The Ukraine thingy


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 2,002 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange

So Russian personel have secured Crimean navy ports .
Hopefully the neo nazis who siezed power in Ukraine dont have access to any Russian nukes in any of the other Ukraine black sea ports. Otherwise Russia will need to secure them all.


Worst case scenario:

Russia moves to take Crimea.

Ukraine fights Russia for control of Crimea.

Ukraine, a member of NATO, requests aid from NATO.

NATO and the EU go to war with Russia.

Nuclear weapons are used.

China inherits the Earth.


Ukraine is not a NATO member nation- Poland is.


Calex wrote:
Ukraine is not a NATO member nation- Poland is.

That's correct. Ukraine has however, had a strong relationship with NATO and the EU and has officially requested NATO help.


Roan wrote:

Worst case scenario:

Russia moves to take Crimea.

Ukraine fights Russia for control of Crimea.

Ukraine, a member of NATO, requests aid from NATO.

NATO and the EU go to war with Russia.

Nuclear weapons are used.

China inherits the Earth.

I don't know. Sounds alright to me.

Pinkskins out!

Vive le Bachuan!

The Exchange

Roan wrote:
Calex wrote:
Ukraine is not a NATO member nation- Poland is.
That's correct. Ukraine has however, had a strong relationship with NATO and the EU and has officially requested NATO help.

ousted president says he's still president. So elected president of Ukraine requests Russian help and the other faction and their unelected president ask for NATO help...yeah, this is going to make USA look like it props up nazis and topples democracies.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

"'You just don't in the 21st Century behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext,' Mr Kerry told the CBS program Face the Nation."

[Laughs until he passes out]


Poland should annex the Ukraine.


yellowdingo wrote:
Roan wrote:
Calex wrote:
Ukraine is not a NATO member nation- Poland is.
That's correct. Ukraine has however, had a strong relationship with NATO and the EU and has officially requested NATO help.
ousted president says he's still president. So elected president of Ukraine requests Russian help and the other faction and their unelected president ask for NATO help...yeah, this is going to make USA look like it props up nazis and topples democracies.

I was under the impression, just like other democracies, when the president acts against the interest of the nation, he can be ousted or kicked out of being president and another selected by their senate/congress.

I was under the impression this happened in the Ukraine already, hence the elected president was ousted by the elected representatives and another one selected in his place by those representatives.

The older president or the senate stated that the older president was no longer the president and elections would be coming soon (they set a date), with an interim president in the meantime.

In that light, though he may claim it, the old president no longer has any legal right at all. It's basically Russia propping up someone who no longer has a legal say or right.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
In that light, though he may claim it, the old president no longer has any legal right at all. It's basically Russia propping up someone who no longer has a legal say or right.

If a very real way, legal is what the ultimate winners say it is. Sadly.


Reminds me of what happened when Germany invaded France during WWII. In some places they just kind of drove in without resistance... things got worse before they got better.

If Ukraine didn't want to to be taken over by Russia, (or lose a chunk of the Ukraine to Russia) they missed their chance. The precedent has been set, and the Russians know there isn't a meaningful resistance.

For an idea of what combat might be like in the region, here is how our grandparents era went about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsqdGsDGloE


It must be said that any ethnic russians born before 1990 may think of themselves as Russian first ukrainian second, and thus this is a case of "irredentialism" rather than invasion. Should Russia occupy the west of the country it will get much worse.

The Exchange

HarbinNick wrote:
It must be said that any ethnic russians born before 1990 may think of themselves as Russian first ukrainian second, and thus this is a case of "irredentialism" rather than invasion. Should Russia occupy the west of the country it will get much worse.

My girlfriend's grandparents (born way before 1990) live there and were born there, and yet they dread the possibility of Russia seizing eastern Ukrain, so I know for a fact that your statement is not entirely correct.

Hopefully this whole matter will resolve itself peacefully and with as few humans as possible being consumed by Russia...


Lord Snow wrote:


My girlfriend's grandparents (born way before 1990) live there and were born there, and yet they dread the possibility of Russia seizing eastern Ukrain, so I know for a fact that your statement is not entirely correct.

Hopefully this whole matter will resolve itself peacefully and with as few humans as possible being consumed by Russia...

Are they Russian speakers, or Ukranian speakers? Curious.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:

So Russian personel have secured Crimean navy ports .

Hopefully the neo nazis who siezed power in Ukraine dont have access to any Russian nukes in any of the other Ukraine black sea ports. Otherwise Russia will need to secure them all.

Wait how are the people who seized power from a guy who shot his own people because they protested his regime pretty much becoming a puppet to the Russians, are neo-nazi?

Also I get that the Russian pretty much took a piece of the country that is mostly Russians speaker...so I guess it is 'One Language, One People, One Country' all over again. Mmmmm and they are also rounding up all the homosexuals also...

Are you sure you are calling the right side neo-nazis here?

The Exchange

HarbinNick wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


My girlfriend's grandparents (born way before 1990) live there and were born there, and yet they dread the possibility of Russia seizing eastern Ukrain, so I know for a fact that your statement is not entirely correct.

Hopefully this whole matter will resolve itself peacefully and with as few humans as possible being consumed by Russia...

Are they Russian speakers, or Ukranian speakers? Curious.

Russian. That entire section of Ukrain is composed mostly of Russian speakers, I believe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

{invades portion of Yellowdingo's yard with unmarked goblin troops and 501st Squirreltrooper squadron, seizes control of mango trees to "protect" Galtan Goblin interests}


Shoulda kept the nukes.

