• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Ukraine & Russia

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Sumac13

Heretic
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
2,295
Points
113
Not sure if any of you have been following closely the goings on in eastern Ukraine with respect to Russia lately, beyond MH17. But it would appear that Russia is poising itself to invade. You might have heard about Russia setting the pretext of a "humanitarian mission" as justification, one they were attempting to do under the banner of the Red Cross without the Red Cross' permission (More). Even more interesting is the recent sacking of 18 top officials of the Kremlin security apparatus with no explanation who are rumored to be in opposition of any invasion . Additionally, Sergei Ivanov (former Minister of Defense) and Sergei Shoigu (Minister of Defense) didn't deny accounts that they thought it was a bad idea either.

---

Source from Odessa Talk: http://www.odessatalk.com/2014/08/make/

What to make of it?

August 10, 2014 by Nikolai Holmov

Yesterday, 8th August, was the 6th anniversary of Kremlin actions in Georgia – 08.08.08 – which eventually resulted in the long standing disputed territories of South Ossetia and Azbakia.

Yesterday was also the day that saw a large column of Russian hardware head toward the eastern regions of Ukraine flying the Red Cross in a much telegraphed “humanitarian mission” by The Kremlin. That the convoy halted and did not enter Ukraine was due to a combination of The Red Cross not sanctioning the humanitarian mission under its banner – and thus removing any form of international cover via the Geneva Convention – together some hard nosed diplomacy and robust statements orating that any such "humanitarian mission" would be understood as an invasion of Ukraine in the absence of such Red Cross sanctioning of any intervention.

The Kremlin does prefer to work within even a flimsy and/or warped interpretation of international law rather than without any such legal ground to manipulate.

A close call, but one that had been telegraphed via the UNSC for a while – Kremlin requests for such a humanitarian mission being repeatedly denied. In short, any Kremlin humanitarian gestures employing Russian troops would not be a “humanitarian mission” but a limited invasion and frozen conflict creation in eastern Ukraine.

Russian military entering Ukraine would be considered both political in nature regarding desired outcomes/vested interests and also likely to make matters worse not better – two clearly defined considerations of any Responsibility to Protect (R2P) authorisation.

More interesting perhaps, are the statements and actions coming out of The Kremlin in the past few days.

Firstly a few days ago, deliberately deniable accounts surfaced that Sergei Ivanov and Sergei Shoigu were desperately trying to persuade those within The Kremlin that invading Ukraine would be a bad idea. Notably those deniable accounts were not denied by these two very powerful men who have access to President Putin.

Were they giving the discerning and enlightened “watchers” advanced warning of an imminent invasion? Were they distancing themselves, as best they could in the circumstances, from a decision made? An attempt to hold out a veiled olive branch as interlocutors of the future, if and when Mr Putin fell? If they have any interest in leaving their current “clans” and becoming the “arbiter-in-chief” that is the Russian presidential role with regard the “clans”, was this early maneuvering?

Next was the dismissal, on 6th August, of 18 top officials in The Kremlin security apparatus with no mention of the mass sackings other than the official decrees appearing on the presidential website. Those decrees here and here. No explanation given of such a Stalin-esque purge of the top officer corps. Rumour has it that these men also opposed the invasion of Ukraine – Perhaps so. It will take a little time rummaging around in the dark corners of the Kremlin to find out for sure.

Yesterday, prior to Russian conveys heading toward the Ukrainian border, this comment from Prime Minister Medvedev appeared – “Russia will do its best to remain a predictable partner for its citizens and foreign partners.”

As Mr Medvedev is “deputy arbiter-in-chief ” – and “clan-less” as is Mr Putin, though unable to make decisions without Mr Putin relating to the “clans” – almost all of the same questions raised for Messrs Ivanov and Shoigu arise as listed above.

Quite clearly invading Ukraine is not taboo for President Putin. Those who may think otherwise are deluded. Invading Ukraine may also not be taboo for those Kremlin personalities mentioned above either – it is perhaps more a question of timing than tactic for one reason or another. Perhaps there are alternatives that are preferred in some quarters – for alternatives there certainly are without giving up on Ukraine from a Kremlin perspective.

As such, seeing the above – if there is a linkage – as an indication of a splitting (more than usual) within the Kremlin ranks, may well be wishful thinking. premature, or completely erroneous thought. In any case, the situation for Ukraine today is as difficult as it was yesterday. What can be said is that today could have been much more difficult than yesterday. That doesn’t mean tomorrow, the situation cannot become a whole lot worse.
 
Last edited:
It seems the concerns over the sacking of Kremlin officials weeks earlier may have been well founded. Putin & Co. are not about to go away quietly. As one of the articles listed below states, his goal may be just to drag this out indefinitely. Expect things to intensify.


Exclusive: In Ukraine, an armored column appears out of nowhere
BY CHRISTIAN LOWE AND MARIA TSVETKOVA
(Reuters) - On Monday, a resident of Novoazovsk in south-eastern Ukraine said she saw a column of armored vehicles approach the town and start shooting.

"It all started at 8:00 this morning, tanks appeared, no fewer than seven of them," the woman, who gave her name only as Lyudmila, told Reuters by telephone. "Right now I can hear rumbling, explosions ... the residents are hiding."

In Kiev later that morning, Ukrainian officials said the column was an incursion by Russian troops which it alleges are fighting alongside pro-Moscow separatists, a claim Russia quickly dismissed as disinformation.

That is a now-familiar ritual: the five-month conflict over eastern Ukraine is one of claim and counter-claim by opposing sides, often centering on what role Russia is playing. With the battlefield mostly too dangerous for reporters to safely move around, verifying who is doing what is usually impossible.

On Tuesday, in a continuation of the pattern, Kiev said it had captured a group of Russian soldiers who had entered Ukraine on a "special mission", while Moscow said they were there by mistake.

