|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What's going on in Ukraine?
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Part of the Russian area is a large province called Kherson, but that doesn't include Kiev. Where does the Ukraine come from? Is it an identity which has always existed in a suppressed form? Or is it an identity created out of the turmoil that followed the end of the First World War?
Was just part of the set of Rus city states in the Middle Ages. After the Mongols conquered the eastern provinces in the 13th century, including Moscow, the western ones were taken by Poland. Muscovy converted itself into the Russian Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries, and began its huge expansion into the East, defeating the Golden Horde, the Tatars, and various Turks on the way. (Founding myth of modern Russia, similar place in their self-representation as the Revolution, the Star-Spangled Banner, and the myth of the Frontier have in the USA.)
Poland-Lithuania expanded south to the Black Sea, with Cossacks doing a lot of the fighting. At the time it was the strongest nation state in central and eastern Europe - it was Poles who saved Austria from the Ottomans and began the slow dismemberment of the Turkish Empire (though it was the Russians and the Brits who finished the job).
In the 17th century the Cossack Revolt began the destruction of the Polish-Lithuanian state. Your view of that depends on where you stand:
- if Russian, it was the orthodox Russian Cossacks rejoining their natural homeland
- if Ukrainian, it was the First War of Ukrainian Independence
- if Polish, it was the great disaster of history. First in a series of wars in which Russia, Prussia, Austria (and never forget slimy treacherous Sweden) conspired to tear Poland apart and wipe it off the map (and therefore the start of Polish nationalists turning west to find their natural allies in Britain and especially France - something that had huge effects in the 19th and 20th centuries)
- if Cossack, no-one cares what you think, they just want you to join their army
"Ukraine" merely means "edge" or "border" or "marchlands". In other words debatable territory between Russia and Poland. It has never been independent before (if you don't count a few Cossack republics here and there)
From a Russian ultra-Nationalist point of view Kiev is nothing but a Russian city - the most historical of all - that happened to fall under Polish rule for a while and get infected by nassty catholics and papists. As far as they are concerned giving it up is like asking the USA to give Boston back to the British.
And of course its a 19th century invention. Or more likely an 18th century one. But that doesn't mean unscrupulous demagogues can't use it to win votes.
[ 15. March 2014, 14:22: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
So to return to my original question, is a specifically Ukrainian identity something that was only created by the traumas of the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 and what happened between then and 1921? Or did it already exist, but nobody outside Czarist Russia knew it was there?
Changing the subject, Grammatica, what does one have to be to be able to claim to be a "white ethnic"? Is a Swede one? Is a Boston Irish person one, or do they only get to be one if they subscribe to an IRA front organisation? Or is it anyone of European descent who still has a living ancestor in the US who doesn't speak English? Or do you have to come from somewhere that spoke a Slavic language, or not be Protestant, Latin Catholic or Jewish? Or what?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The feeling clearly isn't mutual, though.
That's not really true there is a long and complex history at play here. There is a breath of opinion on all sides it is not so clear cut as little Russia receiving unwanted overtures from the eastern big brother. There are many who wish to look east and others who wish to for true independence from both power blocks. This is what makes things so difficult it is a nation divided.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
To many Ukrainians, the notion that Ukraine is really 'little Russia' or that they are really just a slightly exotic Russian subspecies is highly insulting and inflammatory.
Well it would be they are the original Russ. The older brother to Moscow being Kiev. Which is what I was pointing out and filling in the pre-history to the post to which I was responding. Kiev was conquered from the Khazars by the Varangian noble Oleg. The Russ of course being the eastern equivalent of the Normans in the west. A rising Nordic civilisation which both intermingled and assimilated with the peoples it encountered. Predominantly the Slavic, Finnic and Balt in peoples in this case. So my point wasn't that it was little Russian but that there is a long and deeply interconnected and often tragic history, which complicates the issues.
Issues which the west particularly the US have capitalised on for as a strategic irritant to Russia. With, I believe, little regard for the consequences for the people of Ukraine. Russia with whom they are presently engaged in a geopolitical tug of war is the target of this move to destabilise Ukraine. Don't imagine I think Russia stands on the side of the angles but nor do I trust the motives of Washington in helping to bring about this Coup. The real losers will as ever be the people of Ukraine. They have a good chance of ending up with IMF imposed austerity from the west and simmering Russian aggression and threat of fuel strangulation from the east. That sounds like a wining combination. I doubt that the corruption will go any where in a hurry ether. The orange revolution didn't seem to put a stop to it.
Chaz
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
My point was otherwise. The kind of emotional nationalism you referenced in your post is an artificial creation of the nineteenth century, and in the twentieth century it led to the greatest disasters in Europe since the Roman Empire collapsed in the West. (I didn't say that; the late Vaclav Havel did.) So it has to be resisted. It can't become the basis of policy. Let alone the basis of -- what is now happening in Ukraine.
Fair enough (though I'm not that sold on the wests actions in Kosovo but that's a different thread)but in terms of realpolitik nationalism is as much a basis for the coup as it is for any Russian intervention if not more so. So I am equally concerned by both sides and the ugly slope down which things are sliding.
Of course Russian interventionism is wrong. It is strategic and cynical. This a president set by equally cynical western acts of intervention. I do not think you could have expected anything different frankly. We live in a world were extra-judicial killings are conducted by remote control on the soil of sovereign nations. Were nations are invaded or bombed on the thinnest of pretexts. How can our own nations speak credibly against such actions performed relatively bloodlessly by their rivals. That is aside from the fact that the US clearly had hand in assisting the opposition.
Ultimately nationalism may be the currency of payment but strategic advantage is the lot at the auction. The bidders are the US trying to preserve its Hegemony and Russia seeking to regain its own. I hope things do not escalate.
Chaz
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
Don't imagine I think Russia stands on the side of the angles but nor do I trust the motives of Washington in helping to bring about this Coup.
I keep hearing this accusation. Do we have any non-FoxNews evidence that Washington helped bring about this coup? Or is this typical anti-American paranoia?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
Mousethief you ask earlier and as I herd nothing I thought It was answered. Here you go if you missed my response.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Evidence?
Originally posted by Chill:
quote:
Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play....I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?
BBC transcript with analyse here http://tinyurl.com/jwh5g9a
Revolutions rarely get off the ground without substantial external help. This is what we know has gone on. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think the U.S. has created this state of affairs. They have just capitalised on existing tensions. Here we have a phone conversation showing clear diplomatic assistance advice and close working relationships to the opposition from the U.S.a foreign power.
...snip...
American frustration with the EU was because they wanted things to move faster. They were annoyed that the EU was not being proactive enough in its support for the opposition. The EU had a much longer term and less confrontational vision for Ukraine. The U.S. wanted to strike whilst the iron was hot. That is the context of the Fuck the EU comment, hence the decision to use the UN as a way of establishing legitimacy.
quote:
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
So I think the U.S. have used tensions in the Ukraine to put Russia on the diplomatic back foot. I think they have been a significant catalyst. The U.S. have been on the back foot diplomatically over the Snowden affair, and over Syria. Russia and America are currently fighting a proxy war in Syria through their allies. (Syria is a whole different thread but it is not irrelevant to current events.) So this is just another round in the global pissing contest.
Incidentally I do not watch fox life is too short already and that is time I would never get back.
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Changing the subject, Grammatica, what does one have to be to be able to claim to be a "white ethnic"?
This Wikipedia article is a good start, Enoch. It's a category that the UK probably doesn't have, because your immigration patterns were different. Canada, though, experienced something similar, but I think not identical. I'm sure Canadians on the board can speak to that better than I can.
White Ethnics
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Venice starts its independence referendum today. Who knew?
Obviously its the new European fashion. Let a thousand flowers bloom. We'll have a hundred-member EU.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Venice starts its independence referendum today. [...]
Link?
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Venice starts its independence referendum today. [...]
Link?
Here.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
Ta.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
my first reaction was this:
Does it mean that much if both stay in the EU its more a case of 'I cant believe its not independence' http://tinyurl.com/38dn4uk
Then I read the article and I am more impressed its not a Scotland situation were the overarching structures would remain intact. Maybe even currency union? But it seem I'm wrong. No Euro no NATO no EU good luck lads. I think you will need it to. I wonder if they plan to repudiate their chunk of Italy's hideous tow trillion debt burden?
Chaz
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The De-unification of Italy, eh? Is there a word Dissorgimento? Is the next step to reclaim Candia?
What about the other bits of Italy? The Two Sicilies? A plebiscite for the recreation of the Papal States? Perhaps the Croatians should check whether the Ragusans are putting in a bid to secede?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Well, however much our politicians may moan, the referendum has delivered a pretty clear result. Even if the count is a bit suspect, the Crimeans seem to have spoken with a clear voice.
There were two women being interviewed on the BBC yesterday, ever keen to maintain this is a Putinesque stitch up, saying that they wanted to stay in the Ukraine but they were boycotting the referendum. Why do people do that? It happens so often and it's really, really stupid.
If you boycott an election, your vote is not counted. Your opinion is ignored. Everyone is entitled to ignore it. Nobody knows what way you would have voted, because you didn't. There's no difference between you and a person who can't be bothered.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
... Ultimately, Putin, though obviously a narcisstic demagogue and a dictator, is a lot more tied to the wishes of owners of money then past dictators like Hitler. Trade matters to the oligarchs.
I very much hope you're right.
Incidentally, can somebody answer this question for me? The other evening Bridget Kendall on the BBC News was looking at old maps showing the various different states over the last 300 years or so that have ruled what is now the Ukraine and the Russian Black Sea coast.
Maps from before the First World War don't seem to show any province of Imperial Russia that looks like an ancestor of the Ukraine, the way that there's a Polish province. Obviously, western Ukraine was in Austro-Hungary. It seems then to have been largely Polish.
Part of the Russian area is a large province called Kherson, but that doesn't include Kiev. Where does the Ukraine come from? Is it an identity which has always existed in a suppressed form? Or is it an identity created out of the turmoil that followed the end of the First World War?
To add to Grammatica's very good setting-out of the history, there is also the Zaporozhian Sich to which I alluded in my first post on this thread, which was only abolished by Catherine the Great in 1775; many Ukrainians look to this in particular for at least one important source of their 'national mythology' although, ironically, most latter-day Cossacks are pro-Russian. Just because nothing appeared on a map looking vaguely Ukrainian between 1775 and 1918 doesn't mean that there wasn't a Ukrainian or proto-Ukrainian identity, anymore than the fact that Poland disappeared between 1795 and 1918 meant that Polish identity was non-existent during those years.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ukrainians look to this in particular for at least one important source of their 'national mythology' although, ironically, most latter-day Cossacks are pro-Russian.
Well yes but its rise seems to have been precipitated by an attempt to throw of western domination. It was then followed by eastern betrayal. This historic pattern of a tug of war between the powers of east and west with Ukraine as a tattered rope continues....
Chaz
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Ooohh...I must get out my A Level history notes about the 15th century Italian wars.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ukrainians look to this in particular for at least one important source of their 'national mythology' although, ironically, most latter-day Cossacks are pro-Russian.
Well yes but its rise seems to have been precipitated by an attempt to throw of western domination. It was then followed by eastern betrayal. This historic pattern of a tug of war between the powers of east and west with Ukraine as a tattered rope continues....
Chaz
Well, yes, the Treaty of Pereyeslav was rather a Hobson's Choice of "frying pan of Poland-Lithuania" or "fire of Muscovite Russia".
Rather like yesterday's 'referendum' in Crimea...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Well, however much our politicians may moan, the referendum has delivered a pretty clear result. Even if the count is a bit suspect, the Crimeans seem to have spoken with a clear voice.
There were two women being interviewed on the BBC yesterday, ever keen to maintain this is a Putinesque stitch up, saying that they wanted to stay in the Ukraine but they were boycotting the referendum. Why do people do that? It happens so often and it's really, really stupid.
If you boycott an election, your vote is not counted. Your opinion is ignored. Everyone is entitled to ignore it. Nobody knows what way you would have voted, because you didn't. There's no difference between you and a person who can't be bothered.
I listened to an interview of a Crimean Tatar woman who said that the boycott was to further the illegitimacy of what they considered to be an already illegitimate election. This could be for a couple of reasons:
1. The referendum is not allowed under the Ukrainian constitution without the approval of the rest of Ukraine.
2. Crimea is already occupied by Russian troops, so any referendum would be cast under doubt even if it is fair and transparently conducted.
3. She believed in the interview that the outcomes of the referendum were predetermined because of intimidation and corruption.
I honestly do not know if the referendum was conducted fairly and transparently or not (maybe it was). But it was unconstitutional. The lady in the interview said that by giving the referendum closer to a 100% majority rather than an 80-something or 90-something percent majority, it will resemble even more the votes in autocratic regimes that she was comparing it to. Boycotting a vote is a propaganda tactic used by people who know they have no chance of succeeding in an election. It is usually used by people who believe the vote is illegitimate to begin with. I usually support 100% participation in elections and even mandatory voting, but in this case where the having of the election itself is illegitimate, I understand why people would boycott.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
It is also true, that boycotts are used by the supporters of a deposed autocratic regime when an "unconstitutional" (based on the previous autocratic constitution) election is called after a revolution. This is not the case in Crimea, but I feel it is worth pointing out.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Er... it wasn't. Not exactly an unbiased source, admittedly, but, heck, would trust them a helluvalot more than Putin TV in Moscow.
[ 17. March 2014, 14:09: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
I think the decision to try to restrict Russian may have lost the vote for the west. Not the smartest of moves even if they bailed on it after the fact.
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
1. The referendum is not allowed under the Ukrainian constitution without the approval of the rest of Ukraine.
Nether is impeachment by a show parliamentary of hands. So is that illegitimate as well?
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
2. Crimea is already occupied by Russian troops, so any referendum would be cast under doubt even if it is fair and transparently conducted.
As was Iraq and Afghanistan. Also Illegitimate?
Nato marches ever east and Russia will inevitably respond. On both sides democracy and the will of the people is well down the list of priorities.
Chaz
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Matt, exactly!
Chill, I'd rather say that what "lost' the vote for the west was that staying as a part of the Ukraine wasn't an option on the ballot. link
Well its propaganda and counter propaganda. Crimean's on the whole seem to lean towards Russia if there were protest in the street we would be watching it on our own biased MSM just as the pro-Russian counter demonstrations are being played on Putin TV. The truth is that irrelevant of any vote Russia will not tolerate the eastward expansion of NATO to its boarders. No more than the USA would tolerate a strategic alliance with Canada and Russia for example. After the imperialist adventures of recent years international law is rapidly becoming a bad joke.
Chaz
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Given that only 58% of the population of Crimea is Russian and not all of them are dreadfully keen on the current incumbent of the Kremlin, I find the "97% of us want to be part of Putin's benevolent empire 'result'" slightly unlikely, to put it very mildly.
The 98% ex-post facto plebiscite in favour of the Anschluss is brought rather heavily to remembrance...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Given that only 58% of the population of Crimea is Russian and not all of them are dreadfully keen on the current incumbent of the Kremlin, I find the "97% of us want to be part of Putin's benevolent empire 'result'" slightly unlikely, to put it very mildly.
The 98% ex-post facto plebiscite in favour of the Anschluss is brought rather heavily to remembrance...
Yes I think its probable that there was only one out come possible. The alternative of shivering your ass of with no gas. Living in the austerity crippled IMF basket case/Nato Missile silo. With a significant political force being the BNP twined Svoboda party. May I'm guessing, not have appealed to many even non Russian voters.
Chaz
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Just because nothing appeared on a map looking vaguely Ukrainian between 1775 and 1918 doesn't mean that there wasn't a Ukrainian or proto-Ukrainian identity, anymore than the fact that Poland disappeared between 1795 and 1918 meant that Polish identity was non-existent during those years.
In that period there were Polish political exiles all over Europe trying (and mostly failing) to get other nations interested in restoring Poland's independence, various governments in exile, at least ten rebellions against Russia, Prussia, and Austria, Polish regiments in the French service, Polish regiments in the American service, (including two famous revolutionary generals), Polish regiments fighting for the Union in the American Civil War (refugees from a failed rebellion in Poland) and dozens of all the usual long-haired and enthusiastic nationalist poets, musicians, artists, and writers. Poland never went away.
I don't remember hearing of anything remotely like that for Ukraine.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
I'm not sure the Serbian constitution allowed for Kosovo to declare itself independent, and yet that was welcomed with open arms by the west. How is that different? Isn't there cartloads of hypocrisy going on on both sides?
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I don't think many constitutions allow people to secede at will. I seem to recall that there was a big civil war about this very issue sometime in the 1860s.
Whatever the maths, and however suspect the count might be, it's quite clear that there is a substantial majority of the people in the Crimea who do not wish to be part of the Ukraine and would rather be part of Russia. It's a bit difficult to see how one can say to them, 'Whether you like it or not, you've got to be Ukrainians. Your view is irrelevant'.
Nor is the argument about whether it was constitutional all that relevant. If the Crimeans don't identify themselves with the Ukraine, why should we insist they be expected to respect its laws or its constitution? We don't normally require that of dissident groups that we favour. Look at the fuss about the Pussy Rioters. Virtually nothing can be said in their favour apart from the fact that they were protesting against a government which a lot of opinion formers in the West have taken against.
quote:
Originally posted by Stonespring
Boycotting a vote is a propaganda tactic used by people who know they have no chance of succeeding in an election.
Exactly. So why do they do it? Do they somehow imagine it produces the illusion that they would have got more votes if they had voted, than they ever had any chance of doing? It's pointless posturing. It entitles the rest of us to ignore bothering whether they would have got any votes at all. They didn't vote. So nobody voted for their cause.
As for the argument, 'the vote didn't give people the chance to say they wanted to stay in the Ukraine', even if it just said, 'do you want the Crimea to join Russia? Yes or No', they had the option of answering No.
The simple point is that the Russian government has completely wrong footed the US, the EU, the UK and William Hague on this one, game set and match. They've chosen the right table to play on, played their hand well and left the rest huffing and puffing defending a cause that on this occasion is indefensible.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
http://tinyurl.com/qjllmd2
This makes interesting reading. It seems to show Moscow's long-term planning has been through.
Whilst these cables published in the guardian seem to show NATO and US (and French) long-term stratagem entails Ukraine and Georgia. http://tinyurl.com/pks8sjk
The section entailed: NATO'S ENLARGEMENT AND STRATEGIC CONCEPT is of particular interest. quote:
President Sarkozy was "convinced" that Ukraine would one day be a member of NATO, but that there was no point in rushing the process and antagonizing Russia, particularly if the Ukrainian public was largely against membership. The Bucharest summit declaration was very clear that NATO has an open door and Ukraine and Georgia have a vocation in NATO (even if Georgia remains very unstable at the moment).
Things were in the pipeline(no pun intended) for a while here.
Chaz
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
Targeted sactions against 11-people ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) http://tinyurl.com/11-people
Business as usual then.
Which is it? NATO marching eastward like a juggernaut, or the West responding with weakness worthy only of your derision? Make up your mind.
[ 18. March 2014, 07:52: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
Targeted sactions against 11-people http://tinyurl.com/11-people
Business as usual then.
Which is it? NATO marching eastward like a juggernaut, or the West responding with weakness worthy only of your derision? Make up your mind.
Both sanctions are bad for business in this case but strategic advantage and regional destabilisation is not. At least not for French UK and US interests. For the rest of The UE not so good.
Its a false paradox. Its the naked lack of principle that is worthy of derision.
[ 18. March 2014, 07:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Chill
Post preview is your friend. Please be more careful in future, I needed to edit three posts to clear up the link you provided, simply because you didn't put a space between and the tinyurl link.
B62, Purg Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Just because nothing appeared on a map looking vaguely Ukrainian between 1775 and 1918 doesn't mean that there wasn't a Ukrainian or proto-Ukrainian identity, anymore than the fact that Poland disappeared between 1795 and 1918 meant that Polish identity was non-existent during those years.
In that period there were Polish political exiles all over Europe trying (and mostly failing) to get other nations interested in restoring Poland's independence, various governments in exile, at least ten rebellions against Russia, Prussia, and Austria, Polish regiments in the French service, Polish regiments in the American service, (including two famous revolutionary generals), Polish regiments fighting for the Union in the American Civil War (refugees from a failed rebellion in Poland) and dozens of all the usual long-haired and enthusiastic nationalist poets, musicians, artists, and writers. Poland never went away.
I don't remember hearing of anything remotely like that for Ukraine.
A question of degree, surely: Poland-Lithuania had been a European 'Great Power' from the late 14th century to as recently (before its Partitions) as 1683 when Sobieski had saved the Habsburgs' bacon. The Sich never had anything remotely approaching that kind of clout, but that doesn't invalidate its role. And you seem to have forgotten Shevchenko...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Also, can anyone explain why pro-Russians argue the Ukraine parliamentary vote impeaching Yanukovych and removing him from office was illegitimate? Was there a procedure that needed to be followed that was not? Or is it because they feel that many members of parliament from Yanukovych's party were coerced into voting to remove him by fear of being attacked by the crowds outside?
It seems that Article 111 of the Ukrainian constitution, the Presidential impeachment requires...“no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition.” It seems that the vote was short. Only 328-0 to impeach President Yanukovych was short of the constitutional requirements. The Vote would need to be 337 out of the 449 members of parliament.
This argument would then allow Russia to argue from the precedent of UK intervention in Seirra Leone in 1997. This is how Russia is trying to circumvent the principle of non-intervention in internal law. The west of course claims they are in breach of Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter.
We were invited in by the then deposed ruler in similar circumstances. Ahmad Tejan Kabbah though corruption was rife was democratically elected. He like Yanukovych had already fled the country before he requested international support to restore him. There are other precedents but this is the most striking. (We were there to stabilise the diamond trade in reality.)
The grounds for intervention from Russia perspective are also 'humanitarian', The legal precedent being western intervention in the former Yugoslavia and the bombing of Serbia in reaction to the Kosovo crisis in 1999. This is a still hotly debated principle as to weather such
intervention constitutes a breach of article 2(4).
Along with this argument goes the protection of a nations citizens even beyond there boarders. There is a limited right to act in this capacity when the sovereign state in which they reside is unwilling or unable to do so. I am explaining not agreeing with the Russian. I am a firm non-interventionist, full stop.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring: How does the legitimacy of the vote removing Yanukovych compare with the legitimacy of the vote in Crimea's parliament removing its government and installing the new pro-Russian one?
Similarly the Kosovo declaration of independence can be seen as precedent for Crimea to do the same. Russia is in a cleft stick here however as it does not recognise Kosovo. (I wonder if Putin might move on that in days to come?)Putin did however sight this ruling from the Internal court of Justice:
quote:
V. GENERAL CONCLUSION (para. 122)
The Court recalls its conclusions reached earlier, namely, “that the adoption of the
declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, Security
Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework”. Finally, it concludes that
“consequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international
law.”
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16010.pdf
The right to self-determination is, however, far more clearly established at the national level(as it would pertain to Ukraine) than in cases of secession (as it would pertain to Crimea).
Chaz
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
aunt jane
Shipmate
# 10139
|
Posted
Listening to a certain Russian radio station on the subject of Ukraine has been interesting. Someone decided to hold a phone-in, only for the presenter bitterly to lose his temper on air with anyone expressing any views against Putin's invasion. A week later, a thoughtful studio debate laughed at the west threatening sanctions and this, that and the other, helpfully pointing out that because the west hardly trades with Russia and has forever portrayed Russia as the villain, Russia now has very little to lose.
Food for thought about how nations treat each other?
Posts: 97 | From: South East of England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thinking about this overnight, there are some other historical parallels. The Russian claim to the Crimea seems rather more convincing than the US's claims to Texas and California and ours to the Transvaal and Orange Free State. So far as one can tell, unlike in those three cases, the Russians in the Crimea aren't Uitlanders.
[ 19. March 2014, 09:12: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I think we are heading towards something akin to a pre-1667 map of Eastern Europe. Good news if you like historical maps, not so good if you live near one of the shifting borders.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think we are heading towards something akin to a pre-1667 map of Eastern Europe. Good news if you like historical maps, not so good if you live near one of the shifting borders.
Shepherd's Historical Atlas is our friend, Matt. The original edition is online at UT Austin's Castaneda Library digital collection. I myself like "Central Europe about 1477", which shows a kind of early version of Nato expansion. Others might have other favorites.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The latter doesn't go much beyond the Vistula, unfortunately. I had in mind the border between Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy before the Treaties of Pereyaslav and Andrussovo, with western Ukraine (Lviv-Kiyiv) in the orbit of the west, and eastern Ukraine (Donetsk-Kharkiv) within the Russian orbit. Of course, if Putin also seeks to add Transnistria and then play 'join the oblasts' then southern Ukraine (Odessa-Kherson) would also be added to his Crimean acquisition, all of which of course was either part of or subject to the Ottomans back in the 17th century.
I prefer this map to illustrate what I think might happen.
[ 19. March 2014, 14:05: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I prefer this map to illustrate what I think might happen.
A big swathe of borderland in that map, Matt. Enough to make a person very thoughtful. Some familiar problems begin to surface. How to incorporate the borderlands into the Holy Roman Empire [now dba the European Union]? But should the borderlands be incorporated, or should some territory (how much?) be left as a buffer zone? Who will guard the borderlands? Against whom or what? Who will keep the border guards themselves within acceptable bounds? (Pandours, Cossacks, Szlachta, Junckers -- they could all be a bit rough at times.)
Well, I am just thinking out loud. But this is why I'm fairly insistent that this is a Central European problem to be solved by Central Europeans themselves, slowly, carefully, and patiently. It was not created by the United States, nor is the United States likely to be helpful in solving it.
If the American Vice-President wants to get into a chest-pounding match with Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial writers over who loves Poland and the Baltics more, this is all for domestic consumption by the white ethnic voters of the industrial Great Lakes and Northeast. The big question is not "What happens in Ukraine?" but "Will the white ethnics vote Democratic or Republican in 2014 and 2016?" Because that sliver of the US voting public could sway the election either way.
That's what really matters to the US political elite, but this kind of crotch-grabbing display is not at all helpful to Central Europe. So the sooner the Americans go back to obsessing over the Middle East while "pivoting" to Asia, the better off we are all likely to be.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The latter doesn't go much beyond the Vistula, unfortunately. I had in mind the border between Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy before the Treaties of Pereyaslav and Andrussovo, with western Ukraine (Lviv-Kiyiv) in the orbit of the west, and eastern Ukraine (Donetsk-Kharkiv) within the Russian orbit. Of course, if Putin also seeks to add Transnistria and then play 'join the oblasts' then southern Ukraine (Odessa-Kherson) would also be added to his Crimean acquisition, all of which of course was either part of or subject to the Ottomans back in the 17th century.
I prefer this map to illustrate what I think might happen.
Will the New Teutonic Knights be aligned with Russia or Europe? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Don't need new Teutonic Knights. The old ones inadvertently and indirectly founded modern Germany. The last Grand Master of the Order, one Albert von Hohenzollern (note the name), declared himself a Protestant so he could have legitimate children and turned the lands of the order into a Duchy with him as the Duke. Getting his title as a feudal subject of the King of Poland. And thus was the Empire forged.
The borders were much more complicated than can be shown on the scale of those maps, especially around Livonia and Courland. Until those efficient Swedes turned up and tried to simplify it. A patchwork of tiny feudal states owing allegiance to various combinations of rulers - often more than one at the same time. Not at all unusual for a local boss to hold some lands directly from the King of Poland/Lithuania others indirectly, others from Russians or just about anybody.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Well, I am just thinking out loud. But this is why I'm fairly insistent that this is a Central European problem to be solved by Central Europeans themselves, slowly, carefully, and patiently. It was not created by the United States, nor is the United States likely to be helpful in solving it.
If Ukraine is in Central Europe, where is Eastern Europe? I always thought Central Europe (Mitteleuropa) currently referred to Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, with Eastern Europe to the East, although some places like the Czech Republic sometimes get grouped in the center. I have never heard Ukraine called Eastern Europe. The broadest definition I can think of of Central Europe is the former Holy Roman Empire, and modern-day Ukraine is almost entirely (if not entirely - my geography isn't perfect) outside of that.
[ 19. March 2014, 17:39: Message edited by: stonespring ]
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Central Europe is anywhere you can get to from Budapest by train in an afternoon ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Central Europe is anywhere you can get to from Budapest by train in an afternoon
Good one. On a more serious note, it's possible to use the definition Milan Kundera gave in his classic essay, "The Tragedy of Central Europe." (I can't link to the online PDF because there's a parenthesis in the URL, but the link I gave will take you to it.)
Kundera wrote his essay in 1964, when everyone thought Soviet rule would last for the rest of our lifetimes.
Reading the essay helps us to see how "Europe" could still be a positive value in parts of the Continent, and why it is that young Ukrainians on the Maidan might have been willing to die for "Europe."
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I prefer this map to illustrate what I think might happen.
A big swathe of borderland in that map, Matt. Enough to make a person very thoughtful. Some familiar problems begin to surface. How to incorporate the borderlands into the Holy Roman Empire [now dba the European Union]? But should the borderlands be incorporated, or should some territory (how much?) be left as a buffer zone?
Belarus?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
