Referendums in east Ukraine were a Russian farce

My man Mark Rachkevych at the Kyiv Post nailed it. I especially liked this paragraph [emphasis mine]:

When Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and other Kremlin officials say that Kyiv should negotiate with the “southeastern regions,” they mean with people that are under their control. They are not genuine leaders who enjoy popular, grass-roots support. They are lackeys financed and armed from abroad who kill, torture, and kidnap innocent people, and who have terrorized millions more. After all, recent surveys say that 70 percent of residents of southeastern Ukraine are for a united country.

Rachkevych concludes with this important warning [italics and emphasis mine]:

Still, Moscow’s pressure has already moved the goal posts in Kyiv’s policy. Ukraine’s interim government has signaled it is willing to allow for regional and local governments to set language policy, among other compromises. Decentralization is also on the table: letting local governments expand their tax bases, establish municipal police departments as well as other policy decisions that would be delegated to them.

And the calls for Crimea's return are muted as the interim government struggles for survival until the May 25 presidential election.

Some steps, such as the decentralization of government, are necessary to shed the Soviet legacy of governance, but not federalization, which is the Kremlin’s code wor for dismembering Ukraine.  Federalization is a powerful, unifying force when a nation-state is being formed. It has the opposite effect when one exists like Ukraine.

That’s precisely why the May 11 mimicry of a vote is a farce. It was the latest, unequivocal Russian step to dismantle Ukraine. 

That is why the West -- and the U.S. especially! -- cannot play dumb or give in to Putin's cynical gambit to dismantle Ukraine as a functioning state.

Why the poll on self-rule was a farce

By Mark Rachkevych

May 12, 2014 | Kyiv Post

Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov rightfully called the May 11 ballot in eastern Ukraine's Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts a “farce.”

But it wasn’t a travesty because it violated the constitution, or that more than 100,000 pre-completed ballots were seized in favor of secession ahead of the vote. Or that there was a dismally low turnout, multiple voting occurring, or that proof of residence wasn’t a criterion to cast a ballot.

It was a sham because Moscow was behind the vote, just as it was behind the annexation of Crimea and now, the slow-motion invasion of eastern Ukraine, and the recent unrest in Odesa, Kharkiv and other regions.

It is all a Kremlin charade to impose its will on and cover up a foreign policy debacle on Ukraine after the democratic EuroMaidan Revolution in February toppled the criminal regime of disgraced ex-President Viktor Yanukovych. Putin and his minions in the state-controlled press corps had defended Yanukovych’s corrupt government until the very end.

EuroMaidan signaled the second slap in the face of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who ended up on the wrong side of history – again – after twice backing the ex-convict Yanukovych (the first time was during the 2004 presidential election that led to the Orange Revolution and Viktor Yushchenko's election as president).

So, the former KGB colonel, in his unabashed contempt for Ukraine as a nation, had to create an alternative, make-believe reality to invade.

Eschewing accepted policy norms, and institutions like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe or the United Nations to voice his grievances – primarily that his “Russian compatriots” were under threat of violence and were being discriminated – Putin primitively used force. And he’s shown he is willing to expend more resources than the West to get his way despite a looming third round of sanctions that would hurt Russia’s economy. Those resources include a cadre of media hounds who not only distort the news, but also manufacture it to shameless depths of bawdiness.

Just as the world has watched Russia transform into a fascist state, there is mounting evidence that the unrest in eastern and parts of southern Ukraine are led from Moscow and financed either through state-owned banks or Yanukovych and his inner-circle. Ukraine’s Security Service has captured Russian agents and military officers, as well as other subversives who were trained and received instructions from their handlers in Crimea and elsewhere. Russian sleepers have been activated and mercenaries with combat experience in the Russian military are on Ukrainian territory using Russia-supplied arms and weapons.

When Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and other Kremlin officials say that Kyiv should negotiate with the “southeastern regions,” they mean with people that are under their control. They are not genuine leaders who enjoy popular, grass-roots support. They are lackeys financed and armed from abroad who kill, torture, and kidnap innocent people, and who have terrorized millions more. After all, recent surveys say that 70 percent of residents of southeastern Ukraine are for a united country.

