Can we have a Ukraine/ Russia/ Crimea thread for dummies?

[chicaguapa]

In other words, could someone explain the situation in really simple terms please. I don't understand it but feel it's important and I should know what's going on.

And because DD(12) asked me this morning and I couldn't answer.

math, I'm not saying it's ok for Tymoshenko to talk about killing russsians, I was horrified to hear that - I can't stand her anyway, but I wanted t clarify that she did NOT mean russian-speaking ukrainians who live in uktraine! this was in the context of Russians moving their troops out of the bases in Crimea, to which she said that she'd kill them all and also she said she wouldn't have let them within an inch of Crimea if she was not inprison then. This in itself is extrenely unpopular with majority of Ukrainians who would NOT want to fight against the mightly russian army or lose lives in order to battle russians over crimea, the majority doesn't want war.

That's assuming that the tape wasn't fake, it obviously could well be, I'd be surprised if she was so stupid as not to know her phone gets tapped! KGB's follower FSB are excellent at these things, you know. They obviously didn't even hide the fact they listen to this, so after that you can speculate what was there originally and what wasn't . But if she did say this, then the good thing is, her rating would drop further!

Btw she was russian-speaking too (even though ukrainian citizen - as many are in BOTH the East and Kiev), her Ukrainian is really grating - she learned it when she wanted to get in politics. Yatseniuk's wife is a russian=speaker, he said so, while he is from ukr-speaking family. MOst people in Kiev speak russian or switch between the two. She would never could mean russian-speakers, as not only it's political suicide as majority in kiev speaks russian still, not just in the east - would she alienate 50%+ population knowing she may be tapped, but she herself was a russian speaker for most of her life.

So no way she was referring to russian speakers, she meant the army who went into crimea (and presumably those who sent them). Moreover no one ever opressed russians in Crimea, or russian speakers anywhere in Ukraine when they use russia in daily life, it's only the official documentation that has to be in Ukr since it became the state lang.

It's impossible to get eveyone to speak Ukr all of the time, and no one opresses people apart from a radical sector in far-western ukraine on occasion, but I think you'd agree that most countries use one lang for the documents. Most people have successfully learned Ukrainian since USSR collapsed - incl Tymoshenko - it's not that different from russian, UNLIKE the languages of Baltic republics.

By the way, a journalist on one official Rus tv channel recently talked about diminishing America to nuclear dust, it's on Youtube, and 'official' tv presentor - yes, most people think he's an idiot but he was still allowed to say this on closely monitored Rus TV.

As for Maidan - no, only a small group of the right sector was armed, but people were unarmed - there were Thousands of protestors who moved to storm buildings or were on barricades , unlike 1000 or so group in Donetsk where many are proved to be russian 'visitors' - again Russian MP's don't hide the fact that they are helping by sending out their guys. I've heard one announce it from the stage while the guys in green stood next to him and nodded. So genuine discontented population is small inm Donetsk, whereas in Kiev there were many thousands.

It's really important to understand that the protestors on Maidan are not just the right sector or just ukrainian-speakers. They wre from ALL ethnic backgrounds living in ukraine, some Russian ethnically but born there, who wanted DEMOCRACY and freedom from Putin's dominance, and those pro-europe. I know someone - a father of my friend who lives herself abroad - who always spoke russia and is russian but born in Ukraine, a higly intelligent academic succeesful and respected - who actually went on barricades along with his young sone and his wife - his son's two friends were killed, all of then only had shileds. I was amazed that he of all people would care so much, but that's the spirit now. Progressive people aer just fed up of being a bsackwater of russia with corrupt govts put there by Putin etc, with no laws for the elite and screwed up business practices, opportunities hardly available for honest people, no one to choose presidents from (all from same stable) etc.

I haven't yet read any posts, just your first sentence, so this is not to address all you've said.

PigletJohn, all statements that try to suggest equivalence between the Holocaust and other murderous events of the twentieth century by placing the Holocaust in a wider context, comparing the acts of the Nazis with those of other regimes, and suggesting equivalence have the effect of minimising it.

The repeated posting of statements comparing the Holocaust (some of whose perpetrators were tried and convicted of crimes against humanity because their policy enslaved and wiped out almost an entire ethnic group and a good portion of many others in some of the most brutal circumstances ever witnessed) with other atrocities constitutes a vile troll.

There are places on the net where your vile attempts at minimising the Holocaust would be very welcome, but I do not think Mumsnet is among them.

