A small subset of the regime was rightist and it was a caretaker government until a fully Democratic one was elected just a few months later. That is not something that needs an intervention by a neighbor and certainly is not justification for a neighbor invading and annexing a portion of land it has always wanted.

Russia is engaging in wars of aggression to seize land.

Completely agree. Should one objectively compare both Moscow's and Kiev's actions over the past five years to date, only Novorossiya has become an expansionist power threatening (and ignoring) the sovereignty of its neighbors.

'The role of finance capital is the benchmark of any measure of the core nature of a capitalist country. In Russia, it is nothing resembling that of the imperialist countries. It's the state, not finance capital, which plays the overriding, directing role in Russia's economy. The state happens to own much of the vaunted oil and gas industries; so too in finance and much of manufacturing. The CIA Factbook explains some of the consequences thusly: "The protection of property rights is still weak and the private sector remains subject to heavy state interference."'

That is pretty much a straight recycled description of the old Soviet 'state capitalism' system, and hardly exempts any state from accurate description as an imperialist state, save perhaps in the most doctrinaire of old-thinking Marxist circles. It is certainly no grounds for leftists to rally to the support of Russian imperialism in Ukraine.

Russia is historically one of the most powerful imperialist forces in modernity, regardless of the underlying economic ideology of its rulers or ruling class.

Nicely done.

state of the USSR; as if they had any choice in the matter.

"But look! They had a friendship arch! They'd still be friends if it weren't those meanie fascists!"

To which parliamentary elections do you refer ? 2012 ?

Elected president. Elected parliament. Fully democratic.

Especially when the 2014 president called for new ones?

That some of the oligarchy friendly pro-Russian traitors in the Party of Regions fled to Russia because they tried to pass illegal laws and stole billions from Ukraine?

Was just seeking to confirm which ones were being referred to.

So, whether you think the parliament is illegitimate or not is irrelevant. Dozens flew to Russia, to avoid prosecution. New elections should resolve that. We'll see if the ATO efforts are successful.

the subject of which has yet to be agreed by their parliament. I'm not sure of the circumstances he can dictate on such matters.

go. thanks steven

positions.

Come on Steve, get out the intellectual honesty. If there were a leader of the KKK in charge of the National security you would not think that indicated a "small problem".

And its disingenuous to call it some kind of right wing takeover when you know very well it was a caretaker government until elections could be had three months later.

One being one of several deputy prime ministers, the others being the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Natural Resources, respectively.

That's it.

Poroshenko replaced the Prosecutor General (a non-cabinet position) that had been held by a Svoboda member with a non-Svoboda member yesterday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/19/us-ukraine-crisis-yarema-idUSKBN0EU0RZ20140619

Right Sector holds no cabinet positions, nor does it have a single seat in the Rada.

There is a seemingly fascistic pathology of the knew Ukrainian government and there are clearly imperialist overtones for the Russian intervention. The idea of solidarity misses the stated fact that such a solidarity movement is a violation of state sovereignty. But, at the same time, the sovereignty argument plays into the hands of nationalists and ultranationalists with a vested interest in the current regime and, to a somewhat paradoxical degree, inclusion in Western European economic and political interest.

There are no "better angels" in this conflict.

They are being backed into a corner and told to "take their medicine".

Amazingly, there was 0 tension between ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians (except in the very west) and they got along fine.
I have no doubt that they would have, and still likely do, prefer to keep the country intact. But the current administration is not only a thorn, but it is antagonistic toward half the country.

We and the EU have a huge influence and by "taking sides" we are actually keeping it from resolving. If instead we brokered in a neutral manner, new elections, potentially a federal system like what we have, this would all go away.

Unfortunately, the only thing that guarantees Trade and resource policies is keeping the minority junta in power and it seems that people's lives are less important than the money to be made off of their blood.

Putin drummed up a non-existent crisis of ethnic Russians being threatened in order to justify his military invasion of Crimea. The tensions in East Ukraine were created by armed separatists who seized government buildings following Crimea and likewise demanded separation from Ukraine and annexation by Russia. The violence only started after those separatists refused to back down despite numerous opportunities to do so.

give a shite.

There was immediate division because Maidan was an anti-democratic movement and the minority parties came to power. That was immediately recognized.

People were already talking about what Right Sector was doing even before the changeover. People were already afraid. But go ahead and live in a propaganda narrative if you want.

