Talk:Ukraine/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 March 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Svoboda

Shouldn't we mention the power the Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party has in the new Kiev government?^{— Unsigned, by: Serocco / talk / contribs}

who's stopping you? Sophie^Wilder 08:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Snickers?

Please tell me it's not a reference to those commercials...--ZooGuard (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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. 109.228.22.219 (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.--60.242.159.224 (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)