Ukraine Thread

[Sarmatian]

I am not sure what you are arguing.

I don't care - tip you're it.

You take over, I can't do it anymore.

Hats off to Brenus, his perseverance is legendary, but then again, he has seen war and marriage.

[Brenus]

I think Gilrandir as funny. He has no clue, no real knowledge more than what he picks in internet in the most revisionist sites and think it is enough. Each time he goes for vocabulary explanation to cover the gaps, he make me laugh. The "well, I was wrong about this, but I am still right as Hitler really said in was for peace, I was right to say Hitler was a peaceful man" kind of argument.
It is a tactic he uses a lot.

[Gilrandir]

I am not sure what you are arguing. The Red Army was in no shape to combat the Wehrmacht, and Stalin was fully aware of this. He was trying to place the Soviet Union in a more favorable position for when Hitler inevitably gave the order to attack.

Why do you think this occurred?

Stalin signed the treaty with Hitler in late August 1939. The decree you refer to dates back to spring 1940. If Stalin was so fully aware of his weaknesses, why wait for so long to try to correct something? Why didn't he do it soon after his saw inadequacies of his military in the Winter war?
I think he was having in view not the vague purpose "to keep up with the Jonses" (or at least not primarily this purpose). He was being engaged in occupation of the Baltic states which put a strain on economy and armed forces. So it WAS a war time, as your source states.

I think Gilrandir as funny. He has no clue, no real knowledge more than what he picks in internet in the most revisionist sites and think it is enough.

It is good to be able to have at least a piece of mind now and then from a sage who doesn't know anything about Jews and Gypsies, but whose wisdom allows him to grade the sites he dislikes from most revisionist through mildly revisionist down to slightly revisionist.
I'm sure it is the same wisdom which allows him to say "you're hopeless" to the opponent and call it a day when he sees he has lost the argument.

[CrossLOPER]

Stalin signed the treaty with Hitler in late August 1939. The decree you refer to dates back to spring 1940. If Stalin was so fully aware of his weaknesses, why wait for so long to try to correct something?

I recommend that you read the material provided for you. Your English is excellent, so I know you can read it.

Same article (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...lwarplans.html).

On August 23, 1939, the German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, was in Moscow. He and Molotov signed the historic German-Soviet non-aggression pact. The following evening, Stalin hosted prominent members of the Soviet Political Bureau in his apartment. Among the dinner guests were Molotov, Voroshilov, Lavrenti P. Beria and Nikita Khrushchev.

Stalin explained, as Khrushchev later recalled, that he considered war with Germany unavoidable, but had momentarily tricked Hitler and bought time.

Inside the USSR, an intensive armaments production program was under way. During 1938, it had increased by 39 percent, compared to 13 percent in civil industry. Emphasis was placed on armor, development of artillery and aeronautics. In September 1939 the USSR defense committee contracted the construction of nine aircraft production plants, and seven more to manufacture aircraft engines.

This was supplemented by the conversion to fabrication of aviation components of a number of consumer goods factories.

The war in Europe did not develop as Stalin had predicted. In the spring of 1940, the British withdrew from the continent. The German army conquered France in June without suffering appreciable losses. The ground war was wrapping up without England and Germany becoming "sufficiently worn down." Khrushchev later described how Stalin became unusually agitated following the Franco-German cease-fire in June 1940. He cursed the French for letting themselves be beaten and the English for fleeing "as fast as their legs could carry them.

I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.

Here is a more scholarly report detailing military outputs before and during the war:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...8postprint.pdf

Here is a book: https://books.google.com/books?id=NH...Banner&f=false

Check the first four or five pages of "4. The Shock of Surprise Attack". Basically, it states that Stalin was aware of the attack, but misjudged the timing badly.

[Brenus]

Don't speak of facts with with Gilrandir. He will explain later that well, he was right.
"I'm sure it is the same wisdom which allows him to say "you're hopeless" to the opponent and call it a day when he sees he has lost the argument." The first part explains the second that you as usual misunderstand.

"sage who doesn't know anything about Jews and Gypsies" Why a sage should know everything? I like when you try irony.
Then what did I miss for Jews and Gypsies? Jew is a religious and Gypsies perhaps an ethnicity but certainly not a Nation in modern acceptation? So share your ignorance once again, I sure you will find something...

