Ukraine & Crimea

RobertDyck · 2014-04-27 19:54:14

Tom, you keep spouting the annoying "we're right" bull shit. Look, Putin is bad. But you don't get to lay out options. He has other options, ones you don't want him to have. And that's part of the problem.

But to avoid conflict, you have to be fair and see the issue from the other guys point of view. NATO has been gobbling up Warsaw Pact countries continuously since the fall of the Soviet Union. Recently, former Soviet Republics have even been gobbled up. The most recent are Georgia and now Ukraine. From Putin's point of view, that's going way too far. He was forced to take action. There's no way he could let Russia's only warm water Navy base fall into NATO's hands. And in Putin's view, those modern Navy ships belonged to the Soviet Union. So he took Ukraine's ships as well. Do I agree? No. But don't be surprised. Furthermore, Yhuzmash is the factory that manufactured the Soviet Union's first ICBMs. And continued to manufacture Zenit launch vehicles, and mobile launchers for ballistic missiles. All of this is very strategic. From Putin's point of view, an illegal mob stormed the Ukrainian parliament; a coup. Of course that only happened after snipers started shooting peaceful protestors. But realize how much is at stake here!

Off course the Ukrainians will never forget Holodomor, "Great Famine" of 1932-33. They will never willingly join Russia. But to Russia, Ukraine is extremely strategic. Putin wants Ukraine to joint the Eurasian Economic Union (EAU), instead of the EU. He was making progress with the previous president. Now he's frustrated. He blames manipulation by the CIA. Putin has already admitted that several of the non-uniformed thugs organizing Crimea were Russian forces. But he claims the overthrow of the previous president was organized just as much by CIA.

There have been conciliatory noises by both sides. Kerry has demanded a return to the previous agreement that Russia continue to rent land for their Navy bases from Ukraine. And Putin has demanded that Ukraine be neutral. All very reasonable. But both sides are trying to gain the upper hand. The only way out of this is if both sides can claim they won.

At the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the agreement was both sides would equally back off, and both sides would tell their citizens and allies the other guy backed down. America removed its missiles from Turkey, and the Soviet Union removed their missiles from Cuba. I've talked to Americans who lived through it, and actually believed the rhetoric that the Soviet Union backed down, that they removed their missiles from Cuba without American removing theirs from Turkey. Uh huh! To be partisan, that's how much you can trust a Kennedy. (Those most passionate about this were Republicans.) Soviets told their people that America backed down, while at the same time America claimed the Soviets backed down. In today's age of global communication, that kind of blatant lie will not last a single day. So how do we get out of this?

John Kerry doesn't want to let Russia keep Crimea. But Putin has to ensure those navy bases will never be in jeopardy again. But that sets a president that one country can use military force to annex another country's territory. So Putin has put in jeopardy more territory of Ukraine. They're bargaining chips. His threat is "If you continue to demand Crimea, then I'll take these too." It looks like he wants a compromise, that being Ukraine gets to keep the eastern Oblasts, but Russia keeps Crimea. And Putin has implied he'll take Odessa Oblast as well. Surrendering to that kind of threat is not something I like, but it may be the most practical. So now the question is how to make it look to western media that Putin backed down, while Russia gets to keep Crimea, and Ukraine remains neutral, and Ukraine continues to manufacture military hardware for Russia?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-28 05:38:56

Simple question: Why does Putin hate us? What did we do to him? Was it all that terrible? We aided Russia during the Second World War, despite the fact that Russia entered that war on the side of the Nazis! All we've done was treat former Warsaw pact countries as any other European countries with regards to membership, We haven't even offered Ukraine membership in NATO, all that was talked about was a trading relationship between it and the European Union, and the European Union hasn't done a thing to Russia. Why does Putin have all this hatred towards us? Why does he consider us the enemy? It is attitudes like this that threaten World War III. Russia has no reason to view us as the enemy, but Putin needs an enemy to stay in power, or so he thinks, and so long as he views us as an enemy, and its his decision to do so, he is going to threaten World War III! So I'm waiting for Putin to take that silly "Napoleon hat" off or for the Russian People to get rid of him just like they got rid of the Tsar and Communism. Putin is wrong, and it doesn't matter how many ICBMs he has, wrong is wrong, and we should not back down or give him what he wants so long as he threatens war!

Off course the Ukrainians will never forget Holodomor, "Great Famine" of 1932-33. They will never willingly join Russia. But to Russia, Ukraine is extremely strategic. Putin wants Ukraine to joint the Eurasian Economic Union (EAU), instead of the EU. He was making progress with the previous president. Now he's frustrated. He blames manipulation by the CIA. Putin has already admitted that several of the non-uniformed thugs organizing Crimea were Russian forces. But he claims the overthrow of the previous president was organized just as much by CIA.

That is just paranoia on his part if it is even that. Seems to m that if the CIA planned this, that the United States would have sent aid and assistance at least in the form of small arms to Ukraine once the Revolutions had began, but it seems the CIA had no follow up. I don't even think Putin believes this, he's a former KGB man, he's just saying this for the benefit of dumber people that himself, he knows that left wing reactionaries will believe anything could be a CIA plot. I don't believe a CIA run by Obama would be capable of doing this and not have a follow up plan if they succeed. Putin knows this as well, but he won't say it, as he is in full lying mode!

There have been conciliatory noises by both sides. Kerry has demanded a return to the previous agreement that Russia continue to rent land for their Navy bases from Ukraine. And Putin has demanded that Ukraine be neutral. All very reasonable. But both sides are trying to gain the upper hand. The only way out of this is if both sides can claim they won.

Well if Russia keeps the Crimea, then it has won, and if the rest of Ukraine joins NATO then NATO has won, in that sense both sides have won, just as you say. Neutrality is not in the cards after what Putin has done. If Putin wants Crimea, then the price for it he's going to pay is in the rest of Ukraine joining NATO and the EU. If he's willing to pay that price, then I'm willing for the Ukraine to lose some territory in exchange. That is a win-win scenario for both sides. If the rest of Ukraine is forced to be neutral, that is not win-win, that is Finlandization, that would be a net victory for Russia. So if its to be win-win, the West has to gain something too, not just Russia!

John Kerry doesn't want to let Russia keep Crimea. But Putin has to ensure those navy bases will never be in jeopardy again. But that sets a president that one country can use military force to annex another country's territory. So Putin has put in jeopardy more territory of Ukraine. They're bargaining chips. His threat is "If you continue to demand Crimea, then I'll take these too." It looks like he wants a compromise, that being Ukraine gets to keep the eastern Oblasts, but Russia keeps Crimea. And Putin has implied he'll take Odessa Oblast as well. Surrendering to that kind of threat is not something I like, but it may be the most practical. So now the question is how to make it look to western media that Putin backed down, while Russia gets to keep Crimea, and Ukraine remains neutral, and Ukraine continues to manufacture military hardware for Russia?

Excuse me what you described above is not neutrality, that is satellite status. How is an neutral Ukraine held in thrall by the Russians a win for the West. Look Russia took its piece of Ukraine, therefore the West gets the rest. Russia keeps its warm water port and in exchange it has a new enemy to contend with. What is so unreasonable about that? Putin can say he won, he wrested out a piece of Ukraine with military force, that should be all he gets. The only thing that was keeping Ukraine neutral was its Russian population, if Putin takes that away, there is no Ukrainian Neutrality, unless Russia wants to conquer and occupy the whole state by force, and then what to do with the ethnic Ukrainians that want Ukrainian independence, is he going to kill them, just like Stalin would? Will there be death camps in Siberia?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-28 05:46:32)

RobertDyck · 2014-04-28 09:51:58

Tom, you keep trying to win. You sound like some Americans, who expect the American culture will "win" and spread throughout the world. Or at least "win" supremacy in the world. To quote the movie Highlander: "There can be only one". You just don't get it. The world will not tolerate just one superpower. It doesn't matter who it is, there can never be only one. The only way the world tolerated two superpowers was by playing one off against the other. Frustrated that whenever you try to exert power, some small country used the Soviet Union to subvert your authority? That's on purpose. That's so neither the US nor Soviet Union actually have any authority. After the Soviet collapsed, something happened that I didn't expect. A non-government organization rose to oppose US culture and US military authority. That was Al Quaeda. I don't approve, and didn't expect a terrorist organization like that, but it demonstrates the principle that there can never be "only one". However, once they did start escalating conflicts with the US military, I did predict they would eventually attack US soil. They did; they attempted a truck bombing in the garage of the World Trade Center. After that, I predicted they would keep trying until they did serious damage to that building, preferably bringing it down. In March 2001 I talked to a friend of mine, we brain-stormed the problem over coffee. We predicted that Al Quaeda would use box cutter knives to highjack a 757, slam it into the World Trade Center, and this attack would occur during working hours on a working day in September 2001. Is that close enough? That was 6 months before the attack. Of course we weren't the only ones. A PBS documentary covered a senior FBI researcher who also predicted Al Quaeda would attack that building, and he was investigating, and in direct contact with Condoleezza Rice. George W. Bush claimed no one could have predicted it; but everyone did.

