Ketara wrote: I believe that principle to be inaccurate in this particular scenario. Why? Because there are many factors which have led to Africa or Iran staying poor or having less than perfect capability to exploit their resources that simply do not apply to Russia. Let's break it down a little.
Your list of factors simply aren't the factors that matter.
Technology is just a non-factor. Technology crosses borders at will. The inability of Africa and South America to turn their resources in to local wealth has nothing to do with being unable to access technology.
Really? Nothing whatsoever? I beg to differ.
If your technology comes from abroad with half a dozen financial and political strings attached, and you are incapable of manufacturing that technology at home, then you are dependent upon those other nations/corporate entities. What's more, because you have no homegrown technological/manufacturing sector of your own to innovate and improve, you're forced into a chain of dependency upon those entities for your technology. This dependency means that you have to constantly import that technology and expertise, at high cost to your own nation. That alone is not sufficient to trap a nation in poverty, and dependency upon other nations, but it's a damn good start.
Size is similarly irrelevant when it comes to prosperity.
'size'. Sorry. Not entirely sure what point of mine you're attempting to debunk here. If it's the throwaway phrase 'geographically minor', I meant to encompass relative GDP, physical size, and political/military clout compared to Iran within that phrase (to articulate a bit more carefully). And I would maintain that yes, those things do matter very much when pointing out why Iran is vulnerable to American trade sanctions, and Russia/a future EEC not so much.
It matters in political clout, but that's not what we're talking about here. When the US began its march to prosperity it had a very small population. Similarly my own country and much of Europe manages a very high standard of living despite having small populations. But if you look at the largest populations in the world, only the US has a first world standard of living. China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, Bangladesh... none of them have seen their size magically turn in to prosperity.
Size alone does not equal prosperity. But to quote an expert from a few months back:
sebster wrote:Past a certain point, the ability to expand your GDP comes almost solely down to population size.
Cultural and social cohesion get debated by economists, but only as a marginal factor.
You are right that state structures and institutions are important, but miles off the mark in claiming Russia's will develop their natural assets for the good of the State. Russia systems and institutions are hopelessly corrupt and woefully ineffective and inefficient. They call it a kleptocracy for a very good reason.
I'd rank cultural/social cohesion and state structure as inevitably intertwined in places like Africa (which was your original comparison, and thus, my response was tailored to your analogy appropriately). If you don't have the cultural or social predilection or habits for forming into nation states, you don't get the same level as efficiency in the institutions that go with them. Russia might have been run by a bunch of oligarchs throughout the nineties, but Putin has slowly curbed their excesses of the worst of them over the last decade or so, and it's far from beyond the realms of possibility that those institutions could be tightened further over the next five decades.
A total myth, debunked for more than a decade now. Soviet military spending didn't increase to match Reagan's increases, and was actually pretty consistently around 4-5% of GDP throughout the 70s and 80s, which is a pretty standard level of spending. No, their economy collapsed because it was built around systems that placed a tremendous drag on the economy, and when the political will to maintain those systems no longer existed then they fell away incredibly quickly, leading to a crash.
The issue now, is that the systems Russia put in their place aren't that much better.
I'll defer to you on this one, as I would regard my knowledge surrounding the economic collapse of the Soviet Union to be minor. I'll dig into it some more.
Trade isn't about not having everything you need. It's about who has the most optimal conditions in which to do it, and then doing more of that while other places make stuff they have the optimal conditions for, and then we trade. Seriously, just go off now and read about comparative advantage.
I mean, for your future prediction to make any damn sense, it would have happened to us here in Australia generations ago. We have all the resources we need to make what we want, and grow our own food. And yet we are one of the most aggressive free trade nations in the world... because what maximises our living conditions is to make more food than we need, and extract more resources than we need, and sell those to other countries, and then buy manufactured goods from those countries. The same will be true of Russia.
That's a purely capitalistic view of trade, which utterly fails to take into account cultural differences and the impact of political ideology or aims upon economics.
Ketara wrote: Really? Nothing whatsoever? I beg to differ.
If your technology comes from abroad with half a dozen financial and political strings attached, and you are incapable of manufacturing that technology at home, then you are dependent upon those other nations/corporate entities. What's more, because you have no homegrown technological/manufacturing sector of your own to innovate and improve, you're forced into a chain of dependency upon those entities for your technology.
Provided that imported tech could never be observed and absorbed in to your country. Whether or not that happens is dependent on the quality of a nation's institutions... as I've been saying all along.
'size'. Sorry. Not entirely sure what point of mine you're attempting to debunk here. If it's the throwaway phrase 'geographically minor', I meant to encompass relative GDP, physical size, and political/military clout to Iran within that phrase (to articulate a bit more carefully). And I would maintain that yes, those things do matter very much when pointing out why Iran is vulnerable to American trade sanctions, and Russia/a future EEC not so much.
Only if sanctions were a primary determinant in poverty. They've caned Iran, of course, but that's one country. In almost all cases the issue is entirely one of productivity - people have low individual incomes because individually they produce little. And the way to change that is with infrastructure, high quality institutions etc...
Size alone does not equal prosperity. But to quote an expert from a few months back:
sebster wrote:Past a certain point, the ability to expand your GDP comes almost solely down to population size.
First up - much much credit for the long memory
Second up, what I'm saying there is that GDP per capita tends to level off pretty quickly. Outside of a couple of small population oil exporters, the developed countries all cluster around 40k to 50k per capita. Countries beneath that can catch up fast by adapting the systems already in place in the developed countries (Germany was the first to do this by aping English industrial development, and ever since then one or two countries typically have been 'joining the club' at any given moment in time), but once you hit that upper limit then increasing GDP per capita is hard work.
But in terms of size helping you reach that point... that's not so much of a thing.
I'd rank cultural/social cohesion and state structure as inevitably intertwined in places like Africa or Afghanistan(which was your original comparison, and thus, my response was tailored to your analogy appropriately). If you don't have the cultural or social predilection or habits for forming into nation states, you don't get the same level as efficiency in the institutions that go with them. Russia might have been run by a bunch of oligarchs throughout the nineties, but Putin has slowly curbed their excesses of the worst of them over the last decade or so, and it's far from beyond the realms of possibility that those institutions could be tightened further over the next five decades.
I don't think those institutions are the kind of thing that can get reformed that quickly. Assuming that Russia could quickly reform its institutions was the mistake the IMF made, leading to the pilfering of so much Russian wealth by the connected elites in the 90s.
That's a purely capitalistic view of trade, which utterly fails to take into account cultural differences and the impact of political ideology or aims upon economics.
Economics, capitalist or otherwise, is merely the outcome of culture and politics. Provided, of course, we consider 'people looking to maximise personal wealth' to be a major part of culture and politics.
Formosa wrote: As an ex soldier I'm going to say something that won't be very popular, sod Ukraine, tactically I can see why Russia would not want to be surrounded by a potential enemy (eu) that's creepin up closer and closer through assimilation of the previous eastern Block countries. The reason I say sod them, I'm selfish, I do not want to kill our Russian cousins and they don't want to kill us, sadly these useless dicks called politicians don't seem to care.
Actually thats exceedingly popular. No one is doing anything about it.
If Europe really cared the massive EU army would have sent their combined might into Ukraine already. Thousands upong thousands of Brussels bureacrats would be manning the lines, sharpened pencils at the ready.
Frazzled wrote: Actually thats exceedingly popular. No one is doing anything about it.
If Europe really cared the massive EU army would have sent their combined might into Ukraine already.
Yeah, this is the major point. People want Russia to respect international law and national boundaries, but not enough to lose any of their owns sons fighting for it.
Not specifically aiming at you, sebster, but why the constant talk about soldiers and dying? We haven't even arrived at meaningful sanctions yet, so nobody can say if those would be or would have been sufficient. Apart from cases of self-defense, sending troops into any conflict that has the potential to become one of nuclear warfare is utter madness, so personally I don't even see that as an option.
Australian politics are not really on my radar and I lack the in-depth knowledge about the USA to comment about their views, but as far as Europe is concerned, the hard truth is that "the people" simply don't give a feth about Ukraine, which nobody outside the former communist countries would even call "European", and our politicians are not ready to risk even an increased price of Russian gas (as we've not yet arrived at the Russians considering closing the pipes for good, either).
As has been pointed out in this very thread, Russia, like the USA and many other "big players", does not have to respect international law (which is gooey enough as it is - I keep being amazed at how many people seem to believe it's anything like their local criminal code), because the boundaries of power are not laws, but the pain threshold of the other big players. As long as they don't feel hurt, you're free to do whatever you want.
Allod wrote: Not specifically aiming at you, sebster, but why the constant talk about soldiers and dying? We haven't even arrived at meaningful sanctions yet, so nobody can say if those would be or would have been sufficient.
To clarify, as well as pointing out that committing troops is unlikely, I also think it's quite unnecessary at this time. But I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that if this was some other place in the world where the US or the European powers saw much more important interests, troop commitments would be on the table.
Apart from cases of self-defense, sending troops into any conflict that has the potential to become one of nuclear warfare is utter madness, so personally I don't even see that as an option.
When a nation has nukes you can't just never ever fight them ever, and just hope they don't decide to just continue expanding their borders. You have to be willing to engage with conventional assets. What nuclear weapons change is that you won't ever risk escalating the conflict, advancing in to their territory or anything that might actually trigger a nuclear response.
Remember, afterall, that Russia is just as uninterested blowing up the world over the Ukraine as the rest of us.
As has been pointed out in this very thread, Russia, like the USA and many other "big players", does not have to respect international law (which is gooey enough as it is - I keep being amazed at how many people seem to believe it's anything like their local criminal code), because the boundaries of power are not laws, but the pain threshold of the other big players. As long as they don't feel hurt, you're free to do whatever you want.
It isn't just big players who get to ignore international law. Everyone gets to ignore international law as long as the issue in question is too small for them to bother with. It's just that the bigger you are, the bigger the piece of international law you get to ignore.
When a nation has nukes you can't just never ever fight them ever, and just hope they don't decide to just continue expanding their borders. You have to be willing to engage with conventional assets. What nuclear weapons change is that you won't ever risk escalating the conflict, advancing in to their territory or anything that might actually trigger a nuclear response.
Remember, afterall, that Russia is just as uninterested blowing up the world over the Ukraine as the rest of us.
Because the Russians love their children too?
In all seriousness, I disagree completely, because my life experience tells me that conflicts of the scale we're discussing here (40,000 Russian troops for starters) are not predictable or controllable, and even if they were, our leaders are totally unable to do either. If we all were so sensible all the time, nuclear deterrence wouldn't be a thing.
So, if you're a great power and start shooting at Russian soldiers, you should be sure that what you're fighting for is worth a nuclear exchange some time down the road. I doubt that anybody places that kind of value in the territorial integrity of a Soviet successor state that has practically no national history at all.
But that's just my opinion, and hopefully we'll never find out who of us is right.
It isn't just big players who get to ignore international law. Everyone gets to ignore international law as long as the issue in question is too small for them to bother with. It's just that the bigger you are, the bigger the piece of international law you get to ignore.
One on the right is easy on the eyes. Is this a protest or a Renaissance march? And whats with the hair with the dudes (?) on the left? Frazzled confused.
Best to nuke it from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
d-usa wrote: Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.
Yes we did, but not with SS symbols
I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.
Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.
The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then
First of all the "symbol" is of the 14th SS Volunteer Division--Galician. It started as a Ukrainian volunteer division(and was founded to provide more forces for the Eastern Front) but later included Slovaks, Czechs, and Dutch officers/soldiers. Not a "Ukraine SS Division".
And oh what's this?
It was based upon medieval heraldry? The coat of arms for Galicia–Volhynia(read: Ukraine)
d-usa wrote: Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.
Yes we did, but not with SS symbols
I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.
Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.
The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then
First of all the "symbol" is of the 14th SS Volunteer Division--Galician. It started as a Ukrainian volunteer division(and was founded to provide more forces for the Eastern Front) but later included Slovaks, Czechs, and Dutch officers/soldiers. Not a "Ukraine SS Division".
And oh what's this?
It was based upon medieval heraldry? The coat of arms for Galicia–Volhynia(read: Ukraine)
Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.
d-usa wrote: Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.
Yes we did, but not with SS symbols
I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.
Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.
The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then
First of all the "symbol" is of the 14th SS Volunteer Division--Galician. It started as a Ukrainian volunteer division(and was founded to provide more forces for the Eastern Front) but later included Slovaks, Czechs, and Dutch officers/soldiers. Not a "Ukraine SS Division".
And oh what's this?
It was based upon medieval heraldry? The coat of arms for Galicia–Volhynia(read: Ukraine)
Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ??
How the hell should I know? I'm not one of the protesters there. I'm saying that you need to actually do some research before shooting your mouth off.
Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.
The only people "trying to say something about their political leanings" is RT(aka "the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news"), where the images you linked came from.
loki old fart wrote: Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.
Or are they not accepting that some obscure nazi unit during the Second World War effectively stole their coat of arms?
By your logic, the Swedish coat of arms is a nazi symbol because it includes a blue field, yellow crowns and lions.
loki old fart wrote: Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.
Or are they not accepting that some obscure nazi unit during the Second World War effectively stole their coat of arms?
By your logic, the Swedish coat of arms is a nazi symbol because it includes a blue field, yellow crowns and lions.
I dunno, ask Franz Augsberger or Fritz von Scholz you might need a seance to do it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.
If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.
And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.
Oh, I'm well aware, I'm just pointing out that it's not Ukraine invading another sovereign state under the pretext of protecting people of a certain ethnicity. If you recall, the same claim was made by another leader of another great European power, hence this being an "out-Godwinning".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.
If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.
And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.
Oh, I'm well aware, I'm just pointing out that it's not Ukraine invading another sovereign state under the pretext of protecting people of a certain ethnicity. If you recall, the same claim was made by another leader of another great European power, hence this being an "out-Godwinning".
Yup I,m aware of the Sudetenland. But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public, and I don't think those Ukrainians were being very clever using that heraldic device. And as for people not liking RT, if you watch their programs, and the BBC ETC, You get a more balanced view. Too much of one side screws with your perception.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.
If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.
And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.
Oh, I'm well aware, I'm just pointing out that it's not Ukraine invading another sovereign state under the pretext of protecting people of a certain ethnicity. If you recall, the same claim was made by another leader of another great European power, hence this being an "out-Godwinning".
Yup I,m aware of the Sudetenland. But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public, and I don't think those Ukrainians were being very clever using that heraldic device. And as for people not liking RT, if you watch their programs, and the BBC ETC, You get a more balanced view. Too much of one side screws with your perception.
It's not a question of "not liking RT", it's recognizing that it is a mouthpiece for an agenda.
This is a rebranded "Russia Today", as in the organization that covered the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict and had the audacity to suggest that "Georgia started it".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.
If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.
And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.
Oh, I'm well aware, I'm just pointing out that it's not Ukraine invading another sovereign state under the pretext of protecting people of a certain ethnicity. If you recall, the same claim was made by another leader of another great European power, hence this being an "out-Godwinning".
Yup I,m aware of the Sudetenland. But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public, and I don't think those Ukrainians were being very clever using that heraldic device. And as for people not liking RT, if you watch their programs, and the BBC ETC, You get a more balanced view. Too much of one side screws with your perception.
It's not a question of "not liking RT", it's recognizing that it is a mouthpiece for an agenda.
This is a rebranded "Russia Today", as in the organization that covered the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict and had the audacity to suggest that "Georgia started it".
And American stations would never do that, would they.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're going to start out-Godwinning eachother I'll just leave the word "Anschluss" here and be done with it.
If it makes you feel better, the SS had British members aswell.
And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.
Oh, I'm well aware, I'm just pointing out that it's not Ukraine invading another sovereign state under the pretext of protecting people of a certain ethnicity. If you recall, the same claim was made by another leader of another great European power, hence this being an "out-Godwinning".
Yup I,m aware of the Sudetenland. But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public, and I don't think those Ukrainians were being very clever using that heraldic device. And as for people not liking RT, if you watch their programs, and the BBC ETC, You get a more balanced view. Too much of one side screws with your perception.
It's not a question of "not liking RT", it's recognizing that it is a mouthpiece for an agenda.
This is a rebranded "Russia Today", as in the organization that covered the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict and had the audacity to suggest that "Georgia started it".
And American stations would never do that, would they.
You are hopeless to have a discussion with. Have fun wallowing in ignorance.
lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.
heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.
Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"
easysauce wrote: lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.
heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.
Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"
Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.
Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.
If they are using those signs to represent their traditional geographic locale, then yes... it is about the only heraldry they can use. There is apparently an international heraldic symbol organization whose job it is to ensure that no one has identical heraldic devices (their biggest source of work now is the US military, who, when organizing new units, have to come up with a unit crest and use heraldic devices as much as possible)
I mean, people who know heraldry would be a mite confused if people were marching up and down the square holding white shields with three red lions on them.
d-usa wrote: Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.
Yes we did, but not with SS symbols
I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.
Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.
The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then
First of all the "symbol" is of the 14th SS Volunteer Division--Galician. It started as a Ukrainian volunteer division(and was founded to provide more forces for the Eastern Front) but later included Slovaks, Czechs, and Dutch officers/soldiers. Not a "Ukraine SS Division".
And oh what's this?
It was based upon medieval heraldry? The coat of arms for Galicia–Volhynia(read: Ukraine)
Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.
But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public
From the Royal Wedding Celebrations:
Is that the only symbol the UK has? Couldn't they find something less tarnished?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.
d-usa wrote: Everybody knows that the British perfected the art of marching up and down the square.
Yes we did, but not with SS symbols
I don't see any SS symbols in the Ukraine picture.
Right in the middle of the black and white photo, is the symbol of the Ukraine SS div.
The coloured picture has the same symbols in the same colours as used then
First of all the "symbol" is of the 14th SS Volunteer Division--Galician. It started as a Ukrainian volunteer division(and was founded to provide more forces for the Eastern Front) but later included Slovaks, Czechs, and Dutch officers/soldiers. Not a "Ukraine SS Division".
And oh what's this?
It was based upon medieval heraldry? The coat of arms for Galicia–Volhynia(read: Ukraine)
Is that the only heraldic symbols they have.? Couldn't they find something less tarnished. ?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.
But we brits don't parade our mistakes in public
From the Royal Wedding Celebrations:
Is that the only symbol the UK has? Couldn't they find something less tarnished?? Or are they trying to say something about their political leanings.
Duh we use the union jack, because when we us the st George flag certain ethnic groups get upset.
Sort of points out what I was saying, doesn't it.
easysauce wrote: lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.
heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.
Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"
Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.
Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.
bravo.
If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.
Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.
Wether you like it or not, all the western sources are just as biased as the eastern ones (not just rt) the only thing that changes is what the bias is.
By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic because you are literally looking at one side of the coin, declaring "its heads! all those who claim its tails are idiots!" and just adding your own noise to those who look at it from the other side and go "no YOU are the idiot, its tails, I see no head."
Meanwhile, Ill see both heads and tails, and youll just cry out "NO TAILS EXISTS BECAUSE I CANNOT SEE IT!", again, just adding noise because of your unwillingness to accept and process the complexity of having more then one side to issues.
easysauce wrote: lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.
heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.
Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"
Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.
Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.
bravo.
If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.
Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.
By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic.
Yup to see the truth, you need to look at all sides. But do bring salt.
easysauce wrote: lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.
heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.
Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"
Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.
Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.
bravo.
If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.
Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.
By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic.
Yup to see the truth, you need to look at all sides. But do bring salt.
Yep, but leave out the obviously lying side. It's just a waste of time:
"In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders."
easysauce wrote: lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.
heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.
Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"
Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.
Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.
bravo.
If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.
Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.
By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic.
Yup to see the truth, you need to look at all sides. But do bring salt.
Yep, but leave out the obviously lying side. It's just a waste of time:
"In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders."
Reporters Without Borders is an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). According to its website it is headquartered in Paris, France. Paris is a curious home base for an organization that, as it turns out, is financed by the US Congress and by agencies tied to the US government.
Did you not notice the Union Jack in all those photos of Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists??
Very serious If we use the st George flag our Muslim friends feel threatened. Harks back to the crusades. Also EDL don't help
We do try not to cause offence
No, I'm sorry, go look at my post again. You see the Union Jack in all those photos right? Excepting the last one, do you see who is standing next to and/or in front of it? Do you see what it is being presented next to? That is the Union Jack being used as a symbol of the British Union of Fascists. You know, that anti-semitic, anti-democratic, racist, pro-white organization of the 1930s that supported Hitler and actually attempted to throw out the British government to establish Oswald Mosley as the Nazi-aligned dictator of Great Britain? Are you just blatantly ignoring what I am showing you (and/or being a terrible troll)? That the Union Jack is just as much a symbol of hate as the coat of arms of Galicia–Volhynia, and contrary to your statement that "brits don't parade our mistakes in public", the continued use of the Union Jack is arguably no different, and your inability to use the St. George Cross is irrelevant, since there are other possible symbols you can use.
