Meanwhile in Ukraine... Revolution.

[Nemo1024]

Some more news:
- Coup government in Kiev signed a partial agreement with EU about Ukrainian integration into EU. (http://itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1064745?utm_medium=rss20)
- Medvedev appraises Ukrainian economic debt to Russia to be 16 billion dollars. (http://www.forbes.ru/news/252625-medvedev-otsenil-dolg-ukrainy-pered-rossiei-v-16-mlrd)
- Putin humorously promised to open an account in Bank of Russia, which he described as an "average-sized bank" that got hit by US sanctions. (http://ria.ru/politics/20140321/1000508084.html)


And an interesting report to read at a leisurely pace:
http://www.infowars.com/bbc-now-admits-armed-nazis-led-revolution-in-kiev-ukraine/

Excerpt:

The BBC’s sudden “honesty” regarding brigades of armed Nazis infesting western Ukraine, however, is not the result of the British state propaganda arm examining its journalistic conscience, but rather an attempt to throw off extremist thugs that will only, from now on, become a liability for the West’s ambitions in the Eastern European nation.

The West would most likely prefer to replace armed Neo-Nazis with NATO forces, professional mercenaries, and a proxy force of Ukrainians trained and led by Western special forces and intelligence operatives.

Just as the West has done in Afghanistan, where it used sectarian extremists and terrorists to wage a proxy war against the Soviet Union in the 1980′s, only to end up turning on their “allies” from 2001 onward – the West will use the Neo-Nazis of Kiev only for as long as absolutely necessary before turning on them and dumping them. The BBC’s short piece exposing the repugnant nature of the forces that in fact led the so-called “Euromaidan” uprising is perhaps the first step toward achieving this goal.

[PrintMule]

Until this point I was thinking that Visa and MasterCard are European and American companies. It turns out that actually it's American monopoly. This kinda sucks no? Because both of those companies discredited themselves today, and we do not have any alternative. Lets say that there are tensions between US and EU tomorrow - are there going to be similar sanctions? USA has to much saying in these matters, overvalued petrodollar and now this. Everyone should dump the dollar in favor of, if not bitcoin, then, let's say - Swiss francs.

[AnonyMint]

The potential other reason Russia is attacking the EU is because the EU fucked over the Russians in Cyprus. Russia nor the UN was consulted. Don't piss off the Russian oligarchs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-02/martin-armstrong-warns-europeans-coming-expropriation-10-everyones-accounts

When they took the funds in Cyprus, the EU did not distinguish between European, American, or Russian accounts.

Russia smells weakness. They know the West can't do sanctions nor war with Russia, lest the global debt bomb comes crashing down due to an accelerated implosion of global trade.

Russia won't stop with Crimea. They will pause, but this isn't the last of it. Estonia will fall eventually.

The missing Malaysian plane is probably connected to this.  

[Nemo1024]

Um. Estonia will fall eventually, but for different reasons, and Russia will be watching from the sidelines.

Besides, you are turning everything upside down. Russia is not attacking EU - it's EU/US that have first demolished the legitimate government in Ukraine, plunged it into anarchy, and are now attacking Russia. The only thing Russia did was to respond to the please for help from the majority Russian population in independent Crimean Republic and accepted them back into Russian Federation after 60 years of Ukrainian (what might pass for) occupation.

Incidentally, PrintMule, a representative of VISA in Russia issued a statement that they need to comply US jurisdiction and stop access to VISA network to companies on the US black list.

- Russia filed with Interpol an arrest order for the left extremist Jarosh.
- The illegitimate self(US)-appointed government in Kiev agreed with the UN chaiman about creating a Crimean workgroup and proposed that Crimea becomes a demilitarised zone. (Yeah, right, Russia is just going to pack its fleet in Sevastopol after 230 years of being there, just because some fascist tell them to. Hitler was also intent in taking Sevastopol...)

[LostDutchman]

How the situation in Ukraine is being viewed by editorial cartoonists:

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/cartoons-unrest-in-ukraine-1.7151923#15

My $.02.

[Balthazar]

http://s3.pikabu.ru/post_img/2014/03/19/5/1395206339_1979959736.gif

 

[Nemo1024]

It didn't become Russia. Russia and Ukraine have been separate countries for a very long time. Yes, in Russian there is a work "okraina" whic means "outskirts," but in Ukrainian there is a word "kraina," which means "country."

