Tag: Premium

The US mission to NATO tweets evidence that Putin was lying when he claimed last week that Russian forces had been pulled away from the Ukrainian borders:

Adam Taylor and Gene Thorp explain why eastern Ukraine matters to the Russian military:

Kateryna Choursina and James M. Gomez of Bloomberg Businessweek recently pointed out that more than 50 factories in Ukraine’s southern and eastern regions provide significant amounts of important hardware for Russia’s military, and that the Russian government’s $15 billion agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (the agreement that eventually lead to his ousting) aimed to further intertwine the two country’s defense industries.

The map [here], compiled using information from the Royal United Services Institute, shows where some of the most important sites are for Russia, as well as the major sites of Ukraine’s pro-Russian separatist movement. It shows not only how southeast Ukraine provides military hardware for Russia, but also controls oil and uranium, and even the food for the sailors in Sevastopol.

It’s worth bearing this in mind when we consider the Russian military’s buildup on the borders of Ukraine (whether or not they are gone). The troops don’t just threaten Ukraine: They rely on it. too.

Linda Kinstler points out that Ukraine’s army is unequipped to respond to a Russian invasion:

Ukraine inherited the Soviet military machine when it gained independence. At the time, that meant Ukraine had the second-largest standing army in Europe, with some 750,000 troops. But the new government couldn’t afford to keep up such a large force, and began rapidly cutting costs. Since then, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry has been “consistently downsizing to a force of about 120,000, which they thought made sense,” said Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine (1998-2000). When Russia invaded Crimea, Ukraine was still in the process of downsizing, and had plans to further decrease its forces to 100,000 by 2017.

Soviet-era infrastructure remains the backbone of Ukraine’s army, which means that most military bases are located in the western part of the country, where they could fend off a NATO attack.

David Patrikarakos adds that, in the east, the police aren’t doing much to combat the separatists and in some cases have joined them:

“Yanukovych had especially strong links to the police force,” says Nataliya Gumenyuk, a Ukrainian journalist and co-founder of the independent online TV station Hromadske.TV. “The police in East Ukraine have been the most corrupt sphere of local government for a long time; they are politically controlled and on the payroll.”

Little surprise, then, that despite their numbers (Ukraine has 300,000 policemen compared with 100,000 soldiers, Kyiv mayoral candidate and former heavyweight boxing champion Vitali Klitschko told me), for the most part the police have failed to even try to combat the unrest. It is merely the most egregious example of the truth at the heart of the situation in east Ukraine: What remains of Ukrainian national organizations and loyalties are cracking, dissolving, disintegrating.

Previous Dish on Ukraine’s war preparations here and here.

The Daily Show‘s “senior black correspondent”, Larry Wilmore, has been tapped to step into Stephen’s shoes when he leaves to take over for Letterman next year. To get a sense of Wilmore’s wit, here’s the trailer for a special he did a few years ago:

A more recent clip of Wilmore in action is here. He will host a panel show called The Minority Report:

As the late-night shuffle has taken place over the last few weeks, speculation had ramped up as to whether Comedy Central would mix things up and diversify the predominantly white and male line-up across the late-night TV spectrum. That fact was not lost on the network: “’The Minority Report with Larry Wilmore’ will provide viewers with a distinct point of view and comedic take on the day’s news from a perspective largely missing in the current late night landscape,” the show description reads. “The series will feature a diverse panel of voices currently underrepresented in comedy and television.”

Sharan Shetty is pleased with the network’s choice:

It’s a solid hire, as Wilmore is an accomplished wit with a sterling track record in television: besides his lauded work on The Daily Show, he created the critically-acclaimed Bernie Mac Show, and will also serve as executive producer of forthcoming ABC sitcom Black-ish. The real victory here, of course, is the refreshing addition of a minority voice to the white-male-dominated landscape of late night television. Wilmore is an ideal choice to subvert that genre’s stale perspectives—he’s a thoughtful and compassionate comedian, but one unafraid to confront issues of race, politics, and even Mormonism.

Marlow Stern takes a look at Wilmore’s politics:

As far as where he leans politically goes, Wilmore told Laughspin in 2012: “I call myself a ‘passionate centrist,’ and what that means is that I have opinions, I just don’t care if they’re on the right or the left. Yes, I’ll have an opinion, I’m just not trying to prove either side.”