And for good measure:
What was that about not parading your mistakes again?
No, I'm sorry, go look at my post again. You see the Union Jack in all those photos right? Excepting the last one, do you see who is standing next to and/or in front of it? Do you see what it is being presented next to? That is the Union Jack being used as a symbol of the British Union of Fascists. You know, that anti-semitic, anti-democratic, racist, pro-white organization of the 1930s that supported Hitler and actually attempted to throw out the British government to establish Oswald Mosley as the Nazi-aligned dictator of Great Britain? Are you just blatantly ignoring what I am showing you (and/or being a terrible troll)? That the Union Jack is just as much a symbol of hate as the coat of arms of Galicia–Volhynia, and contrary to your statement that "brits don't parade our mistakes in public", the continued use of the Union Jack is arguably no different, and your inability to use the St. George Cross is irrelevant, since there are other possible symbols you can use.
What was that about not parading your mistakes again?
You're both correct. Yes, it is jumping to a conclusion to assume that just because a flag is in a picture with a Nazi flag, the two are inherently connected. But the flip side of the coin is that people often parade a certain flag in a certain way at a certain place/time in order to link them to certain ideologies.
Therefore unless either of you know exactly where the photo with that heraldic flag was taken, and what the march was in favour of, neither of you should jump to conclusions. So you're also both wrong as well as correct.
easysauce wrote: lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.
heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.
Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"
Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.
Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.
bravo.
If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.
Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.
By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic.
Yup to see the truth, you need to look at all sides. But do bring salt.
Yep, but leave out the obviously lying side. It's just a waste of time:
"In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders."
Reporters Without Borders is an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). According to its website it is headquartered in Paris, France. Paris is a curious home base for an organization that, as it turns out, is financed by the US Congress and by agencies tied to the US government.
I'm going to go ahead and ask for a source for that. A source that isn't a page that claims Syria is a working democracy, like the one you linked in that quote.
Furthermore, last I looked high-profile journalists critical of the US government aren't shot to death.
easysauce wrote: lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.
heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.
Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"
Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.
Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.
bravo.
If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.
Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.
Wether you like it or not, all the western sources are just as biased as the eastern ones (not just rt) the only thing that changes is what the bias is.
You'll note that I didn't tell anyone to ignore RT, that's you making up a strawman. What I did say it's unreliable at best, and that comparing it to the BBC is disturbing, which it is. You'll also note that I've not once stated that I blindly believe whatever anyone says, just that I'd trust the BBC over Russia Today. One is what is possibly the most respected news agency in the world, the other has links to the government of a nation where dissidents are imprisoned arbitrarily. Claiming some sort of equality between the two is silly.
easysauce wrote: lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.
heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.
Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"
Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.
Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.
bravo.
If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.
Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.
By ignoring the sides you deem "unworthy of attention" you just serve to further your own ignorance and bias on the topic.
Yup to see the truth, you need to look at all sides. But do bring salt.
Yep, but leave out the obviously lying side. It's just a waste of time:
"In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders."
Reporters Without Borders is an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). According to its website it is headquartered in Paris, France. Paris is a curious home base for an organization that, as it turns out, is financed by the US Congress and by agencies tied to the US government.
I'm going to go ahead and ask for a source for that. A source that isn't a page that claims Syria is a working democracy, like the one you linked in that quote.
Furthermore, last I looked high-profile journalists critical of the US government aren't shot to death.
easysauce wrote: lol riiiight, because people who watch/read RT and BBC and the cnn's msnbcs and KNOW that each one of them lies and has bias towards their own agendas is much less informed then people who just believe whatever cnnmsnbcfox tell them is true as gospel.
heck I suspect most people just believe whatever their facebook feed tells them.
Such an obvious double standard "my new isnt biadsd, yours is total propaganda"
Between the US, the UK, and Russia there's two countries that has freedom of the press. I'll let you pick which two out and then let you have a guess at why RT is at best an unreliable source. That is not to say that other news agencies aren't biased, but comparing the BBC to Russia Today is rather disturbing.
Nope, you just proved you are in the "my bias is truth, yours is a lie" so instead of hearing each sides views, you ignore the sides you dont like, and accept the one side you do.
bravo.
If you really have such unconditional trust in your preferred source over another, that is what is disturbing.
Weather you like it or not, RT is telling the truth about how that side percives the issue, and weather you like it or not, that is relevant information.
Wether you like it or not, all the western sources are just as biased as the eastern ones (not just rt) the only thing that changes is what the bias is.
You'll note that I didn't tell anyone to ignore RT, that's you making up a strawman. What I did say it's unreliable at best, and that comparing it to the BBC is disturbing, which it is. You'll also note that I've not once stated that I blindly believe whatever anyone says, just that I'd trust the BBC over Russia Today. One is what is possibly the most respected news agency in the world, the other has links to the government of a nation where dissidents are imprisoned arbitrarily. Claiming some sort of equality between the two is silly.
The BBC isn't as squeaky clean as it once was. hell they knew about jimmy saville for gawds sake.
You'll note that I didn't tell anyone to ignore RT, that's you making up a strawman. What I did say it's unreliable at best, and that comparing it to the BBC is disturbing, which it is. You'll also note that I've not once stated that I blindly believe whatever anyone says, just that I'd trust the BBC over Russia Today.
riiight, you dont tell us to ignore RT, you just tell us they are totally unreliable and that you trust BBC, but not them.
You are using "strawman" incorrectly as a catch 22 , I know what you are saying, and I in no way am mis representing it or making up your arguement for you.
You have claimed, repeatedly, that RT is not a reliable source... a reliable source is one you listen too, an unreliable source is one you ignore.
That you admit to trusting ONE source over another, proves that you are only viewing this from one side. Because a source you trust, is a source you listen too.
By saying you trust BBC, you say they are telling the truth (otherwise, why do you trust them?)
By saying you DONT trust RT, you are saying they are not telling the truth... otherwise, why distrust them?
You'll note that I didn't tell anyone to ignore RT, that's you making up a strawman. What I did say it's unreliable at best, and that comparing it to the BBC is disturbing, which it is. You'll also note that I've not once stated that I blindly believe whatever anyone says, just that I'd trust the BBC over Russia Today.
riiight, you dont tell us to ignore RT, you just tell us they are totally unreliable and that you trust BBC, but not them.
You are using "strawman" incorrectly as a catch 22 , I know what you are saying, and I in no way am mis representing it or making up your arguement for you.
You have claimed, repeatedly, that RT is not a reliable source... a reliable source is one you listen too, an unreliable source is one you ignore.
That you admit to trusting ONE source over another, proves that you are only viewing this from one side. Because a source you trust, is a source you listen too.
By saying you trust BBC, you say they are telling the truth (otherwise, why do you trust them?)
By saying you DONT trust RT, you are saying they are not telling the truth... otherwise, why distrust them?
Unreliable =/= worthless. Stop putting words in my mouth when you clearly don't know what I'm saying. That's the very definition of a strawman. Yes, I've claimed that the BBC is a more reliable news source than Russia Today, and provided reasoning to back it up. You've "refuted" this by claiming I'm saying things I'm not and by telling me I'm wrong without backing it up.
I mean really, I'm telling you that I've never said that you should completely discount RT (which I haven't), you claim that I'm lying. Why would I lie about my opinion when I'm trying to explain it?
I trust the BBC more than I trust RT because the BBC has a history of relatively balanced journalism, whereas RT has a history of blatantly twisting news to suit Russian interests, while working in a nation that is notorious for its limited freedom of the press.
Uhmm, guys, you all do realize that this march from Lviv shown in the photo *IS* made in commemmoration of the 14th SS division, and that there are almost identical pictures from the one last year, when they had their "70-year-anniversary"?
The only thing that RT omitted here is that last year, a large number of the participating neo-nazis were from Lithuania and, wait for it, Russia.
Allod wrote: Uhmm, guys, you all do realize that this march from Lviv shown in the photo *IS* made in commemmoration of the 14th SS division, and that there are almost identical pictures from the one last year, when they had their "70-year-anniversary"?
The only thing that RT omitted here is that last year, a large number of the participating neo-nazis were from Lithuania and, wait for it, Russia.
So there was truth in it, but not the whole truth.
Allod wrote: In all seriousness, I disagree completely, because my life experience tells me that conflicts of the scale we're discussing here (40,000 Russian troops for starters) are not predictable or controllable, and even if they were, our leaders are totally unable to do either. If we all were so sensible all the time, nuclear deterrence wouldn't be a thing.
Yeah, conflicts can escalate, that's a fair point, and while I was aware of it in my thinking I didn't do enough to put it down in my posts here.
But I'm not sure it means you can treat the possibility of escalation as equal to escalation, and therefore back out of most conflicts with any other nuclear armed state, because then given the severity of nuclear conflict nothing seems worth the risk. I mean, sure, NATO is important but measured against nuclear annihilation its just a treaty with those silly Europeans...
So, if you're a great power and start shooting at Russian soldiers, you should be sure that what you're fighting for is worth a nuclear exchange some time down the road. I doubt that anybody places that kind of value in the territorial integrity of a Soviet successor state that has practically no national history at all.
But that's just my opinion, and hopefully we'll never find out who of us is right.
I find the idea of a nation deserving protection only because it has some kind of national history to be one of the more odious parts of many people's beliefs of geo-politics, to be honest. They are people, and they deserve self-determination, and whether their ancestors used to have their own country or not doesn't really matter.
Not that this is about the whole Ukraine itself, but is more about Russian interference in independence movements in the Ukraine, and well it's pretty clear no-one in the West thinks that is worth a conventional war.
Guess the Ukraine should have signed up to NATO. They probably will now, with whatever is remaining of their country when this is all over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote: And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.
This is one of those things that gets thrown around the internet a lot, but without a lot of important context.
Yes, the idea of taking a population and concentrating them all together in dorm and tent dwellings behind barbed wire isn't particularly nice, but it's a fething mile away from systematically starving the people placed in those camps and forcing them in to such grueling work duties that the camp administrators actually calculated how long an inmate could be made to work before dropping dead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: Meanwhile, Ill see both heads and tails, and youll just cry out "NO TAILS EXISTS BECAUSE I CANNOT SEE IT!", again, just adding noise because of your unwillingness to accept and process the complexity of having more then one side to issues.
Fallacy of the reasonable middle ground.
Thing is, when one side says its raining outside and the other side says it is clear, what makes sense is to look out the window and see whether it is actually raining or not. Instead your approach is to say 'I see both sides and consider both have valid points of view and think all the people who think it is raining are just biased people who only listen to their side'... and to be perfectly frank that's a complete load of nonsense.
Moscow will not bargain with Kiev over Crimea's water supply
Russia will not engage in political bargaining with the Ukrainian government over its decision to cut off Crimea's water supply, Russian natural resources minister Sergey Donskoy said.
“The situation clearly shows that Kiev is unfriendly towards the people of Crimea. We’re not surprised by this as recent developments characterize the regime in Kiev as anti-popular,” Donskoy said, as quoted by Itar-Tass news agency.
Moscow will not take part in political bargaining because “it’s the ordinary people who suffer” from water shortages, the minister said as he arrived in the city of Sevastopol.
Donskoy stressed that Crimea's agricultural industry is most affected in the current situation, but added that “we’ll find ways to compensate the water demands.”
“In Crimea, a lot of water is wasted. It’s dumped into the sea. There’s no water recycling in place, which would enable us to use water for technical needs after preliminary processing,” he said.
The minister added that Crimea's water supply system is in rather bad shape after decades of Ukrainian rule.
“Today we examined the Feodosiya reservoir where over 70 percent of the water is unusable,” he explained.
According to the minister, the water supply system in Crimea will be modernized by the Russian government, taking into account the specific features of each region of the peninsula.
He added that groundwater reserves will help satisfy Crimea's needs.
“But we must use all available options,” the minister said, underlining the importance of reconstructing the existing facilities. Donskoy said this will be less expensive than erecting large desalination plants for sea water, which he called “the last option to be considered.”
On Saturday, the coup-imposed Kiev government cut off water supply through the North-Crimean Channel, which delivers water from the Dnieper River to Crimea.
Crimea’s Prime Minister Sergey Aksenov was quick to state that “there are no problems with drinking water. Agricultural producers will be compensated for their losses.”
Crimea, which is dependent on Ukraine for 85 percent of its freshwater, offered an advance payment for the water from the Dnieper River. However, the talks were sabotaged by Kiev.
The relevant documents were sent to Ukraine's water management agency on five occasions, but were returned as “far-fetched” excuses, Vitaly Nakhlupin, head of the Permanent Economic Committee of the Crimean Parliament, said.
If the Ukrainians truly have cut all the water supplies going through to Crimea, then I somewhat take the view that they mustn't complain if the Russians then in turn cut off their gas. If you're going to try to strangle the absolute essentials of a group of people (and we're talking about over 80% of the water supply used in the Crimea for drinking, washing, and farming), you don't have much of a leg to stand on to complain when others do it to you, regardless of the politics of the situation.
I do note with interest though, that if gas were cut off to Ukraine the BBC would be all over it like hot cakes, but there hasn't been so much as a whisper on Ukraine cutting off water to Crimea. A perfect example, if one was needed, that the BBC are far from impartial on this one.
We're the "West". We're suppose to be the "Good Guys" and Russia/FDR is the "Evil Bad Guy"
Reference I was making Alpha was Russia Government view on Nazism. Past and more likely present. I highly doubt Russia/FDR is going to stand idle if a possible Neo-Facist Government sets up next door to them.
sebster wrote: But I'm not sure it means you can treat the possibility of escalation as equal to escalation, and therefore back out of most conflicts with any other nuclear armed state, because then given the severity of nuclear conflict nothing seems worth the risk. I mean, sure, NATO is important but measured against nuclear annihilation its just a treaty with those silly Europeans...
I get what you mean. In all fairness, I do think that "we" (put in quotes because of Austria's silly neutrality) in the west, who are so closely tied to each other, should stick up for each other, even in the face of danger. In the end, that might mean armed conflict with all its possible consequences. I just don't think that this is a clear-cut case of such defense.
I find the idea of a nation deserving protection only because it has some kind of national history to be one of the more odious parts of many people's beliefs of geo-politics, to be honest. They are people, and they deserve self-determination, and whether their ancestors used to have their own country or not doesn't really matter.
OK, that was not what I meant, I should make myself more clear: Is this terribly young nation of Ukraine identical with "the land of the Ukrainians"? History is a relevant factor here because Ukraine is a fantasy-land that was born by being drawn unto a map, not through any natural processes, and her current government's bleating about a historical "Ukrainian nation" that justifies all its claims is bogus. The Ukrainian hodge-podge collection of ethnicities, regions and completely diverging histories would not be a problem at all if a healthy majority of her people everywhere in the country said: "I don't care, *I* think I'm Ukrainian." Obviously, this is not the case.
By now this is all crying over spilt milk, but what should have been done is to give the people their vote which state they want to belong to after the fall of the Soviet Union, instead of just recognising another soviet republic that broke away.
Ukraine, as in, the land that the people identifying as Ukrainians can rightfully claim, deserves our protection. So far, nobody knows what this nation would look like. Unfortunately, we will never find out, because now Russia alone dictates what's Ukraine and what's not.
chaos0xomega wrote: Cliffnotes for those of us who browse at work and can't listen?
It basically says that the West intentionally backed violent Regime change in Ukraine, it lists references, articles and other paper trails to back the assertion.
I think it may take it a bit too far, saying that the plot is just a step to push for total war between the West and Russia/China, but the all the information seams credible.
chaos0xomega wrote: Cliffnotes for those of us who browse at work and can't listen?
It basically says that the West intentionally backed violent Regime change in Ukraine, it lists references, articles and other paper trails to back the assertion.
Which doesn't mean any of it is true. It's also notably silent on the fact that Russian agents have been identified in the Ukraine among the "militias".
It's a YouTube channel dedicated to "exposing conspiracies aimed at discrediting those who tell only the truth" and "educating the misinformed European and American publics".
Was this not known already? The west supported Ukrainan regime change to a more western leaning gov., Russia is supporting pro-russian separatists. I didn't think this was news to anybody.
I'm sure I heard a fleeting mention of crimea's water supply somewhere before, but that's still fething stupid. Why would you cut off drinking water to anyone?
-Shrike- wrote: I'm sure I heard a fleeting mention of crimea's water supply somewhere before, but that's still fething stupid. Why would you cut off drinking water to anyone?
You did, and maybe they want to force them to give in, or die of disease. Bet they cry like babies if Russia switches the gas off.
Moscow will not bargain with Kiev over Crimea's water supply
Russia will not engage in political bargaining with the Ukrainian government over its decision to cut off Crimea's water supply, Russian natural resources minister Sergey Donskoy said.
“The situation clearly shows that Kiev is unfriendly towards the people of Crimea. We’re not surprised by this as recent developments characterize the regime in Kiev as anti-popular,” Donskoy said, as quoted by Itar-Tass news agency.
Moscow will not take part in political bargaining because “it’s the ordinary people who suffer” from water shortages, the minister said as he arrived in the city of Sevastopol.
Donskoy stressed that Crimea's agricultural industry is most affected in the current situation, but added that “we’ll find ways to compensate the water demands.”
“In Crimea, a lot of water is wasted. It’s dumped into the sea. There’s no water recycling in place, which would enable us to use water for technical needs after preliminary processing,” he said.
The minister added that Crimea's water supply system is in rather bad shape after decades of Ukrainian rule.
“Today we examined the Feodosiya reservoir where over 70 percent of the water is unusable,” he explained.
According to the minister, the water supply system in Crimea will be modernized by the Russian government, taking into account the specific features of each region of the peninsula.
He added that groundwater reserves will help satisfy Crimea's needs.
“But we must use all available options,” the minister said, underlining the importance of reconstructing the existing facilities. Donskoy said this will be less expensive than erecting large desalination plants for sea water, which he called “the last option to be considered.”
On Saturday, the coup-imposed Kiev government cut off water supply through the North-Crimean Channel, which delivers water from the Dnieper River to Crimea.
Crimea’s Prime Minister Sergey Aksenov was quick to state that “there are no problems with drinking water. Agricultural producers will be compensated for their losses.”
Crimea, which is dependent on Ukraine for 85 percent of its freshwater, offered an advance payment for the water from the Dnieper River. However, the talks were sabotaged by Kiev.
The relevant documents were sent to Ukraine's water management agency on five occasions, but were returned as “far-fetched” excuses, Vitaly Nakhlupin, head of the Permanent Economic Committee of the Crimean Parliament, said.
If the Ukrainians truly have cut all the water supplies going through to Crimea, then I somewhat take the view that they mustn't complain if the Russians then in turn cut off their gas. If you're going to try to strangle the absolute essentials of a group of people (and we're talking about over 80% of the water supply used in the Crimea for drinking, washing, and farming), you don't have much of a leg to stand on to complain when others do it to you, regardless of the politics of the situation.
I do note with interest though, that if gas were cut off to Ukraine the BBC would be all over it like hot cakes, but there hasn't been so much as a whisper on Ukraine cutting off water to Crimea. A perfect example, if one was needed, that the BBC are far from impartial on this one.
Russian officials say a water shortage in Crimea is threatening to become acute as Ukraine has reduced the supply via a key canal.
Ukraine does not recognise the new authorities in Crimea who are backed by Moscow. Russia made the peninsula part of its territory last month.
Crimea's harvest of grapes, rice, maize and soya will be ruined if it does not get more water soon, officials say.
Russia says the Crimea-Ukraine border is now officially a state border.
The Russian government plans to establish permanent checkpoints there, as well as new rules for entering or leaving Crimea, Ria Novosti news agency reports.
The North Crimea Canal delivers water to Crimea from the River Dnieper, in Ukraine's southern Kherson region. The canal accounts for 80% of Crimea's water.
The current water shortage is threatening 120,000 hectares (296,000 acres) of Crimea's crops, which rely on irrigation, Russian Agriculture Minister Nikolai Fedorov said.
A ruined harvest across that area would mean losses of up to 5bn roubles (£83m; $140m), he told the Gazeta.ru news website.
Row with Kiev
A BBC reporter in Crimea recently said the water supply was one of the chief concerns of local people, ahead of the controversial March referendum on joining Russia.
The canal authorities in Ukraine say Crimea has accumulated a huge debt for water supplied last year. The dispute is aggravated by the breakdown in relations between Kiev and Moscow.
The water supply to Crimea has diminished from 50 cu m (1,765 cu ft) per second to about 16 cu m per second, Crimea's new pro-Russian authorities say.
To deal with the shortage, new wells could be dug or water could be brought in from Russia, but such options are expensive, officials warn.
