The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ukraine: can anything save it? > Comments

Ukraine: can anything save it? : Comments

By Peter Coates, published 9/5/2014

Ukraine has no easy choices. It can’t rely on the West, and Russian treatment of Ukraine in living memory has been close to genocidal.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
This is by far the most balanced mainstream article on the situation in Ukraine I have read. Mostly I have had to go to The Saker and Moon of Alabama and other independent sources like them to find this level of insight.
About the closing question asking if anything can save Ukraine, and I would offer a guarded yes. If both East and West could agree to keep their respective armies out of Ukraine territory and allow Ukraine to operate under a Federalist system with a weak centre and strong regions, then Ukraine might be 'saved'. She could trade her grain and any gas that might be exploited. She could re-open the mines and factories in the eastern part, even if the factories were an integral part of Russia's military/industrial complex.
And accept that Crimea has reverted to Russia, probably forever.
But here's another question: Russia can control the "polite men in green", but can the West control the Right Sector?
Posted by halduell, Friday, 9 May 2014 8:55:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, as the first post points out, this article is a balanced and insightful overview of the dilemma confronting Ukraine and its people. The welter of media reporting on the situation there rarely manages to pack so much relevant history into such a small space. Peter Coates has a knack of hitting the nail on the head in this way. Warren Reed, Sydney.
Posted by Warren Reed, Friday, 9 May 2014 10:30:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, oil and gas and lots of it, along with the reopening of Eastern state factories.
Sure they are war production oriented!
But the Ukraine needs to boost its military resources now more than ever!
And a federation is the likely way forward, particularly, when two thirds of Eastern Ukraine just doesn't want to reunite with a murderous, genocidal Russia, particularly now, with a power hungry megalomaniac, Stalinist in charge.
If the Ukraine could be assisted, by all possible means, to fully develop its own oil and gas provinces, they could finally end their suicidal dependence on Russia, as could Europe.
These provinces in Putin's hands, would not benefit either him or Russia, without western markets!
A prospect which could plunge an oil exporting economy, which describes Russia, into extreme universal poverty!
Putin has been successful thus far, in using oil/gas as an economic weapon; and about time he learnt, it is a two edged sword!
And by all means possible, including the roll out of any and, to take a leaf out of Scandinavia's book, all available endlessly sustainable oil and gas alternatives!
And then, a genuine referendum could be concluded in the Crimea, that didn't include Russian unbadged special forces, directing how and who should vote, with a rifle barrel; plus, the question needs to include the negative, if only to respect the actual will, of all the people!
And if that then includes reunification, with an impoverished Russia, I for one, would be very surprised!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 9 May 2014 12:04:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't see why any Ukrainian government should feel inclined to set up a weak-centre/strong-regions structure. As a sovereign country, under threat from a brutal former overlord, maybe its best bet would be strongly centralise power and strengthen local councils, oblasts, etc., and take power away from 'regions', if anything.

Has Putin, as capo da capo, blinked over referenda in a handful of eastern towns ? If so, he's gone. Watch Lavrov, il consigliere, the puppet-master.

The trouble with 'buffer' zones is that, for Russia, there aren't any between the Carpathians and Germany and eastern Asian forests. Once they started on a strategy of aggression, going back to the seventeenth century, they could only stop at those natural barriers, having made a multitude of enemies. Putin is amazing only for one attribute, his complete lack of originality in that respect. He's riding the moth-eaten tiger of imperialist tradition and can't easily get off.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 9 May 2014 4:56:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your comments halduell, Warren and Rhrosty

A Ukraine divided into federal regions may well be the most promising solution. However there seems to be increasing disagreement in eastern Ukraine on whether to:

- remain in Ukraine as a federal region or

- unite with Russia, or

- form a People's Republic of Donetsk (see http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/05/08/21/13/ukraine-rebels-vow-to-hold-referendum )

Such disagreement and fragmentation appears to be increasingly like the Balkans in the early 1990s.

Many in eastern Ukraine want a referendum on 11 May 2014 while there seems to be some agreement between Kiev and Moscow on national Ukrainian elections on 25 May 2014.

In terms of standards of living uniting with Russia may have advantages. Ukraine has a nominal GDP per capita of $3,862 (even lower in eastern Ukraine) while the Russian figure is $14,818.

See right sidebars of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia

The Ukrainian standard of living might take a couple of decades to move from poverty to the Russian level.

