Thread: Local people comment what happened in Mariupol at 9th May (video) + related

Пытаюсь рассказать сыну про события в Украине. Слушал, слушал и спрашивает: "А кто там Левые?". (Хочет быть на стороне левых).
Я: - Да не знаю. Вроде нет Левых. Есть Правые.
Сын: А партия "Свобода"? (Не знаю, где услышал).

Умора с ним! Нравится ему слово свобода.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Пытаюсь рассказать сыну про события в Украине. Слушал, слушал и спрашивает: "А кто там Левые?". (Хочет быть на стороне левых).
Я: - Да не знаю. Вроде нет Левых. Есть Правые.
Сын: А партия "Свобода"? (Не знаю, где услышал).

Умора с ним! Нравится ему слово свобода.

Дай ему почитать вот этут статью (специально даю ссылку на уважаемое американское издание, чтобы не транслировать "путинскую пропаганду"):

The Silence of American Hawks About Kiev’s Atrocities | The Nation

А насчёт так называемой партии "Свобода"... Вот цитата из википедии (статья про Бабий Яр):

За два дня 29-30 сентября 1941 зондеркоманда 4а под командованием штандартенфюрера Пауля Блобеля (входившая в состав айнзатцгруппы С под командованием д-ра Раше) при участии^{[уточнить]} частей вермахта (6-й армии) и украинской вспомогательной полиции расстреляли в этом овраге 33 771 человека (это количество не включает малолетних детей до 3-х лет, которых тоже убивали в эти два дня, но не считали^[6]). На этом расстрелы не прекратились. Дальнейшие расстрелы евреев прошли 1, 2, 8 и 11 октября 1941.

Так вот, для партии "Свобода", эти ребятки из "украинской вспомогательной полиции", которыми руководили эсэсовцы, являются национальными героями.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

But what about you, Russian guys? You may not notice that, but you're acting like you really have a share in that conflict, while even the official position of your country is that you're just observers. So you ARE involved, or still not? Or, maybe, you just like arguing so much you just can't resist using every opportunity? That is just confusing...

The thread about Russophobia might be the best place for your insinuations and accusations regarding the possible quarrelsomeness of Russians. One new fault of them, in a long line of accusations coming from you.

And speaking about "confusing"; it's quite "confusing" that you have been a member of this forum for at least two years, AND speak Russian, yet you pretend to be unaware of Russia's ties with Ukraine, and its interests there. That's simply not credible ignorance coming from you.
What were the real motives for the question, I wonder?

So the latest fault of Russians according to you, are that they like to quarrel for the sake of it?

I'm still waiting to hear you say anything remotely positive about Russia or Russian people, two years after you joined the forum.

The insults, accusations and insinuations are clocking up on a weekly basis though, which begs the question: Why on earth participate in a forum full of such all-round awful people, by your own admission?
That's what I find "confusing".

Originally Posted by Hanna

The thread about Russophobia might be the best place for your insinuations and accusations regarding the possible quarrelsomeness of Russians. One new fault of them, in a long line of accusations coming from you.

And speaking about "confusing"; it's quite "confusing" that you have been a member of this forum for at least two years, AND speak Russian, yet you pretend to be unaware of Russia's ties with Ukraine, and its interests there. That's simply not credible ignorance coming from you.
What were the real motives for the question, I wonder?

So the latest fault of Russians according to you, are that they like to quarrel for the sake of it?

I'm still waiting to hear you say anything remotely positive about Russia or Russian people, two years after you joined the forum.

The insults, accusations and insinuations are clocking up on a weekly basis though, which begs the question: Why on earth participate in a forum full of such all-round awful people, by your own admission?
That's what I find "confusing".

If I were to assume who I would get my words twisted by, I would in no way be mistaken =)) Who else?

I said no word about the quarrelsomeness of anyone, I just presumed some guys might just like arguing, without even having to quarrel. The transition you made could not be made by mistake, it was a deliberate act of word twisting.

