|
|
On April 11 2014 20:57 Noldo wrote:
Was situation on ukraine stable? Yes, it was.
Who started all that shit? Completely clear that it's not Russia. (But we know who invested money in that)
Was threatment to Russia in that actions? Of course.
Should Russia let events go as it is? Only if we want to lose power in that region and lose fleet base (just near our borders).
Is it acceptable? Lol no.
Absolutely clear there was agression against Russia. So, what you wanted? Now our fleet defended, noone died in that operation.
And NATO countries should learn how to defend interests without killing people, lol :D
Yes, our actions wasn't good.
But do we had alternative? No.
West countries "atacked", we "defended". Simple political gambling. Why everyone make show, like something unusual happened? Just because that time things went not by your plan?
How did Western countries attack? Please explain and maybe use some sources to back it up (like news articles, wikipedia,etc).
So far the only argument I've heard from people like you is that the US gave $ to Ukraine. Is giving money to a country attacking it? How much money has Russia given Ukraine?
|
On April 11 2014 20:57 Noldo wrote:
Was situation on ukraine stable? Yes, it was.
Who started all that shit? Completely clear that it's not Russia. (But we know who invested money in that)
Why do you think western efforts to 'destabilize' Ukraine was successful? It's not just that they spent more money. Their offer was simply deemed to be better than Russia's.
Which is strange as Russia offered financial help and continued supply of cheap gas. How is that not good enough?
The answer is that Russia is seen as representing corruption, authoritarian government and the principle of might makes right. The EU, with all its flaws, is still seen to represent democracy and the rule of law: in other words a possibility of a better future.
Of course Russia is just defending its interests. But the way Russia chooses to define its interests is pissing people off. You can't just tell Ukraine it's your vital interest they shouldn't join the EU. The moment you do that you commit yourself to a course of violence, because it's not that sort of thing they will accept peacefully.
|
On April 11 2014 21:11 Mc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 20:26 kukarachaa wrote:On April 11 2014 19:52 Acertos wrote:On April 11 2014 19:28 kukarachaa wrote:On April 11 2014 18:55 Simberto wrote:
I don't know if this Noldo guy is funny or sad.
"It doesn't matter that elections are manipulated because the result is what i know to be true because of my divine insight"
See, what you don't appear to understand is that not everyone lives in russia. Some countries actually have real elections. Which do change things. Just because you live in a corrupt dictatorship doesn't mean the rest of the world also does.
If you are so sure that everyone in Crimea wanted to join Russia, then can you explain the fact that there was no fair and unmanipulated referendum? If the russian regime was so sure of that, why didn't they just have a fair referendum, with a "no" option, international observers, no propaganda war, and all that stuff? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier, and lead to a lot less backlash from other countries? Is that just because putin doesn't even understand the concept of an unmanipulated vote? Or so russians don't start demanding that for themselves if the ukrainians get to have one? I'll try to answer some of your points. See, what you don't appear to understand is that not everyone lives in russia. Some countries actually have real elections. Which do change things. Just because you live in a corrupt dictatorship doesn't mean the rest of the world also does.
