Frankly, IRA were a lot closer to freedom fighters than any other well known contemporary organization. In fact, successful negotiations might be the only objective distinction between the two (clarification/update: between freedom fighters and terrorists).
Aug 21, 2023·edited Aug 21, 2023Liked by Eastsplaining
I just mentioned one key non-PR distinction in the comment you replied to. Of course you may not agree with this proposition (I'm just a guy in the web), but what's the point of writing a reply without actually replying?
I'm basically negating the distinction you made. Among other things, it would make, among others the members of the Warsaw Uprising terrorists, as they did not have a successful negotiation at the end.
Please stop this. He obviously meant the ability to negotiate. The Polish Home Army was certainly capable of negotiating, just as the Donbas gangs were (and still are) unable because of their own chaotic structure.
This makes these definitions even more divorced from common sense. The structure of Al-Qaeda gave bin Laden enough power to make it possible, in principle, to negotiate with them. Does that make them freedom fighters rather than terrorists?
They were succesfully negotiated with since they fullfilled the terms of surrender. And you know it.
Don't make new lies to support your old ones, it's futile.
Also, if you are pretending to insist on meanings of specific terms in one comment and trying to sneak in "succesfully negotiated with = won" in another, it does throw some light on the extent of your good faith in this discussion. (Since we are talking about negotiating in good faith already).
I'm sorry, but "fulfilled the term of the surrender" is honestly quite outside any concept of "successful negotiations" I have. And I'm not discussing in bad faith or lying here - in fact I quite resent the suggestions, basically from my perspective you've suddenly turned extremely hostile without sensible cause in this discussion. You can see in another thread here that I am actually open to changing my mind when a sensible division (i.e. presence of popular support = freedom fighters, lack of thereof = terrorists) was proposed, so I'd appreciate if you dropped the pointless hostilities.
I'm not sneaking anything in. In my understanding, yes, successful negotiation assumes that each side got some things they wanted - so "won" has a place here. If you understand "successful negotiation" to include the option "one side was unilaterally forced to accept the conditions of the other side" then I can understand how you can disagree with my assesment. On the other hand, I can't accept that option in my understanding of "successful negotiation".
The difference here is that IRA or ETA separatists were the real thing (with considerable support from local populations), while Russian paramilitaries in Donbas were merely cosplaying as separatists. When someone's stated goals and real goals are two completely different things, negotiations rarely make sense.
Not really. Russia uses terrorist tactics in Ukraine, but you can't call Russian forces "freedom fighters". Russia is free. It uses terror to remove freedom from Ukraine.
Some Chechen freedom fighters were at the same time terrorists, though (Basayev).
You cannot call Russia a terrorist, either, however. You can say it's a country commiting genocide, using terror tactics, and a lot of other things, however if a country can be a terrorist, then it basically makes the "freedom fighter/terrorist" distinction meaningless, because otherwise you'd need to have the posibility of a country being a freedom fighter.
So I agree that Russians are not freedom fighters, but they are not terrorists either, they are a country, a government and a military using terror tactics, which is a seperate category to terrorists.
Not quite sure what you're answering here, the formating went to hell. Also, I can't for the life of me find where you think I wanted to call a country a freedom fighter? In fact I'm specifically saying it would be an absurd idea, which in turn is a point supporting my argument.
Now this is a distinction which seems to make far more sense - assesing the freedom fighter/terrorist issue based on popular support would make for a congruent distinction.
I remember how under the blogs fell "Minsk 2" as an excuse for Putin. I then took a peek at the wiki to see what was decided there. And it immediately caught my eye: "To withdraw illegal armed groups and military equipment as well as fighters and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine." And I answered them that not with me such numbers, because the "other side" never ever took the agreement seriously. But they didn't understand.
To me the Minsk agreements are like the First Partition of Poland - something imposed on a weak country struggling to defend itself. I don't care if they COULD be implemented or not. They were imposed on Ukraine under duress. To hell with the Minsk agreements.
What do you find the most interesting / suprising / (un)edifying? I need this as an author for guidance. I am contemplating a separate post on Girkinology.
Specifically, I have not known how to begin to understand the Minsk agreements. You have provided a way in to looking at these.
I may not be alone in recognizing that, in not being from that part of the world, I lack basic knowledge that is necessary for apprehending what is going on. You have been at pains to point out this problem.
Of course, in knowing so little, I or others might not have means to evaluate the insights you provide.
