Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hydro-electric works. Constant free energy from flowing water, as long as you don't have a very severe drought (and let's face it, it's Britain were talking about ).

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hydro-electric works. Constant free energy from flowing water, as long as you don't have a very severe drought (and let's face it, it's Britain were talking about ).

Its awesome until you try to build a dam and the tree huggers go berserk.

 Jihadin wrote:
Hey. Always wanted to see my experiments of fresh water sharks are in a natural environment

 easysauce wrote:
thats a very simplistic way to look at it... your colledges' measly quarter mill, not even a house-worth of debt, is not at all comparable to 4.5 BILLION with a B, nor does it being "a small" amount to the creditor matter at all. Goods and services must be paid for for there to be an expectation that they will continue to be supplied.

At any point the creditor can refuse to issue new credit, especially if old credit is well into arrears. If you cannot pay your mortgage, a debt similar to your 250grand example, they might offer re financing options (none of which reduce the amount owed, just how you pay that amount back, and failing all that, they take back the house. No bank, EVER, will just say "oh, you cant pay 250grand for that house? you want to pay 100grand for it instead? yeah, ok, just pay that, its cool bro *brofist*"

No, thats really not how it works... you sign a contract, you fufill the obligations of that contract, or you are breaching that contract.

again, simplisitc, and not actually true, russia very much does get to set the price for their gas, and once that price is agreed upon, and the gas delivered, the agreed upon price must be paid. RE-negotiating a lower price after the fact, is the height of bad business, and a breach of contract.

You might want to look at all the favorable prices the US gets on commodities before you go toting stupid ideas like commody sellers not being able to set prices based on relationship status between them and the buyer.

you trying hand waive away a 4.5billion dollar debt as meaningless because, hey, your colledge is in debt for 250 grand, since that is OK, so this debt must be ok too.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And who's saying that no money's been recieved? Gazprom. Hence the whole conflict. It's not about whether or not Ukraine SHOULD pay, it's about whether they HAVE paid or not.

so now the goal posts are moving from "we demand a fair price before we give you any money"

to

"we already paid you all the money, even though we have no receit, no proof we paid, and you are out 4.5 billion in delivered goods.

the check is TOTALLY in the mail dude"

No, more like:

"We feel Z is the price you should pay according to agreement X, you've not paid Z so we're cutting the gas"

vs.

"We feel Y is the price we should pay according to agreement X, we've paid Y so cutting the gas isn't fair".

You're assuming from the get-go that it's Ukraine and not Gazprom that's breaking the contract, assume for a second that it's Gazprom and the Ukranian response becomes completely logical.

That said, I think we all agree that it's pretty damn likely that it's Ukraine fething about, especially considering past events.

Ukraine's Poroshenko offers unilateral ceasefire
12 minutes ago

Ukraine's president has proposed a unilateral ceasefire by his troops to allow pro-Russian separatists to lay down their weapons.

Petro Poroshenko said the peace plan would be implemented "shortly", Interfax-Ukraine news agency reports.

His announcement comes after he held a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

They discussed a solution to the crisis in eastern Ukraine where pro-Russian rebels are battling government forces.

Speaking to reporters in Kiev, Mr Poroshenko said a "brief" truce would be introduced to allow "Russian mercenaries" to leave Ukraine.

A presidential spokesman told the BBC the ceasefire may be announced in "hours or days" but gave no details.

Russian Tanks in Ukraine?

Some days ago I asked if anyone had seen any conclusive proof that the ‘Russian tanks’ seen in Ukraine had actually crossed the border.

I have to say this claim seemed tenuous and unlikely to me. Why would Russia take such a large risk for so little? Much more effective, and much less traceable weapons than tanks can be ( and in my view are being) taken across the border by covert means, as can people. But actual tanks? The destroyed Russian-made tanks I saw in Baghdad after the invasion in 2003 were easily identifiable by make and model, and no doubt, even after being knocked out (in most cases the entire turret had been blown off). They contained equipment and serial numbers which would have allowed any competent intelligence service to determine where they had come from. Why would Moscow, which has been so careful to stay deniable, take such a risk . Why have deniable operations, if you’re going to do undeniable things?