So now you are surprised that Putin is threatened? We've heard everyone talking about Russia as an ex-superpower. That's insulting, and disrespectful. And NATO has gobbled up not only Warsaw Pact allies, but former Republics of the Soviet Union. Remember Putin was born during the Soviet Union, he sees that as his country, not just Russia. Here is a map of NATO expansion. And a small one showing NATO and Warsaw Pact during the cold war; to be precise, from 1961-1968. Notice absolutely all non-Soviet countries, and now some Soviet republics are part of NATO. Why wouldn't Putin feel threatened?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-28 10:41:17

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom, you keep trying to win. You sound like some Americans, who expect the American culture will "win" and spread throughout the world. Or at least "win" supremacy in the world. To quote the movie Highlander: "There can be only one". You just don't get it. The world will not tolerate just one superpower. It doesn't matter who it is, there can never be only one. The only way the world tolerated two superpowers was by playing one off against the other.

So you want two superpowers that are enemies, is that it? You basically want a Cold War and a hair trigger that could start a global thermonuclear exchange. So tell me, why does the World want to be on the edge of nuclear oblivion when it doesn't have to be? Why can't Russia and the United States be friends, why do they have to be enemies? Do you have a good answer to that? The United States never did anything to Russia except to prevent it from conquering more countries. the United States didn't cause the Soviet Union to break up, the Russians did that of their own free will.

RobertDyck wrote:

Frustrated that whenever you try to exert power, some small country used the Soviet Union to subvert your authority? That's on purpose. That's so neither the US nor Soviet Union actually have any authority. After the Soviet collapsed, something happened that I didn't expect. A non-government organization rose to oppose US culture and US military authority. That was Al Quaeda. I don't approve, and didn't expect a terrorist organization like that, but it demonstrates the principle that there can never be "only one". However, once they did start escalating conflicts with the US military, I did predict they would eventually attack US soil. They did; they attempted a truck bombing in the garage of the World Trade Center. After that, I predicted they would keep trying until they did serious damage to that building, preferably bringing it down. In March 2001 I talked to a friend of mine, we brain-stormed the problem over coffee. We predicted that Al Quaeda would use box cutter knives to highjack a 757, slam it into the World Trade Center, and this attack would occur during working hours on a working day in September 2001. Is that close enough? That was 6 months before the attack. Of course we weren't the only ones. A PBS documentary covered a senior FBI researcher who also predicted Al Quaeda would attack that building, and he was investigating, and in direct contact with Condoleezza Rice. George W. Bush claimed no one could have predicted it; but everyone did.

And how much better off is the Muslim World because of that attack? Are they living any better because 3000 Americans are dead? How was Afghanistan much improved because they supported this attack on the United States, do they like getting bombed? Seems to me if they left us alone, we would have left Afghanistan alone, there would be no US troops in Afghanistan if they didn't support the Terror plot against the United States. Does that seem like a reasonable assumption to you?

RobertDyck wrote:

So now you are surprised that Putin is threatened? We've heard everyone talking about Russia as an ex-superpower. That's insulting, and disrespectful.

Wasn't me There are two ways a country can become a great power, Japan for one has tried both of them, in the 1940s it tried to conquer a great empire and it lost, then it tried to be a great power by becoming an efficient producer and selling stuff by export, Japan still is a great power, and they do very well by this second method than by the first. So why can't Russia learn from Japan's experience. There was a time when people thought Japan would become the second Superpower. Now my question is why is it assumed that a second superpower would be a US enemy? I don't see how that automatically follows. Russians and Americans have more in common with each other culturally than Japanese and Americans. Why is it that the only European Powers that assert themselves militarily are often hostile to the United States?

How about this example: suppose there is an American tourist in a Moscow subway station and a train is coming. Since Russians and Americans are supposed to be enemies, should a Russian citizen give the American tourist a shove so he falls on the tracks just before the train runs him over, hen the Russia citizen can delight as the train runs over the poor hapless American tourist who made the mistake of visiting Moscow, then the Russian will get to view the gory details of the American he turned into a corpse on the Moscow subway tracks. So should a statue be made of the Russian citizen and plced in Gorky Park for his heroic act of shoving the American onto the tracks in front of he oncoming Russian subway train? Enemies are enemies after all, and they are supposed to kill each other, aren't they?

RobertDyck wrote:

And NATO has gobbled up not only Warsaw Pact allies,

Except that those countries were never really Warsaw Pact Allies. You don't conquer somebody, occupy their countries and call them an ally, they are not that, the people in the country you conquered probably hate your guts, just because they are afraid of you doesn't make them hate you any less.
Poland was never an ally of Russia for instance, it had a puppet government that was kept in power by The Soviet Union, and those I power were loyal to Russia, because otherwise they wouldn't be there, but the country Russia held down wasn't an ally. Russia kept Poland poor while other countries reaped the benefit of the postwar boom, do you imagine tge Poles love the Russian for that? Why wouldn't Poland join NATO, it after all has lots of reasons for doing so. NATO didn't gobble them up, Poland joined of its own free will.

RobertDyck wrote:

but former Republics of the Soviet Union. Remember Putin was born during the Soviet Union, he sees that as his country, not just Russia.

Lots of people were born during the Soviet Union, that doesn't mean they had a love for the place. Lots of people were oppressed by the Soviet Union, and I'll bet the number of people who suffered because of the Soviet Union exceeded the number of people who benefitted from it. the only people who would miss it were those people that were in power in the Soviet Government.

RobertDyck wrote:

Here is a map of NATO expansion. And a small one showing NATO and Warsaw Pact during the cold war; to be precise, from 1961-1968. Notice absolutely all non-Soviet countries, and now some Soviet republics are part of NATO. Why wouldn't Putin feel threatened?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … nt.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 73.svg.png

That map is a great improvement over the one that existed during the Cold War Notice how much land Europe gained that is no longer under Russian domination, the free part of I has more that doubled in size. Russia still holds the larger portion of that map in Russian territory, that map doesn't show a Russia surrounded by enemies and threatened. Russia only has enemies because of what it has done to them. If it an learn to get along with its neighbors and treat them with respect then I'm sure Russia will receive reciprocal treatment. Russia has no business telling other countries what they can or cannot do, so long as those other countries don't threaten it directly. If Ukraine joins NATO or the EU, Russia has no right to stop them.
Because NATO never threatened Russia, it wasn't created to destroy Russia, only to defend against Soviet expansionism. We can't live in peace with a neighbor that wants to conquer us, that is why NATO was created. it can truly be said that NATO wouldn't exist if it weren't for Russia.

Russia is a Christian Nation, and in the Christian Bible is something called the Golden Rule, which states that one should do to others as one would wsh done to them. I think Russia should learn about the Golden Rule, as it hasn't been put into practice very much by them. They think the World is theirs for the taking, and if anyone gets in their way, they call that a threat. No, I have much difficulty seeing the World from the point of view of someone that wants to conquer and subjugate it. I like Russia to become a great power by becoming a commercial empire, not a land empire. A land empire becomes great by diminishing others, taking land away from others or conquering them, there is no win-win under this scenario, their is only win-lose or lose-win. However if Russia tries to be successful the way post War Japan was successful, then we can have win-win, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-28 10:51:23)

martienne · 2014-05-11 10:19:11

RobertDyck wrote:

I would still prefer Russia just "get along" with Ukraine. Use Energia. If the goal is international cooperation, then they should work together. My plan for an international mission included Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Canada, Italy, Japan, Australia, and the European Space Agency.

