The new Up coming war between Ukraine and Russia

[Texan77]

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-russia-and-ukraine-are-likely-headed-war-189947

[andrewfi]

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-russia-and-ukraine-are-likely-headed-war-189947

It looks like Taras Kuzo does not understand what he's writing about. Don't worry, fortunately the leaders of Russia and even Ukraine better understand the realities better than he.

[Texan77]

Yea The president of Ukraine is begging to get into Nato in hope to deter Russia. Meanwhile Putin write a 6000 word essay saying Kiev is the capital of Russia and needs to be a part of Russia along with most of its territory. Putin site long history Russian occupation as proof that Russia should once again regain its territory. Putin requires all military personnel to read his essay. It does not sound friendly and consider the source of who wrote it.

In 1917 to 1921 Ukraine was a war with Russia trying to get its independence. Ukraine lost!  After ww2 it took Stalin ten years to subdue Ukraine resistance to Russian rule.

Ukraine takes the threat very seriously. https://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2021/04/2/7288704/

[Texan77]

 Now that everyone has studied Putin’s 7,000-word discourse on Russia-Ukraine relations….  Russia goodwill toward Ukraine, I offer this anthology of analysis.
The headlines capture the flavor:

1. Tara Kuzio, the National Interest: “Why Russia and Ukraine are Likely Headed for War”
2. Anders Aslund, Project Syndicate: “Putin’s Denial of Ukrainian Independence Could Lead to War”
3. Walter Russell Mead, The Wall Street Journal:  “Why Putin Still Covets Ukraine”
4. Peter Dickinson, Atlantic Council: “Putin’s New Ukraine Essay Reflects Imperial Ambitions.”
5. Pavel K Baev, Jamestown: “Putin’s Fixation on Ukraine is Demagogic, Delusional and Dangerous.”
6. Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg Opinion: “Why Ukraine Lives Rent-Free in Putin’s Head”
7. Alexei Bayer, Kiev Post: “Putin’s Useless History Lesson.”
8. Robert Homans, BNE Intellinews: “Putin’s Epistle to the Ukrainians.”

[AvHdB]

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-russia-and-ukraine-are-likely-headed-war-189947

It looks like Taras Kuzo does not understand what he's writing about. Don't worry, fortunately the leaders of Russia and even Ukraine better understand the realities better than he.

Please bear in mind the opinions expressed are just that. In fact though Taras Kuzio has history correct and his assessment wrong in my opinion. Simply stated Russia has been a John Bull towards Ukraine.

While I am NOT inside the thinking and planning of V. Putin I doubt strongly he wants to invade by military force Ukraine. He will though continue to force by what ever means he can economic hardship upon the people of Ukraine. In return the West will do the same towards Russia.

The fact is Ukraine is Western looking (NATO & EU membership) and the Kremlin has a hard time accepting this reality.

[Texan77]

More about Putin's essay and how it reflex Russia's imperial ambitions.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-new-ukraine-essay-reflects-imperial-ambitions/

[Manny]

Meanwhile Putin write a 6000 word essay saying Kiev is the capital of Russia and needs to be a part of Russia along with most of its territory.

He said nothing of the sort. Why didn't you publish a link to what he actually did say? Perhaps you forgot. I'll add it for completeness: http://en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182

[AvHdB]

Meanwhile Putin write a 6000 word essay saying Kiev is the capital of Russia and needs to be a part of Russia along with most of its territory.

He said nothing of the sort. Why didn't you publish a link to what he actually did say? Perhaps you forgot. I'll add it for completeness: http://en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182

Thank you, it is an amazing read. My suspicion is pre-Soviet period it is largely accurate depiction. After the formation of the Soviet Union facts and realities are twisted to fit the narrative of V. Putin.

Some suspicions I need to confirm, though I noticed one glaring outright lie. I will get back to this when I have more ambition and time.

[AvHdB]

UGH! This is a bigger project than I realized initially. I strongly suspect this document was intended for the Russian population.

The texts in brown are qoutes from the document that Manny posted and below are the rebuttals/reality

. . . Taras Shevchenko played a huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage. Taras Shevchenko wrote poetry in the Ukrainian language, and prose mainly in Russian. The books of Nikolay Gogol, a Russian patriot and native of Poltavshchyna, are written in Russian, bristling with Malorussian folk sayings and motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And why do it?

T. Schevchenko was sent to a gulag in Siberia for half a decade as I recall for his writing. Born in Ukraine N. Gogol was not allowed to return to a University post in Kiev and instead was 'given' a University post in in St. Petersburg which he was not trained for. I have never read T. Shevchenko but have seen a fair bit of his art. It should be noted that no where does V. Putin mention I. Y. Franko which is also quite remarkable.

[Danchik]

For any American to talk about imperialism coming from another country has to be the most asinine shit I've ever heard or seen.

[AvHdB]

Further developments had to do with the collapse of European empires, the fierce civil war that broke out across the vast territory of the former Russian Empire, and foreign intervention.

After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the Central Rada was established in Kiev, intended to become the organ of supreme power. In November 1917, in its Third Universal, it declared the creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) as part of Russia.

In December 1917, UPR representatives arrived in Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia was negotiating with Germany and its allies. At a meeting on 10 January 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read out a note proclaiming the independence of Ukraine. Subsequently, the Central Rada proclaimed Ukraine independent in its Fourth Universal.

The battles that were fought primarily between Slavs with little foreign influence. With the exception of an poorly thought out expedition/adventure in the East of Russia.

Ukraine, via the Rada, declared its independence in its first Universal. The reference to the third Universal is with regards to federation with Russia. It never happened because of the Bolsheviks invaded Ukraine. The last, 4th Universal, unequivocally declared Ukraine sovereignty, it did not last more than a month, because of the Soviet invasion.

Within three years the Kremlin attempted to invade central Europe where they met a crushing defeat in Poland.

[AvHdB]

Doing further research and it depends on the translation the Ukraine Rada even in the first Universal proposed or stated a kinship or federation with Russia. It seems those in Kiev (rightly so) had a strong distrust of the Bolsheviks which had risen to power.

The first independent Ukraine did not survive even two years, it was messy and ugly. At the same time the Kremlin set up a government of Ukraine in Kharkov/Kharkov.

Below is a link that while long explains some of what was going on with regards to the Universals.

I will as I have time move on regarding the document of V Putin, it is fascinating to see how history can be be rewritten to suit a persons viewpoint and objectives.

http://www.encyclopediaof*Unapproved Link*/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CU%5CK%5CUkrainian6SovietWar1917hD721.htm

[Texan77]

I am reading what you writing just not adding anything now.

[andrewfi]

I think that some people are confusing analysis and interpretation with the factual basis on which analysis and interpretation is drawn.

Analysis and interpretation can never be set in stone because they always occur after the facts upon which they are based and are variable as far as context goes. That's the basis of the truism that states 'history is written by the victors'.

An example of this effect that will be known to many Britons is the story of Guido Fawkes and the 'Gunpowder Plot'. The Gunpowder plot was an element of a Catholic rebellion that never took place due to the capture of the plotters. This happened at a time when Catholics were heavily suppressed by the Protestant ruling hierarchy of the time. To Protestants, Fawkes was representative of anti-system rebellion but to Catholics in England and across the continent his perception would have been much more positive - all related to the return to England to Catholicism and the removal of princess Elizabeth as heir to the throne.

Of course, elements of fact might also come into dispute given the passage of time and loss of records - this has certainly happened to the Gunpowder Plot and almost certainly to later matters.

If the UK were to have returned to Catholicism, then Fawkes would have gone down in history as a hero and possible saviour of the Kingdom.

[AvHdB]

I think that some people are confusing analysis and interpretation with the factual basis on which analysis and interpretation is drawn.

Analysis and interpretation can never be set in stone because they always occur after the facts upon which they are based and are variable as far as context goes. That's the basis of the truism that states 'history is written by the victors'.

An example of this effect that will be known to many Britons is the story of Guido Fawkes and the 'Gunpowder Plot'. The Gunpowder plot was an element of a Catholic rebellion that never took place due to the capture of the plotters. This happened at a time when Catholics were heavily suppressed by the Protestant ruling hierarchy of the time. To Protestants, Fawkes was representative of anti-system rebellion but to Catholics in England and across the continent his perception would have been much more positive - all related to the return to England to Catholicism and the removal of princess Elizabeth as heir to the throne.

Of course, elements of fact might also come into dispute given the passage of time and loss of records - this has certainly happened to the Gunpowder Plot and almost certainly to later matters.

If the UK were to have returned to Catholicism, then Fawkes would have gone down in history as a hero and possible saviour of the Kingdom.

Spit it out Andrew. What are you trying to say?

