Streetwise Professor

March 17, 2014

What’s Next for Putin? The Comfy Chair?

Filed under: History,Military,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 11:33 am

The US’s “sanctions” against 7 Russian officials are a pathetic travesty.  The only thing more pathetic is that the Euros omitted the two most important names (Surkov and Rogozin) from their list.

These completely ineffectual measures, which impose no real costs on the real decision makers, or on Russia, will only embolden Putin, rather than deter him.

The administration says that these are the most comprehensive measures imposed on Russia since the end of the Cold War (which is duh-obvious since none have been imposed since the end of the Cold War), and intimates that this is part of a strategy of gradual escalation.

First: yeah, gradual escalation worked out so well for LBJ and McNamara.  Hard men, like Ho Chi Minh and Putin, see “gradual escalation” as a confession of weakness.

Second: what’s the next step in l’escalier? The Comfy Chair?

This is beyond feckless.  Victoria Nuland said “F*ck the EU” because of its pusillanimity in Ukraine.  By her logic, “F*ck the US” is completely appropriate.

To give you an indication of how devastating these “sanctions” were, Russian stocks rallied around 5 percent on the news.

Several of the “targets” took to Twitter to express their disdain.  For instance, Rogozin the Ridiculous said something I agreed with for the first time ever.

Relatedly, Russia has laid down its conditions for Ukraine.  These essentially involve Russia dictating Ukraine’s constitutional order.  Specifically, Russia demands a return to the February 21 agreement, and an imposition of a federal structure on Ukraine, in which regions would have substantial autonomy.  Autonomy which would, no doubt, allow these regions to follow Crimea’s example and vote to join Russia.

If I were Ukraine, I would say: You first.  You call yourself the Russian Federation.  If a true federal structure is so great, Russia should give its various republics and autonomous regions true autonomy, including the right to vote themselves out of the RF.  Sauce for the goose and all that.

Unfortunately, based on the administration’s utter fecklessness and pusillanimity so far, I would imagine that Obama and Kerry will give (or already have given) Ukraine the same advice that Bobby Knight related to Connie Chung years ago.

Surkov certain sees things in a similar light.

Obama is notoriously the most thin-skinned president in recent memory.  Yet Russians mock him repeatedly, without eliciting any reaction, except for maybe “thank you sir, may I have another?”

Usually appeasers eventually wake up when it becomes apparent that their appeasement has only encouraged the object of the policy to take more, more, more.  Carter woke up.  Even Chamberlain eventually woke up.

Obama and the Euros?  Still lost in their dreams, while Putin inflicts a nightmare on the borders of NATO and the EU.

 

 

Print Friendly

103 Comments »

  1. Well the fascist authorities in Crimea are claiming that 99% of Tatars voted, needless to say the Tatars say different.

    They also say overall turnout was between 30 and 50% in most areas including mainly Russian ones, not the numbers the Russians would like us to believe

    http://espreso.tv/new/2014/03/16/dzhemilyev_spravzhnya_yavka_na_psevdoreferendumi_u_mezhakh_30

    Comment by Andrew — March 17, 2014 @ 12:11 pm

  2. 123% of people in Sevastopol “voted”

    http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/03/17/7019270/

    Comment by elmer — March 17, 2014 @ 2:06 pm

  3. As a Chicagoan, where the dead vote, I can only say well done. Well done.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — March 17, 2014 @ 2:18 pm

  4. So, the choices for 2016 appear to be Hillary and Rand Paul?

    F*ck.

    Comment by LL — March 17, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

  5. @LL You can say that again. My motto for the 21st century is: “We are so screwed.”

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — March 17, 2014 @ 3:17 pm

  6. Ha-ha “The idea that America can defeat Russian irredentism in Eastern Europe by deregulating its own energy industries is frankly ridiculous. Deregulation can make airline tickets cheaper. It cannot stop the Russian army. Energy-industry deregulation has become part of the standard Republican line on Crimea largely because of the relentless self-congratulatory process by which political actors cement their followers’ ideological convictions. ”
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/03/rand-pauls-foreign-policy

    Comment by Anders — March 17, 2014 @ 5:57 pm

  7. Ron Paul Is Supporting Russia’s Illegal Occupation of Crimea
    The libertarian godfather has become one of the biggest cheerleaders for the “referendum” that will lead to Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/16/ron-paul-is-supporting-russia-s-illegal-occupation-of-crimea.html

    Comment by Anders — March 17, 2014 @ 6:03 pm

  8. That Surkov Twitter account is fake.

    Some Russia commentator you are.

    Comment by S/O — March 17, 2014 @ 7:26 pm

  9. Really S/O ? Evidence please?

    Rogozin twitters frequently.

    BTW, my wife used to have to deal with the verminous little monster back in the Schverdnadze days.

    He was and is a typical Great Russian chauvinist and racist.

    Comment by Andrew — March 17, 2014 @ 9:04 pm

  10. @elmer, well the Russians were saying it was so peaceful even the children were voting…..

    In seriousness though, it looks like the usual Russian trick of tourists getting to vote…..

    Comment by Andrew — March 17, 2014 @ 9:06 pm

  11. Putin wants to impose himself on much more of Ukraine than just Crimea.

    http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/window-on-eurasia-putin-plans-to-annex.html?m=1

    Comment by Andrew — March 18, 2014 @ 2:01 am

  12. Why all the fracas? Ukraine is a poor imitation of Russia. Russia is shit, but Ukraine is down to Somalia levels now. I know, I know, democracy, the EU, “the potential”. I’m almost deaf from hearing about this potential for the last 23 years. “Brazil is the country of the future… and always will be”. No need to rig the referendum. The Crimeans are not stupid. Better a leaky ship than a sinking one. And this is before you factor in the rabid Russophobia of Western Ukrainians.

    Comment by So? — March 18, 2014 @ 4:33 am

  13. Well So? The reason why Ukrainians in the western part of the country dislike Russia the state (as opposed to Russians as individuals) is the same reason the native populations of most former Soviet republics dislike Russia is because of the inherent rabid racism of Russia.

    Comment by Andrew — March 18, 2014 @ 6:04 am

  14. Case in point:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/18/reshat-ametov-crimea_n_4983978.html

    Comment by Andrew — March 18, 2014 @ 6:06 am

  15. Funny how Vladislav accuses the Ukrainians of being nazi style nationalists for saying ‘Glory to Ukraine’

    What about Putin and all those Russian nationslists chanting ‘Glory to Russia’?

    So Vladislav, is nationalism only OK when Russia does it?

    Comment by Andrew — March 18, 2014 @ 10:34 am

  16. @Andrew – of course it is. Russia is the Third Rome and all glory belongs to it – (see coronation scene of Boris G _ “SLAVA”!) Also, it is surrounded by other people and ice – damned Planet Earth makes it so.

    Incidentally, all these people are evil (except the Finns), so anything is justified because they are going to do it to Russia first unless Russia strikes them down first: attacking is defense!

    If anyone even peeps an objection – no matter how pathetic (for definition see “Obama”)- have GONE TOO FAR and will be punished.

    the rightness of our (Russia’s) cause is shown in that there is no real opposition – G-d is on our side. How else can you explain those stalwart heroes Germany France and the others doing nothing. This is definitely a sign of G-d’s grace.

    Who do you think you are, questioning G-d’s will so. You must be some evil Balt or other subhuman whose actions threaten Mother Russia. Don’t forget the Latvian Empire, or the Mongols, or the Swedes, French and just about everybody else!

    Comment by Sotos — March 18, 2014 @ 11:03 am

  17. Sotos you hit the nail on the head….

    Comment by Andrew — March 18, 2014 @ 11:57 am

  18. Sotos,

    Change a few words, and you are taking about America. But America has never been invaded (1812 hardly counts) and is surrounded by oceans and has 2 herbivore neighbors. So what’s America’s excuse?

    Comment by So? — March 18, 2014 @ 12:43 pm

  19. Let me make some predictions about the near future:

    1. The US and EU economic sanctions will be negligible. The Russian economic retaliation – equally small.

    2. Russia will pump money into Crimea like into Sochi. It will quadruple the pensions, bringing them up to the level of the rest of RF. It will build new factories and create good jobs. Crimea’s standard of living will gradually rise to that of the rest of RF.

    3. A pro-Western democrat will win the Ukrainian elections in May. He will have no choice but to continue to give 33% of all ministerial jobs to right-wing extremists. He will also clam down on the rights of the residents of Novorossiya (New Russia) – i.e., East and South Ukraine that the Russian Emperor Catherine the Great annexed from Turks and their allies. But he will be cautious not to go to far.

    4. Right-wing extremists will be highly unhappy and will re-escalate their demonstrations demanding full power and the persecution of pro-Russian Novorossiyans.

    5. Ukraine will sign the cooperation agreement with EU that Yanukovich had refused earlier, and will join NATO.

    6. Georgia will join NATO too. Abkahzia will hold a referendum on joining RF, and S. Ossetia – on joining the rest of Ossetia in RF. Both referendae will pass with at least a 98% vote. RF will recognize both and re-accept these two republics.

    7. The EU and NATO conditions that Ukraine must immediately stop producing its Soviet-era aerospace, military and all other industrial standards, will come into power, and Ukriane will be forced to buy all its aerospace, military and high-tech equipment from NATO countries, giving some boost to EU and US economies. This will cause a total economic collapse of the economies of Novorossiya and a near-collapse of Kiev’s economies. Agricultural and welfare-based economy of West Ukraine that is currently living off of taxing Kiev and East Ukraine, will feel huge economic pain.

    8. Ukraine and RF will impose bans on mutual exports on each other, somewhat damaging Russian economy and turning Ukraine’s economy into that of Rwanda circa 1990 and making Germany circa the Great Depression look like paradise. EU and US will come to the rescue by giving Ukraine loans worth about $20 billion ($500 per Ukrainian capita) and imposing draconian measures on Ukraine’s pensions, civil servants’ salaries, and social programs, as promised.

    9. Taking advantage of desperation, starvation and disappointment with the West’s stinginess among the Ukrainians, right-wing extremists will come to power and start massive ethnic cleansing. The world will be aghast. Even the West.

    10. Novorossiya will explode in self-defence.

    This will all take place over the period of next 6 to 10 years.

    11. The readers can figure out what will happen after that. I will omit it for political correctness considerations.

    Comment by vladislav — March 18, 2014 @ 1:10 pm

  20. well, whaddya know –

    TURKEY: under Ottoman Empire treaty with Catherine the Great if Crimea declares independence it returns to Turkey

    http://maidantranslations.com/2014/03/17/turkey-under-ottoman-empire-treaty-with-catherine-the-great-if-crimea-declares-independence-it-returns-to-turkey/

    The Turkish newspaper Hürriyet reports that if the Autonomous Republic of Crimea announces its independence, then it falls under Turkish rule. This is being reported by ipress.ua with reference to Espresso TV.

    Based on what the author of the article wrote, this is confirmed by the agreement which was signed 230 years ago by the Ottoman and Russian empires.

    According to the agreement, signed by the the Russian empress Catherine the Great on April 19, 1783, the Crimean peninsula will pass from the Ottoman empire to the Russian empire.

    Comment by elmer — March 18, 2014 @ 2:35 pm

  21. Is anyone willing to speculate on the conjecture (which making rounds today) that the White House has secretly traded Crimea for Syria (see today’s news regarding colsing of the Syrian embassy)?

    Comment by LL — March 18, 2014 @ 2:42 pm

  22. @LL-I doubt there was a trade. Perhaps the move against Syrian embassy was Obama’s way of striking back, but I would seriously doubt it was a quid pro quo.

    Putin wants both.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — March 18, 2014 @ 3:08 pm

  23. @so? – I guess you are right – it was the US that signed the Molotov von Ribbentrop pact, and invaded and conquered the Baltic States, tried to with Finland, etc.. By the way, why didn’t the US conquer Canada? By the way it wasn’t fear of the Brits. They couldn’t even move their army to the Crimea without using US flagged vessels.