And what I really meant was, under no circumstances should the eastern Ukrainian operation be a war between Ukraine and Russia, right? (I think the majority of people on both sides will say yes); but by the numerous arguments about that on the web, one could say it is...

Originally Posted by Eric C.

If I were to assume who I would get my words twisted by, I would in no way be mistaken =)) Who else?

I said no word about the quarrelsomeness of anyone, I just presumed some guys might just like arguing, without even having to quarrel. The transition you made could not be made by mistake, it was a deliberate act of word twisting.

And what I really meant was, under no circumstances should the eastern Ukrainian operation be a war between Ukraine and Russia, right? (I think the majority of people on both sides will say yes); but by the numerous arguments about that on the web, one could say it is...

This would have been a good opportunity for you to attempt to prove me wrong by denying that that you dislike Russians, and, for example saying that you appreciate Russian culture, people, the nation, the food, the literature -- anything! But you can't, can you?

Or prove that you cared enough to learn the absolute basics of Russian history, such as the fact that it has a common history with Ukraine, going back at least 1000 years. Anyone who took history in a European school would be aware of that. Else, it's one of the first things that's mentioned in any encyclopedia article on Russian history. Additionally, almost every major European country has been fighting with Russia in, or over, Ukraine at some point or another. That's certainly part of European history as taught in schools across the continent.

To know Russian and not be aware of this, doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by Hanna

This would have been a good opportunity for you to attempt prove me wrong by denying that that you dislike Russians, and, for example saying that you appreciate Russian culture, people, the nation, the food -- anything! Or prove that you cared enough to learn the absolute basics of Russian history, such as the fact that it has a common history with Ukraine, going back at least 1000 years. But alas, no. What a surprise.

How about the absolute basics of the Russian language? Я могу продолжить на русском и сказать, что меряться здесь тем, у кого больше связей с русской культурой и специфических знаний, которые и только которые, по мнению некоторых, дают право находиться на этом форуме, глупо и неуместно. А вы? =))

Originally Posted by Eric C.

How about the absolute basics of the Russian language? Я могу продолжить на русском и сказать, что меряться здесь тем, у кого больше связей с русской культурой и специфических знаний, которые и только которые, по мнению некоторых, дают право находиться на этом форуме, глупо и неуместно. А вы? =))

Again you are not denying it.
You haven't got a single nice thing to say about Russia, and for whatever reason you don't know, or pretend not to know the most basic facts of Russian history.

Yet, I have to congratulate you on your excellent Russian; it seems you do not need to participate here to improve your Russian language skills, at least.
Your English is also good enough that you don't need the help that this forum could offer. Which brings me back to the question from my earlier post.

The "mystery man" act is both tiresome and silly. It undermines your credibility and reflects badly on you however you turn it. Either way, you appear like a person with a negative agenda.

It would be very difficult to think of Ukraine as being anything but Russian. The capital of Rus was moved to Kiev by Prince Oleg of Novgorod (around 862) where Vladimir the Great started the baptisms of Kievan-Rus and established ties (mostly due to his marriage to the Byzantine Princess, Anna) with Byzantium where Russian laws were ceated and the Slavonic and Cyrillic alphabets were invented. And even if all that happened in the Middle Ages, you can see what Russia was from 1533-1894.
In 1533, despite the Mongol invasions and the Lithuanians, the Russian border was still near Kiev and the NE borderlands ("Ukraine") were part of Russia (including Kharkiv). Poland and Lithuania were controlling the rest of the borderlands at that time.
Between 1533 and 1689, Russia expanded till Kiev was on it's border. And between 1689 and 1801, even the Western borderlands became part of the Russian Empire.
So my question is what is a Ukrainian? Are they the people that Prince Oleg of Novgorod conquered? But even if they are then how could somebody prove they are a Ukrainian and not a Russian? I mean mixed marriages do happen.