His stand-up comedy special for Showtime, Race, Religion and Sex, was well-received that same year, and he’s also proven to be a reliable character actor in film and television comedies, appearing in the flicks Dinner for Schmucks and I Love You, Man, as well as a recurring role on the sitcom Happy Endings, playing Brad’s (Damon Wayans Jr.) strict boss, Mr. Forristal.

Matt Willstein wonders if The Minority Report will be successful in addressing the lack of diversity in late night:

On the one hand, Jon Stewart and Comedy Central have declared definitively that they want to produce a show that puts diverse voices in the foreground, giving comedians who may not otherwise get a platform a place where they can share their views on a wide variety of issues. Instead of being the “senior black correspondent” who shows up once every few weeks on The Daily Show, Wilmore will get equal time to Stewart.

But on the other hand, there is a risk that by putting its “minority” talent all together in one place on this show, it actually separates them from the late night mainstream that is still dominated by white guys named Jimmy. By so blatantly making the show about race does Comedy Central risk sending the message to white people that this show isn’t for them?

But, for James Joyner, the bottom line is whether the host can bring the laughs:

I don’t choose my entertainment for the diversity of its viewpoints or a sense of fairness but rather its entertainment value.  More than any of the remaining supporting members of the “Daily Show” cast, Wilmore manages to be consistently funny. Alas, maybe because he lives on the other coast, he’s on far too infrequently. His getting his own vehicle is great news.

In another video from MacArthur “Genius Grant” winner Elyn Saks, she identifies the ways society often fails those with mental illness, especially when it comes to stereotypes and name-calling:

In a followup, Saks pushes back on the popular idea that mental illness somehow always leads to violent behavior:

More about Saks:

Elyn Saks is an expert in mental health law and a winner of the Mac­Arthur Foundation Fellowship, which she used to create the Saks Institute for Mental Health Law, Policy, and Ethics. She is also Associate Dean and Orrin B. Evans Professor of Law, Psychology, and Psychiatry and the Behavioral Sciences at the University of Southern California Gould Law School. Saks lives with schizophrenia and has chronicled her experience with the illness in her award-winning, best-selling autobiography, The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness.

Update from a reader, who points to a transcript of a TED talk by Saks:

Immediately after the appointment with Kaplan, I went to see Dr. Marder, a schizophrenia expert who was following me for medication side effects. He was under the impression that I had a mild psychotic illness. Once in his office, I sat on his couch, folded over, and began muttering. ‘Head explosions and people trying to kill. Is it okay if I totally trash your office?’ ‘You need to leave if you think you’re going to do that,’ said Marder.

(Archive)

Zack Beauchamp shares the latest from Nigeria:

According to a video made public on May 12, Abubakar Shekau, [Boko Haram’s] leader, demanded an unspecified number of Boko Haram prisoners held by the Nigerian government, possibly all of them, be released in exchange for the girls’ freedom. Political science research on hostage-taking suggests Boko Haram may well succeed at getting a ransom, and some reports say the Nigerian government is already negotiating.

Before this video, Shekau threatened to sell the girls into slavery, chillingly promising that “by Allah, I will sell them in the marketplace.” Shekau’s threat is not idle. Unverified reports suggest that several of the children have already been sold to Boko Haram fighters as “brides” for around $12. West Africa has one of the world’s largest per capita concentrations of enslaved people; there are human trafficking routes that extend into Niger and Cameroon (the latter of which isn’t in West Africa), countries to which Boko Haram has easy access. A lot of the people trafficked in and around Nigeria are children.

Lanre Ola reports that there has been “no immediate reaction from authorities,” while Frank Gardner observes that the US has sent teams of “highly experienced hostage negotiators” to Nigeria. Meanwhile, Nina Strochlic notes that Boko Haram had been terrorizing children for years before the West started paying attention:

[I]n 2012, the organization’s leaders concluded that obliterating the already weak education system would be a valuable means to their end. That year, Boko Haram began burning school buildings to the ground to keep children out of school. At one point 10 schools were incinerated in as many days. …  In June 2013, the campaign against schools had turned into violence against children. “When no one took them seriously, they became very angry and so began to attack students and teachers for not listening to them,” Obaji says. Schools were no longer destroyed in the dead of night—they were attacked when class was in session.

Over the course of just two days last June, 16 students and two teachers were murdered. That summer, Boko Haram leader Shekau pledged to continue burning educational institutions and killing educators. According to an Amnesty International report, at least 50 schools were targeted in the state of Borno that year and more than 100 students were killed or wounded, with some attacks claiming dozens of casualties. The campaign seemed to achieve the terrorists’ goals of banishing education – schools closed and an estimated 15,000 children, both Muslim and Christian, were kept from attending class.