A contributor referred to a BBC news account of the ‘Russian tanks’ seen in the Ukraine being supposedly identified by NATO satellite. He appeared to believe this settled the matter.

I have no doubt that the BBC reported this with its usual impartiality, care and attention to detail. But I have to say I find the connection inconclusive. Satellites are very good at spotting things in general, but (at least in any satellite pictures I have ever seen released by any major military power - perhaps they have better ones they keep secret) they are weak on conclusive detail.

I have looked at one reasonably dispassionate account of the matter (see link below), and the yawning gap in the middle of it is any demonstrable connection between the three tanks loaded on to a transporter (a not uncommon procedure) in Rostov-on-Don and the three tanks seen in Ukraine. About 13,000 T-64s were built, though it is a very old tank, superseded by the T72 and the T80 in the 1970s. According to Wikipedia, Russia still has about 4,000 but they are out of service and awaiting the scrapyard. Ukraine, by contrast, still has about 2,000 in service. Do the satellite pictures even show that the tanks in Rostov are T-64s? Isn’t it more likely that rebels managed to capture a few Ukrainian T-64s from some poorly-guarded depot? The former Soviet Union is full of middle-aged men who have been taught how to drive a tank.

http://mashable.com/2014/06/15/nato-says-satellite-photos-support-claim-that-russian-tanks-entered-ukraine/

About 13,000 T-64s were built, though it is a very old tank, superseded by the T72 and the T80 in the 1970s. According to Wikipedia, Russia still has about 4,000 but they are out of service and awaiting the scrapyard. Ukraine, by contrast, still has about 2,000 in service. Do the satellite pictures even show that the tanks in Rostov are T-64s? Isn’t it more likely that rebels managed to capture a few Ukrainian T-64s from some poorly-guarded depot? The former Soviet Union is full of middle-aged men who have been taught how to drive a tank.

Isn’t it more likely that rebels managed to capture a few Ukrainian T-64s from some poorly-guarded depot?

 Kanluwen wrote:
The problem is that if you (or Hitchens) read the BBC's article:

NATO posted those images because those were taken via civilian satellites. They weren't identified "by NATO satellites".

‘Russian tanks’ seen in the Ukraine being supposedly identified by NATO satellite.

Just to clarify, I sent you a link to Russian media proving on the 6th of June is was already reported these tanks were taken from the Ukranian military.

Please read my links when I send them. This is common knowledge of the CiF blog.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The problem is that if you (or Hitchens) read the BBC's article:

NATO posted those images because those were taken via civilian satellites. They weren't identified "by NATO satellites".

1. That didn't stop the anti-Russian side from whipping up a frenzy over a supposed Russian armoured invasion.

2. I didn't remark on the satellites at all, so this is irrelevant to my point. What I was remarking on in this blog post was Hitchens' opinion that the tanks were likely looted by rebels from a depot in Ukraine, NOT supplied or sent by Russia as was the accusation.

3. My interpretation of the blog post was that Hitchens was saying that it was a contributor on the BBC who was making the connection between NATO satellites and the satellite images of the tanks, NOT Hitchens himself, and Hitchens was simply commenting on the usefulness of Satellite imagery in general.

A contributor referred to a BBC news account of the ‘Russian tanks’ seen in the Ukraine being supposedly identified by NATO satellite. He appeared to believe this settled the matter.

Frankly, it seems like you're nitpicking and seizing on a single minor detail and acting as though that discredits the entire point - that it could have been rebels driving a looted Ukranian tank, not Russian tanks sent over the border. The blog post was about the rebel tank theory, not satellites.

Also, a contributor on Hitchens' blog suggests a 3rd explanation...

Just to clarify, I sent you a link to Russian media proving on the 6th of June is was already reported these tanks were taken from the Ukranian military.

Please read my links when I send them. This is common knowledge of the CiF blog.

And honestly you did 'remark' on the satellites by simply posting the blog link of some goon who thinks he knows more than NATO's analysts.

Funny how these were "proven to be taken from the Ukrainian military on the 6th of June" when the satellite photos are sequenced initially on May 30th (showing a Russian army unit in position with large numbers of armoured vehicles but no tanks) and then on June 6th (showing the Russian army unit has largely pulled out but instead 8 tanks have arrived) and then finally on June 11th (ten tanks gathered; with several having been loaded on transporters indicating they are going to be moved).

Not to mention the fact that the satellite photos are taken inside of Russia itself, near Rostov-on-Don.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So what you are saying is you posted without even looking into the information you chose to post?

 Jihadin wrote:
I cannot believe. I'm actually astonished. A few of you all have complete faith on a report from NATO Military Intelligence.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So what you are saying is you posted without even looking into the information you chose to post?

This is something Military Intelligence does at times via Power Point

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Hey. Always wanted to see my experiments of fresh water sharks are in a natural environment

Just go to Florida. Bull Sharks are in the rivers there all the time.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he is halting a unilateral cease-fire in the conflict with pro-Russian separatists and says Ukrainian forces will go on the offensive against the rebels.

A statement from Poroshenko on his website early Tuesday said the cease-fire is being halted and that "we will attack and we will free our country."

The fragile cease-fire expired Monday night. The idea was to give rebels a chance to disarm and to start a broader peace process including an amnesty and new elections.

But rebels did not disarm, and the ceasefire was continually violated. Rebels did not comply with Poroshenko's latest push to get them to turn over key border crossings with Russia and permit international monitoring of the cease-fire.

"The unique chance to put the peace plan into practice was not realized," Poroshenko said in a speech prepared for delivery to the nation. "This happened because of the criminal actions of the fighters."

The recently elected Poroshenko had already extended the cease-fire from seven days as part of a plan to end the fighting that has killed more than 400 people since April.

Poroshenko's decision followed four-way talks in search of a solution with Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande on Monday as the deadline approached. He issued a statement after the talks ended, saying the key conditions needed to continue the ceasefire had not been met.

Poroshenko said he made the decision after a meeting of the national security council. "After discussion of the situation, I, as commander in chief, took the decision not to continue the unilateral cease-fire."

"Ending the cease-fire, this is our answer to terrorists, armed insurgents and looters, to all who mock the peaceful population, who are paralyzing the economy of the region ... who are depriving people of a normal, peaceful life," Poroshenko said in his speech.

European leaders and the U.S. have urged Russia to use its influence with the rebels to ease the bloodshed and have threatened to impose another round of economic sanctions against Moscow.

While Putin has expressed support for the cease-fire, the West has accused Russia of allowing weapons and fighters to flow across the border into Ukraine. Russia says any Russians there have gone as private citizens.

Tension between Russia and Ukraine escalated in February when protests by people who wanted closer ties with the European Union drove pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych from office. Russia called that an illegal coup and seized Ukraine's Crimea region, saying it was protecting the rights of people there who speak Russian as their main language.

The insurrection in the eastern regions near the Russian border started soon after, with separatists occupying buildings and declaring independence.

Poroshenko said he meant for a cease-fire to be followed by an amnesty for fighters who had not considered serious crimes, and political concessions such as early local and regional elections, protections for speakers of Russian and, in the longer term, changes to the constitution to decentralize power to the regions.

The end of the cease-fire raises the question of what action the Ukrainian military can take. It has so far been unable to dislodge rebels occupying the city of Slovyansk or to retake control of three key border crossings with Russia. At one point, the rebels shot down a government military transport, killing 49 service members.

 Jihadin wrote:
Back to round.....56?

Lessons of a revolution from an Air Force pilot living in Ukraine

After having attended a prayer service for an adjunct history professor from my department at the Ukrainian Catholic University of Lviv, I boarded a plane to Kyiv.

