Ukraine Thread

[Gilrandir]

you consider I support it because I did agree with the concept.

support (səˈpɔːt)
vb (tr)
1. to carry the weight of
2. to bear or withstand (pressure, weight, etc)
3. to provide the necessities of life for (a family, person, etc)
4. to tend to establish (a theory, statement, etc) by providing new facts; substantiate
5. (Rhetoric) to speak in favour of (a motion)
6. to give aid or courage to
7. to give approval to (a cause, principle, etc); subscribe to: to support a political candidature.
8. to endure with forbearance: I will no longer support bad behaviour.
9. to give strength to; maintain: to support a business.
10. (Theatre) (tr) (in a concert) to perform earlier than (the main attraction)
11. (Film) films theatre
a. to play a subordinate role to
b. to accompany (the feature) in a film programme
12. (Theatre) films theatre
a. to play a subordinate role to
b. to accompany (the feature) in a film programme
13. (Theatre) to act or perform (a role or character)

a•gree (əˈgri)

v. a•greed, a•gree•ing. v.i.
1. to be of one mind; harmonize in opinion or feeling (often fol. by with): I agree with you.
2. to have the same opinion (often fol. by on or upon): We don't agree on politics.
3. to give consent; assent (often fol. by to): Do you agree to the conditions?
4. to arrive at a settlement or understanding: They have agreed on the price.
5. to be consistent; correspond; harmonize (usu. fol. by with): His story agrees with hers.
6. (of food or drink) to admit of digestion or absorption without difficulty (usu. fol. by with).
7. to be suitable; comply with a preference (often fol. by with): The climate did not agree with him.
8. to correspond in inflectional form, as in grammatical case, number, gender, or person: In he runs, the third person singular verb runs agrees with the subject he in person and number.
v.t.
9. to concede; grant (usu. fol. by a noun clause): I agree that he is the ablest of us.

Brilliant! You agree with the concept but you don't support it. Doublethink at its best. Carry on. Or follow your own advice:
you’ve got to make serious effort(s) on your reading abilities, or understanding. Or both.

“Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours.” Mine was good as shown

Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours - you don't even remember that at least once I reminded you of your own words:

“You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone” When did I say this?

Voila:
Post #2412 (Ukraine-in-a-thread)

“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…
The bold is mine, then goes your line. You may check it if you don't trust me.

“Scandinavians and Finns” What? Norway is not in NATO?

And now a NAtO member is allied with non-Nato members against Russia. Good news for Putin.

“Can I remind you that when the ink was still not dry and before any action from the mob, Yanukovych escaped.
Can I remind you that when the ink was not yet spilt upon the paper, Putin started his Crimea adventure.” Lies:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...722854652.html

Feb 21: Protest leaders, the political opposition and Yanukovich agree to form a new government and hold early elections. Yanukovich's powers are slashed. The parliament votes to free Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister, from prison. Yanukovich flees Kiev after protesters take control of the capital.
Feb 23: Ukraine's parliament assigns presidential powers to its new speaker, Oleksandr Turchinov, an ally of Tymoshenko. Pro-Russian protesters rally in Crimea against the new Kiev administration.
Do note that the first move is with the “pro-western democracy” side.
Feb 24: Ukraine's interim government draws up a warrant for Yanukovich's arrest.
Feb 27: Pro-Kremlin armed men seize government buildings in Crimea. Ukraine government vows to prevent a country break-up as Crimean parliament set May 25 as the date for referendum on region’s status. Yanukovich is granted refuge in Russia.
Do note than in the journalistic jargon, the Pro-Russian protesters became Pro-Kremlin armed men, when the pro-western mob is a “political opposition”
Then, only then
March 2: A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops heads towards the regional capital of Crimea. Arseny Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's new prime minister, accuses Russia of declaring war on his country.
Note: 1st real move from Putin, who everyone though was too busy with the Olympic Games.

This is the chronology. Facts. First mob take power, President fled.
Ukraine started aggressive stance towards Crimean opposition, then Russian troops move (well, the ones who were not in Crimea yet).

