Probably the fact that Russia considers the NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war an act of aggression and interference in the affairs of another sovereign state.
The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong
And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.
When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".
It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.
It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.
The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong
And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.
Kiev was the capital of the first unified Russian state. Russians and Ukrainians are practically one people, and Russia and Ukraine have been one country since pretty much forever. Russia's nose definitely belongs in Ukraine.
Kanluwen wrote:What does Belgrade have to do with anything?
Well...
Let's start at that it was a direct, illegal act of agression by NATO against an independent sovereign nation and ally of Russia not at war with any NATO member.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Probably the fact that Russia considers the NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war an act of aggression and interference in the affairs of another sovereign state.
To be fair, it totally was, but for good reason.
Serbia also basically went out if its way to piss people off after they already were almost content to ignore the situation.
Serbia has something of a history of pulling the tails of lions.
The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong
And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.
When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".
It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.
It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.
If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve. Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.
The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong
And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.
When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".
It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.
It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.
If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve. Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.
If NATO wanted to destroy Russia it would already have done so, the complete collapse of the Soviet Union is about as good an opportunity as one could hope to get.
Further, you're assuming that it was NATO that pushed eastward, rather than the independent, sovereign neighbours of Russia that ran westward as quickly as their legs could carry them. You still haven't explained why Russia should have the right to dictate who her neighbours associate with.
The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong
And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.
When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".
It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.
It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.
If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve. Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West. NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.
Hey, it's not NATOs fault that all those ex-East bloc countries apparently felt safer as a part of NATO than of some alliance with Russia.
If Russia didn't want NATO to be popular amongst its former "allies" and within its "sphere of influence" then maybe it shouldn't have oppressed that sphere for 50 years.
The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong
And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.
When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".
It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.
It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.
If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve.
Because it had morphed into something else. It turned a general security cooperative to include non-state/assymetrical threats as well, not just an anti-soviet one.
Likewise,, it was in many ways dissolving. Europe's armies were drawing down. The armies of Europe have not been so small since before Napoleon.
Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
Because those states wanted to join NATO? It's not like NATO invaded them. They went out of their way to seek membership. That's not a "push" into someone else's sphere of influence, and, by that point, it can no longer be considered part of that sphere anyway if they're both in a position where they can, and want, do join NATO.
Now, to be fair, some of "the west", and the US in particular, have done some absolutely stupid and short-sighted things with regards to relations with Russia, in part just because they could be done. There's no denying that, and such have obviously not been helpful. However, lets not make it out like Russia was a saint either, and it has gone out of its way to repeatedly and publicly turn down many opportunities to improve relations and better integrate with Europe as a whole.
To put it another way, yes, the "cool kids" group can be donkey-caves, but when the loner kid rebuffs the cool kids invitation to go to the movies just because he doesn't get to pick the movie instead of everyone voting on which movie to see, that doesn't go over well either.
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.
Except nobody for the last 15 years (until early 2014 anyway) in the West considered it such anymore. It was far more a general security cooperative amongst Euro-American allies most often seeing use against asymmetrical threats and stability issues within Europe and in the Middle-East rather than against Russia. The fact that European nations even floated the idea of having Russia join NATO (and subsequently rebuffed by Russia) should be plenty of indication that NATO was being viewed and utilized in a different role.
Only a fool would believe that having a hostile military alliance with a history of violence and invasion at the border is not somehow a threat. Especially not if you are a nation with a very, very long history of being invaded by pretty much everyone.
Which has always struck me as odd, considering the openly neo nazi government there.
I mean, seriously, genocide is good unless it's non-jewish Russians? Because that's what I'm carrying away from this comparison.
The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong
And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.
When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".
It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.
It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.
If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve. Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.
If NATO wanted to destroy Russia it would already have done so, the complete collapse of the Soviet Union is about as good an opportunity as one could hope to get.
The West does not want to destroy Russia, it just wants Russia to be not a rival to its interests. The West thought it could control Russia and keep it down through supporting the Jeltsin mafia. It could not.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Further, you're assuming that it was NATO that pushed eastward, rather than the independent, sovereign neighbours of Russia that ran westward as quickly as their legs could carry them. You still haven't explained why Russia should have the right to dictate who her neighbours associate with.
NATO did not have to accept those countries.
Russia is a great power. That is all the right it needs. Can you name me any great power that does not meddle with its neighbours? Russia saw its sphere of influence taken over by the West, and that threatens not only Russia's great power status, but also the very stability of the Russian state. Russia does not have the soft power of the West, so it can not fight back that way. Russia has to fight to keep its control with what it has, which is hard power.
The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong
And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.
When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".
It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.
It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.
If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve.
Because it had morphed into something else. It turned a general security cooperative to include non-state/assymetrical threats as well, not just an anti-soviet one.
Likewise,, it was in many ways dissolving. Europe's armies were drawing down. The armies of Europe have not been so small since before Napoleon.
So? Russia's army is only a shade of the power of the Red Army. Its logical Europe's armies became smaller too.
And what gigantic non-state assymetrical threats did NATO face that required a full defensive military alliance? Did the US really need the rest of NATO to fight a bunch of Afghan goat herders? And why did NATO expand eastwards despite promises not to, if not to contain Russia?
If NATO is not a threat to Russia, than why is it doing such a great job at looking like one?
BaronIveagh wrote:
Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
Because those states wanted to join NATO? It's not like NATO invaded them. They went out of their way to seek membership. That's not a "push" into someone else's sphere of influence, and, by that point, it can no longer be considered part of that sphere anyway if they're both in a position where they can, and want, do join NATO.
Now, to be fair, some of "the west", and the US in particular, have done some absolutely stupid and short-sighted things with regards to relations with Russia, in part just because they could be done. There's no denying that, and such have obviously not been helpful. However, lets not make it out like Russia was a saint either, and it has gone out of its way to repeatedly and publicly turn down many opportunities to improve relations and better integrate with Europe as a whole.
Like what?
Russians were all enthousiastic about the West back when the USSR fell. Russia was completely willing to become part of the West and adopt capitalism.
But all capitalism and the West gave Russia was a complete collapse of society. Incompetent leaders destroyed everything, and the West just stood by and cheered Yeltsin on, meanwhile bombing Serbia, supporting terrorism and seperatism in Russian and former Soviet territories and generally closing in on historical Russian interests everywhere. This betrayal changed Putin from the pro-West guy he once was into very much anti-West, and it also destroyed the positive view of the West with most other Russians. You are dismissing it as the West having done some stupid things that have not been helpful. It is much, much worse than that. The West was the enemy during Soviet times, but unlike now it was never hated by the ordinary people. The amount of hostility to the West in all parts of Russian society is something completely new. I'll leave you to figure out how adoration changed into hatred so quickly.
Even if the West did not have the intentions, it appeared to the Russians that they took every opportunity to take Russia down. The West should be less self-righteous and more sensitive about Russian feelings.
It does not matter if the Baltic states asked for membership or not. NATO made a huge mistake in accepting it.
BaronIveagh wrote:To put it another way, yes, the "cool kids" group can be donkey-caves, but when the loner kid rebuffs the cool kids invitation to go to the movies just because he doesn't get to pick the movie instead of everyone voting on which movie to see, that doesn't go over well either.
Does the situation change if the 'loner kid' is one of the strongest kids in school and has a nuclear bomb?
BaronIveagh wrote:
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.
Except nobody for the last 15 years (until early 2014 anyway) in the West considered it such anymore. It was far more a general security cooperative amongst Euro-American allies most often seeing use against asymmetrical threats and stability issues within Europe and in the Middle-East rather than against Russia. The fact that European nations even floated the idea of having Russia join NATO (and subsequently rebuffed by Russia) should be plenty of indication that NATO was being viewed and utilized in a different role.
Russia joining NATO? That is mad. It is impossible for Russia to join NATO, and that is known in the West too. The idea of Russia joining NATO was never a serious one.
Only a fool would believe that having a hostile military alliance with a history of violence and invasion at the border is not somehow a threat. Especially not if you are a nation with a very, very long history of being invaded by pretty much everyone.
Which has always struck me as odd, considering the openly neo nazi government there.
I mean, seriously, genocide is good unless it's non-jewish Russians? Because that's what I'm carrying away from this comparison.
Well, the West was perfectly fine when the Croatians started their little ethnic cleansing operations against the Serbs... Apparently genocide is only bad if the victims are US allies.
And Serbian war crimes in no way change the fact that the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia was illegal and broke all international laws. Not a very good example by those who falsely pretend to regard international law so highly... It seems that international law only is valid when in favour of the US.
A case could have been made if Yugoslavia was the only example, but alas, it is not.
The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong
And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.
When people make remarks like this attacking the West, its derided as "Whataboutism".
It's been derided as "Whataboutism" when people have mentioned Russia doing the same thing.
It does not change the fact that Iron_Captain seems to feel that Russia is the one "being threatened" here and that NATO is a belligerent force out to get Russia at every twist and turn, while ignoring the fact that NATO is still there because of Russia's behavior after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia's behavior during the Soviet Union.
If NATO does not want to be threatening, then why do they surround Russia with their military bases? NATO was started to counter the Soviet Union. Why after the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of its purpose, did it not dissolve. Why did they push east into the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they got the opportunity, even while Russia pursued friendly relations with the West.
NATO is a military alliance and it is an anti-Russian alliance. The fact that it needs to be explained why NATO is a threat to Russia is staggering. It should be obvious. It is obvious to any Russian.
If NATO wanted to destroy Russia it would already have done so, the complete collapse of the Soviet Union is about as good an opportunity as one could hope to get.
The West does not want to destroy Russia, it just wants Russia to be not a rival to its interests. The West thought it could control Russia and keep it down through supporting the Jeltsin mafia. It could not.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Further, you're assuming that it was NATO that pushed eastward, rather than the independent, sovereign neighbours of Russia that ran westward as quickly as their legs could carry them. You still haven't explained why Russia should have the right to dictate who her neighbours associate with.
NATO did not have to accept those countries.
Russia is a great power. That is all the right it needs. Can you name me any great power that does not meddle with its neighbours? Russia saw its sphere of influence taken over by the West, and that threatens not only Russia's great power status, but also the very stability of the Russian state. Russia does not have the soft power of the West, so it can not fight back that way. Russia has to fight to keep its control with what it has, which is hard power.
That argument kinda destroys your complaints that the US is breaking international law. After all, they're a great power, no?
Well, the West was perfectly fine when the Croatians started their little ethnic cleansing operations against the Serbs... Apparently genocide is only bad if the victims are US allies.
And Serbian war crimes in no way change the fact that the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia was illegal and broke all international laws. Not a very good example by those who falsely pretend to regard international law so highly... It seems that international law only is valid when in favour of the US.
A case could have been made if Yugoslavia was the only example, but alas, it is not.
Well, one, they were actually OK with all of it until Anderson Cooper went there with a film team, since the networks were doing a hands off on it, and started shoving pictures of it on John Q Smith's television every night.
Two, Genocide is genocide. (and I'm not an American, so again, the US allies jibe does nothing) And the US was backing all sides of that war with the knowing help of Russia. Or, at least the vory v zakone. Whitlock had a cozy little deal with the US state department going, that let him sell US and Russian gear to all three sides. When the state department handed it down that he wasn't to sell to the Serbs anymore, he paid for a very sharp attorney to get a guy named Summers paroled. Summers was doing time in PA for a double homicide but had connections to the vory. So, Whitlock used this guy as his connection, and sold US, Chinese, and Russian gear to the vory's guy, who was somehow connected to the Russian military, who turned around and sold it to the Serbs.
Ain't it nifty how war profiteering works? No matter who won, the US and Russia made money.
So, no, nobody's hands are clean in Bosnia. but some are dirtier than others.
Vaktathi wrote:
Because it had morphed into something else. It turned a general security cooperative to include non-state/assymetrical threats as well, not just an anti-soviet one.
Likewise,, it was in many ways dissolving. Europe's armies were drawing down. The armies of Europe have not been so small since before Napoleon.
So? Russia's army is only a shade of the power of the Red Army. Its logical Europe's armies became smaller too.
Europe's armies have shrunken far more in proportion to both the manpower of the Russian Federation's forces, as well as relative to the size of their own populations. Hell, the German army has *lost* more people in a single day in some wars over the last 100 years than it currently has in uniform.
And what gigantic non-state assymetrical threats did NATO face that required a full defensive military alliance? Did the US really need the rest of NATO to fight a bunch of Afghan goat herders?
NATO is there to defend against an array of threats, conventional and unconventional. Just because there doesn't happen to be a major threat at any one particular moment isn't any reason to disband when there may be in the future and the existence of the framework provides additional connection and integration between the member nations. NATO has done much to better integrate Europe. It's not perfect, but having Western Europe engaged in cooperative defense is better than them slaughtering each other by the millions as they did in the fifty years beforehand.
And why did NATO expand eastwards despite promises not to, if not to contain Russia?
Because the nations there wanted to join and did not find their interest's aligned with Russia's? Many of these Eastern European nations are worried about Russian attack/intervention above any other threat and thus find NATO membership important, particularly thus far as as NATO membership has proven an effective deterrent against direct Russian action. While Russia has engaged itself in Georgia and Ukraine, it hasn't in places like Estonia or Latvia.
Ultimately, It's not like NATO was invading these places and forcing them into NATO, they came and asked for membership. NATO wasn't going to turn them away just...because.
If NATO is not a threat to Russia, than why is it doing such a great job at looking like one?
Mostly because Russia is looking for one to distract from internal issues. Pretty bog-standard political mechanism. Russia isn't the only one to engage in this sort of thing (just look at the US presidential race and some of the candidates and their stances on certain groups, or North Korea for literally everything), but Russia is most certainly engaged in heavily leveraging such tactics.
Now, that's not to say that one can't understand the fear that a foreign security cooperative around one's borders can cause. That's something that anyone can get. However, NATO is probably the least belligerent border threat that Russia has ever had.
Like what?
Russians were all enthousiastic about the West back when the USSR fell. Russia was completely willing to become part of the West and adopt capitalism.
But all capitalism and the West gave Russia was a complete collapse of society. Incompetent leaders destroyed everything, and the West just stood by and cheered Yeltsin on, meanwhile bombing Serbia, supporting terrorism and seperatism in Russian and former Soviet territories and generally closing in on historical Russian interests everywhere.
Well that's certainly a rather stilted viewpoint. It's not the West's fault that Russia's leaders and systems were corrupt and incompetent. Russian institutions have always had problems, that's been an issue for hundreds of years, and caused the disintegration of more than one Russian government. They're not the only ones with such problems, but that doesn't mean that such are "the West's" fault. Collapse of Russian society was a result of decades of institutional mismanagement and poor economic concentration on the part of the Soviet Union that simply all came apart at the same time. Planned economy or Capitalism, those issues were long coming.
Now, as I said earlier, you can fault the US and some Western nations for many of their actions during that time, absolutely, But the vast majority of Russia's problems were of its own making and nobody else was, or is, able to fix them for Russia.
As for supporting terrorism and separatism, against post-soviet Russia, how exactly do you mean? Do you mean by recognizing breakaway regions like Georgia, Estonia, etc? Or something more nefarious?
This betrayal changed Putin from the pro-West guy he once was into very much anti-West, and it also destroyed the positive view of the West with most other Russians. You are dismissing it as the West having done some stupid things that have not been helpful. It is much, much worse than that. The West was the enemy during Soviet times, but unlike now it was never hated by the ordinary people. The amount of hostility to the West in all parts of Russian society is something completely new. I'll leave you to figure out how adoration changed into hatred so quickly.
Things turn out gakky and people look for someone to blame and need a scapegoat. A pretty common response. While I can see where many US/EU actions would honk off the Russian people, in some cases rightfully so, there's a rather large degree of scapegoating. The pattern we're seeing in Russia has been seen in other nations before (even in the US), sometimes with unfortunate consequences.
Ultimately, what really should be more looked at is, does anyone think Putin is going to hop off the PM-to-President-and-back-round-again train? That cycle needs fuel to sustain it, and an external scapegoat is high-octane.
Even if the West did not have the intentions, it appeared to the Russians that they took every opportunity to take Russia down. The West should be less self-righteous and more sensitive about Russian feelings.
In this I would agree. Absolutely, you are correct, and the US/EU have done some absolutely bone-headed things.
It does not matter if the Baltic states asked for membership or not. NATO made a huge mistake in accepting it.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But Russia can't dictate the foreign agreements of other nations (and yes, the same can be directed toward the US), and It has thus far proven effective in protecting these nations from events like those in Ukraine or Georgia. In some respects, it was also repayment for promises made, and broken, decades earlier (same with Poland in that regard). Ultimately, these areas also are not something that would be difficult for Russia to defend against or overwhelm in days in a conventional conflict.
Ultimately, there are some different things that could have been done that would have resulted in far better outcomes for all involved, but it's also not all one sided here.
To put it another way, yes, the "cool kids" group can be donkey-caves, but when the loner kid rebuffs the cool kids invitation to go to the movies just because he doesn't get to pick the movie instead of everyone voting on which movie to see, that doesn't go over well either.
Does the situation change if the 'loner kid' is one of the strongest kids in school and has a nuclear bomb?
He's *one* of the strongest, but will only engage with others as if he's *the* strongest. That's the problem.
As for nuclear bombs, sure he has nuclear bombs, but so do half the other kids, and the only relevancy they have is for that "mass suicide" existential deterrent threat, aside from that they don't really mean squat.
Russia joining NATO? That is mad. It is impossible for Russia to join NATO, and that is known in the West too. The idea of Russia joining NATO was never a serious one.
Primarily because Russia rebuffed it publicly before anyone could ever even discuss such proposals internally. It likely would have been a very long term process, but was something discussed by every major western power at some point.
Now, as I said earlier, you can fault the US and some Western nations for many of their actions during that time, absolutely, But the vast majority of Russia's problems were of its own making and nobody else was, or is, able to fix them for Russia.
Most problems because USSR disbanded and it's ruined multi-polar world. Now we have USA hehemony. Europe needed war in Lybia and Syria? Now it suffer from regurees flood. Some say that USSR disbaning saved it from civil war. But the war did not happen anyway? Chechnya, Dagestan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Abhaziya, Georgia, Ossetia, Ukraine.
NATO has a serious advantage over Russia. This could be tolerated if NATO supports the balance of power in the world and to avoid casualties. But it makes more wars.
Most problems because USSR disbanded and it's ruined multi-polar world. Now we have USA hehemony.
For a time, sure. The US may end up reigning another thirty years or so, maybe less, maybe a little more, but probably not a whole lot more. The US cannot stay ahead of India and China forever, both have populations which dwarf that of the US by three or four times and are growing rapidly, and if Europe continues on its course of integration, an eventual "USE" would likely match, if not overshadow, the US as well. The unipolar world is a temporary thing.
Europe needed war in Lybia and Syria? Now it suffer from regurees flood.
Yup, though the US also shares some blame in that, though in many ways these things are part of the continuing fallout of the monumentally stupid decisions made in the wake of the first world war. Now, lets be real, revolts started internally in both these places, without aid or instigation of the US or EU, these wars weren't started by outside powers, though one could make the case that the situations were made worse.
Some say that USSR disbaning saved it from civil war. But the war did not happen anyway? Chechnya, Dagestan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Abhaziya, Georgia, Ossetia, Ukraine.
Indeed, but there was no way to hold the USSR together, the way things had gone, and the existing conflicts are, by 20th century and previous Russian standards, relatively small skirmishes, as opposed to a repeat of the Red vs White civil war.
NATO has a serious advantage over Russia. This could be tolerated if NATO supports the balance of power in the world and to avoid casualties. But it makes more wars.
By what standard to you measure that? Is NATO perfect? No. Has NATO made mistakes? Absolutely.
However, between NATO and the EU & Schengen area frameworks, Europe is not massacring itself the way it did in my grandparent's and great-grandparent's times. What conflicts have arisen have been tiny by comparison and not between NATO members. This is something to be thankful for.
Now, say what you will about Serbia, the situation there was hardly started by NATO, and the Serbs have almost made a national hobby of pissing off great powers. Sometimes it works out for them, sometimes it backfires, but they really like rolling those dice.
The US cannot stay ahead of India and China forever, both have populations which dwarf that of the US by three or four times and are growing rapidly, and if Europe continues on its course of integration, an eventual "USE" would likely match, if not overshadow, the US as well. The unipolar world is a temporary thing.
I afraid, that CIA will work to support Chinese local separatists. China consist of many nations, like USSR was.
India? Many people so poor. And archaic cast system.
Maybe Brazil will go power. But Brazil so pro-american.
I wonder why Putin don't try to unite with others. We lost many allies. Even Belarus looking towards West.
Now, lets be real, revolts started internally in both these places, without aid or instigation of the US or EU, these wars weren't started by outside powers, though one could make the case that the situations were made worse.
supported much
1) Air controlled by NATO
2) Informational war
3) Blocking Ghadaffie and Asad suppliy lines
4) Supplying rebels with weapons and ammo
5) Special operations
6) Blocking money of Ghadaffi in Switzerland
Though I'm not sure what's going on in Syria. USA bombed both Asad and ISIL. Turkey (NATO) fight against Kurds. And USA supports Kurds? FSA fights against ISIL and against Kurds, who fights against Asad (why they can't ally?)? Iraq supports ISIL by doing nothing and loosing weapons to them?
I thought, Asad doomed, but he's keep fighting.
Indeed, but there was no way to hold the USSR together, the way things had gone, and the existing conflicts are, by 20th century and previous Russian standards, relatively small skirmishes, as opposed to a repeat of the Red vs White civil war.
Referendum before 1991 showed that the majority does not want to dissolve USSR (it happen duiring Glasnost' time, when everybody has more speech freedom than Russia today). Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine can leave and others stay. Eltsin did it in so hurry. Why three people should decide for all?
By what standard to you measure that? Is NATO perfect? No. Has NATO made mistakes? Absolutely.
I think, it's not mistakes. It looks like some evil plan. USSR also was instrument in that plan. Shevarnadze (Soviet minister) ordered to bomb Afghanistan civilians (many-many died). It was not a military or political necessity. Then who needed it? Reptilians?
The US cannot stay ahead of India and China forever, both have populations which dwarf that of the US by three or four times and are growing rapidly, and if Europe continues on its course of integration, an eventual "USE" would likely match, if not overshadow, the US as well. The unipolar world is a temporary thing.
I afraid, that CIA will work to support Chinese local separatists. China consist of many nations, like USSR was.
China, despite having its various minorities, is in less danger of this sort of thing. The Soviet Union was built largely upon the old Russian Empire, and has always had ethnic groups that never liked being under the control of Moscow, and the size of the territory made it much harder for a central government to control everything. China is less ethnically diverse than the Soviet Union was, and, while certainly not a small nation, is much smaller than the former USSR and easier to control in general.
I think also you're giving the CIA wayyyyyy too much credit. As much as I'd like them to be the slick spy agency that's able to overturn opposing governments on a whim with skill and daring, they're an organization made of normal people that feths up far more often than it succeeds, and really isn't very good at those sorts of things, particularly as its past attempts have almost always turned out, well, poorly.
India? Many people so poor. And archaic cast system.
Right now? Yes. Absolutely. However, they're growing at a stellar rate. There's a lot of parallels with the US in the late 19th century, made up largely of rural poor with major ethnic divisions, but with tons of growth and potential. Look at where they were 30 years ago, look the great leaps they've made. In another thirty years who knows where they'll be.
Maybe Brazil will go power. But Brazil so pro-american.
Possibly, they're another good candidate.
I wonder why Putin don't try to unite with others. We lost many allies. Even Belarus looking towards West.
Well, he's cozying up a lot to the Chinese, the problem is that the Chinese are acting as economic loan sharks, getting terms and concessions from Russia that western concerns could only dream of. As for Belarus, I'd be looking at Ukraine as asking if I were next, though the EU isn't so hot on Belarus's perpetual president either...
Now, lets be real, revolts started internally in both these places, without aid or instigation of the US or EU, these wars weren't started by outside powers, though one could make the case that the situations were made worse.
supported much
1) Air controlled by NATO
2) Informational war
3) Blocking Ghadaffie and Asad suppliy lines
4) Supplying rebels with weapons and ammo
5) Special operations
6) Blocking money of Ghadaffi in Switzerland
Yup, all however after such revolts already started. This is standard run of the mill great power mucking about, not much different than the kind of shennanigans that the US, Russia, UK, France, etc have engaged in for decades of not centuries around the world.
Though I'm not sure what's going on in Syria.
I think the ultimate point is that nobody does
USA bombed both Asad and ISIL. Turkey (NATO) fight against Kurds. And USA supports Kurds? FSA fights against ISIL and against Kurds, who fights against Asad (why they can't ally?)? Iraq supports ISIL by doing nothing and loosing weapons to them?
I thought, Asad doomed, but he's keep fighting.
Asad isn't doomed because everyone that hates him also hates the other factions just as much . The problem is that many of these states were created by arbitrary lines on maps in Europe almost a hundred years ago without regard to the realities of the actual peoples on the ground, and these states largely were only ever held together by force in the first place.
Referendum before 1991 showed that the majority does not want to dissolve USSR (it happen duiring Glasnost' time, when everybody has more speech freedom than Russia today). Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine can leave and others stay. Eltsin did it in so hurry. Why three people should decide for all?
Keep in mind that many of the Republics did not participate (and those were the ones with populations overwhelmingly against staying in the USSR). There's also some questions about the numbers. That said, the states that wanted to stay largely still retain good relations with Moscow. I think the bigger issue is that it was easier for Moscow to let them go than try and retain them, much like a business downsizing unprofitable operations, and the fear of another coup attempt in the latter half of 1991 led a lo many running from what they saw as a sinking ship and/or local power brokers looking to establish their own fortunes.
I think, it's not mistakes. It looks like some evil plan. USSR also was instrument in that plan. Shevarnadze (Soviet minister) ordered to bomb Afghanistan civilians (many-many died). It was not a military or political necessity. Then who needed it? Reptilians?
I think you give too much credit to background operators and military prowess. Avoiding civilian casualties is basically impossible In some cases in some wars it was obviously ordered, but I think in more recent conflicts such are typically accidents or byproducts. Simply from a "war fighting" standpoint, bombing civilians is usually a very poor use of resources, it doesn't accomplish anything of military value typically, and worsens one's position politically with other powers, and usually stiffens your enemy's will to fight.
It depends on the response of Ukrainian authorities. If they repair the pylons quickly, nothing will matter. Crimea is used to power and water shortages by now.
If it takes longer, they might have to go annex a power station
Iron_Captain wrote: It depends on the response of Ukrainian authorities. If they repair the pylons quickly, nothing will matter. Crimea is used to power and water shortages by now.
If it takes longer, they might have to go annex a power station
Well, according to the Ukrainians, they're being kept away from the break by dispossessed Crimean tartars.
If this thread is alive again, then hell here's an article which cropped up since something was last posted here.
TLDR: For those who have been catching up on the war and wondering why the Ukrainians are driving about in things reminiscent of what Mad Max would have looked like if it was filmed in the old Soviet Union, there's the reason. Shame that the Ukrainians are coming out with a load of top of the line gear which will never see the local battlefields. Rather, for a country which was one of the largest military hardware scrappers post SU, they're putting those resources to good use.
...The joke then being that for all the Russians still waffle on about the separatists sourcing their top of the line gear from Ukraine, you're more likely to see the loyalists driving about in modernized Cold War junk than the other side. :/
Ukraine’s Malyshev tank plant can produce new tanks – the Opolot-M, based on the Soviet T-80 - but according to Serhiy Pinkas, the deputy head of state defense holding Ukroboronprom, it makes more economic sense to sell these abroad and use the money to renovate the old T-64s. "It's more efficient to export the Oplot than to use it in the war, Pinkas said in an interview with the Bloomberg news agency in June. “It sells for $4.9 million overseas. It's better to sell it and use the money to fix and modernize 10 T-64s."
According to Ukroboronprom’s official website, by the end of 2015, Kyiv Armored Vehicles Plant will have produced four times as many tanks and other military equipment as it did in 2014. The plant’s director, Vladyslav Lysytsya, wrote on Ukroboronprom official website that the plant has already constructed 25 tanks and 53 armored troop carriers this year. “Even at the moment, output is greater than it was last year,” Lysytsya said.
With the new work, Kyiv Armored Vehicles Plant is getting more productive and less corrupt, Pinkas said in a statement on the Ukroboronprom website.
“There will be no excuse anymore for delaying the production of new equipment, and for corrupt scandals,” he said. “The plant has now become one of the best within the whole concern.”
Following on from my last bit of guff. The Russian gear's par the course for what the rest of the world's using. What the Ukrainian's are pumping out of their converted armour workshops can be a lot more interesting.
They've been having a tough time with snipers in urban areas knocking out the optics of vehicles. The solution? Make a sealed tin can which uses cameras for LOS. IIRC the Libyans did the same thing (though I think that plant's intent is to pump out these things).
Yes those are twin mortar turrets.
The Israelis came out with a similar looking APC on the same chassis years ago too. Odd how the Russian's attempts at turning T-series chassis into APCs don't look anything like either.
Spoiler:
Dammit, and here's me wanting to make one of those in 28mm again.
They've been having a tough time with snipers in urban areas knocking out the optics of vehicles. The solution? Make a sealed tin can which uses cameras for LOS. IIRC the Libyans did the same thing (though I think that plant's intent is to pump out these things).
Germans have done the same thing with one of the more recent Leopard 2 variants. Thing's studded with cameras to give the commander a 360 view without having to risk getting his head blown off.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia is a great power. That is all the right it needs. Can you name me any great power that does not meddle with its neighbours? Russia saw its sphere of influence taken over by the West, and that threatens not only Russia's great power status, but also the very stability of the Russian state. Russia does not have the soft power of the West, so it can not fight back that way. Russia has to fight to keep its control with what it has, which is hard power.
Here, Iron_Captain. Don't say I never gave you anything.
Probably the Romania. Romania is another country with an expanding natural gas industry, and the conflicts with Russia and Ukraine gives them a nice chance to try and undercut the Russian share of the market.
Breotan wrote: What's happening with the pipelines that cross Ukraine and feed into other European nations?
Still up, but ones which feed directly into Ukraine have been cut off. The Russians have imposed a bunch of new embargos onto the Ukrainians, but by and large the rest of the world isn't effected IIRC.
Probably the Romania. Romania is another country with an expanding natural gas industry, and the conflicts with Russia and Ukraine gives them a nice chance to try and undercut the Russian share of the market.
Still up, but ones which feed directly into Ukraine have been cut off. The Russians have imposed a bunch of new embargos onto the Ukrainians, but by and large the rest of the world isn't effected IIRC.
Only a matter of time though at this point before the Ukraine starts raising Gazproms rent.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Ukraine just stop all gas flowing through it's territory now? What does it have to lose?
Ukrainian winters are cold... And the people nowadays prefer decadent central heating over the good old ways of chopping down trees and burning them to stay warm. Ukraine does not have enough reserves to last through the winter, and Romania and other European countries can't keep them supplied for long, they can draw from their reserves, but in the end they need to spare enough for themselves.
Also, Ukraine stopping all gas flow through its territory would anger Europe quite a bit, because it also means cutting of supply to parts of Europe.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia is a great power. That is all the right it needs. Can you name me any great power that does not meddle with its neighbours? Russia saw its sphere of influence taken over by the West, and that threatens not only Russia's great power status, but also the very stability of the Russian state. Russia does not have the soft power of the West, so it can not fight back that way. Russia has to fight to keep its control with what it has, which is hard power.
Here, Iron_Captain. Don't say I never gave you anything.
Spoiler:
Sorry. I much prefer the naval infantry. They may not have such a catchy song as the VDV, but I am from Sevastopol, I pretty much grew up watching those guys. Besides, the naval infantry are 100 times better. Naval infantry does most of the actual work, the paratroopers are more talk than fight.
Glory to the morpekhi!
If only I can get that horrible VDV song out of my head again...
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think having part of the country annexed might just render those moot.
This would be why they've scaled back on buying Russian gas, but I do think that there are still in effect past agreements that would prevent them from closing the pipes. Russia annexing Crimea might upset them and everyone else, but it doesn't automatically change the agreements already in effect.
Realistically though, expect to see Ukraine and other Eastern European states start looking for other sources of energy. Being dependent on Russian sources suddenly looks like a losing proposition.
Right Sector and other radicals can blow up pipelines. It's a real threat. Maybe you heard, they destroyed electricity lines to Crimea and Ukraine army was unable to stop them.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think having part of the country annexed might just render those moot.
This would be why they've scaled back on buying Russian gas, but I do think that there are still in effect past agreements that would prevent them from closing the pipes. Russia annexing Crimea might upset them and everyone else, but it doesn't automatically change the agreements already in effect.
Realistically though, expect to see Ukraine and other Eastern European states start looking for other sources of energy. Being dependent on Russian sources suddenly looks like a losing proposition.
The baltic states are already working on LNG ships to break their dependency on gazprom, I think there is one already. The independence maybe?
Well the gakky part is that Turkey will likely butt its head into this issue at some point, not wanting to let Russia have control of the Black Sea or the Balklands and Eastern Europe. They're in the perfect spot to help Romania and, Hungary I think is the other one (?), develop their energy industries as well as expand their own share of the market. EDIT: JNo, Hungary is the one with the huge water reserves. Which one is the one with all the gas under it (that isn't Romania)?
WWI Geopolitics, Round 2 here we come. Oh what fun it will be.
Freakazoitt wrote: It's a real threat. Maybe you heard, they destroyed electricity lines to Crimea and Ukraine army was unable to stop them.
Yeah, I just can't understand why people driven from their homes at gunpoint would be so upset at their persecutors they'd commit random acts of vandalism and petty vengeance.
I mean, it's not like my great great grandmother smashed all the bottoms out of her kettles she couldn't take with her while her white neighbors were standing around waiting for the solders to take our family away so they could loot the place
Oh, wait, she did.
If the people of the Crimea wanted so badly to return to the glorious old days of Joe Stalin, congratulate them, they now are back to living without electricity and running water, just like when Ol' Joe was running the show. Maybe someone will start starving them to death in their houses, or start some slave labor camps, just to put a cherry on it.
European support? They'd be holding Europe to ransom as much as it would be holding Russia. Don't we rely on Russian gas ourselves?
England does not, actually. You're pillaging Scotland for that.
Not as much as a lot of people think. Several Baltic countries are developing their natural gas industries, possibly able to do so due to low numbers of Russians longing to return to Russia without moving there in their petrochemical rich regions. A part of Russia's interest in Syria remains preventing a gas pipeline to Europe from the UAE, which would be more or less the final nail in the coffin for Russia's dominance of Eastern Europe's gas.
European support? They'd be holding Europe to ransom as much as it would be holding Russia. Don't we rely on Russian gas ourselves?
England does not, actually. You're pillaging Scotland for that.
Not as much as a lot of people think. Several Baltic countries are developing their natural gas industries, possibly able to do so due to low numbers of Russians longing to return to Russia without moving there in their petrochemical rich regions. A part of Russia's interest in Syria remains preventing a gas pipeline to Europe from the UAE, which would be more or less the final nail in the coffin for Russia's dominance of Eastern Europe's gas.
Here's a breakdown by country
They may take our gas, but they'll never take our neverendum!
They may take our gas, but they'll never take our neverendum!
Post election that was one of the bigger complaints that Scots felt they were being robbed, with elderly pensioners being the big deciding factor for staying. Next time around, the UK might not have that cushion of people worried about if they're going to have enough to live on post departure.
They may take our gas, but they'll never take our neverendum!
Post election that was one of the bigger complaints that Scots felt they were being robbed, with elderly pensioners being the big deciding factor for staying. Next time around, the UK might not have that cushion of people worried about if they're going to have enough to live on post departure.
So it might finally... endum.
I hope it does TBH.
I'd welcome an independent Scotland.
I think it makes much more sense for Scotland to work out its boundaries and recourses and then have full control over taxation and so on.
I'd prefer the buck to stop with SNP rather than them blaming everything on England.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Ukraine just stop all gas flowing through it's territory now? What does it have to lose?
It would piss of the European countries that buy that gas.
So? Unless those countries are helping them in some way I don't see why they care. Right now the bulk of Russia's economy runs through Ukraine, That's who they are helping the most. It made sense when Russia was suppling them gas as well but not anymore.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: So? Unless those countries are helping them in some way I don't see why they care. Right now the bulk of Russia's economy runs through Ukraine, That's who they are helping the most. It made sense when Russia was suppling them gas as well but not anymore.
Because Ukraine can't possibly oppose Russia alone, and trying to cut Russia off is just going to invite Russia to be more direct in its methods. Putin hasn't exactly been subtle in describing how he views power and foreign politics.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Ukraine just stop all gas flowing through it's territory now? What does it have to lose?
It would piss of the European countries that buy that gas.
So? Unless those countries are helping them in some way I don't see why they care. Right now the bulk of Russia's economy runs through Ukraine, That's who they are helping the most. It made sense when Russia was suppling them gas as well but not anymore.
When you got one of your neighbours to be really pissed off at you, it would be a very, very bad idea to piss the other one off too. Especially if you have no money, your infrastructure is falling apart, and your only effective fighting force is a wild bunch of ultranationalist neo-nazi crazies.
Without Europe to supply food for the Ukrainian army, the Ukrainian army will be left with no choice but to pillage even more potato fields. At that point it is only a matter of time before the potatoes in Ukraine run out and Ukrainian soldiers invade Belarus, which would piss off Ukraine's third and last neighbour too. The Belarusians are very proud and protective of their potatoes.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Why doesn't Ukraine just stop all gas flowing through it's territory now? What does it have to lose?
It would piss of the European countries that buy that gas.
So? Unless those countries are helping them in some way I don't see why they care. Right now the bulk of Russia's economy runs through Ukraine, That's who they are helping the most. It made sense when Russia was suppling them gas as well but not anymore.
When you got one of your neighbours to be really pissed off at you, it would be a very, very bad idea to piss the other one off too. Especially if you have no money, your infrastructure is falling apart, and your only effective fighting force is a wild bunch of ultranationalist neo-nazi crazies.
Without Europe to supply food for the Ukrainian army, the Ukrainian army will be left with no choice but to pillage even more potato fields. At that point it is only a matter of time before the potatoes in Ukraine run out and Ukrainian soldiers invade Belarus, which would piss off Ukraine's third and last neighbour too. The Belarusians are very proud and protective of their potatoes.
If the EU is providing food to Ukraine then they are getting something out of it. That was my question. Is Russia paying Ukraine to ship gas through it at least?
And it doesn't seem like they're getting anything from the EU either. Like I said, there doesn't seem to be anything to lose by stopping the flow of gas but maybe they can gain by reminding all of Europe their heating needs all go through the Ukraine.
And it doesn't seem like they're getting anything from the EU either. Like I said, there doesn't seem to be anything to lose by stopping the flow of gas but maybe they can gain by reminding all of Europe their heating needs all go through the Ukraine.
And Europe can remind Ukraine that its existence depends on their goodwill.
Interesting article on the Azov Battalion. They refuse to integrate with the regular Ukrainian military, so all equipment the government provides them is on loan. Instead they choose to cannibalize older kit (namely tanks which were converted to tractors - and as far as the paperwork is concerned, are still tractors. They're the makers of Ukraine's "Mad Max" tanks (the only volunteer battalion with its own tank factory - others are using smaller facilities), whilst the government is modernizing the old Soviet vehicles.
Yes, this Azov Battalion...
Spoiler:
They're likening their new tank to the Maus. =P
“The Ukrainian government couldn’t build this tank. Why? Because they steal the money much faster than they can spend it,”
Earlier this week a soldier told Motherboard about how he and his colleagues had “liberated” 40 sets of night vision goggles from government storage. He said the goggles were donated to Ukraine by the US and Canada as part of those countries’ non-lethal assistance programs but, the soldier says, the Ukrainian government locked them in storage around 50km from the frontline. He speculates the government intended to sell the goggles rather than provide them to the troops.
I'm more confused how we define night vision goggles as non-lethal. I mean sure they don't shoot bullets, but the only thing they're really good for is seeing in the dark to know where you're bullets are going...
LordofHats wrote: I'm more confused how we define night vision goggles as non-lethal. I mean sure they don't shoot bullets, but the only thing they're really good for is seeing in the dark to know where you're bullets are going...
NV equipment gets used for search & rescue purposes here in the US by law enforcement, and it also gets used by helicopter pilots who are doing night flights in areas that don't have good visibility/landmarks.
LordofHats wrote: I'm more confused how we define night vision goggles as non-lethal. I mean sure they don't shoot bullets, but the only thing they're really good for is seeing in the dark to know where you're bullets are going...
NV equipment gets used for search & rescue purposes here in the US by law enforcement, and it also gets used by helicopter pilots who are doing night flights in areas that don't have good visibility/landmarks.
Yes, I'm sure that's what we had in mind when we gave them to Ukraine
The Humvees which the US gave to the Ukrainians had machine guns attached to their turrets within the week.
Funny that the US specifically refused to give Azov any aid though, but they're getting it anyway. Given that they're on of the largest battalions that's kind of a given though (similarly the fact that they're Neo-Nazis is perhaps a bit moot when calling its members all nazis given that you'd probably want to be siding with the guys with the best gear instead of some back water unit). I assume their 50,000 members quip refers to all those school kids that they were handling out Azov flags to months ago though.
That would be so typical Ukraine just never changes.
Yes, because Russian officers would never sell off weapons as surplus and then requisition more weapons due to being dangerously under-supplied...
I know of a military base commander in the Far East, who found that it was much more profitable to sell his soldier's meat rations and give them dogfood to eat instead. Here, I even found an English-language version of it: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/19/us-russia-troops-dogfood-idUSTRE74I4TH20110519 Russians are not any different from Ukrainians Altough it must be said that Putin has quite ruthlessly cracked down on this kind of stuff. In the 90's and early 2000's though, it was horrible. The Russian army had to pillage potato fields just to stay alive, much like the Ukrainian army today. There is still a lot of corruption in backwater regions though.
That would be so typical Ukraine just never changes.
Yes, because Russian officers would never sell off weapons as surplus and then requisition more weapons due to being dangerously under-supplied...
I have a few problems with their ideas of tank design, namely there's no apparent way for the driver to see where he's going...
I posted that APC earlier in the thread. Its designed for protection against snipers, who have been shooting out the topics and through the vision ports. Instead, and this is not a unique concept, they're using cameras hooked up to monitors in the inside for vision. Additionally a pair of twin mortar turrets along with an LMG (IIRC) are stuck on the roof which will be remote controlled.
...Like the article says, a lot of money, but the designer considers the extra cost worth it for the added protection. =P
LordofHats wrote: I'm more confused how we define night vision goggles as non-lethal. I mean sure they don't shoot bullets, but the only thing they're really good for is seeing in the dark to know where you're bullets are going...
We define NVG/NODs as non-lethal because that is exactly what they are
He speculates the government intended to sell the goggles rather than provide them to the troops.
That would be so typical Ukraine just never changes.
To be fair, it's not like that same thing hasn't also happened en-masse in Russia too, or in fact just about all middle eastern armies, and even sometimes in the US.
But yes, the Ukrainian government is often its own worst enemy.
He speculates the government intended to sell the goggles rather than provide them to the troops.
That would be so typical Ukraine just never changes.
To be fair, it's not like that same thing hasn't also happened en-masse in Russia too, or in fact just about all middle eastern armies, and even sometimes in the US.
But yes, the Ukrainian government is often its own worst enemy.
Yeah, the same things have happened (and still happen) in Russia. But where Russia is changing, Ukraine is not. Ukraine is still stuck in the 90's, unlike Russia and Belarus it has never been able to rebuild after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Well, sort of. Much like Belarus and Russia, some parts of Ukraine have done very well, other parts have basically fallen off the face of the earth. Ukraine just hasn't had terribly spectacular central government stability to at least channel the corruption the way Belarus and Russia have with their respective perpetual leaders, nobody has managed to stay in power long enough in Ukraine to put a solid lid on things, and I don't think Poroshenko is going to be there forever either. Russia also had the benefit of plugging into massive natural gas reserves right as the market demanded a huge new source, which obviously helped
Update, 9:45 a.m., 30 November 2015: An earlier version of this story indicated the police department employee was fired, when in fact he was assigned to a different job in the organization as the investigation into the matter continues.
A Dutch police worker is suspected of offering MH17 related items for sale on online classifieds site Marktplaats. He was reassigned bending the outcome of the investigation. The worker was also arrested on suspicion of embezzlement, the police announced on Sunday.
According to the police, the items offered for sale includes clothes the employee used in the MH17 investigation, a pouch of Malaysia Airlines tissues and “a small piece of unknown material”. RTV Oost reports that a piece of the plane was also offered for sale.
At this stage it is unclear whether these items actually come from flight MH17 and whether the employee sold anything. The police launched an internal investigation into the employee to clarify these matters. The Public Prosecutor’s office in Oost-Nederland is also doing a criminal investigation.
RTV Oost reports that the police worker involved is a man from Apeldoorn.
A spokesperson for Marktplaats told Dutch newspaper AD that the “objectionable and unethical” advertisement was removed from the website last weekend. The site contacted the police and is fully cooperating with the investigation.
Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)16Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)16Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
24 years ago today US-backed Ukrainian rebels voted for Ukraine secession from Russia in a staged referendum. Referendum was a direct result of mysterious 'little democratic men' showing up on the streets and taking over government institutions. #NeverForgive #NeverForget
Ukraine is apparently negotiating to get the lights back on in Crimea, while Crimean locals insist that it's all Washington's fault they drove thousands of Tartars from their homes and into the Ukraine, where they realized Crimea's electricity comes from. The rest are blaming Moscow for failing to actually deliver on their promises made when they seceded from the Ukraine, or the Ukraine for not killing the Tartars and repairing the line.
I think, those tatars moved into Ukraine after Crimea referendum to join "maidan Ukraine" instead of Russia. Or even already stayed there (outside of peninsula).
All moving between Crimea ond Ukraine are recording documentally and usually appearinf in news, they can't just "go" there because no electricity unnoticed.
The Tartars returned to Ukraine following the end of the USSR. They had previously fled and been deported from Crimea (starting with the Early Russian Empire, and continuing into the early years of the USSR).
When the USSR ended, a bunch of them decided to go back to Crimea, but neither the Russian Federation nor Ukraine did much to deal with the issue so they ended up squating on unused land. When Crimea was Annexed, the Russian government told them to stop squating on land they didn't own, so they started going to Ukraine, and back to Turkey (most Tartars deported by the Russian Empire ended up in the Ottoman Empire).
Freakazoitt wrote: Yep, as I remembers, they returned in late 1980s or early 1990s from other regions.
Pulling from memory. The last big push to deport Tartars was at the end of the Second World War. The USSR started letting them return in the 60's, during deStalinization. There was something about repatriation/location put into the works in 1989, but then the USSR dissolved in 91 so the plan didn't go through the Tartars just ended up sitting wherever they could find. With all the other stuff going on, everyone just kind of forgot about them.
I don't imagine they're very popular in Russian/Ukrainian cultural memory either. They used to be all about rape, pillage, and plunder (and slavery) back in the day, which is why Russia (EDIT: Back when Russia was Muscovy) invaded their country and started deporting them in the first place.
Ukraine is apparently negotiating to get the lights back on in Crimea, while Crimean locals insist that it's all Washington's fault they drove thousands of Tartars from their homes and into the Ukraine, where they realized Crimea's electricity comes from. The rest are blaming Moscow for failing to actually deliver on their promises made when they seceded from the Ukraine, or the Ukraine for not killing the Tartars and repairing the line.
Outside of a small minority, the Tartars were mostly living in Crimea illegally.
The Tartars should have moved to Tartarstan instead of Crimea. They would actually have been welcome there, seeing as that the Tartarstan government is trying to enhance the 'Tartarness' of Tartarstan. Outside of the Volga Tartars and the Turks, almost everyone dislikes Crimean Tartars.
As LordofHats says it very well, it is mostly a matter of there being a lot of bad history, and that combines with more recent problems.
Regarding electricity, the first power bridge from Krasnodar to Crimea has just been finished yesterday. It is now half operational, and will become fully operational on 20 december, which will cover about 80-90% of Crimea's energy need. A second bridge is already under construction too.
The government also has set up emergency camps where people can get electricity.
Outside of a small minority, the Tartars were mostly living in Crimea illegally.
and have been pretty much since the Roman Empire. (It was called Taurica in Latin for a reason...)
Iron_Captain wrote: The Tartars should have moved to Tartarstan instead of Crimea.
And the Russians should have moved to Russia instead of Crimea.
Iron_Captain wrote: Outside of the Volga Tartars and the Turks, almost everyone dislikes Crimean Tartars.
Imperial Rome, the Huns, the Goths, and the Kazars didn't like them much either. The Scythians and Greeks thought they were OK though. I think that the Crimeans claiming that Crimea is now forever lost to the Tartars are getting a bit ahead of themselves. After all, Pompey said the same thing.
Outside of a small minority, the Tartars were mostly living in Crimea illegally.
and have been pretty much since the Roman Empire. (It was called Taurica in Latin for a reason...)
There were no Tartars back then. Roman Crimea was conquered by the Goths, and later reconquered by the Byzantines. The Russians moved into Crimea at about the same time, when they expanded southwards. Crimea was hugely important for early Russian history, it was where the Russians got into contact with the Byzantine Empire (which had a massive influence on Russian culture and history) and where they converted to Orthodox christianity. The Eastern parts of Crimea and Korsun (Chersonesus) were eventually conquered by the Russians and became part of Kievan Rus'. (Sevastopol was later founded right next to the ruins of ancient Korsun)
This was all before any Tartar ever existed. The Tartars are the result of the merging of several nomadic Turkic peoples who came along with the Mongols (the "Mongol" Empire was actually made up mostly out of non-Mongols). They did not exist until about the 15th century.
Iron_Captain wrote: The Tartars should have moved to Tartarstan instead of Crimea.
And the Russians should have moved to Russia instead of Crimea.
Crimea is Russia. It was so before, it is so right now and it will be so in the future. Russians lived in Crimea before the Tartars came, and Russians will live in Crimea long after the Tartars are gone.
Iron_Captain wrote: Outside of the Volga Tartars and the Turks, almost everyone dislikes Crimean Tartars.
Imperial Rome, the Huns, the Goths, and the Kazars didn't like them much either. The Scythians and Greeks thought they were OK though. I think that the Crimeans claiming that Crimea is now forever lost to the Tartars are getting a bit ahead of themselves. After all, Pompey said the same thing.
No one liked them, except for the Turks. They came along with the Mongols, and conquered and enslaved everyone. It took until the 18th century to finally defeat them and end their vile practices. Of course, you can't blame modern Tartars for the crimes of their ancestors, but it does not do good for their reputation.
Also, I don't think Pompey ever said anything about Tartars, unless he had a time travel device, or you are referring to a different, later Pompey I do not know of.
There were no Tartars back then. Roman Crimea was conquered by the Goths, and later reconquered by the Byzantines.
Yes there were. They were called the Tauri. They were there since before the Hellenic Colonization of southern Crimea. They were a pain in the ass for both the Greeks and Romans, a remnant of the Cimmerian people.
The Russians moved into Crimea at about the same time, when they expanded southwards.
Vladamir I conquered it in 988, and gave it back as part of the peace deal. He also had to embrace Christianity. In exchange, he got the Emperors sister for his bride. This is considered highly questionable, as no Greek records of it exist.
Crimea was hugely important for early Russian history,
So important, in fact, that no written sources from the period mention it, a fact that's made many wonder if it's a legend based around the actual events of the Byzantine/Rus war of 1040, which involved different but similarly named people.
Iron_Captain wrote: The Eastern parts of Crimea and Korsun (Chersonesus) were eventually conquered by the Russians and became part of Kievan Rus'.
Yes, it was in Kiev Rus. For, depending on which source you buy and what part of the territory you just named we're talking about, between six months and 90 years. around the year 1000 to about 1090 at the latest
Iron_Captain wrote: This was all before any Tartar ever existed. The Tartars are the result of the merging of several nomadic Turkic peoples who came along with the Mongols
Yes, and no. You DO realize that the Kazars were Turkic speaking nomads?
Tauri - Goths - Kazars - Tartars
That help you understand what went on? Layer Cake. The culture evolved and the people on top changed, but it was the same people living in the same place. It wasn't until Catherine's invasion that large numbers of Russians came to live in the area, and they didn't come to absolutely dominate it until Stalin removed everyone else (one way or the other).
Here's something to mull over: the Crimean Tartars named their capitol Qirim (and to this day is known as Stary Krym). It's not what the Kazars called it (they called it Solkhat, or 'Ditch', and made a point not to live outside a small fort there). The Tauri though, in later periods when greek really took hold, called it Κιμμερικόν or 'Cimmerium'.
Also, I don't think Pompey ever said anything about Tartars, unless he had a time travel device, or you are referring to a different, later Pompey I do not know of.
There were no Tartars back then. Roman Crimea was conquered by the Goths, and later reconquered by the Byzantines.
Yes there were. They were called the Tauri. They were there since before the Hellenic Colonization of southern Crimea. They were a pain in the ass for both the Greeks and Romans, a remnant of the Cimmerian people.
There is no demonstrable link between the Tauri and Tartars. About the Tauri, virtually nothing is known, apart from what little the Greeks wrote about them. It is speculated that they may have been a remnant of the earlier Cimmerians, but this is pure conjecture, and there is also evidence that they were a Scythian tribe, or at least closely related to the Scythians. In any case, the Tauri and Scythians in Crimea were conquered and subjugated by the Goths, and never again appear in history. To say that the Tauri were Tartars without any evidence to back it up is to make a weird jump in logic.
The Russians moved into Crimea at about the same time, when they expanded southwards.
Vladamir I conquered it in 988, and gave it back as part of the peace deal. He also had to embrace Christianity. In exchange, he got the Emperors sister for his bride. This is considered highly questionable, as no Greek records of it exist.
Arab sources say that Vladimir was promised the Emperor's sister in return for putting down a rebellion in the Byzantine Empire. Greek sources say that the Rus' were already converted to christianity in the late 9th century and do not mention the reason why the Emperor's sister was married to Vladimir. What is true or not is hard to determine in this period of history, given the lack of records on pretty much everything. Regardless, the Russians had already been pushing into Crimea for some time, having conquered Tmutarakan and Kerch (Korchev) and having lots of dealings with Khazars and Byzantines. The three groups often fought each other in shifting alliances.
Crimea was hugely important for early Russian history,
So important, in fact, that no written sources from the period mention it, a fact that's made many wonder if it's a legend based around the actual events of the Byzantine/Rus war of 1040, which involved different but similarly named people.
The Primary Chronicle mentions it, and the Primary Chronicle is the primary and pretty much only surviving non-legendary source for early eastern Slavic history. It also makes logical sense. The Byzantine influence on Russia is very obvious. Such a large influence makes little sense if there was no intensive contact. The only place where both civilisations where close enough for such intensive contact is Crimea. But your mention of the Byzantine-Rus war of 1043 has me in doubt. What events exactly are you referring to? The southwards expansion of the Russians or the role of Vladimir the Great, which may or may not have been confused with Vladimir of Novgorod or Vladimir Monomakh?
Iron_Captain wrote: The Eastern parts of Crimea and Korsun (Chersonesus) were eventually conquered by the Russians and became part of Kievan Rus'.
Yes, it was in Kiev Rus. For, depending on which source you buy and what part of the territory you just named we're talking about, between six months and 90 years. around the year 1000 to about 1090 at the latest
Korsun is not sure. But Korchev was part of the Principiality of Tmutarakan (which was part of Kievan Rus') from its conquest in 1016 to the Mongol invasion in the 12th century.
Iron_Captain wrote: This was all before any Tartar ever existed. The Tartars are the result of the merging of several nomadic Turkic peoples who came along with the Mongols
Yes, and no. You DO realize that the Kazars were Turkic speaking nomads?
Tauri - Goths - Kazars - Tartars
That help you understand what went on? Layer Cake. The culture evolved and the people on top changed, but it was the same people living in the same place. It wasn't until Catherine's invasion that large numbers of Russians came to live in the area, and they didn't come to absolutely dominate it until Stalin removed everyone else (one way or the other).
Here's something to mull over: the Crimean Tartars named their capitol Qirim (and to this day is known as Stary Krym). It's not what the Kazars called it (they called it Solkhat, or 'Ditch', and made a point not to live outside a small fort there). The Tauri though, in later periods when greek really took hold, called it Κιμμερικόν or 'Cimmerium'.
The Khazars were not nomads, they settled down eventually. I don't see how it is relevant though. The Khazars were destroyed by invasions of the Rus and the Oghuz Turks, they were nothing but a memory by the time of the Mongol invasions. Your order is also wrong, as there is no demonstrable link at all between the peoples you list. The correct order in Crimea is that the Scythians were conquered by the Goths, who were culturally assimilated by the Greeks, who lived alongside the Khazars, who were conquered by the Russians. Then the Genoese showed up before both Genoese and Russian cities were conquered by the the Tartars. The Greeks held out for a long time, but eventually they were conquered by the Ottomans. The Ottoman Empire gave birth to the Crimean Khanate, which was conquered by the Russian Empire, which became the Soviet Union. Then the Ukrainians showed up and last year they were conquered by the Russian Federation. Regarding the Tatars, linguistics indicate that they are descended from a lot of different Turkic peoples, mostly the Cumans and Kipchaks, but there are also Pecheneg, Bulgar, Khazar and a very heavy Oghuz influences (altough the Oghuz influence may come from contact with the Ottoman Empire rather than genetic descent)
Also, the Tauri did not call their capital Kimmerikon, which is a Greek name (which was probably derived from the Iranian word gamira or gmira (meaning 'mobile unit'), as the Cimmerians were likely an Iranian people). Cimmerium is a latinisation of the Greek name. Turkic Qirim (and Russian Krym and English Crimea) also comes from the same Greek name. The origin of the Greek name is uncertain, but it was not what the Tauri called their capital, it is what the Greeks called it. How the Tauri themselves called it is unknown, because nothing of the Tauri language has survived.