    While US exceptionalism has certainly existed, and in its more objectionable moments almost mirrors certain Great Russian Chauvinists, compare results of it: i.e. West Germany and Japan vs. East Germany, Poland, etc. The last acquisition of territory in the US was from the Spanish American WAR, and within 30 years the US were desperate to get rid of it: by 1934 Laws were passed that scheduled the Philippines for complete independence in 1945 and Puerto Rico and Guam had to lobby to stay in. Compare that to the exit of the USSR from (anywhere).

    Finally there has always been internal opposition to many expansionism – including NATO, etc. indeed Al Gores great or something grandfather led the opposition to the annexation of the Philippines in the Senate. Gee, I wonder how the opponents fared in the US vs. the USSR?

    One of the great canards was that the peaceful intentions of the USSR was that the Warsaw Pact was formed after NATO. Need one point out that the Warsaw Pact was somewhat irrelevant, as for example the Polish Army was at the time commanded by a Russian Field Marshall? The kind of senseless Sovok doublespeak coming from Putin mirrors in a farcical way the protestation of the USSR. Marx’s coda to Hegel that history does repeat itself, but first as tragedy then as farce, comes to mind.

    Your “they did it too” apologia shows that you have no interest in determining the truth re Putin, no more than a rabid KKK member would as to US history. Both you and the KKK fail to pass the most important tool we have to judge political arguments. That tool is a sense of smell.

    Comment by Sotos — March 18, 2014 @ 3:21 pm

  24. “U.S. special envoy for Syria Daniel Rubinstein said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had refused to step down”

    First Yanukovich, now Assad, refusing the instructions from Washington, DC to step down. What do they think they are?! Heads of sovereign states? Total insubordination!

    Professor, the leaders of which islamic terrorist group has the US State Dept chosen for the new Syrian government? There are so many to choose, from with the moderates – Al Qaeda – to extremists 100 times worse.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26587384

    Syria crisis: Kurds and extremists war within a war

    BEIRUT: Pro-government Kurdish fighters and Al-Qaeda-linked rebels fought fierce battles Friday in northeastern Syria, the latest in clashes that have killed more than 40 on both sides this week, activists said.

    The Kurdish forces, which back Syrian President Bashar Assad, have battled rebels from radical Islamic groups in the northeastern province of Hassakeh and the northern region of Aleppo for months now.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/al-nusra-front

    James Clapper Says Syrian Al-Qaida Group Aspires To Attack U.S.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The top U.S. intelligence official says a Syrian militant group tied to al-Qaida, the al-Nusra Front, aspires to attack the United States.

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee Wednesday that such al-Qaida groups have started training camps “to train people to go back to their countries,” and conduct more terrorist acts.

    Clapper says some 26,000 rebel fighters battling the government of Bashar Assad in Syria are extremists with about 7,000 of them foreigners from some 50 countries, including Europe.

    Comment by vladislav — March 18, 2014 @ 4:32 pm

  25. Professor

    Disturbingly plausible – because simple – explanation of what probably happened to MH370:

    http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

    Comment by Green as Grass — March 18, 2014 @ 6:49 pm

  26. What happened to MH370 should be clear to almost every reader here: Putler shot it down to deflect public attention in the West from Russia’s bloody (millions of Ukrainian victims in Sevastopol who died at the whips of Kuban cossack horsemen, who have always hated ethnic Ukrainians!) re-unification with Crimea.

    Comment by vladislav — March 18, 2014 @ 7:38 pm

  27. Craig,

    Today the White House announced draconian and devastating measures to make Russians regret their re-unification with Crimea. The USA declared that they will freeze US assets of Ukraine’s President Yanukovich (for his high crime of not accepting the trade agreement with EU and the highest crime of being the victim of an anti-constitutional coup) and of 7 top Russian officials, as soon as they find any.

    That raises a question: what kind of idiots are these Russians? Who keeps their assets in US banks? All US politicians, starting with Mitt Romney, keep their money in places like Cayman Islands.

    Comment by vladislav — March 19, 2014 @ 12:50 am

  28. @Sotos,
    I guess you are right – it was the US that signed the Molotov von Ribbentrop pact, and invaded and conquered the Baltic States, tried to with Finland, etc..

    Had Germany taken all of Poland in 1939, she would have won WWII.

    Crimea is Russian. You can’t really invade yourself, can you? Canada is not openly hostile to the US like the Kiev putschists. But if the Quebecers overthrew the Canadian government and outlawed the English language, chanting “hang the Anglos!” along the way, America would have swooped in within hours, not days.

    (Western Ukrainian school assembly LAST YEAR here chanting <b<HANG THE MOSCALS! Those Western grant-funded textbooks have done a swell job. Well done! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo6_uJrmLxE )

    Russia is a continental power with no natural defences which has been repeatedly invaded from the West (1612, 1812, 1941). America is an island power. Kind of difficult to compare the two. Since the decline of the British, America is the New Perfidious Albion*. No need to conquer, just divide, divide and control the trade. The world divided into a bunch of butt-hurt Polands and America to arbitrate them is the great American dream. PNAC does not even make a secret of this! Full-spectrum dominance, rah-rah!

    * Not an entirely bad thing. Without the British Isles, Europe would have ended up under the thumb of one ruler or another and stagnated like China (Japan was too far to have the same effect). No conflict – no progress.

    Comment by So? — March 19, 2014 @ 3:49 am

  29. “Had Germany taken all of Poland in 1939, she would have won WWII.”

    Certainly she would have won her war of racial extermination in the East. And it was well within Germany’s power to promptly conquer all of Poland and occupy the Baltic States. With no M-R Pact to wreck Hitler’s reputation as a good anticommunist, the West probably would have stayed out. Neville himself summed up his indictment of Hitler: “He has sworn for years that he was the mortal enemy of Bolshevism; he is now its ally.”

    Whether the crowd here would now be shedding tears for the exterminated Slavs (Poles&Ukrainians very much included) is a question.

    Comment by PailiP — March 19, 2014 @ 4:20 am

  30. Ah the conquest of Poland and the Baltics was DEFENSIVE – see.
    the Question as to whether H would have invaded Poland without the Pact is left curiously moot in you arguments. And Pal whatever you are, you automatically take the position that all the West secretly wants to see the Slavs exterminated – thus justifying any behavior on the part of Putin because the West is EEEEEEvil.

    I don’t think wither of you could have come up with responses that better illustrate and validate my original post if you sat on your hands for a fortnight.

    Thanks!

    Comment by Sotos — March 19, 2014 @ 6:46 am

  31. I thought you might be interested in this.

    http://fakty.ictv.ua/ua/index/read-news/id/1508533

    A high-level Russian diplomat who presents Russia in the European
    Union, Roman Kokorev, has just written (an opinion, I assume, not
    official policy) that Russia will restore the following geographic
    areas to Russia: Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic states, Poland, Finland,
    and Alaska. Kokorev is a professor of international law and a
    former top adviser to Putin’s government.

    Appetite increases with eating. Sarah Palin better watch out. Alaska
    is on the list.

    One thing that will be interesting is what kind of serious diplomatic
    pressure and economic sanctions Obama will threaten Putin with when
    Russian-speaking home-defense forces parachute to Alaska to protect
    the ethnic Russian minorities from well documented and ongoing fascist
    atrocities.

    Comment by ptuomov — March 19, 2014 @ 7:41 am

  32. What else do you expect from Russia? It is the neo nazi capital of the world….

    Comment by Andrew — March 19, 2014 @ 8:25 am

  33. +++What do they think they are?! Heads of sovereign states? Total insubordination!+++

    Good, Vladislav – you are not as dumb as one can infer from your posts here. The simple fact of the United States being the Boss in the world is slowly beginning to dawn on you.

    And yes: wherever there is insubordination, there is punishment. That is the way the world turns, pal.

    Comment by LL — March 19, 2014 @ 9:37 am

  34. “the Question as to whether H would have invaded Poland without the Pact is left curiously moot in you arguments”

    Adolph was determined on war vs Poland in August 1939, needing only for the West not to intervene.

    CoGS Gen Halder was confident of crushing Poland before the Red Army could intervene, and of defeating the Red Army if it did.

    Comment by PailiP — March 19, 2014 @ 11:33 am

  35. And I take the position that the West cares not how, or even whether, the Slavs live, only that their gvts submit.

    Proved it in 1939, when the West lifted not a finger to aid the defense of Poland.

    Manstein attributed the rapid conquest of Poland to two factors:

    1) the German high command ran collossal risks in the west to concentrate forces vs Poland

    2) the West took no action whatsoever to exploit that risk.

    Comment by PailiP — March 19, 2014 @ 11:38 am

  36. PailiP —

    England and France had limited options during the Polish offensive for three reasons. First, and most importantly, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pack was in effect, preventing for a while a full-fledged two-front war. Second, Czech military capabilities were no longer there to help in the effort. Third, the Siegfried line had been built, making it possible for the Germans to defend the west in the short run with minimal troops.

    A much better opportunity was there before Munich agreement and the forfeiture of the Czech Sudetenland. At that point, the Czechs could have put up a credible defense against the German armies for a long enough period for the French and English to potentially penetrate the Siegfried line. More importantly, the German military leadership had at that point in time a contingency plan to assassinate Hitler if he drove Germany to a two-front war, which they were ready to put in action.

    However, the real golden opportunity was when Hitler marched into Rheinland with 5,000 troops. No defenses existed against the French. The French could have marched in 100,000 soldiers there with little ability by the Germans to resist. As a result of the embarrassment, the German military brass would have arrested and tried Hitler. Since the French never responded, the Germans were able to build the Siegfried line and make their subsequent eastern operations possible.

    The moral of the story is that capturing or killing Hitlers of the world is always easier early that later. That lesson applies today.

    Comment by ptuomov — March 19, 2014 @ 1:37 pm

  37. Funny how Vladislav and co. whine on about Ukrainian, Latvian, Estonian language policy, they are quite OK with Russian being the only state language of Russia, and with Russian Federation law no. 309 banning the teaching of minority languages in state schools.

    http://www.rferl.mobi/a/Apparently_Russia_Needs_Just_One_National_Component/1614655.html

    Comment by Andrew — March 19, 2014 @ 2:21 pm

  38. PailiP, the main hole in your argument is that the invasion of Poland in 1939 was a joint German Russian operation.

    They even had a joint victory parade in Brest Litovsk and other cities in Poland

    Comment by Andrew — March 19, 2014 @ 2:29 pm

  39. “First, and most importantly, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pack was in effect, preventing for a while a full-fledged two-front war.”

    No M-R Pact does not produce a 2-front war. A two-front war requires land or air action in the West as well as in the East. There was land and air action in the East starting 1 September 1939. There was only naval action in the West between 3 September 1939 and April 1940, and thus no two-front war.

    Getting a two-front war in 1939 required that Western leaders take action, not Soviet leaders.

    Comment by PailiP — March 19, 2014 @ 2:39 pm

  40. “PailiP, the main hole in your argument is that the invasion of Poland in 1939 was a joint German Russian operation.”

    There was no coordination between the German and Soviet armies. The Germans were well over the demarkation line before the Red Army lifted a finger.

    Clearly you’re just upset that the Germans didn’t take all of Poland and launch Op. Barbarossa against the Soviet 1938 border.

    “They even had a joint victory parade in Brest Litovsk and other cities in Poland”

    No, there was a handover ceremony. Guderian’s forces took the Brest fortress all by themselves, then handed it over to the first Soviet unit that showed up.

    Clearly you’re just upset that the Germans had to pay in blood to take Fortress Brest again in 1941.

    Comment by PailiP — March 19, 2014 @ 2:47 pm

  41. @ ptuomov

    Recall that Pilsudski in the early 1930s was warning the West about Hitler and Germany and calling for support, for a Polish invasion of Germany. This was not mere Polish romanticism. In the early 1930′s, prior to Hitler’s military buildup, Poland’s military was larger than Germany’s and more modern though they could not and would not invade all alone. When I was in Silesia I remember seeing the old German fortifications put up in case of the Polish invasion. But the French and the West ignored the Poles then, as they do now.

