Russia Invades Crimea

by Uberak Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:50 pm

And I say, let's fight and contain the bastards!

My opinion is rather simple. I'm against Ukraine becoming a Russian puppet or being under the European Union's financial grasp. Not that I think that I should be making decisions for the Ukrainian people, but I honestly believe that Russia and the European Union need to be restrained.

The only problem is that there are no decent far-left nationalist groups in Ukraine to take up the fight against Russia, the EU, and the far-right.

To any Ukrainians seeing this, join the forum, if you haven't, and add your own input to the discussion. I would definitely appreciate it.

by Rapaille Sat Mar 08, 2014 4:17 am

You can ask yourself the question if its truly a invasion, considering Crimea mostly exists out of etnic Russians.

From the viewpoint of Russia its a purely defensive strategy, because its about the protection of the Russian minority in Crimea and eastern Ukraine against the white terror of the fascists from Kyev. The Russian federation wants to return to the status quo of before 190/1991, when Crimea was still part of the USSR. Its also about keeping NATO away from the Black Sea.

This is justified from the perspective of the people´s right on selfdetermination, so we can even suggest this conflict bears the characteristics of a national liberation and means a recitation of the borders imposed by the West on Russia after 1990/1991.

by Uberak Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:11 am

Rapaille wrote:You can ask yourself the question if its truly a invasion, considering Crimea mostly exists out of etnic Russians.

From the viewpoint of Russia its a purely defensive strategy, because its about the protection of the Russian minority in Crimea and eastern Ukraine against the white terror of the fascists from Kyev. The Russian federation wants to return to the status quo of before 190/1991, when Crimea was still part of the USSR. Its also about keeping NATO away from the Black Sea.

This is justified from the perspective of the people´s right on selfdetermination, so we can even suggest this conflict bears the characteristics of a national liberation and means a recitation of the borders imposed by the West on Russia after 1990/1991.

Firstly, the fascists don't even run the government. They are concerning, but their influence doesn't even reach the Russian-speaking East, which, for the most part, identifies as Ukrainian actually. Even still, I'm neutral between the actual factions because of that and the Ukraine joining the European Union wouldn't be a good thing anyways. My position is that I hope that there is a left-nationalist movement

I mean, if you actually look at fascists such as those in IronMarch, you would realize that their position on the issue is more nuanced. They are even the first ones to propose for an independent "true-Russia" within the eastern part of the Ukraine. Sure, this is more a difference between Ukrainian nationalists and Russian nationalist than anything else, but to say the Ukrainian protests or even the new government are entirely or even mostly made out of quasi-fascists is non-sense. The quasi-fascists are just the loudest ones which more demonstrates the failure of the left in the Ukraine and even in Russia than anything else.

Secondly, I don't give a damn about Putin's view of the situation. Yes, he is defending his interests, but I don't like his interests. Conflict is the norm. Considering the rise of Eurasian tendencies in Russia, my concerns actually extend past the issue, and more towards Russian expansionism. Especially since, Russia seems just as or even more ripe for take over and/or being influenced by the far-right as the Ukraine.

Finally, the Crimea being a part of Russia was enforced during the Stalin era through the mass deportation of Tartars to Central Asia. Also, saying that this is "returning to the status quo" is like saying that Germany seeking to retake Alsace-Loraine or the Danzig-Corridor after World War 1 was "returning to the status quo". The Crimea, during it's brief stint as a part of an independent Ukraine during the Russian Civil War, was taken over by the Soviets. Not to mention, Crimea was actually transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in the 1950s, NOT the 1990s.

As for the Russian minority, my personal position, which doesn't even matter because I'm not Ukrainian, is that they should be accepted within a Ukraine as Ukrainians and if they can't accept a common Ukrainian/Crimean culture and Ukrainian/Crimean Tartar being taught in classes, then they can voluntarily immigrate to Russia. As for Crimean self-determination, I personally believe that having the Ukraine follow a more confederal/federal sort of government would actually handle the self-determination issue very well. Much better than the Crimea being under Putin's yoke in my opinion. That and allow/give the means for the remaining deported Crimean Tartars in Russian borders to return to the Crimea voluntarily. This idea is not so much an attempt on ethnic purity as much as basically correcting the errors of the Soviet era.