Eric also appreciates epic music and when he says that Ukraine and Russia are two different countries, he's right.
President Putin said, "Only God knows why Crimea was ever given to Ukraine.". He also said the same thing about NovoRossiya. But he's wrong.
The Kremlin knows why. Kievan-Rus is where Belarus, Russia, and the borderlands were born. And it's really sad that the birthplace of Russia was neglected but it was. So now Russia and it's birthplace are 2 sovereign nations. That's why President Putin can't interfere militarily without creating an International issue. I mean, "Only God knows why..." isn't a good explanation for giving up the birthplace of a nation.
I think Ukraine will have to split now but until it does, it's still only Ukraine and I hope the new cease-fire works.
Ukraine agrees to second cease-fire as fighting worsens

Also don't forget, there's a lot of people in the US that are always critisizing the US but they're still citizens so they belong here. There's a lot I like about my country but that's not true for everyone.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

when he says that Ukraine and Russia are two different countries, he's right.

He says they are two different *nations*. This is not quite right.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Eric also appreciates epic music and when he says that Ukraine and Russia are two different countries, he's right.
President Putin said, "Only God knows why Crimea was ever given to Ukraine.". He also said the same thing about NovoRossiya. But he's wrong.
The Kremlin knows why. Kievan-Rus is where Belarus, Russia, and the borderlands were born. And it's really sad that the birthplace of Russia was neglected but it was. So now Russia and it's birthplace are 2 sovereign nations. That's why President Putin can't interfere militarily without creating an International issue. I mean, "Only God knows why..." isn't a good explanation for giving up the birthplace of a nation.
I

You strangely jump from Kievan-Rus to 21st century forgetting about Russian Empire and the USSR all together.
Ukraine is only independent for 23 years, before that were no Ukraine as a state.
Misunderstanding between the West and the East of Ukraine(excluding Crimea) however was not born in 21st century, neither it was created during USSR times. It goes back to Russian Empire times.
And "thanks" to modern politics of external influencers those misunderstandings were blown up to enormous hatred.

The US, the EU and Russia are all guilty of creating that hatred.
However when Russia protects its national security, the EU protects its economical projects and the US cherishes its goal of political and economical hegemony.
And Ukrainians are deliberately and methodically torn apart based on those misunderstandings that were created during Russian Empire times.

Originally Posted by lodka

He says they are two different *nations*. This is not quite right.

Ukraine and Russia are both Slavic and before the breakup of the USSR, Ukraine was just part of Russia. But after the breakup, Ukraine became a separate nation with it's own President and it's own Constitution. The Russian leaders should have understood the consequences for letting that happen. Well, now they do.

Originally Posted by hddscan

You strangely jump from Kievan-Rus to 21st century forgetting about Russian Empire and the USSR all together.
Ukraine is only independent for 23 years, before that were no Ukraine as a state.
Misunderstanding between the West and the East of Ukraine(excluding Crimea) however was not born in 21st century, neither it was created during USSR times. It goes back to Russian Empire times.
And "thanks" to modern politics of external influencers those misunderstandings were blown up to enormous hatred.

The US, the EU and Russia are all guilty of creating that hatred.
However when Russia protects its national security, the EU protects its economical projects and the US cherishes its goal of political and economical hegemony.
And Ukrainians are deliberately and methodically torn apart based on those misunderstandings that were created during Russian Empire times.

That's because my knowledge about the Russian Empire and the USSR is still kind of limited. I have studied a few of the Tsars and the October Revolution but there's still a lot missing. There's a lot more I need to study.
And yeah, I do know that Ukraine didn't even exist (except as part of the USSR) till around 1991. The ethnic Ukrainians did try to build a State several times during the October Revolution but they all fell apart and they never covered a huge part of Ukraine.
I also studied the Polish and Lithuanian interventions during the time of the Tsars. There was a lot of hostility then between ethnic Ukrainians and Russians. And yeah, the US and the EU are using that hostility for a Ukrainian land grab.
That won't end well since the US and the EU will do the same things to Ukraine that they did to Russia from 1991-1999. That should be enough to make the Ukrainians US/EU-hostile. Ukraine has stepped into a serious trap.