We are not talking about those countries with real elections. We are dealing with Russia and Ukraine, their elections have always been cloudy and shady. It sucks but this is the way it is, and this won't be changing anytime soon. The whole mentality of people needs to change. When everything in their lives, even such things as seeing a doctor or having a kid go to school are based on favors, bribery, greasing the system, its no surprise, when people don't see shady elections as a big deal. If you are so sure that everyone in Crimea wanted to join Russia, then can you explain the fact that there was no fair and unmanipulated referendum? If the russian regime was so sure of that, why didn't they just have a fair referendum, with a "no" option, international observers, no propaganda war, and all that stuff? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier, and lead to a lot less backlash from other countries? Is that just because putin doesn't even understand the concept of an unmanipulated vote? Or so russians don't start demanding that for themselves if the ukrainians get to have one?It was normal and fair, to Russians, hell it was probably normal and fair to some Ukrainians, because most the CIS elections are manipulated. International observers were there, but they were hand picked by the Russian Government. OBSE observers were invited as well, but they refused to come, since EU considered the referendum illegal and there was no point of them being there. As for propaganda war, well what election doesn't have one. Without Russian troops there, Ukraine would never let the referendum happen, and whole situation could have easily escalated into violent one, between the new government and the Crimea's militia. No you don't know if the gov in Kiev would have let a referendum go. There wasn't even a clear will of independence in Crimea before the crisis started. The annexation was not normal, it wasn't democratic at all. And even if the gov in Kiev wouldn't have recognized or wanted the referendum, Russia and the international community would have intervened. And like it was said 1000 times before, there are different level of propaganda. When you have an election in democratic countries, people are exposed to everyone's propaganda and populist speeches and other rational speeches but that was not the case in Crimea where any kind of opposition was shut down just like in Russia. Plus international observers and medias couldn't even enter Crimea (except the ones picked by Putin). And it doesn't matter that it has always been like this, it's still retarded and not democratic and the zone should be going forward instead of stagnating in corruption and rigged elections. No you don't know if the gov in Kiev would have let a referendum go.You right I don't know, but Ukraine's government has stated numerous times that there won't be any referendums in the Eastern part where the riots are currently taking place, so its safe to assume, they would have said the same thing to Crimea. There wasn't even a clear will of independence in Crimea before the crisis started.There was one, ever since the USSR break up, but it was very apathetic one. Its hard to explain. Basically people didn't really see themselves living in Russia or Ukraine, to them it was kind of the same, there was no need to go through the motions to officially join Russia. EuroMaidan changed that. The annexation was not normal, it wasn't democratic at all.Welcome to CIS. And even if the gov in Kiev wouldn't have recognized or wanted the referendum, Russia and the international community would have intervened.I disagree.
And like it was said 1000 times before, there are different level of propaganda. When you have an election in democratic countries, people are exposed to everyone's propaganda and populist speeches and other rational speeches but that was not the case in Crimea where any kind of opposition was shut down just like in Russia.Can't argue with you there, People in Crimea for the most part were only exposed to Russian news and arguments. Ukrainian government is partly to blame, they decided to vote on a motion to shut down Russian TV stations in Ukraine, gave a perfect excuse to shut down Ukrainian stations in Crimea as a response. As for opposition there were plenty of people protesting against the referendum and making speeches, but yes some were harassed. Plus international observers and medias couldn't even enter Crimea (except the ones picked by Putin).OBSE observers were invited, but didn't come, since EU considered referendum illegal in the first place. And it doesn't matter that it has always been like this, it's still retarded and not democratic and the zone should be going forward instead of stagnating in corruption and rigged elections.Well when you figure out how to go forward from all this corruption and rigged elections let me know. In general a well thought out and factually based reply. However, you are incorrect about the Russian/Ukrainian TV banning situation. OBSE observers were invited, but didn't come, since EU considered referendum illegal in the first place.OSCE observers were invited but denied entry multiple times before the referendum. If your above statement is correct, that would suggest that even if they did try to come they would be denied access yet again. So the statement you responded to still holds- Russia was making it very difficult for foreign observers/media to enter Crimea. Ukrainian government is partly to blame, they decided to vote on a motion to shut down Russian TV stations in Ukraine, gave a perfect excuse to shut down Ukrainian stations in Crimea as a response. Order of events: March 6th: Armed men turn off Ukrainian TV in Crimea. Broadcast Russian TV insteadUkraine calls for review of Russian TV broadcast licensingMarch 11th: Ukraine suspends various Russian TV broadcast in Ukraine
I believe you thinking about OSCE military observers, yes they were not allowed in Crimea.
