Ivan Winters returns with a guest-essay that takes a look behind the curtain of media hype at the crisis in Ukraine.
What’s the Real Story in Ukraine?
by Ivan Winters
I am writing this article to help interested persons make head or tail of the ongoing shambles that is the situation in Ukraine and to give some (hopefully accurate) information about the main players in the situation. One of the things that has driven me to contacting the team to offer to write this article has been the disgraceful, shallow, ill-informed coverage in much of the UK Press. The coverage on the two main TV News providers, BBC and ITN has been pathetic and has been propagandising an EU version of events (I will give some examples of this in the article).
Most of the print media has been nearly as bad. In fairness, during the past few weeks, since mid-February, the Daily Mail has started to take the situation seriously and provided much more accurate coverage, particularly in some of the op-eds. The best TV news coverage has been from Al-Jazeera (AJ). I suppose AJ is giving unbiased coverage for the simple reason that as an Islamic-funded broadcaster they have no particular brief for any of the parties in the region. There is also a channel for non-EU-tainted coverage on Russia Today (RT). RT is as you would expect: pro-Russian, putting the official ‘Moscow spin’ on all its reporting. It is also on occasions hilariously technically incompetent and some of its presenters speak very strongly accented English (some of the other staff are, however, Western European).
The first thing to get straight about the situation is the claim that the document that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign was a ‘EU Trade Pact’ (or similar names). This was in fact an innocuous and misleading wrapper put around a preliminary agreement for Ukraine to begin accession procedures with the EU, a process that can take decades (for example, Turkey!). Why was this misleading name used?
In the discussion that follows please note the difference between ‘Europe’ and the ‘EU’. Some reporters use the two names interchangeably. They are not the same. Europe is a geographical entity, a continent, consisting of over 40 countries. The EU is a group of 28 countries within Europe that have decided democratically (!) to form a supranational bloc. Reasons for the use of the misleading name for the rejected treaty are numerous and include:
| a. | Attempting to hide the real nature of the EU attempt to expand its bloc up to the Russian border. The EU were perfectly aware that if Russia realised what was happening, Putin had two ‘weapons’ at his disposal. The first is that much of the population in Southern and Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian (Russian-speaking and often Russian Orthodox). These peoples would much prefer Ukraine to increase its links with Russia rather than the EU, and Putin could easily motivate then into vociferously objecting to the proposed treaty.
The other weapon is that Russia supplies Ukraine with its oil and gas, and Ukraine regularly owes Russia for unpaid deliveries. For example, as of 1st March the unpaid balance was approx $1.59 billion (approx £980 million). Russia can (and has in the past) cut off Ukrainian fuel deliveries in mid-winter using the unpaid balance as an excuse. A collateral result of this is that some other EU countries lose some of their oil/gas deliveries as they use the pipelines running through Ukraine. |
|
| b. | The EU were well-aware that many Ukrainians, while perfectly happy to see Ukraine increase its links with Western Europe, would not be keen to see accession to the EU. After all, having got out of one supranational bloc in 1992, why would anyone want to join another such bloc? The image many East Europeans have of the EU is that of another expansionist supranational bloc led by a bureaucracy that comes up with the same incompetent decision-making as occurred in the Soviet bloc (see discussion and comment programs on RT to see this stereotype regularly repeated). A further image problem for the EU is that many people around the world see it as a putative ‘Fourth Reich’ dominated by Germany! Accurate or not, most Ukrainians have bad memories of their last involvement with Germany. | |
| c. | Many of the EU’s social and cultural standards expected of accession nations are inimical to the Ukrainian people. As one example out of many, countries acceding to the EU are expected to legitimize same-sex marriage. This has already caused a problem with the latest accessing nation, Croatia, a proudly Catholic country, where a national referendum has rejected same-sex marriage. The Ukrainians are also proudly religious and the majority object to same-sex marriage. In fact most Ukrainians didn’t realise involvement with the EU included support for same-sex marriage until an advertising campaign in the local press — the campaign was paid for by a oligarch who is a friend of Vladimir Putin. |
Having disposed of the narrative that the Ukrainian President was signing up to a trade pact, there is of course one simple fact that has to be recognised: President Yanukovych was a democratically elected president. If a democratically elected president wishes to change his mind before signing up to a treaty, that is his prerogative in a democracy and that is no reason for his overthrow. To give an obvious example: you are perfectly entitled to walk away from a potential house purchase provided you have not ‘exchanged’ contracts. The worse that can happen is you might have to pay some fees for solicitors/valuer etc.
