The Situation in the Ukraine. #19

Karl Haushofer wrote:Crimea is significant because it gives Russia a great defensive terrain against attacks from the sea, and it's shore may contain some gas reserves.

And Crimea was not any "trap" for Russia and Russia did the correct thing there. Ukrainians would have turned against Russia anyway.  The West absolutely did not want Russia to take Crimea. It was supposed to remain in Ukraine.

But yes, other than Crimea the Russian gains are not that great concerning Donbass. The rebel-held territory is a tiny piece of land, not even half of the whole Donbass territory. The rebels should at some point take Mariupol and Sloviansk but it is not likely to happen in years since Russia cannot afford to support them enough.

Flagship Victory wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:I don't know who is "desperate", NATO or Russia, but Russia is the one who is retreating and NATO is the one who is advancing. Russia getting Crimea is obviously great and a big loss for the NATO, but as far as the whole Ukraine is concerned the NATO won there and Russia's influence has been reduced to a minimum.

Crimea is 4% the size of Ukraine. Ukraine is 3% the size of Russia. Crimea is a tiny gain for Russia, a huge loss for Ukraine. The US does not need Crimea to threaten Russia. The US can base its fleet at Odessa. The US has achieved its goal of turning Ukrainians against Russia the moment Putin fell into the US's trap and absorbed Crimea into Russia.

calripson wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

Flagship Victory wrote:

That's right. Ukraine had close to half of the USSR's might. Ukraine always had the best Soviet military equipment. Even Tu-160s and nukes! The aim of dissolving the USSR was to pit Ukraine against Russia because Ukraine is a big powerful country having a big population.

The West did not dissolve the USSR. The Kremlin dissolved the USSR. The West was just  witnessing the event and could not believe it's own eyes watching those Kremlin morons destroy the empire that the Tsars spent centuries of building. I bet they were celebrating with wine and laughter in Washington and London watching those idiots Gorbachev and Yeltsin destroy centuries worth of Russian heritage.

Yeah, the West stepped into Ukraine with their NGO's after the Kremlin destroyed the USSR. The hatred of Russia  in Ukraine might be largely "thanks" to these NGO's.

Just because the Cold War was not won by bullets and bombs does not mean the "West" were passive observers. To the contrary, their was a massive well planned strategy to collapse the USSR utilizing all vectors of soft power as well as Brzezinski's honey trap of Afghanistan.

flamming_python wrote:Who the hell cares if Ukrainians are against Russia?
Who are they?
What is the importance of this country, its economy or anything else? It's a basket-case

You could just as well tell me that the US turned all Ugandans against Russia - it would be of about equal irrelevance to the Ukraine.

Remarkably, the roots of the "Holodomor" ("deliberate starvation") myth lie in the longstanding Cold War standoff between Soviet Russia and the West. After the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, infamous Nazi collaborators — members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and their paramilitary UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) units — fled into Western Europe and the United States, escaping punishment for their hideous crimes, including ruthless terror against peaceful Jewish, Ukrainian and Russian civilians.

In 1949 the CIA and the US State Department sponsored the OUN-UPA leaders' immigration to the United States, planning to use them as subversion groups and intelligence agents in the Cold War against the Soviet Russia.

One of them, Mykola Lebed was characterized as "a well-known sadist and collaborator of the Germans" by the CIA, according to Swedish-American historian Dr. Per Anders Rudling in his book "The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust: A Study in the Manufacturing of Historical Myths." However, this fact did not prevented the CIA from recruiting the former Nazi collaborator.

"Mykola Lebed [who was responsible for the murder of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia] lived in Queens, New York, until the 1990s, totally supported by the CIA or State Department," the US expert in Soviet history Professor Grover Carr Furr of Montclair State University, narrated in an interview with Sputnik in May, 2015.

The CIA believed that Ukrainian nationalism could be used as an efficient cold war weapon.

While the Ukrainian nationalists provided Washington with valuable information about its Cold War rivals, the CIA in return was placing the nationalist veterans into positions of influence and authority, helping them to create semi-academic institutions or academic positions in existing universities.

By using these formal and informal academic networks, the Ukrainian nationalists had been disseminating anti-Russian propaganda, creating myths and re-writing history at the same time whitewashing the wartime crimes of OUN-UPA.

One of these myths was "Holodomor" that claimed that the USSR and its leader Joseph Stalin deliberately starved to death from three to seven million Ukrainians.

"In 1987 the film "Harvest of Despair" was made. It was the beginning of the 'Holodomor' movement. The film was entirely funded by Ukrainian nationalists, mainly in Canada. A Canadian scholar, Douglas Tottle, exposed the fact that the film took photographs from the 1921-22 'Volga famine' and used them to illustrate the 1932-33 famine. Tottle later wrote a book, 'Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard,' about the phony 'Holodomor' issue," Professor Furr elaborated.

After the collapse of the USSR, the Ukrainian diaspora played a substantial role in shaping the ideology of the new Ukrainian state. "Unlike many other former Soviet republics, the Ukrainian government did not need to develop new national myths from scratch, but imported ready concepts developed in the Ukrainian diaspora," Dr. Rudling underscored.

However, it was under Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko (who gained his power after the Western-sponsored Maidan uprising of 2004, also known as the Orange Revolution) when the anti-Russian myth making caught its second wind in Ukraine. Under Yushchenko, several institutes of "memory management" and "myth making" were established in the country.

Both Russian and Western historians have questioned the "Holodomor" concept as well as evidently exaggerated number of victims of the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine.

American historian Professor Mark B. Tauger, West Virginia University, carried out thorough research on the famine of 1932-33 in the USSR, and came to the conclusion that the disaster was due to environmental circumstances and was evidently not related to the Soviet policy in the region.

"Popular media and most historians for decades have described the great famine that struck most of the USSR in the early 1930s as "man-made," very often a "genocide" that Stalin perpetrated intentionally against Ukrainians and sometimes other national groups to destroy them as nations… This perspective, however, is wrong. The famine that took place was not limited to Ukraine or even rural areas of the USSR, it was not fundamentally or exclusively man-made, and it was far from the intention of Stalin and others in the Soviet leadership to create such as disaster. A small but growing literature relying on new archival documents and a critical approach to other sources has shown the flaws in the "genocide" or "intentionalist" interpretation of the famine and has developed an alternative interpretation," Tauger wrote in his research work "Review of R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933."

Tauger stressed that climatic conditions played the main role in the famine of 1932-33.

Paradoxically, supporters of the "Holodomor" myth remain silent about the fact that Russia (including the territory of modern Ukraine) had suffered from periodic devastating famines since the end of 19th century, long before Bolsheviks came to power in 1917. They also ignore the fact that there were serious famines in 1920-21, 1924, 1927 and 1928.

Interestingly enough, official Soviet Ukrainian primary sources show that the 1928-29 famine, caused by natural disaster, mainly draught, was very serious, and Ukraine received more aid from the Soviet government, than it sent to other parts of the USSR. This obviously disproves the false theory of the Ukrainian nationalists' "malicious" conspiracy against Ukrainian peasants in the Soviet Union, noted Grover Furr in his book "Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation Against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands Is False."

In response to historians who suggest that the Ukrainian peasants starved and suffered especially because of Collectivization — Stalin's policy of the early 1930s aimed at consolidating individual lands into collective farms — Tauger emphasized:

"These studies minimize or ignore the actual harvest data, the environmental factors that caused low harvests, the repeated recovery from the famine and crop failures, the large harvests of the 1930s, the mechanization of Soviet farms in these years, Soviet population growth, and the long-term increases in food production and consumption over the Soviet period" ("Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-1939).

According to the scholar, although the Stalin regime implemented collectivization "coercively," the policy "brought substantial modernization to traditional agriculture in the Soviet Union, and laid the basis for relatively high food production and consumption by the 1970s and 1980s" ("Stalin, Soviet Agriculture and Collectivization, 1930-1939").

Remarkably, the famine of 1932-33 was the last famine that struck the Soviet Union with the exception for the famine of 1946-47 the country suffered from after the Second World War.

