Ukraine Thread

[Gilrandir]

“Having been a military once you know perfectly well that soldiers do (or don't do) something not because they feel it is worth/not worth doing” Absurd. You will sacrifice yourself as soldier not because you were ordered to. Watch Black Hawk Down, and tell me why the 2 Special Forces descended to what they knew was their death: because it was what they had to do. For the same reason that the French Imperial Guards couldn’t surrender after Waterloo, because it is what to do when you are a soldier. Rhaa, I even don’t know why I bother to try to explain…. “Honneur et Patrie” is on our flags…

You know perfectly well that in "emergency" conditions (under a threat of invasion or during one or in times of war) disobeying orders is punished severely and court martial steps in. In the examples you referred to soldiers disobeyed the orders, but they knew that they would face something more terrible than court martial - a sure death. Now let's imagine that in those situations the soldiers were told to hold out but they escaped the battlefield. Would it be a different disobeyance? Or soldiers can choose to obey one order and disobey another just because they are wise enough (or knowledgeable enough) to pass a judgement on the quality of the order?
In the case of the Crimea, soldiers knew that court martial may await them if they disobeyed the not-to-shoot order and acted correspondingly displaying all the resistance they could without disobeying the order. Plus there were other factors at work (and I explained them). Do you think a Canadian soldier would shoot at Americans surrounding a military base? I think he would not, hoping that their bosses will sort out the conflict sooner or later (preferably sooner), so there is no need to make steps that may be irrevocable. Putin knew that so he utilized the situation to the full extent.

“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…” So, what I said is, in democracy you don’t always vote for someone but sometimes against someone. So what is your point, as it doesn’t exclude no-vote?

You try to teach others but don't follow your own edifying advice.

“Keep staying away and you will not recognize good merry France couple of elections later.” In a country where millions gathered to protect Freedom of Speech after a coward attack of fanatic Muslims? I have more faith in my people than you have in yours.

They gathered and marched. Then they bottled up their righteous anger, dispersed and let the nazis take over. Not much use of the march, is it?
As for my faith in my people:
I said that the popularity of Svoboda was explained by its presenting itself as a counter balance to depredations of Yanukovych's regime and the exclusion of "I support neither candidate" option from the ballots. I said that they would merge into the background as soon as the turmoils ebb. I said that Ukrainians are now more united and no division within the society (either geograpical or linguistic) is in evidence anymore.
And my faith was corroborated by further developments.

“Go on juggling figures and offering lame excuses. The fact is the fact” Facts are facts: In the Presidential Elections Le Pen got around 6,000,000 votes, Next Elections, 5,000,000. These elections, 5,000,000. So no increase. These are facts.

Whatever absolute figures you might refer to they don't work the way you want them to. The PERCENTAGE of FN voters is 26. Do you have faith enough to predict that (in spite of the same absoulte figures of their supporters) they would not get more people in power because of absenteists like you? You said you fight the nazis and now claim that you relegate that responsibility to others. What if all the voters are of the like mind? Marching out and waving flags is not enough. It seems that you have to choose between the two dictatorships you mentioned. It is time to make up your mind which one looks more appealing to you. This is what I was pointing at.

You started to attack my use of the word lethal and you were wrong and now you blame me? Bad move. And you're also wrong again:

No, I'm not. It is again a case of polysemy (and I was aware of it when I posted my message). So to avoid further misunderstanings one should specify the meaning of a word one used.

According to this timeline the new government was already in place before any land was occupied by foreign troops however:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A270PO20140308

The parliament changes on Feb 22 and the armed men seize the crimean parliament on Feb 27, clearly a reaction to the regime change and not vice versa.

Check the time when the timeline was published - it was a year ago. Since then we have learnt things that may question its adequacy. Some of them can be inferred from the notorious medals, others were admitted openly (or boasted of) by Putin in his Crimean movie. Conclusion: whenever the then Ukrainian government might have stepped in and whatever it might have done, it wouldn't have been able to flag Putin down.

