Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Sure, let Iran keep the jobs and get the money and energy independence. What's wrong with that?

---

I am not sure on the specifics but because there are sanctions by the USA on Iran, they can't export Gas and Oil as part of OPEC to the USA. But once they get back a Nuclear Deal, and OPEC allows them to sell their oil with the rest of OPEC, how does the US not buy it. Psaki was asked the question the other day, but she of course dodged it. Here is a pretty good summary on the politics and what has to happen.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/n...il-supply-deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

OK, maybe defending Poland, Hungary, and Romania is justifiable, but there's a deafening silence about Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Oh well, they're small states, and have been turned over before, so I guess they're expendable?

Oh, and btw, maybe people who think it's only Ukraine which Putin was willing to go to war for, and only because the west "provoked" him should go back and read that long rambling, maniacal screed where he lays out clearly his ultimate goal. He wants it all back, guys, all of it, all of the former eastern bloc.

When dictators tell you what they want, believe them.

---

I don't want to make this all about economics, but you can't totally decouple economic policy from your national security policy, imo. But those 3 countries to their credit are hitting the > 2% of GDP on their NATO commitment

In addition, this foreign policy analysis article, from 2017, clearly showed these 3 countries recognized the need to move away from dependence on Russian Oil and Gas

https://www.fpri.org/article/2017/06...g-away-russia/

Smart leaders who recognize being dependent on Russian Oil and Gas is not only a threat to your economy, it is is also a threat to national security.

These 3 countries know what it is like to live under the boot of Soviet Communism and they deserve NATO support. I have seen nothing from these 3 countries other than being good NATO partners both in terms of shared security obligations and economic decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

OK, maybe defending Poland, Hungary, and Romania is justifiable, but there's a deafening silence about Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Oh well, they're small states, and have been turned over before, so I guess they're expendable?

---

No, I wouldn't say so. And it doesn't matter anyway, because Russia already accepted it, by and large.

Quote:

---

Oh, and btw, maybe people who think it's only Ukraine which Putin was willing to go to war for, and only because the west "provoked" him should go back and read that long rambling, maniacal screed where he lays out clearly his ultimate goal. He wants it all back, guys, all of it, all of the former eastern bloc.

---

That's absurd, where did he really say that? He did not, he desperately tries to not provoke the NATO and keep it at a distance. Russia in its current borders and with its current military can't bring all Eastern states back under its control. Of course, he might dream about it on the very long run, probably over generations, but that's not what he said. Some remarks shouldn't be taken literally, but I never heard him saying that he e.g. wants Poland and Romania back by force. Rather he wants to be a counterweight in Europe as such to the Washington-London influence, politically.

Quote:

---

When dictators tell you what they want, believe them.

---

As if the USA is more believable to any sovereign state around the world. There are plenty of cases which prove the opposite in the recent years alone.

The most insidious and hypocritical comments came of course from Erdogan, the butcher of the Kurds, the spreader of Islamist terror, the occupier of foreign countries against international law. He was the first to condemn Putins transgression of international law. Probably Saudi Arabia should send a message from Yemen too, if they like, just like Erdogan from Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan in general.

What did happen to Erdogan for what he did? Nothing. These are just double standards, just like it suits the Washington-London alliance. If they like it, its ok, if not, its against international law and needs to be fought with all measures. These kind of double standards make absolutely clear with which kind of geopolitical game we're dealing with.

Gypsies who live in a country ruled by a "Nazi drug addict" president - capture a Russian tank:

https://168-hu.translate.goog/kulfol...7vQfAPmjQ-OR28

"Local Roma occupied a Russian tank from the village of Ljubimivka in Herson Oblast, local residents said on 27 February. According to them, "Herszon county is on fire" - writes Transcarpathia.ma.

Earlier, UNIAN reported that civilians had taken to the streets in the village of Koryukivka in Chernivtsi County to stop Russian tanks.

The bold venture of the villagers was also shared by Adviser to the Interior Minister Anton Herashchenko. The head of the ministry expressed his appreciation for their courage."

^^^
So from Kremlin's point of view, the Russian army is facing Nazi Gypsies, led by a Nazi Jew, and supported by many drug addicts.

Makes sense.

For historical reference, I think it is important to remember (I mentioned it earlier) that the USA (Bill Clinton), UK (PM Major), the Ukrainians and Russian Federation signed the Budapest accord in 1994 whereby the USA/UK would guarantee to protect Ukraine's sovereignty if they gave up Nuclear weapons and Russia would respect that sovereignty . Ukraine did give those weapons up.

So based on that agreement, Russia clearly violated it. Lets be clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

For historical reference, I think it is important to remember (I mentioned it earlier) that the USA (Bill Clinton), UK (PM Major), the Ukrainians and Russian Federation signed the Budapest accord in 1994 whereby the USA/UK would guarantee to protect Ukraine's sovereignty if they gave up Nuclear weapons and Russia would respect that sovereignty . Ukraine did give those weapons up.

So based on that agreement, Russia clearly violated it. Lets be clear.

---

Yes. Russia violated it already in 2014. And now they did it again, of course.

Ukraine had nuclear weapons and it should have kept them, it was a mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by real expert

Furthermore, here's a clip of Russel Brand. In my opinion he puts a lot of effort to explain the complexity of this crisis. Russel Brand tries to be nuanced and balanced when discussing difficult topics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=595Esg6Mz0U

---

He mentions the importance of history of the region etc. I suppose what he means is the ethnic Russian population.

You know, every single census since the Russian Imperial census of 1897 - and including the Soviet Union census of 1926, as well as the Ukrainian census of 2001 - show that ethnic Ukrainians - not Russians - have always been the majority in Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

I think that all of this propaganda about Russians being the majority there, is based on 2010 election results.

They claim that voting for Yanukovych in 2010 = being ethnic Russian and voting for Tymoshenko in 2010 = Ukrainian. That would be like saying that Poland is also divided 50/50 into two ethnic groups, because half of Poland votes for Kaczynski & Co. and half for Tusk & Co.

This war has revealed the falsity of that propaganda - we are not seeing crowds of Russians welcoming Putin's tanks with flowers.

^^^
Map of 1897 census (not only were Ukrainians the main ethnicity in what is now Eastern Ukraine, but also in Kuban Oblast of Russia):

[keep in mind - in 1897 Ukraine was more diverse than now, minorities included not just Russians - also Jews, Poles, Germans, etc.]

https://i.imgur.com/68Gkq6h.png

^^^
Oh and in Crimea Ukrainians were only 12% in 1897, but the main group were not Russians. The main group were Crimean Tatars.

^ Some Russian sources estimate that even up to 30% of citizens of Ukraine have "fully or partially ethnic Russian ancestry".

This figure is most likely very exaggerated, and also they admit that it includes people with just partially ethnic Russian roots.

Maybe Putin thought that everyone who is e.g. 7/8 Ukrainian and 1/8 Russian will support Russia. Now it is obvious they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

He mentions the importance of history of the region etc. I suppose what he means is the ethnic Russian population.

You know, every single census since the Russian Imperial census of 1897 - and including the Soviet Union census of 1926, as well as the Ukrainian census of 2001 - show that ethnic Ukrainians - not Russians - have always been the majority in Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

I think that all of this propaganda about Russians being the majority there, is based on 2010 election results.

They claim that voting for Yanukovych in 2010 = being ethnic Russian and voting for Tymoshenko in 2010 = Ukrainian. That would be like saying that Poland is also divided 50/50 into two ethnic groups, because half of Poland votes for Kaczynski & Co. and half for Tusk & Co.

This war has revealed the falsity of that propaganda - we are not seeing crowds of Russians welcoming Putin's tanks with flowers.

---

The main argument is actually the confession first and dialects second as far as I understand it. As well as a general identity different from the West. Obviously, many Western regions are in many ways closer to Poland-Slovakia, from genetics to culture, than the Eastern ones. Basically, from a religious-ideological point of view, there are two splits in the Ukraine, Catholic vs. Orthodox and within the Orthodox Christians, between those belonging to the Ukrainian church vs. the Russian one.

Especially the switch to the Ukrainian church was kind of a political statement in the Ukraine, and the frequency of this is quite obviously regionally split, note where the hotspots are:
https://static.cambridge.org/binary/...ub-status=live
https://static.cambridge.org/binary/...ub-status=live

These are also the regions which were for a longer period part of a more Western state (Poland-Lithuania) and acted differently during World War II and will now, I would assume, resist more and recruit more volunteers for the war.

Probably the Russian aggression changes the attitude of the Easterners too, but before this invasion, the differences were fairly obvious.

Its in any case interesting to compare the above map of communities which switched to the Ukrainian orthodox church with the dialects of the Ukraine:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...05cc82b7007987
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...05cc82b7007987

Votes in the ominous election before the conflict got violent:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MHIBXEK8R...tymoshenko.png


There is a clear overlap of ethnolinguistic, religious-ideological, historical and geographical borders. We can clearly see that there is a heartland for the Ukrainian nationalism and resistance, which is in the West of the country. And a more pro-Russian, Eastern affiliation in the East.
How the invasion changes that is the great unknown, because large portions of the Eastern people might come to terms with Russians more easily, or they might unite against what might be seen now as a common enemy and aggressor.

That's one of the big unknowns in this war, also for the Ukrainian and Russian leaders I guess, how the Eastern inhabitants of the Ukrainians, beyond the more clearly pro-Russian Donbas, will react to this and how the war changes their attitudes.

Probably someone is not happy with the dialectal/ethnolinguistic map, but the basics don't change in other maps with "less Russian", the North West is the core zone for the Ukrainian nationalism and resistance, the very East for the pro-Russian base and sentiments. It always was. Basically, the pro-Western and anti-Russian sentiment is the strongest in the part of the Ukraine which was once a part of the Polish kingdom, the overlap is nearly 100 %:

https://en-academic.com/pictures/enw...orical_map.jpg

The lower the historical connection to the West (mostly Poland), the lower the support for the Ukrainian nationalism. And this dates back to times long before this conflict.

Riverman,

Quote:

---

These are also the regions which were for a longer period part of a more Western state (Poland-Lithuania)

---

^^^ Who ruled the terrain doesn't matter, what matters is where people originated from.

Central, Southern and Eastern Ukraine were settled mainly by people from West Ukraine.

Population density in today's Eastern & Southern Ukraine was very low around year 1569:

https://i.imgur.com/KOySba5.png

^^^
This area with low population was later settled (during the 1600s-1800s) from the West:

https://i.imgur.com/ZOAsHV1.png

^^^
"Novorossiya" region was never ruled by Poland-Lithuania, but it was largely settled by people from Western Ukraine.

Russian Tsars colonized Novorossiya largely with Western Ukrainian and Central Ukrainian settlers from the north:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya

Riverman,


"The main argument is actually the confession first and dialects second as far as I understand it."


Standard Ukrainian language evolved from diialects spoken in Poltava Oblast - that's Central Ukraine (and to the east of the Dnieper), not Western Ukraine.


The idea that Ukrainian language, identity, nationalism, etc. all come from Western Ukraine - and the rest are just "confused Russians in denial" - is wrong.


What about Zaporozhian Cossacks? They lived along the Dnieper River. And they were clearly nucleus of Ukrainian nationalism (already in the 1600s). I recommend a book "Nations. The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism" by Azar Gat for people who think that nationalism did not exist before the 19th century.


BTW, Russian nationalists love to claim that Zaporozhian Cossacks were actually Russians, not Ukrainians. But that's just absurd.


The most famous Cossack leader - Bohdan Khmelnytsky - actually had Polish roots according to some historians.


But Cossacks as a whole were clearly the nucleus of Ukrainian nationalism and are considered Ukraine's national heroes today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

Yes. Russia violated it already in 2014. And now they did it again, of course.

Ukraine had nuclear weapons and it should have kept them, it was a mistake.

---

Yes, they invaded Crimea in 2014. I often cite that quite a bit when the the anti Trump crowd starts there stuff. In 2014 is was Obama-Biden in the Oval office.

As for vernacular / everyday language in Ukraine - the switch from Ukrainian to Russian is fairly recent (Soviet times after WW2).

And it has not affected the ethnic identity of people.

Just like in Ireland the death of Irish language and its replacement by English did not cause the Irish to identify as English people.

Riverman,

"compare the above map of communities which switched to the Ukrainian orthodox church with the dialects of the Ukraine"

This map of dialects of Ukraine does NOT show traditional dialects. This Russian-speaking East is a recent development (post-WW2).

Similar development happened in Belarus - now almost all Belarusians speak Russian. But go back to 1925 - and all spoke Belarusian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

For historical reference, I think it is important to remember (I mentioned it earlier) that the USA (Bill Clinton), UK (PM Major), the Ukrainians and Russian Federation signed the Budapest accord in 1994 whereby the USA/UK would guarantee to protect Ukraine's sovereignty if they gave up Nuclear weapons and Russia would respect that sovereignty . Ukraine did give those weapons up.

So based on that agreement, Russia clearly violated it. Lets be clear.

---

Russian apologists would prefer to forget that fact.

Instead, the bad actor is the U.S.

Ask Eastern Europeans with whom they want to ally themselves, Russia or the U.S., and whom they trust more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

As for vernacular / everyday language in Ukraine - the switch from Ukrainian to Russian is fairly recent (Soviet times after WW2).

And it has not affected the ethnic identity of people.

Just like in Ireland the death of Irish language and its replacement by English did not cause the Irish to identify as English people.

---

Yes, and also the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic Church is based out of Lviv, which is close to the Poland Border. It is the largest Eastern Church in communion with Rome, very close the late Pope John Paul II's heart and I know they have no desire to be under control of the Russians, even if they are fluent in Russian. Those in the West Ukraine have long been looking for further integration with their neighbors to the West (Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic).

Here in Poland we have huge numbers of Ukrainians already since 2014.


There are at least 1.27 million Ukrainians in Poland (real number probably closer to 2 million), distributed like this:


(this map was made based on data about the number of cellphones)

https://i.imgur.com/qosQBQf.jpg

As far as I know most of them came from Eastern Ukraine, not Western.

(they came mostly from regions affected by the war of 2014 onwards)

And most of them speak Russian, yet emigrated to Poland not to Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

^^^
Oh and in Crimea Ukrainians were only 12% in 1897, but the main group were not Russians. The main group were Crimean Tatars.

---

Which got shipped to Siberia and got replaced by Ukranians and Russians.

Riverman,

An interesting exercise would be to look at birthplaces of well-known Ukrainian nationalists.

I haven't done such research (and I will not do it), but I found one case - Dmytro Doncov:

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com...tsovDmytro.htm

The guy was a hardcore nationalist, believed in brute force and in social Darwinism, etc.

Born in Melitopol - doesn't fit the stereotype that all Ukrainian nationalists hail from the West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

Riverman,

An interesting exercise would be to look at birthplaces of well-known Ukrainian nationalists.

I haven't done such research (and I will not do it), but I found one case - Dmytro Doncov:

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com...tsovDmytro.htm

The guy was a hardcore nationalist, believed in brute force and in social Darwinism, etc.

Born in Melitopol - doesn't fit the stereotype that all Ukrainian nationalists hail from the West.

---

I never said all nationalists come from the West, but that the support in the general population is clearly Western.
There are always exceptions, like one of the biggest early Czech nationalists was actually a German, who even changed his name.
I know the region he came from, and I guarantee you that the rest of his relatives had a very different take on the issue...
We can't conclude anything from exceptional cases, this is about numbers.

No matter how old the differences really are, they are real in any case and at least up to this point the inhabitants of the Western vs Eastern Ukraine had a different point of view on the conflict, its a divided country.
I don't know how recent events might have changed that. The inhabitants of Donbas and Crimea, that's a clear case, beyond that, I don't know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEFY-qSn2X8&t=173s - interview with Former Foreign and Defence Minister of Poland