Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[elbows]

Viktor Medvedchuk - Wikipedia captured

Hopefully that one is true because I was pretty pissed off that he was allowed to escape house arrest early on.

The part of the wikipedia article about him that covers his early years is something I find especially grim reading.

Viktor Medvedchuk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

eg:

While training at the University Medvedchuk was a combatant, helping the police catch offenders, and while on patrol with his squad he beat a student. In April 1974, Medvedchuk and two of his fellow policemen were convicted by the court of Lenin Raion (today the court of Pechersk Raion) in Kyiv for beating up a minor. In June 1974, the court collegiate in criminal cases of the Kyiv city court overturned the verdict and sent the case back for further investigation. In November 1974, the case was closed due to lack of evidence. Medvedchuk was acquitted and reinstated at the university

In 1979, Medvedchuk was the lawyer for repressed poet Yuriy Lytvyn. In his last word in court on 17 December 1979, Lytvyn described Medvedchuk's work as a lawyer: "The passivity of my lawyer Medvedchuk in defense is not due to his professional profanity, but to the instructions he received from above and his subordination: he does not dare reveal the mechanism according to which provocations were implemented against me."[26] Lytvyn was convicted and died in prison.

In 1980, Medvedchuk was appointed as a defence lawyer in the trial of Vasyl Stus.[27][28] According to the testimony of people close to Stus (his wife and friend Yevgeny Sverstyuk), Stus refused to be defended by Medvedchuk, because "he immediately felt that Medvedchuk was an aggressive Komsomol type person, he didn't protect him, he didn't want to understand him, and, in fact, he was not interested in his business." Nevertheless, Medvedchuk remained Stus's lawyer despite the protests of his client.

According to the "Chronicle of Current Events", Medvedchuk's plea at the Stus trial was as follows: "The lawyer said in his speech that all of Stus's crimes deserve to be punished, but he asks to pay attention to the fact that Stus, working in 1979–1980 at the enterprises of Kiev, fulfilled the norm; in addition, he underwent a severe stomach operation."[30][27] According to Ukrainian lawyers Roman Titikalo and Ilya Kotin, Medvedchuk seems to have recognized the guilt of his client Stus during the court case. In doing so, (the lawyer) Medvedchuk violated his professional duty since he seemed to refused to defend Stus, which grossly violated Stus's right to defense in court.

Stus died after he declared a hunger strike on 4 September 1985 in Perm-36, a Soviet forced labor camp for political prisoners.[32] In a 2018 interview with The Independent, Medvedchuk claimed he could not have operated differently: "Stus denounced the Soviet government, and didn't consider it to be legitimate. Everyone decides their own fate. Stus admitted he agitated against the Soviet government. He was found guilty by the laws of the time. When the laws changed, the case was dropped. Unfortunately, he died.

In 1985, he was a lawyer at the trial of poet Mikola Kuntsevich. According to Kuntsevich's memoirs, Medvedchuk "poured more dirt on him than the prosecutor." After Medvedchuk asked the court to dismiss one of Kuntsevich's motions, he challenged him and repeated the challenge several times, but each time the court dismissed it. In his last word, Medvedchuk said: "I completely agree with a comrade prosecutor in determining the sentence. But, for reasons incomprehensible to me, comrade prosecutor forgot that the defendant had not yet left one year and nine months from the previous term. I consider it necessary to add this period to the new punishment." This request was granted by the court.

 

[Serge Forward]

That's the evidence such as it is for the use of chemical weapons. Given that Mariupol is under siege and looks set to fall fairly soon there probably won't be any other evidence.

Then it's not reliable and shouldn't be posted. You'd be fair enough to say something like "the fash cunts of Azov claim that blah blah..." but just posting their videos as "evidence" does no one any favours.

 

[Serge Forward]

So you can just say that in a post - that Azov is claiming the use of chemical weapons, but you don't have any other evidence so far. Please don't link to them.

Ah... beat me to it

 

[Serge Forward]

Tbf there's a considerable debate among researchers as to how much of a fascist organisation the regiment itself actually is tho

Stopped reading there.

