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?

The other day, Alexander Motyl published an article on the Atlantic Council about the potential of a Russian invasion of Ukraine…

But before I get to trashing the message of the article, let me quote these bits:

Vladimir Putin must be kicking himself. Four years ago, he could have invaded and seized most of Ukraine in a few weeks. Believing that Ukrainians were an “artificial” nation led by “fascists,” however, he figured an invasion was unnecessary and the state would collapse on its own. Now, Ukrainians are daily demonstrating their desire to leave the Russian zone of influence forever.

…

So, what’s Putin to do? He’s caught between a rock and a hard place. Although war—whether big or small—would serve no Russian interests, it is all the more likely as Putin grasps at straws to sustain his declining legitimacy. Like all increasingly impotent and unpopular dictators, Putin probably senses that a war with Ukraine might just succeed in distracting Russians and saving his regime.

…

Putin surely believes that Russia is strong and stable. He also surely believes that whatever setbacks he may have incurred in the last decade must be due to bad luck or some combination of dastardly Western interference in the natural order of things. The prospect of a good war going bad is almost certainly beyond his comprehension. Quite the contrary, voices of doom could just as easily persuade him that the forces of evil are amassing and that a quick strike is imperative. We don’t know how Russia’s aging dictator will react.

“We don’t know how Russia’s aging (sic) dictator will react.” Did you ever notice how these Russophobic pundits all style themselves as Putin mind readers? In fact, Motyl does not have any idea about Putin’s motivations and his account lacks any grounding in anything tangible. Take for instance the claim that Putin’s legitimacy is based on foreign military campaigns, and as his ratings fall he might be tempted to invade a neighbouring country. What is this based on? Putin’s rating rising when he took Crimea in the wake of the Maidan after months of mayhem in Kiev? Putin back then saved several million Russian people from the fate of demonstrators in Odessa, or the fate of Donbass civilians, or the fate of several thousand political prisoners in Ukraine.

Even Motyl doesn’t believe Putin is that stupid to engage in a reckless invasion of Ukraine. Much of Motyl’s article boils down to: Russia can’t invade and occupy Ukraine because the former is not economically fit to do that. That is likely true. But here is something that Motyl did not take fully into account, although he shows signs of thinking about it. If Russia cannot occupy Ukraine, why would Russia occupy Ukraine? Limited capabilities of the Russian state are therefore relegated to the defence of the Donbass (not its entire territory) and Crimea.

Should Ukraine threaten any of these territories, Limited intervention of Russia to destroy the threat, like we have seen in 2008 in Georgia, is all Russia needs. Did Russia occupy Georgia in 2008? Did they roll into Tbilisi and hang Saakashvili on his tie? Russia went in, destroyed Georgian forces, took the Hummers, and got out. And while Ukraine may be a tougher nut to crack, contemporary Russian military is much more modernised than the force we have seen in 2008.

Zrada means “betrayal”…

Hanebna zrada (“a shameful betrayal”) has been committed by Usborne Publishing, a British publisher of books for children. They have published a cute atlas which says Crimea is a disputed territory instead of being occupied by Russia.

The bisons, zebras and flamingos look rather odd but they actually mark a very interesting place, the Askania-nova nature reserve, which features these animals grazing in an open steppe of the Kherson region. The atlas features an interesting selection of heritage sites, and seems like a very good book for kids.

Radio liberty featured a video from the summit of the National Front, a Ukrainian party gathering such giants of Ukrainian politics as Arseniy “Yats” Yatsenyuk, Oleksandr Turchynov and Arsen Avakov. It features a bit from the Minister of Interior, Arsen Avakov. I have given it English subtitles, and posted it below. My commentary is further below…

As you can see, the programme of the National Front boils down to simple geopolitics, which in Ukraine is traditionally based upon the elite casting illusions, and telling the poor people lies.

Nevertheless, Avakov does say some things that are true. Let’s begin with the first, “Ukraine is Europe”. So is Albania, Chechnya and a part of Turkey. But what follows are lies.

1. Promises of EU and NATO are quite frankly unrealistic. Poroshenko recently promised Ukraine (not he) will file for EU membership in 2024. He also expressed hope that accession talks with NATO will begin. I have explained before why these claims are unrealistic. Anyway, 2024 was conveniently chosen to be at the end of Poroshenko’s potential second presidential term. I think he leaves the application to his successor.
2. Another lie of Avakov is about Russia being the aggressor. While it is true that Russia helped militarily the separatists in the Donbass, and irredentists in Crimea but “Russia is aggressor” has become a convenient argument of those that want to blame Russia but do not want a war with Russia. Instead of Ukraine breaking ties with Russia, declaring a state of emergency and martial law, we see Russia and Ukraine doing business. I personally think that despite all the Ukrainian bravado, any real war with Russia would end in a bitter defeat for Ukraine. A Ukrainian politician cannot say that however, so they lie.

The another true statement perhaps is that Putin is a dickhead but that is a matter of opinion…

Like I said before, trolling Ukrainian nationalists may be dangerous because they may block you. But it may also yield funny stuff before they block you…

The most rewarding is to ask how “Rusyns” and “Little Russians” became Ukrainians (see my posts here and here):

This is what I fished today before the user blocked me:

I translate the above below, since the editor is acting up and I cannot make a caption to the picture

A fan of Pinochet, Ostap Vishnya Slava Ukrayini answers me, Michele Berdy, who writes for the Moscow Times, and a Ukrainian blogger, and likely grant eater Denis Kazansky: “Rusyns of Transcarphathia remained Rusyns because they were isolated from the rest of the people for centuries. The term “Ukraine” has been used for the land around Dnieper since the 12th century. Later, when the Muscovites stole this word (that is the name of Rus), the people switched to calling themselves Ukrainians.”

I don’t know if the term “Ukraine” was used for the area of Dnieper in the 12th century. Perhaps it was but that’s not very relevant. “Ukraine” simply means borderland and the area of Middle Dnieper was a borderland that divided the settled people of the woodland from the nomads of the steppe.

Much more interesting is the assertion that Muscovites stole the name Rus’. And therefore poor Ukrainians had to adopt a new name. Mostly, the people who claim this, operate with maps published in the Rzeczpospolita (Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth) that indicate Moscovia at the place of the Russian Tsardom. This does not mean the official name of the state was Moscovia. But Ukrainian nationalists are not exactly the brightest of people. I still don’t get how a name can usurped by other people but fair enough.

This myth is actually very common among Ukrainian nationalists, and is called to explain why a nation called “Ukrainians” should have any claim to the history of Rus’ after they wilfully abandoned the name Rus’, and declared themselves separate from the Greater Russians with a new ethnonym. It turns out, the Russians stole their name… LOL

He further wrote: “If you were Slavs and not Ugrofins, you would understand well what the word “ukrayaty” means in the Ukrainian language.”

I am actually a Western Slav and the word means “to slice off”. It is etymologically related to “Ukraine” in the sense, “the edge”. I don’t quite understand however why this polonism is relevant.

But another belief of the Ukrainian nationalists is that the Russians are Ugrogins and not Slavs. Ukrainian historiography attempts from the start to divide genetically the people of Ukraine and Russia. The more crude versions resort to Russophobic canards such as the assertion that the Russians are slavicised Ugrofins, who have apparently, not only stolen the name Rus’ but also the Slavic language, and the history of Ukrainians. This legend about the katsaps (der. meaning “Russian”), who stole the name Rus’ comes from the Polish literature much like the claims about Moscovia.

No originality in their bullshit…

Simple search of the internet of “Muscovites stole the name Rus'” yields thousands of results in Ukrainian and tens of thousands in Russian. This isn’t something marginal.

and in Russian

Somebody posted a link to my blog at a Ukrainian forum…

LMAO!

Unfortunately, most of my readers reside outside the EU, but if a fellow citizen of the Union is reading this, please join my “Fuck the EU!” initiative this May. It basically involves voting for anti-establishment candidates in the EU election…

I think I am a wrecker! I still remember BHL how he supported a pack of Russophobic baboons on the Maidan, and for this he deserves to get wrecked! Coincidentally, he and other sleazy writers such as Milan Kundera, and Salman Rushdie warn us against the rise of the wreckers, who threaten Europe.

Europe is being attacked by false prophets who are drunk on resentment, and delirious at their opportunity to seize the limelight. It has been abandoned by the two great allies who in the previous century twice saved it from suicide; one across the Channel and the other across the Atlantic. The continent is vulnerable to the increasingly brazen meddling by the occupant of the Kremlin. Europe as an idea is falling apart before our eyes.

No doofuses! The wreckers threaten the EU, an illiberal, transnational behemoth that has the gall to tell countries of Central Europe to accept illegal immigrants from the Third World. No occupant of the Kremlin ever dared suggest to Czechoslovakia to accept boatloads of Africans. Milan Kundera cares little about the Czechs and chooses to live in the jungle France, by the way.

EU sucks, these gentlemen suck, and they should get wrecked!