5 Reasons Why Leftists Should Defend Russia | New Eastern Outlook

[MattSh]

by Eric Draitser

As tensions between the US and Russia have increased in the last year, so too has the polarization of public opinion. While the western corporate media has reverted to its formerly antagonistic, Cold War era attitude toward Russia – predictably radicalizing much of western public opinion, infusing the discourse with a decidedly Russophobic bias – it has increasingly been left to those on the political margins to deconstruct the false narrative, expose the Empire’s agenda, and defend the right of sovereign nations to act independent of western diktats.

And it is here, on the political margins, where many are willing to speak out against the US agenda in Ukraine and beyond, where the real fight for hearts and minds is taking place. The political mainstream will simply go along with the narratives presented to it by the Empire’s compliant media, thus ensuring its continued impotence and irrelevance to policy. However, a loud chorus of critics, dissidents, and anti-imperialist voices is becoming increasingly impossible to ignore.

.....

Many self-proclaimed “leftists” have merely transposed their anti-Soviet politics into an anti-Russian ideological posture, which sees in Russia both an embrace of capitalism and a desire for imperial revanchism. In this way, such groups (numerous on what passes for the “organized Left”) run interference for the political establishment, serving to dilute the potency of an anti-imperialist message through internecine conflict, demonization, and sectarianism. They proclaim that there is nothing about Russia worth defending for leftists. But is this true?

Here are a few reasons why those on the left who argue that Russia is “no better than the US” are either plainly ignorant, or they have ulterior motives:

1. Opposing US-NATO. <more...>
2. BRICS, SCO, and “Multi-Polarity.” <more...>
3. Opposition to Shock Therapy and Disaster Capitalism. <more...>
4. WWII, The Holocaust, and Defending Historical Memory. <more...>
5. Political Support for Victims of US Imperialism. <more...>

.....

If it is true that Russia’s political elite have finally recognized their own global importance, the world will benefit. Hopefully, some on the so-called Left will also come to this realization. If not, then they should cease to call themselves anti-imperialists, and instead admit what they really are…the left flank of the Empire.

Complete story at - http://journal-neo.org/2015/02/20/5-reasons-why-leftists-should-defend-russia/

[geek tragedy]

1. Only fascist assholes support Putin's despotic regime.

Whatever lies they tell themselves to help them sleep at night notwithstanding.

The pro-Moscow leftwing authoritarians are in the same general camp as Jobbik, Golden Dawn, and Vladimir Zhironovsky. United under the banner of a fascist oligarchy.

Putin fans have no place in decent, progressive society.

[Fred Sanders]

2. All bun. No beef.

Although your impressive pantry of preemptive insults is fine tripe for the meat eaters.

[geek tragedy]

3. Russia is a fascist oligarchy, a mafia state where critics of

Putin are imprisoned and assassinated. It is a kleptocracy where Putin and his buddies make themselves vastly wealthy and where official corruption is endemic. It is a vile, bigoted government that persecutes its GLBT citizens. It is a rightwing, militaristic, nationalistic imperialist power that regularly bullies its neighbors and commits acts of military aggression towards them.

There are many reasons to disdain that despicable regime. The only reason to support them is if a person is a fucking asshole.

[Fred Sanders]

6. Your pantry overflows with insult rubbed tripe...impressive.

Takes a lot more than an anonymous poster on a comment board to offend me!

[geek tragedy]

7. I do not worry about offending fans of foreign dictators. nt

[Fred Sanders]

8. The black hat versus the white hat world view is not uncommon. No worries.

[geek tragedy]

9. Hey if you're cool with fascism and bigotry you are

certainly entitled to have that opinion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Well, yes; in the past 24 hours your accusations about me have included:

"If you do not agree with Obama you are agreeing with Republicans and Fox who want a Holy War. " http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6252123
" you think President Obama is the one that is wrong, his critics are correct" http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6252262
"Defending the KKK because they do bake sales" http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6252055

I don't think you're in any position to accuse others of a 'black hat versus the white hat world view'.

[geek tragedy]

66. what's odd is that Obama and Putin are pretty much enemies at this point nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

68. All you are doing is switching the hats.

I agree the world is more nuanced than white hat vs. black hat, but saying "Russia bad because US good" or "US bad because Russia good" is nonsensical.

[Adrahil]

130. This thread advocates a black hat vs white hat world view.

It's a purely West=bad argument.

[Renew Deal]

17. Oppressive and homophobic dictators

But I guess some don't mind oppression of freedoms, homophobia, and imprisoning ones opponents if they show a little bit of opposition to US policy.

[NuclearDem]

30. Shadows of the former Mugabe fan club.

[Renew Deal]

37. And the Kim's

All the same

[sabrina 1]

135. Really? How do you feel about all of our dictator allies? I despise dictators, like the Saudis, eg,

and our buddies the dictators of Bahrain, not to mention Qatar and then there is old Karamov of Uzbekistan, burns his people in oil and delivers their bodies to their families, nice guy.

I want them cut off from this country's list of 'allies' and our tax dollars to stop flowing to keep them in power as they torture and imprison and kill their own people.

How do YOU, who so despises dicatators, feel about the US being so closely allied to so many actual dictators?

I've never heard you state your hatred for dictators. Good go know, we need a lot of support to end this countries support for these monsters.

[TheKentuckian]

181. Those are different, they are "pragmatic" leaders incrementally working for truth, justice, and the

American way it just will take a few thousand years.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Change doesn't happen in one fell swoop.

You don't understand the pressures these fine leaders are under!

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Compromises must be accepted for the greater good.

[HERVEPA]

26. I guess the Rubles keep you happy

[Fred Sanders]

28. Indeed they do. Thousands of rubles per post, it is a living!

[HERVEPA]

43. With the Russian economy tanking, I hope he's paying you enough.

[CreekDog]

62. are you asking us to support Russia's anti-LGBT laws?

or just pretending they don't exist?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Putin is a dictator. That's all I need to know about him.

BTW, I didn't dig Marcos, Somoza, Batista, Franco, and Syngman Rhee either.

[BlueCaliDem]

11. +1000. Russia under Dictator Putin is a dictatorship and NO Leftists should support

that sorry excuse for a government.

[Daemonaquila]

32. That's about it.

All this pro-Russia propaganda makes me sick. Hello, put yourself in Ukraine's shoes. The Ukrainian people have a very similar history and relationship to Russia as the Palestinians have with Israel. Russia has been an enemy, aggressor, and at times despotic ruler of Ukraine for hundreds of years. Get over it - the Ukrainian people have a good reason to want to get out from under the Russian thumb, and it's pretty pathetic that people don't want to understand that. This is about people's lives, not about your political convenience or political theory.

[ND-Dem]

48. where is this 'decent, progressive society' you speak of?

[geek tragedy]

49. Hi! Points to Dem. nt

[ND-Dem]

51. didn't answer the question.

[FSogol]

69. LOL, that rings a Bell!

[msanthrope]

52. Maybe you could post some pics of smiling Russians? nt

[ND-Dem]

53. also didn't answer the question.

[msanthrope]

58. Answer your questions? I'll pass. nt

[NuclearDem]

59. Pyongyang. I thought you knew that?

[geek tragedy]

64. Just like Baltimore. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

70. Hey. Baltimore's got a great mayor.

An up and coming fellow, I've been told.

[geek tragedy]

73. There's a history behind Baltimore

comparisons and one of DU's more notorious past, present, and future DUers.

[kwassa]

125. yeah, and what does Stringer Bell have to say about that ...

[zappaman]

72. Correction...

Better than Baltimore!

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Russia does not want support from LGBT people, if they did they would not oppress our Russian

brothers and sisters. So the straight 'leftists' can do as they please. In terms of this OP, I give you Mel Brooks on rhetoric:
"Rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because Hitler and Mussolini are just as good at rhetoric. But if you can bring these people down with comedy, they stand no chance."

[2banon]

109. LGBT issues are just barely "tolerated" here.. got a Looooong, long way to go before there is actual

respect and acceptance for LGBT PEOPLE in THIS country. i'm not talking about laws that are thankfully changing.. I'm talking about acceptance and respect across the board.

just makes no sense to me whatsoever that is used as a complete nullification for any common sense regard to the extremely volitle geo-political events as it is being played out right in front of your eyes.

It's almost as though you would support nuking Russia because... they HATE the Gays.

Maybe we should NUKE ourselves for being soooo slow to recognize LGBT rights?

[NuclearDem]

131. Oh, what a bunch of horseshit.

Seriously, congratufuckinglations, that may be one of the biggest heaps of it I've read recently.

[2banon]

145. What exactly reads like "horseshit" to you?

You don't think that on the whole LGBT is barely "tolerated" here in the U.S. ?

[NuclearDem]

147. Alright, point by point.

respect and acceptance for LGBT PEOPLE in THIS country. i'm not talking about laws that are thankfully changing.. I'm talking about acceptance and respect across the board.

The expansion of LGBT rights in this country have come in no small part thanks to the rapidly expanding cultural acceptance of the LGBT community by the people. Democrats, Independents, and even a significant portion of Republicans favor allowing same sex marriage, statistics we wouldn't have seen even ten years ago.

Yes, there are serious hurdles to deal with--trans* rights and integrating orientation and identity into equal employment laws, to name a few--but to even insinuate that the US and Russia are even remotely on equal footing when it comes to LGBT rights is just complete horseshit.

just makes no sense to me whatsoever that is used as a complete nullification for any common sense regard to the extremely volitle geo-political events as it is being played out right in front of your eyes.

This is also complete nonsense. Solidarity with the Russian and Ukrainian LGBT communities is not invalidating common sense in Eastern European foreign policy.

Putin appeasement is a complete rejection of common sense, and the reasons for it are despicable:

* Russian and Ukrainian LGBT rights--according to the appeasers, these have to take a back seat as long as Russia is furthering an anti-Western imperialism agenda. Boils down to stabbing our LGBT brothers and sisters in the back for our own ends.

* "Buffer states"--appeasing Putin's desire to not have NATO countries close by treating smaller Eastern European countries like bargaining chips and chess pieces, and not like sovereign nations with their own desires and goals. Essentially harkening back to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

* The enemy of my enemy--defending Putin's Russia and/or deflecting criticism by virtue of Russia being the current thumb in the West's eye. Russia should be "left alone" because they're a force against Western imperialism, regardless of their own crimes. Basically the same reasons people defended Mugabe, Assad, and the Kims.

Thus, the only invalidation of common sense is coming not from the LGBT community and their allies, but the appeasers and the faux anti-imperialists.

It's almost as though you would support nuking Russia because... they HATE the Gays.

Maybe we should NUKE ourselves for being soooo slow to recognize LGBT rights?

And a combination of the previous two points. Very deserved criticism and shunning of Russia for its horrific attitudes towards its LGBT community is not the same thing as wanting war with Russia--advocacy against apartheid didn't require advocating invading South Africa.

And the final nonsense false equivalence--the federal government in Russia has instituted bans on even being gay in public, whereas the US federal government has universally struck down sodomy laws, refused to defend DOMA, allows gays and lesbians to openly serve in its armed forces, has instituted hate crime laws protecting sexual orientation, and is broadening protections for trans* citizens.

Three out of every four Russians believes homosexuality is wrong; essentially the reverse is true for Americans.

Hence, horseshit.

[zappaman]

150. Excellent post.

Horseshit indeed!

[Behind the Aegis]

171. Devastating!

That was fan-fucking-tastic!

[muriel_volestrangler]

155. Some stats - which show USA is much better, and getting better, and Russia is getting worse

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/06/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Homosexuality-Report-FINAL-JUNE-4-2013.pdf

Figures for 'should society accept homosexuality?':
USA 2007 49%; 2013 60%
Russia 2007 20%; 2013 16%

There really is a world of difference.

[pampango]

5. Don't tell the far-right in Europe. They totally support Russia and don't consider it 'liberal'.

They do not view Russia as 'liberal' which is why they support it.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Russian cash will allow Marine Le Pen’s Front National to take advantage of rivals’ woes....

The financial and political firepower of Marine Le Pen’s Front National (FN) is to be transformed by a €40m (£32m) loan from a bank with links to the Kremlin, it has been alleged.

Ms Le Pen confirmed earlier this week that a Russian bank was lending her cash-strapped, far-right party €9m. This is part of a growing pattern of connections between Vladimir Putin’s Russia and far-right and Europhobic parties in the European Union.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/40m-of-russian-cash-will-allow-marine-le-pens-front-national-to-take-advantage-of-rivals-woes-in-upcoming-regional-and-presidential-elections-9888509.html

[FLPanhandle]

36. Also the far right here in the USA

FreeRepublic has a envy problem with Putin.

[Cayenne]

90. Not true

The war jingos shout down any 'Putinistas' that question our drive to war with Russia. It's actually worse there than here.

[LanternWaste]

10. Many half-witted idiots wish everyone would support the expansionist dreams of New Russia

Many half-witted idiots wish everyone would support the expansionist dreams of New Russia at the expense of their neighbors. Bless their little hearts...

[HappyMe]

13. Oh of course!

We should be supporting a goofy dictator that made being lgbt a crime!

[eridani]

31. A citizen of a country with 800+ military bases around the world calls another--

--country expansionist? Russia is actually contractionist, having closed its military bases in eastern Europe and withdrawing troops in 1989.

[geek tragedy]

33. It wasn't Russia back then.

Can you name the land the US has seized, formally or informally, from Mexico or Canada in the past 50 years?

[NuclearDem]

35. First of all, that the US is an expansionist and imperialist power

is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether Russia is one as well. All that is is tu quoque nonsense designed to deflect criticism.

Second, Russia closed military bases across Eastern Europe because the USSR and Warsaw Pact collapsed. Since then, Russia's violated both Ukrainian and Georgian territorial integrity, annexing part of and trying to divide other parts of the former and splitting the latter's country apart into two new countries. They've also refused to allow Chechnya to secede, and did so by nearly wiping Grozny off the face of the earth.

Russia under Putin is an expansionist and imperialist power.

[2banon]

146. O.M.G. Talk about giant heaps of "horsehit" (to use YOUR term)...LOL!

First of all, that the US is an expansionist and imperialist power

is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether Russia is one as well. All that is is tu quoque nonsense designed to deflect criticism.

[NuclearDem]

148. Did you ever take a logic course in high school or college?

Whatever your feelings on US and Russia, there are two separate claims being evaluated here:

Claim 1: Russia is an imperialist, expansionist state.

Claim 2: The US is an imperialist, expansionist state.

These claims are independent of each other. One can be true or false without affecting whether the other is or requiring the other to be true or false.

The post I responded to was fallacious:

Claim 1: Russia is an expansionist, imperialist power.
Evaluation: The US is an expansionist, imperialist power.

First of all, that's a tu quoque fallacy; it doesn't actually address the content of the claim, but simply deflects with "they do it too."

Second, that's not a true or false response. That's another independent claim.

Claim 1: Russia is an expansionist, imperialist state.
Evaluation: Given the events in Ukraine and Georgia, as well as the attitudes of Russian leadership, this claim is true.

Claim 2: The US is an expansionist, imperialist state.
Evaluation: Given the widespread presence of the US armed forces across the world and recent US-led conflicts, this claim is true.

So, thank you for not understanding how logic works and how claims are evaluated.

[2banon]

156. To Wrap This Up. The TWISTED LOGIC employed in the context of East-West Imperialistic powers

competing by completely disregarding/dismissing out of hand the laws of Cause and Effect as if that element is has no significance whatsoever and bears no impact on the geo-political tensions between the two Imperial super-powers, is rather telling of the effects of cold war era brainwashing propaganda at MINIMUM.

I grew up with that pile of red-baiting bullshit that my Lifer Marine father, military school teachers attempted to shove down my throat since the cradle.

To see it all resurrected HERE is astonishing to say the least.

If all you have are nothing more than red-bating insults, we're done.

[NuclearDem]

158. You must have me confused with somebody else.

Because absolutely nowhere in that post was anything resembling red-baiting, nevermind the post being allegedly covered in it.

You can't defend your position, so here comes the persecution escape hatch. Yes, we're very much done here.

[bobclark86]

63. "Russia is actually contractionist"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


If by contractionist you mean their economy, then I see your point.

[eridani]

138. Evidence of plans to recolonize Poland, East Germany, etc?

Let's see the URLs.

[NuclearDem]

149. Baby steps.

Russia's already starting to bully some of their closer former victims:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-inhabitants-of-the-baltic-states-fear-that-they-will-be-next-in-the-firingline-10058085.html

Officials and residents alike fear that after annexing Crimea from Ukraine and assisting a rebellion in the east of the country that is steadily undermining its government in Kiev, Moscow may soon turn its eye to other states where a sizeable minority is ethnically or linguistically Russian.

...

Not only does Latvia have one of the largest minorities of Russian speakers in any European state, but the Kremlin has long accused it of suppressing the rights of its Russian speakers – some 300,000 of whom are officially considered stateless, and thus may neither vote nor hold government positions.
The British Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, warned there was a “real and present danger” that Russia was trying to destabilise the Baltic states. In Riga yesterday Raimonds Vejonis, Latvia’s defence minister, said: “The EU and Nato will not be surprised if Russia intends to do something like that. We are ready, and will be ready to react.”

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0JZ08F20141221?irpc=932

KYBARTAI, Lithuania (Reuters) - Geopolitics plague Lithuanians at this frozen Russian border post, where a return trip by car can mean 48 hours of queuing. It is a reminder for some of why the former Soviet republic will cement its move to the West by joining the euro zone next month.

Tensions with Moscow have simmered ever since Lithuania became the first republic to declare independence from the Soviet Union in 1990, although only 6 percent of the population are Russian speakers, far fewer than in its Baltic neighbours.

...

Russia’s move into Ukraine has awoken fears the Baltics could be next. NATO has scrambled its jets over 150 times this year after Russian sorties, three times more than last year. Moscow held surprise military exercises in Kaliningrad in December with 9,000 troops and 55 ships.

Russian sanctions have hit Lithuania's transport sector, which employs around 100,000, as well as its dairy industry.

http://m.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-29111188

Russia appears to be reopening criminal investigations against Lithuanians who refused to serve in the Soviet armed forces after the country declared independence nearly 25 years ago.

The Lithuanian prosecutor-general's office says Russia has asked for legal assistance over Lithuanians who defied orders to do their Soviet military service in 1990-91, the Delfi news portal reports. But the request was denied, a spokeswoman says, since it does not involve a criminal offence in Lithuania. The news has prompted Lithuanian security services to strongly advise the relevant people not to go to Russia or other non-EU and non-Nato countries for now. Doing so could "jeopardise the personal safety of citizens", they say.

After Lithuania declared independence from the USSR in March 1990, more than 1,500 young men obeyed a call from pro-independence leaders not to join the Soviet military, according to official figures. Almost everyone went into hiding, but dozens of people were jailed or forcibly drafted. Outstanding cases were dropped after the USSR's collapse.

There is reportedly rising concern among Lithuanians that Russia is adopting a more assertive stance towards former Soviet countries. Adding to the tensions, a Russian national was arrested in March in Lithuania in connection with the 1991 attack by Soviet forces on the Vilnius TV tower, in which 14 people died.

[bobclark86]

153. How about Georgia and UKRAINE?!?! n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

71. If only that contractionism applied to Ukraine. nt

[MisterP]

170. so, so far in 10-20 years the mighty expansionist Russkies have managed to grab Crimea

by vote of the people (I admit that's iffy internationally, but still ...) and friendly governments in the whopping big districts of Ossetia South and a Donbass that nobody really wants a la North Ireland

somebody get the smelling salts!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

178. Yes, of course Crimea was "by the vote of the people"

[Bluenorthwest]

225. The discussions of Crimea which conveniently fail to mention the mass deportation of the indigenous

Tatar population by the USSR in the 1940's demonstrated to me the lack of either knowledge or honesty on the part of those defending the Russian invasion of Crimea. Over and over again they said 'it is an ethic Russian majority in Crimea' but never did they point out that the majority was attained by a forced mass relocation to distant areas of hundreds of thousands of Tartar people, a Muslim people that have been in Crimea for hundreds of years. Shoved onto boxcars with no notice and their property coopted by that famous Russian majority who swept in to take the gravy.
One of the largest and swiftest forced relocations in the history of the world. But somehow just not mentioned even when touting the ethnic make up of modern Crimea.
It was a crime against humanity, a collective punishment and a theft on a massive scale. 'It has always been Russian majority in Crimea. Always'.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. Well, I'm not a Leftist, but I AM a Liberal and I DO believe in democracy...

and I can't stand dictatorships no matter what honorable labels they'd like to wrap their dictatorships in. It doesn't change the fact that they're DICTATORS. And as dictatorships often do, they suppress the people and enrich the already obscenely wealthy.

Support that? Thanks but no thanks.

[NuclearDem]

14. Oh, fuck off Draitser.

No good leftist should be defending that homophobic, fascist, imperialist regime, and especially not if the reasoning behind it is solely Russia being the current thumb in the eye of the West.

What a bunch of fucking disgusting tripe.

[BainsBane]

203. The reactions in this thread give me hope

I have see far too much warmongering for Putin. I'm glad to see pushback.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

206. It's like the Tea Party.

It's a small minority school of thought, but one that is incredibly loud, making it seem like a much more popular movement than it actually is.

[leftynyc]

15. Anybody who defends

that piece of crap fascist putin and his repulsive regime is no leftist. Their position on gay rights is reason enough.

[snooper2]

16. ROFL, looked up "Eric Draitser", what a piece

Of course he does Op-ed for RT

he runs a crappy website- If you scroll down about 3/4 the way there is an interview with press tv LOL, and he is a fucking idiot..

http://stopimperialism.org



Also, I never knew Cartman was based on a real person

[KingCharlemagne]

23. The humiliating defeat of the Candyman at DeBaltsevo has showed the

utter emptiness of his leadership and exposed the crisis of legitimacy now facing the putschistas.

That Poroshenko and Yats agreed to a 'ceasefire' that left the status of some 7,000 of their troops unresolved and twisting in the wind should tell Ukrainians everything they need to know about their illustrious leaders.

[Fred Sanders]

27. There are still a thousand or so left behind hiding in the town...the rebels have shown mercy while the

Candy King has shown more of his incompetence and little sympathy for his own militia/troops...which is why he rushed to the outskirts of the town as his forces were allowed to leave....to pretend he does.

How much is the West willing to sacrifice in propaganda and treasure to prop him up and keep alive the dream of NATO force so close to Moscow and its thousand mile indefensible border with Ukraine?

What happens to NATO and the jobs of the generals when peace breaks out instead of war?

[Comrade Grumpy]

168. I don't understand why your post above was hidden.

I guess you expressed the wrong point of view.

[Throd]

20. Wow. That's some industrial grade horseshit right there.

Why anyone on DU would support Putin's nationalistic kleptocracy is beyond me.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

21. I don't understand it either...

But there's plenty of them here. A minority of DUers, to be sure, but vocal nonetheless.

[geek tragedy]

22. Authoritarians. Same crowd that insists that Assad's regime was framed on chemical weapons,

same crowd that cheerleads Maduro in VZ as he arrests journalists and elected officials based on trumped-up charges.

Same people that post love letters to the freaking Berlin Wall. At DU.

Here be Stalinists . . .

[Hekate]

161. "Authoritarians"? I'm so confused by DU.

I've been called an authoritarian for defending Obama. Repeatedly.

I get called other names for insisting that Putin is a little KGB bastard who longs for a return to the Cold War.

What a weird place DU has become.

[geek tragedy]

173. Projection. Those who support/serve as apologists for Putink Gaddhafi, Assad, Maduro, etc

claim that those who choose to support a candidate while believing that such choice should be voluntary are authoritarians, while they write love letters to the Berlin wall and cheer every time Putin invades a country or Maduro throws a political opponent in prison based on trumped-up charges.

They fret about the NSA, but would have us sent to a gulag if given the chance.

They even have a group here at DU where they ban people who criticize Lenin or Stalin's human rights record.

[William769]

29. There is a difference between "Leftists" and Liberal.

That is all.

[Rex]

34. Very true communists in the former USSR were not liberals.

The might be on the left side of the political spectrum (or claim to be), but that doesn't make them any more liberal or progressive then their current dictator Pooty Poot.

ELF terrorists will say they are Lefties, but nothing about them is progressive.

[William769]

39. "leftists" in my book are just like communists.

And I don;t like communists.

[Rex]

40. Me either, they proved that an agrarian based society with a centralized government won't work.

For all the hemming and hawing I heard growing up, Communism proved to be just as susceptible to greed and corruption as capitalism. Probably worse, because there is no oversight of the central government. Also, name me one communist country that has a freely elected PM or president. I'm kidding, there is no such critter.


Hope your day is going well.

[William769]

41. Agreed on all counts.

I am doing good & thanks for asking. I hope you are likewise.

[Maedhros]

55. The author of the OP is using the term "Leftist" simply as "Anti-Establishment"

and then provides a number of erroneous reasons to support Russia.

[Behind the Aegis]

140. Yup.

"Liberals" are generally honestly interested in GLBT rights, as opposed as an "issue" to bludgeon others and mock.

[Rex]

38. The only thing lefties should be doing, is denouncing Russia as a backwards state.

NO true liberal would support the current regime in Russia. Russia is regressing and that is why plenty of GOPers love them some dictator.

If someone says they are a liberal and also supports a dictator, be wary.

[cemaphonic]

42. Seeing Russia as capatilist and revanchist isn't an "ideological posture."

Not when Putin's Ukraine strategy is following the Anschluss-Sudentenland playbook (including the calculation that for all of Russia's complaints of NATO encroachment, the West is unlikely to pursue anything beyond economic/diplomatic penalties).

[SidDithers]

44. The Putin boot-lickers are a fucking disgrace to DU...nt

Sid

[MohRokTah]

47. Agreed. eom

[FSogol]

93. True. They are worse than the chemtrail nonsense.

[joshcryer]

136. +1

[Hekate]

162. A point. A definite point. nt

[KamaAina]

45. 3 Reasons Why Leftists Should Attack Russia | New KamaAina Outlook

1. Rampant homophobia. <more...>
2. Aggression against Ukraine. <more...>
3. Arming the oppressive Syrian regime. <more...>

[Tommy_Carcetti]

75. DUzy! nt

[Behind the Aegis]

139. Yeah, it is.

It shows that GLBT rights are joke to many. Oh sure, they will screech about Obama, Clinton, and red state shenanigans, but when it is something like this, it is a joke. Thankfully, many are actual allies and see through the protestations of some in regards to our equality and right to be treated as humans.

[NuclearDem]

152. I'm getting to the point of wanting to hit something.

The attitude that LGBT rights take a back seat in the grand scheme of anti-Western imperialism and that the LGBT community only despises Russia because it "hurt their pride" has no place here on a progressive forum.

[Behind the Aegis]

172. I know the feeling!

Thankfully, some people are so damn transparent it makes it easier to call them on their bullshit, or as they call it "support for GLBT people." You did a great job above. Glad you decided to hit with your words, because it was a K-O!

[ileus]

46. Most of those would also fit ISIS.

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. Why this leftist refuses.: Russia's Anti-Gay Law, Spelled Out in Plain English

Russia's Anti-Gay Law, Spelled Out in Plain English
On June 30 this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill banning the "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors," thus opening a new, dark chapter in the history of gay rights in Russia. The law caps a period of ferocious activities by the Russian government aimed at limiting the rights of the country’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people.

The violations of fundamental, constitutionally protected rights of Russia’s gay citizens have included multiple bans on gay pride parades in Moscow and other cities, hefty fines to gay rights groups accused of acting as a “foreign agent,” denial of registration to nongovernmental organizations, and regional laws banning the propaganda of homosexuality to minors, which served as a basis for the federal law enacted by Mr. Putin and unanimously passed by the State Duma. Against this backdrop, violent attacks on gays or “suspect gays” are becoming commonplace.