Kyiv has made it clear that it won’t engage with armed terrorists hiding behind masks and human shields, and likewise, whose chief handlers are sheltered behind the Kremlin’s walls. Still, Moscow’s pressure has already moved the goal posts in Kyiv’s policy. Ukraine’s interim government has signaled it is willing to allow for regional and local governments to set language policy, among other compromises. Decentralization is also on the table: letting local governments expand their tax bases, establish municipal police departments as well as other policy decisions that would be delegated to them.

And the calls for Crimea's return are muted as the interim government struggles for survival until the May 25 presidential election.

Some steps, such as the decentralization of government, are necessary to shed the Soviet legacy of governance, but not federalization, which is the Kremlin’s code wor for dismembering Ukraine. Federalization is a powerful, unifying force when a nation-state is being formed. It has the opposite effect when one exists like Ukraine.

That’s precisely why the May 11 mimicry of a vote is a farce. It was the latest, unequivocal Russian step to dismantle Ukraine. Sadly, Russia is succeeding. It still has the initiative and Ukraine's government, the European Union and the United States will have take tougher actions quickly to reverse the Kremlin tide.

Putin wants a new world order

(HT: TK). It wouldn't be the first time the West gave into a little bully. Sometimes, however, acquiescence don't satisfy bullies, it emboldens them.

Vladi­mir Putin’s new world order with the West

By Lilia Shevtsova

May 8, 2014 | Washington Post

Lilia Shevtsova is a senior associate at the Carnegie Moscow Center and author of “Putin’s Russia.”

The post-Cold War order that emerged from the breakup of the Soviet Union was doomed to fail because it rested on a belief that post-Soviet Russia was no longer a problem. Even when Western leaders realized that Russia under Vladimir Putin was becoming a problem, they exchanged political acquiescence with the Kremlin for economic benefits. Liberal democracies agreed to play a game of “let’s pretend,” in which they viewed Russia as a “normal country” while the Russian elite became integrated into the West — and corrupted the Western system from within.

That trade-off, many Western observers hoped, would keep Moscow from stirring up trouble beyond Russia’s borders. How could people whose ill-gotten gains are kept in Western banks and whose children attend Western schools be ill-disposed toward the West?

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine made it clear that he has stopped pretending. The Kremlin will not limit itself to cracking down on opposition within Russia’s borders.

The survival of Putin’s system is based on a permanent search for internal and external enemies. Ukraine has become the testing ground for a Kremlin that seeks to eliminate the very idea of revolution — not only in Russia but also in the former Soviet bloc — and to force the West to accept its right to do so.

The dismemberment of Ukraine also exposes the mechanism of the Russian matrix, in which foreign policy is the main instrument of domestic agenda. Those worrying only about Russian imperialism are wrong: Land-grabbing and “defending” the Russian-speaking population in other countries are the means to turn Russia into a state at war, making Putin a wartime president and strengthening his position at home.

Putin not only seeks to revisit the results of the end of the Cold War; he also wants a final say in establishing the new world order.Briefly, the Kremlin offers a new trade-off: In return for continued economic benefits for the West, Russia wants Western consent to its interpretation of the rules of the game.

This does not only undermine the Western vision of Kantian perpetual peace. It also creates new traps — for both sides.

On Russia’s side, the Kremlin has appropriated liberal rhetoric to legitimize its intervention in Ukraine. It demands that Kiev reform the Ukrainian constitution and allow for regional referendums on the right to secession and federalization.  Meanwhile, however, Russian citizens do not have such rights; advocating for them, in fact, can land one in jail.

So the Kremlin’s external rhetoric is undermining the legitimacy of the Russian regime. There will come a time when Russia’s Tatarswill say, “Why can’t we have a right to self-determination?” There will come a time when Russians will ask, “Why can’t we have a right to a referendum and a right to oppose the authorities?” In other words, we are witnessing a situation in which the Kremlin’s bid for survival is turning into a suicidal marathon.

