Ukraine-in-a-thread

[gaelic cowboy]

That is the crux of the issue here. Putin isn't performing a land grab, in my humble opinion. If he wanted, he could have taken a huge chunk of eastern Ukraine under the same pretext as Crimea, there was no one to stop him. Obviously, Putin (correctly or incorrectly) believed the bases in Crimea are under threat.

I just wanted to quote that to let it sink into my brain.


You REALLY believe the statement that Putin is not performing a landgrab.

[Sarmatian]

Actually, I'm not sure. Territorial changes are handled by international and not national law(regime change is handled by national law).

I have much in Norwegian, but since I don't know the specific term in English, I haven't found much... The first paragraph of this blog discusses what I'm talking about though.

From what I've been able to gather using google translate, that's a very special case since Norway has a very weird mix of common law and civil law, including constitutional customs.

BUT, you interpretation wasn't correct. The current mix up was due to the fact that the old constitutional custom said that council of state (government) is appointed by the king and new laws basically gave the parliament the power to disband the government. It's clever workaround that didn't require the complex change of constitutional law and had the effect of giving parliament de facto the power to appoint the government as any government appointed by the king could be disbanded instantly by the parliament. In practice that means that basically parliaments appoints the government through the monarch. So, it's not that "your executive branch both answers and doesn't answer to the legislative" - executive branch answers to the legislative branch which can disband it, but it is (de jure) appointed by the monarch (de facto by the parliament).

Irregardless, that's a very weird case and in most countries with civil law, including Ukraine, it doesn't work that way.

I just wanted to quote that to let it sink into my brain.
You REALLY believe the statement that Putin is not performing a landgrab.

Yes, I do. Why's that so hard to believe? Why would he go for Crimea and not for eastern Ukraine which is a much juicier target? Crimea doesn't have anything going for it except geography and naval infrastructure.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yes, I do. Why's that so hard to believe? Why would he go for Crimea and not for eastern Ukraine which is a much juicier target? Crimea doesn't have anything going for it except geography and naval infrastructure.

Come off it Sarmatian he grabbed Crimea cos it was easier to grab and keep hold of naturally.

Eastern Ukraine while more productive would have been a bit harder to grab than Georgia.

[HoreTore]

BUT, you interpretation wasn't correct. The current mix up was due to the fact that the old constitutional custom said that council of state (government) is appointed by the king and new laws basically gave the parliament the power to disband the government. It's clever workaround that didn't require the complex change of constitutional law and had the effect of giving parliament de facto the power to appoint the government as any government appointed by the king could be disbanded instantly by the parliament. In practice that means that basically parliaments appoints the government through the monarch. So, it's not that "your executive branch both answers and doesn't answer to the legislative" - executive branch answers to the legislative branch which can disband it, but it is (de jure) appointed by the monarch (de facto by the parliament).

Not quite. The key is not in who appoints the executive, but rather who throws it. There was no law in Norway concerning a vote of no confidence. Neither our constitution nor any other law regulates a vote of no confidence. According to the written law, the executive is under no obligation to follow a vote of no confidence. It's happened twice, and if those governments had followed the law, they would have broken the law(which doesn't exist) and would be considered to have done a coup d'état. They would then need to write a new constitution.

What you refer to, by the way, is the amendments(actually rewriting) necessary for Norway to enter the union with Sweden in November 1814. A Swedish King was accepted on the condition that the Norwegian government was recommended by Parliament and then formally appointed by the king.

Irregardless, that's a very weird case and in most country with civil law, including Ukraine, it doesn't work that way.

The larger point was that the letter of the written law is not the only law, nor is it the actual law. English law, for example, isn't what the text says. English law is what the courts have ruled over the centuries.

Further, the Ukrainian state Yanukovich ruled no longer exists. The new government does not rule on the basis of its laws, they have adopted a different constitution.

By the way:

The people are the bearers of sovereignty and the only source of power in Ukraine. The people exercise power directly and through bodies of state power and bodies of local self-government.

The right to determine and change the constitutional order in Ukraine belongs exclusively to the people and shall not be usurped by the State, its bodies or officials.