Who was behind the rioting mob in Kiev that used the non-signature of the Trade Treaty as an excuse for a coup? Two answers actually: the US and the EU. The US has for the past two decades pursued a policy of trying to detach the former Soviet Republics from the Russian economic sphere and move them into the Western sphere, including such little sweeteners as ‘candidate member of NATO’ status. One of the most famous examples of this was Georgia. The Georgian government expected that in the event of a border dispute with Russia, NATO would intervene, all guns blazing. Instead, during the South Ossetia crisis they got French President Sarkozy to negotiate a ceasefire!
One of the most active members of the US State Department. during these operations has been Assistant Secretary of State Victoria ‘F*** the EU’ Nuland. Unlike many of the staff at her level who are short-term political appointees, Nuland is a career diplomat who began her career some twenty years ago in the Clinton era. Like Bush-era Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Nuland is a Sovietologist. Nuland was in Kiev a few months ago handing out cookies to demonstrators. More recently she was caught on the phone giving her (very accurate) opinion of the EU and discussing with the US ambassador to Ukraine who should be members of a new Ukrainian government. Hardly the actions of a ‘neutral’ power in the overthrow of Yanukovych.
Another American visitor to Kiev was Senator John McCain who, although a Republican, is usually on the same side as Obama/Kerry on Foreign affairs agendas. McCain was speaking on a platform in Kiev alongside a leader of the Ukrainian Nationalist Party Svoboda. The Svoboda leader is so extreme he is barred from entry to the US by the State Department, but that didn’t deter McCain from supporting him.
In the case of the EU the situation is quite comical. Both Polish and German Foreign Ministers have stood in the Kiev ‘Maidan’ supporting the anti-government demonstrators. There have also been the endless visitations from EU ‘Foreign affairs chief’ Baroness Ashton. The German Foreign Minister (until mid Dec 2013) Guido Westerwelle spoke alongside Svoboda leaders. Westerwelle is openly gay, Svoboda is openly violently homophobic. Strange bedfellows! (so to speak)
What help did the US and the EU give to the democratic demonstrators overthrowing Yanukovych? A lot! Funding people to stay for months in the Maidan and various other locations where demonstrators set up encampments, food, tents, field kitchens, support for the campaign through the Press and TV material — it wasn’t cheap. It is estimated that since the early 1990s the US has spent $5 billion (approx £3.1 billion)[3],][4]. This money is channelled through political parties, charities, NGOs etc. The EU is estimated to have spent at least $1 billion (£620 million). Note 1 suggests that demonstrators are typically being paid €8-25 (£7-£20) per day funnelled through NGOs such as the German ‘Konrad Adenauer Stiftung’ (a foundation linked to Merkel’s CDU Party). Note 2 lists payments made to a range of small NGOs/charities.
The final straw in the overthrow of Yanukovych was the infamous ‘snipers’ incident in which he is alleged to have ordered snipers to fire upon demonstrators, his own fellow countrymen, causing approximately 80 fatalities. The strange thing about this incident is that no one has apparently succeeded in arresting or killing one or more of these snipers. We do not know who they were, their names, ethnicity, or what uniforms (if any) they were wearing. In fact we haven’t even been told the calibre and type of ammunition they were using, which would usually be available from post mortems. How convenient those snipers were in causing public hatred of Yanukovych, who effectively had to flee the country to avoid a lynching. But we have a credible report[5] that it appears the ‘snipers’ had also fired on government police and that they had been set in place by someone involved with the new government. Both the new government and Baroness Ashton have not been in any hurry to set up any enquiry into who the snipers were and who ordered them. Could it have been yet another ‘false flag’ operation?
At this point I’ll point out a legal aspect on which Putin is wrong. Regardless of whether or not the ‘snipers’ incident for which Yanukovych is now facing an arrest warrant from the Ukrainian Parliament was faked, there is prima facie evidence Yanukovych is guilty of fraud, embezzlement and abuse of office in all the villas seized, documents found, accounts frozen etc after he absconded. There are also reports that he suffered a severe heart attack after fleeing the country. So he cannot continue to be President as if he were still in Ukraine; he would be facing financial charges or too ill to carry out his duties. The next in line to the Presidency according to the Ukrainian Constitution is the Speaker of the Parliament (by the way, in the US Constitution the third in line to the Presidency is the Speaker of the House). Similarly most of the government ministers, having either resigned or absconded, an interim government had to be appointed. Quite correctly, since the interim President and government lack a mandate, election dates lack been brought forward so that a new government has a democratic mandate. Despite proceeding in a constitutionally correct manner the Russians, have said wrongly that they will not recognise the interim President and prime minister They cannot even claim the interim president is a ‘neo-Nazi’; Oleksandr Turchynov is from the Fatherland Party.