There probably will be a Russian minority in the Ukraine forever, as much as we Americans have a large Mexican-immigrant minority. Once we correct Stalin's population transfers, the issue is not to "deal" with the immigrants for ethnic purity, but rather as to how we can integrate them within the borders of the Ukraine. We, Americans, have a much better record of dealing with minorities, but I think the Ukraine can help within the voluntary nativization of the ethnic Russian minority so that they can feel as Ukrainian as even the folks in Kiev. (If only our native culture nowadays wasn't as terrible.) But then again, this is an outsider speaking on issues within the Ukraine.

And, I'm the sort of person who wants Russian presence removed entirely from Koingsberg in favor of it being a part of Germany, Poland, or, preferably, a part of an independent Prussia. So, I guess I come from the fringe when it comes to issues such as this.

by Rapaille Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:44 am

Uberak wrote:Firstly, the fascists don't even run the government. They are concerning, but their influence doesn't even reach the Russian-speaking East, which, for the most part, identifies as Ukrainian actually. Even still, I'm neutral between the actual factions because of that and the Ukraine joining the European Union wouldn't be a good thing anyways.

The real fascists are the oppositions forces (the CDU-backed UDAR Party, the Fatherland Party and the fascist Svoboda Party), their radical nationalist support is merely fullfilling the role of 'usefull idiots' by imposing their white (contra-revolutionary) terror on ideological enemies and minorities (such as etnic-Russians). They are the ones who collaborate with NATO and are selling out the Ukrainian people to the IMF.

My position is that I hope that there is a left-nationalist movement.

The Ukraine lacks a strong leftwing movement and leftwing elements are hardly a force of influence in the social unrest.

I mean, if you actually look at fascists such as those in IronMarch, you would realize that their position on the issue is more nuanced. They are even the first ones to propose for an independent "true-Russia" within the eastern part of the Ukraine.

I think a forum such as Ironmarch which mostly exists out of keyboard warriors, is a very poor source to look at the stance of neofascist organisations and streetactivists on these matters.

Sure, this is more a difference between Ukrainian nationalists and Russian nationalist than anything else, but to say the Ukrainian protests or even the new government are entirely or even mostly made out of quasi-fascists is non-sense. The quasi-fascists are just the loudest ones which more demonstrates the failure of the left in the Ukraine and even in Russia than anything else.

Its a matter of how you want to define "fascism". Georgi Dimitrov's definition captures it quite well: "Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvenist and most imperialist elements of finance capital". This definition suits the US/BRD/NATO backed government in Kyev very well. Its a huge misconception that fascism manifests itself from the far right; in fact it manifests itself from the political centre and represents the evolution of Capital and the State towards totalitarianism.

Secondly, I don't give a damn about Putin's view of the situation. Yes, he is defending his interests, but I don't like his interests. Conflict is the norm. Considering the rise of Eurasian tendencies in Russia, my concerns actually extend past the issue, and more towards Russian expansionism. Especially since, Russia seems just as or even more ripe for take over and/or being influenced by the far-right as the Ukraine.

My concern is not a take over by "the far right", both (the NATO-backed government in Kyev and Putin) are bourgeois fractions and thus by definition condemnable.

However its clear that the left in Ukraine is not organized enough to seize power and to ensure prioletarian selfdetermination. At this moment the NATO represents the strongest most imperialist bourgeois fraction, which must be considered as the mainenemy of the proletarian worldrevolution. It must also be very clear that this is a purely defensive action of Russia as a reaction on a by NATO imposed and financed coup d'état to expand there sphere of influence by containing Russia.

In that sense a unification with the Russian Federation simply means the lesser of two evils for the etnic-Russian minority in Crimea (and eastern Ukraine).

Finally, the Crimea being a part of Russia was enforced during the Stalin era through the mass deportation of Tartars to Central Asia. Also, saying that this is "returning to the status quo" is like saying that Germany seeking to retake Alsace-Loraine or the Danzig-Corridor after World War 1 was "returning to the status quo".

