|
|
On March 03 2014 06:47 unigolyn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:46 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:44 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:38 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:36 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:33 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:28 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:26 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:23 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:18 zeo wrote:
[quote]
That is why the army isn't listening to Kiev. They don't want to attack innocent citizens of Ukraine who's only crime is not listening to the illegal government in Kiev. Could you please stop being a propagandist? The government isn't illegal, it isn't a junta, and your obvious pro-fascist bias coupled with your country of origin gives you less than zero moral authority. It's not a junta but the current government is the definition of illegal. Unless you take the view that legality is purely dependent on recognition by foreign entities, and only ones you believe are in the "right" How is it illegal? If it was appointed by the parliament, it's legal. In what way is it illegal? It's illegal in the same way I consider the current Crimean government illegal (4% support in the latest election). An armed group takes over the government building, the parliament approves a new government under an implied threat. Do you also consider that Crimean government legal? (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with considering both of them legal, legality is a matter of debate, but collectively here we can't eat our cake and have it too) No, I don't consider the Crimean government legal because Crimea is not a sovereign country and his appointment was not legal. Ukraine is a sovereign country. Your claim that the Rada acted under gunpoint is baseless. This is how dissolution of governments happens in democratic, parliamentary systems. Countries appoint a federal government, provinces appoint a provincial government. You're arguing based on a hilariously arbitrary difference to justify two different views on two almost identical events. If you honestly think the difference between the formation of the interim government and the shotgun appointment of Aksyonov is "arbitrary", I see no point in talking to you further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot Don't be so hard on yourself, you're not an idiot, just a little slow. Keep shilling for dictators and mass murderers, I'm sure the karmic debt will be repaid somehow.
I thought you weren't responding anymore, can't stand to not get the last word? I guess when you can't find any actual differences to support your point, gotta have a cute one liner to save some face right?
|
On March 03 2014 06:49 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:47 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:46 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:44 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:38 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:36 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:33 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:28 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:26 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:23 unigolyn wrote:
[quote]
Could you please stop being a propagandist? The government isn't illegal, it isn't a junta, and your obvious pro-fascist bias coupled with your country of origin gives you less than zero moral authority. It's not a junta but the current government is the definition of illegal. Unless you take the view that legality is purely dependent on recognition by foreign entities, and only ones you believe are in the "right" How is it illegal? If it was appointed by the parliament, it's legal. In what way is it illegal? It's illegal in the same way I consider the current Crimean government illegal (4% support in the latest election). An armed group takes over the government building, the parliament approves a new government under an implied threat. Do you also consider that Crimean government legal? (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with considering both of them legal, legality is a matter of debate, but collectively here we can't eat our cake and have it too) No, I don't consider the Crimean government legal because Crimea is not a sovereign country and his appointment was not legal. Ukraine is a sovereign country. Your claim that the Rada acted under gunpoint is baseless. This is how dissolution of governments happens in democratic, parliamentary systems. Countries appoint a federal government, provinces appoint a provincial government. You're arguing based on a hilariously arbitrary difference to justify two different views on two almost identical events. If you honestly think the difference between the formation of the interim government and the shotgun appointment of Aksyonov is "arbitrary", I see no point in talking to you further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot Don't be so hard on yourself, you're not an idiot, just a little slow. Keep shilling for dictators and mass murderers, I'm sure the karmic debt will be repaid somehow. I thought you weren't responding anymore, can't stand to not get the last word? I guess when you can't find any actual differences to support your point, gotta have a cute one liner to save some face right? 
I didn't say I wasn't responding to you anymore, I said I'm not going to argue over the legality of the government anymore, since you're talking out of your ass.
|
Good analysis by Fareed Zakaria:
Militarily there is less that can be done. After all, Russia’s military budget is about 18 times that of Ukraine. But NATO should restart talks on providing assurances to countries like Poland – including perhaps building the missile defense system that was abandoned. In economic terms, Washington and the EU should consider the only sanctions that would be effective: ones targeted specifically at individuals who could be held responsible for these acts of aggression against Ukraine. Washington cannot do much to stop Vladimir Putin as he creates facts on the ground in Crimea. But step back and consider what a strategic disaster this is for him. Ukraine has slipped out of his orbit and most of the population there is going to be hostile to Russia for generations. Countries like Poland that had eased up relations with Moscow will now view it with great suspicion. All European countries will put their relations with Russia under review. Even China will surely oppose the brazen violation of national sovereignty, something Beijing is always concerned about. Within Russia people have seen that Putin is terrified of a democracy movement and will brutally oppose it, not really the image he wants to present. Source.
