Ukraine (cont.)

[josie_L]

The Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement [UMDPL]

Analysis of Berkut treatment of peaceful protesters on Nov 30 and Dec 1

During the events on EuroMaidan, various special force units and Interior Ministry forces were deployed however it was primarily the Berkut riot police who used violence.

Berkut is a high-mobility unit with around 3, 700 officers. This special unit functions on the basis not of a law, but of an internal Interior Ministry order which is not even registered with the Justice Ministry, making it effectively governed by the wishes of one official – the Interior Minister. The order states that Berkut officers are used for operations involving force in difficult situations.

The analysts consider that there were no legal grounds for deploying Berkut officers to protect public order during the peaceful protest in the early morning on Nov 30. The people on Maidan Nezalezhnosti were of different ages and level of physical fitness and were behaving peacefully, talking together or sleeping. Nobody was committing any offence meaning that the circumstances cannot be seen to have warranted the use of force. The group of people could not be called organized and accustomed to showing resistance through force or attack.

On Dec 1 outside the president’s administration there were grounds for deploying Berkut, however the officers should have stabilized the situation. This could have been achieved by isolating only those people who were breaking the law and, in accordance with the Police Act, ensuring the safety of participants of a peaceful gathering. This was not, however, what took place.

**The most shocking aspect was the indiscriminate, wide-scale, brutal and cynical manner in which the Berkut officers kicked and beat protesters with rubber truncheons and their fists without paying any consideration to their age, gender or physical condition. The grounds and limits for the use of force and special means are clearly set out in the Police Act, the Patrol Service Charter, and other normative acts. There must be an audible warning before the use of force which should give people the time and opportunity to understand the situation and obey police orders. Instead the use of force and special means coincided with the warning meaning that some people had not even woken up. **Force may only be applied without warning where there is a direct threat to the life or health of members of the public or police officers. There was no such threat on Nov 30.

Both on Nov 30 and on Bankova St on Dec 1, the use of force by police officers was more reminiscent of a mass execution, than a law enforcement measure. Some people lying on the ground and showing no resistance were beaten by several officers at the same time.

This is in flagrant breach of the law which stipulates that where force cannot be avoided, it must not exceed the limits needed for carrying out the officers’ duties, and should minimize the harm caused to the offenders or other citizens.** Furthermore, in a Soviet resolution still in force on the use of special means for protecting public order, there is a clear ban on beating people with truncheons on the head, neck, collarbone, stomach and genitals. One can however see on numerous videos that blows were delivered indiscriminately and with disregard for any rules and prohibitions. The nature and methods for the use of force by the police suggests that they were used deliberately to inflict severe pain and suffering in order to frighten the protesters, with this being a direct violation of Article 28 of Ukraine’s Constitution which bans torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.**

Stun grenades were used on Dec 1 on Bankova St without taking into account how far away from people they have to fall, with this resulting in protesters receiving leg burns and injuries. Both on Nov 30 and Dec 1 the officers breached the Police Act by ignoring the requests of people injured to call an ambulance. Instead they even used force against medical workers who tried to provide first aid to the injured.

UMDPL also notes that the number of journalists who suffered from this violence – over 50people – was unprecedented in all the years of Ukraine’s independence. As well as the beating, this involved violation of Article 171 of the Criminal Code – obstructing journalists from carrying out their professional activities.

There were also a large number of procedural infringements with respect to the detention of protesters. Both on Nov 30 and on Dec 1 the detentions were largely unwarranted with the reasons not being given, nor the people who were detained being informed of their rights. In breach of Article 254 of the Code of Administrative Offences which requires that a protocol be drawn up when a person is detained, some of those detained report that they were released without any protocol or apologies being issued. Such detentions are in breach of Article 29 of the Constitution regarding the right to liberty and personal security, as well as protection from unlawful detention.

The dispersing of peaceful demonstrators by the Berkut officers on both occasions was undoubtedly of a brutal and cynical nature. The fact that they were obeying orders from above is no excuse for their actions. Article 41 § 4 of the Criminal Code clearly stipulates that a person who carries out a manifestly criminal order or instruction is criminally liable. The management’s reference to “excesses in carrying out orders” is also absurd since almost all the Berkut officers took part in the beatings. In this respect the actions of certain Berkut men and their commanding officers should be viewed as criminal offences as per Article 365 of the Criminal Code – exceeding official powers.

khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1387488356

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your rewriting of recent history is almost as appalling as your comparing Putin to Stalin.