The Exchange

GreyWolfLord wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Roan wrote:
Calex wrote:
Ukraine is not a NATO member nation- Poland is.
That's correct. Ukraine has however, had a strong relationship with NATO and the EU and has officially requested NATO help.
ousted president says he's still president. So elected president of Ukraine requests Russian help and the other faction and their unelected president ask for NATO help...yeah, this is going to make USA look like it props up nazis and topples democracies.

I was under the impression, just like other democracies, when the president acts against the interest of the nation, he can be ousted or kicked out of being president and another selected by their senate/congress.

I was under the impression this happened in the Ukraine already, hence the elected president was ousted by the elected representatives and another one selected in his place by those representatives.

The older president or the senate stated that the older president was no longer the president and elections would be coming soon (they set a date), with an interim president in the meantime.

In that light, though he may claim it, the old president no longer has any legal right at all. It's basically Russia propping up someone who no longer has a legal say or right.

Given the new guy is like the nationalists who took over in Turkey before world war one I dont want to see them resort to ethnic cleansing like the Turks did with its fifty percent Armenian population. So yeah, elections...soon...that wont involve the Russian majority voting.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
{invades portion of Yellowdingo's yard with unmarked goblin troops and 501st Squirreltrooper squadron, seizes control of mango trees to "protect" Galtan Goblin interests}

Cuts sewer pipe that supplies moisture to mango tree. We can always grow another.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Shoulda kept the nukes.

Could have launched them at USA...lesson learned.

The Exchange

Lord Snow wrote:
HarbinNick wrote:
It must be said that any ethnic russians born before 1990 may think of themselves as Russian first ukrainian second, and thus this is a case of "irredentialism" rather than invasion. Should Russia occupy the west of the country it will get much worse.

My girlfriend's grandparents (born way before 1990) live there and were born there, and yet they dread the possibility of Russia seizing eastern Ukrain, so I know for a fact that your statement is not entirely correct.

Hopefully this whole matter will resolve itself peacefully and with as few humans as possible being consumed by Russia...

Apparently one of my great uncles was Ukrainian. Nicolas Mintanko moved to Canada.


John Kretzer wrote:
Are you sure you are calling the right side neo-nazis here?
That's really so subjective...
Wiki entry on Svoboa wrote:

The All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" (Ukrainian: Всеукраїнське об’єднання «Свобода», Vseukrayinske obyednannia "Svoboda"), translated as Freedom, is a Ukrainian nationalist political party, and currently one of the five major parties of the country. Five members of the party hold positions in Ukraine's government. The party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Соціал-національна партія України), a reference to National Socialism.

[Their party symbol for the first half of it's existence was the Wolfsangel, a symbol popular amongst neo-nazis and reminiscent of a swastika. It was later replaced with a symbolic fist when their current leader instituted a push to overhaul the party image to be more publically presentable.

The party's agenda is set out in an article entitled "Nationalism and pseudonationalism" published on the official website of the party. Svoboda member Andriy Illienko calls for a "social and national revolution in Ukraine," a "major shift in [the] political, economic, [and] ethical system", and the "dismantling [of] the liberal regime of antinational occupation". Illienko explains that "only the revolution can now prevent Ukraine from the brink, and make it the first modern nationalist state that will ensure continuous development of the Ukrainian nation, and show other nations the path to genuine sovereignty and prosperity." Illienko continues that cultural details are not important for a nationalist who "must wake up with the idea that he is a metal political soldier of Nation."

This document sets up the enemy of Svoboda, a pseudonationalist, a person who wants "all-ukrainian values" and adheres to "conventional liberalism [of] 'civilized' Western democracy and capitalism". Another attribute of a pseudonationalist is the belief in "Free market", "democracy", "fighting authoritarianism" [the quotes are from the original document].

The party seeks to put a stop to immigration into Ukraine, and to make sure that only ethnic Ukrainians can be employed as civil servants.

Before the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary election most of the radical points which were present on the Svoboda’s original party platform vanished from the official election program that Svoboda filed with the Central Election Commission of Ukraine. In its place, a tamer, populist program focused on the impeachment of President Viktor Yanukovych and the renunciation of the 2010 Kharkiv agreements that let Russia’s Black Sea Fleet stay in Crimea through 2042 was used. In its campaign for the 2008 Kiev local elections the party also used less ethnic nationalist terms and it relied more on a strong anti-establishment, populist and anti-corruption rhetoric.

Points in the Svoboda party programme (have) include(d):

Criminal prosecution for “Ukrainophobia”
Ban on abortion, except in cases of medical necessity, or rape; and imprisonment from three to seven years for those who violate this ban
Nationalization of major enterprises, greater state control of the banking system and a ban on privatization of land
The development of competitive industries, particularly food processing and aircraft engineering, shipbuilding, machine-tool construction, machine manufacturing, the military industrial complex and the aerospace industry
The restoration of the Soviet practice of indicating the ethnic origin in passports and on birth certificates
Proportional representation on executive bodies of ethnic Ukrainians, on the one hand, and national minorities, on the other
Ban on adoptions by non-Ukrainians of Ukrainian children
Preferential treatment for Ukrainian students in the allocation of dormitory places, and a series of similar changes to existing legal provisions
Abolition of Crimean autonomy
Ukraine should again re-acquire tactical nuclear weaponry

Svoboda also states in its programme that it is both possible and necessary to make Ukraine the “geopolitical centre of Europe”. The European Union is not mentioned in the programme. According to Party leader Oleh Tyahnybok the programme is a worldview based on Christian values of the rejection of various deviations.

