Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[United Marxist Nations]

(Image)

Texas volunteer Russell Bonner Bentley with Brazilian volunteer Mikel Oibar fighting for Novorossiya.

Meanwhile, the wolrd press got the undeniable evidence, that the USSR is sending vilunteers to Donbass:

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

*looks at patch* Didn't know that the Russians were communist still.

Novorossiya has a lot of communists in its ranks; in fact, their commander at Debaltseve was one.

[Lytenburgh]

People protesting in Kiev, against inflation etc attacked by Police.
Notice how the Police threaten to shoot people, and they use a disproportionate amount of force.

Earlier Klitchko has called such rallies "provocations"

[Lytenburgh]

Novorossiya has a lot of communists in its ranks; in fact, their commander at Debaltseve was one.

Yep. Even his "nome-de-guerre" was "Communist"



Notice, UMN - this is how commisar's cap looks like!

[United Marxist Nations]

Would that be an early Red Army pattern?

[Bratislavskaya]

Would that be an early Red Army pattern?

Cheka or NKVD I believe.

[Shofercia]

Here's what I wrote: During the "horrible" Soviet rule, the population of Balts in the Baltics increased. During the "super-duper-nice-&-shiny" democratic rule, the population of Balts in the Baltics decreased, and the trio are in a demographic death spiral. Those are the facts.

Here's your response to that: To break that fact down a little bit, the population of Lithuanians in Lithuania increased. The population of Estonians in Estonia and Latvians in Latvia both declined. Nevertheless, the population of these groups has decreased since independence...

That's you arguing that the population of Lithuanians in Lithuania increased, while the population of Estonians in Estonia and Latvians in Latvia decreased, in response to my claim, that during the Soviet Union, the population of each increased, and after the fall of the USSR, the population of each, decreased. In the post-Stalin era, (which was the era that I was talking about,) the populations of Estonians in Estonia, Latvians in Latvia and Lithuanians in Lithuania, all increased. After the fall of the USSR, they all decreased. Your breakdown makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

See, now that's where the confusion is coming from. When you said during "Soviet rule" I thought you meant during "Soviet rule", as in the period where these countries were ruled by the Soviet Union. But really, when you said "Soviet rule" you meant "not Soviet rule, but only a previously unstated part of Soviet rule". You'll have to excuse me, but I have this tendence to assume that what someone says is what they mean and not some other meaning that they only intend to divulge further down the line after their original meaning has been shown to be factually inaccurate.

When I'm talking about demography during Soviet rule, I'm referring to the censuses. The first truthful census taken, when the Baltics were under Soviet Rule, was in 1959. If you knew the facts, you wouldn't need to assume. You could understand my hesitation to count the 1939 census for the Baltics: http://www.academia.edu/1522451/The_Sov ... Evaluation

In Lithuanian it has little to do with independence, eh? Between 1982 and 1986, Lithuania's fertility rate was on a constant increase. Furthermore, in 1978, the rate was 2.09; in 1987 the rate was 2.11, which shows a possible stabilization of the fertility rate. Between 1991 and 2002, the fertility rate fell steadily, although it's currently stabilizing around the 1.6 mark.

Correlation is not causation. If you could explain how becoming independent has cut Lithuania's fertility rate I'd be interested to know.

What I can see is that drops in the fertility rate is often correlated with economic turmoil (unemployment and income uncertainty being factors that put off expensive decisions like having a child - that's the causation). The collapse of the Soviet economy certainly led to economic turmoil which lasted right through the 90s, which would explain why Lithuania's fertility rate dropped until 2002 since when it has been gradually picking up.

Several factors, that work all across the Baltics:
- Mismanaged switch between Socialism and Capitalism
- Minority Flight
- Baltic workers moving to wealthier countries to make more money
- Not enough government care devoted to fixing the demographic problem

So, according to you, an argument is not, a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong?

Yes, it is. And as soon as you find someone who needs to be persuaded that 2.56 is less than 2.91, you'll have an argument there.

I was referring to this part, when you find someone who disagrees you might actually have an argument, when I made that inquiry: So, according to you, an argument is not, a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong?

Obviously 91 > 56, so we can move on from that.

[Dr Freud]

See, now that's where the confusion is coming from. When you said during "Soviet rule" I thought you meant during "Soviet rule", as in the period where these countries were ruled by the Soviet Union. But really, when you said "Soviet rule" you meant "not Soviet rule, but only a previously unstated part of Soviet rule". You'll have to excuse me, but I have this tendence to assume that what someone says is what they mean and not some other meaning that they only intend to divulge further down the line after their original meaning has been shown to be factually inaccurate.

When I'm talking about demography during Soviet rule, I'm referring to the censuses. The first truthful census taken, when the Baltics were under Soviet Rule, was in 1959. If you knew the facts, you wouldn't need to assume. You could understand my hesitation to count the 1939 census for the Baltics: http://www.academia.edu/1522451/The_Sov ... Evaluation

Surely any hesitation to count the 1939 census in this instance would have little to do with manipulation of the statistics and everything to do with the fact that the countries in question were not part of the Soviet Union in 1939.

Furthermore, we have plenty of data on the population and ethnic composition of the Baltic states right up until Soviet rule. There is absolutely no need to start from 1959, a full 15 years after these states were incorporated into the Soviet Union for the second time and during which some of the most important demographic changes occurred.

Correlation is not causation. If you could explain how becoming independent has cut Lithuania's fertility rate I'd be interested to know.

What I can see is that drops in the fertility rate is often correlated with economic turmoil (unemployment and income uncertainty being factors that put off expensive decisions like having a child - that's the causation). The collapse of the Soviet economy certainly led to economic turmoil which lasted right through the 90s, which would explain why Lithuania's fertility rate dropped until 2002 since when it has been gradually picking up.

Several factors, that work all across the Baltics:
- Mismanaged switch between Socialism and Capitalism
- Minority Flight
- Baltic workers moving to wealthier countries to make more money
- Not enough government care devoted to fixing the demographic problem

To take these in order:
- Economic turmoil is, as I have already mentioned, an extremely likely cause of the drop in fertility rates. That this is due to a mismanaged switch from socialism to capitalism is a lot more dubious, as countries which left most of the socialist system in place like Belarus experienced a drop in fertility rates comparable to the Baltics during the 1990s.
- Minority flight would only impact the total fertility rate if it could be shown that those minorities have significantly higher fertility rates than the majority. As most of those leaving were Russians and Russian fertility rates tend to be similar to Baltic fertility rates this seems like an unlikely cause of such a large movement.
- This would affect the birth rate (and the death rate as I previously discussed) but not the total fertility rate unless the workers leaving would have been more likely to have more children than those staying. As emigrants to rich countries tend to be better educated and better educated women tend to have more children this is actually more likely to increase the total fertility rate than reduce it.

Now as for the government's performance when it comes to fertility rates, how have the independent gvoernment performed in comparison to the previous Soviet government, relative to the different time periods these two governments existed in? The UN has useful statistics for fertility rates, by country and certain regional groupings for five year periods dating right back to 1950. If we consider the Soviet period for these statistics as 1950 through to 1990 and the independent period as 1990 to 2010 (2010-15 data is in there but as these are 2013 statistics this is a forecast and not the actual value) how do fertility rates compare?

Well, it doesn't reflect well on Soviet governance. Under Soviet rule Latvia had the third lowest fertility rate in the entire world - only Germany and Luxemburg were lower between 1950 and 1990. Estonia is hardly much better, only coming ahead of the three aforementioned countries and Switzerland and Sweden. The only Baltic states not down in the gutters during this period was Lithuania which is still only 17 countries ahead of Estonia.

But things got a lot worse during the independent period, right? Certainly in absolute terms, but certainly not in relative terms. Latvia managed to pull itself off the bottom wrungs of the list and ahead of four developed countries - Italy, Spain, Greece and Japan - and a number of former Soviet and Warsaw pact countries like Slovenia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic and Russia. Rather than two countries that were worse performing there are now 12, or 14 if you count Macao and Hong Kong.

Estonia did even better, managing to have the highest fertility rate in the Baltics since 1990 and outperforming the likes of Belarus, Austria, South Korea, Hungary, Portugal, Slovakia, Croatia, Singapore, Poland and Lithuania too, which now finds itself one place below Estonia but still relatively higher than during the Soviet period.

So no, the fact that the independent governments have responded to demographic changes compared to their contemporaries better than the Soviet government was able to comapred to their own contemporaries means that I wouldn't balme them for the low fertility rates.

Yes, it is. And as soon as you find someone who needs to be persuaded that 2.56 is less than 2.91, you'll have an argument there.

I was referring to this part, when you find someone who disagrees you might actually have an argument, when I made that inquiry: So, according to you, an argument is not, a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong?

Obviously 91 > 56, so we can move on from that.

So if you acknowledge that everyone agreed that 91 > 56, who was that argument trying to persuade?

[Baltenstein]

*looks at patch* Didn't know that the Russians were communist still.

Novorossiya has a lot of communists in its ranks; in fact, their commander at Debaltseve was one.

