Ukraine-in-a-thread

[Gilrandir]

If you want to write something IN ALL CAPS, make damned sure it's correct.

Victor Orban is the prime minister of Hungary, and he's the leader of the Fidesz party. All the other ministers are also from Fidesz. Jobbik is not part of the government coalition. While they do offer some support for Fidesz, they remain an opposition party.

My mistake. I'm sorry. That makes Orban's claims reasonable and justified. It a pure coincidence these claims appeared after Jobbik had gotten into the parliament.

[HoreTore]

My mistake. I'm sorry. That makes Orban's claims reasonable and justified. It a pure coincidence these claims appeared after Jobbik had gotten into the parliament.

Fidesz is a conservative party in the same mould as the UK Tories. I will make no excuses for them, as I find conservative politics despicable in general.

Fidesz has their own problems, but they are not nazi's. They are not dictated by Jobbik either, and Jobbik has been in parliament for a long time now. They have little to do with this statement. What you see is simply a typical statement from a European conservative party with an inferiority complex.

[Gilrandir]

“abominable Nazis” Funny that, you really think that Nazi are not THAT abominable, do you?

They are. But (once again) you seem to be disgusted and terrified if Svoboda SAYS something abomonable. So far what they DID was threatening, bullying and law-cancelling (although the latter couldn't have been done with the majority at parliament - including the Party of Regions deputies - supporting them).
Now let's see what was DONE against Maidan protesters, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWkonOkHjoE
miners in Donetsk region
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onV6rwxlgFY
and pro-Ukrainians in Lugansk region.
http://www.vesti.az/news/203312
The separatists admit shooting the whole family
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LprGj1KN9fg
They battered and raped a woman taxi driver who was bringing Ukrainian soldiers cigarettes.
http://news.siteua.org/%D0%A3%D0%BA%...B8%D0%BD%D1%83
I say nothing of looting jewelry stores, "borrowing" cars from locals, bullying school principals into letting them open the schools to hold the referendum and so on.
You are ready to pay no attention, condone or even justify all of this because:
1) this is done by no nazis;
2) this is done by those who claim to oppose the nazis.
Whatever crimes Maidan supporters may have done, it was against law enforcement bodies and deputies both of whom were considered to be protecting the Yanukovych regime. The crimes in the east target not (so much) these categories, but ordinary, normal everyday people from the street. Yet you don't mind until the nazi involvement is identified (in which you don't believe).

[Gilrandir]

Cor, only a 3% majority for Yanukovich? Churchill's Tories actually won less votes than Attlee's Labour on a turnout of over 82% in the 1951 general election, but won more parliamentary seats due to the first past the post system. The British people accepted this result because, well, those were the rules before the election, and the time to change that was to wait for the next election. That's not the Ukrainian way obviously. The Ukrainian way is to go out and get what you want right now, regardless of the rules of democracy. Pity it's only fair when one side does it, and when the other side tries their hand at it, it's corruption and whatnot.

Don't take it as a personal insult (I'm sure you won't - as a true Brit you can keep a stiff upper lip), but you and some others make a repetitive mistake: you take the system of coordinates, or the scale of notation, of the country you live in, put this grid onto a (more or less) alien society and expect it to work in a similar way and make similar conclusions.
A couple of years ago (when the Yanukovych regime was in full swing) my wife happened to meet a woman she had studied at the University with. This woman had married a local prosecutor. She was driving a jeep (we won't speculate on how her husband with his monthly salary of 500$ could afford such a car, new apartment and supporting a family with 2 kids). Talking to her my wife found out that she drove it without any driver's license. When she was asked whether she wasn't afraid of any accidents this woman said: "Let others be afraid - my husband is a prosecutor. Every time anything happens he deals with the problem."
Is it a likely story for the UK? Or was it in times of Churchill or Attlee? I don't think so. With a century/ries-long tradition of democracy, justice and law-abidance you can wait for the next elections to change the leader you don't like.
In modern Ukraine politicians who got the power disregarded the interests of people completely trying to stuff their pockets with money as soon and as much as possible. Even so Ukrainians were commonly recognized as a passive and politically apathetic nation prone to take anything lying down and living up to the motto "It is none of my business". They were ready to wait for the next elections, as you put it. The elections came and went, but they brought no improvement. On the contrary, the situation aggravated. Yanukovych took it to the edge. People realized that the next elections would be elections only in name - as they are in Russia or Belarus. We will have an everlasting tyrant much more criminal and corrupt than Lukashenko or Putin without any hope of replacing him. Ukraine became a powder cellar waiting for a match. The match was lit by Yanukovych himself with that UE AA idea of his. The rest you know.

