Ustrello wrote: Oh yes because the soviets were paragons for clean and factual record keeping.
Yes they were. But of course as the expert on Russian bureacracy you are, you should already know that.
They weren't, especially under Stalin.
Throughout the Soviet Unions history many people in charge of things like agriculture and factories lied about their output in order to meet impossible targets set by the Communist party so that they wouldn't be fired and/or shot.
Ustrello wrote: Oh yes because the soviets were paragons for clean and factual record keeping.
Yes they were. But of course as the expert on Russian bureacracy you are, you should already know that.
They weren't, especially under Stalin.
Throughout the Soviet Unions history many people in charge of things like agriculture and factories lied about their output in order to meet impossible targets set by the Communist party so that they wouldn't be fired and/or shot.
So? Factory managers lying about production has zero relevance to the state keeping extensive records on anything. Also, production targets were set by Gosplan, not the Communist Party.
Ustrello wrote: Oh yes because the soviets were paragons for clean and factual record keeping.
Yes they were. But of course as the expert on Russian bureacracy you are, you should already know that.
They weren't, especially under Stalin.
Throughout the Soviet Unions history many people in charge of things like agriculture and factories lied about their output in order to meet impossible targets set by the Communist party so that they wouldn't be fired and/or shot.
So? Factory managers lying about production has zero relevance to the state keeping extensive records on anything. Also, production targets were set by Gosplan, not the Communist Party.
Because if the records for factory output aren't reliable, what makes you think the other records are?
The text reads: "Ukrainian Division Galicia, they were defending Ukraine"
Based on the sheer number of Ukrainians killed, they were. Remember that which one, Stalin or Hitler, slaughtered more Ukrainians depends on who's estimate you read. They both hover around 7 million. It was just that Stalin had ALREADY done it, when the Nazis arrived. A drowning man will grab any oar he's offered.
Also, to those saying that the Soviets did not keep good records, the Soviets were actually notoriously for keeping ridiculously detailed and extensive records on pretty much every subject imaginable.
Unfortunately, as we've seen with the records of the Great Patriotic War, they have a point. Just among different sets of official records, the number of dead by war's end varies by up to 3 million KIA. That's not civilian dead, that's the Red Army etc. Where one would hope the most accurate record is.
Ustrello wrote: Oh yes because the soviets were paragons for clean and factual record keeping.
Yes they were. But of course as the expert on Russian bureacracy you are, you should already know that.
They weren't, especially under Stalin.
Throughout the Soviet Unions history many people in charge of things like agriculture and factories lied about their output in order to meet impossible targets set by the Communist party so that they wouldn't be fired and/or shot.
So? Factory managers lying about production has zero relevance to the state keeping extensive records on anything. Also, production targets were set by Gosplan, not the Communist Party.
Because if the records for factory output aren't reliable, what makes you think the other records are?
The records are reliable. They indicate the amount of goods thought to have been produced and the amount planners and government officials used to make policy and calculate their plans, and most of them were based on accurate data. Just because some of the records were based on false information doesn't mean the entire Soviet archives are unreliable. I am pretty sure there are plenty of records in the US archives based on false information. Does that mean the US government is an unreliable record-keeper? No. And besides, Gosplan records are completely unrelated and thus irrelevant to the records of the secret services. That is a false equation.
But if you want to think that the NKVD was like some factory managers and only shot half of the people they mention in their records then by all means, go ahead.
The text reads: "Ukrainian Division Galicia, they were defending Ukraine"
Based on the sheer number of Ukrainians killed, they were. Remember that which one, Stalin or Hitler, slaughtered more Ukrainians depends on who's estimate you read. They both hover around 7 million. It was just that Stalin had ALREADY done it, when the Nazis arrived. A drowning man will grab any oar he's offered.
Stalin hadn't killed any Galicians before WW2. The Galicians hadn't even been part of Ukraine or the USSR until 1939. The only reasons the Galicians sided with Hitler over Stalin is because Hitler offered them a chance to get rid of the Jews and Poles. Once they got rid of the Jews and Poles, Galicia could become a land for Ukrainians. And as can be seen from the present-day situation in Galicia, their plan worked perfectly. Stalin having killed Ukrainians was not at all an issue at the time, as Stalin never specifically targeted Ukrainians apart from other ethnic groups.
And just to say something positive about Stalin and Ukraine, 1/3rd of the entire budget for development of the USSR after WW2 went into development of Ukraine. Living conditions in Ukraine were greatly improved under Stalin, a fact that nowadays is too often forgotten.
Also, to those saying that the Soviets did not keep good records, the Soviets were actually notoriously for keeping ridiculously detailed and extensive records on pretty much every subject imaginable.
Unfortunately, as we've seen with the records of the Great Patriotic War, they have a point. Just among different sets of official records, the number of dead by war's end varies by up to 3 million KIA. That's not civilian dead, that's the Red Army etc. Where one would hope the most accurate record is.
That is war. That is an entirely different situation. The Red Army was fighting a war of survival and was not really in the right situation to allow itself the luxury of something relatively trivial like proper record-keeping until the later years of the war. You will notice that the German records are similarly incomplete.
I know a few people who have written PhD dissertations and had to go to russia to do research that can attest to how terrible record keeping was during the soviet union iron and I believe them much more than you.
Iron_Captain wrote: Stalin having killed Ukrainians was not at all an issue at the time, as Stalin never specifically targeted Ukrainians apart from other ethnic groups.
I know we've had the discussion earlier in the thread already, but could you at least throw in the caveat that the Holodomor happened? I don't think any of us are feeling like bashing our heads against each other over it again, but at least concede that there is an argument that Stalin did target Ukrainians, and then we can go on yelling about how much of it was man-made and how much was natural.
Tyran wrote: From what I understand about Holodomor it was less targeted genocide and more genocide by incompetence.
Which in some ways it is worse.
There's an argument to be made that it was a targetted effort, and there's an argument to be made that it was mostly incompetence and bad luck, but pretending that one side is flat-out wrong in this case does nobody any favours.
Iron_Captain wrote: Stalin having killed Ukrainians was not at all an issue at the time, as Stalin never specifically targeted Ukrainians apart from other ethnic groups.
I know we've had the discussion earlier in the thread already, but could you at least throw in the caveat that the [urlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor]Holodomor[/url] happened? I don't think any of us are feeling like bashing our heads against each other over it again, but at least concede that there is an argument that Stalin did target Ukrainians, and then we can go on yelling about how much of it was man-made and how much was natural.
The Holdomor happened. That is indisputable fact. Whether Stalin intended to cause it or not is probably unknowable, but his policies at the least made it a lot worse, so you can say that Stalin was (partially) responsible. And of course, the Holodomor took place in Eastern Ukraine and Western Russia, so Ukrainians were one of the most affected groups. So if you want to believe that the Holodomor was caused by Stalin on purpose, then you could definitely make an argument that it targeted Ukrainians. There is definitely a good, reasonable argument to be made that Stalin wanted to wipe out the traditional Cossack-style small farmers of the area so he could proceed with his agricultural reforms. What the Holodomor was not however, is a genocide. At least not a genocide in the sense of an attempt to wipe out Ukrainians as specific ethnic group (like what is often ironically claimed by modern Western Ukrainians and russophobes who then proceed to blame the modern Russian state and people for it for some reason). The Holodomor hit both Ukrainians and Russians, all people in the area regardless of ethnicity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: I know a few people who have written PhD dissertations and had to go to russia to do research that can attest to how terrible record keeping was during the soviet union iron and I believe them much more than you.
Do you really think Westerners get to sniff around freely in Soviet records? Of course not.
Researchers will always have to deal with incomplete records because most of the archives are kept locked away. If you go as researcher to Russia and request some records for your research, you can bet that the secret services first review every page you requested and remove everything that might somehow be politically sensitive. Researchers are therefore not an accurate way to measure the completeness of Soviet archives.
The bureacracy in the Soviet Union and Russia is notoriously huge. It is impossible for someone who has never lived in Russia to imagine, but it is an absolute nightmare. Like forms have to be filled in and stamped even for simple stuff like taking a taxi or getting your clothes dry cleaned. Every single little detail is recorded. Now if even general society works in that way, how do you imagine the government works? Especially the secret services, with their control fetish. All those forms have to stay somewhere...
One went to the st Petersburg national library and it took him an hour everday to just get into the library because of the red tape and he was still able to get almost 20 thousands pages of material. And another one was able to bribe his way into the kgb archive. So no you are still wrong
Besides the famine, it was also a WW2 ... in which Ukraine has suffered more than others. But why now ukrainian ultranationalist's anger directed at Russia, rather than Germany, for example? It's simple: because it is necessary for the CIA! For 20 years a lot of money and effort has been spent for this purpose. Skinheads in Moscow and St. Petersburg - it is also the CIA work.
To blame the CIA. Why Russia "flexing its muscles"? Because the US still considers Russia as an enemy? Why?
Ukrainians fooled. What do they have? What they expected? America will help them capture Moscow? What kind of kindergarten is that
Freakazoitt wrote: Besides the famine, it was also a WW2 ... in which Ukraine has suffered more than others. But why now ukrainian ultranationalist's anger directed at Russia, rather than Germany, for example? It's simple: because it is necessary for the CIA! For 20 years a lot of money and effort has been spent for this purpose. Skinheads in Moscow and St. Petersburg - it is also the CIA work.
To blame the CIA. Why Russia "flexing its muscles"? Because the US still considers Russia as an enemy? Why?
Ukrainians fooled. What do they have? What they expected? America will help them capture Moscow? What kind of kindergarten is that
That's a...generous estimating of the CIA's capabilities and competence.
Even if we assume that the CIA is behind this...all in a foreign nation on the other side of the planet for multiple decades in a state that has far too much instability to do anything consistent in, to what point and purpose?
I mean, consiracy theories are amusing, but we're assuming Illuminati levels of conspiracy theory here. Little/no evidence, little/no mistakes or leaks that would compromise such a mission over 20+ years, massive assumptions of incredible capability and competence, a requirement of a tremendous amount of resources, and tremendous projections of supposed objectives (taking Moscow...really?), all over a region of strictly 2nd tier importance to US foreign policy of the last two decades...
It's interesting that the "CIA" is always behind everything Russia perceives as against it's interests. If the CIA really were that powerful and Russia was really the target of all it's efforts, then Russia would have fallen looooong ago. I would posit that since this isn't the case, that the CIA is probably not that powerful nor is Russia the target it believes it is.
The CIA does however make a great boogeyman for the Russian State to shadowbox when they need a distraction from internal problems, just as vaguely defined "Terrorism" is for the US.
EDIT: this also assumes the Ukrainians are complete fools able to be manipulated en-masse with ease by foreign, non-native actors to whatever end is desired. As we've seen, Ukraine can't act towards anything particular longer than a couple of years Also...skinheads in Russia tend to be ultranationalists from what I've seen, not something the CIA would really seem to be wanting to foster.
Anyone proclaiming anything that relies on the CIA being competent fails on the first account. The CIA's competency is inversely related to how complex the problem is, and given that the world is a very complex place the CIA ends up resoundingly incompetent. The CIA is what you get when you put "murica" types in charge of something
Wait, the CIA created skinhead culture? ...Or just the ultra-nationalist turn it took?
*keeps reading*
Ah right, you clearly think that the CIA are like bogeymen. That time you stubbed your toe on the stairs? The CIA were behind that. Its all their elaborate master plan.
Ustrello wrote: One went to the st Petersburg national library and it took him an hour everday to just get into the library because of the red tape and he was still able to get almost 20 thousands pages of material. And another one was able to bribe his way into the kgb archive. So no you are still wrong
Sure, keep believing that nonsense, no matter how impossible. After all, last week I bribed my way into the CIA director's office and stole all of his documents without anyone ever noticing.
And yes Wyrmalla, I can now indeed confirm that the last time Yaraton stubbed his toe was part of the CIA strategy to destroy Russia. It is all here in the documents.
Ustrello wrote: I would believe that if Americans were corrupt as Russians especially 90s Russians
Tricking the CIA isn't hard. Saddam did it. Bin Laden did it. A guy from West Virginia did it. I just takes an understanding of their expectations and a certain amount of thinking outside the box.
However, Yaraton is so far outside the box anymore the light from the box will not reach him for another thousand years.
Ustrello wrote: I would believe that if Americans were corrupt as Russians especially 90s Russians
Oh, bribes can get you very far in Russia. Just not that far. You might be able to bribe your way inside one of the small regional FSB archives if you are very careful, but the central one on Bolshaya Lubyanka street? No way. Things just don't work that way.
Ustrello wrote: I would believe that if Americans were corrupt as Russians especially 90s Russians
Tricking the CIA isn't hard. Saddam did it. Bin Laden did it. A guy from West Virginia did it. I just takes an understanding of their expectations and a certain amount of thinking outside the box.
However, Yaraton is so far outside the box anymore the light from the box will not reach him for another thousand years.
Wait... But if he is so far outside of the box, and being outside of the box helps you trick the CIA... That's it! Yaraton is the chosen hero who will avoid the CIA, ruin their plans and save Russia! Go Yaraton!
Ustrello wrote: I would believe that if Americans were corrupt as Russians especially 90s Russians
Tricking the CIA isn't hard. Saddam did it. Bin Laden did it. A guy from West Virginia did it. I just takes an understanding of their expectations and a certain amount of thinking outside the box.
However, Yaraton is so far outside the box anymore the light from the box will not reach him for another thousand years.
Ustrello wrote: I would believe that if Americans were corrupt as Russians especially 90s Russians
Oh, bribes can get you very far in Russia. Just not that far. You might be able to bribe your way inside one of the small regional FSB archives if you are very careful, but the central one on Bolshaya Lubyanka street? No way. Things just don't work that way.
Ustrello wrote: I would believe that if Americans were corrupt as Russians especially 90s Russians
Tricking the CIA isn't hard. Saddam did it. Bin Laden did it. A guy from West Virginia did it. I just takes an understanding of their expectations and a certain amount of thinking outside the box.
However, Yaraton is so far outside the box anymore the light from the box will not reach him for another thousand years.
Wait... But if he is so far outside of the box, and being outside of the box helps you trick the CIA... That's it! Yaraton is the chosen hero who will avoid the CIA, ruin their plans and save Russia! Go Yaraton!
Well I have seen the paperwork he got from there from the Cheka period and I am pretty sure they don't just let you photocopy it.
Ustrello wrote: I would believe that if Americans were corrupt as Russians especially 90s Russians
Oh, bribes can get you very far in Russia. Just not that far. You might be able to bribe your way inside one of the small regional FSB archives if you are very careful, but the central one on Bolshaya Lubyanka street? No way. Things just don't work that way.
Ustrello wrote: I would believe that if Americans were corrupt as Russians especially 90s Russians
Tricking the CIA isn't hard. Saddam did it. Bin Laden did it. A guy from West Virginia did it. I just takes an understanding of their expectations and a certain amount of thinking outside the box.
However, Yaraton is so far outside the box anymore the light from the box will not reach him for another thousand years.
Wait... But if he is so far outside of the box, and being outside of the box helps you trick the CIA... That's it! Yaraton is the chosen hero who will avoid the CIA, ruin their plans and save Russia! Go Yaraton!
Well I have seen the paperwork he got from there from the Cheka period and I am pretty sure they don't just let you photocopy it.
Yeah sure. One of my friends has an entire CIA archive stashed in his bedroom. It is easy to make up such fun stories, but without proof they have no value in an argument. This friend of yours did research in Russia in the 90's? Did he publish a book or a paper about it or something?
I'm imagining an FSB officer standing over a copy machine...cigarette hanging from his lip, as he glances at the stack of cash he's been given. He sighs as he inserts the next document to be copied and thinks about how much he hates borscht for dinner night after night...