A sniper there had killed the professor, Bohdan Solchanyk, two days earlier, along with almost eighty of his compatriots as they marched headlong into gunfire armed with nothing more than makeshift shields and construction helmets.

Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan, labeling patriotic Ukrainians like Solchanyk as Nazis, fascists and even terrorists.

Despite the relative calm in Lviv, my superiors were concerned that, in the event of a further escalation of violence, they would have difficulty ensuring my safety. So they ordered me to Kyiv. While I didn’t exactly agree with the logic, I was keen on getting a closer view of the action and relished the opportunity to catch the current mood of the Maidan and of Kyiv in general. And I knew I wouldn’t be able to resist the opportunity to visit the Maidan again.

I had been on the Maidan several times before. I was there at the end of November four hours before the “berkut” dispersed (with the business end of a baton) a dwindling crowd of students for the first time. I was there the next couple of days when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians showed up to protest the blatant use of violence on peaceful protestors.

I was there again in December to watch the statue of Lenin fall and see the menacing encirclement of the protests by riot police. I was also there in January to watch the steady buildup up of the barricades and to marvel at the self-organization of the camp and the resilience of the people within it, who were determined to remain entrenched despite the freezing temperatures and continued threat of violence.

This time would be more intense though; almost a hundred people had been killed so far, the trade union building was gutted by fire, and barricades set ablaze to repel the berkut forces. Hotel Ukraine (a hotel I’ve stayed at three times) had been used as a temporary field hospital and scores bled out in the reception area. It was a veritable war zone — I knew I had to see it.

Several days after arriving in Kyiv I ventured cautiously down to the Maidan; the news trickling out made it seem like the end of the world. There was indeed carnage everywhere, but I was surprised to find that after the flight of the Yanukovich government from Kyiv under cover of night and the disappearance of police forces, the Maidan (and Kyiv in general) surprisingly, felt safer than it ever had.

It was now full of men, women, children, the elderly, and all walks of life gathering to pay their respects, light candles, lay flowers, pray, and cry. It was a truly inspiring and emotional scene that I don’t think I’ll ever forget.

But it was far from the apocalyptic picture the international media was painting.

The mood was powerfully somber, tearful and reflective, but there was a perceptible sense of pride too, and a look of determination on people’s faces. However, there was also anxiety in those faces; it was widely understood that Putin would not suffer these events lightly and everyone seemed to nervously wait for what might happen next.

And now we know those anxieties were well founded.

Crimea happened, of course, so I spent the next month or so awaiting an impending evacuation of U.S. nationals and monitoring an endless stream of news. I pored over all sorts of sources (including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush) and continued to check the pulse of the Maidan and Kyiv while keeping tabs on events in Lviv and throughout the rest of Ukraine.

It was a chaotic, pivotal moment, and I was caught in the middle of it.

I talked to Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland at 3 a.m., just prior to her phone call to update the president. I watched in a hotel bar, dumbfounded as the former Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonid Kozhara (dismissed that morning), casually discussed with his European bankers how he was going to flee the country. I befriended a Russian journalist who had been fired, along with the rest of the journalists and editorial staff of Lenta.ru, for being too objective. I even had the opportunity to share some vodka with a bunch of Ukrainian colonels who had just accepted 330,000 MREs and were pleading the U.S. for more substantial assistance. It was — and still is — a fascinating, educational experience, and I have gleaned from it all a host of life-altering lessons and impressions. These are my primary takeaways:

First, people are people no matter where you live. They may look different, dress different and act different. But for the most part they all are just trying to get by. The majority of Ukrainians with whom I have had the opportunity to talk are just plain tired, and wearily doing their best to live a normal life and provide for their families despite a crumbling economy and crippling uncertainty.

Second, history matters. This is an important lesson for an American, for whom history can sometimes seem less relevant to contemporary issues. I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine.

