Ukraine Thread

[Gilrandir]

That is not true. I've seen the documentary in it's entirety.

According to the documentary: After Korsun Massacre/Ambush*, they realized that Crimeans are in danger. After that it is explicitly mentioned by Putin that Yanukovich, who was moving from Kharkiv to Donetsk, on the the night of 22nd of February, was in danger. Russian intelligence was sure that he was supposed to be assassinated. His motorcade was shot at, his bodyguard wounded. They moved off road to avoid further attacks. After almost entire night, Russian helicopters located the motorcade and extracted Yanukovich. By that time, Maidanistas already took control of parliament and other government buildings in Kiev. The rescuing of Yanukovich took entire night between 22nd and 23rd February. After the operation was over, around 7 AM, Febrary 23rd, Putin said to his associates that they must take into account what is happening and that they must make sure the people of Crimea are safe and that they must allowed to decide their own future in safety, whether it's staying with Ukraine or joining Russia. The first time Russian soldiers were used was February 27th, to assist local militia in taking over the airport in Simferopol.

And I don't see how it refutes my claim. Read carefully what I wrote. I never claimed that the invasion was started with the appearance of little green men. More than once I said that the starting point of it was the adoption of the decision to invade. And that happened on the night between 22 and 23, when Yanukovych was still officially the president. Moreover, for quite a time (I believe until presidential elections in May) Yanukovych was considered by Russia the legal head of Ukraine, so the invasion was an illegal thing to do for Russians whether it started on 22 or 27 of February.
But again, this is if we believe Putin. I'm sure the decision has been ripening since the middle of February at the latest. I also have never heard of the massacre he metioned (in fact, this toponym doesn't belong to the Crimea, but it is an old name of Khersones which now is an archeological excavation site within Sevastopol with a few museums and a church) and attempts at assassination of Yanukovych are not proved either, same as his claims of his grandson being attacked in the kindergarten or shooting at Rybak's (the then Speaker of the Parliament) car (refuted by Rybak himself).

[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

[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.

[Brenus]

“Yet you watch RT” So? I watch BBC, France 24 and other Channels, all monuments of anti-Russian propaganda and dis/mis-informations. I apply for them the same treatment to each, a careful scepticism.

“somehow don't mind the propaganda” Who told you that? Do you have evidence of this? I am careful to put link from RT, and do it only when there are none from others sites.

“Did you watch it? I wonder what you as a specialist in manipulative techniques think of it.” I did, reason why I never linked it before.

[Sarmatian]

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.

I don't know if you had actually seen the entire documentary - that was a small part of a much longer conversation, but shown at the beginning for the WOW factor. That part of the conversation happens around halfway through the documentary where he goes about it at greater length and explains his position fully.

[Gilrandir]

I don't know if you had actually seen the entire documentary - that was a small part of a much longer conversation, but shown at the beginning for the WOW factor. That part of the conversation happens around halfway through the documentary where he goes about it at greater length and explains his position fully.

I watched the whole of it. He said what he said whatever may follow or whatever effect it was meant to produce. The fact holds: at 7 a.m. February 23 he proclaimed he "was bringing the Crimea home" on which he decided the night before. And you said I was lying. Your reading of his words again smacks of weaseling out you had applied interpreting his "soldiers' backs" phrase although you seem to dislike that tactics so much.

[Sarmatian]

I watched the whole of it. He said what he said whatever may follow or whatever effect it was meant to produce. The fact holds: at 7 a.m. February 23 he proclaimed he "was bringing the Crimea home" on which he decided the night before. And you said I was lying. Your reading of his words again smacks of weaseling out you had applied interpreting his "soldiers' backs" phrase although you seem to dislike that tactics so much.

You are lying. I'm just not sure if you're doing it on purpose or if you aren't fully aware of it.

Transcript from 1:50 to 3:12 (Putin speaking continuously)

"At 7am, (February 23rd) I've told to my 4 associates: The situation in Ukraine has turned out in such a way that we are forced to begin work on returning Crimea to Russia. Because we can not let the territory and the people there adrift under steamroller of nationalists. And I have set certain tasks and outlined what needs to be done and how. And I have to stress right away, that we would only do it in case that we are absolutely certain that people that live in Crimea want it themselves. We had to give a chance for people to express their opinion. That was our goal, frankly speaking. I thought to myself, that if people want it, so be it. They would have certain additional rights, wider autonomy, but within Ukraine. So be it than. But if they want to go the other way, we can not let them down."

[Gilrandir]

You are lying. I'm just not sure if you're doing it on purpose or if you aren't fully aware of it.

