Thousands march in pro-invasion rally in Moscow

[mick silver]

By LAURA MILLS | Associated Press – 1 hr 10 mins ago



Email (http://news.yahoo.com/_xhr/mtf/panel/)
nt (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fthousan ds-march-pro-invasion-rally-moscow-151720831.html&t=Thousands%20march%20in%20pro-invasion%20rally%20in%20Moscow%20-%20Yahoo%20News)









http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/5DJkYljKZvEJfsjsMmN6Yg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MzQ1Njtjcj0xO2N3PTUxODQ7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQyMDtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/e9797a8d9a3e4f084d0f6a706700a45c.jpg
View Photo (http://news.yahoo.com/lightbox/more-ten-thousand-pro-kremlin-demonstrators-many-holding-photo-151244833.html)Associated Press/Pavel Golovkin - More than ten thousand pro-Kremlin demonstrators many holding Russian flags march in central Moscow, Russia, Sunday, March 2, 2014 to express support for the latest developments …more



RELATED CONTENT




http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/qbzoGM7S39AAXf1Fl9GqNg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjI1ODtjcj0xO2N3PTMzODY7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTEyNztxPTg1O3c9MTkw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/94612a469a3f4f084d0f6a7067007002.jpgView Photo (http://news.yahoo.com/lightbox/police-officers-dogs-walk-front-more-ten-thousand-photo-151329292.html)Police officers with dogs walk …

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/3TchleCbTfm5jgpHc_52uw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjUzMDtjcj0xO2N3PTM3OTU7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTEyNztxPTg1O3c9MTkw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/957b0bbd9a414f084d0f6a70670014c8.jpgView Photo (http://news.yahoo.com/lightbox/pro-kremlin-demonstrators-dressed-wwii-army-uniforms-carrying-photo-151540363.html)Pro-Kremlin demonstrators dressed …





MOSCOW (AP) — Thousands marched freely through Moscow on Sunday in support of Russia using military force in neighboring Ukraine, while at an anti-invasion protest nearby dozens were detained.
Russian state television ratcheted up its pro-invasion rhetoric over the weekend and showed what it claimed were buses full of refugees pouring across the Ukrainian border, fleeing what anchors call the "fascist thugs" who took power after Russia-leaning President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country last week after months of protest.
At least 10,000 people waving Russian flags rallied in central Moscow. Some dressed in Soviet military uniforms and shouted slogans like "Fascism will not pass!" and "No to Nazism!" — evoking parallels with the repulsion of Hitler's troops from Ukraine in World War II.
But at an anti-invasion protest near Red Square, dozens of demonstrators — one of whom held up just a blank piece of poster paper in protest — were quickly detained by police. The Associated Press witnessed more than 50 detentions and spotted at least five police vans, which carry between 15 and 20 protesters, driving away from the square.
Since parliament gave President Vladimir Putin the green light to use military force in Ukraine late on Saturday, the Russian leader has defied calls from the West to pull back his troops, insisting that Russia has a right to protect its interests and those of Russian-speakers in the strategic Black Sea region of Crimea and elsewhere in Ukraine.
Russia's state-controlled media has played almost nonstop footage of the Ukrainian crisis since the announcement, highlighting what it says are videos of attacks on pro-Russian activists by activists from Kiev or regions further west.
Russia Today claimed that 675,000 of Ukraine's population of 46 million had fled across the border to Russia, and showed the governors of Russia's western-most regions gearing up to accept the flood of refugees. State-owned channel Russia One showed what it alleged were cars lining up to flee the border into Russia — but the sign marking the border was actually for Shegini, a town on Ukraine's western border with Poland.
While many Russians have long believed Moscow should maintain strong ties with Ukraine's east and south, the media campaign has helped nudge public opinion toward favoring more dramatic action. A poll by independent Levada Center released on Feb. 26 showed that 43 percent of Russians considered the protests in Ukraine a "violent government coup," while 45 percent believed the protests were sponsored by Western governments attempting to win "geopolitical influence" in the region.
"We are one brotherly nation, we are all Russians in our souls," said Galina Kravchuk, a retiree at the pro-invasion rally who said she had lived in Crimea all her life but was visiting her daughter in Moscow. "Those protesters (in Ukraine) are hired. They are paid by the West and by America."
But among many at the rally, active support seemed paper thin. Many were delivered to the square by buses marked as city government property, and others confessed that they had been forced by their employers to attend.
"The boss forced us to come," said Elena, who wouldn't give her last name for fear of repercussions at her workplace. "Do you really think that all these people came here voluntarily? Never."

[Horn]

Pandorah's box lies somewhere around Ukraine.

[singular_me]

doesnt bode well... um-um



Those protesters (in Ukraine) are hired. They are paid by the West and by America."
since all political parties have their own agitators...

