May Russian Orthodox church split due to Crimea? (moved from main TAW forum)

[Thekla]

And I'm not receiving my news from the Western media. I go directly to the source - Ukrainian and Russian history books, primary documents, and knowledge of current events from both Ukrainian and Russian media and from direct accounts from people who live there. I would ask that you not call it "the" Ukraine, as that term implies that it is just the borderland of Russia. The correct term is simply "Ukraine".

Then perhaps you might be able to clarify something: according to my uninformed reading of the constitution of Ukraine, but also media analysis (the Spectator and several other western sources) and legal analysts, the parliament did not adhere to Ukraine's constitutional requirements for the impeachment of a president (and in fact, ignoring the other requirements, by vote alone was 9 or 10 shy of the required 75%). Is this the case ?

I have also read that for Crimea to be transferred (1954) as other than an administrative territory (ie to become part of Ukrainian territory) required a vote; as no vote was held, the transfer does not legally confer territorial rights over Crimea to Ukraine. Again, is this the case ?

 

[Melethiel]

Then perhaps you might be able to clarify something: according to my uninformed reading of the constitution of Ukraine, but also media analysis (the Spectator and several other western sources) and legal analysts, the parliament did not adhere to Ukraine's constitutional requirements for the impeachment of a president (and in fact, ignoring the other requirements, by vote alone was 9 or 10 shy of the required 75%). Is this the case ?

I have also read that for Crimea to be transferred (1954) as other than an administrative territory (ie to become part of Ukrainian territory) required a vote; as no vote was held, the transfer does not legally confer territorial rights over Crimea to Ukraine. Again, is this the case ?

No, the impeachment procedures were not fully followed. The mechanism was started, however the people had by then had enough. What took place was a coup similar to what happened in Egypt (but I don't see people yelling about that). The president then fled the country. The Parliament at that time didn't actually depose him, but voted to strip him of his powers as he had abandoned his people (after killing many of them). He is still technically president (albeit with no power) until the elections are held in May

I am honestly not sure what the details of the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 were.

 

[rusmeister]

And I'm not receiving my news from the Western media. I go directly to the source - Ukrainian and Russian history books, primary documents, and knowledge of current events from both Ukrainian and Russian media and from direct accounts from people who live there. I would ask that you not call it "the" Ukraine, as that term implies that it is just the borderland of Russia. The correct term is simply "Ukraine".

I speak the language of my ancestors, who called it, much more correctly, "the Ukraine", being more aware of the historical connections between Russians, Byelorussians and Ukrainians. I'm not going to change my usage due to politically correct trends but only due to solid philosophical reasons, which will always be founded in history and tradition. Obviously my views disagree with yours, and I wouldn't want any nastiness to arise over disagreement, all the more during Lent. I have tried to say that I think you have a lot of things right, but that the description is incomplete and takes no account of the Russians who have lived for generations and centuries in those areas, and the mutual ties that bind them, and are not so simply severed by a declaration of national boundaries.

 

[rusmeister]

First of all, the name of the country is Ukraine, not the Ukraine. The Ukraine implies that the country is the borderland of southern Russia, not a nation in its own right.

That said, the Ireland comparison is actually a pretty good one. Ireland, from the time of Strongbow and Henry II, was slowly devoured by a predatory English state, despite the fact that during the previous millennium it had been a center of Christian culture. Over that time, things got pretty complex: the original English settlers strongly resisted the Reformation and thus the Old English strongly applied with the Irish Catholics against the Tudor and subsequent regimes; the Scottish Presbyterians who moved into Ulster were eventually seen as Irish themselves due to perceptions in America that eventually divided the country.

The Irish situation is enormously complex. So is the Ukrainian one. None of that justifies a Russian annexation of Crimea, and none of it justifies the continued dominance of Moscow over the Orthodox church in Ukraine and over the Ecumenical Patriarch.