[Greyblades]

as always, everything is England and France's fault.

Unless it's something good, in which case everyone magically forgets we had anything to do with it.

[Gilrandir]

I recommend that you read the material provided for you. Your English is excellent, so I know you can read it.

I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.

Here is a more scholarly report detailing military outputs before and during the war:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...8postprint.pdf

Here is a book: https://books.google.com/books?id=NH...Banner&f=false

Check the first four or five pages of "4. The Shock of Surprise Attack". Basically, it states that Stalin was aware of the attack, but misjudged the timing badly.

Thank you for the sources. I cursorily looked them through, yet I didn't find anything new that I hadn't known before. Indeed I studied it all at school and university. And I don't see how it gainsays my view that Stalin and Hitler started WWII by partitioning Poland and that until June 1941 they stayed in close cooperation. I heard (don't know if this information is well grounded) that Britain contemplated bombing Baku oil extraction and refinery facilities to prevent gasoline suppies from the USSR to Germany.
http://orientalreview.org/2010/04/22...o-attack-ussr/
And I know that the USSR kept sending wheat to Germany up to June 1941.
The fact that Stalin didn't expect the assault on June 22 and didn't believe any reports confirming that was bored into the conciousness of all Soviet schollchildren.
Don't see why is it all qualified as revisionism. I was trying to show that myths and facts don't coincide. One of such myths is that any fighting side during WWII was allied either with Germany or with the Western allies and/or the USSR. There were numerous armies fighting against both. Another myth is that Russia could have won the war without any help - either from the West or from other Soviet republics. The third one is that all Russians fought against nazis, while other nations (Ukrainians, Tatars, Chechens) had a significant percentage of traitors. This myth chooses to disregard the existence of Vlasov's army (numbering from a million to 1,5 million). So every nation had traitors or those stigmatized as traitors. Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Wa...81st_French%29).
So the bottomline I tried to make:
it is time to stop arguing who was more traitor/collaborator than others and reconcile.

I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.

You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Die_for_Danzig%3F
I hope I didn't link to any revisionist site.

[Gilrandir]

Then what did I miss for Jews and Gypsies? Jew is a religious

Jews is a nationality, judaism is their religion. Not all Jews are Judaists. In Ukraine, for example, there are many who were baptized into Orthodox christianity. Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".

and Gypsies perhaps an ethnicity but certainly not a Nation in modern acceptation?

I like this demure "perhaps". You blame other in disregarding the facts, but ... kettle and pot.
But whatever term (nation, nationality or ethnicity) you may choose, belonging to it is not a reason to be termimated, is it?

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile, back in DPR. Zakharchenko presides at the parade.
http://empr.media/video/conflict-zon...ade-in-donetsk
Yeltsin said in such cases that he hadn't slept the previous night and was deadly tired the following morning.
And in Russia:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0NV06Q20150510
I spotted strange discrepancies between English- and Russian-language versions of this article. The former claims that "some soldiers" are quitting the army, the latter the "whole groups of soldiers" do.
http://ru.reuters.com/article/topNew...150510?sp=true
Any explanation?

[Husar]

Jews is a nationality, judaism is their religion. Not all Jews are Judaists. In Ukraine, for example, there are many who were baptized into Orthodox christianity. Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

[Brenus]

“You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?” Lol. A slogan in a pro-nazi French Newspaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_D%C3%A9at
And once again, you didn’t read the document you provided, which illustrate perfectly well how you deal with facts and arguments: You read the tittle only.

“Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division” Deeply aware, however, the 33 SS Division Charlemagne’s members are considered as traitors, as the Milice, LVF or the Strumbrigade Frankenreich in France. No unit in the French Army wear their symbol, and they not celebrated as heroes in newspapers today. In some books written by Extreme-Right authors, perhaps (I read them all when I was young!!!!)…

Now, I agree on your statement about every country having traitors. However, in Ukraine today, as in Latvia before, they are probably heroes. Ukraine chooses its heroes: Criminals who slaughtered Jews (not only) under the Nazi uniforms and symbols, symbols they are proud to wear today.

“But whatever term (nation, nationality or ethnicity) you may choose, belonging to it is not a reason to be termimated, is it?” Yeah, but we were speaking of political Classes, not of Nations/ nationalities and the political transformation illustrated during the French Revolution but not only.

[Sarmatian]

And I know that the USSR kept sending wheat to Germany up to June 1941.

And oil and other materials/supplies. Doesn't change the fact it was done to buy time.

Don't see why is it all qualified as revisionism. I was trying to show that myths and facts don't coincide. One of such myths is that any fighting side during WWII was allied either with Germany or with the Western allies and/or the USSR.

It's not myth, it's a fact. That doesn't mean some of them weren't traitors and/murderers. Banderovci fought intermittently against Germans, but their primary enemies were Poles and Soviets, and in later stages of the war, they fought together with Wehrmacht to stop Soviet offensives. They were also responsible for ethnic cleansing of Poles in eastern Ukraine, and wanted to create an ethnically clean Ukraine.

It's disgusting such people are venerated as heroes.

Another myth is that Russia could have won the war without any help - either from the West or from other Soviet republics.

"Soviets" refers to all nationalities within Soviet Union and includes Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Tatars, Georgians and others. It is a well known fact that Red Army wasn't just Russian, and I take it most people here know that were many additional nationalities fighting on the side of the Red Army who weren't in the USSR, like Poles and Mongols...

The third one is that all Russians fought against nazis, while other nations (Ukrainians, Tatars, Chechens) had a significant percentage of traitors. This myth chooses to disregard the existence of Vlasov's army (numbering from a million to 1,5 million).
So every nation had traitors or those stigmatized as traitors. Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division

Vlassov's army never numbered 1 to 1.5 million men, I have no idea where you got that figure from. It was used as a propaganda tool by Nazis and basically only existed on paper, because Hitler didn't trust them. Himmler persuaded Hitler to allow him to arm several Russian division in 1944. By 1945, only one was formed, and it's first major combat involvement was in Prague, when they promptly decide to help Czechoslovakians and fought against the Germans for liberation of Prague. After the war, Vlassov was hanged.

There were individual Russian soldiers and small units who fought within the SS, just like there were other nationalities.

It is not so much an issue whether there were, but how they are treated today. If they are honoured as heroes instead of ignored as traitors, something is very wrong.

So the bottomline I tried to make:
it is time to stop arguing who was more traitor/collaborator than others and reconcile.

If that means respecting pro-nazi organizations, you can count most of the civilized world out. Maybe you should try it in Germany. Tell them there is no difference between Weimar Republic and Nazis. I'm sure they won't have any objection.

In case it wasn't clear, I think your bottom line is a sad, disgusting attempt to exonerate nazis and nazi wannabees.

[Gilrandir]

“You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?” Lol. A slogan in a pro-nazi French Newspaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_D%C3%A9at
And once again, you didn’t read the document you provided, which illustrate perfectly well how you deal with facts and arguments: You read the tittle only.

How long it must be before you learn
1) not to jump to conclusions and
2) read carefully into the message.
I spoke of the ATTITUDE epitomized by the statement. It was evident in Europe before Danzig and didn't refer to Danzig only. It was adopted after the Anschluss and transpired vividly during the occupation of the Sudets and later the whole of Czechoslovakia. The same attitude as today's "why go to war for Ukraine".

“Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division” Deeply aware, however, the 33 SS Division Charlemagne’s members are considered as traitors, as the Milice, LVF or the Strumbrigade Frankenreich in France. No unit in the French Army wear their symbol, and they not celebrated as heroes in newspapers today. In some books written by Extreme-Right authors, perhaps (I read them all when I was young!!!!)…

Now, I agree on your statement about every country having traitors. However, in Ukraine today, as in Latvia before, they are probably heroes. Ukraine chooses its heroes: Criminals who slaughtered Jews (not only) under the Nazi uniforms and symbols, symbols they are proud to wear today.

If this philippic refers to UPA, it is mostly not true: they had their own their uniform and are not proclaimed guilty at Nuremberg. It is true, though, that they participated in slaughters of Poles ans (perhaps) Jews.
If you are speaking about SS division Galichyna, it is also not true, as they are not venerated as heroes and their (nazi) uniforms are not worn by any Ukrainian army detachments. And, by the way, UPA, AFAIK, didn't approve of its creation.

And oil and other materials/supplies. Doesn't change the fact it was done to buy time.

This is your own interpretation of the fact. Trading (especially strategic goods) is the worst thing to buy time with if one knows (as you claim Stalin did) that some day you will have to fight your trade partner.
But this trade was only a part of multi-faceted cooperation that I spoke of, so I don't buy the buying time explanation.

It's not myth, it's a fact. That doesn't mean some of them weren't traitors and/murderers.

In Lithuania, Forest brothers fought against the Soviets, yet they were not allied with the Germans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_partisans
History is never black-and-white, as you try to paint it.

Banderovci fought intermittently against Germans, but their primary enemies were Poles and Soviets, and in later stages of the war, they fought together with Wehrmacht to stop Soviet offensives.

This is again your assumption (on the primary targets of UPA). I would say that they equally targeted anyone they considered an enemy in their fight for independent Ukraine.

They were also responsible for ethnic cleansing of Poles in eastern Ukraine, and wanted to create an ethnically clean Ukraine.

It is the first time I hear of any Poles living in eastern Ukraine and any ethnic cleansings of them. If I were Brenus I would say something like "You see, he has no clue of geography".
As for massacres, cruelty and violence, it was the time abundant in those. The husband of my grandmother's sister told me a lot how "kind and gentle" were Soviet troops to the civilians in Germany. And also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw%C5%82okoma_massacre

It's disgusting such people are venerated as heroes.

As I have said, history is never black-and-white. For example, Bohdan Khmelnitsky is considered to be the greatest hetman in Ukrainian history, the founder of the first independent Ukrainian state and his monuments are everywhere. Pro-Russians venerate him because he united Ukraine with Russia, pro-Ukrainians venerate him because he fought against the Polish. Yet people choose to forget that this struggle for independence involved massacres of the Poles and Jews, and those who opposed him massacred Ukrainians most gladly. Is he to be venerated? I'm sure that in the history of every country there are plenty of such figures.

"Soviets" refers to all nationalities within Soviet Union and includes Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Tatars, Georgians and others. It is a well known fact that Red Army wasn't just Russian, and I take it most people here know that were many additional nationalities fighting on the side of the Red Army who weren't in the USSR, like Poles and Mongols...

Tell it to Putin, this is one of his favorite myths:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3dS02yonos
Is it a revisionism?

Vlassov's army never numbered 1 to 1.5 million men, I have no idea where you got that figure from.

I didn't phrase it correctly: the whole number of Russians fighting on the nazi side was about that:
http://bintel.com.ua/en/article/kem-...-antifashisty/

As part of SS, RONA was suppressing the Warsaw uprising in August-September 1944. RONA soldiers were engaged in looting, exhibiting a bestial cruelty, for what Kaminsky was arrested by Germans and shot. In 1944, RONA was included into Hitler's army of collaborator Vlasov.

Apart from RONA in the service of the German fascists were other Russian formations: “Russian National People's Army” (RNNA), Brigade “Druzhina”, Cossack units which received after 3 April 1943 their general name “Russian Liberation Army” (ROA) under command of General Vlasov. At the beginning of its formation, Vlasov's army numbered about 45 thousand people, And his Air Force — 5 thousand military servicemen. In total, according to different estimates, during World War II on the side of Nazi Germany fought from 1 million to 1.7 million Russians, among them were Russians of the Crimea.

If that means respecting pro-nazi organizations, you can count most of the civilized world out. Maybe you should try it in Germany.

Or in Croatia. Or in Lithuania. Or in Latvia. Evidenlty, some countries are at odds with you on who to consider a (pro) nazi.

In case it wasn't clear, I think your bottom line is a sad, disgusting attempt to exonerate nazis and nazi wannabees.

I guess, it is me who wasn't clear or else you didn't read my post carefully.
I spoke of stopping charging each other with COLLABORATIONISM and TREASON, since collaborators and (ideals of the free world)'s traitors were ALL, starting from Chamberlain and Stalin (and other leaders) down to numerous petty ones.

[Greyblades]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

Er... Maybe by "Jews" as a nationality/culture he means Ashkenazi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

[Gilrandir]

Er... Maybe by "Jews" as a nationality/culture he means Ashkenazi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism

Who is a Jew?

According to traditional Jewish Law, a Jew is anyone who was either born of a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in accordance with Jewish Law. American Reform Judaism and British Liberal Judaism accept the child of one Jewish parent (father or mother) as Jewish if the parents raise the child with a Jewish identity. All mainstream forms of Judaism today are open to sincere converts, although conversion has traditionally been discouraged since the time of the Talmud. The conversion process is evaluated by an authority, and the convert is examined on his or her sincerity and knowledge. Converts are called "ben Abraham" or "bat Abraham", (son or daughter of Abraham). Conversions have on occasion been overturned. In 2008, Israel's highest religious court invalidated the conversion of 40,000 Jews, mostly from Russian immigrant families, even though they had been approved by an Orthodox rabbi.

Traditional Judaism maintains that a Jew, whether by birth or conversion, is a Jew forever. Thus a Jew who claims to be an atheist or converts to another religion is still considered by traditional Judaism to be Jewish. According to some sources, the Reform movement has maintained that a Jew who has converted to another religion is no longer a Jew, and the Israeli Government has also taken that stance after Supreme Court cases and statutes. However, the Reform movement has indicated that this is not so cut and dried, and different situations call for consideration and differing actions. For example, Jews who have converted under duress may be permitted to return to Judaism "without any action on their part but their desire to rejoin the Jewish community" and "A proselyte who has become an apostate remains, nevertheless, a Jew". (p. 100-106).

The question of what determines Jewish identity in the State of Israel was given new impetus when, in the 1950s, David Ben-Gurion requested opinions on mihu Yehudi ("who is a Jew") from Jewish religious authorities and intellectuals worldwide in order to settle citizenship questions. This is still not settled, and occasionally resurfaces in Israeli politics.

[Gilrandir]

Back to Ukraine:
http://uatoday.tv/politics/donetsk-m...ne-426575.html

https://news.pn/en/RussiaInvadedUkraine/133059

[Strike For The South]

It's May 12th and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

In the UK Antisemitism is considered racism, not religious prejudice. Germany may have developed a different view post-holocaust but, in the West, Jews have historically been seen as racially apart, a view supported by the practice of intermarriage for reasons of religion. That's not to say that everybody who has a Jewish nose (like a Roman nose it really is a thing) has grandparents who were practicing Jews, but still.

[Montmorency]

"Jew" is best considered as denoting ethnic membership or identity. It has more to do with upbringing and perceived historical grounding than religious practice (of course hardline Jewish conservatives may privately disagree, though they're happy to import anyone they can into Israel).

Note that the majority of Iberia has some Semitic ancestry. Many other Europeans can claim descent from Christianized Jews. Probably most Muslim Palestinians had Jewish ancestors along the way.

I mean, check out this guy, looks like a total Hebe:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for Ukrainian Jews, well, some of them are in my extended family. Heck, one of my grandmothers was a Ukrainian Jew (though she relocated to Belarus after the war).

[Husar]

In the UK Antisemitism is considered racism, not religious prejudice. Germany may have developed a different view post-holocaust but, in the West, Jews have historically been seen as racially apart, a view supported by the practice of intermarriage for reasons of religion. That's not to say that everybody who has a Jewish nose (like a Roman nose it really is a thing) has grandparents who were practicing Jews, but still.

Eh, the post I replied to began with "Jews is a nationality", that is weird because Israeli is a nationality and there are jews with German, American, Russian and many other nationalities.
To top it off the post ended by saying that "Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".", which is not only a contradiction to how he began two sentences earlier but also a bit strange since the term jew often does cover religion, although certainly not exclusively. Wikipedia calls it "ethno-religious" and "ethno-cultural" which seems quite accurate to me.

[Gilrandir]

Eh, the post I replied to began with "Jews is a nationality", that is weird because Israeli is a nationality and there are jews with German, American, Russian and many other nationalities.

I would say that Israeli is citizenship (Israeli is a citizen of Israel). And they can be of different ethnicity - Jewish, Arab, Ukrainian, Russian...

[Brenus]

"I would say that Israeli is citizenship (Israeli is a citizen of Israel). And they can be of different ethnicity - Jewish, Arab, Ukrainian, Russian..." Always difficult to define all these concepts: My Israeli friend is an atheist Jew. His nationality is Israeli (and french), his culture Jew, religion none. The problem is in this list there is a mixture of "arab" (Culture?) Nationality (Ukrainian) and religion (Jewish).
In the frame work you propose my friend could be European French Israeli.

[Papewaio]

Like a lot of words Jew has multiple meanings with individuals displaying some or all characteristics.

You can be Jewish ethnically ie parent(s) are Jewish
Jewish religion
Jewish culturally

I have a friend who identifies himself as ethnically and culturally Jewish. But he sees religion as a crutch and is an atheist.

Helps to understand that religion and culture and interwined and with expectations that you only marry within a group an ethnic group will form over time, and more specialized groupings as the strictures on who you marry. There are some Jewish communities who have genetic diseases, that are very rare in the outside world, commonly occurring within their communities. Much like Royalty...

[Gilrandir]

http://maidantranslations.com/2015/0...freesavchenko/

[Gilrandir]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ch-more-crimea
Ran into this article. Nothing new or surprising if it weren't for the date. It seems that Novorossia was on Russia's agenda long before March 2014. So much for "Putin was only reacting and saving what he could".

[GenosseGeneral]

I was actually looking for an English-language article which quotes Merkel ruling out Ukraine's EU membership. Yet I found that there are actually 3 types of headlines summarizing that speech:
a) "Ukraine crisis makes Eastern Partnership more important"
b) "No Russian return to G7 without progress in Eastern Ukraine"
c) "Merkel rules our Ukraine becoming a EU member"
https://www.google.ru/search?client=...nel=fs&tbm=nws

I actually only wanted to congratulate her on finally being honest, in contrast to our American friends who continue their empty promises of NATO Ukraine's ascension. I believe it is high time for clear communication with the Ukrainian people: Europe is not willing to spend the billions necessary to prevent an economic meltdown, as those funds would end up in corrupt officials' pockets anyway. We are also not willing to deliver substantial military aid and no matter how much we deliver, Russia would always keep the upper hand anyway (as she prove in Ilovaysk and Debalzeve).

Regarding the Banderovzy: As much as I see the need for Ukraine's patriots to build their own, non-soviet narrative of WW2, they should not choose the UPA. It has indeed carried out ethnic cleanses against Polish. Glorifying the UPA is not only a provocation for Russia and significant parts of the Ukrainian population, it can potentially alienate Ukraine's closest ally: Poland. The UPA was a highly dubious organization, sometimes collaborating with the Nazis, sometimes fighting them and there are way too much dark grey tones in its history to glorify it as unanimously as they do in Lviv (I remember street names like Vulitsa Heroiv UPA and Vulitsa Stepanu Banderu as well a shiny marble monument in their honour).
That being said, I am evenly disgusted by the way they frame it here in Russia, though. What they tell you here is that it was as essentially some Ukrainian branch of the Nazi party/SS, which enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis. What is even worse is how they without thinking for a second simply assume, that Western Ukrainians hold the same views as their ancestors. As if I would be a Nazi ready to commit another Holocaust, just because I am German.


Heck, those comments always become longer in the end than I originally intended.

[Brenus]

"So much for "Putin was only reacting and saving what he could"." The New Republic's Ukraine Newsletter. is your very independent source. Can you link directly with www.ukraine.gov.prop (for propaganda) (or equivalent) please, that will cut a lot of time

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32840502

Russian soldiers have apparently confessed being, well, Russian soldiers, to OBSE monitors.

[GenosseGeneral]

Let's link the actual source:
http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/159296
I highly recommend all of you to read the OSCE reports, as they are the only really reliable source in the area. This way you don't have to be afraid of the filter .See for instance, how the Merkel speech I quoted above was framed in three very different ways.

[Gilrandir]

I
The UPA was a highly dubious organization, sometimes collaborating with the Nazis, sometimes fighting them and there are way too much dark grey tones in its history to glorify it as unanimously...

Replace "UPA" with "the Red Army" and it will hold true as well.
My point was that EVERYBODY eventually fighting against Nazis could at some moment between 1938 and 1945 be called a collaborator.

"So much for "Putin was only reacting and saving what he could"." The New Republic's Ukraine Newsletter. is your very independent source. Can you link directly with www.ukraine.gov.prop (for propaganda) (or equivalent) please, that will cut a lot of time

So you mean that Edward Luttwak (the author of the article posted at this despicable site) on March 9 2014 didn't say anything about Novorossia project being in preparation in Russia? The reputation of the site (which you don't like) makes Edward Luttwak a liar of a fictitious character?