Ukraine

[GaryTaylor]

To me, the Ukrainian riots and overthrown government caused it all, aided and abetted by the West. If the above hadn’t happened what has Putin got to do with any of it? He had a major disturbance occur on his doorstep and was asked by Crimea, to assist.

The dummy soldiers are the only part I do not understand, as they’re only there for show as Crimea want the Russians there. So i can only assume he had to make some sort of ‘military’ intervention, as Russia always has troops in the Crimea and he didn’t want to make it look like a threat and hence didn’t use the Russian soldiers.

It’s all bluff and bluster ATM, but not sure why the pretend soldiers were needed, there must be some legalese reason behind it. Having Russian troops in Crimea legally anyway, in a country that states it wants to join Russia - is hardly violating any international law, WHEN the government of the country was recently overthrown.

Putin cares little to none if his actions violate international law and they do. But the Europeans and Americans do care, and many ordinary Russians care, which is why Putin is working to create an appearance of legal intervention in helping what he selectively calls his people. He placed many people in danger and at this moment.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

To me, the Ukrainian riots and overthrown government caused it all, aided and abetted by the West. If the above hadn’t happened what has Putin got to do with any of it? He had a major disturbance occur on his doorstep and was asked by Crimea, to assist.

The dummy soldiers are the only part I do not understand, as they’re only there for show as Crimea want the Russians there. So i can only assume he had to make some sort of ‘military’ intervention, as Russia always has troops in the Crimea and he didn’t want to make it look like a threat and hence didn’t use the Russian soldiers.

It’s all bluff and bluster ATM, but not sure why the pretend soldiers were needed, there must be some legalese reason behind it. Having Russian troops in Crimea legally anyway, in a country that states it wants to join Russia - is hardly violating any international law, WHEN the government of the country was recently overthrown.

Seizing Ukrainian equipment, shooting warning shot at Ukrainian soldiers, confining Ukrainian soldiers to their bases, and demanding Ukrainian soldiers to surrender certainly are violations of international law. Or did the treaty that allowed Russian soldiers in the Ukraine allow these as well?

 

[Ridgerunner]

But hey, let’s go with the idea that the people living in the Crimea were so oppressed that it took an all in but name invasion by the Russian military to let them say what they really think.

One wonders about a number of things. I do not pretend to have any particular expertise about the Crimea, but it has had a reputation in the neighborhood that isn’t as savory as it might be. Possibly “Odessa lads” is no longer a Russian or Ukrainian term meaning the same thing as “outlaws”, but it certainly was not so very long ago, even in Stalin’s time. Longer ago, Crimea was regarded as a pirates’ den from end to end.

And so, one could not be terribly sure that subversion could not be accomplished there among many. One could hope that there are not unsavory cabals capable of making a deal to betray what is, after all, their country. But it’s possible.

 

[TEPO]

To me, the Ukrainian riots and overthrown government caused it all, aided and abetted by the West.

This sounds like conspiracy theory to me.

 

[pepipop]

Putin cares little to none if his actions violate international law and they do. But the Europeans and Americans do care, and many ordinary Russians care, which is why Putin is working to create an appearance of legal intervention in helping what he selectively calls his people. He placed many people in danger and at this moment.

Quite a lot of European countries do not recognise the new Ukrainian government and are saying nothing against Russia. Whilst many citizens of America may see the situation differently that’s fine but to have the President state he is ‘Standing up for the principle of state sovereignty’. As one poster said '*That’s great news for everyone in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia… * The hypocrisy is just too much, so Obama and the other EU mutterings are not even being listened to.

20 years ago, I would have believed everything the BBC/ITV told me and would have been horrified at Putin and how awful it all was, what a tyrant. Now through the internet and particularly after murders/bombings/prosecutions, etc in NI, were proven to be cover-ups told by British intelligence agencies and since overturned 20-30 yrs later - I now make up my ‘own’ mind.

In the past, I believed everything, hook, line and sinker - now via the internet, phone tapping , youtube videos, etc., people can see all sides of the story.

 

[TEPO]

Conspiracy.

 

[gilliam]

Quite a lot of European countries do not recognise the new Ukrainian government and are saying nothing against Russia. y.

How many is “quite a lot”?
Do you have a list?

 

[Vouthon]

An article from two days ago that I forgot to post:

ncronline.org/news/global/crisis-ukraine-replay-what-led-world-war-ii-says-priest

Crisis in Ukraine ‘replay’ of what led up to World War II, says priest

PHOENIX **Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is an extremely dangerous situation that should be of concern to all Americans, said a prominent Ukrainian Catholic priest.

“We are seeing a replay of the lead-up to World War II going on now,” said Father Andriy Chirovsky, pastor of St. Michael Ukrainian Catholic Church in Tucson and founder of the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies at St. Paul University in Ottawa, Ontario. “It’s very similar events to what happened before World War II, except that in World War II, it was Hitler doing it.”**

Ukraine, a nation of 46 million people with its own language, culture and traditions, sits just west of Russia and east of Poland. To put it in perspective, Syria, another hot spot, has a population of 22 million.

Many members of the Byzantine Ukrainian Catholic Church, like Chirovsky, are children of World War II refugees who fled Ukraine in the face of Soviet repression, when the church was outlawed.

“If you claimed to be Ukrainian Catholic, you faced either imprisonment because you were a counterrevolutionary … or they would put you into a psychiatric hospital because you claimed to belong to a church that didn’t exist,” Chirovsky said.

So how did the Ukrainian Catholic Church outlast such savage persecution? Father Chirovsky, who travels between Tucson to care for his parishioners and Ottawa to attend to his students, provided background to The Catholic Sun, newspaper of the Diocese of Phoenix.

When World War II ended, the Soviet Union, led by Josef Stalin, annexed Ukraine. Ukrainian Catholic bishops, priests, nuns and many laity were arrested, tortured, imprisoned and martyred. Still, the church endured.

“It was the grandmothers in many cases who passed on the faith,” Chirovsky said in a phone interview from Tucson. Parents would have their children secretly baptized but were busy working and did not practice the faith openly.

“The grandmothers, who were powerless in that society, felt, ‘What can they do to me? I am old and weak.’ So that gave them the courage to pass on the faith to their grandchildren, and that’s how the church survived in great measure,” Chirovsky said.

Ukraine also had underground seminaries. A clandestine priest might be in charge of the formation of eight seminarians who, in order to limit losses if any of them were discovered, did not know each other.

Since the Soviets had confiscated all church property, including books, the priest in charge of the seminarians’ formation had a notebook that he would allow each seminarian to copy.

Others were sent to study in Russian Orthodox seminaries, with the understanding that, when the time was right, they could come out and make their allegiance to Rome known.

After Blessed John Paul II met with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev Dec. 1, 1989, Gorbachev proclaimed that the Ukrainian Catholics were free to register their faith.

“Nobody knew at that point how many people would identify themselves as Ukrainian Catholic,” Chirovsky said. “Not the CIA, not the KGB, not the Vatican – nobody knew. We didn’t know ourselves.”

Some thought it would be in the tens of thousands. Others projected the hundreds of thousands. Chirovsky said 5 million people stepped forward. In that first year, 1,000 Russian Orthodox priests made known their allegiance to the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Chirovsky feels deeply that connection to the persecuted church, having been ordained by a priest who spent 18 years in a Soviet concentration camp. He recalls Cardinal Josyf Slipyj asking him to turn on the lights one day – he could not bear the dark as it reminded him too much of his imprisonment in Siberia.

“Even worse than facing outright persecution is the demoralizing force of consumerism and materialism that has crept into our hearts in North America and Western Europe. I hate to say it, but it’s like people have it too good and have forgotten what life is about,” Chirovsky said.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Conspiracy.

Conspiracies happen all the time.

Jesus was crucified as the result of a conspiracy.

I recently watched a documentary on drug cartels in Mexico. There are at least a dozen. Some of the larger ones have 100, 000 co-conspirators and assets in the billions.

One drug-lord spend ten years in prison, using it as his headquarters. Most of the prison staff conspired with him to aid and abet his work running the show.

So, just calling an event or series of events ‘a conspiracy’ does not serve to falsify a claim concerning what might have been the cause of it.

I suspect we will all be surprised when truth makes its appearance.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

One wonders about a number of things. I do not pretend to have any particular expertise about the Crimea, but it has had a reputation in the neighborhood that isn’t as savory as it might be. Possibly “Odessa lads” is no longer a Russian or Ukrainian term meaning the same thing as “outlaws”, but it certainly was not so very long ago, even in Stalin’s time. Longer ago, Crimea was regarded as a pirates’ den from end to end.

