Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
The Ukraine

Unless you are posting from the past, this is incorrect.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
You know who thinks Ukraine is a nation? Ukrainians.

And they are right in that.
What Ironclad said about Ukraine only being created by Lenin is not correct. Time for history lesson Ukraine (historically called Little Russia), already existed as a division of the Russian Empire, and the origins of Ukraine are even older. The Ukrainian people (historically called Ruthenians) are as old as the Russians and Belarussians, as all three groups are descended from the Rus' people. The Russians are the part of the Rus' who after the collapse of Kievan Rus' came under control of the independent Russian city states who were ultimately united by Moscow. The Belarussias are the part of the Rus' that became part of Lithuania. The Ukrainians are the part of the Rus' that came under Polish control. The Ukrainian state has its roots in the Cossack uprisings against the Poles in the 17th century. Those uprisings saw the creation of a de-facto independent Ukrainian state, but as the Ukrainians were in the end defeated by the Poles, they turned to the Muscovite Tsar for help. The Tsar defeated the Poles and Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper were given to Muscovy. This is the beginning of the East-West split in Ukraine itself, where the East has been heavily russified, whereas the West has been heavily polonised.
In the next war, the Western Ukrainian cossacks sided with Poland and Sweden against Russia. Russia won the war however and most of the Ukraine was now annexed, ending Ukrainian autonomy.
At the end of the 18th century, the Crimean Khanate was conquered by Russia, and the area was resettled by Russians.
After the fall of the Russian Empire, Poland re-annexed Western Ukraine, but it was swiftly re-conquered again by the Bolsheviks. In the end Poland managed to retain the westernmost regions of Ukraine (Galicia and Volhynia.) These areas were returned to Ukraine after WW2, and this is the first time the entire Ukraine was unified at the same time. Nationalist elements in Galicia however tried to gain independence from both Polish and Soviet rule after the German invasion (these are the infamous Banderites). Of course, the Soviet Union won the War, and the Banderites were brutally dealt with. This is the origin of the millitant russophobia in the Westernmost Ukraine.
After the fall of the USSR, the Ukrainian government declared independence. In 2004, the pro-Eastern Yanukovich was elected, which did not sit well with people in the West. After the mass protests of the Orange Revolution, Yanukovich was forced to resign in favour of the pro-Western Yuschenko and Tymoshenko. In 2010, Yanukovich was elected again, and after signing an agreement with Russia instead of the EU, the people in the pro-Westerners started a revolution again. This time however, the pro-Russian part of the Ukraine refused to accept it and the Russians on Crimea seceded while the Eastern Ukrainians started a revolution of their own. Thus we arrive at present events.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
The Ukraine

Unless you are posting from the past, this is incorrect.

Both are correct. Ukraine literally means borderlands, so you can either say 'the borderlands', or 'borderlands' depending on your own preference. Just like you can say 'the Welsh Marches' or just 'Welsh Marches'. The present-day dispute in usage of Ukraine in English is mainly political, whereby 'the Ukraine' for some reason is made out to be 'pro-Russian', imperialistic or denigrating to Ukrainians.
The article is also rather funny for mentioning that Russians refer to Ukraine as 'the Ukraine'. The Russian language does not have articles, so the word 'the' does not even exists in Russian. Saying 'the Ukraine' is actually not possible in Russian.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
'the Ukraine' for some reason is made out to be 'pro-Russian', imperialistic or denigrating to Ukrainians.

Perhaps because it robs Ukraine of legitimacy as a nation by the inclusion of that article? Which given Ironcald Warlord's posting in this thread seems intentional on his part, and I would imagine is also intentional for those of the pro-Russian mindset that would like to see Ukraine reclaimed by Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign state, not a territory in the Soviet Union.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Pretty hard to secede from something that doesn't exist.

Anyway, what happened to Ketara? He seems to have checked out of the thread. Usually has periodic astute analyses to contribute.

I'm more or less keeping on top of the situation as it evolves, but nothing particularly major has happened that I've felt to be worth chipping in over. My current estimation is that unless Putin starts throwing in some serious supplies behind the Donetsk people's Republic, it'll go under within the next month or two.

As things stand, Poroshenko seems to have succeeded in rallying a good chunk of the countries military behind him as a democratically elected leader, and bar the most Eastern regions, the rest of the country has fallen into line as well. His punitive military actions in the East have stirred up considerable resentment however, which will most likely come back to bite him in the arse. A lot rides on how much public support the Donetsk group can rally. If the public support melts away, no amount of supplies can help them win, but if all these airstrikes harden public opinion, Poroshenko has no chance of retaking total control of the region. There'll be IED's and ambushes hitting his forces every time they turn around even if they do retake the towns.

