An interesting story has been told regarding an exchange between Russian Leader-for-Life Vladimir V. Putin (VVP) and President GW Bush while the latter was in office.
Putin says to Bush "Ukraine is not even a real country", to which Bush responds with a smile. Whether this smile was knowing, strained or just a reflex for lack of any other meaningful response is left to interpretation.
But what it indicates, in light of recent events, is that this "not a real country" determination is input into the Kremlin's calculus regarding their actions in Ukraine.
Therefore, what anyone who has an interest in these events should be asking themselves is, "What set of information and/or perceptions caused VVP to say that?".
If you would be so kind as to read this article about the evacuation of civilians from an Eastern Ukrainian town by Ukrainian soldiers, towards the end of it there are some statements made by the evacuees that demonstrate a very sad point of view.
They are not able to "get to where their children are" so they cannot evacuate with them. They would like to stay in their village and live in peace; one says, "we don't care under which flag or with whom we live", one says.They just want the shooting to stop.
It is a very sad thing, for several reasons. Armed men were sent from Russia in order to bring this about. This is their goal, to achieve control over this territory of which 'their land, their houses' are a subset. As to "which flag", why wouldn't they understand that "which flag" is representative of the system that will recognize it as "their land"? For all practical purposes, it has been tossed up for grabs. Once they are forced out and lose control of it, how is it their land?
Also, why were they still there, and why weren't their children with them? Are they like people who stay despite the imminent hurricane, tidal wave or volcanic eruption: just taking their chances with forces beyond their control?
Or do they just not understand?
It illustrates some sad realities. Attempting to go on with life as usual while shootouts with rockets and shells are in progress around you, you are gambling that the whole thing will blow over before one of those projectiles finds you. Even worse, there are people in various places around the world in similar situations. Civilization is intended to protect people from wild animals, and the city walls to keep out marauding would-be conquerors. The wild animals have been pushed away with technology, and the marauding conquistadors by international agreements. Or so it was thought.
That is, until somebody rich and powerful enough decides that somewhere they'd like to control by fear is "not a real country" or is otherwise undeserving of peaceful life.
What is the difference between someone able to fund an option who lays a plan to fly commercial airplanes full of innocent civilians into buildings full of other innocent civilians, and someone who plans to dispatch a column of weapons operated by drunken hooligans to rain a load of rockets onto a town of civilians? Both are supposedly educated, bound by norms of civilized behavior and faith. They are wealthy beyond the reach of the majority of humankind. Even so, both decide that, just this once/twice/few times, some significant number of people should die to suit their agenda, then plan accordingly. We even know one of them clapped his hands in delight at the outcome of his handiwork.
It seems the only difference might be complexion, clothing, stature, and facial hair.
No comments:
Post a Comment