Masked Russian-speaking gunmen blockaded Ukrainian military units in Crimea last month, leading to the peninsula's annexation by Russia - a move condemned internationally.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin later admitted that regular Russian forces had helped pro-Russian militants in Crimea.
Most of the local population is Russian-speaking and Sevastopol is the base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
Kanluwen wrote: Which doesn't mean any of it is true. It's also notably silent on the fact that Russian agents have been identified in the Ukraine among the "militias".
still quoting redacted articles as fact eh?
that explains a lot. Dont let the fact that your "fact" is total BS stop you from calling it a "fact" though...
OFC that is the whole point of putting wild, unproven/unconfirmed speculations on the front page, and then mute retractions on the back page...
-Shrike- wrote: I'm sure I heard a fleeting mention of crimea's water supply somewhere before, but that's still fething stupid. Why would you cut off drinking water to anyone?
You did, and maybe they want to force them to give in, or die of disease. Bet they cry like babies if Russia switches the gas off.
yeah, cutting off drinking water could even be seen as an act of war,
pretty dishonest of the ukraine to cut off water based on such a small amount of debt, when they themselves are asking for russia to totally ignore their gas debt and just keep giving it to them for free.
Not to mention, that if crimea is "ukraine" as the kiev regime says, then its just inflicing suffering on their own peoples.
Have you watched the video, do you know what evidence they presented? Its pretty damning stuff, recorded phone calls and financial records showing the U.S. state department backing a NEO NAZI take over.
Andrew1975 wrote: the U.S. state department backing a NEO NAZI take over.
Has this already happened? Where? I hope you are not talking about the current temporary Ukrainian government that apparently couldn't form without _some_ right wing participation. That's hardly a neo nazi regime.
Andrew1975 wrote: the U.S. state department backing a NEO NAZI take over.
Has this already happened? Where? I hope you are not talking about the current temporary Ukrainian government that apparently couldn't form without _some_ right wing participation. That's hardly a neo nazi regime.
DId you miss when they appointed people from svoboda and rightsector to key positions?
sure, not everyone in their government is a neo nazi, but what % is too much? 5? 10? 50? 100?
if john kerry, or the US minister of defence was a vocal KKK member, is that ok?
Kanluwen wrote: Which doesn't mean any of it is true. It's also notably silent on the fact that Russian agents have been identified in the Ukraine among the "militias".
still quoting redacted articles as fact eh?
First of all: You don't know what "redacted" means. The term you're looking for is RETRACTED. But don't let that stop you from snarking off.
that explains a lot. Dont let the fact that your "fact" is total BS stop you from calling it a "fact" though...
One of the best-known leaders of the uprising, Igor Strelkov directs armed pro-Russian activists in eastern Ukraine, especially in Sloviansk.
The Ukrainian security service says he works for the Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU, and his real name is Igor Girkin. He was born in 1970 and registered in Moscow, according to the service.
He was previously active in Crimea. In an interview with Russia's Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, Mr Strelkov said that his brigade in Sloviansk had been formed in Crimea from volunteers only, but most of them had combat experience fighting for the Russian armed forces in Chechnya, Central Asia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Syria.
According to various sources, Mr Strelkov himself also took part in conflicts in Yugoslavia as a volunteer, and in Chechnya under contract.
Russian media, however, dismiss any ongoing links with the Russian military - in fact they suggest he is a military enthusiast who specialises in historical re-enactment and staged recreations of battles.
They describe him as commander of Sloviansk's self-defence forces, but say he is not a GRU colonel, but rather a retired officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). His last role before retirement was reportedly with FSB's Directorate for Combating International Terrorism.
OFC that is the whole point of putting wild, unproven/unconfirmed speculations on the front page, and then mute retractions on the back page...
There you go, you used the right term!
Too bad that the idea of it being "wild, unproven/unconfirmed speculations" actually fits perfectly since that same individual was photographed in Georgia wearing a Spetsnaz badge.
-Shrike- wrote: I'm sure I heard a fleeting mention of crimea's water supply somewhere before, but that's still fething stupid. Why would you cut off drinking water to anyone?
You did, and maybe they want to force them to give in, or die of disease. Bet they cry like babies if Russia switches the gas off.
yeah, cutting off drinking water could even be seen as an act of war,
So could storming government buildings, taking hostages, and declaring yourself an independent nation.
pretty dishonest of the ukraine to cut off water based on such a small amount of debt, when they themselves are asking for russia to totally ignore their gas debt and just keep giving it to them for free.
Not to mention, that if crimea is "ukraine" as the kiev regime says, then its just inflicing suffering on their own peoples.
I love how you keep using the terminology of "Kiev regime". Totally objective to the whole situation, right?
easysauce wrote: Meanwhile, Ill see both heads and tails, and youll just cry out "NO TAILS EXISTS BECAUSE I CANNOT SEE IT!", again, just adding noise because of your unwillingness to accept and process the complexity of having more then one side to issues.
Fallacy of the reasonable middle ground.
Thing is, when one side says its raining outside and the other side says it is clear, what makes sense is to look out the window and see whether it is actually raining or not. Instead your approach is to say 'I see both sides and consider both have valid points of view and think all the people who think it is raining are just biased people who only listen to their side'... and to be perfectly frank that's a complete load of nonsense.
you have a false equivelency fallacy here seb...
IE: if a person in US states its raining, and a person in russia says its not, then yes, they are both right, and yes, you need to take into account both veiw points to acertain the actual truth (being that is is raining in one place and not another.
In complicated issues, where both people are not "in the same house looking out the same window" on an issue as simple as "is it raining?", you actually do have to take all veiwpoints into account.
You dont HAVE to consider both viewpoints valid at all, just know that both exist, and WHY they exist, and WHY they are different.
In the your example, any person who listens to both sides, immediately can "look outside" to get the real truth, however, if they just listen to one side at the exclusion of the other, they risk being completly wrong.
so again, you make a false equation there.
otherwise you are literally denying yourself information, then claiming to make an informed decision.
"The Ukrainian security service says he works for the Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU, and his real name is Igor Girkin. He was born in 1970 and registered in Moscow, according to the service. "
riight, so the same guys makeing previous, unsubstantiated claims are making more unsubstanciated claims.
they SAY he works for russia, so it must be true!
just like they said russian military was directly in volved in combat/protestor roles, which turned out to be a total lie and was retracted.
again, claims must be substanciated, not just claimed.
props for making ad homin attacks on grammer/spelling/use of words though, because auto correct fething me over makes me wrong and you right somehow.
easysauce wrote: "The Ukrainian security service says he works for the Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU, and his real name is Igor Girkin. He was born in 1970 and registered in Moscow, according to the service. "
riight, so the same guys makeing previous, unsubstantiated claims are making more unsubstanciated claims.
they SAY he works for russia, so it must be true!
just like they said russian military was directly involved in combat/protestor roles, which turned out to be a total lie and was retracted.
again, claims must be substanciated, not just claimed.
props for making ad homin attacks on grammer though, because auto correct fething me over sure never happens to you.
...I'm leaving this one alone, because it writes itself.
Moscow will not bargain with Kiev over Crimea's water supply
Russia will not engage in political bargaining with the Ukrainian government over its decision to cut off Crimea's water supply, Russian natural resources minister Sergey Donskoy said.
“The situation clearly shows that Kiev is unfriendly towards the people of Crimea. We’re not surprised by this as recent developments characterize the regime in Kiev as anti-popular,” Donskoy said, as quoted by Itar-Tass news agency.
Moscow will not take part in political bargaining because “it’s the ordinary people who suffer” from water shortages, the minister said as he arrived in the city of Sevastopol.
Donskoy stressed that Crimea's agricultural industry is most affected in the current situation, but added that “we’ll find ways to compensate the water demands.”
“In Crimea, a lot of water is wasted. It’s dumped into the sea. There’s no water recycling in place, which would enable us to use water for technical needs after preliminary processing,” he said.
The minister added that Crimea's water supply system is in rather bad shape after decades of Ukrainian rule.
“Today we examined the Feodosiya reservoir where over 70 percent of the water is unusable,” he explained.
According to the minister, the water supply system in Crimea will be modernized by the Russian government, taking into account the specific features of each region of the peninsula.
He added that groundwater reserves will help satisfy Crimea's needs.
“But we must use all available options,” the minister said, underlining the importance of reconstructing the existing facilities. Donskoy said this will be less expensive than erecting large desalination plants for sea water, which he called “the last option to be considered.”
On Saturday, the coup-imposed Kiev government cut off water supply through the North-Crimean Channel, which delivers water from the Dnieper River to Crimea.
Crimea’s Prime Minister Sergey Aksenov was quick to state that “there are no problems with drinking water. Agricultural producers will be compensated for their losses.”
Crimea, which is dependent on Ukraine for 85 percent of its freshwater, offered an advance payment for the water from the Dnieper River. However, the talks were sabotaged by Kiev.
The relevant documents were sent to Ukraine's water management agency on five occasions, but were returned as “far-fetched” excuses, Vitaly Nakhlupin, head of the Permanent Economic Committee of the Crimean Parliament, said.
If the Ukrainians truly have cut all the water supplies going through to Crimea, then I somewhat take the view that they mustn't complain if the Russians then in turn cut off their gas. If you're going to try to strangle the absolute essentials of a group of people (and we're talking about over 80% of the water supply used in the Crimea for drinking, washing, and farming), you don't have much of a leg to stand on to complain when others do it to you, regardless of the politics of the situation.
I do note with interest though, that if gas were cut off to Ukraine the BBC would be all over it like hot cakes, but there hasn't been so much as a whisper on Ukraine cutting off water to Crimea. A perfect example, if one was needed, that the BBC are far from impartial on this one.
Russian officials say a water shortage in Crimea is threatening to become acute as Ukraine has reduced the supply via a key canal.
Ukraine does not recognise the new authorities in Crimea who are backed by Moscow. Russia made the peninsula part of its territory last month.
Crimea's harvest of grapes, rice, maize and soya will be ruined if it does not get more water soon, officials say.
Russia says the Crimea-Ukraine border is now officially a state border.
The Russian government plans to establish permanent checkpoints there, as well as new rules for entering or leaving Crimea, Ria Novosti news agency reports.
The North Crimea Canal delivers water to Crimea from the River Dnieper, in Ukraine's southern Kherson region. The canal accounts for 80% of Crimea's water.
The current water shortage is threatening 120,000 hectares (296,000 acres) of Crimea's crops, which rely on irrigation, Russian Agriculture Minister Nikolai Fedorov said.
A ruined harvest across that area would mean losses of up to 5bn roubles (£83m; $140m), he told the Gazeta.ru news website.
Row with Kiev
A BBC reporter in Crimea recently said the water supply was one of the chief concerns of local people, ahead of the controversial March referendum on joining Russia.
The canal authorities in Ukraine say Crimea has accumulated a huge debt for water supplied last year. The dispute is aggravated by the breakdown in relations between Kiev and Moscow.
The water supply to Crimea has diminished from 50 cu m (1,765 cu ft) per second to about 16 cu m per second, Crimea's new pro-Russian authorities say.
To deal with the shortage, new wells could be dug or water could be brought in from Russia, but such options are expensive, officials warn.
Masked Russian-speaking gunmen blockaded Ukrainian military units in Crimea last month, leading to the peninsula's annexation by Russia - a move condemned internationally.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin later admitted that regular Russian forces had helped pro-Russian militants in Crimea.
Most of the local population is Russian-speaking and Sevastopol is the base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
I googled around and was unable to find that article initially. Thank you for posting it.
However, the timestamp is a day before the water supply was cut off altogether, so my original point of no new articles being posted on it since it happened still stands to a large extent. If anything, I'm somewhat even more incredulous as the BBC is clearly aware that has happened and yet has chosen not to run a story on it.
With regards to them saying that Crimea's debt is the reaosn that they're doing it, according to the last more recent article, the Crimeans have offered to pay in advance, and they're still being ignored. So that more or less removes that flimsy excuse from the Ukrainian regime.
I love how you keep using the terminology of "Kiev regime". Totally objective to the whole situation, right?
I would call them the 'Ukrainian Government', but I'm hesitant to apply that noun to an institution that cannot control their own country, cannot control their own military, does not have possession of a good chunk of their physical land, and came to power through violence. At this stage, it's like calling the Bolsheviks a government within a few weeks of the Russian civil war starting. Recognition as a Government by America, whilst one of the key factors in becoming one, does not suffice alone to make a group of people into one.
I recognise that 'regime' is also thus technically incorrect as a result, but need some way of separating the two concepts. Regime is as good a word as any to do it, as whilst not a government, they're too large to be called a 'faction' by this stage. If you can suggest a more appropriate word, I'll happily adopt it.
Kanluwen wrote: Where did "pro-western protesters" take hostages?
They captured dozens of Riot Police, beat them severely and paraded them in front of cameras to make "apologies" under duress.
Plus, they weren't "declaring themselves an independent nation".
No, just overthrowing a democratically elected government that was popular with east Ukraine and Crimea and imposing a new unelected revolutionary government onto them.
Again, total ignorance coming from someone who believes that you can take anything said by the Russian government at face value.
As opposed to...what? Taking anything said by American and European governments at face value?
The smart thing to do would be to trust no-one, and suspect everyone. Both sides have an agenda here, both sides are lying and manipulating in order to carry out those agendas. Just because one side is marginally more civilized in the way it goes about pursuing that agenda doesn't make it trustworthy.
Kanluwen wrote: Where did "pro-western protesters" take hostages?
They captured dozens of Riot Police, beat them severely and paraded them in front of cameras to make "apologies" under duress.
Plus, they weren't "declaring themselves an independent nation".
No, just overthrowing a democratically elected government that was popular with east Ukraine and Crimea and imposing a new unelected revolutionary government onto them.
Again, total ignorance coming from someone who believes that you can take anything said by the Russian government at face value.
As opposed to...what? Taking anything said by American and European governments at face value?
The smart thing to do would be to trust no-one, and suspect everyone. Both sides have an agenda here, both sides are lying and manipulating in order to carry out those agendas. Just because one side is marginally more civilized in the way it goes about pursuing that agenda doesn't make it trustworthy.
Ketara wrote: I googled around and was unable to find that article initially. Thank you for posting it.
No problem. I read your posting and I immediately recalled reading something on the BBC about the water issue so I went to do some digging.
Ketara wrote: With regards to them saying that Crimea's debt is the reaosn that they're doing it, according to the last more recent article, the Crimeans have offered to pay in advance, and they're still being ignored. So that more or less removes that flimsy excuse from the Ukrainian regime.
When I read the water story last week I was left with the impression that it was Kiev's way of responding to Russia's threat to cut natural gas supplies. Isn't that something the Russians threatened to do shortly after taking Crimea? Or was it just threatening to inflate the price Ukraine pays for the gas? My memory is failing here. If so, and I am not asking this to argue it is more out of my own curiosity on the matter, wouldn't that make Kiev's actions more in line of a "tit" for Russia's "tat"? No water in Crimea is a humanitarian and economic crisis just like no natural gas would be the same in Ukraine (especially in 5 months when it starts to get cold). So aren't both sides being petulant children trying to exert leverage any way they can?
I guess I don't see Kiev's response with water supplies as any worse than Russia's initial move to highly inflate the price of, and or cut off, Ukraine's gas supply.
The difference is, Kiev also hasn't paid the bills in a long time, and gas costs quite a bit more than water. In actual fact, Russia weren't threatening to raise the price of gas as such, they were threatening to cut most of the subsidy, so that Ukraine paid a similar price to everyone else who buys gas from Russia.
I hope that makes sense to someone, I don't think I've phrased it very well.
That's right, I had forgotten about the subsidies. Ultimately, isn't it a matter of semantics to the Ukranian who is paying more for their gas? If it is a loss of subsidies or a regular ol' price increase the energy still costs more than it did previously.
I feel like I am missing a piece of the puzzle. Is Ukraine/Kiev considered the bad guys here because they actually did cut the water supply while Russia only threatened to cut the gas supply?
In my view at least, actually cutting off the water supply to a region you adamantly claim is still part of your country is a dick move at best. I try not to get too involved with either side of this argument, mainly because everyone has an agenda.
Something else to consider. America and Kiev maintain that Russia has covert operatives in Eastern Ukraine. From Russia's point of view, how can you go about disproving this?
-Shrike- wrote: In my view at least, actually cutting off the water supply to a region you adamantly claim is still part of your country is a dick move at best. I try not to get too involved with either side of this argument, mainly because everyone has an agenda.
Something else to consider. America and Kiev maintain that Russia has covert operatives in Eastern Ukraine. From Russia's point of view, how can you go about disproving this?
Trouble is everybody there speaks Russian. One Russian speaking guy in uniform, is the same as another.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I feel like I am missing a piece of the puzzle. Is Ukraine/Kiev considered the bad guys here because they actually did cut the water supply while Russia only threatened to cut the gas supply?
Ukraine is responsible for escalating the situation.
If some threatens to punch you and you want to avoid that if possible, is it really wise to kick them first? Kicking them just makes it more likely that they will punch you after all.
-Shrike- wrote: In my view at least, actually cutting off the water supply to a region you adamantly claim is still part of your country is a dick move at best. I try not to get too involved with either side of this argument, mainly because everyone has an agenda.
Same. I don't have a dog in the fight, I just see a lot of criticism leveled at Kiev and "the West" when it looks like everyone is being rather aggressive and short-sighted in this matter so I am trying to figure out if I am missing a bigger part of the picture.
Regarding the water I understand your position, but I also wonder how I'd feel as a Ukranian in the western part of the country, and in all likelihood if I saw the actions of Russia/Crimea as unlawful then I'd probably be for turning off the water as well. Something along the lines of "You want this land? Fine. Good luck living there and growing anything without water, bitches."
It is petty, but understandable given the situation. And if those same Russians were threatening to turn off my gas or raise the price to the point that it felt punitive, then I'd likely also come to the same conclusion of "feth yo' water, bitches!"
Again, it is petty and not necessarily the appropriate response but I think an argument could be made that this whole situation is loaded with inappropriate responses from all sides.
Regarding the water I understand your position, but I also wonder how I'd feel as a Ukranian in the western part of the country, and in all likelihood if I saw the actions of Russia/Crimea as unlawful then I'd probably be for turning off the water as well. Something along the lines of "You want this land? Fine. Good luck living there and growing anything without water, bitches."
Russia: "You want to cut off Crimea's water? Fine. Good luck running your economy and heating your homes through winter without our gas, bitches."
The law of unintended consequences is in play here.
Cut off Crimea's water supply? Risk having your natural gas supply cut off.
It is petty, but understandable given the situation. And if those same Russians were threatening to turn off my gas or raise the price to the point that it felt punitive, then I'd likely also come to the same conclusion of "feth yo' water, bitches!"
Petty and self-destructive. Because responding to a threat to cut off a utility supply by preemptively cutting off another utility supply simply guarantees that the original threat to cut off a utility supply will be carried out after all. Russia now has absolute justification to cut off the supply of gas to Ukraine.
1. Ukraine is not paying its bills.
2. Ukraine started it by cutting of Crimea's water.
If someone threatens to punch you, preemptively kicking them will just prompt them to follow through on the original threat.
Again, it is petty and not necessarily the appropriate response but I think an argument could be made that this whole situation is loaded with inappropriate responses from all sides.
True. But Ukraine and their puppet masters (i.e. OUR governments) most of all.
Allod wrote: I get what you mean. In all fairness, I do think that "we" (put in quotes because of Austria's silly neutrality) in the west, who are so closely tied to each other, should stick up for each other, even in the face of danger. In the end, that might mean armed conflict with all its possible consequences. I just don't think that this is a clear-cut case of such defense.
Agreed on all points.
OK, that was not what I meant, I should make myself more clear: Is this terribly young nation of Ukraine identical with "the land of the Ukrainians"? History is a relevant factor here because Ukraine is a fantasy-land that was born by being drawn unto a map, not through any natural processes,
I'd argue there's no such thing as a natural process that establishes a nation or its borders, there's just fantasy lands that had their borders drawn up so long ago we all accept them as national borders, and there's borders that were drawn up more recently causing us to question them.
By now this is all crying over spilt milk, but what should have been done is to give the people their vote which state they want to belong to after the fall of the Soviet Union, instead of just recognising another soviet republic that broke away.
But different parts of the country wanted to go different ways, which could be solved by splitting the country up, but the support for East or West wasn't about becoming part of those countries, but about remaining a single country while focusing economic ties and military allegiances in one direction or the other.
Ukraine, as in, the land that the people identifying as Ukrainians can rightfully claim, deserves our protection. So far, nobody knows what this nation would look like. Unfortunately, we will never find out, because now Russia alone dictates what's Ukraine and what's not.
Very true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: you have a false equivelency fallacy here seb...
