Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'
Options
Comments
-
IMO the "far right" groups are better described as "ultra-nationalist" groups, and one of the important factors influencing their thinking is "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
This would lead me to believe that Svoboda would be pro EU until such time as Ukraine was well established within it, and they no longer feared that the pro-Russia element of the population could re-establish ties with Russia. At that point they would become anti-EU, and instead seek complete national independence from everyone else.
A related phenomenon is the absence of any major militant "right wing" ultra-nationalists in ROI, which seems to be largely due to the presence of right wing ultra-nationalists in NI (the loyalists) and in England. Our ultra-nationalists then feel they should be "left wing", just to be the opposite to their guys.0 -
-
No contribution from USA towards this 3.1 Billion that will be paid over to Russia, and no mention of the terms for the EU money, so we can assume the EU contribution is only a loan, and has strings attached.
The USA probably could not bring themselves to openly support paying that kind of money over to Putin, as it makes a mockery of the sanctions. On the other hand, they don't want to see the collapse of the Kiev regime just as it is getting established. So they must have nodded their approval to the IMF to pay over the money.
The IMF knew all along that the money would have to be paid. From one of their memorandums of understanding with Ukraine;To ensure that the program remains fully financed and not subject to financing risks stemming from settling past gas import bills with Gazprom, we have set aside a substantial amount of funds to settle these bills, if and when such payments need to be made.
In effect then, the citizens of Western Ukraine have taken on this extra debt without really being aware of it, and have ceded some more sovereignty to EU/IMF. The detail will be in the agreement they have just signed. And most importantly Germany and the EU will not be inconvenienced by an interruption to the gas supply.
Like the Irish, the Ukrainians won't feel the pinch immediately; its only later on when all the extra taxes are being imposed (as in property tax and water charges in our case) that the citizens start protesting.
I think it was around €80 Billion in debt the troika "helped" the Irish citizens to take on, which prevented the German banks and investors from losing anything, and restored confidence in the euro as a currency that does not default or devalue. Ironic that they used the Russian word "troika" when nationalising the debts of various failed capitalists within the EU and assigning the debt to Irish citizens.0 -
Your post is ridiculous, this is not a new debt it is swapping a debt to Russia for a debt to the West. The gas having already been supplied was eventually going to have to be paid for one way or the other. The previous regimes should not have allowed gas debt to build up in the first place.
This is not at all comparable to the conversion of private debt to sovereign debt in the Irish instance (which, anyway, occurred at the time of the guarantee not the bailout.)Life ain't always empty.
0 -
It is only comparable in the sense that the country being "helped" will be paying back the debt, plus interest, over the following years. In other words, a net transfer of wealth from the "helped" country to the helpers.
This particular gas debt was owed originally by the whole of the former Ukraine, including Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Now the smaller area, ie only that which participated in the recent elections, has accepted responsibility for the entire debt. Putin seems to have acknowledged this by allowing a slight discount to the original bill.
Overrall I'd say Putin wins again; he gets paid what he was owed, in cash, up front, despite all the talk about "punishing Russia".0 -
Advertisement
-
It is only comparable in the sense that the country being "helped" will be paying back the debt, plus interest, over the following years. In other words, a net transfer of wealth from the "helped" country to the helpers.
A net transfer of wealth in the loan repayments, if you ignore the loan principal, yeah :rolleyes:This particular gas debt was owed originally by the whole of the former Ukraine, including Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Now the smaller area, ie only that which participated in the recent elections, has accepted responsibility for the entire debt. Putin seems to have acknowledged this by allowing a slight discount to the original bill.
He's a good egg after all. What about the rent on the naval bases in Crimea he doesn't have to pay anymore, though?Overrall I'd say Putin wins again; he gets paid what he was owed, in cash, up front, despite all the talk about "punishing Russia".
Not thrilled about this, but if it keeps the lights on in Ukraine and EU and if he can be persuaded to keep his troops within his own borders, it's probably worth it.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Well, a quiet day down the forum and the first anniversary of the first Euromaidan protests in central Kiev, so here's a quick update for anybody who's not been following the unravelling sequence of events there.
Ukraine proper held parliamentary elections on 26th October and the parties of the president, Petro Poroshenko, and the PM, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, polled ~44% between them, translating to 214 seats, just a little less than half of the 450 seat Rada. Today, these two parties joined in coalition with other pro-Western parties to form a 289-seat parliamentary majority.
