Language, Culture, and Other Issues

[msmob]

Read again what I wrote -

I read what you wrote .. and my riposte was entirely valid - in that my example ( Spain) demonstrated your telling us 'Ukraine isn't a 'civil war' was a howler..

Q: Were / are  folks from Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea Ukrainian ?

A: Thank you ..

[Anotherkiwi]

I read what you wrote .. and my riposte was entirely valid - in that my example ( Spain) demonstrated your telling us 'Ukraine isn't a 'civil war' was a howler..

Q: Were / are  folks from Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea Ukrainian ?

A: Thank you ..

Moby, stop being dense!  Crimea was invaded by Russian troops, as you well know, who set up a puppet "government" at the point of many guns, and then conducted a farcical referendum whose results are recognized only by Russia.  The fact that the result may actually have reflected the majority view of the people is irrelevant - it was illegal, didn't even offer the status quo as an option, and was conducted with Russian troops at polling places ostentatiously waving their guns around.  As far as I can tell, hardly any (if any at all) of the comparatively little fighting in Crimea has involved Ukrainian versus Ukrainian.

The conflict/insurrection/war in eastern Ukraine started only after Russian "agents" (for want of a better term) were inserted into positions of power in the Donbas, and used those positions to start attacking others.  Girkin has been quoted many times ON THIS FORUM as boasting that he himself was responsible for the start of the war so, in that sense, it is most definitely NOT a civil war as such.  Had (for example) a fully Ukrainian faction from Lugansk attacked Mariupol, then I would agree that the elements necessary to call this a "civil" war would exist.  That didn't happen.

The points that I made about the Spanish Civil War are still valid, whether you wish to believe them or not.  All foreign involvement came AFTER it started - not before, or as a casus belli.

[papakota]

I think you're totally missing the point. Maidan in 2013 wasn't about Crimea or Donbass, nor it was about erecting monuments to Nazi collaborators like OUN/UPA. Maidan was about fighting corruption and joining EU. So what do we have 3 years later? Transparency International has a level of corruption table. Russia is on 119th place and Ukraine is on 130th. 3 years past "The revolution of dignity" "free" Ukraine is more corrupt than Putin's Russia.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

As per joining EU, Ukrainians live in the middle of Europe and need a visa even to VISIT European countries and the only countries that they can visit visa free in Europe are Putin's Russia and Lukashenko's Belarus. I'm a citizen of non-European country and can visit any country in Europe visa-free, from Portugal to Belarus. But my country of citizenship around 30th place in that list. Even citizens of Moldova can go to Schengen countries visa-free. The only "achievements" of Maidan so far are a lost of Crimea, a conflict with Russia and hryvnia being 3 times lighter than in Yanukovitch's times. With such a "revolution" I start to think that maybe Ukraine under Yanukovitch would've been better off. Remember that he never said no to European future for Ukraine, he only asked to POSTPONE signing an Agreement in order to win better terms for Ukraine (more financial aid etc.)
There's no way Ukraine can join EU or NATO unless a conflict with Russia is settled. Russia officially considers Donbass as part of Ukraine and Crimea - part of Russia. So one doesn't have to be Einstein to realize that unless Ukraine recognizes Crimea as Russian territory, it won't move even an inch closer to EU or NATO.
What are you discussing, please explain it to me. When Crimea and Donbass were part of Ukraine, there was no clear majority for EU/NATO integration. Unlike in Baltic countries, in Ukraine Russian speakers have citizenship. And most of them would've voted against it. Frankly, I personally don't understand why Ukraine tries to hold on to those regions.

[papakota]

Anotherkiwi,
Have you asked yourself WHY USA gives military aid to Israel and doesn't to Ukraine?
One reason is corruption in Ukraine. Why to give something if it'll end up stolen. Second reason is that helping Israel doesn't endanger the very existence of western countries. 9/11 and other terrorist acts are not a danger to the existence of the West. While helping Ukraine can worsen relations between the West and Russia. Third reason is because Ukrainian army is pretty much nothing. Literally. Israeli army even BEFORE US military aid won 3 wars (in 1948, 1956 and 1967). Only AFTER those 3 victories US started massively help Israeli military. US only helps those who can help themselves. Also there are strong Polish and Jewish lobbies in America. And after Volyn and Babiy Yar I highly doubt that they find a country with Bandera being its hero kosher. Israel has been an American ally during Cold War. And Ukraine during that time as part of USSR was USA's foe. While being in a status of major non-NATO ally of the United States (Ukraine was refused that status), Israel maintains good relations with Russia. Prime minister Medvedev just left Israel couple of days ago. I won't even mention Israel's high tech and its own military industry. And TEN fold difference of an average monthly salary in Israel and Ukraine (about US$2500 vs. US$250, respectively). Slightly different. BTW, out of 6M Jews living in Israel, about 1,5M are Russian speakers and about half of them have roots in Ukraine (and Ukrainian passports too).

Protests against S. Arabia mean nothing. S. Arabia is not under western sanctions like Belarus and S. Arabian officials can freely travel, while until recently even Lukashenko himself was persona non grata in EU (and probably in the US too).

As per Girkin, civil war or not a civil war argument. Turkey illegally invaded N. Cyprus in 1974. And no one kicked it out of NATO. Go figure!

[Anotherkiwi]

I think you're totally missing the point. Maidan in 2013 wasn't about Crimea or Donbass, nor it was about erecting monuments to Nazi collaborators like OUN/UPA. Maidan was about fighting corruption and joining EU. So what do we have 3 years later? Transparency International has a level of corruption table. Russia is on 119th place and Ukraine is on 130th. 3 years past "The revolution of dignity" "free" Ukraine is more corrupt than Putin's Russia.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

To whom are you directing this response?  I can't imagine anyone on this board disagreeing with anything you've written here.

There's no way Ukraine can join EU or NATO unless a conflict with Russia is settled. Russia officially considers Donbass as part of Ukraine and Crimea - part of Russia. So one doesn't have to be Einstein to realize that unless Ukraine recognizes Crimea as Russian territory, it won't move even an inch closer to EU or NATO.
What are you discussing, please explain it to me. When Crimea and Donbass were part of Ukraine, there was no clear majority for EU/NATO integration.

