General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo political pundits who deny the Russian invasion of Crimea deserve to be taken seriously at DU?
By all reported accounts, several days after the departure of former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych from Kiev in February 2014, well-armed and organized military units began appearing throughout the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine. These units seized the local parliament, airports, harbors and other government installations in the run-up to a hastily organized March 16, 2014 plebiscite asking Crimeans to accept Crimea's annexation into the Russian Federation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin initially denied the involvement of Russian military in the seizure of Crimea (claiming that the troops involved were "local militia) but after Crimea was annexed by Russia admitted that the Russian army played a role.
Despite this in your face admission of a Russian invasion of Crimea, there exist some to this day who deny Russia ever invaded Crimea. Frequently, they'll point to the existence of prior treaties allowing Russia to maintain its pre-existing Black Sea fleet bases on the peninsula, omitting the fact that no treaty allowed the military to leave the bases and occupy sovereign Ukrainian territory. Some deny that Russian military ever occupied Crimea prior to the March 16th vote, claiming that it was local Crimeans who were armed with military grade weaponry and traveling in military convoys.
Needless to say, such denial flies in the face of common sense.
But these denials are not limited to mere novices. Here at DU, opinion pieces by authors such as Robert Parry and John Pilger contain flat out denials that Russia ever invaded Crimea, and that the "west" is to blame for the current separatist crisis in Ukraine. We are told that these pundits are "treasures" who have some special insight into the truth in Ukraine, as opposed to the "mainstream media" report.
But honestly--should we take these people seriously? Would we take someone who denies the moon landing or the Holocaust seriously? Would we take people who claim we weren't attacked by hijacked airliners on 9-11 seriously? Those types of opinions typically are sent off to creative speculation.
But because the names Robert Parry and John Pilger are attached, journalists who at one point in their career had respectability, we are told that these denials in the face of facts are acceptable, and we are the ones who need to "wake up."
I'm not so sure of that.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Now being a privately owned website, it is not necessary to grant freedom of speech to all, but I think that is going way to far.
I think there is sufficient evidence to show that Russian involvement is extensive, intentional, and was planned as part of a drive by Putin to create an Imperialist Greater Russia where Freedom of Speech and other individual rights are denied to anyone not named Putin.
But unless they are shown to be paid trolls, I think they should have a voice here.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)I just think there needs to be additional awareness as to the lies they tell.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)This is in spite of new stories that show Putin planned this well before it started, and reports by Russian News Services of Russian Military fighting in the Ukraine.
I do not think any amount of evidence will convince them because it is a belief they hold and it is their world view.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)....is trotted out to "catapult the propaganda", in the words of a not-so-great man.
Even worse is when the propaganda is inserted like a poison pill inside some generally agreeable concept: "Fascism is bad!!!!!!.......oh, and Russia never invaded Crimea and President Obama spent $5 billion to overthrow the Ukrainian government.......Like I said, Fascism is bad!!!!!"
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)What we have in Ukraine is a war of Russian aggression.
FSogol
(45,525 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Anansi1171
(793 posts)...why not simple propaganda from a party to the conflict.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)when they get into Kremlin-devised conspiracy theory
Igel
(35,356 posts)Fear, because they feared making an accusation that might annoy or infuriate the "wrong" people. So the OSCE reports all kinds of unmarked uniforms and equipment in the eastern Donbas. At the same time, there are a lot of pictures of how the LNR and DNR proudly mark their equipment and issue various patches for their men.
Presumably we're expected to think that there's as likely a chance of Lutherans from Stockholm, Muslims from Indonesia, or white Zimbabweans mounting the incursion into the Donbas as Russians. We can't have "likely" or "almost certainly" when accusing allies. It has to be proof beyond not just a reasonable, but beyond any doubt. And if the proof proffered might be a bit tainted we go all ad-hominem and start looking for secret "dog whistle" meanings to words that might allow us to sleep off the hook.
Because ultimately the goal is to be counter what's local. Perhaps because what's local is hated, perhaps there's bitterness at one's truly glory and rightness not being properly appreciated, perhaps because there's an echo chamber set up between the priest and the acolytes whose tithes support the priest, perhaps because if one's wrong about this it's possible they were wrong about something in the past. At some point being contrary becomes a mental tic, a bad reflex, a pernicious habit, one that is as addictive as nicotine and toxic as meth. And the conversation becomes Monty Python's "Argument clinic" on steroids. There's no thinking there. Just a search for self-justification and self-importance.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)I love absurdist British humor.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)standard to claims that are only supported by cranks and those with a paid agenda.....the anti-vaxxers and pro-Putin folks have, in my opinion....crossed that line.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)John Pilger:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/27/why-the-rise-of-fascism-is-again-the-issue/
Nulands coup did not go to plan. Nato was prevented from seizing Russias historic, legitimate, warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea illegally annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s. The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.
Robert Parry:
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/18/the-powerful-group-think-on-ukraine/
Since the new regime also took provocative steps against the ethnic Russians (such as the parliament voting to ban Russian as an official language), resistance arose to the coup regime in the east and south. In Crimea, voters opted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a process supported by Russian troops stationed in Crimea under a prior agreement with Ukraines government.
There was no Russian invasion, as the New York Times and other mainstream U.S. news outlets claimed. The Russian troops were already in Crimea assigned to Russias historic naval base at Sebastopol. Putin agreed to Crimeas annexation partly out of fear that the naval base would otherwise fall into NATOs hands and pose a strategic threat to Russia.
These two individuals--among others--are clearly divorced from reality regarding the situation, and yet they are spoken of reverently by many here. Should we be more careful which wagons we hitch our horses to?
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The first one is very polarizing.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)At the time the Kremlin denied military involvement in the crisis referring to the gunmen as local self-defence forces, however since then Putin has openly admitted Russian troops did assist in pushing Ukrainian authorities out of Crimea.
Robert Parry has been toting the Russian line on Ukraine from the beginning and his words are discredited by none other than Putin himself.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Semantics over the word "invasion" I mainly mean the rest of it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)period.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)long the way, whether that would be an invasion or not would be a semantic quibble?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)have bases. That's animal based fertilizer.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)He very specifically mentions the geopolitical interests & Guantanamo is different given that Havana hasn't spent a significantly period of time within US borders in the past century & doesn't have a predominantly English speaking American descent population there either.
A better but far from the same is if Russia was heavily interested in what was going on in Mexico or interested in what direction Mexico was going & what support we choose to provide to our neighbor & Russia using tough rhetoric over it. However, the Crimea situation is unique even in the context of the entire Ukraine crisis situation.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It doesn't matter that we had at the time a significant amount of territory there to include bases or the fact that Panama exists because we forcibly separated it from Colombia to begin with.
To try to frame our invasion of Panama as anything other than an invasion would be laughable, and it is similarly laughable to frame Russia's invasion of Ukraine as anything but an invasion.
Your rhetoric is a desperate attempt to fend off the obvious.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Call it an invasion all you want, I don't disagree. I just say it was easier since they were already there.
There were reasons why Panama was invaded though, economically motivated. The pro US dictator in charge tortured & ran a police state that pleased the US. Given the US long term history of this, somehow this recent attention to Ukraine (and say not CAR?) isn't viewed suspicious or the US doesn't have any economic ulterior motives to picking sides here?
That isn't to say Russia has pure interests regarding Crimea, very strategic geopolitical interests here but it is a bit different given the Russian culture that exists in Crimea. The reasons are unique to each & every situation.
Iraq -- Saddam Hussein got himself into heavy debt by invading Iran which he thought was vulnerable given the recent regime change so when Kuwait kept pushing the output, keeping the prices low which the oil dependent nation wasn't very helpful to the debt that felt obligated for him to repay he viewed it as an act of aggression so he invaded Kuwait.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)CanadaexPat
(496 posts)Does having troops there already amount to an invasion? Does sending weapons and some forces amount to an invasion?