They must feel great among all the ultranationalists, fascists and Orthodox crusaders.
The Russian Communists, I get. After all, glorification of the Soviet Union is a staple of Russian nationalism these days.
The foreign (Brazilian, Spanish, American etc) Communists, less so. Of course, if you think that antagonizing the West and pro-Western governments should be a Communist's prime concern, you might just as well support Iran, Isis, Hamas and the like.

[Malgrave]

A video has emerged of gunfire in Krasnyi Luch (reportedly LNR vs Cossacks).

Boris Nemtsov: 'We Must Free Russia From Putin'

[The Lone Alliance]

You are also exaggerating.
But the war won't be won without a shittonne of deaths. CD
To suggest that the war can be won, by the Ukraine, without another shot is naïve and probably a little insane.

It doesn't have to be won militarily, they've already scorched earth most of the rebel held part of Ukraine.

Ukraine is falling onto economic collapse but the Rebels have no economic power whatsoever.

The west will not trade with them, Russia has problems of it's own, their factories, transport hubs, homes, and everything of value is bombed, mined, or in range of getting bombed or mined, and most of their citizens have fled to either Russia or the rest of Ukraine depending on what side they were on.

The entire region is fucked.

Edit: When I mean the entire region I'm including Ukraine as well.

[United Marxist Nations]

Novorossiya has a lot of communists in its ranks; in fact, their commander at Debaltseve was one.

They must feel great among all the ultranationalists, fascists and Orthodox crusaders.
The Russian Communists, I get. After all, glorification of the Soviet Union is a staple of Russian nationalism these days.
The foreign (Brazilian, Spanish, American etc) Communists, less so. Of course, if you think that antagonizing the West and pro-Western governments should be a Communist's prime concern, you might just as well support Iran, Isis, Hamas and the like.

What I have been seeing among the ML community (it's kind of strange, there are lots of places online we just sort of find each other), and the position I generally agree with is this:

We shouldn't support Putin & co. , but the we should support the Russian & Novorossiyan communists, as their actions are primarily motivated by hope of gaining influence. In Novorossiya itself, the Communists have a lot of electoral power (and already founded a Party); in this, Putin & Co have inadvertently become useful to our comrades useful because, in its haste to support the rebels, has given pro-communist troops lots of hardware and clout.

[Geilinor]

They must feel great among all the ultranationalists, fascists and Orthodox crusaders.
The Russian Communists, I get. After all, glorification of the Soviet Union is a staple of Russian nationalism these days.
The foreign (Brazilian, Spanish, American etc) Communists, less so. Of course, if you think that antagonizing the West and pro-Western governments should be a Communist's prime concern, you might just as well support Iran, Isis, Hamas and the like.

What I have been seeing among the ML community (it's kind of strange, there are lots of places online we just sort of find each other), and the position I generally agree with is this:

We shouldn't support Putin & co. , but the we should support the Russian & Novorossiyan communists, as their actions are primarily motivated by hope of gaining influence. In Novorossiya itself, the Communists have a lot of electoral power (and already founded a Party); in this, Putin & Co have inadvertently become useful to our comrades useful because, in its haste to support the rebels, has given pro-communist troops lots of hardware and clout.

The communists there serve Putin's purposes for now, but I don't know what will happen after he's done with them.

[Shofercia]

When I'm talking about demography during Soviet rule, I'm referring to the censuses. The first truthful census taken, when the Baltics were under Soviet Rule, was in 1959. If you knew the facts, you wouldn't need to assume. You could understand my hesitation to count the 1939 census for the Baltics: http://www.academia.edu/1522451/The_Sov ... Evaluation

Surely any hesitation to count the 1939 census in this instance would have little to do with manipulation of the statistics and everything to do with the fact that the countries in question were not part of the Soviet Union in 1939.

Furthermore, we have plenty of data on the population and ethnic composition of the Baltic states right up until Soviet rule. There is absolutely no need to start from 1959, a full 15 years after these states were incorporated into the Soviet Union for the second time and during which some of the most important demographic changes occurred.

I specifically said, "Baltic States under Soviet Rule", to which you then responded that I didn't inform you that I was only counting since 1959, to which I responded that I was doing so because real censuses of Baltics under Soviet Rule were only available since 1959, something that's rather well known, to which you respond with "we have plenty of data right up until Soviet rule" - what the actual fuck? When I'm talking about Baltic demography under Soviet rule, I am talking about Baltic demography under Soviet rule, not Baltic demography prior to Soviet Rule. Furthermore, there was a certain event between 1939 and 1945, that altered the demography of Europe. So yes, amazingly enough, if you want to be a demographer, you have to start with a legitimate census, not a census that was made no longer applicable due to WWII.

To take these in order:
- Economic turmoil is, as I have already mentioned, an extremely likely cause of the drop in fertility rates. That this is due to a mismanaged switch from socialism to capitalism is a lot more dubious, as countries which left most of the socialist system in place like Belarus experienced a drop in fertility rates comparable to the Baltics during the 1990s.
- Minority flight would only impact the total fertility rate if it could be shown that those minorities have significantly higher fertility rates than the majority. As most of those leaving were Russians and Russian fertility rates tend to be similar to Baltic fertility rates this seems like an unlikely cause of such a large movement.
- This would affect the birth rate (and the death rate as I previously discussed) but not the total fertility rate unless the workers leaving would have been more likely to have more children than those staying. As emigrants to rich countries tend to be better educated and better educated women tend to have more children this is actually more likely to increase the total fertility rate than reduce it.

Now as for the government's performance when it comes to fertility rates, how have the independent gvoernment performed in comparison to the previous Soviet government, relative to the different time periods these two governments existed in? The UN has useful statistics for fertility rates, by country and certain regional groupings for five year periods dating right back to 1950. If we consider the Soviet period for these statistics as 1950 through to 1990 and the independent period as 1990 to 2010 (2010-15 data is in there but as these are 2013 statistics this is a forecast and not the actual value) how do fertility rates compare?

Well, it doesn't reflect well on Soviet governance. Under Soviet rule Latvia had the third lowest fertility rate in the entire world - only Germany and Luxemburg were lower between 1950 and 1990. Estonia is hardly much better, only coming ahead of the three aforementioned countries and Switzerland and Sweden. The only Baltic states not down in the gutters during this period was Lithuania which is still only 17 countries ahead of Estonia.

But things got a lot worse during the independent period, right? Certainly in absolute terms, but certainly not in relative terms. Latvia managed to pull itself off the bottom wrungs of the list and ahead of four developed countries - Italy, Spain, Greece and Japan - and a number of former Soviet and Warsaw pact countries like Slovenia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic and Russia. Rather than two countries that were worse performing there are now 12, or 14 if you count Macao and Hong Kong.

Estonia did even better, managing to have the highest fertility rate in the Baltics since 1990 and outperforming the likes of Belarus, Austria, South Korea, Hungary, Portugal, Slovakia, Croatia, Singapore, Poland and Lithuania too, which now finds itself one place below Estonia but still relatively higher than during the Soviet period.

So no, the fact that the independent governments have responded to demographic changes compared to their contemporaries better than the Soviet government was able to comapred to their own contemporaries means that I wouldn't balme them for the low fertility rates.

You can certainly compare to Japan, a country stuck in a demographic death spiral, or you can compare to Russia, whose fertility rates have been increasing steadily since 2005, and whose population has actually been growing, (in part due to immigration,) not shrinking. Oh, and Russia's about to record growth in rural population as well, the trends certainly point to that. On top of that, I'd rather have a fertility rate that the Baltic SSRs had, than that of Congo today, even though Congo's is much bigger. An ideal TFR is somewhere in the middle, cannot be too high or too low.

I was referring to this part, when you find someone who disagrees you might actually have an argument, when I made that inquiry: So, according to you, an argument is not, a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong?

Obviously 91 > 56, so we can move on from that.

So if you acknowledge that everyone agreed that 91 > 56, who was that argument trying to persuade?

Who was that argument? All your base are belong to us! This is the point that you're looking for:

I was referring to this part, when you find someone who disagrees you might actually have an argument, when I made that inquiry: So, according to you, an argument is not, a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong?

[Dr Freud]

Surely any hesitation to count the 1939 census in this instance would have little to do with manipulation of the statistics and everything to do with the fact that the countries in question were not part of the Soviet Union in 1939.

Furthermore, we have plenty of data on the population and ethnic composition of the Baltic states right up until Soviet rule. There is absolutely no need to start from 1959, a full 15 years after these states were incorporated into the Soviet Union for the second time and during which some of the most important demographic changes occurred.

I specifically said, "Baltic States under Soviet Rule", to which you then responded that I didn't inform you that I was only counting since 1959, to which I responded that I was doing so because real censuses of Baltics under Soviet Rule were only available since 1959, something that's rather well known, to which you respond with "we have plenty of data right up until Soviet rule" - what the actual fuck? When I'm talking about Baltic demography under Soviet rule, I am talking about Baltic demography under Soviet rule, not Baltic demography prior to Soviet Rule.

Is this bait? You can't sincerely be failing to understand my argument. If we know what the demographics of a country were at the point in time that it was annexed - and we do for the Baltic states - and we know the demographics at the point in time when they become independent again, then yes we do know how the demographics changed during the entire period of Soviet rule. And if you believe that only censuses are valid and the first valid one for the Soviet Union was in 1959 then you can't with any honesty make the claim that you know how the demographics changed during the period of Soviet rule because you're leaving out at least 15 years of change even excluding the war! What you meant to say was that those populations increased from 1959 onwards which is not the same thing as saying that they increased during Soviet rule.

Furthermore, there was a certain event between 1939 and 1945, that altered the demography of Europe. So yes, amazingly enough, if you want to be a demographer, you have to start with a legitimate census, not a census that was made no longer applicable due to WWII.

Censuses: they no longer apply after wars! How does that even work?

To take these in order:
- Economic turmoil is, as I have already mentioned, an extremely likely cause of the drop in fertility rates. That this is due to a mismanaged switch from socialism to capitalism is a lot more dubious, as countries which left most of the socialist system in place like Belarus experienced a drop in fertility rates comparable to the Baltics during the 1990s.
- Minority flight would only impact the total fertility rate if it could be shown that those minorities have significantly higher fertility rates than the majority. As most of those leaving were Russians and Russian fertility rates tend to be similar to Baltic fertility rates this seems like an unlikely cause of such a large movement.
- This would affect the birth rate (and the death rate as I previously discussed) but not the total fertility rate unless the workers leaving would have been more likely to have more children than those staying. As emigrants to rich countries tend to be better educated and better educated women tend to have more children this is actually more likely to increase the total fertility rate than reduce it.

Now as for the government's performance when it comes to fertility rates, how have the independent gvoernment performed in comparison to the previous Soviet government, relative to the different time periods these two governments existed in? The UN has useful statistics for fertility rates, by country and certain regional groupings for five year periods dating right back to 1950. If we consider the Soviet period for these statistics as 1950 through to 1990 and the independent period as 1990 to 2010 (2010-15 data is in there but as these are 2013 statistics this is a forecast and not the actual value) how do fertility rates compare?

Well, it doesn't reflect well on Soviet governance. Under Soviet rule Latvia had the third lowest fertility rate in the entire world - only Germany and Luxemburg were lower between 1950 and 1990. Estonia is hardly much better, only coming ahead of the three aforementioned countries and Switzerland and Sweden. The only Baltic states not down in the gutters during this period was Lithuania which is still only 17 countries ahead of Estonia.

But things got a lot worse during the independent period, right? Certainly in absolute terms, but certainly not in relative terms. Latvia managed to pull itself off the bottom wrungs of the list and ahead of four developed countries - Italy, Spain, Greece and Japan - and a number of former Soviet and Warsaw pact countries like Slovenia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic and Russia. Rather than two countries that were worse performing there are now 12, or 14 if you count Macao and Hong Kong.

Estonia did even better, managing to have the highest fertility rate in the Baltics since 1990 and outperforming the likes of Belarus, Austria, South Korea, Hungary, Portugal, Slovakia, Croatia, Singapore, Poland and Lithuania too, which now finds itself one place below Estonia but still relatively higher than during the Soviet period.

So no, the fact that the independent governments have responded to demographic changes compared to their contemporaries better than the Soviet government was able to comapred to their own contemporaries means that I wouldn't balme them for the low fertility rates.

You can certainly compare to Japan, a country stuck in a demographic death spiral, or you can compare to Russia, whose fertility rates have been increasing steadily since 2005, and whose population has actually been growing, (in part due to immigration,) not shrinking. Oh, and Russia's about to record growth in rural population as well, the trends certainly point to that. On top of that, I'd rather have a fertility rate that the Baltic SSRs had, than that of Congo today, even though Congo's is much bigger. An ideal TFR is somewhere in the middle, cannot be too high or too low.

I was comparing to Russia, as you can see in my above notes. From 1950 to 1990, the average fertility rate of Latvia and Estonia were below that of Russia. In the period 1990 to 2010, they were higher. I'm not sure why you would bring up Congo as we're not comparing the fertility rates of these countries to Congo and no one is arguing that thre's is a fertility rate the Soviet Union o successor states should aspire to. What they should have aspired to is something closer to the rest of Europe which they failed to achieve. Look at the countries in those lists - all European besides Japan. Under Soviet rule the fertility rates of Latvia and Estonia were below those of virtually every European country. Now that they are independent, they are actually outperforming a number of European countries. The loss in fertility rates between the 1980s and 2010 is actually lower than the average for Eastern Europe and the rate now is more in line with Europe as a whole than it ever was under Soviet rule. So the idea that demographics were well managed by the Soviet Union in the Baltics doesn't hold up to the facts - fertility rates were almost the worst in the world and the population level was maintained only because people were literally not allowed to leave. That's not good demographic management.