The Fatherland Party is a moderate centrist pro-capitalist party. In addition to a national minimum wage, increased pensions, a simplified taxation system, business-friendly policies, adoption of jury trials, and a strong range of anti-corruption measures, the Party is pro-EU. The party has been an ‘observer member’ of the European People’s Party in the EU since 2008. The party’s manifesto makes no mention of joining NATO and calls for “a mutually beneficial and equitable agreement on the establishment of free trade with Russia”. (Source Fatherland Party policies[6]). The Party’s current leader since her release from imprisonment is Yulia Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko has of course been Prime Minister of Ukraine before on previous occasions. Her previous governments (she has led governments consisting of various amalgams of parties/blocs over the years) have always been accepted as democratically elected by voters across Ukraine, even those voters who voted for different parties. She has successfully dealt with the Russian government in various negotiations over the years. ‘Russian Prime Minister (now President again) Vladimir Putin has stated (in November 2009) he found it comfortable to work with his (then) Ukrainian counterpart Yulia Tymoshenko and also praised her for strengthening Ukrainian sovereignty and building stable ties with Moscow and called the second Tymoshenko Government “efficient and a force for stability”’[7].
So if Tymoshenko’s Fatherland Party isn’t the problem, what is the problem? The main party in the ‘Right Sector Bloc’ is Svoboda. To describe Svoboda as neo-Nazi is generous; the party is Nazi. I am not going to go into the history (except for one item) but for background I can suggest for a start sources [8] and [9]. (I do not recommend the Wikipedia entries on these subjects as they appear to have been ‘airbrushed’ by friendly editors!). I have already mentioned the party’s leader Oleh Tyahnybok, who stood on platforms in Kiev with various Western politicians, and the party’s homophobia. The party is also anti-Russian and anti-Semitic. ‘The Party was involved in the vote of 23 Feb 2014 by the Ukrainian Parliament (Rada) repealing the previous law regarding the use of regional languages making Ukrainian the sole state language at all levels; however, this vote was vetoed by acting President Oleksandr Turchynov on March 2.’[10]. Another example of anti-Russian policy from the party was a move by a Svoboda legislator in the new Rada calling for Ukraine to start once again developing its own nuclear weapons. This in a country where most people want absolutely nothing to do with any nuclear materials post-Chernobyl. The party’s deputy leader Yuri Mikhalchishin, a Svoboda ideologist, has founded a think-tank called the Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre, translated Hitler’s work which he calls ‘classics’, and calls the Holocaust a ‘bright period’ in European history[8],[9]. The same sources also report the leader of Svoboda, in 2004, speaking at the graveside of a UPA commander (UPA — WWII ‘Ukrainian Insurgent Army’), urging Ukrainians to fight against the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia”, and lauding the World War II Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) for having fought “Muscovites, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state.” Svoboda leaders and members attend reunions, funerals and memorials for UPA, OUN and Waffen SS Galicia Division. Moving forward to the present day, although Svoboda holds several ministries in the interim government, its followers haven’t given up violence. An example[12] shows Svoboda ‘activists’ assaulting a Ukrainian TV boss.
I said I wasn’t going to get involved in history except for one item, and that was also the item that made me realise the failure of the Western media to report the ‘Maidan’ uprising accurately. Svoboda supporters venerate a Ukrainian Nationalist ‘hero’ of the Second World War named Stepan Bandera [11]. This war hero’s war consisted of committing genocide against Poles, Jews, Russians, Magyars, Romanians, Crimean Tartars and other minorities in the Nazi-occupied Ukraine. Not surprisingly minorities in Ukraine today, particularly the ethnic Russians who form a substantial part of the population in Southern and Eastern Ukraine, want nothing to do with a government where several ministers think Bandera is a hero! I realised that the mainstream media were hiding things in late 2013 when I saw young demonstrators in the Kiev Maidan on TV marching behind banners of Bandera’s face. I recognised the face and realised what this said about the real politics of the allegedly freedom loving pro EU ‘demonstrators’. They were Svoboda supporters! The BBC/ITN/Sky commentators never said whose face was on the banners. If their reporters ‘didn’t know’ because of lack of local knowledge, all they had too do was ask their Ukrainian interpreters, car drivers etc. Bandera was even awarded the title ‘Hero of Ukraine’ by outgoing President Yushchenko in 2010. The award was cancelled by President Yanukovych. Despite this Bandera is an ‘honorary citizen’ of many Ukrainian cities and there are statues, shrines, etc. to him all over Western Ukraine (see Wikipedia ‘Stepan Bandera’ for a full listing).
Having set out at some length examples showing that Right Sector/Svoboda is a fascist party, the only conclusion I can come to is that the ‘Western powers’ — the EU and the US — were so desperate to get Ukraine into a West-leaning power bloc that they were willing to use any ‘activists’ that were available to overthrow a democratically elected government, and let the nationalist genie out of the bottle. They are now going around trying to order an interim government currently without a democratic mandate to put the heavily armed and equipped genie back into the bottle as a condition for bailout packages (Baroness Ashton has had high profile coverage in recent days — mid April — demanding that ‘unauthorised groups’ be disarmed, etc.). It is not just a case of satisfying EU/US/IMF that the problem is being solved so that bailout funds are released. There are two other parties that have to be satisfied. Minorities in Ukraine, in particular the substantial Russian-speaking minority in southern and eastern Ukraine, have to be convinced they are dealing with an administration that has the interests of all Ukrainians at heart in its governance of the country. (2001 census figures show approx 30% of Ukrainians as Russian-speaking, rising to 77% in the Crimea[10]). Little that has happened recently could convince these regions that the interim government is good news for their populations. The other party that has to be reassured is, of course, Russia.
What has this got to do with Russia, some of you may be asking? To give a comparable example just think if the Russian government spent $6 million overthrowing the democratically elected government of Mexico by funding the drug cartels to seize power. How many ‘red lines’ would that cross with Obama/Kerry/Nuland?
The Russian government has every right to be concerned about a foreign-financed and -supported ‘regime change’ on its border, particularly as the outgoing regime was a democratically elected government with which Russia had friendly relations.
In presenting this overview I am stating my own opinions, and have included a list of sources so that readers who wish to check the factual bases for my statements can do so. The list of sources is only a starter list. Needless to say, my overview is different from that being presented in most Western publications, but I still (currently) have the right to present my own research and interpretation.
Sources:
Previously by Ivan Winters: “A Systemic Failure of Public Responsibility”
Having researched the issue and written about it, I can confirm that everything you put in here is correct. There is more, though, much more. In fact I suspended delving deeper into it after some 10,000 words on the issue because, if I continued, it was going to take over my life. There is smoke and mirrors here, and switchbacks and false bottoms; it’s endless. Likewise, there are the banksters and the oligarchs to consider, the NWO and its money weapons like the IMF, USSR- traumatized countries like Poland which, though Ukraine-traumatized as well consider toeing the American line a better option, and so on. It’s mess galore, the unintended consequences of America’s madness. The U.S. should never have been involved, as it shouldn’t have in Libya, Egypt, Syria etc. And just like in those countries, the object of America’s tender affections, Russia, will come out ahead.
Democratically elected president is a proxy of people’s will, he can’t just change his mind. This is what tyrants do.
Actually, this is a classic debate that goes back several hundred years. Check out the history of the English parliament… If someone is elected, should they follow the will of the people who elected him/her or to use their best judgement based on the facts they are presented with once they get into office, or due to changing circumstances?
In a functioning democracy, the answer seems to come down to this…’I know you elected me to do ‘x’, but on sober reflection and a fuller understanding of the issues I have decided to do ‘y’. I will explain my reasoning as best I can, and if you don’t agree with me, then vote me out’.
Well, interesting and I am sure you will get a lot of feedback from this audience as we tend to love to fight about Russia! I will not even pretend to be informed about the Ukraine but, didn’t Yanukovych abscond with 1.1 billion?
Also, that house he had with the zoo in the back yard… I am always amazed by how tacky these crooks are.
‘Democratically elected president is a proxy of people’s will, he can’t just change his mind. This is what tyrants do.’ – Hell Awaits.
Please let me know when the Ukrainian people took a binding decision (usually this is by means of a referendum) instructing the President to sign a ‘trade pact’ with the EU. They didn’t. In fact Yanukovych’s party which had the majority in the Ukrainian Parliament before the ‘sniper’s incident’ would never have ordered him to sign such a pact. The Party in question was pro-Russian with many of it’s members (including Yanukovych) being Russian speakers. He had to be overthrown and many of his Parliamentary deputy’s absconded or resigned so that a new bloc which took power without ‘inconvenient niceties’ such as elections could sign the trade pact. I think I have shown compelling evidence that the EU/US supported and facilitated the overthrow of Yanukovych a President who had a democratic mandate.
‘I will not even pretend to be informed about the Ukraine but, didn’t Yanukovych abscond with 1.1 billion?’ – Babs
You won’t be informed about the Ukraine if you make a comment without reading the article. I had already covered this ! ‘there is prima facie evidence Yanukovych is guilty of fraud, embezzlement and abuse of office in all the villas seized, documents found, accounts frozen etc after he absconded.’