However, the armored column that appeared on Monday in the far south-eastern corner of Ukraine, where it abuts the Russian border, was unusual because the spot was far removed from any territory held by the separatists.

It was therefore difficult to see how the column could have appeared in Ukraine without having come across the Russian border, unless it made an amphibious landing from the nearby Azov Sea which is improbable given the number of heavy vehicles witnesses said they saw.

A Reuters reporter was able to observe the situation in the area where the column was seen, first at the start of August and then most recently on Sunday afternoon, a few hours before the first sightings of the column were reported.

Those observations, combined with interviews with rebel leaders, Ukrainian soldiers, and other research, indicated two things.

First, that until late on Sunday there were no rebel formations within about 30 km (20 miles) of the area where the armored column first appeared, and had not been for weeks beforehand.

And secondly, that before the armored column appeared, the area had come under artillery fire at times when the nearest rebel positions were beyond the range of most types of weapon that could have delivered the strike.

It was not possible to establish whether the people driving the column and firing the artillery were Russian soldiers or separatist rebels. But there were strong indications that whoever it was doing those things operated out of Russian territory - something very unlikely to have happened without Moscow's consent.

The question of Russian involvement is at the core of Western governments' response to the Ukraine crisis, and could be crucial to how the conflict plays out.

The European Union and United States have already imposed sanctions on Russia in part based on allegations Moscow is arming the rebels. The West has warned of more sanctions if Russia provides further help.

ARTILLERY FIRE

A Ukrainian national guard unit stationed on the outskirts of Novoazovsk, on the road towards the Novoazovsk-Veselo-Voznesenka border crossing, showed a Reuters reporter a crater left by an exploding munition near their position.

They said the artillery fire was coming from over the border inside Russia, about 10 km (six miles) to the east.

"There were about 500 salvos from Grad (multiple rocket system) and mortars. There have been and are no rebels here whatsoever. They're just firing straight from Russia," Roman, the commander of a Ukrainian national guard unit, said on Sunday, before the armored column appeared in the same area.

Reuters saw no direct evidence of this, and Russian officials have repeatedly denied that their military is in any way involved in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, between pro-Moscow separatist rebels and government forces.

A spokesman for the Russian border guard service, when asked to comment, said: "This is stupid. Russia doesn't fire at anyone." The Russian defense ministry did not respond to a faxed request for comment.

But with no rebel presence within range inside Ukraine, it was not clear what other source there could have been for the artillery fire.

Even if rebels has somehow snuck into the area and fired the artillery, it seemed impossible they could have done that without using Russian territory to move about, given the distance from the nearest rebel-held locations.

CRATER

The crater seen by the Reuters reporter on Sunday, before the clashes with rebels, was in the corner of a field behind a defensive trench dug by the Ukrainian national guard unit. A metal fragment that appeared to come from a munition was found in the hole.

Reuters showed the photographs of the crater to four European weapons experts who said the crater was either made by an artillery rocket, most probably a Grad, or by a shell from a self-propelled 122 mm gun.

According to one of the experts, Konrad Muzyka, Europe and CIS Armed Forces Analyst with IHS, a consultancy, the maximum range for the 2S1 Gvozdika, the Soviet-designed self-propelled 122 mm gun in use in ex-Soviet states, is 15.3 km. That is extendable to 21.9 km when rocket-assisted projectiles are used, he said.

Muzyka said the maximum range for the most commonly used Grad rocket, designated as 9M22U, was 20.33 km. He said other variants have ranges of up to 40 km, but they are less widespread.

The rebels' self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) says its forces are pushing south from their main stronghold in the city Donetsk, but the settlements they said they had taken by Monday which were closest to the Novoazovsk-Veselo-Voznesenka crossing were Telmanovo, about 30 km (20 miles) away as the crow flies, and Novokaterinovka, about 60 km (40 miles) away.

That may have overstated the rebels' reach: a Reuters reporter who drove through Telmanovo twice on Sunday saw no sign of a rebel presence in or near the town.

One of the experts who reviewed the photographs, British-based independent weapons researcher Eliot Higgins, said he believed the crater was caused by a Grad rocket. He said the shape of the crater suggested the munition was fired from the north-east, the direction of the border with Russia.

The Ukrainian unit said most of the artillery struck in the area between their post and the border. Reuters was unable to inspect the other craters left behind by the strikes because of the risk the artillery fire could start up again.

Members of the unit said Russian artillery had been landing on the Ukrainian side overnight from Thursday to Friday, and again on Friday night.

On a previous visit to the area, on Aug. 1. Ukrainian border guards at the crossing point between Russia and Ukraine showed a Reuters reporter broken windows and holes in the roof of their building.

They said the damage was caused by mortar rounds fired from Russian territory. "There isn't a single insurgent around here for 50 km," said one of the border guards, Artur Zakharov. "A mortar can travel 6 (km)."

Asked by Reuters on Monday how the rebels could fire artillery so far from their positions, Andrei Purgin, DNR deputy prime minister, said: "In the conditions of modern warfare, 20 km is no kind of distance for artillery."

"This is not a war of fronts, it's a civil war. Movements of troops can take place here practically instantaneously. All of us here are insurgents. You come home, you grab your weapons and you go and shoot."


More than 1,000 Russian troops operating in Ukraine: NATO
(Reuters) - Well over 1,000 Russian troops are operating inside Ukraine, marking a significant escalation of Moscow's military involvement in the country, NATO said on Thursday.

The alliance released satellite images it said showed Russian combat forces, armed with heavy weapons, engaged in military operations inside Ukrainian territory.

"Over the past two weeks we have noted a significant escalation in both the level and sophistication of Russia's military interference in Ukraine," Dutch Brigadier-General Nico Tak, head of NATO's crisis management center, told reporters at NATO's military headquarters near Mons, Belgium.

