Author Topic: Ukraine!  (Read 3608 times)

Pumpkin

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2015, 11:10:13 AM »
Cthulhu, the role of history in the current situation cannot be denied: it is everywhere from the attempt to re-create ‘New Russia’ and the Russian Empire to why western Ukraine so desperately wants to be re-integrated into Europe proper. The whole events of WWII weigh very heavily in the current conflict. You cannot understand what is going on now without a solid knowledge of what has gone on for at least the last 150 years or more. The people fighting for one side or the other link almost everything to exact past grievances. 

There has always been a prevalent doctrine in Russia that Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians are but one people under one religion and one country and this should be addressed as an inalienable truth. This is actually not the case. This is a fundamental argument at the core. Ukrainian nationalists will never accept this – ever and that’s it. Russian nationalists reject the concept of Ukrainian everything. Russian tsars then dictators enforced it without fail, more or less.

Moscow’s agenda under Putin with Ukraine has always been obvious. It was only a matter of time. The blueprint was supplied by Georgia. It predates Maidan. See the Orange Revolution before. What was it all really about? The only reason Ukraine got independence was because of a deal cut by Yelstin to allow him to replace Gorbachev and dismantle the USSR. Ukraine ratified independence and Moscow accepted. The origins for the current events have very long roots indeed.

Some people could easily think US policy was to divide and conquer, but if the goal is to maximise profit through commerce and trade why would you shut Russia out when it is so rich in natural and mineral resources? Surely the goal would be to get in and do business and that’s what happened under Putin until quite recently. In terms of doctrine alone, it hasn't stopped the USA from befriending China. Maximum profit. Why is the USA involved with reconstruction in Vietnam and Cuba now? They can say they were right all along and get down to opening up for business.

Russia had a very good relationship with Europe for a number of years under Yeltsin and Putin, both regularly getting red carpet and banquet treatment. Putin was once a solid ally in the so-called War on Terror.  However, you can’t blame Europe for being so apprehensive now when Russia decides to go after countries in its old domain (Ukraine & Georgia) which want closer ties with the West. Then Russia starts flexing its muscle along the EU borders.

Georgia only caused a slight ripple and is too far away physically and culturally to matter to Brussels, but Ukraine is right next door to Poland. Moreover, the aggression brings bad memories to a region which was simply a living hell during WWII, because of the Nazis (this is a given), but also the Soviets (our allies – not a given till later). WWII doesn’t matter so much to us in the west now, but it still has a looming presence everywhere in central and eastern Europe.  These countries are on high alert, because of the sensitivity of the issue and Russia’s behaviour the last time it ‘liberated’ the region. If you don’t believe me, then consider how the Baltic States, amongst others, view Moscow’s role.

The vast majority of people in the former Warsaw Pact countries wanted, and still continue to want, NATO membership. They are glad they have it. I’m not aware of any such country wanting to revoke its membership. If anything, most of the countries mentioned actually want to strengthen it beyond its current agreements.

I’m not sure I really understand the last part of your previous post. Are you saying that the Americans are the real threat here, because of the variables you posted?

Yes, they have used nuclear weapons during a war. Have they done so since? Is this usage the reason they are such a threat? Or is it that they have re-addressed the subject of nuclear development? Is the number of military bases a legitimate argument to claim that a country could be belligerent? As for military expenditure, that would come as no surprise whatsoever.

Despite all these variables, you are never going to convince people in eastern Europe that America – not Russia – is the aggressor here. It is Russia that looks at lost empire and wants to re-create the past at whatever expense. The extremists in the Russian parliament don’t even try to hide such desires.

The last point I’m going to make here is something rarely talked about and worth a lot of consideration here.

Just imagine if Ukraine had not been persuaded by London and Washington 20 odd years ago to agree to The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances which effectively gave Ukraine’s nuclear weapons to Russia.  This was incredibly short-sighted and done largely as a goodwill gesture to Yeltsin who helped bring down the USSR.

The reality is that if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons (it had the third largest arsenal at that time), Putin would have been very unlikely to annex Crimea (thus breaking an international agreement) and interfere in the east. This is where it could be argued that the West made a crucial mistake.

Pumpkin

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2015, 11:23:18 AM »
Some interesting points there cthulhu and Pumpkin.

"a little known anti-Soviet guerrilla war which lasted for over a decade". You are right there.  Western history books about the war seem to have omitted events in the East post 45. In Poland the vast resistance groups in the East of the country did not disband till the late 40's still loyal to the Polish government in exile in London, around 200,000 Poles killed in post-45 fighting. My own Great Uncle who fought with the Russians from Lenino to Belin killed in 1947.

The same thing happened in western Ukraine (former parts of Poland Lwow). This is a current theme which is constantly re-visted now and done to show Moscow that they will fight again. In return, the Russians make out that they are Nazis and that Ukraine is a neo-Nazi state. From Moscow's point of view, the Poles and Ukrainians were ungrateful for their liberation which essentially became little more than domination in the eyes of the latter.

Being armed and prepared does not necessarily make you the aggressor, maybe it makes you the one who believes they have more of a threat to defend against. In 1944 the allies had many more times the military capability that the Nazi's, but who were the aggressors in that war ?

I'd agree very much. If Ukraine had a proper army now and viable weapons, especially nuclear, Putin wouldn't be up to his current games. As it stands, Ukraine is a soft target and he knows the West doesn't really want to roll up its sleeves and defend it. It's the same mentality we once saw from Milosevic. What eventually had to be done there? Well, that's for another thread and another day.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2015, 11:25:38 AM by Pumpkin »

Shush

  • Guest
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2015, 11:43:57 AM »
"(former parts of Poland Lwow)."

Lwow, Lemberg, Lvov, Lviv, yes the city with many  past masters. Wonder what it will be called years from now.

cthulhu

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • i'm trying to quit, but i just quit trying
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #33 on: April 14, 2015, 12:32:29 PM »
Quote
Some people could easily think US policy was to divide and conquer, but if the goal is to maximise profit through commerce and trade why would you shut Russia out when it is so rich in natural and mineral resources?

did you watch the video i posted, where it was admitted that the main goal of us foreign policy was to defend europe and russia getting closer?
this is also an answer that you have to judge the whole history for about 150years.

Quote
In terms of doctrine alone, it hasn't stopped the USA from befriending China. Maximum profit. Why is the USA involved with reconstruction in Vietnam and Cuba now?
first destroy, annihilate and embargo the hell out of countrys and then offer reconstruction?

the invasion of iraq, based on lies, hiding the fact that the interest was oil. simple. that's aggresion under the mantle and deception of humanitarian causes.

Quote
Or is it that they have re-addressed the subject of nuclear development?
yes, i find that crucial. if somone decides to do that, the others have to do it, too. by logic of the stupid military way of thinking.

Quote
Are you saying that the Americans are the real threat here, because of the variables you posted?
not americans, but the american political interest. our (i speak for german pov) leaders have even decided to put sanctions against russia, which mostly harm themselves. we have to question this. why does the us have even interest in ukraine and won't stay out of the conflict, since they are far away. this is explained ind the stratfor statement.

Quote
This was incredibly short-sighted and done largely as a goodwill gesture to Yeltsin who helped bring down the USSR.
there you say it. yeltsin brought down the ussr and opened it to the neoliberal way. after that, most things began to rot. putin managed to rebuild. i think this is the view of most russians, as i understand it. that you have to keep in mind. what yeltsin did was good for the oligarch and elites, not for the population.

but we won't come closer to each other. i hope we're on the same side, that any actions which can escalate the matter are not good. that it really is time for every party to step back, be rational an friendly and try the diplomatic way. that it is not the goal to get rid of putin, before peace can be done.

i can highly recomment this book:
the shock doctrine by naomi klein

this is a must read! i think after that book you would understand my point of view a bit more. it opened my eyes to many connections.



ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
try again. fail again. fail better.
(samuel beckett)

Pumpkin

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2015, 10:38:10 AM »
Yeah, I did watch it and I'm not convinced that it is the ‘main aim’. I don’t think events really support that. The reality is that Russia and Europe have long had serious problems which pre-date communism, imperialism etc… The current hostility to Europe and the West is not some American fabrication, but an age-old Russian mentality pre-dating the founding of the US itself. The real focus of US interest is in the vibrant Far East more than in a stagnating, aging Europe which is set to decline further. This is the real shift in world politics. 

Yeltsin helped bring down the USSR; he didn’t singlehandedly do so. The reason it was so easy was because no one was interested in fighting to keep it going. It was a failed state. Yeltsin had a free reign and then set about outlawing the real parliamentary opposition. Putin has followed Yeltsin and enriched the oligarchs and elites even more so than Yeltsin, but where is the root of all this really? The Communist Party. This is exactly where it all originates. Swiss bank accounts, privilege and the connections to rise above all else…

All empires rot after collapse, don't they? Isn't that what Russia has had to deal with? Something to consider is that China also junked the same system, but kept the single-party structure. They did it quietly. China is the next empire, so the question is how? Haven't they used many of the same principles, bar democracy, which you claim has ruined Russia? China rides 'capitalism' to success; Russia is supposedly ruined by it. Why? How? Does it justify current Russian aggression?

I have read Klein’s book and, to be honest, I was left unimpressed by it. Absolutely nothing wrong with a full criticism of capitalism, or anything else for that matter, but the frequent inclusion of conspiracies was unconvincing. Moreover, although criticism has its place and time, I also prefer to see something more constructive offered.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 11:02:25 AM by Pumpkin »

cthulhu

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • i'm trying to quit, but i just quit trying
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2015, 08:23:00 AM »
You still just claim that russia is hostile and aggressive and give no explanation based on facts for that claim. to say that the root is
Quote
an age-old Russian mentality
is not convincing. and now please just don't repeat that russia invaded ukraine.

i'm a bit astonished that you've read the (whole?) book by naomi klein and say that you were unimpressed and also use the modern "witch" hunt claim by using conspiracy to discredit it.

that shows to me, that we really are far away from having a discussable different opinion.

the book is not so about capitalism but it's about neo-liberalism. and i just hate it. this so called science and its worshippers are plainly dumb and blind and ruin millions of lives while helping a handful to get super rich and control the population. if yu cannot see this, than you don't want to see it.

i think russia and europe have a chance to develop. europe is not stagnating and aging and russia is doing well in comparison to the usa. there is a full financial war out there, originating from wall street and europe has to struggle with it. as does the whole world.
russia is well connected, see brics. china is opening a development bank. the dollar will be replaced as world curreny, the tool of domination and oppression of the us empire. the usa is now a failed state and rotting. that's why thhey want to push ttip, so they can more recklessly operate big busisness oversea and legalize illegal doings with it.

don't get me wrong. i'm from germany and i don't like my government and politicians. i don't like putin and the oliga(s)rchs, i don't like obama or hillary and i don't like the way the western system is working. it produces more problems than it is willing to solve.

but! it offers at least a kind of freedom to think for yourself, organise yourself and use the system against itself. you just mustn't wait for the leaders to act, but act for yourself. but first you have to do some analysis for yourself and see that this system is dead and has no future.

then you can start to join sharing communities. you can pay in regional currency which boost the small businesses. you can produce constructive subversive resistance, like the yes men. you can convince the people in you surrounding to collect for a privat energy solution, a little power station.

well, i admit i went a bit off topic here. but since no one did answer my initial question, by which actions russia can be considered aggressive in the case of ukraine, i'm still asking it.

there were three journalist killed recently in urkaine. they were called pro-russian.


ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
try again. fail again. fail better.
(samuel beckett)

ldopas

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2015, 03:14:20 PM »
Quote
then you can start to join sharing communities. you can pay in regional currency which boost the small businesses. you can produce constructive subversive resistance, like the yes men. you can convince the people in you surrounding to collect for a privat energy solution, a little power station.

I have three questions for you, as you make some assertions about your theories and how it would help small business and I actually run a business.

1. Have you ever run your own small business, or indeed been at the cutting edge of any business where cash flow, marketing, sales and economic based decisions were yours to take? As you make some pretty sweeping assertions about small business economics in your last post.

2. How would this obvious removal of economy of scale you propose help a business in any way, including your supposition that local currency would help a small business? What local currency are you suggesting I accept, money, pigs, carrots? And how will that help me with the increased transfer costs across these smaller units all with their own currencies.

3. Can you tell me how "constructive subversive resistance" would help my business one iota, in fact can you tell me how those three words in the same sentence are not a complete contradiction in terms?

I'm eager to hear as this retreat into smaller economic cells is the complete opposite to the evolution of markets that started from the stone age on.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 03:18:23 PM by ldopas »

cthulhu

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • i'm trying to quit, but i just quit trying
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2015, 05:07:11 PM »
i have posted this in reply to pumpink asking for
Quote
Moreover, although criticism has its place and time, I also prefer to see something more constructive offered.

it was meant to offer some alternatives, mostly in way of thinking, as i tried to express in my post. please regard this in context.

no, i don't have a small business. i worked as a freelancer for a while, as cutter and producer. i have worked in so many different areas in my life. i had a well paid job as a producer of medical information films for patients, mostly cancer patients. i got this job without any main knowledge as a medic, but as a filmmaker. i did it because i needed a job, i was good at it, but i quit, because i couldn't stand working for the pharma business any longer. i fought, i tried to get my viewpoints into it but as it was clear that i have real concious problems with the work, i quit. i'm always searching for alternatives and i believe in alternatives. you just have to go first and try to work it out. that's my approach and that is why i write this.

so for the currency thing, i referred to the fact, that there are alternative currencys out there:
Quote
An alternative currency (or private currency) is any currency used as an alternative to the dominant national or multinational currency systems. They are created by an individual, corporation, or organization, they can be created by national, state, or local governments, or they can arise naturally as people begin to use a certain commodity as a currency. Mutual credit is a form of alternative currency, and thus any form of lending that does not go through the banking system can be considered a form of alternative currency.
...
Quote
Some alternative currencies devalue rapidly (they are called Schwundgeld); this increases monetary circulation. The Miracle of Wörgl is an event that showed the potential of this increased spending through the introduction of a local currency known as Freigeld. Local currencies also have the benefit that they cannot be spent abroad, and thus the money always keeps circulating locally, benefiting only the local economy.

Alternative currencies are reported to work as a counterbalance for the local economy. They increase in activity if the local economy slows down, and decrease in activity if the local economy goes up.

this is from wikipedia. there are always pro and contras to it, but i prefer to look at the pro side.
alternative currencys, as i understand it, are about local business. if you have to trade international, they are not a working tool. that was not what i meant.

my post, as i said before, was about thinking outside the box, breaking down the lethardic thinking, that the world is as it is and you cannot change a thing. you have to be creative and there are no answers before you don't try a thing. maybe it won't work, but maybe it does.

"how many times have you been pacified, accepting when you're told there's no way, making sure it never will" (quote by quicksand)

constructive subersive resitance is absolutely not about helping a business. i don't know why you put it like i wanted to give answers to business problems.

the whole thing is taken out of context and i think you just want me to show that i have no experience or knowledge about what i'm writing.

i just wanted to give inspiration in that matter.

i'm interested in new movements like transition towns:

Quote
A Transition town is a grassroot community project that seeks to build resilience in response to peak oil,[1] climate destruction, and economic instability by creating a local group that uphold the values of the transition network.[citation needed] Local projects are usually based on the model's initial '12 ingredients' and later 'revised ingredients'.[2][3] The first initiative to use the name was Transition Town Totnes, founded in 2006. The socioeconomic movement is an example of fiscal localism.[4][5] Since then, many Transition groups have started around the UK and, in recent years, the world.....The Transition model can be applied to different types of place where people live, such as villages, regions, islands and towns. The generic term is "Transition initiative", which includes Transition neighborhoods, communities, and cities, although "Transition town" is in common usage.
wikipedia

Quote
I'm eager to hear as this retreat into smaller economic cells is the complete opposite to the evolution of markets that started from the stone age on.

what you want to say with that? that markets are evolutionary things and therefore there's no alternative to the process they made, say the last thirty years? do you think it is a good evolving process? can a market itself be evolutionary or are just laws and politics and agendas behind a market, like TTIP, which could be changed?
from the stone age on??? really? gosh....is it nature?

i don't think so. in my point of view the economics of neo-liberalism have and are still trying to transform the societies in the last thirty years for the worst possible outcome in humanity for the benefit of only a few.

so, i don't have real answers to your questions, but that should be obvious in regarding my intentions. i have resentments, heavy, about the structure of society which i came to live in. but i'm living, and i'm glad i'm living. with all my problems. i'm going to be unemployed in two months, i will have to leave my flat. and i enjoy parts of the structure of the society i'm living in. but i ibelieve in improvement. and therefor my opinion is, neo liberalism must go, and all the institutions have to care more about their own doorsteps as to try to regulate things globally.








« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 05:09:32 PM by cthulhu »
ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
try again. fail again. fail better.
(samuel beckett)

ldopas

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2015, 07:01:45 PM »
Well I wish you well with looking for employment, sorry to hear you will be unemployed. Don't please be a victim, there are many avenues to go down to employment, including retraining!  :)

I hear what you are saying, but it has to be practical in my worldview.

cthulhu

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • i'm trying to quit, but i just quit trying
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2015, 08:39:30 PM »
Thanks, mate! And i can assure you i never will be a victim. What i didn't mention is, that after quitting the producer job, i started retraining to become a cook! And this retraining will now be over after 3 f**ing hard years and that's why i will be unemployed. I had a little fight with the director of the hotel i was trained in. They didn't want to pay extras for working on an official holiday and had a lame excuse for it. I started a fight, joined the union (you don't do that if you want a job;-) and said i would go to court if they don't pay. I won. All the other workers didn't say nothing out of fear to loose their job or even just have an unpleasant situation. They just complain and do nothing. I can't help them.

So now i'm looking forward to travel to island and cook for two months in a camp, i almost got this job now. After that i will look on...

Straight on for the days ahead!
ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
try again. fail again. fail better.
(samuel beckett)

Pumpkin

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2015, 07:29:16 AM »
You still just claim that russia is hostile and aggressive and give no explanation based on facts for that claim. to say that the root is
Quote
an age-old Russian mentality
is not convincing. and now please just don't repeat that russia invaded ukraine.


You ask me not to “repeat that Russia invaded Ukraine”, but prior to this you ask for proof of Russian hostility and aggression. I’m not really sure why.

Plenty of factual examples have been given to support the assertion that Russia has been aggressive and hostile under Putin and before.  I’m not the only one to have done so here. In addition to the various post-war era examples given (facts, not opinions), we can also add Georgia and Ukraine to Russia’s recent aggression under Putin. Did Ukraine invade Russia or annex parts of its territory? No, it’s the opposite actually. What happened in Georgia in 2008? Are you fully aware? 

Let’s return again to the main theme of this thread.

Why is Simon73 actually going to Ukraine? Is it because a bunch of Turks, with dreams of restoring the Ottoman Empire, want to annex Crimea (could be a valid point actually using Putin’s argument)? Is it because Georgia has invaded eastern Ukraine? Has Poland decided to re-claim old inter-war territories, because they feel like doing so under the pretext that Polish speakers are being violated by a nationalist government in Kiev? (Well, yet another valid point in a twisted historical context - only if it were true.) The answers are obvious.   

Hasn’t Simon73 said "war is still going on"? Does war not involve aggression? Do you buy the argument that Kiev is fighting a war against its own citizens and Russia needs to defend Russian-speaking Ukrainians (whom they really consider to be Russians) against an unelected Ukrainian government? Are Ukraine’s internal affairs not a matter for its own concern? 

The fact is that Russia has annexed Crimea (on historical ‘reasoning’) against the protocols of international law. Russia has/supports troops in eastern Ukraine. Official or not they exist – don’t fool yourself. They are not covered by a long-standing agreement that existed between Ukraine and Russia to allow Russian troops in Crimea before the annexation took place. It is Russia/Putin and/or a combination of Russian nationalists/royalists/communists with clear access to Russian weapons which asserts ‘its right’ to intervene in old pre-WWI territories in eastern Ukraine (previously under Russia) under the pretext that ‘Russian speakers’ are being violated by a Ukrainian nationalist government in Kiev. Is that not aggression? How would Russia react to foreign troops on its soil. It would be considered an invasion and an act of aggression. Are there Ukrainian troops in Russia?

Using Putin’s mentality, Poland, and a number of other countries, would be justified to annex western Ukraine. However, there is only one country which has annexed Ukrainian territory, as agreed by international law to which Russia previously agreed. That is aggression; that is hostility.

If Crimea is ‘justifiably’ Russian because Khrushchev gave it away to Ukraine, then the same argument goes that Lenin gave away what is now eastern Ukraine to Kiev. If you can 'right the wrong' done by Khrushchev, then why wouldn’t Putin argue you could do likewise with Lenin’s ‘mistake’. Where does it go from there? That Russia can claim parts of Poland, because they were once under the tsar?

If you find the argument unconvincing that there is an age-old Russian mentality at play here, then I encourage you to familiarise yourself more with Russian history. (See Slavophiles and Westernisers.)  Once you fully understand the role of this philosophy in their outlook, we can discuss whether or not it is irrelevant. To Slavophiles, the very existence of Ukraine is unacceptable.  There is only one Eastern Slavic state – Russia. This is not my opinion, but a Russian school of thought, one which has gained great popularity given that many Russians blame Yeltsin and Gorbachev (both Westernisers) for Russia’s current plight. Russia is not doing well; it is not a success. It couldn’t be if you buy Klein’s doctrine that neo-liberalism, what she terms disaster capitalism, is the root of evil. Russia enthusiastically adopted many of the tenets of neo-liberalism.   

Since you’re fixated on answering questions, please answer at least a few that I have already put to you. Most importantly, I would like your answer as to why China has become a world power in such a short space of time, largely using capitalism with many aspects of neo-liberalism? If it ruined Russia, why did China benefit from it to such an extent? Why has Poland become a star player in reform? Try telling China to dump its current path and return to Mao's ways, or the Poles to revert to what effectively ruined their country with Moscow’s blessing.

i'm a bit astonished that you've read the (whole?) book by naomi klein and say that you were unimpressed and also use the modern "witch" hunt claim by using conspiracy to discredit it.

that shows to me, that we really are far away from having a discussable different opinion.

the book is not so about capitalism but it's about neo-liberalism. and i just hate it. this so called science and its worshippers are plainly dumb and blind and ruin millions of lives while helping a handful to get super rich and control the population. if yu cannot see this, than you don't want to see it.


I have read Naomi Klein and found the book unimpressive. The book is a critique of Smith’s classical capitalism. Isn’t that what the neo-liberals love? The market solves everything? Capitalism and democracy. They both have their warts and are far from perfect, but what can be offered as a better alternative?