One could say that. However some German K-groups did indeed acknowledge the NSDAP to be a genuine 'national-liberation movement', in the sense that Germany after WO I was reduced to a opressed semi-colony by the Entente and therefore a unification of the etnic-German people in one 'Reich' was justified from the perspective of the right on national selfdetermination. I can understand this viewpoint.

The Crimea, during it's brief stint as a part of an independent Ukraine during the Russian Civil War, was taken over by the Soviets. Not to mention, Crimea was actually transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in the 1950s, NOT the 1990s.

If I'm not mistaken Crimea was under Russian sphere of influence since 1773, so its debatable to say the least. However it seems the Russian 'occupator' has a lot of support in Crimea.

As for Crimean self-determination, I personally believe that having the Ukraine follow a more confederal/federal sort of government would actually handle the self-determination issue very well. Much better than the Crimea being under Putin's yoke in my opinion. That and allow/give the means for the remaining deported Crimean Tartars in Russian borders to return to the Crimea voluntarily. This idea is not so much an attempt on ethnic purity as much as basically correcting the errors of the Soviet era.

Wishfull thinking if you'd ask me.

Its clear the current NATO-backed government in Kyev has already sold out their people and country to the EU/BRD under the conditions of a IMF shocktherapy, privatisations, introduction of the free market model and the creation of a NATO clientstate at the Russian borders. Etnic contradiction are played out against each other in the powerstruggle which is waged between the West and Russia, with the Ukranian people as the true victims.

by TriniSary Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:17 pm

http://rt.com/news/russian-troops-crimea-ukraine-816/
Ukraine’s statement at the UN that ‘16,000 Russian soldiers had been deployed’ across Crimea sparked a MSM feeding frenzy that steadfastly ignored any hard facts that got in their way.

So here they are, the facts:

1) A Russian naval presence in Crimea dates to 1783 when the port city of Sevastopol was founded by Russian Prince Grigory Potemkin. Crimea was part of Russia until Nikita Khruschev gave it to Ukraine in 1954.

2) In 1997, amid the wreckage of the USSR, Russia & Ukraine signed a Partition Treaty determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea. The deal sparked widespread officer ‘defections’ to Russia and was ratified by the Russian & Ukrainian parliaments in 1999. Russia received 81.7 percent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government US$526.5 million.

3) The deal allowed the Russian Black Sea Fleet to stay in Crimea until 2017. This was extended by another 25 years to 2042 with a 5-year extension option in 2010.

4) Moscow annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequencies, and to compensate for the Black Sea Fleet’s environmental impact.

5) The Russian navy is allowed up to

- 25,000 troops,

- 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm,

- 132 armored vehicles, and

- 22 military planes, on Crimean territory.

6) Five Russian naval units are stationed in the port city of Sevastopol, in compliance with the treaty:

7) Russia has two airbases in Crimea, in Kacha and Gvardeysky.

8 ) Russian coastal forces in Ukraine consist of the 1096th Separate Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment in Sevastopol and the 810th Marine Brigade, which hosts around 2,000 marines.

9) Russian naval units are permitted to implement security measures at their permanent post as well as during re-deployments in cooperation with Ukrainian forces, in accordance with Russia’s armed forces procedures.

Authorities in the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea – where over half the population is Russian – requested Moscow’s assistance after the self-proclaimed government in Kiev introduced a law abolishing the use of languages other than Ukrainian in official circumstances.

Last week, Russia’s Federation Council unanimously approved President Vladimir Putin’s request to send the country’s military forces to Ukraine to ensure peace and order in the region “until the socio-political situation in the country is stabilized.”

However, the final say about deploying troops lies with Putin, who hasn’t yet made such a decision, stressing that deploying military force would be a last resort.

by **Leon Mcnichol** Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:19 pm

Rapaille wrote:Its clear the current NATO-backed government in Kyev has already sold out their people and country to the EU/BRD under the conditions of a IMF shocktherapy, privatisations, introduction of the free market model and the creation of a NATO clientstate at the Russian borders. Etnic contradiction are played out against each other in the powerstruggle which is waged between the West and Russia, with the Ukranian people as the true victims.

