Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

About Ukraine

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: About Ukraine

#71

Post by kutakbash »

dmytrish wrote: post #59
adwf wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think because the large majority of the wealth is in the south-eastern Russian-speaking section. From the article, it sounds like that is where all the coal and iron mines are. Not to mention the most productive farmland. The Russian-speaking section also encompasses the major ports of Odessa and Sevastopol. So a split down language lines would leave the Ukrainian segment landlocked and with a vastly weakened econo…

That was true about ten years ago and before. Now East has a very inefficient, power-hungry, noncompetitive economy that starts to eat more money for social subsidies than it produces (Yanukovych himself decided recently to make the "pride" of Donetsk regions, state-owned coal mines private because of their unprofitableness). Crimea has been always unprofitable even with its lucrative tourism industry. East views its…

>starts to eat more money for social subsidies than it produces

>Crimea has been always unprofitable even with its lucrative tourism industry

Not a marker of anything, there are only a few oblasts in Ukraine that are profitable (taxes - government spending), until very recently none of them were in the Western part of the country. This may be not the best way to judge contribution of different parts of the country into the economy. If you give a look at exports structure (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Ukraine_E...), you can clearly see that it is dominated by products of exclusively Eastern industries.

Re: About Ukraine

#72

Post by kutakbash »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #37
aaron351 wrote: post #11

>8. Why haven't the U.S. or Europe fixed this? Seriously?

Obama's administration has been getting hammered for getting involved in these types of conflicts. Not sure he wants to stretch the US resources any further and is already hesitant to involve US military resources.See Egypt as exhibit A. Also, it's pretty frustrating when you see countries crying for help, then when we finally send in military and financial aid, they're called "occupiers" and told to leave the countr…

>countries crying for help

That's a huge stretch. The 'cry for help' isn't unanimous by very far.

Re: About Ukraine

#73

Post by cLeEOGPw »

shitgoose wrote: post #70
cLeEOGPw wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Putin's longing for USSR is overrated. I don't believe he gives a rat's ass about USSR. I believe he gives quite a rat's ass about USSR. Remember that Putin saw USSR fall under his own eyes. He not only blames Gorbachev for the destruction for USSR, but basically considers him a traitor for things like not approving violence against occupied states during independence uprisings. Besides the sentiments for USSR, he…

Putin's main concern after he quits politics is his personal safety, not rebuilding USSR. Nobody in Russia wants back into USSR, an attempt at rebuilding would be futile and suicidal. As for "bribing" the countries to join CU - that is the whole point of CU, which implies deeper integration, lower trade barriers, lower prices for gas etc. If you don't want to be "bribed", it is simple - don't take the money (and don'…

The thing is, from economic point of view, Putin makes mistake to pay so much money just for them to participate in the union. And what Putin is known for is careful, very calculated political moves, certainly not charity. So he expects something more from it later.

Besides, saying that Ukraine will never be EU member just exposes your clear bias. Everyone knows it won't join EU for a long time, but if they elect people that work towards it (which is unlikely knowing how chaotic the opposition is) it would be a matter of time till it joins EU.

Re: About Ukraine

#74

Post by saganus »

IgorPartola wrote: post #58
saganus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it might not be the same, but in Mexico there are so called self-defense groups, that try to fight against organized crime. They are armed groups of civilians that took control of entire towns and their surrounding areas, to stop the cartels from doing as they please. They have gunfights with cartels and when they successfully drive them away, they pickup armored vehicles, guns and money, and everything else th…

What you describe is going on in Mexico sounds fascinating. Where can I read more about it?

At the risk of putting yet more political news in HN, here are some news in English. I'm not sure how accurate these are as I just skimmed over them.

[Edit: I don't know how accurate these are, but they are from 'reputable' sources I think, but I guess that depends on your personal opinion. It's not the HuffPo though.]

I live in Mexico so I have access to news coverage and even YouTube videos of the self-defense group's leader himself, which I will link below, but it's in Spanish. Maybe if a couple of people ask for it I can do a transcription in English.

So here:

The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/mexico-drug-car...

WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/in-the-hill...

WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230400750...

Interviews with one of the leaders of one of the groups, in Spanish. (there are different groups in differente cities/town which don't have any connection between them. They are all independent as far as I know, not organized toghether yet).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9S1FMJ6NX8

Here, the leader of the group in Tepalcatepec, Michoacan, Doctor Mireles (he's a surgeon) explains how things started getting so crazy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9S1FMJ6NX8

It's heart-breaking, but one of the most impressive and wicked things he says is, if you forward to minute 6:57, he explains how, even when the cartels where in the area since a lot of years already, civilians got fed up when this happened, and I'm quoting:

"The problem blew up when they [cartel members] came to your house and told you 'I like your wife, I'll bring her back in a moment. But in the meanwhile go get your girl a bath [girl meaning your daughter, around 10 to 13 years old] because I will be taking her for several days' and then they would not return her to you until she was pregnant. THAT was the reason the situation exploted in Tepalcatepec".

Some minutes before, at 4:28 he explains why he joined the movement. He says that in the month of December only (of 2012 I believe) 14 girls between the ages of 10 and 11 were raped. And all this on top of things like, for every cow that you sell, you had to pay X amount of pesos to the cartels. For every kilo of tortilla, same thing. Basically it was a form of cartel taxes. The thing is he says that even when they had that extorsion thing going on, things were relatively "in peace", meaning that executions and such were just happening between cartel members, and not with the civilian population. And then he explains the quote above, of what made everything blow to pieces...

Now, this Mireles guy is just the leader of the groups in one of the municipalities, namely Tepalcatepec. But other groups are already active from other places as well. Also, you have to take into account that, at least Tepalcatepec, in 2005, it had around 22,000 people. So it's not a big city but it's definitely not just a collection of houses.

That's why I said that things are also quite dark and siniter down here.

Re: About Ukraine

#75

Post by at-fates-hands »

shitgoose wrote: post #42
at-fates-hands wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama's administration has been getting hammered for getting involved in these types of conflicts. Not sure he wants to stretch the US resources any further and is already hesitant to involve US military resources.See Egypt as exhibit A. Also, it's pretty frustrating when you see countries crying for help, then when we finally send in military and financial aid, they're called "occupiers" and told to leave the countr…

I agree with you, except "countries crying for help" part. Did Afghanistan cry for help? Or Iraq?

Sometimes I wonder when people say, "Why isn't the US helping out in (insert country here)?" Then turn around and say, "Well, we never should have been in Iraq." and forget about all the things Saddam Hussein did to his people:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm#repression

Iraq has refused to allow the UN's Special Rapporteur for Human Rights to return to Iraq since his first visit in 1992. The government of Iraq has refused to allow the stationing of human rights monitors as required by the resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights. The regime expelled UN personnel and NGOs who, until 1992, ensured the delivery of humanitarian relief services throughout the country.

Iraqi authorities routinely practice extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions throughout those parts of the country still under regime control. The total number of prisoners believed to have been executed since autumn 1997 exceeds 2,500. This includes hundreds of arbitrary executions in the last months of 1998 at Abu Ghraib and Radwaniyah prisons near Baghdad.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Iraqi regime destroyed over 3,000 Kurdish villages. The destruction of Kurdish and Turkomen homes is still going on in Iraqi-controlled areas of northern Iraq, as evidenced the destruction by Iraqi forces of civilian homes in the citadel of Kirkuk

Iraq's 1988-89 Anfal campaign subjected the Kurdish people in northern Iraq to the most widespread attack of chemical weapons ever used against a civilian population. The Iraqi military attacked a number of towns and villages in northern Iraq with chemical weapons. In the town of Halabja alone, an estimated 5,000 civilians were killed and more than 10,000 were injured.

Or maybe we should review life under the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to the invasion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Human_rights_abuses

According to a 55-page report by the United Nations, the Taliban, while trying to consolidate control over northern and western Afghanistan, committed systematic massacres against civilians

UN officials stated that there had been "15 massacres" between 1996 and 2001.[28][29] They also said, that "[t]hese have been highly systematic and they all lead back to the [Taliban] Ministry of Defense or to Mullah Omar himself."[28][29] "These are the same type of war crimes as were committed in Bosnia and should be prosecuted in international courts", one UN official was quoted as saying.[

n 1998, the United Nations accused the Taliban of denying emergency food by the UN's World Food Programme to 160,000 hungry and starving people "for political and military reasons".[152] The UN said the Taliban were starving people for their military agenda and using humanitarian assistance as a weapon of war.

On August 8, 1998 the Taliban launched an attack on Mazar-i Sharif. Of 1500 defenders only 100 survived the engagement. Once in control the Taliban began to kill people indiscriminately. At first shooting people in the street, they soon began to target Hazaras. Women were raped, and thousands of people were locked in containers and left to suffocate. This ethnic cleansing left an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 dead.

Maybe you're right, it would've been better to just stay out of both places. . .

Re: About Ukraine

#76

Post by go13 »

shitgoose wrote: post #34
empthought wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is because there aren't two distinct nationalities in play here. Even the Russian-speaking Ukrainians do not want to rejoin Russia; they would prefer to be Ukrainian. The situation is much closer to the situation in the United States than to those in other central and eastern European cold war countries. While there are strong regional divisions between Democrats and Republicans -- divisions that are roote…

I believe that Crimea (peninsula in Black Sea) wouldn't mind to go back to Russia since it has never been historically a Ukrainian territory. East of Ukraine may not be keen on becoming Russian, but sure as hell they don't want to be ruled by Western Ukraine. Differences between East and West of Ukraine run deep and go far beyond political preferences. West sees East as scum. Period. For example, when Western protest…

Russians often ask this question but... (And i heard this thesis two times yesterday said by russians only btw)

- Don't forget about Crimean Tatars who live there and i really doubt they would like to either join Russia or be separated from Ukraine. Why? Lots of them were banished from the island by Russian Empire. Though still a lot of Crimean Tatars are living there now. Also they supported Maydan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars .

- WIKI says the number of ukrainians living in Crimea - 24.32%, russians - 58%, Crimean Tatars - 12 .

- But russians usually don't remember Dagestan(Russia) or the Chechen Republic(Russia) where the number of russians is less than 5%. Or Belgium with german speaking people .

- Ukrainian regions were a part of the Russian Empire for quite a long time. Why would they not join Russia?

- Crimea is an autonomy, but even now people stimulated by politicians say that they want Ukraine to be a federation. Do they know what is the difference between autonomy and federation?

And in addition. Knowing history of the country is crucial here. If you look at the Russian Imperial Census of 1897 you will see that people living in the eastern part of modern Ukraine were 80-90% ukrainian speaking. And now if you go to the country area of eastern regions you will see lots of ukrainian speaking people.There were 3 man-made famine in Ukrainian SSR conducted by Soviet regime and lots of repressions killed more ukrainians than ukrainians died during the 2 World War. And now guess what Stalin does? He invites russians to the industrial western part of Ukraine. This region required a work force at that time.

So the question is not that simple and clear if you are looking just at big cities like Kharkiv or Donezk.

PS. The myth that Maydan is a question of ukrainians - russians to live in one state is stimulated by politician i believe. It is a question of corrupted government and people who don't want to live in a state with USSR standards.

Re: About Ukraine

#77

Post by shitgoose »

cLeEOGPw wrote: post #73
shitgoose wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putin's main concern after he quits politics is his personal safety, not rebuilding USSR. Nobody in Russia wants back into USSR, an attempt at rebuilding would be futile and suicidal. As for "bribing" the countries to join CU - that is the whole point of CU, which implies deeper integration, lower trade barriers, lower prices for gas etc. If you don't want to be "bribed", it is simple - don't take the money (and don'…

The thing is, from economic point of view, Putin makes mistake to pay so much money just for them to participate in the union. And what Putin is known for is careful, very calculated political moves, certainly not charity. So he expects something more from it later. Besides, saying that Ukraine will never be EU member just exposes your clear bias. Everyone knows it won't join EU for a long time, but if they elect peo…

He expects to build a regional structure based on economics rather then politics in which Russia will play the main role. Portraying it as the second coming of USSR is plain wrong. It is also wrong to assume that there are plans to turn this union into political one - Russia doesn't need the headache of managing Ukrainian, Kazakh or any other nation's internal affairs. To achieve that Russia is willing to spend a few bln here and there to push them in the direction of CU. Again, EU did the same thing with Eastern Europe by accepting them on a super fast track.

I don't have bias, I am trying to see things as they are without cliches. EU is not likely to survive in its current form. One of the main issues with EU is that some countries made it there for political reasons, for which EU is beginning to pay dearly and has no appetite for Ukraine whatsoever. Putin may be making same mistake with say Armenia, but again he is just a bureaucrat like his European colleagues.

Re: About Ukraine

#78

Post by kutakbash »

go13 wrote: post #76
shitgoose wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that Crimea (peninsula in Black Sea) wouldn't mind to go back to Russia since it has never been historically a Ukrainian territory. East of Ukraine may not be keen on becoming Russian, but sure as hell they don't want to be ruled by Western Ukraine. Differences between East and West of Ukraine run deep and go far beyond political preferences. West sees East as scum. Period. For example, when Western protest…

Russians often ask this question but... (And i heard this thesis two times yesterday said by russians only btw) - Don't forget about Crimean Tatars who live there and i really doubt they would like to either join Russia or be separated from Ukraine. Why? Lots of them were banished from the island by Russian Empire. Though still a lot of Crimean Tatars are living there now. Also they supported Maydan. http://en.wikipe…

>Lots of them were banished from the island by Russian Empire.

You either use this as a very politically loaded term for Stalinist Soviet Union (which is a problem with your post on its own right), or you are wrong.

>- But russians usually don't remember Dagestan(Russia) or the Chechen Republic(Russia) where the number of russians is less than 5%. Or Belgium with german speaking people .

Russia and Belgium, unlike Ukraine, aren't nation states. Russia is a multi-ethnic country, which is stated in its constitution.

> Ukrainian regions were a part of the Russian Empire for quite a long time. Why would they not join Russia?

Why should they?

>- Crimea is an autonomy, but even now russians stimulated by pro-Russia politicians say that they want Ukraine to be a federation. Do they know what is the difference between autonomy and federation?

So some Russians say one thing, other Russians say different things, so what? I tell you that there is a great deal of difference between unitary state with some autonomies and federation (which is obvious really, think Spain and USA).

>If you look at the Russian Imperial Census of 1897 you will see that people living in the eastern part of modern Ukraine were 80-90% ukrainian speaking. And now if you go to the country area of eastern regions you will see lots of ukrainian speaking people.

How is the census of 1897 related? You wouldn't say parts of Far East and Siberia, which were predominantly Ukrainian-speaking then should be parts of Ukraine now?

>There were 3 man-made famine in Ukrainian SSR conducted by Soviet regime and lots of repressions killed more ukrainians than ukrainians died during the 2 World War.

Oh, now 3 man-made famines specifically designed to destroy Ukrainian nation, great. What do you think of people of Lower Volga, North Caucasus and Siberia who perished of famine of 1932-1933? I guess you prefer not to notice their existence because they don't serve your political goals of the day.

>And now guess what Stalin does? He invites russians to the industrial western part of Ukraine. This region required a work force at that time.

Yeah, I guess it's also Stalin (a Georgian btw) who put all the iron ore and coal there, just to extinguish all the Ukrainians so when Ukraine becomes independent there are less Ukrainian-speaking people there? What a prophet, wasn't he? Or should he just ignore industrial potential of Eastern Ukraine whatsoever?

This is a really telling example of Russia-directed scare-mongering, I feel uneasy about it, as a Russian.

Re: About Ukraine

#79

Post by shitgoose »

dmytrish wrote: post #54
shitgoose wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that Crimea (peninsula in Black Sea) wouldn't mind to go back to Russia since it has never been historically a Ukrainian territory. East of Ukraine may not be keen on becoming Russian, but sure as hell they don't want to be ruled by Western Ukraine. Differences between East and West of Ukraine run deep and go far beyond political preferences. West sees East as scum. Period. For example, when Western protest…

East also sees West as a land of rural people who do plumbing/maid work in Europe for food and are wicked nationalists/Nazis. The titushki you mentioned are not shamed just because they're from Eastern Ukraine, but of what they did in Kiev for government money (beatings/vandalism to discriminate Maidan). So I have to admit that there are some deep cultural differences, indeed. But when I try to imagine two Ukraines,…

"beatings/vandalism to discriminate Maidan"

You have to try really hard to discredit this (opposition in action):

http://votarea.com/uploads/posts/2013-12/1385948933_1328475.... http://img12.nnm.me/e/c/c/b/7/2dfacaf7de32a36db9cf7794f86.jp...

Re: About Ukraine

#80

Post by fauigerzigerk »

malkung wrote: post #52
11001 wrote: post #20

Here is an ELI5 version of what's going on in Ukraine: Ukraine doesn't have any money, it needs to borrow it. It can ask the west, but the west gives back a list of conditions to be satisfied (human rights, economical, etc) that are incredibly hard for the governmnet to achieve given deeply rooted corruption on all levels. There is another source for the money: Russia (which, despite some westerners' beliefs, is a ve…

Ok, it's well-meaning EU vs. corrupt Russia. Culturally, Ukraine seems to be much closer to Russia than to EU. So I think the end result will be similar to what happened with Arabic Spring revolutions, when the West hoped to see Western standards of democracy implanted into foreign cultures that could not possibly adhere to them (although they declared so initially). So I doubt very much that after the association wi…

No, democracy is not like making Ukranians or Egyptians love baseball, bullfighting and bratwurst. It's not some oddity from western cultures. It means rule of the people as opposed to the rule of some small group of thugs with guns (aristocracy, apparatchiks, the mafia, military dictators, religious leaders, etc). Everyone, everywhere in the world understands that by now.

What is specific to western cultures is that we don't expect the thugs to always prevail. All that talk about democracy as a foreign implant is a glaringly obvious and self serving attempt by the ruling thugs to present the status quo as an inevitability so they can keep lining their pockets without interference by the people. Let's not fall for it.

Post reply on HN