A previous post, regarding prison culture in Russia, touched me. I poked around some, and saw you had gone farther than a piece in -I think- The Atlantic in calling a spade a spade. Even apart from wanting to help Ukraine, such understanding is important for Americans in wanting to help ourselves, as Russian prison culture found its way into our national fabric, through Brighton Beach.
I'm a friendly DJ taking floor requests, so if you want to read about anything more general ("why Ukraine is even a thing?"), or more specific ("exactly when the truth about Girkin was declasiffied?"), just let me know.
Correction: "imagines himself “honuring of Minsk”" methinks should be "imagines “honouring Minsk”".
I don't think Mate is too lazy to check wiki, but rather it's his business model to avoid checking wiki. Nobody knows how Grayzone, the "news outlet" he runs with Max Blumenthal, is financed exactly, and these guys received some prizes from Syria and Russia.
You make it sound like there were no separatists in 2014, only Girkin-led Russian forces. But in fact, there were a lot of Ukrainian/Donbass-born separatists there, and they played important roles in DNR & LNR. To name a few: Pavel Gubarev, Alexander Zakharchenko, Denis Pushilin, Vladimir Makovych, Alexander Ananchenko, Valery Bolotov, Aleksey Mozgovoy, Mikhail Tolstykh, Dmitry Trapeznikov.
This was discussed with you already several times:
1, nobody denies Girkin led this "separatist movement",
2, which consisted of Russian army soldiers,
3, and none of the names you mentioned was separatist in any meaningful way before Girkin arrived with Russian soldiers,
4, maybe except Gubarev, who was a literal neo-nazi
Only reason I can think of why are you returning to same and same, is you are counting on new readers who did not notice tat your points have been debuked
You seem to be so emotionally invested in the topic that you simply ignore facts you don't like and go off-topic.
For example, already before Girkin arrived in Donbass, Zakharchenko was the head of Donetsk OPLOT. And in spring 2014, members of that organisation occupied the city council and demanded an independence referendum.
As for Gubarev, even if was a literal neo-nazi, what does it change? We are discussing if he was a separatist, and yes, he was.
And if it's true that there had been no pro-Russian separatists before 2014, how come so many political parties in Ukraine, many of which existed before 2014, have been banned? Even if they didn't clearly state separatism as their goal before 2014 (as it was not realistic then anyway), they were very clearly pro-Russian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Banned_political_parties_in_Ukraine
It would be impossible to actually seize the region with "just 52 warriors". Girkin relied on cooperation of local criminals. The "banned parties" were criminal organizations registered as political parties for the legal perks, but not really active in democratic procedures (winning seats, ruling towns, etc). Pushilin started his carreer in a pyramid Ponzi scheme, called MMM. They registered themselves as a political party of the same name, but never played any serious role in actual politics - until the Girkin invasion, of course.
Once seizing power, these criminal organizations started a classical turf war. Zakharchenko did not enjoy his "authority" for very long time. Neither did Girkin, who had to escape the monstrocity he created.
In the Russian world it is pretty common for crooks and scumbags to call themselves something more respectable, to be able to claim victimhood when they're getting punished. Russian or pro-Russian propagandists who parade on the front with weapons (War Gonzo) or deliver information about the UAF to Russia (Gonzalo Lira) call themselves "journalists" to be able to claim that "Ukraine is persecuting journalists" when something happens to them (getting shot or getting arrested).
Maybe you don't know, but it's traitorous Ukrainian government who cooperated with russian terrorists "52 warriors", who let them in a territory of Ukraine via Donetsk airport service backdoor. There is a footage on Youtube showing terrorists were coming to Ukraine
"Negotiating with terrorists is not just morally wrong, it's futile"
That's debatable. Negotiations with, say, IRA or ETA certainly made much more sense than with Russia or Russian-sponsored "separatists".
Frankly, IRA were a lot closer to freedom fighters than any other well known contemporary organization. In fact, successful negotiations might be the only objective distinction between the two (clarification/update: between freedom fighters and terrorists).
Freedom fighters or terrorists, this is a PR distinction, basically.
I just mentioned one key non-PR distinction in the comment you replied to. Of course you may not agree with this proposition (I'm just a guy in the web), but what's the point of writing a reply without actually replying?
I'm basically negating the distinction you made. Among other things, it would make, among others the members of the Warsaw Uprising terrorists, as they did not have a successful negotiation at the end.
