Trying to break the police cordon that was next to them. Police used the tear gas and batons, protesters used tear gas, fire crackers and rocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Printable View
Trying to break the police cordon that was next to them. Police used the tear gas and batons, protesters used tear gas, fire crackers and rocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In fairness to Sarmatian, I remember that the protests were other than civil from the get go, in small parts. I remember water, rocks and firecrackers being thrown at police before the repression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Still, I recognize that the regime was autocratic and taking Ukraine on an awful path. I am thrilled with the result so far.
Remember Kent State?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Jackson?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_State_killings
Oakland?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngE6kKk8Lg
Small numbers of provacateurs are often blamed for larger scale repression. My mom was arrested peacefully protesting outside of an abortion clinic when I was young. She remembers a police officer breaking/dislocating a handcuffed mans arm when they got into the truck and kicking someone else. People in the US are human - prone to the same uplifting emotions and the same despicable ones
Stones from protesters --> bullets from cops --> lots of bullets from protesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Crowd is a curious being. Violence can either scare it or make it angry. An armed crowd is far more likely to get angry than get scared into submission. An angry crowd armed with small arms would crush the police or SWAT for that matter. They aren't trained to deal with large numbers of firearm wielding combatants.
Police force is determined based on threat. If there are 1000 unarmed protestors, there might be 200 riot officers. If there were 1000 armed protestors, there might be 500 armed riot police with helicopters, roof snipers, and national guard on call. Defence of scale. Armed protestors would not congregate in the same area for long, instead scattering and pulling back in the event of repression. All variables create new responses in your opponent. If you change tactic, expect your opponent do react.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
What if we're talking about 200000 protesters like in Kiev? 100000 cops? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Once the crowd gathers a certain critical mass, cops won't dare attack.
Brawling in the chamber, not heard anything about protestors breaking in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
So I've heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Based on your attitude - the US is a much less civilised country, so you'd put up with a greater amount of violence before Congress began debating if the President needed to be impeached.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
More objectively - Occupy did not become violent because the New York Police are more civilised than the Ukrainian ones, and their commanders more canny - Maidan has escalated due to the security forces trying to supress legitimate protests using violence.
Let's see how it would go if protestors began protesting outside of "free speech zones". You are the one who said that we are governed like a third world country. What did you mean by that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Brawling in the parliament, threats of violence to you and your family - would you in that case dare to vote against?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I am concerned with the thugs who have taken the interim premiership. They do look like mob connected black-shirts and pro-western factions should be concerned and mobilize to keep on for the shortest period of time possible.
Then why would he suggest that we are free from this similar threat here? If there is corruption and brutality, wouldn't you expect it to get bad enough to come to a head over time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Americans should arm themselves, to a lawful but serious extent. Function always as a peaceful and law-abiding citizen, doing what you can to reform and eliminate as many laws as you can - but arm for the worst in the event that the law serves merely as a shield for those who would abuse you and take away your rights and opportunity.
2012-2013 FBI report is out BTW. Crime rate is down considerably after the hottest year for gun sales in most of recorded history.
Correlation? Causation? Draw your own conclusions - but buy now and do it safely based on your risk factors. Euroweenies, push for reform to laws that recognize the right to hedge the risk of government abuse.
I believe this to be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
At Washington State University, in 1998, there was a relatively small riot; http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm...m&file_id=7876
~200 students were involved and three bottles and rocks at police officers responding to the incident.
Years later a WSU officer was talking about alcohol in the dorm I lived in at WSU and said that there was a point were officers were surrounded and came close to opening fire on students.
That's without any firearms being involved on the part of students. The campus now has an armored personnel carrier.
I think if there was a protest and guns were fired and some police saw one of their own go down or get hit they'd respond with lethal force by firing into crowd. In Boston after they won the world series, police were firing "less lethal" pepper spray bullets from paintball like guns into the crowds and killed somebody; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_...oria_Snelgrove
That was without a lot of violence directed at the police.
At least US standards, which I think is both factual but morally wrong.Quote:
which would make force against them legitimate by western standards.
CR
My underlying point is that we are not immune, and that if they can win freedoms from a tin pot with sticks and stones then we have a shot and hedging using the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
All over the world, governments and corporations are tightening and centralizing power at the expense of your rights. To ignore it and prevent citizens from effecting defense is the wrong move. It doesn't mean that we are all screwed, it just requires more vigilance and a greater stumbling block to the plans of those who would subordinate you. We have a bright future ahead, but not if we put our faith in those who would enslave us at the expense of our natural rights.
