|
|
On March 04 2014 07:21 Caladan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:18 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:12 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:10 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:05 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:59 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 06:56 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:50 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
If you have a M.A. in politics you should know that the only way the ukraine splits is a democratic way, if anything. There's examples in the real world that show what happens otherwise. History shows that border shifts happen only very rare in a democratic way. That's what I ment to say: Formal politics vs real politics. Formally Ukraine is (somewhat) democratic, has souvereign borders, etc. What is really happening is something very different though. The elected president is not even in office anymore. We more or less have a de-facto government (regime) in Ukraine at the moment. Also de-facto Crimea is separating itself (with help/pressure from Russia). In a perfect world things would be different, but this is politics, this is not perfect, not formal. It is a battle of powers and incentives. More so international politics as there is no real superior power/legislation/court. International politics are anarchy and public international law is just obligatory. The only reasonable solution in my opinion is for eastern Ukraine to separate itself and become associated or part of Russia, and for western and mid Ukraine to become part of EU and NATO. So everyone is happy. That's your point that i was commenting on. It would be only reasonable if you get them to vote for it. By force, you set the stage for another country spawning terrorists. Yeah, I'm not saying this is a just solution, but it is the only non-war solution I can see. Another question for you then: Was the current de-facto government of Ukraine elected by the majority in Ukraine in general elections? Or was it set into force by the ones on Maidan, being loud, setting things on fire? It's the same now. At the moment, people in east Ukraine are occupying government facilities. Politics is mostly made by those who are being loud and acting up, not the ones being silent and waiting in their houses to be asked for elections. That's why direct democracy is a very rare thing. Well one way to find out would be for elections in May. Yeah, but if Tymoshenko gets 60% votes in whole Ukraine, but 90% in western Ukraine and 20% in eastern Ukraine, this will solve exactly *nothing*. Please try to think out of the box. We're having the same fight east vs west in Ukraine for 10 years now. It's time for a solution! Why? Yushenko won the elections in 2004, then due to his poor performance and some other crap he got 7% in the next election. Unlike Russia, its possible for incumbent to be replaced. You're looking at it the wrong way. It is not about a single person. It is not about *who* is president. The spanish government was elected in a democratic way. That doesn't change the fact that Catalonia does not take orders from it. East and West Ukraine just are too polarized and different for a united future. Democracy cannot solve this. That's why federalism exists. But even federalism has limits, and the next step is secession. That is where we are heading at the moment. there is literally no evidence that this is the case in Ukraine. Just like when Eastern Party Presidents were in charge, the West of the country wasnt demanding independence. Are you serious??? :D What do you think exactly was the origin of the Maidan public riots? It was the refusal of eastern party's Yanukovich to sign a cooperation treaty with EU.
There were no public riots, there were public protests. They were then brutally attacked by police, which swelled the protests and transformed them into riots when the government declared all participants of 'mass actions' the equivalent of terrorists. The turn-around at the last minute in regards to the EU, without references to either parliament or to a referendum, was a violation of Yanukovich's own promises to the people who voted for him for further EU negotiations.
|
lol french guy is such an ass
|
On March 04 2014 07:21 Caladan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:18 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:12 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:10 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:05 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:59 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 06:56 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:50 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
If you have a M.A. in politics you should know that the only way the ukraine splits is a democratic way, if anything. There's examples in the real world that show what happens otherwise. History shows that border shifts happen only very rare in a democratic way. That's what I ment to say: Formal politics vs real politics. Formally Ukraine is (somewhat) democratic, has souvereign borders, etc. What is really happening is something very different though. The elected president is not even in office anymore. We more or less have a de-facto government (regime) in Ukraine at the moment. Also de-facto Crimea is separating itself (with help/pressure from Russia). In a perfect world things would be different, but this is politics, this is not perfect, not formal. It is a battle of powers and incentives. More so international politics as there is no real superior power/legislation/court. International politics are anarchy and public international law is just obligatory. The only reasonable solution in my opinion is for eastern Ukraine to separate itself and become associated or part of Russia, and for western and mid Ukraine to become part of EU and NATO. So everyone is happy. That's your point that i was commenting on. It would be only reasonable if you get them to vote for it. By force, you set the stage for another country spawning terrorists. Yeah, I'm not saying this is a just solution, but it is the only non-war solution I can see. Another question for you then: Was the current de-facto government of Ukraine elected by the majority in Ukraine in general elections? Or was it set into force by the ones on Maidan, being loud, setting things on fire? It's the same now. At the moment, people in east Ukraine are occupying government facilities. Politics is mostly made by those who are being loud and acting up, not the ones being silent and waiting in their houses to be asked for elections. That's why direct democracy is a very rare thing. Well one way to find out would be for elections in May. Yeah, but if Tymoshenko gets 60% votes in whole Ukraine, but 90% in western Ukraine and 20% in eastern Ukraine, this will solve exactly *nothing*. Please try to think out of the box. We're having the same fight east vs west in Ukraine for 10 years now. It's time for a solution! Why? Yushenko won the elections in 2004, then due to his poor performance and some other crap he got 7% in the next election. Unlike Russia, its possible for incumbent to be replaced. You're looking at it the wrong way. It is not about a single person. It is not about *who* is president. The spanish government was elected in a democratic way. That doesn't change the fact that Catalonia does not take orders from it. East and West Ukraine just are too polarized and different for a united future. Democracy cannot solve this. That's why federalism exists. But even federalism has limits, and the next step is secession. That is where we are heading at the moment. there is literally no evidence that this is the case in Ukraine. Just like when Eastern Party Presidents were in charge, the West of the country wasnt demanding independence. Are you serious??? :D What do you think exactly was the origin of the Maidan public riots? It was the refusal of eastern party's Yanukovich to sign a cooperation treaty with EU.
That might have been the start, but it turned into a protest that was about much more than that, mainly about massive corruption. That's also why a significant part of the party of the regions defected from his side and voted him out of office.
We have no idea how a vote on ukrainian independence would turn out, probably you'd see districts in crimea reject russian governance. Then what?
|
On March 04 2014 07:23 Saumure wrote:
lol french guy is such an ass
UK guy seems more reasonable and eloquent than the US and France combined. He also has the most impressive biography. =P
|
UK asked if Russia accepts OSCE mission in the next few days.
Russia responds, we are not talking about the OSCE. They have their own functions. The mission has to be discussed. [That's a no.]
Russia then complains about too much desinformation coming from English-speaking colleagues.
|
olololol the russian avoiding every direct question =D
"too many statements that arent realistic"... xD
|
Russian round 3: 'You're lying!'
|
Bahaha, the Russian won't confirm that they'll allow OSCE to spectate.
|
“One might think that Moscow has just become the rapid response arm of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.”
|
On March 04 2014 07:23 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:21 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:18 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:12 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:10 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:05 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:59 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 06:56 Caladan wrote:
[quote]
History shows that border shifts happen only very rare in a democratic way. That's what I ment to say: Formal politics vs real politics.
Formally Ukraine is (somewhat) democratic, has souvereign borders, etc.
What is really happening is something very different though. The elected president is not even in office anymore. We more or less have a de-facto government (regime) in Ukraine at the moment. Also de-facto Crimea is separating itself (with help/pressure from Russia).
