Ukraine-in-a-thread

[Sarmatian]

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

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

[Gilrandir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brenus]

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

[Gilrandir]

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

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

[Gilrandir]

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

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

[Gilrandir]

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

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

[Gilrandir]

I care not one whit what the Ukrainians do with themselves, or what any fraction of them do with themselves. I care only that we should not get involved until they sort themselves out. If we're not being asked to do anything or involve ourselves in anyway, they can have another few revolutions if they so wish.

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

[Gilrandir]

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.

You know, I'm tired of all this revenge business. But I think it will be dominating some aspects of internal life. The sooner we call it a day, the better.

[Fisherking]

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

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

But there is still more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

Added to, definitely.

Disband them all, I say.

[Fisherking]

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Myth]

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.

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

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

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

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

Added to, definitely.

Disband them all, I say.

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

[rvg]

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

What you're saying is pure nonsense.

[Husar]

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.

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.

[Montmorency]

you treat people like animals in your gulag on Cuba

Not really, no.

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

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

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

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

[HoreTore]

Your solution to conflict is to disband your own military?

Yup.

[Fisherking]

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.

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.

[Sarmatian]

What you're saying is pure nonsense.

I bow to the strength of your arguments.

Yup.

Seconded!

[rvg]

I bow to the strength of your arguments.

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

[Sarmatian]

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

Teach me, master, please!

[rvg]

Teach me, master, please!

Padawan, learn you must...

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

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

[Kagemusha]

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....

[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?

[Sarmatian]

Padawan, learn you must...

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

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

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

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

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

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