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

[Dr Freud]

A rather offensive image that glosses over the Soviet oppression endurred by these people is relevant?

Are you saying the Soviet Union didn't build schools, hospitals and libraries in its occupied territories?

Are you saying these things wouldn't have been built if the territories hadn't been occupied by the Soviet Union? Because they certainly would have in the case of the Baltic states, which means no, that wasn't an advantage of Soviet rule. You're asking them to be thankful for 50 years of political and economic repression because they got some stuff they would have got as independent states.

[Kelinfort]

I hope the Communists win in Russia when Duma elections come around. Then the US will truly go bonkers and we'll have a proper Cold War.

[Kenora County]

why do russian nationalists (capitalitss and fascists alike) worship the soviet union so much? i mean, some russian guy who's fighting in donbass said that the october revolution and the murder of the romanovs was orchestrated by the jews but he also said that the dissolution of the soviet union was also orchestrated by the jews. why would they destroy something they wanted to create? it doesn't even make sense. furthermore, why would a russian nationalist nazi guy like the soviet union?

[Lytenburgh]

One can lose his composure when whatever arguments you present are met by a wall of dogmatic denial. I'm not justifying blackguardism here but it's partly understandable. Lytenburgh, on the other hand, looks like a person who intentionally spreads propaganda and denies whatever claims he's presented with. I'm aware of such people being employed by governments to spread information profitable to their cause on various social networks and forums. Thus I'd like to humbly request the mods to keep an eye for such users, if possible.

Wow! Yet another user accuses me of being a troll-for-hire! Swell!

As for the (now quite standard) accusation, that I "spread propaganda" - where? A lot of articles I link are either from the "respected Free and Independent Western Press" or from equally free and kosher Ukrainian press. Admittedly, I haven't linked something writtenn by Cenzor.net. But does it mean that everything I post is lie? Or propoganda?

[Jinwoy]

why do russian nationalists (capitalitss and fascists alike) worship the soviet union so much?

I imagine that it's romanticism of being a part of something bigger
or wishing back to a time when your country was a global power, rather than a federation of backwater nations, surrounded by yet more backwater nations and aggressively spreading military alliances.

[Herargon]

why do russian nationalists (capitalitss and fascists alike) worship the soviet union so much? i mean, some russian guy who's fighting in donbass said that the october revolution and the murder of the romanovs was orchestrated by the jews but he also said that the dissolution of the soviet union was also orchestrated by the jews. why would they destroy something they wanted to create? it doesn't even make sense. furthermore, why would a russian nationalist nazi guy like the soviet union?

Do you see me worshiping the USSR as a ''capitalist''? No. I dislike it because it had poor human rights.

I think the guy that was fighting in Donbass that said this is probably trying to troll you. Since it is not orchestrated by the Jews nor dissoluted by the Jews.
Gorbachev caused the dissolution, unknowingly and unwillingly. He is not Jewish.


Also, I'm gonna eat a pizza. See y'all later guys!

[Korva]

why do russian nationalists (capitalitss and fascists alike) worship the soviet union so much? i mean, some russian guy who's fighting in donbass said that the october revolution and the murder of the romanovs was orchestrated by the jews but he also said that the dissolution of the soviet union was also orchestrated by the jews. why would they destroy something they wanted to create? it doesn't even make sense. furthermore, why would a russian nationalist nazi guy like the soviet union?

It's this weird nationalist right wing neo-tsarist movement that has co-opted soviet imagery as a throwback to when people actually cared about Russia.

[Jinwoy]

Are you saying the Soviet Union didn't build schools, hospitals and libraries in its occupied territories?

Are you saying these things wouldn't have been built if the territories hadn't been occupied by the Soviet Union? Because they certainly would have in the case of the Baltic states, which means no, that wasn't an advantage of Soviet rule. You're asking them to be thankful for 50 years of political and economic repression because they got some stuff they would have got as independent states.