Historical events can be appalling, particularly when they’re in process. One of the worst is aggressive conquest, which is what Putin is doing as we speak. If Britain seized one square inch of Holland, or if France seized a square centimeter of Italy, or if the worst of all happened, the U.S. seized one blade of Canadian grass, many would scream their disapproval, and rightly so.

And yet, Putin seizes all of Crimea and is in the process of seizing Eastern Ukraine (and perhaps more…sometimes conquerers don’t stop) and with some, that’s quite okay.

That truly is appalling.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Pope is writing to the presiding leader of Ukraine, particularly so, as the violence has escalated under his rule. The massacre in Odessa, deaths in Mariupol and many others all happening under his leadership, in addition to his sending Ukrainian soldiers, militia units, tanks and helicopters into East Ukraine

Of course, the Pope will be praying for peace for all of Ukraine, and for a stop to this escalating violence.

Let’s see. Russia seized Crimea, which it twice agreed would remain part of Ukraine, and incorporated it into Russia. It’s now part of Russia.

Now, by the same methodology, it is trying to seize two additional provinces of Ukraine, and just about has it done. The Ukrainian government sent in its police and military, which every country on earth would do to protect its territory. (Imagine for a moment what Putin would do if China claimed the Russian Far East…nuclear war probably.) And for this, some condemn them.

And Putin’s agents seized government buildings, conducted a bogus election to separate from Ukraine, and nobody expected a clash over that? Imagine what would happen if U.S. military or paramilitaries seized government buildings in Saskatchewan, held a phony election and declared Saskatchewan to be a U.S. state. Does anybody really think nobody would get hurt in the process? Does anybody really think Canadians would fail to resist such a thing? They would probably do it a lot more vigorously than the Ukrainian government has resisted Putin’s conquests.

 

[josie_L]

Let’s see. Russia seized Crimea, which it twice agreed would remain part of Ukraine, and incorporated it into Russia. It’s now part of Russia.

Now, by the same methodology, it is trying to seize two additional provinces of Ukraine, and just about has it done. The Ukrainian government sent in its police and military, which every country on earth would do to protect its territory. (Imagine for a moment what Putin would do if China claimed the Russian Far East…nuclear war probably.) And for this, some condemn them.

And Putin’s agents seized government buildings, conducted a bogus election to separate from Ukraine, and nobody expected a clash over that? Imagine what would happen if U.S. military or paramilitaries seized government buildings in Saskatchewan, held a phony election and declared Saskatchewan to be a U.S. state. Does anybody really think nobody would get hurt in the process? Does anybody really think Canadians would fail to resist such a thing? They would probably do it a lot more vigorously than the Ukrainian government has resisted Putin’s conquests.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping: (that’s as many as I could put).

 

[pepipop]

Let’s see. Russia seized Crimea, which it twice agreed would remain part of Ukraine, and incorporated it into Russia. It’s now part of Russia.

Now, by the same methodology, it is trying to seize two additional provinces of Ukraine, and just about has it done. The Ukrainian government sent in its police and military, which every country on earth would do to protect its territory. (Imagine for a moment what Putin would do if China claimed the Russian Far East…nuclear war probably.) And for this, some condemn them.

And Putin’s agents seized government buildings, conducted a bogus election to separate from Ukraine, and nobody expected a clash over that? Imagine what would happen if U.S. military or paramilitaries seized government buildings in Saskatchewan, held a phony election and declared Saskatchewan to be a U.S. state. Does anybody really think nobody would get hurt in the process? Does anybody really think Canadians would fail to resist such a thing? They would probably do it a lot more vigorously than the Ukrainian government has resisted Putin’s conquests.

IF Saskatchewan used to part of the USA and was handed over to Canada, over a 15 min.lunch, much to the annoyance of the Saskatchewans; IF the Canadian government had just been overthrown in a coup d’etat and an un-elected government was running the show all aided and abetted by Russian and Chinese officials on the ground; IF the Saskatchewans had remained since that time as a semi-autonomous state but wanted full autonomy; IF a lot of of their population were of American origin and wished to be back in the USA; IF the USA (which possibly they do as I’ve never heard of the place before) had over 25,000 troops there legally and it was their main naval base - then I doubt if anyone would be in the slightest bit interested and would agree with the USA to set it up, especially in lieu of the above factors.

Let’s put it this way, I doubt the Russians would be too interested in what had occurred, being on the other side of the world and why would/should it bother them or anyone else in Europe - unless Russia had been involved in Saskatchewan in the first place and had interests there.

Likewise what difference does it make to the USA, who with the EU helped choose the ‘current’ Ukraine government, what happens between Russia and Crimea. There was no blood shed, the Crimeans wanted out, the Ukraine are under a coup d’etat - in other words there are too many variables.