Indeed, and we know all too well how tolerant NATO, the US and the EU are with fascist dictatorships...

by Uberak Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:19 pm

Firstly, Fascism should be defined based on what the movement itself proposes. You are extending Fascism to practically mean capitalism as usual. The actual definition is that Fascism is a combination of reactionary ultranationalism, corporatism, and totalitarianism. The new government actually fulfills none of the criteria for being fascist, and the far-right ultranationalists are the closest to fulfilling the criteria. In fact, Putin's Russia could be described as an "open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvenist and most imperialist elements of finance capital". Russian oligarchs, the rise of Eurasianism, "useful idiots" such as Russian neo-Nazis, National Bolsheviks, and neo-Stalinists, and Putin's own chauvinist tendencies pretty much fulfill your definition very well. In fact, Russia fulfills the definition much better than the Ukraine does now. Not that I accuse Russia of fascism, because I actually give a damn about the integrity of our language, especially in politics.

Secondly, I have shown no support for the official opposition, and I even criticized them early in the protest as "EU lackeys". My position was merely that I wish for a left-nationalist movement in the Ukraine that can fight against Russian expansionism, European Union cosmopolitanism, and the reactionary nationalists. It is an overly idealistic wish, I admit, but that is the only position that I think is consistent.

I shall not pick a lesser evil in this situation. If opposing every faction is consistent with my values, then I will proceed to oppose every faction. I do not think that anything I say or do will affect the current situation, but this does not mean that I have nothing to say. Hopefully, we can find a generation of leftists of a hopefully nationalist and libertarian, in the socialist sense of the term, persuasion in the Ukraine in the future.

Basically, I have said my personal opinion of what the Ukrainian people should do to fight against both Putin's Russia and the European Union. It won't do anything, but it is nice to just let my opinion out on the issue. I support neither the EU-backed opposition, the Russian government, nor the Ukrainian far-right. What I do support is solidarity with the Ukrainian people who have fell victim to this power struggle. That is my final word on this issue.

by Rapaille Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:23 pm

Uberak wrote:Firstly, Fascism should be defined based on what the movement itself proposes. You are extending Fascism to practically mean capitalism as usual. The actual definition is that Fascism is a combination of reactionary ultranationalism, corporatism, and totalitarianism.
The new government actually fulfills none of the criteria for being fascist, and the far-right ultranationalists are the closest to fulfilling the criteria. In fact, Putin's Russia could be described as an "open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvenist and most imperialist elements of finance capital". Russian oligarchs, the rise of Eurasianism, "useful idiots" such as Russian neo-Nazis, National Bolsheviks, and neo-Stalinists, and Putin's own chauvinist tendencies pretty much fulfill your definition very well. In fact, Russia fulfills the definition much better than the Ukraine does now. Not that I accuse Russia of fascism, because I actually give a damn about the integrity of our language, especially in politics.

Its of key importance to understand the role classic fascism played in the context of the class struggle of those days. Fascism was a particular episode in the evolution of Capital towards totalitarianism, an evolution in which democracy has played and still plays a role as counter-revolutionary as that of fascism. Fascism is always welcomed with open arms by the bourgeoisie at times there is a necessity to repress proletarian uprise if reformism doesn't work anymore. Both dictatorship and democracy propose to strengthen the State; the former as a matter of principle, the latter in order to protect us, eventually ending up in the same result. Both are working towards the same goal: namely totalitarianism. Fascism exists by the grace of the bourgeoisie at times its deemed usefull by the bourgeoisie to defend their interests.

Its very clear this history is repeating itself in Ukraine, where fascists do the dirty work for the so-called 'democrats' in the new government, untill they eventually will be dealt with as soon as their influence becomes a to big of a threat to the vested interests themselves; then 'the democrats' will self-erect themselfes as the saviours of 'the democracy' by repressing 'extremism' and 'fascism'. Again the triumph of fascism in Ukraine is owing to the intentions of the bourgeoisie; it merely exists by the grace of its capitalist masters.