Between them, the far-right Svobodo (Freedom) and Right Sektor parties polled 6.5%, around half of what their joint total was in 2012, and took seven seats in the new parliament. With some relatively minor reservations, the OSCE reported that the election was generally free and fair. Polling did not take place in much of the eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk.
The Russian-backed gunmen currently controlling Luhansk and Donetsk held their own elections the following weekend. Two ballots were held in each separatist-controlled area - one for electing a "chief executive" and one for selecting the governing party. None of the usual Ukrainian parties was present on any of the ballot forms and in any case, political campaigning was, for the most part, prevented. The election wasn't without its farcical side - it was "observed" by a range of political figures from Europe's far right and validated by a group called the "ASCE" (either the Agency for Security and Co-operation in Europe" or the "Association for Security and Co-operation in Europe", as both forms were used). The ASCE had been created the day before the separatist elections, seemingly at a shambolic press-conference. One of the election monitors, a far-right Austrian named Ewald Stadler, was filmed in Donetsk observing the elections and suggesting that they were grand because the gunmen were outside the polling station, not inside - all the time apparently unaware that there was gunman standing right behind him. The results of the separatist election were almost certainly faked as anybody who calculates the results of the election to eight decimal places will immediately realize.
The separatists [url=http://en.ria.ru/world/20141023/194479030/Donetsk-Forces-Plan-to-Retake-Slav
iansk-Kramatorsk-Mariupol.html]indicated[/url] that they want to retake territory they've previously lost or never had - specifically Slavyansk and Mariupol, the latter - if it falls - providing Putin with the corridor he needs to supply Crimea in the absence of a bridge or sufficient ferry service connecting Kerch with the Russian mainland. Justice in the separatist-controlled areas appears to be by "people's courts" with several people reportedly having been condemned to death without the benefit of law. The Ukrainian government has stopped payments of benefits and other services to separatist-controlled areas, leaving the separatists in an unhappy position as they have no taxes and Russia, probably owing to the collapse of the ruble, appear to have little interest in taking up the slack. And generally, progress is being rolled way, way back - Aleks Mozgovoi, One of the senior separatists, said that women who go to cafes or clubs on their own will be arrested - "Women should be looking after the home [...] and sitting there, doing their knitting", he explained.
Meanwhile, Putin has been pouring troops and weapons into the region (multiple reports, some from the OSCE of large numbers of "unmarked military vehicles"). Igor Girkin, a Muscovite working for Russian state security, yesterday claimed in an interview with Russian media, that he'd started the war in East Ukraine (English summary here). Elsewhere, a few interesting links - the Canadian foreign minister, John Baird, delivered a refreshingly straightforward analysis of what is going on. An report into how Russia is managing the banking system in Crimea. And how other industries are faring. Putin says there will be no "colored revolutions" in Russia.
The most interesting report is from a range of people, all with first-hand experience of what's been happening in Ukraine over the last year, which documents Russia's propaganda war against Ukraine and the West. There's a video here and a corresponding written report which anybody with an interest in political propaganda will find fascinating.
It's impossible to know where this will end up as the man who's running it all appears to be fully delusional with little or no recourse to law, logic or common sense. All the Ukrainians I've spoken with over the last few weeks believe it's going to turn into full-blown Russian-Ukrainian war. And while I think that's unlikely, I do certainly feel it's more likely to get worse in the short term, than get better.0 -
Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by this claim?The results of the separatist election were almost certainly faked as anybody who calculates the results of the election to eight decimal places will immediately realize.
I already mentioned earlier in the thread that this is why the fighting was at its most fierce around Mariopol just before the Putin sponsored ceasefire was implemented. It would make their "Novorussia" ideal a stronger entity and more of a reality. But Putin does not support the separatists in trying to take territory from pro-Ukrainian regions, and has repeatedly said that both sides should lay down their arms. So he does not support them in this.The separatists indicated that they want to retake territory they've previously lost or never had - specifically Slavyansk and Mariupol, the latter - if it falls - providing Putin with the corridor he needs to supply Crimea in the absence of a bridge or sufficient ferry service connecting Kerch with the Russian mainland.
Same thing happened in Ireland in the 1920's; Republican courts operated in parallel with the Crown courts for a while. The former held sway in the southwest while the latter were still seen as legit by ordinary people closer to Dublin.Justice in the separatist-controlled areas appears to be by "people's courts" with several people reportedly having been condemned to death without the benefit of law.
Canada's involvement in Ukraine is not at all straightforward. They have sent shipments of what they call "non-lethal military equipment". What is Canada's interest in Ukraine?..the Canadian foreign minister, John Baird, delivered a refreshingly straightforward analysis of what is going on.