In America, they just take the stuff out the revolving door to their next cushy corporate "analyst" gig
EDIT: Not trying to hop in on either side, just musing on the visuals in my head.
Ustrello wrote: I would believe that if Americans were corrupt as Russians especially 90s Russians
Oh, bribes can get you very far in Russia. Just not that far. You might be able to bribe your way inside one of the small regional FSB archives if you are very careful, but the central one on Bolshaya Lubyanka street? No way. Things just don't work that way.
Ustrello wrote: I would believe that if Americans were corrupt as Russians especially 90s Russians
Tricking the CIA isn't hard. Saddam did it. Bin Laden did it. A guy from West Virginia did it. I just takes an understanding of their expectations and a certain amount of thinking outside the box.
However, Yaraton is so far outside the box anymore the light from the box will not reach him for another thousand years.
Wait... But if he is so far outside of the box, and being outside of the box helps you trick the CIA... That's it! Yaraton is the chosen hero who will avoid the CIA, ruin their plans and save Russia! Go Yaraton!
Well I have seen the paperwork he got from there from the Cheka period and I am pretty sure they don't just let you photocopy it.
Yeah sure. One of my friends has an entire CIA archive stashed in his bedroom. It is easy to make up such fun stories, but without proof they have no value in an argument. This friend of yours did research in Russia in the 90's? Did he publish a book or a paper about it or something?
I have no idea what 'proof' you're talking about about, no posts have been edited. Please PM me if you want to discuss this further as it is definitely off topic
That's a...generous estimating of the CIA's capabilities and competence.
CIA made BinLaden (9/11 attack), made Akhmad Shakh Maksud (withdraval Soviets from Afghanistan, falling of Surav government), helped to made Taliban (almost defeating Maksud in Afghanistan), made Al Quaeda, made a lot to ruin USSR. I think, a lot of crap things we have was CIA work.
That's a...generous estimating of the CIA's capabilities and competence.
CIA made BinLaden (9/11 attack), made Akhmad Shakh Maksud (withdraval Soviets from Afghanistan, falling of Surav government), helped to made Taliban (almost defeating Maksud in Afghanistan), made Al Quaeda, made a lot to ruin USSR. I think, a lot of crap things we have was CIA work.
CIA did not make Bin Laden, they merely supported him in the same manner they supported the Lion of Panjshir (Maksud), they helped the Mujahadeen not the Taliban, that is completely false. The Mujahadeen are completely different from the Taliban. The CIA sure as hell didn't make Al-Qaeda but please, please give me your conspiracy theories on these nonsense things you just posted.
That's a...generous estimating of the CIA's capabilities and competence.
CIA made BinLaden (9/11 attack), made Akhmad Shakh Maksud (withdraval Soviets from Afghanistan, falling of Surav government), helped to made Taliban (almost defeating Maksud in Afghanistan), made Al Quaeda, made a lot to ruin USSR. I think, a lot of crap things we have was CIA work.
CIA did not make Bin Laden, they merely supported him in the same manner they supported the Lion of Panjshir (Maksud), they helped the Mujahadeen not the Taliban, that is completely false. The Mujahadeen are completely different from the Taliban. The CIA sure as hell didn't make Al-Qaeda but please, please give me your conspiracy theories on these nonsense things you just posted.
This is totally off-topic, but the Taliban are mujahideen, and the group evolved from the Afghan fighters that were supported by the US. Al-Qaeda evolved out of the same group of US-backed fighters. Bin Laden was actually quite pro-US until the US started stationing troops in Saudi-Arabia and fighting Muslim countries as part of the Gulf War.
Don't pretend that the CIA is not involving itself with a lot of shady "allies" as part of its war against Russia and that sometimes those "allies" backfired on them.
That's a...generous estimating of the CIA's capabilities and competence.
CIA made BinLaden (9/11 attack), made Akhmad Shakh Maksud (withdraval Soviets from Afghanistan, falling of Surav government), helped to made Taliban (almost defeating Maksud in Afghanistan), made Al Quaeda, made a lot to ruin USSR. I think, a lot of crap things we have was CIA work.
CIA did not make Bin Laden, they merely supported him in the same manner they supported the Lion of Panjshir (Maksud), they helped the Mujahadeen not the Taliban, that is completely false. The Mujahadeen are completely different from the Taliban. The CIA sure as hell didn't make Al-Qaeda but please, please give me your conspiracy theories on these nonsense things you just posted.
This is totally off-topic, but the Taliban are mujahideen, and the group evolved from the Afghan fighters that were supported by the US. Al-Qaeda evolved out of the same group of US-backed fighters. Bin Laden was actually quite pro-US until the US started stationing troops in Saudi-Arabia and fighting Muslim countries as part of the Gulf War. Don't pretend that the CIA is not involving itself with a lot of shady "allies" as part of its war against Russia and that sometimes those "allies" backfired on them.
Well, the Taliban wasn't technically formed during the soviet occupation, which was when the USA was supporting the groups. They formed after the departure of the Soviets in the midst of the infighting between the different mujahadeen groups and were financed by Pakistan, whilst being versed in orthodox Islam from Saudi Arabia.
Although Bin-Laden and what would become Al-Qaeda were active during the war, but only as a small group. They weren't really the major players that Bin-Laden liked to portray them as afterwards in order to gain support and recruits.
I don't think anyone would deny that the CIA was involved in lots of shady stuff and that it backfired more than once. That said, the CIA didn't make these groups or people what they are (they simply provided varying levels of logistical & intelligence support to them), and the fact that they turned around and bit the US is pretty good proof that the CIA is not the ultra-capable, all-seeing organization it's sometimes portrayed as being.
With regards to Ukraine and Russia, if the CIA really is the cause of all these ills, it'd be a step up in their game for sure...but aside from just causing misery for it's own sake...what purpose is served? Especially in an organization where very few remain from the Cold War era?
This is totally off-topic, but the Taliban are mujahideen, and the group evolved from the Afghan fighters that were supported by the US. Al-Qaeda evolved out of the same group of US-backed fighters. Bin Laden was actually quite pro-US until the US started stationing troops in Saudi-Arabia and fighting Muslim countries as part of the Gulf War.
Don't pretend that the CIA is not involving itself with a lot of shady "allies" as part of its war against Russia and that sometimes those "allies" backfired on them.
The term 'mujahideen' is just a plural of mujahid, or one who is practicing jihad.
Taliban are mujahideen (small 'm') as opposed to the Mujahideen Alliance of Afghanistan (large 'm') which was backed by the US during the Soviet-Afghan war.
While there was some overlap in membership, the Taliban actually fought against the US backed 'victors' of the Soviet-Afghan War, including assassinating Ahmad Shah Massoud, the erstwhile head of the US backed forces, on September 9th, 2001, three days before the 9/11 attacks.
The Taliban are largely the creation of Pakistani ISI (who are pretty open about this), not the American CIA. Please blame the correct intelligence agency.
This is totally off-topic, but the Taliban are mujahideen, and the group evolved from the Afghan fighters that were supported by the US. Al-Qaeda evolved out of the same group of US-backed fighters. Bin Laden was actually quite pro-US until the US started stationing troops in Saudi-Arabia and fighting Muslim countries as part of the Gulf War.
Don't pretend that the CIA is not involving itself with a lot of shady "allies" as part of its war against Russia and that sometimes those "allies" backfired on them.
The term 'mujahideen' is just a plural of mujahid, or one who is practicing jihad.
Taliban are mujahideen (small 'm') as opposed to the Mujahideen Alliance of Afghanistan (large 'm') which was backed by the US during the Soviet-Afghan war.
While there was some overlap in membership, the Taliban actually fought against the US backed 'victors' of the Soviet-Afghan War, including assassinating Ahmad Shah Massoud, the erstwhile head of the US backed forces, on September 9th, 2001, three days before the 9/11 attacks.
The Taliban are largely the creation of Pakistani ISI (who are pretty open about this), not the American CIA. Please blame the correct intelligence agency.
Not to mention the ISI are still to this day backing, funding and training the Taliban. On more then one occasion we "accidentally" killed Pakistani ISI operating with Taliban forces. One memorable occasion was after a member of our battalion was shot in the head by a sniper, turned out the sniper was an ISI agent. Ironically the guy he shot lived, Sgt Boothroyd USMC lucky bugger took one to the dome and lived. The ISI agent? not so much, we hit him with a JDAM, killed him and all his little buddies.
The Supreme Court of the Crimean Republic has outlawed the ‘Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People’ as an extremist group and has banned its activities on the whole territory of the Russian Federation.
The decision was passed on Tuesday, RIA Novosti reports. The court ruling was not final, however, as it can be appealed in one month’s time.
The Mejlis is the top legislative body of the Crimean Tatars between major congresses that are called Kurultais. Founded in 1991, it has a fairly long history, but is still mainly seen as an informal group because its orders only regulate the life of ethnic Crimean Tatars – who account for about 12.5 percent of the peninsula’s population.
The relations between the Crimean authorities and the Mejlis have been strained ever since the republic’s accession into the Russian Federation, but a full-scale conflict developed only in September 2015, after Mejlis leaders Refat Chubarov, Lenur Islyamov and Mustafa Djemilev used the Ukrainian ultranationalist association Right Sector to organize the “food and energy blockade of Crimea.” The radicals stopped trucks carrying food to the Russian exclave from Ukraine and blew up several pylons of the power mains that supplied electricity to the peninsula.
In mid-February top Crimean prosecutor Natalya Poklonskaya asked the Supreme Court of the republic to ban the Mejlis, claiming that law enforcers had collected sufficient proof of the group’s extremist activities. In particular, she mentioned the ties discovered between the Mejlis and terrorist groups such as the Turkish Grey Wolves (Bozkurt).
Poklonskaya also called the Tuesday court ruling well-founded, adding that it was aimed at securing stability, peace and order in the Russian Federation. She also noted that after the court decision comes into force, any actions by Mejlis members or their representatives on Russian territory would be considered unlawful, and such people would be brought to justice.
Defense attorney Djemil Temishev, who represented the Mejlis in the Crimean court, told reporters on Tuesday that he planned to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
In mid-April the prosecutor ordered the suspension of all Mejlis activities on Crimean territory, pending the court decision.
On Tuesday Poklonskaya described the members and leaders of the Mejlis as “puppets in the hands of big Western puppeteers who used the Crimean Tatar people as pawns in their game.” She added that everyone, including the members of the Mejlis, acknowledged this sad truth.
It is sad it has come to this, but given their recent actions, I feel it is justified.
Natalya Poklonskaya has already vowed that she will deport anyone who does not fully agree with and support Crimea's new place in Russia. Expect mass relocations of Tartars inside Russia and Crimea, and imprisonment on spurious charges next, 'for the good of the people'.
By activism I mean all the picketing and attempts to push things through with the councils. Terrorism perhaps, in terms of blockading roads, is perhaps not the best wording considering it is a warzone ...and the Russian's shot down a damn passenger jet. A few groups in the area happen to be associating with terrorists lately, so I need to see more than association instead of painting them with the same brush.
The incidents in question contained significantly less violence than you might see after a Manchester United win. Mostly they obstructed a road and wouldn't let people through.
The other issue is that this paves the way for all Tartar organizations to be painted the same way, regardless of actual actions. It's an old cycle in Russian politics.
And this is being pushed through by a woman herself wanted for a impressive variety of crimes (treason is my favorite, not because she betrayed her country in time of war, but because she was a government attorney sworn to uphold the law, on top that), and banned from entering the UK and Canada.
Well, to be technically, terrorism is what you get when someone doesn't think peaceful forms of activism will have an effect and simultaneously isn't stupid enough (or unwilling) to engage in more traditional forms of violent politics i.e. war
Wyrmalla wrote: By activism I mean all the picketing and attempts to push things through with the councils. Terrorism perhaps, in terms of blockading roads, is perhaps not the best wording considering it is a warzone ...and the Russian's shot down a damn passenger jet. A few groups in the area happen to be associating with terrorists lately, so I need to see more than association instead of painting them with the same brush.
They were doing more than just blocking roads. They were destroying electricity lines and preventing repair crews from making repairs. If a group of muslims had done that in the US everyone would have immediately yelled about terrorism. They are also associating with Right Sector, which is more than enough reason on its own for an organisation to be banned imo. And last I looked the area was not a warzone... The warzone is a few hundred miles to the east actually.
Also, "the Russians" did not shoot down anyone. If we assume the SBU taps were genuine (how convenient that would be), it was shot down by a bunch of Cossacks.
The incidents in question contained significantly less violence than you might see after a Manchester United win. Mostly they obstructed a road and wouldn't let people through.
Funny. I have never seen Manchester United fans destroy critical infrastructure and to deprive 2.3 million people (including hospitals and such) without electricity.
The other issue is that this paves the way for all Tartar organizations to be painted the same way, regardless of actual actions. It's an old cycle in Russian politics.
Yes, but that does not make this ban any less justified. They also did not really need this to paint Tatars and their organisations in a negative way. Tatars have always been hated, it goes back centuries. And while everyone knows it is wrong to blame the present-day Tatars for the crimes of their ancestors, it is still something that clings to them. Them being muslims also doesn't really help...
BaronIveagh wrote: And this is being pushed through by a woman herself wanted for a impressive variety of crimes (treason is my favorite, not because she betrayed her country in time of war, but because she was a government attorney sworn to uphold the law, on top that), and banned from entering the UK and Canada.
Defending your homeland is not treason. Ukraine is nor her country, nor mine or any Crimean's. Any oath to Ukraine was invalidated the moment Ukraine's only legitimate, democratically elected government was overthrown.
It is sad it has come to this, but given their recent actions, I feel it is justified.
Natalya Poklonskaya has already vowed that she will deport anyone who does not fully agree with and support Crimea's new place in Russia. Expect mass relocations of Tartars inside Russia and Crimea, and imprisonment on spurious charges next, 'for the good of the people'.
I hope you'll feel they're as justified.
We'll talk about that when that actually happens. I don't believe in it.
Also, as long as Natalya says it, I think I am going to support it. She's cute.
(for those who don't understand Russian, the song is about a guy who wants to commit a crime just so he can be prosecuted by Natalya Poklonskaya)
Iron_Captain wrote: They also did not really need this to paint Tatars and their organisations in a negative way. Tatars have always been hated, it goes back centuries. And while everyone knows it is wrong to blame the present-day Tatars for the crimes of their ancestors, it is still something that clings to them. Them being muslims also doesn't really help...
I was talking about legally. It paves the way to commit all sorts of fun like seizing peoples property 'because they're kulaks/tartars/etc'
Iron_Captain wrote: Any oath to Ukraine was invalidated the moment Ukraine's only legitimate, democratically elected government was overthrown.
I still must have missed that at some point. Because all I saw was a corrupt Ukrainian politician who had already committed treason and then fled the country in a middle of a crisis to commit more treason elsewhere (made extra hilarious after his vows not to resign or leave the country). The Ukrainian government then did the best it could with what it had. Calling it an ''overthrow' is disingenuous at best, since the bulk of the government remained. The situation that arose was not dealt with in the Constitution, so people improvised. HIlariously I've heard it called everything from a Nazi plot to a Zionist coup.
Iron_Captain wrote: They also did not really need this to paint Tatars and their organisations in a negative way. Tatars have always been hated, it goes back centuries. And while everyone knows it is wrong to blame the present-day Tatars for the crimes of their ancestors, it is still something that clings to them. Them being muslims also doesn't really help...
I was talking about legally. It paves the way to commit all sorts of fun like seizing peoples property 'because they're kulaks/tartars/etc'
I fail to see banning an organisation that participates in terrorist activities and has terrorist connections paves the way for seizing people's property because they are Tatars.
Iron_Captain wrote: Any oath to Ukraine was invalidated the moment Ukraine's only legitimate, democratically elected government was overthrown.
