NP - Krugman: Petrothoughts (Via Kevin Drom)

[Thomas Eckhardt]

Thanks for the olive branch, David. I am sure that we can
discuss this in a civil manner, keeping in mind that one person's truth
is another person's propaganda.

I don't expect you to reply to this. Just had to get it off my chest 
once more and practice my English.

> Resolution 758 is a statement against Russia's annexing Eastern
> Ukraine. Any further analysis is nitpicking.

Except, of course, Russia did not annex Eastern Ukraine.

You are mixing up the two talking points which are
ceaselessly being rammed down our throats: "Russia's annexation of 
Crimea" and "Russia's invasion of Eastern Ukraine".

One cannot understand any of this without looking again at what happened 
in Kiev in February.


Maidan

There were legitimate pro-European
protests against a corrupt, albeit democratically elected
president.

The support of various Western politicians,
among them members of government, for the protesters,
however, amounted to meddling in the internal affairs of
another country in violation of international law.

The protests were then hijacked by ultra-nationalists and
right-wing extremists, mainly under the black and red
banner of the "Right Sector" (a group consisting
of various paramilitary right-wing organisations including the neo-Nazi
"Patriot of Ukraine").

These people escalated the
protests, and it is almost certain that some of them committed the mass 
murder of about 70 peaceful protesters and policemen alike by snipers in 
order to
sabotage the agreement of February 20 (there can be no absolute 
certainty because the Ukrainian government has
obstructed the investigations from the beginning).

It worked. The incensed crowd rejected the agreement
negotiated between the opposition parties (including the fascist 
Svoboda), Yanukovich and the foreign ministers of France,
Poland and Germany and witnessed by the special envoy of
the Russian Federation. The militias then took over government
buildings and adorned them with wolf's hooks, Celtic
crosses and posters of their hero Stepan Bandera. Yanukovich fled in 
fear for his life.

What would the agreement of February 20
have provided for? Amongst other things:

-The formation of a national unity government within 10
days by the Signatories.

-That the authorities and the opposition refrain from the
use of violence.

-Presidential elections no later than December 2014

-The handing over of illegal weapons within 24 hours.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/agreement-on-the-settlement-of-crisis-in-ukraine-full-text

Sounds sensible to me.

The mass murder on Maidan nixed that agreement. Yanukovich was impeached 
in violation of the Ukrainian constitution. A new,
interim government was established and immediately acknowledged by the West.

New Prime Minister Yatseniuk had been Victoria Nuland's candidate all 
along as is evidenced by the famous "F*** the EU" phonecall.

The interim government was a Banderist government
including right-wing extremists (Svoboda). I use the term
"Banderist" because nowadays it seems to include the more
moderate nationalists as well as the neo-Nazis. If you want to know more
about Stepan Bandera and, more generally, about relations between the 
U.S. and Ukrainian Nazi collaborateurs, I recommend:

http://www.archives.gov/iwg/reports/hitlers-shadow.pdf

The common denominator of Banderists, from Tymoshenko's "Fatherland"
party to the fascist Svoboda, is hatred for Russians and
Russia.

Eastern Ukraine is very close to Russia culturally and
geographically, and there are huge ethnic Russian majorities.
These people had voted Yanukovitch and his "Party of
Regions" into office. Despite this fact, as far as I can see, they were 
for the most part as fed up with him as their compatriots in Western 
Ukraine. I suspect they would have been able to live with a
government of national unity. They could not live with a
Banderist government.

Especially not after the
events in Odessa on May 2 where at least 48 peaceful
federalists/separatists were murdered by nationalist
hooligans and neo-Nazis.

You may have heard of this. It was called "a tragedy" in every 
respectable Western news outlet. The culprits were rarely named.

So people in Eastern Ukraine began to occupy town halls etc. In this
they were supported -- and here is some gratis information for you,
to use at your convenience -- by Russians, among them quite unsavoury
characters and even Russian fascists.

Whether these people came on orders from the Russian
government or not is debatable. They deny it.

None of which should take away from the fact that the course of action 
taken in Eastern Ukraine was a direct result of events in Kiev. It was a 
reaction.

And because it was a reaction to a coup/revolution it obviously had more
moral legitimacy to it than the violent protests on Maidan against a
democratically elected president. In other words:
If you think the ouster of Yanukovich was legitimate despite violating
the constitution you need to grant at least this kind of moral
legitimacy to the Eastern Ukrainian rebellion as well.

The Ukrainian government rejected the Russian suggestion
to negotiate with the rebels, probably on the initiative
of the U.S., and started its so-called anti-terror
operation, meaning that it began killing its own people.

This seems to be a serious crime when Assad does it
but the only sensible course of action when Poroshenko does it.