They certainly wouldn't have been as far-reaching, probably comparable to the backwaters of modern South-Africa or war-torn Yugoslavia.
I'd go as far to say that without the Soviet Union, the Baltic states would be worse off in the current day if they had not been prior occupied by Soviet Forces.
Since the entire former Soviet Union still doesn't match its economy from what it was in 1987, I can say this with ease.

[Lytenburgh]

I hope so. I've seen volunteers who post propagandist info on both sides though, just being cautious of them.

I'd say with the sheer amount of time Lyt spends on these forums arguing for the case of Putin and other Russian bureaucrats, there's a very high chance he's some sort of government or Russian embassy employee.

You'll notice he has almost no other political views what's so ever, he just praises Putin, praises Russia, and praises the general state of things. The only time he has taken time not to speak about Putin, is to post on the Slavic thread to praise Russian culture. He repeats the same points multiple times, and anyone who disagrees with him is "a foolish westerner" or "a worshipper of the USA" or "a fascist". It's been very obvious for a while now to me and others I've spoken to concerning this issue, that he's in some way hired by the Russian government. Or is at least a volunteer.

Psst! Dejanic! Report me to the Mods!

I was asking people to report me to the Mods since last spring, when these accusations first began! I said it then, and I say it now - go ahead, Mods. Report me to your National Security types. Let them do their black-op voodoo and determine, whether I'm a paid agent of the Kremlin sent to subvert such enormously popular site as Nation States.

Because - naturally! - there can't be Russians who are really proud of their country, their history and their culture! And - for a first time in a very, very long time - to be proud of their government. Nope! Only Westerners are entitled to that! All others must be paid agents, which (in the name of Democracy and Freedom) should be punished by Just and Fair Western Justice.

Btw, where did I accuse some users here of being (as you claim): "a foolish westerners" or "a worshippers of the USA" or "fascists"?

[The Justinian Horde]

Are you saying these things wouldn't have been built if the territories hadn't been occupied by the Soviet Union? Because they certainly would have in the case of the Baltic states, which means no, that wasn't an advantage of Soviet rule. You're asking them to be thankful for 50 years of political and economic repression because they got some stuff they would have got as independent states.

They certainly wouldn't have been as far-reaching, probably comparable to the backwaters of modern South-Africa or war-torn Yugoslavia.
I'd go as far to say that without the Soviet Union, the Baltic states would be worse off in the current day if they had not been prior occupied by Soviet Forces.
Since the entire former Soviet Union still doesn't match its economy from what it was in 1987, I can say this with ease.

You're so wrong it hurts , the only reason why they're economy is worse then during the Soviet days is because the soviets controlled and funded everything .

[United Marxist Nations]

They certainly wouldn't have been as far-reaching, probably comparable to the backwaters of modern South-Africa or war-torn Yugoslavia.
I'd go as far to say that without the Soviet Union, the Baltic states would be worse off in the current day if they had not been prior occupied by Soviet Forces.
Since the entire former Soviet Union still doesn't match its economy from what it was in 1987, I can say this with ease.

You're so wrong it hurts , the only reason why they're economy is worse then during the Soviet days is because the soviets controlled and funded everything .

Just because a group puts resources into the economy doesn't mean those resources don't count when you add up the economy. That is kind of what an economy is.

[Herargon]

They certainly wouldn't have been as far-reaching, probably comparable to the backwaters of modern South-Africa or war-torn Yugoslavia.
I'd go as far to say that without the Soviet Union, the Baltic states would be worse off in the current day if they had not been prior occupied by Soviet Forces.
Since the entire former Soviet Union still doesn't match its economy from what it was in 1987, I can say this with ease.

You're so wrong it hurts , the only reason why they're economy is worse then during the Soviet days is because the soviets controlled and funded everything .

Excuse me, but may I politely correct you? It is spelled 'their'.

Thanks!

I personally think their economy just did it bad during the latter Soviet days (after Brezhnev, that guy with those enormous eyebrows) due to the people earning completely equal salaries. But since they already did have that for a long time, that isn't the thing that caused it, I think. Maybe it was the state funding that cost the state too much, even with the collectivisation ideas in all spheres of economics.