[andrewfi]

"I think that some people are confusing analysis and interpretation with the factual basis on which analysis and interpretation is drawn."

I then explained the difference and relationship between fact and in and provided an example for context and clarity.

Sorry that was difficult for you; but then you were one of those to whom I was alluding.

[Texan77]

Andrew it is obvious you did not read anything in the original article beyond the head lines and came to an conclusion. Head lines often do not actually describe the article but rather to get attention so someone will read them.  Putin writes an essay saying that Ukraine should be considered a historic part of Russia is very concerning if you are Ukrainian but a non event if you are Russian. What the article points out is Putin leaves out much of the history of Ukraine to come to his conclusions. Then basically ask why did Putin write this and require his military to read it? AvHdb looks up and writes some historic facts the article left out as the History of western Ukraine is very complex from  1917 to WW2. So what is the problem?

[andrewfi]

Texan, my apologies for being better read than you.
I had read the piece before you linked to it. I commented upon what was written on the forum in the context of the article by Putin.

Go back over what I wrote in this thread and get back to me with questions about matters I covered that you do not understand. I will try to help you. To help you, read up on what context is and what it means.

I did try to help readers by providing an example that is easily checked and should be general knowledge for decently educated people but is not relevant to the Ukrainian case.

[AvHdB]

The declared sovereignty did not last long. Just a few weeks later, Rada delegates signed a separate treaty with the German bloc countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary were at the time in a dire situation and needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. In order to secure large-scale supplies, they obtained consent for sending their troops and technical staff to the UPR. In fact, this was used as a pretext for occupation.

For those who have today given up the full control of Ukraine to external forces, it would be instructive to remember that, back in 1918, such a decision proved fatal for the ruling regime in Kiev. With the direct involvement of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown and Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi was brought to power, proclaiming instead of the UPR the Ukrainian State, which was essentially under German protectorate.

In November 1918 – following the revolutionary events in Germany and Austria-Hungary – Pavlo Skoropadskyi, who had lost the support of German bayonets, took a different course, declaring that ”Ukraine is to take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation“. However, the regime was soon changed again. It was now the time of the so-called Directorate.

In autumn 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the West Ukrainian People's Republic (WUPR) and, in January 1919, announced its unification with the Ukrainian People's Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian forces were crushed by Polish troops, and the territory of the former WUPR came under the Polish rule.

In April 1920, Symon Petliura (portrayed as one of the ”heroes“ in today's Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR Directorate, giving up – in exchange for military support – Galicia and Western Volhynia lands to Poland. In May 1920, Petliurites entered Kiev in a convoy of Polish military units. But not for long. As early as November 1920, following a truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura's forces surrendered to those same Poles.

The example of the UPR shows that different kinds of quasi-state formations that emerged across the former Russian Empire at the time of the Civil War and turbulence were inherently unstable. Nationalists sought to create their own independent states, while leaders of the White movement advocated indivisible Russia. Many of the republics established by the Bolsheviks' supporters did not see themselves outside Russia either. Nevertheless, Bolshevik Party leaders sometimes basically drove them out of Soviet Russia for various reasons.

As I noted upthread and even V. Putin comments the time from 1917 ~ 1922 was unstable and turbulent.

S. Petliura is accused of many things, by different sources. Certainly during his short period of power he attempted to reign in forces that conducted pogroms against Jewish natives, but they continued.

That he surrendered his forces to Poland is a bit of an overstatement. He fled Kiev with a handful of supporters from Ukraine to Poland and via Vienna ended up in Paris where he edited an expatriot newspaper called 'Trident'. I must admit I find this amusing.

By some accounts he was killed by an agent from the Soviet Union in Paris. Worth noting his two sisters, nuns in in Orthodox convent were executed before the 2nd World War by the Soviets.

I suspect you could find three experts with four different views of this period.

What is noteworthy is how V. Putin uses the historical unstability as a context for actions today.

[AvHdB]

Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were ceded to Poland. In the interwar period, the Polish government pursued an active resettlement policy, seeking to change the ethnic composition of the Eastern Borderlands – the Polish name for what is now Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and parts of Lithuania. The areas were subjected to harsh Polonisation, local culture and traditions suppressed. Later, during World War II, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this as a pretext for terror not only against Polish, but also against Jewish and Russian populations.

Russia was a signature to the Treaty of Riga. Russia lost its attempt at invasion in Poland and faced internal strife. The treaty clearly stated new borders AND moving large populations from one region to another. Indeed some 20 years latter Ukraine Nationalists were brutal in there attacks on the Polish and Jewish populations in the regions they controlled. What I can not find is any proof of attacks on so called Russian populations.

[Texan77]

This 20 years later would been in WW2 or around 1941. German had already invaded Poland. Maybe not very many Russians stayed in Western Ukraine. 

There are today 400,000 registered Ukraine workers in Poland and as many as maybe 1.5 million if you count the ones there unofficially. The people of Poland are not always very friendly to the people of Ukraine because of the remembrance of the Russian occupation where they felt that the people of Ukraine were treated better than the people of Poland.  I have read where Polish police sometimes do not response to Ukraine workers complaints where they have been victimized.  When I talk to my girl about Poland she does not have much interest in Poland as to live there or work there but has never said why.   

[AvHdB]

This 20 years later would been in WW2 or around 1941. German had already invaded Poland. Maybe not very many Russians stayed in Western Ukraine. 

There are today 400,000 registered Ukraine workers in Poland and as many as maybe 1.5 million if you count the ones there unofficially. The people of Poland are not always very friendly to the people of Ukraine because of the remembrance of the Russian occupation where they felt that the people of Ukraine were treated better than the people of Poland.  I have read where Polish police sometimes do not response to Ukraine workers complaints where they have been victimized.  When I talk to my girl about Poland she does not have much interest in Poland as to live there or work there but has never said why.   

Yes I am referencing the Treaty of Riga from 1921. What happened in the interbellum period in my opinion destroyed the affinity of the Ukraine people and the Russians. V. Putin is coming from a different standpoint, that is not supported by history. This is my opinion and others can argue otherwise.

 There is today a close cooperation between Poland and Ukraine. I hope this obvious for clear historical reasons.

Tex, I am curious, your woman and her son do they see themselves as Russian or Ukraine?

[Texan77]

They very strongly see themselves as Ukrainian though their first language is Russian and they lived in the Lugansk when I met them near the Russian border. I met them before the war but when the war broke out they never expressed any interest in going to Russia. The asked me to move them to Zaporhzhya where they lived for two years. It took one year for their new flat to be built and ready to move in which was half of that time. They did run into some pro Russian people and her son had some trouble when he started school. It was a problem as the people blamed all the trouble in the east from people in Lugansk for supporting the war and the pro Russians blamed them for have a USA man. After  year in Zaporhzhya they wanted to get as far away from the war as they could. I really wanted to move them to Kiev but she chose Ivano Frankivsk.   

When I was in Kharkvi the people I met also consider themselves Ukrainian and it was true of the people I met from Donsket who were in Kharkov. My Russian is very limited so it could have something to do with the people who found me interesting and I got into conversations with me. 

My girl likes the countries of Span and Italy. I think warmer climates with a coast line is at least part of it.   

[Texan77]

I feel a lot of what is happening in Poland is Poland needs the workers and Ukrainians need the jobs. I feel both countries feel threaten by Russia and this is a unifying factor. The history after ww2 in still in every ones memories and has more to do more with how the people feel than what happened in 1921.

Then there is the 1932 and 1933 starvation of 4 million Ukrainians by Russia. Every Ukrainian seem to know about this event. I understand it was to put down Ukrainian nationalism or should I say a movement toward Ukrainian independence.

https://www.history.com/news/ukrainian-famine-stalin

From social stand point Ukrainians seem to feel everything wrong with the Ukraine is also wrong with Russia. If they want to move forward, get rid of the corruption and offer a future to their children they need to become more European. Russia only has it way of life because of the large Oil reserve. Ukraine does not have a large Oil reserve so it can not function in a system like that of Russia.

[AvHdB]

In the 1920's-1930's, the Bolsheviks actively promoted the ”localization policy“, which took the form of Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR. Symbolically, as part of this policy and with consent of the Soviet authorities, It was a time of the so-called Holodomor by the Soviets and an attempt to smother Ukraine Nationalism. former chairman of Central Rada, one of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at a certain period of time had been supported by Austria-Hungary, was returned to the USSR and was elected member of the Academy of Sciences.

The localization policy undoubtedly played a major role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.

The above is an outright lie by V. Putin. Tex alludes to this above. It was a time of the so-called Holodomor by the Soviets and an attempt to smother Ukraine Nationalism. The number who died is subject to debate, some putting the actual number at twice 4 million.