Ukraine-in-a-thread

[Sarmatian]

....And the date of this video is?

What's the difference?

If your point is who started the violence, protesters did. Twice.

This happened for months and months, it wasn't a Saturday afternoon. There is a clear difference. If unrest was at such a high-level, there should have been new elections getting sorted.

And early elections later in the year were agreed, complete with a constitutional reform and a government of national unity (ie. representing all relevant parties), as a safeguard that one side couldn't interfere with electoral process.

[Beskar]

So all protesters need to do to overthrow a government they don't like is last for months? Like I said, the Maidan protesters were utterly idiotic to show Russia the lead which the latter are in a far better position to capitalise on than western backers of the Maidan. However anyone wants to argue it, the Maidan protesters demonstrated that ordinary rules of democracy need not apply in Ukraine, that focused campaigning can override democracy. That's the game they played of their own accord, without anyone forcing them to, and that's the game that they'll have to play from now on, until new rules are settled on by all sides.

Actually, it is a breakdown of democracy if people feel they need to be camped outside Downing Street and the Houses of Parliament none-stop for over a long course. It is a perfect expression of democracy that the government is doing something wrong.

The fact for this to occur, is that people would have to take time off work, pay to be able to food and provide for themselves, be resident in subpar conditions. No one in their right mind would ever choose to do it unless things have simply gotten so bad, we are inherently lazy and people go everyday putting on a false smile just to get through the day without making it harder for themselves.

But if such a widespread and mass protest occurred. lasting for months and months, and you are saying the government should tell them to shut-up and go home, I wonder what your version of democracy is.

And early elections later in the year were agreed, complete with a constitutional reform and a government of national unity (ie. representing all relevant parties), as a safeguard that one side couldn't interfere with electoral process.

That is a good way to handle it, the government also appealed a few of the laws and was in full-withdrawal over some of the big mistakes they made. It is unfortunate it blew up into the mess it did with the things like snipers shooting and the populace getting whipped up in a fury.

After that with the president standing down, the government should be a place holder for elections are the earliest convenience so the people of Ukraine ended up with a proper governing body again.

[HoreTore]

What's the difference?

So what's the date then?

[Brenus]

“You are ready to pay no attention, condone or even justify all of this because:” Your problem is you are not paying attention on what others said or wrote.
My position in the Ukrainian affairs, and I think it is the one of those qualified as Pro-Putin, is I don’t support the land grabbing, or foreign intervention others than sympathies or similar. I don’t mind the cookies nor do I mind moral help.
What I am against is the propaganda and the outrages of some when Russia did exactly what the West did. I am against the black and white good pro-EU and bad Pro-Russians.
Violence and putsch are ok in one side, not on the other.
I am fed-up of the hypocrisy.
In case of Ukraine, start yourself to consider the “Pro-Russians” as Ukrainians citizens and stop to the denying, then perhaps, perhaps as things are going really wrong, you might be able to live in the same country. But all the vocabulary you use, all the pseudo-news you dispatch, shows that not your intention.

[Sarmatian]

So what's the date then?

I have no idea. Presumably sometime in 2014.

What's the difference and what's your point?

That is a good way to handle it, the government also appealed a few of the laws and was in full-withdrawal over some of the big mistakes they made. It is unfortunate it blew up into the mess it did with the things like snipers shooting and the populace getting whipped up in a fury.

After that with the president standing down, the government should be a place holder for elections are the earliest convenience so the people of Ukraine ended up with a proper governing body again.

President "stood down" after violent seizure of government building and impeached after parliament members were threatened and bullied in the parliament and in their homes.

[HoreTore]

I have no idea. Presumably sometime in 2014.

What's the difference and what's your point?

In other words, a minimum of one month after Yanu sent Berkut into the Maidan to bash skulls.

In other words, Yanukovich started this whole thing when he revealed his autocratic face.

[Sarmatian]

In other words, a minimum of one month after Yanu sent Berkut into the Maidan to bash skulls.

In other words, Yanukovich started this whole thing when he revealed his autocratic face.

That's not true. The first act of violence was protesters attacking the police cordon.

In other words, they started this whole thing when they've switched from peaceful demonstrators to violent activists attacking the police and trying to take over civil institutions.

And then they did it a second time after a deal was made.

In fact, when they got for a government response was actually mild in comparison what they would have got if they tried to pull the same thing of in USA, UK, France or Russia.

