Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

I'm not all that concerned about notions of right and wrong here -- these are concerns for philosophers, rather than politicians and historians -- though to answer your question, "approximate right" in the context of international relations means, for example, that you don't threaten them with invasion and war on a hastily cooked-up and entirely fictitious pretext, you don't propagandize your own population, you don't steal land from your neighbours and threaten to steal more, you don't mass your troops on your neighbour's borders and leave them sit there for weeks on end.

So in this version we treat Russia's recent actions in isolation of all other 'tramplings' of international law and it gets us nowhere really. Are we really absolving or ignoring the West entirely? It seems a bit naive and unbalanced.
Imagine it transpires that this West had been planning a coup in Ukraine - or that through joining Europe or through IMF funding the US had hoped from some form of control in the area. Suppose that any of that is true and that's just the surface - at which stage is any of Russia's action deemed provoked, caused by or in reaction to maneuvers from the West. Putin is reprehensible but it seems that you insist at looking at him in absolute isolation. I'm not a sympathizer by any stretch of the imagination. I'd like to see him judged in full context that's all. To use a trite analogy; its a bit like Reservoir of Dogs and we're focusing all our energy on Mr. Blonde.

marienbad

stevejazzx wrote: »

So in this version we treat Russia's recent actions in isolation of all other 'tramplings' of international law and it gets us nowhere really. Are we really absolving or ignoring the West entirely? It seems a bit naive and unbalanced.
Imagine it transpires that this West had been planning a coup in Ukraine - or that through joining Europe or through IMF funding the US had hoped from some form of control in the area. Suppose that any of that is true and that's just the surface - at which stage is any of Russia's action deemed provoked, caused by or in reaction to maneuvers from the West. Putin is reprehensible but it seems that you insist at looking at him in absolute isolation. I'm not a sympathizer by any stretch of the imagination. I'd like to see him judged in full context that's all. To use a trite analogy; its a bit like Reservoir of Dogs and we're focusing all our energy on Mr. Blonde.

Lets stick with the facts and less of the 'imaginings' please

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

Are we really absolving or ignoring the West entirely? It seems a bit naive and unbalanced.
Imagine it transpires that this West had been planning a coup in Ukraine [...]

Planning a coup? The link says exactly the opposite - fifth paragraph, "This was by no means a US-backed “coup,”".

WRT USAID, the disbursements listed on the USAID indicate that $2.2m was spent on "local organizations" -- not much in a country of 46m people, even if all of that cash were to go to Правий Сектор and other far-right groups as the Russian state-controlled media would suggest. It's a little less, for example, than USAID's $2.8m spend in Ukraine on tuberculosis and around 15% of the $15m spent on human trafficking. In fact, just looking at the disbursement sheet briefly, I'd have said that the $78m budget seems a model of responsible nation-building. The claim on the website that "the US played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution" is backed by nothing that I can see.

I've never heard of Pierre Oyidmar before - if he's funding PS, then screw him. But reading the pando page, I'm afraid that I'm having a hard time accepting that much of its source data is accurate, and even if it were, its conclusions seem mostly unrelated to the source data it produces.

stevejazzx wrote: »

I'd like to see him judged in full context that's all.

The context is a threatened full-scale military invasion on foot of a suitable cooked-up pretext. The Russian media's line that Putin is simply reacting to provocation after provocation is manifestly false - so far, the only dead people are Ukrainians and the only country that's been invaded and carved up is Ukraine. Russia is, in no possible sense, a victim here, despite the Russian persecution narrative.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Planning a coup? The link says exactly the opposite - fifth paragraph, "This was by no means a US-backed “coup,”".

The whole sentence just for balance

article wrote:

This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.

Here's a good article from January.

From reading the above some time ago and following events it is clear to see that they have had a strategy of supporting a Ukrainian revolution among the highest members of Government for some time now. Fronting donations through miscellaneous billionaires would hardly be surprising.
I think it can be safely asserted that Washington has had more in mind than mere diplomacy and nation building for the Ukraine. A presence on Russian borders was probably a long term game plan which has now severely backfired.

Robindch wrote:

I've never heard of Pierre Oyidmar before - if he's funding PS, then screw him. But reading the pando page, I'm afraid that I'm having a hard time accepting that much of its source data is accurate, and even if it were, its conclusions seem mostly unrelated to the source data it produces.

In fairness the interesting article you posted earlier from Forbes uses miscellaneous Facebook accounts, local personalities and further miscellaneous colleagues and friends as sources. In comparison I find the links in the Pando article mostly helpful if not entirely convincing on their own.

