Ukraine-in-a-thread [Archive] - Page 4

Husar

03-06-2014, 22:21

Anyway when a bully stands up to a bully beating up someone weaker, which one is right?

Certainly not the weakling going by typical US-rhetoric. The weakling is at fault himself for not having worked hard enough to stay on top and defend himself. If two bullies are fighting, I like to not choose sides, but since this forum is full of people biased one way, I decided to argue the other way instead of joining the circlejerk.

Putin caught Ukraine during a weak moment and we still do not know what he wants. He made a clever move and noone is willing to strongly oppose him over it. How is that different from sending drones and killer commandos into sovereign nations to kill people there? Oh yeah, Putin did it all without shedding any Ukrainian blood.

I can fully understand the Ukrainians and Crimeans who do not want to join Russia, but maybe they will have to move, not the first time this happens. If the US were to start a war over this, noone would be better off for it.

Simple because the USA has real elections and Russia has sham ones.

How is a country better if the people actually support their leaders in breaking international law and state-sanctioned murder?

Fisherking

03-06-2014, 22:23

I heard the same thing about US sponsored Kosovo. Then the fact the US propped up Saddam and all those other tyrants and dictators across the world from South America to Africa, to Middle East and Asia.

The problem is that the US look like big hypocrites and that is a realist position, they are also in a position similar to Russia in the past where they can not act.

Crimea like Kosovo for the Serbs/Russians cannot be won.

What can I say. Kosovo was the most wrong-headed think I ever saw.

I said at the time it was like illegals taking Texas and the UN attacking the US because they didn’t want to let it go.

Nice to bring up what all the past leaders did too. Blame the people for the actions of various politicians. They do change.

Remember Cromwell? Remember the Irish famine or the Seapoy Rebellion? Remember Colonialism, the Boer War? You have a long history of hypocrisy. We learned form you. Pot-Kettle-Black.

Different leaders with different goals and policies. The danger is Russia grabs Crimea or other parts of Ukraine, its going to be hell to stop them ( the US) from going into Syria on some humanitarian pretext.

This may be a weak willed administration but it is vindictive and ruthless all the same. You give them an excuse for a war now and Congress will be a bunch of lapdogs for them. We’ll all have WWIII at this rate.

Husar

03-06-2014, 22:26

How would Russia lose by shutting down the Ukrainian pipeline?

They've done it all by themselves before and the only ones who suffered were a lot of Eastern Europeans who begged them to turn it on again because they were freezing in their homes.

gaelic cowboy

03-06-2014, 22:30

Sarmatian

03-06-2014, 22:34

Simple because the USA has real elections and Russia has sham ones.

Are you kidding me? The USA is, for all intents and purposes, a presidential dictatorship. There are few countries in the world (not counting countries like North Korea) where there's so much power concentrated in the hands of one person. Not to mention that they have basically a single party system, where you vote for one or the other faction. You want an isolationist USA, like GC mentions often? Sorry, no such option exists. You get to vote for faction A that specializes in invading countries in Europe and Middle East or the faction B which specializes in Asia and Africa? South America is not negotiable.

I agree with the second part of your sentence, though.

gaelic cowboy

03-06-2014, 22:38

How is a country better if the people actually support their leaders in breaking international law and state-sanctioned murder?

how is that what im talking about.

Russia is a gangster state run by a paranoid former kgb.

USA is many things but your allowed to burn pictures of Obama every day if ye llike.

Beskar

03-06-2014, 22:40

At the stroke of a pen a large Russian population will leave Ukraine and basically never again will a pro moscow candidate get in.

Under a different lens, Moscow felt like they already lost to the Kiev revolution and just going for grabs to get the most of what it can get from Ukraine.

Sarmatian

03-06-2014, 22:41

Well it seems like Russia considers Crimea indispensable to her strategic interests, that is to put it mildly a massive joke.

At the stroke of a pen a large Russian population will leave Ukraine and basically never again will a pro moscow candidate get in.

Russia loses a larger influence in Ukraine proper for a naval base they already had, a naval baser they could easy replace (with oil money)

Short term Russia looks strong but Long term this is a setback for Russian attempts to influence Ukraine.

Even though I'm not an expert on naval bases (to put it mildly), there are areas particularly suitable for a base. I'm guessing there are reasons why Crimea is important in the regard.

Crimea's population is actually less than 4% of the Ukraine's population so it certainly doesn't change the overall ratio much. Pro-Russian parties will either form the government or be the strongest opposition party. Key regions in Ukraine will still be dominated by pro-Russian parties.

I believe Moscow decided Ukraine isn't a stable partner and is very susceptible to western meddling, so it decided that taking Crimea and returning to the tug of war is the safer option.

gaelic cowboy

03-06-2014, 22:45

delete

Beskar

03-06-2014, 22:47

dont gimme that :daisy: yer talking about Putin here he is a bloody dictator in all but name. (he is also the only one invading Ukraine)

I think you misread slightly, Sarmatian was agreeing that the elections in Russia were a sham. He was simply saying the USA doesn't really have 'real' ones too.

gaelic cowboy

03-06-2014, 22:48

didnt tymeshenko lose by 4% in a divided pro western camp? that sounds to me like a lock on elections for them

gaelic cowboy

03-06-2014, 22:49

delete

Sarmatian

03-06-2014, 22:53

didnt tymeshenko lose by 4% in a divided pro western camp? that sounds to me like a lock on elections for them

If we accept that all voting is done on ethnic lines, then they lose 2/3 of 4% as the rest are Ukrainians and Tatars, so overall it's 2.66%. Enough to lose you an election but not a huge game changer like you mentioned. It certainly doesn't mean that "never again will a pro moscow candidate get in".

rvg

03-06-2014, 23:13

Because purposefully inducing famine and drought is actually encouraged?

The price of freedom. There's won't be any famine though, this isn't Serbia or any other 3rd world country. No worries.

Brenus

03-06-2014, 23:14

“This can also be subject to change.” What I like is your deep knowledge of international affairs. Now, you will have to go to research on the reason why the Israelis launched the 6 days war: Clue: the Syrian wanted the control the Euphrates River in building a dam and controlled the springs of the Golan. So it is a REASON to go to war, and you, de facto, give Putin reason of intervention (pre-emptive strikes ring a bell?)

“At the stroke of a pen a large Russian population will leave Ukraine and basically never again will a pro moscow candidate get in.” Ethnic Cleansing? So Putin is right, he is actually protecting the Russian Minority… And I thought it was a fight for democracy and freedom…:creep:

"this isn't Serbia" And Geography is not your strongest point (see Danube, Voivodina).

rvg

03-06-2014, 23:16

Okay, so Serbs were wronged in Kosovo and Ukrainians will be wronged in Crimea. The adequate US response should include annexing Ontario from Canada. Clearly, this should make the world a better place.

gaelic cowboy

03-06-2014, 23:18

“At the stroke of a pen a large Russian population will leave Ukraine and basically never again will a pro moscow candidate get in.” Ethnic Cleansing? So Putin is right, he is actually protecting the Russian Minority… And I thought it was a fight for democracy and freedom…:creep:

EH?? what are you on about.

Once Crimea vote on secession it means a large chunck of the russian population in the Ulraine live in russia and not ukraine anymore.

So basically yer readin too much into it

Ironside

03-06-2014, 23:27

Are you kidding me? The USA is, for all intents and purposes, a presidential dictatorship. There are few countries in the world (not counting countries like North Korea) where there's so much power concentrated in the hands of one person. Not to mention that they have basically a single party system, where you vote for one or the other faction. You want an isolationist USA, like GC mentions often? Sorry, no such option exists. You get to vote for faction A that specializes in invading countries in Europe and Middle East or the faction B which specializes in Asia and Africa? South America is not negotiable.

I agree with the second part of your sentence, though.

The difference is quite easy to tell. When was Putin predicted to win the latest presidential election? When Medvedev became president.

When was Obama predicted to win the 2008 election? Chosen because re-elections got better prediction power. I don't remember exactly when the polling started to get close to the results, but say a week ahead of election day or something like that. Predicting it 4 years ahead? Pretty much impossible.

The US isn't the finest example of good elections, but they do have real ones.

Brenus

03-06-2014, 23:33

“The danger is Russia grabs Crimea or other parts of Ukraine, its going to be hell to stop them ( the US) from going into Syria on some humanitarian pretext.” That was the danger the US and Allies took in taking Kosovo from Serbia, against the treaty they signed in Paris.
It was possible only because Russia was too weak to react.
Well, tables turned and now we have the situation in Ukraine. The ones who encouraged the Ukrainian to take power immediately should have learned history. They remind me the German Intelligence Committee organising the return of Lenin in Russia during the WW1: Plan worked very well, a bit too well. Why didn’t respect the Polish Plan? Transition government, elections, ejection of the former president, national government then austerity measures imposed by IMF and EU that would have made Greece looked like a paradise, job done.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-07-2014, 00:03

Are you kidding me? The USA is, for all intents and purposes, a presidential dictatorship. There are few countries in the world (not counting countries like North Korea) where there's so much power concentrated in the hands of one person. Not to mention that they have basically a single party system, where you vote for one or the other faction. You want an isolationist USA, like GC mentions often? Sorry, no such option exists. You get to vote for faction A that specializes in invading countries in Europe and Middle East or the faction B which specializes in Asia and Africa? South America is not negotiable.

I agree with the second part of your sentence, though.

Ultimately though, people vote. The fact that they vote affects the candidates the parties put forward.

If Obama were an elected Dictator, Congress would have to pass his budget - it doesn't.

HoreTore

03-07-2014, 00:05

Presidential dictatorship?

Yeah, he really did push through that healthcare reform like a proper dictator.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-07-2014, 02:29

If you give infantry a reason to attack with Bayonets, they'll do it. :yes:

That's because there's an NCO behind them and the enemy in front.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-07-2014, 02:33

Once the great powers sit down and talk, it will be alright. After all, the Sudetanland...er, sorry, the Crimea, is a small price to pay for peace in our time.

Sarmatian

03-07-2014, 07:46

The price of freedom. There's won't be any famine though, this isn't Serbia or any other 3rd world country. No worries.

Oh, thank you for the explanation, Mr. First World American! ~:rolleyes:

Brenus

03-07-2014, 08:40

"So basically yer readin too much into it" I read what was was written.

Myth

03-07-2014, 09:19

The price of freedom. There's won't be any famine though, this isn't Serbia or any other 3rd world country. No worries.

http://shechive.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/facepalm-pics-11.jpg

Myth

03-07-2014, 09:40

The moment I see more than two parties in the USA, and ones who are not carbon copies of each other and the moment I see someone standing up to the corporations and bankers I'd say the USA has a real election system.

Healthcare reforms - who gives a crap? The power and money are still in the same hands and that hasn't changed. Lobbyist laws are passed without fail. They forced farmers to smear the cancerogenic bovine growth hormone gel on cow udders for over a decade because it suited the interests of the pharmaceutical companies making it. It took them over a decade to reverse the law and remove this travesty. That's just one example of how un-democratic the USA is. The people are ignorant and CNN tells them how good milk with BGH is, so they are removed as a factor, and the competent organizations and the lawmakers are bought and paid for.

Where are Saddam's chemical weapons? How's that Patriot Act going for US democracy? Yeah.

I like the regular people there, and I admire that they have still managed to retain their right to bear arms (though this is systematically being attacked), but their government is far from a democracy. You can burn pictures of Obama all day long but when Monsanto comes to sue your small private farm for using their GMO seeds due to cross pollination you'll see how democratic it truly is.

Gilrandir

03-07-2014, 09:51

They only make up roughly 10% of the population, so if they are going for the 51% rule and 60% of the population are classified as 'Russians' by Ukraine census, they do not really have much chance if the 'Russian' population are unanimous in their support.
Tatars - 14%, Russians - 58%, most of the rest are Ukrainians who mostly do not feel Ukrainians and have become in most views like Russians calling themselves (together with Russians) Slavic population of the Crimea as opposed to Tatars.

Gilrandir

03-07-2014, 10:13

I will say this again here, in hopes that someone has a clearer answer than I can find.

The ruling party has a name that would tend to make you believe that they support Ukrainian unity.

It is the Party of Regions, which just merged with the Strong Ukraine Party.

The Party of Regions suffered a prodigious outflow of members. There two reasons for it.
1. Ex-members would like to dissosiate themselves from the reputation of the party which supported the corrupt and criminal ex-president and his posse.
2. Many of them had been forced to join it to keep their job or business. For example, the Chief sanitary doctor of my city admitted more than a year ago that he was offered a choice: either to join the Party of regions and keep his position or refuse to join and start looking for some other job. Most top vacancies (that were supposed to bring a side income) were sold for often immodest sums. Those who received them wanted to cash their jobs to the most extent.
Moreover, the ruling positions in the party itself were taken by people from Donetsk and Makeyevka (they are called here MakeDonean power) and most local party and administrative bodies of power belonged to MakeDoneans as well. Consequently, most regions were ruled by outsiders. The same in the Crimea which now tries to replace MakeDoneans with the locals. But the locals who are at power now can't claim to have been supported by the majority at the last election to the Crimean parliament: the Party of the current Prime-minister Aksyonov "Russian Unity" had 4% of votes.

Gilrandir

03-07-2014, 10:30

Key regions in Ukraine will still be dominated by pro-Russian parties.

I don't know how you choose what are the key regions and what are the small rag-tag that dangles about. The last election showed an overall parity between what you call pro-Russian and (to be politically correct) non-pro-Russian parties. But my view is that pro-Russian stance in Ukraine will suffer a serious setback after what Russia did in the Crimea. Many Russian-speaking people in the south-east were disillusioned in pan-slavic brotherhood and expressed their readiness to join the army and protect the country. I hear from people who were quite pro-Russian not long ago that joining Nato could be an option.

Gilrandir

03-07-2014, 10:33

Oh, and one more thing: water. Currently Crimean agriculture functions solely because of the water coming from Ukraine via a canal.
And 100% electricity supply as well.

Gilrandir

03-07-2014, 10:43

Because purposefully inducing famine and drought is actually encouraged?

By now people in the Crimea ought to start to realize that getting more autonomy and rights incurs getting more duties as well. They want all of the taxes left in the local budget - so be ready to pay pensions, civil servants and law enforcement bodies' salaries, student scholarships. At present only 30% of local budget is financed from local sources the rest being donated from Kyiv. But the locals keep chanting "Russia! Russia!" in the streets, but insist that their salaries (paid from Kyiv in Ukrainian hryvnas too) should be paid completely and timely and are worried that it may be otherwise. You can't hunt with hunters and run with hares.

Sarmatian

03-07-2014, 11:26

You can use multi-quote to reply to multiple posts in a single one.

By now people in the Crimea ought to start to realize that getting more autonomy and rights incurs getting more duties as well. They want all of the taxes left in the local budget - so be ready to pay pensions, civil servants and law enforcement bodies' salaries, student scholarships. At present only 30% of local budget is financed from local sources the rest being donated from Kyiv. But the locals keep chanting "Russia! Russia!" in the streets, but insist that their salaries (paid from Kyiv in Ukrainian hryvnas too) should be paid completely and timely and are worried that it may be otherwise. You can't hunt with hunters and run with hares.

You obviously aren't familiar with how budgets work. When you say that they finance only 30% of their own budget, that doesn't mean they collect 100% of the taxes and fees and receive twice as much from Kiev in addition to taht. How autonomous regions work is that they send a part of taxes and other revenues to the central government, which the central government laters send back (could be less, the same or more) and keep a part to use as they see fit.

The Party of Regions suffered a prodigious outflow of members. There two reasons for it.
1. Ex-members would like to dissosiate themselves from the reputation of the party which supported the corrupt and criminal ex-president and his posse.
And many were threatened and bullied into doing so. Check the leaked phone conversation between Estonian minister and Ashton.

2. Many of them had been forced to join it to keep their job or business. For example, the Chief sanitary doctor of my city admitted more than a year ago that he was offered a choice: either to join the Party of regions and keep his position or refuse to join and start looking for some other job. Most top vacancies (that were supposed to bring a side income) were sold for often immodest sums. Those who received them wanted to cash their jobs to the most extent.

Which is a tried and true method in most eastern european kleptocracies. If you try to tell it wasn't the same under Timoshenko or Yuschenko, I might literally start laughing.

Moreover, the ruling positions in the party itself were taken by people from Donetsk and Makeyevka (they are called here MakeDonean power) and most local party and administrative bodies of power belonged to MakeDoneans as well. Consequently, most regions were ruled by outsiders. The same in the Crimea which now tries to replace MakeDoneans with the locals. But the locals who are at power now can't claim to have been supported by the majority at the last election to the Crimean parliament: the Party of the current Prime-minister Aksyonov "Russian Unity" had 4% of votes.

The problem is that under the same principle government in Kiev is also illegitimate. Either both stand down or it's the case of pot calling the kettle black.

I don't know how you choose what are the key regions and what are the small rag-tag that dangles about.

Simple, those that contribute to economy the most are the key regions. California, New York, Texas... are key regions in USA, compared to Delaware and Alabama for example, or northern Italy compared to southern...

Gilrandir

03-07-2014, 12:23

You obviously aren't familiar with how budgets work. When you say that they finance only 30% of their own budget, that doesn't mean they collect 100% of the taxes and fees and receive twice as much from Kiev in addition to taht. How autonomous regions work is that they send a part of taxes and other revenues to the central government, which the central government laters send back (could be less, the same or more) and keep a part to use as they see fit.

However the budget may work the total figure of 30% remains true. And what also remains true is that tourists (especially from Russia) will think twice before going to the Crimea this year. Some hotel owners from Yalta report numerous reservations made from Russia being canceled, at least for May and June. Let me stress once again: the majority of Crimeans thrive the whole year on what they make in three summer months.

And many were threatened and bullied into doing so. Check the leaked phone conversation between Estonian minister and Ashton.

I'm aware of that. I am far from considering it right. But I attribute it to a kind of repercussion one gets if he tries to squeeze the spring to the utmost and then it lets loose and hits anyone within the reach.

Which is a tried and true method in most eastern european kleptocracies. If you try to tell it wasn't the same under Timoshenko or Yuschenko, I might literally start laughing.
You may start. Financially, under the Orange power it was the same, but not region-wise. Even in Eastern Ukraine local administrations were chosen from among the local orangists which was changed under Yanukovych who sent MakeDoneans throughout the whole country.

The problem is that under the same principle government in Kiev is also illegitimate. Either both stand down or it's the case of pot calling the kettle black.

The summary electoral support of Yatsenyuk, Tyagnybok and Klitchko far exceeds the mentioned 4%.

Simple, those that contribute to economy the most are the key regions. California, New York, Texas... are key regions in USA, compared to Delaware and Alabama for example, or northern Italy compared to southern...
Let me repeat myself:
The last election showed an overall parity between what you call pro-Russian and (to be politically correct) non-pro-Russian parties. Plus tycoons heading local administrations in "key regions" show their readiness to cooperate with the new authorities. Tycoon allegiance works stronger in such regions than adherence to some party. People tend to respect them and are ready to trust them.

Kagemusha

03-07-2014, 15:17

rvg

03-07-2014, 15:23

I think we can argue to the end of times about which side is "right" and which "wrong". I am just happy that at least for now, it seems that this crisis is heading to negotiations rather then shooting war.:yes:

I'd rather see some sanctions beginning to materialize. If Europe lets this slide then Munich has truly taught them nothing.

Kagemusha

03-07-2014, 15:30

I'd rather see some sanctions beginning to materialize. If Europe lets this slide then Munich has truly taught them nothing.

