Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine

ViolentPanda said:
Describing settled immigrant populations as "ethnic *******" is standard in demographic explanations. It indicates a minority culture, generally. British people of Pakistani origin are "ethnic Pakistanis. Latvian people of Russian origin are "ethnic Russians".
Click to expand...

They are often described as such, yes.

It's worth asking in whose interests it is that they continue to be described as such generations after their ancestors immigrated.
 
andysays said:
They are often described as such, yes.

It's worth asking in whose interests it is that they continue to be described as such generations after their ancestors immigrated.
Click to expand...

Kind of depends on both elements of the membership of those communities themselves, and on elements of the membership of the majority culture of where they migrated to.
 
I think I may have kicked off the whole debate around the Latvian Russian-speakers. Fuchs66 just took exception to it. I do understand Russian imperialism and its relevance to Latvian identity. I just think Latvian policy makes their future more precarious rather than less so.

My point was more general though. Russia was the West's to lose. Russia was a western looking 'democracy' ready to do business, and the West tried to rape it. To ply the myth that a downtrodden (Eastern and Central) Europe is simply defending themselves against evil, totalitarian Russian aggression is extremely dangerous. West-East relations are being increasingly defined by a bunch of right-wing lunatics (Hague, Putin, Cameron, Miliband, Merkel, Kaczynski, Saakashvilli). So, we get a load of vitriol and a predictable Russian response. Cycle repeats.
 
DairyQueen said:
My point was more general though. Russia was the West's to lose. Russia was a western looking 'democracy' ready to do business, and the West tried to rape it. To ply the myth that a downtrodden (Eastern and Central) Europe is simply defending themselves against evil, totalitarian Russian aggression is extremely dangerous. West-East relations are being increasingly defined by a bunch of right-wing lunatics (Hague, Putin, Cameron, Miliband, Merkel, Kaczynski, Saakashvilli). So, we get a load of vitriol and a predictable Russian response. Cycle repeats.
Click to expand...

Not sure how accurate any of that is; for a start, it was never a "western looking democracy" even under Yeltsin, and to suggest that "the West tried to rape it" (and ignoring the misuse of that word for a moment) tends to ignore the fact that the economic assets of the country were (and are being) pillaged by the domestic Russian elite themselves... plus of course they did end up doing business with the West - as (for example) the vast sums residing in various UK-affiliated tax havens, LLPs and whatnot attest to.
 
agricola said:
plus of course they did end up doing business with the West - as (for example) the vast sums residing in various UK-affiliated tax havens, LLPs and whatnot attest to.
Click to expand...

Which is why particularly as far as the UK is concerned the 'sanctions' are little more than a joke.
 
agricola said:
Not sure how accurate any of that is; for a start, it was never a "western looking democracy" even under Yeltsin, and to suggest that "the West tried to rape it" (and ignoring the misuse of that word for a moment) tends to ignore the fact that the economic assets of the country were (and are being) pillaged by the domestic Russian elite themselves... plus of course they did end up doing business with the West - as (for example) the vast sums residing in various UK-affiliated tax havens, LLPs and whatnot attest to.
Click to expand...

My understanding comes from the very pro-oligarch book by Daniel E. Hoffman. I would not advise reading it, and do not profess any expert knowledge from reading it. The harvard article is worth a read though.

My understanding, though, was that while the Russian oligarchs excluded Western businesses from state auctions, this was for entirely due to their narrow interests and not any grand idea of a Russian Imperium (Putin argued for 'national champions' in his thesis after the privatisations). Did the oligarchs not raise capital in the west anyway, and were often just conduits for western finance?
 
Last edited:
DairyQueen said:
Did the oligarchs not raise capital in the west anyway, and were often just conduits for western finance?
Click to expand...

I havent studied it that much, but the impression one gains from reading about that is that the formerly nationalized assets / entities were obtained without that much recourse to finance that might have allowed the purchaser to buy them honestly - indeed it seems that the main involvement of the West was to facilitate what went on rather than to finance / inspire it.
 
agricola said:
I havent studied it that much, but the impression one gains from reading about that is that the formerly nationalized assets / entities were obtained without that much recourse to finance that might have allowed the purchaser to buy them honestly - indeed it seems that the main involvement of the West was to facilitate what went on rather than to finance / inspire it.
Click to expand...

That is not entirely true. For a start, surely the whole point of privatisation/fall of communism would be to attract western investment?
 
kebabking said:
i think theres a good chance that the miscalculation is on our bear wrestling friends part - he has scared people far more than he thought he would, and they are reacting in proportion to that fear.
Click to expand...

That's the sense I'm getting too. In terms of pig-headed geopolitical brinkmanship he's playing a masterful game at the level you would expect of the best chess players in the world, but he doesn't seem to grasp exactly how dangerous the game is.

The less edifying interpretation is that he does grasp how dangerous the game is.
 
8ball said:
That's the sense I'm getting too. In terms of pig-headed geopolitical brinkmanship he's playing a masterful game at the level you would expect of the best chess players in the world, but he doesn't seem to grasp exactly how dangerous the game is.

The less edifying interpretation is that he does grasp how dangerous the game is.
Click to expand...
The nineties were brutal in Russia they know how dangerous it is.
 
kebabking said:
the Poles, and the Baltic states, think the conflagration is coming regardless of shrill voices - their view is that they can either be ready for it and deter it, or hope it goes away and wake up in the middle of it. they are genuinely, seriously scared - panic is not too strong a word for some of the phone calls going to Brussels, Washington, London and Berlin. they are not fcuking about playing silly games, they are properly shitting themselves.

i think theres a good chance that the miscalculation is on our bear wrestling friends part - he has scared people far more than he thought he would, and they are reacting in proportion to that fear.
Click to expand...


hope you don't mind, but you sound as if you are in a senior position with this level of informtaion, yes?
 
co-op said:
You might well be right about the degree of fear/panic in Eastern govts but I cannot see why...does anyone seriously think Russia is going to war with Ukraine? Let alone Poland, the balts etc? It seems to me they have acted almost entirely predictably and fairly cautiously, taken the absolute minimum and drawn a line.