[Lytenburgh]

(Image)

1918 Ukrainian state;

(Image)

Map of Europe in 1919;

(Image)

Ukrainian SSR when the Soviet Union was founded;

It has been a part of Ukraine though.

Pretty maps. Pretty. They have virtually nothing to do woth reality of 1919 and 1920 though.

Ever heard about such people like Denikin? Or the "Volunteer army of the Russian South"? No? You even didn't read Bulgakov's "Belaya Gvardiya"? Tsk!

[Malgrave]

After the capture of Debaltseve it was hoped that the separatist fighters would consolidate their positions and adhere to the Minks-II agreement however the reality on the ground is that UA positions continue to face attack.


As for the Pro-Russian Separatists they've said that they are "not opposed" to President Poroshenko's idea of sending UN peacekeepers into Ukraine.

[Dr Freud]

Are you saying these things wouldn't have been built if the territories hadn't been occupied by the Soviet Union? Because they certainly would have in the case of the Baltic states, which means no, that wasn't an advantage of Soviet rule. You're asking them to be thankful for 50 years of political and economic repression because they got some stuff they would have got as independent states.

They certainly wouldn't have been as far-reaching, probably comparable to the backwaters of modern South-Africa or war-torn Yugoslavia.
I'd go as far to say that without the Soviet Union, the Baltic states would be worse off in the current day if they had not been prior occupied by Soviet Forces.
Since the entire former Soviet Union still doesn't match its economy from what it was in 1987, I can say this with ease.

Despite the fact that economic growth in the West far outstripped the Warsaw Pact countries? In 1950 GDP per capita in Austria and Italy was similar to Czechoslovakia. By 1989, it was double in Austria and Italy compared to Czechoslovakia. In 1950 Spain, Portugal and Greece had lower GDP per capita than the Soviet Union. By 1989 Spain had double the USSR's GDP per capita and Portugal and Greece went from slightly richer than Bulgaria and Romania to twice as rich.

But apparently the Baltic countries would somehow have done even worse had they not been in the Soviet Union because they're magic and would have been incapable of growing in the same way that nearby countries like Finland and Sweden grew.

Edit: In fact, as a little addendum let's quickly look at how the Baltic states have grown since independence - all figures in constant 1990 USD.
GDP per capita:
Estonia, 1990 - $10,800
Estonia, 2008 - $19,900

Latvia, 1990 - $9,900
Latvia, 2008 - $14,800

Lithuania, 1990 - $8,600
Lithuania, 2008 - $11,300

I don't know if the entire former Soviet economy is smaller now than it was in 1987 or if that's just more nonsense, but it certainly isn't true for the Baltic states.

[Arglorand]

Are you saying these things wouldn't have been built if the territories hadn't been occupied by the Soviet Union? Because they certainly would have in the case of the Baltic states, which means no, that wasn't an advantage of Soviet rule. You're asking them to be thankful for 50 years of political and economic repression because they got some stuff they would have got as independent states.

They certainly wouldn't have been as far-reaching, probably comparable to the backwaters of modern South-Africa or war-torn Yugoslavia.
I'd go as far to say that without the Soviet Union, the Baltic states would be worse off in the current day if they had not been prior occupied by Soviet Forces.
Since the entire former Soviet Union still doesn't match its economy from what it was in 1987, I can say this with ease.

Ah, typical Great Russian arrogance and failure to understand that, in fact, they aren't irreplaceable and the Jewish Banderite Fascist Gay Enablers can do things without them just as fine.

I do fucking love it.

It's like you people have a mental block on remembering that Stalin's greatest contribution to the Baltic States was not building factories, but deporting people en masse to Siberia for bullshit reasons.

[United Marxist Nations]

You're so wrong it hurts , the only reason why they're economy is worse then during the Soviet days is because the soviets controlled and funded everything .

Excuse me, but may I politely correct you? It is spelled 'their'.

Thanks!

I personally think their economy just did it bad during the latter Soviet days (after Brezhnev, that guy with those enormous eyebrows) due to the people earning completely equal salaries. But since they already did have that for a long time, that isn't the thing that caused it, I think. Maybe it was the state funding that cost the state too much, even with the collectivisation ideas in all spheres of economics.

It's a misconception that everyone earned the same.

[Lytenburgh]

Russia accuses Ukraine of aiming to destroy Minsk accords.

At least 90 Ukrainian troops captured in Debaltseve.

Well, It only means that Poroshenko and others in Kiev are really detached from reality. Or that they are shameless liars.

From your linked article:

In a statement, Ukraine's general staff said that 13 soldiers had been killed and 157 wounded during the withdrawal.

Kiev's military claimed that its forces had captured "several dozen" rebel fighters in Debaltseve and were holding them for questioning.

And now, from the NYT article and interviews with those who managed to survive the "orderly retreat" from Debaltsevo:

It was unclear Wednesday how many of the thousands of Ukrainian soldiers trapped in the eastern Ukrainian town had survived the hellish retreat under enemy fire and avoided capture. President Petro O. Poroshenko put the figure at 80 percent, but since the Ukrainian military has never commented on its troop strength, the final accounting may never be known.

By midday on Wednesday, as limping and exhausted soldiers began showing up in Ukraine-held territory, it became clear that the Ukrainian forces had suffered major losses, both in equipment and human life.

“Many trucks left, and only a few arrived,” said one soldier, who offered only his rank, sergeant, and first name, Volodomyr, as he knelt on the sidewalk smoking. “A third of us made it, at most.”

Yet, his decision to fight for several days before retreating, and his earlier refusal to hand over the town during the cease-fire talks even when a Ukrainian defeat seemed inevitable, could prove contentious in Ukraine as the scale of the potential slaughter comes into focus.

“It was clear they couldn’t get a deal on Debaltseve,” Samuel Charap, senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said of the Minsk talks. “The question then becomes: What the hell was Poroshenko thinking?”

The trucks lined up on the edge of town around 1 a.m., Mr. Sardaryen said, while tanks and tracked vehicles formed lines on either side of the convoy to try to shield the soldiers. The column of trucks, carrying more than 2,000 men, Ukrainian officials later said, kept their headlights off to make them harder to spot.

Despite the precautions, the column came under attack almost immediately, Mr. Sardaryen said, and trucks started breaking down and colliding in the dark. By dawn, the column was strung out on the plain and taking fire from all sides.

“They were shooting with tanks, rocket-propelled grenades and sniper rifles,” and firing at the disintegrating column with rockets, he said. Dead and wounded soldiers were left on the snowy fields because there were too many of them to carry once the trucks were hit.

“We stabilized them, applied tourniquets, gave them painkillers and tried to put them in a place with better cover,” Mr. Sardaryen said of the wounded.

Later, a Ukrainian unit from outside the encirclement drove in to try to retrieve the wounded, he said.

Mr. Sardaryen said he ran for the final four miles or so. Many of the soldiers who made it out also did so on foot, though some trucks made it all the way through, he said.

It remained unclear how many troops were stationed in the town. Mr. Poroshenko’s assertion that 80 percent had escaped in a column of a little over 2,000 soldiers would seem to indicate total troop strength of less than 3,000.

What did seem certain was that Mr. Poroshenko would face tough questioning in the days ahead. Though the cease-fire agreement was reached on Thursday, it did not formally take effect until Sunday.

Yeah, fun thing. Debaltsevo was surrounded for the past 3 weeks. At the moment of its encricle,emt there were 8 (accodring to other sources - 5) 000 Ukrainian troopers in it. As was proved by numerous vitnesses (and documented by Free Western Press) attempts to break through from Debaltsevo resulted in heavy losses for pro-Kiev forces. And that's not counting all those dead and wounded UkrArmy troopers kelled and wounded during the attempts to deblocade Debaltsevo, which intensified during the last weekend.

So, Poroshenko &Co are lying about their losses. Again. They can't explain where disappeared several thousands of Ukrainian troopers from Debaltsevo, if only 2000 made it. Debaltsevo is the most sound and hu,iliating defeat of the Ukraine, even more serious and complete then Ilovaysk and more disastrous in PR-department then Donetsk-airport with its so-called "cyborgs".

[Herargon]

Excuse me, but may I politely correct you? It is spelled 'their'.

Thanks!

I personally think their economy just did it bad during the latter Soviet days (after Brezhnev, that guy with those enormous eyebrows) due to the people earning completely equal salaries. But since they already did have that for a long time, that isn't the thing that caused it, I think. Maybe it was the state funding that cost the state too much, even with the collectivisation ideas in all spheres of economics.

It's a misconception that everyone earned the same.

Oh? But communism (okay, the stalin-leninist, maoist versions at least) is about economical equality too...

Anyways, even if they gained the same salaries, I thought that they did have that for a long time, so it would become too expensive at a certain point, possibly.

Do you think it was the state funding that let the economy of the USSR go into a slow downfall/recession, UMN?
If not, what could it have been that caused the downfall of the USSR economically, according to you? I'm interested to hear your opinion on this.

[Lytenburgh]

Ah, typical Great Russian arrogance and failure to understand that, in fact, they aren't irreplaceable and the Jewish Banderite Fascist Gay Enablers can do things without them just as fine.

I do fucking love it.

It's like you people have a mental block on remembering that Stalin's greatest contribution to the Baltic States was not building factories, but deporting people en masse to Siberia for bullshit reasons.

Jimwoy is from New Zealand.

Also - since when deporting (and not shooting on the spot, which according to the law Stalin could order) Nazi collaborators is "bullshit reason"?

[Malgrave]

Yeah, fun thing. Debaltsevo was surrounded for the past 3 weeks. At the moment of its encricle,emt there were 8 (accodring to other sources - 5) 000 Ukrainian troopers in it. As was proved by numerous vitnesses (and documented by Free Western Press) attempts to break through from Debaltsevo resulted in heavy losses for pro-Kiev forces.

You have access to intelligence services that accurately counted the number of UA troops defending Debaltseve? We can't be certain about the current casualty/capture rate at the moment and while it is almost certain that the government in Kyiv is underinflating its casualty numbers it is possible that figure of 2-3k troops is accurate and that sparks another debate about how the 5-8k estimation was created in the first place.

So, Poroshenko &Co are lying about their losses. Again. They can't explain where disappeared several thousands of Ukrainian troopers from Debaltsevo, if only 2000 made it. Debaltsevo is the most sound and hu,iliating defeat of the Ukraine, even more serious and complete then Ilovaysk and more disastrous in PR-department then Donetsk-airport with its so-called "cyborgs".

Just how many casualties do you think the UA took? I've understood from the start of this conflict that the UA is certainly "sweetening" the numbers when it comes to casualty reports but a cover-up on this scale would be impossible to hide. I do remember this "so-called" cyborgs frustrating the separatists for quite a few months and reading how UA forces faced attack from forces stationed inside Russia, of course other causes led to that catastrophe but I wouldn't call the situation in Debaltseve a PR disaster since it only took place due to a massive breach in the ceasefire and the involvement of Russian equipment.

[United Marxist Nations]

It's a misconception that everyone earned the same.

Oh? But communism (okay, the stalin-leninist, maoist versions at least) is about economical equality too...

Anyways, even if they gained the same salaries, I thought that they did have that for a long time, so it would become too expensive at a certain point, possibly.

Do you think it was the state funding that let the economy of the USSR go into a slow downfall/recession, UMN?
If not, what could it have been that caused the downfall of the USSR economically, according to you? I'm interested to hear your opinion on this.

The USSR wasn't communist and did not claim to be; it claimed to be socialist; thus, it paid people according to relative contribution. In the early USSR, to try to take advantage of this "socialist incentivization", the Soviet government help establish the Stakhanovite movement, which sought to have workers work harder and received higher salaries and benefits (wages made up less than half of a Soviet worker's income) in exchange.

I would say it has a lot to do with Brezhnev gutting the "stick and carrot" policies which incentivized labor; however, probably the biggest one is the USSR freaking the fuck out when Reagan started spending so much on the military, leading the USSR to do the same (by 1989, perhaps up to of the USSR's GDP was in defense industry); this hampered the efficiency of other key Soviet sectors.

[United Marxist Nations]

Ah, typical Great Russian arrogance and failure to understand that, in fact, they aren't irreplaceable and the Jewish Banderite Fascist Gay Enablers can do things without them just as fine.

I do fucking love it.

It's like you people have a mental block on remembering that Stalin's greatest contribution to the Baltic States was not building factories, but deporting people en masse to Siberia for bullshit reasons.

Jimwoy is from New Zealand.

Also - since when deporting (and not shooting on the spot, which according to the law Stalin could order) Nazi collaborators is "bullshit reason"?

Don't think you two are talking about the same deportations; he is talking about the pre-war ones.

[Herargon]

Oh? But communism (okay, the stalin-leninist, maoist versions at least) is about economical equality too...

Anyways, even if they gained the same salaries, I thought that they did have that for a long time, so it would become too expensive at a certain point, possibly.

Do you think it was the state funding that let the economy of the USSR go into a slow downfall/recession, UMN?
If not, what could it have been that caused the downfall of the USSR economically, according to you? I'm interested to hear your opinion on this.

The USSR wasn't communist and did not claim to be; it claimed to be socialist; thus, it paid people according to relative contribution. In the early USSR, to try to take advantage of this "socialist incentivization", the Soviet government help establish the Stakhanovite movement, which sought to have workers work harder and received higher salaries and benefits (wages made up less than half of a Soviet worker's income) in exchange.

I would say it has a lot to do with Brezhnev gutting the "stick and carrot" policies which incentivized labor; however, probably the biggest one is the USSR freaking the fuck out when Reagan started spending so much on the military, leading the USSR to do the same (by 1989, perhaps up to of the USSR's GDP was in defense industry); this hampered the efficiency of other key Soviet sectors.

Aahhh, so they paid the people according to their prestations, but also gave them social security, even if they were not working?
Do I understand it right?

Also, that reason of letting the USSR spend much money on an arms race by spending themselves much on it... I forgot about that. You are right; that could have been one of the other factors that led to the economic downfall of the USSR too. Thanks for the explanation

[United Marxist Nations]

The USSR wasn't communist and did not claim to be; it claimed to be socialist; thus, it paid people according to relative contribution. In the early USSR, to try to take advantage of this "socialist incentivization", the Soviet government help establish the Stakhanovite movement, which sought to have workers work harder and received higher salaries and benefits (wages made up less than half of a Soviet worker's income) in exchange.

I would say it has a lot to do with Brezhnev gutting the "stick and carrot" policies which incentivized labor; however, probably the biggest one is the USSR freaking the fuck out when Reagan started spending so much on the military, leading the USSR to do the same (by 1989, perhaps up to of the USSR's GDP was in defense industry); this hampered the efficiency of other key Soviet sectors.

Aahhh, so they paid the people according to their prestations, but also gave them social security, even if they were not working?
Do I understand it right?

Also, that reason of letting the USSR spend much money on an arms race by spending themselves much on it... I forgot about that. You are right; that could have been one of the other factors that led to the economic downfall of the USSR too. Thanks!

Not quite, benefits would be things like more vacation time, a car, a nicer apartment, even free college for children if someone consistently went over quota; the USSR had very little unemployment (less than 1% for most of its history), so caring for unemployment wasn't a big deal for it, as it would just sort of get them a job.