In a perfect world things would be different, but this is politics, this is not perfect, not formal. It is a battle of powers and incentives. More so international politics as there is no real superior power/legislation/court. International politics are anarchy and public international law is just obligatory. The only reasonable solution in my opinion is for eastern Ukraine to separate itself and become associated or part of Russia, and for western and mid Ukraine to become part of EU and NATO. So everyone is happy. That's your point that i was commenting on. It would be only reasonable if you get them to vote for it. By force, you set the stage for another country spawning terrorists. Yeah, I'm not saying this is a just solution, but it is the only non-war solution I can see. Another question for you then: Was the current de-facto government of Ukraine elected by the majority in Ukraine in general elections? Or was it set into force by the ones on Maidan, being loud, setting things on fire? It's the same now. At the moment, people in east Ukraine are occupying government facilities. Politics is mostly made by those who are being loud and acting up, not the ones being silent and waiting in their houses to be asked for elections. That's why direct democracy is a very rare thing. Well one way to find out would be for elections in May. Yeah, but if Tymoshenko gets 60% votes in whole Ukraine, but 90% in western Ukraine and 20% in eastern Ukraine, this will solve exactly *nothing*. Please try to think out of the box. We're having the same fight east vs west in Ukraine for 10 years now. It's time for a solution! Why? Yushenko won the elections in 2004, then due to his poor performance and some other crap he got 7% in the next election. Unlike Russia, its possible for incumbent to be replaced. You're looking at it the wrong way. It is not about a single person. It is not about *who* is president. The spanish government was elected in a democratic way. That doesn't change the fact that Catalonia does not take orders from it. East and West Ukraine just are too polarized and different for a united future. Democracy cannot solve this. That's why federalism exists. But even federalism has limits, and the next step is secession. That is where we are heading at the moment. there is literally no evidence that this is the case in Ukraine. Just like when Eastern Party Presidents were in charge, the West of the country wasnt demanding independence. Are you serious??? :D What do you think exactly was the origin of the Maidan public riots? It was the refusal of eastern party's Yanukovich to sign a cooperation treaty with EU. That might have been the start, but it turned into a protest that was about much more than that, mainly about massive corruption. That's also why a significant part of the party of the regions defected from his side and voted him out of office. We have no idea how a vote on ukrainian independence would turn out, probably you'd see districts in crimea reject russian governance. Then what?
So, why did Ukraine vote Yanukovich the 2nd time as president when we already had the orange revolution in 2004 because of vote corruption by... Yanukovich?
|
omg tthis russian guy... Its so obvious that Russia considers crimea a part of Russia. They say they might have to go in with troops to Ukraine, the other nations are like "uhm you already are in Ukraine...".
|
Ukrainian amb. says that the Russian Black Sea Fleet can be up to 11k (not 25k as Russian amb. claimed).
In December, Russians sent a note that they would cap at 11k.
|
can someone link me another UNSC stream, the BBC one is lagging way too far behind. UN really needs to invest in more servers.
|
On March 04 2014 07:26 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +“One might think that Moscow has just become the rapid response arm of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.”
could you top quoting shit without giving any source or commenting it? you are getting really annoying
|
|
|
On March 04 2014 03:06 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 02:42 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 04 2014 02:38 farvacola wrote:On March 04 2014 02:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 04 2014 01:17 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 01:06 Pandemona wrote:If shit really does hit the fan and war or attacks do happen. The only way EU and America can battle with the Russian's is economically imo. There is no way American can afford a large scale war now and no one in Europe is even remotely equipped with the right numbers of military personal or funds to even help out. Putin is one crazy bastard and has got his own way again by the looks of it. Just to put it in terms of army sizes as well; ![[image loading]](http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/3/3/293322/default/v1/online-military-strength-1-522x293.jpg) My brother who has recently left the army said they aren't even classified as an "army" anymore as they do not have the numbers to call themselves one. The UK army Is classified as a "defense force" as it has less than 100,000 people in it. Also no reserves as UK again doesn't do military training etcetc. Also we don't have a working Air craft carrier so we are pretty much fucked and no use to anyone, unless you want to stop off and re fuel at extraordinary prices or have a cup of tea? I have no idea why people perceive Russia's military to be that strong. They spend a fraction of what the west spends, conflicts they've been in have shown massive weaknesses and most of their equipment is rather outdated to the point where they have to import weapon systems. The economy in the EU/US might not be great at the moment, but neither is Russia's. The russian central bank has already spent an estimated 10% of their foreign currency reserves on stabilizing the ruble, and the collapse of gas imports to Europe would completely cripple them. The Russian economy won't survive any type of real conflict. It's just that Putin is a better bluffer at this point and that NATO consists of a set of leaders that are exceptionally weak. On March 04 2014 01:20 Pandemona wrote:On March 04 2014 01:17 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 01:06 Pandemona wrote:If shit really does hit the fan and war or attacks do happen. The only way EU and America can battle with the Russian's is economically imo. There is no way American can afford a large scale war now and no one in Europe is even remotely equipped with the right numbers of military personal or funds to even help out. Putin is one crazy bastard and has got his own way again by the looks of it. Just to put it in terms of army sizes as well; My brother who has recently left the army said they aren't even classified as an "army" anymore as they do not have the numbers to call themselves one. The UK army Is classified as a "defense force" as it has less than 100,000 people in it. Also no reserves as UK again doesn't do military training etcetc. Also we don't have a working Air craft carrier so we are pretty much fucked and no use to anyone, unless you want to stop off and re fuel at extraordinary prices or have a cup of tea? I have no idea why people perceive Russia's military to be that strong. They spend a fraction of what the west spends, conflicts they've been in have shown massive weaknesses and most of their equipment is rather outdated to the point where they have to import weapon systems. The economy in the EU/US might not be great at the moment, but neither is Russia's. The russian central bank has already spent an estimated 10% of their foreign currency reserves on stabilizing the ruble, and the collapse of gas imports to Europe would completely cripple them. The Russian economy won't survive any type of real conflict. It's just that Putin is a better bluffer at this point and that NATO consists of a set of leaders that are exceptionally weak. Completely agree, but they still have the numbers, even if outdated and old they can still do crazy damage with what they have. I think the best way like you mentioned is to just cripple their economy. They have dropped 10% this morning already? Actually, it's outdated only to the degree that they decided to use mothballed tanks and aircraft (ie. things that weren't even in service) and a reserve division in the 5-day war with Georgia because it literally required no effort militarily. T-62/64s were the brunt of the Russian AFVs used. Apparently iirc a few T-90s were deployed and it was complete overkill and the tanks were untouchable. That's just heavy armor btw. The hilarious illusion of "outdated weapons" comes from the fact that Russia never sells their actual weapons. They sell export variants also known as "monkey models" that are so incredibly watered down that the only likeness between what they sell and what they use themselves is appearance. Militarily, a country like Ukraine will be a rout. Numbers are irrelevant, also. @Pandemona, You're also conveniently forgetting that what Ukraine has is far inferior to what Russia has. Post a source please. I'm not sure if you're trying to be a sarcastic dude or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_variants_of_Soviet_military_equipmentIt's surprising how few people who love to bash Russia but don't know nothing about one of the things they're most known for: their large-scale military exports. USSR/Russia has things they use in their own military. If they want to sell them, they'll develop export variants that are a lot cheaper and a lot more inferior. As I recall, the development of such variants came out of the motivation to have highly and easily produced variants in case of nuclear war where heavier development would be far more difficult due to the destruction of facilities manufacturing highly-advanced models starting in the post-WW2 era. It built into the Soviets' budding military export scheme, and also served the motivation of protecting their technology from insecure third world countries that could easily have it secured/taken by other countries. This is something I knew ever since I learned anything about Russian military tech and it was put straight in front of me. It's no secret, quite the opposite if anything. You know, you can use google yourself, too  Which might all be true but it doesn't change the fact that while the russians have some newer tanks, their equipment is still 70-80% last generation gear. They drive around maybe 500 t-90's on an active tank fleet of maybe 2.7k, the rest being t-72's or worse. When it comes to their air assets the situation gets even worse, and that's not even taking into consideration that they have always been technologically behind on the west. Place a 4th gen western fighter vs a 4th gen russian fighter and I know where I'm putting my money. After that, you get basic concerns of professionalism, unit cohesion and conscription and you end up with an army that seems pretty damn large but is operationally not all that capable. 2008 showed that pretty clearly.
To preface, your post shows some ignorance here, and you're also insulting the US military very much too. Having military legacy, your comment is particularly amusing when people like my dad or a variety of old-timers can tell me things like, "Yeah, the M16 today is a lot better than the shit we had in Vietnam" or "The aircraft nowadays have all these crazy electronics they didn't have before", etc. You see, those things that were originally created in old days, most of it is constantly upgraded, and that includes the United States and other militaries. Even Russia's T-72s are upgraded to modern status and are more than likely more than a match for any other armor in the world. I'm more of a tank junkie than anything else so that's what I focus on. Their other AFVs are also pretty new or highly upgraded previous models.
To say, "This thing was originally developed 30 years ago, therefore it's bad" is among the most ignorant comments you can make when speaking of militaries, and that includes the US military. 70-80% of our stuff is originally from the dinosaur era. The only reason why we still use it is because we upgrade it so that it's extremely competent today.
If you read my previous post to which I replied with the one you're quoting, a big chunk of the Russian force in that war used mothballed vehicles and an underequipped reserve division iirc (because this is how reserves tend to be anywhere you go) to fight the war in 2008. Do you know what this means? They were using things that are not in service at all and were not outfitted like standard Russian forces. Things that were largely put in storage.. Russia isn't going to make a large-scale mobilization for a conflict that they probably could have fought with angry Chechen terrorists lol (slight exaggeration but I think you get the point). It was quite literally the easiest military conflict in Russian history.
Ancient Russian weapons that haven't seen the light of day in active service for ages such as the T-62 and even the T-55 (which was made in 1948 HAHA!) magically showed their faces. The fact of the matter is, the Georgian military was so small and weak that it took no effort from the Russians to take care of business. Once Saakashvili surrendered, that was that.
However, if the Russians were to face a foe with any degree of military competence, expect completely outfitted divisions and their top-of-the-line weapons to be seen, and nothing else.
Your logic is also bad because you're insulting the US military in very many facets because the same goes for the United States as previously stated. For example, the F-15 is a very old plane. The original F-15 is garbage by today's standards. But obviously, the F-15 has been constantly updated, so that barring 5th generation planes, the most modernized variant of the F-15 in USAF service is probably the most competent fighter plane out there.
Russia doesn't need huge numbers of T-90s, though a few years ago I saw figures of 1000+ so I don't know what's going on tbh. The numbers have changed a lot over the past 6 years (depending on where I see it) I've been observing it and I have no idea why. But regardless, their T-72s upgraded are practically as good, their T-80s are practically as good, so why waste unnecessary money? Russia isn't a highly offensive focused military like say the United States is, or some European countries used to be when they had huge militaries to speak of. If the US wasn't in a war every other year, our military production would probably be a lot less, among other reasons.
|
On March 04 2014 07:28 Sub40APM wrote:
can someone link me another UNSC stream, the BBC one is lagging way too far behind. UN really needs to invest in more servers.
http://www.c-span.org/live/
|
On March 04 2014 07:23 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:21 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:18 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:12 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:10 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:05 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:59 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 06:56 Caladan wrote:
[quote]
History shows that border shifts happen only very rare in a democratic way. That's what I ment to say: Formal politics vs real politics.
Formally Ukraine is (somewhat) democratic, has souvereign borders, etc.
What is really happening is something very different though. The elected president is not even in office anymore. We more or less have a de-facto government (regime) in Ukraine at the moment. Also de-facto Crimea is separating itself (with help/pressure from Russia).