And so, one could not be terribly sure that subversion could not be accomplished there among many. One could hope that there are not unsavory cabals capable of making a deal to betray what is, after all, their country. But it’s possible.

Given what occurred in the area during Stalin’s time one can hardly apply the characteristics of the pre-Stalin population to the post-Stalin population. Removing the native population (by bullet or forced relocation) and replacing it with a different population has that affect.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Quite a lot of European countries do not recognise the new Ukrainian government and are saying nothing against Russia…

Who, the link of the EU is here.

Whilst many citizens of America may see the situation differently that’s fine but to have the President state he is ‘Standing up for the principle of state sovereignty’. As one poster said '*That’s great news for everyone in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia… * The hypocrisy is just too much, so Obama and the other EU mutterings are not even being listened to…

Pretty much a two way street but we aren’t claiming Saint and New Constantinople.

20 years ago, I would have believed everything the BBC/ITV told me and would have been horrified at Putin and how awful it all was, what a tyrant. Now through the internet and particularly after murders/bombings/prosecutions, etc in NI, were proven to be cover-ups told by British intelligence agencies and since overturned 20-30 yrs later - I now make up my ‘own’ mind.

In the past, I believed everything, hook, line and sinker - now via the internet, phone tapping , youtube videos, etc., people can see all sides of the story.

And yet the criminals find sanctuary in Russia.

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304554004579423054271159512

Why should we listen to Putin?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

No, they don’t need to be answered because as soon as Russia invaded the game changed. What was an internal affair of a sovereign nation became a case where one nation invaded another sovereign nation in violation of International Law.

Putin wanted the Crimea
He saw an opportunity
He took it

Different game, different questions need to be answered.

With all due respect, Gilliam, I disagree with that----and the questions still stand (and have not been answered, by you or the west, BTW)----

Just to let you know----again----I am NOT Pro-Putin or Russia. I agree he had no right to invade.

OTOH, these questions must be answered----if for no other reason than to counter Pro-Russian propaganda.

I am not the bad guy here, Gilliam. You know me.
’
Just saying.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Given what occurred in the area during Stalin’s time one can hardly apply the characteristics of the pre-Stalin population to the post-Stalin population. Removing the native population (by bullet or forced relocation) and replacing it with a different population has that affect.

Again, I pretend to no great expertise in the demographics and mores of the region. But the wholesale removal of populations was more characteristic of the “continental” Ukraine, not so much Crimea. From what I have read, it had a culture somewhat its own, and from what I have heard Ukrainians say, I suspect it still does. I am not saying every Crimean was or is an “urki”. Not at all. But Crimean gangs were well known long before gangs were much of a force in Russia itself or in the remainder of Ukraine. One can think of the differences between, say, Alpine Italy and Sicily.

All I’m saying is that it might not be so difficult to engage a remarkably limited number of locals with a gangster mentality to do nearly anything if the promised reward is sufficient. And so, if a group has come to dominate the parliament there and voted to join Russia against their own countrymen, how are we to assume the motivation was lofty and not base? Would joining with Russia be best for them in the long run? Not necessarily. But the “urki” motto was always “you today, me tomorrow”. Long run thinking was never characteristic of the “Odessa lads” any more than it is of some Sicilian “made man”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again, I pretend to no great expertise in the demographics and mores of the region. But the wholesale removal of populations was more characteristic of the “continental” Ukraine, not so much Crimea. From what I have read, it had a culture somewhat its own, and from what I have heard Ukrainians say, I suspect it still does. I am not saying every Crimean was or is an “urki”. Not at all. But Crimean gangs were well known long before gangs were much of a force in Russia itself or in the remainder of Ukraine. One can think of the differences between, say, Alpine Italy and Sicily.

All I’m saying is that it might not be so difficult to engage a remarkably limited number of locals with a gangster mentality to do nearly anything if the promised reward is sufficient. And so, if a group has come to dominate the parliament there and voted to join Russia against their own countrymen, how are we to assume the motivation was lofty and not base? Would joining with Russia be best for them in the long run? Not necessarily. But the “urki” motto was always “you today, me tomorrow”. Long run thinking was never characteristic of the “Odessa lads” any more than it is of some Sicilian “made man”.

Also it very well may push Ukrainians toward Europe and the West. I think its a terrible move for Putin no matter how its viewed. I can’t see the benefit of a small percent of Russian Nationals taking an area captive. May be a strategic point but not in short term thinking and I can’t see how long term benefits Putin.

 

[Monkey1976]

Also it very well may push Ukrainians toward Europe and the West. I think its a terrible move for Putin no matter how its viewed. I can’t see the benefit of a small percent of Russian Nationals taking an area captive. May be a strategic point but not in short term thinking and I can’t see how long term benefits Putin.

To play devil’s (or Putin’s) advocate, consider this: You’re the leader of a nuclear-capable nation, and your only year-round naval base is located in a neighboring nation. That nation’s government is overthrown by an uprising, and the new government shows itself as being hostile to your country. The safety of one of your most important strategic assets is now in question. Your previous agreement with the host country included a clause specifying “no nuclear weapons” are to be placed in any leased facilities, but you’re also aware of how the US handles the issue in their Japan bases: Remove the firing mechanism, which can be reinstalled fairly quickly. Technically, that makes it a lump of radioactive material and a small bit of explosive, but not a “nuclear weapon” according to the letter of the agreement. Given that this is a MAJOR naval base, it’s likely that there are several such nuclear “non-weapons” present. The area around your base is populated by a civilian majority friendly to your country, but there are military bases belonging to the host country - whose chain of command is now questionable at best - in that same area.

What do you do?

 

[gilliam]

To play devil’s (or Putin’s) advocate, consider this: You’re the leader of a nuclear-capable nation, and your only year-round naval base is located in a neighboring nation. That nation’s government is overthrown by an uprising, and the new government shows itself as being hostile to your country. The safety of one of your most important strategic assets is now in question. Your previous agreement with the host country included a clause specifying “no nuclear weapons” are to be placed in any leased facilities, but you’re also aware of how the US handles the issue in their Japan bases: Remove the firing mechanism, which can be reinstalled fairly quickly. Technically, that makes it a lump of radioactive material and a small bit of explosive, but not a “nuclear weapon” according to the letter of the agreement. Given that this is a MAJOR naval base, it’s likely that there are several such nuclear “non-weapons” present. The area around your base is populated by a civilian majority friendly to your country, but there are military bases belonging to the host country - whose chain of command is now questionable at best - in that same area.

What do you do?

Nice try but as Russia admitted the other day, there are plenty of places that Russia could put its Black Sea Fleet if they lost Crimea (which they probably would not have lost) including Sochi.

 

[TRH1292]

Sorry to see you go. God Bless You.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Henry Kissinger:

1. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

gilliam thanks for the link. Here’s the thing; I never thought I’d say this but Kissinger is out of his depth in speaking of Ukraine, as is Fareed Zakaria on CNN at times.

For instance, Kissinger just published this article, and already Russia and its disguised forces in Crimea have forbidden the presence of international election observers in Crimea. The Russian ‘border’ guard even released the safety on his gun as these observers arrived. Kissinger isn’t aware that for months now these people in Crimea and Russia have been bombarded with propaganda that the West is out to get them.

Ukrainian flags held by peaceful civilians are torn to shreds in Crimea. How can you conduct a referendum with thousands of masked Russian military on the ground. What of the by-now scared to death Ukrainians and Tatars on the peninsula, never mind that even among the Russian population there are those who do not wish to belong to Putin’s Russia.

Even the so-called Prime Minister of Crimea whom the Russians installed belongs to a small Russian party which only got 4% of Crimea’s votes and now this person speaks for all of Crimea?

The problem with Kissinger (I can’t find the revealing quote from his book Diplomacy) is that he is quite often blind to issues of morality and justice in international politics. It’s sometimes all-equivalent power politics in his mind. He was against Reagan labeling things good or evil in the 1980s, but Kissinger’s detente accomplished nothing, and his balance of powers international strategy may have been good for 19th century Europe but it had no place in the Cold War, nor can it have much to say when a world power like Russia sees foreign policy as a zero-sum game, in complete distinction to Obama. Kissinger’s theory of balance of power can’t deal with players like Putin.

Yes, I had to read his World Restored study back in University, but Crown Prince Metternich would be lost in today’s world.

Back to Ukraine, Kissinger’s lack of depth is illustrated in the following quote from the article you linked:

*The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil.
*

First off if Kissinger knew Ukrainian history he would know that the Battle of Poltava was not a fight for “Russian freedom” (Tsar Peter could hardly be called freedom fighter for the people) but was actually a battle in which the Ukrainian Hetman Mazepa and his Ukrainian forces, allying themselves with the Swedes, fought for Ukraine’s freedom from the Russian Tsar and Russian autocracy on Ukrainian soil at Poltava. How could Kissinger get this wrong? After Mazepa’s defeat, the civilian population of Hetmanate Ukraine’s capital, Baturyn, was decimated.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Baturyn
The Ukrainian civilians of Baturyn, thousands, were all murdered, including children (whose bones are still being excavated), by the troops of the Russian Imperial Army in 1708. Men, women, children. And Kissinger calls this a fight for “Russian freedom”?

That’s why when some scholars talk on this subject I can tell Ukrainian history (complex as it is) is not their area of expertise. The same holds true of Zakaria who on GPS keeps going on about Ukraine being under Russia for 300 years. First off this ignores the autonomy of Left-Bank Ukraine up until 1709, Poltava. It then ignores the history of Right-Bank Ukraine which only was swallowed partially by Tsarist Russia at the end of the 18th Century. It completely ignores Galicia which was not conquered by Moscow until after World War Two, and Bukovyna, and Zakarpattia.

Kissinger’s history also ignores the fact that Ukraine’s capital Kyiv and Russia’s Muscovy took completely different trajectories in the Middle Ages after Kublai Khan. They became two different entities with two different political cultures. For two hundred years, the biggest influence on Muscovy’s political evolution was the Mongol Golden Horde which lorded over it and whose practice of autocracy was absorbed by the Muscovite Princes after the Golden Horde was no more. For Kyiv, it was Lithuania which, because of its cultural backwardness to Kyiv in the Middle Ages, basically let Kyivan Ukraine keep its culture, religion. Many historians of Kyivan-Rus point to this difference in the historical trajectories Russian Moscow took (autocracy) compared to Ukrainian Kyiv and even Russian Novgorod which rejected Muscovite autocracy, preferring democratic gatherings called Viche/Veche and a division of powers as opposed to absolute rule.

 

[Tomdstone]

We were a colony, not a part of Great Britain and we did not have representation in the Parliament. A better example would be when the Confederate States tried to succeed from the Union. Had the Czar positioned his Cossacks in Virginia to block the Union forces, that Civil War may have been an even better example.

Sarah Palin ran for vice president of the USA. She also was governor of Alaska. It has been reported that her husband, Todd Palin for several years belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) which is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska that advocates an in-state referendum which includes the option of Alaska becoming an independent country. Why is it OK for Alaska to have a vote on whether or not to become independent, but if Crimea has it, the USA will impose sanctions on Russia. Why did not the USA impose sanctions on Todd Palin, the husband of Sarah Palin, when he belonged to the Alaskan Independence party?

 

[TaurusRex]

Interestingly, that is at least to me, I searched the question:
“if a legitimate government is violently overthrown, do the revolutionaries have any rights?”;
And I found the following:

bing.com/search?q=if+a+legitimate+government+is+violently+overthrown%2c+do+the+revolutionaries+have+any+rights&pc=MDMD&refig=6acb13dcefd84d7c8d4d4388c6598863&pq=if+a+legitimate+government+is+violently+overthrown%2c+do+the+revolutionaries+have+any+rights&sc=0-16&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&first=1&FORM=PERE

bing.com/search?q=if+a+legitimate+government+is+violently+overthrown%2c+do+the+revolutionaries+have+any+rights&pc=MDMD&refig=6acb13dcefd84d7c8d4d4388c6598863&pq=if+a+legitimate+government+is+violently+overthrown%2c+do+the+revolutionaries+have+any+rights&sc=0-16&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&first=15&FORM=PERE

bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2011/01/2nd-amendment-redux.html

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=860755&page=23

The interest to me is that page #23 of this thread was listed also in answer to my question …
that link about the second amendment is interesting too;

But anyway, I’m sorry, but I still can’t see how Putin can be condemned for intervening in a circumstance where protesters can be compared to terrorists throwing boulder sized rocks and even Molotov cocktails at policemen and even killing some of them;
And yes. protesters have been killed by police in the USA for much less.

rex