So if you acknowledge that everyone agreed that 91 > 56, who was that argument trying to persuade?

Who was that argument? All your base are belong to us! This is the point that you're looking for:

I was referring to this part, when you find someone who disagrees you might actually have an argument, when I made that inquiry: So, according to you, an argument is not, a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong?

I believe the full sentence is "who was that argument trying to persuade?" Is there something you find confusing about this sentence? Would you like me to explain it further?

You claim that there is a person you wish to persuade with the argument that 91 is bigger than 56. Who is that person?

[Lytenburgh]

Would that be an early Red Army pattern?

It's standard issue Commisar uniform till 1942 army rearganisation, when they become Zampolits ("Unit Commander's Deputies on Political Enlightment and Eductional Work"). Since then they were wearing the same uniform as the rest:

[Lytenburgh]

What's been Petro Poroshenko, the "Greatest Hope of the Ukraine" up to in recent time? A lot of things:

1) Explosive Court Case Puts Ukraine's Chocolate King in Dock

The British architect smiled patiently. Having spent more than 25 years doing business on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain, he had become accustomed to aggressive negotiating techniques. Even so, Philip Hudson had hoped that working with a company called Roshen would be different.

A Western-looking, progressive, multimillion-dollar confectionery manufacturing company, that had gone to great lengths to give back to the local community in its hometown of Vinnytsia, Roshen was supposed to represent the realisation of Ukraine’s business potential. Last week, Ukraine’s national stock and securities commission announced that Roshen had posted profits nine times greater than in 2013: $34.8m.

Instead, its president, the oligarch Vyacheslav Moskalevskiy, was about to set off a chain of events that would lead, more than two years later, to Hudson taking on a company owned by the president of Ukraine in a Ukrainian court. “We believe in mafia management methods,” Hudson recalls Moskalevskiy telling him, “and we aren’t going to pay.”

During that tense meeting in September 2012, neither man could have imagined that Roshen’s owner, an English-speaking Ukrainian with aspirations of growing his burgeoning business in Europe, would later ascend to the Ukrainian presidency off the back of the country’s bloody Euromaidan revolution.

So when Hudson’s architecture firm, Jones East 8, files papers next week suing Roshen for $140,000 plus costs, they will find themselves up against the head of a corrupted state. The architects say that Roshen stole their design for the company’s milk processing plant in Vinnytsia. Roshen argue that they paid for Hudson’s initial sketches, giving them authorship rights. Roshen’s owner Petro Poroshenko, valued at $1.3 billion in March 2014 and known as the “Chocolate King”, swept into office in May 2014 with a mandate to reform Ukraine’s decaying kleptocracy while simultaneously fending off a Russian invasion.

A former minister of foreign affairs in 2009 under Yuschenko’s Orange government and minister for trade and economic development under ex-president Viktor Yanukovych in 2012, Poroshenko is one of only a few political players in Ukraine who has been able to cross party lines. During the elections, he was considered by many to be a pragmatist who might be able to hold his rapidly-fragmenting country together.

More important in a nation where politics is synonymous with unbridled corruption, Poroshenko appealed to voters as a relatively clean candidate. Although accused of “misplacing” 47 million Ukrainian hryvnia, the national currency of Ukraine, (then about $8.9m) from the budget in 2003, while head of the parliamentary Budget Committee, the accusations didn’t stick. Corruption allegations made against him in 2005 during a feud with then-prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko were never proved, the saga ending with both of them being dismissed from government.

...

Many of the Ukrainians who braved ice, batons and bullets to protest against Yanukovych’s oppressive government welcomed Poroshenko’s support, citing Roshen’s fair wage policy, transparent ownership structure and tax payments to Ukraine as evidence of an honest oligarch. He even promised to sell Roshen if he won the presidential election. “If I am elected, I will be honest and sell the Roshen concern,” he told German newspaper Bild on 2 April 2014. “As president, I want to take care and I will take care only about the welfare of the state.” Poroshenko rode Roshen’s reputation, and his promise to sell it, into the presidency.

SWEET SUCCESS

Last spring, Roshen's owner Poroshenko said that, if elected, he would sell most of his business assets. While he won the election, he hasn't yet kept his campaign promise.

Yet back in 2012, sitting in Roshen’s heaquarters in a bleak five-story office block in Kyiv, Hudson was already realising the company’s business attitude differed little from that of the other Ukrainian companies he had battled with over the past two decades.

