Ideology versus Pragmatism

    Everyone professes to have trouble analyzing Vladimir Putin, current President of the Russian Federation.  Perhaps Christopher Hitchens had the best broad stroke guess when he said "KGB goon."   If that alienates Russians who admire the way Mr. Putin has led Russia during the past 14 years, then so be it.  There are many questions about Putin in regards to Ukraine.  Where is he and the Russian leadership going to go next?  How can they develop this situation into something positive over the long term?  The operation in Crimea, as opportunist as it was, was a master stroke.  If Russia could have stopped there, it should have.  An important geographic area to the Russian psyche was relatively secure with little effort.  What became very clear is that Russia tying itself to Russian nationalists in Ukraine was probably a mistake.  They are, by nature of being loose militias, going to be less disciplined and more unpredictable.  Much like the Serbian nationalist militias of the 90s, atrocities are quite possible.  So as much as making Ukraine into a frozen conflict could support a Russian narrative of an ideological battle, it is not a good idea.  Ukraine has gained much more visibility than Moldova and Transnistria.  Putin is fairly pragmatic.  In a way it is surprising to see him get as emotional as he does about Crimea.  He seems to be fairly astute at making decisions without a lot of ardor or passion.  The pragmatic step is going to be to distance the Kremlin from the passionate nationalism that itself inspired.  The consequence of not doing so means being identified with terrible acts, such as shooting down the commercial airliner, MH 17.

Proxy Wars and their Consequence

      Large, arms exporting nations such as Russia and the United States need to take care in where they decide to do business.  Each has sold arms in various proxy wars in the past, and continue to do so today.  The cost is real misery and a needless loss of life.
     During the Cold War, the United States sold arms to the mujaheddin in an effort to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.  The unintended result was that Islamic fundamentalists received arms and training.  The persons that later went on to form al-Qaeda or were inspired to form similar groups from this jihad.  Many had knowledge and training that was begat from this proxy war.
     The United States has shown less overt (thus shown) carelessness in selling arms in Syria.  In the past, such as it did in Afghanistan, in the 1980s, it may have shown more aggression and less caution.  Today, at least it seems by the public discussion, it seems much less inclined to sell arms that can later be used against it.  Russia has shown no such caution in Ukraine.  The pains of terrorism in Russian urban centers don't seem to be enough.  Thus what results of putting arms at the disposal of 'pro-Russian separatists' is the shooting down of commercial aircraft, such as Malaysian Airlines flight 17.  Could fighters in Ukraine covertly sponsored by Russia become a direct threat to Russian interests?  Some fighters may certainly gain experience and training in Russia that are later directly used against Russia.  If they later feel spurned or disillusioned they may want to form another Transnistria or semi-independent fiefdom.  They would have to respond to Russian pressure and forced sponsorship to do that.
    Not directly related to this subject, but interesting nonetheless, is the idea that the U.S. recent involvement in Afghanistan was actually a proxy war against Pakistan.  Fact or fiction?  Or both?

So What is a Shura?

   Credit goes to Wikipedia for a concise explanation.  'Shura' is the Arabic word for consultation.  It is mentioned in the Quran three times as a praiseworthy activity.  The point is that you hold a consultation with those that will be affected by that decision.  Often the term is used for forms of parliaments or congresses.  It links directly back to Afghan culture whereas shuras are held among tribes, ethnicities and regions on important matters affecting all.

    A tie in to each of the entities of this blog title does exist, interestingly enough.  In Persian and Dari in Afghanistan, the term شوروی, shuravi is used for 'Soviet' (the etymology being related to council). In Tajik language it is written Шӯравӣ.  Again, credit goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shura for this information.  It is somewhat disappointing to Google and not find a lot of substantive results for 'Shura.'  Perhaps its necessary to pick up a book first, and then Google in Arabic second.  It could be deeper in the search results, it could be more searchable in the news.  It would be interesting to study how they work and make a comparative analysis to western democratic institutions.

