Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

Scuttery underpants

And that guy was about the most brittish sounding and looking pole I've ever seen... Wonder who he actually represents.........

recedite

Sikorsky seems to have been "groomed" by the Nato powers, from the 1980's when he was a student. IMO just in case they ever needed a puppet to parachute back into Poland when the time was right.

After leaving Poland as a young political activist, he was granted political asylum in the UK and studied politics and economics. While there he joined the exceedingly posh "Bullington Club" along with David Cameron and Boris Johnston. How he funded this extravagant lifestyle, as an asylum seeker, is a bit of a mystery.

Then he spent some time as a reporter for the Telegraph, embedded with Islamic fighters in Afghanistan. This was back in the days when they were armed by the US and fighting the Russians, and carried the heroic name "mujahideen".

Later he was given a top job at a Washington "think-tank" established by the neo-cons, whose aim was to encourage the former eastern bloc countries to migrate to Nato and adopt the American way of life.
After 3 years at the US institution, he moved back to Poland and became a Senator, then rapidly progressed to Defence Minister, then was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2007 up until recently.
They say he is quite likely to end up doing a stint as the head of Nato in the next few years.

stevejazzx

recedite wrote: »

Sikorsky......They say he is quite likely to end up doing a stint as the head of Nato in the next few years.

Just the chap for the Job - Washingtons man; a good orator as he says himself.;)

Brown Bomber

recedite wrote: »

Sikorsky seems to have been "groomed" by the Nato powers, from the 1980's when he was a student. IMO just in case they ever needed a puppet to parachute back into Poland when the time was right.

After leaving Poland as a young political activist, he was granted political asylum in the UK and studied politics and economics. While there he joined the exceedingly posh "Bullington Club" along with David Cameron and Boris Johnston. How he funded this extravagant lifestyle, as an asylum seeker, is a bit of a mystery.

Then he spent some time as a reporter for the Telegraph, embedded with Islamic fighters in Afghanistan. This was back in the days when they were armed by the US and fighting the Russians, and carried the heroic name "mujahideen".

Later he was given a top job at a Washington "think-tank" established by the neo-cons, whose aim was to encourage the former eastern bloc countries to migrate to Nato and adopt the American way of life.
After 3 years at the US institution, he moved back to Poland and became a Senator, then rapidly progressed to Defence Minister, then was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2007 up until recently.
They say he is quite likely to end up doing a stint as the head of Nato in the next few years.

Ha, I've said all this 5 years ago. There is some more information on him here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65423078&postcount=21 He is spooky as fuch; how any can believe a word these charlatans say is beyond me.

Brown Bomber

Scuttery underpants wrote: »

Convienient that he was banging on about the transfer of Crimea being illegal.. But of course it wasn't in 1954, when given to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev...

... A drunk Khruschev.

recedite

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ha, I've said all this 5 years ago. There is some more information on him here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65423078&postcount=21 .

That's a good post. It does look like Sikorsky was groomed and recruited by the CIA very early on.
Boris Johnston is instantly recognisable in the photo, he's a bit slimmer, but he had the same "glare at the camera" technique

stevejazzx

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ha, I've said all this 5 years ago. There is some more information on him here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65423078&postcount=21 He is spooky as fuch; how any can believe a word these charlatans say is beyond me.

recedite wrote: »

That's a good post. It does look like Sikorsky was groomed and recruited by the CIA very early on.
Boris Johnston is instantly recognisable in the photo, he's a bit slimmer, but he had the same "glare at the camera" technique

A quick follow up on Sikorsky

He has caused quite s stir this week when he was quoted as saying this

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/polish-ex-minister-putin-offered-to-divide-ukraine-with-poland-in-2008/

It was a tough claim to back up seeing as Putin and Tusk didn't meet at that time and that Sikorski wasn't present.

Its a pity Sikorski was linked here earlier in the thread as some kind champion for the cause against Putin and its also a shame that those who think they're clued into western propaganda are the ones who use those links.

recedite

He seems to have goaded the current Polish PM anyway;

If such a proposal was made by Putin then that's scandalous," Ewa Kopacz, who replaced Tusk as prime minister after his departure for a top job in Brussels, said late on Monday in an interview with public broadcaster TVP. "No Polish prime minister will participate in such a disgraceful activity like partitioning another country", she said, adding she had not heard about such a proposal before

You'd think she would have gone and asked Tusk about it, before attacking Sikorsky's strawman like a mad thing..

