Ukraine Thread

[Sarmatian]

Yanukovich may still be considered the legal state of Ukraine - if he's been impeached illegally, then he was still the president and there couldn't have been new presidential elections until his mandate was over.

It's acceptance of the reality. Like Kiev still considers Crimea part of Ukraine, or Belgrade Kosovo a part of Serbia, but both know better then to send army there, for instance.

You made it sound Putin admitted that operation to annex Crimea was started while Yanukovich was still in power, which wasn't true. Putin said, on morning of 23rd, that Russia must ensure that Crimea can decide its future in peace and safety. By that time Yanukovich wasn't in power or had any control, Maidan rebels seized power, although he was still legally the president.

Considering the massacre, it was pretty explicitly mentioned that, according to Kiev, there were 7 confirmed murders.

Believe or don't believe Putin, that is your prerogative. Not believing politicians is usually a safe bet, but don't twist facts to suit your agenda.

[Gilrandir]

Yanukovich may still be considered the legal state of Ukraine - if he's been impeached illegally, then he was still the president and there couldn't have been new presidential elections until his mandate was over.

Same as Nikolai II's heirs are still the legal rulers of Russia. If we try to recall all the leaders removed from power after a procedure with dubious legality we may have a really long dispute on how legal are those that came to supplant them.

You made it sound Putin admitted that operation to annex Crimea was started while Yanukovich was still in power, which wasn't true.
Believe or don't believe Putin, that is your prerogative. Not believing politicians is usually a safe bet, but don't twist facts to suit your agenda.

1. You don't seem to trust Putin in his claims yourself yet you call them "facts". WTF i.e. what the fact?
2. Where did I twist them? Here are "the facts":
Putin admitted that the operation started on a certain date. Period. According to all available timelines Yanukovych was still unimpeached on that date. Period. It doesn't take much effort to match the two and make a conclusion.

Considering the massacre, it was pretty explicitly mentioned that, according to Kiev, there were 7 confirmed murders.

Still have no idea where Korsun with the mentioned massacre is situated. The source, please.

[Brenus]

"Same as Nikolai II's heirs are still the legal rulers of Russia." Nicolai II abdicated 15-Mar-1917 to his brother who refused the throne. A perfectly valid and legal move.

There you go:
http://ukraine-human-rights.org/enc/...ations/murder/

And what official ukrainian side says about it:http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv...eo-383832.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Same as Nikolai II's heirs are still the legal rulers of Russia." Nicolai II abdicated 15-Mar-1917 to his brother who refused the throne. A perfectly valid and legal move.

There you go:
http://ukraine-human-rights.org/enc/...ations/murder/

And what official ukrainian side says about it:http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv...eo-383832.html

Point of Order - one cannot perform any "legal" move under duress, and Nicholas II was facing rebellion and threats to his life, so he was under duress.

[Brenus]

"Point of Order - one cannot perform any "legal" move under duress, and Nicholas II was facing rebellion and threats to his life, so he was under duress."
Point of Order: All legal moves are done under duress, i.e. home repossession, debts collection, jail sentences etc. So, the legality (and the duress of it) of an action is defined by the law. Nicolas not being able to have his train moved and his troops shooting at the rebellious plebe made a legal move, gave the Crown to his brother. He was not under duress, but just saw his own failure and tried to solve it. Or are you suggesting that his brother threatened him?

[Gilrandir]

I will have sex with you. If you pay me.

You may be in a whole lot of trouble if you focus on the first part and ignore everything else that you heard. But, that's your problem, not mine.

I would read it "You are not against having sex with me on a certain condition" from which one can infer that "we can somehow start bargaining". Am I to call a starting offer? Conclusion: even if we focus on both, there's a bunch of readings.
But if we stay on topic: you have once showed the ability to read Putin's words (soldiers' backs, remember?) and you failed, which at first was indicated by BBC and later (in the documentary) by Putin himself. Now, I'm afraid, it is just the same. Keep ignoring what you like and see only what you choose. This is the reason we are having this endless discussion.
Try to interpret this one by Putin:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-are-one.html

I wouldn't say. If a country doesn't allow 30% of its population to vote, is it democratic? If a country purposefully ignores crimes committed against a portion of its population, is it democratic? If a country performs an ethnic cleansing, is it democratic? It's not a point of view for me.