It's unthinkable that Ukraine remains in its present form after what happened in Odessa and Mariupol over the last days. I know you have been told a "fake" version of events that edit out who did what to whom, but trust me, if people were in two minds earlier, they are not anymore. I'm not going to get into it here because I have no patience for some of the ignorance and arrogance from certain posters. But if you look outside of the mainstream English speaking press you can read it yourself, if you are interested.

By its actions the new illegal Kiev government has doomed its own country from a joint future.

With your Canada allegory; imagine mad English speakers went to Quebec and burnt 46 middle aged state employees people alive, killing with baseball bats those that managed to escape the building. Captured mayors of towns in Quebec and mistreated them. One mayor was so badly injured he had to be med-evaced to Israel (he was Jewish) for treatment that wasn't available in Ukraine + he just needed to flee the country. After a few more days of fighting and more deaths, a young woman in Quebec is killed by a government sniper for no good reason, as she is standing at her balcony.

Then Canadian gov't troops kill 20 unarmed civilians, in another city in Quebec, on Peace day, as people are out celebrating a traditional festival. They proceed to actually fire at the local government building with a tank and turn it on fire. All this happened for real in Ukraine, and if you add some other factors the situation is even worse.

Obviously the Quebecers would not want anything more to do with Canada after that, and this is the case now for most of Eastern and Southern Ukraine. The government burnt the bridges cheered on by the USA.

As I always suspected, Putin is not going to go into Ukraine, it's not a big enough prize and it's not everyone in the population is for it, like they had been in Crimea. A good 25% or so would not welcome Russia, and I don't think he wants to drag them into Russia against their will. Plus it would set a precedence for a few other regions that WANT to be annexed by Russia but where Russia had just left them hanging in the air as "breakaway republics" (I know people in one of them, and visited. It's a sort of "limbo" existance. Very tragic).

Right now this is what Eastern Ukraine seems to be moving towards. Sort of like Pridnestrovie II.
Very sad for a once proud and successful region, but that's part of the tragedy of the demise of the USSR.
Right now, there is no easy solution. To

@ Josh; Odessa is arguably the most Jewish town in the ex USSR. It's known for it. You can see it just by looking at people there. They whole place is full of jiddische mames and you'd better not annoy them if you don't want to be told off....
I have family there. They don't speak a word of Ukrainian, only Russian and they see themselves as a sort of cosmopolitan USSR people. Ukraine is just necessary evil as far as they are concerned.
Before the Russian Revolution, Odessa was Russian. It's a classic location in old Russian literature. The whole city was built up by Catherine the Great if I recall right, a Russian empress.
The people who started the fire were right wing people and nazis (can't even say "neo nazis", because they are real nazis, some of them. It is very eerie actually, and completed blackouted i Western Media.)

Nothing like this could ever happen in Western Europe. People would never stand for blatant nazis terrorising a city like Odessa. Likewise in Russia.
But In Western Ukraine, they have a complex history and from their perspective, certain Nazis are heroic, righteous and liberators. From their perspective this makes sense and
as far as I am concerned, they can think that if they want, in their backwards corner of the country around the city of Lvov. Google that, and Nazis and you'll be quite surprised.

So it was these people that got violent in Kiev and carried out the coup d'etat with the support of manipulative USA and clueless Europe. The regular people in Kiev just wanted to protest, not to overthrow the government or kill people.
The tents of the people from Western Ukraine are still on the Majdan square in Kiev. It's people from Western Ukaine who are in these aggressive military units. The regular soldiers just wouldn't participate and gave up their weapons and surrendered, rather than shoot at their own brothers.

I don't have high hopes of getting through to anyone here. I have no chance to counterweigh the onslaught of sites like CNN and papers like Washington post.

Personally I changed my mind after the fire in Odessa. Before, I thought Russia should stay out.
Now, I would prefer if Russia went in took over the Eastern sections where there is trouble. Took the whole Black Sea coast and went all the way to Pridnestrovie and incorporated that too.
Leave the rest of Ukraine, Kiev and the Central Regions. Let them be Nazis, try (but it's in vain) to become EU members or do whatever they like.

Then Putin should fix up these areas, because they look like cr~p. Everything is falling pieces and needs fixing. Pridnestrovie looks like a throwback to the 80s. Every grand building in Odessa is having paint peeling off it and cement crumbling to pieces.
Domestic buildings in Eastern Ukraine look like they had no maintenance since the 80s.
Just pour some oil and gas money on these poor people because after 20 years of the circus that is Ukraine they deserve to be spoiled.
Give the old people pensiones that they can live dignified lives on.

The West has overstepped the mark this time and taken water over its head.
The Ukrainians are the big losers in the equation. Thanks to Wests meddling, Russia was able to snatch back its crown jewel, Crimea, to the delight of the inhabitants there. Not to mention the population in Russia. Putin has never been this popular. Contrary to Western beliefs, he does in fact care what people think and can't ignore public opinion. It's slowly turning to "what the hell are you waiting for" in respect to Eastern Ukraine.

I'm pretty certain Putin doesn't actually want any other parts of Ukraine. But at this point it's practically a humanitarian matter rather than anything else. They have no money, their cities are getting increasingly destroyed, and they have zero faith in their central government who won't let them speak their own language, choose their own mayors or watch the TV channels they prefer. Family bonds between Russia and Ukraine are the norm rather than exception. Everybody and their dog has family members who live in Ukraine and care deeply. They want a better standard of life, and no discrimination against their family members.

Russia won't go in though, in Ukraine, I don't think, unless something REALLY big happens. Maybe not even then.
.

Last edited by martienne (2014-05-11 10:57:36)

RobertDyck · 2014-05-11 11:29:20

I participate in another discussion forum, one with a lot of politics but very little with space. The forum is hosted in Canada, so most participants are Canadian, but there are people from other countries, including the United States. Most importantly, one participant lives in Ukraine. He lives in western Ukraine, near Kiev. That name is correctly spelled in the Ukrainian cyrillic alphabet, it can be translated as Kyiv. He has posted a lot of news from the Ukrainian media, and has kindly translated into English for us. The web site RT.com also has a lot of news in English, from a Russian point of view. When events in Odessa happened, he provided links to live webcams. I watched live as it happened, before police arrived.

What happened in Odessa was pro-Russian insurgents from Russia and Transnistria. They barricaded a few blocks in downtown Odessa, and occupied a government building. They threw rocks at Odessa citizens. Again, this wasn't citizens of Odessa, or even citizens of Ukraine, they were from Russia and Transnistria. They didn't stop with rocks, they then threw Molotov cocktails. Police tried to separate the two groups of protestors, but citizens in Ukraine wanted them out. News reports state the insurgents set up a camp, but pro-Ukrainian citizens charged. So the pro-Russian insurgents occupied the trade union building, which in Ukraine is a government building. Barricaded themselves inside, but then threw Molotov cocktails from the roof. So pro-Ukrainian citizens tried to raid the building. They couldn't get in, so threw Molotov cocktails back. That caused the building to burn. Since all entrances were barricaded, they couldn't get out.

As soon as police in riot gear arrived, someone threw firecrackers on the ground. And I heard the whistle of fireworks. Someone was trying to trick the police to fire guns into the crowd. This was set up to be a massacre. Someone wanted to create an excuse to send in Russian military.

RobertDyck · 2014-05-11 11:39:09

The Washington Post, May 8: New poll shows eastern Ukraine’s separatists are wrong

I have suggested giving eastern Ukraine more autonomy, and rights for the Russian language. That's really what they want. Treat oblasts in eastern Ukraine like a Canadian province, with authority to protect the unique language and culture of that region. Just like Quebec defends the French language and culture, let eastern Ukraine remain part of Ukraine, but with Russian language and culture. The guy from western Ukraine didn't like that. He wants to stamp out the Russian language. Ohhh...Ok. So that's what they're really fighting about.

I still think this is the real solution. To "Finland-ize" Ukraine. It will be neither a member of NATO nor any Russian military alliance. Neither a member of EU, nor the Eurasian Economic Union (EAU). Just neutral. Putin has said he would like that. But the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada was interiewed on CBC. He said he doesn't want to be neutral, he wants to join NATO like Ukraine's neighbours. He said being neutral just isn't working. But with all the trouble in Ukraine, there's no way that NATO would accept them. Since NATO doesn't want them, and Putin wants them to be "Finland-ized", then everyone outside Ukraine is in agreement. But Ukrainians themselves haven't accepted that. Not yet.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-05-11 11:51:46)

RobertDyck · 2014-05-11 12:48:36

From that other forum. Today, 8:13am Central time, 4:13pm Kyiv time.

