The head of the Crimean parliament is a Sovok Boomer…

Vladimir Andreyevich Konstantinov is old as fuck my father’s age, and he is stuck up. Here is a translation of his words:

“You need to make a choice -we have made a choice in 2014, there isn’t any point to go there [to Ukraine] to seek these passports. Who needs them? Decide who you are in life, are you smart or handsome (why not both?). But running here and there -getting all the privileges of Russia, and have something over there just in case -we need to stop this craftiness.”

What is the deal here? The Crimeans have been getting Ukrainian biometric passports to take advantage of Ukraine’s visa-free regime with the EU. According to Ukrainian sources, it is thousands of Crimeans every year.

I do understand the certain security concerns of the Russian state but they need to understand that the privileges of Russia do not contain visa-free travel to the West, or even the possibility to obtain a visa because the territory is blockaded by the West. And I am of the opinion that if a state gives, you should take. And the Crimeans can fleece both the RF and Ukraine at the same time.

Sovok Boomers like Konstantinov would do better not to comment on this because they give the whole issue publicity. But they definitely should monitor this activity.

An interesting commentary from a lawyer from Crimea, Zhan Zapruta:

The Crimeans have a peculiar status, they have both Russian and Ukrainian citizenship. If the Crimeans do not want to drop their Ukrainian passport, they cannot be forced.

This post will dissect Kuzio’s recent drivel on Facebook…

It has become a sort of a tradition of the Ukrainian pundits to attempt to deny the plight, and rightful grievances of the Russian speakers, who rebelled against Ukraine in 2014. And another tradition, particularly in Western academia, is to frame discourse about Ukraine using the language of decolonisation studies, and Western leftist narratives of power.

…these Russianists provide an Orientalist analysis of Ukrainian developments by looking at the Crimea and Donbas through the eyes of the former imperial power and the state undertaking military aggression against Ukraine.

I have even seen academics refer metaphorically to Ukrainians as black, and Russians as white colonists. This is a grave overstretch of reality but it sells in the West.

Jesse Driscoll’s article in Ponars is an example of this academic orientalism. His article is based on the wrong assumption that Ukraine has a language problem – it does not. Driscoll, similar to other Western Russianists, do not bother with opinion polls which show only 1-2% of Ukrainians who believe Russian speakers have problems in Ukraine.

The issue of the Russian language is a complex one. And so is the understanding of what a Russian speaker is. As I mentioned on this blog, Russian is likely the most used language in Ukraine. However, the identity of its users is a complex one. You have people, who identify as Ukrainians, consider their native language to be Ukrainian, but use Russian almost exclusively in daily life. There are also Ukrainian people, who consider their native language to be Russian, and they have always been a minority. Furthermore, there are also people, who consider their ethnicity to be Russian, and they are an even lesser minority. My recent post, shows the results of the 2001 census represented geographically.

What does Driscoll therefore mean when he talks of the “valid concerns of the Russian-speaking population” when the evidence from the war and opinion polls shows they have no concerns on the language question and why is he repeating Moscow’s framework for understanding the war?

Kuzio does not reference any of the polls he mentions but the problem of Russian speakers, or what I like to call, the “Russian element” is somewhat more complex than just the issue of the Russian language, which is clearly being discriminated against in Ukraine. The issues also include economic ties to Russia, and historical memory which is under threat by the ubiquitous rehabilitation of the radical interbellum nationalism, that is Fascism and Naziism.

If the Russian speakers didn’t have any concerns, where then did the anti-Maidan, the Russian spring, and the rebellion in the Donbass come from? Ukrainian pundits would want to say it is all Russia’s fault but that’s rather lame.

Driscoll writes that he is “doubtful that those forces could survive autonomously” without Russian support. He is correct which is why they are best labelled Russian proxies and the war cannot be classified as a “civil war.”
In Spring 2014, Russia transformed anti-Euromaidan protestors into an armed insurgency through provision of intelligence assets (throughout the Euromaidan Revolution), Russian mercenaries who took up leadership positions in the DNR and LNR (most of whom were Russian neo-Nazis in February-March 2014), Russian special forces in Aril 2014, Chechen Kadyrov mercenaries in April-May 2014, Russian artillery firing into Ukraine in July 2014, and outright Russian invasion in August 2014. Between Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, Russia transformed its proxies into a 35, 000 army consisting of two corps within the southern Russian military district.