The context is a threatened full-scale military invasion on foot of a suitable cooked-up pretext. The Russian media's line that Putin is simply reacting to provocation after provocation is manifestly false - so far, the only dead people are Ukrainians and the only country that's been invaded and carved up is Ukraine. Russia is, in no possible sense, a victim here, despite the Russian persecution narrative.

Russia is not a victim.
It creates victims - there is no doubt.
The peace keeping troop chess play will fool noone.
But what is Russia fighting? Nothing? Or are we back to the Nazi analogy that they simply want power and have some ideological mandate to fulfill. That strikes me as unusual. Putin has been in charge for a long time now and these are extreme moves being played out in a climate of unprecedented US and EU 'involvement' in Ukraine.

Brian Shanahan

stevejazzx wrote: »

The whole sentence just for balance

A balanced look at the situation:

Russia, a neo-Nazi state, is invading the Ukraine in an attempt to further its goal of Lebensraum nach Westen. And in order to justify this invasion, like its German ideological predecessor, it is creating false claims of oppression.

There you go.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

A presence on Russian borders was probably a long term game plan which has now severely backfired.

Whether Moscow likes it or not, Ukrainians should be allowed to run Ukraine as they wish, so long as they do it peacefully, which they have been doing -- massive corruption notwithstanding. It's also somewhat two-faced of Russia to claim outrage at (admittedly fictitious) lanugage threats while posting tens of thousands of troops on Ukraine's border and invading and annexing sections of the country. Balancing the respective threats and realities is in order here.

BTW, the OSCE has declared that the Russian troops are "clearly aimed at threatening and intimidating, and is therefore an ongoing escalation" - implying that the Russian government can no longer be trusted:

http://osce.usmission.gov/apr_7_14_ukr2.html

stevejazzx wrote: »

In fairness the interesting article you posted earlier from Forbes uses miscellaneous Facebook accounts, local personalities and further miscellaneous colleagues and friends as sources.

The accounts match accounts that I've heard myself from friends and friends of friends. I've little doubt that they're accurate.

And the "pro-Russians" themselves are leaving an online trail fifteen miles wide - this trail corroborates the accounts that the Forbes article relies upon.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/how-to-stalk-eastern-separatists-online-342428.html

stevejazzx wrote: »

But what is Russia fighting?

Russia is creating an enemy out of thin air so that Putin can fight it and claim to be the saviour of the country and of "Russianness", and thereby tighten his clammy grip on power. As Putin controls the media in his country, that's a narrative which is easy to play out, and which Russians - a welcome minority notwithstanding -- are happy to buy into. Political paranoia informed much of external Soviet thinking and it looks like it's making a steaming return to mainstream Russian thinking now.

stevejazzx

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A balanced look at the situation:

Russia, a neo-Nazi state, is invading the Ukraine in an attempt to further its goal of Lebensraum nach Westen. And in order to justify this invasion, like its German ideological predecessor, it is creating false claims of oppression.

There you go.

The history and the present situation are rather more complex than that. Don't you find it a little too convenient that you can find such an easy equivalence?

Here's a somewhat more detailed view

Brzezinski wrote:

Most troubling of all was the loss of Ukraine. The appearance of an independent Ukrainian state not only challenged all Russians to rethink the nature of their own political and ethnic identity, but it represented a vital geopolitical setback for the Russian state. The repudiation of more than three hundred years of Russian imperial history meant the loss of a potentially rich industrial and agricultural economy and of 52 million people ethnically and religiously sufficiently close to the Russians to make Russia into a truly large and confident imperial state. Ukraine’s independence also deprived Russia of its dominant position on the Black Sea, where Odessa had served as Russia’s vital gateway to trade with the Mediterranean and the world beyond.
The loss of Ukraine was geopolitically pivotal, for it drastically limited Russia’s geostrategic options. Even without the Baltic states and Poland, a Russia that retained control over Ukraine could still seek to be the leader of an assertive Eurasian empire, in which Moscow could dominate the non-Slavs in the South and Southeast of the former Soviet Union. But without Ukraine and its 52 million fellow Slavs, any attempt by Moscow to rebuild the Eurasian empire was likely to leave Russia entangled alone in protracted conflicts with the nationally and religiously aroused non- Slavs, the war with Chechnya perhaps simply being the first example.

stevejazzx

Robindch wrote:

Russia is creating an enemy out of thin air so that Putin can fight it and claim to be the saviour of the country and of "Russianness", and thereby tighten his clammy grip on power. As Putin controls the media in his country, that's a narrative which is easy to play out, and which Russians - a welcome minority notwithstanding -- are happy to buy into. Political paranoia informed much of external Soviet thinking and it looks like it's making a steaming return to mainstream Russian thinking now.