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

No one was killed not even a single Ukrainian guard.

As I mentioned above somewhere, you set a low bar indeed for public discourse if it's no higher than "Well, hey, look! Nobody was murdered" (which is not true either, but let's not go there).

stevejazzx wrote: »

Western witnesses, like Graham Philips as linked above, observed that the troops were overwhelmingly welcomed by the people of Crimea. Philips has much to offer in terms of criticisms of both sides.

While I've little interest in taking up this conversation again, I really do have to respond to this comment.

As with much of your input to this thread, I fail to understand what you mean here since Phillips' cock-eyed, "shove a video camera in front of angry people" style of media output would be laughable, were it not apparently treated as serious commentary by many. I'm sure you're fully aware that Phillips does not criticize, in any meaningful sense, the hand that feeds him. And as I lack the time and the interest in lacerating his vile output (as for example, Max Seddon has done; btw, Seddon's report was published before Phillips published some weeks ago videos of the corpses of naked, elderly men and women which I will not link to) all I've time to do here is dip into what he's done recently and see if we can get a flavour and -- lo! -- here's one from yesterday in which he shouts "UKROP!" (an insult used by pro-Russians to describe Ukrainian troops) while shooting a gun. Does he really appear to you as a reliable source of unbiased information?

And just scanning the feeds, briefly, I see that Alexander Zakharchenko, the self-appointed leader of the DPR explained today that he intends to restart the war again with a view to capturing Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and especially Mariupol which would give Putin the land bridge he needs to occupied Crimea. If this happens, I trust the Russian media, and no doubt Phillips, will describe Zakharchenko as a brave man fighting against Nazis in Kiev, rather than as the homicidal war criminal he is.

robindch

Back on forum topic briefly, Putin's cosying up to the Orthodox church has been well documented here and elsewhere.

The multimillionaire Konstantin Malofeev, though, is one of the more interesting players in this game - two of his former associates, Alexander Borodai and Igor Girkin ("Strelkov)", were directly involved in starting the low-level civil war in East Ukraine before they handed control over to locals. Malofeev has said that he's interested in starting up a new conservative "news" station in Russia modelled on Fox News in the USA, but with an orthodox slant. Malofeev is also involved with plans to create an amusement park in Crimea called "Tsargrad" which will presumably tell the world the history of Crimea, from the perspective of Russian truth.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/10/konstantin_malofeev_one_of_vladimir_putin_s_favorite_businessmen_wants_to.single.html

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

As I mentioned above somewhere, you set a low bar indeed for public discourse if it's no higher than "Well, hey, look! Nobody was murdered" (which is not true either, but let's not go there).While I've little interest in taking up this conversation again, I really do have to respond to this comment.

As with much of your input to this thread, I fail to understand what you mean here since Phillips' cock-eyed, "shove a video camera in front of angry people" style of media output would be laughable, were it not apparently treated as serious commentary by many. I'm sure you're fully aware that Phillips does not criticize, in any meaningful sense, the hand that feeds him. And as I lack the time and the interest in lacerating his vile output (as for example, Max Seddon has done; btw, Seddon's report was published before Phillips published some weeks ago videos of the corpses of naked, elderly men and women which I will not link to) all I've time to do here is dip into what he's done recently and see if we can get a flavour and -- lo! -- here's one from yesterday in which he shouts "UKROP!" (an insult used by pro-Russians to describe Ukrainian troops) while shooting a gun. Does he really appear to you as a reliable source of unbiased information?

And just scanning the feeds, briefly, I see that Alexander Zakharchenko, the self-appointed leader of the DPR explained today that he intends to restart the war again with a view to capturing Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and especially Mariupol which would give Putin the land bridge he needs to occupied Crimea. If this happens, I trust the Russian media, and no doubt Phillips, will describe Zakharchenko as a brave man fighting against Nazis in Kiev, rather than as the homicidal war criminal he is.