IE: if a person in US states its raining, and a person in russia says its not, then yes, they are both right, and yes, you need to take into account both veiw points to acertain the actual truth (being that is is raining in one place and not another.
If we were actually talking about rain, then your point would be genius. We're not though, and so the fact that Russia has different weather to the USA is completely irrelevant. Whether you're standing in New York or St Petersburg, the events in the Ukraine and the actions and ambitions of various governments in the country exist as objective reality.
In complicated issues, where both people are not "in the same house looking out the same window" on an issue as simple as "is it raining?", you actually do have to take all veiwpoints into account.
That is absolutely, 100% the absolute worst way you can approach a complex subject. Reality isn't decided by a consensus of everyone who wrote on the issue.
You dont HAVE to consider both viewpoints valid at all, just know that both exist, and WHY they exist, and WHY they are different.
For a media studies degree you might have to, yeah. But for figuring out the reality of a political situation that would be a total fething waste of time. Well, possibly if you wanted to explain why some people believe Russia has a defensible position in this matter you might say 'lots of people believe it because they accept lies put out by propaganda groups organised and funded by the Russian government'.
otherwise you are literally denying yourself information, then claiming to make an informed decision.
Not bothering with liars and fools is not denying information.
Just because one side is marginally more civilized in the way it goes about pursuing that agenda doesn't make it trustworthy.
Thing is it wasn't more civilized, just more savvy or underhanded. The Western sponsored "revolution" was much less civilized and caused much more bloodshed than anything that the Pro-Russians did.
Question?
We call them Pro Russians, what are they really? Would they be loyalists to the original government? They didn't actually appear to be true separatists until pressed by the new junta? They are rebelling for sure, but against revolutionaries, but I don't think they quite count as counter revolutionaries either.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: When I read the water story last week I was left with the impression that it was Kiev's way of responding to Russia's threat to cut natural gas supplies. Isn't that something the Russians threatened to do shortly after taking Crimea? Or was it just threatening to inflate the price Ukraine pays for the gas? My memory is failing here.
Russia didn't just threaten to hike the price, it straight up did hike the price, as it does whenever Ukraine elects a government looks West instead of East. The Ukraine said 'it is overt political shenanigans to drive up the price based on our government and we won't pay', at which point Russia said 'if you don't pay we'll cut off the gas'.
Now, the Ukraine shouldn't get to just choose whether or not the gas price is reasonable enough for them to pay the bill, but starting factor in this, just like the starting factor in every single part of this whole damn thing, is that Russia is trying to force it's political will on to another country.
Which is, or at least should be, absolutely unacceptable to everyone.
So aren't both sides being petulant children trying to exert leverage any way they can?
Pretty much, yeah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: The difference is, Kiev also hasn't paid the bills in a long time, and gas costs quite a bit more than water. In actual fact, Russia weren't threatening to raise the price of gas as such, they were threatening to cut most of the subsidy, so that Ukraine paid a similar price to everyone else who buys gas from Russia.
Sort of. The subsidy was part of the generalised understanding that allowed Russia to run pipelines through the Ukraine and in to Western Europe.
And the extent of that subsidy ebbed and flowed based on whether a pro-Russian or pro-Western government was elected to power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: Something else to consider. America and Kiev maintain that Russia has covert operatives in Eastern Ukraine. From Russia's point of view, how can you go about disproving this?
Part of the issue there is that it'd be really damn weird if Russia didn't have operatives. It's a country on your border, that used to be part of your greater political entity. Of course you're going to have assets in the country. Any nation would choose to establish assets in that situation.
The actual, real issue is whether those assets are being used to inflame the situation or not. And that gets even more complicated when you consider that the kind of people who sign up to work for Russia are also the exact sort of people who are going to be in favour of the uprising in the Eastern Ukraine right now, and likely to be involved in that work, whether or not Russia requests it or even wants it.
Which leaves the question of whether any involvement they likely have is at the behest of the Russian government, and well who fething knows if that's true.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Regarding the water I understand your position, but I also wonder how I'd feel as a Ukranian in the western part of the country, and in all likelihood if I saw the actions of Russia/Crimea as unlawful then I'd probably be for turning off the water as well. Something along the lines of "You want this land? Fine. Good luck living there and growing anything without water, bitches."
It is petty, but understandable given the situation. And if those same Russians were threatening to turn off my gas or raise the price to the point that it felt punitive, then I'd likely also come to the same conclusion of "feth yo' water, bitches!"
Possibly. But the thing is, Russia hasn't turned off the gas yet. They've raised the price, but as any capitalist will tell you, you have every right to sell your goods to whoever you wish, at whatever price you wish. And whilst they have indeed hiked the price, the gas still flows. The lights in Ukraine are on. Nobody is without electricity. As far as I see it, in a situation like that, to turn around and deliberately cut off 4/5 of the water supply to Crimea puts you in the wrong. Because the gas still flows freely, and no Russian or Crimean action has affected that yet.
What's more, if you consider that the Kiev lot have also been jumping up and down about how the Russians moved in and stole Crimea against the will of the people living there, why would you then turn around and inflict incredible hardship upon those who are now under supposed Russian military occupation? Unless, y'know, the people did actually want to be Russian. In which case, you're punishing them for exercising the right of self-determination.
Whichever way you look at it, the Kiev lot are committing quite the crime there in my view. Either they're punishing a populace for being conquered, or they're punishing them for deciding who they want to rule them. Both are unacceptable, and show something of the actual colours of the Kiev administration.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Regarding the water I understand your position, but I also wonder how I'd feel as a Ukranian in the western part of the country, and in all likelihood if I saw the actions of Russia/Crimea as unlawful then I'd probably be for turning off the water as well. Something along the lines of "You want this land? Fine. Good luck living there and growing anything without water, bitches."
It is petty, but understandable given the situation. And if those same Russians were threatening to turn off my gas or raise the price to the point that it felt punitive, then I'd likely also come to the same conclusion of "feth yo' water, bitches!"
Possibly. But the thing is, Russia hasn't turned off the gas yet. They've raised the price, but as any capitalist will tell you, you have every right to sell your goods to whoever you wish, at whatever price you wish.
Not if it's a breach of contract. Further, you're assuming that we're all accepting the idea that a free market is desirable at all times, but let's not go down that road further.
Russia didn't just threaten to hike the price, it straight up did hike the price, as it does whenever Ukraine elects a government looks West instead of East. The Ukraine said 'it is overt political shenanigans to drive up the price based on our government and we won't pay', at which point Russia said 'if you don't pay we'll cut off the gas'.
Not really accurate, all Russia did was remove the subsidy that they had in place, now Ukraine pays the same as everyone else. That's usually what happens when you snub your nose at someone, they remove preferential treatment.
It's basically Russia saying "OK well if you want to have the EU support you instead of us, lets see them help you out with the gas bill".
Now, the Ukraine shouldn't get to just choose whether or not the gas price is reasonable enough for them to pay the bill, but starting factor in this, just like the starting factor in every single part of this whole damn thing, is that Russia is trying to force it's political will on to another country.
Which is, or at least should be, absolutely unacceptable to everyone.
Not really, Ukraine was under Russian political will, it was only when the West tried to interfere that the situation started to boil. There was a status quo that it seamed most people in Ukraine and Russia were OK with, until the West showed up. Now had the West has tried to take Ukraine politically, which I would have been fine with. When that failed they resourted to supporting a violent uprising, couldn't win fair, so they resorted to violence, that should be unacceptable to everyone!
Not if it's a breach of contract. Further, you're assuming that we're all accepting the idea that a free market is desirable at all times, but let's not go down that road further.
The Gas deal involve Putin having Sevestopol Naval Base. When Kiev changes owner ship with no mentioning of honoring the conditions of the base Putin had to respond to secure the logistical lifeline.
Yet the Kiev government wanted the West to honor its commitment to them but would not honor the commitment towards Russia.
Not if it's a breach of contract. Further, you're assuming that we're all accepting the idea that a free market is desirable at all times, but let's not go down that road further.
The Gas deal involve Putin having Sevestopol Naval Base. When Kiev changes owner ship with no mentioning of honoring the conditions of the base Putin had to respond to secure the logistical lifeline.
Yet the Kiev government wanted the West to honor its commitment to them but would not honor the commitment towards Russia.
Wait, when did Kiev break the Sevastopol base agreement? Didn't that end when Russia rolled in and took over?
When Ukraine went to Hell at the beginning as in new Kiev.
Putin moved to secure Sevestopol Civilian airport and another one east at a major interstate junction about 50+ miles east. He secured the highway leading into the Naval base by locking down I believe three Ukraine Army bases that held Armor/Mech forces that would interfere with the operations of his logistical lifeline. I nailed this one out way way back in this thread
He used the Marines he had station there in Sevestapol
Jihadin wrote: When Ukraine went to Hell at the beginning as in new Kiev.
Putin moved to secure Sevestopol Civilian airport and another one east at a major interstate junction about 50+ miles east. He secured the highway leading into the Naval base by locking down I believe three Ukraine Army bases that held Armor/Mech forces that would interfere with the operations of his logistical lifeline. I nailed this one out way way back in this thread
He used the Marines he had station there in Sevestapol
How is that Ukraine breaking the deal with Russia though?
"Ukraine's acting President Aleksandr Turchinov has announced he is reinstating a military draft to help deal with the “deteriorating” situation in the country's east and south.
The draft will call on all males between 18 and 25 years of age, who are not eligible for an exemption. "
How is that Ukraine breaking the deal with Russia though?
Because they screamed "We're being invaded by Putin" when they should have asked him or better yet reassure him that his deal will be honored. No one bothered to ask Putin in political field at all. Not New Kiev nor the West. It took him a couple of days of waiting before he initiated operations to maintain operational control on the base. Still no one ask him why nor look at a map to see where exactly his units from Sevestopol deployed.
Edit
They need to break away from manning their units from individuals from the same area the unit is station in. Move western units into eastern Ukraine but that be dicey as heck.
No sooner do we draw troops home, to save money. We have to send them back again.
On another note,
The Pentagon cannot find a replacement for the Russian rocket engines it buys anytime soon, a senior official has revealed. The import of the engines has for now been banned via a court order lobbied by SpaceX and based on sanctions against Russia.
Washington may soon find it problematic to continue launching its military satellites, as a long-time supply connection between Russian and US defense companies has been halted and is being reviewed – all because of sanctions against Moscow in connection with the Ukrainian crisis.
Earlier ordered by US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, the review of US Air Force dependence on the Russian-made RD-180 engine, used in American Atlas V rockets, has not yielded any solutions.
“We don’t have a great solution. We haven’t made any decisions yet,” Frank Kendall, the US undersecretary of defense for acquisition, was quoted as saying by Bloomberg in a Thursday article. The defense official spoke to the outlet after testifying before a Senate committee on the matter on Wednesday.
United Launch Alliance LLC, a partnership of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and Boeing Co. (BA), has been purchasing RD-180 rocket engines from joint Russian-American enterprise RD-Amross LLC since 1997. The engines in question have been produced at a plant of NPO Energomash near Moscow, and over 40 of them were delivered between 1997-2007 alone.
The US has used RD-180 engines to power its Atlas III and Atlas V rockets, which mostly deliver commercial or military communications satellites, as well as reconnaissance and navigation satellites.
SpaceX fighting Russia on US space market?
So far, the replacement options outlined by the Air Force for Hagel have reportedly included building RD-180s in the US under an existing license from the Russian maker, or using different Delta-class rockets altogether. Each of the options has its drawbacks, such as the need to harness the time and know-how for setting up engine production in the US, or the limited production capability for another class of rockets, according to Kendall.
However, even as the Pentagon has yet to come up with a definite decision on the issue, the banning of the Russian engine import is being pushed through by other US players.
US billionaire Elon Musk’s SpaceX corporation on Wednesday won a court order temporarily blocking the Air Force from buying the Russian rocket engines on the grounds of a “potential violation” of US-imposed sanctions. The corporation says that by purchasing the engines, the Air Force is funneling money to Russia’s military industrial complex, which could be sponsoring some sanctioned Russian personas.
That was only part of the April 28 complaint filed by SpaceX, which has been desperately trying to break into the military launch market. Musk has particularly been aiming to end the Boeing/Lockheed-Martin monopoly on launching military satellites in the US.
Speaking at a congressional hearing in March, Musk alleged that such launches may be at risk due to the dependence on the Russian engine.
There has not, however, been any indication that Russia could stop the production of engines already agreed upon under the latest contract, nor did the US freeze their delivery. The Wednesday court decision did not cover existing contracts or payments either.
Despite Washington’s recently ratcheted-up rhetoric on sanctions against Russia, Bloomberg learned that five more RD-180 engines are still due to be delivered this year. The further deliveries could come under question at least temporarily, as, according to Pentagon spokeswoman Maureen Schumann, the United Launch Alliance has already stockpiled a two-year supply of the engines.
How is that Ukraine breaking the deal with Russia though?
Because they screamed "We're being invaded by Putin" when they should have asked him or better yet reassure him that his deal will be honored. No one bothered to ask Putin in political field at all. Not New Kiev nor the West. It took him a couple of days of waiting before he initiated operations to maintain operational control on the base. Still no one ask him why nor look at a map to see where exactly his units from Sevestopol deployed.
Edit
They need to break away from manning their units from individuals from the same area the unit is station in. Move western units into eastern Ukraine but that be dicey as heck.
Wait, Russia moves their garrison into occupation mode and UKRAINE is the one breaking the deal?! Surely the Russians could've asked first just as easy as the Ukrainians, the difference being that the latter didn't say anything at all about the base?
EDIT: Since we're competing in banner-waving parade pictures:
The Pentagon cannot find a replacement for the Russian rocket engines it buys anytime soon, a senior official has revealed. The import of the engines has for now been banned via a court order lobbied by SpaceX and based on sanctions against Russia.
Yeah, I was just about to post that the militants shot down two helicopters using mobile antiaircraft stations. Remember there are an awful lot of trained Ukrainian soldiers on the Pro-Russian side that sided with their hometowns and have training on how to use that equipment.
The US was able to train Afghanistani tribesmen in the use of the stinger missile, its not hard to assume that there are some Pro Russian Ex Ukrainian military there that know how to use their systems.
The Ukraine military is really starting to attack, this is getting bad, quickly.
Yeah, shooting down helicopters isn't that surprising. You have to remember that the acting president (IIRC) of Ukraine said a couple of days ago that units from the military had sided with the separatists. If parts of your military secede, starting an offensive was never going to end well.
In other news, Ukraine has reinstated conscription for all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 25, and Russia has called for an emergency meeting of the UN security council. I can't say I blame them, this offensive combined with conscription has the potential for a full-blown civil war.
-Shrike- wrote: Yeah, shooting down helicopters isn't that surprising. You have to remember that the acting president (IIRC) of Ukraine said a couple of days ago that units from the military had sided with the separatists. If parts of your military secede, starting an offensive was never going to end well.
In other news, Ukraine has reinstated conscription for all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 25, and Russia has called for an emergency meeting of the UN security council. I can't say I blame them, this offensive combined with conscription has the potential for a full-blown civil war.
Which has nothing t do with Russia, except of course for all the Russian troops in Ukraine.
While the US should not be involved and I don't really care, the Russia defenders are really having to stretch now.
-Shrike- wrote: Yeah, shooting down helicopters isn't that surprising. You have to remember that the acting president (IIRC) of Ukraine said a couple of days ago that units from the military had sided with the separatists. If parts of your military secede, starting an offensive was never going to end well.
In other news, Ukraine has reinstated conscription for all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 25, and Russia has called for an emergency meeting of the UN security council. I can't say I blame them, this offensive combined with conscription has the potential for a full-blown civil war.
Which has nothing t do with Russia, except of course for all the Russian troops in Ukraine.
While the US should not be involved and I don't really care, the Russia defenders are really having to stretch now.
It will be interesting to see if the New Ukrainian government has the political clout to actually enforce conscription on its people. I can see a new wave of rebellion against the government if they actually try to enforce it, especially in areas of east Ukraine.
Ukraimne has been in shadow of Russia for centuries, your kidding your self if you think they will give up the historical buffer zones which defend the core Russia motherland.,
Russia's strength is its deapth. And there not likely to want NATO right at there border, however much the times have changed they won,t let people get too close to borders who are not pro Russian.
+ they speak Russian in east, it has strong links to Russia as seen by the flags and such
jhe90 wrote: Ukraimne has been in shadow of Russia for centuries, your kidding your self if you think they will give up the historical buffer zones which defend the core Russia motherland.,
Russia's strength is its deapth. And there not likely to want NATO right at there border, however much the times have changed they won,t let people get too close to borders who are not pro Russian.
+ they speak Russian in east, it has strong links to Russia as seen by the flags and such
They are Russian, so not surprising really. If you watched that last video I posted, it explains a lot.
The Slavyansk self-defense leader said that helicopters were firing on the city with missiles, but that there have been no reports of damage, Interfax stated.
Slavyansk self-defense forces told RIA Novosti that the Ukrainian military had attacked several positions.
“The attack is targeting a few checkpoints at the same time. A few armored vehicles and airborne combat vehicles arrived and airborne troops descended from the helicopters and attacked the checkpoints. Some forces were dropped off around the train station, where we didn’t have anyone,” RIA Novosti quoted the press secretary of the Slavyansk self-defense units as saying.
Meanwhile, the OSCE is trying to reach the Ukrainian authorities in attempt to stop the military operation in the country’s southeast, after a request from Russia.
“We’ve demanded that all that be stopped, and that humanitarian corridors be created for the civilian population, and all air forces flights halted,” the Russian permanent representative to the organization, Andrey Kelin, told RIA Novosti news agency.
-Shrike- wrote: Yeah, shooting down helicopters isn't that surprising. You have to remember that the acting president (IIRC) of Ukraine said a couple of days ago that units from the military had sided with the separatists. If parts of your military secede, starting an offensive was never going to end well.
In other news, Ukraine has reinstated conscription for all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 25, and Russia has called for an emergency meeting of the UN security council. I can't say I blame them, this offensive combined with conscription has the potential for a full-blown civil war.
Which has nothing t do with Russia, except of course for all the Russian troops in Ukraine.
While the US should not be involved and I don't really care, the Russia defenders are really having to stretch now.
It will be interesting to see if the New Ukrainian government has the political clout to actually enforce conscription on its people. I can see a new wave of rebellion against the government if they actually try to enforce it, especially in areas of east Ukraine.
They don't have the money or public support for it. Heck, professional analysis that I've read indicated that half the standard Ukrainian Army was undertrained and badly equipped. There's absolutely no way a administration with such a tenuous grip on the armed forces as things stand has any way of enacting this conscription decree on top of that.
It makes me life quite frankly. It reminds me of when Kitchener announced that Britain was raising an extra 700,000 men at the start of WW1, and the German Parliament went into paroxysms of laughter. IIRC, their quoted response was something along the lines of, 'And how precisely does Lord Kitchener plant o arm and train that many men in a few months?'
Which has nothing t do with Russia, except of course for all the Russian troops in Ukraine.
aside from crimea, where soildiers already were stationed, legally, prior to this whole thing, and which is now part of russia, there are no russian forces in ukraine (at least, no more then there are US forces in ukraine, advisors like the CIA head are well documented as visiting, while we have no hard evidence of russian intellegence/military operatives.)
keep in mind, when ukraine stated as a "fact" that russian troops were in east ukraine, it was proven to be unmitigated BS and the stories were retracted on the back page after the un-vetted hearsay was put on the front page.
no... I never said anything like that seaward, not sure why you get that impression.
Are you honestly under the impression they sent the head of the CIA just to give hugs and thumbs up?
I just said that he is there in a support role... he is an overt operative, by definition... thats his job.
If they just wanted to give moral support, and not intelligence support, why not stop at sending kerry? or just send them a non head of the CIA.
as it is, we have verifiable, namable people from the US government on record as visiting and backing the western ukraininans. we have no names or verifiable members of the russian government (though its safe to assume they have some advisors there too, despite there being no solid evidence)
easysauce wrote: no... I never said anything like that seaward, not sure why you get that impression.
When you're accusing every NGO in the country over the past ten years of being a front for covert US operations, it gets a little tough to separate the rational wheat from the crazy chaff.
Are you honestly under the impression they sent the head of the CIA just to give hugs and thumbs up?
No. I think he probably went for the same reasons his predecessor went to Saigon in the '60s.
I just said that he is there in a support role... he is an overt operative, by definition... thats his job.
He's a manager, not an agent.
If they just wanted to give moral support, and not intelligence support, why not stop at sending kerry? or just send them a non head of the CIA.
Why would we not want to give intelligence support? We generally don't like seeing friendly governments fall to foreign invaders.
as it is, we have verifiable, namable people from the US government on record as visiting and backing the western ukraininans. we have no names or verifiable members of the russian government (though its safe to assume they have some advisors there too, despite there being no solid evidence)
You mean other than Putin, right? Putin backs the separatists.