The liberal democracies are not doing much better. Caught off-guard by Putin’s maneuvering, liberal democracies tell the Kremlin that if it stops further aggression, the West just might accept the new status quo. In fact, the April 17 Geneva agreement among the United States, European Union and Russia revealed the West’s inability to stop Russia’s efforts to destabilize Ukraine. Western demands for “de-escalation,” demarcated with fuzzy “red lines,” only provoked Moscow into moving further. By refusing to offer Ukraine real prospects for joining the Euro-Atlantic community through either European Union and/or NATO membership, the West is leaving Ukraine in a gray zone of uncertainty, vulnerable to falling into the Russian orbit.

While the Western sanctions that have been imposed so far have started to bite, they paradoxically strengthen Putin’s “besieged fortress” logic of survival. The Russian leader’s call this week for pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk to put their independence referendum on hold was not a surrender; it is an invitation to Kiev to accommodate the Kremlin’s interests, this time through “dialogue.”

[Meanwhile, Russia's state television Channel 24 in Donbas was telling people in each town where and when to find polling stations to vote on the referendums, so Putin's statements cannot be taken seriously. - J]

This call for dialogue by a leader who has limited political life in Russia to his own monologue sounds like cognitive dissonance. However, the Kremlin’s goal is more likely pragmatic: to switch to the role of peacemaker and strike a new Faustian bargain with the West, persuading it to agree to Ukrainian limited sovereignty and the right of external forces to teach Ukrainians what is right and what is wrong.

I’ll bet that Western leaders, tired of their Ukrainian headache, might agree with the bargain. And the Kremlin will join the Ukrainian “round table” moderators. Instead of an invader, Putin will be seen as the architect of the new postmodern reality.

Isn’t it hilarious?

Oops! Russian gov't. admits Crimea vote turnout inflated

This is the first U.S. media outlet I've seen that picked up on this story that was broken by TSN.ua in Ukraine [emphasis mine]:

Yesterday, however, according to a major Ukrainian news site, TSN.ua, the website of the President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights (shortened to President’s Human Rights Council) posted a report that was quickly taken down as if it were toxic radioactive waste. According to this purported report about the March referendum to annex Crimea, the turnout of Crimean voters was only 30 percent. And of these, only half voted for the referendum–meaning only 15 percent of Crimean citizens voted for annexation.

The TSN report does not link to a copy of the cited report. However, there is a report of the Human Rights Council, entitled “Problems of Crimean Residents,” still up on the president-sovet.ru website, which discusses the Council’s estimates of the results of the March 16 referendum. Quoting from that report: “In Crimea, according to various indicators, 50-60% voted for unification with Russia with a voter turnout (yavka) of 30-50%.” This leads to a range of between 15 percent (50% x 30%) and 30 percent (60% x 50%) voting for annexation. The turnout in the Crimean district of Sevastopol, according to the Council, was higher: 50-80%.

Does the truth about Crimea's sham referendum matter at this point?  Probably not, only the "facts on the ground."  It's a shame.


Putin's 'Human Rights Council' Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results
By Paul Roderick Gregory
May 5, 2014 | Forbes

URL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/

Alan Grayson is wrong this time (on Crimea)

Rep. Alan Grayson is somebody I agree with most of the time and really admire for his guts, but this time he's got it all wrong. I fear he's having an Ameri-centric, knee-jerk left-wing reaction against the right-wing reaction against Putin.

First, "bloodless" cannot be the measure by which we judge the legitimacy of armed incursions by foreign powers. I daresay the U.S. could bloodlessly take over many countries if we came in with enough force quickly enough.  But that wouldn't make it right.

Second, as I've said before, the conditions in which the March 16 Crimean referendum were held, and the ridiculously short time frame, made the referendum illegitimate. Nobody in Europe would hold, much less recognize, a referendum organized under similar conditions on their own territory; so there's no reason for Europe or the West to recognize it in Crimea. To do so is actually a form of Western condescension: "Well, it's good enough for them."