IMO their anti-Russian stance has nothing to do with sympathy for the Ukrainian people, but more to do with Canada's interest in the oil and mineral rights to the arctic. Now that global warming is opening up the region, they find themselves in competition for sovereignty with two major powers; Russia has a claim, and the USA has, via Alaska. The Scandinavian countries also have a claim, but they are seen as less influential, and are being persuaded that they are dependent on Nato for their security.
In Baird's little speech he singles out and pays tribute to two prominent Baltic region politicians, and also the Dutch politician who is relatively unknown apart from his emotional (and some would say populist) speeches blaming Putin for the downing of flight MH17;There have been leaders who reacted to this campaign of smoke and mirrors with the firmness and clarity required. "I’d pay tribute in particular to people like Radoslaw Sikorski, Frans Timmermans, and Carl Bildt.
But there is much to be done in separating truth from fiction."
We already looked at Sikorsky earlier in this thread, he was basically sponsored by a US "think-tank" and probably the CIA during his whole career, for the purposes of removing any remaining Russian influences in Poland and replacing them with US/Nato influences.
Carl Biltd is more his own man. They like him because he has taken a strong and vocal Nato position on Kosovo, South Ossetia and Ukraine, even though to do so requires a hypocritical stance on the central issue of whether a small nation has a right to secede from a larger one. He is also a man with extensive privately held oil and gas interests.
You have linked to a number of these "news reports" coming from a Ukraine propaganda source.A report into how Russia is managing the banking system in Crimea.
What they are actually saying in this report is that Ukrainian banks are refusing to give back the money deposited by people in Crimea. This is apparently in retaliation for the loss of their property (the branch network there) and they are telling their former customers to seek compensation from Russia or the Russian banking system.
The sensible thing for Putin to do in this situation would be to introduce a bank guarantee for retail deposits up to a certain amount, and then "burn" those commercial investors holding bonds in Ukrainian banks which are not being honoured by those banks.
I find it fascinating that a New York based "think-tank" whose purpose is to put out anti-Russian propaganda can print the following, apparently without a hint of irony, under the bizarre titleThe most interesting report is from a range of people, all with first-hand experience of what's been happening in Ukraine over the last year, which documents Russia's propaganda war against Ukraine and the West. There's a video here and a corresponding written report which anybody with an interest in political propaganda will find fascinating.
"the Weaponization of Culture and Ideas "
It seems they are actually referring to "Putin's Russia", and not to themselves :pac:Re-establishing Transparency and Integrity in the Expert Community:
Self-disclosure of funding by think tanks and a charter identifying clear
lines between funders and research would be a first step in helping the sector regulate itself and re-establish faith in its output.0 -
-
Not Reuters, no. Was this the original link in your post Robinch?
Either way, my point is that although the both the Reuters and the Ukrainian information agency reports are fact based, they somehow seem to gloss over the fact that it is the Ukrainian banks that are holding onto the Crimean depositors money, not Putin.0 -
Advertisement
-
The most interesting report is from a range of people, all with first-hand experience of what's been happening in Ukraine over the last year, which documents Russia's propaganda war against Ukraine and the West. There's a video here and a corresponding written report which anybody with an interest in political propaganda will find fascinating.
It's impossible to know where this will end up as the man who's running it all appears to be fully delusional with little or no recourse to law, logic or common sense. All the Ukrainians I've spoken with over the last few weeks believe it's going to turn into full-blown Russian-Ukrainian war. And while I think that's unlikely, I do certainly feel it's more likely to get worse in the short term, than get better.
While I disagreed intensely with majority of your post above the link to the Legatum Institute and its accompanying video were the ‘proverbial straw’.
In its defence it does state upfront that it is conducted in cooperation with the Atlantic Council and the US Department of State (which obviously renders it immediately biased and somewhat inconsequential and irrelevant) - nonetheless let’s examine their claims.
There were innumerable clangers throughout this painful 45 minute back patting session so the following are just the ones I can recall offhand.
No source (he claims an independent monitor) Hmmm let’s see…*googles*Michael Weiss wrote:1/3 of Russian GDP is fritted away by bribery?
Here’s that independent monitor: Christian Science Monitor (I’ll have a tough time taking them seriously)
Here’s what they've.. ahem.. 'monitored': it’s a quote based on an estimate.We estimate that businesses must add up to 40 percent to their production costs,” due to the toll of bribery, official extortion and economic crime,”
Now I obviously don't claim there’s no bribery in Russia but with reporting like this how could anyone take this panel seriously and Michael was introduced as our ‘go to’ guy on the Ukraine…oh dear.
