Debaktseve- The destruction of a crossroads town like Sebastopol

Yesterday I mailed the president the following:
President Barack Obama Re: Russian aggression The White House Ukraine
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500 Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2015

Dear President Obama,

Today I left a message for you on the comment line by phone. I also emailed with essentially the same comment. I also write to you today to repeat my call that you do more than just impose economic sanctions against President Putin, which only serve to make him more popular and to make his hold over the Russian government stronger.

Today another town, a small city of twenty-five thousand before this war began, Debaktseve, was taken by the eastern Ukraine so-called “separatists.” They are succeeding to the most part because they are using Russian military advisers and military weapons: artillery and tanks.

Just a few days ago, as you well know, another cease fire was set up. Already it has failed. I hope you are not ignoring these facts.

History, both in the recent and more remote past, shows that economic sanctions only make governments like Russia’s present regime more secure. Have you not ever studied the past so as not to repeat its mistakes?

As the Pentagon advises you lend or supply Kiev with antitank weapons, drones, and artillery including mortars and other handheld weapons to stop tanks and armored vehicles. Do not wait until Kiev falls to Russian dominance. Thank you for reading this.

Best regards,

End of letter. Other examples of where economic sanctions failed are vs. China during the Cold War.

Personal comment: Over a year ago freedom fighters in Kiev defied a Russian-backed leader by taking to the streets with a prolonged protest lasting many months in the dead of winter. After his ouster a new leader was elected in Ukaine as Putin absorbed the Crimea. President Obama has tried economic sanctions which did not stop Russia from using its military muscle to shoot down an unarmed civilian passenger jet and propping up eastern Ukrainian separatists taking over its primary cities. We need a stronger policy to halt Putin than just economic measures and hot air from the White House.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tree14:

Dear President Obama,
...my call that you do more than just impose economic sanctions against President Putin, which only serve to make him more popular and to make his hold over the Russian government stronger....

---

And why is this our fight? In my opinion the US should mind its own business and not continue to get ensnared in foreign military adventures. I don't like Putin any more than you do but the Ukraine is his back yard, not ours.

I urge the writer of this letter to listen to an interview that Philip Maldari had this morning on KPFA with San Franciso State Professor of History Anthony D'Agostino. The program lasted an hour but the interview takes 22 minutes, from 8:20 to 30:20.

The first part of the interview discusses the current situation, highlighting the capture of Debaltseve (not Debaktseve), and then goes on to discuss the history of the conflict. Philip isn't a fan of Putin, so he has no difficulty playing devil's advocate, and one can learn a lot from from listening to this, no matter one's opinion.

But I can't help adding a few comments on this, in my opinion, rather biased and dis-factual posting.

First of all, about Debaltseve. This is not just any little town but the unfortunate victim of an attempt by the Kiev junta army to split the rebel territory into two pieces, separating the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk. Unfortunately for the junta, about three weeks ago the rebel forces started to close the entry point of the incursion, threatening to trap eight or nine thousand (!) junta troops, about a fourth of the total Kiev armed forces, inside a surrounded "cauldron". As it became more likely this entrapment would succeed, the supporters of the Kiev junta in the West scrambled to work out a cease fire. Russia and the rebels agreed, but only the outside borders of lines of engagement were covered in the agreement, probably because the junta was unwilling to publicly admit that they had a "problem" inside the rebel controlled area. About the time the cease fire was agreed to, the rebels succeeded in "closing the trap", and in the three days before the agreement went into effect repelled efforts from forces outside or inside of the "cauldron" to open it. The cease fire has been holding up pretty well on all the perimeters, but the rebels continued to pursue the forces inside their territory, finally retaking the town of Debaltseve itself, whose people side with the rebels, and forcing the surrender of about three thousand (numbers are unclear at present) of the junta troops. Mostly draftees with little enthusiasm for the conflict, they are being fed, sheltered, and bathed, and are offered return to their side of the lines. Probably many will wish to defect to somewhere else.

So that's Debaltseve. As for the rest:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tree14:

Personal comment: Over a year ago freedom fighters in Kiev defied a Russian-backed leader by taking to the streets with a prolonged protest lasting many months in the dead of winter. After his ouster a new leader was elected in Ukaine as Putin absorbed the Crimea. President Obama has tried economic sanctions which did not stop Russia from using its military muscle to shoot down an unarmed civilian passenger jet and propping up eastern Ukrainian separatists taking over its primary cities. We need a stronger policy to halt Putin than just economic measures and hot air from the White House.