"We assess well over 1,000 Russian troops are now operating inside Ukraine," he said, referring to Russia's actions as "incursions" rather than an invasion. "They are supporting separatists (and) fighting with them."

NATO estimates Russia also has around 20,000 troops close to the Ukrainian border, Tak said.

"We have also detected large quantities of advanced weapons, including air defense systems, artillery, tanks and armored personnel carriers being transferred to separatist forces in eastern Ukraine," he said.

Ukraine accused Russia on Thursday of bringing troops into the southeast of the country in support of pro-Moscow separatist rebels.

NATO ambassadors will hold an emergency meeting with their Ukrainian counterpart in Brussels on Friday at Kiev's request to discuss the situation, a NATO official said. NATO ambassadors will also meet separately on Friday.

SELF-PROPELLED ARTILLERY

One satellite picture released by NATO, taken on Aug. 21, showed Russian military units moving in convoy with self-propelled artillery in the area of Krasnodon, Ukraine, inside territory controlled by Russian separatists.

A second image, taken on Aug. 23, showed Russian self-propelled artillery units set up in firing positions near Krasnodon, supported by logistical vehicles likely to have been carrying extra ammunition and supplies, NATO said.

"This is highly sophisticated equipment which requires a well-trained crew. It takes months to train crews like that.

It's extremely unlikely these sorts of units are manned by separatists," Tak said.

Tak said the escalation of Russian military operations in recent weeks was directly linked to the success of Ukrainian government operations against pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, including "the loss of territory by the separatists, the loss of weapons and the loss of manpower."

Since Monday, Russia had carried out a new incursion near Novoazovsk in south-eastern Ukraine, he said.

"This effectively creates a second front for the Ukrainian forces. This is an extremely effective way to take pressure off the separatists," he said.

The Russian move put Ukrainian armed forces in a dire situation because from south-eastern Ukraine Russian forces could either move to link up with Donetsk area or move further west towards Crimea, which Russia annexed in March, he said.

"From a strategic perspective it is clear that Russia is not willing to accept a defeat of the separatists. So it will most likely do anything that it takes to prevent such a defeat," Tak said.

"I suspect they (Russian forces) will do no more than absolutely necessary at this point to show their hand," he said.

"The next thing we will see is Russia is going to try and freeze this conflict. It is going to try and prolong the conflict, making it difficult for Ukraine to sustain that operation, making sure that they don’t have to sell a defeat at home and trying to broker some kind of deal with Kiev, something that will allow them enduring influence in eastern Ukraine," he said.

Asked about the likelihood of Russian troops creating a "land bridge" from Russia to Crimea via Mariupol, Tak said: "It is obviously something that we are watching quite closely."

Creating a land bridge to Crimea would require a lot more Russian resources but it was not impossible, he said.

Tak said there was clear evidence that there had been military contact between Ukrainian and Russian forces.

Pictures of graves in northwestern Russia that had appeared in the media suggested Russia had taken casualties, he said.

Despite NATO's concern over the situation in Ukraine, the 28-nation, U.S. dominated alliance has said repeatedly it has no intention of intervening militarily in Ukraine, which is not a NATO member.

It has reinforced the security of NATO allies in the region and will discuss further steps at a summit in Wales next week.
 
It would be comical if it were not so tragic. Putin blames Ukraine for not being able to keep peace, yet he is allowing Russia to supply the separatists with weapons and troops. It will be interesting to see how this spills over to the rest of the region.

Putin likens Ukraine's forces to Nazis and threatens standoff in the Arctic
Vladimir-Putin-011.jpg

Russia's president Vladimir Putin. Photograph: Itar-Tass/Barcroft Media
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has hit back at accusations that he has effectively invaded Ukraine, accusing Ukrainian forces of behaving like Nazis in the conflict in the east and ominously threatening to take his standoff with the west into the disputed Arctic.

Hours after Barack Obama accused Russia of sending troops into Ukraine and fuelling an upsurge in the separatist war, Putin retorted that the Ukrainian army was the villain of the piece, targeting residential areas of towns and cities like German troops did in the former Soviet Union.

He added that Russians and Ukrainians "are practically one people", reprising a theme of an earlier statement in which he referred to the disputed areas of south-eastern Ukraine as Novorossiya – a throwback to tsarist times when the area was ruled from Moscow.

And he made a pointed reference to the Arctic, which with its bounteous energy reserves and thawing waterways is emerging as a new potential conflict between Russia and its western rivals. "Our interests are concentrated in the Arctic. And of course we should pay more attention to issues of development of the Arctic and the strengthening of our position," Putin told a youth camp outside Moscow.

Russia's latest alleged interventions in Ukraine, in which it stands accused of sending as many as 1,000 soldiers and military hardware across the border to bolster the flagging separatist insurrection, has prompted a flurry of emergency meetings.

A-satellite-image-showing-015.jpg
A satellite image showing what Nato claims are self-propelled Russian artillery units inside Ukraine. Photograph: Nato/DigitalGlobe/EPA
Nato ambassadors emerged from a meeting on Friday morning to accuse Russia of a "blatant violation" of Ukraine's sovereignty. "Despite Moscow's hollow denials, it is now clear that Russian troops and equipment have illegally crossed the border into eastern and south-eastern Ukraine," its secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said.

Barack Obama convened his national security council on Thursday, and emerged to say that Moscow was responsible for the recent upsurge in violence, in which a new front has opened up in Ukraine's far south-east close to the city of Mariupol.

Speaking at a news conference in Washington, the US president said Russia was encouraging, training, arming and funding separatists in the region and warned Moscow that it faced further isolation.

He said: "Russia has deliberately and repeatedly violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and the new images of Russian forces inside Ukraine make that plain for the world to see. This comes as Ukrainian forces are making progress against the separatists."

b33301b9-8bbe-47d0-8a8b-5d8d65cb9ef7-460x276.jpeg
Barack Obama: 'Russia has deliberately and repeatedly violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine'. Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Obama again ruled out US military action, but threatened a further tightening of sanctions.