The ukrainian government have sent tanks to the east. They've also hired 100 or so mercenaries from Greystone (who used to be Blackwater; remember them?). Police were sent to break up a pro-Russia protest in Donetsk last night but refused to do so. A Svoboda MP has said the protesters deserve to die. I didn't catch her name, sorry, but she said it to camera.

There's a fascinating series just started on RT going behind the scenes with their reporters. One scene shows Aleksei Yarozevshi (sp) seconds after being shot at by a sniper moments before being due to broadcast live to Rory Suchet. Afterwards he calculated, from where the bullet had hit the wall, the trajectory of the shot and deduced that the building was under control of the protesters.

Beagle, your post makes a powerful case that most people on Maidan wanted democracy and were protesting against corruption and lack of opportunities. I completely agree and I think everyone understand that.

However the interim government that resulted and its policy and behaviours vis-s-vis the whole country and Eastern Ukraine in particular doesn't seem to me to leave up to those expectations. They are rather playing to the extreme right and destabilising the country by divisive rhetoric. They delegated the authority inthe East to the corrupt oligarch Taruta, who is protecting his interests. Stephen Sackur interviewed Yats on Hard Talk and listening to the complete interview makes a disappointing hearing.

However it is incomprehensible why you start your post with distorting what Timoshenko said on that tape.

She spoke in Russian and in answer to the question of "what to do with those 8 millions Russians left in Eastern Ukraine, they are scum of course" she answered "to gun them all down with atomic weapons"

So she literally endorsed the idea that the 8 million Ukrainian citizens that consider themselves ethnic Russians are scum and are just left there temporary, don't permanently belong in their own country, and that she also wishes to nuke them.

Of course everyone understand that she wouldn't actually nuke then, but people in the East did draw the conclusion that nationalist politicians treat them with contempt and as "non-citizens".

She acknowledged the authenticity of the conversation on Twitter but said the last bit was incorrect. I personally find it hard to believe it was not genuine. She probably deliberately released this conversation to increase her appeal to the nationalists in the presidential elections.

Irina Farion is the Svoboda MP who is calling for the deaths of protesters.

Beaglesaresweet, the nuking remark is reported widely in all sorts of news outlets, including those who pride themselves on their reputation for accuracy.

Business Insider

"I am sorry that I am not able to be there and am not in charge of these processes, they wouldn't have had a fucking chance of getting Crimea off me."

"I would have found a way to finish off these bastards," the 53-year-old leader of the 2004 pro-democracy Orange revolution was heard as saying.

"I am hoping that I will use all my connections and will get the whole world to rise up so that not even scorched earth would be left of Russia."

Discussing the fate of Ukraine's eight million ethnic Russians with Shufrych, Tymoshenko was also heard as saying that they should be "nuked".

Telegraph

Tymoshenko whines about fair play. The rest of the article is the same as Business Insider's. She does not deny the general content.

Interesting that she speaks in Russian. It is pointed out that she makes such a big deal about speaking Ukrainian in her public persona. It also makes her remarks easy to understand on Russian TV. At the time she had her phone conversation she already knew that the conversation between Victoria Nuland and Greg Pyatt had been taped.

So I am not a bit surprised she could be so stupid and the intemperate words seem to me to be very much in character. The character in question is that of someone trying to keep the Right from embarrassing her at the polls. Tymoshemko and the Right are trawling for the same bottom feeders among the voters.

Tymoshenko by her emphasis on her Ukrainian-ness (hair, folk contume, use of Ukrainian) has already alienated Russian speakers, and she has alienated many others by her record of prominent association with previous corrupt governments. She will not poll well in the east and she will not poll well among voters to whom restraint and responsibility matter. The New York Times calls her 'a charismatic but also potentially polarizing figure'. This is a very succinct recognition of reality. She will preach to her particular choir and will not attempt to build bridges to the Russian speaking or ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine.

Since the Russian journo isn't running for the office of president of Ukraine his remarks are not exactly earth shattering or relevant despite the fact that they took place on state TV. If it's the one I think you mean, then yes he is a caricature of himself.

I think you'd agree that most countries use one lang for the documents.
Most countries where there are two or more prominent languages do not use one language for official documents.

The insistence on having one 'official language' when a state is not monolingual is an act of official hostility, and it sends the message 'in-your-face-losers' to speakers of the minority language when a state like Ukraine for instance insists on one or the other.

Many states such as the US and UK do not have any named official language. In the US English is the de facto language of the 50 states but not the de jure language. Attempts to make English the official language of the US tend to fizzle out. It is seen as uncivilised and impractical. In the UK, certain regional languages have been awarded legal designation. Contracts are legal no matter what language they are written up or verbalised in in the UK. Business may be conducted in any language.