(To illustrate it, I ask you to imagine a referendum for Florida's secession from the USA to join Cuba, since millions of ethnic Cubans live in Florida.  Imagine that this referendum started after Cuban troops invaded the Florida statehouse one night in Tallahassee; days later, those deputies who were allowed in by the Cuban troops, er, "local self-defense forces" voted to join Cuba (although there was no record or witness of the vote); then these deputies announced that this vote would be "confirmed" by a referendum in 2 weeks. This would be contrary to the U.S. Constitution and Florida's Constitution, just as Crimea's secession was contrary to Ukraine's and Crimea's, but that wouldn't matter, I suppose, under the ABSOLUTE right to anybody anywhere in any territorial sub-unit to their own self-determination.  Imagine further Cuba sending in troops to "protect" ethnic Cubans and "protect" their right to hold a referendum, while issuing ultimatums to local and state police, local military units, courts, etc. to pledge their allegiance to Cuba BEFORE the referendum was even held.... Need I go on illustrating how absurd this "legitimate" referendum in Crimea was?)

Third, let's recall that President Yanukovych fled Ukraine without explanation.  He was not "thrown out of power" by anybody; he chose, inexplicably, a day after coming to a compromise agreement with the opposition witnessed by EU ambassadors, (but not agreed to by Russia!), to flee Ukraine. This is not how a legitimate leader behaves.  In a few days it was discovered by the new government that $70 billion were unaccounted for in the state coffers; my guess is that Yanukovych fled preemptive to being arrested.

Finally, just to show that this is not  all about the U.S. and what we  think about a "second Cold War" or similar, just look at the reaction of Ukraine's neighbors in Poland, Moldova, the Baltics: they are not taking this "bloodless" revolution lightly, not to mention Ukrainians staring at 30,000+ Russian troops massing on the other side of the border. They are seriously frightened of Russia and what it might do next; and Grayson's official appeasement does not put their  fears at ease. 

Hostages beaten and tortured in Crimea

If you're inclined to ignore or disregard this report because of the source, then follow the hyperlinks provided therein.  They are all quite legitimate.

How anybody could say that the Crimean referendum was "free and fair" when journalists and anti-referendum activists in Crimea were being harassed, threatened, kidnapped, tortured, and in at least one case in Belohirsk, murdered, meanwhile Russian troops had shut down Ukrainian TV channels and laid siege to Ukrainian military bases ... well... then such people are determined to believe what they want to believe.

Ukrainian Hostages Beaten, Tortured in Crimea

By Mat Babiak

March 21, 2014 | Euromaidan PR

URL: http://euromaidanpr.com/2014/03/21/ukrainian-hostages-beaten-tortured-in-crimea/

British gov't. to Russia: Crimea ain't Scotland

Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes: last year Russia passed a law banning "separatist propaganda" -- exactly the kind of propaganda that it funded in Crimea for months.  

So now if any newly minted Russian citizens in Crimea have second thoughts about joining up and agitate for returning to Ukraine... they can be legally convicted and thrown in jail.  

That door swings only one way, my Crimean friends!

Anyhow, the UK flatly rejected Russia's comparison of the hastily organized and sloppily conducted Crimean referendum -- with no OSCE or UN observers -- to the Scottish referendum that is still six months away, and has the UK government's full blessing.  

U.K. to Russia: Crimea Isn't Scotland

By Matt Ford

March 17, 2014 | The Atlantic 

URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/uk-to-russia-crimea-isnt-scotland/284455/

U.S. and Ukraine must fight Russia's propagandistic lies

This one's about a week old but still quite relevant, since Russia continues to push obvious lies about Ukraine.  I hope to God that Obama, Cameron and Merkel are telling Putin on the phone, "Look, we know you're full of shit.  Cut the crap."  

Just to give you an idea of the cynicism of the liar we're dealing with in Russia's President Vladimir Putin:

[Russian propaganda minister Dmitry] Kiselov’s film of Ukrainians purportedly fleeing to Russia was actually of a normal day at a congested Polish border point. The pro-Russian protesters arrive in sleek buses as “protest tourists” with plenty of “walking around money” to pay bands, organize mobs, and harass reporters and international observers, who could documents any outrages against ethnic Russians. Crimean “self defense forces” are not armed and uniformed from the local five and dime, as Russian television claims, but are regular [Russian] troops. Russia’s media magicians claim with a straight face that footage of the brutal horror of Maidan is actually film of neo-Nazi-inspired demonstrations on the streets of Crimea. Wrong time and wrong place, but good television! Russian-television maps already show Crimea as part of Russia and circulate fake photographs of nonexistent Hitler posters in Kiev.