Member of parliament Ihor Miroshnychenko asked the head of the Kiev City State Administration Oleksandr Popov on 7 March 2013 to ban a LGBT march that was held the next day because he believed it would "contribute to promoting sexual orientation" and he further stated in his request "homosexuality provokes sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS". The 8 March rally was in fact not an LGBT march but organized by feminist organizations.

Late January 2013 Svoboda urged Ukrainians to boycott revised Ukrainian history textbooks and give up the teaching of the Russian language in school, calling Ukrainians "to categorically refuse to study in school the language of the occupier – Russian, as a further reliable means of the assimilation of Ukrainians". On 23 February 2014, following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, the law on regional languages was abolished, making Ukrainian the sole state language at all levels.

Political scientist Tadeusz A. Olszański writes that the social-nationalist ideology which Svoboda formerly adhered to has included "openly racist rhetoric" concerning 'white supremacy' since its establishment, and that comparisons with National Socialism are legitimized by its history; however, Svoboda’s policy documents contain no racist elements. According to Der Spiegel, "anti-Semitism is part of the extremist party's platform," which rejects certain minority and human rights. The paper writes that Svoboda's earlier "Social-National Party" title was an "intentional reference to Adolf Hitler's National Socialist party," and that a Svoboda youth leader distributed Nazi propaganda written by Joseph Goebbels in 2013. According to journalist Michael Goldfarb, Svoboda's platform calls for a Ukraine that is “one race, one nation, one Fatherland,” and criticized the party for honoring the Waffen-SS Galicia (of which the historical role of the unit is contested).

In 2004 party leader Tyahnybok was expelled from the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction for a speech calling for Ukrainians to fight against a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia." Svoboda advisor Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn established a "‘Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre" in 2005, later changing "Joseph Goebbels" to "Ernst Jünger." Mykhalchyshyn wrote a book in 2010 citing works by Nazi theorists Ernst Röhm, Gregor Strasser and Goebbels. Elsewhere Mykhalchyshyn referred to the Holocaust as a "period of Light in history".

The party has also been criticized for their honoring historical figure Stepan Bandera, considered a Ukranian hero by Svoboda members and some Ukrainians, but a Nazi collaborator by others, especially in Russian-speaking cities. Bandera is a controversial figure for his role in leading the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which fought the Soviets and Nazi Germany for an independent Ukrainian state but also, according to some historians, contained members who cooperated in the killing of thousands of Jews during Nazi occupation; Tyahnybok has commended the UPA for fighting "Russians, Germans, Jewry and other crap."

In December 2012 the European Parliament expressed concern regarding Svoboda's growing support, recalling "that racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views go against the EU's fundamental values and principles," and appealed "to pro-democratic parties in the Verkhovna Rada not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with" Svoboda. Party leader Oleh Tyahnybok stated in March 2013 that the EU warning against Svoboda's influence was the result of "Moscow agents working through a Bulgarian socialist MP".

According to party leader Oleh Tyahnybok, Svoboda is not an ‘extremist’ party; he said that "depicting nationalism as extremism is a cliché rooted in Soviet and modern globalist propaganda". He also stated that "countries like" Japan and Israel are fully nationalistic states, "but nobody accuses the Japanese of being extremists". According to Tyahnybok, the party's view of nationalism "shouldn’t be mixed with chauvinism or fascism, which means superiority of one nation over another", and that its platform is called “Our Own Authorities, Our Own Property, Our Own Dignity, on Our Own God-Given Land”.

In early 2012, Svoboda was criticized after party member Yuri Sirotyuk said that Ukranian pop star Gaitana, who is of African descent, was a poor choice to represent Ukraine at the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 because "she does not represent Ukrainian culture." Sirotyuk stated that "It looks like we don't want to show our face, and Ukraine will be associated with a different continent, somewhere in Africa."

Ihor Miroshnychenko, Svoboda deputy leader and member of parliament drew criticism in December 2012 for writing on his Facebook wall that American actress Mila Kunis, who was born in the Ukrainian SSR and is of Jewish descent, is ”not Ukrainian but a "jewess (zhydivka in Ukrainian)." Svoboda argued that in the Ukrainian language the word does not have the anti-semitic connotations that it always does in the Russian language; the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice declared that Miroshnichenko's use of the word was legal because it is an archaic term for Jew, and not necessarily a slur. Svoboda has repeatedly stated that it will not stop using such words, which it says are legitimate Ukrainian parlance.

On March 19, 2013, Svoboda members booed a speech delivered by Party of Regions parliamentary leader Oleksandr Yefremov in Russian. Yefremov accused the Svoboda deputies of being neo-fascists, who then charged the speaker, sparking a fistfight between both sides in parliament.

Thirty members of the Israeli Knesset condemned the party in a signed letter addressed to the President of the European Parliament. In the letter the Israeli politicians accused Svoboda of "openly glorifying Nazi murder" and "Nazi war criminals". In May 2013 the World Jewish Congress labelled the party as "neo-Nazi" and called for European governments to ban them.

Former members of Svoboda have criticized the organization for requiring prospective members to submit their birth certificates and internal passports in order to verify their ethnicity.

The Exchange

Marthkus wrote:
Poland should annex the Ukraine.

There are a bunch of parking lots and beerhalls between Ukraine and Poland.


I have a very bad feeling about this. Whatever way it takes, it's going to hurt a lot of people, I think.

Russia has been building up their military for years now. It is possible they will occupy the east part of Ukraine, which may not be such a disaster for many people, given that the population is to a large part russian-speaking and russian-identifying. To be honest, I don't see either the EU or NATO fight the russians over it. Perhaps it will be largely peaceful. One can hope.

However, Ukraine is not the only country with a large group of settled russians. In particular, the Baltic countries are in a similar such situation, and things may well continue there.