Recognizing homosexual marriage is not required for EU membership. Several EU countries do not recognize homosexual marriage. While there may be arguments against EU membership on cultural issues, the Ukranians were fighting for their independence from Russia. You can’t spin that to mean they must then surrender to homosexuals and Islamists.
@Federale:
But Brussels is more capable of forcing their agenda onto those in most need of the West. Call it blackmail. Ukraine cannot present its vehement opposition toward issues enforced by Brussels the same way other countries in the EU can because Ukraine have to surrender to the West in order to be assured with the West’s support. So your observation (comparing Ukraine with EU countries) is not valid.
Yes, the Ukraine WILL have to surrender to Brussels in all things regarding homosexual marriage and transgenders in the military ( that is just on the horizon) and they will have to expand muslim immigration by THOUSANDS… it is happening right now in POLAND!
This is a shameful article. The whole tone of the piece is that of Soviet propaganda. It may as well have been signed “Vladimir”. The new Ukrainian government isn’t “fascist”. The whole concept of fascism is as dead as Zeuss worship, and lives on only in the imagination of Russian propagandists.
I have friends in Ukraine, 3 past foreign exchange students from Kiev who have written to me this past year and they ALL say that the nationalist BANDAR followers are nothing more than NAZI THUGS!
One girl’s granny was pushed down on the street in Kiev in the Spring by a man wearing a BANDAR shirt , because she was wearing an Orthodox style cross and she was called a very bad word… then Russian.
I agree with Sam Grant. I’m sorry I don’t have enough time to unpick this article bit by bit. I already have my hands full counteracting Russian propaganda in my own country, where half the conservatives seem to be on Moscow’s payroll. This is reminiscent of Western communist traitors of the fifties.
I’ll just say this : most Ukrainians are craving for the European way of life, as opposed to the Russian way of life — and they are bloody right. We should support them, not the neo-communist, crypto-gay thug-in-chief in the Kremlin.
Most of the so-called pro-Russians in the east do not want to be “re-united” with Russia, and most of them do not support the military agression organised by Russia.
Those are facts. Check them.
I would advise a different choice of sources, if one wants to learn about the situation beyond what the mainstream media have to say.
First of all, don’t even mention Russia Today, or Russian television generally. The level of propaganda, and just plain lying on the official media is breath-taking. It’s far worse than under the Soviets. Goebbels sounds subtle in comparison.
Also : Infowars. Please… don’t. Conspiracy lunatic, one-man operation. What else ? Wikipedia ? That’s all right, if you need to check that Moscow is the capital of Russia.
I’m surprised that among the many bloggers who claim to dispel “Western propaganda” on the Ukrainian crisis, almost nobody bothers to ask the opinion of the Ukrainians themselves. Everybody pretends it’s only an America vs. Russia game. Suppose we took Ukraine into account ? That’s precisely what Putin does not want you to do. Everything in Moscow’s propaganda suggests that Ukraine does not exist, that it is just an extension of Russia. Indeed, Vladimir Putin went on the record saying that Ukraine is not a country.
Guess what ? There are plenty of Ukrainian sources in English. You could start here :
http://euromaidanpress.com
https://www.kyivpost.com
Yes, they are pro-Kiev. Much more interesting, balanced, honest and close to the truth that Russian TV.
There are also plenty of learned, American sources on the subject :
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.fr
Yes, he’s American, supports Ukraine and opposes Putin. And rightly so. Most of his posts are translations from Russian authors and analysts living in Russia. No, not all Russians support Putin’s policies. You don’t get to hear them on Russia Today.
http://20committee.com
Yes, he’s American, ex-army, ex-NSA. And very interesting.
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/minding_russia
A Russian translator. Yeah, I know, she writes from America, therefore she has to lie, since Putin says so ; but you might give her a try nonetheless.
And what about looking for some really independent sources in Russia ? Yes, they do exist :
http://en.novayagazeta.ru
An opposition newspaper ! Fancy that…
http://www.interpretermag.com
Only English translations of Russian media and blogs. Of course, it’s London and New-York based, therefore it must be the work of Anglo-Zionist ploutocrats (or Nazis, or Banderites ? sometimes I get lost…) intent on destroying Russia and Christian values. But never mind. Have a look. Then you can go back loving Putin, if that’s your thing.
As for me : I don’t like liars. Putin is a lying liar. Just today, his foreign minister managed to say one thing and its opposite in the same sentence : he does not support breaking up Ukraine, but he supports the independence of Donbass.
