The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
2016: The Year of Russia's Triumph
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_543849523

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Just like European maps place Europe in the center of the planet, so do most western commentators look at the past year from a US/Europe-centered perspective. Which is fair enough. Furthermore, the AngloZionist Empire has just suffered two major disasters, the Brexit and the election of Trump, so there is truly much interesting to focus on. Still, what I want to do today is to look at the year which is ending from a Russian perspective. The following were the major challenges Russia faced in 2016:

  1. The Nazi regime in Kiev
  2. The civil war in the Donbass
  3. Ukrainian attempts to blockade Crimea
  4. The rabid hostility of the US Administration
  5. NATO’s policy of military confrontation in Europe
  6. The united European front against Russia
  7. Western sanctions, the subsequent drop in investments and credit and the low oil prices
  8. The growing dissatisfaction of the Russian people with the economic polices of the government
  9. The struggle against the “liberal” 5th column inside Russia
  10. The international aggression against Syria
  11. The demonization of Russia in general and of Vladimir Putin in particular
  12. Terrorist attacks against Russia

Let’s take these one by one now and score them:

The Ukraine 5/5

The Nazi occupied Ukraine is in free fall. In fact, it has been in free fall for a while already, but just like somebody jumping from the 40th floor of a building is doing “okay” passing by the 20th floor, so did the Ukraine still have the possibility to say “so far so good” and look halfway credible to the superficially informed. Now, however, it is becoming rather obvious that the so-called “Revolution of dignity” (which is how the Neonazis call the coup against Yanukovich) is an abject failure and that the “Independent Ukraine” is simply beyond rescue. The ruling class which came to power now is falling apart, everybody is fighting everybody else and there is no other discernible policy left beyond personal enrichment and survival. As for the “Joan of Arc of the Ukraine” and “Hope of the Ukraine” – Nadezhda Savchenko – she is now denounced as a traitor and FSB agent. Forbes is now running an article entitled “Corruption is killing Ukraine’s economy” while a former Ukrainian lawmaker has passed recordings of Poroshenko taking bribes to the FBI. As for the Ukrainian military, which Poroshenko has recently advertised as one of the 5 best in the world, it has only mustered enough forces to send one company size infantry force supported by 2 tank platoons to attack the Novorussian positions near Debaltsevo before getting them all killed. The situation of the Ukrainian military is so bad that they are now forced to use private cars to get to the frontlines and to evacuate the wounded. Yes, on paper the Ukrainian military is huge, but in reality it is a force which has a hard time surviving even before going into battle. Last but not least, the entire Nazi ruling elite had thrown its full political weight behind Hillary while pouring scorn and vitriol against Trump. To say that they are now screwed would be an understatement. Hence the mood of utter panic now taking over Kiev.

The Donbass 3/5

The Russian policy in the Donbass (non-occupation combined with overt and covert support) was clearly the correct one: the DNR and LNR are getting stronger while the Nazi occupied Ukraine is going down the tubes, vide supra, as they say. There have however also been clear failures and the two main ones are the Russian inability to stop the constant shelling and attacks on civilians from the Nazis and the Russian failure to establish security inside the two republics. If the first failure can be excused (there is no magic recipe to make that happen), the second one is inexcusable as seen by the murder of several key Novorussian figures. Furthermore, the situation in the Donbass remains very difficult and potentially dangerous. In the big scheme of things, Russia did very well, but as soon as you look down to the more detailed level many mistakes and failures become apparent. Still, it is now obvious to any decently informed person that time is now (and has always been, really) on the side of the Novorussians as every passing day makes them stronger and the Ukronazis weaker.

Crimea 5/5

The Urkonazis tried everything, from blockading the peninsula, to cutting off water and electricity, to sending terrorist infiltrators. This gave Russia the opportunity to “save” Crimea from the Ukraine over and over and over again. It is pretty darn clear that the Ukronazis have long given up of ever getting back Crimea and that all that is left to them are mostly ineffective ways to try to make the people of Crimea miserable thereby, of course, only strengthening their resolve. Initially there were some people in Crimea who were not quite convinced that the nightmare was really over and that Russia truly meant business (especially with all the rumors about “Putin selling out”). But now that the Russians have to put major efforts into shielding Crimea from the Ukronazi attempts at blockading it those doubts have disappeared. Crimea’s future looks extremely bright: not only is the Russian state pouring in billions of Rubles for huge infrastructural improvement and the deployment of a very large and advanced military force, but the prospects for tourism and trade are also excellent.

The United States 5/5

The credit for the election of Donald Trump goes first and foremost to the American people to whom I sincerely believe the entire planet owe a heartfelt and loud “THANK YOU!!!!!”. I will never be able to prove that and, thank God, we will never know if I was right, but up to the last minute I was convinced that there was a very strong probability that Hillary in the White House would have meant war, probably nuclear, with Russia. I am still undecided about Trump, but I view his upcoming term with cautious optimism and while I would never say never, I really very strongly feel that with Trump in the White House the risks of war with Russia have fallen to a dramatically low level and that barring some stunning provocation or disaster, a war between the USA and Russia has now become exceedingly unlikely. Glory be to God for His immense mercy towards us!

ORDER IT NOW

That being, said, I will dare to speculate that Russia did play a role in the election of Trump. No, not by hacking emails or by recruiting Ron Paul (!!!) as an agent of Russian propaganda, but by openly and firmly confronting the USA on all fronts and showing that Russia would not bend her knee before the AngloZionist Empire. As I have written many times, Russia has been preparing for war for years now and while Russians were (and still are) afraid of war, they are also ready and willing to fight it if forced to do so. In his latest press conference Putin specifically referred to the will of the Russian people as a key element in Russia’s ability to defeat any aggressor when he said,

We are stronger than any potential aggressor. I have no problem repeating it. I also said why we are stronger. This has to do with the effort to modernise the Russian Armed Forces, as well as the history and geography of our country, and the current state of Russian society

and he is absolutely right. Sure, Hillary was probably stupid enough to try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, but the 200 or so generals and admirals who expressed their support for Trump probably understood what that kind of folly would entail. Furthermore, it appears that quite a few Americans are sympathetic to Russia and Putin himself. Again, in his latest press conference Putin referred to this and made some very interesting comments:

I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy. (…) It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win.

Putin puts it down to values, common values, between the Russian and the American people.

[Personal sidebar: for whatever this is worth, I regularly interact with Americans who support Putin on the grounds that "he stands for American values unlike the SOBs in Washington"].

But how did the Americans become aware of what values Putin and Russia stood for if not for the ceaseless efforts of Putin himself and the alternative media to convey these values to the general public? I think that by OPENLY denouncing the total hypocrisy of the AngloZionist Empire and by OPENLY offering a different civilizational model, Putin and Russia did have an impact on the public opinion in the West. To put it simply: Russia has scored an ideological victory over the AngloZionist imperialists. In other words, the Russian policy of standing firm against the Empire while openly challenging it on its ideological foundation was the correct one and it probably did have an impact upon the outcome of the election in the USA.

NATO 4/5

Russia has defeated NATO on two levels: a purely military one and a political one. On the military level Russia has taken all the asymmetrical measures she promised to negate both the US anti-missile system in Europe and the deployment of threatening military power in eastern Europe: Russia deployed the Iskander missile, doubled of the size of her Airborne Forces, and initiated the creation of a Tank Army in the western strategic direction (to read more about how Russia prepared to fight and defeat NATO see “How Russia is preparing for WWIII” and “The EU’s suicide by reality denial“). On the political level there can be little doubt that all the European leaders who favored confrontation with Russia are now unpopular and in a political crisis except maybe Merkel, but Germany alone can’t do anything meaningful (at least one “positive” side effect, so to speak, of the EU integration). As for the election of Trump, it has resulted in a NATO-wide panic, especially in those countries which had prostituted themselves to the Empire with special enthusiasm and zeal (Poland, the three Baltic statlets, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and our “Orthodox brothers” in Romania and Bulgaria). I don’t see Trump dumping NATO, there would be too much opposition against that, but with Trump in the White House all the nonsense about the “Russian bear is about to invade Latvia or Poland” is going to come to a crashing end and the poor folks in eastern Europe will come to realize that neither Russia nor the USA gives a damn about them. Trump will probably put the financial squeeze on NATO and force its member states to purchase even more US gear, but that will be a purely financial operation and not an attempt at surrounding Russia will military forces. Russia’s ultimate goal, the replacement of NATO by a European-wide common defense agreement from Portugal to the Urals has not happened, but the election of Trump is a huge step in the right direction.

The EU 5/5

Poor “EUans” (my own word for the European zombies who believed in the Bilderberger’s European Union): they are now, how shall I put it politely, totally “frigged”? Not only did the British people defy the Empire and vote for a Brexit, but now the Imperial Homeland has “backstabbed” them by electing a patriot who is not interested in maintaining the global empire (or so he says, at least for the time being). At the same time, the so-called “refugee crisis” is bringing several crucial EU nations to the brink of a civil war (France for example) while all the efforts of the elites to blame Russia for it all end up in abject failures. Just check out this hilarious article in the British Sun which accuses Russia of, I kid you not, “organizing sex attacks in Germany“!! True, we already had the “Serbian Chetniks using rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing” and “Gaddafi distributing Viagra to his soldiers to rape opposition supporters” but Putin ordering refugees to rape women in Germany is the best, so to speak. And just in case the unthinkable happens in Germany, the Germans have already warned that Russian hackers might steal the election in Germany. If this was not so utterly disgusting it would be hilarious. The bottom line is this: the entire EU project is morally completely bankrupt, each EU member state is now in a deep political crisis and the so-called “elites” are scrambling to find a response to what appears to be an inevitable collapse of the EU-order over Europe. The European militaries are a joke, all of them, and when, say, the Swedes go on “Russian sub hunting” they always end up embarrassing themselves. If there are any extra-terrestrials observing us from space, the EU is beyond any doubt their laughing stock. As for the Russians, far from fearing the Europeans, they don’t even take them very seriously and they look at them with either pity or scorn for their apparently infinite lack of spine and dignity. Of sure, as soon as mentally sane leaders return to power in the various EU countries Russia will be more than happy to trade with the EU, send and receive tourists and generally have friendly relations. But after over three centuries of trying to sheepishly imitate the Europeans and be accepted as European themselves, the Russian have finally lost all interest in emulating Europe, at least in a cultural or political way. Of course, the Russians will still love German cars, French wines or Italian music, but the myth of the European cultural superiority has truly died. Good riddance!

The Russian economy 3/5

The main external factors influencing the Russian economy have been Western sanctions, the subsequent drop in investments and credit and, especially, the low oil prices. Almost exactly as Putin had predicted it, it took Russia two years to overcome the combined effect of these factors, so says not me or a Kremlin spokesman, but the IMF (see here). What matters here is not this or that figure for GDP or inflation, but the fact that all the key indicators for the Russian economy point to a gradual recovery and good prospects for growth. I personally think that the policies of the “economic block” of the Medvedev government made the effects of this crisis even worse than they had to be, but I have to admit that despite the major mistakes committed by the Russian government the Russian economy is recovering. If I had to score the performance of the Russian government’s policies I would have given it a maximum of 2/5, but since what I am looking at is the state of the economy I have to give it an objective 3/5. I just think that a 5/5 would have been possible. One small point here: some have made a great deal of noise around the planned reduction in Russian defense spending but what they are missing is that reduction has been made possible by the spending over the past couple of years and that the Russian defense program by 2020 has not been in any way amended, nevermind reduced. In other words, the Russian military can afford to use less money for a couple of years and there will be no cuts in defense programs as planned by 2020.

Russian public opinion 4/5

In spite of the still strong grip the “IMF-types” in the Russian government have over the key economic decisions in Russia there are some signs that things are getting better and that the Russian public is getting some of the heads it wanted to see rolling: here I am, of course, referring to the arrest of the Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation Alexei Uliukaev. Of course, the list of candidates for termination and arrest is much longer (see here) but Uliukaev was definitely one of the most influential and toxic member of the Atlantic Integrationists and the hysterical reaction of the Russian liberal press clearly shows how painful this arrest is for the Russian 5th column. As for right now, the arrest of Uliukaev has not been followed by more sackings or arrests, but it is quite possible that Putin did with Uliukaev what he already one did with Berezovsky: hit at the one “big guy” and therefore force the rest of his gang to play ball and give up any hopes of confronting him. Only time will tell if sacking and arresting Uliukaev will be enough to finally re-sovereignize Russia, but it sure is a very good beginning.

Russian russophobes 4/5

Sounds weird, does it not? “Russian russophobes”. Reminds me of the “self-hating Jew” category. And yet they exist, at least nominally. I say nominally because being Russian has never been about speaking Russian, or about living in Russia or even about some hypothetical “Russian ethnicity” (which really does not exist). One definition of what it is to be Russian was given by the philosopher Vasilii Rozanov who wrote the following prophetic words in 1913: “To love a happy and great Motherland is really not a big thing. We have to love her when she is weak, small, humiliated, finally, stupid, finally, even filled with vices. It is when our “mother” is drunk, lying and all entangled in her sins that we must not depart from her. But even that is not enough: when she finally dies, eaten up by Jews, and when only her bones remain – he will be truly “Russian” who will weep over her useless skeleton, abandoned by all. He truly shall be… ” Needless to say, Rozanov is hated by the Russian “liberals”. Contrary to Rozanov, these russophobic “liberals” rejoice in every Russian failure and they can barely contain their joy when some tragedy befalls the Russian people which they hate and despise for supporting a “tyrant” like Putin instead of them, the self-perceived “intellectual elites” of Russia.

ORDER IT NOW

When Putin came to power, these 5th russophobic columnist were literally everywhere since their families were usually members of the Soviet elites and since during the infamous 1990s they literally took control of every single lever of power in Russia from the mass media to the Kremlin. First, Putin got rid of the oligarchs, especially the “Seven Bankers“. Next, he gradually pushed most of them out from of mass media (that is when their colleagues and patrons in the West began speaking of the lack of a free press in Russia). And then he began the slow and outright dangerous process of getting rid of them, one by one, from inside the Russian government, including the Kremlin. But Putin’s biggest achievement this year has to be his extremely successful campaign to delegitimize this 5th column. He did that no by “cracking down” on them, nor did he murder any journalist or opposition figure, and he did not fill the “new Russian Gulag” with thousands of liberal dissidents. He (by “he” I mean not only Putin himself, but also his supporters) did the exact opposite: he gave them a platform and he made darn sure that their views would be freely aired on an almost daily basis. Those interested about this can read my analysis “Counter-propaganda, Russian style“. This was pure genius: instead of silencing the russophobes, Putin gave them a completely disproportionate amount of airtime (keep in mind that less than 5% of the Russian population supports these freaks) and let them hang themselves by being wrong on just about everything: they were wrong on Crimea, wrong on the Ukraine, wrong on the economy, wrong on social and civil rights, wrong on corruption, wrong on so-called “gay rights”, wrong about NATO, wrong about the EU, wrong about Clinton (they loved her), wrong about Trump (they hated him), wrong about terrorism and wrong about Syria. As a result, these “liberals” (in the Russian meaning of the word) are now universally seen as traitors, russophobes, snobs, racists, 5th columnists, CIA puppets, etc. They now are absolutely hated and desperate. As a result, during the recent elections, we saw the amazing sight of Russian “liberals”, including Jews, allying themselves with Nazis and organizing joint protests against Putin. Needless to say, that only served to further discredit them.

There are still plenty of 5th columnists in Russia, but they are mostly laying really low, hoping for better times and trying to remain out of the public eye as much as possible. Their main remaining center of power is the Russian Central Bank and the “economic bloc” of the Medvedev government, but since both Kudrin and Uliukavev have been kicked out, the rest of them are being very careful in their actions and statements.

All in all, 2016 has been an absolutely catastrophic year for the russophobic 5th column which is now in a state of total despair and which seems to have no future whatsoever.

Syria 5/5

Russia’s success in Syria is nothing short of amazing. Not only did an extremely small Russian military force succeed in turning around the course of the war, but it has held an essentially indefensible position long enough to deter Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and the USA from overtly attacking the Syrian forces or government. The Russians succeeded in this despite numerous, ugly and bloody provocations and despite having to operate in an extremely hostile environment (the region “belongs” to NATO and CENTCOM). One of the most amazing successes what how the Russians managed to save Erdogan in extremis from a US backed coup and convince him to work with Russia and Iran to solve the Syrian crisis. The liberation of Aleppo could not have happened had Turkey continued to support al-Nusra & Co at any price. At the very least it would have taken much more time. By the end of 2016 the Russians own the Black Sea, control, at least for the time being, the eastern Mediterranean and they are working with the three biggest powers on the ground: the Syrians, of course, but also Iran and Turkey. As for the United States, they seemed to have lost the entire region and their only “achievement”, so to speak, has been to alienate both the Israelis and the Saudis. As for President Elect Trump, he has clearly indicated that his number one priority will be to smash Daesh & Co. which happens to be exactly what Russia, Iran and Syria want too. If Trump really manages to kick the Neocon crazies to the cockroach filled basement where they belong, we could see something quite amazing happening: a joint Russian-US effort to destroy Daesh. The big problem here will be the totally counter-productive and, frankly, idiotic anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Trump campaign. However, there must be enough good brains around Trump to make him understand that nothing in the region can happen without Iran’s approval and that the US and Iran don’t need to love each other to agree on a common objective. Trump strikes me as a realist much more than as an ideologue. Hopefully, he will learn how to separate AIPAC-pleasing rhetoric with serious foreign policy (the crash of the Obama Administration ought to teach him that lesson).

What is certain is that Russia is now running the show in Syria and that without US or Turkish support, Daesh will be facing an existential crisis. Of course, the situation remains fluid, complex and dangerous. And I would never put it past the US or Turkey to do yet another 180 and to resume their support for Daesh. The Kurdish factor, Israeli policies and Erdogan’s inherent unpredictability all serve to make sure that the Syrian crisis will continue well into 2017. However, I think that the Neocon’s crazy rampage is reached is apogee and that things should begin to improve from now on. Russia alone simply could not save Syria, and yet she appears to have done just that.

The russophobic hysteria in the West 3/5

There was simply no way that the AngloZionist could be defeated on all fronts without screaming “oy veh!” to high heaven and screaming they did. All year long. Their allegations ranged from Russia wanting to invade Latvia to Russian hackers stealing the US election. And to make absolutely sure that there was no doubt at all as to the identity of these hackers, the AngloZionists informed us that these hackers called themselves “fancy bear” and “cozy bear”, that they used the alias “Felix Edmundovich” (the first name and patronymic of Felix Derzhinskii, the founder of the Soviet secret services) and that they worked during Moscow time office hours and they took breaks during Russian holidays. And least you think that this kind of nonsense was made up in an mental institution or a kindergarten, here is the link to the article in the article in the New York times quoting “security experts”. Amazing, no? But then again, when I see the Neocons seriously calling Ron Paul a Russian agent I realize that there is nothing, no matter how stupid, that these guys would not dare say. Chutzpah in action, I suppose. And while the left side of the Bell Curve appears to have fully internalized the message, there is a growing segment of the population which realizes how silly all these accusations are.

[Personal sidebar: while I am sure that there are some Americans who believe that the Russkies are a dangerous enemy of the USA, I have yet to met even one such American. In my day to day interactions I see *no* hostility towards Russians even when I openly speak Russian with my family in stores or restaurants or when I say that I am Russian. Maybe this is because I am in Florida and not New York, but I have yet to see a single example of anti-Russian hostility].

The Russian treatment by the Western-controlled WADA at the Rio Olympics was an absolute outrage, a farce and and crime all wrapped into one. And Russia is very much to blame for having allowed the key world organizations become so controlled by the West. However, let’s also see that the USA failed to have Russia completely banned from Rio and that Russian hackers (yes, they do exist) have uncovered convincing evidence which discredits WADA and the entire system behind it. I would call that “growing pains” for the post-Soviet Russian sport: Russia now needs to “clean house” in the very real cases of doping while, at the same time, wrestling the control of the key international organizations from the West. A tough task for sure, but Russia has an immensely powerful ally in this (and many other) struggles: China. But yes, all in all, the partial ban and subsequent Russia-bashing campaign is a black eye for Russia.

In the case of Europe, russophobia has always been a northern European thing. Mediterranean countries were only dragged into imposing sanctions under very strong pressure from the north. It now appears that France will soon be ruled either by one or the other generally pro-Russian parties which are competing for the Presidency. The Brexit took out probably the single most anti-Russian country in the EU and now Germany and Poland are more or less on their own in trying to desperately revitalize the anti-Russian front. The problem for them is that they are also both subservient US colonies and that while they can fancy themselves the next in line to defend the western civilization against the revanchist Mongol hordes from the East, the reality is that they will do whatever the hell Uncle Sam tells them to do.

From now on, the only bastion of true rabid russophobia will remain in the most thoroughly “Zionified” segment of society: the media, the so-called “intellectuals”, the “liberal interventionists” and all the “tribe of minorities” who have a beef with Russia on account of the different civilizational model she represents (gender differentiated parents, religion, patriotism (but not nationalism!), etc.). These will continue to pour a steady stream of filth against Russia in general and Putin in particular. Putin will not be their only target, however, and Donald Trump will be the recipient of whatever hatred remains after Putin. Frankly, taking on Putin AND Trump at the same time is a futile and possibly risky business, no matter who you are in the AngloZionist “jet set”, especially when you also have little traction with the general public whom you have regularly insulted, demeaned and dismissed.

There could be a gigantic return of the pendulum happening before our eyes against those who have produced the lion’s share of the hate-propaganda in the West: these guys might well end up finally reaping what they have sown and become the object of hate themselves.

Terrorism 4/5

This year as been tough on Russia. A recent anonymous comment posted on this blog made a good list of the tragic murder of Russians this year including the bombing on the Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, the Su-24 shootdown involving US AWACS, the murder of the Russian medics in a precision strike, the murder of the Russian Ambassador and the probable murder of the Red Army Choir. To this list I would add the Novorussian commanders assassinated in the Donbass. That is a lot of innocent Russian victims. But compared to the number of innocent Syrians or Turks this number is relatively small. It is outright tiny of compared to the kind of mass horror the Wahabis managed to organize in Chechnia. Let’s remember that Russia is a country at war with state-sponsored transnational terrorism and that many millions of dollars of “aid” are going towards the various Nazi and Wahabi organizations with have the murder of Russians as their main goal. I would say “so far, so good” but I cannot do that because I believe that Russia is still not ready to face the kind of terrorism which is likely to hit her in the next year. There is one specific type of target which is currently completely undefended and which the terrorists can strike with quasi-impunity: Russian Orthodox churches outside Russia.

The Russians need to revisit the kind of terror campaign the Palestinians waged in the 1970s against the Israelis when they attacked not only Israeli cultural centers, but also Jewish daycare centers, schools, and synagogues. Russian Orthodox churches are now facing the very same threat including bombings and hostage taking. As somebody who has attended Russian Orthodox churches all my life and all over the planet I know that the number of potential targets are in the *hundreds* and that they are all completely unprotected.

The Israeli example is crucial here because the Israelis rapidly realized that they simply could not count on the local police forces to protect them. This is why they organized various local organizations directly attached to a synagogue or school staffed by volunteers who could do many very useful and fully legal things to protect Israeli/Jewish targets such as, for example, begin to occupy all the parking spaces around a synagogue 48 hours before any religious holiday to make sure that no VBIEDs (aka “car bombs”) could be placed next to the synagogue. There is *a lot* a well educated group of volunteers can do to legally protect an exposed civilian target. They can do even better when they work with the locals cops and the security specialists at the embassy. The Russians urgently need to study the Israeli experience in dealing with a kind of threat which they will soon face. Remember, the Palestinians also began by attacking diplomats, officials and aircraft, but as soon as these targets were “hardened” they turn to daycare centers, schools and synagogues.

ORDER IT NOW

I believe that inside Russia the FSB has a good control of the situation. But outside Russia the amount of specialized personnel fully dedicated to security is woefully inadequate and needs to be dramatically expanded. During the Soviet era few government dared to openly attack Soviet targets, the fearsome (and very much exaggerated!) reputation of the KGB probably helped, while during the Eltsin years there really was no point in attacking Russia as she was internally collapsing. But now that Russia is very strong internally, and the Russian military personnel hard to get at, diplomats, children and clergy are probably going to be the next targets of the Wahabis.

The one good news about this issue that the the Soviets/Russians have been fighting the Wahabis since the 1970s and that they are acutely aware that there is no such thing as a non-state sponsored terrorism. The Russians know where the money, training and weapons come from and they know that terrorism can only be defeated by strong counter-intelligence and and intelligence operations, especially human intelligence. The foreign intelligence branch of the KGB, the PGU or First Chief Directorate, had a (very much deserved) reputation for being able to infiltrate agents pretty much anywhere, including the top echelons of the CIA and NSA, and we can be confident that the SVR today is slowly rebuilding is capabilities worldwide and, especially, in the countries which sponsor Wahabi terrorism. Just the way the Russian special services saved Erdogan and thereby “flipped” Turkey – one of the absolutely worst sponsors of Wahabi terrorism – is already a huge success. God willing, the Saudis will be next.

Conclusion

Simply put – 2016 has been a fantastic year for Russia. Putin’s policy of slow, low-key and deliberate move and counter-move has proven to be extremely effective. While to some “hurray patriots” it did appear that Putin was being passive and doing nothing, the outcome of this year has been a Putin victory on all fronts, including the most dangerous and difficult ones. Remember all the nonsense these Putin-haters wrote about “Putin selling out the Donbass”, “Putin unable to reply to the Turkish shoot-down of the SU-24″, “Putin disarming Syria” or “Putin betraying Assad”? These “hurray patriots” have been predicted doom and gloom for years now and they have been proven wrong every single time. Did that silence them? Somewhat. I notice that most of the “Putin is selling out the Donbass” blogs are posting very little and when they do, it is mostly stuff unrelated to their previous Putin-bashing campaign. The same goes for the Ukronazis commentators on sites which allow them to post: they seem to have thrown in the towel and given up convincing the world about how democratic the junta in Kiev is, about how there are hundreds of Russian tanks in Donetsk and how the Ukraine will join the EU and become Germany-like overnight. The only ones who are keeping up the Putin-bashing campaign are the western presstitutes, but they are doing that for pay and to keep their jobs. Besides, that is all they know how to do anyway. But all in all, there is a general lack of energy and enthusiasm in the Russia hating camp which is a real joy for me to see.

2017 could be an amazing year for the world, or it could be a big disappointment. Right now this depends mostly on what Trump will do after he assumes his official capacity. To me the single most important fact will remain that with Hillary in the White House our planet risked a major thermonuclear war. There is no reason any more to believe that this is going to happen. As for the list of all the good things which *could* happen in 2017 if Trump does the right thing for his country, it will be the topic of a future analysis.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Putin, Russia, Syria, Ukraine 
Hide 184 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  2. 5371 says:

    Well done, Saker, this is a very good piece and will trigger the vermin royally.
    [I really very strongly feel that with Trump in the White House the risks of war with Russia have fallen to a dramatically low level]
    I’ve been a fan of the Trump campaign from day one and continue to be so, but I think we should be more cautious than that. At least let’s see him settle into the office first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Plus, Trump is probably the last person you could manipulate, scare, or hoodwink with BS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tsaker/2016-the-year-of-russias-triumph/#comment-1707441
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. The ruling class which came to power [in Kiev] now is falling apart, everybody is fighting everybody else and there is no other discernible policy left beyond personal enrichment and survival.

    Well, there’s one 800 pound gorilla there we don’t hear anything about: Rinat Akhmetov. I imagine he remains extremely powerful, yet he doesn’t appear to be fighting anyone. He’s an experienced gangster, and it looks like he might’ve made a deal with the current clique. Wake me up when he starts fighting them, and at that point I expect some spectacular ‘make it look like an accident’ events…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Cyrano says:

    Russia has never craved any “greatness”, and some of its people look down on anything Russian, believing that it’s not as good as any equivalent coming from the west. Because Russia has never sought any greatness – particularly military greatness – all of their greatest military victories came when they were attacked (Napoleon, Hitler) and not as a result of any imperial ambitions.

    Stalin, in his infinite wisdom (based on experience of failed alliances with western countries) knew that the day will come when Russia will be left with no allies and he wanted to build the Russian military to be able to fight any possible combination of allies by the rest of the world – basically to be able to fight the rest of the world. That kind of military readiness was reached by the USSR in the early 80’s, before a fool came as a general secretary and then as president.

    It seems that Russia has reached that level of military readiness again – primarily thanks to its nuclear forces, although the rest of their armed forces are nothing to sneeze at. I personally never bought the hysteria in the west about imminent war with Russia. They might be stupid, but they are not crazy, there is nothing to be gained from military confrontation with Russia.

    The whole thing was just not a particularly well designed propaganda – “reassuring” the rest of the world (mainly the European puppets) that the empire is there to protect them, and also trying to justify its existence at the same time. That “empire” was never designed to protect anyone. If it was, they would have shown up in Europe in 1914 and 1939 instead of 1917 and 1944.

    That empire was built on two WW fought by the stupid Europeans who in the process managed to transfer their wealth and political power to their “protector” – who by the way will only fulfill that role only after it uses up as much cannon fodder from Europe as is humanely (or not) possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Because Russia has never sought any greatness – particularly military greatness – all of their greatest military victories came when they were attacked (Napoleon, Hitler) and not as a result of any imperial ambitions. "

    Complete nonsense.

    The Soviets were planning to attack Germany and Germany knew it. Hence Germany's preventive attack on the USSR, Operation Barbarossa.

    But this not new info., that is unless you don't get out very often.
    See:
    CODOH WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20
    and specifically:
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    Debate there if you think you can.

    Thanks.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. “it probably did have an impact upon the outcome of the election in the USA.”

    I think you overestimate Russian influence, even as Democrats are exaggerating it to avoid looking at their own policy failures.

    I can honestly say that opposition to Hillary’s policy preferences are what were at stake in the vote and I can tell you that Russia has zero to do with influencing that.

    All of us born before 1989 were raised to hate and fear the Soviet Union, while hoping that the Russian people would one day reject it. That reason long ago departed, with the defeat by the Russian people themselves of “Godless Communism.” So who cares about Russia or what it thinks? Americans being famously self centered just don’t care, regardless of either our own media outlets’ propaganda or Russia’s.

    Most people without an axe to grind in the military industrial complex or who now need to avoid introspection for election losses see no reason to start up the Cold War again, let alone a hot war, with Russia. Only the usual suspects within the Washington Bubble are concerned with believing Russia must have hacked the election, since in their entitled delusions they can’t believe they were fairly rejected by most of America, if by a thin margin.

    People are mostly very concerned and angry about the loss of good jobs and reduced incomes as elites offshore and outsource labor against the interests of hundreds of millions of Americans. That has zero to do with Russia and the accusations are simply distractions away from Americans’ interests, which aren’t the same as the euphemistic and shadowy “American Interests” the elites appeal to – themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. “The Saker” uses the term “Nazi” to slander all Russian nationalists to the right of Putin, as well as all Ukrainian nationalists.

    This blinds him to Putin’s two greatest failings:

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother’s war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.

    2. Putin allows mass immigration into Russia, which is altering Russia’s ethnic composition. If present birthrates and immigration rates continue, the day will come when Russians will be a minority in their own country. Think about who will control the world’s 2nd largest nuclear arsenal when that happens!

    Putin shows respect for Western nationalists. His diplomatic gestures and financial support help Western nationalists like the French National Front and the Austrian Freedom Party resist mass immigration. The world should be grateful. But why doesn’t he give the same respect to Ukrainian nationalists and extreme Russian nationalists, and why doesn’t he end mass immigration into Russia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother’s war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.
     
    It is cute how so many Nazis love the UkSSR so much.

    PS. The reason Ukraine has no immigrants isn't for any luck of enthusiasm on the part of its elites but for the banal reason that its not a huge improvement over Central Asia.
    , @JoeFour
    "But why doesn’t (Putin) give the same respect to Ukrainian nationalists and extreme Russian nationalists, and why doesn’t he end mass immigration into Russia?"

    With regard to Russian nationalists and mass immigration into Russia ... your question reminded me of a brief YouTube video I watched some time ago of Putin in which he was asked a related question and expressed his view that Russia has basically always been, and is to this day, a multi-ethnic country ... and his desire is that there be general recognition of that fact and cooperative support from and for each ethnic group in the country (something like "all for one and one for all").

    So...as long as the various ethnic groups in Russia are united under and supportive of the Russian nation, he is OK with diversity and not adverse to immigration into Russian by additional non-Russian nationalities/ ethnicities.

    All that said, I must admit that my recollection of this video is not sharp so I am certainly open to be corrected by others more knowledgeable of Putin's views. FWIW, my personal opinion is that the more religious and ethnic diversity there is in any particular country the weaker that country is and the more uncertain its future will be in the longer term.

    , @Thales the Milesian
    " does not give the same respect to Ukranian nationalists".

    What is wrong with you Gruskos-Bandera?

    Don't you know the history of the Uk. nationalists?

    Gruskos, I suspect you are a helot.

    The Nazi ideology called for the enslavement of the subhuman Slavs of Poland and Ukraine. The inhabitants of the new country of Oestland, were to be reduced to helots.

    If you do not know the meaning of the word "helot", you lack basic education.

    The modern Ukro-Nazis, by flirting with Nazi ideology, are all helots by definition. How stupid can stupid be!

    , @Jon0815

    This blinds him to Putin’s two greatest failings:

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother’s war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.
     

    Putin didn't start Ukraine's civil war, and his mistake in Donbass was doing too little to support the separatists, not too much. He should have allowed them to retake Mariupol, or intervened sooner to prevent it from being captured by Kiev in the first place (an earlier intervention would also have prevented the Malaysian jet disaster).

    It's absurd how some white nationalist types have decided they should support Ukraine over the D/LNR and Russia on the grounds that Ukraine is more white, even though a) the D/LNR are just as white as Ukraine, and b) Ukraine is backed by all the West's open-borders, anti-white elites.


    2. Putin allows mass immigration into Russia, which is altering Russia’s ethnic composition. If present birthrates and immigration rates continue, the day will come when Russians will be a minority in their own country. Think about who will control the world’s 2nd largest nuclear arsenal when that happens!
     
    Putin does allow too much immigration (although the conditions to obtain a work permit have gotten much tougher in the past year). But it probably isn't having much long-term effect on Russia's demography, since Central Asian migrants are only about 3% of Russia's population (another 1% are permanent residents of Central Asian ancestry), and most of those are temporary workers who will eventually return to Central Asia without starting families in Russia.

    As for birth rates, unfortunately Russia doesn't break down birth or fertility statistics by ethnicity or religion. However, in 2015 Russia's majority-Muslim regions had a fertility of 2.0 children per woman (and trending down) while the non-Muslim regions had a fertility of 1.76 (and trending up). Not a big difference. So Russia (currently about 11% Muslim, or 14% including guest workers and illegals) probably isn't turning majority-Muslim anytime this century, if ever.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. polistra says:

    Yup. I’d add:

    Breaking Soros: 4/5. Russia has been removing the NGOs that spread Sorosism. Other countries now see that it’s possible, and gain courage. (This may be the same thing that the Saker calls ‘Russian Russophobes’; from the outside these groups seem to be mainly Sorosian.)

    Turkey: 6/5. Erdogan had been drifting badly, focusing too much on the Kurds and missing the other threats to Turkey. I don’t know how it happened, but somehow he figured out the real problem and started solving it. The real problem is Soros. After Erdogan went HARDASS on Sorosians, he was also able to work with Russia to end the war in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    NGO's. God's way of saying the world isn't evil enough yet. The Clintons have a million of them, scattered all over, planting bad seeds. Break the back of NGOs, clean them out, there could be some peace. We really need to get outta the regime-change routine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. The Maidan regime remains in power, the Ukrainian economy is starting to turn round (there was only ever so far that it could fall), and PrivatBank’s nationalization means Kolomoysky as a source of destabilization is likely finally out. The Trump upset regardless, which Russia had next to nothing to do with unless you listen to #FakeNews, this is no way, shape, or form a 5/5. Maybe a 3/5 at best, I’d say 2/5.

    Meanwhile, the most critical “Russian” successes (Trump, Brexit, etc), while fortuitous, have very little to do with Russia as The Saker himself unenthusiastically acknowledges. Palmyra regardless, the capture of Aleppo compensated it tenfold, so I agree with the 5/5 rating for Syria. That said, in terms of their importance to Russian national interests, Syria is a total sidenote in comparison with Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [the Ukrainian economy is starting to turn round]
    I would strongly advise scepticism about any svidomite statistics, but particularly those interpreted to show this. The continuing political degradation is a better index of the real economic situation.
    [That said, in terms of their importance to Russian national interests, Syria is a total sidenote in comparison with Ukraine.]
    Nope. The Ukraine can be won in Syria. Everything depends on the outcome of the larger contest with the USA.
    , @Thirdeye

    Meanwhile, the most critical “Russian” successes (Trump, Brexit, etc), while fortuitous, have very little to do with Russia as The Saker himself unenthusiastically acknowledges.
     
    I think there's a critical difference between "little" and "nothing" in play here. Russia putting a spike in imperial plans to seize Crimea and Syria put the issue of dealing with competent independent regional powers on the radar of the US electorate, along with the domestic consequences of overseas chaos. When Hitler's Clitoris responded by advocating brinkmanship and McCarthyism, it was enough to draw would-be third party voters into the Trump camp. It was a small factor relative to the cultural and economic wars waged on the working class by the imperial elites, but in a close presidential race it was critical.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @John Gruskos
    "The Saker" uses the term "Nazi" to slander all Russian nationalists to the right of Putin, as well as all Ukrainian nationalists.

    This blinds him to Putin's two greatest failings:

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother's war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.

    2. Putin allows mass immigration into Russia, which is altering Russia's ethnic composition. If present birthrates and immigration rates continue, the day will come when Russians will be a minority in their own country. Think about who will control the world's 2nd largest nuclear arsenal when that happens!

    Putin shows respect for Western nationalists. His diplomatic gestures and financial support help Western nationalists like the French National Front and the Austrian Freedom Party resist mass immigration. The world should be grateful. But why doesn't he give the same respect to Ukrainian nationalists and extreme Russian nationalists, and why doesn't he end mass immigration into Russia?

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother’s war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.

    It is cute how so many Nazis love the UkSSR so much.

    PS. The reason Ukraine has no immigrants isn’t for any luck of enthusiasm on the part of its elites but for the banal reason that its not a huge improvement over Central Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    Are you trying to imply that I am a Nazi? Nothing could be further from the truth! I am an American, and I am a national conservative. I voted for Trump in 2016, and I voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Erebus says:

    The big problem here will be the totally counter-productive and, frankly, idiotic anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Trump campaign.

    Hmm….
    I think Trump is bang on message with his pro-Russia, anti-China & Iran stance. The “Old Anglo-American Imperialists” want to re-boot the Great Game, and Trump’s their man after all.

    At the present state of play, the First Imperial Imperative demands that he upset the formation of a Beijing – Tehran – Moscow axis. No way can the US allow that to mature, especially now that Ankara seems to have come adrift from its NATO moorings.

    Russia is the fulcrum on which that axis rests, and as the US can’t take it on militarily they’ve decided to try killing it with kindness. More accurately, they’re gonna make an offer they hope Russia can’t resist. As I’ve said in another thread, Kerry may already have made that offer, and it may already have been accepted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    What's Kerry got to offer? He's on the way out, he's got no balls. Anything Kerry offers or imposes, Trump is sure to cancel. EPA, Energy, Israel, and awful lot is going to be walked back. I love seeing Obama with his "We're going to 'punish' Russia". He doesn't understand certain realities, does he?
    , @CK
    " No way can the US allow that to mature ..." why not? One Road one Belt safe transport from Seoul to Lisbon, The USA has nothing to offer to any of the participants that would derail the project. The One Road will pass through Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria. The original silk road brought the knowledge and products of China to the Roman Empire and Europe and took the silver of Europe back to China. This new one will do the same and more. The USA can stand around waving its arms and yelling stop stop or it can find a way to get on board and become a source and a contributor. WWII is long over and the USA is no longer the only big dog in the kennel.
    , @aleksandar
    I wonder what Kerry or the US can offer to Russia. Well, nothing.
    The world is changing, center of gravity has shifted somewhere in Asia.
    Look at a map. The future is russia + china + iran and a lot of asian states.
    And Europe as soon as we get rid of ours corrupt politicos.
    Already in the making.
    The Saker is just wrong on this point, there is absolutely no hate for Russia in EU people.
    Most of them are grateful to Russia for killing djihadists in Syria.
    Despite the enormous day by day propaganda from medias.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @polistra
    Yup. I'd add:

    Breaking Soros: 4/5. Russia has been removing the NGOs that spread Sorosism. Other countries now see that it's possible, and gain courage. (This may be the same thing that the Saker calls 'Russian Russophobes'; from the outside these groups seem to be mainly Sorosian.)

    Turkey: 6/5. Erdogan had been drifting badly, focusing too much on the Kurds and missing the other threats to Turkey. I don't know how it happened, but somehow he figured out the real problem and started solving it. The real problem is Soros. After Erdogan went HARDASS on Sorosians, he was also able to work with Russia to end the war in Syria.

    NGO’s. God’s way of saying the world isn’t evil enough yet. The Clintons have a million of them, scattered all over, planting bad seeds. Break the back of NGOs, clean them out, there could be some peace. We really need to get outta the regime-change routine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Erebus

    The big problem here will be the totally counter-productive and, frankly, idiotic anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Trump campaign.
     
    Hmm....
    I think Trump is bang on message with his pro-Russia, anti-China & Iran stance. The "Old Anglo-American Imperialists" want to re-boot the Great Game, and Trump's their man after all.

    At the present state of play, the First Imperial Imperative demands that he upset the formation of a Beijing - Tehran - Moscow axis. No way can the US allow that to mature, especially now that Ankara seems to have come adrift from its NATO moorings.

    Russia is the fulcrum on which that axis rests, and as the US can't take it on militarily they've decided to try killing it with kindness. More accurately, they're gonna make an offer they hope Russia can't resist. As I've said in another thread, Kerry may already have made that offer, and it may already have been accepted.

    What’s Kerry got to offer? He’s on the way out, he’s got no balls. Anything Kerry offers or imposes, Trump is sure to cancel. EPA, Energy, Israel, and awful lot is going to be walked back. I love seeing Obama with his “We’re going to ‘punish’ Russia”. He doesn’t understand certain realities, does he?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. 5371 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The Maidan regime remains in power, the Ukrainian economy is starting to turn round (there was only ever so far that it could fall), and PrivatBank's nationalization means Kolomoysky as a source of destabilization is likely finally out. The Trump upset regardless, which Russia had next to nothing to do with unless you listen to #FakeNews, this is no way, shape, or form a 5/5. Maybe a 3/5 at best, I'd say 2/5.

    Meanwhile, the most critical "Russian" successes (Trump, Brexit, etc), while fortuitous, have very little to do with Russia as The Saker himself unenthusiastically acknowledges. Palmyra regardless, the capture of Aleppo compensated it tenfold, so I agree with the 5/5 rating for Syria. That said, in terms of their importance to Russian national interests, Syria is a total sidenote in comparison with Ukraine.

    [the Ukrainian economy is starting to turn round]
    I would strongly advise scepticism about any svidomite statistics, but particularly those interpreted to show this. The continuing political degradation is a better index of the real economic situation.
    [That said, in terms of their importance to Russian national interests, Syria is a total sidenote in comparison with Ukraine.]
    Nope. The Ukraine can be won in Syria. Everything depends on the outcome of the larger contest with the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    The Ukraine can be won in Syria. Everything depends on the outcome of the larger contest with the USA.
     
    Okay, let's ultra-optimistically assume that Assad takes back control of the entirety of Syria within the next two years - outright retaking Idlib and Deir ez-Zor, and reaching some kind of power sharing agreement with Rojava. The Turks pull out. Russia retains Khmeimim. The Western powers suddenly rediscover Assad's legitimacy and he once again becomes a regular visitor to Paris (perhaps even more so than to Moscow, as before 2011).

    So... erm, what next?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. […] This column was written for the Unz Review:  […]

    Read More
  15. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Well, besides political support which is a lot, yes, the US doesn’t really offer that much to Ukraine. The US investments in Ukraine are low and the military co-operation is minute. There are more donations from the EU and Canada in terms of non-military supplies and doctors than the US. Ukraine is essentially alone. So the only change Trump can bring is the lack of US political support, that doesn’t mean Europe will stop supporting Ukraine. Ukraine matters more to Europe than to the US.

    Also, Russians and Ukrainians will now be enemies for at least a generation. This is a big change from just a few years ago and far from triumph / victory. It is evident on Russian daily talk shows what kind of torment and agony it really causes to the Russian public.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    If you're reduced to scaring Russia with Yurp and its dirty rag, you've reached the bottom of the barrel.
    You have also mistaken righteous indignation for torment and agony.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @5371
    [the Ukrainian economy is starting to turn round]
    I would strongly advise scepticism about any svidomite statistics, but particularly those interpreted to show this. The continuing political degradation is a better index of the real economic situation.
    [That said, in terms of their importance to Russian national interests, Syria is a total sidenote in comparison with Ukraine.]
    Nope. The Ukraine can be won in Syria. Everything depends on the outcome of the larger contest with the USA.

    The Ukraine can be won in Syria. Everything depends on the outcome of the larger contest with the USA.

    Okay, let’s ultra-optimistically assume that Assad takes back control of the entirety of Syria within the next two years – outright retaking Idlib and Deir ez-Zor, and reaching some kind of power sharing agreement with Rojava. The Turks pull out. Russia retains Khmeimim. The Western powers suddenly rediscover Assad’s legitimacy and he once again becomes a regular visitor to Paris (perhaps even more so than to Moscow, as before 2011).

    So… erm, what next?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    "So… erm, what next?"
    One Road One Belt passing through Damascus and Beirut. A much more peaceful world.
    , @5371
    You've omitted to mention the effect that all this Russian winning has on ZOG and its svidomite minions. Defeat leads to desperation, folly and schism.
    , @Greg S.
    It's difficult for most of us to tell what's actually going on in Ukraine. We get virtually no news about the place and what we do get largely falls into one of the two following camps.

    We either get literal doomsday scenarios and predictions of collapse on the one hand:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-in-full-blown-collapse-deep-seated-economic-social-crisis-and-environmental-crisis/5564916

    Then you have puff pieces like this from places like the Whore Street Journal that to me seem ridiculously out of touch with reality (the author actually predicts a future flood of people from Crimea and the East into the west once they realize how great it is):

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-must-make-painful-compromises-for-peace-with-russia-1483053902

    It would nice if one of the Russian centric authors at unz attempted a summary article of what's really going on in Ukraine.
    , @KA
    A defeated Syria ( by ISIS) is more dangerous to Russia than a victorious ( by Russia ) Syria is more positive or helpful . Russia has saved its southern flank for good Also I do not believe Assad will veer round to West Until 2013 Syria was doing exactly that , because it had nowhere else to turn to and the West was looking at its corpse from 2002 . Do you think Gaddafi Assad or Iran would have succumbed to the pressure or would have listened to UK-US if today's Russia was there standing tall in 2003 or
    2011?
    Let's not forget the prophetic word of Wolfowitz , uttered in 1991 - While Russia is down and weak, we need to break the backbones of those countries and change their regimes who are anti American. " Gulf war taught us that nobody would question American military intervention in the Middle East "
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. CK says:
    @Erebus

    The big problem here will be the totally counter-productive and, frankly, idiotic anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Trump campaign.
     
    Hmm....
    I think Trump is bang on message with his pro-Russia, anti-China & Iran stance. The "Old Anglo-American Imperialists" want to re-boot the Great Game, and Trump's their man after all.

    At the present state of play, the First Imperial Imperative demands that he upset the formation of a Beijing - Tehran - Moscow axis. No way can the US allow that to mature, especially now that Ankara seems to have come adrift from its NATO moorings.

    Russia is the fulcrum on which that axis rests, and as the US can't take it on militarily they've decided to try killing it with kindness. More accurately, they're gonna make an offer they hope Russia can't resist. As I've said in another thread, Kerry may already have made that offer, and it may already have been accepted.

    ” No way can the US allow that to mature …” why not? One Road one Belt safe transport from Seoul to Lisbon, The USA has nothing to offer to any of the participants that would derail the project. The One Road will pass through Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria. The original silk road brought the knowledge and products of China to the Roman Empire and Europe and took the silver of Europe back to China. This new one will do the same and more. The USA can stand around waving its arms and yelling stop stop or it can find a way to get on board and become a source and a contributor. WWII is long over and the USA is no longer the only big dog in the kennel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    You overstate the unidirectionality.

    One that I find especially interesting is the existence of Buddhist icons (mandala paintings) where the composition is clearly based on Christian models.

    They can be seen as far from the source as here in Japan.

    The Amida cults in Buddhism appear to be based on Marian cults in Christianity.

    By the same token, the Valentinian branch of Gnosticism is clearly based on Buddhist models.

    Much more.

    We can't really know how much the ancients knew of each other, in my opinion, even the provincial Jesus Chrestos had some idea of Buddhist teaching, sure I can't prove it, but some teachings and Apocrypha back up the idea.

    In any case, the rise of evil Mohammed's demonic confection, and the conversion of the Persians and Turkic peoples to that, meant the end of any real flow of ideas along the Silk Road of ancient times, by a little over a thousand years ago.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. CK says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Ukraine can be won in Syria. Everything depends on the outcome of the larger contest with the USA.
     
    Okay, let's ultra-optimistically assume that Assad takes back control of the entirety of Syria within the next two years - outright retaking Idlib and Deir ez-Zor, and reaching some kind of power sharing agreement with Rojava. The Turks pull out. Russia retains Khmeimim. The Western powers suddenly rediscover Assad's legitimacy and he once again becomes a regular visitor to Paris (perhaps even more so than to Moscow, as before 2011).

    So... erm, what next?

    “So… erm, what next?”
    One Road One Belt passing through Damascus and Beirut. A much more peaceful world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Exactly.

    This is why the west was so adamant about controlling Syria in the first place. It's about controlling the flow of gas, products, and finance out of Western bottlenecks.

    One belt one road does this and would be very difficult without Syria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Sam J. says:

    “…The Nazi occupied Ukraine … The ruling class which came to power now is falling apart, everybody is fighting everybody else and there is no other discernible policy left beyond personal enrichment and survival…”

    Let’s not kid ourselves it’s the Jews that overthrew the country and run the Nazis.

    The economy is falling apart because the Jews run it and like all economies the Jews run they loot everything not tied down. You can not have a modern well run economy with Jews running it. If you look at the vast transfer payments into Israel they can’t even run their own economy much less anyone else’s.

    You have to understand the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all and maybe not the majority but a lot. Even if I’m wrong if you assume they’re a tribe of psychopaths you’ll never be surprised and they make sense.

    My guess is some Spath Jew intellectual came up with the idea of pressuring Russia by overthrowing Ukraine. The side benefit would be a backdoor place to hide out if Israel was overrun after torturing their neighbors for so long. I bet this plan was hatched after the last war in Lebanon where they got their asses handed to them by Hezbollah.

    Of course it’s been a big failure as the Jews abuse everyone everywhere they go. The whole 9-11 kill all their enemies plan seemed to be going fine but it’s coming up a crapper too. All they are doing is the same as they did to Hezbollah. They keep killing off the weak and the leaders that are left around them are smarter, stronger and really, really pissed at the Jews. Not good for the Jews. The obviousness of building 7 being demoed is becoming harder and harder to hide. They’re running out of Spath American politicians that are acceptable to guide the hapless American State. Supposedly there’s just a few of us Jew wise but any time they open comments on major news sites their swamped with people naming the Jew. Eventually 9-11 will come out, as it was, as a huge Jew attack on the US. Oops. Not good.

    The reason the Jews always run into trouble is they create it for themselves. Being a parasitical type tribe is bad for your health and image.

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @it’s the Jews that overthrew the country and run the Nazis.

    That's why Ukraine matters so much to Europe and to the US. Dnepropetrovsk, Jerusalem on the Dnieper!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    In July 2016, Jihad was declared against Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. 5371 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Ukraine can be won in Syria. Everything depends on the outcome of the larger contest with the USA.
     
    Okay, let's ultra-optimistically assume that Assad takes back control of the entirety of Syria within the next two years - outright retaking Idlib and Deir ez-Zor, and reaching some kind of power sharing agreement with Rojava. The Turks pull out. Russia retains Khmeimim. The Western powers suddenly rediscover Assad's legitimacy and he once again becomes a regular visitor to Paris (perhaps even more so than to Moscow, as before 2011).

    So... erm, what next?

    You’ve omitted to mention the effect that all this Russian winning has on ZOG and its svidomite minions. Defeat leads to desperation, folly and schism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. 5371 says:
    @Anonymous
    Well, besides political support which is a lot, yes, the US doesn't really offer that much to Ukraine. The US investments in Ukraine are low and the military co-operation is minute. There are more donations from the EU and Canada in terms of non-military supplies and doctors than the US. Ukraine is essentially alone. So the only change Trump can bring is the lack of US political support, that doesn't mean Europe will stop supporting Ukraine. Ukraine matters more to Europe than to the US.

    Also, Russians and Ukrainians will now be enemies for at least a generation. This is a big change from just a few years ago and far from triumph / victory. It is evident on Russian daily talk shows what kind of torment and agony it really causes to the Russian public.

    If you’re reduced to scaring Russia with Yurp and its dirty rag, you’ve reached the bottom of the barrel.
    You have also mistaken righteous indignation for torment and agony.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. “Ukraine matters more to Europe than to the US.”

    But Europe is occupied by NATO, the western doppelganger of what was once the Warsaw Pact – an imperial military projection of a great power. It’s acknowledged that 75% of the budget (that on record) is by America. He who pays the piper calls the tune and it’s the Star Spangled Banner. As Victoria Nuland put it during the regime change operation call where she appointed the coup government, “F— the E.U.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    But Europe is occupied by NATO, the western doppelganger of what was once the Warsaw Pact – an imperial military projection of a great power. It’s acknowledged that 75% of the budget (that on record) is by America. He who pays the piper calls the tune and it’s the Star Spangled Banner. As Victoria Nuland put it during the regime change operation call where she appointed the coup government, “F— the E.U.”
     
    See that this "F... the EU" doesn't eventually turn into a "F... the US".

    You must've been on the moon the last few months otherwise you would've noticed that Trump and Tillerson do not have the same foreign policy as Nuland. In fact, what they offer is a bit of a game changer.

    And, no, the US does not pay the 75% if the NATO budget, in fact, there is hardly a NATO budget. Instead, there are individual country defense budgets and the US has by far the biggest one, most of which it seems has nothing to do with the defense of Europe, but with the defense of the US, the maintenance of the MIC (partly a jobs program) and various US operations around the world (as well as protection of US assets abroad). So if the US takes away the article five, there really is no need for Europe to follow the US anymore. And, no, it doesn't mean that all 28 EU countries will immediately be in bed with Russia the next day.

    And, let's see, what do countries such as Spain and Italy gain from being in NATO? When they have challenges not from some mystical land or nuclear powers but from the immigration from the south? Is the US going to stem the African refugee flows to those countries? Heck, no, but the US sure as hell needs Spain and Italy to project its power into the Middle East. Trump should keep that in mind before he asks Spain and Italy to pay more.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. BaronAsh says:

    Saker, I pretty much share your cautious optimism about Trump, but viz. he and the neocons, a couple of red flags are popping up, esp. in this article:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45953.htm

    Am not a great fan of the author but the network around the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) seems ominous. Trump could be Neocon.2. Or not, we’ll see. I would be interested to see what you think of all this after a couple of months of the new administration. Excerpt pasted below:

    “Flynn also wrote a book together with Michael Ledeen. One doesn’t co-author a book with just anyone. I know. It has to be one whose thoughts are in full harmony with yours. Michael Ledeen is today a Freedom Scholar at, now isn’t this interesting: the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Worth noting, financial investor, Jim Rickards, also is on the Board of Advisors of the Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and former CIA Director James Woolsey, rumored being considered for a top post with the Trump project, is one of four members of the FDD Leadership Council.

    This year, 2016, Ledeen co-authored a book with NSC Director-designate Mike Flynn titled, Field of Fight: How to Win the War Against Radical Islam and its Allies. The ties between Ledeen and Trump NSC director are clearly not casual.

    Years ago Ledeen–who was implicated in the illegal Iran-Contra arm for cocaine dealings of G.H.W. Bush and his CIA Old Boys network during the Reagan years — wrote a doctoral dissertation which I once saw, today almost impossible to find. It was titled “Universal Fascism,” and dealt with the applicability of Italian fascism of Mussolini to a global model, a fascist one world order if you will.

    Michael Ledeen, who prefers to be in the background, is perhaps best characterized as a Godfather of the neoconservatives. He has shaped the policies of the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and others of the US war faction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Michael Ledeen is a spiritual creature of Gladio: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio

    http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence&neoconinfluence_prominent_neoconservatives=neoconinfluence_michael_ledeen
    "Michael Ledeen, who has long if murky connections with both US and Italian intelligence agencies, was a part of two major international disinformation operations in conjunction with P-2 and SISMI, the Italian military intelligence agency...
    1983: Neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, the head of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, hires Michael Ledeen as a “special adviser.” Ledeen will soon fall under suspicion of spying for Israel...
    1984: Michael Ledeen is brought into the Defense Department as a consultant on terrorism, via the auspices of Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle... Ledeen’s supervisor, Noel Koch, is troubled by Ledeen’s frequent visits to his office to read classified documents. When Koch and Ledeen journey to Italy on Pentagon business, Koch learns that Ledeen is considered an “agent of influence” for a foreign government: Israel. After returning from Italy, Ledeen asks Koch to help him obtain two highly classified CIA reports which he says are being held by the FBI... Koch tells his executive assistant to stop allowing Ledeen to access the classified materials in his office. In return, Ledeen stops coming to work....Shortly thereafter, Ledeen will begin “consulting work” for the National Security Council...."
    1990-s: “Ledeen Doctrine:" “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small, crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Goldberg says that he heard Ledeen make this statement in an early 1990s speech...
    2001: "Michael Ledeen, speaking at an event sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), states: “No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq… this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war… our children will sing great songs about us years from now..."
    Lunatic. Bloody psychopathic lunatic.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. The economy is turning round, thanks to very sound Central Bank policies. The same bank has purged huge numbers of small banks and the regional money laundering that went with them. The process has also removed power from the regional elites and despite United Russia’s triumph has eroded their stake in the present system.

    In a world of low oil prices, time is on Ukraine’s side so far as Donbass is concerned.

    Bringing Syria to peace is a strong moral plus. The strategic gain is less clear. A base in Sebastapol is useless without a base beyond the Bosporus so I suppose that is it. Lavrov promised the Qataris a pipeline if they back off. Now he has to deliver, otherwise peace is temporary. Partnership with Iran is the big gain but you can’t have Iran and Turkey without a Jean Monnet around. It will be necessary to chose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You're still making predictions, cretin? What about that awesome Euro-boom which was already happening, visible to your eyes only?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Fran Macadam
    "Ukraine matters more to Europe than to the US."

    But Europe is occupied by NATO, the western doppelganger of what was once the Warsaw Pact - an imperial military projection of a great power. It's acknowledged that 75% of the budget (that on record) is by America. He who pays the piper calls the tune and it's the Star Spangled Banner. As Victoria Nuland put it during the regime change operation call where she appointed the coup government, "F--- the E.U."

    But Europe is occupied by NATO, the western doppelganger of what was once the Warsaw Pact – an imperial military projection of a great power. It’s acknowledged that 75% of the budget (that on record) is by America. He who pays the piper calls the tune and it’s the Star Spangled Banner. As Victoria Nuland put it during the regime change operation call where she appointed the coup government, “F— the E.U.”

    See that this “F… the EU” doesn’t eventually turn into a “F… the US”.

    You must’ve been on the moon the last few months otherwise you would’ve noticed that Trump and Tillerson do not have the same foreign policy as Nuland. In fact, what they offer is a bit of a game changer.

    And, no, the US does not pay the 75% if the NATO budget, in fact, there is hardly a NATO budget. Instead, there are individual country defense budgets and the US has by far the biggest one, most of which it seems has nothing to do with the defense of Europe, but with the defense of the US, the maintenance of the MIC (partly a jobs program) and various US operations around the world (as well as protection of US assets abroad). So if the US takes away the article five, there really is no need for Europe to follow the US anymore. And, no, it doesn’t mean that all 28 EU countries will immediately be in bed with Russia the next day.

    And, let’s see, what do countries such as Spain and Italy gain from being in NATO? When they have challenges not from some mystical land or nuclear powers but from the immigration from the south? Is the US going to stem the African refugee flows to those countries? Heck, no, but the US sure as hell needs Spain and Italy to project its power into the Middle East. Trump should keep that in mind before he asks Spain and Italy to pay more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. 5371 says:
    @Philip Owen
    The economy is turning round, thanks to very sound Central Bank policies. The same bank has purged huge numbers of small banks and the regional money laundering that went with them. The process has also removed power from the regional elites and despite United Russia's triumph has eroded their stake in the present system.

    In a world of low oil prices, time is on Ukraine's side so far as Donbass is concerned.

    Bringing Syria to peace is a strong moral plus. The strategic gain is less clear. A base in Sebastapol is useless without a base beyond the Bosporus so I suppose that is it. Lavrov promised the Qataris a pipeline if they back off. Now he has to deliver, otherwise peace is temporary. Partnership with Iran is the big gain but you can't have Iran and Turkey without a Jean Monnet around. It will be necessary to chose.

    You’re still making predictions, cretin? What about that awesome Euro-boom which was already happening, visible to your eyes only?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    It is happening. None so blind as those who will not see. I am talking 25 year cycles here. And you are kind of confused. I was talking about the Russian economy above. In 2017, it might stop collapsing.

    So let's read your predictions? Let's read your firm opinions. You are a perpetual stander by, criticizing those actually saying or doing something. Show some evidence of engagement with reality and your blatherings might be worth a serious discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @5371
    You're still making predictions, cretin? What about that awesome Euro-boom which was already happening, visible to your eyes only?

    It is happening. None so blind as those who will not see. I am talking 25 year cycles here. And you are kind of confused. I was talking about the Russian economy above. In 2017, it might stop collapsing.

    So let’s read your predictions? Let’s read your firm opinions. You are a perpetual stander by, criticizing those actually saying or doing something. Show some evidence of engagement with reality and your blatherings might be worth a serious discussion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. […] !!! 2016, year of Russia’s triumph? by The Saker . . . so hopeful — and a MUST READ  […]

    Read More
  30. Months ago I received a series of photos of the Russian people in their local places. Except for the Cyrillic lettering on the buildings and vehicles they could have been in Montana or Wyoming. What I’ve seen the past couple years is evidence of those “ordinary” Russians are looking for the same thing the “ordinary” Americans are – peace, prosperity and protection of their homeland! God bless you all in Mother Russia!

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Wally
    So true.

    However, Russians value who they are and want to stay that way.

    They see the destructive madness of the west and will not tolerate it in Russia.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Thirdeye says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The Maidan regime remains in power, the Ukrainian economy is starting to turn round (there was only ever so far that it could fall), and PrivatBank's nationalization means Kolomoysky as a source of destabilization is likely finally out. The Trump upset regardless, which Russia had next to nothing to do with unless you listen to #FakeNews, this is no way, shape, or form a 5/5. Maybe a 3/5 at best, I'd say 2/5.

    Meanwhile, the most critical "Russian" successes (Trump, Brexit, etc), while fortuitous, have very little to do with Russia as The Saker himself unenthusiastically acknowledges. Palmyra regardless, the capture of Aleppo compensated it tenfold, so I agree with the 5/5 rating for Syria. That said, in terms of their importance to Russian national interests, Syria is a total sidenote in comparison with Ukraine.

    Meanwhile, the most critical “Russian” successes (Trump, Brexit, etc), while fortuitous, have very little to do with Russia as The Saker himself unenthusiastically acknowledges.

    I think there’s a critical difference between “little” and “nothing” in play here. Russia putting a spike in imperial plans to seize Crimea and Syria put the issue of dealing with competent independent regional powers on the radar of the US electorate, along with the domestic consequences of overseas chaos. When Hitler’s Clitoris responded by advocating brinkmanship and McCarthyism, it was enough to draw would-be third party voters into the Trump camp. It was a small factor relative to the cultural and economic wars waged on the working class by the imperial elites, but in a close presidential race it was critical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    So true. US/NATO aggression "hit a wall" in Syria.

    The US may try to minimalize Russian successes, but everyone isn't fooled. Here's the view from the other side of the planet. These articulate gentlemen don't mince words. If nothing else, watch the last 5 minutes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvImYONSuPo
    India's World - Is Syrian civil war coming to an end?
    Anchor: Bharat Bhushan, Editor, Catch News
    Guests : Niraj Srivastava,Former Ambassador; Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty,Former Ambassador; Waiel Awwad,South Asia Bureau Chief, SANA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. You call them EUans?

    No, they should be called EUrinals.

    The most idiotic and spineless people in history: Modern EUrinals.

    Hollande is Obama’s urinal and Jerkel, escuse me, Merkel is Hitlery’s chamberpot.

    Imagine to be told “f—-ck the EU” and still fellate Obama and lick Hitlery’s ass clean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    Unfortunately and sadly, very true...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Parbes says:
    @Thales the Milesian
    You call them EUans?

    No, they should be called EUrinals.

    The most idiotic and spineless people in history: Modern EUrinals.

    Hollande is Obama's urinal and Jerkel, escuse me, Merkel is Hitlery's chamberpot.

    Imagine to be told "f----ck the EU" and still fellate Obama and lick Hitlery's ass clean.

    Unfortunately and sadly, very true…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Greg S. says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Ukraine can be won in Syria. Everything depends on the outcome of the larger contest with the USA.
     
    Okay, let's ultra-optimistically assume that Assad takes back control of the entirety of Syria within the next two years - outright retaking Idlib and Deir ez-Zor, and reaching some kind of power sharing agreement with Rojava. The Turks pull out. Russia retains Khmeimim. The Western powers suddenly rediscover Assad's legitimacy and he once again becomes a regular visitor to Paris (perhaps even more so than to Moscow, as before 2011).

    So... erm, what next?

    It’s difficult for most of us to tell what’s actually going on in Ukraine. We get virtually no news about the place and what we do get largely falls into one of the two following camps.

    We either get literal doomsday scenarios and predictions of collapse on the one hand:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-in-full-blown-collapse-deep-seated-economic-social-crisis-and-environmental-crisis/5564916

    Then you have puff pieces like this from places like the Whore Street Journal that to me seem ridiculously out of touch with reality (the author actually predicts a future flood of people from Crimea and the East into the west once they realize how great it is):

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-must-make-painful-compromises-for-peace-with-russia-1483053902

    It would nice if one of the Russian centric authors at unz attempted a summary article of what’s really going on in Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Most of the Russia-centric authors here and posters here are biased and inclined towards the "doomsday-Ukraine-is collapsing-in-freefall-ha-ha-serves-you -right-not-to-join-Russia" narrative, which is absurd. Many of these Ukraine "experts" have never set foot in Ukraine.

    Reality is that the freefall was always regional not country-wide, and has stopped. Ukraine has stabilized and shows slight growth. This crisis was not nearly as bad as what happened in the 90s. It will be a few more years before Ukraine gets back to where it had been in 2013, but not 20 as Saakashvili hyperbolically claimed. Certain regions such as Lviv, whose drop was fairly mild, will probably be back to pre-crisis levels by 2017.

    Ukraine's president Poroshenko has lost a lot of popularity due to little if any progress made in terms of corruption, but the people have turned to other pro-Western parties, not towards a pro-Russian party. Nor is Poroshenko widely hated, as was Yanukovich. NATO membership (which is not really on the table near to mid term) remains popular among Ukrainians. The young people killed or injured by Russian-supplied bullets have resulted in deepening nationalism in places that had not been highly nationalistic before. I know one family who in the early 2010s were kind of amused by Galician nationalists, who now refuse to speak to a relative in Moscow due to events of the last 2 years. This sort of thing is not uncommon. As some other commenter noted, Russia has lost Ukraine for a generation. So in terms of geopolitics, Ukraine's pro-Western and anti-Russia turn is stable.

    As AK noted, a potentially dangerous rival oligarch, Kolomoysky, has been defanged. Notable fact, in terms of Ukraine's geopolitical orientation: Kolomoysky had to try to use Ukrainian nationalist sentiment, not pro-Russian sentiment, to project his power. The pro-Russian idea is that dead in most of Donbass-less, Crimea-less Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. I was born a cold warrior in 1944. I turned 21 in basic training in 1965. I learned to hate Imperial Washington. I am at the core of Trump supporters. An old white vet. A card carrying deplorable. I don’t have a superlative word sufficient to convey the satisfaction I feel at the electoral defeat of the imperialists. Don’t bother trying to rain on my parade. I know Trump is just a man. But from my perspective, only now is the cold war finally over.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    ... as fellow working class.

    I am truly having big doubts, still some hope that DT will bully the worst of his appointees, do some good for the USA and the world, but the Goldman Sachs couple for economic affairs, the hideous ambassador to Israel (as many say, he may as well be Israeli ambassador to Washington, doubtless a dual citizen), all a little chilling.

    People in the Republican Party will likely block any real action on illegal immigrants and Islamic invaders.

    Wait and see, it is not my nation, but I will be happy if he makes some improvements for US people. Looking at the appointees, it is seeming unlikely.
    , @utu
    "Don’t bother trying to rain on my parade. "

    In my case I do my own raining. All the time.

    The only thing that is certain is that we are living in interesting times. Clearly some realignment of forces controlling the world is takin place. Whether anything good will come out of it we can't tell. We are all at mercy of our projections driven by fear or hope.

    ***
    Once there was a Chinese farmer who worked his poor farm together with his son and their horse. When the horse ran off one day, neighbors came to say, “How unfortunate for you!” The farmer replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”
    When the horse returned, followed by a herd of wild horses, the neighbors gathered around and exclaimed, “What good luck for you!” The farmer stayed calm and replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”
    While trying to tame one of wild horses, the farmer’s son fell, and broke his leg. He had to rest up and couldn’t help with the farm chores. “How sad for you,” the neighbors cried. “Maybe yes, maybe no,” said the farmer.
    Shortly thereafter, a neighboring army threatened the farmer’s village. All the young men in the village were drafted to fight the invaders. Many died. But the farmer’s son had been left out of the fighting because of his broken leg. People said to the farmer, “What a good thing your son couldn’t fight!” “Maybe yes, maybe no,” was all the farmer said.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Wally says: • Website
    @Cyrano
    Russia has never craved any “greatness”, and some of its people look down on anything Russian, believing that it’s not as good as any equivalent coming from the west. Because Russia has never sought any greatness – particularly military greatness – all of their greatest military victories came when they were attacked (Napoleon, Hitler) and not as a result of any imperial ambitions.

    Stalin, in his infinite wisdom (based on experience of failed alliances with western countries) knew that the day will come when Russia will be left with no allies and he wanted to build the Russian military to be able to fight any possible combination of allies by the rest of the world - basically to be able to fight the rest of the world. That kind of military readiness was reached by the USSR in the early 80’s, before a fool came as a general secretary and then as president.

    It seems that Russia has reached that level of military readiness again – primarily thanks to its nuclear forces, although the rest of their armed forces are nothing to sneeze at. I personally never bought the hysteria in the west about imminent war with Russia. They might be stupid, but they are not crazy, there is nothing to be gained from military confrontation with Russia.

    The whole thing was just not a particularly well designed propaganda – “reassuring” the rest of the world (mainly the European puppets) that the empire is there to protect them, and also trying to justify its existence at the same time. That “empire” was never designed to protect anyone. If it was, they would have shown up in Europe in 1914 and 1939 instead of 1917 and 1944.

    That empire was built on two WW fought by the stupid Europeans who in the process managed to transfer their wealth and political power to their “protector” - who by the way will only fulfill that role only after it uses up as much cannon fodder from Europe as is humanely (or not) possible.

    “Because Russia has never sought any greatness – particularly military greatness – all of their greatest military victories came when they were attacked (Napoleon, Hitler) and not as a result of any imperial ambitions. ”

    Complete nonsense.

    The Soviets were planning to attack Germany and Germany knew it. Hence Germany’s preventive attack on the USSR, Operation Barbarossa.

    But this not new info., that is unless you don’t get out very often.
    See:
    CODOH WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20

    and specifically:
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    Debate there if you think you can.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I suppose, if I recall the name correctly, you are talking about Suvorov's writing.

    It is a very entertaining idea, but I can't recall him citing any documents to support his claims.
    , @Cyrano
    This for me opens a completely new perspective for looking at the world. Thanks man. So according to you the Germans actually saved (or tried) to save the world from the evil of communism. What a terrible mistake US has done allying themselves with those godless communist when they could have been on the right side - literary and figuratively speaking - and ally themselves to those cuddly and lovable Nazis. I wish Roosevelt had a wise man like you as advisor. What a terrible mistake that man has made. I think your statement should be used to rewrite the history books and cast a new light on the Nazis - the true saviors of the world. Thanks man, you opened up my eyes.
    , @gwynedd1
    The Soviets just don't qualify as Russians enough for my tastes. Yes it included Russians, but it was a multiethnic Northern Asian political cult. Same thing as Yugoslavia where the communist ideology held ethic minorities together though force , and before communism was the proven ideological failure it turned out to be. Yes the Russian empire was imperialist enough , but they really had little choice in that part of the world other than the buffer state.
    , @Philip Owen
    Muscovy's expansion was not prompted by defense. Kuban, Caucasus, Siberia, Central Asia, occupied China, Bessarabia, Crimea and what about those Mordavians? The Muscovites didn't expand for trade. They took tribute.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Wally says:
    @Vegas Willy
    Months ago I received a series of photos of the Russian people in their local places. Except for the Cyrillic lettering on the buildings and vehicles they could have been in Montana or Wyoming. What I've seen the past couple years is evidence of those "ordinary" Russians are looking for the same thing the "ordinary" Americans are - peace, prosperity and protection of their homeland! God bless you all in Mother Russia!

    So true.

    However, Russians value who they are and want to stay that way.

    They see the destructive madness of the west and will not tolerate it in Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Che Guava says:
    @CK
    " No way can the US allow that to mature ..." why not? One Road one Belt safe transport from Seoul to Lisbon, The USA has nothing to offer to any of the participants that would derail the project. The One Road will pass through Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria. The original silk road brought the knowledge and products of China to the Roman Empire and Europe and took the silver of Europe back to China. This new one will do the same and more. The USA can stand around waving its arms and yelling stop stop or it can find a way to get on board and become a source and a contributor. WWII is long over and the USA is no longer the only big dog in the kennel.

    You overstate the unidirectionality.

    One that I find especially interesting is the existence of Buddhist icons (mandala paintings) where the composition is clearly based on Christian models.

    They can be seen as far from the source as here in Japan.

    The Amida cults in Buddhism appear to be based on Marian cults in Christianity.

    By the same token, the Valentinian branch of Gnosticism is clearly based on Buddhist models.

    Much more.

    We can’t really know how much the ancients knew of each other, in my opinion, even the provincial Jesus Chrestos had some idea of Buddhist teaching, sure I can’t prove it, but some teachings and Apocrypha back up the idea.

    In any case, the rise of evil Mohammed’s demonic confection, and the conversion of the Persians and Turkic peoples to that, meant the end of any real flow of ideas along the Silk Road of ancient times, by a little over a thousand years ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Che Guava says:
    @Wally
    "Because Russia has never sought any greatness – particularly military greatness – all of their greatest military victories came when they were attacked (Napoleon, Hitler) and not as a result of any imperial ambitions. "

    Complete nonsense.

    The Soviets were planning to attack Germany and Germany knew it. Hence Germany's preventive attack on the USSR, Operation Barbarossa.

    But this not new info., that is unless you don't get out very often.
    See:
    CODOH WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20
    and specifically:
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    Debate there if you think you can.

    Thanks.

    I suppose, if I recall the name correctly, you are talking about Suvorov’s writing.

    It is a very entertaining idea, but I can’t recall him citing any documents to support his claims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    See the link I provided.

    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Sean says:

    Russia’s ultimate goal, the replacement of NATO by a European-wide common defense agreement from Portugal to the Urals has not happened, but the election of Trump is a huge step in the right direction.

    Russia’s job is to fight Germany for Britain and the US, and if the US withdraws from Europe, Germany will have to acquire large conventional forces plus a nuclear deterrent, and back Ukraine. Bad news for Russia.

    As is Trump’s economic platform, because he cannot go and to give Russia the shale gas tech to help it enable China to go on destroying the US jobs he swore to protect. Russia can only sell to China now. Even if China could supply Russia with the advanced technology which Russia cannot manage to invent for itself, Trump will substantially close the US market to China, so who is China going to sell their goods to, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    I only know one person quite as insane as you, and that's Louise Bagshawe.
    , @Sean

    http://www.eurasiareview.com/29122016-the-terrex-vehicles-issue-china-seizes-asia-pacific-initiative-analysis/While Mearsheimer’s central thesis has been challenged on numerous occasions, it would seem that events as a result of China’s rise – on present evidence – has validated Mearsheimer’s core argument. Yan Xuetong, who heads the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University, argues in his recent book “The Transition of World Power: Political Leadership and Strategic Competition” that there was a need for China to pursue international leadership on the basis of “moral realism” (daoyixianshizhuyi), in contrast to American leadership, which was premised on hegemonic designs.

    But given recent incidents, particularly over the South China Sea, it would seem that Beijing’s posture is closer to that of Mearsheimer’s predictions: a great power cannot help but act in a manner of a great power (hence the “tragedy”) in its international relations – particularly if its neighbours are deemed as “small” vis-à-vis itself.
     

    Russia can thank its lucky stars that it is not up against nazis, but rather its own backyard nation of decaying alcoholics: Ukraine. Victory there is is hardly an achievement for a superpower .The more important observation is the Russia is shrinking precipitously relative to China in the productive capacity that is the oly worthwhile measure of potential power.

    You seem to envision a Trump administration, whereby venal US big business continue to sellf US fracking technology transfer to Russia, the thus extracted energy is sold to China so it can go on ravishing the productive capacity of the US, a process that could only end with China becoming a mega power dominating the globe, and reducing the US to second place Russia to insignificance. Trump’s phone conversation with Taiwan’s president, a calculated insult to China, shows that is NOT going to happen. Russia would be wise to take note.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. 5371 says:
    @Sean

    Russia’s ultimate goal, the replacement of NATO by a European-wide common defense agreement from Portugal to the Urals has not happened, but the election of Trump is a huge step in the right direction.
     
    Russia's job is to fight Germany for Britain and the US, and if the US withdraws from Europe, Germany will have to acquire large conventional forces plus a nuclear deterrent, and back Ukraine. Bad news for Russia.

    As is Trump's economic platform, because he cannot go and to give Russia the shale gas tech to help it enable China to go on destroying the US jobs he swore to protect. Russia can only sell to China now. Even if China could supply Russia with the advanced technology which Russia cannot manage to invent for itself, Trump will substantially close the US market to China, so who is China going to sell their goods to, eh?

    I only know one person quite as insane as you, and that’s Louise Bagshawe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Sean says:
    @Sean

    Russia’s ultimate goal, the replacement of NATO by a European-wide common defense agreement from Portugal to the Urals has not happened, but the election of Trump is a huge step in the right direction.
     
    Russia's job is to fight Germany for Britain and the US, and if the US withdraws from Europe, Germany will have to acquire large conventional forces plus a nuclear deterrent, and back Ukraine. Bad news for Russia.

    As is Trump's economic platform, because he cannot go and to give Russia the shale gas tech to help it enable China to go on destroying the US jobs he swore to protect. Russia can only sell to China now. Even if China could supply Russia with the advanced technology which Russia cannot manage to invent for itself, Trump will substantially close the US market to China, so who is China going to sell their goods to, eh?

    http://www.eurasiareview.com/29122016-the-terrex-vehicles-issue-china-seizes-asia-pacific-initiative-analysis/While Mearsheimer’s central thesis has been challenged on numerous occasions, it would seem that events as a result of China’s rise – on present evidence – has validated Mearsheimer’s core argument. Yan Xuetong, who heads the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University, argues in his recent book “The Transition of World Power: Political Leadership and Strategic Competition” that there was a need for China to pursue international leadership on the basis of “moral realism” (daoyixianshizhuyi), in contrast to American leadership, which was premised on hegemonic designs.

    But given recent incidents, particularly over the South China Sea, it would seem that Beijing’s posture is closer to that of Mearsheimer’s predictions: a great power cannot help but act in a manner of a great power (hence the “tragedy”) in its international relations – particularly if its neighbours are deemed as “small” vis-à-vis itself.

    Russia can thank its lucky stars that it is not up against nazis, but rather its own backyard nation of decaying alcoholics: Ukraine. Victory there is is hardly an achievement for a superpower .The more important observation is the Russia is shrinking precipitously relative to China in the productive capacity that is the oly worthwhile measure of potential power.

    You seem to envision a Trump administration, whereby venal US big business continue to sellf US fracking technology transfer to Russia, the thus extracted energy is sold to China so it can go on ravishing the productive capacity of the US, a process that could only end with China becoming a mega power dominating the globe, and reducing the US to second place Russia to insignificance. Trump’s phone conversation with Taiwan’s president, a calculated insult to China, shows that is NOT going to happen. Russia would be wise to take note.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    You should check Chinese exponentially growing debt problem... You also should know than unlike Russia, Chinese times of troubles last centuries, not decades.
    China is still not on same level as Russia in many things science and military included.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Durruti says:

    Is anyone actually reading the ‘Saker’ missive?

    I quote the most objectionable Betrayal in depth.

    “The Russians need to revisit the kind of terror campaign the Palestinians waged in the 1970s against the Israelis when they attacked not only Israeli cultural centers, but also Jewish daycare centers, schools, and synagogues. Russian Orthodox churches are now facing the very same threat including bombings and hostage taking. As somebody who has attended Russian Orthodox churches all my life and all over the planet I know that the number of potential targets are in the *hundreds* and that they are all completely unprotected.

    The Israeli example is crucial here because the Israelis rapidly realized that they simply could not count on the local police forces to protect them. This is why they organized various local organizations directly attached to a synagogue or school staffed by volunteers who could do many very useful and fully legal things to protect Israeli/Jewish targets such as, for example, begin to occupy all the parking spaces around a synagogue 48 hours before any religious holiday to make sure that no VBIEDs (aka “car bombs”) could be placed next to the synagogue. There is *a lot* a well educated group of volunteers can do to legally protect an exposed civilian target. They can do even better when they work with the locals cops and the security specialists at the embassy. The Russians urgently need to study the Israeli experience in dealing with a kind of threat which they will soon face. Remember, the Palestinians also began by attacking diplomats, officials and aircraft, but as soon as these targets were “hardened” they turn to daycare centers, schools and synagogues.”

    The official propaganda of the Zionist land Thieves is being relayed to the UNZ readers. The major Victims of the Zionist World Order, the Palestinians, are being portrayed as the terrorists, – by the actual terrorists – and their agents.

    The slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine is not mentioned in the ‘Saker’ diatribe (which is supposedly against terrorism, and portrayed by him as advising the Russians on how to protect themselves from terrorism). Have the Palestinians committed any acts of terrorism – or acts of terrorism against Russia? The ‘Saker’ does not even attempt to balance his propaganda with a few examples of terror committed by the United States, Britain, or France. There is no balance here, only a harsh hateful attack on some of the Victims of Zionist and Imperialist Terror.

    On this New Years Day we might keep our eyes on the VISION.

    In by beloved America, We must Restore our Democratic Republic, that was destroyed on November 22, 1963, along with our last Constitutional President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, in a hail of gunfire, in the First Modern Arab Spring.

    Long Live the Palestinian People, in Liberty, free in their Land!

    Watch this revealing Video by Abby Martin

    Long Live the Jewish People, with reborn Morality, residing on their own land, in Europe, and America, or as accepted citizens of Palestine!

    Let 2017, be the year that Truth begins to win out and Hope Revives!

    Durruti: alias-Peter J. Antonsen

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Wow. That is a very crazy rant, Peter J. Antonsen.

    Why you selected Durutti as a pseudonym in view of your views is a great mystery. It does explain illogic in your past posts and replies.

    Although one can't discount the possibility that Peter J. Antonsen is somebody that you see as an enemy in real life, so you throw the name out here. OTOH, you are clearly insane, so we may take it that it is likely your real name.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @5371
    Well done, Saker, this is a very good piece and will trigger the vermin royally.
    [I really very strongly feel that with Trump in the White House the risks of war with Russia have fallen to a dramatically low level]
    I've been a fan of the Trump campaign from day one and continue to be so, but I think we should be more cautious than that. At least let's see him settle into the office first.

    Plus, Trump is probably the last person you could manipulate, scare, or hoodwink with BS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Che Guava says:
    @WorkingClass
    I was born a cold warrior in 1944. I turned 21 in basic training in 1965. I learned to hate Imperial Washington. I am at the core of Trump supporters. An old white vet. A card carrying deplorable. I don't have a superlative word sufficient to convey the satisfaction I feel at the electoral defeat of the imperialists. Don't bother trying to rain on my parade. I know Trump is just a man. But from my perspective, only now is the cold war finally over.

    … as fellow working class.

    I am truly having big doubts, still some hope that DT will bully the worst of his appointees, do some good for the USA and the world, but the Goldman Sachs couple for economic affairs, the hideous ambassador to Israel (as many say, he may as well be Israeli ambassador to Washington, doubtless a dual citizen), all a little chilling.

    People in the Republican Party will likely block any real action on illegal immigrants and Islamic invaders.

    Wait and see, it is not my nation, but I will be happy if he makes some improvements for US people. Looking at the appointees, it is seeming unlikely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    { Looking at the appointees, it is seeming unlikely.}

    Trump’s appointees will do what he tells them to do, or they’ll be “You’re Fired”.

    People expect too much.
    We have no kings, nor emperors, nor Caesars.
    You can’t undo decades of anti-American damage overnight.
    US, by design, is very, very hard to change.
    No radical changes possible either way.
    Founding Fathers tried their best to prevent ‘revolutions’.

    Like it or not, Jewish-American constituency is a constituency.
    Most care for and support Israel.
    They actively participate in American politics.
    They make their voices heard.
    Not their fault if others spend their evenings and weekends swilling beer and zoning out watching gladiator fights (football, basketball, baseball,…)

    Same with America-last crowd: they are working day and night to erode the (traditional) America’s foundations. They have a purpose. America-firsters need to continue to come out in force and continue pushing back, like they did for the Trump election. And push harder and harder year in, year out.

    The fact that evil globalist warmonger The Hildabeast was stopped by Trump is very positive for America in and of itself.

    , @WorkingClass
    Trump is not an Imperialist. Meditate on that. An American President who is NOT an imperialist. Trump wants the US to be a player in a multi polar world. Not a rogue nation bent on ruling the earth by force of arms. Trump takes no moral position on war. He wants to end America's endless wars because they are a "bad deal". Trump cannot prevent the collapse of the American Empire and the negative affect to the dollar and the economy. But he can negotiate a soft landing rather than blowing up the world in a war with China and Russia which is what the current elite would have us do.

    Trumps greatest enemies are the Imperialists who are still running the government. He is loading his government with powerful insiders to fight fire with fire. Trump is neither Napoleon nor Che Guevara. He is a populist who, when he speaks of America, is speaking of the land mass and the people who inhabit it. His desire for the people is peace and prosperity. Not war and welfare. It's not realistic to presume that Trump will be successful give the power of his opponents. But neither was it realistic to think he could win the election.

    Keep the faith and work for the good Che. That's what men of good will do. Win or lose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Che Guava says:
    @Durruti
    Is anyone actually reading the 'Saker' missive?

    I quote the most objectionable Betrayal in depth.

    "The Russians need to revisit the kind of terror campaign the Palestinians waged in the 1970s against the Israelis when they attacked not only Israeli cultural centers, but also Jewish daycare centers, schools, and synagogues. Russian Orthodox churches are now facing the very same threat including bombings and hostage taking. As somebody who has attended Russian Orthodox churches all my life and all over the planet I know that the number of potential targets are in the *hundreds* and that they are all completely unprotected.

    The Israeli example is crucial here because the Israelis rapidly realized that they simply could not count on the local police forces to protect them. This is why they organized various local organizations directly attached to a synagogue or school staffed by volunteers who could do many very useful and fully legal things to protect Israeli/Jewish targets such as, for example, begin to occupy all the parking spaces around a synagogue 48 hours before any religious holiday to make sure that no VBIEDs (aka “car bombs”) could be placed next to the synagogue. There is *a lot* a well educated group of volunteers can do to legally protect an exposed civilian target. They can do even better when they work with the locals cops and the security specialists at the embassy. The Russians urgently need to study the Israeli experience in dealing with a kind of threat which they will soon face. Remember, the Palestinians also began by attacking diplomats, officials and aircraft, but as soon as these targets were “hardened” they turn to daycare centers, schools and synagogues."

    The official propaganda of the Zionist land Thieves is being relayed to the UNZ readers. The major Victims of the Zionist World Order, the Palestinians, are being portrayed as the terrorists, - by the actual terrorists - and their agents.

    The slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine is not mentioned in the 'Saker' diatribe (which is supposedly against terrorism, and portrayed by him as advising the Russians on how to protect themselves from terrorism). Have the Palestinians committed any acts of terrorism - or acts of terrorism against Russia? The 'Saker' does not even attempt to balance his propaganda with a few examples of terror committed by the United States, Britain, or France. There is no balance here, only a harsh hateful attack on some of the Victims of Zionist and Imperialist Terror.

    On this New Years Day we might keep our eyes on the VISION.

    In by beloved America, We must Restore our Democratic Republic, that was destroyed on November 22, 1963, along with our last Constitutional President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, in a hail of gunfire, in the First Modern Arab Spring.

    Long Live the Palestinian People, in Liberty, free in their Land!

    Watch this revealing Video by Abby Martin

    https://youtu.be/f3RypMScEMQ

    Long Live the Jewish People, with reborn Morality, residing on their own land, in Europe, and America, or as accepted citizens of Palestine!

    Let 2017, be the year that Truth begins to win out and Hope Revives!

    Durruti: alias-Peter J. Antonsen

    Wow. That is a very crazy rant, Peter J. Antonsen.

    Why you selected Durutti as a pseudonym in view of your views is a great mystery. It does explain illogic in your past posts and replies.

    Although one can’t discount the possibility that Peter J. Antonsen is somebody that you see as an enemy in real life, so you throw the name out here. OTOH, you are clearly insane, so we may take it that it is likely your real name.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Durruti
    " you are clearly insane,"

    "Wow. That is a very crazy rant," Of course, you fail to comment on the essence of my essay, the slanderous attack by the 'Saker' on the victims of terrorism, the Palestinian People.

    "Although one can’t discount the possibility that Peter J. Antonsen is somebody that you see as an enemy in real life, " He is, indeed, my own worst enemy. He is I.

    Durruti is Durruti, Buenaventura Durruti, the finest Anarchist.

    https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/%25D0%259A%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BB%25D1%258C%25D1%2586%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_%25D0%2594%25D1%2583%25D1%2580%25D1%2583%25D1%2582%25D1%2582%25D0%25B8_%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B4%25D0%25B8%25D1%2580_%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B0%25D1%2580%25D1%2585%25D0%25B8%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_14%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B3.21%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D1%258F._1936.JPG/220px-%25D0%259A%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BB%25D1%258C%25D1%2586%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_%25D0%2594%25D1%2583%25D1%2580%25D1%2583%25D1%2582%25D1%2582%25D0%25B8_%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B4%25D0%25B8%25D1%2580_%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B0%25D1%2580%25D1%2585%25D0%25B8%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_14%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B3.21%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D1%258F._1936.JPG&imgrefurl=https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Buenaventura_Durruti&h=326&w=220&tbnid=r7Jfvz9e228VPM:&vet=1&tbnh=186&tbnw=125&docid=AI6EguT-l_L2AM&itg=1&usg=__l9GEj-VvjszNnzV05hfWHY3nNW8=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiikuq8xaHRAhVG5CYKHU9IC5cQ_B0IeDAK

    "Che Guava," very clever. I read about a Che Guevara...

    Is this all you offer? No substantial comments on my, or the 'Saker?' Come on! You can do better than a mealy mouthed attempt at character assassination.

    Come on! What do you think about the issues I raised? You do think?

    Oh well!

    Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! More fun and learning on UNZ' website in 2017.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Avery says:
    @Che Guava
    ... as fellow working class.

    I am truly having big doubts, still some hope that DT will bully the worst of his appointees, do some good for the USA and the world, but the Goldman Sachs couple for economic affairs, the hideous ambassador to Israel (as many say, he may as well be Israeli ambassador to Washington, doubtless a dual citizen), all a little chilling.

    People in the Republican Party will likely block any real action on illegal immigrants and Islamic invaders.

    Wait and see, it is not my nation, but I will be happy if he makes some improvements for US people. Looking at the appointees, it is seeming unlikely.

    { Looking at the appointees, it is seeming unlikely.}

    Trump’s appointees will do what he tells them to do, or they’ll be “You’re Fired”.

    People expect too much.
    We have no kings, nor emperors, nor Caesars.
    You can’t undo decades of anti-American damage overnight.
    US, by design, is very, very hard to change.
    No radical changes possible either way.
    Founding Fathers tried their best to prevent ‘revolutions’.

    Like it or not, Jewish-American constituency is a constituency.
    Most care for and support Israel.
    They actively participate in American politics.
    They make their voices heard.
    Not their fault if others spend their evenings and weekends swilling beer and zoning out watching gladiator fights (football, basketball, baseball,…)

    Same with America-last crowd: they are working day and night to erode the (traditional) America’s foundations. They have a purpose. America-firsters need to continue to come out in force and continue pushing back, like they did for the Trump election. And push harder and harder year in, year out.

    The fact that evil globalist warmonger The Hildabeast was stopped by Trump is very positive for America in and of itself.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stonehands
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Durruti says:
    @Che Guava
    Wow. That is a very crazy rant, Peter J. Antonsen.

    Why you selected Durutti as a pseudonym in view of your views is a great mystery. It does explain illogic in your past posts and replies.

    Although one can't discount the possibility that Peter J. Antonsen is somebody that you see as an enemy in real life, so you throw the name out here. OTOH, you are clearly insane, so we may take it that it is likely your real name.

    ” you are clearly insane,”

    “Wow. That is a very crazy rant,” Of course, you fail to comment on the essence of my essay, the slanderous attack by the ‘Saker’ on the victims of terrorism, the Palestinian People.

    “Although one can’t discount the possibility that Peter J. Antonsen is somebody that you see as an enemy in real life, ” He is, indeed, my own worst enemy. He is I.

    Durruti is Durruti, Buenaventura Durruti, the finest Anarchist.

    https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/%25D0%259A%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BB%25D1%258C%25D1%2586%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_%25D0%2594%25D1%2583%25D1%2580%25D1%2583%25D1%2582%25D1%2582%25D0%25B8_%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B4%25D0%25B8%25D1%2580_%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B0%25D1%2580%25D1%2585%25D0%25B8%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_14%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B3.21%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D1%258F._1936.JPG/220px-%25D0%259A%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BB%25D1%258C%25D1%2586%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_%25D0%2594%25D1%2583%25D1%2580%25D1%2583%25D1%2582%25D1%2582%25D0%25B8_%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B4%25D0%25B8%25D1%2580_%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B0%25D1%2580%25D1%2585%25D0%25B8%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_14%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B3.21%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D1%258F._1936.JPG&imgrefurl=https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Buenaventura_Durruti&h=326&w=220&tbnid=r7Jfvz9e228VPM:&vet=1&tbnh=186&tbnw=125&docid=AI6EguT-l_L2AM&itg=1&usg=__l9GEj-VvjszNnzV05hfWHY3nNW8=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiikuq8xaHRAhVG5CYKHU9IC5cQ_B0IeDAK

    “Che Guava,” very clever. I read about a Che Guevara…

    Is this all you offer? No substantial comments on my, or the ‘Saker?’ Come on! You can do better than a mealy mouthed attempt at character assassination.

    Come on! What do you think about the issues I raised? You do think?

    Oh well!

    Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! More fun and learning on UNZ’ website in 2017.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Durutti,

    Excuse my comment. I just found your choice of the name of a famous anarchist as pen-name a little odd, given the content of your posts.

    Not to saying that your posts do not make sense much of the time.

    My pen-name is simple ridicule, although I have read the upper-class Ernesto's works of 'theory'. They sure did not work out when he tried to export them back to places closer to that of his privileged birth.

    The status of his visage now, as a brand-name, on a cheaper level, but much the same as, say, Louis Vuitton, is also a constant source of amusement to me.

    Again, excuse my understandable outburst, but

    ... why do you use Durutti as your pen-name here?

    Serious question.

    I explain my use of 'Guava', simple ridicule.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Miro23 says:

    …..instead of silencing the Russophobes, Putin gave them a completely disproportionate amount of airtime (keep in mind that less than 5% of the Russian population supports these freaks) and let them hang themselves by being wrong on just about everything: they were wrong on Crimea, wrong on the Ukraine, wrong on the economy, wrong on social and civil rights, wrong on corruption, wrong on so-called “gay rights”, wrong about NATO, wrong about the EU, wrong about Clinton (they loved her), wrong about Trump (they hated him), wrong about terrorism and wrong about Syria. As a result, these “liberals” (in the Russian meaning of the word) are now universally seen as traitors, Russophobes, snobs, racists, 5th columnists, CIA puppets, etc. They now are absolutely hated and desperate.

    There was maybe a milder version of this going on in the recent US election. Clinton had a lot more support than 5% of the US population, but the SJW media did manage to “hang itself” with the US public on many of the same points, particularly through their totally biased and hysterical attacks on Trump that were plain to see, even to the most sleepy and uninformed of voters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. Cyrano says:
    @Wally
    "Because Russia has never sought any greatness – particularly military greatness – all of their greatest military victories came when they were attacked (Napoleon, Hitler) and not as a result of any imperial ambitions. "

    Complete nonsense.

    The Soviets were planning to attack Germany and Germany knew it. Hence Germany's preventive attack on the USSR, Operation Barbarossa.

    But this not new info., that is unless you don't get out very often.
    See:
    CODOH WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20
    and specifically:
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    Debate there if you think you can.

    Thanks.

    This for me opens a completely new perspective for looking at the world. Thanks man. So according to you the Germans actually saved (or tried) to save the world from the evil of communism. What a terrible mistake US has done allying themselves with those godless communist when they could have been on the right side – literary and figuratively speaking – and ally themselves to those cuddly and lovable Nazis. I wish Roosevelt had a wise man like you as advisor. What a terrible mistake that man has made. I think your statement should be used to rewrite the history books and cast a new light on the Nazis – the true saviors of the world. Thanks man, you opened up my eyes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yes, they recognized the dangers of communism, hence the huge numbers of volunteers from other European countries.

    No one said the National Socialists were lovable, they did offer the best opportunity to stop Stalin and his henchmen.

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’are scientifically impossible frauds.
     
    The history books are being rewritten, where ya' been, on the turnip truck?

    http://codoh.com/library/document/1906/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2724/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2833/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2947/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/3000/

    see research which demolishes the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' canard:
    'Holocaust Handbooks'
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/Holocaust-Handbooks-1min-640x360.mp4

    I noticed that you are afraid to debate at a no name calling forum, typical. See previously given links.

    You are welcome.
    , @Carroll Price
    Since winners of wars write the history of wars, it's very necessary to remember that when it comes to Hitler and Nazism, virtually everything most people think they know about either is a product of Jewish propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. “The official propaganda of the Zionist land Thieves is being relayed to the UNZ readers. The major Victims of the Zionist World Order, the Palestinians, are being portrayed as the terrorists, – by the actual terrorists – and their agents.”

    I completely agree with this comment!

    However, like sports, one can only defeat an opponent by understanding and neutralizing their strengths. So, the example the Saker provides is case in point: Israel’s civil defense did provide a modicum of safety against Palestinian threats – while they continue to steal the land and oppress the residents.

    I don’t read Saker’s thread as agreeing with Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Durruti
    Agree with your comments on "Israel's genocide."

    Your defense of the 'Saker' is weak. Can you explain his (the so-called 'Saker), "Remember, the Palestinians also began by attacking diplomats, officials and aircraft, but as soon as these targets were “hardened” they turn to daycare centers, schools and synagogues.”???

    Highlighting is mine.

    According to this 'Saker,' Palestinians use terror ("they turn" is present tense), against " daycare centers, schools and synagogues." This assertion is plain Netenyahoo-like slander against the Palestinians. Their (the Palestinian's) last armed effort was a coordinated attack with knives, against Zionist Police and Military.

    'Saker's' thread clearly supports "Israel's genocide of Palestinians," by accusing the Palestinians of Terrorism, and supporting the Zionist terrorist's efforts against the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine. After the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - in 1944, German newspapers accused the Jews of being terrorists. They were not then; they are now.

    One may defend Russia, America, or any other nation from terrorism, by opposing the terrorists; but not by covering for the terrorists, by slandering their Main Victims.

    The 'Saker's' words condemn him.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. RobinG says:
    @Thirdeye

    Meanwhile, the most critical “Russian” successes (Trump, Brexit, etc), while fortuitous, have very little to do with Russia as The Saker himself unenthusiastically acknowledges.
     
    I think there's a critical difference between "little" and "nothing" in play here. Russia putting a spike in imperial plans to seize Crimea and Syria put the issue of dealing with competent independent regional powers on the radar of the US electorate, along with the domestic consequences of overseas chaos. When Hitler's Clitoris responded by advocating brinkmanship and McCarthyism, it was enough to draw would-be third party voters into the Trump camp. It was a small factor relative to the cultural and economic wars waged on the working class by the imperial elites, but in a close presidential race it was critical.

    So true. US/NATO aggression “hit a wall” in Syria.

    The US may try to minimalize Russian successes, but everyone isn’t fooled. Here’s the view from the other side of the planet. These articulate gentlemen don’t mince words. If nothing else, watch the last 5 minutes.

    India’s World – Is Syrian civil war coming to an end?
    Anchor: Bharat Bhushan, Editor, Catch News
    Guests : Niraj Srivastava,Former Ambassador; Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty,Former Ambassador; Waiel Awwad,South Asia Bureau Chief, SANA

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Wally says: • Website
    @Che Guava
    I suppose, if I recall the name correctly, you are talking about Suvorov's writing.

    It is a very entertaining idea, but I can't recall him citing any documents to support his claims.

    See the link I provided.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Wally says: • Website
    @Cyrano
    This for me opens a completely new perspective for looking at the world. Thanks man. So according to you the Germans actually saved (or tried) to save the world from the evil of communism. What a terrible mistake US has done allying themselves with those godless communist when they could have been on the right side - literary and figuratively speaking - and ally themselves to those cuddly and lovable Nazis. I wish Roosevelt had a wise man like you as advisor. What a terrible mistake that man has made. I think your statement should be used to rewrite the history books and cast a new light on the Nazis - the true saviors of the world. Thanks man, you opened up my eyes.

    Yes, they recognized the dangers of communism, hence the huge numbers of volunteers from other European countries.

    No one said the National Socialists were lovable, they did offer the best opportunity to stop Stalin and his henchmen.

    [MORE]

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’are scientifically impossible frauds.

    The history books are being rewritten, where ya’ been, on the turnip truck?

    http://codoh.com/library/document/1906/

    http://codoh.com/library/document/2724/

    http://codoh.com/library/document/2833/

    http://codoh.com/library/document/2947/

    http://codoh.com/library/document/3000/

    see research which demolishes the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ canard:
    ‘Holocaust Handbooks’

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    I noticed that you are afraid to debate at a no name calling forum, typical. See previously given links.

    You are welcome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "No one said the National Socialists were lovable, they did offer the best opportunity to stop Stalin and his henchmen."

    Bang up job they did there.
    , @Thales the Milesian
    One of Stalin's big mistakes was, after pushing the Germans out of the USSR, not to sign a peace treaty with Germany and give Hitler all of Europe, Poland in particular.

    Evil hombre uncle Joe!
    , @Cyrano
    Stalin and his henchmen didn’t need to be stopped at all, they were not going anywhere. Socialism in one country? Ever heard of that? And your beloved Nazis – they called themselves National Socialists.

    Ever wondered why? They could have called themselves National Democrats, or National Capitalists or something similar. They choose socialism because they recognized its appeal for the masses. Don’t try to give them a human face, freedom fighters against communism or any such nonsense.

    And by the way, everything you think you know about Communism and USSR is just pure propaganda. And you know why nobody ever bothered to tell you the truth? Because they were fairly certain that you are not smart enough to figure it out for yourself.

    Debating with you is pointless; anybody who denies that the holocaust happened has issues that no debate can resolve. So you go on, blame Israel and the Jews for everything, if facing the reality is too painful for you, but if you are really looking for someone who actually deserves the blame – it’s the people who let you play make-believe once every 4 years that your opinion is really worth something.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    ‘Human rights’ in US foreign policy is more fluid than gender in the Queer Studies Department at Harvard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Sacker has nailed it here. I wish he would refrain from criticizing USSR of which he has no clue, otherwise it is a great piece.
    There is no a minute I feel no regret and depressed thoughts when thinking of my country destroyed by traitors. I would not be as magnanimous as Putin towards those traitors and I am waiting for greater things from him regarding nationalization of what was stolen from my people.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano, Che Guava
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. attonn says:

    Russia doesn’t have to do much to win, as the West is doing all the hard work by self-destructing before our eyes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. @Sean

    http://www.eurasiareview.com/29122016-the-terrex-vehicles-issue-china-seizes-asia-pacific-initiative-analysis/While Mearsheimer’s central thesis has been challenged on numerous occasions, it would seem that events as a result of China’s rise – on present evidence – has validated Mearsheimer’s core argument. Yan Xuetong, who heads the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University, argues in his recent book “The Transition of World Power: Political Leadership and Strategic Competition” that there was a need for China to pursue international leadership on the basis of “moral realism” (daoyixianshizhuyi), in contrast to American leadership, which was premised on hegemonic designs.

    But given recent incidents, particularly over the South China Sea, it would seem that Beijing’s posture is closer to that of Mearsheimer’s predictions: a great power cannot help but act in a manner of a great power (hence the “tragedy”) in its international relations – particularly if its neighbours are deemed as “small” vis-à-vis itself.
     

    Russia can thank its lucky stars that it is not up against nazis, but rather its own backyard nation of decaying alcoholics: Ukraine. Victory there is is hardly an achievement for a superpower .The more important observation is the Russia is shrinking precipitously relative to China in the productive capacity that is the oly worthwhile measure of potential power.

    You seem to envision a Trump administration, whereby venal US big business continue to sellf US fracking technology transfer to Russia, the thus extracted energy is sold to China so it can go on ravishing the productive capacity of the US, a process that could only end with China becoming a mega power dominating the globe, and reducing the US to second place Russia to insignificance. Trump’s phone conversation with Taiwan’s president, a calculated insult to China, shows that is NOT going to happen. Russia would be wise to take note.

    You should check Chinese exponentially growing debt problem… You also should know than unlike Russia, Chinese times of troubles last centuries, not decades.
    China is still not on same level as Russia in many things science and military included.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    A defender of USSR economics should not repeat the bankster propaganda that state guidance for an economy leads to insurmountable debt problems.
    , @Sean
    The same people shorting China previously forecast melt down for Japan, and they have learned nothing*. But the rest of the world, including China, has learned. from the Japanese, who seem to be buying their debt back with the apparent end game of CANCELING it. So don't get excited over China's exponentially growing book entries, because China's productive capacity is hear to stay. Moreover, intelligent Chinese are associatively mating like never before. They will swarm out of their breeding grounds and set to work making China number one. China needs to sell in the West (for now at least they don't have the home market) . Trump will go green to destroy any idea the Russian have of getting in bed with China. Russia (which has already tried to inhibit fracking though promoting environmental movements in Europe) will see that he hold all the cards.

    Russia has vast numbers of tactical nukes that can only be there for fear of fighting China as it already is There is no reason to think its economy will go pear shaped. China is Japan plus times 10 unless something is done . The US has to discipline Russia, and then confront China with an alliance.

    *The loudest is Texican Kyle Bass, the fellow who said "xenophobic" Japan would collapse from lack of immigrants. His brain has likely atrophied from his hobby of free-dive spear fishing, as happens to oxygenless mountaineers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Durruti says:
    @bike-anarkist
    "The official propaganda of the Zionist land Thieves is being relayed to the UNZ readers. The major Victims of the Zionist World Order, the Palestinians, are being portrayed as the terrorists, – by the actual terrorists – and their agents."

    I completely agree with this comment!

    However, like sports, one can only defeat an opponent by understanding and neutralizing their strengths. So, the example the Saker provides is case in point: Israel's civil defense did provide a modicum of safety against Palestinian threats - while they continue to steal the land and oppress the residents.

    I don't read Saker's thread as agreeing with Israel's genocide of Palestinians.

    Agree with your comments on “Israel’s genocide.”

    Your defense of the ‘Saker’ is weak. Can you explain his (the so-called ‘Saker), “Remember, the Palestinians also began by attacking diplomats, officials and aircraft, but as soon as these targets were “hardened” they turn to daycare centers, schools and synagogues.”???

    Highlighting is mine.

    According to this ‘Saker,’ Palestinians use terror (“they turn” is present tense), against ” daycare centers, schools and synagogues.” This assertion is plain Netenyahoo-like slander against the Palestinians. Their (the Palestinian’s) last armed effort was a coordinated attack with knives, against Zionist Police and Military.

    ‘Saker’s’ thread clearly supports “Israel’s genocide of Palestinians,” by accusing the Palestinians of Terrorism, and supporting the Zionist terrorist’s efforts against the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine. After the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto Uprising – in 1944, German newspapers accused the Jews of being terrorists. They were not then; they are now.

    One may defend Russia, America, or any other nation from terrorism, by opposing the terrorists; but not by covering for the terrorists, by slandering their Main Victims.

    The ‘Saker’s’ words condemn him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Durutti,,

    I am sorry to have not been reading all of those linkings you posted. I will. They look a little like spaghetti.

    When I first started to postng on this site, another poster was saying 'Saker can never be in Russia', that may be the truth, but we cannot know. Only that he is upper-class, if he were a woman, it would have been a 'Swiss finishing school' from the revealed pattern.

    I am havimg no answers, but must saying it is a little strange, no reply ever, even to direct questions.

    Still, I am liking his commentary most of the time.

    Prefer Linh's comms., and those of random others, such as yourself.

    Although I can never see why you use Durutti as a pen-name, it is a mystery.

    Must sleeping.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. JoeFour says:
    @John Gruskos
    "The Saker" uses the term "Nazi" to slander all Russian nationalists to the right of Putin, as well as all Ukrainian nationalists.

    This blinds him to Putin's two greatest failings:

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother's war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.

    2. Putin allows mass immigration into Russia, which is altering Russia's ethnic composition. If present birthrates and immigration rates continue, the day will come when Russians will be a minority in their own country. Think about who will control the world's 2nd largest nuclear arsenal when that happens!

    Putin shows respect for Western nationalists. His diplomatic gestures and financial support help Western nationalists like the French National Front and the Austrian Freedom Party resist mass immigration. The world should be grateful. But why doesn't he give the same respect to Ukrainian nationalists and extreme Russian nationalists, and why doesn't he end mass immigration into Russia?

    “But why doesn’t (Putin) give the same respect to Ukrainian nationalists and extreme Russian nationalists, and why doesn’t he end mass immigration into Russia?”

    With regard to Russian nationalists and mass immigration into Russia … your question reminded me of a brief YouTube video I watched some time ago of Putin in which he was asked a related question and expressed his view that Russia has basically always been, and is to this day, a multi-ethnic country … and his desire is that there be general recognition of that fact and cooperative support from and for each ethnic group in the country (something like “all for one and one for all”).

    So…as long as the various ethnic groups in Russia are united under and supportive of the Russian nation, he is OK with diversity and not adverse to immigration into Russian by additional non-Russian nationalities/ ethnicities.

    All that said, I must admit that my recollection of this video is not sharp so I am certainly open to be corrected by others more knowledgeable of Putin’s views. FWIW, my personal opinion is that the more religious and ethnic diversity there is in any particular country the weaker that country is and the more uncertain its future will be in the longer term.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavel
    From the early days of Russian state was multinational association, i recommend even some wikipedia articles about Grand Duchy of Moscow history(especially Ivan 3 rule period). For example, in the company to conquer one of the most powerful pieces of ancient Russia, the Novgorod Republic participated Tatars and Permian, and a huge number of Finno Uralic people. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shelon for more info, especially translated Russian article!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @John Gruskos
    "The Saker" uses the term "Nazi" to slander all Russian nationalists to the right of Putin, as well as all Ukrainian nationalists.

    This blinds him to Putin's two greatest failings:

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother's war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.

    2. Putin allows mass immigration into Russia, which is altering Russia's ethnic composition. If present birthrates and immigration rates continue, the day will come when Russians will be a minority in their own country. Think about who will control the world's 2nd largest nuclear arsenal when that happens!

    Putin shows respect for Western nationalists. His diplomatic gestures and financial support help Western nationalists like the French National Front and the Austrian Freedom Party resist mass immigration. The world should be grateful. But why doesn't he give the same respect to Ukrainian nationalists and extreme Russian nationalists, and why doesn't he end mass immigration into Russia?

    ” does not give the same respect to Ukranian nationalists”.

    What is wrong with you Gruskos-Bandera?

    Don’t you know the history of the Uk. nationalists?

    Gruskos, I suspect you are a helot.

    The Nazi ideology called for the enslavement of the subhuman Slavs of Poland and Ukraine. The inhabitants of the new country of Oestland, were to be reduced to helots.

    If you do not know the meaning of the word “helot”, you lack basic education.

    The modern Ukro-Nazis, by flirting with Nazi ideology, are all helots by definition. How stupid can stupid be!

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. utu says:
    @WorkingClass
    I was born a cold warrior in 1944. I turned 21 in basic training in 1965. I learned to hate Imperial Washington. I am at the core of Trump supporters. An old white vet. A card carrying deplorable. I don't have a superlative word sufficient to convey the satisfaction I feel at the electoral defeat of the imperialists. Don't bother trying to rain on my parade. I know Trump is just a man. But from my perspective, only now is the cold war finally over.

    “Don’t bother trying to rain on my parade. ”

    In my case I do my own raining. All the time.

    The only thing that is certain is that we are living in interesting times. Clearly some realignment of forces controlling the world is takin place. Whether anything good will come out of it we can’t tell. We are all at mercy of our projections driven by fear or hope.

    ***
    Once there was a Chinese farmer who worked his poor farm together with his son and their horse. When the horse ran off one day, neighbors came to say, “How unfortunate for you!” The farmer replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”
    When the horse returned, followed by a herd of wild horses, the neighbors gathered around and exclaimed, “What good luck for you!” The farmer stayed calm and replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”
    While trying to tame one of wild horses, the farmer’s son fell, and broke his leg. He had to rest up and couldn’t help with the farm chores. “How sad for you,” the neighbors cried. “Maybe yes, maybe no,” said the farmer.
    Shortly thereafter, a neighboring army threatened the farmer’s village. All the young men in the village were drafted to fight the invaders. Many died. But the farmer’s son had been left out of the fighting because of his broken leg. People said to the farmer, “What a good thing your son couldn’t fight!” “Maybe yes, maybe no,” was all the farmer said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. AP says:
    @Greg S.
    It's difficult for most of us to tell what's actually going on in Ukraine. We get virtually no news about the place and what we do get largely falls into one of the two following camps.

    We either get literal doomsday scenarios and predictions of collapse on the one hand:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-in-full-blown-collapse-deep-seated-economic-social-crisis-and-environmental-crisis/5564916

    Then you have puff pieces like this from places like the Whore Street Journal that to me seem ridiculously out of touch with reality (the author actually predicts a future flood of people from Crimea and the East into the west once they realize how great it is):

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-must-make-painful-compromises-for-peace-with-russia-1483053902

    It would nice if one of the Russian centric authors at unz attempted a summary article of what's really going on in Ukraine.

    Most of the Russia-centric authors here and posters here are biased and inclined towards the “doomsday-Ukraine-is collapsing-in-freefall-ha-ha-serves-you -right-not-to-join-Russia” narrative, which is absurd. Many of these Ukraine “experts” have never set foot in Ukraine.

    Reality is that the freefall was always regional not country-wide, and has stopped. Ukraine has stabilized and shows slight growth. This crisis was not nearly as bad as what happened in the 90s. It will be a few more years before Ukraine gets back to where it had been in 2013, but not 20 as Saakashvili hyperbolically claimed. Certain regions such as Lviv, whose drop was fairly mild, will probably be back to pre-crisis levels by 2017.

    Ukraine’s president Poroshenko has lost a lot of popularity due to little if any progress made in terms of corruption, but the people have turned to other pro-Western parties, not towards a pro-Russian party. Nor is Poroshenko widely hated, as was Yanukovich. NATO membership (which is not really on the table near to mid term) remains popular among Ukrainians. The young people killed or injured by Russian-supplied bullets have resulted in deepening nationalism in places that had not been highly nationalistic before. I know one family who in the early 2010s were kind of amused by Galician nationalists, who now refuse to speak to a relative in Moscow due to events of the last 2 years. This sort of thing is not uncommon. As some other commenter noted, Russia has lost Ukraine for a generation. So in terms of geopolitics, Ukraine’s pro-Western and anti-Russia turn is stable.

    As AK noted, a potentially dangerous rival oligarch, Kolomoysky, has been defanged. Notable fact, in terms of Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation: Kolomoysky had to try to use Ukrainian nationalist sentiment, not pro-Russian sentiment, to project his power. The pro-Russian idea is that dead in most of Donbass-less, Crimea-less Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thales the Milesian
    The Galicians? Hitler's helots? Don't make me laugh!

    People died from Russian bullets and also from EUrinal, excuse me, European bullets.
    , @Krollchem
    See the CIA fact book on the economic decline of Ukraine:
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html

    There are lots of other problems:
    (1) Ukraine is still reliant on IMF money to payoff the leaders. On the good side, Privatbank has been nationalized (Not sure how much of the depositors assets have been skimmed by Kolomoyskiy);
    (2) Ukraine is losing gas transit fees from the economic war with Russia and current underground gas storage is very low;
    (3) Someday, Ukraine will have to payoff their international creditors, IMF loans and state debt to Russia;
    (4) Energy systems are in a poor state from coal fired generation stations to nuclear power plants and even natural gas pipelines.
    etc...
    , @Thales the Milesian
    " Refuse to speak to relatives because of the events for the last 2 years"

    What events? Those precipitated by Nuland and Jihad McCain?
    , @Thales the Milesian
    'Young people died from bullets supplied by Russian.."

    I wonder whether those young people were shot while visiting Donbass as tourists.

    , @WorkingClass
    A Donbass-less, Crimea-less, non-energy transport hub Ukraine may have a bright future. I hope so. My understanding is that it has huge agricultural potential. But less this and non that is not what Hillary's State Department wanted. Hillary wanted Ukraine and the Black Sea for NATO and American energy interests. From Washington's point of view the whole Ukraine adventure was a failure except to the extent that it drains Russian resources. And the death and destruction past and present in the Donbass is attributable to Kiev. I feel for Ukrainian conscripts. I was a conscript myself. But it was my own country and not Viet Nam that drafted me. I also feel for the Donbass patriots who simply do not want to be ruled by people who hate them. I have never set foot in Ukraine or Russia. But I have participated in American imperial aggression and I know it when I see it. The Russian action was defensive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Erebus

    The big problem here will be the totally counter-productive and, frankly, idiotic anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Trump campaign.
     
    Hmm....
    I think Trump is bang on message with his pro-Russia, anti-China & Iran stance. The "Old Anglo-American Imperialists" want to re-boot the Great Game, and Trump's their man after all.

    At the present state of play, the First Imperial Imperative demands that he upset the formation of a Beijing - Tehran - Moscow axis. No way can the US allow that to mature, especially now that Ankara seems to have come adrift from its NATO moorings.

    Russia is the fulcrum on which that axis rests, and as the US can't take it on militarily they've decided to try killing it with kindness. More accurately, they're gonna make an offer they hope Russia can't resist. As I've said in another thread, Kerry may already have made that offer, and it may already have been accepted.

    I wonder what Kerry or the US can offer to Russia. Well, nothing.
    The world is changing, center of gravity has shifted somewhere in Asia.
    Look at a map. The future is russia + china + iran and a lot of asian states.
    And Europe as soon as we get rid of ours corrupt politicos.
    Already in the making.
    The Saker is just wrong on this point, there is absolutely no hate for Russia in EU people.
    Most of them are grateful to Russia for killing djihadists in Syria.
    Despite the enormous day by day propaganda from medias.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    and @Jim Christian and @CK

    I wonder what Kerry or the US can offer to Russia. Well, nothing.
     
    Oh, I think there's lots. Specifically, the US can offer to share some of its national power.
    National power is the extent to which a nation is able to get its enemies and allies to act in its, as opposed to their, interests. The US clearly has lots left, and it seems to me that it needs to make some trades to keep from eventually losing it all.

    The world is changing, center of gravity has shifted somewhere in Asia.
     
    Indeed it is, and has. In direct contrast to the Neocons, the Trump team seems to have recognized this trend and is positioning the US to influence, if not manage, its speed and trajectory.

    Rather than repeat or quote myself, I made a rather long-winded comment to a similar statement in another Saker article here:
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/neocon-panic-and-agony/#comment-1696014
    It may be worth your time.

    Much more comprehensively, Federico Pieraccini has recently written a great series of articles published by Strategic Culture on Heartland theory, world hegemony, the multipolar world and the developing Moscow-Beijing-Teheran axis.
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/authors/federico-pieraccini.html
    Pieraccini is definitely worth your time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. pelagic says:

    “Contrary to Rozanov, these russophobic “liberals” rejoice in every Russian failure and they can barely contain their joy when some tragedy befalls the Russian people which they hate and despise for supporting a “tyrant” like Putin instead of them, the self-perceived “intellectual elites” of Russia.”

    Geez, I thought self-hating white leftists were confined to the West…

    Thank you for an informative and “liberating” piece.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. @AP
    Most of the Russia-centric authors here and posters here are biased and inclined towards the "doomsday-Ukraine-is collapsing-in-freefall-ha-ha-serves-you -right-not-to-join-Russia" narrative, which is absurd. Many of these Ukraine "experts" have never set foot in Ukraine.

    Reality is that the freefall was always regional not country-wide, and has stopped. Ukraine has stabilized and shows slight growth. This crisis was not nearly as bad as what happened in the 90s. It will be a few more years before Ukraine gets back to where it had been in 2013, but not 20 as Saakashvili hyperbolically claimed. Certain regions such as Lviv, whose drop was fairly mild, will probably be back to pre-crisis levels by 2017.

    Ukraine's president Poroshenko has lost a lot of popularity due to little if any progress made in terms of corruption, but the people have turned to other pro-Western parties, not towards a pro-Russian party. Nor is Poroshenko widely hated, as was Yanukovich. NATO membership (which is not really on the table near to mid term) remains popular among Ukrainians. The young people killed or injured by Russian-supplied bullets have resulted in deepening nationalism in places that had not been highly nationalistic before. I know one family who in the early 2010s were kind of amused by Galician nationalists, who now refuse to speak to a relative in Moscow due to events of the last 2 years. This sort of thing is not uncommon. As some other commenter noted, Russia has lost Ukraine for a generation. So in terms of geopolitics, Ukraine's pro-Western and anti-Russia turn is stable.

    As AK noted, a potentially dangerous rival oligarch, Kolomoysky, has been defanged. Notable fact, in terms of Ukraine's geopolitical orientation: Kolomoysky had to try to use Ukrainian nationalist sentiment, not pro-Russian sentiment, to project his power. The pro-Russian idea is that dead in most of Donbass-less, Crimea-less Ukraine.

    The Galicians? Hitler’s helots? Don’t make me laugh!

    People died from Russian bullets and also from EUrinal, excuse me, European bullets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Seraphim says:
    @Sam J.
    "...The Nazi occupied Ukraine ... The ruling class which came to power now is falling apart, everybody is fighting everybody else and there is no other discernible policy left beyond personal enrichment and survival..."

    Let's not kid ourselves it's the Jews that overthrew the country and run the Nazis.

    The economy is falling apart because the Jews run it and like all economies the Jews run they loot everything not tied down. You can not have a modern well run economy with Jews running it. If you look at the vast transfer payments into Israel they can't even run their own economy much less anyone else's.

    You have to understand the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all and maybe not the majority but a lot. Even if I'm wrong if you assume they're a tribe of psychopaths you'll never be surprised and they make sense.

    My guess is some Spath Jew intellectual came up with the idea of pressuring Russia by overthrowing Ukraine. The side benefit would be a backdoor place to hide out if Israel was overrun after torturing their neighbors for so long. I bet this plan was hatched after the last war in Lebanon where they got their asses handed to them by Hezbollah.

    Of course it's been a big failure as the Jews abuse everyone everywhere they go. The whole 9-11 kill all their enemies plan seemed to be going fine but it's coming up a crapper too. All they are doing is the same as they did to Hezbollah. They keep killing off the weak and the leaders that are left around them are smarter, stronger and really, really pissed at the Jews. Not good for the Jews. The obviousness of building 7 being demoed is becoming harder and harder to hide. They're running out of Spath American politicians that are acceptable to guide the hapless American State. Supposedly there's just a few of us Jew wise but any time they open comments on major news sites their swamped with people naming the Jew. Eventually 9-11 will come out, as it was, as a huge Jew attack on the US. Oops. Not good.

    The reason the Jews always run into trouble is they create it for themselves. Being a parasitical type tribe is bad for your health and image.

    @it’s the Jews that overthrew the country and run the Nazis.

    That’s why Ukraine matters so much to Europe and to the US. Dnepropetrovsk, Jerusalem on the Dnieper!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Krollchem says:
    @AP
    Most of the Russia-centric authors here and posters here are biased and inclined towards the "doomsday-Ukraine-is collapsing-in-freefall-ha-ha-serves-you -right-not-to-join-Russia" narrative, which is absurd. Many of these Ukraine "experts" have never set foot in Ukraine.

    Reality is that the freefall was always regional not country-wide, and has stopped. Ukraine has stabilized and shows slight growth. This crisis was not nearly as bad as what happened in the 90s. It will be a few more years before Ukraine gets back to where it had been in 2013, but not 20 as Saakashvili hyperbolically claimed. Certain regions such as Lviv, whose drop was fairly mild, will probably be back to pre-crisis levels by 2017.

    Ukraine's president Poroshenko has lost a lot of popularity due to little if any progress made in terms of corruption, but the people have turned to other pro-Western parties, not towards a pro-Russian party. Nor is Poroshenko widely hated, as was Yanukovich. NATO membership (which is not really on the table near to mid term) remains popular among Ukrainians. The young people killed or injured by Russian-supplied bullets have resulted in deepening nationalism in places that had not been highly nationalistic before. I know one family who in the early 2010s were kind of amused by Galician nationalists, who now refuse to speak to a relative in Moscow due to events of the last 2 years. This sort of thing is not uncommon. As some other commenter noted, Russia has lost Ukraine for a generation. So in terms of geopolitics, Ukraine's pro-Western and anti-Russia turn is stable.

    As AK noted, a potentially dangerous rival oligarch, Kolomoysky, has been defanged. Notable fact, in terms of Ukraine's geopolitical orientation: Kolomoysky had to try to use Ukrainian nationalist sentiment, not pro-Russian sentiment, to project his power. The pro-Russian idea is that dead in most of Donbass-less, Crimea-less Ukraine.

    See the CIA fact book on the economic decline of Ukraine:

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html

    There are lots of other problems:
    (1) Ukraine is still reliant on IMF money to payoff the leaders. On the good side, Privatbank has been nationalized (Not sure how much of the depositors assets have been skimmed by Kolomoyskiy);
    (2) Ukraine is losing gas transit fees from the economic war with Russia and current underground gas storage is very low;
    (3) Someday, Ukraine will have to payoff their international creditors, IMF loans and state debt to Russia;
    (4) Energy systems are in a poor state from coal fired generation stations to nuclear power plants and even natural gas pipelines.
    etc…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    See the CIA fact book on the economic decline of Ukraine:

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html
     
    Which was in 2014 and 2015. Since then it has stabilized at started to slightly grow:

    http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ukraine/publication/ukraine-economic-update-fall-2016
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Yes, they recognized the dangers of communism, hence the huge numbers of volunteers from other European countries.

    No one said the National Socialists were lovable, they did offer the best opportunity to stop Stalin and his henchmen.

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’are scientifically impossible frauds.
     
    The history books are being rewritten, where ya' been, on the turnip truck?

    http://codoh.com/library/document/1906/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2724/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2833/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2947/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/3000/

    see research which demolishes the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' canard:
    'Holocaust Handbooks'
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/Holocaust-Handbooks-1min-640x360.mp4

    I noticed that you are afraid to debate at a no name calling forum, typical. See previously given links.

    You are welcome.

    “No one said the National Socialists were lovable, they did offer the best opportunity to stop Stalin and his henchmen.”

    Bang up job they did there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @AP
    Most of the Russia-centric authors here and posters here are biased and inclined towards the "doomsday-Ukraine-is collapsing-in-freefall-ha-ha-serves-you -right-not-to-join-Russia" narrative, which is absurd. Many of these Ukraine "experts" have never set foot in Ukraine.

    Reality is that the freefall was always regional not country-wide, and has stopped. Ukraine has stabilized and shows slight growth. This crisis was not nearly as bad as what happened in the 90s. It will be a few more years before Ukraine gets back to where it had been in 2013, but not 20 as Saakashvili hyperbolically claimed. Certain regions such as Lviv, whose drop was fairly mild, will probably be back to pre-crisis levels by 2017.

    Ukraine's president Poroshenko has lost a lot of popularity due to little if any progress made in terms of corruption, but the people have turned to other pro-Western parties, not towards a pro-Russian party. Nor is Poroshenko widely hated, as was Yanukovich. NATO membership (which is not really on the table near to mid term) remains popular among Ukrainians. The young people killed or injured by Russian-supplied bullets have resulted in deepening nationalism in places that had not been highly nationalistic before. I know one family who in the early 2010s were kind of amused by Galician nationalists, who now refuse to speak to a relative in Moscow due to events of the last 2 years. This sort of thing is not uncommon. As some other commenter noted, Russia has lost Ukraine for a generation. So in terms of geopolitics, Ukraine's pro-Western and anti-Russia turn is stable.

    As AK noted, a potentially dangerous rival oligarch, Kolomoysky, has been defanged. Notable fact, in terms of Ukraine's geopolitical orientation: Kolomoysky had to try to use Ukrainian nationalist sentiment, not pro-Russian sentiment, to project his power. The pro-Russian idea is that dead in most of Donbass-less, Crimea-less Ukraine.

    ” Refuse to speak to relatives because of the events for the last 2 years”

    What events? Those precipitated by Nuland and Jihad McCain?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @AP
    Most of the Russia-centric authors here and posters here are biased and inclined towards the "doomsday-Ukraine-is collapsing-in-freefall-ha-ha-serves-you -right-not-to-join-Russia" narrative, which is absurd. Many of these Ukraine "experts" have never set foot in Ukraine.

    Reality is that the freefall was always regional not country-wide, and has stopped. Ukraine has stabilized and shows slight growth. This crisis was not nearly as bad as what happened in the 90s. It will be a few more years before Ukraine gets back to where it had been in 2013, but not 20 as Saakashvili hyperbolically claimed. Certain regions such as Lviv, whose drop was fairly mild, will probably be back to pre-crisis levels by 2017.

    Ukraine's president Poroshenko has lost a lot of popularity due to little if any progress made in terms of corruption, but the people have turned to other pro-Western parties, not towards a pro-Russian party. Nor is Poroshenko widely hated, as was Yanukovich. NATO membership (which is not really on the table near to mid term) remains popular among Ukrainians. The young people killed or injured by Russian-supplied bullets have resulted in deepening nationalism in places that had not been highly nationalistic before. I know one family who in the early 2010s were kind of amused by Galician nationalists, who now refuse to speak to a relative in Moscow due to events of the last 2 years. This sort of thing is not uncommon. As some other commenter noted, Russia has lost Ukraine for a generation. So in terms of geopolitics, Ukraine's pro-Western and anti-Russia turn is stable.

    As AK noted, a potentially dangerous rival oligarch, Kolomoysky, has been defanged. Notable fact, in terms of Ukraine's geopolitical orientation: Kolomoysky had to try to use Ukrainian nationalist sentiment, not pro-Russian sentiment, to project his power. The pro-Russian idea is that dead in most of Donbass-less, Crimea-less Ukraine.

    ‘Young people died from bullets supplied by Russian..”

    I wonder whether those young people were shot while visiting Donbass as tourists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Obama says he could have won if he’d run again.

    Looks like he has Putin Envy. Putin’s been around for some time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. @Wally
    Yes, they recognized the dangers of communism, hence the huge numbers of volunteers from other European countries.

    No one said the National Socialists were lovable, they did offer the best opportunity to stop Stalin and his henchmen.

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’are scientifically impossible frauds.
     
    The history books are being rewritten, where ya' been, on the turnip truck?

    http://codoh.com/library/document/1906/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2724/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2833/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2947/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/3000/

    see research which demolishes the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' canard:
    'Holocaust Handbooks'
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/Holocaust-Handbooks-1min-640x360.mp4

    I noticed that you are afraid to debate at a no name calling forum, typical. See previously given links.

    You are welcome.

    One of Stalin’s big mistakes was, after pushing the Germans out of the USSR, not to sign a peace treaty with Germany and give Hitler all of Europe, Poland in particular.

    Evil hombre uncle Joe!

    Read More
    • Replies: @jimmyriddle
    That's a bit OTT, but expelling 10 million hard-working Germans from eastern Europe was a big mistake.

    The DDR was the Soviet Union's most loyal and useful ally in the Warsaw Pact.

    They are reliable enough that German People's Army units were sent to Angola and Ethiopia.
    , @Sean
    Guderian said that believed Hitler when in 1943 he told Guderian that Molotov's demands were what had precipitated the decision to make attack in the East a priority. As a communist Stalin was convinced the capitalist powers were required to fight each other, and he expected to be able to conquer an exhausted Western Europe after a prolonged WW1 - style stalemate. But Hitler's ultimate objective was always going to be conquering European Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @AP
    Most of the Russia-centric authors here and posters here are biased and inclined towards the "doomsday-Ukraine-is collapsing-in-freefall-ha-ha-serves-you -right-not-to-join-Russia" narrative, which is absurd. Many of these Ukraine "experts" have never set foot in Ukraine.

    Reality is that the freefall was always regional not country-wide, and has stopped. Ukraine has stabilized and shows slight growth. This crisis was not nearly as bad as what happened in the 90s. It will be a few more years before Ukraine gets back to where it had been in 2013, but not 20 as Saakashvili hyperbolically claimed. Certain regions such as Lviv, whose drop was fairly mild, will probably be back to pre-crisis levels by 2017.

    Ukraine's president Poroshenko has lost a lot of popularity due to little if any progress made in terms of corruption, but the people have turned to other pro-Western parties, not towards a pro-Russian party. Nor is Poroshenko widely hated, as was Yanukovich. NATO membership (which is not really on the table near to mid term) remains popular among Ukrainians. The young people killed or injured by Russian-supplied bullets have resulted in deepening nationalism in places that had not been highly nationalistic before. I know one family who in the early 2010s were kind of amused by Galician nationalists, who now refuse to speak to a relative in Moscow due to events of the last 2 years. This sort of thing is not uncommon. As some other commenter noted, Russia has lost Ukraine for a generation. So in terms of geopolitics, Ukraine's pro-Western and anti-Russia turn is stable.

    As AK noted, a potentially dangerous rival oligarch, Kolomoysky, has been defanged. Notable fact, in terms of Ukraine's geopolitical orientation: Kolomoysky had to try to use Ukrainian nationalist sentiment, not pro-Russian sentiment, to project his power. The pro-Russian idea is that dead in most of Donbass-less, Crimea-less Ukraine.

    A Donbass-less, Crimea-less, non-energy transport hub Ukraine may have a bright future. I hope so. My understanding is that it has huge agricultural potential. But less this and non that is not what Hillary’s State Department wanted. Hillary wanted Ukraine and the Black Sea for NATO and American energy interests. From Washington’s point of view the whole Ukraine adventure was a failure except to the extent that it drains Russian resources. And the death and destruction past and present in the Donbass is attributable to Kiev. I feel for Ukrainian conscripts. I was a conscript myself. But it was my own country and not Viet Nam that drafted me. I also feel for the Donbass patriots who simply do not want to be ruled by people who hate them. I have never set foot in Ukraine or Russia. But I have participated in American imperial aggression and I know it when I see it. The Russian action was defensive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    A Donbass-less, Crimea-less, non-energy transport hub Ukraine may have a bright future. I hope so. My understanding is that it has huge agricultural potential.
     
    The two bright spots are agriculture and IT. There is a lot of IT outsourcing going on in Ukraine ($2.3 billion in exports in 2014, $2.5 billion in 2015 despite the war).

    Ukraine's far west, with easy access to the EU, is seeing a lot of light industrial plants (making things like electric cables for cars) expanding and opening. Examples:

    http://www.aeronet.com/corporate/news/news-story.aspx?ID=102

    A lot of these expansions will be coming online in 2017.

    Ukraine has a lot of problems too (crumbling infrastructure, looming loss of gas transit fees once Russia's alternative methods come online) but the picture is more mixed than the absurd "Ukraine is falling apart" narrative suggests.

    Hillary wanted Ukraine and the Black Sea for NATO and American energy interests.
     
    Probably. Also, to weaken Russia and to expand the West. This does not, of course, mean that Hillary and the Americans "made" the Ukrainian revolution - no more than did French support for the American Revolution (far more substantial than American support for Kiev' s new government) make the American Revolution simply a French operation designed to weaken Britain.

    And the death and destruction past and present in the Donbass is attributable to Kiev.
     
    Without Russian support for the rebels, calibrated to maintain the stalemate, the rebellion would have ended long ago. Russia could have either invaded and annexed the territory or done nothing, allowing the Ukrainian government to establish control over its own territory (making Donbas like Kharkiv). Either of these would have minimized the bloodshed. Russia instead chose actions that were the deadliest - not only to Ukrainian conscripts but also for Donbas residents. It did so for very understandable and logical reasons for the Russian state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @CK
    "So… erm, what next?"
    One Road One Belt passing through Damascus and Beirut. A much more peaceful world.

    Exactly.

    This is why the west was so adamant about controlling Syria in the first place. It’s about controlling the flow of gas, products, and finance out of Western bottlenecks.

    One belt one road does this and would be very difficult without Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Agent76 says:

    January 01, 2017 Trump Praises Putin, Obama Sanctions, Veiled Political Stunt on Behalf of “Team Hillary”

    In response to Obama’s new sanctions on Russia, Trump praised how Putin handled his action, tweeting “(g)reat move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart.”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-praises-putin-obama-sanctions-veiled-political-stunt-on-behalf-of-team-hillary/5565792

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. @Cyrano
    This for me opens a completely new perspective for looking at the world. Thanks man. So according to you the Germans actually saved (or tried) to save the world from the evil of communism. What a terrible mistake US has done allying themselves with those godless communist when they could have been on the right side - literary and figuratively speaking - and ally themselves to those cuddly and lovable Nazis. I wish Roosevelt had a wise man like you as advisor. What a terrible mistake that man has made. I think your statement should be used to rewrite the history books and cast a new light on the Nazis - the true saviors of the world. Thanks man, you opened up my eyes.

    Since winners of wars write the history of wars, it’s very necessary to remember that when it comes to Hitler and Nazism, virtually everything most people think they know about either is a product of Jewish propaganda.

    Read More
    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Scary people those Jews. Their propaganda is so powerful that the Germans even in their own country are not allowed to tell the “truth” about the Nazis and Hitler, because if they do, Israel might invade them and punish them for not toeing the line. That thing about winners writing history, how come US is allowed to write it when they haven’t won any war in quite some time. It looks like there are always exceptions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    All the above contempt for Europe is really pathetic given that Putin’s daughters still live in Holland and Russia needs Europe to purchase its gas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. KA says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Ukraine can be won in Syria. Everything depends on the outcome of the larger contest with the USA.
     
    Okay, let's ultra-optimistically assume that Assad takes back control of the entirety of Syria within the next two years - outright retaking Idlib and Deir ez-Zor, and reaching some kind of power sharing agreement with Rojava. The Turks pull out. Russia retains Khmeimim. The Western powers suddenly rediscover Assad's legitimacy and he once again becomes a regular visitor to Paris (perhaps even more so than to Moscow, as before 2011).

    So... erm, what next?

    A defeated Syria ( by ISIS) is more dangerous to Russia than a victorious ( by Russia ) Syria is more positive or helpful . Russia has saved its southern flank for good Also I do not believe Assad will veer round to West Until 2013 Syria was doing exactly that , because it had nowhere else to turn to and the West was looking at its corpse from 2002 . Do you think Gaddafi Assad or Iran would have succumbed to the pressure or would have listened to UK-US if today’s Russia was there standing tall in 2003 or
    2011?
    Let’s not forget the prophetic word of Wolfowitz , uttered in 1991 – While Russia is down and weak, we need to break the backbones of those countries and change their regimes who are anti American. ” Gulf war taught us that nobody would question American military intervention in the Middle East “

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    US says other nations shouldn’t be making more nukes.

    OK, but US should share its nukes with nations that don’t have them.

    It’s more fair that way. How about US giving 5% of its nukes to Mexico, 5% of its nukes to Brazil, 5% of its nukes to Philippines, and etc.

    That way, more nukes won’t be made, but nukes will be shared more equitably for the sake of world peace. Why should two nations, US and Russia, hog most nuclear arsenal?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. AP says:
    @Krollchem
    See the CIA fact book on the economic decline of Ukraine:
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html

    There are lots of other problems:
    (1) Ukraine is still reliant on IMF money to payoff the leaders. On the good side, Privatbank has been nationalized (Not sure how much of the depositors assets have been skimmed by Kolomoyskiy);
    (2) Ukraine is losing gas transit fees from the economic war with Russia and current underground gas storage is very low;
    (3) Someday, Ukraine will have to payoff their international creditors, IMF loans and state debt to Russia;
    (4) Energy systems are in a poor state from coal fired generation stations to nuclear power plants and even natural gas pipelines.
    etc...

    See the CIA fact book on the economic decline of Ukraine:

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html

    Which was in 2014 and 2015. Since then it has stabilized at started to slightly grow:

    http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ukraine/publication/ukraine-economic-update-fall-2016

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. AP says:
    @WorkingClass
    A Donbass-less, Crimea-less, non-energy transport hub Ukraine may have a bright future. I hope so. My understanding is that it has huge agricultural potential. But less this and non that is not what Hillary's State Department wanted. Hillary wanted Ukraine and the Black Sea for NATO and American energy interests. From Washington's point of view the whole Ukraine adventure was a failure except to the extent that it drains Russian resources. And the death and destruction past and present in the Donbass is attributable to Kiev. I feel for Ukrainian conscripts. I was a conscript myself. But it was my own country and not Viet Nam that drafted me. I also feel for the Donbass patriots who simply do not want to be ruled by people who hate them. I have never set foot in Ukraine or Russia. But I have participated in American imperial aggression and I know it when I see it. The Russian action was defensive.

    A Donbass-less, Crimea-less, non-energy transport hub Ukraine may have a bright future. I hope so. My understanding is that it has huge agricultural potential.

    The two bright spots are agriculture and IT. There is a lot of IT outsourcing going on in Ukraine ($2.3 billion in exports in 2014, $2.5 billion in 2015 despite the war).

    Ukraine’s far west, with easy access to the EU, is seeing a lot of light industrial plants (making things like electric cables for cars) expanding and opening. Examples:

    http://www.aeronet.com/corporate/news/news-story.aspx?ID=102

    A lot of these expansions will be coming online in 2017.

    Ukraine has a lot of problems too (crumbling infrastructure, looming loss of gas transit fees once Russia’s alternative methods come online) but the picture is more mixed than the absurd “Ukraine is falling apart” narrative suggests.

    Hillary wanted Ukraine and the Black Sea for NATO and American energy interests.

    Probably. Also, to weaken Russia and to expand the West. This does not, of course, mean that Hillary and the Americans “made” the Ukrainian revolution – no more than did French support for the American Revolution (far more substantial than American support for Kiev’ s new government) make the American Revolution simply a French operation designed to weaken Britain.

    And the death and destruction past and present in the Donbass is attributable to Kiev.

    Without Russian support for the rebels, calibrated to maintain the stalemate, the rebellion would have ended long ago. Russia could have either invaded and annexed the territory or done nothing, allowing the Ukrainian government to establish control over its own territory (making Donbas like Kharkiv). Either of these would have minimized the bloodshed. Russia instead chose actions that were the deadliest – not only to Ukrainian conscripts but also for Donbas residents. It did so for very understandable and logical reasons for the Russian state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    You make some fair points. I agree about agriculture, IT not so much - it cannot be a panacea for everybody and every country, that is mathematically impossible.

    But look at the overall facts: last year Ukraine's GNP was $90 billion. $90 billion for 40-44 million people - that is $2,000 GNP per person, on a level of Senegal or Nepal. The effective purchasing power is 2-3 times higher, but that is still very low. E.g. Russia or Poland are in around $20-25,000 per capita.

    This with $15 billion in IMF loans and other financial aid from EU-US-Canada. And with effectively postponing debt payments by a few years. And with still receiving almost $3 billion in transit fees and around $3-5 billion in remittances from 3-4 million Ukrainians who are working in Russia, and some in EU.

    In comparison, in 2013 under Yanukovitch (and with full trade with Russia), Ukraine was growing and had incomes only about one half of its neighbors. It has been a dramatic - almost a catastrophic drop. And there are very few ways out of it - except maybe in agriculture. Actually if current trends continue, Ukraine will shrink further, be poorer, more people will leave. Some consequences - like losing transit fees, dismantling Russian market oriented producers, banking crisis - will hit even harder in the next year or two.

    Comparing 'revolutions' is impossible - actually comparing most things is quite silly most of the time. Maidan was short, localized in Kiev and Western Ukraine, and had completely different character than US, French or Russian revolutions. It had a very strong Ukrainian component (and strong Western support), but it was not a majority movement - almost no revolution ever is. Most people outside of Kiev stayed passive, and many who participated had different goals - there were communists and anarchists mixed with neo-Nazis and dreamy students. As all revolutions, it was a mess.

    The point is that revolutions have to work - they have to deliver better life, and Maidan has not. Demonstrably it has made most lives worse. I think it was because Maidan was both desperate and naive, it was a "f...ck you" moment combined with some really infantile wishful thinking - and West encouraged it.

    But failure is a failure, we have to face it. Ukraine will get worse and it will probably explode again - unless EU allows most younger people to move to EU.

    Russia's role has been rather passive and self-serving and by definition - as with all foreign players - it has made it worse. But what did you expect? If you stage a revolution against an "enemy" - in this case Russia and Russian oriented population of Ukraine, at east 1/4 to 1/3 - they will make your life miserable. If Maidan success depended on Russia's goodwill it was doomed from day one. And now for the consequences....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Cyrano says:
    @Wally
    Yes, they recognized the dangers of communism, hence the huge numbers of volunteers from other European countries.

    No one said the National Socialists were lovable, they did offer the best opportunity to stop Stalin and his henchmen.

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’are scientifically impossible frauds.
     
    The history books are being rewritten, where ya' been, on the turnip truck?

    http://codoh.com/library/document/1906/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2724/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2833/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/2947/
    http://codoh.com/library/document/3000/

    see research which demolishes the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' canard:
    'Holocaust Handbooks'
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/Holocaust-Handbooks-1min-640x360.mp4

    I noticed that you are afraid to debate at a no name calling forum, typical. See previously given links.

    You are welcome.

    Stalin and his henchmen didn’t need to be stopped at all, they were not going anywhere. Socialism in one country? Ever heard of that? And your beloved Nazis – they called themselves National Socialists.

    Ever wondered why? They could have called themselves National Democrats, or National Capitalists or something similar. They choose socialism because they recognized its appeal for the masses. Don’t try to give them a human face, freedom fighters against communism or any such nonsense.

    And by the way, everything you think you know about Communism and USSR is just pure propaganda. And you know why nobody ever bothered to tell you the truth? Because they were fairly certain that you are not smart enough to figure it out for yourself.

    Debating with you is pointless; anybody who denies that the holocaust happened has issues that no debate can resolve. So you go on, blame Israel and the Jews for everything, if facing the reality is too painful for you, but if you are really looking for someone who actually deserves the blame – it’s the people who let you play make-believe once every 4 years that your opinion is really worth something.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Cyrano says:
    @Carroll Price
    Since winners of wars write the history of wars, it's very necessary to remember that when it comes to Hitler and Nazism, virtually everything most people think they know about either is a product of Jewish propaganda.

    Scary people those Jews. Their propaganda is so powerful that the Germans even in their own country are not allowed to tell the “truth” about the Nazis and Hitler, because if they do, Israel might invade them and punish them for not toeing the line. That thing about winners writing history, how come US is allowed to write it when they haven’t won any war in quite some time. It looks like there are always exceptions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Thales the Milesian
    One of Stalin's big mistakes was, after pushing the Germans out of the USSR, not to sign a peace treaty with Germany and give Hitler all of Europe, Poland in particular.

    Evil hombre uncle Joe!

    That’s a bit OTT, but expelling 10 million hard-working Germans from eastern Europe was a big mistake.

    The DDR was the Soviet Union’s most loyal and useful ally in the Warsaw Pact.

    They are reliable enough that German People’s Army units were sent to Angola and Ethiopia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Jon0815 says:
    @John Gruskos
    "The Saker" uses the term "Nazi" to slander all Russian nationalists to the right of Putin, as well as all Ukrainian nationalists.

    This blinds him to Putin's two greatest failings:

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother's war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.

    2. Putin allows mass immigration into Russia, which is altering Russia's ethnic composition. If present birthrates and immigration rates continue, the day will come when Russians will be a minority in their own country. Think about who will control the world's 2nd largest nuclear arsenal when that happens!

    Putin shows respect for Western nationalists. His diplomatic gestures and financial support help Western nationalists like the French National Front and the Austrian Freedom Party resist mass immigration. The world should be grateful. But why doesn't he give the same respect to Ukrainian nationalists and extreme Russian nationalists, and why doesn't he end mass immigration into Russia?

    This blinds him to Putin’s two greatest failings:

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother’s war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.

    Putin didn’t start Ukraine’s civil war, and his mistake in Donbass was doing too little to support the separatists, not too much. He should have allowed them to retake Mariupol, or intervened sooner to prevent it from being captured by Kiev in the first place (an earlier intervention would also have prevented the Malaysian jet disaster).

    It’s absurd how some white nationalist types have decided they should support Ukraine over the D/LNR and Russia on the grounds that Ukraine is more white, even though a) the D/LNR are just as white as Ukraine, and b) Ukraine is backed by all the West’s open-borders, anti-white elites.

    2. Putin allows mass immigration into Russia, which is altering Russia’s ethnic composition. If present birthrates and immigration rates continue, the day will come when Russians will be a minority in their own country. Think about who will control the world’s 2nd largest nuclear arsenal when that happens!

    Putin does allow too much immigration (although the conditions to obtain a work permit have gotten much tougher in the past year). But it probably isn’t having much long-term effect on Russia’s demography, since Central Asian migrants are only about 3% of Russia’s population (another 1% are permanent residents of Central Asian ancestry), and most of those are temporary workers who will eventually return to Central Asia without starting families in Russia.

    As for birth rates, unfortunately Russia doesn’t break down birth or fertility statistics by ethnicity or religion. However, in 2015 Russia’s majority-Muslim regions had a fertility of 2.0 children per woman (and trending down) while the non-Muslim regions had a fertility of 1.76 (and trending up). Not a big difference. So Russia (currently about 11% Muslim, or 14% including guest workers and illegals) probably isn’t turning majority-Muslim anytime this century, if ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [some white nationalist types have decided they should support Ukraine over the D/LNR and Russia]

    Those types are predominantly feds.
    , @Thirdeye
    If white nationalists looked at the situation objectively, their Whitopia would be Poland. None of those pesky Jews who still live in the Ukraine. I don't know if the eastern Ukraine is "as white" as the western Ukraine; the industrialization of the eastern Ukraine brought a fair number of migrants from other SSRs as well as from other parts of the Ukraine. One of the military superstars of the DPR/LPR is an ethnic Georgian whose family settled in the Donbas.

    Putin's arms-length stance towards the Donbas rebellion is understandable in the light of two things: the economic burden of supporting breakaway territories and the influence of some neo-Czarist wannabe warlords such as Igor Girkin (Strelkov) in the Novorussia movement. Given the economic state of the Ukraine, the more territory you have aligned with you, the bigger the economic burden. A neo-Czarist movement with a power base in a big chunk of the Ukraine was potentially de-stabilizing to Russia proper. Putin had to be sure that the Donbas republics weren't going to become the tail that wags the dog before lending support. Supporting a hard separatist movement also would also have alienated some non-separatist oligarchs based in the eastern Ukraine (Akhmetov and Khodakovsky) whose financial support for the Donbas republics was not insignificant. Under the arrangement that shut out the neo-Czarists, Zacharchenko, Khodakovsky's guy, was installed at the head of the DPR. Shortly thereafter, the aid convoys started arriving and the Donbas republics had the wherewithall to gain some territory.

    In retrospect, the DPR should have been allowed to take Mariupol. It was horse-traded away under the Minsk I agreement under the stipulation that Kiev would give up Donetsk airport. They didn't, at least until they were driven out of the airport and Debaltseve a few months later.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Agent76 says:

    Jan 1, 2017 Putin’s 2017 NYE Address: Full Speech

    In his annual New Year’s Eve address to the nation, traditionally held a couple of minutes before the Kremlin bells strike midnight, President Putin talks about the year that’s been, as well as hopes for the future. He mentions the challenging year that was 2016, as well as the good things that came out of it. Make sure you check out Putin’s very first address to the nation in 1999, where it all began, aptly linked at the end of this video “- “To the new Russian Century – Putin 1999″

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Beckow says:
    @AP

    A Donbass-less, Crimea-less, non-energy transport hub Ukraine may have a bright future. I hope so. My understanding is that it has huge agricultural potential.
     
    The two bright spots are agriculture and IT. There is a lot of IT outsourcing going on in Ukraine ($2.3 billion in exports in 2014, $2.5 billion in 2015 despite the war).

    Ukraine's far west, with easy access to the EU, is seeing a lot of light industrial plants (making things like electric cables for cars) expanding and opening. Examples:

    http://www.aeronet.com/corporate/news/news-story.aspx?ID=102

    A lot of these expansions will be coming online in 2017.

    Ukraine has a lot of problems too (crumbling infrastructure, looming loss of gas transit fees once Russia's alternative methods come online) but the picture is more mixed than the absurd "Ukraine is falling apart" narrative suggests.

    Hillary wanted Ukraine and the Black Sea for NATO and American energy interests.
     
    Probably. Also, to weaken Russia and to expand the West. This does not, of course, mean that Hillary and the Americans "made" the Ukrainian revolution - no more than did French support for the American Revolution (far more substantial than American support for Kiev' s new government) make the American Revolution simply a French operation designed to weaken Britain.

    And the death and destruction past and present in the Donbass is attributable to Kiev.
     
    Without Russian support for the rebels, calibrated to maintain the stalemate, the rebellion would have ended long ago. Russia could have either invaded and annexed the territory or done nothing, allowing the Ukrainian government to establish control over its own territory (making Donbas like Kharkiv). Either of these would have minimized the bloodshed. Russia instead chose actions that were the deadliest - not only to Ukrainian conscripts but also for Donbas residents. It did so for very understandable and logical reasons for the Russian state.

    You make some fair points. I agree about agriculture, IT not so much – it cannot be a panacea for everybody and every country, that is mathematically impossible.

    But look at the overall facts: last year Ukraine’s GNP was $90 billion. $90 billion for 40-44 million people – that is $2,000 GNP per person, on a level of Senegal or Nepal. The effective purchasing power is 2-3 times higher, but that is still very low. E.g. Russia or Poland are in around $20-25,000 per capita.

    This with $15 billion in IMF loans and other financial aid from EU-US-Canada. And with effectively postponing debt payments by a few years. And with still receiving almost $3 billion in transit fees and around $3-5 billion in remittances from 3-4 million Ukrainians who are working in Russia, and some in EU.

    In comparison, in 2013 under Yanukovitch (and with full trade with Russia), Ukraine was growing and had incomes only about one half of its neighbors. It has been a dramatic – almost a catastrophic drop. And there are very few ways out of it – except maybe in agriculture. Actually if current trends continue, Ukraine will shrink further, be poorer, more people will leave. Some consequences – like losing transit fees, dismantling Russian market oriented producers, banking crisis – will hit even harder in the next year or two.

    Comparing ‘revolutions’ is impossible – actually comparing most things is quite silly most of the time. Maidan was short, localized in Kiev and Western Ukraine, and had completely different character than US, French or Russian revolutions. It had a very strong Ukrainian component (and strong Western support), but it was not a majority movement – almost no revolution ever is. Most people outside of Kiev stayed passive, and many who participated had different goals – there were communists and anarchists mixed with neo-Nazis and dreamy students. As all revolutions, it was a mess.

    The point is that revolutions have to work – they have to deliver better life, and Maidan has not. Demonstrably it has made most lives worse. I think it was because Maidan was both desperate and naive, it was a “f…ck you” moment combined with some really infantile wishful thinking – and West encouraged it.

    But failure is a failure, we have to face it. Ukraine will get worse and it will probably explode again – unless EU allows most younger people to move to EU.

    Russia’s role has been rather passive and self-serving and by definition – as with all foreign players – it has made it worse. But what did you expect? If you stage a revolution against an “enemy” – in this case Russia and Russian oriented population of Ukraine, at east 1/4 to 1/3 – they will make your life miserable. If Maidan success depended on Russia’s goodwill it was doomed from day one. And now for the consequences….

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    You make some fair points. I agree about agriculture, IT not so much – it cannot be a panacea for everybody and every country, that is mathematically impossible
     
    It cannot, but it is a growing and successful component of Ukraine's economy.

    But look at the overall facts: last year Ukraine’s GNP was $90 billion. $90 billion for 40-44 million people – that is $2,000 GNP per person, on a level of Senegal or Nepal. The effective purchasing power is 2-3 times higher, but that is still very low. E.g. Russia or Poland are in around $20-25,000 per capita.
     
    2015 was indeed Ukraine's low point (actual figure is $90.6 billion). Figures will be slightly better for 2016. In 2015, Senegal and Nepal had nominal per capita GNPs in the $900-$700 range, less than half $2,000 per capita.

    Ukraine has about 41 million people, so its nominal per capita GDP is about $2,200.

    To put in perspective - Ukraine's GDP had been $86.14 billion in 2005. Its low point in the year 2000 was $31 billion.* So despite the crash Ukraine's economy is still about three times larger than it had been after the disastrous 90s while having a significantly smaller population. It's getting by.


    In comparison, in 2013 under Yanukovitch (and with full trade with Russia), Ukraine was growing and had incomes only about one half of its neighbors
     
    Under Yanukovich Ukraine's economy grew 5.2% in 2011, .2% in 2012 and 1.9% in 2013 (it had grown 4.2% the year before he came to power, after a 14.8% drop in 2009). Ukrainians weren't willing to live under a would-be despot linked to Russia and separated from their European brothers to West for the sake of that kind of performance.

    Comparing ‘revolutions’ is impossible – actually comparing most things is quite silly most of the time. Maidan was short, localized in Kiev and Western Ukraine, and had completely different character than US, French or Russian revolutions. It had a very strong Ukrainian component (and strong Western support), but it was not a majority movement – almost no revolution ever is.
     
    Correct. Polls in February, prior to Yanukovich's overthrow, gave Maidan support at 41% vs. Yanukovich support at 25%. Central Ukraine, where the capital is located, the figures were 51% vs. 10%, respectively. In Western Ukraine it was 90% vs. 2%. Considering these numbers and Ukraine's ethnic breakdown by region, the majority of ethnic Ukrainians supported the Maidan revolution. They were essentially taking their country back from an ethnic Russian-Belarusian President, and a Prime Minister who was a Russian immigrant.

    The traditional estimate for the American Revolution, based on John Adams' estimate, was that the Patriots had about 30% support, with a similar support for the Tories, with the latter position being more popular among urban less militant people (New York was a Loyalist city). Since then this had been revised to about 40% Patriot vs. 20% Tory support - ratios similar to those in Ukraine.

    But the bottom line is that despite Western support this was a native movement.


    The point is that revolutions have to work – they have to deliver better life, and Maidan has not. Demonstrably it has made most lives worse.
     
    The same could be said of the collapse of communism all over eastern Europe for several years. Global conditions are quite different now than they had been then, of course.

    Ukraine will get worse
     
    It's economy grew in 2016 and is projected to do so for the next few years.

    * Keep in mind, for these figures Ukraine included Crimea and Donbas so per capita the numbers were even smaller, relative to current figures

    , @AP
    Here is a breakdown of Ukraine's drop in GRP (by oblast) for the two years following the Maidan revolution:

    http://i.imgur.com/XSMQWDW.png

    While in those two years the country's overall GDP declined almost 16%, this figure is pushed upward by the Donbas outlier (over 60% drop - a real collapse). A few of the agricultural regions probably returned to their pre-Revolutionary GRP in 2016, as will a few more regions in 2017.

    Again, the idea that Ukraine is in an ongoing economic freefall is absurd.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. 5371 says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    You should check Chinese exponentially growing debt problem... You also should know than unlike Russia, Chinese times of troubles last centuries, not decades.
    China is still not on same level as Russia in many things science and military included.

    A defender of USSR economics should not repeat the bankster propaganda that state guidance for an economy leads to insurmountable debt problems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. 5371 says:
    @Jon0815

    This blinds him to Putin’s two greatest failings:

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother’s war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.
     

    Putin didn't start Ukraine's civil war, and his mistake in Donbass was doing too little to support the separatists, not too much. He should have allowed them to retake Mariupol, or intervened sooner to prevent it from being captured by Kiev in the first place (an earlier intervention would also have prevented the Malaysian jet disaster).

    It's absurd how some white nationalist types have decided they should support Ukraine over the D/LNR and Russia on the grounds that Ukraine is more white, even though a) the D/LNR are just as white as Ukraine, and b) Ukraine is backed by all the West's open-borders, anti-white elites.


    2. Putin allows mass immigration into Russia, which is altering Russia’s ethnic composition. If present birthrates and immigration rates continue, the day will come when Russians will be a minority in their own country. Think about who will control the world’s 2nd largest nuclear arsenal when that happens!
     
    Putin does allow too much immigration (although the conditions to obtain a work permit have gotten much tougher in the past year). But it probably isn't having much long-term effect on Russia's demography, since Central Asian migrants are only about 3% of Russia's population (another 1% are permanent residents of Central Asian ancestry), and most of those are temporary workers who will eventually return to Central Asia without starting families in Russia.

    As for birth rates, unfortunately Russia doesn't break down birth or fertility statistics by ethnicity or religion. However, in 2015 Russia's majority-Muslim regions had a fertility of 2.0 children per woman (and trending down) while the non-Muslim regions had a fertility of 1.76 (and trending up). Not a big difference. So Russia (currently about 11% Muslim, or 14% including guest workers and illegals) probably isn't turning majority-Muslim anytime this century, if ever.

    [some white nationalist types have decided they should support Ukraine over the D/LNR and Russia]

    Those types are predominantly feds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. AP says:
    @Beckow
    You make some fair points. I agree about agriculture, IT not so much - it cannot be a panacea for everybody and every country, that is mathematically impossible.

    But look at the overall facts: last year Ukraine's GNP was $90 billion. $90 billion for 40-44 million people - that is $2,000 GNP per person, on a level of Senegal or Nepal. The effective purchasing power is 2-3 times higher, but that is still very low. E.g. Russia or Poland are in around $20-25,000 per capita.

    This with $15 billion in IMF loans and other financial aid from EU-US-Canada. And with effectively postponing debt payments by a few years. And with still receiving almost $3 billion in transit fees and around $3-5 billion in remittances from 3-4 million Ukrainians who are working in Russia, and some in EU.

    In comparison, in 2013 under Yanukovitch (and with full trade with Russia), Ukraine was growing and had incomes only about one half of its neighbors. It has been a dramatic - almost a catastrophic drop. And there are very few ways out of it - except maybe in agriculture. Actually if current trends continue, Ukraine will shrink further, be poorer, more people will leave. Some consequences - like losing transit fees, dismantling Russian market oriented producers, banking crisis - will hit even harder in the next year or two.

    Comparing 'revolutions' is impossible - actually comparing most things is quite silly most of the time. Maidan was short, localized in Kiev and Western Ukraine, and had completely different character than US, French or Russian revolutions. It had a very strong Ukrainian component (and strong Western support), but it was not a majority movement - almost no revolution ever is. Most people outside of Kiev stayed passive, and many who participated had different goals - there were communists and anarchists mixed with neo-Nazis and dreamy students. As all revolutions, it was a mess.

    The point is that revolutions have to work - they have to deliver better life, and Maidan has not. Demonstrably it has made most lives worse. I think it was because Maidan was both desperate and naive, it was a "f...ck you" moment combined with some really infantile wishful thinking - and West encouraged it.

    But failure is a failure, we have to face it. Ukraine will get worse and it will probably explode again - unless EU allows most younger people to move to EU.

    Russia's role has been rather passive and self-serving and by definition - as with all foreign players - it has made it worse. But what did you expect? If you stage a revolution against an "enemy" - in this case Russia and Russian oriented population of Ukraine, at east 1/4 to 1/3 - they will make your life miserable. If Maidan success depended on Russia's goodwill it was doomed from day one. And now for the consequences....

    You make some fair points. I agree about agriculture, IT not so much – it cannot be a panacea for everybody and every country, that is mathematically impossible

    It cannot, but it is a growing and successful component of Ukraine’s economy.

    But look at the overall facts: last year Ukraine’s GNP was $90 billion. $90 billion for 40-44 million people – that is $2,000 GNP per person, on a level of Senegal or Nepal. The effective purchasing power is 2-3 times higher, but that is still very low. E.g. Russia or Poland are in around $20-25,000 per capita.

    2015 was indeed Ukraine’s low point (actual figure is $90.6 billion). Figures will be slightly better for 2016. In 2015, Senegal and Nepal had nominal per capita GNPs in the $900-$700 range, less than half $2,000 per capita.

    Ukraine has about 41 million people, so its nominal per capita GDP is about $2,200.

    To put in perspective – Ukraine’s GDP had been $86.14 billion in 2005. Its low point in the year 2000 was $31 billion.* So despite the crash Ukraine’s economy is still about three times larger than it had been after the disastrous 90s while having a significantly smaller population. It’s getting by.

    In comparison, in 2013 under Yanukovitch (and with full trade with Russia), Ukraine was growing and had incomes only about one half of its neighbors

    Under Yanukovich Ukraine’s economy grew 5.2% in 2011, .2% in 2012 and 1.9% in 2013 (it had grown 4.2% the year before he came to power, after a 14.8% drop in 2009). Ukrainians weren’t willing to live under a would-be despot linked to Russia and separated from their European brothers to West for the sake of that kind of performance.

    Comparing ‘revolutions’ is impossible – actually comparing most things is quite silly most of the time. Maidan was short, localized in Kiev and Western Ukraine, and had completely different character than US, French or Russian revolutions. It had a very strong Ukrainian component (and strong Western support), but it was not a majority movement – almost no revolution ever is.

    Correct. Polls in February, prior to Yanukovich’s overthrow, gave Maidan support at 41% vs. Yanukovich support at 25%. Central Ukraine, where the capital is located, the figures were 51% vs. 10%, respectively. In Western Ukraine it was 90% vs. 2%. Considering these numbers and Ukraine’s ethnic breakdown by region, the majority of ethnic Ukrainians supported the Maidan revolution. They were essentially taking their country back from an ethnic Russian-Belarusian President, and a Prime Minister who was a Russian immigrant.

    The traditional estimate for the American Revolution, based on John Adams’ estimate, was that the Patriots had about 30% support, with a similar support for the Tories, with the latter position being more popular among urban less militant people (New York was a Loyalist city). Since then this had been revised to about 40% Patriot vs. 20% Tory support – ratios similar to those in Ukraine.

    But the bottom line is that despite Western support this was a native movement.

    The point is that revolutions have to work – they have to deliver better life, and Maidan has not. Demonstrably it has made most lives worse.

    The same could be said of the collapse of communism all over eastern Europe for several years. Global conditions are quite different now than they had been then, of course.

    Ukraine will get worse

    It’s economy grew in 2016 and is projected to do so for the next few years.

    * Keep in mind, for these figures Ukraine included Crimea and Donbas so per capita the numbers were even smaller, relative to current figures

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Sean says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    You should check Chinese exponentially growing debt problem... You also should know than unlike Russia, Chinese times of troubles last centuries, not decades.
    China is still not on same level as Russia in many things science and military included.

    The same people shorting China previously forecast melt down for Japan, and they have learned nothing*. But the rest of the world, including China, has learned. from the Japanese, who seem to be buying their debt back with the apparent end game of CANCELING it. So don’t get excited over China’s exponentially growing book entries, because China’s productive capacity is hear to stay. Moreover, intelligent Chinese are associatively mating like never before. They will swarm out of their breeding grounds and set to work making China number one. China needs to sell in the West (for now at least they don’t have the home market) . Trump will go green to destroy any idea the Russian have of getting in bed with China. Russia (which has already tried to inhibit fracking though promoting environmental movements in Europe) will see that he hold all the cards.

    Russia has vast numbers of tactical nukes that can only be there for fear of fighting China as it already is There is no reason to think its economy will go pear shaped. China is Japan plus times 10 unless something is done . The US has to discipline Russia, and then confront China with an alliance.

    *The loudest is Texican Kyle Bass, the fellow who said “xenophobic” Japan would collapse from lack of immigrants. His brain has likely atrophied from his hobby of free-dive spear fishing, as happens to oxygenless mountaineers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. AP says:
    @Beckow
    You make some fair points. I agree about agriculture, IT not so much - it cannot be a panacea for everybody and every country, that is mathematically impossible.

    But look at the overall facts: last year Ukraine's GNP was $90 billion. $90 billion for 40-44 million people - that is $2,000 GNP per person, on a level of Senegal or Nepal. The effective purchasing power is 2-3 times higher, but that is still very low. E.g. Russia or Poland are in around $20-25,000 per capita.

    This with $15 billion in IMF loans and other financial aid from EU-US-Canada. And with effectively postponing debt payments by a few years. And with still receiving almost $3 billion in transit fees and around $3-5 billion in remittances from 3-4 million Ukrainians who are working in Russia, and some in EU.

    In comparison, in 2013 under Yanukovitch (and with full trade with Russia), Ukraine was growing and had incomes only about one half of its neighbors. It has been a dramatic - almost a catastrophic drop. And there are very few ways out of it - except maybe in agriculture. Actually if current trends continue, Ukraine will shrink further, be poorer, more people will leave. Some consequences - like losing transit fees, dismantling Russian market oriented producers, banking crisis - will hit even harder in the next year or two.

    Comparing 'revolutions' is impossible - actually comparing most things is quite silly most of the time. Maidan was short, localized in Kiev and Western Ukraine, and had completely different character than US, French or Russian revolutions. It had a very strong Ukrainian component (and strong Western support), but it was not a majority movement - almost no revolution ever is. Most people outside of Kiev stayed passive, and many who participated had different goals - there were communists and anarchists mixed with neo-Nazis and dreamy students. As all revolutions, it was a mess.

    The point is that revolutions have to work - they have to deliver better life, and Maidan has not. Demonstrably it has made most lives worse. I think it was because Maidan was both desperate and naive, it was a "f...ck you" moment combined with some really infantile wishful thinking - and West encouraged it.

    But failure is a failure, we have to face it. Ukraine will get worse and it will probably explode again - unless EU allows most younger people to move to EU.

    Russia's role has been rather passive and self-serving and by definition - as with all foreign players - it has made it worse. But what did you expect? If you stage a revolution against an "enemy" - in this case Russia and Russian oriented population of Ukraine, at east 1/4 to 1/3 - they will make your life miserable. If Maidan success depended on Russia's goodwill it was doomed from day one. And now for the consequences....

    Here is a breakdown of Ukraine’s drop in GRP (by oblast) for the two years following the Maidan revolution:

    While in those two years the country’s overall GDP declined almost 16%, this figure is pushed upward by the Donbas outlier (over 60% drop – a real collapse). A few of the agricultural regions probably returned to their pre-Revolutionary GRP in 2016, as will a few more regions in 2017.

    Again, the idea that Ukraine is in an ongoing economic freefall is absurd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    You are not addressing the central point I was making - Maidan revolution has been a failure, it has not improved living standards, and the trends for near future are not good.

    Ok, so Ukraine is richer than Nepal (not by much, if you adjust for more demanding life in Ukraine and the fact that Nepal has lots of children and they require less GNP/capita, Ukraine has very few children, but lots of retirees). But the living standards today are unquestionably below 5 years ago. Yes, Ukraine has had a failed economy before - you are right, it was even worse - but the whole point of Maidan was to put that behind. It failed, at least so far.

    The argument that Ukraine is where other eastern countries were in the early 90's is very imprecise, another not very good analogy. A few major differences: GNP drop was not as dramatic or as prolonged, EU was open and eager for business - and provided massive aid, global economy was better, and those countries have had mixed results, some are good, some less so (Romania, Bulgaria that are geographically and economically more like Ukraine than let's say Czech R.).

    I am also uncomfortable with:

    taking their country back from an ethnic Russian-Belarusian President, and a Prime Minister who was a Russian immigrant.
     
    What? I assume that people are equal, that one's ethnic background is not what 'revolutions' are all about. There are millions of Russians in Ukraine, millions more who speak primarily Russian, are you suggesting that they are now second-class citizens? Or that they should promptly become "real Ukrainians", maybe even Galicians? That is directly in contradiction to the EU way of thinking. Or is it ok to be a nationalist and to openly discriminate if it is "our guys" doing it?

    The overall situation in Ukraine is not good, and there are very few ways it could get better. The odds are that it will end up as a frozen failure (as Yushenko's Orange Revolution before). If you still think this is going to have a happy ending for Ukrainians, you have not been paying attention.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Che Guava
    ... as fellow working class.

    I am truly having big doubts, still some hope that DT will bully the worst of his appointees, do some good for the USA and the world, but the Goldman Sachs couple for economic affairs, the hideous ambassador to Israel (as many say, he may as well be Israeli ambassador to Washington, doubtless a dual citizen), all a little chilling.

    People in the Republican Party will likely block any real action on illegal immigrants and Islamic invaders.

    Wait and see, it is not my nation, but I will be happy if he makes some improvements for US people. Looking at the appointees, it is seeming unlikely.

    Trump is not an Imperialist. Meditate on that. An American President who is NOT an imperialist. Trump wants the US to be a player in a multi polar world. Not a rogue nation bent on ruling the earth by force of arms. Trump takes no moral position on war. He wants to end America’s endless wars because they are a “bad deal”. Trump cannot prevent the collapse of the American Empire and the negative affect to the dollar and the economy. But he can negotiate a soft landing rather than blowing up the world in a war with China and Russia which is what the current elite would have us do.

    Trumps greatest enemies are the Imperialists who are still running the government. He is loading his government with powerful insiders to fight fire with fire. Trump is neither Napoleon nor Che Guevara. He is a populist who, when he speaks of America, is speaking of the land mass and the people who inhabit it. His desire for the people is peace and prosperity. Not war and welfare. It’s not realistic to presume that Trump will be successful give the power of his opponents. But neither was it realistic to think he could win the election.

    Keep the faith and work for the good Che. That’s what men of good will do. Win or lose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Dear Working Class,

    As I have said, so am i. Reply, appreciated, as far as how policies work for US people, I am hoping it will be good, but some of his appointments, related to economy especially, the only way they will be doing good for USA people, is if he is to keeping a sharp focus on them and to order them to act against their 'investment'(klepto) bank interests, and orders them to keep doing so,

    I am thinking that to be unlikely.

    It makes me sad for U.S. people, but there is a vanishingly small chance that he will truly try.

    Wonderfull if that tiny chance is to make some difference.

    In the end, Donald is just a bait and switch, Hillary would be much worse.

    Still, he may be surprisingly good post-inaugaration, certainly better than Cankles, wait and see, but expect almost nothing, you will likely be getting nothimg to offer any improvement on debt, being a slavish colony of Israel, and jobs (anybody who reads knows that the Pence-Trump handout to Carrier was a massive subsidy, and only retained 2/5s of the jobs). Handout of about 7 or 8 millions to a profitable company, to not export all of their work. Most went to the useless executives.

    Not a good tactic, especially when the mainstream media was lurching from 'Trump campaign.'

    The Donald would doubtless have enough nous to know that it it was a bad deal, it was a really, really stupid move, not required, and imposed debt on people who did not choose it (thanks to Pence).

    He'd better work out that people are not 'blind to such big handouts to non-productive corporate execs.

    The 'Russians fixed the election' meme is so transparently bullsht, I have no doubt that Trump was correct in his claim of millions of non-citizens voting for Cankles, and many more repeat-voting, as dead people if need be.

    In fact, there is much more evidence for Cankles having used the votes of illegals and repeat voters than for the stupid 'we wuz cheated by Commie hacking' bullshit.

    All very ugly.

    Zhuganov defeated the traitor Eltsin, by a landslide, it was coordinated under Hillary's beard, Bill, that massive ballot-stuffing and treachery deprived the former of victory.

    She knows all about ballot-stuffing and fake votes. Too dim to ever coordinated it, people under her have done it many times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Sean says:
    @Thales the Milesian
    One of Stalin's big mistakes was, after pushing the Germans out of the USSR, not to sign a peace treaty with Germany and give Hitler all of Europe, Poland in particular.

    Evil hombre uncle Joe!

    Guderian said that believed Hitler when in 1943 he told Guderian that Molotov’s demands were what had precipitated the decision to make attack in the East a priority. As a communist Stalin was convinced the capitalist powers were required to fight each other, and he expected to be able to conquer an exhausted Western Europe after a prolonged WW1 – style stalemate. But Hitler’s ultimate objective was always going to be conquering European Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Thirdeye says:
    @Jon0815

    This blinds him to Putin’s two greatest failings:

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother’s war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.
     

    Putin didn't start Ukraine's civil war, and his mistake in Donbass was doing too little to support the separatists, not too much. He should have allowed them to retake Mariupol, or intervened sooner to prevent it from being captured by Kiev in the first place (an earlier intervention would also have prevented the Malaysian jet disaster).

    It's absurd how some white nationalist types have decided they should support Ukraine over the D/LNR and Russia on the grounds that Ukraine is more white, even though a) the D/LNR are just as white as Ukraine, and b) Ukraine is backed by all the West's open-borders, anti-white elites.


    2. Putin allows mass immigration into Russia, which is altering Russia’s ethnic composition. If present birthrates and immigration rates continue, the day will come when Russians will be a minority in their own country. Think about who will control the world’s 2nd largest nuclear arsenal when that happens!
     
    Putin does allow too much immigration (although the conditions to obtain a work permit have gotten much tougher in the past year). But it probably isn't having much long-term effect on Russia's demography, since Central Asian migrants are only about 3% of Russia's population (another 1% are permanent residents of Central Asian ancestry), and most of those are temporary workers who will eventually return to Central Asia without starting families in Russia.

    As for birth rates, unfortunately Russia doesn't break down birth or fertility statistics by ethnicity or religion. However, in 2015 Russia's majority-Muslim regions had a fertility of 2.0 children per woman (and trending down) while the non-Muslim regions had a fertility of 1.76 (and trending up). Not a big difference. So Russia (currently about 11% Muslim, or 14% including guest workers and illegals) probably isn't turning majority-Muslim anytime this century, if ever.

    If white nationalists looked at the situation objectively, their Whitopia would be Poland. None of those pesky Jews who still live in the Ukraine. I don’t know if the eastern Ukraine is “as white” as the western Ukraine; the industrialization of the eastern Ukraine brought a fair number of migrants from other SSRs as well as from other parts of the Ukraine. One of the military superstars of the DPR/LPR is an ethnic Georgian whose family settled in the Donbas.

    Putin’s arms-length stance towards the Donbas rebellion is understandable in the light of two things: the economic burden of supporting breakaway territories and the influence of some neo-Czarist wannabe warlords such as Igor Girkin (Strelkov) in the Novorussia movement. Given the economic state of the Ukraine, the more territory you have aligned with you, the bigger the economic burden. A neo-Czarist movement with a power base in a big chunk of the Ukraine was potentially de-stabilizing to Russia proper. Putin had to be sure that the Donbas republics weren’t going to become the tail that wags the dog before lending support. Supporting a hard separatist movement also would also have alienated some non-separatist oligarchs based in the eastern Ukraine (Akhmetov and Khodakovsky) whose financial support for the Donbas republics was not insignificant. Under the arrangement that shut out the neo-Czarists, Zacharchenko, Khodakovsky’s guy, was installed at the head of the DPR. Shortly thereafter, the aid convoys started arriving and the Donbas republics had the wherewithall to gain some territory.

    In retrospect, the DPR should have been allowed to take Mariupol. It was horse-traded away under the Minsk I agreement under the stipulation that Kiev would give up Donetsk airport. They didn’t, at least until they were driven out of the airport and Debaltseve a few months later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Givi isn't Georgian, it's a nickname.
    And please stop using the idiotic spelling Czarist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. annamaria says:
    @BaronAsh
    Saker, I pretty much share your cautious optimism about Trump, but viz. he and the neocons, a couple of red flags are popping up, esp. in this article:
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45953.htm

    Am not a great fan of the author but the network around the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) seems ominous. Trump could be Neocon.2. Or not, we'll see. I would be interested to see what you think of all this after a couple of months of the new administration. Excerpt pasted below:

    "Flynn also wrote a book together with Michael Ledeen. One doesn’t co-author a book with just anyone. I know. It has to be one whose thoughts are in full harmony with yours. Michael Ledeen is today a Freedom Scholar at, now isn’t this interesting: the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Worth noting, financial investor, Jim Rickards, also is on the Board of Advisors of the Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and former CIA Director James Woolsey, rumored being considered for a top post with the Trump project, is one of four members of the FDD Leadership Council.

    This year, 2016, Ledeen co-authored a book with NSC Director-designate Mike Flynn titled, Field of Fight: How to Win the War Against Radical Islam and its Allies. The ties between Ledeen and Trump NSC director are clearly not casual.

    Years ago Ledeen–who was implicated in the illegal Iran-Contra arm for cocaine dealings of G.H.W. Bush and his CIA Old Boys network during the Reagan years — wrote a doctoral dissertation which I once saw, today almost impossible to find. It was titled “Universal Fascism,” and dealt with the applicability of Italian fascism of Mussolini to a global model, a fascist one world order if you will.

    Michael Ledeen, who prefers to be in the background, is perhaps best characterized as a Godfather of the neoconservatives. He has shaped the policies of the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and others of the US war faction.

    Michael Ledeen is a spiritual creature of Gladio: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio

    http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence&neoconinfluence_prominent_neoconservatives=neoconinfluence_michael_ledeen

    “Michael Ledeen, who has long if murky connections with both US and Italian intelligence agencies, was a part of two major international disinformation operations in conjunction with P-2 and SISMI, the Italian military intelligence agency…
    1983: Neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, the head of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, hires Michael Ledeen as a “special adviser.” Ledeen will soon fall under suspicion of spying for Israel…
    1984: Michael Ledeen is brought into the Defense Department as a consultant on terrorism, via the auspices of Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle… Ledeen’s supervisor, Noel Koch, is troubled by Ledeen’s frequent visits to his office to read classified documents. When Koch and Ledeen journey to Italy on Pentagon business, Koch learns that Ledeen is considered an “agent of influence” for a foreign government: Israel. After returning from Italy, Ledeen asks Koch to help him obtain two highly classified CIA reports which he says are being held by the FBI… Koch tells his executive assistant to stop allowing Ledeen to access the classified materials in his office. In return, Ledeen stops coming to work….Shortly thereafter, Ledeen will begin “consulting work” for the National Security Council….”
    1990-s: “Ledeen Doctrine:” “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small, crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Goldberg says that he heard Ledeen make this statement in an early 1990s speech…
    2001: “Michael Ledeen, speaking at an event sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), states: “No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq… this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war… our children will sing great songs about us years from now…”
    Lunatic. Bloody psychopathic lunatic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Ledeen also considers himself a "proud Levite," one of that tribe that Moses called upon to kill fellow-Jews who were worshiping the golden calf.
    Some years ago he said in public that "we ought to stop talking about the Holocaust."
    Maybe he thinks too many people are getting too close to the truth about the hoax of the century, and that Jews were up to their elbows in killing fellow Jews in Europe as well as in Palestine.

    nb. Ledeen was also a protégée of Jimmy Cayne of Bear-Stearns, a fellow Bridge fanatic. It is said that Cayne played Bridge while Bear-Stearns burned. Don't know if Cayne is still providing financial support for Ledeen's escapades & writing. Cayne was said to have had a drug habit -- might be too expensive to pay for two brain-destroying addictions.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Erebus says:
    @aleksandar
    I wonder what Kerry or the US can offer to Russia. Well, nothing.
    The world is changing, center of gravity has shifted somewhere in Asia.
    Look at a map. The future is russia + china + iran and a lot of asian states.
    And Europe as soon as we get rid of ours corrupt politicos.
    Already in the making.
    The Saker is just wrong on this point, there is absolutely no hate for Russia in EU people.
    Most of them are grateful to Russia for killing djihadists in Syria.
    Despite the enormous day by day propaganda from medias.

    and and

    I wonder what Kerry or the US can offer to Russia. Well, nothing.

    Oh, I think there’s lots. Specifically, the US can offer to share some of its national power.
    National power is the extent to which a nation is able to get its enemies and allies to act in its, as opposed to their, interests. The US clearly has lots left, and it seems to me that it needs to make some trades to keep from eventually losing it all.

    The world is changing, center of gravity has shifted somewhere in Asia.

    Indeed it is, and has. In direct contrast to the Neocons, the Trump team seems to have recognized this trend and is positioning the US to influence, if not manage, its speed and trajectory.

    Rather than repeat or quote myself, I made a rather long-winded comment to a similar statement in another Saker article here:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/neocon-panic-and-agony/#comment-1696014

    It may be worth your time.

    Much more comprehensively, Federico Pieraccini has recently written a great series of articles published by Strategic Culture on Heartland theory, world hegemony, the multipolar world and the developing Moscow-Beijing-Teheran axis.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/authors/federico-pieraccini.html

    Pieraccini is definitely worth your time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. 5371 says:
    @Thirdeye
    If white nationalists looked at the situation objectively, their Whitopia would be Poland. None of those pesky Jews who still live in the Ukraine. I don't know if the eastern Ukraine is "as white" as the western Ukraine; the industrialization of the eastern Ukraine brought a fair number of migrants from other SSRs as well as from other parts of the Ukraine. One of the military superstars of the DPR/LPR is an ethnic Georgian whose family settled in the Donbas.

    Putin's arms-length stance towards the Donbas rebellion is understandable in the light of two things: the economic burden of supporting breakaway territories and the influence of some neo-Czarist wannabe warlords such as Igor Girkin (Strelkov) in the Novorussia movement. Given the economic state of the Ukraine, the more territory you have aligned with you, the bigger the economic burden. A neo-Czarist movement with a power base in a big chunk of the Ukraine was potentially de-stabilizing to Russia proper. Putin had to be sure that the Donbas republics weren't going to become the tail that wags the dog before lending support. Supporting a hard separatist movement also would also have alienated some non-separatist oligarchs based in the eastern Ukraine (Akhmetov and Khodakovsky) whose financial support for the Donbas republics was not insignificant. Under the arrangement that shut out the neo-Czarists, Zacharchenko, Khodakovsky's guy, was installed at the head of the DPR. Shortly thereafter, the aid convoys started arriving and the Donbas republics had the wherewithall to gain some territory.

    In retrospect, the DPR should have been allowed to take Mariupol. It was horse-traded away under the Minsk I agreement under the stipulation that Kiev would give up Donetsk airport. They didn't, at least until they were driven out of the airport and Debaltseve a few months later.

    Givi isn’t Georgian, it’s a nickname.
    And please stop using the idiotic spelling Czarist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    I know, his name is Mikhail Tolstoy. He said on video that his family was ethnic Georgian.

    You are extremely petty in your search for intellectual triumphs if you're going to squabble about Cyrillic-Latin transliteration.
    , @Philip Owen
    Personally, I use Tsarist but the current formal transliteration according to the latest GOST standard is Czarist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Beckow says:
    @AP
    Here is a breakdown of Ukraine's drop in GRP (by oblast) for the two years following the Maidan revolution:

    http://i.imgur.com/XSMQWDW.png

    While in those two years the country's overall GDP declined almost 16%, this figure is pushed upward by the Donbas outlier (over 60% drop - a real collapse). A few of the agricultural regions probably returned to their pre-Revolutionary GRP in 2016, as will a few more regions in 2017.

    Again, the idea that Ukraine is in an ongoing economic freefall is absurd.

    You are not addressing the central point I was making – Maidan revolution has been a failure, it has not improved living standards, and the trends for near future are not good.

    Ok, so Ukraine is richer than Nepal (not by much, if you adjust for more demanding life in Ukraine and the fact that Nepal has lots of children and they require less GNP/capita, Ukraine has very few children, but lots of retirees). But the living standards today are unquestionably below 5 years ago. Yes, Ukraine has had a failed economy before – you are right, it was even worse – but the whole point of Maidan was to put that behind. It failed, at least so far.

    The argument that Ukraine is where other eastern countries were in the early 90′s is very imprecise, another not very good analogy. A few major differences: GNP drop was not as dramatic or as prolonged, EU was open and eager for business – and provided massive aid, global economy was better, and those countries have had mixed results, some are good, some less so (Romania, Bulgaria that are geographically and economically more like Ukraine than let’s say Czech R.).

    I am also uncomfortable with:

    taking their country back from an ethnic Russian-Belarusian President, and a Prime Minister who was a Russian immigrant.

    What? I assume that people are equal, that one’s ethnic background is not what ‘revolutions’ are all about. There are millions of Russians in Ukraine, millions more who speak primarily Russian, are you suggesting that they are now second-class citizens? Or that they should promptly become “real Ukrainians”, maybe even Galicians? That is directly in contradiction to the EU way of thinking. Or is it ok to be a nationalist and to openly discriminate if it is “our guys” doing it?

    The overall situation in Ukraine is not good, and there are very few ways it could get better. The odds are that it will end up as a frozen failure (as Yushenko’s Orange Revolution before). If you still think this is going to have a happy ending for Ukrainians, you have not been paying attention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "What? I assume that people are equal, that one’s ethnic background is not what ‘revolutions’ are all about. There are millions of Russians in Ukraine, millions more who speak primarily Russian, are you suggesting that they are now second-class citizens? Or that they should promptly become “real Ukrainians”, maybe even Galicians? That is directly in contradiction to the EU way of thinking. Or is it ok to be a nationalist and TO OPENLY discriminate if it is “our guys” doing it?"

    Oh yea? Then why don't you replace all the older white guys whose native language is English in the Trump cabinet with short women who speak Mixtec or maybe with a bunch of Nigerians.
    , @AP

    You are not addressing the central point I was making – Maidan revolution has been a failure,
     
    Maidan Revolution prevented the development of a Yanukovich-led despotism shut off from Europe and tied to Russia (which tolerates friendly despotic regimes). In this, it was quite successful.

    This is why despite economic drop and disenchantment with the current rulers there is no desire for Yanukovich to come back and the political heirs of the Party of Regions are stuck in the low teens in terms of popularity.

    it has not improved living standards
     
    Correct, and it was not expected to in the short term. Polls at the time indicated that people expected to have better living standards in five years (so, three years from now). Of course, at the time, people probably expected a trade war with Russia, but did not expect a long-running war in Donbas.

    A few regions will be back to where they were in 2013, in 2016. A few more will be back in 2017. We'll see how it goes after 2019. It may not be enough to compensate for stagnation and decline in the east, but I suspect Ukraine's western regions (at least) will be doing very well by then.

    Ok, so Ukraine is richer than Nepal (not by much, if you adjust for more demanding life in Ukraine and the fact that Nepal has lots of children and they require less GNP/capita, Ukraine has very few children, but lots of retirees).
     
    In 2015 Ukraine's nominal per capita GDP, taking into account loss of Donbas' millions, was about $2,200 (it is higher in 2016) while Nepal's was $732. So about three times higher.

    Taking into account purchasing power (GDP PPP), Ukraine's was $7,987 and Nepal's $2,463. Also, about three time higher.

    You had said that they were the same.

    I am also uncomfortable with:

    "taking their country back from an ethnic Russian-Belarusian President, and a Prime Minister who was a Russian immigrant."

    What? I assume that people are equal, that one’s ethnic background is not what ‘revolutions’ are all about. There are millions of Russians in Ukraine, millions more who speak primarily Russian, are you suggesting that they are now second-class citizens?
     
    Not monopolizing power doesn't mean being a "second class citizen." Ethnic Russians (when Ukraine still included Crimea) were about 18% of the population. Another 15% would be Russified, de facto Russians. These millions were a minority. When you have a non-Ukrainian president and a Prime Minister who is a Russian migrant who moved to Ukraine when he was in his late thirties, trying to become dictators as their general popularity plummeted, while pursuing policies that were unpopular among the Ukrainian natives, you had a recipe for instability. Add to that the fact that the natives had no legal way of taking power through elections* and revolt becomes even more likely.

    It would be great if America had a Mexican-American president, or supreme court justice, or speaker of the House, etc. But imagine if a Mexican usurped control of all branches of the US government - after only winning a legitimate presidential election, and not winning other elections democratically - and pushed through laws such as economic union with Latin America, Spanish as second language, etc,. that the majority weren't crazy about. I suspect there would be a Maidan, also.

    * Yanukovich pushed through laws that enabled his party and that of the Communists to retain control over Parliament despite easily losing the popular vote to the Opposition parties in the most recent parliamentary elections. Those are the same parties who came to power after the Revolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Johnny says:

    I’m surprised the author of this article managed to stop blowjobbing Putin long enough to write and submit it.

    Yes, Russia has had a very good year, but it is not a sunshine gold paved year as this article proclaims.

    Russia is facing trouble in Syria, while freeing Allepo from ISIS, ISIS took back Palmyra and both Syria and Russia lack the needed foot power to both hold Allepo and free Palmyra.

    Russian economy has had such a bad year that Russia has to use it reserve dollars to prep it up.

    The EU economic may be tanking but not to the level that the Russian is. And fact is that the EU doesn’t need Russia as much as Russia needs the EU.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    Russia is facing trouble in Syria, while freeing Allepo from ISIS, ISIS took back Palmyra and both Syria and Russia lack the needed foot power to both hold Allepo and free Palmyra.
     
    Not true. It takes fewer troops to hold a city than it does to encircle and capture it. There were about 30,000 SAA and allies involved in the encirclement and capture of east Aleppo, so the success of that operation has freed up around 10,000 troops for Palmyra and other fronts. Several thousand SAA troops, including the elite Tiger Forces, are massing right now at the Tiyas airbase for the counter-offensive to retake Palmyra. It is likely that in 2017, we will see both Aleppo and Palmyra under Syrian government control for the first time since 2012.

    The EU economic may be tanking but not to the level that the Russian is
     
    Russia will almost certainly have positive GDP growth in 2017, for the first time since 2015, and soon it will once again be growing faster than the EU.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. OK. But please keep in mind that two people in Australia – a man and a woman – prayed the same prayer at least at the time of Mr Putin’s 2015 UN speech or earlier that asked our Creator and Mr Putin’s Creator and TheSaker’s Creator … to give Mr Putin more wisdom than ancient King Solomon. They still earnestly and fervently pray for Mr Putin and Russian officials and citizens. They pray for Mr Putin to be to be shown American/ Anglo-Zionist craft and to not be taken in by same. This prayer is also for Mr Lavrov, ambassadors, officials, Generals, officers and foot-sloggers and ratings and the Russian people.

    Since our Creator abhors Christmas, and other festivities it is not hard to speculate on the fate of the Choir. Its repetoire was Christmassy to some extent.

    We believe Mr Putin has been raised up by God in a Cyrus-like manner and we will continue to pray for him. All who speak deprecatingly of God’s intervention and choices of leaders will feel a great wrath – most terrible to contemplate – come down upon them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Is one required to be taking the same meds as you to be able to make sense of this comment? and if so, kindly list them all just in case anyone could be bothered to unravel the tangled threads of thought. Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Beckow
    You are not addressing the central point I was making - Maidan revolution has been a failure, it has not improved living standards, and the trends for near future are not good.

    Ok, so Ukraine is richer than Nepal (not by much, if you adjust for more demanding life in Ukraine and the fact that Nepal has lots of children and they require less GNP/capita, Ukraine has very few children, but lots of retirees). But the living standards today are unquestionably below 5 years ago. Yes, Ukraine has had a failed economy before - you are right, it was even worse - but the whole point of Maidan was to put that behind. It failed, at least so far.

    The argument that Ukraine is where other eastern countries were in the early 90's is very imprecise, another not very good analogy. A few major differences: GNP drop was not as dramatic or as prolonged, EU was open and eager for business - and provided massive aid, global economy was better, and those countries have had mixed results, some are good, some less so (Romania, Bulgaria that are geographically and economically more like Ukraine than let's say Czech R.).

    I am also uncomfortable with:

    taking their country back from an ethnic Russian-Belarusian President, and a Prime Minister who was a Russian immigrant.
     
    What? I assume that people are equal, that one's ethnic background is not what 'revolutions' are all about. There are millions of Russians in Ukraine, millions more who speak primarily Russian, are you suggesting that they are now second-class citizens? Or that they should promptly become "real Ukrainians", maybe even Galicians? That is directly in contradiction to the EU way of thinking. Or is it ok to be a nationalist and to openly discriminate if it is "our guys" doing it?

    The overall situation in Ukraine is not good, and there are very few ways it could get better. The odds are that it will end up as a frozen failure (as Yushenko's Orange Revolution before). If you still think this is going to have a happy ending for Ukrainians, you have not been paying attention.

    “What? I assume that people are equal, that one’s ethnic background is not what ‘revolutions’ are all about. There are millions of Russians in Ukraine, millions more who speak primarily Russian, are you suggesting that they are now second-class citizens? Or that they should promptly become “real Ukrainians”, maybe even Galicians? That is directly in contradiction to the EU way of thinking. Or is it ok to be a nationalist and TO OPENLY discriminate if it is “our guys” doing it?”

    Oh yea? Then why don’t you replace all the older white guys whose native language is English in the Trump cabinet with short women who speak Mixtec or maybe with a bunch of Nigerians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Jon0815 says:
    @Johnny
    I'm surprised the author of this article managed to stop blowjobbing Putin long enough to write and submit it.

    Yes, Russia has had a very good year, but it is not a sunshine gold paved year as this article proclaims.

    Russia is facing trouble in Syria, while freeing Allepo from ISIS, ISIS took back Palmyra and both Syria and Russia lack the needed foot power to both hold Allepo and free Palmyra.

    Russian economy has had such a bad year that Russia has to use it reserve dollars to prep it up.

    The EU economic may be tanking but not to the level that the Russian is. And fact is that the EU doesn't need Russia as much as Russia needs the EU.

    Russia is facing trouble in Syria, while freeing Allepo from ISIS, ISIS took back Palmyra and both Syria and Russia lack the needed foot power to both hold Allepo and free Palmyra.

    Not true. It takes fewer troops to hold a city than it does to encircle and capture it. There were about 30,000 SAA and allies involved in the encirclement and capture of east Aleppo, so the success of that operation has freed up around 10,000 troops for Palmyra and other fronts. Several thousand SAA troops, including the elite Tiger Forces, are massing right now at the Tiyas airbase for the counter-offensive to retake Palmyra. It is likely that in 2017, we will see both Aleppo and Palmyra under Syrian government control for the first time since 2012.

    The EU economic may be tanking but not to the level that the Russian is

    Russia will almost certainly have positive GDP growth in 2017, for the first time since 2015, and soon it will once again be growing faster than the EU.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Russia will almost certainly have positive GDP growth in 2017, for the first time since 2015, and soon it will once again be growing faster than the EU.
     
    You mean 2014 - Russia's GDP declined 3.7% in 2015. It will have dropped another 1% or so in 2016. Russia's growth from 2017 onward is projected to be in the 1% to 2% range, not really different from that of the EU.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Che Guava says:
    @Durruti
    " you are clearly insane,"

    "Wow. That is a very crazy rant," Of course, you fail to comment on the essence of my essay, the slanderous attack by the 'Saker' on the victims of terrorism, the Palestinian People.

    "Although one can’t discount the possibility that Peter J. Antonsen is somebody that you see as an enemy in real life, " He is, indeed, my own worst enemy. He is I.

    Durruti is Durruti, Buenaventura Durruti, the finest Anarchist.

    https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/%25D0%259A%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BB%25D1%258C%25D1%2586%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_%25D0%2594%25D1%2583%25D1%2580%25D1%2583%25D1%2582%25D1%2582%25D0%25B8_%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B4%25D0%25B8%25D1%2580_%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B0%25D1%2580%25D1%2585%25D0%25B8%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_14%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B3.21%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D1%258F._1936.JPG/220px-%25D0%259A%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BB%25D1%258C%25D1%2586%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_%25D0%2594%25D1%2583%25D1%2580%25D1%2583%25D1%2582%25D1%2582%25D0%25B8_%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B4%25D0%25B8%25D1%2580_%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B0%25D1%2580%25D1%2585%25D0%25B8%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2_14%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B3.21%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D1%258F._1936.JPG&imgrefurl=https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Buenaventura_Durruti&h=326&w=220&tbnid=r7Jfvz9e228VPM:&vet=1&tbnh=186&tbnw=125&docid=AI6EguT-l_L2AM&itg=1&usg=__l9GEj-VvjszNnzV05hfWHY3nNW8=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiikuq8xaHRAhVG5CYKHU9IC5cQ_B0IeDAK

    "Che Guava," very clever. I read about a Che Guevara...

    Is this all you offer? No substantial comments on my, or the 'Saker?' Come on! You can do better than a mealy mouthed attempt at character assassination.

    Come on! What do you think about the issues I raised? You do think?

    Oh well!

    Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! More fun and learning on UNZ' website in 2017.

    Durutti,

    Excuse my comment. I just found your choice of the name of a famous anarchist as pen-name a little odd, given the content of your posts.

    Not to saying that your posts do not make sense much of the time.

    My pen-name is simple ridicule, although I have read the upper-class Ernesto’s works of ‘theory’. They sure did not work out when he tried to export them back to places closer to that of his privileged birth.

    The status of his visage now, as a brand-name, on a cheaper level, but much the same as, say, Louis Vuitton, is also a constant source of amusement to me.

    Again, excuse my understandable outburst, but

    … why do you use Durutti as your pen-name here?

    Serious question.

    I explain my use of ‘Guava’, simple ridicule.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. AP says:
    @Beckow
    You are not addressing the central point I was making - Maidan revolution has been a failure, it has not improved living standards, and the trends for near future are not good.

    Ok, so Ukraine is richer than Nepal (not by much, if you adjust for more demanding life in Ukraine and the fact that Nepal has lots of children and they require less GNP/capita, Ukraine has very few children, but lots of retirees). But the living standards today are unquestionably below 5 years ago. Yes, Ukraine has had a failed economy before - you are right, it was even worse - but the whole point of Maidan was to put that behind. It failed, at least so far.

    The argument that Ukraine is where other eastern countries were in the early 90's is very imprecise, another not very good analogy. A few major differences: GNP drop was not as dramatic or as prolonged, EU was open and eager for business - and provided massive aid, global economy was better, and those countries have had mixed results, some are good, some less so (Romania, Bulgaria that are geographically and economically more like Ukraine than let's say Czech R.).

    I am also uncomfortable with:

    taking their country back from an ethnic Russian-Belarusian President, and a Prime Minister who was a Russian immigrant.
     
    What? I assume that people are equal, that one's ethnic background is not what 'revolutions' are all about. There are millions of Russians in Ukraine, millions more who speak primarily Russian, are you suggesting that they are now second-class citizens? Or that they should promptly become "real Ukrainians", maybe even Galicians? That is directly in contradiction to the EU way of thinking. Or is it ok to be a nationalist and to openly discriminate if it is "our guys" doing it?

    The overall situation in Ukraine is not good, and there are very few ways it could get better. The odds are that it will end up as a frozen failure (as Yushenko's Orange Revolution before). If you still think this is going to have a happy ending for Ukrainians, you have not been paying attention.

    You are not addressing the central point I was making – Maidan revolution has been a failure,

    Maidan Revolution prevented the development of a Yanukovich-led despotism shut off from Europe and tied to Russia (which tolerates friendly despotic regimes). In this, it was quite successful.

    This is why despite economic drop and disenchantment with the current rulers there is no desire for Yanukovich to come back and the political heirs of the Party of Regions are stuck in the low teens in terms of popularity.

    it has not improved living standards

    Correct, and it was not expected to in the short term. Polls at the time indicated that people expected to have better living standards in five years (so, three years from now). Of course, at the time, people probably expected a trade war with Russia, but did not expect a long-running war in Donbas.

    A few regions will be back to where they were in 2013, in 2016. A few more will be back in 2017. We’ll see how it goes after 2019. It may not be enough to compensate for stagnation and decline in the east, but I suspect Ukraine’s western regions (at least) will be doing very well by then.

    Ok, so Ukraine is richer than Nepal (not by much, if you adjust for more demanding life in Ukraine and the fact that Nepal has lots of children and they require less GNP/capita, Ukraine has very few children, but lots of retirees).

    In 2015 Ukraine’s nominal per capita GDP, taking into account loss of Donbas’ millions, was about $2,200 (it is higher in 2016) while Nepal’s was $732. So about three times higher.

    Taking into account purchasing power (GDP PPP), Ukraine’s was $7,987 and Nepal’s $2,463. Also, about three time higher.

    You had said that they were the same.

    I am also uncomfortable with:

    “taking their country back from an ethnic Russian-Belarusian President, and a Prime Minister who was a Russian immigrant.”

    What? I assume that people are equal, that one’s ethnic background is not what ‘revolutions’ are all about. There are millions of Russians in Ukraine, millions more who speak primarily Russian, are you suggesting that they are now second-class citizens?

    Not monopolizing power doesn’t mean being a “second class citizen.” Ethnic Russians (when Ukraine still included Crimea) were about 18% of the population. Another 15% would be Russified, de facto Russians. These millions were a minority. When you have a non-Ukrainian president and a Prime Minister who is a Russian migrant who moved to Ukraine when he was in his late thirties, trying to become dictators as their general popularity plummeted, while pursuing policies that were unpopular among the Ukrainian natives, you had a recipe for instability. Add to that the fact that the natives had no legal way of taking power through elections* and revolt becomes even more likely.

    It would be great if America had a Mexican-American president, or supreme court justice, or speaker of the House, etc. But imagine if a Mexican usurped control of all branches of the US government – after only winning a legitimate presidential election, and not winning other elections democratically – and pushed through laws such as economic union with Latin America, Spanish as second language, etc,. that the majority weren’t crazy about. I suspect there would be a Maidan, also.

    * Yanukovich pushed through laws that enabled his party and that of the Communists to retain control over Parliament despite easily losing the popular vote to the Opposition parties in the most recent parliamentary elections. Those are the same parties who came to power after the Revolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Let's just agree that Ukraine GNP/capita is today somewhere between Guatemala and Bhutan (source CIA Factbook). Not good. Also in a country that has 30-40% people who are either Russians or Russian speakers it is not possible to exclude that group from power (would you suggest that French speakers in Belgium are foreign 'usurpers'?). Maidan brought in Saakasvilli, US and Latvian adventurers, and people like Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Grossman who are also from a minority group. You objection to half-Belorussian Yanukovitch is bizarre and oddly one-sided. You seem to have a hierarchy of nationalities, some better, some worse - try to get over that.

    But you raise an interesting argument for Maidan revolution:


    "Maidan Revolution prevented the development of a Yanukovich-led despotism shut off from Europe and tied to Russia (which tolerates friendly despotic regimes). In this, it was quite successful."
     
    The next elections were scheduled within a year. Yanukovitch won the last one, he would probably lose the new one. How was he a "despot"? Would a despot be allowed to negotiate with EU for 4 years? Would a pro-Russian puppet spent his presidency trying to get closer to EU if he really wanted to 'shut it off'? You make no sense. By the way, US and EU also 'tolerate friendly despotic regimes', but you must know that, so why the unhinged one-sided propaganda?

    We are also 3 years into the '3-5 years before improvement' that you mention. In order for the economy and life to get better the next two years would literally have to see an economic miracle. It is not happening - we are watching another "Orange Revolution" and this time the failure will be even more painful. Staging revolutions against reality and geography, and dreaming of EU cargo cult largesse was just stupid. And stupidity doesn't do well in evolution, and it shouldn't....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. AP says:
    @Jon0815

    Russia is facing trouble in Syria, while freeing Allepo from ISIS, ISIS took back Palmyra and both Syria and Russia lack the needed foot power to both hold Allepo and free Palmyra.
     
    Not true. It takes fewer troops to hold a city than it does to encircle and capture it. There were about 30,000 SAA and allies involved in the encirclement and capture of east Aleppo, so the success of that operation has freed up around 10,000 troops for Palmyra and other fronts. Several thousand SAA troops, including the elite Tiger Forces, are massing right now at the Tiyas airbase for the counter-offensive to retake Palmyra. It is likely that in 2017, we will see both Aleppo and Palmyra under Syrian government control for the first time since 2012.

    The EU economic may be tanking but not to the level that the Russian is
     
    Russia will almost certainly have positive GDP growth in 2017, for the first time since 2015, and soon it will once again be growing faster than the EU.

    Russia will almost certainly have positive GDP growth in 2017, for the first time since 2015, and soon it will once again be growing faster than the EU.

    You mean 2014 – Russia’s GDP declined 3.7% in 2015. It will have dropped another 1% or so in 2016. Russia’s growth from 2017 onward is projected to be in the 1% to 2% range, not really different from that of the EU.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    You mean 2014 – Russia’s GDP declined 3.7% in 2015. It will have dropped another 1% or so in 2016.
     
    Yes, I meant 2014. Given the double whammy of the oil price collapse, and the effort by the US and EU to damage Russia's as economy as much as possible, it's surprising that the real per capita GDP decline was only about 4.5%, less than half of Ukraine's.

    Russia’s growth from 2017 onward is projected to be in the 1% to 2% range, not really different from that of the EU.
     
    The track record of Russian GDP growth projections has not been great, and I think 1-2% growth is too pessimistic. From 2010-2013, between the financial crash of 2009 and the oil crash of 2014, Russian growth averaged 3.4%, and my guess is that over the next five years it will be closer to 3% than 1%.

    Oil prices are trending back up, inflation is at a post-Soviet low, EU sanctions are likely ending after the French presidential election, and the USA has a friendly (or at least, non-hostile) administration, which will tend to encourage foreign investment. Putin has said Russia must return to growth rates above the global average (at least 3-4%), and towards that end plans to introduce reforms after the 2018 election that would reduce state control of the economy, even if it means an increase in unemployment (we'll see if that happens).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Che Guava says:
    @WorkingClass
    Trump is not an Imperialist. Meditate on that. An American President who is NOT an imperialist. Trump wants the US to be a player in a multi polar world. Not a rogue nation bent on ruling the earth by force of arms. Trump takes no moral position on war. He wants to end America's endless wars because they are a "bad deal". Trump cannot prevent the collapse of the American Empire and the negative affect to the dollar and the economy. But he can negotiate a soft landing rather than blowing up the world in a war with China and Russia which is what the current elite would have us do.

    Trumps greatest enemies are the Imperialists who are still running the government. He is loading his government with powerful insiders to fight fire with fire. Trump is neither Napoleon nor Che Guevara. He is a populist who, when he speaks of America, is speaking of the land mass and the people who inhabit it. His desire for the people is peace and prosperity. Not war and welfare. It's not realistic to presume that Trump will be successful give the power of his opponents. But neither was it realistic to think he could win the election.

    Keep the faith and work for the good Che. That's what men of good will do. Win or lose.

    Dear Working Class,

    As I have said, so am i. Reply, appreciated, as far as how policies work for US people, I am hoping it will be good, but some of his appointments, related to economy especially, the only way they will be doing good for USA people, is if he is to keeping a sharp focus on them and to order them to act against their ‘investment’(klepto) bank interests, and orders them to keep doing so,

    I am thinking that to be unlikely.

    It makes me sad for U.S. people, but there is a vanishingly small chance that he will truly try.

    Wonderfull if that tiny chance is to make some difference.

    In the end, Donald is just a bait and switch, Hillary would be much worse.

    Still, he may be surprisingly good post-inaugaration, certainly better than Cankles, wait and see, but expect almost nothing, you will likely be getting nothimg to offer any improvement on debt, being a slavish colony of Israel, and jobs (anybody who reads knows that the Pence-Trump handout to Carrier was a massive subsidy, and only retained 2/5s of the jobs). Handout of about 7 or 8 millions to a profitable company, to not export all of their work. Most went to the useless executives.

    Not a good tactic, especially when the mainstream media was lurching from ‘Trump campaign.’

    The Donald would doubtless have enough nous to know that it it was a bad deal, it was a really, really stupid move, not required, and imposed debt on people who did not choose it (thanks to Pence).

    He’d better work out that people are not ‘blind to such big handouts to non-productive corporate execs.

    The ‘Russians fixed the election’ meme is so transparently bullsht, I have no doubt that Trump was correct in his claim of millions of non-citizens voting for Cankles, and many more repeat-voting, as dead people if need be.

    In fact, there is much more evidence for Cankles having used the votes of illegals and repeat voters than for the stupid ‘we wuz cheated by Commie hacking’ bullshit.

    All very ugly.

    Zhuganov defeated the traitor Eltsin, by a landslide, it was coordinated under Hillary’s beard, Bill, that massive ballot-stuffing and treachery deprived the former of victory.

    She knows all about ballot-stuffing and fake votes. Too dim to ever coordinated it, people under her have done it many times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Che Guava says:
    @Durruti
    Agree with your comments on "Israel's genocide."

    Your defense of the 'Saker' is weak. Can you explain his (the so-called 'Saker), "Remember, the Palestinians also began by attacking diplomats, officials and aircraft, but as soon as these targets were “hardened” they turn to daycare centers, schools and synagogues.”???

    Highlighting is mine.

    According to this 'Saker,' Palestinians use terror ("they turn" is present tense), against " daycare centers, schools and synagogues." This assertion is plain Netenyahoo-like slander against the Palestinians. Their (the Palestinian's) last armed effort was a coordinated attack with knives, against Zionist Police and Military.

    'Saker's' thread clearly supports "Israel's genocide of Palestinians," by accusing the Palestinians of Terrorism, and supporting the Zionist terrorist's efforts against the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine. After the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - in 1944, German newspapers accused the Jews of being terrorists. They were not then; they are now.

    One may defend Russia, America, or any other nation from terrorism, by opposing the terrorists; but not by covering for the terrorists, by slandering their Main Victims.

    The 'Saker's' words condemn him.

    Durutti,,

    I am sorry to have not been reading all of those linkings you posted. I will. They look a little like spaghetti.

    When I first started to postng on this site, another poster was saying ‘Saker can never be in Russia’, that may be the truth, but we cannot know. Only that he is upper-class, if he were a woman, it would have been a ‘Swiss finishing school’ from the revealed pattern.

    I am havimg no answers, but must saying it is a little strange, no reply ever, even to direct questions.

    Still, I am liking his commentary most of the time.

    Prefer Linh’s comms., and those of random others, such as yourself.

    Although I can never see why you use Durutti as a pen-name, it is a mystery.

    Must sleeping.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Durruti
    Che Guava,

    Unz system claims not to recognize my Durruti pen name.

    Will try once more - quickly.

    Google Durruti will reveal much information on finest anarchist.

    In friendship:

    Durruti - alias Peter J. Antonsen
    , @Sayless
    The Saker lives in Florida. He has a daughter in college here in the States.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Beckow says:
    @AP

    You are not addressing the central point I was making – Maidan revolution has been a failure,
     
    Maidan Revolution prevented the development of a Yanukovich-led despotism shut off from Europe and tied to Russia (which tolerates friendly despotic regimes). In this, it was quite successful.

    This is why despite economic drop and disenchantment with the current rulers there is no desire for Yanukovich to come back and the political heirs of the Party of Regions are stuck in the low teens in terms of popularity.

    it has not improved living standards
     
    Correct, and it was not expected to in the short term. Polls at the time indicated that people expected to have better living standards in five years (so, three years from now). Of course, at the time, people probably expected a trade war with Russia, but did not expect a long-running war in Donbas.

    A few regions will be back to where they were in 2013, in 2016. A few more will be back in 2017. We'll see how it goes after 2019. It may not be enough to compensate for stagnation and decline in the east, but I suspect Ukraine's western regions (at least) will be doing very well by then.

    Ok, so Ukraine is richer than Nepal (not by much, if you adjust for more demanding life in Ukraine and the fact that Nepal has lots of children and they require less GNP/capita, Ukraine has very few children, but lots of retirees).
     
    In 2015 Ukraine's nominal per capita GDP, taking into account loss of Donbas' millions, was about $2,200 (it is higher in 2016) while Nepal's was $732. So about three times higher.

    Taking into account purchasing power (GDP PPP), Ukraine's was $7,987 and Nepal's $2,463. Also, about three time higher.

    You had said that they were the same.

    I am also uncomfortable with:

    "taking their country back from an ethnic Russian-Belarusian President, and a Prime Minister who was a Russian immigrant."

    What? I assume that people are equal, that one’s ethnic background is not what ‘revolutions’ are all about. There are millions of Russians in Ukraine, millions more who speak primarily Russian, are you suggesting that they are now second-class citizens?
     
    Not monopolizing power doesn't mean being a "second class citizen." Ethnic Russians (when Ukraine still included Crimea) were about 18% of the population. Another 15% would be Russified, de facto Russians. These millions were a minority. When you have a non-Ukrainian president and a Prime Minister who is a Russian migrant who moved to Ukraine when he was in his late thirties, trying to become dictators as their general popularity plummeted, while pursuing policies that were unpopular among the Ukrainian natives, you had a recipe for instability. Add to that the fact that the natives had no legal way of taking power through elections* and revolt becomes even more likely.

    It would be great if America had a Mexican-American president, or supreme court justice, or speaker of the House, etc. But imagine if a Mexican usurped control of all branches of the US government - after only winning a legitimate presidential election, and not winning other elections democratically - and pushed through laws such as economic union with Latin America, Spanish as second language, etc,. that the majority weren't crazy about. I suspect there would be a Maidan, also.

    * Yanukovich pushed through laws that enabled his party and that of the Communists to retain control over Parliament despite easily losing the popular vote to the Opposition parties in the most recent parliamentary elections. Those are the same parties who came to power after the Revolution.

    Let’s just agree that Ukraine GNP/capita is today somewhere between Guatemala and Bhutan (source CIA Factbook). Not good. Also in a country that has 30-40% people who are either Russians or Russian speakers it is not possible to exclude that group from power (would you suggest that French speakers in Belgium are foreign ‘usurpers’?). Maidan brought in Saakasvilli, US and Latvian adventurers, and people like Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Grossman who are also from a minority group. You objection to half-Belorussian Yanukovitch is bizarre and oddly one-sided. You seem to have a hierarchy of nationalities, some better, some worse – try to get over that.

    But you raise an interesting argument for Maidan revolution:

    “Maidan Revolution prevented the development of a Yanukovich-led despotism shut off from Europe and tied to Russia (which tolerates friendly despotic regimes). In this, it was quite successful.”

    The next elections were scheduled within a year. Yanukovitch won the last one, he would probably lose the new one. How was he a “despot”? Would a despot be allowed to negotiate with EU for 4 years? Would a pro-Russian puppet spent his presidency trying to get closer to EU if he really wanted to ‘shut it off’? You make no sense. By the way, US and EU also ‘tolerate friendly despotic regimes’, but you must know that, so why the unhinged one-sided propaganda?

    We are also 3 years into the ’3-5 years before improvement’ that you mention. In order for the economy and life to get better the next two years would literally have to see an economic miracle. It is not happening – we are watching another “Orange Revolution” and this time the failure will be even more painful. Staging revolutions against reality and geography, and dreaming of EU cargo cult largesse was just stupid. And stupidity doesn’t do well in evolution, and it shouldn’t….

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Let’s just agree that Ukraine GNP/capita is today somewhere between Guatemala and Bhutan (source CIA Factbook). Not good.
     
    Sure.

    Also in a country that has 30-40% people who are either Russians or Russian speakers it is not possible to exclude that group from power (would you suggest that French speakers in Belgium are foreign ‘usurpers’?)
     
    Nobody mentioning excluding anyone from power based on their ethnicity. The problem was total monopolization of power by the minority group, who (1) proceeded to act in ways the majority didn't like and (2) eliminated all means for the majority to "resist" legally, through elections.

    Maidan brought in Saakasvilli, US and Latvian adventurers, and people like Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Grossman who are also from a minority group.
     
    Saakshvili was a governor not a national figure. "US adventurer" was a diaspora Ukrainian who spent most of her life involved in Ukrainian causes. Yatseniuk is an ethnic Ukrainian Greek Catholic from Western Ukraine (he looks Jewish, thus rumors about him). Poroshenko has a Ukrainian mother and a Jewish father who converted to Orthodoxy and changed his name before Poroshenko was born - Poroshenko was raised as an Orthodox Christian Ukrainian. Grossman is a Jewish native of Ukraine.

    Compare to the overthrown government - Yanukovich, Russian-Belarussian child of migrants to Ukraine. Prime Minister Azarov, Russian migrant who came to Ukraine in 1984 at the age of 37. They found a defense minister, Lebedyev, from Russia also (came to Ukraine as a conscript during Soviet times). Minister of Economics and Trade, Prasolov, was another Russian migrant, from Murmansk who came to Ukraine as a graduate student in 1990. The education minister Tabachnyk was born in Ukraine, but was Russian-Jewish. Of these only Yanukovich was actually voted into power by winning a plurality of votes.


    You objection to half-Belorussian Yanukovitch is bizarre and oddly one-sided. You seem to have a hierarchy of nationalities, some better, some worse – try to get over that
     
    I have no "hierarchy of nationalities" - I am simply pointing out that a government exclusively in the hands of national minorities, pursuing policies disliked by the national majority, is inherently unstable. Add to that the building up of a dictatorial structure and you have people getting legitimately desperate to rid themselves of this government, with no legal way of doing so.

    “Maidan Revolution prevented the development of a Yanukovich-led despotism shut off from Europe and tied to Russia (which tolerates friendly despotic regimes). In this, it was quite successful.”

    The next elections were scheduled within a year. Yanukovitch won the last one, he would probably lose the new one.
     

    You are not unintelligent, but if you were familiar with what was happening in Ukraine you wouldn't make such a silly claim.

    Remember that Yanukovich fixed the system so that his party kept control of the parliament despite easily losing the popular vote in the parliamentary election in 2012 (those parties who had won the popular vote but were kept out of power were the ones who assumed power after his overthrow). This, and his cheating in 2004 means we have a pattern of him not abiding by democratic will. In the run-up to the presidential race he was losing in the polls by double digits to Klitshcko, Yatseniuk and was losing to Tymoshenko (who was not, of course, running). At the time of the overthrow, the parliament made a special law barring Klitschko from running. Yatseniuk's offices were already raided by the police. Tymoshenko was in prison. There was no faith in Ukraine that Yanukovich would give up power peacefully. He had a lot at stake - the Opposition who were winning in the polls was promising to investigate him. The very idea was laughable.

    So the Maidan prevented would-be (non-Ukrainian) despot Yanukovich from consolidating his power and forming a post-Soviet despotism in Ukraine, of the type seen in Central Asia, Belarus, etc. except in Yanukovich's case it would be a government of a national minority ruling over the natives. That alone made it "worth it" in the eyes of most Ukrainians, as suggested by no sentiment to bring him back and no widespread popularity for his political heirs in Ukraine.


    Would a pro-Russian puppet spent his presidency trying to get closer to EU if he really wanted to ‘shut it off’
     
    He was more pro-Yanukovich than pro-Russian. But in the end he leaned on Russia, which was much more tolerant of his antics than was the EU.

    By the way, US and EU also ‘tolerate friendly despotic regimes’,
     
    They certainly do. So? Does that mean the Ukrainian people should have meekly accepted living under a despotic regime friendly to Russia?

    Because it was more stable and the economy would have been stagnantly bad at a higher level than otherwise?


    We are also 3 years into the ’3-5 years before improvement’ that you mention. In order for the economy and life to get better the next two years would literally have to see an economic miracle. It is not happening
     
    The grinding war in Donbas was probably unexpected and made things worse than they would have been. That being said, the decline has stopped and modest growth has started. I doubt that by 2019 (5 years after Maidan) Ukraine as a whole will be back to where it had been in 2013 but much of it will be.

    You should take your predictions with a grain of salt, given that you assumed that Ukraine and Nepal (with 1/3 of Ukraine's income) were about the same that you were seemingly unaware of the fact that much of Ukraine has experienced economic decline in the last 2 years that was not as bad as that of Russia, or not much higher.

    Or do you think that Ukraine is still in a free fall?


    It is not happening – we are watching another “Orange Revolution” and this time the failure will be even more painful.
     
    And many of the pro-Russian posters will be very happy about that.

    The Orange Revolution had a problem in that Ukraine was then 30% to 40% Russian/Russified. Such multiculturalism was inherently highly disruptive given that the Ukrainians and the Russians had divergent geopolitical orientations. It is no wonder that Putin, hardly someone who has the best interests of the Ukrainian state in mind, wants the Donbas to return to Ukraine under terms that maximize its power within Ukraine.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Durruti says:
    @Che Guava
    Durutti,,

    I am sorry to have not been reading all of those linkings you posted. I will. They look a little like spaghetti.

    When I first started to postng on this site, another poster was saying 'Saker can never be in Russia', that may be the truth, but we cannot know. Only that he is upper-class, if he were a woman, it would have been a 'Swiss finishing school' from the revealed pattern.

    I am havimg no answers, but must saying it is a little strange, no reply ever, even to direct questions.

    Still, I am liking his commentary most of the time.

    Prefer Linh's comms., and those of random others, such as yourself.

    Although I can never see why you use Durutti as a pen-name, it is a mystery.

    Must sleeping.

    Che Guava,

    Unz system claims not to recognize my Durruti pen name.

    Will try once more – quickly.

    Google Durruti will reveal much information on finest anarchist.

    In friendship:

    Durruti – alias Peter J. Antonsen

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I have read of Durutti.

    Probably have said it already, sincere apologies for my too-snarky comment.

    In friendship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Jon0815 says:
    @AP

    Russia will almost certainly have positive GDP growth in 2017, for the first time since 2015, and soon it will once again be growing faster than the EU.
     
    You mean 2014 - Russia's GDP declined 3.7% in 2015. It will have dropped another 1% or so in 2016. Russia's growth from 2017 onward is projected to be in the 1% to 2% range, not really different from that of the EU.

    You mean 2014 – Russia’s GDP declined 3.7% in 2015. It will have dropped another 1% or so in 2016.

    Yes, I meant 2014. Given the double whammy of the oil price collapse, and the effort by the US and EU to damage Russia’s as economy as much as possible, it’s surprising that the real per capita GDP decline was only about 4.5%, less than half of Ukraine’s.

    Russia’s growth from 2017 onward is projected to be in the 1% to 2% range, not really different from that of the EU.

    The track record of Russian GDP growth projections has not been great, and I think 1-2% growth is too pessimistic. From 2010-2013, between the financial crash of 2009 and the oil crash of 2014, Russian growth averaged 3.4%, and my guess is that over the next five years it will be closer to 3% than 1%.

    Oil prices are trending back up, inflation is at a post-Soviet low, EU sanctions are likely ending after the French presidential election, and the USA has a friendly (or at least, non-hostile) administration, which will tend to encourage foreign investment. Putin has said Russia must return to growth rates above the global average (at least 3-4%), and towards that end plans to introduce reforms after the 2018 election that would reduce state control of the economy, even if it means an increase in unemployment (we’ll see if that happens).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Given the double whammy of the oil price collapse, and the effort by the US and EU to damage Russia’s as economy as much as possible,
     
    Obama response was rather weak, actually. There was no effort to damage Russia's economy "as much as possible."

    it’s surprising that the real per capita GDP decline was only about 4.5%, less than half of Ukraine’s.
     
    It was about a third of Ukraine's. Ukraine's overall economy declined 15.8% in the 2014-2015.

    This was, however, driven by the ruined Donbas, which saw over 60% decline. Without that outlier, Ukraine's economic decline for those two years was under 10%.

    http://i.imgur.com/XSMQWDW.png

    It's very likely that several oblasts will have returned to their 2013 level this year, and that several more will do so in 2017 (with new plants coming online and IT exports continuing to increase, I suspect at least 3% growth in Lviv oblast this year).

    Donbas itself may not recover for decades. Its people are making quite a sacrifice for the sake of the Russian state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. gwynedd1 says:
    @Wally
    "Because Russia has never sought any greatness – particularly military greatness – all of their greatest military victories came when they were attacked (Napoleon, Hitler) and not as a result of any imperial ambitions. "

    Complete nonsense.

    The Soviets were planning to attack Germany and Germany knew it. Hence Germany's preventive attack on the USSR, Operation Barbarossa.

    But this not new info., that is unless you don't get out very often.
    See:
    CODOH WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20
    and specifically:
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    Debate there if you think you can.

    Thanks.

    The Soviets just don’t qualify as Russians enough for my tastes. Yes it included Russians, but it was a multiethnic Northern Asian political cult. Same thing as Yugoslavia where the communist ideology held ethic minorities together though force , and before communism was the proven ideological failure it turned out to be. Yes the Russian empire was imperialist enough , but they really had little choice in that part of the world other than the buffer state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Sayless says:
    @Che Guava
    Durutti,,

    I am sorry to have not been reading all of those linkings you posted. I will. They look a little like spaghetti.

    When I first started to postng on this site, another poster was saying 'Saker can never be in Russia', that may be the truth, but we cannot know. Only that he is upper-class, if he were a woman, it would have been a 'Swiss finishing school' from the revealed pattern.

    I am havimg no answers, but must saying it is a little strange, no reply ever, even to direct questions.

    Still, I am liking his commentary most of the time.

    Prefer Linh's comms., and those of random others, such as yourself.

    Although I can never see why you use Durutti as a pen-name, it is a mystery.

    Must sleeping.

    The Saker lives in Florida. He has a daughter in college here in the States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Well, I had already understood the Florida part, also like much of his writing, so don't want to say damaging things, but a Swiss period is also true.

    I have been a little bad-tempered lately because of a very bad cold, and because that means no real holiday for me. I can see that my earlier comment was impolite.

    The Saker never comments on his exclusion from the land of his origin, (the land of his birth is seeming to be Switzerland, in any case), I am not saying it is bad, but the writing hints that he has never been in Russia, am very much liking and appreciating his writing, analysis, and site. but it is strange and sad that as a Russophile of Russian descent, he feels that he can never be there.

    That is all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @annamaria
    Michael Ledeen is a spiritual creature of Gladio: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio

    http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence&neoconinfluence_prominent_neoconservatives=neoconinfluence_michael_ledeen
    "Michael Ledeen, who has long if murky connections with both US and Italian intelligence agencies, was a part of two major international disinformation operations in conjunction with P-2 and SISMI, the Italian military intelligence agency...
    1983: Neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, the head of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, hires Michael Ledeen as a “special adviser.” Ledeen will soon fall under suspicion of spying for Israel...
    1984: Michael Ledeen is brought into the Defense Department as a consultant on terrorism, via the auspices of Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle... Ledeen’s supervisor, Noel Koch, is troubled by Ledeen’s frequent visits to his office to read classified documents. When Koch and Ledeen journey to Italy on Pentagon business, Koch learns that Ledeen is considered an “agent of influence” for a foreign government: Israel. After returning from Italy, Ledeen asks Koch to help him obtain two highly classified CIA reports which he says are being held by the FBI... Koch tells his executive assistant to stop allowing Ledeen to access the classified materials in his office. In return, Ledeen stops coming to work....Shortly thereafter, Ledeen will begin “consulting work” for the National Security Council...."
    1990-s: “Ledeen Doctrine:" “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small, crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Goldberg says that he heard Ledeen make this statement in an early 1990s speech...
    2001: "Michael Ledeen, speaking at an event sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), states: “No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq… this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war… our children will sing great songs about us years from now..."
    Lunatic. Bloody psychopathic lunatic.

    Ledeen also considers himself a “proud Levite,” one of that tribe that Moses called upon to kill fellow-Jews who were worshiping the golden calf.
    Some years ago he said in public that “we ought to stop talking about the Holocaust.”
    Maybe he thinks too many people are getting too close to the truth about the hoax of the century, and that Jews were up to their elbows in killing fellow Jews in Europe as well as in Palestine.

    nb. Ledeen was also a protégée of Jimmy Cayne of Bear-Stearns, a fellow Bridge fanatic. It is said that Cayne played Bridge while Bear-Stearns burned. Don’t know if Cayne is still providing financial support for Ledeen’s escapades & writing. Cayne was said to have had a drug habit — might be too expensive to pay for two brain-destroying addictions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. AP says:
    @Beckow
    Let's just agree that Ukraine GNP/capita is today somewhere between Guatemala and Bhutan (source CIA Factbook). Not good. Also in a country that has 30-40% people who are either Russians or Russian speakers it is not possible to exclude that group from power (would you suggest that French speakers in Belgium are foreign 'usurpers'?). Maidan brought in Saakasvilli, US and Latvian adventurers, and people like Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Grossman who are also from a minority group. You objection to half-Belorussian Yanukovitch is bizarre and oddly one-sided. You seem to have a hierarchy of nationalities, some better, some worse - try to get over that.

    But you raise an interesting argument for Maidan revolution:


    "Maidan Revolution prevented the development of a Yanukovich-led despotism shut off from Europe and tied to Russia (which tolerates friendly despotic regimes). In this, it was quite successful."
     
    The next elections were scheduled within a year. Yanukovitch won the last one, he would probably lose the new one. How was he a "despot"? Would a despot be allowed to negotiate with EU for 4 years? Would a pro-Russian puppet spent his presidency trying to get closer to EU if he really wanted to 'shut it off'? You make no sense. By the way, US and EU also 'tolerate friendly despotic regimes', but you must know that, so why the unhinged one-sided propaganda?

    We are also 3 years into the '3-5 years before improvement' that you mention. In order for the economy and life to get better the next two years would literally have to see an economic miracle. It is not happening - we are watching another "Orange Revolution" and this time the failure will be even more painful. Staging revolutions against reality and geography, and dreaming of EU cargo cult largesse was just stupid. And stupidity doesn't do well in evolution, and it shouldn't....

    Let’s just agree that Ukraine GNP/capita is today somewhere between Guatemala and Bhutan (source CIA Factbook). Not good.

    Sure.

    Also in a country that has 30-40% people who are either Russians or Russian speakers it is not possible to exclude that group from power (would you suggest that French speakers in Belgium are foreign ‘usurpers’?)

    Nobody mentioning excluding anyone from power based on their ethnicity. The problem was total monopolization of power by the minority group, who (1) proceeded to act in ways the majority didn’t like and (2) eliminated all means for the majority to “resist” legally, through elections.

    Maidan brought in Saakasvilli, US and Latvian adventurers, and people like Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Grossman who are also from a minority group.

    Saakshvili was a governor not a national figure. “US adventurer” was a diaspora Ukrainian who spent most of her life involved in Ukrainian causes. Yatseniuk is an ethnic Ukrainian Greek Catholic from Western Ukraine (he looks Jewish, thus rumors about him). Poroshenko has a Ukrainian mother and a Jewish father who converted to Orthodoxy and changed his name before Poroshenko was born – Poroshenko was raised as an Orthodox Christian Ukrainian. Grossman is a Jewish native of Ukraine.

    Compare to the overthrown government – Yanukovich, Russian-Belarussian child of migrants to Ukraine. Prime Minister Azarov, Russian migrant who came to Ukraine in 1984 at the age of 37. They found a defense minister, Lebedyev, from Russia also (came to Ukraine as a conscript during Soviet times). Minister of Economics and Trade, Prasolov, was another Russian migrant, from Murmansk who came to Ukraine as a graduate student in 1990. The education minister Tabachnyk was born in Ukraine, but was Russian-Jewish. Of these only Yanukovich was actually voted into power by winning a plurality of votes.

    You objection to half-Belorussian Yanukovitch is bizarre and oddly one-sided. You seem to have a hierarchy of nationalities, some better, some worse – try to get over that

    I have no “hierarchy of nationalities” – I am simply pointing out that a government exclusively in the hands of national minorities, pursuing policies disliked by the national majority, is inherently unstable. Add to that the building up of a dictatorial structure and you have people getting legitimately desperate to rid themselves of this government, with no legal way of doing so.

    “Maidan Revolution prevented the development of a Yanukovich-led despotism shut off from Europe and tied to Russia (which tolerates friendly despotic regimes). In this, it was quite successful.”

    The next elections were scheduled within a year. Yanukovitch won the last one, he would probably lose the new one.

    You are not unintelligent, but if you were familiar with what was happening in Ukraine you wouldn’t make such a silly claim.

    Remember that Yanukovich fixed the system so that his party kept control of the parliament despite easily losing the popular vote in the parliamentary election in 2012 (those parties who had won the popular vote but were kept out of power were the ones who assumed power after his overthrow). This, and his cheating in 2004 means we have a pattern of him not abiding by democratic will. In the run-up to the presidential race he was losing in the polls by double digits to Klitshcko, Yatseniuk and was losing to Tymoshenko (who was not, of course, running). At the time of the overthrow, the parliament made a special law barring Klitschko from running. Yatseniuk’s offices were already raided by the police. Tymoshenko was in prison. There was no faith in Ukraine that Yanukovich would give up power peacefully. He had a lot at stake – the Opposition who were winning in the polls was promising to investigate him. The very idea was laughable.

    So the Maidan prevented would-be (non-Ukrainian) despot Yanukovich from consolidating his power and forming a post-Soviet despotism in Ukraine, of the type seen in Central Asia, Belarus, etc. except in Yanukovich’s case it would be a government of a national minority ruling over the natives. That alone made it “worth it” in the eyes of most Ukrainians, as suggested by no sentiment to bring him back and no widespread popularity for his political heirs in Ukraine.

    Would a pro-Russian puppet spent his presidency trying to get closer to EU if he really wanted to ‘shut it off’

    He was more pro-Yanukovich than pro-Russian. But in the end he leaned on Russia, which was much more tolerant of his antics than was the EU.

    By the way, US and EU also ‘tolerate friendly despotic regimes’,

    They certainly do. So? Does that mean the Ukrainian people should have meekly accepted living under a despotic regime friendly to Russia?

    Because it was more stable and the economy would have been stagnantly bad at a higher level than otherwise?

    We are also 3 years into the ’3-5 years before improvement’ that you mention. In order for the economy and life to get better the next two years would literally have to see an economic miracle. It is not happening

    The grinding war in Donbas was probably unexpected and made things worse than they would have been. That being said, the decline has stopped and modest growth has started. I doubt that by 2019 (5 years after Maidan) Ukraine as a whole will be back to where it had been in 2013 but much of it will be.

    You should take your predictions with a grain of salt, given that you assumed that Ukraine and Nepal (with 1/3 of Ukraine’s income) were about the same that you were seemingly unaware of the fact that much of Ukraine has experienced economic decline in the last 2 years that was not as bad as that of Russia, or not much higher.

    Or do you think that Ukraine is still in a free fall?

    It is not happening – we are watching another “Orange Revolution” and this time the failure will be even more painful.

    And many of the pro-Russian posters will be very happy about that.

    The Orange Revolution had a problem in that Ukraine was then 30% to 40% Russian/Russified. Such multiculturalism was inherently highly disruptive given that the Ukrainians and the Russians had divergent geopolitical orientations. It is no wonder that Putin, hardly someone who has the best interests of the Ukrainian state in mind, wants the Donbas to return to Ukraine under terms that maximize its power within Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    You try too hard to avoid seeing the obvious. And any 'not unintelligent' person can see it. Your way of arguing is a legalistic advocacy - in other words, you have an apriori conviction and all you do is selectively choose only the facts that suit you - and skip what you don't like. It is very similar to the US foreign policy debate recently that is less concerned with reality than with emotional attachment to causes. The thinking went from statesmen to lawyers with predictable catastrophic results. The reality punishes 'lawyering'.

    Yanukovitch was not a "despot", the elections in Ukraine were reasonably fair, Russians were - and are - a very significant state-forming part of Ukraine (not just a "minority"), there was a law to prevent foreign citizens to run for office - not just Klitschko who is a German citizen, Yanukovitch genuinely tried to get an EU Association and was (and is) intensely disliked by Russia, the Donbass rebellion and Crimea secession were not only predictable, but predicted, by anyone with knowledge of Ukraine, Odessa massacre happened, Maidanistas did try to remove Russian language as an official language, etc... - in other words all your arguing tries way too hard to deny the obvious realities that actually happened. As if you just try to convince yourself or the unthinking right-end spectrum of the Bell curve. That accomplishes nothing.

    What is explicit in your arguments is a crazy willingness to suppress Russians in Ukraine - by any means, including lying. Whether they are 20%, or 40%, or whatever, they are human with the same rights as others. Yanukovitch had plenty of non-Russian support, e.g. he won in Subcarpathia, the westernmost region of Ukraine that has almost no Russians. He won in Kharkov, Odessa, Zaporozhje - the largest cities after Kiev. Yes, he was hated in Lviv, the west, and on and off in Kiev - but those people are also hardly a majority in Ukraine.

    This will fail. And it will fail because the thinking behind it is not very smart - as you amply demonstrate here.

    One last question that any rational person should be able to answer:
    How was Russia going to keep the Crimea Navy headquarters if Ukraine joined NATO? How would that work? That was the trigger - it was built into the realities of what each side was saying - and I have not heard anyone explain how that would work. To belatedly deny that having Ukraine join NATO was not "the plan" goes directly against what both NATO and Maidanistas were saying openly and repeatedly. And to say that Russia has no right to have a base in Crimea is - well, what can one say to that? How about US turning over its Panama Canal bases to China? Try a realistic answer. I will consider it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. AP says:
    @Jon0815

    You mean 2014 – Russia’s GDP declined 3.7% in 2015. It will have dropped another 1% or so in 2016.
     
    Yes, I meant 2014. Given the double whammy of the oil price collapse, and the effort by the US and EU to damage Russia's as economy as much as possible, it's surprising that the real per capita GDP decline was only about 4.5%, less than half of Ukraine's.

    Russia’s growth from 2017 onward is projected to be in the 1% to 2% range, not really different from that of the EU.
     
    The track record of Russian GDP growth projections has not been great, and I think 1-2% growth is too pessimistic. From 2010-2013, between the financial crash of 2009 and the oil crash of 2014, Russian growth averaged 3.4%, and my guess is that over the next five years it will be closer to 3% than 1%.

    Oil prices are trending back up, inflation is at a post-Soviet low, EU sanctions are likely ending after the French presidential election, and the USA has a friendly (or at least, non-hostile) administration, which will tend to encourage foreign investment. Putin has said Russia must return to growth rates above the global average (at least 3-4%), and towards that end plans to introduce reforms after the 2018 election that would reduce state control of the economy, even if it means an increase in unemployment (we'll see if that happens).

    Given the double whammy of the oil price collapse, and the effort by the US and EU to damage Russia’s as economy as much as possible,

    Obama response was rather weak, actually. There was no effort to damage Russia’s economy “as much as possible.”

    it’s surprising that the real per capita GDP decline was only about 4.5%, less than half of Ukraine’s.

    It was about a third of Ukraine’s. Ukraine’s overall economy declined 15.8% in the 2014-2015.

    This was, however, driven by the ruined Donbas, which saw over 60% decline. Without that outlier, Ukraine’s economic decline for those two years was under 10%.

    It’s very likely that several oblasts will have returned to their 2013 level this year, and that several more will do so in 2017 (with new plants coming online and IT exports continuing to increase, I suspect at least 3% growth in Lviv oblast this year).

    Donbas itself may not recover for decades. Its people are making quite a sacrifice for the sake of the Russian state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    It was about a third of Ukraine’s. Ukraine’s overall economy declined 15.8% in the 2014-2015.
     
    I specified "per capita". The World Bank puts Ukraine's PCGDP growth at -1.1% in 2014 and -9.5% in 2015, vs. overall GDP growth of -6.6% in 2014, and -9.9% in 2015.

    This was, however, driven by the ruined Donbas, which saw over 60% decline.
    Without that outlier, Ukraine’s economic decline for those two years was under 10%.
     
    That map should have a grey area to mark the D/LNR, where I assume the Ukrainian government was not collecting statistics, in which case the 60% decline is only for the Kiev-occupied areas of Donbass.

    A more meaningful map would be of per capita GDP decline, not total. A good chunk of that 60% decline for Donbass may be the result of population displacement to Russia or the D/LNR.


    Donbas itself may not recover for decades. Its people are making quite a sacrifice for the sake of the Russian state.
     
    Well, the parts that were unfortunate enough to be retaken by the Ukrainian army, don't seem to have fared very well. But as far as I know, no one is producing GDP growth estimates for the D/LNR.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Jon0815 says:
    @AP

    Given the double whammy of the oil price collapse, and the effort by the US and EU to damage Russia’s as economy as much as possible,
     
    Obama response was rather weak, actually. There was no effort to damage Russia's economy "as much as possible."

    it’s surprising that the real per capita GDP decline was only about 4.5%, less than half of Ukraine’s.
     
    It was about a third of Ukraine's. Ukraine's overall economy declined 15.8% in the 2014-2015.

    This was, however, driven by the ruined Donbas, which saw over 60% decline. Without that outlier, Ukraine's economic decline for those two years was under 10%.

    http://i.imgur.com/XSMQWDW.png

    It's very likely that several oblasts will have returned to their 2013 level this year, and that several more will do so in 2017 (with new plants coming online and IT exports continuing to increase, I suspect at least 3% growth in Lviv oblast this year).

    Donbas itself may not recover for decades. Its people are making quite a sacrifice for the sake of the Russian state.

    It was about a third of Ukraine’s. Ukraine’s overall economy declined 15.8% in the 2014-2015.

    I specified “per capita”. The World Bank puts Ukraine’s PCGDP growth at -1.1% in 2014 and -9.5% in 2015, vs. overall GDP growth of -6.6% in 2014, and -9.9% in 2015.

    This was, however, driven by the ruined Donbas, which saw over 60% decline.
    Without that outlier, Ukraine’s economic decline for those two years was under 10%.

    That map should have a grey area to mark the D/LNR, where I assume the Ukrainian government was not collecting statistics, in which case the 60% decline is only for the Kiev-occupied areas of Donbass.

    A more meaningful map would be of per capita GDP decline, not total. A good chunk of that 60% decline for Donbass may be the result of population displacement to Russia or the D/LNR.

    Donbas itself may not recover for decades. Its people are making quite a sacrifice for the sake of the Russian state.

    Well, the parts that were unfortunate enough to be retaken by the Ukrainian army, don’t seem to have fared very well. But as far as I know, no one is producing GDP growth estimates for the D/LNR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I specified “per capita”. The World Bank puts Ukraine’s PCGDP growth at -1.1% in 2014 and -9.5% in 2015, vs. overall GDP growth of -6.6% in 2014, and -9.9% in 2015.
     
    Thanks. This suggests that Ukraine's per capita GDP growth in 2016 will be a little higher than the projected 1% overall growth.

    That map should have a grey area to mark the D/LNR, where I assume the Ukrainian government was not collecting statistics, in which case the 60% decline is only for the Kiev-occupied areas of Donbass
     
    Correct, Ukraine only has stats for the part of Donbas it controls - about 1/3 of pre-war Donbas' population. Otherwise the 60% drop in these regions would have affected the overall Ukraine stats even more.

    A more meaningful map would be of per capita GDP decline, not total. A good chunk of that 60% decline for Donbass may be the result of population displacement to Russia or the D/LNR.
     
    True. I'm not sure if the drop is calculated based on the regions Kiev controls or in comparison to the prewar economy that included the entire oblasts. If the latter, and if appropriate corrections for population loss were made, then this would make Ukraine's economic stats less bad.

    Donbas itself may not recover for decades. Its people are making quite a sacrifice for the sake of the Russian state.

    Well, the parts that were unfortunate enough to be retaken by the Ukrainian army, don’t seem to have fared very well
     

    They are still in a warzone. Some had been ruined, others were linked to facilities under rebel control. Ukraine hasn't had the funds to rebuild much - it just rebuilt a couple of bridges in the territory it controls.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Anatoly Karlin

    1. Putin blundered into a tragic brother’s war in Donbas, which opens old wounds and harms all East Slavs.
     
    It is cute how so many Nazis love the UkSSR so much.

    PS. The reason Ukraine has no immigrants isn't for any luck of enthusiasm on the part of its elites but for the banal reason that its not a huge improvement over Central Asia.

    Are you trying to imply that I am a Nazi? Nothing could be further from the truth! I am an American, and I am a national conservative. I voted for Trump in 2016, and I voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @elderlyrstaff
    OK. But please keep in mind that two people in Australia - a man and a woman - prayed the same prayer at least at the time of Mr Putin's 2015 UN speech or earlier that asked our Creator and Mr Putin's Creator and TheSaker's Creator ... to give Mr Putin more wisdom than ancient King Solomon. They still earnestly and fervently pray for Mr Putin and Russian officials and citizens. They pray for Mr Putin to be to be shown American/ Anglo-Zionist craft and to not be taken in by same. This prayer is also for Mr Lavrov, ambassadors, officials, Generals, officers and foot-sloggers and ratings and the Russian people.

    Since our Creator abhors Christmas, and other festivities it is not hard to speculate on the fate of the Choir. Its repetoire was Christmassy to some extent.

    We believe Mr Putin has been raised up by God in a Cyrus-like manner and we will continue to pray for him. All who speak deprecatingly of God's intervention and choices of leaders will feel a great wrath - most terrible to contemplate - come down upon them.

    Is one required to be taking the same meds as you to be able to make sense of this comment? and if so, kindly list them all just in case anyone could be bothered to unravel the tangled threads of thought. Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I forgot what I wrote. May have been overhot - it is summer here.
    , @Elderly R. Staff
    Found the comment. What's your problem?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    Is one required to be taking the same meds as you to be able to make sense of this comment? and if so, kindly list them all just in case anyone could be bothered to unravel the tangled threads of thought. Thanks.

    I forgot what I wrote. May have been overhot – it is summer here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @NoseytheDuke
    Is one required to be taking the same meds as you to be able to make sense of this comment? and if so, kindly list them all just in case anyone could be bothered to unravel the tangled threads of thought. Thanks.

    Found the comment. What’s your problem?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Sorry if I appeared rude but I didn't understand your comment, was it in some sort of code? My Enigma has the six wheels and I assume yours has the five, maybe that's it. Carry on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. OK. You seem to be very rude – I have given you enough time to reply (from my perspective) – and unless I get a straight-forward honest interchange with your next reply I will consider any further response on my part a waste of time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. @Elderly R. Staff
    Found the comment. What's your problem?

    Sorry if I appeared rude but I didn’t understand your comment, was it in some sort of code? My Enigma has the six wheels and I assume yours has the five, maybe that’s it. Carry on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Elderly R. Staff
    OK. Still I can't really help you if you can't start at a point? Just try to articulate the main point over which you are stumbling or alternatively quote a phrase or two. I need something to see where the disconnect is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. AP says:
    @Jon0815

    It was about a third of Ukraine’s. Ukraine’s overall economy declined 15.8% in the 2014-2015.
     
    I specified "per capita". The World Bank puts Ukraine's PCGDP growth at -1.1% in 2014 and -9.5% in 2015, vs. overall GDP growth of -6.6% in 2014, and -9.9% in 2015.

    This was, however, driven by the ruined Donbas, which saw over 60% decline.
    Without that outlier, Ukraine’s economic decline for those two years was under 10%.
     
    That map should have a grey area to mark the D/LNR, where I assume the Ukrainian government was not collecting statistics, in which case the 60% decline is only for the Kiev-occupied areas of Donbass.

    A more meaningful map would be of per capita GDP decline, not total. A good chunk of that 60% decline for Donbass may be the result of population displacement to Russia or the D/LNR.


    Donbas itself may not recover for decades. Its people are making quite a sacrifice for the sake of the Russian state.
     
    Well, the parts that were unfortunate enough to be retaken by the Ukrainian army, don't seem to have fared very well. But as far as I know, no one is producing GDP growth estimates for the D/LNR.

    I specified “per capita”. The World Bank puts Ukraine’s PCGDP growth at -1.1% in 2014 and -9.5% in 2015, vs. overall GDP growth of -6.6% in 2014, and -9.9% in 2015.

    Thanks. This suggests that Ukraine’s per capita GDP growth in 2016 will be a little higher than the projected 1% overall growth.

    That map should have a grey area to mark the D/LNR, where I assume the Ukrainian government was not collecting statistics, in which case the 60% decline is only for the Kiev-occupied areas of Donbass

    Correct, Ukraine only has stats for the part of Donbas it controls – about 1/3 of pre-war Donbas’ population. Otherwise the 60% drop in these regions would have affected the overall Ukraine stats even more.

    A more meaningful map would be of per capita GDP decline, not total. A good chunk of that 60% decline for Donbass may be the result of population displacement to Russia or the D/LNR.

    True. I’m not sure if the drop is calculated based on the regions Kiev controls or in comparison to the prewar economy that included the entire oblasts. If the latter, and if appropriate corrections for population loss were made, then this would make Ukraine’s economic stats less bad.

    Donbas itself may not recover for decades. Its people are making quite a sacrifice for the sake of the Russian state.

    Well, the parts that were unfortunate enough to be retaken by the Ukrainian army, don’t seem to have fared very well

    They are still in a warzone. Some had been ruined, others were linked to facilities under rebel control. Ukraine hasn’t had the funds to rebuild much – it just rebuilt a couple of bridges in the territory it controls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. […] Article original publié sur The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  127. Saker, you never fail to entertain by your lack of attachment to reality. Just a few examples of this lack of attachment:

    1.The Nazi regime in Kiev
    2.The civil war in the Donbass
    3.Ukrainian attempts to blockade Crimea

    As has been pointed out by many people here and in other places, there is no “Nazi” regime in Kyiv. Putinist Russia has far, far more similarities, with Putin even borrowing Goebbels’ propaganda methods.

    There is no “Civil War” in the Donbas. The war is the result of Russian subversion and has become, largely, a Russian invasion when the subversion of the GRU officers sent to stir up trouble didn’t work.

    Tatars blew a couple of power transmission towers and took out power to Crimea. Electric power has been restored to Crimea, although Ukraine owed Russia nothing when it comes to helping their occupation of Ukrainian territory.

    That Ukraine is not growing economically is a lie. Ukrainian exports are running higher than they were before Putinist Russian invaded Ukraine, while Putinist Russia is sinking economically. Across the board spending cuts have been made, pensions are not being fully paid, and the promises made to the population of Crimea were never kept. Mevedev just told “Sorry about your luck,” and went about his business.

    Anyone trusting Russia to keep promises is a fool, as the people of the Donbas have found to their regret.

    If Putinist Russia is so great, why don’t you move back?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    "Saker, you never fail to entertain by your lack of attachment to reality."

    Seriously Quartermaster, you could give the late Lenny Bruce a run for his money. I wish you well with your comedy career, it's a tough biz but the bennies include lots of chicks and good dope.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Let’s just agree that Ukraine GNP/capita is today somewhere between Guatemala and Bhutan (source CIA Factbook). Not good.
     
    Sure.

    Also in a country that has 30-40% people who are either Russians or Russian speakers it is not possible to exclude that group from power (would you suggest that French speakers in Belgium are foreign ‘usurpers’?)
     
    Nobody mentioning excluding anyone from power based on their ethnicity. The problem was total monopolization of power by the minority group, who (1) proceeded to act in ways the majority didn't like and (2) eliminated all means for the majority to "resist" legally, through elections.

    Maidan brought in Saakasvilli, US and Latvian adventurers, and people like Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Grossman who are also from a minority group.
     
    Saakshvili was a governor not a national figure. "US adventurer" was a diaspora Ukrainian who spent most of her life involved in Ukrainian causes. Yatseniuk is an ethnic Ukrainian Greek Catholic from Western Ukraine (he looks Jewish, thus rumors about him). Poroshenko has a Ukrainian mother and a Jewish father who converted to Orthodoxy and changed his name before Poroshenko was born - Poroshenko was raised as an Orthodox Christian Ukrainian. Grossman is a Jewish native of Ukraine.

    Compare to the overthrown government - Yanukovich, Russian-Belarussian child of migrants to Ukraine. Prime Minister Azarov, Russian migrant who came to Ukraine in 1984 at the age of 37. They found a defense minister, Lebedyev, from Russia also (came to Ukraine as a conscript during Soviet times). Minister of Economics and Trade, Prasolov, was another Russian migrant, from Murmansk who came to Ukraine as a graduate student in 1990. The education minister Tabachnyk was born in Ukraine, but was Russian-Jewish. Of these only Yanukovich was actually voted into power by winning a plurality of votes.


    You objection to half-Belorussian Yanukovitch is bizarre and oddly one-sided. You seem to have a hierarchy of nationalities, some better, some worse – try to get over that
     
    I have no "hierarchy of nationalities" - I am simply pointing out that a government exclusively in the hands of national minorities, pursuing policies disliked by the national majority, is inherently unstable. Add to that the building up of a dictatorial structure and you have people getting legitimately desperate to rid themselves of this government, with no legal way of doing so.

    “Maidan Revolution prevented the development of a Yanukovich-led despotism shut off from Europe and tied to Russia (which tolerates friendly despotic regimes). In this, it was quite successful.”

    The next elections were scheduled within a year. Yanukovitch won the last one, he would probably lose the new one.
     

    You are not unintelligent, but if you were familiar with what was happening in Ukraine you wouldn't make such a silly claim.

    Remember that Yanukovich fixed the system so that his party kept control of the parliament despite easily losing the popular vote in the parliamentary election in 2012 (those parties who had won the popular vote but were kept out of power were the ones who assumed power after his overthrow). This, and his cheating in 2004 means we have a pattern of him not abiding by democratic will. In the run-up to the presidential race he was losing in the polls by double digits to Klitshcko, Yatseniuk and was losing to Tymoshenko (who was not, of course, running). At the time of the overthrow, the parliament made a special law barring Klitschko from running. Yatseniuk's offices were already raided by the police. Tymoshenko was in prison. There was no faith in Ukraine that Yanukovich would give up power peacefully. He had a lot at stake - the Opposition who were winning in the polls was promising to investigate him. The very idea was laughable.

    So the Maidan prevented would-be (non-Ukrainian) despot Yanukovich from consolidating his power and forming a post-Soviet despotism in Ukraine, of the type seen in Central Asia, Belarus, etc. except in Yanukovich's case it would be a government of a national minority ruling over the natives. That alone made it "worth it" in the eyes of most Ukrainians, as suggested by no sentiment to bring him back and no widespread popularity for his political heirs in Ukraine.


    Would a pro-Russian puppet spent his presidency trying to get closer to EU if he really wanted to ‘shut it off’
     
    He was more pro-Yanukovich than pro-Russian. But in the end he leaned on Russia, which was much more tolerant of his antics than was the EU.

    By the way, US and EU also ‘tolerate friendly despotic regimes’,
     
    They certainly do. So? Does that mean the Ukrainian people should have meekly accepted living under a despotic regime friendly to Russia?

    Because it was more stable and the economy would have been stagnantly bad at a higher level than otherwise?


    We are also 3 years into the ’3-5 years before improvement’ that you mention. In order for the economy and life to get better the next two years would literally have to see an economic miracle. It is not happening
     
    The grinding war in Donbas was probably unexpected and made things worse than they would have been. That being said, the decline has stopped and modest growth has started. I doubt that by 2019 (5 years after Maidan) Ukraine as a whole will be back to where it had been in 2013 but much of it will be.

    You should take your predictions with a grain of salt, given that you assumed that Ukraine and Nepal (with 1/3 of Ukraine's income) were about the same that you were seemingly unaware of the fact that much of Ukraine has experienced economic decline in the last 2 years that was not as bad as that of Russia, or not much higher.

    Or do you think that Ukraine is still in a free fall?


    It is not happening – we are watching another “Orange Revolution” and this time the failure will be even more painful.
     
    And many of the pro-Russian posters will be very happy about that.

    The Orange Revolution had a problem in that Ukraine was then 30% to 40% Russian/Russified. Such multiculturalism was inherently highly disruptive given that the Ukrainians and the Russians had divergent geopolitical orientations. It is no wonder that Putin, hardly someone who has the best interests of the Ukrainian state in mind, wants the Donbas to return to Ukraine under terms that maximize its power within Ukraine.

    You try too hard to avoid seeing the obvious. And any ‘not unintelligent’ person can see it. Your way of arguing is a legalistic advocacy – in other words, you have an apriori conviction and all you do is selectively choose only the facts that suit you – and skip what you don’t like. It is very similar to the US foreign policy debate recently that is less concerned with reality than with emotional attachment to causes. The thinking went from statesmen to lawyers with predictable catastrophic results. The reality punishes ‘lawyering’.

    Yanukovitch was not a “despot”, the elections in Ukraine were reasonably fair, Russians were – and are – a very significant state-forming part of Ukraine (not just a “minority”), there was a law to prevent foreign citizens to run for office – not just Klitschko who is a German citizen, Yanukovitch genuinely tried to get an EU Association and was (and is) intensely disliked by Russia, the Donbass rebellion and Crimea secession were not only predictable, but predicted, by anyone with knowledge of Ukraine, Odessa massacre happened, Maidanistas did try to remove Russian language as an official language, etc… – in other words all your arguing tries way too hard to deny the obvious realities that actually happened. As if you just try to convince yourself or the unthinking right-end spectrum of the Bell curve. That accomplishes nothing.

    What is explicit in your arguments is a crazy willingness to suppress Russians in Ukraine – by any means, including lying. Whether they are 20%, or 40%, or whatever, they are human with the same rights as others. Yanukovitch had plenty of non-Russian support, e.g. he won in Subcarpathia, the westernmost region of Ukraine that has almost no Russians. He won in Kharkov, Odessa, Zaporozhje – the largest cities after Kiev. Yes, he was hated in Lviv, the west, and on and off in Kiev – but those people are also hardly a majority in Ukraine.

    This will fail. And it will fail because the thinking behind it is not very smart – as you amply demonstrate here.

    One last question that any rational person should be able to answer:
    How was Russia going to keep the Crimea Navy headquarters if Ukraine joined NATO? How would that work? That was the trigger – it was built into the realities of what each side was saying – and I have not heard anyone explain how that would work. To belatedly deny that having Ukraine join NATO was not “the plan” goes directly against what both NATO and Maidanistas were saying openly and repeatedly. And to say that Russia has no right to have a base in Crimea is – well, what can one say to that? How about US turning over its Panama Canal bases to China? Try a realistic answer. I will consider it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Your way of arguing is a legalistic advocacy – in other words, you have an apriori conviction and all you do is selectively choose only the facts that suit you –
     
    So you are reduced to personal attacks.

    Yanukovitch was not a “despot”
     
    Let's review. According to Merriam-Webster, a despot is "a ruler with absolute power and authority."

    Yanukovich, after winning the presidential election, usurped total power over the court and over the parliament. Can you think of a single time when these did anything against Yanukovich while he was in power? When he wanted someone jailed - they were jailed. He cancelled Kiev city's mayoral election, because his man had no chance of winning, and instead installed a loyal puppet.