Funny with Biden taking a lead role out in Ukraine, in December- February, that his son is now on the board of the largest Ukrainian natural gas firm. It does make you wonder…

 

[josie_L]

Let’s see. Russia seized Crimea, which it twice agreed would remain part of Ukraine, and incorporated it into Russia. It’s now part of Russia.

Now, by the same methodology, it is trying to seize two additional provinces of Ukraine, and just about has it done. The Ukrainian government sent in its police and military, which every country on earth would do to protect its territory. (Imagine for a moment what Putin would do if China claimed the Russian Far East…nuclear war probably.) And for this, some condemn them.

And Putin’s agents seized government buildings, conducted a bogus election to separate from Ukraine, and nobody expected a clash over that? Imagine what would happen if U.S. military or paramilitaries seized government buildings in Saskatchewan, held a phony election and declared Saskatchewan to be a U.S. state. Does anybody really think nobody would get hurt in the process? Does anybody really think Canadians would fail to resist such a thing? They would probably do it a lot more vigorously than the Ukrainian government has resisted Putin’s conquests.

I can’t seem to grasp how it’s ok for these terrorists (they are not separatists per se) to use violence to take control of areas with the understanding that they’ll be subsumed into Russia, and then expect the Ukraine government/militia to do nothing “confrontational”?

 

[josie_L]

IF Saskatchewan used to part of the USA and was handed over to Canada, over a 15 min.lunch, much to the annoyance of the Saskatchewans; IF the Canadian government had just been overthrown in a coup d’etat and an un-elected government was running the show all aided and abetted by Russian and Chinese officials on the ground; IF the Saskatchewans had remained since that time as a semi-autonomous state but wanted full autonomy; IF a lot of of their population were of American origin and wished to be back in the USA; IF the USA (which possibly they do as I’ve never heard of the place before) had over 25,000 troops there legally and it was their main naval base - then I doubt if anyone would be in the slightest bit interested and would agree with the USA to set it up, especially in lieu of the above factors.

Let’s put it this way, I doubt the Russians would be too interested in what had occurred, being on the other side of the world and why would/should it bother them or anyone else in Europe - unless Russia had been involved in Saskatchewan in the first place and had interests there.

Likewise what difference does it make to the USA, who with the EU helped choose the ‘current’ Ukraine government, what happens between Russia and Crimea. There was no blood shed, the Crimeans wanted out, the Ukraine are under a coup d’etat - in other words there are too many variables.

Funny with Biden taking a lead role out in Ukraine, in December- February, that his son is now on the board of the largest Ukrainian natural gas firm. It does make you wonder…

There was no blood shed when the Sudetenland was annexed by Germans either and we know what that led to.

 

[Seamus_L]

No one was doing anything in Eastern Ukraine-Crimea until Western backed anti-Russian extremists toppled the government in Kiev.

 

[josie_L]

No one was doing anything in Eastern Ukraine-Crimea until Western backed anti-Russian extremists toppled the government in Kiev.

It toppled because the Russian-backed president of the Ukraine was extremely corrupt, i.e., Russian appeasement was no longer an option for the majority of people living in the Ukraine, they wanted a real democracy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

IF Saskatchewan used to part of the USA and was handed over to Canada, over a 15 min.lunch, much to the annoyance of the Saskatchewans; IF the Canadian government had just been overthrown in a coup d’etat and an un-elected government was running the show all aided and abetted by Russian and Chinese officials on the ground; IF the Saskatchewans had remained since that time as a semi-autonomous state but wanted full autonomy; IF a lot of of their population were of American origin and wished to be back in the USA; IF the USA (which possibly they do as I’ve never heard of the place before) had over 25,000 troops there legally and it was their main naval base - then I doubt if anyone would be in the slightest bit interested and would agree with the USA to set it up, especially in lieu of the above factors.

Let’s put it this way, I doubt the Russians would be too interested in what had occurred, being on the other side of the world and why would/should it bother them or anyone else in Europe - unless Russia had been involved in Saskatchewan in the first place and had interests there.

Likewise what difference does it make to the USA, who with the EU helped choose the ‘current’ Ukraine government, what happens between Russia and Crimea. There was no blood shed, the Crimeans wanted out, the Ukraine are under a coup d’etat - in other words there are too many variables.

Funny with Biden taking a lead role out in Ukraine, in December- February, that his son is now on the board of the largest Ukrainian natural gas firm. It does make you wonder…

I take it, then, that you would support Mexican seizure of Texas, part of California, New Mexico and Arizona. It would be interesting to know if you do or would support that. Let us know.

Ukraine is not Russia. Ukrainians are a distinct, though related people, but they are not Russians. Ukraine was seized by the Tsars, who oppressed Ukrainian Catholics, Latin Catholics, Greek Orthodox. Even Lenin styled Russia the “prison house of nations” because it dominated so many unwilling, disparate peoples. Even so, Lenin kept up the pretense, as did Stalin and his successors right down to Gorbachev, that Ukraine was “an autonomous republic” even to the extent of cynically demanding a separate national seat at the UN for Ukraine. Look it up, you’ll see. Putin is at least more honest in claiming Ukraine as simply provinces of Russia, rather like Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait.

Ukraine suffered the Holodomor under Soviet Russian hands, exile of many of its people, even worse oppression of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Latin Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church.

And what was Russia during that era? A communist state that we are somehow now to think about differently because it no longer claims to be communist? It was never communist. Communism was and is a mythic fig leaf. It’s nothing but the total domination and exploitation of the many by the few “power elites”. In that way, Putin’s Russia is no different from Lenin’s or Andropov’s or Tsar Nicholas’ Russia.

Oh, but there is the occasional swelling of the national chest with pride; Ochagov taken and Tartary subdued, the Great Patriotic War, the seizure of Crimea, the seizure of Eastern Ukraine.

And so, a small people, the Ukrainians, who suffered so much for so long under Russian conquest, oppression and domination, are facing it again. It is no wonder they resist. It’s a wonder they don’t do it more. Their own grandparents suffered the Terror Famine, exile to the Gulag from whence they never returned, slave labor on the Belomor Canal, in the Kolyma, the Naryn Cascade and the construction of Novosibirsk among many other atrocious abuses of humanity.

But, as with the Anschluss and the taking of the Sudetenland, much of the world is willing to see this small people swallowed up by imperialism that hasn’t been seen since WWII. Well, yes, there was Saddam Hussein and Iranian domination of Iraq and Syria.

Putin will be careful. He won’t risk another disaster like that Russia sustained in Afghanistan. Compared to Ukraine, he’s strong. But will his people tolerate some long grind before the gates of Kiev or perhaps Poland? At some geographic point, he has calculated that the people will fight him with teeth and fingernails if it has to be, and in places where he has no “fifth column” to speak of. And being clever, he will stop before that point. It’s one thing for a people to submit to despotism when enjoying national pride in seeing foreigners conquered. It’s quite another when their poverty is worsened by it more seriously, and even a few of their sons come home in body bags.

The west, which never knew what it’s like to be under the dominion of Russian imperilism, may seek its comforts and temporize with the conquerer. But there are people who lived under it within living memory, and won’t willingly live under it again.

And as much as I dislike Biden, I hope the company his son works for discovers a lot of frackable gas (its there) before Russia seizes all of it. Ukraine could use it when Putin shuts off whatever part of Ukraine he doesn’t seize (if any there be) from gas supplies.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No one was doing anything in Eastern Ukraine-Crimea until Western backed anti-Russian extremists toppled the government in Kiev.

The government wasn’t toppled. If Obama got caught selling out the U.S. to some foreign government and fled to some other country, there would still be a government. The Ukrainian parliament, including some of Turkovych’s party, remained. And, having no executive because he had fled to his master in Russia, they appointed an interim president and declared elections. They had every right, indeed, every obligation, to do it.

And for this, some want Russia to conquer Ukraine? A very thin rationalization indeed.

 

[HansTrappist]

Historical events can be appalling, particularly when they’re in process. One of the worst is aggressive conquest, which is what Putin is doing as we speak. If Britain seized one square inch of Holland, or if France seized a square centimeter of Italy, or if the worst of all happened, the U.S. seized one blade of Canadian grass, many would scream their disapproval, and rightly so.

And yet, Putin seizes all of Crimea and is in the process of seizing Eastern Ukraine (and perhaps more…sometimes conquerers don’t stop) and with some, that’s quite okay.

That truly is appalling.

There was nothing appalling about Putin’s securing of Crimea. It was executed justly and brilliantly and was inevitable the moment Yanukovych was violently and unlawfully deposed by the Western-backed, extremist, violent Maidan “opposition.”

Crimea was not “invaded” since there wasn’t a legitimate Government in Kiev to invade. Anyone who thought Putin would sit around and twiddle his thumbs and allow Right Sector and the other Western-backed extremist Maidan groups to control one of Russia’s most important national security assets, is not in touch with political or historical reality.