States can also have one official language but can use regional languages for official business in different regions.

There are alternatives to alienating sizeable portions of a country's population by playing the triumphalist language whack-a-mole game. The alternatives are both practical and forward looking and are found in states that do not indulge in constant replaying of historical conflict.

Here are a few examples:
Ireland -- Irish first official language, English 'other' official language. Ireland uses both Irish and English for official purposes right down to signposts.
Ireland has a long history with use and promotion of one official language (in the Imperial period) which was seen as evidence of hostility towards Irish people and their culture.
In Northern Ireland Irish is now recognised (since 1998) as a minority language, having been blanked from the airwaves and public places and schools for fifty years of the state's early history by NI's independent government. NI is a good example of triumphalism in politics and cultural politics and where it leads (i.e. to disaster).

Belgium uses Flemish, German and Dutch respectively in regions where those languages predominate.
Argentina has Spanish as the official language but Guarani in Corrientes province.
Brazil recognises no fewer than three different German dialects used in separate provinces among other languages used besides Portuguese, which is the 'national' language.
Canada -- English and French, with various indigenous languages recognised and used for official purposes in Northwest Territories.
China -- Standard Chinese is used statewide, English is the official language in Hong Kong, and there are umpteen regional languages recognised.
Denmark -- German is a protected minority language in the south.
Finland -- Finnish and Swedish are 'national languages'.
India -- several languages used for official purposes. English and Hindi are 'Central Government' languages.
Italy -- French and German are co-official with Italian in certain regions.
Philippines -- Filipino and English official. Many regional languages used.
Switzerland -- four languages, used in different linguistic areas.

As for Maidan - no, only a small group of the right sector was armed, but people were unarmed - there were Thousands of protestors who moved to storm buildings or were on barricades , unlike 1000 or so group in Donetsk where many are proved to be russian 'visitors' - again Russian MP's don't hide the fact that they are helping by sending out their guys. I've heard one announce it from the stage while the guys in green stood next to him and nodded. So genuine discontented population is small inm Donetsk, whereas in Kiev there were many thousands.

I don't think anyone has ever asserted that all the Maidan protestors were armed. But is is very clear that the Right came armed to the party and ready to make its presence felt, and it has been acknowledged by the western press that the Right played a pivotal role in the 'regime change'. I do not think you can assert with any confidence that the protestors in Donetsk were not Ukrainian. You are entitled to your opinions here, but you are not entitled to make up 'facts'.

It's really important to understand that the protestors on Maidan are not just the right sector or just ukrainian-speakers. They wre from ALL ethnic backgrounds living in ukraine, some Russian ethnically but born there, who wanted DEMOCRACY and freedom from Putin's dominance, and those pro-europe. I know someone - a father of my friend who lives herself abroad - who always spoke russia and is russian but born in Ukraine, a higly intelligent academic succeesful and respected - who actually went on barricades along with his young sone and his wife - his son's two friends were killed, all of then only had shileds. I was amazed that he of all people would care so much, but that's the spirit now. Progressive people aer just fed up of being a bsackwater of russia with corrupt govts put there by Putin etc, with no laws for the elite and screwed up business practices, opportunities hardly available for honest people, no one to choose presidents from (all from same stable) etc.

Again, nobody has suggested that the Maidan protestors were composed entirely of the Right. What is being stated and what is agreed upon by the press (the western press included) is that the Right played a role proportionately bigger than its numbers on the ground.

I would like to remind you that Ukrainians are now asked to choose between two oligarchs with extensive histories of becoming unfathomably rich in the last twenty years, among others (candidates of the far right and more pro-good-relationship-with-Russia candidates). In this respect, absolutely nothing has changed in Ukrainian politics.

This is the second expression by the Ukrainian people of being fed up with corruption and all that goes with it. This particular quake in Ukrainian political life has the distinction of bringing with it bondage to European and American banks, however, and all the hardship that will entail for ordinary citizens. If you are trying to argue that all corrupt Ukrainian governments were 'put there by Putin etc.' how do you categorise the government that came to power in the wake of the Orange Revolution?

It seems to me that Ukrainians, like everyone else, get the government they deserve.

When ordinary citizens have seen an interim government they did not vote for sign up for loans and agree to conditions that will result in hardship for the vast majority, then they have accepted the right of an elite to make decisions for them, despite being all fired up about Democracy.

The irony of a small, self-appointed group of Progressives and fellow travellers taking over from a duly elected government and steering a country towards 'democracy', followed by making agreements with outside parties with no consultation with voters is unmistakeable.

I think you'd agree that most countries use one lang for the documents.