For today
1. Cops found 800 voting papers with signs "Yes" for Donezk republic in one car and 10000 papers in another car.
2. Donezk and Lugansk oblast are voting on referendum, separatists say that 80% of voters have already voted, ( )
3. Head of Mariupol police was found dead.
4. On referendum can vote everyone who wants too, you can vote even for your neighbors and even if live in another oblast.
5. Voting points are usually 4-5 schools in every city.

And CBC news article today: Ukraine crisis: National guardsmen fire into crowd

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-05-11 12:51:53)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-11 13:44:53

RobertDyck wrote:

I participate in another discussion forum, one with a lot of politics but very little with space. The forum is hosted in Canada, so most participants are Canadian, but there are people from other countries, including the United States. Most importantly, one participant lives in Ukraine. He lives in western Ukraine, near Kiev. That name is correctly spelled in the Ukrainian cyrillic alphabet, it can be translated as Kyiv. He has posted a lot of news from the Ukrainian media, and has kindly translated into English for us. The web site RT.com also has a lot of news in English, from a Russian point of view. When events in Odessa happened, he provided links to live webcams. I watched live as it happened, before police arrived.
What happened in Odessa was pro-Russian insurgents from Russia and Transnistria. They barricaded a few blocks in downtown Odessa, and occupied a government building. They threw rocks at Odessa citizens. Again, this wasn't citizens of Odessa, or even citizens of Ukraine, they were from Russia and Transnistria. They didn't stop with rocks, they then threw Molotov cocktails. Police tried to separate the two groups of protestors, but citizens in Ukraine wanted them out. News reports state the insurgents set up a camp, but pro-Ukrainian citizens charged. So the pro-Russian insurgents occupied the trade union building, which in Ukraine is a government building. Barricaded themselves inside, but then threw Molotov cocktails from the roof. So pro-Ukrainian citizens tried to raid the building. They couldn't get in, so threw Molotov cocktails back. That caused the building to burn. Since all entrances were barricaded, they couldn't get out.
As soon as police in riot gear arrived, someone threw firecrackers on the ground. And I heard the whistle of fireworks. Someone was trying to trick the police to fire guns into the crowd. This was set up to be a massacre. Someone wanted to create an excuse to send in Russian military.

Even if what martienne said was true, it still wouldn't justify passing judgment on all the citizens of Ukraine, labeling them all as "Nazis" and then justifying the destruction of their country. Even Germany didn't get destroyed after World War II. And lets be practical here, if Russia gets away with destroying a European country and is still part of an international mission to Mars, lets say one of the astronauts is Lithuanian, and he is a vital member of the International crew, and another astronaut is Russian, and while the mission is progressing Russia invades Lithuania, saying that Lithuania is persecuting its Russian nationals, and the Russian Army needs to invade Lithuania in order to protect those Russian citizens, and the Russian astronaut on the mission receives orders to shove the Lithuanian crew member out the airlock, or the Lithuanian wants revenge on Russia for invading and occupying his country so he shoves the Russian crew member out the airlock, or the rest of the crew have to separate the Russian from the Lithuanian to prevent them from killing each other, so what is that going to do to the Mission to Mars?

Should we bar all astronauts that are citizens of countries that are potential future victims of Russian aggression? Should we say, "Sorry Mr. Polish guy, we can't have you on the mission, even though you are well qualified because at some point in the future Russia may invade your country!"

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-05-11 13:48:06)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-11 14:05:18

RobertDyck wrote:

The Washington Post, May 8: New poll shows eastern Ukraine’s separatists are wrong
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/ … a-0-01.png
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/ … a-0-02.png
I have suggested giving eastern Ukraine more autonomy, and rights for the Russian language. That's really what they want. Treat oblasts in eastern Ukraine like a Canadian province, with authority to protect the unique language and culture of that region. Just like Quebec defends the French language and culture, let eastern Ukraine remain part of Ukraine, but with Russian language and culture. The guy from western Ukraine didn't like that. He wants to stamp out the Russian language. Ohhh...Ok. So that's what they're really fighting about.

Maybe the guy from Western Ukraine doesn't like the Russian speakers because he feels that they are a bunch of traitors that are fifth columnists against the Nation of Ukraine, and if he feels that Ukraine lost territory to Russia because of them, he is going to want them out of their country. Do you really think that is an unreasonable position to take considering what just happened? What happened to all the ethnic Germans living in Poland after World War II, they were forced to leave weren't they? It wasn't because they spoke German, but that they identified themselves as Germans and the lived in Poland thereby giving Germany an excuse to invade and build death camps in Poland which them murdered millions of Polish citizens among others!

It seems that a Polish citizen's right to identify himself as German was not protected after World War II, and they was forced to leave, that is the precedent that has been set in Europe. Do we follow that precedent?

I still think this is the real solution. To "Finland-ize" Ukraine. It will be neither a member of NATO nor any Russian military alliance. Neither a member of EU, nor the Eurasian Economic Union (EAU). Just neutral. Putin has said he would like that. But the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada was interiewed on CBC. He said he doesn't want to be neutral, he wants to join NATO like Ukraine's neighbours. He said being neutral just isn't working. But with all the trouble in Ukraine, there's no way that NATO would accept them. Since NATO doesn't want them, and Putin wants them to be "Finland-ized", then everyone outside Ukraine is in agreement. But Ukrainians themselves haven't accepted that. Not yet.

Are your sure the Poles don't want Ukraine in the Alliance? They know that if Ukraine falls, they are next on Russia's menu, and if Poland falls, Germany is back to having Russia on its border, and it will be waiting for France and Great Britain to abandon it next and give Germany as the next "peace offering" to Russia.

How can you have a Finlandized Ukraine full of people who hate Russia for taking its territory? Do you really think the average Ukrainian citizen can forgive Russia for taking some of its land? How would you enforce such neutrality anyway? What if the Ukrainians elect a leader that really hates Russia and vows revenge against Russia for stealing part of its land? How do you make Ukraine "neutral" if it doesn't want to be? And what of the Pro-Russian "Ukrainians" citizens, that want to be part of Russia, and if they vote to secede and join Russia, that population won't be part of Ukraine or part of its next vote? Those Ukrainians that are left with then democratically vote for a leader that vows revenge on Russia.

Who is going to dictate Ukraine's Neutrality? What if the Ukrainian People elect a not so neutral government? Is NATO then going to invade Ukraine and impose a government on it that is neutral or do we let Russia invade an occupy what remains and impose a puppet government on them? How is this going to work? What if individual Ukrainian citizens wage a Guerilla War against the Finlandized Government of Ukraine, saying calling them a bunch of traitors for selling out their country and ceding land to the Russians?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-05-11 14:19:07)

RobertDyck · 2014-05-11 14:50:35

YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J18RziLIl30
This shows pro-Russian insurgents are neo-Nazi. And it shows they do not intend a real referendum. In the Video, Barkashov says to not "collect papers", instead just make up a figure for the results. This telephone conversation was recorded by SBU, and posted on YouTube with English language subtitles the same day. Right after this came out, Putin announced he ordered Russian troops to back away from the Ukraine border, and asked to postpone the referendum. To be clear, Barkoshov is the leader of a Russian right-wing neo-Nazi party, not Putin's party.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-11 15:02:32

martienne wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
I would still prefer Russia just "get along" with Ukraine. Use Energia. If the goal is international cooperation, then they should work together. My plan for an international mission included Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Canada, Italy, Japan, Australia, and the European Space Agency.
It's unthinkable that Ukraine remains in its present form after what happened in Odessa and Mariupol over the last days. I know you have been told a "fake" version of events that edit out who did what to whom, but trust me, if people were in two minds earlier, they are not anymore. I'm not going to get into it here because I have no patience for some of the ignorance and arrogance from certain posters. But if you look outside of the mainstream English speaking press you can read it yourself, if you are interested.
By its actions the new illegal Kiev government has doomed its own country from a joint future.
With your Canada allegory; imagine mad English speakers went to Quebec and burnt 46 middle aged state employees people alive, killing with baseball bats those that managed to escape the building. Captured mayors of towns in Quebec and mistreated them. One mayor was so badly injured he had to be med-evaced to Israel (he was Jewish) for treatment that wasn't available in Ukraine + he just needed to flee the country. After a few more days of fighting and more deaths, a young woman in Quebec is killed by a government sniper for no good reason, as she is standing at her balcony.
Then Canadian gov't troops kill 20 unarmed civilians, in another city in Quebec, on Peace day, as people are out celebrating a traditional festival. They proceed to actually fire at the local government building with a tank and turn it on fire. All this happened for real in Ukraine, and if you add some other factors the situation is even worse.
Obviously the Quebecers would not want anything more to do with Canada after that, and this is the case now for most of Eastern and Southern Ukraine. The government burnt the bridges cheered on by the USA.