But the news coverage here supports your reading, I don't remember such a degree of shrill 'demands' for 'decisive action' etc etc since the Afghan invasion and Second Cold War in 1979. Is there any special reason why we are supposed to all be hatin' on Russia just now? It beats me, it really does.
Click to expand...


Apparently, in the U.K Parliamentary debate on Ukraine earlier today, Tory M.P's were baying for more robust action,

It is incredible though that Russia has basically annexed part of a sovereign state.
 
If even the neocon extremists in the Henry Jackson Society writing for Foreign Policy are saying this stuff... wow. They have said and acknowledged a lot more than British 'centre-left' media for a start.
 
classicdish said:
What does it say in that article that hasn't been said already in the UK media? Which UK centre-left media hasn't already covered this?
Click to expand...

A few articles in Comment is Free don't really count when the day in day out stuff repeats the same bullshit and covers up the fact that Right Sector and Svoboda are fascists.

Has the Graunid (or any UK media) mentioned that one of the first acts of the new government was to repeal a law against excusing the crimes of fascism?
 
J Ed said:
A few articles in Comment is Free don't really count when the day in day out stuff repeats the same bullshit and covers up the fact that Right Sector and Svoboda are fascists.
Click to expand...
So basically your FP article isn't saying anything that hasn't been already said in the UK media already? You just object to the *balance*, which isn't to your taste?
Has the Graunid (or any UK media) mentioned that one of the first acts of the new government was to repeal a law against excusing the crimes of fascism?
Click to expand...
I can't find any evidence whatsoever that this law has been repealed - just a reference to an MP having submiited a proposal. No vote yet. No law repealed. Please find me some evidence otherwise if you have got any.

It's worth noting that the FP article also implies that the Russian-lanaguag law was passed into law when it was in fact *vetoed* and is therefore not law.

to quote: "One of its chief demands -- that all government business be done in Ukrainian -- was passed into law, instantaneously marginalizing the one-third of Ukraine's citizens (and 60 percent of Crimeans) who speak Russian."
 
Fuchs66 said:
They are Latvians if they choose to accept citizenship with all its rights and responsibilities, but that doesn't change the way that the majority ended up being there.
Click to expand...

why on earth does it even matter how they ended up being born in Latvia ? What control does a person have over how they were born somewhere. A baby is not a remnant of an occupying force, its a baby.
 
andysays said:
It would be good if this discussion could avoid suggestions of inter-generational collective guilt.

It's this idea which is repeatedly exploited in Latvia, in Ukraine and in so many other places to contribute to dividing populations and effectively distracting them from their class interests
Click to expand...

and worse, its the same rotten reasoning that was historically used against jew, slavs russians..anyone who wasnt ethnically or genetically pure enough for these nazi fucks. They really shouldnt be here. Their blood is tainted by some histprical crime. Ultimately its an excuse used to kill people, for ethnic cleansing. God knows what he thinks of British ethnic minorities if thats his basis for judging peoples right to live in countries they were born in.
 
kebabking said:
the Kremlin wants this 'over' - they want pictures of pretty Crimean girls with Russian flags painted on their faces on the TV, they do not want pictures of sullen/defiant looking Ukrainian soldiers behind barbed wire reminding everyone that 3 weeks ago this was part of Ukraine.

you could argue that Putin has decided that he'd be better off with a bit of force now rather than have the whole debacle drag on for a couple of months - personally i doubt that is what has happened because if you're going to do it, or encourage surrender, you do so with overwhelming force, not a couple of wagons and a dozen soldiers. looks like either its local tussle got out of control, or some politico has said 'just do something..' without thinking that the commnder on the ground has very limited options, and that the obvious one involes whizzing bits of metal.

as for how long could they hold out - i presume they have ration packs on the base. last time i walked into the QM shed in Brecon (quite a small barracks), they had about 5000 RP's, enough for 100 blokes to live there for 2 months...
Click to expand...

why shoot one ? If they want to use force just turn up with tanks and tell them to fuck off. Most of them havent any guns because the pro russian forces simply took most of them off them weeks ago. Shooting one makes absolutely no sense from a Russian perspective.
And your qm shed in Brecon is a bit different from an armys that hasnt been paid in 2 months. They seem to be getting most of their grub from their wives and mums. Just a few days ago the pro Russian forces announced they were lifting the blockades of these bases to let the food in. Crimea has been pretty much tension free according to most media reports.
 
Casually Red said:
local police are are reporting a sniper opened fire on both the Ukranian troops and Crimean self defence squads, killing one of each .
Click to expand...
Ukrainian ministry of defence saying it was Russian forces, Crimean authorities blaming mystery 'snipers'. Who to believe? Who is providing evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Is Zelensky no longer convenient both inside and outside Ukraine? [Bot spam]
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
existentialist
existentialist
editor
New Ukraine forum
Replies
0
Views
557
editor
editor
Pickman's model
Ukraine after the war
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
phildwyer
phildwyer
YouSir
Global Fallout from the Ukraine War
Replies
23
Views
2K
not-bono-ever
not-bono-ever
MrCurry
After Ukraine, what’s next?
2 3
Replies
76
Views
5K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
Back
Top Bottom