[HoreTore]

That's not true. The first act of violence was protesters attacking the police cordon.

Okay, and what date was this?

[Sarmatian]

Okay, and what date was this?

I can't remember, it's been some time between now and then. I think it was November. That of course doesn't have to be true, I wasn't there, I just read about it. I'm pretty sure there are conflicting reports as to "who threw the first punch".

It doesn't really matter, though. Anything that happened before February 18 was rather mild and reversible.

EDIT:

Actually, a wiki timeline says that first protesters appeared on the night of 21st November (some 2000) and a larger rally was held on 24th in which a small group attempted to storm government building.

After a small group of protesters attempted to storm the Government Building, police used tear gas to disperse them.[17] Protesters also used tear gas and some fire crackers (according to police protesters were first to use them).[18] According to the General Prosecutor's Office, more than 400 people were injured from 24 November to 13 December, including 200 policemen and 18 students.[19]

The roughly similar number of injured police officers and protesters in the first several weeks should also give you a clue.

[Pannonian]

Actually, it is a breakdown of democracy if people feel they need to be camped outside Downing Street and the Houses of Parliament none-stop for over a long course. It is a perfect expression of democracy that the government is doing something wrong.

The fact for this to occur, is that people would have to take time off work, pay to be able to food and provide for themselves, be resident in subpar conditions. No one in their right mind would ever choose to do it unless things have simply gotten so bad, we are inherently lazy and people go everyday putting on a false smile just to get through the day without making it harder for themselves.

But if such a widespread and mass protest occurred. lasting for months and months, and you are saying the government should tell them to shut-up and go home, I wonder what your version of democracy is.

Put a Ukrainian spin to it. Russia picks a border city to run a protest from. Funds protesters to camp in protest inside said city, keeping them fed, watered, paid, etc. Does the elected government step down because of this manifest lack of confidence in the government?

[HoreTore]

I can't remember, it's been some time between now and then. I think it was November. That of course doesn't have to be true, I wasn't there, I just read about it. I'm pretty sure there are conflicting reports as to "who threw the first punch".

It doesn't really matter, though. Anything that happened before February 18 was rather mild and reversible.

November 30th was the date of Berkut's crackdown on the protesters. The stated reason for their crackdown was not "restore order" or anything like that, but to "clear the square for christmas decorations". If you think WMD's was a lame excuse for Iraq; this one doesn't even reach that one to the ankles. Don't take my word for it though, several of Yanu's ministers acknowledged that the Berkut response had been brutal.

The crackdown left 79 people injured, including some hospitalized. It took place in the middle of the night, with the police surrounding the square, jamming radio signals and moving in for the kill.

But surely, the protesters had been a rowdy bunch, right? Well yeah, if you consider holding hands "rioting", they sure were.

You have also claimed that the revolution has been "hijacked by people who turned it into a pro-eu/anti-Russia thing". Up until this crackdown, the protests were only pro-EU. The ones who joined as a response to the crackdown were the ones who threw general corruption and mismanagement into the mix of issues. The protest started on the night of November the 21st as a direct response to the cancellation of the EU deal, and their demand was to restart it. There were EU flags flying on Maidan weeks before the first party flag was flown.


For someone who has a lot of opinions of Maidan, you sure don't have much knowledge.

[Sarmatian]

November 30th was the date of Berkut's crackdown on the protesters.

So, AFTER the protesters tried to seize Government Building violently on November 24th. For someone who's a teacher, you have far too much problems with numbers.

[HoreTore]

So, AFTER the protesters tried to seize Government Building violently on November 24th. For someone who's a teacher, you have far too much problems with numbers.

You forgot the quotation marks around "violently".

It was a standard "rush the gates/fire the tear gas"-situation you see every year in every properly civilized country. Way less than your average G8, for example.

The police response to it was also perfectly reasonable, and well within what is expected of any civilized government.

In other words, quite irrelevant. No sympathy was gained for either the protesters nor the government.


The Berkut surrounding, jamming and brutally assaulting Maidan in the dead of night, on the other hand, was what sparked the later violent turn of the revolution. That's what eventually attracted the protest elements you have the most problems with(the nazis). That was the reason the only two remaining options were the immediate resignation of Yanukovich or his violent overthrow. He chose the latter option.

[Husar]

Batista, Ne Win, Nasser, etc. The peoples of Cuba, Burma, Egypt and many more all employed a "let's just wait and see if he steps down"-attitude. It did not work out well.

