February 22, 2014

"Ukraniains streamed to see Viktor Yanukovich's luxury estate... closed off...for nearly a decade, and... were confronted by the scale of the opulence he built around him."

"Ukrainian security and volunteers from among Independence Square protesters have joined forces to protect the presidential countryside retreat from vandalism and looting.... Hundreds of people entered the grounds but not one has entered the building itself...."

92 comments:

David said...

Another "tell," I would say.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

The scale of corruption in the FSU states is mind boggling. Putin is probably the richest man on earth.

Yanukovich's son, a dentist, is estimated to be worth 100,000,000$.

Tymoshenko owns (owned?) the monopoly company that controls all the natural gas in Ukraine. She went to prison because if her self dealing. Her accounts in Swiss and elsewhere where frozen. Her mentor Lazarenko has been convicted in the US for corruption and miney laundering.

This corruption is the biggest reason Ukrainians are looking to the West and away from the orientalism of Russia.

n.n said...

This isn't surprising, but it doesn't tell anything in and of itself. The choice is not freedom from excess or corruption; but, whether is by chance or design.

n.n said...

Bill, Republic of Texas:

If they are looking to the West, then they are measuring corruption with the wrong ruler. In America alone, our federal government is a $4 trillion operation, which prints wealth at a rate exceeding $1 trillion annually. Not only is this redistributed (i.e. market distortions), but as it far exceeds actual and potential productivity gains, it causes a progressive devaluation of capital and labor.

PB Reader said...

They speak like Marx
Rule like Stalin
And live like Rockefellers
While the people suffer

Oso Negro said...

No one has entered the building itself? The pictures say otherwise.

Oso Negro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MPH said...

Meanwhile, Cuba is sending troops to Venezuela to repress the uprising there - https://twitter.com/deivisramirez/status/437039371012034560/photo/1

I don't think it will work and I hope the liberal Venezuelans will be inspired by this week's events in the Ukraine.

rehajm said...

There's a hovercraft!

Unknown said...

What a remarkable people. Where else would a popular revolution that overthrew a dictator, file through his house in an orderly fashion without looting and destroying it?

Luis Alegria said...

Philippines.
The people didn't loot Malacanang palace in 1986.

Luis Alegria said...

Philippines.
The people didn't loot Malacanang palace in 1986.

David said...

rehajm said...
There's a hovercraft!

I think it's a pool toy.

But there are jets in a hangar at their airport.

Seeing Red said...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I
Didn't mullah Omar have lapis lazuli in his house and modern conveniences? Sad dams palace.....

Simon said...

Unknown said...
"What a remarkable people. Where else would a popular revolution that overthrew a dictator, file through his house in an orderly fashion without looting and destroying it?"

They aren't overthrowing a dictator—they are overthrowing the democratically-elected government of the Ukraine. No one seriously disputes the legitimacy of the 2010 election; this is armed insurrection on the cusp of revolution. Nothing less.

Paul said...

"Each according to their ability, each according to their need."

But folks.. who determines everyones ability or need?

Oh yea, the 'government'.

And that is why virtually all Congressmen and Senators are millionaires, if not before they became members of congress then after.

They have access to insider information that us peons don't. It's called corruption.

Paul said...

"They speak like Marx
Rule like Stalin
And live like Rockefellers
While the people suffer"

Right on PB!

Allen Edwards said...

Simon said: No one seriously disputes the legitimacy of the 2010 election; this is armed insurrection on the cusp of revolution. Nothing less.

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

gregq said...

According to Instapundit, the rebels are busy knocking down statues of Lenin.

Now, it's possible to be a bad human being, and still hate Lenin. But it's not possible to be a good human being, or part of a decent and valid government, and be on the side that values statues of Lenin.

Simon, are you serious? Because I find it hard to believe that anyone could actually believe the crap you're peddling.

Putin is a dictator who regrets the fall of the USSR, one of the top three most murderous governments in human history. No government that works to get more in line with Putin can ever be legitimate, no matter how many votes they rig, or even win legitimately.

Oso Negro said...

Simon, there is a celebration of the day's events going on at my house right now. If you would like to practice suppressing "revolutionaries" you are welcome to come on over and have a go. :)

William said...

Well, he has far better taste than Saddam. There was something chilly about the opulence of Saddam's palaces. I wouldn't want to live in them. But I could settle right into this palace......Isnt an estate this fabulous prima facie evidence of corruption. He probably had a little dacha by the gate where he pretended to live when interviewed by reporters. Mao had a little cottage where he pretended to live.

