Internment camps for Ukraine?

[Constantinopolis]

My point is that the entire opposition movement cannot be construed as "ultra right wing" or fascist, that would be a broad and inaccurate generalization.

Yes. And I try to be careful not to make such generalizations. That's why I characterize the former opposition movement (currently the government) as "a coalition of neoliberals, nationalists and fascists." Because that's what it is: a coalition, in which the neoliberal and national-conservative elements dominate, but which also includes fascists.

I suppose it could be considered broadly the equivalent of a Conservative-UKIP-BNP coalition in the UK, or a Republican-Tea Party-KKK coalition in the US.

And my point is that anyone in his right mind would be furiously opposed to such monstrous coalitions.

Low turnout is not what makes it illegitimate. The fact that it was illegal under Ukrainian and international law, and that it was held without negotiations between all the affected parties. It was held on the heels of a covert (and then later overt) Russian invasion.

I hold it at about the same level of esteem as I do the Anschluss vote held by the Nazis in Austria.

As far as I know, most historians agree that the majority of Austrians did indeed want to join Nazi Germany at that time.

Obviously, that doesn't make the Anschluss a good thing - I think I made clear my opinion that the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi - but the point is that, right or wrong, good or bad, that referendum did probably reflect the wishes of the majority of the population.

Crimea has been a hotbed of separatism since the breakup of the USSR. They've had several major stand-offs with the Kiev government in the 1990s. The status of Crimea within Ukraine was negotiated and re-negotiated several times and Kiev forcibly abolished the constitution of Crimea in 1995, imposing a new one in its place. I'd be honestly surprised if the majority of Crimeans weren't at least mildly separatist.

Edit: I suppose it's also worth mentioning that many neo-Nazi or far right movements in Europe have supported Russia's recent actions. This is hardly a "struggle against fascism".

It's a struggle against fascism in Ukraine. Until those other neo-Nazi or far right movements in Europe rise to anything close to the current status of Svoboda or Right Sector (i.e. controlling some country's national defense, or holding some ministerial posts, or at least seriously being considered for ministerial posts), they are a far lesser concern.

Of course Putin isn't some kind of principled crusader against fascism. He's just following his own self-interest. At the moment, it is in his self-interest to combat fascism in Ukraine. As long as this remains the case, he should be supported. When this is no longer the case... then we'll see.

[Alien Space Bats]

This is supposed to be the same RAND Corporation that advised the Pentagon on strategy back in the 1960's, including in Vietnam?

<pause>

That would, at least, explain why the strategy offered here is so shockingly BAD.

[Occupied Deutschland]

This is supposed to be the same RAND Corporation that advised the Pentagon on strategy back in the 1960's, including in Vietnam?

<pause>

That would, at least, explain why the strategy offered here is so shockingly BAD.

Alternatively, RT and Globalresearch are going full Jesse Ventura on things and spouting bullshit as fact.

Especially as the RT source is an error message now and the Globalresearch piece about it contains photos of supposed printouts of this RAND advisement paper and no actual link to the document.

AboveTopSecret.com (which the Globalresearch source alludes to adding in commentary about the supposed RAND report) may actually have something solid, but their website is a mess and it's...well, some of the articles on there are about scientific studies of yetis and 'new' 9/11 finds by the FBI.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the reports of my death this RAND report are greatly exaggerated.

[Gravlen]

An unaddressed, unsigned, undated memorandum supposedly leaked on the internet is supposedly proof of... what, exactly?

[Costa Fierro]

An unaddressed, unsigned, undated memorandum supposedly leaked on the internet is supposedly proof of... what, exactly?

The nefarious Western plot to commit another Holocaust on Russian people which has been brought into the light by the bearer of liberty and civil rights that is Mother Russia.

[Dumb Ideologies]

An unaddressed, unsigned, undated memorandum supposedly leaked on the internet is supposedly proof of... what, exactly?

The nefarious Western plot to commit another Holocaust on Russian people which has been brought into the light by the bearer of liberty and civil rights that is Mother Russia.

Thank God daily for Putin.

[Costa Fierro]

The nefarious Western plot to commit another Holocaust on Russian people which has been brought into the light by the bearer of liberty and civil rights that is Mother Russia.

Thank God daily for Putin.

All hail.

[Napkiraly]

Thank God daily for Putin.

All hail.

Lider Putin.

[Shofercia]

The Russian Armed Forces have killed a whopping 0 people.

Which nobody here has claimed. You clearly didn't read my fucking post. Instead, what they did do was invade and annex a sovereign nation's territory at lightning speed after a covert occupation, meanwhile pouring military and "humanitarian" aid into the pro-Russian eastern parts of the country where separatists are still desperately clinging onto what territory they've managed to hold.

