@m4ini i think you are misunderstanding me. i realize he was abducted, tortured and killed, but there's nothing in the rt article that justifies you tagging it onto antimaidan. i sincerely doubt that it's accounted for on the pro-russia protests wiki page i snagged the number from, it's not mentioned.
where does it say that about sevastopol? you keep alluding to some article but i'd rather you just post it. in this guardian piece it's a russian biker gang and green men, russia did deploy green men on crimea.
@simberto i've been using maidan / antimaidan. i think they're apt descriptors. there was some confusion on what i meant. seems to be cleared up now...
On April 30 2014 09:56 nunez wrote: @m4ini i think you are misunderstanding me. i realize he was abducted, tortured and killed, but there's nothing in the rt article that justifies you tagging it onto antimaidan. i sincerely doubt that it's accounted for on the pro-russia protests wiki page i snagged the number from, it's not mentioned.
where does it say that about sevastopol? you keep alluding to some article but i'd rather you just post it. in this guardian piece it's a russian biker gang and green men, russia did deploy green men on crimea.
Well it was politically motivated (allegedly), so that kinda makes it so - doesn't it? If it's not in there, okay - then it's even more pointless for me to look up deaths, you could just link the page and show me that i'm wrong (i suppose they say who got killed where and when?).
edit:
This part specifically brought me on track there.
Svoboda said that Sergiyenko's killing had all the hallmarks of a politically motivated hit. The journalist worked for the local Nadrossia newspaper and was an active member of Automaidan – a movement of car drivers who opposed Yanukovych. One of its leaders, Dmytro Bulatov, was kidnapped in late January by unknown assailants. They eventually released him, but only after cutting off part of his ear.
Svoboda's leader Oleh Tyahnybok said that Sergiyenko and other Svoboda representatives had received menacing threats over the past week.
Ukraine has accused Russia of carrying out an armed invasion by sending naval forces to occupy Sevastopol airport in the Crimea region.
Russia's Black Sea Fleet denies its servicemen are blocking the airport.
Another Crimean airport, Simferopol, has also been occupied by armed men, thought to be pro-Russia militia.
If it actually is/was russian military doing this (and up to this point, they deny it, they only revealed that soldiers "made sure everything goes smooth" for the referendum), it would be an act of war, wouldn't you say? That also would make basically every statement here about "people who wear russian military stuff" true (edit: let's say, way more likely), they are indeed russian soldiers storming buildings (the video for example posted a while ago, which we both commented on as well).
Crooks tend to surround themselves with crooks. Nothing new.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that most of Ukraine's politicians make Schroder look like an angel, and they certainly aren't friendly with putin lol. Of course I'm nitpicking.
On April 30 2014 07:04 Gorsameth wrote: Madian has a lot of casualties because police started firing on unarmed peaceful protesters. Guess what the current government isnt doing?
How is the lack of dead people of any importance in this?
You may have forgotten the current government is and isn't doing is at least to some significant degree influenced by the fact they have an overwhelmingly powerful military force just across the border warning Kiev's govt. against any sort of violent retaliation/crackdown in the east. I can only imagine in a scenario without Russia, the crackdown would be swift and significantly more forceful. However, even last week's brief escapade into Slavyansk made Kiev feel the breathing on their neck become a lot heavier. If the current regime was killing people left and right, they wouldn't be in power for very long. They'd hand Putin every justification to throw them out or at least move into Ukraine.
On April 30 2014 02:01 mahrgell wrote: I'm not exactly sure, how the protests/uprising now are much different from the initial Euromaiden...
The used language and methods are pretty much the same, just that the parties involved changed sides...
Both events had violent and peaceful 'protesting/uprising' elements, and depending on which side certain nations and media were favoring, they simply ignored either the peaceful or violent parts... In both events administrative buildings were stormed by the protesters and held for longer times... In both events everyone not supporting the (at this time in power) states position was labelled terrorists, unrightful, illegal, and had to be crushed by force. In both events foreign nations did their best to fuel the uprisings even more, if it fit their own agenda. In both events the security forces were supposed to crush the protests/uprising by the state and it's allies, and requested by the protesters and their allies to refuse their orders and change sides... Those that did, were called traitors/heroes, again depending on view.
There's quite alot of assumptions or plain wrong statements in there. Maybe you're not sure because you didn't make the effort to "investigate" for yourself.
Oh enlighten me about the wrong parts?
- Actions are different: Euromaidan activists wanted to remain at the Maidan and keep on protesting. When the police left, they did not take over govt. buildings, and even protected the area from looting.