I can certainly accept these criticisms of Phillips as outlined.
However I have seen very little evidence to dispute his reporting from Crimea and polls suggests that the vast majority of Crimean people are happy with rejoining Russia.
Importantly the OP of this thread set out, it appears to me, to state that the Crimean people had a right to self determination. Despite the outrageous propaganda from the Kiev and the West Russia's intervention in Crimea was a peaceful one - its almost impossible to dispute this now.
Meanwhile in Eastern Ukraine the Kiev military have been using cluster bombs on their own people. People described by western media as separatists, terrorists or simply Russian or pro Russian in a feeble attempt to dehumanize the people it intends to bombs.
The fact of the matter is, and this is not up for discussion, that Ukraine is undergoing a civil war in the East. Ukrainians are fighting Ukrainians - the other uncomfortable fact is that Eastern Ukraine happens to be composed of a largely pro Russian people and indeed people of Russian ethnicity. The fact that Russians are involved or indeed even Putin is hardly surprising. What is surprising is the immense twisted view put out by the west that Russia started this (which just like the Georgian affair they didn't) and how people have lined up behind it despite constant contradictions and obvious undeclared (although nevertheless transparent) conflicts of interest in the region. Indeed propaganda works both ways but just a year ago Putin was writing OP Eds in the NYT and his face was on the cover of Time Magazine (in all Continents except the US) - Americans essentially were united against the Syrian war despite Obama's pleading and unsubstantiated chemical weapons reports that were too similar to the WMD plea. A year later and the US is liberating another Arab country and Putin is Hitler. I would very kindly suggest anyone who believes this narrative should grow up.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

[...]the vast majority of Crimean people are happy with rejoining Russia. [...]

Some are. Many are not. But the happiness of some does not excuse invasion, fake referendums, theft, then the destabilization, war, torture and death that followed from it.

I can't help but wonder how you'd feel if somebody valuable to you were kidnapped and some people justified the kidnap saying that "hey, look, but the person kidnapped is happy".

There are larger things at stake here than the superficial happiness of a number of propagandized people.

I'm happy to hear that you accept my criticisms of Phillips vile propaganda.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Some are. Many are not. But the happiness of some does not excuse invasion,

90+% are
If we're dealing in democracies then that's ok with me.

robindch wrote:

fake referendums, theft, then the destabilization,

In what way fake when it aligns with every poll in the aftermath? Fake as in not believable but in line with what Crimeans had already expressed in the 1991 vote or expressed afterwards in polls.
Destabilization? How? The Russian army brought with it peace in the region of Crimea. Again I reiterate no one was killed in this so called 'invasion' from troops who mostly were already stationed in country.

robindch wrote:

war, torture and death [/B]that followed from it.

This is where I lose you.
War torture and death were already in play from Kiev. Crimea was a direct knock on effect of a western backed revolt in Kiev.
In my opinion its incredibly disingenuous or simply uninformed to believe otherwise.
Also war torture and death never happened in Crimea so using it invoke the entire affair is putting the cart before the horse quite emphatically.

robindch wrote:

I can't help but wonder how you'd feel if somebody valuable to you were kidnapped and some people justified the kidnap saying that "hey, look, but the person kidnapped is happy".

You believe the Crimeans are suffering from a collective country wide bout of Stockholm syndrome then, is that it? How do you explain the 1991 vote?
Robin I've been to Crimea many times - in what reality do you make these statements? As I have already pointed out to you a large number of Crimean people are ethnically Russian - you disagreed at the time if I recall and that was well, unfortunate. Now you believe Russians have Kidnapped Russians and are superficially happy among other Russians?
That is I must say an unusual take on the affair.

robindch wrote:

There are larger things at stake here than the superficial happiness of a number of propagandized people.

And presumably this large number of propagandized people is Crimea and somehow excludes the blinking masses in the west?
I don't know how to deal with such broad sweeping generalizations made without the consideration of any opposing narratives like there are none. Breathtaking.

Robindch wrote:

I'm happy to hear that you accept my criticisms of Phillips vile propaganda.

What I was accepting was his apparent bias. The article form buzzfeed seemed more of a general character assignation and smear campaign so I didn't read it. As for his vile propaganda I would've preferred it if you had of simply linked a distinct and isolated example and showed it rebuked in context just like I did with Sirkorsky now on two occasions. It is of far more concern to me when someone like Sikorsky makes outlandish and downright false claims about Putin on the possible brink of all out war than it is the affairs of an ex blogger in Amsterdam.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

The Russian army brought with it peace in the region of Crimea.