As to legitimacy of Janukovych's presidency: Every country with a president has routines for what to do if the president f!%#s up too badly/grows insane or the like. Usually, some officials that have the power to remove the president from power. As I understand it, those lines of decision were chosen, according to legal procedures. Certainly, the parliament was the body that decided on a new election for president in May. Whether Janukovych still considers himself president is, at this point, completely irrelevant.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I just love in these threads that anyone the West supports is a neo-nazi or a lackey to imperialist powers while anyone they oppose is systematically a freedom fighter or a brave proponent of true democracy opposing those same imperialist powers.

It is nice to see that soviet's dialectic and (pseudo) arguments have survived the collapse of the soviet regime itself. Recycling at its finest !!! :-))


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. Agreed. I have not read up on the reasons for including the nationalists in the transitionary government, but I'd assume what they did was merely put up a government that roughly reflected the parliament makeup. Funny thing, how not every election results in only the people you like getting elected, hmmm?


John Kretzer wrote:
[Yanukovych] who shot his own people because they protested his regime pretty much becoming a puppet to the Russians

Just because you shoot your own people (who may be throwing molotov cocktails, firing guns, and storming government buildings) doesn't make you a Russian puppet.

The Russian government actually directly denied the claims put forward by Yanukovych's political prosecution of the previous Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko on charges of abuse of power over negotiating gas prices with the Russian supplier*. President Putin of Russia famously has a personal hatred of an contempt for Yanukovych, and during the last election the Russian position seemed equally happy with either candidate (Russia having been able to negotiate successfully with Tymoshenko).

Russia and sympathetic Ukrainians do not consider Yanukovych a puppet because he in fact did not pursue close ties with Russia, but flirted with the EU since his election, dragging on negotiations until very recently when he finally turned the EU down because they could not offer enough "aid" to meet the needs of modernization and the losses from cutting Ukraine off from Russian free trade zone. The only "pro Russian" thing he did in office was make it legal for regions to allow Russian or other languages as co-official languages with Ukrainian, which is something wholly in line with EU human rights conventions. (removing this law being one of the first acts of the revolutionary Parliament... priorities).

* Interestingly, former Western-backed "Orange" President Viktor Yuschenko testified against Yulia Tymoshenko in that political trial, despite them being political allies previously. He was the one who was supposely poisoned but barely lived to win a final round election against Yanukovych in a previous election, with the allegation that Yanukovych was behind it. Later on his own campaign manager (and godfather of his children) came out as saying the whole incident was staged by Yuschenko (upon which, Yuschenko accused this person of being behind the poison, despite not accusing them previously). A clinic in Germany was used to provide some evidence of poisoning, but it's own director claimed there was no evidence of that and he was forced to resign because he wouldn't go along.

Quote:

the Russian pretty much took a piece of the country that is mostly Russians speaker...

so I guess it is 'One Language, One People, One Country' all over again.

More specifically, Crimea is where the regional parliament voted to not recognize the legitimacy of the new power in Kiev, given there is specific procedural irregularities*, not to mention the context of violent intimidation by protestors taking physical power over Parliament, etc. Following that, Right Sector "activists" attempted an attack on Crimean government offices. The response of local Crimean self-defence forces and Russia followed that incident. (similar incidents took place in Kharkiv, as well as a broad array of political attacks elsewhere especially in Western Ukraine where Svoboda is strongest)

* The parliament, with many members missing or under physical threat of violence, did not actually impeach Yanukovych according to procedure, simply claimed that he had renounced the presidency by his flight to Kharkiv (under conditions of police allowing molotov throwing violent Right Sector/Svoboda to enter parliament and government builings). Similar procedural issues applied to replacing the Yanukovych-allied Parliament speaker who would otherwise be the next in line.


Very interesting, Quandary. Thank you for the rundown.


Sissyl wrote:
Yeah. Agreed. I have not read up on the reasons for including the nationalists in the transitionary government, but I'd assume what they did was merely put up a government that roughly reflected the parliament makeup. Funny thing, how not every election results in only the people you like getting elected, hmmm?

There has been no new election, the exact same parties that were an elected minority are now in power, specifically Fatherland and Svoboda.

In fact, the other main opposition "pro European" party "UDAR" (the party of Klitschko, the boxer) is not represented in the new revolutionary government, despite having significantly more seats in parliament than Svoboda. Klitschko was not popular with Svoboda and Right Sector because he did things like call for non-violence in protests and so on (in fact he was personally attacked by them during protests). Klitschko/UDAR were apparently backed by Germany (Klitschko lived in Germany), while the current revolutionary government matches the desired outcome expressed by American Ambassador Nuland, as revealed by the infamous leaked "F!#+ the EU!" cellphone call in which stated the US wanted a Fatherland-Svoboda government in Ukraine.

What has not yet been answered is why it was necessary to abandon the EU-brokered agreement creating a power-sharing government meant to transition to new elections, whose purpose was to avoid further violent conflict... which is now exactly what Ukraine faces. Nothing changed in the one day since that agreement was signed, except the Right Sector and far-right factions refusing to abide by it and pressing on to march on the Parliament, with police resistance collapsing, etc. Upon which the more "mainstream" parties embraced the far-right success and seized power, abandoning the previous agreement. In their immediate minds, they had won all power, but of course they weren't representing large sectors of Ukraine, and those regions did not recognize that illegitimate seizure of power.

One wonders how the EU or US can expect to broker international agreements in the future, when they have shown they are happy to see such agreements broken by their allies as soon as convenient. That bodes ill for future situations that could find a peaceful compromise thru negotiation, if only there was more trust.