"As a result of the actions Russia has already taken, and the major sanctions we've imposed with our European and international partners, Russia is already more isolated that at any time since the end of the cold war," he said. "Capital is fleeing. Investors are increasingly staying out. Its economy is in decline." Financial markets echoed his words, and the ruble fell to an all-time low against the dollar on Friday morning.

Putin hit back by saying it was the Ukrainians who had failed to make peace happen. "It is necessary to force the Ukrainian authorities to substantively begin these talks – not on technical issues … the talks must be substantive," Putin said. "Small villages and large cities [are] surrounded by the Ukrainian army, which is directly hitting residential areas with the aim of destroying the infrastructure … It sadly reminds me the events of the second world war, when German fascist … occupants surrounded our cities."

For its part, Ukraine raised the stakes further on Friday morning when the prime minister, Arseny Yatseniuk, said he would try to take the country into Nato. Ukraine has formally maintained a position of non-alignment since its independence in 1991; the current crisis started over deep divisions in the country over whether to align itself more closely with the EU or turn towards the Russian camp.

Russian-soldiers-near-the-011.jpg
Russian soldiers near the border with Ukraine. Photograph: Alexander Demianchuk/Reuters
The UN security council met on Thursday night, where the British ambassador, Mark Lyall Grant, repeated Nato assertions that Russia had deployed more than 1,000 troops in Ukraine. "Formed units of the armed forces of the Russian federation are now directly engaged in fighting inside Ukraine against the armed forces of Ukraine. These units consist of well over 1,000 regular Russian troops equipped with armoured vehicles, artillery and air defence systems," he said.

State department spokeswoman Jen Psaki amplified Obama's comments with details of Russia's involvement in Ukraine.

"Russia has … stepped up its presence in eastern Ukraine and intervened directly with combat forces, armoured vehicles, artillery, and surface-to-air systems, and is actively fighting Ukrainian forces as well as playing a direct supporting role to the separatists' proxies and mercenaries," she told a media briefing.

Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN, accused Russia of lying about its involvement in Ukraine. "It has manipulated. It has obfuscated. It has outright lied," she said.

"The mask is coming off. In these acts, these recent acts, we see Russia's actions for what they are: a deliberate effort to support, and now fight alongside, illegal separatists in another sovereign country."

Russia's UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, responded: "There are Russian volunteers in eastern parts of Ukraine. No one is hiding that." Russia has denied that its troops are in Ukraine helping separatists fight the Ukrainian army.

But back at home, relatives of soldiers have started to break ranks, publicising the fact that their kin are in Ukraine.

One grandfather, Mikhail Smirnov, has told the Guardian that his 22-year-old grandson, Stanislav Smirnov, sent a message from the Ukrainian border on 19 August saying his motor rifle brigade was "being deployed". They have heard nothing since.

"Our government has gone too far –- it has lost its head," the grandfather said. When reminded that Moscow claims it has no troops in Ukraine, he added: "Hey, we are not blind."
 
Thanks x 3 for getting starting and maintaining this thread. I will try to do my part and keep it lively. So let's go!

It sounds to me like you are anti-russia and pro ukraine. I don't have a problem with that, but I can't say that I think you are being 100% objective (who is?).

So Putin likens ukraine's forces to Nazis. Hmmm, where would he get that outlandish idea?

US-backed Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok

sieg-heil-svoboda.jpg


Svoboda’s integral involvement in the Ukrainian uprising and their reward of several key positions within the post-coup government underscores once again how the United States is willing to back some of the most repulsive and dangerous organizations on the planet, so long as they are on board with the long term goal of US hegemony and geopolitical domination.

all taken from: http://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress...arty-given-key-roles-in-ukrainian-government/ which i found by doing a google search.
 
I welcome a discussion on this. Will post tomorrow (which is Saturday for me). Too tired to think tonight. Still getting settled in to new apartment.
 
Sorry for this being a bit disjointed:

----

Putin likening Ukrainian forces to Nazis is merely propaganda, something at which The Kremlin is well adept.

About Oleh Tyahnybok--There is no denying he has made contemptible statements regarding Jews. That is well documented. For a quick and lazy search for some of them, visit his Wikipedia page. His attempts to explain them away being not anti-Semitic but rather pro-Ukrainian weren't credible.

Now, regarding the matter of what role did he and his party play in the EuroMaiden protests, and more importantly, what to make of it--it is complicated and yet it isn't. Understand, the Svoboda {Freedom} party is a nationalist political party. The term nationalist can be such a charged term, one that conjures images of fascism and anti-semitic views. So, when the Svoboda has has Tyahnybok president, it is becomes easy to apply these negative connotations of nationalism to the party. (And it is not unreasonable to do so.) But, before condemning outright the party or more broadly any Ukrainian nationalistic sentiment outright, one first needs to understand why the rise of Ukrainian nationalism (not fascism) is occurring. This is very important in determining whether you are willing to separate Tyanhnybok from the party and thus treat them as separate entities or whether you treat them one and the same. While, the former option is perhaps not currently achievable, I would argue that it should be eventually.

Why the need for nationalism (of the non-fascist non anti-semitic nature)? Understanding this is paramount to understanding Ukraine's approach to the 'separatists' in eastern Ukraine. The relationship between Ukraine and Russia has existed for many a century, one not of equal footing. As a whole, Russia's treatment of Ukraine has been deplorable. I offer a passage from the translator's introduction from "The Complete Kobzar -- The Poetry of Taras Shevchenko" as a glimpse of the approach Russia has taken towards Ukraine. Please read.