As for who shut down, what TV station first. As far as I remember the order was this: Ukraine calls for and sets a date for a vote to shut down Russian channels, Crimea shuts down Ukrainian channels, Ukraine shuts down Russian channels, in that order, but I could be wrong. I'll try to find some sources ( something other than kyivpost  )
|
On April 11 2014 21:35 kukarachaa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 21:11 Mc wrote:On April 11 2014 20:26 kukarachaa wrote:On April 11 2014 19:52 Acertos wrote:On April 11 2014 19:28 kukarachaa wrote:On April 11 2014 18:55 Simberto wrote:
I don't know if this Noldo guy is funny or sad.
"It doesn't matter that elections are manipulated because the result is what i know to be true because of my divine insight"
See, what you don't appear to understand is that not everyone lives in russia. Some countries actually have real elections. Which do change things. Just because you live in a corrupt dictatorship doesn't mean the rest of the world also does.
If you are so sure that everyone in Crimea wanted to join Russia, then can you explain the fact that there was no fair and unmanipulated referendum? If the russian regime was so sure of that, why didn't they just have a fair referendum, with a "no" option, international observers, no propaganda war, and all that stuff? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier, and lead to a lot less backlash from other countries? Is that just because putin doesn't even understand the concept of an unmanipulated vote? Or so russians don't start demanding that for themselves if the ukrainians get to have one? I'll try to answer some of your points. See, what you don't appear to understand is that not everyone lives in russia. Some countries actually have real elections. Which do change things. Just because you live in a corrupt dictatorship doesn't mean the rest of the world also does.
We are not talking about those countries with real elections. We are dealing with Russia and Ukraine, their elections have always been cloudy and shady. It sucks but this is the way it is, and this won't be changing anytime soon. The whole mentality of people needs to change. When everything in their lives, even such things as seeing a doctor or having a kid go to school are based on favors, bribery, greasing the system, its no surprise, when people don't see shady elections as a big deal. If you are so sure that everyone in Crimea wanted to join Russia, then can you explain the fact that there was no fair and unmanipulated referendum? If the russian regime was so sure of that, why didn't they just have a fair referendum, with a "no" option, international observers, no propaganda war, and all that stuff? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier, and lead to a lot less backlash from other countries? Is that just because putin doesn't even understand the concept of an unmanipulated vote? Or so russians don't start demanding that for themselves if the ukrainians get to have one?It was normal and fair, to Russians, hell it was probably normal and fair to some Ukrainians, because most the CIS elections are manipulated. International observers were there, but they were hand picked by the Russian Government. OBSE observers were invited as well, but they refused to come, since EU considered the referendum illegal and there was no point of them being there. As for propaganda war, well what election doesn't have one. Without Russian troops there, Ukraine would never let the referendum happen, and whole situation could have easily escalated into violent one, between the new government and the Crimea's militia. No you don't know if the gov in Kiev would have let a referendum go. There wasn't even a clear will of independence in Crimea before the crisis started. The annexation was not normal, it wasn't democratic at all. And even if the gov in Kiev wouldn't have recognized or wanted the referendum, Russia and the international community would have intervened. And like it was said 1000 times before, there are different level of propaganda. When you have an election in democratic countries, people are exposed to everyone's propaganda and populist speeches and other rational speeches but that was not the case in Crimea where any kind of opposition was shut down just like in Russia. Plus international observers and medias couldn't even enter Crimea (except the ones picked by Putin). And it doesn't matter that it has always been like this, it's still retarded and not democratic and the zone should be going forward instead of stagnating in corruption and rigged elections. No you don't know if the gov in Kiev would have let a referendum go.You right I don't know, but Ukraine's government has stated numerous times that there won't be any referendums in the Eastern part where the riots are currently taking place, so its safe to assume, they would have said the same thing to Crimea. There wasn't even a clear will of independence in Crimea before the crisis started.There was one, ever since the USSR break up, but it was very apathetic one. Its hard to explain. Basically people didn't really see themselves living in Russia or Ukraine, to them it was kind of the same, there was no need to go through the motions to officially join Russia. EuroMaidan changed that. The annexation was not normal, it wasn't democratic at all.Welcome to CIS. And even if the gov in Kiev wouldn't have recognized or wanted the referendum, Russia and the international community would have intervened.I disagree.
And like it was said 1000 times before, there are different level of propaganda. When you have an election in democratic countries, people are exposed to everyone's propaganda and populist speeches and other rational speeches but that was not the case in Crimea where any kind of opposition was shut down just like in Russia.Can't argue with you there, People in Crimea for the most part were only exposed to Russian news and arguments. Ukrainian government is partly to blame, they decided to vote on a motion to shut down Russian TV stations in Ukraine, gave a perfect excuse to shut down Ukrainian stations in Crimea as a response. As for opposition there were plenty of people protesting against the referendum and making speeches, but yes some were harassed. Plus international observers and medias couldn't even enter Crimea (except the ones picked by Putin).OBSE observers were invited, but didn't come, since EU considered referendum illegal in the first place. And it doesn't matter that it has always been like this, it's still retarded and not democratic and the zone should be going forward instead of stagnating in corruption and rigged elections.Well when you figure out how to go forward from all this corruption and rigged elections let me know. In general a well thought out and factually based reply. However, you are incorrect about the Russian/Ukrainian TV banning situation. OBSE observers were invited, but didn't come, since EU considered referendum illegal in the first place.OSCE observers were invited but denied entry multiple times before the referendum. If your above statement is correct, that would suggest that even if they did try to come they would be denied access yet again. So the statement you responded to still holds- Russia was making it very difficult for foreign observers/media to enter Crimea. Ukrainian government is partly to blame, they decided to vote on a motion to shut down Russian TV stations in Ukraine, gave a perfect excuse to shut down Ukrainian stations in Crimea as a response. Order of events: March 6th: Armed men turn off Ukrainian TV in Crimea. Broadcast Russian TV insteadUkraine calls for review of Russian TV broadcast licensingMarch 11th: Ukraine suspends various Russian TV broadcast in Ukraine I believe you thinking about OSCE military observers, yes they were not allowed in Crimea. As for who shut down, what TV station first. As far as I remember the order was this: Ukraine calls for and sets a date for a vote to shut down Russian channels, Crimea shuts down Ukrainian channels, Ukraine shuts down Russian channels, in that order, but I could be wrong. I'll try to find some sources ( something other than kyivpost )
Using some advanced google-news search I did come up with this article :
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/723223
It says "Such decision has been taken due to the need to ensure information security in compliance with a resolution by the National Security and Defense Council of March 1, 2014."
So maybe Ukraine was taking steps to prepare itself to ban Russian TV if need be? Either way, there is a difference between a country (over the process of a few resolutions) deciding to ban the media that is blatantly disseminating disinformation and enticing separatism in your country (and happens to belong to a country that is currently occupying you) AND Russian troops storming a Ukrainian broadcast tower to switch off Ukrainian channels and from what I read turn on Russian TV channels.
|
On April 11 2014 20:57 Noldo wrote:
Was situation on ukraine stable? Yes, it was.
Who started all that shit? Completely clear that it's not Russia. (But we know who invested money in that)
Was threatment to Russia in that actions? Of course.
Should Russia let events go as it is? Only if we want to lose power in that region and lose fleet base (just near our borders).
Is it acceptable? Lol no.
Absolutely clear there was aggression against Russia. So, what you wanted? Now our fleet defended, noone died in that operation.
And NATO countries should learn how to defend interests without killing people, lol :D
Yes, our actions wasn't good.
But do we had alternative? No.
West countries "atacked", we "defended". Simple political gambling. Why everyone make show, like something unusual happened? Just because that time things went not by your plan?
First of all, it wasn't an aggression against Russia. Yanukovich won the previous elections by also promising to sign an association agreement with Ukraine. Then Putin invited Yanuk to visit in November, offering 11-15 billion dollars in exchange for not signing the agreement. Lavrov and Medvedev made statements in the following months making it abundantly clear that gas prices are contingent on not signing the agreement. Background reading. So it's not aggression against Russia, but Russia meddling in Ukraine, forcing a public backlash against Yanukovich's government which turned into the Euromaidan when Yanukovich, working together with FSB officers, decided to violently crack down on the peaceful protests.