No question, the military has the capability of wiping everyone out, everywhere on earth within a few hours. The military in Ukraine easily had the capability to destroy the protest with extreme prejudice. It didn't though and this is the point. Just because the worst governments have the capability to brutally repress and destroy nearly any imaginable protest doesn't mean they will use it. Why didn't they use it? Did they beleive that they could just use a bit of brutality to round up ringleaders and return the rest of the sheep to work? Did they realize that the military wasn't behind them and large scale brutality would open them up to a more serious attrition or coup?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I don't like to bluster. I'm a weakling - I wouldn't last longer than 10 minutes in a worst case scenario. The best and probably only thing that I can do is to encourage people to arm themselves as their Federally recognized rights still allow, according to the law and not beyond it. I always to encourage people to obey the laws even when you disagree. Arm yourselves for the day when the law will make it impossible for you to obey it.
To be fair; many Conservatives/Tea Party types who talk about this stuff are plain nuts. They are pretty much just fascists who want to fight the current admin and enact even worse laws based on their nonsense understanding of the world.
I support occupy Wall Street. As the internet expands to really cut the cord of TV propaganda it will be easier to disassociate yourself from filtered and tailored messages that seek to sustain the status quo.
Most traditional papers cant get you to read them for free. Most TV news networks are watched by the graying buffalo who will only grace our lives for the next few years. The future is open information from all over the world with no censorship, but we have to fight for it. This is dangerous to any regime that seeks to control the message and uncompromising opposition is expected.
Your belief is a possibility, that's why it must be opposed now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The actions of the US government have hurt the international internet, and the suggestion of fire-walling Europe is ominous and not in the interest of Europeans or anyone else, even as they are a populist call meant to hurt the US governments ability to access info.
Still, I don't believe that they will as easily harmonize the message when people are watching different things, reading different things, believing different things. The days when every family sits around the house, at the same time, getting the same message, are going away.
The internet gives government a powerful tool to track and target individuals, but gives individuals a better opportunity to track and oppose government; holding it accountable. We will see which way it goes, but rest assured that with complacency it will not go well. Ukrainians are writing the book on intense and uncompromising government reform.
My local SuperPAC thinks that my name is Brian. My name is not Brian.
It is tough to advertise to me (at least I think it is). The only ads that I respond to are youtube videos. I'm much more amendable to showing them my interests and being advertised deals on things that I already like. Brands are a scarlet letter to me. If I see one budding name product next to an established brand that both cost $10, I automatically assume that the branded product is of inferior quality as they must spend 30% on the cost on marketing.
The current interim President is the former Deputy Prime Minister - he IS the pro-Western faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Elections are slated for May 25th and the 2004 Constitution (which limits presidential power) has been restored.
This is basically a rerun of the Orange Revolution - which Russia has spent 10 years trying to undermine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26312008
"Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov
Born in Dnipropetrovsk, eastern Ukraine, March 1964
Trained as metallurgist and economist
1980s - Local communist Komsomol youth leader
1993 - Economic adviser to ex-President Leonid Kuchma
1998-2007 - Elected to parliament
1999 - Deputy leader of Yulia Tymoshenko's Fatherland party
2004 - Campaigner in Orange Revolution
2005 - Head of Ukraine Security Service (SBU)
2007-2010 - Deputy PM
February 2014 - Parliament speaker, then acting president"
I can read wikipedia too and am aware of that. Still, big goons taking over the podium in all black is a bit disconcerting (becoming of Svoboda), especially given the allegations of his relationship with the Russian mob.
Additionally in order to recognize factional nuance, there is more than one "Western-Centric" faction. Vitaliy Klitschko is the leader of the UDAR, which is not the same as the Tymoshenko faction which has capitalized on the success of Klitschko and is attempting to demonstrate dominance by seizing power for the parties deputy.
This, to me, is similar to the Tea Party overthrowing government and having the supportive GOP strong-arm itself into leading the new government. I could be wrong about that.
Guy wears a black shirt, has short hair...?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
I'd be more worried about him being a former Spook, but the key point is he's interim President, he's unlikely to win the election but he IS a good choice to manage things during the crisis.
I'd be worried about just about everyone. Maffia-state. EU wants to give Ukraine 20 billion, Russia calls back ambassador. Rumours of Russian troops positioning.
Floating on the web [url]https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/1891281_745452628798192_303332851_n.
Maffia replaces maffia.
Wow, this thread blew up in a few days! I heard that the army refused to shoot civilians, hence only police and BERKUT forces were applied. I'm not buying this, because if there's one thing the army is good at, is drilling it into your skull to follow orders. Military tribunals and such are no laughing matter, so I don't see a general sticking his neck out in denying this. I'd love to get more reliable info, but I can't, expect from some friends I have in Ukraine. Maybe I should ask them since I haven't in a while.
