Ukraine Crisis II: Electric Boogaloo

[Scholmeria]

Many leftist parties across Europe harbor a truly strange love for Putin's Russia.

On the one hand, there's virtually nothing a democratic socialist could possibly find pleasant about Russia's crony capitalism, entaglement between church and state, heavy-handed jingoism and reactionary civil policies.

On the other, there's always the slight nostalgia for the Soviet Union and the vague notion that somehow, someone should defy American hegemony on the world stage (even if it means kicking weaker countries around).

Yeah, many left-wing parties seem to be ignorant when it comes about Putin. It is also interesting that most of them also have sympathies for Serbian fascism and desperatly whine about the Serbian Kosovo and how it is stolen from its true owner although they are ignoring that Serbiastarted first the Kosovo scenario.
They seem to ignore that Russia is not more socialist and keep ignoring that,

In other hand there are also many far-right parties in Europe that are fan of Putin. The lefties love Putin because they think he is rebuilding the USSR while the right seem him as a fighter against homosexuality and multi-culturalism.

[Breadknife]

Seriously though, if NSA has the means and ability to eavesdrop on phone calls, it's not surprising that Russia does it as well.

In the old USSR, maybe.

But surely in modern Russia, FSB switchboard operator is invited onto party line by you!

[European Socialist Republic]

Another anti-Ukrainian rand comes from Gregory Gysi, parliamentarian in the German Bundestag of the party Die Linke (successor of the former SED party that ruled East Germany for about 40 years; literary the party is translate as "the Left") who said that Ukraine is ruled by fascist and saying lies about the suppose progroms of Russians which is bullshit. Given that he and his party are a Cold War relic it is not wondering.

Thanks God Merkel beated the Left in most former East German Federal states and made the party even more weaker.

I really can't get my head around what some of my comrades are thinking. It's almost as if they want us to support authoritarian dictators on the basis of "they're against the ebul American imperialist capitalist pig-dogs!", which is simply ridiculous. That or they're Stalinists in disguise.

[Baltenstein]

In other hand there are also many far-right parties in Europe that are fan of Putin. The lefties love Putin because they think he is rebuilding the USSR while the right seem him as a fighter against homosexuality and multi-culturalism.

There's one thing to be said about Putin though: He's an imperialist, but not an anti-multiculturalist.

He has very vocally stressed Russia's polyethnic history and nature again and again, took part in Tatar festivities, sat at bonfires with Siberian shamans etc. Now he's introducing even more minorities - the Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians - into the family.

There is a considerable ethnic purist movement in Russia that advocates a "Russia for the Russians". But it's not Putin's camp, but rather that of opposition figure Alexey Navalny.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Yeah, Putin's approval ratings generally dose rather well with minorities. A rather important part of his power base in fact.

[Tiesabre]

Well the West has a narrative that everyone in Russia actually hates Putin but I get the feeling that's not the case.

[Avenio]

Well the West has a narrative that everyone in Russia actually hates Putin but I get the feeling that's not the case.

You mean like the pro-Putin protests that the BBC, New York Times, The Guardian, CNN and The Telegraph all covered?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

But yes, I don't exactly see how it isn't understandable. She's been a large proponent of friendly ties with Russia/Putin in the past, having part of the country conquered by them/him must be a rather brutal wakeup call. Not exactly prone to inspire a fawning attitude for the Russian Federation.

If anti-Russia sentiment takes off to a greater extent in Ukraine than it already had, Russia has no one to blame but themselves.

Compared to the US, who usually wage war against countries which, at least in the perception of the American public, are considered to be rogue states (Milosevic's Serbia, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Saddam's Iraq), Russia has a somewhat unique habit of invading countries that Russia itself sees as "fraternal nations" (Hungary in '56, Czechoslovakia in '68 and now Ukraine).

Because Russia's goal is to build and maintain buffer states, rather than to secure economic interests. Outside of what Russia considers its "sphere of influence," they don't really care what goes on, except as it might affect their sphere.