Demonizing the opponent is basic human behavior. Sure the West can press sanctions. Those will hurt both Russia and West in the long run...And the Chinese will smirk silently at the side.
Instead of escalating the situation further. There should be free elections in Ukraine, monitored by OSCE and negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, so Russian interests will be secured in Crimea. That is the goal i am looking for. Of course it cant go that easily as all sides have to act all mighty first for some time to save face...

rvg

03-07-2014, 15:37

Demonizing the opponent is basic human behavior. Sure the West can press sanctions. Those will hurt both Russia and West in the long run...
Of course they'll hurt both sides. The point is that they'll hurt Putin more.

And the Chinese will smirk silently at the side.
I don't know about that. Maybe will see that Russia can do this stuff and get away with it and realize that they too can get away with stuff. Mongolia will be the first one to find out.

Instead of escalating the situation further. There should be free elections in Ukraine, monitored by OSCE and negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, so Russian interests will be secured in Crimea. That is the goal i am looking for. Of course it cant go that easily as all sides have to act all mighty first for some time to save face...
This isn't gonna happen. This should happen, but it's not going to. I wanna be wrong on this one, I really do, but I don't think Russia will budge.

Kagemusha

03-07-2014, 15:42

rvg

03-07-2014, 15:46

Kagemusha

03-07-2014, 15:50

Crimea is just a prelude. If Ukraine doesn't join NATO in the very near future, Putin will be back for more.

I guess we both just have to hope i am right and you are wrong. If you are right, i have a good idea which country will be next after Ukraine, as the last non NATO country among Russia´s Western neighbors, but in such case i will not be here debating that with you.

rvg

03-07-2014, 15:58

I guess we both just have to hope i am right and you are wrong. If you are right, i have a good idea which country will be next after Ukraine, as the last non NATO country among Russia´s Western neighbors, but in such case i will not be here debating that with you.

No worries, you guys can stall them long enough for help to arrive. Viipuri defense was a clear indicator of that. Last time you guys were alone, you won't be alone this time.

Pannonian

03-07-2014, 16:33

In my opinion, if the Russian goal was to overrun entire Ukraine and place puppet government in place. Or at least also secure Eastern Ukraine, they would have already done it. They had the momentum this week when there was civilian uproar at Kharkov and Donetsk, but the "mystery armed men" did not appear. So to me it seems that their goal is to secure Crimea.

My guess is they want stability and predictability, and if that's not possible, they want a pro-Russian situation on the ground. A pro-western Ukrainian government is acceptable, as long it's been brought about by a predictable electoral process that will not change from moment to moment. What is not acceptable is a process that may unpredictably turn against Russia, as was the case here. The more the protesters spat venom at Russia, the more trouble they were stirring up for themselves. What they should have done was organise themselves to win the next election.

Fisherking

03-07-2014, 17:28

What a surprise this is: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russia-crimean-politicians-discuss-referendum

NOT

When they went in it had to be to stay.

Sarmatian

03-07-2014, 17:41

rvg

03-07-2014, 17:47

Fisherking

03-07-2014, 18:46

Ronin

03-07-2014, 18:49

Pannonian

03-07-2014, 19:04

The problem I see with international opinion is it is pretty much crazy.

The US and NATO could not really intervene or protect Ukraine at any point.

The world is just so used to the US vs. Russia that it is simply expected to do something.

If the US were to invade Mexico due to the drug war would the world see Russia as weak for not acting?

What would world opinions be should the US do something like that? Thugery! Pushing around the weak.

Am I wrong?

Yet if Russia invades a neighboring land people look for justifications. Smooth move! What ever.

Obama is a :daisy:, no doubt about it. And the US is inconsistent and a poor ally.

But how do you see Putin?

Do you think he is any better?

Why is Ukraine at fault? Because they got rid of a rotten leader?

That makes it ok for someone to invade them?

Can’t wait to see the justifications.
:inquisitive:

And just what will all the outrage achieve? Russia have troops ready, we don't. Russia have legitimacy, by asking for a reversion to the previous elected state, we don't. They have power, and they have legitimacy. We can moan about them being the evil empire, but it does bugger all in practice. We can work on eroding their advantages, so that we can end up with a situation that we're satisfied with. But talk of Munich and all that? Are you really suggesting that we should react to this by threatening all out war?

jackfruitguy69

03-07-2014, 19:14

there are other orthodox countries which are weaker than ukraine :bounce:

rvg

03-07-2014, 19:26

Xiahou

03-07-2014, 19:46

We neither have the will, nor the ability to stop whatever Russia does in the Ukraine. For us to publicly announce otherwise only makes us look more feckless and weak.

*cough*Syria*cough*cough*

Pannonian

03-07-2014, 19:47

Threatening an all out war? Not necessarily, but the EU wont even entertain the idea of serious economic sanctions. As for the whole "we're not ready" argument, I'm not buying it. You're never ready. That's normal. The aggressor generally does not wait for the defender to be ready before commencing with an aggressive plan. Just gotta bite the bullet and start doing things. Sanctions (real ones), missile defense, troop deployments, etc. Do I want war? Hell no. Are there things that warrant a serious response up to and including a military solution? Hell yeah.
The EU needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

And what on earth will these things do? Express our disapproval? Russia will just arrange things to suit them, leave when it suits them, then things will reset to the previous state, but with Russia in a better position. And the more we try to ineffectually do, the more Russia can justify doing. It's the same mentality that had the protesters demanding the fall of the Yanukovich government. They couldn't win by orthodox means, so they whine until the rules get changed and they get their win. Except they're not the only ones who can change the rules, when it's accepted that the old rules no longer apply. The fault in all this lies no so much with Russia, who are merely taking advantage of an opportunity handed to them, but the idiotic protesters and their equally idiotic backers who gave them the opportunity in the first place.

Accept this as lost and minimise the losses, rather than try to up the ante all the while. Work with Russia to give them a diplomatic victory of some kind. Then prepare like hell so we don't get caught out again. Europe is too dependent on Russian resources to risk any prolonged confrontation. What we should be doing is getting ourselves independent, and getting Russia dependent on us instead so that they need us more than we need them. That requires patience though, and is evidently something that those fools who instigated this lack.

rvg

03-07-2014, 20:00

And what on earth will these things do? Express our disapproval? Russia will just arrange things to suit them, leave when it suits them, then things will reset to the previous state, but with Russia in a better position. And the more we try to ineffectually do, the more Russia can justify doing. It's the same mentality that had the protesters demanding the fall of the Yanukovich government. They couldn't win by orthodox means, so they whine until the rules get changed and they get their win. Except they're not the only ones who can change the rules, when it's accepted that the old rules no longer apply. The fault in all this lies no so much with Russia, who are merely taking advantage of an opportunity handed to them, but the idiotic protesters and their equally idiotic backers who gave them the opportunity in the first place.
The fact that the protesters overplayed their hand does not give Putin the right to annex territory of another sovereign nation. Today it's Ukraine, I wonder who it might be tomorrow. Are you ready to trust in benevolence and good judgement of a despot? These things need to be stopped in their infancy. Paying a lot to stop them now will prevent us from having to pay a lot more to stop them later.

Accept this as lost and minimise the losses, rather than try to up the ante all the while. Work with Russia to give them a diplomatic victory of some kind. Then prepare like hell so we don't get caught out again. Europe is too dependent on Russian resources to risk any prolonged confrontation. What we should be doing is getting ourselves independent, and getting Russia dependent on us instead so that they need us more than we need them. That requires patience though, and is evidently something that those fools who instigated this lack.
If Putin is after fame and glory, he can have all the fame and glory in the world, I really don't mind. However, I think he's after fame, glory and land. And unless his ambitions run into a solid wall today, they are not likely to change tomorrow.

Brenus

03-07-2014, 20:13

"I admire that they have still managed to retain their right to bear arms " If you need to have the right to bear arms, it's because you feel frighten by the government, hardly what I call a democracy.

Pannonian

03-07-2014, 20:26

The fact that the protesters overplayed their hand does not give Putin the right to annex territory of another sovereign nation. Today it's Ukraine, I wonder who it might be tomorrow. Are you ready to trust in benevolence and good judgement of a despot? These things need to be stopped in their infancy. Paying a lot to stop them now will prevent us from having to pay a lot more to stop them later.

If Putin is after fame and glory, he can have all the fame and glory in the world, I really don't mind. However, I think he's after fame, glory and land. And unless his ambitions run into a solid wall today, they are not likely to change tomorrow.

And what is the price you want to pay to stop Putin now? Where do you expect to stop Putin? Crimea has a referendum in less than 10 days, and doubtless it will give Russia the option to incorporate it into Russia if they so wish. What kind of response do you want? The democratic vote must be annulled, and sanctions and the threat of military action will apply until they void this vote? Russia has a lockdown on legitimacy based on the illegitimacy of the present government and the democratic facade they can present in Crimea. I doubt if many EU countries, dependent as they are on Russian energy, would care to defend a clearly illegitimate argument. Even if Russia may have the worse argument in the bigger picture.

rvg

03-07-2014, 20:36

And what is the price you want to pay to stop Putin now?
Economic sanctions. Putin can pour money at his problems, but he can't pour oil and gas at his problem. It's time to start phasing out natural gas purchases from Russia and start looking for another seller even if it means having to pay more. Maybe halt the shipment of two chopper carriers that are supposed to be built for Russia by France. Start tightening the screws until Putin gets a very clear understanding that aggression will cost him more than he would gain otherwise.

Where do you expect to stop Putin? Crimea has a referendum in less than 10 days, and doubtless it will give Russia the option to incorporate it into Russia if they so wish. What kind of response do you want? The democratic vote must be annulled, and sanctions and the threat of military action will apply until they void this vote? Russia has a lockdown on legitimacy based on the illegitimacy of the present government and the democratic facade they can present in Crimea. I doubt if many EU countries, dependent as they are on Russian energy, would care to defend a clearly illegitimate argument. Even if Russia may have the worse argument in the bigger picture.
Legitimacy-schmegitimacy. Ask yourself if you are okay with Putin gobbling up chunks of Europe. If you feel just as safe today as you did yesterday, then by all means stay the course. If this development is troubling for you, then we need to do something. Not talk about doing something, but actually do it. Hitler too had a referendum about taking Memel from the Lithuanians. And won. And everyone else said it was okay. Democratic.

Fisherking

03-07-2014, 20:45

And just what will all the outrage achieve? Russia have troops ready, we don't. Russia have legitimacy, by asking for a reversion to the previous elected state, we don't. They have power, and they have legitimacy. We can moan about them being the evil empire, but it does bugger all in practice. We can work on eroding their advantages, so that we can end up with a situation that we're satisfied with. But talk of Munich and all that? Are you really suggesting that we should react to this by threatening all out war?

It is not about the west sending troops or starting a war. Even though UK, US, & Russia are pledged to protect the integrity of Ukraine…

It is not legitimate to invade the guy next door. If you call invasion and grabbing chunks of a country protection, don’t ever protect anything. Ok.

This talk of legitimate and illegitimate is bull. Ukraine was far less violent and much less upheaval than Egypt or any of the Arab countries. Who put troops on the ground there to take control?

Countries aren’t evil. Some of their leaders may be corrupt and some may be thugs. Evil? Every side think they are the good guys. Judgment call.

I just don’t think Putin should get a pass on this.

Sure, he has a better image than most. Not too well deserved however.

He is corrupt, that is how he made his billions. He is volatile, and ruthless.

He has helped his country, apparently. At least they think so.

But strong-arming and invasion are not acceptable. Even it you don’t happen to like the other guy.

Now, we don’t get all the news but I have not even heard the Russians say that armed thugs were wandering the streets shooting ethnic Russians or that there had been any of it. Certainly not wide spread.

We neither have the will, nor the ability to stop whatever Russia does in the Ukraine. For us to publicly announce otherwise only makes us look more feckless and weak.

*cough*Syria*cough*cough*

Obama would have jumped on Syria it he had been allowed.

Pannonian

03-07-2014, 20:51

Economic sanctions. Putin can pour money at his problems, but he can't pour oil and gas at his problem. It's time to start phasing out natural gas purchases from Russia and start looking for another seller even if it means having to pay more. Maybe halt the shipment of two chopper carriers that are supposed to be built for Russia by France. Start tightening the screws until Putin gets a very clear understanding that aggression will cost him more than he would gain otherwise.

Legitimacy-schmegitimacy. Ask yourself if you are okay with Putin gobbling up chunks of Europe. If you feel just as safe today as you did yesterday, then by all means stay the course. If this develop is troubling for you, then we need to do something. Not talk about doing something, but actually do it. Hitler too had a referendum about taking Memel from the Lithuanians. And won. And everyone else said it was okay. Democratic.

I understand that Puerto Rico is currently going through a process of requesting US statehood. Now I suspect that that is rather more genuine than what is about to take place in Crimea, but both will give the requested state the option of incorporating it into their territory.

What would you suggest we do, if on the 17th or whenever the results come in, it turns out that Crimea have voted to join Russia. When that happens, Russia can withdraw troops, and that option will still be there. Would our argument, which our economic and military threats will hinge on, be that the democratic vote does not count, because Russia are expansionist? When Russia have already withdrawn troops before anything we do takes effect?

Note the date of the referendum, 16th this month, less than 10 days away. Russia will get their new legitimacy, without any need for overt action, before anything we can do becomes effective. What will your argument be for sanctions?

rvg

03-07-2014, 21:02

I understand that Puerto Rico is currently going through a process of requesting US statehood. Now I suspect that that is rather more genuine than what is about to take place in Crimea, but both will give the requested state the option of incorporating it into their territory.

What would you suggest we do, if on the 17th or whenever the results come in, it turns out that Crimea have voted to join Russia. When that happens, Russia can withdraw troops, and that option will still be there. Would our argument, which our economic and military threats will hinge on, be that the democratic vote does not count, because Russia are expansionist? When Russia have already withdrawn troops before anything we do takes effect?

Note the date of the referendum, 16th this month, less than 10 days away. Russia will get their new legitimacy, without any need for overt action, before anything we can do becomes effective. What will your argument be for sanctions?

I think you are getting to focused on the de jure technicalities. Can we wait 10 days? Sure we can and we will. If Putin backs down (and he can easily do that by telling his subordinates what kind poll results he wishes to see), then he has learned his lesson. I just don't think he's gonna back down. Then we have to step up. Vote or no vote, at the end of the day we can't afford to just limit our response to harsh words. At least I don't think we can. Believe me, I'm no warmonger. This is serious stuff though. Sanctions need to come first, they need to bite and they need to hurt. And no, I'm not looking forward to any of this: last thing I'd wanna do under normal circumstances is mess with the economy amidst a weak economic recovery. These aren't normal circumstances. I hope to God that I'm wrong, but imho this is just the beginning.

Pannonian

03-07-2014, 21:14

I think you are getting to focused on the de jure technicalities. Can we wait 10 days? Sure we can and we will. If Putin backs down (and he can easily do that by telling his subordinates what kind poll results he wishes to see), then he has learned his lesson. I just don't think he's gonna back down. Then we have to step up. Vote or no vote, at the end of the day we can't afford to just limit our response to harsh words. At least I don't think can. Believe me, I'm no warmonger. This is serious stuff though. Sanctions need to come first, they need to bite and they need to hurt. And no, I'm not looking forward to any of this: last thing I'd wanna do under normal circumstances is mess with the economy amidst a weak economic recovery. These aren't normal circumstances. I hope to God that I'm wrong, but imho this is just the beginning.

De jure technicalities matter when we live in a liberal democracy and we have a crap case to begin with, and our peoples are fed up with going to war on crap cases that everyone can see the weaknesses in. Doubly so when it scuttles our economy. Russia will almost certainly get their annexation option in 10 days time. Then if they're smart, and I don't doubt they are from events so far, they will withdraw any kind of presence, but leave the option open. There will be no expansionism just yet, but the option is democratically supported. And if we do anything, it will be against the lack of Russian presence, and against the democratic will of the Crimean people. You expect action against that background to last?

In addition to Puerto Rico's vote to join the US, part of the UK will be having a referendum next year on whether or not to become independent. Do you care to threaten the Scots with economic sanctions and military action if their vote goes the wrong way?

rvg

03-07-2014, 21:21

De jure technicalities matter when we live in a liberal democracy and we have a crap case to begin with, and our peoples are fed up with going to war on crap cases that everyone can see the weaknesses in. Doubly so when it scuttles our economy. Russia will almost certainly get their annexation option in 10 days time. Then if they're smart, and I don't doubt they are from events so far, they will withdraw any kind of presence, but leave the option open. There will be no expansionism just yet, but the option is democratically supported.
If this is what happens, then of course we don't lift a finger. I just have very serious doubts about it happening this way. I wish, really I do.

In addition to Puerto Rico's vote to join the US, part of the UK will be having a referendum next year on whether or not to become independent. Do you care to threaten the Scots with economic sanctions and military action if their vote goes the wrong way?
Scottish vote is not done under the auspices of a nuclear dictatorship, nor is it a case of one country stealing land from another country. I do hope that Scots stay vote to keep the status quo, but beyond that I do not feel in any way threatened by the vote results.

Husar

03-07-2014, 23:53

The fact that the protesters overplayed their hand does not give Putin the right to annex territory of another sovereign nation. Today it's Ukraine, I wonder who it might be tomorrow. Are you ready to trust in benevolence and good judgement of a despot?

Putin is as democratically elected as the new government of Ukraine. He's the elected president of Russia and not some unelected dictator.

I just don’t think Putin should get a pass on this.

Sure, he has a better image than most. Not too well deserved however.

He is corrupt, that is how he made his billions. He is volatile, and ruthless.

He has helped his country, apparently. At least they think so.

How much of that does not apply to various US congress members and presidents?

But strong-arming and invasion are not acceptable. Even it you don’t happen to like the other guy.

Once upon a time there was a country that didn't like that other guy. That other guy's name was Saddam...

rvg

03-08-2014, 00:01

Putin is as democratically elected as the new government of Ukraine. He's the elected president of Russia and not some unelected dictator.
Thank you, captain obvious.

Once upon a time there was a country that didn't like that other guy. That other guy's name was Saddam...
That's why there's an extra star on the US flag and Iraqi senators are causing all kinds of ruckus in DC. Oh wait... we don't do that anymore.
Nice try though.

rvg

03-08-2014, 01:16

I'm curious to know if Mr Myth has any interesting news regarding what his compatriot saw in Crimea.

Husar

03-08-2014, 01:56

Thank you, captain obvious.

Indeed, it was obviously necessary given the wrong names you called him.

That's why there's an extra star on the US flag and Iraqi senators are causing all kinds of ruckus in DC. Oh wait... we don't do that anymore.
Nice try though.

So you're saying there was no strong-arming and no invasion? :inquisitive:

rvg

03-08-2014, 02:05

Indeed, it was obviously necessary given the wrong names you called him.
You know who else is an elected president? Robert Mugabe. Ain't he a charmer?

So you're saying there was no strong-arming and no invasion? :inquisitive:
What I'm saying was that there was no annexation. Gotta say that I'm surprised that I have to explain this.

Husar

03-08-2014, 02:20

You know who else is an elected president? Robert Mugabe. Ain't he a charmer?

Is Obama a charmer?

What I'm saying was that there was no annexation. Gotta say that I'm surprised that I have to explain this.

Neither Ukraine nor Crimea have been annexed so far and noone was talking about annexation anyway in the segment you quoted.

rvg

03-08-2014, 02:28

Is Obama a charmer?
Of course he is. The man's a friggin JFK. He will be gone 3 years though, and that's great, good riddance. But not to acknowledge his charisma would be silly.

Neither Ukraine nor Crimea have been annexed so far and noone was talking about annexation anyway in the segment you quoted.
Please tell me the address of the rock under which you're living. I'm seriously considering moving there.

Husar

03-08-2014, 04:58

Please tell me the address of the rock under which you're living. I'm seriously considering moving there.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/annexation

2. To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city.

This has already happened? Has Russia officially announced that Crimea is now Russian territory?
Haven't heard that yet from under my rock.

Fragony

03-08-2014, 05:40

If you aren't afraid of those who have power over you you are an idiot imho.

rvg

03-08-2014, 05:50

Haven't heard that yet from under my rock.

That's why I'd wanna move there. Away from the troubles of this world.

Brenus

03-08-2014, 10:06

“The democratic vote must be annulled,” Err, that was done before, and not in Putin’s Russia but in Europe, where all countries which vote “no” to the European Referendum were batter to death until they change their vote or the electors’ decision by-passed by Parliament (i.e. France).
You have referendums and referendums. Like you have recognised International Borders and others not so much recognised International Borders, NATO Rescuing Missions and Land(s) Grabbing Russian Aggression.

“Maybe halt the shipment of two chopper carriers that are supposed to be built for Russia by France” And who will pay the workers your decision put on out of job? French tax payers. Who will provide the natural gaz to Europe: USA, so money does there: Smart from USA, not that much for EU. We pay for US failed policy.

“Hitler too had a referendum about taking Memel from the Lithuanians. And won.” EU and USA had a referendum in Kosovo. You can fill what follows…

“but imho this is just the beginning.” Ahhh, the good “domino effect”, dear to the US heart…

“What I'm saying was that there was no annexation.” Sorry, can’t stop laughing… News: Putting Military bases in every country you attack is NOT an annexation, and Hitler didn’t annex the Sudetes, or USSR Latvia, Lithuania, and others. France and UK never annex their Colonial Empires.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-08-2014, 11:00

Interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-26491349

FSB?

This woman appears to be travelling Ukraine to tell people how great the Russians are.

ICantSpellDawg

03-08-2014, 13:58

I want to see the EU expand and weaken under the weight.

I would support the independence of Crimea if it didn't come at the end of a Russian gun with annexation expected.

The EU and NATO need black sea military capabilities for hard power projection to strengthen soft power intentions.

The US needs to get creative with sanctions which target individuals in the Kremlin.

Ukraine has a tough job, but calling the revolutionary government illegal is pointless. By that standard, all modern Republics are illegal as most were born by throwing away what was considered legal government at the time. The fact is that no government has a "right" to govern, they must just create a web of enough BS that the people stop questioning their monopoly on power and force. People saw through the chirade of Yanuvcovitch and exposed the mandate of heaven as a fraud. It doesn't mean our own governments have any more of a right to govern us just because of legalese, but the chirade is stronger. All men are born to govern themselves Individually. As there is no system that has been to tried effect this, we settle for BS power authorities of all stripes, but no government anywhere is legitimate.

Gilrandir

03-08-2014, 14:14

Interestingly enough, a few days ago, Putin unambiguously said that Russia isn't interested in annexing Crimea and still hasn't officially changed his position. Could it be that this is another blank check he's safe-keeping in case he needs it later, like parliament approval of use of armed forces...
Putin has also unambiguously said there are no Russian troops in the Crimea and those guys with machine-guns sitting in armored personnel carriers are Crimean self-defense forces. When he was asked about apparently Russian outfit of those he said that they could have bought it in some stores. I imagine that shopping:
- What would you like to have, sir?
- Oh, let me see... A couple of APCs, three military trucks, two dozen uniforms, a couple of hundred machine guns and bullets aplenty. You know, my wife likes those toned goggles, do you have any discount on them?
- I'm afriad not. Where would you like to have the stuff delivered?
As for negotiation stage we have reached, I think we haven't. As Putin states he can't have any negotiations with an illegitimate government of Ukraine. He does not recognize any obligations (including Budapest memorandum) as, according to him, "We did not have any agreements with THIS Ukraine. It is a new country and all older obligations are void." At the same time he thinks Ukraine must honor all treaties (not only economic but the Kharkiv treaty as well which allows Russia to keep Sevastopol navy base until cows come home).
The same point of view is held by the new Crimean government: we don't see anyone who has right to parley with us.

Gilrandir

03-08-2014, 14:15

Interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-26491349

FSB?

This woman appears to be travelling Ukraine to tell people how great the Russians are.
It is what I said in my post but you don't seem to trust me.

Pannonian

03-08-2014, 14:24

I want to see the EU expand and weaken under the weight.

And why should the EU comply with this wish?

I would support the independence of Crimea if it didn't come at the end of a Russian gun with annexation expected.

The EU and NATO need black sea military capabilities for hard power projection to strengthen soft power intentions.

The US needs to get creative with sanctions which target individuals in the Kremlin.

Ukraine has a tough job, but calling the revolutionary government illegal is pointless. By that standard, all modern Republics are illegal as most were born by throwing away what was considered legal government at the time. The fact is that no government has a "right" to govern, they must just create a web of enough BS that the people stop questioning their monopoly on power and force. People saw through the chirade of Yanuvcovitch and exposed the mandate of heaven as a fraud. It doesn't mean our own governments have any more of a right to govern us just because of legalese, but the chirade is stronger. All men are born to govern themselves Individually. As there is no system that has been to tried effect this, we settle for BS power authorities of all stripes, but no government anywhere is legitimate.

These revolutionary governments acquired legitimacy after they showed that they could back up their words with force. However wonderful the ideals of your founders, they got their legitimacy not through declaring independence, but from defeating Britain in war. You may celebrate the declaration of independence, but the loyalists had no less valid a case, right up until the point where you decisively made your case by defeating and expelling their cause. At that point, the patriots became the legitimate government. Similarly with Russia and the Reds, China and the Communists, etc.

The Ukrainian would be revolutionaries threw out the existing rules because they weren't happy with the outcome. After that, legitimacy comes from whoever can establish facts on the ground. They thought they would be the ones to do so. It doesn't look like they're right.

Brenus

03-08-2014, 14:30

"If you aren't afraid of those who have power over you you are an idiot imho." Not really an answer to democracy and the need to right to bear arm. Perhaps it was not an answer...

ICantSpellDawg

03-08-2014, 14:31

And why should the EU comply with this wish?

These revolutionary governments acquired legitimacy after they showed that they could back up their words with force. However wonderful the ideals of your founders, they got their legitimacy not through declaring independence, but from defeating Britain in war. You may celebrate the declaration of independence, but the loyalists had no less valid a case, right up until the point where you decisively made your case by defeating and expelling their cause. At that point, the patriots became the legitimate government. Similarly with Russia and the Reds, China and the Communists, etc.

The Ukrainian would be revolutionaries threw out the existing rules because they weren't happy with the outcome. After that, legitimacy comes from whoever can establish facts on the ground. They thought they would be the ones to do so. It doesn't look like they're right.

It shows much more power to throw your government out with minimal loss of life. The EU will comply because of the natural need to expand until you come up against resistance more fierce than your own interest to expand.

Pannonian

03-08-2014, 14:45

It shows much more power to throw your government out with minimal loss of life. The EU will comply because of the natural need to expand until you come up against resistance more fierce than your own interest to expand.

In the EU's case, the need for Russian energy is greater than the need to incorporate Ukraine into itself. The US should be more familiar than anyone on how territorial occupation does not equal satisfaction of interests, as it prides itself on not being an imperial power whilst simultaneously having a finger in every pie around the world.

Brenus

03-08-2014, 14:49

“The same point of view is held by the new Crimean government: we don't see anyone who has right to parley with us.” So, you have a BIG problem, because, at the moment, Russian Troops are in Crimea, so you have to speak to someone. The entire problem is with whom. With the Crimean Separatists: you recognise (so legitimate) them.
The problem, imo, is this revolution started as a social revolt (against poverty, unemployment, corruption) and the spark came from the refusal by the Ukrainian Government of EU proposal and initiates the movement (like the suicide by fire in Tunisia did) for democracy and freedom. A social need started a political request. Then, thanks to poor choices, the extreme-right took the floor and stormed the revolution. Then Putin took advantage of it and “took” Crimea.
Due to the complete failure to understand (or anticipate) what the Ukrainian “Russians” would think of it, Kiev carried on a policy like if they didn’t exist. Because like it or not, no resistance at all was shown in front of the Russian went they went out of the barracks they had in Crimea.
It looks that the locals are more concern by Kiev than by Moscow. And all the rhetoric from RVG changes nothing to this reality.

“FSB?”: Sure. Spy always show themselves on social networks, as we say now…

ICantSpellDawg

03-08-2014, 14:49

In the EU's case, the need for Russian energy is greater than the need to incorporate Ukraine into itself. The US should be more familiar than anyone on how territorial occupation does not equal satisfaction of interests, as it prides itself on not being an imperial power whilst simultaneously having a finger in every pie around the world.

I don't know about that. Ukraine will receive Russian gas but the price will be higher. 80% of all Russian natural gas moves through Ukraine. They need to start taxing the movement if Russia wants to get petty about it.

Pannonian

03-08-2014, 14:55

I don't know about that. Ukraine will receive Russian gas but the price will be higher. 80% of all Russian natural gas moves through Ukraine. They need to start taxing the movement if Russia wants to get petty about it.

And you reckon the EU's going to be happy if Ukraine plays silly buggers? If Russia says the EU can have a relatively low starting price, but it gains massively in transit through Ukraine, what do you think will happen?

ICantSpellDawg

03-08-2014, 14:57

And you reckon the EU's going to be happy if Ukraine plays silly buggers? If Russia says the EU can have a relatively low starting price, but it gains massively in transit through Ukraine, what do you think will happen?

I don't know, why don't you tell me the future? Maybe the suggestion that this was all an EU ploy to weaken Russia will crumble. Or are you happy that your gas costs are subsidized by Russian exploitation of Ukranian land rights?

It doesn't make sense that Ukraine is worried about gas shipment cessation. Any gas that comes through Ukraine is Ukrainian if they were determined to take it. They are a middleman and middlemen demand a cut or they can stop the trade. Maybe Russia could build more pipelines through Belarus instead, but I suspect that EU encouraged revolution would occur there as well if that occurred - further isolating Russian interests.

Pannonian

03-08-2014, 15:05

I don't know, why don't you tell me the future? Maybe the suggestion that this was all an EU ploy to weaken Russia will crumble. Or are you happy that your gas costs are subsidized by Russian exploitation of Ukranian land rights?

Why should we care how our gas costs are subsidised? One thing is almost certain though. If Russia and the EU have a common interest in trade which Ukraine is blocking, then Ukraine has a far greater need for their neighbours than the neighbours have for them.

Tellos Athenaios

03-08-2014, 15:06

Ukraine isn't really in a position to do very much. Ukraine hasn't been able to pay for the gas it "buys" from Russia even at artificially low prices (payment for their cooperation, basically), and has been "tapping" the pipelines destined for the EU.

Not so long ago, that lead to Moscow reducing the volume of gas exports unilaterally. Only after the EU (well, the Germans and Italians, mostly) put pressure on them did they resume normal service, but both Germany and Russia have been quite keen to get rid of the unreliable middleman or at least find more reliable alternatives.

So I don't think Ukraine has very many bargaining chips when it comes to the current arrangement... they are beholden to that gas even more than any European country is...

ICantSpellDawg

03-08-2014, 15:07

Why should we care how our gas costs are subsidised? One thing is almost certain though. If Russia and the EU have a common interest in trade which Ukraine is blocking, then Ukraine has a far greater need for their neighbours than the neighbours have for them.

Yes, Ukraine is weak - I get it. But 80% of Russian oil and gas to Europe comes through them. They should use this as leverage instead of being bludgeoned by it. What it sounds like you are saying is that Europe has a great interest in the outcome of the Ukraine crisis. Maybe you should start treating your foreign policies like they have consequence and work to secure the black sea which is becoming a powder keg - from Turkey to Moldova to Ukraine, Russia, and Georgia. Start acting like a responsible international actor.

The American pivot to Asia was a great idea. Russia is weakest in Asia. Leaving Europe to fend for themselves has revealed serious gaps in the ability of Europe to secure itself. Good. Your defense spending is too low and it will leave you with few options to leverage conflict or secure your interests.

Gilrandir

03-08-2014, 15:16

“The same point of view is held by the new Crimean government: we don't see anyone who has right to parley with us.” So, you have a BIG problem, because, at the moment, Russian Troops are in Crimea, so you have to speak to someone. The entire problem is with whom. With the Crimean Separatists: you recognise (so legitimate) them.
The problem, imo, is this revolution started as a social revolt (against poverty, unemployment, corruption) and the spark came from the refusal by the Ukrainian Government of EU proposal and initiates the movement (like the suicide by fire in Tunisia did) for democracy and freedom. A social need started a political request. Then, thanks to poor choices, the extreme-right took the floor and stormed the revolution. Then Putin took advantage of it and “took” Crimea.
Due to the complete failure to understand (or anticipate) what the Ukrainian “Russians” would think of it, Kiev carried on a policy like if they didn’t exist. Because like it or not, no resistance at all was shown in front of the Russian went they went out of the barracks they had in Crimea.
It looks that the locals are more concern by Kiev than by Moscow. And all the rhetoric from RVG changes nothing to this reality.

You see it pretty much as I do. Only there was no failure to understand the Ukrainian Russians by the new government. They didn't have time to look around being too busy toppling Yanukovych and failed to combat Putin propaganda presenting protesters exclusively and entirely as fascists. Many Russians phoning my Ukrainian acquaintances are sure that we have here complete anarchy, nothing is working and armed people in the steets shoot anyone they want (targeting Russian-speakers especially).

Pannonian

03-08-2014, 15:17

Yes, Ukraine is weak - I get it. But 80% of Russian oil and gas to Europe comes through them. They should use this as leverage instead of being bludgeoned by it. What it sounds like you are saying is that Europe has a great interest in the outcome of the Ukraine crisis. Maybe you should start treating your foreign policies like they have consequence and work to secure the black sea which is becoming a powder keg - from Turkey to Moldova to Ukraine, Russia, and Georgia. Start acting like a responsible international actor.

Ha, a lecture on how foreign policies have consequences. I'd have been happy if the whole revolutionary thing never took place, and Yanukovich was kicked out in the next general election. Then regime change would have been achieved through a predictable electoral process, which Russia have no objections to as they know their man will have his chance again after the other side have messed things up in their turn. I like stability and gradual change, as it means change with minimal face lost for the great powers who play the game and less suffering for those on the ground. I'm not the one calling for revolution when we don't get our way.

ICantSpellDawg

03-08-2014, 15:22

Ha, a lecture on how foreign policies have consequences. I'd have been happy if the whole revolutionary thing never took place, and Yanukovich was kicked out in the next general election. Then regime change would have been achieved through a predictable electoral process, which Russia have no objections to as they know their man will have his chance again after the other side have messed things up in their turn. I like stability and gradual change, as it means change with minimal face lost for the great powers who play the game and less suffering for those on the ground. I'm not the one calling for revolution when we don't get our way.

I believe in revolution always and everywhere. Especially revolutions resulting in extremely low losses of life. The secession of Crimea may be good for the electoral health of Ukraine, forever eliminating those voters from voting in any Ukrainian election. It will also cause Europe to take black sea security more seriously, further disabling Russian force there.

Russia is a dangerous actor, but all signs point to their power and property loss in the long term. It is only a matter of time before they start feeling Chinese pressure on their indefensible eastern border, the collapse of Luschenko in Belarus, and the collapse of their authority on the Caspian through the secession of their own Caucasian problem in Ingushetia, Dagestan, and Chechnya. Cause insurrection in the Caspian region as a distraction while you collapse the autocratic Belorussian State. It would suck to be Russian. Their only hope is to begin NATO accession talks.

Western powers should do everything that they can to ferment revolutions world wide. From Xinjiang, to Tibet, to Venezuela. When our opponents buckle under the weight of internal pressures, the US looks like Valhalla. There is a reason that the US was a real power after WWII - because you couldn't invest anywhere, Earth was combustible - but America was above the fray for the most part.

With pressure in the right directions this time, the world could benefit from another round of revolutions. At least Americans would.

Sarmatian

03-08-2014, 15:30

Interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-26491349

FSB?

This woman appears to be travelling Ukraine to tell people how great the Russians are.

It's the same woman after 4 plastic surgeries.

Does the person who wrote the article actually have a brain? Someone hired a single actress to spread the "pro-Russian" message and then moved her from town to town, going to great lengths to pass her off a different person? Why didn't they just hire four actresses?

If it's true, it's a great actress, Hollywood quality. Christian Bale lost 15kg for the role in the "Machinist". Between the photos, she managed to gain weight, lose weight, have facial features changed and collagen inserted in her lips. That's a professional.

And, this is the story BBC picks up, while phone conversation between Ashton and Estonian minister is unimportant, something that shouldn't be given much thought and should be dropped instantly instead... It's really bad when intelligence becomes just a habit.

rvg

03-08-2014, 15:35

With pressure in the right directions this time, the world could benefit from another round of revolutions. At least Americans would.

I hope you realize that in the age of globalized economy instability just about anywhere leads to economic repercussions everywhere.

ICantSpellDawg

03-08-2014, 15:49

I hope you realize that in the age of globalized economy instability just about anywhere leads to economic repercussions everywhere.

I get it, but tell me that you don't love this stuff honestly.

rvg

03-08-2014, 16:16

I get it, but tell me that you don't love this stuff honestly.

I honestly don't. I have a family to worry about and thus place value on predictability. As much as I dislike the bureaucratic inefficiency on the EU, I don't wanna see them implode: turmoil is bad for business on either side of the Atlantic. Besides, why the hell would I want to wish misfortune on my allies?

ICantSpellDawg

03-08-2014, 16:17

I honestly don't. I have a family to worry about and thus place value on predictability. As much as I dislike the bureaucratic inefficiency on the EU, I don't wanna see them implode: turmoil is bad for business on either side of the Atlantic. Besides, why the hell would I want to wish misfortune on my allies?

I don't want to see them implode, you misunderstand me. I want to see them weakened and stressed.

rvg

03-08-2014, 16:19

I don't want to see them implode, you misunderstand me. I want to see them weakened and stressed.

I'm having a hard time finding a reason to subscribe to this position.

ICantSpellDawg

03-08-2014, 16:42

I'm having a hard time finding a reason to subscribe to this position.

To prevent mission creep. You want devolution, not a central authority making more and more decisions. Common economies, Common security, expanded freedoms but that's it. Currently, the fact that the EU is expanding is holding it back from imposing itself on the nations. They are forced to attract and accommodate with promises. Once they join, the vice begins to close. You need something to prevent this vice closure which is the natural course. The natural course is consolidation of powers, but that takes decisions further and further away from the individual.

Fisherking

03-08-2014, 16:51

It would seem to me if the Ukrainian Government is illegitimate, where the Executive branch was replaced by the parliament until elections can be held, that the Crimean Government is equally or more illegitimate. Seeing as how the Executive branch was taken over and is now only operating with the legislative branch on its own.

Call me a skeptic. Any time a representative body votes unanimously for anything, I wonder.

A few more items picked up by the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26481423

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26495378

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26468720

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26486289

Fisherking

03-08-2014, 17:04

Has anyone heard this?

Think it is true?

http://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspots/07-03-2014/127063-russian_embassy_kiev-0/

Plenty more articles on the site if you want the Russian view.