 

[frogwoman]

But there is a debate though? If you take the view of someone like Shekhontsov, who has published on the far right groups involved in the Maidan quite extensively, there's no connection at all between the current day regiment and the likes of Biletsky's group which he sees as totally separate entities, whereas if you look at the work of eg Colborne or Umland there are varying levels of connections between the two. I'm not saying that I believe Shekhontsov's views but was just trying to point out that it's really not as clear cut as 'they're all fash' or indeed 'they're purely military and there's no problem with it'

 

[LDC]

Stopped reading there.

You're being quite depressingly and surprisingly shit on this subject tbh. I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge on this subject, but it's clear from some of the stuff from people have written that do (researchers, people with long standing knowledge of the subject and left wing Ukrainians, rather than ACG members in England for example) it's far from as simple as Azov = fash cunts, whatever you keep saying.

 

[zahir]

See this post on the fascism thread: Fascists, Fascism and the Invasion.

 

[frogwoman]

https://www.academia.edu/download/58603908/Irregular_Militias_and_Radical_Nationalism_in_Post_Euromaydan_Ukraine_2.pdf

Posted this in the fascism thread but might as well post it here, it's a very comprehensive looking article by researcher on the far right Andreas Umland. I haven't read the whole thing yet mind

 

[existentialist]

Thing is, if you put an entire society under stress, it's inevitable that the extremists - on both sides - are going to find a niche in that situation where they can claim some kind of legitimacy.

And that's as true of Ukraine as it is of the UK.

 

[Serge Forward]

You're being quite depressingly and surprisingly shit on this subject tbh. I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge on this subject, but it's clear from some of the stuff from people have written that do (researchers, people with long standing knowledge of the subject and left wing Ukrainians, rather than ACG members in England for example) it's far from as simple as Azov = fash cunts, whatever you keep saying.

Really? While I totally understand and sympathise with your position over Ukraine, surely this is not at any cost? I mean, there are limits right? Because this new tolerance for Azov is at a much lower bar than even popular frontism.

By the way, I didn't realise you were currently in the thick of things in Ukraine, hence making the opinion of ACG members in England (and Scotland) somehow less valid than yours.

 

[LDC]

By the way, I didn't realise you were currently in the thick of things in Ukraine, hence making the opinion of ACG members in England (and Scotland) somehow less valid than yours.

Which bit of "I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge on this subject, but it's clear from some of the stuff from people have written that do (researchers, people with long standing knowledge of the subject and left wing Ukrainians" is hard to understand?

I agree there's a discussion to be had about Azov and issues connected to them, but earlier you clearly said no discussion, they're fash cunts. Which is it?

Anyway, better on the specific thread here, there's been some good stuff posted recently Fascists, Fascism and the Invasion.

 

[LDC]

I mean I agree it is really complicated working out what support, no support, or critical support means in this situation (if anything tbh). Or solidarity, is it given on any conditions, especially if it consists of material support? Do you demand supplies don't go to any units like Azov, or to an area where they operate, or in a way that might strengthen their position somehow? But what if they're defending an area that includes civilians? Or if you support weapon supply, it that conditional on which units they go to, or not?

I guess one of the appeals of the NWBTCW position is that it can also let people off having to pick their way through stuff like that?

 

[Serge Forward]

Which bit of "I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge on this subject, but it's clear from some of the stuff from people have written that do (researchers, people with long standing knowledge of the subject and left wing Ukrainians" is hard to understand?

I agree there's a discussion to be had about Azov and issues connected to them, but earlier you clearly said no discussion, they're fash cunts. Which is it?

Anyway, better on the specific thread here, there's been some good stuff posted recently Fascists, Fascism and the Invasion.

Yet you're quick to pass judgement on those you disagree with when "they're not in Ukraine so how very dare they", etc.

 

[Serge Forward]

I guess one of the appeals of the NWBTCW position is that it can also let people off having to pick their way through stuff like that?

Snide dig noted.

 

[LDC]

Wasn't a snide dig, I think it has an understandable pragmatic and political appeal (and is a strength in some ways) as a clear and uncompromising position. I don't agree with it in this case, but I don't think it's without merit and use. And I'm also not passing judgement, if you read it that way it's misunderstanding, I just thought it odd to discount everything people that are very knowledgeable on the subject have to say, whether they're in Ukraine or not - which I think is a bit of a red herring.

Honestly the comebacks and poor discussion are a bit disappointing, I'm going to bow out, doesn't feel very constructive. You can PM me or continue on the other thread if you want.

 

[Serge Forward]

Okay, I'm not wanting a row with you LynnDoyleCooper. I like you and often find you to be spot on about stuff. On this, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[LDC]

Okay, I'm not wanting a row with you LynnDoyleCooper. I like you and often find you to be spot on about stuff. On this, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah thanks, comradely apologies if I came across badly. The internet is a terror for arguments and misunderstandings. I'd like to think I'm (slightly) less of a dick in real life.

 

[Serge Forward]

I can assure you I'm every bit the same dick in real life as I am on here

 

[two sheds]

"I've been meaning to speak to you about that"

 

[ska invita]

I guess one of the appeals of the NWBTCW position is that it can also let people off having to pick their way through stuff like that?

Regarding picking through the details of 'what now' positions implies a logic of 'what would you do right now if you were PM' or similiar....

I remember arguments during the invasion of Iraq... Original watertight case was No War. Once the British army was on the ground the slogan changed to Troops Out. This could then be criticised as ' if troops left tomorrow it would leave a vacuum much worse than a transitional handover'... That argument was probably on balance correct in terms of potential deaths, but there's no way the anti war movement should have to argue Troops Stay And Create A Transitional Handover.

In such situations I think it's perfectly consistent and legitimate not to play the What Would You Do Right Now In Power theoretical game... Theres always a chain of events going back days, months, years, decades that have led to any particular state-created disaster... The solution is not to do that long string of things that lead to this moment... Concentrating on the immediate present totally focuses on the symptom rather than the cause of the disease .

That's why regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine it is crucial to dig through and understand the last 30 years.... That's where the critical analysis should focus, not should some particular battalion receive weapons from the British state or not

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Or we could go back even further and focus on hundreds of years of Russian imperialism.

 

[Pickman's model]

Regarding picking through the details of 'what now' positions implies a logic of 'what would you do right now if you were PM' or similiar....

I remember arguments during the invasion of Iraq... Original watertight case was No War. Once the British army was on the ground the slogan changed to Troops Out. This could then be criticised as ' if troops left tomorrow it would leave a vacuum much worse than a transitional handover'... That argument was probably on balance correct in terms of potential deaths, but there's no way the anti war movement should have to argue Troops Stay And Create A Transitional Handover.

In such situations I think it's perfectly consistent and legitimate not to play the What Would You Do Right Now In Power theoretical game... Theres always a chain of events going back days, months, years, decades that have led to any particular state-created disaster... The solution is not to do that long string of things that lead to this moment... Concentrating on the immediate present totally focuses on the symptom rather than the cause of the disease .

That's why regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine it is crucial to dig through and understand the last 30 years.... That's where the critical analysis should focus, not should some particular battalion receive weapons from the British state or not

If you remember 2003 as you claim you'll recall that troops were moved to Saudi Arabia some time before the laughable parliamentary vote on the matter, when it was clear that there would be war as everything had already been arranged long before the 15.2.03 demo let alone any parliamentary debate

 

[LDC]

That's why regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine it is crucial to dig through and understand the last 30 years.... That's where the critical analysis should focus, not should some particular battalion receive weapons from the British state or not

I'd like to think the two broad topics can (and should) run alongside each other though - an analysis and discussion of how it ended up like this, and also what should our position be now given we're in this state, and part of that is what and how to support (even if that support is at a distance and relatively small/unimportant) what's happening. I mean the former helps with the later doesn't it? There's pitfalls with focusing too much on one or t'other though of course.

 

[Idris2002]

Maybe it's true that Azov has politically cleansed itself. But one thing you may be sure of - after Bucha, and countless other places we'll never hear of, there must be millions of people waking up with one thought on their mind: revenge.

And if they can't catch any of Putin's orcs to do it with, well the next best thing for some (a minority, maybe a small minority, maybe even (I hope) a tiny minority) will be an ethnic Russian.

That's how it was where I come from.

Edited: (Smoky the Grammatician says only you can prevent syntax fires)

 

[kebabking]

Regarding picking through the details of 'what now' positions implies a logic of 'what would you do right now if you were PM' or similiar....

I remember arguments during the invasion of Iraq... Original watertight case was No War. Once the British army was on the ground the slogan changed to Troops Out. This could then be criticised as ' if troops left tomorrow it would leave a vacuum much worse than a transitional handover'... That argument was probably on balance correct in terms of potential deaths, but there's no way the anti war movement should have to argue Troops Stay And Create A Transitional Handover.

In such situations I think it's perfectly consistent and legitimate not to play the What Would You Do Right Now In Power theoretical game... Theres always a chain of events going back days, months, years, decades that have led to any particular state-created disaster... The solution is not to do that long string of things that lead to this moment... Concentrating on the immediate present totally focuses on the symptom rather than the cause of the disease .

That's why regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine it is crucial to dig through and understand the last 30 years.... That's where the critical analysis should focus, not should some particular battalion receive weapons from the British state or not

To which, of course, the answer is always: you've a time machine? Cool...

I could very easily argue that most of humanities ills wouldn't exist if the transition from small groups of hunter-gatherers to societies based on agriculture hadn't happened - but when asked how we'd get back to that model without 99.999999999999999998% of 8 billion people starving to death in 6 months, I'd go a bit quiet.

And be dismissed with all the other cranks...

 

[ska invita]

Or we could go back even further and focus on hundreds of years of Russian imperialism.

On a minor level it is relevant... Imperial Russian history has deep roots and casts a shadow
Contemporary British politics is forever shaped by the Restoration centuries ago.
The key period of relevance here though is post Soviet history

 

[ska invita]

To which, of course, the answer is always: you've a time machine? Cool...

I could very easily argue that most of humanities ills wouldn't exist if the transition from small groups of hunter-gatherers to societies based on agriculture hadn't happened - but when asked how we'd get back to that model without 99.999999999999999998% of 8 billion people starving to death in 6 months, I'd go a bit quiet.

And be dismissed with all the other cranks...

Staw man. Your reasoning re Ukraine leads to an arms race and repeating Imperial conflict....we need to define what is causing these conflicts and concentrate on pulling that cancer out

 

[ska invita]

I'd like to think the two broad topics can (and should) run alongside each other though - an analysis and discussion of how it ended up like this, and also what should our position be now given we're in this state, and part of that is what and how to support (even if that support is at a distance and relatively small/unimportant) what's happening. I mean the former helps with the later doesn't it? There's pitfalls with focusing too much on one or t'other though of course.

Everything is up for discussion and consideration of course. But let's not lose sight of the woods for the trees

 

[nogojones]

On a minor level it is relevant... Imperial Russian history has deep roots and casts a shadow
Contemporary British politics is forever shaped by the Restoration centuries ago.
The key area of relevance here though is post Soviet history

Personally I don't think it's a minor level. There's still living generations there who suffered under Russian rule, faced deportation, starvation, the crushing of their language and culture. Yes, NATO and the west will have exploited that and are hoping to benefit from the degradation of the Russian army, but I can only really see one main root cause of this and its the section of the Russian ruling class who want to regain what they feel is rightfully theirs.

 

[dilute micro]

Staw man. Your reasoning re Ukraine leads to an arms race and repeating Imperial conflict....we need to define what is causing these conflicts and concentrate on pulling that cancer out

What's caused the conflict in Ukraine isn't the German Russian speaking people who happen to be on very valuable real estate.

There's no guarantee Ukraine will come out of this in a viable position even if they win. A country can't keep giving up resources. Their future will be precarious and no doubt Kyiv knows it. Putin will have other ways of killing Ukraine and he'll be determined to do just that. I'd expect to hear of economic war, cargo ships being seized, a type of warfare as old as trade itself, constant cyber onslaught and whatever else they can come up with at the Kremlin.