    Comment by AP — March 19, 2014 @ 6:42 pm

  42. Long but interesting reading along the lines of my post:

    http://josephpilsudski.com/preventive-war-against-hitler_302.html

    Comment by AP — March 19, 2014 @ 6:44 pm

  43. “This is not Russia getting up off its knees. This is Soviet Union climbing out of its grave”.

    (found in Russian Facebook)

    Comment by LL — March 19, 2014 @ 8:21 pm

  44. @ PailiP I guess you failed history.

    The demarcation line was a result of pre invasion joint German Russian planning. Are you really stupid enough to believe otherwise?
    If it was not jointly planned, why a mutually agreed demarcation line?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland#Treaty_negotiations

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#Phase_2:_after_Soviet_Union_invasion_from_the_east

    From the beginning, the German government repeatedly asked Vyacheslav Molotov whether the Soviet Union would keep to its side of the partition bargain.[68][69] The Soviet forces were holding fast along their designated invasion points pending finalization of the five-month-long undeclared war with Japan in the far east. On 15 September 1939 the Ambassadors Molotov and Shigenori Tōgō completed their agreement ending the conflict, and the Nomonhan cease-fire went into effect on 16 September 1939. Now cleared of any “second front” threat from the Japanese, Soviet premier Joseph Stalin ordered his forces into Poland on 17 September.[15] It was agreed that the USSR would relinquish its interest in the territories between the new border and Warsaw in exchange for inclusion of Lithuania in the Soviet “zone of interest”.

    Comment by Andrew — March 20, 2014 @ 1:50 am

  45. Here are data, unexpected for the consumers of the Western mass media. This is a plot of how much each Ukrainian region pays in taxes and how much it gets back.

    KIev, Dnepropetrovsk, Crimea and Donetsk are the regions where people work hard and support the lazy style of other regions. Notice that all the worst leeches are all the Western regions, with the Lviv region, where demonstrating with fascist slogans and flooding Kiev’s Maidan is the main occupation, robbing the other regions the most.

    http://maramus.livejournal.com/248366.html

    http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/uborshizzza/12670586/1989901/1989901_original.gif

    Comment by vladislav — March 20, 2014 @ 2:46 am

  46. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkfpGCAAuw

    Ukraine Crisis – What You’re Not Being Told
    The European and American public are being systematically lied to about the Ukraine crisis.

    Comment by vladislav — March 20, 2014 @ 2:51 am

  47. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0507+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

    European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2012 on the situation in Ukraine 2012/2889(RSP))

    8. Is concerned about the rising nationalistic sentiment in Ukraine, expressed in support for the Svoboda Party, which, as a result, is one of the two new parties to enter the Verkhovna Rada; recalls that racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views go against the EU’s fundamental values and principles and therefore appeals to pro-democratic parties in the Verkhovna Rada not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election,_2014

    Ukrainian presidential election, 2014
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In May 2013, Batkivshchyna (Tymoshenko and current President Turchinov), UDAR (Klitschko), and “Svoboda” (Tyahnybok) vowed to coordinate their actions during the presidential campaign, and they promised “to support the candidate from among these parties who wins a place in the run-off election.[4] In case the election format changes to a single round, the three parties have vowed to agree on a single candidate.[4]

    Comment by vladislav — March 20, 2014 @ 3:04 am

  48. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)#List_of_Svoboda_figures_in_the_current_government

    List of Svoboda figures in the current government

    Oleksandr Sych – Vice Prime Minister
    Andriy Mokhnyk- Minister of Ecology
    Ihor Shvayka – Minister of Agriculture
    Ihor Tenyukh – Minister of Defence
    Borys Tarasyuk – Minister of European Integration
    Oleksandr Shlapak – Minister of Finance
    Andriy Parubiy – National Council of security
    Oleh Makhnitsky – General Prosecutor
    Serhiy Kvit – Education minister
    Dmytro Bulatov – Sports minister
    Tetiana Tchornovol – Head of Anti-corruption bureau

    Svoboda (political party)

    The party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine. The Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU) was registered as a party on October 16, 1995;[1][23] although the original movement was founded on October 13, 1991, in Lviv. Certain political experts claim that the name of the party was an intentional reference to the Nazi Party in Germany, while Social-nationalism is supposedly the same as Nazism.[24][25] Membership was restricted to ethnic Ukrainians, and for a period the party did not accept atheists or former members of the Communist Party. The party also recruited skinheads and football hooligans.[26] In 2004, Tyahnybok was expelled from the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction for a speech calling for Ukrainians to fight against a “Muscovite-Jewish mafia,”[39] and celebrated the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists for having fought “Moscovites, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state.”[26]

    In early 2012, Svoboda was criticized after party member Yuri Sirotyuk said that Ukrainian pop star Gaitana, who is of African descent, was a poor choice to represent Ukraine at the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 because “she does not represent Ukrainian culture.”[58] Sirotyuk stated that “It looks like we don’t want to show our face, and Ukraine will be associated with a different continent, somewhere in Africa.”[58][59]

    In July 2012 the party agreed with Batkivshchyna on the distribution of the candidates in single-seat constituencies (its share was 35 constituencies)[60] in the October 2012 parliamentary elections.[61]

    On March 18, 2014 Svoboda party members published a video online of Svoboda MPs beating acting president of the Ukrainian state broadcaster, Oleksandr Panteleymonov, and trying to force him to sign a resignation letter because he decided to broadcast Putin’s speech on the Crimea ascension to the Russian Federation. Panteleymonov’s broadcast was characterized in-video as ‘”state treason” by Svoboda MP Miroshnychenko who serves as Deputy Head of the Parliament’s Committee on Freedom of Speech and Information.[84][85][86][87] Tyahnybok condemned the attack saying, “such actions were fine yesterday (during the protests), but now they are inappropriate.”[88]

    Political scientist Tadeusz A. Olszański writes that the social-nationalist ideology which Svoboda formerly adhered to has included “openly racist rhetoric” concerning ‘white supremacy’ since its establishment, and that comparisons with National Socialism are legitimized by its history; however, Svoboda’s policy documents contain no racist elements.[2] According to Der Spiegel, “anti-Semitism is part of the extremist party’s platform,” which rejects certain minority and human rights.[24] The paper writes that Svoboda’s earlier “Social-National Party” title was an “intentional reference to Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party,” and that a Svoboda youth leader distributed Nazi propaganda written by Joseph Goebbels in 2013.[24] According to journalist Michael Goldfarb, Svoboda’s platform calls for a Ukraine that is “one race, one nation, one Fatherland,”[dubious – discuss] and criticized the party for honoring the Waffen-SS Galicia (of which the historical role of the unit is contested).[119]

    Svoboda MP in the Rada Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn established a “Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre” in 2005, later changing “Joseph Goebbels” to “Ernst Jünger.”[2] Mykhalchyshyn wrote a book in 2010 citing works by Nazi theorists Ernst Röhm, Gregor Strasser and Goebbels.[39][103][123] Elsewhere Mykhalchyshyn referred to the Holocaust as a “period of Enlightenment in history”.[124]

    Andreas Umland, a political scientist at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy,[51] has asserted in 2010 that “Svoboda was a racist party promoting explicitly ethnocentric and anti-Semitic ideas”.[125] He also believes that internally, Svoboda “is much more radical and xenophobic than what we see”.[64]

    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%AE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

    Comment by vladislav — March 20, 2014 @ 3:48 am

  49. Leader of fascist Right Sector, Dmitry Yarosh, nominated deputy of National Security & Defence Council

    https://twitter.com/Hest_ebooks/status/438797921119920128/photo/1

    Front and Center in Ukraine Race, a Leader of the Far Right

    In one of his first public appearances over the weekend, Mr. Yarosh, who has the buzz cut and tightly coiled mannerisms of a military man, arrived at a hotel conference room in a scrum of bodyguards with pistols, all dressed in black. Newly appointed to the position of deputy director of Ukraine’s security council, he is clearly riding the popularity of the street fighters to stake a claim to a role in the political future of Ukraine.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/world/europe/adept-at-toppling-power-right-wing-ukrainian-learns-to-wield-it.html?_r=0

    Comment by vladislav — March 20, 2014 @ 3:51 am

  50. Yeah, by you Vladislav

    Comment by Andrew — March 20, 2014 @ 3:55 am

  51. Darn I wish Coach Knight was Secretary of State.

    Comment by pahoben — March 20, 2014 @ 11:34 am

  52. Lviv will be much more prosperous as soon as they complete the hot taps on the Russian gas pipeline.

    Comment by pahoben — March 20, 2014 @ 11:48 am

  53. “The demarcation line was a result of pre invasion joint German Russian planning. Are you really stupid enough to believe otherwise?”

    Yet another fail. Guderian, a 3 star general and Panzergroup commander, was not even informed of the existence of the demarcation line, precisely because there was no joint German-Soviet military planning.

    And your quote about the Germans repeatedly asking for the Soviet intervention and being continually refused for over two weeks, again indicates that there was precisely no joint military planning.

    Comment by PailiP — March 20, 2014 @ 12:43 pm

  54. Paili faily, another lie from you I see.

    There is plenty of evidence from both Russian and German archives that the assault on Poland by both Germany and Russia was well planned in advance.

    If you are unable to check the resources given as footnotes in the links given previosly, then I feel you should attend remedial reading classez.

    As to the repeated German requests for the Russians to act AS PLANNED, it just shows the Russians to be as unreliable at keeping to agreements then as they are now.

    Comment by Andrew — March 20, 2014 @ 1:40 pm

  55. Wrong as usual Vladislav

    http://m.censor.net.ua/resonance/268512/zona_proedaniya_kto_kogo_kormit_v_ukraineWhen, during the dismantling of the barricades on metropolitan street Lutheran correspondent “Investgazeta” tried to talk with the staff of “Berkut”, who responded by saying, “We do not want to listen to you, we pay you still do not pay – you all of the subsidized western regions.”
    This statement – not his own invention police polit the leadership. The idea that the eastern regions of Ukraine fed western repeatedly repeated many officials, from the mayor of Donetsk Alexander Lukyanchenko and ending ex-Minister of Social Policy Michael Papiyev.
    Region
    Total transferred to the state budget, bln.
    Total received from the state budget, bln.
    Surplus / deficit, bln.
    Surplus / deficit per capita, c.
    Poltava
    9.60
    4.12
    5.48
    3757
    Kharkiv
    10.38
    3.48
    6.90
    2520
    Dnipropetrovsk
    15.03
    8.85
    6.19
    1878
    Sumy
    2.61
    1.63
    0.98
    865
    Cherkasy
    2.18
    1.97
    0.21
    168
    Lviv
    4.70
    4.34
    0.36
    140
    Rivne
    1.96
    1.97
    -0.01
    -7
    Zhytomyr
    3.24
    3.54
    -0.30
    -235
    Chernivtsi
    0.82
    1.08
    -0.26
    -284
    Khmelnytsky
    0.97
    1.42
    -0.45
    -343
    Kherson
    1.00
    1.40
    -0.40
    -376
    Odessa **
    1.85
    3.30
    -1.46
    -609
    Chernihiv
    1.73
    2.52
    -0.78
    -731
    Kiev
    2.16
    3.49
    -1.33
    -770
    Zaporizhia
    1.77
    4.07
    -2.30
    -1297
    Vinnytsia
    1.63
    3.98
    -2.35
    -1452
    Nikolaev
    0.80
    2.82
    -2.02
    -1727
    Autonomous Republic of Crimea
    1.94
    5.72
    -3.78
    -1919
    Kirovograd
    0.23
    2.24
    -2.01
    -2032
    Donetsk
    3.85
    13.09
    -9.25
    -2126
    Lugansk
    4.35
    9.42
    -5.07
    -2262
    Ivano-Frankivsk
    0.27
    3.41
    -3.14
    -2272
    Volyn **
    1.47
    4.32
    -2.85
    -2738
    Ternopil
    0.92
    4.36
    -3.45
    -3207
    Transcarpathian
    0.98
    5.51
    -4.53
    -3604
    City of Kiev
    50.63
    62.27
    -11.74
    -4072

    As calculations show “Investgazeta”, this assertion is hopelessly outdated.
    In the first half 2013th Donetsk region received from the state budget by 9.2 billion UAH. appropriations, grants and subsidies more than it paid. The result – 25th place overall ranking of twenty-six. More payments from the budget had only a share of Kiev – more than 11 billion (26th place). But Lviv region was in sixth position: up to six months she transferred to the state budget by 356 million UAH. more than it received. However, this is not a record. Best budget balance among all regions demonstrated Kharkiv region – six months away, the budget received almost 7 billion USD net.