I still must have missed that at some point. Because all I saw was a corrupt Ukrainian politician who had already committed treason and then fled the country in a middle of a crisis to commit more treason elsewhere (made extra hilarious after his vows not to resign or leave the country). The Ukrainian government then did the best it could with what it had. Calling it an ''overthrow' is disingenuous at best, since the bulk of the government remained. The situation that arose was not dealt with in the Constitution, so people improvised. HIlariously I've heard it called everything from a Nazi plot to a Zionist coup.
I must have missed that. The Ukrainian Constitution was pretty clear about this: "No one shall usurp state power". Yanukovych was corrupt, but he arguably was less corrupt than the people who came in power after him, and regardless of corruption he was the democratically elected leader of Ukraine. The Constitution provides legal means to impeach a president if his behaviour is undesirable, but these were not followed. Using force rather than elections or constitutional means to change a democratically elected government is illegal. What happened in Kiev was unconstitutional and meats every possible definition of a 'coup d'état' and you can't blame Yanukovych for fleeing the capital when a thousand guys with AK-47s and guns were coming to hang him.
You definitely have your facts wrong. The entire government was dismissed, and virtually anyone in parliament disagreeing with the new people in power or showing support for Ukraine's legitimate leaders was forced to resign or suffered "accidents". The coup leaders also got rid of the Constitutional Court and any judge that disagreed with them, as well as releasing prisoners and generally interfering with the business of the judiciary, which is not allowed by the Ukrainian Constitution. There is no possible way you can claim the coup was legitimate, it directly violated the constitution and all the basic principles of democracy.
We'll talk about that when that actually happens. I don't believe in it.
When it's actually happening, it's already too late. God help you, my friend, because once this sort of thing starts, it never ends well.
"When it happens" means never, because this is never going to start. There is no rational reason to assume any kind of deportation or ethnic cleansing is being planned. Why do you think this?
Sure we got a history of it, but no where on the scale that russia does. Its like comparing a professional league player (russia) to a high school senior (US) in the great sport of ethnic cleansing.
Ustrello wrote: Sure we got a history of it, but no where on the scale that russia does. Its like comparing a professional league player (russia) to a high school senior (US) in the great sport of ethnic cleansing.
I dislike the fact that you are turning this into a competition about which country has the bloodiest history, but I certainly wonder what happened to the tens of millions of people whose land you now occupy? I don't recall anything on that scale in Russia's thousand year history... Even leaving the murders aside, I certainly find it very curious that the many peoples under Russian dominance have been able to preserve their cultures in most cases, whereas those that came under US dominance were not.
Ustrello wrote: Sure we got a history of it, but no where on the scale that russia does. Its like comparing a professional league player (russia) to a high school senior (US) in the great sport of ethnic cleansing.
I dislike the fact that you are turning this into a competition about which country has the bloodiest history, but I certainly wonder what happened to the tens of millions of people whose land you now occupy? I don't recall anything on that scale in Russia's thousand year history... Even leaving the murders aside, I certainly find it very curious that the many peoples under Russian dominance have been able to preserve their cultures, whereas those that came under US dominance were not.
Well, mostly they died of disease. I think the number is something like 100m in North and South America died of just disease. After that, it was a matter of every European and European decedent in the Americas fething them over for the next few hundred years. Although I think forced assimilation did more to wipe out native culture than any other way.
Ustrello wrote: Sure we got a history of it, but no where on the scale that russia does. Its like comparing a professional league player (russia) to a high school senior (US) in the great sport of ethnic cleansing.
I dislike the fact that you are turning this into a competition about which country has the bloodiest history, but I certainly wonder what happened to the tens of millions of people whose land you now occupy? I don't recall anything on that scale in Russia's thousand year history... Even leaving the murders aside, I certainly find it very curious that the many peoples under Russian dominance have been able to preserve their cultures in most cases, whereas those that came under US dominance were not.
Seeing how you started it by claiming what you did about the tartars yeah its fair play.
As for the culture that is interesting since we have buryats named Svetlana and igor who are also eastern orthodox.
Ustrello wrote: Sure we got a history of it, but no where on the scale that russia does. Its like comparing a professional league player (russia) to a high school senior (US) in the great sport of ethnic cleansing.
I dislike the fact that you are turning this into a competition about which country has the bloodiest history, but I certainly wonder what happened to the tens of millions of people whose land you now occupy? I don't recall anything on that scale in Russia's thousand year history... Even leaving the murders aside, I certainly find it very curious that the many peoples under Russian dominance have been able to preserve their cultures in most cases, whereas those that came under US dominance were not.
Seeing how you started it by claiming what you did about the tartars yeah its fair play.
As for the culture that is interesting since we have buryats named Svetlana and igor who are also eastern orthodox.
So? It is not like Buryats are restricted to one language or religion. There are also muslim Buryats named Said. What matters is that many Buryats still speak their own language and that Buryats as a group still have a culture that is clearly distinct from other cultures in Russia. Buryat language still has more speakers than Najavo language, the largest indigenous language of the US. And Najavo language speakers are over 50% of all native American language speakers in the US... While far from perfect, you can not deny that the position of native ethnic minorities in the Russian Federation is far better than in the United States.
Ustrello wrote: You mean Europeans and Asians have a resistance to European and Asian diseases and won't get wiped out by them? Man color me surprised
Are you seriously claiming all native Americans were wiped out by diseases (which were at times spread deliberately)? Most of the Native Americans died of diseases, but millions of them survived and eventually developed immunities. I sure wonder what happened to them? A little thing called "Indian Removal" maybe?
I don't know whence you got 45k dead. If that is all that has been documented, then the documentation must be sorely lacking. Fact is that once the entire US was once inhabited by hundreds, if not thousands of different peoples even after (deliberately spread) diseases ravaged most of the population. Now, only about 2 million remain, the vast majority of which have completely lost their culture, language and have for all intents and purposes ceased to be seperate ethnic groups. Only a few hundred thousand "true native Americans" still live where once were millions. This tragedy was caused by a combination of violence, deportation and forced assimilation. In terms of scale it completely outmatches any genocide ever seen in Europe, Russia or Asia save for the Holocaust.
Now that we have both made our points, I propose we return to the topic of this thread, which is about Ukraine and Russia.
The Great Leap Forward says hello. The Holodomor could, again, qualify depending on whether one considers it ethnic cleansing or not. The expulsion of Germans from various territories following WWII caused a rather hefty deathtoll as well. The Khmer Rouge also killed more than two million people and so on and so forth. There's no reliable figure about how many native Americans there were before the arrival of the Europeans, because the empires that existed crumbled when disease wiped out much of their population. It's certainly genocide, but no one knows how bad it was.
All of this is beside the point, because it's Iron_Captain once again trying to deflect the issue by bringing up someone else's poor record when Russia's past misdeeds is brought up. Whether the US has treated the native Americans badly (which they have), whether Australia has treated the Aboriginals badly (which they have) or whether Sweden has treated the Sámi people badly (we totally have) is completely beside the point: Stalin is still within living memory.
But then again this is coming from a poster who thinks the holomdor wasn't a genocide
That belief is not unreasonable; there is no consensus among researchers in the field. Some argue that it was, some argue that it wasn't and both sides have valid points.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Great Leap Forward says hello. The Holodomor could, again, qualify depending on whether one considers it ethnic cleansing or not. The expulsion of Germans from various territories following WWII caused a rather hefty deathtoll as well. The Khmer Rouge also killed more than two million people and so on and so forth. There's no reliable figure about how many native Americans there were before the arrival of the Europeans, because the empires that existed crumbled when disease wiped out much of their population. It's certainly genocide, but no one knows how bad it was.
All of this is beside the point, because it's Iron_Captain once again trying to deflect the issue by bringing up someone else's poor record when Russia's past misdeeds is brought up. Whether the US has treated the native Americans badly (which they have), whether Australia has treated the Aboriginals badly (which they have) or whether Sweden has treated the Sámi people badly (we totally have) is completely beside the point: Stalin is still within living memory.
Pretty much. There was a Native genocide, there's little denying that fact, but to pretend that it makes other misdeeds any way less bad is ridiculous.
Ustrello wrote: Sure we got a history of it, but no where on the scale that russia does. Its like comparing a professional league player (russia) to a high school senior (US) in the great sport of ethnic cleansing.
Are you going to provide any evidence of this hypothetical ethnic cleansing or is your only argument in support of this accusation "the Soviets did it decades ago so naturally modern Russians are going to do it too".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Great Leap Forward says hello. The Holodomor could, again, qualify depending on whether one considers it ethnic cleansing or not. The expulsion of Germans from various territories following WWII caused a rather hefty deathtoll as well. The Khmer Rouge also killed more than two million people and so on and so forth. There's no reliable figure about how many native Americans there were before the arrival of the Europeans, because the empires that existed crumbled when disease wiped out much of their population. It's certainly genocide, but no one knows how bad it was.
All of this is beside the point, because it's Iron_Captain once again trying to deflect the issue by bringing up someone else's poor record when Russia's past misdeeds is brought up. Whether the US has treated the native Americans badly (which they have), whether Australia has treated the Aboriginals badly (which they have) or whether Sweden has treated the Sámi people badly (we totally have) is completely beside the point: Stalin is still within living memory.
Memory. You said it right. Stalin is nothing but a memory and there is no reason to believe that the Tatars are facing deportation in the present day just because it once happened in the past, similar to the fact that native Americans do not have to fear deportation in the present day despite the fact that it happened in the past. (which is the whole point which started the treatment of native peoples debate). I was not trying to deflect attention (that only happened because it got turned into a who is worse contest), I was merely using it as an example to counter Ustrello's argument that the Tatars have to fear deportation in the present day just because Russia has engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past. To put it simply, the fact that a nation or country engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past, does not automatically mean they will do so in the present day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: You mean the prosecutor of crimea saying she would do it? Or did that slip past you?
If she ever said that, it slipped past everyone in the world except you.
Please provide proof she ever said that, because I am 100% sure she didn't.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Great Leap Forward says hello. The Holodomor could, again, qualify depending on whether one considers it ethnic cleansing or not. The expulsion of Germans from various territories following WWII caused a rather hefty deathtoll as well. The Khmer Rouge also killed more than two million people and so on and so forth. There's no reliable figure about how many native Americans there were before the arrival of the Europeans, because the empires that existed crumbled when disease wiped out much of their population. It's certainly genocide, but no one knows how bad it was.
All of this is beside the point, because it's Iron_Captain once again trying to deflect the issue by bringing up someone else's poor record when Russia's past misdeeds is brought up. Whether the US has treated the native Americans badly (which they have), whether Australia has treated the Aboriginals badly (which they have) or whether Sweden has treated the Sámi people badly (we totally have) is completely beside the point: Stalin is still within living memory.
Memory. You said it right. Stalin is nothing but a memory and there is no reason to believe that the Tatars are facing deportation in the present day just because it once happened in the past, similar to the fact that native Americans do not have to fear deportation in the present day despite the fact that it happened in the past. (which is the whole point which started the treatment of native peoples debate). I was not trying to deflect attention (that only happened because it got turned into a who is worse contest), I was merely using it as an example to counter Ustrello's argument that the Tatars have to fear deportation in the present day just because Russia has engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past.
To put it simply, the fact that a nation or country engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past, does not automatically mean they will do so in the present day.
hrm, Iron Captain...this line of reasoning is not going to hold water. If such is the case, why are Russians in eastern Ukraine so edgy despite no offical Ukrainian government attempts or policies to enact what they ostensibly are fighting against? Would Russians in Kaliningrad not have fears if it reverted back to Germany? Do Native Americans in the US today not have good reason for not trusting the US federal government? Did Croats and Serbs not do terrible things to each other over fears from events 50 years in the past?
You cant just play it off as "well thats all in the past", especially for a people like the Tartars who found themselves inside a new country overnight as foreign troops invaded and took over. You can't honestly really believe that, and you wouldnt if you were in their shoes.
And how does this article prove your point? Where in this article is Poklonskaya saying she will deport the Tatars?
What she is said according to this article is: "Incitement of ethnic strife will also carry the punishment of deportation"
That is completely different from what you are claiming she said. What she is saying is that anyone (regardless of ethnicity) trying to upset the fragile ethnic balance in Crimea will be thrown out.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Great Leap Forward says hello. The Holodomor could, again, qualify depending on whether one considers it ethnic cleansing or not. The expulsion of Germans from various territories following WWII caused a rather hefty deathtoll as well. The Khmer Rouge also killed more than two million people and so on and so forth. There's no reliable figure about how many native Americans there were before the arrival of the Europeans, because the empires that existed crumbled when disease wiped out much of their population. It's certainly genocide, but no one knows how bad it was.
All of this is beside the point, because it's Iron_Captain once again trying to deflect the issue by bringing up someone else's poor record when Russia's past misdeeds is brought up. Whether the US has treated the native Americans badly (which they have), whether Australia has treated the Aboriginals badly (which they have) or whether Sweden has treated the Sámi people badly (we totally have) is completely beside the point: Stalin is still within living memory.
Memory. You said it right. Stalin is nothing but a memory and there is no reason to believe that the Tatars are facing deportation in the present day just because it once happened in the past, similar to the fact that native Americans do not have to fear deportation in the present day despite the fact that it happened in the past. (which is the whole point which started the treatment of native peoples debate). I was not trying to deflect attention (that only happened because it got turned into a who is worse contest), I was merely using it as an example to counter Ustrello's argument that the Tatars have to fear deportation in the present day just because Russia has engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past.
To put it simply, the fact that a nation or country engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past, does not automatically mean they will do so in the present day.
hrm, Iron Captain...this line of reasoning is not going to hold water. If such is the case, why are Russians in eastern Ukraine so edgy despite no offical Ukrainian government attempts or policies to enact what they ostensibly are fighting against? Would Russians in Kaliningrad not have fears if it reverted back to Germany? Do Native Americans in the US today not have good reason for not trusting the US federal government? Did Croats and Serbs not do terrible things to each other over fears from events 50 years in the past?
You cant just play it off as "well thats all in the past", especially for a people like the Tartars who found themselves inside a new country overnight as foreign troops invaded and took over. You can't honestly really believe that, and you wouldnt if you were in their shoes.
Fear of ethnic cleansing is not the same as actual ethnic cleansing. I did not say that historical actions by a group do not cause some people to fear these groups will repeat them in the future. What I said was that historical actions of a group do not mean that the group is going to be repeating them in the future.
To take the Kaliningrad example, if Germany (re)gained control over Kaliningrad the Russians living there would probably be afraid of ethnic cleansing considering Germany's past ethnic cleansing. Yet that does not mean Germany will actually do that. Germany having done a lot of ethnic cleansing in the past does not mean they are always going to do it in the future.
You of all people should realize that the only ethnic minority group of substance in crimea are the tartars and jews correct? So of course it was aimed at them right after she threatened to shut down their council, took away their buildings radio stations etc. Also the tartars oppose the annexation so by opposing it she threatened to deport them
I fail to see banning an organisation that participates in terrorist activities and has terrorist connections paves the way for seizing people's property because they are Tatars.
Well, let's walk you through how it's gone in other countries.
You declare a ethnic minority organization to be a terrorist group. Then police informants accuse people who are members of that ethnic minority who have things of value of being members of that organization. The government then deports/imprisons/executes those people, and seizes their assets, which are then sold off cheaply, sometimes to the very police informants who testified against the previous owners.
The Constitution provides legal means to impeach a president if his behaviour is undesirable, but these were not followed. Using force rather than elections or constitutional means to change a democratically elected government is illegal.
The argument being that his flight from the country, along with most of his cabinet, equated a defacto abdication from office.
Iron_Captain wrote: and you can't blame Yanukovych for fleeing the capital when a thousand guys with AK-47s and guns were coming to hang him.
I can when they're called 'the police'. If Yanukovych was really worried about a fair trial, nothing prevented him from turning himself in in Donetsk or Crimea and proving his innocence in a court of law. I think it safe to say that he would have been quite safe from angry mobs in Sevastopol. Instead he fled beyond the reach of Ukrainian law, and then proceeded, also in violation of the Constitution, to ask foreign troops to invade the Ukraine and return him to power.
The coup leaders also got rid of the Constitutional Court and any judge that disagreed with them.
No, they didn't. Parliament dismissed 5 judges of the 18 on grounds of misconduct and violation of their oaths. Yurii Baulin who currently chairs the constitutional court has been on the court since 2008. Of other judges, 227 were dismissed, for the following reasons: a criminal guilty verdict becoming final (four judges), reaching of age of 65 [mandatory retirement age] (seven judges), impossibility to exercise powers (two judges), notices of resignation filed (195 judges), oath breaking (two judges), voluntary discharge (17 judges). That's out of 8,000 judges holding office in the Ukraine.
Because Natalya Poklonskaya has already said that's what she plans to do on her facebook page back in 2014. and now that the former Tartar government is officially a terrorist organization, it really swings the door open wide for exactly that.
Ustrello wrote: You of all people should realize that the only ethnic minority group of substance in crimea are the tartars and jews correct? So of course it was aimed at them right after she threatened to shut down their council, took away their buildings radio stations etc. Also the tartars oppose the annexation so by opposing it she threatened to deport them
Actually the biggest ethnic minority groups currently are the Ukrainians (about 15% of population), followed by the Tatars (about 12% of population), then the Belarusians (about 1-2% of population). Other historical minority groups like the Jews, Greeks and Germans are really small now nowadays. That aside, what she said was not aimed at Tatars or any specific ethnic group, you are just making that up. It was aimed at anyone regardless of ethnicity who would set up the different ethnic groups against each others. It was just as much a warning to Russian or Ukrainian nationalists as it was to Tatar nationalists.
The shutdown of the Tatar Mejlis happened one and a half year after she made this comment, not right after. Maybe you should have checked the date on the article? It is also unrelated. The organisation of the mejlis was banned for engaging in terrorism and associating with known terrorist and extremist organisations, the mejlis themselves have never denied this. No one is getting deported and this action was not aimed at a single organisation (and its leaders in particular) rather than the Tatar people as a whole, altough there is some valid concerns (as baronlveagh already noted) that this ban could reinforce the already very negative image of Tatars in the public opinion of Crimeans.
Also, with "oppose", she meant people actually taking action against the reunification of Crimea with Russia, not people who just disagree with it. The problem here is with the wording in the article being (deliberately) vague, and misquoting what she actually said. In the original comment she actually said the following:
Now you explain me how this means she is going to deport Tatars. You said that she said she would deport the Tatars. I don't see those words anywhere, please show me.
Are you seriously claiming all native Americans were wiped out by diseases (which were at times spread deliberately)? Most of the Native Americans died of diseases, but millions of them survived and eventually developed immunities. I sure wonder what happened to them? A little thing called "Indian Removal" maybe?
Eh, it's a lot more complicated than that (we killed each other with some vigor too) but he's right cap, the stunningly vast majority of native deaths were due to disease, upwards of 65 million natives. Much as I resent the US for existing, they were a relatively minor player compared to, say, Spain. When Cortez started in Mexico, there were approx 30 million people living there. By the time he was done, there were 3 million.
Now you explain me how this means she is going to deport Tatars. You said that she said she would deport the Tatars. I don't see those words anywhere, please show me.
Because, and I'm speaking very broadly here, the Tartars have thus far continued to refuse to recognize Crimea's returning to Russia, citing the Ukrainian Constitution, and that fact that Crimea's actions directly violated the existing law in no uncertain terms (as ruled by the Ukrainian Constitutional Court that you claimed was disbanded). That and you can link every single tartar in Crimea to the Mejlis with maybe one degree separation.
Since this is the Tartars more or less as a group, bonus, we can deport them for inciting ethnic strife.
Yeah, by the time the US actually started getting going, most of the native american populations and civilizations had already collapsed, otherwise the US would never have been able to expand as it did (or possibly ever even be founded). There are estimates that 90%+ of the native population of North America had died out before the US was founded. This also helps explain how the US was able to expand as fast as it did, as natural paths, migration routes, natural crop seedings, etc were often already pre-existing (with people of the day simply taking it as "divine aid" and proof of manifest destiny and whatnot). The US in many ways grew into a land that was pre-prepared, that a few hundred years before was *far* more populated.
That said, yes the US certainly did do its best to shaft what people's remained.
Fear of ethnic cleansing is not the same as actual ethnic cleansing. I did not say that historical actions by a group do not cause some people to fear these groups will repeat them in the future. What I said was that historical actions of a group do not mean that the group is going to be repeating them in the future.
To take the Kaliningrad example, if Germany (re)gained control over Kaliningrad the Russians living there would probably be afraid of ethnic cleansing considering Germany's past ethnic cleansing. Yet that does not mean Germany will actually do that. Germany having done a lot of ethnic cleansing in the past does not mean they are always going to do it in the future.
Right, but that fear would be there, and be very real, and when steps are taken to ban certain groups, it feeds into that fear because it's a step that was taken before. Nobody can say for sure a thing will happen until it does, but the concern is very real. Banning groups certainly contributes to that, as does shutting down their radio stations and other such things.
I fail to see banning an organisation that participates in terrorist activities and has terrorist connections paves the way for seizing people's property because they are Tatars.
Well, let's walk you through how it's gone in other countries.
You declare a ethnic minority organization to be a terrorist group. Then police informants accuse people who are members of that ethnic minority who have things of value of being members of that organization. The government then deports/imprisons/executes those people, and seizes their assets, which are then sold off cheaply, sometimes to the very police informants who testified against the previous owners.
So? Again, because things happened in the past, in different places doesn't mean they will happen now, in this place. Also, you are very wrong in that the mejlis were not declared to be a terrorist group, their organisation was just banned. Former membership or association with the organisation is not punishable in any way, so your argument falls flat.
The Constitution provides legal means to impeach a president if his behaviour is undesirable, but these were not followed. Using force rather than elections or constitutional means to change a democratically elected government is illegal.
The argument being that his flight from the country, along with most of his cabinet, equated a defacto abdication from office.
There is no such thing as a de-facto abdication in a democracy. An abdication which is not a de-jure abdication is not a legal abdication at all. The president can't abdicate just by travelling to another country, he has to either make an official statement of abdication or has to be impeached by parliament and the Supreme Court following the procedure outlined in the Constitution.
Iron_Captain wrote: and you can't blame Yanukovych for fleeing the capital when a thousand guys with AK-47s and guns were coming to hang him.
I can when they're called 'the police'. If Yanukovych was really worried about a fair trial, nothing prevented him from turning himself in in Donetsk or Crimea and proving his innocence in a court of law. I think it safe to say that he would have been quite safe from angry mobs in Sevastopol. Instead he fled beyond the reach of Ukrainian law, and then proceeded, also in violation of the Constitution, to ask foreign troops to invade the Ukraine and return him to power.
They were not called 'the police'. Western media called them 'protesters', Yanukovych himself called them 'terrorists'. The police had fled and for the most part was nowhere to be seen. Also, considering the people now in power, there was no way Yanukovych was ever going to get a fair trial.
No, it wasn't. Several cabinet members and Yanukovych fled. Of 400 odd MPs, 370(ish) remained in office and set up new elections.
MPs are not the government. The entire Azarov government was dismissed and replaced with the illegimate Yatsenyuk government, none of them remained in office. Also, the exact number of MPs that actually remained is unclear, especially since a lot of important decisions were made while half of the parliament was absent, and many MPs, while they technically remained in office, were not allowed to return to Kiev and thus in practice those seats remained empty until the next elections.
The coup leaders also got rid of the Constitutional Court and any judge that disagreed with them.
No, they didn't. Parliament dismissed 5 judges of the 18 on grounds of misconduct and violation of their oaths. Yurii Baulin who currently chairs the constitutional court has been on the court since 2008. Of other judges, 227 were dismissed, for the following reasons: a criminal guilty verdict becoming final (four judges), reaching of age of 65 [mandatory retirement age] (seven judges), impossibility to exercise powers (two judges), notices of resignation filed (195 judges), oath breaking (two judges), voluntary discharge (17 judges). That's out of 8,000 judges holding office in the Ukraine.
Parliament was not allowed to dismiss any judge, neither is parliament allowed to overturn any decision made by the Constitutional Court. The court, not parliament is the highest authority in Ukraine and its decisions can not be overturned or appealed. MPs are also not allowed to intimidate and threaten judges with violence and dismissal if they refuse to cooperate and parliament is also not allowed to ignore any past decisions by the court. In effect, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ceased to exist as a meaningful and independent authority, it continued in name (and disregarded law) only becoming a rubberstamp factory for the new government. That is what I meant when I said that they "got rid" of the Constitutional Court.
Because Natalya Poklonskaya has already said that's what she plans to do on her facebook page back in 2014. and now that the former Tartar government is officially a terrorist organization, it really swings the door open wide for exactly that.
She never said that. Please back up statement with proof.
Now you explain me how this means she is going to deport Tatars. You said that she said she would deport the Tatars. I don't see those words anywhere, please show me.
Because, and I'm speaking very broadly here, the Tartars have thus far continued to refuse to recognize Crimea's returning to Russia, citing the Ukrainian Constitution, and that fact that Crimea's actions directly violated the existing law in no uncertain terms (as ruled by the Ukrainian Constitutional Court that you claimed was disbanded). That and you can link every single tartar in Crimea to the Mejlis with maybe one degree separation.
Since this is the Tartars more or less as a group, bonus, we can deport them for inciting ethnic strife.
Now you are just making things up. This is your thought process, your logic, not that of any Russian official. Show me were Poklonskaya or any Crimean or Russian official said anything about deporting Tatars or any Russian or Crimean law that would allow for such deportation or any hint that the Tatars are about to be deported. If you can't (and I know you can't) you should just admit you are wrong and throwing around wild assumptions and unbased accusations. You are lowering yourself to the level of a conspiracy theorist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, by the time the US actually started getting going, most of the native american populations and civilizations had already collapsed, otherwise the US would never have been able to expand as it did (or possibly ever even be founded). There are estimates that 90%+ of the native population of North America had died out before the US was founded. This also helps explain how the US was able to expand as fast as it did, as natural paths, migration routes, natural crop seedings, etc were often already pre-existing (with people of the day simply taking it as "divine aid" and proof of manifest destiny and whatnot). The US in many ways grew into a land that was pre-prepared, that a few hundred years before was *far* more populated.
That said, yes the US certainly did do its best to shaft what people's remained.
Fear of ethnic cleansing is not the same as actual ethnic cleansing. I did not say that historical actions by a group do not cause some people to fear these groups will repeat them in the future. What I said was that historical actions of a group do not mean that the group is going to be repeating them in the future.
To take the Kaliningrad example, if Germany (re)gained control over Kaliningrad the Russians living there would probably be afraid of ethnic cleansing considering Germany's past ethnic cleansing. Yet that does not mean Germany will actually do that. Germany having done a lot of ethnic cleansing in the past does not mean they are always going to do it in the future.
Right, but that fear would be there, and be very real, and when steps are taken to ban certain groups, it feeds into that fear because it's a step that was taken before. Nobody can say for sure a thing will happen until it does, but the concern is very real. Banning groups certainly contributes to that, as does shutting down their radio stations and other such things.
True. But fear and people being concerned something might happen still doesn't mean it actually will happen. I can definitely see how banning the mejlis would increase such fears and concerns for the Tatars, but it does not mean that the Crimean or Russian government is actually gearing up for such operations.
So? Again, because things happened in the past, in different places doesn't mean they will happen now, in this place.
Actually it has been going on right now, in that place, though just not to the Tartars. At the moment they're still working through the 'separatists' who did silly things like record Russian soldiers in the Crimea doing unflattering things, run blogs the FSB didn't agree with or otherwise drew attention to themselves for disagreeing. For being about democracy, you've deported about 400 (granted, no impartial sources could be found for this number) in the last six months for nothing more serious than having a different opinion than yours.
There is no such thing as a de-facto abdication in a democracy. An abdication which is not a de-jure abdication is not a legal abdication at all. The president can't abdicate just by traveling to another country, he has to either make an official statement of abdication or has to be impeached by parliament and the Supreme Court following the procedure outlined in the Constitution.
Incorrect. It depends on the reasons for his travel to that other country. Fleeing, knowing that the moment the court is back in session he's going to be charged (which he was, and a warrant issued for his arrest), is still 'flight' and a serious crime under law in most countries. After all, the only reason they couldn't follow procedure was that he instituted a two day government holiday, which he then used to flee.
Wow, the historical revisionism is strong with this one. No, the people looking for him really were 'the police', warrants for his arrest were actually issued the moment courts were back in session.
Iron_Captain wrote: The entire Azarov government was dismissed and replaced with the illegimate Yatsenyuk government, none of them remained in office.
Not true. Azarov resigned a month earlier. His government, under the law, was dissolved as soon as Yanukovych accepted his resignation.
Also, the exact number of MPs that actually remained is unclear,
According to the numbers, 375 voted, out of 450. Not great, but more than the 300 needed to pass. And having absenteeism among MPs/Congressmen during very important votes is hardly unheard of (looking at YOU US Congress).
Parliament was not allowed to dismiss any judge, neither is parliament allowed to overturn any decision made by the Constitutional Court.
I seem to recall that the Constitutional Court does, in fact, have a number of judges (5) who serve in Parliament's quota, and, frankly, at their discretion. I grant we're in areas of Ukrainian law I'm not entirely familiar with, but I am aware that the rest are appointed by the President and Council of Judges.
So? Again, because things happened in the past, in different places doesn't mean they will happen now, in this place.
Actually it has been going on right now, in that place, though just not to the Tartars. At the moment they're still working through the 'separatists' who did silly things like record Russian soldiers in the Crimea doing unflattering things, run blogs the FSB didn't agree with or otherwise drew attention to themselves for disagreeing. For being about democracy, you've deported about 400 (granted, no impartial sources could be found for this number) in the last six months for nothing more serious than having a different opinion than yours.
Nonsense. It did not happen, you are just echoing ukr propaganda here. The fact you could not find any impartial sources about it says more than enough. Something like this would not happen without mainstream (Western) press picking up on it.
There is no such thing as a de-facto abdication in a democracy. An abdication which is not a de-jure abdication is not a legal abdication at all. The president can't abdicate just by traveling to another country, he has to either make an official statement of abdication or has to be impeached by parliament and the Supreme Court following the procedure outlined in the Constitution.
Incorrect. It depends on the reasons for his travel to that other country. Fleeing, knowing that the moment the court is back in session he's going to be charged (which he was, and a warrant issued for his arrest), is still 'flight' and a serious crime under law in most countries. After all, the only reason they couldn't follow procedure was that he instituted a two day government holiday, which he then used to flee.
Then show me the relevant articles of Ukrainian law. There is nothing illegal about Yanukovych's actions. Especially since at the time of the vote, Yanukovych was still in Crimea. He did not leave for Russia until 25 February. The argument that they could not follow impeachment procedure because there was a 2-day holiday is ridiculous. An impeachment procedure could have been started regardless of holiday, and they could have waited a few days while all MPs and judges returned to Kiev. Instead, the opposition felt it necessary to rush it through immediately in violation of the Constitution just to ensure their 'victory'.
Wow, the historical revisionism is strong with this one. No, the people looking for him really were 'the police', warrants for his arrest were actually issued the moment courts were back in session.
That was after he fled. The reason he fled Kiev for Kharkov was because armed mobs were coming his way and the police had fled the field.
Iron_Captain wrote: The entire Azarov government was dismissed and replaced with the illegimate Yatsenyuk government, none of them remained in office.
Not true. Azarov resigned a month earlier. His government, under the law, was dissolved as soon as Yanukovych accepted his resignation.
His government resigned, but it was not dissolved. Under law it had to continue (which it did under Arbuzov, who was later forced to flee the country along with a lot of other government officials) until a new government would be appointed. Also, after Yanukovych was removed from power, the Constitution states that the acting prime minister (Arbuzov) should have been in charge of the interim government until the elections, and not the opposition. Yet more evidence that this was an unlawful coup by the opposition, and not just a removal of a bad president.
Also, the exact number of MPs that actually remained is unclear,
According to the numbers, 375 voted, out of 450. Not great, but more than the 300 needed to pass. And having absenteeism among MPs/Congressmen during very important votes is hardly unheard of (looking at YOU US Congress).
Please baron, start doing some actual (unbiased) research. You dissapoint me. 328 voted, not 375. http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/192030.html 338 were needed to pass, not 300 (450 seats, 3/4th majority is neccessary to pass. 3/4th of 450 is 337.5, so 338 are needed to pass.) Also, the vote was held while the parliament building was under de-facto total control of the opposition, having been taken over by armed mobs the previous day. It is unclear how so many MPs could have returned to Kiev on such short notice, and it remains unclear how many of the votes were issued by actual MPs.
Parliament was not allowed to dismiss any judge, neither is parliament allowed to overturn any decision made by the Constitutional Court.
I seem to recall that the Constitutional Court does, in fact, have a number of judges (5) who serve in Parliament's quota, and, frankly, at their discretion. I grant we're in areas of Ukrainian law I'm not entirely familiar with, but I am aware that the rest are appointed by the President and Council of Judges.
Parliament has a say in who gets appointed to the Constitutional Court, yes. But it does not get to dismiss judges when it does not like their decisions. As in any democracy, parliament is not allowed to interfere in judicial matters.
She never said that. Please back up statement with proof.
And where in this video is she saying that? She doesn't say anything at all in this video! This is no proof, this is propaganda (and very obvious propaganda at that). Do you have any actual, credible sources?
Wait a minute. Just making sure I'm getting this right: the fact that the opposition was in control of the Parliament means the vote was held under duress, and thus invalid?
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Wait a minute. Just making sure I'm getting this right: the fact that the opposition was in control of the Parliament means the vote was held under duress, and thus invalid?
His argument is that people may have been impersonating/standing in for the MPs from those regions. (And he calls my thoughts on what goes on in the Ukraine a conspiracy theory....)
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:Then it's probably a good thing the Tatars recognise Crimea as Russian then...... Oh wait.
Yeah, he's ignoring the obvious hard, in a way only possible in Russia.
The price paiying for a civil war, unleashed by maydowns - is inevitable. Once the chaos is over and all the Nazis, murderers, rapists, looters and extortionists will flee. Maybe to Europe.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Wait a minute. Just making sure I'm getting this right: the fact that the opposition was in control of the Parliament means the vote was held under duress, and thus invalid?
His argument is that people may have been impersonating/standing in for the MPs from those regions. (And he calls my thoughts on what goes on in the Ukraine a conspiracy theory....)
That is what you get when you throw out very extreme theories without any supporting evidence.
I apologise baron. For some reason I must have gotten the numbers on both votes messed up in my head, so apparently I am the one who did not do his research. I dissapoint myself. But do note that the vote was not for new elections (as you noted, they would happen anyway, no vote neccessary) but for the removal of Yanukovych from power, so I thought this was the vote you were referring to. Also, the second link you gave leads to a vote on a corruption law. I still wonder where you got those numbers?
Nonetheless, the vote on the appointment Yatsenyuk government was even more illegal because that is something parliament is not even allowed to vote on at all. Parliament does not appoint governments, the president does. In the case the president is unable to carry out his duties, they are taken over by the prime minister. The correct procudure would have been for Arbuzov to form a temporary government until the elections could be held, not for the opposition to seize all posts of power and make themselves into a government. Also, Yatsenyuk himself was appointed by the Maidan council rather than by parliament: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26359150 ( I probably don't have to mention how incredibly illegal that is) and I just came across an article that said only 331, not 371 voted in favour: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/193222.html. That goes once more to show the chaotic circumstances at the time and that no one really knows who voted and who didn't. There was just no independent control at the time.
The largest group to oppose the unification with Russia was the tartars, who continue to not recognize it. That's why so many people who read that second part of her statement about deportations thought of the tartars. She's already deported several of their leaders.
I apologise baron. For some reason I must have gotten the numbers on both votes messed up in my head, so apparently I am the one who did not do his research. I dissapoint myself.
I was sort of scratching my head there going "I know what the numbers that were reported were....'
Nonetheless, the vote on the appointment Yatsenyuk government was even more illegal because that is something parliament is not even allowed to vote on at all. Parliament does not appoint governments, the president does. In the case the president is unable to carry out his duties, they are taken over by the prime minister. The correct procudure would have been for Arbuzov to form a temporary government until the elections could be held, not for the opposition to seize all posts of power and make themselves into a government. Also, Yatsenyuk himself was appointed by the Maidan council rather than by parliament:
Well... if the cabinet has fled (reasons aside) they're no longer able to carry out their duties. And they did flee (even they admit this) and did not make any real effort to set up a 'government in exile' (until recently) and some of them, like the minister of finance, are still tanning their buns on a beach in Spain. Arbuzov also fled.
It's the same issue with the US: there are only 18 people in the line of succession to the office of President of the United States. If all of them are, for whatever reason, unable to serve, there is no 'legal' way to appoint one past the last name on the list. (This became a serious concern during the Cold War but was never actually addressed for some reason).
Yet, for the US Government to function (even as poorly as it does) there still has to be a backside in that seat. What would likely end up happening is the Senate would select one to serve until elections could be held. The legality of it would, almost undoubtedly, be a hot button issue, but in reality someone has to serve in those key positions. You would see power grabs, legal shenanigans, etc. Judges would definitely become involved, and at least one state would, in fact, try and secede in the confusion (as the Army is also decapitated without a President).
The largest group to oppose the unification with Russia was the tartars, who continue to not recognize it. That's why so many people who read that second part of her statement about deportations thought of the tartars. She's already deported several of their leaders.
Technically, they were not deported. Just banned from entering Crimea.
Nonetheless, the vote on the appointment Yatsenyuk government was even more illegal because that is something parliament is not even allowed to vote on at all. Parliament does not appoint governments, the president does. In the case the president is unable to carry out his duties, they are taken over by the prime minister. The correct procudure would have been for Arbuzov to form a temporary government until the elections could be held, not for the opposition to seize all posts of power and make themselves into a government. Also, Yatsenyuk himself was appointed by the Maidan council rather than by parliament:
Well... if the cabinet has fled (reasons aside) they're no longer able to carry out their duties. And they did flee (even they admit this) and did not make any real effort to set up a 'government in exile' (until recently) and some of them, like the minister of finance, are still tanning their buns on a beach in Spain. Arbuzov also fled.
It's the same issue with the US: there are only 18 people in the line of succession to the office of President of the United States. If all of them are, for whatever reason, unable to serve, there is no 'legal' way to appoint one past the last name on the list. (This became a serious concern during the Cold War but was never actually addressed for some reason).
Yet, for the US Government to function (even as poorly as it does) there still has to be a backside in that seat. What would likely end up happening is the Senate would select one to serve until elections could be held. The legality of it would, almost undoubtedly, be a hot button issue, but in reality someone has to serve in those key positions. You would see power grabs, legal shenanigans, etc. Judges would definitely become involved, and at least one state would, in fact, try and secede in the confusion (as the Army is also decapitated without a President).
True, but if the Senate itself has caused all those 18 people to be unable to take over the duties of president using illegal means, and then goes on to create a government of its own, you can bet that a lot of Americans (and other people) would think that it was an illegal coup by politicians in the Senate. I am pretty sure this would lead to conflict in the US, even if the US is not so polarised as the Ukraine. Whether it was justified or not is a matter of different opinion and political alignment, but there is simply no denying that what happened in Ukraine was according to the Constitution illegal and that meets the common definition of a coup. It is like a really perfect example of a coup. And that should not be surprising, because after all, coup d'etat is one of the US's favourite weapons and they have lots of experience.
True, but if the Senate itself has caused all those 18 people to be unable to take over the duties of president using illegal means, and then goes on to create a government of its own, you can bet that a lot of Americans (and other people) would think that it was an illegal coup by politicians in the Senate. I am pretty sure this would lead to conflict in the US, even if the US is not so polarised as the Ukraine.
As far as polarization goes, the US is very nearly there. And the senate wouldn't have to, the president pro tempore of the Senate is the 4th in line after Speaker of the House, they'd only have to eliminate 3 to get their man in.
Whether it was justified or not is a matter of different opinion and political alignment, but there is simply no denying that what happened in Ukraine was according to the Constitution illegal and that meets the common definition of a coup.
It lacks the overwhelming participation of the military common to most coups though. I would actually say it's a comparative outlier, as, even by your estimation, the government was overthrown by the opposition, not the military.
And that should not be surprising, because after all, coup d'etat is one of the US's favourite weapons and they have lots of experience.
A US run coup, there would not have been so many people making a successful run for the boarder, and the little green men would have been US special forces ensuring Russian non-involvement. Instead we see massive Russian involvement, Crimea getting carved off, and all the people responsible for escalating things in the first place fleeing to Russian territory where they've been getting rewarded with fat government paychecks. And I'm not talking about former elected officials.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, the US has nothing to gain from this conflict. I might see some older neocons do it for gaks and giggles, but not this current administration.
Well, remember that from the Russian perspective, the US would weaken Russia just on principal. It's not a matter of do they gain something. However, this lacks the typical finesse of a US backed coup (if we're calling it that).
To me it looks more like a Russian maneuver to seize Crimea. Escalate the situation until one side flees and leaves the other to pick up the pieces, and then pick a side after the fact to stoke the situation even further. Keep a slow burning war going to axe the idea of the Ukraine becoming a regional rival to Russian power.
That idea got axed the moment someone thought about it in the first place, drugs were probably involved.
A huge amount of trade used to move through the Ukraine, going to or coming from Europe. You can be a regional power without being the biggest or baddest guy on the block, with the right combination of leaders and trade. I think that's what Russia was worried about the most. Not NATO per se, but a Ukraine with a strong leader who knew what he actually had. Aligned with Russia, such a Ukraine would be an asset to Russian objectives. Aligned with Europe, and they could highly damaging. I think Russia stoked the fires to create a situation they could exploit to cripple that possibility.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, the US has nothing to gain from this conflict. I might see some older neocons do it for gaks and giggles, but not this current administration.
Nothing to gain? "Russia with Ukraine is an empire", an American diplomat once correctly noted. From that also follows that without Ukraine... The US has everything to gain from seperating Russia and Ukraine. They were anxious about Russia's growing influence in the Middle East, so they decided to give Russia something else to divert its attention.
True, but if the Senate itself has caused all those 18 people to be unable to take over the duties of president using illegal means, and then goes on to create a government of its own, you can bet that a lot of Americans (and other people) would think that it was an illegal coup by politicians in the Senate. I am pretty sure this would lead to conflict in the US, even if the US is not so polarised as the Ukraine.
As far as polarization goes, the US is very nearly there.
I had no idea about that. So that means we are getting American Civil War II soon?
Whether it was justified or not is a matter of different opinion and political alignment, but there is simply no denying that what happened in Ukraine was according to the Constitution illegal and that meets the common definition of a coup.
It lacks the overwhelming participation of the military common to most coups though. I would actually say it's a comparative outlier, as, even by your estimation, the government was overthrown by the opposition, not the military.
The military can stage coups, but military involvement is not necessary for a coup. Many coups take place without the military, especially here in Eastern Europe.
And that should not be surprising, because after all, coup d'etat is one of the US's favourite weapons and they have lots of experience.
A US run coup, there would not have been so many people making a successful run for the boarder, and the little green men would have been US special forces ensuring Russian non-involvement. Instead we see massive Russian involvement, Crimea getting carved off, and all the people responsible for escalating things in the first place fleeing to Russian territory where they've been getting rewarded with fat government paychecks. And I'm not talking about former elected officials.
As a US coup, I still have to say it mostly succeeded in its objective (seperating Ukraine from Russia). Crimea was pretty much everything Russia could do against it. And while Crimea is important, compared to losing Ukraine it is only little consolation.
I think calling the overthrow of Yanukovitch a "US coup" is both overestimating the value or Ukraine to US foreign Policy and US capabilites, and implying the Ukrainian people have no agency of their own, which is no more true than anywhere else.
Yanukovitch had major issues, he was thrown out of power once before, and, lets be honest, the guy was massively corrupt and ineffectual. That is not to say that many of his opponents are not these things, they are, but Yanukovitch had clearly lost the ability to govern and confidence of the nation as a whole, especially dropping the EU trade treaty in favor of a last minute Russian "request/counteroffer" the way he did.
It's silly how everything that Russia finds not to their liking ends up as a US plot or CIA conspiracy. Have such things happened? Sure. Do they happen with anything near the frequency and successfulness that Russia claims? No. If they did, Russia would not exist, and if Russia is so amazing at both detecting and countering such activities, one would expect that things would have exploded in a bad way looooong ago.
The CIA is a useful strawman to frame everything as an "us against them" struggle and detract from internal dissent, the US uses the same mechanism quite frequently (Terrorism!!!1!1!1), but it needs to be acknowledged as the strawman it really is.
True, but if the Senate itself has caused all those 18 people to be unable to take over the duties of president using illegal means, and then goes on to create a government of its own, you can bet that a lot of Americans (and other people) would think that it was an illegal coup by politicians in the Senate. I am pretty sure this would lead to conflict in the US, even if the US is not so polarised as the Ukraine.
As far as polarization goes, the US is very nearly there.
I had no idea about that. So that means we are getting American Civil War II soon?
the way some talk in the US, yes. Probably not given how intermixed and mobile the US population is, but political and geographical polarization are increasing. Thats a big reason as to why this years election is such a shitshow.
Probably overstating the division. US politics have always been polarized. Hell, it's pretty much our entire political history. It wanes and ebbs every 40-50 years. Trump and Sanders remind me an awfully lot of Huey Long and Father Coughlin, who were very polarizing figures in the US back during the Great Depression. The current election isn't a gak show because of polarization; its a gak show because one of the big two parties in the US has lost its cohesion which is also a repeating pattern in US politics (happens about every 25-30 yeas).
LordofHats wrote: Probably overstating the division. US politics have always been polarized. Hell, it's pretty much out entire political history. It wanes and ebbs every 40-50 years. Trump and Sanders remind me an awfully lot of Huey Long and Father Coughlin, who were very polarizing figures in the US back during the Great Depression. The current election isn't a gak show because of polarization; its a gak show because one of the big two parties in the US has lost its cohesion which is also a repeating pattern in US politics (happens about every 25-30 yeas).
those are all true, though voter polarization certainly has played a role in the Republicans losing party cohesion, the candidates we are seeing are far less moderate than in eras past, which is saying something. likewise, Hillary is an extremely polarizing figure herself, possibly even moreso than Sanders.
The CIA is a useful strawman to frame everything as an "us against them" struggle and detract from internal dissent, the US uses the same mechanism quite frequently (Terrorism!!!1!1!1), but it needs to be acknowledged as the strawman it really is.
Vaktathi wrote: the way some talk in the US, yes. Probably not given how intermixed and mobile the US population is, but political and geographical polarization are increasing. Thats a big reason as to why this years election is such a shitshow.
Interesting. I wonder what will happen if Trump wins?
Keep in mind that Friedman was also the guy predicted the US and Japan would emerge as post cold war rivals destined to war with each other in the near future...25 years ago. He's a bit kooky and the source of that statement by him was a Russian media outlet.
That said, I dont doubt that some of the Maidan groups may have gotten support of some kind from the US, but beyond almost certainly relatively minor stuff, stuff like how to organize social media campaigns and perhaps some innformatio supply and the like. There is no evidence im aware of in terms of gigantic cash infusions, weapons shipments, or major organizational aid, certainly nothing to indicate the US organized and led the overthrow of Yanukovitch, and certainly nothing to the extent of direct personnel involvement the way Russia has in the DNR/LNR with figures like Strelkov or boots on the ground like in Crimea.
So, I'd believe that the Maidan protestors recieved some aid from the US or European nations, but theres very little hard evidence that these groups were organized, directed, and primarily funded by the US.
As for Trmp, who knows? I'd wager we probably wont have to worry about it, but if we do...its going to be an interesting ride. Probably not a good one though my hopes for Hillary arent high either :(
Vaktathi wrote: the candidates we are seeing are far less moderate than in eras past, which is saying something. likewise,
I don't think this is true adjusting for times. Goldwater was a rather radical candidate back when he ran in 1964, and today we'd see him as very typical boarding on uninspiring. FDR likewise was something very different from previous candidates of the Progressive Era. Thaddeus Stevens probably never would have lasted long in politics had there not been a Civil War for him to ride in on. The thing is, no one remembers people who don't win. US political history is chalk full of crazies and divisive figures, but once their time passes they fade from memory very quickly as someone new steps on the scene.
Sure, your points are valid, though I cant see a Trump or Cruz having made as much headway with the Republican party of 1988, 1996, or 2000 as they have today, they are much more divisive figures apt to attack their colleagues as much as the actual opposition, even outside campaign season.
Depends on who's version of events you're reading. His final words were 'Shoot me in the chest' is widely agreed on, but the content of his rant up till that point...
Volodymyr Viatrovych is erasing the country’s racist and bloody history — stripping pogroms and ethnic cleansing from the official archives.
hen it comes to politics and history, an accurate memory can be a dangerous thing.
In Ukraine, as the country struggles with its identity, that’s doubly true. While Ukrainian political parties try to push the country toward Europe or Russia, a young, rising Ukrainian historian named Volodymyr Viatrovych has placed himself at the center of that fight. Advocating a nationalist, revisionist history that glorifies the country’s move to independence — and purges bloody and opportunistic chapters — Viatrovych has attempted to redraft the country’s modern history to whitewash Ukrainian nationalist groups’ involvement in the Holocaust and mass ethnic cleansing of Poles during World War II. And right now, he’s winning.
In May 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a law that mandated the transfer of the country’s complete set of archives, from the “Soviet organs of repression,” such as the KGB and its decedent, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), to a government organization called the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. Run by the young scholar — and charged with “implementation of state policy in the field of restoration and preservation of national memory of the Ukrainian people” — the institute received millions of documents, including information on political dissidents, propaganda campaigns against religion, the activities of Ukrainian nationalist organizations, KGB espionage and counter-espionage activities, and criminal cases connected to the Stalinist purges. Under the archives law, one of four “memory laws” written by Viatrovych, the institute’s anodyne-sounding mandate is merely a cover to present a biased and one-sided view of modern Ukrainian history — and one that could shape the country’s path forward.
1.gif?r=usa5&k=ZAl1cy1lYXN0LTFkCWgJaS1lY
The controversy centers on a telling of World War II history that amplifies Soviet crimes and glorifies Ukrainian nationalist fighters while dismissing the vital part they played in ethnic cleansing of Poles and Jews from 1941 to 1945 after the Nazi invasion of the former Soviet Union. Viatrovych’s vision of history instead tells the story of partisan guerrillas who waged a brave battle for Ukrainian independence against overwhelming Soviet power. It also sends a message to those who do not identify with the country’s ethno-nationalist mythmakers — such as the many Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine who still celebrate the heroism of the Red Army during World War II — that they’re on the outside. And more pointedly, scholars now fear that they risk reprisal for not toeing the official line — or calling Viatrovych on his historical distortions. Under Viatrovych’s reign, the country could be headed for a new, and frightening, era of censorship.
[Break]
From the beginning of his career, he was an up-and-comer. Viatrovych has the equivalent of a Ph.D. from Lviv University, located in the western Ukrainian city where he was born, and is articulate and passionate, albeit sometimes with a short fuse. The 35 year old scholar, first made a professional name for himself at the Institute for the Study of the Liberation Movement known by its Ukrainian acronym TsDVR, an organization founded to promote the heroic narrative of the OUN-UPA, where he began working in 2002. By 2006, he had become the organization’s director. In this time, he published books glorifying the OUN-UPA, established programs to help young Ukrainian scholars promote the nationalist viewpoint, and served as a bridge to ultra-nationalists in the diaspora who largely fund TsDVR.
In 2008, in addition to his role at TsDVR, Viktor Yushchenko, then president, appointed Viatrovych head of the Security Service of Ukraine’s (SBU) archives. Yuschenko made the promotion of OUN-UPA mythology a fundamental part of his legacy, rewriting school textbooks, renaming streets, and honoring OUN-UPA leaders as “heroes of Ukraine.” As Yuschenko’s leading memory manager — both at TsDVR and the SBU — Viatrovych was his right-hand man in this crusade. He continued to push the state-sponsored heroic representation of the OUN-UPA and their leaders Bandera, Yaroslav Stetsko, and Roman Shukhevych. “The Ukrainian struggle for independence is one of the cornerstones of our national self-identification,” Viatrovych wrote in Pravda in 2010. “Because without UPA, without Bandera, without Shukhevych there would not be a contemporary Ukrainian state, there would not be a contemporary Ukrainian nation.” Viatrovych is also frequently quoted in the Ukrainian media, once even going so far as to defend the Ukrainian SS Galician division that fought on the side of the Nazis during World War II.
Volodymyr Viatrovych is erasing the country’s racist and bloody history — stripping pogroms and ethnic cleansing from the official archives.
hen it comes to politics and history, an accurate memory can be a dangerous thing.
In Ukraine, as the country struggles with its identity, that’s doubly true. While Ukrainian political parties try to push the country toward Europe or Russia, a young, rising Ukrainian historian named Volodymyr Viatrovych has placed himself at the center of that fight. Advocating a nationalist, revisionist history that glorifies the country’s move to independence — and purges bloody and opportunistic chapters — Viatrovych has attempted to redraft the country’s modern history to whitewash Ukrainian nationalist groups’ involvement in the Holocaust and mass ethnic cleansing of Poles during World War II. And right now, he’s winning.
In May 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a law that mandated the transfer of the country’s complete set of archives, from the “Soviet organs of repression,” such as the KGB and its decedent, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), to a government organization called the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. Run by the young scholar — and charged with “implementation of state policy in the field of restoration and preservation of national memory of the Ukrainian people” — the institute received millions of documents, including information on political dissidents, propaganda campaigns against religion, the activities of Ukrainian nationalist organizations, KGB espionage and counter-espionage activities, and criminal cases connected to the Stalinist purges. Under the archives law, one of four “memory laws” written by Viatrovych, the institute’s anodyne-sounding mandate is merely a cover to present a biased and one-sided view of modern Ukrainian history — and one that could shape the country’s path forward.
1.gif?r=usa5&k=ZAl1cy1lYXN0LTFkCWgJaS1lY
The controversy centers on a telling of World War II history that amplifies Soviet crimes and glorifies Ukrainian nationalist fighters while dismissing the vital part they played in ethnic cleansing of Poles and Jews from 1941 to 1945 after the Nazi invasion of the former Soviet Union. Viatrovych’s vision of history instead tells the story of partisan guerrillas who waged a brave battle for Ukrainian independence against overwhelming Soviet power. It also sends a message to those who do not identify with the country’s ethno-nationalist mythmakers — such as the many Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine who still celebrate the heroism of the Red Army during World War II — that they’re on the outside. And more pointedly, scholars now fear that they risk reprisal for not toeing the official line — or calling Viatrovych on his historical distortions. Under Viatrovych’s reign, the country could be headed for a new, and frightening, era of censorship.
[Break]
From the beginning of his career, he was an up-and-comer. Viatrovych has the equivalent of a Ph.D. from Lviv University, located in the western Ukrainian city where he was born, and is articulate and passionate, albeit sometimes with a short fuse. The 35 year old scholar, first made a professional name for himself at the Institute for the Study of the Liberation Movement known by its Ukrainian acronym TsDVR, an organization founded to promote the heroic narrative of the OUN-UPA, where he began working in 2002. By 2006, he had become the organization’s director. In this time, he published books glorifying the OUN-UPA, established programs to help young Ukrainian scholars promote the nationalist viewpoint, and served as a bridge to ultra-nationalists in the diaspora who largely fund TsDVR.
In 2008, in addition to his role at TsDVR, Viktor Yushchenko, then president, appointed Viatrovych head of the Security Service of Ukraine’s (SBU) archives. Yuschenko made the promotion of OUN-UPA mythology a fundamental part of his legacy, rewriting school textbooks, renaming streets, and honoring OUN-UPA leaders as “heroes of Ukraine.” As Yuschenko’s leading memory manager — both at TsDVR and the SBU — Viatrovych was his right-hand man in this crusade. He continued to push the state-sponsored heroic representation of the OUN-UPA and their leaders Bandera, Yaroslav Stetsko, and Roman Shukhevych. “The Ukrainian struggle for independence is one of the cornerstones of our national self-identification,” Viatrovych wrote in Pravda in 2010. “Because without UPA, without Bandera, without Shukhevych there would not be a contemporary Ukrainian state, there would not be a contemporary Ukrainian nation.” Viatrovych is also frequently quoted in the Ukrainian media, once even going so far as to defend the Ukrainian SS Galician division that fought on the side of the Nazis during World War II.
Wow. At this rate, it wont't be long before the Russian "Ukraine has been taken over by nazis" propaganda is no longer propaganda, but the truth.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law on Monday making the denial of Nazi crimes and distortion of the Soviet Union's role in the World War Two a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in jail.
I think similar measures have also been brought up in Poland, Hungar, the Baltic states and others.
Hmn, I'm not sure the correct response to one country burning books is to try and burn more books than them. ...We'd just end up like the kids from Beyond Thunderdome and that magic image box.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law on Monday making the denial of Nazi crimes and distortion of the Soviet Union's role in the World War Two a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in jail.
I think similar measures have also been brought up in Poland, Hungar, the Baltic states and others.
The really important difference is that those laws prohibit denial of historical Nazi crimes (and in some countries prohibit denial of historical Soviet crimes too). This law in Ukraine is not the same, it is in fact the exact opposite in that it prohibits acknlowedging historical crimes.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law on Monday making the denial of Nazi crimes and distortion of the Soviet Union's role in the World War Two a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in jail.
I think similar measures have also been brought up in Poland, Hungar, the Baltic states and others.
The really important difference is that those laws prohibit denial of historical Nazi crimes (and in some countries prohibit denial of historical Soviet crimes too). This law in Ukraine is not the same, it is in fact the exact opposite in that it prohibits acknlowedging historical crimes.
The Russian law also prohibits "distorting the Soviet Union's role in WW2", which can be used to prevent discussion or criticism of Stalin or the conduct of Red Army soldiers and other such things, thats where the similarities lie.
Both laws are about protecting the image of the state and the past as those in power wish it to be portrayed, the only difference is the who's vision of the past is being protected.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law on Monday making the denial of Nazi crimes and distortion of the Soviet Union's role in the World War Two a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in jail.
I think similar measures have also been brought up in Poland, Hungar, the Baltic states and others.
The really important difference is that those laws prohibit denial of historical Nazi crimes (and in some countries prohibit denial of historical Soviet crimes too). This law in Ukraine is not the same, it is in fact the exact opposite in that it prohibits acknlowedging historical crimes.
The Russian law also prohibits "distorting the Soviet Union's role in WW2", which can be used to prevent discussion or criticism of Stalin or the conduct of Red Army soldiers and other such things, thats where the similarities lie.
Both laws are about protecting the image of the state and the past as those in power wish it to be portrayed, the only difference is the who's vision of the past is being protected.
That is partially true, but the Russian law leaves more room for criticism. It does not prohibit anyone from acknowledging that the Red Army also had some less than heroic actions as long as you correctly remember that the Red Army was mostly heroic and responsible for defeating the Nazis and saving the world. It does not prevent you from mentioning Soviet war crimes as long as you put them in a politically correct historical perspective. It does not at all restrict criticism of Soviet purges, deportations and other Stalinist crimes. So while restrictive, it is not so restrictive as the Ukrainian law could be. The Ukrainian law is so vague it could basically be used to shut down any and all mentioning of historic events. Even mentioning the fact that Ukrainians massacred millions of Poles and Jews and were complicit in the Holocaust could be put away as "disrespectful" and thus punishable.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law on Monday making the denial of Nazi crimes and distortion of the Soviet Union's role in the World War Two a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in jail.
I think similar measures have also been brought up in Poland, Hungar, the Baltic states and others.
The really important difference is that those laws prohibit denial of historical Nazi crimes (and in some countries prohibit denial of historical Soviet crimes too). This law in Ukraine is not the same, it is in fact the exact opposite in that it prohibits acknlowedging historical crimes.
The Russian law also prohibits "distorting the Soviet Union's role in WW2", which can be used to prevent discussion or criticism of Stalin or the conduct of Red Army soldiers and other such things, thats where the similarities lie.
Both laws are about protecting the image of the state and the past as those in power wish it to be portrayed, the only difference is the who's vision of the past is being protected.
That is partially true, but the Russian law leaves more room for criticism. It does not prohibit anyone from acknowledging that the Red Army also had some less than heroic actions as long as you correctly remember that the Red Army was mostly heroic and responsible for defeating the Nazis and saving the world. It does not prevent you from mentioning Soviet war crimes as long as you put them in a politically correct historical perspective.
...and thats where the problem lies. That is open to an insane amount of interpretation and abuse. If you have to add a gigantic "but" to everything and interject stuff like "but they were mostly heroic and were the saviors of the world" simply as a matter of course, there's a problem, and you're not going to get open and honest discourse.
it does not at all restrict criticism of Soviet purges, deportations and other Stalinist crimes. So while restrictive, it is not so restrictive as the Ukrainian law could be. The Ukrainian law is so vague it could basically be used to shut down any and all mentioning of historic events.
It absolutely is, but so is the Russian law.
Even mentioning the fact that Ukrainians massacred millions of Poles and Jews and were complicit in the Holocaust could be put away as "disrespectful" and thus punishable.
and mentioning how the Red Army committed millions of rapes and engaged is huge numbers organized killings itself would not be in Russia in the current political climate?
Both laws suck, both nations are trying to restrict information about the past and revise it in line with current doctrine. Theyre also not the only ones doing it. At best we can talk about how one law may not be quite as open to abuse as another, but they all ultimately have the same goals and problems and the whole region seems to have an issue with this.
Russian Military Involved In Shooting Down Flight MH17, Researchers Say
Russian officials are trying to discredit a new report that implicates the Russian military in the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines flight 17. Nearly two years ago, that attack in the skies over eastern Ukraine killed 298 people.
The latest report comes from a U.K.-based organization called Bellingcat, which bills itself as a group of citizen investigative journalists. Much of their work is done by volunteers, who sift through open source information on the web, using social media and satellite imagery. The group was launched with a crowd-funding campaign, and says it now receives a grant from Google.
Bellingcat has focused on a number of big stories such as the war in Syria and the terror attacks in Paris. The team has been interested in the MH17 case ever since the plane was shot down in July 2014.
Early on, the group found photographs of an anti-aircraft missile launcher that were taken in eastern Ukraine on the day the plane was shot down. Eliot Higgins, one of the founders of Bellingcat, says his group linked the missile launcher, called a Buk, to the Russian 53rd air defense brigade. That unit is stationed in the Russian city of Kursk, not far from the Ukrainian border.