The state-sponsored initiatives relied on ludicrous assumptions. For example, the regional bans on propaganda of homosexuality equated same-sex relations with pedophilia even though the former has been legal since 1993 and the latter is, of course, a serious crime. The court decision denying registration to Sochi Pride House states that “propaganda of nontraditional sexual orientation” is a direct threat to Russian society, while calling attempts to confront homophobia “extremist” because they inherently “incite social and religious hatred.” Essentially, the court ruled that gays incite hatred toward themselves and should be “protected” from doing so. The court went on to argue that such extremist activities present a threat to “Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” The Russian government uses these flawed arguments when it defends its discriminatory ways to an international audience. Russian diplomats are fond of saying that discrimination does not exist in Russia because the country’s constitution forbids it. Some logic!

Russia’s courts and diplomats — and President Putin — cannot be trusted to explain the status of gay rights in the country, but the European Court of Human Rights can. In April 2011, the Strasbourg court fined Russia for violating articles 11, 13, and 14 of the European Convention by banning 164 pride events and marches between 2006 and 2008. The unanimous decision in Alekseyev v. Russia came into force after the Russian government lost its appeal in Strasbourg, yet although the Kremlin paid the fine, they continued to ban pride rallies. In May 2012, a district court in Moscow issued a ruling banning such events in the city until May 2112. That’s Russia’s approach: pay the fine, admit nothing, and make things worse.

We are fighting for these rights here in the west. We should not support a far right wing regime in Russia.

[Agnosticsherbet]

57. Russia's anti-women laws.

The World’s Craziest Anti-Women Laws
And Russian lawmakers decided that “labor of females on hard, dangerous and/or unhealthy trades...is forbidden.” This sweeping statement covers 456 different types of work, including driving trains, carpenting, frontline firefighting, and sailing.

[Maedhros]

56. So, MattSh - what is your motivation for posting this OP?

I find it hard to believe that anyone on DU would actually agree with it. Why should "Leftists" support a reactionary, predatory-capitalist, oppressive nation such as Russia? I support the Russian people in their struggle for civil rights and economic justice, but the Russian government is a problem not a solution.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

76. Putin apology, plain and simple.

That label is overused at DU. Not all who excuse Russia's actions towards Ukraine are actual Putin apologists. Most are simply useful idiots whose healthy skepticism of US foreign policy is exploited by those who wish to champion Russian actions that we've justifiably opposed.

But there's that, and then there's out and out Putin apology.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024677598

This recent situation in Crimea, I believe, is a godsend. First, it has permitted the situation here in Kiev to assume a certain level of normalcy. And I've been thinking recently that how much better the 20th century would have been if, within the first couple of months of Hitler's rule in Germany, someone had decided it was time to put an end to his nonsense and went ahead and invaded Germany. Maybe people in the states don't learn from history, but it certainly looks like Mr. Putin has.

[MattSh]

77. Oh, so I need a motivation now?

OK. To paraphrase you...

Why should "Leftists" support a reactionary, predatory-capitalist, oppressive nation such as the USA?

If Russia is so suppressive of human rights, why does Russia have twice the percentage of women in management positions than the USA? If Russia is so suppressive of human rights, why does Russia have a higher percentage of college graduates, many of whom are paid to go to college? If Russia is so suppressive of human rights, why does Russia have a literacy rate of 99.7% vs 99% for the USA?

Oooh, the poor suppressed Russian people. The only good college education, it seems, is one you have to pay for until the age of 55. By that standard, indeed Americans are not suppressed, are they?

Plus, why should anyone living outside the USA support an empire that will suppress them every chance they get?

[Maedhros]

83. Ah. Now I understand.

Off to the dustbin for you.

[MattSh]

87. Don't go away mad... just go away you mean?

до свидания вас слишком

[geek tragedy]

100. That would suit many of us. Ethnonationalism is frowned upon here.

It's nice that you identify with the Russian people, but it's no reason to support their awful, evil government.

Also, the vast majority of people here love the United States and want to improve it. We do not hate the United States, so your message is doubly unpersuasive.

There are plenty of places on the internet for people who love fascism and hate the United States. This is not one of them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

85. Contrary to what you've might been told, the purpose of DU isn't to shit all over the USA.

Last edited Fri Feb 20, 2015, 07:27 PM - Edit history (2)

Take a healthy objective view of its policies? Absolutely.

Criticize US policy when necessary? Of course. That was in full force regarding the Iraq War, and never had I been more proud of the left in my life.

But we're not here just to tear about the country where most of us do live and most of us do want to see do well via smart, progressive policy.

[Number23]

106. "the purpose of DU isn't to shit all over the USA."

It's sad that due to the actions of a small but INCREDIBLY loud contingent here, that even had to be stated.

[Hekate]

164. Thank you

[Hekate]

163. Thank you

[NuclearDem]

94. Piss poor social programs in the US does not constitute suppression of rights.

The US should have a more robust educational system and free undergraduate education, and there should be more equality in the workplace.

That said, the US doesn't jail people for "homosexual propaganda", nor did RATM or the Dixie Chicks get thrown in prison for speaking out against Bush.

[Hekate]

165. Thank you

[Tommy_Carcetti]

60. Wow. That's a doozy.

I don't even know where to begin, whether it be Russia's blatant violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, its horrific crackdown on free speech and human rights, its backwards approach towards gay rights, its distorted state run media.

But yeah, we should totally get behind Russia. I mean, totally.

[malaise]

61. You'd be surprised how many folks on this planet share this view

We know that the world needs more than one superpower.

[geek tragedy]

65. The world has another superpower, it's called China. Russia as currently constituted has no

constructive role to play.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

67. Being contrarian can only get you so far.

Embracing a seriously dysfunctional and dangerous regime simply because you worry about our own imperialism is an incredibly foolish mindset.

[NuclearDem]

96. The world doesn't need any superpowers.

Much less one that's so virulently anti-LGBT.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

74. No thanks. I'm good with not doing that. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

79. The Cold War is over, buddy.

You're 25 years too late on that one.

What does the Cold War have to do with Russia's current backwards foreign and domestic policies?

[Throd]

80. Maybe he was rooting for team USSR back in the day.

[zappaman]

124. If he's not your buddy, then why did you call him "buddy"?

Buddy...

[SidDithers]

82. The Putin boot-lickers speak with just1voice...

they're as predictable as a StarburstClock.

Sid

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. What a website - a Russian self-proclaimed partner of the far right anti-semitic 'Veterans Today'

(see bar on right of journal-neo.org). I wonder who runs it?

Oh, the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Why would a Russian website choose, of all the Americans sites to 'partner' with, a far right, anti-semitic site?

Veterans Today (VT) is a website that bills itself as a “military veterans and foreign affairs journal.” And, indeed, many of its contributors are military veterans or veterans’ advocates from across the political spectrum. VT also offers some information about veterans’ benefits (lifted from the Veterans’ Administration) and links to home and other loans for vets.

But start reading the posts, and you’ll find something else entirely: myriad claims that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 (Israel orchestrated it, in cahoots with the American government), that the American government is a puppet (of Israel), that the Holocaust never happened or was greatly exaggerated (Jews made it up to manipulate non-Jews), and, most recently, that Julian Assange, the man behind Wikileaks, is a pawn (of Israel).

Notice a theme?

Gordon Duff, the senior editor and chairman of the board at VT, is a prolific proponent of these anti-Israel conspiracy theories, including the Wikileaks claims. Though he does occasionally write on issues and policies that directly affect American veterans (he claims to be a Marine Vietnam veteran), most of his ammo is reserved for churning out articles that claim 9/11 was a U.S./Israel conspiracy and that Israel controls the U.S. government. According to Duff and VT contributors like author and attorney Jeff Gates, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a civil rights watchdog group, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group, are Zionist-controlled fronts for Israeli intelligence operations.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/01/06/buyer-beware-veterans-today-and-its-anti-israel-agenda/

Long time DUers will know that links to Veterans Today are normally hidden here, if a jury knows what it's doing.

So, we have a Russian website that is keen on the American far right, telling leftists they should be supporting Putin. No, nothing odd about that at all ...

[stevenleser]

88. I'm proud of being a DUer when I see how few are taken in by this garbage.

So in a sense, thanks for this OP.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

91. Much like the Tea Party, Putin apology is a noisy fringe minority here at DU.

Their vocal presence should not be confused with majority support.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

89. I love the section about "Defending Historical Memory"

Saying that we ought to support Russia now because the USSR fought against the Nazis 70 years ago. (Which apparently the US didn't?!?!?)

Which is all well and good, of course, until you get to the little tricky thing that was Stalinism.

[cemaphonic]

92. And the implication that building economic and diplomatic ties to Ukraine (and elsewhere in E Europe

is an example of nefarious "Western Imperialism," but Russia's direct military involvement is no big deal, and not imperialist at all.

[NuclearDem]

95. It reminds of how right wingers used to shit all over France

for opposing the Iraq War. The French just weren't very grateful for their liberation 70 years ago!

And people also seem to conveniently forget the USSR was more than happy at one time to carve up Eastern Europe with the Nazis as long as it allowed them to illegally occupy Poland and the Baltics and continue their genocide against Ukrainians.

[arendt]

97. FDR was in an alliance w Stalin because - pragmatism

I am deeply offended, but hardly surprised, at the non-stop name-calling that greeted a post that tries to point out that sometimes (actually, a lot of times) the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Hasn't that been our strategy in the Middle East? The Saudis are fundamentalist, misogynist funders of Taliban, Al Qaida, and now ISIS; but the US claims them as allies and honorable beheaders.

Our policy if full of contradictions for pragmatic reasons.

I have not heard anyone but the OP discuss pragmatic reasons why the Russians are doing the Left services, whether they intend to or not.

I long since gave up arguing about Russia on this board. The attitude here can be summed up by:

Hitler was a vegetarian; therefore, all vegetarians are Nazis.

Just substitue Putin for Hitler and pro-BRICS for vegetarianism.

It is the same kind of guilt by association that Joe McCarthy used to destroy an active Left in America.

But, you name callers. Go ahead. Have a blast. I'm sure the neocon warmongers will praise your useful-idiotness for weeks to come.

[NuclearDem]

99. Ho boy.

I am deeply offended, but hardly surprised, at the non-stop name-calling that greeted a post that tries to point out that sometimes (actually, a lot of times) the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Hasn't that been our strategy in the Middle East? The Saudis are fundamentalist, misogynist funders of Taliban, Al Qaida, and now ISIS; but the US claims them as allies and honorable beheaders.

Yeah, and that strategy's worked out brilliantly, hasn't it? Nobody here likes that the US is in bed with Saudi Arabia, and we wish we weren't. So that point is utter nonsense.

Hitler was a vegetarian; therefore, all vegetarians are Nazis.

Just substitue Putin for Hitler and pro-BRICS for vegetarianism.

Let me fix that for you:

Hitler was a vegetarian; therefore, if you condemn the Holocaust you hate animals.

So let me see if I can boil this down:

You want lefties to defend Russia using a principle that the US has adopted to allow it to support brutal, repressive regimes in order to fight someone else. Russia's diminished press freedoms, jailing of dissidents, war crimes, and complete lack of LGBT rights can be excused because...BRICS is good?

[arendt]

104. I never said defend Russia, I said let them do our work.

I am silent on the matter of who is right. And yet that silence is good for the Left.

Russia is tying up neocon resources that could be put to use in further overthrows of Latin American governments, like Honduras (2009), and the latest attempt in Venezuela. That is good for the left in Latin America.

Russia is putting economic pressure on the insane austerity-mad Western Alliance. That pressure may have played a role in Greece getting some slack from the ECB. That is good for the PIIGS, shafted by the neoliberals.

The OP tried to put those topics on the table, but the hate-hate-hate gang here doesn't want a discussion. They want a jihad.

I have no brief for any side.

I think Putin and his clique are brutal gangsters with the full support of a nation that has been brutalized by its rulers for 500 years, and by the Nazis and then the Cold War and then Shock Therapy.

I think the Ukrainians are Nazis funded by US neocon Nazis. Lvov/Lviv has been part of seven countries since 1900. There were NINTEEEN battles of Kiev in the Russian Civil War of 1919-1921. The place doesn't have an identity, as much as it has an identity crisis. It is every bit as artificial a construct as the Arab state borders. And it is falling apart for exactly the same reasons.

I think America has devolved to Rome. We loot things. We bully people. Only the rich have any say in our "democracy". Why does the US stick its fingers into places like Ukraine? Because our neocons want chaos so we can impose neoliberalism and austerity and loot the place blind while the suckers there murder each other (see Iraq War 2 Sunni Vs. Shia). Our NSA/CIA is completely out of control. Snowden taught us that. Am I supposed to throw the Kaspersky report on bugged hard drives into the trash because it came from Russia? Again, the Russians have done the US left a service, and we did not have to ask them to do it.

Does anyone here remember pragmatism anymore? Or did that go away like "nuance"?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

114. "I think the Ukrainians are Nazis funded by US neocon Nazis."

Well, okay then.

How's that for "nuance"?




Speaking as a Ukrainian-American with relatives in Lviv, and who is well aware that there has long been a Ukrainian cultural identity in that region regardless of the powers that govern it.

[arendt]

115. See Right Sector. See Bandera. See Ukr govt.

The country's leadership are either neo-Nazis or in bed with neo-Nazis. The majority of neo-Nazis come from the Western part of the Ukraine. Because of military reverses, these neo-Nazis are now expressing their discontent with Poroshenko. Discontent = making noises like Maidan 3 (why 3 I'm not sure).

The fact you have relatives in Lviv changes the political situation not at all.

The fact that Lviv, which is over 500 miles from Eastern Ukraine, has some local identity does not contradict my claim that the current geographic boundaries of Ukraine are artificial. Are you saying that people from the far West of a country 800 miles long propose to speak for people from the far East of that country? That will work out well.