Money versus independence?

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 9 May 2014 5:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe

Putin is certainly authoritarian in the Russian tradition. He is also an opportunist who sees it important to maintain the Russian grip on Ukraine - in the face of only half-hearted sanctions from NATO (including EU) countries.

He also intensely distrusts the West. Twenty million Russian dead in the last major war against the West (Germany 1941-45) would concentrate or even warp the Russian mind.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 9 May 2014 7:30:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-folly-of-playing-high-stakes-poker-with-vladimir-putin-more-to-lose-than-gain-over-ukraine/5381246

I found the above link less emotive, more objective and well researched (and includes references). If all you're reading is major media, sourcing its info from US press release, then you're only getting the US agenda in terms of good guys and bad guys, with the US being predictably the only good guy. It's not as simple as that. Also, one needs to ask the question, "why hasn't Putin moved much earlier than now, given he's been running the show since Yeltsin?"

Cheers.
Posted by Dick Dastardly, Friday, 9 May 2014 7:34:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now let's get this right. The USA illegally invades Vietnam, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya ,Iraq, Somalia, backs a Nazi take over of the Ukraine and Russia wanting to protect its home turf is the pariah?

The West is trying to surround both Russia and China so they will open up their economies to be plundered like hundreds of others around the planet. It all about a few wanting all the wealth and power.

The race is on as the US $ is losing its reserve status as NO 1 currency. Our oligarchs need war to subdue their angry oppressed masses and steal more wealth to prop up their collapsing empire.

http://paulcraigroberts.org/
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 10 May 2014 10:36:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Arjay,

I've never figured out whether you write from the extreme paranoid Left or from the extreme paranoid Right, but these days the differences seem to be irrelevant.

As for Ukraine's new government being in any way pro-Nazi, you could learn from this article: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/07/why_jews_and_ukrainians_have_become_unlikely_allies

in which it is pointed out that Ukraine's new government has a Jewish deputy prime minister, and a Jewish governor of Dniepropetrovsk. How many Jewish people does Putin have amongst his entourage ?

One interesting feature of political paranoia is that the 'strategic enemy' is always all-powerful, and the party one favors is always comparatively weak and exposed, put upon by a hostile world. Hence, your laughable assertion that the US is trying to encircle both the Tsarist and the Chinese Empires. What, to encircle the entire Euro-Asian landmass ? The US hasn't been able to 'encircle' even Cuba for nearly sixty years.

BTT: Putin's piss-ants in eastern Ukraine will hold their referendum tomorrow and gain - what's the bet ? - 96 % support. Yeah, right. Would Putin be prepared to hold similar referendums all over Russia, with its 143 different nationalities and pseudo-independent republics ?

I think not, Arjay.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 10 May 2014 12:15:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth both Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating agree with me about US aggression to steal energy and resources.

I think the ex-Assistant secretary to the US Treasury Dr Paul Craig Roberts knows a tad more than you. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 10 May 2014 12:23:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Arjay,

A somewhat selective appeal to authority, mate, not to mention being a bit irrelevant. Any chance you might tackle the major issues ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 10 May 2014 1:22:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, the US has already encircled China and Russia...you only need to look at the placement of NATO bases in ex-Soviet countries, then consider America's interests in Sth Korea and Taiwan...90% of oil that travels by sea to China, goes through the Straits of Taiwan, so he who controls those Straits, controls oil to China AND Japan, which is why the US is so interested in Taiwan's "independence"...or more to the point, dependent upon the US, rather than China. Then look at why Afghanistan is important geopolitically for the US in preventing Russia access to the Middle East. The globe is a giant chessboard.

Taiwan is critical, as in the event of hostilities between China and the US, traditionally would force China to send/receive ships of oil via the Arctic Circle, which was impossible over the Winter months. With global warming, this is no longer the case, but is still a longer route, and susceptible to attack if desired.