Filthy lying liars. They tried to destroy Western civilisation through communism for the better part of last century, and here they are again, the same men, Putin and his KGB cronies, trying to destroy a country that wants to live free, and lying through their teeth to the world in the process.
And finally, some fine, Western, European, Anglo journalism on Ukraine :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/roland-oliphant
Putin did not build that. The West did. I’m sick and tired of people pandering to foreign tyrants.
I got this wrong in my previous comment : here is the crypto-gay thug in the Kremlin.
Seriously : you have to wonder how a purported world-class leader considers worthy of him to, simultaneously :
1. Make it appear as if opposing homosexuality was a major part of his political agenda,
2. Have himself repeatedly photographed in shirtless propaganda shoots, which would nicely fit on the cover of any gay magazine worldwide.
Putin is a phony if I ever saw one.
Good analysis of the situation with the specification that it is not really known how strong is the Right Sector in Ukraine at the moment and the government is trying to keep them occupied with fighting in the East. The Ukrainian officials went tough against one of their Right Sector leader a few months ago, killing him during a special forces operation (at the time tensions between the East and the West of Ukraine did not occur, so the Ukrainian officials thought that they will not need the Right Sector anymore, they started to eliminate Right Sector leaders probably with the guise of Brussels). With the starting of the campaign in the East, they somehow revived Right Sector’s position in Ukraine, but rest assured the EU do not want anything like the Ukrainian Right Sector becoming strong in a country trying to adhere to the EU. There is a documented video with one of their young leaders saying that once in the EU they will liberate Europe from the Muslims. The Brussels officials looked the other way around pretending not to hear but they consider this to be their worst nightmare (for them) if what the Right Sector leader said will happen.
VERY good synopsis of the real situation.
On a personal note those Ukrainian Nazis killed all of what was left of my Polish Roman Catholic family in a raid on a their little village near the border and sent only 2 surviving teenaged boys were sent to a concentration camp where they barely survived.
My uncle was an officer in the Polish Army fighting in Warsaw where he was captured and he spent years in a concentration camp in Poland then in a Nazi slave labor camps inside Germany where he was liberated by the Americans.
He told me the most sadist guards were Ukrainian Nazis. His teenaged nephews said the same. They were beaten and starved JUST because they were Polish by the Ukrainians. Although the nephews expressed no love of Russians they said the Russians ALWAYS got the worst treatment by the Guards.
With respect you have evidently not been in Ukraine recently but are an outside observer. The views you present do not describe the reality within Ukraine. The past president was head of a criminal oligarchy. He was certainly not democratically elected. The election was rigged by bribing and threatening electors. Ballots were rigged. Media that intended to support the opposition was visited and told to stop or in three days they would have no business, no home and no family. This was not an idle threat. That disposes of the “democratically elected” idea so widespread amongst the academics and ill intentioned towards the new government.
The country was in the grip of the old government robber barons and nobody could make a decent living. People were desperate. Then there was a chance for some relationship with the EU. People did not love the EU but they loved the idea of a decent standard of living and affairs. Things are bad when the EU looks good. Their president then u-turned back to the Chinese and Russians. It is illegal to sell Ukrainian land. This was the last straw and the people went to the Maidan. Whether the EU or the Pope or anyone else paid them to stay there is not relevant. They went there to change the foul system of government.
That the EU was involved and geopolitical forces interfered is without doubt. This does not change the intent of the revolution from the level of the people. Academics and observers lose sight of the fact that the revolution is on the ground, including grandmothers, young mothers and the whole cross section of Ukrainian society.
Of course Russia is a player here, just like the EU. And the only Ukrainians who were against the revolution were those in the presidents party with big business interests in Russia and ethnic Russians descended from those moved in by Stalin. They decided that the part of Ukraine they lived in was now Russia. That was a big mistake.
Ukrainians may not like Germans. In fact they don’t. But perhaps you don’t know about the Holodomor, a genocidal famine in the early 1930s. I know one survivor. She says that the troops came and shot anyone healthy and took away all the food. The left in Europe say, how sad, some 2 million died but then lots of Russians died too. Reality is that in Ukraine estimates say up to 12 million Ukrainians died and it was deliberate. People ate their dead children and then died. So Ukrainians don’t like Germans but they tolerate them and they like Russians probably even less. They tolerated the Russians in Ukraine until they seceded. Then tolerance stopped.
You say there are nazis in government in Ukraine. That would not surprise me as there area probably nazis in your government and in most governments, hidden or open. Nazis are simply another group of left wing totalitarians. (National Socialists, understand!).