Revisionist much?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#Mainstream_interpretation_as_.E2.80.98borderland.E2.80.99

The traditional theory (which was widely supported by historians and linguists in the 19–20th centuries, see e.g. Max Vasmer's etymological dictionary of Russian) is that the modern name of the country is derived from the term "ukraina" in the sense ‘borderland, frontier region, marches’ etc. These meanings can be derived from the Proto-Slavic noun *krajь, meaning ‘edge, border’. Contemporary parallels for this are Russian okráina ‘outskirts’ and kraj ‘border district’.

Hmm. Even I learnt something new today.  

As for cartoons. Two can play that game
http://fishki.net/1247319-karikatury-otrazhajuwie-segodnjashnjuju--situaciju-na-ukraine.html

If you want a translation of the texts there, just ask.

[Rassah]

A total of 2,100,000 Indians lived in the US when the colonizers first arrived. The population steadily declined as follows: (Source: Thorton, Russel (1990).

Old source, and though still repeated, is not true.. At this point, the estimate is that before the plague, America's population was anywhere between 20 and 100 million. And those large numbers (90%+) were wiped out accidentaly, not by a deliberate spread of smallpox.

Revisionist much?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#Mainstream_interpretation_as_.E2.80.98borderland.E2.80.99

The traditional theory (which was widely supported by historians and linguists in the 19–20th centuries, see e.g. Max Vasmer's etymological dictionary of Russian) is that the modern name of the country is derived from the term "ukraina" in the sense ‘borderland, frontier region, marches’ etc. These meanings can be derived from the Proto-Slavic noun *krajь, meaning ‘edge, border’. Contemporary parallels for this are Russian okráina ‘outskirts’ and kraj ‘border district’.

If you wish to insist that the name Ukraina comes from "okraina," meaning "outskirts" and ignore this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#Alternative_interpretation_as_.E2.80.98region.2C_country.E2.80.99

Pivtorak starts with the meaning of kraj as ‘land parcel, territory’, attested to in many Slavic languages and states of having acquired the meaning ‘a tribe's territory’ from early in Slavic morphology; *ukraj and *ukrajina would then mean "a separated land parcel, a separate part of a tribe's territory". Later, as Kievan Rus' disintegrated in the 12th century, its ukrainas would become independent principalities, hence the new (and earliest attested) meaning of ukraina as ‘principality’. Still later, lands that became part of Lithuania (Chernigov and Seversk Principalities, Kiev Principality, Pereyaslav Principality and the most part of the Volyn Principality) were sometimes called Lithuanian ukraina, while lands that became part of Poland (Halych Principality and part of the Volyn Principality) were called Polish Ukrayina.

then at the least you have to acknowledge that the "outskirts" it refers to are NOT "outskirts of russia" but "outskirts of Kievan Rus."

It's a bit weird that some here are even suggesting that Ukraine and Russia are the same country. Kievan Rus was founded 200 years before the founding of Russia, beginning with Moscow, even if it was by the same nobility. Since that time, throughout Ukraine's history there has been a very clear divide between Russia and Ukraine, to the point that Russia warred with Ukraine at one time, and asked for its help to fight against Poland at another. They are separate countries. So the idea that because Russia owned Ukraine under USSR, and Russia was founded from Ukraine, means that Russia should just take Ukraine back, is ridiculous.

Frankly, I think Kiev should have just kept their nukes, and then taken Russian territory back under Ukraine instead.

As for Crimea, it's rather ironic that some are using the word "unconstitutional" and "USSR" in the same sentence. I didn't realize soviet communists gave a shit about laws or rights. Crimea wasn't being "occupied" either. It was a redrawing of political boundaries within the same country, which made little difference, and the borders simply remained after USSR fell apart. Were Crimeans being abused by Ukraine? Does Crimea even have any economic value besides tourism and a naval base?

[PrintMule]

then at the least you have to acknowledge that the "outskirts" it refers to are NOT "outskirts of russia" but "outskirts of Kievan Rus."

It's a bit weird that some here are even suggesting that Ukraine and Russia are the same country. Kievan Rus was founded 200 years before the founding of Russia, beginning with Moscow, even if it was by the same nobility. Since that time, throughout Ukraine's history there has been a very clear divide between Russia and Ukraine, to the point that Russia warred with Ukraine at one time, and asked for its help to fight against Poland at another. They are separate countries. So the idea that because Russia owned Ukraine under USSR, and Russia was founded from Ukraine, means that Russia should just take Ukraine back, is ridiculous.

Frankly, I think Kiev should have just kept their nukes, and then taken Russian territory back under Ukraine instead.

As for Crimea, it's rather ironic that some are using the word "unconstitutional" and "USSR" in the same sentence. I didn't realize soviet communists gave a shit about laws or rights. Crimea wasn't being "occupied" either. It was a redrawing of political boundaries within the same country, which made little difference, and the borders simply remained after USSR fell apart. Were Crimeans being abused by Ukraine? Does Crimea even have any economic value besides tourism and a naval base?

Are you shitting me? Do you have a degree in history? I know they say that "Rassah is pretty much posting in every thread out there", but this is the most ignorant BS post, I've read this week.

[Rassah]

Are you shitting me? Do you have a degree in history? I know they say that "Rassah is pretty much posting in every thread out there", but this is the most ignorant BS post, I've read this week.

They? Who are these "they?"

I was born in Kiev, I have family in Lviv, I have friends in Kiev, including some who were helping out on Maidan, and I was going to a Saturday Ukrainian school from 6th to 12th grade (like Sunday School, but on Saturdays, and not religious). There I had classes on Ukrainian history, geography, culture, and literature, starting from the founding of Kiev, all the way to the slaughter of the last remaining Ukrainian cossacks at the beginning of the 20th century. For 6 years. So, yeah, I guess I have a high school degree in Ukrainian history.

[LostDutchman]

From a wonderful old movie, "The Charge of The Light Birgade".

Victorian Era Foreign Policy "Crimean War"

How little foreign policy methods have changed in a hundred and sixty years or so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuhec_llrGw

My $.02.

[Nemo1024]

Were Crimeans being abused by Ukraine? Does Crimea even have any economic value besides tourism and a naval base?

The answer to your first question is: Yes, though luckily nothing physical.
As for the second question: US goes to war all over the world so as to have place for its naval bases. Those two points are enough, even if we disregard historical and humanitarian aspects.

And, please, Russia didn't own Ukraine under USSR. Russia barely existed, and out of the 15 republics it had least say in the matters of its own affairs.

For the Scandinavian readers here, I'd like to give a small simile: the relationship between Russians and Ukrainians is akin to that between Norwegians and Swedes.

[LostDutchman]

My $.02.

[Balthazar]

I think that we have to ask him about God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXhHqfMFLCI

[Rassah]

The answer to your first question is: Yes, though luckily nothing physical.

I was not aware.

As for the second question: US goes to war all over the world so as to have place for its naval bases. Those two points are enough, even if we disregard historical and humanitarian aspects.

So, Ukraine got money out of Russia by whoring Crimea out to Russia so that Russia can build military bases there. But, in the end, the whore fell in love with the john, and Crimea decided to just be a part of Russia? My question was more like whether Crimea was producing something economically, and that product (or heavy taxation) was being stolen by Ukraine to be distributed among the rest of the people up north. (I know Crimea was a net producer of tax revenue, but I don't know if that was entirely thanks to Russia paying for the base, or something else).
I'm kinda wondering if the reason Krim decided to join Russia was simply because Ukraine government fell appart, and they are hoping Russia can keep providing them with government services.

And, please, Russia didn't own Ukraine under USSR. Russia barely existed, and out of the 15 republics it had least say in the matters of its own affairs.

USSR was a product of Russia. The Red Army didn't come out of nowhere to fight over Ukraine, they came out of Russia, after the Russian Revolution (my dad's side of the family fought for the White Army, btw, which put that side of my family on a blacklist through USSR's existence). Russia conquered the rest of the republics, and formed the Soviet Union. Even if you say "Russia didn't own..." the ruling party, along with the pogroms, holodomors, and the rest of the terrible Soviet rule, came out of Moscow, in Russia. It's why so many ex-Soviet republics hate Russia now. Not necessarily Russians but just Russia.

[Balthazar]

USSR was a product of Russia.

Actually it was a product of Germany... Lenin was an agent, a government of Germany subsidized him to take down Empire government. But then Lenin scammed them and this led to formation of USSR.

Russia conquered the rest of the republics, and formed the Soviet Union.

That's correct for eastern republics... But TSFSR and a few other southern republics were independent states.

It's why so many ex-Soviet republics hate Russia now.

Don't be so naive. The most of republics (with exception for RSFSR and Kazakhstan) had a negative balances and were subsidised. But now they don't have such source of money... There is only one reason, it's always about money.

Anyway, there is no place for love or hate in global politics. These emotions are just the tools set, which used by governments to control the people, and nothing more.

[PrintMule]

Are you shitting me? Do you have a degree in history? I know they say that "Rassah is pretty much posting in every thread out there", but this is the most ignorant BS post, I've read this week.

They? Who are these "they?"

I was born in Kiev, I have family in Lviv, I have friends in Kiev, including some who were helping out on Maidan, and I was going to a Saturday Ukrainian school from 6th to 12th grade (like Sunday School, but on Saturdays, and not religious). There I had classes on Ukrainian history, geography, culture, and literature, starting from the founding of Kiev, all the way to the slaughter of the last remaining Ukrainian cossacks at the beginning of the 20th century. For 6 years. So, yeah, I guess I have a high school degree in Ukrainian history.

It's from some older topics, when I was lurking more than posting, don't make me search for it. I think it was mostly about gay stuff with a grain of politics.

Anyway, I don't even know where to begin with you.

Basically: many years B.C - region was filled with different tribes
it's is a popular opinion that in about year ~500+ A.D. Kiev was mostly "polish"
power shifted constantly, with lots of different nations moving around
those nations were a different flavors of slavic, predecessors of polish, hungarians, slovenians and etc.
then, in about ~800+ A.D. a guy named Rurik came a long, a viking of sorts, and he took control of what you may call "russian lands" at that time, with it's capital Novgorod
then, after his death, ~850 A.D. his right hand man, named Oleg, took Kiev, and decided to move "russian" capital to Kiev
then, this "old russian kingdom" grew, under rule of Rurik's children and everyone prospered until a certain point
Kiev was a considered a capital, or at least an important political place, although "old russian kingdom" by that point consisted of many large parts, with complete autonomy and feuds between those parts
It all went to shit afterwards at about ~1250 A.D. after which region was raped by every other possible neighboring country, like Austria, Poland, Lithuania and many other

and the BEST PART is that there's was no such thing as UKRAINIAN PEOPLE for all that time
whole place was crawling with different peoples, and even nowadays should be considered much more than simply Russia vs Ukraine. It's a Austrian-Polish-Jewish-Lithuanian-Slovenian-Hungarian-Romanian-Russian-etc land, which suddenly decided to be Ukraine.
as you pointed out earlier ukraine means "outskirts of kievan rus"
this term was coined in about 1150A.D. and simply meant "further part of russia"

An idiotic analogy if I may:
If USA conquers Cuba, and decides that Havana is a new capital of USA. USA is therefore name "United States of America and some other islands like one which Havana is on", or USAH.
Then after 500 years after some infighting and civil wars throughout continent, Cuba splits away, taking Florida with it. USAH becomes "USA is formed Again, minus one state" or USAA.
We will not be able to say that Cuba is the mother of USAA, and should be treated a an equal, if not superior country.

[Nemo1024]

USSR was a product of Russia. The Red Army didn't come out of nowhere to fight over Ukraine, they came out of Russia, after the Russian Revolution (my dad's side of the family fought for the White Army, btw, which put that side of my family on a blacklist through USSR's existence). Russia conquered the rest of the republics, and formed the Soviet Union. Even if you say "Russia didn't own..." the ruling party, along with the pogroms, holodomors, and the rest of the terrible Soviet rule, came out of Moscow, in Russia. It's why so many ex-Soviet republics hate Russia now. Not necessarily Russians but just Russia.

I quite understand where that hate comes from. My return question would be: what are Russians to hate, then? My grandmother and here family got a first-hand experience of the Gulag system. She survived, her sister and her mother didn't. Should Russians start hating Jews as the inner circle of the revolutionaries was predominantly Jewish, should they hate Germany, with Lenin being a half-blood German (who in his letters proclaimed hate to all things Russian and had as one of the goals disintegrating Russia), should they start hating Georgia as the birthcountry of Jugashvili, should they hate Ukraine as the birth country of two next Soviet tops, Hrushov and Brezhnev?
Revolution in Russia happened under circumstances much like the ones unfurling in Ukraine. The people were fed up with something (in case of Russia, WWI), but those who capitalised on that didn't have people's interests at heart.

You mention the starvation. It wasn't limited to Ukraine. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0_%281932%E2%80%941933%29 It's a despicable propaganda dividing that tragedy into Ukraine and everyone else. Again, my great-great-grandmother (in the same line as my repressed grandmother) died from hunger.

USSR was as much a product of WWI-induced Western intervention as it was a product of a small group of radicals. Red Army didn't come out of nowhere, but it was not the only army on the territory of Russia to fight for its future, or did you forget the Civil War?

Maybe it's enough with all hating?

Russia does not have its sights on Ukraine, not even on the territories that Lenin gave to Ukraine in 1922-24.
What happened in Crimea was not some whim of Russian politics, it was a process (or a volcano) that was brewing on a a backburner ever since 1954, and with an accelerating force since 1991. It was something that was going to happen sooner or later, and the events in Kiev were the releasing factor. And if Russia didn't act as a guarantor of peace, being there in the background, it might have gone much more violent and with bloodshed.

EDIT: Two people posted before me, while I wrote this. The text above was written without seeing what others commented.

[pioter]

russia need to be hated cuz its russia. easy ?
I dont like Ukraine too but at least they are not russians .

[Rassah]

Russia conquered the rest of the republics, and formed the Soviet Union.

That's correct for eastern republics... But TSFSR and a few other southern republics were independent states.

Ukraine didn't really feel very independent. We were still forced to pledge allegiance to Lenin and Moscow, to serve the Soviet military, etc. The general opinion we had under USSR was that Russia was in charge. And when Ukraine broke off from Soviet Union, it was in a way like breaking off from Russia (probably because Moscow was the seat of power)

Anyway, there is no place for love or hate in global politics. These emotions are just the tools set, which used by governments to control the people, and nothing more.

I may be biased, because ""Soviet Russia" seriously f'ed the hell out of my family, with father's side fighting for the White Army, and mother's side coming from a royal family that was subject to pogroms and exterminations. So, at least for me and my family, it was sorta personal.

then, in about ~800+ A.D. a guy named Rurik came a long, a viking of sorts, and he took control of what you may call "russian lands" at that time, with it's capital Novgorod
then, after his death, ~850 A.D. his right hand man, named Oleg, took Kiev, and decided to move "russian" capital to Kiev
then, this "old russian kingdom" grew, under rule of Rurik's children and everyone prospered until a certain point
Kiev was a considered a capital, or at least an important political place, although "old russian kingdom" by that point consisted of many large parts, with complete autonomy and feuds between those parts
It all went to shit afterwards at about ~1250 A.D. after which region was raped by every other possible neighboring country, like Austria, Poland, Lithuania and many other

and the BEST PART is that there's was no such thing as UKRAINIAN PEOPLE for all that time
whole place was crawling with different peoples, and even nowadays should be considered much more than simply Russia vs Ukraine. It's a Austrian-Polish-Jewish-Lithuanian-Slovenian-Hungarian-Romanian-Russian-etc land, which suddenly decided to be Ukraine.
as you pointed out earlier ukraine means "outskirts of kievan rus"
this term was coined in about 1150A.D. and simply meant "further part of russia"

I consider the foundation of Kievan Rus in ~800 AD to be the foundation of what is now Ukraine. No, Kievan Rus was not Russia. Yes, the territory was originally a bunch of tribes, but it was unified under Kievan Rus. Everything you mentioned from the foundation of Kievan Rus, until it's destruction by the tatars is right, but everything after 1150 AD is not.
The power in that area has shifted constantly after 1150 AD, but not because the people living in Ukraine became Polish or Russian or whatever. They were conquered and occupied by various countries (that tended to plunder their food and resources, and take them into slavery). They did not consider themselves to be a part of their occupying country.
At a certain point, Ukrainians tried to establish independence from the ever occupying forces by forming a self defense force and a paramilitary government, led by the cossacks. The people living there, regardless of being from different origins, did not want to be a part of Poland or Russia. Nor did they coonsider themselves just an "outskirts" of their occupying country.
Keep in mind, when some country invade a piece of land, that land already has its own people with their own identity living onit. Just because USSR occupied Ukraiine, does not mean Ukrainians considered themselves Soviets. Just as just because USA occupied Iraq, that didn't mean that Iraquis coonsidered themselves Americans. So, for a really long time, Ukraine and Ukrainians considered themselves their own people and country, up to the point where USSR took them over, and again since USSR broke apart.

An idiotic analogy if I may:
If USA conquers Cuba, and decides that Havana is a new capital of USA. USA is therefore name "United States of America and some other islands like one which Havana is on", or USAH.
Then after 500 years after some infighting and civil wars throughout continent, Cuba splits away, taking Florida with it. USAH becomes "USA is formed Again, minus one state" or USAA.
We will not be able to say that Cuba is the mother of USAA, and should be treated a an equal, if not superior country.

I agree, if in that analogy Cuba is Ukraine, USA is Russia, they both are completely separate countries until one occupied the other, and instead of 500 years it was only about 70 or 80.