[mick silver]

Ex- CIA Chief: Why We Keep Getting Putin WrongBlame a myopic mindset—and an intelligence corps focused on terrorism, not Moscow.
The last time Russian troops invaded one of its neighbors, the U.S. intelligence community was also caught off guard.
The year was 2008 and the country was Georgia instead of the Ukraine. And just as in 2014, back then there were early signs that Moscow was serious—it was issuing visas to ethnic Russian speakers in Georgia, like it's doing now in Ukraine. U.S. analysts just didn’t believe Russia would go as far as it did.
Today, as in 2008, American policy makers have found themselves burned after trying to make Vladimir Putin a partner when Putin himself sees America as a rival. This has often led Republican and Democratic led administrations to find themselves flat footed in the face of Russian aggression and U.S. intelligence analysts racing to explain how they misread Putin’s motivations.
“This is less a question of how many collection resources we throw at Russia and more broadly about the analytic challenge of understanding Putin’s mind set,” said Michael Hayden, a former CIA director and NSA director under President George W. Bush. “Here our Secretary of State is saying this is not the Cold War, it’s win-win and it’s not zero sum. But for Vladimir Putin it is zero sum. That’s what we need to understand.”
Of course, U.S.-Russian relations have overlapped in some areas of mutual interest. The two countries have worked to maintain the International Space Station, with Russian Soyuz capsules bringing American astronauts into orbit. Both countries have cooperated, at times, on sanctioning Iran for its nuclear program. And both sides agreed to an ambitious plan in Syria to dismantle the regime's chemical weapons arsenal.
But when it comes to the status of the newly independent nations that used to comprise the Soviet empire, the United States and Russia have been at odds.


“Our Secretary of State is saying this is not the Cold War, it’s win-win and it’s not zero sum. But for Vladimir Putin it is zero sum. That’s what we need to understand.”


Late last week, for example, U.S. intelligence analysts and lawmakers estimated (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/27/u-s-spies-no-russia-isn-t-about-to-invade-ukraine.html) that the Russian forces massing near Ukraine's border wouldn't openly invade. Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on Thursday that he didn't know Putin's motivations, but was sure Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine: "I can’t believe they are foolish enough to do that."
There wasn't an open pouring of troops over the border. But Russian mercenaries and other troops wound up seizing power (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/28/exclusive-russian-blackwater-takes-over-ukraine-airport.html) in the Ukrainian province of Crimea anyway. On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry called the move an “invasion (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/02/crimea-is-gone-what-does-nato-do-next.html).”
Hayden compared the problem with understanding Putin to the problem of the Arab Spring, the democratic upheavals in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and other countries in the Arab world that was also entirely missed by the U.S. intelligence community. “That was not a secret to be stolen,” Hayden said. “That was something that required a broader understanding of the problem. This is the challenge to understanding Putin’s mindset.”
Damon Wilson, who in 2008 was the National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and the lead manager at the George W. Bush White House for the Georgia crisis, was blunt in his assessment of the warnings before Russia’s invasion that summer. “Our analysts missed it on Georgia,” he said.
Wilson, who is now the executive vice president of the Atlantic Council, also said an important reason was that the U.S. government has failed to understand that Putin does not see America as a friend or a partner.
“We get used to outrageous Russian behavior and we come to accept that as normal and we end up tolerating it,” Wilson said. “We had plenty of warnings in 2008 that Russia would provoke a confrontation with Georgia and end up invading, but we still didn’t think he’d actually do it.” Those warnings included many of the same kinds of things the world was seeing in the run up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, such as the distribution of passports to ethnic Russians and statements about Moscow’s interests within its “near abroad” or those former Soviet Republics that largely gained independence in 1991 after the break up of the communist empire.
Wilson said there were three reasons why the U.S. government was unprepared for Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008. To start, he said, much of the hardware the U.S. government uses to spy—the satellites, sensors, blimps and sophisticated intercept technology—were focused in 2008 (as they are in 2014) on counter-terrorism and proliferation targets like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. “We have enormous assets that for a long time were focused much more on Afghanistan and Iraq and not really on the Caucuses or Russia’s near abroad,” Wilson said.
For the last 13 years, the way you got ahead in America's intelligence services was to specialize in stopping terrorists. Compared to al-Qaeda, the Russians were seen as has-beensalbeit nuclear-armed has-beens. Spying on Moscow was considered a second-tier priority. Sure, the Russian intelligence agencies were (and are) one of the world's most sophisticated; competing against the sons of the KGB was one of the toughest challenges for an American operative or analyst. But the stakes just weren't that high. It was like having a chess match against your grandfather, while everyone else played Call of Duty for money.
"Clearly Russia is not the collection priority that the Soviet Union used to be. Lots of resources are pulled off into terrorism and proliferation," said Hayden, who has said for years (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/post-petraeus-cia/) that America's spy corps was over-focused on the terrorist threat.
Moscow has always been a notoriously difficult target for espionage and intelligence collection—while American policy makers have a number of channels for talking to the leadership of Western-friendly regimes in Russia’s near abroad. In 2008, for example, Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili had regular conversations with U.S. political elites in the run up to the Russian invasion, the United States had far less visibility into Russian decision making.If anything, the problem has gotten worse since then. The rise of biometrically-enabled passports (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/cia-spies-biometric-tech/) and the growth of digital data trails has made it harder for American operatives and analysts, whose cover is often blown after a single trip to Russia.
But the biggest problem, according to Wilson, was a failure to absorb that Putin does not assess his own interests in the way Americans believe that he should.
A veteran intelligence analyst with the United States military, noted that younger colleagues had been confident that "Putin wouldn't do anything" in the current crisis. Then came the stealth invasion of Crimea. “How extraordinary it is that the conventional wisdom and self-licking ice-cream cone is alive and well,” this analyst said. "Why anyone should be surprised is what is surprising. We are believing our own spin that the world has changed. Not in the Russia”n government, it hasn't.
An American intelligence operative with long experience in the Ukraine added, "Most likely, force is the only thing that will resolve this matter, even if some people think an angry [U.S. ambassador to the United Nations] Samantha Power is enough to make Putin rethink his desire to secure Russian interests."
John Schindler, a former counter-intelligence officer at the NSA and an analyst of Russian statecraft, said that many in the intelligence community favor a“rational actor/social science” model of analysis that winds up confirming a lot of American biases about how leaders ought to behave. But real life is messier. And there's more than one way to be rational.
The problem historically has been U.S. intelligence analysts have lunged between alternating models to predict Russian statecraft. Either Moscow was implacably belligerent or shared the same rational interests as the United States.
“It was not rational, so to speak, for Putin to go in this heavy handed into Crimea,” Schindler said. “The Kremlin could have gotten control of Crimea with much less direct and less risky methods, but they went for the most politically risky model possible.”
Schindler said this has been a puzzle for the U.S. intelligence community since the days of the cold war. In the 1950s, the spooks swore that the Russians were building many more intercontinental ballistic missiles than the U.S.; it just wasn't so. In the mid-80s, top Kremlinologist (and future CIA director and Defense Secretary) Robert Gates famously argued (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/01/07/robert-gates-was-wrong-on-the-most-important-issue-he-ever-faced/) that Mikhail Gorbachev was just another leader “cut from the old Soviet mold.” Instead, he wound up being the midwife for the Soviet Union's demise.
In 1962 for example, President Kennedy’s director of central intelligence, John McCone, asked the CIA’s analysts to conduct a special national intelligence estimate on whether the USSR was placing missiles in Cuba. The analysts concluded that there was a body of evidence that suggested this was indeed what was happening, but concluded “the Kremlin was a rational actor and this would be a profoundly irrational act and there is no way the Soviets would do such a thing,” Schindler said. “Fortunately McCone called bullshit and asked for another assessment and that was the famous assessment that concluded yes the Soviets were placing missiles in Cuba.”
In 2008, the United States ending up sending Georgia humanitarian aid on military aircraft as its territory was invaded. Russian troops remain on Georgian territory to this day and Moscow faced no real consequences.
Hayden observed that Putin “did not spend much time in the penalty box for invading Georgia. That happens in August, then there is an election, then there is a new administration and in a few months you have the reset.” That reset in relations began in 2009 when Obama came into power. The two sides explored ways of cooperating instead of focusing on their divisions when it came to Georgia.


And in some ways it worked for a while. Russia and the United States signed a treaty in 2010 to reduce the strategic nuclear arsenals for both sides. Russia backed off threats to kick the United States out of important airbases in Kyrgyzstan the U.S. military needed to resupply forces in Afghanistan. But Russia continued to flex its muscles nonetheless in Syria and now in Ukraine.
Not all senior officials underestimated Putin. In 2010, then Defense Secretary Gates was quoted in one diplomatic cable disclosed by Wikileaks as saying Russia was an "oligarchy run by the security services." But Gates was largely an exception.
On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry promised that the United States was considering a swath of options to punish Putin’s behavior in Ukraine beyond simply boycotting the upcoming G8 summit in Sochi. When he was asked on NBC’s Meet the Press about the “reset,” Kerry said that policy was from long ago. “We’ve entered into a different phase with Russia,” Kerry said. From Putin’s perspective however we’ve been in this different phase for years.