He goes on to state that journalists should endeavour toMichael Weiss wrote:Dig up dirt on Putin’s wealth
...and that libel laws should be eased to allow them to do so. Conversely he goes on to state that it is ‘white shoe law firms’ who are preventing a lot of good stories from making it onto the printing presses. Surely he doesn't mean Russian White shoe law Firms?
After this he touches on an interesting point - the proliferation of Russian espionage and how it has really reached new heights. Well perhaps this is true but could anything even come close to or eclipse what we now know re: the NSA bugging of French, Italian and German Diplomats? It has been shown that at the very highest levels internationally the USA has been bugging its diplomatic counterweights in the most outrageous display of subterfuge and hostility towards supposed partner countries ever recorded. The allegations and indeed hard evidence of this scandal as everyone is now aware extend right across the globe, its scope incomparable to any other spy activity we have ever seen. And yet here sits with the most brazen audacity five neo-con, right wing, new millennium tink tankers who claim that they are only trying to protect us from Russian subterfuge with not even one mention of their own sides embarrassing and shameful record – Pomerantsev even reckons that Western powers should be able moderate the news with their own custom crafted stamp of media transparency. Incredible.
Speaking of Pomerantsev, he claims that RT put out a story claiming that the bodies from MH17 were already dead. I googled this and couldn't verify that RT put out this story first? I can find the Daily Mail reporting and citing a Russian rebel website and our good friend, the much quoted, Mr. Strelkov Girkin who of course while speaking directly on behalf of the Kremlin made sure to note his joy at downing a western airplane filled with innocent civilians. It strikes me as odd that Mr. Girkin is laughed out of town one minute for claiming the bodies were already decomposed but then taken very seriously when he makes the even more outstanding claim that of the whole eastern conflict is on him. Something is not quite right here – early on there was much speculation regarding this mans real identify and ultimate affiliations - either way Pomerantsevs claim is totally inaccurate.
Pomerantsev also reckons there should be public information campaigns in the Baltics to educate people as to the dangers Russian propaganda – thereby directly and openly suggesting to cure one type of propaganda with another type again without the merest hint of hypocrisy. Incredible.
Pomerantsev is also the only panellist to use a Russian word - Дезинформаци – in an apparent attempt to make himself appear more credible. The spoken word being so close to its English pronunciation – disinformation – that the opposite effect was rendered. I got the distinct impression that I was listening to bunch of ardent amateurs rather the any type of academic, intellectual, specialist or regional expert. It was quite depressing actually.
This brings us onto Oleksander Scherba – who was about as eloquent and as clear as a wounded ape. He has apparently seen Christopher Nolan’s great movie…. ‘Perception??’. He then goes on to describe the word ‘inception’ without managing to remind himself of the actual name of the movie and or its central theme. Now I don’t know if he was just nervous, (after all he is the team’s poster boy for Ukrainian crisis and Applebaum is evidently uneasy while he is speaking) or if he was just reading prescribed notes from his ipad and really didn’t know what he was doing or saying. Regardless his dire contribution continues informing us that the horrors of Russian propaganda climaxes somewhere around the idea of intimating Ukrainians by telling them everyone in the EU is either gay or a gay sympathiser. Despite his dismal testimony he does however reveal the real reason for Moscow’s intense effort at combating Western propaganda when sometime around 35.55 mark he says – “The Russians are deeply convinced that the outside is so sinister that they can’t accept any rules” This is as close as anyone on the panel comes to telling the truth. Unfortunately Scerba goes on to make the totally unsubstantiated claim that 90% of all Russian people state that what was great about the Soviet Union was it capacity to be feared? Em… Source please??? Or has this freakish roadshow just descended into the ‘I’m gonna pull some stuff from the ether and present it as fact similar to the kind of strained monologues that we are so used to hearing form our religious scientist friends? Well…apparently so.
Pyatt doesn’t spend long talking but with what little time he does use up he makes sure that it’s not only contentious but, as is the fashion at this event, astronomically hypocritical. None so more than when he claims that the US and EU share the same ‘strategic concerns’ regarding the Ukraine. Perhaps Pyatt had simply forgot his Washington colleague’s now infamous and colourful remark regarding the EU at the height of the crisis? Or perhaps he is being a diplomat and well, bending the truth a little to cover over the well ingrained tracks left behind after the US had to, as is nearly always the case, steamroll through its objectives regarding the Ukraine crisis in precisely the same manner it made France retract its ‘Mistral’ sale to Russia or leaned on Merkel over sanctions.
