BBC - Ukraine's highest court backs reforms to give Donetsk and Lugansk limited self-rule.
40 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33736069[/url]
[quote=BBC][B]Ukraine's highest court has approved constitutional changes that would allow limited self-rule to the rebel-held eastern areas of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The changes are part of a peace deal aimed at ending fighting between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russia rebels.
But many MPs oppose autonomy for the east and the decision must be voted through parliament.[/B]
Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has released $1.7bn (£1.08bn) in aid to Ukraine.
The payment is part of a bailout aimed at stabilising Ukraine's struggling economy. The country is also trying to reach a deal with its main creditors on restructuring its debts.
...
[B]Ukraine still insists, however, that elections in Donetsk and Luhansk must comply with the electoral rules set in Kiev - rather than terms set by the separatists.[/B][/quote]
Should've been done way earlier. And IIRC this was the main reason there was a rebellion.
[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;48341620]Should've been done way earlier. And IIRC this was the main reason there was a rebellion.[/QUOTE]
Yup sure was, can't possibly think of [I]ANY[/I] other reason.
[QUOTE=counterpo0;48341906]Yup sure was, can't possibly think of [I]ANY[/I] other reason.[/QUOTE]
It kinda was. Demands for federalization, anger at installed pro-Maidan governors, and the loss of their representatives as well as eventually their jobs are some of the base causes of the rebellion.
[QUOTE=Conscript;48342017]It kinda was. Demands for federalization, anger at installed pro-Maidan governors, and the loss of their representatives as well as eventually their jobs are some of the base causes of the rebellion.[/QUOTE]
Then of course the funding and support by the Russians to do so, to keep the Ukrainians from focusing mainly on Crimea. Does this need to be done? Now it does, because the Ukrainians will never get back those areas. The Russians will keep up the support until Ukraine eventually exhausts itself.
Decentralizing rule a bit is a good way to help achieve peace and bring back the rebellious areas into Ukraine again and help with rebuilding the country in general.
Also it tends to help reduce corruption and make administration much smoother.
[QUOTE=counterpo0;48341906]Yup sure was, can't possibly think of [I]ANY[/I] other reason.[/QUOTE]
If the Ukrainian government had cared about the people's happiness and well-being none of this would have happened. Putin seized the opportunity when the country went to shit but it's not like Russia created the separatist movement, that's just a result of Ukraine fucking up.
Now let's hope this will do something to end the fighting down there, I have friends down there that I'd rather want to be alive.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;48342242]If the Ukrainian government had cared about the people's happiness and well-being none of this would have happened. Putin seized the opportunity when the country went to shit but it's not like Russia created the separatist movement, that's just a result of Ukraine fucking up.[/QUOTE]
But the Maidan movement and by extension the separatist movement was born out of Russian strong arming the Ukrainian government into staying underneath the Kremlin's wing. If the Russian government had let the Ukrainian government exercise it's sovereignty by making deals with the West, there would have been no need for Maidan or any separatist movement.
[editline]31st July 2015[/editline]
Furthermore, saying the government simply "doesn't care" about the people's happiness or well being is a completely flat way of looking at it and outright wrong.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;48342242]If the Ukrainian government had cared about the people's happiness and well-being none of this would have happened. Putin seized the opportunity when the country went to shit but it's not like Russia created the separatist movement, that's just a result of Ukraine fucking up.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that exactly why this happened? The Ukrainians got tired of being Russia's puppet and forced out the Kremlin backed government? Then Russia took advantage of the chaos and annexed Crimea and armed rebel group?
I'm pretty sure thats what happened.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48342104]Then of course the funding and support by the Russians to do so, to keep the Ukrainians from focusing mainly on Crimea. Does this need to be done? Now it does, because the Ukrainians will never get back those areas. The Russians will keep up the support until Ukraine eventually exhausts itself.[/QUOTE]
There was no need to distract from Crimea, it's not like Ukraine could do anything between the militias and the Russian army.