There was no conflict in Crimea, or indeed in Ukraine, before Russia invaded Crimea directly, then indirectly in East Ukraine.

I've debunked most of the remainder of your post on previous occasions including the "western backed revolt" nonsense so no point in debunking it again.

As you no doubt know, I was there and I saw it, so I trust you'll forgive me if I trust the evidence of my own eyes and ears above your thoroughly inaccurate second or third-hand pseudo-information which, frankly, fits better over in the paranoid conspiracy forum - or indeed, on mainstream Russian telly :rolleyes:

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

There was no conflict in Crimea, or indeed in Ukraine, before Russia invaded Crimea directly, then indirectly in East Ukraine.

Pfft -
A period of relative calm in the anti-government demonstrations ended abruptly on 18 February 2014, when protesters and police clashed. At least 82 people were killed over the following few days, including 13 policemen; more than 1,100 people were injured

As to Crimea there were numerous skirmishes that were controlled by the Russian army. There a lots of testimony to this and that their presence prevented civil war there also. Hard to argue with now.

robindch wrote:

I've debunked most of the remainder of your post on previous occasions including the "western backed revolt" nonsense so no point in debunking it again.

As you no doubt know, I was there and I saw it, so I trust you'll forgive me if I trust the evidence of my own eyes and ears above your thoroughly inaccurate second or third-hand pseudo-information which, frankly, fits better over in the paranoid conspiracy forum - or indeed, on mainstream Russian telly :rolleyes:

The fact that you believe that as one lone Irish man in the midst of this complex international dispute and revolution that you absorbed the climate and inner workings of the entire affair to such an extent that you can now claim some kind of monopoly on its reality is testament enough to your delusion. I would never dare - if anything the lone voice of he who knows the truth is more suited to the CT world than that which implores understanding.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

There are larger things at stake here than the superficial happiness of a number of propagandized people.

That's the most undemocratic thing I've heard in a long time. Is it your own line, or did you hear it from some arch-villain in a Bond movie?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

That's the most undemocratic thing I've heard in a long time. Is it your own line, or did you hear it from some arch-villain in a Bond movie?

Just so we're clear: you're arguing that if a majority want something, it's unequivocally and unarguably right?

recedite

No, but it is called democracy.
It would be a strange sort of imperialist/colonialist attitude, and very condescending, that would say "You people don't know what's good for you. I'll decide what's best for you."

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

A period of relative calm in the anti-government demonstrations ended abruptly on 18 February 2014, when protesters and police clashed.

Yes, I happened to see it myself and remember it reasonably well - stone throwing, rubber bullets, flash grenades, heavy explosions, molotov cocktails, gunmen on both sides, badly wounded men and women.

As for the date when Putin and his army got involved, well, perhaps best leave that up to the commemorative "Return of Crimea" medal he stamped and handed out - stamped 20th February.

stevejazzx wrote: »

The fact that you believe that as one lone Irish man in the midst of this complex international dispute and revolution that you absorbed the climate and inner workings of the entire affair to such an extent that you can now claim some kind of monopoly on its reality is testament enough to your delusion.

Steve, you can perhaps understand when you reread sentences like this, why I've no further interest in discussing this topic with you.

(a) because you appear to have great difficulty in processing what I write - in this case, I did not claim to be "one lone Irish man" with absolute knowledge (actually, I said that I trusted my own first-hand information more then your second-hand etc pseudo-information; FWIW, there are also a number of Irish people whom I know personally who are directly involved in this ongoing disaster who have vastly more experience and knowledge of it than I do) and (b) because you seem unable to discuss this without lobbing personal slurs around the place.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

That's the most undemocratic thing I've heard in a long time.

When you put it in the context of what I actually said, it should appear a little less undemocratic - specifically, theft, invasion, destabilization, torture, kidnap, death and war are not excused because some people are happier now than they were some months ago.

Do you think they are excused?

recedite wrote: »

It would be a strange sort of imperialist/colonialist attitude, and very condescending, that would say "You people don't know what's good for you. I'll decide what's best for you."

You mean, a bit like Putin when he decided to invade Crimea and then East Ukraine?

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I happened to see it myself and remember it reasonably well - stone throwing, rubber bullets, flash grenades, heavy explosions, molotov cocktails, gunmen on both sides, badly wounded men and women.

As for the date when Putin and his army got involved, well, perhaps best leave that up to the commemorative "Return of Crimea" medal he stamped and handed out - stamped 20th February.

You can't be serious.
Is this how you wish to maintain your last argument that there was no violence in Ukraine before troops landed in Crimea?
- nothing happened in Crimea until around 24th February after Yanukovych had fled.

On 21 February 2014 President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev, the capital. The Ukrainian parliament deposed him the next day, and the next week appointed an interim President, Oleksandr Turchynov, and formed an interim government. The new government was recognized by the United States and European Union. Russia and a few other countries condemned the Turchynov government as illegitimate and the result of a coup d'etat. Russia accused the United States and EU of funding and directing the ouster of Yanukovych, maintaining he was illegally impeached and remained the president of Ukraine. Beginning on February 26, pro-Russian forces began to gradually take control of the Crimean peninsula. Media sources reported that military personnel in Russian-made uniform without insignia, and former members of the Ukraine military were involved.[40][41][42] While these troops were in Crimea, the Crimean parliament voted to dismiss the Crimean government, replace its Prime Minister, and call a referendum on Crimea's autonomy.[43][44][45]

robindch wrote:

Steve, you can perhaps understand when you reread sentences like this, why I've no further interest in discussing this topic with you.
(a) because you appear to have great difficulty in processing what I write - in this case, I did not claim to be "one lone Irish man" with absolute knowledge

So stop using the 'I was there' line as some kind of argument closer like you have been doing. If that's not what you are doing and it's just that you don't value my input then just say that as you are, whether you mean it or not, giving the impression that you have a monopoly on the reality of this situation.

robindch wrote:

(actually, I said that I trusted my own first-hand information more then your second-hand etc pseudo-information;

The information that I have presented throughout the entire thread has been backed up (I am willing to wager I have a higher post link quota than anyone else here) and rarely if ever have I used a link from a site known to be sympathetic to the Russian viewpoint.

robindch wrote:

FWIW, there are also a number of Irish people whom I know personally who are directly involved in this ongoing disaster who have vastly more experience and knowledge of it than I do)

Well why not get them to illustrate what you are having trouble doing.
For example I see that Kiev experts are saying that the recent HWR reports of cluster bomb use by the Ukrainian army on its own people are incorrect.
I see international experts cited by HWR saying that they are correct and noting that cluster bombs are illegal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/world/ukraine-used-cluster-bombs-report-charges.html?_r=0

robindch wrote:

(b) because you seem unable to discuss this without lobbing personal slurs around the place.

Hmm.
You called my input 'pseudo information' and said I'd be better off in the CT forum (this is your second time saying that by the way) and dismissed everything I wrote saying you had already debunked it all.
So lets be honest when we discuss personal slurs - I might even suggest in this most recent round that 'you started it'.:)


By the way on the topic of conspiracy theories I think the mysterious Crimean medal qualifies. You can add it to Putins remarks about taking Kiev in a week, Sikorskys lie about him wanting to carve up Ukraine with Tusk, the Russian defense ministrys wesbites accidental leaking of the real referendum results in Crimea and Patriarch Krills Su-27.

Most of the above, now utterly debunked, were linked by you.




.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

.. I've no further interest in discussing this topic with you.

(a) because you appear to have great difficulty in processing what I write - in this case, I did not claim to be "one lone Irish man" with absolute knowledge (actually, I said that I trusted my own first-hand information more then your second-hand etc pseudo-information; FWIW, there are also a number of Irish people whom I know personally who are directly involved in this ongoing disaster who have vastly more experience and knowledge of it than I do) and (b) because you seem unable to discuss this without lobbing personal slurs around the place.

The irony meter explodes at this point
But at least you are consistent in lambasting anyone who disagrees with you, with an equal disdain..

robindch wrote: »

You don't seem to have any grasp of any of the facts concerning what happened during the period 17th February to the 22nd of February and I've explained what happened then often enough that I feel that repeating it again is likely to be wasted effort.

recedite

With winter fast approaching, the time has come to see who will foot the bill for Ukraine's gas.
As expected, Washington and Brussels seem to have mislaid their wallets.
Kiev bombed the coalmines of Eastern Ukraine into oblivion during the summer, so that only leaves them with the empty ammunition crates to use for firewood.
Germans have been very quiet about it all, I reckon they have been secretly building up a store of gas somewhere down south, just in case the pipeline gets turned off. Also they will still have some Russian gas coming in from the north, by-passing Ukraine.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

With winter fast approaching, the time has come to see who will foot the bill for Ukraine's gas.
As expected, I make a baseless assertion by citing an unreliable resource.

FYP. Fortune, as is well known by all thinking people has as much editorial creditability as Der Sturmer or Der Volkischer Beobachter. It is an anti-science, anti-regulation, anti-climate change, anti-reality propoganda rag for the extreme rich.

recedite

Seeing as you are so good at fixing things, Brian, maybe you should go over there and fix a deal for the full resumption of gas supplies? Because what's getting into the EU now will not be enough when the cold weather hits.

stevejazzx

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

FYP. Fortune, as is well known by all thinking people has as much editorial creditability as Der Sturmer or Der Volkischer Beobachter. It is an anti-science, anti-regulation, anti-climate change, anti-reality propoganda rag for the extreme rich.

Are you rebutting the article?
I don't think Recedite was singing Fortunes praises by linking to a simple article.
It just says the E.U has not of yet agreed to guarantee Ukraine's gas for the winter?

Brown Bomber

stevejazzx wrote: »

A quick follow up on Sikorsky

He has caused quite s stir this week when he was quoted as saying this

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/polish-ex-minister-putin-offered-to-divide-ukraine-with-poland-in-2008/

It was a tough claim to back up seeing as Putin and Tusk didn't meet at that time and that Sikorski wasn't present.

Its a pity Sikorski was linked here earlier in the thread as some kind champion for the cause against Putin and its also a shame that those who think they're clued into western propaganda are the ones who use those links.

That is funny, but it shouldn't really be; not when these charlatans are playing with people's lives.

I've just spent some time looking into the backgrounds of the people being voted into power in Ukraine and I am full of pessimism. So many Ultranationalists, "former" Nazis and far right extremists with their own private armies. There will be no end to the bloodshed as best as I can understand unless Ukraine is formally balkanised.

Maybe someone can clear something up for me? Why is it that these far right lunatics such as Svoboda in Ukraine are so Pro Europe when there equivalents elsewhere in Europe, National Front, Golden Dawn and so on are fiercely anti-Europe?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

The irony meter explodes at this point

There's a distinction, recedite, which your post indicates you may not always fully appreciate, between, on the one hand, one poster saying that a second poster "appears", "seems" (etc) to be doing or saying one thing or another - thereby leaving the second poster room to explain why the appearance that the first poster picked up is inaccurate or wrong. And on the other hand, one poster saying that a second suffers from some "delusion". The former is pointed, but polite and permits discussion to continue; the second is pointed and anti-social and shuts down debate.

For myself, this entire topic, and the many, many inputs from many, many sources which inform and shape it, is fascinating and profound. And, IMHO, in the person of a man like VV Putin who appears to have been driven mad by power over the last year, and taken much of his country with him, poses arguably the greatest political threat the world currently faces. The topic does deserve serious treatment and a certainly little more honest debate and idea-planting and a little less mud-slinging.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why is it that these far right lunatics such as Svoboda in Ukraine are so Pro Europe when there equivalents elsewhere in Europe, National Front, Golden Dawn and so on are fiercely anti-Europe?

Interesting question.

I suspect because (a) the majority of the "far right lunatics" in Svoboda are rather different to what they're portrayed as in Russian state-controlled media and its supporters; (b) FWIW, unlike Svoboda, the other far-right group, Pravii Sektor, is anti-EU; (c) they may be playing a long game in which they believe that their open support for the EU now will ensure that the EU will support them when they need support; and (d) the majority of the country wishes to join the EU and it's broadly perceived as a vote-winner; (e) most importantly, Svoboda know that they will have relative freedom to operate within an EU-style democratic system, unlike what is likely to happen to them if Russia launches a full-scale military invasion.

Incidentally, exit polls in yesterday's parliamentary election suggest that support for Svoboda collapsed to around half what it was in the 2012 election. And having scored 0.7% in May's presidential election, Pravii Sektor - the stuff of Putin's most lurid nightmares to judge from the saturation coverage given by Russian media to its mostly insignificant activities over the last eight months - don't appear to have achieved much either.

.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

There's a distinction, recedite, which your post indicates you may not always fully appreciate..

I accept your unpology