Simon said...

Greg, how embarassing for you; you seem to have mistaken the Ukraine for Russia. Vladimir Putin may be a dictator who regrets the fall of the USSR, but he is not the President of the Ukraine. Yanukovich was, and the revolution now in motion cannot be permitted to succeed. I have no sympathy for Yanukovich and little enough for Putin, but the overthrow of a legitimate republic by violent force cannot be permitted or tolerated under any circumstances. If Russia is the only way to put out this fire, then it is to Russia that we must turn.


Oso Negro said...
Simon, there is a celebration of the day's events going on at my house right now. If you would like to practice suppressing "revolutionaries" you are welcome to come on over and have a go. :)

In my place, I send the Russian Army, with my love. Enjoy.

Oso Negro said...

@ Simon - Red scum.

Cedarford said...

Simon - "They aren't overthrowing a dictator—they are overthrowing the democratically-elected government of the Ukraine. No one seriously disputes the legitimacy of the 2010 election; this is armed insurrection on the cusp of revolution. Nothing less."

==================
Simon, much has been written about the right of the plebisite to overturn democratically elected officials that dupe and betray the masses by governing very differently than they promised when they ran.
The idea that insurrection or revolution is always "morally wrong" because it would undermine legitimacy is a strange new conservative belief. Especially in America. Where we sided with the democratically elected Morsi and said the only choice was for the people to remember Morsi's legitimacy and only reverse things when the next election happened to be scheduled. If there was to ever be another election...

In America we have grown far too obediant and grovelling to process. As in feeling we have no choice but to obey both parties leaders in thrall to the same Elites. The laws and regulations the Elites pay to have created or interpreted in a manner that serves a very few Americans, and not the masses. Or blindly accepting of judges appointed by the Elites through the party people they control as the "final word" on all matters.

Americans have now gotten used to Republicans saying that if only they are elected they will reverse judges rulings, control the Border, get us out of fiscal recklessness, avoid wars - only to see they lied. Now the democrat-aligned voters are seeing a similar liar and deceiver in Obama...a tool of powerful and rich Leftist Elites. Obama is no friend to the working man, just their bosses in boardrooms or union leadership. He could care less about "Flyover country". He doesn't care about black people unless the blacks happen to be celebrities.

Simon said...

Oso, you betray your ignorance. I am among the very last people who could plausibly be described as a communist, or sympathetic to communism; what's more, since you are the one supporting a revolution, accusations that I'm a communist have a weird ring of projection to them.

Drago said...

Simon: "Greg, how embarassing for you; you seem to have mistaken the Ukraine for Russia. Vladimir Putin may be a dictator who regrets the fall of the USSR, but he is not the President of the Ukraine."

LOL

Useful idiots.

They will always be amongst us.

Simon is very upset that everyone is noticing that Putin's handpicked "boy" (that was for Crack) and a National Bolshevik to boot, is on the run due to the clear toadying to his master in Moscow.

Oh, wait.

That's probably exactly why Simon doesn't like what's happening.

He is probably upset that folks in Venezuela notice that the marxists in power have removed all legal means of protest.

This is inevitable in each and every scenario where leftists gain power.

Each and every one.

Garage will be along in a minute to explain why maduros thugs (soon to include the commie contingents from Cuba) simply HAD to pop that little model gal in the head with real lead.

Drago said...

Simon: " I am among the very last people who could plausibly be described as a communist, or sympathetic to communism;"

You use this word "plausibly".

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Simon said...

Cedarford, process is the measure of legitimacy, and needless to say, I reject any theory of "the right of the plebisite to overturn democratically elected officials…." As to Morsi, my comments explicitly presuppose a republican form of government; they have no application of themselves to Egypt.

Drago said...

We should arrange a meeting of kindred spirits between Cliff and Simon.

I sense they would get along famously.

And yet.

There is an outside chance that Simon is precisely what he says he is.

In which case I would recommend he remove his rose colored glasses and get back on board the reality train.

The "reality train" will be visiting the future Eurasian Union along with all the concurrent National Bolshevik/Socialist ideologies.

Which are truly one and the same.

Cliff on the other hand, well, he's a 19 yr old concern troll for whom there is only a "garage-like" existence awaiting.

Drago said...

Simon: " I reject any theory of "the right of the plebisite to overturn democratically elected officials…."

Then you are a fool.