The Western Empire is attempting to absorb Russia and bring China into the fold, rather than have them operate independently. It's just the natural progression of empire building. But neither want to succumb to this New World Order for reasons of their own. Fair enough, too. It's not about left or right wing politics, but about globalization of business interests, access to resources, and prevention of competing empires to access those resources.
Posted by Dick Dastardly, Saturday, 10 May 2014 2:04:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agreed Dastardly Dick. Our banking ,military,industrial complex is in deep trouble. They have angry, impoverished people at home, the collapsing reserve stats of the US $ and a recalcitrant BRICS Nations led by Russia who refuse to let their economies be looted like much of the planet. The West led by the US war machine think a nuclear war can be won.Even Malcolm Fraser has warned us about this US imperialism and the need for us to become a sovereign state.

http://www.cecaust.com.au/
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 10 May 2014 2:33:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, no offense, but I couldn't care less what Frazer has to say about anything...he's never been in touch with the average citizen, and aside from that, his lust for power is why he blocked Whitlam's budget in order to evoke Kerr's sacking of the Whitlam government (the last TRUE Labor government). He then sold us down the toilet to the World Bank. So in his now twilight years, is seeking any form of recognition, so endeavours to say something relevant. You mentioned Keating earlier, and I have no regard for him either, but for different reasons.

Sovereignty...I presume you mean becoming a republic. I asked this question in the thread about it (and got no response)...WHY? What are the benefits to the average citizen? Aren't all our treaties then null and void, thereby requiring renegotiation? What politician would you trust to do that? I can answer the last question easily...none!

In the 80's and 90's, every few years a report would surface stating that Australia couldn't support a population of more than about 25-27 million people. Strangely, Japan with a land mass less than Tasmania can support something like 60 million. The only reason that comes to mind, for me, is that if we grew to say 100-150 million, we would then be TRULY independent due to the size of the subsequent economy, and with that, military. Would America want that? Would Britain or China? Not on your life! While we're a relatively small population (enough to suck the resources out of the ground), we are reliant upon others politically, in business and defense. But a larger population is the ONLY thing that would give us true independence through the political, military and economic weight we would then carry. Currently, we're just little kids at the table of grown-ups trying to act like them. It's laughable in so many ways.

So in short, I don't see the advantage of becoming a republic. It's not through any desire to remain a Commonwealth country, but rather, what (if any) advantage is there for the average citizen in becoming a republic?
Posted by Dick Dastardly, Saturday, 10 May 2014 4:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi "Dick Dastardly"

You write a a lot of sense.

Though your pen-name is unfortunate http://youtu.be/bLSIU9BG41U .

Cheers

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 10 May 2014 5:01:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@plantagenet, thanks. My moniker, as you've noted and linked, was a cartoon villain...I'm sometimes a villain too, but mostly jokingly. So I chose it to be playful.

If you read the link I posted earlier in the thread, it's really quite a good overview of what's going on in Ukraine. I don't believe anyone that espouses America doing the right thing listens to themselves when they talk of politicians...that they're liars. But suddenly, due to media coverage swamping us, and all of it stating how righteous the US is in intervening, we read this swill about them wearing white hats, while Putin is the guy in black. I have a simple rule of thumb...if America says it's good, then it can only mean it's bad for the target country, and good for the US military industrial complex, and/or oil companies.

So too with Aussie politicians...if they say it's good for the country, it's bad for citizens but good for big business. Ratbags.
Posted by Dick Dastardly, Saturday, 10 May 2014 6:37:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I support the desire of the people of eastern Ukraine for independence.

I hope they remain independent. Joining Russia would be a terrible mistake whose grandchildren will grieve.

Kiev should cease attempting to rule over people against their will, withdraw its forces to the west where the population is supportive and build a fortress there to defend themselves against the invading Russians. I wish them freedom and success.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 10 May 2014 9:41:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a pity that Britain and the USA had not "encircled" Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan with military bases prior to 1939.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 11 May 2014 4:09:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dick,

That says it all: "I have a simple rule of thumb...if America says it's good, then it can only mean it's bad for the target country, and good for the US military industrial complex, and/or oil companies."

There's a lot worse than the Yanks, my friend. Al Qai'da and Islamism generally, like Boko Haram ? Crazy Christian fundamentalists ? Syria's Assad ?

So who invaded where, in this case ? Who has assault troops on whose border ? Who has sent in provocateurs into whose country ?

Simple rules ...... in a very complex world. That's not brilliant, incisive or perceptive - it's very lazy thinking, Dick.