Also it needed to be done in the first place. Maidan is very unsupported in the East as well as EU ties.
Russia is trying to use separatism to keep Ukraine a neutral buffer of sorts (it's always been a fan of buffers), it won't tolerate a Ukrainian nationalist outpost of the West resting on the corpse of the pro-Russian areas historically not part of Ukraine, and historically Bolshevik.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48342131]Decentralizing rule a bit is a good way to help achieve peace and bring back the rebellious areas into Ukraine again and help with rebuilding the country in general.
Also it tends to help reduce corruption and make administration much[/quote]
So much this, decentralization is awesome but especially for a diverse nation like Ukraine, which has expanded a lot in the last 100 years. Unfortunately I don't think it'll be enough as Ukraine will probably always be a unitary state under nationalist control and it plans on having the industrialized East, so as to not get a shittier loan deal from the IMF. A little autonomy for the East won't stop them from losing their jobs, having the state be pitted against Russia, or otherwise be dragged into something they don't want.
[video=youtube;n1k-D2x-oNI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=34&v=n1k-D2x-oNI[/video] try hear that every night and then call your government good
[QUOTE=FluD;48342840][video=youtube;n1k-D2x-oNI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=34&v=n1k-D2x-oNI[/video] try hear that every night and then call your government good[/QUOTE]
Derp, look below.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;48342852]I hope you know your video has no sound.[/QUOTE]
maybe your government disable it ?
[QUOTE=counterpo0;48341906]Yup sure was, can't possibly think of [I]ANY[/I] other reason.[/QUOTE]
The East demanded federalisation way before any of that happened. The conflict between East and West has been going on for at least 10 years prior to Ukrainian crisis.
[QUOTE=FluD;48342882]maybe your government disable it ?[/QUOTE]
Oh god nevermind. I made a mistake and had my headphones plugged in. :v:
You're still not making a good statement showing a video highlighting a flare with some background shelling. Who's side is the camera person on? It's never shown, so how do I take your word that it is a Ukrainian filming shelling, or a Separatist filming shelling? How do I know you aren't trying to misrepresent this, saying this is how the Ukrainians act when it could be vice-versa?
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;48342375]But the Maidan movement and by extension the separatist movement was born out of Russian strong arming the Ukrainian government into staying underneath the Kremlin's wing. If the Russian government had let the Ukrainian government exercise it's sovereignty by making deals with the West, there would have been no need for Maidan or any separatist movement.
[editline]31st July 2015[/editline]
Furthermore, saying the government simply "doesn't care" about the people's happiness or well being is a completely flat way of looking at it and outright wrong.[/QUOTE]
Not really Russia caused it. I am pretty sure Yanuk didn't need Putin's order to try his best to stay at power.
It was Yanuk's decision to brutally attack the initial maidan protesters, it's not like he couldn't do basic stuff without Putin.
[QUOTE=Conscript;48342793]Russia is trying to use separatism to keep Ukraine a neutral buffer of sorts (it's always been a fan of buffers), it won't tolerate a Ukrainian nationalist outpost of the West resting on the corpse of the pro-Russian areas historically not part of Ukraine, and historically Bolshevik.[/QUOTE]
The whole "it's historically Russia's" is a terrible argument, IMO. If history is used as a justification for land grabs, then Kaliningrad should be taken back by Germany, Crimea should go to Turkey, and the Kuril Islands should be Japan's.
[QUOTE=Conscript;48342793]There was no need to distract from Crimea, it's not like Ukraine could do anything between the militias and the Russian army.
Also it needed to be done in the first place. Maidan is very unsupported in the East as well as EU ties.
Russia is trying to use separatism to keep Ukraine a neutral buffer of sorts (it's always been a fan of buffers), it won't tolerate a Ukrainian nationalist outpost of the West resting on the corpse of the pro-Russian areas historically not part of Ukraine, and historically Bolshevik.[/QUOTE]
Remember that Ukraine as a nation has been struggling for independence since the 19th century, and it's not hard to see why they (the west especially) isn't keen on being maintained as a buffer zone or implicitly as a zone of influence under Moscow authority. Ukraine has been independent for not even 25 years and already it's being divided up.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;48342560]Isn't that exactly why this happened? The Ukrainians got tired of being Russia's puppet and forced out the Kremlin backed government? Then Russia took advantage of the chaos and annexed Crimea and armed rebel group?
I'm pretty sure thats what happened.[/QUOTE]
That's not what happened.
What happened is a change of power. A civil war as an excuse to capture some property.
What happened is that when USSR broke into pieces bandits seized power in Ukraine. The 90's years were years of banditism across all post-soviet republics. There was no proper law system, no proper economy, no proper governments, a huge power vacuum. The most reckless came to power. Yesterday's no ones took guns and suddenly seized factories, government positions, banks, shops, everything they could get hands on.
In Russia bandits caused a big change of power, 10 years of street warfare. But eventually intelligence agencies took over. Most bandits got killed, some legalized their businesses and complied to the government.
In Ukraine it never happened. The years of banditism went away, but bandits remained in power. While Russia is ruled by intelligence agents, Ukraine is ruled by oligarchs.
Achmetov, Kolomoysky, Yanukovich, Poroshenko and literally everyone else from the ruling elite of Ukraine are ex bandits.
You can roughly divide the ruling elites into Western and Eastern elites.
The eastern Ukraine was always more rich. Achmetov had much more money and property than Kolomoysky, for example.
Yanukovich and Achmetov were from the Eastern elites.
Where is Yanukovich? Hiding in Russia. Where is Achmetov? Hiding in Russia. Their property? Now property of Kolomoysky and others.
Who is financing pravy sektor, svoboda, private divisions, Poroshenko's political campagin? Kolomoysky.
If you ask me: two gangs started a war for territory. Except they did it with a ruse about joining the EU.
They didn't do two things to join the EU ever since Maidan, they got even further from joining EU, drowned in loans and economical disasters.
Because the oligarchs never gave a shit about supposed freedom or the EU association or Putin's evil rule or anything.
As long as it was profitable they milked Putin for free money. Yanuk was not a good president, he got money from Putin and didn't even invest it into his own country.
Now different oligarchs toppled the old oligarchs and just like Yanuk milked Putin for money they will milk the West for money. They will say anything so US and EU will fuel their corrupt machine.
It's the same as it was in Georgia. Border country selling their loyalty to US because being on the border of Russia puts a big price tag on your loyalty.
Russia is playing for its own interest. Russia needs a buffer zone of countries and its going to prevent a NATO base from appearing in Ukraine at any cost. Crimea was too much of a good oportunity to loose it. If a NATO base appeared in Crimea Russia would be basically finished as a military power.
Tl,dr: Maidan was not about freedom, it's about money and power. A lot of people got fooled by typical calls for justice and freedom, but in the end they got dragged into a coup after which they basically got the same deal, except with US and EU instead of Russia.
[editline]1st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48343054]Remember that Ukraine as a nation has been struggling for independence since the 19th century, and it's not hard to see why they (the west especially) isn't keen on being maintained as a buffer zone or implicitly as a zone of influence under Moscow authority. Ukraine has been independent for not even 25 years and already it's being divided up.[/QUOTE]
They are now more dependent of western loans than they ever were on Russia.
The whole independence thing is an empty argument. They gained absolutely no independence, they just bow to a new master now.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48343068]
They are now more dependent of western loans than they ever were on Russia.
The whole independence thing is an empty argument. They gained absolutely no independence, they just bow to a new master now.[/QUOTE]
still a master that has yet to kill their people by the millions though
[QUOTE=Flapjacks;48342956]The whole "it's historically Russia's" is a terrible argument, IMO. If history is used as a justification for land grabs, then Kaliningrad should be taken back by Germany, Crimea should go to Turkey, and the Kuril Islands should be Japan's.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say it was historically Russia's, I said it was Russian, opposed to Ukrainian nationalism, and otherwise detached from historical Ukraine as it was conceived of in the 19th century and 1918. Per the principle of self-determination they shouldn't be subject to the will of the other side of the country that comes from a separate political, historical tradition.
The other comparisons are false equivalences because of the special nature of Ukraine, being built up in the Soviet era as a communist multicultural project composed of many different identities but united by the Soviet, international working class identity. It was supposed to be the USSR's shining achievement in regards to transcending nationalism and building up minorities oppressed by Tsarist Russia, and had a special focus in 'korenization'.
This was disposed of in 1991. Now you basically have an artificial national unitary state, composed of the recently integrated territories of the Ukrainian SSR, struggling to carve a national identity enfranchising (especially over WW2) all the national minorities, out of a communist multicultural project.
This will never happen with the nationalism of West Ukraine in power. You basically have the anticommunist, nazi collaborating territories, which were historically insulated from the Bolsheviks by the German Empire and Poland, fighting against the more Russian areas that formed the Odessa, Kharkov, Crimea, etc. Soviet republics during the civil war.
In a way, this is Hitler's enduring victory. He (with some indirect help from Stalin) utterly smashed communism as something that transcended national boundaries, dooming Ukraine should the USSR ever collapse.
[QUOTE=Jund;48343240]still a master that has yet to kill their people by the millions though[/QUOTE]
I don't know any millions Putin killed.
[QUOTE=Conscript;48343268]I didn't say it was historically Russia's, I said it was Russian, opposed to Ukrainian nationalism, and otherwise detached from historical Ukraine as it was conceived of in the 19th century and 1918. Per the principle of self-determination they shouldn't be subject to the will of the other side of the country that comes from a separate political, historical tradition.
The other comparisons are false equivalences because of the special nature of Ukraine, being built up in the Soviet era as a communist multicultural project composed of many different identities but united by the Soviet, international working class identity. It was supposed to be the USSR's shining achievement in regards to transcending nationalism and building up minorities oppressed by Tsarist Russia, and had a special focus in 'korenization'.
This was disposed of in 1991. Now you basically have an artificial national unitary state, composed of the recently integrated territories of the Ukrainian SSR, struggling to carve a national identity enfranchising (especially over WW2) all the national minorities out of a communist multicultural project.
This will never happen with the nationalism of West Ukraine in power. You basically have the anticommunist, nazi collaborating territories, which were historically insulated from the Bolsheviks by the German Empire and Poland, fighting against the more Russian areas that formed the Odessa, Kharkov, Crimea, etc. Soviet republics during the civil war.
In a way, this is Hitler's enduring victory. He utterly smashed communism as something that transcended national boundaries, dooming Ukraine should the USSR ever collapse.[/QUOTE]
Except Ukrainian nationalism has existed (much like in other countries) since the 19th century, and I would argue that the Ukrainian nation (much like the Russian nation) was born out of the experiences of the years 1914 - 1917.
This nationalism lasted until the late 1920s (indeed, the early USSR encouraged nationalism) when Stalin begun to crack down on it and later initiated a shameful genocide in the holodomor. The next few decades saw Russification policies that attempted to suppress Ukrainian identity, which only really ended when the USSR inevitably collapsed under the weight of its own ineptitude.
Ukraine today is a nation with links stretching back at least to the 19th century, one that has suffered immensely under Soviet rule, and is now only starting to slowly reassert itself like Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, etc.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48343387]I don't know any millions Putin killed.[/QUOTE]
Even though Putin's Russia is a long shot better than the USSR, it's still no better than the USSR in the eyes of many citizens of border states that were once part of the USSR.
Ukraine's masters in Moscow caused the Holodomor that killed at least two million people. Most evidence points to it being an orchestrated campaign ordered by the mega fucker himself, Stalin.
The USSR also suppressed news of Chernobyl.
Past wrongs take a [I]long[/I] time for the populace to reconcile, even if the past wrongs were orchestrated by a completely different government. There's still a huge amount of animosity between basically all of Asia and Japan because of Imperial Japan's actions ("[I]how many unarmed peasants can we rape then bayonet in 5 minutes? ready, set, go![/I]") during their campaign of rape-pillage-burn in the 1930s and 1940s.
[QUOTE=Saber15;48343544]Even though Putin's Russia is a long shot better than the USSR, it's still no better than the USSR in the eyes of many citizens of border states that were once part of the USSR.
Ukraine's masters in Moscow caused the Holodomor that killed at least two million people. Most evidence points to it being an orchestrated campaign ordered by the mega fucker himself, Stalin.
The USSR also suppressed news of Chernobyl.
Past wrongs take a [I]long[/I] time for the populace to reconcile, even if the past wrongs were orchestrated by a completely different government. There's still a huge amount of animosity between basically all of Asia and Japan because of Imperial Japan's actions ("[I]how many unarmed peasants can we rape then bayonet in 5 minutes? ready, set, go![/I]") during their campaign of rape-pillage-burn in the 1930s and 1940s.[/QUOTE]
Well, Churchill caused the Bengal Famine ([url]http://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/[/url]) so there are your 4 million killed by a western master. And US wrecked a lot of countries and engineered many coups, which while subjectively not as bad as a genocide is a sign that should cause mistrust.
This is no clear choice for Ukraine. None of the two masters are good and I dont think its easy to say which one is worse. Especially for Ukraine which after all has more ties to Russia than US or EU.
But it doesn't matter since all their government wants is to milk loan money.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48343410]Except Ukrainian nationalism has existed (much like in other countries) since the 19th century, and I would argue that the Ukrainian nation (much like the Russian nation) was born out of the experiences of the years 1914 - 1917.
This nationalism lasted until the late 1920s (indeed, the early USSR encouraged nationalism) when Stalin begun to crack down on it and later initiated a shameful genocide in the holodomor. The next few decades saw Russification policies that attempted to suppress Ukrainian identity, which only really ended when the USSR inevitably collapsed under the weight of its own ineptitude.
Ukraine today is a nation with links stretching back at least to the 19th century, one that has suffered immensely under Soviet rule, and is now only starting to slowly reassert itself like Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, etc.[/QUOTE]
Yes it did, however its traditional nationalism (that of the 19th century and brief independence in the civil war era, as you note) is that of Galicia, Right and Left bank Ukraine, etc. It draws from the Zaporozhian sich, the kingdom of Volhynia-Galicia, the principality of Kiev. Not Donbass and Crimea, not the Russian-speaking territories consisting of the Tsar's colony called Novorossiya. They have their own separate historical traditions which speak of cultural, political, and economic ties to Russia through Novorossiya and fighting for the Bolsheviks in 1918-1921, and so they see themselves as victors of WW2. These places only became 'Ukrainian' under the Soviet identity, after the nationalists were vanquished, as part of a communist project to build up a nation formerly oppressed by Russian chauvinism and transcend nationalism by bringing nationalities together under a class-based Soviet identity.
And that's my entire point, it doesn't matter if Ukrainian identity predates the USSR, because should it decide to be a nationalist state after the USSR, it's incompatible with being in a union with these lands. It can't have the cake and eat it too, not without war.
Regardless of your narrative sympathetic to the anti-communist nationalists, we can argue that all day, it's not going to 'reassert itself' on the corpse of that project, oppressing the pro-Bolshevik, Russophone territories given to it by Lenin after he defeated their predecessors, in order to form a completely artificial nation-state molded on West Ukraine. Not without war. Only people obsessed with sticking it to modern Russia and the Bolsheviks (who ironically built Ukraine and opposed Russian chauvinism) support such a thing, and they should have no sway over a fragile, heterogeneous nation like Ukraine which struggles to form a unifying post-communist national identity.
Unfortunately they do because the West has hegemony in Europe. But whatever, they're reaping what they've sowed in the fSU: A divided Ukraine, a hostile Russia, and a good chunk of Europe (particularly Germany) wondering if this is really in their interests.
[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;48341620]Should've been done way earlier. And IIRC this was the main reason there was a rebellion.[/QUOTE]
ya, maybe Russia should take a lesson, let their regions have some autonomy and self elections instead of a centralized crushing government, otherwise there is going to be rebelions
[QUOTE=Conscript;48343644]Yes it did, however its traditional nationalism (that of the 19th century and brief independence in the civil war era, as you note) is that of Galicia, Right and Left bank Ukraine, etc. It draws from the Zaporozhian sich, the kingdom of Volhynia-Galicia, the principality of Kiev. Not Donbass and Crimea, not the Russian-speaking territories consisting of the Tsar's colony called Novorossiya. They have their own separate historical traditions which speak of cultural, political, and economic ties to Russia through Novorossiya and fighting for the Bolsheviks in 1918-1921, and so they see themselves as victors of WW2. These places only became 'Ukrainian' under the Soviet identity, after the nationalists were vanquished, as part of a communist project to build a nation oppressed by Russian chauvinism and bring multiple nationalities together under a class, not national, identity.
And that's my entire point, it doesn't matter if Ukrainian identity predates the USSR, because should it decide to be a nationalist state after the USSR, it's incompatible with being in a union with these lands. It can't have the cake and eat it too, not without war.
Regardless of your narrative sympathetic to the anti-communist nationalists, we can argue that all day, it's not going to 'reassert itself' on the corpse of that project, oppressing the pro-Bolshevik, Russophone territories given to it by Lenin after he defeated their predecessors in order to form a completely artificial nation-state molded on West Ukraine. Not without war. Only people obsessed with sticking it to modern Russia and the Bolsheviks (who ironically built Ukraine and opposed Russian chauvinism) supports such a thing, and they should have no sway over a fragile, heterogeneous nation like Ukraine which struggles to form a unifying post-communist national identity.
Unfortunately they do because the West has hegemony in Europe. But whatever, they're reaping what they've sowed in the fSU: A divided Ukraine, a hostile Russia, and a good chunk of Europe (particularly Germany) wondering if this is really in their interests.[/QUOTE]
Or Ukraine could give autonomy to the eastern regions and eat its cake too. War can be avoided by simply reforming the administration and government, building up the civil service as an institution and generally working towards re-integration by making local and regional government more sensitive to the needs of the local population.
The Bolsheviks themselves are indeed to blame for much of the problem you describe too. Joining up western Ukraine with the east stinks of attempts by the empires that divided up africa in much the same manner.
The reason why Ukraine is in a civil war right now is directly due to the fault of the Communist Party having redrawn the borders of eastern europe and forcibly relocating or otherwise murdering people, before suppressing demands for independence. It's no surprise that when the implicit threat of violence was lifted (you weren't going to get the USSR sending in tanks like in Hungary), that it immediately collapsed.
Had Ukraine become independent after the First World War and avoided annexation, then the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass to the country would never have happened.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48343801]ya, maybe Russia should take a lesson, let their regions have some autonomy and self elections instead of a centralized crushing government, otherwise there is going to be rebelions[/QUOTE]
Different situations. Centralisation works fine in Russia atm and there is no sight of it going away.
Russia doesn't have an ancient nationality conflict too.
[editline]1st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48343834]
The Bolsheviks themselves are indeed to blame for much of the problem you describe too. Joining up western Ukraine with the east stinks of attempts by the empires that divided up africa in much the same manner.
[/QUOTE]
This.
The border between East and West Ukraine is basically [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durand_Line[/url] of slavs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.