Husar

03-08-2014, 17:22

You see it pretty much as I do. Only there was no failure to understand the Ukrainian Russians by the new government. They didn't have time to look around being too busy toppling Yanukovych and failed to combat Putin propaganda presenting protesters exclusively and entirely as fascists. Many Russians phoning my Ukrainian acquaintances are sure that we have here complete anarchy, nothing is working and armed people in the steets shoot anyone they want (targeting Russian-speakers especially).

Apparently they had enough time to propose a law that would remove Russian as an original language.
And people attacking Russian-speakers in the streets are playing into Putin's hands.

It's the same woman after 4 plastic surgeries.

Does the person who wrote the article actually have a brain? Someone hired a single actress to spread the "pro-Russian" message and then moved her from town to town, going to great lengths to pass her off a different person? Why didn't they just hire four actresses?

If it's true, it's a great actress, Hollywood quality. Christian Bale lost 15kg for the role in the "Machinist". Between the photos, she managed to gain weight, lose weight, have facial features changed and collagen inserted in her lips. That's a professional.

Pretty much, it's not hard to see that the women on those photos are rather different.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-08-2014, 17:31

I really need to buy that fallout bunker. Or move to Hawaii.

Fallout bunker IN Hawaii perhaps? You can get one of those cute little dashboard hula-dancers for the shelf. When the hula dancer stops jiggling you wait thirty days and....

rvg

03-08-2014, 17:49

Fallout bunker IN Hawaii perhaps? You can get one of those cute little dashboard hula-dancers for the shelf. When the hula dancer stops jiggling you wait thirty days and....

Yeah. Decisions, decisions. Of course if the current conflict gets hot, I will try to enlist. I'm not a young man, but maintain a reasonably good physical condition for a man of my age. Plus, I know that part of the world quite well. If Uncle Sam finds a use for me, then off I go. This shit is serious, I just hope it doesn't get too serious.

Brenus

03-08-2014, 19:02

"It's the same woman after 4 plastic surgeries." KGB still the best...

Fragony

03-08-2014, 19:07

Yeah. Decisions, decisions. Of course if the current conflict gets hot, I will try to enlist. I'm not a young man, but maintain a reasonably good physical condition for a man of my age. Plus, I know that part of the world quite well. If Uncle Sam finds a use for me, then off I go. This shit is serious, I just hope it doesn't get too serious.

Nothing is going to happen. Give it a bit of time, it will be hilarious by then. This is not something to be worried about.

TiagoJRToledo

03-08-2014, 19:47

Yeah. Decisions, decisions. Of course if the current conflict gets hot, I will try to enlist. I'm not a young man, but maintain a reasonably good physical condition for a man of my age. Plus, I know that part of the world quite well. If Uncle Sam finds a use for me, then off I go. This shit is serious, I just hope it doesn't get too serious.

Because what the World really needs right now is another Uncle Sam's ego-trip.

gaelic cowboy

03-08-2014, 20:08

Because what the World really needs right now is another Uncle Sam's ego-trip.

I love how all these threads come around to how the US is a :daisy:, please remind me who is meddling in Ukrainian politics.

Sarmatian

03-08-2014, 20:50

Russia, US and EU.

Montmorency

03-08-2014, 21:17

Screw it, I'm reading from the last page and calling it even.

TiagoJRToledo

03-08-2014, 22:41

I love how all these threads come around to how the US is a :daisy:, please remind me who is meddling in Ukrainian politics.

If the US were to invade someo... Oh wait.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-08-2014, 22:48

Russia, US and EU.

Who has troops posing as terrorists in the Crimea?

We're also not clear that it wasn't Putin who kicked off the whole snipers thing.

TiagoJRToledo

03-08-2014, 22:50

Who has troops posing as terrorists in the Crimea?

We're also not clear that it wasn't Putin who kicked off the whole snipers thing.

We have as much proof that points to Putin has we have that points to Obama. It's funny when we have a double-standard when it comes to "lawful" invasions...

Brenus

03-08-2014, 23:20

Kagemusha

03-09-2014, 03:48

No worries, you guys can stall them long enough for help to arrive. Viipuri defense was a clear indicator of that. Last time you guys were alone, you won't be alone this time.

You do understand that it is no video game? Even if we could stop Russians i would be 90% at time dead, because of my wartime duty.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-09-2014, 04:17

"We're also not clear that it wasn't Putin who kicked off the whole snipers thing." If you have to go for this kind of things, you are less and less sure of yours reasons.. Hey, I can't prove I killed nobody, I might be just good in hiding the bodies...
By the way, if he did, he is really a master politician...:laugh4:

Well, we know Putin is quite happy to murder individuals to advance his aims - why not a few dozen people for the Greater Glory of Mother Russia?

rvg

03-09-2014, 04:19

You do understand that it is no video game? Even if we could stop Russians i would be 90% dead, because of my wartime duty.
Nonsense. Even in a lopsided campaign like we had in Iraq, taking ground still took time (over a month in 2003) and Iraqi casualties were nowhere near 90%.

Montmorency

03-09-2014, 04:57

Iraqi casualties were nowhere near 90%.

Many of the Iraqis surrendered or defected as soon as the fighting even started, really.

"Taking ground" meant merely driving there, in most cases. Finnish opposition would likely much stiffer, and the two sides more closely matched than the Americans and the Iraqis, leading to much higher casualty rates on both sides.

Of course, in such a situation the Russian armed forces would be much more brittle in the face of high attrition, and might even revolt against their superiors. Another reason why war is not an option for anyone here.

Kagemusha

03-09-2014, 07:05

Nonsense. Even in a lopsided campaign like we had in Iraq, taking ground still took time (over a month in 2003) and Iraqi casualties were nowhere near 90%.

Oh. So you know better then i do what my war time deployment In Finnish army is? You do realize there are different task and those put people in different ways of harms way, but thank you for educating me. I am not talking about the total possible casualty ratio of Finnish army thus words for my personal "wartime duty" but what my unit is earmarked for. But surely you know that also better that then i do. Exclude few very personally aimed remarks and i really do hope you should maybe once a while think before you post, my all knowing US friend.

a completely inoffensive name

03-09-2014, 07:47

Gilrandir

03-09-2014, 07:54

Ha, a lecture on how foreign policies have consequences. I'd have been happy if the whole revolutionary thing never took place, and Yanukovich was kicked out in the next general election.
That was never to happen. Yanukovych knows how to fraud the elections. He did it once. Plus in December when 5 seats to the parliament were contested he showed some new tactics: he lets all the voting process go unhindered, then the polling stations are closed, no observer is let it, the stations are surrounded by titushki, and the ballots are "counted". As Stalin said, it doesn't matter who won the election, what matters is who counts the votes.

a completely inoffensive name

03-09-2014, 08:07

That was never to happen. Yanukovych knows how to fraud the elections. He did it once. Plus in December when 5 seats to the parliament were contested he showed some new tactics: he lets all the voting process go unhindered, then the polling stations are closed, no observer is let it, the stations are surrounded by titushki, and the ballots are "counted". As Stalin said, it doesn't matter who won the election, what matters is who counts the votes.

If you simply waited for the election, there could have been observers held to make sure he didn't do that. Or if that didn't happen you could have contested the results and then force the EU or UN to observe another special election to make sure a fair count is made. Also if the elections were widely believed to be fraudulent, your revolution would have had more moral authority behind it. As someone already said in here, once you decide that democracy is no longer the game you play, you can't expect fairness.

Gilrandir

03-09-2014, 08:10

Apparently they had enough time to propose a law that would remove Russian as an original language.
And people attacking Russian-speakers in the streets are playing into Putin's hands.

Have you read the law? How do you know what it says?
The law says that if you address the authorities you are to use Ukrainian. The amendment which had been introduced by Yanukovych's party, then cancelled by Maidan government, then the cancellation repealed by the acting president, says that in communities which have more than 10% of non-Ukrainian speakers all dealings with the authorities could be in the languages of the minorities. (Interestingly, this law was applied only to Russian. Other minority languages use for official purposes (including Hungarian, Romanian, Polish) was banned).
THERE IS NO WORD IN THE LAW FORBIDDING THE USAGE OF RUSSIAN (or any other language) OUTSIDE LOCAL AUTHORITY BUILDINGS.
As for attacking Russian-speakers in the street it was a sarcasm. A great proportion of Maidan was Russian-speakers. Kyiv is predominantly a Russian-speaking city.

Gilrandir

03-09-2014, 08:21

If you simply waited for the election, there could have been observers held to make sure he didn't do that. Or if that didn't happen you could have contested the results and then force the EU or UN to observe another special election to make sure a fair count is made. Also if the elections were widely believed to be fraudulent, your revolution would have had more moral authority behind it. As someone already said in here, once you decide that democracy is no longer the game you play, you can't expect fairness.
Didn't you read my post? Observers wouldn't be allowed to see the counting of votes. Yanukovych would have done whatever he wanted.
And Russian invasion of the Crimea "is widely believed to be wrong". Now how does it help to stop it?

Gilrandir

03-09-2014, 08:28

From what I hear, the Crimean rebels have planted landmines across the border between the peninsula and mainland Ukraine. Which makes me wonder where exactly they got all this ordinance....
You still believe that they are doing it on their own accord?
Rebels (if they are rebels) must be anxious to propagate their cause to the world community. Those are not. They attack journalists (including western ones - search for videos), turn down OSCE mission THRICE and act as if they are sure of Russia stepping in at any time to back them. They do not wish to negotiate - they are set on cessation.
Now what is in store for the Crimea is Abkhasia's or Transdniestria's (or Subdniestria or whatever you call it) doom.

Sarmatian

03-09-2014, 09:38

Well, we know Putin is quite happy to murder individuals to advance his aims - why not a few dozen people for the Greater Glory of Mother Russia?

You may hate Putin, but there's no reason to believe that. We don't know that President of Brazil, the Pope or queen of England didn't order it.

Facts point that it was either someone from Yanukovich's camp or the more extreme parts of the opposition, with my money on the latter.

Husar

03-09-2014, 09:57

Well, we know Putin is quite happy to murder individuals to advance his aims - why not a few dozen people for the Greater Glory of Mother Russia?

We also know that the CIA/USA likes to topple pro-russian governments and install western puppets through very violent means. In fact they have an impressive history of doing just that, more so than Putin I'd say.

Have you read the law? How do you know what it says?

Friend of mine sent me a copy. :rolleyes:

Actually that was cited somewhere as a reason for the Crimeans wanting to part with Ukraine, there was a reason I put "apparently" in front of the sentence. Thanks for the explanation though.

As for attacking Russian-speakers in the street it was a sarcasm. A great proportion of Maidan was Russian-speakers. Kyiv is predominantly a Russian-speaking city.

Well, given that the rest of your post was apparently serious and some maidan-protesters are described as thuggish nationalists who threw molotov cocktails at policemen, that sarcasm wasn't quite so obvious.

a completely inoffensive name

03-09-2014, 10:10

Didn't you read my post? Observers wouldn't be allowed to see the counting of votes. Yanukovych would have done whatever he wanted.
And Russian invasion of the Crimea "is widely believed to be wrong". Now how does it help to stop it?

Didn't you read my post? If he refused to allow elections to be observed then you would have more moral authority by revolting instead of overthrowing the government over one veto that you could have been fixed later down the line. Blatant tyrannical abuse of powers gives outsiders a reason to step in, as it is right now its your revolution that is technically illegal since no wrongdoing was seen other than a disagreement over trade policies.

You still believe that they are doing it on their own accord?
Rebels (if they are rebels) must be anxious to propagate their cause to the world community. Those are not. They attack journalists (including western ones - search for videos), turn down OSCE mission THRICE and act as if they are sure of Russia stepping in at any time to back them. They do not wish to negotiate - they are set on cessation.
Now what is in store for the Crimea is Abkhasia's or Transdniestria's (or Subdniestria or whatever you call it) doom.

That last part was sarcasm, obviously the Russians are aiding them, if they are not actual Russian agents. If you are going to use sarcasm in posts you might do well to figure out when others are using it...

Sarmatian

03-09-2014, 10:17

Have you read the law? How do you know what it says?
The law says that if you address the authorities you are to use Ukrainian. The amendment which had been introduced by Yanukovych's party, then cancelled by Maidan government, then the cancellation repealed by the acting president, says that in communities which have more than 10% of non-Ukrainian speakers all dealings with the authorities could be in the languages of the minorities. (Interestingly, this law was applied only to Russian. Other minority languages use for official purposes (including Hungarian, Romanian, Polish) was banned).
THERE IS NO WORD IN THE LAW FORBIDDING THE USAGE OF RUSSIAN (or any other language) OUTSIDE LOCAL AUTHORITY BUILDINGS.
As for attacking Russian-speakers in the street it was a sarcasm. A great proportion of Maidan was Russian-speakers. Kyiv is predominantly a Russian-speaking city.

Did you read the law? I doubt it because laws aren't written like that. It most probably refers to the usage of language in official business, when you're dealing with the government or anything set up by the government.

That means only Ukrainian when you're:
-filing taxes
-applying for pension
-getting your ID
-applying for a job in a civic institution
-appearing in court
-starting a private business
-filing a complaint

... and so on and so forth.

They've repealed it when shit hit the fan, but it doesn't give much democratic legitimacy to the Maidan government when, besides all the problems in Ukraine, their first order of business was to try to limit the usage or Russian, ban the communist party and make overtures to NATO for membership... especially when all three actions are included in the platform of Svoboda and other more or less extreme parties involved in Maidan and now the government and it speaks more of their influence in the new government.

Brenus

03-09-2014, 10:56

“Well, we know Putin is quite happy to murder individuals to advance his aims - why not a few dozen people for the Greater Glory of Mother Russia?” When and where, please?
And even so, he wouldn’t be the only one; Osama Bin Laden wasn’t put on trial… And the drones over Afghanistan and Pakistan are doing what exactly?

The struggle in Ukraine is not finish, the Revolution is not over. Stop to think in term of Ethnicity. Why no resistance shown in front of the Russian Invasion: Partially because they were there, so not really an invasion. But probably a real worry from the Crimean population looking at what happened in Kiev. Why the crowd in Kiev has more importance that a crowd in Sebastopol? And you might think the use of Ukrainian in all official affairs doesn’t menace the Russian Population in Crimea, but it doesn’t matter, what matter is how THEY see it.
Talk to them, make them to be proud to be Ukrainian and share with them the Constitution.

The problem is of course the Maiden Movement broke the Constitution they call on now to dismiss the Secession (potential) of Crimea…
It is a little bit like if a burglar breaking in a house complaining about the health and Safety issues because he cut himself in breaking the window.:inquisitive:

Fisherking

03-09-2014, 12:10

Didn't you read my post? If he refused to allow elections to be observed then you would have more moral authority by revolting instead of overthrowing the government over one veto that you could have been fixed later down the line. Blatant tyrannical abuse of powers gives outsiders a reason to step in, as it is right now its your revolution that is technically illegal since no wrongdoing was seen other than a disagreement over trade policies.

Yeah? Seen any federal observers in Washington State? Or Ohio, or anywhere voter turnout is above 100%?

When people get fed up and finally do something it is because no one has done anything but make it worse.

Ukraine didn’t happen over night. I think Gilrandir laid most of it out earlier on.

It was not an east-west conflict. It was people fed up with a string of corrupt governments. It was not to shift the country east or west but got changed into that in more recent weeks or months.

Likely the whole EU-Russia thing was a ploy by the previous government to get a better deal from Russia, who can say?

It didn’t become West vs. Russia until Russian troops (or unidentified rebels in uniform, very much like Russian uniforms) showed up and started taking over facilities and the government.

Or at least until the interim government started making overtures to the EU and NATO, which considering their geographic location was pretty boneheaded.

You don’t apply for protection from gang A, three or four towns away when playing along with gang B, who is next door, is a safer bet in the short term.

Gilrandir

03-09-2014, 14:19

Why no resistance shown in front of the Russian Invasion: Partially because they were there, so not really an invasion. But probably a real worry from the Crimean population looking at what happened in Kiev. Why the crowd in Kiev has more importance that a crowd in Sebastopol? And you might think the use of Ukrainian in all official affairs doesn’t menace the Russian Population in Crimea, but it doesn’t matter, what matter is how THEY see it.
Talk to them, make them to be proud to be Ukrainian and share with them the Constitution.

The problem is of course the Maiden Movement broke the Constitution they call on now to dismiss the Secession (potential) of Crimea…
It is a little bit like if a burglar breaking in a house complaining about the health and Safety issues because he cut himself in breaking the window.:inquisitive:
I would resort to a different metaphor describing the general attitude to Ukraine in the Crimea (Sevastopol is even more radical).
There is a family with several kids one of which is a foster kid. They are treated pretty much in the same way. One day father comes home and says: "You know, guys, mom is at hospital now - she needs a surgery - so this week we'll have to cook ourselves". The foster kid says: "OK, then perhaps I'll go and leave with my neighbors across the street." Some time later mother says: "Dad has had his salary cut, so this month your pocket money is going to be smaller." The foster kid goes: "OK, then perhaps I'll go and leave with my neighbors across the street." Then dad says: "The faucet in the kitchen is leaking, so I stopped the valve and we're gonna stay without water till the evening when the plumber comes". And the foster kid goes: "Ditto". If Cimeans think they will be much better off with Russia - well, let's give them a chance to try it out.

Gilrandir

03-09-2014, 14:24

Did you read the law? I doubt it because laws aren't written like that. It most probably refers to the usage of language in official business, when you're dealing with the government or anything set up by the government.

That means only Ukrainian when you're:
-filing taxes
-applying for pension
-getting your ID
-applying for a job in a civic institution
-appearing in court
-starting a private business
-filing a complaint

... and so on and so forth.

Did you think I was going to offer you legal wordings? I gave the essence. And even before Yanukovych's agents introduced an amendment this law was never an imperative one - people could in all dealings with the state resort to Russian (and did it regularly) in eastern and southern regions and no one was in any way reprimanded.

Husar

03-09-2014, 14:36

You don’t apply for protection from gang A, three or four towns away when playing along with gang B, who is next door, is a safer bet in the short term.

I have a plan. We make Poland and Romania send "security troops" into Ukrained from the west to help the government secure the mainland.

Then we promise both Turkey and Ukraine EU membership if they do the following:
1. Ukraine declares the unidentifiable troops on Crimea as armed rebels and asks the international community to remove them, inviting armed peacekeepers.
2. Turkey sends troops to ensure the safety of the Crimean Tatars and threatens to shoot all unidentified rebels it encounters.
3. More NATO troops get ready to support the turkish mission
4. Take popcorn and see what Russia, which still denies those are russian troops, will do.
5. WW3, but the popcorn was good

Brenus

03-09-2014, 15:25

"There is a family with several kids one of which is a foster kid" See: You don't consider the Russians in Crimea as Ukrainians. So why do you ask them to consider themselves as Ukrainians?

Gilrandir

03-09-2014, 18:23

"There is a family with several kids one of which is a foster kid" See: You don't consider the Russians in Crimea as Ukrainians. So why do you ask them to consider themselves as Ukrainians?
I don't ask them to do anything. I'm just reporting their attitude to Ukraine which I experienced not once being in the Crimea. As for a foster kid, they are in a way: the Crimea never made a part of Ukraine until Khruschev gave it to Ukraine in 1954. You saw in the post what you liked. The most important message in it was "treated pretty much in the same way". I still don't see why should, say, New Mexico deserve a better treatment than Alabama. Because they have a large proportion of Mexicans/Spanish speakers?