Regarding rebellions - we live in the information age. It is no longer necessary for civilians to outfight a professional army (and it is impossible if said army is at least moderately competent and equipped). It is only necessary for cameras to capture the blood flowing in the streets to get the UN to act. There's more than enough bored and rich countries who have nothing better to do than meddle in such affairs.
That Putin wants to march his troops down to Kiev is probably true, but I think he is shrewd enough not do something so blunt. Marching tanks over foreign capitals is so 20th century.
guns and revolution?
America's current gun ownership is not capable of stopping a dictatorial overthrow by a dictator with the backing of the military (not that such is likely with our culture, it is not). Our right to "keep and bear arms" has been "infringed" enough to make that almost impossible to defend against. AR-15 v Apache gunship is tough odds for the rifleman. Either our second amendment rights are a function of our militia powers as a community -- in which case the community and not the individuals should be controlling the weapons -- or it is an individual right. Either way, I don't see anything in the second amdt that says or implies 'except for large clips weapons, fully automatic weapons, or crew served weapons which the government can restrict."
The real protection against the dictatorial overthrow is that the military would not support it en masse and many would side with the citizens -- thus evening the playing field a bit.
Ukraine is an interesting test cast for Europe and Western Asia -- just what will be the power and reach of Ursus Russicus?
Plus the whole Posse Comitatus thing, which would make the whole operation illegal with federal troops (giving the generals an out if so ordered).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I think is is a generally sensible view - the key point being that Ukraine, while far from perfect, is a modern country with a functioning democracy, it's hard to invade such a place without people noticing or caring. Ukraine also borders NATO, which makes any Russian military move suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
*cough* Georgia *cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
What is your point. It is not as though Georgia had a NATO border....er.....uh......Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
*cough*Economically unimportant to Europe at large, unlike Ukraine*cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
*Cough* Georgia shelled Russian Peacekeepers *cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Georgia also shares a border with Turkey, which is A: much harder to invade than modern Romania or Bulgaria and B: Not in the EU.
Ukraine also borders Poland, Slovakia and Hungary.
It is strategically important.
A fact often overlooked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I don't see Russia intervening militarily. They didn't do it during the Orange revolution, I don't see why would they do it now. The only scenario in which Russian intervention is plausible is if the new regime in Kiev don't broker some kind of deal with eastern part of Ukraine and sends the army instead. That's highly unlikely because every politician there knows that eastern Ukraine pays the bills for the entire country. Also, the army would probably refuse to do that and even the best spin doctors wouldn't be able to spin that as a democratic course of action.
If the new regime manages to take control of the entire country peacefully, then it's really up to the west. Ukrainian economy is on the brink of collapse. West needs to send a rather big package. There are talks of 20 billions, but I doubt it. They will send few billions at best, most of which will go to corrupt politicians, and so, after a few years, disillusioned Ukrainians will vote in Party of Regions again.
The only other scenario, irrespective of this revolution, where I can see Russia considering military intervention is if Ukraine joins NATO, but that is also highly improbable.
Considering that the path for us was NATO first, EU later, I think this is a possible scenario. What CAN Russia do after the fact? They either have to come out guns blazing or learn to take a loss. Russia bordering NATO would either make them convert and give in or it will start WW3 and everybody loses.
Russia already is bordering NATO. What's the big deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
They are certainly considering the possibility. It isn't that a rare occasion that Russian bombers are intercepted by Danish and Dutch jets. Same with submarines. They are probably just testing reaction-time but that they consider a certain scenario just to be sure seems pretty obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It is a very rare occasion, because the bombers don't enter foreign airspace, whether they are Russian, American or someone else's, unless by a mistake. They just fly really close. When they get close to a sovereign airspace, that nations scramble fighters. It's routine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yeah, they have that entire etiquette down to a science. They know exactly what constitutes an act of war and stay clear of that if they know what's good for them. Otherwise as soon as they land it's a quick road to arrest > court martial > prison for being a f*ing idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
True of course, but at such an inhospitable and militarily unworkable latitude that it has never been viewed as a real "threat zone."Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
"
the EU needs to send 2bn to cover the money Russia might not send. That should tide the country over until after elections, at which point the EU will sign the association agreement and AID will start to seriously flow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
As Myth will doubtless tell you, you can live with corrupt politicians taking backhanders, the problem starts when those politicians start changing the Constitution and rigging elections.
Like I said, this is the rerun of the Orange Revolution, what we're seeing here is less a new "Revolution" and more the working out of a political crisis that has been coming to a head for five years or so.
There seems to be a danger of devolution into an east/west conflict. If it becomes a shooting conflict, Vlad would be happy to aid in restoring order and (just as a charitable side beni) protecting present/former Russian nationals.
