|
|
oh and here comes hitler.. T_T
though i have to admit i'm scared when i see these people in the news, running around in kiev.
|
On March 04 2014 20:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:23 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:20 Salazarz wrote:On March 04 2014 20:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:09 Salazarz wrote:
To be fair, Yanukovich IS the elected president of Ukraine, and despite the corruption and shittiness of Ukrainean government (not just the president's office but as a whole), his election was pretty closely monitored and was considered legitimate - whereas his ousting was by no means such. He wasn't impeached, there hadn't been a referendum or anything to get rid of him, either. Well he did start gunning down citizens in the streets, so theres that... Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. A comparison that has been brought up a couple of times is to just imagine a protest in the middle of London, Paris or Berlin during which protesters start arming themselves and throwing Molotov cocktails at the official forces trying to stop them from doing further damage to the city. The worse such a situation would get (assuming the forces can't get the crowd away) the more it would escalate. As soon as you have an armed police force under attack by firearms (technically allowing them to defend themselves with lethal force) things get ugly really fast. What a nonsense comparison. They didn't start an aggressive protest with molotovs, they protested peacefully for a very long time, then got outlawed with an undemocratic law and removed with force. Then things escalated.
Absolutely not true. The protests were peaceful until McCain showed up
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:07 Fjodorov wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:04 r.Evo wrote:
Clearly says Russia does not want to annex Crimea however also clearly says that the people should be able to exercise their right of self-determination and be allowed to do what they want.
Called it. Im sure he has the same reasoning regarding such regions in russia :o
LOL. It's so fucking true that it's not even funny.
|
On March 04 2014 20:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:23 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:20 Salazarz wrote:On March 04 2014 20:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:09 Salazarz wrote:
To be fair, Yanukovich IS the elected president of Ukraine, and despite the corruption and shittiness of Ukrainean government (not just the president's office but as a whole), his election was pretty closely monitored and was considered legitimate - whereas his ousting was by no means such. He wasn't impeached, there hadn't been a referendum or anything to get rid of him, either. Well he did start gunning down citizens in the streets, so theres that... Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. A comparison that has been brought up a couple of times is to just imagine a protest in the middle of London, Paris or Berlin during which protesters start arming themselves and throwing Molotov cocktails at the official forces trying to stop them from doing further damage to the city. The worse such a situation would get (assuming the forces can't get the crowd away) the more it would escalate. As soon as you have an armed police force under attack by firearms (technically allowing them to defend themselves with lethal force) things get ugly really fast. What a nonsense comparison. They didn't start an aggressive protest with molotovs, they protested peacefully for a very long time, then got outlawed with an undemocratic law and removed with force. Then things escalated.
Err, the protests were anything but peaceful...
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 04 2014 20:33 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:23 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:20 Salazarz wrote:On March 04 2014 20:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:09 Salazarz wrote:
To be fair, Yanukovich IS the elected president of Ukraine, and despite the corruption and shittiness of Ukrainean government (not just the president's office but as a whole), his election was pretty closely monitored and was considered legitimate - whereas his ousting was by no means such. He wasn't impeached, there hadn't been a referendum or anything to get rid of him, either. Well he did start gunning down citizens in the streets, so theres that... Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. A comparison that has been brought up a couple of times is to just imagine a protest in the middle of London, Paris or Berlin during which protesters start arming themselves and throwing Molotov cocktails at the official forces trying to stop them from doing further damage to the city. The worse such a situation would get (assuming the forces can't get the crowd away) the more it would escalate. As soon as you have an armed police force under attack by firearms (technically allowing them to defend themselves with lethal force) things get ugly really fast. What a nonsense comparison. They didn't start an aggressive protest with molotovs, they protested peacefully for a very long time, then got outlawed with an undemocratic law and removed with force. Then things escalated. Err, the protests were anything but peaceful...
Before 30th November they were absolutely peaceful.
To be honest, Yanukovich is just retard. Same was in 2004.
Hope joke of faith won't happen and Ukranians won't elect him again at 25th May :D
|
On March 04 2014 20:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:23 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:20 Salazarz wrote:On March 04 2014 20:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:09 Salazarz wrote:
To be fair, Yanukovich IS the elected president of Ukraine, and despite the corruption and shittiness of Ukrainean government (not just the president's office but as a whole), his election was pretty closely monitored and was considered legitimate - whereas his ousting was by no means such. He wasn't impeached, there hadn't been a referendum or anything to get rid of him, either. Well he did start gunning down citizens in the streets, so theres that... Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. A comparison that has been brought up a couple of times is to just imagine a protest in the middle of London, Paris or Berlin during which protesters start arming themselves and throwing Molotov cocktails at the official forces trying to stop them from doing further damage to the city. The worse such a situation would get (assuming the forces can't get the crowd away) the more it would escalate. As soon as you have an armed police force under attack by firearms (technically allowing them to defend themselves with lethal force) things get ugly really fast. What a nonsense comparison. They didn't start an aggressive protest with molotovs, they protested peacefully for a very long time, then got outlawed with an undemocratic law and removed with force. Then things escalated.
It can be argued that said law was needed to restore public order. You can't just sit in the middle of Hyde Park with a couple of thousand people for 2 months without any law enforcement coming your way, no matter how peaceful you are.
For example, if I would take hundred people, go to a public park anywhere in Germany and say "We're here to protest against xyz" that's illegal unless I went to the authorities beforehand and got an allowance to do so. That's for example how Germany can prevent the far right and/or left from making demonstrations in the first place.
|
On March 04 2014 20:33 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:23 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:20 Salazarz wrote:On March 04 2014 20:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:09 Salazarz wrote:
To be fair, Yanukovich IS the elected president of Ukraine, and despite the corruption and shittiness of Ukrainean government (not just the president's office but as a whole), his election was pretty closely monitored and was considered legitimate - whereas his ousting was by no means such. He wasn't impeached, there hadn't been a referendum or anything to get rid of him, either. Well he did start gunning down citizens in the streets, so theres that... Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. A comparison that has been brought up a couple of times is to just imagine a protest in the middle of London, Paris or Berlin during which protesters start arming themselves and throwing Molotov cocktails at the official forces trying to stop them from doing further damage to the city. The worse such a situation would get (assuming the forces can't get the crowd away) the more it would escalate. As soon as you have an armed police force under attack by firearms (technically allowing them to defend themselves with lethal force) things get ugly really fast. What a nonsense comparison. They didn't start an aggressive protest with molotovs, they protested peacefully for a very long time, then got outlawed with an undemocratic law and removed with force. Then things escalated. Err, the protests were anything but peaceful...
The protests in November were peaceful until the Berkut attacked the protesters on december 1st.
Edit: it was november 30th, not december 1st.
|
On March 04 2014 20:37 phagga wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:33 Salazarz wrote:On March 04 2014 20:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:23 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:20 Salazarz wrote:On March 04 2014 20:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:09 Salazarz wrote:
To be fair, Yanukovich IS the elected president of Ukraine, and despite the corruption and shittiness of Ukrainean government (not just the president's office but as a whole), his election was pretty closely monitored and was considered legitimate - whereas his ousting was by no means such. He wasn't impeached, there hadn't been a referendum or anything to get rid of him, either. Well he did start gunning down citizens in the streets, so theres that... Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. A comparison that has been brought up a couple of times is to just imagine a protest in the middle of London, Paris or Berlin during which protesters start arming themselves and throwing Molotov cocktails at the official forces trying to stop them from doing further damage to the city. The worse such a situation would get (assuming the forces can't get the crowd away) the more it would escalate. As soon as you have an armed police force under attack by firearms (technically allowing them to defend themselves with lethal force) things get ugly really fast. What a nonsense comparison. They didn't start an aggressive protest with molotovs, they protested peacefully for a very long time, then got outlawed with an undemocratic law and removed with force. Then things escalated. Err, the protests were anything but peaceful... The protests in November were peaceful until the Berkut attacked the protesters on december 1st. Edit: it was november 30th, not december 1st.