Gilrandir

03-09-2014, 18:39

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-09-2014, 18:57

Brenus

03-09-2014, 19:51

Fisherking

03-09-2014, 21:14

My parents have just had a call from my aunt who lives in Krasnodar (Russia). She is absolutely positive that my parents are in danger (my father being half-Russian) which comes from gangs of fascists roaming the steets in Ukraine and shooting at will. I'm afraid they couldn't persuade her in the opposite. When she was asked directly who she trusted more - her brother (my father) or Putin's propaganda, she answered: "Well, I don't know. But TV says such terrible things. They can't just make it up, can they?" Moreover, they are sure over there that most Ukrainians look at Russians as their only hope of deliverance from Western-Ukrainian Bandera-followers and they are ready to render that much-expected help. There was a strange background sound during the whole conversation and it was interrupted twice. My parents suspected eavesdropping.

Do you see what he just said!

How many of you in the west are used to the news making up the story?

Not that it never, ever happens but their major means of censorship is just not to report it at all.

Here we have the Russians reporting that their embassy in Kiev has been taken over by Ukrainian self-defense forces. Heard anything about it?

http://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspots/07-03-2014/127063-russian_embassy_kiev-0/

Do you think the west is selectively reporting? Do you think that Gilrandir is lying about events he is experiencing?

Oh, by the way Brenus, how did Putin become a billionaire?

Sarmatian

03-09-2014, 21:47

Do you see what he just said!

How many of you in the west are used to the news making up the story?

Not that it never, ever happens but their major means of censorship is just not to report it at all.

Here we have the Russians reporting that their embassy in Kiev has been taken over by Ukrainian self-defense forces. Heard anything about it?

http://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspots/07-03-2014/127063-russian_embassy_kiev-0/

Do you think the west is selectively reporting? Do you think that Gilrandir is lying about events he is experiencing?

Oh, by the way Brenus, how did Putin become a billionaire?

First of, you're making a generalized claim on the basis of the statement of 1 person. That he lives in Ukraine isn't much of a confirmation, unless he can talk with other 50 millions Ukrainians and cover 603,628 km² of Ukrainian territory in a single bound.

So, unless our friend Gilrandir moonlights as Superman, his view isn't worth much more than yours or mine. Additionally, there is actual footage of violent clashes in several Ukrainian cities in the last few days. So, the situation is probably exaggerated in the Russian media, but not baseless.

On account of Putin, his wealth officially is a medium-sized flat and 3 medium-priced cars. The only "evidence" to the contrary is Condoleeza Rice's saying so based on what an unnamed person from Russian opposition told her. There were "analysts" who estimated wealth at his disposal up to 40 billions. The problem was that the biggest part of that isn't his but belongs to the office of the president. By the same logic, Obama is also billionare because White House alone is worth billions, not to mention planes, cars and boats at his disposal. The other part of the estimation are guesses without any evidence whatsoever.

Husar

03-09-2014, 22:02

Brenus

03-09-2014, 22:42

“Oh, by the way Brenus, how did Putin become a billionaire?” See answer from Sarmatian.
And even if you’re right, how is it relevant in the discussion if he executed (or order to do) opponents? The fact is I don’t defend Putin or his policy. I just highlight that NATO and the West opened the gates in invading countries (you know the list) and in imposing rules as during the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-10-2014, 00:20

"Litvinenko - Polonium.
Also - the Russian journalist murdered in her apartment building." Hmm, I don't want to be picky, but, a part newspapers headlines, where are your proof? Russian Millionaire dying in England might be linked with other kind of activities (just ask how the guy became millionaire -clue: mafia) so made powerful enemies, and unfortunately same for journalist.
Now, I know your answer: Putin being a DICTATURE no real investigation has been made. Well, as much as I know, UK did some investigations, and yes, the former spy, former Putin's friend murder has link with Russia, but nothing point to Putin himself.
Now, a former KGB agent could have been killed by his former colleagues.

Well, it's more the way he was killed, and the former FSB agents suddenly in Parliament and Putin's refusal to co-operate, and really...

Yeah, come on, Polonium comes out of a reactor - it was used to kill him so that we'd know the Russians did it.

Edit: And lets not pretend Finland will be protected from Russia if it's outside NATO, it won't.

Gilrandir

03-10-2014, 07:31

So, unless our friend Gilrandir moonlights as Superman, his view isn't worth much more than yours or mine.
Again, you may mistrust what I say which you are fully entitled to. But I think other opinions here are based on media-delivered information which is not in Ukrainian or Russian, as someone here admitted. I add to it the said Ukrainian and Russian language sources (sometimes such information may be late in being funneled to western public or never come there at all). I hear a lot of new developments which I don't report because you may accuse me of a biased view. For example I saw a video of civil people's (women) luggage being searched at the railway station at Simferopol by local "cossacks". Or there is information of all Ukrainian TV channels broadcasting stopped in the Crimea. Some Ukrainian women soldiers under siege in a Crimean garrison were interviewed. One of them is actually Russian who moved to the Crimea 15 years ago and the majority of others are locals from the Crimea. They keep the oath they have taken to be loyal to the people of Ukraine. But they are constantly threatened with massacring their families. An unidentified military person (one of those that besiege their detachment) admitted he had served in Chechnya and said that he used to do that family-massacring to rebel Chechens. I think he is bluffing, but women are scared.
So, I have access to these sources of information plus (and I believe it even more important) I contact people around me constantly and can see their attitude to events. Some people here may also have contacts but they are sure to be limited to one or two persons.
You may disbelieve all I say me, of course. It is up to everyone to decide.

Brenus

03-10-2014, 08:22

“it's more the way he was killed”; You mean like Arafat (Former leader of the PLO, for the youngest of the Org.) according to some Media and his widow. So, Litvinenko was killed by Mossad? But Putin is not Mossad (well, can’t wait to our Kurdish friend to intervene on this point).:creep:

Sarmatian

03-10-2014, 10:58

Again, you may mistrust what I say which you are fully entitled to

It's not that I think you're lying. I feel that when one's very emotionally invested in something, there's a danger of that person not seeing things objectively. Because of that, I approached your posts with a little more scrutiny than I would have if you were, let's say, Brazilian. So far, your posts only confirmed that. At first you presented the situation as a democratic popular revolution, maintaining that only Yanukovich forces used force. The reality was that from very early in the conflict the protesters tried to take control of government buildings and state tv, that they used giant slings to propel Molotov cocktail at the police, that they used makeshift mortar tubes for the same purpose... You failed to mention that the most militant part of the protesters were in fact far-right and neo-nazi groups who pushed for further confrontation after an agreement was made. You presented the new Maidan government as totally democratic even though 5 ministries are held by Svoboda party, including deputy prime minister. The members of other, even more radical parties and movements, also hold some important positions, like chief prosecutor, in addition to ministerial positions. You only conceded those points after I mentioned them specifically. There are more examples, but I believe this is enough to get my point across.

Russian propaganda of a purely nazi government is exaggerated, but the fact that neo-nazi, anti-Russian and anti-Semitic parties and movements have a great influence in the government is true and can not be dismissed.

Second reason is that you believe yourself to be better and more accurately informed simply by virtue of being in Ukraine. You can be only be better informed about the opinions and feelings of your local community, your immediate social circle and the extended family, which, you must agree, doesn't give you a better understanding of events in Ukraine at large.

Gilrandir

03-10-2014, 12:24

The reality was that from very early in the conflict the protesters tried to take control of government buildings and state tv, that they used giant slings to propel Molotov cocktail at the police, that they used makeshift mortar tubes for the same purpose... You failed to mention that the most militant part of the protesters were in fact far-right and neo-nazi groups who pushed for further confrontation after an agreement was made. You presented the new Maidan government as totally democratic even though 5 ministries are held by Svoboda party, including deputy prime minister. The members of other, even more radical parties and movements, also hold some important positions, like chief prosecutor, in addition to ministerial positions. You only conceded those points after I mentioned them specifically. There are more examples, but I believe this is enough to get my point across.

Before I chipped in on this thread I carefully read the posts in it (which I still do). Then I tried to mention the facts that seem to have escaped attention (or were unknown) to those discussing events in Ukraine. I never concealed my sentiment with the protesters. I never denied protesters using force against the police. I never denied politically diverse character of Maidan. I just didn't (and don't) see the point in relating things that are of general knowledge to the discussion parties. What was (and is) the use of updating you on the composition of the new government if you already know it? By the way, chief prosecutor is a member of Svoboda. What "more radical movement" does he belong to? A Standartenfuhrer of SSvoboda?
You seem to be very concerned with legitimacy. Svoboda is a legally permitted and registered party having enough popular support to have gotten into the parliament. Still you speak of hanging Tyagnybok and all his adherents. It is, as you put it, "demonizing" a significant part of Ukrainian electorate. Now this is a very law-abiding citizen's opinion. Why don't you speak of hanging Aksyonov whose party consists of radical Russian nationalists? They attacked and savagely beat people in Sevastopol whose only crime was to try to lay flowers to the monument to commemorate Taras Shevchenko's 200th birthday.
By the way, Svoboda got so much electoral support primarily because Yanukovych deleted from the ballots the option "I support neither candidate (party)". Many people who voted for Svoboda did it as a sign of protest against such deletion.
Let me stress again: I didn't vote for Svoboda and I don't share their radicality.
This is the first time I hear of protesters capturing state tv. We have a dozen national channels (only one of which is a state one) that present different opinions, so what's the point of capturing one however biased it may be?
One more thing about legitimacy. Both sides in the conflict were violent. But while violence of the protesters could be explained (and it is explained by you) by their neo-nazi nature, how can the violence and brutality of the police be explained? They were supposed to use legitimate methods and ways but not the excessive force against people lying on the ground. What would you think of a policeman who, being confronted by a woman in a medical vest and asking him not to fire to be able to take away the wounded, looks her in the eye and shoots her through the leg (with a gum bullet). Journalists got the same treatment. It is the attitude to the press and doctors that is symptomatic in my assessing the events.
Summing it all up: I don't pretend to be impartial (and I was explicit about it) while you pretend to take no sides but attack only my point of view.

Second reason is that you believe yourself to be better and more accurately informed simply by virtue of being in Ukraine. You can be only be better informed about the opinions and feelings of your local community, your immediate social circle and the extended family, which, you must agree, doesn't give you a better understanding of events in Ukraine at large.
So I am worse informed then you who has access exclusively to non-authentic (for Ukraine) media? Well, that certainly makes you an expert in events happening miles away from your residence. Now I know how one should become a connoisseur on something that happens in the street: get locked up in one's house, get glued to one's computer/TV and try to shut one's ears to what people outside say.

Sarmatian

03-10-2014, 16:22

Before I chipped in on this thread I carefully read the posts in it (which I still do). Then I tried to mention the facts that seem to have escaped attention (or were unknown) to those discussing events in Ukraine. I never concealed my sentiment with the protesters. I never denied protesters using force against the police. I never denied politically diverse character of Maidan. I just didn't (and don't) see the point in relating things that are of general knowledge to the discussion parties. What was (and is) the use of updating you on the composition of the new government if you already know it? By the way, chief prosecutor is a member of Svoboda. What "more radical movement" does he belong to? A Standartenfuhrer of SSvoboda?

Yeah, I mixed them up. Chief prosecutor is from Svoboda, I meant deputy national security chief, who is from Right Sector.

You seem to be very concerned with legitimacy. Svoboda is a legally permitted and registered party having enough popular support to have gotten into the parliament. Still you speak of hanging Tyagnybok and all his adherents. It is, as you put it, "demonizing" a significant part of Ukrainian electorate. Now this is a very law-abiding citizen's opinion. Why don't you speak of hanging Aksyonov whose party consists of radical Russian nationalists? They attacked and savagely beat people in Sevastopol whose only crime was to try to lay flowers to the monument to commemorate Taras Shevchenko's 200th birthday.
By the way, Svoboda got so much electoral support primarily because Yanukovych deleted from the ballots the option "I support neither candidate (party)". Many people who voted for Svoboda did it as a sign of protest against such deletion.

There are a few, though better disguised, neo nazi parties in various European countries but nowhere are they a part of government. So, congratulations of a being the first post ww2 country in Europe in that regard.

Ideally, nazis should be ignored and never let near a government position, especially areas of law and security.

As for "I support no candidates" part, you make that statement by folding an empty voting sheet and putting it in the ballot box. If you stay at home you're saying "I have no opinion/I'm not interested". By putting in an empty voting sheet you say "I don't like any of the candidates", because that way, your vote is counted, but not assigned. Democratic principles are great, but take time getting used to.

Let me stress again: I didn't vote for Svoboda and I don't share their radicality.
This is the first time I hear of protesters capturing state tv. We have a dozen national channels (only one of which is a state one) that present different opinions, so what's the point of capturing one however biased it may be?

I don't know, and I'm probably not to best person to be asked that question.

One more thing about legitimacy. Both sides in the conflict were violent. But while violence of the protesters could be explained (and it is explained by you) by their neo-nazi nature, how can the violence and brutality of the police be explained? They were supposed to use legitimate methods and ways but not the excessive force against people lying on the ground. What would you think of a policeman who, being confronted by a woman in a medical vest and asking him not to fire to be able to take away the wounded, looks her in the eye and shoots her through the leg (with a gum bullet). Journalists got the same treatment. It is the attitude to the press and doctors that is symptomatic in my assessing the events.
Summing it all up: I don't pretend to be impartial (and I was explicit about it) while you pretend to take no sides but attack only my point of view.

You seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between legality (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legality) and legitimacy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legitimacy). A government can be at the same time legal and illegitimate and illegal and legitimate. In the case of Maidan government, though, it's both illegal and illegitimate, and that has nothing to do with police brutality or presence of neo-nazis in it.

Anyway, if you're trying to tell me Yanukovich was bad, you're preaching to the choir. The problem is what happened after he was ousted, and in a smaller part the way he was ousted.

So I am worse informed then you who has access exclusively to non-authentic (for Ukraine) media? Well, that certainly makes you an expert in events happening miles away from your residence.

No, I didn't say that. I said that you are not necessarily better informed than me or anyone else outside Ukraine.
Also, I'm not sure I understand what non-authentic media means? Media that makes up stories?

Now I know how one should become a connoisseur on something that happens in the street: get locked up in one's house, get glued to one's computer/TV and try to shut one's ears to what people outside say.

No, getting outside and paying attention to what's happening in the street would be a great way to get better information, if what's happening is exclusively confined to one street. On larger, let's say country, scale, what's happening in one street is entirely irrelevant. Substitute "street" for "city" and it's still true.

Beskar

03-10-2014, 17:37

You seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between legality (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legality) and legitimacy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legitimacy). A government can be at the same time legal and illegitimate and illegal and legitimate. In the case of Maidan government, though, it's both illegal and illegitimate, and that has nothing to do with police brutality or presence of neo-nazis in it.

Reminds me of a discussion I had where the other person kept going on about "Crimea is illegal! the Ukraine constitution says it cannot happen!" and I got called a Russian-apologist for correcting them by pointing out how the Kiev government is in fact illegal themselves and how 'legality' has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Then they brought the discussion to " 'cause America " and that is when you simply decide to stop as it isn't worth continuing.

HoreTore

03-10-2014, 18:42

Edit: And lets not pretend Finland will be protected from Russia if it's outside NATO, it won't.

It will.

Finland, Sweden and Norway have a defense agreement*. If Finland or Sweden is attacked, Norway will enter the war. Norway is a NATO-member, and so NATO will be drawn into it as well.

*Seems I jumped the gun a bit.... It's only taken 10 years so far, I should have known better than to think it was finished. Apparently we are now at the stage of joint exercises and exchanges of staff and materials, as well as some forums to discuss joint foreign policy. Still, it'll happen eventually.

Kagemusha

03-10-2014, 19:14

It will.

Finland, Sweden and Norway have a defense agreement*. If Finland or Sweden is attacked, Norway will enter the war. Norway is a NATO-member, and so NATO will be drawn into it as well.

*Seems I jumped the gun a bit.... It's only taken 10 years so far, I should have known better than to think it was finished. Apparently we are now at the stage of joint exercises and exchanges of staff and materials, as well as some forums to discuss joint foreign policy. Still, it'll happen eventually.

Let us hope NORDEFCO will keep on expanding as it benefits us all. In matter of fact, if i would like to see further integration of any countries in Europe. It would be the Nordic countries. While we have our own individual cultures, our societies and values are very similar and we have long standing trust and partnership among us. Of course while the rest of you guys also practically share a language my language is "bit" different, but then we are still forced to study the basics of Swedish and we Finns don´t talk that much in first place.~;)

Fisherking

03-10-2014, 19:21

I trust Putin more because he speaks German, Obama doesn't.

As for the embassy, you can call them and ask: http://www.russianembassy.biz/ukraine-kiev.htm

Oh and concerning murdering Snowden with a drone...that would require the drone to fly over Russia and fire a Hellfire missile at Moscow...yeah, that sounds likely regardless of whether they want to do it or not. :laugh4:

What about the 600 murder attempts on Hugo Chavez? Or does it only count when they succeed?

:strawman3:What does Obama have to do with it? Did he invade Crimea? You want to talk about the US or Obama, start a thread.

You seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between legality (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legality) and legitimacy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legitimacy). A government can be at the same time legal and illegitimate and illegal and legitimate. In the case of Maidan government, though, it's both illegal and illegitimate, and that has nothing to do with police brutality or presence of neo-nazis in it.

Reminds me of a discussion I had where the other person kept going on about "Crimea is illegal! the Ukraine constitution says it cannot happen!" and I got called a Russian-apologist for correcting them by pointing out how the Kiev government is in fact illegal themselves and how 'legality' has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Then they brought the discussion to " 'cause America " and that is when you simply decide to stop as it isn't worth continuing.

Glad we have experts in this field. I have wondered about that.:rulez:

Could one of you please tell us how the current leadership of Ukraine violates their constitutional law making them illegitimate?

Beskar

03-10-2014, 19:29

Could one of you please tell us how the current leadership of Ukraine violates their constitutional law making them illegitimate?

Same level of illegitimacy of Romney being president, if Obama was 'ousted' from the Whitehouse due to a revolution of Republicans in Washington DC. It is pretty 'common sense'.

You would need a fair and unrigged election to appoint a legitimate government, usually based on that nations rules and regulations. In the UK it is done by Parliament via constituency voting. In the US, it is by the Electoral college.

A takeover/rebellion appointed government is never legitimate. It can gain legitimacy via having an election and thus getting elected, but this has not occurred.

The maiden government is not elected through the legal process nor does it represent the entire body of the Ukrainian people, thus it is illegal and illegitimate.

Pannonian

03-10-2014, 19:36

Could one of you please tell us how the current leadership of Ukraine violates their constitutional law making them illegitimate?

Can you show how their supposed legitimacy obliges us to take action to back them up? I care not one whit what the Ukrainians do with themselves, or what any fraction of them do with themselves. I care only that we should not get involved until they sort themselves out. If we're not being asked to do anything or involve ourselves in anyway, they can have another few revolutions if they so wish. We should only get involved once they have the same government for a reasonable amount of time, with no impending issues with their neighbours. These conditions may change if the Ukrainians can give a jolly good argument for what we can gain by backing their current state versus not doing anything.

Fisherking

03-10-2014, 20:37

Same level of illegitimacy of Romney being president, if Obama was 'ousted' from the Whitehouse due to a revolution of Republicans in Washington DC. It is pretty 'common sense'.

You would need a fair and unrigged election to appoint a legitimate government, usually based on that nations rules and regulations. In the UK it is done by Parliament via constituency voting. In the US, it is by the Electoral college.

A takeover/rebellion appointed government is never legitimate. It can gain legitimacy via having an election and thus getting elected, but this has not occurred.

The maiden government is not elected through the legal process nor does it represent the entire body of the Ukrainian people, thus it is illegal and illegitimate.

That is a gross overstatement bordering on just propaganda.
I don’t see that at all. In fact that is more or less a coup you are talking about. This was not the same.

What little I know of the Ukrainian Constitution, it seems to have been handled in a legitimate manner.

I know there must some difficulties, but exactly how and what I am really unsure.

Their parliament was elected. They are the ones who asked the president to step down, or impeached.

The sticky point I see is that the prime minister is appointed by the president and approved by the legislature. As the previous prime minister stepped down before it came to a head and was not replaced I am not clear on whether the legislature had authority to appoint a new one.

It really is a legal and legitimate question I don’t know the answerer to. But it is nothing like what you seem to believe it to be.

edit:

Can you show how their supposed legitimacy obliges us to take action to back them up? I care not one whit what the Ukrainians do with themselves, or what any fraction of them do with themselves. I care only that we should not get involved until they sort themselves out. If we're not being asked to do anything or involve ourselves in anyway, they can have another few revolutions if they so wish. We should only get involved once they have the same government for a reasonable amount of time, with no impending issues with their neighbours. These conditions may change if the Ukrainians can give a jolly good argument for what we can gain by backing their current state versus not doing anything.

I don’t know all the agreements or treaties which Ukraine is party to.

The only one I have seen mentioned was the accord where the UK, the US, and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This was in exchange for Ukraine destroying all its nuclear weapons.

At the moment I would imagine that it looks to the Ukrainians like they bought a pig in a poke.

Husar

03-10-2014, 21:57

Ukraine seems to be in the unfortunate position of having resources and other places of strategic importance which the US and Russia would like to have.

Quite a lot of people here seem to think that the USA are trying to push Europe against Russia to create a rift after Germany for example had increasingly flourishing relations with Russia. The media ain't helping by saying Russia is provocating Ukraine while you'd never read the US are provocating Iraq or anything like that. Add to this that Russia didn't kill a single person on Crimea yet while the West enters other countries all the time guns blazing and the whole moral outrage of the West takes a big nosedive.

It's all about our dictator, our resources, their dictator, their resources. The moral outrage is just an official justification.
Not that either side is better, but we could at least admit that we're all the same and just want stuff.

Beskar

03-10-2014, 22:12

That is a gross overstatement bordering on just propaganda.

? :laugh4:

Yes, you caught me, I am an evidently a Ruskie-supporter.

Personally, I think it is good timing to create a more unified European army and start rolling said forces to the Ukrainian/Russian borders, now that would start getting the Russians sweating a little.

Brenus

03-10-2014, 22:39

"They are the ones who asked the president to step down, or impeached." Are you sure of this? I though he was elected by direct vote, so, Parliament can't demand the President to step down, but can call for new elections or/and dissolve itself. Impeachment is a US thing as the President is elected indirectly. The President can dissolve the Parliament and call for new elections.

Now, with a Parliament directly under intimidation by massive crowd outside, I am not sure that legality or legitimacy can be claimed. This is why all votes are by secret ballot.

The last one doing this in France was Pétain when the Parliament gave him full power with soldiers in complete gear inside the building (and all the ones who could have dare to oppose him forbidden to come-in). And he is hardly remembered as a Democrat. The most surprising thing is some still found the courage to say no. But this was other times and story.

rvg

03-10-2014, 22:40

The only one I have seen mentioned was the accord where the UK, the US, and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This was in exchange for Ukraine destroying all its nuclear weapons. At the moment I would imagine that it looks to the Ukrainians like they bought a pig in a poke.

Yep, this is kinda critical. Strictly speaking we are bound by this treaty to protect Ukraine's integrity from on of the "protectors".

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-10-2014, 22:54

Our side is definitely better.

Definately - our politicians suck - but I can stand up in Church in a Ski-mask, and sing a profound song to that effect without going to a Gulag. Sure - I'll get arrested, but it'll be a fine and I have other ways of protesting Cameron et al than that, ways that won't get me arrested or undermine my point.

Russians do not have this.

? :laugh4:

Yes, you caught me, I am an evidently a Ruskie-supporter.

Personally, I think it is good timing to create a more unified European army and start rolling said forces to the Ukrainian/Russian borders, now that would start getting the Russians sweating a little.

The argument over the Kiev government centres on whether the Rada has the authority to remove the President - the argument over the Crimean government centres on whether or not the the governor was forcibly removed by an armed militia and replaced by a pro-Russian stooge.

So, at worst, we are talking about degrees of legitimacy - the Kiev government is constitutionally shaky, but the Crimean government is considerably shakier. Add to that the fact that they are holding a referendum on joining Russia (not on independence) with indecent haste, have enforced a media blackout, and are presenting the choice as literally being between Russia and Nazi's, and there's not much left of the pro-Crimean argument.

NATO's way ahead of you BTW, AWACS are now plying over Romania and Poland.

Sarmatian

03-10-2014, 23:03

Could one of you please tell us how the current leadership of Ukraine violates their constitutional law making them illegitimate?

Legitimacy of the government have nothing to do with constitutional law. To use a blunt example.

Let's say tomorrow the laws and constitution of the US is changed to allow only adult white males to vote. Next election adult white males vote and elect a government. That government is perfectly legal, ie. in accordance with the laws and the constitution, but it is not legitimate because it represent only 25% or so of the population. The opinion of other 75% wasn't asked.

Now let's say those white males in power aren't keen on changing anything. There's a popular uprising comprising of entire population more or less. They win and install another government, representative of the entire population, males/females, white/blacks/asians/hispanics... How that government got to power is illegal, but it is considered legitimate, since it represents the entire population, more or less. To eliminate the last shred of doubt, that government should consider itself an interim government, whose only purpose is to hold elections and to make sure country doesn't succumb to anarchy in the meantime. After a fair elections which include the entire adult population, the next government can be considered perfectly legitimate.

In the case of Ukraine, the new government came to power by a putsch, making it illegal. As Ukraine is a deeply divided country between pro-Russian and pro-western forces, and the new government represents only pro-western forces, it is also illegitimate.

Definately - our politicians suck - but I can stand up in Church in a Ski-mask, and sing a profound song to that effect without going to a Gulag. Sure - I'll get arrested, but it'll be a fine and I have other ways of protesting Cameron et al than that, ways that won't get me arrested or undermine my point.

Russians do not have this.

Sure they do. Tens of thousands of people protested against Putin over the years. There aren't that many jails and/or gulags to keep them all imprisoned.

The argument over the Kiev government centres on whether the Rada has the authority to remove the President - the argument over the Crimean government centres on whether or not the the governor was forcibly removed by an armed militia and replaced by a pro-Russian stooge.

So, at worst, we are talking about degrees of legitimacy - the Kiev government is constitutionally shaky, but the Crimean government is considerably shakier. Add to that the fact that they are holding a referendum on joining Russia (not on independence) with indecent haste, have enforced a media blackout, and are presenting the choice as literally being between Russia and Nazi's, and there's not much left of the pro-Crimean argument.

NATO's way ahead of you BTW, AWACS are now plying over Romania and Poland.

Simply, no. To have a true democracy, legislature branch most of all must be protected. In essence, MP's must be safe to act in accordance with their conscience. When you have MP's fearing for their lives or well-being you do not have a democracy any more. If you do not have that, you have a democracy like North Korea where 100% of the population vote the same.

So, according to Ukrainian constitution and basic principles of democracy, both Maidan government and Crimean government are illegal and illegitimate.

And you're wrong about Crimean referendum. There are gonna be two questions:
1) Whether you're for an independent Crimea?
2) Do you wish to join Russia?

If the answer to the first is "no", the other becomes irrelevant. If the answer to the first is "yes", they could still vote "no" on the second. Although, in this situation, the referendum itself should be considered illegitimate, because in the current atmosphere and heated tensions, no way can a proper democratic process take place.

HoreTore

03-10-2014, 23:09

The argument over the Kiev government centres on whether the Rada has the authority to remove the President

This is a complete non-issue.

An elected parliament always has the power to remove the head of state in civilized countries. Whether or not the Ukrainian constitution allows this is irrelevant.

It also seems like Sarmatian is confusing an interim government with an actual government.

Brenus

03-10-2014, 23:30

"An elected parliament always has the power to remove the head of state in civilized countries." Yeah, but normally with thousand and thousand people armed and having proved they can use them around the Parliament.
So, if Dictator are not legitimate, why are we supporting borders imposed by a Dictator. Crimea was attached to Ukraine in 1954 by an Ukase from Khrushchev. Or is there legitimate dictator and none legitimate. Why to be so scare of democracy? Let's the Crimean vote? Why not? They were denied by the Communist and now I can see all the Western Democracies agreeing with a Red Dictator... Isn't it funny?

"The decree, which ran a mere eight lines, stated that this measure was being taken because of "the economic commonalities, territorial closeness, and communication and cultural links". However: "According to the 1959 census, there were 268,000 Ukrainians but 858,000 ethnic Russians living in Crimea."
In http://www.soviethistory.org

So Crimea was not part of Ukraine it seems, before a Communist Dictator "gave" it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-10-2014, 23:41

This is a complete non-issue.

An elected parliament always has the power to remove the head of state in civilized countries. Whether or not the Ukrainian constitution allows this is irrelevant.

It also seems like Sarmatian is confusing an interim government with an actual government.

Obviously, being British, I agree with you

However, the argument is that if the Kiev government has violated the Constitution, then they cannot use the Constitution to restrain the Crimean Government.

In essence, the Constitution is in de-facto suspension and remains so until May 25th when a new President is elected, or until Yanakovych is restored.

That's really a red herring though, because there are Cossacks and Serbs running around taking over military hospitals.

There was a Russian Journalist for BBC Russia who reported they were stopped by some of the "non Russian" soldiers, and one had a VDV tattoo on his hand, marking him out as an airborne trooper.

Prediction: if Putin does not die soon, he will trigger WWIII

gaelic cowboy

03-10-2014, 23:50

Prediction: if Putin does not die soon, he will trigger WWIII

The man thinks he is in some great game with the "West" or something, sad thing is it was obviously all in his own head until now.

Mad thing is he seems to think we dont care about anything but gas and money.

Yet he also seems to think were all up all night looking to roll panzers or a colour revolution into Moscow or summit. ( an color rev would be all his own fault if it comes)

reality is russia was prob a low priority for years until now

HoreTore

03-10-2014, 23:55

However, the argument is that if the Kiev government has violated the Constitution, then they cannot use the Constitution to restrain the Crimean Government.

They do, as they have declared themselves to be an interim government. Crimea will have to suspend their shenanigans until Ukraine has a proper government.

The Crimeans are simply trying to take advantage of the confusion in Kiev, that attempt should be shut down. If they want independence, they will have to wait until the country has a proper government. It's not like this is a "now or never" situation for them.

Husar

03-11-2014, 01:56

Our side is definitely better.

It is actually worse, but makes up for that by celebrating itself more.

Definately - our politicians suck - but I can stand up in Church in a Ski-mask, and sing a profound song to that effect without going to a Gulag. Sure - I'll get arrested, but it'll be a fine and I have other ways of protesting Cameron et al than that, ways that won't get me arrested or undermine my point.

Russians do not have this.

That's not telling us much about Russian foreign policy.
And if Russians want that, why can't they have it? I thought the point of having different nations is that each one can be the way the inhabitants want it. If there is just one way nations are supposed to work, what's stopping Britain from getting close to the EU?

rvg

03-11-2014, 02:00

It is actually worse, but makes up for that by celebrating itself more.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
/Tribesman mode off

That's not telling us much about Russian foreign policy. And if Russians want that, why can't they have it? I thought the point of having different nations is that each one can be the way the inhabitants want it.
This is very true as long as Nation A doesn't try to steal land from Nation B.

ICantSpellDawg

03-11-2014, 02:00

I have a question for Europeans. Have the past few years added to or subtracted from your sense that Europe should be slashing it's military budgets?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-11-2014, 02:20

The man thinks he is in some great game with the "West" or something, sad thing is it was obviously all in his own head until now.

Mad thing is he seems to think we dont care about anything but gas and money.

Yet he also seems to think were all up all night looking to roll panzers or a colour revolution into Moscow or summit. ( an color rev would be all his own fault if it comes)

reality is russia was prob a low priority for years until now

I respect Vladamir Putin a great deal, and as an Englishman I think sending assassins after him would be totally worth it.

He's a brilliant man who has managed to get to the top of the Russian federation using his wits and his quite considerable charm - he's also utterly ruthless. In many ways he was born in the wrong time, had Germany been ruled by an Emperor or Britain a toothed monarch, he would be in his element. As it is, he's basically playing chess with himself because he lacks an opponent. Putin has controlled Russia now for the better part of two decades - in that time he has restored the country politically and economically, reduced corruption (no, really) and embarked on institutional reform of key organs of the state.

The West has been farting around having elections, failing to recognise what's really important and basically not being very effective.

"The west" does have long term goals, exemplified by incorporating the former Warsar Pact countries into the EU and NATO, but there's no one person pulling the strings, it's a sort of common understanding and a legacy of the Cold War.

Basically - because Putin is smarter than our leaders, he can't believe they are our leaders - he probably think HM Queen is secretly in control, or something.

rvg

03-11-2014, 02:28

...reduced corruption (no, really)...

This is one of those "nigga please" moments. Corruption under Putin has reached the heights never seen in modern Russia. It utterly permeates every aspect of Russian society. You can respect him for being a cunning leader and all that, but to say that he reduced corruption is laughable. He empowered corruption and continues to do so.

Husar

03-11-2014, 03:32

This is very true as long as Nation A doesn't try to steal land from Nation B.

You stole your entire country from the Indians and Britain...

rvg

03-11-2014, 03:44

You stole your entire country from the Indians and Britain...
Strawman needs more straw.

Actually, at this point your trolling is becoming too obvious. Off to the ignore list with you.

Edit: can't put mods on ignore. Too bad. Anyway, my communication with you is over.

Husar

03-11-2014, 03:50

Strawman needs more straw.

People are arguing that the West is superior based on the notion that *it just is*, but when you actually bring up failures of the West to show that it's not, it's a strawman? I hear about russians having gulags and we are supposedly better. But how are secret CIA torture prisons, gitmo and the ever-present gangrape in US prisons much better than gulags?

Actually, at this point your trolling is becoming too obvious. Off to the ignore list with you.

That's either paranoid or you can't stand the thought that the West isn't as superior as you keep arguing.
Your choice though.

Strike For The South

03-11-2014, 04:52

Let's just give it to them.

I mean we go through this every 40 years

Some Russian strongman comes in, points his finger at the west, calls us the baddies, and within 10 years some poor Eastern European shithole has lost 25% of its population. Just for fun, can we erect a 210th Yugoslavia, for old times sake?

Quite frankly, I'm well sick of it. You'd figure these people would quit getting duped.

This is the part where I LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL at the paper tiger that is the Russian military

Hell throw .5 liter of vodka at them and watch them go at it.

I don't fancy backing a fascist, but we've done worse, Pinochet anyone?

The fact some of you are equating Putin and the West is the tell all.

Strike For The South

03-11-2014, 05:10

How much do you think I respect China?

Montmorency

03-11-2014, 05:21

Their advantage is specifically size, not quality in any respect, despite what their kick-ass recruitment ads would have you believe.

I'm not really sure what this thread is about anymore, so I'll just leave this:

America is handling the situation about as well given the circumstances. America has entered another phase of relative passivity, and it really doesn't give a shit about Ukraine one way or another - while Ukraine is an integral part of the Russian national security strategy - but it's doing a good job of giving Russia a pinch and a nose-rub.

It's just to remind them that America is strong enough to interfere in their immediate periphery, while all Russia can do is hoard autocrats, alienate Eastern Europe, and sit on its nukes as its ethnic Russian population either dies off or emigrates. Basically a come-back to Syria.

Papewaio

03-11-2014, 05:29

"The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." Montesquieu

Putin can outplay the west by just waiting for the news cycle to move on.

Sarmatian

03-11-2014, 07:45

This is one of those "nigga please" moments. Corruption under Putin has reached the heights never seen in modern Russia. It utterly permeates every aspect of Russian society. You can respect him for being a cunning leader and all that, but to say that he reduced corruption is laughable. He empowered corruption and continues to do so.

He did. Compared to Yeltsin era, there's much less corruption. That's not to say there is not a lot.

Gilrandir

03-11-2014, 07:53

Ideally, nazis should be ignored and never let near a government position, especially areas of law and security.

You can't tell voters what they should do. If you do it will smack of Nazism. You know, I never thought I would defend Svoboda in anyone's eyes. The label of neo-nazis seems to have stuck to them to last. But what I want you to see is that pro-russian forces using anti-fascist rhetoric behave neo-nazi way themselves. Now I heard of THEM capturing state TV in Lugansk. In some East Ukrainian cities when you confront such people and start just speak Ukrainian they may literally stone you (as they tried to do with Klitchko in Kharkiv (plus egg him and potato him)). Is it a crime to speak any language? So the label of Nazi may be applied to many in present Ukraine. You choose to focus on one group only disregarding others. You seem to have a picture of the events formed rigidly, and when something pops up that can change it you brush it aside or disregard it rather than try to fit it into the picture.

As for "I support no candidates" part, you make that statement by folding an empty voting sheet and putting it in the ballot box. If you stay at home you're saying "I have no opinion/I'm not interested". By putting in an empty voting sheet you say "I don't like any of the candidates", because that way, your vote is counted, but not assigned. Democratic principles are great, but take time getting used to.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It shows how little you know what Yanukovych could do. If you put in a blank ballot the election board (appointed by the party at power and consisting mostly of teachers and civil servants easily bullied into whatever they could be under a threat of being fired) would discover it and tick the neccessary box themselves. You know, in some constituencies in Western Ukraine, where the Yanukovych's candidates or his party weren't likely to get many votes, pens in ballot booths had so called vanishing ink: if you write something with it, it will disappear in some minutes.
So I did better than you advise: I just took a ballot and wrote in bold letters "I support no candidate/party" across the whole space of it. Now the ballot is considered to be spoilt so I literally supported no one.

Also, I'm not sure I understand what non-authentic media means? Media that makes up stories?

No, I'm sorry I didn't make it clear. Media that uses other languages than Ukrainian or Russian.

Brenus

03-11-2014, 08:05

“Hell throw .5 liter of vodka at them and watch them go at it.” Hmmm, I am sure Hitler believed something like that. He received 8 Molotov cocktails in return (Russians being Russians, they will keep some).

Gilrandir

03-11-2014, 08:18

Could one of you please tell us how the current leadership of Ukraine violates their constitutional law making them illegitimate?
I would like to bring this discussion of legitimacy/legality of the current government in Ukraine to a close.
1. The parliament (the Verkhovna Rada) was elected two years ago. It is both legitimate and legal.
2. Under the returned by the legitimate and legal parliament constitution of 2004 THE MAJORITY IN THE PARLIAMENT APPOINTS THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE WHOLE GOVERNMENT (with the exception of some ministers - defense, internal and foreign affairs, perhaps some others of "the law-enforcement nature"). Those exceptions must be approved by the president. Until (or unless) they are, they continue performing their duties under the title of "acting (as) ministers".
Now about the composition of the government which, as Sarmatian believes, totally disregards the interest of pro-russian citizens.
1. The new government was appointed by the majority in the parliament elected by the whole population of Ukraine. At present the majority (representing all regions) believes that the management of the country should be entrusted to pro-western (as Sarmatian calls them) ministers. It is both logical and legal (and legitimate) that if you have the majority you take responsibility on yourselves and not involve those of the political minority into power. Do you win elections to offer positions to losers?
2. I have already told you about Makedonean approach to appointing ministers, prosecutors, civil cervants and local administration practised by Yanukovych. The previous powers-that-be didn't take into account the views of the pro-western population. Now why didn't I hear a single word of blame? You may say that they were political winners. At present the table has turned.

Gilrandir

03-11-2014, 08:25

And you're wrong about Crimean referendum. There are gonna be two questions:
1) Whether you're for an independent Crimea?
2) Do you wish to join Russia?

I don't know for sure but as far as I get the first question will sound like "do you wish to remain within Ukraine according to 1992 (or 1994, I don't remember) Crimean constitution". That edition of the Crimean constitution presupposes introduction of presidency in Crimea, ministries of foreign affairs, defense perhaps something else.

Gilrandir

03-11-2014, 08:26

You include the minority to preserve a sense of inclusion. Exclusion deepens divides.

The previous powers-that-be didn't take into account the views of the pro-western population and didn't include the minority.

Gilrandir

03-11-2014, 08:32

I care not one whit what the Ukrainians do with themselves, or what any fraction of them do with themselves. I care only that we should not get involved until they sort themselves out. If we're not being asked to do anything or involve ourselves in anyway, they can have another few revolutions if they so wish.
I think it is now about not what Ukrainians do to themselves, but what Russians do to Ukraine. Acquiescense proved to be not the best option in 1938.

Gilrandir

03-11-2014, 08:34

Ya thats the point. Revenge politics just destabilizes things at worst or creates a perpetual two-party deadlock. I get it though, revenge is pretty swell. :shrug:
You know, I'm tired of all this revenge business. But I think it will be dominating some aspects of internal life. The sooner we call it a day, the better.

Fisherking

03-11-2014, 09:34

Well, Gilrandir explained the interim government. If they follow their laws and constitution I would not be prone to call it illegitimate.

It is their country and their laws, not what outsiders like us think about it.

But there is still more.

On the other hand, the President of Crimea was appointed by the President of Ukraine, which is the constitutional model for that government.

Crimea was supposedly upset because the President of Ukraine was gone. If they supported the man and the party why did they need to remove the constitutional head of their government?

An unelected Oligarch took his place in a coup with armed men and called on the Russians to intervene.

What part of that seems constitutional, democratic, or legal?

What part of a quickly held referendum with armed men and outside troops and no outside observers would you trust?

It wouldn’t matter if 99% of the region was ethnic Russian. It is not a process you can trust.

This is just my understanding. There may be further facts I am unaware of. But from what I can see you can’t say that Ukraine is illegitimate but Crimea is acting justly.

It is hard to say, reasonably, that Ukraine is a bunch of thugs usurping power and not find the same true of Crimea.

Crimea is allowed to break away, provided it is also approved by the legislative body of Ukraine. Not a unilateral process.

Not that any of that is going to matter in this mess.

HoreTore

03-11-2014, 09:42

I have a question for Europeans. Have the past few years added to or subtracted from your sense that Europe should be slashing it's military budgets?

Added to, definitely.

Disband them all, I say.

Fisherking

03-11-2014, 09:53

I don’t know anything about this site, but the opinion piece includes a section on why Crimea became a part of Ukraine. Something that makes sense and could prove a burden for Russia once they get their hands on it for all time.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/03/vladimir_putin_s_crimean_mistake_the_russian_president_is_miscalculating.html

Pannonian

03-11-2014, 10:04

I think it is now about not what Ukrainians do to themselves, but what Russians do to Ukraine. Acquiescense proved to be not the best option in 1938.

Maybe you should try to guilt trip someone other than a Brit with comparisons with WWII. It wasn't Ukraine that fought alone against a rampant Germany for a year without allies. Maybe it should be someone else's turn to do what they think is the right thing, rather than it being incumbent on Britain all the time.

Myth

03-11-2014, 10:13

Pannonian

03-11-2014, 10:19

Fought isn't exactly correct. Huddled on the island behind the Royal Navy while the wolfpacks were busy hunting US and Canadian supply ships is more accurate.

A "rampant" Germany still makes it a one on one.

It still doesn't make Ukraine look any more worthy in the context that Gilrandir raises. IIRC Ukraine's country was allied to the cited Germany at the time. Perhaps we should adopt Ukraine's policy from 1938 and ally ourselves to Russia. If/when Russia turns on us, perhaps we should ally ourselves all the more with the Russian invaders, as many Ukrainians did with the Germans that Gilrandir talks about.

Sarmatian

03-11-2014, 11:15

You can't tell voters what they should do. If you do it will smack of Nazism. You know, I never thought I would defend Svoboda in anyone's eyes. The label of neo-nazis seems to have stuck to them to last. But what I want you to see is that pro-russian forces using anti-fascist rhetoric behave neo-nazi way themselves. Now I heard of THEM capturing state TV in Lugansk. In some East Ukrainian cities when you confront such people and start just speak Ukrainian they may literally stone you (as they tried to do with Klitchko in Kharkiv (plus egg him and potato him)). Is it a crime to speak any language? So the label of Nazi may be applied to many in present Ukraine. You choose to focus on one group only disregarding others. You seem to have a picture of the events formed rigidly, and when something pops up that can change it you brush it aside or disregard it rather than try to fit it into the picture.

I'm not telling anyone what to do. The fact that nazi parties get so much support indicates some problems within the country.

I don't disregard anything. I'm trying to explain than setting up a corrupt dictatorship will get you nowhere. Yanukovich overstepped his authority and was a corrupt politician, but unlike the current government, he was voted in.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It shows how little you know what Yanukovych could do. If you put in a blank ballot the election board (appointed by the party at power and consisting mostly of teachers and civil servants easily bullied into whatever they could be under a threat of being fired) would discover it and tick the neccessary box themselves. You know, in some constituencies in Western Ukraine, where the Yanukovych's candidates or his party weren't likely to get many votes, pens in ballot booths had so called vanishing ink: if you write something with it, it will disappear in some minutes.
So I did better than you advise: I just took a ballot and wrote in bold letters "I support no candidate/party" across the whole space of it. Now the ballot is considered to be spoilt so I literally supported no one.

During the elections, every candidate/party have their own representatives in most places where people vote. In addition to that, there are domestic and foreign ngo's that monitor the elections. Opinion polls, both Ukrainian and foreign, taken before the election pretty much confirmed that Yanukovich and the Party of Regions are going to win. There may have been small irregularities, as there usually are, but on the whole, both Yanukovich and Party of Regions were voted in.

.
Now about the composition of the government which, as Sarmatian believes, totally disregards the interest of pro-russian citizens.
1. The new government was appointed by the majority in the parliament elected by the whole population of Ukraine. At present the majority (representing all regions) believes that the management of the country should be entrusted to pro-western (as Sarmatian calls them) ministers. It is both logical and legal (and legitimate) that if you have the majority you take responsibility on yourselves and not involve those of the political minority into power. Do you win elections to offer positions to losers?
2. I have already told you about Makedonean approach to appointing ministers, prosecutors, civil cervants and local administration practised by Yanukovych. The previous powers-that-be didn't take into account the views of the pro-western population. Now why didn't I hear a single word of blame? You may say that they were political winners. At present the table has turned.

1. The government was appointed by the protest leaders and brought to parliament for confirmation. Prior to that there were widespread reports of Party or Regions MP's (and other undesirables) being threatened and bullied, both in the parliament and at their homes. It was even confirmed by Estonian foreign minister, who has absolutely no reason to lie in that regard. Are you trying to fool yourself or me?

2. They were political winners in the elections, current leadership in a putsch. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then there's not much I can do to help you.

HoreTore

03-11-2014, 11:25

2. They were political winners in the elections, current leadership in a putsch. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then there's not much I can do to help you.

....And the current government does not claim to be an elected government, but rather an interrim government awaiting elections. How can you not understand that difference?

If they cancel that election and stay in power, you are right; then they are an illegitimate and illegal government who gained power in a coup. For the time being, they are not.

Sarmatian

03-11-2014, 11:41

....And the current government does not claim to be an elected government, but rather an interrim government awaiting elections. How can you not understand that difference?

If they cancel that election and stay in power, you are right; then they are an illegitimate and illegal government who gained power in a coup. For the time being, they are not.

I've thought we've already established what an interim government is supposed to do - hold elections as soon as possible and make sure the country keeps functioning in the meantime.

What interim government should not do:
1) Encourage people to violently expel regional governments in control of the opposition
2) Radically alter domestic policies
3) Radically alter foreign policies
4) Do everything in its power to weaken and disorganize the opposition

Since the Maidan government did all that, it can not be considered an interim government, but a government intent on staying in power after the interim period by all means necessary.

ICantSpellDawg

03-11-2014, 12:10

Added to, definitely.

Disband them all, I say.

Cmon. Obviously all militaries should be completely disbanded. But then somebody creates one and everyone is SOL. Your solution to conflict is to disband your own military?

rvg

03-11-2014, 12:21

He did. Compared to Yeltsin era, there's much less corruption. That's not to say there is not a lot.
What you're saying is pure nonsense.

Husar

03-11-2014, 12:29

I don't fancy backing a fascist, but we've done worse, Pinochet anyone?

The fact some of you are equating Putin and the West is the tell all.

Yeah, I get it, since we backed people who were worse than Putin, that makes it okay for us to back just anyone, except Putin, because he was declared the enemy. :laugh4:

Who is getting duped here?

You start to remind me of Fragony with how you repeat some stereotypes that were proven wrong long ago in this thread, you even added a borderline racist remark. Is that the best America has to offer?

Russia may only look out for its own interests but that's exactly what the USA and many other countries do as well. You can tell me how bad Putin is all day long, it doesn't change the fact that you spy on your allies, you tortured people all over the world, you treat people like animals in your gulag on Cuba and you backed several murderous dictators yourselves.
If you want me to say the USA are better than Russia, it would help to actually be better*. I'm pretty sure I've made the point that your countries are very similar in many regards long before this Ukraine thing happened. It has nothing to do with Putin that the USA lost their moral authority if they ever had any.

*I actually used to believe you were as a kid when I was only influenced by US media/propaganda and had no idea about all this political stuff and the dark side of it all, which was conveniently left out. Don't tell me there is no propaganda in the West.

Montmorency

03-11-2014, 12:54

you treat people like animals in your gulag on Cuba

Not really, no.

USA and Russia are very similar - they both torture people.

And - so? That bare fact obliterates all other differences between the two? What makes any country different from any other country, come to think of it?

I actually used to believe you were as a kid when I was only influenced by US media/propaganda and had no idea about all this political stuff and the dark side of it all, which was conveniently left out. Don't tell me there is no propaganda in the West.

Check to make sure that your current view isn't equally childish.

HoreTore

03-11-2014, 13:03

Your solution to conflict is to disband your own military?

Yup.

Fisherking

03-11-2014, 13:08

Yeah, I get it, since we backed people who were worse than Putin, that makes it okay for us to back just anyone, except Putin, because he was declared the enemy. :laugh4:

Who is getting duped here?

You start to remind me of Fragony with how you repeat some stereotypes that were proven wrong long ago in this thread, you even added a borderline racist remark. Is that the best America has to offer?

Russia may only look out for its own interests but that's exactly what the USA and many other countries do as well. You can tell me how bad Putin is all day long, it doesn't change the fact that you spy on your allies, you tortured people all over the world, you treat people like animals in your gulag on Cuba and you backed several murderous dictators yourselves.
If you want me to say the USA are better than Russia, it would help to actually be better*. I'm pretty sure I've made the point that your countries are very similar in many regards long before this Ukraine thing happened. It has nothing to do with Putin that the USA lost their moral authority if they ever had any.

*I actually used to believe you were as a kid when I was only influenced by US media/propaganda and had no idea about all this political stuff and the dark side of it all, which was conveniently left out. Don't tell me there is no propaganda in the West.

Is it a popularity contest?

If so, I am sure Putin wins.

I am just about sure that anyone who runs for high office would sell their mother and pimp their kids to get the job, but all the same, Putin has more appeal than most of the western dishrags.

That still doesn’t mean that he is right in this case. Ukraine should be able to choose what ever new kleptomaniac plutocrat they choose without the neighbors horning in an stealing parts of the country.

Sarmatian

03-11-2014, 13:32

What you're saying is pure nonsense.

I bow to the strength of your arguments. :bow:

Yup.

Seconded!

rvg

03-11-2014, 13:46

I bow to the strength of your arguments. :bow:

As you should. I know more about Russia than you ever will.

Sarmatian

03-11-2014, 14:17

As you should. I know more about Russia than you ever will.

Teach me, master, please!

rvg

03-11-2014, 14:23

Teach me, master, please!

Padawan, learn you must...

In 1998 Russia was #76 in the world corruption index.
In 2013 Russia was #127.

Edit: lower place is worse, in case if that wasn't painfully obvious.

Kagemusha

03-11-2014, 15:26

I guess the crisis must be loosing its momentum, because in this thread things are starting to sound more and more as business usual in the BR....:hide:

Montmorency

03-11-2014, 16:07

I think it's that Putin centralized and bureaucratized corruption - or something.

After all, did the Winter Olympics really need to cost up to 3 times as much as the 2008 Summer Olympics?

Sarmatian

03-11-2014, 16:41

Padawan, learn you must...

In 1998 Russia was #76 in the world corruption index.
In 2013 Russia was #127.

Edit: lower place is worse, in case if that wasn't painfully obvious.

I can't say how reliable the data is, but I can hardly believe the general lawlessness of Yeltsin era, when selected people were buying companies worth billions for literally two cases of vodka was better than Putin's.

I think it's that Putin centralized and bureaucratized corruption - or something.

After all, did the Winter Olympics really need to cost up to 3 times as much as the 2008 Summer Olympics?

That was showing off. Also, it depends where you decide to make it happen. Sochi was relatively undeveloped and the Olympics was a way to invest in it and promote it.

rvg

03-11-2014, 16:49

I can't say how reliable the data is, but I can hardly believe the general lawlessness of Yeltsin era, when selected people were buying companies worth billions for literally two cases of vodka was better than Putin's.
More nonsense, padawan. Avoid the nonsense you must.

Smart people were buying privatization vouchers from stupid people. Then they took those vouchers and turned them in to get shares in Russian oil, gas and other industries dealing primarily with extraction of minerals. They got fabulously rich. The stupid were left with nothing. Smart > stupid. That's an axiom and it has nothing to do with lawlessness.

Sarmatian

03-11-2014, 17:05

More nonsense, padawan. Avoid the nonsense you must.

Smart people were buying privatization vouchers from stupid people. Then they took those vouchers and turned them in to get shares in Russian oil, gas and other industries dealing primarily with extraction of minerals. They got fabulously rich. The stupid were left with nothing. Smart > stupid. That's an axiom and it has nothing to do with lawlessness.

Well, if you consider that normal, than I understand your position.

rvg

03-11-2014, 17:08

Well, if you consider that normal, than I understand your position.

Of course I consider it normal. The vouchers were given evenly to the entire country, each family got one. It's not Yeltsin's fault that 95% of people are idiots who would sell their voucher for a case of booze. C'est la vie.

Montmorency

03-11-2014, 17:20

I can hardly believe the general lawlessness of Yeltsin era, when selected people were buying companies worth billions for literally two cases of vodka was better than Putin's.

That was showing off.

So it's just like I said. There's more corruption now, it's just that Putin orchestrates or oversees the biggest bits himself.

As for the underdevelopment of Sochi, well, well-known Putin cronies got multi-billion-dollar contracts to build up infrastructure - they didn't do jack.

See, that's the difference between American and Russian corruption/patronage: America is much more multipolar, so the money gets spread out much more.

Husar

03-11-2014, 17:58

Not really, no.

USA and Russia are very similar - they both torture people.

And - so? That bare fact obliterates all other differences between the two? What makes any country different from any other country, come to think of it?

Of course there are differences, I was talking mostly about foreign policy and how other countries are treated.
Internally the USA are preferable but not exactly great either IMO. The Daily Show made a nice comparison: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-19-2014/jason-jones-live-from-sochi-ish---better-off-red

Check to make sure that your current view isn't equally childish.

I haven't seen a single tangible argument on why I should prefer US foreign policy over the Russian one from a relatively neutral POV.
From eavesdropping on my elected government officials to "**** the EU" comments I find it a little hard to see the US government as my best and mostest well-meaning friends. Please show me what I am overlooking. The Marshall plan? That only came about because we were supposed to serve as pincushions against the "red tide".

See, that's the difference between American and Russian corruption/patronage: America is much more multipolar, so the money gets spread out much more.

Is it that what the increasing wealth gap proves? Maybe we're just slower.

Sarmatian

03-11-2014, 18:04

See, that's the difference between American and Russian corruption/patronage: America is much more multipolar, so the money gets spread out much more.

When it comes to corruption, America is light years ahead of Russia (ahead in a positive sense), there's no contest there.

We're comparing Yeltsin era corruption to Putin era, and I believe Yeltsin era was worse.

Montmorency

03-11-2014, 18:11

why I should prefer US foreign policy over the Russian one from a relatively neutral POV.

As a German, you are in a good position to contemplate it. Germany and Russia have been getting close lately, and recent German assertiveness, both in general and towards Russia (over Ukraine) in particular is interesting. Clearly, the German government does not want to get too close to Russia for the time being.

Anyway, the US' foreign policy is preferable: the US views Germany as a useful economic and political partner, and the two are separated by thousands of miles. Russia and Germany have recent mutual acrimony, and ultimately Russia will always view Germany and Western Europe as a national-security threat (at least on par that of America, nukes notwithstanding). Russia wants buffers between itself and its heartland, so it will continually attempt to push its borders as close to Germany as possible - and I figure that might make you sweat more than the contempt of the Americans and their spies.

rvg

03-11-2014, 18:12

We're comparing Yeltsin era corruption to Putin era, and I believe Yeltsin era was worse.

It really wasn't. There was less corruption. As far as lawlessness goes, Russia is still lawless. The big difference is that before people were victimized by the gangsters, now they are victimized by the police. Russia used to have freedom of speech and more or less free elections. Gone and gone. One thing that improved was the price of oil and gas. That's it.

Montmorency

03-11-2014, 18:17

When it comes to corruption, America is light years ahead of Russia (ahead in a positive sense), there's no contest there.

Sure, but I'm just noting that they're not unrelated (i.e. polarity and relative corruption).

Yeltsin vs Putin:

Putin has cleaned up low-level corruption where it suits him, which is what I think you have in mind, but as a tool of governance he's just gathered all the chaotic strings toward his chest. But I'm mostly just repeating myself. If we're to get anywhere, then we need to be more specific than just "corruption".

Fisherking

03-11-2014, 19:14

When it comes to corruption, America is light years ahead of Russia (ahead in a positive sense), there's no contest there.

We're comparing Yeltsin era corruption to Putin era, and I believe Yeltsin era was worse.

That would be a hard call.

The whole corruption index is perceived corruption. It is hard to actually quantify.

During Yeltsin it was more from the top. Today it could be just more general.

Russians seem to see their civil servants and Bureaucracy as corrupt but not their media and politicians.

If the civil servants are corrupt, those above them are also. Bet on it. They can’t get away with it if those above them are not getting a cut too.

Corruption brought down the Soviets. Today I think it is more managed. Even centralized.

That of the Yeltsin era was certainly more destructive to the nation.

Sarmatian

03-11-2014, 19:23

As a German, you are in a good position to contemplate it. Germany and Russia have been getting close lately, and recent German assertiveness, both in general and towards Russia (over Ukraine) in particular is interesting. Clearly, the German government does not want to get too close to Russia for the time being.

Germany is a part of NATO and at the moment and short-term future considers US a more important partner. The other side of the coin is that Germany was the strongest opponent of tough measures against Russia, blocking the idea of kicking Russia out of G8. That tells me that Germany consider Russia a very important partner in the long term. More important, less important or of equal importance as US, that is hard to say.

Some political analysts in Germany are openly wondering would it be better for German and EU interests to "substitute UK for Russia". Obviously, this crisis over Ukraine has and will spoil relations, but in the long term, I believe it will prove to be a minor bump.

Anyway, the US' foreign policy is preferable: the US views Germany as a useful economic and political partner, and the two are separated by thousands of miles. Russia and Germany have recent mutual acrimony, and ultimately Russia will always view Germany and Western Europe as a national-security threat (at least on par that of America, nukes notwithstanding). Russia wants buffers between itself and its heartland, so it will continually attempt to push its borders as close to Germany as possible - and I figure that might make you sweat more than the contempt of the Americans and their spies.

I don't believe so. I think Russia sees Germany as potential best bud in Europe, and that becoming best buds with Germany is the best possible course for safety and stability of Russia.

Montmorency

03-11-2014, 19:35

Seamus Fermanagh

03-11-2014, 19:48

Nothing else will happen unless Ukrainians make it happen. If civil war breaks out in the country, things could spiral out of control. If Ukrainian troops try to take back Crimea for some reason, things could spiral out of control. If Russia tries to take Eastern Ukraine for some reason, things could spiral out of control.

I think those are all unlikely scenarios though. The powers that be seem to have contained the situation.

Again, to simplify. Are you willing to kill a few thousands of your own soldiers to demonstrate your willpower in this confrontation. If not, then do what you can with words, but remember Pompeus Magnus' reminder to Cato.

Pannonian

03-11-2014, 20:18

Again, to simplify. Are you willing to kill a few thousands of your own soldiers to demonstrate your willpower in this confrontation. If not, then do what you can with words, but remember Pompeus Magnus' reminder to Cato.

Can you remind me of this reminder? It's been quite a while since I last read the texts.

Tellos Athenaios

03-11-2014, 20:28

Can you remind me of this reminder? It's been quite a while since I last read the texts.

You've not played enough EB. It was a reminder to stop quoting law, for the audience carried swords.

Husar

03-11-2014, 21:04

Maybe, but on the other hand I don't think Russia will stop seeking an Eastern-European sphere of influence with that expectation, and maybe there will be regional tensions, and militarization, and after all Germany and Poland are also going for the "best buds" deal, and if Europeans begin replacing Russian spot-oil with locally-fracked natural gas, and Russia after Putin becomes less stable and more unpredictable...

It's complicated.

Do you actually think Russia could try to annex Poland or any other EU member country just like that?
Ukraine works because it's far away and most people here think it's Russia anyway, or thought so before the current crisis.

But I do not think that Russia can just touch an EU member with the rest of the EU just voicing protest.
Instead, we would congratulate our new member Russia and Brussels would force all kinds of nonsense on them until they just whinge and wish they had never done that.
Or WW3, without popcorn.

I don't even see why Russia would want to have that many buffers when better relations could make buffers completely unnecessary.

Pannonian

03-11-2014, 21:21

You've not played enough EB. It was a reminder to stop quoting law, for the audience carried swords.

I knew of the quote, but didn't know he'd said it to Cato.

Montmorency

03-11-2014, 22:55

Do you actually think Russia could try to annex Poland or any other EU member country just like that?

Well, no - I was speaking of their geopolitical imperatives, not a specific near-term goal.

I don't even see why Russia would want to have that many buffers when better relations could make buffers completely unnecessary.

If only the path to OWG were that easy...

Husar

03-12-2014, 00:17

Well, no - I was speaking of their geopolitical imperatives, not a specific near-term goal.

Of course, everybody has goals for the long term:
https://i.imgur.com/H9XyOHI.jpg

http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/it-is-time-to-pursue-a-cooperative-greater-europe_1167.html

If only the path to OWG were that easy...

It's usually harder to integrate than it is to separate but we will keep fighting the good fight.

Beskar

03-12-2014, 00:56

Of course, everybody has goals for the long term:
https://i.imgur.com/H9XyOHI.jpg
http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/it-is-time-to-pursue-a-cooperative-greater-europe_1167.html

Problem is, Russia would dominate the Union, especially if it joins as a single-bloc, the current nation-state hegemony doesn't work that well as check and balance.

Only way for the EU to be more balanced is the breakdown of the Nation States into NUTS level 1 borderies or similar. That would look similar to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-level_NUTS_of_the_European_Union). The United Kingdom was actually done like this under labour, but unfortunately, the North-East referendum screw-up failed to implement it correctly, as it gives regions more control as per devolution. Instead we ended up with Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and London getting the benefits and not the rest.

The joining Russian Federation would have to be broken down like this as well.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-12-2014, 01:20

Problem is, Russia would dominate the Union, especially if it joins as a single-bloc, the current nation-state hegemony doesn't work that well as check and balance.

Only way for the EU to be more balanced is the breakdown of the Nation States into NUTS level 1 borderies or similar. That would look similar to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-level_NUTS_of_the_European_Union). The United Kingdom was actually done like this under labour, but unfortunately, the North-East referendum screw-up failed to implement it correctly, as it gives regions more control as per devolution. Instead we ended up with Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and London getting the benefits and not the rest.

The joining Russian Federation would have to be broken down like this as well.

Screw up?

You mean where they voted the "wrong" way?

This thread isn't about the democratic deficit in the EU, it's about the democratic deficit in Russia and the Ukraine.

But lets us digress for a moment - the reason the EU doesn't work as a democracy is that there is absolutely no unified polity - the fact that parts of France, the UK and Spain keep trying to break away should tell you something about how bolting NUTS together works in practice, just barely if at all.

Ultimately no amount of internal re-organisation will keep a country together, it didn't work for Russia (Ukraine was historically part of the Russian Empire, mostly) and it hasn't worked all that well for Ukraine - there's enough ill feeling about Kiev that some people would rather be Russian than Ukrainian.

No, given that many Russians don't want to be Russian - you have to ask just what the Crimeans think about Kiev.

Here's a piece: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26503476

Does he believe the allegations of Russians here that those from western Ukraine are out to harm them?

"It's a myth", he tells me. "We just spent a couple of months in the western city of Lviv. People there are extremely polite and kind. There is no violence to Russian people - I was speaking Russian with no problems. The fear comes from propaganda on television.

"When I went to the west, my mother told me not to say I was from Sevastopol - and she watches a lot of TV. People in western Ukraine are united to build a new country without corruption and without criminals. We are looking forward to helping them."

Sounds like the Welsh or the Scots.

rvg

03-12-2014, 01:59

Montmorency

03-12-2014, 02:06

Of course, everybody has goals for the long term:
https://i.imgur.com/H9XyOHI.jpg

Do they have a linguistically-representative chant for the EU stormtroopers yet? :wink:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-12-2014, 03:10

The difference with Ukraine is that the conflict there is far more ideological than it is ethnic. There's 50 million Ukrainian citizens and most of the do not want to be Putin's slaves. I would hate to see them getting turned into slaves while we sit around and twiddle our thumbs.

Not to mention that the 1994 memorandum morally obligates us to act.

Yeah - America was literally founded on broken treaties.

With regard to the corruption issue, Russia scores highly today because Putin uses patronage and favours as political tools - that registers as "corruption" on indices calibrated against Germanic democracies, but it makes perfect sense in what is a semi-feudal Tyranny.

I doubt Putin sees the Russian people as "slaves" any more than Lenin did, or the Tsar for that matter. Actually - Tsar Nicholas might be a good comparison, save that he lacked Putin's political agility and the correct atmosphere to reform Russia in.

rvg

03-12-2014, 03:31

Yeah - America was literally founded on broken treaties.
Yeah, but that doesn't obligate us to keep breaking them.

With regard to the corruption issue, Russia scores highly today because Putin uses patronage and favours as political tools - that registers as "corruption" on indices calibrated against Germanic democracies, but it makes perfect sense in what is a semi-feudal Tyranny.
I think this is exactly what Russia is today.

I doubt Putin sees the Russian people as "slaves" any more than Lenin did, or the Tsar for that matter. Actually - Tsar Nicholas might be a good comparison, save that he lacked Putin's political agility and the correct atmosphere to reform Russia in.
I don't think he sees them as slaves, he just treats them as such. I don't think he goes out of his way to hurt the people, he simply doesn't care, they are not present in any of his calculations. If they benefit, that's okay, if they get hurt -- no big deal. People outside of Putin's inner circle and his bureaucratic pyramid simply do not matter.

Sarmatian

03-12-2014, 07:51

Not to mention that the 1994 memorandum morally obligates us to act.

Can anyone link to the text of the memorandum?

Yesterday I've read in an article from some American newspapers that the wording of the memorandum is such that US, UK, Russia are only obligated to defend Ukraine in case of nuclear attack.

Montmorency

03-12-2014, 07:55

Ask, and (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)...

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.
Signed in four copies having equal validity in the English, Russian and Ukrainian languages.

Brenus

03-12-2014, 08:04

“Not to mention that the 1994 memorandum morally obligates us to act” Err, that is a stretch: text is saying: “reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine”. So the seek the UNITED NATIONS, not NATO or EU or USA or whatever other bodies.
Morally…. Right…

Myth

03-12-2014, 10:14

Montmorency

03-12-2014, 10:16

They should ask Russia for one.

Sarmatian

03-12-2014, 10:28

Ukraine may have to go nuclear, says Kiev lawmaker (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/2014/03/10/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-russia-crimea/6274301/)

Well if Israel can make nukes, why not Ukraine? Hell, I'd like everyone to have at least one nuke. A lot less democracy policing will happen.

The truth is that Ukraine didn't return the nuclear weapons because they felt like it, but because they didn't have the funds or the expertise to properly maintain them. There would have been a bigger chance of a nuclear leak than a successful launch. The corruption and instability of the country would have made it extremely dangerous for nuclear weapons.

I'd like less nuclear weapons in the world, not more.

Gilrandir

03-12-2014, 11:10

On the other hand, the President of Crimea was appointed by the President of Ukraine, which is the constitutional model for that government.

There is no president in Crimea. At least not yet. They have a parliament which appoints the cabinet of ministers and the prime minister. If present Crimean authorities don't recognize the new government in Kyiv it would be logical to proclaim allegiance to Yanukovych and invite him to rule the part of the country which still considers him a legal/legitimate/any-other-L-word-you-like president. They don't do that: they neither acknowledge the new government nor insist on the old one to return.

Gilrandir

03-12-2014, 11:35

Maybe you should try to guilt trip someone other than a Brit with comparisons with WWII. It wasn't Ukraine that fought alone against a rampant Germany for a year without allies. Maybe it should be someone else's turn to do what they think is the right thing, rather than it being incumbent on Britain all the time.
Firstly, I didn't know you were a Brit. Secondly, I don't call for GB to interfere military-wise. Thirdly, I don't call for any country to interfere military-wise. Fourthly, I don't blame anyone for their present stance. I am aware of a complex nature of the crisis. I just draw some historical parallels.
What I believe could be done is utilizing other levers than warfare. When the West introduced sanctions against Yanukovych and his posse his supporters fell off almost at once. They were more afraid to lose their fortunes and estates abroad than to call Yanukovych a traitor and a criminal. So, what I would hope to see is economic sanstions and traveling limitations. Since this war is waged not by one person (with his friends) but by the armed forces of the whole country (though unidentified still) it would be logical to freeze all financial operations of all people who have Russian citizenship and forbid them all to enter the countries that agree to introduce sanctions. I think within a couple of hours after that Putin will have very unpleasant talks with Abramovich, Deripasko and other Russian billionaires having business and property abroad. Plus thousands of Russians fuming at airports and railway stations whose trips have been cancelled would notify their president of their dissatisfaction and annoyance. It will make him more easy to persuade in the neccessity of negotiations, to say the least.
I know that many of you will say that it is too great a price to pay to help Ukraine. I know that other countries have first of all their interests to think of. But that is the only way I see that can somehow influence Russia without any military involvement of the West.

Fisherking

03-12-2014, 11:56

Just wondering.

Since the Crimean parliament has declared their independence even before the referendum and the vote leaves no choice to remain within Ukraine, is it not time to pull the plug on their electricity and close the water tap?

The logistics of replacing those services would drive the Russians mad.

The Navy could provide some of the power, if it is a nuclear fleet, but would mean they could only remain in port hooked to the grid, but the water would be one hell of a problem

Gilrandir

03-12-2014, 12:08

During the elections, every can didate/party have their own representatives in most places where people vote. In addition to that, there are domestic and foreign ngo's that monitor the elections.

Those representatives are not allowed to monitor the counting of votes. They are sent home after the voting is done.

Opinion polls, both Ukrainian and foreign, taken before the election pretty much confirmed that Yanukovich and the Party of Regions are going to win. There may have been small irregularities, as there usually are, but on the whole, both Yanukovich and Party of Regions were voted in.

I don't deny it. But I can update you on the electoral tactics used by the Party of Regions. In the places where they were sure to win (South-East) it was all pretty much fair and square. The places they were sure to lose (Western Ukraine) got the same treatment: you can't fraud so much. I live in central Ukraine which (together with Kyiv) accounts for a third of the electorate. It is here that the violations were most outrageous. In five constituencies elections were held void as the results "couldn't be identified", as the officials said. In my city the head of the electoral board (when she saw that the candidate supported by the Party of Regions didn't win) took the seal of the board and the final protocol with the election results and disappeared. The ballots were destroyed so that re-counting could not be performed.

1. The government was appointed by the protest leaders and brought to parliament for confirmation.

Who do you consider protest leaders? Yatsenyuk, Klitschko and Tyagnybok? They were not. It was hard for them to control Maidan, they shuttled between Maidan and Yanukovych acting more like go-betweens than protest leaders. Very often Maidan expressed dissatisfaction with what they did stating that their protests were not aimed at any politician getting a new job. When the agreement with Yanukovych was reached it was Maidan that did not accept it. So it was the other way around: parliamentary opposition leaders after having consulatations brought the list of the ministers for Maidan to approve and then it was voted for officially in the parliament. And this approval by Maidan (by way of acclamation) did not satisfy Maidan. There are ministers who are held suspicious by Maidan and Yatsenyuk as a prime minister is not what the majority of Maidan likes. But Maidan agreed to it like an unpleasant neccessity liable to change if ministers start to abuse power.

2. They were political winners in the elections, current leadership in a putsch. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then there's not much I can do to help you.
So if you are a political winner in the election you can disregard the view of another half of the counrty. That's how political compomise works, I see.

Fisherking

03-12-2014, 12:18

The other side of the coin: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26531310

If your leader gives you a war everyone is going to rise to the patriotic cause and not look at what is happening at home.

I doubt that the west does any sanctions and Putin will be emboldened to do it all again, at least until everyone has had enough.

If he doesn’t get his fingers burned this time, what will the next time bring?

Gilrandir

03-12-2014, 12:28

I don't even see why Russia would want to have that many buffers when better relations could make buffers completely unnecessary.
It is not about having buffers. Or not only about having buffers. Putin is:
1) angry because things in Ukraine have gotten out of his control and it was not him who rode the storm. His bet Yanukovych was evicted too soon before he could play him to the full extent. In his 11 of March appearance to the public in Rostov Yanukovych was introduced to the audience not as "the President of Ukraine" but just his full name was recited. That says that Putin has now other cards to play, he needs Yanukovych little any more;
2) afraid because if Russians new about true reasons and nature of the protests something like that might happen in Russia, for, whatever Sarmatian the Omniscient may claim, curruption is still endemic in Russia, only it is more centralized and supervised.
So I believe it is emotions that goad Putin now rather than logical calculations and cold reason.

ICantSpellDawg

03-12-2014, 13:05

Lets all calm down and remind ourselves that none of us (save the insane) want a huge war with Russia.

From what I hear, the Crimean rebels have planted landmines across the border between the peninsula and mainland Ukraine. Which makes me wonder where exactly they got all this ordinance....

Do you believe that the majority ever wants war? Where one man in 1000 desires war, there it is. Horetore wants to disband his nations military in response to this crisis. How will he enforce his social and economic policies on those who won't listen? Probably by militarizing his police force.

Personally, I share the hopeful expectation that by 2025 the Russian Federation will be in some sort of defensive/economic cooperative with NATO and the EU in the face of growing Chinese irredentist pressure. I would like to see a relatively stable Northern Hemisphere with devolved political controls at the lower level. Putin and his allies in the Duma are probably the greatest opponents of this.

Sarmatian

03-12-2014, 13:18

Those representatives are not allowed to monitor the counting of votes. They are sent home after the voting is done.

I highly doubt that, as there must be some mechanisms to for all involved parties and foreign observers to verify the counting of the votes.

I don't deny it. But I can update you on the electoral tactics used by the Party of Regions. In the places where they were sure to win (South-East) it was all pretty much fair and square. The places they were sure to lose (Western Ukraine) got the same treatment: you can't fraud so much. I live in central Ukraine which (together with Kyiv) accounts for a third of the electorate. It is here that the violations were most outrageous. In five constituencies elections were held void as the results "couldn't be identified", as the officials said. In my city the head of the electoral board (when she saw that the candidate supported by the Party of Regions didn't win) took the seal of the board and the final protocol with the election results and disappeared. The ballots were destroyed so that re-counting could not be performed.

You can cite specific examples to you heart's desire. The bottom line is that everyone except Timoshenko confirmed that elections were honest. OSCE said the elections were "professional, transparent and honest", and it was confirmed by an army of other observers.

Who do you consider protest leaders? Yatsenyuk, Klitschko and Tyagnybok? They were not.

I know, which complicates things further.

It was hard for them to control Maidan, they shuttled between Maidan and Yanukovych acting more like go-betweens than protest leaders. Very often Maidan expressed dissatisfaction with what they did stating that their protests were not aimed at any politician getting a new job. When the agreement with Yanukovych was reached it was Maidan that did not accept it. So it was the other way around: parliamentary opposition leaders after having consulatations brought the list of the ministers for Maidan to approve and then it was voted for officially in the parliament. And this approval by Maidan (by way of acclamation) did not satisfy Maidan. There are ministers who are held suspicious by Maidan and Yatsenyuk as a prime minister is not what the majority of Maidan likes. But Maidan agreed to it like an unpleasant neccessity liable to change if ministers start to abuse power.

With this, and especially this last sentence, you hit the nail right on the head. Some western governments, happy that there's a chance that Ukraine shifts into their sphere of influence, started pouring tons of manure on the entire thing, hoping something beautiful will grow out of it. Most notably - the idea it was the Rada who threw Yanukovich out and that it was the Rada who elected a new government, like PVC and some others here mentioned. That allowed them to shroud everything in a veil of democracy and pretend it's all fine and dandy.

What the Russians have been saying is that it was a coup by protesters, and that this government can not be considered legal and legitimate for that reason.

At the end of the day, no matter how corrupt or hated the politicians are, 100,000, 200,000 or 300,000 protesters in Kiev don't have the right to decide for 50 million Ukrainians.

So if you are a political winner in the election you can disregard the view of another half of the counrty. That's how political compomise works, I see.

You obviously don't understand the basic principles of democracy or the purpose of the elections.

Sarmatian the Omniscient

Hey, thanks, I like the sound of that.