Of course in the very West and people in the Fatherland party never felt a thing. If you get your info from them you will hear a different story. They were extremely elated because they managed to take power which they could not do through elections in the recent cycles.

Look at the results of the recent presidential election to see how small a factor it and Svoboda really play amongst Ukrainians.

The fact though is that Right Sector and Svoboda have been turned into paper tigers by the pro-Russian crowd because of the boogieman factor that their ultranationalist roots bring.

Maidan was a huge, huge movement amongst Ukrainians. It wasn't just a handful of ultranationalists stirring up trouble. The crowds were in the hundreds of thousands, and they had millions more sympathizing with your cause. If you want to cast that as "anti-democratic", you do so at your own peril. In the end, however, Yanukovych's departure was completely on him. He took three days at the very height of the crisis to pack up his mansion and fly off in his own fleet of choppers. That's the basic reality of the situation.

That is to say, the corruption of regimes like Russia or the new Ukrainian government or Western powers is not inherently a function of exclusion but one of inclusion and acceptance. And what gives these regimes power, and thus the capacity for corruption, is exactly the permission of the public to endeavor into political and economic pacts and divisions.

So, for instance, in the Eastern provinces and states of Ukraine, we have a body of citizens who for a very long time endorsed the rule of the Ukrainian government over themselves and their region. And it is through this acceptance that they became complicit in their own subjugation. Do you understand?

But is this symptom not confirmed in their seemingly paradoxical role now in attempting to reclaim personal and political sovereignty but subjugating themselves to the Russian Federation? Is this not the same process started over? And will we not come to a point in the future when the overreach of the Russian state drives the people in these regions to once again seek autonomy? And, will they not again seek this through the lie of identity through another imperialist regime?

This is the problem of such a conflict. What on the surface we see as a clash of ideologies, a battle between the free and the corrupt, is actually the shifting of identity to reestablish the historical truth underneath the kitsch.

There was a resistance to a cause, the Ukrainian revolution or coup or whatever you want to call it, and then there was no idea of the consequence, the resistance only knew what it didn't want, and into this void stepped an imperialist regime.

power except by force.

That is simply a fact. So your discussion above actually says the opposite of what is.

Basically the claim of the narrative is that the current government in Ukraine is legitimate because maidan represented the entire country. - Not fact
and
They said that Yanukovich left office. Also not true. He had a press conference before the vote specifying that he was not leaving office. There is no constitutional law that says because he packed things up; to avoid looting is just as likely , though even if it was to prepare in case he had to leave office that did not mean he left office until either he actually resigned or the proper impeachment procedure occurred.

and

That because there was a vote to replace him that makes it constitutional. The Party of regions and their families were threatened. A number had fled for their lives. And there is no constitutional basis for the vote they did.

Those are simply facts

And if his actions are that he wants to ensure the safety of his oil painting collection before he choppers off to Russia, it screams that he is more interested in living a life of luxury than governing the country, no matter what words come out of his mouth.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900838,00.html

"You don't understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us."

If Russia and Ukraine are supposedly "brothers", then they are Cain and Abel type of brothers. A good analogy would be that of an abusive (physically or emotionally, take your pick) spouse who insists that the abused spouse needs the abusive spouse to survive, and that the abused spouse would be nothing without the abusive spouse.

Russia's abusive attitude towards Ukraine, under the banners of both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, is well-documented over the centuries.

Putin's land grab of Crimea was the epitome of imperialism. He saw that the Ukrainian government was at its weakest and that it would be impossible for Ukraine to fight back, and he seized the opportunity to take land he viewed as historically Russian, even though treaty mandated that Russia stand off of all Ukrainian land (except for its limited naval bases), including Crimea. And now we have the bloody separatist rebellion in the part of Ukraine that Putin cavalierly referred to as "Novorossiya."

Not everyone fully grasps what the Maidan protests were truly about. Yes, on the surface it was to support Ukraine's entry into the EU, as well as protest against the president's corruption, but at a deeper level it was a demonstrable rejection of the notion of Ukraine as a vassal state of Russia. When Yanukovych spurned the EU in favor of Russia, there was a very real and genuine reaction by the majority of Ukrainians against such a decision. They simply do not want to be lorded over by Russia, period.

What a shit piece you posted. The "appendix" concerning Russia's annexation of Crimea was gross revisionism.

like with Israel and much of the middle east the borders were created.

I don't think essentially pointing out a historical and geographical fact means that he is saying he wants to take it.