In the East, even in Luhansk and Donetsk, you have very few actual protests, instead you have small armed gangs of men, led by Cossacks from Russia. They do targeted attacks such as taking over admin buildings (needed for the elections) or taking over TV broadcasting buildings to turn off Ukrainian media and to turn on Russian media. Or the capture dissenting journalists. - As is quite evident, despite the pro-Russia guys using lethal force, the Ukrainian army and special forces are not returning the favour.
again wrong its so called separatists who try not to attack army forces cause there are a lot of recruits who don't want to fight they fight special forces like SBU though
I fail to see how `other nations' fueled the Euromaidan, in fact, Western leaders tried to ignore it for three months, and only when it became a violent conflict did they send diplomats to help negotiate a deal. Furthermore, before that point, the EU had told Yanukovich that the EU agreement is off the table because of his actions. I guess that counts as fueling the protesters, but not in the way you would like to make the argument...
when you fail to see smthing it doesn't mean it isn't exist
TL:DR for new users in the thread: don't listen to Ghan
Despite his very obvious Russophobic tendencies, the only "wrong" thing he said was implicitly ignoring why Ukrainian military guys are not "returning the favor" (hint: it's not because they're peace-loving hippies). But you have very Russophiliac (for very obvious reasons) tendencies. If it gives you any consolation, I could care less if it was Russia or any other country, but Putin and Friends are so full of shit it makes them look stupid on a Bush kind of level. This is disappointing considering Putin is typically an unusually intelligent politician.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that most of Ukraine's politicians make Schroder look like an angel, and they certainly aren't friendly with putin lol. Of course I'm nitpicking.
Sure. Then again, putin has the kreml anyway. Not to mention that Schroeder is farm from an Angel, he's more like Berlusconi light.
On the 2nd part, you kinda leave out the part that if russia wouldn't have influence of some sort, the whole scenario wouldn't exist in the first place. The seperatists go apeshit because there's that army. And russian green men. And, well, actual russians.
Edit: your edit is true though. Even though i have a big gripe with "russophobic" in this regard, since i don't think anyone in here is inherently russophobic. Same with LegalLords statement that the west only reports "anti-russia" stuff. It's kinda obvious that they seem anti-russia, if you consider how putin acts.
Fun fact, just yesterday i saw a video on the internets that gave me a bit of "hope" for mankind, and that was mostly made in russia, with russian people. Normal people, not militant ussr bullshitters. At least i suppose.
edit2: russophobic, not russophil - too late yet again -,-
Crooks tend to surround themselves with crooks. Nothing new.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that most of Ukraine's politicians make Schroder look like an angel, and they certainly aren't friendly with putin lol. Of course I'm nitpicking.
On April 30 2014 07:04 Gorsameth wrote: Madian has a lot of casualties because police started firing on unarmed peaceful protesters. Guess what the current government isnt doing?
How is the lack of dead people of any importance in this?
You may have forgotten the current government is and isn't doing is at least to some significant degree influenced by the fact they have an overwhelmingly powerful military force just across the border warning Kiev's govt. against any sort of violent retaliation/crackdown in the east. I can only imagine in a scenario without Russia, the crackdown would be swift and significantly more forceful. However, even last week's brief escapade into Slavyansk made Kiev feel the breathing on their neck become a lot heavier. If the current regime was killing people left and right, they wouldn't be in power for very long. They'd hand Putin every justification to throw them out or at least move into Ukraine.
On April 30 2014 02:01 mahrgell wrote: I'm not exactly sure, how the protests/uprising now are much different from the initial Euromaiden...
The used language and methods are pretty much the same, just that the parties involved changed sides...
Both events had violent and peaceful 'protesting/uprising' elements, and depending on which side certain nations and media were favoring, they simply ignored either the peaceful or violent parts... In both events administrative buildings were stormed by the protesters and held for longer times... In both events everyone not supporting the (at this time in power) states position was labelled terrorists, unrightful, illegal, and had to be crushed by force. In both events foreign nations did their best to fuel the uprisings even more, if it fit their own agenda. In both events the security forces were supposed to crush the protests/uprising by the state and it's allies, and requested by the protesters and their allies to refuse their orders and change sides... Those that did, were called traitors/heroes, again depending on view.
There's quite alot of assumptions or plain wrong statements in there. Maybe you're not sure because you didn't make the effort to "investigate" for yourself.
Oh enlighten me about the wrong parts?
- Actions are different: Euromaidan activists wanted to remain at the Maidan and keep on protesting. When the police left, they did not take over govt. buildings, and even protected the area from looting.