Secondly, Russian troops killed Ukrainian people. Both at Euromaidan, and in Crimea. It's not bloodless, your media just covers up the blood spilled by your special forces.
Third, your entire line of argumentation rests on the absurd premise that Russia has the right to have power over a sovereign country - a premise every person who respects international law rejects. If the people of Ukraine decide to shift away from Russia, they have the right to do so, no matter if it hurts Russia's interests or not. Might doesn't make right.
|
Russian Federation1953 Posts
Ghanburighan as always spits lies without any evidence
please tell me about you country occupation too
|
On April 11 2014 21:54 Mc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 21:35 kukarachaa wrote:On April 11 2014 21:11 Mc wrote:On April 11 2014 20:26 kukarachaa wrote:On April 11 2014 19:52 Acertos wrote:On April 11 2014 19:28 kukarachaa wrote:On April 11 2014 18:55 Simberto wrote:
I don't know if this Noldo guy is funny or sad.
"It doesn't matter that elections are manipulated because the result is what i know to be true because of my divine insight"
See, what you don't appear to understand is that not everyone lives in russia. Some countries actually have real elections. Which do change things. Just because you live in a corrupt dictatorship doesn't mean the rest of the world also does.
If you are so sure that everyone in Crimea wanted to join Russia, then can you explain the fact that there was no fair and unmanipulated referendum? If the russian regime was so sure of that, why didn't they just have a fair referendum, with a "no" option, international observers, no propaganda war, and all that stuff? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier, and lead to a lot less backlash from other countries? Is that just because putin doesn't even understand the concept of an unmanipulated vote? Or so russians don't start demanding that for themselves if the ukrainians get to have one? I'll try to answer some of your points. See, what you don't appear to understand is that not everyone lives in russia. Some countries actually have real elections. Which do change things. Just because you live in a corrupt dictatorship doesn't mean the rest of the world also does.
We are not talking about those countries with real elections. We are dealing with Russia and Ukraine, their elections have always been cloudy and shady. It sucks but this is the way it is, and this won't be changing anytime soon. The whole mentality of people needs to change. When everything in their lives, even such things as seeing a doctor or having a kid go to school are based on favors, bribery, greasing the system, its no surprise, when people don't see shady elections as a big deal. If you are so sure that everyone in Crimea wanted to join Russia, then can you explain the fact that there was no fair and unmanipulated referendum? If the russian regime was so sure of that, why didn't they just have a fair referendum, with a "no" option, international observers, no propaganda war, and all that stuff? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier, and lead to a lot less backlash from other countries? Is that just because putin doesn't even understand the concept of an unmanipulated vote? Or so russians don't start demanding that for themselves if the ukrainians get to have one?It was normal and fair, to Russians, hell it was probably normal and fair to some Ukrainians, because most the CIS elections are manipulated. International observers were there, but they were hand picked by the Russian Government. OBSE observers were invited as well, but they refused to come, since EU considered the referendum illegal and there was no point of them being there. As for propaganda war, well what election doesn't have one. Without Russian troops there, Ukraine would never let the referendum happen, and whole situation could have easily escalated into violent one, between the new government and the Crimea's militia. No you don't know if the gov in Kiev would have let a referendum go. There wasn't even a clear will of independence in Crimea before the crisis started. The annexation was not normal, it wasn't democratic at all. And even if the gov in Kiev wouldn't have recognized or wanted the referendum, Russia and the international community would have intervened. And like it was said 1000 times before, there are different level of propaganda. When you have an election in democratic countries, people are exposed to everyone's propaganda and populist speeches and other rational speeches but that was not the case in Crimea where any kind of opposition was shut down just like in Russia. Plus international observers and medias couldn't even enter Crimea (except the ones picked by Putin). And it doesn't matter that it has always been like this, it's still retarded and not democratic and the zone should be going forward instead of stagnating in corruption and rigged elections. No you don't know if the gov in Kiev would have let a referendum go.You right I don't know, but Ukraine's government has stated numerous times that there won't be any referendums in the Eastern part where the riots are currently taking place, so its safe to assume, they would have said the same thing to Crimea. There wasn't even a clear will of independence in Crimea before the crisis started.There was one, ever since the USSR break up, but it was very apathetic one. Its hard to explain. Basically people didn't really see themselves living in Russia or Ukraine, to them it was kind of the same, there was no need to go through the motions to officially join Russia. EuroMaidan changed that. The annexation was not normal, it wasn't democratic at all.Welcome to CIS. And even if the gov in Kiev wouldn't have recognized or wanted the referendum, Russia and the international community would have intervened.I disagree.
And like it was said 1000 times before, there are different level of propaganda. When you have an election in democratic countries, people are exposed to everyone's propaganda and populist speeches and other rational speeches but that was not the case in Crimea where any kind of opposition was shut down just like in Russia.Can't argue with you there, People in Crimea for the most part were only exposed to Russian news and arguments. Ukrainian government is partly to blame, they decided to vote on a motion to shut down Russian TV stations in Ukraine, gave a perfect excuse to shut down Ukrainian stations in Crimea as a response. As for opposition there were plenty of people protesting against the referendum and making speeches, but yes some were harassed. Plus international observers and medias couldn't even enter Crimea (except the ones picked by Putin).OBSE observers were invited, but didn't come, since EU considered referendum illegal in the first place. And it doesn't matter that it has always been like this, it's still retarded and not democratic and the zone should be going forward instead of stagnating in corruption and rigged elections.Well when you figure out how to go forward from all this corruption and rigged elections let me know. In general a well thought out and factually based reply. However, you are incorrect about the Russian/Ukrainian TV banning situation. OBSE observers were invited, but didn't come, since EU considered referendum illegal in the first place.OSCE observers were invited but denied entry multiple times before the referendum. If your above statement is correct, that would suggest that even if they did try to come they would be denied access yet again. So the statement you responded to still holds- Russia was making it very difficult for foreign observers/media to enter Crimea. Ukrainian government is partly to blame, they decided to vote on a motion to shut down Russian TV stations in Ukraine, gave a perfect excuse to shut down Ukrainian stations in Crimea as a response. Order of events: March 6th: Armed men turn off Ukrainian TV in Crimea. Broadcast Russian TV insteadUkraine calls for review of Russian TV broadcast licensingMarch 11th: Ukraine suspends various Russian TV broadcast in Ukraine I believe you thinking about OSCE military observers, yes they were not allowed in Crimea. As for who shut down, what TV station first. As far as I remember the order was this: Ukraine calls for and sets a date for a vote to shut down Russian channels, Crimea shuts down Ukrainian channels, Ukraine shuts down Russian channels, in that order, but I could be wrong. I'll try to find some sources ( something other than kyivpost ) Using some advanced google-news search I did come up with this article : http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/723223It says "Such decision has been taken due to the need to ensure information security in compliance with a resolution by the National Security and Defense Council of March 1, 2014." So maybe Ukraine was taking steps to prepare itself to ban Russian TV if need be? Either way, there is a difference between a country (over the process of a few resolutions) deciding to ban the media that is blatantly disseminating disinformation and enticing separatism in your country (and happens to belong to a country that is currently occupying you) AND Russian troops storming a Ukrainian broadcast tower to switch off Ukrainian channels and from what I read turn on Russian TV channels.
Doubt it was Russian troops that stormed the Ukrainian broadcast tower, even the source you provided doesn't go that far. But I do agree with everything you said, Ukraine was put in a shitty position, where a lot of its citizens are watching Russian propaganda bombarding them with news of fascists taking over and so on.
|
Russian Federation39 Posts
On April 11 2014 22:03 Ghanburighan wrote:Secondly, Russian troops killed Ukrainian people. Both at Euromaidan, and in Crimea. It's not bloodless, your media just covers up the blood spilled by your special forces.
Third, your entire line of argumentation rests on the absurd premise that Russia has the right to have power over a sovereign country - a premise every person who respects international law rejects. If the people of Ukraine decide to shift away from Russia, they have the right to do so, no matter if it hurts Russia's interests or not. Might doesn't make right.
I haven't seen even one proof of some deaths by russian hand. Maybe you will provide me that?
And may be you will tell me name of at least one important country, which never did (or support) lately any actions (for example 50 years) against sovereignity of any country? At least i don't know such countries(
|
On April 11 2014 19:33 Dlash23 wrote:
Election winner is not the one who gains more votes, and whoever counts them=)
This is the truth. And if you think that for example in US it's different you are so naive
I know for a fact that it is different in Germany (I was actually part of the election process). If you think that there can be no fair elections, because you can't have fair elections in your own country, then you are the one who is naive.
|
On April 11 2014 19:33 Dlash23 wrote:
Election winner is not the one who gains more votes, and whoever counts them=)
This is the truth. And if you think that for example in US it's different you are so naive
Nope. You can influence the conversation before the vote with money and the decisions after the vote by lobbying and unelected bureaucracies but cheating through rigging the count is actually very rare.
|
Russian Federation1953 Posts
On April 11 2014 22:48 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 19:33 Dlash23 wrote:
Election winner is not the one who gains more votes, and whoever counts them=)
This is the truth. And if you think that for example in US it's different you are so naive Nope. You can influence the conversation before the vote with money and the decisions after the vote by lobbying and unelected bureaucracies but cheating through rigging the count is actually very rare.
how about Gore vs Bush?
|
On April 11 2014 22:52 PaleMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 22:48 hypercube wrote:On April 11 2014 19:33 Dlash23 wrote:
Election winner is not the one who gains more votes, and whoever counts them=)
This is the truth. And if you think that for example in US it's different you are so naive Nope. You can influence the conversation before the vote with money and the decisions after the vote by lobbying and unelected bureaucracies but cheating through rigging the count is actually very rare. how about Gore vs Bush?
I said rare, not that it never happened
But the only reason it could happen was that the vote was so close anyway. For all practical purposes the result was a tie so 9 people were brought in to decide. Arguably they got it wrong, and you can't rule out malice. But if Gore had won by 2% in Florida the situation would not have come up at all.
|
On April 11 2014 22:23 Noldo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 22:03 Ghanburighan wrote:Secondly, Russian troops killed Ukrainian people. Both at Euromaidan, and in Crimea. It's not bloodless, your media just covers up the blood spilled by your special forces.
Third, your entire line of argumentation rests on the absurd premise that Russia has the right to have power over a sovereign country - a premise every person who respects international law rejects. If the people of Ukraine decide to shift away from Russia, they have the right to do so, no matter if it hurts Russia's interests or not. Might doesn't make right. I haven't seen even one proof of some deaths by russian hand. Maybe you will provide me that? And may be you will tell me name of at least one important country, which never did (or support) lately any actions (for example 50 years) against sovereignity of any country? At least i don't know such countries(
How about you google for this stuff yourself:
Death of Ukrainian officer by the hand of a Russian soldier
Another earlier incident.
List of `disappearences' in Crimea by the Human Right Watch
Regarding sovereignty, international law actually allows for sovereignty to be suspended for various reasons and when certain conditions are met. Situations which endanger surrounding countries are the usual reasons. WMD are another likely reason. Recall that the US, Russian and every single other country was in agreement when Syria was tasked to remove all Chemical weapons. But, and this is a very important point, certain guidelines need to be followed for such acts to be legitimate. Russia has failed all of them: there's no multilateral process, no independent observers, no mediation, everything is hurried and covert. This isn't a legitimate intervention, its aggression against a sovereign country - the very worst thing a country can do in the eyes of the international order. And that's why even Russia's allies like China, India and Iran refused to vote against the UN GA denouncement of Russia's actions.
|
Russian Federation1953 Posts
|
On April 11 2014 23:19 PaleMan wrote:i dunno why but i like this picture a lot: slightly NSFW + Show Spoiler +
I assume they are holding Russian and Ukranian passports?
And this photo is almost for certain taken in the USA/Canada. I highly doubt any other country would have that style of plastic houses/layout/mailboxes/etc. Makes it an even more poignant image. Love trumps all- Russia,Ukraine, USA
|
On April 11 2014 15:35 Noldo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 14:52 hunts wrote:On April 11 2014 14:01 Noldo wrote:On April 11 2014 07:05 Caladan wrote:
That's a bit of a short-sighted statement. Russia is just as dependent on EU money as EU is dependent on Russian gas. All countries are dependent on each others, and that is simple fact, which we should not forget. But Ukraine politics forget it. And for latest 20 years ukrainian education system and mass media tells people, that ukraine is under russian occupation for latest 350 years, and all that time russian threated ukraine people and their culture. (But when USSR had gone, ukraine had best infrastructure, and one of the best industry zone. Also size of ukraine doubled in XX century under russian "occupation". I won't protest, if someone will occupy russia that way ^^ ) And that is root of problem. Too much of antirussian propaganda was there at last 20 years (and it works well in west ukraine, while almost didn't worked in east), and all that events came to life, because too many people now just blame russian in all ukrainian problems and dont want to think rationally. When you base you actions on emotions, and half of country feels the same, while other - not, you won't get anything acceptable. (Emotions never lead to anything good  ) In fact, Russia made nothing to get Crimea. Ukrainian politics and euromaidan did all that things on their own. Does Russia act good in that history? No. We just defended our interests. And any other country will do so in such situation. Real politics is just like "Game of thrones" (just direct killing is more problematic). I don't like it, but there is only 2 alternatives: you hands is dirty or you're dead (because hands of all other gamblers will be dirty for sure) x_x And i wonder how ukraine going to end crisis, whithout russia. I think, it would be interesting to watch. Funny, my parents grew up in ukraine. There was no anti-russian propaganda. There was no anti-russian taught in school. There was no sort of anti russian sentiment. Are you sure this isn't just more russian propaganda? The question is: which part of ukraine your parents from? For example in Crimea most of peoples are russian and russian language everywhere is in use (schools, documents, markets etc.). Almost same with east ukraine. But west ukraine is hostile to russia. How do you think, is making hero from fascist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera ), who genocided all non-ukrainian people, part of propaganda? And what is direction of that propaganda? And, if you can write here, and your parents "grew up in ukraine", probably it happened too long ago, and they didnt saw new school history books and didnt heard ukrainian mass media in XXI c.
Dnepropetrovsk, which admittedly was always very pro russian, in fact no one there spoke ukranian, only russian. I lived there until I was 8, which was when we moved to america, I never learned a word of ukranian even though I went to 1st grade there.
|
On April 11 2014 15:35 Noldo wrote:How do you think, is making hero from fascist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera ), who genocided all non-ukrainian people, part of propaganda? And what is direction of that propaganda? You should read the article you are referring to yourself, you'll learn much.
|
Russian Federation39 Posts
On April 12 2014 00:02 Cheerio wrote:You should read the article you are referring to yourself, you'll learn much.
I readed it in both languages. And still do not see any heroic actions made by him and his band
|
Russian Federation1953 Posts
lol. Cheerio is Bandera follower, I was so right about him when I was banned for calling him what he really is
|
Bandera stance on ethnicity problem could be considered moderate when compared to Mykola Lebed and Roman Shukhevych. These were the true instigators and leaders of murdering hordes. When the ethnic clensing in Volhynia and Galicia began, Bandera was incarcerated in nazi concentration camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i33.fastpic.ru/big/2014/0411/25/f806cbb6ca80a7eb47c655859573fb25.jpg)