I think Klein tends to oversimplify. Failure to agree with her ideas is hardly the trademark of not wanting to see the 'evils of neo-liberalism'. If the arguments were more robust, it might be more convincing. After her criticism, I would like to see an alternative system offered. How is it some sort of ‘which’ hunt here? Even someone like Stiglitz, who is critical enough about some aspects of the current economic order, is not a fan of hers. 
« Last Edit: April 21, 2015, 09:03:13 AM by Pumpkin »

cthulhu

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • i'm trying to quit, but i just quit trying
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2015, 06:23:19 PM »
I want to answer with some material i want to quote:

All is “Putin’s paranoia” in the Western media in a pervasive campaign of vilification that holds the story together through all its lies.  Charges of aggression and crime against Russia and Putin are daily proclaimed with no evidence, but together provide a pretext for why “Russia must be stopped” and the US-led West Ukraine regime armed with US weapons to “teach Putin a lesson”.  The known five billion dollars spent on political destabilization of Ukraine in recent years, the covert special forces, and the direct financing and orchestration of the overtly fascist coup leaders all disappear into the anti-Putin/Russia propaganda field.
…..

As ultimatums and embargoes from the US and the EU continually escalate blaming “Russia’s aggression” without sustainable evidence ever produced, the war-mongering by the corporate media simultaneously increases to foment war fever. None seem to have processed the undeniable fact that the neutrality and non-arming of Ukraine was promised by NATO and the US  Secretary of State James Baker in 1991. Still the war party’s favorite liars like John McCain and the New York Times declare unsubstantiated war-pretext accusations daily. So the question arises: What will be the next big-lie pretext for NATO and US armed intervention?
….

The claim that Russian soldiers “poured into Crimea to seize it” is, however, perfectly false.  In fact, it was a voluntary referendum with demonstrated EU Parliamentarian-observing its overwhelming public support for re-unification with Russia. No evidence suggests that the already-present Russian soldiers involved were not models of presence without abuse and threat. No doubt many Tatars wanted no part, but the soldiers did not arrive by instruction from the Kremlin “to overthrow with brute force”. They were already a long time in Crimea under contract with Ukraine and in fewer number than the undenied contract allowed. No-one disputes any of this. Diversion from it is the game, and lies about Putin is the strategy that sustains it. An 83% voter turnout elected re-integration with Russia by over 90%. No counter-evidence disputes this, only unsubstantiated innuendos.

In contrast, Poroshenko’s post-coup election in October 2014 was by a fraction of Ukraine’s total electorate with most of the Russia-speaking South and the East unable to participate. His October 26 snap parliamentary election was in the conditions of more than a million citizens driven from their homes, oligarch and foreign money pouring in to indoctrinate voters, and anti-communist and anti-Russian mass passions inflamed to terrorizing proportions. Under post-coup law, the Kiev regime’s sacred claim to Crimea is criminal to disagree with and liable to social destruction – the “new Western democracy and freedom”.

Also erased from the official story are the facts that the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter and “the right of nations to self-determination” (Article 2, Chapter 1). This is the very right Ukraine invoked in seceding from the USSR in 1991, and the same right invoked for the separation of Kosovo from Serbia – which was in fact enforced by NATO bombing. Further erased is the UN International Court ruling in July 2010 that “general international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence”.

Facts and laws are not all that is automatically reversed in the official story and repeated like 2 + 2 =4. The contrast between Russia’s governing treatment of Crimea and the coup government’s treatment of the Ukraine people is also very revealing. While the oligarchs are setting up the  Ukraine people to be permanent debt-slave in exchange for banker-corporate control over the country’s life capital, Russia is far advanced in  upgrading the public infrastructures and life security of  Crimea as fast as possible.

The Underlying Geo-Strategic Pattern

The underlying global pattern is that any organised force standing against NATO-backed corporate globalization is selected for attack and dismemberment. We have seen this from Afghanistan to Syria in the last decade. NATO is the combination of all the white world powers that formerly warred against each other. Now they have a common cause which has switched from the wartime-generated welfare state leading the world to the very polar opposite under the same name – disemploying, defunding and skinning everyone alive without private money stocks from Spain and Greece to Ukraine.

The major strategy of rule is to divide the population into warring sides. The Republican Party has no other evident policy in the US, nor does the US itself abroad. So civil war was planned for Ukraine from before 2000 as reported by Germany’s former State Secretary for Defence, Willy Wimmer, who has since made public his meeting with the US State Department in Berlin on May 2, 2000 when  a map was presented regarding NATO’s future expansion to include the dividing of Ukraine into Eastern and Western regions. Five billion dollars of US foreign-operations spending in Ukraine from 2008 (acknowledged to a business audience by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland after the Kiev coup she directed) was then directly invested in mass anti-regime circles and propaganda and financial support to key agents of the eventually violent overthrow. This was not the intention of the mainly peaceful and popular demonstrations before February 2014 against the government of Viktor Yanukovych, a corrupt president in a long line. But a violent coup was opted for instead led by neo-Nazi terror on the ground. The terror was then projected onto the government to justify overthrowing it, and then onto the resistance in the Eastern regions, Russia and Putin as patsies for Western public opinion.

As always in US-orchestrated “regime changes”, official and media attention turns to blaming the designated enemy while the catastrophic consequences of the violent overthrow are blinkered out. The Ukraine “regime change” has led to massive bombings of civilians and infrastructures in the East, deliberate starvation of millions of citizens, and armed-force land clearances, murder, torture and rape by neo-Nazi death squads.  This large-scale ethnic cleansing’ has been  altogether screened out of Western state and media reports, while the official story has daily flailed Putin as the villain and the cause of all the problems.

If we look forward and backward from the “weapons of mass destruction of Iraq”, the “genocidal plans of the dictator Gadaffi”, and “Assad’s chemical weapons” as a pretext for bombing another society with major strategic and economic resources to be pried open, we see that the pretexts always turn out to be false. But in every case a society formerly independent of US dominance and doing better than neighbours is torn apart and opened to transnational corporate invasion.

….

