Ukraine-in-a-thread

[rvg]

OK, but as a leftist activist, are you or are you not impressed by the level of restraint used by Ukrainian riot police over the past 3 months? It would have been much more brutal a suppression in Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, and the USA. In the US it would have become brutal for the sheer fact that no permit was approved, whatever the hell that means.

When the cops in Kiev brutally dispersed the first (very small) anti-government meeting putting a bunch of 20-something students in hospital with broken limbs, they opened themselves up for retaliation and the country for a revolution.

[Sarmatian]

Only if the "move in" was legitimate.

It certainly wasn't by western standards.

Debatable. During Occupy Wall Street, protesters were given an area where they can stand and protest. Moving from that area, or, God forbid, trying to interfere with anyone's day would have brought a response from the police.

You may like their goals or not, but what protesters did would have brought a response by the police in any western country.

Meanwhile, in another dictatorship, France, police used tear gas and water cannons to disperse protesters. EU and US are threatening sanctions to France and calling Hollande to back down. Oh, wait....

[lars573]

Debatable. During Occupy Wall Street, protesters were given an area where they can stand and protest. Moving from that area, or, God forbid, trying to interfere with anyone's day would have brought a response from the police.

You may like their goals or not, but what protesters did would have brought a response by the police in any western country.

Meanwhile, in another dictatorship, France, police used tear gas and water cannons to disperse protesters. EU and US are threatening sanctions to France and calling Hollande to back down. Oh, wait....

Granted. But would a western nation have used live ammo and snipers on them? No, even if some were armed, they'd have used water cannons and tear gas. At most rubber bullets. You know weapons and tactics designed to not kill 100 civilians. And make the government look like goons ordering around gangs of thugs.

[HoreTore]

OK, but as a leftist activist

Wut?

Anyway, I have a simple standard for unnecessary use of force:

Did the police use any kind of force? If yes, then it was unnecessary. If no, then they used the appropriate amount.

[HoreTore]

You may like their goals or not, but what protesters did would have brought a response by the police in any western country.

I love how you specify exactly what actions they committed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Granted. But would a western nation have used live ammo and snipers on them? No, even if some were armed, they'd have used water cannons and tear gas. At most rubber bullets. You know weapons and tactics designed to not kill 100 civilians. And make the government look like goons ordering around gangs of thugs.

BS - no american would dare start firing on the government else they would be annihilated. The US government would use lethal force to halt a violent protest where firearms were present or being used

[Sarmatian]

Granted. But would a western nation have used live ammo and snipers on them? No, even if some were armed, they'd have used water cannons and tear gas. At most rubber bullets. You know weapons and tactics designed to not kill 100 civilians. And make the government look like goons ordering around gangs of thugs.

It's all about context. Is it murder if you shoot someone who throws a Molotov cocktail on you? If you read comments from "camp commanders", you'd see that protesters were constantly provoking the police, using makeshift slings to propel Molotov cocktail and rocks at the police, and that they were armed with live ammo. Now, rocks aren't that dangerous for a riot police officer in all that armour but getting hit by a Molotov cocktail can really ruin your day.
You'd also see that many of them simply ignored the truce and talks and and continued their attacks on the police and that they used live ammo. Opposition leaders were losing control and the mob mentality took over. They were capturing police officers and taking them hostage.

It was a revolution, and a violent one. As I've said previously, I totally agree with Lincoln in regard of people's right to overthrow their government. The problem here is that they don't have support of the entire population. Some may agree with them, but calling them peaceful protesters, is totally out.

The saddest part, which Ukrainians are going to realize in the coming years, if this succeeds, is that they've just installed the same criminals with a different foreign policy.

I love how you specify exactly what actions they committed.

Is this enough or do you want more specification?

[rvg]

BS - no american would dare start firing on the government else they would be annihilated. The US government would use lethal force to halt a violent protest where firearms were present or being used

The moment cops shoot up a demonstration is the moment when people will go home, get their guns and make those cops pay. Cops are only brave when they know they're facing an unarmed crowd. The moment the crowd fires back cops will run with their tails between their legs.

[HoreTore]

Is this enough or do you want more specification?

No, you did not specify what actions justified the police crackdown on the pro-EU demonstration back in November.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The moment cops shoot up a demonstration is the moment when people will go home, get their guns and make those cops pay. Cops are only brave when they know they're facing an unarmed crowd. The moment the crowd fires back cops will run with their tails between their legs.

It takes months before police back down. Ukrainian opposition engaged in hyper violence with a successful PR campaign which overwhelmed the government and broke the siege, causing a catastrophic rout and total collapse of the regime. Most people wouldn't have predicted this result in 3 months time, that's why decisions were made in the way that they were by the regime.