The marxist/maoist left believes in 1 man-1vote-1 time.

And they've done it time and time again.

Given your own stated "rule", you are then clearly aligned with what Maduro is doing in Venezuela.

Hell, you probably even go along with the election results in Cuba as well.

Simon said...

Drago, I've commented here off-and-on since 2005. People here know me.

I don't know you. Never seen you here or anywhere else. Your ill-informed opinion is of no consequence at all.

Thanks for playing.

Original Mike said...

"If Russia is the only way to put out this fire, then it is to Russia that we must turn."

You want "us", (i.e. Obama) to call up Putin and ask him to invade Ukraine?

Oso Negro said...

@Simon - I am supporting the people pulling down the statues of Lenin. You are the smug cocksucker sending the Red Army with love. Either you are ignorant of the history of Ukraine or you are an arm-chair chucklehead poseur. Do you have the slightest notion of how the Red Army comports themselves? Do you have family in the Ukraine? I do.

Seeing Red said...

When in the course of human events.....

Unfortunately, there are multi-millions -- if not a billion or more -- people who believe if one votes, the election was "democratic." Saddam won with 97% of the vote.

Sometimes you need to get their attention.

And once again, our Founding Fathers were brilliant. We get an escape hatch every 2 years. That parliament crap doesn't work. Vote of no confidence. But 5 year plans usually don't. Their leaders fall, rise, we usually don't pay attention.

Kirk Parker said...

Simon,

Go read the Declaration sometime; preferably soon.

This is what the withdrawal of "the consent of the governed" looks like. Get used to it; there's a lot of ruin in a world order.


Simon said...

Oso Negro said...
"You are the smug cocksucker sending the Red Army with love."

It's an unfortunate incident of American politics that some people just can't seem to comprehend that there is no more USSR, that communism is dead, that Russia is not the USSR, that Russia is no longer a communist country, and that "Russia" was no more our enemy in the cold war than was "Germany" in World War II. Communism and Nazism were our enemies; Germany and Russia were simply the first states taken captive by our enemies. A person who today conflated a German with a Nazi would be thought a mindless bigot, and rightly so.

The same problem dogs your assertions about the "Red Army." There is no "Red Army." Doesn't exist any more. Hasn't existed for years. The idea of a Soviet army marching in to enslave nations for communism makes as much sense as fretting about the Kaiser sending his Imperial German Army to invade the Hapsburg Empire—it is a ridiculous notion stuck in a past that no longer exists. You are making an argument the presuppositions of which have not reflected reality in more than twenty years.

Simon said...

Kirk, the American war of independence was not a revolution; leftists have been peddling that fiction for a long time in a misbegotten attempt to put one in the "win" column, but it's fraudulent. The framers understood themselves to be the counterrevolution; they believed that the revolution was the attempts by a tyrannical usurper three thousand miles away, for whom not one of the colonists had voted, and for whose parliament not one of the colonists had voted, to strip the colonists of the ancient rights of Englishmen. They believed that they were restoring their rights, and rejecting the revolution. Reject the left's propaganda! The "American revolution" was no such thing.

Simon said...

Original Mike said...
"You want 'us', (i.e. Obama) to call up Putin and ask him to invade Ukraine?"

I want President Obama to call President Putin and assure him that the United States will support all means that Russia deems necessary and appropriate to restore the legitimately-elected government of the Ukraine to power and to end the violence in Kiev. I have already given Putin an assurance of my support in this regard, but somehow I think that a call from the President of these United States will carry more weight than a "tweet" from me.

Simon said...

Kirk, that is total nonsense. Even if there were legitimately such a thing as "withdrawal of the consent of the governed" in a republic, this is not that; this is simply the continuation of opposition by violent means. These protesters are nothing more than the losing side from the 2010 elections pursuing their disagreements by violent means. The American analog is the Madison protests of 2011—imagine if the protests had turned violent and Governor Walker had agreed to suspend the Constitution and hold early elections. Once that is understood, once the context is understood, no one that I've talked to has been willing to stand by the Kiev protesters because they then realize how abberational and contemptible those protesters are. They may be good people with good motives, but they are doing a bad thing.

The first duty of every conservative is to oppose any revolution—period. Revolution is the absolute antithesis of conservatism and the enemy of everything for which we stand and in which we believe. Once the paper starts ripping, we have no idea where it will end. I have no love for Yanukovich (a bad man, I have no doubt, pursuing bad policies) or any particular desire to see Russia invade the Ukraine, but as Churchill might say, if revolutionaries were to invade hell, I should at very least put in a sympathetic word for the devil.