In the East, even in Luhansk and Donetsk, you have very few actual protests, instead you have small armed gangs of men, led by Cossacks from Russia. They do targeted attacks such as taking over admin buildings (needed for the elections) or taking over TV broadcasting buildings to turn off Ukrainian media and to turn on Russian media. Or the capture dissenting journalists. - As is quite evident, despite the pro-Russia guys using lethal force, the Ukrainian army and special forces are not returning the favour.
again wrong its so called separatists who try not to attack army forces cause there are a lot of recruits who don't want to fight they fight special forces like SBU though
I fail to see how `other nations' fueled the Euromaidan, in fact, Western leaders tried to ignore it for three months, and only when it became a violent conflict did they send diplomats to help negotiate a deal. Furthermore, before that point, the EU had told Yanukovich that the EU agreement is off the table because of his actions. I guess that counts as fueling the protesters, but not in the way you would like to make the argument...
when you fail to see smthing it doesn't mean it isn't exist
TL:DR for new users in the thread: don't listen to Ghan
Despite his very obvious Russophobic tendencies, the only "wrong" thing he said was implicitly ignoring why Ukrainian military guys are not "returning the favor" (hint: it's not because they're peace-loving hippies). But you have very Russophiliac (for very obvious reasons) tendencies. If it gives you any consolation, I could care less if it was Russia or any other country, but Putin and Friends are so full of shit it makes them look stupid on a Bush kind of level. This is disappointing considering Putin is typically an unusually intelligent politician.
Just out of curiosity, what are you basing the notion that they want to "kill people left and right" and only aren't because of Russia on?
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that most of Ukraine's politicians make Schroder look like an angel, and they certainly aren't friendly with putin lol. Of course I'm nitpicking.
Sure. Then again, putin has the kreml anyway. Not to mention that Schroeder is farm from an Angel, he's more like Berlusconi light.
On the 2nd part, you kinda leave out the part that if russia wouldn't have influence of some sort, the whole scenario wouldn't exist in the first place. The seperatists go apeshit because there's that army. And russian green men. And, well, actual russians.
The "angel" term was relatively speaking. The little I know about Schroder certainly is not good
It is long established that besides Ukrainians there is a whole pan-Slavic front in Ukraine. There were some conspiracy theories like from US and Ukrainian govts. that these were rank-and-file Russian soldiers and everything, but if that were remotely true the situation would be entirely different.
However, along with other things I've stated previously in this thread pointing to how insurmountably dumb these separatists are, they're also dumb to not realize that Russia will only play a part in Ukraine if it has a proper justification. That means, if these separatists want Russia, which quite frankly doesn't appear to care about these guys and sees them at best as a means to an end for 'optional objectives', to enter Ukraine, then they should low-key provoke as much violence from the new regime as possible.
Crooks tend to surround themselves with crooks. Nothing new.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that most of Ukraine's politicians make Schroder look like an angel, and they certainly aren't friendly with putin lol. Of course I'm nitpicking.
On April 30 2014 07:04 Gorsameth wrote: Madian has a lot of casualties because police started firing on unarmed peaceful protesters. Guess what the current government isnt doing?
How is the lack of dead people of any importance in this?
You may have forgotten the current government is and isn't doing is at least to some significant degree influenced by the fact they have an overwhelmingly powerful military force just across the border warning Kiev's govt. against any sort of violent retaliation/crackdown in the east. I can only imagine in a scenario without Russia, the crackdown would be swift and significantly more forceful. However, even last week's brief escapade into Slavyansk made Kiev feel the breathing on their neck become a lot heavier. If the current regime was killing people left and right, they wouldn't be in power for very long. They'd hand Putin every justification to throw them out or at least move into Ukraine.
On April 30 2014 02:57 PaleMan wrote:
On April 30 2014 02:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
On April 30 2014 02:20 mahrgell wrote:
On April 30 2014 02:12 m4ini wrote:
On April 30 2014 02:01 mahrgell wrote: I'm not exactly sure, how the protests/uprising now are much different from the initial Euromaiden...
The used language and methods are pretty much the same, just that the parties involved changed sides...
Both events had violent and peaceful 'protesting/uprising' elements, and depending on which side certain nations and media were favoring, they simply ignored either the peaceful or violent parts... In both events administrative buildings were stormed by the protesters and held for longer times... In both events everyone not supporting the (at this time in power) states position was labelled terrorists, unrightful, illegal, and had to be crushed by force. In both events foreign nations did their best to fuel the uprisings even more, if it fit their own agenda. In both events the security forces were supposed to crush the protests/uprising by the state and it's allies, and requested by the protesters and their allies to refuse their orders and change sides... Those that did, were called traitors/heroes, again depending on view.
There's quite alot of assumptions or plain wrong statements in there. Maybe you're not sure because you didn't make the effort to "investigate" for yourself.
Oh enlighten me about the wrong parts?
- Actions are different: Euromaidan activists wanted to remain at the Maidan and keep on protesting. When the police left, they did not take over govt. buildings, and even protected the area from looting.