I worked with a guy from Lviv, only he called it Lvov. He went to school in Moscow. He thinks of himself as Russian.

Personal stories are anecdotes, not data.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

116. Psst. Right Sector isn't part of the Ukrainian government. Never was, actually.

The other controversial ultra-nationalist political party, Svoboda, is no longer part of the ruling majority either, and only played a small role in the beginning. So you're completely wrong from the very get-go.

As for the notion that the concept of Ukraine is "artificial", you're wrong on that count as well. You compare it to a constructed Arab state such as Iraq. But there's no language called Iraqi, nor do you have people centuries ago calling themselves Iraqi. You can't say the same for Ukrainians living within the current day borders of Ukraine. People in that region have been considering themselves Ukrainian for centuries, and it's rather insulting to dismiss them as a fictional, modern day invention.

You fancy yourself quite an expert on the situation, but in reality you're quite clueless.

[arendt]

120. So the Russian-speakers in Novorussia, how do they fit...

into your nice, clean simple story?

At the same time, on a number of occasions the workforce was transferred by non-violent means, usually by means of "recruitment" . This kind of recruitment was regularly performed at forced settlements, where people were naturally more willing to resettle. For example, the workforce of the Donbass and Kuzbass mining basins is known to have been replenished in this way.

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union

Large numbers of "Ukrainians" were settled into Donbass by the Soviet Union.

Are you going to tell me they are part of the people "centuries ago calling themselves" Ukrainians?

Then there is the matter of Kruschev unilaterally giving away Crimea, a territory that had been Russian on that scale of centuries which you like so much.

On 19 February 1954 the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian SSR.

- Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea

The pro-Ukraine lobby is so incensed that Crimea voted to return to its historic roots, yet they make the same argument about a fictititious historical Ukraine. Which is the historical Ukraine? Let's try Ruthenia:

"Ruthenia" was used to describe Rus': the wider area occupied by the Ancient Rus' (commonly referred to as Kievan Rus'). This historical territory corresponds to modern Ukraine and Belarus, as well as western Russia. However, the geographical implications of "Ruthenia" and "Russia" began to diverge in meaning as early as the 14th century.

In modern usage, "Ruthenia" refers often to Red Ruthenia alone, or an even smaller region centred on Zakarpattia Oblast (the Transcarpathian administrative region) of south-western Ukraine. It is therefore strongly associated with areas inhabited by Rusyn minorities. Red Ruthenia also includes the former kingdom of Galicia (Halychyna (Ukrainian: Галичина, Halychyna; Rusyn: Галичина; Polish: Galicja; Russian: Галиция, Galitsiya; Slovak: Halič .

- Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenia

Boy, that is real clear. Not.
-----

I don't know much more than what I can Google, but that is enough to blow holes in your high-handed claims of expertise.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

174. Not sure what your ultimate argument/endgame is here.

Is it a dissolution of the "fictitious" Ukrainian state, with its land being ceded to Russia and Poland or other countries which you may claim have a historical right to Ukrainian land? Clearly you have some sort of serious antipathy towards Ukraine and its culture, despite the existence of documentable facts showing that people identifying themselves as Ukrainians with a distinct Ukrainian culture have been living within the land contained by modern Ukrainian borders for centuries now? I just wonder what the reason for your clear hostility is.

No one is denying that Ukraine is a bit of a melting pot, that the country has been influenced by Russian culture and Polish culture to some extent. On the other hand, Ukrainian culture and language is arguably the most direct descendant to the ancient Kievan Rus people, even more so than Russian culture that splintered off from the ancient Rus. And the Rus empire at its height--when it was centered in Ukraine, covered just about all land contained in modern day Ukraine with the exception of Crimea, which was Tatar.

You talk about "Novorossiya"/the Donbass region having ethnic Russians settled into it by the Soviets. Funny though why you don't talk about why so many Russians were brought in to that area of Ukraine in the 30s and 40s....basically it was because many of the ethnic Ukrainians living in that portion of Ukraine were starved off in the Holodomor. So whether you've intended to do so or not, you've essentially glossed over genocide and ethnic cleansing. Congratulations, I hope you're proud of yourself.

As to Crimea, Russia's historical ties to it are not nearly as long standing as you want to have us believe. Basically Russia could claim less than two and a half centuries of influence on Crimea during which time the region was Russified. But the Tatar people have a much longer standing historical claim to Crimea. Sadly, the vast majority of Tatars were deported from Crimea by Stalin, but they had begun to return up until Russia's annexation last year. Arguably, Crimea is neither historically Ukrainian or Russian, but given that in the absence of independence the Tatar people are far more inclined to identify with Ukraine than Russia, the inclusion of Crimea within the Ukrainian state is not that far fetched. Clearly it makes sense geographically. And Khrushchev's transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR is pretty much a non-issue, since it was an internal transfer of Soviet land.

But your blatant denial of the existence of a historical Ukrainian ethnicity in the face of facts and what you wish to do with that denial is, well, curious.

[arendt]

179. Do you not read what I write?

I already addressed this issue:

The fact that Lviv, which is over 500 miles from Eastern Ukraine, has some local identity does not contradict my claim that the current geographic boundaries of Ukraine are artificial.

I do NOT say there is no such thing as a Ukranian identity/culture. (i.e., I do NOT say, as you claim, that Ukraine is "fictitious".) I do say that such identity is NOT coterminous with the current borders of the Ukraine.

I continue to insist the current borders are the result of recent political decisions. The place has been fought over for centuries, as I already cited:

There were NINTEEEN battles of Kiev in the Russian Civil War of 1919-1921. The place doesn't have an identity, as much as it has an identity crisis. It is every bit as artificial a construct as the Arab state borders. And it is falling apart for exactly the same reasons.

Meanwhile, you are busy making dubious claims:

As to Crimea, Russia's historical ties to it are not nearly as long standing as you want to have us believe. Basically Russia could claim less than two and a half centuries of influence on Crimea during which time the region was Russified.

Oh, I see. America has only been a nation for less than 250 years. It got that way by Europeanizing the continent. Therefore, we should apologize and give America back to the Indian Nations.

Another claim:

And Khrushchev's transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR is pretty much a non-issue, since it was an internal transfer of Soviet land.

I see, when Kruschev did it by dictatorial fiat, it was a non-issue. When the local people decided in a referendum that they didn't agree with the Maidan coup, that is completely unacceptable. More double standard.

Finally:

you don't talk about why so many Russians were brought in to that area of Ukraine in the 30s and 40s....basically it was because many of the ethnic Ukrainians living in that portion of Ukraine were starved off in the Holodomor.

I don't talk about it because it is yet another reason why the current boundaries of Ukraine are guaranteed to start a civil war. Yes, the ethnic Ukranians hate the Russians for solid historical (circa 1930) reasons. And the ethnic Russians hate the Bandera-ists (and their flaunting of neo-Nazi paraphenalia and slogans) in the Ukranian government for solid historicial (circa 1940) reasons. Bottom line: everyone is justified in their hatred of each other. These facts simply reinforce my claim that the current borders are completely artificial and a primary cause of the current fighting.

I mean no disrespect to any person living (or dead) within the current borders of Ukraine. They have all had a very hard life (or death) for almost a century. But I fail to see that picking a dog in this fight serves anyone but the neocon warmongers who wholeheartedly funded and supported the Maidan coup.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

187. Funny thing.

You present Ukraine within its modern borders as essentially a fatally dysfunctional entity bound to dissolve.

Yet, in the spring of 2014--after Yanukovych flew out of Ukraine and Russia had seized Crimea but before the situation in the East devolved into full-fledged armed conflict (the Ukrainian government was essentially taking a wait and see approach to see whether people who had seized government buildings in the East would back down), there was a Pew poll taken as to whether Ukraine should remain a unified country. 77% of Ukrainians agreed it should. But even more importantly, 70% of Ukrainians living in the East agreed Ukraine should remain a unified country. Which is pretty good, given at the time you had armed groups in the East seizing government buildings and demanding secession/annexation by Russia.

There's no doubt that in Ukraine, since independence in 1991 (and even before independence) there were differences in attitudes and approaches between east and west Ukraine. However, for over 20 years those differences were never so great that it threatened the unified existence of the country. Why all of a sudden in 2014 was Ukraine suddenly doomed to fracture apart? People might say it was because of the February 2014 revolution, but it's not like Ukraine was a stranger to revolution. The country didn't break apart in 2005 after the Orange Revolution. No, the threats to a unified Ukrainian state only seemed to manifest after Russian troops moved into Crimea literally just days after Yanukovych skipped town, and suddenly Crimea was demanding annexation by Russia. And then very shortly thereafter, similar demands by armed men are made in Luhansk and Donetsk. There's a certain "X" factor that I think you are willfully ignoring here.

As to your other points:

Meanwhile, you are busy making dubious claims:

As to Crimea, Russia's historical ties to it are not nearly as long standing as you want to have us believe. Basically Russia could claim less than two and a half centuries of influence on Crimea during which time the region was Russified.

Oh, I see. America has only been a nation for less than 250 years. It got that way by Europeanizing the continent. Therefore, we should apologize and give America back to the Indian Nations.

All I'm saying is that the insinuation that Russia's roots in Crimea date back to ancient times is patently false and that it was only until much later in history that Russia had any significant presence in Crimea. As I said before, neither Russia nor Ukraine have much of a historical claim to Crimea, so neither side can really argue that as a basis to claim that land. That being said, at the time of independence in 1991, Crimea was Ukrainian territory, and Russia agreed by treaty to acknowledge that and not make any attempts to violate Ukrainian sovereignty. That was blatantly ignored by Russia in February and March 2014. You can't dance around Russia's in your face violation of prior agreements as it relates to Crimea.

Another claim:

And Khrushchev's transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR is pretty much a non-issue, since it was an internal transfer of Soviet land.

I see, when Kruschev did it by dictatorial fiat, it was a non-issue. When the local people decided in a referendum that they didn't agree with the Maidan coup, that is completely unacceptable. More double standard.

It was indeed a non-issue because in 1954 all that happened was an internal shuffling of the Soviet cards, nothing more and nothing less. It would be like if the US were to declare that Michigan's upper peninsula was being transferred to Wisconsin. It's all part of subdivisions of the US. If you knew anything at all about the Soviet Union, Moscow kept a pretty tight leash on all its subjects so whether it was Russian SSR Crimea or Ukrainian SSR Crimea, it was all more or less the same Soviet subjugation, and the transfer was done obviously without the after-acquired knowledge that the USSR would break up decades later. When it ultimately did, treaties were made and Russia was supposed to abide by its word.

I do have to laugh at your characterization of what happened in Crimea in February/March 2014. As if Crimeans just out of the blue and all on their own decided to hold a referendum as to whether or not they wanted to join Russia. No mention whatsoever about the Russian tanks and columns that rolled in and seized government buildings, airports, military bases, and harbors in the immediate run-up to the infamous March 16th vote.

Finally, I see you are still sticking to your position that what happened in February 2014 in Ukraine was the effort of "the neocon warmongers who wholeheartedly funded and supported the Maidan coup" despite a glaring lack of evidence that any such "coup" ever occurred, whether it be sponsored by "neocon warmongers" or not.

Well, if anything, you're consistent.

[arendt]

192. It's easy to be consistent when you're telling the truth

Finally, I see you are still sticking to your position that what happened in February 2014 in Ukraine was the effort of "the neocon warmongers who wholeheartedly funded and supported the Maidan coup" despite a glaring lack of evidence that any such "coup" ever occurred, whether it be sponsored by "neocon warmongers" or not.

Well, if anything, you're consistent.

Finally, I give up. You are completely in the propaganda bubble. What happened with Maidan was not a coup? Give.me.a.break. Armed mobs forced the legitimately elected president to flee. The Rada members of the president's party also fled for their lives. But no, nothing to see here. Move on.

"whether it be sponsored by neocons...or not" - nice dodge. We all saw uber-warmonger McCain and hardcore neocon Vikki "fuck the EU" Nuland out there giving aid and comfort to the coup makers. We heard Nuland say that the US had invested $5 B to get Ukraine to the sorry state of polarization that caused the trouble. The CIA has a group in Kiev "instructing/coordinating" the Ukrainian war effort. But you are unwilling to admit that the neocons sponsored all this, despite the fact that the whole mess has their fingerprints and M.O. all over it.

To repeat, I.give.up.

You sound like a poor person who votes Republican. You must understand that your position insures Ukraine will be raped by the IMF - worse than Greece, because they are poorer. You understand that all the West wants from Ukraine is their agricultural land and the oil pipelines (to screw with Russia).

Go live in your paradise. Oh, I forgot. You live here.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

204. Self-delete is your friend.

Click the little red "X", i.e. the third button from the right-hand corner of the box your message is contained in.

You're welcome.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

198. Yes. What happened with Maidan was not a coup, period.

Words matter, and their definitions matter.

Webster's definition of "Coup d'état" clearly reads:

: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'%C3%A9tat

So let's break it down for you.

First of all, you can't identify the "small group" that executed the "coup". Clearly you can't mean the Maidan protesters themselves, because they are hardly a "small group."



Then you have to consider violence, or at least the threat of violence. And yes, the Maidan protests had become rather violent, albeit the vast majority of the casualties being the protesters themselves. But really you have to put into context the manner in which Yanukovych left Kiev. Because you claim he "fled for his life." And while I'm sure there was a concern in the back of his mind that he might end up Ceausescu'ed by the protesters, his state of mind his last few days in office was rather calm and orderly, even in the background of all the chaos downtown.

In other words, it was a calculated, voluntary, thought out decision on his part.

Why do I say that? I say that because it took him three days to pack up. Three days. And he started packing on February 19, 2014 before the sniper shooting incident on Maidan and before the EU brokered deal. And he didn't just pack up his essentials. He packed up literally truckloads of oil paintings, antique vases and other valuable frivolities. Why would someone supposedly fleeing for his life take the time to make sure his valuable luxuries were carefully bubble-wrapped? If you were running for your life, is that really what you'd be thinking about?