And on and on.... Educated and well-informed Ukrainians and certainly Westerners overestimated the capacity of ignorant and propaganda-laden Crimeans to distinguish truth from fiction.  We can't repeat this mistake in Eastern Ukraine.  We can't assume the Internet magically keeps people well-informed; in fact it can quite effectively can keep them misinformed. Meanwhile, most Ukrainians still get their news from the TV, which is increasingly Russian.

Putin's Big Lie On Ukraine (If It Weren't So Serious It Would Be Funny)

By Paul Roderick Gregory

March 10, 2014 | Forbes

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it…..For the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels 

Joke circulating in Russia: If you want to live in France – you go to France. If you want to live in UK, you go to England. If you want to live in Russia – Russia will come to you! 

Ukrainian Facebook posting: “We have not killed one Russian (Rossiyan), we did not take their land or introduce troops on their territory, did not grab their resources. We simply became a free people for one week. Is this enough for Russia to declare war on us with a unanimous decision and  the full approval of the Russian people! Why do they hate us? Because of freedom? Because of different thinking?

Russia’s Big Lies about Ukraine, while easily discredited, have been repeated with such frequency and with so little pushback that they, unfortunately, are coming to be perceived as true. The Western world finds it hard to believe that a head of state and his official media engage in persistent and blatant lying and distortion. “There must be something there,” we think. “If they are lying, where are the rebuttals?”

Putin takes propaganda seriously. We do not. That is a major mistake.

The first Big Lie is that Ukraine is such a cauldron of ethnic hatred and violence that Mother Russia was forced to intervene to rescue and protect Russian speakers from their extremist Ukrainian neighbors. False.

Ukrainians, be they first-language Russian or Ukrainian speakers (virtually all speak Russian), would shake their heads, just as would Bavarians when warned they are in danger of ethnic and racial violence at the hands of North Germans. On any stroll in Kiev or other cities, one hears more Russian than Ukrainian. Although the Russian media has likely scoured the record, there are no incidents of Ukrainian-on-Russian ethnic violence. There are no cases of Russian speakers in the east hiding in their cellars from the latest Ukrainian pogrom. Ukrainians do not feel hatred towards Russians. First-hand reports coming out of Ukraine say that Ukrainians, who had regarded Russians as friends and neighbors, for the first time regard them with a sense of loss as “others” (chuzhie).

Russia’s second Big Lie is that Ukraine’s East and South wish to join voluntarily their Russian brethren in a united Russia. False.

Putin cites his Levada Institute polls as proof of the admiration he enjoys among his people. He should therefore accept the results of a scientific poll of more than 2,000 Ukrainian citizens taken during the worst of the Maidan demonstrations, when separatist tendencies would have been inflamed, but before the Russian invasion ignited anti-Russian sentiment.  The highly professionalpoll shows an overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens want Russia only as a friendly neighbor with open borders and no visas.Some 12.5 percent want Russia and Ukraine as one country, reaching a high of twenty percent in the East and 25 percent in the Crimean south. An unoccupied Ukraine would not voluntarily join the corrupt and dysfunctional Russia. The Maidan revolution offers a fresh start with a chance of becoming part of law-abiding and prosperous Europe.

The new prime minister of Crimea – installed by the Russian occupation to preside over Crimea’s annexation — is one Sergei “The Goblin” Aksyonov, a purported member of the Crimean underworld, whose pro-Russian party won a whopping four percent of the votes in the last regional elections. Now he purports to represent all Crimea as he barrels through the Crimea with his escort of  AK-47-toting Russians (Excuse me, I meant to say Crimean self-defense troops).

The third Big Lie is that the Maidan demonstrators were not ordinary people venting against corruption and mismanagement, but vile, extreme nationalists, anti Semites, and Nazis paid and trained by Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Having driven out the legitimate president of Ukraine, extremists are poised to take the Ukrainian presidency and parliament.  Two presidential candidate hail from the far right. Poor Russia had no choice but to intervene. False.

Yes, nationalists were among the bravest of the Maidan demonstrators, but they constituted a small minority. The grim list of  the “Heavenly Hundred” victims shows a grand total of eight deaths from the two right-wing parties. The others were students, factory workers, and otherwise ordinary people, some from the East, demonstrating out of conscience. As to the upcoming presidential elections, the latest polls show ex-heavyweight boxing champion, Vitaly Klitshko,  in the lead with the two right-wing candidates polling collectively less than five percent – scant evidence of  an impending skin-head Nazi takeover.

If Putin is intent on saving Europe from right-wing extremism, he is advised to invade Greece (Golden Dawn), France (National Front), Netherlands (Wilder’s Freedom Party), or  Hungary (Jobbik) – all of which have double the popular support of Ukraine’s far right. Maybe such invasions would actually wake up the somnambulant Europeans.

[Right on!  Bullseye!  All these hand-wringing liberals forget that far-right nationalist parties exist all over Europe and yet somehow the EU does not degrade into vile Fascism.  In fact, it's quite possible that, in the big scheme of things, small far-right and far-left parties provide a necessary political dynamism that leads to compromise and wiser policy choices. - J]

Western diplomats are busy harrumphing that Russia’s invasion of the Crimea violates international treaties to which Russia was a signatory, and that sovereign Ukrainian territory cannot be annexed, especially not by a referendum supervised by foreign forces and without legitimate observers. Putin’s diplomats respond with razzle-dazzle and obfuscate with claims of “self-defense forces,” “humanitarian intervention,” and the threat of Neo-Nazism. In a rare departure from diplomatic language, a State Departmenttalking-points memo labels the “illegal actions in Ukraine” as “startling Russian fiction (not seen) since Dostoyevsky wrote, “The formula ‘two times two equals five’ is not without its attractions.”

But the West is of no use in countering Putin’s Big Lies delivered as desinformatsia  to the Russian people and to the ethnic Russians of Ukraine by the Russian mass media. Only informal Russian and Ukrainian social media can fight back. With belief that the Cold War is “over” everywhere but in Russia, the United States lacks voices like Radio Liberty and Voice of America to beam some truth into troubled Eastern and Southern Ukrainian territory. Putin’s forces have blocked Ukrainian television in occupied Crimea and increasingly-occupied Eastern Ukraine. The only media presence is Putin and his Big Lie.

Propagation of the Big Lie requires – not taciturn diplomats – but imaginative media masters, unconstrained by reality and truth telling. Putin has promoted former news anchor, Dmitry Kiselov, to head his Ukraine disinformation campaign. Known for his rants against Europe and Ukraine, Kiselov has promised to “apply the correct political technology,” then “bring it to the point of overheating” and bring to bear “the magnifying glass of TV and the Internet.” (Snyder, Fascism, Russia and Ukraine).

Anne Applebaum (Russia’s information warriors are on the march – we must respond) has reported on Kiselov’s frenetic media campaign:   

“Russian television news has reported, among other things, that 675,000 Ukrainian refugees have flooded over the Russian border; that extremists and neo-Nazi militants have illegally taken over the Ukrainian government in Kiev; and that Crimean “self-defense forces” or “pro-Russian forces” have spontaneously gathered in front of the Crimean parliament in order to defend it from those same Nazis. Each of these statements is a lie.”

Kiselov’s film of Ukrainians purportedly fleeing to Russia was actually of a normal day at a congested Polish border point. The pro-Russian protesters arrive in sleek buses as “protest tourists” with plenty of “walking around money” to pay bands, organize mobs, and harass reporters and international observers, who could documents any outrages against ethnic Russians. Crimean “self defense forces” are not armed and uniformed from the local five and dime, as Russian television claims, but are regular troops. Russia’s media magicians claim with a straight face that footage of the brutal horror of Maidan is actually film of neo-Nazi-inspired demonstrations on the streets of Crimea. Wrong time and wrong place, but good television! Russian-television maps already show Crimea as part of Russia and circulate fake photographs of nonexistent Hitler posters in Kiev.