Cue, Routine and Reward

     A good book is "The Power of Habit" by Charles Duhigg.  The author describes how people, and animals in general, use routine on a much more regular basis than you might expect.  It is not a broad generalization to say that most of us operate daily on 1) cue, 2) routine, and 3) reward.  It saves brain power and it can make life more or less efficient.  Most people don't spend a lot of time deciding how to tie their shoes or brush their teeth.  It is a matter of habit and what you know.  You have a cue, say your untied shoe, the routine of ensuring it is tied properly, and finally a reward of perhaps getting to work on time.
     How does this apply on a large scale, in a macroeconomic sense?  Do international relations function in some way shape or form in this fashion?  Do whole societies and civilizations function on a cue, routine and reward?  It would seem so.  It starts in terms of internal affairs and priming a population on patriotism.  If the national anthem is played, you stand up, you remain silent and respectful and a reward you feel good about yourself.  You did the right thing.  Congratulations, you are officially a patriot.  A whole society can respond to outside stimuli or cues, enact a routine and receive a reward.  Russia is a strange duck in the sense that many nations around the world can't recognize or process what their own cues, routines and rewards could be.  It is simply not possible to project your own nation's routines on Russia, you must look at it from the inside out.  The fact is that the Russian world war experience is still out of the psychological reach of many.  Sovietologists never have to worry.  The fact is that they will always remain gainfully employed.

Donbas Stability Operations

    The Ukrainian federal government has reasserted authority in Donbas.  So what does that look like?  For one thing, it is a lot easier than in countries such as Afghanistan.  Wholesale chaos reigned in population centers of places like this for various reasons.  Ukraine is reasonably developed and does not necessarily require stability operations in accordance with U.S. Army field manual 3-07.  This is starting to sound like New Orleans after hurricane Katrina than Iraq after Operation Iraqi Freedom.
   The first thing that the federal government is doing is firing a lot of policemen.  It won't be necessary to train a whole new police force.  In theory hiring and training can probably be done in an inexpensive manner.  The second thing they are doing is taking a hard look at civil servants.  It is going to be important to determine who is necessary and why.  Not surprisingly, a lot of sick leave was used by government workers.  It seems like a good way to avoid the violence.   I am not sure if that job in the zoning office of Donetsk was worth dying for.
   A third thing I might recommend is going to be to get between the populace and some of those that  foment violence.  It is one thing to advocate unity with Russia.  Honestly, if you are an ethnic Russian it is the most natural thing in the world.  Yet disturbing the peace and committing crimes in the name of an illegitimate independence movement should be punished in the court system.  Donbas is one of the most populated regions in Ukraine.  It is important for the federal government to assert itself there, and primarily through law enforcement and civil services.  The military should be used only as a last resort.

Civil Society and Ukraine

     One of the laments of post-Sovietologists is the relative weakness of civil society in some former Soviet states.  Specifically, ones that support western ideals of freedom of the press, free speech in general, and a transparent government responsive to the people.  What is happening now is Ukraine is a greater flowering of such groups.  It is an open question whether more groups exist now than before the Euromaidan revolution.
     One site I found is http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/04/verified-ways-to-help-the-ukrainian-army/
     The purpose is to help the Ukrainian armed forces, yet it is so much more.  There are also ways to help the many refugees that are going to result from this armed conflict.  The displacement of people from their homeland is always a tragedy.  So much more so when considering how unnecessary any violence was in the first place.

Democratic Process tries to get a Toehold in Tribal Afghanistan

     Last Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was able to broker a deal between the major Afghani presidential candidates.  Since the Afghan presidential election run-off in June, there had been an effective stalemate.  Adullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai had threatened to set up separate governments and in general the situation was quite tense.
    In a side note Harmid Karzai was not able to run for president again.  A fact for which many, many people were thankful because he was something of a nutcase.
    So this looks like a victory for those that support democratic processes.  The U.N. will audit the election results, including 8 million votes.  A decided winner would presumably form an inclusive government and not necessarily make it 'winner take all.'  Iraq serves as a poor example of what happens when one ethnic group conciously or unconciously occupies the whole seat of power in a federation.  Violence, rebellion and chaos as 'identity groups' seek some modicrum of power.  Either of out personal ambition of the leaders, or even a certain zeitgeist of the group that they are going to avoid genocide and holocaust.  For hundreds of years men have certainly showed that they are capable of that.  This is no phantom fear.
    If you look at each of these men, what do you see?  Abdullah Abullah is a 'reportedly' a persian speaking Tajik.  His stepfather was Pashto, so presumably he has been intermingled with other ethnic groups since an ealry age.  He was a close friend of Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was persian Tajik. Abullah did not accept the run-off results as legitimate.  Ashraf Ghani is commonly referred to by his first two names, since the last is the name of this tribe.  He is a Pashtun, and thought to be a leading intellectual in not only Afghanistan, but the world.  The U.S. does well to exert influence at this point between these two men.  As educated and worldly as each obviously are, they still stand as symbols of a diverse Afghan society.  Each part of this society need to remain intertwined and preferrably move towards interdependence.  The last thing that Afghanistan needs now is more ethnic fighting.