The US government has quite a bit more hold out time in reserve. It would be unlikely that the people in the US who have protested would be able to match the hyper violence that the government would employ. The government has, of late, been picking fights with segments of the population that would employ hyper violence. This is where the Party of Regions screwed up and invited ruin. It is one thing to pick fights with peaceniks, another entirely to pick fights with paramilitary, or populist nutjubs that number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions - many with military training.

People are dangerous animals. Never underestimate the power of the simple human being to devastate his environment, if we've
learned anything. I believe in peaceful protest and reform, especially where we are fortunate enough to have the ability to engage in it. Violence solves arithmetical problems, but creates exponential ones in its wake.

I am also not naive and I don't expect governments to roll over when threatened or powerful interests to respect the lives or dignity of civilians anywhere in the world - not even the West. There are monsters waiting for their turn to rule, either on the throne or from behind the curtain.

In a country where armed, no knock swat raids and shootings are deemed legitimate in non violent, personal use marijuana cases - is it far fetched to think that thrown stones during a protest wouldn't elicit a deadly response?

[Sarmatian]

No, you did not specify what actions justified the police crackdown on the pro-EU demonstration back in November.

Trying to break the police cordon that was next to them. Police used the tear gas and batons, protesters used tear gas, fire crackers and rocks.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Trying to break the police cordon that was next to them. Police used the tear gas and batons, protesters used tear gas, fire crackers and rocks.

In fairness to Sarmatian, I remember that the protests were other than civil from the get go, in small parts. I remember water, rocks and firecrackers being thrown at police before the repression.

Still, I recognize that the regime was autocratic and taking Ukraine on an awful path. I am thrilled with the result so far.

Remember Kent State?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Jackson?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_State_killings

Oakland?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngE6kKk8Lg

Small numbers of provacateurs are often blamed for larger scale repression. My mom was arrested peacefully protesting outside of an abortion clinic when I was young. She remembers a police officer breaking/dislocating a handcuffed mans arm when they got into the truck and kicking someone else. People in the US are human - prone to the same uplifting emotions and the same despicable ones

[rvg]

In a country where armed, no knock swat raids and shootings are deemed legitimate in non violent, personal use marijuana cases - is it far fetched to think that thrown stones during a protest wouldn't elicit a deadly response?

Stones from protesters --> bullets from cops --> lots of bullets from protesters.

Crowd is a curious being. Violence can either scare it or make it angry. An armed crowd is far more likely to get angry than get scared into submission. An angry crowd armed with small arms would crush the police or SWAT for that matter. They aren't trained to deal with large numbers of firearm wielding combatants.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Stones from protesters --> bullets from cops --> lots of bullets from protesters.

Crowd is a curious being. Violence can either scare it or make it angry. An armed crowd is far more likely to get angry than get scared into submission. An angry crowd armed with small arms would crush the police or SWAT for that matter. They aren't trained to deal with large numbers of firearm wielding combatants.

Police force is determined based on threat. If there are 1000 unarmed protestors, there might be 200 riot officers. If there were 1000 armed protestors, there might be 500 armed riot police with helicopters, roof snipers, and national guard on call. Defence of scale. Armed protestors would not congregate in the same area for long, instead scattering and pulling back in the event of repression. All variables create new responses in your opponent. If you change tactic, expect your opponent do react.

[rvg]

Police force is determined based on threat. If there are 1000 unarmed protestors, there might be 200 riot officers. If there were 1000 armed protestors, there might be 500 armed riot police with helicopters, roof snipers, and national guard on call. Defence of scale. Armed protestors would not congregate in the same area for long, instead scattering and pulling back in the event of repression. All variables create new responses in your opponent. If you change tactic, expect your opponent do react.

What if we're talking about 200000 protesters like in Kiev? 100000 cops?

Once the crowd gathers a certain critical mass, cops won't dare attack.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Except there was brawling, threats of force and violence in the parliament before the vote.

I don't know whose "word" it is, but every news agency reported he is in Kharkov and he said he isn't thinking about leaving the country.

Brawling in the chamber, not heard anything about protestors breaking in.

He isn't thinking about it because he tried and failed. The border guards did not allow his plane to take off.

So I've heard.

Occupy was a peaceful protest. There is no question that if the protestors began throwing Molotov's at police that snipers would have been employed to shoot and kill anyone armed with more than a twig. Just watching the level off hyper violence employed by US police on unarmed peaceful protestors could lead you to no other conclusion, you have admitted as much. If the brutality of the police in Ukraine was the breaking point of the governments power after 3 months, and you know that the US would employ similar if not more brutal tactics, what then would the result in the US be?