And then he got into his own personal fleet of helicopters and flew away in the early morning hours of February 22, 2014. All without a single gun being placed to his head forcing him to do so. You see, he had a decision. He could attempt to squelch the protesters, and perhaps he could have ultimately won (after all, Assad is still kicking it). Of course, he'd still be a man incredibly hated by his own people. On the other hand, he could choose to go to a place where he'd been offered sanctuary (in this case being Russia) and live an incredibly comfortable life as a private citizen. And that's what he chose to do.

Lest you think I'm just talking out of my ass here, there's three days worth of video of Yanukovych packing up and flying away.

(The first video is rather long, but Yanukovych himself is seen at 13:45 in the video)

Then you have to consider the "existing government" element of a coup, and you will be forced to admit that the Rada was not dissolved by anyone. The constitution was not dissolved was anyone. All that happened was that Yanukovych up and left. The Rada then removed him for dereliction of duty, and appointed an interim president until new elections could be held (which they were, three months later in May). I'm hard pressed to find any regime change labeled a "coup" that even remotely follows these lines of fact.

So no, if you follow the commonly accepted definition of the word "coup", this was certainly not a coup. If you have some sort of alternate definition from the Arendt dictionary that you'd like to share, by all means, do so.

You accuse me of having a foolish mindset towards Ukraine and go into what you believe will be the consequences of the IMF. To be honest, I have no idea what might happen down the road with the IMF. That's not my concern with your position. My concern with your position is that it's fundamentally dishonest as it relates to the facts, and therefore you are the one with little regard to the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian people were tired of the ongoing corruption from their president, and were incensed when he chose to ally the country with Russia, a country whose leader has denied the existence of the Ukrainian people as a nation. So they protested, Yanukovych attempted to crackdown on the protests but was unable to break them. So ultimately he made the decision to leave. It's as simple as that.

So, no. It was not a coup.

[arendt]

214. The CIA has been running coups since 1953

I have seen this movie so many times that I am bored with the script.

The CIA had been buying up Iranian journalists, preachers, army and police officers, and members of parliament, who were instructed to forment opposition to the government. The CIA also purchased the services of the extremist Warriors of Islam , a "terrorist gang", according to the CIA history of the coup. In August, (Kermit) Roosevelt began setting mobs loose to create chaos in the capital. His street thugs, pretending to be members of the Tudeh party, attacked mullahs and destroyed a mosque...in the midst of the anarchy, Roosevelt brought General Zahedi out of his CIA hiding place...After and armed battle, coup plotters arrested Mossadeq and thousands of his supporters...Some were executed. Mossadeq was convicted of treason and imprisoned.

- O. Stone and P. Kuznick, The Untold History of the United States

Buying up the government: Vicki Nuland: (paraphrase) "We spent $5B on Ukraine".

Purchasing extremists: See the neo-Nazis you try so hard to whitewash.

Turn lose mobs to create chaos in the capital: check.

False flag attack on mosque: unidentified snipers shoot BOTH sides. At the time, a brave nurse reported that the wounded on both sides were shot the same way. A year later, BBC reports about a guy who was taken to a sharpshooter nest by a prominent neo-Nazi.

Arresting the president: Yanukovich fleeing for his life is "evidence" that he was in the wrong. Excuse me, he had sixty years of evidence what happens to democratically elected leaders on the wrong end of a CIA coup.

Bringing out "their guy": Isn't it amazing that the former boxer, Klichko, who led the peaceful demonstrations all but vanished from the political radar immediately after the coup. Meanwhile, "Yats is our man" is prime minister, and Pariuby(spelling?) the founder of a neo-Nazi party is visiting Washington to shill for weapons.

-----

None of these facts make it into your version of events. I already mentioned the propaganda bubble you live inside. You don't have to tell lies to be a propagandist. You only have to omit one side of the story.

The scenario here is the same scenario the CIA has used since 1953. It is the same scenario that just failed in Venezuela. That succeeded in Honduras in 2009. The list of CIA sponsored coups runs to the dozens. But, anyone who is awake can see what is going on here. You might think the CIA would come up with something a little less obvious; but I guess they figure they are now so powerful they can just smash their way to victory.

The fact that you refuse to see what is directly in front of your face makes you either a patriotic Ukranian "useful idiot" or a neocon sock puppet.

------

You accuse me of having a foolish mindset towards Ukraine and go into what you believe will be the consequences of the IMF. To be honest, I have no idea what might happen down the road with the IMF. That's not my concern with your position.

Wow. Just wow. You have six years of the IMF torturing Greece, and you "have no idea". That is "not my concern".

You are such a fraudulent "patriot". How do you sleep at night.

--------

As the saying goes: you cannot wake a man pretending to be asleep.


We are done here.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

216. If you have actual evidence that what happened in Ukraine was a coup, bring it.

But "it's happened before" is not evidence. Just because something happened 60 years ago in Iran doesn't automatically mean it happened again in Ukraine.

Do you have actual evidence that the CIA paid off groups within the Maidan movement to cause trouble, or are you just randomly speculating here? We know the "$5 billion" argument has been grossly misconstrued and twisted by people like you. That argument was rated "Pants on Fire" by Politifact. See for yourself:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/

Now, do you have actual evidence that the United States actually paid groups within Maidan for the express purpose of "creating chaos"? You are aware that the chaotic nature of the protests was in good part due to Yanukovych's own violent crackdown on protesters by Berkut riot police from almost the very beginning of the Maidan movement. But as you say, "You don't have to tell lies to be a propagandist. You only have to omit one side of the story."

Interesting thing about the alleged "false flag attack". If you read the BBC story, the "Sergei" individual who claims to have been a sniper never actually identifies who he claims to have been working for or why he was supposedly doing what he claims he did. You claim he was working for Maidan protesters, but that's your own conclusion. And that assumes that "Sergei" was telling the truth in making the claims. But even if you believe the very worst about the February 20th sniper shootings (as you apparently do)--that the protesters themselves were behind the shootings--in the end, it doesn't really matter. Yanukovych had already been packing for a day by the time the shootings took place. He had already made up his mind to leave. If anything, the February 20th sniper shootings were but a tragic, bloody footnote on the events in Madian. No more and no less.

As to Yanukovych himself, you brush off the fact that he took three days to meticulously pack up truckloads of valuables while downtown Kiev was literally burning. You characterize that behavior as "fleeing for his life", as if protesters had already stormed his palace gates and were rushing towards the mansion with Kalashnikovs and he just got out in the nick of time with only the clothes on his back. You've seen the videos (I presume at least--I gave them to you.) Obviously that was not the case. Now you say he was afraid of the CIA and that's why he left. Honestly, I doubt the CIA was the his major concern in what was ultimately a calculated, voluntary decision in his part to leave. I think he was more concerned by the tens of thousands of people in downtown Kiev at the time who had withstood his considerable efforts to break. He could stick around as Ukraine's most hated man, or he could go off as private citizen and live a charmed life in a place that didn't hate his guts. And so he chose the latter. It was his call, not ours or anyone else's.

As for Vitali Klitschko, he's hardly "vanished from the political radar" given that he's only the current Mayor of Kiev and considered a key political ally to the president. Yatsenyuk is the prime minister, while Yanukovych was the president and Poroshenko currently is the president. So if the insinuation is that the US wanted to switch out Yanukovych for Yatsenyuk, I think you are a little confused. (And Pariuby's neither the president nor prime minister and isn't currently even in the governing Cabinet, so there's that.)

As for the IMF, neither you nor I know how it will turn out. Who knows, maybe it will turn out bad, a la Greece. But we just don't know, and frankly that's far less of a factor to most Ukrainians as it is to people like you. (You are aware that the IMF has had a relationship with Ukraine since 1992, right? So we're not talking about something that is necessarily radically different at this point.)

Here's my problem with people like you. You claim Ukraine is being carved up by the US and the West and that your concern is who will speak out for the Ukrainian people. Except then you guys minimize and essentially deny the fact that there were actual protests by hundreds of thousands of actual Ukrainians (who were supported by millions more actual Ukrainians) about actual issues regarding Ukraine with underlying concerns about the intentions of Ukraine's actual neighbors. You don't give a shit about those people. And so you sit behind your computer, linking to Robert Parry articles as you weave ridiculous conspiracy theories about a US sponsored coup without any actual evidence to back it up. And it is so incredibly insulting to the people who actually lived those events.

Sure, we're all here a bit bothered by the sometimes checkered history of US foreign policy. It doesn't give us carte blanche to make shit up, though.

But then again, you've expressly stated that Ukraine's right to exist within its borders doesn't bother you, so I doubt you actually care about speaking up for the Ukrainian people anyways.

But what do I know? I'm just "neo-con sockpuppet", so I'm going to head back to the I Heart Paul Wolfowitz Facebook Fan page now. He's so dreamy......

[arendt]

217. I will leave the last 10,000 words to you.

I just have three points:

1) "You don't give a shit about those people."

That is such projection. You are the one saying the future of the Ukraine under IMF rule is "not my concern". I have already called you out for that.

2) "If I have actual evidence..."

HAHAHAHAHA! The CIA invented the term "plausible deniability". They also gave "conspiracy theory" its modern meaning. The CIA has prosecuted a NYT reporter (James Reason) within an inch of jail for doing his job. Gary Webb reported the truth (as confirmed later in testimony to Congress) about CIA drug-running for the Contras. He instantly lost his job and was hounded to a suspicious (two bullets to the head) suicide.

But I, I who have thirty minutes a day to devote to politics, I am supposed to "prove it". Nobody ever proves anything about the CIA. I have a shelf of books that have tried. Not one CIA agent has been proven guilty of anything involved with running a coup. They only get prosecuted for on-the-job drunkenness, diverting funds (but only when they are the victim of internal maneuverings - because all black ops are funded by diverted funds), or spying for some other country.

The CIA itself called the press "its mighty Wurlitzer". They have the resources to contest everything, to invent a counter-reality, to run propaganda campaigns. My proof would be a pea-shooter vs tanks.

3) "As for the IMF, neither you nor I know how it will turn out."

Having dropped the veil for just a second, and admitted you the financial condition of Ukraine is "not my concern",
you realize that some "plausible deniability" for your callousness is required. So, you say:

As for the IMF, neither you nor I know how it will turn out. Who knows, maybe it will turn out bad, a la Greece. But we just don't know, and frankly that's far less of a factor to most Ukrainians as it is to people like you. (You are aware that the IMF has had a relationship with Ukraine since 1992, right? So we're not talking about something that is necessarily radically different at this point.)

Another laugher. "We just don't know." HAHAHAHA. You are channeling Condi Rice - "no one could possibly have anticipated..."

The IMF is as well known a loan sharking operation as the CIA is a coup-running operation. Go read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" if you have any doubts.

----

As I said last post, we are done here. In my book you are a one-sided propagandist and peddler of plausible deniability. I offered you Ukranian patriot. You chose to respond to "neocon sock puppet". At least you chose honestly there. But, if you were JFK in the Cuban Missile crisis, we all would not be here today.

I will watch your impressive propaganda operation from afar in the future.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

218. So in short, your answer is no. No, you don't have any evidence to support....

Last edited Fri Feb 27, 2015, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

.....your claim that Ukraine underwent a US sponsored coup back in February 2014.

Thanks.

All you can offer me is soliloquies on "plausible deniability" and being unable to prove an unknown. (For a person who likes to call other people neo-cons, you sure sound a lot like Donald Rumsfeld. I'm just saying.)

I offered you video proof of events in the last three days of Yanukovych's rule in Ukraine, and you offer me nothing in return except talk about plausible deniability and how conspiracy theories are disparaged these days. And strawmans. Lots and lots of straw hominems ("one-sided propagandist and peddler of plausible deniability", "neocon sockpuppet&quot .

Well, it doesn't matter what you think about it, what you are pushing is still a conspiracy theory, a deviation from the generally accepted narrative. Which isn't a bad thing in and of itself, mind you. But the thing about conspiracy theories is that the burden to prove them is on the person espousing the conspiracy theory. Not the person they are trying to convince. Otherwise, you risk sounding like a nut and a fool.

The whole defense mechanism wherein you call anyone who doesn't agree with your alternate narrative on Ukraine a neo-con/CIA/IMF/whatever "sock puppet" after you've been unable to prove your claims--it's cute. It's really cute. But it won't take you anywhere.

[arendt]

222. Here's some IMF "evidence". Its the looting, stupid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017248278

Michael Hudson Report: Finance is a new kind of war and forced sell offs that the IMF is imposing is a new kind of battle ground

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13211

Tell me this is a "conspiracy theory".

[Tommy_Carcetti]

223. You get points for creativity, but that's about it.

So what happened in Ukraine last year was all so that the IMF (who has done business with Ukraine since 1992) could seize Ukrainian farms in repayment for loans and hand them off to Monsanto so that it can grow GMO crops?

Okay.....lovely little conspiracy theory, but even if I were to believe it, how'd it all happen?

[NuclearDem]

118. So, again...

You're advocating liberals use a tactic that the US uses to hypocritically justify bolstering repressive regimes around the world in pursuit of its goals, because damn it, it's convenient.

Sorry, but sticking to principles isn't always convenient. What you're advocating is tantamount to stabbing our Russian LGBT brothers and sisters in the back for our own ends.

If that's what you call "pragmatic", then fuck pragmatism.

[arendt]

119. Right. It's all so simple. Not.

You make it sound like the ONLY issue at stake here is LGBT rights. Wrong. There are many issues. One of the biggest issues is that someone needs to stop the US neocons from fomenting trouble and starting wars - Georgia, Libya, Syria, Ukraine.

Libya and Syria targeted relatively rich and stable (if highly authoritarian) states that did not obey Washington's dictates. They were targeted and are now in civil wars that serve none of the natives, but do serve the neocon agenda.

Georgia and Ukraine targeted countries that could tighten the noose on Russia. In both cases, Russia fought back against neocon warmongering. The problem for the neocons is that Russia successfully resisted.

The idea that the Russians have been the aggressor is a propaganda canard. In the Georgian war, the Georgians (more on them later) attacked first. Again, in the Ukraine, the current government came to power in a coup supported by US neocons. The Russian-speakers in the East felt themselves completely disenfranchised by the coup and defended themselves from onerous demands. It is the opposite of true that the Novorussians started this war or made an initial offensive into Kievian territory.

As for the Georgian war, the Israelis are heavily invested in Georgia. Michael Saakashvili was their boy. Now he has been appointed to a committee by Poroshenko. Oh, he is also a wanted criminal:

Saakashvili energetically supported Ukraine's Euromaidan movement and the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. On 13 February 2015, he was appointed by the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko as head of the International Advisory Council on Reforms. Saakashvili is wanted by Georgia's new government on multiple criminal charges, which he denies as politically motivated.

- Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheil_Saakashvili Mikheil Saakashvili]

-----
Reprising the title of this reply, it's not simple. It's all about tradeoffs. (For historical reference, see Churchill, Enigma, and the bombing of Coventry.)

To me, anyone who stalls the neocon agenda is not all bad. The neocons are dangerous warmongers who would have no qualms about starting WW3. They are in our government. They endure while presidents of both parties either serve them or cannot get rid of them. Pardon me if I worry about saving my own country's ass before I worry about the LGBTs in Ukraine.

[NuclearDem]

121. Wow, glad to see your true colors finally fly.

A hearty fuck you to the LGBT community with a little bit of "the jooooos" thrown in.

[arendt]

122. NO. I have priorities. Stopping neocons is #1.

Stopping GLBT persecution in OTHER COUNTRIES is about #10. First, we need to fix it in the US.

Stop hyperventilating and decide which is more important to you.

You do not get to tell me my priorities.

[NuclearDem]

123. Yeah, because you can't work to fix both anti-LGBT discrimination

in the US and abroad at the same time.

Jesus fucking Christ.

No, I'm not trying to tell you what your priorities should be. I'm trying to tell you your priorities are fucking insane.

[arendt]

128. If the way to fix it is to start WW3 w Russia, count me out n/t

[NuclearDem]

133. Oh for...this is getting old.

The LGBT community and their allies don't want to start a fucking war with Russia. That's a pathetic and desperate cop out, not to mention a borderline hate smear that insinuates "the LGBTs" are warmongers. Nobody needed to invade South Africa to put an end to apartheid.

And while we're on the topic of starting wars, Russia, whether you like it or not, was the one that initiated armed conflict in this situation by invading and annexing part of Ukraine in violation of the agreement they signed to respect Ukraine's territory. It's pathetic watching how the people desperately crying "warmonger" are the ones twisting themselves into pretzels to defend this blatantly illegal act of war.

Before you guys start screaming about fascist warmongers, you may want to do some serious reflection on who you're siding with.

[cemaphonic]

134. Yeah, this idea that defending Putin is bravely standing up for peace

is a bizarrely persistent meme among the pro-Putin clique here. Nobody with any power in the West is threatening war with Russia, and won't for about a dozen obvious reasons. The US has the most aggressive stance, and that is limited to providing arms to the central government. But the Putin cheerleaders act as if it's 2003 and Obama can't wait to the the tanks gassed up and rolling.

Meanwhile, the government that is actually currently meddling both politically, and militarily in the affairs of their neighbor, while also running a bunch of dangerous brinksmanship games that threaten to escalate the situation is on the side of peace in their narrative. Not to mention that I've seen a couple of threads and subthreads lately that are positively gloating about military setbacks suffered by the Ukrainian government.

You would think that that level of cognitive dissonance would make their heads explode.

[zappaman]

126. Yeah, who gives a fuck about LGBTs in the Ukraine anyway?

[arendt]

127. yeah, who gives a shit about neocon warmongers burning our taxes.

[geek tragedy]

101. This post boils down to (1) Russia's government is awesome; and (2) the USA is inherently evil.

That you object to those not swallowing such swill is not a negative reflection on them.

[arendt]

102. Absolute bullshit plus name-calling

Love how you read something I never wrote.

Basically, you demonstrate that you got nothing.

Talk about FDR. Talk about our love for the Saudis.

Talk about anything concrete, and try not to throw so much spittle.

[geek tragedy]

107. You're the one endorsing an article that calls for leftists to line up against their own country and

behind a hostile, rightwing foreign fascist bigot.

And hurling venom at those who are sensible enough to reject Putin and what he represents.

[arendt]

108. Does anyone remember history? Putin is a spy and a gangster, not a Nazi.

Wow, Putin is a foreigner. Who knew?

And, he is hostile. Well, duh. We are hostile to him.

Bigot, I will agree with. But, hey, America is full of bigots. The GOP is the party for bigots. Most countries are bigoted, including most of our so-called allies. The Arab states are very bigoted against women, and gays? Don't even mention it.

----

These five, focus-group tested snarl words constitute your big analysis of why I should just jump on the war bandwagon? This used to be a discussion board. With this kind of sound bite nonsense, it has become an invective board.

[geek tragedy]

110. No one is advocating war with Russia. But this article is stating leftists should 'support' Putin.

And that is nuts.

[arendt]

112. I never said support him. I just said let it alone.

I don't like Putin and I don't like the Ukrainians. Most importantly, I don't think America is in danger if the Eastern part of Ukraine forms an autonomous region in a federalized Ukraine, which is what they say (or at least have been saying - I don't keep up to the minute on that) they want to do.

I am sick of the unending list of shitholes we must support because freedom.

Can we spend some money in the US instead of propping up the next corrupt bunch of oligarchs whose country we want to co-loot?

We are talking about sending hundreds of millions of lethal weapons to Ukraine, but our infrastructure is falling apart and the GOP is wrecking our education system.

Why is there always money for preparing for war, fighting war, training other countries' armies? (All paid cost-plus to no-bid bums like Haliburton and KBR.) And never any money for doing something peaceful and productive in the USA?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

177. Well, you did "like" the OP....

...which was a pretty strong endorsement of his actions. So forgive us for drawing such a conclusion.

[arendt]

180. Its a long post that contains SOME good ideas.

I support discussing the good ideas and ignoring the bad ones - sorta like JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis. I rec'd it for the discussion I hoped it would start.

You are the one taking the Curtis LeMay position, or the classic US policy of Unconditional Surrender.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

182. Exactly how have I taken the "Curtis LeMay position"?

Please proceed, governor.

[arendt]

193. To quote you, what is your endgame here?

Any time a thread appears on DU that is not 100% anti-Putin, you are right there, in the face of the poster. (BTW - I reject the personalization of the conflict. Any Russian leader would have to take actions in response to what is going on right next door in Ukraine. It is utterly irrelevant, from a realpolitik POV, to drag in gay rights. It only makes public acceptance of reaching some kind of compromise harder - which is exactly the intention of the personalization.)

I have yet to hear you admit that there is any legitimacy whatsoever in the idea that there is any other narrative but your own. In fact, you are the pilot of the lead plane to bomb anyone who expresses such a narrative.

You completely deny the neocon presence in this whole situation while demonizing the other side. You minimize or completely whitewash the neo-Nazi element in the political and military situation. You display the kind of kneejerk, murderous, counter-productive, anti-Russian rage that Curtis LeMay did.***

You ignore the fact that our military budget is bigger than the rest of the world combined, that it is ten times bigger than Russia's. Instead of admitting that the least 25 years of NATO expansion have pushed Russia to the wall, geopolitically, you insist they are the ones with expansionist desires that must be "contained".

Several times in this thread, people have clutched their pearls when I have said that WW3 is a possibility if we do not stop doubling-down on our failed policy to "contain" Russian "aggression". So, I ask, what is your endgame? Do you insist we continue to raise the ante with Russia - and since they don't dare back down, slide down the slippery slope towards a direct (and potentially nuclear) confrontation? What would cause you to stop demanding, ala McCain channeling CLM, that we "bomb, bomb, bomb"?

What does your policy (whatever it is) offer the Novorussians?

No bayonets and battleships from me.

----

*** (I do not say you are not entitled to that rage. Maybe CLM was entitled to his rage too; I do not know his personal story. CLM was a war hero and Chairman of JCS, even though he himself said that if we had lost WW2, he would have been tried as a war criminal.)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

200. All I've ever done is demand that facts be presented, and not unsupported conspiracy theories.

By virtue of your ad hominem strawman ("Curtis Lemay"? Really?), you're trying to frame me as some sort of neo-con Cold Warrior demanding the US take military action in Ukraine and defending every single bit of US foreign policy and foreign intervention over the years.

I challenge you now to find one single post of mine--one single post--where I have advocated that the US take military action against Russia over Ukraine. You can spend all afternoon searching, but you will not find a thing. Because I've never seen what is happening in Ukraine as being all about the US. It is, when you boil it down, a Ukrainian-Russian conflict.

And my only goal here is to ensure that the facts are not twisted by people with whatever agenda they may have, whether it is simply an overzealous (but not totally unjustified) reaction to US foreign policy past and present, or whether it is to advocate the position of the Russian government.

The Ukrainian people, including my own relatives, deserve better than that. There was a real crisis in Ukraine in the winter of 2013 and 2014 concerning real issues that matter to a majority of the Ukrainian people. It was not drummed up in some dark room in Langley. They voiced their concerns, the then-president resisted those concerns and cracked down in bloody fashion. After the people refused to relent, he ultimately backed down and left. And at that point, the Russian government stepped in and exploited the volatile situation by violating existing treaties and expanding its territory and influence over its direct neighbor, to the bloody detriment of the Ukrainian people.

That's it. That's what the facts support. And I'm under no obligation whatsoever to entertain alternate narratives not supported by the facts. If someone comes to me and said that airplanes never flew into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9-11, I'd tell them right away they are full of shit. Because I know the observable facts do not betray my understanding.

It's no different here.

[arendt]

194. Dang. Replied to myself. This is to alert you to look. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

111. It is dishonest of you to characterize a rejection of the OP's call for supporting Russia as a call

to jump on 'the war bandwagon'. The choices are not 'support Russia' or 'go to war'. The OP is asking for support. That request is soundly rejected as is the Russian desire for war. The other poster did not call for war, nor even imply such a thing. Jesus. It's astonishing to watch.

[arendt]

113. Looks like "sarcasm" has gone the way of "nuance"

I was responding to "geek tragedy"'s ridiculous overstretch with sarcasm:

In response to what I wrote, he said:

This post boils down to (1) Russia's government is awesome; and (2) the USA is inherently evil.

My choice was designed to be as extreme as his.

[Bluenorthwest]

224. So you post bullshit and when called on it you get snarky. How impressive.

I'm sick of those of you who defend anti gay countries accusing others of wanting war. It's horrific, uncalled for and a lie. I've seem posts that claim gay people want WW3 because we are critical of anti gay policies. That's who you are standing with, that is the context for your so called 'nuance'.

[Blue_Tires]

98. L-O-Fuckin'-L...That blogger must have nothing but rainbows and unicorns in his world

Oh, I see at the bottom he writes for RT -- He's certainly earning his $$$$



Meanwhile, in the grownup, real-world version of Russia:

http://www.euronews.com/2015/02/20/russia-prominent-anti-kremlin-activist-alexei-navalny-jailed/

Yup...Pure leftist's paradise

[blm]

103. So Putin could USE us to steal ANOTHER 100billion from Russia?

.

[Quantess]

105. Fuck that, to put it politely.

Russia is ramping up cold war threats and is giving Sweden a really good reason to join NATO.

[NutmegYankee]

117. The only group that should defend Russia is the Westboro Baptist Church!

I'll gladly be the "left flank of the empire" than side with homophobic Russia.

[Adrahil]

129. Oh for fuck's sake....

The Putinistas aren't even trying to hide it now....

[CJCRANE]

141. Freedom Fries! nt

[Ramses]

137. Looks like the "hate Russia" propaganda is full tilt

I prefer to focus on America's war crimes over the decades, of which there are many. The CIA has been responsible for dozens of murders of political leaders around the world for decades, focusing on labor and "leftists". No one is Russia has fucked us over like our own government has been doing to tens of millions of citizens for a long time.

[CJCRANE]

142. "Leftists"* shouldn't defend Putin or the war profiteers.

We should defend the truth.

And right now we are in a redux of the neocon era but with even more overwhelming propaganda. It's been amazing to see DU swing into line with the mainstream. It's not the DU I remember from the early years.

*I don't like the word "leftist" for some reason. It sounds like an insult spouted by a Fox News viewer to my ears.

[Drunken Irishman]

143. This thread showcases why some 'leftists' are fucking awful hypocrites.

They'll defend a regime that has some of the most backwards social stances of any major nation, dismiss its own imperialistic, warmongering moves, and then shit on U.S. politicians for not being pure enough.

Fuck that. If you support Putin, I can only assume you're a bigot who is perfectly fine with the jailing of people who speak out against his government and don't give two shits about gays and women.

If this is leftism - well I'll pass on signing up. Leftism under this example is just as bad as fascism ... maybe even worse because it's coming from supposed ideologically liberal individuals. Guess not.

I always wondered if there were people out there who could ever justify totalitarianism leftism. I've found it. Crazy. I always thought Stalinists didn't exist. I guess I was wrong.

[Drunken Irishman]

144. Also, these pro-Putin assholes aren't on the first flight to Russia to live in that paradise.

I wonder why? If the U.S.A is such a shit hole and Russia the shining light of what we need to be, get on a plane and go live there - and you can take your right-ring asshole buddies with you who fawn all over Putin too.

[NuclearDem]

151. I almost agree

Except that the last thing the Russian LGBT community needs is more people in their own country who hate them.

[Cha]

184. Really. damn the hypocrisy.. thanks for pointing that out, DI. Not purists when it comes to human

rights in Russia.

[Depaysement]

154. I'm with the majority of Europeans

I support an immediate and peaceful resolution to the conflict.

[Savannahmann]

159. I think it's obvious that Russia is supporting the Rebels.

I'm a man with twenty years experience in the Transportation field. I know a bit about logistics. Napoleon said that an army marched on its stomach. That was true when marching was the main means of transportation, and the rifle ruled the battlefield. Today, it's tanks. Tanks don't march on food, they float on a sea of diesel fuel. For example, the T-62 tank has a range of about 280 miles on roads on one tank of fuel. That is more than 100 gallons of fuel. So figure they're getting about two miles per gallon. If you have five tanks, that means you need a tanker truck every two hundred miles to move those tanks, or at least once a day for local operational needs. Thousands of gallons of fuel when you include trucks and vehicles for the soldiers to move with the tanks.

So where are the rebels getting thousands of gallons of diesel fuel every single day to keep the trucks and tanks mobile? They're not buying it from the local gas stations. They're not stealing it in sufficient quantities to keep going. Someone is supplying them. There are a finite number of someones who can, or would do it. On the eastern edge of Ukraine, there is only one viable suspect.

Tanks look amazingly strong, but in truth they're rather fragile. They have lots of parts that wear out often. Tracks for example, the metal links wear out rapidly holding up the massive weight of a tank. The rubber shoes wear out even faster. Those tracks require servicing to repair and replace worn items. That means a logistical pipeline bringing parts in so experienced mechanics can repair the vehicles. Since they are tanks built in Russia, there aren't many places you can get a good supply of parts. You basically have to use Russian parts and there is again that only one suspect. I suppose you could use some Chinese parts since they've built most of that equipment under license, but the Chinese would have to transport the parts across Russia to deliver them to the Ukraine. So Russia would be involved anyway.

Ammunition for the soldiers. A soldier can go through a couple hundred rounds in less than a day. If you have ten soldiers, that is two thousand rounds. If you have a hundred soldiers fighting, that is twenty thousand rounds of ammunition, or a lot of weight, and a lot of ammunition. Where are the rebels getting all that ammo? Someone is supplying them. They're not ordering it online and awaiting the arrival of Fed Ex. Even if they captured a military base with millions of rounds of ammo, they would burn through that in a month or two.

By comparison, the US Military was using 1.8 billion rounds of ammunition per year during the height of the Iraq war. http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/5347/An-estimated-250-000-bullets-are-used-per-insurgent-killed-in-Iraq-and-Afghanistan

Think about that for a moment. 1.8 billion rounds of ammunition per year. That required a steady stream of ammunition flowing into the combat zone. Trucks moving every day with more bullets to shoot. Even if the Rebels are using a fraction of the ammo the Military was using in Iraq, you are still left with a lot of bullets to move around.

Winter in Eastern Europe is not a day at the beach. It's bitterly cold. History tells us about the difficulties faced by both the Nazi's and Napolean's armies wintering in Russia. The ukraine is not much better. Cold means you need heat. Fires at the most basic level, which means chopping down trees in time to let them season to burn. Oil or diesel fired stoves, gasoline powered stoves. In other words, more fuel for the troops.

Shall I touch on food. Let's say that each soldier is eating a pound of food a day. Combat is a very active time, and you could easily need that much food, back to Napoleon's marching on the stomach thing. What that means is if you have a hundred soldiers, you need a hundred pounds of food every single day. Then you have the civilian population to feed. If you let them starve, they'll no longer support you. If you let them freeze, they'll no longer back you and will side with whoever can give them food, and warmth for their children.

So even the most basic examinations of the logistical demands of an army fighting a mechanized urban warfare model requires that someone is supporting the Rebels. The list of suspects is astonishingly short. Basically, there is one suspect available with the materials the Rebels need, and the ability to transport it to the Rebels.

So the denials of the Russians that they are supporting the Ukrainian Rebellion fails the most basic smell tests. It's a lie. Why would they do that? Why would they expend that kind of treasure on an area? Prestige? Regional power? The why is more complex, but obviously they are. Now, why would a Left leaning Liberal like myself want to support someone who is lying about their actions? If Russia said we are doing this because we want the Ukrainian people to be free I'd look askance at them. Russia does not have a long history of trying to free an oppressed people.

So no, common sense tells me that the Russians are in this thing up to their necks. I don't know if that includes active support from their military, in other words Russian soldiers fighting. I do know that there must be active support on the Logistical front because there is no other explanation for the continued ability of the Rebels to fight. If they were working off of captured materials, they could fight a Guerrilla action, but not urban warfare using tanks, trucks, and foot soldiers.

[Hekate]

160. Homophobic laws. Anti-Semitism. Mysogyny. Prison for Pussy Riot. Expansionism.

What the ever-loving fuck.

[salib]

166. Reading the full article, the only real reason presented to "support Russia"

is the old saw that "the enemy of my enemies is my friend". The left has no need for this type of logic.

There are many reasons to recognize that yes, Russia has been a thorn in the efforts of Neo-Cons, Western fascists and imperialists. However, mostly out of self-interest, often simply the wish to exercise their own imperialism and fascism. The government and oligarchy of Russia is no more our friend than the U.S. and European neo-cons trying to create WWIII in Ukraine.

Fascinating to still see this kind of logical from supposedly leftists, at least so bold-faced.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. ....is this supposed to be a joke?

I don't get it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

175. Sadly, a few people here don't see it as a joke. nt

[BainsBane]

205. The Putin apologists have been all over this site for some time now

and are getting desperate because a document is being released showing they have been engaged in a disinformation campaign planned by Putin months before the fall of the government in Kiev.


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/02/21/257386/russian-news-report-ukraine-invasion.html#storylink=cpy

[Downtown Hound]

169. LOL. If Russia under Putin is anti-imperialist, then Adolf Hitler is a champion of religious freedom

That article is the most simplistic drivel. Just because Pooty Poot doesn't like the U.S. doesn't make him a champion of human rights. He has turned his country into something that resembles Nazi Germany in the early days. A country where those who oppose the regime are persecuted and imprisoned and harassed. A country where youth go to camps designed to whip up nationalistic and xenophobic fervor (Nazi Youth). A country where being gay can get you killed. A country that regularly commits acts of aggression against its neighbors.

Fuck Putin and fuck anybody that supports him. And if that makes me part of the left wing of the empire, then so be it. You are aware that most of Putin's support in the U.S has not come from leftists, but rather the Tea Party and those of that ilk? That right there should tell you about which side of the fence Putin is really on.

[DetlefK]

176. Translation: You MUST support Russia because you cannot possibly side with the US "empire".

If you are on the side of the US, you are automatically on the side of evil. Therefore you must automatically side with Russia.






Can an argument get even more idiotic than this?

[MBS]

183. " " " " n/t

[TheKentuckian]

185. I see no reason to SUPPORT a bigoted, authoritarian, gangster capitalist government

That lack of support does not mean I support US involvement in those regional issues including arming dubious fucks in The Ukraine nor do I believe we have any grounds to stand on to justify all of this moral outrage being bellowed everyday.

I though Mitt Romney was dangerously fucking batshit crazy with all of his saber rattling before the 2012 election but soon enough (though after the election) a lot of Democrats apparently decided Mitt was actually correct and to me have joined the crazy.

What should we do about Russia? What did Russia do about us destroying Iraq? What do they do about our South American debacles? That is what I think we should do.

As an aside I find it kinda interesting that the same folks that were calling gay rights activists pony demanding purists that needed to dial it down, wait their turn, and not fuck up progress for everyone by being too insistent "single issue idiots" have flipped the script and now it is a trump issue for them. Flipped like a damn switch.

[JonLP24]

186. I imagine this thread has likely derailed a long time ago

Pay attention to the natural resources Eastern Ukraine is sitting on. Ukraine is a very corrupt country, Ukraine is #1 & Russia #2 on the most corrupt European country list. The way government, courts, law enforcement, etc it is begging for corruption. The new President called for "early elections" of Parliament, didn't allow voting in parts of Eastern Ukraine or Crimea (opposition forces were blamed but the timing is suspect). Two early elections were held since 2010 when Parliamentary terms are 5 years. The electoral system was also changed too -- could you imagine if Putin gained power under a similar set of circumstances?

Turnout was lower than past elections in the past 2, 32% turnout in Eastern Ukraine compared to 70% in Eastern Ukraine in 2010.

2014 political map


Political maps all show the same thing in Ukraine. Not only that millions of Ukrainians weren't allowed to vote. The divisions are regional & more complex than pro-west or pro-Russia. Many and I'd imagine an overwhelming majority at this point in Eastern Ukraine want independence. I think it would be the best way to solve this but Kiev wants the natural resources sitting on the East. Miners working in an industry controlled by corruption (like everything else) have swelled the ranks of rebel sources. It really isn't about "the west" or Russia for that matter -- regional political divisions (which have existed since the Ukraine 1991-present) & geography.

Anybody who visits extreme eastern and western Ukraine ... inevitably feels the profound differences between the two regions, as if in reality they belonged to two different countries, two different worlds, two different civilisations.

Mykola Riabchuk, Institute of Political and Nationalities Studies, Academy of Sciences, Kiev

http://www.abc.net.au/news/interactives/ukraine-conflict-in-maps/

All this gets lost in Putin rhetoric but claims coming from Ukraine that Russia manufactured all this, lie about it, & blaming Russia for everything -- a referendum is held in Eastern Ukraine. Putin publicly says for it to be delayed or say the referendum should wait for a better time. They go forward with the referendum anyway, the man I saw in the video after questioned about what Putin said, "I don't have a direct line to Putin" and "It's not up to him.". This could be the Vice report on the referendum or it could be someone else, can't remember who exactly that came from -- is propaganda which omits a lot of facts. While US blames Russia for everything, including protestors burned alive by the Right Sector in Odessa, an honest person that genuinely cares about all Ukrainians affected by this would also be telling the Ukrainian right-wing, nationalist politicians to "look in the mirror".

On edit -- even that link I posted -- I can't remember where I saw that article the detailed the regional divisions perfectly -- is misleading propaganda.

If Ukraine agreed to human rights reforms and addressed corruption, Ukraine could have qualified for EU membership.

But in November 2013, Mr Yanukovych abruptly pulled out of the deal and instead accepted a $15 billion bailout from Russia.

--------my text below

They created a 2004 Constitution but it trade deal was held up because he wouldn't release the "oil princess" who the entire West called a political prisoner which she probably was given that the way it is set-up, there are many political prisoners, was a strong advocate for Western capitalist alliances which is why they took up her cause. Russia wasn't fussy with their demands.

--------------------------------------------------------

Wiki

This was about a free trade deal
On 21 November 2013 the Verkhovna Rada failed to pass any of the six motions on allowing former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to receive medical treatment abroad, which was an EU demand for signing the association agreement.[68][69] The same week Tymoshenko had stated that she was ready to ask the EU to drop the demand for her freedom if it meant President Viktor Yanukovych would sign the association agreement.[70] The same day a Ukrainian government decree suspended preparations for signing of association agreement; instead it proposed the creation of a three-way trade commission between Ukraine, the European Union and Russia that would resolve trade issues between the sides.[68] Prime Minister Mykola Azarov issued the decree in order to "ensure the national security of Ukraine" and in consideration of the possible ramfications of trade with Russia (and other CIS countries[71]) if the agreement was signed on a 28–29 November summit in Vilnius.[68]

The suspension of the association agreement signature initiated a wave of protests that would ultimately overthrow Viktor Yanukovych and his government.[6]
Relations since suspension of association agreement till fall of Yanukovych

On 2 December 2013 President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso agreed to meet with a delegation from Ukraine to discuss closer ties with the EU but stated there would be no re-opening of negotiations on the proposed Association Agreement.[72] The same day First Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine Serhiy Arbuzov announced that Ukraine planned to sign a "roadmap" with the EU "I'm not talking about the conditions of the association but about the conditions we planned to resolve before signing and after signing".[73] Ukraine and the EU started "conducting technical preparations for the upcoming dialogue between Ukraine and the EU on certain aspects of the implementation of an Association Agreement" on 5 December 2013.[74] However, on 15 December Fuele said that the Ukrainian government's negotiating position had "no grounds in reality" and that they were suspending further talks.[75]

On 17 December, Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia under which Russia will buy $15 billion of Ukrainian Eurobonds and the cost of Russian natural gas supplied to Ukraine will be reduced,[76][77] though Putin stated that "today we have not discussed the issue of Ukraine joining the Customs Union [of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia] at all".[78][nb 5] Three days later, high ranking EU-officials stated that the EU is still ready to sign the Association Agreement "as soon as Ukraine is ready for it", that the agreement was also beneficial for Russia and that the EU "is totally not concerned about the fact that Ukraine is signing agreements with Russia".[80][81][82][83][84] On 23 December 2013 Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov stated "there is no contradiction" in Ukraine's association with the EU and their observer status in the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union.[85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

[Tommy_Carcetti]

188. Turnout in the past two elections was lower in the East for a pretty glaring reason.

Namely, people living in separatist controlled areas were prohibited from voting in those elections. It would therefore be a gross mischaracterization to claim that the Ukrainian government prohibited those people from voting.

Additionally, Russia's supposed advice that separatists delay their dubious secession referendum only served as plausible deniability of Russia's involvement in Ukraine's east when one looks at the totality of the facts. It's sort of like how Fox News will throw in an occasional liberal pundit in order to maintain the façade that they are "fair and balanced". They're not fooling anyone.

[JonLP24]

189. I hate when my browser crashes during a post

The glaring reason is there was a significant reductions in polling stations. "Threats" were used as the justification & again the timing & changing the rules of the game. All this benefited Fatherland, Svoboda, etc political coalition who never received much support in these parts. Who is preventing who from voting? In 2010, polls in the Eastern part -- no one running that represents their interests was the top reason given why they didn't turn out.

A totality looking at the facts shows how independent & local many of these rebel factions are of each other. Russia doesn't deny involvement, they openly admit to supplying rebel factions but while local rebel faction receives the Russian equipment, another one doesn't but will openly admit if they offered some equipment they'd accept it. The rebels in the Donetsk region are closer to Russian military

That regional divisions map would be very helpful here but there are rebel miner factions in Northeast Ukraine. Why are they interested in fighting the government? One thing most Ukrainians agree on is how corrupt Ukraine is.

A totality looking at the facts will show how much Kiev political coalitions propaganda and facade throws out there.

Ukraine is obviously suffering a long-term Constitutional crisis. They need an Independent Constitution Convention to create one that sticks long-term & has a little separation of powers. Constitutional court judges are dismissed for "oath violations", the next guy puts them back on the bench, the guy after him dismisses him. Early elections is a tool used by all sides going way back. They all do it. It is very troubling to play up side as honorable when none of them are.

Dubious referendum, I'm unsure what you mean. The vote was for self-rule but if you mean it won't count than I agree, international monitors everywhere were invited. The top European connected ones turned them down, still international monitors showed up. One reported one issue in the polling station but stressed that no "shots were fired", he emphasized how important shots fired during election day is very troubling. International monitors also reported little issues in Ukraine's dubious early elections. Not many polling stations, but the ones opened didn't show much troubling issues regarding people voting in them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

190. There was no way around the issue, though.

After Yanukovych left the country, Ukraine needed a new president. Otherwise, the false concerns raised by Russia and opponents of Maidan--that the current interim government was somehow "illegitimate"--would become not so false.

On the other hand, they couldn't just hold new elections the next day--the logistics would not allow for it. So elections were scheduled for late May 2014. Unfortunately, within that three month period, you had Crimea and then the uprising in the east. So by the time elections came around, you had large portions of territory controlled by people who refused to recognize their own government and certainly had no interest in facilitating elections. Interestingly enough, they actually did attempt to send election equipment to Donetsk, although one has to wonder how optimistic they were that they'd ever get a vote. A good video and write-up from Vice on the topic:

https://news.vice.com/video/bullets-not-ballots-in-donetsk-russian-roulette-dispatch-42

Almost 6 months after the Euromaidan revolution that toppled former president Viktor Yanukovych, Ukrainians went to the polls to elect a new president in the midst of an anti-terror operation to wrestle Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts back under Kiev's control. The separatists of the Donetsk People's Republic openly threatened the election in the region and had stormed a number of electoral commissions and intimidated electoral workers. In response the Ukrainian military alongside its paramilitary proxies have been working to secure towns across Donetsk to ensure a safe election took place.

On Sunday morning as voting started across the country, Donetsk itself saw no voting take place so VICE News headed out to Krasnoarmiisk where voting was able to take place, under the watchful eye of local loyal-to-Kiev police and another paramilitary force, the Dinipro Battalion. Back in Donetsk, supporters of the DPR held a rally in the square, denouncing the election and the other DPR bugbears, NATO, the Kiev 'junta' and the US. Despite the threats, the election did take place in a few towns across the region and the fact that it took place at all seemingly threatens the advertised control of the region by the DPR.

The parliamentary elections, while not required (the Ukrainian parliament was never disbanded, another fact frequently left out by individuals claiming a "coup" had taken place in the country) was still a wise course of action, given that the existing Parliament had experienced a shake up in the wake of Yanukovych and multiple members of the then-ruling coalition leaving the country or switching parties. So a fresh start wasn't the worst of ideas (and the elections ultimately did serve to jettison some of the more controversial ultra-nationalist elements from the ruling coalition). Of course, the situation in the east was even worse in September than it was in May, so voting in those areas was again problematic. But again, it's a bit of a rock-and-a-hard-place dilemma. Either not hold elections while a portion of the country remains in chaos, or hold elections to the best extent possible. The latter was the far better choice. Ukraine would not have been served well with an indefinite interim tag in its government.

As for the so-called "self-rule" referendum, lack of legitimate international observers was only one of several problems. Ballots were not verifiable, there was no up-to-date voting rolls, and polling locations were themselves limited. While turnout itself did not appear to have been disrupted, it's completely unclear how many people in that region chose to vote, given that the vote was being hosted by an entity not recognized internationally as a legitimate power.

I will certainly agree with you though that corruption remains a problem in Ukraine, and that the problem of corruption did not end simply after Yanukovych left. I think much of the military's struggles to this point can be attributed to corruption and decay in government, and I think the country has a long ways to go to rid itself of those troubling and chronic concerns.

[JonLP24]

191. They initiated the whole fleeing the country thing

The first of those two early elections has Yanukovich's signature on it which was yet another "changing rules of the game"

"Frankly speaking, we are really concerned about the situation with the Ukrainian parliament dealing very slowly with the elections-related problem in these constituencies, as well as with scheduling of the elections. They constantly put aside the issue, and that's why we cannot consider the elections completed," he said.

As reported, in the parliamentary elections on October 28, 2012, the Central Election Commission recognized the impossibility of establishing the election results in five single-seat districts – Nos. 94 (Obukhiv, Kyiv region), 132 (Pervomaisk, Mykolaiv region), 194 and 197 (Cherkasy region) and 223 (Kyiv, Shevchenkivsky district).

Ukraine's law on parliamentary elections does not foresee the possibility of the non-recognition of election results in single-seat constituencies. Due to this fact the CEC refused to schedule repeated elections in these five constituencies until the problem is regulated legally.

On December 29, 2012, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine received a query from 54 MPs regarding the official interpretation of a number of provisions of the law on election of people's deputies of Ukraine concerning the procedures for appointing rerun elections.

http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/145621.html

They had a lack of but still had credible international monitors who monitor elections around the world show up. A lot of those issues from 2012 were even worse in 2014. Ukraine has routine brawls in Parliament which the heavy weight champion elected in Parliament notable never participates in them.

One coalition takes power, throws people out, changes the rules (Yanukovych's changes were used against him), the next one does the same thing, the other after that. It is obvious a Freedom Party-coalition power grab with convienent issues & while elements of rebel forces are very corrupt & bad, so are opposition forces.

The political prosecutions are done by all sides which probably explains why he fled. Leonid Kuchma is under investigation, among several, and this is what his electoral map from 1994 looks like (the blue side voted for him)


Yanukoych was in the middle of this, did several things including making a new constitution to please EU but after drawing the line over the release of the "Oil Princess" he said fuck it, went with the trade deal with Russia (a smoke bomb was thrown at the signing), was thrown out almost following it. Many people in the East were unhappy with him & still unhappy with the bums that threw him out.

Ukraine has issues that need to be worked out but I don't trust any of the political factions to solve them.

[BainsBane]

199. Continuation of discussion in locked thread

Let me get this straight. You live in the Ukraine but want to see it annexed by Russia? You've seen Nazis in the Ukraine, which means they aren't fit to govern themselves and deserve to be killed by Russians. You ignore evidence from the independent press in Russia and instead reference US propaganda, when the only propaganda being discussed is promoted by Putin. You insist opposition to war is being a dupe of the US. You insist opposition to war is really pro-war because....? There is no because.

You are stumping for empire and the subjugation of the country you say you live in. You want the Ukraine to be recolonized and subject to the same kind of restrictions on speech and political participation that prevails in Russia, and of course where LGBT Russians are imprisoned. You are unabashed pro-imperialist.

Interesting you admit that the left in Russia opposes this war mongering, imperialist cause you are promoting. Meanwhile, National Front parties throughout Europe back Putin. He is a right winger backed by right wingers.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

201. The OP's current state of residence clearly has zero influence over his opinion of his neighbors.

Which apparently he views with the greatest of contempt.

[BainsBane]

202. He cited it to validate his views

and yes, he seems to have nothing but contempt for the country he lives in.

[geek tragedy]

207. Ethnonationalism is really its own ideology. The Putin loyalists are not left or right, just

believe that they must stand by their leader and their tribe, right or wrong.

No real sense of morality, justice, or right vs wrong. Just Russians vs their enemies, which is whoever the Russian state tells them to hate.

[PoliticalPothead]

208. There's some Orwellian doublespeak if I ever heard it.

Let me get this straight. You live in the Ukraine but want to see it annexed by Russia? You've seen Nazis in the Ukraine, which means they aren't fit to govern themselves and deserve to be killed by Russians.

When has Russia even so much as hinted at its desire to annex Ukraine? In case you forgot, Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. The people of Novorossiya wanted to join Russia too, but Russia wouldn't allow them (probably because they knew the U.S. propaganda machine would paint it as a hostile land grab like they did with Crimea). Also, eastern Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves from Kiev-backed neo-Nazi aggression.

You ignore evidence from the independent press in Russia and instead reference US propaganda, when the only propaganda being discussed is promoted by Putin.

Really? So those fake photos Inhofe was waving around were...what, exactly? The US government and mainstream media have been caught lying about the Ukraine crisis multiple times over the past year. First there were no neo-Nazis in Ukraine, then there were neo-Nazis but they were "insignificant" and now we have mainstream outlets like the Telegraph and Daily Mail admitting that armed neo-Nazi groups are in fact being sent to kill
Eastern Ukrainians.

You insist opposition to war is being a dupe of the US. You insist opposition to war is really pro-war because....? There is no because.

Opposition to war usually doesn't involve parroting the mainstream media's warmongering propaganda.

You are stumping for empire and the subjugation of the country you say you live in. You want the Ukraine to be recolonized and subject to the same kind of restrictions on speech and political participation that prevails in Russia, and of course where LGBT Russians are imprisoned. You are unabashed pro-imperialist.

Sounds like a lot of projection there. Like I said, Russia is not trying to colonize Ukraine. If they were, they would've accepted Novorossiya's plea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The fact that they didn't clearly demonstrates that they are on the defensive and would rather not do anything that would cause the U.S. and their puppet regime in Kiev to escalate their aggression.

[BainsBane]

209. When has Russia hinted about it's desire to annex the Ukraine?

In a strategy document drawn up months before the fall of the government in Kiev. The editor of the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta discussed it on Russian radio just a couple of days ago:

Muratov said the document characterized then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych as “a person without morals and willpower whose downfall must be expected at any moment.” Yanukovych fled Ukraine for Russia on Feb. 22, 2014.

Muratov said the Russian document appears to have been drafted between Feb. 4 and Feb. 15 last year. He said the overall strategy included plans on how to break Ukraine into automonmous sectors, immediately attaching now war-torn southeastern Ukraine to Moscow’s tax union, with a longer term plan for annexation.

The plan suggested “the main thrust should be Crimea and the Kharkhiv region, with the aim of initiating the annexation of the eastern regions.”

The strategy document also calls for a public relations campaign to justify Russia’s intervention. The newspaper did not release further details of the strategy at this point.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/02/21/257386/russian-news-report-ukraine-invasion.html#storylink=cpy

Then of course there is the fact that they are actively engaging in reconquering the Ukraine as we speak.

[PoliticalPothead]

210. More propaganda.

Do you have a link the the actual document so people can read it and assess it's authenticity or are we just supposed to take Muratov's word for it?

[BainsBane]

213. What did the article say?

That will tell you about the actual document.

Of course it is propaganda if it isn't controlled by Putin. The editor of Novaya Gazeta is still alive and not in prison. And the paper dares to criticize Putin. Any newspaper that promotes peace rather than Russian empire is clearly propaganda. Unbiased news celebrates the Great and Glorious Empire and it's Excellency Tsar Putin.

Why would Putin want the Ukraine? Russia has only controlled it since the 17th century, but don't bother learning the most basic history. If it isn't sanctioned by one of the world's most richest men who knows how to take care of those uppity gay folk, it is propaganda. That kind of contempt for human rights and human life is repulsive. Go cheerlead on Putin's war. There are still Ukrainians left to kill. And when he takes the next country, you can come back and tell us how inferior those people are and how they are unfit to rule themselves and don't deserve to live. Georgia, and now the Ukraine. Anyone with a functioning brain stem can see what he's up to.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

211. Buddy.

When has Russia even so much as hinted at its desire to annex Ukraine? In case you forgot, Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. The people of Novorossiya wanted to join Russia too, but Russia wouldn't allow them (probably because they knew the U.S. propaganda machine would paint it as a hostile land grab like they did with Crimea). Also, eastern Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves from Kiev-backed neo-Nazi aggression

There were Russian tanks and armored vehicles roaming Crimea just four days after Yanukovych flew out of Kiev. Four days. They seized government buildings, airports, harbors and military bases. All of that was before the dubious March 16th plebiscite, after which time--surprise surprise--Crimea was welcomed into the Russian Federation with open arms.

Please don't insult our intelligence and claim that Crimea simply voted to join Russia and that was it. There was a clear violation of prior treaties where Russia had agreed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty, including Crimea.

[BainsBane]

215. Not to mention the fact the UN has procedures for independence votes

that don't involve "liberation" through Russian tanks. That is the very propaganda that has been proven false by the documents leaked to Novaya Gazeta. The Kremlin planned to take the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine months before the government in Kiev collapsed.
They also planned the very propaganda campaign we are witnessing now.

[William769]

212. Leftists are not fascist bigots, so it just boggles the mind why a leftist would defend

Mother Russia.

[Codeine]

219. I suppose this post is marginally better

than your habit of linking to the holocaust denial site of Vineyard Saker, but not by much.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

221. Come on, you know he wouldn't do tha--oh yeah, he did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1116&pid=51247

A lovely snippet:

Since he got elected, Putin mentioned many times the need for a re-sovereignization of Russia. The Ukrainian crisis has forced him reveal the real end goal of his agenda: to re-sovereignize the entire planet.

This is a tall order and it will take many years, possibly decades, to achieve this goal, though my personal feeling is that the total incompetence and infinite arrogance of of the 1%ers plutocrats which rules over the western world will continue to accelerate that process.

The big question now is this: can the AngloZionist Empire follow the example of the Soviet Empire and collapse without triggering a massive bloodbath on its way down?

There will be violence, for sure, as has been with the former Soviet Union. But if we can avoid a global conflagration or even a large scale massive war then that would have to be considered as success because it is when they collapse that empires become the most dangerous and unpredictable.

[BainsBane]

220. Don't fret. Putin has support from the far right

Le Pen and other national front parties throughout Europe are big fans.