And I find it extremely hypocritical and strange that the same voices who incessantly demonize Putin, don’t have a single word of condemnation for the Maidan. In fact, what’s worse, they act like the current authorities in Kiev are actually legitimate.

 

[HansTrappist]

The government wasn’t toppled. If Obama got caught selling out the U.S. to some foreign government and fled to some other country, there would still be a government. The Ukrainian parliament, including some of Turkovych’s party, remained. And, having no executive because he had fled to his master in Russia, they appointed an interim president and declared elections. They had every right, indeed, every obligation, to do it.

And for this, some want Russia to conquer Ukraine? A very thin rationalization indeed.

The legitimate President of Ukraine was toppled in a violent, unjust, foreign-backed coup.

But you are partly correct, it happened over a business deal gone bad. Russia offered Ukraine Russian Gas at a heavily discounted price compared to the EU offer. Yanukovych would have been crazy not to take this offer. The West responded by putting a gun to Yanukovych’s head. Yanukovych was forced to flee after threats were made against his life and the lives of his family, by the “peaceful” Maidan. Yanukovych remains the only legitimate ruler and commander in chief of Ukraine.

 

[josie_L]

The legitimate President of Ukraine was toppled in a violent, unjust, foreign-backed coup.

But you are partly correct, it happened over a business deal gone bad. Russia offered Ukraine Russian Gas at a heavily discounted price compared to the EU offer. Yanukovych would have been crazy not to take this offer. The West responded by putting a gun to Yanukovych’s head. Yanukovych was forced to flee after threats were made against his life and the lives of his family, by the “peaceful” Maidan. Yanukovych remains the only legitimate ruler and commander in chief of Ukraine.

There were no such threats, he fled because he was going to be indicted for brutally attacking and ripping off the very people he was supposed to represent. And as for ultimately choosing Russia, well, I’m sure that there was a combination of pressure and enticement (more the former than the latter):

Shortly after Yanukovych’s electoral win, he extended the lease of the Russian military base in Sevastopil in Crimea for 25 more years despite the agreement was not to lapse till 2017 and this was done in 2010. This was seen as appeasement to Moscow who desire to retake Crimea as a territory of Russia. Russia has also been working hard and gaining ownership of all pipelines that run thru Ukraine as a way of controlling energy flow thru Ukraine. Yanukovych also worked to eliminate Ukrainian as the only official state language and added Russian and reversed education policy that all state schools would be in the Ukrainian language.

Ukraine had been working over the last several years to become a member of the European Union. Several laws were supposed to be upgraded to reflect a more European standard with regards to the judiciary, eliminating corruption, cleaning up the electoral laws, and banking regulations. Europe was concerned about the political show trial of Yulia Tymoshenko and had been pressing Ukraine to release her as a show of good will and a movement towards a Eurpoean standard of justice. The laws were to be modified and in place for the November 29th meeting in Vilnius where Ukraine, Georgia & Moldova were to become Associate Members of the European Union.

Russia in an effort to retain influence if not control over Ukraine started to apply extreme economic pressures, threats, and no doubt physical threats behind closed doors. As of late spring 2013 Russia started applying large tariff’s on Ukrainian manufactured and agricultural goods as a means of damaging the Ukrainian economy. It also threatened to recall the loans it had provided as it owns approximately 25% of the National debt of Ukraine. It started to threatened huge cost increases in the price of gas despite the world price of gas going down and even cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine during the winter. Russia did not want Ukraine to become part of the European Union and saw that Ukraine could potentially escape it’s grip. It tried every dirty trick in the books and no doubt including personal threats to get it’s way at the same time it was publicizing that Europe was exerting undue pressure on Ukraine which was not the case.

In the past month both the Ukrainian president & Ukrainian prime minister have made weekly trips to Russia for unspecified talks. There is no free country in the world where it’s leaders are summoned weekly to another country to explain itself. Ukrainian President’s & Prime Minister’s need to stop this is they are trying to create the illusion they are a sovereign nation and not a puppet state under the control of Russia.

Ukraine was supposed to have all the legislation in place for November 13th 2013. By that time it appeared that the Regions Party was starting to stall, the anti-corruption law, the revised elections law and the law to free Yulia Tymoshenko were still not passed. The European Union extended this deadline to November 19th. As the 19th was approaching they then extended the deadline till before the November 29th meeting in Vilnius. On November 21st as President Yanukovych was in Austria on a state visit, he was declaring everything was still on track for the signing of the EU AA. At the exact same time as he was saying that, Prime Minister Azarov, just fresh back from a visit to Moscow where he had met with Prime Minister Medvedev of Russia declared that the EU AA was dead and that they would be seeking an agreement with Russia instead to the surprise of the EU and most observers. He instructed parliament to stop all further legislation modifications in preparation for the EU AA.

infoukes.com/euromaidan/

And thus began the Euro Maidan.

 

[josie_L]

There was nothing appalling about Putin’s securing of Crimea. It was executed justly and brilliantly and was inevitable the moment Yanukovych was violently and unlawfully deposed by the Western-backed, extremist, violent Maidan “opposition.”

Crimea was not “invaded” since there wasn’t a legitimate Government in Kiev to invade. Anyone who thought Putin would sit around and twiddle his thumbs and allow Right Sector and the other Western-backed extremist Maidan groups to control one of Russia’s most important national security assets, is not in touch with political or historical reality.

And I find it extremely hypocritical and strange that the same voices who incessantly demonize Putin, don’t have a single word of condemnation for the Maidan. In fact, what’s worse, they act like the current authorities in Kiev are actually legitimate.

Yanukovych lost his legitimacy when he used brute force to rid himself of a peaceful movement, it is not surprising therefore that it ended as it did, i.e., the protestors had every right to defy a government that had so little regard for their rights and well-being. Moreover, the Maidan protestors in no way compare to the terrorists/separatists (some of whom are Russian) that have tortured, killed and kidnapped for the purpose of ceding Ukrainian land to Russia.

 

[KyivAndrew]

There was nothing appalling about Putin’s securing of Crimea. It was executed justly and brilliantly

Absolutely, as illustrated by the paragons of freedom and human rights who voted in support of Putin’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in the United Nations, let’s see:** North Korea,** standout country where Christians can be murdered en masse, people die of starvation at their tyrant’s whim in the hundreds of thousands without mercy, concentration camps flourish, and which country has just received a write-off of 90% of any debt to Russia, a great friend;
the autocrat Lukashenka’s Belarus; Sudan which has butchered Christians; communist Cuba; human rights abuser Zimbabwe; Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Syria; and Armenia which was coerced in high manner into supporting Putin. **11 countries in total **supporting Putin’s annexation of Crimea out of all the countries in the world, and such countries.

But why should one be surprised at Kim Jong-Un supporting Putin? They both love their nukes and rattling neighbours with nuclear missile tests with the Great Leader(s) carefully observing same for the benefit of state-controlled TV; heck, normally world leaders have to pass away before their successors decide to honour them with monuments or their pictures on currency - not Putin nor Kim Jong-Un:

This week Russia unveiled a massive commemorative coin marking the annexation, and it is apparently part of a series called “The Gatherer of Russian Lands.”

That name has a dark subtext given the fact that Putin believes the fall of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and is actively destabilizing south and east Ukraine (which he calls Novorussia or New Russia).

businessinsider.com/putin-arrived-in-crimea-and-he-has-a-commemorative-coin-2014-5

View attachment 19944

In the absence of any of Putin’s supporters criticizing Putin’s world view (though I’ve asked before on the Ukraine threads), I take it that the Putin supporters on here agree with Putin that the collapse of the atheist Soviet Empire of Nations and Religions (which the Soviet Union obviously was) was the Greatest Geopolitical Catastrophe of the Century which Putin firmly believes as a cardinal moral tenet. If you don’t agree, please state why Putin is wrong in your opinion in this cardinal belief of his from which he does not budge. Your answers would be helpful.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Putin states on Ukraine erroneously: “The Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic makeup of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine.”
cnn.com/2014/03/19/opinion/motyl-putin-speech/

I find it morally reprehensible that Putin condemns the Bolsheviks and invokes God’s judgment not on Bolshevik Crimes, Murders and Genocides but on the fact they didn’t give more land to Russia! Where is Putin’s invocation of God’s justice for the millions upon millions of souls who perished innocently at the hands of the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union. Where is Putin’s Memorial to these millions of victims? Answer: there is no major memorial to these victims. Heck, neither Putin nor Medvedev can be bothered to show up to commemorate the victims of Stalin, as happened recently:

Reuters) - Russia’s leaders criticized at Stalin commemorations

Relatives of Josef Stalin’s victims commemorated the Soviet dictator’s repression on Tuesday and many condemned Russia’s leaders for not taking part.

Millions of people were executed or sent to prison camps under Stalin’s rule but while thousands paid tribute to the dead at annual ceremonies on Monday and Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin stayed away.

reuters.com/article/2012/10/30/us-russia-stalinism-idUSBRE89T1KY20121030

As Samual Richlin wrote in the New York Times:

SIXTY years after Josef Stalin’s death on March 5, 1953, Russia is still struggling whether to view him as mass murderer or a national hero.

Putin openly deplored the lives lost during the rule of terror, but he never condemned Stalin. A product of the K.G.B., Putin’s power base rests on the same structure that empowered and served Stalin’s terror machine. All talk of a national monument for the victims of Stalin’s terror has disappeared from the public debate under Putin.

And so, instead of the catharsis the country needs and deserves, Russians will go on struggling with a dictator who refuses to go for good.

nytimes.com/2013/03/05/opinion/global/stalins-long-shadow.html?_r=0

emphasis mine

In my opinion, Putin’s xenophobic KGB worldview is well illustrated in the instability and coercion he is imposing on Ukraine, and I note the Baltic countries and Poland and others who suffered at the hands of the Kremlin are similarly worried by Putin with good reason.

 

[HansTrappist]

Absolutely, as illustrated by the paragons of freedom and human rights who voted in support of Putin’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in the United Nations, let’s see:** North Korea,** standout country where Christians can be murdered en masse, people die of starvation at their tyrant’s whim in the hundreds of thousands without mercy, concentration camps flourish, and which country has just received a write-off of 90% of any debt to Russia, a great friend;
the autocrat Lukashenka’s Belarus; Sudan which has butchered Christians; communist Cuba; human rights abuser Zimbabwe; Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Syria; and Armenia which was coerced in high manner into supporting Putin. **11 countries in total **supporting Putin’s annexation of Crimea out of all the countries in the world, and such countries.

So many fallacies there it is hard to know where to begin.

First, I need a few preliminary questions answered: Do you support the current regime in Kiev? Do you consider them legitimate? Did you support the violent coup against Yanukovych? Your answers to these questions, KyivAndrew, will allow me to gauge whether I should take your views on Russia seriously.

Also, your fallacious attempt to paint Russia as a villian because they engage with North Korea is not worthy of discussion on this thread. Start another thread if you wish to explore the nature of Russia’s relationship (or lack thereof) with North Korea or any other nation. I am sure it will turn out to be an educational and lengthy thread.

The same could be said for your mention of Syria in connection with Russia, as if the relationship is somehow villainous. In fact the opposite is true: it is the West along with Saudi Arabia (one of our best friends in the Gulf and the true Tyrant in the Gulf) that, for several years now has armed and funded the so-called “Syrian Rebels” who have murdered, tortured (even crucified as was recently reported) and destroyed some of the oldest Catholic, Christian, Jewish and Alawite communities in the world in Syria. Assad, who the West has continually demonized (just like they demonize Putin), is actually the one defending these Catholic, Christian minorities in Syria from the demonic “Syrian Rebels” who have no problem eating the internal organs of their victims and posting the videos on Youtube. But again, this is a topic for another thread and in fact there have already been numerous threads over the years on this Forum dealing with the Syrian conflict.

In the absence of any of Putin’s supporters criticizing Putin’s world view (though I’ve asked before on the Ukraine threads), I take it that the Putin supporters on here agree with Putin that the collapse of the atheist Soviet Empire of Nations and Religions (which the Soviet Union obviously was) was the Greatest Geopolitical Catastrophe of the Century which Putin firmly believes as a cardinal moral tenet. If you don’t agree, please state why Putin is wrong in your opinion in this cardinal belief of his from which he does not budge. Your answers would be helpful.

If you think Putin represents a return to atheistic Communism, you are seriously mistaken.

The Soviet Union has been dead since 1993, when Boris Yeltsin ordered Russian tanks to open fire on the Russian parliament during the 1993 Russian Constitutional Crisis when the real, actual Soviets were making their last stand in an attempt to hold onto power in Russia. Putin was Yeltsin’s successor and has single-handedly rebuilt Orthodox Russia. Communism was a relatively recent aberration in the long history of Orthodox Russia.

Pat Buchanan shed some light on Putin’s statement regarding the breakup of the Soviet Union, writing in recent commentary:

As NATO allies Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia occupy the east coast of the Baltic Sea, NATO allies Rumania and Bulgaria occupy the west coast of the Black Sea. Turkey sits on the south coast of the Black Sea, aspiring NATO ally Georgia the east coast. Should Ukraine join NATO, as John McCain seeks, the Black Sea becomes a NATO lake.

When Putin defended the seizure of Crimea by saying he did not want to visit Russia’s two-century-old naval base at Sevastopol, and be greeted by NATO sailors, did he not have a point?

The vast territorial losses suffered by the Soviet Union would be like the amputations America would have endured had the secession of the 11 states of the Confederacy succeeded in 1865.

Our situation would be comparable to Russia’s if we had lost all our states on the South Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, and our ports of Norfolk, Charleston and New Orleans all flew foreign flags.

And how would we have reacted if a Soviet Union, victorious in the Cold War, effected the expulsion of all U.S. troops and bases from Europe and brought Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua into the Warsaw Pact?

State’s Victoria Nuland says we invested $5 billion in re-orienting Ukraine away from Russia. How would we respond if we awoke — as Putin did in February — to learn a pro-American government in Mexico City had been overthrown by street mobs financed by Beijing, a pro-China regime installed, and this unelected Mexican regime wanted out of NAFTA in favor of joining an economic union and military alliance with China?

A U.S. president who landed Marines in Veracruz, as Wilson did in 1914, and sent a 21st-century General “Black Jack” Pershing with an army across the border, would be over 70 percent in the polls, as Putin is today.

And if he seized Baja, as Putin seized Crimea, it would be a cakewalk to a second term.buchanan.org/blog/behind-russian-rage-6329

 

[KyivAndrew]

If you think Putin represents a return to atheistic Communism, you are seriously mistaken.

That’s not what I believe nor asked, but whether one shared Putin’s morally vapid judgment of the Soviet Past and (as per my second post) its terrible crimes against humanity and Putin’s inability to condemn morally the Soviet system, Stalin’s genocides, or for that matter even the Soviet Secret Police whose leaders to this day Putin venerates. His ideology is now not communism but more properly Chekism. Putin cannot and will not even erect a proper memorial to the millions of victims of Communism in Russia, while Ukraine has to its victims, millions upon millions of them at the hands of the Kremlin - the Holodomor Memorial being one and a National Day of Mourning in November in Ukraine which Putin criticizes. Putin’s misreading of history in its moral dimensions obviously is reflected in his current policies in my opinion and in his worldview.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter much to me; engaging with you would do you nor me no better. I’m Ukrainian and you’re advocating on a Catholic Forum that my parents’ homeland should be invaded by Putin (that he is “obligated to” in your words), Putin whom I believe to be an imperialist autocrat with little regard for life and which decision to invade would inevitably result in the deaths of tens of thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands on a scale unimaginable in modern Europe. The leaders of Ukraine’s Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches (and the Jewish and Muslim communities) have all come out forcefully against separatism in Ukraine. I’m with my Church on that.

I agree with CAF’s policy on RT news that it is a tabloid to be avoided but you believe it credible. There really is nothing much we can say to each other.

 

[HansTrappist]

That’s not what I believe or asked, but whether one shared Putin’s morally vapid judgment…eology is now not communism but Chekism.

Putin’s ideology is Orthodox Russian in the best traditions of Old Russia.

He is not a Communist a Soviet or a Marxist or an Imperialist. Perhaps you confused him with Barack Obama.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter much to me; engaging with you would do you nor me no better. I’m Ukrainian and you’re advocating on a Catholic Forum that my parents’ homeland should be invaded by Putin (that he is obligated to)

Puh-lease!

I have friends living in Ukraine as well and they are absolutely terrified on the current regime in Kiev.

So, again, I ask you the question you evaded earlier: Do you consider the current authorities in Kiev to be legitimate? Did you support the violent overthrow of Yanukovych?

Your answer to those questions will put your comments on Putin into the proper context.

…Putin whom I believe to be an imperialist autocrat with little regard for life and which decision to invade would inevitably result in the deaths of tens of thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands on a scale unimaginable in modern Europe.

Absolute hyperbole and fear-mongering made all the more hypocritical given that it is the Ukrainian “military” that is currently gunning-down ethnic Russian Ukrainian citizens on the streets of South Eastern Ukraine.

The leaders of Ukraine’s Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches (and the Jewish and Muslim communities) have all come out forcefully against separatism in Ukraine.

Name them and provide citations to their statements.

They are certainly entitled to their fallible political opinions.

I agree with CAF’s policy on RT news that it is a tabloid to be avoided but you believe it credible. There really is nothing much we can say to each other.

CAF’s policy is that RT is not to be used to start a thread. I respect their policy.

But that doesn’t mean that RT is not a reliable news organization. I read multiple news outlets as sources for information and I judge the quality of information by comparing it across a wide spectrum of sources, RT being one of them. I find RT to be as reliable as most of the American and British Media.

I assume you find Kyiv Post to be a reliable news organization, one that I find highly suspect and unreliable given the ownership and the content.