Your opinion on Ukraine

I found this video about a year ago. (It is more accurate than Winter on Fire that neglects the role of the far-right on the Maidan.)


I wasn't paying much attention when the events of the Euromaidan were going on. I was using Genesect, lol. But I looked at the Maidan and subsequent events, and I felt like that I was lied to by the Western media. The Western media portrayed the Maidan as "peaceful protests" but there was a radical contingent wielding chains and throwing Molotov cocktails. Moreover, the referendum in Crimea was popular since most of the citizens wanted to join the Russian Federation, especially when they are fearful of the fascist coup of February 2014 ousting the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych. I was surprised that many people in Eastern Ukraine liked the Soviet Union and want more Russian influence, but the Western media ignores them. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was picking the next Prime Minister in a phone conversation when she said "fuck the EU". There was emphasis on her language, but not the fact that she was interfering with the affairs in another country, suggesting candidates that are acceptable to the US (without regard for the EU).

Again, it turns out the truth is different from what the media is trying to portray. The Western Media prattles about "Russian aggression" and says "bad Putin, bad Putin".

I recognize Crimea as Russian territory. I support the people of Eastern Ukraine in their struggle against the Banderites and neo-nazis.
 
Last edited:

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

Putin still invaded a country that the US pledged to defend. The fact that we didn't defend them is mostly do to the feckless wonder we're ditching in a month. I'm also glad we didn't elect the self-serving corruptocrat that seemed dead set on starting a hot war over Syrian airspace.

Putin is by no stretch of the imagination a "good guy," Western media's portrayal is likely inaccurate but not totally wrong. I would hope however given the Islamists have it out for his people as well as ours, we can build a relationship where they start suppressing Iran, quit these too-cute-by-a-half takeovers, and develop better stability between the US and Russia. I don't think Putin has a burning passion to kill Americans like the Commies did in the Cold War. I do think his vision of "restoring Russia" is overly ambitious and his methods of achieving that goal unsuitable for global peace and stability.
 
I don't think Putin has much ambition, except to restore Russia after it was fucked up by Yeltsin, America's guy.

In Crimea and Syria, I regard Putin as a good guy. You should remember that Russia regards Islamism as a national security issue. For instance, they were willing to cooperate with the United States in the invasion of Afghanistan and were allied with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. Russia is interested in propping up Assad to maintain stability in the region. I don't think that Obama's hesitancy to attack Assad was due to vacillation or weakness, but he was genuinely concerned with fostering instability. He might have thought that the pressure from the "moderate rebels" would be enough to encourage Assad to resign, but Obama did not want to destroy the country.

While Russia was willing to cooperate with the US, the US brushed them off and wanted to encircle Russia by expanding Ukraine and putting up anti-ballistic missile defenses. NATO is the one that is fostering global instability and the aggressive party.

There was a referendum in Crimea, and its citizens voted to join the Russia Federation. That happened after there was an armed coup in Ukraine led by fascists and neo-Nazis in February 2014.

Iran is only defending itself. I have nothing bad to say about Iranian foreign policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcr

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I think Crimea is very much like Hong Kong. Theoretically it belonged to Ukraine, but polls have shown that the people on Crimea preferred Russian rule.
But that said, I wish they could just let the people on Crimea vote, instead of having a war.
 

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
Putin's aim is simply to ensure that Ukrainians buy Russia's natural gas, rather than Europe's. It is one of Russia's chief exports, and Ukrainians use a lot for cooking and heating. Losing that business to Europe would really hurt the Russian economy.
 
Putin's aim is simply to ensure that Ukrainians buy Russia's natural gas, rather than Europe's. It is one of Russia's chief exports, and Ukrainians use a lot for cooking and heating. Losing that business to Europe would really hurt the Russian economy.
I don't think it is entirely economic. Russian military planners are also threatened at the prospect of a missile defense system that could potentially engage warheads. Although engaging doesn't mean being able to intercept them, especially with all the countermeasures being deployed, but it means being able to fly into close proximity with the warheads, so they could potentially be destroyed.

If one is threatened by these systems, the answer would be to increase the number of deployed warheads, so you could have more warheads available so they could avoid interception and being destroyed in a pre-emptive strike.

In the 2011 study, the authors focused on what would be the main concern of cautious Russian military planners —the capability of the missile defense interceptors to simply reach, or “engage,” Russian strategic warheads—rather than whether any particular engagement results in an actual interception, or “kill.” Interceptors with a kinematic capability to simply reach Russian ICBM warheads would be sufficient to raise concerns in Russian national security circles – regardless of the possibility that Russian decoys and other countermeasures might defeat the system in actual engagements. In short, even a missile defense system that could be rendered ineffective could still elicit serious concern from cautious Russian planners. The last two phases of the EPAA – when the higher burnout velocity “Block II” SM-3 interceptors come on-line in 2018 – could raise legitimate concerns for Russian military analysts.
https://fas.org/pir-pubs/qa-session-on-recent-developments-in-u-s-and-nato-missile-defense/
 

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
I heartily disagree on the status of Crimea. The referendum was a great sham, the invasion highly illegal, and should have gotten Russia booted off the UN Security Council. It was against international law, Ukrainian law, Crimean local law, and even Russian law (6-FKZ, if I'm not mistaken - "Any additions of territory to the Russian Federation should be in accordance and cooperation with the government of the country from which territory is annexed").

This "referendum" was staged from beginning to end. Russian soldiers had occupied the Crimean rada (parliament building) in cooperation with a local thug (whose party had got 5 % approval in the previous election - he still serves as self-styled governor of Crimea), where voter cards of absent MPs were stolen to vote in favour of a referendum. All Ukrainian or pro-Ukrainian media - and most Internet access - was blocked on Crimea during the weeks leading up to the referendum, whereas billboards and all available radio and TV channels all blasted that nazis had seized power in Kiev. Campaigning against the annexation was seen as a sign of treason, and when the indigenous Crimean Tatars encouraged people to boycott it, their locales were raided by paramilitary police and their organization declared illegal.

Then the referendum itself. These were the two options voters were presented with: "Declare Crimea a part of Russia" or "Put Crimea's 1992 constitution back in place". The latter option could be interpreted as referring to a version of the constitution where Crimea was declared de facto independent, and where the Rada could decide whether to join a neighbouring country without the need for a referendum. In practise, both options would have justified the Kremlin's seizure of Crimea, and there was no option to remain part of Ukraine.

Anybody with a passport could participate in the referendum. That included Russian citizens, which again included the Russian soldiers who had participated in the invasion (without insignia, which is a war crime). In true Russian fashion, the "let's join Russia" crowd won 123 % of the vote in Sevastopol.

