Report: Jewish residents being forced to “register” by pro-Russian militants in eastern Ukrainian city; Update: U.S. ambassador confirms; Update: Hoax?

posted at 12:41 pm on April 17, 2014 by Allahpundit

Interesting how the designated villain justifying Russian aggression keeps changing. In Russia itself, it’s gays who are the insidious western agents subverting the order from within. In Kiev it’s “Nazis” within the Euromaidan movement who fill that role, allegedly hellbent on exacting revenge against ethnic Russians for World War II unless Czar Vladimir intervenes to protect them.

Evidently, in Donetsk, they like their scapegoats more traditional.

Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city’s Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee “or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated,” reported Ynet News, Israel’s largest news website…

The leaflets bore the name of Denis Pushilin, who identified himself as chairman of “Donetsk’s temporary government,” and were distributed near the Donetsk synagogue and other areas, according to the report.

Pushilin acknowledged the flyers were distributed by his organization but he disavowed their content, according to the web site Jews of Kiev, Ynet reported…

It says the reason is because the leaders of the Jewish community of Ukraine supported Bendery Junta, a reference to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian nationalist movement that fought for Ukrainian independence at the end of World War II, “and oppose the pro-Slavic People’s Republic of Donetsk,” a name adopted by the militant leadership.

They’re demanding ID, passports, “religious documents,” and documents related to real property, as well as a $50 registration fee. Failure to comply means revocation of one’s citizenship in Ukraine — or “Novo Russia,” as Putin referred today to the eastern part of the country — and deportation. No word yet on armbands, but stay tuned. For what it’s worth, I’ve seen conflicting reports on whether Pushilin, the local thug whose name is on the flyer, admits that it came from his group or not. The USA Today story quoted above, citing Ynet, says he did; the JTA, however, cites a Russian website that claims Pushilin denies the flyer came from the group at all and is actually some sort of false-flag provocation. It would be a clever ruse for Ukrainian nationalists to do something to cast Putin’s admirers as the real Nazis, after so much propaganda from Moscow to the contrary. (In fact, the Russian-backed Yanukovych regime liked to rile up its riot police by accusing the maidan protesters of being led by Jews.) But the element of revanchism here, in wanting to punish the city’s Jews for their ancestors’ support for independence from Russia decades ago, is right in line with the tide of Russian irredentism towards Ukraine generally. It probably did come from Pushilin’s group. No wonder Natan Sharansky expects aliyah from Ukraine to double this year.

If you’re expecting the Ukrainian army to do anything about this, forget it. They’re broke, disorganized, facing defections from Russian loyalists in the ranks, and thus understandably reluctant to commit to a fight they can’t win. The best check on persecution by Russian forces is publicity, I think: Putin wants his reclamation of Ukraine to be seen as something virtuous, an operation that is itself designed to stop the phantom persecution of ethnic Russians by “Nazis.” The more his own side behaves like honest-to-goodness Nazis, the harder that charade is to maintain. Hopefully he’s still at the point where he cares about maintaining the charade at all.

Update: If this is a hoax or false flag, it’s good enough to fool the U.S. diplomatic corps.

Update: Some locals maintain that it is in fact a false flag by Ukrainian nationalists designed to make the Putinistas look bad:

The Donetsk Jewish community dismissed this as “a provocation,” which it clearly is. “It’s an obvious provocation designed to get this exact response, going all the way up to Kerry,” says Fyodr Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs. “I have no doubt that there is a sizeable community of anti-Semites on both sides of the barricades, but for one of them to do something this stupid—this is done to compromise the pro-Russian groups in the east.”

Why? The Russian government has been playing up the (real but small) role of fascists and neo-Nazis in the victory of the EuroMaidan in Kiev. The Ukrainian government, utterly powerless to fight off the Russians and their local stooges, have had to rely on other methods, like leaking taped phone calls of allegedly local separatists getting their commands from Moscow. This may be just another tactic to smear the so-called anti-Maidan in the east of Ukraine: you think we’re fascists? Well, take a look at these guys.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 6:40 PM
“But Jews were not singled out for ill treatment by the pre-Soviet Russian leadership”

JEWS WERE BARRED FROM LIVING IN MOST OF RUSSIA. COULD ONLY LIVE IN ‘THE PALE’, less than 20% of Russian territory. Do you comprehend the levels of hatred, segregation, and oppression we are talking about!? At the same time hundreds and hundreds of pogroms – the targeted mass slaughter and rape and theft from Jews, was ignored and allowed by ALL of Russia’s authorities.

Are you a paulbot? Why do you keep going back to this one obscure revisionist history author most people have never even heard of for all your history, and reality like a robot? Why don’t you open something more common, like the frikking encyclopedia! before you make these ridiculous statements of yours. I don’t have all day to educate you on BASIC history.

saus on April 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Calbear,

I can’t help but notice that we’re far closer to the late period than the early period, and that your definition makes the “late period” far longer.

Well, the Russian Revolution was in 1917, and the Soviet Union was formed in 1922 and dissolved in 1991. Stalin’s leadership lasted from 1922 to 1952, but he did not turn against the Jews until the beginning of WW2 (1939), when he began purging Soviet Jews to appease Hitler.

By that time, Jews were such an integral part of the Soviet bureaucratic apparatus that removing them took many years, and what Stalin had begun as a policy to appease Hitler was later justified because Stalin’s fear that the Holocaust had re-awakened Jews into identifying not as a Soviet citizens but as Jews first. Other factors also contributed, including renascent Russian nationalism.

But for the first twenty years, Jews were a welcome and highly integral part of all Soviet affairs, and they were never fully expunged.

So Trotsky and Marx were descended from Jews. That doesn’t mean the “late period” — i.e., most of the history of the USSR — should be ignored.

I didn’t say it should be ignored. But unlike with Hitler, Soviet Jews created the problems that gave them so much trouble. They midwifed the Soviet movement, and their Jewish grandchildren and great grandchildren who later left the Soviet Union and Russia to escape persecution, were in an important sense escaping the malicious creature they had created.