But the idea that the West initiated or encouraged the developments in Ukraine - absolutely correct. The fighting that is happening is just as much the West's fault.
Cayenne
(480 posts)Do you think the people of Crimea want to be liberated?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)But I haven't read Cohen or Chomsky on that particular topic. I do know that Cohen is rather apologetic towards the Russian narrative.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Invasion implies 0 troops followed by more troops. It is much easier to "invade" when you already have military & naval fleet there.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)Which it was allowed to maintain pursuant to existing treaty.
Russia was not allowed to take those men off the bases and onto sovereign Ukrainian land and occupy local government buildings, military bases, hospitals, harbors, etc. That's what happened in February and March 2014.
And yes, that is an invasion by any definition of the word.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)since Ukraine waved the white flag on Crimea very early & seem to have little interest in trying to gain in back, at-least with their military forces which resources are being used in the parts which are little threat to becoming part of Russia since majority there want independence, not become part of Russia.
My whole point was it is easier to invade when your military is already there but there were also many other issues that made it easier such as the protests & strong public support & Crimea has been lost to Russia often in conflicts.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)Given that literally days before the Russians made their move Yanukovych had left Kiev, so things were still reeling. That's why Putin's move to seize Crimea was so optimal--he knew he'd never have a better chance than that. And apparently that's why he had already drawn up plans to move in even before Yanukovych chippered out. And once Russia annexed Crimea, any attempt by the Ukrainians to reclaim it military would mean going up against the Russian army proper. So Putin knew he had a once in a lifetime opportunity to claim Crimea for the Russian Federation, and he took it. Carpe Crimea.
As for the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk, perhaps I'm wrong but I honestly don't think the endgame for them is an independent Donbass state. Nor is it to be part of a federalized Ukraine. Their intention is to join Russia.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)While rebel factions are independent & asymmetrical or the various group dynamics maybe some or parts of it have that in mind, this where a lot of the working class parts of Ukraine is, especially when it comes to the natural resources in Ukraine soil, a lot of people haven't received their pensions & corruption is in charge of the coal mining industry. I think an Independent Constitutional Convention & a functioning system of government would solve a lot of things but there are very problematic political issues & until they are worked out -- there will be strong sentiment for independence or self-rule. Even if there is an endgame, being part of Russia was never supported by the majority in Eastern Ukraine and even if they want it. It isn't going to happen unless most of the citizens within want it & right now, self-rule seems to be what all this fighting is over or why the people agreeing to fight & die are doing it. THere are many protests, people aren't happy with the Ukraine government.
William769
(55,147 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)The Pilger piece got over 70 recs here at DU, although I'm hoping it was just for its "Duh!" generalized premise ("Fascism is bad, m'kay?" and not the poison pill of grossly distorted facts contained within it.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)History tends to repeat itself.
Germany annexes Austria then invades Poland.
Russia annexes the Crimea then invades the Ukraine.
Idiots look the other way.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The red army defeated white army & gained control of Crimea while the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the USSR, it wasn't part of Ukraine until the Nazis liberated Crimea than Stalin committed mass murder over accusations of helping the Nazis which many within Ukraine did. Was still ruled by Russia until Nikita Khrushchev basically gave it away in 1954. Crimea has been a long term polarizing issue in Ukraine politics since 1991 & this has happened before.
I do know Germany annexing Austria was very popular within Germany, I don't know the two countries' history but I'm sure there was a long term dispute over land. I find it unlikely the two things are the same given how often invasions & disputes over land take place, also western countries have a long track record of invasions themselves.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)whether Russian troops were involved in the invasion of Crimea.
Parry and Pilger have zero credibility on anything regarding Russia and/or Ukraine.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Normally I'd say, "Best of luck with that!", but, you know.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Buddy, you are no Dr. Strangelove.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)Even though I've never once argued here for US military intervention in Ukraine.
