Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Agree/disagree:Obama reminds us he has no policy toward Ukraine or Russia other than to blame Putin. [View all]Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)6. No disagreement
As I said to Randy upthread, Cohen made that point twice, but didn't offer up a vision for what policy should look like.
I can't access his article in The Nation, as I'm not a subscriber. It's entitled Kievs Atrocities and the Silence of the Hawks
As for blame, here was Cohen's take:
STEPHEN COHEN: The horror of it all, to quote Conrad, watching your reports on Gaza, knowing what I know but whats not being reported in the mainstream media about whats been going on in eastern Ukraine citiesthese cities have been pounded by Kievand now this. "Emeritus," as you call me, means old. Ive seen this before. One function of cold war is innocent victims. The people who died, nearly 300, from many countries, are the first victims, nonresidential victims, of the new Cold War. This crash, this shootdown, will make everything worse, no matter who did it.
There are several theoretical possibilities. I am not a conspiracy buff, but we know in the history of the Cold War, there are provocations, people who want to make things worse. So, in Moscow, and not only in Moscow, there are theories that somebody wanted this to happen. I just cant believe anybody would do it, but you cant rule anything out.
The other possibility is, because the Ukrainian government itself has a capability to shoot down planes. By the way, the Ukrainian government shot down a Russian passenger jet, I think in 2001. It was flying from Tel Aviv to Siberia. It was an accident. Competence is always a factor when you have these weapons.
Another possibility is that the rebelswe call them separatists, but they werent separatists in the beginning, they just wanted home rule in Ukrainethat they had the capability. But theres a debate, because this plane was flying at commercial levels, normally beyond the reach of what they can carry on their shoulders.
Theres the possibility that the Russians aided and abetted them, possibly from Russian territory, but I rule that out because, in the end, when you dont know who has committed a crime, the first question a professional investigator asks is, "Did anybody have a motive?" and the Russians certainly had no motive here. This is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position.
Thats what we know so far. Maybe well know more. We may never know who did this.
There are several theoretical possibilities. I am not a conspiracy buff, but we know in the history of the Cold War, there are provocations, people who want to make things worse. So, in Moscow, and not only in Moscow, there are theories that somebody wanted this to happen. I just cant believe anybody would do it, but you cant rule anything out.
The other possibility is, because the Ukrainian government itself has a capability to shoot down planes. By the way, the Ukrainian government shot down a Russian passenger jet, I think in 2001. It was flying from Tel Aviv to Siberia. It was an accident. Competence is always a factor when you have these weapons.
Another possibility is that the rebelswe call them separatists, but they werent separatists in the beginning, they just wanted home rule in Ukrainethat they had the capability. But theres a debate, because this plane was flying at commercial levels, normally beyond the reach of what they can carry on their shoulders.
Theres the possibility that the Russians aided and abetted them, possibly from Russian territory, but I rule that out because, in the end, when you dont know who has committed a crime, the first question a professional investigator asks is, "Did anybody have a motive?" and the Russians certainly had no motive here. This is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position.
Thats what we know so far. Maybe well know more. We may never know who did this.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
108 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Agree/disagree:Obama reminds us he has no policy toward Ukraine or Russia other than to blame Putin. [View all]
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
OP
Cohen said it twice in the interview, but wasn't quick with alternatives
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#2
The trouble is that any approach that only looks at Russia will not work because
machiavelliisalive
Jul 2014
#76
Three months on the board...seems more like an old-timer, so familiar
alcibiades_mystery
Jul 2014
#28
It was maddening. Everything he said sounded logical, but no reasonable conclusions were reached
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#12
The problem I see is that every policymaker over -- say 55 -- wants to couch this in cold war terms.
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#59
To twist Lincoln's words - you can't please all the people all the time
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#16
DI, understand, please, first that I posted this as a discussion point
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#49
Other than to materially support Britain and the USSR, FDR did little in Europe prior to 42
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#87
As I said elsewhere - I'd just like to know what he would have Obama do.
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#89
Is there some reason why you don't like the 'left'? We are used to it of course, but I'm always
sabrina 1
Jul 2014
#61
I asked you before, do I know you? You sound very familiar, but that could be because you are
sabrina 1
Jul 2014
#74
Obama has ran the least interventionist foreign policy, beyond maybe Carter, since before FDR.
Drunken Irishman
Jul 2014
#35
I work under the assumption that any apologist for Putin is an imbecile. nt
conservaphobe
Jul 2014
#38
I don't think there is any basis for saying he is an apologist for Putin
betterdemsonly
Jul 2014
#42
Anyone who doesn't hold Putin and the separatists solely responsible for MH17...
conservaphobe
Jul 2014
#45
OK. You agree with Cohen. Finish his argument. What should US policy be?
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#56
One doesn't have to state their own policy to observe that someone else has none.
BKH70041
Jul 2014
#58
No - One does have to state their own policy to observe that someone else has none.
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#64
Complaining about a problem without suggesting solutions is called "whining".
phleshdef
Jul 2014
#70
No, it is called recognizing a problem. I say the answer not just usually but almost always is
TheKentuckian
Jul 2014
#93
You Seem To Imagine, Sir, Free Speech Exists Only If No One Disagrees With What Someone Says
The Magistrate
Jul 2014
#79
Stephen Cohen is a bigoted, hateful writer. I no longer read The Nation because of shit he
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#86
What is the correct policy? Is this a EU matter? A NATO matter? A UN matter?
McCamy Taylor
Jul 2014
#97
Peace talks would be ideal. From a US standpoint, "Stay Out of it" might be the best option. (nm)
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#99
I disagree. Obama is waiting for the right moment, for the moment when things are almost
JDPriestly
Jul 2014
#101
Any evaluation of the current administration policy has to start with remembering W.Bush
Algernon Moncrieff
Jul 2014
#107