Let's not forget the constant Russian accusations that the new government in Ukraine was both fascist and dictatorial. Russian media rarely bothered to include the definitions of dictatorship or fascism in their articles, though, probably since you can't make a definition that wouldn't also describe Putin's government to a tee. Moreover, Ukraine's interim government was peacefully disbanded and powers transferred after a legit election, which hasn't happened ever in Russia's history save from when Yeltsin left office.

Ukraine does have problems with corruption and oligarchy, and reforms are happening too slowly, but conditions are improving. Considering that the country was outright invaded and economically crippled by its largest trading partner because Putin's lapdog was thrown out of office, they are doing fairly well. I have hopes that they will get the reforms through without much further trouble, and that Russia will face repercussions for decades to come. Putin should be sent to The Hague for life for this.
 
Ukraine does have problems with corruption and oligarchy, and reforms are happening too slowly, but conditions are improving. Considering that the country was outright invaded and economically crippled by its largest trading partner because Putin's lapdog was thrown out of office, they are doing fairly well. I have hopes that they will get the reforms through without much further trouble, and that Russia will face repercussions for decades to come. Putin should be sent to The Hague for life for this.
Putin in the Hague. That is an exaggeration. I think Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton deserve it more, or other US Presidents such as Reagan. There is no such thing as "Russian aggression", especially if things such as the invasion of Grenada and Iraq and the attack on Libya do not register as "American aggression". The annexation of Crimea is fairly mild compared to those events, and regardless of how the polls were set up, most people in Crimea now like being administered by Russia.

Yes, Ukraine is fascist, and I do not need RT to tell me that. Anti-Holodomor denial laws and banning Soviet symbols is fascist since the Soviets liberated Eastern Europe from the true fascists. Extolling Bandera and Shukhevych is fascist. Repressing the Russophilic and Soviet sympathetic Eastern Ukrainians instead of granting them federalism is fascist.

I am judging Ukraine, not Russia, especially concerning its conduct in other conflicts such as Chechnya. (If one wants to, the US also suppressed the Puerto Rican independence movements.)
 
What is your opinion regarding the fact that international investigators found that Russian-backed separatists shot down a passenger jet using a Russian missile launcher? Do you believe that this investigation was biased and that the results do not hold? Or do you find this event to not be indicative of any sort of aggression?

I'm not interested in hearing about other purported crimes or acts of aggression that have been (or purported to be) committed by other nations, I'm specifically interested in hearing how you reconcile your belief that there is "no such thing as Russian aggression" given that this event at the very least seems to suggest there is some sort of aggression occurring by a group that is being heavily supported by Russia.

I'm curious because you seem to regard Putin as a "good guy" but being complicit in shooting down a passenger jet / preventing an ongoing investigation from moving forward / providing misinformation regarding the event do not seem like "good guy" moves to me.

I also think it's interesting that you think that Nuland and Clinton deserve to be in the Hague versus Putin given the various human rights violations that have taken place in Russia (and continue to take place) under Putin's reign. Why exactly do you think Clinton/Nuland are that much worse than Putin?
 
What is your opinion regarding the fact that international investigators found that Russian-backed separatists shot down a passenger jet using a Russian missile launcher? Do you believe that this investigation was biased and that the results do not hold? Or do you find this event to not be indicative of any sort of aggression?

I'm not interested in hearing about other purported crimes or acts of aggression that have been (or purported to be) committed by other nations, I'm specifically interested in hearing how you reconcile your belief that there is "no such thing as Russian aggression" given that this event at the very least seems to suggest there is some sort of aggression occurring by a group that is being heavily supported by Russia.

I'm curious because you seem to regard Putin as a "good guy" but being complicit in shooting down a passenger jet / preventing an ongoing investigation from moving forward / providing misinformation regarding the event do not seem like "good guy" moves to me.

I also think it's interesting that you think that Nuland and Clinton deserve to be in the Hague versus Putin given the various human rights violations that have taken place in Russia (and continue to take place) under Putin's reign. Why exactly do you think Clinton/Nuland are that much worse than Putin?
I qualified my remark about there being no Russian aggression.

There is no such thing as "Russian aggression", especially if things such as the invasion of Grenada and Iraq and the attack on Libya do not register as "American aggression".
I never talk about the MH17. Some pro-Russians say that it was a false flag operation. It is more reasonable to say it was misidentification. The Ukrainians were also hesitant in investigating the Maidan snipers and the 2014 Odessa massacre. I never really looked at the evidence.

If Russia is committing aggression by supporting the separatists, then the US is also committing aggression by supporting the Moderate Rebels(TM) terrorists in Syria. Russia is not committing any more "aggression" than the US is, but the media is not calling US actions "aggression".

Nuland and Clinton were involved in a war of aggression and overthrowing governments. Putin and Lavrov are nothing to them in terms of criminality. Now aggressive intervention is sanctified with "Right to Protect" but I remember hearing Edward Herman (or Noam Chomsky say that after World War II, the most serious crime the Germans committed was not human rights violations, but disturbing the peace. Nuland and Clinton have disturbed the peace of the world more than anyone else since 2008-2016.

There are some reasons to distrust Putin, but the current antipathy towards Putin is irrational and hysterical. Such sentiments is probably meant to condition the US population into supporting some military action against Russia if there would be some escalation. I see Putin's influence in Ukraine better for the Eastern Ukrainians and Crimea and being subject to Western hegemony. I see Putin as being on the defensive, not as an aggressor, since he had to defend himself from the 2014 February coup.
---

If you want to take up the line that there is actual "Russian aggression", fine. But you have to concede a major point to Russian propaganda first. (I use "propaganda" in a general way, since a lot of political media is "propaganda". The few things that are not "propaganda" can be documentary evidence such as leaks that are not meant for public consumption such as the Pentagon Papers as in that case reveal the US' intentions of intervening in the Vietnam War.) The objective of it is not to convince one that Russia is some exemplar, but to show that critics of Russian foreign policy are just as self-interested and act under geopolitical realism as they purport Russia to be. There is a major line of truth to this strategy, since one would truly be naive if really believes that the West (especially the US) is really interested in "human rights" and "international law". Thus it is hypocritical to criticize Russia from a pro-West standpoint, especially without acknowledging similar transgressions from the US. The only remedy in my mind is a more isolationist foreign policy.

This Russian propaganda strategy is frustrating because removes the impunity that pro-Western people can criticize Russia and reduces the West's moral credibility. It works because it is based on history.
 
I see I made a mistake in using your definition of "aggression" so let me try once more.