Or that we should ignore the history of Russia before this. Basically you’re saying that there’s nothing to worry about because Lenin, an non-anti-Semite, led the USSR between the October Revolution of 1917 and his 1922 incapacitation. That’s less than 1% of Russian history.

I think Tsarist Russia was a lot freer from rabid anti-semitism than is commonly assumed. See my quote from Slezkine above.

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 7:03 PM

JEWS WERE BARRED FROM LIVING IN MOST OF RUSSIA. COULD ONLY LIVE IN ‘THE PALE’, less than 20% of Russian territory. Do you comprehend the levels of hatred, segregation, and oppression we are talking about!?

Hahaha ! It’s always about you, isn’t it?

Guess what, the world as a whole was a lot less free back then. When Jews were being confined to the Pale, slavery still existed in parts of the New World, women were property of their husbands, and all but a handful of white guys in a small handful of countries were not free.

Why do you keep going back to this one obscure revisionist history author most people have never even heard of for all your history, and reality like a robot?

To someone like you, I’m pretty sure every historian is obscure and revisionist. But Yuri Slezkine is a respected historian and his book is well-researched and documented.

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Well, the Russian Revolution was in 1917, and the Soviet Union was formed in 1922 and dissolved in 1991. Stalin’s leadership lasted from 1922 to 1952, but he did not turn against the Jews until the beginning of WW2 (1939), when he began purging Soviet Jews to appease Hitler.

So for 22 years of the 74 of Soviet history and the 700+ of Russian history, Jews were A-OK. (You know, as long as they didn’t insist on a Jewish identity.)

But unlike with Hitler, Soviet Jews created the problems that gave them so much trouble. They midwifed the Soviet movement, and their Jewish grandchildren and great grandchildren who later left the Soviet Union and Russia to escape persecution, were in an important sense escaping the malicious creature they had created.

You cannot blame all Jews for the faults of the field in which they were over-represented, whether Communism, Hollywood, or banking, the last of these being one that underlay Hitler’s hatred for the Jews.

calbear on April 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM

And, no, I’m not a supporter of Ron Paul.

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Guess what, the world as a whole was a lot less free back then. When Jews were being confined to the Pale, slavery still existed in parts of the New World, women were property of their husbands, and all but a handful of white guys in a small handful of countries were not free.

The good ol’ days.

BobMbx on April 17, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Anyway, revisionist history or not, I’ll happily admit that Putin is less anti-Semitic than almost every prior leader of Russia. But (a) that’s not saying much, and (b) his “concern” for the Jews is phony: He’s “concerned” where they’re not under threat (Kyiv), and not concerned where they are (go down his list of worldwide allies, from East Ukraine to the Middle East and on).

calbear on April 17, 2014 at 7:29 PM

So for 22 years of the 74 of Soviet history and the 700+ of Russian history, Jews were A-OK. (You know, as long as they didn’t insist on a Jewish identity.)

A-OK?

How about they weren’t given special sanctions that were grossly out of line with what other groups in Russia could and could not do.

There was even a period in Tsarist Russia, right before the Russian Revolution, when Jews were viewed by Russian elites as being special and worthy of admiration.

You cannot blame all Jews for the faults of the field in which they were over-represented, whether Communism, Hollywood, or banking, the last of these being one that underlay Hitler’s hatred for the Jews.

I’m not blaming Jews in the sense I think they should go on trial or somehow atone for their sins in the way Solzenitzen believed they (and Russians) should apologize for their complicity in the rise of communism.

But it is worth pointing out that Jews bore a lot of responsibility for the shape and direction of the early Soviet state, and that most Jews around the world didn’t have a problem with Stalin until after he began turning on them. It’s also a valuable piece of information to know when someone like Saus wants to pretend that the Russian cossacks and commies have always conspired to keep Jews down in Russia.

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 7:30 PM

The good ol’ days.

hahahaha !

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Tsarist Russia WAS Anti-Semitic & after 1932/33 so was Soviet Russia…. Tsarist Russia was home to the various governmental organs that produced The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to Revisionist Histories explaining that “today’s” Jews were not descendants & hence heirs of the Biblical Jews. To the Settlements of the Pale to the Pogroms the last were the Black Hundreds Pogrom circa 1904….

Stalin was an anti-Semite, tapping into long-standing anti-Semitism. Called the Jews “Zhids” constantly culminating in the “Doctor’s Plot of 1952/53″ & his campaign against “Rootless Cosmopolitans”- Jews.

The best that can be said is that from 1917-32 Russia was far LESS OVERTLY Anti-Semitic & that Putin’s Russia is far less Anti-Semitic, however with only 140K Jews in Russia (assuming that number is correct) it’s hard to find Jews to be Anti-Semitic TO.

Pincher is moving fromPutin Apologist now to full-blown Paul-bot Anti-Semitism & History Revision.

JFKY on April 17, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Tsarist Russia WAS Anti-Semitic & after 1932/33 so was Soviet Russia…. Tsarist Russia was home to the various governmental organs that produced The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to Revisionist Histories explaining that “today’s” Jews were not descendants & hence heirs of the Biblical Jews. To the Settlements of the Pale to the Pogroms the last were the Black Hundreds Pogrom circa 1904….

Yeah, this is discussed in the article about the evil Stanford Professor. His research disputes the origins of the Protocols as commonly supposed. But what you’re saying is another example of the long-standing bias against the Tsarist government still informing discourse today.

vlad martel on April 17, 2014 at 8:03 PM

JFKY has no need for research. He merely becomes more emphatic in his statements and hopes that covers up for any errors he makes.

Stalin was an anti-Semite, tapping into long-standing anti-Semitism. Called the Jews “Zhids” constantly culminating in the “Doctor’s Plot of 1952/53″ & his campaign against “Rootless Cosmopolitans”- Jews.

I don’t think Stalin was an anti-Semite. But he eventually turned against anyone who might be a danger to him, and since Jews were in so many prominent positions in the Soviet Union, they took the brunt of the attack.

Stalin even ran a prominent campaign against anti-semitism in the 1920s and early 1930s.

From The Jewish Century:

Thus the brunt of the struggle against the “wave of anti-Semitism” had to be borne by those responsible for agitation and propaganda. In August 1926, the Central Committee’s Agitprop conducted a special meeting on the subject, and in December 1927 Stalin launched a massive public campaign against anti -Semitism by declaring to the delegates of the Fifteenth Party Congress, “This evil has to be combated with utmost ruthlessness, comrades.” For the next four years, the Party sponsored countless formal appeals, celebrity speeches, mass rallies, newspaper exposés, and show trials aimed at eradicating the evil. In 1927– 32, Soviet publishing houses produced fifty-six books against anti-Semitism, and at the height of the campaign in 1928– early 1930s, articles on the subject appeared in the Moscow and Leningrad newspapers almost daily. The campaign fizzled out in 1932 , but as late as 1935 the newly dismissed commandant of the Moscow Kremlin R. A. Peterson had to apologize to the Party Control Commission for saying that one way to combat anti-Semitism was not to hire Jews. On May 22, 1935, the secretary of the Writer’s Union A. S. Shcherbakov wrote to the Central Committee secretaries Stalin, Andreev, and Ezhov, recommending that the poet Pavel Vasiliev be punished for an anti-Semitic brawl. On May 24 Pravda published an article condemning Vasiliev for anti-Semitic “hooliganism,” and within days he was arrested and sentenced to three years in a labor camp. And on May 17– 23, 1936, the federal public prosecutor A. Ia. Vyshinsky was assigned to a widely publicized murder case (the first one of his career and presumably a dress rehearsal for the first “Moscow Trial,” which was to take place within a few months). Konstantin Semenchuk, the head of the polar station on Wrangel Island, and Stepan Startsev, his dog-sled driver, were accused of murdering the expedition’s doctor, Nikolai Lvovich Vulfson, and planning to kill his wife, Gita Borisovna Feldman. Anti-Semitism was one alleged motive; Vulfson’s and Feldman’s selfless defense of state property and Soviet nationality policy was another. No evidence was presented; none was needed (according to Vyshinsky, who proclaimed cui prodest, “who benefits,” to be his main legal principle); and none existed (according to Arkady Vaksberg, who claims to have seen the file). Both defendants were shot.

The campaign against anti-Semitism was part of the Great Transformation policy of vigorous “indigenization” and “internationalism.” Between 1928 and about 1932– 34 , the Party demanded the widest possible use of the largest possible number of languages, the aggressive promotion of “national cadres,” and the tireless celebration of ethnic differences, peculiarities, and entitlements. [sound familiar?] Once again , however, the Jews were in a special position because, according to both anti-Semites and philo-Semites (as well as some Jews), their main peculiarity was their denial of possessing any peculiarities, and their chief entitlement was to being considered exceptionally good Russians and Soviets— and thus exceptional among nationalities. Before the mid-1930s, “Russian” and “Soviet” were the only two nationalities that were not seen as properly ethnic— or rather, as having a politically meaningful national form . Both were immune from nationality policy because both were defined exclusively in class terms. And so, mutatis mutandis, were most Moscow and Leningrad Jews. Or rather, they were supposed to be a part of the nationality policy but did not seem interested, and they were often defined in (upper-) class terms but were not supposed to be. They seemed to be a nationality without form— a caste of exemplary Soviets.

But eventually Stalin turned on the Jews.

The campaign to cleanse the Soviet elite of ethnic Jews began as early as May 1939 when, in an apparent attempt to please Hitler, Stalin put Molotov in charge of Soviet diplomacy and ordered him to “get rid of the Jews” in the Commissariat of External Affairs. The purge gathered speed during the Nazi-Soviet alliance; became a part of government policy during the Great Patriotic War (as an expression of revamped official patriotism and a response to the new Jewish self-assertion); and turned into an avalanche in 1949, when ideological contagion became the regime’s chief concern and Jews “by blood” emerged as its principal agents. Party officials responsible for the “cadres” flailed about in search of covert aliens. The closer to the core, the more rot they found.

Slezkine then goes on to cite just how may Jews were in prominent positions, including in the secret police (Cheka).

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM

PanSlavic nationalism, like that exhibited by Pobestdenev, who was Nicholas 11′s tutor, and like minded officials like Ignatiev and Trepov

narciso on April 17, 2014 at 8:32 PM

The Cold War ended because the Soviet Union tried to liberalized politically and failed. Had it gone the China route and liberalized economically, the Russian commies would still be in power today.

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Ignorance. “Economic liberalization” means that communism is dead, except for the authoritarian facade. China is no longer a Marxist-Leninist state; and anyway the USSR had 30-50 years on all the other examples you mentioned. They’ll totter themselves in due course.

ddrintn on April 17, 2014 at 9:14 PM

The Cold War ended because the Soviet Union tried to liberalized politically and failed.

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM

And, um, why was it exactly that they tried to “liberalize politically” anyway? I was alive and aware in the 80s and I don’t recall mass demonstrations in Russian streets calling for an overthrow of the Soviet regime.

ddrintn on April 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM

^ Before 1989, I mean.

ddrintn on April 17, 2014 at 9:24 PM

ddrintn,

Ignorance. “Economic liberalization” means that communism is dead, except for the authoritarian facade. China is no longer a Marxist-Leninist state; and anyway the USSR had 30-50 years on all the other examples you mentioned.

The authoritarianism is very real. It’s the freedom which is a facade. The Communist Party still controls China today, including the markets, which it gives the semblance of freedom without giving any real freedom. The wealthy are even made honorary Communists.

The ChiComs didn’t go anywhere despite the end of the Cold War. They’re still there, and they’re still in control. They’re also a far more formidable geopolitical opponent than Putin’s Russia.

They’ll totter themselves in due course.

When? When we’re both dead?

North Korea is the crappiest little place on earth and the leadership there is still going strong. The North Koreans have even added nuclear weapons and long range missiles to their arsenal in the last decade.

And, um, why was it exactly that they tried to “liberalize politically” anyway? I was alive and aware in the 80s and I don’t recall mass demonstrations in Russian streets calling for an overthrow of the Soviet regime.

You don’t recall Yeltsin standing on the tanks?

Glasnost began as an commie elite-led effort, but it quickly spun out of their control.

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 10:06 PM

If you want the real story about Soviet anti-semitism, read Gen Ion Pacepa’s books, especially Red Horizons: Chronicles of a Communist Spy Chief and Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism. He was the highest-ranking intelligence chief to ever defect from the Soviet system. He was THERE. He was part of the Kremlin’s disinformation campaign and orchestrated much of it.

Resist We Much on April 17, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Update: Some locals maintain that it is in fact a false flag by Ukrainian nationalists and Brennen/CIA/Nuland designed to make the Putinistas look bad:

VorDaj on April 17, 2014 at 10:17 PM

You probably think Mikhail Gorbachev invented the concept of glasnost to describe his effort to lead the Soviet Union ‘out of its totalitarian state and to democracy, to freedom, to openness,’ as he wrote. If so, you are not alone. All of the media and most of the ‘experts,’ even in Western defence establishments, believe that too – as does the committee that awarded Gorbachev the Nobel Peace Prize. Even the venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica defines glasnost as ‘Soviet policy of open discussion of political and social issues. It was instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s and began the democratisation of the Soviet Union.’ Merriam-Webster agrees. And the American Heritage Dictionary defines glasnost as ‘an official policy of the former Soviet government emphasising candor with regard to discussion of social problems and shortcomings.’

But, in fact, glasnost is an old Russian term for polishing the ruler’s image. Originally, it meant, literally, publicising, i.e., self-promotion. Since the sixteenth century’s Ivan the Terrible, the first ruler to become Tsar of All the Russians, all of that country’s leaders have used glasnost to promote themselves inside and outside the country.

In the mid-1930s – half a century before Gorbachev’s glasnost – the official Soivet encyclopaedia defined glasnost as a spin on news released to the public: ‘Dostupnost obshchestvennomy obsuzhdeniyu, kontrolyu; publichnost,’ meaning, ‘the quality of being made available for public discussion or manipulation.’

Thus, back in the days when I was still a member of the KGB community, glasnost was regarded as a tool of the black art of dezinformatsiya, and it was used to sanctify the country’s leader. For communists, only the leader counted. They used glasnost to sanctify their own leaders, and to induce hordes of Western leftists to fall for this scam.

Glasnost is one of the most secret secrets of the Kremlin, and certainly one of the main reasons for keeping the KGB’s foreign intelligence archives hermetically sealed.

In 1982, Yuri Andropov, the father of the modern Soviet dezinformatsiya era, became ruler of the Soviet Union itself, and glasnost became a soviet foreign policy as well. Once settled in the Kremlin, the former KGB chairman hastened to introduce himself to the West as a ‘moderate’ communist and a sensitive, warm, Western-oriented man, who allegedly enjoyed an occasional drink of scotch, liked to read English novels, and loved listening to Beethoven and American jazz. In reality, Andropov did not drink at all, for he was already terminally ill from a kidney disorder. The rest of the portrayal was equally false – as I well know, having been quite well acquainted with Andropov. As for ‘moderate,’ any head of the KGB necessarily had hands drenched in blood.

Gorbachev introduced himself to the West exactly as Adropov had: a cultured sophisticate and aficionado of Western opera and jazz. The Kremlin has always known that this picture holds particular charm for the gullible West.

Gorbachev is thought to have been recruited by the KGB in the early 1950s while studying law at Moscow State University, where he spied on his foreign classmates. As long as the KGB archives remain sealed, we will not be able to learn more details about those years of Gorbachev’s life. But we do now know that after graduating from the university, Gorbachev interned at the Lubyanka, the state security headquarters, where he came uder Andropov’s influence. Both had begun their careers in Stavrpol. Andropov got Gorbachev appointed to the Soviet Politburo, and one Gorbachev biographer even describes him as Androov’s ‘crown prince.’

Meanwhile, the West’s admiration for Ceaușescu’s glasnost took on such a life of its own that it could not be stopped. In a letter dated 27 January 1983, written to Ceaușescu on his birthday, President Richard Nixon, whom I had already briefed about Ceaușescu’s glasnost after I defected to the United States, gushed:

Ever since we first met and talked in 1967, I have watched you grow in stature as a statesman. Your vigor, your single-mindedness, your acute intelligence – and especially your ability to act skillfully on both domestic and international fronts – place you in the frist rank of world leaders … At 65, most people are ready to retire, but for many of the greatest leaders the most productive and satisfying years are still ahead. I am certain that your best moments will come in your second decade as President as you continue to follow the bold, independent course you have set for your people.

The late Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, for whose staunch anti-communism I have high regard, told me in 1988 that Ceaușescu ‘may be crazy with his own people, but believe me, General, he is the one who’ll break up the Soviet bloc.’ A few months later, however, Ceaușescu was executed by his own people at the end of a trial in which the accusation came almost word-for-word out of my book, Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae & Elena Ceaușescu Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption.

By that time, however, Washington and the rest of the West had shifted their affections. Now, it was the man in the Kremlin, Mikhail Gorbachev, who was seen as the nascent democrat and touted as a political visionary. Once again, the Western media appeared to swallow their own hype. Gorbachev’s rhetoric about combining ‘communist values’ with ‘Western democracy introduced from the top’ and a ‘centralised free-market economy’ enthralled the world. Piles of Gorbachev’s Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World took the place of Ceaușescu’s memoirs in bookstore windows.

So much for institutional memory.

Glasnost had struck again.

- General Ion Mihai Pacepa, Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism, 2013

Resist We Much on April 17, 2014 at 10:54 PM

Just a reminder: this all begins with a coup by fascists for oligarchs that are even more corrupt than the other oligarchs, backed by Victoria Nuland with a destabilization budget of five billion dollars. (Including paying the fascist rioters daily wages for overthrowing democracy.)

Before the democratically elected government was knocked over, Putin was doing nothing, and Russian-speaking Ukrainians were quiet.

Russian speaking Ukrainians who don’t like being deprived of their democratic rights are not “stooges”.

David Blue on April 17, 2014 at 10:55 PM

Just a reminder: this all begins with a coup by fascists…“stooges”.

David Blue on April 17, 2014 at 10:55 PM

Anyone, who falls for the propaganda, agitation, and disinformation originating in the Kremlin hook, line, and sinker, is a stooge.

Resist We Much on April 17, 2014 at 11:23 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.586174

Flier calling on Donetsk Jews to register now widely seen as fake

Ukrainian city’s separatist leader, whose alleged signature is on document, says he never signed it; ADL ‘skeptical of fliers’ authenticity.

The pro-Russian separatist leader of Donetsk, whose alleged signature is on the now notorious fliers calling on the eastern Ukrainian city’s Jews to register on pain of deportation, said the documents were fakes…

sharrukin on April 18, 2014 at 12:15 AM

Anyone, who falls for the propaganda, agitation, and disinformation originating in the Kremlin hook, line, and sinker, is a stooge.

Resist We Much on April 17, 2014 at 11:23 PM

Hey, Homie…you’re the one who just got played.

vlad martel on April 18, 2014 at 12:40 AM

Hey, Homie…you’re the one who just got played.

vlad martel on April 18, 2014 at 12:40 AM

How so? I never said anything whatsoever about the fliers.

Don’t believe me? Check the thread, homie.

Resist We Much on April 18, 2014 at 12:44 AM

Anyone who has watched Putin operate over the last fifteen years should’ve immediately known this report was either a fake or just some local anti-Semitic organization taking advantage of the chaos in Ukraine to advance their own agenda independent of Russia.

Yet too many conservatives bought into it. Why? Clearly they’ve swallowed their own codswallop about Putin being the new Hitler, the annexation of Crimea being a modern-day Anschluss, and therefore Putin must have some secret agenda to eradicate the Jews. It all makes sense to them. It all follows. The “Hitler, expansionism, Jews” progression just trips off the tongue.

I feel sad for the greatest political movement in US history, which is being ruined by reckless boneheads trying to advance some foreign policy agenda they can barely articulate. The fight against Communism was a noble one. This faux fight to turn Putin into another Hitler or Brezhnev is a waste of our valuable time.

Pincher Martin on April 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM

How so? I never said anything whatsoever about the fliers.

Silence=consent.

vlad martel on April 18, 2014 at 12:49 AM

Silence=consent.

vlad martel on April 18, 2014 at 12:49 AM

Er, I wasn’t here…on HA. By the time I even read this post, I already knew that Pushilin had changed his statement concerning the leaflet and its connection to his organisation.

‘Scuse me if I can’t be around to weigh in on every thread all day and night long.

Resist We Much on April 18, 2014 at 1:03 AM

This is all obvious, or it ought to be. Ukraine had a democratically elected government. It got knocked over by paid rioters and a coup. And the Eastern Ukrainians don’t like it. Neither did the Crimeans.

Now what’s happening is that people are imitating point by point the things that were done against them. The junta took over buildings, so the resistance takes over buildings, and so on.

For anyone who’s not a sucker for neocon propaganda, this should be un-spinnable. You have to be willing to cheer for the oligarchs who knocked over a democratic government, and you have to say the same things are good when the criminal junta does them and wrong when the resistance does them.

You have to be willing to call paid rioters who crush democracy “protestors” and people who don’t like being deprived of their rights by a corrupt junta “stooges”.

David Blue on April 18, 2014 at 1:19 AM

The fight against Communism was a noble one. This faux fight to turn Putin into another Hitler or Brezhnev is a waste of our valuable time.

Pincher Martin on April 18, 2014 at 12:47 AM

Right. The Cold War (legitimately) ended with the Soviet Union, decades ago. That’s done. What’s happening in Ukraine has nothing to do with American interests now.

If you want American armed forces to fight an invasion, they need to line up on the border with Mexico.

David Blue on April 18, 2014 at 1:26 AM

David Blue on April 18, 2014 at 1:19 AM

The matter should have been, should, and should be one for the Ukrainians to decide. If half the country wants to sec3de, go for it. That’s never been my point; rather, I don’t believe that Putin should be involved in it.

And, before you start screaming about neo-cons, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc, etc, etc, save your breath. I am the furthest thing from a neo-con and I opposed the Iraq war, the ground war in Afghanistan, the Libyan misadventure and the Syrian insane and utterly dangerous idea of intervening on behalf of AQ-affiliates, along with arming them.

The Mo Doctrine

(For those of you, who are unaware, “Mo” is a nickname of mine)

1) The United States should only get involved in conflicts abroad where there is a direct and imminent threat to the nation and its security.

2) The United States should stay out of civil wars.

3) If war is declared upon us, CRUSH, and I mean C-R-U-S-H, the enemy.

As the ever-helpful MarshFox reminded me:

“To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!”

- Conan the Barbarian

4) Fight to win or stay home.

5) The United States has an abysmal record of siding with despots, arming radical extremists and terrorists, and propping up tinpot dictators. Know your enemy, your “ally,” recognise self-determination, and MYOB.

(No installing new governments then “finding out who or what is in them”)

6) Unless the United States is under attack or imminent threat of attack, the President must get Congressional approval for all actions involving military operations abroad pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11 and the War Powers Resolution Act.

7) When people want to kill each other, let them.

Find a ‘neo-con’ that takes that position on foreign policy.

Oh, and I don’t care about ‘collateral damage’ or torture or any of the rest of the reactionary whataboutism.

Resist We Much on April 18, 2014 at 1:31 AM

Here’s a video showing Russian separatists storming a couple of police stations in eastern Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTdkY8tl2b0

anotherJoe on April 18, 2014 at 1:35 AM

I agree that Russia is reacting to this, and if Putin says he is not I’m skeptical. America reacts to threats nearby, why wouldn’t Russia?

But the story that Hot Air and other blogs have been pushing, that this is all about aggression and invasions by Putin, the new Hitler, on a preconceived plan, is fantastically dishonest.

It’s Victoria Nuland’s coup that drove everything. Before the coup, Putin wasn’t doing anything but matching the EU bribe for bribe.

It’s amazing to see people ginning up Cold War 2 over a completely bogus narrative.

David Blue on April 18, 2014 at 1:52 AM

Resist We Much: “The matter should have been, should, and should be one for the Ukrainians to decide. If half the country wants to sec3de, go for it. That’s never been my point; rather, I don’t believe that Putin should be involved in it.”

He wasn’t. Thanks to Victoria Nuland, he is now. It’s a disaster on his border, and he knows for a fact that if he does nothing it’s going to get worse, with America and the EU continuing to support the junta, which will oppress ethnic Russians and cause more trouble for Moscow in every way.

-

Resist We Much: “And, before you start screaming about neo-cons, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc, etc, etc, save your breath. I am the furthest thing from a neo-con and I opposed the Iraq war, the ground war in Afghanistan, the Libyan misadventure and the Syrian insane and utterly dangerous idea of intervening on behalf of AQ-affiliates, along with arming them.”

Good for you. I was a true believer on Iraq, till eventually I wised up. Never again.

-

Resist We Much: “1) The United States should only get involved in conflicts abroad where there is a direct and imminent threat to the nation and its security.”

I think America owes some consideration to real allies like the UK.

-

Resist We Much: “2) The United States should stay out of civil wars.”

Yep.

Not starting one, which Victoria Nuland has done in Ukraine, would also be a good idea.

-

Resist We Much: “3) If war is declared upon us, CRUSH, and I mean C-R-U-S-H, the enemy.”

Common sense.

Though actually the more dangerous enemies don’t declare war. But Osama Bin Laden did, so if you ask for it, you should get it.

-

Resist We Much: “4) Fight to win or stay home.”

Right.

I would add that there is now a strong presumption for staying home, because there is no way known to force the US government to fight for a win and not start declaring that “Islam means peace” etc..

-

Resist We Much: “5) The United States has an abysmal record of siding with despots, arming radical extremists and terrorists, and propping up tinpot dictators. Know your enemy, your “ally,” recognise self-determination, and MYOB.”

Good thinking.

Resist We Much: “(No installing new governments then “finding out who or what is in them”)”

Very good thinking.

-

Resist We Much: “6) Unless the United States is under attack or imminent threat of attack, the President must get Congressional approval for all actions involving military operations abroad pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 11 and the War Powers Resolution Act.”

Agreed.

-

Resist We Much: “7) When people want to kill each other, let them.”

Sensible.

-

Resist We Much Find a ‘neo-con’ that takes that position on foreign policy.”

OK, you’re clearly not a neocon.

David Blue on April 18, 2014 at 2:06 AM

Wow, just like New York gun owners.

Socratease on April 18, 2014 at 2:25 AM

But CNN confirmed the US press release! Therefore TRUTH!!!

bingsha on April 18, 2014 at 4:20 AM

Two points:
Lieberman was correct: Israel needs to stay out of this mess,
It’s relations with Russia right now are pretty good

And Czarist Russia was horrible for Jews; as an example, the Czarina was an avid reader of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

My mother’s family came from the Ukraine
There were bloody Czar-sanctioned pogroms and severe restrictions at best

These Paulbots are lying scum

TexasJew on April 18, 2014 at 7:29 AM

I would not be surprised if it was a hoax just like I suspect that previously someone from new government twitted about hanging Poles (in 1940s Ukrainian nationalists murdered 100,000+ Poles in “Volhynian slaughter”) and Jews, and Russians. In fact I think it’s a push back against Russian propaganda. Russian radio and TV stations are over inflating the dangers of Ukrainian nationalists having influence over new government.

ktrelski on April 18, 2014 at 8:26 AM

Frankly, the revisionist history and ignorance is startling.

Anyone who has actually read not only the history, but actual documents from tsarist Russia (or previous periods) can establish several facts. Jews in the region have been alternately treated to both the anti-Semitic and nationalist whimsical impulses of rulers in the region. That predates the Tsars, going back the events such as the Chmielnicki pogroms. Perhaps even the Khazar Kingdom.

To argue that Jews were in prominent positions and therefore antisemitism played no role, or was not in the character of a particular ruler, or actions were purely the result of nationalistic impulses is to argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Stalin was clearly a paranoid psychopath and one of the most murderous dictators in history. He was also a nationalist. But that does not mean he was also not concurrently an anti-Semite. He was, going back to his days in the seminary.

Now with regard to the actual matter at hand. To state unequivocally that antisemitism is not a factor here with extremist Russian nationalists is plain silly. Especially given the history and the group who is purported to be the authors. But were they the really the authors of this document? Again, conceivable given their views but the demonstrable proof is not yet available.

Conclusively, however, the fact that young pro-Russian supporters were seen handing out these documents should trouble everyone. In fact, a general return to a Soviet era mindset should do the same. That, I believe most Americans can agree, is not a regime who was friendly or good for any of us. It is a dangerous provocation which appeals to the lowest common denominators in our society. ANd we should wipe it our in its infancy.

Marcus Traianus on April 18, 2014 at 8:39 AM

The EU should have been wiped in its infancy. Its debris along with the US’s litters the world.

Interesting how the Soviet left East Germany, but the US never left West Germany.

antisense on April 18, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Conclusively, however, the fact that young pro-Russian supporters were seen handing out these documents should trouble everyone. In fact, a general return to a Soviet era mindset should do the same. That, I believe most Americans can agree, is not a regime who was friendly or good for any of us. It is a dangerous provocation which appeals to the lowest common denominators in our society. ANd we should wipe it our in its infancy.

Marcus Traianus on April 18, 2014 at 8:39 AM

So, just ignore everything that was said in this thread, and back to square one. Propaganda rules!

vlad martel on April 18, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Marcus Traianus,

Now with regard to the actual matter at hand. To state unequivocally that antisemitism is not a factor here with extremist Russian nationalists is plain silly.

You’re being dishonest. That’s not the “actual matter at hand,” and you don’t prove it is by vaguely asserting some general anti-Semitic history about some group to prove a single particular case.

Anyone who has actually read not only the history, but actual documents from tsarist Russia (or previous periods) can establish several facts. Jews in the region have been alternately treated to both the anti-Semitic and nationalist whimsical impulses of rulers in the region.

You’re wrong. I just gave two Russian sources upthread who argue otherwise. Plainly, both can and did read the actual Russian documents.

Stalin was clearly a paranoid psychopath and one of the most murderous dictators in history. He was also a nationalist. But that does not mean he was also not concurrently an anti-Semite. He was, going back to his days in the seminary.

Stop blathering. I just cited a source who details the work Stalin did in his early rule to end anti-Semitism.

And Stalin was a nationalist? You do realize that Stalin was Georgian, don’t you?

Pincher Martin on April 18, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Pincher Martin on April 18, 2014 at 9:47 AM

If you know anything about me or my long history here, you will realize this is my last post on the subject.

I believe you can tell a persons depth and biases on a subject by the arguments they make. One who is deep in the material is also reflective in a way the casual reader or internet warrior cannot be. They make factual conclusions based on real events and knowledge that was gained over time. They understand the relationship between cause and effect. Their responses are measured and exude conclusions that are the product of many sources and cogitative thinking. They are also able to make judgmental denouements summarily, based on a complete set of events or history.

I dare say, that’s not what has been done here. Quite the converse. And people like Professor Slezkine, no matter what his personal biases or motivations are, would be fairly amused at the way you’ve selectively cited and attempted to represent his material here.

Marcus Traianus on April 18, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Cool. So anyway, back to Putin-Hitler….

vlad martel on April 18, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Marcus Traianus,

I believe you can tell a persons depth and biases on a subject by the arguments they make.

I couldn’t agree more, Marcus, which is why I hope you’ll agree with me – as you’re heading out the door – that you’re a poseur.

I dare say, that’s not what has been done here. Quite the converse. And people like Professor Slezkine, no matter what his personal biases or motivations are, would be fairly amused at the way you’ve selectively cited and attempted to represent his material here.

Perfect.

I cite Slezkine’s book. You cite his hypothetical state of mind were he ever to grace us with his presence. If you were George W. Bush, I’m sure you could look into Slezkine’s eyes and tell us what was in his soul.

Pincher Martin on April 18, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Stalin was a sovietist

He was a committed Marxist-Leninist, not a true nationalist

North Korea is more of a rabidy racist and fascist nationalist movement than a internationalist Marxist-Leninist state

You can hardly find a portrait of Marx there anymore
They even took out references to Marxist-Leninism in their constitution

Putin is a Russian nationalist, but no Hitler
That analogy doesn’t hold water

TexasJew on April 18, 2014 at 11:04 AM

The authoritarianism is very real. It’s the freedom which is a facade. The Communist Party still controls China today, including the markets, which it gives the semblance of freedom without giving any real freedom. The wealthy are even made honorary Communists.

Yeah, but China today isn’t China in 1966.

When? When we’re both dead?

Could be. But they’re doomed nevertheless, given that Communism is an unworkable a rebours fantasy.

North Korea is the crappiest little place on earth and the leadership there is still going strong. The North Koreans have even added nuclear weapons and long range missiles to their arsenal in the last decade.

No one really has zeroed in on NoKo the way the US and the rest of the West did the Soviet Union, either, so it’s not a very apt comparison.

And, um, why was it exactly that they tried to “liberalize politically” anyway? I was alive and aware in the 80s and I don’t recall mass demonstrations in Russian streets calling for an overthrow of the Soviet regime.

You don’t recall Yeltsin standing on the tanks?

Glasnost began as an commie elite-led effort, but it quickly spun out of their control.

Pincher Martin on April 17, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Yes, I remember Yeltsin, fairly late in the game as I said. Prior to 1989, his rebellion consisted of resigning. Which still doesn’t answer the question: why did the “commie elite” go with the glasnost idea in the first place? It wasn’t exactly popular demand.

ddrintn on April 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Frankly, the revisionist history and ignorance is startling.

Anyone who has actually read not only the history, but actual documents from tsarist Russia (or previous periods) can establish several facts. Jews in the region have been alternately treated to both the anti-Semitic and nationalist whimsical impulses of rulers in the region. That predates the Tsars, going back the events such as the Chmielnicki pogroms. Perhaps even the Khazar Kingdom.

To argue that Jews were in prominent positions and therefore antisemitism played no role, or was not in the character of a particular ruler, or actions were purely the result of nationalistic impulses is to argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Stalin was clearly a paranoid psychopath and one of the most murderous dictators in history. He was also a nationalist. But that does not mean he was also not concurrently an anti-Semite. He was, going back to his days in the seminary.

Now with regard to the actual matter at hand. To state unequivocally that antisemitism is not a factor here with extremist Russian nationalists is plain silly. Especially given the history and the group who is purported to be the authors. But were they the really the authors of this document? Again, conceivable given their views but the demonstrable proof is not yet available.

Conclusively, however, the fact that young pro-Russian supporters were seen handing out these documents should trouble everyone. In fact, a general return to a Soviet era mindset should do the same. That, I believe most Americans can agree, is not a regime who was friendly or good for any of us. It is a dangerous provocation which appeals to the lowest common denominators in our society. ANd we should wipe it our in its infancy.

Marcus Traianus on April 18, 2014 at 8:39 AM

What, eloquence and reasoning rather than digital nut punches?

Yeah, what Marcus said.

V7_Sport on April 18, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Send in ManBearPig…

vlad martel on April 18, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Joseph Stalin transformed these failures into a political victory by blaming them upon Ukrainian nationalists and their foreign supporters. He continued requisitions in Ukraine in the full knowledge that he was starving millions of human beings, and crushed the new Ukrainian intelligentsia. More than three million people were starved in Soviet Ukraine. The consequence was a new Soviet order of intimidation, where Europe was presented only as a threat. Stalin claimed, absurdly but effectively, that Ukrainians were deliberately starving themselves on orders from Warsaw. Later, Soviet propaganda maintained that anyone who mentioned the famine must be an agent of Nazi Germany. Thus began the politics of fascism and anti-fascism, where Moscow was the defender of all that was good, and its critics were fascists. This very effective rhetorical pose did not preclude an actual Soviet alliance with the actual Nazis in 1939. Given today’s return of Russian propaganda to anti-fascism, this is an important point to remember: the whole grand moral Manichaeism was meant to serve the state, and as such did not limit it in any way. The embrace of anti-fascism as a strategy is quite different from opposing actual fascists.

People who criticize only the Ukrainian Right often fail to notice two very important things. The first is that the revolution in Ukraine came from the left. Its enemy was an authoritarian kleptocrat, and its central program was social justice and the rule of law. It was initiated by a journalist of Afghan background, its first two mortal casualties were an Armenian and a Belarusian, and it was supported by the Muslim Crimean Tatar community as well as many Ukrainian Jews. A Jewish Red Army veteran was among those killed in the sniper massacre. Multiple IDF veterans returned from Israel to Ukraine to fight for freedom.

The Maidan functioned in two languages simultaneously, Ukrainian and Russian, because Kyiv is a bilingual city, Ukraine is a bilingual country and Ukrainians are bilingual people. Indeed, the motor of the revolution was the Russian-speaking middle class of Kyiv. The current government is unselfconsciously multiethnic and multilingual. Ukraine is a cosmopolitan place where considerations of language and ethnicity count for less then we think. In fact, Ukraine is now the site of the largest and most important free media in the Russian language, since all important media in Ukraine appear in Russian, and since freedom of speech prevails. Putin’s idea of defending Russian speakers in Ukraine is absurd on many levels, but one of them is this: people can say what they like in Russian in Ukraine, but they cannot do so in Russia itself.

This is the second thing that goes unnoticed: the authoritarian far Right in Russia is infinitely more dangerous than the authoritarian far Right in Ukraine. It is in power, for one thing. It has no meaningful rivals, for another. It does not have to accommodate itself to international expectations, for a third. And it is now pursuing a foreign policy that is based openly upon the ethnicization of the world. It does not matter who an individual is according to law or his own preferences: the fact that he speaks Russian makes him a Volksgenosse requiring Russian protection, which is to say invasion. The Russian parliament granted Putin the authority to invade the entirety of Ukraine and to transform its social and political structure, which is an extraordinarily radical goal. It also sent a missive to the Polish foreign ministry proposing a partition of Ukraine. On popular Russian television, Jews are blamed for the Holocaust; in the major newspaper Izvestiia, Hitler is rehabilitated as a reasonable statesman responding to unreasonable western pressure. The pro-war demonstrations supporting the invasion of Ukraine are composed of people who wear monochrome uniforms and march in formation. The Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine involves generating ethnic violence, not suppressing it. The man who raised the Russian flag in Donetsk was a member of a neo-Nazi party.

All of this is consistent with the fundamental ideological premise of Eurasia. Whereas European integration begins from the premise that National Socialism and Stalinism were negative examples, Eurasian integration begins from the more jaded and postmodern premise that history is a sort of grab bag of useful ideas. Whereas European integration presumes liberal democracy, Eurasian ideology explicitly rejects it. The main Eurasian ideologist, Alexander Dugin, who once called for a fascism “as red as our blood”, receives more attention now than ever before. His three basic political ideas – the need to colonize Ukraine; the decadence of the European Union; and the desirability of an alternative Eurasian project from Lisbon to Vladivostok – are now all officially enunciated, in less wild forms than his to be sure, as Russian foreign policy. President Putin presents Russia today as an encircled homeland, not of the revolution as the communists used to say, but of the counter-revolution. He portrays Russia is a special civilization which must be defended at all costs, even though it generates power in Europe and the world through its rather generic collection of reactionary mantras and its accidental possession of hydrocarbons.

More than anything else, what unites the Russian leadership with the European far Right is a certain basic dishonesty, a lie so fundamental and self-delusive that it has the potential to destroy an entire peaceful order. Even as Russian leaders pour scorn on a Europe they present as a gay fleshpot, Russia’s elite is dependent upon the European Union at every conceivable level. Without European predictability, law and culture, Russians would have nowhere to launder their money, establish their front companies, send their children to school, or spend their vacations. Europe is both the basis of the Russian system and its safety valve. Likewise, the average Heinz-Christian Strache (FPÖ in Austria) or Marine Le Pen (Front National in France) voter takes for granted countless elements of peace and prosperity that were achieved as a result of European integration. The archetypical example is the possibility, on 25 May, to use free and fair democratic elections to the European parliament to vote for people who claim to oppose the existence of the European parliament.

History Lessons: Europe and Ukraine, Past and Future

Resist We Much on April 19, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3