At the same time, Lola Ogunnaike suggests that Nigeria’s internal divisions may be at least partly to blame for the government’s sluggish response to the kidnapping:

Several people that I spoke with believe the government would’ve been quicker to react if the students were abducted from a school catering to the Lagos elite. “If this had happened to rich kids in Lagos, the country would have been shut down until they were found,” said the development manager. “But then again, what truly rich kid goes to school in Nigeria after the age of 10?  From 10 on, they’re schooled abroad in London. And that’s the problem. The divide between the haves and the have-nots is so great that the elite never feel these things directly. And until the elite feel it directly, it’s going to be really difficult to motivate these people to action.”

Rana Foroohar, reporting on the World Economic Forum’s recent conference in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, elaborates on those divisions:

Just a few weeks ago, the World Bank “rebased” Nigerian GDP numbers to account for the fact that old calculations weren’t taking into account new industries like telecoms and Nollywood. The result was that Nigerian GDP grew by 89 percent overnight, making the country the largest economy in Africa, trumping South Africa. … Yet unemployment is still high and inequality even higher. Half of Nigerians live in poverty, despite vast oil and gas wealth. In fact, that’s one reason that many prominent citizens say that Boko Haram has gained a foothold in the country. Some Nigerians are getting wealthy, but there aren’t jobs for enough of them, particularly given that over 50 percent of the population is under 18 years old. That’s exactly the kind of demographic and economic combination that bred the Arab Spring uprisings.

Previous Dish on the kidnappings here, here, here, here, and here.

i'm home <3 i don't know what to say…. THANK YOU!!!!! pic.twitter.com/bVoiE8koEo

— conchita wurst (@ConchitaWurst) May 11, 2014

Anti-gay Russians are upset about the Eurovision victory of bearded drag queen Conchita Wurst:

Some of the most vitriolic posts online have involved men sharing photographs of themselves shaving in protest against Wurst. Rapper Aleksandr Stepanov, known as “ST,” uploaded to Instagram pictures of him shaving, with the message, “I pass the baton,” and the hashtag, “Prove that you’re not Conchita” (#докажичтотынекончита). Anton Korobkov, a popular pro-Kremlin blogger, also posted a “selfie” while shaving.

A tweet example of the bizarre shaving protest:

Посмотрел #Евровидение. Пошёл бриться 👨 pic.twitter.com/diYriCg2rx

— РУССКАЯ ВЕСНА (@korobkov) May 10, 2014

Russian officials are joining in the homophobia:

Nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky told Rossiya-1 state television: “There’s no limit to our outrage. It’s the end of Europe. It has turned wild. They don’t have men and women any more. They have ‘it’.

“Fifty years ago the Soviet army occupied Austria. We made a mistake in freeing Austria. We should have stayed.”

Alrighty then. Some Russians want to boycott the competition:

In what would surely be a historic retreat from Europe—and a flagrant breach of continental norms—several Russian organizations are calling for a boycott of Eurovision 2014. This because, in the words of St. Petersburg legislator Vitaly Milonov, Eurovision has become a “Europe-wide gay parade.”

But this is far from a consensus view. Alan Renwick calculates the points awarded to Austria by country:

[D]ifferences in popular attitudes seem to be much less marked than the overall points suggest.  Only one country – Estonia – put Austria lower than fifth in the popular vote.  Conchita ranked within the top three not just in most of western Europe, but also in Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia.  The average points she would have won had only the popular votes counted would have been 8.0 in the former Soviet Union excluding the Baltics, 7.3 in the other former communist countries, and 10.0 in the rest.  So the differences are really quite small.

Jamie Dettmer reports on the plebiscites that pro-Russian separatists held in eastern Ukraine yesterday:

The separatists used all the now familiar techniques—including weeks of armed and thuggish intimidation, the abductions and murder of opponents, multiple voting, pre-filled ballot papers, adding names to an incomplete electoral roll and allowing anyone who turned up at a polling station with a Ukrainian passport in hand to cast a ballot.

In the circumstances the separatists were restrained with their referendum result: an 89 percent majority for secession and 10 percent against on a 74.7 percent turnout. A Soviet-style majority but not as unabashed as Crimea’s supposed 97 percent secession triumph in March.

In neighboring Luhansk, one of the poorest Ukrainian regions, where similar plebiscite tactics have been employed, the leader there, Valery Bolotov, at least had the decency to appear to go through the motions of actually counting votes, and so a result will be declared later Monday. No one is in doubt about which way that vote will go, either. Luhansk separatists hint their turnout was even higher yesterday—79 percent.