I never talk about the MH17. Some pro-Russians say that it was a false flag operation. It is more reasonable to say it was misidentification. The Ukrainians were also hesitant in investigating the Maidan snipers and the 2014 Odessa massacre. I never really looked at the evidence.
Why do you need to resort to whataboutery when responding? I didn't ask about the Maidan snipers or the 2014 Odessa massacre and neither is relevant to my question. I asked you about MH17. Do you not accept the investigative report by the JIT that "confirmed the missile type which had downed the aircraft and said that the Buk missile system had been transported from Russia on the day of the crash, fired from a field in a rebel controlled area and returned to Russia after the Buk was used to shoot down MH17."? Do you find this investigation to be false, made up by the West and Ukraine in a deliberate attempt to make Russia look bad or something else?

Or do you not think that shooting down a passenger jet is an important event in all this? Maybe not, since Russia also doesn't seem to care themselves given that they vetoed the setting up of an international tribunal looking into the subject.

I'm sure it makes everyone involved feel better knowing the entire incident was just an accident. Maybe it truly is an unimportant event in the scheme of things, but I just find it sad that a perfectly avoidable tragedy occurred, a tragedy that no one wants to own up to because of geopolitics.

If Russia is committing aggression by supporting the separatists, then the US is also committing aggression by supporting the Moderate Rebels(TM) terrorists in Syria. Russia is not committing any more "aggression" than the US is, but the media is not calling US actions "aggression".
If your point is that the media is not calling US involvement in Syria as "aggression" then your point is noted and I don't necessarily disagree. This is where I made a mistake in using your term aggression. What I'm more interested in is what happens after we say "ok these are acts of aggression that probably should not be happening." Let's say that US is committing aggression in Syria (which also suggests that Russia is doing the same lol?) and that all the examples you gave before count as American aggression. Once all that has been established, what now? Would you not agree that those actions should not be undertaken and that they are wrong?

Nuland and Clinton were involved in a war of aggression and overthrowing governments. Putin and Lavrov are nothing to them in terms of criminality. Now aggressive intervention is sanctified with "Right to Protect" but I remember hearing Edward Herman (or Noam Chomsky say that after World War II, the most serious crime the Germans committed was not human rights violations, but disturbing the peace. Nuland and Clinton have disturbed the peace of the world more than anyone else since 2008-2016.
Interesting reasoning but I don't understand what your second sentence is suggesting since it seems to be taking a quote out of context? Like I'm not sure what part of that supposed quote is relevant to this. Are you claiming that it's acceptable to allow genocide to take place since it's a worse crime to destabilize the current government and start a war? Oppressing LGBT groups, severely limiting freedom of the press/protest, silencing your opposition cannot be criticized since it's not as bad as overthrowing governments? Please.

If I'm understanding you correctly then as long as Hitler was rounding up the Jews and gays and communists it would've been ok as long as he didn't invade anyone or messed up the peace right?

There are some reasons to distrust Putin, but the current antipathy towards Putin is irrational and hysterical. Such sentiments is probably meant to condition the US population into supporting some military action against Russia if there would be some escalation. I see Putin's influence in Ukraine better for the Eastern Ukrainians and Crimea and being subject to Western hegemony. I see Putin as being on the defensive, not as an aggressor, since he had to defend himself from the 2014 February coup.
Seems pretty conspiratorial to me but fair enough. I do think that the west/us should be attempting to work with Russia more. But I also think there are plenty of reasons to dislike Putin just as there are plenty of reasons to dislike US president-elect Donald Trump.

If you want to take up the line that there is actual "Russian aggression", fine. But you have to concede a major point to Russian propaganda first. (I use "propaganda" in a general way, since a lot of political media is "propaganda". The few things that are not "propaganda" can be documentary evidence such as leaks that are not meant for public consumption such as the Pentagon Papers as in that case reveal the US' intentions of intervening in the Vietnam War.) The objective of it is not to convince one that Russia is some exemplar, but to show that critics of Russian foreign policy are just as self-interested and act under geopolitical realism as they purport Russia to be. There is a major line of truth to this strategy, since one would truly be naive if really believes that the West (especially the US) is really interested in "human rights" and "international law". Thus it is hypocritical to criticize Russia from a pro-West standpoint, especially without acknowledging similar transgressions from the US. The only remedy in my mind is a more isolationist foreign policy.

This Russian propaganda strategy is frustrating because removes the impunity that pro-Western people can criticize Russia and reduces the West's moral credibility. It works because it is based on history.
Your conclusion is complete and utter nonsense. Hypocritical to criticize Russia from a pro-West standpoint? I didn't mention anything about the US or the West in my last post and even if I had it wouldn't be relevant. This is the problem I have with this post and honestly most of your opinions itt is that you have a need to resort to what essentially comes down to Soviet propaganda (which makes it funny that you mention "propaganda") and that is to pretend that legitimate criticism of Russian actions/Putin/whatever do not exist/are incorrect solely because it's hypocritical since it comes from the "West" which is apparently evil as well. The goal of Russian propaganda is to confuse issues and deny culpability for their actions. Many of your points seem to be that "it's okay because the US is worse/does the same." Why does that make it okay? If you want to talk about US aggression or the social problems that the US is having (that will probably be made worse by Trump) then make a thread about that. I interpret your entire argument as "it's hypocritical for the West to criticize Russia." Sorry but not only is that a fallacy but it's a distraction from not only the real issue in the world but in this thread, which is that this is a thread about Russia, not about the US/west.

Like if your point is that the "US/west/whatever media is equally as bad as Russia because they act like the West is transgression-free" like fair enough that's a legitimate criticism (and I think I'm being generous giving you that) but not a very helpful or interesting one lol? Maybe you feel it is important that people know about the media and its dishonesty etc. It probably is a pretty important topic just given domestic events such as the US election. But that said, we know a lot about the problems in the West (given that you know we are free to talk about them). And I think it's fair to say that some progress has been made and is being made. Obviously the west is not perfect, but there is no perfect moral nation and if you think that criticism is unfair unless it comes from an isolationist country or whatever then there is no point to this discussion because the nation you are referring to does not and will not exist.

And I'm not sure how isolationist foreign policy is supposed to work in a day and age in which the world is more connected then it ever has been. I'm not sure why you believe criticism is more valid when it comes from an isolationist country? Maybe because they would be more "objective" I guess? That line of thinking is illogical I think. If advice is only good when it comes from a perfectly moral person, then we would never listen to anyone and I think that's the huge flaw in most of your opinions. Regarding foreign policy, I think the exact opposite is needed. I think everyone involved needs to be more open and willing to compromise and change. Maybe that is too idealistic and too much to ask for in the present climate of things (looking at you Trump) but I think it's in everyone's interests when problems can be solved diplomatically with everyone's interests in mind. It might be easier to act hostile and create a wedge between ourselves, but I firmly believe that it will be much more beneficial for us all to work together. I think it will be important to do so in order to solve the problems we face in the future (short term: Islamic extremism, long term: things such as climate change). Unfortunately, it really does feel like things are going the opposite way which is sad and concerning (ex: erdogan).
 
I see I made a mistake in using your definition of "aggression" so let me try once more.



Why do you need to resort to whataboutery when responding? I didn't ask about the Maidan snipers or the 2014 Odessa massacre and neither is relevant to my question. I asked you about MH17. Do you not accept the investigative report by the JIT that "confirmed the missile type which had downed the aircraft and said that the Buk missile system had been transported from Russia on the day of the crash, fired from a field in a rebel controlled area and returned to Russia after the Buk was used to shoot down MH17."? Do you find this investigation to be false, made up by the West and Ukraine in a deliberate attempt to make Russia look bad or something else?

Or do you not think that shooting down a passenger jet is an important event in all this? Maybe not, since Russia also doesn't seem to care themselves given that they vetoed the setting up of an international tribunal looking into the subject.

I'm sure it makes everyone involved feel better knowing the entire incident was just an accident. Maybe it truly is an unimportant event in the scheme of things, but I just find it sad that a perfectly avoidable tragedy occurred, a tragedy that no one wants to own up to because of geopolitics.
Russia has its own interests, and this affects their decision not to support an investigation. I do not know what exactly their position is on MH17 is since I do not read or listen to RT that much. It seems the most reasonable explanation (requiring the fewest extraordinary assumptions) is that it was a case of misidentification from the pro-Russia separatists. It is not an act of malice on either side.

It is nothing extraordinary for Russia to deny culpability and refuse to apologize. I am not defending that. I am not using "tu quoque" here to indict the US in that instance, but I agree that it was a Buk missile system that shot down the plane (unless I found more compelling evidence against it), not a Ukranian fighter stalking the aircraft.

Putin and the military personnel he allowed to go to the separatists’ camps therefore have considerably indirect responsibility for this tragic mistaken shooting down of the MH17 because they encouraged and supported these trigger-happy separatists without apparently warning them sufficiently of the potential risks of their actions. Their actions resemble those of the Iranian, Iraqi and U.S. military in the Persian Gulf in 1987-1988, when small-scale attacks by Iraqi and Iranian forces on U.S. ships and aircraft increased tensions and made it more likely that the U.S. forces would fire first and ask questions afterwards when they feared a substantial attack.

[...]
Because the U.S. and Iran were on hostile terms ever since the hostage crisis of 1979-1981, and apparently also on the basis of an arrogant sense of nationalism, Vice President George H. W. Bush refused to “apologize” for the incident. The U.S. government has since refused to admit responsibility but paid substantial compensation to the victims’ families. Meanwhile, the Iranian government has repeatedly condemned the U.S. attack. The Iranian foreign minister told the UN Security Council that the attack “could not have been a mistake” and called it a “criminal act.” Several writers argue that the incident continues to inspire Iranian distrust of the U.S. - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/156434#sthash.ymJvdrZZ.dpuf


- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/156434#sthash.ymJvdrZZ.dpuf
On the other hand, the mainstream narrative of the Euromaidan movement is wrong. It seems that the Western media wanted to portray them as "peaceful protesters" but they downplayed the rioters and the far-right on the Maidan. They also downplayed the fact that about half of Ukraine opposed the Euromaidan.


If your point is that the media is not calling US involvement in Syria as "aggression" then your point is noted and I don't necessarily disagree. This is where I made a mistake in using your term aggression. What I'm more interested in is what happens after we say "ok these are acts of aggression that probably should not be happening." Let's say that US is committing aggression in Syria (which also suggests that Russia is doing the same lol?) and that all the examples you gave before count as American aggression. Once all that has been established, what now? Would you not agree that those actions should not be undertaken and that they are wrong?
Fair enough. US (and perhaps more importantly Gulf State) involvement and support for the opposition is what precipitated Russian intervention. I regard Assad as the legitimate President of Syria. Putin did not initiate a war of aggression and was never involved in regime change in Syria.

My response was appropriate when it concerns the question of who is most deserving to go on trial in the Hague. It most certainly isn't Putin, and other people are more deserving. The suggestion that Putin should be imprisoned for life implies that he is uniquely odious stateman. Much of the "whataboutism" (which is a propaganda term coined by the pro-West writer Edward Lucas) concerns the suggestion that Putin deserves to be imprisoned for life while ignoring the transgression of other officials.

Interesting reasoning but I don't understand what your second sentence is suggesting since it seems to be taking a quote out of context? Like I'm not sure what part of that supposed quote is relevant to this. Are you claiming that it's acceptable to allow genocide to take place since it's a worse crime to destabilize the current government and start a war? Oppressing LGBT groups, severely limiting freedom of the press/protest, silencing your opposition cannot be criticized since it's not as bad as overthrowing governments? Please.
You are correct to highlight and criticize Putin's domestic policy, and Putin deserves some opprobrium there. My points specifically applied to foreign policy.


If I'm understanding you correctly then as long as Hitler was rounding up the Jews and gays and communists it would've been ok as long as he didn't invade anyone or messed up the peace right?
I didn't say it was ok. I just said that the most serious crime was wars of aggression not war crimes in Nuremburg. See 1:40 - 2:40 here.

Responsibility to Protect can be abused to use from humanitarian pretext as a justification for foreign intervention.


Your conclusion is complete and utter nonsense. Hypocritical to criticize Russia from a pro-West standpoint? I didn't mention anything about the US or the West in my last post and even if I had it wouldn't be relevant. This is the problem I have with this post and honestly most of your opinions itt is that you have a need to resort to what essentially comes down to Soviet propaganda (which makes it funny that you mention "propaganda") and that is to pretend that legitimate criticism of Russian actions/Putin/whatever do not exist/are incorrect solely because it's hypocritical since it comes from the "West" which is apparently evil as well. The goal of Russian propaganda is to confuse issues and deny culpability for their actions. Many of your points seem to be that "it's okay because the US is worse/does the same." Why does that make it okay? If you want to talk about US aggression or the social problems that the US is having (that will probably be made worse by Trump) then make a thread about that. I interpret your entire argument as "it's hypocritical for the West to criticize Russia." Sorry but not only is that a fallacy but it's a distraction from not only the real issue in the world but in this thread, which is that this is a thread about Russia, not about the US/west.

Like if your point is that the "US/west/whatever media is equally as bad as Russia because they act like the West is transgression-free" like fair enough that's a legitimate criticism (and I think I'm being generous giving you that) but not a very helpful or interesting one lol? Maybe you feel it is important that people know about the media and its dishonesty etc. It probably is a pretty important topic just given domestic events such as the US election. But that said, we know a lot about the problems in the West (given that you know we are free to talk about them). And I think it's fair to say that some progress has been made and is being made. Obviously the west is not perfect, but there is no perfect moral nation and if you think that criticism is unfair unless it comes from an isolationist country or whatever then there is no point to this discussion because the nation you are referring to does not and will not exist.

And I'm not sure how isolationist foreign policy is supposed to work in a day and age in which the world is more connected then it ever has been. I'm not sure why you believe criticism is more valid when it comes from an isolationist country? Maybe because they would be more "objective" I guess? That line of thinking is illogical I think. If advice is only good when it comes from a perfectly moral person, then we would never listen to anyone and I think that's the huge flaw in most of your opinions. Regarding foreign policy, I think the exact opposite is needed. I think everyone involved needs to be more open and willing to compromise and change. Maybe that is too idealistic and too much to ask for in the present climate of things (looking at you Trump) but I think it's in everyone's interests when problems can be solved diplomatically with everyone's interests in mind. It might be easier to act hostile and create a wedge between ourselves, but I firmly believe that it will be much more beneficial for us all to work together. I think it will be important to do so in order to solve the problems we face in the future (short term: Islamic extremism, long term: things such as climate change). Unfortunately, it really does feel like things are going the opposite way which is sad and concerning (ex: erdogan).
From a modern perspective, Putin is relatively benign, and he is operating in a world under Western hegemony and he has to defend his national interests.

I specifically evaded things such as the Chechnyian Wars due to lack of knowledge and relevance. But what I do know is that Putin's annexation of Crimea was justified (irrespective of what prior US foreign policy was) since there was a brutal coup against a democratically elected government, and the citizens of Crimea were genuinely fearful of the new Ukrainian government. Even after the referendum, most people in Crimea liked being under Russian administration. If if there was a transgression in the annexation of Crimea, it is fairly minor peccadillo compared to what the US has done. It was certainly not an imperialist action, (although Russia could be described as imperialist) since the people of Crimea approved of it and it was not imposed on them against their will.

I am naturally skeptical of Western intervention in wars, since I do not see it have a positive effect but tends to lead to blowback elsewhere. Isolation is the best prescription to prevent more damage. I find this interesting to admit, but I would have to say that the most salutary Western intervention (in terms of its consequences) was the Falklands War, since it lead to the fall of a dictatorship and restoration of democratic rule. But the debacle of the Falkland invasion destroyed the credibility of the Argentine junta, even though it was not the intention of the British for regime change.

Yes, you could criticize Putin for his domestic policy; I frown at some of the restrictions of civil liberties. But I see no transgression in the annexation of Crimea and intervention in Syria. I see most of his foreign policy as defensive and reactive.
 
I don't think we have much more to discuss, and I'm not sure there's much more discussion to be had in this thread given that you didn't really respond to Codraroll's post which brought up some interesting points. I feel this way mainly because most of the points you are attempting to make hinge upon pointing to examples that showcase the supposed hypocrisy of the other side/the west/us etc even after I asked you to avoid that. If you claim to not be using "tu quoque," what is the purpose of repeatedly bringing up events that should be irrelevant to this discussion if it is not because the majority of your points rely on it? Your final conclusion on Russia's actions in the Crimea is that "it is a fairly minor peccadillo compared to what the US has done." I'm glad that justifies things to you in your mind. You know, at least the US's actions have been fairly minor compared to the imperialist Spanish who wiped out the indigenous peoples of South America. Come on man.

I understand your position on Ukraine is that "half of Ukraine" is pro-Russia anti-Europe or w/e and that they want to be a part of Russia but you didn't respond to Codraroll's post the pointed out some of the concerns regarding the legitimacy of the referendum. His points seem to suggest that there is good reason to question the legitimacy of that result. You have yet to respond to that, which is interesting, given that it's more relevant to this thread than whether Putin or Clinton should be thrown in jail. Really I think that's the crux of all this, as from my view I have no idea what the people of Ukraine and Crimea feel. I'm neither convinced by western media nor am I convinced by your reassurances that "the citizens of Crimea were genuinely fearful of the new Ukrainian government." I haven't heard any convincing reason that should lead me to believe that you speak for the Ukrainian people.

That's really all I have to say about that. Thanks for providing an interesting perspective for the most part though

I didn't say it was ok. I just said that the most serious crime was wars of aggression not war crimes in Nuremburg. See 1:40 - 2:40 here.

Responsibility to Protect can be abused to use from humanitarian pretext as a justification for foreign intervention.
I have no doubt humanitarians pretexts are used as justification for foreign intervention. I have no doubt the term "genocide" is used provocatively and used to advance certain agendas. the problem I have with your position is that you seem to have taken the example of Nazi Germany and automatically equated it to the position that "foreign intervention is worse than crimes against humanity." Not only does this position seem to be incorrect from a moral standpoint (germany invading countries that were definitely not defenseless is according to you worse than systematically rounding up and murdering a group of people for no reason other than their status. I mean it's your opinion), but it misses the context of WW2 vs. the foreign interventions of modern times IMO and the many differences between Nazi Germany and countries/groups that have been found to have committed genocide.

IDK when it comes down to it your Putin/Russia vs. Clinton/West comes down to Putin is justified in his actions but everyone is not. And even if Putin is justified the west does it so it's okay. In the end that's my understanding of your position and it's a position that no one can argue against (which has become evident in our exchange).

Personally, I think it's kind of sad that you think the innocent slaughter of defenseless persons for no reason is less of a crime than a war of aggression but that's your opinion of course and I can see how it shapes your response on the Putin/Clinton thing even if I disagree.
 
I don't think we have much more to discuss, and I'm not sure there's much more discussion to be had in this thread given that you didn't really respond to Codraroll's post which brought up some interesting points. I feel this way mainly because most of the points you are attempting to make hinge upon pointing to examples that showcase the supposed hypocrisy of the other side/the west/us etc even after I asked you to avoid that. If you claim to not be using "tu quoque," what is the purpose of repeatedly bringing up events that should be irrelevant to this discussion if it is not because the majority of your points rely on it? Your final conclusion on Russia's actions in the Crimea is that "it is a fairly minor peccadillo compared to what the US has done." I'm glad that justifies things to you in your mind. You know, at least the US's actions have been fairly minor compared to the imperialist Spanish who wiped out the indigenous peoples of South America. Come on man.

I understand your position on Ukraine is that "half of Ukraine" is pro-Russia anti-Europe or w/e and that they want to be a part of Russia but you didn't respond to Codraroll's post the pointed out some of the concerns regarding the legitimacy of the referendum. His points seem to suggest that there is good reason to question the legitimacy of that result. You have yet to respond to that, which is interesting, given that it's more relevant to this thread than whether Putin or Clinton should be thrown in jail. Really I think that's the crux of all this, as from my view I have no idea what the people of Ukraine and Crimea feel. I'm neither convinced by western media nor am I convinced by your reassurances that "the citizens of Crimea were genuinely fearful of the new Ukrainian government." I haven't heard any convincing reason that should lead me to believe that you speak for the Ukrainian people.

That's really all I have to say about that. Thanks for providing an interesting perspective for the most part though
Codraroll stated that Putin should be put away in the Hague for life. I focused on that. Even if I (inadequately) addressed his criticism on the referendum, it would still ludicrous to suggest that Putin should be put away for life for the reunification of Crimea with Russia. As he said, there would be repercussions for decades to come. The same could be said for the bombing of Libya. If Putin should be put away in the Hague for life, then a fortiori Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland also should be put in the Hague for life. Putin did not instigate violent regime change in Ukraine.

The event that justified the referendum (from my perspective) was the violent overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych who fled Ukraine out of fear of his life. Maybe he did not want to fight or commit suicide in the Presidential Palace as what happened on September 11th. His overthrow was illegal and unconstitutional. After seeing the violence and extremism in Kyiv, the Crimeans would also be afraid.


Here are some videos showing the reactions of the people of Crimea to the referendum.

Here and here (24:00 look at the reaction at the results of the referendum) and here (4:00 Russians are receiving health insurance)

After the tragedy of the Maidan, the people of Crimea have something to be joyful about.

Personally, I think it's kind of sad that you think the innocent slaughter of defenseless persons for no reason is less of a crime than a war of aggression but that's your opinion of course and I can see how it shapes your response on the Putin/Clinton thing even if I disagree.
It depends on whether there is the intentional slaughter of citizens, rather than collateral damage in some surgical strikes.

I never put a position on this. I just quoted Edward Herman who said that the greatest crime in Nuremberg Trials was "crimes against the peace" not war crimes.
 
It's ironic that your analysis of the "truth" of the situation is as biased and lacks as much nuance as the supposed Western media you are decrying.

My personal hope is that the situation in Ukraine is solved peacefully and that the country gets rid of the corruption that plagues it. I hope that the US and Russia can put aside differences and move towards normalizing relations. But it's difficult to see that happening. One-sided perspectives, both offered by the western media and people such as yourself do not help and it's really too bad.

I never put a position on this. I just quoted Edward Herman who said that the greatest crime in Nuremberg Trials was "crimes against the peace" not war crimes.
An opinion you have used to defend your position that Clinton/Nuland are worse than Putin so surely you must agree with it to some extent. You told me that Edward Herman said that human rights violations are less of a crime then committing a war of aggression. If you have no position on this then why are you using his opinion to justify your position on Clinton/Nuland? Please do some thinking for yourself and decide whether or not "(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated." is less of a crime compared to "(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;." Definitions taken from the Nuremberg charter.

I know this isn't relevant to the thread and your initial point wasn't especially relevant given that Germany wasn't invading Poland or Russia for humanitarian purposes but I find it a little disturbing that you don't seem all that bothered about the implications of such an opinion. I mean I actually think it's a real shame the Ed has decide to wade into the arena of genocide denial. He has some interesting points regarding the politicization of the term "genocide" but his stances that arguably border genocide denial (and again that's probably being quite lenient) make it difficult for me to take him and you seriously.
 
It's ironic that your analysis of the "truth" of the situation is as biased and lacks as much nuance as the supposed Western media you are decrying.

My personal hope is that the situation in Ukraine is solved peacefully and that the country gets rid of the corruption that plagues it. I hope that the US and Russia can put aside differences and move towards normalizing relations. But it's difficult to see that happening. One-sided perspectives, both offered by the western media and people such as yourself do not help and it's really too bad.
It definitely is biased. But footage of the violence on the Maidan and direct interviews of the people of Crimea support the views that the Maidan was a violent coup led by extremists and the people of Crimea wanted to join Russia. In the case of the latter, the reunification of Crimea with Russia is not a particularly heinous action by Putin that did not involve outright invasion and subjugation.

The latter, such as the violence committed by "Maidan activists" and the actual views of citizens of Crimea are not expressed in the Western media. People throwing Molotov cocktails. using chains against the riot police, and storming buildings are not "peaceful protesters".


As a for a solution, I would find this quite satisfactory: disarmament of the separatists; increased autonomy for the oblast of Ukraine and an end of to hostilities; repeal of the Holodomor denial laws, ban of communist symbols, and the Communist Party of Ukraine; stopping the official glorification of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Organization of Ukrainian Nationists, Stepan Bandera, and Roman Shukhevych; release of all the political prisoners in Ukraine, military neutrality for Ukraine, forbidding it from joining any military alliance, including NATO. The citizens of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea certainly do not want to be subjugated by pro-West and fascist sympathetic government.

An opinion you have used to defend your position that Clinton/Nuland are worse than Putin so surely you must agree with it to some extent. You told me that Edward Herman said that human rights violations are less of a crime then committing a war of aggression. If you have no position on this then why are you using his opinion to justify your position on Clinton/Nuland? Please do some thinking for yourself and decide whether or not "(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated." is less of a crime compared to "(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;." Definitions taken from the Nuremberg charter.
Herman's position is a historical position concerning how Nazi transgressions were regarded, not a moral position. I did not take a moral position, except to oppose the notion that Putin should be imprisoned for life. I cited it because I thought it was interesting. I also never accused anyone of crimes against humanity here.

I think Clinton's actions in Libya meet your cited definition, but now it is sanctified with the "responsibility to protect" doctrine. Putin's actions in Crimea and Syria do not.
I know this isn't relevant to the thread and your initial point wasn't especially relevant given that Germany wasn't invading Poland or Russia for humanitarian purposes but I find it a little disturbing that you don't seem all that bothered about the implications of such an opinion. I mean I actually think it's a real shame the Ed has decide to wade into the arena of genocide denial. He has some interesting points regarding the politicization of the term "genocide" but his stances that arguably border genocide denial (and again that's probably being quite lenient) make it difficult for me to take him and you seriously.
Are you talking about Herman's views on Rwanda?

And, for what is worth, this video from Allan Stam (from the University of Michigan) is quite informative and takes a somewhat unorthodox, but less extreme view than Herman and Peterson.
 

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
The event that justified the referendum (from my perspective) was the violent overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych who fled Ukraine out of fear of his life. Maybe he did not want to fight or commit suicide in the Presidential Palace as what happened on September 11th. His overthrow was illegal and unconstitutional.
That last sentence is... troublesome. I'm going as far as saying you're technically correct, but not quite.

According to the 2004 Ukrainian constitution, the process of overthrowing Yanukovych was completely by the book. The lawfully elected parliament gathered, voted to remove the president from office, and declared his reign to be over, just as dictated by the letter of that law.

However, Yanukovych himself had the constitution amended in 2010, that gave the presidential office broader powers and made it harder to remove the president from office (among other things requiring a lot more votes in parliament to suspend his powers). This amendment was highly controversial, the Constitutional Court that signed the amendment had four members swapped on very short notice before it was voted on, apparently because of "executive pressure".

As pressure on Yanukovych was mounting during the autumn and winter of 2013, he agreed to have the 2010 amendment repelled. The Ukrainian parliament voted to repel the 2010 amendment on February 21, 2014. However, for the 2004 constitution to be in effect again, the president's signature was required. Said president was hightailing it to Russia at that exact moment, however, and was unavailable for putting his signature to the law.

February 22, Viktor Yanukovych was removed from office according to the procedure of the 2004 constitution of Ukraine. Again, this was technically illegal, since the president's signature was missing from the law that had reinstated the 2004 constitution the day before, so technically the 2010 amendments were still in place, stipulating that the president could not be removed this way. In short, the only thing making Yanukovych's removal illegitimate, was the lack of Yanukovych's own signature.

It belongs to the story that the interim government called for a new election to replace Yanukovych, which went by the book in all "available" regions of the country (the Russian-invaded parts refused to host the election), and the interim government stepped down and transferred power peacefully to the next president. Hardly a violent overthrow, if you ask me.


It's interesting that you mention the presidential palace, because Yanukovych had taken it upon himself to erect a new one for himself, for taxpayer money, costing hundreds of times more than what the presidential salary should have been able to pay for (in fact, he'd have to save up all his wages for two years to be able to afford one of the specially-imported oak doors that were used all over the building). It is no stretch of the imagination to label him a kleptocrat. He had also been a vocal critic of the laws that limited the president's powers, as exemplified by the 2010 amendments to the constitution he forced through. He had also done a last-minute heel-face turn on Ukraine's association agreement with the EU (this was what had initiated the 2013 protests against him in the first place), instead embracing Putin's "Eurasian Union" just before the association agreement was supposed to be signed. And he had brokered a gas deal with Russia that would have been very profitable for both Russia and a few Ukrainian officials, but otherwise a terribly poor deal for Ukraine. And, perhaps only symbolically, but it did not help the mounting frustration of pro-EU interests in Ukraine, he wanted Russian to have equal status as Ukrainian as an official language.

All in all, Yanukovych was Putin's loyal lap dog, and would probably have gone in the direction of Turkey's Erdogan had he not been removed from office. When the Kremlin realized they had lost their hand on the Ukrainian steering wheel, they quickly invaded Crimea to secure their interests there, and after a quick success, bit over more than they could chew when attempting to repeat the stunt in all of eastern Ukraine. This is way more illegal than the overthrow of Yanukovych ever was.
 
It belongs to the story that the interim government called for a new election to replace Yanukovych, which went by the book in all "available" regions of the country (the Russian-invaded parts refused to host the election), and the interim government stepped down and transferred power peacefully to the next president. Hardly a violent overthrow, if you ask me.
There were armed men who seized government buildings and "activists" attacking riot police! There were threats that if Yanukovych didn't resign they would seize power violently. Many rioters trained with Chechen militants (33:55 from the OP video) and someone was firing armor piercing bullets at government vehicles (27:40). The sanitized perception of the Maidan is certainly wrong.
Yanukovych feared for his life and feels indebted to Putin because Putin aided him in getting out of Ukraine.

It's interesting that you mention the presidential palace, because Yanukovych had taken it upon himself to erect a new one for himself, for taxpayer money, costing hundreds of times more than what the presidential salary should have been able to pay for (in fact, he'd have to save up all his wages for two years to be able to afford one of the specially-imported oak doors that were used all over the building). It is no stretch of the imagination to label him a kleptocrat. He had also been a vocal critic of the laws that limited the president's powers, as exemplified by the 2010 amendments to the constitution he forced through. He had also done a last-minute heel-face turn on Ukraine's association agreement with the EU (this was what had initiated the 2013 protests against him in the first place), instead embracing Putin's "Eurasian Union" just before the association agreement was supposed to be signed. And he had brokered a gas deal with Russia that would have been very profitable for both Russia and a few Ukrainian officials, but otherwise a terribly poor deal for Ukraine. And, perhaps only symbolically, but it did not help the mounting frustration of pro-EU interests in Ukraine, he wanted Russian to have equal status as Ukrainian as an official language.
Yes, I am well aware of Yanukovych's opulent residence. I did realize that one could have brought up his lifestyle, but it was worth it to make a reference to a Presidential Palace and September 11th.

I really did not know Yanukovych embezzled tax-payer dollars to fund the palace; I thought he used his own wealth. Of course, that wealth was stolen from the Ukrainian people, since Yanukovych was an oligarch and he got Ukraine's assets at fire-sale prices, but many other wealthy Ukrainians were like that too, such as Yulia Tymoshenko.

All in all, Yanukovych was Putin's loyal lap dog, and would probably have gone in the direction of Turkey's Erdogan had he not been removed from office. When the Kremlin realized they had lost their hand on the Ukrainian steering wheel, they quickly invaded Crimea to secure their interests there, and after a quick success, bit over more than they could chew when attempting to repeat the stunt in all of eastern Ukraine. This is way more illegal than the overthrow of Yanukovych ever was.
I am going to say that the reunification of Crimea with Russia was much less violent than the Maidan (because there almost no violence because the local self-defense forces kept Western Ukrainians and Pravy Sektor out), and most of the Crimeans welcomed it.

Maybe Yanukovych will be a "dictator" like Paul Kagame who is tolerated around the world (or at least those allied with him) because he brings some order.
 
Last edited:
I found the website "Russia without BS". He does say certain things, and he is critical of the Russian annexation of Crimea and speaks of "Russian imperialism" (as it is hard to deny it exists). However, he does not use "Russian imperialism" merely to deflect things away from the Western geopolitical positions, since he is also critical of Ukrainian nationalism.

As for me, I support a more federalized Ukraine, and that Crimea should return to Ukraine only if Ukraine gives the Crimeans (and Eastern Ukrainians) significant concessions, for example.


As a for a solution, I would find this quite satisfactory: disarmament of the separatists; increased autonomy for the oblast of Ukraine and an end of to hostilities; repeal of the Holodomor denial laws, ban of communist symbols, and the Communist Party of Ukraine; stopping the official glorification of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, Stepan Bandera, and Roman Shukhevych; release of all the political prisoners in Ukraine, military neutrality for Ukraine, forbidding it from joining any military alliance, including NATO. [I would append this to include that the government should not demonize the Soviet Union in general, but it could criticize events such as the Yezhovschina and the famine of 1932-33, but not call it a "Holodomor" or a "genocide" to prevent offending Eastern Ukraine].

I will not offer any condemnation for Russia's actions in Crimea or Eastern Ukraine because I see the situation in Crimea much more preferable than Crimeans being subject to a pro-West, both geopolitically and socially, Ukrainian government that was installed due to a Western-backed armed coup. That is where I differ with the author of "Russia without BS".


One thing you need to understand about Eastern Europe, and particularly Russia and the Former Soviet Union, is that fascism isn’t really about ideology. It’s not a set of beliefs about the state, society, etc. Fascists are people opposed to you or “your” country. That is all. This is why you have Russians spouting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and who talk about the superiority of the “white race”(of which they weren’t considered a part for most of the concept’s existence) and yet still demand international solidarity for their “struggle against fascism.” This is why Ukrainian liberals can defend their own nationalists while screaming about the same behavior among the Donbass militias. It’s why Russian “leftists” can ignore cossacks with White Guard insignia who openly speak of creating a Russian, Orthodox empire, while jumping on a story like this about a Swedish skinhead fighting for the Ukrainian government. Both sides adhere to a primitive, moronic worldview which tells them that only the fascist associations of their opponents matter, and that this somehow negates or cancels out their own. If a Ukrainian can show us that a particular volunteer in Eastern Ukraine has an SS tattoo, this somehow invalidates the hundreds if not thousands of photos showing Ukrainian nationalists. Yes, they actually think that way, and they are the same.


I cannot stress that last point enough. Some people, even those with experience in Russia, foolishly buy into the notion that most Maidan supporters are actually more liberal, tolerant, and intelligent than the Russians who support separatism and who are currently railing against the Maidan movement. Nothing is further from the truth. These people are the same in terms of mentality and their complete lack of capacity for critical thinking. Their mind can only conceive of political struggle as a sort of football match between their national team and a rival’s team. This may be occasionally peppered with meaningless bullshit jargon like “civil society” and other buzzwords gleaned from various NGOs. But make no mistake, the politically savvy, tolerant, liberal, intellectual Kievian hipster is a myth made up for Western consumption. What these people say when they don’t think anyone is watching totally destroys that image. In reality, these people are no different from the “Novorossiya” imperialists across the border in Russia.

Both Maidan fanatics and Russian imperialists are more than happy to lie to outside observers in a sociopathic manner, pissing on your leg while telling you it’s raining. That’s why the Social National Assembly’s leader told the BBC reporter that it’s not a neo-Nazi organization. He was not at all concerned that the reporter could easily check the claim via the internet, because in Ukraine as in Russia, saying things makes them true, even if you don’t believe what you’re saying. In recent times I’ve seen dozens of Russian “Communists” and anti-government Ukrainian “leftists” pull the exact same thing every time I showed them indisputable evidence of fascist, imperialist, and pro-capitalist behavior on the part of the “governments” of the unrecognized republics in the Donbass.


[...]

Alright enough of that. I just wanted to highlight something the BBC reporter felt compelled to include in his article.

Ukraine is a democratic state, which held a democratic election in May, where the far right and nationalist parties got hardly any votes. These views are not popular with the electorate.
This line of bullshit has been peddled by Maidan apologists since the elections in May, as if the loss of Crimea and an uprising in the East had nothing to do with the way people voted. Some have even taken results of the European elections, in which European nationalist parties apparently made significant gains, to support the equally idiotic claim that Europe is more right-wing than Ukraine. Really? Remind me what Maidan was about again? Oh right- joining Europe.

Aside from those obvious logical problems, whether or not Ukraine is a “democratic” state is irrelevant here. Yanukovych was a democratically elected president. He got overthrown, largely thanks to the actions of those totally unpopular nationalist thugs. That means that if these nationalists should grow tired of Ukraine’s “democratic” regime, they have every reason to believe that they can easily replace that government via force, and Tim Snyder’s Diverse Rainbow Coalition of peaceful protesters can’t do shit about it. History proves again and again that small, organized groups willing to fight can decide major political matters in spite of their size. [Which is what happened in the Maidan.]


[...]

These are ideas which have permeated Ukrainian politics for quite some time and to date I have seen no attempt by Maidan supporters to sever their movement from their nationalist fellow travelers who hold the same ideas. The only time Maidan supporters even make this attempt is when they get caught red-handed and it’s politically inconvenient, in which case the conversation quickly turns to whataboutism and the “Russo-Ukrainian Fascist Negation Principle,” whereby pointing out fascists in Russia literally makes Ukrainian fascists cease to exist. With Maidan-linked parties fully in control of most of Ukraine, especially since the Russian imperialists seem happy to cede everything West of the Dnieper to them, they will control the means to disseminate information and subsequent generations of Ukrainian youth will be inundated with the mythology. Government failures can always be blamed on Russia, and Russia seems happy to play the part.

Getting back to the subject of the mythology, Maidan supporters, so vehemently anti-socialist despite the fact that socialism is the very thing Ukraine needs, constantly insist that Ukraine will somehow succeed if only it somehow manages to totally free itself from its Soviet past. Well not all of its Soviet past of course. They still want the Crimea, the former Novorossiya territory, and I’m sure they don’t want Galicia going back to Poland. I’m sure they also want the road networks, the mines, the schools, the hospitals, and all those things. But aside from all that, Ukraine must emerge from the past and leave that old, backward Soviet legacy in the dustbin of history! And it will do this by fanatically embracing early 20th century nationalism and symbols of a traditional peasantry which lived in near-medieval conditions until lifted out of that poverty by… Uh…er…um…GOD! Yes, it was a miracle!

[Russia Without BS shows a picture of the Dnieperpro dam]

[...]


It’s very hard to explain how this Ukrainian nationalism works to Americans, but the best example I can think of is the Tea Party. Do you get offended when you hear a Tea Party speaker referring to their movement as “real Americans?” Do you get angry that you might not be considered a “real” American because you don’t support the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation, that abortion should be illegal or highly restricted, that marriage should be legally defined as being between one man and one woman, or simply because you don’t worship the military, bald eagles, NASCAR, or the NFL? Well you see that’s what it’s like being a Ukrainian who doesn’t buy into the national myth of Ukraine. I and others have said it before; this isn’t so much of a struggle between Russians and Ukrainians as it is between groups of Ukrainians who disagree on what Ukraine should be. Many Ukrainians speak Ukrainian and prefer to live in Ukraine if not a European Union affiliated Ukraine. But what they don’t want is to be told that grandpa was wounded twice fighting for an illegal occupation while collaborators who participated in brutal mass killings and ethnic cleansing are Ukraine’s heroes. They don’t want their kids hearing these things in school. You could often hear this sentiment expressed by people in the Crimea prior to annexation or in the Donbass. But the thing about Maidan is that you can’t object to this and still support independent Ukraine, oppose Yanukovych, etc. If you don’t buy into the myths, you’re a Russian, you’re a “vatnik.”
https://nobsrussia.com/2014/07/17/yes-this-is-still-a-thing/

Emphasis mine. Essentially the Maidan is not solely a protest against Yanukovych's corruption, but it also includes an affirmation of Ukrainian nationalism.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top