Pyatts claims that the story of US mercenary troops in Ukraine essentially started with RT (The Blackwater story) and then filtered down to other news agencies is also hard to substantiate. Again after a quick google I find the story first reported by the Daily Mail citing YouTube videos, incidentally the evidence of American Mercenaries in Ukraine is considerable and certainly can’t be airily dismissed.
More claims now – that all west Ukrainian media (tv & radio) content is off the air in Eastern Ukraine? From asking a few friends this does not appear to be the case. At this point I give up – even ignoring the huge elephant in the room and trying to take these people at face value proves impossible. The fact that Applebaum and her estranged husband are most likely entwined in US intelligence and are openly self-professed militant ‘anti Puintites’ doesn’t help. We may as well hear from God as to why Satan is bad. A quite ridiculous sham of a video if I have ever seen one.0 -
What's the latest here 3 years later..?
The nutshell version, not the I'll be reading for a week version...
Thanks0 -
I still have the mental scars from this thread.
If there's a nutshell version it'll be like that Halloween brazil nut that still sits on the kitchen table in December, mocking everyone that passes, and defying all attempts to be cracked open.0 -
I still have the mental scars from this thread.
If there's a nutshell version it'll be like that Halloween brazil nut that still sits on the kitchen table in December, mocking everyone that passes, and defying all attempts to be cracked open.
So its still ongoing..?
And which side of the debate lol, I mean arguing here turned out to be right..?0 -
The putinbots put up an impressive showing for a while, but ultimately withdrew.
Life ain't always empty.
0 -
-
Well, three and a half years later, Crimea remains under the control of a country which, having organized and ran a fake referendum and accepted the 'secession' of Crimea, then hurriedly declared talk of 'secessionism' a criminal offence. Some of Crimea's citizens have been tortured, murdered or simply disappeared, many have been dispossessed of cash, assets or property, many more fear to return home, and most who've chosen to remain have been stripped of their citizenship. The region remains subject to western sanctions and its economy has declined sharply since its prosperous tourist industry collapsed.And which side of the debate lol, I mean arguing here turned out to be right..?
Putin also chose to instigate and fund a low level war in Eastern Ukraine which has left unknown numbers dead - believed to be in excess of ten thousand, and created a refugee problem which displaced around one and a half million people, the majority within Ukraine. The Donbass and Luhansk "People's Republics" are essentially lawless brush-war zones supported logistically, financially and militarily by Russia and they are run by criminals. Their feeble economies have also crashed. Most of the international community has accepted that MH17 was shot down by Russian hardware, almost certainly operated by serving Russian soldiers, but has chosen to ignore the fact.
In terms of missed predictions - well, some people suggested that Putin might attempt further invasion of Ukraine in order to build a land bridge to Crimea, but stout, if sometimes patchy, Ukrainian defence, especially around Mariupol (which is still occasionally attacked by rocket) put an end to that idea. Instead, a construction company co-owned by Arkady Rotenberg, a personal friend of Putin and also subject to western sanctions, is building an enormous bridge to reach the troubled region instead.
Relatedly, some of the multi-platform social and news media strategies which the Kremlin ran for Crimea and East Ukraine were repurposed and reused during recent votes in the USA, France, the Czech Republic, Catalonia and elsewhere.
Ukraine itself continues to be traumatized place and its people are heartily sick of what Putin is doing to them and their country. Usage of the Russian language has declined substantially in most of the the country, though it's obviously still understood widely. Corruption remains a major problem in Ukraine, though small, positive steps are being made from time to time.
In terms of the ongoing debate here and elsewhere, and unlike a few years back, most of the above is generally accepted - though not obviously or always in Russia and a small number of other like-minded places - and most of the (real) people who once happily promoted Kremlin-compliant propaganda lines, do so these days with little enthusiasm.0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »The putinbots put up an impressive showing for a while, but ultimately withdrew.
Famous ‘Putinnbots’ like American Professor John Mearsheimer?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault
Or perhaps the Guardians Seamus Milne?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/clash-crimea-western-expansion-ukraine-fascists
Maybe you mean the other American Professor, someone almost uniquely qualified to discuss the topic, Stephen F. Cohen?
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-new-cold-war-is-already-more-dangerous-than-was-its-predecessor/
Or perhaps that other famous ‘Putinbot’ Christopher Booker from the Telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10853278/The-EUs-to-blame-for-the-crisis-in-Ukraine.html
There are so many more….