---

Anyone following the events knows that the coup was in part controlled by the U.S., shown by U.S. "Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" being caught on tape discussing with US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt just how they would set up the new government, who they'd have run it, etc. The "freedom fighters" were overthrowing an elected government which had already agreed to early elections to satisfy the demands of the protesters,somewhat violently to the extent that the president had to flee for his life. One might excuse such tactics if the protesters were really the "good guys", but, in fact, many of them were/are out-and-out fascists, claiming their roots from the Nazis. After the coup, the new "government" took a "with us completely or against us" stance. The eastern provinces, somewhat put off by the coup leaders' declarations that no political opposition would be tolerated and that the Russian language would be outlawed, started to agitate for more local autonomy. When police and ultra-nationalist goon squads were not sufficient to put down the protest in the east, the Kiev government sent the in the army, and when the eastern federalists organized and fought back, the Kiev government undertook heavy shelling and aerial bombardment of the eastern cities. As the civilian casualties rose, the easterners, who had originally asked only for more local autonomy decided they would now only accept full independence, and that is where things stand today. The facts of all this are readily available in independent media, but it is perhaps not surprising that the writer of this post is not aware of them, since most American corporate media parrot the U.S. government's line. By the way, in an election which no one to my knowledge has suggested was not fair, 96% of the residents of Crimea, where the Russian Black Sea naval fleet is located, voted for re-union with Russia.

One last point. It is most likely that the Malaysian passenger jet was shot down by the Kiev air force. The rebels immediately, as much as was within their power, made the crash site available to inspectors. But after NATO and the U.S. had analyzed the "black box" , they fell silent on the issue and it dropped from the media, despite repeated calls from Russia for a full investigation. Again, all the facts relating to the incident can be verified from independent media.

D'Agostino points out in the radio interview that the U.S. is becoming increasingly isolated in it's provocative support of the Kiev junta. France and Germany, probably expressing the view of most of Europe, would like to see peace and trade with Russia resumed. It's really a shame that our country's government has become so militarily aggressive in the world lately, especially when all it has to show for it is Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, ISIS, and Ukraine, but that's the way it is. And it doesn't help matters to call for "a stronger policy to halt Putin than just economic measures and hot air from the White House".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phredo:

I urge the writer of this letter to listen to an interview that Philip Maldari had this morning on KPFA with San Franciso State Professor of History Anthony D'Agostino. ....

---

Uh, thanks for the gratitude but if you think I think along the lines you think, think again.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

Uh, thanks for the gratitude but if you think I think along the lines you think, think again.

---

You're welcome. I don't what lines you think along besides what you said in your post, that "the US should mind its own business and not continue to get ensnared in foreign military adventures", which I agree with. As for, "I don't like Putin any more than you do but the Ukraine is his back yard, not ours," it sounds like we agree on the Ukraine being in Russia's back yard part, but I probably have less dislike for Putin than you may. I tend to agree with him on foreign policy and world view but disagree with him on social concerns like gay rights and free speech. Then again, Russia is his back yard and not mine, and there are many, many places with much greater restrictions on those things than Russia.

And for me, "Ukraine being in Russia's back yard" is not my only interest in the matter, because I think further that the Donbass and Crimea have the right to their own self-determination. My guess, from your saying that you don't think along the lines that I do, is that you would agree in principle with "self-determination" (most people do) but think it doesn't quite apply in this case. If that is so, I'd be interested to hear why you think that, especially given that numerous polls and even elections have shown a high support in the region for self-determination, either through increased federalism or independence.

Or maybe you feel that the U.S. and NATO are correct in thinking that "Russian expansionism" is a threat that must be confronted, and that, even if that means trampling a bit on somebody's self-determination, it's a price that has to be paid for the greater good. If that's the case, I'd be interested to hear more about that, also. Professor D'Agostino and Philip Maldari went back and forth a bit on "Russian expansionism" in the program I mentioned earlier, with D'Agostino saying that Russia and he also feel that Russia is considerably more "expanded against" than wanting itself to expand. And I say "Russia", because Putin has an 85% approval rating in Russia now, mostly based on his foreign policy positions.

By the by, a really good website for following events from the point of view, more or less, of the "rebels" is https://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/.