The two bolded parts contradict each other.  However, it doesn't matter that Russia considers Crimea part of Russia - no other country does.  Therefore the opposite to your recognition scenario applies equally as well - if Russia gets out of Crimea, and restores the Ukrainian sovereignty which it illegally usurped, then not only would a united Ukraine be a tiny step closer to EU/NATO membership, but sanctions against Russia could well be eased.

Unlike in Baltic countries, in Ukraine Russian speakers have citizenship. And most of them would've voted against it. Frankly, I personally don't understand why Ukraine tries to hold on to those regions.

Simple - those regions, despite all that has gone on over the past couple of years, are still part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine, and many of the people living there have no desire to become a separate nation or even part of Russia.  No "referendum" held only in the Donbas has any legal standing to change that.

[papakota]

Anotherkiwi,
It's up to the Ukraine to forget about Crimea and it's not up to Ukraine to make Russia give it back. That's the difference. The former is possible and realistic and the latter is impossible. The chances of Ukraine to get back Crimea are about as chances of Russia to get back Alaska. So it's a waste of time to even talk about it. It's a spilled milk, pretty much. The best Ukraine could realistically achieve is to officially recognize Crimea as Russian, to ask the West to cancel anti-Russian sanctions and to regain control over Donbass. Then to try to go ahead with EU membership. Not sure if Putin will agree to this package deal, but for Ukraine it's the most it could get.
The other option is a lost Crimea, constant half-war in Donbass and lost dream to join EU. Western sanctions so far only made life in Russia more difficult for ORDINARY people. But those guys are not the decision makers, so what's the point? Me paying for food 50% more - how it would help Ukraine? Please explain. In two peaceful years (1937-38) Stalin killed over 600 000 Soviet citizens (about hundred times more people than were killed in Ukraine in last two years). So western sanctions is like a mosquito's bite for an elephant.
It's not about fairness or International law. It's about realpolitik. As they say in Russian - "Политика - это искусство возможного", which means "The politics is an art of possible".
Remember, US considered Baltic republics of USSR as occupied, so what? They remained part of USSR all the way till 1991. Looks like Trump will concentrate on US internal politics, so who's gonna help Ukraine? New Zealand? How? By sending its butter?
Okay, I've said what I had to say. I think it's enough of political talks. It's a forum about dating. It becomes boring. Really.

[Anotherkiwi]

Believe it or not, I do actually agree with most of what you've written - most, but not all.

It's up to the Ukraine to forget about Crimea and it's not up to Ukraine to make Russia give it back. That's the difference. The former is possible and realistic and the latter is impossible. The chances of Ukraine to get back Crimea are about as chances of Russia to get back Alaska. So it's a waste of time to even talk about it. It's a spilled milk, pretty much.

The difference here is that Russia, as far I know, doesn't want Alaska back (and only a few people in Russia in the 19th century would ever have heard of Alaska), whereas Ukrainians very much consider Crimea to be part of their country.  While I agree that the chances of Crimea reverting to Ukrainian control appear minimal at the moment, I don't consider it to be completely impossible.  None of us know how this situation will play out over the next few months or years.

The best Ukraine could realistically achieve is to officially recognize Crimea as Russian, to ask the West to cancel anti-Russian sanctions and to regain control over Donbass. Then to try to go ahead with EU membership. Not sure if Putin will agree to this package deal, but for Ukraine it's the most it could get.

Even if the first was done, regaining control over Donbas will be possible only if all the Russian troops, advisers and officials go home.  The chances of that happening peacefully are about the same as Crimea returning to Ukrainian control.

The other option is a lost Crimea, constant half-war in Donbass and lost dream to join EU. Western sanctions so far only made life in Russia more difficult for ORDINARY people. But those guys are not the decision makers, so what's the point? Me paying for food 50% more - how it would help Ukraine? Please explain. In two peaceful years (1937-38) Stalin killed over 600 000 Soviet citizens (about hundred times more people than were killed in Ukraine in last two years). So western sanctions is like a mosquito's bite for an elephant.

It's not about fairness or International law. It's about realpolitik. As they say in Russian - "Политика - это искусство возможного", which means "The politics is an art of possible".

Russia always bleats very loudly if it feels that it has been hard done by under international law, even when it's a signatory to whatever is being disputed.  Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, guaranteeing Ukraine its borders and no interference in its internal affairs.  Guess what?  When Russia changes its mind, it doesn't care about anything that it has promised or agreed to in the past.

[jone]

Putin's game is not to negotiate a peace, even an exchange of withdrawal from Eastern Ukraine in exchange for recognition of Krim.  Putin's game is to stop, at any cost, Ukraine moving to the West and adopting a Western style society and standard of living - similar to what Poland has accomplished.

Putin knows if he occupies Eastern Ukraine, as Russia has done with Transnisteria, then he will have a knife at the side of the Ukrainian government and can slice open Ukraine whenever he wants.

It is for this reason that I now advocate that the US offer for sale limited lethal weaponry.  The only way Ukraine is going to survive is to send so many Russians home in Cargo200 trucks that Russia feels the pain it is inflicting on Ukraine.  And, in spite of what our friends in Russia say, there are many times many such trucks that have made the trip back across the border into the home cities of where these young Russian heros are from.   

I cannot understand a people who, for political purposes, fail to honor those that have died for the policy of the Rodina.  Nekulturny.

[papakota]

Anotherkiwi,
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. If you know Latin...
What can Russia afford, New Zealand can't. Russia proper (RSFSR) lost about 15M people in WWII. New Zealand lost 11K. If not Russia, the Crimea would've been Turkish now. Ukrainians got Crimea as a gift from Russia.
Who knows, maybe if the NZ soldiers had opened the gates of Auschwitz, then we would've been talking differently. USA does what it feels right. Many disagree, but who cares. Russia under Putin does what it feels right. Same story. Strong guy is dancing with a girl and a weak one is standing in a corner alone. That's called life. Welcome to the planet Earth!

You'd be surprised about Russia and Alaska. Russians still regret they sold Alaska for nothing.