    Comment by Andrew — March 20, 2014 @ 1:49 pm

  56. “There is plenty of evidence from both Russian and German archives that the assault on Poland by both Germany and Russia was well planned in advance.’

    Certainly the Germans carefull planned their military actions starting 26 August 1939 very carefully.

    The Soviet military action starting 17 September 1939 was somewhat more rushed, but did have some planning.

    However, there was no joint military planning or coordination between the German and Soviet armed forces.

    The M-R pact specified a demarcation of spheres of influence, which the main German commanders and military staffs were not even informed of.

    Comment by PailiP — March 20, 2014 @ 2:53 pm

  57. US Representative to the UN: “Crimea is no Kosovo! Crimea is no Guam! Crimea is no Mexico! Crimea is no Puerto Rico! Crimea is no Philippines! Crimea is no Cuba! Crimea is no Grenada! Crimea is no Panama! Crimea is no Iraq! Crimea is no Libya! Crimea is no Afghanistan! Crimea is no Syria!…. No, wait, strike that. We aren’t invading Syria till next month. “

    Comment by vladislav — March 20, 2014 @ 6:44 pm

  58. Does vladislav really believe the phony numbers on the chart he links to? Does he really believe that the Donetsk gang would take over the Ukrainian government, and become lords of the epically corrupt political and economic system, just so they could overpay their taxes?

    Actual numbers are here:

    http://censor.net.ua/resonance/268512/zona_proedaniya_kto_kogo_kormit_v_ukraine

    As expected, industrialized regions such as Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv that are not linked to the Donetsk gang did overrpay into the budget. But the Donbas was a parasite. And guess what? Lviv overpaid also.

    Comment by AP — March 20, 2014 @ 8:48 pm

  59. I’m not sure if I posted this here, but check out the list of marginal far right and far left scumbags observing the Crimean referendum:

    http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.de/2014/03/pro-russian-extremists-observe.html

    The same sorts of people are behind many of the smears of the Ukrainians as Nazis:

    http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.de/2014/02/pro-russian-network-behind-anti.html

    Comment by AP — March 20, 2014 @ 9:30 pm

  60. What you fail to understand, AP, is that neither my link nor yours are official data. Instead they are compilations by journalists, the third most deceitful profession after politicians and lawyers. I very much doubt your source, for example because it claims that Kiev is not a “feeder” but a “leech”. This doesn’t sound right at all.

    But let’s look at your source and its conclusions:

    Украину по сути «кормят» три области: Харьковская, добывающая нефть и газ, Днепропетровская, где добывается железная руда, и особенно Полтавская.

    “Ukraine is essentially “fed” by three areas: Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, which produces iron ore, and especially Poltava.”

    Look at the map:

    http://i.infoplease.com/images/mukraine.gif

    All three are in East Ukraine, with Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk being in the heart of Novorossiya (New Russia):

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bfOtkIB0mJE/Ux2VGPHD_vI/AAAAAAAAGX0/qaDToisXJkw/s1600/novoro10.jpg

    Comment by vladislav — March 20, 2014 @ 11:21 pm

  61. AP wrote:

    > I’m not sure if I posted this here, but check out the list of marginal far right and far left scumbags observing the Crimean referendum:
    > The same sorts of people are behind many of the smears of the Ukrainians as Nazis:
    > http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.de/

    I don’t remember seeing his name before, but i looked up “Anton Shekhovtsov”, and it looks like he is a very respected scholar, working in the West (England and Germany), and a co-author of scholarly journal papers together with Andreas Umland, one of the most prominent modern experts on Ukrainian politics. Since you demand proofs for each adjective I use towards Svoboda, I am sure you will provide ample evidence about the “evils” of this Anton Shekhovtsov and his overwhelming role in convincing Andreas Umland, the European Parliament and the entire Western world that the perfectly innocent Svoboda party is evil.

    Comment by vladislav — March 21, 2014 @ 1:34 am

  62. Vladislav, you appear to be confused. Have you looked at the link? Anton Shekhovtsov, a well-respected scholar indeed, described the neo-Nazis, far rightists, and fringe far-leftists who served as election monitors on behalf of the Russian government in Crimea. Anton Shekhovtsov, the expert on the far right, also described how a network of rightwing extremists has been spreading disinformation about the Ukrainian opposition being some sort of Nazis.

    Here is Anton Shekhovtsov on Svoboda:

    “Popular support for Svoboda has dramatically dwindled during 2013, while Svoboda’s leader Oleh Tyahnybok’s presidential rating has fallen from 10.4% in March 2013 to 3.8% at the end of January –beginning of February 2014. Despite the sensationalist, Kremlin-inspired reports claiming that Ukraine was facing “a neo-fascist coup”, Svoboda has been discredited during the revolution and it will hardly be able to regain the support it enjoyed in 2012. Second, Svoboda may be more extreme than the French National Front or the Freedom Party of Austria, but it is probably less extreme than Jobbik, NPD, Golden Dawn, Tricolour Flame, BNP, etc. Finally, even if certain members of Svoboda are indeed represented in the current government, one should understand that this government is transitional and has to deal with only two major problems in new Ukraine: (1) the Kremlin-backed separatism and (2) the economic crisis. I hope that the early parliamentary elections will take place shortly after the presidential elections, and popular support for the far right Svoboda party may decline. It is important not to forget that Svoboda’s successat the 2012 parliamentary elections was largely driven by anti-Ukrainian and pro-Kremlin policies of Yanukovych’s regime, rather than by alleged right-wing radicalisation of the Ukrainian society.”

    http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.de/2014/02/a-comment-on-cas-muddes-article-new.html#more

    Rather different from the ridiculous picture of Ukraine that you present.

    Here is Andreas Umland on Svoboda:

    “I would say it’s far right, but it’s not fascism,” says Andreas Umland, an associate professor of political science at Kyiv Mohyla Academy, who studies far-right groups. “Their typical issues are homophobia, antiabortion, national glory, independence and so on.”

    He also said Svoboda’s support has dropped significantly since the 2012 elections, according to polls.

    So people whom you yourself have praised as experts describe a completely differnet situation than the one you do, about Svoboda and about Ukraine.

    Comment by AP — March 21, 2014 @ 6:21 am

  63. Actually Shekovstov’s article is very supportive of Maidan and the protestersAnton Shekhovtsov’s blog

    3 February 2014
    Pro-Russian network behind the anti-Ukrainian defamation campaign
    Read this article in German, French, Russian and Ukrainian.

    There has been a huge tide of false, incorrect and bloated reports that exaggerate or over-emphasize the significance of the far right in the current Euromaidan protests in Ukraine. A Moscow-based journalist Alec Luhn writes in The Nation about “the Ukrainian nationalism at the heart of ‘Euromaidan’”, a leftist Seumas Milne argues in The Guardian that “in Ukraine, fascists, oligarchs and western expansion are at the heart of the crisis”, while a self-styled “independent geopolitical analyst” Eric Draitser, in his nauseatingly misleading piece for his own Stop Imperialism (later re-published by The Centre for Research on Globalization), even goes so far as to claim that “the violence on the streets of Ukraine [...] is the latest example of the rise of the most insidious form of fascism that Europe has seen since the fall of the Third Reich”.

    These and many other similar articles are all written according to the same pattern, and their aim is to discredit the Euromaidan protests as the manifestations of fascism, neo-Nazism or – at the very least – right-wing extremism.

    Every single mass political mobilisation in Ukraine has been accompanied by the attempts to compromise the popular uprisings by associating them with the extreme right. And not only uprisings or protests, but big events too. For example, a few weeks before the start of the Euro-2012 football championship, British media hysterically accused Ukrainians of racism and xenophobia, and warned that any non-White person going to see football matches in Ukraine would definitely and immediately be killed. After the championship was over, no British media outlet apologised to the Ukrainian people when it turned out that not one racist incident involving Ukraine fans had been reported during the tournament.

    The current campaign to defame the Euromaidan protests is so far the strongest attack on the Ukrainian civil society and democratic politics. Similar attacks took place in the past too, although their intensity never reached today’s level. During the “Orange revolution”, the Ukrainian semi-authoritarian regime under President Leonid Kuchma was also trying to defile democratic presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko by associating him with the extreme right. And here is a story that links the past and the present.

    In the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, which resulted in a dramatic stand-off between Viktor Yanukovych and Viktor Yushchenko, a certain Eduard Kovalenko, leader of the virtual far right party Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA), declared that he and his party would hold a march in support of Yushchenko as a presidential candidate. Yushchenko’s office immediately replied that they never needed that support and did their best to distance from Kovalenko’s sordid initiative. Yet Yushchenko’s office could not hamper that march and, on 26 June 2004, Kovalenko proceeded:

    Eduard Kovalenko (in the centre) leading the UNA march

    At the meeting that was held after the march, Kovalenko declared: “We, the right-wing nationalist party, are supporting the only one candidate from the right-wing forces: Viktor Yushchenko. One Ukraine, one nation, one people, one president!”. And he gave a Hitler salute.

    According to Andriy Shkil, then the leader of the UNA-UNSO, the whole event was staged by Viktor Medvedchuk*, then the Head of the Presidential Administration (under President Leonid Kuchma), who was later involved in the electoral fraud in favour of pro-Russian Yanukovych which triggered the “Orange revolution”. Medvedchuk was (and still is) also known for his close personal relations with Vladimir Putin who is the godfather of Medvedchuk’s daughter.

    Kovalenko’s task was simple: by giving support to Yushchenko under the Nazi-like flags, he was expected to discredit the democratic candidate in the eyes of Western observers. Luckily for Yushchenko, however, the Western media largely did not buy into that frame-up and ignored it.

    But some Western organisations did not. One of those was the eccentric – and apparently non-existent today – British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG) not affiliated, despite the name, to the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. The BHHRG was notorious for claiming that elections in authoritarian Belarus met democratic standards, that Latvia had not been occupied by, but incorporated in, the Soviet Union, that the Romani people of the Czech Republic did not suffer from racism as generally reported, etc. On 24 November 2004, the BHHRG published a report “Shadow of Anti-Semitism over Ukraine’s Disputed Election” in which the authors concluded:

    With friends like these [i.e. Eduard Kovalenko and some others] Mr Yushchenko may feel he has all the People Power he needs to seize the presidency, but should OSCE observers, European parliamentarians, Colin Powell and George W. Bush be undiluted in endorsing a candidate with backing from neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers?

    One of the first web-sites to re-publish the report was the very same Centre for Research on Globalization which has recently re-published Eric Draitser’s piece on Ukraine to which I referred in the very beginning. Another web-site that re-published the BHHRG report, this time in Russian, was the web-site of the Historical Perspective Foundation headed by Russian national-conservative Natalya Narochnitskaya. Since 2008, she has been heading the Paris-based Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, together with British eurosceptic journalist John Laughland as director of studies. Laughland, described as a “right-wing anti-state libertarian and isolationist”, was one of the trustees of the BHHRG.