He describes the display of arrogance with which Moskalevskiy, Poroshenko’s right-hand man and owner of Roshen’s 9%, wanted to make sure he had understood that attitude clearly. Yes, Hudson’s designs had been commissioned, yes they had signed three acts of completion certifying the work had been done, but they simply weren’t going to pay any more than the 60% installment they had already paid, he says.

Hudson’s building designs already in hand, Roshen had decided to pocket 40% of the payment due to the architect’s company. Expecting the meeting to be about haggling over price and additional payments, Hudson was dumbstruck. He left the meeting aghast. “I was absolutely shocked, I couldn’t believe it,” Hudson says. “We did a good job for them, and they just decided not to pay us, because they feel they’re bigger and stronger than us. It was a case of might and not right. With all their good works in Vinnytsia, it doesn’t take a genius to work out they will have very good connections with the courts down there. We didn’t have the resources to fight a really major company like Roshen in its home territory.”

So his company filed papers preserving their right to take action against Roshen, but decided to leave the case. He played with the idea of causing a rumpus during Poroshenko’s election campaign, but decided to wait and see how the promised reforms played out. In the meantime, the architect’s company suffered. Not only had it lost several months’ work, but had to pay VAT on the amount commissioned because Roshen had certified it was completed. To a small company dealing in Ukraine’s steadily devaluing currency, losing close to $50,000 was a big hit. “We’ve had to lay people off and even now we have some people who desperately need to be paid,” says Hudson.

Continuing to struggle with the corrupt bureaucracy of Ukraine’s planning and construction system on other projects, he grew increasingly disillusioned with the country’s new administration. “Hearing all the talk about reform and the way forward, it’s become increasingly frustrating to us. In our dealings with the authorities we expect them to be looking over their shoulder. But they just carry on as before. The corruption cash flow hasn’t stopped, it just appears to have been redirected to Western-leaning officials.”

By August 2014, Roshen had completed construction of Hudson’s design, having changed only a handful of elements. In the architect’s stylish, streamlined and refreshingly modern Kyiv office, he pulls up his plans and compares them to the finished building. The sweeping steel façade of the Vinnytsia plant is identical, as are the shape and arrangement of the outlying buildings. “No question about it, our scheme’s been built,” Hudson exclaims. “Now let’s see if Roshen will actually do the right thing and pay up. To a certain extent it’s a test case for Mr Poroshenko and his company, to see what their true standards are.”

Over in Roshen’s offices, a team of earnest young employees laugh nervously as they defend their company’s reputation. “[Mr Moskalevskiy] is an extraordinary person and he doesn’t use language as a common person, but is using some expressions, all the time joking, giving some quotes, he is not a very specific person,” says Inna Petrenko, Roshen’s head of public relations. “Maybe some words were said by his side, but not directly implied to Mr Hudson.”

...

... In fact, signed and stamped copies of the contract and acts of completion provided to Newsweek by the architecture firm show that Roshen accepted the architect’s work without any complaints. The company even waived the right to make any counter-claim against Hudson’s firm relating to the design. The documents further show that a new deadline had been drawn up and agreed with Roshen after the company had failed to provide information to the architecture firm on time.

In a functioning democracy with an independent judiciary, Hudson would be confident of victory. But in Ukraine, little has changed since Poroshenko took office. Despite his promise to sell and Ukraine’s constitution expressly prohibiting the president from running a profitable business, a recent investigation revealed that in addition to Roshen, Poroshenko still owns at least 10 other multimillion dollar companies, including Bogdan automobiles, which manufactures most of Ukraine’s public transport buses.

Western governments hail Poroshenko as a reformer, but rights groups working inside Ukraine don’t share that view. “I can’t see any tangible reform inside the judiciary,” says Arkadiy Buschenko, executive director for the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union. “All the efforts are focused on lustration, expelling judges. The real intention is to have a judiciary controlled by the executive and by the parliament. The new government and new president ignore the rule of law as much as the previous ones.”

Poroshenko’s reputation has long been tied to the company he built, which even takes its brand from the middle two syllables of his name. Once a string to his bow, the threat of court exposure now renders it a poison chalice. Either he wields undue influence to have the case dismissed, or he faces having his reputation under the microscope as the company he built is dragged through the courts. The third option – finally making good on his promise to sell Roshen – may come as too little too late.

I remind all Westerners - this is "your", progressive and democratic, guy.



2) Reminder of other Poroshenlo's election promises - "After the elections Dollar won't cost more than 10 gryvnas".