Why would Obama support a Nazi regime, is Obama a Nazi? 46 dead people is not a lot of people, that in itself does not justify destroying a nation of 80 million! Do you want to just take an erasure and erase the name of Ukraine right off the map of Europe, or do you want to allow Russia to do this? There is a name for this sort of action, it begins with the letter 'G' and it once happened to Jews in Europe. Do you know what this is?

As I always suspected, Putin is not going to go into Ukraine, it's not a big enough prize and it's not everyone in the population is for it, like they had been in Crimea. A good 25% or so would not welcome Russia, and I don't think he wants to drag them into Russia against their will. Plus it would set a precedence for a few other regions that WANT to be annexed by Russia but where Russia had just left them hanging in the air as "breakaway republics" (I know people in one of them, and visited. It's a sort of "limbo" existance. Very tragic).
Right now this is what Eastern Ukraine seems to be moving towards. Sort of like Pridnestrovie II.
Very sad for a once proud and successful region, but that's part of the tragedy of the demise of the USSR.

Why was the demise of the Soviet Union a tragedy, seems like the Soviet Union kept its people poor and as second class Europeans behind the living standards of Western Europe, why do you consider it a tragedy that a nation that kept about half of Europe poor, underdeveloped and heavily militarized ad oppressed ceased to exist? I would call that progress instead. Do you regret the demise of the Roman Empire as well? Would Europe be a better place if the Roman Empire still existed and the modern Nations that now inhabit Europe did not?

Right now, there is no easy solution. To

@ Josh; Odessa is arguably the most Jewish town in the ex USSR. It's known for it. You can see it just by looking at people there.

How is that possible? Do they have the word "Jew" written on their foreheads?

They whole place is full of jiddische mames and you'd better not annoy them if you don't want to be told off....
I have family there. They don't speak a word of Ukrainian, only Russian and they see themselves as a sort of cosmopolitan USSR people.

Why can't they move to Russia then? Lots of people who don't like their country move to another, why else do they have so many Russian Jews in Israel? Russia persecuted a lot of Jews for a very long time, the USSR persecuted a lot of Jews too, many of the Russian Jews that now live in Israel are there because of persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union. Maybe you love Russia, but many of the Russian Jews living in Israel did not feel the love Russia had for them.

Ukraine is just necessary evil as far as they are concerned.

If they are so concerned, they can leave just as many Russian Jews left for Israel, why don't they pack their bags and head toward Israel? I'm sure the Israelis would be happy to have them, because then that would help them outnumber the Palestinians. How do you feel about the Palestinians? Many of them threaten Jews as well, and many of them might as well be Nazis considering the feelings many of them have toward Jews. if Palestinians deserve a homeland of their own, what about Ukrainians?

Before the Russian Revolution, Odessa was Russian.

Poland was "Russian" too, according to your same logic, my Polish relatives should have no right to exist.

It's a classic location in old Russian literature. The whole city was built up by Catherine the Great if I recall right, a Russian empress.

Every Empire had its heyday, how is Russia so different from the Romans or the Germans for that matter.

The people who started the fire were right wing people and nazis (can't even say "neo nazis", because they are real nazis, some of them. It is very eerie actually, and completed blackouted i Western Media.)

How are Soviet Communists so different from the Nazis? They got their hands dirty by invading Poland right alongside the Nazis after all. How about we use the word "neo-communist" is that fair? You know the Nazis pine for their old Empire just like the Soviet Communists now pine for the old USSR? Why do the Russians deserve their get their USSR back and not the Germans their Third Reich? The Soviets had their own Holocaust too where they killed millions of their own citizens and other nationals just like the Germans did during World War II, its just that the Soviets knew when to switch sides in the middle of World War II, well actually the Germans helped them to make that decision when they invaded Russia.

Nothing like this could ever happen in Western Europe. People would never stand for blatant nazis terrorising a city like Odessa. Likewise in Russia.

Well actually Western Europe did have that happen to them, it was called German occupation during World War II.

But In Western Ukraine, they have a complex history and from their perspective, certain Nazis are heroic, righteous and liberators.

Is that really so surprising? After all the Soviets called anyone who opposed them "fascist" and the Soviets oppressed and occupied Ukraine, so why wouldn't they see those their enemies called "fascists" as their heroes, that seems like a fairly logical conclusion to come too considering how much and how often the Soviet authorities lied to them in their propaganda, it seems likely that all their propaganda including that which is true might be disbelieved by them. If the Soviets tell them that the Fascists are evil and so-in-so is a "fascist" it becomes hard to tell who the real Nazis are and who are just enemies of the state that the soviets labeled a Nazi and sent to Siberia! I'm sure their are a lot of Ukrainians who remember their family members taken away in the middle of the night who were then falsely charged with being a Nazi and then sentenced to a labor camp in Siberia for their "reeducation". if all the information I got were from those people, I might not necessarily believe them when they told me that Nazis were bad. How am I supposed to tell the truth from the lies, if all I have from them is lying propaganda that can't be trusted?

From their perspective this makes sense and
as far as I am concerned, they can think that if they want, in their backwards corner of the country around the city of Lvov. Google that, and Nazis and you'll be quite surprised.
So it was these people that got violent in Kiev and carried out the coup d'etat with the support of manipulative USA and clueless Europe. The regular people in Kiev just wanted to protest, not to overthrow the government or kill people.
The tents of the people from Western Ukraine are still on the Majdan square in Kiev. It's people from Western Ukaine who are in these aggressive military units. The regular soldiers just wouldn't participate and gave up their weapons and surrendered, rather than shoot at their own brothers.

I don't have high hopes of getting through to anyone here. I have no chance to counterweigh the onslaught of sites like CNN and papers like Washington post.
Personally I changed my mind after the fire in Odessa. Before, I thought Russia should stay out.
Now, I would prefer if Russia went in took over the Eastern sections where there is trouble. Took the whole Black Sea coast and went all the way to Pridnestrovie and incorporated that too.
Leave the rest of Ukraine, Kiev and the Central Regions. Let them be Nazis, try (but it's in vain) to become EU members or do whatever they like.

There were certainly worse atrocities in Europe than those fires. Have you ever heard of the Holocaust by any chance? Six million Jews died in that, not 46 civilians burned to death in buildings they occupied, I don't see how you compare the two.

Then Putin should fix up these areas, because they look like cr~p. Everything is falling pieces and needs fixing. Pridnestrovie looks like a throwback to the 80s. Every grand building in Odessa is having paint peeling off it and cement crumbling to pieces.
Domestic buildings in Eastern Ukraine look like they had no maintenance since the 80s.
Just pour some oil and gas money on these poor people because after 20 years of the circus that is Ukraine they deserve to be spoiled.

Pouring money on people has never actually helped, people are poor because of a lack of skills or poor economic conditions, what people really need not to be poor is jobs, and invasions don't help!

Give the old people pensiones that they can live dignified lives on.
The West has overstepped the mark this time and taken water over its head.
The Ukrainians are the big losers in the equation. Thanks to Wests meddling, Russia was able to snatch back its crown jewel, Crimea, to the delight of the inhabitants there. Not to mention the population in Russia. Putin has never been this popular. Contrary to Western beliefs, he does in fact care what people think and can't ignore public opinion. It's slowly turning to "what the hell are you waiting for" in respect to Eastern Ukraine.

That there sounds so "German". I'm sure a number of German citizens were wondering what Hitler was waiting for, when he invaded Czechoslovakia as well. Hitler was very popular after than, until Allied bombs started to kill people in German cities and by then it was too late!

I'm pretty certain Putin doesn't actually want any other parts of Ukraine. But at this point it's practically a humanitarian matter rather than anything else. They have no money, their cities are getting increasingly destroyed, and they have zero faith in their central government who won't let them speak their own language, choose their own mayors or watch the TV channels they prefer. Family bonds between Russia and Ukraine are the norm rather than exception. Everybody and their dog has family members who live in Ukraine and care deeply. They want a better standard of life, and no discrimination against their family members.
Russia won't go in though, in Ukraine, I don't think, unless something REALLY big happens. Maybe not even then.
.

It sounds like you really advocate a war in Europe then. How do you know it won't spread and become a World War? How do you know that it won't effect even your country with your cities being destroyed by nuclear bombs? Solving what you consider problems with warfare has its risks in a World with nuclear weapons, perhaps you'd better consider that!

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-11 15:12:27

RobertDyck wrote:

YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J18RziLIl30
This shows pro-Russian insurgents are neo-Nazi. And it shows they do not intend a real referendum. In the Video, Barkashov says to not "collect papers", instead just make up a figure for the results. This telephone conversation was recorded by SBU, and posted on YouTube with English language subtitles the same day. Right after this came out, Putin announced he ordered Russian troops to back away from the Ukraine border, and asked to postpone the referendum. To be clear, Barkoshov is the leader of a Russian right-wing neo-Nazi party, not Putin's party.

I don't consider there to be much difference between the Russian Neo-Nazi Party and Putin's own United Russia Party right now, they are both fascist organizations, the only difference is that one chooses to be identified with the German Nazis by adopting that title and the other does not. One of the rules of starting modern wars is to label your enemies as Nazis before invading, this is similar to what the crusaders did when they invaded Muslim lands in the Middle East, and they justified all the plunder they took and the lands they occupied as part of a Holy Mission in the name of God. The new Crusaders are those who claim to be fighting Nazis every time they invade another's country, these are the 21st century's version of the "infidels".

martienne · 2014-05-11 16:01:40

Tom, thanks for taking the time to carefully read my post. I appreciate it. But I feel I can't enter a discussion with you. We share no common references or values at all and I would have to waste hours trying to find English links to convince you of things that you don't even want to believe in.
But I do appreciate that you read my post.

martienne · 2014-05-11 16:28:25

RobertDyck wrote:

YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J18RziLIl30
This shows pro-Russian insurgents are neo-Nazi. And it shows they do not intend a real referendum. In the Video, Barkashov says to not "collect papers", instead just make up a figure for the results. This telephone conversation was recorded by SBU, and posted on YouTube with English language subtitles the same day. Right after this came out, Putin announced he ordered Russian troops to back away from the Ukraine border, and asked to postpone the referendum. To be clear, Barkoshov is the leader of a Russian right-wing neo-Nazi party, not Putin's party.

No idea about that telephone call at all, whether it's genuine or spoofed. (consider the source) Either way, I personally don't think that it's feasible to have a credible referendum at the moment in that area. But I'm hardly calling the shots though, and those in charge decided they want it.
They are in a desperate situation. I really don't know what the point of having the referendum even is. Putin will annex it if he wants and it doesn't hang on some questionable referendum. Also, the rebels didn't ask anyone before they went ahead and occupied buildings, so I doubt they need anybody's permission to declare an independent state. It would be something similar to Pridnestrovie, probably, but bigger. Economically it's terrible though.

The question is: What is better for the population, in terms of immediate living standard.
Answer is that Russia has a lot more to offer working class people, pensioneers, lower middle class people. Whereas for upper middle class people and upper class people the situation is slightly more favourable in Ukraine, although they'd have to put up with living in a destitute country for a long time to come, with all the negatives associated with that. Practically nobody has any "democracy" related concerns about Russia.
And that's exactly what you can see when you look at who's expressing their support either way in that region. Those who can express themselves in English are inevitably young-ish upper middle class and this should explain the angle you are getting in the English speaking press. Obviously they look like much more attractive poster children on picture as well. Whereas the pro-Russians are workers, some state employees, ex military (Soviet, Ukraine and Russia mixed) and pensioners.

"Independence" will be terrible for everyone unless they can find some top class economists to make the most of the industry and mines they have there, and the port in Mariupol if they get that.

Well it hurts me to see a gorgeous country going through this, and all because the USA decided to spur on a protest into a coup d'etat in one of it's tried and tested "flower revolution" productions.
The voters could have got rid of Yanukovich in under a year, in legitimate elections, if it was so important, and half the country didn't even support the coup d'etat.

To think that the US and EU sponsor and support an illegal coup d'etat against a democratically elected president, in a European country is beyond words.

My prediction is that Ukraine has doomed itself. It's not traditionally a nation state, it never has been. It's mostly been Russian or belonged to other countries in the region, on and off.
I predict a part of it will be left and the rest will go it alone or eventually join Russia.
But unless they somehow manage to go straight to Russia, they have some hard financial times ahead. It'll be back to the 1990s all over again. Americans should be able to start buying wives from there again. They'll be desperate enough.

And the areas they lose will be the exact areas that the US/NATO were interested in. Nobody cares about the rather unproductive wheat fields and old market towns in the Ukrainian heartland. It was Crimea, the industry and mines in the East, plus access to the border with Russia in the East and the Black Sea coast that NATO wanted and I doubt they'll get any of it.

Last edited by martienne (2014-05-11 16:36:30)

RobertDyck · 2014-05-11 19:00:00

You realize I consider the guy from west Ukraine to be a friend. And the largest ethnic group in the city of Winnipeg, where I live, is Ukrainian. Not English, not French, it's Ukrainian. I'm not Ukrainian, but my neighbour when I grew up was, and my brother married a woman of Ukrainian descent. Their ancestors came to Canada when the Soviet Union invaded 1919-22. And more came during Holodomor 1932-33. According to Wikipedia...

The famine claimed up to 10 million Ukrainian lives as peasants' food stocks were forcibly removed by the Soviet government by the NKVD secret police.

Ukraine desperately wants independence. They got it in July 1990. If necessary they will fight a war to keep it.

They want Ukraine to be Ukrainian. When their previous president ignored the will of the people, and the will of parliament, and announced he's joining the Eurasian Economic Community (which will become the Eurasian Economic Union), Ukrainians protested loudly. It was a peaceful protest, with signs and slogans. But the president ordered snipers to shoot protesters. That's when they fought back. The previous president has no one to blame but himself. He ordered soldiers to open fire, they had to defend their lives. The result was he fled the country, took refuge in Russia. Parliament declared him to to no longer be president because he left the country. Parliament selected an interim president until an election can be held. Again, he shouldn't have ordered soldiers to shoot peaceful protestors.

I'm trying to say my sympathies are with Ukraine. But I want everyone to "get along". I greatly appreciate my friend in western Ukraine. But reality is the east requires concessions. Most in east Ukraine do not want to separate, but they won't be oppressed. I have suggested "Finland-ization", and grant eastern Ukraine the same rights as Quebec. Canada is a confederation; each province has it's own legislature with authority to pass laws. Those laws are subordinate to federal laws, when there's a conflict the federal law rules. Courts resolve conflicts. But each province has authority to protect the unique language and culture of that province. Well, really only Quebec has a unique language, but that's the way our constitution was written when Canada was founded in 1867. Do something similar in east Ukraine.

But no. Separatists in east Ukraine stated they want to form "Novorossiya". That means separating all of east and south Ukraine, forming a new country, and that would join the Eurasian Economic Union. Trying to do so will result in civil war.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-05-11 20:29:07)

RobertDyck · 2014-05-11 19:06:14

RT.COM: Early results show landslide support in Donetsk and Lugansk regions for self-rule

According to preliminary results – based on phone call reports from local commissions – in Donetsk region 89.7% of votes were cast in favour of political independence from Kiev. In Lugansk region preliminary results have not yet been announced, but the leader of the local “people’s front” said only around 5% voted against the “Act of state self-rule of the Lugansk People's Republic.”

The telephone conversation recorded by SBU (Security Service of Ukraine), Barkashov called for claiming the result was 89%. That was days before the vote. And that was in the conversation with the leader of pro-Russian insurgents in Donetsk. So now Donetsk claims 89.7% voted to separate. Well, Putin said any referendum held now would not be credible. Who is going to believe this?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-11 19:14:46

martienne wrote:

Tom, thanks for taking the time to carefully read my post. I appreciate it. But I feel I can't enter a discussion with you. We share no common references or values at all and I would have to waste hours trying to find English links to convince you of things that you don't even want to believe in.
But I do appreciate that you read my post.