I feel like the main thing I said gets lost in the quick reading of my words, which is that what I see as the principal problem for most of us is the temptation of hubris, of thinking we know more than we actually do, of thinking ourselves global geopolitical specialists. I do not support the annexation, but I do speak against the Western and especially American assumption of Americans being able to know what's best for countries far from their shores.

And I am not sure you understand the interrelations of the Orthodox Church when you speak of "the continued dominance of Moscow over the Orthodox church in Ukraine and over the Ecumenical Patriarch", or even WHICH Orthodox Church we are talking about.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

So there area no interests by the USA? The US violated article 3 of the budapest memorandum by manipulating the politics of the area. And tne Ukraine reneged on their end of the treaty of 1954 which gifted Crimea to them. But dont tell that to tne warmonger states of the west. The same hippicrites that align with muslim terrorists every chance they get like they did to steal kosovo and persecute the serb natives.

I think that the Russian move in Crimea, is more against Germany and its powerful industry, than against USA interests in the area. As I said before USA is more interested in controlling China's Oil sources than Europe's. Russia is more interested in controlling any path through which Germany would be able to build any duct, than controlling muslim terrorists, or worrying about Greece deficits.

Again, the most pertinent strategy would be to allow Germany to get rearmed so Russia may find a match in Europe. though we don't want any Hitler ahead of Germany's government, We don't either want any Putin ahead of Russia's government. What is the real agenda of Putin? Money, pure Money.

I don't like USA supremacy either.

 

[buzuxi02]

Well ok. I view this more of a political issue than an ecclesial one. This is why I say the ukranians are already fragmented church-wise. They already have options in place for alternative churches.

I asked a RC priest once whether ukranians in america prefer a uniate or Orthodox church. He told me they don't care as long as its ukranian. I think that's accurate here and there.

Anything that drives people away from the west is a good thing in my opinion. Christianity is relegated to the european ghetto. A ghetto which becomes less and less Christian by the passing day. The west isnt christian its a sodomite state.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

It is Russia which is violating the borders of Ukraine, Not the West. About sodomite west, I think that you have to differenciate that there is a agenda from liberals who are against Christianity.

You also have to take into acount that not all western Christians are in favor of Gay marriages, and that the current crisis of the west is hilariously smal compared to the millions of abortions performed in the East under Communist regime, By tha Way even when in México we also had a social revolution, here the Chrsitians never allowed government to take control of Religión. while in Russia the patriarchs became asociates of the comunist regime after Stalin regime. You most wonder how it happened that russians allowed that destruction of their churches, while in Mexico we didn't.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Returning to the main subject of this thread, would Ukrainian allow Moscow patriarchate to stay in control of Ukrainian orthodox?

 

[buzuxi02]

It is Russia which is violating the borders of Ukraine, Not the West. About sodomite west, I think that you have to differenciate that there is a agenda from liberals who are against Christianity.

You also have to take into acount that not all western Christians are in favor of Gay marriages, and that the current crisis of the west is hilariously smal compared to the millions of abortions performed in the East under Communist regime, By tha Way even when in México we also had a social revolution, here the Chrsitians never allowed government to take control of Religión. while in Russia the patriarchs became asociates of the comunist regime after Stalin regime. You most wonder how it happened that russians allowed that destruction of their churches, while in Mexico we didn't.

How so? The Crimea was gifted under an agreement in 1954 which specifically mentioned the treaty of 1654. That treaty is based on the integration of ukraine with the russian empire.
Secondly there was a vote by the people unlike how the west stole kosovo and allowed the destruction of the christian temples.

There is no difference between the christian people and the sodomite states that they have
created. Christianity in the west needs to move out of its european ghetto where the christian "yes men" have voted in there moral hedonist attitudes.

 

[Thekla]

No, the impeachment procedures were not fully followed. The mechanism was started, however the people had by then had enough. What took place was a coup similar to what happened in Egypt (but I don't see people yelling about that). The president then fled the country. The Parliament at that time didn't actually depose him, but voted to strip him of his powers as he had abandoned his people (after killing many of them). He is still technically president (albeit with no power) until the elections are held in May

Thank-you !
I am surprised that there has been little if any mention of an official investigation into the origin of the snipers; certainly in all of the EU or even OECD countries there must be an organization who would expect or push for such an investigation. Had the Kiev honored the constitution of Ukraine, following the 300 votes in favor, an investigation is to be launched into alleged illegal activities of the president -- so there certainly is precisely the constitutional precedent for an investigation which could have included just this issue. (The vote for impeachment is to follow the announcement of the findings of the investigation, and the vote to impeach must be 75% of the parliament).

So it was a coup - and this essentially disenfranchised every Ukranian, especially those areas which overwhelmingly voted for Yanukovitch, largely in Crimea, the south and east. This is not how democracy is done. (Can you imagine the same happening in Washington ? And what indeed would happen if protesters threw Molotov cocktails at the police ?)

Re: Egypt, the acceptance - if indeed it was similar - does not justify abrogating the rule of law. (And interestingly, no-one seems much concerned about the death, torture, and detaining of how many protestors following Bahrain's "Arab Spring" ...)

Essentially, this fiasco has precisely given Putin standing: through the request of pres. Yanukovitch, the request of the Crimean parliament (who had their president unilaterally removed by Kiev in iirc 1994 and replaced by a pm of Kiev's choosing, essentially trampling democracy for Crimeans as they do now as punishment for turning towards Russia), the legal permission for Russia to have up to 25,000 troops in Crimea, and the clear (though minority) increasing power of anti-Russian and fascist elements (reminiscent of Croatia, 1991).

There were rumors of further intelligence available to Russia which influenced Putin; the tape has just been released today, and includes Tymoschenko (though popular, another oligarch who engaged in illegal behavior - it seems Yanukovitch is not alone) stating a rather repugnant "solution" for the Russian population of Ukraine. (If verified, I wonder when Hilary Clinton et. al. will get around to calling her "Hitler" ... they certainly never got around to using the term for Tudman, though there were clear indications he shared similar sentiments ...)

This situation is all so tragic; I do wish the US and the EU would stand for law and order and democracy. Had they (and had the NED and Nuland truly been driven by such honorable motives, they would), certainly the mess Ukraine is in and the actions of Russia would likely not be as they are now.

I am honestly not sure what the details of the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 were.

That's okay ... I'll just keep searching as can ...

 

[Thekla]

It is Russia which is violating the borders of Ukraine, Not the West. About sodomite west, I think that you have to differenciate that there is a agenda from liberals who are against Christianity.

You also have to take into acount that not all western Christians are in favor of Gay marriages, and that the current crisis of the west is hilariously smal compared to the millions of abortions performed in the East under Communist regime, By tha Way even when in México we also had a social revolution, here the Chrsitians never allowed government to take control of Religión. while in Russia the patriarchs became asociates of the comunist regime after Stalin regime. You most wonder how it happened that russians allowed that destruction of their churches, while in Mexico we didn't.

RE: your first point, as Yanukovitch's impeachment was illegal per the constitution of Ukraine. He is still legally the president, which explains why Russia will not talk with the (illegal) government in Kiev. His request for Russian assistance may indeed be legal, meaning that Russia did not violate Ukraine's borders but acted quite conservatively thus far (remaining within the troop limit allowed per treaty in Crimea).

 

[Melethiel]

Thank-you !
I am surprised that there has been little if any mention of an official investigation into the origin of the snipers; certainly in all of the EU or even OECD countries there must be an organization who would expect or push for such an investigation. Had the Kiev honored the constitution of Ukraine, following the 300 votes in favor, an investigation is to be launched into alleged illegal activities of the president -- so there certainly is precisely the constitutional precedent for an investigation which could have included just this issue. (The vote for impeachment is to follow the announcement of the findings of the investigation, and the vote to impeach must be 75% of the parliament).

So it was a coup - and this essentially disenfranchised every Ukranian, especially those areas which overwhelmingly voted for Yanukovitch, largely in Crimea, the south and east. This is not how democracy is done. (Can you imagine the same happening in Washington ? And what indeed would happen if protesters threw Molotov cocktails at the police ?)

I don't think it's true to say it disenfranchised every Ukrainian. While the protesters were largely from the west of the country, there were protests going on in eastern cities as well. While it is unfortunate that the letter of the law was not followed, you have to understand that the agreement between the opposition and Yanukovich was signed after the sniper attacks and many civilian deaths. They just didn't trust the law any more.

Essentially, this fiasco has precisely given Putin standing: through the request of pres. Yanukovitch, the request of the Crimean parliament (who had their president unilaterally removed by Kiev in iirc 1994 and replaced by a pm of Kiev's choosing, essentially trampling democracy for Crimeans as they do now as punishment for turning towards Russia), the legal permission for Russia to have up to 25,000 troops in Crimea, and the clear (though minority) increasing power of anti-Russian and fascist elements (reminiscent of Croatia, 1991).

I do think the validity of the Crimean referendum is somewhat suspect, as they didn't allow any international observers onto the peninsula, and the Crimean Tatars specifically boycotted the vote knowing that it would be falsified anyway. Interesting how the Ukrainians are being painted as fascists, when it is the new Russian government that has removed Ukrainian and Tatar signs from government buildings and seized Tatar land, despite all their rhetoric about the rights of minorities and three official languages in Crimea. Also, punishment for turning toward Russia? It is in Russian Crimea that it is now illegal to speak of a Ukrainian Crimea at all.

There were rumors of further intelligence available to Russia which influenced Putin; the tape has just been released today, and includes Tymoschenko (though popular, another oligarch who engaged in illegal behavior - it seems Yanukovitch is not alone) stating a rather repugnant "solution" for the Russian population of Ukraine. (If verified, I wonder when Hilary Clinton et. al. will get around to calling her "Hitler" ... they certainly never got around to using the term for Tudman, though there were clear indications he shared similar sentiments ...)

I'll believe it when it's verified as true, and not more Russian propaganda. All I know is that most Ukrainians I know didn't hold any particular ill will toward Russians previously as long as they were left alone, but that's certainly changed now.

 

[Thekla]

I don't think it's true to say it disenfranchised every Ukrainian. While the protesters were largely from the west of the country, there were protests going on in eastern cities as well. While it is unfortunate that the letter of the law was not followed, you have to understand that the agreement between the opposition and Yanukovich was signed after the sniper attacks and many civilian deaths. They just didn't trust the law any more.

It did, as no general vote was allowed nor the constitution respected. Ie, the rule of democracy was summarily dismissed; that's effectively disenfranchisement.

As per the sniper attacks, there's not yet been an investigation. The pm of Estonia (no great friend of Russia) reiterated that there were credible reports that the police and protestors were shot by the same snipers. (Iirc, one of the buildings that the shots were said to have originated from were occupied. ie not under govt. control.)

One can hardly trust the law if the law is not followed, but put to the winds opportunistically.

I do think the validity of the Crimean referendum is somewhat suspect, as they didn't allow any international observers onto the peninsula, and the Crimean Tatars specifically boycotted the vote knowing that it would be falsified anyway. Interesting how the Ukrainians are being painted as fascists, when it is the new Russian government that has removed Ukrainian and Tatar signs from government buildings and seized Tatar land, despite all their rhetoric about the rights of minorities and three official languages in Crimea. Also, punishment for turning toward Russia? It is in Russian Crimea that it is now illegal to speak of a Ukrainian Crimea at all.

The reaction of Kiev to Crimea in 1991 - 1995 is a matter of public record.
And anti-democratic (there seems to be a pattern in this).

I would hope Crimea would make a statement on protection of ethnic minorities within its borders, and act on it. Otoh, the western media has largely been reporting swaths of falsehoods - both by statement and by absence. I do hope to see more careful reporting on this issue (Tatar rights, etc.), but am hesitant to trust the sources that have been exposed as sloppy.

On the percentages, they are within points of the referendum of 1991 (according to UNHCR) - ie they are historically in line with longstanding sentiment in Crimea. Ie they are not

I'll believe it when it's verified as true, and not more Russian propaganda. All I know is that most Ukrainians I know didn't hold any particular ill will toward Russians previously as long as they were left alone, but that's certainly changed now.

I, too will wait until verification. Tymshenko has publically admitted that the recording is of her, though she disavowed making one/some of the statements - which is hardly a plausible denial. (you can see the report on zerohedge)

As for changing sentiments, not a few viable sources have indeed verified the fascist elements in Ukraine (and again, eerily similar behavior to Croatia 1991).

It seems to me that ordinary Ukranians and Russians are ill served by the EU/US posturing. But then, I hardly think the interests of ordinary Ukranians and Russians were on their "radar".

 

[Trying_to_be_Orthodox]

@GratiaCorpusChristi

at the barrel of a Russian gun - ugly Russian barrel of gun in Crimea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsUXtRmZsK4
0 bombs, 0 shots, 0 killed (expect 2 guys shooted by sniper as on maidan with same style)

can compare with peaceful and kind NATO in Kosovo, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eldAkajnw

and would like to know what is going in brain of people like press secretar of Nato when she is posting in twitter "check .jpg" on date of starting bombing of Kosovo?


Ukrainian allow Moscow patriarchate to stay in control of Ukrainian - which Ukrainians? Nazi and Non-Orthodox will continue to do as they did before - pressing.
Захват бандеровцами Православного храма - YouTube

Just by the way, latest news:
That is all with Maidan SuperStar Sahko Bilii. One of his heroes doings:
Музичко розмовляє з прокурором. Cаша Белый. - YouTube
He was killed last night.
Revolution eats her "children".

 

[Basil the Great]

Personally, considering how the United States and it's "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq without cause, I think the U.S. and Western Europe has a weak case in it's criticism of Russia in this matter.

 

[rusmeister]

I think what I said to GCC bears repeating to all: I feel like the main thing I said gets lost in the quick reading of my words, which is that what I see as the principal problem for most of us is the temptation of hubris, of thinking we know more than we actually do, of thinking ourselves global geopolitical specialists. I do not support the annexation, but I do speak against the Western and especially American assumption of Americans being able to know what's best for countries far from their shores.

If we started talking about Russian interests in the US or Canada and their territories you might get what talking about US interests in the Ukraine sounds like.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

 

[New Legacy]

So there area no interests by the USA? The US violated article 3 of the budapest memorandum by manipulating the politics of the area. And tne Ukraine reneged on their end of the treaty of 1954 which gifted Crimea to them. But dont tell that to tne warmonger states of the west. The same hippicrites that align with muslim terrorists every chance they get like they did to steal kosovo and persecute the serb natives.

How did Ukraine do that exactly?

Those serbs were committing genocide, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc

Kosovo was not annexed by the USA, last I checked.

 

[New Legacy]

How so? The Crimea was gifted under an agreement in 1954 which specifically mentioned the treaty of 1654. That treaty is based on the integration of ukraine with the russian empire.
Secondly there was a vote by the people unlike how the west stole kosovo and allowed the destruction of the christian temples.

There is no difference between the christian people and the sodomite states that they have
created. Christianity in the west needs to move out of its european ghetto where the christian "yes men" have voted in there moral hedonist attitudes.

There was a vote, it was illegal, meaningless, and clearly a fraud. I don't think dictators get votes that high in their rigged election, which clearly goes against the population make up.

 

[New Legacy]

RE: your first point, as Yanukovitch's impeachment was illegal per the constitution of Ukraine. He is still legally the president, which explains why Russia will not talk with the (illegal) government in Kiev. His request for Russian assistance may indeed be legal, meaning that Russia did not violate Ukraine's borders but acted quite conservatively thus far (remaining within the troop limit allowed per treaty in Crimea).

Does that include all the guys he does not have wearing Russian uniforms?

Being the president does not give him authorization to give Crimea to Russia.