|
On March 03 2014 06:53 Ghanburighan wrote:Good analysis by Fareed Zakaria: Show nested quote +Militarily there is less that can be done. After all, Russia’s military budget is about 18 times that of Ukraine. But NATO should restart talks on providing assurances to countries like Poland – including perhaps building the missile defense system that was abandoned. In economic terms, Washington and the EU should consider the only sanctions that would be effective: ones targeted specifically at individuals who could be held responsible for these acts of aggression against Ukraine. Washington cannot do much to stop Vladimir Putin as he creates facts on the ground in Crimea. But step back and consider what a strategic disaster this is for him. Ukraine has slipped out of his orbit and most of the population there is going to be hostile to Russia for generations. Countries like Poland that had eased up relations with Moscow will now view it with great suspicion. All European countries will put their relations with Russia under review. Even China will surely oppose the brazen violation of national sovereignty, something Beijing is always concerned about. Within Russia people have seen that Putin is terrified of a democracy movement and will brutally oppose it, not really the image he wants to present. Source.
Have to get the Swiss on board with those targeted sanctions. Between Swiss bank accounts, English banks and real estate you could do some serious hurt to Putin's clique and their supporters.
|
On March 03 2014 06:48 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:38 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:36 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:33 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:28 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:26 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:23 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:18 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 06:14 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 06:13 zeo wrote:
[quote]
The role of the civilian defense force in Crimea is to protect the rights of the people in Crimea, what don't you understand? There is no legitimate control over the country, people need to protect themselves. From the Army you just said the evil fascist nazi genociders who clearly will begin to exterminate the one pure russian race at any moment dont control? That is why the army isn't listening to Kiev. They don't want to attack innocent citizens of Ukraine who's only crime is not listening to the illegal government in Kiev. Could you please stop being a propagandist? The government isn't illegal, it isn't a junta, and your obvious pro-fascist bias coupled with your country of origin gives you less than zero moral authority. It's not a junta but the current government is the definition of illegal. Unless you take the view that legality is purely dependent on recognition by foreign entities, and only ones you believe are in the "right" How is it illegal? If it was appointed by the parliament, it's legal. In what way is it illegal? It's illegal in the same way I consider the current Crimean government illegal (4% support in the latest election). An armed group takes over the government building, the parliament approves a new government under an implied threat. Do you also consider that Crimean government legal? (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with considering both of them legal, legality is a matter of debate, but collectively here we can't eat our cake and have it too) No, I don't consider the Crimean government legal because Crimea is not a sovereign country and his appointment was not legal. Ukraine is a sovereign country. Your claim that the Rada acted under gunpoint is baseless. This is how dissolution of governments happens in democratic, parliamentary systems. Countries appoint a federal government, provinces appoint a provincial government. You're arguing based on a hilariously arbitrary difference to justify two different views on two almost identical events. Dissolution of governments in democratic, parliamentary systems happens by a mob ousting the previous president in fear of his life then voting to approve a new government when no such procedure exists in the system, your mental gymnastics are amazing. Err, you're shouting, not making arguments. As far as I can tell you are trying to say: a) the transitional govt. in Ukraine (with acting president Yatsenyuk) is illegal because it was appointed at gunpoint. b) the impeachment was illegal. On point (a) you forgot to add proof. In fact, pretty much every news source on the planet except for those under the control of the Kremlin disagree with you. There were plenty of people in the Rada to witness the fact that there was no coercion. Furthermore, there hasn't been an armed mob in the center of Kyiv for many days, so who's stopping the Rada from undoing their votes? Yet, many of the Party of Regions now support the transitional govt. Furthermore, Yanukovich wasn't ousted, he disappeared in the middle of the night and escaped the country. For him to have an argument in his favour, he would have needed to actually witness some wrong-doing before abandoning his post. Regarding transitional govt's, there are standard in cases where there's a political crisis. We've had those in many countries, most famously in recent memory in Italy. They are not illegal, they are transitional. As they have already set the date for a national election, I don't see why there shouldn't be a caretaker government. On the topic of (b), the impeachment, I have heard multiple versions, and I won't argue for either. But if the impeachment was illegal, Yanukovich should be able to turn to he constitutional court and have himself reinstated. After all, the court is full of people he recently appointed.