Now, behold! Abrakadabra, Alakazam, oh great Internet - show us the current cost of dollar in the Ukraine! 27.76 gyvnas per dollar. And I don't even mention its cost on the black market!

3) During a churh memorial service to honour the "victims of Maidan" Poroshenko and some foreing VIPs (including Donald Tusk) either LoLed or chatted with them.

[Slobozhanshchyna]

-snip-

One of the few things I like about the Sovier Union is their concept of internationalism. No-one gave any damn about everyone's ethnicity whatsoever, i.e. you'd be treated the same no matter where you went.

P.S. Nemtsov never deserved to die. This assassination is yet another dangerous escalation of political extremism in Russia.

[Edgy Opinions]

The foreign (Brazilian, Spanish, American etc) Communists, less so. Of course, if you think that antagonizing the West and pro-Western governments should be a Communist's prime concern, you might just as well support Iran, Isis, Hamas and the like.

They manage to be more barbarian than the US.

Russia is just on a similar level, even a lesser one, and is also smaller in amount of power.

Also, I want all instances of American interventionism and their fifth column allies in such events to end in their interests getting royally fucked.

The US getting fucked when it tries to wave it is the only way for them to learn to not treat the rest of the world like potential puppets.

[Lytenburgh]

Apparently, January's tragedy deprived "Charlie Hedbo" of its best (and smartest) people. Becuase they decided to publish this caricature:

Translantion:

"A ceasefire. Boredom has settled down in Donetsk.

Woman: Maybe we should do something with these caricaturists?"

Ukrainian (sic) politologist Vladimir Kornolov was royally pissed by this publication. Commenters are equally not impressed by this kind of "humor".

What can I say about this latest fecal product by "Charlie's"? They are heartless bastards who are trying to to capitalize on their status of martyrs and overall edginess.

[Germanic Templars]

The foreign (Brazilian, Spanish, American etc) Communists, less so. Of course, if you think that antagonizing the West and pro-Western governments should be a Communist's prime concern, you might just as well support Iran, Isis, Hamas and the like.

They manage to be more barbarian than the US.

Russia is just on a similar level, even a lesser one, and is also smaller in amount of power.

Also, I want all instances of American interventionism and their fifth column allies in such events to end in their interests getting royally fucked.

The US getting fucked when it tries to wave it is the only way for them to learn to not treat the rest of the world like potential puppets.

Oh you.

[Baltenstein]

The foreign (Brazilian, Spanish, American etc) Communists, less so. Of course, if you think that antagonizing the West and pro-Western governments should be a Communist's prime concern, you might just as well support Iran, Isis, Hamas and the like.

They manage to be more barbarian than the US.

Russia is just on a similar level, even a lesser one, and is also smaller in amount of power.

Also, I want all instances of American interventionism and their fifth column allies in such events to end in their interests getting royally fucked.

The US getting fucked when it tries to wave it is the only way for them to learn to not treat the rest of the world like potential puppets.

You know that it's Ukraine getting fucked due to Russian interventionism and Russian fifth columns and that the US (who, unlike Europe, aren't dependent on Russian energy supplies) are by far the least affected player in this whole ordeal, right?

[Bratislavskaya]

Ukrainian Soldiers appeal to Poroshenko.

[Lytenburgh]

Ukrainian Soldiers appeal to Poroshenko.

Alas, English fails to really translate more... "colourful" expressions, used by these soldiers.

[Korva]

The foreign (Brazilian, Spanish, American etc) Communists, less so. Of course, if you think that antagonizing the West and pro-Western governments should be a Communist's prime concern, you might just as well support Iran, Isis, Hamas and the like.

They manage to be more barbarian than the US.

Russia is just on a similar level, even a lesser one, and is also smaller in amount of power.

Also, I want all instances of American interventionism and their fifth column allies in such events to end in their interests getting royally fucked.

The US getting fucked when it tries to wave it is the only way for them to learn to not treat the rest of the world like potential puppets.

lol

they sure showed the U.S. by killing Ukrainians

[Edgy Opinions]

You know that it's Ukraine getting fucked due to Russian interventionism

Did I say I believe it is not understandable?

I mean, people fucking border Putin's regime and then decide to start trolling and acting slyly, being dependent on it?

lol

they sure showed the U.S. by killing Ukrainians

They have their leaders to blame.

Do you really think I would react differently about Venezuela electing a radical right-wing regime that would face adversity with a hinterland that minimally learned its lesson about power and control?

No, of course I'd want to get the right-wing politicians and the powerful people who sponsor them cooked in the cauldron as the ones responsible for all this.

But of course Ukrainians prefer to believe in a impossibly fictional liberal European dream... Not Russia's or the rebels' fault.