    John Laughland and Natalya Narochnitskaya

    At least three people who were associated with the BHHRG joined the US-based Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity: Daniel McAdams (Executive Director of the Institute), Mark Almond (former chairman of the BHHRG) and John Laughland. The web-site of the Ron Paul Institute is full of misleading articles on Euromaidan associating it with the extreme right, and various drivels by Mark Almond (who likes to present himself as “professor of history at Oxford University”, but does not even work at Oxford) are particularly prominent (see for example his “Ukrainian Opposition and the West ‘Playing with Fire Siding With Extreme Nationalists’”).

    The Canada-based Centre for Research on Globalization is also interesting. It was founded and is now headed by Michel Chossudovsky; among the Centre’s contributors are Neil Clark, Mahdi D. Nazemroaya and William Engdahl. Chossudovsky, Nazemroaya and Engdahl are members of the scientific committee of the Italian journal Geopolitica, which also includes John Laughland and Natalya Narochnitskaya. Geopolitica is edited by Tiberio Graziani, a fervent advocate of the Eurasian cooperation and a member of the High Council of the International Eurasian Movement led by Russian fascist Aleksandr Dugin. In 2008, Dugin called for the Russian occupation of Georgia, and even made a trip to South Ossetia together with his followers from the Eurasian Youth Union.

    Aleksandr Dugin and his followers in South Ossetia in 2008

    Geopolitica itself is an off-shoot from the Italian extreme right journal Eurasia, Rivista di Studi Geopolitici, published and edited by Italian Nazi-Maoist Claudio Mutti. The scientific board of Eurasia includes Aleksandr Dugin and William Engdahl. In the early January, Engdahl published a piece titled “The Belgrade US-Financed Training Group Behind the Carefully-Orchestrated Kiev Protests”.

    Dugin has been promoting the idea of the destruction of Ukraine and its colonisation by Russia since the early 1990s. He has also been an inspiration for the foundation of the Italian national-socialist organisation Stato & Potenza which openly calls for the annexation of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. Dugin and Mutti have been friends since 1990; Mutti himself is closely associated with Stato & Potenza.

    Aleksandr Dugin and Claudio Mutti in 2012

    All the above-mentioned people and groups form – apparently a small – part of the wide network which is aimed at promoting anti-Western, pro-Russian and pro-Eurasianist ideas in the EU and the US and Canada. Moreover, the following people from this network are official regular contributors to the Kremlin-sponsored Russia Today (RT) TV:

    Michel Chossudovsky (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica)
    Neil Clark
    William Engdahl (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica, Eurasia)
    Eric Draitser (Centre for Research on Globalization, Stop Imperialism)
    Daniel McAdams (ex-BHHRG, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Mahdi D. Nazemroaya (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica)

    And these authors are in the pool of political commentators of yet another Kremlin-sponsored media service, the Voice of Russia:

    Mark Almond (ex-BHHRG, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Michel Chossudovsky (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica)
    Neil Clark
    Eric Draitser (Centre for Research on Globalization, Stop Imperialism)
    Aleksandr Dugin (International Eurasian Movement, Eurasia)
    William Engdahl (Centre for Research on Globalization, Geopolitica, Eurasia)
    Tiberio Graziani (Geopolitica)
    John Laughland (ex-BHHRG, Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Daniel McAdams (ex-BHHRG, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
    Natalya Narochnitskaya (Institute of Democracy and Cooperation)

    The Voice of Russia’s offshoot in France is ProRussia TV which is linked to the French far right National Front and headed by Gilles Arnaud, a former National Front councilor in the Upper Normandy. The National Front’s leader Marine Le Pen has received a warm welcome in Russia last summer. Then, in particular, she met Vice-Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who helped found the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation when he was Russia’s ambassador to NATO (2008-2011). It was during Rogozin’s service in the Russian Mission to NATO when Ukraine and Georgia were denied membership in this organisation.

    Marine Le Pen and Dmitry Rogozin in Moscow, 2013

    Commenting on the Ukrainian government’s decision not to sign the Association Agreement with the EU, Le Pen said that she was disappointed with the EU interference in the Ukrainian matters and recommended to the Ukrainians not “to join this nightmare”, i.e. the EU (although nobody actually discussed Ukraine joining the EU). In this rhetoric, Le Pen was supported by Andreas Mölzer from the far right Freedom Party of Austria, who also suggested – when speaking about Ukraine’s rapprochement with the EU – “to take into account the legitimate interests of Russia [which] is very sensitive to everything that happens in her immediate neighborhood [that] includes Ukraine, which, since the time of Peter the Great, was part of the Russian sphere of influence”.

    The large network consisting of pro-Russian authors and institutions is a hard/extreme right breeding-ground of all kinds of conspiracy theories, Euroscepticism, racism and anti-democratic theories. Today, this is also one of the main sources of the articles, op-eds and statements that are one way or another trying to discredit the Euromaidan protests by associating them either with neo-Nazism or with the alleged US expansionism. The rhetoric of these authors fully conforms to the remarks made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who has recently slammed Western support for Euromaidan and declared: “What does incitement of increasingly violent street protests have to do with promoting democracy? Why don’t we hear condemnations of those who seize and hold government buildings, burn, torch the police, use racist and anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans?”.

    Here is a list of selected publications that this Eurasianist Kremlin-inspired network has produced so far:

    Eric Draitser, “Ukraine and the Rebirth of Fascism in Europe”
    Neil Clark, “When is the far-right acceptable to the West? When it’s in Ukraine”
    Mark Almond, “Ukrainian Opposition and the West ‘Playing with Fire Siding With Extreme Nationalists’”
    John Laughland, “Radicals in Riots? ‘Euromaidan Failed to Separate From Neo-Nazis’”
    Natalya Narochnitskaya on Euromaidan’ radical nationalism
    William Engdahl, “The Belgrade US-Financed Training Group Behind the Carefully-Orchestrated Kiev Protests”, “US, EU meddling in Ukraine battle”

    I don’t know if Alec Luhn writing for The Nation or Seumas Milne writing for The Guardian are part of this pro-Eurasianist network. Despite the fact that their message is similar to that of the many articles produced by the pro-Eurasianist authors, they may simply not know what they are writing about. But those people, who have been associated with the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, Centre for Research on Globalization, International Eurasian Movement and – I presume – many other similar institutions, which are yet to be revealed, are obviously ideologically driven anti-democratic activists engaged in the anti-Ukrainian and, eventually, anti-European subversive operations.

    Comment by Andrew — March 21, 2014 @ 6:41 am

  64. Medvedchuk, the Yanukovich ally and close friend of Putin, is also the son of a Nazi collaborator. No, not a Banderist but the real thing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Medvedchuk

    Medvedchuk’s father, Volodymyr Medvedchuk, avoided being drafted into the Red Army during the “Great Patriotic War” due to his Pott disease. During Nazi Germany’s occupation of Ukraine he worked for the German administration in a labor camp from April 1942 to November 1943. The section provided enforced deportation of the local able-bodied Ukrainian youth to work in Nazi Germany. After the retreat of German forces Volodymyr Meddvedchuk was arrested by SMERSH on August 7, 1954 and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment and four of exile in Siberia “for participation in Ukrainian nationalist activities”.

    This scum followed in his father’s footsteps, this time working for the Soviets as a dissident-persecutor:

    In April 1974, Medvedchuk and two of his comrades were convicted by the court of Lenin Raion (today the court of Pechersk Raion) in Kiev under article 102 of the Criminal Code of the Ukrainian SSR (beating up a minor). In June of the same year the court collegiate in criminal cases of the Kiev city court overturned the verdict of the court of Lenin Raion and sent the case back for further investigation. In November 1974 the case was closed due to lack of evidence. Medvedchuk was acquitted and reinstated at the university.
    He graduated from the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv in 1978 as a lawyer and next year he became a member of the Kiev City Collegiate of Attorneys.[2] Medvedchuk defended poet Vasyl Stus during his trial in 1980.[7][8] In the closing speech from the defence Medvedchuk stated all of Stus’ crimes deserved punishment; he also told the court to make sure that the defendant fulfilled his daily norm at the factory where he worked at the time, despite alleged serious stomach problems.[7]

    Comment by AP — March 21, 2014 @ 7:12 am

  65. The draconian measures that Obama and EU have imposed on some Russian oligarchs by arresting some of their assets, are working already and are forcing Russians to beg. To beg USA to arrest not just the assets but the Russian oligarchs themselves, along with Ukrainian oligarchs that have come to power in the new post-revolution Ukraine.

    Comment by vladislav — March 21, 2014 @ 3:45 pm

  66. US foreign policy experts are now beginnin got realize that the responsibility for this entire Ukrainian crisis lies with the EU and the USA, who in their geopolitical and geo-economic greed, gave Yanukovich the ultimatum: sever economic and political ties with Russia and Kazakhstan, or else you don’t get to enjoy good trade with EU.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/calculating-a-u-s-response-to-russias-claim-in-crimea/

    Calculating a U.S. response to ‘new reality’ of Russia’s claim in Crimea

    JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS: I think we have to be operating on several different levels, some of which appear to be somewhat contradictory.

    We have got to impose some costs, even if they’re very, very minor and they leave room for escalation. We have to be talking seriously to the Russians, because, as horrible as what they have done is, it is crucial for us to understand that a spark of this was a terrible European mistake, which the U.S. allowed to happen, which was to make the integration, economic integration agreement an either/or choice.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: With — with — you mean with Ukraine?

    JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS: With the E.U. and Ukraine. And what that said to the Russians was, Ukraine is no longer a bridge between East and West. It’s a beachhead for the West right up against our border. And that, we know, was the Russian red line.

    So someone has to be talking at a very — at the most senior level to get at that issue, and to say, we recognize that Ukraine needs to be that bridge. Long-term, strategically, that ought to be our position.

    Jessica Mathews is the President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Comment by vladislav — March 21, 2014 @ 4:20 pm

  67. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/u-s-sanctions-will-punish-russia-will-deter/

    U.S. sanctions will punish Russia, but will they deter?

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Richard Betts, what do you think the administration’s posture should be and should have been?

    RICHARD BETTS: Well, I think the original mistake was, along with the Europeans, insisting on forcing Ukraine to choose between the West and Moscow.

    Given history, given Ukraine’s position, given the way the Russians have been treated in the past 20 years and their more recent desire to push back, for all those reasons, I think it would have made much more sense to try to strike a middle course, which would have avoided escalating the confrontation.

    Richard Betts is a member of the National Security Council, he was in the Carter administration. He’s the director of the International Security Policy Program at Columbia University.

    Comment by vladislav — March 21, 2014 @ 4:28 pm

  68. http://jackmatlock.com/2014/02/ukraine-and-the-united-states/#more-630

    Ukraine and the United States
    Posted on February 8, 2014

    Implications of Victoria Nuland’s Candid Remark

    It would seem that the United States may be competing with representatives of the European Union for influence on the composition of a new Ukrainian government. If that is in fact the policy of President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry, I believe it needs to be re-assessed without delay.

    Most of the press and punditry comment on the protests that have erupted in Kyiv since President Yanukovych refused to sign the EU association agreement in Vilnius have pictured the struggle as one that will determine the future of Ukraine. If Ukraine begins to meet the EU terms it will become a prosperous, democratic “Western” country. If, on the other hand, it accepts a loan and cheap gas from Russia, it will be a Russian vassal with no real independence. All sides to this turmoil seem to assume that this is the choice being made. I think they are all wrong.

    Association with the EU will not automatically or even easily solve Ukraine’s problems. Aligning the Ukrainian economy with Russia, on the other hand, will not mean permanent subjugation. It will perpetuate the present uncompetitive nature of Ukraine’s economy and become a serious drain on Russia’s finances and very quickly bring an increase in anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine, including the East. Current Russian policy should carry the tag line: “how to turn even friendly, Russian-speaking Ukrainians against Russia.”

