Thread: Что произойдет в восточной Украине? (Eastern Ukraine?)

Originally Posted by Ramil

When people protest in the West they do exactly that - they simply protest. They are not rebelling against the government. Even in London in 2011 there was no rebellion - just riots and vandalism. A rebellion can not happen out of nothing. Planning makes a difference. A riot can occur incidentally, but with a rebellion - someone has to design it, plan it and carry it out.

Loved this comment, and you are completely right. Not that Ukrainians/Russians are some gurus who always get it right... but you have considerably more knowledge on radical transformation of societies than anyone in Western Europe or the USA. Both theoretical, practical and technical.

Too right about the UK riots. There are some very good reasons to rise up against the state here. They are selling off public welfare to the highest bidder, the poor getting so poor they can't afford food and heating, and billionaires increasing every year. But the riots like you said, just people wanting to fight and grab a free plasma TV. The modern opium of the people. That was an opportunity lost, and they certainly have done everything they can to maker sure riots like this can never even start again.

If Ukraine had the anti-riot laws and technical equipment + surveillance that the UK has, then Euromaidan could perhaps NEVER even have started. The UK would have reacted much more aggressively, faster and with more force than the "evil dictator" Yanukovich did. That's a fact and everyone in the UK knows it.

The French are always blocking motorways with lorries, striking in the metro, ports and what not. But the last time they had a revolution was 1789...

And Americans seem to believe that as long as you legally own a gun a car and have access to affordable petrol, you are a free man. That's the only things you can complain about, otherwise you are an evil caammunist and possibly terrorist.... So there will probably never be a revolution there. I think they'll wake up one morning in the not-so-distant future and have to face the reality that their much hyped "democracy" and "freedom" is a hoax and they are trapped as modern slaves in a fascist dictatorship.

In Sweden any sense of rebellion against REAL authority is removed from people's DNA at birth or in state daycare, in the cosy people's state... "If the state does it, it's automatically right, because the state is always good and only wants what's best for people!" Never mind that they contradict themselves and change the tune all the time. Rebelling against the headmaster in a school, patriarchy, or a boss at work - sure, very cool. But not against the real powers that make the big decisions.

I hope all groups that are revolutionary in a positive sense keep an eye on what's happening in Ukraine and actually learn from it. There is something to learn from the Arab springs too.

The way things are going, that type of knowledge can come in quite handy 10-20 years from now when the big brother corporate fascist state will be fait accompli (I believe...)

I just wonder - are there smart people in Moscow (or Washington) who are masterminding events in Ukraine, or is it genuine people's power?
I think it's a mix/symbiosis.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I just wonder - are there smart people in Moscow (or Washington) who are masterminding events in Ukraine, or is it genuine people's power?
I think it's a mix/symbiosis.

We don't really know what is happening. All we know there are well-organized squads and somehow-organized activists. There seems to be an indisputable position in the West that the well-organized squads are Russian troops. I'm wondering is there a proof for that. For example:

Originally Posted by voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_04_15/EU-military-intelligence-chief-rules-out-Russia-s-involvement-in-Ukraine-events-1955

Commodore Georgij Alafuzoff, in charge of EU military intelligence, is feeling skeptical about Russian army's involvement in Ukraine’s recent developments, as reported by Finnish Yle broadcaster. As he points out, the protests in Ukraine are mostly centered around local Russian speaking public, deeply disappointed with the situation in the country.

More specifically, that is not exactly what Chief of the EU military intelligence said according to the Yle's website, so try to read the Russian version of it: Глава разведки ЕС: Продвижение на Украину не в интересах

He does not "feel skeptical" but literary said: "there is no proof". Huge difference for the intelligence. So, I am wondering where that indisputable position of the West had come from? The way it should be, I think, is first a EU bureaucrat gets a report from the EU intelligence: "Russian troops are in the Eastern Ukraine", and then the bureaucrats have a series of meetings to decide how to address that, and then they issue the media statements to convince the public of their planned way, and then they act. No bureaucrat wants to be responsible for anything, he would always need a paper to refer to in case his butt comes under fire. So, if the Chief of intelligence does not know for sure and the EU bureaucrats know for sure, maybe the Chief of intelligence should learn from the bureaucrats? If the bureaucrats know the situation better than the intelligence, then the intelligence is a useless organization which should be deprived of the funding and dissolved, won't you think?

Unfortunately, you can only find that info on Yle's website or RT and the Voice of Russia. The other Western media do not seem interested in distributing that information. I guess, they don't think it's important info for the public. Indeed, some Chief of Intelligence of EU said something about the missing proof.. who cares? Who needs the military intelligence anyway?

I encourage all English speakers to watch the interview with Sergei Lavrov on "Sophie & Co" on RT. It's about Ukraine. Very good interview and he speaks excellent English. It'll broadcast today and probably available to play separately on the website. http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/ You can hear him speak freely, finish his sentences without being interrupted and say what he has to say, then draw your own conclusions. Lavrov is a great deal more sympathetic than Putin, I think. And he looks exactly like my grandfather apart from different eye colour.

Originally Posted by Ramil

My opinion is that no revolution during the past 50 years (and quite probably even earlier) has taken place without some 'assistance' from the outside. Literally - not a single one!

I think you may well be right but I don't know about every single revolution. The Arab springs seem spontaneous in the beginning. The Iranian revolution seemed quite spontaneous, but it's not like I remember that myself, just based on what I read. It wasn't the US, and probably not the USSR behind it anyway.

Originally Posted by Hanna

The Iranian revolution seemed quite spontaneous. It wasn't the US, and probably not the USSR behind it anyway.

That's right.Iran's Islamic Revolution is different from the world's other revolutions.Theda Skocpol ,for example,says that the Iranian Revolution challenged expectations about revolutionary causation that she developed through comparative-historical research on the French , Russian ,and Chinese Revolutions.

Can an anyone explain whether the US troop exercises in Poland and the Baltics are relevant to the Ukraine situation at all? What is the objective of suddenly setting up this massive exercise with 20,000 troops? What is the US trying to achieve?

Originally Posted by Hanna

What is the objective of suddenly setting up this massive exercise with 20,000 troops? What is the US trying to achieve?

Obama said (with a slight smile) that American army greatly excels Russian army. This statement made my day really.
They need to prove that the US can still do something.

Originally Posted by Paul G.

Obama said (with a slight smile) that American army greatly excels Russian army. This statement made my day really.
They need to prove that the US can still do something.

Russia has universal conscription, right? 2 years or something? They have a LOT of people at least. And as we've read for many years now, Russia has upgraded its military equipment. My guess is that the RU military is in a good shape, at least better than ever since Soviet days. Not better than the US, but good enough to defend themselves and their allies at that's really all that the a country should have, imho. Always this darn attitude with the Yanks..

And so many wars from school history (European) seem to involve an invasion or a planned invasion of Russia. And it always ends the same way in the end... If you have an empire and want to lose it, try a land invasion of Russia....

There was a way to beat Russia though (in its incarnation as the USSR) - but it was not by a land invasion --- rather with consumerism and rock'n roll..

I think Russia fell for the US tricks once, but won't do it again.
Just my theory..