Beagle, why are you so keen on having one languages? Why can't there be two?

'Progressive people are just fed up of being a backwater of russia with corrupt govts put there by Putin etc, with no laws for the elite and screwed up business practices, opportunities hardly available for honest people, no one to choose presidents from (all from same stable) etc'

This is a revolution for the elite. Putin didn't put the billionaire Tymoshenko in power, she was a favourite of the West's elites. Tymoshenko is standing for President again. And so is the billionaire Poroshenko. He has switched sides lots of times, so how committed he is to any side apart from his own is called in to question

"Political Chameleon

In 2000, he was a founding member of the Party of Regions , the political machine that brought ousted President Viktor Yanukovych to power. A year later, however, Poroshenko broke ranks with President Leonid Kuchma and became a leading supporter and financial backer of Viktor Yushchenko's Our Ukraine party .

He backed the Orange Revolution in 2004-05 and served in Yushchenko's government . In 2009-10, he was foreign minister.

Poroshenko was named trade and economic development minister under President Yanukovych in 2012. He held the post for eight months before returning to parliament as an independent deputy from the central city of Vinnytsya. Although he is believed to have financially supported the Euromaidan protests, he did not play a leading role in the demonstrations .

Ivan Lozowy, an independent policy analyst in Kyiv, says he is surprised by Poroshenko's high showing in opinion polls.

"He hasn't really been known for anything in the past several years and nothing of note has happened with him. He hasn't done anything of note in the past several months," Lozowy says. "He owns a TV channel, so he uses that sometimes as a forum. They invite him for an extended interview. Of course, they invite other politicians as well, so it is somewhat balanced. But, again, there is nothing that he's really done in the short or medium term that even sticks out a little bit."

Lozowy suspects Poroshenko may have paid to boost his poll ratings, a common practice in Ukraine. He notes that a recent poll asking people whether they had heard of Poroshenko's Solidarity party revealed that almost no one had."

...

Poroshenko has been a consistent supporter of Ukraine's integration with the European Union , and he gained public sympathy when Russia embargoed his Roshen chocolates in a trade war targeted against him. When he was foreign minister, Poroshenko advocated Ukraine's NATO membership , although it is not known whether he will make that position part of his presidential campaign."

www.rferl.org/content/poroshenko-profile-ukraine-presidential-candidate/25314782.html

He is part of Ukraine's elite 1%. But compared to the EU's and West's 1%, he is just a minnow. His policies suit the EU's 1% i.e. EU membership and closer untegration with NATO. So what about the far right Right Sector etc? Why were they used as tools of the 1%? Because to overthrow a President, the 1% could not do it by newspaper articles and TV shows, they needed violent thugs to storm buildings and attck Ukrainian police and Berkut. But, of course, the neo-nazis are not in charge, they are merely puppets of the 1%. The billionaires pull the strings and both Tymoshenko and Poroshenko are old faces who have been in politics for years.

Why are the people in the East and South not happy with these same billionaires and their neo-nazi puppets who punch TV bosses, have fistfights in parliament and threaten people? Because they know what is behind it and hiow their interests will be sold out to the EU 1% by the Ukrainian 1%. The East and South has most of the industry of Ukraine and this industry mainly exports to Russia. Under EU policies, much of this industry and their jobs will collapse as it is uncompetitive with Western industry. That is of course the intention of the 1% who wish to weaken Russia and split Ukraine and its millions of pro-Russians and Russian speakers from Russia. But how can the 1% enforce the split, if millions are pro-Russian, anti EU and against closer ties with NATO? They will need some violent thugs who are anti Russian and that is where Svoboda and Right Sector fit in.

If NATO extends its reach to Ukraine and places missiles in Ukraine along the Russian borders, it will threaten Russia and that brings war one step nearer or alternatively, as the EU 1% would prefer, a coup against Putin in order to get a more favourable government in harge of Russia.

Who will suffer? The Ukrainian people in the South and East of Ukraine and even in the West of Ukraine. Yats won't suffer. He will be well looked after for doing his job.

Hopefulgoat asks how can it be tolerated by Europe that far right elements receive support and not much condemnation?

The reason is geopolitics.

Here is an article about the recent Hungarian election which saw a 20% share of the vote for a far right party. This blogger sometimes writes for the Guardian, but I doubt the establishment Guardian will print this article.

"The international reaction to the Hungarian election result is revealing too. Already we've seen lots of tweets and articles from establishment commentators in the West expressing alarm over the rise of Jobbik, a radical ultra-nationalist party which received around 20 percent of the vote, about 4 percent up on four years ago.