Third, and almost as important as the actual experience of history, is the popular or remembered/manufactured conception of that history — the “spin.” Basically, Ukraine (and Russia too) is a post-genocidal society that has not yet come to grips with the realities of the crimes (committed by and against Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Russians) that have been perpetrated here (Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder is a good overview). Each group has its own preferred version of history and uses it to justify the means to achieve their own political ends. The virulently ethno-nationalist version of the Ukrainians is equally as troubling as that of the Russians.

Fourth, world news seems, to a large extent, to be written by uninformed journalists intent on under-analyzing and over-sensationalizing. While the scenes on the Maidan were often apocalyptic, even during the height of the violence just one block away everything was completely calm and normal. I took the picture above from my balcony in Lviv, and while it seems like anarchy, it was actually quite anticlimactic.

Fifth, and finally, Russia’s propaganda machine is incredible. This lesson is an infuriating one when you can see with your own eyes what is actually happening, But Russian propaganda is clearly effective on those who do not have access to other sources of information (and on lazy journalists not inclined to do their own research).

The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering. The chaos in Kyiv was simply not occurring as the media described it. The fact that jewelry and clothing stores continued to operate uninterrupted from within the barricades should be evidence enough of this.

And as for the Nazis/fascists/terrorists in Lviv?

On my return flight to Lviv from Kyiv I conversed with a group of 25 Hassidic Jews. Apparently they had missed the latest news from Russia, and didn’t seem at all afraid to visit the supposed hotbed of banditry and anti-Semitism.

chaos0xomega wrote:
http://www.blueforcetracker.com/article/RyORSJgogH

Lessons of a revolution from an Air Force pilot living in Ukraine

After having attended a prayer service for an adjunct history professor from my department at the Ukrainian Catholic University of Lviv, I boarded a plane to Kyiv.

A sniper there had killed the professor, Bohdan Solchanyk, two days earlier, along with almost eighty of his compatriots as they marched headlong into gunfire armed with nothing more than makeshift shields and construction helmets.

Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan, labeling patriotic Ukrainians like Solchanyk as Nazis, fascists and even terrorists.

Despite the relative calm in Lviv, my superiors were concerned that, in the event of a further escalation of violence, they would have difficulty ensuring my safety. So they ordered me to Kyiv. While I didn’t exactly agree with the logic, I was keen on getting a closer view of the action and relished the opportunity to catch the current mood of the Maidan and of Kyiv in general. And I knew I wouldn’t be able to resist the opportunity to visit the Maidan again.

I had been on the Maidan several times before. I was there at the end of November four hours before the “berkut” dispersed (with the business end of a baton) a dwindling crowd of students for the first time. I was there the next couple of days when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians showed up to protest the blatant use of violence on peaceful protestors.

I was there again in December to watch the statue of Lenin fall and see the menacing encirclement of the protests by riot police. I was also there in January to watch the steady buildup up of the barricades and to marvel at the self-organization of the camp and the resilience of the people within it, who were determined to remain entrenched despite the freezing temperatures and continued threat of violence.

This time would be more intense though; almost a hundred people had been killed so far, the trade union building was gutted by fire, and barricades set ablaze to repel the berkut forces. Hotel Ukraine (a hotel I’ve stayed at three times) had been used as a temporary field hospital and scores bled out in the reception area. It was a veritable war zone — I knew I had to see it.

Several days after arriving in Kyiv I ventured cautiously down to the Maidan; the news trickling out made it seem like the end of the world. There was indeed carnage everywhere, but I was surprised to find that after the flight of the Yanukovich government from Kyiv under cover of night and the disappearance of police forces, the Maidan (and Kyiv in general) surprisingly, felt safer than it ever had.

It was now full of men, women, children, the elderly, and all walks of life gathering to pay their respects, light candles, lay flowers, pray, and cry. It was a truly inspiring and emotional scene that I don’t think I’ll ever forget.

But it was far from the apocalyptic picture the international media was painting.

The mood was powerfully somber, tearful and reflective, but there was a perceptible sense of pride too, and a look of determination on people’s faces. However, there was also anxiety in those faces; it was widely understood that Putin would not suffer these events lightly and everyone seemed to nervously wait for what might happen next.