    To understand why I believe this is so, consider the following basic facts:

    1. Ukraine’s most serious problems are internal, not external. They must be solved by Ukrainians, not by outsiders.

    2. Ukraine will never be free, prosperous and democratic unless it has friendly relations with Russia.

    3. So far, no Ukrainian leader who can unite the country has emerged and all the political parties have their strength almost entirely in either east or west.

    4. The interference of outside powers has exacerbated the regional division rather than healing it. The Yushchenko government following the “Orange Revolution” was no more successful in uniting the country and modernizing the economy than has been the Yanukovych government– though it may have been not as blatantly corrupt.

    So what if President Yanukovych had signed the EC association agreement? The money available from the IMF would not have staved off bankruptcy very long and would have required unpopular austerity measures affecting ordinary people much more than the oligarchs. The government would resist creating an independent judiciary—which in any case takes decades, not months or years—and very soon there would be complaints that “democracy doesn’t work.” (Of course, Russian policy would do all it could to make sure nothing worked very well.) The upshot would be that, most likely, in a year to 18 months, and maybe even sooner, most Ukrainians would blame the EU and the West for their misery.

    And if the Russian promise of a loan and cheap gas is renewed to some Ukrainian government, that too would do nothing to promote the reform and modernization the Ukrainian government and economy desperately need. Ukraine would be a basket case and a serious drain on Russian resources. And Ukrainians, even those in the East, would begin to blame Russia for their misery. “If only we had signed that EU association agreement…!”

    In sum, I believe it has been a very big strategic mistake—by Russia, by the EU and most of all by the U.S.—to convert Ukrainian political and economic reform into an East-West struggle. There will be no winners if Ukraine is considered an appendage of one side or the other.

    At this late date, developing a cooperative approach with Russia to assist Ukraine in becoming a more united and more prosperous state, would seem a hopeless task. Given present attitudes on both sides, it would be a hopeless task for the United States acting independently of the EU, which is one reason the EU should take the lead.

    In both the short and long run only an approach that does not appear to threaten Russia is going to work. All the parties need to go back to square one, assess the realities, and start thinking about how Ukraine and Russia can move both their economies into the 21st century.

    Comment by vladislav — March 21, 2014 @ 5:49 pm

  69. http://www.jta.org/2014/02/03/news-opinion/world/ukrainian-jewish-group-asks-israel-to-help-with-security#ixzz2wZwYtKjK

    Ukrainian Jewish group asks Israel to help with security
    February 3, 2014 7:16am

    (JTA) — A Ukrainian Jewish group asked for Israel’s help in meeting the community’s security needs. The request came Monday from the Ukrainian Jewish Committee following the cancellation of a discussion on anti-Semitism in Ukraine that was scheduled to take place under the auspices of the Israeli Knesset’s Committee for Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs.

    “We regret this decision [to cancel] based on political [considerations] and believe that time is critical, especially now,” Eduard Dolinsky, director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, told JTA.

    He added, “We turned to Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman and Deputy Minister Zeev Elkin with the request to help to arrange a delegation of Israeli security professionals to evaluate the security needs of Jewish institutions and organizations in Ukraine. This request is based on a survey we conducted among community leaders.”
    Several attacks against Jews were recorded over the past two months as protracted and violent demonstrations compromised the rule of law in several Ukrainian cities.

    The riots are being led by opposition forces protesting the government’s refusal to deepen Ukraine’s relationship with the European Union in favor of its relationship with Russia, and over the government’s crackdown on protests.
    The Russian-language Israeli news site izrus.co.il reported the discussion was postponed amid calls by unspecified parties to have to the committee study additional information. In off-the-record talks, Israeli lawmakers told the news website that the crisis has complicated Israel’s ties with Ukraine.

    Dolinsky said that Jewish communities across Ukraine have suspended cultural activities since the riots erupted.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/289266#.Uy0iPvldU_0

    News Brief 3/19/2014, Adar Bet 17, 5774

    Knesset United Against Anti-Semitism in Ukraine

    Knesset members from both the opposition and the coalition united in an emergency session on Wednesday to deal with rising anti-Semitism in Ukraine. The MKs met with a delegation of human rights activists from Ukraine.

    Comment by vladislav — March 21, 2014 @ 11:43 pm

  70. The revolutionary government appears to be suicidal:

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/496509.html

    Ukraine to Introduce Visas For Russians, Security Head Says

    Comment by vladislav — March 22, 2014 @ 12:31 am

  71. Come to think of it, they had little choice.

    Comment by vladislav — March 22, 2014 @ 12:36 am

  72. Vladislav, having “good relations with Russia” would make it impossible to have a free functioning democracy in Ukraine.

    Free and pluralistic democracy is an anathema to Russia.

    As for being forced to make a choice, it was and is Russia that forces that choice upon countries like Georgia and Ukraine by it’s constant interference in their internal affairs, by it’s armed incursions and invasions, by it’s creation of insugencies, by it’s politically motivated banning of exports, and numerous other hostile acts.

    Given the way Russia has behaved, and in particular the actions of “tourists” in Ukraine in revent weeks, not requiring Russians to obtain a visa would be suicidal.

    It is quite obvious from your posts that you have no interest in the rights of Ukraine, Georgia, or any other former Soviet republic, to develop democracy, to decide for themselves where their national interests lie, in the restoration of their own cultures after the crimes of Russian occupation and the policy of Russification.

    If Russia wants to have good relations with these countries, and I do believe it is possible and desirable, then Russia needs to fundamentally change it’s behaviour towards them. Both the Russian government and it’s people need to understand that they must recognise the sovereignty and rights of their neighbors, cease to destabilise them, cease to occupy their territory, cease to provoke separatism, admit to and apologise for past wrongs, and attempt to act as a friendly nation.

    Until this happens, these nations will almost always choose to try and obtain security by joining NATO, and will shun Russia.

    Comment by Andrew — March 22, 2014 @ 2:41 am

  73. Andrew, was your long post above trying to expound to yourself what I wrote in one sentence:

    > Come to think of it, they had little choice.

    I guess, to the wise, one word sufficed. To the fools, a 100 page exposition is too short.

    Comment by vladislav — March 22, 2014 @ 10:44 pm

  74. @ vladislav

    I’m sorry, but you demonstrate very poor knolwedge don’t know much about Ukraine when you wrote:

    “All three are in East Ukraine, with Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk being in the heart of Novorossiya (New Russia)”

    Here is a map of “New Russia”, the name of the region of southern Ukraine that experienced Slavic settlement (over 60% ethnic Ukrainian btw, despite the name New Russia) after the 1790s:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/New_Russia_on_territory_of_Ukraine.png

    Kharkiv is of course nowhere near New Russia – it is in a region called Slobodska Ukraina (aka Sloboda Ukraine; use google and learn about it). And Dnipropterovsk, rather than being in the heart of New Russia, in on the very northern edge of that region; the border runs through the city. In fact, Dnipropterovsk is leaning strongly in favor of Ukraine and has a relatively weak pro-Russian separatist feeling. Poltava is, of course, in the left bank Ukraine.

    Comment by AP — March 25, 2014 @ 10:36 am

  75. AP,

    My knowledge of old Ukrainian history is indeed limited compared with specialists on Ukrainian history. However, I am glad that you don’t dispute your own source that points out that it is the East Ukrainian regions of Poltava, Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov that are feeding the rest of the country with their sweat.

    Comment by vlad — March 25, 2014 @ 5:53 pm

  76. Vladislav,

    You should have read further.

    “Кроме этих трех областей, «в плюс» в первом полугодии работали лишь Сумская, Черкасская и Львовская, а у Ровенской доходы и расходы практически равны.”

    So while Lviv was not feeding others, it was feeding itself. The largest parasite being fed by Kharkiv, Poltava and Dnipropetrovsk was the Donbas.

    Comment by AP — March 25, 2014 @ 7:41 pm

  77. AP,

    A West Ukrainian acquaintance of mine wrote 2 years ago:

    “> OTOH Sovoks are the natives of Donetsk. Allowing them to have their own Sovokistan would not be a hitorcial injustice.”

    Would you agree with this opinion today?

    Comment by vlad — March 25, 2014 @ 11:13 pm

  78. Vladislav,

    If parasitic, crime-prone, politically dysfunctional, demographic catastrophe Donetsk could be cleanly removed, in way that would not result in any further fragmentation, this would be good for Ukraine. The problem is that an attempt to expel that region would have a very high risk of the loss of other, useful, regions and so would probably not be worth it. Losing Donbas would not be worth losing Kharkiv also (as well as the entire Black Sea coast).

    But hypothetically, if there were a guarantee that the Donbas and only the Donbas would go – this would be good for Ukraine.

    Comment by AP — March 26, 2014 @ 12:47 am

  79. Nice to see consistency on your part. How about the area even further to the east of Donetsk – Lugansk? It has a special meaning to me because my adoptive grandmother (the only grandparent whom I knew, and who raised me) was a daughter of Ukrainian peasants from the Lugansk area.

    http://i.infoplease.com/images/mukraine.gif

    Comment by vlad — March 26, 2014 @ 1:18 am

  80. AP, what do you think about this article describing the heroics of the Heroes of Ukraine form OUN/UPA:

    http://stabratchik.narod.ru/p23.htm

    Comment by vlad — March 26, 2014 @ 2:06 am

  81. @ Vladislav,

    Luhansk is part of the Donbas region. It is actually even more parasitical than Donetsk – no loss to Ukraine, as long as it doesn’t drag Kharkiv away along with it.

    I have no comment about the link to the article about UPA put up on a Russian website of questionable credibility.

    BTW here is an interesting poll showing % of people in each region who want Ukraine to unite with Russia, taken in mid February 2014*:

    http://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=236&page=1&t=3

    AR Crimea 41.0
    Donetsk 33.2
    Lugansk 24.1
    Оdessa 24.0
    Dnipropetrovsk 13.8
    Kharkiv 15.1
    Zaporizhzhya 16.7
    Vinnytsya 2.7
    Kyiv (city) 5.3
    Poltava 4.3
    Kyiv (region) 6.4
    Lviv 0.0

    :::::::::::::::::

    Based on peoples’ attitudes, it appears that none of the “productive three” (Poltava, Dnipropetrovsk, or Kharkiv) are in play in terms of wanting to join Russia. Only the Donbas and the south appear to be in play, but none of these are as pro-Russian as Crimea; rather they are “swing states.”

    * Note that “not joining Russia” was not an option on this survey. So that fact that only 41% of Crimeans wanted Ukraine to unite with Russia doesn’t mean that 59% did not want this. It could mean that 35% did not want this and the rest were undecided. Also, the question was not about one’s particular region joining Russia, but union between Ukraine and Russia. A Crimean could have wanted Crimea to join Russia but did not feel Ukraine as a whole ought to join Russia. For this reason the poll results shouldn’t be taken as likely numbers in a local referendum. However they are probably an accurate relative measure, for comparative purposes, of regional affinity to joining Russia. So, Donetsk as about 75% as pro-Russian as Crimea. Luhansk and Odessa are about 60% as pro-Russian as Crimea. Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk are only about a third as pro-Russian as Crimea.

    Comment by AP — March 26, 2014 @ 11:44 am

  82. Ukrainian presidential opinion poll:

    Looks like Poroshenko with an easy win in the second round. Tiahnybok with 2.5% and Yarosh with 1.4% support; so much for the fairy tale about Ukraine going fascist:

    http://www.socis.kiev.ua/ua/press/rezultaty-sotsiolohichnoho-doslidzhennja-elektoralni-orijentatsiji-ukrajintsiv.html

    No parliamentary elections are scheduled (yet). But it looks like, among decided voters, Svoboda will be down to 5.2% from 10% and that the the moderate pro-Western parties (those of Yatsenuk/Tymoshenko, Klitschko, and Poroshenko) will collectively have over 50% without Svoboda’s help although this will depend on what those 20% who are undecided will do.

    I imagine Russia will not be pleased and will want to disrupt possible elections.