Jo
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 11 May 2014 9:34:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of lazy thinking...
"So who invaded where, in this case ? Who has assault troops on whose border ? Who has sent in provocateurs into whose country?"
1) Originally, no one. And still no one. The Russian troops in Crimea were there under terms of a treaty between Russia and Ukraine that had to do to with Russian's lease of the Black Sea port of Sevastopol. As galling as it is to some, Crimea's reversion to Russia went off without outside help. Crimeans considered themselves Russian, and now they are Russian.
2) NATO to Ukraine's west and Russia to her east.
3) Provocateurs from the EU and the US were all over the Euromaidan protests in Kiev. This stated the current ball rolling. It's fair to assume that Russia has agents liaising with Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine today. These would be to counter the Right Sector thugs operating out of Kiev under the current illegitimate government holding power (just) there now. While we haven 't seen much brutality coming from the presumed Russian agents, we have seen ample footage of the Right Sector thugs operating in Odessa and Mariupol.
As for saying both Al Qai'da and Syria's Assad are worse than the US, why then does the US, and Australia for that matter, support Al Qai'da terrorists in their war against the Syrian government of Assad. Al Qai'da has assumed a bogeyman status in our press. When we want to operate under a black hat, we employ them. When we want to be seen to be wearing a white hat, we damn them to all eternity. We lie as a matter of course, and the greatest mendacity comes from within the Anglo-Zionist world order.
Posted by halduell, Sunday, 11 May 2014 10:44:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Halduell knows the truth but many others still believe the Hollywood image of the USA and West being the good guys.

Dick,Malcolm Fraser is not the same person ha was back in 1981.He has resigned from the Liberal Party and has some serious conversations with the Citizens Electoral Council. http;//www.cecaust.com.au/ Malcolm believes that we should grow up and become a sovereign state.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 11 May 2014 11:20:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Loudmouth...lazy thinking is attacking the person rather than the argument. BTW, "rule of thumb" is a commonly used expression.

@Arjay, you may well be correct, but stating we should be a sovereign state doesn't answer the questions of "why?" nor "what's the advantage for the average citizen?". An assertion doesn't really mean much if those questions remain unanswered.
Posted by Dick Dastardly, Sunday, 11 May 2014 12:08:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hal (and Dick),

The dilemma for the Yanks vis-à-vis Syria is that they absolutely don't want any of their military support going to the Islamist reactionaries. But they also don't want to follow Russia in supporting the dictatorship of Assad. And the democratic forces in-between are far too weak and diffuse to direct arms to, without their ending up in the hands of the reactionaries.

My bet is that the US will eventually hold their nose and support Assad (hopefully in coalition with the democrats) rather than the Islamists. So back to square one. What a ghastly situation for the Syrian people.

Hal, I wouldn't believe every bit of rubbish I see on Putin-TV.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 11 May 2014 1:13:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, I don't know why you included me, since I've made no mention of Syria. However, Hal is correct in his assessment. Syria is a Russian ally, thus America's interest in usurping the current government, to force Russia to retract its political influence into its own borders. Same for Ukraine, though America is using its influence in NATO to effect this.

It's not about reading and believing Putin's views. It's about viewing the world as a geopolitical "war game" of which there are 3-4 major players, depending on how you wish to view it...Russia, China, America and the EU. Or, through NATO, that America and the EU are one. And as India develops and so starts to compete for the same resources as the other players at a significant level, will eventually become a target of some, or all, of the other players. It's about empires expanding and protecting their interests. It's a more objective view of global politics than the emotive hyperbole of mainstream media, demonizing one by another. It's not a good idea to believe ANY politician of ANY country or political stance, but view things on the global geopolitical scale, being suspicious of ANY government's press release.

That said, didn't Obama look jackboot-ish wanting to invade Syria, in contrast to Putin suggesting UN intervention and a timetable for Assad to dismantle his chemical weapons? Yes! So Obama has funded the very groups that the "war on terror" targeted, in order to undermine the Assad government. I'm no supporter of Assad, but I'm no supporter of jackboot behavior, nor the hypocrisy of funding "terrorists".

What Hal and I are trying to do, is call a spade a spade, rather than parrot mainstream media's "reporting" which amounts to nothing more than press release from the US government. This does NOT constitute investigative journalism, which mainstream media is wary of these days in the US, since under GWB it was announced that any media outlet proffering views outside of government policy risked losing their license for "dissent". Ergo, America controls information and subsequently, the hearts and minds of the public.
Posted by Dick Dastardly, Sunday, 11 May 2014 3:17:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dick,

I tend to take my views from the Guardian.