In a perfect world things would be different, but this is politics, this is not perfect, not formal. It is a battle of powers and incentives. More so international politics as there is no real superior power/legislation/court. International politics are anarchy and public international law is just obligatory. The only reasonable solution in my opinion is for eastern Ukraine to separate itself and become associated or part of Russia, and for western and mid Ukraine to become part of EU and NATO. So everyone is happy. That's your point that i was commenting on. It would be only reasonable if you get them to vote for it. By force, you set the stage for another country spawning terrorists. Yeah, I'm not saying this is a just solution, but it is the only non-war solution I can see. Another question for you then: Was the current de-facto government of Ukraine elected by the majority in Ukraine in general elections? Or was it set into force by the ones on Maidan, being loud, setting things on fire? It's the same now. At the moment, people in east Ukraine are occupying government facilities. Politics is mostly made by those who are being loud and acting up, not the ones being silent and waiting in their houses to be asked for elections. That's why direct democracy is a very rare thing. Well one way to find out would be for elections in May. Yeah, but if Tymoshenko gets 60% votes in whole Ukraine, but 90% in western Ukraine and 20% in eastern Ukraine, this will solve exactly *nothing*. Please try to think out of the box. We're having the same fight east vs west in Ukraine for 10 years now. It's time for a solution! Why? Yushenko won the elections in 2004, then due to his poor performance and some other crap he got 7% in the next election. Unlike Russia, its possible for incumbent to be replaced. You're looking at it the wrong way. It is not about a single person. It is not about *who* is president. The spanish government was elected in a democratic way. That doesn't change the fact that Catalonia does not take orders from it. East and West Ukraine just are too polarized and different for a united future. Democracy cannot solve this. That's why federalism exists. But even federalism has limits, and the next step is secession. That is where we are heading at the moment. there is literally no evidence that this is the case in Ukraine. Just like when Eastern Party Presidents were in charge, the West of the country wasnt demanding independence. Are you serious??? :D What do you think exactly was the origin of the Maidan public riots? It was the refusal of eastern party's Yanukovich to sign a cooperation treaty with EU. That might have been the start, but it turned into a protest that was about much more than that, mainly about massive corruption. That's also why a significant part of the party of the regions defected from his side and voted him out of office. We have no idea how a vote on ukrainian independence would turn out, probably you'd see districts in crimea reject russian governance. Then what?
You can judge its value yourself, but this was posted, though I am too bad at googling to source it:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 04 2014 07:28 Caladan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 07:23 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 07:21 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:18 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:12 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:10 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 07:07 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 07:05 Caladan wrote:On March 04 2014 06:59 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
That's your point that i was commenting on. It would be only reasonable if you get them to vote for it. By force, you set the stage for another country spawning terrorists. Yeah, I'm not saying this is a just solution, but it is the only non-war solution I can see. Another question for you then: Was the current de-facto government of Ukraine elected by the majority in Ukraine in general elections? Or was it set into force by the ones on Maidan, being loud, setting things on fire? It's the same now. At the moment, people in east Ukraine are occupying government facilities. Politics is mostly made by those who are being loud and acting up, not the ones being silent and waiting in their houses to be asked for elections. That's why direct democracy is a very rare thing. Well one way to find out would be for elections in May. Yeah, but if Tymoshenko gets 60% votes in whole Ukraine, but 90% in western Ukraine and 20% in eastern Ukraine, this will solve exactly *nothing*. Please try to think out of the box. We're having the same fight east vs west in Ukraine for 10 years now. It's time for a solution! Why? Yushenko won the elections in 2004, then due to his poor performance and some other crap he got 7% in the next election. Unlike Russia, its possible for incumbent to be replaced. You're looking at it the wrong way. It is not about a single person. It is not about *who* is president. The spanish government was elected in a democratic way. That doesn't change the fact that Catalonia does not take orders from it. East and West Ukraine just are too polarized and different for a united future. Democracy cannot solve this. That's why federalism exists. But even federalism has limits, and the next step is secession. That is where we are heading at the moment. there is literally no evidence that this is the case in Ukraine. Just like when Eastern Party Presidents were in charge, the West of the country wasnt demanding independence. Are you serious??? :D What do you think exactly was the origin of the Maidan public riots? It was the refusal of eastern party's Yanukovich to sign a cooperation treaty with EU. That might have been the start, but it turned into a protest that was about much more than that, mainly about massive corruption. That's also why a significant part of the party of the regions defected from his side and voted him out of office. We have no idea how a vote on ukrainian independence would turn out, probably you'd see districts in crimea reject russian governance. Then what? So, why did Ukraine vote Yanukovich the 2nd time as president when we already had the orange revolution in 2004 because of vote corruption by... Yanukovich?
2004 was about Kuchma riggin the election. 2010 was about Yankovich (a) promising to continue EU negotiations (b) Orange Revolution forces splitting the vote (c) incompetence of Yushenko.
|
On March 04 2014 07:29 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
If the US wasn't in a war every other year, our military production would probably be a lot less
Best sentence in this thread when trying to understand real politics.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