If Ukraine comes to terms with separatists in Donbass, then there's a good chance Donbass reunites with Ukraine, but a DIFFERENT Ukraine. The one in which Russian is a second official language and Nazi collaborators aren't considered heroes. If Russia wanted Donbass, it would've been Russian two years ago.
You keep saying Russia, Russia, Putin, Putin. Let's talk about Poland and Israel. First is a Western country. EU and NATO member. VERY far from being pro-Russian. Israel is a close ally of the US and a very neutral in this conflict.

http://www.rferl.org/a/poland-parliament-declares-volyn-massacres-/27874252.html

Poland’s lower house of parliament, the Sejm, has voted to declare World War II-era killings committed by Ukrainian nationalists against Polish civilians “genocide” in a move that could provoke tensions between the two neighbors.
Kyiv, which rejects the genocide label for the crimes, reacted cautiously, with President Petro Poroshenko expressing "regret" over Warsaw's move.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/30/israels-president-confronts-ukrainians-with-their-past/

Polish parliament and Israeli President are also Putin's agents in your opinion? So why Russian Ukrainians in Donbass should hold a different opinion about Bandera? Half of Europe collaborated. Nothing special about OUN/UPA here. But the French don't consider marshal Pétain a national hero. After the war, Pétain was tried and convicted for treason. He was originally sentenced to death, but his sentence was commuted to life in prison. Italians hang Mussolini, Hungarians hang Szálasi etc. Give me one reason why Ukrainian collaborators should be treated any different?

[jone]

Sorry, buddy,

But for someone who criticizes others for engaging in political conversation, and not on topic for meeting women, you are very clearly politically motivated.

You talk about WWII casualties.  That is so much the Russian line.  If Russia lost 15 million people during WWII (my figure is closer to 30 million but that probably includes the other Soviet Republics) the bulk of the killing and deaths were related to activities by Stalin.  No one kills more Russians than Russian leadership since the Bolshiviks took over.

I had to laugh at your reference for the Polish lower house.  No country has practiced more genocide on Poland than Russia.  Can you say Katyn?

I was in Ivanovo which is as far as the Poles got back in, oh, I don't know, 1608 in an invasion of Russia.  The tour guide giving my son and I a tour was saying how bad the Poles were.  I began laughing.  When she asked me why, I gave her all of the times that Russia has invaded Poland.  And you are trying to throw dispersions on Ukraine.  That really is comical.

When the US bought Alaska from Russia, it was called Seward's Folly because the populace could not believe that the US had spent hard currency in obtaining it.  That 7 Million was money paid out that the US really did not have.  Afterward Gold was discovered in the Klondike and Russia wanted it back because it was now worth something.  Isn't that always Russia, though.  No infrastructure, terrible use of its natural resources and entering into treaties (and memorandums) that they break with impunity. 

Personally, I could care less that the average Russian Ivan wants Alaska back.  It is not like Krim which was reaffirmed to be Ukrainian until Russia invaded it.  Yes, invaded.  As Putin said:   Those were our soldiers.

While you may present the hard line stance of Russian thought on this forum, there are many others here who do not present such dogmatic views and are actually open to discourse. 

[papakota]

You talk about WWII casualties.  That is so much the Russian line.  If Russia lost 15 million people during WWII (my figure is closer to 30 million but that probably includes the other Soviet Republics) the bulk of the killing and deaths were related to activities by Stalin.  No one kills more Russians than Russian leadership since the Bolshiviks took over.

I had to laugh at your reference for the Polish lower house.  No country has practiced more genocide on Poland than Russia.  Can you say Katyn?

I was in Ivanovo which is as far as the Poles got back in, oh, I don't know, 1608 in an invasion of Russia.  The tour guide giving my son and I a tour was saying how bad the Poles were.  I began laughing.  When she asked me why, I gave her all of the times that Russia has invaded Poland.  And you are trying to throw dispersions on Ukraine.  That really is comical.

When the US bought Alaska from Russia, it was called Seward's Folly because the populace could not believe that the US had spent hard currency in obtaining it.  That 7 Million was money paid out that the US really did not have.  Afterward Gold was discovered in the Klondike and Russia wanted it back because it was now worth something.  Isn't that always Russia, though.  No infrastructure, terrible use of its natural resources and entering into treaties (and memorandums) that they break with impunity. 

Personally, I could care less that the average Russian Ivan wants Alaska back.  It is not like Krim which was reaffirmed to be Ukrainian until Russia invaded it.  Yes, invaded.  As Putin said:   Those were our soldiers.

While you may present the hard line stance of Russian thought on this forum, there are many others here who do not present such dogmatic views and are actually open to discourse.

I'm politically motivated, I just don't think this is a right place for politics. But, on the other hand, why let only one side of a coin to be shown here, since some guys can't avoid politics altogether.
My position is ultra liberal and pro-Western by Russian standards, trust me on that.
What's funny is that people who have no clue about Russia try to teach me Russian history. It's if I were tried to teach you about American Civil war of 1861-65.
Those Russian casualties I mentioned has nothing to do with Stalin's repressions. Don't mix two different things.
I'm not gonna count the exact figures of Stalin's victims, 'cos it's irrelevant to conflict in Ukraine.
The number of polish officers who were killed by NKVD in Katyn stands at about 22 000. A drop in a sea vs. tens of millions of people who were killed in WWII. Let alone that you can't compare a killing of military officers in Katyn and killings of Polish CIVILIANS in Volyn. Also Bandera supporters killed at least twice as many Poles than NKVD killed in Katyn. As per Russia vs. Poland in general. OK. Let's look at geography for a second. Have you heard of Breslau? What is it now? Wroclaw in Poland. And why is that? What, it was Hitler himself who just out of kindness of his heart gave Poles a purely GERMAN city? Just compare maps of Poland before and after WWII. You mentioned Bolsheviks. Let me ask you, when Poland first became an independent country in 20th century? Where was Poland in 1913? It's Lenin who set Finland and Poland free. And how Poland became an independent country in 1945? Who liberated it? New Zealanders? And what would've happened to Poles if they remained under Hitler's rule?
Yes, Russia invaded Poland and Poland invaded Russia. Same as Germany vs. France etc. So what?
What it has to do with a price of rice in China as Americans say?

[Anotherkiwi]

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. If you know Latin...

I do, actually.  Who is Jupiter in this scenario - Russia?  And who is your ox?  Everyone else?