I told no lies, while your source :
1) didn't give all the information - between February 21 (the signing of agreement) and February 23 (Turchinov's appointment) Yanukovych escaped. So the latter decision is natural - someone was to be in charge of the nation. So my first claim holds: the ink was still not dry and before any action from the mob, Yanukovych escaped.
2) is outdated - check the date of your Aljazeera article - it is September 20, 2014. Since then we have had Putin's own (and his medals) confession that he started his Crimea operation somewhere between February 20 (according to the medals) and February 22 (according to Huylo himself in the Crimea movie). So my second claim holds as well: when the ink was not yet spilt upon the paper, Putin started his Crimea adventure. However, if the true date was February 22 then the ink was dry, yet Yanukovych was not deposed.

“Done”: Lie. If you had you would have notice “ensure the right for entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to establish special parallel relationships with neighbouring countries consistent with sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Meaning Croats with Croatia and Serbs with Serbia.
Perhaps I am too harsh with you. Perhaps you just don’t understand the text.

I noticed it. And? Does it say that Serbia or Croatia have any right to interfere military-wise if they don't like something, or appoint any leaders, or change the Bosnian constitution, or influence foreign policy, or introduce their currency on Bosnian territory? Russia tries to do it to Ukraine through their Lugandonean stooges. Was any part of Bosnia annexed by either Serbia or Croatia?
The Bosnia-Ukraine comparison is totally flawed:
Bosnia is divided into two approximately equal parts and one of them further into Croatian and Bosnian subparts. Nothing like that is in evidence in Ukraine. If any comparison could be drawn, then Ukraine -Moldova or Ukraine-Georgia would be closer. Ukraine-Lugandon structure reminds that of Moldova-Transnistria, the Crimean situation is close to Abkhasia or South Ossetia (the difference being that the Crimea was officially annexed by Russia while North Caucasian republics retain virtual independence). But an important difference between Ukraine and any of the mentioned conflicts is that in all of them ethnicity, language and/or confession were an issue. None of those are of moment in Ukraine which is why the conflict in Ukraine is more artificial than having real grounds.

And speaking of Russian nazi-fighters:
Some songs composed in Russia of late are almost complete replicas of the Nazi anthem and Hitlerjugend anthem:
http://by24.org/2014/10/06/russian_s...n_nazi_anthem/

[Sarmatian]

I noticed it. And? Does it say that Serbia or Croatia have any right to interfere military-wise if they don't like something, or appoint any leaders, or change the Bosnian constitution, or influence foreign policy, or introduce their currency on Bosnian territory?

They do, actually, if Bosnia does anything contrary to the Dayton accord.

[Gilrandir]

They do, actually, if Bosnia does anything contrary to the Dayton accord.

Is it stipulated in the agreement - I mean military intervention on Serbian or Croatian part?

[Gilrandir]

On information wars:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015...ion-psychology

[Sarmatian]

Is it stipulated in the agreement - I mean military intervention on Serbian or Croatian part?

Not as such, but both countries signed that they guarantee Dayton accord being respected, so legally they are bound to intervene if it was broken.

In practice, it doesn't mean much, but it is there.

[Brenus]

Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours - you don't even remember that at least once I reminded you of your own words:” Because you didn’t my dear.

But yours were: “ In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides” You claimed in your pedantic way that I had an illumination (prophetic) when I agree with someone. That was a lie, as you showed it yourself. You can now as usual try to catch the branches when falling from the tree, when you’ve just invented “the fact”.

“Brilliant! You agree with the concept but you don't support it. Doublethink at its best.”: Your really have to make an effort to understand. I agree with him on the principal/concept. I sometimes agree with you, doesn’t mean I support you. He had a proposal and I agree. From your definitions: to arrive at a settlement or understanding: This one.

“Since then we have had Putin's own (and his medals) confession that he started his Crimea operation somewhere between February 20 (according to the medals) and February 22 (according to Huylo himself in the Crimea movie)” Nope. Medal never existed, and Putin just said Russia had contingency plan is case of, as all countries do. You failed again… But you probably got the habit now, so why changing?

