PALIN MOCKED IN 2008 FOR WARNING PUTIN MAY INVADE UKRAINE IF OBAMA ELECTED

And no, I don't like Palin.....

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I've never seen him smile... scary.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Ah, beg your pardon. Yes, you are right. Though the flavors are a bit different. Ukraine, who would you buy a used car from?

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 
You missed the point. The revolutionaries get to choose between Western imperialism or Russian imperialism. As for the rise of extremism, sure, it can be seen in various parts of Europe (esp. Greece) in response to economic malaise (which will keep repeating itself along with its own brand of corruption, i.e. the massive off-shore accounts and further financialization of economies).

And as far as Crimea goes, let's not ignore:

Sergei Aksenov, the head of the main pro-Russia party on the peninsula, said in a statement reported by local and Russian news agencies that he appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin "for assistance in guaranteeing peace and calmness on the territory of the autonomous republic of Crimea."

Aksenov declared that the armed forces, the police, the national security service and border guards will answer only to his orders. He said any commanders who don't agree should leave their posts.

And we of course know Obama wagged his finger at Putin, just before Russia responded...

 RichardPrins wrote: 
You can hardly call the fascist elements of the protest movement imperalist, no matter how much they might like to fantasize about it.
In my experience you get right wing elements always rising when the economy falters and unemployment rises or alternatively, people don't see any future. This is ripe territory for hotheads to start finding scapegoats and the resulting "together we are strong" sentiment that is at the root of all fascism flourishes. This is as true in France or the US as it is in the Ukraine.

By this token, the best thing you can do is encourage business opportunity and international ties. This is the glimmer of opportunity that makes the EU seem so attractive to many in the protest movement.

EDIT:
The trouble is the EU has a history of reneging on its economic promises for backward regions and all that happens is the young people wander off to more promising centers elsewhere in the Union.

 buzz wrote: 
Hey, I was being all uncharacteristically optimistic and shit again - gimmie a break, will ya?

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Which might be a clue about at least some of those revolutionaries, and especially in light of the quote your provided from the Sector Right.

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." - Otto von Bismarck (unsourced)

Their choice is then between two different flavours of imperialism.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
fyt

 RichardPrins wrote: 
The Europeans were pushing strongly for concessions from the Maidan side of the argument that would indicate they took the interests of the Russian population seriously and protected their rights including anchoring the Russian language as a second state language. The failure of the revolutionaries to do this is a pretty big factor in the breakdown of the pact brokered by the Europeans, but was probably inevitable. Last one week one of the protestors said "Our country is fucked." Perhaps the most lucid assessment of the situation to date.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
This "antiquated 19th century nationalist jingoism" is very much alive in many places (and some might argue on the rise), not in the least in some of the Western countries (obviously incl. the US), but also in places like China, and yes, as a result of break-up of the USSR, in Russia.

The "lot of Ukrainians" is very likely a minority, with plenty of unsavoury very nationalistic (if not outright fascist) elements. This of course can be ignored at one's own peril, while repeating slogans about the glories of democracy. Reality is a bit different though (incl. about those democracies), regardless of how one wants to view the leader of Russia, who still, as far as I can see, carries the support of most Russians.

And while on the topic of nationalists, more from that last article:

(...) Let me address the alleged threat to Putin’s government by the Maidan. I think the individuals pushing those ideas in the media cannot begin to imagine how much the Maidan events strengthen Putin’s position and disgust Russian society, prompting more widespread disgust with all events occurring in the Western part of Ukraine. Those individuals do not understand that no one discredits the ideas of the Maidan and the Orange Revolution more than the very leaders of those revolutions. During the Orange Revolution, the very instigators began to hurl accusations at each other, both credible and not very, of corruption and other sins once they got in power. After just a few months, the Orange revolutionaries tossed aside all slogans of freedom and democratic catharsis; slogans, which now appear again on the Maidan. The situation degraded to the point where, in 2010, the former felon Yanukovich won the elections against the Orange revolutionaries. And all these above-mentioned analysts seriously think that Putin is afraid of such revolutions and such a Maidan celebrating under swastikas and radical nationalist symbols. Woe to all those politicians that will base their policy on such analysis with regard to Ukraine and Russia from Washington, Berlin, and Brussels.

The current situation in Ukraine differs enormously from the situation there in the 1990s and even from the time of the Orange Revolution, and needs sober evaluation and sober decisions.

It is obvious that power has passed into the hands of the Maidan revolutionaries, led by armed radical nationalists. Moderate politicians at present have no control over the Maidan, the radicals, or the street. It is hard to believe that in this case politicians in the EU and Washington will continue to pay lip service in support of the current “authorities” in Ukraine; at a maximum, they will promise them economic aid of the size of $1-2 billion. Neither Brussels nor Washington has the money to offer anything substantial. When I asked the German ambassador whether Angela Merkel had the money to save the Ukrainian economy, he remained silent. This means that an aggravated economic situation will only bring more chaos and give more power to the radicals.

Unable to solve economic problems, the radicals will continue with fervor to impose their terror on the people, first outlawing the use of Russian language, then harassing the Russian population, and finally exercising repressions on the pro-Russian political forces even via the use of armed gangs to assert control over the East and South. I do not exclude the possibility of armed clashes between the radical nationalists and the pro-Russian forces in the East, South, and especially in Crimea. The consequences maybe ominous. (...)

