-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fisherking
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?
-
Re: Ukraine
there are other orthodox countries which are weaker than ukraine :bounce:
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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?
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
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*
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
"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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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?
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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?
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fisherking
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fisherking
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...
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
I'm curious to know if Mr Myth has any interesting news regarding what his compatriot saw in Crimea.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Thank you, captain obvious.
Indeed, it was obviously necessary given the wrong names you called him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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:
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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?
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
You know who else is an elected president? Robert Mugabe. Ain't he a charmer?
Is Obama a charmer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Please tell me the address of the rock under which you're living. I'm seriously considering moving there.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/annexation
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
If you aren't afraid of those who have power over you you are an idiot imho.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
Haven't heard that yet from under my rock.
That's why I'd wanna move there. Away from the troubles of this world.
-
Re: Ukraine
“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.
-
Re: Ukraine
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It is what I said in my post but you don't seem to trust me.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
I want to see the EU expand and weaken under the weight.
And why should the EU comply with this wish?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
"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...
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
“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…
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
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?
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
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...
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brenus
“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).
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
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?
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
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
-
Re: Ukraine
Has anyone heard this?
Think it is true?
http://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspo...mbassy_kiev-0/
Plenty more articles on the site if you want the Russian view.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
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.
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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....
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
"It's the same woman after 4 plastic surgeries." KGB still the best...
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TiagoJRToledo
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.
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Screw it, I'm reading from the last page and calling it even.
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gaelic cowboy
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.
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
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.
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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...
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
"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:
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brenus
"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?
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kagemusha
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%.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
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....
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
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?
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
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.
-
Re: What can "The West" do if Russia expands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
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.
-
Re: Who are the provocateurs in Ukrainian crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
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...
-
Re: Ukraine
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
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.