My only agenda is that I hate when people post bullshit on DU....it cheapens this otherwise invaluable website. And Parry, Pilger and company's narrative on Ukraine is in fact bullshit and I won't stand for it.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Legal obstacles should not prevent people marrying each other, regardless of gender. But this is a civil and private matter; bourgeois acceptability is not yet a human right. The rights historically associated with marriage are those of property: capitalism itself. Elevating the "right" of marriage above the right to life and real justice is as profane as seeking allies among those who deny life and justice to so many, from Afghanistan to Palestine.
He also thinks Obama is worse than Bush, blah blah blah. Pretty much the stereotypical caricature of the America-hating, Communist asshat who gets his talking points straight from Moscow, even when it's run by gangster capitalists any decent leftist would condemn.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Fuck him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)A titan of the Indecent Left.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I like knowing who doesn't give a fuck about lgbt civil rights.
It's interesting that the posters who love this journalist are never seen in threads discussing lgbt rights...so one has to assume they don't give a fuck either.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)GLBT rights, or any human rights for that matter.
What they do care about is some kind of tribal grudge match against the United States, where their champion is the Moscow Bear.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)It's the USA is bad, so Putin gets a pass...
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 04:11 AM - Edit history (1)
Was it not social acceptance of the denial of civil rights that preambled income inequality? And the idea that some people don't deserve equal treatment with the privileged is not a form of economic darwinism?Watching how 51% of the people's concerns are mocked and their rights to controlling their own bodies, such as slaves never had, has been an eye opener. Voting rights that affect POC to keep them out of competing with the privileged, is 'old hat' now, only the civil liberties of those who already had those protections, thus privileged, matter now.
It's like what Tim Wise said:
Whiteness, NSA Spying and the Irony of Racial Privilege
Tim Wise - June 19, 2013
That said, I also must admit to a certain nonchalance in the face of the recent revelations about the National Security Agencys snooping into phone records, and the dust-up over the leaking of the NSAs program by Ed Snowden. And as I tried to figure out why I wasnt more animated upon hearing the revelations and, likewise, why so many others were it struck me. Those who are especially chapped about the program, about the very concept of their government keeping tabs on them in effect profiling them as potential criminals, as terrorists are almost entirely those for whom shit like this is new: people who have never before been presumed criminal, up to no good, or worthy of suspicion.
In short, they are mostly white. And male. And middle-class or above. And most assuredly not Muslim.
And although I too am those things, perhaps because I work mostly on issues of racism, white privilege and racial inequity and because my mentors and teachers have principally been people of color, for whom things like this are distressingly familiar the latest confirmation that the U.S. is far from the nation we were sold as children is hardly Earth-shattering. After all, it is only those who have had the relative luxury of remaining in a child-like, innocent state with regard to the empire in which they reside who can be driven to such distraction by something that, compared to what lots of folks deal with every day, seems pretty weak tea...
http://www.timwise.org/2013/06/whiteness-nsa-spying-and-the-irony-of-racial-privilege/
This refrain is now old with many of us as we see people thumbing their noses down at the 'lesser people.' Wise has issues with the Democratic Party as Chris Hedges does with pornography, because in the end, being a progressive and a liberal is about individual lives.
That is left out by pundits celebrated by Putin supporters in online forums, cable shows by Republicans, and talk radio pundits like Alex Jones. The latter come out actively against the government that supports the rights of women and the poor against the privileged and powerful. They have determined what their place will be in the society they want - and it's not what Democrats want, so we must be eliminated totally.