[Husar]

No, I'm not. It is again a case of polysemy (and I was aware of it when I posted my message). So to avoid further misunderstanings one should specify the meaning of a word one used.

Ok, got it. I thought we were actually trying to communicate instead of being obstinate by choosing the wrong meaning of the word on purpose and then claiming the other guy is wrong based on your chosen misinterpretation, it's all my fault. I'm sure your way of arguing is more helpful.

Check the time when the timeline was published - it was a year ago. Since then we have learnt things that may question its adequacy. Some of them can be inferred from the notorious medals, others were admitted openly (or boasted of) by Putin in his Crimean movie. Conclusion: whenever the then Ukrainian government might have stepped in and whatever it might have done, it wouldn't have been able to flag Putin down.

So we're back to conspiracy theories and dismiss even the Western press now that was heralded as oh-so-accurate at the time, I see.

[Gilrandir]

Ok, got it. I thought we were actually trying to communicate instead of being obstinate by choosing the wrong meaning of the word on purpose and then claiming the other guy is wrong based on your chosen misinterpretation, it's all my fault. I'm sure your way of arguing is more helpful.

I didn't know what meaning of "government" you had had in mind, so it was natural to point to your mistake (as I saw it then). When you specified it, I realized which meaning you used the word in. As simple as that, no one is at fault.

So we're back to conspiracy theories and dismiss even the Western press now that was heralded as oh-so-accurate at the time, I see.

The key part of your sentence is "at the time". The Western mass media must have been accurate "at the time". As I said, since "the time" a lot of older obscure developments have transpired. If you choose to term them "conspiracies", well, do as you please.

[Husar]

The key part of your sentence is "at the time". The Western mass media must have been accurate "at the time". As I said, since "the time" a lot of older obscure developments have transpired. If you choose to term them "conspiracies", well, do as you please.

So you're basically saying that Putin had captured Crimea even if Yanukovich had stayed because he had already planned it long before the government changed?

And you're saying that the country was already occupied around the time of the vote and the Ukrainian MPs knew about it but the Western press didn't? Otherwise, how can you (or PVC) say they decided with part of the country occupied?

[Sarmatian]

In the case of the Crimea, soldiers knew that court martial may await them if they disobeyed the not-to-shoot order and acted correspondingly displaying all the resistance they could without disobeying the order. Plus there were other factors at work (and I explained them). Do you think a Canadian soldier would shoot at Americans surrounding a military base? I think he would not, hoping that their bosses will sort out the conflict sooner or later (preferably sooner), so there is no need to make steps that may be irrevocable. Putin knew that so he utilized the situation to the full extent.

I don't if Canadians would shoot at Americans, but I do know Americans shot at Americans in a similar situation.

[Montmorency]

Well, back then Canadians had no problems shooting Americans either.

[Beskar]

There were war plans for the Invasion of Canada by the United States after World War 1, there were also British and Canadian counter-plans. There was a documentary about it, it was rather interesting to watch.

What it boiled down to, British navy would simply embargo the United States, and shell from afar, whilst the Canadian would deploy scorched earth and resistance tactics. The United States would have eventually won the war with Canada being occupied, but at a great cost to the economy from the Embargo.

The Commonwealth wouldn't have been able to save the Canadians.

[rvg]

There were war plans for the Invasion of Canada by the United States after World War 1...

Oh, the war plan Red. That was merely a "just in case" contingency plan in case of British aggression, nothing more. "Have a plan to kill everyone you meet" is quite different from "Kill everyone you meet."

[Gilrandir]

So you're basically saying that Putin had captured Crimea even if Yanukovich had stayed because he had already planned it long before the government changed?