a) Here I am talking about the implied threat, there is also no evidence that the parliament in Simferopol had guns pointed to their heads. It is possible most of the parliament did support the new interim government, just like it is possible that the parliament in Crimea also supported the new local government. Legal or not is irrelevant to me, but there should be some convincing differences between these two cases to claim one is legal while the other is not, not just "one is federal, one is local"
b) The impeachment is by definition illegal because there is no such procedure in their law, you know Yanukovich left Ukraine because of safety so he cannot go back to challenge it. That said, I'm not saying I support Yanukovich just because I think he is "legally" the leader.
|
On March 03 2014 06:33 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:28 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:26 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:23 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:18 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 06:14 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 06:13 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 06:10 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 06:08 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:04 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
if evil fascist genociders of Kiev who wish to exterminate all glorious and free Russian victims of evil fascism have no control of the Ukrainian army then why are Ukrainian army barracks being surrender by Russian troops and Ukrainian soldiers forced to surrender their arms? If the Kiev government doesn't have control over the Ukrainian army, Russian troops cannot surround Ukrainian barracks? Mind = poof Invasion of Crimea is justified based on 'threat' to Russians. Since the Ukrainian army -- according to zeo -- is not responding to the evil genocide promoting fascists then the Russian troops threatening the Ukrainian barracks are not doing so to protect the one pure Russian race. The role of the civilian defense force in Crimea is to protect the rights of the people in Crimea, what don't you understand? There is no legitimate control over the country, people need to protect themselves. From the Army you just said the evil fascist nazi genociders who clearly will begin to exterminate the one pure russian race at any moment dont control? That is why the army isn't listening to Kiev. They don't want to attack innocent citizens of Ukraine who's only crime is not listening to the illegal government in Kiev. Could you please stop being a propagandist? The government isn't illegal, it isn't a junta, and your obvious pro-fascist bias coupled with your country of origin gives you less than zero moral authority. It's not a junta but the current government is the definition of illegal. Unless you take the view that legality is purely dependent on recognition by foreign entities, and only ones you believe are in the "right" How is it illegal? If it was appointed by the parliament, it's legal. In what way is it illegal? It's illegal in the same way I consider the current Crimean government illegal (4% support in the latest election). An armed group takes over the government building, the parliament approves a new government under an implied threat. Do you also consider that Crimean government legal? (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with considering both of them legal, legality is a matter of debate, but collectively here we can't eat our cake and have it too)
Except that the Parliament (Verhovna Rada) was never taken by the protesters. How many times do I need to make this point over and over again? Stick to the facts people. The President was waging war on his own people. The Parliament took the people's side. How hard is it to understand?
|
On March 03 2014 07:06 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:33 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:28 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:26 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:23 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 06:18 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 06:14 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 06:13 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 06:10 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 06:08 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
If the Kiev government doesn't have control over the Ukrainian army, Russian troops cannot surround Ukrainian barracks?
Mind = poof
Invasion of Crimea is justified based on 'threat' to Russians. Since the Ukrainian army -- according to zeo -- is not responding to the evil genocide promoting fascists then the Russian troops threatening the Ukrainian barracks are not doing so to protect the one pure Russian race. The role of the civilian defense force in Crimea is to protect the rights of the people in Crimea, what don't you understand? There is no legitimate control over the country, people need to protect themselves. From the Army you just said the evil fascist nazi genociders who clearly will begin to exterminate the one pure russian race at any moment dont control? That is why the army isn't listening to Kiev. They don't want to attack innocent citizens of Ukraine who's only crime is not listening to the illegal government in Kiev. Could you please stop being a propagandist? The government isn't illegal, it isn't a junta, and your obvious pro-fascist bias coupled with your country of origin gives you less than zero moral authority. It's not a junta but the current government is the definition of illegal. Unless you take the view that legality is purely dependent on recognition by foreign entities, and only ones you believe are in the "right" How is it illegal? If it was appointed by the parliament, it's legal. In what way is it illegal? It's illegal in the same way I consider the current Crimean government illegal (4% support in the latest election). An armed group takes over the government building, the parliament approves a new government under an implied threat. Do you also consider that Crimean government legal? (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with considering both of them legal, legality is a matter of debate, but collectively here we can't eat our cake and have it too) Except that the Parliament (Verhovna Rada) was never taken by the protesters. How many times do I need to make this point over and over again? Stick to the facts people.
I apologize for that then, something I did not fact check. My point is that when they former government is forced to go away and new people are in power supported by people with weapons, there is an implied threat you need to approve them.
|
We heard a loud explosion in Simferopol, unclear what is was and where it was from - @paulgypteau
|
|
|
On March 03 2014 06:00 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:44 a-game wrote:
After doing some digging around on the issue, it seems a lot less alarming than the headlines would have had me believe. I highly doubt Russia will step foot in any other part of Ukraine than Crimea (where they already legally had a large military presence before this dispute). While it's clear Putin is staking out a claim on Crimea, Russian officials have been careful to clarify that they want Crimea to have autonomy but they are not asking for it to become a new nation separate from Ukraine.
The fact they are choosing their words carefully suggests this whole thing is a calculated power play, rather than an attempt to start a war. You must not have been digging to far though, Crimea has been an autonomous Republic since 1993. Which is why the current 'leader' of Crimea isnt a guy from the Party of the Regions -- the Eastern Party that Yanukovich was part off and won the plurality of the votes in the last Crimean Republican elections -- but instead is a quisling -- look that word up -- from something called "Russian Unity", a party that at the last round of elections won 4% of the vote.
Yes I know Crimea already has some autonomy, let me correct my wording, "Russian officials have been careful to clarify that they want Crimea to have more autonomy, but they are not asking for it to become a new nation separate from Ukraine."
My point is, the Russians are being delicate in a way, they know that if they asked for a new nation that would be too inflammatory. So while newspapers are claiming hands are hovering over red buttons, in reality, this is a calculated dance going on.
|
On March 03 2014 07:26 a-game wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:00 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 05:44 a-game wrote:
After doing some digging around on the issue, it seems a lot less alarming than the headlines would have had me believe. I highly doubt Russia will step foot in any other part of Ukraine than Crimea (where they already legally had a large military presence before this dispute). While it's clear Putin is staking out a claim on Crimea, Russian officials have been careful to clarify that they want Crimea to have autonomy but they are not asking for it to become a new nation separate from Ukraine.
The fact they are choosing their words carefully suggests this whole thing is a calculated power play, rather than an attempt to start a war. You must not have been digging to far though, Crimea has been an autonomous Republic since 1993. Which is why the current 'leader' of Crimea isnt a guy from the Party of the Regions -- the Eastern Party that Yanukovich was part off and won the plurality of the votes in the last Crimean Republican elections -- but instead is a quisling -- look that word up -- from something called "Russian Unity", a party that at the last round of elections won 4% of the vote. Yes I know Crimea already has some autonomy, let me correct my wording, "Russian officials have been careful to clarify that they want Crimea to have more autonomy, but they are not asking for it to become a new nation separate from Ukraine." My point is, the Russians are being delicate in a way, they know that if they asked for a new nation that would be too inflammatory. So while newspapers are claiming hands are hovering over red buttons, in reality, this is a calculated dance going on.
Anymore autonomy and Crimea is independent. It already sets its own language policy, its own budget. The only thing it doesnt have are its own foreign minister and an armed force. And I am not sure how calculated the dance is, entering Ukrainian Army bases and at gunpoint disarming troops of an independent state is an act of war, no?
|
^ Take my translation with a grain of salt:
Vladimir Putin has agreed on Angela Merkel's suggestion to create a contact group regarding Ukraine's situation, a representative of the German government has reported.
The German chancellor and the Russian president have come to an agreement via a telephone call on Sunday night.
|
On March 03 2014 07:31 darkness wrote:^ Take my translation with a grain of salt: Vladimir Putin has agreed on Angela Merkel's suggestion to create a contact group regarding Ukraine's situation, a representative of the German government has reported. The German chancellor and the Russian president have come to an agreement via a telephone call on Sunday night.
Yep, thats right.
Also, the German Foreign Minister has contradicted the Canadian, British and American foreign ministries by rejecting the expulsion of Russia from G-8.
|
So this situation pretty much is over I think.
Crimea will become a nation and Russia will secure it.
Russia will not face any sanctions.
Some kind of international group will be formed to solve the crisis.