[Sarmatian]

Come off it Sarmatian he grabbed Crimea cos it was easier to grab and keep hold of naturally.

Eastern Ukraine while more productive would have been a bit harder to grab than Georgia.

So, you believe he's that much of an idiot to piss off most of the western world and potentially lose long term support in Ukraine for 0.1% increase in territory and 1.5% increase in population? He's just that power-hungry and unreasonable?

The people are the bearers of sovereignty and the only source of power in Ukraine. The people exercise power directly and through bodies of state power and bodies of local self-government.

The right to determine and change the constitutional order in Ukraine belongs exclusively to the people and shall not be usurped by the State, its bodies or officials.

The bolded part doesn't pertain to revolution, but should be seen in conjunction with the first paragraph. It means that only the people can change the constitution, through their representatives.

[rvg]

So, you believe he's that much of an idiot to piss off most of the western world and potentially lose long term support in Ukraine for 0.1% increase in territory and 1.5% increase in population? He's just that power-hungry and unreasonable?

He's very reasonable. By annexing Crimea he's looking to solidify support within Russia and completely silence the opposition. He is doing that as we speak. For that he is willing to pay the price, after he personally won't be paying anything, it's the people who will bear the brunt of what's coming ahead.

[Sarmatian]

He's very reasonable. By annexing Crimea he's looking to solidify support within Russia and completely silence the opposition. He is doing that as we speak. For that he is willing to pay the price, after he personally won't be paying anything, it's the people who will bear the brunt of what's coming ahead.

Well, average salary in Russia increased several times since he first came to power and GDP increased 2.5-3 times. Do you want to rethink your statement?

What you refer to, by the way, is the amendments(actually rewriting) necessary for Norway to enter the union with Sweden in November 1814. A Swedish King was accepted on the condition that the Norwegian government was recommended by Parliament and then formally appointed by the king.

Well, wiki, which isn't always the most reliable of sources, I admit, says you're wrong.

1884: Parliamentarism has evolved since 1884 and entails that the cabinet must not have the parliament against it (an absence of mistrust, but an express of support is not necessary), and that the appointment by the King is a formality when there is a clear parliamentary majority. This parliamentary rule has the status of constitutional custom. All new laws are passed and all new governments are therefore formed de jure by the King, although not de facto. After elections resulting in no clear majority, the King appoints the new government de facto

[gaelic cowboy]

So, you believe he's that much of an idiot to piss off most of the western world and potentially lose long term support in Ukraine for 0.1% increase in territory and 1.5% increase in population? He's just that power-hungry and unreasonable?

Why not

It fits all his patterns since he started turning Russia into a crypto fascist state.



he needs to dominate Ukraine but he is losing that influence.

he is paranoid enough to believe its a CIA plot so the solution is to create a frozen conflict.

A frozen conflct which would deter EU/USA from influencing Ukraine into NATO/EU.



but it has got a bit more out of control than previous attempts.

[rvg]

Well, average salary in Russia increased several times since he first came to power and GDP increased 2.5-3 times. Do you want to rethink your statement?

Ignorance, padawan. Not speak without understanding you must.

The lion's share of the wealth increase falls on the state bureaucracy and upper management.
Example: the average monthly salary of a nurse in Russia fluctuates between $200-$600 (closer to $600 in large cities)
average monthly salary of a surgeon is between $700-$1700
average monthly salary of a hospital administrator is between $8000-$12000

So, while surgeons and nurses today do make more than they did in the 90s, they are getting robbed.

Understanding, padawan. Come to you it will. With time.

[Sarmatian]

Why not

It fits all his patterns since he started turning Russia into a crypto fascist state.



he needs to dominate Ukraine but he is losing that influence and he is paranoid enough to believe its a CIA plot.

The solution is to create a frozen conflict which would deter EU/USA from influencing Ukraine into NATO/EU.



but it has got a bit more out of control than previous attempts.

I won't say that's it's not a possibility, but it's pretty far fetched to me.