But Russia can't just say, "Only God knows why..." because they have to share the responsibility for what happened. They knew Ukraine was unstable and that Ukrainians didn't have any experience running a country. So they shouldn't have let it become a separate country. Maybe an autonomous region, but definitely not a country. Especially considering how Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis during WW2.
I mean if Russia could really say that Ukraine and Russia was one nation then the US/EU couldn't have started a violent coup - or at least Russia could have intervened militarily. Russia should have understood that the West wouldn't see it as one nation.
That's why Russia didn't send any troops or military equipment to Ukraine and why Russia isn't flying warplanes over the Donbass to create a no-fly zone.
It was just a huge mistake to let Ukraine become a separate nation - with it's own President - after the USSR break-up.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

But after the breakup, Ukraine became a separate nation with it's own President and it's own Constitution.

"Country" and "nation" are not the same things, at least in Russian.

Originally Posted by lodka

"Country" and "nation" are not the same things, at least in Russian.

My bad. People use those words interchangeably here but they are different. So yeah, now I get what you meant. Russia and Ukraine may be 2 different Countries but they are the same Nation.

Nation: A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

And Ukraine definitely has the same common descent, history, culture, and language that Russia has. They really should stress the difference here but they don't. Thanks for letting me know.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

But Russia can't just say, "Only God knows why..." because they have to share the responsibility for what happened. They knew Ukraine was unstable and that Ukrainians didn't have any experience running a country.

It's politics, I don't know what you'd expect from a public speech.
But anyway if you want to see the real masterpiece of political lies, you might wanna read Jen Psaki quotes.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

That's why Russia didn't send any troops or military equipment to Ukraine and why Russia isn't flying warplanes over the Donbass to create a no-fly zone.

Actually the reasons behind that are mostly economical, I think, energy sector sanctions would be very painful for Russian economy, so Russia is holding its horses, for now.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

It was just a huge mistake to let Ukraine become a separate nation - with it's own President - after the USSR break-up.

Russia was not in a position to do anything about it, that time Russia was a broke state with no power to make any big political decisions.

Actually, Ukraine was not "part of Russia" during the USSR era, and that is one of the main reasons there are problems now. Ukraine was a separate republic, in the USSR.

I am too fed up with the whole business to explain it though.

The USSR was a union with some similarities to the EU, but of course a closer union than the EU, and a different type of governance.
In terms of closeness between the Soviet republics, it was somewhere in between states of the USA and the nations of the EU.
Read this to understand the organisation of the USSR into Republics and Regions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...e_Soviet_Union

Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This system worked well during Soviet days, as far as I understand, but it lead to several wars after the breakup of the USSR, since a number of regions had been in the "wrong" Soviet republic (which didn't matter much during Soviet days, but suddenly became important when regional languages were pushed hard in the new countries, or ethnicity/religion became a big deal.

As a result these regions subsequently ended up in the "wrong" country when the USSR split up. Examples: Nagorno Karabach, Pridnestrovie, Gaugazia, Crimea and possibly Donbass, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and probably some more places that I don't know about. Hopefully the names should sound familiar - there have been wars or conflicts in all of these places, mainly in the 1990s.

In the USSR ethnicity, religion and language had been somewhat secondary to the Soviet ideal of a strong union, and the State had prevented extreme regionalism.

The problem was: Soviet leaders had transferred regions from one Soviet republic to another for, in hindsight, unwise reasons. Of course, they envisaged the USSR would last indefinitely and did not realise what a huge problem they created with their grand gestures or administrative decisions taken in Moscow... The Donbass area was given to the Ukrainian ASSR in such a gesture, in the 1950s.

As a result it ended up in the modern nation of Ukraine, despite being historically Rusisan.