I think the Europe we have, the Europe we live in is worth preserving, that is a Europe of many different countries, not a Europe where one conquers all. I don't want Putin conquering all of Europe and renaming it "Russia" or the "Soviet Union". The strength or Europe is in its diversity and it civilization, I believe Russia conquering Ukraine would reduce that diversity. In a way I am glad the Roman Empire didn't survive to modern times, that is because I believe Europe is stronger because of the demise of the Roman Empire, not weaker because of it. I'll give you a parallel example, China. China is an Empire much like the Roman Empire, but it did survive to modern era under the name "People's Republic of China" but an Empire it still is, it still has an Emperor though he calls himself Chairman of the Communist Party, he is still the Emperor not accountable to the people, he does as he wants for his own reasons, much as Mao did, and Mao killed 50 million Chinese, the Chinese people did not select Chairman Mao or anyone else who came after him, China is an Empire in all but name. The Chinese people were colonized and did not colonize, they had a chance to discover and colonize the New World, but their Emperor threw that away when they burned the treasure fleets. The World had a bunch of big empires, but the civilization that conquered most of the World was small to medium-sized European countries competing with each other, not the large Empires like China and Rome. Europe conquered and settled North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand, the colonized India and China, they colonized and exploited Africa for its resources. Now tell me this Would Europe have been able to do this if it wasn't the strongest most advanced civilizations in the World. Meanwhile what did Russia do? It expanded into Siberia and colonized Alaska, which they later sold to the United States. Perhaps you might think all this European colonization was wrong, but they were capable of it because European civilizations were strong and advanced while the rest of the World was weak and primitive, the Empires held their civilizations back, the smaller European countries competed with each other and grew stronger. So a Europe composed of many little states is better and stronger than one conquered by one big single Empire like Russia. Once Russia conquers Europe, European civilization will go into decline just as it did under the Roman Empire. the Dark Ages was a period of European rebirth and renewal. So that is why I don't want Russia to get bigger, that is why I want Ukraine to stay independent. Large Empires have short term advantages and long term disadvantages, that is why Rome fell, that is why Ancient Greek Civilization flourished until Alexander the Great conquered them, and then went into decline. The Europe we have now is the strongest, let Russia conquer it and rename the Continent as "Russia" and it will go into decline, mark my words!

martienne · 2014-05-11 19:35:36

Robert, I am really surprised that a smart guy like you don't see how silly it is to be assuming you understand this based on a bit of propaganda news, the fact that you losely know some Ukrainians.

I actually can't respond to what you are saying because some of it are misunderstandings on your part, some is propaganda that you weren't to know was false, some is true, plus the narrative is just selective and misguided.

Sometimes when you don't know about something, it's better not make categorical statements, but instead ask questions or study the matter.

For me to respond to this would be like trying to discuss your Mars colonization plans with somebody who thought Mars had the atmosphere of the moon, the temperature of Venus and at the distance of the Moon. Some of it was misinformation and some of it was just a lack of insight on his part. And then the person didn't know English to boot. So in order to discuss with the person you'd have to teach him basic astronomy, English language and some physics. You just wouldn't bother in that situation, I suspect.

I'd actually rather you guys spoke with the guy from Western Ukraine even if I don't share his views. At least he knows what he is talking about, and if he's honest he can explain the perspective of the Eastern Ukrainians and the Southern. . Hopefully he will turn up here, and can discuss this.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-11 20:03:40

martienne wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J18RziLIl30
This shows pro-Russian insurgents are neo-Nazi. And it shows they do not intend a real referendum. In the Video, Barkashov says to not "collect papers", instead just make up a figure for the results. This telephone conversation was recorded by SBU, and posted on YouTube with English language subtitles the same day. Right after this came out, Putin announced he ordered Russian troops to back away from the Ukraine border, and asked to postpone the referendum. To be clear, Barkoshov is the leader of a Russian right-wing neo-Nazi party, not Putin's party.
No idea about that telephone call at all, whether it's genuine or spoofed. (consider the source) Either way, I personally don't think that it's feasible to have a credible referendum at the moment in that area. But I'm hardly calling the shots though, and those in charge decided they want it.
They are in a desperate situation. I really don't know what the point of having the referendum even is. Putin will annex it if he wants and it doesn't hang on some questionable referendum. Also, the rebels didn't ask anyone before they went ahead and occupied buildings, so I doubt they need anybody's permission to declare an independent state. It would be something similar to Pridnestrovie, probably, but bigger. Economically it's terrible though.
The question is: What is better for the population, in terms of immediate living standard.
Answer is that Russia has a lot more to offer working class people, pensioneers, lower middle class people. Whereas for upper middle class people and upper class people the situation is slightly more favourable in Ukraine,

You are assuming a rigid class system, where people are born into their class and stay in it. A country that favors the upper middle class creates more of it, and the upper middle class expands and prospers; a country that favors the lower classes creates more of those by making more of them poor! Russia is a poor country with a $2 trillion economy because the economic model it chose to follow and that of China gave priority to maximizing the power of the government at the expense of individual initiative, it was Europe' individual initiative, not its emperors and kings, that allowed it to conquer 3 continents and exploit two more. China with its emperor that burned its treasure fleets was walked all over by European civilizations. Competition and individual initiative creates wealth, not emperors who tax and spend! Russia's big disadvantage is that its economic system is designed to maximize the power of its Ruler not its people. I guess you just don't see that. Your vision of Europe is one that is united under one Ruler, not answerable to the people, and I think that's wrong!

although they'd have to put up with living in a destitute country for a long time to come, with all the negatives associated with that. Practically nobody has any "democracy" related concerns about Russia.

Ukraine is no worse off than any other small to medium-sized European state, the reason why it is poor is because it was only independent from Russia for 20 years, before that, living under Russian rule made it poor, it would have been otherwise had it been allowed to keep its independence when it got in in 1918! Poland would have been better off had it never been a Warsaw Pact country, but the Soviet Union didn't give it that choice, and it is poorer because of Soviet interference!

And that's exactly what you can see when you look at who's expressing their support either way in that region. Those who can express themselves in English are inevitably young-ish upper middle class and this should explain the angle you are getting in the English speaking press. Obviously they look like much more attractive poster children on picture as well. Whereas the pro-Russians are workers, some state employees, ex military (Soviet, Ukraine and Russia mixed) and pensioners.

And Pensioners will soon die, so are you going to take away the hopes and dreams of the young for the rest of their lives just to support those Pensioners for their remaining years? Is that fair or Just?

"Independence" will be terrible for everyone unless they can find some top class economists to make the most of the industry and mines they have there, and the port in Mariupol if they get that.

You know who will make the most of the mines and industry they have? Capitalists and Entrepreneurs, that's who. Do you know of any economist that runs a company? I don't.

Well it hurts me to see a gorgeous country going through this, and all because the USA decided to spur on a protest into a coup d'etat in one of it's tried and tested "flower revolution" productions.

Do you really think Obama is capable of engineering a Revolution in Ukraine if he can't even get Obamacare right? I don't, so your story of America causing it lacks credibility, knowing what I know about our current President. Don't you think a President which could do what you say, could make sure that the Obamacare website would work properly on the first day it was introduced? Obama is incompetent and incapable of engineering a Ukrainian coup, you should know better.

The voters could have got rid of Yanukovich in under a year, in legitimate elections, if it was so important, and half the country didn't even support the coup d'etat.
To think that the US and EU sponsor and support an illegal coup d'etat against a democratically elected president, in a European country is beyond words.

That is just Putin's talking points to justify his invasion of Ukraine and stealing their land.

My prediction is that Ukraine has doomed itself. It's not traditionally a nation state, it never has been.

The United States also never has been a Nation State until it was, that in itself does not predict failure.

It's mostly been Russian or belonged to other countries in the region, on and off.
I predict a part of it will be left and the rest will go it alone or eventually join Russia.

Why not Poland? Much of I once belonged to Poland, why wouldn't it choose to join Poland instead of Russia. As part of Poland, Ukrainians would have more influence and power as they would make up a greater percentage of the population than if they were part of Russia. I see more advantages in Ukraine joining Poland, as Poland has a more advanced service-based economy than does Russia, which does little but exploit its natural resources for export and build weapons and make vodka.

