What is really happening in Ukraine is that both sides of this conflict (pro-Euro and against) are absolutely corrupt and the people know it. The tragedy of this is that no one from the government or opposition represents the will of the people. The population of Ukraine really just wants an end to corruption and a better national identity, euro-integration was just the last straw, but not fundamental to this crisis (as much as we in the west would like to believe that).
Yes, you're right that Ukrainian opposition is still a part of the corrupt system, but there's a hope that Klichko (who lived in Europe for a long time) is a fresh blood here. Also, current Yanukovych's and Party of Regions corruption is outrageous even for Ukraine. This is the true reason of the revolution.
People fight with the state sincerely, I don't see much sane people who are sincerely supporting Yanukovych now.
The people know that, and the reason they fight for Ukraine to at least in future join EU is because, as they say themselves, in EU at least the laws are valid. And that is true. It has been already stated that in order for Ukraine to join EU it will have to undergo a reform that will rise the transparency and bring it closer to EU standards.
It is hard to believe that Ukrainian citizens are even aware of the details in this agreement. How can they decide whether or not it is a good deal if they do not even know the details?
Too many Ukrainians believe that this agreement would give them visa free travel to the EU (it would NOT) so that they could go there, get a job, save up the money and come home to buy a house and live a life of ease. This actually happened to a lot of Polish workers when Poland joined the EU, but the EU economy was in a different state back then. Since that time the EU has imposed strict rules around new members working in the EU so that Rumania and Bulgaria did not experience that same gold-paved road that the Poles experienced.
Some people are fighting in the streets. Some other people support them, some other people oppose them, some other people are the police officers breaking their heads. What percentage of the population of Ukraine are actually out fighting in the streets?
I'm not many any point at all about who is or isn't in the right or wrong here, I'm not Ukrainian, don't know anyone Ukrainian and have minimal knowledge of the situation out there. But who you consider to be 'the people' is usually a matter of point of view.
For example I have been to Egypt, do know Egyptians and have a fair basic understanding of the situation out there which is complex and tragic. I had hopes the brothers would form a competent administration, but they didn't and now they I think deservedly got booted out. But take a popular chant 'The people and the Army are one hand'. Which people? The Muslim Brotherhood somehow aren't people? The only way you can ever know what 'the people' really think is in a free and fair election, but the results can often be surprising to outsiders.
That has some elements of propaganda yes, but from my talks with many Ukrainians including several of my employees, this seem to be more or less fair depiction of the facts.
Nobody calls protesters Nazis, but Russian media view of the subject is indeed extremely biased.
What's worst of this is that the view of it from Eastern and Western sides of Ukraine is totally different, too (while both dislike Yanukovich strongly, which is a big difference from the state of things just 3 months ago). West dislikes him for being evil, East dislikes him from being stupid and not protecting their case strongly enough.
Re. Russian media: I wonder, why their view (extremely biased, no doubt) could be of any concern to HN readers who are predominantly English-speaking and get much of their information from Internet sources?
I also grew up in central Ukraine and have my close relatives there. As much as I despise the current government, I must say that this "beautifully done" presentation is completely one-sided, unbalanced, and manipulates with both real and made-up facts. And, this is always non-constructive and even dangerous. The situation is much more complicated. I am really afraid that this is going closer and closer towards a civil war and split of the country. Presentations like this one only work in favor of that.
It's very obvious that the presentation is one-sided, and should be taken with a grain of salt. However, if you claim that it makes things up, you should point those things out specifically.
I am biased against the Ukrainian government, but this entire thing reads as a propaganda piece so much I can't trust a single 'fact'. It uses lots of appeals to emotion with vague, subjective terms. To anyone biased to support the government, its not exactly persuasive is it?
It is definitely one sided and propaganda, but it's better than absolute lack of information I am seeing in the West. I think scenario you mention here will happen only if the rest of Europe chooses to ignore and waive their hands.
This is propaganda and has no place on Hacker News. Anything that says 'Civil War Has Been Ignited", when there is no civil war YET, is war mongering for some cause.
Are you calling it propaganda only because the authors used the term "civil war"? Or are you saying that the statements about the origin of the conflict, in the early slides, are untrue? If the latter, please say why you think so and what the actual facts are.
I call this propaganda because the authors used many emotionally charged terms and slogans, claim to speak for the people, claim authority on things that they not only don't source, they can't possibly know. In all, this is clearly a plea for emotional response in support of a particular side.
Lastly, it is the positive claim that needs facts. You can't prove a negative, even with facts.
War: "Organized, large-scale, armed conflict between countries or between national, ethnic, or other sizeable groups, usually involving the engagement of military forces."
A standoff between protesters (lots of yelling, occasional rock-throwing and starting small isolated fires) vs. riot police pretty much just standing in lines, hardly constitutes a "war" (civil or otherwise). If fatalities are on the order of "one in a million", that (however tragic & objectionable it may be) is little more than statistical noise.
Closer to truth is that this is more a coup-d'etat by the Ukrainian fascist paramilitary. The liberal Ukrainian opposition has been chased out of greater parts of the Maidan square and is now in control of "Right Sector", a loosely based umbrella coalition between various fascist and nazi organisations and parties. These extremist wants to ignite a civil war to "cleanse Ukraine from all Russian elements". Pretty scary shit, regarding that a lot of people in Ukraine has Russian as their main language.
The media has mainly filtered this out so far, because they favor anything that destabilize Ukraina in fear of Russia.
I wish that western media would stop feed a biased and false view of what's really happening in Ukraine. Right now their a fueling a fire that could get out of hand with disastrous results.
The current situation is in dire need of de-escalation.
Here are few rare articles that's shedding some light in to the situation:
Far-right extremists staged a
paramilitary funeral for shot Ukrainian protester (and the media didn't notice) http://imgur.com/a/LSvOk
EDIT: There is a lot of unfounded rumors about the government cracking down on the protestors in Ukraine on Twitter. There's also a lot of old images, videos and news that are being recirculated that does not reflect the current situation. Please, double or triple check facts and sources before retweeting any (dis)info.
EDIT2: No, I am not Ukranian, nor Russian. Also I don't support either side. I think either regime is equally corrupted.
As a Russian speaking Ukrainian, participating in protests, living in Kiev that considers this quote by Albert Einstein to be very true "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind", you are so full of shit.
Just a heads up for those not accustomed to Russian propaganda - in Russia and neighbor countries Russia wages a massive propaganda war against EU and currently it's largest target is EuroMaidan. Their purpose is to put as much dirt on the protesters as possible. The propaganda is especially active in internet comments and forums. They often make long and semi written in advance post with link to Russian government controlled sources to sound more legitimate.
Dear fellow hackers, media is "The Matrix" regardless it's from democratic western countries , or Russia, China, North Korea. Ironically most western people believe they have know more truth because their journalists are independent. It's quite deceptive.
Every media, as long as media is made by humans, will be biased. The only choice you have is to search the bias you know, so you can use your brain to fix the information you were fed.
Example: Every time I read something about left/right wing politics on HN I try to check if the commenter is from the US. If he is I apply a "mental filter" which allows me (as an European) to better understand him (what people from the US consider "central" falls under "right wing" policies in my mind). Without that filter political discussions on HN would be pretty useless for me (actually that was the case until I had read enough to understand this particular bias).
You have to do this with every source, otherwise you will always be fooled. Back to the current case: I am not able to distill your sources, because I have no idea what their bias is. At least with most western media I know that they usually tend do favor the "non-government" side in conflicts of people vs government.
Your sources don't support your narrative. What they are claiming is that you have a presence of violent right-wing elements among the protesters, in some non-determinate numbers, and that they are organized. Point taken. G8 demonstrations features Black Block elements with depressing regularity. Are G8 demonstrations also an attempt at a coup by Black Block supporters?
The black and red flags are symbols of OUN-UPA - a WWII era insurgent army that fought both the Nazis and the USSR. Many different groups, parties and individuals use these very general symbols. They represent the Ukrainian struggle for independence, not a racist or anti-semitic agenda.
> No, I am not Ukranian, nor Russian. Also I don't support either side. I think either regime is equally corrupted.
I am sorry, but as an ethnically Jewish, Belarusian-born, Russian-speaker residing in US, I have to say what you're engaging in is the equivalent of "mansplaining" (EDIT: or "patronizing" if you prefer).
To wit, on my Facebook, the only person who is presently in Ukraine (who attended school and a university in US before moving back to Ukraine after graduation) is also Jewish, takes his Jewish roots far more seriously than I do (he had his icons set to the Israeli flag a multiple times), and is posting protest related pictures, and reposting _Russian language_ messages like "My dad was seized by Berkut. Are there any lawyers here that can help out?"
In terms of Ukrainian-Americans posting on this that I know none shown any signs of ultra nationalism and have plenty of Jewish, Russian, and other former-USSR friends in US, and in terms of religion happen to include agnostic, Orthodox (Western Ukraine has a larger Catholic presence as it was part of Poland and Austro-Hungarian Empire), and a Muslim.
(I tend to note that Passionate Americans That Know Everything Because They Read it On the Internet Somehow are going to likely 'splain this way with a Zionist conspiracy -- in a language very similar to what ultranationalists themselves use, ironically -- but Israel itself generally takes a "realpolitik" approach to these kinds of situations and the Israeli _government_ has made no statements).
My personal view of this is the extent to which the Western Media is under-reporting this story (and in my view they are: this has rarely, for example, come up on my Yahoo News pager which is generally syndicated from mainstream sources) is playing into the hands of ultra-nationalists. Keep in mind that Ukraine is far from the only country in Europe to have ultra-nationalist voted in as part genuine views and part protest votes: Golden Dawn in Greece had far greater electoral results and is far scarier, there's also Jobbik in Hungary, BNP in UK, National Front in France, and so on...
It is very much in Russia's interest to make sure ultra-nationalists become the dominant party in this: should the leader of Svoboda run against Yanukovich, the result would be a land-slide for Yanukovich. The best analogue for this is actually probably when David Duke (a KKK leader, anti-Semite, the full nine yards) ran for governor of Lousiana against a known crook (the bumper stickers were "vote for the crook, it's important"). He received many votes as a protest, but it would be insane to think his views represented the mainstream conservative US politics (he ran as a republican party candidate, but his opponent was endorsed by the republican party).
I should also note that generally in former USSR "right" doesn't mean what it means in US: the political spectrum there is best describes as a circle: mix of left-wing and right-wing liberals on one end (a spectrum between those who favour a Scandanvian-style welfare state and those leaning towards classical liberalism -- essentially the entire US/UK/Canada would simply be called "liberalism" in former USSR) and a "red-brown alliance" on the other.
I'd also add that Svoboda is actually very much anti-EU (again not much different from other far-right morons in Europe) and realistically speaking, should they come to power in any shape or form (they will never win a democratic election), they'll be overthrown far quicker than you can say "faster than Morsi/Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt". Since anti-Nazism is a very strong unifying theme between Russia and Western Europe, no one will actually tolerate a neo-Nazi state in Europe.
Can we please drop this 'mansplaining' bullshit? It's as offensive as referring to feelings of being othered as 'girlfeeling'. These kinds of sordid, petty, gendered derogations have no place on HN. There is literally no need for an insultingly sexist synonym for 'patronizing', when 'patronizing' already exists as a less offensive (and better understood) equivalent.
It's a shame really, because you've clearly taken the time to write a well structured and thoughtful response to the parent, and the use of that sexist slur in the first line sets a terrible tone for the rest of the comment.
> It is very much in Russia's interest to make sure ultra-nationalists become the dominant party in this
Honest question: How is this in Russia's interest? The paramilitary UNA-UNSO helped fighting the Russian military in both the Abkhazian and the Chechnya conflicts, according to their own account.
We had a similar situation in Republic of Moldova in 2009, an ex-USSR country near Ukraine, a so called twitter-revolution, one of the first of them. [1]
We are much smaller and less population but the tactics used in Ukraine reminds me of the events Moldova but on a bigger scale.
So called "titushki" are the instigators that are infiltrating among peaceful protesting population with the intention to compromise the entire movement and to discredit the protest.
Students were tortured by the police for months after the protests begun. Students that participated in the protests were kidnapend from the dormitory. [2] Those slides of Ukraine are not at all surpising.
I must say, the tactics of the instigators were very effective in our country. The result was burning of the house of parliament [3]. All the blame was on protesters, it basically discredited the protesters calling them vandals and thefts (as some of them have stolen some furniture). We believe that instigators and the police who gave up surprisingly easy were cooperating, and that they burned up and destroyed documents from parliament themselves.
I'm very glad that in Ukraine they are better prepared. I have very much sympathy with the protesters in Ukraine as the Russian influence in the region is still very much present. Russian is still defending it's interests and it makes us angry.
You must understand that a country very rich in petrol and all kind of minerals have a great deal of influence when massively sponsoring parties of their interest and putting pressure with their own army in Transnistria that they left after collapse of USSR. [4]
* * *
There is also a big problem with russian population that stayed on our territory and continue to have the USSR values. And more of all, they continue to believe that they don't need to learn the local language. It's a mess. That's why it's so much fight between populations and shady people profiting of this situation.
I shouldn't indulge these unproductive subthreads, but I have mild nerd autism and am easily trolled.
It's my experience that people who bring up Anwar al-Awlaki and his son --- particularly when using the term "US citizen" in the same breath --- rarely know anything specific about what actually happened.
To start with, al-Awlaki and his son Abdulrahman weren't killed together, but at separate times.
Abdulrahman was never targeted. He was killed a month later because he was for some reason in the same cafe as Ibrahim al-Banna, the day-to-day operational leader of AQAP. al-Banna was the target of the attack. The USG had no reason to know of Abdulrahman's presence in Shabwa, Yemen, which wasn't under the control of the Yemeni government and continues to be the site of bloody conflicts between militants and the Yemeni state. What was Abdulrahman doing there? Super-parent Anwar al-Awlaki brought him there, to an AQAP war zone that was hosting conflicts not just with the US but with its own host country.
Anwar al-Awlaki was targeted by the US. al-Awlaki was a US citizen. But, like the tens of Americans who left the US to fight for Hitler in World War 2, al-Awlaki deliberately placed himself outside the protections of his citizenship and from that vantage point tried to wage war on his home country. al-Awlaki built up a serial murderer's resume as a sponsor, planner, and coordinator of multiple attacks on civilians in the US and UK. The only reason anyone questions his role in those attacks is because they ususally failed --- the planes didn't blow up, the stab victims didn't die.
People have strange ideas of how "citizenship" works. The American government has no arrest powers in Shabwa and Anyan Province Yemen. There is no due process in that part of the world whatsoever. The USG had three options in al-Awlaki's case: (1) ignore him and hope that he didn't eventually manage actually blow up a passenger plane, (2) kill him with a targeted airstrike, or (3) invade Yemen to capture him. The USG chose the option that killed the fewest innocent civilians.
You stood up for your country, then the government hurt you so bad, that you were taken to the hospital, the government then came to the hospital, took you from there, proceeded to undress and torture you. They then threw you out on a cold field to die (it's -14C there).
That vs.
Walking down the road, boom, a lot of me is missing, shock, I'm gonna die, ouch, ouch, dead.
I know which way I'd prefer to go if it was down to these two choices.
I appreciate perspective and, when more general discussions on government abuse are taking place, comparisons to other 'first-world' countries. You're being criticized because we should be able to have discussions about other parts of the world without changing the subject.
>>> How about drone strikes which target and kill a US citizen
I'd use the term "citizen" pretty loosely here. Considering his passport was revoked six month before he was assassinated and the fact he had taken up arms against the US by fighting in another country's army, I'd say he wasn't exactly a "citizen".
It's only murky because the US government didn't officially revoke his citizenship.
Politics of foreign drone strikes (which I oppose, but don't equate to whole-sale domestic political repression) aside, this is a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
In other words, it's not simply not a valid argument.
How about the life of an American is not more valuable than an Ukrainian's?
It's somewhat disgusting to see the distinction between Americans and Others keep being made, as if spying on non-Americans was somehow less evil than spying on Americans, and so on. They're leveraging the nationalism they've programmed into your heads, to make the all-encompassing surveillance seem less ominous.
But if you believe they don't spy the fuck out of you Americans too, you're being naive. Controlling you specifically is the US government's primary objective because they're becoming a totalitarian regime. I can't imagine it being any more obvious than what's happening over there. Get out while you can.
This is not really sure that it was the government that kidnapped them. You have to take into account that there are more players there than just the government and the opposition.
That's actually a very well done summary. I have an acquaintance that is Ukrainian and I have been asking her about it. Pretty much what happened so far can be summed up as "The leadership betrayed the Ukrainian people to Russia under pressure from Putin" and both of generally agree that it's too late now to stop, and that the protesters have to be at least partially successful or else it is likely there will be more bloodshed.
Being self designated geopolitics guy though, my curiosity is "Where is the US?" We know they were involved in Georgia in 08, and we know the US has a vested interest in giving the Russians a black eye, so I would think they would be involved somehow, but have not seen as such.
I can't help but notice you replying to basically everyone with how wrong they are without providing specifics. Can you either provide some substance or find something more constructive to do?
Point taken, but as a person who tries very hard to not let my filter bubble be too small, I am surprised at the lack of people talking about what I suppose could be considered the North Ukrainian point of view. I did see a few mentions that they would be more aligned to Russia, but haven't seen any in depth reporting from that perspective. Have you seen such?
My guess is that, since Russia is no longer a top global power, this area is not a priority for the US now. Georgia lies in more strategically important (lots of oil around) and fragile region, while saving the Ukraine would be mostly a favor for Poland and rest of EU (not to mention Ukrainians).
For many polish people still remembering the war times, effectively sharing a border with Russia again would be a big issue. I haven't been following news in pl for a while, but I'm sure there's a lot of pro-eu-ukraine sentiment present. There was definitely a lot of it during the orange revolution some time ago.
Edit: just checked, is not hard to find neutral articles, but all the others are pretty much against the current government
Yanukovich refused to sign EU association in November. I am wondering if the EU association was approved by most of Ukrainian through voting (or other ways), and Yanukovich disobeyed the voting results.
Association pact is a purely economical agreement that is mediated by governments only. So no, he did not violate anything. However, 42% of the population supports European integration, while only 31% wants to join the Customs Union, seen as USSR v2.0
Readit News
People fight with the state sincerely, I don't see much sane people who are sincerely supporting Yanukovych now.
Spain just practically outlawed demonstrations or to publicly criticize the government.
Hamburg in Germany has declared 'danger zones' in parts of their city that's, anti-demonstration laws that are even more strict than the ones Ukraine.
And how many of you have actually read the agreement that the EU presented to Yanukovich to sign. You will be surprised at the scope of the changes that Ukraine would have to implement. [http://eeas.europa.eu/ukraine/assoagreement/assoagreement-20...]
It is hard to believe that Ukrainian citizens are even aware of the details in this agreement. How can they decide whether or not it is a good deal if they do not even know the details?
Too many Ukrainians believe that this agreement would give them visa free travel to the EU (it would NOT) so that they could go there, get a job, save up the money and come home to buy a house and live a life of ease. This actually happened to a lot of Polish workers when Poland joined the EU, but the EU economy was in a different state back then. Since that time the EU has imposed strict rules around new members working in the EU so that Rumania and Bulgaria did not experience that same gold-paved road that the Poles experienced.
I'm not many any point at all about who is or isn't in the right or wrong here, I'm not Ukrainian, don't know anyone Ukrainian and have minimal knowledge of the situation out there. But who you consider to be 'the people' is usually a matter of point of view.
For example I have been to Egypt, do know Egyptians and have a fair basic understanding of the situation out there which is complex and tragic. I had hopes the brothers would form a competent administration, but they didn't and now they I think deservedly got booted out. But take a popular chant 'The people and the Army are one hand'. Which people? The Muslim Brotherhood somehow aren't people? The only way you can ever know what 'the people' really think is in a free and fair election, but the results can often be surprising to outsiders.
Nobody calls protesters Nazis, but Russian media view of the subject is indeed extremely biased.
What's worst of this is that the view of it from Eastern and Western sides of Ukraine is totally different, too (while both dislike Yanukovich strongly, which is a big difference from the state of things just 3 months ago). West dislikes him for being evil, East dislikes him from being stupid and not protecting their case strongly enough.
OK... How?
Lastly, it is the positive claim that needs facts. You can't prove a negative, even with facts.
A standoff between protesters (lots of yelling, occasional rock-throwing and starting small isolated fires) vs. riot police pretty much just standing in lines, hardly constitutes a "war" (civil or otherwise). If fatalities are on the order of "one in a million", that (however tragic & objectionable it may be) is little more than statistical noise.
Deleted Comment
Closer to truth is that this is more a coup-d'etat by the Ukrainian fascist paramilitary. The liberal Ukrainian opposition has been chased out of greater parts of the Maidan square and is now in control of "Right Sector", a loosely based umbrella coalition between various fascist and nazi organisations and parties. These extremist wants to ignite a civil war to "cleanse Ukraine from all Russian elements". Pretty scary shit, regarding that a lot of people in Ukraine has Russian as their main language.
The media has mainly filtered this out so far, because they favor anything that destabilize Ukraina in fear of Russia.
I wish that western media would stop feed a biased and false view of what's really happening in Ukraine. Right now their a fueling a fire that could get out of hand with disastrous results.
The current situation is in dire need of de-escalation.
Here are few rare articles that's shedding some light in to the situation:
Ukraine: far-right extremists at core of 'democracy' protest http://www.channel4.com/news/kiev-svoboda-far-right-protests...
Ukrainian far-right group claims to be co-ordinating violence in Kiev http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/23/ukrainian-far-r...
Far-right extremists staged a paramilitary funeral for shot Ukrainian protester (and the media didn't notice) http://imgur.com/a/LSvOk
EDIT: There is a lot of unfounded rumors about the government cracking down on the protestors in Ukraine on Twitter. There's also a lot of old images, videos and news that are being recirculated that does not reflect the current situation. Please, double or triple check facts and sources before retweeting any (dis)info.
EDIT2: No, I am not Ukranian, nor Russian. Also I don't support either side. I think either regime is equally corrupted.
Source: I am from a country neighbor to Russia.
http://orientalreview.org/2014/01/24/coup-in-western-ukraine...
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/01/libya-syria-and-now-ukr...
Dear fellow hackers, media is "The Matrix" regardless it's from democratic western countries , or Russia, China, North Korea. Ironically most western people believe they have know more truth because their journalists are independent. It's quite deceptive.
Example: Every time I read something about left/right wing politics on HN I try to check if the commenter is from the US. If he is I apply a "mental filter" which allows me (as an European) to better understand him (what people from the US consider "central" falls under "right wing" policies in my mind). Without that filter political discussions on HN would be pretty useless for me (actually that was the case until I had read enough to understand this particular bias).
You have to do this with every source, otherwise you will always be fooled. Back to the current case: I am not able to distill your sources, because I have no idea what their bias is. At least with most western media I know that they usually tend do favor the "non-government" side in conflicts of people vs government.
I am sorry, but as an ethnically Jewish, Belarusian-born, Russian-speaker residing in US, I have to say what you're engaging in is the equivalent of "mansplaining" (EDIT: or "patronizing" if you prefer).
To wit, on my Facebook, the only person who is presently in Ukraine (who attended school and a university in US before moving back to Ukraine after graduation) is also Jewish, takes his Jewish roots far more seriously than I do (he had his icons set to the Israeli flag a multiple times), and is posting protest related pictures, and reposting _Russian language_ messages like "My dad was seized by Berkut. Are there any lawyers here that can help out?"
In terms of Ukrainian-Americans posting on this that I know none shown any signs of ultra nationalism and have plenty of Jewish, Russian, and other former-USSR friends in US, and in terms of religion happen to include agnostic, Orthodox (Western Ukraine has a larger Catholic presence as it was part of Poland and Austro-Hungarian Empire), and a Muslim.
Here's an article on this, by the way, about Jewish community's view of this: http://www.jta.org/2013/12/08/news-opinion/world/young-jews-...
(I tend to note that Passionate Americans That Know Everything Because They Read it On the Internet Somehow are going to likely 'splain this way with a Zionist conspiracy -- in a language very similar to what ultranationalists themselves use, ironically -- but Israel itself generally takes a "realpolitik" approach to these kinds of situations and the Israeli _government_ has made no statements).
My personal view of this is the extent to which the Western Media is under-reporting this story (and in my view they are: this has rarely, for example, come up on my Yahoo News pager which is generally syndicated from mainstream sources) is playing into the hands of ultra-nationalists. Keep in mind that Ukraine is far from the only country in Europe to have ultra-nationalist voted in as part genuine views and part protest votes: Golden Dawn in Greece had far greater electoral results and is far scarier, there's also Jobbik in Hungary, BNP in UK, National Front in France, and so on...
It is very much in Russia's interest to make sure ultra-nationalists become the dominant party in this: should the leader of Svoboda run against Yanukovich, the result would be a land-slide for Yanukovich. The best analogue for this is actually probably when David Duke (a KKK leader, anti-Semite, the full nine yards) ran for governor of Lousiana against a known crook (the bumper stickers were "vote for the crook, it's important"). He received many votes as a protest, but it would be insane to think his views represented the mainstream conservative US politics (he ran as a republican party candidate, but his opponent was endorsed by the republican party).
I should also note that generally in former USSR "right" doesn't mean what it means in US: the political spectrum there is best describes as a circle: mix of left-wing and right-wing liberals on one end (a spectrum between those who favour a Scandanvian-style welfare state and those leaning towards classical liberalism -- essentially the entire US/UK/Canada would simply be called "liberalism" in former USSR) and a "red-brown alliance" on the other.
I'd also add that Svoboda is actually very much anti-EU (again not much different from other far-right morons in Europe) and realistically speaking, should they come to power in any shape or form (they will never win a democratic election), they'll be overthrown far quicker than you can say "faster than Morsi/Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt". Since anti-Nazism is a very strong unifying theme between Russia and Western Europe, no one will actually tolerate a neo-Nazi state in Europe.
It's a shame really, because you've clearly taken the time to write a well structured and thoughtful response to the parent, and the use of that sexist slur in the first line sets a terrible tone for the rest of the comment.
Honest question: How is this in Russia's interest? The paramilitary UNA-UNSO helped fighting the Russian military in both the Abkhazian and the Chechnya conflicts, according to their own account.
We are much smaller and less population but the tactics used in Ukraine reminds me of the events Moldova but on a bigger scale. So called "titushki" are the instigators that are infiltrating among peaceful protesting population with the intention to compromise the entire movement and to discredit the protest.
Students were tortured by the police for months after the protests begun. Students that participated in the protests were kidnapend from the dormitory. [2] Those slides of Ukraine are not at all surpising.
Protesters killed to death, at least 4. Valeriu Boboc, 23 year old who was also a father was killed after the protests ended http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Moldova_civil_unrest#Death...
I must say, the tactics of the instigators were very effective in our country. The result was burning of the house of parliament [3]. All the blame was on protesters, it basically discredited the protesters calling them vandals and thefts (as some of them have stolen some furniture). We believe that instigators and the police who gave up surprisingly easy were cooperating, and that they burned up and destroyed documents from parliament themselves.
I'm very glad that in Ukraine they are better prepared. I have very much sympathy with the protesters in Ukraine as the Russian influence in the region is still very much present. Russian is still defending it's interests and it makes us angry. You must understand that a country very rich in petrol and all kind of minerals have a great deal of influence when massively sponsoring parties of their interest and putting pressure with their own army in Transnistria that they left after collapse of USSR. [4]
* * *
There is also a big problem with russian population that stayed on our territory and continue to have the USSR values. And more of all, they continue to believe that they don't need to learn the local language. It's a mess. That's why it's so much fight between populations and shady people profiting of this situation.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Moldova_civil_unrest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution
[2] http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR59/003/2009/en/cf...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/04/07/world/0407-MOLDO...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria
It's my experience that people who bring up Anwar al-Awlaki and his son --- particularly when using the term "US citizen" in the same breath --- rarely know anything specific about what actually happened.
To start with, al-Awlaki and his son Abdulrahman weren't killed together, but at separate times.
Abdulrahman was never targeted. He was killed a month later because he was for some reason in the same cafe as Ibrahim al-Banna, the day-to-day operational leader of AQAP. al-Banna was the target of the attack. The USG had no reason to know of Abdulrahman's presence in Shabwa, Yemen, which wasn't under the control of the Yemeni government and continues to be the site of bloody conflicts between militants and the Yemeni state. What was Abdulrahman doing there? Super-parent Anwar al-Awlaki brought him there, to an AQAP war zone that was hosting conflicts not just with the US but with its own host country.
Anwar al-Awlaki was targeted by the US. al-Awlaki was a US citizen. But, like the tens of Americans who left the US to fight for Hitler in World War 2, al-Awlaki deliberately placed himself outside the protections of his citizenship and from that vantage point tried to wage war on his home country. al-Awlaki built up a serial murderer's resume as a sponsor, planner, and coordinator of multiple attacks on civilians in the US and UK. The only reason anyone questions his role in those attacks is because they ususally failed --- the planes didn't blow up, the stab victims didn't die.
People have strange ideas of how "citizenship" works. The American government has no arrest powers in Shabwa and Anyan Province Yemen. There is no due process in that part of the world whatsoever. The USG had three options in al-Awlaki's case: (1) ignore him and hope that he didn't eventually manage actually blow up a passenger plane, (2) kill him with a targeted airstrike, or (3) invade Yemen to capture him. The USG chose the option that killed the fewest innocent civilians.
That vs.
Walking down the road, boom, a lot of me is missing, shock, I'm gonna die, ouch, ouch, dead.
I know which way I'd prefer to go if it was down to these two choices.
I'd use the term "citizen" pretty loosely here. Considering his passport was revoked six month before he was assassinated and the fact he had taken up arms against the US by fighting in another country's army, I'd say he wasn't exactly a "citizen".
It's only murky because the US government didn't officially revoke his citizenship.
In other words, it's not simply not a valid argument.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
It's somewhat disgusting to see the distinction between Americans and Others keep being made, as if spying on non-Americans was somehow less evil than spying on Americans, and so on. They're leveraging the nationalism they've programmed into your heads, to make the all-encompassing surveillance seem less ominous.
But if you believe they don't spy the fuck out of you Americans too, you're being naive. Controlling you specifically is the US government's primary objective because they're becoming a totalitarian regime. I can't imagine it being any more obvious than what's happening over there. Get out while you can.
Being self designated geopolitics guy though, my curiosity is "Where is the US?" We know they were involved in Georgia in 08, and we know the US has a vested interest in giving the Russians a black eye, so I would think they would be involved somehow, but have not seen as such.
Edit: just checked, is not hard to find neutral articles, but all the others are pretty much against the current government
[http://eeas.europa.eu/ukraine/assoagreement/assoagreement-20...]