    Comment by AP — March 26, 2014 @ 11:53 am

  83. AP, what do you think about Yulia Tymoshenko’s plans to exterminate the 8 million “katsaps” (a slur for “ethnic Russians”) living in Ukraine with nuclear weapons? How realistic are they? How does she plan to accomplish that, given that ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians live in an intermixed way, and most families are part-Russian and part-Ukrainian?

    Is she simply going to nuke East and South Ukrainian cities of Odessa, Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk, Dnepropetrovsk, Kherson etc? Ho wpractical is it? Won’t the nuclear radiation and fallout also destroy Central and West Ukraine?

    Moreover, the radiation and fallout will also destroy many NATO countries like Poland and Turkey. Shoukdn’t Timoshenko’s NATO bosses tell her to come up with another,more practical plan of committing genocide against East Ukrainians that wouldn’t negatively effect NATO countries? For example, I am sure the Germans and the British can share with her their expertise in the proper methodology of concentration and death camps.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEFCmJ-VGhA

    Shufrich: Now about the Crimea I tell to you, of course I’m shocked.

    Timoshenko: I’m ready myself now to take a machine gun and shoot this bastard in the forehead.

    Shufrich: Yesterday I’ve told if a military conflict will arise I’m an officer reservist and my elder son is officer reservist we’ll take arms and go to defend the country

    Timoshenko: Yes, true. It overcome all the boundaries, damn. Fuck, we need to take arms and kill these damned katsaps [ethnic Russians] together with their lieder. Timoshenko: I do regret I have no possibility to be there and it wasn’t I who had headed these events. They would have gotten dick/prick/cock instead of Crimea.

    Shufrich: You know I had thought the same. It will not happen this if you be in position maybe… Though we had no enough of force but…

    Timoshenko: I would found the way how to kill these assholes… and I hope I use all my contacts, I will raise the whole world as soon as I have a chance, so that there won’t be even a burnt ground left where Russia used to be.

    Shufrich: There was the meeting of our fraction’s leaders in the morning and I talked with Viktor after that. He said: “But what to do with other 8 millions of ethnic Russians on Ukraine’s territory? They’re pariahs now…”

    Timoshenko: Damn, they should be killed with nuclear weapons.

    //////////////////////

    BTW, the paradoxical side of this genocide speech is that they talk in their native Russian language, and as native Russian-speakers, may themselves qualify as ethnic Russians whom Timoshenko intends to exterminate.

    Comment by vlad — March 26, 2014 @ 7:33 pm

  84. Shufrich: Now about the Crimea I tell to you, of course I’m shocked.

    Timoshenko: I’m ready myself now to take a machine gun and shoot this bastard in the forehead.

    Shufrich: Yesterday I’ve told if a military conflict will arise, I’m an officer reservist and my elder son is officer reservist, we’ll take arms and go to defend the country

    Timoshenko: Yes, true. It crossed all the boundaries, damn. Fuck, we need to take arms and kill these damned katsaps [ethnic Russians] together with their leader. Timoshenko: I do regret I have no possibility to be there and it wasn’t I who had headed these events. They would have gotten dick/prick/cock instead of Crimea.

    Shufrich: You know I had thought the same. It would not have happened if you had been in this position, maybe… Though we didn’t have enough of force, but…

    Timoshenko: I would found a way how to kill these assholes… and I hope I use all my contacts, I will raise the whole world as soon as I have a chance, so that there won’t be even a burnt ground left where Russia used to be.

    Shufrich: There was the meeting of our fraction’s leaders in the morning and I talked with Viktor after that. He said: “But what to do with other 8 millions of ethnic Russians on Ukraine’s territory? They’re pariahs now…”

    Timoshenko: Damn, they should be killed with nuclear weapons.

    Comment by vlad — March 26, 2014 @ 7:37 pm

  85. Conversations are funny when taken out of context, aren’t they?

    BTW, Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv and Kherson oblasts are 79%, 71%, and 82% Ukrainian, respectively.

    Comment by AP — March 26, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

  86. > Conversations are funny when taken out of context, aren’t they?

    And in what context would you consider the desire to exterminate 20% of your own citizens based purely on ethnicity, using nuclear weapons, to be perfectly normal and “a demonstration of European values”?

    If Putin expressed in a private conversation a desire to exterminate 20% of Russian citizens based purely on ethnicity (say, “hohols” or “zhids” or “churkas”), using nuclear weapons, would you say he is ready for EU membership?

    And keep in mind that Timoshenko (along with Yaytsenyukh and the Boxer) is by far the most “moderate” among the new coalition members.

    Comment by vlad — March 26, 2014 @ 11:57 pm

  87. > BTW, Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv and Kherson oblasts are 79%, 71%, and 82% Ukrainian, respectively.

    Despite what Timoshenko says, ethnicity here is irrelevant. What’s important is language and culture. The definition of “Russian”, as per Vladimir Dahl’s encyclopedia, is: “A Russian is a person who thinks in Russian and considers himself a Russian”.

    > BTW here is an interesting poll

    Your poll is total crap. The people were asked if they wanted to commit a crime: integrate with Russia. The former governor of Kharkov and a presidential candidate Dobkin wa srecently thrown in jail simply for wanting to model Ukriane after the USA and Gemrnay, i.e., federalization.

    Of course, few people are suicidal enough to admit to a crime to an unknown pollster and face many years in jail.

    To see how full of crap this poll is, just look at Crimea:

    > AR Crimea 41.0

    FYI, ethnic composition:

    Russians 58.32%
    Ukrainians 24.32%
    Crimean Tatars 12.03%

    According to the census mentioned, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 11.4% – Crimean Tatar; and 10.1% – Ukrainian.

    Do you REALLY think that many people in Crimea, other than the 12.03% Crimean Tatars and those 10.1% Ukrainians, who settled in Crimea since 1991, did NOT want to re-unite Ukraine with Russia?! Really?

    Recall that 97% of Crimeans voted for a much less attractive choice – re-unification of Crimea with Russia WITHOUT the re-unification of the rest of Ukraine with Russia. Yes, the illegal dismissal of Yanukovich and the coming to power of criminals and fascists in Kiev greatly increased the number of people who wanted to get out ASAP, but still…

    BTW, did you notice my post about a very clever subtle poll that Gallup took? What they did is ask the respondent in the beginning: “In what language would you like to hear our questions: Ukrainian or Russian”? 83% of Ukrainians as a whole preferred to speak Russian, and only 17% – Ukrainian:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109228/russian-language-enjoying-boost-postsoviet-states.aspx

    Russian as the Mother Tongue

    Gallup Poll results underscore the prevalence of national language use over Russian; when asked in what language they preferred to conduct the Gallup interview, only respondents in the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus overwhelmingly chose Russian.

    Results are based on face-to-face interviews conducted in 2006 and 2007 with approximately 1,000 residents, aged 15 or older, in each country. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

    Comment by vlad — March 27, 2014 @ 12:24 am

  88. Hey, AP, for a change of pace, let me share a song by a Ukrainian group that I like a lot:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnUOG2XoKmI
    Джанго – Была не была

    And an old one from West Ukraine:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV_4XvldJw0
    Chervona Ruta – Zinkevych, Yaremchuk, Ivasyuk

    And one by a Russian group (most likely, lesbians, just to make Andrew foam with homophobic hysteria and call me a “pederast”):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpij5mu4gpc
    Ночные Снайперы – Ты дарила мне розы

    Comment by vlad — March 27, 2014 @ 1:33 am

  89. And here’s Ukrainian rap:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40OEMfQ_UBc
    Серега Черный Бумер

    And here’s a Ukrainian army recruitment ad,parodying the above song/clip:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdhPToP7S2k
    Реклама Украинской армии

    Comment by vlad — March 27, 2014 @ 1:50 am

  90. Here is an intercepted radio discussion by the Berkut soldiers telling each other about armed snipers and shootings that they have suddenly detected in the windows of “Hotel Ukraina” and trying to coordinate their response:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C87SiChUpp4
    Снайперы на майдане Радиоперехват Война на Украине

    Those were the snipers who slaughtered 100+ fellow Maidan demonstrators and an unannounced number of Berkut men, and who facilitated the ouster of Yanukovich and the establishment of the new junta. No wonder the EU and Estonian foreign ministers believe that these snipers were hired by the “new Maidan coalition”, i.e., by the junta.

    Comment by vlad — March 27, 2014 @ 2:25 am

  91. “And in what context would you consider the desire to exterminate 20% of your own citizens based purely on ethnicity, using nuclear weapons, to be perfectly normal and “a demonstration of European values”?

    Who said this was her desire? After Beslan many normal Russians made some angry comment about killing all the Chechens or Muslims or Caucasians. After 9-11 a lot of Americans made some comments about killing all the Arabs, nuking the entire Arab world, etc. And after the invasion of Crimea Tymoshenko made private comments about nuking Russians.

    “The definition of “Russian”, as per Vladimir Dahl’s encyclopedia, is: “A Russian is a person who thinks in Russian and considers himself a Russian”.

    I don’t care about Vladimir Dahl but most people in the Republic of Ireland speak English, few even understand Gaelic, yet no one suggests that they are Englishmen. It takes a special kind of nationalist to claim people belong to your nation even thought they insist they do not, based purely on language of everyday use.

    “BTW, did you notice my post about a very clever subtle poll that Gallup took? What they did is ask the respondent in the beginning: “In what language would you like to hear our questions: Ukrainian or Russian”? 83% of Ukrainians as a whole preferred to speak Russian, and only 17% – Ukrainian

    Sorry, this poll had a small sample and its sample characteristics were unclear: was it limited to urban areas? Similar polls involving 10,000s of people showed about a 50/50 split in terms of language preference for the poll. However I’m not surprised that you would really believe that only 17% of Ukrainians prefer to use Ukrainian. It’s a fantasy to cling to as Russia loses its grip over much of Ukraine.

    “Your poll is total crap. The people were asked if they wanted to commit a crime: integrate with Russia.

    Please read my comment fully; otherwise you won’t produce such silly responses.

    Comment by AP — March 27, 2014 @ 8:11 am

  92. A link to another, massive study, on language in Ukraine:

    http://www.kiis.com.ua/materials/articles_HVE/16_linguaethnical.pdf

    Page 4. Over 22,000 interviews, representative of the country. When asked which language the people would want to conduct the interview in (what the Gallup poll measured), there was no statistical difference between preference for Russian or Ukrainian (that is, about a 50/50 split).

    When asked which language was easier to speak, 41.2% Ukrainian, 44.2% Russian, 14.5% both equally in 2002.

    Sorry to shatter your fantasy, vlad.

    Comment by AP — March 27, 2014 @ 8:14 am

  93. > sample characteristics were unclear: was it limited to urban areas?

    No, it was a uniform sampling from the entire space of Ukrainian residents.

    > Sorry, this poll had a small sample

    AP, as an expert on statistics and a man who bragged that mathematics (the Greek word meaning “learning”, “study”, “science”) is “not a science” and that he hires world-renown mathematicians to do his taxes and test his equipment, what would you calculate the margin of error to be in this particular uniform sampling of 1000 Ukrainian residents? What do you put the variance of this sampling at? Does your calculation agree with that of the Gallop statistics experts (“one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points”), or do you, in your superior intelligence, have your own mathematics?

    Comment by vlad — March 27, 2014 @ 1:40 pm

  94. > Over 22,000 interviews, representative of the country. When asked which language the people would want to conduct the interview in (what the Gallup poll measured), there was no statistical difference between preference for Russian or Ukrainian (that is, about a 50/50 split).

    AP, I have wasted too much time in the past trying to explain basic human logic to you with no progress. Let me try this time again. When asked a direct question, people often say what’s politically correct. Asking a direct question: “What is your native language?” will cause many respondents not to be sincere. So, what the scientists at Gallup did was ask this indirectly by asking in the beginning: ““In what language would you like to hear our questions: Ukrainian or Russian”? Do you get it now?