I have already expressed my take on the issue elsewhere but I can give a rundown of what I said (again facing the prospect of conspiracy-obsession charges):
According to Illarionov (Putin's ex-aide), after the debacle ot 2004 Putin has had a contingency plan prepared (known as "Clockwork orange") in case the situation in Ukraine went out of his control once again. I believe Putin has been watching the crisis evolvement and by the middle of February (2014) realized that Yanukovych was unlikely to keep his power. Then he kicked it off in the Crimea where the ground to accept whatever he does was the readiest (for various reasons). Inspired by the success he proceeded with the whole of south east, but only Donbas (to be precise the industrial regions of it) proved susceptible to his overtures.
So the answer to your question depends on what you mean by "long before".

And you're saying that the country was already occupied around the time of the vote and the Ukrainian MPs knew about it but the Western press didn't? Otherwise, how can you (or PVC) say they decided with part of the country occupied?

I don't know what vote you mean, but Russian offensive (its preparatory stages) started around February 20-21 when Yanukovych (although already powerless and/or hunted) was officially the president, so whatever was done by the Ukrainian government after that couldn't have basically changed Putin's intentions.

I don't if Canadians would shoot at Americans, but I do know Americans shot at Americans in a similar situation.

If you read it carefully, you will see that by the time it happened there had been some unfriendly actions on both sides, so the situation was tense.
In the Crimea-based Ukrainian military units (indeed, as well as throughout whole Ukraine) there were no tensions with Russia/Russian units. Whatever others may claim, Maidan never adopted any anti-Russian stance. Russia's aggression came as a shock to all the nation. Ukrainian soldiers who later withdrew from the Crimea admitted that they had had most friendly relations with Russians garrisoned there, had been on countless joint exercises and parades, visited each other's bases very often. They were incredulous when it all started and thought that it was some mistake which was bound to be corrected any time soon. They coudn't realize that Putin meant business.

[Husar]

I have already expressed my take on the issue elsewhere but I can give a rundown of what I said (again facing the prospect of conspiracy-obsession charges):
According to Illarionov (Putin's ex-aide), after the debacle ot 2004 Putin has had a contingency plan prepared (known as "Clockwork orange") in case the situation in Ukraine went out of his control once again. I believe Putin has been watching the crisis evolvement and by the middle of February (2014) realized that Yanukovych was unlikely to keep his power. Then he kicked it off in the Crimea where the ground to accept whatever he does was the readiest (for various reasons). Inspired by the success he proceeded with the whole of south east, but only Donbas (to be precise the industrial regions of it) proved susceptible to his overtures.
So the answer to your question depends on what you mean by "long before".

So if Yanukovich had stayed and given the people some of what they wanted, everyone had gone home on the 22nd, Putin would still have annexed Crimea?
And that he only went to the regions susceptible to him proves that he wants all of Europe I assume on a sidenote.

I don't know what vote you mean, but Russian offensive (its preparatory stages) started around February 20-21 when Yanukovych (although already powerless and/or hunted) was officially the president, so whatever was done by the Ukrainian government after that couldn't have basically changed Putin's intentions.

So Crimea was already occupied on the 22nd and everyone in Kiev was aware of that?

[Gilrandir]

So if Yanukovich had stayed and given the people some of what they wanted, everyone had gone home on the 22nd, Putin would still have annexed Crimea?

I think Putin was sure Yanukovych was a dead political meat, that is why he did what he did. As for what would have happened if Mr Y had stayed in power - here we enter the realm of Mighthavebeenia. Choose your path in it to your liking.

And that he only went to the regions susceptible to him proves that he wants all of Europe I assume on a sidenote.

I don't know - you live in Europe, you tell me how susceptible it is to his policies. The only thing I know is that France is in danger - Brenus watches RT.

So Crimea was already occupied on the 22nd and everyone in Kiev was aware of that?

The Crimean operation STARTED around February 20 (the exact date could be anything from 20 to 22). But the starting of the operation doesn't mean that on that very day some palpable results were achieved - perhaps some shipment started or spetznaz was ordered to get collected in location X (still on Russian territory) or some other prelimianry steps were initiated. Kyiv's awareness/unawareness of it couldn't have changed anything - Kyiv still had no means to counter it.

[Husar]

I think Putin was sure Yanukovych was a dead political meat, that is why he did what he did. As for what would have happened if Mr Y had stayed in power - here we enter the realm of Mighthavebeenia. Choose your path in it to your liking.

So what was wrong about the timeline I posted then and what were these developments we know about now that we didn't know back then and how do they contradict that Putin hadn't occupied any parts of Ukraine at the time and only did so after it was clear that the government would change? A preparation can be taken back, but the actual deed only happened after the government changed.

The Crimean operation STARTED around February 20 (the exact date could be anything from 20 to 22). But the starting of the operation doesn't mean that on that very day some palpable results were achieved - perhaps some shipment started or spetznaz was ordered to get collected in location X (still on Russian territory) or some other prelimianry steps were initiated. Kyiv's awareness/unawareness of it couldn't have changed anything - Kyiv still had no means to counter it.

So we basically agree that PVC was wrong when he said Ukraine was partially occupied by foreign troops when the parliament voted Yanukovich out and the interim government was instated. I'm glad we solved that.

[Sarmatian]

Whatever others may claim, Maidan never adopted any anti-Russian stance.

That's... rich.

[Brenus]

"The only thing I know is that France is in danger - Brenus watches RT." That is typical analyse from Gilrandir's system. Information but no analyse and always going for the short and easy cut. No wonder why he always got (and get) it wrong. Heloooo, I live in UK.

See in location: Wokingham, typical french name....

[Gilrandir]

So what was wrong about the timeline I posted then and what were these developments we know about now that we didn't know back then and how do they contradict that Putin hadn't occupied any parts of Ukraine at the time and only did so after it was clear that the government would change? A preparation can be taken back, but the actual deed only happened after the government changed.

The timeline was right about the overt events, yet it disregards what was behind them. Thus it can let one make false conclusions, like believing that the new Ukrainian government could have prevented Crimea's annexation.

That's... rich.

As I have repeatedly shown, Maidan had a strong anti-Yanukovych stance, but having a large proportion of Russian-speakers and some Russians from Russia (who flew Russian flags over their tents) it never said anything anti-Russian (in neither sense - nor against Russia as a country, nor against Russians (living either in Ukraine or Russia) as ethnicity, nor against Russian as a language). If you provide proof of the opposite, I would consider it. Until then what I said holds.

"The only thing I know is that France is in danger - Brenus watches RT." That is typical analyse from Gilrandir's system. Information but no analyse and always going for the short and easy cut.

That is a typical Brenus's failure - to miss the joke.
As for the location (it may as well be a fictitious one) - I noticed it long ago, but seeing the locations others (sometimes) indicate, I may venture to claim that going by what is given as location one can never make a sure guess at where a forumer hails from.

[Sarmatian]

As I have repeatedly shown, Maidan had a strong anti-Yanukovych stance, but having a large proportion of Russian-speakers and some Russians from Russia (who flew Russian flags over their tents) it never said anything anti-Russian (in neither sense - nor against Russia as a country, nor against Russians (living either in Ukraine or Russia) as ethnicity, nor against Russian as a language). If you provide proof of the opposite, I would consider it. Until then what I said holds.

The biggest problem of Maidan was that far-right organizations, mostly Svoboda, took control of it and turned it from a social issue to a nationalistic one.

From venerating "heroes" like Bandera, to nationalistic chants and hymns, to cries "beat the Muscovites"...

Maidan was hijacked from the beginning. You know that, and you're still trying to re-frame it now by playing "it's a wonderful world" in the background.

Even with all that, reaction came only after Maidanistas took power and started passing anti-Russian laws, toppling local and regional governments and in general bullying and intimidating anyone who was pro-Russian.

You'll see the real damage in 10-20 years.