Quandary has some good information, but it's also worth pointing out that the 'acting president of Ukraine' Oleksandr Turchynov, isn't associated with the Svoboda party that had the massive info dump about it above. He's in the center-right 'Fatherland' party, which is conservative but pro-european.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Very interesting, Quandary. Thank you for the rundown.

No problem. To be clear, I don't think anybody on either side of the country had great love for Yanukovych, or didn't think he was a corrupt criminal. The leaders and people in Kharkiv, SE Ukraine, and Crimea are not planning their future around Yanukovych.

That antipathy to Yanukovych doesn't necessarily extent to embracing the specific group(s) which seized power, or agreement on an anti-Russian (language/people/country) political program which would immediately cut them off from cheap gas and a free-trade zone they are well adjusted to participating in (as opposed to EU), meanwhile under IMF austerity with a broke government. Things like democracy and fight against corruption aren't exclusively tied to those issues, with Russia itself having good relations with many democratic countries like Finland, South Korea, India, Brazil, etc. The groups in Kiev and West Ukraine very well may have had their revolution overturning the previous order, but that doesn't mean everybody else in the country wants that same revolutionary order imposed on them.

The background to the revolutionary shift in power itself has many weird details (besides obvious stuff like financial backing from US/EU), like oligarchs who backed Yanukovych all along but smoothly switched their support to the "Maidan" parties... Who certainly expect their payback.

Interestingly, recently released from jail Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of Fatherland which is the largest party now in power in Kiev (sharing ministries only with crypto-nazi Svoboda) has recently announced she plans a trip to Moscow to negotiate with Russia (presumably on the over-all political crisis as well as gas supply issue). The response from other factions in the revolutionary government is that they will make sure to accompany her to prevent any backroom deals, clearly demonstrating a chasm of distrust. Such sentiment has quite a bit of grounding in reality considering her personal history as oligarch in the gas business...

But the question is, if following thru on the anti-corruption tendency of the popular protests, you remove Tymoshenko and these other oligarchs who have by now allied themself with the new revolutionary parties, then who do you have left? If you remove Tymoshenko and her party, the only party left in government is Svoboda (and recently emerged, even less "presentable" Right Sector). UDAR still exists, an might join a future government, but are unlikely to be able to rule without Svoboda or Fatherland (and Fatherland clearly doesn't like them, preferring Svoboda). All these parties ALREADY turned their back on the EU-mediated power sharing agreement with Party of Regions, so are unlikely to coalition there now that they have "won", and if any do then they immediately lose credibility. In conditions of government bankruptcy, IMF austerity, and collapse of trade with Russia, having nazis be one of the strongest groups in power with the most "credibility" is rather scary. No doubt what is on the mind of many people, particularly in SE Ukraine and Crimea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bodhranist wrote:
the 'acting president of Ukraine' Oleksandr Turchynov, isn't associated with the Svoboda party... He's in the center-right 'Fatherland' party.

Indeed, which is exactly as the US and Embassador Nuland preferred it...

Although the people in Fatherland are amongst the ones denying that Svoboda are fascists, and choosing to welcome them into government and rely on them in parliament, even while excluding the UDAR party (with US blessing, apparently). There IS a reason the EU Parliament previously warned of Svoboda's fascist tendencies and warned against any cooperation/legitimization of them by other parties.

Last I read, Svoboda has been given Security and Military portfolios, and I believe Environment and Education.
Ironically, the very person they just appointed as the new commander of the navy has now defected to the "other side".

And really, sorry about the info dump on Svoboda, but when people are doubting that neo-nazis are neo-nazis, it's just time to face facts. Whether Yanuovych deserved to be over-thrown, legally or illegally, has nothing to do with calling a nazi a nazi. There's plenty of badness in the world, and Nazis would just love to legitimize themself by standing against that, setting themselves up in the role of heroes.


Quandary wrote:

Although the people in Fatherland are amongst the ones denying that Svoboda are fascists, and choosing to welcome them into government and rely on them in parliament, even while excluding the UDAR party (with US blessing, apparently). There IS a reason the EU Parliament previously warned of Svoboda's fascist tendencies and warned against any cooperation/legitimization of them by other parties.

Last I read, Svoboda has been given Security and Military portfolios, and I believe Environment and Education.
Ironically, the very person they just appointed as the new commander of the navy has now defected to the "other side".

And really, sorry about the info dump on Svoboda, but when people are doubting that neo-nazis are neo-nazis, it's just time to face facts. Whether Yanuovych deserved to be over-thrown, legally or illegally, has nothing to do with calling a nazi a nazi. There's plenty of badness in the world, and Nazis would just love to legitimize themself by standing against that, setting themselves up in the role of heroes.

As of a week ago, I was under the impression that UDAR had been given control of Security, although I'm aware that a lot can happen in a week (and it does look like a member of svoboda is prosecutor general and in charge of defense). Do you have any information more current than that?


Quandary, to reduce Ukrainian insurgency as a neo-nazi movement is dishonest and short-sighted if not propaganda.

That you have some neo-nazi being part of it, no doubt. That some of these neo-nazi were on front line during riots, no doubt. That neo-nazi would like to use this advantage to access power, logical. But if you don't understand how few they are nor the logic teaming-up while under fire you don't understand much about the situation.

During WWII european resistance movements included "side by side" people with extreme opposite views. And this is natural when you have a stronger, deadlier, opponent.

What happens in Ukraine right now is a Russian invasion! You can turn it all the way you want, point out neo-nazi or the fact Krimea was Russian before, it still remains an invasion.