 From then on, when Western media and politicians talked about 
"Ukrainians", "territorial sovereignity" "the will of the Ukrainian 
people" etc. they only referred to the ones who supported Maidan, mainly 
Western Ukrainian nationalists etc. But the people in Eastern Ukraine 
are also Ukrainians.


Crimea

After the Banderist coup/revolution in Kiev, the autonomous republic
Crimea decided to have a referendum. The overwhelming majority voted for
secession from Ukraine and accession to the Russian Federation.

 From a legal perspective, this course of action violated the
principle of territorial integrity enshrined in
international law but was in accordance with the right to
self-determination also enshrined in international law. Kosovo might
serve as a comparison -- only that there was no referendum in Kosovo
even though Obama has falsely claimed there was.

Russian soldiers from the Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea under
long-standing contracts with the Ukrainian government prevented the
Ukrainian army from interfering with the process. This was illegal, but 
it prevented bloodshed.

 From a non-legal perspective, which is the perspective you have on 
Maidan, the matter is clear: The overwhelming majority of the people in 
Crimea agreed with the secession/accession --

> Bottom line, the invasion was not justified by any real threat to
> anyone.

-- and they certainly did not regret their choice when
they saw what happened to the civilians
of whatever persuasion in Eastern Ukraine (the remains of
a football-playing teenager in a bucket, anyone? clusterbombs?).

Most importantly, from my perspective, there were only two
casualties on Crimea. One Ukrainian soldier and one pro-Russian
activist were shot, probably by a young sniper from Maidan.

If you want to call this "Russia's annexation of Crimea", so be it. But 
you should at least acknowledge the circumstances I addressed: the right 
to self-determination, the undisputable fact that the majority was in 
favour of secession/accession, the lack of bloodshed.


Eastern Ukraine

As for "Russia's invasion of Eastern Ukraine", I point you
to this nice piece by Dmitri Orlov, "How can you tell
whether Russia has invaded Ukraine?"

http://cluborlov.blogspot.de/2014/08/how-can-you-tell-whether-russia-has.html

You do not believe that Russian troops have marched into
Eastern Ukraine with tanks and air support, do you?
Because this has not happened.

What has happened and continues to
happen is that Russia supports the federalists/separatists
by means of Russian soldiers "on holiday", logistics,
intelligence, certainly also, though as yet unproven, tanks
and heavy weapons. All in all, Russia is conducting a covert war in 
reaction to the Western-backed coup/revolution in Kiev. Putin has stated 
frankly on German television that Russia will not allow the rebels to fail.

Not nice, but certainly no reason for the U.S., of all nations, to get 
its knickers into a twist.

Especially so, I repeat, as Russia only reacts to what it perceives as 
an existential threat. The outcome of the anti-terror operation of the 
Ukrainian government could be the stationing of nuclear missiles along 
Russia's borders.

Russia has also consistently, from the agreement of February 20 to this 
day, stated that it does not want to annex Eastern Ukraine and supports 
federalisation. Russia has also consistently been arguing for talks 
between the rebels in Eastern Ukraine and the government in Kiev.

Of course, Russia may be lying.

Kiev did not want to negotiate. Instead the government sent troops and 
"volunteer battalions" against the rebels. When Poroshenko at some point 
seemed inclined to prolong the then existing ceasefire, the neo-Nazis 
threatened him with another Maidan. The slaughter continued.

Now more than 4,000 people are dead, among them many civilians, and a 
million people displaced (800,000 of them went to Russia).

One has to stretch the meaning of "invasion" beyond breaking point to be 
able to claim that Russia has invaded Eastern Ukraine. But certainly 
Russians have been meddling in Eastern Ukraine from the start, and 
certainly the Russian government does support the separatists. Still, 
the aggression against Eastern Ukraine did not start in Moscow, it 
started in Kiev.


So, West good, Russia bad? I don't think so. It is a difficult and 
dangerous situation which should be de-escalated as quickly as possible 
in order to save lives and prevent further escalation.

Resolution 758 does exactly the opposite. Along with Obama's and 
Cameron's unbelievable statements that "Ebola, Russian aggression and 
ISIS" are the greatest threats to world peace, the resolution is an 
example of particularly reckless warmongering.

As far as the media coverage of the conflict is concerned: We have 
always been at war with Eastasia.

Thomas


P.S. I don't fear Nazis, I hate them. The Western media have constantly 
downplayed the neo-Nazi threat in Ukraine. But these people are not on 
the sidelines, no matter what the media tell you. It was them that 
toppled Yanukovich, and it is them that spearhead the "anti-terror 
operation" -- which was originally directed by Andriy Parubiy, 
co-founder of the, yes, Social-Nationalist Party.

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l