The Ukrainian state in Donetsk and in the Crimea collapsed without the help of the Russian military because of local protest against the Maidan putsch.

The debate whether the rebels would have survived without Russia is meaningless. Why is it wrong for a foreign power to support an independence movement of friendly people? Didn’t the French support the British colonies in the Americas in their fight for independence? Wasn’t the United States essentially like LNR and DNR in its time?

Kuzio also makes other meaningless and misleading arguments:

Driscoll’s assumptions and framework ignores the large number of Russian speakers fighting and dying for Ukraine. It ignores the fact that the eastern Ukrainian Dnipro oblast has the highest casualties of security forces. Putin’s military aggression against Ukraine is killing and displacing Russian speakers.

…

Driscoll writes about Spring 2014 without showing a grasp of what transpired. Ukrainian Security forces partially defected in the Donbas and fully defected in the Crimea, but nowhere else. Ukrainian security forces in the two crown jewels of eastern and southern Ukraine – Kharkiv and Odesa – and elsewhere remained loyal to Kyiv.

Do I detect a case of contradiction? On one hand the Kuzio confirms Ukrainian military has defected in the mutinous regions but Ukraine does not have a civil war because Russia helped these rebels? How does that work?

Another case of dishonesty is when Kuzio mentions Dnipro (former Dnepropetrovsk) volunteers. If you refer back to the link about the 2001 census above, you will see that in the Dnepropetrovsk region, people who identify as Ukrainians predominate. People, who consider their native language to be Russian predominate only in Dnipro. And that’s 2001 we are talking about, the situation has likely changed since then thanks to the work of local rulers, Boris Filatov and Genadiy Korban.

Donetsk on the other hand is much more Russian, linguistically and ethnically, and the Russian identification is not just limited to the regional capital. It should also be added that the Donbass attracted many fleeing the repression of pro-Russians in other regions.

Nearly 2 million Ukrainians have fled from the Donbas and 1.7 of these Russian speakers fled to Ukraine. Jews, who are also Russian speakers, have also fled from the Donbas to Ukraine.

Perhaps a part of the population likely identified more with Ukraine, and quite frankly, life in an internationally unrecognised territory managed by Vladislav Surkov certainly isn’t for everyone.

Jakub Kalenský is some Czech guy, who works for the Atlantic Council, and he says it is harder to blame Russia for troubles in the West…

I quote:

Whenever there is a polarizing incident in the Western world, the Kremlin-controlled media, and their proxies and trolls, will immediately try to utilize its strategic potential – sowing discord and confusion, amplifying divisions and quarrels, and creating mistrust of reputable sources of information.

The information operation surrounding the Yellow Vests movement was no different. Russian accounts sought to amplify the street protests and the sudden rise of activity even led French secret services to start an investigation of these operations. Apart from spreading confusion and exacerbating divisions, pro-Kremlin outlets also spread multiple disinformation stories about the origin and goals of the movement and the reaction of French authorities.

Such operations regularly appear following every event that creates strong emotions on both sides of the barricade. As was the case when Russia’s media reported about the referendum in Catalonia, the Kremlin-controlled troll factory attempted to polarize the debate, notably the issue of racial and minority rights in the United States, and when Moscow amplifies stories or invents outright false narratives about the divisive issue of the migration crisis in Europe.

However, calling out this subtle kind of aggression and warning audiences about its effect becomes increasingly difficult thanks to a response consistently repeated after such incidents: that the Russians did not create the weaknesses in our system and they cannot be blamed for our own problems. Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin and its channels are always quick to exploit such remarks.

Allegations of Russian involvement are made in order to tarnish and silence the opposition to the neo-liberal order. We have seen it in the case of the Brexit vote, in the case of Trump’s election, and in the case of the Yellow West protest among others.

It is rather cute to see the Westerners moaning about the Russian controlled media, when they have one huge propaganda machine aimed at Russia. Russia’s RT, Sputnik, and the alleged pro-Russian local websites in Europe are laughable in comparison to the cohort of media, and payed journalists and activists that work to influence Russia.

The Russians have not invited hordes of third-worlders into Europe and North America. The Russians haven’t caused the discontent which brought about Brexit and Trump. The fact that RT or Sputnik became the go to media of the disaffected only shows that the Western media have utterly failed the people.

A story of cucks and nazis…

The other day, neo-nazis from the gang C14 (already featured on this blog here) stormed a police station in Kiev, and were beaten out by riot police that came to help. The video below shows how it looked.

In the process of liberating the station from the nazis, one of the cops committed sacrilege. He shouted: “Lie down, Bandera!” Bandera was a fascist leader in Western Ukraine of the interbellum period, a terrorist and Nazi collaborateur. He is venerated by many in contemporary Ukraine.

Had this happened in America, which so supports this mayhem in Ukraine, bullets would fly, and little would remain of the C14 gang. But we are in Ukraine, where these neo-nazis have plenty of friends. In the Ministry of Interior in particular.

Hromads’ke reports…

“I am Bandera!”: The policemen have launched a flashmob over a shout of a riot-policeman: “Lie down, Bandera!”

Police staff have launched a flashmob with the aim to apologise for the words of one of the defenders of the law, who shouted: “Lie down, Bandera!” when he arrested right wing radicals at the Podilskyi district police station. 

Among the participants was the first depute head of the Department of Patrol Police, Oleksiy Biloshits’kiy, the head of Patrol police command in Kropyvnyts’kiy (former Kirovograd), and also a director of the Department of Patrol Police Evhen Zhukov.

“I am Bandera! I am an officer of the police! I serve the Ukrainian people! I do not support the slogan: “Lie down, Bandera!” I don’t support occupation of buildings! I defend and will continue to defend my country and her people!” -the policemen wrote at their Facebook pages.

The head of the National Police of Ukraine, Serhiy Knyazev also joined the flashmob: “I ask for forgiveness, I am also a Banderovite, Glory to Ukraine!” -he wrote.

“I am also a Banderovite, and proud of it! Bandera is my hero! I am staunchly against slogans: “Lie down, Bandera!” -it is shameful and it is unacceptable!” -wrote the advisor to the Minister of Interior, Zoryan Shkiryak.

Earlier, the director of Kiev Police, Andriy Kryshchenko apologised for the policeman who shouted: “Lie down, Bandera!” during the arrest of right wing radicals in Kiev. “This member of staff will be punished, we have a lot to work on.” -said Kryshchenko.

***

There you have it folks, everyone is a Banederovite, and they got triggered when the Russian Foreign Minister called them Nazis.

Michael Averko, who might be known to some of the readers, sent me a link to an article on Counterpunch by Halyna Mokrushyna, which reveals the situation with freedom in contemporary Ukraine.

Allow me to quote bits from it:

Ukrainians should now breathe more freely, live better and enjoy the rule of law and freedom of speech. And yet today, under the supposedly democratic, post-Euromaidan government, there is much less freedom in Ukraine and much more political violence.

Examples abound. They include the official banning of Russian social networks, movies, books and other cultural products; persecutions and imprisonment of citizens holding dissenting opinion; searches of the offices of media outlets that dare to criticize the new Ukrainian power holders; attacks by ultra-right nationalists against journalists and media offices with the connivance of the state; cyber-bullying of journalists and bloggers who hold alternative opinions, carried out by so-called porokhoboty – bloggers and opinion leaders who propagate the ‘official’ truth with the informal support by the administration of President Petro Poroshenko; increasing state control of television channels through the oligarchic owners of these channels. And the list goes on and on. (For a detailed and well-researched analysis on freedom of speech and opinion in Ukraine, I refer the reader to the recent report presented to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe by the Ukrainian human rights platform Uspishna Varta in September 2018.)

One of the new forms of intimidation of journalists and citizens who do not agree with the ‘official’ version of what is happening is Ukraine is the public exposure of their personal data by anonymous denunciators using the snitch Ukrainian website with the telling name ‘Myrotvorets‘, which translates as ‘Peacekeeper’ from Ukrainian. The website lists the names of journalists, Ukrainian citizens and foreign citizens accused of holding anti-Ukrainian and ‘pro-Russian’ views, foreigners who joined the military forces of the non-recognized ‘peoples republics’ of Donetsk and Lugansk, names of Russian volunteers assisting the republics or fighting on their side, and people who have entered Crimea through the territory of Russia instead of Ukraine.

Anyway, happy reading…

The simmering war will never end because it is not in the interest of the Kiev regime…

Recently, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted changes to the constitution, which enshrine Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation towards integration into the EU and NATO. This is an obvious pre-election ploy by Poroshenko to gather votes of the gullible. I have explained before why Ukraine becoming a member of the EU and NATO appears unrealistic. But while I used the fact that the EU currently is not in the best shape to include Ukraine, I have used the ongoing conflict in the East to argue that NATO membership is further away than one may think.

Interestingly enough, the war factor could also seriously postpone Ukraine’s EU aspirations, as a recent blog by Olesya Medvedeva reminded me. She says that Croatia was tasked with solving her disputes with Serbia before joining. War between the two countries ended back in the nineties, Ukraine has yet to end the war in the Donbass. But is there even willingness in Kiev to end the war?

This is what your tax money goes to dear EU citizens…

You may have seen the photo of the armoured personal carrier (APC), which was deployed in France to quell the Yellow Vests protests. I personally thought this viral photo was a Photoshop job when I saw it but apparently not, the APC is real! EU vs. Disinfo confirms this:

French gendarmerie deployed several armoured vehicles. One of them was marked with the EU flag, as it had previously been used in a European training exercise.

Ahh OK, so it isn’t a disinformation, so what is? Looks like a Russian TV station, Tsargrad, aired a segment where they claimed the following:

It is not only the local police that are trying to stop the yellow vests protests in France, but also the military equipment of the EU. Armoured military vehicles with the EU flag are used against unarmed European protesters, who demonstrate against the EU-supported authoritarian regime. The EU is not a project of peace.

I don’t blame you for not knowing what Tsargrad is, I would wager that 99% of EU citizens have never heard of this TV station. EU vs. Disinfo does not provide a link to the Tsargrad broadcast for me to verify if they actually said it. But that I guess is not important because in my opinion the inclusion of Tsargrad as the source of disinformation was simply technical, to justify the work.

The “disinformation report” includes a link to Le Monde, which only confirms that the French police are lazy to bother with a 5 minute paint job. It doesn’t say anything about Tsargrad because the general French population doesn’t know what that is, and I doubt Tsargrad did any amplifying of the EU APC photo in France.

However, note another thing that irks the EU fighters against disinformation. “The EU is not a project for peace.” The EU has long usurped for her propaganda purposes the period of peace which ensued in Europe after the most destructive war in human history. Hence, “the EU is a force for peace, and without it there would be war” goes the propaganda. But I have to ask, what did the EU do to prevent war in Yugoslavia, or in Ukraine?

The EU lies, the EU sucks, please fuck it this May!

The EU is angry with Russia…

Russia imprisoned Mr. Christensen for being a missionary of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, an organisation deemed extremist, and banned under Russian law.  The reasons are this. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a totalitarian sect, which is antisocial, and what likely bothers the Russian authorities, anti-state.

The European Parliament and Mdm. Kocijančič style themselves into arbiters of Russian law, and authorities on the Russian Constitution. Russia should release, immediately and unconditionally because the EU wants it!

But let’s ask how Russia invited such behaviour?

Let me give you a counter example. A Czech truck driver was caught in France with 15 Iraqi illegals in his freezer trailer, he was convicted of human trafficking despite the the Iraqis having testified they crawled into the trailer without the driver knowing. The reaction of Czech Minister of Justice, Jan Kněžínek:

As a member of the Czech government, I cannot influence affairs conducted by an independent French court, much like foreign politicians cannot influence cases processed by Czech courts…

Do you feel the difference? Do you feel the respect? And my question stands, how did Russia invite such nasty behaviour from the EU parliament? Maybe there are too many pushovers in Russia, the Europeans got the wrong idea?