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
What I was attempting to point out is the division between east and west in Ukraine is several centuries old.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Try this sentiment from the Urkraiinian Sector Right (I am not endorsing it or anything, just trying to illuminate the reasons why the Ukrainians want to move away from the old imperialist type of system that is now outmoded:

We remind all citizens of Ukraine regardless of nationality (including Russians ) that our struggle is anti-imperial , not Russophobe . Russian empire will be destroyed. Urge Resistance Movement Caucasus and all liberation movements in Russia to step up their activities.”

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
See my post below about Right & Left Bank Ukraine...

As long as we have nation states we're gonna have war; sad but true. 

 RichardPrins wrote: 
I am not in the least equating Putin with Hitler. Nor am I saying it is simple. But the entire argument you are putting forward here is based on nationalist rhetoric. I had hoped the days of the nationalist state were waning and we were heading towards some sort of bumbling bureaucracy that superceded all this antiquated 19C nationalist jingoism. The western half of Ukraine wants to join the EU. Maybe the eastern half should be ceded to Russia and the border between the two should remain open to let people decide for themselves where they want to live and what sort of system they prefer. There is a reason a lot of Ukrainians don't want to remain under the Russian thumb. Corrupt politicans creaming the state coffers is part of it. If Russia was so damn attractive, why are all its satellites wanting to leave it?

It's far more complex than making Putin the next Hitler (which most Western media will only be too happy to oblige in)...
 
Commentary: Moscow Doesn’t Want to Intervene, But… | The National Interest
Andranik Migranyan | February 28, 2014

Few subjects have been more misunderstood in the West than the Ukraine. Moscow is being portrayed as a revanchist bully. Russian President Vladimir Putin is depicted as intruding upon the internal affairs of the country.

None of this is true. However, we can now conclude that with all due respect for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, should mass clashes and bloodletting happen in the East, the South and Crimea, the Russian Black Sea Fleet and Russia itself cannot just watch impartially from the sidelines. Ukraine is home to millions of Russians and to the relatives of millions in Russia itself. The Russian government will be under immense pressure to act to protect its own people.

Moscow has always recognized, and continues to do so, the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and despite the many opportunities to intervene and destabilize the young state since the fall of the USSR, it never once acted to do so. In 1992-1993, the Supreme Soviet of Russia demanded the return of Crimea and Sevastopol to Russia. In 1994, the Russian party in Crimea won the elections, and its representative Yuri Meshkov, upon becoming President, turned to Russia with the request to annex Crimea. Even then, the Russian government refused to do so.

How has the Ukraine preserved its territorial integrity? All the politicians and analysts talking about the deep ethnic, language, and religious cleavages in the country are correct, which is further supported by the permanent political crises in the country. It is obvious that Ukraine’s integrity was kept by just a few circumstances presently lacking in Kievan politics.

The status of Ukraine as a unitary state has been greatly enhanced by the fact that successive candidates for President from the East (Leonid Kravchuk, Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovich) won elections against their Western competition—winning the support of the Eastern and Southern electorate with slogans of respect for Russia and the Russian language. Once in Kiev, however, they understood that they de facto ruled over two different peoples and two different states, and that they must take into account Western Ukrainian preferences and, moreover, maneuver between Russia and the West. Carefully but consistently, they pushed Russia, Russians, and the Russian language outside of the political, cultural, and educational spheres in Ukraine. This approach inhibited the ability of Russians and pro-Russian political forces to organize themselves—and fooled the Eastern and Southern populations into believing that their interests were taken into account in Kiev by having an Eastern President. In this process, the Presidents constantly lied to both Moscow and their voting blocks in the East and South, crudely trampling upon their own electoral promises. Kuchma was the worst of them all, especially with regard to Crimea.

In 1994, at the pre-term elections, Kuchma won, largely because of Southern and Eastern support, and especially because of the support of Crimea, whom he promised wide-ranging autonomy secured by treaty on the model of Tatarstan with Russia. Then, right before the elections, Nezavisimaya Gazeta published an article of mine in which I argued that Crimeans ought not to vote in the Ukrainian Presidential elections until such a treaty was ratified. In 1993, Tatarstan refused to participate in the Duma elections in Russia until Russia signed a treaty codifying larger wider self-rule for the autonomous Republic of Tatarstan.

Unfortunately, neither Crimeans nor Russian political circles listened to my advice, while Russia considered him a pro-Russian politician. And as usually happens with the South, East, and Russian-supported Presidents in Ukraine, in the cases of Kravchuk, Kuchma and Yanukovich, they promptly forget their promises to both Moscow and their electorate. And so, Kuchma nearly destroyed Crimean autonomy after his election, and substantially reduced their already-given self-rule. (...)

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Russian tanks are apparently moving in already. Putin is instrumentalizing this to look like a strong leader back home and incite nationalist sentiment. It's all he's interested in. In the end it will back-fire on him but I'm afraid it is going to take a long while and involve untold bloodshed. Just because of one guy's puny little ego to remain king.

Next big steps will be to see what the reaction of the EU is and the USA.

thankfully, it will only take Russia a couple of weeks to overrun the country

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I suppose it was inevitable. The older I get, the more disgusted I get at people who think violence is the answer to anything.

oh no, here we go...

Russian President Vladimir Putin has asked the upper house of parliament to approve sending armed forces to Ukraine’s Crimea region, the Kremlin said in a statement on Saturday. “In connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory (in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) ... I submit a proposal on using the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the normalisation of the socio-political situation in the that country,” the statement said.

these guys look like Russian marines or airborne troops to me.