But unless they somehow manage to go straight to Russia, they have some hard financial times ahead. It'll be back to the 1990s all over again. Americans should be able to start buying wives from there again. They'll be desperate enough.

Let me put it this way, have you ever bought a Russian car? The United States makes cars for export, Japan makes and exports its cars for export, you can find Japanese and American cars in your country, how many Russian cars can you see? Not many Volgas are there, I don't see many French cars in America either, but I'm sure even those out number the nes produced in Russia, this kind of shows you who has the most advanced economy. One export Russia does make is the AK-47, Russia exports this gun all over the World and it is the favorite weapons of terrorists and murderers all over, is this something to be proud of. America exports a lot of things including guns, Russia exports just guns, death, war, and oil!

And the areas they lose will be the exact areas that the US/NATO were interested in. Nobody cares about the rather unproductive wheat fields and old market towns in the Ukrainian heartland.

Actually those Ukrainian wheat fields are quite productive, Ukraine wasn't called the bread basket of the Soviet Union for nothing after all, as for the Black Sea, that's just a lake, the Russians can't get out of it without passing through Turkey, which holds the key to the Bosporus.

It was Crimea, the industry and mines in the East, plus access to the border with Russia in the East and the Black Sea coast that NATO wanted and I doubt they'll get any of it.

What industry, are their any Russian car factories there? How about computer chip factories, how many Russian computers have you ever bought? Russian Industry is old and obsolete, those industries that are more advanced are geared toward "Defense", nothing that enriches an individual citizens life. If a Russian wants an I-Phone he buys on from Apple, Russia doesn't make those. If a Russian wants a car, he gets a Japanese one, and he sells oil in order to get he money to buy those imports, this all depends on Russia maintaining a monopoly on oil and setting the price. The price of oil, despite Obama's best efforts is trending downward. As the price of oil goes so does Russia as I depends too heavily on its natural resource exports and not and the individual skills and talents of its own people, big mistake!

Also the industrial heartland of the Korean Peninsula was in the North, and look at it now and what it has become due to loss of freedom?

GW Johnson · 2014-05-12 08:23:17

I don't think anybody here will change anybody else's politics. Logical arguments don't work with politics, which is fundamentally irrational to begin with.

That being said, I still view the Ukraine situation as very dangerous. For two reasons. One is the direct danger of war, with Russia "reconquering" its old Warsaw Pact states. The second is damage to the world society and economy from having Russia in opposition instead of trying to join in.

The situation is not so very even-handed, either, although there is fault enough to go around.

I know that western powers had a hand in fomenting the "revolution" that put the current regime in place in Kiev. But, nobody from the west annexed anything. Some talk but no action regarding NATO. Look at the actions and events, not the words. Politics is 99.99% lies.

On the other side, Russian-inspired demonstrations and building-occupations are leading to referendums that demand annexation by Russia. A Russia that has already annexed the Crimea. The pattern is exactly the same for each incident, and so is the clothing: Russian uniforms with no insignia. Again: actions, not words.

Now, this is Putin's Russia, which looks for all the world to be returning to the same kind of leader cult empire-building that it saw under Stalin. The same thing is going on in North Korea, just not very effectively. The same thing happened long ago in fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan, with effects we all still remember today. That kind of thing never leads to good outcomes for the people inside (or neighboring) those countries that try it.

I do wish the situation were different. But we're stuck with this for as long as Putin lasts.

BTW, it's happening again in eastern Ukraine. I told everyone way above in this thread that it would not stop with the Crimea. The goal is to annex the parts Putin want, for whatever his reasons are. Then the remainder is a failed state with no real economic potential; such a thing makes a good border "insulator" or "buffer state". We've seen this before. For millennia.

Watch the actions. Don't listen to the words. 99.99% lies.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2014-05-12 08:25:45)

RobertDyck · 2014-05-12 11:50:13

martienne wrote:

I'd actually rather you guys spoke with the guy from Western Ukraine even if I don't share his views. At least he knows what he is talking about, and if he's honest he can explain the perspective of the Eastern Ukrainians and the Southern. . Hopefully he will turn up here, and can discuss this.

I have offered, and posted a link to this forum. He declined.

I appreciate your insight. I didn't know a South African company had "purchased" the shuttle Ptichka. That explains why heat shield tiles are scratched. It's good to have contact with someone who has more knowledge.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-12 16:29:18

GW Johnson wrote:

I don't think anybody here will change anybody else's politics. Logical arguments don't work with politics, which is fundamentally irrational to begin with.
That being said, I still view the Ukraine situation as very dangerous. For two reasons. One is the direct danger of war, with Russia "reconquering" its old Warsaw Pact states. The second is damage to the world society and economy from having Russia in opposition instead of trying to join in.
The situation is not so very even-handed, either, although there is fault enough to go around.
I know that western powers had a hand in fomenting the "revolution" that put the current regime in place in Kiev. But, nobody from the west annexed anything. Some talk but no action regarding NATO. Look at the actions and events, not the words. Politics is 99.99% lies.
On the other side, Russian-inspired demonstrations and building-occupations are leading to referendums that demand annexation by Russia. A Russia that has already annexed the Crimea. The pattern is exactly the same for each incident, and so is the clothing: Russian uniforms with no insignia. Again: actions, not words.
Now, this is Putin's Russia, which looks for all the world to be returning to the same kind of leader cult empire-building that it saw under Stalin. The same thing is going on in North Korea, just not very effectively. The same thing happened long ago in fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan, with effects we all still remember today. That kind of thing never leads to good outcomes for the people inside (or neighboring) those countries that try it.
I do wish the situation were different. But we're stuck with this for as long as Putin lasts.
BTW, it's happening again in eastern Ukraine. I told everyone way above in this thread that it would not stop with the Crimea. The goal is to annex the parts Putin want, for whatever his reasons are. Then the remainder is a failed state with no real economic potential; such a thing makes a good border "insulator" or "buffer state". We've seen this before. For millennia.
Watch the actions. Don't listen to the words. 99.99% lies.
GW

One thing we could try would be to begin atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs once again as a warning! We could also see to it that some nukes end up in Ukrainian hands so as to discourage further Russian land grabs. What nukes do I freeze borders, and those borders need to be frozen. Perhaps Putin needs to be reminded that we have nukes, perhaps they aren't deterred because they forgot this simple fact. We need another "Cuban Missile Crises" perhaps, maybe give the Russians a scare so they depose Putin as a dangerous man!

JoshNH4H · 2014-05-12 23:02:22

Because that worked so well the first time...

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-05-13 03:43:17

JoshNH4H wrote:

Because that worked so well the first time...

Is the purpose of nuclear disarmament to make the World safe for Napoleonic Adventurism once again?

What nukes do is stabilize borders and put people who want to conquer the World back in their place. It lets Putin know that he can't conquer the World only destroy it, and Putin has no incentive for destroying the World because if he had, he would have already done it by now. We're just telling Putin that we are not just going to lay down and let him conquer us, and that we will fight to the death if necessary to stop him!. So either Putin leaves us alone in peace or he can destroy the World, and our policy should be no to give him any other choice, that is how nuclear deterrence should work. Stalin didn't destroy the World last time. In order for nukes to be effective, we should make sure Western Ukraine has some so Putin can move the border any further West without precipitating a nuclear war, once Putin understands that, we can have peace in Europe once again.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-05-13 03:46:17)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#326 2014-04-27 19:54:14

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#327 2014-04-28 05:38:56

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#328 2014-04-28 09:51:58

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#329 2014-04-28 10:41:17

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#330 2014-05-11 10:19:11

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#331 2014-05-11 11:29:20

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#332 2014-05-11 11:39:09

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#333 2014-05-11 12:48:36

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#334 2014-05-11 13:44:53

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#335 2014-05-11 14:05:18

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#336 2014-05-11 14:50:35

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#337 2014-05-11 15:02:32

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#338 2014-05-11 15:12:27

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#339 2014-05-11 16:01:40

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#340 2014-05-11 16:28:25

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#341 2014-05-11 19:00:00

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#342 2014-05-11 19:06:14

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#343 2014-05-11 19:14:46

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#344 2014-05-11 19:35:36

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#345 2014-05-11 20:03:40

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#346 2014-05-12 08:23:17

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#347 2014-05-12 11:50:13

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#348 2014-05-12 16:29:18

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#349 2014-05-12 23:02:22

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#350 2014-05-13 03:43:17

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

Board footer