Separatist leaders in both regions are now saying they will not participate in the presidential elections scheduled for May 25 and will seek to become part of Russia:

Denis Pushilin, the self-styled governor of the “People’s Republic of Donetsk” said the presidential election “will not happen” in the Donetsk region, AFP news agency reported. A separatist leader from Luhansk also said the presidential vote will not be held in the region. “As of today, we are now the Republic of Luhansk, which  believes it to be inappropriate and perhaps even stupid to hold a presidential election,” Russia’s RIA news agency quoted him as saying. …

Only Russia is likely to recognise the “People’s Republic of Donetsk” and the Kremlin has already said it “respects the expression of the people’s will” there. On Monday, however, the Kremlin made it clear that Moscow has no intention of immediately annexing the regions. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office urged the Ukrainian government to engage in talks with representatives of eastern Ukraine that could be brokered by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The referendum results, of course, contrast sharply with independent polling:

A poll released last week by Pew Research found that 70 percent of respondents in the east – and 58 percent of Russian-speaking eastern respondents – wanted Ukraine to remain whole. Only 18 percent of easterners, and 27 percent of eastern Russian-speakers, said the eastern regions should be allowed to secede.

The Pew findings appear to roughly match an April poll on attitudes in southeastern Ukraineconducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS). Both found high dissatisfaction with Kiev’s governance, but little appetite for outright independence.

Sunday’s referendums only took place in the two easternmost regions of Ukraine. The two earlier polls considered attitudes in a much larger portion of eastern Ukraine – 11 regions by Pew, eight by KIIS. However, for the referendum results to square with the earlier polls, support for secession would have to be miniscule outside of the Lugansk and Dontesk regions.

But Berman notices that the international press has covered the votes as though they were legitimate:

Ukraine rebels hold referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk, says the BBC. Ukraine: pro-Russia separatists set for victory in eastern region referendum, is how the Guardian reports such a shocking prospect. Ukraine regions hold sovereignty vote, announces the Boston Globe. Ukraine’s eastern regions vote on self-rule, notes the Hindu. As for coverage of the results, Yahoo was big offender with its headline, Voters Turn Their Backs on Ukraine, given that we have little more idea of what the voters in the region want than we did a week ago.

Notice anything? Regardless of the content of the articles, the basic presumption has been to note the controversy about the referendums, provide several interviews with yes voters, and maybe note for a second or two the glaring problems with the process, which the Guardian sneaks into the middle of it’s piece. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the coverage has taken the referendums seriously as a major event, even though in many of the cities such as Mariupol, the rebels only control a single building, and had only four ballot boxes set up for a city of 500,000.

Bershidsky looks at the bigger picture:

It’s not the referendums or the Russian military threat that Ukraine, and its Western neighbors, should worry about now. Moscow sympathizes with the rebellion, but deposed president Viktor Yanukovych’s friends need it much more than Putin needs another headache. In an interview with Russia’s state-owned Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Pavel Gubarev, one of the rebels’ leaders, unexpectedly accused many of his comrades-in-arms of taking money from Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest man and a long-time Yanukovych ally. Politicians from Yanukovych’s Regions Party have recently stepped up calls for the withdrawal of Kiev’s troops from eastern Ukraine. The losers of last winter’s revolution are hoping to turn the east into a successful version of the Vendee, the province that rose up against the Great Revolution in France in 1793.

Kiev needs to concentrate on counteracting that.

Wikipedia’s marriage map has been updated to reflect the Arkansas ruling:

Joe Jervis, who is heavily covering Arkansas, notes that the map “might change today if the Arkansas ruling is stayed.” Lyle Denniston unpacks the ruling:

The judge likened the denial of equality to homosexuals to the denial of equality to racial minorities, and summoned up for comparison the Supreme Court’s discredited ruling in the Dred Scott case in 1857 saying that black people “had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them.”

He also relied upon the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, striking down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages.  He closed his opinion with these remarks about the woman involved in that case: “It has been over forty years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice.  The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples.  It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters.  We will be stronger for it.”

Dale Carpenter looks at the national picture:

There are now more than 70 lawsuits involving same-sex marriage pending in courts around the country. A dozen federal district courts have issued opinions in favor of same-sex marriage since last summer’s Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor. Five federal appellate courts are now considering the issue.

A photo of the happy couple who got the first marriage license:

This embed is invalid