You'd be surprised about Russia and Alaska. Russians still regret they sold Alaska for nothing.

Those are current-day Russians.  Like I said, only a handful of Russian people at the time had even heard of Alaska.

If Ukraine comes to terms with separatists in Donbass, then there's a good chance Donbass reunites with Ukraine, but a DIFFERENT Ukraine. The one in which Russian is a second official language and Nazi collaborators aren't considered heroes.

Personally, I would have no problem with Russian being a second official language in Ukraine, but only after Russia got right out of Donbas and Crimea, and the whole of Ukraine voted "Yes" to the proposal in a referendum.  As for the collaborators, I don't know anywhere near enough about Bandera and his organisation to make any comment.

If Russia wanted Donbass, it would've been Russian two years ago.

Most here would probably agree that they would have tried - whether or not they would have succeeded would be open to question.  It certainly suits Russia to keep Donbas as a frozen conflict.

You keep saying Russia, Russia, Putin, Putin. Let's talk about Poland and Israel. First is a Western country. EU and NATO member. VERY far from being pro-Russian. Israel is a close ally of the US and a very neutral in this conflict.

http://www.rferl.org/a/poland-parliament-declares-volyn-massacres-/27874252.html

Poland’s lower house of parliament, the Sejm, has voted to declare World War II-era killings committed by Ukrainian nationalists against Polish civilians “genocide” in a move that could provoke tensions between the two neighbors.
Kyiv, which rejects the genocide label for the crimes, reacted cautiously, with President Petro Poroshenko expressing "regret" over Warsaw's move.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/30/israels-president-confronts-ukrainians-with-their-past/

Again, this is not something about which I have enough knowledge to comment.

Polish parliament and Israeli President are also Putin's agents in your opinion? So why Russian Ukrainians in Donbass should hold a different opinion about Bandera? Half of Europe collaborated. Nothing special about OUN/UPA here. But the French don't consider marshal Pétain a national hero. After the war, Pétain was tried and convicted for treason. He was originally sentenced to death, but his sentence was commuted to life in prison. Italians hang Mussolini, Hungarians hang Szálasi etc. Give me one reason why Ukrainian collaborators should be treated any different?

Bandera was eventually assassinated by a Russian agent.  Mussolini was not hung - he and his mistress were machine-gunned to death, their bodies (and those of a dozen others) then being dumped like garbage in Milan's Piazzale Loreto.  It was only then that the bodies were hung (upside down).  However, everyone still remembers that he at least got the trains to run on time. 

[papakota]

Anotherkiwi,
No, the ox is not everybody else. It's the weak countries. Like NZ or Ukraine.

Frankly, I don't know how many Russians back then heard of Alaska. How do you know? Have you conducted a research back then?

You're confusing a cause and a consequence. A conflict in Ukraine is the latter and Russian language is the former. Same with Bandera story. Last thing Yuschenko did was made him a hero. Then in early Yanukovitch's time, the court in Donetsk cancelled that decision. Fighting consequences won't help. You may have no problem with Russian language being also official in Ukraine, but Ukrainian nationalists have a big problem with that. 'cos they know well that if Russian were to be a second language in Ukraine, almost no one would use Ukrainian (same as what's happening in neighboring Belarus). Referendum won't do the trick. 'cos when you have a 40% pro-Russian minority, these guys won't take no for an answer. You're not in America. They hate each other. And when there's hatred common sense and democracy are being put aside. As per Bandera and alike. You can find a lot of info online. Here's one example. Lemberg is a German name of Lvov (Lviv).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Lemberg280443.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
The killings were directly linked with the policies of the Bandera faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) and its military arm, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, whose goal as specified at the Second Conference of the OUN-B on 17–23 February 1943 (or March 1943 according to other sources) was to purge all non-Ukrainians from the future Ukrainian state.[10] Not limiting their activities to the purging of Polish civilians, UPA also wanted to erase all traces of the Polish presence in the area.

Now take a look at this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-bandera-idUSTRE62I32J20100319

If Russia wanted it would be in Kiev in a matter of days. Russia doesn't want. I can explain why, but it's beyond the scope of this discussion. It's not a matter of what Putin wants. It's a matter of what Ukrainians should do to end the conflict. Friendly Ukraine is the best Russia could get.

It doesn't matter how exactly Nazi collaborators were punished. You get the idea. I bet that Italians would rather have the trains being a little late than to experience Mussolini and Hitler. But I might be wrong about that. Ask them.

[jone]

This guy writes a bunch of horse manure.  The reason people are more inclined to support Ukraine on this forum is that they don't like seeing one country invade another.  All of your postulating is a bunch of hot air.  And before you think you know more history about your adopted country than, say, the number of Russian historians on this forum, don't you think it would be appropriate to find out who you were talking to?

Either way, I don't care.  You oversold yourself from day one. 

[msmob]

Moby, stop being dense! 

Says the guy trying to re-write 'history' rather than simply admit daftness...

Crimea was invaded by Russian troops, as you well know, who set up a puppet "government" at the point of many guns, and then conducted a farcical referendum whose results are recognized only by Russia.  The fact that the result may actually have reflected the majority view of the people is irrelevant - it was illegal, didn't even offer the status quo as an option, and was conducted with Russian troops at polling places ostentatiously waving their guns around.  As far as I can tell, hardly any (if any at all) of the comparatively little fighting in Crimea has involved Ukrainian versus Ukrainian.

Let's put this in perspective.. WITHOUT A DOUBT  the Kremlin has played the most active role in physically 'interfering' in the sovereign territory of Ukraine..


BUT.. there was already civil disobedience in Kyiv, E.Ukraine, etc., prior to the GRU inspired military take-over of Crimea.  The 'excuse' being it was to protect the occupants from the new 'Fascist Junta' in Kyiv.


Unlike you, I do know that shots were fired and both UA service personnel and citizens lost their lives during the 'peaceful transition' in Crimea.  As far as I saw... plenty of Ukrainian citizens were fighting between themselves prior to the Russian's legally present on the peninsula - aiding the GRU to take control of the peninsula. Did you not observe the violence in Kyiv and other cities throughout Ukraine - prior to Russia's military Coup in Crimea ?  Hundreds had died on the streets


Here is a very simplistic timeline to remind you..