Although the "Holodomor" myth was never based upon credible evidence and there are enough authentic sources to prove that it is a hoax, it is simply taken for granted. Unsurprisingly, Washington  supports the myth as a part of its recent Cold War-style anti-Russian campaign. Alas, even repeated a thousand times a lie will never become the truth.

Flagship Victory wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Who the hell cares if Ukrainians are against Russia?
Who are they?
What is the importance of this country, its economy or anything else? It's a basket-case

You could just as well tell me that the US turned all Ugandans against Russia - it would be of about equal irrelevance to the Ukraine.

Border. Border. Border. First Molvova and Georgia hate Russia forever. Then the Baltic states hate Russia forever. Now Ukraine hate Russia forever. Which ex Soviet republic next? Belarus? Kazakhstan? Uzbekistan?

flamming_python wrote:

Flagship Victory wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:I don't know who is "desperate", NATO or Russia, but Russia is the one who is retreating and NATO is the one who is advancing. Russia getting Crimea is obviously great and a big loss for the NATO, but as far as the whole Ukraine is concerned the NATO won there and Russia's influence has been reduced to a minimum.

Crimea is 4% the size of Ukraine. Ukraine is 3% the size of Russia. Crimea is a tiny gain for Russia, a huge loss for Ukraine. The US does not need Crimea to threaten Russia. The US can base its fleet at Odessa. The US has achieved its goal of turning Ukrainians against Russia the moment Putin fell into the US's trap and absorbed Crimea into Russia.

Who the hell cares if Ukrainians are against Russia?
Who are they?
What is the importance of this country, its economy or anything else? It's a basket-case.

You could just as well tell me that the US turned all Papua New Guineans against Russia - it would be of about equal irrelevance as you telling me about the Ukraine.

The Ukraine hasn't done one thing since the USSR broke up other than ruined itself. A bit like how African countries went back to the stone age after achieving independence; although that example is actually unfair because the Europeans gave the Africans peanuts in terms of development and infastructure compared to what the Soviet Union did to develop the Ukraine.

Pretty soon the Ukraine will regress to techno-barbarianism and that will be the end of that.

sepheronx wrote:Your getting some of your facts wrong. Border has f all to do with it. See Israel or Iran as an example. Surrounded by hostile nations yet thrives.

That said, Azerbaijan has pretty damn good relations with Russia even though Russia supports Armenia. Uzbekistan already has poorer relations with Russia over Tajikistan and Tajikistan has so so relations with Russia, because of Kyrgyzstan.

Belarus is a whole different country and even if they attempted a Maiden there, it wouldnt work. Because simply put, Belarus isnt a thriving thieves den, populated by various ethnic clans all wanting power and fist fighting all day long in their parliment building.

A country like Ukraine has been a problem for both Russia and Poland for centuries. In this case, you are seeing both people and regions standing up to Kiev, while others are cowering due to the heavy handedness of the SBU. But that heavyhandedness cannot last forever.

Like Python said, it was a black hole. For two decades after ussr, they paid tens of billions to that country for nearly squat in return. They stunted their own industry to prop up Ukrainian to help their economy and try to get them on their good side. Since the money scheme was going down the drain thanks to oligarches in Ukraine and Russia, the oligarches and the people who blindly follow them think there is a free ride in EU.

Yeah, it would definately suck to have nato bases in Ukraine. But with donetsk and lughansk in Ukraine, would prevent most of that. But in meantime, Russia has to prepare itself and is doing so accordingly. Not for war,  but for prolong confrontation, in mostly economics. The other thing this conflict has done was help Russia weed out their 5th coloumists as they are just giving themselves away.

sepheronx wrote:Thats it. You are purely flame baiting. I am requesting for Mod intervention as you are your idiot finnish alter ego.

Flagship Victory wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Thats it. You are purely flame baiting. I am requesting for Mod intervention as you are your idiot finnish alter ego.

You don't dare to fight Maidan in Donbas. That makes you a coward. I'm Canadian. I'm not going to fight your Slavic battles. You should ask your leader Putin why he is watching this war as entertainment.  

sepheronx wrote:

Flagship Victory wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Thats it. You are purely flame baiting. I am requesting for Mod intervention as you are your idiot finnish alter ego.