My example of Syria (and including you in the discussion) was to try, perhaps vainly, tov point out that there are often, perhaps usually, perhaps always, more than two sides to a fight, and that - wonders ! - sometimes, perhaps rarely, the US happens to be on the 'good' side. Just because the US is trying to find ways of opposing the brutal Assad regime, doesn't mean that it is supporting the Islamist reactionaries. Its difficulty is to stop any weapons or equipment getting into the hands of the reactionaries. But I suggest that the last groups that Obama would ever support would be any groups affiliated to al-Qa'ida, or a similar fascist-Islamist group such as ISIS.

I don't know what you mean by Obama's jack-boots in Syria. Actually, most of the jack-boots I've seen lately on TV news have been Russian, I suspect.

One thing intrigues me: how will the pseudo-Left reconcile their desire to support al Qa'ida-type groups against the US, with support for Putin and HIS opposition to Islamism, such as in Chechnya ? And how to square their support for Putin with the European far-Right's support for him, such as le Pen and UKIP ? bunch. I'd stick with the Yanks any day, rather than any of that crap.

Good luck with that :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 11 May 2014 4:13:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, yes, there's more involved in Syria...there's 7 countries involved. But remember, Obama's first diplomatic strategy pertaining to news of Assad using chemical weapons, was to announce that military intervention by the US was called for...that's what I'm terming "jackboot-ish". Putin responded by stating the UN should intervene and oversee the dismantling of chemical weapons, which ironically, is what's occurring. Putin made Obama look foolish in that scenario.

But in the larger picture, this conflict has more to do with Assad being a Russian ally, and America wishes to increase its control in the Middle East, thereby diminishing Russia's influence and access to the Middle East. It's been well reported also, that America has supported radical Islamists in this endeavour.

There are no "good guys", there are just the interests of the players involved. I appreciate the tendency to view the actions of our largest ally America, as being the "good guy", but that's an emotive view based upon America's propaganda with its tendency to demonize others, not a more objective view of them acting out of self interest(s).

Same for Ukraine. The US has been found with its hand in the cookie jar, with transcripts of Victoria Nuland reported, talking about supporting separatists there, to undermine the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government of Ukraine. It may have been corrupt, but what government isn't? Again, it's a ploy to expand NATO and American interests, and NOT about "democracy" or altruism, but of diminishing the political power of Russia while eliminating a "buffer zone". I mean, why do you think China reluctantly supports Nth Korea? Because it acts as a buffer between East and West.

Put it this way...if I was America in this game, it's precisely what I'd do too. But if I was Russia, I'd be rather concerned about the predatory behavior of the US. And if I was China, I'd be concerned with America's sudden involvement in territorial disputes with Japan and the Philippines. Again, manoeuvres to limit Chinese expansion.

My personal view, is I don't like being lied to, regardless of who's telling the lies, ally or not.
Posted by Dick Dastardly, Sunday, 11 May 2014 5:43:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yesterday the Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine held an independence Referendum. The self appointed Donetsk electoral commission has produced results already (a miracle?) - 89% Yes-for independence, 10% Against.

The question on the ballot paper, printed in Russian and Ukrainian, asked: "Do you support the act of state self-rule of the Donetsk People's Republic?". Some voters saw a "Yes (for)" vote as endorsement of autonomy within Ukraine, other saw "Yes" as a move to independence and others saw "Yes" as agreeing to absorption by Russia.

So the vote has provided a mandate for the fragmented groups in control of Donetsk to do three opposing things.

see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-12/ukraine27s-donetsk-region-votes-89pc-for-independence3a-rebels/5445564
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 12 May 2014 12:32:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Pete,

But on the Maoist - faintly fascist - principle that power grows out of the barrel of a gun - a nicer way of saying that he who has the most brute force, wins (how could that have ever been, in any way, a progressive slogan ? Amazing.) - the bogus referendum has been just a smoke-screen for Putin to march in and 'restore order'. We all know that. There's nothing remotely opaque about that. Putin has engineered this putsch, it's been tarted up as a referendum, and now he'll send in the shock troops for the next phase.

So where next ? Already the Tsarists are stirring up people around Mariupol. If Ukraine resists the 'referendum' take-over, I'm betting a blitzkrieg will be launched against Kharkiv (Kharkov) and Dniepropetrovsk, surrounding Ukrainian forces, butchering them, then swinging south to Mariupol, then west to Kherson and Odessa, perhaps with bullsh!t 'uprisings' there by the fifth columnists.

