15:11
25.1.2014
Чому українські спецпризначенці "Беркут" є одною з найбільших перепон на шлях до реформ - пояснює видання "Форейн Полісі" у матеріалі "Міліція : ворог держави номер 1".
Всі дії поліції лише розпалюють протести ще більше... Суспільство вимагає реформи правоохоронних органів.
Всі дії поліції лише розпалюють протести ще більше... Суспільство вимагає реформи правоохоронних органів.
15:02
25.1.2014
Аронльд Шварценегер звернувся до українців.
14:53
25.1.2014
"Народ на львовских баррикадах(!) задумался организовать там кофейню(!!) с нормальным, а не гадким растворимым кофе. Львов - это состояние души. =))", - пише російський журналіст.
14:52
25.1.2014
Дослідник Андреас Умланд задається питанням, чи є насильство в Україні плодом одночасно і президентства Януковича і проекту Путіна, чи Путін дестабілізував би Україну і без Януковича. Іншими словами : Чи мало би місце натхненне Кремлем насильство у Києві і за президента Тимошенко?
A small exercise in elementary social science methodology:
EXPLANANDUM: What is to be explained?
Late and post-Soviet Ukraine developed peacefully for 25 years - an unusual phenomenon, in the late and post-Soviet context. Why has this period ended, and why now?
A PRELIMINARY DELIBERATION
Some would argue that violence was ("stochastically") bound to happen, in Ukraine, sooner or later, as post-Soviet societies are prone to produce violent conflicts. However, that leaves unexplained why violence was avoided for such a relatively long period. For instance, during the last 21 years, Russia managed to have a small civil war in Moscow in 1993, the first Chechen war starting 1994, the second Chechen war starting 1999, and the Russian-Georgian war of 2008 (perhaps, one could include, in this count, more violent conflicts with Russian participation before and after 1993). Presumably, Ukraine should have had, at least, one small violent conflict, during that period. Thus, there are grounds for discarding the salience of the "Post-Soviet Violence Hypothesis" for the case of post-Soviet Ukraine.
EXPLANANTIA: Which explanations are there for the violence happening today?
Hypothesis 1: Yanukovych & Co. in power (The "Banda Theory").
Hypothesis 2: Putin's 2015 Eurasian Union project (The "Russian Empire Theory").
Hypothesis 3: Both factors, in conjunction, i.e. as a result of combinatorial causation (The "Banda + Russia Theory").
SOME SPECULATIVE INFERENCES
As Yanukovych was twice prime-minister before and has been president for almost 4 years before the escalation, hypotheses 2 and 3 appear more plausible than hypothesis 1 (or not?).
Given that this conclusion is valid, the most intriguing question is whether
(a) both conditions, i.e. Putin's project & Yanukovych in power (The "Banda + Russia Theory"), were necessary, or whether
(b) Putin's project was sufficient by itself (The "Russian Empire Theory").
In other words: Would there also have been a Kremlin-inspired violent escalation of Ukrainian domestic conflicts, for instance, under a Tymoshenko presidency?
Or are there more hypotheses? (Please, no CIA, EU, USA, Rothshild or similar "theories"!)
Opinions welcome (preferably, analytical rather than emotional)!
A small exercise in elementary social science methodology:
EXPLANANDUM: What is to be explained?
Late and post-Soviet Ukraine developed peacefully for 25 years - an unusual phenomenon, in the late and post-Soviet context. Why has this period ended, and why now?
A PRELIMINARY DELIBERATION
Some would argue that violence was ("stochastically") bound to happen, in Ukraine, sooner or later, as post-Soviet societies are prone to produce violent conflicts. However, that leaves unexplained why violence was avoided for such a relatively long period. For instance, during the last 21 years, Russia managed to have a small civil war in Moscow in 1993, the first Chechen war starting 1994, the second Chechen war starting 1999, and the Russian-Georgian war of 2008 (perhaps, one could include, in this count, more violent conflicts with Russian participation before and after 1993). Presumably, Ukraine should have had, at least, one small violent conflict, during that period. Thus, there are grounds for discarding the salience of the "Post-Soviet Violence Hypothesis" for the case of post-Soviet Ukraine.
EXPLANANTIA: Which explanations are there for the violence happening today?
Hypothesis 1: Yanukovych & Co. in power (The "Banda Theory").
Hypothesis 2: Putin's 2015 Eurasian Union project (The "Russian Empire Theory").
Hypothesis 3: Both factors, in conjunction, i.e. as a result of combinatorial causation (The "Banda + Russia Theory").
SOME SPECULATIVE INFERENCES
As Yanukovych was twice prime-minister before and has been president for almost 4 years before the escalation, hypotheses 2 and 3 appear more plausible than hypothesis 1 (or not?).
Given that this conclusion is valid, the most intriguing question is whether
(a) both conditions, i.e. Putin's project & Yanukovych in power (The "Banda + Russia Theory"), were necessary, or whether
(b) Putin's project was sufficient by itself (The "Russian Empire Theory").
In other words: Would there also have been a Kremlin-inspired violent escalation of Ukrainian domestic conflicts, for instance, under a Tymoshenko presidency?
Or are there more hypotheses? (Please, no CIA, EU, USA, Rothshild or similar "theories"!)
Opinions welcome (preferably, analytical rather than emotional)!