Russian troops stay on Crimea soil, and don't move to Ukraine territory.
|
On March 03 2014 07:31 darkness wrote:^ Take my translation with a grain of salt: Vladimir Putin has agreed on Angela Merkel's suggestion to create a contact group regarding Ukraine's situation, a representative of the German government has reported. The German chancellor and the Russian president have come to an agreement via a telephone call on Sunday night.
This has also been confirmed by 'Der Spiegel'. Putin has agreed to form a contact group and a neutral 'fact - finding commission' with the goal to provide some ground everyone can agree on.
|
On March 03 2014 06:53 Ghanburighan wrote:Good analysis by Fareed Zakaria: Show nested quote +Militarily there is less that can be done. After all, Russia’s military budget is about 18 times that of Ukraine. But NATO should restart talks on providing assurances to countries like Poland – including perhaps building the missile defense system that was abandoned. In economic terms, Washington and the EU should consider the only sanctions that would be effective: ones targeted specifically at individuals who could be held responsible for these acts of aggression against Ukraine. Washington cannot do much to stop Vladimir Putin as he creates facts on the ground in Crimea. But step back and consider what a strategic disaster this is for him. Ukraine has slipped out of his orbit and most of the population there is going to be hostile to Russia for generations. Countries like Poland that had eased up relations with Moscow will now view it with great suspicion. All European countries will put their relations with Russia under review. Even China will surely oppose the brazen violation of national sovereignty, something Beijing is always concerned about. Within Russia people have seen that Putin is terrified of a democracy movement and will brutally oppose it, not really the image he wants to present. Source.
Good analysis? While I will say Fareed and CNN is about as good as US news will get, whether or not Fareed personally backs everything he's stating, what's seen here is standard news talk. To paint Russia as an evil monster (then what are we?), to imply that the situation by Ukrainian revolutionaries is a "democracy movement" (LOL), and to state how everyone will hate Russia (when the reality is practically everyone hates the US), is absolutely in-line with American political ideology.
I am against Russian incursion in Ukraine, but I'm also against the bs that every nation puts out in their media to promote their goals and ideologies whilst being conveniently forgetful hypocrites. No one's posted anything from Russian media in this thread but it's about as silly and self-righteous.
|
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior.
|
On March 03 2014 07:26 a-game wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:00 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 05:44 a-game wrote:
After doing some digging around on the issue, it seems a lot less alarming than the headlines would have had me believe. I highly doubt Russia will step foot in any other part of Ukraine than Crimea (where they already legally had a large military presence before this dispute). While it's clear Putin is staking out a claim on Crimea, Russian officials have been careful to clarify that they want Crimea to have autonomy but they are not asking for it to become a new nation separate from Ukraine.
The fact they are choosing their words carefully suggests this whole thing is a calculated power play, rather than an attempt to start a war. You must not have been digging to far though, Crimea has been an autonomous Republic since 1993. Which is why the current 'leader' of Crimea isnt a guy from the Party of the Regions -- the Eastern Party that Yanukovich was part off and won the plurality of the votes in the last Crimean Republican elections -- but instead is a quisling -- look that word up -- from something called "Russian Unity", a party that at the last round of elections won 4% of the vote. Yes I know Crimea already has some autonomy, let me correct my wording, "Russian officials have been careful to clarify that they want Crimea to have more autonomy, but they are not asking for it to become a new nation separate from Ukraine." My point is, the Russians are being delicate in a way, they know that if they asked for a new nation that would be too inflammatory. So while newspapers are claiming hands are hovering over red buttons, in reality, this is a calculated dance going on.
The move into crimean territory without permission from the ukrainian government and without international consultation about it is a bonehead move in that case. As delicate as they might try to be, there is no going back on that point.
Besides, asking a ukrainian military base to disarm is not exactly a cooperative move. As calculaed as the dance might seem, it has not been what western leaders/ukrainian officials have reacted like.
|
On March 03 2014 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior.
What are they going to do, Putin controls all the gas to them. Its like America and the Saudis, sure they support Islamist terrorism but their strategic value as an oil exporter is too great.
At the end of the day, being a pro-Russian politician in Ukraine is now going to be much harder. Whatever the stated goals of the fascist Svoboda lunatics, the actual facts on the ground are that a country with a one party state and a permanent leader has used race as justification for intervention in a foreign state.
|
On March 03 2014 07:45 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior. What are they going to do, Putin controls all the gas to them. Its like America and the Saudis, sure they support Islamist terrorism but their strategic value as an oil exporter is too great.
I bet this move is also coordinated with Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
