Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This geography related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

In the words of one writer, a new Cold War 'would instantly destroy Russia before it even began in earnest'[edit]

In the words of many Russia wouldn't return to Cold war tactics, Russia wouldn't move against western leaning governments and yet Russia did with policy\economy (like in belarus) and armed intervention with noted from Brezhnev Doctrine in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine. After there was moves in those countries to join the EU\NATO. Putin said himself in 2008 Russia wouldn't agree with Georgia\Ukraine joining NATO and here were now with all the above being invaded under pretext of defending ethnic Russians under threat leading to breakaway region.

It's still not full Cold War tactics per se. Russia's post-2000 revival was reliant on its entrance into globalized political/economic institutions. That means despite Putin's actions to destabilize his neighbours (and to be honest, there really wasn't a big push to get Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine into NATO anyway, and an even larger disincentive now), he is restrained on what he can do. I know that might not seem apparent right now, but Kiev would have resembled Budapest 1956 back in the spring otherwise. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with firebagger/Putinista conspiracy theories[edit]

Let's see... we've got the overemphasis of the influence of the far right and outright Nazi groups (despite the fact that Ukraine's Jewish population was overwhelmingly pro-Euromaidan), the dead certainty that it was a US-backed coup, the infamous Victoria Nuland quote about $6G in aid (which was over the last quarter century, not specifically targeted at Euromaidan), the occasional sentiment that Ukraine forfeited its sovereignty (WTF?!), and the connection to RT and the American pacifist Left. I feel like we should really have some analysis about that in the article, but I'm not quite qualified to write it. EVDebs (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see in the edit history, I've not had a lot of fun accommodating their viewpoints, so I'd be happy if someone else would take a shot at it. I've tried to address left-wing Putin apologism succinctly in two wrongs make a right (the Nuland brouhaha is mentioned in the Globe column), we've always been harsh towards RT (and this year proved why), and the idea of Euromaidan as American coup is simply an extension of Kremlin allegations levied against the Orange Revolution.
It's the idea of an inherently reactionary Ukraine that's the most difficult to debunk right now, because of the compromise made with Svoboda in the makeshift Cabinet and some of the latest incidents (militias throwing themselves at the separatists, activists tossing Party of Regions MPs into dumpsters, rioting outside the Rada because Nazi-aligned partisans in WWII weren't named "national heroes"). The best way we can measure how influential the far-right actually is is how well the populists fare in the parliamentary election this weekend — it's a big deal because the pro-Russian bloc may be completely wiped out. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There's another major myth which probably needs to be debunked. Post-Maidan Ukraine is desperately trying to paint itself as a "young democracy suffering from the aggression of Teh Dark Lord Putin," but in reality the country's problems are mostly internal, and Putin is merely fueling them for his own agenda. Even given that the Crimea referendum was largely a sham, he would have never been able to annex the peninsula without the support of the locals. And DPR/LPR would never have happened if it wasn't for the conflict between the pro-Russian and pro-Western Ukrainians. (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"but in reality the country's problems are mostly internal, and Putin is merely fueling them for his own agenda" You've just contradicted yourself. There are clear differences in the quality of human development between post-Soviet countries with significant Russian minorities that decided not to align closely with the Kremlin (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), and those that did (Belarus, Ukraine, etc.). Osaka Sun (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If it weren't for Putin, there would be no or almost no Ukraine Crisis.--Arisboch (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL at your comment, considering that Crimea historically had nothing to do with Ukraine until Khrushchev gave it to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. Putin and Poroshenko are just bad as each other, they're simply trying to amass oligarchs for support.-- (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I know the answer here is long overdue, but I have to address this bullshit. Before being colonized by Russia (and subsequently genocided in 1944), Crimean territory was part of Crimean Khanate, inhabited by Crimean Tatars, which at some point was both friends and enemies with Zaporozhian Sich, an independent Ukrainian formation at the time. While not directly, Crimea has had everything to do with Ukraine, and while Crimean Tatars today stand squarely with Ukraine and are culturally protected by Ukraine, Russia erases them entirely from their historical narrative (the one you chose to unquestionably believe), while labeling Crimean Tatars and the orgs representing them as "terrorist organizations" and jailing+torturing them squarely on the basis of that. Cut this colonial shit out. Red Water (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

multiple oversights[edit]

besides the general out-of-date feel of the article, i'd like to offer some criticism of the article in its current state.