On side note to the above comment; I thought we had risen above and moved beyond the adolescent term of Putinbot in this thread, apparently not – is this to be the standard? Seems disappointing and childish considering the long road to this page.
It seems certain posters have had a really difficult time either a) following slightly complex arguments or b) believing in a corrupt west.
.
In relation to the referendum – it is widely believed that based on ethnicity (Crimea has 65% ethnic Russian population) and previous referendums that this motion would have passed.robindch wrote:Well, three and a half years later, Crimea remains under the control of a country which, having organized and ran a fake referendum and accepted the 'secession' of Crimea, then hurriedly declared talk of 'secessionism' a criminal offence.robindch wrote:Some of Crimea's citizens have been tortured, murdered or simply disappeared, many have been dispossessed of cash, assets or property, many more fear to return home, and most who've chosen to remain have been stripped of their citizenship.
Russia are particularly brutal in dealing with any form of fundamentalism and revolt.
I have seen stories regarding so called Islamic fundamentalists being arrested etc.
The bulk of the testimony regarding human rights abuses, some no doubt true, do come unfortunately from Ukrainian sources in Ukraine delivered directly to the UN Human rights council in a kind of vague manner and don’t appear to the kind of Prima Facie evidence that might prove more convincing and overall don’t seem to support evidence of daily and/or widespread suppression that you seem to suggest.
Indeed all of my prodding into the affair, including contact with people there, reveals again a much more nuanced situation as this article portrays quite well I think - it infers a kind of gloomy overtone and perhaps lack of full expression to Russian occupation yet relief at no war and a sense that things are actually getting done.
Also I’d agree with Peter Hobson here -Peter Hobson wrote:Form
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilaria-parogni-/misunderstanding-crimea-west-russia_b_7073322.html
Putin’s detractors use Russia’s treatment of minorities to support their tale of Russian aggression in Crimea, but the reality is more nuanced. Peter Hobson, a reporter for The Moscow Times, argues that Crimea is far from a terror state. “Nuland ignores the fact that Crimea’s accession to Russia reflects the desires of a majority of the population,” he wrote in a recent article. Hobson is right: ethnic Russians have long been the majority in Crimea. According to the first Ukrainian census of 2001, around 58 percent of the population of Crimea was ethnically Russian and only about 24 percent Ukrainian. A Gallup poll conducted in April 2014 shows that 82.8 percent of people in the peninsula thought the results of the 2014 referendum that prompted the annexation reflected the will of the people. In the referendum, which the West labelled illegal and tainted by irregularities, 97 percent of voters had supported leaving Ukraine to join Russia.
And this is interesting although warrants a little further investigation
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201710061058020094-crimea-nice-place-peace/article wrote:The delegation consisted of 11 people among them being politicians, deputies of local parliaments, businessmen and public figures from Norway and Germany. Norwegian parliament did not recommend its citizens to go to Crimea, however it did not prevent a visit of the delegation which is to end tomorrow, 12th of October.
The above delegation (reportedly one of 100's who have visited since 2014) reported positively on the current situation in the Crimea.robindch wrote:Putin also chose to instigate and fund a low level war in Eastern Ukraine which has left unknown numbers dead - believed to be in excess of ten thousand, and created a refugee problem which displaced around one and a half million people, the majority within Ukraine.
Putin 'instigated' is hardly an explanation or indeed a representation of what actually happened. Here’s some context starting from ~90-91 – obviously trimmed for the internets:
• First came the collapse of the Soviet Union and a dramatically failed attempt (over the following years) at privatisation resulting in the creation of the oligarchy financed and supported by the west. (91-2001)
• Second came the beginning of unwarranted NATO expansionism after the last of the Soviets pulled out of eastern Germany (94)
• Third was the co-option of the Yeltsin presidency by the west (91-99)
• Fourth was the rise of Putin (early 2000’s on)
• Sixth (a result of historical investment) was the Orange Revolution (2004)
• Seventh – Putin’s Munich speech in 2007 (2007)
• Eight was a missile installation in Poland (2009)
• Putin’s article in the NYT criticising the US re Syrian war attempt 1 in 2013
(subsequently the US failed to gain public support for Syrain intervention)
• Ninth – Ukraine’s failed deal with Russia and Europe (2013), the leaked Nuland call, and subsequent Maidan revolution that Putin saw as heavily western backed (2014)
• Tenth – was the installation of illegal and unconstitutional interim government in Ukraine including the manipulation of Nationalist fringe parties who had seen direct support from Mssrs. McCain and Nuland on the ground.
