Ukraine

[ViolentPanda]

VP presents "Russophilia" and Russophobia as two concepts that share similarities and are both equally relevant to present-day Ukrainian politics. Fair cop, he never defined the term. But it seems to me that it is a term that is being reintroduced, in this context, to denigrate (in Western eyes) the economic and social interests of people in Ukraine he disagrees with.

If you'd bothered to read the thread thoroughly, you'd know that I've taken flak for supporting the "economic and social interests of people in Ukraine" that I disagree with.
So, let me assert (yet again) that I believe that all Ukrainians should have a say in what happens to Ukraine.

Is that plain enough for you, or will you still find ways to attribute to me views that I don't hold, and seek to define what I mean when I say something?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Am I alone in thinking the coverage of military deployments is totally uninformative? I find there is never a good frame of reference (e.g. how much force is required to 'invade Ukraine'?).

Military deployments like this are supposed to be uninformative, though. They're generally part of a strategy of threat, as well as a tactic of resource allocation. Russia knows that its' military can over-master Ukraine's military in a matter of days, because it has overwhelming material superiority, and Ukraine knows this too. These deployments are levers on public and political opinion.

 

[Fuchs66]

A russophhile, like a Russophobe, is someone who declares an affinity or an antipathy for a government, a people or a policy. If "Russophilia" is ludicrous, then so too must be "Russophobia", yet you're happy to run with the idea of Russophobia.
I wonder why that is.

Two sides of the same coin!

 

[DairyQueen]

Fuck democracy! Democracy is dangerous! Let's partition Ukraine amongst the old powers!

I never said that parts of Ukraine should be given to Russia. I never even implied it.

 

[DairyQueen]

For me it's always meant "alignment with the Russian political interest", with "Russian" signifying "the powers-that-be, and their interests" rather than the Russian peoples.

Give me names, or give me some examples. Who is a Russophile? You are suggesting large numbers of people explicitly have an alignment to the Russian state and their interests.

So, is a Donetsk resident that works in a factory that is heavily reliant on cheap Russian gas a Russophile if he wants unification with Russia in order to keep his/her job? Is a guy living in Ukraine with a family across the border in Russia and wants closer ties with the Russian state a Russophile? Is an oligarch who relies on cheap Russian gas but does not necessarily want unification with Russia? Are these groups the same as communists who are promoting working-class solidarity that might be used by the Russian state?

The term is meaningless, it certainly has no relation to Russophobia which is well defined and observable (see next comment).

 

[DairyQueen]

A russophhile, like a Russophobe, is someone who declares an affinity or an antipathy for a government, a people or a policy. If "Russophilia" is ludicrous, then so too must be "Russophobia", yet you're happy to run with the idea of Russophobia.
I wonder why that is.

No, I have explained. Russophobia is well-defined. It is a well-known European phenomenom, there are numerous surveys which monitor perceptions toward Russians and Russia and also discrimination against Russians. Fuchs66 posts, from a while back, are good examples of Russophobia (the claim that Russians are not sophisticated being the most obvious perception that is a particularly popular joke in Germany) was one good example. Another well known European phenomenom is anti-Ukrainian sentiment. Russophilia, in the way you are using it, is a term that you have certainly contrived for the purposes of your argument, and does not appear to represent anything of substance that would be of interest to measure.

 

[Fuchs66]

Fuchs66 posts, from a while back, are good examples of Russophobia (the claim that Russians are not sophisticated being the most obvious perception that is a particularly popular joke in Germany) was one good example.

Go back, read the post again and then do one!

 

[andysays]

...Who is a Russophile?...

Casually Red has been known to do a passable impression of one

 

[Casually Red]

B
It's not about a territorial argument per se. Wider territorial arguments are sterile (almost as sterile as making assumptions that I think that Russians are "sneaky", you arse) - if we play "this belonged to us, and that belonged to you", conflict never ceases. It's about the right to self-determination without some fucker, whether from the EU, the US or Russia, putting a hand on your shoulder and saying "do as I command, bitch". That includes Ukrainian oligarchs with alleigances to those power blocs, too.

Ukraine was exercising its right to self determination and as a result found itself victim of a western backed coup/ You didnt strike me as particularly bothered by that.

eta

you seem to be arguing here that the coup is actually an expression of Ukrainian self determination, and the Russian refusal to acknowlege it as legitimate is somehow putting the heavy hand on Ukrainian self determination. While making an obligatory nod to western pressure being present as if its an equivalence.
When the root of this crisis lies in western brinkmanship and take it or leave it ultimatums followed by a coup when the ultimatum was rejected. While Russia called for a tripartite negotiated solution were everyone wins.