Please stop this. He obviously meant the ability to negotiate. The Polish Home Army was certainly capable of negotiating, just as the Donbas gangs were (and still are) unable because of their own chaotic structure.
This makes these definitions even more divorced from common sense. The structure of Al-Qaeda gave bin Laden enough power to make it possible, in principle, to negotiate with them. Does that make them freedom fighters rather than terrorists?
They were succesfully negotiated with since they fullfilled the terms of surrender. And you know it.
Don't make new lies to support your old ones, it's futile.
Also, if you are pretending to insist on meanings of specific terms in one comment and trying to sneak in "succesfully negotiated with = won" in another, it does throw some light on the extent of your good faith in this discussion. (Since we are talking about negotiating in good faith already).
I'm sorry, but "fulfilled the term of the surrender" is honestly quite outside any concept of "successful negotiations" I have. And I'm not discussing in bad faith or lying here - in fact I quite resent the suggestions, basically from my perspective you've suddenly turned extremely hostile without sensible cause in this discussion. You can see in another thread here that I am actually open to changing my mind when a sensible division (i.e. presence of popular support = freedom fighters, lack of thereof = terrorists) was proposed, so I'd appreciate if you dropped the pointless hostilities.
I'm not sneaking anything in. In my understanding, yes, successful negotiation assumes that each side got some things they wanted - so "won" has a place here. If you understand "successful negotiation" to include the option "one side was unilaterally forced to accept the conditions of the other side" then I can understand how you can disagree with my assesment. On the other hand, I can't accept that option in my understanding of "successful negotiation".
The difference here is that IRA or ETA separatists were the real thing (with considerable support from local populations), while Russian paramilitaries in Donbas were merely cosplaying as separatists. When someone's stated goals and real goals are two completely different things, negotiations rarely make sense.
Yes, in this case this was Russia performing terrorist actions, rather than any terrorists.
Not really. Russia uses terrorist tactics in Ukraine, but you can't call Russian forces "freedom fighters". Russia is free. It uses terror to remove freedom from Ukraine.
Some Chechen freedom fighters were at the same time terrorists, though (Basayev).
"Not really" to what exactly?
To "Freedom fighters or terrorists, this is a PR distinction, basically"
You cannot call Russia a terrorist, either, however. You can say it's a country commiting genocide, using terror tactics, and a lot of other things, however if a country can be a terrorist, then it basically makes the "freedom fighter/terrorist" distinction meaningless, because otherwise you'd need to have the posibility of a country being a freedom fighter.
So I agree that Russians are not freedom fighters, but they are not terrorists either, they are a country, a government and a military using terror tactics, which is a seperate category to terrorists.
Their military are, by and large, terrorists.
Their military is using terror tactics, certainly, and their soliders are by and large, war criminals.
But they are not terrorists, not unless we use the term as an insult, without a specific meaning.
Horrible non sequitur. No, you don't need a possibility to call country "freedom fighter".
Not quite sure what you're answering here, the formating went to hell. Also, I can't for the life of me find where you think I wanted to call a country a freedom fighter? In fact I'm specifically saying it would be an absurd idea, which in turn is a point supporting my argument.
Negotiating with IRA made sense because they had popular support. What definitely doesn't make sense is negotiating with terrorists who don't.
Now this is a distinction which seems to make far more sense - assesing the freedom fighter/terrorist issue based on popular support would make for a congruent distinction.
Ah, but by that measure Hamas aren't terrorists.
How would you say Hamas is different from, say, the IRA?
IRA didn't terrorise their own people to the extent Hamas does
Ok, I lack the detailed knowledge to be able to compare the two on this issue, so I can't answer this comparison at this point.
I remember how under the blogs fell "Minsk 2" as an excuse for Putin. I then took a peek at the wiki to see what was decided there. And it immediately caught my eye: "To withdraw illegal armed groups and military equipment as well as fighters and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine." And I answered them that not with me such numbers, because the "other side" never ever took the agreement seriously. But they didn't understand.
A minor point. I guess 'not with me such numbers' is not an expression in English. Maybe ' not with me such tricks '?
I think a similar idiomatic expression is "you gotta be kidding me" or maybe even closer, more imperative, "don't make me laugh".
To me the Minsk agreements are like the First Partition of Poland - something imposed on a weak country struggling to defend itself. I don't care if they COULD be implemented or not. They were imposed on Ukraine under duress. To hell with the Minsk agreements.
I did manage, this time, to obtain a Google translation -- of the post, in Russian, praising Strelkov -- and found it to be singularly unedifying.
Much to learn, here....
What do you find the most interesting / suprising / (un)edifying? I need this as an author for guidance. I am contemplating a separate post on Girkinology.
I still have more to let learn from the piece.
Specifically, I have not known how to begin to understand the Minsk agreements. You have provided a way in to looking at these.
I may not be alone in recognizing that, in not being from that part of the world, I lack basic knowledge that is necessary for apprehending what is going on. You have been at pains to point out this problem.
Of course, in knowing so little, I or others might not have means to evaluate the insights you provide.
A previous post, regarding prison culture in Russia, touched me. I poked around some, and saw you had gone farther than a piece in -I think- The Atlantic in calling a spade a spade. Even apart from wanting to help Ukraine, such understanding is important for Americans in wanting to help ourselves, as Russian prison culture found its way into our national fabric, through Brighton Beach.
Keep eastsplaining to us, please!!
I'm a friendly DJ taking floor requests, so if you want to read about anything more general ("why Ukraine is even a thing?"), or more specific ("exactly when the truth about Girkin was declasiffied?"), just let me know.
thank you
Correction: "imagines himself “honuring of Minsk”" methinks should be "imagines “honouring Minsk”".
I don't think Mate is too lazy to check wiki, but rather it's his business model to avoid checking wiki. Nobody knows how Grayzone, the "news outlet" he runs with Max Blumenthal, is financed exactly, and these guys received some prizes from Syria and Russia.
Guys like Blumenthal and Mate are IMO precisely those to whom Milosz addressed his famous poem "You who wronged".
You make it sound like there were no separatists in 2014, only Girkin-led Russian forces. But in fact, there were a lot of Ukrainian/Donbass-born separatists there, and they played important roles in DNR & LNR. To name a few: Pavel Gubarev, Alexander Zakharchenko, Denis Pushilin, Vladimir Makovych, Alexander Ananchenko, Valery Bolotov, Aleksey Mozgovoy, Mikhail Tolstykh, Dmitry Trapeznikov.
This was discussed with you already several times:
1, nobody denies Girkin led this "separatist movement",
2, which consisted of Russian army soldiers,
3, and none of the names you mentioned was separatist in any meaningful way before Girkin arrived with Russian soldiers,
4, maybe except Gubarev, who was a literal neo-nazi
Only reason I can think of why are you returning to same and same, is you are counting on new readers who did not notice tat your points have been debuked
You seem to be so emotionally invested in the topic that you simply ignore facts you don't like and go off-topic.
For example, already before Girkin arrived in Donbass, Zakharchenko was the head of Donetsk OPLOT. And in spring 2014, members of that organisation occupied the city council and demanded an independence referendum.
As for Gubarev, even if was a literal neo-nazi, what does it change? We are discussing if he was a separatist, and yes, he was.
And if it's true that there had been no pro-Russian separatists before 2014, how come so many political parties in Ukraine, many of which existed before 2014, have been banned? Even if they didn't clearly state separatism as their goal before 2014 (as it was not realistic then anyway), they were very clearly pro-Russian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Banned_political_parties_in_Ukraine
It would be impossible to actually seize the region with "just 52 warriors". Girkin relied on cooperation of local criminals. The "banned parties" were criminal organizations registered as political parties for the legal perks, but not really active in democratic procedures (winning seats, ruling towns, etc). Pushilin started his carreer in a pyramid Ponzi scheme, called MMM. They registered themselves as a political party of the same name, but never played any serious role in actual politics - until the Girkin invasion, of course.
Once seizing power, these criminal organizations started a classical turf war. Zakharchenko did not enjoy his "authority" for very long time. Neither did Girkin, who had to escape the monstrocity he created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_(Ponzi_scheme_company)
In the Russian world it is pretty common for crooks and scumbags to call themselves something more respectable, to be able to claim victimhood when they're getting punished. Russian or pro-Russian propagandists who parade on the front with weapons (War Gonzo) or deliver information about the UAF to Russia (Gonzalo Lira) call themselves "journalists" to be able to claim that "Ukraine is persecuting journalists" when something happens to them (getting shot or getting arrested).
Maybe you don't know, but it's traitorous Ukrainian government who cooperated with russian terrorists "52 warriors", who let them in a territory of Ukraine via Donetsk airport service backdoor. There is a footage on Youtube showing terrorists were coming to Ukraine