Those civil rights issues are the dirty underbelly of empire and privilege and how the population is felled by the status quo. Dismiss one civil right, and they'll go after all of them. And some of them claim to be from the 'left' as some now define it. It's not how I define it, but I see a pattern. Tell me how this is not the way that some are defining the Democratic Party and its followers:
Lumpenproletariat is a term that was originally coined by Karl Marx to describe that layer of the working class that is unlikely ever to achieve class consciousness and is therefore lost to socially useful production, of no use to the revolutionary struggle, and perhaps even an impediment to the realization of a classless society.[1] The word is derived from the German word Lumpenproletarier, a word literally meaning "miscreant" as well as "rag". The term proletarian was first defined by Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1845) and later elaborated on in other works by Marx. The Marxist Internet Archive writes that "this term identifies the class of outcast, degenerated and submerged elements that make up a section of the population of industrial centers" which include "beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements."[2]
In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852), Marx gives this description of the lumpenproletariat:
Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème.[3]
In the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx rhetorically describes the lumpenproletariat as a "class fraction" that constituted the political power base for Louis Bonaparte of France in 1848. In this sense, Marx argued that Bonaparte was able to place himself above the two main classes, the proletariat and bourgeoisie, by resorting to the "lumpenproletariat" as an apparently independent base of power, while in fact advancing the material interests of the "finance aristocracy".
For rhetorical purposes, Marx identifies Louis Napoleon himself as being like a member of the lumpenproletariat insofar as, being a member of the finance aristocracy, he has no direct interest in productive enterprises.[4] This is a rhetorical flourish, however, which equates the lumpenproletariat, the rentier class, and the apex of class society as equivalent members of the class of those with no role in useful production...[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpen_proletariat
'All Men (women) Are Created Equal' isn't in those perjoratives applied to victims of class warfare. They don't count as they are unwilling to give up all they are left with, their very lives for the guiding hand of the intellectual elitists. Nor do the social policies promoted by progressives to mitigate the genocide committed upon them matter. They are denied humanity for what was done to them, despite the identity politics used to claim they are part of the cadre. If they dare squeak about the voting to support the pillars of democratic socialism such as are in the New Deal and fought for by Bernie Sanders, they are supporting continuing evil, supposedly. Like living an imperfect life isn't worth it. Conveniently given advice by those who are not on the chopping block.
Their lives, thus their survival as 'losers' don't matter in the face of ideology, only the revolution matters. The one ending up creating a system of feudalism with a different name, with little worker input. Evolution of society as preached from feudalism to the paradise of communism, sans any talk of civil rights, ends up being no different than the Biblical view of 'every man with his own vineyard' as the ultimate society. Don't bring up the uncomfortable issue of who is going to be doing the childbearing and menial work. Social stratification benefits those at the top, not the rest. Let's not talk about what enables and sweeps that under the rug.
You never answer my replies, but you struck a chord, and thus I answered with my take on just how screwed up the support, some of it coming from a misguided vision of Putin remaking the USSR or a communist society based on Marx coming to pass. That is not what Putin is doing. He's an oligarch and friend of oligarchs and if people would open their eyes up to that fact, they might see him as the fascist that he is, no matter how he presents himself.
Russia is now an experiment melding religion, corporate and state power working together for the benefit of the corporations and destroying civil society and protections. That is the way that Mussolini termed what he was doing with Fascism in Italy.
The West has successfully combined corporations, oligarchs, monarchs and strong state government to afford individual rights and freedoms to its citizenry, but that is going to fall in the face of what is now embraced in the USA and the Anglosphere, and more directly by ISIS.
The voices against the Democratic Party, IMHO, are not for democratic, accountable government but for a simplistic vision no one will be able to ignore when they destroy the state. It will seamlessly control everything necessary to live. Yes, that is a pessimistic view and I am still working these things out in my mind, seeking to find a way to define my position on maintaining the living. I'm a 'WIP.'
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You wrote:
By all reported accounts, several days after the departure of former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych from Kiev in February 2014, well-armed and organized military units began appearing throughout the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine.
Why exactly did Yanukovych leave? He was elected in 2010 and was pushing for closer ties with Russia. His policies provoked opposition that turned to armed revolt, leading to him fleeing the country. Was there any foreign support for these right wing militias that overthrew Yanukovych? Careful readers of history know that the US has frequently funded front groups to effect regime change. Think Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, Chile, Italy, Greece, Honduras, Venezuela, the list could continue.