There are lots of groups trying to get power. The most powerful are the Russians who have left a lot of dead soldiers on the Ukrainian side of the border along with mercenaries that speak neither Ukrainian or Russian. Ukraine is fighting for its people, its land and its soverenty. The president stood down parliamnet and elections are due in October. Will enemies say that this is not democracy either? Very likely!
Russia is totalitarian and the EU is totalitarian. Ukraine would like to be a democracy. There are few of those around but it now has hope. I wonder why so many in the West as well as, understandably the East, are against them and spreading false ideas.
‘Recognizing homosexual marriage is not required for EU membership. Several EU countries do not recognize homosexual marriage.’ – Federale.
An increasing number of EU countries now recognise homosexual marriage including the UK. The EU is putting great pressure on the remaining members who do not recognise gay marriage to conform. Once a majority of EU members recognise these marriages gays in EU countries that do not conform can appeal their denial of their ‘human rights’ to the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights). The ECHR usually rules on cultural/moral issues to match the practise in the majority of EU members.
‘This is a shameful article. The whole tone of the piece is that of Soviet propaganda. It may as well have been signed “Vladimir”.’ – Sam Grant.
1. PMSL. I was previously a Thatcherite Tory and now vote UKIP. Most of UKIP’s major policies are Thatcherite. Thatcher was no friend of the Russian bloc. They coined those immortal titles for her such as ‘The Iron Lady’, ‘The Mad Axewoman’, ‘The Wicked Witch of the West’ complete with matching cartoons. In the 1983 General Election the Labour Party famously asked the USSR to cut the anti-Thatcher propaganda as all it did was to win her more votes. A Thatcherite who should sign himself ‘Vladimir’ that’s one for my archive !!
2. This ‘shameful article’ isn’t just my opinions. I have included numerous sources to verify my conclusions and I have advised interested readers to research further (see last para of my article). I have referenced 12 sources, 3 from Wikipedia and 9 others, all respected WESTERN sources including one from ‘gatesof vienna’ (see ref 11). There are no links to ‘RT’, ‘Pravda’, ‘Tass’ etc etc. In fact, sorry, no ‘Soviet propaganda’ sources.
‘ Things are bad when the EU looks good.’ – Ai.
What a succint summing up of this awfull situation. It is as succint as Victoria Nuland’s comment re the EU in her phone call.
I quite agree with your points about the Ukrainian people and their yearnings for democracy but by your own admission it must be a strange way for a people to advance their national democracy & sovereignity by allying with the EU when you say ‘Russia is totalitarian and the EU is totalitarian’. Allying with totalitarians to advance democracy is the politics of an asylum !! The fact is argued in my article that the Ukrainian people have been used by the US and the EU to advance their interests against Russia (EU & US interests I should stress). The EU & US have funded much of the ‘Maidan’ uprising and they have used the Ukrainian Nationalists (Fascists for a shorter description) as part of their assets. Now they are unable to put the Nationalists back in the bottle.
Ivan, it may be a strange way but it is the only one they have. There are no alternatives and while Russia is openly totalitarian, the EU at present wears a democratic coat. They love neither but must continue or go back to the bad old days. Now the Russians are fighting inside Ukraines borders. If they take Ukraine, where do they stop?
Putin likes to go slow but steady, swallowing a little piece here and there. They will never get past Ukraine because Russian will seize to exist for demographic reasons.
Nationalism is another much abused term.
Loyalty starts with the family, the tribe an the nation in that order.
People who support there own country are now criticised by others.
The problem of the Nazis is not so much they were nationalist but that they were socialist, in other words totalitarian.
The word Nationalist is now used to vilify people that want to put their own country first. This may include Nazis, Fascists, conservatives and others. Now it is necessary to support some larger state like the EU or the new world order to be free from criticism.
In more sensible countries like in the middle east, and Asia, this idea is foolishness and they laugh at the west. Perhaps the real problems are the governments of the west who make laws to kill small business and to stop freedom of speech. Socialism does not do self criticism. They are popular with their own left wings because they are destroying their nations.
Ivan, please read my comment of 30 August.
Your writing is doing Putin’s job of muddling the picture which morally is as clear as day.
And to further stress my point :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11060548/Canada-mocks-Russia-on-Twitter-with-helpful-map-and-geography-lesson-offer.html
I approached Ivan Winters’ “What’s the Real Story of Ukraine” expecting to find some fresh insights that would challenge Takuan Seiyo’s March 22 essay “Ukraine as Quantum Decoherence.” After all a lot has transpired since Takuan’s lengthy [written work] to delegitimize the Maidan Revolution ― Russia annexed Crimea and supported separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk; the May 25 Ukrainian elections have taken place; the Malaysian airplane was shot down by mistake (the real target was a Russian Aeroflot flight bound for Cyprus) and as we speak, Russia launched a full-fledged invasion in the south, trying to establish a land link with Crimea or maybe even Tiraspol.