• Eleventh – was partial and effective civil war, in all but name, between the west and east after inevitable backlash from the east probably exacerbated and driven by propaganda from Russia
• Twelfth – was Russian involvement and war with Ukraine.robindch wrote:In terms of missed predictions - well, some people suggested that Putin might attempt further invasion of Ukraine in order to build a land bridge to Crimea, but stout, if sometimes patchy, Ukrainian defence, especially around Mariupol (which is still occasionally attacked by rocket) put an end to that idea.
So this prediction failed because of the surprising strength Ukrainian defences in the east? Are we really to accept that Russia couldn’t take Mariupol if they wanted?
I am looking forward to the Russian invasion of the Baltics that has been promised for a while. The west would have no choice but to depose Putin if that were to happen. Problem solved.robindch wrote:Instead, a construction company co-owned by Arkady Rotenberg, a personal friend of Putin and also subject to western sanctions, is building an enormous bridge to reach the troubled region instead.
Are we to understand from this that you believe Russia are building a 12mile bridge so they can better attack eastern Ukraine despite having a sizable border with them in the east anyway?
In terms of how this started I would lay blame squarely at the feet of the Americans.robindch wrote:Ukraine itself continues to be traumatized place and its people are heartily sick of what Putin is doing to them and their country.
A Russian-European partnership for the Ukraine had the best chance of reforming Russia while maintaining economic stability for Ukraine. In November 2013 Yanukovych requested more time to approve this deal – however he wanted to mould this deal more to Ukraine’s favour and reduce clauses pertaining to NATO. The US could see Putin’s hand in this and his overall strategy and feared an ongoing process would only benefit Putin so they worked behind the scenes to ensure that didn’t happen – Europe on the other hand was much more accommodating and was attempting to make this happen hence the famous ‘**** you’ remark - a direct reference to how inconvenient Europe was in relation to Ukraine.
Remember before sanctions Russia was trading heavily with France & Germany, easing its independence on Oil and also gaining traction as a world power so in an interesting way Russia’s subsequent economic hardship has been a huge plus for the US.
The US wanted, supported, and directly encouraged a Ukrainian revolution so they could control the narrative and process in the aftermath.
Their (the US) disclosed investment in Ukraine since 1991 has been 5.1 Billion
It was their long term plan since then.robindch wrote:
Usage of the Russian language has declined substantially in most of the the country, though it's obviously still understood widely. Corruption remains a major problem in Ukraine, though small, positive steps are being made from time to time.
Indeed, and the new and so called ‘Education Law’ has drawn concern and in some cases outrage from Hungary, Romania, Russia and even Poland however has been warmly accepted and supported by the United States.
To me this appears quite retrograde almost like something Russia might do and I imagine must contravene some aspect of international law.robindch wrote:
In terms of the ongoing debate here and elsewhere, and unlike a few years back, most of the above is generally accepted - though not obviously or always in Russia and a small number of other like-minded places - and most of the (real) people who once happily promoted Kremlin-compliant propaganda lines, do so these days with little enthusiasm.
On the contrary, despite the current Russian hysteria in the US I am finding more and more scholars leaning towards a different viewpoint of what exactly happened in Ukraine. I am not saying these viewpoints are favourable to Putin (I don’t read that kind of viewpoint and for good reason as I am sure we’d all agree) they are however more nuanced and considered (as demonstrated in the articles linked in the beginning of this post).0 -
-
Schism!
Since 2014, relations between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church have been frosty at best - not only because of Russia's double-invasion of its poorer neighbour or because the Russians have been [url=https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-struggling-to-believe-ukrainian-orthodox-church-in-crimea-struggles-to-survive/29175307.html
]handing over control of UOC land and buildings to the ROC[/url] and making life difficult for UOC religious and believers alike, but also because of the UOC's broad wish to move out of the ROC's orbit - a move the ROC is unhappy with.
Sensing this unhappiness, the UOC appealed for support to the wider Orthodox church and, over the last while, it's become increasingly apparent that the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, is willing to provide it. Deciding to jump before it's pushed, the ROC is now doing the religious equivalent of cutting diplomatic ties with the Patriarchate.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45529355
It's not known at this point, whether the ROC will continue the separation and become a fully independent church, but it's hard to see how the ROC could walk back on this split and equally hard to see why the Patriarchy would want them fully back in the first place.0 -
Advertisement
-
This guy gives the Russian orthodox view.
Its not clear how many in Ukraine are part of the schismatic movement, which itself is rooted in right wing nationalism. Probably 50% or so.
Also, the whole schism is based on the Ukrainian schismatic's desire for autocephaly, which is very slightly different to being an autonomous church within the ROC as they are now. It s perhaps similar to the oath of allegiance at the root of the Irish civil war in 1922 - a matter of less importance to Michael Collins who had fought the war of independence than it was to De Valera who had relocated to the USA during those tough times. These things mean everything to some people, and nothing to others.
In any case the guy in Istanbul sees it as a way of making himself relevant, by asserting some sort of historical authority. In reality though, the orthodox christian population in Turkey has shrunk to a tiny fraction of a %.
Somebody should tell him that Constantinople is now called Istanbul, and that he is the King of Nothing. His forbears failed to defend adequately against Islamic invasion. Then they watched powerlessly as their great cathedral, the Hagia Sophia, was converted into a mosque, and their people were gradually replaced. Centuries later, The Great Patriarch of Constantinople watched the Armenian Genocide when non-muslims were starved to death. And now this guy has the audacity to tell others what to do. He remains the titular head of the Orthodox church only as long as he keeps his head down and behaves himself, but it looks like those days have now come to an end.0 -
Is it necessary to be a Russophobe to be a modern Irish atheist?
Asking for a friend.0 -
Opposing Putin's kleptocracy is far from being a Russophobe.
Life ain't always empty.
0 -
[robindch, 21-11-2014 18:04] It's impossible to know where this will end up as the man who's running it all appears to be fully delusional [...] . All the Ukrainians I've spoken with over the last few weeks believe it's going to turn into full-blown Russian-Ukrainian war. And while I think that's unlikely, I do certainly feel it's more likely to get worse in the short term, than get better.
Surprise, surprise - my friends in Ukraine understood their neighbours better than I did.
Got a message from one of them last Sunday week - I'm finishing dinner with my own family, while he and his are sitting in a bomb shelter in Cherkassy, with explosions happening nearby.
3 -
Depressing seeing some of the absolute bilge posted on this topic by people who really really should have known better. I hope they now all feel suitably ashamed of themselves.
Life ain't always empty.
2 -
I hope they now all feel suitably ashamed of themselves.
So far as I'm aware, the vast majority of the Russian-speaking community here in Ireland - Russians, Ukrainians, eastern Europeans in general - are as horrified at PTN's actions as everybody else is, and uniformly and universally condemn them. I have seen RU friends of mine at the protests over the last two weeks and that number is likely to increase as conditions within RU deteriorate and PTN's war against RU citizens accelerates.
It is possible that a few still support PTN here in Ireland and my sincere wish for them is to take themselves and their idiot-level political opinions, say, to the huge bomb crater at the Maternity hospital in Mariupol, and stay there to consider the wisdom of their master's works.
0 -
Surely if there is a God who let this war start, why would praying to him now make him stop it?
If I was in Ukraine now, I wouldn't be wasting my time praying, I'd be getting out of there.
0 -
Some of God's Russian representatives have expressed concern at the ongoing slaughter, though not any in Russia (that I've found yet). The description of the religious-political background to PTN's invasion is accurate.
The support of many of the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate for President Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine is rooted in a form of Orthodox ethno-phyletist religious fundamentalism, totalitarian in character, called Русский Мир (Russkii mir, or the Russian world), a false teaching which is attracting many in the Orthodox Church and has even been taken up by the Far Right and Catholic and Protestant fundamentalists.
0 -
RIA Novosti is part of the Russia Today [RT] stable and yesterday published the following article which, in essence, advocates for the mass execution of the Ukrainian army including all reservists (which is basically, all males between 18 - 60), most of the media in Ukraine and much of the Ukrainian educational infrastructure. It also demands that the population are used as forced labour to rebuild the country which PTN's forces have destroyed and, in all senses, promotes total ideological control of the civilian population and the installation of warlords and kangaroo courts.
There's a lot more completely bonkers stuff in there and google-translate gives a good idea of exactly how far the Russian state has been enslaved and consumed by its own paranoia and propaganda. It also, by implication and no doubt unintentionally, points towards some possible futures for Russia itself.
2 -
Advertisement
-
A well-aimed drone strike would have made the world a better place.
Of course what's usually not reported is that this is not a Ukranian grain through the Black Sea deal, this is a Ukranian and RUSSIAN grain through the Black Sea deal.
Erdogan really is the lowest form of scum.
Life ain't always empty.
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnhooRbXc58
Advertisement