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26248275


[/size]

The conflict/insurrection/war in eastern Ukraine started only after Russian "agents" (for want of a better term) were inserted into positions of power in the Donbas, and used those positions to start attacking others.  Girkin has been quoted many times ON THIS FORUM as boasting that he himself was responsible for the start of the war

Once again, I do not dispute the influence and direct interference by Russians - but the fact remains that most people losing their lives, losing their homes or having to flee were inhabitants of Ukraine - a civil conflict.




[/size]

 Had (for example) a fully Ukrainian faction from Lugansk attacked Mariupol, then I would agree that the elements necessary to call this a "civil" war would exist.  That didn't happen.

Some people from Mariupol would say they were attacked by units from w.UKraine when they expressed support for the uprising in Donetsk / Lugansk and I know - for sure - that 'Ukrainians' from those Oblasts tried to 'free' Mariupol from Kyiv control - prior to the pincer movement out of Russia in late August - when it was clear Kyiv might lay siege to Donetsk ./ Lugansk. I was dating a lass whose Mum was living in Mariupol at the time..our differences in aspect of the conflict were quite passionate.


[/size]

[/size]The points that I made about the Spanish Civil War are still valid, whether you wish to believe them or not.  All foreign involvement came AFTER it started - not before, or as a casus belli.

Rubbish


Nazi Germany had assured Franco of physical support and were involved from the beginning of the coup - supplying military hardware and 'advisors' ... Direct German involvement started within hours of the coup attempts - that mostly failed , initially


AK when you have studied Spanish History - get back to us ..

[JayH]

1/ Let's put this in perspective.. WITHOUT A DOUBT  the Kremlin has played the most active role in physically 'interfering' in the sovereign territory of Ukraine..





2/. Did you not observe the violence in Kyiv and other cities throughout Ukraine - prior to Russia's military Coup in Crimea ?  Hundreds had died on the streets
ou..






3/Once again, I do not dispute the influence and direct interference by Russians - but the fact remains that most people losing their lives, losing their homes or having to flee were inhabitants of Ukraine - a civil conflict.






4/Some people from Mariupol would say they were attacked by units from w.UKraine when they expressed support for the uprising in Donetsk / Lugansk and I know - for sure - that 'Ukrainians' from those Oblasts tried to 'free' Mariupol from Kyiv control - prior to the pincer movement out of Russia in late August - when it was clear Kyiv might lay siege to Donetsk ./ Lugansk. I was dating a lass whose Mum was living in Mariupol at the time..our differences in aspect of the conflict were quite passionate.

1/

On that there is no argument


2/  Well-- you really have missed so much here.    Agents and provocateurs    were sent by Russia to many cities across Ukraine . I can literally quote 1000's of examples . In Kyiv    itself  groups of paid thugs tore about attacking people and property randomly --the purpose --to try and create an appearance of lawlessness that needed control.
Fact is it was Azov that started to counter this by deploying 1000's to the streets to maintain a sense of order while the Police and Government was in chaos during those critical few days.
That did not end the attempts to sow discontent--the easiest illustration is what happened in Odessa- where the provocateurs bit off far more than they could chew. Look at where the people who died  that day came from-- all over the place-- but very few from Ukraine. Pretty clear they had some other motivation !   
  The 100's who died-- were in Kyiv at the hands of the agents of Russia-the Berkut .Look at the footage . Look at the evidence we now have where their instructions were coming from ! Look at where they fled to-- you want a clue- Russia Russia  & Crimea to assist the Russian invasion there!

3/
 That is the point--it is Ukrainians that have fled a war imposed on them -- from Russia.
The idea that Ukrainian military attacked civilians in eastern Ukraine is pure and utter Russian bullshit.Fact is the Russians are in the habit of shooting backwards to create the impression of a Ukrainian attack --check the OSCE reports on this.
Any rejection that it is not  Russian military driving the war in Ukraine is just plain ridiculous.

4/

I call bs-- total bs  by you here-- and "her" comments .You do not know "for sure" of that I know for sure.
At one stage-there was a lot of confusion in Mariupol. Thanks to Azov -it is a Ukrainian city today.


Further-- in the east the Ukrainian military would have reasserted control in May/June 2014 if it was not for the direct overt Russian military involvement.
When the first discontent was apparent ( demonstrations etc promoted by Russia)  the capture of strategic buildings  points in cities across eastern Ukraine was done by Russian military -the same "green" men that had done the same in the invasion of Crimea a few months earlier.  After getting control the stuck the local "chancers" in the front line of media attention-- all with the intent to create the impression that it was some sort of local uprising  ie a civil uprising.
Fact is-it was anything but. Since that time Russia has sort to disrupt Ukraine in any way possible.
To Ukraine's credit-they have managed to roll on and forward --despite Russia and Russian interference.

[Anotherkiwi]

Says the guy trying to re-write 'history' rather than simply admit daftness...

I really can't be bothered with this.  I'm not trying to rewrite anything.

Let's put this in perspective.. WITHOUT A DOUBT  the Kremlin has played the most active role in physically 'interfering' in the sovereign territory of Ukraine..

I'm glad we agree on that, at least.

BUT.. there was already civil disobedience in Kyiv, E.Ukraine, etc., prior to the GRU inspired military take-over of Crimea.  The 'excuse' being it was to protect the occupants from the new 'Fascist Junta' in Kyiv.

Unlike you, I do know that shots were fired and both UA service personnel and citizens lost their lives during the 'peaceful transition' in Crimea.  As far as I saw... plenty of Ukrainian citizens were fighting between themselves prior to the Russian's legally present on the peninsula - aiding the GRU to take control of the peninsula. Did you not observe the violence in Kyiv and other cities throughout Ukraine - prior to Russia's military Coup in Crimea ?  Hundreds had died on the streets

Here is a very simplistic timeline to remind you..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26248275

I'm well aware of the violence in Ukraine at the time.  It still doesn't come close to what the citizens of the Donbas have had to suffer.  And your timeline conveniently stops in November 2014.

Once again, I do not dispute the influence and direct interference by Russians - but the fact remains that most people losing their lives, losing their homes or having to flee were inhabitants of Ukraine - a civil conflict.