While I agree that Putin will spin this as Russia coming to the rescue, and while I expect all kinds of nauseating Russian propaganda to follow - I can't agree that they are inventing their enemies out of thin air -
Why is this happening now? Would it have anything to with American policy in the region i.e the geopoliticial situation, the lost of Yanukovych for Putin, the pressure to join Europe, the IMF (US again) offering aid?
Is this a huge tactical war game for power, land, resources and control of energy needs or a single crazed villain hellbent on fighting foreign ghosts who are all presumably innocent in their respective disassociated realms?

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Here's a fairly well-written article describing what's up now and what is possible to happen over the next few weeks, unless the Russians deescalate:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/04/07/putins-attack-on-ukraine-began-today-what-this-means-for-europe-and-the-us/

Putin will only stop when it is in his interest to stop. In other words, when the West makes it in his interest to stop.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

This morning, Ukraine used force to eject armed separatists from a regional administration building in Kharkov...

Ukraine's Interior Ministry was quoted as saying by Interfax-Ukraine news agency that those detained were suspected of "illegal activity related to separatism, the organization of mass disorder, damage to human health"

They seem to me like the kind of typical miscellaneous "trumped up charges" that would be used by a govt. that wished to silence dissent and lock up civilian protestors.

robindch wrote: »

...while informal reports from Donetsk suggest that the Republic of Donetsk, formed yesterday, might have dissolved itself (the surprised tone of the note, btw, suggests that somebody's mum rang up and read the riot act).

The "surprised tone"??
Its a complete capitulation and retraction. The kind one makes when ones head is pinned to the ground by a jackboot, and an AK47 is jammed into ones ear.

robindch wrote: »

Here's a fairly well-written article ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/04/07/putins-attack-on-ukraine-began-today-what-this-means-for-europe-and-the-us/

Russian propaganda is wafting a siren song about the prosperity that awaits them if they join Russia. Putin’s destabilization campaign will take a week or so to complete. The covert phase will culminate with the deaths of demonstrators, supposedly at the hands of Ukrainian security forces, but actually by Russian snipers.

Ah c'mon now, surely you can come up with a better article than this
Is it not true that wage rates are much higher in Russia, and their economy is strong, whereas Ukraine is dependent on foreign bailouts for day to day survival?
And that the Russians were previously supplying Ukraine with gas at prices well below market value, which prices are only now starting to rise to normal market levels.

Is there even the slightest evidence for Russian snipers ever having been deployed, outside of a war situation?

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

Would it have anything to with American policy in the region i.e the geopoliticial situation, the lost of Yanukovych for Putin, the pressure to join Europe, the IMF (US again) offering aid?

Quite apart from invading and annexing Crimea, Russian policy is to interfere in the internal affairs of another country.

Are you saying that it's ok for Russia to bully a weak and unstable Ukraine and steal from it?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Reuters wrote:

Ukraine's Interior Ministry was quoted as saying by Interfax-Ukraine news agency that those detained were suspected of "illegal activity related to separatism, the organization of mass disorder, damage to human health"

They seem to me like the kind of typical miscellaneous "trumped up charges" that would be used by a govt. that wished to silence dissent and lock up civilian protestors.

Given that the hundreds of armed thugs who took over regional admin buildings in various cities in eastern Ukraine issued a declaration of independence, and took many people hostage at gunpoint, I'm unclear how you can plausibly claim that the "illegal activity related to separatism" and "organization of mass disorder" are "trumped up".

marienbad

recedite wrote: »

They seem to me like the kind of typical miscellaneous "trumped up charges" that would be used by a govt. that wished to silence dissent and lock up civilian protestors.



The "surprised tone"??
Its a complete capitulation and retraction. The kind one makes when ones head is pinned to the ground by a jackboot, and an AK47 is jammed into ones ear.


Ah c'mon now, surely you can come up with a better article than this
Is it not true that wage rates are much higher in Russia, and their economy is strong, whereas Ukraine is dependent on foreign bailouts for day to day survival?
And that the Russians were previously supplying Ukraine with gas at prices well below market value, which prices are only now starting to rise to normal market levels.

Is there even the slightest evidence for Russian snipers ever having been deployed, outside of a war situation?

