NP - Krugman: Petrothoughts (Via Kevin Drom)

[David Morris]

Thomas,

Annexing, invading, or just being neighborly, Russia has been thus
very active in spades in Crimea.

Russian invasion of Ukraine is fact beyond semantics in the reality I see.
Good or bad, it is fact.

David Morris

On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20141218/58634247/attachment.html>