Russian television’s Big Lie bombardment of Russian and Ukrainian has left its mark. A Ukrainian businessman from Dnepropetrovsk stuck in Singapore with nothing but Russian television to watch claimed that, had he not known better, he would have wanted to join the Russian side. A coal miner’s wife in Donetsk reacted to the Big Lie saying that the choice is either “join Russia or war,” and she does not want war.  A young Russian historian dumbfounded me by asking whether I knew that neo-Nazis now control Ukraine.

Both the Ukraine and West urgently need to up their propaganda game. Our diplomats must focus, not on violated treaties, but on demolishing the Big Lie. They should not shy away from calling a lie a lie a lie, to steal a line from Gertrude Stein. Ukraine must find ways and means to deprive Russia of its current information monopoly over its southern and eastern regions and the Russian people.

Ukraine must use all the social media at its disposal to counter Putin’s massive media apparatus. Ukraine versus Russia may seem like a hopeless David and Goliath, but the truth is a powerful ally. No lie from Putin can go unanswered. A good offense is better than a good defense.

Ukraine can gain the advantage if and when Putin’s Big Lie machine goes too far. Planting false claims and even doctored or falsified film and photos can backfire. The fact that Putin’s machine lies without hesitation suggests a cockiness and overconfidence.

Philosopher Lao-Tsi said more than two thousand years ago that we do not notice a good government, we hate a bad government, but the worst government is one over which we laugh.

The most potent weapon against Putin’s Big Lies is laughter and satire. Apparently, the thin-skinned Putin is now the butt of  jokes on night time talk shows and Saturday Night Live skits.

Let me end with an anecdote that may have a much deeper meaning for the outcome of crisis. On the way to lunch, a colleague told me that the nine-year-old daughter of a Russian couple was teased at her school today for being Russian. If this young girl was subject to public humiliation for being Russian, imagine how Russian tourists, businessmen, and students will be received in the West as a consequence of Mr. Putin’s adventurism. The Russian people have suffered the loss of empire, bankruptcy, and economic collapse. They want to hold their heads high, and they have looked to strong-man Putin to give them this.

Russia reveals its desired outcome in Ukraine

I translated the following article from Russian to English.  For all you who thought that the U.S. and the EU were "meddling" in Ukraine's affairs, what do you call this?  

Indeed, Russia is dictating a complete reformation of the Ukrainian state, under implicit threat of arms.  

Russia wants a weak, corrupt Ukraine that will not abide European norms and values.  This old strategy is known as "divide and conquer."  

Russia "has shown its cards"

By Aleksandr Gundlah

March 17, 2014 | 15Minut

The Russian Foreign Ministry calls on an international group of "aid to Ukraine," which should turn Ukraine into a non-aligned federation without the Crimea with two official state languages.

This is stated in the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which voiced Russia's proposal.

Russia has once again assured that it is not involved in the situation in Ukraine, which "is the result of a deep crisis of the Ukrainian state that led to the polarization of society and acute exacerbation of antagonism between different parts of the country."

To overcome this "internal conflict" Russia proposes to create a support group for Ukraine.

Russia suggests that this group should implement the agreements of February 21 and surrender "illegal weapons", the release of buildings and streets [from occupation by activists], and investigations of deaths in Kyiv.

And "without delay to convene by a decision of the Verkhovna Rada [national parliament of Ukraine] of a constitutional assembly, with equal representation of all Ukrainian regions to prepare a new federal constitution."

This constitution, according to Russia, should establish a federal system of Ukraine, its military and political neutrality, the state status for the Russian language, human rights of all minorities, the election of local authorities and non-interference in the affairs of the church.

Foreign Minister even told how a constitution should be adopted -- by a national referendum .

After that Russia wants general and local elections for "the legislative and executive authorities in each subject of the [new] federation."

