United States of Europe vs. Stalinland: Ukraine, pt. II

[Giancarlo]

Shut the **** up, gepap.. stop the insults for the last damn time.

And keep that hardly a ringing endorsement crap for another thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
We don't need any Fezism in this thread.

I am surprised no one has addressed my question- what makes anyone seriously believe this election means any actual significant change? Yushenko won with 52%- that means 48% of voters votes for others, or for Yanukovich- hardly a ringing endorsement for supposed radical change.

1. there are probably people who support reducing corruption, but voted against Yusch cause they fear he will reduce language rights of russian speakers in east Ukraine. If he can assuage those concerns, he can develop a broader coalition on economic issues.
2. The big change is political - the large numbers of people protesting in the streets, for days, in conditions of severe cold, to take back a fraudulent election. THATS a change in the polity, whatever happens in terms of corruption.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


yah, well, my father in law was born in whats today the westernmost part of ukraine. Didnt make him an expert on Ukrainian politics.

We need someone who actually can give details, whos involved, the way Serb could on RUSSIAN politics, or you could on Polish politics.

But of course, I agree

[GePap]

So? the question is whether Yushenko can deliver- if he can't, those crowds won;t show up anymore. They will be desolutioned.

I have seen nothing that would indicate for me that significant change is in the air. maybe I am wrong, but I fail to see where the faith that Yushenko means much difference comes from.

[Giancarlo]

Yushchenko can and will deliever. He has the strength and moral backing to do so.. but hey leftists like you, gepap, play mr. pessimist and don't want him to. Significant change is in the air indeed, you just are playing deaf.

[Last Conformist]

A little difference in the right way is still better than no difference, or difference in the wrong way. I've not been following this very closely, but the impression I've got is that Yanukovich is more of a kremlinophile than Kuchma was.

And if Yushchenko's ascension leads to secession of bits of the East and South, that would certainly be radical change indeed.

[Giancarlo]

I think Yushchenko will show millions who voted against him the reality of aligning with Moscow, and the fact when one does the country's economy will go into the doldrums.. and instead move away from such alignments and move towards Europe and the US. I also think he will keep the country in one piece.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by GePap
So? the question is whether Yushenko can deliver- if he can't, those crowds won;t show up anymore. They will be desolutioned.

I have seen nothing that would indicate for me that significant change is in the air. maybe I am wrong, but I fail to see where the faith that Yushenko means much difference comes from.

Nothing but the future can tell if Yushenko can deliver or not. He might be just a big nepotist as other new rulers in former soviet "republics", but he has a couple of things that may make him a decent president. First of all, it's 13 years ago since the soviet empire broke down, so the worst impacts of this has settled, second, he has an enourmous support from "democratic vigilanties" and if he want to keep this support, then he can't do crazy stuffs as in Belarus.

Of course, there are always the risk that it ends up in an Jeltsin disaster - he also had major support, but screwed up seriously.

Anyway, i still think a president elected without fraud is better than the opposite (no, i don't want to hear anything about Bush)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sikander


Official U.S. policy opposes the expansion of NATO to Ukraine. We only went along grudgingly to expand to the Baltic as LotM describes.

This does raise the question, then, of how the EU would defend the Ukraine if it joined. Most of the EU relies on the US to defend it through NATO. But the Ukraine may be unique in that it will not be part of NATO, but be highly prone to attack by a powerful neighbor.

[Heresson]

If Ukraine wants to join NATO, Russian opinion in this matter should not be decisive, to say the least

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


This does raise the question, then, of how the EU would defend the Ukraine if it joined. Most of the EU relies on the US to defend it through NATO. But the Ukraine may be unique in that it will not be part of NATO, but be highly prone to attack by a powerful neighbor.

If Ukraine isn't a NATO member, then it's a UN matter, not a NATO, but why do you think that Belarus wants to attack Ukraine ?

If Ukraine becomes a NATO member, then NATO (not EU) has the obligation to protect it just as every other member of NATO. If they don't, then NATO is dead.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Most Americans like Russians - even during the cold war, I think most of us liked Russians as people. I dont think the Euros feel worse towards you.

Yeah, I've never seen much in the way of "Russians are bad", even with the worst stuff Putin's done. I think we're pretty friendly towards them.

[Ned]

Yushchenko may do something about stolen Catholic property. Here is a story from 2001.

By Ukrainian affairs analyst Stephen Dalziel

Despite his mild manner, Pope John Paul II has never tried to avoid political rows when planning the 93 foreign visits which he has made in over 20 years as the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

But his trip to Ukraine could be the most controversial yet.

Within a year of becoming Pontiff, John Paul risked the wrath of the Communist authorities then in power in both his native Poland and the Soviet Union, by visiting his homeland.

On other visits, he has embraced Jews and Muslims, despite protests by hardliners from both faiths.

Earlier this year, despite vociferous objections from Orthodox Christians, the Pope visited Greece.

The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches have been in schism since Rome excommunicated the East in 1054.

In Athens, the Pope made the first apology to the Orthodox world for Catholic sins of the past, saying:

"For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of him."

Moscow's voice

The Orthodox response, though, was lukewarm.

The day after the Pope's statement, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens, hightailed it to Moscow to confer with Patriarch Alexy II, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.



The Pope's trips abroad have caused controversy

Patriarch Alexy has refused to consider a papal visit to Moscow, and has been highly critical of the visit to Ukraine.

The two Orthodox leaders issued a joint statement, criticising Pope John Paul for not seeking the permission of Ukraine's main Orthodox Church - which is in communion with Moscow - before planning to visit Ukraine.

And they remained decidedly sceptical about the sincerity of the Pope's apology to Orthodoxy for past wrongs.

Ukrainian rifts

The majority of Ukraine's roughly 50 million population are nominally Orthodox, and most of them adhere to the line of the Moscow Patriarchate.

But there is also a significant minority, mainly in the west of the country, of five million Eastern-rite Catholics, who represent the main reason for the papal visit.

Although the form of their worship is akin to Orthodoxy, and they allow married clergy, they recognise the authority of the Pope.

There are also around 150,000 to 300,000 Latin-rite Catholics.



The Orthodox Church was unconvinced by the Pope's apology

One of the bitterest disputes between the Orthodox Church and the Eastern-rite Catholics, concerns church property.

In 1946, the Soviet authorities outlawed the Eastern-rite Catholics, and gave all of their property over to the Orthodox Church.

But after the Catholics were granted legal recognition again, in 1989, during the era of reforms inspired by the then Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, a battle has ensued over the property.

The peculiar set-up, whereby the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is an independent church, but in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, means that the louder protests over the Pope's visit to Ukraine have come from Moscow.

Geopolitics

This reflects wider political concerns.

The Kremlin is opposed to Ukraine's attempts to become more closely integrated with the West.

Moscow insists that Kiev should look eastwards, to its Slav Russian brothers for its true friends.

The Slav question adds a deeper element to the papal visit to Ukraine; because, as a Pole, John Paul is a brother Slav.

But, for Orthodox Slav Christians, their Catholic Polish brothers represent members of a divided family - with all of the tensions and bitterness such family rows produce.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


If Ukraine isn't a NATO member, then it's a UN matter, not a NATO, but why do you think that Belarus wants to attack Ukraine ?

If Ukraine becomes a NATO member, then NATO (not EU) has the obligation to protect it just as every other member of NATO. If they don't, then NATO is dead.

Yeah, but that powerful neighbor has a veto at the UN.

It is interesting, isn't it, that a state like the EU would not and could not defend against an attack on one of its members.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


If Ukraine isn't a NATO member, then it's a UN matter, not a NATO, but why do you think that Belarus wants to attack Ukraine ?

If Ukraine becomes a NATO member, then NATO (not EU) has the obligation to protect it just as every other member of NATO. If they don't, then NATO is dead.

There seem to be some in the EU who would oppose Ukrainian membership in the EU if the Ukraine were to also join NATO.