It is sad to say that mine is first ever complete English version of Shevchenko's poetry collection. That is not to claim special credit or to disparage his previous translators, whose work I admire and often referred to. It is instead grudging recognition of the Kremlin's remarkable ability not only to have inhibited Ukrainian intellectual activity, but to have kept a country as a large as Ukraine invisible to the outside world. It did so through prolonged enslavement, isolation and the slaughter of Ukrainians by the millions; through selective revisions of history to deny Ukrainians their past, as well as czarist bans against the literary use of Ukrainian, and Soviet pressure to muzzle the language. Ukrainians effectively disconnected from one another and their homeland. Such relentless pressures are the hallmarks of genocide, which made it exceedingly difficult for Ukrainians to multiply, establish a common identity and to find a place of their own on the world stage as Slavic people no less worthy of independent statehood than Poles, Czechs, Bulgarians, Serbs or Russians for that matter.

Shevchenko, himself, wrote in the mid 1800s about the disgraceful approach that Russia took towards Ukraine. This is nothing new. It has existed for centuries. And it still continues. Just recently, this gem from Putin:

Putin says Russians and Ukrainians 'practically one people'
Fri, Aug 29 2014
LAKE SELIGER Russia (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday the Ukraine crisis was a tragedy and that Ukrainians and Russians are "practically one people".

"People who have their own views on history and the history of our country may argue with me, but it seems to me that the Russian and Ukrainian peoples are practically one people," Putin told a youth camp outside of Moscow.

What the fuck, Putin? You asshole. Fuck you. This is why their exists a nationalistic movement within Ukraine, a push to establish a stronger national identity. As you can see the rise of Svoboda and a broader sense of nationalism has not occurred in a vacuum. It is largely in reaction against the deplorable treatment by Russia. Enough is enough. Who can blame Ukrainians for wanting to establish their own identity, to speak their own language, to learn about their own cultural heroes, to not have it continually mocked and suppressed.

There is also a second contributing and intimately related factor which contributes to the nationalistic movement; it is also largely due to a desire to rise above the corruption that has plagued the country for centuries. To rise above the corruption, the people need to believe in a cause greater than themselves. They need to put the long term needs of their country before their own. It is a damn difficult proposition. How do you convince people to do it whose apathy is as high as their self-esteem is low. One way is to start embracing what it means to be Ukrainian, and part of that is the embracing of the language. Another way is to disentangle Ukraine from the influence of Russia, and to accept and embrace the responsibility of self-determination and doing what is required to become integrated in the larger European and world economies.

Given this, EuroMaiden should had come as no surprise. Yanukovych and the Party of Regions were closely linked (I won't say 'a puppet regime' for it wasn't exactly that) to Russia. The regime had to go. It was not just Svoboda that opposed Yanukovych, but a lot of Ukrainians. A lot.

As an example, I offer the words of the current Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk (not a member of Svoboda) taken from the Kyiv Post (in 2012) as evidence of a broader desire within the country to pull away from Russia:

"Ukraine's joining the {Russia-centric} Customs Union means the restoration of the Soviet Union in a slightly different form and with a different name. But this means that the country will become a part of the Russian empire. We know history. We have been there and we don't want to return there," Yatseniuk said. ...

According to Yatseniuk, Ukraine's first task is to become a part of the European Union.

"This is the path supported by the opposition. Ukraine should become a part of greater Europe. First of all, because this means standards and values – a [high] level of education, medical treatment, pensions, employment, freedoms, new technologies, and progress," he said.

This is but one example of a non-Svoboda member (many could be listed), but one to illustrate that EuroMaiden wasn't simply an orchestration of a sinister fascist organization that Russia has been attempting to paint it to be. Svoboda was but a part of a much larger whole, a tough, resolute, well-funded and at times ruthless part.

It is sickening for Russia to be so seemingly incapable of seeing their own culpability in the matter. What fucking arrogance. "Why don't the Ukrainian people embrace us as brothers? We've done so much for them." Yeah, they've done a lot to them.

Returning to the matter of US support of Tyahnybok--U.S. support for EuroMaiden protests should not be taken for a full-fledged backing of Oleh Tyahnybok nor of a condoning his sentiments. Did the two share a similar goal in deposing the scoundrel Yanukovych? Yes. But, so did a good number of groups and people from disparate backgrounds. The U.S. support was of a much broader movement. Moreover, the U.S. and the E.U. wanted to keep Tyahnybok 'on the 'outside' as stated by US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland after the deposing of Yanukovych.

Claims of the U.S backing Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok is a deliberate and disingenuous attempt to discredit the will of the Ukrainian people. It is a distortion of facts, really. And for those concerned about Tyahnybok, yes, he was given a position new prosecutor general in the interim government. He resigned that post and no longer holds a position in the Ukrainian government. Three members of Svoboda do hold Minister positions. Of the three, Oleksandr Sych, seems a douche bag. But, there is evidence as the party is becoming more mainstream and institutionalized the party as a whole are becoming more moderate. And I will throw this out there, too. In the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election Tyahnybok only received 1.16% of the vote, so it is not like there is a wide spread embracing of his views.

With any nationalistic movement there is always the risk of elements of fascism creeping into it. This is not surprising. It offers a stage for people with extreme views to espouse those views. And when those views are heard, it is all too easy to just dismiss the movement as a whole as being fascists. This is not the case in Ukraine. One needs to understand the history and the context of the moment to understand why it is occurring.

Ukrainians want a better life. They want peace. They don't have imperialistic ambitions. They are not looking to conquer new lands. They do want to be able to hold their heads up high and be proud of their heritage and want their sovereignty respected, something Russia simply is going to let happen.

Realize, The Kremlin is well adept at propaganda. I know we (the West) receive a Western bent to the news that we hear. The White House and other governments spin their stories. But it grossly pales in comparison to how The Kremlin attempts to control the Russian Media and what the population there is told. Hell, they are already busy writing the history of Novorussiya.
 
Last edited:
I want to address point about being anti-Russia. In terms of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, yes, I am on the side of the current Ukrainian administration 100%. I am not anti-Russian. I don't hate Russian people. Far from it. I separate policy from people quite easily. There is much I admire about Russian culture, the literature being perhaps my favorite. My avatar is from one version of a cover of the book Master & Margarita. Shoshtakovich is a favorite composer. I've traveled to St. Petersburg and enjoyed the company of the people there (mostly). But, I deplore the historical policies of Russia towards Ukraine, by-and-large.

When in Ukraine last year, I lived in Chernigov for a few months while studying Russian. The city itself spoke mostly Russian. While there one day, I found myself in the apartment of the former head of youth propaganda for the Soviet Army for Prague. We were drinking tea discussing our lives. Fascinating man. He expressed his sentiments that it was a shame that I was not learning to speak Ukrainian. He felt so heartfelt about it. While he understood that I didn't have a choice in the matter, I could feel him silently imploring me to do so. At the time, I didn't give it much thought. For one, I really didn't have a choice in the matter. And two, I didn't appreciate the significance of why he felt that way at the time. I was aware that there was a push to make Ukrainian the national language once again. Laws had already been passed. To what extent they were being fully embraced varied by region. But, again, I didn't get the why.

I get it now. After seeing what has transpired over the course of the past year and after reading more about the history of the country, and after having a better (far far far from encyclopedic) understanding of the relationship between Ukraine and Russia, I understand the need of the Ukrainian people to establish a distinct identity, one that is Ukrainian. It is a matter of survival. You need a populace willing to defend themselves. You need a populace willing to sacrifice for the good of the future. You need a populace believing their fate is not to be determined by an outside force. In order to have that, you need a populace that takes pride in who they are as a people, a pride not borne of arrogance but one of self-esteem.

This is why there is rise of nationalism. Unfortunately, with it comes opportunities for extremists to espouse their unsavory views. But, I urge everyone not to let the voices of a few (sometimes the loudest) to be taken as representative of the vast majority, for they are not.
 
Despite Putin cowardly unwilling to admit to Russian forces invading Ukraine, his own human rights advisor at least has the courage to do so.

Link to video: {Snipped transcript: 1:20 mark} While Russian President Vladimir Putin, seen here with his South African counterpart, isn't saying whether Russian forces have or haven't invaded Ukraine, his own human rights advisor Ella Polyakova didn't mince words. SOUNDBITE: Ella Polyakova saying: "This is an invasion; this is being done by the military. This is a frightening invasion (breach) of human rights and the lives of Russian citizens. This is an invasion." The multiple accounts and images suggesting a Russian incursion come as Kiev continues its struggle to beat back rebel advances within its borders over the past two weeks. Now, they are preparing for advances from outside as well.{/snipped}


And this… I wonder if his name wasn't Shlosberg if it would have happened.

Russian politician beaten after report on soldier burials
(Reuters) - A Russian politician said on Saturday he had been badly beaten after publicising the mysterious funerals of two soldiers who may have died while fighting in Ukraine.

Lev Shlosberg, a newspaper publisher who represents the liberal opposition Yabloko party in the regional assembly in the northwestern city of Pskov, said he was attacked on Friday evening near his home.

"They attacked me from behind, I did not see any of them,"

Shlosberg said in a phone interview from his hospital ward.

"Apparently, they knocked me unconscious with their first punch, threw me to the ground, beat me up and then ran away. Those people were very good professionals in their nasty business."

Shlosberg's paper published the investigation into the funerals of two Pskov-based paratroopers last week. The report added to a trail of evidence suggesting that Russian soldiers have been killed in eastern Ukraine, contradicting denials by Moscow that it is lending military support to separatist rebels there.

The report has raised awkward questions for the Kremlin.

When a Reuters reporter went on Wednesday to the cemetery where the soldiers were alleged to have been buried, he was stopped from entering and threatened by two young men with shaven heads.

Shlosberg said he believed he had been attacked for presenting evidence that Russia's military was taking part in the Ukraine conflict and sustaining casualties.

"I hope police will at least find the culprits," he said. "This would be hard to do...but I don't see grounds for police to intentionally hamper the investigation."

Shlosberg said he did not want to discuss his injuries, but doctors had told him he would take 10 days to recover.

The local governor demanded a thorough investigation of the attack, a demand echoed by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

A Kremlin spokesman has said that the relevant authorities will look into the reports about the soldiers' burials.
 
Here is an article--a lengthy one at that--from The American Interest talking about Russia and the direction they have chosen to head on the world stage. It is worth a read. It helps to explain the significance of Russia's involvement in Ukraine on a much broader scale, how it is not about protecting Russian speakers in Ukraine as Putin would like you to believe. While you may or may not sympathize with Ukraine or Ukrainians, there is still reason to be concerned about Russia's actions and China's decision to help finance.


Putin Ends the Interregnum
When the Gaza War and the threat from ISIS pulled global attention away from Ukraine, you could almost hear the sighs of relief emanating from the Western capitals: Finally, something to distract us from this Eurasian conundrum! This isn’t to say that Western leaders don’t understand that the war in Ukraine has implications for both the international order and the West’s own internal workings. By now they appreciate the stakes (or at least they ought to); they just haven’t been able to come up with an answer.

Meanwhile, Russia itself faces a conundrum of its own. By attempting to shift Russia backward to an older civilizational model, Putin has already inflicted a deep strategic defeat on his country. His efforts to turn Russia back to the “Besieged Fortress” model will only rob Russia of its chance to become a modern society. Moreover, Putin has also unleashed forces he can’t hope to contain, thus accelerating the agonizing decay of his own regime. Nevertheless, though he has lost the battle with history, Putin has been moving from one tactical victory to the next by forcing the West to constantly react and try to accommodate his reckless behavior.