And the link that makes it sound like he actually said that Ukraine is little Russia, was a reading of a book trying to illustrate how close the countries are in cultures. Other than a minority in the West indeed the cultures are quite close and have much common in their ancestry.

People with a distinct language, culture, religious sects apart from others. Including Russians.

True, both Ukrainian culture and Russian culture can be dated back to the Kievan Rus, who originated in modern day Ukraine. From there, however, they diverged. It's not unlike both how France and Italy owe much of their culture to the Roman Empire, but they diverged into two separate cultures with two separate languages over the years.

Though I would say my experience has been that it is only a minority that does not see themselves and ethnic Russians as very close cultures.

outside tiny islands with billionaires on them.

in similar places in many of the aspects that people here try to establish differences in.

They rate in precisely the same grouping in LGBT rights
They actually are less antisemitic than Ukraine (and much of Eastern Europe)

I posted the link to this information just yesterday.

I don't have time at the moment to find Ukraine's stats on income equality but I wlll be very surpised if the is not much difference. However, Russia does have a higher standard of living

solidarity with. It makes him look like he knows nothing about present-day Russia at all.

I do not think I have yet seen an article in the western press that can completely summarize all the complexities and the state of the country in full. As with the US, and other complex ideas.

I also do not agree with the idea that the two countries should rejoin under communism. But he claims that Putin is not a communist but more of a capatilist and that i believe he is right on, and one of the largest errors of public perception in general.

A bloody, repressive, authoritarian regime that had very little to do with actual Marxist economic theory and had everything to do about continuing Russian imperialism in a new form following the fall of the Russian Empire.

It was no worker's paradise. None at all. Moscow used Marxism simply as a populist guise to mask Russian imperialistic goals.

the US treated African Americans as second class citizens only 50 years ago, to some extent we still do. We hunt down and harass Mexican Americans. We had a huge population as slaves not all that far back in our history and there are still many people in this country that are racists. We practically annihilated a people in order to take the land.

Bringing up the USSR and it's (serious) failures is a red herring.

And actually, right now Russia has better the better workplace. But such facts are a little nuanced when people are content to remain in cold war stereotypes.

Global labor rights map
http://www.ituc-csi.org/new-ituc-global-rights-index-the

"The only real solution to the Ukraine crisis is the restoration of workers' power and workers' ownership of the means of production through a revived Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which itself must inevitably be part of a still broader movement that will ultimately involve the workers of the entire world."


Claiming it was some sort of worker's paradise that needed to be re-established. Except that's pretty much a myth that only the most gullible of Marxists would buy.

For all intents and purposes, the Soviet Union was nothing more than the Russian Empire 2.0. The problem was, monarchs by divine right was no longer fashionable to the common man. So some Russian nationalists used Marxism as a ploy to keep the empire together under a rebranded name. It worked for about 60 years before the wheels began to come off and all the individual nations that had been dominated by Moscow over the centuries decided they wanted to go out on their own.

Rather that there should be solidarity between the workers and people (cultures) because they are far more alike than different.

I don't think that the USSR should reform nor do I think that East Ukraine should become part of Russia. But much of the rest of his analysis was very good, particularly his point that Putin is not trying to resurrect the USSR, and that he is a capitalist. Russia is pretty much a quasi libertarian state with a few social programs left over.

Mainly because in all honesty, communism was not the ultimate goal of the USSR.

Rather, Putin's Soviet nostalgia has everything to do with the pinnacle of Moscow's power on the global stage, and the geographic expanse of the Russian people achieved via Russification over the years.

So does Putin want to resurrect a communist state? Absolutely not. Does he want to resurrect a Russian global superpower along the lines of the Soviet Union in that respect? All his language indicates that is his desire.

As for the piece itself, the "appendix" at the end concerning Crimea is complete and utter bunk, very easily disproved.

When exactly did that happen?

and African Americans might feel that way to some extent about our country. The truth is no country in this age is really "rightious". We still have a lot of work to do.
If you are white middle class of course the country was not a "bastard" to you.

One cannot honestly compare two very different countries. But the penal system here is pretty much as harsh now, though not in exactly the same ways, as it was in the latter period of the USSR. Including a move towards criminalizing forms of dissention.