Simon said...

Any self-described conservative who expresses sympathy with this revolution or any other is no such thing, and he or she must go back and read our magna carta, Burke's Reflections on the Revolution on France, until enlightenment is achieved. We stand perpetually against all revolution. The extent from which one deviates from this precept is the extent to which one is not a conservative.

Kirk Parker said...

Sorry, Simon, there is such a thing, anywhere and everywhere.

"The first duty of every conservative is to oppose any revolution"

Gag me. But in case some can't read between your lines--our brother Simon here is not an American-style conservative, he's a bloody Tory. How long need we wait for "the divine right of kings" to work itself into your side of the conversation?

Simon said...

Kirk, what you mean is, I'm not a libertarian. But a libertarian is not an "american-style conservative." A libertarian is a libertarian. It's regrettable that many young people don't grasp the difference, which leads to the bizarre and amusing situation that we have today when innumerable liberals—libertarians are just pre-progressivism liberals—walk around identifying themselves as conseratives. The conservative rejects liberalism ex radice. We are temporary allies of libertarians in this progressive-dominated era but, as Jim Sterling put it, "we are not the same; we do not believe the same things."

Kirk Parker said...

Jeez, you don't even have your history right. It was progressives/leftists who coopted the perfectly good term "liberal", and look how far they've taking it in the direction of statism and tyranny. But those evils like in more than one direct, including yours--like I said, a Tory.

Simon said...

Kirk, that's dubious history at best. Liberalism starts with the mercantile class of the 18th century; they saw government as the captive of the rich, and thus chose a political philosophy conducive to their own empowerment. (From the start, liberalism was venal.) In the 19th century, government having been captured by that class, many liberals came to see the government as a useful engine for "social reform." It is on that split that the modern distinction between "progressives" (=reformed liberals) and libertarians (=unreformed liberals) arose. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/. Conservatism opposes both. We are allies with libertarians simply because a century of progressive abuse has distended the state far beyond that which either of us can tolerate, but we have very different reasons and thus different attitudes to things such as the NSA programs. Conservatives supported the NSA programs when they were revealed because espionage and defense is a traditional function of the state. Libertarians opposed it because it was an intrusion on personal liberty. Indeed, one could make the argument that something like the NSA programs poses a useful way of separating libertarians from conservatives: How one reacts to those programs (once one filters out the brain-dead kneejerk anti-Obama types) shows, with great accuracy in my experience, whether one is a conservative or a libertarian.

Another thing on which conservatives and libertarians break is revolution. The libertarian revolutionary Ron Paul, you may remember, wrote a book called "The Revolution: A Manifesto." No conservative would have written such a tome. And it's not hard to see why: The libertarian is wedded to an abstract idea (cf. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/12/where-i-was-when-i-was-out-of-my.html), and if a revolution might advance that cause, she might be willing to favor it. But the conservative knows that revolution is always a bad thing eo ipso, no matter how well-intentioned.

Kirk Parker said...

Yeah, if only that Ceaușescu guy were still running Romania...

Humperdink said...

Comrade Simon, why are advocating Putin quell the disturbance in Ukraine? Why not Germany or Italy? Or any other somewhat free country? Why the Dick Tator for life Putin?

Inquiring minds want to know.

rhhardin said...

Pay off your political opponents in proportion to their access to violence.

This guy apparently failed to do that.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Am I the only one wondering why the statues of Lenin didn't come down when they gained independence?

The Crack Emcee said...

This reminds me of the recent arrest of Mexico's "El Chapo", who got caught because he was tired of living in the mountains, and wanted to enjoy some of his wealth.

It's a weakness,...

Aught Severn said...

Simon,

Interesting theses regarding the interrelation between the ideologies. I would submit, however, that you can't quantize everyone in the way you do.

You state that the litmus between libertarian and conservative is the support of the spy programs. I argue that the distinction is more of a statist/non-statist litmus, and the traditional terms we use in politics are misaligned. If we equate "conservative" with "Republican" (as it looks like you're doing), then the only strong support for the spy programs come from the statist side (McCain, et al) of the Republican party: those who place the rights and needs of the state over those of the individual. The Democrat party also has this split. I believe that the progressive ideology falls into the statist category, while the non-statist portion is more of the blue-dog style.