Why would we not want to give intelligence support? We generally don't like seeing friendly governments fall to foreign invaders.
Especially when you staged a revolution to get said friendly government.
When you're accusing every NGO in the country over the past ten years of being a front for covert US operations, it gets a little tough to separate the rational wheat from the crazy chaff.
Actually, I blamed the NGOs, and not all of them, just the ones that are heavily funded by the government and just so happen to also show up whenever a country is being destabilized. I'm sure it could just be coincidence the CANVAS among others, always seams to be lurking around these revolutions and civil wars.
easysauce wrote: no... I never said anything like that seaward, not sure why you get that impression.
When you're accusing every NGO in the country over the past ten years of being a front for covert US operations, it gets a little tough to separate the rational wheat from the crazy chaff. I never claimed this.. why do you think it? seriously, talk about "crazy chaff"... I said NOTHING about the last 10 years of NGO's, not a single word. Yet you are putting words in my mouth here seaward, all I said was that he was there in an overt advisor/operative (managers are still operatives, and agents, the term is not synonomous with feild agents alone).
Are you honestly under the impression they sent the head of the CIA just to give hugs and thumbs up?
No. I think he probably went for the same reasons his predecessor went to Saigon in the '60s. right, this is exactly what I said... he is there for an advisory role, and its an overt advisory role. not sure why you are argueing with me when we are both saying the CIA is there to help advise.plan ect. Just like saigon, this is indicative of the states support for the west ukraine government.
and While you claim putin backs the separatists, he hasnt visited, nor has his top advisors. OBS he does back them to a degree, but he has yet to go so far as to send any prominent members of his government in to do anything.
This thread is full of people denying and yelling about how the states is NOT backing the east ukrainian government when that is catagorically proven to be untrue. The states is very much supporting them, and has been for some time.
Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?
Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.
Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.
So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.
Can Russia do that while still supplying their customers gas in Europe? I thought the pipeline prevented Russia from selectively cutting off Ukraine if they still desired delivering product to Europe.
If they just wanted to give moral support, and not intelligence support, why not stop at sending kerry? or just send them a non head of the CIA.
Why would we not want to give intelligence support? We generally don't like seeing friendly governments fall to foreign invaders.
And nor does Russia like to see a friendly government in a nation that shares a border with Russia overthrown in a putsch encouraged and supported by Western governments.
as it is, we have verifiable, namable people from the US government on record as visiting and backing the western ukraininans. we have no names or verifiable members of the russian government (though its safe to assume they have some advisors there too, despite there being no solid evidence)
You mean other than Putin, right? Putin backs the separatists.
And we back the violent revolutionaries. Go figure.
Can Russia do that while still supplying their customers gas in Europe? I thought the pipeline prevented Russia from selectively cutting off Ukraine if they still desired delivering product to Europe.
I'm not a Natural Gas engineer. Probably not best to ask me.
Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?
Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.
Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.
So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.
Uhm...Crimea was decided to split off from Ukraine so I don't see what's wrong with cutting off supplies. Why doesn't Russia supply them now? It's their country, according to them, after all. Go take care of it. And in general, Russia acted first by invading a foreign country.
the pipes run through ukraine, russia cant shut off the taps to ukraine without also shutting out europe, as ukraine can and will just tap the lines again.
Can Russia do that while still supplying their customers gas in Europe? I thought the pipeline prevented Russia from selectively cutting off Ukraine if they still desired delivering product to Europe.
I'm not a Natural Gas engineer. Probably not best to ask me.
Haha, sorry! I meant to open it up as a general question while using your quote as the context.
easysauce wrote: the pipes run through ukraine, russia cant shut off the taps to ukraine without also shutting out europe, as ukraine can and will just tap the lines again.
Thanks, easysauce, I thought that was the case.
So Russia can't really retaliate with pulling their gas unless they want to spite their much needed European customers. Talk about rock and a hard place.
Sigvatr wrote: Uhm...Crimea was decided to split off from Ukraine so I don't see what's wrong with cutting off supplies. Why doesn't Russia supply them now? It's their country, according to them, after all. Go take care of it. And in general, Russia acted first by invading a foreign country.
so now crimea is part of russia? Because I swear western ukraine, and lots of anti east ukrainians in this thread, keep claiming its still part of ukraine.
ok glad thats settled though, its part of russia officially, both sides recognize that if ukraine is now treating crimea as an enemy country.
also, for the millionth time, crimea was not invaded, that is factually false. Crimea had a vote, and choose to separate. Invasions involve unwilling parties being taken by force, not democratic processes that reflect the majority of the peoples desires.
in one breath you claim "Crimea was decided to split off from Ukraine " then the next you claim russia invaded them guns blazing... pick a story and stick to it jeese
Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?
Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.
Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.
So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.
Uhm...Crimea was decided to split off from Ukraine so I don't see what's wrong with cutting off supplies. Why doesn't Russia supply them now? It's their country, according to them, after all. Go take care of it. And in general, Russia acted first by invading a foreign country.
1. Because it creates a humanitarian crisis.
2. Because the infrastructure (i.e. pipes) to pump drinking and agricultural water across the Sea of Azov / Black Sea from Russia to Crimea probably does not exist.
3. Because the Kiev Regime claims that Crimea was occupied against the will of the Crimean people.
a) if that is true, then they are forcing even more suffering onto their own people for the crime of being occupied.
b) if it not true, and the people of Crimea really do want to be part of Russia then they are being punished for exercising their democratic right to self determination.
4. Because civilized governments don't just arbitrarily cut off drinking water without warning for 2.4 million people.
5. Because its fething petty.
update, pro west rioters burn out and kill dozens of pro east rioters.
This has been confirmed by multiple sources, 2 of which i have below.
More than 30 people were reported to have been killed in violent and chaotic clashes in the southern Ukrainian city of Odessa on Friday as pro-Ukrainian activists stormed a building defended by protesters opposed to the current government in Kiev and in favour of closer ties with Russia.
from
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/ukraine-dead-odessa-building-fire
"At least 31 anti-government activists died in fire at Odessa’s Trade Unions House after suffocating with smoke or jumping out of windows of the burning building, Ukrainian Interior Ministry reported. The building was set ablaze by the pro-Kiev radicals.
from RT
Im just amazed at how all the pro west people here are just hand waiving away kievs use of the military on its own people, the abhorrent body count that is being racked up... for some reason its ok for kiev to use the military on protestors, but if yanokovich had sent in the tanks and helios against maiden, that of course is wrong.
Hold one. I'm under the impression its Russian Marines from Sevastapol Naval Station being used. Took control of both airports and a comm center. One airport is near Sevastopol Naval Station itself and the other airport located near the intersection of two major highways of M17and M18 located at Simferpol. Pretty much keeping a logistical lifeline from both Airport to the Naval Station by Air. Under 50 miles. If so then that's pretty much it. Unless they roll across the Russian border into Crimea and literally drive down M17.
Those two battalions pretty much took all of Crimea at gun point. Now that's a freaking huge operational "Foot Print"
So for 20 days those two Battalions secured the airport, the highway and the entire region thereby forcing Crimea to vote "Putin"
How in Gawds name they lose Afghanistan
Never mind. We're also pulling out hopefully beating Karzai to get across the border
So for 20 days those two Battalions secured the airport, the highway and the entire region thereby forcing Crimea to vote "Putin"
no one forced crimea to do anything... crimea has been biting at the bit to get out of ukraine for quite some time, they have tried several times prior to this, and ukraine has simply not let them leave. Claiming they were forced at gunpoint to vote a certain way is ludicrous.
easysauce wrote: Im just amazed at how all the pro west people here are just hand waiving away kievs use of the military on its own people, the abhorrent body count that is being racked up... for some reason its ok for kiev to use the military on protestors, but if yanokovich had sent in the tanks and helios against maiden, that of course is wrong.
President Assad bombs and kills "his own people"...and the US government wanted to bomb the gak out of the Syrian military launch a "Limited Strike" to teach him not to kill his own people.
The Kiev Regime is now hunting down and killing its own (separatist) citizens in extra-judicial executions...In the interests of consistency, shouldn't we be gearing up for a "Limited Strike" on the Kiev Regime to teach them not to kill their own people?
1. Because it creates a humanitarian crisis.
2. Because the infrastructure (i.e. pipes) to pump drinking and agricultural water across the Sea of Azov / Black Sea from Russia to Crimea probably does not exist.
3. Because the Kiev Regime claims that Crimea was occupied against the will of the Crimean people.
a) if that is true, then they are forcing even more suffering onto their own people for the crime of being occupied.
b) if it not true, and the people of Crimea really do want to be part of Russia then they are being punished for exercising their democratic right to self determination.
4. Because civilized governments don't just arbitrarily cut off drinking water without warning for 2.4 million people.
5. Because its fething petty.
Solution: don't do stupid stuff before thinking about the consequences. Turns out Russia isn't as awesome as they thought it would be. Hm.
Andrew1975 wrote: Especially when you staged a revolution to get said friendly government.
I remain amazed that you believe the revolution was the US' doing. A popular former president gets thrown in jail on trumped-up charges, the administration responsible takes numerous actions the majority of the country doesn't approve of, and somehow the US talks the populace into going out and getting shot?
Actually, I blamed the NGOs, and not all of them, just the ones that are heavily funded by the government and just so happen to also show up whenever a country is being destabilized. I'm sure it could just be coincidence the CANVAS among others, always seams to be lurking around these revolutions and civil wars.
CANVAS, the organization that doesn't accept funding from governments, and is largely funded by a single Serb, is secretly a CIA operation?
easysauce wrote: I never claimed this.. why do you think it? seriously, talk about "crazy chaff"... I said NOTHING about the last 10 years of NGO's, not a single word. Yet you are putting words in my mouth here seaward, all I said was that he was there in an overt advisor/operative (managers are still operatives, and agents, the term is not synonomous with feild agents alone).
You and Andrew make a lot of the same pro-Russia arguments. I tend to get the two of you confused.
right, this is exactly what I said... he is there for an advisory role, and its an overt advisory role. not sure why you are argueing with me when we are both saying the CIA is there to help advise.plan ect. Just like saigon, this is indicative of the states support for the west ukraine government.
I think our officially-stated support of the Ukrainian government is more indicative.
and While you claim putin backs the separatists, he hasnt visited, nor has his top advisors. OBS he does back them to a degree, but he has yet to go so far as to send any prominent members of his government in to do anything.
That's because it's an illegal movement. The British prime minister didn't meet with Jefferson Davis in Richmond despite providing support to the Confederacy.
And if the supreme commander of NATO is convinced that the Russians are using military forces to assist the separatists, that's good enough for me.
This thread is full of people denying and yelling about how the states is NOT backing the east ukrainian government when that is catagorically proven to be untrue. The states is very much supporting them, and has been for some time.
I think you meant to say "west Ukrainian," but either way, you're incorrect. There is no west Ukrainian government nor an eastern one. There's a Ukrainian government. Then there's a civil revolt.
I remain amazed that you believe the revolution was the US' doing. A popular former president gets thrown in jail on trumped-up charges, the administration responsible takes numerous actions the majority of the country doesn't approve of, and somehow the US talks the populace into going out and getting shot?
I'm Amazed that you don't see this, as this is pretty standard and has happened repeatedly in the past.
CANVAS, the organization that doesn't accept funding from governments, and is largely funded by a single Serb, is secretly a CIA operation?
Do you just make up stuff as you go. Canvas among others is heavily funded by the US state department.
I remain amazed that you believe the revolution was the US' doing. A popular former president gets thrown in jail on trumped-up charges, the administration responsible takes numerous actions the majority of the country doesn't approve of, and somehow the US talks the populace into going out and getting shot?
I'm Amazed that you don't see this, as this is pretty standard and has happened repeatedly in the past.
CANVAS, the organization that doesn't accept funding from governments, and is largely funded by a single Serb, is secretly a CIA operation?
Do you just make up stuff as you go. Canvas among others is heavily funded by the US state department.
Global Research "about" page wrote:The Global Research website was established on the 9th of September 2001, two days before the tragic events of September 11. Barely a few days later, Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington’s “war on terrorism”.
Since September 2001, we have established an extensive archive of news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media.
In an era of media disinformation, our focus has essentially been to center on the “unspoken truth”.
During the invasion of Iraq (March-April 2003), Global Research published, on a daily basis, independent reports from the Middle East, which provided an alternative to the news emanating from the “embedded” journalists reporting from the war theater. Since 2004, Global Research has provided detailed analysis and coverage of US-NATO-Israel preparations to wage a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran.
Emphasis mine. Do you have anything other than that page supporting that CANVAS takes government money? You'll have to excuse me, but a source claiming to provide news about a "New World Order" is about as far down the ladder of credibility as one can get, especially when it claims that CANVAS is the same entity as Otpor! with a new name. Yes, some of the people involved are the same, that does not make it the same organization. Further, they don't even bother to cite any sources. If I'd written that and turned it in to my Professor as an academic paper I'd be either laughed or kicked (probably both at the same time) out of that course faster than I could say "potato-peeling primordial pygmy plant".
First it tries to equate Otpor! with CANVAS, despite the two being two distincive organizations, then it tries to claim that just because Otpor! recieved funding from the US that means that CANVAS does too, and THEN goes on to claim that Mohammed el-Baradei clearly knew that the Arab Spring was coming because he formed a political coalition. It couldn't possibly be the other way around, that the change came because they did that in the first place, it has to be a conspiracy!
I'm sorry, but that's insane. Utterly, completely insane. It's quite possible that CANVAS really IS recieving US funding for all we know, but that web page doesn't contain any proof for it. At all.
easysauce wrote: Im just amazed at how all the pro west people here are just hand waiving away kievs use of the military on its own people, the abhorrent body count that is being racked up... for some reason its ok for kiev to use the military on protestors, but if yanokovich had sent in the tanks and helios against maiden, that of course is wrong.
President Assad bombs and kills "his own people"...and the US government wanted to bomb the gak out of the Syrian military launch a "Limited Strike" to teach him not to kill his own people.
The Kiev Regime is now hunting down and killing its own (separatist) citizens in extra-judicial executions...In the interests of consistency, shouldn't we be gearing up for a "Limited Strike" on the Kiev Regime to teach them not to kill their own people?
I'm pretty sure the "US government" didn't want to actually do anything in Syria. A few politicians did, but certainly not the government as a whole.
easysauce wrote: Im just amazed at how all the pro west people here are just hand waiving away kievs use of the military on its own people, the abhorrent body count that is being racked up... for some reason its ok for kiev to use the military on protestors, but if yanokovich had sent in the tanks and helios against maiden, that of course is wrong.
President Assad bombs and kills "his own people"...and the US government wanted to bomb the gak out of the Syrian military launch a "Limited Strike" to teach him not to kill his own people.
The Kiev Regime is now hunting down and killing its own (separatist) citizens in extra-judicial executions...In the interests of consistency, shouldn't we be gearing up for a "Limited Strike" on the Kiev Regime to teach them not to kill their own people?
I'm pretty sure the "US government" didn't want to actually do anything in Syria. A few politicians did, but certainly not the government as a whole.
Plus the whole "chemical weapons in an unstable country" deal.
Besides, NATO going in with military in Ukraine now would just be "aggression" and "provocative behaviour" and blatantly a front to encircle Russia with death rays, and we can't have that now can we?
Because its ok for one side to violently take power and oust someone that a lot of people voted for, then when those voters try to oust the people who just over threw him, with far less violence mind you, THEY are illegitimate.
Because Kiev called DIBS on violent overthrows.
I still have seen nothing done to justify use of deadly military force against anti-kiev protestors,
Nor justify burning 30 people alive in odessa, or the right sector attack to break the truce.
The body count has been piling up, I wonder if yanokovich had just started shooting people if you all would have supported that violence?
also, for the tin foilers who still read western media as if its not ALSO a lie, which denies pro-kiev forces from being responsible for throwing Molotovs into the building to kill all those people.
also, for the tin foilers who still read western media as if its not ALSO a lie, which denies pro-kiev forces from being responsible for throwing Molotovs into the building to kill all those people.
PREVED everyone!
I have returned from short stay in Crimea and traded my Ukrainian passport for a nice Russian one. Yay!
Everything in Crimea has calmed down and mostly gone back to normal. There are still some problems with infrastructure that goes through Ukraine, but nothing that won't be solved soon There also are a lot of men from Crimea in Eastern Ukraine and Odessa currently. And things there certainly haven't calmed down. Dear God... There has been too much blood spilt. I can't ever see the situation there returning to normal. The coup-regime and their fascist nazi friends have messed up beyond repair now, stupid fools they are.
Especially in Odessa, things have gone really messed up. There is also good news though: http://rt.com/news/156724-odessa-police-release-activists/
also, for the tin foilers who still read western media as if its not ALSO a lie, which denies pro-kiev forces from being responsible for throwing Molotovs into the building to kill all those people.
Source?
did you not watch the video of someone throwing the molotov?
sorry but is that not proof enough of people throwing molotovs?
Putting one person in jail certainly doesnt justify killing a few hundred people. This woman has also called for the deaths of ethnic russians.
also, for the tin foilers who still read western media as if its not ALSO a lie, which denies pro-kiev forces from being responsible for throwing Molotovs into the building to kill all those people.
Source?
did you not watch the video of someone throwing the molotov?
sorry but is that not proof enough of people throwing molotovs?
Putting one person in jail certainly doesnt justify killing a few hundred people. This woman has also called for the deaths of ethnic russians.
Source for "western media" (broad brush there BTW) denying who threw it?
also, for the tin foilers who still read western media as if its not ALSO a lie, which denies pro-kiev forces from being responsible for throwing Molotovs into the building to kill all those people.
Source?
Google.
You're (well, easysauce's) making the statement, you back it up.
You're (well, easysauce's) making the statement, you back it up.
Ignore my comment. Your first remark simply asked for a "Source", which I took to mean you were asking for confirmation that the event actually took place, then I read your second more detailed remark (posted after I started writing my comment) asking for a source confirming that Western media denied it.
You're (well, easysauce's) making the statement, you back it up.
Ignore my comment. Your first remark simply asked for a "Source", which I took to mean you were asking for confirmation that the event actually took place, then I read your second more detailed remark (posted after I started writing my comment) asking for a source confirming that Western media denied it.
Self-defense forces in the anti-Kiev stronghold of Slavyansk are Ukrainians, not Russians, who distrust the new regime and the Western powers that support it, New York Times reporters have discovered. The forces also said they are not being paid to fight.
Two New York Times reporters have spent a week in the city of Slavyansk in eastern Ukraine, talking to members of the self-defense forces. The journalists visited self-defense checkpoints and observed the forces as they battled Ukrainian troops amid a military assault on the city on Friday.
The resistance fighters of the 12th Company, part of the People’s Self-Defense of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, deny claims made by Kiev and its Western sponsors that Russia or private tycoons are paying them to fight.
“This is not a job,” one of the activists, Dmitry told the NYT reporters. “It is a service.”
Armed with dated weapons, the self-defense activists said they would have bought new weapons if they had financial support. The NYT journalists reported seeing weapons from the 1980s and 1990s in checkpoints and warehouses.
Former United States congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has called on the US to stay out of the intensifying Ukraine conflict, saying it was Western powers that initially stirred unrest there and which continue to incite the tense situation.
Those guys probably really aren't in the Russian's pocket. I mean why spend money importing protesters and fighters when the locals are already doing that for you? Still, its obvious that the Russians are sending some sort of force into Ukrainian territory to stir up trouble in any case.
I read the opinion of a pro-Ukrainian blogger on the molotov matter, which detailed the situation as "The armed pro-Russians thought they could waltz in and beat up the pro-Kiev supporters as they had done elsewhere. They didn't count on their opposition to be nationalists and outnumber them four to one though. So despite only being armed with makeshift weapons, and the pro-Russians having guns, the nationalists beat them back. Of course being in the extreme side of nationalism things got out of hand and molotovs started flying". Meh. What I did pick up on in from that blog entry was the question of "what's Putin going to say to the mothers of all those dead Russian soldiers who aren't officially in Ukraine?". Their bodies are somehow retrieved, those guy's families are paid off, or the Russians just take that land over so there's no problem.
I just feel for the all the normal people that're being caught up in this political dick waving contest. That and its annoying to see how easy it is for countries to pull the "everyone knows we're up to some bad crap, but where's your properly formatted evidence?" card and get away with it. Hopefully everything will turn out all right, but I'm still doubting that any of this will be looked on favourably in retrospect.
Because its ok for one side to violently take power and oust someone that a lot of people voted for, then when those voters try to oust the people who just over threw him, with far less violence mind you, THEY are illegitimate.
