Thread: Latest from Ukraine

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

Richard Nixon / Bill Clinton: "Sometimes in order to fight one evil you should cooperate with an other evil".

My first question is why Stepan Bandera cooperated with Hitler? He was a мизантроп? He wanted people to burn in gas chambers? He was just insane?
What he wanted from that cooperation with that beast Hitler?

Probably thought there wasn't any choice of an ally who would confront the SU. The USA didn't. No one else did. Of course, most of the sources nowadays are maintained by Russia, USA etc., soviet/communist sources so you will only get one side.

In Russia, certain cronies and clans turn against each other when interests no longer coincide. Is it possible that this happened then? I read that Bandera wanted a 'Greater Ukraine' and when Russia/Novorossiya decide to occupy territory, no one bats an eyelash. But, because these aren't neo-Soviet types, they are villains. It's a matter of perspective or point of view and those nationalists probably thought they wanted to secure their own territory. There were a lot of territorial disputes then and various nationalities/ethnicities all living in the same area.

Originally Posted by diogen_

Looks like you are portraying him rather like a stray sheep and not a true cold blood murderer. But how about this passage;


Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis. Stepan Bandera and the Legacy of World War II | Global Research

He seems to be different from Hitler only in the scale of his misdeeds but not in its character. And why do some Ukrainians so desperately want to revive this "skeleton" from the "cupboard" right now? My guess it's mainly done in order to troll Russians even more assiduously

Did you see this in the article? :
"Under the militant leadership of Stepan Bandera in World War II, the ultra-nationalists organized the Ukrainian Waffen SS Galician".
That's enough to stop reading right there. It's not a credible source. Just a piece of Soviet/Russian style propaganda.

"The Banderas, or Banderites, are activists in the Ukrainian Ultra Nationalist movement that is now in control of the government in Ukraine."
I recognize the pen of Mr. Lavrov.
Ridiculous. You can not even begin to understand how ridiculous this is.

Now. I am not saying UPA did not commit any atrocities. There hardly exist an army that didn't. But it wasn't in the question I was answering.

About trolling -- yes, there is a bit of that.

At this point, I think it's important to focus on the historical events in other countries.
Tbh, what the UPA did was no worse than what the American settlers did in the 18th century - or other purges and genocides in other countries.
The US began with the attempted genocide of the Native American people. They also used very seriously inhumane methods to kill them. Now the Native Americans are 2nd class citizens in the US. I see a parallel in Ukraine.
Throughout history, Ukrainians have been controlled by Polish-Lithuanians, Austrians, Germans, and Russians but they never had the chance to control themselves... until recently. I think Bandera was the breaking point.
So, maybe the Ultra-Nationalists were feeling a lot frustrated?



It's what makes me believe that the Ukrainians are a unique culture. And I also believe that the Ultra-Nationalists are a minority in that culture - like the KKK is a minority in American culture. But do KKK members control the government? Who knows? Memberships in radical organizations can be concealed.
Ukraine is bi-lingual and bi-cultural and that's why I think the only real solution is Federalization. What? Individual regions of the Ukraine might secede from the Union? I doubt that. US states also have the right to secede but the central government does have the right to block secession.
As for Crimea, it never legally seceded from Russia. There was no referendum or vote by the people to do that.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

At this point, I think it's important to focus on the historical events in other countries.
Tbh, what the UPA did was no worse than what the American settlers did in the 18th century - or other purges and genocides in other countries.
The US began with the attempted genocide of the Native American people. They also used very seriously inhumane methods to kill them. Now the Native Americans are 2nd class citizens in the US. I see a parallel in Ukraine.
Throughout history, Ukrainians have been controlled by Polish-Lithuanians, Austrians, Germans, and Russians but they never had the chance to control themselves... until recently. I think Bandera was the breaking point.
So, maybe the Ultra-Nationalists were feeling a lot frustrated?



It's what makes me believe that the Ukrainians are a unique culture. And I also believe that the Ultra-Nationalists are a minority in that culture - like the KKK is a minority in American culture. But do KKK members control the government? Who knows? Memberships in radical organizations can be concealed.
Ukraine is bi-lingual and bi-cultural and that's why I think the only real solution is Federalization. What? Individual regions of the Ukraine might secede from the Union? I doubt that. US states also have the right to secede but the central government does have the right to block secession.
As for Crimea, it never legally seceded from Russia. There was no referendum or vote by the people to do that.

Hi,
No doubt, it's important to know history, almost every nation did bad things in the past but I think it's also important to focus how now a nation treats negative historical events, whether admits wrongs. Apparently, American settlers commited atrocities to American Indians as well as to other nations but is it approved as right in modern American society? Why do you think "Now the Native Americans are 2nd class citizens in the US."? Is it possible now in the US anyone will go on streets shouting insults to Indians or any other minority with impunity?
At the same time modern Ukrainian radicals can freely march yelling like "Маскаляку на гиляку! - Hang Russians!" and make masked crashings, isn't it? Yeah, they are minorities and such elements can be found in any country but is it possible to behave openly like that in the USA without judging?

Originally Posted by rimz

Hi,
No doubt, it's important to know history, almost every nation did bad things in the past but I think it's also important to focus how now a nation treats negative historical events, whether admits wrongs. Apparently, American settlers commited atrocities to American Indians as well as to other nations but is it approved as right in modern American society? Why do you think "Now the Native Americans are 2nd class citizens in the US."? Is it possible now in the US anyone will go on streets shouting insults to Indians or any other minority with impunity?
At the same time modern Ukrainian radicals can freely march yelling like "Маскаляку на гиляку! - Hang Russians!" and make masked crashings, isn't it? Yeah, they are minorities and such elements can be found in any country but is it possible to behave openly like that in the USA without judging?

Здравствуйте. Добро пожаловать на форум.
It's very complicated in the USA. I learned that our country never admitted doing anything bad until the Civil Rights movement happened in the 1960's. Now it's "illegal" to be prejudiced but that's only enforced in extreme cases. The police provide protection for KKK parades and "kill whitey" is allowed in black music. And yeah, any Native American that accepts their own culture has to live on a reservation. But you are right. A parade like the one I saw in Kiev would set off alrams in the USA.
But it's also true that the USA is still creating negative historical events (like the bombing of Yugoslavia, the violent coup in the Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, supporting Right Sector when they burned people alive in Odessa, and the war in Iraq) and not admitting their wrongdoing.

That's why I said "But do KKK members control the government? Who knows? Memberships in radical organizations can be concealed."
The truth is, if the government in Kiev really wanted a peaceful solution to the "Ukrainian Crisis" they would have stopped the parade. But they didn't. That government doesn't claim to be loyal to Right Sector but everything they do is approved of by Right Sector. I think it's very possible for politicians to have the same beliefs and goals as a radical group without "officially" being members of the group.

The reason I chose the USA to compare with the Ukraine is because both governments have 2 faces. One face is their PC and the other face is their real goals. For example, President Maksimka (Obama) was used to appease the black voters but his goals are almost identical to the goals of President Bush. Also, he didn't do anything that he claimed he was going to do in his political speeches.
So yeah, I can understand the Ukrainian history more when I read American history. But that doesn't make what's happening right. Imo, Right Sector should be labelled a terrorist organization by the UN and the Ukrainian government should not be supporting Bandera and turning it's head when they violate ethnic-Russian Ukrainian's rights. If they really want their terretorial integrity then the laws have to be fair for both cultures. If Kiev refuses to make the laws fair for both sides, then Ukraine needs to split into 2 separate countries because genocide is NOT an acceptable solution.

Originally Posted by rimz

"Маскаляку на гиляку! - Hang Russians!"

"Москаль" is not "a Russian". This word has a long history, but I'll just summarize the contemporary usage.
It's a person, as a rule a Russian but not necessarily, who thinks that Ukraine must not exist, or must be a part of Russia. Or thinks that Ukrainian nation or language do not exist, etc etc. That sort of person.

I have no idea about how serious about that phrase are ultra-nationalists, but ordinary people usually use it for trolling Russians.
And Ukrainian Russians can easily use it, too, by the way. Although, I think, most Russian-speaking people in Ukraine are identifying themselves as Ukrainians. It's difficult to tell. There is no "nationality" field in our passports and I don't remember this matter ever to come up in conversations.

Originally Posted by E-learner

"Москаль" is not "a Russian". This word has a long history, but I'll just summarize the contemporary usage.
It's a person, as a rule a Russian but not necessarily, who thinks that Ukraine must not exist, or must be a part of Russia. Or thinks that Ukrainian nation or language do not exist, etc etc. That sort of person.

IDK how you were able to come up with such description but here is what wiki says:

Моска́ль (укр. москаль, белор. маскаль, польск. Moskal) в украинском, польском, белорусском языках — шовинистическое национальное прозвище, употребляемое по отношению к русским
...Слово происходит от названия столицы России — Москвы, являясь таким образом изначально этнохоронимом.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Москаль

As you can see there is nothing about "Ukraine must not exist, or must be a part of Russia". And the word is, in fact, means "a Russian"

Originally Posted by hddscan

IDK how you were able to come up with such description but here is what wiki says:

I see, or hear if you wish, it around me. Maybe wiki knows better. It's your choice whom to believe.

Anyway, did you read all of this article? It has this:

Современное употребление

В современном украинском политическом лексиконе слово «москаль» и производные от него употребляются преимущественно с резко негативными коннотациями. При этом они применяются, как правило, к российским великодержавным шовинистам, сторонникам «русского мира», независимо от их этнической принадлежности.

Quite close to my definition, really. Including "независимо от их этнической принадлежности" part, of which I'm amazed because I was sure that no Russian Russian would know that.

Originally Posted by E-learner

Maybe wiki knows better.

Since this word is used from 17th century I think wiki knows better. "Modern political Ukrainian language" is just one of the ways to re-write history, as well as creating the whole "Ministry of truth" in Ukraine
The word is specifically used to offend all the Russians and no matter how "modern political Ukrainian language" sugarcoats it, the word does not change the meaning.

It's a perfect occasion for me to use that phrase

It's like saying that in modern language "жид" ("kike") is used only for "bad" (whatever you define it) Jews and thus is OK.

Originally Posted by E-learner

It's a perfect occasion for me to use that phrase

I'm going to assume that you were not looking for an occasion to offend people but for something else

Originally Posted by E-learner

It's a perfect occasion for me to use that phrase

LOL! Yeah, since Russians have Ukrainian relatives and Ukrainians have Russian relatives then the modern meaning of that word is probably political and not ethnic.
Anyway, I think for you it is a political word and it's all about what I said in one of my other posts in this thread:

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

The meaning is in the people and not in the words...

In America, the 'N' word isn't just used on black people. It's used on anybody that people consider slow or awkward. Also in America, anybody can be called a Jew. It's more about traits than ethnicity.

I have recently encountered a term, which I had never seen before - "украиноскептик". E-learner, would you be able to comment on the term? How does that correlate with "москаль" in the contemporary Ukrainian culture?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I have recently encountered a term, which I had never seen before - "украиноскептик". E-learner, would you be able to comment on the term? How does that correlate with "москаль" in the contemporary Ukrainian culture?

I don't remember ever hearing this word, and even after googling I'm not sure what exactly it means. Also, I don't see what it has to do with "москаль".
I'm stumped.

Originally Posted by E-learner

I don't remember ever hearing this word, and even after googling I'm not sure what exactly it means. Also, I don't see what it has to do with "москаль".
I'm stumped.

Let me point you to the same direction..
http://gazeta.zn.ua/CULTURE/pochemu_...gvardiyu_.html

Действительно, Булгаков был киевлянином, сыном священнослужителей из русского Орла и украиноскептиком (чтобы не сказать больше).

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Let me point you to the same direction..
Почему в Украине

I still don't understand what "украиноскептик" means.
So, I won't be able to comment on it after all.

Originally Posted by E-learner

I still don't understand what "украиноскептик" means.
So, I won't be able to comment on it after all.

Ну, на нет и суда нет. Хто не скаче - той украиноскептик..

http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%...B0%D0%BB%D1%8C

Моска́ль — екзонім росіян, уживаний серед українців, білорусів та поляків. [...] Часто вживається як образлива та іронічна назва громадян Росії незалежно від їхнього етнічного походження чи місця проживання.

Я всё понимаю, только не очень ясно зачем наводить тень на плетень?

Originally Posted by E-learner

"Москаль" is not "a Russian". This word has a long history, but I'll just summarize the contemporary usage.
It's a person, as a rule a Russian but not necessarily, who thinks that Ukraine must not exist, or must be a part of Russia. Or thinks that Ukrainian nation or language do not exist, etc etc. That sort of person.

I have no idea about how serious about that phrase are ultra-nationalists, but ordinary people usually use it for trolling Russians.
And Ukrainian Russians can easily use it, too, by the way. Although, I think, most Russian-speaking people in Ukraine are identifying themselves as Ukrainians. It's difficult to tell. There is no "nationality" field in our passports and I don't remember this matter ever to come up in conversations.

Even that, matter of fact it's a call or threat to kill people with a different opinion. Those, who you think are 'Moskals', don't propose to erase from the Earth conterporary Ukraine or Ukrainians, they just think that the Ukrainian state and language were artificially created from ancient Rus states by its occupiers, that the name 'Ukraine' and many words came from Poland. There are such people living in Ukraine who see different their history and origin from official versions, why shoud they be threatened there?

Originally Posted by rimz

Even that, matter of fact it's a call or threat to kill people with a different opinion. Those, who you think are 'Moskals', don't propose to erase from the Earth conterporary Ukraine or Ukrainians, they just think that the Ukrainian state and language were artificially created from ancient Rus states by its occupiers, that the name 'Ukraine' and many words came from Poland.

"Opinion"? "They just think"?
Russia is eating Ukraine up bit by bit and they salute their idol for that.

Originally Posted by rimz

There are such people living in Ukraine who see different their history and origin from official versions, why shoud they be threatened there?

As I understand it, now we proceed from 'moskals' from Russia to 'moskals' from Ukraine.

Inside Ukraine, there is a tendency to call 'moskals' only people in high positions. For example, Simonenko, the leader of "communist" party (couldn't fight the urge to use quotation marks because, in fact, it's let's-join-the-Russian-Empier party).

As an example from another extreme -- those ordinary people with guns who now cooperate with the occupants do not get called 'moskals'. For the time being, at least. Time will tell.