Huh?  That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.  It's the equivalent of saying that Poles killed in the German invasion which started the Second World War were also victims of a civil conflict, just because they were killed in Poland.

Rubbish

Nazi Germany had assured Franco of physical support and were involved from the beginning of the coup - supplying military hardware and 'advisors' ... Direct German involvement started within hours of the coup attempts - that mostly failed , initially

AK when you have studied Spanish History - get back to us ..

Since you're so fond of timelines, why don't you study those available for the Spanish Civil War, and then you can change your tune.  I repeat - the Spanish Civil War was completely and utterly driven by what was happening in Spain at the time.  The fact that France sent support to the Republicans a few days after the war started, and that Germany and Italy THEN offered support to Franco, doesn't change that.

[papakota]

Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Civil war in Spain. Why won't you argue about Trojan war? It's about as relevant.
It all comes down to three things:
a.) There's too much corruption in Ukraine. Corrupted country can never be free and prosperous;
b.) Language of national minority must be protected, especially when the MAJORITY of people speak it as native language;
c.) Nazi glorification must not be allowed, incl. a ban on glorification of Nazi collaborators and perpetrators of genocide of Polish and Jewish population of Ukraine.
If those 3 objectives were met in independent Ukraine during 20 years after collapse of USSR, it would be only a rhetoric question if current conflict in Ukraine could happen.
You try to fight fever when you have an infection. Moreover, most of the time, post-Soviet Ukraine tried to milk both Russia and the West, staying "neutral". Where was pro-Western vector in 1991-2004? Why Ukraine chose Yanukovitch as its President AFTER Orange Revolution? Why Ukraine didn't want to admit its hitting a Russian commercial plane that was on its way from Tel-Aviv to Novosibirsk in 2001? President Kuchma refused to apologize and he said something like "What's the big deal, it can happen anywhere", something along those lines.
Interestingly enough, Ukrainians downed the plane in Crimea area, though above the Black Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

Ukraine eventually admitted that it caused the crash, probably by an errant S-200 missile fired by its armed forces.

How come a country can kill 78 civilians of foreign countries and drag and wait with apology and compensations? Ukraine ended up paying the compensations AFTER a long litigation with victims' families.

[Boethius]

 How many times does this have to be posted?

Minority language rights are, and have been, constitutionally protected in Ukraine since patriation of the constitution in 1996.  Russian language rights therefore have always been constitutionally protected.  In Western Ukraine, Hungarian, Polish, and Czech are also constitutionally protected, as they are the most common "minority" languages, not Russian.

You are incorrect in your assertion that Russian is the majority language of Ukraine. 

Russian language dominated in the cities of Eastern, East-Central, and Southern Ukraine, and did right up to the invasion.   Ukrainian dominated the cities of Western and Central Ukraine.  However, in villages throughout Ukraine, Ukrainian has always been the language that has been spoken.  That is why surzhik is so commonly spoken in Central/Eastern Ukrainian cities.  As peasants moved to the cities in Soviet times, they decided to discard their Ukrainian for the language of the city (Russian).  However, they never fully spoke Russian, nor Ukrainian anymore.

In Ukraine's 2001 census, 29.3% of Ukrainians identified Russian as their native tongue.  That is not the majority of Ukrainians.  In 2004, roughly half of Ukrainians used Ukrainian as their daily language, and just under half used Russian as their daily language.  In polling in 2012, 50% of Ukrainians identified Ukrainian as their native tongue, 29% identified Russian, and 10% spoke both equally. So what we are seeing is that the policy of "Ukrainization" is working, as Russian language use decreases every year.  Furthermore, since the illegal invasion of Crimea and the invasion of Donbas, the two predominantly Russian speaking regions of Ukraine are aligned with Moscow, so that removes 4 million Russian speakers, or about 1/3 of the native Russian speakers from Ukraine.
As for corruption, Russia is as corrupt as Ukraine.  Have a look at Transparency International's map on levels of corruption. 

There is no "Nazi glorification" in Ukraine.  Western Ukrainians do have statutes to Stephan Bandera, but his history is far more nuanced than the Soviets, and since them, Russian propaganda sources, will care to admit.  Yes, initially, Bandera was a fascist.  But fascist parties were common throughout Europe at the time.  Furthermore, that fascism was formally rejected by OUN eventually.  Furthermore, Bandera has never been linked to massacres of Poles or Jews. 

The reason Bandera is regarded as a hero is because he fought a far more pernicious enemy to Ukrainians than the Nazis - the Bolsheviks, and he wanted an independent Ukraine.  Western Ukraine was flooded with Russians after WWII in all positions of power, precisely because the local population was viewed as ideologically impure.  The region was also always governed directly by Moscow, right up to the collapse of the USSR, rather than by Kyiv.

If you want to learn more about Bandera, both the good and the bad, David Marples has a good view in his work Heroes and Villains:  Creating National History in Contemporary Ukraine.

With respect to the Siberian air tragedy, Ukraine admitted it as soon as it was confirmed a missile had brought down the plane.  That was a week after the accident, which is a negligible period of time. 

[papakota]

Boethius,
" That was a week after the accident"
Please, show me a source of this information. And EVEN if it was so, WHY it must take a WHOLE WEEK? It's not MH17, i.e., a war zone with two sides. In that case in 2001 it was clear as a day what happened. Not only that, but also I read that

"During the court hearings, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence representatives stated that the airplane "could not be brought down by a Ukrainian missile" according to the forensic examination of the plane's debris, radar information and technical capabilities of the missiles."

Court hearings take months at least. And according to you, that hearing must have been within a week after the tragedy. Doesn't add up.

Hungarian, Slovak, Czech... Have you forgotten Yiddish? Are you kidding? How many people speak, say, Hungarian in Ukraine and how many speak Russian? Even in Uzhgorod, a city with a highest Hungarian population in Ukraine, I didn't hear it anywhere in the streets. And how do you explain that in Belarus Russian is a second official language. Why there are no complaints about that? When I speak about a status of Russian in Ukraine, I talk about that kind of situation. Ukraine is a very industrialized country and most people live in cities. And in all major cities in Ukraine (except for Lvov), Russian is the language people use, incl. in Kiev. You start hearing Ukrainian in the streets in Vinnitsa and in what's West of it approximately. Just look at the map. It's about quarter of then (prior to 2014) area of Ukraine.
Western Ukraine is least populated area in Ukraine, since it's much more rural.