Also, I don't think Pompey ever said anything about Tartars, unless he had a time travel device, or you are referring to a different, later Pompey I do not know of.
He most likely did, back when they were the Tauri.
I fail to see what an ancient Greek/Sarmatian kingdom or the Scythians have to do with the Crimean Tatars. And no, Tauri aren't Tatars. The Tauri were an ancient, little known people, possibly related to the ancient Iranian Cimmerians, who were absorbed by the Scythians, who were also an Iranian people and have as little relation to Tatars as to Russians.
Looking forward to your response. I like this discussion a lot, I am really fond of Crimean history.
The southwards expansion of the Russians or the role of Vladimir the Great, which may or may not have been confused with Vladimir of Novgorod or Vladimir Monomakh?
Depending on which source you cite, any of them. It's generally thought that Vladimir I didn't have any military actions against Byzantium. Vladimir of Novgorod did, though whether it was a success or failure again varies by which source.
But Korchev was part of the Principiality of Tmutarakan (which was part of Kievan Rus') from its conquest in 1016 to the Mongol invasion in the 12th century.
Incorrect.
The Rus may have entered the area, but lost it again within a single lifetime as they contracted following the death of Yaroslav in 1040.
Oleg Svyatoslavich (Oleg I of Chernigiv) put the final nail in Rus claims over Crimea when he gave Tmutarakan over the to Byzantines sometime between 1083 and 1094. It was then ruled by the Byzantines and their successor state, the Empire of Trebizond until the Mongol Invasions.
The correct order in Crimea is that the Scythians were conquered by the Goths, who were culturally assimilated by the Greeks, who lived alongside the Khazars, who were conquered by the Russians.
Achem: Cimmerians were driven out by the Scythians, leaving behind the Tauri in what is now Crimea. The Scythians were culturally assimilated by the Greeks and formed a new kingdom. Which then eventually came under the long arm of Rome. Which was then in turn over run by the Goths, who left behind a rump population much as the Cimmerians had done in Crimea as the following hoards of the Huns, Bulgars, and Kazars moved through the area.
The Yalıboyu, the southernmost sub group of the Crimean tartars, are generally believed by historians and geneticists to be descended from the various ancient peoples of the Crimea, as well as any Pontic Greek or Genoese remnants. Sadly, they're also only about 30% of the remaining Crimean Tartars, having taken it on the face pretty hard during the Crimean War of the19th century and the Second World War, when compared to other Crimean tartar groups. The Tats, the largest group, are believed to have their origins in the Cumans and Kazars, while the Noğay have their roots in the Golden Hoard.
Also, the Tauri did not call their capital Kimmerikon, which is a Greek name
What do you think they spoke? If not before the Roman period, almost certainly after. Particularly given their interest in piracy on the high seas in the later period, when they used the harbor at Symbolon (current Balaklava) to raid Greek and Roman shipping. Greek buried dozens of local languages in this era, not because of conquest, but because it was the language of trade from the Black Sea to the Nile headwaters, and from India to Iberia. Roman laws were read aloud to the public in Greek throughout much of the Empire because it was a language that everyone understood.
The southwards expansion of the Russians or the role of Vladimir the Great, which may or may not have been confused with Vladimir of Novgorod or Vladimir Monomakh?
Depending on which source you cite, any of them. It's generally thought that Vladimir I didn't have any military actions against Byzantium. Vladimir of Novgorod did, though whether it was a success or failure again varies by which source.
The southwards expansion of the Rus is pretty well documented. Vladimir the Great did fight against Byzantium according to the Primary Chronicle, other sources do not mention it. That does not mean it did not happen, altough it can also indicate that the author of the Primary Chronicle confused Vladimir the Great with Vladimir of Novgorod, who most certainly fought the Byzantines and captured Korsun.
But Korchev was part of the Principiality of Tmutarakan (which was part of Kievan Rus') from its conquest in 1016 to the Mongol invasion in the 12th century.
Incorrect.
The Rus may have entered the area, but lost it again within a single lifetime as they contracted following the death of Yaroslav in 1040.
Oleg Svyatoslavich (Oleg I of Chernigiv) put the final nail in Rus claims over Crimea when he gave Tmutarakan over the to Byzantines sometime between 1083 and 1094. It was then ruled by the Byzantines and their successor state, the Empire of Trebizond until the Mongol Invasions.
Not true. Byzantine control over Tmutarakan was in name only. It was done as a political move by Oleg Svyatoslavich, placing himself under Byzantine protection to prevent his brothers or cousins from taking the city from him again. It remained ruled by Oleg Svyatoslavich as archon. The fact that it remained a Russian city is evidenced by the finding of coins with cyrillic inscriptions. It was not until the 12th century that Tmutarakan was lost to the Russian princes because of the attacks of the Polovtsy (Cumans). Only after that point did the Byzantines move in to establish direct control. Before that it had been a Byzantine client state de-facto controlled by the Russians. The Empire of Trebizond only shows up in the 13th century, so that is no longer relevant.
Korchev also remained a Russian city until the Mongol invasions. Afterwards it was taken over by the Genoese, not the Byzantines.
Also, which Yaroslav died in 1040? In any case, the area was not lost then, as there are a lot of documented russian rulers of the area after 1040.
The correct order in Crimea is that the Scythians were conquered by the Goths, who were culturally assimilated by the Greeks, who lived alongside the Khazars, who were conquered by the Russians.
Achem: Cimmerians were driven out by the Scythians, leaving behind the Tauri in what is now Crimea. The Scythians were culturally assimilated by the Greeks and formed a new kingdom. Which then eventually came under the long arm of Rome. Which was then in turn over run by the Goths, who left behind a rump population much as the Cimmerians had done in Crimea as the following hoards of the Huns, Bulgars, and Kazars moved through the area.
The Yalıboyu, the southernmost sub group of the Crimean tartars, are generally believed by historians and geneticists to be descended from the various ancient peoples of the Crimea, as well as any Pontic Greek or Genoese remnants. Sadly, they're also only about 30% of the remaining Crimean Tartars, having taken it on the face pretty hard during the Crimean War of the19th century and the Second World War, when compared to other Crimean tartar groups. The Tats, the largest group, are believed to have their origins in the Cumans and Kazars, while the Noğay have their roots in the Golden Hoard.
I left out the pre-Scythian history because it is too much conjecture. It is not even certain if the Cimmerians ever lived in Crimea. There simply is no historical record. There is no evidence that the Scythians were ever assimilated by the Greeks, Scythian names recorded from the era are clearly Iranian, not Greek. The Scythians lived in the north of Crimea, while the Roman controlled Greek colonies were in the south, Roman control never extended to the north. The Scythians and Sarmatians were driven away from the areas near the Roman border by the Goths. The Goths never overran the Greek colonies. The Huns never actually moved into the area, altough they did vassalize the Goths for a short time until the death of Atilla. Bulgars lived in Crimea according to the unreliable Getica of Jordanes, but no other sources or archeological evidence record their presence. They did live on the Taman peninsula, but that is not Crimea itself. The Goths were mostly assimilated by the Greeks, but indeed lived in Crimea for a very long time (at least until the 16th century). There is no evidence that they were assimilated by the Khazars or the later Tatars. The Khazars assimilated the Bulgars in the area and did expand their control into the Crimea, altough there is evidence they ever lived there in great numbers. Rather, they vassalized the previous population and even some of the Greek colonies were taken over and had a Khazar governor. The Khazars maintained their empire until the 10th century, when they were defeated by the Rus and the Byzantines. The Rus established control over the northern and eastern parts of Crimea, while the Byzantines regained control of the Greek colonies in the south.
Regarding the yaliboyu, their language is Oghuz Turkic, which suggests they are descended from the Ottoman Turks, rather than primarly of ancient peoples (well, of course they are also descended from ancient peoples in Crimea, but not more than every people to ever live in Crimea). The Greeks in Crimea were never really assimilated by the Turks, they were still there in 1768, when Catherine the Great offered them to settle in Ukraine (they became the Mariupol Greeks), and in fact, there is even a few Greek-speaking villages in Crimea today, altough what was left of Crimea's Greek population was largely deported by Stalin (along with the Crimean Germans and Tatars). Even the Greeks that did adopt Turkic language as their language remained a seperate group (the Urums) rather than get assimilated in Ottoman Turkic or Crimean Tatar populations.
For something that you say is "generally believed by historians and geneticists" I seem to have a lot of trouble finding it. The only population that has a clear, unbroken history of living in Crimea since antiquity are the few remaining Greeks, altough of course every people to live in Crimea has absorbed elements from previous peoples. But this is not more true for Tatars than it is for Greeks, Russians or even Ukrainians.
Also, the Tauri did not call their capital Kimmerikon, which is a Greek name
What do you think they spoke? If not before the Roman period, almost certainly after. Particularly given their interest in piracy on the high seas in the later period, when they used the harbor at Symbolon (current Balaklava) to raid Greek and Roman shipping. Greek buried dozens of local languages in this era, not because of conquest, but because it was the language of trade from the Black Sea to the Nile headwaters, and from India to Iberia. Roman laws were read aloud to the public in Greek throughout much of the Empire because it was a language that everyone understood.
What the Tauri spoke is unknown. Greek was used as an international language, but just like English today, it was rare for Greek to completely replace native languages of peoples that were not subjugated by the Greeks. The Tauri remained independent, so it is unlikely they were ever influenced so much as to forget their own language in favour of Greek. And given the fact that they were absorbed by the Scythians, it is much more likely they spoke an Iranian language.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: ... This whole discussion about who was there first is pointless.
Yeah. It is. The truth in "who was first discussions" pretty much always comes down to: None of them was, because conquerors tend to assimilate previous populations rather than displace them, which means that two different populations in the same area are likely to have exactly the same ancestors.
But discussing Crimean history is fun.
Iron_Captain wrote: The fact that it remained a Russian city is evidenced by the finding of coins with cyrillic inscriptions.
AFAIK they all predated Oleg's departure from the region, as they were, again AFAIK, all minted with his likeness on them, and he died not long after that anyway. Even if you use the coins as proof that the Byzantine rule was in name only, that only buys you ten more years or so, not the century plus between there an the Mongolian invasions.
Iron_Captain wrote: For something that you say is "generally believed by historians and geneticists" I seem to have a lot of trouble finding it.
IIRC
Sevdiar, Memet. Etudy ob etnogeneze Krymskikh Tatar. New York: Crimea Foundation, 1997.
Tatars of the Crimea, revised edition. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.
It occurs to me however that we're rehashing a long running debate in central Asian anthropology re the genesis of Tartars, which is riddled with tainted sources on both sides of the argument due to shifting Soviet policies. To say there are not a lot of unbiased sources to draw from and a fresh anthropological survey really needs to be conducted by a neutral party is an understatement.
Iron_Captain wrote: The fact that it remained a Russian city is evidenced by the finding of coins with cyrillic inscriptions.
AFAIK they all predated Oleg's departure from the region, as they were, again AFAIK, all minted with his likeness on them, and he died not long after that anyway. Even if you use the coins as proof that the Byzantine rule was in name only, that only buys you ten more years or so, not the century plus between there an the Mongolian invasions.
It is well established and documented that the Byzantines did not rule the city directly until the early 12th century. Until that time, the city also still figures in Russian history and was used as a title by Russian princes. It was attacks by the Cumans in the 12th century that cut of Tmutarakan from the other Russian areas and forced the Byzantines to send an army and enforce their rule. Until that time, the city had officially been a client state, not a part of the Byzantine Empire itself and was ruled by local governors.
Tatars of the Crimea, revised edition. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.
Very obscure works, I can't find them in either Google scholar or the database of my brother's university library. Plenty of studies there saying that Tatars were descended from the invading Turkic nomads though. None that say that Tatars were descended from earlier peoples (okay, I admit I did not check all of them, and I did not read entire books, only checked for keywords) The first two were written by Crimean Tatars themselves, so might not be unbiased. The only works citing them seem to be clearly politically motivated at least. Of the third one I could not find the book itself, but I did find several book reviews, but the only one mentioning anything about the ethnogenisis (Bill Bowring in The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Jul., 1999), pp. 585-586) says that "They are the descendants of the inhabitants for many centuries of the Crimean peninsula the Turkic and Mongol populations, who, under the Giray dynasty, ruled Crimea from the 1420s."
Maybe you would be so kind as to provide the actual relevant quotes instead of the references?
Without any evidence however, the issue seems pretty clear to me. Crimean Tatars are a Turkic people, unknown to history until the 15th century. They speak a Turkic language, closely related to other Kipchak languages. Tat Tatar, which is the standard Crimean Tatar language, can be shown to be a direct descendent of Cuman, heavily influenced by Turkish. To me, along with the fact that there are no obvious loanwords from previous (non-Turkic) peoples, this seems clear evidence that the Crimean Tatars are primarily the descendants of the Turkic peoples that invaded the area as part of the Mongol Horde, not primarily of Germanic Goths, Hellenic Greeks or Iranian Scythians and Tauri. If that were the case, one would expect at least a few linguistic traces of that. To contrast this with the ethnogenesis of the Russian people, there can still be found clear Germanic, Baltic, Finnic and Turkic traces in Russian words, placenames and personal names next to the Slavic. If Crimean Goths and Greeks took part in the ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars, one would expect there to be similar Germanic and Hellenic traces next to the Turkic. Instead, the only foreign elements in Crimean Tatar are either Ottoman or Russian in origin.
It would be really interesting to see a good research into this.
Iron_Captain wrote: If Crimean Goths and Greeks took part in the ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars, one would expect there to be similar Germanic and Hellenic traces next to the Turkic. Instead, the only foreign elements in Crimean Tatar are either Ottoman or Russian in origin.
Interestingly, IIRC, 'tat' itself means non-turk or alien. When Friar William of Rubruck wrote of this area after the Mongol conquest: "There are lofty promontories along the sea coast from Kherson (sic) as far as the mouth of the Tanais, and between Kerson and Soldaia (Sudak) lie the Forty Settlements, of which nearly every one has its own dialect: the population includes many Goths, whose language is Germanic"
Michel Kazanski, in his History of the Goths states that "In all probability the remnants of the Crimean Goths remain in the 'Turkic' base of the Tatar population." This is borne out by Hans Schiltberger, a bavarian taken by the tartars as a slave, who's account claimed that the neighboring Tatars of the plains used the derisive term "Tat" to describe the Islamized Goths.
Iron_Captain wrote: It would be really interesting to see a good research into this.
I agree. Perusing many of the works available, it seems like all of them have a slant one way or another. Some hilariously so.
Iron_Captain wrote: If Crimean Goths and Greeks took part in the ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars, one would expect there to be similar Germanic and Hellenic traces next to the Turkic. Instead, the only foreign elements in Crimean Tatar are either Ottoman or Russian in origin.
Interestingly, IIRC, 'tat' itself means non-turk or alien. When Friar William of Rubruck wrote of this area after the Mongol conquest: "There are lofty promontories along the sea coast from Kherson (sic) as far as the mouth of the Tanais, and between Kerson and Soldaia (Sudak) lie the Forty Settlements, of which nearly every one has its own dialect: the population includes many Goths, whose language is Germanic"
Michel Kazanski, in his History of the Goths states that "In all probability the remnants of the Crimean Goths remain in the 'Turkic' base of the Tatar population." This is borne out by Hans Schiltberger, a bavarian taken by the tartars as a slave, who's account claimed that the neighboring Tatars of the plains used the derisive term "Tat" to describe the Islamized Goths.
But that is the big mystery of the Crimean Goths. Where did they go? We know they existed at some point, but until when? There are many records of travellers describing them, but from the same periods there are records of people who set out to seek them but found nothing. There is accounts of their existance all the way up to 1945, but the only traces they left behind date back to antiquity, nothing after that. One supposed account of their language exists from 1562, but it is highly problematic in that it does not seem to be descended from older Gothic. And if they were assimilated in the Greek and Turkic populations of Crimea, they have left no traces of that at all. There has been so much research into them, but no one ever found any conclusive evidence. They are like Crimea's yetis There is even people today who claim they found Crimean Goths in the mountains
Iron_Captain wrote: And if they were assimilated in the Greek and Turkic populations of Crimea, they have left no traces of that at all.
That, weirdly, makes sense from a Native American standpoint.
Take the Mingos as an example. Here's group comprised of Seneca, Cayuga, and remnants of the Susquehannocks, Huron, and Erie. That's 5 different Iroquois dialects. What do they speak? Seneca with some Cayuga turns of phrase. The Eries only remnant is genetic, in the odd native over 6'7", even though we know from historical accounts that they were defeated and assimilated.
The actual word 'Mingo' comes from a Lanape term meaning 'sneaky bastards', or 'without dicks' depending on connotation.
So the idea that when the Mongols rolled in, the Goths got called 'tats' by the surviving turkic speakers seems pretty likely, and, in fact, we have examples of that from historic accounts. So the idea that the 'tats' of the Crimean Goths and the 'tats' of the Crimean tartars being the same people is pretty solid.
Iron_Captain wrote: And if they were assimilated in the Greek and Turkic populations of Crimea, they have left no traces of that at all.
That, weirdly, makes sense from a Native American standpoint.
Take the Mingos as an example. Here's group comprised of Seneca, Cayuga, and remnants of the Susquehannocks, Huron, and Erie. That's 5 different Iroquois dialects. What do they speak? Seneca with some Cayuga turns of phrase. The Eries only remnant is genetic, in the odd native over 6'7", even though we know from historical accounts that they were defeated and assimilated.
The actual word 'Mingo' comes from a Lanape term meaning 'sneaky bastards', or 'without dicks' depending on connotation.
So the idea that when the Mongols rolled in, the Goths got called 'tats' by the surviving turkic speakers seems pretty likely, and, in fact, we have examples of that from historic accounts. So the idea that the 'tats' of the Crimean Goths and the 'tats' of the Crimean tartars being the same people is pretty solid.
But again, that does not add up with the linguistic facts. The Tat Tatars, the vast majority of the Tatar population, speak a language directly descended from Cuman (this is the standard Crimean Tatar language). The two other Crimean Tatar groups speak languages that, while mutally intelligible with Crimean Tatar, are not directly related. The Yaliboyu Tatars speak an Oghuz language that has more in common with Turkish than with Crimean Tatar, while the Nogay Tatars speak a Kipchak language directly related to Kazakh.
Now while all these languages are mutally intelligible and closely related, they can all be traced to different origins amongst different Turkic groups. Now if the Tat Tatars originally were Crimean Goths, then why would they have adopted a Turkic language that none of the original Tatars spoke? It makes much more sense to conclude that the Tat Tatars are the descendents of the Cuman part of the Turkic peoples that settled Crimea.
Also questions I have: What is the source for that 'Tat' was a term for Crimean Goths? And what is the relation with the Tat people of Dagestan (an Iranian people)?
And now I do not know anything about native American history, but in a European context, that would be extremely unique. Every people ever assimilated in Europe has left linguistic traces of some sort, even the unrecorded pre-Indo-European populations. Are you sure there are no Huron traces in modern Seneca at all? Wikipedia seems to imply the Hurons (Wyandot) are still alive, not assimilated. And can the tribe-based Native American situation be compared to the nation-based European situation of the late Middle Ages and Early modern period?
Also questions I have: What is the source for that 'Tat' was a term for Crimean Goths?
Johann (Hans) Schiltberger (1380 – c. 1440) was a Bavarian made a slave by the Ottomans, who used him as a messenger. His Reisebuch was first published posthumously in 1460. It's been reprinted since. (if you have the 1870's English edition like I do, you'll want to read the notes on the transcription by Bruun.
Hans wrote about cities and places he passed through.
"Item: an city called Kyrkyer, in good land called Gothia, who's people the Infidels call 'That'. (Chapter 36 [see note 8 on translation and transcription)
Iron_Captain wrote: Are you sure there are no Huron traces in modern Seneca at all? Wikipedia seems to imply the Hurons (Wyandot) are still alive, not assimilated.
The Eries were the ones that were wiped out other than those that were taken alive and assimilated. The Seneca resettled refugees, malcontents, and captured enemies as a sort of client state. They took on an identity of their own as the Mingos. (in this case, these were remnant populations in territory the Seneca gained control of as opposed to a remnant population of a people being annihilated.)
There are traces of the Huron dialect in Seneca (particularly in Canada), but this is true even in Seneca populations with no Huron ancestry. What was interesting was that the Mingos, who had a identifiable Huron component to their ethnogenesis, have no more or less Huron linguistic components than baseline Seneca.
Also questions I have: What is the source for that 'Tat' was a term for Crimean Goths?
Johann (Hans) Schiltberger (1380 – c. 1440) was a Bavarian made a slave by the Ottomans, who used him as a messenger. His Reisebuch was first published posthumously in 1460. It's been reprinted since. (if you have the 1870's English edition like I do, you'll want to read the notes on the transcription by Bruun.
Hans wrote about cities and places he passed through.
"Item: an city called Kyrkyer, in good land called Gothia, who's people the Infidels call 'That'. (Chapter 36 [see note 8 on translation and transcription)
Kyrkyer? That must be Qirq-Yer, the Crimean Tatar name for Chufut-Kale, the fortress of the Karaites (Turkic speaking Jews who might be descendents of the Khazars). That would have been in Tataria, not Gothia. Gothia was the name for the southern bit of Crimea (Principipality of Theodoro) where the Crimean Goths and Greeks lived. Tataria was the area to the north controlled by the Crimean Khanate. Theodoro was only conquered in 1475, so that was after Schiltberger died. That explains why he refers to Gothia as a seperate land. I wonder to whom he refers with "an city called Kyrkyer, in good land called Gothia, who's people the Infidels call 'That'." Does he refer to the people of Kyrk-Yer or the people of Gothia? One of those stupid flaws of Germanic languages. I got my hands on a copy (The bondage and travels of Johann Schiltberger, a native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427, published in 2010), and shall read it once I have some free time again. I hate school
Iron_Captain wrote: Are you sure there are no Huron traces in modern Seneca at all? Wikipedia seems to imply the Hurons (Wyandot) are still alive, not assimilated.
The Eries were the ones that were wiped out other than those that were taken alive and assimilated. The Seneca resettled refugees, malcontents, and captured enemies as a sort of client state. They took on an identity of their own as the Mingos. (in this case, these were remnant populations in territory the Seneca gained control of as opposed to a remnant population of a people being annihilated.)
There are traces of the Huron dialect in Seneca (particularly in Canada), but this is true even in Seneca populations with no Huron ancestry. What was interesting was that the Mingos, who had a identifiable Huron component to their ethnogenesis, have no more or less Huron linguistic components than baseline Seneca.
Iron_Captain wrote: Does he refer to the people of Kyrk-Yer or the people of Gothia? One of those stupid flaws of Germanic languages.
Its even worse when you only have an English translation of a Russian translation of 14th century Bavarian with Russian annotations. I spend as much time reading the notes as the text to follow what he's talking about.
I think he means Gothia because he continues about Christians of the Greek faith and good vinyards in the area, and makes reference to Clement being thrown into the sea in this land. Since that happened at Chersonesus, I'd ay we can get a pretty good idea where he was. He mentions a near by city called Sary Kerman (yellow castle?), which if I remember right is an old name for part of Sevastopol.
Iron_Captain wrote: Does he refer to the people of Kyrk-Yer or the people of Gothia? One of those stupid flaws of Germanic languages.
Its even worse when you only have an English translation of a Russian translation of 14th century Bavarian with Russian annotations. I spend as much time reading the notes as the text to follow what he's talking about.
I think he means Gothia because he continues about Christians of the Greek faith and good vinyards in the area, and makes reference to Clement being thrown into the sea in this land. Since that happened at Chersonesus, I'd ay we can get a pretty good idea where he was. He mentions a near by city called Sary Kerman (yellow castle?), which if I remember right is an old name for part of Sevastopol.
I have never heard that name before, altough some searching on the internet leads to some sites saying it is an old Tatar name for Chersonesus/Korsun. Very obscure though. Interestingly, the modern Tatars just call it Herson or Hersonesus. Sevastopol was not yet founded in those days, but it located right next to the ruins of Korsun. The Tatars call Sevastopol Aqyar.
If he mentions good vineyards, he is probably in the south. The story of Clement also points towards Korsun/Imkerman area. I think it is fair to say that he is indeed speaking about Gothia. But that still doesn't solve the problem of who is calling who a tat!
And you have a Russian version? We should swap, I have the English version
Iron_Captain wrote: And you have a Russian version? We should swap, I have the English version
LOL no, I have an English translation (1890s) of the Russian edition from the 1860's. Instead of translating the German, the first English edition just translated the Russian version, notes and all.
I actually find it very interesting. Two knowledgeable fellows engaged in an actual dialogue with points and counterpoints ( who will probably and to their horror find that they agree on all accounts).
konst80hummel wrote: I actually find it very interesting. Two knowledgeable fellows engaged in an actual dialogue with points and counterpoints ( who will probably and to their horror find that they agree on all accounts).
I will grant that Iron_Captain is one of the few dakkaites willing to admit that I can be knowledgeable on a subject. A side effect of my tendency to collect books: sometimes I read them, though I do not always retain the knowledge correctly.
konst80hummel wrote: I actually find it very interesting. Two knowledgeable fellows engaged in an actual dialogue with points and counterpoints ( who will probably and to their horror find that they agree on all accounts).
I will grant that Iron_Captain is one of the few dakkaites willing to admit that I can be knowledgeable on a subject. A side effect of my tendency to collect books: sometimes I read them, though I do not always retain the knowledge correctly.
Baronlveagh is indeed surprisingly knowledgeable on Russia-related topics. I don't get to discuss Crimean stuff often. Not many Westerners are interested in Eastern Europe unfortenately.
On the other hand, I am just a kid that stole his brother's library pass, so don't rate my opinions too highly I just like discussing stuff.
At least Ukrainian parliament sessions are never boring...
Ukrainian parliament is like a kindergarten, except you can find more intelligence in the average kindergarten
Well. These are the guys that are in charge of the country. Given such leaders, it is no wonder Ukraine is by far the most messed up place in all of Europe. At least, that is the point this makes to me.
Well. These are the guys that are in charge of the country. Given such leaders, it is no wonder Ukraine is by far the most messed up place in all of Europe. At least, that is the point this makes to me.
Someone should break out some pics of the last fight at the Diet, or the House of Commons. It's not as uncommon in parliamentary systems as you might think....
The only thing that makes it a bit odd is it's the prime minister getting hoisted by his balls. Usually there's someone to block for him.
Even the US had a period where politicians would fight duels over the issues. Now that they don't care about them at all, it's a lot more civilized.
Well. These are the guys that are in charge of the country. Given such leaders, it is no wonder Ukraine is by far the most messed up place in all of Europe. At least, that is the point this makes to me.
I'd say France is giving Ukraine a run for its money.
And that wasn't even the first time. There was a lesser known confrontation in the first Congress where another senator attempted to beat a fellow with his cane!
And that wasn't even the first time. There was a lesser known confrontation in the first Congress where another senator attempted to beat a fellow with his cane!
And if I am not mistaken, those are the same leaders that plunged the US into a civil war...
And even then, it was just one guy beating the other, not an entire parliament that turns into a fighting arena.
Vaktathi wrote:Fights amongst elected officials sn't unique to Ukraine, it's happened to many countries over even the last couple of years.
Italy IIRC has had a couple of actual brawls in their parliament over the last 4 or 5 years.
It's been known to happen in the US in the past too.
These things happen
Sure, may happen in other countries, but in Ukraine it happens more often than all those other countries combined. It also pretty much only happens in countries where things are gak.
In any case, no matter the country, politicians that start fighting each other are not fit to be in parliament. If political leaders can't keep their cool, how can their followers?
And if I am not mistaken, those are the same leaders that plunged the US into a civil war...
Senator Brooks I believe died before the war began, and Senator Douglas, a man who dedicated most of his career to trying to prevent a schism over the issue of Slavery, died a year into it after spending his final years rallying Northern Democrats to the Union cause.