Based on your attitude - the US is a much less civilised country, so you'd put up with a greater amount of violence before Congress began debating if the President needed to be impeached.

More objectively - Occupy did not become violent because the New York Police are more civilised than the Ukrainian ones, and their commanders more canny - Maidan has escalated due to the security forces trying to supress legitimate protests using violence.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Brawling in the chamber, not heard anything about protestors breaking in.



So I've heard.



Based on your attitude - the US is a much less civilised country, so you'd put up with a greater amount of violence before Congress began debating if the President needed to be impeached.

More objectively - Occupy did not become violent because the New York Police are more civilised than the Ukrainian ones, and their commanders more canny - Maidan has escalated due to the security forces trying to supress legitimate protests using violence.

Let's see how it would go if protestors began protesting outside of "free speech zones". You are the one who said that we are governed like a third world country. What did you mean by that?

[Sarmatian]

Brawling in the chamber, not heard anything about protestors breaking in.

Brawling in the parliament, threats of violence to you and your family - would you in that case dare to vote against?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am concerned with the thugs who have taken the interim premiership. They do look like mob connected black-shirts and pro-western factions should be concerned and mobilize to keep on for the shortest period of time possible.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well... Occupy Wall Street wasn't even violent, and it was broken up from the outside by police (in many cities, especially New York and Oakland), and heavily infiltrated by undercover officers that finished the job. There is zero tolerance for protest that threatens the economic status quo in America. Sure, sure, you can go protest for gay marriage or some other feel good social issue, but for real change? Oh hell no, government will break you.

Then why would he suggest that we are free from this similar threat here? If there is corruption and brutality, wouldn't you expect it to get bad enough to come to a head over time?

Americans should arm themselves, to a lawful but serious extent. Function always as a peaceful and law-abiding citizen, doing what you can to reform and eliminate as many laws as you can - but arm for the worst in the event that the law serves merely as a shield for those who would abuse you and take away your rights and opportunity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

2012-2013 FBI report is out BTW. Crime rate is down considerably after the hottest year for gun sales in most of recorded history.
Correlation? Causation? Draw your own conclusions - but buy now and do it safely based on your risk factors. Euroweenies, push for reform to laws that recognize the right to hedge the risk of government abuse.

[Crazed Rabbit]

BS - no american would dare start firing on the government else they would be annihilated. The US government would use lethal force to halt a violent protest where firearms were present or being used

I believe this to be correct.

At Washington State University, in 1998, there was a relatively small riot; http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm...m&file_id=7876

~200 students were involved and three bottles and rocks at police officers responding to the incident.

Years later a WSU officer was talking about alcohol in the dorm I lived in at WSU and said that there was a point were officers were surrounded and came close to opening fire on students.

That's without any firearms being involved on the part of students. The campus now has an armored personnel carrier.

I think if there was a protest and guns were fired and some police saw one of their own go down or get hit they'd respond with lethal force by firing into crowd. In Boston after they won the world series, police were firing "less lethal" pepper spray bullets from paintball like guns into the crowds and killed somebody; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_...oria_Snelgrove

That was without a lot of violence directed at the police.

which would make force against them legitimate by western standards.

At least US standards, which I think is both factual but morally wrong.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

My underlying point is that we are not immune, and that if they can win freedoms from a tin pot with sticks and stones then we have a shot and hedging using the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

All over the world, governments and corporations are tightening and centralizing power at the expense of your rights. To ignore it and prevent citizens from effecting defense is the wrong move. It doesn't mean that we are all screwed, it just requires more vigilance and a greater stumbling block to the plans of those who would subordinate you. We have a bright future ahead, but not if we put our faith in those who would enslave us at the expense of our natural rights.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It cracks me up when my old army buddies, many of whom are Tea Party types, start talking like that. Lots of bluster, but they don't mean it because they know better. They never called the army in Ukraine and sent em to work, and that's the only reason the protesters didn't die to a man.

No question, the military has the capability of wiping everyone out, everywhere on earth within a few hours. The military in Ukraine easily had the capability to destroy the protest with extreme prejudice. It didn't though and this is the point. Just because the worst governments have the capability to brutally repress and destroy nearly any imaginable protest doesn't mean they will use it. Why didn't they use it? Did they beleive that they could just use a bit of brutality to round up ringleaders and return the rest of the sheep to work? Did they realize that the military wasn't behind them and large scale brutality would open them up to a more serious attrition or coup?

I don't like to bluster. I'm a weakling - I wouldn't last longer than 10 minutes in a worst case scenario. The best and probably only thing that I can do is to encourage people to arm themselves as their Federally recognized rights still allow, according to the law and not beyond it. I always to encourage people to obey the laws even when you disagree. Arm yourselves for the day when the law will make it impossible for you to obey it.