In the East, even in Luhansk and Donetsk, you have very few actual protests, instead you have small armed gangs of men, led by Cossacks from Russia. They do targeted attacks such as taking over admin buildings (needed for the elections) or taking over TV broadcasting buildings to turn off Ukrainian media and to turn on Russian media. Or the capture dissenting journalists. - As is quite evident, despite the pro-Russia guys using lethal force, the Ukrainian army and special forces are not returning the favour.
again wrong its so called separatists who try not to attack army forces cause there are a lot of recruits who don't want to fight they fight special forces like SBU though
I fail to see how `other nations' fueled the Euromaidan, in fact, Western leaders tried to ignore it for three months, and only when it became a violent conflict did they send diplomats to help negotiate a deal. Furthermore, before that point, the EU had told Yanukovich that the EU agreement is off the table because of his actions. I guess that counts as fueling the protesters, but not in the way you would like to make the argument...
when you fail to see smthing it doesn't mean it isn't exist
TL:DR for new users in the thread: don't listen to Ghan
Despite his very obvious Russophobic tendencies, the only "wrong" thing he said was implicitly ignoring why Ukrainian military guys are not "returning the favor" (hint: it's not because they're peace-loving hippies). But you have very Russophiliac (for very obvious reasons) tendencies. If it gives you any consolation, I could care less if it was Russia or any other country, but Putin and Friends are so full of shit it makes them look stupid on a Bush kind of level. This is disappointing considering Putin is typically an unusually intelligent politician.
Just out of curiosity, what are you basing the notion that they want to "kill people left and right" and only aren't because of Russia on?
I didn't mean they're actually going to go Khan style and kill everyone in sight. I meant that in light of the fact that are insurrectionists that are taking over entire cities and are threatening to take over more with each day, this is obviously an insurrection that needs to be suppressed. Well, the only way to do that is through military force. However, in what possible world can Ukraine even hope to do this when Big Bear is breathing down their neck? The incursion into Slavyansk demonstrated that Russia will use any aggressive force by Ukraine for warhawk-style rhetoric. A very brief gunfight made Big Bear roar. It frightened the Ukrainian govt. and right now they're in a situation where they don't know what the hell to do. This would not be the case when the above reason was stated.
The Ukrainian government knows that any serious crackdown on the insurrectionists would lead to VDV guys playing poker in Kiev waiting on the armored columns to catch up. They may be stupid, but they have enough wisdom to realize what's at stake. This is why the US and various European nations are placing the entire burden on Russia, who doesn't care about the insurrectionists either way (it doesn't go against them, and it doesn't support them beyond a bit of alleged cheerleading; meanwhile the insurrectionists bitch everyday about how Russia doesn't help them), because Ukraine can't do anything without Russian retaliation. Very complex scenario we have here.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that most of Ukraine's politicians make Schroder look like an angel, and they certainly aren't friendly with putin lol. Of course I'm nitpicking.
Sure. Then again, putin has the kreml anyway. Not to mention that Schroeder is farm from an Angel, he's more like Berlusconi light.
On the 2nd part, you kinda leave out the part that if russia wouldn't have influence of some sort, the whole scenario wouldn't exist in the first place. The seperatists go apeshit because there's that army. And russian green men. And, well, actual russians.
The "angel" term was relatively speaking. The little I know about Schroder certainly is not good
It is long established that besides Ukrainians there is a whole pan-Slavic front in Ukraine. There were some conspiracy theories like from US and Ukrainian govts. that these were rank-and-file Russian soldiers and everything, but if that were remotely true the situation would be entirely different.
Well, i do think i'm one of the conspiracy theorists, i was just talking about nunez about that (green men with no insignias taking over stuff).
However, along with other things I've stated previously in this thread pointing to how insurmountably dumb these separatists are, they're also dumb to not realize that Russia will only play a part in Ukraine if it has a proper justification. That means, if these separatists want Russia, which quite frankly doesn't appear to care about these guys and sees them at best as a means to an end for 'optional objectives', to enter Ukraine, then they should low-key provoke as much violence from the new regime as possible.
I disagree. Russia played a part in crimea without proper justification (except someone here thinks "russian genocide" is one, but my bet is only PaleMan would), i don't see why they wouldn't do it again. Those seperatists certainly want russia to come and get them (USSR hymn playing, boycotting elections etc). And, my bets are, they will come at some point. Kiev (and with kiev i mean, whoever is in charge - doesn't matter to those people, as they made clear) can't just sit and watch heavily armed people running haywire in their country, at some point, they have to "go in". And, well, lets see what happens then.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that most of Ukraine's politicians make Schroder look like an angel, and they certainly aren't friendly with putin lol. Of course I'm nitpicking.