Transcript from 1:50 to 3:12 (Putin speaking continuously)

"At 7am, (February 23rd) I've told to my 4 associates: The situation in Ukraine has turned out in such a way that we are forced to begin work on returning Crimea to Russia. Because we can not let the territory and the people there adrift under steamroller of nationalists. And I have set certain tasks and outlined what needs to be done and how. And I have to stress right away, that we would only do it in case that we are absolutely certain that people that live in Crimea want it themselves. We had to give a chance for people to express their opinion. That was our goal, frankly speaking. I thought to myself, that if people want it, so be it. They would have certain additional rights, wider autonomy, but within Ukraine. So be it than. But if they want to go the other way, we can not let them down."

Where am I lying?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I need an update on the date and Putin's status regarding fascism please.

[Sarmatian]

Where am I lying?

You're taking a part of a larger speech and fixating on it, completely ignoring the rest where it is more clearly explained. In this case, Putin explained that he set certain tasks and outlined what needs to be done in case people who live in Crimea want it themselves.

A different, more neutral example for you - EU says: We will help Greece financially. But, only if Greece accepts difficult reforms and extraordinary austerity measures. If you look at everything that's been said, it's clear that EU will give Greece monetary aid if Greece agrees to the conditions. If you choose to ignore the second sentence, it would mean the EU will help Greece without any additional conditions.

That's why it is important to take everything that's been said into account. If you pick only one sentence you like and ignore the rest, you'll get a distorted picture.

This explanation was in case that you b) weren't fully aware of it. In case of a) you're doing it on purpose, there's not much I can do.

[Brenus]

"Where am I lying?" You bolt it and underlined it and then forget the "that we would only do it in case that we are absolutely certain that people that live in Crimea want it themselves." So Putin didn't launch the operation that day or date as you claimed, in: "Once again: Putin DECIDED on his Crimea operation on the night BETWEEN 22 and 23", but assessed (rightly) how the situation turned against Russia. So no "returning Crimea to motherland", but more kind of "it is turning nasty and we might will have to do something about it", according to the document (I watched only half of it at the moment, it is heavy staff).

[Brenus]

Can't stop to laugh.
http://newcoldwar.org/top-polish-mil...-ukraine-govt/

[Sarmatian]

Can't stop to laugh.
http://newcoldwar.org/top-polish-mil...-ukraine-govt/

Pathetic.

I understand that it is difficult to create nation after you've created a state, but venerating Nazi collaborators and henchmen is never a good way to start.

[Gilrandir]

You're taking a part of a larger speech and fixating on it, completely ignoring the rest where it is more clearly explained. In this case, Putin explained that he set certain tasks and outlined what needs to be done in case people who live in Crimea want it themselves.

This explanation was in case that you b) weren't fully aware of it. In case of a) you're doing it on purpose, there's not much I can do.

This is weaseling out, the same as with "Russian soldiers' backs". We heard Putin say crystall clear about his 7 a.m. decision. It means that he has been brooding on it for quite a time. Or do you think he had this idea at 6.59? It makes me laugh when you claim that Putin was ready to start annexation ONLY IF THE PEOPLE OF THE CRIMEA WANTED IT. This is what I agree with:
https://russianavos.wordpress.com/20...mea-admission/
Note the words of Girkin when he claimed that:
1. He was in the Crimea as early as February 21. Judging from what he has been doing in Slovyansk (where he by his another admission tried to emulate his Crimea blitzkrieg) he was there not to renovate antique bronze vessels. Evidently he was on a particular mission and as he was there on February 21, all Putin's babblings about asking what the Crimeans think are ridiculous.
2. He literally "goaded" Crimean deputies in to vote neccessary ordinances. A good way to discover what the Crimeans think.
Thus, Putin was bent on annexation long before the morning of 23. But even if he decided on it then, Yanukovych was still the president. Rescuing the president with one hand and starting the annexation with another hand is what Putin was doing. And then he (in the movie) confirmed it and Girkin's evidence corroborated it.

I understand that it is difficult to create nation after you've created a state, but venerating Nazi collaborators and henchmen is never a good way to start.

As I have said, at Nurnberg trial UPA was never mentioned as a collaborator.
But even if it had been one, EVERYBODY (starting from Western nations in Munich 1938 and including Soviet army dividing Poland with the Gemany and celebrating it with the Brest parade in 1939) was a collaborator. Why then should we venerate Great Britain and the USSR (now succedded by Russia) as winners? Everyone had his hands dirty in the war.

[Sarmatian]

This is weaseling out

Nope. You're now trying to switch the discussion to what you think happened in reality, which is not what we were talking about about. We were talking about what Putin said in the documentary.

It was an honest mistake, could have happened to anyone, but instead of owning up to it and moving on, you're using misdirection to try and steer the conversation in a different direction.

As I have said, at Nurnberg trial UPA was never mentioned as a collaborator.
But even if it had been one, EVERYBODY (starting from Western nations in Munich 1938 and including Soviet army dividing Poland with the Gemany and celebrating it with the Brest parade in 1939) was a collaborator. Why then should we venerate Great Britain and the USSR (now succedded by Russia) as winners? Everyone had his hands dirty in the war.

Kudos, then. Have fun celebrating UPA and Bandera. That's a great basis to build a free, democratic country on top of.

[Gilrandir]

Nope. You're now trying to switch the discussion to what you think happened in reality, which is not what we were talking about about. We were talking about what Putin said in the documentary.

It was an honest mistake, could have happened to anyone, but instead of owning up to it and moving on, you're using misdirection to try and steer the conversation in a different direction.

I may as well say it all of your standpoint and understaning of Putin's confessions. The only way to determine who is right is to put Putin on trial in the Hague. The court may eventually pass a verdict that will solve our dispute.

Kudos, then. Have fun celebrating UPA and Bandera. That's a great basis to build a free, democratic country on top of.

For me they are too controversial figures to celebrate, yet they did their bit in eventually fighting nazis. But you choose to forget that similar movements branded by Soviet propaganda as collaborators were "celebrated" in the Baltic states or in Croatia and their countries are free and democratic.

[Sarmatian]

I may as well say it all of your standpoint and understaning of Putin's confessions. The only way to determine who is right is to put Putin on trial in the Hague. The court may eventually pass a verdict that will solve our dispute.

You may very well be right about Putin's motives in reality. But, you were wrong about what he said in the documentary. That's what we've been discussed.

For me they are too controversial figures to celebrate, yet they did their bit in eventually fighting nazis. But you choose to forget that similar movements branded by Soviet propaganda as collaborators were "celebrated" in the Baltic states or in Croatia.

And I already said that the general behavior of Baltic states after they got their independence was appalling, and Croatia still can't differentiate nazis and patriots.

Not the crowd you wanna be in in this instance.

Or maybe you aren't making a moral argument, but are trying to say "they got away with it"?

[CrossLOPER]

Or maybe you aren't making a moral argument, but are trying to say "they got away with it"?

This is really the aspect of patriotism that always bothered me and why I never bought into it. It always devolves into blind faith and couples either with revisionism or willful ignorance.

[Gilrandir]

You may very well be right about Putin's motives in reality. But, you were wrong about what he said in the documentary. That's what we've been discussed.

I don't think you can make me (and others) fail to hear what was said in the movie.

And I already said that the general behavior of Baltic states after they got their independence was appalling, and Croatia still can't differentiate nazis and patriots.

Not the crowd you wanna be in in this instance.

Or maybe you aren't making a moral argument, but are trying to say "they got away with it"?

Yet these countries are democratic and free, aren't they?
I think the majority of Ukrainians would like to have such a country as Lithuania, for example.
And the borderline between nazis, nationalists and patriots is arbitrary.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

IYet these countries are democratic and free, aren't they?
I think the majority of Ukrainians would like to have such a country as Lithuania, for example.
And the borderline between nazis, nationalists and patriots is arbitrary.

For a given value of "Democratic and Free" which is to say "still very corrupt" but then corruption and graft is common to all post-Communist states, probably because that was the only way to better yourself, given that Communism doesn't reward you for working harder than anyone else.

[Sarmatian]

I don't think you can make me (and others) fail to hear what was said in the movie.

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.

Yet these countries are democratic and free, aren't they?
I think the majority of Ukrainians would like to have such a country as Lithuania, for example.
And the borderline between nazis, nationalists and patriots is arbitrary.

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.

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.

[Gilrandir]

For a given value of "Democratic and Free" which is to say "still very corrupt" but then corruption and graft is common to all post-Communist states, probably because that was the only way to better yourself, given that Communism doesn't reward you for working harder than anyone else.

It would be more accurate to say that corruption WAS common to the said states. Now some of them (e.g. Baltic ones or central European ones) have made a great progress and could boast of a low level of it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would be more accurate to say that corruption WAS common to the said states. Now some of them (e.g. Baltic ones or central European ones) have made a great progress and could boast of a low level of it.

Again, given value of "low level", compared to the UK, Germany or Scandinavia they still have high corruption. You're basically right though, things there are getting better.

[Brenus]

"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.

"Yet these countries are democratic and free, aren't they?" Not if you are Gypsy or Serb. Hungarian, err, not that much either, for Croatia. I can tell for others as I never put a foot there, and to be fair, not that much interested.