So what's up now?
Russian are there, it's a fact, and they are on a strong ground there. Short of a nuclear war there's nothing to do with arms.
But Ukrainian crisis gives us the proof that we can't trust Russia, that the power is agressive and doesn't respect its own signature on treaties (like respecting Ukraine territorial sovereignty).
So Russia shouldn't be considered any longer as a reliable partner.
Saying so, Russians will be laughing loudly first. But the country has big muscle with a soft belly. Russia is "not manufacturing anything" and it's very dependant from western countries.
Their currency already starts to crush, we should accentuate it. Occupying Ukraine will economically crash it and with it Russians banks and economy. And in a few months they won't be laughing anymore!

This invasion must have a monstrous economic and politic cost for Russia, otherwise we won't be safe as Russia will target all former USSR countries one by one till a third world war stops them.
And concerning the neo-nazi in Ukraine they're no greater problem than supremacists in the US.
Said otherwise, even if you've got cancer, once you get bitten by a rattle-snake, focus on poison!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everything You Know About Ukraine Is Wrong

(Especially if you're an American who doesn't pay attention to the news.)

Which, alas, was pre-Putin in the Crimea.

As a revolutonary socialist, it is a no-brainer to oppose Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. My Russian comrades, I hope, are carrying out this line as we speak, but, alas I don't speak Russian.

I reserve the right to change to a "plague-on-both-of-your-houses"/revolutionary defeatist position if the war spirals out of control and triggers a conflict between Russia and the West.

Down with the war-mongers!

Down with Sexy Putin!

Down with Svoboda fascists and Princess Leia!

Workers to power!

Vive le Galt!


bodhranist wrote:
As of a week ago, I was under the impression that UDAR had been given control of Security, although I'm aware that a lot can happen in a week (and it does look like a member of svoboda is prosecutor general and in charge of defense). Do you have any information more current than that?

Man... That took a bit to untangle.

The man you reference is in fact in charge of the Security Service of Ukraine.
That is not a cabinet or level position or it's own ministry, as reflected in the makeup of the current revolutionary cabinet which does not include parties besides Fatherland and Svoboda (it does include non-party figures, although strangely some of the ones listed as un-aligned in that chart are listed as Fatherland members on their personal profile).
The actual Ministy of Interior is a Fatherland politician, while that of Defense is Svoboda.
The National Security and Defense Council is led by Andriy Parubiy who was most recently elected for Fatherland although is actually cofounder of Svoboda (then Social-Nationalist) Party, and his deputy is Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh.
Like many countries there are several ministries and agencies which somewhat overlap.
I didn't clearly enough distinguish between all of those in my first post.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As a revolutonary socialist, it is a no-brainer to oppose Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. My Russian comrades, I hope, are carrying out this line as we speak, but, alas I don't speak Russian.

Huzzah, I found a translation!:

March 1, 2014 -- War has begun. With the aim of protecting and increasing the assets of the oligarchs in Russia and in Yanukovich's coterie, Russia's leadership has undertaken an invasion of Ukraine. This aggression threatens catastrophic consequences for the Ukrainian and Russian peoples -- most especially for the population of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Ukraine's southeastern industrial regions.

For Ukraine, this will also mean an escalation of ethnic conflicts; for Russia, a consolidation of dictatorial power, repression, and chauvinist hysteria, with which the ruling elite will be able to neutralize mass anger against a backdrop of deepening economic crisis. We share the concern of residents of the southeast over the nationalistic tendencies of the new authorities in Kyiv.

It is, however, our firm conviction that freedom will be won not by Putin's tanks, but by self-organization and the people's own struggle for their civil, political, and socio-economic rights.

It goes without saying that the peoples of Ukraine have a right of self-determination, of full autonomy and independence. But what we are seeing today has nothing to do with the democratic will of the masses. It is a brazen and cynical act of Russian imperialism, aimed at annexing foreign territory and converting Ukraine into part of Russia's protectorate.

Today, the struggle for freedom in Russia is a struggle against the foreign policy adventurism of the current regime, which seeks collusion in forestalling its own end. The RSD calls on all sincere left and democratic forces to organize anti-war protests. Our demands:

NO RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN WAR! NO PROVOCATIONS TO BLOODSHED IN UKRAINE!

NO PITTING AGAINST ONE ANOTHER OF THE PEOPLES OF UKRAINE AND RUSSIA!

NO INTERVENTION BY THE ARMIES OF RUSSIA OR ANY OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE AFFAIRS OF CRIMEA!

FREEDOM FROM DICTATORIAL ACTS AND PEACEABLE SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PENINSULA'S RESIDENTS!

YES TO THE UKRAINIAN WORKERS' STRUGGLE AGAINST OLIGARCHS AND CORRUPT OFFICIALS! NO TO ETHNIC CONFLICTS!

Commie Link

Vive le Galt!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Angstspawn wrote:
Quandary, to reduce Ukrainian insurgency as a neo-nazi movement is dishonest and short-sighted if not propaganda.

I'm sorry, I didn't believe I was doing that, nor was I trying to do so. If that were my intent I wouldn't have wasted the effort in so particularly distinguishing extremists from non-extremist parties and politicians. Another poster suggested that a party globally recognized as neo-nazi in nature was not so, and I wanted to address that.

Quote:
That you have some neo-nazi being part of it, no doubt. That some of these neo-nazi were on front line during riots, no doubt. That neo-nazi would like to use this advantage to access power, logical. But if you don't understand how few they are nor the logic teaming-up while under fire you don't understand much about the situation.

