Ukraine-in-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.

---

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.