And now we know those anxieties were well founded.

Crimea happened, of course, so I spent the next month or so awaiting an impending evacuation of U.S. nationals and monitoring an endless stream of news. I pored over all sorts of sources (including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush) and continued to check the pulse of the Maidan and Kyiv while keeping tabs on events in Lviv and throughout the rest of Ukraine.

It was a chaotic, pivotal moment, and I was caught in the middle of it.

I talked to Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland at 3 a.m., just prior to her phone call to update the president. I watched in a hotel bar, dumbfounded as the former Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonid Kozhara (dismissed that morning), casually discussed with his European bankers how he was going to flee the country. I befriended a Russian journalist who had been fired, along with the rest of the journalists and editorial staff of Lenta.ru, for being too objective. I even had the opportunity to share some vodka with a bunch of Ukrainian colonels who had just accepted 330,000 MREs and were pleading the U.S. for more substantial assistance. It was — and still is — a fascinating, educational experience, and I have gleaned from it all a host of life-altering lessons and impressions. These are my primary takeaways:

First, people are people no matter where you live. They may look different, dress different and act different. But for the most part they all are just trying to get by. The majority of Ukrainians with whom I have had the opportunity to talk are just plain tired, and wearily doing their best to live a normal life and provide for their families despite a crumbling economy and crippling uncertainty.

Second, history matters. This is an important lesson for an American, for whom history can sometimes seem less relevant to contemporary issues. I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine.

Third, and almost as important as the actual experience of history, is the popular or remembered/manufactured conception of that history — the “spin.” Basically, Ukraine (and Russia too) is a post-genocidal society that has not yet come to grips with the realities of the crimes (committed by and against Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Russians) that have been perpetrated here (Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder is a good overview). Each group has its own preferred version of history and uses it to justify the means to achieve their own political ends. The virulently ethno-nationalist version of the Ukrainians is equally as troubling as that of the Russians.

Fourth, world news seems, to a large extent, to be written by uninformed journalists intent on under-analyzing and over-sensationalizing. While the scenes on the Maidan were often apocalyptic, even during the height of the violence just one block away everything was completely calm and normal. I took the picture above from my balcony in Lviv, and while it seems like anarchy, it was actually quite anticlimactic.

Fifth, and finally, Russia’s propaganda machine is incredible. This lesson is an infuriating one when you can see with your own eyes what is actually happening, But Russian propaganda is clearly effective on those who do not have access to other sources of information (and on lazy journalists not inclined to do their own research).

The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering. The chaos in Kyiv was simply not occurring as the media described it. The fact that jewelry and clothing stores continued to operate uninterrupted from within the barricades should be evidence enough of this.

And as for the Nazis/fascists/terrorists in Lviv?

On my return flight to Lviv from Kyiv I conversed with a group of 25 Hassidic Jews. Apparently they had missed the latest news from Russia, and didn’t seem at all afraid to visit the supposed hotbed of banditry and anti-Semitism.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well he is basically a shill for Russia, there's zero point debating with him.

chaos0xomega wrote:Find me an article written by a Russian in Lvov.

Given that blueforcetracker isn't exactly known for being a US propaganda piece (in fact its pretty much the opposite of that, most of the opinions expressed there are typically the opposite of that expressed through mainstream news sources, and if you bothered reading the article at all you would note he points out that western media misrepresented the situation as poorly as eastern media did), I'm going to chalk up your post to ignorance, small-mindedness, and a refusal to acknowledge the possibility that you're in the wrong.

Lessons of a revolution from an Air Force pilot living in Ukraine

After having attended a prayer service for an adjunct history professor from my department at the Ukrainian Catholic University of Lviv, I boarded a plane to Kyiv.

A sniper there had killed the professor, Bohdan Solchanyk, two days earlier, along with almost eighty of his compatriots as they marched headlong into gunfire armed with nothing more than makeshift shields and construction helmets.

Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan, labeling patriotic Ukrainians like Solchanyk as Nazis, fascists and even terrorists. (The writer starts raging against Russian propaganda in the third sentence already. Now that would not be a bad thing, except for that he fails to mention that some of his 'patriotic Ukrainians' were in fact Nazis. Maybe professor Solchyank wasn't, but Pravyy Sektor and Svoboda certainly are, and they were one of the most important driving forces behind the Maidan-protests movement. "Russian propaganda may have exaggerated, but it certainly was not entirely wrong".)

Despite the relative calm in Lviv (The writer does not mention the mass protests, occupation of government buildings, ousting of governors and other violence that happened in Lvov and other Western cities. Not bias per se, but it needs to be mentioned), my superiors were concerned that, in the event of a further escalation of violence, they would have difficulty ensuring my safety. So they ordered me to Kyiv. While I didn’t exactly agree with the logic, I was keen on getting a closer view of the action and relished the opportunity to catch the current mood of the Maidan and of Kyiv in general. And I knew I wouldn’t be able to resist the opportunity to visit the Maidan again.

I had been on the Maidan several times before. I was there at the end of November four hours before the “berkut” dispersed (with the business end of a baton) (how should they have otherwise dispersed such an unruly crowd? While I don't approve of unnecessary violence, the methods used by the Berkut really weren't any different from methods used by riot police in other countries. Such superfluous remarks as the writer makes here unnecessarily and deliberately paint one side in a negative light) a dwindling crowd of students for the first time. I was there the next couple of days when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians showed up to protest the blatant use of violence on peaceful protestors.

I was there again in December to watch the statue of Lenin fall and see the menacing encirclement of the protests by riot police. I was also there in January to watch the steady buildup up of the barricades and to marvel at the self-organization of the camp and the resilience of the people within it, who were determined to remain entrenched despite the freezing temperatures and continued threat of violence. (Here, the writer does not note any disapproval of the destruction of public property and a monument of historical (and to most Russians also emotional) value. No, in fact, he seems to approve of it, and then continues to describe the riot police in a negative light, despite the destruction of monuments and public property being a very good and legitimate reason for the riot police to move in. What would have happened if a bunch of protesters in the US would have pulled down that tall, white obelisk thing (either the Washington or Jefferson monument, I don't remember) that stands in Washington DC? Would authorities just sit by and let it happen?)

This time would be more intense though; almost a hundred people had been killed so far, the trade union building was gutted by fire, and barricades set ablaze to repel the berkut forces. Hotel Ukraine (a hotel I’ve stayed at three times) had been used as a temporary field hospital and scores bled out in the reception area. It was a veritable war zone — I knew I had to see it.

Several days after arriving in Kyiv I ventured cautiously down to the Maidan; the news trickling out made it seem like the end of the world. There was indeed carnage everywhere, but I was surprised to find that after the flight of the Yanukovich government from Kyiv under cover of night and the disappearance of police forces, the Maidan (and Kyiv in general) surprisingly, felt safer than it ever had.

It was now full of men, women, children, the elderly, and all walks of life gathering to pay their respects, light candles, lay flowers, pray, and cry. It was a truly inspiring and emotional scene that I don’t think I’ll ever forget.

But it was far from the apocalyptic picture the international media was painting.

The mood was powerfully somber, tearful and reflective, but there was a perceptible sense of pride too, and a look of determination on people’s faces. However, there was also anxiety in those faces; it was widely understood that Putin would not suffer these events lightly and everyone seemed to nervously wait for what might happen next.

And now we know those anxieties were well founded.

Crimea happened, of course, so I spent the next month or so awaiting an impending evacuation of U.S. nationals and monitoring an endless stream of news. I pored over all sorts of sources (including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush) (If I actually had to explain the bias in this, it would be very sad indeed. It is hardly possible to write in a more biased tone.)and continued to check the pulse of the Maidan and Kyiv while keeping tabs on events in Lviv and throughout the rest of Ukraine.

It was a chaotic, pivotal moment, and I was caught in the middle of it.