I really have to wonder if you just started following this story a couple months ago or something. The anti-Yanukovych protests were not a recent phenomenon, and stayed peaceful long after they had plenty of justification for doing otherwise. And, for that matter, if he had the will of the people behind him, I doubt he would have fled. You can make it sound like an armed uprising led a violent military campaign that physically ousted Yanukovych if you really like, but it'd be nonsense.
Andrew1975 wrote: Not really accurate, all Russia did was remove the subsidy that they had in place, now Ukraine pays the same as everyone else. That's usually what happens when you snub your nose at someone, they remove preferential treatment.
It's basically Russia saying "OK well if you want to have the EU support you instead of us, lets see them help you out with the gas bill".
Sigh. I really fething love it when someone tries to correct me on some point, when I've already explained the actual situation in more detail elsewhere. If you're going to get technical, at least read the damn thread.
Anyhow, to repeat myself;
"The subsidy was part of the generalised understanding that allowed Russia to run pipelines through the Ukraine and in to Western Europe."
It is nothing like as simple as Russia just happily subsidising exports to a foreign country.
Not really, Ukraine was under Russian political will, it was only when the West tried to interfere that the situation started to boil. There was a status quo that it seamed most people in Ukraine and Russia were OK with, until the West showed up.
Umm, there hasn't been a status quo since the fall of the Soviet Union. What there was, for some time, was the idea that the Ukraine wouldn't have to pick either side because there would be no more 'Russia vs the West' dynamic.
That assumption fell away over time, but it was never replaced with any kind of status quo in which the country happily accepted close ties with Russia, but always caused internal friction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Because they screamed "We're being invaded by Putin" when they should have asked him or better yet reassure him that his deal will be honored. No one bothered to ask Putin in political field at all.
Not giving someone a call to tell them that a deal will continue to be honoured is not the same thing as actually failing to honour a deal. I mean holy crap, the excuses people are coming up with in this thread is just remarkable.
Simple analogy, I lend you money to buy a car. Your deal is to pay me on the 1st of every month, and you do so for a couple of years. Then I hear that you lost your job, and I then go and repossess the car.
You point out that's outrageous, because you hadn't actually missed a payment, and I say that you broke the deal because you didn't contact me to assure me you were going to continue making payments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.
Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.
First up, trying to isolate the Russian threat over gas as being purely a response to Ukraine's threat to cut off water supplies is silly. Russia's threat there has a lot of causes, and it'd be arguable is Ukrainian water supply is even one of those issues, let alone a major issue, let alone the only reason.
Secondly, it's a total nonsense to watch a relationship deteriorate over months in a string of reactions and counter-reactions, and to pick out one single instance in isolation and say one side started that.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.
Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.
First up, trying to isolate the Russian threat over gas as being purely a response to Ukraine's threat to cut off water supplies is silly. Russia's threat there has a lot of causes, and it'd be arguable is Ukrainian water supply is even one of those issues, let alone a major issue, let alone the only reason.
Secondly, it's a total nonsense to watch a relationship deteriorate over months in a string of reactions and counter-reactions, and to pick out one single instance in isolation and say one side started that.
1. Its a good thing I never said that then, isn't it? I said that Russia had made vague unfulfilled threats (in relation to Ukraine's revolution, subsequent hostilities with Russia and military actions against "Terrorists") of cutting off the gas supply. Ukraine responded by actually cutting off Crimea's water supply, thereby increasing the risk that Russia will actually carry out its threat. In which case, Ukraine will have shot itself in the foot.
No-one hear ever said that the Russian threat was made in response to Ukraine cutting off the water. Thats nonsense, as Crimea's water supply being cut off came after Russia made the threat over the gas. Only YOU are saying this.
Please argue against what I actually say.
2. Again, I did not say that. My point was that Ukraine responded to a threat with pre-emptive action, making it even more likely that Russia will carry out its threat.
easysauce wrote: also, for the millionth time, crimea was not invaded, that is factually false. Crimea had a vote, and choose to separate.
If the Russians had waited until after the election, or at least waited until after an election was attempted and quashed by Kiev, then what you claim above would be true. But Russians troops were active in February, within a few days of the start of the unrest, and more than a month before the referendum was held.
That's an invasion.
I mean holy fething gak, you don't go about putting troops in foreign countries because you reckon they're probably going to be alright with it when you have a ballot later on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: no one forced crimea to do anything... crimea has been biting at the bit to get out of ukraine for quite some time, they have tried several times prior to this, and ukraine has simply not let them leave. Claiming they were forced at gunpoint to vote a certain way is ludicrous.
True, claiming they were forced to vote that way is silly.
But then, plenty of people are claiming that a vote organised inside of a month, without any established government in place, and with no observation from any international body, is just assumed to be a completely valid poll of the population. Not at silly as the claim that the election was held at gunpoint, but more or less in the same ballpark.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: 2. Again, I did not say that. My point was that Ukraine responded to a threat with pre-emptive action, making it even more likely that Russia will carry out its threat.
Gibberish. The water to the Crimea was cut off after there were Russian troops active in the region. Talking about the water as the first act from which other acts followed is absolutely fething bonkers.
Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?
Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.
Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.
So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.
Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?
Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.
Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.
So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.
Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?
Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.
Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.
So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.
No, it was Russia that first stole the Crimea.
No, Crimea rightfully returned itself to Russia.
"Rightfully" ignoring the Ukranian constitution in the process.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "Rightfully" ignoring the Ukranian constitution in the process.
You mean the consittution that was invalidated by the kiev government the second they changed it to get rid of the russian language.
You mean the constitution that they broke the laws of with their appointment of unelected people through violent means?
like it or not, you cannot over throw an ELECTED leader, then change the constitution to you whims, then complain when those people who elected him are upset you changed the constituion uniulaterally.
Why should they treat the constitution better then you yourself treat it.
again, rank hyppocracy, the easterners have to 100% follow the constitution with no voice in changing it, while the westerners can ignore/change/ect the constitution as they see fit.
You cannot support one side breaking the rules, then chastise the other when they break the same rules.
Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?
Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.
Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.
So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.
No, it was Russia that first stole the Crimea.
No, Crimea rightfully returned itself to Russia.
"Rightfully" ignoring the Ukranian constitution in the process.
Which the Ukrainians do all the time, Which ever side wins Ukraine is stuffed. If Russia doesn't take over, the IMF will rob them blind.
easysauce wrote: You mean the consittution that was invalidated by the kiev government the second they changed it to get rid of the russian language.
like it or not, you cannot over throw an ELECTED leader, then change the constitution to you whims, then complain when those people who elected him are upset you changed the constituion uniulaterally.
An "elected leader" does not imprison the opposition on trumped up charges.
Or did you miss that bit? Because we actually had a discussion here on Dakka about it when Brother Vinni posted up one of his models, which was made to look just like said opposition leader.
easysauce wrote: You mean the consittution that was invalidated by the kiev government the second they changed it to get rid of the russian language.
like it or not, you cannot over throw an ELECTED leader, then change the constitution to you whims, then complain when those people who elected him are upset you changed the constituion uniulaterally.
An "elected leader" does not imprison the opposition on trumped up charges.
Or did you miss that bit? Because we actually had a discussion here on Dakka about it when Brother Vinni posted up one of his models, which was made to look just like said opposition leader.
What does brother Vinni have to do with the discussion? I know the connection, I just don't see why we need to bring his (IMHO, disgusting) work into this conversation.
easysauce wrote: You mean the consittution that was invalidated by the kiev government the second they changed it to get rid of the russian language.
like it or not, you cannot over throw an ELECTED leader, then change the constitution to you whims, then complain when those people who elected him are upset you changed the constituion uniulaterally.
An "elected leader" does not imprison the opposition on trumped up charges.
Or did you miss that bit? Because we actually had a discussion here on Dakka about it when Brother Vinni posted up one of his models, which was made to look just like said opposition leader.
Even when the opposition is a thieving scumbag ?
Sorry, where's the evidence? Is this like the whole thing that Western special forces are on the ground and training the Ukrainian soldiers?
She might not be thieving, but I wouldn't call her particularly nice either. Most of the time around 2009-2011 was spent telling everyone how much of a scumbag Yanukovich was.
To be completely honest, Tymoshenko and Yanukovich were both dicks to each other.
-Shrike- wrote: She might not be thieving, but I wouldn't call her particularly nice either. Most of the time around 2009-2011 was spent telling everyone how much of a scumbag Yanukovich was.
...No duh? She was calling him a scumbag when under his administration there was a ton of seemingly trumped up/"revisited" charges?
What a shock! How dare she call him a scumbag! Clearly everything Yanukovich was doing was above reproach!
then get debunked because your side broke the constitutions law..
so OFC the goal posts must move to "but you imprisoned someone!"
no one missed that bit... it just doesnt matter at the moment afte hundreds of people have been killed.
also, she was imprisoned "On October 11, 2011, she was convicted of embezzlement and abuse of power, and sentenced to seven years in prison"
maybe google fu some stuff before you claim she was just thrown in jail for no reason.. you can argue that the charges are illegitimate, but she was charged, and convicted, under the law as written.
Its also hypocritical yet again, if you are against political imprisonments, yet not against political coups/juntas, its a total double standard.
yes OFC she shouldnt have gone to jail... yes OFC they should also have waited for elections to get yanokovich out.
Anything to move the goal posts and avoid confronting that your previous claims of "unconstitutionality" are just hypocritical grand standing
just as how you need 0 evidence to say russian spec ops are behind the eastern protestors like its an absolute fact.
but need absolute double blind peer reviewed studies to even admit US backing western protestors as a possibility.
-Shrike- wrote: She might not be thieving, but I wouldn't call her particularly nice either. Most of the time around 2009-2011 was spent telling everyone how much of a scumbag Yanukovich was.
...No duh? She was calling him a scumbag when under his administration there was a ton of seemingly trumped up/"revisited" charges?
What a shock! How dare she call him a scumbag! Clearly everything Yanukovich was doing was above reproach!
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. She was calling him a scumbag long before the elections, and continued doing so during the elections. Of course, she had every right to do so once he started looking for charges against her, as that was clearly politically biased.
EDIT: How nice of you to leave out the second part of my post. Yanukovich and Tymoshenko were both dicks to each other, neither are above reproach.
easysauce wrote: she was put in jail for actual charges... not for name calling....
even a cursory wiki search shows corruption convictions on her.
For the sake of argument, let's call those charges disputed, because this discussion will go nowhere otherwise.
certainly they are, but it was done "lawfully"
and thats besides the point, crimea's referendum, is also disputed, so is the new kiev legitimacy, and so on and so on...
the pro west side keeps trying to assert their position is unassailable, totally legitimate, and that all their actions are 100% justified/legal/ect and that the other side is 100% illegitimate.
This is despite pro west groups commiting acts that are deplorable, illegal, and so on.
I keep pointing out that double standard, and the other side keeps ignoring that they are applying double standards to what makes things "legitimate"
easysauce wrote: she was put in jail for actual charges... not for name calling....
even a cursory wiki search shows corruption convictions on her.
Wasn't Li'l Kim's uncle over in North Korea executed for actual charges?
yes, actual charges under what is the letter of the law =/= legitimate...
after all slavery was legal at one point, doesnt make it legitimate.
The point being, that if we point fingers at one side, as being illegitimate, for putting her in jail, then we must own up to the fact that OUR side, doing similar actions is also illegitimate.
the solution being that instead of both sides forceing the other side to comply with their ways, both sides need their own space to do things their own way.
However, in this thread, we have people calling pro east people illegitimate, because they ignored the consittuion, while calling pro west people legitimate, despite them ignoreing the constitution.
For some reason that double standard is incomprehensible to some
so far, in this thread, only one side has owned up to even the possibility that the other side might just have a point.
Not giving someone a call to tell them that a deal will continue to be honoured is not the same thing as actually failing to honour a deal. I mean holy crap, the excuses people are coming up with in this thread is just remarkable.
Simple analogy, I lend you money to buy a car. Your deal is to pay me on the 1st of every month, and you do so for a couple of years. Then I hear that you lost your job, and I then go and repossess the car.
You point out that's outrageous, because you hadn't actually missed a payment, and I say that you broke the deal because you didn't contact me to assure me you were going to continue making payments.
You know Sebster I am going to throw it in your lap
Give me a time line when he started using his military forces.
Look at a map of Crimea
Look at known activity of his units in Crimea
So list me by time
Location and what units there.
Read the map. Are you fimilar with reading maps from a tactical/logistical point view?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: 2. Again, I did not say that. My point was that Ukraine responded to a threat with pre-emptive action, making it even more likely that Russia will carry out its threat.
Gibberish. The water to the Crimea was cut off after there were Russian troops active in the region. Talking about the water as the first act from which other acts followed is absolutely fething bonkers.
Again, I did not call the cutting off of the water supply "the first act from which all acts followed". If we're arguing about what the very "first act from which other acts followed" was, then that must surely have been theoriginal, violent uprising in Kiev.
What I find "absolutely bonkers", is that you're still arguing against what I have not said.
Kiev had a threat from Russia hanging over it, that Russia would cut off Ukraine's gas. By pre-emptively cutting off Crimea's water before Russia has even carried out that threat, does that not make it infinitely more likely that Russia will actually carry out that threat?
How many times must I state this before you acknowledge WTF I am actually saying?
Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?
Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.
Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.
So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.
No, it was Russia that first stole the Crimea.
FYI.
"But I was referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis".
Granted, my original comment "Ukraine is responsible for escalating the situation" should have been clearer that I was talking about utilities. But it appears you didn't bother to properly read the second comment clarifying it.
You mean the constitution that they broke the laws of with their appointment of unelected people through violent means?
Parliament impeached Yanukovych, didn't they? If the election in Crimea is valid then surely a vote of impeachment by the elected representatives of the people is valid too, no?
Alright I help a few here if someone throws up a map on here showing
Sevestopol (Naval Station there0
Simferopolwhich is East about 50 K
Main Highway between Sevestopol and Simferopol is H06
Highway Junction at Simferopol is H06, E105, and P23
New Kiev Government anti Putin
Feb Ukraine starts to go down the drain
22 Feb Yanu pops smokes out of Ukraine
Sterile uniforms seized Sevestopol and Simferopol Airports
Sterile uniforms started locking down the isthmus at Perekot to continental Ukraine (M17 Highway)
Sterile uniforms locked down Chongar Peninsula (E105 highway)
Locked down a mechanized unit south of Simferopol that was within striking distance of Simferopol Airfield
-Basically Putin has a life line starting from Simferopol to Sevestopol to keep the base operational
So Crimea has a version of a SOFA agreement via Ukraine of
Russia was allowed to maintain up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems (with a caliber smaller than 100 mm), 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes, on the Crimean Peninsula and Sevastopol.
Of those 25K troops only five battalions of combat troops of Russian Marines.
No sign of aircraft transport flying troops in
No signs of "Heavy" or "Light" Combat units has moved across Kerch
New Kiev government couldn't order Crimean military units to resist because lets face it. The freaking units were Pro Russian being they are manned by locals at where ever the base is located. So if order was given to move against the Russians or Sterile uniforms units I bet a case of beer the unit would not follow up
So five battalions of combat troops, ball park figure of 5k troops that
breakdown of unit
Infantry
1 Platton HQ 3 Platoons of Infantry
1 heavy weapon platoon
Artillery
HQ platoon
3 batteries of arty
(4 tubes per platoon)
So say two battalion Infantry
one Battalion of Artillery holds Sevestopol naval station
Two Battalions operating at both airfields and highway H06
Same Battalions locking down three Ukraine military units
Couple "Slap" platoons securing both northern entry points of Crimea
So basically two battalions holding down an area of 10K miles.
The entire time the New Kiev government screams they're almost being invaded and wanted West EU and US to support them.
Yet no one looked at a map and placed units,their actions, at the locations in Crimea. I figured that out like at page 11.12....13 maybe
Obama couldn't say to Putin "I see what your doing with troop movements in Crimea protecting Sevestopol. I see if the new Kiev Government will honor the previous agreement. If not then we're in a new ball game and a Cold War II."
Nope Obama had to go right out and condemn Putin and back the New Kiev government. Which IMHO is a BAD CALL as we can see by the actions of New Kiev Government
Crimea votes to go Russia due to 2-5 battalions of Russian Marines holding a gun to their head
Sebster already explained why it's irrelevant. You're not allowed to start taking over parts of another country just because they might not honour their agreements. Just because Russia was allowed a garrison it does not follow that they're allowed to do what they want with it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Sebster already explained why it's irrelevant. You're not allowed to start taking over parts of another country just because they might not honour their agreements. Just because Russia was allowed a garrison it does not follow that they're allowed to do what they want with it.
I think we're long past the point of what people are allowed and are not allowed to do.
Were the Kiev protesters allowed to violently overthrow an elected government?
Were the gunmen and snipers who allegedly targeted people on both sides allowed to do what they did?
Was the new Kiev government allowed to appoint members of armed, extremist Neo Nazi parties to key government positions?
Was Russia allowed to use its troops already stationed in Crimea to take over?
Is Crimea allowed to unilaterally announce its seceding from Ukraine?
Is Russia allowed to hold a snap referendum then annex Crimea?
Were the pro-Kiev groups allowed to burn to death dozens of pro-Russia demonstrators?
Is the currently unelected Kiev government allowed to label a substantial number of its citizens "Terrorists" and send in the army to kill them?
Is Kiev allowed to cut off the drinking water for millions of Crimeans, who it maintains are still Ukrainian citizens forced against their will to join Russia?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Sebster already explained why it's irrelevant. You're not allowed to start taking over parts of another country just because they might not honour their agreements. Just because Russia was allowed a garrison it does not follow that they're allowed to do what they want with it.
I think we're long past the point of what people are allowed and are not allowed to do.
Were the Kiev protesters allowed to violently overthrow an elected government?
Were the gunmen and snipers who allegedly targeted people on both sides allowed to do what they did?
Was the new Kiev government allowed to appoint members of armed, extremist Neo Nazi parties to key government positions?
Was Russia allowed to use its troops already stationed in Crimea to take over?
Is Crimea allowed to unilaterally announce its seceding from Ukraine?
Is Russia allowed to hold a snap referendum then annex Crimea?
Were the pro-Kiev groups allowed to burn to death dozens of pro-Russia demonstrators?
Is the currently unelected Kiev government allowed to label a substantial number of its citizens "Terrorists" and send in the army to kill them?
Is Kiev allowed to cut off the drinking water for millions of Crimeans, who it maintains are still Ukrainian citizens forced against their will to join Russia?
Jihadin doesn't seem to be past that though, which is what I'm arguing against.
Both sides in this have legitimate grievances, there is a strong right wing anti-russian streak in western parts of Ukraine, but at the same time and the previous administration was massively corrupt and had lost the right, and ability, to govern.
However to me the "proof in the pudding" so to speak is on the ground. The western protestors took the the streets and in some cases violently clashed with government forces, and do admittedly have some radical nationalist elements amongst them, but didn't have sterile-uniformed men (in otherwise post soviet issue Russian issue fatigues) with foreign equipment (e.g. while Ukraine has AK74's, the AK74M with its black furniture and folding stock are post-soviet breakup Russian issue, spontaneous self defense forces aren't going to just find them) popping up establishing checkpoints and taking over Ukrainian military bases. They didn't imprison/detain foreigners and journalists (at least as far as I'm aware of, though they did admittedly hold and brutalize police officers they captured), and they didn't have people like Vyacheslav Ponomarev coming up with different stories every day as to why people were being held (or that they weren't being held at all when they were) or telling journalists that they were 'watching" them and would throw them out for "telling lies". They didn't try to hammer through referendums with day's or weeks worth of time with statistically laughable 93% approval rates to secede.
The pro-western/pro-Kiev elements aren't innocent by any means, they have their problems, but it's hard to see the pro-russian groups as anything but puppets for territorial expansion of the Russian Federation now that it doesn't control Kiev, despite some legitimate grievances. Coupled with the increasingly draconian media laws within Russia of the past few months (things like forcing bloggers with X number of hits per day to register with the state, restrictions on language in movies and music, and now making it illegal to "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two") it makes the entire situation highly disconcerting.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: My point was that both sides are doing a lot of things that they're technically not allowed to do.
I'm pretty sure providing intelligence assistance to a friendly, recognized government is something the west is allowed to do.
Please go back and read my previous comments again, because not once did I say that the West is not allowed to do that.
Since you're apparently too lazy to read carefully, here is my comment once again for your reference. Please note how I did nto mention the West once when remarking on things that the various sides are not allowed to do.
I think we're long past the point of what people are allowed and are not allowed to do.
Were the Kiev protesters allowed to violently overthrow an elected government?
Were the gunmen and snipers who allegedly targeted people on both sides allowed to do what they did?
Was the new Kiev government allowed to appoint members of armed, extremist Neo Nazi parties to key government positions?