(When reading Wiki, bear in mind that a lot of the edits of these types of articiles in Wiki were traced back to US gov't agencies before it was revealed and they smartened up. Now they probably use proxies and aliases.)

Originally Posted by Hanna

The Donbass area was given to the Ukrainian ASSR in such a gesture, in the 1950s.
As a result it ended up in the modern nation of Ukraine, despite being historically Rusisan.

I have to correct you. Donbass as well as Black Sea coast regions (Odessa, Nikolayev and Kherson) and also Ekaterinoslav (modern Dnepropetrovsk) region along with Kharkov region were given to Ukraine by Lenin in 1920s. The reason of that was his Marxist logic. Ukraine proper (or Malorossia) was historically agrarian region mostly populated by peasants. According to Marx peasants are very conservative and non-progressive class and can't be the leading force of socialist revolution. Only factory workers can be such a force. And all these regions incorporated into new-created Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had relatively developed industry and a significant worker population. So one of the main reasons was to make Ukrainian Soviet Republic more proletarian and less agrarian. And the reason of creation of Ukrainian SSR as long as other republics and to make new socialist state look like a union of different states was in Lenin's main goal. His main goal was not only to build communism in former Russian Empire. It was only one of first steps. His main goal was a world proletarian revolution and to make the whole planet a huge socialist republic. It could sound insane if you don't familiar with history of Russian revolution but it's true. So when in 1922 the Soviet Union was created it was made to look like a union of socialist countries, not just one country to give other possible countries where socialist revolution may happen a beacon to move at. At that time there was not any visible border line between ethnic Russian and ethnic Ukrainian regions, people just spoke various Russian and Malorussian dialects using more Russian words at the east and more Ukrainian or Polish words at the west. But since Ukrainian Socialist republic was created the modern Ukrainian language (they took one of the western dialects as official language to make it look more separate from Russian) was made official there to make the new created republic look more like a separate state (the same story with Belorussia). Crimea was transfered from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR much later in 1954 and the reasons of that were different.
Also to better understand modern conflict in Ukraine one should bear in mind that the western part of the country never was even in Russian Empire, it was a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and later a part of Austria-Hungarian Empire. Also note that Ukrainians in western part are not even Russian Orthodox, their Orthodox church was forced to subordinate to Pope while they were ruled by Catholic Poles. Stalin annexed it in 1939 after Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. So the state that appeared on the map in 1991 after collapse of Soviet Union consisted of 3 major parts (Ukraine proper or Malorossia, mostly Russian Donbass+Novorossia (the regions along Black Sea cost) and western Galicia. Also minor parts: Crimea which was almost completely Russian, Ukrainian language wasn't even taught in schools there until 1991 (Tatar minority just started to return from exile in Middle Asia then), Uzhgorod region inhabited by Rusyns, Hungarians and Slovaks and Chernovcy and at some extend Budjak which are partially Romanian/Moldavian. I think that the only way to keep such artificial country whole was to make it a federation, let people at least on regional level to use officially the languages that historically were used in that areas and to provide very balanced policy towards both neighboring major powers: Russia and EU. But idiots who was and especially is in charge in Ukraine make their stake on a strong monoethnic unitarian Ukrainian state and confrontation with Russia. With such a policy it's only a matter of time when modern state of Ukraine will cease to exist.

Originally Posted by Basil77

I have to correct you. Donbass as well as Black Sea coast regions (Odessa, Nikolayev and Kherson) and also Ekaterinoslav...

Thanks for the correction. Of course, you are right. I also accidentally wrote ASSR in one place where I should have said SSR. I would encourage anyone non-Russian who doesn't know the basics about how the USSR was organised and governed to inform themselves, it has an impact on how things work today. Also - inform yourselves about the Russian empire, the tsars, the various wars other campaigns and conditions for regular people in those days.