    None of his additional powers were even the product of popular vote. People voted for a president with limited powers constrained by an Opposition parliament and within a year or so they had a would-be despot with total control over all branches of government.

    BTW, I was clear in stating that Yanukovich was a "would-be despot." He was amassing more and more power but had not yet achieved absolute power over everything. Maidan stopped this process in its tracks.

    the elections in Ukraine were reasonably fair
     
    So in your world it was "reasonably fair" that "reforms" were implemented (by a parliament that itself was the product of undemocratic usurpation of power by Yanukovich) specifically designed to prevent the Opposition from taking power even if they won the popular vote, which is what happened. The Ukrainian people voted for a parliament that based on the popular vote should have been about 53% Orange but instead got one that was about 51% Blue.

    there was a law to prevent foreign citizens to run for office – not just Klitschko who is a German citizen
     
    You have the facts wrong again. The law did not prevent foreign citizens from running for office but set a rule for how long someone could be out of the country. Klitschko, who spent a lot of time training in Germany as a boxer, was thus made ineligible to run.

    The law was conveniently passed when Klitschko was leading by double digits in the polls. He was the only significant politician affected by it.

    Are you seriously pretending that this law wasn't designed to keep Klitschko from running?

    Yanukovitch genuinely tried to get an EU Association
     
    He backed out when he wasn't given a healthy bribe. That's the sort of thing despots do - what they want, regardless of what the people want.

    Now if Ukraine's parliament had reflected what the people wanted, and had been controlled by the Opposition in accordance with the vote, it would have refused to ratify Yanukovich's decision to join the Eurasian Customs Union. Knowledge of this might in itself have caused Yanukovich to go through with the EU deal. But if he did not - no Eurasian deal would have left the EU window open, there would have been no mass protests, and a reasonable assumption that the next presidential elections would have brought to power someone who would do what the people wanted.

    all your arguing tries way too hard to deny the obvious realities that actually happened.
     
    Given your pattern of getting facts wrong, I'm not sure you are the best one to explain "obvious realities."

    What is explicit in your arguments is a crazy willingness to suppress Russians in Ukraine
     
    I stated the obvious point that when a minority has a total monopoly of power and acts against the wishes of the majority, instability is inevitable. When nonviolent, legal ways of resisting (i.e., through elections in which the popular vote translates into power) are shut off, violence becomes more likely.

    Is that hard to understand?

    It is a long way from saying "maybe a minority ethnic group with 35% of the population shouldn't have a monopoly of power" to "suppression."

    Yanukovitch had plenty of non-Russian support, e.g. he won in Subcarpathia, the westernmost region of Ukraine that has almost no Russians.
     
    Yet another fact you got wrong.

    Tymoshenko won Subcarpathia oblast 51.66% to 41.55%.

    He won in Kharkov, Odessa, Zaporozhje – the largest cities after Kiev.
     
    Areas with fewer Ukrainians and many Russified ones.

    Yanukovch lost the ethnic Ukrainian vote in the presidential election.

    Moreover, by the time of the Revolution his popularity had eroded. He wasn't overthrown in 2010, but in 2014 after he had become unpopular and had prevented democratic ways of resisting him.

    How was Russia going to keep the Crimea Navy headquarters if Ukraine joined NATO? How would that work?
     
    Prior to the Revolution and subsequent Russian behavior, NATO was supported by no more than 1/3 of Ukrainians. So it's largely a moot point.

    If Ukraine were to have seriously pursued NATO it would have to not renew Russia's lease on the base. Ukraine could not be a member of NATO with a Russian base on its territory. If Russia refused it would be extremely unlikely that Ukraine would have attacked it. The most likely scenarios would be that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO, or that Ukraine would give up claims on the city of Sevastopol in exchange for NATO membership.

    To belatedly deny that having Ukraine join NATO was not “the plan” goes directly against what both NATO and Maidanistas were saying openly and repeatedly
     
    Without plurality support Ukraine would not have joined NATO, despite the wishes of the "Maidanistas." Thanks to Russia's actions, this level of support for NATO has finally been achieved.

    And to say that Russia has no right to have a base in Crimea is – well, what can one say to that? How about US turning over its Panama Canal bases to China?
     
    US no longer has bases in the Panama Canal. If the Panamanians decided to join an alliance with China would America invade in the 21st century? Perhaps, but it's not a certainty.

    In the case of the base in Crimea, since Ukraine would not dislodge the Russians from the base by force they would either abandon joining NATO, or give up claim to the city of Sevastopol. Russia would probably be sanctioned, also, for refusing to leave.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @NoseytheDuke
    Sorry if I appeared rude but I didn't understand your comment, was it in some sort of code? My Enigma has the six wheels and I assume yours has the five, maybe that's it. Carry on.

    OK. Still I can’t really help you if you can’t start at a point? Just try to articulate the main point over which you are stumbling or alternatively quote a phrase or two. I need something to see where the disconnect is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    The whole thing was indecipherable to me but not to worry, I have placed an ad on gumtree Australia to see if I can obtain a second (or third) hand, older model, five wheel Enigma. They are quite hard to find these days but the optimist in me assures me that it is well worth the effort and that your comment, once transcribed, will be much more than well worth the effort, time and expense of which none will be spared.

    I am now your ardent fan and I thank you wholeheartedly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Quartermaster
    Saker, you never fail to entertain by your lack of attachment to reality. Just a few examples of this lack of attachment:

    1.The Nazi regime in Kiev
    2.The civil war in the Donbass
    3.Ukrainian attempts to blockade Crimea

    As has been pointed out by many people here and in other places, there is no "Nazi" regime in Kyiv. Putinist Russia has far, far more similarities, with Putin even borrowing Goebbels' propaganda methods.

    There is no "Civil War" in the Donbas. The war is the result of Russian subversion and has become, largely, a Russian invasion when the subversion of the GRU officers sent to stir up trouble didn't work.

    Tatars blew a couple of power transmission towers and took out power to Crimea. Electric power has been restored to Crimea, although Ukraine owed Russia nothing when it comes to helping their occupation of Ukrainian territory.

    That Ukraine is not growing economically is a lie. Ukrainian exports are running higher than they were before Putinist Russian invaded Ukraine, while Putinist Russia is sinking economically. Across the board spending cuts have been made, pensions are not being fully paid, and the promises made to the population of Crimea were never kept. Mevedev just told "Sorry about your luck," and went about his business.

    Anyone trusting Russia to keep promises is a fool, as the people of the Donbas have found to their regret.

    If Putinist Russia is so great, why don't you move back?

    “Saker, you never fail to entertain by your lack of attachment to reality.”

    Seriously Quartermaster, you could give the late Lenny Bruce a run for his money. I wish you well with your comedy career, it’s a tough biz but the bennies include lots of chicks and good dope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Elderly R. Staff
    OK. Still I can't really help you if you can't start at a point? Just try to articulate the main point over which you are stumbling or alternatively quote a phrase or two. I need something to see where the disconnect is.

    The whole thing was indecipherable to me but not to worry, I have placed an ad on gumtree Australia to see if I can obtain a second (or third) hand, older model, five wheel Enigma. They are quite hard to find these days but the optimist in me assures me that it is well worth the effort and that your comment, once transcribed, will be much more than well worth the effort, time and expense of which none will be spared.

    I am now your ardent fan and I thank you wholeheartedly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Elderly R. Staff
    Point taken. You will have a great life now. No need for me to spoil it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Thirdeye says:
    @5371
    Givi isn't Georgian, it's a nickname.
    And please stop using the idiotic spelling Czarist.

    I know, his name is Mikhail Tolstoy. He said on video that his family was ethnic Georgian.

    You are extremely petty in your search for intellectual triumphs if you’re going to squabble about Cyrillic-Latin transliteration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    It's Tolstykh, which is far from being a Georgian surname. Do you have a link to such a video?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @NoseytheDuke
    The whole thing was indecipherable to me but not to worry, I have placed an ad on gumtree Australia to see if I can obtain a second (or third) hand, older model, five wheel Enigma. They are quite hard to find these days but the optimist in me assures me that it is well worth the effort and that your comment, once transcribed, will be much more than well worth the effort, time and expense of which none will be spared.

    I am now your ardent fan and I thank you wholeheartedly.

    Point taken. You will have a great life now. No need for me to spoil it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Hey, I just looked at your comment history and there are only four, and all with moi. I'm quite flattered but seriously, I was just having a little fun and no harm or offence was intended. Please don't let me interfere with whatever you do and if you are new to unz then you'll need to just roll with it sometimes. Cheers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. AP says:
    @Beckow
    You try too hard to avoid seeing the obvious. And any 'not unintelligent' person can see it. Your way of arguing is a legalistic advocacy - in other words, you have an apriori conviction and all you do is selectively choose only the facts that suit you - and skip what you don't like. It is very similar to the US foreign policy debate recently that is less concerned with reality than with emotional attachment to causes. The thinking went from statesmen to lawyers with predictable catastrophic results. The reality punishes 'lawyering'.

    Yanukovitch was not a "despot", the elections in Ukraine were reasonably fair, Russians were - and are - a very significant state-forming part of Ukraine (not just a "minority"), there was a law to prevent foreign citizens to run for office - not just Klitschko who is a German citizen, Yanukovitch genuinely tried to get an EU Association and was (and is) intensely disliked by Russia, the Donbass rebellion and Crimea secession were not only predictable, but predicted, by anyone with knowledge of Ukraine, Odessa massacre happened, Maidanistas did try to remove Russian language as an official language, etc... - in other words all your arguing tries way too hard to deny the obvious realities that actually happened. As if you just try to convince yourself or the unthinking right-end spectrum of the Bell curve. That accomplishes nothing.

    What is explicit in your arguments is a crazy willingness to suppress Russians in Ukraine - by any means, including lying. Whether they are 20%, or 40%, or whatever, they are human with the same rights as others. Yanukovitch had plenty of non-Russian support, e.g. he won in Subcarpathia, the westernmost region of Ukraine that has almost no Russians. He won in Kharkov, Odessa, Zaporozhje - the largest cities after Kiev. Yes, he was hated in Lviv, the west, and on and off in Kiev - but those people are also hardly a majority in Ukraine.

    This will fail. And it will fail because the thinking behind it is not very smart - as you amply demonstrate here.

    One last question that any rational person should be able to answer:
    How was Russia going to keep the Crimea Navy headquarters if Ukraine joined NATO? How would that work? That was the trigger - it was built into the realities of what each side was saying - and I have not heard anyone explain how that would work. To belatedly deny that having Ukraine join NATO was not "the plan" goes directly against what both NATO and Maidanistas were saying openly and repeatedly. And to say that Russia has no right to have a base in Crimea is - well, what can one say to that? How about US turning over its Panama Canal bases to China? Try a realistic answer. I will consider it.

    Your way of arguing is a legalistic advocacy – in other words, you have an apriori conviction and all you do is selectively choose only the facts that suit you –

    So you are reduced to personal attacks.

    Yanukovitch was not a “despot”

    Let’s review. According to Merriam-Webster, a despot is “a ruler with absolute power and authority.”

    Yanukovich, after winning the presidential election, usurped total power over the court and over the parliament. Can you think of a single time when these did anything against Yanukovich while he was in power? When he wanted someone jailed – they were jailed. He cancelled Kiev city’s mayoral election, because his man had no chance of winning, and instead installed a loyal puppet.

    None of his additional powers were even the product of popular vote. People voted for a president with limited powers constrained by an Opposition parliament and within a year or so they had a would-be despot with total control over all branches of government.

    BTW, I was clear in stating that Yanukovich was a “would-be despot.” He was amassing more and more power but had not yet achieved absolute power over everything. Maidan stopped this process in its tracks.

    the elections in Ukraine were reasonably fair

    So in your world it was “reasonably fair” that “reforms” were implemented (by a parliament that itself was the product of undemocratic usurpation of power by Yanukovich) specifically designed to prevent the Opposition from taking power even if they won the popular vote, which is what happened. The Ukrainian people voted for a parliament that based on the popular vote should have been about 53% Orange but instead got one that was about 51% Blue.

    there was a law to prevent foreign citizens to run for office – not just Klitschko who is a German citizen

    You have the facts wrong again. The law did not prevent foreign citizens from running for office but set a rule for how long someone could be out of the country. Klitschko, who spent a lot of time training in Germany as a boxer, was thus made ineligible to run.

    The law was conveniently passed when Klitschko was leading by double digits in the polls. He was the only significant politician affected by it.

    Are you seriously pretending that this law wasn’t designed to keep Klitschko from running?

    Yanukovitch genuinely tried to get an EU Association

    He backed out when he wasn’t given a healthy bribe. That’s the sort of thing despots do – what they want, regardless of what the people want.

    Now if Ukraine’s parliament had reflected what the people wanted, and had been controlled by the Opposition in accordance with the vote, it would have refused to ratify Yanukovich’s decision to join the Eurasian Customs Union. Knowledge of this might in itself have caused Yanukovich to go through with the EU deal. But if he did not – no Eurasian deal would have left the EU window open, there would have been no mass protests, and a reasonable assumption that the next presidential elections would have brought to power someone who would do what the people wanted.

    all your arguing tries way too hard to deny the obvious realities that actually happened.

    Given your pattern of getting facts wrong, I’m not sure you are the best one to explain “obvious realities.”

    What is explicit in your arguments is a crazy willingness to suppress Russians in Ukraine

    I stated the obvious point that when a minority has a total monopoly of power and acts against the wishes of the majority, instability is inevitable. When nonviolent, legal ways of resisting (i.e., through elections in which the popular vote translates into power) are shut off, violence becomes more likely.

    Is that hard to understand?

    It is a long way from saying “maybe a minority ethnic group with 35% of the population shouldn’t have a monopoly of power” to “suppression.”

    Yanukovitch had plenty of non-Russian support, e.g. he won in Subcarpathia, the westernmost region of Ukraine that has almost no Russians.

    Yet another fact you got wrong.

    Tymoshenko won Subcarpathia oblast 51.66% to 41.55%.

    He won in Kharkov, Odessa, Zaporozhje – the largest cities after Kiev.

    Areas with fewer Ukrainians and many Russified ones.

    Yanukovch lost the ethnic Ukrainian vote in the presidential election.

    Moreover, by the time of the Revolution his popularity had eroded. He wasn’t overthrown in 2010, but in 2014 after he had become unpopular and had prevented democratic ways of resisting him.

    How was Russia going to keep the Crimea Navy headquarters if Ukraine joined NATO? How would that work?

    Prior to the Revolution and subsequent Russian behavior, NATO was supported by no more than 1/3 of Ukrainians. So it’s largely a moot point.

    If Ukraine were to have seriously pursued NATO it would have to not renew Russia’s lease on the base. Ukraine could not be a member of NATO with a Russian base on its territory. If Russia refused it would be extremely unlikely that Ukraine would have attacked it. The most likely scenarios would be that Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO, or that Ukraine would give up claims on the city of Sevastopol in exchange for NATO membership.

    To belatedly deny that having Ukraine join NATO was not “the plan” goes directly against what both NATO and Maidanistas were saying openly and repeatedly

    Without plurality support Ukraine would not have joined NATO, despite the wishes of the “Maidanistas.” Thanks to Russia’s actions, this level of support for NATO has finally been achieved.

    And to say that Russia has no right to have a base in Crimea is – well, what can one say to that? How about US turning over its Panama Canal bases to China?

    US no longer has bases in the Panama Canal. If the Panamanians decided to join an alliance with China would America invade in the 21st century? Perhaps, but it’s not a certainty.

    In the case of the base in Crimea, since Ukraine would not dislodge the Russians from the base by force they would either abandon joining NATO, or give up claim to the city of Sevastopol. Russia would probably be sanctioned, also, for refusing to leave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Well, you doubled down on ignoring my points. That's why I said that you don't seem interested in reality and solutions, only in presenting your case, over and over again. It has failed, it isn't working - what do you plan to do about it?

    I listed Odessa massacre, trying to ban Russian language as official medium, the fact that pro-Russia's parties consistently got 40-50% of vote, etc... you don't address it.

    One topic your addressed was NATO and the resulting Russian Navy dilemma. Thanks for that. But your answer highlights that there was no solution - that one way or another Russian Navy would be out. And Russia - understandably in a peninsula that is 70% Russian and very pro-Russian - didn't like it. That was very predictable and should had been taken into account. The fact that only 1/3 in Ukraine supported NATO before Maidan, highlights that Maidan was hardly a majority movement - it had lots of support, but by no means its goals were embraced by a majority of Ukrainians. And that is undemocratic.

    Calling people "Russified" is just ugly. You do it to dismiss their standing, to be able to ignore them - and it devalues what you say. Ok, you hate Russian, Russified people, pro-Russian ethnics, etc... - fine, but why should anyone take your emotions seriously? Hate all you want, but without addressing this in a rational, objective way you will get nowhere. And Ukraine will continue to suffer.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Elderly R. Staff
    Point taken. You will have a great life now. No need for me to spoil it.

    Hey, I just looked at your comment history and there are only four, and all with moi. I’m quite flattered but seriously, I was just having a little fun and no harm or offence was intended. Please don’t let me interfere with whatever you do and if you are new to unz then you’ll need to just roll with it sometimes. Cheers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. 5371 says:
    @Thirdeye
    I know, his name is Mikhail Tolstoy. He said on video that his family was ethnic Georgian.

    You are extremely petty in your search for intellectual triumphs if you're going to squabble about Cyrillic-Latin transliteration.

    It’s Tolstykh, which is far from being a Georgian surname. Do you have a link to such a video?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. […] Article original publié sur The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  138. Pavel says:
    @JoeFour
    "But why doesn’t (Putin) give the same respect to Ukrainian nationalists and extreme Russian nationalists, and why doesn’t he end mass immigration into Russia?"

    With regard to Russian nationalists and mass immigration into Russia ... your question reminded me of a brief YouTube video I watched some time ago of Putin in which he was asked a related question and expressed his view that Russia has basically always been, and is to this day, a multi-ethnic country ... and his desire is that there be general recognition of that fact and cooperative support from and for each ethnic group in the country (something like "all for one and one for all").

    So...as long as the various ethnic groups in Russia are united under and supportive of the Russian nation, he is OK with diversity and not adverse to immigration into Russian by additional non-Russian nationalities/ ethnicities.

    All that said, I must admit that my recollection of this video is not sharp so I am certainly open to be corrected by others more knowledgeable of Putin's views. FWIW, my personal opinion is that the more religious and ethnic diversity there is in any particular country the weaker that country is and the more uncertain its future will be in the longer term.

    From the early days of Russian state was multinational association, i recommend even some wikipedia articles about Grand Duchy of Moscow history(especially Ivan 3 rule period). For example, in the company to conquer one of the most powerful pieces of ancient Russia, the Novgorod Republic participated Tatars and Permian, and a huge number of Finno Uralic people. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shelon for more info, especially translated Russian article!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JoeFour
    "From the early days of Russian state was multinational association, i recommend even some wikipedia articles about Grand Duchy of Moscow history(especially Ivan 3 rule period). For example, in the company to conquer one of the most powerful pieces of ancient Russia, the Novgorod Republic participated Tatars and Permian, and a huge number of Finno Uralic people. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shelon for more info, especially translated Russian article!"


    Thank you, Pavel, for that information and link ... much appreciated!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Your way of arguing is a legalistic advocacy – in other words, you have an apriori conviction and all you do is selectively choose only the facts that suit you –
     
    So you are reduced to personal attacks.

    Yanukovitch was not a “despot”
     
    Let's review. According to Merriam-Webster, a despot is "a ruler with absolute power and authority."

    Yanukovich, after winning the presidential election, usurped total power over the court and over the parliament. Can you think of a single time when these did anything against Yanukovich while he was in power? When he wanted someone jailed - they were jailed. He cancelled Kiev city's mayoral election, because his man had no chance of winning, and instead installed a loyal puppet.

    None of his additional powers were even the product of popular vote. People voted for a president with limited powers constrained by an Opposition parliament and within a year or so they had a would-be despot with total control over all branches of government.

    BTW, I was clear in stating that Yanukovich was a "would-be despot." He was amassing more and more power but had not yet achieved absolute power over everything. Maidan stopped this process in its tracks.

    the elections in Ukraine were reasonably fair
     
    So in your world it was "reasonably fair" that "reforms" were implemented (by a parliament that itself was the product of undemocratic usurpation of power by Yanukovich) specifically designed to prevent the Opposition from taking power even if they won the popular vote, which is what happened. The Ukrainian people voted for a parliament that based on the popular vote should have been about 53% Orange but instead got one that was about 51% Blue.

    there was a law to prevent foreign citizens to run for office – not just Klitschko who is a German citizen
     
    You have the facts wrong again. The law did not prevent foreign citizens from running for office but set a rule for how long someone could be out of the country. Klitschko, who spent a lot of time training in Germany as a boxer, was thus made ineligible to run.

    The law was conveniently passed when Klitschko was leading by double digits in the polls. He was the only significant politician affected by it.

    Are you seriously pretending that this law wasn't designed to keep Klitschko from running?

    Yanukovitch genuinely tried to get an EU Association
     
    He backed out when he wasn't given a healthy bribe. That's the sort of thing despots do - what they want, regardless of what the people want.

    Now if Ukraine's parliament had reflected what the people wanted, and had been controlled by the Opposition in accordance with the vote, it would have refused to ratify Yanukovich's decision to join the Eurasian Customs Union. Knowledge of this might in itself have caused Yanukovich to go through with the EU deal. But if he did not - no Eurasian deal would have left the EU window open, there would have been no mass protests, and a reasonable assumption that the next presidential elections would have brought to power someone who would do what the people wanted.

    all your arguing tries way too hard to deny the obvious realities that actually happened.
     
    Given your pattern of getting facts wrong, I'm not sure you are the best one to explain "obvious realities."

    What is explicit in your arguments is a crazy willingness to suppress Russians in Ukraine
     
    I stated the obvious point that when a minority has a total monopoly of power and acts against the wishes of the majority, instability is inevitable. When nonviolent, legal ways of resisting (i.e., through elections in which the popular vote translates into power) are shut off, violence becomes more likely.

    Is that hard to understand?

    It is a long way from saying "maybe a minority ethnic group with 35% of the population shouldn't have a monopoly of power" to "suppression."

    Yanukovitch had plenty of non-Russian support, e.g. he won in Subcarpathia, the westernmost region of Ukraine that has almost no Russians.
     
    Yet another fact you got wrong.

    Tymoshenko won Subcarpathia oblast 51.66% to 41.55%.

    He won in Kharkov, Odessa, Zaporozhje – the largest cities after Kiev.
     
    Areas with fewer Ukrainians and many Russified ones.

    Yanukovch lost the ethnic Ukrainian vote in the presidential election.

    Moreover, by the time of the Revolution his popularity had eroded. He wasn't overthrown in 2010, but in 2014 after he had become unpopular and had prevented democratic ways of resisting him.

    How was Russia going to keep the Crimea Navy headquarters if Ukraine joined NATO? How would that work?
     
    Prior to the Revolution and subsequent Russian behavior, NATO was supported by no more than 1/3 of Ukrainians. So it's largely a moot point.

    If Ukraine were to have seriously pursued NATO it would have to not renew Russia's lease on the base. Ukraine could not be a member of NATO with a Russian base on its territory. If Russia refused it would be extremely unlikely that Ukraine would have attacked it. The most likely scenarios would be that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO, or that Ukraine would give up claims on the city of Sevastopol in exchange for NATO membership.

    To belatedly deny that having Ukraine join NATO was not “the plan” goes directly against what both NATO and Maidanistas were saying openly and repeatedly
     
    Without plurality support Ukraine would not have joined NATO, despite the wishes of the "Maidanistas." Thanks to Russia's actions, this level of support for NATO has finally been achieved.

    And to say that Russia has no right to have a base in Crimea is – well, what can one say to that? How about US turning over its Panama Canal bases to China?
     
    US no longer has bases in the Panama Canal. If the Panamanians decided to join an alliance with China would America invade in the 21st century? Perhaps, but it's not a certainty.

    In the case of the base in Crimea, since Ukraine would not dislodge the Russians from the base by force they would either abandon joining NATO, or give up claim to the city of Sevastopol. Russia would probably be sanctioned, also, for refusing to leave.

    Well, you doubled down on ignoring my points. That’s why I said that you don’t seem interested in reality and solutions, only in presenting your case, over and over again. It has failed, it isn’t working – what do you plan to do about it?

    I listed Odessa massacre, trying to ban Russian language as official medium, the fact that pro-Russia’s parties consistently got 40-50% of vote, etc… you don’t address it.

    One topic your addressed was NATO and the resulting Russian Navy dilemma. Thanks for that. But your answer highlights that there was no solution – that one way or another Russian Navy would be out. And Russia – understandably in a peninsula that is 70% Russian and very pro-Russian – didn’t like it. That was very predictable and should had been taken into account. The fact that only 1/3 in Ukraine supported NATO before Maidan, highlights that Maidan was hardly a majority movement – it had lots of support, but by no means its goals were embraced by a majority of Ukrainians. And that is undemocratic.

    Calling people “Russified” is just ugly. You do it to dismiss their standing, to be able to ignore them – and it devalues what you say. Ok, you hate Russian, Russified people, pro-Russian ethnics, etc… – fine, but why should anyone take your emotions seriously? Hate all you want, but without addressing this in a rational, objective way you will get nowhere. And Ukraine will continue to suffer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Well, you doubled down on ignoring my points
     
    No I did not. My lengthy post addressed your points.

    You claimed that I supported "suppression" of Russians. I pointed out that having an ethnicity comprising 35% of so of the population monopolizing political power is and acting in ways that the majority doesn't like ins inherently destabilizing.

    You ignored that.

    Etc.


    Odessa massacre
     
    Oh, this fairytale. You do know that the UN report contradicts the Russian nationalist narrative, which fueled the Donbas insurrection. Here is the UN report. Scroll down to page 9 for events in Odessa:

    http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/HRMMUReport15June2014.pdf

    Arguing with you feels like arguing about WMDs in Iraq in 2003 with someone who gets all their info from Fox News.

    48 or so people tragically burned to death in a building during a riot - a one-time accidental occurrence - in which both sides behaved violently, and in order to prevent such a "massacre" a war started in which thousands of mostly Russian and Russified civilians have died, their region has been ruined, and 100,000s of them have been displaced. Not a good reaction.


    trying to ban Russian language as official medium
     
    Just as Spanish language is "banned" as official medium in the USA. Do you have a problem with that as well?

    the fact that pro-Russia’s parties consistently got 40-50% of vote,
     
    Why do you think that a party that got 40% to 50% of the vote should monopolize power over the majority and do things the majority doesn't want done?

    One topic your addressed was NATO and the resulting Russian Navy dilemma. Thanks for that. But your answer highlights that there was no solution – that one way or another Russian Navy would be out
     
    And I see you ignored my answer.

    I stated Russian Navy would not be out, unless Russia wanted it to be out. Ukraine wouldn't force it out. Ukraine would either give up NATO membership or give up claim to the city of Sevastopol (as a price for NATO membership) so that the Russian Navy would no longer be on Ukrainian soil.


    And Russia – understandably in a peninsula that is 70% Russian
     
    60%. You are loose with the facts again.

    and very pro-Russian
     
    Yes. The right thing to do would have been for Crimeans to elect pro-Russian parties who would sponsor a referendum, then vote to secede. Perhaps the peninsula could have been split, giving the native Tatars their own homeland. Instead Russia pulled a "Kosovo", invading a state's sovereign territory. Even worse than Kosovo - Kosovo was 90% Albanian, Crimea 60% Russian; Kosovo had an Albanian majority from the 19th century, Crimea only after 1940 when the native Tatars were expelled by Stalin.

    The fact that only 1/3 in Ukraine supported NATO before Maidan, highlights that Maidan was hardly a majority movement
     
    NATO support was not the same as Maidan support, though there was certainly overlap. People didn't want to overthrow Yanukovich in order to join NATO. As I explained and you ignored - they wanted to prevent the consolidation of his despotic rule and to integrate with the West (not necessarily with NATO).

    In February, Maidan had about 42% support in Ukraine, while about 25% of the population supported Yanukovich. The majority of Ukraine's ethnic Ukrainians supported Maidan.

    Given that Maidan enjoyed plurality support (almost twice as much as did the overthrown government) and it brought to power exactly those parties that had won the most recent parliamentary election but who had been denied power by the would-be despot Yanukovich, it was quite democratic.


    Calling people “Russified” is just ugly.
     
    No it is not. No more than terms such as "Polonized", "Anglicized", etc.

    Can you think of a more accurate term for people who are not of Russian ethnicity but who speak only Russian and have a largely Russian self-identity? (there are also, of course, people who speak Russian but who have a Ukrainian self-identity - Kiev is full of them).


    You do it to dismiss their standing, to be able to ignore them
     
    Utter nonsense, sorry. I was highlighting that although Russians were only about 18% of pre-war Ukraine's population, Russified Ukrainians were another 15% or so, making Ukraine de facto about 35% Russian rather than merely 18% Russian. It seems that my attempt to convey an accurate picture of Ukraine triggered something in you.

    Ok, you hate Russian, Russified people, pro-Russian ethnics
     
    Now you are reduced to making ugly lies about me. I certainly do not hate Russian people, Russified people, etc. Point out one statement I have made that expressed hatred towards Russians or their culture, or retract your lie.

    And stating that it's inherently unstable if ethnic Russians, a minority within Ukraine, have a monopoly of power within Ukraine is not a statement of hatred toward anybody.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. AP says:
    @Beckow
    Well, you doubled down on ignoring my points. That's why I said that you don't seem interested in reality and solutions, only in presenting your case, over and over again. It has failed, it isn't working - what do you plan to do about it?

    I listed Odessa massacre, trying to ban Russian language as official medium, the fact that pro-Russia's parties consistently got 40-50% of vote, etc... you don't address it.

    One topic your addressed was NATO and the resulting Russian Navy dilemma. Thanks for that. But your answer highlights that there was no solution - that one way or another Russian Navy would be out. And Russia - understandably in a peninsula that is 70% Russian and very pro-Russian - didn't like it. That was very predictable and should had been taken into account. The fact that only 1/3 in Ukraine supported NATO before Maidan, highlights that Maidan was hardly a majority movement - it had lots of support, but by no means its goals were embraced by a majority of Ukrainians. And that is undemocratic.

    Calling people "Russified" is just ugly. You do it to dismiss their standing, to be able to ignore them - and it devalues what you say. Ok, you hate Russian, Russified people, pro-Russian ethnics, etc... - fine, but why should anyone take your emotions seriously? Hate all you want, but without addressing this in a rational, objective way you will get nowhere. And Ukraine will continue to suffer.

    Well, you doubled down on ignoring my points

    No I did not. My lengthy post addressed your points.

    You claimed that I supported “suppression” of Russians. I pointed out that having an ethnicity comprising 35% of so of the population monopolizing political power is and acting in ways that the majority doesn’t like ins inherently destabilizing.

    You ignored that.

    Etc.

    Odessa massacre

    Oh, this fairytale. You do know that the UN report contradicts the Russian nationalist narrative, which fueled the Donbas insurrection. Here is the UN report. Scroll down to page 9 for events in Odessa:

    http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/HRMMUReport15June2014.pdf

    Arguing with you feels like arguing about WMDs in Iraq in 2003 with someone who gets all their info from Fox News.

    48 or so people tragically burned to death in a building during a riot – a one-time accidental occurrence – in which both sides behaved violently, and in order to prevent such a “massacre” a war started in which thousands of mostly Russian and Russified civilians have died, their region has been ruined, and 100,000s of them have been displaced. Not a good reaction.

    trying to ban Russian language as official medium

    Just as Spanish language is “banned” as official medium in the USA. Do you have a problem with that as well?

    the fact that pro-Russia’s parties consistently got 40-50% of vote,

    Why do you think that a party that got 40% to 50% of the vote should monopolize power over the majority and do things the majority doesn’t want done?

    One topic your addressed was NATO and the resulting Russian Navy dilemma. Thanks for that. But your answer highlights that there was no solution – that one way or another Russian Navy would be out

    And I see you ignored my answer.

    I stated Russian Navy would not be out, unless Russia wanted it to be out. Ukraine wouldn’t force it out. Ukraine would either give up NATO membership or give up claim to the city of Sevastopol (as a price for NATO membership) so that the Russian Navy would no longer be on Ukrainian soil.

    And Russia – understandably in a peninsula that is 70% Russian

    60%. You are loose with the facts again.

    and very pro-Russian

    Yes. The right thing to do would have been for Crimeans to elect pro-Russian parties who would sponsor a referendum, then vote to secede. Perhaps the peninsula could have been split, giving the native Tatars their own homeland. Instead Russia pulled a “Kosovo”, invading a state’s sovereign territory. Even worse than Kosovo – Kosovo was 90% Albanian, Crimea 60% Russian; Kosovo had an Albanian majority from the 19th century, Crimea only after 1940 when the native Tatars were expelled by Stalin.

    The fact that only 1/3 in Ukraine supported NATO before Maidan, highlights that Maidan was hardly a majority movement

    NATO support was not the same as Maidan support, though there was certainly overlap. People didn’t want to overthrow Yanukovich in order to join NATO. As I explained and you ignored – they wanted to prevent the consolidation of his despotic rule and to integrate with the West (not necessarily with NATO).

    In February, Maidan had about 42% support in Ukraine, while about 25% of the population supported Yanukovich. The majority of Ukraine’s ethnic Ukrainians supported Maidan.

    Given that Maidan enjoyed plurality support (almost twice as much as did the overthrown government) and it brought to power exactly those parties that had won the most recent parliamentary election but who had been denied power by the would-be despot Yanukovich, it was quite democratic.

    Calling people “Russified” is just ugly.

    No it is not. No more than terms such as “Polonized”, “Anglicized”, etc.

    Can you think of a more accurate term for people who are not of Russian ethnicity but who speak only Russian and have a largely Russian self-identity? (there are also, of course, people who speak Russian but who have a Ukrainian self-identity – Kiev is full of them).

    You do it to dismiss their standing, to be able to ignore them

    Utter nonsense, sorry. I was highlighting that although Russians were only about 18% of pre-war Ukraine’s population, Russified Ukrainians were another 15% or so, making Ukraine de facto about 35% Russian rather than merely 18% Russian. It seems that my attempt to convey an accurate picture of Ukraine triggered something in you.

    Ok, you hate Russian, Russified people, pro-Russian ethnics

    Now you are reduced to making ugly lies about me. I certainly do not hate Russian people, Russified people, etc. Point out one statement I have made that expressed hatred towards Russians or their culture, or retract your lie.

    And stating that it’s inherently unstable if ethnic Russians, a minority within Ukraine, have a monopoly of power within Ukraine is not a statement of hatred toward anybody.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    You are pushing your narrative and not trying to have a rational discussion. "Russified" is offensive, if you dont see it, I can't help you. 35% or 50% is a lot of people - and by no means was Yanukovitch government ONLY Russians or "Russified" people - that is nonsense. Also, have a close look at Maidan leadership and you will see plenty of ethnic minorities and foreign-born people.

    An example of hatred is your treatment of Odessa massacre - there is a video of it for God's sake - how can you lie so blatantly?

    You mentioned Kosovo - in my view, what NATO did in Kosovo gives a precedent for Crimea - no prevarication can change that. (By the way, Crimea is 67.9% Russian and maybe 80-90% Russian speaking). Do you think that Kosvo was wrong? I do, and it kind takes away the virtuosity and preachy attitude by the West. But do you think it was wrong? If you don't, then our discussion is rather pointless since without some basic consistency no rational discussion is possible.

    The suggestion that maybe Ukraine could split Crimea and give Sebastopol to Russia is simply not workable - bases need hinterland, supplies, etc... and as you said yourself the dispute would most likely lead to sanctions and acrimony anyway. Maidan wanted EU, and EU - for eastern countries - comes only after NATO membership. Thats the rule. Both Maidan leaders and NATO repeatedly said that Ukraine will join NATO (Bush, Obama, etc....). There was no solution - unless your solution is for Russia to simply give up. Is that realistic? Are you that desperate?

    , @NoseytheDuke
    I watched a video of the Odessa Massacre, it was truly awful. How those people must have felt before they were murdered like that I cannot say but I hope my own death will be nothing like it. I certainly didn't think of it as anything resembling a fairytale. What kind of stories were read to you as a child?

    Right up until I read your post I had come to trust and rely on my eyesight and hearing but should I trust them no longer?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Che Guava says:
    @Sayless
    The Saker lives in Florida. He has a daughter in college here in the States.

    Well, I had already understood the Florida part, also like much of his writing, so don’t want to say damaging things, but a Swiss period is also true.

    I have been a little bad-tempered lately because of a very bad cold, and because that means no real holiday for me. I can see that my earlier comment was impolite.

    The Saker never comments on his exclusion from the land of his origin, (the land of his birth is seeming to be Switzerland, in any case), I am not saying it is bad, but the writing hints that he has never been in Russia, am very much liking and appreciating his writing, analysis, and site. but it is strange and sad that as a Russophile of Russian descent, he feels that he can never be there.

    That is all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. JoeFour says:
    @Pavel
    From the early days of Russian state was multinational association, i recommend even some wikipedia articles about Grand Duchy of Moscow history(especially Ivan 3 rule period). For example, in the company to conquer one of the most powerful pieces of ancient Russia, the Novgorod Republic participated Tatars and Permian, and a huge number of Finno Uralic people. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shelon for more info, especially translated Russian article!

    “From the early days of Russian state was multinational association, i recommend even some wikipedia articles about Grand Duchy of Moscow history(especially Ivan 3 rule period). For example, in the company to conquer one of the most powerful pieces of ancient Russia, the Novgorod Republic participated Tatars and Permian, and a huge number of Finno Uralic people. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shelon for more info, especially translated Russian article!”

    Thank you, Pavel, for that information and link … much appreciated!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Beckow says:
    @AP

    Well, you doubled down on ignoring my points
     
    No I did not. My lengthy post addressed your points.

    You claimed that I supported "suppression" of Russians. I pointed out that having an ethnicity comprising 35% of so of the population monopolizing political power is and acting in ways that the majority doesn't like ins inherently destabilizing.

    You ignored that.

    Etc.


    Odessa massacre
     
    Oh, this fairytale. You do know that the UN report contradicts the Russian nationalist narrative, which fueled the Donbas insurrection. Here is the UN report. Scroll down to page 9 for events in Odessa:

    http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/HRMMUReport15June2014.pdf

    Arguing with you feels like arguing about WMDs in Iraq in 2003 with someone who gets all their info from Fox News.

    48 or so people tragically burned to death in a building during a riot - a one-time accidental occurrence - in which both sides behaved violently, and in order to prevent such a "massacre" a war started in which thousands of mostly Russian and Russified civilians have died, their region has been ruined, and 100,000s of them have been displaced. Not a good reaction.


    trying to ban Russian language as official medium
     
    Just as Spanish language is "banned" as official medium in the USA. Do you have a problem with that as well?

    the fact that pro-Russia’s parties consistently got 40-50% of vote,
     
    Why do you think that a party that got 40% to 50% of the vote should monopolize power over the majority and do things the majority doesn't want done?

    One topic your addressed was NATO and the resulting Russian Navy dilemma. Thanks for that. But your answer highlights that there was no solution – that one way or another Russian Navy would be out
     
    And I see you ignored my answer.

    I stated Russian Navy would not be out, unless Russia wanted it to be out. Ukraine wouldn't force it out. Ukraine would either give up NATO membership or give up claim to the city of Sevastopol (as a price for NATO membership) so that the Russian Navy would no longer be on Ukrainian soil.


    And Russia – understandably in a peninsula that is 70% Russian
     
    60%. You are loose with the facts again.

    and very pro-Russian
     
    Yes. The right thing to do would have been for Crimeans to elect pro-Russian parties who would sponsor a referendum, then vote to secede. Perhaps the peninsula could have been split, giving the native Tatars their own homeland. Instead Russia pulled a "Kosovo", invading a state's sovereign territory. Even worse than Kosovo - Kosovo was 90% Albanian, Crimea 60% Russian; Kosovo had an Albanian majority from the 19th century, Crimea only after 1940 when the native Tatars were expelled by Stalin.

    The fact that only 1/3 in Ukraine supported NATO before Maidan, highlights that Maidan was hardly a majority movement
     
    NATO support was not the same as Maidan support, though there was certainly overlap. People didn't want to overthrow Yanukovich in order to join NATO. As I explained and you ignored - they wanted to prevent the consolidation of his despotic rule and to integrate with the West (not necessarily with NATO).

    In February, Maidan had about 42% support in Ukraine, while about 25% of the population supported Yanukovich. The majority of Ukraine's ethnic Ukrainians supported Maidan.

    Given that Maidan enjoyed plurality support (almost twice as much as did the overthrown government) and it brought to power exactly those parties that had won the most recent parliamentary election but who had been denied power by the would-be despot Yanukovich, it was quite democratic.


    Calling people “Russified” is just ugly.
     
    No it is not. No more than terms such as "Polonized", "Anglicized", etc.

    Can you think of a more accurate term for people who are not of Russian ethnicity but who speak only Russian and have a largely Russian self-identity? (there are also, of course, people who speak Russian but who have a Ukrainian self-identity - Kiev is full of them).


    You do it to dismiss their standing, to be able to ignore them
     
    Utter nonsense, sorry. I was highlighting that although Russians were only about 18% of pre-war Ukraine's population, Russified Ukrainians were another 15% or so, making Ukraine de facto about 35% Russian rather than merely 18% Russian. It seems that my attempt to convey an accurate picture of Ukraine triggered something in you.

    Ok, you hate Russian, Russified people, pro-Russian ethnics
     
    Now you are reduced to making ugly lies about me. I certainly do not hate Russian people, Russified people, etc. Point out one statement I have made that expressed hatred towards Russians or their culture, or retract your lie.

    And stating that it's inherently unstable if ethnic Russians, a minority within Ukraine, have a monopoly of power within Ukraine is not a statement of hatred toward anybody.

    You are pushing your narrative and not trying to have a rational discussion. “Russified” is offensive, if you dont see it, I can’t help you. 35% or 50% is a lot of people – and by no means was Yanukovitch government ONLY Russians or “Russified” people – that is nonsense. Also, have a close look at Maidan leadership and you will see plenty of ethnic minorities and foreign-born people.

    An example of hatred is your treatment of Odessa massacre – there is a video of it for God’s sake – how can you lie so blatantly?

    You mentioned Kosovo – in my view, what NATO did in Kosovo gives a precedent for Crimea – no prevarication can change that. (By the way, Crimea is 67.9% Russian and maybe 80-90% Russian speaking). Do you think that Kosvo was wrong? I do, and it kind takes away the virtuosity and preachy attitude by the West. But do you think it was wrong? If you don’t, then our discussion is rather pointless since without some basic consistency no rational discussion is possible.

    The suggestion that maybe Ukraine could split Crimea and give Sebastopol to Russia is simply not workable – bases need hinterland, supplies, etc… and as you said yourself the dispute would most likely lead to sanctions and acrimony anyway. Maidan wanted EU, and EU – for eastern countries – comes only after NATO membership. Thats the rule. Both Maidan leaders and NATO repeatedly said that Ukraine will join NATO (Bush, Obama, etc….). There was no solution – unless your solution is for Russia to simply give up. Is that realistic? Are you that desperate?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    “Russified” is offensive, if you dont see it, I can’t help you.
     
    Then come up with a less offensive term (for you - because the term is not objectively offensive) for non-Russians who speak Russian and who identify largely as Russians. You personally find the term offensive but that is your problem. Do you also find terms as as Anglicized, Polonized, Americanized to be offensive?

    35% or 50% is a lot of people
     
    Go back to 35%. It's a lot, but 65% is a lot more.

    You think it's normal and not inherently destabilizing when 35% monopolizes power in a country and does things that the majority doesn't like?


    Yanukovitch government ONLY Russians or “Russified” people
     
    Who was in charge of the Yanukovich government? Who made the critical decisions? First of all, Yanukovich. A Russian-Belarussian son of migrants to Ukraine. And then Azarov, the Prime Minister - a Russian who moved to Ukraine in the 1980s when he was 37 years old. Who was charge of the army? Another migrant from Russia, Lebedyev. Who was in charge of economic development and trade? Prasolov, a migrant from Murmansk, Russia. Educations? A native person of mixed Russian and Jewish descent.

    If you don't think that Ukraine's government was dominated by non-Ukrainians I can't help you.


    An example of hatred is your treatment of Odessa massacre – there is a video of it for God’s sake – how can you lie so blatantly?
     
    So someone who doesn't accept the fairytale you've been told and believe about the Odessa "massacre" "hates" Russians in your world?

    You mention "a video." There are many videos. I probably saw more footage than you have.

    Here, for example, is a video showing Russian nationalists throwing Molotov cocktails from the roof of the Trade Union building towards the Ukrainian nationalists outside:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLxSZ1ZG-JA#t=59

    Did those who taught you the fairytale about a planned deliberate massacre of helpless unarmed Russian nationalists mention that happening?

    The reality, as corroborated by the UN report, is that there was mass violence by both sides but the building was set on fire when both sides were throwing Molotov cocktails at each other, with people trapped inside, leading to their tragic deaths.

    Stating so is not an example of hatred of Russians.

    Once again - provide an example of my expressing hatred for Russian people or Russian culture, or retract your lie.


    You mentioned Kosovo – in my view, what NATO did in Kosovo gives a precedent for Crimea
     
    I was opposed to Kosovo. You either oppose both or support both - or are a hypocrite.

    By the way, Crimea is 67.9% Russian
     
    Wrong again. According to the last, 2001 census, it was 58.3% Russian. Russians ran a census in 2014 showing 65.3% Russians (this in part reflects some Tatars and Ukrainians leaving after the takeover).

    Do you think that Kosvo was wrong? I do, and it kind takes away the virtuosity and preachy attitude by the West. But do you think it was wrong? If you don’t, then our discussion is rather pointless since without some basic consistency no rational discussion is possible
     
    Well, I oppose both. You oppose Kosovo but justify Crimea. You lack basic consistency.

    The suggestion that maybe Ukraine could split Crimea and give Sebastopol to Russia is simply not workable – bases need hinterland, supplies, etc
     
    So how does the USA operate Guantanamo without controlling the Cuban hinterland?

    Before Russia took over Crimea it did not control the hinterland. It was able to operate strictly out of Sevastopol, which was a separate territorial unit distinct from the rest of Crimea.


    Maidan wanted EU, and EU – for eastern countries – comes only after NATO membership
     
    There is no rule requiring a country to join NATO before being allowed to join the EU. Those Eastern countries who joined had populations wishing to do so, and because it was easier to join NATO than the EU they happened to join NATO first. Ukraine, prior to the Russian invasion, did not have a population with such a wish. Its population just wanted to join the EU. A Finland scenario.

    Joining NATO would have required a largescale marketing project to increase support from 30% - who knows if it would have happened. Putin did the job beautifully.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @AP

    Well, you doubled down on ignoring my points
     
    No I did not. My lengthy post addressed your points.

    You claimed that I supported "suppression" of Russians. I pointed out that having an ethnicity comprising 35% of so of the population monopolizing political power is and acting in ways that the majority doesn't like ins inherently destabilizing.

    You ignored that.

    Etc.


    Odessa massacre
     
    Oh, this fairytale. You do know that the UN report contradicts the Russian nationalist narrative, which fueled the Donbas insurrection. Here is the UN report. Scroll down to page 9 for events in Odessa:

    http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/HRMMUReport15June2014.pdf

    Arguing with you feels like arguing about WMDs in Iraq in 2003 with someone who gets all their info from Fox News.

    48 or so people tragically burned to death in a building during a riot - a one-time accidental occurrence - in which both sides behaved violently, and in order to prevent such a "massacre" a war started in which thousands of mostly Russian and Russified civilians have died, their region has been ruined, and 100,000s of them have been displaced. Not a good reaction.


    trying to ban Russian language as official medium
     
    Just as Spanish language is "banned" as official medium in the USA. Do you have a problem with that as well?

    the fact that pro-Russia’s parties consistently got 40-50% of vote,
     
    Why do you think that a party that got 40% to 50% of the vote should monopolize power over the majority and do things the majority doesn't want done?

    One topic your addressed was NATO and the resulting Russian Navy dilemma. Thanks for that. But your answer highlights that there was no solution – that one way or another Russian Navy would be out
     
    And I see you ignored my answer.

    I stated Russian Navy would not be out, unless Russia wanted it to be out. Ukraine wouldn't force it out. Ukraine would either give up NATO membership or give up claim to the city of Sevastopol (as a price for NATO membership) so that the Russian Navy would no longer be on Ukrainian soil.


    And Russia – understandably in a peninsula that is 70% Russian
     
    60%. You are loose with the facts again.

    and very pro-Russian
     
    Yes. The right thing to do would have been for Crimeans to elect pro-Russian parties who would sponsor a referendum, then vote to secede. Perhaps the peninsula could have been split, giving the native Tatars their own homeland. Instead Russia pulled a "Kosovo", invading a state's sovereign territory. Even worse than Kosovo - Kosovo was 90% Albanian, Crimea 60% Russian; Kosovo had an Albanian majority from the 19th century, Crimea only after 1940 when the native Tatars were expelled by Stalin.

    The fact that only 1/3 in Ukraine supported NATO before Maidan, highlights that Maidan was hardly a majority movement
     
    NATO support was not the same as Maidan support, though there was certainly overlap. People didn't want to overthrow Yanukovich in order to join NATO. As I explained and you ignored - they wanted to prevent the consolidation of his despotic rule and to integrate with the West (not necessarily with NATO).

    In February, Maidan had about 42% support in Ukraine, while about 25% of the population supported Yanukovich. The majority of Ukraine's ethnic Ukrainians supported Maidan.

    Given that Maidan enjoyed plurality support (almost twice as much as did the overthrown government) and it brought to power exactly those parties that had won the most recent parliamentary election but who had been denied power by the would-be despot Yanukovich, it was quite democratic.


    Calling people “Russified” is just ugly.
     
    No it is not. No more than terms such as "Polonized", "Anglicized", etc.

    Can you think of a more accurate term for people who are not of Russian ethnicity but who speak only Russian and have a largely Russian self-identity? (there are also, of course, people who speak Russian but who have a Ukrainian self-identity - Kiev is full of them).


    You do it to dismiss their standing, to be able to ignore them
     
    Utter nonsense, sorry. I was highlighting that although Russians were only about 18% of pre-war Ukraine's population, Russified Ukrainians were another 15% or so, making Ukraine de facto about 35% Russian rather than merely 18% Russian. It seems that my attempt to convey an accurate picture of Ukraine triggered something in you.

    Ok, you hate Russian, Russified people, pro-Russian ethnics
     
    Now you are reduced to making ugly lies about me. I certainly do not hate Russian people, Russified people, etc. Point out one statement I have made that expressed hatred towards Russians or their culture, or retract your lie.

    And stating that it's inherently unstable if ethnic Russians, a minority within Ukraine, have a monopoly of power within Ukraine is not a statement of hatred toward anybody.

    I watched a video of the Odessa Massacre, it was truly awful. How those people must have felt before they were murdered like that I cannot say but I hope my own death will be nothing like it. I certainly didn’t think of it as anything resembling a fairytale. What kind of stories were read to you as a child?

    Right up until I read your post I had come to trust and rely on my eyesight and hearing but should I trust them no longer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    The video says it all. It is amazing that 'AP' would deny it. It shows something more than just hatred, it is anger at the fact that things are not going his way, that they screwed up - so they lie, and when caught, they lie more and try to distract and quote each other and change the subject.

    The price that the poor Ukrainians will pay for this madness is very high. They were taken in by a bunch of hustlers who used them.
    , @AP

    I certainly didn’t think of it as anything resembling a fairytale. What kind of stories were read to you as a child?
     
    The fairytale is that it was a "massacre" - a deliberate premeditated act of murder by Ukrainian nationalists against unarmed helpless Russian victims. I've even read some stories that there were over a hundred Russian activists chained in the basement and executed.

    The reality according to the UN report and corroborated by video evidence is that both sides were violent (indeed, the first person killed that day was a Ukrainian nationalist, shot to death) and the Russian activists died after both sides were launching Molotov cocktails at each other and the building got lit on fire by one of them.

    You may have watched a video edited by pro-Russian activists to show their half-truth.

    I had come to trust and rely on my eyesight and hearing
     
    What do your eyesight and hearing tell you about Russian activists throwing Molotov cocktails from the Trade Union building, in the link I posted in my response to Beckow?

    Or, before the fire, someone from inside shooting at the people outside, at 1:50? (at 2:30 you see what can only be described as monsters from the pro-Ukrainian side beating people who jumped out of the building; later on other pro-Ukrainian protesters are sen helping the pro-Russians, such as bringing scaffolding at 7:30)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6axlE-sRQ#t=46
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @5371
    Givi isn't Georgian, it's a nickname.
    And please stop using the idiotic spelling Czarist.

    Personally, I use Tsarist but the current formal transliteration according to the latest GOST standard is Czarist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Wally
    "Because Russia has never sought any greatness – particularly military greatness – all of their greatest military victories came when they were attacked (Napoleon, Hitler) and not as a result of any imperial ambitions. "

    Complete nonsense.

    The Soviets were planning to attack Germany and Germany knew it. Hence Germany's preventive attack on the USSR, Operation Barbarossa.

    But this not new info., that is unless you don't get out very often.
    See:
    CODOH WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20
    and specifically:
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    Debate there if you think you can.

    Thanks.

    Muscovy’s expansion was not prompted by defense. Kuban, Caucasus, Siberia, Central Asia, occupied China, Bessarabia, Crimea and what about those Mordavians? The Muscovites didn’t expand for trade. They took tribute.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Muscovy’s expansion was not prompted by defense.
     
    Lot of it was. Crimea (and large parts of Caucasus) was a slave state and a dependency of Ottomans. For 300 years the Tatars of Crimea brutally raided north and murdered and kidnapped peasants, mostly Ukrainian, Moldovan, Russian, Polish,... it lasted until late 18th century when Russia under Catherine II put an end to this slaver state in Crimea. The estimates are that in 300 years Tatars murdered and enslaved 2-3 million people.

    So 'not defensive'? Really? When I hear people belly-aching about the "Crimean Tatars" I wonder if they know this. Or if they actually like the slavery stuff.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Beckow says:
    @Philip Owen
    Muscovy's expansion was not prompted by defense. Kuban, Caucasus, Siberia, Central Asia, occupied China, Bessarabia, Crimea and what about those Mordavians? The Muscovites didn't expand for trade. They took tribute.

    Muscovy’s expansion was not prompted by defense.

    Lot of it was. Crimea (and large parts of Caucasus) was a slave state and a dependency of Ottomans. For 300 years the Tatars of Crimea brutally raided north and murdered and kidnapped peasants, mostly Ukrainian, Moldovan, Russian, Polish,… it lasted until late 18th century when Russia under Catherine II put an end to this slaver state in Crimea. The estimates are that in 300 years Tatars murdered and enslaved 2-3 million people.

    So ‘not defensive’? Really? When I hear people belly-aching about the “Crimean Tatars” I wonder if they know this. Or if they actually like the slavery stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    So ‘not defensive’? Really? When I hear people belly-aching about the “Crimean Tatars” I wonder if they know this. Or if they actually like the slavery stuff.
     
    So I guess you'd be cool with someone ethnically cleansing American Southerners?
    , @Philip Owen
    The same happened in Western Europe. North African slavers captured 1-2 million people in about 300 years. During the English Civil War, Cromwell broke off his siege of Bristol to rescue 50,000 (!) people who had been imprisoned on a camp on Lundy island by Barbary Coast slavers. The US Marines was formed to combat the slavers. First action, Tripoli. It didn't stop until the French took control of North Africa.

    Should the French still hold Algeria because of this? The Italians, Libya? Perhaps the British should have invaded Morocco? Perhaps the French should have moved the Arabs out of Algeria in self defence? Why is West European occupation is colonisation but the former Russian Empire is exempt. (Clue - US had no levers against the USSR after WW2).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Beckow says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    I watched a video of the Odessa Massacre, it was truly awful. How those people must have felt before they were murdered like that I cannot say but I hope my own death will be nothing like it. I certainly didn't think of it as anything resembling a fairytale. What kind of stories were read to you as a child?

    Right up until I read your post I had come to trust and rely on my eyesight and hearing but should I trust them no longer?

    The video says it all. It is amazing that ‘AP’ would deny it. It shows something more than just hatred, it is anger at the fact that things are not going his way, that they screwed up – so they lie, and when caught, they lie more and try to distract and quote each other and change the subject.

    The price that the poor Ukrainians will pay for this madness is very high. They were taken in by a bunch of hustlers who used them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    The only one caught spreading lies, repeatedly, is you. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume in most cases you are merely ignorant and repeating misinformation, myths, and fairytales you were fed, and that you have not been deliberately lying. But you repeat your lie about me hating Russians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. AP says:
    @Beckow
    You are pushing your narrative and not trying to have a rational discussion. "Russified" is offensive, if you dont see it, I can't help you. 35% or 50% is a lot of people - and by no means was Yanukovitch government ONLY Russians or "Russified" people - that is nonsense. Also, have a close look at Maidan leadership and you will see plenty of ethnic minorities and foreign-born people.

    An example of hatred is your treatment of Odessa massacre - there is a video of it for God's sake - how can you lie so blatantly?

    You mentioned Kosovo - in my view, what NATO did in Kosovo gives a precedent for Crimea - no prevarication can change that. (By the way, Crimea is 67.9% Russian and maybe 80-90% Russian speaking). Do you think that Kosvo was wrong? I do, and it kind takes away the virtuosity and preachy attitude by the West. But do you think it was wrong? If you don't, then our discussion is rather pointless since without some basic consistency no rational discussion is possible.

    The suggestion that maybe Ukraine could split Crimea and give Sebastopol to Russia is simply not workable - bases need hinterland, supplies, etc... and as you said yourself the dispute would most likely lead to sanctions and acrimony anyway. Maidan wanted EU, and EU - for eastern countries - comes only after NATO membership. Thats the rule. Both Maidan leaders and NATO repeatedly said that Ukraine will join NATO (Bush, Obama, etc....). There was no solution - unless your solution is for Russia to simply give up. Is that realistic? Are you that desperate?

    “Russified” is offensive, if you dont see it, I can’t help you.

    Then come up with a less offensive term (for you – because the term is not objectively offensive) for non-Russians who speak Russian and who identify largely as Russians. You personally find the term offensive but that is your problem. Do you also find terms as as Anglicized, Polonized, Americanized to be offensive?

    35% or 50% is a lot of people

    Go back to 35%. It’s a lot, but 65% is a lot more.

    You think it’s normal and not inherently destabilizing when 35% monopolizes power in a country and does things that the majority doesn’t like?

    Yanukovitch government ONLY Russians or “Russified” people

    Who was in charge of the Yanukovich government? Who made the critical decisions? First of all, Yanukovich. A Russian-Belarussian son of migrants to Ukraine. And then Azarov, the Prime Minister – a Russian who moved to Ukraine in the 1980s when he was 37 years old. Who was charge of the army? Another migrant from Russia, Lebedyev. Who was in charge of economic development and trade? Prasolov, a migrant from Murmansk, Russia. Educations? A native person of mixed Russian and Jewish descent.

    If you don’t think that Ukraine’s government was dominated by non-Ukrainians I can’t help you.

    An example of hatred is your treatment of Odessa massacre – there is a video of it for God’s sake – how can you lie so blatantly?

    So someone who doesn’t accept the fairytale you’ve been told and believe about the Odessa “massacre” “hates” Russians in your world?

    You mention “a video.” There are many videos. I probably saw more footage than you have.

    Here, for example, is a video showing Russian nationalists throwing Molotov cocktails from the roof of the Trade Union building towards the Ukrainian nationalists outside:

    Did those who taught you the fairytale about a planned deliberate massacre of helpless unarmed Russian nationalists mention that happening?

    The reality, as corroborated by the UN report, is that there was mass violence by both sides but the building was set on fire when both sides were throwing Molotov cocktails at each other, with people trapped inside, leading to their tragic deaths.

    Stating so is not an example of hatred of Russians.

    Once again – provide an example of my expressing hatred for Russian people or Russian culture, or retract your lie.

    You mentioned Kosovo – in my view, what NATO did in Kosovo gives a precedent for Crimea

    I was opposed to Kosovo. You either oppose both or support both – or are a hypocrite.

    By the way, Crimea is 67.9% Russian

    Wrong again. According to the last, 2001 census, it was 58.3% Russian. Russians ran a census in 2014 showing 65.3% Russians (this in part reflects some Tatars and Ukrainians leaving after the takeover).

    Do you think that Kosvo was wrong? I do, and it kind takes away the virtuosity and preachy attitude by the West. But do you think it was wrong? If you don’t, then our discussion is rather pointless since without some basic consistency no rational discussion is possible

    Well, I oppose both. You oppose Kosovo but justify Crimea. You lack basic consistency.

    The suggestion that maybe Ukraine could split Crimea and give Sebastopol to Russia is simply not workable – bases need hinterland, supplies, etc

    So how does the USA operate Guantanamo without controlling the Cuban hinterland?

    Before Russia took over Crimea it did not control the hinterland. It was able to operate strictly out of Sevastopol, which was a separate territorial unit distinct from the rest of Crimea.

    Maidan wanted EU, and EU – for eastern countries – comes only after NATO membership

    There is no rule requiring a country to join NATO before being allowed to join the EU. Those Eastern countries who joined had populations wishing to do so, and because it was easier to join NATO than the EU they happened to join NATO first. Ukraine, prior to the Russian invasion, did not have a population with such a wish. Its population just wanted to join the EU. A Finland scenario.

    Joining NATO would have required a largescale marketing project to increase support from 30% – who knows if it would have happened. Putin did the job beautifully.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    I oppose both. You oppose Kosovo but justify Crimea. You lack basic consistency.


     

    True. In my defense Kosovo happened first and the NATO bombing was very bloody. There was an element of out-of-control aggression in Kosovo that - for all the propaganda - simply didn't happen in Crimea. Nobody died and there was almost no shooting.

    And what did you do about Kosovo? And about the leaders and the media who cheered on the NATO bombing and a violent change of borders in Europe? Probably not much and that's the key: as with many Western activists you might say the right thing, but allow yourself to be ignored at home. It is only with the 'enemy' that you acquire sudden fierce desire to be actually heard. That is a form of hypocrisy too.

    There is no instance of eastern Europeans allowed into EU without first joining NATO. I know something about it - it is presented as one of the prerequisites. NATO is a must and it si not negotiable. EU and US had little interest in Ukraine actually joining EU - see what they do now, they are almost explicitly saying that Ukraine will not be allowed into EU, at least not for 20-30 years. What Washington, Berlin and Brussels wanted was Ukraine in NATO - and Russian Navy out of Crimea. The Maidan leaders wanted the same thing - they stood on tribunes and said that, it was in their parties' programs. How is one to ignore that? How could Russia take a chance?

    You are wrong on small stuff: 2015 Crimea census has 67.9% Russians. Guantanamo is a small base not headquarters of US Navy - as is Sevastopol for Russia. Before Maidan, there was no threat in Crimea to its Russian population and the base. After Maidan there was an explicit threat - big difference. There was no logistical way to separate Sevastopol from the rest of Crimea - it would be an unviable, surrounded and easily starved place.

    Finally, there is absolutely no way to interpret the Odessa video as "both sides killed each other". All killed were unarmed Russians, they were murdered as they were trying to escape the flames. The Ukrainian nationalists celebrated. It was sick, stop defending it - that shows hatred. If you say that you don't hate Russians, how can you not see them as equal, how can you dismiss the Odessa massacre? It doesn't add up - so I will go with you hating Russians. Try to get over it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. AP says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    I watched a video of the Odessa Massacre, it was truly awful. How those people must have felt before they were murdered like that I cannot say but I hope my own death will be nothing like it. I certainly didn't think of it as anything resembling a fairytale. What kind of stories were read to you as a child?

    Right up until I read your post I had come to trust and rely on my eyesight and hearing but should I trust them no longer?

    I certainly didn’t think of it as anything resembling a fairytale. What kind of stories were read to you as a child?

    The fairytale is that it was a “massacre” – a deliberate premeditated act of murder by Ukrainian nationalists against unarmed helpless Russian victims. I’ve even read some stories that there were over a hundred Russian activists chained in the basement and executed.

    The reality according to the UN report and corroborated by video evidence is that both sides were violent (indeed, the first person killed that day was a Ukrainian nationalist, shot to death) and the Russian activists died after both sides were launching Molotov cocktails at each other and the building got lit on fire by one of them.

    You may have watched a video edited by pro-Russian activists to show their half-truth.

    I had come to trust and rely on my eyesight and hearing

    What do your eyesight and hearing tell you about Russian activists throwing Molotov cocktails from the Trade Union building, in the link I posted in my response to Beckow?

    Or, before the fire, someone from inside shooting at the people outside, at 1:50? (at 2:30 you see what can only be described as monsters from the pro-Ukrainian side beating people who jumped out of the building; later on other pro-Ukrainian protesters are sen helping the pro-Russians, such as bringing scaffolding at 7:30)

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Thanks for that video, I had not seen it but still, no, it was a massacre plain and simple. My eyesight and hearing is fine. How can you possibly attempt to defend this? Where is your logic in this? Where is your humanity?

    The people in the building are trapped and surrounded by an angry mob. Clearly the flaming cocktails are being thrown in an attempt to prevent the mob from storming the building. It is a defensive reaction and the range is very limited so the attackers could easily have withdrawn and no lives would have been lost, but instead all of those inside the building were murdered.

    There is even video of people being hacked to death after escaping the flames, c'mon dude.

    Are you an American? Do you not understand what that entails? That democratic ideals were an advanced solution to the senseless killings that resulted from a might makes right methodology?

    How can you excuse this? You appear to be intelligent yet you defend the indefensible here, why?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. AP says:
    @Beckow

    Muscovy’s expansion was not prompted by defense.
     
    Lot of it was. Crimea (and large parts of Caucasus) was a slave state and a dependency of Ottomans. For 300 years the Tatars of Crimea brutally raided north and murdered and kidnapped peasants, mostly Ukrainian, Moldovan, Russian, Polish,... it lasted until late 18th century when Russia under Catherine II put an end to this slaver state in Crimea. The estimates are that in 300 years Tatars murdered and enslaved 2-3 million people.

    So 'not defensive'? Really? When I hear people belly-aching about the "Crimean Tatars" I wonder if they know this. Or if they actually like the slavery stuff.

    So ‘not defensive’? Really? When I hear people belly-aching about the “Crimean Tatars” I wonder if they know this. Or if they actually like the slavery stuff.

    So I guess you’d be cool with someone ethnically cleansing American Southerners?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    I guess you’d be cool with someone ethnically cleansing American Southerners?

     

    Another false analogy. The Southern elite bought and exploited slaves - they did not raid Africa and captured the slaves in brutal slave raids. The Crimean Tatars did - and not just the elite, the whole society did not much more then live of slavery and plunder for close to 300 years.

    I don't hold their current descendants responsible. But it is a bit rich for them - and their Western apologists - to create a false history that only mentions their suffering and totally omits their bloody past. The truth is also that a substantial number of Crimean Tatars joined the Nazis in WWII and actively murdered their Ukrainian-Russian neighbors. Not all, and actually slightly more fought in the Red Army, but a sufficient number joined the Nazis.

    So enjoy the teary songs and false victimhood, it is an attempt to rewrite Tatars' bloody past.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. AP says:
    @Beckow
    The video says it all. It is amazing that 'AP' would deny it. It shows something more than just hatred, it is anger at the fact that things are not going his way, that they screwed up - so they lie, and when caught, they lie more and try to distract and quote each other and change the subject.

    The price that the poor Ukrainians will pay for this madness is very high. They were taken in by a bunch of hustlers who used them.

    The only one caught spreading lies, repeatedly, is you. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume in most cases you are merely ignorant and repeating misinformation, myths, and fairytales you were fed, and that you have not been deliberately lying. But you repeat your lie about me hating Russians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Beckow says:
    @AP

    So ‘not defensive’? Really? When I hear people belly-aching about the “Crimean Tatars” I wonder if they know this. Or if they actually like the slavery stuff.
     
    So I guess you'd be cool with someone ethnically cleansing American Southerners?

    I guess you’d be cool with someone ethnically cleansing American Southerners?

    Another false analogy. The Southern elite bought and exploited slaves – they did not raid Africa and captured the slaves in brutal slave raids. The Crimean Tatars did – and not just the elite, the whole society did not much more then live of slavery and plunder for close to 300 years.

    I don’t hold their current descendants responsible. But it is a bit rich for them – and their Western apologists – to create a false history that only mentions their suffering and totally omits their bloody past. The truth is also that a substantial number of Crimean Tatars joined the Nazis in WWII and actively murdered their Ukrainian-Russian neighbors. Not all, and actually slightly more fought in the Red Army, but a sufficient number joined the Nazis.

    So enjoy the teary songs and false victimhood, it is an attempt to rewrite Tatars’ bloody past.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Beckow says:
    @AP

    “Russified” is offensive, if you dont see it, I can’t help you.
     
    Then come up with a less offensive term (for you - because the term is not objectively offensive) for non-Russians who speak Russian and who identify largely as Russians. You personally find the term offensive but that is your problem. Do you also find terms as as Anglicized, Polonized, Americanized to be offensive?

    35% or 50% is a lot of people
     
    Go back to 35%. It's a lot, but 65% is a lot more.

    You think it's normal and not inherently destabilizing when 35% monopolizes power in a country and does things that the majority doesn't like?


    Yanukovitch government ONLY Russians or “Russified” people
     
    Who was in charge of the Yanukovich government? Who made the critical decisions? First of all, Yanukovich. A Russian-Belarussian son of migrants to Ukraine. And then Azarov, the Prime Minister - a Russian who moved to Ukraine in the 1980s when he was 37 years old. Who was charge of the army? Another migrant from Russia, Lebedyev. Who was in charge of economic development and trade? Prasolov, a migrant from Murmansk, Russia. Educations? A native person of mixed Russian and Jewish descent.

    If you don't think that Ukraine's government was dominated by non-Ukrainians I can't help you.


    An example of hatred is your treatment of Odessa massacre – there is a video of it for God’s sake – how can you lie so blatantly?
     
    So someone who doesn't accept the fairytale you've been told and believe about the Odessa "massacre" "hates" Russians in your world?

    You mention "a video." There are many videos. I probably saw more footage than you have.

    Here, for example, is a video showing Russian nationalists throwing Molotov cocktails from the roof of the Trade Union building towards the Ukrainian nationalists outside:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLxSZ1ZG-JA#t=59

    Did those who taught you the fairytale about a planned deliberate massacre of helpless unarmed Russian nationalists mention that happening?

    The reality, as corroborated by the UN report, is that there was mass violence by both sides but the building was set on fire when both sides were throwing Molotov cocktails at each other, with people trapped inside, leading to their tragic deaths.

    Stating so is not an example of hatred of Russians.

    Once again - provide an example of my expressing hatred for Russian people or Russian culture, or retract your lie.


    You mentioned Kosovo – in my view, what NATO did in Kosovo gives a precedent for Crimea
     
    I was opposed to Kosovo. You either oppose both or support both - or are a hypocrite.

    By the way, Crimea is 67.9% Russian
     
    Wrong again. According to the last, 2001 census, it was 58.3% Russian. Russians ran a census in 2014 showing 65.3% Russians (this in part reflects some Tatars and Ukrainians leaving after the takeover).

    Do you think that Kosvo was wrong? I do, and it kind takes away the virtuosity and preachy attitude by the West. But do you think it was wrong? If you don’t, then our discussion is rather pointless since without some basic consistency no rational discussion is possible
     
    Well, I oppose both. You oppose Kosovo but justify Crimea. You lack basic consistency.

    The suggestion that maybe Ukraine could split Crimea and give Sebastopol to Russia is simply not workable – bases need hinterland, supplies, etc
     
    So how does the USA operate Guantanamo without controlling the Cuban hinterland?

    Before Russia took over Crimea it did not control the hinterland. It was able to operate strictly out of Sevastopol, which was a separate territorial unit distinct from the rest of Crimea.


    Maidan wanted EU, and EU – for eastern countries – comes only after NATO membership
     
    There is no rule requiring a country to join NATO before being allowed to join the EU. Those Eastern countries who joined had populations wishing to do so, and because it was easier to join NATO than the EU they happened to join NATO first. Ukraine, prior to the Russian invasion, did not have a population with such a wish. Its population just wanted to join the EU. A Finland scenario.

    Joining NATO would have required a largescale marketing project to increase support from 30% - who knows if it would have happened. Putin did the job beautifully.

    I oppose both. You oppose Kosovo but justify Crimea. You lack basic consistency.

    True. In my defense Kosovo happened first and the NATO bombing was very bloody. There was an element of out-of-control aggression in Kosovo that – for all the propaganda – simply didn’t happen in Crimea. Nobody died and there was almost no shooting.

    And what did you do about Kosovo? And about the leaders and the media who cheered on the NATO bombing and a violent change of borders in Europe? Probably not much and that’s the key: as with many Western activists you might say the right thing, but allow yourself to be ignored at home. It is only with the ‘enemy’ that you acquire sudden fierce desire to be actually heard. That is a form of hypocrisy too.

    There is no instance of eastern Europeans allowed into EU without first joining NATO. I know something about it – it is presented as one of the prerequisites. NATO is a must and it si not negotiable. EU and US had little interest in Ukraine actually joining EU – see what they do now, they are almost explicitly saying that Ukraine will not be allowed into EU, at least not for 20-30 years. What Washington, Berlin and Brussels wanted was Ukraine in NATO – and Russian Navy out of Crimea. The Maidan leaders wanted the same thing – they stood on tribunes and said that, it was in their parties’ programs. How is one to ignore that? How could Russia take a chance?

    You are wrong on small stuff: 2015 Crimea census has 67.9% Russians. Guantanamo is a small base not headquarters of US Navy – as is Sevastopol for Russia. Before Maidan, there was no threat in Crimea to its Russian population and the base. After Maidan there was an explicit threat – big difference. There was no logistical way to separate Sevastopol from the rest of Crimea – it would be an unviable, surrounded and easily starved place.

    Finally, there is absolutely no way to interpret the Odessa video as “both sides killed each other”. All killed were unarmed Russians, they were murdered as they were trying to escape the flames. The Ukrainian nationalists celebrated. It was sick, stop defending it – that shows hatred. If you say that you don’t hate Russians, how can you not see them as equal, how can you dismiss the Odessa massacre? It doesn’t add up – so I will go with you hating Russians. Try to get over it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. AP says:

    True. In my defense Kosovo happened first and the NATO bombing was very bloody. There was an element of out-of-control aggression in Kosovo that – for all the propaganda – simply didn’t happen in Crimea. Nobody died and there was almost no shooting.

    Correct. Conversely, though Serbian persecution of Albanians was greatly exaggerated in the Western media it was not nothing. Russians were not nearly as persecuted in Crimea.

    And what did you do about Kosovo?

    The same as I do here – argue online in my free time.

    There is no instance of eastern Europeans allowed into EU without first joining NATO.

    I already answered this. Populations in those countries wanted to join, and it was easier and faster to join NATO than EU. So NATO happened first. Joining NATO was not a requirement for joining EU.

    What Washington, Berlin and Brussels wanted was Ukraine in NATO – and Russian Navy out of Crimea.

    What they want and what was possible and how are two different things.

    Under no scenario would Russia be forced out of its base if it didn’t want to leave it. It could have gotten sanctions – as it did now – but also as now it could have ignored them and did what it wanted to do.

    Guantanamo is a small base not headquarters of US Navy – as is Sevastopol for Russia.

    Guantanamo is 45 square miles; Sevastopol is 816 square miles. The Russians controlled plenty of land sufficient for their base without seizing all of Crimea.

    Finally, there is absolutely no way to interpret the Odessa video as “both sides killed each other”. All killed were unarmed Russians,

    I didn’t write both sides killed each other at the Trade Union Building. Try to write honestly for a change. That day the first killed were Ukrainian activists.

    All killed were unarmed Russians, they were murdered as they were trying to escape the flames.

    Most died inside or while jumping to escape the flames, and were not being murdered as they were trying to escape, liar.

    The Ukrainian nationalists celebrated. It was sick

    I agree that such celebrations by those people were sick. On the other hand, many of the pro-Ukrainians outside saved the lives of the people inside. Which shows that the fire wasn’t a planned mass murder but the consequence of two sides throwing molotov cocktails at each other.

    Does your fairytale include that part of reality?

    Here’s plenty of video showing Ukrainian activists rescuing Russian ones:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1sBMnpcgxE&feature=youtu.be

    From around 2.0 on the video you see attempts to help people on window ledges (three at one, two at another) first by throwing a rope, then with a person actually getting up as far as the ladder will reach to get the rope to them. People call to them, saying “Don’t jump” (the distance being far too great).

    At around 6.08 there is an exchange between two people, where one says: “But they’re people!”; the other “so what?” , and the first responds: “games are games, but shit, nobody wants people to die”.

    At 9.07 there is great applause from below as they finally succeed in getting a rope to two people on the window ledge.

    Just after 13.00 there is again applause, this time because some of the Ukrainian activists have managed to find some scaffolding which they drag up to the building to help with the rescue.

    One young man then climbs onto the scaffolding and after a couple of attempts manages to throw the rope high enough for the people a floor above to catch. The cheers and chanting “Ukraina!” begin as the first people are saved.

    27.00 last people being evacuated to cheers from those outside

    It was sick, stop defending it – that shows hatred.

    Don’t claim that I defend what was done at the Trade Union building, liar.

    Not repeating a fairytale about it is not defending it.

    Did you watch the video of people inside the building throwing Molotov cocktails at the people outside?

    It proves that your claim that the people inside were unarmed, is a lie.

    Or will you ignore it, as you do reality.

    how can you not see them as equal,

    When did I ever claim that Russians were not equal, liar?

    how can you dismiss the Odessa massacre

    Sorry if I prefer reality to fairytales. There is nothing hateful about doing so.

    [about Maidan] things are not going his way, that they screwed up

    I already explained to you and you persistently ignored that the purpose of Maidan was to prevent Yanukovich from transforming Ukraine into a despotism controlled by him and his cronies, separated from Europe and linked to Russia. Maidan succeeded in its primary aim. It’s why there is little regret in Ukraine about Maidan, why nobody wants Yanukovich back, and why Yanukovich’s political heirs have not seen any resurgence in popularity. People are disappointed at the current rulers but they are not sorry that Yanukovich was thrown out.

    Unz review’s Israel Shamir visited Kiev at the height of the economic drop in 2015 – he noted that even then people didn’t regret Maidan. Not surprising, because getting rich wasn’t the main reason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    The two responses above by 'Nosey...' and 'Duke...' summarize what happened in Odessa a lot better than I ever could (thanks!). You are simply beyond decency trying to minimize or justify what happened there. Why? I can think of no other reason except that you do not see the Russians, or the 'Russified ones', as not equal. Or you hate them.

    You try way too hard to find small snippets of denial - e.g. that some among the Ukrainians were decent and tried to help. Or that the Russians had the temerity to defend themselves. That's nuts. You are defending mass murder by a mob. If you are unable to explain it other than to call clear video evidences - and almost 50 dead, all Russian civilians - and the ensuing Ukraininan celebration a "fairytale", you are simply a hater.

    I am familiar with EU negotiation in eastern Europe and NATO membership was on the table as a prerequisite from day one. It was "first join NATO", then "privatize and sell us your assets", and then we will make you a "candidate member for EU". Very straightforward - there was no wiggle room. I would remind you that in many countries NATO was not popular - in Czech R or Slovakia it had 25-30% approval - people wanted the Austria model (EU, but no NATO). But they were told it is NATO first, no negotiation. Even today NATO's popularity in many of those countries is around 40-45%. It is a myth that those countries "wanted in NATO". Some did, some didn't.

    Why would Ukraine be different? You suggest that Washington and Brussels don't always get what they want. True, but they try damn hard to get what they want. And the instability that we would have today with NATO muscling in on Crimean Russian Navy with strong support from the Maidan government would be in my view a lot worse than what we have today. It was a ticking time bomb and the politicians who thought it up (Obama, Merkel, Clinton,....) have a lot to explain. Why were they willing to risk a WWIII - a nuclear war - over getting Russian Navy out of Crimea?

    I am glad we more or less agree on Kosovo. I will make you a deal - as soon as Kosovo rejoins Serbia and the NATO Bondsteel base is gone, we can revisit Crimea. Until then, a precedent is a precedent.

    Your main point that Maidan somehow prevented Yanukovitch's pro-Russian despotism is full of holes. Yanuk spent his presidency negotiating with EU and pissing off Russia - how is that for a "pro-Russia" despot? A despot would suppress demonstrations on Maidan in about 24 hours. There was huge and open opposition in the Parliament and the media. If you don't like the way mandates were divided up - well, that was the Ukrainian system. I recall that Blair "won big" with 38% of votes - the electoral systems always have issues. Look at US and popular versus electoral votes. Yanukovitch was a weak and corrupt leader who was on his way out. He actually made a rational decision not to sign the EU Association - it was a terrible deal (see what it has done today). He asked for postponement and a better deal.

    Today Ukraine is a mess. It cannot recover as is - something will have to give. Anger among people is enormous - at Kiev, Russia, EU, everybody - that might eventually explode again. My guess is that as with all boiling anger situations eventually a strong leader with eclectic set of views will take over. People want someone to "fix it" - and they will stop caring about how. In any case, Maidan is a failure (as was the Orange Revolution ten years earlier). It has made life a lot worse. Ukrainians will have to suffer the consequences.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @AP

    I certainly didn’t think of it as anything resembling a fairytale. What kind of stories were read to you as a child?
     
    The fairytale is that it was a "massacre" - a deliberate premeditated act of murder by Ukrainian nationalists against unarmed helpless Russian victims. I've even read some stories that there were over a hundred Russian activists chained in the basement and executed.

    The reality according to the UN report and corroborated by video evidence is that both sides were violent (indeed, the first person killed that day was a Ukrainian nationalist, shot to death) and the Russian activists died after both sides were launching Molotov cocktails at each other and the building got lit on fire by one of them.

    You may have watched a video edited by pro-Russian activists to show their half-truth.

    I had come to trust and rely on my eyesight and hearing
     
    What do your eyesight and hearing tell you about Russian activists throwing Molotov cocktails from the Trade Union building, in the link I posted in my response to Beckow?

    Or, before the fire, someone from inside shooting at the people outside, at 1:50? (at 2:30 you see what can only be described as monsters from the pro-Ukrainian side beating people who jumped out of the building; later on other pro-Ukrainian protesters are sen helping the pro-Russians, such as bringing scaffolding at 7:30)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6axlE-sRQ#t=46

    Thanks for that video, I had not seen it but still, no, it was a massacre plain and simple. My eyesight and hearing is fine. How can you possibly attempt to defend this? Where is your logic in this? Where is your humanity?

    The people in the building are trapped and surrounded by an angry mob. Clearly the flaming cocktails are being thrown in an attempt to prevent the mob from storming the building. It is a defensive reaction and the range is very limited so the attackers could easily have withdrawn and no lives would have been lost, but instead all of those inside the building were murdered.

    There is even video of people being hacked to death after escaping the flames, c’mon dude.

    Are you an American? Do you not understand what that entails? That democratic ideals were an advanced solution to the senseless killings that resulted from a might makes right methodology?

    How can you excuse this? You appear to be intelligent yet you defend the indefensible here, why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Thanks for that video, I had not seen it
     
    Perhaps you should see everything rather than whatever the pro-Russians cut and pasted for you.

    How can you possibly attempt to defend this?
     
    What words did I use that defended this?

    The people in the building are trapped and surrounded by an angry mob. Clearly the flaming cocktails are being thrown in an attempt to prevent the mob from storming the building
     
    The problem is that earlier in the day pro-Russians had attacked a pro-Ukrainian march. A participant in the latter was shot to death. There was plenty of violence by both sides.

    Also throwing Molotov cocktails made it harder for people outside to save the ones inside the building.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1sBMnpcgxE&feature=youtu.be

    At 9:40 while people from outside are trying to save the ones inside, those in the building are still throwing stones out.

    It is a defensive reaction and the range is very limited so the attackers could easily have withdrawn and no lives would have been lost, but instead all of those inside the building were murdered
     
    It looks like the massive fire was no deliberate. Otherwise many of the people outside would not have made a lot of effort to save the ones inside, after the scale of the fire became evident.

    It is possible that the fire was so intense and spread so quickly because a stockpile of Molotov cocktails inside caught on fire.

    There is even video of people being hacked to death after escaping the flames, c’mon dude.
     
    There is a video of some disgusting person beating a man who jumped out of the building, for a few seconds. Is that what you meant by "hacked to death?" Do you have video to support your claims, as I provided to support my statements? Unlike you, I am willing to watch the evidence.

    Some of the Ukrainian protesters were willing to kill and were happy to see the Russian ones die, others did not and saved the lives of the Russians inside. The mass deaths (42 people at the building) were not a planned murder of unarmed people, but the consequence of the building catching fire when two violent groups clashed, a consequence that many of the Ukrainian protesters did not want - proven by the fact that they made efforts to save people inside. That's the reality. The Russian nationalist fairytale is quite different.

    How can you excuse this
     
    Point out my words indicating that I excused this. It was not okay that those people died, and individuals who harmed others (such as the pro-Ukrainian man beating the pro-Russian guy with the stick) ought to be punished severely.

    The really disgusting thing is when people spun this event into a "massacre" for propaganda purposes in order to start and fuel a conflict in the East that has led to thousands of deaths. They did a great job at that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. geokat62 says:

    “Burn, Colorado, burn” went the chant.

    An excerpt from Ukraine’s ‘Dr. Strangelove’ Reality:

    This brutal Nazism surfaced again on Friday when right-wing toughs in Odessa attacked an encampment of ethnic Russian protesters driving them into a trade union building which was then set on fire with Molotov cocktails. As the building was engulfed in flames, some people who tried to flee were chased and beaten, while those trapped inside heard the Ukrainian nationalists liken them to black-and-red-striped potato beetles called Colorados, because those colors are used in pro-Russian ribbons.

    “Burn, Colorado, burn” went the chant.

    As the fire worsened, those dying inside were serenaded with the taunting singing of the Ukrainian national anthem. The building also was spray-painted with Swastika-like symbols and graffiti reading “Galician SS,” a reference to the Ukrainian nationalist army that fought alongside the German Nazi SS in World War II, killing Russians on the eastern front.

    The death by fire of dozens of people in Odessa recalled a World War II incident in 1944 when elements of a Galician SS police regiment took part in the massacre of the Polish village of Huta Pieniacka, which had been a refuge for Jews and was protected by Russian and Polish partisans. Attacked by a mixed force of Ukrainian police and German soldiers on Feb. 28, hundreds of townspeople were massacred, including many locked in barns that were set ablaze.

    The legacy of World War II especially the bitter fight between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the east seven decades ago is never far from the surface in Ukrainian politics. One of the heroes celebrated during the Maidan protests in Kiev was Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose name was honored in many banners including one on a podium where Sen. John McCain voiced support for the uprising to oust elected President Viktor Yanukovych, whose political base was in eastern Ukraine.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/05/ukraines-dr-strangelove-reality/

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Thanks for providing the Russian nationalist fairytale version of events in Odessa, that included some events but conveniently excluded others (i.e., the Ukrainian protesters rescuing people inside). I suppose you think that a half-truth can't be a lie?

    Again, video of Ukrainian nationalists saving Russian ones form the flames:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1sBMnpcgxE&feature=youtu.be

    From around 2.0 on the video you see attempts to help people on window ledges (three at one, two at another) first by throwing a rope, then with a person actually getting up as far as the ladder will reach to get the rope to them. People call to them, saying “Don’t jump” (the distance being far too great).

    At around 6.08 there is an exchange between two people, where one says: “But they’re people!”; the other “so what?” , and the first responds: “games are games, but shit, nobody wants people to die”.

    At 9.07 there is great applause from below as they finally succeed in getting a rope to two people on the window ledge.

    Just after 13.00 there is again applause, this time because some of the Ukrainian activists have managed to find some scaffolding which they drag up to the building to help with the rescue.

    One young man then climbs onto the scaffolding and after a couple of attempts manages to throw the rope high enough for the people a floor above to catch. The cheers and chanting “Ukraina!” begin as the first people are saved.

    27.00 last people being evacuated to cheers from those outside

    Reality is that when the scale of the fire and deaths became obvious, for many of the Ukrainian nationalists outside, the effort changed from one of storming the building to a rescue operation.

    That's not what the Russian nationalists write about it though, is it. As you have so amply demonstrated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. AP says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Thanks for that video, I had not seen it but still, no, it was a massacre plain and simple. My eyesight and hearing is fine. How can you possibly attempt to defend this? Where is your logic in this? Where is your humanity?

    The people in the building are trapped and surrounded by an angry mob. Clearly the flaming cocktails are being thrown in an attempt to prevent the mob from storming the building. It is a defensive reaction and the range is very limited so the attackers could easily have withdrawn and no lives would have been lost, but instead all of those inside the building were murdered.

    There is even video of people being hacked to death after escaping the flames, c'mon dude.

    Are you an American? Do you not understand what that entails? That democratic ideals were an advanced solution to the senseless killings that resulted from a might makes right methodology?

    How can you excuse this? You appear to be intelligent yet you defend the indefensible here, why?

    Thanks for that video, I had not seen it

    Perhaps you should see everything rather than whatever the pro-Russians cut and pasted for you.

    How can you possibly attempt to defend this?

    What words did I use that defended this?

    The people in the building are trapped and surrounded by an angry mob. Clearly the flaming cocktails are being thrown in an attempt to prevent the mob from storming the building

    The problem is that earlier in the day pro-Russians had attacked a pro-Ukrainian march. A participant in the latter was shot to death. There was plenty of violence by both sides.

    Also throwing Molotov cocktails made it harder for people outside to save the ones inside the building.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1sBMnpcgxE&feature=youtu.be

    At 9:40 while people from outside are trying to save the ones inside, those in the building are still throwing stones out.

    It is a defensive reaction and the range is very limited so the attackers could easily have withdrawn and no lives would have been lost, but instead all of those inside the building were murdered

    It looks like the massive fire was no deliberate. Otherwise many of the people outside would not have made a lot of effort to save the ones inside, after the scale of the fire became evident.

    It is possible that the fire was so intense and spread so quickly because a stockpile of Molotov cocktails inside caught on fire.

    There is even video of people being hacked to death after escaping the flames, c’mon dude.

    There is a video of some disgusting person beating a man who jumped out of the building, for a few seconds. Is that what you meant by “hacked to death?” Do you have video to support your claims, as I provided to support my statements? Unlike you, I am willing to watch the evidence.

    Some of the Ukrainian protesters were willing to kill and were happy to see the Russian ones die, others did not and saved the lives of the Russians inside. The mass deaths (42 people at the building) were not a planned murder of unarmed people, but the consequence of the building catching fire when two violent groups clashed, a consequence that many of the Ukrainian protesters did not want – proven by the fact that they made efforts to save people inside. That’s the reality. The Russian nationalist fairytale is quite different.

    How can you excuse this

    Point out my words indicating that I excused this. It was not okay that those people died, and individuals who harmed others (such as the pro-Ukrainian man beating the pro-Russian guy with the stick) ought to be punished severely.

    The really disgusting thing is when people spun this event into a “massacre” for propaganda purposes in order to start and fuel a conflict in the East that has led to thousands of deaths. They did a great job at that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    If I falsely accused you then I apologise. I might have been more accurate had I simply stated that you seem to be framing the conflict as one of equal violence and wrongs committed by both sides.

    The whole fiasco was surely started by the underhanded work of the likes of Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton and non governmental international shit-stirrers like George Soros. No doubt with the backing of many self-interested Ukrainian oligarchs.

    I understand that new elections had already been promised to be forthcoming so pro-Russian protesters surely didn't start to obtain by violence what they might easily expect to duplicate (again) at the ballot box. I have to say that you seem well informed if somewhat biased.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. AP says:
    @geokat62
    “Burn, Colorado, burn” went the chant.

    An excerpt from Ukraine’s ‘Dr. Strangelove’ Reality:

    This brutal Nazism surfaced again on Friday when right-wing toughs in Odessa attacked an encampment of ethnic Russian protesters driving them into a trade union building which was then set on fire with Molotov cocktails. As the building was engulfed in flames, some people who tried to flee were chased and beaten, while those trapped inside heard the Ukrainian nationalists liken them to black-and-red-striped potato beetles called Colorados, because those colors are used in pro-Russian ribbons.

    “Burn, Colorado, burn” went the chant.

    As the fire worsened, those dying inside were serenaded with the taunting singing of the Ukrainian national anthem. The building also was spray-painted with Swastika-like symbols and graffiti reading “Galician SS,” a reference to the Ukrainian nationalist army that fought alongside the German Nazi SS in World War II, killing Russians on the eastern front.

    The death by fire of dozens of people in Odessa recalled a World War II incident in 1944 when elements of a Galician SS police regiment took part in the massacre of the Polish village of Huta Pieniacka, which had been a refuge for Jews and was protected by Russian and Polish partisans. Attacked by a mixed force of Ukrainian police and German soldiers on Feb. 28, hundreds of townspeople were massacred, including many locked in barns that were set ablaze.

    The legacy of World War II especially the bitter fight between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the east seven decades ago is never far from the surface in Ukrainian politics. One of the heroes celebrated during the Maidan protests in Kiev was Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose name was honored in many banners including one on a podium where Sen. John McCain voiced support for the uprising to oust elected President Viktor Yanukovych, whose political base was in eastern Ukraine.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/05/ukraines-dr-strangelove-reality/
     

    Thanks for providing the Russian nationalist fairytale version of events in Odessa, that included some events but conveniently excluded others (i.e., the Ukrainian protesters rescuing people inside). I suppose you think that a half-truth can’t be a lie?

    Again, video of Ukrainian nationalists saving Russian ones form the flames:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1sBMnpcgxE&feature=youtu.be

    From around 2.0 on the video you see attempts to help people on window ledges (three at one, two at another) first by throwing a rope, then with a person actually getting up as far as the ladder will reach to get the rope to them. People call to them, saying “Don’t jump” (the distance being far too great).

    At around 6.08 there is an exchange between two people, where one says: “But they’re people!”; the other “so what?” , and the first responds: “games are games, but shit, nobody wants people to die”.

    At 9.07 there is great applause from below as they finally succeed in getting a rope to two people on the window ledge.

    Just after 13.00 there is again applause, this time because some of the Ukrainian activists have managed to find some scaffolding which they drag up to the building to help with the rescue.

    One young man then climbs onto the scaffolding and after a couple of attempts manages to throw the rope high enough for the people a floor above to catch. The cheers and chanting “Ukraina!” begin as the first people are saved.

    27.00 last people being evacuated to cheers from those outside

    Reality is that when the scale of the fire and deaths became obvious, for many of the Ukrainian nationalists outside, the effort changed from one of storming the building to a rescue operation.

    That’s not what the Russian nationalists write about it though, is it. As you have so amply demonstrated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    That’s not what the Russian nationalists write about it though, is it. As you have so amply demonstrated.
     
    Are you suggesting Robert Parry is a Russian nationalist?

    Here's a little background info about RP:


    In October 2015 Parry was award the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism, "for his career distinguished by meticulously researched investigations, intrepid questioning, and reporting that has challenged mainstream media."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. geokat62 says:
    @AP
    Thanks for providing the Russian nationalist fairytale version of events in Odessa, that included some events but conveniently excluded others (i.e., the Ukrainian protesters rescuing people inside). I suppose you think that a half-truth can't be a lie?

    Again, video of Ukrainian nationalists saving Russian ones form the flames:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1sBMnpcgxE&feature=youtu.be

    From around 2.0 on the video you see attempts to help people on window ledges (three at one, two at another) first by throwing a rope, then with a person actually getting up as far as the ladder will reach to get the rope to them. People call to them, saying “Don’t jump” (the distance being far too great).

    At around 6.08 there is an exchange between two people, where one says: “But they’re people!”; the other “so what?” , and the first responds: “games are games, but shit, nobody wants people to die”.

    At 9.07 there is great applause from below as they finally succeed in getting a rope to two people on the window ledge.

    Just after 13.00 there is again applause, this time because some of the Ukrainian activists have managed to find some scaffolding which they drag up to the building to help with the rescue.

    One young man then climbs onto the scaffolding and after a couple of attempts manages to throw the rope high enough for the people a floor above to catch. The cheers and chanting “Ukraina!” begin as the first people are saved.

    27.00 last people being evacuated to cheers from those outside

    Reality is that when the scale of the fire and deaths became obvious, for many of the Ukrainian nationalists outside, the effort changed from one of storming the building to a rescue operation.

    That's not what the Russian nationalists write about it though, is it. As you have so amply demonstrated.

    That’s not what the Russian nationalists write about it though, is it. As you have so amply demonstrated.

    Are you suggesting Robert Parry is a Russian nationalist?

    Here’s a little background info about RP:

    In October 2015 Parry was award the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard’s Nieman Foundation for Journalism, “for his career distinguished by meticulously researched investigations, intrepid questioning, and reporting that has challenged mainstream media.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Are you suggesting Robert Parry is a Russian nationalist
     
    Whom did he use as sources? He wasn't in Odessa on May 2nd.

    So any comment about the clear video evidence that contradicts the Russian nationalist fairy tale, based on cherry-picking certain facts and ignoring others? Showing the many Ukrainian nationalists saving the lives of Russian ones? No comment about the video evidence showing that the Russian nationalists inside were armed and violent, throwing Molotov cocktails (in direct contradiction to the Russian nationalist fairytale that they were unarmed).

    Didn't think so.

    The wiki page also stated that RP supported the guy claiming that the Reagan administration caused the crack epidemic in the USA.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Beckow says:
    @AP

    True. In my defense Kosovo happened first and the NATO bombing was very bloody. There was an element of out-of-control aggression in Kosovo that – for all the propaganda – simply didn’t happen in Crimea. Nobody died and there was almost no shooting.
     
    Correct. Conversely, though Serbian persecution of Albanians was greatly exaggerated in the Western media it was not nothing. Russians were not nearly as persecuted in Crimea.

    And what did you do about Kosovo?
     
    The same as I do here - argue online in my free time.

    There is no instance of eastern Europeans allowed into EU without first joining NATO.
     
    I already answered this. Populations in those countries wanted to join, and it was easier and faster to join NATO than EU. So NATO happened first. Joining NATO was not a requirement for joining EU.

    What Washington, Berlin and Brussels wanted was Ukraine in NATO – and Russian Navy out of Crimea.
     
    What they want and what was possible and how are two different things.

    Under no scenario would Russia be forced out of its base if it didn't want to leave it. It could have gotten sanctions - as it did now - but also as now it could have ignored them and did what it wanted to do.


    Guantanamo is a small base not headquarters of US Navy – as is Sevastopol for Russia.
     
    Guantanamo is 45 square miles; Sevastopol is 816 square miles. The Russians controlled plenty of land sufficient for their base without seizing all of Crimea.

    Finally, there is absolutely no way to interpret the Odessa video as “both sides killed each other”. All killed were unarmed Russians,
     
    I didn't write both sides killed each other at the Trade Union Building. Try to write honestly for a change. That day the first killed were Ukrainian activists.

    All killed were unarmed Russians, they were murdered as they were trying to escape the flames.
     
    Most died inside or while jumping to escape the flames, and were not being murdered as they were trying to escape, liar.

    The Ukrainian nationalists celebrated. It was sick
     
    I agree that such celebrations by those people were sick. On the other hand, many of the pro-Ukrainians outside saved the lives of the people inside. Which shows that the fire wasn't a planned mass murder but the consequence of two sides throwing molotov cocktails at each other.

    Does your fairytale include that part of reality?

    Here's plenty of video showing Ukrainian activists rescuing Russian ones:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1sBMnpcgxE&feature=youtu.be

    From around 2.0 on the video you see attempts to help people on window ledges (three at one, two at another) first by throwing a rope, then with a person actually getting up as far as the ladder will reach to get the rope to them. People call to them, saying “Don’t jump” (the distance being far too great).

    At around 6.08 there is an exchange between two people, where one says: “But they’re people!”; the other “so what?” , and the first responds: “games are games, but shit, nobody wants people to die”.

    At 9.07 there is great applause from below as they finally succeed in getting a rope to two people on the window ledge.

    Just after 13.00 there is again applause, this time because some of the Ukrainian activists have managed to find some scaffolding which they drag up to the building to help with the rescue.

    One young man then climbs onto the scaffolding and after a couple of attempts manages to throw the rope high enough for the people a floor above to catch. The cheers and chanting “Ukraina!” begin as the first people are saved.

    27.00 last people being evacuated to cheers from those outside


    It was sick, stop defending it – that shows hatred.
     
    Don't claim that I defend what was done at the Trade Union building, liar.

    Not repeating a fairytale about it is not defending it.

    Did you watch the video of people inside the building throwing Molotov cocktails at the people outside?

    It proves that your claim that the people inside were unarmed, is a lie.

    Or will you ignore it, as you do reality.


    how can you not see them as equal,
     
    When did I ever claim that Russians were not equal, liar?

    how can you dismiss the Odessa massacre
     
    Sorry if I prefer reality to fairytales. There is nothing hateful about doing so.

    [about Maidan] things are not going his way, that they screwed up
     
    I already explained to you and you persistently ignored that the purpose of Maidan was to prevent Yanukovich from transforming Ukraine into a despotism controlled by him and his cronies, separated from Europe and linked to Russia. Maidan succeeded in its primary aim. It's why there is little regret in Ukraine about Maidan, why nobody wants Yanukovich back, and why Yanukovich's political heirs have not seen any resurgence in popularity. People are disappointed at the current rulers but they are not sorry that Yanukovich was thrown out.

    Unz review's Israel Shamir visited Kiev at the height of the economic drop in 2015 - he noted that even then people didn't regret Maidan. Not surprising, because getting rich wasn't the main reason.

    The two responses above by ‘Nosey…’ and ‘Duke…’ summarize what happened in Odessa a lot better than I ever could (thanks!). You are simply beyond decency trying to minimize or justify what happened there. Why? I can think of no other reason except that you do not see the Russians, or the ‘Russified ones’, as not equal. Or you hate them.

    You try way too hard to find small snippets of denial – e.g. that some among the Ukrainians were decent and tried to help. Or that the Russians had the temerity to defend themselves. That’s nuts. You are defending mass murder by a mob. If you are unable to explain it other than to call clear video evidences – and almost 50 dead, all Russian civilians – and the ensuing Ukraininan celebration a “fairytale”, you are simply a hater.

    I am familiar with EU negotiation in eastern Europe and NATO membership was on the table as a prerequisite from day one. It was “first join NATO”, then “privatize and sell us your assets”, and then we will make you a “candidate member for EU”. Very straightforward – there was no wiggle room. I would remind you that in many countries NATO was not popular – in Czech R or Slovakia it had 25-30% approval – people wanted the Austria model (EU, but no NATO). But they were told it is NATO first, no negotiation. Even today NATO’s popularity in many of those countries is around 40-45%. It is a myth that those countries “wanted in NATO”. Some did, some didn’t.

    Why would Ukraine be different? You suggest that Washington and Brussels don’t always get what they want. True, but they try damn hard to get what they want. And the instability that we would have today with NATO muscling in on Crimean Russian Navy with strong support from the Maidan government would be in my view a lot worse than what we have today. It was a ticking time bomb and the politicians who thought it up (Obama, Merkel, Clinton,….) have a lot to explain. Why were they willing to risk a WWIII – a nuclear war – over getting Russian Navy out of Crimea?

    I am glad we more or less agree on Kosovo. I will make you a deal – as soon as Kosovo rejoins Serbia and the NATO Bondsteel base is gone, we can revisit Crimea. Until then, a precedent is a precedent.

    Your main point that Maidan somehow prevented Yanukovitch’s pro-Russian despotism is full of holes. Yanuk spent his presidency negotiating with EU and pissing off Russia – how is that for a “pro-Russia” despot? A despot would suppress demonstrations on Maidan in about 24 hours. There was huge and open opposition in the Parliament and the media. If you don’t like the way mandates were divided up – well, that was the Ukrainian system. I recall that Blair “won big” with 38% of votes – the electoral systems always have issues. Look at US and popular versus electoral votes. Yanukovitch was a weak and corrupt leader who was on his way out. He actually made a rational decision not to sign the EU Association – it was a terrible deal (see what it has done today). He asked for postponement and a better deal.

    Today Ukraine is a mess. It cannot recover as is – something will have to give. Anger among people is enormous – at Kiev, Russia, EU, everybody – that might eventually explode again. My guess is that as with all boiling anger situations eventually a strong leader with eclectic set of views will take over. People want someone to “fix it” – and they will stop caring about how. In any case, Maidan is a failure (as was the Orange Revolution ten years earlier). It has made life a lot worse. Ukrainians will have to suffer the consequences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The two responses above by ‘Nosey…’ and ‘Duke…’ summarize what happened in Odessa a lot better than I ever could
     
    I'm glad that three people who choose to ignore the video evidence, as well as the report by the UN, I posted but instead believe in fairytales agree with each other.

    You are simply beyond decency trying to minimize or justify what happened there
     
    Personal insult, followed by a lie.

    I can think of no other reason except that you do not see the Russians, or the ‘Russified ones’, as not equal. Or you hate them.
     
    More lies.

    Repeating a lie often enough doesn't make it true.


    some among the Ukrainians were decent and tried to help.
     
    Quite a few actually. There might have been of those than ones trying to harm/kill the pro-Russians, based on the videos.

    Or that the Russians had the temerity to defend themselves.
     
    Were they defending themselves when they were throwing stones from the roof, as people were trying to save other pro-Russians from the windows?

    Remember that the violence didn't start at the Trade Union building. It began when pro-Russians attacked pro-Ukrainians, shooting one of the latter to death.

    The Molotov cocktails didn't just magically appear in the building for the pro-Russians to use. They had been stockpiled. Pro-Russians could have just gone home but they were ready for a fight over turf.


    I am familiar with EU negotiation in eastern Europe and NATO membership was on the table as a prerequisite from day one.
     
    You have a pattern of writing falsehoods, so please provide a link to the rule where NATO membership was a prerequisite for EU membership. Your word alone is useless.

    I would remind you that in many countries NATO was not popular – in Czech R or Slovakia it had 25-30% approval
     
    This is a half-truth, but made for the purpose of lying. Perhaps long before NATO ascension support had been lower but the countries did not join NATO until public support was over 50%.

    http://www.gac.cz/userfiles/File/nase_prace_vystupy/GAC_NATO_impact_ofNATO_membership_inCR_ENG.pdf?langSEO=documents&parentSEO=nase_prace_vystupy&midSEO=GAC_NATO_impact_ofNATO_membership_inCR_ENG.pdf


    "Prior to NATO’s 1997 invitation to the Czech Republic, public support for membership had ranked among the lowest of all the candidate countries. In September 1998, surveys showed the level of support to range from 55-61%."
     
    You have a truly pervasive pattern of spreading lies, Beckow. In pretty much every one of your posts.

    Even today NATO’s popularity in many of those countries is around 40-45%.
     
    And if not wanting to be in NATO is around 25%, with others undecided or not caring, than NATO is the clear preference.

    Your main point that Maidan somehow prevented Yanukovitch’s pro-Russian despotism is full of holes. Yanuk spent his presidency negotiating with EU and pissing off Russia – how is that for a “pro-Russia” despot?
     
    The Ukrainian people didn't overthrow him when he was negotiating with the EU, did they.

    A despot would suppress demonstrations on Maidan in about 24 hours.
     
    So because he waited 9 days before unleashing brutal violence on the protesters he was okay?

    Again, I described him accurately as a would-be despot. He had secured all power over Ukraine's courts and parliament, had refused to run a mayoral race in Kiev instead appointing his man as mayor, but had not created a totalitarian state structure as in Central Asia where protests can be quickly and brutally put down. He wasn't given the chance to.


    There was huge and open opposition in the Parliament and the media.
     
    The parliament where the winners of the parliamentary vote had no power, except to complain.

    If you don’t like the way mandates were divided up – well, that was the Ukrainian system.
     
    Correction - that was the system designed by Yanukovich and imposed on Ukraine by him.

    I recall that Blair “won big” with 38% of votes – the electoral systems always have issues. Look at US and popular versus electoral votes.
     
    These systems have been around for decades or centuries (in the case of the USA). They are rules people have used for generations. In Ukraine it was created before the election, designed to keep the opposition from turning their vote victory into power, to shut them out. The problem is that when people are shut out from using peaceful means of attaining power they will go the other way.

    Today Ukraine is a mess.
     
    To an extent yes. But at least it is not a despotism. And most Ukrainians agree with this, which is why there no widescale regret for the Maidan in Ukraine. Unlike you, the people living there saw what was happening and knew what was a stake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. AP says:
    @geokat62

    That’s not what the Russian nationalists write about it though, is it. As you have so amply demonstrated.
     
    Are you suggesting Robert Parry is a Russian nationalist?

    Here's a little background info about RP:


    In October 2015 Parry was award the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism, "for his career distinguished by meticulously researched investigations, intrepid questioning, and reporting that has challenged mainstream media."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)
     

    Are you suggesting Robert Parry is a Russian nationalist

    Whom did he use as sources? He wasn’t in Odessa on May 2nd.

    So any comment about the clear video evidence that contradicts the Russian nationalist fairy tale, based on cherry-picking certain facts and ignoring others? Showing the many Ukrainian nationalists saving the lives of Russian ones? No comment about the video evidence showing that the Russian nationalists inside were armed and violent, throwing Molotov cocktails (in direct contradiction to the Russian nationalist fairytale that they were unarmed).

    Didn’t think so.

    The wiki page also stated that RP supported the guy claiming that the Reagan administration caused the crack epidemic in the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    The wiki page also stated that RP supported the guy claiming that the Reagan administration caused the crack epidemic in the USA.
     
    That "guy's" name happens to be Gary Webb. And Robert Parry's reporting about Gary Webb turned out to be spot on:

    Webb was vindicated by a 1998 CIA Inspector General report, which revealed that for more than a decade the agency had covered up a business relationship it had with Nicaraguan drug dealers like Blandón.

    http://www.laweekly.com/news/ex-la-times-writer-apologizes-for-tawdry-attacks-2614004
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. geokat62 says:
    @AP

    Are you suggesting Robert Parry is a Russian nationalist
     
    Whom did he use as sources? He wasn't in Odessa on May 2nd.

    So any comment about the clear video evidence that contradicts the Russian nationalist fairy tale, based on cherry-picking certain facts and ignoring others? Showing the many Ukrainian nationalists saving the lives of Russian ones? No comment about the video evidence showing that the Russian nationalists inside were armed and violent, throwing Molotov cocktails (in direct contradiction to the Russian nationalist fairytale that they were unarmed).

    Didn't think so.

    The wiki page also stated that RP supported the guy claiming that the Reagan administration caused the crack epidemic in the USA.

    The wiki page also stated that RP supported the guy claiming that the Reagan administration caused the crack epidemic in the USA.

    That “guy’s” name happens to be Gary Webb. And Robert Parry’s reporting about Gary Webb turned out to be spot on:

    Webb was vindicated by a 1998 CIA Inspector General report, which revealed that for more than a decade the agency had covered up a business relationship it had with Nicaraguan drug dealers like Blandón.

    http://www.laweekly.com/news/ex-la-times-writer-apologizes-for-tawdry-attacks-2614004

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    According to a leftist writer at a local alternative LA newspaper. Good job.

    Meanwhile, any comment on the video evidence that the protesters at the trade union building were armed, not unarmed as in the Russian fairytale version of events? Any comment about the video evidence I linked to, showing many of the Ukrainian nationalists saving the Russian nationalists, contradicting the claim that the mob was there to massacre people?

    Or is your tactic going to be one of changing the subject, onto some other ludicrous conspiracy theories.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. AP says:
    @Beckow
    The two responses above by 'Nosey...' and 'Duke...' summarize what happened in Odessa a lot better than I ever could (thanks!). You are simply beyond decency trying to minimize or justify what happened there. Why? I can think of no other reason except that you do not see the Russians, or the 'Russified ones', as not equal. Or you hate them.

    You try way too hard to find small snippets of denial - e.g. that some among the Ukrainians were decent and tried to help. Or that the Russians had the temerity to defend themselves. That's nuts. You are defending mass murder by a mob. If you are unable to explain it other than to call clear video evidences - and almost 50 dead, all Russian civilians - and the ensuing Ukraininan celebration a "fairytale", you are simply a hater.

    I am familiar with EU negotiation in eastern Europe and NATO membership was on the table as a prerequisite from day one. It was "first join NATO", then "privatize and sell us your assets", and then we will make you a "candidate member for EU". Very straightforward - there was no wiggle room. I would remind you that in many countries NATO was not popular - in Czech R or Slovakia it had 25-30% approval - people wanted the Austria model (EU, but no NATO). But they were told it is NATO first, no negotiation. Even today NATO's popularity in many of those countries is around 40-45%. It is a myth that those countries "wanted in NATO". Some did, some didn't.

    Why would Ukraine be different? You suggest that Washington and Brussels don't always get what they want. True, but they try damn hard to get what they want. And the instability that we would have today with NATO muscling in on Crimean Russian Navy with strong support from the Maidan government would be in my view a lot worse than what we have today. It was a ticking time bomb and the politicians who thought it up (Obama, Merkel, Clinton,....) have a lot to explain. Why were they willing to risk a WWIII - a nuclear war - over getting Russian Navy out of Crimea?

    I am glad we more or less agree on Kosovo. I will make you a deal - as soon as Kosovo rejoins Serbia and the NATO Bondsteel base is gone, we can revisit Crimea. Until then, a precedent is a precedent.

    Your main point that Maidan somehow prevented Yanukovitch's pro-Russian despotism is full of holes. Yanuk spent his presidency negotiating with EU and pissing off Russia - how is that for a "pro-Russia" despot? A despot would suppress demonstrations on Maidan in about 24 hours. There was huge and open opposition in the Parliament and the media. If you don't like the way mandates were divided up - well, that was the Ukrainian system. I recall that Blair "won big" with 38% of votes - the electoral systems always have issues. Look at US and popular versus electoral votes. Yanukovitch was a weak and corrupt leader who was on his way out. He actually made a rational decision not to sign the EU Association - it was a terrible deal (see what it has done today). He asked for postponement and a better deal.

    Today Ukraine is a mess. It cannot recover as is - something will have to give. Anger among people is enormous - at Kiev, Russia, EU, everybody - that might eventually explode again. My guess is that as with all boiling anger situations eventually a strong leader with eclectic set of views will take over. People want someone to "fix it" - and they will stop caring about how. In any case, Maidan is a failure (as was the Orange Revolution ten years earlier). It has made life a lot worse. Ukrainians will have to suffer the consequences.

    The two responses above by ‘Nosey…’ and ‘Duke…’ summarize what happened in Odessa a lot better than I ever could

    I’m glad that three people who choose to ignore the video evidence, as well as the report by the UN, I posted but instead believe in fairytales agree with each other.

    You are simply beyond decency trying to minimize or justify what happened there

    Personal insult, followed by a lie.

    I can think of no other reason except that you do not see the Russians, or the ‘Russified ones’, as not equal. Or you hate them.

    More lies.

    Repeating a lie often enough doesn’t make it true.

    some among the Ukrainians were decent and tried to help.

    Quite a few actually. There might have been of those than ones trying to harm/kill the pro-Russians, based on the videos.

    Or that the Russians had the temerity to defend themselves.

    Were they defending themselves when they were throwing stones from the roof, as people were trying to save other pro-Russians from the windows?

    Remember that the violence didn’t start at the Trade Union building. It began when pro-Russians attacked pro-Ukrainians, shooting one of the latter to death.

    The Molotov cocktails didn’t just magically appear in the building for the pro-Russians to use. They had been stockpiled. Pro-Russians could have just gone home but they were ready for a fight over turf.

    I am familiar with EU negotiation in eastern Europe and NATO membership was on the table as a prerequisite from day one.

    You have a pattern of writing falsehoods, so please provide a link to the rule where NATO membership was a prerequisite for EU membership. Your word alone is useless.

    I would remind you that in many countries NATO was not popular – in Czech R or Slovakia it had 25-30% approval

    This is a half-truth, but made for the purpose of lying. Perhaps long before NATO ascension support had been lower but the countries did not join NATO until public support was over 50%.

    http://www.gac.cz/userfiles/File/nase_prace_vystupy/GAC_NATO_impact_ofNATO_membership_inCR_ENG.pdf?langSEO=documents&parentSEO=nase_prace_vystupy&midSEO=GAC_NATO_impact_ofNATO_membership_inCR_ENG.pdf

    “Prior to NATO’s 1997 invitation to the Czech Republic, public support for membership had ranked among the lowest of all the candidate countries. In September 1998, surveys showed the level of support to range from 55-61%.”

    You have a truly pervasive pattern of spreading lies, Beckow. In pretty much every one of your posts.

    Even today NATO’s popularity in many of those countries is around 40-45%.

    And if not wanting to be in NATO is around 25%, with others undecided or not caring, than NATO is the clear preference.

    Your main point that Maidan somehow prevented Yanukovitch’s pro-Russian despotism is full of holes. Yanuk spent his presidency negotiating with EU and pissing off Russia – how is that for a “pro-Russia” despot?

    The Ukrainian people didn’t overthrow him when he was negotiating with the EU, did they.

    A despot would suppress demonstrations on Maidan in about 24 hours.

    So because he waited 9 days before unleashing brutal violence on the protesters he was okay?

    Again, I described him accurately as a would-be despot. He had secured all power over Ukraine’s courts and parliament, had refused to run a mayoral race in Kiev instead appointing his man as mayor, but had not created a totalitarian state structure as in Central Asia where protests can be quickly and brutally put down. He wasn’t given the chance to.

    There was huge and open opposition in the Parliament and the media.

    The parliament where the winners of the parliamentary vote had no power, except to complain.

    If you don’t like the way mandates were divided up – well, that was the Ukrainian system.

    Correction – that was the system designed by Yanukovich and imposed on Ukraine by him.

    I recall that Blair “won big” with 38% of votes – the electoral systems always have issues. Look at US and popular versus electoral votes.

    These systems have been around for decades or centuries (in the case of the USA). They are rules people have used for generations. In Ukraine it was created before the election, designed to keep the opposition from turning their vote victory into power, to shut them out. The problem is that when people are shut out from using peaceful means of attaining power they will go the other way.

    Today Ukraine is a mess.

    To an extent yes. But at least it is not a despotism. And most Ukrainians agree with this, which is why there no widescale regret for the Maidan in Ukraine. Unlike you, the people living there saw what was happening and knew what was a stake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    You try to minimize a brutal attack by Ukrainian nationalists that killed 50 Russian civilians. The attack has not been properly investigated by Kiev and nobody has been punished. So much for all the talk of "avoiding despotism". 50 killed and it is ok with you?

    Enjoy your pointless rage. You lost in Ukraine, now you are just living with the consequences. Have a nice day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. AP says:
    @geokat62

    The wiki page also stated that RP supported the guy claiming that the Reagan administration caused the crack epidemic in the USA.
     
    That "guy's" name happens to be Gary Webb. And Robert Parry's reporting about Gary Webb turned out to be spot on:

    Webb was vindicated by a 1998 CIA Inspector General report, which revealed that for more than a decade the agency had covered up a business relationship it had with Nicaraguan drug dealers like Blandón.

    http://www.laweekly.com/news/ex-la-times-writer-apologizes-for-tawdry-attacks-2614004
     

    According to a leftist writer at a local alternative LA newspaper. Good job.

    Meanwhile, any comment on the video evidence that the protesters at the trade union building were armed, not unarmed as in the Russian fairytale version of events? Any comment about the video evidence I linked to, showing many of the Ukrainian nationalists saving the Russian nationalists, contradicting the claim that the mob was there to massacre people?

    Or is your tactic going to be one of changing the subject, onto some other ludicrous conspiracy theories.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    So you doubt the veracity of Robert Parry's column. What about the New York Times? This article more or less confirm the major points made by RP in his:

    Ukraine’s Reins Weaken as Chaos Spreads

    The conflict is hardening hearts on both sides. As the building burned, Ukrainian activists sang the Ukrainian national anthem, witnesses on both sides said. They also hurled a new taunt: “Colorado” for the Colorado potato beetle, striped red and black like the pro-Russian ribbons. Those outside chanted “burn Colorado, burn,” witnesses said. Swastikalike symbols were spray painted on the building, along with graffiti reading “Galician SS,” though it was unclear when it had appeared, or who had painted it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/world/europe/kievs-reins-weaken-as-chaos-spreads.html?_r=0
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Beckow says:
    @AP

    The two responses above by ‘Nosey…’ and ‘Duke…’ summarize what happened in Odessa a lot better than I ever could
     
    I'm glad that three people who choose to ignore the video evidence, as well as the report by the UN, I posted but instead believe in fairytales agree with each other.

    You are simply beyond decency trying to minimize or justify what happened there
     
    Personal insult, followed by a lie.

    I can think of no other reason except that you do not see the Russians, or the ‘Russified ones’, as not equal. Or you hate them.
     
    More lies.

    Repeating a lie often enough doesn't make it true.


    some among the Ukrainians were decent and tried to help.
     
    Quite a few actually. There might have been of those than ones trying to harm/kill the pro-Russians, based on the videos.

    Or that the Russians had the temerity to defend themselves.
     
    Were they defending themselves when they were throwing stones from the roof, as people were trying to save other pro-Russians from the windows?

    Remember that the violence didn't start at the Trade Union building. It began when pro-Russians attacked pro-Ukrainians, shooting one of the latter to death.

    The Molotov cocktails didn't just magically appear in the building for the pro-Russians to use. They had been stockpiled. Pro-Russians could have just gone home but they were ready for a fight over turf.


    I am familiar with EU negotiation in eastern Europe and NATO membership was on the table as a prerequisite from day one.
     
    You have a pattern of writing falsehoods, so please provide a link to the rule where NATO membership was a prerequisite for EU membership. Your word alone is useless.

    I would remind you that in many countries NATO was not popular – in Czech R or Slovakia it had 25-30% approval
     
    This is a half-truth, but made for the purpose of lying. Perhaps long before NATO ascension support had been lower but the countries did not join NATO until public support was over 50%.

    http://www.gac.cz/userfiles/File/nase_prace_vystupy/GAC_NATO_impact_ofNATO_membership_inCR_ENG.pdf?langSEO=documents&parentSEO=nase_prace_vystupy&midSEO=GAC_NATO_impact_ofNATO_membership_inCR_ENG.pdf


    "Prior to NATO’s 1997 invitation to the Czech Republic, public support for membership had ranked among the lowest of all the candidate countries. In September 1998, surveys showed the level of support to range from 55-61%."
     
    You have a truly pervasive pattern of spreading lies, Beckow. In pretty much every one of your posts.

    Even today NATO’s popularity in many of those countries is around 40-45%.
     
    And if not wanting to be in NATO is around 25%, with others undecided or not caring, than NATO is the clear preference.

    Your main point that Maidan somehow prevented Yanukovitch’s pro-Russian despotism is full of holes. Yanuk spent his presidency negotiating with EU and pissing off Russia – how is that for a “pro-Russia” despot?
     
    The Ukrainian people didn't overthrow him when he was negotiating with the EU, did they.

    A despot would suppress demonstrations on Maidan in about 24 hours.
     
    So because he waited 9 days before unleashing brutal violence on the protesters he was okay?

    Again, I described him accurately as a would-be despot. He had secured all power over Ukraine's courts and parliament, had refused to run a mayoral race in Kiev instead appointing his man as mayor, but had not created a totalitarian state structure as in Central Asia where protests can be quickly and brutally put down. He wasn't given the chance to.


    There was huge and open opposition in the Parliament and the media.
     
    The parliament where the winners of the parliamentary vote had no power, except to complain.

    If you don’t like the way mandates were divided up – well, that was the Ukrainian system.
     
    Correction - that was the system designed by Yanukovich and imposed on Ukraine by him.

    I recall that Blair “won big” with 38% of votes – the electoral systems always have issues. Look at US and popular versus electoral votes.
     
    These systems have been around for decades or centuries (in the case of the USA). They are rules people have used for generations. In Ukraine it was created before the election, designed to keep the opposition from turning their vote victory into power, to shut them out. The problem is that when people are shut out from using peaceful means of attaining power they will go the other way.

    Today Ukraine is a mess.
     
    To an extent yes. But at least it is not a despotism. And most Ukrainians agree with this, which is why there no widescale regret for the Maidan in Ukraine. Unlike you, the people living there saw what was happening and knew what was a stake.

    You try to minimize a brutal attack by Ukrainian nationalists that killed 50 Russian civilians. The attack has not been properly investigated by Kiev and nobody has been punished. So much for all the talk of “avoiding despotism”. 50 killed and it is ok with you?

    Enjoy your pointless rage. You lost in Ukraine, now you are just living with the consequences. Have a nice day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Russia lost in Ukraine. In 2013 Yanukovich was playing Russians and the EU off against each other. Ukraine competed with too many Russian vested interests to attract support from Russia and the EU was luke warm at best so a better offer from either side would have swung the balance. Instead of making a positive offer, Russia launched a blockade of Ukrainian exports. Confrontation led to more confrontation and now Ukraine is lost to Russia both as an economic and defence partner. Meanwhile, Russia owns the DMR/LNR problem. Every month that passes in the Donbass is another negative experience for the inhabitants attributable to insurgency, sparked by nationalists and funds from Russia, for the remaining inhabitants and the exiles. About 40% of the Donbass was ethnic Russian, concentrated in mining settlements in particular as they were Hughes' earliest recruits. Some mining villages were 90% Russian. During the revolution, most of the Donbass was unenthusiastic Red (independence for Ukraine) but the miners, especially Gorlivka, were strongly White (pro unity with Russia) and volunteered in thousands for the White army. The Soviets created the whole Stakhanov story as part of their efforts to win round the miners (it was embarrassing for communist theory to be opposed by miners). According to February 2014 polls, about 20% (half the Russians - mostly the pensioners from anecdotal accounts) wanted to become part of Russia. In a place of 4.5 m people, that is still 900 000. The IRA caused plenty of trouble with a tenth of that number of supporters. On the other hand, a million young men fled to Russia to try and escape conscription by either army. I read the breakdown in the local paper in Saratov for those received there. Mothers and children were about a quarter of the refugees there. Mothers and children tended to go to other parts of Ukraine - not an option for young men who didn't want to fight.

    And neither of you mentioned the police in Odessa. On the one hand, there are the RT clips showing the police not merely standing idle but also talking calmly to apparently prominent Ukrainian football hooligans (are football hooligans automatically Nazis?). On the other hand, the BBC stringers also filmed other police and fire service personnel involved in the rescue effort. (and attacks on the civilian and uniformed rescuers by some of the football hooligans). The BBC does not own the copyright for local stringers and takes down the clips after 30 days (period varies) so the clips aren't there now. Becko, you need to diversify your viewing. RT does not pretend to show both sides. China Central TV also showed the BBC footage. CCTV also had some very good analysis of the major oligarch interests in Ukraine. There is also the issue that the group that shot the football supporter in the first attack may have had Transneistrian accents. (ie, Girkin's men in some analyses). They may have been deliberately provoking the football hooligans beyond normal post match confrontation to some end if only devilment. (Which is to say, that a conspiracy theory of organised mayhem can be constructed involving either side).

    After the massacre, the Right Sector militia took over many security duties in Odessa. Kolomoisky expanded his substantial interests there. It was the Ukrainian nationalist Right Sector that did not trust the local police. They insisted on dual patrols until Sakashvilli kicked Kolomoisky out and Right Sector with him. (Such divisions are invisible to Russian nationalist supporters - Ukranians are a monolithic THEM - ALL NAZIS with group responsibility for every atrocity by either side. It is reasonable to conclude that the police were divided; some being excessively sympathetic to supporters of the local football club.

    Throughout the entire Ukrainian upheaval, the apathy of the police to political violence from both sides has been remarkable. It is atrocious that there been no trials of the attackers and it is astounding by European standards (US is different) that the police seem to have escaped without penalty. Did Sakashvilli purge them - it isn't clear? Sakashvilli should have been able to uncover the perpetrators as a political weapon of his own to weaken anyone involved. A continued cover up was not in his interest. No time? No cooperation from police or SBU?
    , @AP

    You try to minimize a brutal attack by Ukrainian nationalists that killed 50 Russian civilians
     
    So now you've gone from 42 in the Trade Union to 50.

    You really can't help yourself, can you? You lie in every.single.post.

    Six other people died that day, outside the Trade Union building. The first one was a Ukrainian nationalist, killed when the group were attacked by Russian nationalists.

    Writing facts is not "minimizing." It is telling the truth. Versus lying, which is what you do.

    The attack has not been properly investigated by Kiev and nobody has been punished.
     
    This is bad.

    So much for all the talk of “avoiding despotism”. 50 killed and it is ok with you?
     
    Now you are back to lying again.

    You lost in Ukraine, now you are just living with the consequences.
     
    Consequences of not living in a despotism made it worth it for most Ukrainians.

    How terrible it must be for you :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Beckow

    Muscovy’s expansion was not prompted by defense.
     
    Lot of it was. Crimea (and large parts of Caucasus) was a slave state and a dependency of Ottomans. For 300 years the Tatars of Crimea brutally raided north and murdered and kidnapped peasants, mostly Ukrainian, Moldovan, Russian, Polish,... it lasted until late 18th century when Russia under Catherine II put an end to this slaver state in Crimea. The estimates are that in 300 years Tatars murdered and enslaved 2-3 million people.

    So 'not defensive'? Really? When I hear people belly-aching about the "Crimean Tatars" I wonder if they know this. Or if they actually like the slavery stuff.

    The same happened in Western Europe. North African slavers captured 1-2 million people in about 300 years. During the English Civil War, Cromwell broke off his siege of Bristol to rescue 50,000 (!) people who had been imprisoned on a camp on Lundy island by Barbary Coast slavers. The US Marines was formed to combat the slavers. First action, Tripoli. It didn’t stop until the French took control of North Africa.

    Should the French still hold Algeria because of this? The Italians, Libya? Perhaps the British should have invaded Morocco? Perhaps the French should have moved the Arabs out of Algeria in self defence? Why is West European occupation is colonisation but the former Russian Empire is exempt. (Clue – US had no levers against the USSR after WW2).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Interesting point, thank you. I see major differences:

    - Tatars from Crimea (and their Caucasus tribal allies) raided on land, so the impact was both more brutal and more menacing.
    - When Russia finally defeated Tatars and occupied Crimea, many Tatars run away to the Ottoman Empire - the remaining numbers were relatively small (never more than 250,000 or so). There were always non-Tatars living in Crimea - many as slaves, or waiting to be sold. And there was a massive settlement by Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, Armenians in Crimea after Russia took over (in 1780's). So the numbers were very different rom Algeria where French never amounted to more than 10% of population (there were almost none in Libya or Morocco). In Crimea Tatars were a minority, today they are 13% of population.
    - Russia also developed Crimea, build new cities, ports, infrastructure
    - Crimea is geographically closer to Russia and Ukraine than to Turkey - North Africa is more remote.

    I am not sure that is sufficient to convince people who just like to shrink Russia at any cost, but I think those differences make for a compelling argument of why Crimea was not - and is not - seen as an occupied colony. But it will only convince you if you are open-minded.

    (Don't you have any issue with the mindless celebration in the West of the Tatar slave trading empire? The slave raiding is never mentioned, why?)

    , @5371
    50000 people couldn't even fit on the island, you astonishing fantasist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Beckow says:
    @Philip Owen
    The same happened in Western Europe. North African slavers captured 1-2 million people in about 300 years. During the English Civil War, Cromwell broke off his siege of Bristol to rescue 50,000 (!) people who had been imprisoned on a camp on Lundy island by Barbary Coast slavers. The US Marines was formed to combat the slavers. First action, Tripoli. It didn't stop until the French took control of North Africa.

    Should the French still hold Algeria because of this? The Italians, Libya? Perhaps the British should have invaded Morocco? Perhaps the French should have moved the Arabs out of Algeria in self defence? Why is West European occupation is colonisation but the former Russian Empire is exempt. (Clue - US had no levers against the USSR after WW2).

    Interesting point, thank you. I see major differences:

    - Tatars from Crimea (and their Caucasus tribal allies) raided on land, so the impact was both more brutal and more menacing.
    - When Russia finally defeated Tatars and occupied Crimea, many Tatars run away to the Ottoman Empire – the remaining numbers were relatively small (never more than 250,000 or so). There were always non-Tatars living in Crimea – many as slaves, or waiting to be sold. And there was a massive settlement by Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, Armenians in Crimea after Russia took over (in 1780′s). So the numbers were very different rom Algeria where French never amounted to more than 10% of population (there were almost none in Libya or Morocco). In Crimea Tatars were a minority, today they are 13% of population.
    - Russia also developed Crimea, build new cities, ports, infrastructure
    - Crimea is geographically closer to Russia and Ukraine than to Turkey – North Africa is more remote.

    I am not sure that is sufficient to convince people who just like to shrink Russia at any cost, but I think those differences make for a compelling argument of why Crimea was not – and is not – seen as an occupied colony. But it will only convince you if you are open-minded.

    (Don’t you have any issue with the mindless celebration in the West of the Tatar slave trading empire? The slave raiding is never mentioned, why?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Well, the Russian nationalist side also overdoes the slave trading Tatars. Khleminitsky the Cossack bought Tatar and Turkish support by allowing them to enslave tens if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian peasants as part of his land grab.

    Historical grievances are the stuff of nationalist war mongering. Really, if we are being sensible, then only the lives of those now living matter and the most recent events are the most important. At an extreme, I will accept the lives of their grandparents. The same trying to look forward. So Ottoman slavers and US slavery are equally dead. Unfortunately, the US and other migrant nations contain large groups who remember the historical grievances. US Irish against the UK, US Jews against Russia, Canadian and Argentinian Ukrainians against Russia for example. So disentangling present reality from historical spin is difficult. We can probably agree on this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @AP

    Thanks for that video, I had not seen it
     
    Perhaps you should see everything rather than whatever the pro-Russians cut and pasted for you.

    How can you possibly attempt to defend this?
     
    What words did I use that defended this?

    The people in the building are trapped and surrounded by an angry mob. Clearly the flaming cocktails are being thrown in an attempt to prevent the mob from storming the building
     
    The problem is that earlier in the day pro-Russians had attacked a pro-Ukrainian march. A participant in the latter was shot to death. There was plenty of violence by both sides.

    Also throwing Molotov cocktails made it harder for people outside to save the ones inside the building.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1sBMnpcgxE&feature=youtu.be

    At 9:40 while people from outside are trying to save the ones inside, those in the building are still throwing stones out.

    It is a defensive reaction and the range is very limited so the attackers could easily have withdrawn and no lives would have been lost, but instead all of those inside the building were murdered
     
    It looks like the massive fire was no deliberate. Otherwise many of the people outside would not have made a lot of effort to save the ones inside, after the scale of the fire became evident.

    It is possible that the fire was so intense and spread so quickly because a stockpile of Molotov cocktails inside caught on fire.

    There is even video of people being hacked to death after escaping the flames, c’mon dude.
     
    There is a video of some disgusting person beating a man who jumped out of the building, for a few seconds. Is that what you meant by "hacked to death?" Do you have video to support your claims, as I provided to support my statements? Unlike you, I am willing to watch the evidence.

    Some of the Ukrainian protesters were willing to kill and were happy to see the Russian ones die, others did not and saved the lives of the Russians inside. The mass deaths (42 people at the building) were not a planned murder of unarmed people, but the consequence of the building catching fire when two violent groups clashed, a consequence that many of the Ukrainian protesters did not want - proven by the fact that they made efforts to save people inside. That's the reality. The Russian nationalist fairytale is quite different.

    How can you excuse this
     
    Point out my words indicating that I excused this. It was not okay that those people died, and individuals who harmed others (such as the pro-Ukrainian man beating the pro-Russian guy with the stick) ought to be punished severely.

    The really disgusting thing is when people spun this event into a "massacre" for propaganda purposes in order to start and fuel a conflict in the East that has led to thousands of deaths. They did a great job at that.

    If I falsely accused you then I apologise. I might have been more accurate had I simply stated that you seem to be framing the conflict as one of equal violence and wrongs committed by both sides.

    The whole fiasco was surely started by the underhanded work of the likes of Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton and non governmental international shit-stirrers like George Soros. No doubt with the backing of many self-interested Ukrainian oligarchs.

    I understand that new elections had already been promised to be forthcoming so pro-Russian protesters surely didn’t start to obtain by violence what they might easily expect to duplicate (again) at the ballot box. I have to say that you seem well informed if somewhat biased.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    If I falsely accused you then I apologise.
     
    Finally, some decency. Thank you.

    I simply stated that you seem to be framing the conflict as one of equal violence and wrongs committed by both sides.
     
    You can watch the videos I posted yourself.

    Obviously many more Russian nationalists than Ukrainian nationalists died that day, because the building they were using as their base was hit by a Molotov cocktail and caught on fire. If it hadn't caught on fire each side would have had about 3 dead. Both sides were armed and both were ready for a violent fight. The Russian nationalists actually struck first, making the first assault on the pro-Ukrainian march before being defeated and driven back. The first person to die that day, was the Ukrainian football hooligan shot to death.

    But of course while both sides were throwing Molotov cocktails at each other, the Russians were in the building that caught fire and suffered far many more deaths that day as a result. Many (but not all) of the Ukrainian nationalists who had wanted to fight didn't want their enemies to die, and a lot of Ukrainians were then saving the Russian nationalists from the burning building.

    This is the reality. See the UN report and view the video evidence I posted, for yourself. Everything I wrote above is corroborated. The reality is very different from the Russian nationalist fairytale, of a one-sided assault of peaceful unarmed Russians by Ukrainians who deliberately wanted to kill as many Russians as possible.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. geokat62 says:
    @AP
    According to a leftist writer at a local alternative LA newspaper. Good job.

    Meanwhile, any comment on the video evidence that the protesters at the trade union building were armed, not unarmed as in the Russian fairytale version of events? Any comment about the video evidence I linked to, showing many of the Ukrainian nationalists saving the Russian nationalists, contradicting the claim that the mob was there to massacre people?

    Or is your tactic going to be one of changing the subject, onto some other ludicrous conspiracy theories.

    So you doubt the veracity of Robert Parry’s column. What about the New York Times? This article more or less confirm the major points made by RP in his:

    Ukraine’s Reins Weaken as Chaos Spreads

    The conflict is hardening hearts on both sides. As the building burned, Ukrainian activists sang the Ukrainian national anthem, witnesses on both sides said. They also hurled a new taunt: “Colorado” for the Colorado potato beetle, striped red and black like the pro-Russian ribbons. Those outside chanted “burn Colorado, burn,” witnesses said. Swastikalike symbols were spray painted on the building, along with graffiti reading “Galician SS,” though it was unclear when it had appeared, or who had painted it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/world/europe/kievs-reins-weaken-as-chaos-spreads.html?_r=0

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Beckow
    You try to minimize a brutal attack by Ukrainian nationalists that killed 50 Russian civilians. The attack has not been properly investigated by Kiev and nobody has been punished. So much for all the talk of "avoiding despotism". 50 killed and it is ok with you?

    Enjoy your pointless rage. You lost in Ukraine, now you are just living with the consequences. Have a nice day.

    Russia lost in Ukraine. In 2013 Yanukovich was playing Russians and the EU off against each other. Ukraine competed with too many Russian vested interests to attract support from Russia and the EU was luke warm at best so a better offer from either side would have swung the balance. Instead of making a positive offer, Russia launched a blockade of Ukrainian exports. Confrontation led to more confrontation and now Ukraine is lost to Russia both as an economic and defence partner. Meanwhile, Russia owns the DMR/LNR problem. Every month that passes in the Donbass is another negative experience for the inhabitants attributable to insurgency, sparked by nationalists and funds from Russia, for the remaining inhabitants and the exiles. About 40% of the Donbass was ethnic Russian, concentrated in mining settlements in particular as they were Hughes’ earliest recruits. Some mining villages were 90% Russian. During the revolution, most of the Donbass was unenthusiastic Red (independence for Ukraine) but the miners, especially Gorlivka, were strongly White (pro unity with Russia) and volunteered in thousands for the White army. The Soviets created the whole Stakhanov story as part of their efforts to win round the miners (it was embarrassing for communist theory to be opposed by miners). According to February 2014 polls, about 20% (half the Russians – mostly the pensioners from anecdotal accounts) wanted to become part of Russia. In a place of 4.5 m people, that is still 900 000. The IRA caused plenty of trouble with a tenth of that number of supporters. On the other hand, a million young men fled to Russia to try and escape conscription by either army. I read the breakdown in the local paper in Saratov for those received there. Mothers and children were about a quarter of the refugees there. Mothers and children tended to go to other parts of Ukraine – not an option for young men who didn’t want to fight.

    And neither of you mentioned the police in Odessa. On the one hand, there are the RT clips showing the police not merely standing idle but also talking calmly to apparently prominent Ukrainian football hooligans (are football hooligans automatically Nazis?). On the other hand, the BBC stringers also filmed other police and fire service personnel involved in the rescue effort. (and attacks on the civilian and uniformed rescuers by some of the football hooligans). The BBC does not own the copyright for local stringers and takes down the clips after 30 days (period varies) so the clips aren’t there now. Becko, you need to diversify your viewing. RT does not pretend to show both sides. China Central TV also showed the BBC footage. CCTV also had some very good analysis of the major oligarch interests in Ukraine. There is also the issue that the group that shot the football supporter in the first attack may have had Transneistrian accents. (ie, Girkin’s men in some analyses). They may have been deliberately provoking the football hooligans beyond normal post match confrontation to some end if only devilment. (Which is to say, that a conspiracy theory of organised mayhem can be constructed involving either side).

    After the massacre, the Right Sector militia took over many security duties in Odessa. Kolomoisky expanded his substantial interests there. It was the Ukrainian nationalist Right Sector that did not trust the local police. They insisted on dual patrols until Sakashvilli kicked Kolomoisky out and Right Sector with him. (Such divisions are invisible to Russian nationalist supporters – Ukranians are a monolithic THEM – ALL NAZIS with group responsibility for every atrocity by either side. It is reasonable to conclude that the police were divided; some being excessively sympathetic to supporters of the local football club.

    Throughout the entire Ukrainian upheaval, the apathy of the police to political violence from both sides has been remarkable. It is atrocious that there been no trials of the attackers and it is astounding by European standards (US is different) that the police seem to have escaped without penalty. Did Sakashvilli purge them – it isn’t clear? Sakashvilli should have been able to uncover the perpetrators as a political weapon of his own to weaken anyone involved. A continued cover up was not in his interest. No time? No cooperation from police or SBU?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Beckow
    Interesting point, thank you. I see major differences:

    - Tatars from Crimea (and their Caucasus tribal allies) raided on land, so the impact was both more brutal and more menacing.
    - When Russia finally defeated Tatars and occupied Crimea, many Tatars run away to the Ottoman Empire - the remaining numbers were relatively small (never more than 250,000 or so). There were always non-Tatars living in Crimea - many as slaves, or waiting to be sold. And there was a massive settlement by Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, Armenians in Crimea after Russia took over (in 1780's). So the numbers were very different rom Algeria where French never amounted to more than 10% of population (there were almost none in Libya or Morocco). In Crimea Tatars were a minority, today they are 13% of population.
    - Russia also developed Crimea, build new cities, ports, infrastructure
    - Crimea is geographically closer to Russia and Ukraine than to Turkey - North Africa is more remote.

    I am not sure that is sufficient to convince people who just like to shrink Russia at any cost, but I think those differences make for a compelling argument of why Crimea was not - and is not - seen as an occupied colony. But it will only convince you if you are open-minded.

    (Don't you have any issue with the mindless celebration in the West of the Tatar slave trading empire? The slave raiding is never mentioned, why?)

    Well, the Russian nationalist side also overdoes the slave trading Tatars. Khleminitsky the Cossack bought Tatar and Turkish support by allowing them to enslave tens if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian peasants as part of his land grab.

    Historical grievances are the stuff of nationalist war mongering. Really, if we are being sensible, then only the lives of those now living matter and the most recent events are the most important. At an extreme, I will accept the lives of their grandparents. The same trying to look forward. So Ottoman slavers and US slavery are equally dead. Unfortunately, the US and other migrant nations contain large groups who remember the historical grievances. US Irish against the UK, US Jews against Russia, Canadian and Argentinian Ukrainians against Russia for example. So disentangling present reality from historical spin is difficult. We can probably agree on this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    I fully agree that historical grievances are overdone. But what is one to do if the activist lobbies in the Western media and academia keep on coming up with more and more, and they are these days always aimed at the same group of people?

    Most Slavic nations, incl. the Russians, have never much engaged in historical victimhood - they generally let bygones be bygones and don't enjoy stirring up their own suffering in the past. This has led to a form of disarmament and one sided stores all groups in that part of the world suffering: Germans were "victims" of Red Army in 1945. So were Tatars, and Poles (Slavs themselves), and Habsburgs were sweet 'grandpa" like multi-culturalists, and Ottomans were also "tolerant".... Nobody ever looks at the actual reality. So I mention it about Tatars. I don't think it is exaggerated, not any more than supposed crimes against them, or against the other favorite Western ethnic groups. It is odd to be bothered by only one side bringing it up. Would you suggest that Jews be quiet about Holocaust, blacks about slavery, Arabs about crusades? We should either all shut up, or me bringing up the Tatar story is needed for context.

    By the way, everybody has lost in Ukraine after Maidan, both Russia and EU lost, and so did US. Maidan made a bad situation worse. And it is not over yet - it will get worse. I agree about the weird inactivity of the police in Ukraine - from Maidan to Odessa, they barely show up. And that fact will make the near future there very volatile.
    , @Seraphim
    That's not a too good note for Khmelnitsky or for the 'Zaporizhians'. But after all the 'Zaporizhians' were all too proud to trace their genealogical origin to "the people formerly known as the Khazars and later called Cos­sacks" and that Cossack people was united "by the deepest ties of affectionate affin­ity to the Crimean state, with which the Zaporizhian Host many a time entered into military alliances".
    We know that the Khazars played a key role in the transcontinental slave trade. Apple does not fall far from the tree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Beckow says:
    @Philip Owen
    Well, the Russian nationalist side also overdoes the slave trading Tatars. Khleminitsky the Cossack bought Tatar and Turkish support by allowing them to enslave tens if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian peasants as part of his land grab.

    Historical grievances are the stuff of nationalist war mongering. Really, if we are being sensible, then only the lives of those now living matter and the most recent events are the most important. At an extreme, I will accept the lives of their grandparents. The same trying to look forward. So Ottoman slavers and US slavery are equally dead. Unfortunately, the US and other migrant nations contain large groups who remember the historical grievances. US Irish against the UK, US Jews against Russia, Canadian and Argentinian Ukrainians against Russia for example. So disentangling present reality from historical spin is difficult. We can probably agree on this.

    I fully agree that historical grievances are overdone. But what is one to do if the activist lobbies in the Western media and academia keep on coming up with more and more, and they are these days always aimed at the same group of people?

    Most Slavic nations, incl. the Russians, have never much engaged in historical victimhood – they generally let bygones be bygones and don’t enjoy stirring up their own suffering in the past. This has led to a form of disarmament and one sided stores all groups in that part of the world suffering: Germans were “victims” of Red Army in 1945. So were Tatars, and Poles (Slavs themselves), and Habsburgs were sweet ‘grandpa” like multi-culturalists, and Ottomans were also “tolerant”…. Nobody ever looks at the actual reality. So I mention it about Tatars. I don’t think it is exaggerated, not any more than supposed crimes against them, or against the other favorite Western ethnic groups. It is odd to be bothered by only one side bringing it up. Would you suggest that Jews be quiet about Holocaust, blacks about slavery, Arabs about crusades? We should either all shut up, or me bringing up the Tatar story is needed for context.

    By the way, everybody has lost in Ukraine after Maidan, both Russia and EU lost, and so did US. Maidan made a bad situation worse. And it is not over yet – it will get worse. I agree about the weird inactivity of the police in Ukraine – from Maidan to Odessa, they barely show up. And that fact will make the near future there very volatile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Most Slavic nations, incl. the Russians, have never much engaged in historical victimhood
     
    LOL.

    So no victimhood narratives in Poland, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Russia, etc.?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. AP says:
    @Beckow
    You try to minimize a brutal attack by Ukrainian nationalists that killed 50 Russian civilians. The attack has not been properly investigated by Kiev and nobody has been punished. So much for all the talk of "avoiding despotism". 50 killed and it is ok with you?

    Enjoy your pointless rage. You lost in Ukraine, now you are just living with the consequences. Have a nice day.

    You try to minimize a brutal attack by Ukrainian nationalists that killed 50 Russian civilians

    So now you’ve gone from 42 in the Trade Union to 50.

    You really can’t help yourself, can you? You lie in every.single.post.

    Six other people died that day, outside the Trade Union building. The first one was a Ukrainian nationalist, killed when the group were attacked by Russian nationalists.

    Writing facts is not “minimizing.” It is telling the truth. Versus lying, which is what you do.

    The attack has not been properly investigated by Kiev and nobody has been punished.

    This is bad.

    So much for all the talk of “avoiding despotism”. 50 killed and it is ok with you?

    Now you are back to lying again.

    You lost in Ukraine, now you are just living with the consequences.

    Consequences of not living in a despotism made it worth it for most Ukrainians.

    How terrible it must be for you :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. AP says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    If I falsely accused you then I apologise. I might have been more accurate had I simply stated that you seem to be framing the conflict as one of equal violence and wrongs committed by both sides.

    The whole fiasco was surely started by the underhanded work of the likes of Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton and non governmental international shit-stirrers like George Soros. No doubt with the backing of many self-interested Ukrainian oligarchs.

    I understand that new elections had already been promised to be forthcoming so pro-Russian protesters surely didn't start to obtain by violence what they might easily expect to duplicate (again) at the ballot box. I have to say that you seem well informed if somewhat biased.

    If I falsely accused you then I apologise.

    Finally, some decency. Thank you.

    I simply stated that you seem to be framing the conflict as one of equal violence and wrongs committed by both sides.

    You can watch the videos I posted yourself.

    Obviously many more Russian nationalists than Ukrainian nationalists died that day, because the building they were using as their base was hit by a Molotov cocktail and caught on fire. If it hadn’t caught on fire each side would have had about 3 dead. Both sides were armed and both were ready for a violent fight. The Russian nationalists actually struck first, making the first assault on the pro-Ukrainian march before being defeated and driven back. The first person to die that day, was the Ukrainian football hooligan shot to death.

    But of course while both sides were throwing Molotov cocktails at each other, the Russians were in the building that caught fire and suffered far many more deaths that day as a result. Many (but not all) of the Ukrainian nationalists who had wanted to fight didn’t want their enemies to die, and a lot of Ukrainians were then saving the Russian nationalists from the burning building.

    This is the reality. See the UN report and view the video evidence I posted, for yourself. Everything I wrote above is corroborated. The reality is very different from the Russian nationalist fairytale, of a one-sided assault of peaceful unarmed Russians by Ukrainians who deliberately wanted to kill as many Russians as possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    The anti Maidan protesters camped outside the Trade Union building were not the group that attacked the football hooligans. Somehow, by design of agent provocateurs, who might have been from either side or accident, the enraged supporters of Odessa football club ended up attacking the protesters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. AP says:
    @Beckow
    I fully agree that historical grievances are overdone. But what is one to do if the activist lobbies in the Western media and academia keep on coming up with more and more, and they are these days always aimed at the same group of people?

    Most Slavic nations, incl. the Russians, have never much engaged in historical victimhood - they generally let bygones be bygones and don't enjoy stirring up their own suffering in the past. This has led to a form of disarmament and one sided stores all groups in that part of the world suffering: Germans were "victims" of Red Army in 1945. So were Tatars, and Poles (Slavs themselves), and Habsburgs were sweet 'grandpa" like multi-culturalists, and Ottomans were also "tolerant".... Nobody ever looks at the actual reality. So I mention it about Tatars. I don't think it is exaggerated, not any more than supposed crimes against them, or against the other favorite Western ethnic groups. It is odd to be bothered by only one side bringing it up. Would you suggest that Jews be quiet about Holocaust, blacks about slavery, Arabs about crusades? We should either all shut up, or me bringing up the Tatar story is needed for context.

    By the way, everybody has lost in Ukraine after Maidan, both Russia and EU lost, and so did US. Maidan made a bad situation worse. And it is not over yet - it will get worse. I agree about the weird inactivity of the police in Ukraine - from Maidan to Odessa, they barely show up. And that fact will make the near future there very volatile.

    Most Slavic nations, incl. the Russians, have never much engaged in historical victimhood

    LOL.

    So no victimhood narratives in Poland, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Russia, etc.?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @AP

    If I falsely accused you then I apologise.
     
    Finally, some decency. Thank you.

    I simply stated that you seem to be framing the conflict as one of equal violence and wrongs committed by both sides.
     
    You can watch the videos I posted yourself.

    Obviously many more Russian nationalists than Ukrainian nationalists died that day, because the building they were using as their base was hit by a Molotov cocktail and caught on fire. If it hadn't caught on fire each side would have had about 3 dead. Both sides were armed and both were ready for a violent fight. The Russian nationalists actually struck first, making the first assault on the pro-Ukrainian march before being defeated and driven back. The first person to die that day, was the Ukrainian football hooligan shot to death.

    But of course while both sides were throwing Molotov cocktails at each other, the Russians were in the building that caught fire and suffered far many more deaths that day as a result. Many (but not all) of the Ukrainian nationalists who had wanted to fight didn't want their enemies to die, and a lot of Ukrainians were then saving the Russian nationalists from the burning building.

    This is the reality. See the UN report and view the video evidence I posted, for yourself. Everything I wrote above is corroborated. The reality is very different from the Russian nationalist fairytale, of a one-sided assault of peaceful unarmed Russians by Ukrainians who deliberately wanted to kill as many Russians as possible.

    The anti Maidan protesters camped outside the Trade Union building were not the group that attacked the football hooligans. Somehow, by design of agent provocateurs, who might have been from either side or accident, the enraged supporters of Odessa football club ended up attacking the protesters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. AP says:

    The anti Maidan protesters camped outside the Trade Union building were not the group that attacked the football hooligans.

    Correct, however according to the UN report, some of the group that had attacked the hooligans/Ukrainian nationalists ran to the encampment outside the Trade Union building after they lost the street clashes with the Ukrainian nationalists. The tent camp also was where the leaders of the organizations that had attacked the Ukrainian nationalists were.

    To quote the UN report:

    Other “Pro-Federalism” supporters ran from the clashes to the tent camp at the Kulikovo Pole square, where approximately 200 supporters had gathered (including all the “Pro-Federalism” leaders) during the afternoon

    The pro-Russians were informed that the Ukrainian hooligans were coming their way, but rather than disperse to their homes or wherever they chose to make a stand in the building, which apparently was stocked with Molotov cocktails; they were also armed, as the UN report indicated that both asides were shooting at each other ( I can post video showing shots coming towards the Ukrainian hooligans from the building). Obviously neither side expected the massive fire in the building.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  179. Seraphim says:
    @Philip Owen
    Well, the Russian nationalist side also overdoes the slave trading Tatars. Khleminitsky the Cossack bought Tatar and Turkish support by allowing them to enslave tens if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian peasants as part of his land grab.

    Historical grievances are the stuff of nationalist war mongering. Really, if we are being sensible, then only the lives of those now living matter and the most recent events are the most important. At an extreme, I will accept the lives of their grandparents. The same trying to look forward. So Ottoman slavers and US slavery are equally dead. Unfortunately, the US and other migrant nations contain large groups who remember the historical grievances. US Irish against the UK, US Jews against Russia, Canadian and Argentinian Ukrainians against Russia for example. So disentangling present reality from historical spin is difficult. We can probably agree on this.

    That’s not a too good note for Khmelnitsky or for the ‘Zaporizhians’. But after all the ‘Zaporizhians’ were all too proud to trace their genealogical origin to “the people formerly known as the Khazars and later called Cos­sacks” and that Cossack people was united “by the deepest ties of affectionate affin­ity to the Crimean state, with which the Zaporizhian Host many a time entered into military alliances”.
    We know that the Khazars played a key role in the transcontinental slave trade. Apple does not fall far from the tree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. 5371 says:
    @Philip Owen
    The same happened in Western Europe. North African slavers captured 1-2 million people in about 300 years. During the English Civil War, Cromwell broke off his siege of Bristol to rescue 50,000 (!) people who had been imprisoned on a camp on Lundy island by Barbary Coast slavers. The US Marines was formed to combat the slavers. First action, Tripoli. It didn't stop until the French took control of North Africa.

    Should the French still hold Algeria because of this? The Italians, Libya? Perhaps the British should have invaded Morocco? Perhaps the French should have moved the Arabs out of Algeria in self defence? Why is West European occupation is colonisation but the former Russian Empire is exempt. (Clue - US had no levers against the USSR after WW2).

    50000 people couldn’t even fit on the island, you astonishing fantasist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    I see Lundy Island from the cliff tops where I go jogging when viewing conditions are right.

    I agree with you. While 50,000 people could fit on the island (Cardiff Arms Park holds 98,000 in a much smaller area and a large chunk of that is rugby pitch), drinking water and hygiene never mind food and shelter would be impossible. The rate at which small ships could land and take them off is another consideration. Nevertheless, that is the claim from the time. Maybe it meant that the slavers captured that many people during the whole Civil War? That is quite possible, although counting them accurately would be impossible. The figure may just have meant "a very considerable number of people" although by then, writers were more accurate than medieval chroniclers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @5371
    50000 people couldn't even fit on the island, you astonishing fantasist.

    I see Lundy Island from the cliff tops where I go jogging when viewing conditions are right.

    I agree with you. While 50,000 people could fit on the island (Cardiff Arms Park holds 98,000 in a much smaller area and a large chunk of that is rugby pitch), drinking water and hygiene never mind food and shelter would be impossible. The rate at which small ships could land and take them off is another consideration. Nevertheless, that is the claim from the time. Maybe it meant that the slavers captured that many people during the whole Civil War? That is quite possible, although counting them accurately would be impossible. The figure may just have meant “a very considerable number of people” although by then, writers were more accurate than medieval chroniclers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Che Guava says:
    @Durruti
    Che Guava,

    Unz system claims not to recognize my Durruti pen name.

    Will try once more - quickly.

    Google Durruti will reveal much information on finest anarchist.

    In friendship:

    Durruti - alias Peter J. Antonsen

    I have read of Durutti.

    Probably have said it already, sincere apologies for my too-snarky comment.

    In friendship.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?