ok what the fuck is happening in ukraine

funny thing, I corresponded w/ a woman from a state film organization in kyiv today, name sounded familiar and turns out she moonlights as a left-libertarian/anarchist activist-intellectual and wrote one of the smarter pieces on the varying ideologies in the protest movement and what goals/ideas they had in common.

My hope is that Ukraine has its own belated Velvet Divorce through popular referendums, as the current borders of Ukraine only ensures perpetual conflict between West and East Ukraine, and broken nationalist party politics.

I think there's probably far too much invested in the state of ukraine in something closely resembling its current borders on the part of many ukrainians for that to happen "amicably." i get the sense that there were ethnolinguistic divisions b/t czechs and slovaks going back quite a ways, making the separation something mutual. many of the russians in eastern ukraine arrived during the soviet period (part of general policy of russification of non-russian republics, a policy that obviously has huge ramifications to this day) and there isn't a very longstanding institutional notion of a "russian" part of ukraine. maybe I am wrong.

As I've said before on this thread, most of my acquaintances in Ukraine are (academics or musicians and) native Russian speakers, and they do not love Russia nor do they consider themselves Russian and not Ukrainian. The only people rooting for the break-up of Ukraine are holders of Russian passports.

That has never been true of Crimea. Most of my contacts in Ukraine are native Russian (or Surzhyk) speakers and consider themselves Russian-speaking Ukrainians first and foremost. They are overwhelmingly in favour of keeping Ukraine together. They're mostly European-leaning people in education or publishing living in Kyiv though. There is a substantial demographic of people in Crimea, and to a lesser extent in the south and east, who consider themselves Russian irrespective of what their passport says.

yeah, that's what i gather. it's confusing because there are at least three different (and not always contradictory) senses in which one can be either/both "ukrainian" and "russian."

it can be purely linguistic (russian-speaker), ethnic (I am "Russian" by family heritage), and/or national (I am/would like to be a Russian citizen).

what do you make of julia ioffe's analysis in TNR that the split isn't as ethno-linguistic or regional as it is generational?

well yeah there's that added layer of folks who did/didn't grow up (mostly) during the soviet period.

ie "pro-russian" sentiment can be older people looking back at better times in the soviet sphere and/or a 20th cent memory of what it meant to get closer to russia (vs. closer to europe/germany)

where's that pic of an old crimean woman celebrating the annexation with an old poster of stalin...

xp

i have to admit feeling kind of contemptuous toward images of elderly crimeans dancing in the streets after russian annexation. it's like, grandpa, the future isn't really for your benefit, you know?

i imagine that's a hateful response but still.

xp

Haven't read it but it's an interesting idea. Not something reflected in my experience though. I'm not aware of either side's politicians having a particular generational skew in support. There is a certain section of the older generation that is heavily nostalgic for the security that being part of the Soviet Union provided, and they might be more Russia-leaning, but region / ethnicity seems a much stronger factor.

i've def. read about the generational divide(s) from a number of places, doesn't mean it's not being overstates though

Bear in mind that anyone over the age of 60 from Crimea would have been born in Russia and given away as a present to Ukraine. Bitterness is kind of understandable. Xp

so far nobody has explained why that was done--why reassign crimea to the ukrainian soviet republic? just because there's a land connection b/t crime and ukraine?

I don't think anyone really knows for sure. It was done to mark the 300th anniversary of the union of Russia and Ukraine but it didn't seem to make a great deal of sense (80℅ of the population was Russian). I guess at the time it didn't really matter.

One theory is that it was a way of Khrushchev paying the Ukrainian SSR back for its role in his rise to power. Also a way of winning back support after all the terrible things Stalin did in the 30s and 40s.

ah yes, the famous "here, have a peninsula!" campaign.

Yeah, I always wondered that. Also why would the west even bother to recognize what happened during the Soviet regime. I suppose this was the answer:

I guess at the time it didn't really matter

Russia wants to invade and built soviet tiny houses

Ladasraum

Moscow signals concern for Russians in Estonia

(Reuters) - Russia signaled concern on Wednesday at Estonia's treatment of its large ethnic Russian minority, comparing language policy in the Baltic state with what it said was a call in Ukraine to prevent the use of Russian.

Russia has defended its annexation of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula by arguing it has the right to protect Russian-speakers outside its borders, so the reference to linguistic tensions in another former Soviet republic comes at a highly sensitive moment.

the sochi games are seeming weirder and weirder in retrospect

Russia is right wrt Estonia and has been saying this for years but there is absolutely no prospect of them being able to do anything about it.

I imagine they're mentioning it again as a reminder of what they claim would happen had they not 'intervened' in Crimea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-pathetic-response-to-putin/2014/03/20/6ef35b9c-b065-11e3-95e8-39bef8e9a48b_story.html

American neo-con standard analysis

Charles Krauthammer

Reminds me that Cheney apparently argued for bombing Russia when the Georgian invasion / counter-invasion happened.

yep, more details here:

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/putin-saudi-arabia/ccdfec18c2b1465fb860af4892f6bbbdd0f3d8f3/

Other articles from Mark Ames' NSFWcorp are worth perusing:

Everything you know about Ukraine is wrong (Mark Ames, February 24, 2014)
The War Nerd: Everything you know about Crimea is wrong(-er) (Gary Brecher, March 17, 2014)

Of particular note, this chronology for Crimean Russians in Ukraine (1917-2000) linked in the War Nerd article gives a sense for how longstanding the Kiev-Simoferopol disputes have been.

yeah mark ames has been essential in general of late

V Srs NatSec Bros have been garrulously rolling their eyes at Ames & Co all week, i'd wondered why

Mar 30, 1990 The Ukraine government required Crimean Russians to set their clocks to the same time as the rest of Ukraine for the first time since 1994, when the Russians had switched to Moscow time in protest. The Ukraine government had initially tolerated a second time zone within Ukraine, but required the Crimeans to come into line after four years. (The Independent [London] 3/28/97)

this is interesting, i knew that crimea was switching to moscow time at the end of the month but didn't know it wasn't quite as radical (if no less ridiculous) a change as it appeared

Reminds me that Cheney apparently argued for bombing Russia when the Georgian invasion / counter-invasion happened.

― Yuri Bashment (ShariVari), Saturday, March 22, 2014 12:53 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

man, it's a good thing that guy never had his hands close to the levers of power, huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/world/europe/3-presidents-and-a-riddle-named-putin.html

doesn't make obama (or his immediate predecessor) look very good. they're like lambs dealing w/ a wolf.

Obama's re-set strategy made some progress when Medvedev wasn't being completely overruled by Putin.

So how should the wolf be dealt with?

I don't know but it seems like he was pretty naive to try and alienate Putin in favor of Medvedev, and it doesn't seem like he has much of a relationship at all with Putin today. This isn't a super uncommon critique of Obama - he's been criticized domestically and internationally for being aloof and not much of a statesman.

have you guys seen "art under Stalin"?

http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/socrealism/Stalin.jpg

This isn't a super uncommon critique of Obama - he's been criticized domestically and internationally for being aloof and not much of a statesman.

This is one of the few criticisms from the right that makes sense, but Putin, as that NYT story shows (and there are others), has no interest in relationships either: "I gave you landing rights during 9/11. Now stay the fuck out of Georgia and Crimea."

x-post to Mordy--

First you described obama as being a lamb in dealing with Putin the wolf, and now you say Obama shouldn't "alienate" Putin and say it doesn't seem like he has much of a relationship at all with Putin today. I'm not clear what you're asking of him and/or what you're saying other world leaders are doing in their dealings with Putin.

well, it was naive for him to think he could shut Putin out by concentrating on Medvedev - iirc everyone at the time of the election assumed Putin was going to maintain power + control. ignoring the dude and hoping he behaves was a pretty silly strategy and has put obama in a position where he has no leverage or really any relationship at all w/ which to try to deal w/ putin. nb it could be nothing could really help w/ Putin and he'd do what he wants, but at this point i kinda think Bush's doe-eyed soul-seeing strategy was preferable to obama's complete lack of anything. you can't play hardball w/ someone if they won't take your calls.

Bush was completely onside with Putin until Yukos / Iraq. After that i'm not sure he was much less distant than Obama, was he?

What exactly do you think Obama could be doing better to "play hardball" with Putin? And if Putin is really as monomaniacal as that article claims, why would Obama have any extra leverage if he'd tickled his tummy and made him feel wanted for a few years? It's more likely that Putin doesn't give a shit what the US thinks and considers it none of their business.

Probably Putin is angry that a western-inspired middle class took to the streets in protest against him after the last sham of an election? How should a western leader react under those cirkumstances? (how on earth is that spelled?)

(and then you answer: 'like they did with bahrain', and them I'm game, set and match...)

But really, I don't think Obama should have done that much more to create a better relationship with Putin. At this point, for me, getting rid of Janokovitj and finally, firmly establishing Ukraine as a part of Europe, is worth handing Crimea to Russia - which they to a large extent really want to be a part of anyway. Putin is a manic autocrat, and him and his stupid eurasian union can trade with themselves all they want. Don't spend energy creating a better relationship with Putin, spend it creating more ways to get energy without being involved with that stupid country.

This is way too callous to the large amount of people in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc, who want a better life than what life under Putin and his crony friends will offer them, but really, my point is: What does Putin has to offer the west, which we wouldn't be better off getting elsewhere? And what can he really take, which we would really miss?

Russais evils? are they any more surly than americas? Is Ukraine not their Iraq?

What does Putin has to offer the west, which we wouldn't be better off getting elsewhere?

Gas, oil, the prospect of Chelsea winning the Champions League again?

Is Ukraine not their Iraq?

Crimea is their Miami/Key West. Ukraine is all the red states they fly over to get there.

Britain is going to start importing gas directly from Russia for the first time this year. Obviously the contracts were signed ages ago but fucking great timing there.

Nonetheless Tory backbenchers will be pleased that at least we're looking to increase our trade with nations outside the EU

Peak Gas to thread!!

Russia is out of the G8!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/24/politics/obama-europe-trip/index.html