Secondly, I have shown no support for the official opposition, and I even criticized them early in the protest as "EU lackeys". My position was merely that I wish for a left-nationalist movement in the Ukraine that can fight against Russian expansionism, European Union cosmopolitanism, and the reactionary nationalists. It is an overly idealistic wish, I admit, but that is the only position that I think is consistent.

Ofcourse proletarian selfdetermination would be the preference. However, we have to take reality into account if we want to transcend wishfull thinking and analyse the events in a broader context.

by Uberak Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:47 pm

Rapaille wrote:

Its of key importance to understand the role classic fascism played in the context of the class struggle of those days. Fascism was a particular episode in the evolution of Capital towards totalitarianism, an evolution in which democracy has played and still plays a role as counter-revolutionary as that of fascism. Fascism is always welcomed with open arms by the bourgeoisie at times there is a necessity to repress proletarian uprise if reformism doesn't work anymore. Both dictatorship and democracy propose to strengthen the State; the former as a matter of principle, the latter in order to protect us, eventually ending up in the same result. Both are working towards the same goal: namely totalitarianism. Fascism exists by the grace of the bourgeoisie at times its deemed usefull by the bourgeoisie to defend their interests.

Its very clear this history is repeating itself in Ukraine, where fascists do the dirty work for the so-called 'democrats' in the new government, untill they eventually will be dealt with as soon as their influence becomes a to big of a threat to the vested interests themselves; then 'the democrats' will self-erect themselfes as the saviours of 'the democracy' by repressing 'extremism' and 'fascism'. Again the triumph of fascism in Ukraine is owing to the intentions of the bourgeoisie; it merely exists by the grace of its capitalist masters.

But, there is no revolutionary pressure on the bourgeoisie. There is only an competition between the bourgeois of different nations in this situation, to put this into Marxist lingo. The fascists have no left-wingers to beat up.

Except, the very fact that I can type this proves that totalitarianism doesn't arise out of neoliberalism. Maybe, a non-literal totalitarianism as in that Capitalism grows to occupy more and more of our public life and culture could be possible, but a literal totalitarianism where an all-powerful state will attempt to encompass every aspect of society isn't going to arise out of neoliberalism.

However, this doesn't exempt neoliberalism from criticism, but rather that we critique neoliberalism as a separate and more recent phenomenon from totalitarianism. We don't have to literally turn every conflict into a simple two-sided narrative. History, which is currently in the making, is much more nuanced and complicated than that. Basically, every conflict has more than two sides involved, and you shouldn't turn everything into black-and-white dichotomies.

by Rapaille Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:56 pm

Uberak wrote:But, there is no revolutionary pressure on the bourgeoisie. There is only an competition between the bourgeois of different nations in this situation, to put this into Marxist lingo. The fascists have no left-wingers to beat up.

Indeed, its about competition between two bourgeois blocks. The resurrection of Gallician nationalist (anti-Russian) sentiments and the violent escalation of the social unrest by fascist street thugs were the pretext and justification of the coup d'état of the NATO-backed opposition. That's the role the fascists played and just like their predeccesors they are discarded once their role is played out and they lost their use for the new status quo. Indeed the left in Ukraine is hardly a force of influence and by capturing the protests the fascists will ensure they will never get untill the masses are once again integrated in the new 'democratic State'.

Except, the very fact that I can type this proves that totalitarianism doesn't arise out of neoliberalism. Maybe, a non-literal totalitarianism as in that Capitalism grows to occupy more and more of our public life and culture could be possible, but a literal totalitarianism where an all-powerful state will attempt to encompass every aspect of society isn't going to arise out of neoliberalism.

Do you seriously mean that in a time and society where on any streetcorner a camera is placed, repressive legislation and the controlstate is justified as 'counter-terrorism' measures and people are deprived of all their basic rights, debts are socialized, while profit is privitized, national selfdetermination dismantled in favor of more centralized power (globalization), we cannot define this as "totalitarianism"? The new crisis of capitalism has led the bourgeoisie to fall back on the most totalitarian forms of government behind a sharade of 'democracy', and they will likely take unprecedented forms. Every day State and capital gets more afraid of its own civilians and the social unrest created by the social injustice of our current system; all the juridical and practical means (security forces, police, army) to impose totalitarian measures are already at the exposal of the 'democrats'.

Ofcourse, this is not identical to classic fascism. However the reason for that is that classic fascism was a specific solution to the specific problems capital encountered in that specific time. Therefore its unlikely it will ever resurrect in exactly the same ideological form; fascism is not a ideology, but merely a form of organisation which adapts to the specific situation it has to encounter.

However, this doesn't exempt neoliberalism from criticism, but rather that we critique neoliberalism as a separate and more recent phenomenon from totalitarianism. We don't have to literally turn every conflict into a simple two-sided narrative. History, which is currently in the making, is much more nuanced and complicated than that. Basically, every conflict has more than two sides involved, and you shouldn't turn everything into black-and-white dichotomies.

Antifascism must be linked to a anticapitalist critique, else we find ourselves on a very reactionary path. To often 'antifascism' leads leftists to join the imperialist camp with its human rights and democratic retoric, overthrowing 'evil fascist dictators' where ever they see it fit (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and so on). Fascist movements where typical petit-bourgeois movements; it was not their corporatism or totalitarianism which differentiated them from other petit-bourgeois movements (such as Peronism, Islamic socialism for instance), but the role they played as a tool of capital. Therefore I think its unwise to categorize regimes in gradations of 'fascism' or 'democracy'; both are merely two different forms of government of the same capitalist system. Being 'antifascist' for the sake of forcing capitalism to merely renounce its totalitarian form, has little to do with genuine anticapitalism. True antifascism is about the destruction of capitalism.

However I can agree with you that the use and reduction of fascism into a 'buzz word' can be counterproductive. But the same can be said about reducing all forms of corporatism, totalitarism, reactionary conservatism and nationalism to 'fascism' ofcourse. Its more complex then that.

by TriniSary Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:23 pm

Uberak wrote:Firstly, Fascism should be defined based on what the movement itself proposes. You are extending Fascism to practically mean capitalism as usual.

They wear ski-masks and arm-insignia. I'd half expect to see them on Iron March.

by CherryBomb Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:09 am

I have to agree with this statement from the AUCPB:

CRIMEA IS RUSSIA’S AND NOT BANDERA’S
Documents of the CC AUCPB

Crimea, its residents are faced with a choice - to determine the future of their beloved and beautiful land. Without exaggeration - this is a historic choice. In fact there are only two real options.

First - to bow to the Bandera fascist scum posing as a legitimate power in Kiev. These fascists once they came to power, immediately repealed the Russian language, destroying monuments to Lenin, destroying a monument to Kutuzov and blacked out all of its history that is relevant to Russia. These people hate Russia. The outlook for the Crimeans in this embodiment, can only be one – the transformation of them into subhumans, on their own native land, secretly, quietly speaking in Russian about their ancestral homeland - Russia.

The second option is to throw open the challenge to the pseudo authorities in Kiev? Through a national referendum to reach a decision - independence from Kiev, reunion with their native homeland - Mother Russia? This path corresponds to the universally recognized right of nations to self-determination. For example, such a procedure has been launched in the UK, where there is scheduled a referendum on the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom.

In 1954, Nikita Khrushchev, violating all laws, handed the Crimean peninsula over to Ukraine. But Crimea was still Russian and did not belong to Ukraine. Khrushchev transferred Crimea over to Ukraine by unilateral decision, without any paperwork. Khrushchev had violated all international norms. More wild is the situation with Sevastopol. This city has always been Russian, and was a naval base of the USSR, was never part of the Crimean region, and subordinated to the Soviet government and the Ministry of Defence. When baking all of these "pretzels" Khrushchev did not even bother to ask or consult with the Crimeans – about whether or not they wanted these changes to their fate, and the fate of their land?

Nikita spawned another problem on the Crimean land with his "rehabilitation" of "repressed peoples" who Stalin forgave for their massive atrocities against the Soviet population during the Nazi occupation - especially against the heroic Crimean guerrillas. Instead, the court-martialled criminals got looked after at public expense. The Soviet state built houses for them and supplied them with livestock. Wow! Such "repression"! Now once again, the Crimean Tatars who have again settled in Crimea are going off along a beaten track, joining forces with the current fascist Bandera thugs in Kiev. As they say, "birds of a feather flock together!"

Russia, the Russian people can not but feel disturbed by what is happening in Ukraine, by what is happening with the fraternal Ukrainian people who have become victims of the criminal, Bandera - fascist coup. Ukraine is now facing a situation that is close to what the German people experienced in 1933 after Hitler came to power . Formidable "Silence! To your feet! Off to the camp!" in six months the country with a rich cultural heritage has been brought into submission, when you can only hear "****! ****! ****!" And do not think that in the past decade anything has changed. Still alive are the next of kin of those of whom Bandera skinned alive, drowned in wells, raped and killed.

What is to be done – say the Crimeans - after so many decades we have lived a peaceful, quiet life, and then almost a war comes knocking at the door?
Defend your homeland, protect your native hearth, your family, your dignity! Be firm and resolute. The truth is on your side. Go ahead and join with your Motherland - Russia.

We Bolsheviks are fighting for the restoration of the Soviet Union. When restoring the single multinational state of workers and peasants, the Black Sea Fleet forever cease to be a bargaining chip in the hands of politicians, adventurers, and revive what was the basis of power and invincibility of our Soviet Motherland – the fraternal union of all the Soviet peoples.

by Uberak Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:21 am

TriniSary wrote:
Uberak wrote:Firstly, Fascism should be defined based on what the movement itself proposes. You are extending Fascism to practically mean capitalism as usual.
They wear ski-masks and arm-insignia. I'd half expect to see them on Iron March.

We're referring to the Official Opposition, not far-right groups such as Right Sector.

by TriniSary Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:50 am

http://rt.com/news/crimea-vote-join-russia-210/
Over 95 percent of voters in the Crimean referendum have answered ‘yes’ to the autonomous republic joining Russia and less than 4 percent of the vote participants want the region to remain part of Ukraine, according to preliminary results.

The overall voter turnout in the referendum on the status of Crimea is 81,37%, according to the head of the Crimean parliament’s commission on the referendum, Mikhail Malyshev.

Overall, the republic’s integration into Russia will take up to a year, the Prime Minister said, adding that it could be done faster. However, they want to maintain relations with “economic entities, including Ukraine,” rather than burn bridges.

by TriniSary Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:03 pm

http://rt.com/op-edge/russia-switches-to-brics-sanctions-357/
Western sanctions might push Russia to deepen cooperation with BRICS states, in particular, to strengthen its ties with China, which will possibly turn out to be a big catastrophe for the US and the EU some time later.

On March 18, the spokesperson for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, claimed in a BBC interview that Russia would switch to new partners in case of economic sanctions being imposed by the European Union and the United States. He highlighted that the modern world isn't unipolar and Russia has strong ties with other states as well, though Russia wants to remain in good relations with its Western partners, especially with the EU due to the volume of deals and joint projects.

Those “new partners” are not really new since Russia has been closely interconnected with them for almost 13 years. This is all about the so-called BRICS organization, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. BRICS represents 42 percent of the world’s population and about a quarter of the world’s economy, which means that this bloc of states is an important global actor.

The BRICS countries are like-minded in regard to supporting the principles of international law, the central role of the UN Security Council and the principles of the non-use of force in international relations; this is why they are so actively performing in the sphere of settling regional conflicts. However, the cooperation between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa goes beyond political aspects and is also demonstrated by dynamic trade and multiple projects in different areas. Today, in total, there are more than 20 formats of cooperation within the BRICS which are intensively developing.

by Sponsored content

Russia Invades Crimea

Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Re: Russia Invades Crimea

Russia to change its economic partners…for the better

Re: Russia Invades Crimea