[Pannonian]

Don't take it as a personal insult (I'm sure you won't - as a true Brit you can keep a stiff upper lip), but you and some others make a repetitive mistake: you take the system of coordinates, or the scale of notation, of the country you live in, put this grid onto a (more or less) alien society and expect it to work in a similar way and make similar conclusions.
A couple of years ago (when the Yanukovych regime was in full swing) my wife happened to meet a woman she had studied at the University with. This woman had married a local prosecutor. She was driving a jeep (we won't speculate on how her husband with his monthly salary of 500$ could afford such a car, new apartment and supporting a family with 2 kids). Talking to her my wife found out that she drove it without any driver's license. When she was asked whether she wasn't afraid of any accidents this woman said: "Let others be afraid - my husband is a prosecutor. Every time anything happens he deals with the problem."
Is it a likely story for the UK? Or was it in times of Churchill or Attlee? I don't think so. With a century/ries-long tradition of democracy, justice and law-abidance you can wait for the next elections to change the leader you don't like.
In modern Ukraine politicians who got the power disregarded the interests of people completely trying to stuff their pockets with money as soon and as much as possible. Even so Ukrainians were commonly recognized as a passive and politically apathetic nation prone to take anything lying down and living up to the motto "It is none of my business". They were ready to wait for the next elections, as you put it. The elections came and went, but they brought no improvement. On the contrary, the situation aggravated. Yanukovych took it to the edge. People realized that the next elections would be elections only in name - as they are in Russia or Belarus. We will have an everlasting tyrant much more criminal and corrupt than Lukashenko or Putin without any hope of replacing him. Ukraine became a powder cellar waiting for a match. The match was lit by Yanukovych himself with that UE AA idea of his. The rest you know.

"Were you still up for Portillo?"

You won't get that reference, but I'm talking about the 1997 UK general election. People got fed up with the widespread corruption of the Conservatives, not to mention their 18 continuous years in power, and organised themselves to vote them out in the general election. They researched each constituency to see who was the most likely candidate to beat the standing Tory, and voted for their likely candidate. The result: without such a massive swing in the popular as would explain the parliamentary results, the Conservatives were voted out en masse, with Labour achieving by far the biggest majority they've ever had, and the Lib Dems doubling their number of MPs and more. Also the first independent MP since pre-WWII, with both main opposition parties standing down for that election, and a 30k swing against a notoriously corrupt Tory MP (a constituency typically involves 35-40k votes).

All of that within the existing electoral rules.

I believed in democracy, I worked within the bounds of my democracy, and I got the result I wanted because enough people agreed with me. There have been elections since then where I didn't get the result I want, as more people disagreed with me than agreed with me. I'm ok with that too. That's democracy.

[Slyspy]

So those who died at Maidan at the hand of the then Kiev government are martyrs, while those who died in eastern Ukraine at the hands of the now Kiev government are insurrectionists

Given that the first were seeking a change in government while the latter are seeking a change in nationaltiy I think the difference is not that surprising.

[Pannonian]

Given that the first were seeking a change in government while the latter are seeking a change in nationaltiy I think the difference is not that surprising.

Would that argument excuse us sending in the Army against the Scots?

[Pannonian]

Given that the first were seeking a change in government while the latter are seeking a change in nationaltiy I think the difference is not that surprising.

Would that argument excuse us sending in the Army against the Scots?

[Gilrandir]

"Were you still up for Portillo?"