From a geopolitical standpoint, it is obvious that the US is trying to surround Russia and China with military bases. Remember that it the US, not Russia, that has over 700 military bases all around the world. Outposts of empire. Russia has one base, and where is that naval base located? In Crimea. Surprised?
see attached link for more information: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/07/ukraine-russia-crimea-naval-base-tatars-explainer
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)corruption.
Plenty of references to Chile and Iran etc from people who want to smear any opponents of Putinism as capitalist running dogs, but nope didn't happen.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The whole country is mired in corruption, but specifically changing course with the trade deals after the EU talks broke down after his refusal to release the Freedom Party Leader (political prosecutions is a common one in Ukraine but he was hardly the only one) but faced a 50+ count indictment herself in the US & Wikileaks revealed one of the current members of Ukraine's government destroyed files indicating her mob ties (mob is heavily involved given all the bribing & corruption that takes place) but it was specifically the Russian as a language, the Russia trade deals (where a smoke bomb was thrown in the room).
The conflicts going on in East Ukraine was used as a justification for the votes to remove but for some reason aren't blaming themselves regarding any of it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)or does not fit with the agreed upon narrative? Evidence does not always immediately turn up. And with a corporate media that generally echoes the US "party line" on foreign affairs who will look for evidence?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)acts from Washington did not appear anywhere until the Kremlin propaganda machine began churning it out.
Corrupt leader broke faith with his voters, chose to flee with his wealth rather than stand trial.
US does not give a crap about Ukraine. Their concern is Russia's overreach.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)There is no real separation of powers between the judicial & government branches. Constitutional court judges are easily dismissed for "oath violations".
The judicial system of Ukraine is outlined in the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine.[1] Before this there was no notion of judicial review nor any Supreme Court since 1991's Ukrainian independence.[2] Inherited most of its principles from the court system of the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR, the court system of Ukraine is slowly being restructured.
Although judicial independence exist in principle, in practice there is little separation of juridical and political powers. Judges are subjected to pressure by political and business interests.[3] Ukraine's court system is widely regarded as corrupt.[4]
<snip>
Juridical corruption
"There could even be cases of the revocation of investment, because legal uncertainty is very deep, and the actions of regional authorities are willful."
German Ambassador to Ukraine Hans-Jurgen Heimsoeth, late September 2011[37]
See also: Judicial system of Ukraine, Mazhory and Murder of Oksana Makar
Ukrainian politicians and analysts have described the system of justice in Ukraine as "rotten to the core"[38][39] and have complained about political pressure put on judges and corruption.[40] Independent lawyers and human rights activists have complained Ukrainian judges regularly come under pressure to hand down a certain verdict.[41] Ukraine's court system is widely regarded as corrupt.[42] A Ukrainian Justice Ministry survey in 2009 revealed that only 10% of respondents trusted the nations court system. Less than 30% believed that it was still possible to get a fair trial.[38]
Although judicial independence exists in principle, in practise there is little separation of juridical and political powers. Judges are subjected to pressure by political and business interests.[43]
An August 2014 Ukrayinska Pravda article claimed that the brides judges receive ("from a few to many thousands of dollars" are sometimes much higher their salaries (of 915 US dollar).[44] (An example of this could be) on May 22, 2012 Volodymyr Rokytskyi, Deputy Head of Ukraine's Security Service, was photographed in public wearing a US$32,000 luxury wristwatch despite the fact that its price amounts to his yearly official income. The instance happened at a joint Ukrainian-American event dedicated to fighting illegal drugs.[45] Ukrainian judges have been arrested while taking bribes.[46]
Critics have also complained that officials and their children (the latter ones are known as "mazhory"[47]) receive favourable sentences compared with common citizens.[48][49]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine#Juridical_corruption
There are several politicians currently under investigation, mostly those who did well in vote counts in the East.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Russia has 1, in Crimea.
So which Empire is guilty of overreach?:
1) The US Empire, with over 700 military bases, a war budget that equals the military spending of all other nations combined, and a 240 year history of constant invasion and interference in countries all over the world, the Empire that is currently trying to encircle Russia and China with client states and bases, or
2) Russia, which has allowed all the former satellites to withdraw from the USSR and has 1 military base?