not enough is talked about genocide of Crimean Tatar population that fuels the whole Russian nationalist myth around the occupation of Crimea. both genocide of 1944 and the current events with destruction of cultural heritage of Crimea, declaration of representative body of Crimean Tatars (Medjlis) by Russia as "terrorist organization", as well as jailing and torture of Crimean Tatar people are relevant to this conversation.

needs to be some more emphasis on how Euromaidan prevented the rise of the police state akin to ones in Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. it is incredibly important as the contrast to often present propaganda narratives about Ukraine being a "fascist government" despite currently being pretty much the sole non-EU democratic government in the post-Soviet space.

the role of neo-Nazis in Ukrainian politics needs to be more elaborated on and further researched/updated. it kind of suffers from being somewhat overblown in western media despite still being significant, and there needs to be some more talk on surprisingly friendly relationship between Ukrainian and Russian neo-Nazis and how they still remain in fringes despite being drummed up so hard (their perceived power does not translate to electoral influence whatsoever, see 2019 parliamentary election where multiple seemingly prominent parties ran together as one and failed to cross the required barrier to end up in Rada) — Unsigned, by: Red Water / talk / contribs


Is the GDP in rubles? — Unsigned, by: Erlend / talk / contribs

The country uses the Ukrainian hryvnia as currency, so I assume the GDP is also measured in it.
(Also, remember to sign messages with four tildes (~ x4). Jake Holmesyell at me 21:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC
I made the last correction of the GDP. It uses the IMF data and thus is measured in US dollars. Red Water (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Defending Azerbaijani genocide[edit]

@ApooftGnegiol @A somebody. Defending what Azerbaijan's doing in Armenia and Artsakh is genuinely reprehensible, but I would like to see a citation for this claim. Carthage (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to adding that with evidence either. On a web search, I saw one search result for a tweet about many NAFO members being pro-Azerbaijan which didn't exist and wasn't archived when I followed the link.
This edit I reverted also wasn't well-edited, duplicating the old mention of NAFO and harassment and making that the main thing. If adding more about NAFO's role, it would be fair to mention that it fundraises for the Ukrainian military, alongside it being involved in online troll battles and shitposting. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
and of course A somebody. (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
OK, you've found a few example tweets of NAFO people supporting Azerbaijan. Maybe there's more (probably, but I don't know whether the proportion of such people in NAFO is bigger or smaller). However, your old edit is still not OK. Your edit specifically claimed (green=added) that NAFO has the "official goal of combatting Russian propaganda and defending the ongoing azerbaijan genocide". That can't be in the article unless you find evidence that it is the official goal. Otherwise something else may be possible to add, if we find it reasonably supported, along the lines that a portion of NAFO members are supporting it.
Also, when you reverted the reverts, the other bad thing I noted was still there, and it's still not good enough writing. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Would you prefer if I put 'official' in quotation marks? And besides Armenia is technically allied with russia so it makes sense as to why they would deny the ongoing genocide. Here's another NAFO guy defending the genocide A somebody. (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
A more thorough job of rewriting is needed (that section has more flaws). I just gave it a start. Thoughts, on that as a starting point, and if so on further changes? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
'fundraises for the ukrainian military', I don't think the ukrainian military needs fundraising, the refugees do. And besides you still need to mention the fact that it's literally just a harassment group pretending to be an online movement, I think you made the section worse by whitewashing them. Also it should make note of the fact that NAFO is comically racist. A somebody. (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Is this better? The fundraising seems to often be for things more small or specific but which tie into the war effort. And I think it's fair to refer to NAFO as a troll group, since it does trolling. (More sources added.) However, you're wrong in thinking that it isn't an online movement just because part of what it does is harassment. The two are in no way mutually exclusive. On racism, any sources to cite? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)