I talked to Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland at 3 a.m., just prior to her phone call to update the president. I watched in a hotel bar, dumbfounded as the former Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonid Kozhara (dismissed that morning), casually discussed with his European bankers how he was going to flee the country. I befriended a Russian journalist who had been fired, along with the rest of the journalists and editorial staff of Lenta.ru, for being too objective. I even had the opportunity to share some vodka with a bunch of Ukrainian colonels who had just accepted 330,000 MREs and were pleading the U.S. for more substantial assistance. It was — and still is — a fascinating, educational experience, and I have gleaned from it all a host of life-altering lessons and impressions. These are my primary takeaways:

First, people are people no matter where you live. They may look different, dress different and act different. But for the most part they all are just trying to get by. The majority of Ukrainians with whom I have had the opportunity to talk are just plain tired, and wearily doing their best to live a normal life and provide for their families despite a crumbling economy and crippling uncertainty. (Wow, Ukrainians are people too? I would never have guessed. And what does he say now? People everywhere are people? Oh boy, what an exciting world we live in! People are people no matter where their culture and location. Who would have ever guessed that?)

Second, history matters. (Wow he learned that history matters,even in the present day. This guy is a genius!) This is an important lesson for an American, for whom history can sometimes seem less relevant to contemporary issues. I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine.
(Again, the bias in his words is clearly detectable. Russian rule is domination, Polish and Imperial Austrian rule is a way to inherit 'greater sense of civic society and participatory politics', no matter that the first two were just as autocratic and all three were more repressive towards ethnic Ukrainians than either the Russian Empire of Soviet Union. Why do Americans always give me the feel that they think Russia is the absolute epitome of repression and evil?
The split between Russian and Polish rule however has been very important in the present-day division of Ukraine, but not in the way the writer explains it here. A gross oversimplification indeed.)
Third, and almost as important as the actual experience of history, is the popular or remembered/manufactured conception of that history — the “spin.” Basically, Ukraine (and Russia too) is a post-genocidal society that has not yet come to grips with the realities of the crimes (committed by and against Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Russians) that have been perpetrated here (Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder is a good overview). Each group has its own preferred version of history and uses it to justify the means to achieve their own political ends. The virulently ethno-nationalist version of the Ukrainians is equally as troubling as that of the Russians. (*applause* Finally an intelligent, well observed and unbiased statement by the writer that I can agree with)

Fourth, world news seems, to a large extent, to be written by uninformed journalists intent on under-analyzing and over-sensationalizing. (That is probably true of all media, no matter in which country) While the scenes on the Maidan were often apocalyptic, even during the height of the violence just one block away everything was completely calm and normal. I took the picture above from my balcony in Lviv, and while it seems like anarchy, it was actually quite anticlimactic.

Fifth, and finally, Russia’s propaganda machine is incredible. This lesson is an infuriating one when you can see with your own eyes what is actually happening, But Russian propaganda is clearly effective on those who do not have access to other sources of information (and on lazy journalists not inclined to do their own research). (For those who might be inclinde to think that 'Russian propaganda' is my only source, you are wrong. I have lived in Ukraine (Sevastopol) for the greater part of my life and know people in Kiev and many other parts of Ukraine, with whom I have been keeping in close contact since the crisis started. I have plenty of primary sources located on both sides of the conflict.)

The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) Sure, Russian media is always wrong, Western media is only sometimes wrong. Great bias there. media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering. The chaos in Kyiv was simply not occurring as the media described it. The fact that jewelry and clothing stores continued to operate uninterrupted from within the barricades should be evidence enough of this.

And as for the Nazis/fascists/terrorists in Lviv?

On my return flight to Lviv from Kyiv I conversed with a group of 25 Hassidic Jews. Apparently they had missed the latest news from Russia, and didn’t seem at all afraid to visit the supposed hotbed of banditry and anti-Semitism. (Neither should they. Unlike what the writer is implying here, no Russian news ever implied Jews or any other groups are massacred on the streets of Lvov or anything like that. He should have spoke to a Russian citizen instead. They would have had more cause for concern.)