Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Ukrainian mess

  1. Feb 18, 2014 #1

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's just through the border from here...

    Sigh, few days ago it looked as the situation was calming down. Apparently it wasn't. I wonder if anyone is really in the control of the situation on the gov side, as I have no doubts protesters are not controlled by anyone en mass.

    MOD NOTE: Any member whose post doesn't meet "current event" guidelines will be timed out, that is 5 points and a 3 day ban, unless the 5 points causes a longer or permanent ban, depending on current points a member might have. So think twice before you post.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 18, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 18, 2014 #2

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Most of the worst violence seems concentrated in Kiev.
     
  4. Feb 18, 2014 #3

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For now, and I hope the violence doesn't spread. But there are real cultural divisions in greater Ukraine, not just in Kiev.

    I first thought that problems would arise due to increased visibility during the Olympics (Sochi is only 1100 km from Ukraine), but that didn't happen. As Borek mentioned it actually got quieter. I guess it was just being quashed temporarily :frown:.
     
  5. Feb 18, 2014 #4
  6. Feb 19, 2014 #5

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Sadly, it doesn't address the whole picture. There is a link to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25182823 with short chapter on "Who are the protesters", but even that is far from being complete, and it seems like BBC did exactly the same mistake many western media does - they list Klitschko first, when he is not a key player. West likes Klitschko as he is popular there, and he is definitely not someone to ignore, but he is not the "face" of the protests for Ukrainians. BBC doesn't even mention Oleh Tyahnybok, far-right nationalist, despite the fact he is present (side by side with Klitschko and Yatsenyuk) on the protest scene from the very beginning.

    From what I understand that's part of the problem - protests have many faces and it is not just a simple pro-EU/against-EU division, there are many particular interests and strong nationalism involved.

    I had reasons to call this thread "Ukrainian mess".
     
  7. Feb 19, 2014 #6

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Where is the strong US support for peaceful recognition of the protesters in Ukraine? Yesterday Biden, not Obama, called Yanukovych who's ordered the crackdown.

    By comparison, as I recall back in the 2004-2005 Orange Revolution, Bush was personally and involved in supporting Yushchenko and the Revolution.

    • Bush requests Sen Lugar to go monitor the election runoff between the revolution leader Yushchenko and the Putin backed Yanukovych, Nov 2004. Lugar carries letter from Bush to then President Kuchma "that warned that a “tarnished election” will cause the United States to “review” its relations with Ukraine."
    • Bush invites Yushchenko to attend Nato summit in Feb, 2005
    • Yuschenko invited to US and met with Bush/Rice April 2005

    USAToday
    CRS
    FA
     
  8. Feb 20, 2014 #7

    Dotini

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I've been reading the wikis on Ukraine and its atlas. The history of the place is clearly incredibly ancient and complex, and not a short read.

    Ethno-nationalism currently seems to be roiling Europe as well as elsewhere. I wonder if the particular interests and strong nationalism operating in Ukraine, the largest nation with borders entirely within Europe, is not messed up with interests and nationalism beyond those borders?

    If the Ukraine government and those protesting are not in control of themselves, what is most likely to happen there next?
     
  9. Feb 20, 2014 #8

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Definitely. Donietsk and Lviv are separated by much more than just 1000 km.

    My understanding - which doesn't have to be correct - is that Eastern Ukraine has strong ties with Russia, and ideas of splitting the Ukraine and eastern part becoming part of the Russia are voiced quite often. Western Ukraine is much more independent and pro-European (and definitely against Yanukovytch - who comes from the eastern Ukraine).

    Your guesses are as good as mine, but none of the predictions I have heard (and can think of) looks good.
     
  10. Feb 20, 2014 #9

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  11. Feb 20, 2014 #10
    100 protesters shot after a supposed truce? Really disappointing. I really don't know the issues but I find it stunning how world leaders keep making the same mistakes over and over and somehow think they are immune and safe from what has happened to other countries.
     
  12. Feb 20, 2014 #11
    Weren't they shot at because they were firing guns in public and setting buildings on fire?
     
  13. Feb 20, 2014 #12
    the main question as always is the one which is kept aside, and that would be ..., Who benefits the situation?
    who will benefit the aftermath and the possible outcome?

    Violence is bad in all cases but if it doesnt help building a batter picture then it is also totally useless, I'm not saying that someone is totally right here or someone is wrong , but i know one thing , now the EU may seem as a great western thing but once they will get to the point of going towards EU they will see all the problems asociated with it ,

    by the way I'm not actually sure who runs this " revolution" is it totally by the will of the people or rather some underlying foreign interests combined with some local radicals and their supporters.
     
  14. Feb 20, 2014 #13

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    As far as I can tell it escalated because neither side was ready for a compromise, and IMHO gov side made many errors. It started as a peaceful demonstration several months ago, these protests were basically ignored by the gov side, but some members of the opposition were beaten by "unknown perpetrators", which just stiffened their stance and they started to occupy gov buildings. Somewhere around this time first protesters died of gunshots. Police started to remove them by force with a nonsense brutality, so they started to fight back. In the meantime Yanukovytsch proposed amnesty and a cease fire, then the protesters were attacked again and it looked as if the amnesty proposal was just to buy time. Then the mayhem started.

    I am not following closely, but it is one of the main subject in the news here from the very beginning.
     
  15. Feb 20, 2014 #14

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Mix of all. There is a strong pro Russian group (Yanukovytsch and his party), there is a strong group that wants Ukraine to "go west" (mostly parties of Tymoshenko and Klitchko), and then there are nationalists. Everyone pulls in a different direction. It definitely started as a popular protest against Yanukovytch not signing the association agreement with the EU.
     
  16. Feb 20, 2014 #15

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Given the complexity of the problem, the fact that it was Biden and not Obama on the phone made not one iota of difference, IMO.
     
  17. Feb 21, 2014 #16

    That is not the full account of the events but the account presented mostly by western media. You can always compare the propaganda on both sides at the two main news outlets rt.com and cnn.com. Btw did you see the leaked conversation of Victoria Nuland with the US embassy in Kiev in which she 'appointed' the next prime minister of Ukraine? I doubt the majority of people in Ukraine approve that or even consider it democratic.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2014
  18. Feb 21, 2014 #17

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    But they have learned from history. They learned from Tiananmen Square and they learned from Romania.
     
  19. Feb 23, 2014 #18

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  20. Feb 23, 2014 #19

    Dotini

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  21. Feb 23, 2014 #20
    Right now there is chaos and a major power-vacuum in Ukraine. The "pro-democracy" mob has managed to grab the power, couping the democratically elected president. My guess is they soon will turn on each other and a fight for power will ensue. I don't know who exactly is going to end up with the power in Kiev, but more likely than not it's going to be the same old thieves, now flying pro-Western instead of pro-Russian colours, as I doubt the young politicians will manage to defeat the likes of Timoshenko.

    If things get really dramatic, instead of the guy in Kiev, Putin will have the power over Khrakov and eastern Ukraine.

    There is a world of differences between Ukraine and Russia. Which is one of the many things that nonsense article fails to mention.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2014
  22. Feb 23, 2014 #21

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    No one is saying that there aren't differences between Russia and the Ukraine.

    The question is, will Putin settle for half of the Ukraine when he wants all of it. To do so, Putin would take a pretty hard blow to his pride and suffer some loss of prestige concerning his ability to control events in dealing with Russia's neighbors.
     
  23. Feb 23, 2014 #22
    And how do you know what Putin wants? Do you think bear-Putin's aim is to conquer as much land as possible? Hell, what made you think Putin owned Ukraine in the first place? Yanukovich was a whore selling himself to the highest bidder (just like Timoshenko), not Putin's puppet.

    Truly, the Russian interests lie primarily in the Crimea and the resources/markets of Eastern Ukraine. Absorbing this Russian-speaking half, while turning the other half into a stable and friendly border state, would be a masterstroke for Russia.
     
  24. Feb 23, 2014 #23

    AlephZero

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Russia "owned" much of it for centuries. Strategically, Putin's "Eurasian Union" (planned to be launched in 2015) makes little sense without it. It would be Moscow plus a few central Asian dictatorships.

    Ukraine isn't just some nebulous patch of color on a map in between two major power blocks. Its land area is 15% bigger than France, and is probably the best agricultural land in Europe. Its industrial base produces ICBMs, space launchers, and some of the world's biggest transport aircraft. I know of one large US company that outsourced its entire software development activities to the Ukraine, about 2 years ago. Does Putin want to have an independent democracy like that sitting right on his borders? Dumb question!
     
  25. Feb 23, 2014 #24

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Dial it back. I never said Russia owned the Ukraine. That's your statement.

    It's obvious that Putin wants to put the Soviet Union back together under another name, the so called Eurasian Union, if nothing else to increase his prestige and to try to counterbalance an encroaching Europe and an economically surging China. The whole idea of Putin's was to prevent further inroads from the EU and especially NATO into what he, Putin, rightfully considers to be Russia's sphere of influence. After losing the Baltic states and the eastern European countries which were formerly Warsaw Pact nations but now want to join the EU and may have already joined NATO, Russia is very uneasy about the situation on its western borders, which is why it pressed for the cancellation of NATO plans to install anti-ballistic missiles in Poland in 2009. If the Ukraine were to join the EU and NATO, in my opinion, Moscow would start to feet encircled by potential rivals, if not outright enemies. This would be an unacceptable position for Putin, and it could put his government at risk with the Russian armed forces and the Russian people.
     
  26. Feb 23, 2014 #25
    Yanukovich is Russian, he signed gas deals and loans worth billions and agreed to enter the Eurasia union. I assumed this was what you meant with "owning Ukraine".
    Fair enough, the union is an attempt to put a united front in place. But how do you equate this to an attempt at recreating an old Empire? Let's be reasonable: Creating a USSR 2 is not beneficial to Russia.

    Yes, that is true, RF obviously aims at maintaining a friendly Ukraine in its sphere of influence. The comment I was protesting against was your notion of evil bear-Putin wanting to control Ukraine completely.

    I also think you are overdoing the NATO threat. The ballistic missiles thing was about the threat of negating a Russian nuclear retaliation.

    Empty rhetoric. In reality, Ukraine is a divided country, its finances are in ruins, it is unstable and the so-called industrial base you speak of is uncompetitive. It's hardly something Putin would want to control. In fact, annexing the russian-speaking eastern half while maintaining friendly relations with a stable western half would be an improvement over having a large, but constantly unstable and unwilling puppet.

    It's been an (relatively) independent democracy for a long time now. Just because the Ukrainians elected a leader you don't like, doesn't mean it's a dictatorship. Not to say it's a healthy democracy - the politics are dominated by oligarchs.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2014
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook