|
|
On May 17 2014 03:26 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2014 02:58 Mc wrote:On May 17 2014 02:11 mahrgell wrote:On May 17 2014 00:55 Cheerio wrote:
That politicians need to stay way from constitutional changes which the population overwhelmingly disapproves of? Scary idea indeed. What you wrote was more along the lines: "We riot against any elected parliament, until they only do, what we want." - Which is indeed not how democracy works. And it is indeed worrying, that both sides in the Ukraine conflict think, that their only chance lies in polarizing opinions even further. Yes, if all decisions are binary, it is only about against it or for it, majorities automatically happen. But you also divide the country even further. And both sides are doing their best to make any return to normal communication impossible. Even if Russia would now suddenly decide to sit back, leave the separatists alone, and wait until they are crushed... The damage is done. And both sides have their fair share in it. Russia has certainly the bigger active part, but the western side has made it way too easy for them, and while I was positively surprised about the western Ukraines actions during the Crimea crisis, what has happened the last two weeks it looks like they joined the Russians in their methods. But hey... even back on page 50 of this thread, I said, that sometimes going slow, is the better way to achieve your goals, especially when the conflict was already won... But hey... REVOLUTION, YAY!!! Going Allin obviously worked super well for Euromaidan! Well... The only sad part is, that because of what has happened, the EU might feel, they have to attach them another huge burden only to oppose Russia. I just hope they are smart enough not to. The EU should remain an economic organization, that cares for it's own (members) profit, and not try to be the angel of peace, love and mercy for failed nations. I really don't follow what you're trying to say. How is the West partially responsible for the situation in E. Ukraine? Russia wants to destabilize Ukraine, and there is little the West can do. Yanukovych also has lot's of influence in that area and I don't see any way that the West can stop their destabilization efforts. The EU has been doing everything it can to avoid sanctions that hurt the EU economy. I agree that the EU should be a primarily economic organization, but in some situations the EU should act together politically. The threat of Russia annexing countries should be handled collectively. The threat of Russia in general should be handled collectively. Keep in mind Russia takes a "divide and conquer" approach to Europe - using gas prices/availability as a political tool. This almost forces the EU to act politically, even though it is primarily an economic alliance. As to the EU being an "angel of peace,love, and mercy" for failed nations - I think they should be very supportive of European countries that are trying to become 'normal', but that doesn't mean allowing them to join the EU. The whole destabilization would be much more difficult, if it wouldn't be so easy to paint the Kiev regime as a a bunch of extremists, getting into power by a coup in Kiev, far from the eastern provinces. And even though Russia didn't sign the agreement between Yanukovych and Euromaidan, 2 days before he was ousted, following it would have been the easier choice. Yes, it said elections in November, not in May. But waiting that time should have been worth it. And right now there won't be any serious elections anytime soon anyway. While if Euromaidan really represented the majority of the country... Well.. wait a few months, win the elections, end of story. It is really hard for anyone in Russia to paint this as illegitimate, when even Yanukovych signed it. But the West clearly failed it's role in those negations. Sometimes it is better to slow down those, that are friendly to you, if you don't want to make the opposite side entirely hostile. But instead EU foreign ministers decided to stfu for 2 days, and then congratulated those now in power on their awesome understanding of democracy. And then the next negotiations happened... Both sides (Russia and Ukraine/West) signed, that it would be highest priority to disarm extremists. Well... Moscow obviously failed this. But so did Ukraine. Right now they let Right Sector militia do whatever they want in Eastern Ukraine. How do you ever want to win the Propaganda war, if you feed your opponent like this? The Biden-story, using the Right Sector instead of opposing it, etc... And the West is afraid of criticizing Ukraine and pretends everything they do is okay. (Hey, it may get your son a nice job...)
Although, I agree with you that the new government in Kiev has been far from ideal, I don't think you are analyzing the situation correctly.
First off, you are assuming that Yanukovych was ousted. That isn't support by the facts - he fled Kyiv (of his own volition) and parliament voted that he was unable to perform his duties as president since he fled. What seems most likely is that Yanukovych new that the tide had turned against him and that staying could result in arrest and prosecution. I'm sure they could find something to jail him for, and even if they couldn't we all know how politics works in Ukraine (...i.e. what did Yanukovych do to Tymoszenko again???)
So this wasn't Ukraine or the West going back on the deal - it was Yanukovych going back on it out of fear.
Secondly, I agree that some of Ukraine's actions have made Russia's propaganda campaign easier. However, I've seen a whole lot of Russian propaganda and Ukraine "adding fuel to the fire" is just the cherry on top. Russia doesn't need Ukraine to behave 'badly' to paint them as a bunch of incompetent nazis. Russia will spin off minor events as if it's the only thing that matters and thus influence it's own public and the parts of E. Ukraine that watch Russian TV. In E. Ukraine it's not much of a propaganda "war" per se because it has only one side- the Russian speakers only watch Russian TV.
I do agree that the West could be more critical of some of Ukraine's recent actions.
edit: Yanukovych claimed his car was shot at and that's why he fled. I've never seen any actual evidence of this, and it seems quite bogus to me. Even if it was true (which it isn't), how can a president who flees in times of danger/chaos legitimate? The country can't function with a president who isn't performing his duties and it has no choice but to choose an interim president (or vice-president should take over).
|
|
|
Classy.
Totally doesn't look like a streethooker.
|
edit: in answer to MC:
Well... they could have just played his game... He runs, then let everyone pretend they are looking for him, to do his duties...(instead they looked for him for probably not so nice things) If he claims, that his car was shot... look for whoever done it... Just play along. There was absolutely nothing to lose.
Hey, he ran like a chicken... That should have been triumph enough. But instead they basically made it a huge act, dropped him from office in a few hours and put a new government in place that had to be confirmed by some weird Maidan-council. The very same Maidan-council that actually refused the international agreement from 2 days earlier. The same Maidan-council that wanted everything at once and completely alienated the eastern regions. The Maidan-council, that never did anything to actually unite Ukraine, but only served some very onesided view, ignoring the fact, that there was more to Ukraine, then just Euromaidan, even though they maybe even had some majority at this point behind them.
And then have a look at the first days... Instead of at least pretending that they wanted to stop the destruction of Lenin-statues and other anti Russian acts all over Ukraine, they pretty much silently accepted the fact, that Rightwing idiots did it in Euromaidans name. That was exactly the moment, when they could have dropped those idiots, and tried to show the eastern parts, that they want to serve entire Ukraine, and not just their own western interests. But they missed it.
Large parts of Ukraine have undeniable ties to Russia and it's history. But suddenly some idiots tried to completely cut all those ties. And no one stopped them. Of course this is not welcomed by those honoring those ties, and even less in Russia.
Ukraine won't get anywhere, if they simply pretend, that there is no Russia east of them, and that they would only belong to the west. They are right between the West and Russia... And should play exactly this role... But instead of some sort of neutral buffer for both sides, suddenly they decided to make themselves the front line. And if you want to be the frontline... well... then this is what happens. Congrats... Job done.
|
Why is it that I want to have sex with basically all RT news broadcasters, the Attorney General Of Crimea, and now this minister of Luhansk Republic. The hottest American politician I know is Sarah Palin...
|
On May 17 2014 02:11 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2014 00:55 Cheerio wrote:
That politicians need to stay way from constitutional changes which the population overwhelmingly disapproves of? Scary idea indeed. What you wrote was more along the lines: "We riot against any elected parliament, until they only do, what we want." - Which is indeed not how democracy works. And it is indeed worrying, that both sides in the Ukraine conflict think, that their only chance lies in polarizing opinions even further. Yes, if all decisions are binary, it is only about against it or for it, majorities automatically happen. But you also divide the country even further. And both sides are doing their best to make any return to normal communication impossible. Even if Russia would now suddenly decide to sit back, leave the separatists alone, and wait until they are crushed... The damage is done. And both sides have their fair share in it. Russia has certainly the bigger active part, but the western side has made it way too easy for them, and while I was positively surprised about the western Ukraines actions during the Crimea crisis, what has happened the last two weeks it looks like they joined the Russians in their methods. But hey... even back on page 50 of this thread, I said, that sometimes going slow, is the better way to achieve your goals, especially when the conflict was already won... But hey... REVOLUTION, YAY!!! Going Allin obviously worked super well for Euromaidan! Well... The only sad part is, that because of what has happened, the EU might feel, they have to attach them another huge burden only to oppose Russia. I just hope they are smart enough not to. The EU should remain an economic organization, that cares for it's own (members) profit, and not try to be the angel of peace, love and mercy for failed nations.
So what exactly makes a nation a failed one? Being divided?
|
saying yanu was ousted is on point, mahgrell, even msm uses that phrasing.
mc is rambling.
he's also still the legitimate president according to ukraine's constitution, so president in exile? doubt majority wants him back, but if they could go back in time they'd prolly rather want to go with the compromise and save the ~100 lives that have been lost since.
seems like ukraine is a failed state at this point...
Loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
Inability to provide public services
Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community full score i think?
hillarious to think that if your elected leader leaves the country, the next day, as long as you convince enough idiots that he/she fled you can chuck the constitution out of the window and do what you please.
|
On May 17 2014 05:10 nunez wrote:saying yanu was ousted is on point, mahgrell, even msm uses that phrasing. mc is rambling. he's also still the legitimate president according to ukraine's constitution, so president in exile? doubt majority wants him back, but if they could go back in time they'd prolly rather want to go with the compromise and save the ~100 lives that have been lost since. seems like ukraine is a failed state at this point... Loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
Inability to provide public services
Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community full score i think? hillarious to think that if your elected leader leaves the country, the next day, as long as you convince enough idiots that he/she fled you can chuck the constitution out of the window and do what you please.
Stop outright lying. The 100 lives were lost before the compromise was even on the table.
And if you want to say he was ousted, I agree, he has ousted himself by fleeing to papa Vlad safety.
|
On May 17 2014 05:08 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2014 02:11 mahrgell wrote:On May 17 2014 00:55 Cheerio wrote:
That politicians need to stay way from constitutional changes which the population overwhelmingly disapproves of? Scary idea indeed. What you wrote was more along the lines: "We riot against any elected parliament, until they only do, what we want." - Which is indeed not how democracy works. And it is indeed worrying, that both sides in the Ukraine conflict think, that their only chance lies in polarizing opinions even further. Yes, if all decisions are binary, it is only about against it or for it, majorities automatically happen. But you also divide the country even further. And both sides are doing their best to make any return to normal communication impossible. Even if Russia would now suddenly decide to sit back, leave the separatists alone, and wait until they are crushed... The damage is done. And both sides have their fair share in it. Russia has certainly the bigger active part, but the western side has made it way too easy for them, and while I was positively surprised about the western Ukraines actions during the Crimea crisis, what has happened the last two weeks it looks like they joined the Russians in their methods. But hey... even back on page 50 of this thread, I said, that sometimes going slow, is the better way to achieve your goals, especially when the conflict was already won... But hey... REVOLUTION, YAY!!! Going Allin obviously worked super well for Euromaidan! Well... The only sad part is, that because of what has happened, the EU might feel, they have to attach them another huge burden only to oppose Russia. I just hope they are smart enough not to. The EU should remain an economic organization, that cares for it's own (members) profit, and not try to be the angel of peace, love and mercy for failed nations. So what exactly makes a nation a failed one? Being devided?
Just look at your potential presidential candidates and find a single reasonable one, that has not a huge track record of shit, that would get him imprisoned in any other democratic country. Or find at least one, actively tries to unite Ukraine, instead of just catering one sides interests.
Look at the polarization that has happened in the last few weeks, how will there ever be unity, if no matter who gets elected, he has half the country against him? When both sides think, that strikes and riots/revolutions/separatism are the only way to go, if the government doesn't do what they want.
Look at the power a bunch of oligarchs have, look at the deep in-rooted corruption in the entire country(not only your politics)... Honestly, if there is a black hole for money... Everyone should be happy, if it is on the opponents side and not the own one. But that is probably the reason, why the EU refused all deals with Ukraine all the years. They gave Ukraine the deals, it is worth... And that wasn't much. The cooperation agreement Yanukovych refused to sign wouldn't have done anything good to Ukraine. And everything more, Yanukovych asked from the EU, was declined. For good reasons. Because the EU isn't a charity organization and Ukraine had nothing to offer. The EU is a very elitist organization. Some people condemn this egoism. But hey... That is how this world works. And compared to Ukraine Greece is a booming country.
After all that has happened, Ukraines situation has certainly not improved. The only reason why Ukraine would get any help is to oppose Russia... And well... imho that's not worth it.
edit: and please put me in the same camp as nunez... There is not much in his posts I could agree on ^^
|
@roman
hm? surely there is close to a 100 casualties after the ouster of yanu. ~50 alone in odessa, regime in kiev prolly underestimating casualties.
|
On May 17 2014 05:04 Mc wrote:
Why is it that I want to have sex with basically all RT news broadcasters, the Attorney General Of Crimea, and now this minister of Luhansk Republic. The hottest American politician I know is Sarah Palin...
It doesn't take brain to read lies from the leaflets provided by government. Though appealing appeareance allows spreading lies very efficiently.
|
On May 17 2014 05:29 nunez wrote:
@roman
hm? surely there is close to a 100 casualties after the ouster of yanu. ~50 alone in odessa, regime in kiev prolly underestimating casualties.
Fair enough, I agree. Thought you mixed up the timeline of events. My bad, sorry.
|
@mahrgell
I think my point still stands : president flees -> you need to vote for a new one. But I think what you're getting at is that they could try to 'look' for him in order to make it clear, right? Basically, try to convince E. Ukraine that this 100% isn't a coup because you have a president who is in hiding. This would be great in retrospect... BUT, you would have to know the future : that there would be a separatist movement in the East (... there never had been, even after Orange revolution). Even if you didn't know about the movement and just wanted to ease tension in E. Ukraine, you would have to have influence on the news sources that pro-Russians watch in E. Ukraine. But they clearly didn't. Trying to delay the decision by a few days seems like it wouldn't really accomplish much.
As to the forming of the new government - it was approved by a vast majority of parliament (70 something percent I believe), and the fact that the Maidan council approved it allowed Ukraine to move forward. Maidan was mostly disbanded.
You couldn't stop the Lenin statues from being destroyed, no pro-West/neutral politician in their right mind would say "save Lenin", and Lenin statues should be destroyed (excuse the slightly excessive comparison but imagine having Hitler statues in Germany). As a side-note, there still are hundreds of Lenin statues throughout Ukraine including *dozens* in Kyiv.
You forget to mention the most idiotic thing that was done after Yanukovych was voted out. The government tried to remove Russian as an official language (this was a recently introduced law by Yanukovych). This was a huge mistake in my opinion. Luckily it never passed, but the damage was already done.
So I agree with you that Ukraine needed to do a better job at trying to be more inclusive or friendly to the Russians of E. Ukraine, but at the same time I'm not really sure what they could have done? Russia was actively controlling the information they got, and any actions that Ukraine performed would be down-played/ignored.
Finally, as to Ukraine's role between East and West it's a very complex situation and I myself have my doubts about whether Ukraine can become "European". Russia will do everything in it's power to stop that (*cough* Crimea, *cough* E. Ukraine, *cough* gas embargo). So one option is for Ukraine to tighten their belts, stand up to Russian aggression, accept destabilization efforts/unrest in the East, and try to reform. Second option is to continue as they were, a failed Kleptocracy with strong Western aspirations that is basically Russia's bitch. I really don't see a third option were Ukraine becomes some sort of strange independent state that is in neither camp. I'd be curious to hear an argument as to how that would actually work?
|
|
|
On May 17 2014 05:36 Mc wrote:
@mahrgell
I think my point still stands : president flees -> you need to vote for a new one. But I think what you're getting at is that they could try to 'look' for him in order to make it clear, right? Basically, try to convince E. Ukraine that this 100% isn't a coup because you have a president who is in hiding. This would be great in retrospect... BUT, you would have to know the future : that there would be a separatist movement in the East (... there never had been, even after Orange revolution). Even if you didn't know about the movement and just wanted to ease tension in E. Ukraine, you would have to have influence on the news sources that pro-Russians watch in E. Ukraine. But they clearly didn't. Trying to delay the decision by a few days seems like it wouldn't really accomplish much.
As to the forming of the new government - it was approved by a vast majority of parliament (70 something percent I believe), and the fact that the Maidan council approved it allowed Ukraine to move forward. Maidan was mostly disbanded.
You couldn't stop the Lenin statues from being destroyed, no pro-West/neutral politician in their right mind would say "save Lenin", and Lenin statues should be destroyed (excuse the slightly excessive comparison but imagine having Hitler statues in Germany). As a side-note, there still are hundreds of Lenin statues throughout Ukraine including *dozens* in Kyiv.
You forget to mention the most idiotic thing that was done after Yanukovych was voted out. The government tried to remove Russian as an official language (this was a recently introduced law by Yanukovych). This was a huge mistake in my opinion. Luckily it never passed, but the damage was already done.
So I agree with you that Ukraine needed to do a better job at trying to be more inclusive or friendly to the Russians of E. Ukraine, but at the same time I'm not really sure what they could have done? Russia was actively controlling the information they got, and any actions that Ukraine performed would be down-played/ignored.
Finally, as to Ukraine's role between East and West it's a very complex situation and I myself have my doubts about whether Ukraine can become "European". Russia will do everything in it's power to stop that (*cough* Crimea, *cough* E. Ukraine, *cough* gas embargo). So one option is for Ukraine to tighten their belts, stand up to Russian aggression, accept destabilization efforts/unrest in the East, and try to reform. Second option is to continue as they were, a failed Kleptocracy with strong Western aspirations that is basically Russia's bitch. I really don't see a third option were Ukraine becomes some sort of strange independent state that is in neither camp. I'd be curious to hear an argument as to how that would actually work?
Well, imho Ukraine was in a downward spiral for years. The problem it always had, was it's highly corrupt system. Any profits made were drained by the system. More then a decade in the 90's this worked somehow, as Ukraine was able to use it's unique position between Russia and Europe to it's advantage. Russia had no choice but to use Ukrainian pipelines. And Ukraine earned well from it. It got super cheap gas, most likely even stole from the deliveries to Europe, and was apply to supply it's own corrupt elites.
But then Gerhard Schröder and the Pipeline through the Baltic Sea happened. Our in retrospect highly corrupt chancellor and his best buddyPutin built a pipeline through the Baltic sea, completely circumventing Ukraine. Schröder earned well by getting a leading manager position in the pipeline project, Europe earned well, because they were not reliant on Ukraine anymore, and Putin earned even more. There was only one loser in the entire project. Ukraine. And suddenly they missed the money feeding their terrible system. Over all the Years Yanukovych and Tymoshenko tried to get something from the EU, but didn't get shit... Because the EU simply didn't need Ukraine anymore, and if your corruption overhead is as high it is , as it was with Ukraine, dealing with them was simply not worth it. And so there were some alibi offers of agreements, which were basically without any substance. (at least for Ukraine) Well.. in the end Tymoshenko and Yanukovych both had to turn towards Russia. Russia always had a different approach then the EU. While the EU only pumps money into things, that return even more money, Russia asks for power and influence in return. They didn't mind Ukraines elites pocketing all the money they received, as long as Ukraine did what they were told.
And now... Suddenly half of Ukraines population wants to be western without realizing, that as Ukraine is now, there is no reason for the West to want Ukraine as one of theirs. And even worse, if the Ukraine wants to be a western country, they get treated by Russia as one. It is ironical to read the Ukrainian complaints about Russia raising it's gasprizes. HEY? Wtf did they expect? If they want to be a western country, they pay the same gasprizes as everyone else in the west. Why do they even complain?
And as you asked for a solution... Well... Ukraine has to become competitive. But that can only be achieved, if they get rid of their huge overhead of corruption. As long as their production is as expensive as the German one while being less efficient then Romania... Well... Nothing will happen. But if they finally manage to fix their system even though this will probably bring an awful decade (Because with change you always have to go down a few steps before you can rise), there is certainly hope for them, as they still have some advantages in their position between Russia and the EU... As long as they don't make one side entirely hostile.
|
Even if Ukraine was a failed state, it's quite ironic that she would have to cope with the foolish desires of a minority of Russian nationalists and fanatics when Russia is also another failed state.
|
On May 17 2014 05:10 nunez wrote:saying yanu was ousted is on point, mahgrell, even msm uses that phrasing. mc is rambling. he's also still the legitimate president according to ukraine's constitution, so president in exile? doubt majority wants him back, but if they could go back in time they'd prolly rather want to go with the compromise and save the ~100 lives that have been lost since. seems like ukraine is a failed state at this point... Loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
Inability to provide public services
Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community full score i think? hillarious to think that if your elected leader leaves the country, the next day, as long as you convince enough idiots that he/she fled you can chuck the constitution out of the window and do what you please.
@nunez
Oh the return of Nunez.... are you afraid of facts nunez?
source:
328 of 447 members of the Ukrainian parliament (MPs)—or about 73% of the MPs—voted to "remove Viktor Yanukovych from the post of president of Ukraine" on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties.
Yanukovych:
"I didn't flee anywhere" ... "When I was still in Kiev, I was shot at from automatic fire. The car that was sheltering me was practically shot at from all sides"
So, any evidence of that? Nope. None at all, just the word of a corrupt president who you yourself (form what I recall) admitted was a scum bag.
Do you believe a country can just sit around and twiddle it's thumbs, while it's acting president has fled? No it has to do something about it *immediately*, especially in a time of crisis (i.e. chaos throughout country, Russia about to invade, etc).
The issue with his removal was that the constitution had no provision for a president who has fled office. Ukraine is not a perfect democracy, so it isn't surprising that their constitution is flawed in such a way. So rather than impeaching him, they voted to remove him from office in some complex constitutional way (although whether it was perfectly constitutional is debatable, not everything in the constitution is black and white). A good source explaining the situation (source).
Also, 73% of parliament voted for the removal of the president. 82% voted for Arseniy Yatsenyuk, including 94/123 members of the party of regions. I would assume at least half of the party of regions similarly voted for Yanukovych's removal (but I don't have a source for that).
The countries choice was to try to move on without an acting president (i.e. they can't pass laws, countless other things, and most importantly can't deal with the crisis at hand, while their country is falling apart in chaos), or pass a law (with a quite significant majority of parliament) to remove the president and try to move on towards resolving the crisis.
So, could you tell me *precisely and factually* what is wrong with my analysis? Could we just move on and accept that Ukraine's government is more legitimate than a government that is constitutionally able to pass laws because the president had fled and isn't there to sign them? Or are you going to just keep spouting the conspiracy theory crap you usually do?
|
posted this before:
...
Ascertaining the legitimacy of the interim government in Kiev is quite tricky. According to Article 111 of the Ukrainian constitution, the President can only be impeached from office by parliament through “no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition.” On February 22, 2014 the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to impeach President Yanukovych who fled to Russia the night prior. However for an effective impeachment under constitutional rules the 449-seated parliament would have needed 337 votes to remove Yanukovych from office. Thus under the current constitution, Yanukovych is still the incumbent and legitimate President of the Ukraine.
... lawfareblog
seems pretty clear cut, the vote was not legitimate. ousted is a fitting word for the situation, i think you'll have to bow to bbc, guardian, washingtonpost etc...
|
Don't bother arguing with Nunez.
|
On May 17 2014 05:26 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2014 05:08 Cheerio wrote:On May 17 2014 02:11 mahrgell wrote:On May 17 2014 00:55 Cheerio wrote:
That politicians need to stay way from constitutional changes which the population overwhelmingly disapproves of? Scary idea indeed. What you wrote was more along the lines: "We riot against any elected parliament, until they only do, what we want." - Which is indeed not how democracy works. And it is indeed worrying, that both sides in the Ukraine conflict think, that their only chance lies in polarizing opinions even further. Yes, if all decisions are binary, it is only about against it or for it, majorities automatically happen. But you also divide the country even further. And both sides are doing their best to make any return to normal communication impossible. Even if Russia would now suddenly decide to sit back, leave the separatists alone, and wait until they are crushed... The damage is done. And both sides have their fair share in it. Russia has certainly the bigger active part, but the western side has made it way too easy for them, and while I was positively surprised about the western Ukraines actions during the Crimea crisis, what has happened the last two weeks it looks like they joined the Russians in their methods. But hey... even back on page 50 of this thread, I said, that sometimes going slow, is the better way to achieve your goals, especially when the conflict was already won... But hey... REVOLUTION, YAY!!! Going Allin obviously worked super well for Euromaidan! Well... The only sad part is, that because of what has happened, the EU might feel, they have to attach them another huge burden only to oppose Russia. I just hope they are smart enough not to. The EU should remain an economic organization, that cares for it's own (members) profit, and not try to be the angel of peace, love and mercy for failed nations. So what exactly makes a nation a failed one? Being devided? Just look at your potential presidential candidates and find a single reasonable one, that has not a huge track record of shit, that would get him imprisoned in any other democratic country.
Poroshenko. Lets see the promised huge track record of shit, that would get him imprisoned in any other democratic country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