It is now clear that Takuan wasted a lot ink to attack Oleh Tiahnybok’s “Svoboda” to show that Ukraine is about to be overtaken by a Nazizoid. Final tallies show Svoboda got 1.16 percent of the vote, demolishing his thesis. Rarely has [a pejorative appellation] been more thoroughly humiliated and discredited. And if Tekuan has an ounce of intellectually integrity left he should apologize to the readers Gates of Vienna for his [deprecated actions].
Now back to Ivan Winters August 25 piece “What’s the Real Story of Ukraine?” As I said, I expected some sort of a correction to Seyio’s horribly misleading essay. Instead it was a piece that muddled the pictured even more. Ivan’s piece was even more [deprecated] than Tekuan’s. It sounds like it was dictated word for word by Putin’s propaganda machine. His argumentation is hard to follow, his sentences are incoherent, and syntax muddled and contained numerous non-sequiturs. His [disparaged writing] had a few facts but mostly it is [epithets] not worth commenting on. Below I cite just a few examples:
1. “. . . having got out of one supranational bloc in 1992, why would anyone want to join another such bloc.” Apparently Ivan is unaware that Ukrainians suffered grievously under the Soviet regime for seventy years. It would not be an exaggeration to say that during that period tens of millions of Ukrainians were shot, starved, murdered or dead by deliberate exposure and in work camps and prisons. And Mr. Winters wonders why they would want to join the EU? Only a person ignorant of history would pose such a question.
2. Ivan makes the grave error of conflating Russian-speakers with pro-Russian orientation. This canard has been slaughtered and eaten hundreds of times over. He then cites a statistic that 30% of Ukrainians are Russian speaking. First, that statistic is wrong; in fact the vast majority of Ukrainians are bi-lingual. Second, it does not mean that they are pro-Russian. Is he not aware that huge percentage of Russian speaking population in Ukraine are Ukrainian patriots? Look no further than Kyiv, a largely Russian speaking city yet vehemently anti-Russian, ditto for Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa and many other cities and oblasts.
3. Throughout Ivan uses indefinite weasel worlds such as “many,” “substantial” without giving specific numbers or percentages. I cite only one statistic that will nullify much of what he tries to insinuate. Latest polls conducted by KIIS indicate that today 90 percent (90%) of Ukrainians support Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, up from 75 percent only a few months ago. And after Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time the majority says they are ready to join NATO.
4. Ivan’s imagination really runs wild when he points to a vast EU/US/IMF conspiracy to overthrow a democratically elected government. The reality is that not one of these units itself is capable of speaking with a clear unified voice, let alone speak with a unified voice of all three. In truth the Maidan phenomenon was a grass roots uprising to get rid of the corrupt Yanukovych regime.
In closing what I don’t understand what is driving Tekuan’s and Ivan’s [intensifier] hatred of Ukraine. It is clear that that is something they share with Mr. Putin and the Russian people and that makes me wonder . . .
svoboda and Pravy Sektor combined got maybe 3% of the vote. They lost out to nationalist terrorist Lyashko of Radical party who got over 8%.
A silent majority across South-east is opposed to the current government and will accept Russian rule. They now accept Ukrainian government because they don’t want to be the next Donbass, and nationalist show them Donbass as an example. Voter turnout throughout South-east in March was low. That’s all you need to know. not a few dozen people running around and painting benches yellow and blue. Rallies in Kharkov are attended by maybe 50 people.
Yanukovich might had been corrupt, but so are the rest of Ukrainian politicians. Maidan didn’t have 50% support. Even those who said they supported the goals of Maidan are unwilling to die for them — Anti-draft protests sweep county’s West. On average day there were 20k protesters on Maidan, all paid power, most of them Pravy Sektor.
Thank you. The reports in Western media are generally clueless. I’m from Kharkov, I know people there, I read Russian and Ukrainian. People here have simply no clue.
I have two minor corrections.
1. add Belarussians to the list of peoples killed by Ukrainian Nazis. Belarussian village of Khatyn is the symbol of Nazi atrocities in the Russia, Ukraine ans Belarus. When they look at Odessa massacre they see Khatyn.
2. All ukrainian surveys show majority of Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian. But a few years ago Gallup poll came up with a different number. 87% consider Russian their native tongue:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109228/russian-language-enjoying-boost-postsoviet-states.aspx