"We discovered quite quickly that the soldiers there were using a lot of social media, posting photographs of each other, posting photographs of the base," Higgins says.
The photographs included pictures of their equipment, such as their Buk missile launchers. The launcher that was believed to have shot down the Malaysian airliner had an identification number that was partly worn away, but the researchers were able to pick out other unique characteristics. They included a dent in the side of the launcher and even the pattern formed by soot around the exhaust pipe.
"We looked at all these details and we were able to establish the number of the missile launcher, which was 332," Higgins says.
In other words, Bellingcat is saying that MH17 was shot down by a specific Russian missile launcher that was documented to be in eastern Ukraine at the time.
Spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Maria Zakharova, dismissed the Bellingcat report. She says it was the work of amateurs who ignored the information put forward by Russian experts and professionals.
Zakharova says the motives behind it are sinister. "We consider this whole campaign to be an attempt by certain destructive forces to demonize Russia by creating an image in the mass consciousness that's very far from reality."
Eliot Higgins says much of the information provided by the Russian experts has been refuted. He says there's a simple reason why Russia has been so adamant in rejecting any suggestion its troops were involved in the shoot-down.
Russia has continually denied it ever sent any troops or equipment across the border into Ukraine, Higgins says, because "to admit that they were responsible for MH17 is not only admitting to the murder of 298 people, but also admitting that they were lying for months and months to their own countrypeople."
The Safety Board in the Netherlands, where the flight originated, recently completed its investigation, saying the plane was most likely shot down by a Buk missile, originating from territory controlled by the Russian-backed separatists.
Dutch police are now conducting a criminal investigation into the attack, which may finally determine who fired the missile.
Russian Military Involved In Shooting Down Flight MH17, Researchers Say
Russian officials are trying to discredit a new report that implicates the Russian military in the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines flight 17. Nearly two years ago, that attack in the skies over eastern Ukraine killed 298 people.
The latest report comes from a U.K.-based organization called Bellingcat, which bills itself as a group of citizen investigative journalists. Much of their work is done by volunteers, who sift through open source information on the web, using social media and satellite imagery. The group was launched with a crowd-funding campaign, and says it now receives a grant from Google.
Bellingcat has focused on a number of big stories such as the war in Syria and the terror attacks in Paris. The team has been interested in the MH17 case ever since the plane was shot down in July 2014.
Early on, the group found photographs of an anti-aircraft missile launcher that were taken in eastern Ukraine on the day the plane was shot down. Eliot Higgins, one of the founders of Bellingcat, says his group linked the missile launcher, called a Buk, to the Russian 53rd air defense brigade. That unit is stationed in the Russian city of Kursk, not far from the Ukrainian border.
"We discovered quite quickly that the soldiers there were using a lot of social media, posting photographs of each other, posting photographs of the base," Higgins says.
The photographs included pictures of their equipment, such as their Buk missile launchers. The launcher that was believed to have shot down the Malaysian airliner had an identification number that was partly worn away, but the researchers were able to pick out other unique characteristics. They included a dent in the side of the launcher and even the pattern formed by soot around the exhaust pipe.
"We looked at all these details and we were able to establish the number of the missile launcher, which was 332," Higgins says.
In other words, Bellingcat is saying that MH17 was shot down by a specific Russian missile launcher that was documented to be in eastern Ukraine at the time.
Spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Maria Zakharova, dismissed the Bellingcat report. She says it was the work of amateurs who ignored the information put forward by Russian experts and professionals.
Zakharova says the motives behind it are sinister. "We consider this whole campaign to be an attempt by certain destructive forces to demonize Russia by creating an image in the mass consciousness that's very far from reality."
Eliot Higgins says much of the information provided by the Russian experts has been refuted. He says there's a simple reason why Russia has been so adamant in rejecting any suggestion its troops were involved in the shoot-down.
Russia has continually denied it ever sent any troops or equipment across the border into Ukraine, Higgins says, because "to admit that they were responsible for MH17 is not only admitting to the murder of 298 people, but also admitting that they were lying for months and months to their own countrypeople."
The Safety Board in the Netherlands, where the flight originated, recently completed its investigation, saying the plane was most likely shot down by a Buk missile, originating from territory controlled by the Russian-backed separatists.
Dutch police are now conducting a criminal investigation into the attack, which may finally determine who fired the missile.
I love their "evidence". Basically all they do is saying: This picture was taken in Ukraine, and all these different pictures of Buk launch vehicles are of the same vehicle. The 'proof' they come up with for linking the seperatist Buk to the vehicle of the 53rd Brigade is extremely shaky at best. It is a good exercise in cherry picking (which is what many actual experts (yes, even Western ones) have already accused them of). Make a claim, take the evidence that supports your claim and present it as proof, while ignoring any evidence that counters contradicts your claim. Their claim that the missing digit on Buk 3X2 is 3 is even more dubious. Pictures of this Buk 3X2 and Buk 332 clearly show major differences in markings, colour etc.
Their geolocating is quite impressive though, even if it is not accurate every single time.
I also fail to see what the relevance is really. That Russia supplied the seperatists with weapons is already a well-known fact, isn't it? It does not make Russia responsible for MH17 in any way. That is like blaming a gun manufacturer when someone buys their gun and uses it to murder people. It doesn't matter whether the Buk in question came from reserve stores in either Russia or Ukraine, was captured from Ukrainian forces or was supplied by the Russian army. What matters is the question who were the people who shot down the airliner and why did they shoot it down. What weapon exactly was used is a petty matter.
Also a way more important question is why the US, Ukraine and Russia all three refuse to publicise the radar data they have from the time and place of the accident.
Not to be bogged down in this thread's patented silliness, but what reason did the Russians have for falsifying the initial information which went out about that incident if they didn't have a hand in it?
Meanwhile in Crimea.
Quick to paint Russian insignia on all that gear weren't they?
Also a way more important question is why the US, Ukraine and Russia all three refuse to publicise the radar data they have from the time and place of the accident.
Presumably because there'd be useful information about radar capabilities, doctrines, or similar involved in the data that no one wants the other side to have?
_WHAT_ radar data would the US even have? Even something as powerful as an AN/TPY-2 or a SPY-1 would only have LOS on a track at 33,000 ft from 200-235 miles away. From where would an American radar be able to see what had transpired? A Ticonderoga cruiser or an Arleigh Burke destroyer would literally have to be in the Sea of Azov to witness the events. And civilian traffic controllers in Ukraine and Russia (who would have had zero involvement in the conflict) were similarly confused when MH-17 suddenly dropped off their scopes:
Wyrmalla wrote: Not to be bogged down in this thread's patented silliness, but what reason did the Russians have for falsifying the initial information which went out about that incident if they didn't have a hand in it?
Meanwhile in Crimea.
Quick to paint Russian insignia on all that gear weren't they?
Yup. It is for victory day. Which is today btw. Happy victory day!
Also a way more important question is why the US, Ukraine and Russia all three refuse to publicise the radar data they have from the time and place of the accident.
Presumably because there'd be useful information about radar capabilities, doctrines, or similar involved in the data that no one wants the other side to have?
That is a bs excuse. The issue at hand is way more important than whatever tiny little bit of information can be gleaned from a few radar and sattelite images. Especially in the case of Ukraine, whose radar capabilities are well known by Russia. (After all, Russia designed and built those radar systems.)
On the subject of post-Soviet WWII victory parades, the Americans prodded the bear a bit by taking part in the Moldovan one.
(Despite pissing off the Russians, and it being against current revisionist history coming out of Moscow, the US did kind of sort of provide a ton of aid in WWII to the USSR...)
Moscow's one had a bit of multiculturalism, despite again the government's stance. The Israeli flags were an odd sight, given the two country's histories (my there's a lot of slavs living in Israel...). I suppose the same goes for Israelis fighting with the Russian forces in Ukraine. Takes all types.
(Despite pissing off the Russians, and it being against current revisionist history coming out of Moscow, the US did kind of sort of provide a ton of aid in WWII to the USSR...)
With the favoured chariot of the war-winning Katyusha rocket artillery being the humble Studebaker US-6 "Deuce and a Half." Not to mention the not-so-sexy equipment of warfighting Soviet industry wasn't exactly putting out in great numbers that Lend-Lease had to make up the difference for like radios, utility vehicles (i.e. jeeps), half-tracks, air-defence radars, and so forth.
US-sponsored ukrainian neo-Nazis are trying to rip off the red flag from the hands of a WW2 veteran, yesterday on May 9th, when people in former USSR usually celebrate "The Victory Day".
Surprisingly, the cops actually defended the veterans against the neo-Nazis. And of course the traditional Bandera-lovers "Glory to the nation!" "Death to the enemies!" "ukraine - before everything!" "Glory to ukraine!" "Glory to heroes!".
ukranian neo-Nazi tourists verbally and water bottles attacked the peaceful demonstration of "Immortal Regiment" action in Venice, Italy. Only after the Italian cops interfered and brifly arrested some of ukranian "hooligans" , the rest buzzed off.
Just to remind - the favorite current ukrainian junta regime's slogan is "ukraine - is Europe!". Somebody actually from Europe should explain those... looking like humans that their Nazi ideas will not fly in real democracy.
See, kids, what happens when you don't wipe out your enemy entirely? It comes back and bites you. I hope the Russians will learn and will never happen again.
With the favoured chariot of the war-winning Katyusha rocket artillery being the humble Studebaker US-6 "Deuce and a Half." Not to mention the not-so-sexy equipment of warfighting Soviet industry wasn't exactly putting out in great numbers that Lend-Lease had to make up the difference for like radios, utility vehicles (i.e. jeeps), half-tracks, air-defence radars, and so forth.
1) USSR payed in gold for those "lend-lease" materials.
2) It helped but the overall amount of the materials provided weren't in any strategic numbers to say that just because of them the victory was achieved.
3) UK received tree times of what USSR got and UK wasn't fighting on land until 1944.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: On the subject of post-Soviet WWII victory parades, the Americans prodded the bear a bit by taking part in the Moldovan one.
Met with anger reaction coming form Moldovans , the Moldovan authorities cleared the NATO equipment from the squire where it was displayed.
I guess people of Moldova still remember who actually won the WW2.
(Despite pissing off the Russians, and it being against current revisionist history coming out of Moscow, the US did kind of sort of provide a ton of aid in WWII to the USSR...)
The "land-lease fact was never disputed in Russian history, only the propaganda by USA and it's current lapdogs that "only because of land-lease USSR was able to defend itself."
The political action "Immortal Regiment" was never about only people whose relatives died in combat. I'll tell you a little secret, on those marches, people who didn't have relatives who fought in combat, still bring the photographs of servicemen and women just to support the cause. Some even carry the photos of Stalin, not even related to him. Of course in the western propaganda media it's shown as a fraud, the prostitutes from press need to come up with Russophobic and mud smear articles to pay for their mortgages and student loans.
Moscow's one had a bit of multiculturalism, despite again the government's stance. The Israeli flags were an odd sight, given the two country's histories (my there's a lot of slavs living in Israel...). I suppose the same goes for Israelis fighting with the Russian forces in Ukraine. Takes all types.
It really shows how little you know about the things post, besides the Russophobic stereotypes. There were and still are a lot of Jews living in Russia and even with open borders some of them don't rush to Israel. Jews in USSR were never oppressed, despite the Western anti-Russian propaganda. They had the same rights as everyone else and had access to university education and high-paying jobs like everyone else. That's why a lot of them were able to find good jobs in Israel after they immigrated. Also, because they were equal citizens in USSR, a lot of them were not only soldiers but also officers in the Red Army. I know this facts could be a shocker to you so take it easy, I don't want you to go cuckoo just like Stephen King did when he herd that the Russians launched the Earth satellite first.
Yup. It is for victory day. Which is today btw. Happy victory day!
They don't celebrate the end of WW2 in US and Canada. I guess it shows who really won the war.
No, the rest of the world has Remembrance days. Your point?
Meanwhile I'm just reading white noise when it comes to Jewish oppression in Russia being "Western Propoganda". We'll ignore that a body of the Kremlin was dedicated to anti-Zionism...
Ok, if we're at the point were some are saying "The UK didn't fight on land until 1944", I think we're getting pretty close to when we can about lock this thread up for the sheer ridiculousness of the posting.
motyak wrote: Ok, if we're at the point were some are saying "The UK didn't fight on land until 1944", I think we're getting pretty close to when we can about lock this thread up for the sheer ridiculousness of the posting.
Stop with the western propaganda, the glorious soviet union did everything during ww2. D day? Actually russians, winning the Pacific theater? Russians.
motyak wrote: Ok, if we're at the point were some are saying "The UK didn't fight on land until 1944", I think we're getting pretty close to when we can about lock this thread up for the sheer ridiculousness of the posting.
Stop with the western propaganda, the glorious soviet union did everything during ww2. D day? Actually russians, winning the Pacific theater? Russians.
The Russians did not do everything, but they did do by far the most. Well, not in the Pacific of course, but that was only a minor skirmish compared to the real war. More soldiers died in single battles on the Eastern Front than the US lost men in the entire Pacific war. D-Day only began when the Russians had already secured victory, it was only a plot to prevent the Soviet Union from "liberating" the rest of Europe. Really the only big contributions the Western Allies made during the war were the lend-lease aid, the destruction of German industry and the war in Africa. The UK and US were critical in winning the war, but it can not be denied that their contributions pale next to the sacrifices of the Soviet Union.
And on a funny note, there is indeed plenty of Russians who like to argue that it is actually the Soviet Union who won the Pacific Theatre. After the Nazis were defeated, the USSR invaded Japan-occupied China and the Kuril islands, and was planning an invasion of the Japanese mainland. They like to think that this is what made the Japanese finally surrender.
And please do not lock this thread, dear Motyak. It is too much fun and even brings us really good discussion at times. Especially when baronlveagh and almightywalrus get involved
Iron_Captain wrote: The Russians did not do everything, but they did do by far the most. Well, not in the Pacific of course, but that was only a minor skirmish compared to the real war. More soldiers died in single battles on the Eastern Front than the US lost men in the entire Pacific war. D-Day only began when the Russians had already secured victory, it was only a plot to prevent the Soviet Union from "liberating" the rest of Europe.
That last sentence is the dumbest I have read on Dakka in a long time. The second dumbest is that the Pacific was a minor skirmish compared to the real war.
First and foremost, to argue that the Russians could have won WWII on their own without the western allies is ridiculous. Had Hitler not bit off more than Germany could chew, there is no doubt that the war would have ended in a stalemate with Germany and some of its allies controlling much of eastern Russia.
This does not mean that Russia did not endure great sacrifices in a war that they helped start (Poland 1939), nor bear the brunt of much of the fighting in the East, but to say they did they most is very misleading. American manufacturing won WWII, pure and simple. Short wars are settled by strategy, long wars by production. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
Consider what America produced in just 1941-1945. It produced not only enough guns and tanks to supply its won forces, but many of its allies. It produced an tens of thousands aircraft in the form of not just fighters and bombers, but transports as well. and it also assembled a massive navy not just in the Pacific but also in the Atlantic. The US alone had 1,200 major combatant ships by the end of 1945, including 27 aircraft carriers and 8 battleships, and had over 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater. And that doesnt even include transports, and you could argue that the single biggest contributor to ending the war in Europe was the Liberty Ship. Not a single country could sail in the ocean and trasport resources such as steel, oil, rubber, food, and so on without the US on them.
Think about the economical cost and time it takes for a country to build something like an aircraft carrier, to fuel it, load it, maintain and sail it with a crew. And then lose it. Or other capital ships. Its not just about body count. That's why many German generals knew the war was lost once the US got involved.
Eastern Europe was a meatgrinder, there is no doubt. But to say the Russians won WWII and the rest was a sideshow is an absolute misunderstanding of what went on in that war.