But the incident of beating Senator Summer is typically considered a hallmark of the beak down of relationships between the Northern and Southern states that would lead to the Civil War
"We never said there were no people there who were carrying out certain tasks," Putin said during his annual end-of-year news conference in Moscow.
Putin said Russia had no regular troop presence in eastern Ukraine but, in response to a question about Russian servicemen detained and injured in the fighting, he admitted that "certain matters, including in the military area" were being performed. He did not elaborate.
"We never said there were no people there who were carrying out certain tasks," Putin said during his annual end-of-year news conference in Moscow.
Putin said Russia had no regular troop presence in eastern Ukraine but, in response to a question about Russian servicemen detained and injured in the fighting, he admitted that "certain matters, including in the military area" were being performed. He did not elaborate.
Stage 5 of that one Polandball skit by my reckoning.
Well, that is exactly what I have been saying from the beginning. Russia has no regular troops in Ukraine, but there are special forces operating there. And of course plenty of Russians on holiday. Donbass is very popular tourist destination.
Whilst glazing over the latest spat of crying about Neo-Nazis in Ukraine by the media, here's a video courtesy of Azov on current events. =P
Though on that topic it has been brought up that oddly the Russian Neo-Nazis support the Ukrainian ones. I guess whilst both sides are Nationalists, the Russians are seeing the whole war as being positive for their cause (as in political rather than national). Considering that the Ukrainians put a Neo-Nazi in charge of their police force they may be onto something there - though personally I think both side's government's are just taking what they can get in terms of support. ...Ignoring Putin's own obvious Fascist leanings.
konst80hummel wrote: What is weird in the picture of two armed en men making soup?
Their jihadist headbands?
I also wonder where they got those weapons... It looks a whole lot better than the old Soviet stuff the seperatists and the Ukr army have to make do with.
Two guys, probably Chechens, one wearing a mix of Azov (white supremacist/ Neo-nazi) and ISIS (Jihadists) regalia, the other in ISIS garb. Its not exactly something of note given the recent turn in events in Ukraine with the Ukrainians being sent "volunteers" and supplies from the Middle East (the Turks for instace, and as above, ISIS is pushing in fighters and have been supporting the Chechens since last year), but its an odd image nonetheless.
The gun's are probably either privately owned or traded through umpteen black markets. Azov have a pretty large supply chain, both going through stuff traded with their own government (which is sourced from the West and sits in warehouses waiting to be sold off the books), through sympathizers in Russia/ Chechnya and now from anti-Russian aligned countries and organisations in the Middle East. Looking at the gun behind the guy on the left that looks like the civilian version of the G36, so I'm inclined to think it was sourced within Europe legitimately. If it were from ISIS then it'd be the military version, as those guys have been capturing/ buying a crap ton of Western guns (bearing in mind that they're backed by more than a few governments too).
Coca-Cola upsets first Russia then Ukraine with New Year greeting
Warring neighbours furious at drink giant's maps depicting the disputed territory of Crimea
Coca-Cola's controversial map of Russia, including Crimea, with its new year greeting Photo: Coca-Cola
Rob Crilly By Rob Crilly, New York, and agencies11:19PM GMT 05 Jan 2016
It probably seemed a good idea at the time: A jaunty winter map in red and white to wish consumers a happy new year from Coca-Cola.
But the soft drink giant has managed to enfuriate people in two markets, Russia and Ukraine, over the depiction of the disputed territory of Crimea.
The Ukrainian Black Sea peninunsula was occupied by rebels loyal to Moscow in March 2014, triggering a conflict that has killed at least 9000 people.
So Russians were not impressed when Coca-Cola published a map of Russia - with the greeting “Celebrate winter holidays from Moscow to Vladivostok” - that did not include Crimea.
Users of VK, the most popular social media network in Russia, fizzed with anger, furious at what they described as an incomplete map.
Simple, thought Coca-Cola. The map was promptly removed and replaced with an apology and a new map.
“We apologise. The map has been corrected. Hope for understanding,” the company wrote.
The correction included adding in Crimea as well as the Kuril Islands (seized from Japan in 1945 and still disputed)
In a New Year's message on VK, the most popular Russian social media network, Coca-Cola published a map of Russia that did not include Crimea.
Cue a predictable response in Ukraine, where calls for a boycott
By Tuesday evening, the second map had been deleted as well.
"Dear friends! Thank you for your attention. It has been decided to delete the item which caused the upset," Coca-Cola's Ukrainian subsidiary said on Facebook, according to AFP.
• Ukraine bans Russian foods as trade war escalates
Coca-Cola headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, issued a statement apologising.
"The Coca-Cola Russia team had a stylised map of Russia created as part of its Christmas campaign. The agency that created the map later made changes without our knowledge or approval," the company said.
"We, as a company, do not take political positions unrelated to our business, and we apologize for the post, which we have removed."
konst80hummel wrote: What is weird in the picture of two armed en men making soup?
They're too clean for the environment. This is a staged photoshoot. Look at the man in black. He's not nearly dusty enough to have been in this building more than a few seconds.
You'd think they'd at least have them roll around on the ground a little or something if you're gonna shoot in this much plaster/concrete dust. I think that hookah sticking up tells the real story.
Could be.
The other explanation would be that they are Chechen islamists that got away from the Kadyrovtsy and decided to go to Ukraine rather than Syria. It seems strange that they then would join Azov batallion, however.
But for soldiers, their clothes are very clean. Either they just arrived on the front or they put on clean clothes for the picture. I would also question the fact that they seem to be sitting in an empty, abandoned building. You'd think they'd pick something more suitable as their base? Also, something about that BTR just feels off. What is it doing there?
Still puzzled about the guns though. Whether in Russia or Ukraine, they sure as hell did not get them openly through legal means. Such weapons, both military and civilian models, are banned. Armed BTRs even more so. That is what gives me the biggest doubt in this. If they are Russian nationalists trying to place the Ukrs in a bad daylight or something like that, than where the hell did they get an armed BTR? It is not something people just have standing around in their garages or something you can easily get on the black market. And driving it somewhere for a photoshoot? People are going to notice armoured vehicles driving around...
The Ukrainian government is handing out obsolete hardware to militia groups like candy (strictly under lease). The Azov guys aren't official supplied by the Ukrainian government, so instead get their BTRs off the books (they were being supplied early in the war IIRC) or capture them. So seeing a random groups with a BTR isn't an odd sight, though most of the Azov ones tend to be covered in a hell of a lot more Ukrainian flags and Swastikas (though I'm guessing those are added after they come out of the factory, as the ones there don't have any icons from what I've seen). The big white line down the front does mark it as Ukrainian, even if nowadays the number of those lines doesn't seem to respect any regional group like they used to. It too looks a bit clean, ignoring the insignia, it could do with a ton of stowage.
Could be.
The other explanation would be that they are Chechen islamists that got away from the Kadyrovtsy and decided to go to Ukraine rather than Syria. It seems strange that they then would join Azov batallion, however.
But for soldiers, their clothes are very clean. Either they just arrived on the front or they put on clean clothes for the picture. I would also question the fact that they seem to be sitting in an empty, abandoned building. You'd think they'd pick something more suitable as their base? Also, something about that BTR just feels off. What is it doing there?
Still puzzled about the guns though. Whether in Russia or Ukraine, they sure as hell did not get them openly through legal means. Such weapons, both military and civilian models, are banned. Armed BTRs even more so. That is what gives me the biggest doubt in this. If they are Russian nationalists trying to place the Ukrs in a bad daylight or something like that, than where the hell did they get an armed BTR? It is not something people just have standing around in their garages or something you can easily get on the black market. And driving it somewhere for a photoshoot? People are going to notice armoured vehicles driving around...
Its almost like when the soviet union collapsed and massive amounts of military hardware went missing, I guess it couldn't have gotten into the hands of russian ultras at all no sir.
And in Ukraine, a country which economy was literally based around being the Soviet Union's military hardware junkyard... The Ukrainians have so many rusting T-60s laying about that they can refurb 10 taken from the scrap heaps and refurb them for the cost of modernizing an existing tank.
Wyrmalla wrote: Whilst glazing over the latest spat of crying about Neo-Nazis in Ukraine by the media, here's a video courtesy of Azov on current events. =P
The Ukrainian government is handing out obsolete hardware to militia groups like candy (strictly under lease). The Azov guys aren't official supplied by the Ukrainian government, so instead get their BTRs off the books (they were being supplied early in the war IIRC) or capture them. So seeing a random groups with a BTR isn't an odd sight, though most of the Azov ones tend to be covered in a hell of a lot more Ukrainian flags and Swastikas (though I'm guessing those are added after they come out of the factory, as the ones there don't have any icons from what I've seen). The big white line down the front does mark it as Ukrainian, even if nowadays the number of those lines doesn't seem to respect any regional group like they used to. It too looks a bit clean, ignoring the insignia, it could do with a ton of stowage.
Yes, it also needs some weathering and a bit of thinned down paint that to simulate mud and dirt. I would also reccommend a wash with nuln oil and highlighting with a lighter shade of green. That would bring out the definition a bit more. Currently, it is a pretty nice paintjob, but a little flat and clean.
But yeah, for Ukraine it makes sense. Ukraine is full of weapons rusting away everywhere you look, and there is little effective government control over it (or anything in Ukraine for that matter). Russia is very different though, with very strict government control over nearly everything. That is the thing puzzling me. If this is in Russia, than where did they get that BTR? Ergo, it makes more sense that whether real or fake, these pictures are more likely to come from Ukraine. Maybe a trick by DNR or LNR guys.
Could be. The other explanation would be that they are Chechen islamists that got away from the Kadyrovtsy and decided to go to Ukraine rather than Syria. It seems strange that they then would join Azov batallion, however. But for soldiers, their clothes are very clean. Either they just arrived on the front or they put on clean clothes for the picture. I would also question the fact that they seem to be sitting in an empty, abandoned building. You'd think they'd pick something more suitable as their base? Also, something about that BTR just feels off. What is it doing there? Still puzzled about the guns though. Whether in Russia or Ukraine, they sure as hell did not get them openly through legal means. Such weapons, both military and civilian models, are banned. Armed BTRs even more so. That is what gives me the biggest doubt in this. If they are Russian nationalists trying to place the Ukrs in a bad daylight or something like that, than where the hell did they get an armed BTR? It is not something people just have standing around in their garages or something you can easily get on the black market. And driving it somewhere for a photoshoot? People are going to notice armoured vehicles driving around...
Its almost like when the soviet union collapsed and massive amounts of military hardware went missing, I guess it couldn't have gotten into the hands of russian ultras at all no sir.
No. That could not have happened. It is not the 90's anymore and weapons are actually quite rare in modern Russia, much less tanks like a BTR. Even if some really wealthy ultranationalist group somehow managed to get their hands on one during the 90's, it would have been noticed and confiscated by now. It is not like those kind of groups can run around doing crazy stuff, ultranationalists are very closely watched by the secret services.
Breotan wrote:
Wyrmalla wrote: Whilst glazing over the latest spat of crying about Neo-Nazis in Ukraine by the media, here's a video courtesy of Azov on current events. =P
/quote] Yes, it also needs some weathering and a bit of thinned down paint that to simulate mud and dirt. I would also reccommend a wash with nuln oil and highlighting with a lighter shade of green. That would bring out the definition a bit more. Currently, it is a pretty nice paintjob, but a little flat and clean.
It might not be. The standard way to demil something like that is to cut the receiver, which you wouldn't see from outside. The front end has had welding done to it, that was painted over with a spray can. Possible demilling of the armor then too.
Without a close up of the BTR I can't be sure, but as bad as the green spray is, that line is VERY neat. It almost looks like tape.
As far as where the pictures could be taken, Serbia was the first thing to come to mind, actually.
Wyrmalla wrote: They apparently felt like painting a BTR in Ukrainian colours as well.
Ah the internet.
What's funny is he's wearing a British DPM camo pattern. The only guy in Ukrainian gear is the man with the azov patch at top, who's wearing Butane pattern camo. BTR was driven in slowly, too, only dust on the tops of the ridge.
Wyrmalla wrote: Ex-British DPM Camo is about the most common uniform worn in Ukraine. No, seriously.
Actually Butane is most common since it was dumped on the open markets in every single surrounding country. The Ukraine still uses it not because they have not replaced it, but simply because they have so much of it.
/quote] Yes, it also needs some weathering and a bit of thinned down paint that to simulate mud and dirt. I would also reccommend a wash with nuln oil and highlighting with a lighter shade of green. That would bring out the definition a bit more. Currently, it is a pretty nice paintjob, but a little flat and clean.
It might not be. The standard way to demil something like that is to cut the receiver, which you wouldn't see from outside. The front end has had welding done to it, that was painted over with a spray can. Possible demilling of the armor then too.
Without a close up of the BTR I can't be sure, but as bad as the green spray is, that line is VERY neat. It almost looks like tape.
As far as where the pictures could be taken, Serbia was the first thing to come to mind, actually.
Don't you think they'd remove the entire gun from the turret? Most of BTRs I have seen for sale had the guns removed. Otherwise how do you see the vehicle is no longer dangerous?
And Serbia? That is possible of course, but what makes you think of Serbia?
That would be a weird typo. And baron is not the kind of person who confuses Siberia with Serbia, I think.
Breotan wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: Don't you think they'd remove the entire gun from the turret? Most of BTRs I have seen for sale had the guns removed.
How difficult would it be for a militia type in that part of the world to get ahold of the parts to put the gun back in?
It depends on what part "that part" of the world is. In Ukraine? Easy as getting a hamburger at McDonalds (even easier in some parts). In Russia, it would be quite hard, altough It would be a good way to get yourself a state-sponsored holiday in Siberia. Russia has very strictly enforced gun control laws, only hunting rifles are allowed with a hard to get license that has to be renewed every 5 years.
I learned two things watching Nicholas Cage in Lord of War;
1. National Treasure was a fluke after all
2. Ukraine really does have a lot of old Soviet military hardware just laying around, and people found ways to get rich off of it
LordofHats wrote: I learned two things watching Nicholas Cage in Lord of War;
1. National Treasure was a fluke after all
2. Ukraine really does have a lot of old Soviet military hardware just laying around, and people found ways to get rich off of it
3. He likes to punch women when dressed up as a bear. An allegory for russia invading Ukraine
Did that happen in Lord of War? I remember that movie being boring beyond belief and unmemorable and Nick Cage dressing up as a bear and punching women sounds kind of memorable
LordofHats wrote: Did that happen in Lord of War? I remember that movie being boring beyond belief and unmemorable and Nick Cage dressing up as a bear and punching women sounds kind of memorable
No its from that terrible wicker man remake he did 8 years ago or so. But I couldn't pass up the chance to make that allegory
LordofHats wrote: Did that happen in Lord of War? I remember that movie being boring beyond belief and unmemorable and Nick Cage dressing up as a bear and punching women sounds kind of memorable
No its from that terrible wicker man remake he did 8 years ago or so. But I couldn't pass up the chance to make that allegory
The allegory is lost on us probably because none of us saw that movie.
LordofHats wrote: Did that happen in Lord of War? I remember that movie being boring beyond belief and unmemorable and Nick Cage dressing up as a bear and punching women sounds kind of memorable
No its from that terrible wicker man remake he did 8 years ago or so. But I couldn't pass up the chance to make that allegory
The allegory is lost on us probably because none of us saw that movie.
It was a box office juggernaut with a mighty 38.8 million to its name, were you living under a rock?
Don't you think they'd remove the entire gun from the turret? Most of BTRs I have seen for sale had the guns removed. Otherwise how do you see the vehicle is no longer dangerous?
And Serbia? That is possible of course, but what makes you think of Serbia?
Most of the one's I've seen for sale out of Europe were just demilled by taking a cutting torch to the receiver. It's the fastest way to clear them for export, particularly if your market is collectors or military enthusiasts who want a 'real' armored vehicle. In Europe, usually you'd see the holes they cut in the vehicle hull, if it's demilled for a European buyer there's usually a square hole every so often to 'destroy' it's armor, but he's standing in front of most of the hull, so it's hard to say.
I thought Serbia because that's the one place I can think of where a regular joe could in theory get all this stuff on the market fairly easily that's also heavily involved in the Ukraine on Russia's side. A lot of BTR 60s are still coming out of Serbia and Czechoslovakia on the export market.
As Russia begins the New Year, two recent events - an inability to pay salaries and a new law on currency exchanges - show the country is hurtling rapidly back to the future. Fiona Clark sees troubled times ahead.
Ruble bills are handed through a window frill
On Christmas Eve we couldn't get a taxi using any of the usual apps, so we decided to hitch home after dinner. That's not such an unusual practice in Russia, in fact since Soviet times it's been an accepted way for people to subsidize their incomes by picking up strangers and charging them a small fee to drop them wherever they want. Foreigners call them "gypsy cabs."
The man who picked us up was very pleased to finally get a fare. "You're the first people to put your hands out for ages. No one puts their hands out anymore," he said, lamenting the effect of the taxi apps that are killing the ordinary man's revenue supply. "I used to make 5,000 rubles (62 euros; $68) a night doing this, now I'm lucky if I make 2,000 a week." Then he went on to explain why he needed the money.
His son is a captain in the fire brigade. His salary was 60,000 rubles a month but he had told his father that the ministry in charge of the emergency services had just announced to its employees that their salaries would be slashed to 15,000 a month - around 190 euros.
In February the government announced its members would take a 10-percent cut from their 250,000 ruble a month pay packets, but this goes far beyond that.
"I'm so mad I just want to punch the minister in the face," the driver said, wondering how on earth his family would survive.
Tough times
On hearing this we rang a friend who works for the fire department, albeit at a lower rank. His story was worse. He hadn't been paid for December. He won't be paid in January and said he'd be lucky if he was paid in February - and if he is, it won't be at his usual rate.
The reason the men at his brigade were given for the lack of payment was that Crimea was costing the country too much and cuts had to be made to help. The catchcry of "our Crimea" or "Krim Nash" that was so popular after Russia's annexation of the peninsula in March 2014 wasn't ringing happily in his ears. To add insult to injury, the employees' passports had been confiscated as they are considered to be part of the country's defense forces and as such can't leave the country in these difficult times, he was told.
Fire fighters try to put out a Moscow fire
Doing their patriotic duty
News agency Interfax has reported incidents of wages being withheld to emergency services in other regions of Russia as well, and cited the country's economic difficulties as the reason. It also said the servicemen were told budget reallocations were expected to resolve the situation in the new year.
It's been quite some time since Russia hasn't been able to pay the salaries of its government employees. The last two times in recent history were after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 and again during the financial crisis of the late 1990s. It was the 1998 economic crisis - when the ruble lost a third of its value and inflation was running at 300 percent - that finally destroyed the popularity of Russia's first post-Soviet and democratically elected president, Boris Yeltsin.
Inflation is nowhere near that at the moment, hovering in the mid-teens, but the ruble has lost 50 percent of its value against the dollar and the pound, and with the price of oil dipping below the $40 a barrel mark, that's unlikely to change.
Clearly the government is worried that what little money is left in the country will disappear. Between 2014 and 2015 - as the economic crisis started to bite - there was capital flight estimated to be worth around $151 billion. A few months back staff at airports actively started asking if passengers were carrying cash out of the country since amounts above $10,000 must be declared. The last time they asked me, my reply was simple: "Unfortunately not," but the border guard said I'd be surprised how many people were carrying bags of cash in their hand luggage.
Currency checks
Last week legislation came into effect that says banks must ask people exchanging more than 15,000 rubles for foreign currency where they got the money from and collect their passport details and tax numbers. The government is clearly extending its crackdown on corporate tax evasion to individuals. But the reaction from people on local radio stations was that this move will only serve to fuel the rise of the black market again.
A stack of ruble notes
Safest under the mattress?
Russians don't trust banks. They've seen them collapse too often, taking their savings with them, so they keep their money in their mattresses, so to speak. They are unlikely to take kindly to having to provide an explanation as to how they came up with the equivalent of about 200 euros.
So far veterans and military personnel I've spoken to haven't been affected by pay or pension cuts, but the inability to pay emergency services and the crackdown on small money exchanges does not send good signals about the strength of the economy and the state of the government's coffers.
2016 may well become Russia's annus horribilis: All the signs suggest the country's economic roller-coaster history will repeat itself.
Wyrmalla wrote: Meanwhile in Russia... That's what four ongoing wars and international sanctions right? There's always the Chinese to bail them out I guess.
As Russia begins the New Year, two recent events - an inability to pay salaries and a new law on currency exchanges - show the country is hurtling rapidly back to the future. Fiona Clark sees troubled times ahead.
Ruble bills are handed through a window frill
On Christmas Eve we couldn't get a taxi using any of the usual apps, so we decided to hitch home after dinner. That's not such an unusual practice in Russia, in fact since Soviet times it's been an accepted way for people to subsidize their incomes by picking up strangers and charging them a small fee to drop them wherever they want. Foreigners call them "gypsy cabs."
The man who picked us up was very pleased to finally get a fare. "You're the first people to put your hands out for ages. No one puts their hands out anymore," he said, lamenting the effect of the taxi apps that are killing the ordinary man's revenue supply. "I used to make 5,000 rubles (62 euros; $68) a night doing this, now I'm lucky if I make 2,000 a week." Then he went on to explain why he needed the money.
His son is a captain in the fire brigade. His salary was 60,000 rubles a month but he had told his father that the ministry in charge of the emergency services had just announced to its employees that their salaries would be slashed to 15,000 a month - around 190 euros.
In February the government announced its members would take a 10-percent cut from their 250,000 ruble a month pay packets, but this goes far beyond that.
"I'm so mad I just want to punch the minister in the face," the driver said, wondering how on earth his family would survive.
Tough times
On hearing this we rang a friend who works for the fire department, albeit at a lower rank. His story was worse. He hadn't been paid for December. He won't be paid in January and said he'd be lucky if he was paid in February - and if he is, it won't be at his usual rate.
The reason the men at his brigade were given for the lack of payment was that Crimea was costing the country too much and cuts had to be made to help. The catchcry of "our Crimea" or "Krim Nash" that was so popular after Russia's annexation of the peninsula in March 2014 wasn't ringing happily in his ears. To add insult to injury, the employees' passports had been confiscated as they are considered to be part of the country's defense forces and as such can't leave the country in these difficult times, he was told.
Fire fighters try to put out a Moscow fire
Doing their patriotic duty
News agency Interfax has reported incidents of wages being withheld to emergency services in other regions of Russia as well, and cited the country's economic difficulties as the reason. It also said the servicemen were told budget reallocations were expected to resolve the situation in the new year.
It's been quite some time since Russia hasn't been able to pay the salaries of its government employees. The last two times in recent history were after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 and again during the financial crisis of the late 1990s. It was the 1998 economic crisis - when the ruble lost a third of its value and inflation was running at 300 percent - that finally destroyed the popularity of Russia's first post-Soviet and democratically elected president, Boris Yeltsin.
Inflation is nowhere near that at the moment, hovering in the mid-teens, but the ruble has lost 50 percent of its value against the dollar and the pound, and with the price of oil dipping below the $40 a barrel mark, that's unlikely to change.
Clearly the government is worried that what little money is left in the country will disappear. Between 2014 and 2015 - as the economic crisis started to bite - there was capital flight estimated to be worth around $151 billion. A few months back staff at airports actively started asking if passengers were carrying cash out of the country since amounts above $10,000 must be declared. The last time they asked me, my reply was simple: "Unfortunately not," but the border guard said I'd be surprised how many people were carrying bags of cash in their hand luggage.
Currency checks
Last week legislation came into effect that says banks must ask people exchanging more than 15,000 rubles for foreign currency where they got the money from and collect their passport details and tax numbers. The government is clearly extending its crackdown on corporate tax evasion to individuals. But the reaction from people on local radio stations was that this move will only serve to fuel the rise of the black market again.
A stack of ruble notes
Safest under the mattress?
Russians don't trust banks. They've seen them collapse too often, taking their savings with them, so they keep their money in their mattresses, so to speak. They are unlikely to take kindly to having to provide an explanation as to how they came up with the equivalent of about 200 euros.
So far veterans and military personnel I've spoken to haven't been affected by pay or pension cuts, but the inability to pay emergency services and the crackdown on small money exchanges does not send good signals about the strength of the economy and the state of the government's coffers.
2016 may well become Russia's annus horribilis: All the signs suggest the country's economic roller-coaster history will repeat itself.
Clearly you absolutely know nothing about Russia at all. If you had experienced the ruin of the 90's or knew anything about how massively living standards in Russia have improved over the past decade, you would not be calling the Russian government "a crappy regime". The fact that the economy is in a rough spot now is due to the low oil prices, not something the Russian government has much control over.
Really, things are not so bad:
I think he's referring to the pattern which seems to show that Russia is possibly headed for a major downturn. The full effects of all the sanctions hasn't hit yet.
Under pressure from the Pentagon, Congress has stripped the spending bill of an amendment that prevented funds from falling into the hands of Ukrainian neo-fascist groups.
No, it quite clearly states that they removed a ban on funding neo nazis from the bill. Funding those groups is no longer explicitly prohibited.
What is clear is that by stripping out the anti-neo-Nazi provision, Congress and the administration have paved the way for US funding to end up in the hands of the most noxious elements circulating within Ukraine today.
The US funding whoever's willing to fight their enemies, even if it'll be detrimental for stability in the long term - priceless.
Though realistically Azov maintaining their current power in Ukrainian politics isn't going to make that country go any further downhill. In contrast I had thought Poroshenko's current ongoing hopeless crusade against the Oligarchs wasn't quite as pertinent for posting in this thread.
2015: The year we started calling fundamentalist Jihadi groups "moderates".
2016: The year it became politically acceptable to fund Neo Nazi paramilitaries.
We're on a roll here. By this time next year we'll be best of buddies with ISIS.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: 2015: The year we started calling fundamentalist Jihadi groups "moderates". 2016: The year it became politically acceptable to fund Neo Nazi paramilitaries.
We're on a roll here. By this time next year we'll be best of buddies with ISIS.
Either that or the US will be a fascist state itself, all hailing Great Leader Trump But don't worry, he is just fighting the bad guys...
Also, Poroshenko going against the oligarchs is so ironic, considering he is one of them himself... The Ukrainian government has never been more than a tool for oligarchs. I can see the future of Ukraine as being divided in the personal domains of several powerful oligarchs. It is already happening more or less. Interesting development considering how things went in Russia and Belarus.
Under pressure from the Pentagon, Congress has stripped the spending bill of an amendment that prevented funds from falling into the hands of Ukrainian neo-fascist groups.
Good.
I'm not sure how there's anything good about funding, training, and arming neo-nazi militias.
Under pressure from the Pentagon, Congress has stripped the spending bill of an amendment that prevented funds from falling into the hands of Ukrainian neo-fascist groups.
Good.
I'm not sure how there's anything good about funding, training, and arming neo-nazi militias.
Practical reasons within the context of that war besides, this is in a world where the US continues to fund fundamentalists and terrorist organizations throughout the world. We could speak about how the funds going to Azov will reach ISIS, but its hardly like that isn't already happening directly.
Azov are already being funded by the US, just not directly. The Ukrainian army actively trades equipment with the militias, whilst Azov itself just break into the warehouses and take stuff as they please (spoiler, all that gear the US is sending is just sitting unused so the army can sell it to other countries and use the money to buy cheaper gear). This change is the status quo.
Azov already have government positions... Who do you think is the head of the police force?
Its perhaps a bit big to say that the US is "founding" Azov, considering they've been one of (of not the) Ukraine's largest non-governmental fighting force for years. Azov tote about wearing American ballistic vets, with American NVGs and radios to spare and eat American MREs. All this'll mean is that they'll take them from the source instead of trading them for rations. The training is perhaps the most significant thing, but that's not saying much considering the background of the group's members and sponsors (not to speak of all the support they get from Russian Neo-Nazis ...though the topic of the Nazis on both side's collaborating should be left to an earlier post of mine).
A Russian user want to find a source for this, translation of a Russian article:
The situation with the spread of an unknown virus in the Donbas, unfortunately, is deteriorating.
More and more news of died of SARS. Yesterday they buried the dead from pneumonia Chief of Staff of the First Slavic brigade call "Artem". He died four soldier team. Which division do not contact - sick everywhere, dozens of militia battalions patients.
Civilians I do not have accurate information. The Ministry of Health says 12 deaths in the DNI, but for ASIC data of deaths from the disease for at least 30. I believe that the figures underestimate the power of Donetsk. And imperfect (to put it mildly) the state mechanism is hardly conducted due account of patients and deaths, especially in cases where the dying elderly.
The first at-risk (when possible death) - People with chronic diseases of the pulmonary system, hepatitis C, onkolozabolevaniyami, chronic stress, weakened immune systems, etc. The latter is especially true for the militias.
It is a virus that no one can or wants to determine the strain of (officially declare that it is H1N1 or one of its mutations). The peculiarity of the disease - quick incubation period, a cold three days, "falls" down and begin bilateral pneumonia, which is accompanied by a high fever. Four varieties of new antibiotics fail in the treatment of pneumonia, white blood cells go to zero as in HIV infection. Even after the connection to mechanical ventilation body refuses to live (possibly very severe intoxication). It is an airborne infection, the risk of infection which is almost 100%.
The DNR is still an acute shortage of drugs - he was and always, but now has become more acute as demand increased significantly. If in the Rostov region has little (yesterday we bought all Ingavirin to pharmacy warehouses in Rostov - only 250 packs. Left), then the more the Donbass.
We continue to buy medicines for DNR offices. Over the two days gathered half a million rubles to 120 thousand. Bought medicine for several companies, the next three days will buy drugs on the remaining funds (full report in a week).
Seems like this article may be related. More like a bunch of guys with a generic flu rather than an epidemic though.
‘Flu hits Donbas rebels, supplies of pharmaceuticals meager
The Russian/rebel troops in Donbas are amid large-scale ‘flu epidemic, Ukraine army intelligence says Jan. 12. .
In the rebel Diesel tank battalion, for instance, over half of the servicemen are down with the ‘flu.
The battalion’s CO bans his servicemen to leave the barracks, and there are no pharmaceuticals.
Some rebels have challenged the order and are trying to leave the barracks.
By contrast, there is no ‘flu epidemics in the Ukrainian army.
Mobile groups of medics are running preventive examinations of the troops, the army says.
Ukraine army servicemen are well supplied with warm clothes, heaters and fuel as well as high-calorie food, the army says.
Wyrmalla wrote: A Russian user want to find a source for this, translation of a Russian article:
The situation with the spread of an unknown virus in the Donbas, unfortunately, is deteriorating.
More and more news of died of SARS. Yesterday they buried the dead from pneumonia Chief of Staff of the First Slavic brigade call "Artem". He died four soldier team. Which division do not contact - sick everywhere, dozens of militia battalions patients.
Civilians I do not have accurate information. The Ministry of Health says 12 deaths in the DNI, but for ASIC data of deaths from the disease for at least 30. I believe that the figures underestimate the power of Donetsk. And imperfect (to put it mildly) the state mechanism is hardly conducted due account of patients and deaths, especially in cases where the dying elderly.
The first at-risk (when possible death) - People with chronic diseases of the pulmonary system, hepatitis C, onkolozabolevaniyami, chronic stress, weakened immune systems, etc. The latter is especially true for the militias.
It is a virus that no one can or wants to determine the strain of (officially declare that it is H1N1 or one of its mutations). The peculiarity of the disease - quick incubation period, a cold three days, "falls" down and begin bilateral pneumonia, which is accompanied by a high fever. Four varieties of new antibiotics fail in the treatment of pneumonia, white blood cells go to zero as in HIV infection. Even after the connection to mechanical ventilation body refuses to live (possibly very severe intoxication). It is an airborne infection, the risk of infection which is almost 100%.
The DNR is still an acute shortage of drugs - he was and always, but now has become more acute as demand increased significantly. If in the Rostov region has little (yesterday we bought all Ingavirin to pharmacy warehouses in Rostov - only 250 packs. Left), then the more the Donbass.
We continue to buy medicines for DNR offices. Over the two days gathered half a million rubles to 120 thousand. Bought medicine for several companies, the next three days will buy drugs on the remaining funds (full report in a week).
The article is from here:http://www.novorosinform.org/articles/id/3814" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.novorosinform.org/articles/id/3814 and translated by Google Translate, it seems. It is a seperatist news agency. I can personally confirm that the seperatists have problems with disease, due to a lack of medicine. The Ukrainian army are suffering the same problem. RT isn't going to report on it at all I predict, they are much too horny about Russia's totally awesome new submarine destroyer in Syria, McDonalds banning evil Polish potatoes and the Snöpenis in Sweden. RT can be slowed like that.
Hah, I had the source text in Russian from another forum, but not the link. Could have translated it myself, but Google Translate was easier (all those "he's" instead of "the").
Wyrmalla wrote: Hah, I had the source text in Russian from another forum, but not the link. Could have translated it myself, but Google Translate was easier (all those "he's" instead of "the").
Yeah, Google is actually surprisingly good at translating Russian. Much better than it is at translating Dutch or German for example. When I need to translate something, I usually put it in Google Translate as well, and then change all the rough and incorrect parts afterwards myself. That saves a lot of time compared to translating everything by hand.
Wyrmalla wrote: Hah, I had the source text in Russian from another forum, but not the link. Could have translated it myself, but Google Translate was easier (all those "he's" instead of "the").
Yeah, Google is actually surprisingly good at translating Russian. Much better than it is at translating Dutch or German for example. When I need to translate something, I usually put it in Google Translate as well, and then change all the rough and incorrect parts afterwards myself. That saves a lot of time compared to translating everything by hand.
My job involves me speaking to Serbs every day. ...Don't tell them that I'm sometimes having to translate in real time from Google.
On topic:
...I could post yet another video of DNR generals mouthing off in Russian, but summary: Civil War, blah, blah, blah.
WARSAW — Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine on Monday said a joint brigade of 4,000 troops would be operational next year, as the region maintains a wary eye on Russia and its role in the Ukraine conflict.
“The multinational brigade is a sign, symbol and very clear signal to anyone who would want to undermine peace in Europe,” Polish Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz said in a ministry statement.
While Lithuania and Poland are NATO and EU members, Ukraine is not but has been a part of the defense alliance’s Partnership for Peace eastern outreach program since 1994.
Macierewicz spoke after meeting with his counterparts from Lithuania and Ukraine, Juozas Olekas and Stepan Poltorak respectively, in the eastern Polish city of Lublin.
“We see this brigade as a driving force that will improve our army,” Poltorak said, quoted by the Polish news agency PAP.
He added that “the brigade will be fully operational in 2017”, while the Polish ministry statement said the military unit would “reach its full combat capability in January 2017.”
The three countries signed an agreement in September 2014 to form the so-called Litpolukrbrig brigade, which will mainly take part in peacekeeping operations.
The brigade has been in the works since 2007, but it is being put into action at a time of anxiety among Eastern European states once controlled by Moscow.
Poland and the three Baltic states, which include Lithuania, have been on edge since Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in March 2014.
The Baltic trio and Poland, which will host a NATO summit in July, have called on the Western defense alliance to reinforce its presence in the region because of their concern over Russia.
The brigade troops will be deployed in their own countries and will join forces during exercises and joint operations. The headquarters will be in Lublin.
And the Russian government will use this to add to their paranoia about how the world's out to get them, instead of the other way around.
Wyrmalla wrote: And the Russian government will use this to add to their paranoia about how the world's out to get them, instead of the other way around.
To paraphrase an old joke: In Putinist Russia, world conquers you!
Wyrmalla wrote: And the Russian government will use this to add to their paranoia about how the world's out to get them, instead of the other way around.
To paraphrase an old joke: In Putinist Russia, world conquers you!
As a Russian, I would prefer the term "re-establishing government control in rebellious republics" over the term "conquest". Conquest sounds so agressive, and Russia is not agressive. Russia is merely persistent and consistent in pursuing its interests. Just a friendly reminder.
According to data gathered by Oleg Melnichkov, who commanded the defense of Semenovka and worked in DNR's ministry of defense POW commission there are about 1500-2000.
"It's easier with the local - everybody knew who they were, where they were from even if he fought under an assumed name. With Russian volunteers it's harder - usually except the nickname nobody knew him, and his relatives in Russia don't know where to turn to." says Melnichkov.
According to him, if the person after a battle is accounted as MIA (not recorded in the morgue or hospital, not listed in POW list) then it's 99% likely that he's dead. Probably - buried on the field of battle.
"There are a lot of common graves like that, on both sides. Ilovaysk "kettle", fighting around Maryinka, Dibrovka. During chaotic retreats or breakthroughts, units would loose touch with HQs and then frequently "200s" (the dead) were buried nearby, because there was no way to give them decent burial in the Motherland. There are bereaucratic problems. Before the retreat from Slavyansk, in Semenovka, a bus with my people was shot up - two volunteers from Russia died amongst others. Because there was no coroner on hand, we couldn't file a document regarding the death. Despite the fact that we buried them ourselves, they will be listed as MIA for another 5 years." says Melnikov.
"On an almost daily basis, we are being described the worst threat - be it to Nato as a whole, or to Europe, America or other countries," - Medvedev
In the world outside Moscow, we *do* consider invading your neighbors 'threatening'.
It was not an invasion. It is only an invasion if you invade a foreign land. Crimea was, is, and will always be Russian, so therefore Russian troops entering it can never be an invasion. Russia merely took back de-facto control over something that already rightfully belonged to it.
Medvedev is being hypocritical here though. It is not as if Russia hasn't already put NATO and the US on its #1 most threatening spot. Also, Russia actually likes being seen as a threat. Being seen as a threat means you are being seen as powerful, and being seen as powerful means Russia stronk! Russia is kinda obsessed with being seen as a strong, great world power. It is a bit of a historical national trauma.
That's fine and dandy and all, until you remember that Sweden isn't in NATO. If Russia doesn't want everyone to hate it, respecting the fact that pretending to nuke a neutral country tends to piss people off might be a good place to start. Respect is earned, not demanded.
As a Russian, I would prefer the term "re-establishing government control in rebellious republics" over the term "conquest". Conquest sounds so agressive, and Russia is not agressive. Russia is merely persistent and consistent in pursuing its interests.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's fine and dandy and all, until you remember that Sweden isn't in NATO. If Russia doesn't want everyone to hate it, respecting the fact that pretending to nuke a neutral country tends to piss people off might be a good place to start. Respect is earned, not demanded.
Russia is paranoid. Sweden's neutrality is in Russia generally seen as a farce. Sweden (and Finland to a lesser extent) are way too close to NATO for Russia's liking, they are NATO members in all but name. The message from this kind of actions is that Sweden should stay far away from NATO, or otherwise bad things will happen if it comes to war. Russia gains respect through military force, that is the way it has always been. Russia is not a peace-loving modern liberal democratic European country. Russia is very different from Europe, it is militaristic, paranoid and autocratic, brooding over the loss of its empire (for which the West is blamed) and the many, many historical grievances inflicted upon it by treacherous foreigners. Russia has a deep-seated distrust of the West, born out of centuries of conflict and Western invasions. It has no desire to participate in any kind of Western world order. And altough there have been times that the Russian view of the West was more positive, currently, the mood is rather hateful, thanks to perceived slights of the West against Russia, NATO infringement on traditional Russian territory, and widespread russophobia in Western media and politics. Unfortenately, relations between Russia and the West have become a kind of vicious cycle, which will just perpetuate a Cold War-style conflict unless someone steps in and breaks the cycle.
Going back to Russian threats against Sweden, Russia is like the kid in school whom nobody likes because he is weird and different, but whom no one dares to pick on because everyone is afraid he will beat you bloody if you bully him. Because of his unpopularity, the kid's only way to not get bullied is to maintain the image that he can beat up anyone who messes with him.
So in other words, Russia is threatening Sweden because Russia is afraid that otherwise Sweden will start to pick on him together with the popular kids (NATO).
If only Charles XII wasn't an idiot and pushed home his advantage and destroyed russia in 1700 we would only have to deal with a potential swedish empire
Ustrello wrote: If only Charles XII wasn't an idiot and pushed home his advantage and destroyed russia in 1700 we would only have to deal with a potential swedish empire
Funny, history has shown invading Russia to be the idiotic course of action. Not invading Russia thus seems to be a smart move.
Ustrello wrote: If only Charles XII wasn't an idiot and pushed home his advantage and destroyed russia in 1700 we would only have to deal with a potential swedish empire
Funny, history has shown invading Russia to be the idiotic course of action. Not invading Russia thus seems to be a smart move.
Yes because sweden is know for its temperate climate . Plus Peter's army was routed and he had nothing between charles and st. petersburg and then to moscow.
Care to tell the crowd here how many times USSR/Russia asked to join NATO? It's one thing to be a member a of an international military organization and another to be told you are the enemy and have your territory surrounded by the military bases of that military organization.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: If only Charles XII wasn't an idiot and pushed home his advantage and destroyed russia in 1700 we would only have to deal with a potential swedish empire
If only Russia instead of helping US in the war with UK let the Brits to drown their colony in blood. Perhaps we wouldn't have now a terrorist-sponsoring and Fascist-supporting nation.
Yes, look at all those NATO bases that Sweden isn't involved in. You sure showed me the error of my ways!
Honestly, if Russia doesn't want Sweden and Finland in NATO pretending to drop nukes on us is about the stupidest possible action. It's either going to push us to get nukes of our own (highly unlikely) or into NATO (much more likely). It's a shame, I'd rather we stayed neutral, but it is increasingly becoming untenable.
Grey Templar wrote:
Funny, history has shown invading Russia to be the idiotic course of action. Not invading Russia thus seems to be a smart move.
Everyone wants to be Genghis Khan and do it successfully. They forget that his approach involved having an even larger army than Rus did at the time. Costing him a few thousand men just meant that you got his full attention.
Yaraton wrote:
For a person whose nation suffered a genocide from US government you are surprisingly narrow minded when it comes to world politics.
You said 'you' and I corrected you. That's not being narrow minded. Because I come from a country that experienced pretty much that, I can say that Russia's actions disturb me. Right now, Joe Stalin is being called a hero in the streets of Russia and hte russian government seems ot have reached the point they're believing their own propaganda. I find that as disturbing as I would the German government hailing the accomplishments of Adolf Hitler, and building statues to him in front of the Reichstag.
Yaraton wrote:
If only Russia instead of helping US in the war with UK let the Brits to drown their colony in blood. Perhaps we wouldn't have now a terrorist-sponsoring and Fascist-supporting nation.
HUH?
I hate to point this out, but all Catherine did was refuse to join Great Britain in the war and insist on a diplomatic solution, and ignore British trade policy with the Colonies (which they had been doing before the revolution anyway). Russia remained neutral throughout the American Revolution. Now, if we were talking France, I'd cede the point, but Russia? No.
Yes, look at all those NATO bases that Sweden isn't involved in. You sure showed me the error of my ways!
Honestly, if Russia doesn't want Sweden and Finland in NATO pretending to drop nukes on us is about the stupidest possible action. It's either going to push us to get nukes of our own (highly unlikely) or into NATO (much more likely). It's a shame, I'd rather we stayed neutral, but it is increasingly becoming untenable.
Are you sure it Russia who trains it's bombers on you "pushing" you into NATO and not you and Finland who declaring an intention to join NATO which created this situation? I know, we can go around and discuss "chicken and egg" dilemma but logically, unless Putin secretly works for USA, why would be there a reason for threatening you?
Yes, look at all those NATO bases that Sweden isn't involved in. You sure showed me the error of my ways!
Honestly, if Russia doesn't want Sweden and Finland in NATO pretending to drop nukes on us is about the stupidest possible action. It's either going to push us to get nukes of our own (highly unlikely) or into NATO (much more likely). It's a shame, I'd rather we stayed neutral, but it is increasingly becoming untenable.
Are you sure it Russia who trains it's bombers on you "pushing" you into NATO and not you and Finland who declaring an intention to join NATO which created this situation? I know, we can go around and discuss "chicken and egg" dilemma but logically, unless Putin secretly works for USA, why would be there a reason for threatening you?
Could you spin harder? The merry-go-round is slowing down.
I suppose the Whisky on the Rocks incident was somehow Sweden's fault too, right? You're going to have to look rather hard and long to find anyone announcing that Sweden or Finland is (as opposed to should) seeking NATO membership due to the small fact that it hasn't happened.
You're honestly arguing that it's somehow not Russia's fault that they're practising nuclear attacks on neutral, sovereign countries. Blame the victim much?
You said 'you' and I corrected you. That's not being narrow minded. Because I come from a country that experienced pretty much that, I can say that Russia's actions disturb me. Right now, Joe Stalin is being called a hero in the streets of Russia and hte russian government seems ot have reached the point they're believing their own propaganda. I find that as disturbing as I would the German government hailing the accomplishments of Adolf Hitler, and building statues to him in front of the Reichstag.
And how is "you" living in the USA is soooo different from USA that you don't associate yourself with the country you live in even a bit? Do you have your own representation in UN? No? Why is that? Because no one likes you? Why Russia's action disturb you? Do you have a degree in political science or world history? Do you work for the US government in the Intel community and you know a lot more than an average citizen of your country who is being brainwashed every day since his/hers birth by you mass media propaganda? I'll tell you a little secret, "Joe Stalin" was a hero for Russian people all this time without dropping in popularity whatsoever. If anything still living Gorbachev and dead Yeltsin are hated so much more by the Russians that there is no even a comparison between them. Russian government is anti-Russian. It does everything to be friends with the Western "partners" (that's how Putin officially calls other leaders from the West, when Russia itself is put on the same list with Ebola and ISIS by Obama) and only sheer stupidity, ignorance and just plain bigotry by the West pushes him to incite "patriotism" of his kind. I bet you didn't know that any Russian political group that can be even closely associated with any type "supremacist" idea gets a hammer by Putin in no time, even something benign like organizing a political party to protest giving away the Russian citizenship to a herd of immigrants from the former Soviet -stans is seen by Putin and his party as "extremist". Also, comparing Hitler to Stalin and putting an equals sign between them shows how little you know about the subject you posting your opinion about.
HUH?
I hate to point this out, but all Catherine did was refuse to join Great Britain in the war and insist on a diplomatic solution, and ignore British trade policy with the Colonies (which they had been doing before the revolution anyway). Russia remained neutral throughout the American Revolution. Now, if we were talking France, I'd cede the point, but Russia? No.
I was talking about your war of 1812 and I meant Tsar Alexander I
The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?
There was a "Defense pact with Ukraine"? O_o Who the hell promised to protect that artificial conglomerate of illegally and temporary occupied Russian territories?
That reminds me, there was a defense pact once in Europe but then Czechoslovakia got divided in 1938 between Germany, Hungary and Poland. Only USSR was opposed to that when UK and France basically blackmailed Czechoslovakian government into surrender and giving up their territory. Czechoslovakia was able to get some of this territories only after WW2 when USSR crashed Germany and it's "United Europe".
The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?
There was a "Defense pact with Ukraine"? O_o Who the hell promised to protect that artificial conglomerate of illegally and temporary occupied Russian territories?
Dude, please, just stop.
Ukraine gained its independence from the USSR. You're speaking about it like it, and all the other former Soviet states should still be owned by Russia. If they're that illegitimate then sure, that'd explain the dozen wars and insurgencies the Russians have been fighting with its formed client states since the fall of the Soviet Union, at least from a Russian perspective.
Hey Canada, Britain used to own you. See all those areas where British descendants live, yeah we're taking the back over night.
There's a difference between intercepting radio signals and violating the sovereign territory of another state. I'm sure we do awful things too (and this isn't sarcasm), but Whataboutism isn't a valid excuse.
Further, Sweden hasn't ever said that we want to join NATO; we'd have joined by now if that were the case. Even if we did, there's no "right" to threaten other nations with nuclear weapons unless we're using fascism to decide what is right.
NATO in Eastern Europe is only aggressive if one assumes that Russia has a right to dictate to other nations in the region what to do and what not to do. In the Middle-east there'd be an argument for NATO aggression, but Russia's the one invading countries in Europe, not NATO.
There's certainly an argument to be made that the collapse of the USSR was handled poorly (to say the least) by "the West". There's legitimate grievances. That all goes down the drain when one starts waving nukes around and trying to bully people into obedience. Threatening people with nukes because some people on one side of a discussion have the "wrong" opinions is positively dictatorial, though.
I'll tell you a little secret, "Joe Stalin" was a hero for Russian people all this time without dropping in popularity whatsoever.
Funny, between his death and now most of his statues were torn down, and something called 'десталинизация'? Someone named Nikita Khrushchev gave a long speech about it, I seem to recall.
I bet you didn't know that any Russian political group that can be even closely associated with any type "supremacist" idea gets a hammer by Putin in no time, even something benign like organizing a political party to protest giving away the Russian citizenship to a herd of immigrants from the former Soviet -stans is seen by Putin and his party as "extremist".
Last I checked, National Bolshevik Front and the Eurasia Party are both still open for business, LPDR is still calling for a Russian version of the Reconquesta and, IIRC still holds seats in the Duma. While Slavic Union did get the hammer, that seems to have only encouraged them.
Also, comparing Hitler to Stalin and putting an equals sign between them shows how little you know about the subject you posting your opinion about.
If you want to see Iron Captain do some fancy reasoning, go to an earlier point in this thread where we discuss that. If you don't, in a nutshell, it supposedly not genocide if it's against an occupation rather than an ethnic group or religion. Personally, The only real difference I see was the Nazis sent you to a camp where you either got gassed or starved to death, and took your house and stuff. (in a hurry they shot you in a ditch) Stalin took your food and stuff, and then worked you to death at home until you starved, with the shooting in ditches and death camps reserved for people who mattered, sort of.
I was talking about your war of 1812 and I meant Tsar Alexander I
Our war of 1812 we would have been very happy to see Russia not help at all. We were on the other side, fighting against the US.
I'm not really clear what you're talking about here, since as Alexander spent most of that time period dealing with Napoleon on his doorstep, he was not in much position to aid anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yaraton wrote: That reminds me, there was a defense pact once in Europe but then Czechoslovakia got divided in 1938 between Germany, Hungary and Poland. .
We'll quietly forget about that 'Ribbentrop Pact' in Europe to divide Poland between Germany and Russia, where Russia invaded other countries in support of the Nazis
The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?
There was a "Defense pact with Ukraine"? O_o Who the hell promised to protect that artificial conglomerate of illegally and temporary occupied Russian territories?
Dude, please, just stop.
Ukraine gained its independence from the USSR. You're speaking about it like it, and all the other former Soviet states should still be owned by Russia. If they're that illegitimate then sure, that'd explain the dozen wars and insurgencies the Russians have been fighting with its formed client states since the fall of the Soviet Union, at least from a Russian perspective.
Hey Canada, Britain used to own you. See all those areas where British descendants live, yeah we're taking the back over night.
It is true that many, if not most Russians see Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire not as actual, legitimate countries. Those places have been part of Russia for centuries, and in the case of Ukraine, for pretty much forever. It is only a matter of time before Russia takes its lost territories back.
It is not really comparable to Canada and Great Britain. The situation between Canada and Britain is more comparable to the situation between Russia and Finland than to the situation between Russia and the other former Soviet Republics.
Or maybe if Russia didn't feel the need to flex it's muscles there wouldn't be talk of bolstering NATO etc etc. Especially considering NATO countries by and large were scaling back military spending.
You can bet that Russia had not planned on starting to act this soon. The public uprising in Crimea after the overthrowing of Yanukovych forced Putin's hand. The Crimeans were actually inviting Putin to come along and take over, it was an opportunity he could not refuse.
Last I checked, National Bolshevik Front and the Eurasia Party are both still open for business, LPDR is still calling for a Russian version of the Reconquesta and, IIRC still holds seats in the Duma. While Slavic Union did get the hammer, that seems to have only encouraged them.
If you want to see Iron Captain do some fancy reasoning, go to an earlier point in this thread where we discuss that. If you don't, in a nutshell, it supposedly not genocide if it's against an occupation rather than an ethnic group or religion. Personally, The only real difference I see was the Nazis sent you to a camp where you either got gassed or starved to death, and took your house and stuff. (in a hurry they shot you in a ditch) Stalin took your food and stuff, and then worked you to death at home until you starved, with the shooting in ditches and death camps reserved for people who mattered, sort of.
Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.
The very big difference is that Hitler led the country to losing the war, being dismantled and then suffering the shame of the Holocaust. Stalin, while still a monster, pretty much won the largest war in history and turned the USSR in a superpower.
And even then the views about Stalin in Russia are complicated, he is mostly used and twisted by different groups for their different agendas, even if their agendas would make Stalin's corpse rise from the grave to send the bunch of them to a gulag.
IIRC the ones that see Stalin as a hero are the Georgians.
Last I checked, National Bolshevik Front and the Eurasia Party are both still open for business, LPDR is still calling for a Russian version of the Reconquesta and, IIRC still holds seats in the Duma. While Slavic Union did get the hammer, that seems to have only encouraged them.
If you want to see Iron Captain do some fancy reasoning, go to an earlier point in this thread where we discuss that. If you don't, in a nutshell, it supposedly not genocide if it's against an occupation rather than an ethnic group or religion. Personally, The only real difference I see was the Nazis sent you to a camp where you either got gassed or starved to death, and took your house and stuff. (in a hurry they shot you in a ditch) Stalin took your food and stuff, and then worked you to death at home until you starved, with the shooting in ditches and death camps reserved for people who mattered, sort of.
Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.
Yeah, after Putin, the next two most popular political leaders in Russia are Gennady Andreyevich "let's bring back the USSR" Zyuganov and Vladimir Volfovich "let's drop nukes in the Atlantic to flood Britain" Zhirinovsky. Have your pick... Other candidates for the 2018 elections so far include: Mavrodi, a criminal known for being behind one of the world's largest pyramid schemes; Okhlobystin, a crazy Orthodox priest; Kasyanov, aka "Misha 2%", a sidelined politician widely known for being corrupt as feth and last but not least Demushkin, leader of the Slavic Union, a banned neo-nazi organisation. And some people still think fraud is the reason Putin keeps getting elected every time... If you thought that the US had crazy politicians, Russia is worse.
And even then the views about Stalin in Russia are complicated, he is mostly used and twisted by different groups for their different agendas, even if their agendas would make Stalin's corpse rise from the grave to send the bunch of them to a gulag.
IIRC the ones that see Stalin as a hero are the Georgians.
Stalin is a very complicated and sensitive issue in Russia, yes. Suffice to say that he is still hugely popular by many people.
Despite already having an embargo on Russian goods, it looks like all land routes into Europe via Russia are now being sealed up.
Article doesn't say so explicitly, but that's the routes shut via Poland (after the Russians threatened to invade them/ victim blamed them for WWII), Turkey (after the Russians allied with their enemy/ shot at them) and Ukraine (...after the Russians invaded them for overthrowing their puppet government).
Russia's Transport Ministry has ordered that Ukraine-registered trucks be stopped from entering in Russia, in response to growing efforts by protesters in Ukraine to block Russian trucks.
The ministry's order on Sunday comes as Ukrainian news media reported trucks being blocked by activists in at least 10 areas, along the borders with Belarus and Western countries.
The Ukrainian Cabinet has ordered the interior, foreign and trade ministries to develop a plan by Monday to resolve the blockages.
As tensions persist in eastern Ukraine between government forces and Russia-backed rebels, Ukraine and Russia have imposed tit-for-tat bans on food product imports on each other and cut air connections.
Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.
I like to say that the one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power.
Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.
I like to say that the one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power.
You got your quote messed up (Tyran said that, not me), but thanks anyways for your great, in-depth insight into Putin. It shows clearly that you are very knowledgeable about Russian politics.
Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.
I like to say that the one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power.
You could say the same about the majority of Western politicians too, so thats a pretty vacuous statement.
Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.
I like to say that the one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power.
You could say the same about the majority of Western politicians too, so thats a pretty vacuous statement.
It kind of illustrates the point. Some could say there's a romantic way of looking at the actions of Putin, re-asserting Russian prominence in what it considers its sphere, then there's the simple way of looking at it: he's just a politician operating under the influence of political inertia, lurching from one crisis to the next at the cost of diplomatic relations going down the tube. So far it's working _okay_ insomuch that general war hasn't really broken out from it, but you'd have a difficult time convincing me that as a result of Putin's actions Russia's strategic position has improved from 2013. Russia used to have the whole of Ukraine in its pocket, now it has an enclave and a rump state that _was_ an open air industrial museum. Putin has the Russian army flexing its muscles on a near bi-weekly basis? Well, crap, now the US moved heavy armour to the Baltics and put a huge injection of money into its European defence budget. Putin doubles down on commodities? Well, China now has Russia over the rakes on that energy deal, oil is on a downslope, and everything else that's not guns has fallen by the wayside.
As Sir Humphrey Appleby once said: "Diplomacy is about surviving into the next century; politics is about surviving into next week!"
Aaand... anyone what to bet that the US or other NATO nations would come to Turkey's defense?
The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?
There's some other pact than the infamous article #5 of NATO that doesnt' actually quarantee any military aid as markedly demonstrated by USA themselves not trying to utilize that clause?
(That article cracks me up. Pro-NATO guys in Finland are always trying to use that as justification that Finland would be soooo much safer under NATO. Well no...That article might grant you moral support in form of "boo you are evil! Don't invade" sent to any attackers but that's about all it actually quarantees. Anybody expecting military aid from NATO just like that is optimistic to extreme. They only give if they feel it's to their advantage. Legally there's no requirement for them to do that)
Aaand... anyone what to bet that the US or other NATO nations would come to Turkey's defense?
The same countries which ignored their defense pacts with Ukraine you mean?
There's some other pact than the infamous article #5 of NATO that doesnt' actually quarantee any military aid as markedly demonstrated by USA themselves not trying to utilize that clause?
(That article cracks me up. Pro-NATO guys in Finland are always trying to use that as justification that Finland would be soooo much safer under NATO. Well no...That article might grant you moral support in form of "boo you are evil! Don't invade" sent to any attackers but that's about all it actually quarantees. Anybody expecting military aid from NATO just like that is optimistic to extreme. They only give if they feel it's to their advantage. Legally there's no requirement for them to do that)
Well specifically there was a pact signed in 1994 regarding were Ukraine to be invaded, though yes the language is very wishy washy (and I'm not sure the intent was for one of the parties signed up to the defend the country to be invader):
6. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.
Russia's domestic politic is kinda scary when you realize that Putin is as moderate as they can get, and there are factions that call him a puppet of the West.
I like to say that the one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power.
You could say the same about the majority of Western politicians too, so thats a pretty vacuous statement.
It kind of illustrates the point. Some could say there's a romantic way of looking at the actions of Putin, re-asserting Russian prominence in what it considers its sphere, then there's the simple way of looking at it: he's just a politician operating under the influence of political inertia, lurching from one crisis to the next at the cost of diplomatic relations going down the tube.
That is simply not true, and again a very vacuous statement. You could describe the actions of virtually any politician in that way.
Agiel wrote: So far it's working _okay_ insomuch that general war hasn't really broken out from it, but you'd have a difficult time convincing me that as a result of Putin's actions Russia's strategic position has improved from 2013.
It has. Russia has regained control over Crimea, which is extremely important. Russia has secured Ukraine as a buffer state, and ensured that it can never move to the West unless it is prepared to ditch the eastern part of the country. Russia has ensured that its ally Assad will prevail in Syria. The European Union is starting to show some pretty major cracks, allowing Russia to make even more political inroads in Europe. It should not be surprising that Russia is a major funder of eurosceptic parties all over Europe. The Russian army has been further modernised since 2013. Russia has shown the entire world that it is still a power to be reckoned with and that its demands and interests should not be ignored. But most importantly, Russia has shown to the West that Russia is willing to do everything if neccessary to secure its interests, including war.
Agiel wrote: Well, crap, now the US moved heavy armour to the Baltics and put a huge injection of money into its European defence budget.
Oh wow. A few little tanks. That is cute. Maybe if you'd sent a thousand more, we'd become slightly worried. Russia has 22417 tanks, the US only 9125. Send more ships and aircraft, you can't scare Russia with tanks.
Agiel wrote: Well, China now has Russia over the rakes on that energy deal, oil is on a downslope, and everything else that's not guns has fallen by the wayside.
That is something that would have happened anyway, and the economy is still a lot better than it was in 2009, let alone 1998.
Agiel wrote: As Sir Humphrey Appleby once said: "Diplomacy is about surviving into the next century; politics is about surviving into next week!"
Russia has survived for over a millenium, I am sure we can survive into the next century...
You could say the same about the majority of Western politicians too, so thats a pretty vacuous statement.
Putin, though, is the only leader who recently militarily invaded another country and still occupies it.
So? Thats a non-sequitor.
The statement I was responding to was "The one thing you can count on Putin being is pro-staying in power". Which is true of almost all politicians barring the ones who are planning to retire and make a fortune on the speaking circuits (I'm looking at you, Tony Blair ). I said nothing about invasions.
With forever I meant the foreseeable future. Crimea is firmly in Russia's grasp and has no reason to return to Ukraine.
True, but if there's anything that history teaches us, it is that eventually there's a reason. One thing governments are more interested even than taxs is their own survival, as an example. But whatever they think they'll have to gain, suddenly the level of 'Russian'ness the people of the Crimea possess will be insufficient.
With forever I meant the foreseeable future. Crimea is firmly in Russia's grasp and has no reason to return to Ukraine.
True, but if there's anything that history teaches us, it is that eventually there's a reason. One thing governments are more interested even than taxs is their own survival, as an example. But whatever they think they'll have to gain, suddenly the level of 'Russian'ness the people of the Crimea possess will be insufficient.
Survival is a more immediate concern for Ukraine, as it is the one that is actually collapsing.
With forever I meant the foreseeable future. Crimea is firmly in Russia's grasp and has no reason to return to Ukraine.
True, but if there's anything that history teaches us, it is that eventually there's a reason. One thing governments are more interested even than taxs is their own survival, as an example. But whatever they think they'll have to gain, suddenly the level of 'Russian'ness the people of the Crimea possess will be insufficient.
I hope you are not questioning the patriotism of us Crimeans?
Regardless, governments may come and go, but Russia remains Russia. And Russia will never give up Crimea. Crimea is sacred ground. Or to quote V.V. Putin: "And this gives us every reason to say that to Russia Crimea, ancient Korsun, Chersonesus, Sevastopol have huge civilisational and even sacred significance. Just like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for those who believe in Islam or Judaism. Exactly so is the way we are going to treat this now and forever" Crimea has been Russian for centuries, and it will remain Russian for the next centuries too, if not more.
You said 'you' and I corrected you. That's not being narrow minded. Because I come from a country that experienced pretty much that, I can say that Russia's actions disturb me. Right now, Joe Stalin is being called a hero in the streets of Russia and hte russian government seems ot have reached the point they're believing their own propaganda. I find that as disturbing as I would the German government hailing the accomplishments of Adolf Hitler, and building statues to him in front of the Reichstag.
No that comes after re-releasing Mein Kampf, in Germany, which can't happen because it's illegal. Oh wait it is legal now, isn't it.
Yaraton wrote:
If only Russia instead of helping US in the war with UK let the Brits to drown their colony in blood. Perhaps we wouldn't have now a terrorist-sponsoring and Fascist-supporting nation.
No that comes after re-releasing Mein Kampf, in Germany, which can't happen because it's illegal. Oh wait it is legal now, isn't it.
No, it actually still isn't. It's just in public domain. Reprinting it without the extensive annotations about how bad, bad, bad, and poorly written it is, is considered publishing hate material.
*points to his 'location'* Because this ISP routes my traffic through the US, I get a little US flag on this board.
So because no one knows where you from you can offend people anyway you want and no one cat tell you to go pound sand? That's cute.
Actually we do, but we are not, as of yet, a member state.
Let me know when you become a recognizable sovereign state so we could compare your history and culture throughout the ages and the Russian.
Funny, between his death and now most of his statues were torn down, and something called 'десталинизация'? Someone named Nikita Khrushchev gave a long speech about it, I seem to recall.
Funny that you equal former Soviet government and Soviet people. In some parts of the world it's called "bigotry". You wouldn't be the one who thinks that all Germans are still in love with Hitler, wouldn't you?
Last I checked, National Bolshevik Front and the Eurasia Party are both still open for business, LPDR is still calling for a Russian version of the Reconquesta and, IIRC still holds seats in the Duma. While Slavic Union did get the hammer, that seems to have only encouraged them.
You should check more often. " National Bolshevik Front" doesn't exist anymore, or rather it changed the name and officially re-designed their ideology so they wouldn't get banned. I've never heard of "Eurasia Party". The quick search shows:
The Eurasia Party is based on the following five principles:
It is a geopolitical party of the patriots of Russia, of the étatists.
It is a social party, believing that the development of the market must serve the national interest. Interests of the state are in command and administrative resources must be de-privatized.
It is a traditionalist-communist party, founded on a system of bolshevik values elaborated by the traditional Eurasian confessions – Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism.[1] The Church is separated from the State in some degree from the society, culture, education, and information, and it is controlled by the state.
It is a national party. In it the representatives of the national movements – first of all, Russian but also Tatar, Yakut, Tuva, Chechen, Kalmyk, Ingush, and all the rest – can find a way to express their political and cultural aspirations.
It is a regional party. The rectification and salvation of Russia will come from the regions, where the people have saved their communist roots, the sentiment of the past, and family values.
Are you sure you are qualified to talk about what is an "extremist" political view? LDPR are just Putin's pocket "nationalists", who yup about anything all the time but always vote exactly like the ruling "United Russia" party. Again, it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you want to see Iron Captain do some fancy reasoning, go to an earlier point in this thread where we discuss that. If you don't, in a nutshell, it supposedly not genocide if it's against an occupation rather than an ethnic group or religion. Personally, The only real difference I see was the Nazis sent you to a camp where you either got gassed or starved to death, and took your house and stuff. (in a hurry they shot you in a ditch) Stalin took your food and stuff, and then worked you to death at home until you starved, with the shooting in ditches and death camps reserved for people who mattered, sort of.
I have no desire to read 160 pages of Russiphobic crap. As for Stalin, I am not a big fan of his ideology or methods but we have to compare them to what was around the Globe at that time. USA imprisoned it's Japanese-Americans and took away their properties during WW2. Want to cry me a river?
Our war of 1812 we would have been very happy to see Russia not help at all. We were on the other side, fighting against the US.
I'm not really clear what you're talking about here, since as Alexander spent most of that time period dealing with Napoleon on his doorstep, he was not in much position to aid anyone.
Since I have no idea of your nationality I have no further plans to discuss who helped whom and when.
As for Alexander I, he beat Napoleon right back to France. You should read about it.
We'll quietly forget about that 'Ribbentrop Pact' in Europe to divide Poland between Germany and Russia, where Russia invaded other countries in support of the Nazis
Considering that 'Ribbentrop Pact' has happened a year after Poland itself participated happily in the dividing of another European country with the Nazis, I'd say it got what it deserved.
Pure semantics. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now?
No, not at all. It's quite an important distinction, in fact. Now I'm not defending the Iraq war, I think it was a terrible, terrible idea, and that the Bush admin. had no right to do that. But surely you can see the difference between the actions of a past administration 13 years ago and the current admin, who's entire plan was to just get out of there. And then compare it to the same leader's administration who did this a little under 2 years ago, and is still maintaining it as the right thing and not backing down. Not only that, the difference between then getting out of a country and getting it to be self governing, and annexing it.
The action taken in Iraq by the Bush Administration were wrong, and should never have been taken, but to suggest they are the same as the actions currently being taken in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea by the Putin Administration is wrong. They are both bad actions, but they are not the same, nor are they equally bad.
I have no desire to read 160 pages of Russiphobic crap. As for Stalin, I am not a big fan of his ideology or methods but we have to compare them to what was around the Globe at that time. USA imprisoned it's Japanese-Americans and took away their properties during WW2. Want to cry me a river?
I'm not sure whether to laugh at your ignorance (it's not 160 pages of Russiophobia, though Iron Cap and I debate at length at one point the origins of the Crimean tartars and play an interesting game of 'name this tank monument') and frankly, whataboutism is not a defense. It hasn't been since Nuremberg.
Considering that 'Ribbentrop Pact' has happened a year after Poland itself participated happily in the dividing of another European country with the Nazis, I'd say it got what it deserved.
I can't say I recall hearing about the Poles doing mass executions of captured Czech prisoners. You'll have to point me to their mass graves so that we can all see how the Poles 'deserved it'.
Pure semantics. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now?
No, not at all. It's quite an important distinction, in fact. Now I'm not defending the Iraq war, I think it was a terrible, terrible idea, and that the Bush admin. had no right to do that. But surely you can see the difference between the actions of a past administration 13 years ago and the current admin, who's entire plan was to just get out of there. And then compare it to the same leader's administration who did this a little under 2 years ago, and is still maintaining it as the right thing and not backing down. Not only that, the difference between then getting out of a country and getting it to be self governing, and annexing it.
The action taken in Iraq by the Bush Administration were wrong, and should never have been taken, but to suggest they are the same as the actions currently being taken in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea by the Putin Administration is wrong. They are both bad actions, but they are not the same, nor are they equally bad.
Here is difference between me and you: I don't use the noun "annexation" to what has happened with Crimea in 2014. Crimea was illegally transferred to so-called "Ukraine" from Russia and therefore it was illegally and temporary occupied by "Ukraine" for 60 years. The population of Crime never wanted to be part of Ukraine and when the neo-Nazi Junta got power in Kiev it had a referendum where the people of Crimea in majority decided to succeed from Bandera-lovers and join Russia.
There plenty of examples throughout the history when countries occupy illegally the territories that don't belong to them like Tibet in China but saying that "Putin, though, is the only leader who recently militarily invaded another country and still occupies it." is pure demagoguery.
Yaraton wrote: Crimea was illegally transferred to so-called "Ukraine" from Russia and therefore it was illegally and temporary occupied by "Ukraine" for 60 years.
I'm curious how you think the transfer was illegal. By my understanding of the governments at the time, it was very much a legal act.
You *are* aware that governments can transfer territory between one another legally, correct? As in without a war going on or the consent of the local people. Or are you proposing that Canada and the US are also illegally occupying Russian territory?
The population of Crimea never wanted to be part of Ukraine and when the neo-Nazi Junta got power in Kiev it had a referendum where the people of Crimea in majority decided to succeed from Bandera-lovers and join Russia.
So many loaded words here.
I'll raise one objection to the referendum: due to the less than massive turnout and the fact that the choices offered on the referendum were basically 'Yes, Russia NOW' or 'Yes, Russia later'. Where's the 'Crimea for Crimeans' option? If what you're saying is true, logically that would have been the first thing people thought of. Yet, it's no where to be seen.
That's why I look on it dubiously. A natural revolution, even one with an aim of joining another country, always has a sort of interim state. The only time I've seen where it devolved to another country this fast before was when the choices were 'Yes, Germany' and 'Yes, Czechoslovakia'. .
Yaraton wrote: Here is difference between me and you: I don't use the noun "annexation" to what has happened with Crimea in 2014.
Well, Annexation is an accurate term for what happened. There's no such thing as an 'illegal' annexation. Annexation isn't a matter of legality. It's a matter of international recognition (when talking about international law that is).
Crimea was illegally transferred to so-called "Ukraine" from Russia and therefore it was illegally and temporary occupied by "Ukraine" for 60 years.
That's kind of what annexation is, minus the illegally part (in so far as 'annexation' has nothing to do with legalities). Also, the 1954 transfer of the Crimea to Soviet Ukraine was done by the Supreme Soviet, so Russia gave it to them, unless we're now going to pretend the Soviet Union wasn't a mechanism of Russian hegemony/imperialism throughout most of the 20th century. It doesn't strike you as a bit dishonest to twist an event into being Ukraine's fault when that event was little more than a ploy by the USSR to enhance its control over it's puppet states in the aftermath of WWII and the growing tensions of the cold war? Sure no one in Crimea was really asked if they wanted to be part of Ukraine, but no one in Ukraine was really asked either. The Soviet Union wasn't a state known for giving a damn what the people willed.
Actually quite a few do, and they even post on this forum. Both the 'knowing where I'm from' part and the 'telling me to pound sand'.
Good for you! I should also start telling people that I ma not a Canadian but "Haudenosaunee". Who the hell will ever be able to check that but it makes a nice trolling tactic.
We are a recognized sovereign state. By act of the US Congress no less.
Well why didn't you say that right away? So when do you think you will have an embassy open... anywhere outside of US?
I'm not sure whether to laugh at your ignorance (it's not 160 pages of Russiophobia, though Iron Cap and I debate at length at one point the origins of the Crimean tartars and play an interesting game of 'name this tank monument') and frankly, whataboutism is not a defense. It hasn't been since Nuremberg.
"Laughter is the Best Medicine." so go ahead. I've actually red the first 4 pages in this topic and decided that my psychological well-being is more important to me than going through every page and flagging people for Russophobia and bigotry.
I can't say I recall hearing about the Poles doing mass executions of captured Czech prisoners. You'll have to point me to their mass graves so that we can all see how the Poles 'deserved it'.
I've a brief discussion with Czechs about this period on YouTube. Apparently Poles are guilty of executing some injured Czech military personal in one of the clinics on the Czech territory they've occupied after the "Munich Agreement". I couldn't verified it though because I don't speak Czech and therefore my search capabilities are only limited to English language in this case. I, however, am aware of the crimes committed against the Soviet POWs by the Poles in 1920 when tens of thousands of Soviet POWs have died from starvation and illnesses inside the Polish concentration camps. Also I find it ironic how the propaganda myth created by Dr. Dr. Goebbels and Gestapo are very much alive today.
Oh yes because russia wouldn't lie at all and inflate numbers at all . Or the fact that nearly the same number of Polish fighters died in soviet camps but don't let that stop you from defending russia's perfectly clean record.
I've a brief discussion with Czechs about this period on YouTube. Apparently Poles are guilty of executing some injured Czech military personal in one of the clinics on the Czech territory they've occupied after the "Munich Agreement". I couldn't verified it though because I don't speak Czech and therefore my search capabilities are only limited to English language in this case. I, however, am aware of the crimes committed against the Soviet POWs by the Poles in 1920 when tens of thousands of Soviet POWs have died from starvation and illnesses inside the Polish concentration camps. Also I find it ironic how the propaganda myth created by Dr. Dr. Goebbels and Gestapo are very much alive today.
This is where reading the entire thread would have been useful cause this has already been gone over.
Poland was a complete mess after WWI. As to the Russian (not Soviet quite yet) POWs, the issue was that Poland had no idea what to do with them. The Russian Empire dissolved in 1917, and no one knew what to do with POWs of a state that no longer existed and whose territory was actively embroiled in civil war and political upheaval. Throw in that tens of thousands of Poles were starving from famine and dying of illness, is it really surprising that the POWs no one knew what to do with died too? Not to mention that in 1919, the Polish-Soviet War began and Poland wasn't going to release POWs who could end up on the other side. Plus the Russian POWs were not entirely willing to go back to Russia, especially the officers and nobles, whose families were not fairing well in the new Bolshevik led state. And of course, Polish state in the 20s and 30s was one of the most inequitable states of the time. People talk about modern wealth inequality, Poland was a state where 1% of the population pretty much held everyone else in virtual slavery! My basic point is, the Second Polish Republic was a pretty gakky state for everyone to be in (except for those guys who owned all the land). Talking about that like it's something to hold against Poland now is rather pointless.
I have no idea how the hell Poles would execute injured Czech military personal on Czech territory after the Munich Agreement. That makes no sense what so ever and would be a serious case of weird history if true, but I'm not sure I'm gonna trust YouTube comments as a source for anything. If they told me 2 + 2 = 4, I'd take out a calculator just to be sure
Well, Annexation is an accurate term for what happened. There's no such thing as an 'illegal' annexation. Annexation isn't a matter of legality. It's a matter of international recognition (when talking about international law that is).
So "Ukraine" annexed Crimea in 1954?
That's kind of what annexation is, minus the illegally part (in so far as 'annexation' has nothing to do with legalities). Also, the 1954 transfer of the Crimea to Soviet Ukraine was done by the Supreme Soviet, so Russia gave it to them, unless we're now going to pretend the Soviet Union wasn't a mechanism of Russian hegemony/imperialism throughout most of the 20th century.
Nope, it wasn't "Russia" who gave it to "Ukraine", it was the Soviet leader - "First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who did it. As for "Russian hegemony/imperialism" and Soviet Union being a "mechanism" for it, I would have to point out that Stalin pretty much decimated the ethnic Russian population when it was creating "the Soviet man".
It doesn't strike you as a bit dishonest to twist an event into being Ukraine's fault when that event was little more than a ploy by the USSR to enhance its control over it's puppet states in the aftermath of WWII and the growing tensions of the cold war? Sure no one in Crimea was really asked if they wanted to be part of Ukraine, but no one in Ukraine was really asked either. The Soviet Union wasn't a state known for giving a damn what the people willed
I never said it was "Ukraine's fault" but that most of the territories it has the control now, including Crimea, weren't Ukrainian to begin with and that Ukraine got it either from Russian Tsars or Communist leaders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Oh yes because russia wouldn't lie at all and inflate numbers at all . Or the fact that nearly the same number of Polish fighters died in soviet camps but don't let that stop you from defending russia's perfectly clean record.
The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated at between 80,000 and 85,000, and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matveyev). Existing documents and proofs does not also confirm thesis made by many Russian historians that Russian POWs were specially exterminated in Polish camps because of their nationality, religion or other issues.[1][8] They also show that the main cause of death were various illnesses and epidemics (influenza, typhus, cholera and dysentery), noting that these diseases also took a heavy toll among fighting soldiers and the civilian population.
Well as a russian I am sure you are aware of Kievan rus correct? Then I am sure you know that at its height it was most of current ukraine, parts of crimea, and most of european russia correct? So in reality they were just giving back territory that was historically part of ukraine (since you know that seems to matter a lot to you).
Well, Annexation is an accurate term for what happened. There's no such thing as an 'illegal' annexation. Annexation isn't a matter of legality. It's a matter of international recognition (when talking about international law that is).
So "Ukraine" annexed Crimea in 1954?
That's kind of what annexation is, minus the illegally part (in so far as 'annexation' has nothing to do with legalities). Also, the 1954 transfer of the Crimea to Soviet Ukraine was done by the Supreme Soviet, so Russia gave it to them, unless we're now going to pretend the Soviet Union wasn't a mechanism of Russian hegemony/imperialism throughout most of the 20th century.
Nope, it wasn't "Russia" who gave it to "Ukraine", it was the Soviet leader - "First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who did it. As for "Russian hegemony/imperialism" and Soviet Union being a "mechanism" for it, I would have to point out that Stalin pretty much decimated the ethnic Russian population when it was creating "the Soviet man".
It doesn't strike you as a bit dishonest to twist an event into being Ukraine's fault when that event was little more than a ploy by the USSR to enhance its control over it's puppet states in the aftermath of WWII and the growing tensions of the cold war? Sure no one in Crimea was really asked if they wanted to be part of Ukraine, but no one in Ukraine was really asked either. The Soviet Union wasn't a state known for giving a damn what the people willed
I never said it was "Ukraine's fault" but that most of the territories it has the control now, including Crimea, weren't Ukrainian to begin with and that Ukraine got it either from Russian Tsars or Communist leaders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Oh yes because russia wouldn't lie at all and inflate numbers at all . Or the fact that nearly the same number of Polish fighters died in soviet camps but don't let that stop you from defending russia's perfectly clean record.
The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated at between 80,000 and 85,000, and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matveyev). Existing documents and proofs does not also confirm thesis made by many Russian historians that Russian POWs were specially exterminated in Polish camps because of their nationality, religion or other issues.[1][8] They also show that the main cause of death were various illnesses and epidemics (influenza, typhus, cholera and dysentery), noting that these diseases also took a heavy toll among fighting soldiers and the civilian population.
You may want to start taking something medicinal to combat that Russophobia of yours.
Well since you also failed to link that russia had more Polish prisoners die under their care than the number of russians that were thought to have died.
This is where reading the entire thread would have been useful cause this has already been gone over.
Poland was a complete mess after WWI. As to the Russian (not Soviet quite yet) POWs, the issue was that Poland had no idea what to do with them. The Russian Empire dissolved in 1917, and no one knew what to do with POWs of a state that no longer existed and whose territory was actively embroiled in civil war and political upheaval. Throw in that tens of thousands of Poles were starving from famine and dying of illness, is it really surprising that the POWs no one knew what to do with died too? Not to mention that in 1919, the Polish-Soviet War began and Poland wasn't going to release POWs who could end up on the other side. Plus the Russian POWs were not entirely willing to go back to Russia, especially the officers and nobles, whose families were not fairing well in the new Bolshevik led state. And of course, Polish state in the 20s and 30s was one of the most inequitable states of the time. People talk about modern wealth inequality, Poland was a state where 1% of the population pretty much held everyone else in virtual slavery! My basic point is, the Second Polish Republic was a pretty gakky state for everyone to be in (except for those guys who owned all the land). Talking about that like it's something to hold against Poland now is rather pointless.
But it did happened, didn't it?
I have no idea how the hell Poles would execute injured Czech military personal on Czech territory after the Munich Agreement. That makes no sense what so ever and would be a serious case of weird history if true, but I'm not sure I'm gonna trust YouTube comments as a source for anything. If they told me 2 + 2 = 4, I'd take out a calculator just to be sure
If we had any Czechs on this forum it could've been easily verified. I am not saying that something like this happened, only that I was told it did.
Did Crimea change sovereignty to Ukraine in 1954? Yes? That's all annexation is. The transfer of territory from one political entity to another. While it does carry a negative connotation (usually such that the annexing state is treated as an aggressor), that's not really part of the definition of the term.
Nope, it wasn't "Russia" who gave it to "Ukraine", it was the Soviet leader - "First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who did it.
That hair is very nicely split.
As for "Russian hegemony/imperialism" and Soviet Union being a "mechanism" for it, I would have to point out that Stalin pretty much decimated the ethnic Russian population when it was creating "the Soviet man".
Yeah. Stalin was kind of a dick to everyone. Not really surprising the USSR wanted to tone down the guy's legacy after he died. Doesn't really change that the USSR was effectively a mechanism of Russian hegemony/empire throughout the 20th century.
I never said it was "Ukraine's fault" but that most of the territories it has the control now, including Crimea, weren't Ukrainian to begin with and that Ukraine got it either from Russian Tsars or Communist leaders.
So... Just like every other state that exists, and ever will exist, Ukraine came into existence by incorporating territories from other states. I'm not sure that makes a case for anything, let alone territorial rights to Crimea.
Ustrello wrote: Well as a russian I am sure you are aware of Kievan rus correct? Then I am sure you know that at its height it was most of current ukraine, parts of crimea, and most of european russia correct? So in reality they were just giving back territory that was historically part of ukraine (since you know that seems to matter a lot to you).
Well, Annexation is an accurate term for what happened. There's no such thing as an 'illegal' annexation. Annexation isn't a matter of legality. It's a matter of international recognition (when talking about international law that is).
So "Ukraine" annexed Crimea in 1954?
That's kind of what annexation is, minus the illegally part (in so far as 'annexation' has nothing to do with legalities). Also, the 1954 transfer of the Crimea to Soviet Ukraine was done by the Supreme Soviet, so Russia gave it to them, unless we're now going to pretend the Soviet Union wasn't a mechanism of Russian hegemony/imperialism throughout most of the 20th century.
Nope, it wasn't "Russia" who gave it to "Ukraine", it was the Soviet leader - "First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who did it. As for "Russian hegemony/imperialism" and Soviet Union being a "mechanism" for it, I would have to point out that Stalin pretty much decimated the ethnic Russian population when it was creating "the Soviet man".
It doesn't strike you as a bit dishonest to twist an event into being Ukraine's fault when that event was little more than a ploy by the USSR to enhance its control over it's puppet states in the aftermath of WWII and the growing tensions of the cold war? Sure no one in Crimea was really asked if they wanted to be part of Ukraine, but no one in Ukraine was really asked either. The Soviet Union wasn't a state known for giving a damn what the people willed
I never said it was "Ukraine's fault" but that most of the territories it has the control now, including Crimea, weren't Ukrainian to begin with and that Ukraine got it either from Russian Tsars or Communist leaders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Oh yes because russia wouldn't lie at all and inflate numbers at all . Or the fact that nearly the same number of Polish fighters died in soviet camps but don't let that stop you from defending russia's perfectly clean record.
The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated at between 80,000 and 85,000, and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matveyev). Existing documents and proofs does not also confirm thesis made by many Russian historians that Russian POWs were specially exterminated in Polish camps because of their nationality, religion or other issues.[1][8] They also show that the main cause of death were various illnesses and epidemics (influenza, typhus, cholera and dysentery), noting that these diseases also took a heavy toll among fighting soldiers and the civilian population.
You may want to start taking something medicinal to combat that Russophobia of yours.
Well since you also failed to link that russia had more Polish prisoners die under their care than the number of russians that were thought to have died.
And no, Kievan Rus not equals "Ukrainian". "Ukranians" are an artificial nation, created in the beginning of the 19th century, before that people who were living on that territory were called "malorus" and "ukranian" was derogatory term, created in Poland. The "cultural "aspect of the newly created nation was largely borrowed form the Kingdom of Dalmatia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia which was a part of Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Yaraton wrote: "Ukranians" are an artificial nation, created in the beginning of the 19th century,
By that logic, all nations are artificial, which is decent logic given that 'nation' is nothing more than a social construct that exists solely because people proclaim it to exist and other people recognize their proclamation.
I've a brief discussion with Czechs about this period on YouTube. Apparently Poles are guilty of executing some injured Czech military personal in one of the clinics on the Czech territory they've occupied after the "Munich Agreement". I couldn't verified it though because I don't speak Czech and therefore my search capabilities are only limited to English language in this case. I, however, am aware of the crimes committed against the Soviet POWs by the Poles in 1920 when tens of thousands of Soviet POWs have died from starvation and illnesses inside the Polish concentration camps. Also I find it ironic how the propaganda myth created by Dr. Dr. Goebbels and Gestapo are very much alive today.