    Comment by vlad — March 27, 2014 @ 1:50 pm

  95. > BTW here is an interesting poll showing % of people in each region who want Ukraine to unite with Russia, taken in mid February 2014*:

    “Levada Centre conducted representative for Russia public opinion poll on February, 21-25 2014 and interviewed 1603 respondents older than 18 years in 130 settlements in 45 districts of the country.”

    How many regions are there in Ukraine? Twenty or so? 1603 divided by 20 is an average of 80 people per regional sample. And you trust the results of this poll? But the Gallup poll with the sample size of 1000 is “too small” for you?! Clearly, either you take me for an idiot, or you are one yourself.

    Comment by vlad — March 27, 2014 @ 1:56 pm

  96. vlad,

    I really need to read more carefully.

    “Asking a direct question: “What is your native language?” will cause many respondents not to be sincere. So, what the scientists at Gallup did was ask this indirectly by asking in the beginning: ““In what language would you like to hear our questions: Ukrainian or Russian”? Do you get it now?

    The study involving 22,000 subjects used the same methodology. When asked which language the people would want to conduct the interview in (what the Gallup poll measured), there was no statistical difference between preference for Russian or Ukrainian (that is, about a 50/50 split).

    Do you get it now?

    Also the Gallup poll doesn’t give any details about the sample of 1,000 people it used. All it says is “Results are based on face-to-face interviews conducted in 2006 and 2007 with approximately 1,000 residents, aged 15 or older, in each country. ” It doesn’t say where in each country. They could all have been interviewed in Kiev, a mostly Russian-speaking city. Or in a few big cities. You have been reduced to making things up about surveys that you claim support your fantasy.

    So, a massive survey involving 22,000 people from throughout the country showed about an even split of preference for Ukrainian and Russian, while a limited Gallup survey of only 1,000 people of unknown location within Ukraine had a wildly different result.

    Comment by AP — March 27, 2014 @ 5:31 pm

  97. BTW here is an interesting poll showing % of people in each region who want Ukraine to unite with Russia, taken in mid February 2014*:

    “Levada Centre conducted representative for Russia public opinion poll on February, 21-25 2014 and interviewed 1603 respondents older than 18 years in 130 settlements in 45 districts of the country.”

    Um, I wasn’t writing about the Levada poll. Do you even know what is going on?

    You apparently were unable to read this:

    Public opinion poll was conducted by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation together with Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in the period between February, 8-18 2014. 2032 respondents were interviewed in all the districts of Ukraine (including Kyiv) and in Crimea according to the random sample, which was representative for all the population of Ukraine older than 18 years. Statistical error doesn’t exceed 2,2% (without design -effect).

    Did you know that a sample of 2,032 is more than twice as large as a sample of 1,000?

    “Clearly, either you take me for an idiot, or you are one yourself.

    I think you have demonstrated proof of this. Thank you.

    Comment by AP — March 27, 2014 @ 5:37 pm

  98. > The study involving 22,000 subjects used the same methodology. When asked which language the people would want to conduct the interview in (what the Gallup poll measured), there was no statistical difference between preference for Russian or Ukrainian (that is, about a 50/50 split). Do you get it now?

    No. Here’s why:

    1. The article is in Ukrainian. I can’t read it without consulting a dictionary every 15 seconds. Please provide English or Russian translations of the relevant text with context.

    2. My understanding is that this poll of 22,000 subjects was conducted not by the world’s greatest expert on polls and statistics – Gallup – but by some unknown to me group of people whose integrity, objectivity and mathematical expertise is unknown to me.

    3. It was conducted in 1991-2003, long time ago. Moreover, that was the time of rule of a criminal gentleman named Kuchma, a man who couldn’t limit his lying to less than 10 lies per second. I will never forget that after the Ukrainian military, in its infinite competence, shot down a Tel-Aviv – Novosibirsk airliner with 70+ people on board, Kuchma held a press conference in which he said: “Let’s not make a tragedy out of this… Unfortunately, nobody in our military has been able to read the instructions how to use our military equipment because this equipment comes from the Soviet era, and all the instructions are written in a foreign language: Russian.” Interestingly, he made this speech in his native language: Russian.

    Let me repeat the statistics of the Gallup poll:

    Results are based on face-to-face interviews conducted in 2006 and 2007 with approximately 1,000 residents, aged 15 or older, in each country. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

    Comment by vlad — March 29, 2014 @ 1:59 am

  99. >>> sample characteristics were unclear: was it limited to urban areas?

    >> No, it was a uniform sampling from the entire space of Ukrainian residents.

    > It doesn’t say where in each country. They could all have been interviewed in Kiev, a mostly Russian-speaking city. Or in a few big cities. You have been reduced to making things up about surveys that you claim support your fantasy.

    Sorry I assumed that you knew how statistical polls are conducted. Here are some explanations in simple layman’s terms for you to read:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx

    How does Gallup polling work?

    After Gallup collects and processes survey data, each respondent is assigned a weight so that the demographic characteristics of the total weighted sample of respondents match the latest estimates of the demographic characteristics of the adult population available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Gallup weights data to census estimates for gender, race, age, educational attainment, and region.

    When respondents to be interviewed are selected at random, every adult has an equal probability of falling into the sample. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, either a traditional stand-alone poll or one night’s interviewing from Gallup’s Daily tracking, is 1,000 national adults with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points.

    http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/156923/worldwide-research-methodology.aspx

    Worldwide Research Methodology

    To ensure that the Gallup worldwide survey data are representative of the world’s adult population, the following methodology is employed in every country:

    Coverage

    The target population is the entire civilian, non-institutionalized population, age 15 and older. The coverage area is the entire country, including rural areas, and the sampling frame represents the entire non-institutional civilian population.

    The typical survey includes at least 1,000 individuals.

    Sampling

    With some exceptions, all samples are probability based and nationally representative of the resident population aged 15 and older. The coverage area is the entire country including rural areas, and the sampling frame represents the entire civilian, non-institutionalized, aged 15 and older population of the country. Sampling procedures include the following stages:

    STEP 1 — Selecting Primary Sampling Units (PSUs): In countries where face-to-face surveys are conducted, the first stage of sampling is the identification of PSUs, consisting of clusters of households. PSUs are stratified by population size and/or geography and clustering is achieved through one or more stages of sampling. Where population information is available, sample selection is based on probabilities proportional to population size; otherwise, Gallup uses simple random sampling.

    Statistical Validity

    These probability surveys are valid within a statistical margin of error, also called a 95% confidence interval. This means that if the survey is conducted 100 times using the exact same procedures, the margin of error would include the “true value” in 95 out of the 100 surveys. With a sample size of 1,000 the margin of error at 50% is ±3 percentage points.

    //////////////////////////

    If you think that the methodology used by Gallup statisticians is all wrong and 1000 samples don’t give the confidence intervals computed using basic probability theory, you should immediately notify Gallup and all other mathematicians in the entire world that the laws of logic and arithmetic no longer hold. Who knows, maybe you will expose mathematics as a hoax.

    Comment by vlad — March 29, 2014 @ 2:22 am

  100. > Um, I wasn’t writing about the Levada poll. Do you even know what is going on?

    I read your reference to a source:

    > BTW here is an interesting poll showing % of people in each region who want Ukraine to unite with Russia, taken in mid February 2014*:

    http://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=236&page=1&t=3

    I clicked on your link and read:

    “Data from public opinion poll, conducted by Russian research organization Levada Centre is provided for comparison. Levada Centre conducted representative for Russia public opinion poll on February, 21-25 2014 and interviewed 1603 respondents older than 18 years in 130 settlements in 45 districts of the country. Statistical error doesn’t exceed 3,4%.

    Integration with Russia into a single state is supported by 12% of respondents in Ukraine, and during recent years this number has decreased from 20% to 9%, but after Maidan – increased by 3%. The main part of supporters of this idea of unification with Russia is in the East (26%) and South (19%), while the smallest part is in the Center (5%) and West (1%) of Ukraine. By regions majority of integration with Russia in one state is in Crimea (41%), Donetsk district (33%), Lugansk district (24%), Odessa district (24%), Zaporizhzhya (17%) and Kharkiv (15%) districts, but even there support to the current status of relations with Russia – as two independent and friendly states – prevails. ”

    >> How many regions are there in Ukraine? Twenty or so? 1603 divided by 20 is an average of 80 people per regional sample. And you trust the results of this poll? But the Gallup poll with the sample size of 1000 is “too small” for you?! Clearly, either you take me for an idiot, or you are one yourself.

    > You apparently were unable to read this: Public opinion poll was conducted by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation together with Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in the period between February, 8-18 2014. 2032 respondents were interviewed in all the districts of Ukraine

    Oh, you think that your regional data comes from a sample of 2032 people instead of a sample of 1603? OK. Let me revise my text:

    How many regions are there in Ukraine? Twenty or so? 2032 divided by 20 is an average of 100 people per regional sample. And you trust the results of this poll? But the Gallup poll with the sample size of 1000 is “too small” for you?! Clearly, either you take me for an idiot, or you are one yourself.

    > I think you have demonstrated proof of this. Thank you.

    You are welcome.

    Comment by vlad — March 29, 2014 @ 2:52 am

  101. Let me give a simpler explanation by example: Crimea.

    You wrote:

    > AR Crimea 41.0

    The population of Crimea is about 4% of that of all of Ukraine. Thus, if a poll had 2032 respondents in all of Ukraine, the number of respondents in Crimea was about 80 people. And you trust the results of this poll of 80 Crimeans? But the Gallup poll with the sample size of 1000 is “too small” for you?!

    Comment by vlad — March 29, 2014 @ 2:58 am

  102. Vlad,

    “Results are based on face-to-face interviews conducted in 2006 and 2007 with approximately 1,000 residents, aged 15 or older, in each country. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.”

    So, this study does not explain where in the country those 1000 people came from. They could have all been from Kiev. Or they could have all been from major cities. For some reason I suspect that a poll not focused on Ukraine wouldn’t send people into villages.

    Thank you for the link to Gallup’s website. It provides details that the study itself did not provide. If the same general methodology was used in Ukraine as described, this means that 1000 people were divided into 24 oblasts, or a sample of 42 people per oblast (this number may be even lower for less populated oblasts). If it is furthermore divided into rural vs. urban, this would be let’s say 30 urban and 12 rural people per oblast. Very impressive.

    You make a good point about the low numbers in the survey involving union with Russia. Its results should indeed be viewed with caution. But still, a random sample of about 85 people per oblast is much better than one involving 42 people per oblast, don’t you think?

    As for this massive study involving 22,400 people.

    I suggest you use googletranslate from Ukrainian into Russian (results are less cumbersome than into English).

    I noticed while rereading it that the study was also conducted in 2002 with over 30,000 people. Similar results.

    The organization conducting the mass study is the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.

    Here is an article about them:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv_International_Institute_of_Sociology

    I suspect they know much more about Ukraine than does an international organization such as Gallup.
    So two studies involving collectively over 50,000 people, vs. the one Gallup study with 1,000 people.

    Your conspiracy theory involving Kuchma, the jet being shot down, and supposed lies on polls is interesting but seems like an attempt to avoid obvious facts that are uncomfortable to you: that Ukraine is about evenly split between Russian and Ukrainian speakers, and is not mostly Russian speaking.

    Comment by AP — March 29, 2014 @ 8:01 am

  103. > So, this study does not explain where in the country those 1000 people came from. They could have all been from Kiev.

    No, they couldn’t. I give up on trying to explain the concept of probabilities to you.

    Let’s go back to discussing the important NON-mathematical issues. I have constantly asked here if anybody disagrees that Yanukovich’s removal was unconstitutional and that he continues to be the legitimate President of Ukraine. Nobody expressed their disagreement. Either everybody agrees with me, or people missed my posts.

    So, let me ask again, and you, AP, personally: do you agree that Yanukovich’s removal was done against the Constitution of Ukraine? And what does this say about the legitimacy of the current junta’s vs. Yanukovich?

    Comment by vlad — March 29, 2014 @ 3:02 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress