On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote: Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings. So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw: as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now!
If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled.
That's not what's going on here.
If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in?
You don't send your forces into another country because your minority "feels threatened".
If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do.
And would Russia allow for the same democratic processes in their own state? No they wouldn't. Because oil and gas-rich territories would have split away a long time ago and lived like kings now, while Moscow region would have been the New Detroit.
On February 28 2014 00:32 farvacola wrote: ^No they didn't. And I'm glad to see that Zeo is still utterly unable to back up what he says with anything more than random youtube videos and WW2 atrocity nostalgia.
Suppose it's a step up from random photoshops to prove a point. Always see the bright side.
Hello friend. I see you have just registered here yesterday and yet you seem to already have a vast knowledge about my posting history. If you are not a PBU trying to get around a permaban you are more than welcome to enter the pro-NATO circlejerk, because indeed, everyone has a right to their own opinions. I hope you have a pleasant time at Team Liquid
Hi there. You might want to check "m4inbrain", my proper account, which i can't access right now but is in the process to be resolved (no, not perma or any other form of banned, just an email-adress-problem). I'm following the thread pretty thoroughly, so yes, i have a pretty good knowledge about what you're posting in here, don't worry too much. If i get something wrong, which i haven't so far, you can always correct me.
There's middleground between "NATO-circlejerk" and the "russian-idiocracy", you know. I don't approve of alot of things that happened in the past weeks, but at least, i form my opinion without west or east in mind, which you and alot of your circlejerk-friends (no, you're not an ounce different than the "pro-west side") are missing.
Indeed that account does exist. Carry on then.
I certainly do not approve of everything Russia or the NATO are doing in the world. If you read all of my posts in this thread you would know I was all for a referendum and early elections. I expressed my concern that there were violent agitators on the street who wanted nothing more than to have the police return fire. I saw groups that clearly didn't want a peaceful end to the crises, who were more than happy to run their country into the ground.
Then I started really looking into who these people were. What I found was that 90% of the people doing the fighting/killing/dieing on the street didn't want to get into the EU at all. That some 30-40% of the people pushing for Maidan were ultra-nationalists who want to build their national identity on hatred of other people, while at the same time glorifying Nazi collaborators. As well as outright fascists and neo-nazi's/anarcists, and run of the mill crazies who just want to destroy things. I'm sure many of the people who are being labeled as Putinists in this thread for some reason came to the same conclusion as I did:
"Whatever these people want, I want the opposite"
Its quite simple really. I hate communism, communism brought great tragedy to my country and people and I really, really don't like people who support the return of communism in my country. Following that line of thought if communism is a hole in the ground, fascism jumped into that hole and brought a shovel with it. Nazi collaborators are the worst, when they make up 30% of a movement something is seriously wrong with that movement and it has been proven time and time again that giving even a little power to fascists is something that is very wrong, as seen with what is happening in the Ukraine right now. Yanukovych was a bad leader, no doubt about that. But the people leading the junta right now are animals.
The junta controlling Kiev, moments after coming to power automatically started restricting human rights, taking away rights and restricting freedom of speech. Not only this, they pushed for a purge of everything to do with the history of Ukraine they deem undesirable, a kind of book burning, to destroy the culture of the Ukrainians that fought Ukrainian fascism.
And where, pray tell, did you look?
(Realize that again referencing youtube videos will only further validate the notion that you are arguing on behalf of a bullshit agenda.)
Normal people look at all the media sources and bring an educated opinion. Only watching CNN/BBC/FOX means that you have a clearly warped view of reality. Watching only RT or Al Jazeera is the same, but here is where the magic happens. You watch NATO and non-NATO media together, if they show a thing happening (like the rise of fascism and extremism in the Ukraine) in both circles of media then it has a much higher probability of being true.
And then of course you form your own opinion, I'm sure you'll get it down someday.
If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do.
And would Russia allow for the same democratic processes in their own state? No they wouldn't. Because oil and gas-rich territories would have split away a long time ago and lived like kings now, while Moscow region would have been the New Detroit.
No country would allow these 'democratic' processes that have been going on in Ukraine.
On February 28 2014 02:33 Derez wrote: How about some articles from a respected news outlet then? Excluding RT seeing how its pure propaganda.
The same thing could be said about about western controlled media following an agenda. You have to view both sides of the story and form your own conclusion.
edit: The cold war, as seen by the horrifically bad moral standards of journalism in western and some 'eastern' media, never ended.
So how can the supporters of the ousted president expect support if he fled to russia, and now gunmen have raised a russian flag over a government building?
On February 28 2014 02:33 Derez wrote: How about some articles from a respected news outlet then? Excluding RT seeing how its pure propaganda.
The same thing could be said about about western controlled media following an agenda. You have to view both sides of the story and form your own conclusion.
So photoshopped pictures are more reliable than our news? Gotcha.
On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote: Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings. So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw: as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now!
If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled.
That's not what's going on here.
If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do.
If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!"
It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair.
I am surprised a German had to look this hard to find an example of Germany coming to protect its oppressed people. Why not go for the gold -- Sudaten Land Germans were oppressed by evil Czechoslovakians so glorious Germany had to step in to protect their rights. After all, they voted that way and everything.
On February 27 2014 22:04 Saryph wrote: Sign of true heroes: Using sniper rifles to shoot the heads/necks of unarmed young women in white, with red crosses painted on their bodies, who are doing nothing other than trying to help the wounded.
Indeed, there were policemen shooting at demostrators including such terrible accidents (which often become a symbol of revolutions, saying that killing red-crosses people is what government wants). Policeman killing people with red-crosses is ***. Police tolerated attacks for the first time. And when the modern ukrainian insurgent army assaulted government buildings in the main attack, police had to use guns, because nationalists already had over 1500 guns in their hands seized on 19th of February.
But look at these policemen, and imagine if you were one of them, defending the buildings: + Show Spoiler +
You may see in the end of this video that police really responded violently. But don't consider this fact as an official command from government.
And imagine what would happen to similar "demonstrants" if they assaulted US government buildings with molotov cocktails and guns... Now there are massive threats and repressions to Berkut families and deputies of "Regions" party. Yanukovich betrayed policemen as well as the whole country.
If you believe that demonstrants are peaceful people wanting EU integration and not radical nationalists, neo-fascists, the followers of Bandera, then watch the number of red-black flags that symbolize them. Read carefully about who carries the flag and you will find that activists do not support Ukrainian EU membership, since they consider the European Union (EU) to be an "oppressor of European nations"
Now organized radical forces have control over the whole western part with Kiev. You know what are the first laws that were issued in the captured rada. Even if many deputies do not belong to nationalists, now they are under a big military pressure from Yarosh forces. + Show Spoiler +
Believe or not, on 25th of February in Рівненська oblast another nationalists leader threatened with AK-47 at officials session:
It's not difficult to guess that the next victims of armed troops are southern and eastern parts who do not support violent revolution. But it's definitely not russian forces taking control of one government building with 60 fighters as it is a useless move. If russia was really going to defend Crimea, you would see at least several hundreds. Russia still stands apart from the conflict with no officials visiting Kiev in contrast to EU and US whose officials visited Kiev like every day putting pressure on Yanukovich and thus supporting violence on the streets. (As for US it is a common intervention of sovereign country.)
The stuff above does not mean at all that Yanukovich regime was acceptable. But it's questionable what will happen to the country with radical forces in government and huge economical fall after the "peaceful protests". And for users like darkness, I do not support Putin, I'm against him and don't mess things together as western mass media does, like supporting everyone who is against everything russian. If somebody wants to argue about Maidan events, first you must read http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_02_19/Ukrainian-nationalists-are-ideological-successors-of-Nazi-cooperators-expert-8791 and history of Bandera movement.
I tried to prove my words with relevant links since it's very difficult to state something truthful in the environment of informational war from western side. I hope that this message will dispel some myths about peaceful protests.
On February 28 2014 02:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So how can the supporters of the ousted president expect support if he fled to russia, and now gunmen have raised a russian flag over a government building?
The same way the rioters received support when armed thugs attacked city halls all over western Ukraine. Don't know why it was legal to take over a city hall and raise nazi collaborator flags then, but not now.
And I thought Zeo had it bad. Again, perhaps this is news to those who admire Putin or despise Western interests, youtube videos, no matter how many you toss out there, do an incredibly poor job of vetting a given opinion. In fact, given the manner in which internet debates tend to develop, it should be obvious that relying on videos with no certifiable context weakens a given opinion instead of strengthening it. I mean, come on, practically every poster in this thread who suggests that the protestors are categorically fascist destroyers attempts to prove so in the same manner, that being Russian titled youtube videos of spurious source history and pathetic rhetoric that deliberately ignores the possibility that the masses of Ukrainian protestors are in any way a diverse group. None of that stands up unless you already believe that practically everything from the West is made-up and that everything from the East is God-given truth. By immediately suggesting that one can know the true identity of thousands of protestors based on the loud and terrible actions of a few, you give those terrible actions far more power and influence than they deserve; doing so also reeks of an agenda so bad that it is truly alarming how little posters like the one above (AleXoundOS) seem to notice the gaps in their logic.
On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote: Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings. So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw: as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now!
If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
When your local minority in another country can't get their representative to be the head of the state you don't just send your troops in so they can help break away. By your logic Turkey should send their troops over as well to protect Crimean Tatars.
oh really?
maybe you will explain me why Joseph Stalin of gerogian minority was head of the biggest state on Earth? Or maybe Nikita Khrushev of ukrainian minority after him and Brezhnev of same minority after?
On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote: Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings. So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw: as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now!
If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled.
That's not what's going on here.
If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do.
If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!"
It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair.
I am surprised a German had to look this hard to find an example of Germany coming to protect its oppressed people. Why not go for the gold -- Sudaten Land Germans were oppressed by evil Czechoslovakians so glorious Germany had to step in to protect their rights. After all, they voted that way and everything.
I had to google vigorously now to check what you're talking about, since i wasn't sure comparing russia with the 3rd Reich and Hitler proves a point other than "russia is a country brainwashed by propaganda and would applaud every decision, regardless of the level of retardedness". Since that is the reason for alot of things that happened in germany 38-45.
Did i miss something? Not going to lie, not the slightest idea what you were trying to say.
On February 28 2014 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote: It's pretty funny that these Russians and zeo still don't understand Westerners, they just don't get that they aren't going to convince us by ham-handedly trying to appropriate the Western rhetoric of human rights and rule of law. Man those Westerners, they love them some self-determination and protecting minorities - not like us, understand - so maybe we can confuse them if we keep bleating about fantasy fascist takeovers and self-determination. All this concern about roving bands of fascist thugs and worry about that poor Russian-speaking minority that has not been oppressed at all - it's no surprise that all the Russian stooges here have had nothing to say in the past, other than in defense, of the Putin government using roving bands of fascist thugs to beat up gay people and journalists / dissidents in Russia. You see, there's a difference between the not-real Ukrainian oppression of Russian-speakers and the actually real Russian oppression of gays and dissidents. They're not sure what it is, but they'll give you some mangled rhetoric that sounds like it could have come from someone actually concerned about human rights, but you can tell, nah, they don't.
And now we have simply false claims being thrown out because if you can't win, throw enough mud around and maybe no terrorize the crowd by randomly killing people from above. Justified by the Russian keyboard warriors because bullshit. one will win.
Sorry, Berkut snipers were not sent out to counter snipers in the ranks of the protesters. Berkut snipers were sent out to
Russia is well within its rights to invade another sovereign country because reasons that were among those the US enumerated when it invaded Iraq. So, guys, guess George Bush was right then? Right, r.Evo? Self-determination of the Kurds and the Shiites and all that. Saddam had laws against minority languages and all the rest of things being thrown out here as justification for Russia to wage a war of aggression against the Ukraine. If it's good for Russia, it's good for the US... right? In fact the US invasion of Iraq would be even more justified then, the US invaded not to "help" people of its own ethnic majority identity, it invaded Iraq to "help" bronzeish-skinned people like the Kurds, according to the US government. Russia is just "protecting" people of its own ethnic majority identity. If the eastern Ukrainians were speakers of a Turkic language and had darker skin would Russia still be so eager to "protect" them and would you guys with your garbage about how Russia is justified because fake oppression still be so eager to defend Russia?
r.Evo you should be ashamed of yourself for specious stuff you've put up here.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
And that's why it is really, really hard for anyone to take you seriously when you say stuff that is so patently ridiculous.
Your standard of self-determination is quite frankly fucking ridiculous, the Russian-speakers of the Ukraine are not worried that they're going to be oppressed by the Ukrainian-speakers, they're pissed that they can't oppress the Ukrainian-speakers anymore. We can't dominate the politics of the country any more for our own selfish, corrupt, and immoral gain so we're going to leave. They're oppressing us by not letting us do that anymore! We're scared that we're going to get the shitty end of the stick we've been giving everyone else so we're taking our ball and going home, it's an expression of our inalienable rights!
Pretty much the same argument used by the Confederates in the American Civil War, just as crap now as it was then.
Current scenario: Russia shows some military presence in their border regions. Theory: It's completely unjustifiable and horrible IF Russia dares to invade Ukraine. Evo: IF violent crimes happen towards the ethnically Russian people in Ukraine Russia has a reasonable justification in front of other countries to intervene. To be more precise, a justification that is really, really hard to argue against from the perspective of other countries since in this scenario Russia would be the good guys aka the people protecting civilians.
If you'd like to compare this to the war in Iraq (personally I don't recall Americans living over there and the US stepping in to protect them, but, hey who cares)... what did the UN do against it again? What were the repercussions against anyone having anything to say in it again? In front of the "international community" you guys are making look so glorious on a gigantic white horse no one cared. Oh, right, the majority of the population in quite some countries was basically like "Well it's kinda bad what they're doing" but no one on a political or military level cared enough to prevent or stop it until 8 years after it started.
That's exactly the scenario I'm talking about. If Russia intervenes with a somewhat reasonable explanation (and tbh "They're attacking civilians" still beats the crap out of "Well they have WoMD.. erhm.. they're terrorists... erhm, fuck it might as well grab some oil while we're here.") no one will stop them. There is simply no single country that will step up and say "Yo, we won't let you march into there like that." - why not? Because the international community will see such a reasoning as acceptable for intervening.
I'm not saying it would be a great scenario and an awesome move by Russia that I applaud. I don't believe that, assuming this happens, Russia would actually care about bringing democracy, peace and rainbows - they'd look forward to splitting off the pro-Russian territory and population and do with them as they please. You're the one attaching emotional weight to the whole "good guys" part.
Who are the good guys? Well, to pull it back to your Iraq war: It definitely weren't the Iraqi people.
PS: Also where is that Russian minority dominating Ukrainian politics again? As much as Yanukovych was awful for his country he still was democratically elected and everyone from ENEMO to PACE called those elections completely legit. He wasn't exactly put into power by a Russian conspiracy. Please take the time to actually inform yourself before you tell others to be ashamed for explaining things.
On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote: Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings. So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw: as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now!
If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled.
That's not what's going on here.
If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do.
If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!"
It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair.
I am surprised a German had to look this hard to find an example of Germany coming to protect its oppressed people. Why not go for the gold -- Sudaten Land Germans were oppressed by evil Czechoslovakians so glorious Germany had to step in to protect their rights. After all, they voted that way and everything.
I had to google vigorously now to check what you're talking about, since i wasn't sure comparing russia with the 3rd Reich and Hitler proves a point other than "russia is a country brainwashed by propaganda and would applaud every decision, regardless of the level of retardedness". Since that is the reason for alot of things that happened in germany 38-45.
Did i miss something? Not going to lie, not the slightest idea what you were trying to say.
Our German friend here was explaining to the rest of us how countries feel that they have the right to intervene to protect their own minorities and he was trying to come up with an incredibly tortured example of Germany protecting its minority: so I gave him a more direct example of the actions he was speaking of. An ethnic minority 'felt oppressed', elected an 'anti-Czechoslovakian' leader and then appealed to Germany to safe them. And they did.
On February 28 2014 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote: It's pretty funny that these Russians and zeo still don't understand Westerners, they just don't get that they aren't going to convince us by ham-handedly trying to appropriate the Western rhetoric of human rights and rule of law. Man those Westerners, they love them some self-determination and protecting minorities - not like us, understand - so maybe we can confuse them if we keep bleating about fantasy fascist takeovers and self-determination. All this concern about roving bands of fascist thugs and worry about that poor Russian-speaking minority that has not been oppressed at all - it's no surprise that all the Russian stooges here have had nothing to say in the past, other than in defense, of the Putin government using roving bands of fascist thugs to beat up gay people and journalists / dissidents in Russia. You see, there's a difference between the not-real Ukrainian oppression of Russian-speakers and the actually real Russian oppression of gays and dissidents. They're not sure what it is, but they'll give you some mangled rhetoric that sounds like it could have come from someone actually concerned about human rights, but you can tell, nah, they don't.
And now we have simply false claims being thrown out because if you can't win, throw enough mud around and maybe no terrorize the crowd by randomly killing people from above. Justified by the Russian keyboard warriors because bullshit. one will win.
Sorry, Berkut snipers were not sent out to counter snipers in the ranks of the protesters. Berkut snipers were sent out to
Russia is well within its rights to invade another sovereign country because reasons that were among those the US enumerated when it invaded Iraq. So, guys, guess George Bush was right then? Right, r.Evo? Self-determination of the Kurds and the Shiites and all that. Saddam had laws against minority languages and all the rest of things being thrown out here as justification for Russia to wage a war of aggression against the Ukraine. If it's good for Russia, it's good for the US... right? In fact the US invasion of Iraq would be even more justified then, the US invaded not to "help" people of its own ethnic majority identity, it invaded Iraq to "help" bronzeish-skinned people like the Kurds, according to the US government. Russia is just "protecting" people of its own ethnic majority identity. If the eastern Ukrainians were speakers of a Turkic language and had darker skin would Russia still be so eager to "protect" them and would you guys with your garbage about how Russia is justified because fake oppression still be so eager to defend Russia?
r.Evo you should be ashamed of yourself for specious stuff you've put up here.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
And that's why it is really, really hard for anyone to take you seriously when you say stuff that is so patently ridiculous.
Your standard of self-determination is quite frankly fucking ridiculous, the Russian-speakers of the Ukraine are not worried that they're going to be oppressed by the Ukrainian-speakers, they're pissed that they can't oppress the Ukrainian-speakers anymore. We can't dominate the politics of the country any more for our own selfish, corrupt, and immoral gain so we're going to leave. They're oppressing us by not letting us do that anymore! We're scared that we're going to get the shitty end of the stick we've been giving everyone else so we're taking our ball and going home, it's an expression of our inalienable rights!
Pretty much the same argument used by the Confederates in the American Civil War, just as crap now as it was then.
Current scenario: Russia shows some military presence in their border regions. Theory: It's completely unjustifiable and horrible IF Russia dares to invade Ukraine. Evo: IF violent crimes happen towards the ethnically Russian people in Ukraine Russia has a reasonable justification in front of other countries to intervene. To be more precise, a justification that is really, really hard to argue against from the perspective of other countries since in this scenario Russia would be the good guys aka the people protecting civilians.
If you'd like to compare this to the war in Iraq (personally I don't recall Americans living over there and the US stepping in to protect them, but, hey who cares)... what did the UN do against it again? What were the repercussions against anyone having anything to say in it again? In front of the "international community" you guys are making look so glorious on a gigantic white horse no one cared. Oh, right, the majority of the population in quite some countries was basically like "Well it's kinda bad what they're doing" but no one on a political or military level cared enough to prevent or stop it until 8 years after it started.
That's exactly the scenario I'm talking about. If Russia intervenes with a somewhat reasonable explanation (and tbh "They're attacking civilians" still beats the crap out of "Well they have WoMD.. erhm.. they're terrorists... erhm, fuck it might as well grab some oil while we're here.") no one will stop them. There is simply no single country that will step up and say "Yo, we won't let you march into there like that." - why not? Because the international community will see such a reasoning as acceptable for intervening.
I'm not saying it would be a great scenario and an awesome move by Russia that I applaud. I don't believe that, assuming this happens, Russia would actually care about bringing democracy, peace and rainbows - they'd look forward to splitting off the pro-Russian territory and population and do with them as they please. You're the one attaching emotional weight to the whole "good guys" part.
Who are the good guys? Well, to pull it back to your Iraq war: It definitely weren't the Iraqi people.
PS: Also where is that Russian minority dominating Ukrainian politics again? As much as Yanukovych was awful for his country he still was democratically elected and everyone from ENEMO to PACE called those elections completely legit. He wasn't exactly put into power by a Russian conspiracy. Please take the time to actually inform yourself before you tell others to be ashamed for explaining things.
While i agree to a certain degree what you say, you seem to miss that most of that "reason" is forged by media to monger fear. Its like holding a delicious, juicy bone infront of a dogs face, and as soon as he bites into that bone, claim that he attacked you to justify that you just wanted him dead in the first place.
That's what i personally have a problem with. Not russia protecting their people, but slowly forging a reason to invade, escalating fear etc by mobilizing their army near the borders. "Scheduled manouvers" my ass.
On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote: Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings. So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw: as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now!
If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled.
That's not what's going on here.
If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do.
If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!"
It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair.
I am surprised a German had to look this hard to find an example of Germany coming to protect its oppressed people. Why not go for the gold -- Sudaten Land Germans were oppressed by evil Czechoslovakians so glorious Germany had to step in to protect their rights. After all, they voted that way and everything.
I had to google vigorously now to check what you're talking about, since i wasn't sure comparing russia with the 3rd Reich and Hitler proves a point other than "russia is a country brainwashed by propaganda and would applaud every decision, regardless of the level of retardedness". Since that is the reason for alot of things that happened in germany 38-45.
Did i miss something? Not going to lie, not the slightest idea what you were trying to say.
Our German friend here was explaining to the rest of us how countries feel that they have the right to intervene to protect their own minorities and he was trying to come up with an incredibly tortured example of Germany protecting its minority: so I gave him a more direct example of the actions he was speaking of. An ethnic minority 'felt oppressed', elected an 'anti-Czechoslovakian' leader and then appealed to Germany to safe them. And they did.
And again. You're comparing russia to the country that also felt that poland should be german. And france. And austria. And the UK. And quite alot of other countries. Not to mention, forged a reason (lied) to invade poland. Not entirely sure that there is any point to gain if you compare things that nazi-germany did to anything.
Point being: nazi-germany back in the day had an agenda anyway. World domination. So to me at least, that's completely void.
On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote: Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings. So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw: as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now!
If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled.
That's not what's going on here.
If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do.
If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!"
It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair.
I am surprised a German had to look this hard to find an example of Germany coming to protect its oppressed people. Why not go for the gold -- Sudaten Land Germans were oppressed by evil Czechoslovakians so glorious Germany had to step in to protect their rights. After all, they voted that way and everything.
I had to google vigorously now to check what you're talking about, since i wasn't sure comparing russia with the 3rd Reich and Hitler proves a point other than "russia is a country brainwashed by propaganda and would applaud every decision, regardless of the level of retardedness". Since that is the reason for alot of things that happened in germany 38-45.
Did i miss something? Not going to lie, not the slightest idea what you were trying to say.
Our German friend here was explaining to the rest of us how countries feel that they have the right to intervene to protect their own minorities and he was trying to come up with an incredibly tortured example of Germany protecting its minority: so I gave him a more direct example of the actions he was speaking of. An ethnic minority 'felt oppressed', elected an 'anti-Czechoslovakian' leader and then appealed to Germany to safe them. And they did.
And again. You're comparing russia to the country that also felt that poland should be german. And france. And austria. And the UK. And quite alot of other countries. Not to mention, forged a reason (lied) to invade poland. Not entirely sure that there is any point to gain if you compare things that nazi-germany did to anything.
Are you being purposefully stubborn? Please re-read r.Evo point: If a country has a minority in another country, and it feels that that minority is oppressed it has the right to intervene. That was his broader point. To illustrate it he chose the German minority in Romania -- which is a strange choice since Germany has never intervened to protect them despite the fact that they live in a country where they have less rights than the Crimean Autonomous Republic does in Ukraine. A much better example of what r.Evo outlined as a right of a government is a situation where Germany actually did interfere to protect a German minority against a democratic government which is Sudatenland.
On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote: Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings. So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw: as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now!
If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled.
That's not what's going on here.
If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do.
If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!"
It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair.
I am surprised a German had to look this hard to find an example of Germany coming to protect its oppressed people. Why not go for the gold -- Sudaten Land Germans were oppressed by evil Czechoslovakians so glorious Germany had to step in to protect their rights. After all, they voted that way and everything.
I'm surprised someone who results to ad hominem forgot that the relevant international community back then (namely France and the UK) completely agreed with the German point of view and no one cared about what Czechoslovakia thought of the whole deal. That's kind of what the Munich Agreement was all about and why the parts were given up pretty much without a fight.
On February 27 2014 18:22 mahrgell wrote: Sounds like what usually happens with North Korea doing some weird shit and spontaneous US-South Korean trainings. So boring stuff, but everyone likes to show off a bit and pretends to be supermegaawesome.
Btw: as it wasnt mentioned: Berkut was dissolved yesterday by the new minister of internal affairs. Well.. they ould have been useful now!
If I understand things correctly Russia is making these moves to defend the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, so comparing it to NK/SK might not be a smart move.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of a certain area is Russian speaking (aka eastern Ukraine) they have all the rights in the world to be protected of the Ukrainian speaking population of the west, assuming they feel threatened and/or not represented in their parliament.
At the very least I find it really, really hard to argue against the Russians being the "good guys" here.
That's nonsense. Being russian-speaking gives no rights of any kind. I don't see Germany sending its troops around the globe every time some foreigner who has learned German is imperilled.
That's not what's going on here.
If the ethnically Russian and/or Russian speaking population in the regions shown above feel threatened by the Ukrainian population and more connected to Russia than to their "own" country who else would be supposed to step in? If anything the most reasonable approach (assuming actual violence against those groups) would be for Russia to step in and allow the people living there a democratic vote to make them choose what they'd like to do.
If you want to look at a similar (theoretical example) about Germany it would be about the Banat Swabians or Transylvanian Saxons in Romania. Both are ethnically Germans, speak mostly German dialects and can (mostly afaik) acquire German citizenship easily. If (and that's a big if since most people in those regions left the country over the last 50 years, let's assume there aren't just old people left for a second) for some reason Romania would not have a working government anymore and those people would feel threatened by the Romanian population for whatever reason it would be most reasonable for Germany to step in and say "Yo, don't touch our people!"
It obviously is a thin line, but I genuinely see it hard to argue against a line of: "Hey, there are Russian people under attack over there and the 'state' doesn't exist / doesn't give a fuck. We're here to secure the peace and make sure the Russian speaking population can be democratically represented." - It definitely is a LOT tamer than some of the explanations other states have gotten away with when it comes to intervening in another countries affair.
I am surprised a German had to look this hard to find an example of Germany coming to protect its oppressed people. Why not go for the gold -- Sudaten Land Germans were oppressed by evil Czechoslovakians so glorious Germany had to step in to protect their rights. After all, they voted that way and everything.
I'm surprised someone who results to ad hominem forgot that the relevant international community back then (namely France and the UK) completely agreed with the German point of view and no one cared about what Czechoslovakia thought of the whole deal. That's kind of what the Munich Agreement was all about and why the parts were given up pretty much without a fight.
Its an ad homniem attack in what way? The situation in Sudatenland does not describe your position? That Germany -- or any country -- has the right to threaten another country to ensure that a minority Germany feels is oppressed can protected?
EPT