The situation was that the Yanukovych government had agreed to a powersharing government transitioning to upcoming elections. The parliament had voted to reduce Presidential powers (while Yanu was still there) and release former PM Tymoshenko. Yanukovych decides to go to Kharkiv, and the violent protesters at Maidan decide to roll over to occupy Parliament and other seats of government power. What necessity exists there? What necessity exists for 'moderate' parties to stand with Right Sector or Svoboda at that point?

Preceding any Russian soldiers stepping off their bases, the US and NATO allies were refusing to say ANYTHING about the abrogation of the signed peace agreement, or say ANYTHING about the neonazi extremist parties and militias' violent actions or known policy goals, including removing some Ukrainians' language rights. When Russia had taken no action yet, those "Western" backers of the revolution were refusing to address the extremist factions that clearly worried many in Ukraine (and Russia), even though their own institutions such as EU Parliament have explicity warned of such groups and any cooperation with them by other parties. When the "mainstream" opposition parties, and their Western backers/funders are refusing to put any distance between themselves and extremists or criticize them in any way, AFTER having "won" and seized power, why is it surprising for Russia to decide that those concerns will not be taken seriously and it is only in their hands to assist other regions of Ukraine who seek to shelter themselves from that revolution?

Quote:
What happens in Ukraine right now is a Russian invasion! You can turn it all the way you want, point out neo-nazi or the fact Krimea was Russian before, it still remains an invasion.

FYI, the American government itself is recognizing that the Russian military is not attacking, but is merely setting up defensive positions.

Quote:
But Ukrainian crisis gives us the proof that we can't trust Russia

Tearing up internationally mediated agreements meant to avoid violent conflict at the soonest opportunity to seize power, once again plunging into conflict doesn't engender much trust either.

Quote:
that [Russia] is agressive and doesn't respect its own signature on treaties (like respecting Ukraine territorial sovereignty).

Even if he's a VERY VERY BAD MAN, Yanukovych remains the only legitimate elected President of Ukraine, and he was not legitimately impeached. Well before any action by their military Russia was clear on that from the beginning, that they did not recognize the new government, so what surprise is there in not seeking the permission of the revolutionaries, who had torn up the agreement Russia had facilitated along with the EU?

In that scenario, several Ukrainian regions were not recognizing the Kiev revolutionaries, without any Russian troops present, just those parts of Ukraine not pledging allegiance to the revolutionary regime. The Autonomous Crimean region did so as well, and after being attacked by Right Sector thugs, requested Russian protection which they gave. The US hardly upholds the inviolability of other countries' "sovereignty" either as a whole or vs. conflicting sub-regions: Kosovo, Iraq (WMD?), Granada ("protecting our citizens"), "Responsibility to protect"? No need to go on.

Quote:

So Russia shouldn't be considered any longer as a reliable partner.

Saying so, Russians will be laughing loudly first. But the country has big muscle with a soft belly. Russia is "not manufacturing anything" and it's very dependant from western countries.
Their currency already starts to crush, we should accentuate it. Occupying Ukraine will economically crash it and with it Russians banks and economy. And in a few months they won't be laughing anymore!

Uh... great. Sounds like a satisfying image there for you.

Quote:
Russia will target all former USSR countries one by one till a third world war stops them.

Well, that's your theory, I guess.

Quote:
And concerning the neo-nazi in Ukraine they're no greater problem than supremacists in the US.

Last I checked neo-nazi parties aren't running power ministries in the US, or assaulting government figures, or attacking synagogues, or putting out vigilante warrants on journalists they don't like, without any worry of prosecution because they are they government. While their overall performance in the last election of around 10-11% is scary enough, they poll from 30 to over 50% in oblasts in West Ukraine, in many cases being the top party, while in Kiev they are the 2nd largest party. If you don't take that seriously, especially combined with the violent vigilante/civil war atmosphere, I can't help you further.


Ukraine had a democracy, they lost it, when they start protesting too violently, as happened in Thailand.


That seems like an untenable theory to me:

Yahoo Timeline of Protests and Repression of Protesters


@Quandry: Actualy it was a honest question really...thank you for your info.

But that does not mean we should be all OK with the what the Russians...who are acting in a nazi like fashion....are doing with their land grabs(this is hardly the first time they have done this) and internal policy either.

They is also the fact that with what the Russians are doing pretty much give more power to the Neo-Nazis they are creating a outside enemy for them to focus the public attention on.


In a functional democracy, a protest is not needed to remove the president. I may think GWB and Obama are the worst president in history, but they did not, personally, violate the constitution, nor endanger the safety of the people of the US.
-Thailand, Turkey, and Ukraine, are all having trouble with multi-party democracy. A president is elected who is only popular with a minority of the people. Korea had the same problem when I was there.
-Street protests are against unelected rulers, not people you wait until their term expires.


Part of the problem is that in those countries the elected president starts to punish everyone who didn't vote for him. Democracy has to be more than saying 51% of us say the other 49% of you don't matter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Depends on what you mean by violating the Constitution, I suppose. I'd make arguments for unwarranted wiretapping and undeclared wars in Libya, for respective examples.

I've seen plenty of street protests against elected rulers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:

@Quandry: Actualy it was a honest question really...thank you for your info.

But that does not mean we should be all OK with the what the Russians...who are acting in a nazi like fashion....are doing with their land grabs(this is hardly the first time they have done this) and internal policy either.

They is also the fact that with what the Russians are doing pretty much give more power to the Neo-Nazis they are creating a outside enemy for them to focus the public attention on.

I saw an argument between lefties on-line who were trying to quantify how much worse Russia was than the United States. One of the anti-Russians was all like "Pussy Riot getting whipped by Cossacks--when was the last time peaceful protestors got whipped in the United States?" and the other guy was like "How short are our memories?"