Putin spent better part of his time(s) in office sucking up and repairing relations with the west, increase trade volume many times and pushing long term deal and even more economic cooperation. That he would risk all that on piece of useless territory just because he wan't moar land is a little hard to believe.

Ignorance, padawan. Not speak without understanding you must.

The lion's share of the wealth increase falls on the state bureaucracy and upper management.
Example: the average monthly salary of a nurse in Russia fluctuates between $200-$600 (closer to $600 in large cities)
average monthly salary of a surgeon is between $700-$1700
average monthly salary of a hospital administrator is between $8000-$12000

So, while surgeons and nurses today do make more than they did in the 90s, they are getting robbed.

Understanding, padawan. Come to you it will. With time.

Yeah, I'm calling bollox on that and would like to see the source. Only area where salaries of 8000-12000$ for hospital administrators are possible are in some big private medical complexes and even there only in a few biggest. In state hospitals (which are 99,99% of all hospitals in Russia) there's no way they have such salaries.

[HoreTore]

Well, wiki, which isn't always the most reliable of sources, I admit, says you're wrong.

It doesn't, really.

1884 changed what was an important decision into a mere formality. But that's not the end of the story, the introduction of a vote of no confidence is far more important. After all, Norwegian governments are never affirmed, they are only thrown. So, who has the power to throw the government is extremely important. That the legislative could do that, was not written in law until the constitutional changes in 2007. Still, the two votes of no confidence('28 and '63) were legally binding with no written law covering it, and indeed disallowed by the constitution.

The last sentence from wiki, about the King de facto appointing the government after an election without a majority(which is the rule, majorities are an exception) is pure rubbish. The writer of that wiki page seems to have very little understanding of how government functions....

[gaelic cowboy]

I won't say that's it's not a possibility, but it's pretty far fetched to me.

Putin spent better part of his time(s) in office sucking up and repairing relations with the west, increase trade volume many times and pushing long term deal and even more economic cooperation. That he would risk all that on piece of useless territory just because he wan't moar land is a little hard to believe.

Its not about land Sarmatian its far more likely to be about power. (to ensure the security of Russia)

Rightly or wrongly he and they probably believe that Russia is in a strugle for the post soviet world.

Im guessing the kremlin believes Russia could even unravel if they dont fight such things.

[rvg]

Yeah, I'm calling bollox on that and would like to see the source. Only area where salaries of 8000-12000$ for hospital administrators are possible are in some big private medical complexes and even there only in a few biggest. In state hospitals (which are 99,99% of all hospitals in Russia) there's no way they have such salaries.

Trust in the master put you must. Not contradict the master you must. Bad padawan.

The source is of course in Russian, but that's your problem.
http://www.kprfkh.ru/index.php/254-c...6-1-tys-rublej

[Pannonian]

Its not about land Sarmatian its far more likely to be about power. (to ensure the security of Russia)

Rightly or wrongly he and they probably believe that Russia is in a strugle for the post soviet world.

Im guessing the kremlin believes Russia could even unravel if they dont fight such things.

In that case, wouldn't we have been better off not encouraging the kind of stupid revolutioneering that happened in Ukraine, and encouraged instead an at least stable electoral cycle that Russia can be comfortable with and which could change for the better with gradual reform? The idiotically short-sighted thought it would be a good idea to topple the Yanukovich government because he was pro-Russia, so that he could be replaced by a pro-west government. Well, Russia can afford to decisively lose control of Ukraine less than we can, and a we've shown that we have no desire to play fair by established rules, they aren't inclined to do so either. And those short-sighted idiots forgot that Russia are in a better position to play unfair than we are.

I was comfortable with the previous situation before we started upping the ante, which I thought was stupid from the off. My assessment of its stupidity has largely been corroborated by events since the revolution, and still these fools urge us to press on because we are on the side of right. Well, we shouldn't have been playing this game in the first place, and my preference is to drop out of it until we get some stable rules again. War with Russia over this up in the Ukraine which we shouldn't have indulged in in the first place? that.

[Pannonian]

Revolution is great if you're just trying to destabilize Russia's sphere of influence. I'm sure that's as far as anyone thought it out, and as long as nobody takes Putin's bait that's how it'll play out.

Why destabilise it though? Both the EU and Russia were onto a good thing with periodically cycling governments, a predictable electoral cycle, roughly 50% vote either way, and a stable trading environment. It was never a zero sum game, or at least it should never have been played as such when there was a win-win alternative. Are the evangelising liberal democrats going to push for influence within Russian borders next?

[Pannonian]

I think its more like Ukrainians did this themselves and the west just took the opportunity for a pot shot at Russia.

The revolution was going to happen anyway and Putin was just waiting for the chance to do something on his end too.

AIUI we've been giving a fair bit of political and financial support to the anti-Yanukovich cause. However much it was, I'm inclined to drop it to zero until Ukraine and Russia patch things up and we have a stable environment again. We're not in much need of Ukraine if it means we're at odds with Russia.

[rvg]

We're not in much need of Ukraine if it means we're at odds with Russia.

The problem is not Ukraine as much as the fact that you're likely to have to repeat the "We're not in much need of X" spiel many times over before the bear is satisfied. If the bear can be satisfied. Are you willing to bear that risk? I find it unbearable.

[Kadagar_AV]

According to Swedish media, a drone has been hi-jacked in Crimea.

It seems like amateur work.

I do believe that we some pages back discussed drones, and I claimed that modern states would have no problem swatting them out of the air. I for a fact know that Sweden had a hush-hush program already in the very early millenium, I am sure we have perfected it since.

So for anyone believing drones will have an impact against anything but the third-world bashing USA is so famous for, think again.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I forgot about this thread for 2 days because I was busy keeping track of the Kardashians. Literally Putin over here.

[Kadagar_AV]

I forgot about this thread for 2 days because I was busy keeping track of the Kardashians. Literally Putin over here.

Putin is now a grammatical term?

Have you decided how to conjugate it yet?

Russia's president just PUTINED the US president... Did I do it right?

[rvg]

Is this what it means to get putined?



He keesed him like a keeten.

[Pannonian]

The problem is not Ukraine as much as the fact that you're likely to have to repeat the "We're not in much need of X" spiel many times over before the bear is satisfied. If the bear can be satisfied. Are you willing to bear that risk? I find it unbearable.

I think there needn't have been this question in the first place if we'd been content with the rotating government which both sides were settling for before this current mess. Russia didn't try to topple the pro-western government Ukraine had before, or at least not before election time, and Yanukovich had been in power before. Change is for elections. Once elections are over, you're stuck with the government a majority of your countrymen voted for.

My current government wasn't voted in by a majority of voters, nor even a majority of constituencies, and I certainly didn't vote for them. But they got a plurality of seats, which gave them the greatest authority to form a government, and whatever my disagreements with them, more of my countrymen agreed with them than agreed with me. So I accept it, and wait for the next election. I don't throw a tantrum and demand their immediate exit.

[rvg]

My current government wasn't voted in by a majority of voters, nor even a majority of constituencies, and I certainly didn't vote for them. But they got a plurality of seats, which gave them the greatest authority to form a government, and whatever my disagreements with them, more of my countrymen agreed with them than agreed with me. So I accept it, and wait for the next election. I don't throw a tantrum and demand their immediate exit.

But what if you didn't? Would France come in and occupy Cornwall?

[Pannonian]

But what if you didn't? Would France come in and occupy Cornwall?

If we were fool enough to undergo a revolution while a predatory neighbour was nearby, I shouldn't be surprised if said predatory neighbour lived up to their reputation. However, Britain has a tradition of stability and conservatism, and one that we're proud of. Through all the revolutions on the continent in the 18th and 19th centuries, we've kept our governmental processes with gradual adjustments here and there. Whatever fools we may have been, we've never been revolutionary fools.

[rvg]

If we were fool enough to undergo a revolution while a predatory neighbour was nearby, I shouldn't be surprised if said predatory neighbour lived up to their reputation.

So let's forget Ukraine for a moment. Would Britain be okay with sharing the neighborhood with a known predator?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Not keeping up with the times more like. Luddite.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If we were fool enough to undergo a revolution while a predatory neighbour was nearby, I shouldn't be surprised if said predatory neighbour lived up to their reputation. However, Britain has a tradition of stability and conservatism, and one that we're proud of. Through all the revolutions on the continent in the 18th and 19th centuries, we've kept our governmental processes with gradual adjustments here and there. Whatever fools we may have been, we've never been revolutionary fools.

Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.

This is the 21st Century, not the 19th.

Putin's language of £protecting ethnic Russians" is the reason given by Hitler for invading Czechoslovakia - he took the German bit first, then the rest.

Putin has troops in Crimea, NATO should be preparing to move troops into Western Ukraine - Ukraine's first president has already said Ukraine should join NATO ASAP, and once Crimea is annexed many more Ukrainians will feel that way. Georgia, likewise, will be looking nervously East.

Time to recognise history hasn't ended and to arm up. NATO doctrine should move to holding a Baltic-Romanian line, and matching Russia's land warfare capability.

War with Putin seems merely now to be a matter of time. I for one am going to start exercising more for the inevitable draft.

[GenosseGeneral]

Last news are exremely worrying. 1 death during riots in Donetsk, a couple of hours ago two policemen were shot in a streetfight in the centre of Kharkiv. I really hope, none of the "Right sector" fighters decide to go East, probably armed and ready to "protect the protestors" there. Or they are even sent there: The new government has recently decided to create a new national guard out of the self-defence forces and other volunteers.
Or the Russians stage something; the mob which stormed the administration of Kharkiv Oblast and put a Russian flag ontop of the building came at least partially from Russia, as their busses' license plates proved.
It does not even have to be Moscow's will; a couple of days ago, a source (though one of mediocre reliability imo), reported the arrest of a known FSB agent carrying explosives and fuses. Have some hawkish agents taking action on their own - staging an anti-Russian terror attack - and an overzealous military commander at the border, and voila, you got a war.

If these guys clash with Titushki (thugs, employed by pro-Russian forces - a notorious example is the Oplot "civil organisation" in Kharkiv; if you google it, you will find a MMA-fighting club of that name - the shared name is no coincidence), then Russia has the civil unrest and bloodshed it needs to be "invited" also into Donetsk, Luhansk, or maybe even Kharkiv.
They could take Crimea by surprise, as movements for secession were expected, but not a blatant military invasion. However, if the Russians try to take the East as well, I don't doubt that there will be a full-scale war between Kyiv and Moscow, and nobody will be able to tell whether the Russian tanks stop at the borders of Donetsk Oblast, the Dnejpr or way behind Kyiv.

Sure, at this all is just speculation; but watch our for news from the Eastern Ukrainian cities. Kyiv might grudgingly accept the secession of Crimea, but it will not give up any Ukraine's major cities and integral parts of the country.

[Sarmatian]

Trust in the master put you must. Not contradict the master you must. Bad padawan.

The source is of course in Russian, but that's your problem.
http://www.kprfkh.ru/index.php/254-c...6-1-tys-rublej

Bad rvg! That's the website of Communist party of Russia. Are you getting information from pinko websites now? I didn't agree with you before but at least I respected you...

Kidding aside, the article doesn't say that. The article is about salaries of some managers and it also includes ministers. It lists the salaries of about 10 people in health and their salaries vary from 10,000$ to 1,000$ per month.

Also, it isn't about Russia, it's about Khakasia.

[Brenus]

"Would Britain be okay with sharing the neighborhood with a known predator?" Do you mean, like Mexico does?

"Revolution is great if you're just trying to destabilize Russia's sphere of influence" Or US in South/Central America, as Venezuela is actually experiencing...

"Putin's language of £protecting ethnic Russians" is the reason given by Hitler for invading Czechoslovakia - he took the German bit first, then the rest." NATO attacked Serbia to protect Ethnic Albanian Minority, so NATO=Hitler=Putin?. Or just straw-man?