[Lyttenburgh]

This is one case where I have no doubt the data is genuine: Two Ukrainians talking about how angry they are that their country has been ass-raped by Russia.

No, their country was not "ass-raped" by Russia. The vast majority of Crimea decided that they want reunion with Russia. There were no bombings, nor aerial strikes, nor bloody invasion into the "proper" Ukrainian lands followed by the massacre of the civilians. Calling what had happened in Crimea a "ass-rape" of the country is hysterical, childish and really dangerous.

But the amazing thing here is what's to come: Russia and all of its apologists will express outrage over the Ukrainians' outrage and cite this as further evidence of their need to bring the Ukraine to heel. That's the thing about brutes: It's not enough to brutalize their victims; they have to then have their victims express their fawning gratitude over having been brutalized in turn.

Uhm... hello? Did you even listened to the record? Pani Tymishenko:

1) Said, that she wants to kill a head of another state.

2) She called for people to take up the arms and kill not "those damned Russians" (as translated in subtitles), but "chjortovih kacapov". "Kacap" is an Ukrainian derogatory form of calling any Russian. It's like calling an Afro-American "A fuckin' nigga", or calling a Jew "a bloody Kike".

3) She expressed a desire to employ "all her connections", including international ones, to "find a way to kill those a ****es". And the threat of World War 3 be damned - she expressed a desire to totally annihilate Russia, so that "there wouldn't be a even a scorched field left in Russia". She obviously didn't even think, what would be left of the Ukraine in that kind of scenario (or that calling for nukes or foreign invasion in Russia over Crimea is a little bit overreaction?).

4) Finally, she just called for 8 million citizens of the Ukraine (1/6 of the total population) to be "killed with nuclear weapons". So we all are really fortunate, that the Ukraine no longer has nukes.

Now tell me, Westerners and Ukrainian apologists - what would happened to the Western politician, who would be caught expressing racial slurs, calling for genocide of is own citizens and unconditional nuclear war? Or what, as long as the target of hatred is Russia and the hater is one of the Western "allies" the common rules do not apply? Viva hypocrisy and double standards!

PS.

By the way, during the "Orange Revolution" of 2004-5 in the Ukraine, pani [/i ]Tymosheko expressed her burning desire to build a fence with the barded wire around the Eastern part of the Ukraine ("[i]трэба обнэсти цэй клятый регион колючим дротом") and let the people here rot, plus to sunk Sevastopol (in Crimea, if you still don't know where it is) in the Black Sea. But this is also totally okay for the West, isn't it?

[Natalia Poklonskaya]

This is one case where I have no doubt the data is genuine: Two Ukrainians talking about how angry they are that their country has been ass-raped by Russia.

No, their country was not "ass-raped" by Russia. The vast majority of Crimea decided that they want reunion with Russia. There were no bombings, nor aerial strikes, nor bloody invasion into the "proper" Ukrainian lands followed by the massacre of the civilians. Calling what had happened in Crimea a "ass-rape" of the country is hysterical, childish and really dangerous.

But the amazing thing here is what's to come: Russia and all of its apologists will express outrage over the Ukrainians' outrage and cite this as further evidence of their need to bring the Ukraine to heel. That's the thing about brutes: It's not enough to brutalize their victims; they have to then have their victims express their fawning gratitude over having been brutalized in turn.

Uhm... hello? Did you even listened to the record? Pani Tymishenko:

1) Said, that she wants to kill a head of another state.

2) She called for people to take up the arms and kill not "those damned Russians" (as translated in subtitles), but "chjortovih kacapov". "Kacap" is an Ukrainian derogatory form of calling any Russian. It's like calling an Afro-American "A fuckin' nigga", or calling a Jew "a bloody Kike".

3) She expressed a desire to employ "all her connections", including international ones, to "find a way to kill those a ****es". And the threat of World War 3 be damned - she expressed a desire to totally annihilate Russia, so that "there wouldn't be a even a scorched field left in Russia". She obviously didn't even think, what would be left of the Ukraine in that kind of scenario (or that calling for nukes or foreign invasion in Russia over Crimea is a little bit overreaction?).

4) Finally, she just called for 8 million citizens of the Ukraine (1/6 of the total population) to be "killed with nuclear weapons". So we all are really fortunate, that the Ukraine no longer has nukes.

Now tell me, Westerners and Ukrainian apologists - what would happened to the Western politician, who would be caught expressing racial slurs, calling for genocide of is own citizens and unconditional nuclear war? Or what, as long as the target of hatred is Russia and the hater is one of the Western "allies" the common rules do not apply? Viva hypocrisy and double standards!

PS.

By the way, during the 2004-5 "Orange Revolution" in the Ukraine, pani Tymosheka expressed her burning desire to build a fence with the barded wire around the Eastern part of the Ukraine and let the people here rot. But this is also totally okay for the West, isn't it?

Tymoshenko is a fucking Russophobic psychopath who should've been kept in prison.

[Costa Fierro]

Now tell me, Westerners and Ukrainian apologists - what would happened to the Western politician, who would be caught expressing racial slurs, calling for genocide of is own citizens and unconditional nuclear war?

The genocide part hasn't really happened since the end of WW2. The most we get these days are "keep x country white" and so on, or minority politicians going on about "white motherfuckers" and disowning children for not bringing home an ethnically acceptable partner is usually one would expect as the most in terms of "ethnic" slurs. As for "nuclear" idea, a few Republicans have said using nukes or "military" as an ambiguous general term, but they've been laughed at and ridiculed.

Or what, as long as the target of hatred is Russia and the hater is one of the Western "allies" the common rules do not apply? Viva hypocrisy and double standards!

Ooh it's those double standards again! They must be like leprechauns or pixies in your part of the world. You know, stuff people claim exist but there isn't any evidence of it?

And cut out the ultranationalism.

By the way, during the 2004-5 "Orange Revolution" in the Ukraine, pani Tymosheka expressed her burning desire to build a fence with the barded wire around the Eastern part of the Ukraine and let the people here rot. But this is also totally okay for the West, isn't it?

We accepted the Israeli construction of a wall separating the West Bank from Israel proper. Besides, Ukraine couldn't fund it anyway. Then or now.

[Gravlen]

Now tell me, Westerners and Ukrainian apologists - what would happened to the Western politician, who would be caught expressing racial slurs, calling for genocide of is own citizens and unconditional nuclear war? Or what, as long as the target of hatred is Russia and the hater is one of the Western "allies" the common rules do not apply? Viva hypocrisy and double standards!

Disregarding that the conversation hasn't been confirmed as accurate (the whole "calling for genocide" thing really doesn't fit in the conversation, and sounds extremely weird. "We need to nuke Ukraine"? What?) the answer to your question is, he'd probably be elected president or prime minister.

Of course, I assume you mean if the statement was made in private while a foreign army was occupying (parts of) their territory.

[Costa Fierro]

And now Russia is being trolled.

[Occupied Deutschland]

No, their country was not "ass-raped" by Russia. The vast majority of Crimea decided that they want reunion with Russia. There were no bombings, nor aerial strikes, nor bloody invasion into the "proper" Ukrainian lands followed by the massacre of the civilians. Calling what had happened in Crimea a "ass-rape" of the country is hysterical, childish and really dangerous.



Uhm... hello? Did you even listened to the record? Pani Tymishenko:

1) Said, that she wants to kill a head of another state.

2) She called for people to take up the arms and kill not "those damned Russians" (as translated in subtitles), but "chjortovih kacapov". "Kacap" is an Ukrainian derogatory form of calling any Russian. It's like calling an Afro-American "A fuckin' nigga", or calling a Jew "a bloody Kike".

3) She expressed a desire to employ "all her connections", including international ones, to "find a way to kill those a ****es". And the threat of World War 3 be damned - she expressed a desire to totally annihilate Russia, so that "there wouldn't be a even a scorched field left in Russia". She obviously didn't even think, what would be left of the Ukraine in that kind of scenario (or that calling for nukes or foreign invasion in Russia over Crimea is a little bit overreaction?).

4) Finally, she just called for 8 million citizens of the Ukraine (1/6 of the total population) to be "killed with nuclear weapons". So we all are really fortunate, that the Ukraine no longer has nukes.

Now tell me, Westerners and Ukrainian apologists - what would happened to the Western politician, who would be caught expressing racial slurs, calling for genocide of is own citizens and unconditional nuclear war? Or what, as long as the target of hatred is Russia and the hater is one of the Western "allies" the common rules do not apply? Viva hypocrisy and double standards!

PS.

By the way, during the 2004-5 "Orange Revolution" in the Ukraine, pani Tymosheka expressed her burning desire to build a fence with the barded wire around the Eastern part of the Ukraine and let the people here rot. But this is also totally okay for the West, isn't it?

Tymoshenko is a fucking Russophobic psychopath who should've been kept in prison.

You must not know who Tymoshenko is.
Her cooperation with Russia during her tenure in office is famous.

But yes, I guess it makes sense that being angry at Russia for invading your country is "Russophobia".

[Vulpae]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... ing-russia

I have this to contribute.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/23/ukraine-crimea-what-putin-thinking-russia

I have this to contribute.

Putin isn't paranoid, inho. I wouldn't say the "west" is trying to destabilized Russia domestically, since that wouldn't be in their interests at all, but it definitely has tried to "corner Russia" even before Putin's first time (which is of course the correct choice for powers like the USA, since Russia was a rival to it's own power) and undermine Putin and his faction...which is honestly foolish since the others ones would be worse for the west. Than there mention unkept promises and a lack "returning the favors" that he did for President Bush before relations tanked later on in his second term. Yeltsin was no doubtfully like because he was a weak leader, that weakened Russia, and try to bend over to the west. The west is naturally not going strong want a strong Russian leader unless he or she firmly bows firmly to their own interests for geopolitical reasons. The Eu likes to claim it's not playing a no sum game, but it too was and Ukraine served as an example where it took the very same position Putin ended up taking, you can join up with them or us...can't have it both ways. Which ended up blowing in both sides faces, although Putin moved in to secure the core interests of Russia.

I disagree with the last line as well, Putin is very good at what he dose and if he plays his card rights he can secure his position stronger not just in the short term but long term ...assuming he gets the economy back on track by passing needed reforms that have even been suggested of late by people in his "camp". If I was in his position I would more or less act as if the cold war was going on, just not to the level it was back like the Soviet days...since Russia isn't a superpower currently like the USSR was obviously and Russia is more connected to the global economy today. Personally I would of has early as 2008 if I was his position. "Us vs them" has always been an effective tool for governments and it wouldn't be one sided.

[Palmyrene Empire]

Looks like its over. Russia gets crimea. anyone else think different?

[Lyttenburgh]

The genocide part hasn't really happened since the end of WW2.{*} The most we get these days are "keep x country white" and so on, or minority politicians going on about "white motherfuckers" and disowning children for not bringing home an ethnically acceptable partner is usually one would expect as the most in terms of "ethnic" slurs. As for "nuclear" idea, a few Republicans have said using nukes or "military" as an ambiguous general term, but they've been laughed at and ridiculed.

I asked, what would happen in case of unthinkable - when any politician calls for the nuclear extermination of millions and uses racist (like totally not politically correct) expression. According to your answer "in the West" this is just unthinkable. Meet Yulia Timoshenko - beloved by the West politician!

{*} What - really? No genocide since WW II?

Ooh it's those double standards again! They must be like leprechauns or pixies in your part of the world. You know, stuff people claim exist but there isn't any evidence of it?

There are basically two types of reaction to Tymosheko's words 1) "It's all fake! Our lovely Julia loves democracy and human rights!" or 2) "She is totally justified! Common rules do not apply here!". So I ask - is this kind of behavior excusable in the West? Judging the reaction of some NSGers here - yeah, double standards are real, alive and kicking.

We accepted the Israeli construction of a wall separating the West Bank from Israel proper. Besides, Ukraine couldn't fund it anyway. Then or now.

Oh, so for your unenlightened eye (because such comments show rour totall ignorance in the history of the region) the situation in Palestina and Donbass is the same, right?

It is not "just being angry". We are talking about politicians who (surprise-surprise) have a responsobility. They have not such luxery as acting according to emotions or even call for "questionable" actions out of spite.

[Baltenstein]

Looks like its over. Russia gets crimea. anyone else think different?

Russian Crimea will be like Northern Cyprus - recognized by it's occupyer and by nobody else.

The big question now is how the situation in Eastern Ukraine and the Baltics will turn one over the coming weeks, and what kind of state Ukraine as a whole will become.

[Lemanrussland]

Looks like its over. Russia gets crimea. anyone else think different?

That's the most likely outcome at this point. Crimea is likely to remain in Russian hands as a partially recognized territory, sort of like Northern Cyprus.

I don't think the West will try to get Crimea back, its goal now is to prevent Russia from seizing East Ukraine, and to stabilize Ukraine.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Looks like its over. Russia gets crimea. anyone else think different?

Russian Crimea will be like Northern Cyprus - recognized by it's occupyer and by nobody else.

The big question now is how the situation in Eastern Ukraine and the Baltics will turn one over the coming weeks, and what kind of state Ukraine as a whole will become.

Except Crimean union with Russia has already been recognized by other states. Syria, Armenia, Venezuela, Kazakhstan... hell even Afghanistan recognizes it.

So its not the same at all.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Looks like its over. Russia gets crimea. anyone else think different?

Ukraine's crisis isn't over yet, even if we ignore Crimea/Russia. Nor is the risk of high tensions that could spark into further confrontation between Ukraine and Russia yet. Obviously though Crimea is going to Russia again though and Ukraine has zero options to take it back...would be a meaningless suicidal move since it would fail.

[Lemanrussland]

Russian Crimea will be like Northern Cyprus - recognized by it's occupyer and by nobody else.

The big question now is how the situation in Eastern Ukraine and the Baltics will turn one over the coming weeks, and what kind of state Ukraine as a whole will become.

Except Crimean union with Russia has already been recognized by other states. Syria, Armenia, Venezuela, Kazakhstan... hell even Afghanistan recognizes it.

So its not the same at all.

Close Russian allies and associates recognizing their seizure of Crimea? I never would have imagined that, I guess it's legal and legitimate after all.

[Baltenstein]

Russian Crimea will be like Northern Cyprus - recognized by it's occupyer and by nobody else.

The big question now is how the situation in Eastern Ukraine and the Baltics will turn one over the coming weeks, and what kind of state Ukraine as a whole will become.

Except Crimean union with Russia has already been recognized by other states. Syria, Armenia, Venezuela, Kazakhstan... hell even Afghanistan recognizes it.

So its not the same at all.

Obviously Russia has a list of client states that Turkey hasn't, but other than that, it's the same.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Russian Crimea will be like Northern Cyprus - recognized by it's occupyer and by nobody else.

The big question now is how the situation in Eastern Ukraine and the Baltics will turn one over the coming weeks, and what kind of state Ukraine as a whole will become.

Except Crimean union with Russia has already been recognized by other states. Syria, Armenia, Venezuela, Kazakhstan... hell even Afghanistan recognizes it.

So its not the same at all.

Really Afghanistan? I didn't really expect that. I know relations have been steadily developing over recent years, but didn't think it would be that much. Belarus and Kyrgyzstan have also recognized it, with Belarus promising to officially recognize it later.