pipy
Thanks in advance
Thank you. And you and your compatriots too.
Another way to view it, is that the West is waging a proxy war against Russia.
One might say that confrontation started with the West instigating a coup against democratically elected president of Ukraine and installing a pro-Western, pro-NATO regime. Another might say that it started when the West has methodically sabotaged all Russian actions to find peaceful solutions to the crisis in Eastern Ukraine and instead pushed for military options [1]. But these are technicalities.
There are two steps left before the possible direct military confrontation between the West and Russia. One step is the West officially sending troops to Ukraine, and another is Russia officially sending troops to Ukraine. Most probably, neither of them would be taken, but the situation is already dangerous enough.
Many say, that after we have left our military bases in Eastern Germany in exchange of the failed promise of NATO non-expansion, after many other actions of good will by USSR and then Russia, the West has been methodically showing us that it doesn't accept Russia as a peaceful partner.
By sanctioning Russia, by turning the blind eye on atrocities carried out by Kiev government, the West is waging the war against Russians, not only against Putin.
I do not know, how this crisis would end, but it is for sure going to set back our relations with the West for decades to come. And this is not all Putin's fault.
> Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation.
Before the Russian actions in Crimea, there was a popular uprising against coup government.
The main powerhouse of the uprising was the city of Sevastopol, which was home for Russian military bases for hundreds of years. The residents of the city have in 20+ years never been allowed to have democratic elections of the mayor, because all Ukrainian governments felt that they would elect pro-Russian mayor. Instead, for 20+ years, they got mayors appointed from Kiev, some anti-Russian.
Crimea has de facto not been under the coup government control even before the Russian actions and was lost by Ukraine before it was gained by Russia, just after the coup government has started to pass one of it's first laws, the one that revoked the rights of the Russian-speaking regions to use Russian as second official language.
Personally, I don't like how Russia used it's military in Crimea and think that people of Crimea should have been allowed to fight for the independence themselves, possibly with some help. This was important technical issue and Russia has most probably got it wrong.
The situation is complicated by the fact that in reality there are different parts of Ukraine with completely different mindsets, preferences and interests.
But it is the Western Ukraine that has invaded Eastern Ukraine (with the help of US), not the other way around. This is the core point. This is why the people of Eastern Ukraine have the moral high ground in their fight. This is why Russia is not an aggressor.
P.S.
The coup government has also been waging war against the population of Crimea [2], "it's own population". And it also doesn't allow for every citizen from Crimea to freely enter Ukraine, some of them are sent back home [3] [4].
[1] Great article by Stephen Cohen (professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University), which more or less summarizes not only my personal POW, but POW of many Russians and Ukrainians as well: http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw...
[2] http://en.itar-tass.com/world/729666
[3] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-17/ukraine-bars-entry-...
[4] http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/3351043-ukrayna-ot...
I have people that I know on both sides of Ukraine and everything that is going on creeps me out completely.
The expert is a journalist, from a newspaper «Тиждень». [1]
Here are the qoutes:
Донбасс – это не просто депрессивный регион. Там дикое количество ненужных людей. Я абсолютно осознанно об этом говорю. В Донецкой области примерно 4 миллиона жителей. И не менее 1,5 миллионов лишних. Нам не надо понимать Донбасс. Нам надо понимать украинский национальный интерес. А Донбасс нужно использовать как ресурс. [...] В отношении Донбасса: я не знаю рецепта, как это сделать быстро. Однако наиглавнейшее, что нужно сделать: есть люди, которых необходимо просто убить.
Which means that there is an "excess of 1.5 millions of people" in Donetsk Region, that "[people of] Donetsk Region mustn't be undestood [by the people from the rest of Ukraine], and Donetsk Region [and it's people] must be used as a resource instead" and "I don't know how to solve that problem [to remove excessive civilians], but the main thing is that some people must be physically eliminated".
So:
1. There are 1.5 millions of civilians of Donetsk region that are excessive.
2. People of Donetsk region mustn't be understood by the rest of Ukraine. Which literally means that they do not fit in Ukrainian Nation, they are not part of it.
3. He doesn't know the recipe how to remove the excessive civilians, but some people must be physically eliminated.
In the context of the whole TV show he is talking about elimination of excessive civilians. One could argue if he considers possible to physically eliminate 1.5 million of them, or only part of them and drive others by away by force or by economical means, etc.
> The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it.
So, even though I have already claimed that it was too emotional for me to mention this TV show, I consider myself to have provided reasonable translation of his words.
P.S.
I've actually used pyyaml parser. :)
Edit: here is the relevant part of the show for you to check: [2]
So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side? I beg to disagree.
In fact, Kiev has been Washington’s military proxy against Russia and its “compatriots” in eastern Ukraine for months. Since the political crisis began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan and Vice President Joseph Biden (twice) have been in Kiev, followed by “senior US defense officials,” American military equipment and financial aid. Still more, a top US Defense Department official informed a Senate committee that the department’s “advisers” are now “embedded” in the Ukrainian defense ministry. [1]
> This isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement.
This is one way to see it. Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view.
[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180825/why-washington-riski...
These have back-references to official sources that you try to ignore.
> 2. A single minute's check on Wikipedia showed that your claims about the May vote is garbage.
No, it didn't, and I have already explained why in previous posts. The words about May polls come from respected sociologist and author of The Guardian.
The same goes to your reference to Wikipedia page about Crimean referendum, in particular, the data about previous polling [1]. Previous polls were taken before the overthrowing of Yanukovich and before new Kiev Government has issued statement about revocation of Russian language law.
About Syria:
Here are the words of lead investigator, Ake Sellstrom from official UN press-conference, pinpointed to minutes and seconds: [2]
Congressman Alan Grayson on NYT: [3]
As about your links to HRW, first one [4] is about different attack, that was not used as a pretext to possible Western bombardments, so I would rather not discuss it to prevent "topic creep". The second one [5] is contradicted by the conclusions of UN investigators, because they report that rocket bust have had much smaller range: 2 km [6] instead of "3.8 to 9.8" reported by HRW article [5], which makes HRW narrative fall apart.
So, this means, that in Syria, just like with Iraq in 2003, the West has used at best dubious evidence as a political pretext for possible war. This, and previous history with accidents like the one in The Gulf of Tonkin [7], we have every right to be skeptical about western claims that are not supported by strong evidence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_201...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CFn9pWNKeI#t=39m10s
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/on-syria-vote-trus...
[4] http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/13/syria-strong-evidence-gov...
[5] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-c...
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CFn9pWNKeI#t=16m10s
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Distor...
2. Many US Congressmen that were given access to US secret proof have stated that it is dubious, on record.
Are these sources wrong or hand-picked? Which ones did I hand-pick, US Congressmen, or UN investigators, or, perhaps, both?
It was not enough evidence to stand in court, but apparently, there was enough evidence for the West to bomb Syria and cause immanent civilian deaths.
Wittingly or not, you are trying to change subject, twist the narrative and so on. It occurs to me that you Sir are not trying to be objective at all. Looks like here I'm the fool who's banging his head against the wall.
> (I don't bother to look up your references, since it certainly won't be from mainstream media or similar.)
Then how can you possibly have an informed opinion if you limit your sources of information to Western mainstream media?
> You are contradicted by Wikipedia.
No, I am not, because I have provided quote about May polls, not February or March ones. February ones were made before overthrow of Yanukovich (Donetsk and Luhansk regions were one of the big electoral bases for Yanukovich), and March before the fight for federalization of Ukrainian State by the people of Donetsk and Luhansk regions was completely ignored by Kiev Government.
And it is very important difference from the sociological point of view, because it was also after the Odessa Massacre and Ukrainian Forces attack on Mariupol. BTW, the author of the quote, sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko is an author of The Guardian newspaper [1]. Is he not mainstream enough for you?
Which means that you've cross-checked one source and now erroneously claim that it is not credible.
> I have spent too much time on this. :-(
I can understand you. What is my point of view is that one should trust no single party or source of information to be credible and do research for oneself. And this is the only way to be free, as in Freedom.
> Any proofs against?
Food for thought:
"Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013" by Richard Lloyd, Former UN Weapons Inspector [2]
"Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything" (has number of first-party sources). [3]
"UN Investigator Undercuts NYT on Syria" by Robert Parry, former Newsweek and AP reporter [4]:
The lead author of the UN report on the Aug. 21 incident has contradicted the much-touted “vectoring” claims of a New York Times front-page story and Human Rights Watch, which has been pushing for a U.S. military intervention in Syria.
The UN inspectors have voiced uncertainty about who carried out the attack. At the press conference, Sellstrom admitted, “I don’t have information that would stand in court.” He also told Wall Street Journal writer Joe Lauria that both sides in the conflict had the “opportunity” and the “capability” to carry out chemical weapons attacks.
Etc. Wish you good luck!
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/profile/volodymyr-ishchenko
[2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006...
[3] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/classified-intelligen...
[4] http://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/23/un-investigator-undercu...
1. You can provide me with your disposable one-time Gmail address (needed for GA).
2. I will send you my real name, give you temporary access to Google Analytics account for the website and some selected Google-translated pages from it. Possibly provide more information if needed.
3. You can support that I am not a shill in this discussion and that my claim about the law in OP affecting me is true.
There is no evidence that supports your argument about Russian military takeover of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. You are talking about something so significant that must have left some verifiable trace, right?
> (Karma 34 account.)
You don't provide a single footnote, and I actually provide sources to my claims.
I give you simple questions and you prefer to ignore them.
Yes, I rarely participate in internet discussions. Is appealing to my low karma your last and most powerful argument?
> Especially with satellite pictures, recorded conversations, etc.
So, let's bring these to the table?
Edit:
>Edit: Mainstream news references, not "therealnews", of moved tanks. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/14/us-ukraine-crisis-....
1. Money quote from NATO statement from Reuters article that you've provided: "but where they came from is in dispute."
> There are similar articles about the BUK anti air system
2. There is no solid evidence for the claim that BUK came from Russia also. But let's assume that it did, just for the sake of not forking the discussion.
3. What's wrong with "therealnews" interviews with acclaimed experts which credentials you are free to check?
>You seem to not argue against that Putin lied about military involvement before the Krim takeover.
4. Yes, what I argue is that the current insurgency is supported by population of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and I've provided sources for that statement. Which means that Kiev Government is at war with (part of) it's own population.
5. What I also state is that reunification with Russia has had overwhelming support from the people of Crimea.
>You claim that there aren't enough proofs (and/or that all Western media lies) that his junta is doing exactly the same thing now, just because it looks so similar in action/time?
What "same thing" are you talking about? (I am asking this just to be sure that we are talking about the same thing).
> (I am sorry if this makes you sound stupid/dishonest, but...)
I's OK. I appreciate that you are assuming good faith on my part.
Edit 2:
>Edit 3: Russia shot artillery at Ukraine (just more lies, of course): http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28476153
Money quote from the BBC article: "the US says it has evidence that Russia has fired artillery across the border targeting Ukrainian military positions".
The US has also said that pre-invasion Iraq has had WMD. And that Assad has used nerve gas.
No, it doesn't. Because there is no evidence of massive Russian troop presence, not to my knowledge. This is why you cannot attribute the sheer scale of Ukrainian Government actions to this issue.
I will quote the article for your convenience:
Poroshenko’s “peace plan” and June 21 cease-fire may have seemed such an opportunity, except for their two core conditions: fighters in the southeast first had to “lay down their arms,” and he alone would decide with whom to negotiate peace. The terms seemed more akin to conditions of surrender, and were probably the real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 and intensified Kiev’s assault on eastern cities, initially on the smaller towns of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which their defenders abandoned—to prevent more civilian casualities, they said—on July 5–6. [1]
The fact that there is a genuine insurgency by the Eastern Ukrainians that is not attributable to Russian influence has been supported by multiple experts from different countries. [2]
Even the sociologist that gets his money from US State Department says that:
"And the polls which were done in the first half of [May--and?] it means after massacre in Odessa and after very brutal attack on Mariupol by Ukrainian forces, they were showing that at least even in Donbass there are various--some sort of support for the claims of separatists, and the people in Donbas saw their seizure of governmental buildings as people's [incompr.] not as a terrorist act, not as a Russian intervention. But this were the public opinion in Donbass." [3]
>He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"?
OK, for me it was too emotional to claim this and to talk about this TV show.
[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw...
[2] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
[3] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
How many people have died in Crimea?
Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units.
> History shows that the truest way to harm civilians in conflict between groups that are not trying to kill civilians (either directly through systemic action or indirectly through things like famine) is to prolong the armed conflict by interceding on behalf of one side or the other.
So you say that Russia should abandon support of people of Donetsk and Luhansk and leave them at the mercy of Kiev government, who is committing crimes against them? [1]
I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2]. And he didn't get fined or jailed for these words, or even challenged by the TV host. If this is not Fascism, I don't know what is.
Why don't you ask questions such as: who started this mess? What has Russia done to stop it? What has the West done to stop it?
[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw...
But why do I get outraged by the unsourced comments as yours even more than by this stupid law?
I personally challenge you: I will provide you with information that I'm a real person and my claim about running website criticizing Russian elites is real if you take time to explain why is it OK for the West to support regime that kills Ukrainian civilians en masse.
You keep churning unsourced "Russian shills everywhere" message, while ignoring two simple possibilities:
1. While there are Russian Government shills on the Internet, as well as Western ones, real Russian people can also be genuinely outraged by actions of the West.
2. The West may be in reality backing puppet regime that commits horrific crimes.
P.S. It is ironic that I'm probably the single person in this thread that is really affected by this law and at the same time I am being modded down.
I hope so. My concern is that when we'll see systemd grow in size and more and more software depend on it's interfaces and components (as in GNOME with logind) at the certain point it could take an insurmountable amount of resources to maintain the fork. At this point it might be easier to give up on Linux and build around some other kernel and userland, I hope this will never happen, though.
Also, there is a difference between steering the developments in the preferred direction and outright destructive actions. As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog.
That's what we know about this company from an old (2007) article:
> “When we rolled into Baghdad, we did it using open
> source,” General Justice continued. “It may come as a
> surprise to many of you, but the U.S. Army is “the” single
> largest install base for Red Hat Linux. I'm their largest customer.” [1]
It is better to go with a grass-roots solution, even the one technically inferior, that isn't being influenced by one single vendor or government (especially the one that has a tendency to indiscriminately infect other people's systems [2]).
Also, the Interface Stability Promise [3] by systemd team is just a promise, nothing more. Will Red Hat keep it if it is to decide at some point, that it no longer serves it's bottom line? I wonder if it can be considered legally binding.
[1] http://archive09.linux.com/feed/61302
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vILAlhwUgIU
[3] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfaceSt...
Originally posted in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7210064
The Interface Stability Promise [1] by systemd team is just a promise, nothing more. I wonder if Red Hat will keep it if it decides that it no longer serves their bottom line.
[1] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfaceSt...
That's what we know about this company from an old (2007) article:
> “When we rolled into Baghdad, we did it using open
> source,” General Justice continued. “It may come as a
> surprise to many of you, but the U.S. Army is “the” single
> largest install base for Red Hat Linux. I'm their largest customer.” [1]
It is better to go with a grass-roots solution, even the one technically inferior, that isn't being influenced by one single vendor or government.
I do investigate my sources of information and, when discussing anything, I always try to use sources that are legitimate to all discussing parties.
So, please, don't invent stuff. This information source is not sympathetic to Russia. Also, it supports the Ukrainian protests. I have yet to read a single article from Cпільне that is pro-Russia in even the slightest way.
> Having or not having Svoboda there doesn't change anything.
Back in the autumn on one of the Moscow suburban electric train stations I've spoken to a man from Ukraine that has said that the economic situation in the country is terrible and it is on the brink of the civil war.
I wish Ukrainians all the best in their struggle for freedom and better life, but the main players of Ukrainian opposition might be much better off not allying itself with Nazi sympathizers. If they won't do it, they might alienate Eastern Ukrainians that also hate Yanukovych to the point that they might have an armed internal conflict.
Just my 2 cents.
"One of the major forces at Euromaidan is the far-right xenophobic party ‘Svoboda’ (‘Freedom’). They are dominant among the volunteering guards of the protest camp and are the vanguard of the most radical street actions such as the occupation of the administrative buildings in the center of Kiev. Before 2004 ‘Svoboda’ was called Social-National Party of Ukraine and used Nazi ‘Wolfsangel’ symbol. The party leader Oleh Tiahnybok is still known for his anti-Semitic speech. Even after its re-branding, Svoboda is establishing cooperation with Neo-Nazi and neofascist European parties such as National Democratic Party of Germany and Forza nuova of Italy. Its rank-and-file militants are frequently involved in street violence and hate crimes against migrants and political opponents". [1]
I have to correct myself and say that the family friend didn't exactly get punched in the face, but the point still stands.
Thanks for the suggestion about the movie, I haven't watched it. But probably should have already.
I'm a little bit conservative in regards to internet communications, so I'll drop you an email.
>propaganda in the West IS a form of reality through which, as if it was
>some sort of glasses, Western people view the stuff that was going on here
>in USSR. The Soviet lies died when the Union fell, but the Western ones
>are living and well. Haha, didn't mean to make a rhyme...
It's not that I consider myself or Russians or any other group of people to be in a position to think of everyone else as being in an ivory tower. But there are certainly some Cold-War era myths and concepts that are still alive and kicking. Maybe because today's Russia is culturally really not a very significant country and there is not much interest in what was going on here in XX century...
OK, I admit, this was off-topic...
Leonid Maryagin is "Леонид Марягин" in Russian. Here's his Wikipedia page [1] and here are the torrent links to the "Public enemy - Bukharin" [2] [3].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasil%E2%80%99_Bykaw
[1] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8...
As about the ones in Russian, I'd read "Russia: What Happened to it During XX Century" [1] by Yuri Semenov, which is a theoretical text about the structure of the Soviet society. Sadly, it is not available in English. Someday I will probably translate it myself. I've heard that is was translated to Chinese, but I don't know Chinese, so I can't really tell.
From fiction I'd read "The Gospel of an Executioner" (Russian: "Евангелие от палача") [2] by Georgi and Arkadi Vainers [0] (Russian: Георгий Вайнер и Аркадий Вайнер). I'm not sure if it was translated, but I would certainly search for German and English translations.
Before watching the movie you surely must know something about the Doctors' plot [3], the fact that the rooms and the atmosphere of the main hero's apartment was made after the apartment of Alexey German's father and, probably, that an episode when an old family friend from a foreign country get's punched in a face has had a basis in Alexey German's life. (The idea is that half of his family has fought in the Civil War on one side, and another half on the other. Delivering news from the other half living outside of the Soviet Union could have meant a death sentence for Alexey German's father and misery for all of his family. Even though an Alexey German's pro-monarchism uncle living in exile has urged his old pro-communist Western friend not to visit his brother (and, consequently, an Alexey German's father) during his stay in Moscow, he got drunk and visited him).
I could make some more comments, but I'm not sure if they would do you any good and not spoil anything.
To better understand the Stalin's era overall, I'd read Varlam Shalamov [4], just everything that you can lay your hands on. Tons of his books are translated to German and one to English.
I don't usually read Western literature about the Stalin era because even better books are so full of bullshit. Not that I don't think that Stalin was an evil person, or that the Stalin era and Soviet Union are so mysterious that they are unfathomable to the people in the Western world. It's just that the ideological differences are still huge and the Cold War propaganda in the West IS a form of reality through which, as if it was some sort of glasses, Western people view the stuff that was going on here in USSR. The Soviet lies died when the Union fell, but the Western ones are living and well. Haha, didn't mean to make a rhyme...
Just as a side note: there are some truly great and deep fiction writers that wrote about Stalin's atrocities, such as Varlam Shalamov [4], Yury Dombrovsky [5], Georgy Demidov [6], Yevgenia Ginzburg [7], etc. etc. But the most famous in the West is a mediocre, albeit convenient Alexander Solzhenitsyn that has suited the propaganda needs, hated the Soviet Union and was willing to pull various "facts" out of his ass. As a famous exiled Russian writer and a fierce anti-communist, Sergei Dovlatov [8] once said: "Communists I hate the most, but the ones that I hate even more are the anti-communists".
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Alexandrowitsch_Wainer
[1] https://scepsis.net/library/id_128.html
[2] http://flibusta.net/b/201844/read
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varlam_Shalamov
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_Dombrovsky
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Demidov
"The Cranes Are Flying" is an amazing movie, I totally agree. I think it is a great illustration of an idea that morally-strong and courageous people are the first ones to die in hard times.
If you like "The Ascent", I wonder if you'd also be fond of her other movies, first of all, "Ty i ya" (1971) [1] (The film has it's fair share of problems but I find the main idea behind it really powerful). I'd also recommend you to watch movies made by her husband, Elem Klimov, at least, "Come and See" [2] and "Rasputin" [3].
As about "Come and See", for me it has a somewhat personal theme: when Nazis were exterminating the people of his village near Ula, the grandfather of my ex has survived only by chance. His mother, while holding him, has jumped into the ravine before the bullets hit them.
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067894/