Russia’s recent “humanitarian invasion” of nearly 200 trucks—which crossed the border and then returned, the Ukrainian government alleges, with stolen factory equipment—is only one of the more recent Kremlin experiments aimed at testing both the global rules of the game and Western leaders’ readiness to confront Russia. This alleged mass theft, in particular, took place just before Ukraine’s Independence day, on the eve of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Kiev and before the meeting between Putin and Poroshenko. It was an intentional slap in the face, meant to bring across a simple message: “Screw you! We don’t care what you say!”

The Kremlin has been intentionally escalating tensions in order to ready us for Putin’s attempt to assume the role of Peacemaker—albeit on his terms. Peacemaking, for the Russian leader, is merely a means to another goal: forcing the West to accept the Kremlin’s right to change the rules of the game whenever it suits its interests. Indeed this is precisely what he demonstrated at the recent meeting in Minsk between the EU, Russia, and Ukraine, where Putin stubbornly refused to admit to the Russian military’s involvement in the war in Ukraine.

What this means is that there are no concessions on the part of the West and Ukraine that can satisfy the other side. This is true not because of bellicosity or incompetence of the Russian leader; he is quite rational and competent. Rather, he understands all too well the logic of personalized power in Russia—that, at this late stage of regime decay, it requires him to keep Russia in a state of war with the outside world. The war with Ukraine has thus become an existential problem for the current Russian political regime. It can’t afford a defeat. Yesterday Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko claimed—and NATO satellite imagery appears toconfirm—that Russian troops have openly invaded the Ukrainian territory, proving that the Kremlin is no longer interested in forestalling an escalation. Hell is unfolding…

Several years ago the famous Polish political philosopher and sociologist Zygmunt Bauman reintroduced into our political lexicon the term “interregnum” (a word once used by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci to describe the early 1930s). The term means “a time without a trajectory,” or “a time outside of time,” when the old is dying and the new has not yet been born or is too faint to notice. It is a treacherous time to interpret: Is it just before dawn, or just after dusk? “Interregnum” is also an apt description for the times in which the world found itself during the first decades of the 21st century: a time of ideological fuzziness, political ambivalence, and normative relativism.

Having flipped the global chessboard with his annexation of the Crimea and an undeclared war against Ukraine, Putin effectively ended the most recent period of interregnum and inaugurated a new era in global politics. However, no one yet knows what this era will bring. The global community is still reeling in shock, when it isn’t trying to pretend that nothing extraordinary has in fact occurred. This denial of the fact that the Kremlin has dealt a blow to conventional ideas, stable geopolitical constructs, and (supposedly) successful policies proceeds from the natural instinct for self-preservation. It is also quite natural that the political forces that have grown accustomed to the status quo will try to look to the past for answers to new challenges—this is precisely what those who were unprepared for a challenge always do. It was easy enough to predict that many politicians and political analysts would explain what Putin has done to the global order by using Cold War analogies. Drawing these historical parallels is potentially useful in only one respect: if they help us to see what is truly new about the current situation, and the scale of the risks involved.

The Cold War of the past century was not merely a competition of two global systems; it was also a clash of two ideologies that sought world domination. Russia, having entered a stage of decline, no longer possesses a global ideology and cannot play a role in counterbalancing the West. Nevertheless, the new containment policy initiated by the Kremlin should concern the West, since in one important respect these times differ from those of the Cold War. Back then, the opposing sides attempted to follow the rules of the game (the Cuban Missile Crisis was the sole exception that highlighted the need to play by the rules). The current confrontation with the West instigated by Putin’s Russia, however, is characterized by a new set of circumstances:

  • Russia and the West (primarily Europe) are economically interconnected.
  • There is now a massive pro-Kremlin lobbying operation within Western society. This operation engages right- and left-wing forces, as well as business elites and former politicians, in serving the Kremlin’s interests.
  • Unlike the Soviet Kremlin, Putin’s Kremlin is not only prepared to violate the international rules of the game; it also demands that the world recognize its right to interpret them.
  • Influential forces within Western society aren’t ready to acknowledge the failures of Western policy on Russia. These “accommodators,” attempting to act within the past framework of engaging Russia, view its current belligerence as a temporary phenomenon caused by local factors.
Thus, the Western proponents of the two opposing courses on Russia are quite confused now. After all, the Kremlin seeks to contain the West even as it maintains an active presence there, which prevents the West from either successfully containing or engaging Russia. Аs for the dual-track approach—that is, the combination of both containment and engagement—the West has never had success with this. The crisis of these past foreign policy models has become obvious in the case of Ukraine, where the West still struggles to find a solution that would end the Kremlin’s undeclared war. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has managed to force the West to accept the aggressor in this conflict as a peacemaker and mediator. Not only that, but it is also now trying to force the West to agree to a new status quo, without offering its own pledge to respect it.

In other words, we face a new reality in which neither Cold War schemes nor post-Cold War settlement approaches appear to work. This means that we will have to revisit a number of traditional views, including our views on the collapse of the Soviet Union—which, as we now should understand, merely served to sustain the Russian Matrix of personalized power at the cost of dismantling the old state. The same understanding applies to Yeltsin’s role: He was in fact an architect of anti-Communist authoritarianism, creating the constitutional grounds for Putin’s regime. We will have to take a fresh look at the policies the West has been advancing over the past twenty years, ranging from the European Union’s roadmaps for Russia’s inclusion in Europe to the U.S. “reset” and the EU’s “Partnership for Modernization.” We will need to ask ourselves to what extent Western policies were actually means of including Russia in Western normative space, and to what extent they merely facilitated the revival of the Russian personalized power system. Having cast aside imitations of partnership and democratization in Russia, Putin seriously damaged the reputation of Western intellectual and political communities. Just think how many analytical publications, speeches, and dissertations have now been rendered superfluous, if not just plain wrong! How many political decisions and constructs have been exposed as futile, or even deleterious to the liberal democracies! Even a short list of misguided political actions, op-eds, and academic research would offer a stunning example of a collective failure to analyze, predict, and react to the obvious.