The USSR was two different countries in many ways: early years/Stalin/WW2; and a later period where the country rejected Stalin (that is why there are Lenin and not Stalin Statues in Russia and liberalized in some aspects of life there. We painted a pretty broad brush and still do not recognize the differences. There were also exagerations and straight out propaganda lies. Like about the situation with lines and rations. That was not nearly universal and it was certain products that were affected. Granted they did not have as large a variety of foods, but in the last 40 years of the 1900's the only period where the general population did not have enough food was during the change to capitalism.

It's unfair to say everything was wrong.
They had no homelessness, which is an achievement
They had no real unemployment
Vacation benefits etc were some of the most generous in the world. You don't hear about it, but while indeed travel was limited for many to their sphere of influence, they did provide a wide variety of resorts and their people took lots of vacations across large distances just like we do.
Everyone had access to those things, not just the the population with money as in the west.
Everyone had access to schools, etc
Social life was extremely rich.

of course that is only one side of the story.

Of course we had many good things here during that period but it really depended on who and what class of citizen you were.
The middle class could afford great vacations, but the poor here were often lucky to travel outside their state, much less outside the country.
The middle class had aplenty of food and food varieties, but not the poor.
During that period we give ourselves a pass on a few really "bastard
We definitely had a superior common infrastructure (as long as gas was cheap and available to most).


I would not advocate a return to the USSR, but it was not as bleak as portrayed. As wth most things the truth is somewhat more nuanced.
Have you been to either Ukraine or Russia? Studied and discussed all these things with people there?

Where ethnic Russians actually live and are the unquestioned historical majority.

For those living in the other SSRs--which were nations and cultures among themselves separate and distinct from Russia--there was a lot of oppression of the local cultures, ethnic identity and languages. This oppression was brutal and bloody and heartbreaking, and lasted all the way from Lenin up until Gorbachev, by which time the USSR's fate had more or less been sealed.

Someone SO needs to paint that in rainbow colors. Femen? Pussy Riot?

There are lots of those still all around the USSR, and nobody knows exactly what to do with them.

No, seriously. If you go on Google Earth and look at the Streetview of the "People's Friendship Arch", you'll see that it is being used as a carnival grounds. I shit you not.

is it really the art? Or is it because it was made by a Russian that causes you to have a reflex?

Portraying an equal-handed fraternity between Russia and Ukraine, when in fact Russia dominated and suppressed Ukrainian culture over the years and has sought to minimize it and disparage it.

And now it's just an old Soviet relic that's hanging around from the olden days, an ancient memory of a dead, bastardized country.

Is watching the same DU'ers who are so fast to note Iraq as a "fabricated state" that ought to be split up and divided among other nations... Are howling over the necessity of preserving Ukrainian integrity at all costs.



Just a weird thing.

You've read my posts. Do i seem like the sort of person who is terribly subtle or something?

No, I just think it's plain dumb that i can come to DU and see "Split up iraq because it's a fake country!" in the same place as "Preserve Ukraine to make it a real country!"

Just... bwuh? Get your shit together DU.

Who the fuck are you talking about and why are you apparently disagreeing with them, then? Those are your words, not mine.

I'm just trying to figure out the logic I'm seeing on DU. This country needs to be preserved at all costs despite it being an "artificial country," but that country needs to be dismantled and parceled out because it's an "artificial country."

Really, both Iraq and Ukraine are the product of idiots with maps and a pen, and nothing more. I'm just trying to figure out why the general consensus on one is that separatism is awful, but the consensus on the other is that separatism is to be endorsed.

I figure it's up to Ukraine and iraq to figure out, and I leave the question to their... governments, I guess you'd all 'em. I'm just baffled at the idea that DU'ers seem desperate to staple one together against all odds while they want to tear the other apart, both apparently for the same reasons.

Maybe if the Sunnis started praising Putin, Du would change its mind on Iraq?

Because there exist no real movement in Ukraine to divide the country. But, it seems you think such a thing exists, maybe because of the pro-Donbas fascists in our midst.

As far as Iraq, the Kurds have effectively created an autonomous zone. Whether people are for creating separate zones, is not my prerogative. It's clear, however, that British colonialists split that country up to shreds and it may be a solution. If they cannot live together peacefully.

So I take it you're in fact not alleging Ukraine should be split up? You're not saying one way or another. You are waffling.

They were the ones keeping the no-Fly zone, which pretty much guaranteed a Kurdish autonomy. So, yeah, guess you can't get the brits out of that one, huh?

