Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aoyagi | Hacker News Reader

And again this is extremely one-sided. Propagandistic even. And it makes it to the top of HN. Again. "THE POLICE IS READY TO SHOOT". But she won't say that it's with rubber slugs or that the protesters are throwing molotovs and shooting fireworks (which can deal nasty damage). Rocks are implied, I think.

I tried to really dig into the affair, but it's too complicated with both sides corrupt (like it typically happens in the former USSR), Putin blaming EU for everything while seeding billions to the Ukrainian government, non-transparent government-opposition talks, news sites hunting for sensations... It feels like it's impossible to make an objective (or close to it) idea about the whole situation. And this video isn't helping one bit.

As much as I hate the current Ukrainian government, I'm not sure they have anything better. Pretty horrible situation.

View on HN

Thank you for that. As a European, I would add that you really need to be aware that the country seems to be split along historical lines: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/01/24...

It seems that Kiev, the capital, happens to be in a region that is dominated by Ukrainian-speaking people, who feel closer to (Western/Central) Europe than to Russia. Therefore, a lot of protests are happening in the capital, which makes it easy for the media to paint a picture of an entire country with a pro-European bent in revolt against its pro-Russian government. That narrative conveniently ignores the huge pro-Russian part of the country.

Things would play out very differently if Kiev were in the pro-Russian part of the Ukraine.

Belgium was split along historical lines but they talked over their differences and found common ground. The result of that was the beginning of the European Union which is why Brussels, Belgium is the EU capital today.

So why can't the Ukrainians solve their problems the EU way?

Because being split between France and the Netherlands is a conflict of slightly different magnitude than being split between Russia and Europe.

And I don't think that if you talk with Belgians many will agree that their model is in any way, shape or form to be used as a model for other countries.

Belgium had a lot of problems recently. Even if it is not on the same order of magnitude than Ukraine, there are conflicts between both parts. Not so long ago, they did not find a way to form a government for several months and they often speak of splitting.

As far as i know Belgium has not yet settled their national conflict between french-speaking and non-french-speaking territories. Any Belgians here to shed some light?

Fun fact:

Kiev was settled by a group that, although they were linguistically part of Northern rather than Eastern Europe, gave their name to Russia.

Fun fact, this group also effectively began the Russian Orthodox tradition.

I am referring of course to the Kievian Rus, for whom Russia was named, but who were basically to the Russians what the Normans were to the French....

The EU was ready to have Ukraine go through another one of their lengthy entry processes where over a period of years requirements are progressively put in place to enable joining the EU.

The current protests erupted when one of the first steps along that path was openly scuttled by Russia applying a huge amount of financial leverage.

It is true that only half of Ukraine wants to join the west, but it's also clear that this is a clash between Russian interests and that of the European-minded population in Ukraine; not with EU/US in any significant way.

There is a lot of schadenfreude going on of course because it's a huge blemish on Sochi as Putin's PR offensive and Western media are eager to rub it in as much as they can.

Ironically enough, according to rumours, this all started because Putin ordered Ukraine's president to 'fix this' before the Olympics started and the unsuccessful police crackdown started the current chain of escalations.

It is NOT true that ONLY half of the population want's to join EU or at least get rid of Putin's influence. Majority of Ukraine wants this!

From what I've understood half geographically (which is indeed the majority of the population) wants to actually join the EU and the other half mostly just wants the corruption to stop.

Is that not correct?

I found the ethnic chart here fairly accurate http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/12/09...

(I did not read the article, just looked at the charts, which look to be in agreement with my personal experience).

I would say that about 20% of the very east part of the country is largely pro Russia, as well as most of Crimea. But even the pro-Russia people don't necessarily think Ukraine should join Russia, almost everyone want's the corruption to stop, as you have pointed out. And I have yet to find a single Ukrainian, Russian speaking or not, who would have anything good to say about Putin. Of course, in most parts of Russia, outside Moscow, you will rarely find anyone who doesn't outright hate that bustard.

I think most people want both Yanukovych and Putin out of their country. So maybe you are right, not every one is pro-EU, but most I would say are unti-Putin.

The EU had Ukraine over a barrel and was demanding that they sign a punitive agreement that would have caused even greater hardship than the country is suffering now. Have you read that association agreement? It is brutal.

What I want to know is why can't Kyiv negotiate its way into the EU in stages, step by step, and at each stage the agreement would be small enough that it could be explained to the people of Ukraine and they could vote in a referendum based on the facts, rather than some fantasy ideal of "sign document, get rich".

This was supposed to be just that, a small first step along the way.

I am very curious about the punitive aspect of it though.

I've never heard of it and unless it's hidden deep inside the treaty I also can't seem to find any punitive measures there.

Do you have any pointers on that?

Another side of the medal is, that this very government was elected freely and a lot of Ukrainian people are still supporting it, especially in the East of the country.

Don't get me wrong, the government is far from being a good one and there surly are reasons to demonstrate. But it's elected and the OSCE said it was a fair election overall [1].

Well, in the end I must agree to Aoyagi: this is one side of a complex situation and although it is undoubtedly touching, it's not the whole truth behind the current situation.

[1] http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/110818

> But she won't say that it's with rubber slugs or that the protesters are throwing molotovs and shooting fireworks (which can deal nasty damage). Rocks are implied, I think.

Well, the protesters can't exactly afford highly sophisticated weapons made to inflict pain but not (too much) damage. They don't have the luxury of spending tax money on expensive equipment. The only reason there are rubber bullets is because they probably don't find it in their self-interest to use something more heavy at the current time. The government can slaughter its own people in a matter of hours if they want to, and face no resistance from some pathetic molotov cocktails.

Maybe the video is one-sided (I haven't seen it yet), but comparing the two sides in the way you do does not make any sense to me.

The keyword in your post is protesters. Using molotov cocktails, rocks and fireworks makes it a riot.

Also, I think it'd be useful to think about how western countries would handle this kind of "protest".

Over the last couple of months there is photo evidence of protestors with pistols and sniper rifles. Not to mention the bullets removed from wounded police officers. And who is to say that the gunshot victims were not shot by rivals in the protest camp? Lots of rhetoric and innuendo but very little actual proof beyond the individual incidents that you would find in the USA, Canada or any EU country. When was the last time that police in your country beat up a suspect?

Got any evidence or links for any of that? You get that these are ordinary people, grandmothers as well as students? That these people are protesting having their country stolen AGAIN, by the same people as in 2005 when the Orange Revolution swept the country?

The pistols I've seen were airsoft pistols and the rifles seemed like BB guns or also airsoft guns. Can't verify, of course.

The same phenomena happened in Brazil last year. Right around the climax of the protests, suddenly a couple of too well produced (studio grade) english speaking videos were released aimed at "enlightening" outsiders. The message was also very selective and devoid of content or context.

So take it with a grain of salt, since it seems unclear sponsors are learning to manipulate these kinds of protests into their own agendas. With some measure of success I would also add.

It is YouTube video to raise some emotions not article from The Economist.

Not everyone is Gandhi or Dalai Lama.

If you look into it, not even Gandhi or the Dalai Lama is Gandhi or the Dalai Lama.

It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary.

-- George Orwell

There are places on earth where mere non-violent non co-operation just can't work. Basically because no one knows what you are doing, why you are doing and what your actual story is.

If the opponent force is simply too overwhelming, powerful and has too much sway. Non violent non co operation doesn't help much.

When I was growing up, one of the standard places that used to be cited for this line of reasoning was the Eastern Block. And certainly looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring there was evidence that peaceful protest wouldn't work.

But what happened? Oh right. Peaceful protest brought down the Soviet block.

I'm from Eastern Europe. I'm still not sure if we got extremely lucky (e.g. economical situation of Soviet Union being in very bad condition, US getting technological breakthrough with personal computers) or "peaceful" part actually worked out.

The theory I've heard which makes the most sense is that the CIA and Catholic Church had an alliance of convenience. The CIA provided resources (including training materials), the Church had a network to distribute them where they were needed.

They did a trial run with Solidarity in Poland (not coincidentally the home country of the pope at the time) and then rolled it out on a larger scale after that succeeded.

What brought down the Soviet Block in the end was Mikhail Gorbachev deciding that there's enough blood on soviet hands and that they won't react the same way they did in the Prague Spring. He could have decided otherwise, he didn't. Shall the protesters hope the same will happen now? Didn't work so far.

I'm a little young, so I don't have as much perspective of the recent history as you do.

But every instance of non-violent non-co operation(Lets call it with the name Gandhi gave to it - ahimsa/satyagraha) works only because of the opponents get weak after a point of time. Indian Independence movement worked because in the course of WW2 the British lost the gumption they had earlier to control a nation as big as India. They were running out of resources, ideas and means to stay in India anymore. Gandhi's movement gave British too much bad across the world. Plus WW2 and WW1 had really taken a toll on the British. So it was a mixture of all these things + Gandhi's movement that make ahims/satyagraha work.

I guess its the same with USSR too? Didn't this whole cold war thing come too heavy on the Soviets? The way I understand they were in deep financial crisis and were facing an imminent defeat in Afghanistan.

It's a remarkably complex issue. I would however say that the case that comes to my mind though is not the USSR but Dutch Colonial Indonesia, and the jailing and exile of Sukarno for printing nationalist, anti-colonial material.

This looks on the outside very successful regarding suppressing Sukarno. After all the Dutch succeeded in keeping him contained until the Japanese arrived. However in a closer look you see a slow and steady development of a network of support that Sukarno built in Sumatra while in exile, which was used to support his efforts on his return to Java.

So I am not sure it is so clear.

Another interesting example might be Gorbachev in Russia. Here's someone who was quite clearly a communist and a Marxist, who, nonetheless, was not above critiquing the existing Soviet system in relation to the West and in so doing exposed cracks that caused the whole system to collapse. Gorbachev of course built on Khrushchev in this regard, but it shows that what is important is the alliance and solidarity, and to the extent that non-violence is conducive to that (and it usually is) it usually is helpful.

"can't work" is a strong statement. What we have seen in the arab spring is a new dynamic of "whoever shoots first looses".

Assad in Syria actually used Gandhis example to win in the end: He made sure the most rational, less radical and especially the non-violent opposition was crushed first.

All these "ethnic raids" came from basically "nowhere", maybe they were also encouraged by the regime, and then this contributed to more violence. End result: No opposition that can effectively be supported from the outside, and vanishing sympathy or compassion for the most massive genocide in recent history, much less any hope of peace.

In Cuba, on the contrary, Castro is facing a new, well organized and well disciplined opposition, and is finding it ever harder to attack them.

Basic point here: The stronger force has an advantage when the weaker opponent resorts to hatred and violence. That is why in China, Turkey, Syria and Ukraine we see the government's media outlets put a huge effort into portraying any dissidence as violent and hateful...

I think sometimes something as petty as wanting an ego-trip motivates this post, more so than really caring about disadvantaged people.

I feel everyone gets a temporary jolt of validation from being voted up. However, it should be in exchanged for adding value (being insightful, interesting, useful, funny).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com