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".

[ ] Care
[X] Don't care

But yeah, they probably would have cooperated with Adolf Hitler... or even worse, Stepan Bandera.

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

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

1. To create a unified country full of Bandera followers.
2. I'm not a trained psychologist. But he didn't avoid Nazi society so he probably wasn't.
3. I doubt it. That would have been too easy.
4. See 2.
4. To create a unified country, help kill 20 million Russians, create the Ukrainian SS, and use the most barbaric methods to execute 1/2 million people.

He was awarded the medal of "Hero of the Ukraine" in 2010. That sparked an international outrage. The award was annulled in 2011.
Btw, the current Ukrainian government didn't stop the parade. Why?
Under Bandera, the Ukrainian SS held the most barbaric executions of the Patriotic War but they were never arrested for those crimes after the war. Why?
Anyway, if the Ukraine needs a National hero then fine. But don't expect me to be impressed when they choose Bandera. Tbh, I wouldn't be as shocked if they had chosen Adolf Hitler... he wasn't as barbaric.

When the Nazis discovered that Stepan Bandera had plans for an independent Ukraine, he was arrested and taken to Berlin. During an interrogation, he said that the Nazis would lose the war and he did refuse to support the Galicia division. So did his followers. So yeah, the real goals of the Bandera movement were ethnic purity and independence.
That's all in the past but I don't think the EU gets very happy about a Bandera parade. Random immigration is one of their policies and the immigrants don't have to be ethnic Ukrainians.

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

"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

"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.

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.

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

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 14Russian

'don't want violated freedom of Donbass.'
What 'freedom of Donbass?' Are you saying that the Novorossiya territory is a 'democracy?'

Why does it have to be a democracy? Not everyone wants to live in a democracy. Don't other countries have the right to self-determination?
Novorossiya is not a territory - it's a Republic. Imo, the Peoples Republic of Donetsk and the Peoples Republic of Lugansk both have the same right to self-determination that the Ukraine has. So if the Ukraine expects to have the right to self-determination then it must also give that right to those Republics.
The war against self-determination needs to end. It should have ended when the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic was formed.
Imo, the will of the people is way more important than terretorial integrity. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Why does it have to be a democracy? Not everyone wants to live in a democracy. Don't other countries have the right to self-determination?
Novorossiya is not a territory - it's a Republic. Imo, the Peoples Republic of Donetsk and the Peoples Republic of Lugansk both have the same right to self-determination that the Ukraine has. So if the Ukraine expects to have the right to self-determination then it must also give that right to those Republics.
The war against self-determination needs to end. It should have ended when the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic was formed.
Imo, the will of the people is way more important than terretorial integrity. But that's just me.

You do realize though that the Democratic Party of the States doesn't define democracy? I even find it pretty funny, but I view the Republicans as way more democratic than the Democrats. =)) But maybe that's just me.

How far can self-determination go? Can a single person self-determine themselves and live in a separate country? What if some people within a self-determining group don't want the determination the rest want? Can every nationality of the several dozens that Russia has self-determine themselves and get split off of Russia? What are the limits?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

You do realize though that the Democratic Party of the States doesn't define democracy? I even find it pretty funny, but I view the Republicans as way more democratic than the Democrats. =)) But maybe that's just me.

Why do you view that?

How far can self-determination go? Can a single person self-determine themselves and live in a separate country? What if some people within a self-determining group don't want the determination the rest want? Can every nationality of the several dozens that Russia has self-determine themselves and get split off of Russia? What are the limits?

Doesn't developed American democracy have answers on these questions? Hasn't had it expirience like Kosovo?

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Why does it have to be a democracy? Not everyone wants to live in a democracy. Don't other countries have the right to self-determination?
Novorossiya is not a territory - it's a Republic. Imo, the Peoples Republic of Donetsk and the Peoples Republic of Lugansk both have the same right to self-determination that the Ukraine has. So if the Ukraine expects to have the right to self-determination then it must also give that right to those Republics.
The war against self-determination needs to end. It should have ended when the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic was formed.
Imo, the will of the people is way more important than terretorial integrity. But that's just me.

Sigh. Don't call it a democracy, then. Do you think the citizens are free there? I guess you didn't notice I put 'democracy' in quotes?

So, self-determination includes unilateral breaking away based on having guns pointed at your head? I know that a large percentage didn't want to join the 'new regime' in the rest of Ukraine (why do you use 'the Ukraine?). Many are pensioners, though. Many are indoctrinated via the old empire and system. But, I've talked to some people in that part (Donbass) and they are not big fans. Not everyone supports the system there so where does their 'determination' fit in?

I really don't care for either 'government/regime' especially if you consider 'Novorossiya' is governed by people with guns and that's their government in a nutshell. If the rest of Ukraine can organize and create some new parties (which they will need to if they want to end the status quo of oligarchs and politician collaboration), then they could change it. But, right now, I believe most are worried about jobs, the economy and what is next. But, I haven't read anything about Novorossiya that illustrates the ordinary citizen has 'freedom' unless they comply and abide by the desired system there.