No country is a PERFECT democracy, but existing shortcomings don't cancel the general assessment. Moreover, at some historic period NO country was democratic. So adopting your diachronic standpoint, there are no democracies in the world. Viewing them synchronically, they are as democratic as you like.

Also, difference between nazis, nationalists and patriots isn't arbitrary. Maybe the fact that you think it is, is the real reason why we're having this never ending discussion.

The three abstract notions form categories. According to L. Wittgenstein and E. Rosch, categories (especially those including abstract notions) have fuzzy ends and may overlap. Brenus, evidently, is of the same opinion (see # 630).

Again, given value of "low level", compared to the UK, Germany or Scandinavia they still have high corruption.

I believe Estonia and Lithuania are not much different from those you named. I'm sure HAX can give his take on Estonia, at least.

"And the borderline between nazis, nationalists and patriots is arbitrary" It is what you think and it explains a lot... Thanks.
Again you are mixing-up things and notions: Nazism and Nationalism are Ideologies based on political agenda, as Communism, Socialism or Anarchism.
Patriotism is an attitude towards a country.
So, no, patriots defending their countries is nothing in common with aggressive "genocidors", rapists, looters, slavers and racists Nazi lunatics. Nationalist are few degree under Nazi, but can have similar tendency to kill as in Franco Spain. However, their hate is more about classes than races. They will still shoot to unionists and throw them from helicopters if needed.
I doesn't means that Nazi and Fascist won't defend their country from attack they provoked by their behaviour mind you, so they can abusively claimed to be patriots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism, in which

Patriotism is, generally speaking, cultural attachment to one's homeland or devotion to one's country, although interpretations of the term vary with context, geography and political ideology. It is a set of concepts closely related to those of nationalism.....

The Patriotism Score tables here are from the World Values Survey and refer to the average answer "for high income residents" of a country to the question "Are you proud to be [insert nationality]?".

Your interpretation varies from the conventional. Evidently, nationality is as important (for patriotism) as the country one lives in.

Point of Order: All legal moves are done under duress, i.e. home repossession, debts collection, jail sentences etc.

Yet they are "done" by law enforcement bodies which are legally empowered to "do" them. In Nicholas II's issue not such bodies put him under duress, thus it was illegal duress, consequently, a crime.

[Sarmatian]

But if we stay on topic: you have once showed the ability to read Putin's words (soldiers' backs, remember?) and you failed, which at first was indicated by BBC and later (in the documentary) by Putin himself. Now, I'm afraid, it is just the same. Keep ignoring what you like and see only what you choose. This is the reason we are having this endless discussion.

No, I explained to you that "getting someone's back" doesn't have to have literal meaning.

But, for the sake of the discussion, let's pretend I said what you're trying to infer I said - So what? I was wrong, is that your point? You were wrong in one of your first posts in the backroom (German planes bombing Norway from USSR airfield during WW2). Why are you still posting anything remotely related to history when you were wrong?

Conclusion: you're wrong again.

Try to interpret this one by Putin:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-are-one.html

It obviously means he wants to annex entire Ukraine, but I'm not worried so much about him. This is the real threat.



Global Nurses United say that we are all one people, all of us in the world. Russia and the West must make peace immediately to prepare for the imminent nurse invasion.

No country is a PERFECT democracy, but existing shortcomings don't cancel the general assessment. Moreover, at some historic period NO country was democratic. So adopting your diachronic standpoint, there are no democracies in the world. Viewing them synchronically, they are as democratic as you like.

That no country is a PERFECT democracy is not a proof that all countries are equal in how democratic they are. There are small issues, and there is refusing to allow a third of the population to vote.

[Sarmatian]

1. You don't seem to trust Putin in his claims yourself yet you call them "facts". WTF i.e. what the fact?

I tend to distrust politicians as a rule. Putin's no exception.

The facts I'm mentioning is what is shown in the documentary. I'm not discussing what really happened, only what documentary said.

2. Where did I twist them? Here are "the facts":
Putin admitted that the operation started on a certain date. Period. According to all available timelines Yanukovych was still unimpeached on that date. Period. It doesn't take much effort to match the two and make a conclusion.

You said Putin started an operation to annex Crimea on 22nd while Yanukovich was still in power. According to you, he said that in the documentary. That is not true.

1) He said that Russia must ensure Crimeans decide their own fate, whatever that is, in peace and safety
2) He said it on the 23rd
3) Yanukovich was no longer in power.

Still have no idea where Korsun with the mentioned massacre is situated. The source, please.

The only thing I know about it is what I heard from the documentary and the link Brenus provided. There are very little sources about it. It's like it's been ignored on purpose. There's not even the usual "according to unverified sources from Russia and Crimea, an incident supposedly took place... blah, blah, blah...". Very weird.

[Brenus]

Korsun is not really documented but https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/1...testers-alive/ is. So, not to brush aside too fast Putin's claim.

"in fact, this toponym doesn't belong to the Crimea"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Korsu%C5%84

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...erkassy_Pocket

[Gilrandir]

“s prove (or demonstrated) by “Well, I can't believe what I'm doing - trying to persuade others to watch a piece of Russian propaganda!”. Propaganda, not piece of evidence.

Yet you watch RT and somehow don't mind the propaganda there, so I don't see the reason of being so apprehensive to other propaganda pieces.

You said Putin started an operation to annex Crimea on 22nd while Yanukovich was still in power. According to you, he said that in the documentary. That is not true.
1) He said that Russia must ensure Crimeans decide their own fate, whatever that is, in peace and safety
2) He said it on the 23rd
3) Yanukovich was no longer in power.

Once again: Putin DECIDED on his Crimea operation on the night BETWEEN 22 and 23 (and proclaimed it on the 23) when Yanukovych was still the president.
But whatever the date might be, another confession of his is more important. Putin admitted that Russian regular troops were instrumental in the annexation, while before he at first gainsaid it, then he said his notorious phrase about Russian soldiers "behind the backs of the locals" (which you interpreted as metaphor) and a year later he spilt out the truth. So much for his gainsaying the presence of Russian troops in Donbas now.

There you go:
http://ukraine-human-rights.org/enc/...ations/murder/

Did you watch it? I wonder what you as a specialist in manipulative techniques think of it.

"in fact, this toponym doesn't belong to the Crimea"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Korsu%C5%84
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...erkassy_Pocket

This is what we learn at school and the town is within an easy reach from my residence so I visited it once. There's a museum there dealing with the WWII.

[Sarmatian]

Once again: Putin DECIDED on his Crimea operation on the night BETWEEN 22 and 23 (and proclaimed it on the 23) when Yanukovych was still the president.

Are you talking about what you think happened in reality or what Putin said in the documentary? If you're talking about the former, you may be right, but if you're talking about the latter, that's not true.

But whatever the date might be, another confession of his is more important. Putin admitted that Russian regular troops were instrumental in the annexation, while before he at first gainsaid it, then he said his notorious phrase about Russian soldiers "behind the backs of the locals" (which you interpreted as metaphor) and a year later he spilt out the truth. So much for his gainsaying the presence of Russian troops in Donbas now.

Putin admitted that Russian troops already stationed in Crimea were used to maintain peace and security.

I never said those troops weren't Russian regulars, just that we couldn't know if they were and that "we've got their backs" doesn't necessarily mean literally boots on the ground.

I was actually always of the thought that those troops are either current or former Russian professionals, or, at the very least, locals backed by Moscow. I was also of the opinion that any of that wouldn't have been possible if the vast majority of the population wasn't in favour of it.

Even recent polls conducted by western agencies show over 80% of Crimeans support joining Russia.

[Gilrandir]

Are you talking about what you think happened in reality or what Putin said in the documentary? If you're talking about the former, you may be right, but if you're talking about the latter, that's not true.

It is 1.55-2.20 in the movie when Putin after his night conference with the top brass (on rescuing Yanukovych) at their parting in the morning of 23 at 7 a.m. told them that they would start working on returning the Crimea to Russia.
And as for troops, he admitted what he had been vehemently gainsaying for a year.