Meanwhile,Russia’s war against Ukraine could have consequences reaching even further than those of the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet collapse was unexpectedly peaceful (again despite numerous predictions to the contrary). The Soviet Union just cracked and crumbled like a clay pot. This painless demise to a large extent resulted from the fact that the old and frail Soviet elite was unable to struggle for survival, and a significant number of Russians wanted change and looked up to the West. The situation is drastically different today: the Russian elite will fight tooth and nail to survive, using every means at its disposal—including, we now see, external aggression, blackmail, and the threat of undeclared war. Besides, the Russians of today, zombified by television war propaganda, fear change and view the West suspiciously. The 1991 Soviet collapse spawned a democratic euphoria and hopes for the ultimate victory of liberal democracy. Today the world finds itself in the midst of the authoritarian surge. In its final days, the Soviet Union could barely attract worldwide, let alone Western, support; Putin’s Kremlin, meanwhile, has managed to find supporters in the West all across the political spectrum—many of whom aren’t always aware of whose tune they’re dancing to. Today’s Russia is an advance combat unit of the new global authoritarianism, with China acting as its informal leader and waiting in the wings to seize its own opportunities. Indeed, by destabilizing the Western world and exposing its weaknesses, Putin is effectively doing Beijing’s dirty work.

Putin’s Kremlin challenged the West at the same time that the liberal community was losing its mission and normative dimension. This is essentially a civilizational rather than a geopolitical challenge: Apart from testing the liberal democracies’ ability to defend the global order, it is testing their ability to reintroduce the normative dimension to their foreign policies. That is exactly what Ukrainian crisis is about: Here Putin is trying to explore how strong the West’s positions are. The Kremlin isn’t fighting for the rights of Russian-speakers in Ukraine, or for greater autonomy for the east. These issues are ultimately of little significance to the Kremlin. Instead, what we have in Ukraine is a battle waged by a declining but ever more desperately aggressive authoritarianism against a hostile civilization. And today’s Russian elite will not leave the battlefield voluntarily, as the impotent Soviet leaders once did. After the Kremlin turned Ukraine into an internal political factor, and turned containment of the West in Ukraine into a tool for mobilizing Russians around their leader, it cut off its avenues for retreat. Retreat would lead to a loss of power and control over the country, which under current Kremlin conditions, would be tantamount to suicide (and not just the political variety). Putin’s retreat would spell defeat for global authoritarianism. Therefore, we can expect that Beijing will lend Moscow a helping hand where possible. (Beijing will also force Moscow to pay for this help—the recent Russia-China gas contract, which exclusively caters to Chinese interests, is a clear illustration of what’s to come).

To be sure, it’s possible to reach the same diagnosis I have here and nevertheless draw precisely the opposite conclusions: “We should accommodate Russia. Ukraine is a failed state no matter what we do. Let the Russians have this twilight zone.” So say those who believe that it is still possible to fall back to the familiar “Let’s Pretend!” game of the past. Even those who understand that the world now faces a much more formidable challenge calling for new and far reaching solutions still haven’t fully grasped the meaning of the new reality unfolding before our eyes.

Ironically, the 1991 Soviet collapse did not guarantee the gradual rise of liberal civilization. We are witnessing its crisis twenty years later. Perhaps, the West needs rivals like the former Soviet Union to sustain itself and remain true to form. The West needs to return to its mission and core values in order to respond to Putin’s Russia, but doing so calls for taking stock of the mistakes and dashed hopes of the past. It requires an overhaul of long-standing and ostensibly immutable institutions and principles, including: the European security system (particularly as it pertains to energy security); issues involving democratic transitions, war and peace, and global government and responsibility; and the role of the normative dimension in foreign policy.

What a mess Putin has gotten us all into! But let’s also give him his due: He has paved the way for the emergence of new trends—or at least he’s called the existing ones into serious question. He has also facilitated the formation of Ukrainian national identity, ensuring that the country will never again become a mere extension of Russia. He has thus undermined his own dream—that of creating the Eurasian Union. He has precipitated a crisis in his own country, making its future path completely unpredictable. And finally, he has reminded NATO of its mission and prompted the liberal democracies to reflect on their own principles.

Now, it is entirely up to the West. The liberal democracies may choose to return to their foundations. If not, the accommodators—those who hope for a return to the old “Let’s pretend!” game—will win. If they do, this will give a green light to the Authoritarian Internationale, signaling that the West is weak and can be trampled underfoot.
 
http://news.ie.msn.com/entertainmen...s-adopt-star-and-name-it-‘putin-is-a-dckhead’

Ukrainian astronomers adopt star and name it ‘Putin is a d*ckhead’
Updated: Friday, 04 July 2014 12:46 | By Amy O'Connor, TheJournal.ie

79F02286FA851AB29B933C37B5C86C_h416_w622_m2_q80_cWGYGaurf.jpg




NAMING A STAR after somebody may seem like a sweet, romantic gesture. Not in the case of these Ukrainian astronomers and pro-Ukraine activists who teamed up to adopt a star and name it “Putin-Huilo” after Russian president Vladimir Putin.

And what does Putin-Huilo translate to? Oh, just “Putin is a dickhead”.

97216C87E5AEFB9DF167EB31CE61_h427_w622_m2_q80_czUfigfAz.jpg


“Putin-Huilo” is a popular Russian-Ukrainian song that has its origins as a football chant , but quickly gained traction during the recent unrest in Ukraine with many singing it at protests. The internet soon cottoned on to it and there are several renditions of the song on YouTube.

*points to sky*

“On a clear night, you can see ‘Putin Is A Dickhead’.”
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top