Was Russia allowed to use its troops already stationed in Crimea to take over?
Is Crimea allowed to unilaterally announce its seceding from Ukraine?
Is Russia allowed to hold a snap referendum then annex Crimea?
Were the pro-Kiev groups allowed to burn to death dozens of pro-Russia demonstrators?
Is the currently unelected Kiev government allowed to label a substantial number of its citizens "Terrorists" and send in the army to kill them?
Is Kiev allowed to cut off the drinking water for millions of Crimeans, who it maintains are still Ukrainian citizens forced against their will to join Russia?
Vaktathi wrote: Both sides in this have legitimate grievances, there is a strong right wing anti-russian streak in western parts of Ukraine, but at the same time and the previous administration was massively corrupt and had lost the right, and ability, to govern.
However to me the "proof in the pudding" so to speak is on the ground. The western protestors took the the streets and in some cases violently clashed with government forces, and do admittedly have some radical nationalist elements amongst them, but didn't have sterile-uniformed men (in otherwise post soviet issue Russian issue fatigues) with foreign equipment (e.g. while Ukraine has AK74's, the AK74M with its black furniture and folding stock are post-soviet breakup Russian issue, spontaneous self defense forces aren't going to just find them) popping up establishing checkpoints and taking over Ukrainian military bases. They didn't imprison/detain foreigners and journalists (at least as far as I'm aware of, though they did admittedly hold and brutalize police officers they captured), and they didn't have people like Vyacheslav Ponomarev coming up with different stories every day as to why people were being held (or that they weren't being held at all when they were) or telling journalists that they were 'watching" them and would throw them out for "telling lies". They didn't try to hammer through referendums with day's or weeks worth of time with statistically laughable 93% approval rates to secede.
The pro-western/pro-Kiev elements aren't innocent by any means, they have their problems, but it's hard to see the pro-russian groups as anything but puppets for territorial expansion of the Russian Federation now that it doesn't control Kiev, despite some legitimate grievances. Coupled with the increasingly draconian media laws within Russia of the past few months (things like forcing bloggers with X number of hits per day to register with the state, restrictions on language in movies and music, and now making it illegal to "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two") it makes the entire situation highly disconcerting.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter more eloquently than I've managed to put it so far. +1.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter more eloquently than I've managed to put it so far. +1.
Nice to hear I'm not alone in the view
Jihadin wrote:Anyone else notice the word "Insurgents" being applied to Pro Russian
To be fair, Insurgent as defined by Mirriam-Webster: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent", and by dictionary.com "a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws"
While the word may have unpleasant connotations, particularly with western media using such in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 13 years, it's not an inaccurate word to use, the groups in Eastern Ukraine are forcibly revolting against the civil authority, and are doing so armed.
While the word may have unpleasant connotations, particularly with western media using such in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 13 years, it's not an inaccurate word to use, the groups in Eastern Ukraine are forcibly revolting against the civil authority, and are doing so armed.
Connection is made due to western media on lumping those in Ukraine with those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet their actions do not match up with those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Jihadin wrote:Anyone else notice the word "Insurgents" being applied to Pro Russian
To be fair, Insurgent as defined by Mirriam-Webster: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent", and by dictionary.com "a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws"
While the word may have unpleasant connotations, particularly with western media using such in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 13 years, it's not an inaccurate word to use, the groups in Eastern Ukraine are forcibly revolting against the civil authority, and are doing so armed.
Doesn't that definition also apply to the original protesters who overthrew the government in Kiev?
It also applies to the Declaration of Independence...
The US was (or still is ) British insurgents.
So all the ethnic Russians need to do is win their armed uprising against the coup imposed Kiev regime and sucessfully join with Russia. Then history will [eventually] look back on them as heroic freedom fighters?
It also applies to the Declaration of Independence...
The US was (or still is ) British insurgents.
So all the ethnic Russians need to do is win their armed uprising against the coup imposed Kiev regime and sucessfully join with Russia. Then history will [eventually] look back on them as heroic freedom fighters?
Probably. The winner writes the history and all that.
While the word may have unpleasant connotations, particularly with western media using such in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 13 years, it's not an inaccurate word to use, the groups in Eastern Ukraine are forcibly revolting against the civil authority, and are doing so armed.
Connection is made due to western media on lumping those in Ukraine with those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet their actions do not match up with those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
they don't need to for the word to be appropriate however. Just as when the word "rebel" is used, people get varying images from things like dude in grey uniforms in the US civil war to Luke Skywalker to African guerillas.
Jihadin wrote:Anyone else notice the word "Insurgents" being applied to Pro Russian
To be fair, Insurgent as defined by Mirriam-Webster: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent", and by dictionary.com "a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws"
While the word may have unpleasant connotations, particularly with western media using such in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 13 years, it's not an inaccurate word to use, the groups in Eastern Ukraine are forcibly revolting against the civil authority, and are doing so armed.
Doesn't that definition also apply to the original protesters who overthrew the government in Kiev?
Is it confirmed the "Insurgents" in Ukraine are foreign fighters?
The Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan I have to say is multinational. One from UK we knew 110% being he asked for a "cigarette" with accent. He rode with us in Air Conditioning
Is it confirmed in Ukraine the Insurgents are following the same tactics as the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan?
IED's?
VBIEDS?
Executions?
Suicidal bomb strapped Jihadist's?
To name a few because the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan go even darker
Till the "Insurgents" start using the same tactics as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan then IMHO they're "Rebels"
Jihadin wrote: Is it confirmed the "Insurgents" in Ukraine are foreign fighters?
The Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan I have to say is multinational. One from UK we knew 110% being he asked for a "cigarette" with accent. He rode with us in Air Conditioning
Is it confirmed in Ukraine the Insurgents are following the same tactics as the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan?
IED's?
VBIEDS?
Executions?
Suicidal bomb strapped Jihadist's?
To name a few because the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan go even darker
Till the "Insurgents" start using the same tactics as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan then IMHO they're "Rebels"
Until they start using rifled muskets and waving the stars and bars they aren't "Rebels" they are "Revolutionaries."
Oh, wait. Until they start using muskets and singing about macaroni they aren't "Revolutionaries" they are... wait, this is hard. Why can't we use the term insurgent again when its very definition fits so well to describe the <blank> in Ukraine?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Until they start using rifled muskets and waving the stars and bars they aren't "Rebels" they are "Revolutionaries."
Oh, wait. Until they start using muskets and singing about macaroni they aren't "Revolutionaries" they are... wait, this is hard. Why can't we use the term insurgent again when its very definition fits so well to describe the <blank> in Ukraine?
Only if you apply the same standard to both sides.
Oh, wait. Until they start using muskets and singing about macaroni they aren't "Revolutionaries" they are... wait, this is hard. Why can't we use the term insurgent again when its very definition fits so well to describe the <blank> in Ukraine?
Ukraine "Insurgents" start killing group of kids yet? If so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start planting IED's on roads? if so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start executing non combatants in public for supporting the government? if so let me know so i can hate them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start planting bombs at public social events? If so let me know so I can start hating them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start executing prisoners they captured? If so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start viewing everyone as infidels who do not share the same view point they do? If so let me know so I can start hating them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
I think what Jihadin is saying, is that "insurgent", whilst it is technically correct in its use here, has extremely negative connotations. If you are going to support the use of the word when applied to the anti-Kiev crowd, why did you not do the same when the crowds in Kiev took up arms?
Jihadin wrote: Is it confirmed the "Insurgents" in Ukraine are foreign fighters?
The Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan I have to say is multinational. ?
Several have admitted on camera to being from Russia, IIRC they did so in one of the Vice documentaries (and certainly the one's in RF issue fatigues with AK74M's and PKP Pecheneg's are). Either way, even domestic people can be insurgents, they applied the same label to Muqtada Al-Sadr's group (which was domestic) in Iraq.
One from UK we knew 110% being he asked for a "cigarette" with accent. He rode with us in Air Conditioning
Is it confirmed in Ukraine the Insurgents are following the same tactics as the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan
IED's?
VBIEDS?
Executions?
Suicidal bomb strapped Jihadist's?
To name a few because the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan go even darker
Till the "Insurgents" start using the same tactics as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan then IMHO they're "Rebels"
None of which are necessary to call someone an "insurgent" by any definition of the word...anywhere. You're equating the word insurgent with terrorist. An insurgent is not necessarily a terrorist.
Oh, wait. Until they start using muskets and singing about macaroni they aren't "Revolutionaries" they are... wait, this is hard. Why can't we use the term insurgent again when its very definition fits so well to describe the <blank> in Ukraine?
Ukraine "Insurgents" start killing group of kids yet? If so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start planting IED's on roads? if so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start executing non combatants in public for supporting the government? if so let me know so i can hate them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start planting bombs at public social events? If so let me know so I can start hating them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start executing prisoners they captured? If so let me know so I can hate them as much as I hate the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
Ukraine "Insurgents" start viewing everyone as infidels who do not share the same view point they do? If so let me know so I can start hating them as much as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan
I get that you associate "insurgent" with the use of the word insurgent related to the middle east. However, the connotations that are carried with that word doesn't make the definition of that word any less accurate. Just like when I hear rebel I might think of Johnny Rebel, but that doesn't mean that I can only use the term in relation to rebels who participated in the American Civil War.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: I think what Jihadin is saying, is that "insurgent", whilst it is technically correct in its use here, has extremely negative connotations. If you are going to support the use of the word when applied to the anti-Kiev crowd, why did you not do the same when the crowds in Kiev took up arms?
I never used the word in either case. Jihadin is poo-pooing the use of the word in an article which was used correctly and he is also adding to the definition of the word by only seeing it as appropriate for foreign fighters who use particular tactics. Which is ridiculous. As ridiculous as me stating that the pro-Russian side aren't rebels because they aren't flying the stars and bars.
-Shrike- wrote: I think what Jihadin is saying, is that "insurgent", whilst it is technically correct in its use here, has extremely negative connotations. If you are going to support the use of the word when applied to the anti-Kiev crowd, why did you not do the same when the crowds in Kiev took up arms?
Because the Maidan protesters didn't have military hardware.
-Shrike- wrote: I think what Jihadin is saying, is that "insurgent", whilst it is technically correct in its use here, has extremely negative connotations. If you are going to support the use of the word when applied to the anti-Kiev crowd, why did you not do the same when the crowds in Kiev took up arms?
Because the Maidan protesters didn't have military hardware.
-Shrike- wrote: I think what Jihadin is saying, is that "insurgent", whilst it is technically correct in its use here, has extremely negative connotations. If you are going to support the use of the word when applied to the anti-Kiev crowd, why did you not do the same when the crowds in Kiev took up arms?
Because the Maidan protesters didn't have military hardware.
However earlier in this thread wasn't there an allegation made that some of the right wing fascist groups involved may have staged a false flag attack by having snipers target both sides (protesters and Police) and pinned it (initially) on the government? And then there was a leaked telephone phone between EU/NATO officials discussing the possibility that it was a false flag?
So whilst they may not have had military hardware, they were surely armed from the beginning, right?
Also, just in case anyone wanted to talk about double standards for the use of the word "insurgency", here's some headlines from Pravda.ru (one of Russia's oldest news organizations and currently owned by the Communist Party of Russia)
"Criminal Kiev authorities continue to kill civilians, US turns blind eye on murder"
"In Odessa, fascists were gloating over people's deaths"
"A strange, soulless man and his utterly failed presidency" (in regards to Obama)
"Fascist massacre in Odessa: Shocking details unveiled"
"Kiev authorities must be held accountable for genocide"
or statement's like this from ITAR-TASS (the official Russian state news agency...)
"Self-defense forces in the eastern Ukrainian city of Sloviansk helped to release military observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to keep them away from Kiev’s punitive operation in the south-eastern regions of the country"
The same observers which were arrested and detained by said "self defense forces" under Vyacheslav Ponomarev...the self proclaimed mayor of Slovyansk, who had earlier held VICE journalist Simon Ostrovsky.
I might be "poo pooing" the word "Insurgent" though I say "Foo Foo". I should have clarify how easy its becoming to be influence by media. Calling them "Insurgents" puts them up there with the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's two different animals. The definition of "Insurgents" applies to both but the ACTIONS of both are in two different columns yet both are the same column by media view. Truth told. I rather deal with "Insurgents" in Ukraine then deal with the ones again in Afghanistan. The ones in Ukraine are at least in my view playing by a set of rules. Till they start using terror tactics then I would lump them in with the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Jihadin wrote: I might be "poo pooing" the word "Insurgent" though I say "Foo Foo". I should have clarify how easy its becoming to be influence by media. Calling them "Insurgents" puts them up there with the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's two different animals. The definition of "Insurgents" applies to both but the ACTIONS of both are in two different columns yet both are the same column by media view. Truth told. I rather deal with "Insurgents" in Ukraine then deal with the ones again in Afghanistan. The ones in Ukraine are at least in my view playing by a set of rules. Till they start using terror tactics then I would lump them in with the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Its deliberate. By labelling the pro-Russia people as "Insurgents", they [the media] are attempting to associate them with all the negative connotations of the word that you brought up.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think you'll find that it's people being upset that media is using a technical term in a correct manner.
The point is that its a loaded term with very negative connotations and commonly associated with Terrorism when other, less loaded and incendiary terms will suffice.
But if you and others insist on using it to describe the pro-Russia armed groups, then I must insist that you/others also use it to describe the Kiev aligned armed groups.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think you'll find that it's people being upset that media is using a technical term in a correct manner.
The point is that its a loaded term with very negative connotations and commonly associated with Terrorism when other, less loaded and incendiary terms will suffice.
But if you and others insist on using it to describe the pro-Russia armed groups, then I must insist that you/others also use it to describe the Kiev aligned armed groups.
Nobody here is insisting on using it, at least that I've seen. Only saying that it's not an incorrect term.
And let's be real here. There's a world of difference between the armament we're looking at here. The Maidan protestors had molotov cocktails, police shields, and eventually a few AKM's which didn't appear until ~Feb (when the protests started in Nov), while the Eastern seperatists are armed with AK74's and 74M's, PKP Pecheneg's, armored vehicles, MANPADS anti-aircraft systems, military uniforms and helmets, etc.
Well. You have Neo Nazi's in Pro West. Might as well have Insurgents in Pro East. If they're fighting it out what does that leave us on the Bingo Card of Dakka?
Jihadin wrote: Well. You have Neo Nazi's in Pro West. Might as well have Insurgents in Pro East. If they're fighting it out what does that leave us on the Bingo Card of Dakka?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think you'll find that it's people being upset that media is using a technical term in a correct manner.
The point is that its a loaded term with very negative connotations and commonly associated with Terrorism when other, less loaded and incendiary terms will suffice.
But if you and others insist on using it to describe the pro-Russia armed groups, then I must insist that you/others also use it to describe the Kiev aligned armed groups.
Nobody here is insisting on using it, at least that I've seen. Only saying that it's not an incorrect term.
And let's be real here. There's a world of difference between the armament we're looking at here. The Maidan protestors had molotov cocktails, police shields, and eventually a few AKM's which didn't appear until ~Feb (when the protests started in Nov), while the Eastern seperatists are armed with AK74's and 74M's, PKP Pecheneg's, armored vehicles, MANPADS anti-aircraft systems, military uniforms and helmets, etc.
Some of that will be from the military units that defected, or the weapons and equipment they confiscated from other military units. Just something to bear in mind.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think you'll find that it's people being upset that media is using a technical term in a correct manner.
The point is that its a loaded term with very negative connotations and commonly associated with Terrorism when other, less loaded and incendiary terms will suffice.
It's only commonly associated with Terrorism if one uses it incorrectly. What'd you rather have them be called? "Rebels" is just as potentially loaded, "glorious freedom fighters" is silly, and "separatists" could just as easily be seen as something negative.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think you'll find that it's people being upset that media is using a technical term in a correct manner.
The point is that its a loaded term with very negative connotations and commonly associated with Terrorism when other, less loaded and incendiary terms will suffice.
But if you and others insist on using it to describe the pro-Russia armed groups, then I must insist that you/others also use it to describe the Kiev aligned armed groups.
Nobody here is insisting on using it, at least that I've seen. Only saying that it's not an incorrect term.
And let's be real here. There's a world of difference between the armament we're looking at here. The Maidan protestors had molotov cocktails, police shields, and eventually a few AKM's which didn't appear until ~Feb (when the protests started in Nov), while the Eastern seperatists are armed with AK74's and 74M's, PKP Pecheneg's, armored vehicles, MANPADS anti-aircraft systems, military uniforms and helmets, etc.
Some of that will be from the military units that defected, or the weapons and equipment they confiscated from other military units. Just something to bear in mind.
Which really has no relevance given that people are trying to equate the Maidan protesters with insurgents. Molotov cocktails, riot shields, and a few AKMs is a far cry from armaments that put the separatists on par with the Ukrainian military.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think you'll find that it's people being upset that media is using a technical term in a correct manner.
The point is that its a loaded term with very negative connotations and commonly associated with Terrorism when other, less loaded and incendiary terms will suffice.
It's only commonly associated with Terrorism if one uses it incorrectly. What'd you rather have them be called? "Rebels" is just as potentially loaded, "glorious freedom fighters" is silly, and "separatists" could just as easily be seen as something negative.
Separatists is more appropriate I think, for members of a Separatist movement.
Frazzled wrote: Dude you're quoting Pravda. Thats like quoting Goebbels.
GODWIN HAMMER BAMM!
Is it? It'd imagine it'd be no different than quoting US cable news like Fox or MSNBC.
Well, Pravda is... not always pravda. It is the propaganda newspaper of the CPRF and thus heavily coloured by the CPRF's conservative ultranationalist viewpoints. They are like Fox News, but than even more conservative and nationalist.
I do not know many people that actually take Pravda that seriously, however, the general tone of many Russian newspapers is little different from Pravda. Godwin's Law and the words 'fascist' and 'liberast' are used very frequently when describing the 'enemies of the sacred Motherland' like those dastardly decadent deceitful American liberasts and the vile Banderite Ukrainian fascist scum Their news value might be very low, but at least they are good for hilarious entertainment with their outrageous claims and making up creative new insults.
Russian news agencies and newspapers that are more reliable and neutral in their statements include RIA Novosti, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Kommersant and RT.
Says a lot when even Channel 4 can't deny that the Ukrainian military were excessive in their use of force. In one clip when all the Ukrainians are around the bus you can clearly see a few of them turning and shooting into the crowd. The bit where they walk out of the town and all the civilians are jeering them really says volumes about where this is going.
We shouldn't be letting this country join Europe. Much less supporting them with military (some Ukraine units have been filmed driving hummers and with Western camo patterns) and financial aid.
But I guess the Western leaders are perfectly fine letting the eastern slavs kill eachother. Their blood our gold and all that.
I almost want to see the Ukrainian army lose. I can't stand the endless propaganda off the BBC and Channel 4 about how we should show solidarity with the Ukrainian army.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think you'll find that it's people being upset that media is using a technical term in a correct manner.
The point is that its a loaded term with very negative connotations and commonly associated with Terrorism when other, less loaded and incendiary terms will suffice.
But if you and others insist on using it to describe the pro-Russia armed groups, then I must insist that you/others also use it to describe the Kiev aligned armed groups.
Nobody here is insisting on using it, at least that I've seen. Only saying that it's not an incorrect term.
And let's be real here. There's a world of difference between the armament we're looking at here. The Maidan protestors had molotov cocktails, police shields, and eventually a few AKM's which didn't appear until ~Feb (when the protests started in Nov), while the Eastern seperatists are armed with AK74's and 74M's, PKP Pecheneg's, armored vehicles, MANPADS anti-aircraft systems, military uniforms and helmets, etc.
Some of that will be from the military units that defected, or the weapons and equipment they confiscated from other military units. Just something to bear in mind.
Which really has no relevance given that people are trying to equate the Maidan protesters with insurgents. Molotov cocktails, riot shields, and a few AKMs is a far cry from armaments that put the separatists on par with the Ukrainian military.
This once again clearly shows what kind of people are in power now in Ukraine.
This is the governor of Kherson, a region in the south of Ukraine, and he is holding a speech in honour of Victory Day.
And guess what he says?
I am not going to translate everything as it is too ridiculous and would get me too , but it comes down to: ''The Soviet Union was the agressor and tried to enslave Ukraine and the Ukrainian people while falsely claiming to be liberators, while Hitler and the nazis were the true liberators and fought WW2 against the evil Soviet (Russian) agressors to liberate the Ukrainians and other peoples from the tyrant Stalin."
He even has the gut to say that is obvious if you read a history book. Well, I wonder what history book he has been reading? Must have been Mein Kampf.
A governor that calls Hitler a 'liberator'... Even Zhirinovsky is not that crazy...
Glory to the women that snatches the microphone away from him though.
All we need now is a particularly charismatic leader to gain popularity and seize power, and we'll have the Fourth Reich.
In the UK, our left wing mainstream media and political parties are regularly scaremongering over the rise of Right Wing parties and ideology in Europe.
"UKIP is racist, UKIP is fascist, we must stop the rise of far right wing parties!".
Well, here we see the rise of TRUE Far Right Wing parties in the Ukraine, in control of or with significant influence over important GOVERNMENT ministries, including the MILITARY. The military is apparently carrying out massacres, and mobs of Ukrainian's are burning pro-Russia protesters to death.
Popular Ukrainian leaders, including a former Prime Minister, are talking about "exterminating the Russians". Far Right parties are calling for violence against Russians and Jews. Some are even openly praising Hitler, calling him "a liberator" and condemning Russia and Stalin as the "aggressor" of WW2 and a "tyrant"... Conveniently overlooking the fact that Germany invaded Poland, Ukraine, Russia etc first (making Germany the aggressor), and that BOTH Hitler and Stalin were murderous tyrants responsible for horrific crimes throughout Europe.
And yet we're getting barely a peep out of our MSM and political establishments on Ukraine's Far Right movement. WHY???
I'm sick of our media and political establishments' empty rhetoric and scaremongering over Right Wing political groups. We're expected to believe that UKIP is racist and fascist for wanting political independence for the UK from the European Union and proper immigration controls on our borders so we can control who is allowed to come to this country. Yet when faced with real and violent Far Right extremism in Ukraine, all they have to say is "Russia must respect the soveriegn independence of Ukraine! Russia must be punished!"
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: All we need now is a particularly charismatic leader to gain popularity and seize power, and we'll have the Fourth Reich.
In the UK, our left wing mainstream media and political parties are regularly scaremongering over the rise of Right Wing parties and ideology in Europe.
"UKIP is racist, UKIP is fascist, we must stop the rise of far right wing parties!".
Well, here we see the rise of TRUE Far Right Wing parties in the Ukraine, in control of or with significant influence over important GOVERNMENT ministries, including the MILITARY. The military is apparently carrying out massacres, and mobs of Ukrainian's are burning pro-Russia protesters to death.
Popular Ukrainian leaders, including a former Prime Minister, are talking about "exterminating the Russians". Far Right parties are calling for violence against Russians and Jews. Some are even openly praising Hitler, calling him "a liberator" and condemning Russia and Stalin as the "aggressor" of WW2 and a "tyrant"... Conveniently overlooking the fact that Germany invaded Poland, Ukraine, Russia etc first (making Germany the aggressor), and that BOTH Hitler and Stalin were murderous tyrants responsible for horrific crimes throughout Europe.
And yet we're getting barely a peep out of our MSM and political establishments on Ukraine's Far Right movement. WHY???
I'm sick of our media and political establishments' empty rhetoric and scaremongering over Right Wing political groups. We're expected to believe that UKIP is racist and fascist for wanting political independence for the UK from the European Union and proper immigration controls on our borders so we can control who is allowed to come to this country. Yet when faced with real and violent Far Right extremism in Ukraine, all they have to say is "Russia must respect the soveriegn independence of Ukraine! Russia must be punished!"
Swedish newspaper (and yes, proper newspaper, as opposed to tabloid) DN's (in Swedish, sorry) reporter in Mariupol's apparently gotten conflicting versions of the events, with one eyewittness (who was wounded in the attack, regardless of who did it) saying the police fought on the side of the military against a bunch of people who showed up in minivans with automatic weapons and started attacking the police station and only opened fire on what is described as a "mob" when they attacked the soldiers, whereas other unnamed sources are saying that the army started shooting into the mass of people for no apparent reason.
So yeah, the reason "mainstream media" isn't condemning anything right now is probably because we've not actually got any clue what happened yet. You're complaining that "mainstream media" is doing it's job as news agencies and not reporting more than what is known. Further, you're doing it while condemning alleged bias in the reporting of those news agencies, while blindly accepting the word of the pro-Russian side that what they said happened is true.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: All we need now is a particularly charismatic leader to gain popularity and seize power, and we'll have the Fourth Reich.
In the UK, our left wing mainstream media and political parties are regularly scaremongering over the rise of Right Wing parties and ideology in Europe.
"UKIP is racist, UKIP is fascist, we must stop the rise of far right wing parties!".
Well, here we see the rise of TRUE Far Right Wing parties in the Ukraine, in control of or with significant influence over important GOVERNMENT ministries, including the MILITARY. The military is apparently carrying out massacres, and mobs of Ukrainian's are burning pro-Russia protesters to death.
Are you honestly arguing that Jobbik and Golden Dawn aren't true far-right parties just beacuse they're not burning people to death (which, as far as I remember, wasn't actually done by the Ukranian state or sanctioned by them)? We're talking about a party that thought it'd be a good idea to call for the registration of all Jews as "public enemies" in Parliament and a party that called Hitler "a great social reformer". If it's such an outrage that one politician calls Hitler a "liberator" (and it absolutely is, don't get me wrong), then it's inconsistent at best and outright dishonest at worst to question whether or not Golden Dawn is a far-right party.
Further, you're doing it while condemning alleged bias in the reporting of those news agencies, while blindly accepting the word of the pro-Russian side that what they said happened is true.
No, I'm not. I KNOW both sides are biased and I don't take either side at face value, unlike some in this thread.
Its established fact that pro-Russian protesters were burned to death.
Its established fact that Ukrainian fascist groups have representatives in the new Kiev government, and have influence if not direct control over the military.
Its established fact that Tymoshenko said in a leaked telephone call that she wanted "to kill the Russians."
Not once did I say the Ukrainian government was responsible for burning those people to death. In the video clips of the incident, its clearly not the police and military throwing the molotov bombs, its plain clothed civilians. i.e. the far right groups.
And I also mentioned western political leaders, not just the media. I've heard our Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague condemn Russia's "acts of aggression" and violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, but I've not heard them condemn Ukraine's far right groups, the violence committed by those groups and the excessive force used by the Kiev government.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Are you honestly arguing that Jobbik and Golden Dawn aren't true far-right parties just because ...
No, I'm not.
Please point out where I said "Jobbik and Golden Dawnare not true Far Right parties."
Further, you're doing it while condemning alleged bias in the reporting of those news agencies, while blindly accepting the word of the pro-Russian side that what they said happened is true.
No, I'm not. I KNOW both sides are biased and I don't take either side at face value, unlike some in this thread.
And yet you're adamant that there's been a "massacre" (your own words) perpetrated by the Ukranian government when what happened is still unclear. "Unbiased" indeed.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Are you honestly arguing that Jobbik and Golden Dawn aren't true far-right parties just because ...
No, I'm not.
Please point out where I said "Jobbik and Golden Dawnare not true Far Right parties."
Fair enough, that was me getting people mixed up. Do you mind clarifying which parties you were talking about though (and don't take this as me implying you were unclear, I'm just being curious)?
-Shrike- wrote: I think he meant UKIP is not a true far right party.
Well, parties, in the plural, would seem to indicate that there's more than one party being discussed. I made the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that the parties in question were Jobbik and Golden Dawn, the two primary examples that show up in Swedish media the most, without considering whether those were the parties referred to. That said, there's still more than one party implied.
"Those who advocate self-determination do not understand that this will mean the total collapse of the economy, of social programmes, and of life in general for the majority of people in these regions," he said.
-Shrike- wrote: I think he meant UKIP is not a true far right party.
Well, parties, in the plural, would seem to indicate that there's more than one party being discussed. I made the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that the parties in question were Jobbik and Golden Dawn, the two primary examples that show up in Swedish media the most, without considering whether those were the parties referred to. That said, there's still more than one party implied.
He's from the UK, and the only far-right party I ever hear about is UKIP. I'll agree that they're right wing, but not on the level of Jobbik, Golden Dawn or [whatever the far-right party is in Ukraine, I've forgotten what they're called]. However, they get a disproportionate amount of news coverage, simply because their policy of EU separation is disliked by our current government.
Further, you're doing it while condemning alleged bias in the reporting of those news agencies, while blindly accepting the word of the pro-Russian side that what they said happened is true.
No, I'm not. I KNOW both sides are biased and I don't take either side at face value, unlike some in this thread.
And yet you're adamant that there's been a "massacre" (your own words) perpetrated by the Ukranian government when what happened is still unclear. "Unbiased" indeed.
I was referring to the government building occupied by pro Russian protesters that was burned down by a mob throwing molotov cocktails, killing dozens of people inside. People here are referring to a new massacre, of Ukrainian troops firing into a crowd?. I have no idea what on earth they're talking about as I've been busy for the last couple days and not kept up with the news. So I was certainly not referring to that.
I didn't say I am unbiased. OF COURSE I am biased. So are you, clearly. All I'm talking about here are my own opinions. If I'm biased over the Ukraine crisis, its against groups who use violence to pursue their political agendas. So far, we've seen a lot of violence from the Kiev side, and they're on the offensive, sending the Ukraine military into east Ukraine to attack separatists and Army defectors.
What Ukraine needs is a truce, so the various parties can negotiate and sort out some sort of political compromise that will satisfy both sides and defuse the situation, maybe devolved government for eastern regions akin to the Good Friday Agreement in northern island.
What I do NOT think should be happening, is the Ukraine army being sent into East Ukraine to hunt down and start shooting up the cities that have rebelled.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Are you honestly arguing that Jobbik and Golden Dawn aren't true far-right parties just because ...
No, I'm not.
Please point out where I said "Jobbik and Golden Dawn are not true Far Right parties."
Fair enough, that was me getting people mixed up. Do you mind clarifying which parties you were talking about though (and don't take this as me implying you were unclear, I'm just being curious)?
I was specifically talking about the Ukrainian far right parties, Pravy Sektor, Svoboda etc.
In Britain, the media and our leaders are constantly banging on the dangers of right wing extremism. The EDL (English Defense League ) and BNP (British National Party ) - two parties or organisations that are genuinely racist and extremist, and, of all people, the UK Independence Party - a party of mostly middle aged middle class people with at least as much ethnic diversity as our three mainstream parties.
A year or so ago, when Greece's troubles were in the headlines, the media and our leaders also banged on about the rise of Greek far right parties. Golden Dawn etc.
And now, again, we see in Ukraine a LOT of social unrest, the rise of very violent and extremist far right parties that even have influence over government ministries and the army, and the country is on the verge of Civil War. And yet, all that dominates the UK's political agenda day in, day out, is Russia. Russia must be punished, Russia must be isolated, Russia must be sanctioned, Russia this Russia that. I've heard very little from the BBC (state broadcaster) and Sky News (2nd most popular British broadcaster AFAIK) on the worrying rise of Ukraine's far right parties and paramilitaries, who now have signifiant influence over the military and the government.
I obviously can't speak for other countries like Sweden, but that is what its like in the UK. The political agenda is very dominated by sanctions on Russia and supporting the Kiev government.
This is NOT a case of me swallowing Russian propaganda hook line and sinker. I KNOW Russian media is biased, and full of propaganda. Its a case of me seeing two very unpleasant groups of people, Ukrainian nationalists and Russian nationalists, stirring up ethnic tensions and engaging in violence (though it is the Kiev aligned Ukrainian nationalists who are on the offensive at the moment).
When both sides in a conflict are unpleasant and violent and guilty of much the same crimes, its not really wise to pick a side. And yet that is what the West is doing, and that is what I'm angry about. But that doesn't amount to a full declaration of support for the Russian side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: I think he meant UKIP is not a true far right party.
No, its certainly not. Its a right of centre, slightly libertarian party.
-Shrike- wrote: I think he meant UKIP is not a true far right party.
Well, parties, in the plural, would seem to indicate that there's more than one party being discussed. I made the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that the parties in question were Jobbik and Golden Dawn, the two primary examples that show up in Swedish media the most, without considering whether those were the parties referred to. That said, there's still more than one party implied.
He's from the UK, and the only far-right party I ever hear about is UKIP. I'll agree that they're right wing, but not on the level of Jobbik, Golden Dawn or [whatever the far-right party is in Ukraine, I've forgotten what they're called]. However, they get a disproportionate amount of news coverage, simply because their policy of EU separation is disliked by our current government.
Its not just disliked by our current coalition government, the Conservatives and "Liberal Democrats" (who IMO aren't very liberal and aren't very democratic). Its disliked by our entire political and media establishment. Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the BBC. All are in favour of British membership of the EU, and all try to portray UKIP as right wing racists and fascists.
Exactly. It makes no sense to favor Ukraine when Ukraine is as corrupt and thuggish as Russia. The don't belong in the EU or NATO, they're not with us on social or political issues. The conflict is originating from a conflict between two corrupt and nasty factions inside of Ukraine, the one which was just in power and the one in power now and was before the other one. The one which was illegally if justifiably overthrown has sought Russian support, his most ardent supporters in the Crimea seized the moment to declare independence and then used annexation by Russia to guarantee their independence (like Texas eventually did with the US to avoid retribution from Mexico). Russia has shown enormous restraint and now Ukraine is sending the army with live rounds against unarmed civilian "militants" because the local police support secession or at least are remaining neutral. There were legitimate attacks in other places previously by pro Russians which had fatalities and obviously needed to be dealt with harshly but Mariupol was not that situation and now Donetsk is in play as the next Oblast to join Russia.
If this doesn't have a resolution soon the insurrection will spread and the Russians will "have to" invade to protect their supporters in Eastern Ukraine. I would not be surprised if the regime in Kiev falls to Moscow with the entire country ending up dismantled into Russian Oblasts. Obviously Ukraine cannot defeat the Russians militarily or they would have tried to stop the annexation of Crimea. Western Europe and the US clearly has no intent to do anything about this, yet they posture to try to look important and in doing so hurt relations with Russia which while acting in its interests so far has not exactly done anything outrageous.
Ultimately Putin will win regardless (worst case scenario he's keeping Crimea and Sevastopol) and everyone will look like an ass.
Col. Tartleton wrote: Exactly. It makes no sense to favor Ukraine when Ukraine is as corrupt and thuggish as Russia.
It's a difference of scales. An aggressive Ukraine still can't seriously threaten any of its neighbours, an aggressive Russia absolutely can. Lesser of two evils, and even then the neo-Nazi or similar groups aren't in majority in the Ukranian government.
Though if Ukraine goes the route of Yugoslav then by all means Russia can deploy into eastern half of Ukraine and EU/NATO can deploy in western half. I rather not have a Bosnia and/or Kosovo happen again.
Jihadin wrote: Though if Ukraine goes the route of Yugoslav then by all means Russia can deploy into eastern half of Ukraine and EU/NATO can deploy in western half. I rather not have a Bosnia and/or Kosovo happen again.
On that we can agree. In my eyes the best (and completely unrealistic) scenario if it keeps getting worse would be a joint NATO-Russian effort to stem the tide of violence, but that's not going to happen.
NATO and Russia going into the same country would probably start WW III, but some co-operation would be nice, rather than the constant stream of propaganda from both sides.
In any case, it might as well be propaganda to contest the legitimacy of the referendum.
Not that it really matters much, the whole referendum is no more than a moral justification for whatever the seperatists are planning.
In any case, it might as well be propaganda to contest the legitimacy of the referendum.
Not that it really matters much, the whole referendum is no more than a moral justification for whatever the seperatists are planning.
Because we all know how fair and legitimate the elections in that part of the world are. Especially in those nations that Russia is leaning heavily on. You can refer to an earlier post in here I've made referencing my own experiences with that stuff.
Has anybody considered, how they are going to get out of Afghanistan, if they upset the Russians to much.
Quite a bit of stuff go's thru Russian space atm.
loki old fart wrote: Has anybody considered, how they are going to get out of Afghanistan, if they upset the Russians to much.
Quite a bit of stuff go's thru Russian space atm.
loki old fart wrote: Has anybody considered, how they are going to get out of Afghanistan, if they upset the Russians to much.
Quite a bit of stuff go's thru Russian space atm.
In any case, it might as well be propaganda to contest the legitimacy of the referendum.
Not that it really matters much, the whole referendum is no more than a moral justification for whatever the seperatists are planning.
Because we all know how fair and legitimate the elections in that part of the world are. Especially in those nations that Russia is leaning heavily on. You can refer to an earlier post in here I've made referencing my own experiences with that stuff.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/08/AR2010020803583.html http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/what-the-recent-russian-elections-really-mean-6235 Elections in both Russia and Ukraine are generally fair. There are cases of fraud, but not on such a scale that they have a real impact on the results. Belarus is another matter, but that is also because of a lack of serious opposition rather than just electoral fraud.
That aside, electional fraud and irregularities are not specific to 'that part of the world'. They happen in the West and all other regions of the world as well. The notion of fair elections in general I find ridiculous. You can never have elections be completely 'fair'.
loki old fart wrote: Has anybody considered, how they are going to get out of Afghanistan, if they upset the Russians to much.
Quite a bit of stuff go's thru Russian space atm.
Head over to Afghanistan, then click on the "World Hi" button on the top right. That shows you all standard flight routes in and out of the country.
Keep in mind that is for civilian aircraft. We in the military like to stick to those as much as possible, but... given the nature of our jobs, we sometimes don't.
NATO isn't going to do anything that jeopardizes the uneasy peace in Europe. Obviously deterring the Russians from crossing into Estonia or anything like that is purely defensive, necessary, and legal. Ukraine is not in NATO or the EU it isn't our problem unless it becomes our problem. But obviously NATO has to oppose Russian actions because similar reasoning could lead to attacks on NATO states in Eastern Europe.
SG Rasmussen dropped some science on the Russians in Tallinn.
That aside, electional fraud and irregularities are not specific to 'that part of the world'. They happen in the West and all other regions of the world as well. The notion of fair elections in general I find ridiculous. You can never have elections be completely 'fair'.
There's a difference in scale. You don't have people in the West sending 100,000 ballots pre-marked anywhere, and even if that story turns out to be a fraud it's not strictly about only the elections themselves. Ask Anna Politkovskaya what she thinks of the freedom of the press in Russia. Freedom of speech is important for a working democracy.
That and the supposed independence poll that occurred in Crimea's come out as being even less legitimate than the Russian were putting across. The BBC stated figures (taken from the Russian press, but quickly taken down) of a 40% turn out in the region, with only 51% of those voting to go against Ukraine, nowhere near the figures that were claimed. These same elections in the west of Ukraine are just going to be as illegitimate, though whether the Russians just walk in and take those parts based on that is up to them (they already have the bits they want).
At this rate what'll be left of Ukraine will be a bunch of old guys living about Chernobyl and a load of far right extremists turned anti-Russian terrorists (because Russia just loves creating partisan groups in all the countries they've screwed over these past twenty years). =P
This guys has a...unique perspective on the Crimea crisis.
Good for a laugh at least.
Darn it! They found the HQ of our alien overlords! Now they will find out that Russia is only a cover for an alien conquest of Earth! We must prevent it! Crimea is Russian!
In any case, it might as well be propaganda to contest the legitimacy of the referendum.
Not that it really matters much, the whole referendum is no more than a moral justification for whatever the seperatists are planning.
Because we all know how fair and legitimate the elections in that part of the world are. Especially in those nations that Russia is leaning heavily on. You can refer to an earlier post in here I've made referencing my own experiences with that stuff.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/08/AR2010020803583.html http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/what-the-recent-russian-elections-really-mean-6235 Elections in both Russia and Ukraine are generally fair. There are cases of fraud, but not on such a scale that they have a real impact on the results. Belarus is another matter, but that is also because of a lack of serious opposition rather than just electoral fraud.
That aside, electional fraud and irregularities are not specific to 'that part of the world'. They happen in the West and all other regions of the world as well. The notion of fair elections in general I find ridiculous. You can never have elections be completely 'fair'.
Any time you get results that are super one-sided with an almost total lack of opposition votes, like the 93% "yes" in Crimea or the 96% in Luhansk or the 89% in Donetsk, it's almost always indicative of election fraud or "controlled" elections (e.g. "Saddam Yes/Saddam No" and it's 99% Saddam Yes).
Just from a statistical standpoint, those numbers look too good to be true, and getting that many people to agree that much on any one thing in an election is tremendously rare, much less for something with such powerful consequences as this. Had it been something more like a 68% "yes", that would still have been an overridingly popular "yes" vote, but at least within the (extreme) bounds of statistical believability.
jzoBQOmh!rn!w~~60_35.JPG)
, but it comes down to: ''The Soviet Union was the agressor and tried to enslave Ukraine and the Ukrainian people while falsely claiming to be liberators, while Hitler and the nazis were the true liberators and fought WW2 against the evil Soviet (Russian) agressors to liberate the Ukrainians and other peoples from the tyrant Stalin."
Even Zhirinovsky is not that crazy...