I will pick number 1.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Sorry, but one does not excuse the other.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)allowed to be and in the process violate the sovereignty of the country they are invading.
Under Bush, that was the US.
Under Putin, it's Russia.
We voted out Bush.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Is that the US still refusing to give up illegally seized land?
The US cannot escape its history, and people in other countries are less willing to forget any history that conflicts with the US myth of always interfering for the best motives.
We only voted out Bush because of the 2 term limit. Absent that limit Rove would have stole another election.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Certainly it should be re-negotiated or even voided by mutual discussion.
But, the US complying with the Guantanamo treaty is not comparable to Russia wiping its ass with the various treaties it signed with Ukraine.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)it has ever signed with the First Peoples of this country. Great Powers do what they wish and treaties are ignored by them.
When a lease runs out the tenant must leave. Is the US packing up yet?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That's what you and other folks are demanding we believe regarding Russia's invasion of Crimea.
Who knew?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The original post started:
Do political pundits who deny the Russian invasion of Crimea deserve to be taken seriously at DU?
By all reported accounts, several days after the departure of former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych from Kiev in February 2014, well-armed and organized military units began appearing throughout the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine. These units seized the local parliament, airports, harbors and other government installations in the run-up to a hastily organized March 16, 2014 plebiscite asking Crimeans to accept Crimea's annexation into the Russian Federation.
My original response was:
Why exactly did Yanukovych leave? He was elected in 2010 and was pushing for closer ties with Russia. His policies provoked opposition that turned to armed revolt, leading to him fleeing the country. Was there any foreign support for these right wing militias that overthrew Yanukovych? Careful readers of history know that the US has frequently funded front groups to effect regime change. Think Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, Chile, Italy, Greece, Honduras, Venezuela, the list could continue.
Tommy Carcetti writes:
But honestly--should we take these people seriously? Would we take someone who denies the moon landing or the Holocaust seriously? Would we take people who claim we weren't attacked by hijacked airliners on 9-11 seriously? Those types of opinions typically are sent off to creative speculation.
My response:
Interesting verbal trickery here by positing several common denialist scenarios and then implying that the people who disagree with the poster must share them, thus making anyone who disagrees with the poster easy to categorize. I expect this sort of thing from Fox News or the GOP but it has no place in a serious discussion.
Finally I continue:
The US has been accused many times of secretly interfering in other countries. Remember Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran? The plots against Castro? Interference in Nicaragua, in Venezuela? Salvador Allende in Chile anyone? Greece and Italy after WW II anyone? I could continue but the evidence is abundant that the US intervenes constantly in the affairs of many countries as it strives to control the world.
I am not demanding anything other than to ask that people be open to more evidence regarding the whole situation and not accept prima facie the story that the US government has put out. The US government has lied to its citizens before. Tonkin Gulf anyone?
pampango
(24,692 posts)with Russia".
He governed from 2010 until November 2013 to make it possible to sign an Association Agreement with the EU on November 29, 2013.
Five days before that Putin made a public statement that such an agreement between Ukraine and the EU would not be in Russia's 'security interest'. And Yanukovich quickly changed his mind about signing the Agreement that his government had been working 3 years to negotiate.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)And rather than remain in power a hated man, he chose to take the offer of sanctuary that Russia was very happy to provide him and live a very comfortable, wealthy private citizen. Hence why he had all his most luxurious possessions packed up during the time where downtown Kiev was literally on fire.
That's the long and the short of it.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Do DUers who deny the Russian invasion of Crimea deserve to be taken seriously at DU?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)It should be no surprise they show up here.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)On DU or anywhere else.
A few months back, when Putin appeared to be Public Enemy #1 of the Obama administration, there was a flurry of Putin love among pundits, but now that Netanyahu with the help of John Boner has poked a finger in Obama's eye, the DC press has sort of forgotten their collective swoon over Vladimir.
Why these fools have even a smidgen of credibility left is beyond me.