Russia is under no obligation im aware of to give Ukraine heavily discounted energy supplies while theres no trade agreements in place or likely to be in place. Asking them to actually pay their bills for Russian gas isnt exactly beyond the pale. Nor is taking the position that if trade agreements with Russia are in the bin then so are the generous discounts that accompany them.

Russia consistently proposed compromises to see all interests taken into account . It was the west that refused to countenance compromise or permit Ukraine to seek seek compromises that would be in its instersts . Thats completely absent from your analysis so we can only assume that blindness is wilful and ergo down to one bias or another. Or a host of such bias, who knows. But the wilful blindness is inescapable.

 

[Casually Red]

So, Al Jazeera, the BBC & the Guardian are all mouthpieces of western imperialism? What info sources do you trust?

I dont trust any. If I read something somewhere I usually try and find out if its backed up by anything elsewhere.
The BBC have made a number of outrageous reports claiming the anti coup protests are being being bussed in from Russia, comprising of paid Russian activists. Theyve also tried to make the claim some of the protestors are the same people wearing disguises. Theyve unquestioningly taken the EU and NATO line with depressing regularity. They avoided the issue of nazism for a very long period until it became so obvious they had to address it. The Guardian have been almost as bad. Just read through this thread and youll see a number of posters expressing astonishment at the blatant carry on of both.
Al Jazeera is all too often a mouthpiece of the Qatari royal family, which right now is sponsoring an Al Qaeda coup attempt in Syria. Naturally enough meaning it has a bit of a major beef with Russia, as well as Venezuela and a few other places. One of its cheif editors was exposed as a CIA agent. Months ago almost 2 dozen of its journalists resigned en masse en Lebanon over the internal fucking about , something neither the BBC or Guardian made a big deal of. Which is hypocritical when one considers the undisguised glee they expressed when one disgruntled RT presenter resigned as a part of a prearranged neo con stunt. As regards its editorial line its extremely untrustworthy having delibertaely concealed pertinet facts and distributed downright falsehoods. As are the others.

 

[Casually Red]

Military deployments like this are supposed to be uninformative, though. They're generally part of a strategy of threat, as well as a tactic of resource allocation. Russia knows that its' military can over-master Ukraine's military in a matter of days, because it has overwhelming material superiority, and Ukraine knows this too. These deployments are levers on public and political opinion.

what deployments though ? Even the Daily Mail journalists on the ground in Russia say they cant see any. We have already been treated to clearly fabricated photo evidence from the US news agencies of Russian tanks rolling into Crimea. A few weeks ago we were told by NATO of a non existent Russian invasion force poised to roll into Moldova via Ukraine, at which there was more than a bit of incredulty expressed on here . And now ...despite that being a complete lie thats been overlooked..theres another one poised to invade eastern Ukraine . The Russians have downright dismissed this saying the satellite imagery is of a military exercise that took place 8 months ago, in which Ukrainian armed forces themselves participated.Combat Commonwealth 2013. But naturally enough thats ignored and the NATO line swallowed unquestioningly yet again.

Furthermore just the other week the Russians handed back to the Ukrainian armed forces all the heavy equipment they left behind in Crimea, including their missile systems, tanks and migs . WHich despite the military superiority is something you just dont do if your anticipating imminent conflict with them.

These deployments strike me as nothing more than russophobic NATO propaganda, that various Russophobes are only too happy to swallow without question . And indeed promote as evidence of Russian aggression and threat.

 

[Fuchs66]

what deployments though ? Even the Daily Mail journalists on the ground in Russia say they cant see any.

Because the Russians are really going to let the press into military controlled areas, aren't they?

 

[Casually Red]

Don't the rebels there include army and police defectors?

Either way, the game isn't up yet.

it certainly isnt. If this report is anything to go by the coup have , at least for the moment, done yet another massive u turn on their threat to use force to clear the barricades. According to this Yatsenyuk, who just the other week was warning the ground shall burn under their feet and therell be nowhere to hide, has now conceded to the protestors demands for regional referenda and an end to the system of kiev appointed oligarch governors for regions. That in turn will also legalise the Crimean referendum under Ukrainian law .

http://rt.com/news/ukraine-protest-deadline-expires-856/

According to that it also seems the junta simply didnt have the co operation of their security forces to carry out the threats

The U-turn comes after Ukraine’s elite Alpha unit reportedly refused to obey an order to besiege protester-held buildings. At a session of law enforcement officials in Donetsk, one of the Alpha commanders said that he and his men are a force intended for rescuing hostages and fighting terrorism and will only act in accordance with the law, local media reported.

The unconfirmed act of defiance comes days after the siege by police of a protesters-seized building in Kharkov, which ended with dozens of activists being arrested. On Thursday, a local police lieutenant-colonel spoke to the media, claiming that he and other officers had been deceived by the Kiev authorities. He claimed that they were sent to take over the building under the pretext that it was held by dangerous armed bandits. In fact the protesters had only improvised clubs and offered no resistance to the storming troops.

The officer, Andrey Chuikov, said he would no longer take “criminal” orders and announced his resignation from the police, adding that he would be sacked anyway by his superiors for speaking to the press.

So, even allowing fir the anti junta bias of RT it definitely seems like the ultimatum by Kiev carried no weight and has expired for whatever reason. And the junta are now on the back foot making very different noises to what they were making yesterday. Although its worth bearing in mind that oligarch governors facebook page I highlighted a month ago. Compromise now and hang them later. Itd be very premature to paint this as anything more than a temporary victory for the anti coup protests.

 

[Diamond]

You realise you are citing RT, right?

 

[Diamond]

Casually Red - you simply lack credibility. There is a certain foaming at the mouth quality to your contributions ahorita and that's not surprising given how tricky it must be to be a Putinist or, at the very least, an apologist for Putinism right now...

 

[Diamond]

I do like how these freedom fighters who are valiantly seizing key locations in the East with the threat of force are so charmingly egalitarian in their reluctance to use surnames or patronymics.

Some might argue that it betrays a ruthlessly well organised covert operation but I prefer to admire the horizontal nature of their surely spontaneous organisation.

 

[Casually Red]

Because the Russians are really going to let the press into military controlled areas, aren't they?

well if that were true youd need to be posting a link to an article were Daily Mail journalists pointed out they were prevented from entering a military controlled area. They actually pointed out the most sinister thing that happened them was being pulled by suspicious cops for taking pictures of a Lenin monument. Once it was explained they had no interest in blowing it up, because the nazis were destroying rather a lot of them in the region, they were let proceed unhindered.

These military controlled areas appear to be something youve conjured to support your own false argument in the first place. I believe thats known in the business as sexing up .

 

[Casually Red]

I do like how these freedom fighters who are valiantly seizing key locations in the East with the threat of force are so charmingly egalitarian in their reluctance to use surnames or patronymics.

Some might argue that it betrays a ruthlessly well organised covert operation but I prefer to admire the horizontal nature of their surely spontaneous organisation.

or simply not wanting to be dragged off in the dead of night , as very many of them currently are who did previously use their full names . Ukrainian nick with neo nazis in the prosecutors office and among a new state militia doesnt strike me as all that appealing.

 

[Casually Red]

Casually Red - you simply lack credibility. There is a certain foaming at the mouth quality to your contributions ahorita and that's not surprising given how tricky it must be to be a Putinist or, at the very least, an apologist for Putinism right now...

i think you might be better off addressing your own credibility at the minute, mush.

 

[Fuchs66]

These military controlled areas appear to be something youve conjured to support your own false argument in the first place. I believe thats known in the business as sexing up .

Errrr no I've worked in 4 of them.

 

[Casually Red]

Errrr no I've worked in 4 of them.

i dont give a toss how many bases you were attempting to pry into. They arent entered by massive underground tunnels. Massive troop build ups require massive troop movements in those areas. Reporters on the ground havent witnessed any . The Russians have invited observers into these areas , including Ukrainian . Theyve even let the Ukrainian airforce do aerial reconaissance.

eta

youve worked in 4 bases. Your post gave the impression the Russian military had taken control of areas they previously didnt and were preventing access. its how it read.

 

[Casually Red]

In deference to repeated russophobia that makes most debate here pointless, heres the more acceptable to russophobic mentalities the russophobic Guardian, on the same news I linked to earlier. As its pointless linking to any Russian news due to the prevalence of Russophobia on this site. Its a bit like thatchers Sinn Fein ban on speaking back in the 80s. The same words now have to be said by an approved mouthpiece instead, as Russian reporting of the very same thing is regarded as outrageous lies.


In an attempt to quell the deepening crisis in eastern Ukraine, the interim prime minister has offered to devolve more power to the regions.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk met officials in Donetsk on Friday, where pro-Russian separatists are occupying government buildings and demanding a referendum on independence from Kiev.

Yatsenyuk did not meet with representatives of the protesters, nor did he offer any detail on how his vision of devolution differed from that of the separatists.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/ukraine-pm-power-regions-donetsk-referendum

eta

the striking difference between that report and the RT one is that the RT report names a senior police commander who apparently resigned, and explains the lack of support the junta has on the ground to physically enforce its ultimatum. Which of course would raise unwelcome questions about the juntas legitimacy . An area the Guardian would prefer its readers not to dwell upon given its pro coup, pro junta, pro EU, pro US, pro NATO narrative up to now.

That important background and its much earlier exposure of the neo nazis western media ignored is why I generally find RT a lot more informative than western mouthpieces

 

[Diamond]

#rant

 

[Casually Red]

and the original post where the person said they'd shopped it.

heres the original prior to the photoshopping. Its a big picture of Bandera, a follower of Hitler and not Hitler himself . Just a different nazi .

http://rossiyanavsegda.ru/read/1684/

a photoshop but not exactly a misrepresentation of the message either. Particularly not with the wolfsangel right beside it too .

 

[TomUS]

heres the original prior to the photoshopping. Its a big picture of Bandera, a follower of Hitler and not Hitler himself . Just a different nazi .

That's a wild oversimplification. He sided with Nazi Germany because they had a common enemy in the USSR. The Nazis threw him in prison & the KGB later assassinated him. So he wasn't simply a Nazi but a Ukrainian nationalist......according to Wiki.

 

[Casually Red]

Sorry, but I've very much not kept up with this thread. If my questions have been answered/discussed, please point me to the place in the thread where... Thanks.

In terms of this build up of troops on the east Ukraine border, is it as big as the UN is saying? What is the likelihood that Russia will use these troops to invade Ukraine? How would 'the west' respond if they did?

Not to be picky but its NATO making the claim , not the UN . Im sure youll appreciate theres a pretty big difference between the 2 .

It doesnt strike me as having any credence . Firstly theres been several well known western media outlets going all over that part of Russia and havent reported any sight of troop build ups . And not only that there hasnt been any of the tensions youd associate with that either . No heavies encouraging them to snoop elsewhere or any sign of officaldom letting them know their presence is unwelcome . What theyve reported is a pretty relaxed atmosphere everwhere they went . Except when some showed undue interest in Lenin monuments.

Secondly , which is quite important,shortly after his meeting with Sergei Lavrov John Kerry stated for the record that Russia was pulling its troops out of the area, markedly de escalating . However this narrative originally seen as a diplomatic victory for the US , may well have proven problematic for its state department . Which includes the very same neo con lunatics who crafted the Project for A New American century and subsequent disaster in Iraq based upon massive fabrication. Barbara Nuland in particular who appears to be the brains behind this coup and very active in Ukraine as well as her husband Robert Kagan are both up to their necks in this malarkey .

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

The talk shortly after this apparent de escalation became talk of an imminent Russian invasion, everywhere . Moldova included . Regardless of the Obama presidency the US state department remains locked in much the same foreign policy orbit as it did with Bush, including the same lunatic figures with the same lunatic ideologies .
The Russian de escalation appears to have morphed into massive escalation overnight due to western political necessity , not actual facts on the ground .

this is worth a read because these are the people spinning the US foreign policy, media and military line. An incestuous bunch that dont care whether its Bush or Obama in power.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/12/18/meet-neocon-doughnut-dolly-victoria-nuland.html

The people staffing the US state department are ideologically focussed on the fragmentation of Russia itself and a major military build up around Russia . A Russia thats de escalating isnt very helpful for this purpose . A Russia building up troops to invade everywhere and not just Ukraine is obviously quite helpful to this long term ideological project of theirs.

Thirdly , as Ive already mentioned Russia seized billions of dollars worth of Ukrainian military hardware during the Crimean reunification . Modern anti aircraft missile systems, artillery batteries, tanks . And just a few weeks ago it handed them back to the Ukrainian military . It has also permitted the Ukrainian military and other foreign military observers access to these areas to determine troop levels for themselves . Theyve also permitted Ukrainian aerial reconaissance . Again this points to Russian de escalation, not escalation and imminent invasion.

Some russophobes here may well claim the Russians are descalating their military presence one minute and re escalating the next . But that would require a lot of moving large numbers of troops about , which the western journalists havent noticed and havent been discouraged from noticing . A far fetched scenario .

Fourthly, even the dates NATO are giving for their satellite evidence of a troop build up are from ages ago . NATO claims theyre from early March . Russian exercises were winding down back then . The Russians in turn claim theyre from eight months ago, during military exercises in which Ukrainina armed forces participated as well .
So even if the Russian dismissal is incorrect the satellite images can be regarded as historical and certainly not current . Which in itself paints a picture of deliberate NATO lies . And lies which are intended to justify something NATO itself is up to .

 

[Casually Red]

That's a wild oversimplification. He sided with Nazi Germany because they had a common enemy in the USSR. The Nazis threw him in prison & the KGB later assassinated him. So he wasn't simply a Nazi but a Ukrainian nationalist......according to Wiki.

he was a nazi, fuck off with that shite

Hitler was a german nationalist with an enemy in the USSR . Calling him a nazi doesnt make that an oversimplification, its a statement of fact . Ernst Roehm was a nazi and Hitler imprisoned and killed him . Still a fucking nazi .

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Not to be picky but its NATO making the claim , not the UN . Im sure youll appreciate theres a pretty big difference between the 2 .

It doesnt strike me as having any credence . Firstly theres been several well known western media outlets going all over that part of Russia and havent reported any sight of troop build ups . And not only that there hasnt been any of the tensions youd associate with that either . No heavies encouraging them to snoop elsewhere or any sign of officaldom letting them know their presence is unwelcome . What theyve reported is a pretty relaxed atmosphere everwhere they went . Except when some showed undue interest in Lenin monuments.

Secondly , which is quite important,shortly after his meeting with Sergei Lavrov John Kerry stated for the record that Russia was pulling its troops out of the area, markedly de escalating . However this narrative originally seen as a diplomatic victory for the US , may well have proven problematic for its state department . Which includes the very same neo con lunatics who crafted the Project for A New American century and subsequent disaster in Iraq based upon massive fabrication. Barbara Nuland in particular who appears to be the brains behind this coup and very active in Ukraine as well as her husband Robert Kagan are both up to their necks in this malarkey .

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

The talk shortly after this apparent de escalation became talk of an imminent Russian invasion, everywhere . Moldova included . Regardless of the Obama presidency the US state department remains locked in much the same foreign policy orbit as it did with Bush, including the same lunatic figures with the same lunatic ideologies .
The Russian de escalation appears to have morphed into massive escalation overnight due to western political necessity , not actual facts on the ground .

this is worth a read because these are the people spinning the US foreign policy, media and military line. An incestuous bunch that dont care whether its Bush or Obama in power.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/12/18/meet-neocon-doughnut-dolly-victoria-nuland.html

The people staffing the US state department are ideologically focussed on the fragmentation of Russia itself and a major military build up around Russia . A Russia thats de escalating isnt very helpful for this purpose . A Russia building up troops to invade everywhere and not just Ukraine is obviously quite helpful to this long term ideological project of theirs.

Thirdly , as Ive already mentioned Russia seized billions of dollars worth of Ukrainian military hardware during the Crimean reunification . Modern anti aircraft missile systems, artillery batteries, tanks . And just a few weeks ago it handed them back to the Ukrainian military . It has also permitted the Ukrainian military and other foreign military observers access to these areas to determine troop levels for themselves . Theyve also permitted Ukrainian aerial reconaissance . Again this points to Russian de escalation, not escalation and imminent invasion.

Some russophobes here may well claim the Russians are descalating their military presence one minute and re escalating the next . But that would require a lot of moving large numbers of troops about , which the western journalists havent noticed and havent been discouraged from noticing . A far fetched scenario .

Fourthly, even the dates NATO are giving for their satellite evidence of a troop build up are from ages ago . NATO claims theyre from early March . Russian exercises were winding down back then . The Russians in turn claim theyre from eight months ago, during military exercises in which Ukrainina armed forces participated as well .
So even if the Russian dismissal is incorrect the satellite images can be regarded as historical and certainly not current . Which in itself paints a picture of deliberate NATO lies . And lies which are intended to justify something NATO itself is up to .

Thanks for that. How the fuck you have the energy to keep up with all this stuff in such depth, I'll never know. I'll try and have a read of those two links, though.

Fragmentation of Russia - gotta be a bit of a long shot, surely? Even for weirdly obsessed yank nutters.

 

[Casually Red]

http://www.france24.com/en/20140331-russia-gradually-withdrawing-troops-ukraine-border/

seems to be a big adifference in the NATO claims and that analysis

 

[free spirit]

heres the original prior to the photoshopping. Its a big picture of Bandera, a follower of Hitler and not Hitler himself . Just a different nazi .

http://rossiyanavsegda.ru/read/1684/

a photoshop but not exactly a misrepresentation of the message either. Particularly not with the wolfsangel right beside it too .

yeah I know, it was me that found the original the first time round, and sourced the photoshopped version.