Basically I wanted to quickly get across that Ukraine was not "part of Russia" as Uhox believed, during the USSR times then I went off on a tangent a bit.
It was quite a fundamental misconception, so I really wanted to correct it.
It's amazing how fast really basic things disappear from public knowledge. I really would have taken for granted that anyone knew that the USSR consisted of republics. But of course, Uhox is born after then, and on a different continent..

The background about exactly what was part of Ukraine during Soviet times wasn't really something I was well aware of, but of course, I looked into it when all this started.

During Imperial Russian days of course, most of present day Ukraine was part of Russia, though, but that was before the USSR.

In a way, it was relatively sensitive of the communists, really, to recognise Ukraine and Belarus as separate republics. Probably, they could have got away with saying it was part of Russia... (?) On the other hand, they included some of the non-Slavic Caucasian countries into the Russian SSR despite the fact that they had both different languages and religions. I guess they were "autonomous regions" though?

My guess is that part of Ukraine will go its own way, whether independent or with Russia. But the bulk of it, if not all will remain as an independent nation, I think. People on Western Ukraine and Kiev seem to hate Russia with a vengence right now. They won't become Russians over their dead bodies.

I also think that Putin is silly trying to pretend that what goes on in Donbass has nothing to do with Russia. Clearly it has.

After getting involved and spurring this on in Kiev, the EU now has a responsibility towards Ukraine I think. Whatever is left of it after all this finishes. I have a strong feeling it won't be all they started with, and they already lost Crimea.

The EU ought to support it and fast track it into membership. That's what the initial coup makers obviously dremed of, and its the carrot that was dangled in front of them by all the visiting EU officials. If they want to be an Eastern European EU country, fine - I don't care. Just another in a long line. That's assuming there is even a future for the EU - that's not a given right now.

It would be extreme double standards though, if in Western Europe, we can't even mention the word "immigration politics" without being labelled racist - social death sentence - while in a potential future Ukrainian EU state, they have statues of Nazis, marches etc. The EU really should take a very long look at corruption, oligarchs, extremist nationalism etc before starting to spend money there.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I also think that Putin is silly trying to pretend that what goes on in Donbass has nothing to do with Russia.

Is he? I think he never said it "has nothing to do with Russia".

Originally Posted by lodka

Is he? I think he never said it "has nothing to do with Russia".

It's more or less what he says in international press conferences.
Or have I missed something?

I think he should be open and say that Russia has legitimate interests in that region, that people there have strong ties to Russia and that Russia is going to - within reasons - look after its own interests and those of people who ask them for help.

Most Europeans / Americans don't really know about the common history, and it's a critical fact. I saw a survey where Americans were asked to point out Ukraine on a map. The most common places they pointed to, were central Siberia, Turkey or just somewhere random in Near Asia. So that's the level of knowledge of many of the people who are nevertheless judging Russia and Putin over Ukraine today.

Lavrov was more open about that when I saw him interviewed on RT and I always prefer when the cards are on the table.

Lavrov was also clear about Western meddling, foreign backing of the coup d'etat etc. I haven't heard Putin say anything about it. All he talks about is "Our Western partners this....", "Our Western partners that".

Maybe it's my naivité believing that an international leader should just "say it as it is". But that's my view anyway.

The problem (as we can see in this thread) is that most people in Europe let alone America don't know enough about the background, the ties or the motivation for any of what happens in Ukraine.

So if Putin pretends that Ukraine and Russia are two "normal" European neighbours, like German and France, then a lot of people will never be aware that this is more than just two countries that just happen to be next to each other.

Plus, as per the other thread, it's automatically assumed that the Russian position must be wrong. "Russophobia". So I think Putin should be honest and straightforward. Because even when he tries to be diplomatic or keep quiet, he is accused of aggressiveness etc.

It's not like he could get any less popular in the West anyway. And surely the people in Eastern Ukraine would appreciate if he said something acknowledging that Russia cares about them - instead it's like "we're not involved, nothing to do with us!"

That's my personal view/opinion. Not very relevant in all this, but it's how it seems to me.