like - it's all about skill.

International events like the Olympics draw international audiences.  People will stream into Sochi from all over the world, trying to take in the sports, go to the cool parties and just be present for something special.

As with other world-stage events - the Toronto G20 comes to mind - you're also going to get advocacy groups showing up, using the platform to raise their voice or to protest injustices like, I don't know, the suppression of LGBTQ people and allies in Russia.

Russia (though not Putin) has said everyone will be welcome to the Games and the IOC seems to be taking that assurance as enough.  Thing is, Russians are still going to be persecuted regardless of what happens to outsiders.  Russia may try to pull a North Korea (these people are our people - back off, International Community!) but if they think they can shut out all the potential rabble rousers around gay rights, they're delusional.

Sochi will be filled with Gay Rights activists.  There will be enough gay-friendly activity on display under the international spotlight that other people with a bent for human equality are going to get in on the game.  Without question, Russia's anti-gay law is going to be challenged to the max, putting the Russian government - ie, Putin - in a corner.  On top of this, you'll have the rabble-rousers, the carousers - and the anti-gay rights camp will be out in force, too.

Russia or the IOC could take a page out of Apple's playbook, play on this emerging social zeitgeist and pull a brand-building win out of doing the right thing.  Trouble  is, Putin is a bear-wrestling tough-guy who doesn't like to be challenged.  It'll be mighty tempting for him to enforce his reputation and bring down the hammer.  That would not be a pretty scene. 

The IOC, focused solely on their Games and brand, need to take a step back and make a thorough assessment of what to expect and what repercussions they are prepared to own - because, at the end of the day, the Olympics are their party, we're the guests. 

Or, they can decide there's nothing to be done to change what will come and stick their heads in the sand.  That's a conundrum for them to wrestle with.


UPDATE:  The scuffles started after anti-fay protesters tore a rainbow flag out of a woman's hands.  The St. Petersburg City Government had sanctioned they rally despite the Russian Government's June passage of a contentious law outlawing gay "propaganda." Gays in Russia have faced increasing pressure and threats of violence from homophobic vigilantes.

That scuffle has left us with this ionic image of the sort that comes to define the stories of our time; they are the ones that matter, because the folks in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't.  They kept going.  Because there were holding on to something...

With one of those iconic images that comes to define the stories of our times - the ones that matter.  Folks in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't.  They kept going.  Because they were holding on to something-

The notion that ideas are bullet proof.

Boatloads of Refugees

“On the other hand, because of the cost and visa requirements to get here, I don’t think it will be floodgates,” he said. “And certainly with my experience with LGBT refugee claimants … it’s never been like a boat load of people coming here to Canada. It’s always singly, or possibly a couple.”

Good on Chris Alexander for stepping on the right side of history.  It's more important than we realize at this moment to take this stand now - and to do so publicly.  There's a chance that the time will come again when we will be seeing refugees by the boatloads fleeing persecution in Europe and beyond.

Hopefully, Canada has learned from past mistakes on this front and won't be turning away boatloads of people in need again. 

Abandoning people in their hour of need - that's not what Canada is about.  Hopefully, that's something we can all agree on.

What Do Omar Khadr and Pussy Riot Have In Common?

 

  

The Russian Orthodox Church said Sunday the rockers would deserve mercy if they repent for their February stunt. Earlier, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev had said that keeping them in prison any longer would be “unproductive.”

 

 

Two governments trying to look tough and decisive are facing legal cases that are causing all kinds of political headaches.  Things are way out of hand with Pussy Riot - a political statement/publicity stunt that should have merited at most a slap on the wrist and some discouraging words has seen musicians treated like terrorists and their children left as collateral damage.  Where Omar Khadr is concerned, the jury of political opinion has largely condemned a man on hearsay; the facts don't matter when your emotions lead.

 

The broader legal ramifications are less of a concern in Putin's Russia than they are in Harper's Canada.  Although there is much in common between the political approach of these two men, we have a much stronger domestic legal system here.  Despite what polls and pundits might be telling us, Canadians are far less receptive to legal rights being trampled in the name of security.  When we are made to question the stances we have taken on Khadr - and we will be - I can guarantee there will be some displays of cognitive dissonance across the nation.

 

Which is a good thing, because there is much to question.  We Western countries like to believe we are bastions of free speech and tolerance; some pundits have, in essence, told those who took offense to The Innocence of Muslims to calm down or get a life.  Yet we are happy to vilify a child-soldier in the absence of fact and we are willing to lock up young women performers because they offended someone's religious sensibilities.  Here in Canada, we even threaten activists whose opinion we disagree with and attack officials who try to shed light on uncomfortable facts.

 

Both Harper and Putin are praying that their little legal bundles of joy will just somehow go away.  That's not going to happen.  The choices they have made or refused to make will have consequences, which is as it should be.  Justice is supposed to be blind, but it seems it's our leaders trying to block out inconvenient truths.

 

The Truth will set you free.

 

Tianxia - China's Strategic Objective

While Mitt Romney targets Russia as the US' Public Enemy #1, China is slowly expanding its influence north of its border with the world's largest country:

"China's widening sphere of economic influence is already being felt on a local level in Russia, especially in areas close to the frontier, far from Moscow, where Chinese-made goods stock the shelves at local grocery stores and Russians make shopping trips to China for clothes and consumer goods."

Upset that the US wouldn't play his game his way, Stephen Harper has rushed into the comforting arms of China, who's starting with oil and through panda diplomacy, starting to look at our telecoms and water.

"Li Changchun is ranked No. 5 in the Chinese hierarchy, one of the nine members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China, and the party’s propaganda chief. When he arrived in Ottawa Thursday, he met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The government of Canada had never announced the powerful official was coming."

While our leaders turn inwards, focusing in internecine national fighting, they seem to be looking at foreign players through the opaque lens of their domestic political fortunes in the frame of four-year cycles.  China, on the other hand, is playing a much broader game.

So, what are they up to?

In the last few decades, this hybrid strategy has coalesced into a "calculative" strategy--that is, a strategy calculated to protect China from external threats as it pursues its geopolitical ascent. The purpose of the calculative strategy is to allow China to continue to reform its economy and thereby acquire comprehensive national power without having to deal with the impediments and distractions of security competition.

China's strategy has fundamentally never wavered since the Zhou Dynasty.  To understand China's mind, understand the concept of Tianxia.  Then, read Sun-tzu.

Of course, China is one step behind where they need to be.  But that's a post for another day.

Why Mitt Romney Should Listen to Colin Powell (But Won't)

"Look at the world. There is no pure competitor of the United States of America," he said. "All the problems we talk about in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran ... they count about 700 million people in a world of seven billion. What are the rest of them doing? They're increasing their economies, they're building wealth, they're educating their kids, they're building their infrastructure. That's what we need to be doing."

Colin Powell is a brilliant military strategist - the Sun-tzu kind that sees conflict as costly and inefficient.  For him, success isn't defined as being the last man standing, but rather in terms of security, stability, economic growth and quality of life.

Powell does a brilliant presentation on leadership that should be mandatory reading for anyone who aspires to lead others.  He gets this command stuff, which is why it behooves folks like Mitt Romney to listen.

So why doesn't he?

Romney's track record suggests he defines success as quashing everyone he sees as different from himself.  His business history of slashing and burning teams - the people he theoretically led - fits within the same hawkish approach he's taking to foreign policy.  Romney's not about leadership - he's about dominance.  He probably embraces the "with us or against us" mentality.  For him, America isn't defined by what it stands for so much as what it stands against.

So, the Soviet Union, er sorry, Russia - is the black hat to the US' crusading gunslinger.  Gay marriage isn't just another way of building a family - it's a threat to decency.  It goes on and on.  Leadership is proactive - Romney is reactive.

I'm not so much about winning as I am about success.  I'd love to see a decent competitor for Obama, because that's how you generate new, well thought-out ideas - not by attempting to eliminate competition, but by challenging yourself to do better.  Romney decidedly fails to meet that standard.

We're all better off when we raise the bar - not lower it, as Romney seems determined to do.  Just think what the tenure would be if the match-up was Powell vs. Obama.  We'd all be benefit from genuine police discussion that would result from that race.