Would I be correct in saying that the gas prices between Russia and Ukraine were at lower level as part of the treaty between the two countries as part of the extension on the lease on the naval base in Crimea to 2048 ?

That alone is proof positive that Russia recognised the sovereignty of Ukraine .

And on the poorer economic conditions in Ukraine vis a vis Russia ! What the fcuk has that got to do with anything ?

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Quite apart from invading and annexing Crimea, Russian policy is to interfere in the internal affairs of another country.

You didn't really answer the question

stevejazzx wrote:

Is this a huge tactical war game for power, land, resources and control of energy needs or a single crazed villain hellbent on fighting foreign ghosts who are all presumably innocent in their respective disassociated realms?

Robindch wrote:

Are you saying that it's ok for Russia to bully a weak and unstable Ukraine and steal from it?

I must not be doing a good job of representing my argument if that's what you gathered from it.
The discussion we were having was something along the lines of me claiming that you were treating Russia's actions in complete isolation of all other events. My speculation was that the US were to blame for some of this as they have been unquestionably been meddling in Ukrainian affairs for a long time. It seems they tired via Europe to get involved, that failed, then they got angry and promoted dissent which led to this questionable interim government.
The transcripts of the leaked Nuland transcripts prove outrageous American involvement in this whole thing.

extract 1 from transcript wrote:

Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs.

keane2097

I hadn't the slightest notion what was going on in Crimea before clicking into this thread an hour ago, but just for the record the pro-Russian side is being utterly trounced in the argument here and appears to be using an awful lot of evasive manoeuvres and bringing up patent irrelevances every time what appears to me as an interesting question is asked of them.

recedite

marienbad wrote: »

Would I be correct in saying that the gas prices between Russia and Ukraine were at lower level as part of the treaty between the two countries as part of the extension on the lease on the naval base in Crimea to 2048 ?

That alone is proof positive that Russia recognised the sovereignty of Ukraine .

Russia does recognise the sovereignty of Ukraine; the dispute is over the rise of a nationalistic pro-western faction based in Kiev and northwestern Ukraine which is seeking to impose its will on a pro-Russian faction based in the southeastern part. In the event that a govt. which only represents half the country seizes power, the other half (or one third or whatever it is) should IMO be entitled to opt out.

This is exactly what happened in Ireland in 1922; all 32 counties were granted Home Rule, under nationalists, as a result of "The Treaty" and the 6 counties then exercised the right to opt out of the new Free State, as they did not feel they would get adequate representation within it.

Bear in mind also that narrow "nationalism" is not deeply ingrained in most citizens of the former the former Soviet republics. A much greater pull is economic prosperity. Ukraineans are being told on the one hand (by Nato, the USA and the IMF) that closer ties with the EU will bring this prosperity.
But the EU itself is more reticent, only offering loans and the same slow track to EU accession that Turkey has been tempted along on for donkey's years.

Putin on the other hand, offers rapid wage rises to be part of the RF (as with Crimea), and gas discounts to be independent but part of his Customs Union (as with Ukraine last year, before the coup). If you remember, the EU started off as a "customs union". Any countries that join Putin's Customs Union now will remain in that sphere of influence if it develops and integrates further, just as the EEC morphed into the EU, gaining power and influence as it grew.

Wages are 3X times higher in Russia than in Ukraine.

Ukraine benefited from two separate discounts on its gas tariffs up until recently. One was related to the leasing of Sevastopol naval base. Another was to entice Yankovych towards the Russian Customs Union and away from the EU. Both have expired now, for obvious separate but related reasons. This leaves Kiev up the proverbial creek.
AFAIK they have not paid any gas bills since the coup, but Putin continues to supply them. He can disconnect them at any time for not paying the bill; its an ace he is still keeping up his sleeve.

marienbad

recedite wrote: »

Russia does recognise the sovereignty of Ukraine; the dispute is over the rise of a nationalistic pro-western faction based in Kiev and northwestern Ukraine which is seeking to impose its will on a pro-Russian faction based in the southeastern part. In the event that a govt. which only represents half the country seizes power, the other half (or one third or whatever it is) should IMO be entitled to opt out.

This is exactly what happened in Ireland in 1922; all 32 counties were granted Home Rule, under nationalists, as a result of "The Treaty" and the 6 counties then exercised the right to opt out of the new Free State, as they did not feel they would get adequate representation within it.

Bear in mind also that narrow "nationalism" is not deeply ingrained in most citizens of the former the former Soviet republics. A much greater pull is economic prosperity. Ukraineans are being told on the one hand (by Nato, the USA and the IMF) that closer ties with the EU will bring this prosperity.
But the EU itself is more reticent, only offering loans and the same slow track to EU accession that Turkey has been tempted along on for donkey's years.

Putin on the other hand, offers rapid wage rises to be part of the RF (as with Crimea), and gas discounts to be independent but part of his Customs Union (as with Ukraine last year, before the coup). If you remember, the EU started off as a "customs union". Any countries that join Putin's Customs Union now will remain in that sphere of influence if it develops and integrates further, just as the EEC morphed into the EU, gaining power and influence as it grew.

Wages are 3X times higher in Russia than in Ukraine.

Ukraine benefited from two separate discounts on its gas tariffs up until recently. One was related to the leasing of Sevastopol naval base. Another was to entice Yankovych towards the Russian Customs Union and away from the EU. Both have expired now, for obvious separate but related reasons. This leaves Kiev up the proverbial creek.
AFAIK they have not paid any gas bills since the coup, but Putin continues to supply them. He can disconnect them at any time for not paying the bill; its an ace he is still keeping up his sleeve.

This is just more equivocating rubbish. A sovereign state is entitled to take economic aid from whatever source it wishes . The motives of any benefactors are a side issue and certainly not the concern of any third party.

recedite

marienbad wrote: »

This is just more equivocating rubbish. A sovereign state is entitled to take economic aid from whatever source it wishes .

States make deals, yes. That's (a small part of) what I just said.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

recedite wrote: »

States make deals, yes. That's (a small part of) what I just said.

Is that what Russia did ? An invasion is now a deal ?

recedite

Phoenix wrote: »

Wonder what those who fought and died in the great patriotic war would make of this.

If they died, they won't be doing much thinking at all.
But the folk memories of that era live on, and when members of the Right Sector and Svoboda are photographed wearing repainted old nazi era German helmets, and sporting swastika tatoos, it doesn't help.
These are the guys now occupying key government posts. The pro-Russian Ukrainian population in the south east currently has little or no govt. representation in Ukraine.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Russia does recognise the sovereignty of Ukraine [...]

Are you aware that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea?

recedite

Crimea seceded from Ukraine, therefore is no longer Ukraine.

Hotblack Desiato

Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

Russia does recognise the sovereignty of Ukraine [...]

Are you aware that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea?

Crimea seceded from Ukraine, therefore is no longer Ukraine.

Bearing in mind the likely consequences of further destabilization, invasion, annexation and general trashing of Ukraine by Russia, the topic really does deserve a more serious response than that.

recedite

And yet that, in a nutshell, sums up our differences of opinion.

marienbad

recedite wrote: »

And yet that, in a nutshell, sums up our differences of opinion.

At last we come closer to your real thoughts , Russia annexed Crimea and fcuk the begrudgers. Job done , now move on to the next one .

All the rest was just self serving waffle

robindch

recedite wrote: »

And yet that, in a nutshell, sums up our differences of opinion.

As somebody once said, everybody is welcome to invent their own opinions, but not their own facts.

To suggest that Russia did not cook up a manifestly false pretext, then invade and annex Crimea and to suggest that Russia is not engaged in an ongoing attempt to destabilize Ukraine and possibly invade and annex substantial further portions of the east of the country -- that really is denying the most basic facts concerning this crisis.

the_syco

recedite wrote: »

whereas Ukraine is dependent on foreign bailouts for day to day survival?

EU bailout, or Russian bailout. Both are foreign bailouts.

recedite wrote: »

And that the Russians were previously supplying Ukraine with gas at prices well below market value, which prices are only now starting to rise to normal market levels.

Russia started raising the price once they couldn't take over Ukraine.

=-=

Crimea is 2nd prize without Ukraine, as there is no land-border with their warm water port otherwise. The Russian army is not to be underestimated. New weapons, and the ability to converge suddenly shows military might.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

Crimea seceded from Ukraine, therefore is no longer Ukraine.

Wrong, the Ukraine's constitutional position is similar to (but not quite as extreme as) the US's position. So to say that the Crimea legally seceeded is as truthful a statement as to say that the CSA legally seceeded from the US.

And to be honest, even if the secession law was far more lenient than it is, there would be no way that a puppet administration, vassal to a foreign state, imposed on an area literally at the point of a kalashnikov has a legitimate right to seceede from the country it belongs to. And also before that puppet government was installed and began cowing all opposition, the population was split 60/40 in favour of staying in the Ukraine.

Seriously, recedite you are so wrong on this position that it is becoming painful watching you squirm in order to not admit that you are wrong.