Ukraine War Thread

[Mange]

If anything, it seems as if it's the Ukrainian minority on the Crimea that seems to be at risk of persecution between Serbian Chetniks and Russian Cossacks (a large demonstration against the Russian presence involving Ukrainians, Russians and Tartars were also held yesterday): BBC News

[Vendetta]

Just to show you that BBC is not journalism:

A black and red flag, this one raised by pro-Ukraine protesters, belongs to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). The members were Ukrainian nationalists who fought against both sides in WW2 for an independent Ukraine - even resorting to collaborating with the German army as a tactical strategy to achieve nationalist goals. Some accuse them of murdering Jews and Poles, so in Russia this flag is regarded as fascist

"Some accuse"? As if, that's not true, that's just accusations by "some" people? Come on, what next? David Irving on late evening news telling Auschwitz is just what "some accuse" the Nazis of? What about Poles in Volyn, did they just dissappear themselves? Fuck you BBC.

It's standard libel proofing due to the UKs shitty libel laws. If you say that X is the case then you need proof or you'll trivially lose a libel case (in the UK if you are on trial for libel you have to prove that what you said was true), but if you say "people accuse X" all you have to show is proof that the accusations have been made.

[Zaune]

Plus the BBC probably has a few correspondents actually in the country, so they need to pick their words very carefully lest one faction or another decide to seek redress by more direct means than a strongly-worded letter to the Controller of Programming.

[Scrib]

I have a question as someone not intimately familiar with the politics of the region in general: what's Russia's best endgame here? They get Crimea ? I've heard it suggested that this will lead to a situation where Russia has essentially absorbed a sympathetic part of the country they were trying to maintain relations with in the first place, on top of whatever sanctions happen before the dust settles.

What is the "win" here?

[LaCroix]

Best Game?
Return to the (intra-sowjet) Borders of 1954
Black sea fleet does not need to relocate in 2042
...
...
...
More sparkling wine for Russia?

[Oskuro]

Sorry for the minor aside but...

It's standard libel proofing due to the UKs shitty libel laws. If you say that X is the case then you need proof or you'll trivially lose a libel case (in the UK if you are on trial for libel you have to prove that what you said was true), but if you say "people accuse X" all you have to show is proof that the accusations have been made.

I fail to see how those laws are shitty, given that they put the onus on the part making a claim to prove that claim.

[Vendetta]

It reverses the legal presumption of innocence. The defendant in a libel case is assumed to be guilty of libel unless they can prove that the statement they made was true. In other words, the plaintiff in a libel case need not prove their claim that the statement was libelous, the defendant must prove that it was not.

This leads to libel cases being very difficult and expensive to defend, and the UK's libel law being used as a stick for those who wish to silence their critics (even if neither plaintiff nor defendant were in the UK, as long as material was accessable in the UK it could, up to last year, be brought to trial here and frequently was because of that reversed burden of legal proof.)

For reference in the US the plaintiff in a libel case needs to prove both that the defendant knew the statement was false and that it was published with malicious intent in order to win a libel case. The US eventually changed the law to make libel judgements from other countries unenforcable in the US unless the case also met the US legal standard for libel in large part because of this kind of libel tourism.

[Scrib]

Best Game?
Return to the (intra-sowjet) Borders of 1954
Black sea fleet does not need to relocate in 2042
...
...
...
More sparkling wine for Russia?

Ah,thanks.I'd forgotten that Russia was leasing the port.

[fgalkin]

It reverses the legal presumption of innocence. The defendant in a libel case is assumed to be guilty of libel unless they can prove that the statement they made was true. In other words, the plaintiff in a libel case need not prove their claim that the statement was libelous, the defendant must prove that it was not.

This leads to libel cases being very difficult and expensive to defend, and the UK's libel law being used as a stick for those who wish to silence their critics (even if neither plaintiff nor defendant were in the UK, as long as material was accessable in the UK it could, up to last year, be brought to trial here and frequently was because of that reversed burden of legal proof.)

For reference in the US the plaintiff in a libel case needs to prove both that the defendant knew the statement was false and that it was published with malicious intent in order to win a libel case. The US eventually changed the law to make libel judgements from other countries unenforcable in the US unless the case also met the US legal standard for libel in large part because of this kind of libel tourism.

I fail to see how that makes the UK laws "shitty" given that in the US, publications can get away with things like this:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=160739

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Edi]

Both UK and US libel laws are a fucking joke. One is basically a club to silence anyone who is critical of you and the other is license to print any slander and lies you like without consequence.

There are other countries which actually have working libel law. Finland is one of those, which means that newspapers will print all sorts of stories, but they will stick to facts or reasonable speculation without needing to hedge as much as the UK press. The kind of shit that routinely gets pulled in the US would lead to the authors of such blatant attack pieces having their pants sued off.

[Vendetta]

It reverses the legal presumption of innocence. The defendant in a libel case is assumed to be guilty of libel unless they can prove that the statement they made was true. In other words, the plaintiff in a libel case need not prove their claim that the statement was libelous, the defendant must prove that it was not.

This leads to libel cases being very difficult and expensive to defend, and the UK's libel law being used as a stick for those who wish to silence their critics (even if neither plaintiff nor defendant were in the UK, as long as material was accessable in the UK it could, up to last year, be brought to trial here and frequently was because of that reversed burden of legal proof.)

For reference in the US the plaintiff in a libel case needs to prove both that the defendant knew the statement was false and that it was published with malicious intent in order to win a libel case. The US eventually changed the law to make libel judgements from other countries unenforcable in the US unless the case also met the US legal standard for libel in large part because of this kind of libel tourism.

I fail to see how that makes the UK laws "shitty" given that in the US, publications can get away with things like this:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=160739

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Whereas in the UK quack vitamin pushers in South Africa can sue doctors who say that their magic pills won't cure AIDS, or Ukrainian businessmen can sue Ukrainian newspapers about corruption claims printed in the Ukraine.

[Vympel]

Nice article, well balanced as to Western errors and Russian errors, and potential solutions:

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... rong-10030

Some extracts from the first few pages:

It has yet to be reported in major western newspapers that the new government installed in Ukraine on February 26, after the deposition and flight of Viktor Yanukovych, includes eight figures associated with Ukraine’s far right. The positions they have filled are not insignificant. They include deputy prime minister, chief prosecutor, defense minister and head of the national-security council, portfolios where the coercive power of the state resides. Svoboda, the main nationalist party, has made some attempt to shed its fascist lineage, but the World Jewish Congress last year asked the EU to consider banning it, and there is much in its history and outlook that should be deeply troubling to westerners. Dmytro Yarosh, head of the “Right Sector,” is Deputy Secretary of National Security in the interim government; among his comrades are men who joined in fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and who see the Chechens as their allies. Right Sector is a paramilitary organization, like Greece’s Golden Dawn; their entry into a European government is an important milestone, and not of the celebratory sort.

Incredibly, the Times’ stories of February 26 and 27, reporting the composition of the government, made no mention of the success of Svoboda and Right Sector in gaining key government portfolios; instead, the gist of the stories was on the order of “previously obscure citizens gain government posts, after having led demonstrations.” It was difficult to see the transition as anything other than a wholesome tribute to civil society, with ordinary people seizing control of their own affairs: here a doctor helping out with field hospitals, now made the minister of health, there a protest organizer, now crowned minister of youth and sports. One guy, whom the Times called the Ryan Seacrest of the civic uprising, gets the culture ministry; another, a female journalist, lands the leadership of an anti-corruption bureau that doesn’t yet exist. David Herszenhorn of the Times did mention, at the end of his piece, that “Andrew Parubiy, a member of Parliament and leader of the protest movement, was chosen as the head of the national security council.” But he did not mention that Parubiy, in Channel 4’s summary, was the founder of the Social National Party of Ukraine, a fascist party styled on Hitler's Nazis, with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians. The Social National Party would go on to become Svoboda, the far-right nationalist party whose leader Oleh Tyahnybok was one of the three most high profile leaders of the Euromaidan protests—negotiating directly with the Yanukovych regime.

The Economist has also not seen fit to mention the presence of Svoboda and Right Sector in the government. In its latest briefing it writes, cryptically: “Right wing extremists and nationalists did take part in the revolution, but they do not control the government.” In other words, it’s a non-issue and not worth reporting.

...

While the important fact that the Ukrainian far right got vital portfolios in the new government received no notice in the West, it surely caught Moscow’s attention. It probably played a role in the ill-conceived mobilization of the army in Russian precincts bordering Ukraine, as also in its actions in Crimea. Raimando points out that in Victoria Nuland’s celebrated phone call released two weeks before the Revolution (wherein she plugged away at the EU), she had correctly anticipated the choice of the new prime minister—“Yats”—but thought that the U.S. could keep Svoboda out of office (through consulting with the new PM three or four times a week). Now that it’s in the government, in important portfolios, there has been not a peep from Washington regarding Svoboda’s and Right Sector’s role.

...

The State Department insisted, in one of its remonstrances to Russia, that it was Yanukovych who deserted the February 21 agreement. “Under the terms of the agreement,” State says, “Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption.” The State Department account does not accord with that offered by the Economist or the FT, who stress that the demonstrators vetoed the February 21 agreement emphatically and that Yanukovych, facing a threat to his person, fled the capital. The agreement, mediated by German, French and Polish foreign ministers, provided that Yanukovych would stay in office till December, when elections were scheduled. The Americans say that his flight from the capital shows that he broke his end of “the bargain.” Really? He didn’t want to stay as president?

This is just one instance of how the State Department has gone into the propaganda business. When did that happen? About the time it got out of the diplomacy business, one should judge. The former, not the latter, is today its characteristic modus operandi. John Kerry’s conduct in the crisis is living proof of that proposition. It’s a shame, for it was not always so. Contrast it with the advice that Henry Kissinger has offered in the Ukraine crisis, and you will discover the difference between an ideologue and a statesman. Kissinger takes it for granted that a peaceful resolution must respect the vital interests of all parties; Kerry is basically blind to the need to find a diplomatic solution. He seems a prisoner of his rhetoric. He has taken to the sacred principle of territorial integrity as avidly as Lyndon Johnson, retailing it as the only thing you need to know about the crisis.

...

Even if we put to one side the reservations about the composition of the new Ukrainian government, there was much to condemn in manner of its birth. It’s okay to have one revolution, but two in ten years is not an auspicious development. Victoria Nuland recently let slip that the United States had invested $5 billion in building democratic institutions in Ukraine over the past two decades; one would suppose that part of our civics instruction included the lesson that in modern democracies, governments are changed via elections, not through street demonstrations. But perhaps not. She ought to be pressed to give an accounting of how those funds were spent and what lessons were inculcated to our eager pupils with respect to proper democratic procedures. Jefferson taught “absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.” Of course, the State Department fully adheres to that doctrine—except when it doesn’t, as in the instant case.

To be legitimate, democracy must be constitutional. The timid as well as the brave get to have a say, the old as well as the young. The system is not perfect, just better than all the alternatives. The transfer of power through free and fair elections is its most sacred ritual. The revolution in Ukraine did not observe this ritual. It did not even pretend to. That is a mark against it, not a mark in its favor.

Its quite long, but well worth the read.

[Edi]

Skimmed it through and it is indeed quality writing. However, there is little in it that is new to those with access to Finnish news, which tend to make extensive use of independent experts on strategic and Russian studies (which due to our border with them tend to be sort of prominent). These are not some hack ideological stinktanks either. The English language press has not exactly been too stellar in this respect and the Russian media is just pure propaganda.

In other news, the Crimean regional government yesterday shut down all TV and radio channels that it did not directly control and imposed more restrictions on anything that is not directly pro-Russian. Its cries of fascism are, to put it charitably, the pot calling the kettle black.

[Broomstick]

Perhaps not news to those in Finland but very enlightening to those of us in America. Thanks for posting that, it's probably the most informative article on the Ukraine I've read all week.

[Borgholio]

Russia vetoes UN resolution on the Ukraine. Nope, didn't see that coming.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... a/6456495/

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia has vetoed a U.N. resolution declaring Sunday's referendum on the future of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula illegal, but its close ally China abstained in a show of Moscow's isolation.

Supporters of the U.S.-sponsored resolution knew that Russia would use its veto. But they put the resolution to a vote Saturday morning to show the strength of opposition to Moscow's takeover of Crimea. The 13 other council members voted "yes."

The resolution would have reaffirmed the council's commitment to Ukraine's "sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity."

Supporters of Ukraine's territorial integrity had hoped to demonstrate the strength of opposition to Russia's takeover and possible annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in the vote.

The resolution would also have declared that Sunday's referendum on whether Crimea should become part of Russia "can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea."

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said the resolution is aimed at "showing the extent of Russia's isolation as it pursues a non-peaceful path."

The draft resolution also urged all parties "to pursue immediately the peaceful resolution of this dispute through direct political dialogue," to protect the rights of minorities in Ukraine.

China is very sensitive to the issue of territorial integrity because of Tibet and other restive areas, and China's U.N. Ambassador Liu Jieyi reiterated Beijing's support again Thursday for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for not interfering in other countries' internal affairs.

The Security Council has held six meetings on Ukraine in less than two weeks but has been unable to take any action because of Russia's veto power.

A six-hour meeting in London Friday between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov failed to delay the referendum.

Lavrov said Moscow will make no decisions about Crimea's future, including whether to embrace it as a new territory, until after Sunday's vote, but Kerry said the results are all but a foregone conclusion, and urged Russia's parliament against accepting any offer to claim Crimea as its own.

On a lighter note, see the Russian ambassador getting his ass handed to him in the UN chamber. The crowd in the background appears to be enjoying the show.

[mr friendly guy]

Um, given that Russia has veto power and has chosen to use it, how did the ambassador get his arse handed to him.

[Borgholio]

Um, given that Russia has veto power and has chosen to use it, how did the ambassador get his arse handed to him.

His reaction to being chewed out by the other ambassador while the people behind laugh at him?

[Tanasinn]

Russian troops have been reported inside Ukraine proper, citing "requests" that they be there and concerns about "terrorists" as a laughable fig leaf.

Click Me

Ukraine's military mobilised to thwart an apparent Russian advance for the first time on Saturday night as Kiev sent paratroops to defend a gas facility near Crimea with tensions high in the hours leading up to Sunday's independence referendum.

The foreign ministry in Kiev denounced an "invasion" by Russia's forces into its mainland, when 80 Russian troops backed by four helicopter gunships and armoured vehicles seized the gas pumping station near the village of Strilkove on the Arabat spit, which lies inside the Kherson region just north of Crimean territory.

It was not immediately clear whether the Russian landing - which would be the first time Moscow has sent its occupying troops beyond the Crimean peninsula - was the beginning of an occupation or merely a probing exercise.

An unnamed Russian official said the incursion had been made to guard against "terrorist attacks".

Russia's foreign ministry claimed it was receiving "many requests" to protect people in Ukraine "These appeals will be considered," a statement said.

[K. A. Pital]

China isn't an ally when it comes to Russia's imperial ambitions or revanchism. It will only veto something if China has its own interest in doing so.

[Lonestar]

Looks like Crimea has Voted to Secede and join Russia.

I'll be honest, the whole "95% voted for secession and annexation" thing sounds sketchy until you remember that there are Russian troops in the streets and this probably isn't the most secret of Ballots. Numbers have probably been skewed further with ethnic Ukrainians skedaddling out of Crimea. I'd be curious to see what the actual percentage of theoretically eligible voters was.

[Borgholio]

My question is - what next? Everybody knows that this referendum is a sham, but what would anybody realistically be able to do if Russia annexes the territory? Would Ukraine risk war to try and stop this?

[K. A. Pital]

Looks like Crimea has Voted to Secede and join Russia.

I'll be honest, the whole "95% voted for secession and annexation" thing sounds sketchy until you remember that there are Russian troops in the streets and this probably isn't the most secret of Ballots. Numbers have probably been skewed further with ethnic Ukrainians skedaddling out of Crimea. I'd be curious to see what the actual percentage of theoretically eligible voters was.

Uh, Lonestar, you realize that there were very few ethnic Ukrainians in the place to begin with and that 95% are from the number of people voted, which IIRC is around 80% of the total eligible population. And this is pretty much in line with the ethnic breakdown.

I'm pretty sure ethnic Russians would vote for joining Russia anyway. There's not a single idiot among the Russians who wants to be ukraininzed or, in the event if that fails, to get a non-citizens passport because he doesn't know Ukrainian, a language he never ever intended to learn or know. I'm sorry I'm putting it very bluntly, but this is how it is.

Of course the ethnic composition of Crimea was used by Russia to take it back. It is nothing but revanchism, pure and simple. Sad, really, because there's no good future for Crimea neither in the 'new Ukraine', nor in Russia.

Would Ukraine risk war to try and stop this?

To risk war you need to be able to wage war. By now Ukraine can scramble only several thousand battle-worthy troops, but it seems to be very unlikely that they'll be able to fight efficiently. Especially if they tell them "shoot Crimeans", which they wouldn't do. Some hardcore ultranationalists from the West could be made into battle-worthy squads of paramilitares, but this takes a lot of time. As of now they're only good to fight the riot police. Going face to face with rebel army units or Russian army units would be just slaughter. I mean, look at Georgia. NATO trained 'em day and night... and... yeah, you got the gist of it.

I also love how now the BBC says "pro-Russian gunmen" have taken key points in Crimea under control. But what happened with "they're Russian military"? Some sources on the ground confirmed that they're not, or is it political games again? The West seems to be pretty content with Crimea going away, it seems.

[Lonestar]

Uh, Lonestar, you realize that there were very few ethnic Ukrainians in the place to begin with and that 95% are from the number of people voted, which IIRC is around 80% of the total eligible population. And this is pretty much in line with the ethnic breakdown.

About a quarter of the population is "very few"? Come off it. Admittedly that's 2001 numbers.

Also, probably eligible for a certain value of "eligible".

I'm pretty sure ethnic Russians would vote for joining Russia anyway.

Yes, if all 60% of the ethnic Russians voted for it, we'd still be only about 60% of the vote...assuming a even turnout of all groups. Maybe some Ukrainians and Tatars would vote that way, but given that Tatars and Ukrainians are fleeing the Crimea due to fear of pro-Russian militias harassing them, I'm standing by my claim that the numbers came from intimidation and creating a situation where those who have the biggest stake in staying in the Ukraine aren't participating.

There's not a single idiot among the Russians who wants to be ukraininzed or, in the event if that fails, to get a non-citizens passport because he doesn't know Ukrainian, a language he never ever intended to learn or know. I'm sorry I'm putting it very bluntly, but this is how it is.

Yeah, I'm sure that out of an entire generation of Russians who grew up as Ukrainian citizens, not one of them wanted to stay in.

Of course the ethnic composition of Crimea was used by Russia to take it back

A ethnic composition that isn't anywhere close to the percentage that voted for annexation.

[Lonestar]

Ghetto edit: Incidentally, that link to Crimean demographics also cited a poll that said 73% of Crimean residents consider Ukraine their motherland, calling into question the "not one Russian idiot" claim. I'm sure you'll wave it off as a "Ukrainian poll, conducted by a Ukrainian think tank" though.

[K. A. Pital]

No, I will not wave it off. I will merely note that this was before "Motherland" in one of the first "motherly" act decided to rescind regional language allowances for Crimea. The number of people thinking Ukraine is their "motherland" was also sharply lower during the Yuschenko years. It seems that people think of Ukraine just the way it's government thinks of them.

It is also very clear that Russian minorities have been blatantly lied to in the past, when post-Soviet nationstates were created. The attitude ranged from violation of basic rights (Baltics) to outright ethic cleansings (Central Asia). Coupled with promises of equality amd justice for all, of course.

So I can't say the Russians could not have voted like this. Also "ethic Ukrainian" is not that different from a Russian. It would be better to look at language for self-identification. And a whopping 97 percent of Crimeans use Russian as their primary language. Out of these 97% one could very well find 70% to vote. Because that's pretty much it, and though it pains Ukraine greatly, their language will never be the sole state language in Crimea. Just 3 out of a hundred use it for primary conversation = not going to happen.

As you can see, after 20 years of independence Crimeans overwhelmingly speak Russian. I won't say what happened is good. It is bad. But "ukrainization" is not acceptable. Multilingual countries usually can accept two or more official languages, but Ukraine is unwilling to grant Russians even a regional one. Okay... And good bye.