That's unacceptable, Cuba is a great country with very happy citizens.

The fact for this to occur, is that people would have to take time off work, pay to be able to food and provide for themselves, be resident in subpar conditions. No one in their right mind would ever choose to do it unless things have simply gotten so bad, we are inherently lazy and people go everyday putting on a false smile just to get through the day without making it harder for themselves.

Come on, I brought that up before and was told it's not a big deal, you can feed a million protesters with Borscht for a month with a dollar.

[Sarmatian]

The Berkut surrounding, jamming and brutally assaulting Maidan in the dead of night, on the other hand, was what sparked the later violent turn of the revolution. That's what eventually attracted the protest elements you have the most problems with(the nazis). That was the reason the only two remaining options were the immediate resignation of Yanukovich or his violent overthrow. He chose the latter option.

It was after protesters tried to storm the seat of the Ukrainian government.

Nevertheless, nothing serious happened. No one was killed, no one was seriously injured. It is a bit much to demand resignation of the president for a few bruises, or we would be changing presidents on a weekly basis in most countries around the world. Resignation of the Berkut commander, at most minister of internal affairs, but even that is pushing it.

While we were protesting against Milosevic, many ended up with bruises. We managed to keep it non violent (at least until the very last moment), and we managed that because of a conscious effort to do so.

You're right that it was the snowflake that triggered an avalanche but it in no way justifies what the protesters did before or after.

[HoreTore]

It was after protesters tried to storm the seat of the Ukrainian government.

Nevertheless, nothing serious happened. No one was killed, no one was seriously injured. It is a bit much to demand resignation of the president for a few bruises, or we would be changing presidents on a weekly basis in most countries around the world. Resignation of the Berkut commander, at most minister of internal affairs, but even that is pushing it.

While we were protesting against Milosevic, many ended up with bruises. We managed to keep it non violent (at least until the very last moment), and we managed that because of a conscious effort to do so.

You're right that it was the snowflake that triggered an avalanche but it in no way justifies what the protesters did before or after.

Say what?

10-ish hospitalized civilians would have(and has) forced a score of resignation in any democratic country. Dispersal with tear gas? Sure, no problem. That happens every now and then, and is no big problem on either side. Sending an armed gang of security police to terrorize unsuspecting and peaceful civilians in the dead of night? Rather different.

Condoning their actions afterwards? Grounds for an overthrow.

Your comment that they "tried to storm the Ukrainian parliament" is one I take as a sign that you have nothing of substance to contribute with. Good night. The pre-30th protest was comparable to the Occupy/Tea party movements. It is rather funny how you cry in horror at a rowdy protest with an attempted break-in with no injuries at all as horrible atrocities, while shrugging of a crackdown which left 80 people injured, of which 10 were hospitalized. I get how you feel the need to counter the west, but it's time to scale it back a bit, no?

I am still waiting for the US to send in the SWAT team to rough them up. And if Obama did that, could you please explain how he could have survived the inevitable impeachment?

[Husar]

Say what?

10-ish hospitalized civilians would have(and has) forced a score of resignation in any democratic country. Dispersal with tear gas? Sure, no problem. That happens every now and then, and is no big problem on either side. Sending an armed gang of security police to terrorize unsuspecting and peaceful civilians in the dead of night? Rather different.

Condoning their actions afterwards? Grounds for an overthrow.

Your comment that they "tried to storm the Ukrainian parliament" is one I take as a sign that you have nothing of substance to contribute with. Good night. The pre-30th protest was comparable to the Occupy/Tea party movements. It is rather funny how you cry in horror at a rowdy protest with an attempted break-in with no injuries at all as horrible atrocities, while shrugging of a crackdown which left 80 people injured, of which 10 were hospitalized. I get how you feel the need to counter the west, but it's time to scale it back a bit, no?

I am still waiting for the US to send in the SWAT team to rough them up. And if Obama did that, could you please explain how he could have survived the inevitable impeachment?

???



Where's the inevitable impeachment? And I won't link to the video of the homeless guy getting shot in the back because he tried to run away from the police dog biting him in his best parts. Sure, a homeless guy is not a peaceful protest, so I guess there's no problem there, but either you have no point about democratic countries or the USA are a really bad example.



The last one is really great, 200-300 people injured by the police, and the official just says they had to act because the peaceful protesters didn't separate themselves from the violent ones. Sounds familiar? Also Merkel is still in office, according to you the blockupy people should have kept going until her corrupt regime was overthrown or she should have resigned with 200+ injured protesters if Germany were a democracy, no?