You won't get that reference, but I'm talking about the 1997 UK general election. People got fed up with the widespread corruption of the Conservatives, not to mention their 18 continuous years in power, and organised themselves to vote them out in the general election. They researched each constituency to see who was the most likely candidate to beat the standing Tory, and voted for their likely candidate. The result: without such a massive swing in the popular as would explain the parliamentary results, the Conservatives were voted out en masse, with Labour achieving by far the biggest majority they've ever had, and the Lib Dems doubling their number of MPs and more. Also the first independent MP since pre-WWII, with both main opposition parties standing down for that election, and a 30k swing against a notoriously corrupt Tory MP (a constituency typically involves 35-40k votes).

All of that within the existing electoral rules.

I believed in democracy, I worked within the bounds of my democracy, and I got the result I wanted because enough people agreed with me. There have been elections since then where I didn't get the result I want, as more people disagreed with me than agreed with me. I'm ok with that too. That's democracy.

I don't challenge what you believe. I just tried to explain that the democracy you write about takes awhile to build and Ukraine has been less than a quarter of a century on this way. I think when it was that old in GB you had similar problems.

[Pannonian]

I don't challenge what you believe. I just tried to explain that the democracy you write about takes awhile to build and Ukraine has been less than a quarter of a century on this way. I think when it was that old in GB you had similar problems.

You should have organised yourself better, rather than give up democracy altogether. You said earlier on that Yanukovich had a clear majority in the last election. According to just about every democracy in the world, this gave him the right to form a government. You overthrew the will of the people just because you disagreed with whom they voted in. And all because you couldn't wait another year to make your wishes felt in the next election.

I believe in honest, upright government. But I believe in democracy more. If you give up the latter, there is no argument to be made for the former.

[HoreTore]

You should have organised yourself better, rather than give up democracy altogether. You said earlier on that Yanukovich had a clear majority in the last election. According to just about every democracy in the world, this gave him the right to form a government. You overthrew the will of the people just because you disagreed with whom they voted in. And all because you couldn't wait another year to make your wishes felt in the next election.

I believe in honest, upright government. But I believe in democracy more. If you give up the latter, there is no argument to be made for the former.

This ignores the fundamental nature of an emerging democracy.

The trick in an emerging democracy isn't to get people elected. That part is easy. The trick is to un-elect them. See Egypt.

In western countries, our executives and legislatives are kept in firm control by a very powerful bureaucracy. Emerging democracies do not have this, usually because the existing bureaucracy formed an integral part of the power structure of the old dictatorship. Nowhere is that more evident than in the USSR.

As Ukraine lacks the unelected guarantuee for a continued democracy our countries have, they have to settle for the next best thing: overthrow the government when it starts showing sign of autocracy.

That's just what happened in Ukraine last november. Yanu's brutal crackdown on a completely peaceful protest sparked extremely well-founded fears that he would be less inclined to step down in a future election loss.

Thus, the only action available to the Ukrainian people who do not desire a second dictatorship in 25 years was to overthrow the bastard.



That the old wannabe dictator has strong support in parts of the country is just as unsurprising as their willingness to use violence to oppose a democratic process.

[HoreTore]

Would that argument excuse us sending in the Army against the Scots?

If the Scots disbanded the democratic process for their claim to sovereignty, and turned to violence instead:

Yes.

A clear yes.

[Sarmatian]

I don't challenge what you believe. I just tried to explain that the democracy you write about takes awhile to build and Ukraine has been less than a quarter of a century on this way. I think when it was that old in GB you had similar problems.

You won't help advance it by resetting all progress every few years.

2015 (or 2014) elections would have been monitored by every major international organization. If they reported fraud, no one would question the right of the people to enforce the electoral result. Even those who would, would have to keep their mouth shut in public and grumble behind closed doors.

[Pannonian]

If the Scots disbanded the democratic process for their claim to sovereignty, and turned to violence instead:

Yes.

A clear yes.

A pro-union supporter was beaten up a couple of months back by some pro-independence supporters, for being pro-union (she put up posters in her office and wore a badge). A pro-independence spokesperson directed the blame at the person who was beaten up (IIRC for speaking out of turn). There are numerous anecdotal accounts of prejudice and hatred against English, and even against known pro-union individuals. All condoned or even encouraged by the party currently governing Scotland.

And despite that, I'll still respect the result of their referendum later this year. Because I believe in democracy.

[Sarmatian]

If the Scots disbanded the democratic process for their claim to sovereignty, and turned to violence instead:

Yes.

A clear yes.

Does it also apply to those who disband the democratic process and perform a violent revolution or only against those wishing to secede/more autonomy?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hence my belief that a belief in the sanctity of democracy is more important than whoever gets into power. Whoever gets elected holds office until the next election. That's the bedrock of any democracy. Tamper with that, and you don't believe in democracy.

I have listened to this argument -- which you have made at several points in this now aged thread -- and I have not disagreed. I am not averse to a recall vote - though I believe such recall vote procedures must be in place PRIOR to the election of a given candidate to be used to recall them and that the standard for recall needs to be pretty high (not 50% +1 vote).

To the everlasting glory of the British Empire, it is England and her former colonies who have, in most cases, the longest tenure in actually practicing democracy and institutionalizing it. Even in these countries, power still distorts the perfect rule of law -- but in many other places the rule of law functions only by Mao's definition.

[Gilrandir]

You won't help advance it by resetting all progress every few years.

Yet I think that current events in Ukraine didn't reset all the progress. First of all, having been democratically elected Yanukovych undemoctratically and arbitrarily usurped the powers not granted at his accession. He thus forswore democracy and by his further behavior showed that he would stick at naught to hold on to what he had grabbed. Secondly, and more importantly to my mind, powers-that-be started to realize that they can't go on flagrantly abusing power indefinitely and even a most patient nation can finally make them foot the bill. These lessons of budding democracy will (hopefully) teach those who are about to step in. I guess the birth of every democracy had growing pains of similar kind. Think of the USA or your Serbia.

[HoreTore]

Does it also apply to those who disband the democratic process and perform a violent revolution or only against those wishing to secede/more autonomy?

See my post above the one you responded to.

A pro-union supporter was beaten up a couple of months back by some pro-independence supporters, for being pro-union (she put up posters in her office and wore a badge). A pro-independence spokesperson directed the blame at the person who was beaten up (IIRC for speaking out of turn). There are numerous anecdotal accounts of prejudice and hatred against English, and even against known pro-union individuals. All condoned or even encouraged by the party currently governing Scotland.

And despite that, I'll still respect the result of their referendum later this year. Because I believe in democracy.

A random fight =/= parading around with AK47's, threatening war.

[Sarmatian]

Yet I think that current events in Ukraine didn't reset all the progress. First of all, having been democratically elected Yanukovych undemoctratically and arbitrarily usurped the powers not granted at his accession. He thus forswore democracy and by his further behavior showed that he would stick at naught to hold on to what he had grabbed. Secondly, and more importantly to my mind, powers-that-be started to realize that they can't go on flagrantly abusing power indefinitely and even a most patient nation can finally make them foot the bill. These lessons of budding democracy will (hopefully) teach those who are about to step in. I guess the birth of every democracy had growing pains of similar kind. Think of the USA or your Serbia.

My Serbia isn't any better than Ukraine. Corruption, poverty, thuggery, abuse of power... 15 years of democracy didn't do anything to change that. Armpit of Europe and that's insulting armpits.

We've had free elections since, that's true. Media switched from backing Milosevic to backing the one who pays the most, a saint or a scumbag, it doesn't matter.

In that regard I sympathise with you, and understand most of the issues, but the sad truth is that you've expelled one corrupt thug and installed several corrupt thugs in his place. Even if Russia didn't get involved, nothing would have changed for the better in the life of ordinary people. In reality, you've marched and suffered for a change in foreign policy.

Even in the best case scenario, you would have been worse off.
In the worst case scenario, you won't have a country any more. You're somewhere in between now, and it can go in either direction.

The idiots you brought to power proved to be total amateurs (which shouldn't be surprising considering their resumes) who had no idea how to deal with issues in your own country and how to deal with an angry power next door.

You were defeated in October. It'll just take a few months more to sink in. And that is what makes me sad. An excercise in futility.

See my post above the one you responded to.

He hasn't been in power for a single term. By all indications, it wasn't any worse in terms of corruption or thuggery than previous was. If a revolution is justified whenever we feel someone might abuse power, that's no better than putting in jail someone who might commit a crime.

If he lost the elections and refused to step down, bring him down, I agree.
If he cheats, bring him.

But bringing him down because he might do that, that's a coup, nothing to do with democracy.

[Gilrandir]

In that regard I sympathise with you, and understand most of the issues, but the sad truth is that you've expelled one corrupt thug and installed several corrupt thugs in his place. Even if Russia didn't get involved, nothing would have changed for the better in the life of ordinary people. In reality, you've marched and suffered for a change in foreign policy.

People were so fed up with one corrupt thug that they idealistically wanted to have non-corrupt ones but those we have now are better for a change. And they are interrim corrupt thugs, as you remember.

The idiots you brought to power proved to be total amateurs (which shouldn't be surprising considering their resumes) who had no idea how to deal with issues in your own country and how to deal with an angry power next door.

If you want a total change of faces up there you are to bring the new faces in. It means amateurs as pros are not new but old ones. But the current government has both the new and the old, so at least some resumes seemed reliable.

You were defeated in October. It'll just take a few months more to sink in. And that is what makes me sad. An excercise in futility.

I don't get what you mean by October, yet I don't agree on futilty. You sound like Homer Simpson: "Bart, you tried hard and you failed. Conclusion: never try again."
As I have explained, there are some lessons to learn both for politicians and average people.

He hasn't been in power for a single term. By all indications, it wasn't any worse in terms of corruption or thuggery than previous was. If a revolution is justified whenever we feel someone might abuse power, that's no better than putting in jail someone who might commit a crime.

If you mean Yanukovych then he was. No other president, no matter how corrupt he may have been, didn't arouse such aversion that could lead to violence.

If he lost the elections and refused to step down, bring him down, I agree.
If he cheats, bring him.
But bringing him down because he might do that, that's a coup, nothing to do with democracy.

In 2004, one of my colleagues said: "Choosing between Yushchenko and Yanukovych I opt for the former, because if we don't like him we will be able to change him for someone else. Not so Yanukovych". So, don't you ever underestimate the power of the dark side of the Force, padawan.

[Pannonian]

If you mean Yanukovych then he was. No other president, no matter how corrupt he may have been, didn't arouse such aversion that could lead to violence.

Really? You have your post-Yanukovich government that you wanted, and a significant portion of your country is engaged in an open armed struggle against it. If violent aversion against a politician is the bar you set legitimacy against, the current Kiev government is the least legitimate one you've had since the fall of the USSR.

[Gilrandir]

Really? You have your post-Yanukovich government that you wanted, and a significant portion of your country is engaged in an open armed struggle against it. If violent aversion against a politician is the bar you set legitimacy against, the current Kiev government is the least legitimate one you've had since the fall of the USSR.

First of all, it is not the government we wanted. It is a compromise and iterrim government.
Second of all, I spoke of presidents, and we have none so far.
Third of all, violent aversion was grounded on some facts, it was not just a whim of a group of wilful protesters who started to hate him out of the blue.
Fourth of all, please, don't start this legitimacy thing all over again or I will... I will do something ghastly... The thing Sarmatian hates most of all: I will STOP USING MULTI-QUOTE.

[HoreTore]

By all indications, it wasn't any worse in terms of corruption or thuggery than previous was.

Yes, it was. He chose to employ brutal thugs to break up a peaceful demonstration back in November.

That justifies his overthrow.


The chance of overthrowing a leader who is powerful enough to refuse to step down after losing an election is slim. Not getting him before it comes to that is a major gamble, as that's one of the two most common ways a dictator appears(along with the slightly more common military coup).

Batista, Ne Win, Nasser, etc. The peoples of Cuba, Burma, Egypt and many more all employed a "let's just wait and see if he steps down"-attitude. It did not work out well.

[Pannonian]

First of all, it is not the government we wanted. It is a compromise and iterrim government.
Second of all, I spoke of presidents, and we have none so far.
Third of all, violent aversion was grounded on some facts, it was not just a whim of a group of wilful protesters who started to hate him out of the blue.
Fourth of all, please, don't start this legitimacy thing all over again or I will... I will do something ghastly... The thing Sarmatian hates most of all: I will STOP USING MULTI-QUOTE.

So this isn't the government you wanted. Fantastic! Why don't you go to the Maidan again and protest again until you get the government you want? After all, that's your modus operandi, is it not?

[Beskar]

So this isn't the government you wanted. Fantastic! Why don't you go to the Maidan again and protest again until you get the government you want? After all, that's your modus operandi, is it not?

They are going to hold elections, and the people will vote the government they want.

[Pannonian]

They are going to hold elections, and the people will vote the government they want.

They were going to hold elections anyway just like the last time, and the people will vote in the government they want just like the last time. What will happen if a group doesn't like the government who's been voted in? The Maidan protesters have already set the precedent that people can force the overthrow of a government outside the electoral process if they want. What if protesters in another city demand that the newly elected government step down because they don't like the elected government? Would they have the same weight as the protesters did in Kiev?

[Sarmatian]

Yes, it was. He chose to employ brutal thugs to break up a peaceful demonstration back in November.

That justifies his overthrow.

This is my personal favourite video of peaceful protesters.

The chance of overthrowing a leader who is powerful enough to refuse to step down after losing an election is slim. Not getting him before it comes to that is a major gamble, as that's one of the two most common ways a dictator appears(along with the slightly more common military coup).

Batista, Ne Win, Nasser, etc. The peoples of Cuba, Burma, Egypt and many more all employed a "let's just wait and see if he steps down"-attitude. It did not work out well.

That's a ridiculous concept to me. I can not support an action contrary to democratic principles because a president might refuse to step down.

It worked in Serbia, btw. Milosevic refused to recognize the results of the elections in September 2000, people forced him to.

They were going to hold elections anyway just like the last time, and the people will vote in the government they want just like the last time. What will happen if a group doesn't like the government who's been voted in? The Maidan protesters have already set the precedent that people can force the overthrow of a government outside the electoral process if they want. What if protesters in another city demand that the newly elected government step down because they don't like the elected government? Would they have the same weight as the protesters did in Kiev?

A fair solution would be to move the capital to Donetsk now, so they can overthrow a government they don't like.

[HoreTore]

This is my personal favourite video of peaceful protesters.

....And the date of this video is?

[Beskar]

They were going to hold elections anyway just like the last time, and the people will vote in the government they want just like the last time. What will happen if a group doesn't like the government who's been voted in? The Maidan protesters have already set the precedent that people can force the overthrow of a government outside the electoral process if they want. What if protesters in another city demand that the newly elected government step down because they don't like the elected government? Would they have the same weight as the protesters did in Kiev?

This happened for months and months, it wasn't a Saturday afternoon. There is a clear difference. If unrest was at such a high-level, there should have been new elections getting sorted.

[Pannonian]

This happened for months and months, it wasn't a Saturday afternoon. There is a clear difference. If unrest was at such a high-level, there should have been new elections getting sorted.

So all protesters need to do to overthrow a government they don't like is last for months? Like I said, the Maidan protesters were utterly idiotic to show Russia the lead which the latter are in a far better position to capitalise on than western backers of the Maidan. However anyone wants to argue it, the Maidan protesters demonstrated that ordinary rules of democracy need not apply in Ukraine, that focused campaigning can override democracy. That's the game they played of their own accord, without anyone forcing them to, and that's the game that they'll have to play from now on, until new rules are settled on by all sides.