The World as I See It: Russia and the Unending "Arc of Instability"

By Rich Kozlovich 

Mr. Ridvan Bari Urcosta, of Geopolitical Futures posted this piece, The Arc of Instability in Eastern Europe, which I thought was an excellent analysis.  A subscription to Geopolitical futures is required, and I highly recommend it, but I'm going to cover the highlights along with my take on the parties and issues involved.

I liked his highlighting the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which isn’t being presented in the news much, if at all, and could become a flash point.  I especially liked his highlighting the Kievan Rus history.  That is, in my opinion, an important piece of history that needs to be understood when dealing with Russia, Eastern Europe, the barrier nations and Turkey.

I will say this.  The West is incapable of resolving the issues surrounding the barrier countries of Russia, and those of what was the Soviet Union.  The social paradigms for the west and these nations are just too different and too far away.

The natural social paradigms - both positive and negative - make Russia and Turkey the natural arbiters there - as much as I hate to admit it.

Furthermore, I keep asking what benefit does America, or the West for that matter, gain from interfering in these countries’ internal problems, which are historically unending?  Not only do we not have the expertise to fix it, neither does anyone else, including themselves, and those efforts are expensive.  Let Russia, Turkey and the countries involved pay to fix it.  If they can!  And understand this. Border disputes are now cropping up constantly in what was once part of the Soviet Union. 

When they became independent, they became aware of their needs, wants, and cultural differences, which were not permitted under the rule of the Soviets.  Now those divisions are highlighted among states like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and that kind of problem is pandemic throughout central Asia, and has always been a problem as long as there was no overriding ruling power. 

The West, that being especially the Western European nations, are leaky vessels as allies, even when doing something is in their own benefit.  They’re disjointed in their thinking and goals, and that’s been the historical paradigm for Europe forever.  Including Western kings helping and supporting the Ottoman Empire attacking Christian kingdoms in Europe when they thought it was to their benefit. 

Here's my take on these events.  Both Russia and Turkey are broke, neither have truly effective militaries, especially Russia, whose demographic pyramid is all out of whack and the 15 to 50 demographic is filled with alcoholics, drug users, victims of AIDS and drug resistant TB.

Neither are natural capital generators, and even if these barrier countries collapse into tyrannies, why does that matter to the United States?  Either economically, militarily or socially?

It's not our job to fix the world.  Jews have a term for it: Tikkun Olam:

 "A Jewish concept defined by acts of kindness performed to perfect or repair the world. The phrase is found in the Mishnah, a body of classical rabbinic teachings. It is often used when discussing issues of social policy, ensuring a safeguard to those who may be at a disadvantage."

Well, we've tried that and it fails over the long run due to three things.  Geography, demography, and economics.  

We’re too far away, we’re mostly confused about the issues all these various populations have, as a result we don't have the answers to their problems, and finally, we don’t have the money.  If we did understand the social complexities, and if we did have the money, it wouldn’t matter as all these endeavors are Lewis Carroll rabbit holes that can never be fixed or filled, and all that's presented here is applicable to Afghanistan and the western and American military units leaving, which I will address in another piece. 

History is the foundation of truth, because truth has a historical foundation and context, and everything we're told should have some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.  If what's presented to us fails in either of those categories - it's wrong.  And we need to start understanding that.

Australia’s national interest must be weighed when deporting refugees, court tells government

Judge sets aside Alan Tudge decision on Afghan man’s visa for failing to consider full consequences of breaching international obligations.

Paul Karp @Paul_Karp Mon 4 Jan 2021

  

The Morrison government has been warned it must consider the impact on Australia’s national interest of sending refugees back to their country of persecution after losing its bid to deport a convicted child sex offender. Last year the then-acting immigration minister, Alan Tudge, refused an Afghan man a safe haven enterprise visa on character grounds, despite acknowledging the risk he could be killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.  But the federal court has set aside Tudge’s decision, ruling he failed to take into account the full ramifications of Australia breaching its international nonrefoulement obligations...........Tudge has appealed against that decision, in which Justice Geoffrey Flick said he had placed himself above the law and “engaged in conduct which can only be described as criminal”..........More Here....

 

My Take - So, let me see if I understand this line of thinking.  

 

Vile immigrants who commit vile crimes against their host country's citizens can't be deported because they were vile in their country of origin, and may have to face the consequences of their vileness.  So the host country now has to forever support these creatures in some way.  

 

Did I miss something?

Editor's Note:  This appeared in the John Ray's blog, THE PSYCHOLOGIST, on Thursday, 1/7/21 with his comment: 

 

Judge says he is a better judge of Australia's national interest than our elected representatives are.  Under international human rights law, the principle of non-refoulement guarantees that no one should be re-turned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other irreparable harm.  But breaches of international law are common and this particular one would be unlikely to generate much angst anywhere.  In any case the application of any law will be decided in conjunction with the particulars of the case so the outcome is never automatic.

 

 

Righteous Anger vs. Politics as Usual

January 25, 2020  By Shoshana Bryen

There is anger and then there is righteous anger. Peter Finch yelling out the window, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.”

From Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, where parts of a whole are coming undone, to Hong Kong to Puerto Rico to France and Venezuela, people are mad as hell.

Consider Lebanon. Independent in 1943, but occupied by Syria from 1975-2005, and brought into Iran’s orbit through the creation of Hezb’allah in the early 1980s, the same constellation of politicians have held power since the end of the civil war in 1990. Americans appear to worry most about the security implications of Hezb’allah, a U.S.-designated terror organization with its own army and a drug/weapons/money racket in South America, pulling strings in Beirut. And worry, too, about the U.S. armed and trained Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), working alongside and sometimes in cooperation with Hezb’allah. Hassan Nasrallah calls the LAF “a partner.”

But how did Lebanon come to this point and why are people angry now?..........To Read More....