According to Pravda.ru, Ukrainian nationalists have organized a congress in the center of the city of 
Sevastopol in Crimea. About 1000 local residents demonstrated under the slogan “Fascism will not pass”. Clashes ensued. About 300 demonstrators were able to break through the police barriers and were then violently engaged by police special forces. A number of arrests were made.
——-
Commentary: there we go, exactly as I predicted. The Ukrainian nationalists are staging their meetings in the city center of Sevastopol exactly under the same logic which brings the Israeli settlers to organize “religious” events smack in the middle of Palestinian villages: the point is to trigger a violent response which can then be legally crushed under the heading of “law and order”.
For the Ukrainian nationalists an overt conflict with the Russian-speaking population is the best, if not only, way to bring the public’s attention away from the absolute disaster in which 18 years of independence have resulted in and to focus all the attention on “patriotic” actions.
There is an very ugly historical precedent: the sudden and violent invasion of the Trans-Dniester Republic by Moldavian forces in 1992 resulting in the local Russian 14th Army being very reluctantly involved in the conflict, primarily because the officers’ families were directly endangered by the assault. This could also happen in Crimea where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based. A particularly ominous development in this situation was the demand made by the Ukrainian government that the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) withdraw all its officers from Crimea by December 13, 2009. Needless to say, the Russian simply cannot let its Fleet and dependent civilians unprotected in such a dangerous context, thus this demand will simply force the FSB to operate illegally (and increase the force protection mission of the GRU).
Yes, you were right, Saker, unfortunately. To make things worse (and a proof that it was all planned): I read some months ago, probably in RIA Novosti, that the Ukrainian government was placing policemen and soldiers from Western Ukraine in Crimea. Now we know why.
@Carlo: yes, the Ukrainians have stationed all types of security, special and riot police forces in Crimea for a long while now. West-Ukrainians (“Zapadentsy”) have always formed the core of the nationalist and neo-nazi wannabe stormtroops the government can use in case of need, be it the UNA/UNSO type of the special police forces. In fact, since independence, the US-backed and financed Zapadentsy have essentially taken over all the reigns of power and run the country. These guys will never accept a political defeat as they understand fully well that if they let go of power then their entire project will go down in disgrace and disgust.
But then, consider this. During the 08-08-08 war Western analysts were absolutely baffled by quasi-instantaneous speed in which the Russians succeeded in moving its Naval Infantry forces to Abkhazia. Do you see the real reason why these forces are essentially on immediate alert status? And who would blame them – they might have to defend their family and friends against a Ukranian version of 08-08-08…
Isn’t the Russian lease on the Sebastopol naval base due to expire in 2017? Presumably Moscow will want to renew it and the Ukrainian nationalists will resist: that’s when things could get ugly…
Robert: things will get ugly right now, because of the elections which will be on the 17th. The two candidades with possibilities of victory – Viktor Yanukovich and Yulia Timoshenko – will probably sign a treaty with Russia to renew the lease of the Sevastopol base. The one who won’t do this is the current president Yushchenko – but he has no chance of winning the election (less than 5% of votes according to the lastest poll). That is the reason the Ukrainian ultranationalistics are moving right now.
Anyway, does Sevastopol matters so much to Russia as a naval base? Aren’t they building a new one in Krasnodar to replace it? I guess what matters most is the protection of Russian citizens in the region: many Crimeans, like Abkhazians and South Ossetians, hold Russian passports.
@Robert @ Carlo: this goes far beyond the issue of Russian Navy bases. If the Ukraine itself is a historical myth – there never was such a country as “the Ukraine”, and if what is is called the Ukraine hapens to sit on the craddle of the Russian culture and civilization – Kievan Rus – this does not mean that most Russians did not at least passively accept that the Ukraine can go independent (or go to hell, for that matter – which is what happened, of course). My sense is that most Russians are first and foremost *disgusted* by the attitude and ideology of the Ukrainian nationalists and they are quite happy to get rid of them. But Crimea and Sebastopol has a *HUGE* historical significance for Russia. Not only that, but Crimea is anything you want – Russian, Greek, Tatar, Turkish or British, but most definitely not “Ukrainian” in any imaginable sense of the word. Had it not been for the idiocy of Krushchev nobody in his/he right mind would evey have considered the Crimea as Ukrainian.
The Ukie nationalists know that, of course. That is why they are so paranoid about loosing the Crimean peninsula and why they also know that this is the perfect place to trigger a confrontation with Russia.
In terms of the Black Sea Fleet, yes, the Crimean Peninsula has crucial infrastructures which a bankruipt 3rd world country like the Ukraine cannot use (including the yards to build aircraft carriers and special runways to test the aircraft landing on them). Russia can, by spending millions, relocate elsewhere, but the ports in Crimea are a fantastic natural ressouce which any real Navy would dream of having.
No less important is that Crimea is a crucial part of the ethos of the Black Sea Fleet. It is hard to overstate the importance of this historical/cultural aspect of the issue.
And remember one thing: we are dealing with the INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE BORDERS drawn up by the COMMUNIST RULERS of the USSR who, of course, never consulted anybody about any of that.
Of course, one could argue that if the Serbs had to give up the craddle of their culture (Kosovo) then the Russians might have to do the same. Except that Russia is infinitely more powerful than Serbia.
I don’t believe that Russia will ever really give up Crimea. Even a drunken Western puppet like Eltsin had to be careful on what he said on this topic, and I cannot imagine any future leadership who would really accept such an affront to the historical memory of Russia.
That does not mean that anybody in Russia is seriously advocating a war with the Ukies to return the Crimea to Russian control. Militarily speaking, the Ukie military is something like the Georgian, only worse, but there still would be bloodshed and the political crisis resulting from such an operation would be huge. So for the foreseable future I think that things will go on as they have, with Russia patiently wating for somebody sane to come to power in Kiev.
But if the Ukies launch a Trans-Dnister like attack on the population of Crimea, it will be impossible for the Black Sea Fleet not to get involved.
This is definitely a bad situation only waiting to get worse.
“Militarily speaking, the Ukie military is something like the Georgian, only worse”
Well, Saker, as far as I know, Ukraine has a much more powerful military than Georgia. It isn’t so modernized as the Georgian, doesn’t have fancy equipments like Hummers or night-vision goggles, but is much more diversified and bigger in numbers. The Ukrainian air force, for example, has very powerful aircrafts like Su-27, MiG-29, Su-24M, though (fortunately for Russia) they retired their long-range aircraft like Tu-22M3 and Tu-142M. So I guess a war between Russia and Ukraine wouldn’t be like one against Georgia, it would be harder. But Russia probably could count on Russophiles in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, just like they could count on Abkhazians and South Ossetians.
On the other hand, you say that Ukraine is a myth, and I partly agree with you, as the Ukrainian state has never existed before 1991 and, as you noted, Ukraine is the historical center of pre-Tartar Kievan Rus. On the other hand, the Ukrainian language is centuries years old, so the Ukrainian nation is a reality, even though it is deeply divided between Russophones/Russophiles and Pro-Polish/Ultranationalists.
Ukraine could be a very successful country, it has a big territory, fertile lands, an important population(though decreasing even faster than Russia), specialized workforce, and many industries (Antonov aircrafts, Yuzhmash rockets and missiles, nuclear industries, etc), but Yushchenko ruined it all. All it needed was to balance between Russia and the West (US), something like Finland did and does. But by pursuing a “Baltic policy” of complete adhesion to the US and confrontation with Russia, the economy has had many problems (and suffered a lot more with the current financial crisis) and social tensions have increased immensely to the danger of civil war. I feel sorry for Ukrainians, considering the huge potential that their country has.
@Carlo: don’t be mislead by the numbers you are quoting. The vast majority of the hardware of the Ukrainian military is not servicable and cannot be used and the levels of training are dismally low. On paper it looks like the Ukrainian military exist. In reality all the money has been going to the security services and the Ukrainian military is in tatters.
As for the “Ukrainian language”, it did not even exist before 1917. There were MANY local dialects in the Ukraine which were then united under the most non-Russian one, i.e. the one spoken in the Western Ukraine.
As for the potential of the Ukraine, its like a mini-USSR combining all the worst aspects of the former USSR with heavy and mostly useless industries, at least definitely now since they do not cater to the rest of the former Soviet Union. Antonov screw-up the only project which they had – the AN-70 – and the best the Ukies could come up with was the T-84 which they sold to Pakistan. Yes, they did succeed in modernizing some gear, such as the Buks they gave/sold the Georgians, but the main source of revenue now for the Ukrainian military insdustries is really shadowy arms trafficking with, at best, modernized Soviet gear.
The fact is that since independence the Ukraine has not created a single purely “Ukrainian” weapon system.
The same is true for the rest of this decaying economy. No, being “big” is not enough nowadays.
I would add that I don’t feel sorry for the Ukrainians at all. They wanted their independence – let them have it and led them choke on it. Let them see for themselves where rapid nationalism, neo-Fascism and brown-nosing the USA leads. As far as I am concerned, these guys deserve all the pain that is coming their way.
“As for the “Ukrainian language”, it did not even exist before 1917.”
Then, in which language did Taras Shevchenko write?
“Antonov screw-up the only project which they had – the AN-70”
Well, who screwed up this project was Russia, when they withdrew from this project in favour of a modernized version of the Il-76.
About arms trafficking, I fully agree with you: even Kh-55 cruise missiles were sold to Iran and China.
I would also disagree with you about the failure of the Ukrainian state. It is not worse than any other CIS country – including Russia. Before Yushchenko, they were having a quite impressive economic growth and some improvement in social conditions, and it seems the country could have some future. Yushchenko ruined the economy, sank even more the living conditions, almost cut relations with their biggest comercial partner (Russia), and created a lot of tensions with his provocations against Russia and unconditional support for the US. I feel sorry for the common Ukrainians, specially those who resist Yushchenko, for all the bad things they have and will have to endure.
@Carlo: in which language did Taras Shevchenko write?
In Russian. At least his most intimate writing, i.e. his diary. Now, he did write a lot in Ukrainian exactly with the same goal as, say, a French author who writes in patois or, say, an Arentinian poet who writes in the kind of language typical of gauchos.
Do you realize that the kind of “Ukrainian” spoken in the western regions is no more “Ukrainian” than, say, the “Surzhik” spoken in the east? What happens is that the eastern one gets (mis-)labeled as being non-Ukrainian only because it is much closer to Russian, nevermind that the Western one is far closer to Polish? Before 1917 and the unification of “Ukrainian” each region had its own versiom, very different from each other.
Mind you, this is not unique to Ukrainian at all. In Switzerland a single “Romansch” was created was created on the basis of at least 3 different dialects, and the so-called “Swiss German” is in reality separated into various and often very different languages. And if that is true of tiny minute Switzerland, you can imagine that this is also true of the vast and diverse Ukraine.
AN-70: if these Ukranian idiots had not decided to try to “squeeze” Russia at every turn of the negotiations the deal would not have collapsed. And look at the result: as you say, Russia decided to go with the modernized IL-76MF and they still have the Tu-330 and Il-214 as possible candidates.
And the Ukraine? It is left with *nothing*. At least for the time being. If some sane people come into power in Kiev, this might all change.
As for the growth which you refer to, it was little more than a mix of coasting on the selling of ressources left by the USSR, the exploitation of technologies developed for teh Soviet military and space programs, and some creative bookeeping. Belarus also had some seemingly impressive figures to show, but the market and legal framework are still far less developed than the one in Russia. Most importantly, there is such thing as new Russian technologies being built and developed which are no more simply re-packaged and somewhat improved USSR leftovers. No so in the Ukraine.
I do agree that Yushchenko made things much worse, no argument here. But fundamentally, I believe that while Russia will remain a major power, the Ukraine is slowly sinking into a state of local mediocrity. The sole justification for the sorry existance of the Ukraine will be as a “buffer against Russia”, at least in the minds of the paranoid and russophobic NATO generals and Polish politicians.
@Carlo: one more thing. It seems simply impossible to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the “Ukrainian culture” without each and every time hearing “Taras Shevchenko” as if that in itself proved anything. That is really pitiful in itself. You discuss French culture without hearing every time “Francois Villion”, you can discuss the English culture without hearing each time “William Shakespeare”, or you can discuss the Russian culture without constantly repeating the words “Alexander Pushkin”. But not so with the Ukrainian culture. Does that not tell you something?
Imagine a regular Argentinian author who family comes from the Jujuy provice who is sick and tired from the military rule from Buenos-Aires and who feels a deep sense of empathy for the poor people of his native province. The guy is politically very active in two fields: he opposes the regime in Buenos-Aires and he exhalts the local culture of Jujuy. Nothing wrong with that, nothing at all. He speaks of “his people” and he even writes lyrical poems in the local rural dialect. Since Jujuy is on the very extreme border of Argentina, imagine that this dialect would be called “Fronterizo”. At his death, the man is buried in Buenos-Aires but leaves a last will saying that he wants to be buried in his “Fronterizo land”. And then…
And then all this is used as evidence of a distinct Fronteriza nation, with a Fronteriza culture and, of course, a Fronteriza language and the poor man is used by Neo-Nazi nationalists as a proof of all this.
Would that not be a lame and disgusting re-writing of history?
This entire Shevchenko as the father of the “Ukranian language” is a complete red herring, and the fact that there is no way to discuss the “Ukrainian culture” and “Ukrainian language” without constant reference to Taras Shevchenko is just a sign of how weak that entire case is.
Mind you, this is a purely historical comment of mine. There are plenty of other invented nations and languages out there. The “Bosnians” (no such nation in history) are now busy re-working the “Bosnian language”, and I have no problem with that. If tomorrow a German province decides that it wants to speak Klingon and declare that it has nothing to do with the “German occupiers” and would fully accept their right to do so. What I will not do is pretend like their is any basis to that nonsense. They can do what they like but I don’t have to respect it.
@ Carlo: I just came across a decent explanation of what “Surzhik” really is on Wikipedia. Check it out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surzhyk
Notice this:
Much of the Ukrainian speaking population actually speaks one of the many regional dialects of the language. The mixture with Russian is especially widespread in the east and south of the country, though frowned upon by the western population. The local dialects in Western Ukraine have elements of Polish.
Ask yourself a common sense question: is it possible that ONLY Surzhik would be a mixture of regional dialects but NOT “Ukrainian” even though Surzhik is more widely used than the latter? If yes, then this will clearly indicated to you that what is called “THE Ukrainian language” is an artifical creation whereas Surzhik is far closer to the “real thing” (and closer, in fact, to what Shevchenko used!).
Surzhink, which is indeed a fluctuating mix of various dialects is, of cours, the REAL “Ukrainian”, whereas the so-called “Ukrainian” is really the “Zapadentsky mova” imposed on everybody following the coming to power of US stooges following the “independence” (really re-subordination) of the Ukraine in 1991.
Thanks for the interesting information, which I ignored completely. To tell you the truth, I know few about the Ukrainian language, and I don’t understantd Ukrainian (except for things that are similar to Russian, and there are quite a number of them).
@Carlo: well, I offer this mix of information and opinion very sincerely and to the best of my knowledge, but I also can tell you that a lot of people would consider what I wrote as very biased and anti-Ukrainian. If one understands the expression “anti-Ukrainian” as directed aganist the people, then it is really not so. If one understands if as directed against the ideology and, even more so, mythology – then I have to plead 100% guilty.
Let me add a personal anecdote. I am an traditional Orthodox Christian and I am member of a parish which while under the a Greek Old Calander Church does not have a single Greek parishioner (yet?). Most of our parishioners are Ukrainians and most of those are, in fact, from the Western Ukraine. They speak Ukrainian with each other, they are fully steeped in the Ukrainian culture (they sing amazing Koliadky on the Nativity – today as it happens!) and they consider themselves as Ukrainians. And yet, they despise the “Trezubets (Trident) shaking nationalists” and their sick russophobic ideology. They do think of themselves as distinct and being the Western “Zapadentsy” that they are I think that you can make a very good and historically founded case that, indeed, they are distinct from Russians. After all, part of the Ukraine have spent 500 years under Polish rule and most of the Ukraine spent at about 300. And momumentally important events in Russian history like the Old Believers “schism” or, more aptly, the blood supression of the Old Believers movement, did simply not exist in the Ukraine who, at that time, was under the Greek Orthodox Church and not under the Russian Orthodox Church.
I am saying all this here because I do not want to come across as a total negationist of all forms of Ukrainian national identity. What I do consider a complete fabrication is the OFFICIAL “Yushchenko” -kind of historiography which, for example, tries to portray the artificial famine in the Ukraine under the Communist rule (the “Holodomor”) as being a Russian attempt to supress Ukrainian national aspirations while it in reality the “Russia” of that time was run mostly by vehemently anti-Russian Jews, Georgians and others and whle there were equally terrifying and abominable persecutions of the Russian peasantry taking place in Russia. Another suc mis-representation is the glorification of various “Ukrainian national heroes” who, in reality, were nothing more than highway robbers (I wonder if someday somebody will think of Al Capone as a Chicagoan national hero or Pepe Escobar as a Colombian patriot…).
Anyway – I get along with my Ukrainian friends just fine, and we really enjoy our bigotry-free diversity.
And lastly, just to repeat: I am all for self-determination, and I would find a re-incorporation of theUkraine into Russia a national disaster, for Russia, that is.
Just wanted to make myself clear on these points.
Cheer!
The Saker