[Gilrandir]

But all the vocabulary you use, all the pseudo-news you dispatch, shows that not your intention.

So other videos and links in this thread are an update, mine are pseudo-news. I think your vocabulary is at least no better than mine.

They were going to hold elections anyway just like the last time, and the people will vote in the government they want just like the last time. What will happen if a group doesn't like the government who's been voted in? The Maidan protesters have already set the precedent that people can force the overthrow of a government outside the electoral process if they want. What if protesters in another city demand that the newly elected government step down because they don't like the elected government? Would they have the same weight as the protesters did in Kiev?

You again fail to see an umportant thing: Maidan didn't protest against the government because it didn't like the latter. Maidan was a consequence of something the government DID. Protesting because the government were not beauty pageant winners was not the case. Governments now will know better before they start to behave like Yanukovych did.

It is a bit much to demand resignation of the president for a few bruises, or we would be changing presidents on a weekly basis in most countries around the world. Resignation of the Berkut commander, at most minister of internal affairs, but even that is pushing it.

The latter was what the Maidan wanted. At the beginning. No one ever demanded, believed in or even dreamt that Yanukovych could me made to step down. My personal idea is that if Mr Y. agreed to the resignations you mentioned and made a pretence of investigating the 30th of November events he could be still in possession of his golden breadloaf basking in his fabulous residence of Mezhigirya.

November 30th was the date of Berkut's crackdown on the protesters. The stated reason for their crackdown was not "restore order" or anything like that, but to "clear the square for christmas decorations".

This is so wrong! It was "New Year decorations". Brenus would call it pseudo-news.

[Sarmatian]

Say what?

10-ish hospitalized civilians would have(and has) forced a score of resignation in any democratic country. Dispersal with tear gas? Sure, no problem. That happens every now and then, and is no big problem on either side. Sending an armed gang of security police to terrorize unsuspecting and peaceful civilians in the dead of night? Rather different.

Condoning their actions afterwards? Grounds for an overthrow.

Personally, I look at the actions over a longer period of time, but you were the one who demanded we make it about "who started it". Protesters did.

Between then and February, there have been ample opportunities to deescalate the situation, protesters refused every time. On the whole, they're guilty just as much as Yanukovich for violence, if not more.

Your comment that they "tried to storm the Ukrainian parliament" is one I take as a sign that you have nothing of substance to contribute with. Good night. The pre-30th protest was comparable to the Occupy/Tea party movements. It is rather funny how you cry in horror at a rowdy protest with an attempted break-in with no injuries at all as horrible atrocities, while shrugging of a crackdown which left 80 people injured, of which 10 were hospitalized. I get how you feel the need to counter the west, but it's time to scale it back a bit, no?

I am still waiting for the US to send in the SWAT team to rough them up. And if Obama did that, could you please explain how he could have survived the inevitable impeachment?

I didn't pay too much attention to Occupy, but from the several pictures I saw, there were protesters standing behind an imaginary line. I don't remember them trying to storm and take control of Congress.

I don't condone police brutality, but I can not accept that it excuses everything the protesters did.

On a related note, what would you say is the proper action for the president and the government that have its soldiers shoot unarmed civilians?

[Gilrandir]

On a related note, what would you say is the proper action for the president and the government that have its soldiers shoot unarmed civilians?

National guard or any other armed forces denied having been present (to say nothing of shooting) in Krasnoarmeysk. It is the zone controlled by DPR at present, AFAIK. There are also sporadic reports of separatists conflicting (often using firearms) between themselves. Some groups of them act on their own. All of this accounts for what we saw, I think.

[HoreTore]

The revolution is eating its children.

Sooner than usual.

[GenosseGeneral]

National guard or any other armed forces denied having been present (to say nothing of shooting) in Krasnoarmeysk. It is the zone controlled by DPR at present, AFAIK. There are also sporadic reports of separatists conflicting (often using firearms) between themselves. Some groups of them act on their own. All of this accounts for what we saw, I think.

It is hard to tell, those guys in the vid are certainly no regupar army unit and they also do not wear neither black nor US Army uniforms, both which can be frequently seen worn by National guard. (Yes, US army. Apparently, they supplied not only MREs but also surplus uniforms.)
Also, there are no APCs present, they arrived on a civilian vehicle.