Hold on a second, first you're basing your argument with 'I met these guys posting comments on YouTube' and then you're denying the Katyn massacre took place?
One: Poland did not occupy any areas of Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement. Hungary did annex the area that is now in the Ukraine. Some Poles did cross over the boarder and join the Sich, an insurgent force opposing the annexation (Which made the whole thing a bit surreal, as both the annexation and the resistance to it were both backed by the Germans). Polish members captured by the Hungarians were turned back over to the Poles for illegal boarder crossing. Some have stated that Polish soldiers did shoot some of these people, though the numbers are unlikely, considering the Sich at best could field about 2k men, so the idea of 500 them being shot by the Poles seems a bit unlikely, and there's never been any direct evidence found.
Two: During the Polish-Soviet war both sides committed horrors against their POWs. The Poles killed or allowed to die about 1/4th of the prisoners (around 16-20k). The Soviets about half (of 50k POWs). I could show a picture of what the Soviets were doing to amuse themselves with the Polish POWs, but the mods here would freak out. They tend to oppose photos of men with rods rammed up their ass while hung from a tree with ropes.
Three: the finding of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Soviet Union in 1990 was that yes, the Katyn massacre took place much as the Germans described it, and some things the Germans didn't even know went on on top that, and it had been ordered by Stalin. The victims, according to declassified Soviet documents, consisted of an admiral, two generals, 24 colonels, 79 lieutenant colonels, 258 majors, 654 captains, 17 naval captains, 3,420 non-commissioned officers, seven chaplains, three landowners, a prince, 43 officials, 85 privates, 131 refugees, 20 university professors, 300 physicians; several hundred lawyers, engineers, and teachers; and more than 100 writers and journalists as well as about 200 pilots.
I'm curious how the 300 physicians 'deserved' to be executed in a forest on the 3rd of April 1940. How did those teachers and engineers warrant a bullet in the head? You're quick to justify horror Yaraton, or try and excuse it by claiming that others did worse. What's your answer to this?
BaronIveagh wrote: One: Poland did not occupy any areas of Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement.
I did check this one Baron and there is actually a small area of Czechoslovakia annexed by Poland in the wake of the German Annexation. However there was no fighting, so I'm not sure how the Poles could execute soldiers at a medical center. Still not going to discount it could have happened, but I've seen nothing that says that particular event did happen.
Did Crimea change sovereignty to Ukraine in 1954? Yes? That's all annexation is. The transfer of territory from one political entity to another. While it does carry a negative connotation (usually such that the annexing state is treated as an aggressor), that's not really part of the definition of the term.
Great! So now every time "annexation by Russia" is mentioned I will adding "annexation by Ukraine".
That hair is very nicely split.
Of course it is. If one can argue that it's Bush's personal fault for Iraq occupation but not America's, the same thing can apply to Russia.
Yeah. Stalin was kind of a dick to everyone. Not really surprising the USSR wanted to tone down the guy's legacy after he died. Doesn't really change that the USSR was effectively a mechanism of Russian hegemony/empire throughout the 20th century.
You are lucky Trotsky got an ice-axe in the head, he was really into the Communist World Revolution. Stalin was just "power projecting" in the modern terms.
So... Just like every other state that exists, and ever will exist, Ukraine came into existence by incorporating territories from other states. I'm not sure that makes a case for anything, let alone territorial rights to Crimea.
Ah... no. "Ukraine" as an entity didn't not exist until 1991 and all it's territorial gains were done by somebody else for it.
Case in point - India and Pakistan. Both modern countries were a UK colony until the British decided to pull out and split it into two parts. It doesn't mean that this countries don't exist, it means they were created by somebody else.
By that logic, all nations are artificial, which is decent logic given that 'nation' is nothing more than a social construct that exists solely because people proclaim it to exist and other people recognize their proclamation.
Would you consider Scottish people and Irish people the same nation if they live together inside UK?
Of course it is. If one can argue that it's Bush's personal fault for Iraq occupation but not America's, the same thing can apply to Russia.
I've made no such claim and never would, because such a claim is BS.
Ah... no. "Ukraine" as an entity didn't not exist until 1991 and all it's territorial gains were done by somebody else for it.
Ukraine as an identifiable region has existed since.at least the 19th century (arguably older, given that 'the Ukraine' basically means 'the borderlands'). As a nationality it has most certainly existed since the 18th century thanks to Taras Shevchenko, and arguably even older than that in Ukrainian nationalism is taken as an offshoot of Cossack nationalism. Ukraine first attempted to declare independence in 1917, then comes some civil war, some political stuff, and then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the USSR. So no. Ukraine an an entity has existed for at the very least 200+ years, and as a political entity it is one year off from it's 100th birthday.
Case in point - India and Pakistan. Both modern countries were a UK colony until the British decided to pull out and split it into two parts. It doesn't mean that this countries don't exist, it means they were created by somebody else.
Yet no one would ever proclaim India did not exist until 1947/1950, because that would be silly. India as a distinct political entity has existed for hundreds of years. So has China. Or England. Or France. Or Greece. Comparatively, Ukraine is pretty young, but that's not really relevant to anything.
Would you consider Scottish people and Irish people the same nation if they live together inside UK?
No. But then, United Kingdomian is not a nationality. British is, but I'm not sure how many Irish or Scottish would identify themselves as British. I've always been kind of fuzzy on that. Of course, now we're getting to that area where Ethnic and National identities start blurring. EDIT: And of course the question of how many identities can a single person hold at the same time.
We have at the one in China that I know of, considering China lent us half a billion dollars (Yes, we even have a national debt).
Holy cow the things you learn on a miniature gaming website. Well, my warmest congratulations! Any plans to stop paying taxes to US any time soon and to start repaying China?
Hold on a second, first you're basing your argument with 'I met these guys posting comments on YouTube' and then you're denying the Katyn massacre took place?
You mean Nazis shooting polish POWs and presenting it to the World as "Soviet war crimes? Sure. Kinda sad that the Western World is so Russophobic they would believe the exact enemies they are fighting against, never mind the Cold War propaganda.
One: Poland did not occupy any areas of Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement. Hungary did annex the area that is now in the Ukraine. Some Poles did cross over the boarder and join the Sich, an insurgent force opposing the annexation (Which made the whole thing a bit surreal, as both the annexation and the resistance to it were both backed by the Germans). Polish members captured by the Hungarians were turned back over to the Poles for illegal boarder crossing. Some have stated that Polish soldiers did shoot some of these people, though the numbers are unlikely, considering the Sich at best could field about 2k men, so the idea of 500 them being shot by the Poles seems a bit unlikely, and there's never been any direct evidence found.
Two: During the Polish-Soviet war both sides committed horrors against their POWs. The Poles killed or allowed to die about 1/4th of the prisoners (around 16-20k). The Soviets about half (of 50k POWs). I could show a picture of what the Soviets were doing to amuse themselves with the Polish POWs, but the mods here would freak out. They tend to oppose photos of men with rods rammed up their ass while hung from a tree with ropes.
I really hate to repeat myself, especially when I am so right.
The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated at between 80,000 and 85,000, and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matveyev). Existing documents and proofs does not also confirm thesis made by many Russian historians that Russian POWs were specially exterminated in Polish camps because of their nationality, religion or other issues. They also show that the main cause of death were various illnesses and epidemics (influenza, typhus, cholera and dysentery), noting that these diseases also took a heavy toll among fighting soldiers and the civilian population.
As for the pictures, I can find pictures of Soviet POWs in the polish prison camps. Not a Disneyland either. I bet you would like them.
Three: the finding of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Soviet Union in 1990 was that yes, the Katyn massacre took place much as the Germans described it, and some things the Germans didn't even know went on on top that, and it had been ordered by Stalin. The victims, according to declassified Soviet documents, consisted of an admiral, two generals, 24 colonels, 79 lieutenant colonels, 258 majors, 654 captains, 17 naval captains, 3,420 non-commissioned officers, seven chaplains, three landowners, a prince, 43 officials, 85 privates, 131 refugees, 20 university professors, 300 physicians; several hundred lawyers, engineers, and teachers; and more than 100 writers and journalists as well as about 200 pilots.
Sure, sure. "Accidentally" at the same time Russia needed an approval from poland to build the "Nord Stream" so I wouldn't put too much faith into what the Russian Government gave away to get the permission. The rumor says, after polish investigative authorities went through those "documents" they've been "lost". Besides, Putin is a piece of something and he indeed would say anything to please his Western "partners" even if it comes to dishonor the history of it's own country.
I'm curious how the 300 physicians 'deserved' to be executed in a forest on the 3rd of April 1940. How did those teachers and engineers warrant a bullet in the head? You're quick to justify horror Yaraton, or try and excuse it by claiming that others did worse. What's your answer to this?
Of course they didn't deserve it but the SS and Gestapo are not known to be the "peoples organizations".
Holy cow the things you learn on a miniature gaming website. Well, my warmest congratulations! Any plans to stop paying taxes to US any time soon and to start repaying China?
I don't really get it but there are numerous 'Indian Nations' within the United States that are treated as sovereign states, and parts of the United States, at the same time. It's a giant legal feth hole as far as I can tell. The Indian Nations have their own government, are not subject to US State or Federal Law (except those specifically pertaining to them which are limited), and as I understand it reservations and sovereign lands granted to Native Americans by treaty with the US are not subject to State or Federal taxes.
I've made no such claim and never would, because such a claim is BS.
Then we don't need to discuss it further I gather?
Ukraine as an identifiable region has existed since.at least the 19th century (arguably older, given that 'the Ukraine' basically means 'the borderlands'). As a nationality it has most certainly existed since the 18th century thanks to Taras Shevchenko, and arguably even older than that in Ukrainian nationalism is taken as an offshoot of Cossack nationalism. Ukraine first attempted to declare independence in 1917, then comes some civil war, some political stuff, and then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the USSR. So no. Ukraine an an entity has existed for at the very least 200+ years, and as a political entity it is one year off from it's 100th birthday.
Yet no one would ever proclaim India did not exist until 1947/1950, because that would be silly. India as a distinct political entity has existed for hundreds of years. So has China. Or England. Or France. Or Greece. Comparatively, Ukraine is pretty young, but that's not really relevant to anything.
How about Pakistan?
No. But then, United Kingdomian is not a nationality. British is, but I'm not sure how many Irish or Scottish would identify themselves as British. I've always been kind of fuzzy on that. Of course, now we're getting to that area where Ethnic and National identities start blurring. EDIT: And of course the question of how many identities can a single person hold at the same time.
So the "British" nation is artificial because it includes other nations?
I think we can all stand to be more polite and less sarcastic in some of our posts. Work towards that or else red text and warnings will end up in this thread that has done a good job of flying under the radar for a while.
I don't really get it but there are numerous 'Indian Nations' within the United States that are treated as sovereign states, and parts of the United States, at the same time. It's a giant legal feth hole as far as I can tell. The Indian Nations have their own government, are not subject to US State or Federal Law (except those specifically pertaining to them which are limited), and as I understand it reservations and sovereign lands granted to Native Americans by treaty with the US are not subject to State or Federal taxes.
Well, if they are already not paying taxes I don't know what to tell. It does sound like they are sovereign nations within the country. Pretty much like Vatican in Italy.
Except that quote does not support your position.
You are not paying attention. He said that poles killed "only" 16-20K of the Soviet POWs when the polish-Russian committee agreed on the number of 80-85K.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: I think we can all stand to be more polite and less sarcastic in some of our posts. Work towards that or else red text and warnings will end up in this thread that has done a good job of flying under the radar for a while.
It's very hard but believe me, I am trying. Again, my congrats to the Mods team for doing such an outstanding job warning people and keeping this discussion more or less civilized.
Then we don't need to discuss it further I gather?
You make a claim. I point out it is fallacious. You respond with a straw man. I point out that is equally fallacious. You ask if there's any need to discuss it further.
I don't know. Throwing out nonsense and pointing out nonsense is nonsense isn't much of a discussion, so was there ever really a discussion to begin with?
How about Pakistan?
I just gave you a post explaining why it doesn't matter.
So the "British" nation is artificial because it includes other nations?
As stated earlier, all nations could be considered artificial. They exist because people proclaim them to exist, but that's getting existential about it It can get pretty complex too. One could be British and Scottish. They could also be Seneca and American. They could be Japanese and Ugandan even. I suppose that's where the word 'multinational comes into existence
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yaraton wrote: He said that poles killed "only" 16-20K of the Soviet POWs when the polish-Russian committee agreed on the number of 80-85K.
Yes. The committee agreed there were 80-85k POWs and that of that 80-85k, 16-20k died, hence the 1/4th Baron cited earlier.
No one in this thread has denied that POWs died in Poland. They've pointed out the larger context that POWs also died in Soviet Russia (50k), and that the Committee you cite identified the leading cause of death in Poland as illness, which was also rampant among the general population. It's very clearly written that way and you have quoted it twice now and claimed it says something it in fact does not say.
Pure semantics. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now?
As much as I don't like Wubbya I am pretty sure he is not a despot who assassinates political opponents abroad and in front of the Kremlin.
Neither is Putin.
Putin is not a despot, he is a leader elected by the people and bound by the Constitution and the Constitutional Court, who over the past years has done a great deal to strenghten the rule of law and in general make Russia a better, fairer, less corrupt and more prosperous place than it was before. Compare Putin to Yeltsin, the Soviets and the Tsars, and you will see what a true despot is, and why Putin isn't one.
Putin has also never assassinated political opponents. He doesn't even need to, with his popularity, and there is no proof he ever did. Much unlike your US government, which is infamous for having assassinated many political opponents abroad:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/21/usa.davidpallister https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assassinations_since_1945
Ah... no. "Ukraine" as an entity didn't not exist until 1991 and all it's territorial gains were done by somebody else for it.
Ukraine as an identifiable region has existed since.at least the 19th century (arguably older, given that 'the Ukraine' basically means 'the borderlands'). As a nationality it has most certainly existed since the 18th century thanks to Taras Shevchenko, and arguably even older than that in Ukrainian nationalism is taken as an offshoot of Cossack nationalism. Ukraine first attempted to declare independence in 1917, then comes some civil war, some political stuff, and then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the USSR. So no. Ukraine an an entity has existed for at the very least 200+ years, and as a political entity it is one year off from it's 100th birthday.
It is important to make a distinction between Ukraine as a region, Ukraine as a state, and Ukraine as a nation.
Ukraine as a region is very old, dating back to the time of the westernmost principalities of the Rus people (altough the term was rarely used until the 18th century). Ukraine as a independent state can be traced back to the Zaporizhian Sich of the Cossacks. This was however not a Ukrainian nation. Ukraine did not exist at that time as a nation, people back then still considered themselves as part of the larger Slavic Rus identity. The emergence of the Ukrainian nation can only be traced back to the 19th century when under influence of romanticism, lifestyle of peasants and independent history of Zaporizhian Cossacks in Ukraine literary elites developed the notion of Ukrainian as a seperate language and the idea of Ukrainians as a seperate people from Russians and Belarusians. This idea then spread at first only in Central Ukraine (back then the only Ukraine) to the peasants, and later to peasants in Galicia and other parts of the area that we now call Ukraine. Ukraine as the state of the Ukrainian nation dates back to that time, to 1917. That attempt at independence was quickly crushed by the Poles and then "liberated" by the Soviets who encouraged Ukrainian nationalism as a way to fight historical Polish influence. It is the Soviets who created Ukraine as we know it today. Thus not until in the 20th century do we get anything resembling the modern Ukrainian identity.
As a nitpick, Ukrainian nationalism is not really an offshoot of Cossack nationalism. It was inspired by the history of the Zaporizhian Cossacks, but those were long gone by this time, having been resettled east by the tsars to the Don and Kuban (as well as further east to the Caucasas and Siberia). Cossacks originate in Ukraine, but they and Ukrainians while not considered seperate peoples at the time of the Sich, have since experienced seperate and different development into seperate peoples.. Cossack nationalism and Ukrainian nationalism have little similarity to each other. Ukrainian nationalism is more of an offshoot of the romanticising of the rural countryside life and the traditions of the local peasants by literary and artistic elites during the late 18th and 19th century. It is out of this romanticism that the idea of "Ukrainian" as an identity seperate from the larger "Rus" identity was born. Russian and Belarusian nationalism were born in much the same way earlier in the 18th century.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And in other Russian news:
The Russian government has once again come up with a great idea to get more people into Siberia: Let's dump refugees from Ukraine there!
https://www.rt.com/politics/332629-go-east-government-supports-plan/ Really, this is so futile. The Russian government has been trying things like this for centuries, and it has never worked. Most people don't want to live in places where they are thousands of miles removed from the next sign of civilisation and where there is no good infrastructure to support them. The government should really stop wasting money with these hopeless colonisation attempts of the middle of nowhere.
It is important to make a distinction between Ukraine as a region, Ukraine as a state, and Ukraine as a nation.
Most certainly. I was more getting at the absurdity of the idea that Ukraine did not exist as something that could be recognized as distinct from Russia prior to 1991
You mean Nazis shooting polish POWs and presenting it to the World as "Soviet war crimes? Sure. Kinda sad that the Western World is so Russophobic they would believe the exact enemies they are fighting against, never mind the Cold War propaganda.
Yes, clearly the Russians admitting they did it was just Nazi Propaganda, 60 years after the war ended, particularly with the addition of other areas that massacres took place in that no one knew about until they admitted it.
I admit I should have wrote that 'as part of' instead of 'following'. Poland did annex what amounted to a single railhead and the surrounding area, in a separate agreement with the Czech government.
I really hate to repeat myself, especially when I am so right.
You didn't post anything that wasn't what I said. (20k of 80k is 1/4th) you just highlighted the total number of prisoners they had rather than the total killed to make it look like they killed a whole lot more.
As for the pictures, I can find pictures of Soviet POWs in the polish prison camps. Not a Disneyland either. I bet you would like them.
I've seen those too, and far worse, i think, than you can ever imagine. I don't particularly like any of them, as they generally represent an utter failure of man's basic humanity. That said, while the conditions in the Poles POW camps were horrendous, again, no pics of them ramming a pole up a man's ass and standing around getting their picture taken like it was a sport.
It's like comparing Andersonville and Buchenwald. Both are nightmares, but one was driven by negligence and a failure to properly provide for prisoners, and the other driven by what might be called open malevolence.
Sure, sure. "Accidentally" at the same time Russia needed an approval from poland to build the "Nord Stream" so I wouldn't put too much faith into what the Russian Government gave away to get the permission. The rumor says, after polish investigative authorities went through those "documents" they've been "lost". Besides, Putin is a piece of something and he indeed would say anything to please his Western "partners" even if it comes to dishonor the history of it's own country.
Yes, that crazy Putin who was, not actually in power at the time, and it was started under the Soviet State eight years before Nord Stream was even conceived. Further the documents were not lost. Of the 185 volumes of documents involved, 116 were declared classified and not released. Since then, all but 35 volumes of those documents have since been declassified and subsequently released.
Putin did make a big deal out of it in 2010 (70th Anniversary), but this was over 20 years after the initial Russian admissions and release of information. This may be the source of your confusion.
Not to speak for the own man's integrity, but throwing him out for a lack of reform, as the same people who vote for this are they themselves holding back reform with their own corruption is a bit hypocritical.
Spoiler:
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk's government has survived a no-confidence vote hours after the president asked him to step down.
The prime minister has been criticised over the slow pace of reforms and faces allegations of corruption.
Earlier, President Petro Poroshenko said the PM had lost the support of the coalition and the country's trust.
Mr Yatsenyuk's public support has eroded amid Ukraine's economic problems.
Ukraine teeters a few steps from chaos
Ukraine country profile
The no-confidence motion required 226 votes to pass in parliament, but only 194 out of the 339 MPs supported it.
This means the government will probably be safe at least until the next parliament session starts in September.
The decision came moments after lawmakers voted the cabinet's work in 2015 unsatisfactory.
In a passionate speech to parliament earlier, Mr Yatsenyuk said his government, which is backed by Western countries, had done all it could under difficult circumstances.
"We have built the foundations for a new country. Let's build a new Ukraine: do not stop. Reforms are the only way forward," he said.
Hundreds of demonstrators had gathered outside parliament in Kiev during Tuesday's session to protest against government policies.
Troubles from start
A former speaker of parliament and foreign minister, Mr Yatsenyuk was one of the main opposition leaders during the massive protests that removed former pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.
Only two weeks after Mr Yatsenyuk took up his post, Russia annexed Crimea and, soon after, a violent pro-Moscow insurgency raged in the industrial east, where a one year-old ceasefire agreement has failed to stop the conflict.
On the economy, despite being credited with helping negotiate a rescue package with Western countries, there has been growing public discontent with the lack of progress.
Recent opinion polls suggest that support for Mr Yatsenyuk's bloc is at 1%.
Analysis: BBC's Tom Burridge in Kiev
So Ukraine's increasingly fractured government wins one vote and loses another. Crucially it won the no-confidence vote, so at least for now the government survives.
On the face of it, the already uneasy relationship between the prime minister and the president became even more complicated, after President Poroshenko called on PM Yatsenyuk to step down.
But in some sense Mr Poroshenko seems to be playing a double game, because many MPs from his own party voted to keep the current government.
The complex machinations of Ukrainian party politics are complicated further by pressure from outside forces, namely the International Monetary Fund, which has bailed Ukraine out, and the European Union, which has plunged considerable amounts of financial and technocratic support into the country.
Those outside forces have grown increasingly cynical about the ability of the Ukrainian government to carry out reforms to rout out corruption, after two high-profile reformers resigned from public office.
So the government lives on, but instability remains and you cannot rule out some form of change, within the government.
Mr Yatsenyuk has promised to tackle corruption, but has become the focus of similar accusations, although no concrete evidence has emerged.
He has also faced infighting, which culminated with Mr Poroshenko's call for his resignation on Tuesday. The president said "surgical means" were needed to restore trust.
Mr Poroshenko heads Ukraine's largest party, and Mr Yatsenyuk the next largest, and both are in the ruling coalition.
The government now faces the challenge of implementing changes required to secure a massive international aid package.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has threatened to withhold aid money to Ukraine if it does not carry out reforms.
Western governments have previously expressed concern over the resignation of reform-minded figures.
Economy Minister Aivaras Abromavicius stepped down earlier this month, claiming that huge quantities of money were being diverted from the government.
Also on Tuesday, the country's controversial prosecutor general Viktor Shokin resigned, following a call from Mr Poroshenko for him to do so.
Tyran wrote: Ukraine is politically cannibalizing itself, news at eleven.
One of the four parties which formed current coalition government has decided to step down over the vote of no confidence failing. Perhaps a little counterproductive as that'd leave the corrupt guys in place, whilst the ones who gave a damn (or were just as bad, but wanted to vent) have lost their *current influence.
More calls for permanent basing in the Baltic States. Hmn, not sure if this is on topic or whether this is becoming "the stupid crap Russia's done lately in Europe" thread (their Syrian one's for when they go on holiday, seeing as the current European holiday spots for Russian "volunteers" are a bit oversubscribed).
A leading analyst on NATO policy called for the alliance to place a permanent military presence in Baltic member states as a hedge against a more active Russian military.
Speaking Tuesday at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., Jorge Benitez of the Atlantic Council said that so far NATO’s response in its exercise of military preparedness to Moscow’s threats against Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, in particular, and other front line states, in general:
◾Lack speed in political decision-making and force deployment;
◾Lack size “so they’re not intimidating” to Russia and remain less costly to members;
◾And show weakness in readiness—from German air transport, to combat ratings of U.S. ground forces, to the availability of precision munitions.
Using the alliance’s Trident Juncture exercise last year as an example that involved about 30,000-40,000 NATO forces, “Russia sees over 80,000-100,000 deployed” in exercises calling for movement in 24 hours, marking a difference in scale and speed.
He called for a permanent military presence in the Baltic States to “show there are no second-class members” of NATO. That presence could be met with the establishment of the European equivalent of the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., with a permanent Opposing Force to train the alliance’s armored forces, as well as first-responding light forces, which would have to meet a conventional military crisis on the continent.
Benitez also said NATO should give back to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) the flexibility to use “the crisis management power he had before,” that was used to train and use the Rapid Response Force in the wars that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia in the mid 1990s.
As for taking care of their own security needs, he suggested that the three Baltic countries contribute a battalion and Poland a brigade for a new rapid-response force under SACEUR’s authority.
Marius Laurinavicius, a Lithuanian defense analyst now at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said, the real Russian threat is conventional, not hybrid warfare as is being seeing in Ukraine. He added Moscow’s military actions in Georgia in the recent past and Syria now “are very different” from what many NATO leaders believe will happen.
NATO leaders cite Russia’s disruption of Estonia’s communications in a dispute a few years ago as an example of its willingness to use hybrid warfare in the Baltic rather than conventional military force to get its way. He dismissed that thinking by saying “I don’t think so.” What Moscow actually did then was “disrupt lives for several days or a week or so” and ran the risk of retaliation for little gain, a situation it would face in the future.
Putin’s Kremlin is “is really opportunistic” and willing to take advantage of the moment to advance its interests—such as opening a corridor to the Russian-speaking enclave at Kaliningrad, a large seaport on the Baltic between Poland and Lithuania.
He said another key difference between the Baltic nations and Ukraine, in addition to their membership in NATO, is “we are ready to fight . . . ready to fight back” conventionally and in hybrid warfare, having changed their laws to better respond.
Even in a conventional conflict where NATO reinforcements would be slow to arrive, Russia would face military challenges, Luke Coffey of Heritage said in answer to a question: “Things do start to go wrong” as they did in 2008 in Georgia when its forces had not reached Tbilisi in a week. “I think sometimes we give the Russian military too much credit.”
Ann-Sophie Dahl of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said although the Baltic nations— about the size of Missouri in territory and population—are largely isolated from the rest of NATO by geography, they are covered by Article 5 of the treaty. The article says if one nation is attacked the others will respond. Sweden and Finland, two non-aligned nations, “don’t get the same guarantee.”
“There’s real aggression in the Baltic Sea” with Russian overflights and submarine patrols, she added, noting that Moscow is doing that at the same time as it is carrying out air strikes in Syria.
As for Sweden and Finland joining NATO, “we shouldn’t expect to change that any time soon,” but both are talking with the alliance and its members on how better to cooperate in shared defense.
“You really need to have the troops on the ground” in the Baltic to deter and defend, Coffey, who served as an infantry officer, said. He asked “When are we going to train on sending tens of thousands of troops” to Europe to exercise on the military equipment we have re-positioned on the continent in the wake of Russia’s seizure of Crimea, meddling in Ukraine and threats to the Baltic states?
And actually, while we're at it, Belarus is putting out mixed messages...
MINSK, 16 February (BelTA) – Belarus and Russia will adopt a new Military Doctrine of the Union State of Belarus and Russia, BelTA learned from Zygmund Valevach, member of the National Security Commission of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of Belarus, on 16 February.
The MP said: “Last year's Russian Military Doctrine and the Belarusian doctrine for 2016 will be used to create and discuss a new Military Doctrine of the Union State.”
The parliamentarian reminded that the previous Union State doctrine was adopted in 2011 on the basis of the relevant documents of Belarus and Russia. “It's been 14 years since then. In this time the Russian Federation adopted the Military Doctrine in 2010 and in 2015. Now a new doctrine is emerging in Belarus,” added Zygmund Valevach.
The MP remarked that it is important to adopt the Union State Military Doctrine because the regional military group of Belarus and Russia exists now. “We cannot but talk about the united air defense system. We cannot but rely on the Collective Security Treaty,” stressed the MP.
The diplomat pointed out that new countries have joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For instance, Montenegro joined NATO a short time ago. The inclusion of other Balkan nations will be considered soon. It is possible that Georgia and Moldova may join NATO as well.
“We are not threatening anyone. The new Military Doctrine [of Belarus] is a defensive one just like the previous document. But we should be ready to carry out our missions. We should be able to ensure the security of our country if necessary,” said Zygmund Valevach.
New Belarusian military doctrine responds to Putin's policies
Siarhei Bohdan 03 February 2016
Spoiler:
Image: mil.by
On 22 January, President Alexander Lukashenka approved changes to Belarus' military doctrine. This document reveals fundamental changes in the mindset of the Belarusian establishment. Learning Ukrainian lessons, Minsk is putting issues of military security at the top of its priority list.
Belarusian strategists have also identified which threats are to be countered. They include violent political changes, which Minsk suspects may come from Ukraine and pro-Moscow forces' attempts to repeat in Belarus their exploits in Ukraine.
Minsk is also reevaluating its alliance with Russia. The Kremlin for years ignored Minsk's interests and is embarking on an increasingly chauvinist path. Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin criticised Soviet-era international borders as 'arbitrary', implying that they could be changed through a Crimea- or Donbas-like scenario.