I don't believe official statistics. Even if it was true... People tend to give kosher answers when they're being asked officially. Ask in N. Korea, how many people support their leader. You'd get 110%. What counts is what people say in their kitchens. In Western democracies it might be different, but post-Soviet Ukraine is a far cry from that status yet.
I agree with only one thing that you said. A policy of Ukrainization does work and that's because Crimea de facto
(here in Russia it's also de jure) and de facto most of Donbass are not in Ukraine now.

Bandera, OUN and UPA are recognized as heroes in ALL Ukraine officially, not only in its Western part. That's first.
The only reason they rejected collaboration with Nazis was Hitler's hate towards Slavs. Hitler was against independent Ukraine. Not like Ukrainian nationalists suddenly realized that they were on a wrong side.
Still, it was more convenient for them to serve Nazis under German occupation and that's exactly what they did. Helped Nazis in Babiy Yar, fought against Red Army in Waffen-SS etc. The peak of Volyn massacres took place in 1943. By then Ukrainian nationalists knew well that Hitler wasn't their ally in building independent Ukraine. And also what's the connection between Ukraine's independence and a genocide of Poles in Volyn?
To be fair to Ukraine, same stuff happens in Baltic EU countries. So it's not unique. Okay, you can say that it's an old history now. I agree. BUT...



In 2004 Tyagnibok (head of "Svoboda" party), who was one of three Maidan leaders (together with Turchinov and Yatsenyuk), in that speech clearly indicated that he wanted to get rid of all Russians, Poles and Jews in Ukraine. Actually he called Jews "kikes" (zhidva in Ukrainian). Is it an ancient history too?

http://www.adl.org/press-center/c/anti-semitism-card-overplayed-in-ukraine.html
The Svoboda party has a history of anti-Semitism and venerates Stepan Bandera, a leader of the Ukrainian nationalist movement of the 1930s and 1940s. Bandera allied with the Nazis during World War II when he thought it was in the interest of his movement and was complicit in mass killings of Jews and Poles by Ukrainian partisans.

Are you gonna say that Putin is behind ADL too? Or that he pays them or something? What interest an American organization has to promote Putin's agenda in Ukraine?

[Faux Pas]

Boethius,
" That was a week after the accident"
Please, show me a source of this information. And EVEN if it was so, WHY it must take a WHOLE WEEK? It's not MH17, i.e., a war zone with two sides. In that case in 2001 it was clear as a day what happened. Not only that, but also I read that

MH17 was pretty clear the day it happened that it was a Russian made rocket that shot it down and rightfully assumed it was Russia that did it. Especially with the premature celebrations

[papakota]

MH17 was pretty clear the day it happened that it was a Russian made rocket that shot it down and rightfully assumed it was Russia that did it. Especially with the premature celebrations

I disagree. Ukrainian Army also had a technical capability to shut down MH17. I'm not saying that they did it though. That's why there's an ongoing investigation that takes years. If everything is so clear as you say, then why an international investigation takes YEARS?

[Boethius]

Boethius,
" That was a week after the accident"
Please, show me a source of this information. And EVEN if it was so, WHY it must take a WHOLE WEEK? It's not MH17, i.e., a war zone with two sides. In that case in 2001 it was clear as a day what happened. Not only that, but also I read that

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/1359353/Ukraine-admits-it-shot-down-Russian-airliner.html

So now you go from "they refused to acknowledge responsibility" to "Why did it take so long?"

I assume it would be because authorities needed to confirm it was a shrapnel from a missile that brought down the plane. 

I'll deal with the rest of your disinformation later.

[Faux Pas]

I disagree. Ukrainian Army also had a technical capability to shut down MH17. I'm not saying that they did it though. That's why there's an ongoing investigation that takes years. If everything is so clear as you say, then why an international investigation takes YEARS?

You are apparently awash in denial. Both the Dutch and a Joint investigation team have already investigated and concluded who did it. Not that it was any secret. To reach a plane at 30K feet the only weapon within 500 miles that could reach that plane was a BUK and the only one there was controlled by Russian separatists. I realize your loyalties but seriously, get your head out of your ass

[Boethius]

Hungarian, Slovak, Czech... Have you forgotten Yiddish? Are you kidding? How many people speak, say, Hungarian in Ukraine and how many speak Russian? Even in Uzhgorod, a city with a highest Hungarian population in Ukraine, I didn't hear it anywhere in the streets. And how do you explain that in Belarus Russian is a second official language. Why there are no complaints about that? When I speak about a status of Russian in Ukraine, I talk about that kind of situation. Ukraine is a very industrialized country and most people live in cities. And in all major cities in Ukraine (except for Lvov), Russian is the language people use, incl. in Kiev. You start hearing Ukrainian in the streets in Vinnitsa and in what's West of it approximately. Just look at the map. It's about quarter of then (prior to 2014) area of Ukraine.
Western Ukraine is least populated area in Ukraine, since it's much more rural.

I didn't state anything about Slovak or Yiddish.  Nor did I post that as many people spoke Hungarian as speak Russian.  What I posted was that in Ukraine, any ethnic minority that reaches 10% in a region has the legal right to minority language recognition and corresponding rights.  That includes state funding for schools.  In Western Ukraine, there are regions where Hungarians are over 10% of the population.  Same with Czechs and Poles.  Ergo, they have rights, by Ukrainian law, for use of their language. 