(Not to mention that the Pussy Riot-whipping Cossacks were, as far as I know, right-wing vigilantes, and not agents of the state.)


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

That seems like an untenable theory to me:

Yahoo Timeline of Protests and Repression of Protesters

Not sure what you mean, I never discussed any protest events before the EU-brokered agreement. Certainly the government was violently suppressing peaceful protesters before then, then violent protesters upped the ante, with more violence from the government in return... and that was what prompted the agreement, to have a powersharing government until early election in order to avoid further violence and civil conflict... Which is what now faces Ukraine again.

John Kretzer wrote:

@Quandry: Actualy it was a honest question really...thank you for your info.

But that does not mean we should be all OK with the what the Russians...who are acting in a nazi like fashion....are doing with their land grabs(this is hardly the first time they have done this) and internal policy either. They is also the fact that with what the Russians are doing pretty much give more power to the Neo-Nazis they are creating a outside enemy for them to focus the public attention on.

I'm glad you found that info useful, please don't take my response too personally, it was just your turn of phrase that seemed too flippant in denying real live neo-nazis and/or equating them to people or events you just don't particularly like... but I don't think you were knowingly making such a statement.

I honestly have no idea what you mean when implying Russia does this often, unless you are lumping Russia in with the USSR? (which interestingly was the government that originally merged what is now SE Ukraine - then "Novo Rossiya" - into Ukraine when it was Russian territory won from wars against Crimean Khanate not Ukrainians... later the Ukrainian USSR leader Khruschev doing likewise with Crimean peninsula).

I guess you might be thinking of the Georgian war? I would hardly call that Nazi-like, as Russian troops were there under UN mandate and by agreement of Georgian government as peace-keepers to prevent ethnic massacres (Georgians having already sacked the ethnic town under motto of "Georgia for Georgians!"). The Georgian regime decided to go to war because it could, and when they killed peacekeepers and destroyed the peace, Russia did what could be expected to authoritatively keep the peace... not further attacking, occupying, or massacring ethnic Georgians or forcing them under their sway. I guess Russian recognition of those indepenent countries goes a bit beyond the remit, but maybe the Georgian aggression was so beyond the pale that it was implausible for Ossetians to continue living in the same situation, the Georgians had their chance and they blew it... Regardless, Russian-recognized indepenent Ossetia/Abkhazia isn't materially different than the previous status quo. Comparing to Kosovo or other cases would be pointless since two wrongs don't make a right, but Ossetia certainly didn't seem "Nazi tactics" on part of Russians, unless you really want to water down what the Nazis did.

As to what best opposes the real neo-nazis in Ukraine, I agree that is an important focus of things now, the US and 'allies'' intentional avoidance of acknowledging certainly having been directly counter productive to in a major way. I think Crimea is just not going to go back to Ukraine now, what with having no shared identity with them to begin with, but the rest of SE Russia seems to be closer with Ukraine: Despite being largely Russian-speaking and originally being a Russian province (or before that Crimean Khanate whose descendants are now in Crimean Peninsula) alot of Ukrainians moved there in both Tsarist Russian Empire and the USSR, and it was merged with Ukraine by USSR about 30-40 years earlier than Crimean peninsula, so it has more shared history... So if they can find a workable safe situation, I get the feeling they would prefer it.

What with the threat of nazis/extremists (and all the revolutionary parties blithely cooperating with them), I would guess they will want a strong say in the Constitutional order, with autonomy/federalism and language protections (and exclusion of far-right from government/ coalition government with major SE parties), and probably will prioritize maintaining economic ties with Russia rather than heading into catastrophe there just because some Ukrainian nationalists hate Russians. I feel that alot of people may not even be aware that the SE Ukraine regions resisting the new revolutionary regime in Kiev are demanding basic things like electing their own governors rather than have be appointed by a regime that now isn't remotely representative of them (the 'anti-corruption' revolutionary regime's tactic apparently is to appoint oligarchs native to those regions to seem more appealing, yet that isn't being accepted) .

But such an outcome seems like a hopeful possibility still, and it seems likely that Russia held off on invading Ukraine wholesale, only protecting Crimea as requested, because they saw that scenario is possible. If they do end up separating from West Ukraine/Kiev, I think it would still remain an independent country fom Russia, and hopefully they can keep open transit borders and have some agreement to prevent a military buildup for a "revenge" war.


Quandary wrote:
Not sure what you mean, I never discussed any protest events before the EU-brokered agreement.

Haven't read what you wrote yet, but, to clarify:

Post order got out of whack. Post you're responding to was supposed to be after Citizen Nick's.

EDIT: Actually, nevermid. Post order wasn't out of whack on that one. Target was still Citizen Nick, though.


HarbinNick wrote:
Street protests are against unelected rulers, not people you wait until their term expires.

Not that protests against elected rules are always out, but the situation in Kiev was where the protests had led to the government signing an agreement with opposition, accepting power sharing with reduced Presidential powers and new elections... i.e. had succeeded by any reasonable measure, yet the violent revolutionaries just went further to grab total power.

Along with all their previously known rhetoric, when their first acts are gutting regional language protections, that's the thing that makes some people scared this is another group that misunderstands what "51% majority/able to take power" really should mean. When one side is pushing an ethnic national identity that doesn't include the other, that is reasonable grounds not to be in the same country together.


And yeah, Turkey seems about ready to boil over seriously this time as well...

(I do got to say Turkey's regime has the prize for quaint authoritarian quotes, I forget if it was their President or PM or some other pol, it went something like "Democracy is like a train, you take it to where you want to go, and then get off".)

1 to 50 of 2,002 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Ukraine thingy All Messageboards