Ukraine Crisis

[ag]

Insurrectionists can be expelled. In the Crimea, at least, it is not really their land, anyway.

I know. You would have, probably, supported replacing all Southerners with good law-abiding Yankees after the Civil War. There was still enough space in interior Brazil back then.

Do not be an idiot.

[ag]

Seems like things are quieter today. Apparently, it was not a general assault yesterday, just trying to retake the Airport, etc.

Anyway, given the news, perhaps Ukrainians do have every reason to be a lot more active. Massive penetration of Ukrainian border by columns of trucks with fighters, guns, ammunition, etc. Ukrainians did manage to capture a couple (loaded with AKs), but most got through, apparently.

Wonderful country that is Russia. What a right to bear arms: you can load your truck with assault weapons and drive to the border, and nobody will tell you anything. Why wouldn´t anyone drive a truck like this to the Lubyanka square?

[Pingvin]

Looks like about 30 Chechen mercs were destroyed by the air attack in Donetsk.
Photos (VERY NSFW):
http://cs617617.vk.me/v617617946/d39f/550_0mqgCUA.jpg
http://cs617617.vk.me/v617617373/9b6a/2eShP5tpGuM.jpg
http://cs617617.vk.me/v617617814/f411/BDsW6cKj4HI.jpg
http://cs619328.vk.me/v619328702/7270/ryXL3AMo-Dk.jpg

[Simfan34]

Insurrectionists can be expelled. In the Crimea, at least, it is not really their land, anyway.

I know. You would have, probably, supported replacing all Southerners with good law-abiding Yankees after the Civil War. There was still enough space in interior Brazil back then.

Do not be an idiot.

It is simply the way things have been done historically, why should it have been any different? I have agreed with you, no need to hyperbolic.

[ag]

Insurrectionists can be expelled. In the Crimea, at least, it is not really their land, anyway.

I know. You would have, probably, supported replacing all Southerners with good law-abiding Yankees after the Civil War. There was still enough space in interior Brazil back then.

Do not be an idiot.

It is simply the way things have been done historically, why should it have been any different? I have agreed with you, no need to hyperbolic.

There IS a major disagreement. I happen to oppose mass deportations as a matter of fundamental principle.

[Simfan34]

I think there are a lot of places where they could resolve problems definitively. This might be one of them.

[politicus]

I think there are a lot of places where they could resolve problems definitively. This might be one of them.

So you advocate ethnic cleansing?

[Simfan34]

I think there are a lot of places where they could resolve problems definitively. This might be one of them.

So you advocate ethnic cleansing?

There's no need for buzzwords, particularly when we're talking about a reactive solution rather than something unprovoked.

[ag]

I think there are a lot of places where they could resolve problems definitively. This might be one of them.

So you advocate ethnic cleansing?

There's no need for buzzwords, particularly when we're talking about a reactive solution rather than something unprovoked.

The justification Stalin used for deporting Crimean Tartars (and many others) was exactly this: they, ostensibly, actively collaborated with the enemy. Actually, in a few cases, it was not even wholly wrong: say, Chechens would revolt whenever Russia was weak - and it was not strong ca. 1942.

There are things one does NOT do. Ethnic cleansing is one of those things.

And, in any case, in Donetsk you cannot even do the ethnic cleansing properly. The difference between the local Russians and local Ukrainians is tiny. Frequently, loyalties split families. Many of those, who are in revolt - and even more of those who quietly support it - are doing this because they are scared by Russian propaganda (which, frankly, has long achieved the level of "Goebbelsian" - but is no less effective for that).

[Simfan34]

Perhaps in the Donbass it could be limited to active collaborators, but those in the Crimea who have declared themselves to be Russian should have their wishes respected and be treated accordingly if an when Ukraine establishes authority over the region. If you want to call that "ethnic cleansing", be my guest.

[ag]

Perhaps in the Donbass it could be limited to active collaborators, but those in the Crimea who have declared themselves to be Russian should have their wishes respected and be treated accordingly if an when Ukraine establishes authority over the region. If you want to call that "ethnic cleansing", be my guest.

Well, you just gave the Russians the chance to deport the Tartars: you know, they have their wishes quite public as well. Many of those Russians in Crimea have lived there for generations -  quite a few have ancestors who had lived there before WWII. Besides, how are you going to distinguish those who voted for Russia from those who did not?

Fortunately, Ukrainian government is very explicit in distinguishing between active traitors: those who actively participated in the annexation - and the rest, whom it considers its citizens and whom it is trying to take care of. This is both much more morally sound - and more productive in the long term.

[Simfan34]

Perhaps in the Donbass it could be limited to active collaborators, but those in the Crimea who have declared themselves to be Russian should have their wishes respected and be treated accordingly if an when Ukraine establishes authority over the region. If you want to call that "ethnic cleansing", be my guest.

Well, you just gave the Russians the chance to deport the Tartars: you know, they have their wishes quite public as well. Many of those Russians in Crimea have lived there for generations -  quite a few have ancestors who had lived there before WWII. Besides, how are you going to distinguish those who voted for Russia from those who did not?

Fortunately, Ukrainian government is very explicit in distinguishing between active traitors: those who actively participated in the annexation - and the rest, whom it considers its citizens and whom it is trying to take care of. This is both much more morally sound - and more productive in the long term.

That is essentially what I have said.

[politicus]

Perhaps in the Donbass it could be limited to active collaborators, but those in the Crimea who have declared themselves to be Russian should have their wishes respected and be treated accordingly if an when Ukraine establishes authority over the region. If you want to call that "ethnic cleansing", be my guest.

Well, you just gave the Russians the chance to deport the Tartars: you know, they have their wishes quite public as well. Many of those Russians in Crimea have lived there for generations -  quite a few have ancestors who had lived there before WWII. Besides, how are you going to distinguish those who voted for Russia from those who did not?

Fortunately, Ukrainian government is very explicit in distinguishing between active traitors: those who actively participated in the annexation - and the rest, whom it considers its citizens and whom it is trying to take care of. This is both much more morally sound - and more productive in the long term.

That is essentially what I have said.

No, you talked about the group that has declared themselves to be Russian = anyone who voted for union with Russia.

[Zuza]

And, in any case, in Donetsk you cannot even do the ethnic cleansing properly. The difference between the local Russians and local Ukrainians is tiny.

It is also important that there are very many pro-Russian ethnic Ukrainians and pro-Ukrainian ethnic Russians. Ethnicity correlates with political affiliation, but not determines it. In Crimea in 2008 55% of Ukrainians stated they would support joining Russia and 30% opposed joining (in comparison, 76% of Russians supported and 14% opposed - difference is significant, but not huge; and I don't think that numbers have changed much since then). Many people (probably most of them) have mixed ancestry, and in many cases difference between Russians and Ukrainians exists in name only. All this makes ethnic cleansing practically meaningless.

[Zuza]

Many of those Russians in Crimea have lived there for generations -  quite a few have ancestors who had lived there before WWII.

Moreover, they became largest ethnic group before Stalin's deportations, by 1900 numbers of Russians and Crimean Tatars were equal.

[ag]

Many of those Russians in Crimea have lived there for generations -  quite a few have ancestors who had lived there before WWII.

Moreover, they became largest ethnic group before Stalin's deportations, by 1900 numbers of Russians and Crimean Tatars were equal.

Not quite, though fairly close. In total, the 1897 census recorded 167,813 (Greater) Russians and 194,294 Tartars out of the total of roughly 550 thousand people in the parts of the Tavrida government that are in Crimea. However, at the time Russians were concentrated in a few places, especially in traditional military cities at the edge of the peninsula. At the 1897 census (Greater) Russians were huge majorities only in Sevastopol (63%) and Kerch (56%) city districts - in both cities Tartars were virtually absent (6% in Kerch and 3% in Sevastopol). Tartars were either in majority (Yalta) or formed a plurality in most other places.  Of the total number of (Greater) Russians, over 60 thousand were resident in those two towns alone (only 6,000 around Tartars lived there). Thus, once you get out of Kerch and Sevastopol, Tartars were outnumbering Russians nearly 2 to 1 (though, as I am taking the number from the linguistic table of the census, some of those could have been Jews, etc. - though, of course, there were also some Russian-speaking non-Russians).

Tartars still (slightly) outnumbered Russians by 1926: 140 thousand to 121 thousand out of the total of around 380 thousand (I guess, the Civil War did not treat the local population kindly ). There were also nearly 50 thousand Ukrainians, as well as 40 thousand Germans, 10 thousand Bulgarians and 6.5 thousand Greeks, all of whom would also be later expelled by Stalin (I am not sure about the Greeks), and 4 thousand Jews, who would be killed by Hitler.

The situation did, likely, change by the late 1930s, of course. Unfortunately, we do not have another proper census in the Soviet Union till 1959, as the 1939 census is well known to be seriously falsified. In fact, there had been a real census in 1937, but those results were scrapped, as they did not conform to what Stalin wanted to hear: given the sad fate of those who organized the 1937 census, their successors had the incentives not to produce surprises. While I do not think that falsifying the ethnic composition of Crimea was an objective at the time (the main "fault" of the 1937 demographers had been to give "too low" population numbers, which, likely, reflected the real disasters that happened in between), but I am simply not sure it would be appropriate to use the 1939 result as a proper historical source.

[ag]

According to RUSSIAN sources (which base themselves on the "DNR" statements), of those killed at Donetsk airport, 33 have been identified as Russian citizens, 15 are locals, more corpses are still in the no-man land and cannot be retrieved.

It increasingly seems that a) Ukrainians were more than justified in their actions and b) if anything, their actions are extremely moderate and exhibit obvious concern over the fate of civilians (they have demonstrated they are capable of a massive attack with lethal results, they obviously limit that kind of action to avoid civilian casualties - and the one time they went through with it was when the "DNR" people exposed themselves trying to storm the airport).

[Zuza]

Tartars still (slightly) outnumbered Russians by 1926: 140 thousand to 121 thousand out of the total of around 380 thousand (I guess, the Civil War did not treat the local population kindly ). There were also nearly 50 thousand Ukrainians, as well as 40 thousand Germans, 10 thousand Bulgarians and 6.5 thousand Greeks, all of whom would also be later expelled by Stalin (I am not sure about the Greeks), and 4 thousand Jews, who would be killed by Hitler.

It is a data for rural area. In total population (incl. Sevastopol and other cities) Russians significantly outnumbered Tatars (301 thousand vs. 179 thousands; source in Russian: http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_nac_26.php?reg=788).

The situation did, likely, change by the late 1930s, of course. Unfortunately, we do not have another proper census in the Soviet Union till 1959, as the 1939 census is well known to be seriously falsified. In fact, there had been a real census in 1937, but those results were scrapped, as they did not conform to what Stalin wanted to hear: given the sad fate of those who organized the 1937 census, their successors had the incentives not to produce surprises. While I do not think that falsifying the ethnic composition of Crimea was an objective at the time (the main "fault" of the 1937 demographers had been to give "too low" population numbers, which, likely, reflected the real disasters that happened in between), but I am simply not sure it would be appropriate to use the 1939 result as a proper historical source.

Yes, I agree that 1939 data is not reliable (looking at change in ethnic composition between 1897 and 1926, influx of Russian and Ukrainian migrants was high, and it is possible that in Crimea numbers are real or close to real: 558 thousands Russians and 219 thousands Tatars; but nothing can be said for sure).

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

According to RUSSIAN sources (which base themselves on the "DNR" statements), of those killed at Donetsk airport, 33 have been identified as Russian citizens, 15 are locals, more corpses are still in the no-man land and cannot be retrieved.

It increasingly seems that a) Ukrainians were more than justified in their actions and b) if anything, their actions are extremely moderate and exhibit obvious concern over the fate of civilians (they have demonstrated they are capable of a massive attack with lethal results, they obviously limit that kind of action to avoid civilian casualties - and the one time they went through with it was when the "DNR" people exposed themselves trying to storm the airport).

Would these have been actual Russian soldiers or merely the "polite people"?

[ag]

According to RUSSIAN sources (which base themselves on the "DNR" statements), of those killed at Donetsk airport, 33 have been identified as Russian citizens, 15 are locals, more corpses are still in the no-man land and cannot be retrieved.

It increasingly seems that a) Ukrainians were more than justified in their actions and b) if anything, their actions are extremely moderate and exhibit obvious concern over the fate of civilians (they have demonstrated they are capable of a massive attack with lethal results, they obviously limit that kind of action to avoid civilian casualties - and the one time they went through with it was when the "DNR" people exposed themselves trying to storm the airport).

Would these have been actual Russian soldiers or merely the "polite people"?

Considering that the Crimean "polite people" were, as Putin himself acknowledged eventually, Russian soldiers, this is a funny question. Actually, it seems quite a few were volunteers. Though not quite clear, how many of those volunteers were voluntary, and how many were ordered to volunteer.

[GMantis]

According to RUSSIAN sources (which base themselves on the "DNR" statements), of those killed at Donetsk airport, 33 have been identified as Russian citizens, 15 are locals, more corpses are still in the no-man land and cannot be retrieved.

It increasingly seems that a) Ukrainians were more than justified in their actions and b) if anything, their actions are extremely moderate and exhibit obvious concern over the fate of civilians (they have demonstrated they are capable of a massive attack with lethal results, they obviously limit that kind of action to avoid civilian casualties - and the one time they went through with it was when the "DNR" people exposed themselves trying to storm the airport).

Would these have been actual Russian soldiers or merely the "polite people"?

Considering that the Crimean "polite people" were, as Putin himself acknowledged eventually, Russian soldiers, this is a funny question. Actually, it seems quite a few were volunteers. Though not quite clear, how many of those volunteers were voluntary, and how many were ordered to volunteer.

I find it interesting that even you are hesitant to outright claim that there are Russian soldiers in the Donbas. And it's nice that you've stopped with the bizarre claims about Russia wanting to invade half of Europe or something.
Regarding the supposed humanity of the Ukrainian military (of course considering that most of those killed around the airport were retreating, belief in such humanity requires some rather selective interpretation of the facts), what exactly is the justification for the recent usage of cluster ammunition against civilians in Luhansk? Or for that matter the frequent usage of artillery against settlements by the Ukrainian army? Or about the serious accusations against the so-called National Guard regarding war crimes?

[ag]

According to RUSSIAN sources (which base themselves on the "DNR" statements), of those killed at Donetsk airport, 33 have been identified as Russian citizens, 15 are locals, more corpses are still in the no-man land and cannot be retrieved.

It increasingly seems that a) Ukrainians were more than justified in their actions and b) if anything, their actions are extremely moderate and exhibit obvious concern over the fate of civilians (they have demonstrated they are capable of a massive attack with lethal results, they obviously limit that kind of action to avoid civilian casualties - and the one time they went through with it was when the "DNR" people exposed themselves trying to storm the airport).

Would these have been actual Russian soldiers or merely the "polite people"?

Considering that the Crimean "polite people" were, as Putin himself acknowledged eventually, Russian soldiers, this is a funny question. Actually, it seems quite a few were volunteers. Though not quite clear, how many of those volunteers were voluntary, and how many were ordered to volunteer.

I find it interesting that even you are hesitant to outright claim that there are Russian soldiers in the Donbas. And it's nice that you've stopped with the bizarre claims about Russia wanting to invade half of Europe or something.
Regarding the supposed humanity of the Ukrainian military (of course considering that most of those killed around the airport were retreating, belief in such humanity requires some rather selective interpretation of the facts), what exactly is the justification for the recent usage of cluster ammunition against civilians in Luhansk? Or for that matter the frequent usage of artillery against settlements by the Ukrainian army? Or about the serious accusations against the so-called National Guard regarding war crimes?

1. Well, in quite a few cases we have of dead men identified, they had resigned from some Russian force days before coming to Ukraine to die.  Whatever that means. They are sending dead bodies to Russia by a truckload, BTW. Main Ukrainian export to the East these days. I do not know, why Russians want them.

2. I never said it will happen this year. I continue saying that, unless Ukraine stands up and supported, it will happen quite soon.

3. You seem to be watching quite a bit of Russian-produced news ("retreating", "cluster bombs", etc.). So much lying must be horrible for your digestive system. You will get an ulcer soon, unless yo stop.

4. The Luhansk bombing was, it seems, a -up. I am not an expert, though, so I will wait for more info. Still, it is by no means a humanitarian disaster - the Russian headquarters took the brunt: during a major battle in which they were attacking (eventually, successfully) a military camp (it surrendered 24 hours later).  Still, doing that in the city center, I will be the first to acknowledge, was irresponsible. And, in the end, useless - they did lose the battle. Of course, if they did not care about the civilians they could have easily won: so far the Russians do not dare to put in the air force, so Ukrainian force could have been devastating. But in the city this would mean civilian casualties.

5. It is well-documented that not only the Russians put their artillery within populated districts, but that they frequently use it to shoot other populated districts as well. You seem to ignore that little-significant fact. Ukrainians have to liberate their citizens who are in mortal danger from the invasion.

6. To sum up, the answer to "why are the Ukrainians doing" this or that is very simple: they are trying to protect YOUR country and YOUR family. Because YOU are next.  Though, perhaps, you would simply like that, wouldn't you?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I somewhat doubt that Putin has any territorial desires against Bulgaria.

[ag]

I somewhat doubt that Putin has any territorial desires against Bulgaria.

You know the old Russian saying? "Chicken is not a bird, Bulgaria is not abroad" (курица не птица, Болгария не заграница). And, of course, аппетит приходит во время еды (appetite comes while you eat).

Shows the culinary associations our cannibal nation has on this point

[GMantis]

1. Well, in quite a few cases we have of dead men identified, they had resigned from some Russian force days before coming to Ukraine to die.  Whatever that means. They are sending dead bodies to Russia by a truckload, BTW. Main Ukrainian export to the East these days. I do not know, why Russians want them.

Source for the truckloads?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that Russia has now very good reasons to intervene against Ukraine, but is still doing basically nothing, your assertions do not seem to be based on anything but paranoia. Or perhaps a desire to get attention, but I prefer not to speculate. Though I wonder what your explanation is for why this ultra-aggressive Russia decided to start the wars of expansion against a country that actually gave it a pretty good excuse to do and in one of the few places where a Russian intervention would be welcomed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've seen the cluster bombing reported quite a bit in foreign media. For example here in Bulgaria it was reported by Darik Radio which is about as right-wing and anti-Russian as you can get here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's possible. It's also possible that they think that this would be going too and Russia's patience will finally run out. Or that they will lose planes - and considering the state of the Ukrainian army, that's not a minor worry. And when you look at the record of the Ukrainian army and the thugs pretending to be a National guard regarding civilian casualties, I don't think your arguments look especially convincing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't exactly see how what Russia does excuse what Ukraine is doing (and it should be added that Russia was fighting actual terrorists). And the citizens in those regions were not in mortal danger until the Ukrainians began to "liberate" them (not to mention that they might not want to be liberated). It seems you are ignoring the Crimea, which despite being woefully deprived of a "liberation" campaign, suffered only three casualties. But I'm sure they're now envious there that the Donbas is about to be liberated

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The brave Ukrainians, protectors of the free world! Thanks, I needed a laugh. I should probably ask why you think that Russia would invade Bulgaria, but I see your non-response to Snowstalker, so it's pointless to try again, as you obviously don't have any rational arguments to support this idea. And the saying was about Poland, not Bulgaria.

Regarding your ridiculous insinuation that I would want my country to be invaded, I probably should feel insulted but then I realized that you probably would like it very much if Russia was to be controlled by other countries, so it's not surprising that you're projecting your views on other people.