I clearly read your post, although in terms of quality it was clearly "fucking". Also, you're factually wrong when you claim that they annexed Crimea at lightning speed. On February 27th, the referendum was proposed. On March 16th, the referendum took place. I've seen wars start and end faster than that time period. Additionally, the "separatists" are mostly people who lived there for centuries. The "liberators" are mostly those coming in from other parts of the country.

Russia's "shady shit" was "pulled" on Russian soil.

The Crimea wasn't Russian. Eastern Ukraine, where there's still fighting against separatists and where the Russian military has been delivering aid to the separatists, is still not Russian either. There's been a lot of shit that the Russians have done in their own country to their own people, whether we want to hold a conversation about the laws they've enacted and continue to enforce attacking homosexual people or Putin tightening his control over media sources, but none of that is really relevant to the issue of Russian aggression against the Ukraine.

Still waiting for you to give examples of this "shady shit" that Russia "pulled".

If you're talking about Crimea, then the Russians bloodlessly seized a peninsula where Russia had most of the support.

Except they didn't have "most of the support". Only 30% at most, according to Russia's own Council on Civil Society and Human Rights, were in favor of annexation. That didn't stop unidentified soldiers in unmarked uniforms from randomly appearing and raising Russian flags over the regional parliament, though. And that strangely convenient turn of events is of course what led to the Russians annexing it. Despite the fact most people living there had nothing at all to do with this little revolution and were not in favor of being annexed.

The results that they posted were completely idiotic, which is why it was quickly taken down. According to a recent Gallup poll that I posted, 83% of Crimeans believe that the referendum reflected how Crimeans would've voted. Other polls that I've posted show support at 75% or more. Furthermore, according to your cited link, that number was not 30%, but rather 15%, but even you are able to comprehend that one cannot bloodlessly annex a region with just 15% support, so you upped it to 30%, to make it look like it had an ounce of credibility, when it had none: only 15 percent of Crimean citizens voted for annexation. That even goes against the polling conducted by a pro-US institution, which placed the number at 41%, even though the question was not limited just to Crimea. In light of all of these polls, that claim sounds utterly idiotic, and your only rebuttal is "hurr durr it came from the Kremlin!" Yes, the Kremlin's website does stupid things too, bears shit in the woods, news come on at 11. My sarcastic apologies for only addressing the only "fact" in the post, and completely ignoring the fluff surrounding it.

And Russia actually demanded that Ukraine, *gasps* pay the market price for gas.

After illegally invading and annexing the Ukraine's own source for more than half of it's natural gas. Yeah, I can understand why the Ukrainians were outraged over such a ridiculous act of extortion.

Ukraine's government had what, two and a half decades to develop said source? And nothing happened. I wonder why that is, maybe it's because all of Ukraine's president, including Orange Revolution's 1.0 darling Yushenko, were more into stealing and less into helping their country's economy grow? And yeah, those barbaric Russian hordes, annexing the region whose people want it to be annexed, after being ignored by their own government for two and a half decades, and slowly improving their living standards. Damn you Russian Bear Cavalry!!! Bawww!!! /sarcasm

Furthermore Kerry asked Poroshenko for something, anything that could be used against Russia. Thus far there isn't much. Nothing that comes even close to the atrocities committed in Odessa, (oh right, the protesters lit themselves on fire, ) Mariupol and Slavyansk.

No he didn't. After all the absurdness that's transpired since February, the world has a mountainous volume of criminal evidence at its fingertips against the Russians-- everything from the fact that they illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed a sovereign nation's territory (which they admitted to back in April, insofar as the involvement of commandos was concerned) to their very own Council on Civil Society and Human Rights admitting that the referendum results which supposedly showed that the Crimean populace was in favor of annexation were total bullshit-- which is exactly the reason why nobody is taking any of it (especially with regards to the referendum) seriously, and also because most nations correctly understand how unacceptably ridiculous Russia's aggression against the Ukrainians and the destabilization of the entire region is.

Stop being an apologist when you're clearly in the wrong. It's stupid.

It's kind of funny how you talk about volumes of evidence, and then you proceed to site a source that's clearly wrong and regurgitate what you already said. You do understand that there's a difference between a single grain and sand and volumes filled with sand, right? As for the destabilization, if all sides adhered to the February 21st agreement, there'd be no destabilization. If Odessa, Mariupol and other crimes were properly investigated, there'd be less of it. If Oligarchs, like Kolomoisky and Taruta weren't superimposed on Eastern Ukraine, if... see, what I'm demonstrating there, that's called lots and lots of evidence.

[Shofercia]

:D Nice one.

Deliberately misrepresenting a poll result that's allegedly been posted by the Kremlin to make it look legitimate is "nice one"? Oh my!

But here's the thing: Although the government in Kiev is not by any means run by fascists (and certainly not a "junta"), it is a coalition which contains fascists. It is an exaggeration to call the Kiev government a "fascist junta", but it is not an exaggeration to say that fascists have more power in Ukraine today than they have had anywhere else on the European continent since the 1970s (or, if you don't count Portugal, Spain and Greece, since 1945).

I have been following the events in Ukraine since November 2013 and I was already alarmed about the prominent role played by fascists (at the time only Svoboda, later Right Sector) long before the Russian media started making a big deal of it.

Let me be clear: there is no conspiracy. The US isn't secretly organizing anything. The US did not install the new Kiev government. The new Kiev government was installed by a grassroots popular uprising, triggered mainly by the abject corruption of the previous government and the disastrous economic situation of Ukraine resulting from the global economic crisis. People were desperate, they lashed out and they clung to the first political force that seemed to offer hope for the future. Unfortunately, that force was the ultra-right-wing opposition.

So what happened in Ukraine was a genuine popular uprising, but it was a nationalist and far-right popular uprising. Too many Western liberals (I use that term as a neutral description) have been conditioned to believe that "popular uprising against corrupt government" = good, and do not understand just how dark these kinds of uprisings can sometimes be. You know ISIS in Syria and Iraq? That is a genuine popular uprising against corrupt governments too.

Desperate people with genuine grievances sometimes turn to fascism. And then, no matter how genuine their original grievances might have been, they become the enemy and we must defeat them. To do otherwise is to open the door to a much greater horror.

Some people joined the Sturmabteilung simply because they were hungry and cold. It was still right to shoot them. Enemy soldiers have friends and families and children and loved ones. They are still enemy soldiers. We don't have to like fighting them (in fact, we shouldn't like it). But fight them we must.

It was not only the far right, but also the center-right, liberals, and pro-European/pro-Western groups.

Svoboda's candidate only got 1.16 percent of the votes in the Ukrainian presidential election. Right Sector's candidate got 0.7 percent. Svoboda holds only ~7 percent of the Rada, and only 4 percent of the regional seats.

Characterizing the entire government, and entire opposition movement as being far-right or fascist is painting with an extremely broad brush. Sure, there were far-right elements within the opposition, but they did not form a majority or even plurality of the movement. They're actually one of the smaller elements within that movement, the vast majority of the current government is center-right and based in West Ukraine.

Do you seriously not see the problem with an organization that has 1 percent of the vote holding 7 percent of the seats and 4 percent of regional seats, respectively? And there percentage doesn't matter as long as they have guns. If the Government in Kiev was able to disarm Svoboda and Right Sector, your points would be valid; they're not.

Wolffbaden, you can keep repeating yourself as much as you like, nothing changes the fact that the report you keep talking about was compiled based on interviews, not statistics, and we don't even know exactly who was interviewed (except that they were, allegedly, "officials, experts, civil society leaders, and ordinary citizens").

The fact that the report was prepared by the Russian Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights does not change the fact that IT IS BASED SOLELY ON INTERVIEWS WITH UNNAMED PEOPLE. The "random people" I was talking about are not the ones who prepared the report, but the ones who were interviewed (or maybe they weren't random - the point is, we have no idea who they were or how this information was gathered or what it's supposed to show). Do you understand? The report itself says that they just asked people what they believed the turnout and the results to be. That's all this report shows. The opinions of "officials, experts, civil society leaders, and ordinary citizens" regarding the turnout they observed. That's what the report says.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that:
"Russian government source" + "anti-Russian conclusion" = must be absolutely true, even if it explicitly just records opinions

No. Sorry. Facts do not work that way.

Svoboda has become so popular in the Ukraine since the Russians invaded and annexed the Crimea, and then with the troubles in the east against the pro-separatists.

No it didn't. The current government, including its Svoboda members, was appointed in February, before Russia annexed Crimea or did anything else. In fact, before the annexation of Crimea there was one MORE Svoboda member in government (Ihor Tenyukh, Minister of Defense). He resigned after the loss of Crimea.

This is not a sensible reason to support fucking Putin.

Yes it is. Between Putin and a government that includes Nazis in key posts (even if they have a small minority of posts), I choose Putin. All the way. 100%. Between the side that is willing to form a coalition government with Nazis and anyone else, I choose anyone else.

To quote Winston Churchill, "if Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

NEVER. AGAIN.

It's funny how a single, discredited source from the Kremlin is more important than mountains of polling evidence to Wolffbaden, as that supports his viewpoint.

[Shofercia]

Speaking of Ukraine, it seems that there are some issues adopting the whole Freedom of Assembly thing: https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukrain ... 54734.html

The failure of the Ukrainian authorities to guarantee protection for those taking part in the planned Pride march on July 5 sends all the wrong signals, said Amnesty International.

And just for the record, I critiqued the exact same thing when Russia did it. That was also wrong. I am against rabid racist parades, but there's nothing wrong with Gay Rights Parades, because rabid racist parades are against minorities, whereas Gay Rights Parades are mostly for the freedom to have consensual sex (18+) and be recognized for who you are.

[Lemanrussland]

:D Nice one.

Deliberately misrepresenting a poll result that's allegedly been posted by the Kremlin to make it look legitimate is "nice one"? Oh my!

It was not only the far right, but also the center-right, liberals, and pro-European/pro-Western groups.

Svoboda's candidate only got 1.16 percent of the votes in the Ukrainian presidential election. Right Sector's candidate got 0.7 percent. Svoboda holds only ~7 percent of the Rada, and only 4 percent of the regional seats.

Characterizing the entire government, and entire opposition movement as being far-right or fascist is painting with an extremely broad brush. Sure, there were far-right elements within the opposition, but they did not form a majority or even plurality of the movement. They're actually one of the smaller elements within that movement, the vast majority of the current government is center-right and based in West Ukraine.

Do you seriously not see the problem with an organization that has 1 percent of the vote holding 7 percent of the seats and 4 percent of regional seats, respectively? And there percentage doesn't matter as long as they have guns. If the Government in Kiev was able to disarm Svoboda and Right Sector, your points would be valid; they're not.

Wolffbaden, you can keep repeating yourself as much as you like, nothing changes the fact that the report you keep talking about was compiled based on interviews, not statistics, and we don't even know exactly who was interviewed (except that they were, allegedly, "officials, experts, civil society leaders, and ordinary citizens").

The fact that the report was prepared by the Russian Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights does not change the fact that IT IS BASED SOLELY ON INTERVIEWS WITH UNNAMED PEOPLE. The "random people" I was talking about are not the ones who prepared the report, but the ones who were interviewed (or maybe they weren't random - the point is, we have no idea who they were or how this information was gathered or what it's supposed to show). Do you understand? The report itself says that they just asked people what they believed the turnout and the results to be. That's all this report shows. The opinions of "officials, experts, civil society leaders, and ordinary citizens" regarding the turnout they observed. That's what the report says.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that:
"Russian government source" + "anti-Russian conclusion" = must be absolutely true, even if it explicitly just records opinions

No. Sorry. Facts do not work that way.


No it didn't. The current government, including its Svoboda members, was appointed in February, before Russia annexed Crimea or did anything else. In fact, before the annexation of Crimea there was one MORE Svoboda member in government (Ihor Tenyukh, Minister of Defense). He resigned after the loss of Crimea.


Yes it is. Between Putin and a government that includes Nazis in key posts (even if they have a small minority of posts), I choose Putin. All the way. 100%. Between the side that is willing to form a coalition government with Nazis and anyone else, I choose anyone else.

To quote Winston Churchill, "if Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

NEVER. AGAIN.

It's funny how a single, discredited source from the Kremlin is more important than mountains of polling evidence to Wolffbaden, as that supports his viewpoint.

My point isn't that it's not a problem, the point is that characterizing the government or the opposition movement as being fascist is inaccurate, and that Svoboda or Right Sector existing does not justify a Russian attack on Ukraine, or a seizure of Ukraine's territory.

It is being used as a justification by the Russian government and Russian state media, but that's just a public relations facade. They invaded Crimea and destabilized Ukraine for geopolitical reasons. Books like The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia (Основы геополитики. Геополитическое будущее России) outline a neo-Eurasianist foreign policy, one in which Ukraine cannot be allowed to function as an independent state, or as a Western aligned state, as a Western aligned Ukraine would form an unacceptable risk to Russia's national security. By the way, that book is used as a text book at military academies in Russia (such as the General Staff College of the Russian Federation). The author is a fascist and serves as an adviser to Sergei Naryshkin.

From the Russophobic propaganda halls of Wikidorkia...

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."[1]

Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[1] The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization’ of all of Europe".[1]

In Europe:

Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".[1]
France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[1]
United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[1]
Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[1]
Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[1]
Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[1]
Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[1]
Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece - "orthodox collectivist East" - will unite with the "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[1]
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[1]

In the Middle East and Central Asia:

The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".

Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".[1]
Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people ... [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[1]
Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[1]
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[1]
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[1]
The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).[1]

In Asia:

China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled".[2] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia".[1]
Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[1]
Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[1]
The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]
The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[1]

Is Russian nationalism and militarism a problem in your view? Or are the Ukrainian nationalists the only problem here?

[Shnercropolis]

It's kind of funny how the whole OP was dismantled on the first page and yet the thread still goes on.

http://www.xkcd.com/1166/

[Constantinopolis]

Is Russian nationalism and militarism a problem in your view? Or are the Ukrainian nationalists the only problem here?

The difference between Putin and Svoboda/Right Sector is like the difference between Bismarck and Hitler. Yes, they're both right-wing and nationalistic in their own ways. But one is just an authoritarian bastard who wants nothing more than to gain and hold power, while the other wants to go on a fanatical reign of terror to purge society of real and imagined enemies. If Bismarck was fighting Hitler, I know exactly where I would stand.

[Shofercia]

Deliberately misrepresenting a poll result that's allegedly been posted by the Kremlin to make it look legitimate is "nice one"? Oh my!




Do you seriously not see the problem with an organization that has 1 percent of the vote holding 7 percent of the seats and 4 percent of regional seats, respectively? And there percentage doesn't matter as long as they have guns. If the Government in Kiev was able to disarm Svoboda and Right Sector, your points would be valid; they're not.

It's funny how a single, discredited source from the Kremlin is more important than mountains of polling evidence to Wolffbaden, as that supports his viewpoint.

My point isn't that it's not a problem, the point is that characterizing the government or the opposition movement as being fascist is inaccurate, and that Svoboda or Right Sector existing does not justify a Russian attack on Ukraine, or a seizure of Ukraine's territory.

It is being used as a justification by the Russian government and Russian state media, but that's just a public relations facade. They invaded Crimea and destabilized Ukraine for geopolitical reasons. Books like The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia (Основы геополитики. Геополитическое будущее России) outline a neo-Eurasianist foreign policy, one in which Ukraine cannot be allowed to function as an independent state, or as a Western aligned state, as a Western aligned Ukraine would form an unacceptable risk to Russia's national security. By the way, that book is used as a text book at military academies in Russia (such as the General Staff College of the Russian Federation). The author is a fascist and serves as an adviser to Sergei Naryshkin.

From the Russophobic propaganda halls of Wikidorkia...

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."[1]

Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[1] The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization’ of all of Europe".[1]

In Europe:

Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".[1]
France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[1]
United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[1]
Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[1]
Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[1]
Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[1]
Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[1]
Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece - "orthodox collectivist East" - will unite with the "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[1]
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[1]

In the Middle East and Central Asia:

The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".

Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".[1]
Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people ... [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[1]
Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[1]
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[1]
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[1]
The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).[1]

In Asia:

China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled".[2] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia".[1]
Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[1]
Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[1]
The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]
The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[1]

Is Russian nationalism and militarism a problem in your view? Or are the Ukrainian nationalists the only problem here?

Ukraine has quite a few problems, the most important of them is an economic problem, which is, again, why Ukraine had no choice but to join the Custom's Union, strengthen their own economy, and then go for FTA with EU or whatever suited their fancy. This was a position that both, Yanukovich and Orange Revolution darling Yushenko placed Ukraine in. The only other way for Ukraine to avoid economic collapse, is for Russia to subsidize Ukraine, but countries HAVE NO OBLIGATION to subsidize other countries. Speaking of Oligarchs, Poroshenko's company, Roshen, is going to benefit from the FTA, one of the few companies to benefit in Ukraine, much like Halliburton first lobbied for the Iraq War and then benefited from it.

Oligarchs, (irrespective of whether they're pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian,) are the problem. The first region to revolt had two major Oligarchs, (the only region to have them,) and the revolt intensified, after Oligarch Taruta banned a branch of independent mining. Because this problem must be kept away from the Maidan Crowd who'll eagerly buy any snake oil that's sold to them, the whole nationalism crap is being brought up. Another problem is that the government can neither disarm the rabid racists, (Right Sector, Svoboda, etc,) nor the Oligarch Battalions. It's one thing to say "you must love your country or leave it!" It's another to say "you're Russian, you deserve to be nuked!" Do I think that rabid racism is more of a problem than either Russian or Ukrainian Nationalism? Absolutely! And anyone who's not blatantly blinded by propaganda would agree with me.

Wikidorkia is known for their anti-Russian cabals, so I'd much rather read what Naruyshkin said in Russian, than follow a certain "creative interpretation" of the facts. You want a strong Ukraine? Fix Ukraine's economy! Get rid of the Oligarchs and humiliate the racists! There, you can haz strong Ukraine. And your Wikidorkia article is nothing but a joke:

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution."

One of the things that I know quite a bit about, is United Russia's platform and that they're very much against the promotion of ethnicity. They're for the promotion of Russian speakers, (and most of ethnic Russians are Russian speakers, hence the benefit,) but they're not promoting people based on ethnicity. Despite that, Wikidorkia gloriously inserted the word "ethnic", albeit in brackets. Why? Caucasian stability, which cannot be achieved on an ethnic basis, has been a core staple in United Russia's Program. So again, I'd like to read Naruyshkin in Russian, instead of reading what some imbeciles wrote about him in English. Another part of the platform is the support for small business. Hmmm, support for small business, does that sound anti-bourgeois to you?

[Cartalucci]

Speaking of Ukraine, it seems that there are some issues adopting the whole Freedom of Assembly thing: https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukrain ... 54734.html

The failure of the Ukrainian authorities to guarantee protection for those taking part in the planned Pride march on July 5 sends all the wrong signals, said Amnesty International.

And just for the record, I critiqued the exact same thing when Russia did it. That was also wrong. I am against rabid racist parades, but there's nothing wrong with Gay Rights Parades, because rabid racist parades are against minorities, whereas Gay Rights Parades are mostly for the freedom to have consensual sex (18+) and be recognized for who you are.

The key difference between Ukraine's ban and Russia's is that Russia was not motivated by homophobia - after all, neither the Russian government or the vast majority of Russian people are homophobic. The ban in Russia is necessary to keep the marchers safe from small groups organised by forces from outside Russia who will direct violence against gay rights parades in order to create the impression of instability and extremism in Russia. Its unfortunate that LGBT rights groups are denied their right to demonstrate but it is the government's duty to ensure their own citizens are not injured or killed for the purposes of foreign propaganda.

[Gravlen]

Speaking of Ukraine, it seems that there are some issues adopting the whole Freedom of Assembly thing: https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukrain ... 54734.html



And just for the record, I critiqued the exact same thing when Russia did it. That was also wrong. I am against rabid racist parades, but there's nothing wrong with Gay Rights Parades, because rabid racist parades are against minorities, whereas Gay Rights Parades are mostly for the freedom to have consensual sex (18+) and be recognized for who you are.

The key difference between Ukraine's ban and Russia's is that Russia was not motivated by homophobia - after all, neither the Russian government or the vast majority of Russian people are homophobic. The ban in Russia is necessary to keep the marchers safe from small groups organised by forces from outside Russia who will direct violence against gay rights parades in order to create the impression of instability and extremism in Russia. Its unfortunate that LGBT rights groups are denied their right to demonstrate but it is the government's duty to ensure their own citizens are not injured or killed for the purposes of foreign propaganda.

You're either lying or you're seriously misinformed. Well, there is a third option, but it is unlikely that Russia doesn't think it will be able to protect its citizens for the next 100 years.

In addition, the excuse that they cannot protect their citizens is not the only stated reason why they cannot allow gay pride parades. The Russian government invokes Russian homophobia directly. This is a matter of public record, so let us visit the European Court of Human Rights and the case Alekseyev v. Russia, where the Court found that Russia had violated multiple articles of the ECHR when they banned Gay Pride parades in Moscow:

In addition to that, the Government submitted that the event in question had had to be banned for the protection of morals. They emphasised that any promotion of homosexuality was incompatible with the “religious doctrines for the majority of the population”, as had been made clear in the statements by the religious organisations calling for the ban. They contended that allowing the gay parades would be perceived by believers as an intentional insult to their religious feelings and a “terrible debasement of their human dignity”.

In the Government's view, in Moscow the public was not yet ready to accept the holding of gay parades in the city, unlike in Western countries, where such celebrations were regular occurrences. It was thus the authorities' duty to demonstrate sensitivity to the existing public resentment of any overt manifestation of homosexuality. To that end they quoted a Russian celebrity performer, whose stage image capitalised on exaggeration of homosexual stereotypes, as saying that gay parades should not be conducted. They also referred to a statement apparently made by an organisation called “The Union of Orthodox Citizens”, which promised to conduct a mass protest “should the homosexuals try to hold the march in Moscow”. Likewise, the Orthodox Church was quoted as objecting to the gay parade as propaganda promoting sin, as had the Supreme Mufti for Russia, who had threatened mass protests by Muslims of Russia “as well as by all normal people” should the parade go ahead. They also quoted, although referring to his statement as extreme, the head Muslim authority of Nizhniy Novgorod, who had said that “as a matter of necessity, homosexuals must be stoned to death”.

Of course, not only did Russia fail to honor the ruling, they actively worked against it. After the Court had ruled that previous bans on Gay Pride marches violated human rights, Moscow banned Gay Pride marches for 100 years. And the Russian courts have upheld that decision, in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Lemanrussland]

My point isn't that it's not a problem, the point is that characterizing the government or the opposition movement as being fascist is inaccurate, and that Svoboda or Right Sector existing does not justify a Russian attack on Ukraine, or a seizure of Ukraine's territory.

It is being used as a justification by the Russian government and Russian state media, but that's just a public relations facade. They invaded Crimea and destabilized Ukraine for geopolitical reasons. Books like The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia (Основы геополитики. Геополитическое будущее России) outline a neo-Eurasianist foreign policy, one in which Ukraine cannot be allowed to function as an independent state, or as a Western aligned state, as a Western aligned Ukraine would form an unacceptable risk to Russia's national security. By the way, that book is used as a text book at military academies in Russia (such as the General Staff College of the Russian Federation). The author is a fascist and serves as an adviser to Sergei Naryshkin.

From the Russophobic propaganda halls of Wikidorkia...

Is Russian nationalism and militarism a problem in your view? Or are the Ukrainian nationalists the only problem here?

Ukraine has quite a few problems, the most important of them is an economic problem, which is, again, why Ukraine had no choice but to join the Custom's Union, strengthen their own economy, and then go for FTA with EU or whatever suited their fancy. This was a position that both, Yanukovich and Orange Revolution darling Yushenko placed Ukraine in. The only other way for Ukraine to avoid economic collapse, is for Russia to subsidize Ukraine, but countries HAVE NO OBLIGATION to subsidize other countries. Speaking of Oligarchs, Poroshenko's company, Roshen, is going to benefit from the FTA, one of the few companies to benefit in Ukraine, much like Halliburton first lobbied for the Iraq War and then benefited from it.

Oligarchs, (irrespective of whether they're pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian,) are the problem. The first region to revolt had two major Oligarchs, (the only region to have them,) and the revolt intensified, after Oligarch Taruta banned a branch of independent mining. Because this problem must be kept away from the Maidan Crowd who'll eagerly buy any snake oil that's sold to them, the whole nationalism crap is being brought up. Another problem is that the government can neither disarm the rabid racists, (Right Sector, Svoboda, etc,) nor the Oligarch Battalions. It's one thing to say "you must love your country or leave it!" It's another to say "you're Russian, you deserve to be nuked!" Do I think that rabid racism is more of a problem than either Russian or Ukrainian Nationalism? Absolutely! And anyone who's not blatantly blinded by propaganda would agree with me.

Wikidorkia is known for their anti-Russian cabals, so I'd much rather read what Naruyshkin said in Russian, than follow a certain "creative interpretation" of the facts. You want a strong Ukraine? Fix Ukraine's economy! Get rid of the Oligarchs and humiliate the racists! There, you can haz strong Ukraine. And your Wikidorkia article is nothing but a joke:

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution."

One of the things that I know quite a bit about, is United Russia's platform and that they're very much against the promotion of ethnicity. They're for the promotion of Russian speakers, (and most of ethnic Russians are Russian speakers, hence the benefit,) but they're not promoting people based on ethnicity. Despite that, Wikidorkia gloriously inserted the word "ethnic", albeit in brackets. Why? Caucasian stability, which cannot be achieved on an ethnic basis, has been a core staple in United Russia's Program. So again, I'd like to read Naruyshkin in Russian, instead of reading what some imbeciles wrote about him in English. Another part of the platform is the support for small business. Hmmm, support for small business, does that sound anti-bourgeois to you?

Ukraine doesn't need to bend over and enter Russia's political-economic bloc to recover economically. It can do that through reform and through independent economic association with both Russia and the West. Ultimately, it's up to the Ukrainian people to elect their politicians and decide what Ukraine will do.

If you would have read more carefully, Naruyshkin didn't write that book. An adviser to Naruyshkin named Aleksandr Dugin wrote it. I don't have a copy of the book on hand, so you'd have to buy it and read it if you want to read the original text. He's associated with the National Bolshevik Front, the Eurasia Party, and the Eurasian Youth Union, which is associated with far right groups in Russia like the DPNI (Movement Against Illegal Immigration) and Slavic Union. He's also the head of the Department of Sociology of International Relations of Moscow State University. He personally denies being a racist, yet associates with racists both in Russia and in the West. "Enemy of my enemy (in this case... democracy, liberalism, capitalism, Americans, "modernism") is my friend", I suppose.

Also, please, give the conspiracy theories about Wikipedia being full of "Russophobic propaganda" and thus not a valid source for anything a rest. There are politically motivated/biased groups of people trying to edit Wikipedia, that's just a fact of running a popular website that can be edited by anyone. That's why you have citations and the dispute resolution process.

[Shofercia]

Ukraine has quite a few problems, the most important of them is an economic problem, which is, again, why Ukraine had no choice but to join the Custom's Union, strengthen their own economy, and then go for FTA with EU or whatever suited their fancy. This was a position that both, Yanukovich and Orange Revolution darling Yushenko placed Ukraine in. The only other way for Ukraine to avoid economic collapse, is for Russia to subsidize Ukraine, but countries HAVE NO OBLIGATION to subsidize other countries. Speaking of Oligarchs, Poroshenko's company, Roshen, is going to benefit from the FTA, one of the few companies to benefit in Ukraine, much like Halliburton first lobbied for the Iraq War and then benefited from it.

Oligarchs, (irrespective of whether they're pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian,) are the problem. The first region to revolt had two major Oligarchs, (the only region to have them,) and the revolt intensified, after Oligarch Taruta banned a branch of independent mining. Because this problem must be kept away from the Maidan Crowd who'll eagerly buy any snake oil that's sold to them, the whole nationalism crap is being brought up. Another problem is that the government can neither disarm the rabid racists, (Right Sector, Svoboda, etc,) nor the Oligarch Battalions. It's one thing to say "you must love your country or leave it!" It's another to say "you're Russian, you deserve to be nuked!" Do I think that rabid racism is more of a problem than either Russian or Ukrainian Nationalism? Absolutely! And anyone who's not blatantly blinded by propaganda would agree with me.

Wikidorkia is known for their anti-Russian cabals, so I'd much rather read what Naruyshkin said in Russian, than follow a certain "creative interpretation" of the facts. You want a strong Ukraine? Fix Ukraine's economy! Get rid of the Oligarchs and humiliate the racists! There, you can haz strong Ukraine. And your Wikidorkia article is nothing but a joke:



One of the things that I know quite a bit about, is United Russia's platform and that they're very much against the promotion of ethnicity. They're for the promotion of Russian speakers, (and most of ethnic Russians are Russian speakers, hence the benefit,) but they're not promoting people based on ethnicity. Despite that, Wikidorkia gloriously inserted the word "ethnic", albeit in brackets. Why? Caucasian stability, which cannot be achieved on an ethnic basis, has been a core staple in United Russia's Program. So again, I'd like to read Naruyshkin in Russian, instead of reading what some imbeciles wrote about him in English. Another part of the platform is the support for small business. Hmmm, support for small business, does that sound anti-bourgeois to you?

Ukraine doesn't need to bend over and enter Russia's political-economic bloc to recover economically. It can do that through reform and through independent economic association with both Russia and the West. Ultimately, it's up to the Ukrainian people to elect their politicians and decide what Ukraine will do.

If you would have read more carefully, Naruyshkin didn't write that book. An adviser to Naruyshkin named Aleksandr Dugin wrote it. I don't have a copy of the book on hand, so you'd have to buy it and read it if you want to read the original text. He's associated with the National Bolshevik Front, the Eurasia Party, and the Eurasian Youth Union, which is associated with far right groups in Russia like the DPNI (Movement Against Illegal Immigration) and Slavic Union. He's also the head of the Department of Sociology of International Relations of Moscow State University. He personally denies being a racist, yet associates with racists both in Russia and in the West. "Enemy of my enemy (in this case... democracy, liberalism, capitalism, Americans, "modernism") is my friend", I suppose.

Also, please, give the conspiracy theories about Wikipedia being full of "Russophobic propaganda" and thus not a valid source for anything a rest. There are politically motivated/biased groups of people trying to edit Wikipedia, that's just a fact of running a popular website that can be edited by anyone. That's why you have citations and the dispute resolution process.

Ukraine can either subject Russian goods to EU competition in Ukraine, and have Ukraine's goods by subject to EU competition in Russia, or they cannot. It's an either/or choice. At this point, at least 3 million Ukrainians are working in Russia, and Ukraine desperately needs preferential treatment from Russia; however, Russia reciprocates, meaning that Ukraine must also provide Russia with preferential treatment, meaning no FTA.

In terms of Dugin, I'll say two things: first, he can be an idiot and second, he's one of the thousands of advisers to United Russia. Lyt sent me a TG about fear mongering against Russia's leadership, and you've done just that. You take someone remotely related to Putin, like Dugin, pick up a stupid statement by him, (really not hard to do with Dugin,) tie that to a Putin affiliate, (Naryshkin,) and use it to fear monger. Furthermore, United Russia tries to steer clear of the NatsBols. They're kind of like NAMBLA in Russia, at least in terms of popularity. None of those groups mentioned have any real effect on United Russia's decisions.

Dugin's Eurasia Party loves taking things that already took place and claiming credit for them. After the Moscow-Teheran Tactical Treaty was de facto signed, Dugin promptly took credit for it, despite doing very little to support it. He's a well known plagiarist of Solzhenitsyn. So yeah, some of his ideas are valid, but nearly all of his valid ideas come from other sources. Is Solzhenitsyn suddenly a bad guy, because Dugin quoted him? The ESM was founded in opposition to Yellow Pora, and the two organization pretty much mirror each other, yet when most Westerns bitch about the ESM, they forget about the Yellow Pora. But I'm used to those typical double standards.

The Slavic Union is one of the most misleadingly named organizations out there, one that has nothing to do with my beloved pan-Slavism. The extreme majority of pan-Slavists do NOT engage in Holocaust Denial and some even campaign for the Roma, who were also Genocided by Nazis, along with the Slavs and the Jews. I should mention that Slavic Union was banned, in Russia: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... 04968.html

I should also point out that while pan-Slavism opposes idiots in power, like Yeltsin, pan-Slavism also respects the cultural boundaries of the people, provided that the people respect said boundaries, and considering that not too many Slovenes want a union with Russia, pan-Slavism isn't about creating some giant mumbo-jumbo state, unlike the properly banned, Slavic Union.