And I would argue that since there are people with guns declaring independent republics in Ukraine and facing off against Ukrainian police and armed forces, that the separatist movement over there is plenty real. Real enough to get people fucking killed, and to be regarded as an international crisis at least. Do you mean "not popularly supported by Ukrainians?" If so, that's more true, but not especially relevant - majorities tend to not support separatist movements, because if they did, it wouldn't really be separatist, would it?

Or did you mean "no real movement" in more of a "I don't agree with it so if I pretend it doesn't exist it'll go away" sense? If only it were as easy as killing Tinkerbell, huh?

Ukraine and Iraq are both hodgepodge nations nailed together out of imperial ambition rather than any practical considerations. yet strangely, Iraq has existed as a sovereign nation since the 1920's (though not fully independent until 1932), and only fell apart after the united States obliterated it, while Ukraine has only been an independent nation since 1991 and is self-sodomizing, yet DU seems desperate to keep Ukraine intact like an awful codependant family, and to tear Iraq apart like car thieves selling scrap metal.

I don't think either nation should be split up - certainly not by foreign fiat! - but I'm not going to cry myself to sleep if it happens. I have no investment in either situation one way or the other. i just think it's fucking weird watching the logical contirtions DU goes through on these two countries, to justify two diametrically opposite solutions to the exact same fucking problem - internationally-funded thugs with guns taking advantage of a weak government

But I appreciate that you put them down in text.

To compare Iraq to Ukraine as you do is sad but understandable to the weak minded. It's in fact "not the same fucking problem." Pathetic.

As in the nation of people who identify as Ukrainian, within a concentrated geographic area, with a distinct language, culture, customs, religious sects, that are different from those who surround it. That the land had been ruled over by various imperial powers over the years does not defeat the identity of the Ukrainian people and the nation. The modern day boundaries of Ukraine, from the east to the west, contain a majority of persons who consider themselves ethnically Ukrainian.

Ukraine is not a hodgepodge Frankenstein creation like Yugoslavia. That's a fiction.

The separatist movement in Ukraine is real in the sense that it is actually occurring. However, it is not truly a separatist movement in that people want to split the country apart. These armed seperatists are ethnically Russian, whether they are from the ethnic Russian minority in the east of Ukraine, or they are Russian nationals (and I believe it is a combination of both.) Their ultimate goal, very much stated, is not secession and independence but rather absorption of "Novorossiya" into Russia.

As for Iraq, I simply can't speak for that country as I don't have as familiar a knowledge of the people there. I do know that the boundaries of the modern country were drawn by the British in the 20th Century. I know that the three general factions are Kurdish, Sunni and Shia. But I don't know whether the desire of the people is to identify on a tribal basis or a national Iraqi basis. So I'm not even going to comment on whether that country should be split or remain unified.

I do know that it is the ultimate desire of the vast majority of Ukrainians in both the east and west to remain one country, regardless of whatever differences there may be. Recent polls reflect this.

Some posters are so caught up in polar cold war thinking you could write "yes" and they would see "no" ; and then come back and tell you later that you believe exactly what you have very carefully said, multiple times, was not what the case.

Maybe it has something to do with the paranoia that everyone with an alternative opinion is a secret kremlin agent trying to trick them? LOL

What is that saying? Something like "the power of illusions"? Very powerful delusions maybe?

You are disgraceful. Read the following discussion. This is not a joking matter.

Gee maybe I should have used the post delete function.

I started to ask why you were saying I was for East Ukraine to split off (I am not), because I did not scan down the replies correctly. So wrote over the post and put a smily, like as in SORRY. Nothing else meant there.

Instead you doubled down. Congrats. I pray no one hides these posts, it's absolutely clear where you stand.

maybe you can explain what you think I was alluding too. Seriously I have not a clue.


As far as I know:

Scotty said something about his feeling about the inconsistency of calling for Iraq to be separated while denying East Ukraine the same thing? I wasn't even going to comment about that because i don't think Eastern Ukraine should secede.

I replied because his comment about Iraq caught me off guard and I didn't know what he was talking about because I have never said anything about the that part of the Iraq situation (while I know a lot about what is happening in Ukraine I have not been reading up on everything in Iraq so i am not really in a place to opine much about it.

Then I read your response and somehow thought you were responding to me saying I was for Eastern Ukraine Secession. And replied I was not.
Then I overwrote it with a smilie
Then i tried to explain the smilie.

Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you thought I did? I am totally clueless as to what you are complaining about.

Yes, you are.

This is just weird. You look foolish but keep up your angry over gibberish fest.