At the same time, logistics is pointless if you do not have the boots on the ground to capitalize on the advantage in logistics. You can have all the Liberty Ships in the world, but if there's a bunch of German soldiers goose-stepping down Lambeth Walk or Red Square and no one there to stop them then those will be pointless.
KTG17 wrote: First and foremost, to argue that the Russians could have won WWII on their own without the western allies is ridiculous.
Your argument is ridiculous. The Soviet Union won the war on its own power. If you want to argue that Western aid was the only reason USSR won the war, then you must supply evidence. Calling something ridiculous is not evidence.
KTG17 wrote: American manufacturing won WWII, pure and simple.
Now that is the dumbest thing I have read in my entire life.
KTG17 wrote: Consider what America produced in just 1941-1945. It produced not only enough guns and tanks to supply its won forces, but many of its allies. It produced an tens of thousands aircraft in the form of not just fighters and bombers, but transports as well. and it also assembled a massive navy not just in the Pacific but also in the Atlantic. The US alone had 1,200 major combatant ships by the end of 1945, including 27 aircraft carriers and 8 battleships, and had over 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater. And that doesnt even include transports, and you could argue that the single biggest contributor to ending the war in Europe was the Liberty Ship. Not a single country could sail in the ocean and trasport resources such as steel, oil, rubber, food, and so on without the US on them.
Think about the economical cost and time it takes for a country to build something like an aircraft carrier, to fuel it, load it, maintain and sail it with a crew. And then lose it. Or other capital ships. Its not just about body count. That's why many German generals knew the war was lost once the US got involved.
And were was all that American power at Brest? At Sevastopol? At Moscow? At Stalingrad? At Kursk? At Berlin? You say so much was contributed by the Americans, but where were they when there was actual fighting to be done? Wars are not won in factories. Victories are made possible by factories, but in the end, the victory itself has to be won on the frontlines. There are plenty of historical examples where wars were won by the side with much less industrial power. If war were won by industrial power alone, then no officer would need to study strategy and tactics anymore.
KTG17 wrote: Eastern Europe was a meatgrinder, there is no doubt. But to say the Russians won WWII and the rest was a sideshow is an absolute misunderstanding of what went on in that war.
Read some books.
The Soviet Union lost more soldiers at Stalingrad alone (which was a single battle on the Eastern Front) than the US lost people in the entire war. Russia lost 12-13% of its entire population, Belarus lost more than 25%. 1 in 4 of all Belarusians died in WW2. Next to that, the US lost a paltry 419,000 people. The entire US participiation in WW2 is a minor skirmish compared to the battle of Stalingrad, let alone next to the entire Great Patriotic War.
I will assume ignorance rather than malice, but your comment is an insult to those who gave their lives to save the world from nazism, and you should be ashamed to say something like that the day after Victory Day.
Here's the thing, you're both wrong. And right at the same time. Russia, alone, could not have defeated Germany, driven them back, sure, but not defeated. American production power also did not defeat Germany. It was the combined effort of both sides that won the war. The two front war caused Germany to lose. Don't try and turn what was an Allied victory into another wedge.
Also, IC, saying that the USSR lost more soldiers is not a good argument considering the amount was also heavily caused by mis-management, and the purging of the army by Stalin. They did lose more, but that's not actually a good thing.
Iron_Captain wrote: The Soviet Union won the war on its own power. If you want to argue that Western aid was the only reason USSR won the war, then you must supply evidence.
Won on its own power?!?!?! LOL WHAT
And were was all that American power at Brest? At Sevastopol? At Moscow? At Stalingrad? At Kursk? At Berlin? You say so much was contributed by the Americans, but where were they when there was actual fighting to be done? Wars are not won in factories. Victories are made possible by factories, but in the end, the victory itself has to be won on the frontlines.
What did the russians mount their katyusha rockets on? How were russians able to move men and material around? Yes it takes one soldier to kill another, but you have to transport them, their supplies, food, ammo, etc. That's called called logistics, and yes, in modern warfare good generals have to have a far better understanding of logistics than tactics. What are you managing when it comes to logistics? Resources. Why are resources so important? Because without bullets and proper uniforms, tools, weapons, and food the soldier is worthless.
Was the Soviet Union transporting material to western allies? Ever? No. They didnt need them.
There are plenty of historical examples where wars were won by the side with much less industrial power.
Shot wars yes, long ones, no. Especially when two countries are producing at total-war levels.
If war were won by industrial power alone, then no officer would need to study strategy and tactics anymore.
It depends on what level the officer is. Believe me, no famous general in history was clueless about his supply lines and the resources needed to keep his army running. Alexander the Great understood it, Grant understood it, Patton understood it, Montgomery especially understood it. Hitler did not. The difference is a professional military leader, and an amateur one.
Even the professional ones screw up at times. Poor logistics is what cost Napoleon Russia, not the fighting of the Russian soldier.
The Soviet Union lost more soldiers at Stalingrad alone (which was a single battle on the Eastern Front) than the US lost people in the entire war. Russia lost 12-13% of its entire population, Belarus lost more than 25%. 1 in 4 of all Belarusians died in WW2. Next to that, the US lost a paltry 419,000 people. The entire US participiation in WW2 is a minor skirmish compared to the battle of Stalingrad, let alone next to the entire Great Patriotic War.
Losing a gakload of people is a measurement of failure, not success. Many Russian soldiers were killed due to the tactics of their own leaders, not because of the tactics of the Germans. Russia, managed to win in a single theater of operation (Eastern Europe). The US fought in the Atlantic, Africa, Europe, South East Asia, and the Pacific, and so did the British and Australians. They fought a global war, the Russians fought a regional one.
And Great Patriotic War? WWII was started after Gemany invaded Poland. Two weeks later, Russia rolls into Poland, not to defeat Germany, but to slice up half of Poland for itself. It made a deal with the devil. If Russia had been really honorable, it would have kicked the Germans right out of Poland and returned Poland to the Poles. But it didnt, and later suffered the consequences. That's Russia's history. Shameful.
I will assume ignorance rather than malice, but your comment is an insult to those who gave their lives to save the world from nazism, and you should be ashamed to say something like that the day after Victory Day.
I don't mean any disrespect to those who lost their lives, just those who dont have a real understanding of history and what it took to make it.
Iron_Captain wrote: The Soviet Union won the war on its own power. If you want to argue that Western aid was the only reason USSR won the war, then you must supply evidence.
Won on its own power?!?!?! LOL WHAT
"lol what" is even less an argument than "that is ridiculous". Have you not learned about arguments and discussion at school? Maybe it would be a wise decision for you to go back there then.
And were was all that American power at Brest? At Sevastopol? At Moscow? At Stalingrad? At Kursk? At Berlin? You say so much was contributed by the Americans, but where were they when there was actual fighting to be done? Wars are not won in factories. Victories are made possible by factories, but in the end, the victory itself has to be won on the frontlines.
KTG17 wrote: What did the russians mount their katyusha rockets on?
On Rails. Those rails were then mounted on ZiS 6 trucks, ZiS 5 trucks, ZiS 12 trucks, GaZ AA trucks, Studebaker trucks, GaZ 67 jeeps, T-60 tanks and pretty much every other kind of truck, jeep and light tank that was available. Most of them were installed on ZiS 6 trucks before 1943. After 1943 most were mounted on Studebaker trucks because those had better cross-country performance than the ZiS trucks.
KTG17 wrote: How were russians able to move men and material around?
The famous Russian railroad network. If trains were not available, the soldiers went on foot. Material in those cases was mostly transported with horses or with GaZ and ZiS trucks.
KTG17 wrote: Yes it takes one soldier to kill another, but you have to transport them, their supplies, food, ammo, etc. That's called called logistics, and yes, in modern warfare good generals have to have a far better understanding of logistics than tactics. What are you managing when it comes to logistics? Resources. Why are resources so important? Because without bullets and proper uniforms, tools, weapons, and food the soldier is worthless.
Generals have to know strategy. Logistics is only a single aspect of strategy. To focus on one aspect above others is to invite defeat. The Germans were great at logistics. They even managed to increase production despite their factories and supply lines being bombed into dust. Yet for all their mastery of logistics they still lost simply because German soldiers died faster than they could be replaced.
If war were won by industrial power alone, then no officer would need to study strategy and tactics anymore.
It depends on what level the officer is. Believe me, no famous general in history was clueless about his supply lines and the resources needed to keep his army running. Alexander the Great understood it, Grant understood it, Patton understood it, Montgomery especially understood it. Hitler did not. The difference is a professional military leader, and an amateur one.
Even the professional ones screw up at times. Poor logistics is what cost Napoleon Russia, not the fighting of the Russian soldier.
Napoleon's success as a military genius depended largely on his mastery of logistics. The French army under his command had a better grasp of logistics than any other force of the period. Yet he still lost in Russia. Napoleon would not have had any problem with his logistics if it had not been for the Russian soldier. Napoleon's most crucial mistake during the invasion was that he let his army be outflanked, so that the Russians could harass his supplies. And that goes to show that having a good grasp of manoeuvre warfare is as important for a strategist as having a good grasp of logistics.
The Soviet Union lost more soldiers at Stalingrad alone (which was a single battle on the Eastern Front) than the US lost people in the entire war. Russia lost 12-13% of its entire population, Belarus lost more than 25%. 1 in 4 of all Belarusians died in WW2. Next to that, the US lost a paltry 419,000 people. The entire US participiation in WW2 is a minor skirmish compared to the battle of Stalingrad, let alone next to the entire Great Patriotic War.
Losing a gakload of people is a measurement of failure, not success. Many Russian soldiers were killed due to the tactics of their own leaders, not because of the tactics of the Germans. Russia, managed to win in a single theater of operation (Eastern Europe). The US fought in the Atlantic, Africa, Europe, South East Asia, and the Pacific, and so did the British and Australians. They fought a global war, the Russians fought a regional one.
The Germans too, lost more men at Stalingrad than the US lost in the entire war. When both sides suffer such massive casualties, it is not a measurement of anything except the fierceness of the war. Then when one side in the same war suffers only a fraction of the casualties of all other sides and wasn't present at any major decisive battle, then it is easy to say that side might just as well not have participated. The simple truth is that WW2 would have been won by the Allies regardless of whether the US participated or not. You can call what the US did "fighting", but it is like a kid's fight at the playground compared to a life-or-death battle during a war. The Eastern Front may have been only a single theatre, but it was were 90% of the fighting took place and were the entire war was decided. In comparison, all other fronts were trivial.
KTG17 wrote: And Great Patriotic War? WWII was started after Gemany invaded Poland. Two weeks later, Russia rolls into Poland, not to defeat Germany, but to slice up half of Poland for itself. It made a deal with the devil. If Russia had been really honorable, it would have kicked the Germans right out of Poland and returned Poland to the Poles. But it didnt, and later suffered the consequences.
WW2 was started then. But neither Russia nor the US participated in it. The Great Patriotic War started when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.
KTG17 wrote: I don't mean any disrespect to those who lost their lives, just those who dont have a real understanding of history and what it took to make it.
Ah, so that is the reason you have so little self-respect?
The victory in WW2 was borne on a three legged table of American money, Russian blood, and Commonwealth tenacity. Take away any one of those and it falls..
Iron_Captain wrote: "lol what" is even less an argument than "that is ridiculous". Have you not learned about arguments and discussion at school? Maybe it would be a wise decision for you to go back there then.
Sorry, I was taken back at the ignorance of your statement. And still are. Along with some of the other nonsense you are posting below.
On Rails. Those rails were then mounted on ZiS 6 trucks, ZiS 5 trucks, ZiS 12 trucks, GaZ AA trucks, Studebaker trucks, GaZ 67 jeeps, T-60 tanks and pretty much every other kind of truck, jeep and light tank that was available. Most of them were installed on ZiS 6 trucks before 1943. After 1943 most were mounted on Studebaker trucks because those had better cross-country performance than the ZiS trucks.
Exactly. Had Russia been able to produce enough vehicles on their own, they wouldn't have been begging for ours.
Generals have to know strategy. Logistics is only a single aspect of strategy. To focus on one aspect above others is to invite defeat. The Germans were great at logistics. They even managed to increase production despite their factories and supply lines being bombed into dust. Yet for all their mastery of logistics they still lost simply because German soldiers died faster than they could be replaced.
Of course generals have to know strategy. They also have to know how to brush their teeth and put their boots on. You are missing the bigger picture.
The German army was NOT a master at logistics, and they didn't increase production in EVERYTHING. Most of their army was under-supplied, and horse driven. The US didn't use horse driven transportation during the entire war. And economically the Germans had to deal with the lack of oil, steel, and other resources the last couple of years during the war despite the 'increased production', which was never going to outproduce the west.
And keep in mind, the Germans and Russians only had to worry about moving things around one theater. Not across two different oceans and 5 continents.
You don't need a lot of material when you are barely fighting.
No, we were smart enough to pick the time and place of most of our battles. And when we did, we generally tried to do it in a way that didn't throw away our own troops. Nor did we machine gun them down if they retreated. Yet the outcome is that we had far more effect on the global war than the russians did in their little area. Look at a map. The distance between Berlin and Moscow isn't that great. Now compare it to the world map.
The Great Patriotic War was actually a rather short war. 4 years is not very long.
Yet still decided by production and resources.
Napoleon's success as a military genius depended largely on his mastery of logistics. The French army under his command had a better grasp of logistics than any other force of the period. Yet he still lost in Russia. Napoleon would not have had any problem with his logistics if it had not been for the Russian soldier. Napoleon's most crucial mistake during the invasion was that he let his army be outflanked, so that the Russians could harass his supplies. And that goes to show that having a good grasp of manoeuvre warfare is as important for a strategist as having a good grasp of logistics.
Without logistics the army would have never left France. I am not saying without strategy you can't win, but you seem to think you can throw a mob together and race across from one place to another without any thought of what its going to take to do it an win and you are wrong. A ton of work goes on behind just moving a single division. If you think that logistics aren't on the foremost of a general's mind when he is 'manoeuvre'-ing around the countryside, then you are clueless. The production of resources, the ability to get them where they are needed, determine how maneuverable his army is going to be in the first place, which will no doubt affect his strategy. Ask Rommel.
Had the German army been prepared for winter in 1941, the first part of that war would have been very different. The lack of logistics to plan and move winter uniforms, anti-freeze, food, etc, meant that the German army could no longer move and THEN began to suffer from Russian attacks. That is an excellent example of how being all concerned about strategy from the amateur mind (Hitler), led to the near collapse of his army due to poor planning. Up till that point the Germans were kicking the crap out of the russians.
You can call what the US did "fighting", but it is like a kid's fight at the playground compared to a life-or-death battle during a war. The Eastern Front may have been only a single theatre, but it was were 90% of the fighting took place and were the entire war was decided. In comparison, all other fronts were trivial.
90% of the fighting? Where the hell do you get your statistics from? Right out of your ass. World War II was a global war, hence the name. China suffered millions of casualties too. Some estimate nearly 20 million. Thats not too far behind the Soviet Union, statistically.
WW2 was started then. But neither Russia nor the US participated in it. The Great Patriotic War started when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.
Oh Russia participated in it all right. It decapitated Poland. It literally attacked the country England and France declared war on Germany for attacking.
Seriously, you've got A LOT of reading to do. Like real books, not comics.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Here's the thing, you're both wrong. And right at the same time. Russia, alone, could not have defeated Germany, driven them back, sure, but not defeated. American production power also did not defeat Germany. It was the combined effort of both sides that won the war. The two front war caused Germany to lose. Don't try and turn what was an Allied victory into another wedge.
This thread has repeatedly gone off topic at the drop of a hat, been riddled with rudeness, spam and other violations of the rules. The final time this happened is the last straw. As such it is being locked.
lucky bugger took one to the dome and lived. The ISI agent? not so much, we hit him with a JDAM, killed him and all his little buddies.