On 24 November 2013, first clashes between protesters and police began. Protesters strived to break cordon. Police used tear gas and batons, protesters also used tear gas and some fire crackers (according to police protesters were first to use them)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
|
People on Maidan DO NOT represent Ukraine.
Not in Russian view or in terms of Western-democracy.
EU (and basicly all Nato countries) jumped to the conclusion "They are protesting, and yanukovic seems evil ergo the Maidan-Movement has to be the democratic one that we like and support".
That was horribly wrong and just to please their own citizen views. These fucking idiots.
If 10.000 people rally to Pen Ave 1600 and demand Obama, Government, parlament, senat removed and claim their own President and Represantatives are now the legit Government of the US, how would you act?
Thats basicly what happend in Ukraine.
They removed yanukovich, but had NO RIGHT to do so. They should have taken the Agreement, with presidential rights removed back to state of 2004, elections in december 2014.
But no, they acted like smartasses.
Voted for themselves, and got to power with no democratic election.
Even if they seem "decent" they are not legit.
First thing they do, forbid people to use russian as official language, not minding the russianspeakers in Ukraine, not minding 30% of some east regions ARE FUCKING RUSSIANS.
Now Putin has a invitation to claim every part of ukraine back, he just has to sent some guys with baseballbats and helmets to the local-governmental buildings, let them claim "we want to be russian" and next thing they see is a line of T90
Tanks "defending the people".
Awesome job Maidainians and EU-ForeignMinisters !
|
Interesting, as I'd guess you guys know they've been waiting for an officer from the black sea fleet to show up in Belbek. Now these guys showed up pic.twitter.com/ogmpHo0nvm
|
On March 04 2014 20:34 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:23 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:20 Salazarz wrote:On March 04 2014 20:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:09 Salazarz wrote:
To be fair, Yanukovich IS the elected president of Ukraine, and despite the corruption and shittiness of Ukrainean government (not just the president's office but as a whole), his election was pretty closely monitored and was considered legitimate - whereas his ousting was by no means such. He wasn't impeached, there hadn't been a referendum or anything to get rid of him, either. Well he did start gunning down citizens in the streets, so theres that... Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. A comparison that has been brought up a couple of times is to just imagine a protest in the middle of London, Paris or Berlin during which protesters start arming themselves and throwing Molotov cocktails at the official forces trying to stop them from doing further damage to the city. The worse such a situation would get (assuming the forces can't get the crowd away) the more it would escalate. As soon as you have an armed police force under attack by firearms (technically allowing them to defend themselves with lethal force) things get ugly really fast. What a nonsense comparison. They didn't start an aggressive protest with molotovs, they protested peacefully for a very long time, then got outlawed with an undemocratic law and removed with force. Then things escalated. It can be argued that said law was needed to restore public order. You can't just sit in the middle of Hyde Park with a couple of thousand people for 2 months without any law enforcement coming your way, no matter how peaceful you are. For example, if I would take hundred people, go to a public park anywhere in Germany and say "We're here to protest against xyz" that's illegal unless I went to the authorities beforehand and got an allowance to do so. That's for example how Germany can prevent the far right and/or left from making demonstrations in the first place.
Occupy did exactly this with a couple thousand people in many western countries and was fine until noone cared about them and they got removed.
Euromaidan was hundredthousands of people. That's not some splintered group of crazies, it's the people demanding an end to the corruption and protesting for better lives. Look at those laws, they are retarded:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine
|
On March 04 2014 20:44 plgElwood wrote:
People on Maidan DO NOT represent Ukraine.
Not in Russian view or in terms of Western-democracy.
EU (and basicly all Nato countries) jumped to the conclusion "They are protesting, and yanukovic seems evil ergo the Maidan-Movement has to be the democratic one that we like and support".
That was horribly wrong and just to please their own citizen views. These fucking idiots.
If 10.000 people rally to Pen Ave 1600 and demand Obama, Government, parlament, senat removed and claim their own President and Represantatives are now the legit Government of the US, how would you act?