Separately, Russia insists that the group should "recognize and respect the right to determine its own destiny Crimea according to the results of the free will of its population in the course of the 16 March 2014 referendum."

Again Russia proposes that the new territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine will be guaranteed by Russia, the EU and the U.S. according to a UN Security Council resolution.

Crimea's sham referendum

This one way to get out the vote -- using police to go door to door!  

The Russians are also "helping" patients at psychiatric clinics to vote "correctly."  

This referendum was bound to be a farce -- there is no "No" option in favor of the status quo -- but this is simply absurd.  

UPDATE 1 (17.03.2014): Over 80 percent of residents of Crimea voted in the Sunday's referendum, according to Crimea's new Russian authorities, almost twice the voter turnout in the 2012 parliamentary elections, and despite the fact that most Tatars, who make up about 15 percent of Crimea's population, plus ethnic Ukrainians and many others, boycotted the elections.  

This improbable math makes sense, however, when you understand that anybody with a Russian passport was allowed to vote on the fate of Crimea.  All's fair, they say, in love and war.

As the Kyiv Post reported, "On voting day, alleged violations included Russian citizens being allowed to vote, bulletins being printed on ordinary office paper, journalists being denied access to polling stations, open pro-Russian agitation inside stations, and presence of paramilitary forces outside."

Furthermore, "polling stations had additional lists and were putting down the names of people who were not registered at those stations," hence turnout was so huge.

It bears repeating that this referendum did not offer residents of Crimea the option to preserve the status quo! That's not a real choice, that's political theater.  

Anyhow, well over 95 percent of voters, say authorities in Crimea and Sevastopol, voted for secession from Ukraine and unification with Russia.  Surely a majority of those voting would have gone in favor of unification of Russia anyway, but Putin and his Crimean puppets didn't leave the outcome to chance.

UPDATE 2 (17.03.2014): Some russkiy in Tennessee wrote a letter to his Senators in defense of Russia's occupation of Crimea and Sunday's sham referendum.  I won't copy the letter here, only my response:

I can't think of a single referendum for independence or increased autonomy that did not give its citizens the option on the ballot of preserving the status quo!  I can't think of a single legitimate referendum that took place while foreign troops paraded around with impunity and national police were absent and national military were trapped on their bases by invading troops.  I can't think of a single legitimate referendum that took place while opposition journalists, priests and politicians were being disappeared by foreign agents and pro-referendum "local defense forces."  I can't think of a single legitimate referendum that took place when all national TV stations had been blocked, and several anti-referendum journalists and news organizations were shut down, and replaced with absolutely pro-referendum news and foreign TV channels.  I can't think of a single legitimate popular referendum that was meant only to "confirm" the foregone decision of a parliamentary assembly.  I can't think of a single legitimate referendum that was held so quickly, without any public debate.  All this tells me the Crimean referendum was not legitimate. Moreover, it was contrary to the Ukrainian constitution, if that still matters.  

And by the way, if we Americans take Putin's argument as gospel, then tomorrow Texas could unilaterally secede from the United States and there would be nothing Obama could do about it.  I suppose this right could extend to any U.S. city as well, since the "absolute" right of people to self-determination should not be limited to sub-national/regional entities.  

UPDATE 3 (17.03.2014): Russian President Vladimir Putin already signed a decree recognizing the results of the Crimean and Sevastopol referendums to join the Russian Federation.  

Відео УП: голосування на вулиці

March 16, 2014 | YouTube

URL: http://youtu.be/aItK0MQLvC4

Crimean 'referendum' is illegal

Why the Crimean referendum is illegal

By Lea Brilmayer
March 14, 2014 | Guardian

URL: http://gu.com/p/3nh4t

57% of Ohioans favor repealing GOP's anti-labor law

It's not long now till the Nov. 8 referendum when Ohioans will have the chance to strike this law down. No republic stuff this time, just direct democracy!

Opposition To Ohio's SB 5 Grows, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Women, Union Members Push Kasich Deeper In Hole

October 25, 2011 | Quinnipiac University

URL: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1665