Then link up with the rump in Transnietria.

And around the world, the Left will take it up the @rse every step of the way. After all, it's not the US, is it ?

In disgust,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 12 May 2014 4:57:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe

In Ukraine, a country notorious for inefficiency, I'm amazed that the Referendum Vote, so favourable to Putin, was counted so quickly. A new world record?

And yes - so many in the West are tolerant of Putin's Russian Army - is it their cool black clothes and slim look?

I agree that all will be blamed on the US...not Putin or his Army.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 12 May 2014 5:36:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Pete,

I guess the bottom line for pseudo-Left is that Tsarist Russia is not the US - ergo, good.

As for a Russian invasion, we'll see, of course. But if I was on the pseudo-Left, I would be a bit uncomfortable being in bed with Zhirinovsky - who is supposed to cuddle up to whom ?

And with le Pen. And with Farage. Nobody mention Molotov and Ribbentrop, please: as Marx might have suggested, history sometimes repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as a ghastly farce.

Is there still a Left - anywhere ?!

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 12 May 2014 7:57:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe

Often the Green Left in Australia have their own well thought out news.

Its the lightweight Useful Idiots who don't realise that many of their anti-American views are fed by Putin's new organ http://rt.com/news/

RT rarely explains that RT is Russia Today - not as obvious as Pravda but the official word of the Russian Government nonetheless.

Hence RT on Ukraine produces http://rt.com/news/158276-referendum-results-east-ukraine/ and quietly employs Snowden http://rt.com/news/154308-snowden-glasgow-university-rector/ .
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 12 May 2014 8:24:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction I meant - Often the Green Left in Australia have their own well thought out views.

And the World Socialist Web Site often has good articles - like https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/05/12/fuku-m12.html [cut and paste]

Its media outlets controlled by governments (that repeat government Press Releases) tacitly censored and controlled and by super-moguls (ie Murdoch) that are dangerous for democracy.
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 12 May 2014 8:35:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Pete,

I always try to check out The Guardian (as well as The Australian), I'm working through Luke Harding's book on the 'Mafia State' now. It reads pretty convincingly.

We'll see about Putin's plans soon enough. As head of a bunch of thugs, I don't think he can stop, or show any lack of resolve, otherwise he's gone and harder men like Lavrov will take over and Putin will be dropped into the mincer.

As a very disillusioned Leftist, I've come to suspect that the entire disgusting process in Russia, from the Tsar to Lenin to Stalin to Khrushchev to Brezhnev and Andropov etc., down to Putin, has been a fairly seemless movement from sh!t to sh!t, same Secret Police, same bureaucrats, a process which has held Russia back for a hundred years. As the cruel joke goes, what's the definition of socialism ? Answer: The longest and most painful route from capitalism to capitalism.

And, of course, they're not there yet. Marx would call it 'primitive accumulation', perhaps a more backward and predatory form of capitalism that Russia was at in 1914.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 12 May 2014 10:58:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A priceless analysis, presented here for free, is:

Overall Obama seems to follow the Democrat "wet" dictum of avoiding confrontation at all costs. Obama may be a highly educated calculator of what is doable but charisma and Dubya's rat cunning can work wonders. Obama can't seem to motivate America's European allies into forming a united front - especially noticeable over Syria, now Ukraine.

Along those lines I suspect that Obama, Hagel and Kerry assess Ukraine as too far in the Russia sphere to save. In terms of other failures in the works it'll be interesting to see if Afghanistan collapses to the Taliban while Obama is still in office or just after he leaves. It would be unfortunate if Obama, America's first "Black" President, is grouped with the failed Jimmy Carter and then also suffer's the Nixon-like fate of not Viet... but "Afghanistan-isation".

I suspect Putin is attempting to tap Russia's main strengths while the going is good. That is utilising Russia's oil-gas economic power before the world's unconventional oil and gas resources become fully on stream. The new technology oil and gas from the US and Canada will make traditional source countries less powerful for a period.

Putin also wishes to use Russia's comparatively powerful military (conventional and nuclear) before Russia's military is relegated to third or fourth place behind China's and India's. Even if Russia has types of alliances with China and India - leaders like Putin (he may well still be in power in 2030) would not want Russia to be merely a junior ally.

Putin recognises the going is good for while the reticent Obama is still in office - a hawkish Republican elected in 2016 would be a different matter.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 14 May 2014 3:30:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy