The Situation in the Ukraine. #28

PapaDragon wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:By the way, I read in another post that some groups of afrikaners (Boers) were starting settling up in Russia. By I think they are more interested in the area around the Volga than in Siberia or in the Far West

Actually settling or just talking about it?

There is a cautionary tale in Russia's immigration policy: Volga Germans lived in Russia from the time of Catherine the Great. First chance they got after 1991 they split back to Germany - my point being they never fully integrated into Russian society. The process of settlement, language, and schooling should be well thought out so future descendants of today's immigrants identify fully as Russian.

To be fair the Volga Germans had legitimate reasons to leave. They were treated like enemy aliens during WWII and
interned and/or shipped towards Siberia. Chechens were also rounded up like Armenians in Turkey with half dying
in cattle cars on the way to Kazakhstan. But the unlike the Chechens, the Volga Germans never actually fought
against the USSR or tried to join German ranks.

The USSR did not just abuse minorities. It abused ethnic Russians as well and in large numbers. So equating Russia
with the USSR is not valid even though it is reflex-think in the west.

[quote="lyle6"]

GarryB wrote:

Ukrainian nazis with the backing of NATO and the Western world's far right.

Funnily enough, the Ukraine does not actually have support from the western worlds far right. They only have support of the neocon/Fox news right.

The far righters know that the Ukraine right is phony. They know that they are fighting for the American empire and Israel. They know that Jewish Kolomoyskyi funds the Azov battalion. It doesn't make them any less menacing. It just makes them more pathetic.

Backman wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Ukrainian nazis with the backing of NATO and the Western world's far right.

Funnily enough, the Ukraine does not actually have support from the western worlds far right. They only have support of the neocon/Fox news right.

The far righters know that the Ukraine right is phony. They know that they are fighting for the American empire and Israel. They know that Jewish Kolomoyskyi funds the Azov battalion. It doesn't make them any less menacing. It just makes them more pathetic.

Incorrect. I specifically remember far-right internet forums praising demagogues in Lviv/Lvov far-right anti-Soviet sentiments. This is not unusual, we saw far-right westerns support Islamic radicals against commies during the Cold War, and they were eager to support Turkey's integration in to NATO to fight the Soviets. You can't trust these crypto-Nazi clowns as far as you can throw them.

BTW, The FBI has a long standing intelligence program designed to destroy dissent and make dissidents look like extremists, it's called 'Cointellpro'. I always found it funny that any time their was any anti-establishment movement that was created, whether it be against globalization, against wars in Iraq/Afghan and Uncle Sham being the worlds police, anti-Soros market manipulation, like on cue some discredited far-right crypto Nazi would show up 'supporting' this movement....the media on cue would then label them the 'leaders' of the movement, and the media would say that anyone aligned with that movement is a Nazi and a Holocaust denier because they align themselves with a far-right Bozo. One of the famous cases of this was Hal Turner, who was exposed to be a long term informant for the FBI:

A July 2005 FBI memo showed that in the previous fiscal year, Turner had been paid $10,365 for his work. Turner would later claim in court testimony that he was paid more than $100,000 during his tenure as an FBI informant.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/hal-turner

Ukraine is buying its mortar ammo from other countries due to lack of their own ammo.

kvs wrote:To be fair the Volga Germans had legitimate reasons to leave.   They were treated like enemy aliens during WWII and
interned and/or shipped towards Siberia.   Chechens were also rounded up like Armenians in Turkey with half dying
in cattle cars on the way to Kazakhstan.   But the unlike the Chechens, the Volga Germans never actually fought
against the USSR or tried to join German ranks.  

The USSR did not just abuse minorities.  It abused ethnic Russians as well and in large numbers.  So equating Russia
with the USSR is not valid even though it is reflex-think in the west.  

It is "funny" because here in Germany i know several germans of Russian origin (most of them immigrated from Kazakistan after the fall of soviet union)... i believe many of them were descendent of Volga germans...

Those who came here during their school years are almost bilingual in german and in russian (i remember a friend of mine switching all.the time from german to Russian when talking to her sister), while their parents speak a better Russian than they speak German.

The sad thing is that when they were in Russia or in the Soviet union they were often seen with suspect and seen as "the germans", while here they are almost always referred as "the Russians"....

kvs wrote:To be fair the Volga Germans had legitimate reasons to leave.   They were treated like enemy aliens during WWII and
interned and/or shipped towards Siberia.   Chechens were also rounded up like Armenians in Turkey with half dying
in cattle cars on the way to Kazakhstan.   But the unlike the Chechens, the Volga Germans never actually fought
against the USSR or tried to join German ranks.  

The USSR did not just abuse minorities.  It abused ethnic Russians as well and in large numbers.  So equating Russia
with the USSR is not valid even though it is reflex-think in the west.  

The USSR had information that the German agents were organizing partisan groups in the Volga German republic, hence the deportation

No doubt the Nazis had some sympathizers there, enough to organize some collaborationist groups

And in Chechnya, in the Crimea among the Crimean Tatars, you also had more than enough collaborators, as well as many deserters from the Red Army when the rebellion started in Chechnya

But in all cases there were more representatives of these groups in the Red Army anyway and loyal to it, and quite a number of Hero of the Soviet Union recipients. These people and their families were all betrayed by Stalin. Such collective punishment is a massive crime, and is pretty much Nazi logic. If upper-class and middle-class Jews in Germany, allegedly, are concentrating capital for themselves, corrupting German traditional morals and depriving Germany of a chance to revitalize itself - then what do the poorer Jews in Germany have to do with it, nevermind the Jews of Eastern Europe who mostly lived in squalor?

calripson wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:By the way, I read in another post that some groups of afrikaners (Boers) were starting settling up in Russia. By I think they are more interested in the area around the Volga than in Siberia or in the Far West

Actually settling or just talking about it?

There is a cautionary tale in Russia's immigration policy: Volga Germans lived in Russia from the time of Catherine the Great. First chance they got after 1991 they split back to Germany - my point being they never fully integrated into Russian society. The process of settlement, language, and schooling should be well thought out so future descendants of today's immigrants identify fully as Russian.

Actually in the early 90s, the Germans (now mostly residents of Kazakhstan) wanted to resurrect the Volga German republic, but the Russian government would not have it. Earlier in the 80s the Germans also tried to promote the idea of a German republic in Kazakhstan but the local elites weren't interested in that either.

When it became clear that this won't happen, the Germans that were still holding out for repatriation to Russia moved to Germany instead

A massively shortsighted move IMO. What, was the Russian state afraid of another Nazi German invasion in the future?

In the end both the Novosibirsk regions and the Altai territory created German districts on their territories, for the Germans living there (they descend from 19th and early 20th century colonizers). German is taught in schools there, and can be used as a local language of administration. Russia's not worse off for it.

flamming_python wrote:

kvs wrote:To be fair the Volga Germans had legitimate reasons to leave.   They were treated like enemy aliens during WWII and
interned and/or shipped towards Siberia.   Chechens were also rounded up like Armenians in Turkey with half dying
in cattle cars on the way to Kazakhstan.   But the unlike the Chechens, the Volga Germans never actually fought
against the USSR or tried to join German ranks.  

The USSR did not just abuse minorities.  It abused ethnic Russians as well and in large numbers.  So equating Russia
with the USSR is not valid even though it is reflex-think in the west.  

The USSR had information that the German agents were organizing partisan groups in the Volga German republic, hence the deportation

No doubt the Nazis had some sympathizers there, enough to organize some collaborationist groups

And in Chechnya, in the Crimea among the Crimean Tatars, you also had more than enough collaborators, as well as many deserters from the Red Army when the rebellion started in Chechnya

But in all cases there were more representatives of these groups in the Red Army anyway and loyal to it, and quite a number of Hero of the Soviet Union recipients. These people and their families were all betrayed by Stalin. Such collective punishment is a massive crime, and is pretty much Nazi logic. If upper-class and middle-class Jews in Germany, allegedly, are concentrating capital for themselves, corrupting German traditional morals and depriving Germany of a chance to revitalize itself - then what do the poorer Jews in Germany have to do with it, nevermind the Jews of Eastern Europe who mostly lived in squalor?

calripson wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:By the way, I read in another post that some groups of afrikaners (Boers) were starting settling up in Russia. By I think they are more interested in the area around the Volga than in Siberia or in the Far West

Actually settling or just talking about it?

There is a cautionary tale in Russia's immigration policy: Volga Germans lived in Russia from the time of Catherine the Great. First chance they got after 1991 they split back to Germany - my point being they never fully integrated into Russian society. The process of settlement, language, and schooling should be well thought out so future descendants of today's immigrants identify fully as Russian.

Actually in the early 90s, the Germans (now mostly residents of Kazakhstan) wanted to resurrect the Volga German republic, but the Russian government would not have it. Earlier in the 80s the Germans also tried to promote the idea of a German republic in Kazakhstan but the local elites weren't interested in that either.

When it became clear that this won't happen, the Germans that were still holding out for repatriation to Russia moved to Germany instead

A massively shortsighted move IMO. What, was the Russian state afraid of another Nazi German invasion in the future?

In the end both the Novosibirsk regions and the Altai territory created German districts on their territories, for the Germans living there (they descend from 19th and early 20th century colonizers). German is taught in schools there, and can be used as a local language of administration. Russia's not worse off for it.

well if things continue as they are now, it is possible that some of them would be interested in moving back to Russia in the future.

Question:
Why are Crimean Tatars often described as "indigenous" by pretty everyone?  I must confess, I don't have a profound understanding of the history of this region. However, from what I understand, Tatars invaded Crimea just like the Greeks, Italians, etc?
Furthermore, I noticed that Tatars were officially declared an indigenous group in March 2014 which suggests to me that there might be a political angle to it.
PS: I don't mean any offense...I'm genuinely confused about this subject and I hope someone with a better understanding can shed a bit more light on it. Thanks!

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Backman wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Ukrainian nazis with the backing of NATO and the Western world's far right.

Funnily enough, the Ukraine does not actually have support from the western worlds far right. They only have support of the neocon/Fox news right.

The far righters know that the Ukraine right is phony. They know that they are fighting for the American empire and Israel. They know that Jewish Kolomoyskyi funds the Azov battalion. It doesn't make them any less menacing. It just makes them more pathetic.

Incorrect. I specifically remember far-right internet forums praising demagogues in Lviv/Lvov far-right anti-Soviet sentiments. This is not unusual, we saw far-right westerns support Islamic radicals against commies during the Cold War, and they were eager to support Turkey's integration in to NATO to fight the Soviets. You can't trust these crypto-Nazi clowns as far as you can throw them.



https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/hal-turner

[/quote]

I am talking about the contemporary white nationalist circles in the US. Like Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer and all of his offshoots cannot stand the Ukraine Nazis. Any of the real thought leaders in the white nationalist right in N.America cannot stand the Ukraine Nazis and there is no connection between the 2. White nationalists are anti US empire first and foremost.


https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/765028324351422464?s=20

https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1160270254066601990?s=20

How fast does time fly

Dean O'Brien - BA (Hons)
@DeanoBeano1
· 8 Feb

Today marks the 4th anniversary of the death of Mikhail Tolstykh, call sign 'Givi'. He was the leader of Somalia Battalion and was killed by an explosion in his office in Donetsk. He's buried at the ‘Donetsk Sea’ cemetery in the DPR and considered a hero by many. #Donbass

sounds like a hilarious conversation. Of course the US will up the ante by flying at the Crimean border and what not. Just use older radar to paint the targets to troll NATO jets.

A fine pair of wankers. My highlights.

During a Tuesday press conference the head of NATO, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, issued some hugely provocative words aimed at Russia while standing beside Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal at a joint press conference in Brussels. It comes after Joe Biden has vowed a tougher response to alleged Russian 'interference' in the West's affairs.

Asked specifically to respond claims that Russia is expanding military exercises and deployments abroad in order to "distract" from the Alexei Navalny saga and protests at home, Stoltenberg said, "What I will say is we have seen a significant Russian military buildup over the last years."

"We have seen a significant Russian buildup in the Black Sea, not least with the illegal annexation of Crimea, and also with more naval presence in the year," he added. Citing past years' conflicts and 'Russian aggression' in Ukraine and Georgie, Stoltenberg continued, "This is a military buildup very closely monitored and followed at NATO. It has triggered the largest and strongest reinforcement of NATO's collective defenses since the end of the Cold War."
NATO image: Tuesday's joint press conference.

He quickly pivoted to Navalny's recently being sentenced by a Moscow court to over two-and-a-half years in prison, which he slammed as "a perversion of justice, targeting the victim of an attempted killing – assassination – using a banned chemical agent to try to take his life."

"We have seen a very firm reaction from NATO, both when it comes to the way Russia has used military force against neighbors – Ukraine – but also in the way Russian security services are using violence to suppress legitimate democratic voices in Russia," Stoltenberg said additionally.

Ukrainian PM Shmyhal in his statements crucially noted that his country plans to "start building two naval bases, one in the Black Sea one, in the Azov Sea." According to Shmyhal's remarks this is with help from Britain and other Western allies - all of which sounds a dangerous repeat of the build-up to the Ukraine crisis of five years back.

But this is where Stoltenberg threw out his most provocative statement of the press conference, essentially calling for Ukraine to be invited into the Atlantic military alliance:

   "NATO's door remains open, and we work with countries like Ukraine. Ukraine is recognized as a candidate for NATO membership. NATO allies help and support Ukrainian efforts to join the Alliance. I feel certain that as part of the future project we have launched in NATO, NATO 2030, […] the enlargement policy will be part of that. And also when NATO leaders meet in Brussels later this year, enlargement and NATO's open door policy will be discussed and addressed," Stoltenberg said.

The Kremlin as well as President Putin have long affirmed Ukraine's entry into NATO would constitute a firm "red line" which it would take action to prevent.

There's been agreement and general consensus among pundits on both sides of the issue that Ukraine's formal entry into NATO would likely fast trigger major regional war. Already Ukraine has semi-regularly engaged in joint naval drills in the Black Sea with NATO forces, however, formal membership would of course require the United States and other major NATO powers to go to war with Russia should Ukrainian forces be attacked.

Lately Stoltenberg has accused Russia of being 'expansionist' with regard to former Soviet satellite states, given it has appeared to increase its military presence in places like the Black Sea, but also the Barents and Baltic seas. This also comes as the US Air Force has greatly increased its presence in far North places like Norway, with the latest deployment of four B-1 Lancer bombers there.  

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-chief-tells-ukraine-door-remains-open-membership-russia-fumes

They been promising NATO for Ukraine for quite some time.  It has to be unanimous and that won't happen.  Especially since Ukraine has territorial disputes.

A lot of hot air.  But maybe Russia should actually make an official statement.  Openly support Assange and call him a prisoner who didn't break any laws unlike Navalny.  Also, release full trial of Navalnys with English subtitles so they can see it all.

Russia kinda sucks at this PR thing.  They can easily make these assholes look stupid but they don't.

miketheterrible wrote:They been promising NATO for Ukraine for quite some time.  It has to be unanimous and that won't happen.  Especially since Ukraine has territorial disputes.

A lot of hot air.  But maybe Russia should actually make an official statement.  Openly support Assange and call him a prisoner who didn't break any laws unlike Navalny.  Also, release full trial of Navalnys with English subtitles so they can see it all.

Russia kinda sucks at this PR thing.  They can easily make these assholes look stupid but they don't.

I don't agree about the PR. People have trusted information sources and will discount the truth that does not fit their beliefs.
Russia has no chance with the truth since it will be ignored. The problem is not with Russia communicating. The problem
is with all the NATzO lemmings listening. That is why humans can be kept on plantations without barbed wire fences.

The_Observer wrote:Question:
Why are Crimean Tatars often described as "indigenous" by pretty everyone?  I must confess, I don't have a profound understanding of the history of this region. However, from what I understand, Tatars invaded Crimea just like the Greeks, Italians, etc?
Furthermore, I noticed that Tatars were officially declared an indigenous group in March 2014 which suggests to me that there might be a political angle to it.
PS: I don't mean any offense...I'm genuinely confused about this subject and I hope someone with a better understanding can shed a bit more light on it. Thanks!

As a people they had their ethnogenesis in the Crimea, even if they came from somewhere else originally, and are somewhat mixed with the prior Greek inhabitants of the island, who they partially Islamized and Tatarified

At the end of the day Russia gives them the benefit of the doubt, because in any case they don't have a homeland other than the Crimea, and because it needs to win hearts & minds and destroy any Ukrainian and Turkish attempts to retain influence there.

And this strategy has borne fruit, as in 2014 most Tatars were at the very least guarded about Crimea becoming a part of Russia, now polls show that more than half of them approve the move. And certainly giving them political representation, investing in mosques and working with them on a rehabilitation and repatriation program for Crimean Tatars outside Russia has yielded that result.

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:They been promising NATO for Ukraine for quite some time.  It has to be unanimous and that won't happen.  Especially since Ukraine has territorial disputes.

A lot of hot air.  But maybe Russia should actually make an official statement.  Openly support Assange and call him a prisoner who didn't break any laws unlike Navalny.  Also, release full trial of Navalnys with English subtitles so they can see it all.

Russia kinda sucks at this PR thing.  They can easily make these assholes look stupid but they don't.

I don't agree about the PR.  People have trusted information sources and will discount the truth that does not fit their beliefs.  
Russia has no chance with the truth since it will be ignored.   The problem is not with Russia communicating.   The problem
is with all the NATzO lemmings listening.   That is why humans can be kept on plantations without barbed wire fences.

correct. In fact, they'd use such a claim by Russia as their "smoking gun" evidence that Assange was working with Russians, an accusation that formed the basis of their "Russia collusion" hoax.

flamming_python wrote:

The_Observer wrote:Question:
Why are Crimean Tatars often described as "indigenous" by pretty everyone?  I must confess, I don't have a profound understanding of the history of this region. However, from what I understand, Tatars invaded Crimea just like the Greeks, Italians, etc?
Furthermore, I noticed that Tatars were officially declared an indigenous group in March 2014 which suggests to me that there might be a political angle to it.
PS: I don't mean any offense...I'm genuinely confused about this subject and I hope someone with a better understanding can shed a bit more light on it. Thanks!

As a people they had their ethnogenesis in the Crimea, even if they came from somewhere else originally, and are somewhat mixed with the prior Greek inhabitants of the island, who they partially Islamized and Tatarified

At the end of the day Russia gives them the benefit of the doubt, because in any case they don't have a homeland other than the Crimea, and because it needs to win hearts & minds and destroy any Ukrainian and Turkish attempts to retain influence there.

And this strategy has borne fruit, as in 2014 most Tatars were at the very least guarded about Crimea becoming a part of Russia, now polls show that more than half of them approve the move. And certainly giving them political representation, investing in mosques, and working with them on a rehabilitation and repatriation program for Crimean Tatars outside Russia has yielded that result.

Fair enough. Calling them "indigenous" suggests that they are the aboriginal population of Crimea which  I don't think is correct. Such a move might create short-term gains but could end up generating even greater long term-pains down the line. Thanks for the insight, FP.

Backman wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Backman wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Ukrainian nazis with the backing of NATO and the Western world's far right.

Funnily enough, the Ukraine does not actually have support from the western worlds far right. They only have support of the neocon/Fox news right.

The far righters know that the Ukraine right is phony. They know that they are fighting for the American empire and Israel. They know that Jewish Kolomoyskyi funds the Azov battalion. It doesn't make them any less menacing. It just makes them more pathetic.

Incorrect. I specifically remember far-right internet forums praising demagogues in Lviv/Lvov far-right anti-Soviet sentiments. This is not unusual, we saw far-right westerns support Islamic radicals against commies during the Cold War, and they were eager to support Turkey's integration in to NATO to fight the Soviets. You can't trust these crypto-Nazi clowns as far as you can throw them.



https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/hal-turner

I am talking about the contemporary white nationalist circles in the US. Like Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer and all of his offshoots cannot stand the Ukraine Nazis. Any of the real thought leaders in the white nationalist right in N.America cannot stand the Ukraine Nazis and there is no connection between the 2. White nationalists are anti US empire first and foremost.  


https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/765028324351422464?s=20

https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1160270254066601990?s=20



[/quote]

Now were defending Nazi's now?         I'll throw out one number at you....27 million. Remember that! BTW the far-right/alt-right crypto-Nazi's darling and dear leader, the Shaved Orangutan, destroyed the INF Treaty to prepare a new Drang nach Osten/Operation Barbarosso, so apparently your precious alt-right turds want to recreate the '27 million' number again.

The_Observer wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

The_Observer wrote:Question:
Why are Crimean Tatars often described as "indigenous" by pretty everyone?  I must confess, I don't have a profound understanding of the history of this region. However, from what I understand, Tatars invaded Crimea just like the Greeks, Italians, etc?
Furthermore, I noticed that Tatars were officially declared an indigenous group in March 2014 which suggests to me that there might be a political angle to it.
PS: I don't mean any offense...I'm genuinely confused about this subject and I hope someone with a better understanding can shed a bit more light on it. Thanks!

As a people they had their ethnogenesis in the Crimea, even if they came from somewhere else originally, and are somewhat mixed with the prior Greek inhabitants of the island, who they partially Islamized and Tatarified

At the end of the day Russia gives them the benefit of the doubt, because in any case they don't have a homeland other than the Crimea, and because it needs to win hearts & minds and destroy any Ukrainian and Turkish attempts to retain influence there.

And this strategy has borne fruit, as in 2014 most Tatars were at the very least guarded about Crimea becoming a part of Russia, now polls show that more than half of them approve the move. And certainly giving them political representation, investing in mosques, and working with them on a rehabilitation and repatriation program for Crimean Tatars outside Russia has yielded that result.

Fair enough. Calling them "indigenous" suggests that they are the aboriginal population of Crimea which  I don't think is correct. Such a move might create short-term gains but could end up generating even greater long term-pains down the line. Thanks for the insight, FP.

They are no more the aboriginal population of the Crimea than the Anglo Saxons are of England. That's to say technically not, but in practice it happened long enough ago, and they mixed in enough with the prior inhabitants, that whatever.

Crimean Tatars have way more of a claim on the lands they live on than any Banderastani. Funny how the west barks so hard
about "abuses by Russia of Crimean Tatars" but does not actually recognize Crimea as some "-stan" of the Tatars. It recognizes
the absurd illegal (under both Soviet and international law) occupation of Crimea by Kiev. The grab of Sevastopol in 1991
is an outright invasion since it was never transferred to Soviet Ukraine by Khruschev like the rest of the autonomous republic
was in 1954. Imagine Monaco and Liechtenstein just falling into the hands of their neighbours. That most NATzO residents
are not aware of these facts does not make them irrelevant. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" and all that.

kvs wrote:Crimean Tatars have way more of a claim on the lands they live on than any Banderastani.   Funny how the west barks so hard
about "abuses by Russia of Crimean Tatars" but does not actually recognize Crimea as some "-stan" of the Tatars.   It recognizes
the absurd illegal (under both Soviet and international law) occupation of Crimea by Kiev.   The grab of Sevastopol in 1991
is an outright invasion since it was never transferred to Soviet Ukraine by Khruschev like the rest of the autonomous republic
was in 1954.   Imagine Monaco and Liechtenstein just falling into the hands of their neighbours.   That most NATzO residents
are not aware of these facts does not make them irrelevant.   "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" and all that.

Sevastopol was transfered to the Ukrainian SSR as well in 1954, together with the Crimean oblast