Thats basicly what happend in Ukraine.
They removed yanukovich, but had NO RIGHT to do so. They should have taken the Agreement, with presidential rights removed back to state of 2004, elections in december 2014.
But no, they acted like smartasses.
Voted for themselves, and got to power with no democratic election.
Even if they seem "decent" they are not legit.
First thing they do, forbid people to use russian as official language, not minding the russianspeakers in Ukraine, not minding 30% of some east regions ARE FUCKING RUSSIANS.
Now Putin has a invitation to claim every part of ukraine back, he just has to sent some guys with baseballbats and helmets to the local-governmental buildings, let them claim "we want to be russian" and next thing they see is a line of T90
Tanks "defending the people".
Awesome job Maidainians and EU-ForeignMinisters !
Exactly, everything happening now in Ukraine is solely the fault of the people running euromaidan
|
On March 04 2014 20:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:37 phagga wrote:On March 04 2014 20:33 Salazarz wrote:On March 04 2014 20:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:23 r.Evo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:20 Salazarz wrote:On March 04 2014 20:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:09 Salazarz wrote:
To be fair, Yanukovich IS the elected president of Ukraine, and despite the corruption and shittiness of Ukrainean government (not just the president's office but as a whole), his election was pretty closely monitored and was considered legitimate - whereas his ousting was by no means such. He wasn't impeached, there hadn't been a referendum or anything to get rid of him, either. Well he did start gunning down citizens in the streets, so theres that... Don't have to look far to find examples of legitimate governments using excessive force to deal with w/e situations in other countries... Making a call, however bad it might turn out to be, to deal with civil unrest is something a government can and under certain circumstances HAS to do. A comparison that has been brought up a couple of times is to just imagine a protest in the middle of London, Paris or Berlin during which protesters start arming themselves and throwing Molotov cocktails at the official forces trying to stop them from doing further damage to the city. The worse such a situation would get (assuming the forces can't get the crowd away) the more it would escalate. As soon as you have an armed police force under attack by firearms (technically allowing them to defend themselves with lethal force) things get ugly really fast. What a nonsense comparison. They didn't start an aggressive protest with molotovs, they protested peacefully for a very long time, then got outlawed with an undemocratic law and removed with force. Then things escalated. Err, the protests were anything but peaceful... The protests in November were peaceful until the Berkut attacked the protesters on december 1st. Edit: it was november 30th, not december 1st. On 24 November 2013, first clashes between protesters and police began. Protesters strived to break cordon. Police used tear gas and batons, protesters also used tear gas and some fire crackers (according to police protesters were first to use them) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
YEah, you're right, there was a small group trying to get into the governemnts building, and the police (IMO rightfully) stopping them. Still, the attack from the Berkut on November 30rd was absolutely uncalled for.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Main points from Putin's address from 50 mins ago
Putin's main points from today's press conference: - Russia does not want a war with Crimean people
- Ousting of Viktor Yanukovich was an unconstitutional coup and he has no political future
- Western threats of sanctions are counter productive
- A new government in Ukraine would not be recognised if "terror" continues
- Russia's actions are within international law
- Russia does not want to annexe Crimeap
|
On March 04 2014 20:46 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:44 plgElwood wrote:
People on Maidan DO NOT represent Ukraine.
Not in Russian view or in terms of Western-democracy.
EU (and basicly all Nato countries) jumped to the conclusion "They are protesting, and yanukovic seems evil ergo the Maidan-Movement has to be the democratic one that we like and support".
That was horribly wrong and just to please their own citizen views. These fucking idiots.
If 10.000 people rally to Pen Ave 1600 and demand Obama, Government, parlament, senat removed and claim their own President and Represantatives are now the legit Government of the US, how would you act?
Thats basicly what happend in Ukraine.
They removed yanukovich, but had NO RIGHT to do so. They should have taken the Agreement, with presidential rights removed back to state of 2004, elections in december 2014.
But no, they acted like smartasses.
Voted for themselves, and got to power with no democratic election.
Even if they seem "decent" they are not legit.
First thing they do, forbid people to use russian as official language, not minding the russianspeakers in Ukraine, not minding 30% of some east regions ARE FUCKING RUSSIANS.
Now Putin has a invitation to claim every part of ukraine back, he just has to sent some guys with baseballbats and helmets to the local-governmental buildings, let them claim "we want to be russian" and next thing they see is a line of T90
Tanks "defending the people".
Awesome job Maidainians and EU-ForeignMinisters ! Exactly, everything happening now in Ukraine is solely the fault of the people running euromaidan
Your fucking kidding right?
|
On March 04 2014 20:52 Plexa wrote:Main points from Putin's address from 50 mins ago Show nested quote +Putin's main points from today's press conference: - Russia does not want a war with Crimean people
- Ousting of Viktor Yanukovich was an unconstitutional coup and he has no political future
- Western threats of sanctions are counter productive
- A new government in Ukraine would not be recognised if "terror" continues
- Russia's actions are within international law
- Russia does not want to annexe Crimeap
Pretty expected imo.
i think the second point is kind of unexpected, i mean they even allowed him to do a press conference in rostov (russia) where he declares he is the president of the ukraine.
but ye most of the speech is nothing new.
|
On March 04 2014 20:54 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 20:46 zeo wrote:On March 04 2014 20:44 plgElwood wrote:
People on Maidan DO NOT represent Ukraine.
Not in Russian view or in terms of Western-democracy.
EU (and basicly all Nato countries) jumped to the conclusion "They are protesting, and yanukovic seems evil ergo the Maidan-Movement has to be the democratic one that we like and support".
That was horribly wrong and just to please their own citizen views. These fucking idiots.
If 10.000 people rally to Pen Ave 1600 and demand Obama, Government, parlament, senat removed and claim their own President and Represantatives are now the legit Government of the US, how would you act?
Thats basicly what happend in Ukraine.
They removed yanukovich, but had NO RIGHT to do so. They should have taken the Agreement, with presidential rights removed back to state of 2004, elections in december 2014.
But no, they acted like smartasses.
Voted for themselves, and got to power with no democratic election.
Even if they seem "decent" they are not legit.
First thing they do, forbid people to use russian as official language, not minding the russianspeakers in Ukraine, not minding 30% of some east regions ARE FUCKING RUSSIANS.
Now Putin has a invitation to claim every part of ukraine back, he just has to sent some guys with baseballbats and helmets to the local-governmental buildings, let them claim "we want to be russian" and next thing they see is a line of T90
Tanks "defending the people".
Awesome job Maidainians and EU-ForeignMinisters ! Exactly, everything happening now in Ukraine is solely the fault of the people running euromaidan Your fucking kidding right?
Would any of this be happening if the protest leaders had stuck to the agreement?
|
So a couple things from Putin's speech that I found interesting.
That there were well organised groups in Maidan that knew what they were dying and had plenty of training, it wasn't as spontaneous as people believe but was planned.
Yanukovych made a deal with protesters, part of which was removing all riot police from Kiev ( I am having a hard time understanding why would he agree to something like that, Putin strongly advised him not to do it), but as soon as that happened protesters attacked again and took over.
Putin believes Yanukovych has failed Ukraine and its people.
As far as I understood Russia has come to terms with Ukraine having a new government and apparently is working with them already, especially regarding gas.
Regarding riots in the cities in Eastern Ukraine, Russian flags, government building being taken over. Putin said not Russia's problem, Ukraine needs to make the people in the East feel like they have a voice in the future of the Ukraine as well.
|
On March 04 2014 20:44 plgElwood wrote:
First thing they do, forbid people to use russian as official language, not minding the russianspeakers in Ukraine, not minding 30% of some east regions ARE FUCKING RUSSIANS.
Where do you have that from? I haven't heard about that yet.
|
The standoff is over, the Ukrainians have been ordered back, and the Russians will stay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
