Ukraine-in-a-thread

“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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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

"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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:

---

Litvinenko - Polonium.

Also - the Russian journalist murdered in her apartment building.

The Point is Putin has form, not Russia or the Russian government - Putin.

Now, I won't pretend that the estra-judicial execution of Bin Laden et al was not a dirty business, and I know they never intended to capture him BUT it's when the US murders Snowden or Assange in broad daylight using a US Drone that I'll be willing to draw a direct comparison.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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/hotspo...mbassy_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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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/hotspo...mbassy_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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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/hotspo...mbassy_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?

---

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?

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

“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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 and 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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between legality and 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between legality and 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

? :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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Our side is definitely better.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
/Tribesman mode off

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

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.

How much do you think I respect China?

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

“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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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.

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_a...lculating.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Your solution to conflict is to disband your own military?

---

Yup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

What you're saying is pure nonsense.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yup.

---

Seconded!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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

---

Teach me, master, please!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

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:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.