If public support collapses, Putin will stretch it out long enough to gain political/economic concessions from Poroshenko. If not, he'll push for the Donetsk People's Republic to be set up as a satellite state.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
'the Ukraine' for some reason is made out to be 'pro-Russian', imperialistic or denigrating to Ukrainians.

Perhaps because it robs Ukraine of legitimacy as a nation by the inclusion of that article? Which given Ironcald Warlord's posting in this thread seems intentional on his part, and I would imagine is also intentional for those of the pro-Russian mindset that would like to see Ukraine reclaimed by Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign state, not a territory in the Soviet Union.

On my part that was not deliberate, I simply thought it was the correct way as I was ignorant to the literal meaning of "the Ukraine". So my use of it was entirely unconscious. I certainly don't think that Ukraine is not a legitimate country.

Anyway, if Ukraine means "Borderlands" and Ukrainians get offended when people refer to it as "the Borderlands", then maybe they should have picked a more appropriate name when they became independent. "The Ukraine" is simply an outdated grammatical throw back.

And nor am I pro-Russian. If anything I'm anti-EU, I perceive the Ukraine crisis as a power struggle between East (Russia) and West (EU and by extension, the USA).

Ukraine. The new version of a DMZ

. Those uprisings saw the creation of a de-facto independent Ukrainian state, but as the Ukrainians were in the end defeated by the Poles, they turned to the Muscovite Tsar for help. The Tsar defeated the Poles and Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper were given to Muscovy. This is the beginning of the East-West split in Ukraine itself, where the East has been heavily russified, whereas the West has been heavily polonised.
In the next war, the Western Ukrainian cossacks sided with Poland and Sweden against Russia. Russia won the war however and most of the Ukraine was now annexed, ending Ukrainian autonomy.

Yea well member of the Native American movement seized Alcatraz briefly, Key West also fancies itself an independent state. Also what your talking about are feudal empires, that doesn't give modern legitimacy unless you believe that the English King has claims to French land.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

On my part that was not deliberate, I simply thought it was the correct way as I was ignorant to the literal meaning of "the Ukraine". So my use of it was entirely unconscious. I certainly don't think that Ukraine is not a legitimate country.

And nor am I pro-Russian. If anything I'm anti-EU, I perceive the Ukraine crisis as a power struggle between East (Russia) and West (EU and by extension, the USA).

Its like you read my thoughts, I agree you don't have to like Putins regime to oppose the brigandry being committed by the Western Powers.

Ukraine crisis: Military plane shot down in Luhansk.

Pro-Russian rebels have shot down a military transport plane in eastern Ukraine, reportedly killing 49 Ukrainian service personnel.

Ukraine's defence ministry said the Il-76 transport plane crashed after coming under anti-aircraft fire over Luhansk.

In a statement it said "terrorists" had "cynically and treacherously" fired on the aircraft.

The plane was carrying troops and military equipment and was about to land at the city's airport.

It is thought to be the biggest loss of life suffered by government forces in a single incident since Kiev began an operation to try to defeat the insurgency in east Ukraine.

Apparently it's cynical and treacherous to shoot at people you're fighting.

Anyway, it's just a pointless loss of life.

 -Shrike- wrote:
Apparently it's cynical and treacherous to shoot at people you're fighting.

Anyway, it's just a pointless loss of life.

All war is

I wasn't aware that opening fire was an act to which the word 'cynical' applied. I mean, were they all muttering things like, 'This damn war', and 'We all have to go sometime..' as they did it?

At least one Ukrainian armored vehicle crossed the Russian border with Ukraine Friday
overnight and stopped in the Rostov Region, according to Russia’s Security Service. The
military abandoned the vehicle and returned to Ukraine.
For more on the Ukrainian crisis read RT’s live updates
The Ukrainian armored vehicle stopped in near the village of Millerovo, said the head of the press department of the Federal Security
Service (FSB) in Rostov Region, Vasily Malaev.
In response to the incident, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the “illegal act” will not promote a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
The ministry has also demanded an end to “provocations” on the border, which are making dialogue between the two countries much
more difficult. The ministry directed a note of protest to Kiev on Friday.
There are also reports that there was not one, but two armored vehicles. A source from the FSB told LifeNews Channel that two armored
vehicles crossed the Russian border.
Initially just one APC entered Russian territory, however it broke down, LifeNews was told. It was discovered by the Border Service,
however, Russia’s troops failed to take the Ukrainian military personnel captive as another armored vehicle came to the rescue from
Ukraine’s Lugansk Region.
After that the Ukrainian troops fled the territory, returning to Ukraine, leaving the dsabled vehicle behind in Russia.
In response to the incident, the Ukrainian Border Service said that the military was surrounded by self-defense forces so they were forced
to cross the Russian border to reach new locations of their units, NTV TV channel reported. Border authorities also assured that all 26
border officers returned to Ukraine via another checkpoint.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
The Ukraine

Unless you are posting from the past, this is incorrect.

True.. but the problem is, when something has entered the accepted parlance of language then that's the way it is. Same reason that most people say Nike (without the 'ee' at the end) or English speakers say Porsche as a single syllable.

I don't think I've ever heard just 'Ukraine' when people have been talking about it, other than in the news (and even then, only part of the time).

It would make sense for the Ukrainian military to be attempting to seal the border, intercept weapons shipments, and try and gather photographic proof that the Russians are indeed supplying the DPR.

Unfortunately, being caught at it just about guarantees a harsh Russian response. AKA, doubling the weapons supply to the DPR, or covering their side in troops and opening fire on any Ukrainian units that cross over. Risky stuff.

Kiev does not care about civilians in eastern Ukraine, and people have to flee their homes amid daily bombings, Ukrainian refugees told RT at a temporary camp in Russia’s Rostov. It comes amid Kiev’s “lies” about humanitarian corridors, they said.

Thousands of eastern Ukrainians are flowing into Russia amid the ongoing Kiev military operation, in which the cities occupied by anti-government activists are being shelled and bombarded with heavy artillery and incendiary bombs. Even in large regional centers like Lugansk, people no longer feel safe, as cases of Ukrainian jets launching missiles at central city buildings in broad daylight have been reported.

While many men and elderly people of eastern Ukraine are unwilling to leave their native land, women with children are flocking to Russia’s cities and regions to stay with relatives or friends. Those who have neither are heading for refugee camps in Rostov.


The Russian Foreign Minister on Friday held a phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Deshchitsa, in which he reminded Kiev of its responsibility for handling the humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine.


Ketara
It would make sense for the Ukrainian military to be attempting to seal the border

“Lavrov particularly stressed the importance of providing humanitarian aid to the residents of southeastern Ukraine, the creation of appropriate conditions for a safe passage of refugees to the territory of the Russian Federation,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Ukraine is looking more and more like Syria every day. I wonder how many inaccurate air strikes it'll take until Western leaders begin muttering about "killing your own people".

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
'the Ukraine' for some reason is made out to be 'pro-Russian', imperialistic or denigrating to Ukrainians.

Perhaps because it robs Ukraine of legitimacy as a nation by the inclusion of that article? Which given Ironcald Warlord's posting in this thread seems intentional on his part, and I would imagine is also intentional for those of the pro-Russian mindset that would like to see Ukraine reclaimed by Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign state, not a territory in the Soviet Union.

I wonder how people got that idea. How is saying 'the Ukraine' pro-Russian? Especially considering it is not even possible to say 'the Ukraine' in Russian. How does an article rob Ukraine of its legitimacy? Is the Netherlands or any other country that has an article in English also robbed of its legitimacy? It is rather ridiculous really, it is just how the English language works.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

. Those uprisings saw the creation of a de-facto independent Ukrainian state, but as the Ukrainians were in the end defeated by the Poles, they turned to the Muscovite Tsar for help. The Tsar defeated the Poles and Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper were given to Muscovy. This is the beginning of the East-West split in Ukraine itself, where the East has been heavily russified, whereas the West has been heavily polonised.
In the next war, the Western Ukrainian cossacks sided with Poland and Sweden against Russia. Russia won the war however and most of the Ukraine was now annexed, ending Ukrainian autonomy.

Yea well member of the Native American movement seized Alcatraz briefly, Key West also fancies itself an independent state. Also what your talking about are feudal empires, that doesn't give modern legitimacy unless you believe that the English King has claims to French land.

Feudal empires? No, not at all. Feudalism is a Western European thing, it never existed in Eastern Europe. Also, this is after the Middle Ages and the abolishment of feudalism. The states involved here are the direct predecessors of the respective modern nations.
And as long as the people believe it, a formerly existing historical state is all the legitimacy they need. It really can't be compared to the examples you name, this independent Ukrainian state existed for more than a hundred years.
History, sometimes even if it is centuries old already is still a very important factor in modern politics, especially in Eastern Europe.

I liked your first line iron_captain quality.

Keep talking your viewpoint, It's refreshing to hear a new breeze enter Dakka.

 loki old fart wrote:
At least one Ukrainian armored vehicle crossed the Russian border with Ukraine Friday
overnight and stopped in the Rostov Region, according to Russia’s Security Service. The
military abandoned the vehicle and returned to Ukraine.
For more on the Ukrainian crisis read RT’s live updates
The Ukrainian armored vehicle stopped in near the village of Millerovo, said the head of the press department of the Federal Security
Service (FSB) in Rostov Region, Vasily Malaev.
In response to the incident, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the “illegal act” will not promote a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
The ministry has also demanded an end to “provocations” on the border, which are making dialogue between the two countries much
more difficult. The ministry directed a note of protest to Kiev on Friday.
There are also reports that there was not one, but two armored vehicles. A source from the FSB told LifeNews Channel that two armored
vehicles crossed the Russian border.
Initially just one APC entered Russian territory, however it broke down, LifeNews was told. It was discovered by the Border Service,
however, Russia’s troops failed to take the Ukrainian military personnel captive as another armored vehicle came to the rescue from
Ukraine’s Lugansk Region.
After that the Ukrainian troops fled the territory, returning to Ukraine, leaving the dsabled vehicle behind in Russia.
In response to the incident, the Ukrainian Border Service said that the military was surrounded by self-defense forces so they were forced
to cross the Russian border to reach new locations of their units, NTV TV channel reported. Border authorities also assured that all 26
border officers returned to Ukraine via another checkpoint.

People keep talking about how "biased Western media" is, trying to turn this whole thing into an anti-Russian witch hunt...and then quoting RT to back that up.

It is quite amusing.

The difference is nobody is claiming that RT is impartial.

And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.

Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.

Come on, Putin wouldn't tell you what to think if it wasn't news!

 Kanluwen wrote:
And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.

Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.

I think the same about the BBC sometimes...

 Kanluwen wrote:
And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.

Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.

No, it's a media source, unless you're using a different definition to me.

Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.

Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.

No, it's a media source, unless you're using a different definition to me.

Yeah, I use the definition of "impartial and actually reporting upon events without censorship".

Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.

Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.

Yeah well CNN or fox don't usually have good information on Russian side of border. Even if they do tell the truth for a change.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.

Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.

No, it's a media source, unless you're using a different definition to me.

Yeah, I use the definition of "impartial and actually reporting upon events without censorship".

Err... no, that's adding the word 'impartial'. A media source is something which provides information, i.e. media. In any case, the vast majority of media sources are blatantly biased, so I'd be interested to know which of them fit your criteria.

Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.

Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.

If you're going to complain about RT, which is biased heavily towards Russia, why don't you complain about CNN or Fox, which are heavily biased towards America?

If the situation goes down hill when one side no long cares and considers everything a target. Then Putin will roll in since the West has to cross western Ukraine to get there

 -Shrike- wrote:

Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.

Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.

If you're going to complain about RT, which is biased heavily towards Russia, why don't you complain about CNN or Fox, which are heavily biased towards America?

User 1: *Links to a news article*
User 2: 'That website is terrible and not impartial in the slightest'.
User 1: 'Yeah, Well your country has news websites that suck too!'
User 2: 'Yeah, and I think they suck as well. What does that have to do with anything?'
User 1: 'Well if you're gonna complain about the one I linked to, why aren't you complaining about those as well!?'

The answer is because nobody linked to them. If you link to a bad source, firing back that the other person's opinion is invalid because they live in a country with bad news networks that they are not currently criticising (despite them not having had any articles linked to) is terrible logic.

Note that I'm not of the opinion that RT is completely useless (just 98% of the time), but you're being a bit tangential there Shrike. In all fairness, Kanluwen could have taken the time to dismiss why he thought that article was bad, but discounting his opinion just because he lives in the same country as Fox News is a bit naff.

 Ketara wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.

Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.

If you're going to complain about RT, which is biased heavily towards Russia, why don't you complain about CNN or Fox, which are heavily biased towards America?

User 1: *Links to a news article*
User 2: 'That website is terrible and not impartial in the slightest'.
User 1: 'Yeah, Well your country has news websites that suck too!'
User 2: 'Yeah, and I think they suck as well. What does that have to do with anything?'
User 1: 'Well if you're gonna complain about the one I linked to, why aren't you complaining about those as well!?'

The answer is because nobody linked to them. If you link to a bad source, firing back that the other person's opinion is invalid because they live in a country with bad news networks that they are not currently criticising (despite them not having had any articles linked to) is terrible logic.

Note that I'm not of the opinion that RT is completely useless (just 98% of the time), but you're being a bit tangential there Shrike. In all fairness, Kanluwen could have taken the time to dismiss why he thought that article was bad, but discounting his opinion just because he lives in the same country as Fox News is a bit naff.

If you think that something that was linked is incorrect say so. countering someones point of view with RT sucks so your point of view sucks. Is not a valid argument.
If you can find a site, that everyone agrees is truthful, then link it.