Splitting the parties between those two categories now makes the alliances more reasonable. On the non-statist side, you have classical liberals, tea party conservatives, libertarians. On the statist side you have progressives, neo-cons, "moderates", etc... Broadening the view and including the crazies would leave the (true) anarchists on the non-statist side while the statist side contains the socialists, marxists, etc...

So takeaways? Current political terms are inadequate and have become euphemisms (like the pro-choice/pro-life tags...labels that are meant to elicit a reaction instead of accurately identify) and any reasonable discussion should include more precise definitions of who you're talking about as using the term 'conservative' can mean anything from GOP to tea party just as 'liberal' can encompass anything from progressive to libertarian. I prefer the statist/non-statist split although for the topic at hand, who would support a revolution?, I believe the real answer is: it depends. Both groups have in the past and will in the future.

Rusty said...

"The first duty of every conservative is to oppose any revolution"

Nope.
Try again.

Drago said...

Simon: "The first duty of every conservative is to oppose any revolution—period. Revolution is the absolute antithesis of conservatism and the enemy of everything for which we stand and in which we believe."

LOL

Really.

I'm very disappointed with the quality of the concern trolls assigned to this blog.

First Cliff and now Simon.

It's really insulting to have these B-league back-benchers popping in.

I was going to blame Crack (since he's black and for no other reason than that, given my circa 1960 Dixiecrat-republican-conservative status that has been assigned to me by co-bloggers Crack and Ann).

Instead, I'll just blame....Bush!!!

Paco Wové said...

"The idea that insurrection or revolution is always "morally wrong" because it would undermine legitimacy is a strange new conservative belief. Especially in America."

OMG, I'm agreeing with Cedarford.

Simon, you sound as though you would happily be a slave, as long as legitimate authority put on the chains.

Drago said...

Deirdre: "Am I the only one wondering why the statues of Lenin didn't come down when they gained independence?"

There's a whole lotta rebar in those things.

Plus potential resale value.

Plus the Russians are right over there.....so maybe the Ukranians thought better than to kick up the overt "get the hell outta here" symbolism.

Never disturb a sleeping bear..especially when he really isn't sleeping.

Illuninati said...

Simon said:

" Communism and Nazism were our enemies; Germany and Russia were simply the first states taken captive by our enemies. A person who today conflated a German with a Nazi would be thought a mindless bigot, and rightly so."

Simon I tend to agree with this statement of yours. You apparently have a deep interest in the Ukrainian situation. Russians suffered grievously under the Communists.

From the available information, it appears to me that the conflict in the Ukraine is an ethnic conflict between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians rather than a purely ideological conflict. What is your opinion on the question?

Paco Wové said...

"Communism and Nazism were our enemies; Germany and Russia were simply the first states taken captive by our enemies. A person who today conflated a German with a Nazi would be thought a mindless bigot, and rightly so."

Yes, but. A person who conflated 'a Russian' with 'somebody who wanted to see the increase in Russian hegemony over the former satellite states' would not be thought a mindless bigot, because in many cases it would be true -- especially when that Russian is a member of the ruling class.

One thing I don't see discussed very frequently is the economic aspect. Ukraine is deeply in debt, and Russia recently promised a great big pile of money to help out. Presumably the government's turning down the EU trade deal is part of a quid pro quo that happily just happened to go along with the pre-existing ethnic and cultural predilections of the people who are (or were) running Ukraine.

Simon said...

Humperdink said...
"Comrade Simon, why are advocating Putin quell the disturbance in Ukraine? Why not Germany or Italy? Inquiring minds want to know."

Because the governments of Germany and Italy have not just been violently overthrown. What is happening in the Ukraine is no longer a "disturbance"; while it was just that, the Ukrainian authorities should have dealt with the problem. But now, with the revolution complete, the options narrow to two unpalatable choices: A coup d'etat by the Ukrainian military (which I account unlikely simply because it hasn't already happened) or external intervention by the only power in a situation to do so: Russia. In a hypothetical in which this happened in Germany, I would support intervention by the power best-situated to intervene there, which presumably means a coalition of France, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Don't believe that I have some veiled interest in Russia marching into the Ukraine. If I believed that NATO or, say, Romania could do the job, I'd happily support that possibility, too. What matters is that the revolution be strangled at birth. That is of overriding importance, no matter what anyone's fears are about Russian imperialism.

furious_a said...

"Am I the only one wondering why the statues of Lenin didn't come down when they gained independence?"

Because "they" include alot of ethnic Russians.

After Stalin in the 1930s weaponized famine against the resident ethnic Ukes in order to collectivize their farm economy and destroy their counter-revolutionary nationalism, Moscow imported ethnic Russians to fill the empty space (mostly eastern and southern Ukraine) left behind by 8-or-so million murdered kulaks.

Same as Stalin did in the Baltics (more deportation, less murder), or, for that matter, the British did in N. Ireland after Cromwell.

Simon said...

Aught Severn said...
"You state that the litmus between libertarian and conservative is the support of the spy programs."

I wouldn't put it quite like that. Rather, the NSA programs are an example of the kind of government action that divides libertarians and conservatives, and so they have a propensity to divide the two camps.

"I argue that the distinction is more of a statist/non-statist litmus"

That doesn't work, I think. The traditional role of the state in Anglo-American society is smaller than progressives will accept yet bigger than libertarians accept. The conservative does not accept the a priori imperative to strangle the state in the bathtub; here's how I put it writing about the NSA programs at the time: "Conservatives assess government programs first through the lens of tradition. We believe that the government should be confined to its traditional and constitutional sphere of action. Libertarians, by contrast, assess government programs by measuring them against an abstract concept: 'Liberty.' No matter how plain the traditional and Constitutional authority for a program, the Libertarian is inclined to oppose it if it encroaches onto his freedom. Thus, for example, the Conservative might support a draft in some circumstances, but the Libertarian cannot. . . . And that difference becomes stark when we assess government actions that fall within its traditional sphere. In such cases, conservatives generally believe that it can, should, and must act robustly, vigorously, and efficiently. Libertarians—a little neurotic about government, to be frank—fear governmental vigor per se. Government is no less apt to encroach on 'liberty”' in its traditional areas of concern, they would say, than in situations where its intervention is novel, and the libertarian does not (as we do) accept the legitimacy of the government’s action in this sphere simply because it is traditional." (Footnotes deleted

"If we equate "conservative" with "Republican" (as it looks like you're doing), then the only strong support for the spy programs come from the statist side (McCain, et al) of the Republican party: those who place the rights and needs of the state over those of the individual."

But we shouldn't equate "conservative" with "Republican." The strong support for the programs came from the conservative side of the republican party. Opposition to it came from the Libertarian side of the Republican party. And that's one reason why we can't equate conservative with Republican: We would then have to explain why the GOP's response was fractured, and if conservative=republican, therefore conservatives must be divided over the programs, which requires us to come up with theories about different kinds of conservatives, and suddenly we're way on up the garden path and untethered from a reality that's very simple: The GOP comprises conservatives and libertarians.

Simon said...

furious_a said...
"[Why didn't the statues of Lenin come down when the Ukraine gained independence?] Because 'they' include a lot of ethnic Russians."

Note ye again the conflation of "Russian" with "Communist." Obviously Russians would oppose tearing down statues of Lenin! That's why even today, Russia is just full of statues of Lenin that weren't at all torn down when Russia gained its freedom from Communism at about the same time as Ukraine. Oh. Wait.

furious_a said...

Ceaucescu was "legitimately elected" and "violently overthrown".

I call bullsh*t on those here trying to distinguish between
"Russians" and "Communists". Ordinary Russians volunteered for the NKVD cadres sent to protect the ordinary Russians who volunteered as party cadres to roam the Ukrainian countryside with lists of names and harvest quotas prepared by higher-ranking party cadres (also ordinary Russians) back in Moscow.

And so on.

Paco Wové said...

"Note ye again the conflation of "Russian" with "Communist.""

Right, that was in response to commenter furious_a's answer to the question,
"Why didn't the statues of Lenin come down when the Ukraine gained independence?"
You think this answer is wrong. Perhaps you could provide an alternative?

Simon said...

Illuninati said...
"From the available information, it appears to me that the conflict in the Ukraine is an ethnic conflict between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians rather than a purely ideological conflict. What is your opinion on the question?"

I get the impression that Oso Negro may be able to speak on that question more usefully than I can. I don't have enough information to have a strong opinion on that; I don't know that it's an ethnic conflict in the sense that we normally think of such things, à la the collapse of Yugoslavia. I don't know that the ethnic Russians have a problem being in the Ukraine, or that they want to split the country or what-have-you. But I do think that the Ukraine has a population that generally appears to divide on ethnic, religious, and geographic lines over whether Ukraine should be in the orbit of the European Union or the CIS. The east is more inclined toward the east, the west to the west, and the western candidate lost. The eastern President was perceived as abandoning the drift toward the west and trying to orient the country, and he was violently deposed by a mob. (Kiev is, notably, deepy in the west, and it voted decisively—although not unanimously—against Yanukovich in 2010, so the argument that "Kievans support the protesters" does not cry out to be taken seriously. Of course it does. Kiev was on the losing side of that election.)

Simon said...

urious_a said...
'I call bullsh*t on those here trying to distinguish between
"Russians" and "Communists".
'

If you also think that every southerner was a confederate-sympathizing slaveowner, and every German a Nazi, then you will at least be consistently wrong, which is the most you can swing for after that absurd comment.

Simon said...

Paco Wové said...
"You think this answer is wrong. Perhaps you could provide an alternative?"

I have no idea why they didn't come down in the 1990s.

Simon said...

Paco Wové said...
"Yes, but a person who conflated 'a Russian' with 'somebody who wanted to see the increase in Russian hegemony over the former satellite states' would not be thought a mindless bigot, because in many cases it would be true…"

Fair point. I think that conflation would be dubious, but it would be in the realm of plausibility, just as conflating an American with a person who wants to maximize American influence and ensure that nearby states such as Canada, Mexico, and Cuba are safe, stable, and friendly would be so.

Original Mike said...

"I want President Obama to call President Putin and assure him that the United States will support all means that Russia deems necessary and appropriate to restore the legitimately-elected government of the Ukraine to power and to end the violence in Kiev"

Obama supported the Iranian thugocracy over the people, so it wouldn't shock me if he did. What amuses me, though, is the thought that Putin would give a rat's ass over Obama's "support".

Illuninati said...

Thank-you, Simon, for the information.

Simon said...

Mike, I think that Russia is significantly more likely to act if it believes that it will do so with the support of the international community. Russia wants the same thing that we all do, stability, and fear of blowback in the form of a negative international response, perhaps up to and including trade and therefore economic implications, may make Russia less willing to act.

Illuninati said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Illuninati said...

Simon said:
"...I think that Russia is significantly more likely to act if it believes that it will do so with the support of the international community."

Why would we want Russia to act?

furious_a said...

If you also think that every southerner was a confederate-sympathizing slaveowner, and every German a Nazi

TWEEEET! Strawman. 10-yard penalty and loss of down.

But, since you mentioned it -- every Southerner who took up arms against their duly-elected national government (your initial objection to the Ukranian rebels) acted objectively in support of the slaveholders. And every one of the millions of ordinary Germans in the hundreds of divsions, Luftflotte and Kriegsmarine deployed for Barbarossa acted objectively in support of Generalplan Ost.

furious_a said...

"...I think that Russia is significantly more likely to act if it believes that it will do so with the support of the international community."

Like when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008.

Original Mike said...

Given the fecklessness of our President, I seriously doubt that Putin factors in his opinion one way or the other.

Simon said...

Illuninati said...
"Why would we want Russia to act?"

Because only Russia can. Our options have become limited; as I said above, a coup by the Ukrainian military is unlikely simply because it hasn't already happened, which leaves only external intervention, and the only power realistically in a situation to do so is Russia. I wish it wasn't. Such can only feed Putin's ambitions. But it is the least worst option at this time.

furious_a said...
"Like when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008."

Russia, I suspect, would say that it did no such thing: It would say that Georgia invaded South Ossetia. But even if we stipulate Georgia's side of the dispute, I didn't say that Russia wouldn't act without international approval but that it was less likely to do so.

Illuninati said...

It appears that you are convinced that the Ukrainians will not be able to work things out for themselves? What is the worst case scenario?

Paul said...

"American war of independence was not a revolution"

OMG... then my texbook that says 'American Revolution' is wrong!

No Simon, the KING of England decided taxes (not unlike Obama's 'executive orders'.) Over here we decided we should have a say in the taxes and thus WE REVOLTED.

And our own Declaration of Independence says we can REVOLT if need be, even against 'legally elected governments if the PEOPLE deem then tyrannical.

As it says...


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Simon said...

Illuninati said...
"What is the worst case scenario?"

I don't know about the worst-case scenario, but a plausible scenario is that those who have overthrown the government get away with this and the next lot in the next country are emboldened to try the same thing.

Paul said...
"'American war of independence was not a revolution' OMG... then my texbook that says 'American Revolution' is wrong!"

Yes, your leftist-written indoctrination manual is wrong. Would you like to feign surprise? I'll wait.

gregq said...

Simon,

How sad for you, to call a corrupt government where the head of state is pushing to make it a dictatorship, a "legitimate republic".

I take it in the 1700s you would have been a loyal Tory, fighting to hang all those revolutionaries who signed the Declaration of Independence. In 1930s Germany, you'd be a loyal informer, reporting on any Jews who were trying to leave, or buy guns in violation of the gun control laws passed by that "legitimate republic".

Here's a hint: It won't still be Ukraine unless Yanukovich is stopped, it will be just another satellite of Putin's Russia.

Nichevo said...

Simon, who are you? Where do you cone from? Whose side are you on?

If you can give non-snarky answers to the above, it will help me make my response more...responsive. Truthful answers would be best but I can deal with lies in a different way. To whom am I speaking, Simon? I particularly wish to avoid ad hominems, in the modern sense, if at all possible.

Kirk Parker said...

As of today Ukrainian Gun Owners Association will start to work on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution, which will provide an unconditional right for Ukrainian citizens to bear arms.

Nichevo said...

It is more important to suppress Russian hegemonic aspirations of what they like to call the "Near Abroad" than to cling to a self-proclaimed, ill-judging and apparently unfalsifiable theory of governance. Ukrainian democracy is an infant plant, susceptible to strangulation by a nice adherence to principle in the face of a foe with none.

Simon said...

Greg, I have addressed all of those points above, I think. Nichevo, it is less important, in my judgment, "to suppress Russian hegemonic aspirations" than to drive pencils through the heart of the restless beast of revolution. You are right that "Ukrainian democracy is an infant plant, susceptible to strangulation," and the revolutionaries have strangled it: They lost an election, the winner pursued policies that they don't like, and so they forced him from office. I can't really answer your question "whose side [am I] on"; I am on, I suppose, America's side, if there is such a thing; I am on the side of civilization in the fight against barbarism and its herald, revolution.

Kirk Parker said...

Wow, just wow.

(And people complain that libertarians are doctrinaire...)

Kirk Parker said...

And Simon, you may say you're on America's side, but it's not a side I can remotely recognize. Consider, for just one example, your specious claim that there was nothing 'revolutionary' about the Revolutionary War.

Kirk Parker said...

Also note (from the above-linked article):

"The image of Liberty holding a pole topped by a Phrygian cap appears on many mid- and late-19th-century U.S. silver coins. These are broadly classified as United States Seated Liberty coinage."

Kirk Parker said...

More lack of evidence of revolutionary trends in Early America.

This could get fun...

Kirk Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk Parker said...

Oops, somehow the link got lost (caught in the spam filter? Why?)

Lack of evidence of any revolutionary sentiment during Revolutionary-War times.

(So revise my earlier comment to say 'below' instead of 'above', sorry!)

Kirk Parker said...

Something weird going on with blogger today. No, I did *not* delete the previous post. That was my second attempt, I'm not going to try a third (assuming the spam filter is choking on something.)

Just go to that Wiki place and search for Liberty Pole.

Nichevo said...

Simon,

You're cute. But an American understands that you can't "drive pencils through the heart" of an idea. We can't even kill socialism or slavery (but I repeat myself).

Besides, you identified Egypt as a place where revolution was appropriate. In no way is Ukraine different, except they are white, and of course menaced by Russia, which leaves you quite unconcerned.

And anyone unconcerned about Russian hegemony is one of them. (Or a useful idiot, who are legion, but you don't strike me as an idiot despite the fact that your statement is literally idiotic taken at face value.)

Your unawareness of this very fact is what marks you like Cain. Certainly it marks you as a foreigner. Wash your mouth out with some tea, Keri, and try again.

Nichevo said...

Oh and btw the answer to the Russian populations seeded across the Near Abroad is, for those who will not embrace their current homes, immediate expropriation and exile to the good old Rodina where their hearts really lie.

This is what happens when you have ethnic Great Russians seeded in places like the Crimea...you have them begging Russia to invade the Crimea, which they are nothing loath to do seeing as they are cramming the coastline with ships full of soldiers. (Such beautiful targets they would make for some lovely Yakhonts like they wanted to sell Hezbollah.)

Go home, you sons of birches! Turn those bayonets south and east.

OMG and this Simon wants Obama to give Putin carte blanche to "suppress" the "rebels." For just one thing, idiotic Europeans writing each other blank checks is precisely how really important wars start.