Eggshells? Not quite yet, but this is one Russia wants to win
To me the situation seems more positive then during weekend. While it is somewhat strange where Janukovits has disappeared. I cant see any real indications for escalating violence as of now. While the situation can change rapidly. I truly and sincerely hope that the Ukrainians can settle this issue by political means, while no doubt some dirtbag is going to take the reigns. I really do hope both West and East Ukrainians can reach an consensus which one it should be.
2 billion isn't enough to cover holes in the budget, let alone stop economy from deteriorating, especially after this. 15 billion Russian deal wasn't enough probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Interesting how you see this as a continuation of the Orange Revolution. During that time, pro western parties, again in Kiev, installed Yushchenko, curbed the power of the parliament and increased president's authority. The popularity of Yushchenko dropped considerably due to his inability to do anything and rampant corruption. They tried with Timoshenko then with similar results. Now they've had another revolution to increase the power of the parliament at the expense of president. Very weird, cyclical revolution. Go back to where you started, do not pass go, do not collect 15 bn dollars.
Timoshenko's now enjoying increased popularity because she's seen as the martyr and that erased off most bad memories, but as soon as the enthusiasm ends, failing economy and her own corruption will take it's toll and she's gonna lose. What's gonna happen after another politician tries to change the course, I wonder... Another Kiev-centered revolution to increase the power of the president and diminish influence of the parliament, possibly.
A big land border like the one between Ukraine and Russia is a different story. Imagine US airbases sprinkled 100 km. from the border. That would make the Russians paranoid. Not to mention an extension of the missile shield or whatever it was called over basically most of the relevant missile launch sites that we know of.
I hear talk that the Russian communist party is stirring memories of Chernobyl and asking for EU and Russian military intervention to "help secure the 5 NPPs on Ukrainian soil due to the collapse of executive authority". I hope Putin doesn't buy into this bull. The first guys who would be interested in NOT losing any of the 5 NPPs are Rosatom, who are the ones who helped build them and are supplying them with "fresh" fuel. Too much money to be had. But marching the tanks over to the NPPs sounds like a recipe for disaster.
NATO has an airbase in Estonia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
NATO has several bases on Russia's borders. Kinda natural since several NATO members border Russia...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
2bn is the aize of the next Russian payment - the EU/IMF has to cover that between now and May 25, after May more aid will be forthcoming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The Orange Revolution saw a curb on Presidential Power which last until 2010 - when the now-ex President reverted to the 1996 Constitution.Quote:
Interesting how you see this as a continuation of the Orange Revolution. During that time, pro western parties, again in Kiev, installed Yushchenko, curbed the power of the parliament and increased president's authority. The popularity of Yushchenko dropped considerably due to his inability to do anything and rampant corruption. They tried with Timoshenko then with similar results. Now they've had another revolution to increase the power of the parliament at the expense of president. Very weird, cyclical revolution. Go back to where you started, do not pass go, do not collect 15 bn dollars.
So it's not cyclical - Russia been doctoring your news again, or something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine
Ok. We will see how much will come all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I didn't know that, although it says it was the constitutional court.Quote:
The Orange Revolution saw a curb on Presidential Power which last until 2010 - when the now-ex President reverted to the 1996 Constitution.
So it's not cyclical - Russia been doctoring your news again, or something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine
And, naturally, Russia's been doctoring my news all the time. Anyone not thinking west is the greatezt, automatically must be under influence of doctored news, geez ~;)
Nothing and nobody in NATO can make the Russians paranoid. They arrived at that state a LOOOOOOONG time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
That can surely be said of the west as well, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Didn't know about such an offer, the EU wants to give 20. What the hell is really going on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The West is rational while Russia operates on emotions. It's a common trait of despotic governments (like DPRK, Venezuela, Zimbabwe etc). We certainly don't operate on the notion that the whole world is out to get us. Russia does.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Bear in mind, a trade deal was on the table before the former president backed down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Under a new president, who we now know was building himself palaces - and you wonder why the PARLIAMENT voted to impeach him?Quote:
I didn't know that, although it says it was the constitutional court.
I didn't say the West was the greatest - but the news here has been over the issue of the undoing of the 2004 Constitution (6 years after the Court handwaved it), in fact it was on the news in 2010 when it happened.Quote:
And, naturally, Russia's been doctoring my news all the time. Anyone not thinking west is the greatezt, automatically must be under influence of doctored news, geez ~;)
So there's something wrong at your end with what they're telling you.
That's not true, about Russia at least. Putin believes, accurately, that the Western Bloc is opposed to Russia gaining international influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Cold War never really ended - it just went quiet.
A trade deal - yes, not direct aid, iirc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
An important piece of the puzzle is corruption in Ukraine which Russia factored in probably, but I'm not sure whether EU did.
If EU sends some money, and the money isn't used properly, will it send more, after the enthusiasm in the west drops and Ukraine moves away from front pages...
That palace by itself is of no consequence. It just serves as another proof of the widespread corruption.Quote:
Under a new president, who we now know was building himself palaces - and you wonder why the PARLIAMENT voted to impeach him?
Yes, I sit in a room 6 hours every day with trained Russian propaganda agents telling me what I need to know.Quote:
I didn't say the West was the greatest - but the news here has been over the issue of the undoing of the 2004 Constitution (6 years after the Court handwaved it), in fact it was on the news in 2010 when it happened.
So there's something wrong at your end with what they're telling you.
Isn't it simpler to assume I don't know everything (it happens even to me sometimes :D) and some bits and pieces of information can escape me, rather than assuming that I'm biased or under influence of "doctored" news?
Cold War ended in the sense that Russia is not a threat to the west anymore, but NATO doesn't want to let go of it because it can't justify its own existence without an external threat, so Russia will serve as a good bogeyman for a few decades more and then NATO will turn to China probably.Quote:
That's not true, about Russia at least. Putin believes, accurately, that the Western Bloc is opposed to Russia gaining international influence.
Cold War never really ended - it just went quiet.
Nah, both operates often on emotions and sometimes on logic. A lot of the major political moves done by the US has been emotionally driven the last decades. The world is out to get us is much lower, but still existant, see China for example and remember Japan in the 80-ties (before their stagnation). A potential rival in the future becomes the rival that overtakes in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Except for, you know, all the nukes they still have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Nukes are primarily a defensive weapon. That just proves they can not be invaded. They are as much of a threat to world's security as much as British, American, French, Indian, Chinese... nukes.
^
Good old M.A.D. situation kicks in with Nukes.
Bravo to the people in Kiev sticking it the crap Russian puppet President and hopefully they achieve what they hope for.
Putin has ordered today at noon the forces of the Russian Western military district bordering Ukraine, to high alert in order for unscheduled military exercise.
According to Russian sources, the maneuvers will include: "Some 150,000 troops, 90 aircraft, over 120 helicopters, 880 tanks and 1,200 pieces of military hardware will be involved in the drills, deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Wednesday."
This is no petty force Russia is mobilizing. My cautious optimism from yesterday is turning into real worry today..:shrug:
Sabre-rattling to be sure. On the other hand, if a definitive decision to intervene had already been made, there would be no announcements made until after forces had crossed the border.
My bet it is both a signal and a provocation. Russia is mobilizing its armed forces to ready state of affairs if needs to be. I do not think they are planning to just invade without further excuses. Nope. My bet is that they want to see how both the Western and Eastern factions of Ukraine will react. Basically to me this smells like a move in a chess game from Russian point of view. They have already said that the up and coming government of Ukraine is unlawful, they have frozen financial aid to Ukraine and now they showing military readiness.
I really do hope that the Ukrainians can get their shit together and make some sort of consensual agreement within. If this provocation from Russia will encourage conflict within Ukraine. My bet is that it will be just the casus belli Russia is looking for some "peace keeping action to protect the Russians in Ukraine".
The Russian Revenge will be to leave Ukraine to EU that suddenly found billions to help the new Government (composed at the moment of heirs of the 14 SS Galicia, corrupted and few news guys) when the same EU had no money to help Greece, Italy or Portugal. Hmmmm. remind me Cameron in UK telling money won't be a problem for the flood victims having lost their jobs and houses, when he had none for the workers loosing their jobs and their houses...
Quite a worrying development. As SF said, I believe it's more muscle flexing than anything else, otherwise they probably wouldn't release information about movement of troops and their numbers. It's most probably sending a message to few would-be-Sakaashvilis in the new government.
Invading would alienate most of the Ukrainian population and Russia would only do it as a last resort, like if some idiot decides to send the army to Crimea or to attack Russian bases. There are some fascists wannabes within the new government in Kiev but saner voices should prevail.
So, in real life who is Kramer, and who is Newman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw
by that logic, they were never a threat since the 1950s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I discovered this thread only today (courtesy of Drone) so I think I can answer some questions you might have. Though, you may say that I can't claim impartiality in what concerns me closely, and you would be right. Still, some backstage view may be interesting for the people here.
In this post I would like to dwell on the reasons of what we have now.
1. Pervasive corruption. Almost every body of power you contact will expect a bribe from you: the road police, the customs, local municipal bodies. Very often (I would say regularly) it is encouraged and indeed demanded by those officials who are higher up the career ladder. I can provide an example from the University life as it is my cup of tea, you may say. To become the head of a University (he is called Rector) you must pay about 10 000 dollars. Then each month the Rector has to bring a certain sum of money to the ministry of education. The Rector demands the money from the professors who in turn demand money from the students - it is impossible for them to pass an exam without giving a bribe. Rectors of some Universities (mine including) refuse to do that and they are pressured to resign if they don't have any influential support. The same with custom officers, road police and so on.
2. Total impunity of those at power. They may do whatever they want without fearing any punishment. Again an example from my personal experience. Last May a guy who works at the local administration and moonlights at my department (his total salary something about 500 bucks) was driving drunk a jeep costing about 50 000 dollars and ran over to death a woman of thirty on a pedestrian crossing. No punishment whatever! Unless you can call a punishment a holiday at Dubai this winter.
3. Glaring discrepancy between the living standards of the majority of the people and the estates the top officials build for themselves - those are more like some sheikh's palace than a house. You may search for information (videos preferably) about Yanukovych's residence at Mezhihirya.
These three I see as causes of the events we are living through. If anyone is interested I can express my vision of the events that followed as well as clarify some issues such as language and worldview differences in Ukraine.
Just tell us what you can!
Thanks!
@Gilrandir, can you tell us about how divided your country currently really is in your opinion?
My concerns center around secession. As in, Crimea and everything East of the Dnieper secede from the new Government and, being largely Russian speakers the Russians move in to "prevent ethnic cleansing" or some such. If this happens I do not believe NATO would intervene, or stop buying fuel from Russia.
The EU then gets to prop up (see posts above) the poorest part of the Ukraine while the most profitable zones become a Russian satrapy or get re-annexed outright.
While I am sure there is some sentiment along these lines in the region noted, I do not know how prevalent it is and, therefore, just how likely this unhappy scenario might be.
In other words, a normal Wednesday in eastern Europe. If you could give us your opinion on something more concrete like what Seamus asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Nah. Russians and Ukrainians are so mixed that an ethnic cleansing is highly improbable. Russians with Ukrainian last names, Ukrainians with Russian last names, etc. It's a melting pot if there ever was one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Of course not. The spice must flow.Quote:
If this happens I do not believe NATO would intervene, or stop buying fuel from Russia.
Highly unlikely.Quote:
The EU then gets to prop up (see posts above) the poorest part of the Ukraine while the most profitable zones become a Russian satrapy or get re-annexed outright.
Just a bunch of loudmouths who will eventually get tired, provided that nobody tries to shut them up.Quote:
While I am sure there is some sentiment along these lines in the region noted, I do not know how prevalent it is and, therefore, just how likely this unhappy scenario might be.
When do you play TW games, I wonder? Too much talking on unrelated subjects! :laugh4:
Well, I wouldn't speak of division or secession. Surprisingly enough (even for me) people from different regions expressed their desire to stay within a single country. Despite linguistic, historic and future development views differences people consider themselves Ukrainians and wish to keep an integral state. I see two reasons for it.
1. I think I can speak of a definite Ukrainian identity which has been formed. Unlike the times of Orange revolution in 2004 when strong voices for separation of the South-east were heard today people feel Ukrainians whatever the differences might be. It may be explained both by gradual divorce from the common Soviet past (a whole generation has grown that has never called themselves "Soviet people") and free access to TV channels which show different points of view (which was absent in 2004 when television demonized the opposition). Supporting national teams in sports is also a powerful boost to create national identity.
2. General aversion to the Yanukovych regime (see my post above).
Now the Crimea is a different story. It became a part of Ukraine only in 1954 and it is not just Russian-speaking - it is ethnically diverse with with approximately equal proportions of Russians and Ukrainians the latter being practically devoid of any (separate from Russian) national identity and affiliation with Ukraine. Plus there are about 15% of Crimean Tatars. Those had been evicted from the Crimea and moved to Central Asia en masse by Stalin on accusation of collaboration with Nazis and started to return to their land in late 1980s. So many Crimeans do not associate themselves with Ukraine and consider secession of the peninsular from Russia to Ukraine back in 1954 a mistake which should be corrected. Now the Tatars are the strongest opponents of joining the Crimea to Russia. And there is Sevastopol where Russian navy is quartered and this city is the most Russia-minded.
But as the latest developments show (again surprisingly enough) many people in the Crimea consider it a part of Ukraine (they do not call themselves Ukrainians but rather say that they live in Ukraine) which gives me hope of retaining the Crimea within the nation.
But it all depends on what the new authorities will do. If they manage to show some economic progress and let alone the language issue then all separatist talks will peter out quickly.
I'm afraid I can't stay here posting continuously (I have my hands pretty full) but I will step by as often as I can to offer my vision of events. So stay tuned. :yes:
While I hope for the best in Ukraine, I have very specific worries.
The Ukraine is of course free to choose whatever path they wish... much like Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua,... etc. are free to choose their path.
The Ukraine has to get its act together first, then push forward on the path they chose; none of that is going to be easy.
To understand better what is going on one must know the prehistory.
The roots of the conflict go back to 2004 presidential election. Yanukovych won it but mainly through obnoxious machinations. It is true that many people in the southeast supported him (goaded and scared by the propaganda that predicted fascists from Western Ukraine coming and murdering all those who spoke Russian). But there were numerous cases of the so called merry-go-rounds (the people with absentee ballots touring the country and voting at several polling stations), dropping into the ballot boxes whole bunches (rather packs) of ballots by one person, vote calculation frauds and computer program responsible for collecting voting results from all over the nation being tapped. It caused the outburst of popular sentiment in favor of Yushchenko and resulted in what is now known as Orange revolution.
But the new president turned out a weakling and his presidency was largely spent in recrimination and struggle with Tymoshenko. Such development caused disgust and disappointment among their supporters and in 2010 Yanukovych won mainly through dissent and indifference of his opponents' adherents.
Now Yanukovych was always considered a pro-Russian politician and it reflected the sentiment of his electorate. Astonishingly for the majority of Ukrainians (both from the West and the South-east) he proclaimed a course towards EU. Neither part of Ukraine took it seriously but he was persistent in his propaganda advertising future bliss to come. I would say that people all over Ukraine in their everyday struggle to survive did not think of joining EU at all, considering it too good and unreal to be true. But four years of propaganda worked pretty well so people looked forward with great expectations to the much advertised association agreement. But Yanukovych backed out at the last possible moment. People felt as if they came to the party after persistent invitations (though they had had no great desire to come), but instead of the promised feast they were told to go back home hungry. That was what triggered the initial outburst in November 2013. How the situation has come to the pass we are having now is another chapter of the story to be covered later.
And now Russian-speaking paramilitary types have siezed public buildings in the Crimea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The question we must ask now is - who are these Men.
You know, I remember Yushchenko's election, and the disappointment in him in the West after. It's depressing that there was only one apparent alternative for Ukrainians.
Now I would like to offer a view on the chain of events and the mistakes the authorities made hoping to deal with the crisis.
So, before the summit in Vilnius some protesters gathered on Maidan to make sure, as they claimed, that Yanukovych signs the AA. It ended in a failure so the protesters stayed on in vain hoping for they knew not what. Their number was about 200, most of them students. The best solution for Yanukovych would have been to let them be purposeless and disappointed until they dwindled like a Crusade in a low-zeal province. But here comes MISTAKE #1.
At night of the 1st of December the police atrociously drove them away beating savagely even those who escaped to the nearest vicinity and using batons and boots against those who fell and could not get up. It caused a huge upheaval and people started to flood Maidan. Where it had been a couple of hundreds now stood thousands of resolute protesters who now had a reason to protest. EU AA was forgotten. They demanded punishment for those who directed and enforced the senseless atrocities. Yanukovych pretended to get it investigated and suspended a couple of officials who (as was popularly believed) couldn't have acted on their own accord. Symptomatically, the minister of internal affairs Zakharchenko and the Head of the President's administration Klyuyev, notorious hard-liners suspected of being at the bottom of it all, got off unscathed. No one even thought of demading a resignation from Yanukovych.
Maidan dragged on well into January and its leaders urged the parliamenary opposition first to some decisive actions then just to any actions but they were unable to offer any clear-cut plan. It seemed that Maidan would soon dissolve.
But here we go again, MISTAKE #2.
The Parliament adopts a law ostensibly to bring Ukrainian legislature in accordance with the European one. In particular, it forbade covering faces and wearing helmets in the street, cars moving in groups of six and more, disclosure of any information about judges' residence and families, internet control and many other things. As its authors claimed, such norms exist in most European countries. It may well be true, but in those conditions the law was understood as an encroachment on democracy.
Again the protesters received a cause to fight for (or, this time, to fight against). People started to mock the authorities coming to police departments to make confessions that when they were kids they wore animal masks at Christmas parties and asked for permission to form a group of six cars as they wanted to go fishing.
The situation exacerbated and streetfights broke. Now it has become practically impossible to discover who started the violence with both sides blaming the opponents. I think you followed the events so I won't repeat them. I wanted to show the causes and consequences.
The mistakes I attribute to the ill advice of Russian advisers who worked for Yanukovych. The advice was misplaced as Russians gave it basing their judgement on percepting Ukrainians as if they were Russians. It is deeply rooted in Russian mentality to fear and respect the monarch (the more you fear him, the greater is the respect). If Russians start protesting and the protests are supressed they tend to hide in a deep hole thinking: "Well, after all he is the Tsar. We should obey." Ukrainian mentality turned out to be different - a hundred started a protest, got supressed, so thousands must step in.
So much for Maidan in Kyiv. But what was going on in the provinces is to be reported later.
My earlier comparison to Georgia sounds a lot less ridiculous now, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I did not think it ridiculous at all. And Gilrandir made it pretty clear that the Crimea is the most likely flash point for any real problem. Now, is it another Ossetia? Too early to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The chess move is Crimea. Gilrandir your country is not the only country in the west without NATO surviving in the pressure of Russia, while very different in lot of aspects, my sentiment goes to you and your countrymen,sincerely from Finland.
And you KNOW he means it when a Finn stays sober enough to finish the whole post without editing....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Self determination. If Crimea identifies as Russian, let it be done. Obviously there are minority groups which would not be happy under this situation, but I think that is where EU/UN intervention would be beneficial in providing reparations for such groups if they so choose to move rather than live under Russian government.
The question is, would Ukraine let Russia take Crimea without a fight? History has shown that very few countries give up their land without a fight even if their opponent is a superpower. Even if the Ukrainian government backs down, tensions would remain, and I get the feeling that there still would be some or more Ukrainian civilians who'd retaliate. If the Mexicans in New Mexico demand independence, and if Mexican soldiers intrude into that state, would the US sit by and do nothing about it? Certainly not. It would be the same vis-à-vis. Mexico wouldn't sit by if the US took Mexican land even though the US is a nuclear superpower. Although having nukes make the opponent reluctant to attack, when being attacked upon, most countries will defend for their lives even when facing a nuclear power.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
That being said, Ukraine probably regrets disbanding their Soviet era nukes.
In all the speculations about Crimeans' choice you forget one "very small but very important" (as Gorbachev put it) factor: brainwashing aka propaganda. Most people in the Crimea watch Russian TV and trust it rather than Ukrainian channels. Putin-controlled TV did its best to present protesters as rioters, marauders, extremists, fascists and radicals. They leave it unsaid that protesters enjoy a prodigious support in Kyiv (a predominantly Russian-speaking city, btw). People brought to Maidan food (so much that protesters had to turn them down), medicines (Maidan donated the surplus to some hospitals and orphanages), clothes (the surplus donated to retirement houses). Have you ever seen a red Ferrari with its top down and its back seat filled with tyres? I have. Old ladies offered to wash the floor in the buildings used as hospitals, the wounded were taken home to be treated there after surgeries, churches opened their gates and let their territory be turned into a field hospital where people brought expensive medical equipment bought for their own money and gave it free to be used by Maidaners. At hospitals people lined to donate blood. (You know, I'm proud of my nation). Do you think anything of it was shown by Russian TV? If we adopt their view then all the 3 million inhabitants of Kyiv (as well as those Bandera-followers from Western Ukraine) are rioters, marauders ... (see above).
So Putin TV succeeded in making protesters orcs and demons in the eyes of Crimeans. The next move is logical - now these demons are coming to the Crimea to kill all Russian-speakers, cut out their tongues, brand swastikas on their foreheads and forbid people to speak any language but Ukrainian. They may invite NATO (which in the Crimea is also a bugaboo as evil (or even more evil) as West-Ukrainian fascists). Only Russia can prevent it. "The Riders of Rohan stirred at first, murmuring with approval of the words of Saruman; and then they too were silent, as men spell-bound. And over their hearts crept a shadow, the fear of a great danger:the end of the Mark (i.e.the Crimea) in a darkness to which Gandalf (i.e. Ukraine) was driving them, while Saruman (i.e. Russia) stood beside a door of escape, holding it half open so that a ray of light came through."
Am I getting too poetic?
You know, last summer I was in Sevastopol when they celebrated The (Russian) Navy's Day and a crowd of people gathered on the embankment to see manouvers. A Belgian ship was spotted in the harbor and at once I heard murmurings in the crowd: "It's a nato ship, it has no business here, let it leave the harbor".
So any help from Europe or attempts of Ukrainian armed forces (which are directed by the illegal gang in Kyiv, as many believe it to be) to interfere will cause a reaction like "Better to have our Russian brethren. They will keep order."
The only help that can come from without should be pressure on Russia by some diplomatic (or financial) means if that is possible for meek European politicians (I'm sorry if I offended anyone).