There is no reason why Russian, which became the dominant language in Ukraine because of centuries of policies of Russification, and moving Russians into Ukrainian territories, should receive official language status.  They have the right to a Russian education, and funding for newspapers and such, just as do any linguistic minority in any EU country.  That is a sufficient protection of their linguistic rights.  Here is an explanation of the rights of Ukraine's ethnic Hungarian minority -

According to the Constitution of Ukraine, Ukrainian is the only national language. However, citizens who belong to national minorities are guaranteed in accordance with the law the right to receive instruction in their native language, or to study their native language in state and communal educational establishments and through national cultural associations. According to the Cultural center of national minorities of Transcarpathia, there are 13 Hungarian cultural associations. In the region the are 63 schools where education is only in Hungarian, 29 with Hungarian and Ukrainian languages and 1 with Russian and Hungarian. It is also possible to get higher education in Hungarian at the University of Uzhhorod. However, schools are mostly funded from outside the country. According to the Ukrainian legislation “On the governmental language policy” approved in 2012, Hungarian got an official status of a regional language in Berehovo and Vynohrad regions.
Ethnic Hungarians are involved in the politics of Ukraine. For instance, there are two Hungarian parties: the Party of Hungarians of Ukraine and the Democratic Party of Hungarians of Ukraine. However, there representation in the national parliament is very limited. According to Laszlo Brenzovich, the head of the Party of Hungarians of Ukraine who is the only ethnic Hungarian MP, the system of voting should be changed. For example, in Romania every minority votes according to their own list and not depending on the amount of votes at least one representative of each minority has a sit in the Parliament. The same system is functioning in Croatia. However, in Ukraine there is no legislation on this issue. Laszlo Brenzovich got the sit in the Parliament, as he was in the list of Petro Poroshenko Party, currently the leading political party of Ukraine. Thus the president made a deal to represent ethnic Hungarians inside his party in the Rada, but did not give a place for a separate one. There was a lot of discussion in Hungarian parties about injustice of this issue. These parties are mostly advocating for a better representation of ethnic Hungarians in the Ukrainian government, granting more rights to the minority and do not raise separatist talks.

http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/node/1951

I don't believe official statistics. Even if it was true... People tend to give kosher answers when they're being asked officially. Ask in N. Korea, how many people support their leader. You'd get 110%. What counts is what people say in their kitchens. In Western democracies it might be different, but post-Soviet Ukraine is a far cry from that status yet.

Other than the 2001 census, all other statistics were done by polling, not by "official" statistics.

Most individuals in post Soviet Ukraine are not afraid to express their opinions, as anyone who has been to Ukraine recently knows.

I agree with only one thing that you said. A policy of Ukrainization does work and that's because Crimea de facto
(here in Russia it's also de jure) and de facto most of Donbass are not in Ukraine now.

It worked before then as well.

In 1984, if you spoke Ukrainian on the streets of Kyiv, you would be derided as a "hick" (hence the use of surzhik by escapees).  By 1992, you could speak Ukrainian in the streets and people would answer you in Ukrainian.  That had nothing to do with the removal of the Russians of Donbas or Crimea.  Even in regions where virtually no one speaks Ukrainian as their daily language, people can now speak Ukrainian.  My mother was in Crimea and Odesa in 2013.  She speaks Ukrainian, not Russian.  Everywhere she went, when she spoke Ukrainian, people answered her in Ukrainian.  She said they spoke Russian amongst themselves (which she understands, as Ukrainian is her mother tongue), but definitely answered her in Ukrainian.

Bandera, OUN and UPA are recognized as heroes in ALL Ukraine officially, not only in its Western part. That's first.

No, that is inaccurate.

Last year, a law banning the use of Nazi and communist symbols was passed.  The law was based on legislation in Poland and the Baltic Republics.  That law also gave those who fought for UPA pensions equal to those of Red Army soldiers.  It recognized them for fighting for Ukrainian independence.  Which is exactly what most of the boys who fought for UPA were doing.  They weren't fascists.  They were fighting to establish an independent Ukraine.  Given the atrocities the Bolsheviks committed in Western Ukraine after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty, this was completely understandable.

UPA did dark things.  But then, so did the Red Army. 

The only reason they rejected collaboration with Nazis was Hitler's hate towards Slavs. Hitler was against independent Ukraine. Not like Ukrainian nationalists suddenly realized that they were on a wrong side.

Well they were such successful collaborators that their leader (Bandera) was imprisoned in a German concentration camp, and his brother died in a German concentration camp. 

Bandera made no bones about stating that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend".  When the Germans were useful to his cause, he did not fight them.  When they were losing the war, he told them outright he would not fight with them.  Their cause was never his cause.  It had nothing to do with Nazi ideology, and everything to do with defeating the Bolsheviks and establishing an independent Ukrainian state. 

Still, it was more convenient for them to serve Nazis under German occupation and that's exactly what they did. Helped Nazis in Babiy Yar, fought against Red Army in Waffen-SS etc. The peak of Volyn massacres took place in 1943. By then Ukrainian nationalists knew well that Hitler wasn't their ally in building independent Ukraine. And also what's the connection between Ukraine's independence and a genocide of Poles in Volyn?

UPA was not at Babi Yar.  Their "operations" were confined to Western Ukraine.

If you know the history of the region, you would know that the slaughter was on both sides, i.e., Polish nationalists slaughtered Ukrainians as well.  Yes, the massacre of Poles by UPA was a genocide, but it was never approved, nor instigated by Bandera.

To be fair to Ukraine, same stuff happens in Baltic EU countries. So it's not unique. Okay, you can say that it's an old history now. I agree. BUT...

It also happened in Russia and in Western European countries. 

In 2004 Tyagnibok (head of "Svoboda" party), who was one of three Maidan leaders (together with Turchinov and Yatsenyuk), in that speech clearly indicated that he wanted to get rid of all Russians, Poles and Jews in Ukraine. Actually he called Jews "kikes" (zhidva in Ukrainian). Is it an ancient history too?

"zhidy" merely means "Jews" in Ukrainian.  It has no negative connotation in the Ukrainian language.

Tyahnybok is a former communist leader who headed the persecution of "nationalities" in the USSR.  So, he is about Tyahnybok, not the greater good of Ukraine.  He is no different from anti Semitic, nationalist politicians in Russia.

The Svoboda party has a history of anti-Semitism and venerates Stepan Bandera, a leader of the Ukrainian nationalist movement of the 1930s and 1940s. Bandera allied with the Nazis during World War II when he thought it was in the interest of his movement and was complicit in mass killings of Jews and Poles by Ukrainian partisans.

Are you gonna say that Putin is behind ADL too? Or that he pays them or something? What interest an American organization has to promote Putin's agenda in Ukraine?

There is no historical evidence that Bandera, who was sitting in a concentration camp, knew of, let alone orchestrated, the deaths of Jews or Poles.  Find me one historian who has found evidence otherwise.  The foremost expert in this area is John-Paul Himka.