Yet they still MIGHT be forces loyal to Kyiv, as the formation of various territorial defence units and "special battalions" have been announced recently.
At least from those 49 seconds, noone can tell who those guys are. We only have the vid's description.

[Viking]

On a related note, what would you say is the proper action for the president and the government that have its soldiers shoot unarmed civilians?

You can't see that they are directly fired on in that video. Could just as well have been ricochet. You have to be really stupid to march on a bunch of people firing warning shots. Even more stupid to attempt to wrestle their automatic guns out of their hands.

The reason law enforcement has guns, is to stop people from going where they are not supposed to be going. That's how they were used here. Ideally, they should have had riot control measures, but that's not quite as relevant when there is an armed insurgency going on in the area.

If members of the crowd wouldn't have gone for phyiscal confrontation, this wouldn't have happened.

[Husar]

When it were Yanukovich's police, it was clearly totally wrong what they did, with or without videos.

When they were Russian Spetsnaz, it was totally obvious by the small inscriptions on the insides of their guns that everyone could see.

When a video shows pro-russians getting shot, we do not have a clear picture of anything and the shooting guys could really be anyone, nothing can be told. Where are the experts we had previously?

[Viking]

When it were Yanukovich's police, it was clearly totally wrong what they did, with or without videos.

When they were Russian Spetsnaz, it was totally obvious by the small inscriptions on the insides of their guns that everyone could see.

When a video shows pro-russians getting shot, we do not have a clear picture of anything and the shooting guys could really be anyone, nothing can be told. Where are the experts we had previously?

I have no recollection of posting much, if anything at all, about the shootings in Kyiv.

[Sarmatian]

Its also RT.

The best argument. The shooting, in fact, didn't happen because it was broadcasted by RT.

You can't see that they are directly fired on in that video.

I agree. This one is much better.



The situation is clear. Russian professional soldiers got to Krasnoarmeisk, pretending to be national guard of Ukraine, and started shooting in the air. Then the tape was cut, ketchup spilled on the asphalt and fake ambulance was called, taking away uninjured actor.

If members of the crowd wouldn't have gone for phyiscal confrontation, this wouldn't have happened.

Only tear gas is acceptable against unarmed civilians that try to take over a building, we've already established that.

[Viking]

I agree. This one is much better.

Where do you see that they took aim at the guy who was injured? I cannot see anything there that goes against the ricochet theory.

Check this version of the video and go HD. It looks like the guy in white T-shirt fires into the ground (look for the sparks - accidental discharge? irresponsible warning shot?) at around 39 seconds, and at 40 seconds the unarmed guy falls to the ground. It looks like they just as well could have shot one of their own.

Only tear gas is acceptable against unarmed civilians that try to take over a building, we've already established that.

I don't see anyone condoning this approach - was the building important enough? These weren't police and not trained/equipped for riot control, whoever they were. More information on the background story is needed.

[Sarmatian]

Details don't really matter in the end.

Maidan government started accepting volunteers from the west in the National Guard as army proved reluctant to fire on the citizens it was sworn to defend. Acting president has been calling for creation of local militia units, not subordinated to anyone, to fight the "terrorists".

Mess like this was bound to happen. In hindsight, Yanukovich acted like a nurse to protesters compared to what Maidan government is now doing.

[Gilrandir]

I don't see anyone condoning this approach - was the building important enough? These weren't police and not trained/equipped for riot control, whoever they were. More information on the background story is needed.

I'm sorry, my information on Krasnoarmeysk wasn't correct. It was the armed forces and police that denied their presence there. At first it was held by separatists, then they left and the battallion "Dnepr" of National Guard (formed of the inhabitants of Dnipropetrovsk region) entered it and took control of the town hall, the town police department and stopped the "referendum" that was being held. The person in the video was wounded, not killed.
http://news.liga.net/video/politics/...oarmeyske_.htm

[Gilrandir]

In hindsight, Yanukovich acted like a nurse to protesters compared to what Maidan government is now doing.

Yeah, right. Employing snipers is what the doctor ordered.
The government forces are acting meekly, for the most part, trying to avoid casualties (including those of civilians) as much as possible. If it was otherwise they could have levelled Slovaynsk with the ground. As I have remarked, they usually leave towns they freed from armed separatists. If the situation there remains stable they don't return. For instance, Mariupol is being patrolled by local police together with militia from local metallurgical plant (owned by Akhmetov). The situation there is stabilized so the separatists' barricades are being removed.