To be fair; many Conservatives/Tea Party types who talk about this stuff are plain nuts. They are pretty much just fascists who want to fight the current admin and enact even worse laws based on their nonsense understanding of the world.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I support occupy Wall Street. As the internet expands to really cut the cord of TV propaganda it will be easier to disassociate yourself from filtered and tailored messages that seek to sustain the status quo.
Most traditional papers cant get you to read them for free. Most TV news networks are watched by the graying buffalo who will only grace our lives for the next few years. The future is open information from all over the world with no censorship, but we have to fight for it. This is dangerous to any regime that seeks to control the message and uncompromising opposition is expected.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I disagree. A TV company owns most of the internet distribution in the country, net nuetrality fell, and there has been real talk in Europe and elsewhere about building a new internet that isn't dependent on the US.

Besides, advertising on the internet is cheaper, easier, and so much more targeted and effective. Its every bit the social conditioning agent that TV was and then some, for corporations now and for the government later when its ubiquitousness makes it a utility rather than a luxury.

Your belief is a possibility, that's why it must be opposed now.
The actions of the US government have hurt the international internet, and the suggestion of fire-walling Europe is ominous and not in the interest of Europeans or anyone else, even as they are a populist call meant to hurt the US governments ability to access info.

Still, I don't believe that they will as easily harmonize the message when people are watching different things, reading different things, believing different things. The days when every family sits around the house, at the same time, getting the same message, are going away.

The internet gives government a powerful tool to track and target individuals, but gives individuals a better opportunity to track and oppose government; holding it accountable. We will see which way it goes, but rest assured that with complacency it will not go well. Ukrainians are writing the book on intense and uncompromising government reform.

[ICantSpellDawg]

My local SuperPAC thinks that my name is Brian. My name is not Brian.

It is tough to advertise to me (at least I think it is). The only ads that I respond to are youtube videos. I'm much more amendable to showing them my interests and being advertised deals on things that I already like. Brands are a scarlet letter to me. If I see one budding name product next to an established brand that both cost $10, I automatically assume that the branded product is of inferior quality as they must spend 30% on the cost on marketing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am concerned with the thugs who have taken the interim premiership. They do look like mob connected black-shirts and pro-western factions should be concerned and mobilize to keep on for the shortest period of time possible.

The current interim President is the former Deputy Prime Minister - he IS the pro-Western faction.

Elections are slated for May 25th and the 2004 Constitution (which limits presidential power) has been restored.

This is basically a rerun of the Orange Revolution - which Russia has spent 10 years trying to undermine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26312008

"Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov

Born in Dnipropetrovsk, eastern Ukraine, March 1964
Trained as metallurgist and economist
1980s - Local communist Komsomol youth leader
1993 - Economic adviser to ex-President Leonid Kuchma
1998-2007 - Elected to parliament
1999 - Deputy leader of Yulia Tymoshenko's Fatherland party
2004 - Campaigner in Orange Revolution
2005 - Head of Ukraine Security Service (SBU)
2007-2010 - Deputy PM
February 2014 - Parliament speaker, then acting president"

[ICantSpellDawg]

I can read wikipedia too and am aware of that. Still, big goons taking over the podium in all black is a bit disconcerting (becoming of Svoboda), especially given the allegations of his relationship with the Russian mob.

Additionally in order to recognize factional nuance, there is more than one "Western-Centric" faction. Vitaliy Klitschko is the leader of the UDAR, which is not the same as the Tymoshenko faction which has capitalized on the success of Klitschko and is attempting to demonstrate dominance by seizing power for the parties deputy.

This, to me, is similar to the Tea Party overthrowing government and having the supportive GOP strong-arm itself into leading the new government. I could be wrong about that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can read wikipedia too and am aware of that. Still, big goons taking over the podium in all black is a bit disconcerting (becoming of Svoboda), especially given the allegations of his relationship with the Russian mob.

Additionally in order to recognize factional nuance, there is more than one "Western-Centric" faction. Vitaliy Klitschko is the leader of the UDAR, which is not the same as the Tymoshenko faction which has capitalized on the success of Klitschko and is attempting to demonstrate dominance by seizing power for the parties deputy.

This, to me, is similar to the Tea Party overthrowing government and having the supportive GOP strong-arm itself into leading the new government. I could be wrong about that.

Guy wears a black shirt, has short hair...?

I'd be more worried about him being a former Spook, but the key point is he's interim President, he's unlikely to win the election but he IS a good choice to manage things during the crisis.