Yet, interestingly, the same band of establishment commentators who warn us about the dangers of Jobbik in Hungary, just a few weeks ago supported a violent far-right/neo-Nazi-led coup against a democratically-elected government in neighboring Ukraine. It seems we weren't supposed to see the coming to power of racists, anti-Semites and homophobes in Ukraine as a problem. But we are expected to have sleepless nights over the support for Jobbik in Hungary, even though that party won‘t have any members in the new government, as far-right groups in Kiev currently do.

Why the double standards? Well, Jobbik is anti-EU, but not anti-Russian, unlike radical ultranationalist groups in Ukraine. In other words, western elites base their views on ultranationalist parties not on an objective assessment of the groups concerned, and how extreme and neo-Nazi they actually are, but where they stand in relation to Russia and whether they can help them achieve their geo-strategic objectives. We’re all meant to hate Jobbik with a vengeance, but were not meant to hate more extreme and more violent far-right groups wearing masks, throwing Molotov cocktails and forcibly toppling a democratic government in Ukraine. In fact, we’re not even meant to notice them.

The negative coverage that the Hungarian government receives in western elitist media has the same cause.

Hungary's government gets a bad press because it has become increasingly EU-skeptic, has edged away from neo-liberalism, has imposed taxes on foreign multinationals and – arguably its greatest “crime” – it has pursued closer financial ties and greater cooperation with Russia."

rt.com/op-edge/hungary-elections-fake-left-169/

Of course, the 1% are not stupid enough to have believed that Putin would just roll over. They must have planned for the expected outcome andhis reaction.

I don't think it really bothers them too much what happens to Ukraine because that was not their real objective. The real objective was to isolate Russia and split it from the EU and the EU's powerhouse, Germany. So far that has been achieved and the more that Putin reacts as predicted, the more he plays into the hands of the 1% who want to separate Russia from Germany.

Yats will end up in some American university, like Mikheil Saakashvili who is pensioned off in Tufts.

Yes, or working for Wall Street

One thing people in Donetsk and in Maidan have in common is that they are sick of oligarchs.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26961941

mathanxiety Wed 09-Apr-14 17:58:14
PigletJohn, all statements that try to suggest equivalence between the Holocaust and other murderous events of the twentieth century by placing the Holocaust in a wider context, comparing the acts of the Nazis with those of other regimes, and suggesting equivalence have the effect of minimising it.

Math, you are completely wrong. The mass killings of the Stalinists are every bit as evil as the mass killings of the Nazis.

Keep on trolling PigletJohn.
There are fora where your 'alternative' pov would be very welcome.

I am shocked that you minimise and gloss over the millions who died as a result of Stalin's Soviet Union.

It is enlarging on your statement "I can't imagine how you could have a country in Europe where one part of the country worships Nazi collaborators and puts 4 neo Nazis in government, while the other part had their grand-grandfathers killed and grandmothers raped by those collaborators and don't want anything to do with that government." to remind you that there are some people who may not want their country to be dominated by Russia again.

Here you have made it clear which set of occupying forces you would prefer.

"Here you have made it clear which set of occupying forces you would prefer."

I would of course prefer no occupying force at all. It appears that you are unable to comprehend such an idea.

Your refusal to acknowledge and condemn the murder, transportation and imprisonment of the victims of Stalin's Soviet Union and subsequent regimes is appalling.

It's interesting to read the report coming from PACE, the Parliamentary Assembly Council for Europe. Apparently the violence in Kyiv was caused by the authorities being heavy handed, despite video evidence showing the unarmed police retreating from protesters. They also decry Yanukoviches decision to use snipers then call for an independent enquiry so as not to apportion blame prematurely.

Then comes the most ludicrous claim of all. That the right has nothing to do with the government. This despite Right Sector and Svoboda holding seats in cabinet.

Contrast the violence in Kyiv with the protests in Simferopol. Over 100 deaths in Ukraine versus none in Crimea.

They're now talking about further sanctions against Russia, which is dangerous to our weak economy. We can't afford to lose those billions of dollars of trade with what is a major trading partner. Once again the US corporations government is on the wrong side of history, and trying to spin the opposite. Unfortunately they don't seem to understand how the internet works...

"I would of course prefer no occupying force at all"

Piglet, Russian-speaking Ukrainians are not occupiying force.

Ukraine is their country and they have the same rights as West Ukrainians.

Bandera Army and the Nazi SS Galicia also were not occupying forces. They were Ukrainians.

Take a look www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DkYZ-JtLHTaY%26bpctr%3D1396653115%26bpctr%3D1396694432%26bpctr%3D1396694454