Reverse projection is the master psych-op at work. Blame the enemy for what the US is doing as the reason to attack it. Even if the evidence shows a big lie in motion, only a few know it and it will not be reported in the corporate media. In fact, such serial mass murder as the Kiev sniper killings is grounds for prosecution of crimes against humanity under international law and prosecution by the International Court. But so far such due process of law and criminal prosecution have been deployed only to serve the unspoken global agenda while war-drums beat against all those who draw a line against it on the ground. The deprived become the Enemy whenever they fight back.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-americas-lebensraum-is-washington-preparing-to-wage-war-on-russia/5431970

the aggression you claim by russia is a reaction to the expanding nato, with rocket shields installed directly at the border to russia. they have a right to feel threatened, i would say.

i also want to quote an interview with daniele ganser, whom i mentioned earlier:


Mr. Ganser, the German Chancellery accuses NATO chief Philip M. Breedlove, of “dangerous propaganda”. Breedlove exaggerates Russia’s military involvement in East Ukraine, for example. What is going on here? Is the German government just accusing NATO of war propaganda?

The German Chancellery is right with its critique. In my opinion, something dangerous is happening right now: US generals like Breedlove are trying to provoke a war, where Germans and Russians would kill each other in order to weaken both countries. This is a cynical, actually a diabolical plan. But this is exactly what US strategist like Georg Friedman, director of the Stratfor think tank, are suggesting. United, Germany and Russia are the only power that could threaten the US, Friedman said in a speech in February 2015 in Chicago.

“Our primordial interest [preventing a German-Russian alliance] is to ensure that will never happen,” said Friedman.

“The US, as an empire, cannot intervene in Eurasia all the time,” he explained. Therefore they must turn countries against each other, so they don’t build close alliances. “I suggest something President Ronald Reagan used against Iraq and Iran: He supported both war parties!” Freidman stated. The war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988 claimed at least 400.000 dead, so from the point of peace science it is frightening what Friedman suggests. “So the Iranians and Iraqis fought against each other and not against us,” explained Freidman in his speech. “That was cynical and amoral. But it worked.”

The USA cannot occupy Eurasia. The same moment we put our boots on European soil, we will be outnumbered due to demographics. In my opinion the radical US generals like Breedlove are trying to implement this strategy, where in future German and Russian Soldiers kill each other in Ukraine, thus destabilizing and weakening the whole of East Europe. That would be a catastrophe. Therefore a peace movement needs to encourage an alternative solution, like the neutrality of Ukraine. No NATO membership and friendship between Germany and Russia.

How is NATO trying to fuel this conflict?

NATO General Breedlove often sticks out by spreading exaggerated and untrue claims. This is how NATO is fueling the war. This is dangerous, because the situation is very tense, as we know. On the 12th of November 2014 Breedlove claimed that Russian toops and tanks have marched into Ukraine! But that wasn’t true and it wasn’t just a little thing. Literally the NATO general said: “We have seen that Russian troops, Russian tanks, Russian artillery and air defense systems have moved into Ukraine.” BBC and other mass media spread that worldwide but it was a lie.

And US General Ben Hodges, commander of the US troops in Europe, also pushes for war by supporting the Ukrainian army. In January 2015 he visited a military hospital in Kiev and handed over a medal for bravery of the US Army to a wounded Ukrainian soldier! That, of course, increases tension.

However, the US General Hodges shows symbolically: The US is an “active party of war” in the Ukraine. It stands by the Ukrainian army that is fighting the Russian supported separatists in East Ukraine. Because Germany is a NATO member, there is a danger that German soldiers are dragged into this war by the US. Similar to Afghanistan after 2001.

If that happens, then we have exactly the situation Friedman is asking for: Germans and Russians shooting at each other in the Ukraine. Of course I hope that this won’t happen. However, a peace movement needs to raise this and warn of such dangers in order to avoid them.

Is this a very common thing, I mean, that NATO lies, exaggerates or deceives?

Yes, regrettably NATO has, on a regular basis, combined lies and war. In my book NATO’s secret armies in Europe. Staged terror and clandestine warfare I show how, during the Cold War, NATO had built in Western countries, supported by CIA and the British secret service MI6, secret armies, of which existence the governments and population didn’t know anything.

Especially the US generals are dangerous, because they have been continuously fighting wars in different countries during the last 70 years. As representatives of an empire they are not only used to kill but also to deceive. General Lyman Lemnitzer, for example, who served as SACEUR of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) between 1963 and 1969, so one of Breedlove’s predecessors, suggested in the 60s that the US should stage a war against Cuba by destroying an American ship at the military base in Guantanamo and by staging terror attacks in Washington, and then for both crimes accuse Fidel Castro in order to get the American public behind the war. John F. Kennedy, however, stopped the operation [Northwoods]. But it shows, how dangerous the officers in the Pentagon are.

Is only the US pushing for wars or are other countries also involved?

NATO has 28 members and unfortunately other NATO countries are involved in war propaganda as well. For example, the Brits! In March 2003, before they attacked Iraq, Tony Blair, the then prime minister, said: “Iraq is in possession of chemical and biological weapons. Its rockets are ready for use within 45 minutes.” That was a lie! The attack on Iraq by USA and Great Britain started, nevertheless, without an UN mandate. So it was illegal!

It was also an illegal aggression when NATO, on the 24th of March 1999, started bombing Serbia. Because NATO didn’t have a mandate of the UN Security Council. Back then it was Germany under the Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the Defense Minister Rudolph Scharping and the Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, that actively took part in the aggression [War on Yugoslavia], together with the US. In the run-up to the aggression lies were spread to get the people behind this war. Later, in 2014, Schröder admitted that NATO violated International Law. “When the question came up how to deal with developments in Yugoslavia and Kosovo respectively, we sent our planes, our Tornados [German warplanes] to Serbia together with NATO and bombed a sovereign state without a Security Council Resolution,” admitted Schröder self-critically.

How come that in those cases nobody raises its voice and we only read the same NATO statements with their arguments?

The mass media in Germany are pushing people into a direct confrontation with Russia, in a way the radicals in the US, like Stratfor director Friedman, are asking for. It means, they fuel animosity towards Russia. And very rarely there is a critical discussion about NATO or about the strategic interests of the US, those powers that are fueling the war in Ukraine.

Many journalists don’t even call the US an empire fearing for their jobs and other things. But it is apparent that the US is an empire of our times, the most powerful nation that, of course, is pursuing its national interests. This fact is rarely raised by the mass media. So many people watching TV don’t even know the term ‚US Empire’ or the strategic interests of this empire in Eurasia. Therefore, critical people disappointed by the TV and Newspapers are trying to inform themselves through alternative media on the Internet.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/germany-accuses-nato-of-dangerous-propaganda-americas-strategic-objective-is-to-prevent-a-german-russian-alliance/5439264

as i said earlier, i witnessed several media scandals about lies and propaganda here in germany. though there were some court rules and some apologys the liars had to make, the corporate media of course does not display them as such scandals as i and many others see them. that's also a reason why i question more the western nato side than the russian side.


you say that china is benefitting from the capitalist and neoliberal rules it adopted, but that only shows on statistics about the gdp or whatever it's called. there are always only a few who benefit from that, and if they make billions, the statistics go up. but it has nothing to do about the people and if they have a better living.

another quote:

Many Marxists including Theotonio dos Santos believe that the reemergence of capitalist characteristics in the People’s Republic of China had its roots in post-1949 socialist construction rather than in the semi-colonial structures prevailing in China prior to 1949.  The issue of high growth of GDP is misleading. The rate of growth during the  Maoist period was equally significant, its focus and “social composition”, however, was different.  The main thrust of GDP growth in the post Mao era has been the cheap labor “Made in China” export economy which relies on abysmally low wages and high levels of unemployment, not to mention the dynamic development of luxury consumption in the internal market (what Marxists call department IIb).  Moreover, while contributing to impoverishing the Chinese people, a large share of the profits of this capitalist growth process have largely been transferred via international trade to the Western countries.

The video below should dispel any doubts concerning the nature of contemporary Chinese society. Levels of income inequality are higher than in the U.S according to a 2014 University of Michigan study. Social inequality in China is among the highest in the World.

Income inequality has been rising rapidly in China and now surpasses that of the U.S. by a large margin, say University of Michigan researchers.

That is the key finding of their study based on newly available survey data collected by several Chinese universities.

“Income inequality in today’s China is among the highest in the world, especially in comparison to countries with comparable or higher standards of living,” said University of Michigan sociologist Yu Xie. University of Michigan study.


I have hope, that since the masks came off the monster's face (today is a good day) the people are beginning to realize, how they are being played. worldwide. but i also have fear of an escalating conflict which could bring war to europe and even the world. that's why i want to be very careful with blaming russia for the conflict. and to me history shows that the neoliberal agenda is a very aggressive and inhuman force which wants to control everything.



ever tried. ever failed. no matter.
try again. fail again. fail better.
(samuel beckett)

Pumpkin

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #42 on: May 01, 2015, 05:37:45 PM »
The material you quote from Global Research (GR) is interesting, but are you aware of the history behind it? Michel Chossudovsky’s organisation is, in its own words, "committed to curbing the tide of globalisation and disarming the new world order". That’s fine, if that’s what you want to do. However, to me, a proper research organisation needs to be objective - above all else - and not selective. Chossudovsky is a favourite at Russia Today (RT), another state-funded media outlet under Putin’s control. RT stands long accused as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy – not only by independent observers, but also by former employees. I would take his comments about the situation in Ukraine with a hell of a dose of salt.

I think GR's political outlook largely motivates much of what you have quoted from them. I find it rather selective at times and it ignores many of the factors I have already mentioned which are real considerations in this conflict. Anyway, according to GR [all further quotes in italics]:

None seem to have processed the undeniable fact that the neutrality and non-arming of Ukraine was promised by NATO and the US Secretary of State James Baker in 1991.

According to which official document? Ukraine had a large arsenal of nuclear weapons at this time and the idea was to come to an official decision on this. The result was The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, effectively giving Ukraine’s nuclear weapons to Russia around 20 years ago. If anything, this de-armed Ukraine in Russia’s favour. Ukraine deeply regrets this now. Around the same time, Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and became the first post-Soviet state to participate in Partnership for Peace and joined the NATO-Ukraine Commission and supplied troops to peacekeeping operations. In 2002, the Ukrainian government stated NATO membership as a goal and this was agreed by NATO in 2008. Two years later President Yanukovich (pro-Moscow) removed this from the agenda for fear of making Putin more angry. He would do likewise earlier last year with the EU proposals. 

The claim that Russian soldiers “poured into Crimea to seize it” is, however, perfectly false.  In fact, it was a voluntary referendum with demonstrated EU Parliamentarian-observing its overwhelming public support for re-unification with Russia.

Under the Ukrainian constitution and Ukrainian law, the referendum was illegal. There is no debate about that, as Crimea was a constituent part of Ukraine when the referendum took place.  It effectively states that territorial changes can only be approved via a referendum where all the citizens of Ukraine are allowed to vote. This was not the case. The referendum was illegal. Were the OSCE and the UN present? There were observers from EODE, a Russian far-right organisation.

In contrast, Poroshenko’s post-coup election in October 2014 was by a fraction of Ukraine’s total electorate with most of the Russia-speaking South and the East unable to participate.

This is just nothing but an outright lie. Almost 60% of the electorate participated (excluding some eastern regions under paramilitary control) and Poroshenko won by a large margin. The Russian-speaking south also participated in the election. Only Donbass did not fully participate, but this was largely due to pro-Russian violence and intimidation. Putin himself recognised the election results. Igor Strelkov himself admitted the paramilitaries prevented people from voting here. The facts speak for themselves.

the aggression you claim by russia is a reaction to the expanding nato, with rocket shields installed directly at the border to russia. they have a right to feel threatened, i would say.

The aggression I claim by Russia goes far beyond anything to do with NATO expansion. We can say that NATO expansion is a factor here, but there is also a good reason why so many former satellite states want to be under NATO’s umbrella. In many of these countries Russia’s more recent aggression only convinces them of the need for NATO membership and greater protection. Do you think Poland or Latvia want to face what Ukraine and Georgia has under Putin's bullying tactics and desire to recreate the Russian Empire?

Even if Russia feels threatened, which is a legitimate enough argument in itself, does that give Russia the right to annex the territory of another sovereign state (Crimea)? Does that give Russia the right to meddle in eastern Ukraine? Does that give Russia the right to be in Georgia screwing around, because of another pro-Western president? The country which is really threatened in all of this is clearly Ukraine (annexation, foreign invasion, meddling). Georgia has also been violated. Neither has NATO membership. Should Russia plan to do likewise with Poland, for example, then they will face the entire arsenal of NATO as a reaction. That’s something that I don’t think Putin is stupid enough to do, at least at this stage. If he should do it, then I would certainly support NATO - no doubt about it.

As for NATO being the aggressor, the only party to have annexed another country’s territory and advocated an illegal referendum is Russia. In fact, NATO hasn’t even responded much to this behaviour. There have been verbal dances, finger-pointing and sanctions, but not much else. No military repercussions have been authorised by NATO. No plan for invasion. Ukraine simply isn’t worth it and the overarching expectation is that Putin will settle down. This may come to haunt the feck out of Europe, but when has Europe ever solved its own wars over the last century?

US generals like Breedlove are trying to provoke a war, where Germans and Russians would kill each other in order to weaken both countries. This is a cynical, actually a diabolical plan. But this is exactly what US strategist like Georg Friedman, director of the Stratfor think tank, are suggesting. United, Germany and Russia are the only power that could threaten the US, Friedman said in a speech in February 2015 in Chicago.

It’s very difficult to see this as feasible. Both Merkle and Putin have grown from the same system and have an understanding of one another. Germany is also rather scared of participating in troop deployment in Europe, because of the legacy of WWII. Their participation in Yugoslavia didn’t go down a dream and reactions from Greece prove that Germany has a long way to go to shake such conceptions off. The real power that threatens the US is China – not Russia, nor a German-Russian alliance. By the way, the Russians also harbour a long memory about WWII and would unlikely be willing to throw that aside, especially given Germany’s historical relationship with Ukraine - not to mention with Russia.

Therefore a peace movement needs to encourage an alternative solution, like the neutrality of Ukraine. No NATO membership and friendship between Germany and Russia.

Ukraine clearly wants NATO membership for many of the same reasons that Poland and the Baltic States wanted it and continue to want to strengthen it. Should they be denied it, because Putin doesn't want it? So, how far do peacemakers get with Ukraine which, if it had NATO membership and/or a cache of nuclear weapons, would very unlikely have been attacked from the east and seen the annexation of its southern flank. How can Ukraine be neutral when it's been violated under international law by an aggressive neighbour?

that's also a reason why i question more the western nato side than the russian side.

If you think there is greater freedom of speech and objectivity on the Russian side under Putin, you seriously need to think twice. There is a long list of dead political activists and journalists who fell foul of the man. Just because Putin might share some of your reservations about current politics and economics, it doesn't mean he should be given the benefit of the doubt on those grounds. 

you say that china is benefitting from the capitalist and neoliberal rules it adopted, but that only shows on statistics about the gdp or whatever it's called. there are always only a few who benefit from that, and if they make billions, the statistics go up. but it has nothing to do about the people and if they have a better living.

It goes well beyond statistics. Look at any Chinese city on the eastern seaboard. Look at the purchasing power of the Chinese. Look at the fact that the Chinese government is minted and able to invest anywhere it likes. Look at the fact that China has bought up most of Africa, whilst much of the rest of the world is in recession. People have much better living standards now than under Mao. There’s no doubt about that. China is the next superpower.  When it achieves this, Russia will be forced to hand back territories along the border to China. They will show no mercy for that. You certainly won’t see an emaciated Russia throwing its weight around against the world’s most powerful army and a country which takes no prisoners.

If some organisations and people are going to get worked up about the legality of the whole Iraq fiasco and yet disregard the question of legality in the case of Ukraine where you have flagrant annexation of another country’s territory, then you really need to wonder where the real objectivity lies and what are the reasons for this behaviour. However, when Global Research clearly states its ‘mission’, then the answer is rather clear.

The 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic is a dangerous road to stumble down.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2015, 05:40:22 PM by Pumpkin »

Simon73

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #43 on: May 13, 2015, 08:26:32 PM »
I am in the south east of Ukraine. really a few km away from the front line and the situation is really f. up especially for the civilians trapped in the moddle of the so called combat line.
the 2 parties do nothing but stay where they are and they fore randomly all kinds of weaponwy at each other nit gaining any territory but filling the areas with shparpnel of mortars, uxos, ieds, and all kinds of shit who kill and will kill mainly civialians in the years to come.
 >:(

Amandistan

  • Totally Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
  • Taking the road less traveled since 1988
Re: Ukraine!
« Reply #44 on: May 13, 2015, 08:53:02 PM »
I am in the south east of Ukraine. really a few km away from the front line and the situation is really f. up especially for the civilians trapped in the moddle of the so called combat line.
the 2 parties do nothing but stay where they are and they fore randomly all kinds of weaponwy at each other nit gaining any territory but filling the areas with shparpnel of mortars, uxos, ieds, and all kinds of shit who kill and will kill mainly civialians in the years to come.
 >:(
That's very sad to hear.  :'(
Where I'm from is not my home, and neither's where i'm bound.