Sure. Then again, putin has the kreml anyway. Not to mention that Schroeder is farm from an Angel, he's more like Berlusconi light.
On the 2nd part, you kinda leave out the part that if russia wouldn't have influence of some sort, the whole scenario wouldn't exist in the first place. The seperatists go apeshit because there's that army. And russian green men. And, well, actual russians.
The "angel" term was relatively speaking. The little I know about Schroder certainly is not good
It is long established that besides Ukrainians there is a whole pan-Slavic front in Ukraine. There were some conspiracy theories like from US and Ukrainian govts. that these were rank-and-file Russian soldiers and everything, but if that were remotely true the situation would be entirely different.
Well, i do think i'm one of the conspiracy theorists, i was just talking about nunez about that (green men with no insignias taking over stuff).
However, along with other things I've stated previously in this thread pointing to how insurmountably dumb these separatists are, they're also dumb to not realize that Russia will only play a part in Ukraine if it has a proper justification. That means, if these separatists want Russia, which quite frankly doesn't appear to care about these guys and sees them at best as a means to an end for 'optional objectives', to enter Ukraine, then they should low-key provoke as much violence from the new regime as possible.
I disagree. Russia played a part in crimea without proper justification, i don't see why they wouldn't do it again. Those seperatists certainly want russia to come and get them (USSR hymn playing, boycotting elections etc). And, my bets are, they will come at some point. Kiev can't just sit and watch heavily armed people running haywire in their country, at some point, they have to "go in". And, well, lets see what happens then.
That's the people we're talking about. You can not leave them "unattended".
Crimea was a special case. It has extremely important Russian military and strategic assets that could be compromised if the coup were to lead to Ukraine falling in some way or another under significant US or NATO direction/influence. From a strategic standpoint, it had to be 100% ensured that those bases would not be compromised. Less important reasons include it was also not too long ago RSFSR territory, most the people there are Russian, etc. etc. discussed a million times in this thread.
There are a million reasons regarding the situation in Crimea that are not at all applicable to eastern Ukraine. It is not a logical following to extrapolate to an entirely different scenario.
Of course the insurrectionists want Russia to go in. They are a big power who is not happy with the new Ukrainian government. Common interests, wow, it's like finding a girl to ask out on a date. Think of the Sharia-thumping jihad guys who took over Libya. They begged the US to destroy this anti-Islamist regime that conveniently did not suck Uncle Sam's extremely large dick and was not on good terms with Uncle Sam.
Kiev can't just sit and watch heavily armed people running haywire in their country, at some point, they have to "go in".
I think the most possible scenario is that Russia will use violence as a justification when Ukrainian soldiers "have to go in", to "go in" themselves.
Yes, we can't leave the insurrectionists unattended. But what happens if they are attended to? Next thing we know, ghan will turn this thread into an LR of tweets about the westward armored march of Russians to Kiev.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that most of Ukraine's politicians make Schroder look like an angel, and they certainly aren't friendly with putin lol. Of course I'm nitpicking.
Sure. Then again, putin has the kreml anyway. Not to mention that Schroeder is farm from an Angel, he's more like Berlusconi light.
On the 2nd part, you kinda leave out the part that if russia wouldn't have influence of some sort, the whole scenario wouldn't exist in the first place. The seperatists go apeshit because there's that army. And russian green men. And, well, actual russians.
The "angel" term was relatively speaking. The little I know about Schroder certainly is not good
It is long established that besides Ukrainians there is a whole pan-Slavic front in Ukraine. There were some conspiracy theories like from US and Ukrainian govts. that these were rank-and-file Russian soldiers and everything, but if that were remotely true the situation would be entirely different.
Well, i do think i'm one of the conspiracy theorists, i was just talking about nunez about that (green men with no insignias taking over stuff).
However, along with other things I've stated previously in this thread pointing to how insurmountably dumb these separatists are, they're also dumb to not realize that Russia will only play a part in Ukraine if it has a proper justification. That means, if these separatists want Russia, which quite frankly doesn't appear to care about these guys and sees them at best as a means to an end for 'optional objectives', to enter Ukraine, then they should low-key provoke as much violence from the new regime as possible.
I disagree. Russia played a part in crimea without proper justification, i don't see why they wouldn't do it again. Those seperatists certainly want russia to come and get them (USSR hymn playing, boycotting elections etc). And, my bets are, they will come at some point. Kiev can't just sit and watch heavily armed people running haywire in their country, at some point, they have to "go in". And, well, lets see what happens then.
That's the people we're talking about. You can not leave them "unattended".
Crimea was a special case. It has extremely important Russian military and strategic assets that could be compromised if the coup were to lead to Ukraine falling in some way or another under significant US or NATO direction/influence. From a strategic standpoint, it had to be 100% ensured that those bases would not be compromised. Less important reasons include it was also not too long ago RSFSR territory, most the people there are Russian, etc. etc. discussed a million times in this thread.
There are a million reasons regarding the situation in Crimea that are not at all applicable to eastern Ukraine. It is not a logical following to extrapolate to an entirely different scenario.
While the black sea fleet bases obviously were the main and biggest reason for the "intervention" by russia, it's not only that. There's still russian speakers out there that have to be protected from genocide, russia still doesn't want the rest of the Ukraine in the NATO, etc etc - not to mention that putin wants as much of the ukraine as he can grab, especially if it is the donbass area. And he can grab it pretty easily.
Of course the insurrectionists want Russia to go in. They are a big power who is not happy with the new Ukrainian government. Common interests, wow, it's like finding a girl to ask out on a date. Think of the Sharia-thumping jihad guys who took over Libya. They begged the US to destroy these anti-Islamist regimes that conveniently do not suck Uncle Sam's dick and were not on good terms with Uncle Sam.
Kiev can't just sit and watch heavily armed people running haywire in their country, at some point, they have to "go in".
I think the most possible scenario is that Russia will use violence as a justification when Ukrainian soldiers "have to go in", to "go in" themselves.
No, you got that wrong. They're not just not happy with "the new ukrainian government". They don't want any ukrainian government. They already stated that the voting on may 11 doesn't interest them, since "why would they vote for the leader of another country". Not to mention that russia is pretty friendly with them, considering that they warn the ukraine to attack those people (which they btw have no right to). And there's the small thing about putin (and some protesters) calling basically everything over there (east) "Novorossiya" (New Russia, to state the obvious).
@m4ini this seems part of russian's green men and kossack involvement in crimea, thus i think how your interp of how antimaidan started was off base as can be seen in the articles posted from early march with several more on pro-russian unrest wiki page.
you shouldn't have made the claim then. i don't have answers, i was waiting to be informed!
a kidnapping / torture / murder from forest guy's home, early april, related to a kidnapping in january? is svoboda in position to point fingers on who is behind the crime (except maybe the prosecutor general)? what about svoboda guy saying it was revenge for some beef with a party of region politican?
unclear, and chalking it up to antimaidan mischief is dubious, at least for now. it doesn't fit with the other deaths i know about at least. ~all of them in eastern ukraine stemming from violence between armed and violent maidan / antimaidan clashing heads and one from security forces op.
i can think of 9, but i'm sure there are more. 2 shootings (pro-russia and passerby shot by nationalists khrakov during clashes), 1 stabbing (khrakov, young local pro-govt activist, during clashes), 2 tortured/dead in river near slovyansk (local pro-govt politician and young maidan activist or militia from ~kiev), 3 antimaidan militia(i think) at outpost slovyansk, and a civilian in solvyansk killed by security forces (independent).
6 of them in slavyansk, which seems to be the odd man out in several respects and 3 in khrakov.
edit: officer in sloviansk killed in clashes with separatists - foreignpolicy
Can we please stop writing walls of text on stuff that was covered better ten days ago? Nunez is basically forcing this thread into fact-checking every sentence he writes because he doesn't do his research properly, and it's getting old.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that most of Ukraine's politicians make Schroder look like an angel, and they certainly aren't friendly with putin lol. Of course I'm nitpicking.
Sure. Then again, putin has the kreml anyway. Not to mention that Schroeder is farm from an Angel, he's more like Berlusconi light.
On the 2nd part, you kinda leave out the part that if russia wouldn't have influence of some sort, the whole scenario wouldn't exist in the first place. The seperatists go apeshit because there's that army. And russian green men. And, well, actual russians.
The "angel" term was relatively speaking. The little I know about Schroder certainly is not good
It is long established that besides Ukrainians there is a whole pan-Slavic front in Ukraine. There were some conspiracy theories like from US and Ukrainian govts. that these were rank-and-file Russian soldiers and everything, but if that were remotely true the situation would be entirely different.
Well, i do think i'm one of the conspiracy theorists, i was just talking about nunez about that (green men with no insignias taking over stuff).
However, along with other things I've stated previously in this thread pointing to how insurmountably dumb these separatists are, they're also dumb to not realize that Russia will only play a part in Ukraine if it has a proper justification. That means, if these separatists want Russia, which quite frankly doesn't appear to care about these guys and sees them at best as a means to an end for 'optional objectives', to enter Ukraine, then they should low-key provoke as much violence from the new regime as possible.
I disagree. Russia played a part in crimea without proper justification (except someone here thinks "russian genocide" is one, but my bet is only PaleMan would), i don't see why they wouldn't do it again. Those seperatists certainly want russia to come and get them (USSR hymn playing, boycotting elections etc). And, my bets are, they will come at some point. Kiev (and with kiev i mean, whoever is in charge - doesn't matter to those people, as they made clear) can't just sit and watch heavily armed people running haywire in their country, at some point, they have to "go in". And, well, lets see what happens then.
That's the people we're talking about. You can not leave them "unattended".
I think everyone here thinks genocide would be enough to step it, but fictional persecution is not one, even with genocide countries just don't claim a territory as theirs when police action is done, they at least prop up a puppet movement just blatantly annexing it is poor form.
Plus the whole thing about people wanting to be part of Russia is full of it, civil wars for counties is for counties to stay together and change leadership or break off into 2+ counties to be independent not to just be annexed into another country. Civil war when annexation happens is caused when one nation forcefully annexes another. All you have to do is look at post WWII annexed counties all of them are invaded parts/counties.
So it turns out that maidan is not homogenously fascist as you were implying so far? Is this what this video is supposed to show? If so, then you are a few months late to the party.
Very troubling article from the Guardian about happenings in eastern Ukraine. Worth reading the whole thing.
Ukraine's beleaguered government appears to have lost control of law and order in the east of the country as pro-Russian separatists seized control of state buildings in Horlivka, almost unopposed by police.
The town of almost 300,000 people sits just north of Donetsk, where mainly Russian-speaking separatists have declared a 'People's Republic' and plan a referendum on secession on 11 May.
"They've taken them. The government administration and police," a police official in Donetsk told Reuters.
On Tuesday, 3,000 activists – some in masks and military fatigues – stormed the regional government HQ in the eastern city of Luhansk. Police supposed to guard the building let the crowd inside. A pro-Russian militia had occupied the security service office in Luhansk, a town of 465,000, just 20 miles (32km) from the Russian border.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that most of Ukraine's politicians make Schroder look like an angel, and they certainly aren't friendly with putin lol. Of course I'm nitpicking.
Sure. Then again, putin has the kreml anyway. Not to mention that Schroeder is farm from an Angel, he's more like Berlusconi light.
On the 2nd part, you kinda leave out the part that if russia wouldn't have influence of some sort, the whole scenario wouldn't exist in the first place. The seperatists go apeshit because there's that army. And russian green men. And, well, actual russians.
The "angel" term was relatively speaking. The little I know about Schroder certainly is not good
It is long established that besides Ukrainians there is a whole pan-Slavic front in Ukraine. There were some conspiracy theories like from US and Ukrainian govts. that these were rank-and-file Russian soldiers and everything, but if that were remotely true the situation would be entirely different.
Well, i do think i'm one of the conspiracy theorists, i was just talking about nunez about that (green men with no insignias taking over stuff).
However, along with other things I've stated previously in this thread pointing to how insurmountably dumb these separatists are, they're also dumb to not realize that Russia will only play a part in Ukraine if it has a proper justification. That means, if these separatists want Russia, which quite frankly doesn't appear to care about these guys and sees them at best as a means to an end for 'optional objectives', to enter Ukraine, then they should low-key provoke as much violence from the new regime as possible.
I disagree. Russia played a part in crimea without proper justification, i don't see why they wouldn't do it again. Those seperatists certainly want russia to come and get them (USSR hymn playing, boycotting elections etc). And, my bets are, they will come at some point. Kiev can't just sit and watch heavily armed people running haywire in their country, at some point, they have to "go in". And, well, lets see what happens then.
That's the people we're talking about. You can not leave them "unattended".
Crimea was a special case. It has extremely important Russian military and strategic assets that could be compromised if the coup were to lead to Ukraine falling in some way or another under significant US or NATO direction/influence. From a strategic standpoint, it had to be 100% ensured that those bases would not be compromised. Less important reasons include it was also not too long ago RSFSR territory, most the people there are Russian, etc. etc. discussed a million times in this thread.
There are a million reasons regarding the situation in Crimea that are not at all applicable to eastern Ukraine. It is not a logical following to extrapolate to an entirely different scenario.
While the black sea fleet bases obviously were the main and biggest reason for the "intervention" by russia, it's not only that. There's still russian speakers out there that have to be protected from genocide, russia still doesn't want the rest of the Ukraine in the NATO, etc etc - not to mention that putin wants as much of the ukraine as he can grab, especially if it is the donbass area. And he can grab it pretty easily.
Of course the insurrectionists want Russia to go in. They are a big power who is not happy with the new Ukrainian government. Common interests, wow, it's like finding a girl to ask out on a date. Think of the Sharia-thumping jihad guys who took over Libya. They begged the US to destroy these anti-Islamist regimes that conveniently do not suck Uncle Sam's dick and were not on good terms with Uncle Sam.
Kiev can't just sit and watch heavily armed people running haywire in their country, at some point, they have to "go in".
I think the most possible scenario is that Russia will use violence as a justification when Ukrainian soldiers "have to go in", to "go in" themselves.
No, you got that wrong. They're not just not happy with "the new ukrainian government". They don't want any ukrainian government. They already stated that the voting on may 11 doesn't interest them, since "why would they vote for the leader of another country". Not to mention that russia is pretty friendly with them, considering that they warn the ukraine to attack those people (which they btw have no right to). And there's the small thing about putin (and some protesters) calling basically everything over there (east) "Novorossiya" (New Russia, to state the obvious).
The last quote is what i was implying, yes.
We don't know if Putin wants as much as Ukraine as he can grab. Ukraine would be a terrible political/economic drain. Best to take the US approach and prop up friendly administrations. Direct control is stupid, obvious, draining, and unnecessary in almost every possible case. The Assyrians had the right idea thousands of years before modern foreign politics/hegemony in this regard was developed. But, let's not yet make such bold assumptions at this moment. We'll see how things play out.
@2nd part: I'm not necessarily wrong. They're not happy with the new Ukrainian government. This is true. That also means all sorts of things, like not wanting any Ukrainian government I already know about these referendums coming up in some of these eastern cities, including Donetsk. Of course they don't want any Kiev-based government. But it isn't wrong to say they are not happy with the Ukraine government, as that implies (especially in this case), among other things, they don't want the Ukraine govt.
i was never implying "maidan is homogenously fascist" - i always said there are idiots, bandits and nazis there the video shows that this shit in Ukraine will never stop they will find a million reasons to fight each other again and again
On April 30 2014 17:32 PaleMan wrote: i was never implying "maidan is homogenously fascist" - i always said there are idiots, bandits and nazis there the video shows that this shit in Ukraine will never stop they will find a million reasons to fight each other again and again
soon EU/US will kindly ask Russia to help
You're not serious, are you? >_> The last thing EU/US wants is for Russian power to grow. They will not under any circumstances "kindly ask Russia to help." The entire foreign policy for the past century is to "defeat" Russia! The 1990s were the greatest decade of this. Anything Russia could do to undermine the influence and hegemony of the EU/US is a sin worthy of hellfire in their eyes, and vice versa. How do you not see this?
On April 30 2014 17:32 PaleMan wrote: i was never implying "maidan is homogenously fascist" - i always said there are idiots, bandits and nazis there the video shows that this shit in Ukraine will never stop they will find a million reasons to fight each other again and again
soon EU/US will kindly ask Russia to help
So now you are advocating split of the country?
This ain't that easy to split it in 2 parts. You can't simply put Donbas into the same group as with other southern regions, Donbas is completely different story. Just take a look at the size of the pro-russia protests in other southern/eastern oblasts - almost nothing, they could not even mount up a proper garrison in Kharkov, because people did not support them.
From what I understand, people in Donbas do not identify themselves as Russian or Ukrainian, but rather as "Donbassian". The pro-russia protesters do not represent the majority of the citizens there. What I could observe though, is that majority wants to be left alone, be it by Kiev or Moscow. I can bet the moment the pro-russia separatists start talking about joining RF, they will burn in flames of the people that support them now.
Bolded part is not gonna happen, not even in a 100 years.
So it turns out that maidan is not homogenously fascist as you were implying so far? Is this what this video is supposed to show? If so, then you are a few months late to the party.
And I like how even though there was a scuffle, it seemed to end peacefully, with no people lying on the ground and only one person with any blood on them. I didn't even see a single punch thrown (I'm sure there were some), but in general there was tension but it was peacefully resolved.
@nunez I was mistaken about when the E. Ukrainian protests started - thanks. The timeline you posted does a good job pointing out a few things that support my general position.
1.) These protests were small (usually a few hundred/few thousand). The highest estimates I see are 10,000. 2.) There was an equal amount of counter-protests - "we want to stay in Ukraine, WTF are you doing?" 3.) The protestors were aggressive : storming buildings, attacking unarmed pro-Ukraine protestors
To support #3: PLEASE: search the wiki-timeline for the word "attack"- nearly every instance of that word is pro-Russians attacking pro-Ukrainians. Yes, I understand that wiki is slanted towards the West's point of view due to it's inherent English bias. But these attacks *did* happen, and attacks on pro-Russian protestors in general seemed to occur much less often.
EPT
The little I know about Schroder certainly is not good 
![[image loading]](http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-689464-galleryV9-rhze.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-689456-galleryV9-jyat.jpg)