Minsk identifies threats
On 22 January, Lukashenka approved changes to Belarus' military doctrine, which had remained unchanged since 2001.
the new edition of the doctrine points to 'hybrid warfare' and 'colour revolutions'
Identifying the potential military threats, the new edition of the doctrine points to 'hybrid warfare' and 'colour revolutions', clear terms if taken in the Belarusian and regional context.
'Hybrid warfare' refers to possible Russian interventions like those that occurred in Ukraine. Colour revolution means the West, interpreted IHS Jane's Defence Weekly. But that is a moot point.
Minsk indeed harbours suspicions that somebody in the West might be working on toppling Lukashenka, but in recent years Belarusian officials have more frequently named Ukraine as a source of destabilisation in Belarus. For instance, just before the recent October 2015 presidential election a Belarusian government-affiliated TV channel reported about "200 armed Ukrainians" being detained at the border.
Although Lukashenka cites the collapse of the state in Libya, Syria and Yemen as examples of possible scenarios that he wants to prevent, Minsk reviewed its military doctrine only after the crisis and conflict in Ukraine developed. In parallel, it started – however reluctantly - to construct a border with Ukraine.
Beware of Kremlin allies
Commenting on forthcoming changes in the military doctrine, last autumn Defence Minister Andrei Raukou claimed that Belarus did not consider any foreign state an enemy and added, “But we, of course, will not concede our territory and will use any forces and means, including military, to avoid that.”
The official Belarusian parlance sends signals warning to extremist elements in Russia not to try in Belarus anything like they did in Ukraine.
Raukou was merely further developing earlier statements made by Lukashenka who has many times publicly rebuked the Ukrainian government for “giving up its lands [in Crimea]” and neglecting the Ukrainian army which as a result failed to defend the country.
Belarus remains an ally of Russia but Minsk regards this status less and less only as an asset, and hence is trying to reformulate the alliance. The Belarusian leadership sees a danger of the country being enmeshed in somebody else's war as a result of confrontation between Russia and other countries.
In his earlier statements Lukashenka described the alliance with Russia as an obligation with reservations and qualifications. On 30 October, speaking before commanders of the national armed forces, he said, “Having allies is an important factor in ensuring our military security. Nonetheless, we shall build the mechanism of collective protection in accordance with our national interests.”
No arms for Belarusians
The very first reason for Minsk to review the conditions of its alliance with Russia has to do with Moscow itself. The Kremlin frequently refuses to deal with Belarus as an ally and does not hide it. To take only the most known example, Moscow concealed from Minsk the early stages of the Russian operation to annex Crimea.
Russia provides only minimal support for the Belarusian army that is sorely in need of equipment
Despite all lamentation about NATO expansion, Russia provides only minimal support for the Belarusian army that is sorely in need of equipment. This concerns even the most critical sphere for Russia – air defence. The Kremlin after many years of delays gave Belarus second-hand decommissioned S-300 surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems of the oldest possible model. While Moscow is about to supply Iran with the S-300PMU, a model from the 1990s, Minsk receives from Moscow S-300PS, a model from the early 1980s.
Likewise, while proclaiming ever closer military cooperation, Russia attempted to give Belarus only the export models of another SAM system, the Tor-M2E. That means limited – in comparison to the models supplied to Russian army – capacities. Belarus received Tors also only after Moscow forced Minsk to give in on the issue of a Russian airbase.
Other cases also show a hardly ally-like attitude. Many Russian analysts acknowledge that the Belarusian army provides the bulk of force protecting Moscow from the west. Both in the air and on land, Moscow for many years has refused to give Belarusians newer aircraft.
The Belarusian army has only a few old fighter jets and no bombers, and plans to decommission its remaining battlefield close-support aircraft. This has rendered the Belarusian air defence system porous and ground forces useless without air support.
Last rouble for military
The current economic situation in Belarus in comparison with 2010 has considerably worsened, with inflation reaching about 12 per cent in 2015. However, Lukashenka today insists that “if the last rouble remains in the state budget, we shall spend it on the security of our people.” To underline his point he again cited the situation in Ukraine, implying that insufficient care for security allowed that country to become a toy for more powerful forces.
The Belarusian government seems to be taking the matter seriously. Despite economic hardships, it has found resources for projects that should result in military or dual-use products – like designing and manufacturing the multiple rocket launch system SAM and possibly other weapons with Chinese and probably Ukrainian firms. It has also invested in the overhaul of old Belarusian fighter jets, putting national security interests over economic calculations.
While only a few experts have noticed these technical paraphernalia, adoption of an effectively new military doctrine has attracted much more attention. The doctrine, however, is only one small, visible example of fundamental changes triggered in Belarusian foreign and security policy by Putin's policies in the post-Soviet space. Minsk cannot cope with all the new risks without cooperating with other nations in the region and beyond. But it does what it can.
Tyran wrote: Ukraine is politically cannibalizing itself, news at eleven.
One of the four parties which formed current coalition government has decided to step down over the vote of no confidence failing. Perhaps a little counterproductive as that'd leave the corrupt guys in place, whilst the ones who gave a damn (or were just as bad, but wanted to vent) have lost their *current influence.
There is no one in Ukrainian politics who isn't corrupt. They would not even be able to survive in Ukrainian politics.
Wyrmalla wrote: More calls for permanent basing in the Baltic States. Hmn, not sure if this is on topic or whether this is becoming "the stupid crap Russia's done lately in Europe" thread (their Syrian one's for when they go on holiday, seeing as the current European holiday spots for Russian "volunteers" are a bit oversubscribed).
This thread is about the war in Ukraine, and its effects too. So if someone is considering to build more bases in the Baltic as a result of Russian actions in Ukraine, that is most certainly on topic, I think. Not that building more bases in the Baltic has any practical use. It certainly won't scare Russia away, more like the contrary, in fact. It will convince Russia that decisive action in the Baltics is becoming more urgent.
Wyrmalla wrote: And actually, while we're at it, Belarus is putting out mixed messages...
It isn't any different from usual. The only messages Belarus has ever put out are: "we have potatoes", and that Lukashenko should stay in power, whatever the cost. Lukashenko has always been paranoid to any perceived threat to his power, whether that threat comes from the West, the East or from inside Belarus itself. Belarus has always tried to find a balance between pressure from the East and West. Lukashenko has been more anxious for pro-Russian rebellions (with or without support from polite people) springing up amongst its population since the Ukraine crisis began. He has been afraid for West-sponsored colour revolutions for a good deal longer. Quite understandably, the Ukraine scenario (A colour revolution and a pro-Russian rebellion) is an absolute nightmare for Lukashenko. Luckily for him, he has done a lot better job at running his country than the leaders of Ukraine ever did, and Belarusians are overall quite content. They are not really the kind of people to rise up against the government. They are too busy with their potatoes. Hell, even Lukashenko himself is busy with potatoes:
Spoiler:
(contrast this with Putin and you know everything about the differences between Russia and Belarus you need to know )
OK, there's actual logic there, besides the xenophobia. The word Russian originally referred to the Kiev empire. Over time rule of that empire moved from Kiev to Moscow, and so Ukraine became known as the borderlands and Moscow took the name of the empire. So, in a historical context, if we're using the archaic names, then modern Russia could be referred to as Moscow.
OK, there's actual logic there, besides the xenophobia. The word Russian originally referred to the Kiev empire. Over time rule of that empire moved from Kiev to Moscow, and so Ukraine became known as the borderlands and Moscow took the name of the empire. So, in a historical context, if we're using the archaic names, then modern Russia could be referred to as Moscow.
Sure, we'll roll with that...
Okay, some few historical corrections here: The word "Russian" originally reffered to the Scandinavian people (likely to have been from the area of Roslagen) who settled and ruled in Gardariki (which later was named after them, hence Russia and Russians. The word is derived from an Old Norse word meaning 'the men who row'). These Scandinavians over time merged with Slavic and Finnic tribes to become the ancestors of today's Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Back then it was just one single people who were called Russians (the splitting of this people into three different groups did not happen until far after the Middle Ages). The original capital of this people was Great Novgorod (Holmgardr), which later shifted towards Kiev (Konugardr) after the Russians expanded southwards. Kiev and the state around it (Kievan Rus) were destroyed by the Mongols.
So it is not so much as that the Russian capital shifted from Kiev to Moscow, rather it was that the Russian state was destroyed and fell apart in several independent city states, of which Moscow (which in Kievan Rus times was nothing but a small town) managed to rise, defeat the Mongols and conquer the other city-states into the Tsardom of Moscovy, what would later become the Russian Empire after Moscow conquered all of the original Russian lands. Moscovy was not a continuation of Kievan Rus, if there is any state that could have laid claim to that it would have eiter been the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (what is now Belarus) or the Republic of Novgorod, which was pretty much annihilated by Ivan the Terrible ("Great" Novgorod has never been able to recover, it is nothing more but a small provincial town now).
(As a sidenote, a funny alternate history would have been if it had been Novgorod to unite the Russian lands. The Republic of Novgorod had a form of democracy, rather than the authoritarian system of Moscow. Russia would have likely been a very different place.)
As to calling "Russia" as "Moscow", in the modern day that makes no sense. "Russia" is short for the Russian Federation, which is how the SFSR decided to call itself after 1991. The Russian Federation is explicitly the federation of all Russians, not just of Moscow. It will anger a lot of Russians because most Russians aren't Muscovites, and Moscow isn't liked very much in many parts of the Russian Federation (I suspect St. Petersburg may actually declare war on Ukraine if this law is passed because of the huge insult ) Calling the RF as Moscow is like calling the USA as "Washington", and all American citizens as "Washingtonians".
And explain that to a government which was trying to ban the Russian language in their country recently... Having been a puppet state to Moscow for a good while now its almost like the current government wants to distance themselves from that regime as much as possible.
Doing it in a dumbass way is moot of course in the current context of freakshow that is Ukrainian politics these days.
...I wonder if its the left which are pushing for this or the right, considering that the far right have ties to plenty of Russian groups. Probably just a bunch of politicians blowing up their chests in either case.
The Russian paper tiger: A foreign volunteer in the Ukrainian Army’s view of Russian troops
February 15, 2016 by SOFREP 8 Commentsukrainian-sergeant-this-is-now-a-war-wit
This article was sent to SOFREP by an individual who served as a foreign volunteer in the Ukrainian Army for over a year. His views regarding the efficiency of the Russian Army are quite interesting, especially given the latest Putin-mania/Russian love that has spread through the Internet, depicting the Russians as an unstoppable force.
As a former professional soldier in my own country’s NATO army, I found myself embroiled in the conflict in Ukraine by my own choice in late July, 2014. While technically I was a “volunteer,” I viewed myself as a professional soldier serving in a foreign country’s armed forces. Far from trying to make this some kind of dramatic personal narrative, I will attempt to portray a picture of the Russian soldier from my own limited point of view—that of an opponent.
At this point, I’d like to sidetrack a bit so as to make some things more clear to the reader. The Ukrainian “volunteer battalions” should not be seen as militias or irregulars, but rather as a sort of “Rough Riders”-style unit, a unit formed by volunteers, yet armed and supplied by the Army and subjected to the regular command structure, having normal combat duties at the front line. The foreign volunteers themselves, again, should not be seen as the like of all these colorful characters that join the Marxist and Arab irregular militias in the Middle East, but rather like the Swedish volunteers during the Winter War, integrated normally within their unit and most of the time taking up a front-line role either in operations or training. The opposing forces can be divided easily in two parts: the bandits who initiated the rebellion and the Russian regulars who intervened later that same year.
The bandits, no matter what the pro-Western propaganda claims, were not mercenaries or Russian regulars posing as rebels. Many Russian nationals flocked to their banner from the onset of the rebellion out of pure patriotism. Of course there were exceptions, but these were just that—exceptions. That doesn’t mean that Russian military advisors or SOF units didn’t directly aid them in the beginning of the conflict. The military effectiveness of said bandit militias was horrendous.
The Russian regulars who eventually had to intervene when the bandits were on the verge of collapse changed the course of the war. These were conventional military units from the Russian Federation’s standing army. After the brief intervention, the regulars fell back to act mostly as QRFs and a general deterrent to any further big-scale offensives by the Ukrainian Army, leaving the bulk of the fighting again to the bandit militias. The fighting included “famous” battles such as the battle for the Donetsk airport, where the Ukrainians were quick to blame the “elite Russian units” for their own military forces’ failure, as they did for most of the conflict.
Enough with the intro. It was clear from the beginning that there was some sense of professional military leadership behind the bandits. During the assault of Marinka on the outskirts of Donetsk, on the 4th of August, with two infantry battalions and tank support, the meager opposing bandit forces had no chance of actually holding the city. Instead of going jihad on us, they did the sensible thing: placed mines, harassed us, and withdrew. While a sound plan operationally, they failed to be effective on the ground. While my squad approached a building that the enemy had been shooting from, we took cover in a small ditch. Six RPGs and 200 PΚΜ rounds later, we stormed the building. While the enemy was nowhere to be found, they had apparently called mortar fire on our position in the ditch, which only arrived an hour and a half later, when we were already inside the building.
Later that day, we attempted to attack a blockpost (fortified checkpoint) on the road from Marinka to Donetsk. The Ukrainian forces being nothing more than a Soviet relic back then, we advanced in columns of infantry behind a tank and a BMP through the single road of a village, a village that was not secured before, and, of course, with nobody advancing by the flanks at the same time. Obviously the enemy was not waiting for us at his blockpost, but had instead prepared an ambush inside the village. Despite only having 10-15 guys with small arms, they managed to rout an infantry column of 60 men with a T-64 and a BMP (although most of the credit for this success has to be claimed by the Ukrainians’ complete lack of radio communications).
My educated guess is that the ambushers were the same guys who had withdrawn from Marinka earlier in the day, since the only sensible course after securing the city was to destroy the enemy blockpost controlling the road. They were following a logical plan.
Despite the leadership that obviously existed at the higher echelons, the bandit infantry itself was horrible. People driving in the middle of a road trying to ambush an army column, only to get arrested in turn. People surrendering after the first tank barrage before the Army even approached. People emptying their magazines at 400 meters and then withdrawing. They were clearly not soldiers. Gradually (especially after the Russian intervention) the bandit forces grew better.
Tasked with defending the heights around the village of Shyrokina in the first days of September, we came under an intense artillery barrage on the morning of the fourth day. A probe by an enemy BMP was followed by a few mortar hits at the east of the village. At that time we couldn’t help joking that maybe they would have zeroed in on us by late afternoon. Less than seven minutes later, we were in our foxholes as the enemy artillery had zeroed in on us for a 200-meter radius. That artillery officer was no bandit. Upon that realization, Ukrainian morale plummeted and we fled three hours later.
I remember a two-day battle at the same village of Shyrokina in February, 2015. The Ukrainians had been occupying the village for four days, having secured it after a local counteroffensive, but they didn’t go so far as to even lay mines on the approaches or at least post anti-tank weapons. Russian regulars attacked the village in the early hours of February 14th following a day of skirmishes around it. They attacked in force after massing uncontested behind a tree line, moving across the open ground with tanks and infantry, simply ignoring any fire from our positions. They were inside the village fighting it out with the Ukrainians within minutes. In the chaos that followed, the Ukrainians initially collapsed. The running battle at the village degenerated into individuals trying to make it back to the heights at the entrance of the village where the Ukrainian tanks were dug in.
While the Russians were again following sound tactics (tanks and IFVs were blocking off the roads with infantry swarming in the buildings before moving on to the next road and repeating), their squad-level efficiency left much to be desired. In two cases that I know of, Ukrainian combatants trying to make it back found themselves suddenly face-to-face with an equally surprised Russian soldier. In both cases, the Russians went down, and as apparently nobody was following them, the hapless Ukrainians continued their flight to the tanks. Why were those Russian soldiers on their own? Where was the rest of their team?
The Russian squad-level command and control simply vanished during the running battle within the village. The Ukrainians had no squad-level command and control (or even a defensive plan) to start, with so no point comparing the two. Russian infantry attempted to establish itself at the biggest and sturdiest building in the village, but failed after being raked by the Ukrainian T-64s on those heights. The Russian tanks were too scared to go out from behind the buildings lest they become exposed to Ukrainian fire.
Later the same night, my team had to go back into the village in an effort to find two MIAs. As we were going down a road, unsure of where the Russian positions were, the dogs in the village started barking (typical). Immediately, a hail of fire followed. The bullets hit randomly around us, so we didn’t even bother taking cover. It was clear they had no idea where we were and, being edgy and fearful of the night, they simply shot at the sound of the dogs. My guess is that post was manned by bandits, as the regulars probably withdrew after the morning assault.
The next day we launched a counterattack that ended in a fiasco. Simply ignoring contact by small arms fire on our left, our BMP turned right at a small road, with our horde following it blindly. It was met within 50 meters by a Russian T-64 with infantry support. The tank missed its mark three times and, skipping the literary details, it was enough for our horde to dissipate and find cover. During the flight, the Russians didn’t make any attempt to press their advantage. Still too afraid of those tanks up on the heights. Both sides were oblivious to the fact that there was a ceasefire in effect since 0000 hours that day.
The months that followed were marked by skirmishing in and around that village. Toward the end of May, we took up doing small raids on the enemy positions. On an approach toward an enemy trench, due to the chronic failure of Ukrainian communications and planning, we had to hold our position for more than two hours while only about 100 meters from the enemy. As was bound to happen, the Russians eventually caught wind of something going on. Instead of opening fire at random as they had done many times before, they called in reinforcements and woke up their mortar crews. An enemy element came to a building as close as 30 meters from us. Yet they waited.
When the firing eventually commenced, we managed to keep the guys at the near building suppressed with small-arms fire and the guys in the trench equally suppressed with our PΚΜ. It took them mere seconds to start firing back, though, from the moment the machine gunner ceased fire to pull back, missing him only by inches. This was a stark contrast from two months earlier when they were strafing at barking dogs. The days of bandits emptying their magazines at 400 meters were apparently over.
I could go on and on about how in many recon missions we believed the Russians were much more vigilant and prepared than they actually were, how even in daylight they seemed to ignore obvious approaches, how they strafed random tree lines at night “just to be sure,” etc., but I think the reader has gotten the picture by now. The fault generally lies with the individual soldier himself, rather than the officer’s planning. But what would you expect from an army whose “special forces” propagandistic displays of capabilities rely on acrobatics and fancy martial arts? A good Western army regiment would be enough to win this war on its own.
To summarize, I hold the Russian soldier inferior in all regards to the soldiers of first-class NATO armies. His squad-level efficiency is no better than the Argentines in the Falklands War, and his professionalism only makes a dim appearance when his officers are around. Yet he is capable of aggressive actions, and characteristically of the Slavic race, he is generally not a coward. Despite the Russian Army reform after the Chechen Wars, which has been hailed so much by various “military analysts,” I am not sure if the average “contract soldier” is better trained than the average conscript soldier in the old Soviet Army. While the Ukrainians I am serving with certainly cannot be held up as an example for Russian military efficiency, they, sharing much of the same culture with their erstwhile Russian friends, go a long way toward being compared with a warrior culture based on professionalism, the kind evident in many Western soldiers.
The Russian paper tiger: A foreign volunteer in the Ukrainian Army’s view of Russian troops
February 15, 2016 by SOFREP 8 Commentsukrainian-sergeant-this-is-now-a-war-wit
This article was sent to SOFREP by an individual who served as a foreign volunteer in the Ukrainian Army for over a year. His views regarding the efficiency of the Russian Army are quite interesting, especially given the latest Putin-mania/Russian love that has spread through the Internet, depicting the Russians as an unstoppable force.
As a former professional soldier in my own country’s NATO army, I found myself embroiled in the conflict in Ukraine by my own choice in late July, 2014. While technically I was a “volunteer,” I viewed myself as a professional soldier serving in a foreign country’s armed forces. Far from trying to make this some kind of dramatic personal narrative, I will attempt to portray a picture of the Russian soldier from my own limited point of view—that of an opponent.
At this point, I’d like to sidetrack a bit so as to make some things more clear to the reader. The Ukrainian “volunteer battalions” should not be seen as militias or irregulars, but rather as a sort of “Rough Riders”-style unit, a unit formed by volunteers, yet armed and supplied by the Army and subjected to the regular command structure, having normal combat duties at the front line. The foreign volunteers themselves, again, should not be seen as the like of all these colorful characters that join the Marxist and Arab irregular militias in the Middle East, but rather like the Swedish volunteers during the Winter War, integrated normally within their unit and most of the time taking up a front-line role either in operations or training. The opposing forces can be divided easily in two parts: the bandits who initiated the rebellion and the Russian regulars who intervened later that same year.
The bandits, no matter what the pro-Western propaganda claims, were not mercenaries or Russian regulars posing as rebels. Many Russian nationals flocked to their banner from the onset of the rebellion out of pure patriotism. Of course there were exceptions, but these were just that—exceptions. That doesn’t mean that Russian military advisors or SOF units didn’t directly aid them in the beginning of the conflict. The military effectiveness of said bandit militias was horrendous.
The Russian regulars who eventually had to intervene when the bandits were on the verge of collapse changed the course of the war. These were conventional military units from the Russian Federation’s standing army. After the brief intervention, the regulars fell back to act mostly as QRFs and a general deterrent to any further big-scale offensives by the Ukrainian Army, leaving the bulk of the fighting again to the bandit militias. The fighting included “famous” battles such as the battle for the Donetsk airport, where the Ukrainians were quick to blame the “elite Russian units” for their own military forces’ failure, as they did for most of the conflict.
Enough with the intro. It was clear from the beginning that there was some sense of professional military leadership behind the bandits. During the assault of Marinka on the outskirts of Donetsk, on the 4th of August, with two infantry battalions and tank support, the meager opposing bandit forces had no chance of actually holding the city. Instead of going jihad on us, they did the sensible thing: placed mines, harassed us, and withdrew. While a sound plan operationally, they failed to be effective on the ground. While my squad approached a building that the enemy had been shooting from, we took cover in a small ditch. Six RPGs and 200 PΚΜ rounds later, we stormed the building. While the enemy was nowhere to be found, they had apparently called mortar fire on our position in the ditch, which only arrived an hour and a half later, when we were already inside the building.
Later that day, we attempted to attack a blockpost (fortified checkpoint) on the road from Marinka to Donetsk. The Ukrainian forces being nothing more than a Soviet relic back then, we advanced in columns of infantry behind a tank and a BMP through the single road of a village, a village that was not secured before, and, of course, with nobody advancing by the flanks at the same time. Obviously the enemy was not waiting for us at his blockpost, but had instead prepared an ambush inside the village. Despite only having 10-15 guys with small arms, they managed to rout an infantry column of 60 men with a T-64 and a BMP (although most of the credit for this success has to be claimed by the Ukrainians’ complete lack of radio communications).
My educated guess is that the ambushers were the same guys who had withdrawn from Marinka earlier in the day, since the only sensible course after securing the city was to destroy the enemy blockpost controlling the road. They were following a logical plan.
Despite the leadership that obviously existed at the higher echelons, the bandit infantry itself was horrible. People driving in the middle of a road trying to ambush an army column, only to get arrested in turn. People surrendering after the first tank barrage before the Army even approached. People emptying their magazines at 400 meters and then withdrawing. They were clearly not soldiers. Gradually (especially after the Russian intervention) the bandit forces grew better.
Tasked with defending the heights around the village of Shyrokina in the first days of September, we came under an intense artillery barrage on the morning of the fourth day. A probe by an enemy BMP was followed by a few mortar hits at the east of the village. At that time we couldn’t help joking that maybe they would have zeroed in on us by late afternoon. Less than seven minutes later, we were in our foxholes as the enemy artillery had zeroed in on us for a 200-meter radius. That artillery officer was no bandit. Upon that realization, Ukrainian morale plummeted and we fled three hours later.
I remember a two-day battle at the same village of Shyrokina in February, 2015. The Ukrainians had been occupying the village for four days, having secured it after a local counteroffensive, but they didn’t go so far as to even lay mines on the approaches or at least post anti-tank weapons. Russian regulars attacked the village in the early hours of February 14th following a day of skirmishes around it. They attacked in force after massing uncontested behind a tree line, moving across the open ground with tanks and infantry, simply ignoring any fire from our positions. They were inside the village fighting it out with the Ukrainians within minutes. In the chaos that followed, the Ukrainians initially collapsed. The running battle at the village degenerated into individuals trying to make it back to the heights at the entrance of the village where the Ukrainian tanks were dug in.
While the Russians were again following sound tactics (tanks and IFVs were blocking off the roads with infantry swarming in the buildings before moving on to the next road and repeating), their squad-level efficiency left much to be desired. In two cases that I know of, Ukrainian combatants trying to make it back found themselves suddenly face-to-face with an equally surprised Russian soldier. In both cases, the Russians went down, and as apparently nobody was following them, the hapless Ukrainians continued their flight to the tanks. Why were those Russian soldiers on their own? Where was the rest of their team?
The Russian squad-level command and control simply vanished during the running battle within the village. The Ukrainians had no squad-level command and control (or even a defensive plan) to start, with so no point comparing the two. Russian infantry attempted to establish itself at the biggest and sturdiest building in the village, but failed after being raked by the Ukrainian T-64s on those heights. The Russian tanks were too scared to go out from behind the buildings lest they become exposed to Ukrainian fire.
Later the same night, my team had to go back into the village in an effort to find two MIAs. As we were going down a road, unsure of where the Russian positions were, the dogs in the village started barking (typical). Immediately, a hail of fire followed. The bullets hit randomly around us, so we didn’t even bother taking cover. It was clear they had no idea where we were and, being edgy and fearful of the night, they simply shot at the sound of the dogs. My guess is that post was manned by bandits, as the regulars probably withdrew after the morning assault.
The next day we launched a counterattack that ended in a fiasco. Simply ignoring contact by small arms fire on our left, our BMP turned right at a small road, with our horde following it blindly. It was met within 50 meters by a Russian T-64 with infantry support. The tank missed its mark three times and, skipping the literary details, it was enough for our horde to dissipate and find cover. During the flight, the Russians didn’t make any attempt to press their advantage. Still too afraid of those tanks up on the heights. Both sides were oblivious to the fact that there was a ceasefire in effect since 0000 hours that day.
The months that followed were marked by skirmishing in and around that village. Toward the end of May, we took up doing small raids on the enemy positions. On an approach toward an enemy trench, due to the chronic failure of Ukrainian communications and planning, we had to hold our position for more than two hours while only about 100 meters from the enemy. As was bound to happen, the Russians eventually caught wind of something going on. Instead of opening fire at random as they had done many times before, they called in reinforcements and woke up their mortar crews. An enemy element came to a building as close as 30 meters from us. Yet they waited.
When the firing eventually commenced, we managed to keep the guys at the near building suppressed with small-arms fire and the guys in the trench equally suppressed with our PΚΜ. It took them mere seconds to start firing back, though, from the moment the machine gunner ceased fire to pull back, missing him only by inches. This was a stark contrast from two months earlier when they were strafing at barking dogs. The days of bandits emptying their magazines at 400 meters were apparently over.
I could go on and on about how in many recon missions we believed the Russians were much more vigilant and prepared than they actually were, how even in daylight they seemed to ignore obvious approaches, how they strafed random tree lines at night “just to be sure,” etc., but I think the reader has gotten the picture by now. The fault generally lies with the individual soldier himself, rather than the officer’s planning. But what would you expect from an army whose “special forces” propagandistic displays of capabilities rely on acrobatics and fancy martial arts? A good Western army regiment would be enough to win this war on its own.
To summarize, I hold the Russian soldier inferior in all regards to the soldiers of first-class NATO armies. His squad-level efficiency is no better than the Argentines in the Falklands War, and his professionalism only makes a dim appearance when his officers are around. Yet he is capable of aggressive actions, and characteristically of the Slavic race, he is generally not a coward. Despite the Russian Army reform after the Chechen Wars, which has been hailed so much by various “military analysts,” I am not sure if the average “contract soldier” is better trained than the average conscript soldier in the old Soviet Army. While the Ukrainians I am serving with certainly cannot be held up as an example for Russian military efficiency, they, sharing much of the same culture with their erstwhile Russian friends, go a long way toward being compared with a warrior culture based on professionalism, the kind evident in many Western soldiers.
Yeah, this is so totally legitimate... The article totally does not consist almost entirely of unproven assumptions, and guesses, not to mention things the author couldn't possibly know and the blatant racism. The tagline of the site it comes from even says: "News you can trust" As if a trustworthy news source would need to mention that... Now if you would excuse me, I have to go back to writing articles exactly like this one, except for the opposing side. Need to make money somehow... Long live the propaganda war!
). I said nothing about invasions.
. Or the fact that nearly the same number of Polish fighters died in soviet camps but don't let that stop you from defending russia's perfectly clean record.