“is outdated” And this changed the Chronology? Mob took Parliament, President fled, Ukrainian Government try to blackmail Crimea in submission, Russian troops move. The fact that Putin and Russia were ready in case changes absolutely nothing to this. And Putin move because mob took Parliament and expelled (or forced President to flee). A little bit like France and UK declared war to Germany because Germany attacked Poland. It is a reaction, not an action.

[Gilrandir]

Not as such, but both countries signed that they guarantee Dayton accord being respected, so legally they are bound to intervene if it was broken.

In practice, it doesn't mean much, but it is there.

You mean like 1994 Budapest agreement? Then it indeed doesn't mean much.

Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours - you don't even remember that at least once I reminded you of your own words:” Because you didn’t my dear.

This one is easy to copypaste once again:

“You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone” When did I say this?
Voila:
Post #2412 (Ukraine-in-a-thread)

“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…
The bold is mine, then goes your line. You may check it if you don't trust me.

But yours were: “ In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides” You claimed in your pedantic way that I had an illumination (prophetic) when I agree with someone. That was a lie, as you showed it yourself. You can now as usual try to catch the branches when falling from the tree, when you’ve just invented “the fact”.

You agree to what another said which is as good as saying it yourself - you both have a common approach to the subject.

I agree with him on the principal/concept. I sometimes agree with you, doesn’t mean I support you. He had a proposal and I agree.

I spoke not of supporting SOMEONE, but of supporting AN IDEA/CONCEPT. The latter means "agreeing to an idea/concept" (in this case the one of Ukraine split along cultural lines).

Medal never existed

This is what you said of Russian weapons in Ukraine, Russian mercenaries in Ukraine, Russian regular troops in Donbas (on a constant basis). Why, you live in the world Lavrov and Churkin have created and are still creating.

and Putin just said Russia had contingency plan is case of, as all countries do.

Did you watch the Crimea movie? Do please. After it you will love the man even more.
In it Putin said that all the night of February 22 he had been holding debates with the top brass and when he went out in the morning, the intervention was agreed upon and kicked into execution.

You failed again… But you probably got the habit now, so why changing?

You are perfectly right. It refers to your Bosnia-Ukraine comparison.

“is outdated” And this changed the Chronology?

The newly discovered developments of the year ago do change it. Now it is like this:
1. Mob took Parliament.
2. Russian troops are started into motion by Putin.
3. President fled.
4. Ukrainian Government try to blackmail Crimea in submission.
As I have said, Putin started the opeartion WHEN YANUKOVYCH WAS STILL THE PRESIDENT.

[Brenus]

This one is easy to copypaste once again:” Can do again, because you didn’t. I could explain why, and how, but it more fun like this… Re-read just what you copy and paste: Hint: My words: “ That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…” These are MY words, not your reading of them.

“You agree to what another said which is as good as saying it yourself “. Not. And your claim was I had a vision… Not that I shared someone bet (even partially). . You are sinking my dear…

“This is what you said of Russian weapons in Ukraine, Russian mercenaries in Ukraine, Russian regular troops in Donbas (on a constant basis)” I answer this lie before, re-read.

“Did you watch the Crimea movie? Do please. After it you will love the man even more.” Why should I watch a movie where a politician said he knew everything before every one? This is politician words. And where did you get the idea I love Putin? YOU have more confidence in what he said than I.

“It refers to your Bosnia-Ukraine comparison” You refuse to see the reality, like years ago… You have in theory a United State, Ukraine, and as Bosnia the Central Power has no power on some areas. And it will probably become a permanent state when finally negotiations will give a peace agreement. Reason why I agree with the bet.

“1. Mob took Parliament.
2. Russian troops are started into motion by Putin.
3. President fled.
4. Ukrainian Government try to blackmail Crimea in submission.
As I have said, Putin started the opeartion WHEN YANUKOVYCH WAS STILL THE PRESIDENT.” Nope. Moving troops doesn’t mean you start an operation. France mobilised before Germany attacked in 1914, still it was Germany that started the war. You can always stop a movement until borders are crossed. Even a little bit after. It is just a hint that Putin had better instinct than the EU/US leaders, and that the Russian Army had better contingency plans.