You don't dare to fight Maidan in Donbas. That makes you a coward. I'm Canadian. I'm not going to fight your Slavic battles. You should ask your leader Putin why he is watching this war as entertainment.  

You are an idiot. Plain and simple. All you are doing is making up titles to li.ks (yes, I read the rt link you posted, said nothing about Putin telling anyone they need to take the bombings), as well, you are clearly just making up shit overall. Wanna talk about cowardice? Lets talk about you and your alter ego Finn. You guys seem to be bitching and moaning about Putin. Why not go to Russia and face him direcrly? Or are you too chicken shit?

Pathetic. You make Canadians look retarded.

sepheronx wrote:

Flagship Victory wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Thats it. You are purely flame baiting. I am requesting for Mod intervention as you are your idiot finnish alter ego.

You don't dare to fight Maidan in Donbas. That makes you a coward. I'm Canadian. I'm not going to fight your Slavic battles. You should ask your leader Putin why he is watching this war as entertainment.  

You are an idiot. Plain and simple. All you are doing is making up titles to li.ks (yes, I read the rt link you posted, said nothing about Putin telling anyone they need to take the bombings), as well, you are clearly just making up shit overall. Wanna talk about cowardice? Lets talk about you and your alter ego Finn. You guys seem to be bitching and moaning about Putin. Why not go to Russia and face him direcrly? Or are you too chicken shit?

Pathetic. You make Canadians look retarded.

Karl Haushofer wrote:But if we look at this with a time frame of 50 or 100 years it is a different story. Is Russia really content with losing historical Russian land, the most fertile Russian land, eternally for the enemy? Russia, while being the largest country in the world, is a country with cold climate and relatively little agricultural land with good climate. Without Ukraine (and Belarus) the optimal population for Russia is under 200 million. No more than that because it would get overpopulated. But with Ukraine and Belarus Russia could support a population of 300 million. This would bring Russia back to superpower level and Russia could realistically attempt to become the third superpower in the world with USA and China. With it's current borders it is not possible.

sepheronx wrote:Then go put your money where your mouth is. Already reported you so let the mods deal with this.

flamming_python wrote:
Well it's not Russian territory, it belongs to those clowns in Kiev, and the people there themselves don't want it any other way - so what benefit is there for Russia in trying to absorb this land?

flamming_python wrote:
By all means, if the people there were sane, wanted mutual economic co-operation and were willing to establish a firm unwavering trajectory towards Russia, then certainly investing in the Ukraine, even in the ruined Stalker-like anomolous zone state that it's currently becoming - would be worthwhile, due to its great potential. It would be worthwhile to invite the Ukraine into the Eurasian economic union, start thinking about a revival of its metallurgical, nuclear, aerospace, defence sector and integration with corresponding sectors in the Russian economy, to invite it to the BRICS format and think about some joint Russian-Ukrainian-Chinese infastructure projects in the New Silk Road format, and so on.

But it's not sane, it's not a trajectory towards Russia - it's populated by tragic, butthurt people who are willing to destroy themselves if it means hurting Russia, to hurl themselves into the path of Russian artillery shells - for the sake of Russia wasting its ammo and not hitting their beloved masters in Brussels and Washington who keep promising the good life, a promise which has the Ukrainians enamoured in a trance approaching the conviction of a religious fevour - were any con-artist to witness this he would scarcely believe the power that the crooked EU technocrats and US political elite seem to hold over their prey.

Question is - if these people are so ridiculously gullible, and hateful - what kind of partners could they possibly be anyway? Is this the type of partners or citizens that Russia needs; abject fools?
Yeah I know, land. That land comes with the people, so yeah, thanks, but no.

Flagship Victory wrote:No land is ever given away. More than 10,000 Russian soldiers sacrificed their lives to retake Chechnya. It was definitely a mistake to dissolve the USSR in the first place.

Also, it would be bad for Russia if Maidan rules Ukraine for a long time because Maidan does forced Ukrainization of Odessa, Kharkov, Dniperpetrovsk, Donbas etc. and therefore turn ethnic Russians into ethnic Ukrianians.