Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
Honestly, I hope the entire thing blows up in Putin's face. The games that are being played are disgusting.

Well...we started it.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I quite simply don't agree that "we" started anything.

That's a bit of victim blaming there. Start a revolution against an oppressive government, then say that its the revolutionaries' fault when someone decides to invade them. The circumstances are correct, but don't put down people for not wanting to be under a despotic government (which yes is circumstantial, but I think the common view is that the original revolution in the country was a just one).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Honestly, I hope the entire thing blows up in Putin's face. The games that are being played are disgusting.

Well...we started it.

If by "We" you mean the Russians conquering the Ukraine and Crimea in the first place, I agree 100%.
I blame Ivan the Terrible. Alternatively I blame Peter the Mildly Annoying

 Frazzled wrote:
I blame Ivan the Terrible. Alternatively I blame Peter the Mildly Annoying

No you are all wrong.
It is all the fault of Yuriy the Long-Armed and Vsevolod the Big Nest.
Also, Mstislav the Eyeless may or may not have something to do with it.

Or his wife. After about year 17 of marriage you just want to go out and wail on somebody...

I guess it now comes down to who succumbs to war weariness first. That seems Ukraine's only chance. It's not that far fetched. Russian families are starting to get sick of seeing their soldier sons come home in body bags when their government is telling them they are at peace. Ukraine might have a slightly higher tolerance for it because they see themselves as being invaded and know they are at war. But I'm sure everyone is quite sick of this conflict.

 loki old fart wrote:

Maybe I,m so fed up with the hypocrisy, That glass houses, and pots calling kettles black wasn't enough.

Hey, I'm fed up with people accusing me of being American because my national flag isn't part of whatever presets the forum software uses.



Though, on a glass houses note, the Ukrainian rebels are using this here BM-21 Grad and complaining about artillery hitting civilian areas.





Расцветали яблони и груши,

Поплыли туманы над рекой.

Выходила на берег Катюша,

На высокий берег на крутой.


Выходила, песню заводила

Про степного, сизого орла,

Про того, которого любила,

Про того, чьи письма берегла.


Ой ты, песня, песенка девичья,

Ты лети за ясным солнцем вслед.

И бойцу на дальнем пограничье

От Катюши передай привет.



Пусть он вспомнит девушку простую,

Пусть услышит, как она поет,

Пусть он землю бережет родную,

А любовь Катюша сбережет.

@ BaronIveagh

What civilians? They're just shooting up the damn dirty Nazi pedophiles across the ways silly.

Random question: has the war had an effect on the new dome that was supposed to be being built over the Chernobyl NPP? It was being talked about early last year, so I'm wondering if much of a move has been made on it since. It would seem petty for such a thing not to be put into place because of politics (I mean in the long term scheme of things), though IIRC it was a French team doing the work on it, and that whole region seems a bit distanced from every day Ukraine, so perhaps they carried on regardless of what was happening elsewhere. Hmn, generally I don't recall much being said about Chernobyl at any point in this conflict, bar it being pointed out earlier in this thread that it'd be a silly idea for anyone to go near that place. Hell tourism there's probably continuing unabated.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
That's a bit of victim blaming there. Start a revolution against an oppressive government, then say that its the revolutionaries' fault when someone decides to invade them. The circumstances are correct, but don't put down people for not wanting to be under a despotic government (which yes is circumstantial, but I think the common view is that the original revolution in the country was a just one).

The Ukrainian government was neither opressive nor despotic, but democratically elected in free and fair elections (as observed by independent international organisations). They simply made a decision part of the population did not like (not signing a treaty with the EU), which is no fair, legal or moral ground for overthrowing a democratic government. The current Ukrainian government is unconstitutional and hypocritical. When you use illegal, unconstitutional means to usurp state power, you should not complain when others do the same to you.

Barring their actions before the revolution, Yanukovych's government sanctioned an overly violent put down of protests against itself, so had not a leg to stand on after that no matter what side of the European question you stood on. Its hardly immoral for the people to kick a government out which is gunning down protesters (yes a similar argument could be said of the British government in reaction to Ireland and elsewhere, and yes I'd point out that people have tried). I'd note that he was moving towards pro-European ties, but he seemed to turn back against them after pushes from Russia (being that the Federation wants to keep the rest of the former USSR under its thumb and you can't piss off the guys who're backing you). Maybe the word isn't despotic, but rather incompetent. He jumped between both sides on issues repeatedly, but always returning to his role as the bitch. "Hey Russia's just taken half the country I used to rule away because of the crap I pulled. Yeah time to say that was bad, but still support the Russians and blame my own people for not doing anything about it".

Ah, but on the topic of his support. Yeah sure the guy had the country just loving him. Youknow being Moscow's puppet and all. He got in originally through underhanded tactics (pulling a Putin), for one trying to kill the opposition leader, then got in a second time by throwing the opposition in prison. Yup, stand up guy. Would these be the same bodies which say that Putin's been in power legally for the last decade? Technically he isn't breaking the constitution over there either, even if he's taking a massive dump on its spirit, but I suppose they glazed over all the crap that was illegal too.

The joke here being that the current government is apparently unconstitutional based on what? The previous government is in exile whilst the current one is recognized on the world stage (yes, it wasn't the cleanest of elections obviously, but youknow the whole war thing). The same thing could hardly be said of the vote that the Russians held over Crimea, which I'd add isn't international recognized (officially the whole region is still owned by Ukraine) and yes, was shown to be a complete sham. Neither would I strictly trust the men in lead of the separatist regions, who IIRC have shown to have had ties with Russian efforts in similar conflicts.

Ah, but back to the route of the matter. Whilst the matter is hardly so clean cut, it takes a sheer skewed view on this situation to come out thinking that the Russians are in the right. Ignorance even to think that this whole thing wasn't a by the books invasion like they've done repeatedly before. A puppet government was overthrown by the people because it didn't represent their views. The puppeteer then threw that government aside, invaded the country and took as much of it as possible, before leaving the remainder in a state of civil war with itself to keep it from reacting. Yanukovych at least can sit pretty on the bribes he has, but Russia's actions certainly showed him to be nothing else than their tool.

Hell at this rate I'm expecting Putin to go the same way as that guy, or to eventually pull a Stalin (the more likely situation, after a long retirement). I don't think the rest of the world would appreciate another violent uprising in the country however, youknow economics wise. Fifty years of trying didn't achieve it with Communism, I doubt Putin will be the guy that gets taken out back of the dacha and shot with his family either (...or blown up by an explosive crustacean).

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Maybe I,m so fed up with the hypocrisy, That glass houses, and pots calling kettles black wasn't enough.

Hey, I'm fed up with people accusing me of being American because my national flag isn't part of whatever presets the forum software uses.



Though, on a glass houses note, the Ukrainian rebels are using this here BM-21 Grad and complaining about artillery hitting civilian areas.





Расцветали яблони и груши,

Поплыли туманы над рекой.

Выходила на берег Катюша,

На высокий берег на крутой.


Выходила, песню заводила

Про степного, сизого орла,

Про того, которого любила,

Про того, чьи письма берегла.


Ой ты, песня, песенка девичья,

Ты лети за ясным солнцем вслед.

И бойцу на дальнем пограничье

От Катюши передай привет.



Пусть он вспомнит девушку простую,

Пусть услышит, как она поет,

Пусть он землю бережет родную,

А любовь Катюша сбережет.

Nice poem

Blossom apple and pear,

Mist over the river.

Katyusha stepped out,

On the high bank on the steep.

She was walking, singing a song

About a gray steppe eagle,

Of the one she loved,

Of the one whose letters she was keeping.


Oh, you, song of a maiden,

Head for the bright sun.

And the soldier on faraway border

From Katyusha bring a greeting.



Let him remember an ordinary girl,

Let hear how she sings,

Let him preserve the native,

And love Katyusha preserves

 Iron_Captain wrote:
They simply made a decision part of the population did not like (not signing a treaty with the EU), which is no fair, legal or moral ground for overthrowing a democratic government. The current Ukrainian government is unconstitutional and hypocritical. When you use illegal, unconstitutional means to usurp state power, you should not complain when others do the same to you.

Throwing four or five men out of office is hardly 'a overthrow of the government'. If it was, Richard Nixon would have been the last President of the United States.

The vote in the Ukrainian parliament was 386-0 to return to the 2004 Ukrainian Constitution and Yanukovych fled, after his own party voted in favor of this. While the Parliament did not immediately charge Yanukovych with a crime at that time, this was because he used the two or three days of mourning that the government was closed after the rioting to flee. Once courts were back in session, criminal charges were procured, based on his violation of the Constitution (the one in place at the time) by ordering the military to try and suppress the rioters, which itself led to the resignation of several staff officers of the Ukrainian army, who quit rather than follow an illegal order.

The parliament observed at the time that they had followed the law as closely as possible under the circumstances (ie the courts being closed and Yanukovych's flight from the Ukraine already being in progress).

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
They simply made a decision part of the population did not like (not signing a treaty with the EU), which is no fair, legal or moral ground for overthrowing a democratic government. The current Ukrainian government is unconstitutional and hypocritical. When you use illegal, unconstitutional means to usurp state power, you should not complain when others do the same to you.

Throwing four or five men out of office is hardly 'a overthrow of the government'. If it was, Richard Nixon would have been the last President of the United States.

It is a overthrow of the government if said men thrown out are the president and his ministers (who constitute the government). The government was thrown out of office, therefore the government was overthrown. Is that so hard to get? According to the Ukrainian constitution, it is of course possible to remove a government by legal means, however, these were not properly applied and therefore this constitutes an illegal, unconstitutional coup by the opposition.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The vote in the Ukrainian parliament was 386-0 to return to the 2004 Ukrainian Constitution and Yanukovych fled, after his own party voted in favor of this. While the Parliament did not immediately charge Yanukovych with a crime at that time, this was because he used the two or three days of mourning that the government was closed after the rioting to flee. Once courts were back in session, criminal charges were procured, based on his violation of the Constitution (the one in place at the time) by ordering the military to try and suppress the rioters, which itself led to the resignation of several staff officers of the Ukrainian army, who quit rather than follow an illegal order.

That vote was not valid under both the 2010 and 2004 Ukrainian constitutions. And yes, Yanukovich too violated the constitution, which in itself would have been a valid ground to throw him out of office. However, this should have happened according to the proper procedures laid out in the constitution. These procedures were not observed by the opposition, therefore their throwing Yanukovich out of office is illegal.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The parliament observed at the time that they had followed the law as closely as possible under the circumstances (ie the courts being closed and Yanukovych's flight from the Ukraine already being in progress).

What parliament did here was not a proper impeachment procedure, but an ordinary coup. The vote was nothing but a farce as the opposition was already in de-facto control of the government and Eastern Ukrainian parlementarians were intimidated and threatened to make them go along with the changes.
Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Maybe I,m so fed up with the hypocrisy, That glass houses, and pots calling kettles black wasn't enough.

Hey, I'm fed up with people accusing me of being American because my national flag isn't part of whatever presets the forum software uses.



Though, on a glass houses note, the Ukrainian rebels are using this here BM-21 Grad and complaining about artillery hitting civilian areas.

Wait, isn't "Grad" Russian for "city"? Maybe they're actually complaining that the Ukranian artillerty is hitting their rockets, as in "yeah, they totally shelled the city (grad)", and it's just getting lost in translation?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wait, isn't "Grad" Russian for "city"? Maybe they're actually complaining that the Ukranian artillerty is hitting their rockets, as in "yeah, they totally shelled the city (grad)", and it's just getting lost in translation?

No, city is gorod in Russian. Grad means hail. Grad can also mean city, but only when it is part of a placename, such as in Kaliningrad or Volgograd. But even in those cases gorod is often used, such as in Novgorod. Gorod is derived from Old Russian, and is the normal word for city, while grad as a word for city is derived from Church Slavonic and is more poetic and archaic. In the missile launcher, it just means hail. I guess it can be confusing if you don't speak Russian.

I remember about a decade ago one of Ukraine's presidential candidates who was Pro-EU was poisoned and Russia who backed the other candidate was a suspect. Did they ever get to the bottom of that?

 Frazzled wrote:


Poland was regime change? What are you, 14? Ever read a book. Look up "Cold War" and "Warsaw Pact" and "Lech Walesa"
Tibet regime change? When did Austin become the capital of China?

EDIT: in looking at all those countries one would think:
1. We jeaulously guard our Latin American sisters oh so hawt hawt
2. With such of a list of failures why on earth would anyone be afraid of us?

Also, he put Cuba 1959... Pretty sure the USA wasn't helping Communist revolutionaries overthrow their own dictator

 Iron_Captain wrote:

It is a overthrow of the government if said men thrown out are the president and his ministers (who constitute the government). The government was thrown out of office, therefore the government was overthrown. Is that so hard to get? According to the Ukrainian constitution, it is of course possible to remove a government by legal means, however, these were not properly applied and therefore this constitutes an illegal, unconstitutional coup by the opposition.

Because it wasn't just the opposition, it was his own party too. 386-0 NO ONE voted in favor of keeping him. Not even a token 'hey, let's not make it wholly one sided' vote by the last guy to stand up and vote And, no, a government is way more than the four or five guys at the top, even under communism. The only government where that's even close to true is a dictatorship.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That vote was not valid under both the 2010 and 2004 Ukrainian constitutions. And yes, Yanukovich too violated the constitution, which in itself would have been a valid ground to throw him out of office. However, this should have happened according to the proper procedures laid out in the constitution. These procedures were not observed by the opposition, therefore their throwing Yanukovich out of office is illegal.

He had already fled the capital before they even tabled the idea of a vote, and his own party was firmly in favor of his removal. They did so, on the grounds that he was no longer able to carry out his duties, having fled the country the day before. What then, leave the office empty? The Ukrainian Constitution doesn't actually cover if the President flees to another country. Further, the vote IS constitutional, as while the vote did not garner the required number of votes, despite getting 100% of the votes from those present, because the balance were vacated by MPs who were other wise occupied fleeing the country with millions of stolen dollars of the Ukrainian's money, or committing treason with Russia, or both! In other countries (even mine) those are high crimes and misdemeanors, and pretty much mean your seat in the government is vacant.

Further, their first act after renewing the previous Constitution was to more or less throw themselves out of office come the fresh elections. If the 'coup' as you put it was not the will of the people, they were free to vote against it. Instead, Russia invaded and supported rebellion against the sovereign government.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.

I might say the same for every elected official I've ever met. But I'm biased there.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wait, isn't "Grad" Russian for "city"? Maybe they're actually complaining that the Ukranian artillerty is hitting their rockets, as in "yeah, they totally shelled the city (grad)", and it's just getting lost in translation?

No, city is gorod in Russian. Grad means hail. Grad can also mean city, but only when it is part of a placename, such as in Kaliningrad or Volgograd. But even in those cases gorod is often used, such as in Novgorod. Gorod is derived from Old Russian, and is the normal word for city, while grad as a word for city is derived from Church Slavonic and is more poetic and archaic. In the missile launcher, it just means hail. I guess it can be confusing if you don't speak Russian.

Damnit, that's an excellent wordplay-opportunity out the window.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

It is a overthrow of the government if said men thrown out are the president and his ministers (who constitute the government). The government was thrown out of office, therefore the government was overthrown. Is that so hard to get? According to the Ukrainian constitution, it is of course possible to remove a government by legal means, however, these were not properly applied and therefore this constitutes an illegal, unconstitutional coup by the opposition.

Because it wasn't just the opposition, it was his own party too. 386-0 NO ONE voted in favor of keeping him. Not even a token 'hey, let's not make it wholly one sided' vote by the last guy to stand up and vote And, no, a government is way more than the four or five guys at the top, even under communism. The only government where that's even close to true is a dictatorship.

As I said already, that vote was a complete farce, on the same level as the referendum in Crimea and the elections in Donbass. The opposition and their militias were already in complete control of the capital, and Yanukovich's supporters in parliament were threatened in going along with the vote.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That vote was not valid under both the 2010 and 2004 Ukrainian constitutions. And yes, Yanukovich too violated the constitution, which in itself would have been a valid ground to throw him out of office. However, this should have happened according to the proper procedures laid out in the constitution. These procedures were not observed by the opposition, therefore their throwing Yanukovich out of office is illegal.

He had already fled the capital before they even tabled the idea of a vote, and his own party was firmly in favor of his removal. They did so, on the grounds that he was no longer able to carry out his duties, having fled the country the day before. What then, leave the office empty? The Ukrainian Constitution doesn't actually cover if the President flees to another country. Further, the vote IS constitutional, as while the vote did not garner the required number of votes, despite getting 100% of the votes from those present, because the balance were vacated by MPs who were other wise occupied fleeing the country with millions of stolen dollars of the Ukrainian's money, or committing treason with Russia, or both! In other countries (even mine) those are high crimes and misdemeanors, and pretty much mean your seat in the government is vacant.

If the president of Ukraine is incapable of performing his duties for whatever reason, the chairman of the parliament is supposed to take over as acting president. This would have been Volodymyr Rybak, of the Party of Regions (Yanukovych's party), were it not that he was threatened into resigning right after Yanukovych fled. His 'replacement', Turchynov, then went on to violate all of the restrictions on an acting president.
Besides, the president leaving the country is no valid, legal ground to remove him from office. A Ukrainian president may only be removed if he has been formally charged with the crime of high treason following an investigation by the Supreme Court. Under no circumstance is the position of president ever vacant.

And those parlimentarians that were absent just so conveniently happened to almost all be of the Party of Regions, and nobody ever had a problem with them stealing millions of the people's money (of which the opposition is equally guilty) until this convenient moment. Even then, they had not been charged and their crimes had not been proven, and even it it was, it would do nothing to change the fact that the vote did not reach the required majority according to the constitution.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.

I might say the same for every elected official I've ever met. But I'm biased there.

All politicians are bad. But those in the Ukraine are worse than elsewhere. Just watch them fight (literally) in parliament. It is emberassing.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.

I might say the same for every elected official I've ever met. But I'm biased there.

All politicians are bad. But those in the Ukraine are worse than elsewhere. Just watch them fight (literally) in parliament. It is emberassing.

You have obviously never been to Texas.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.

I might say the same for every elected official I've ever met. But I'm biased there.

All politicians are bad. But those in the Ukraine are worse than elsewhere. Just watch them fight (literally) in parliament. It is emberassing.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

[
I guess someone's never watched talk show exerts on Youtube where politicians literally leap over the table each other and slap their opponent about with a shoe? Hmn, does the Ukrainian parliament do that thing the British one does where every start's saying "haw haw haw" loudly when they disagree with the speaker? Frankly if the politicians here quit acting like children and started nutting each other they might actually get a bit more respect. =P

Find a parliament where people aren't acting like asshats. Its a biased opinion which makes you think that the Ukrainian one is any worse than others, though like I've said the bar is set rather low.

Well, British politicians can haw haw and rape kids all they want, they still do one hell of a better job in running their country. They are less likely to have all kinds of shady "side" jobs that leaves them with conflicting interests and they also don't systematically sluice tax money to Switzerland. They are probably only half as corrupt as Ukrainian politicians too.
At least I can be happy there is no corruption in Russia.

Well, British politicians can haw haw and rape kids all they want, they still do one hell of a better job in running their country. They are less likely to have all kinds of shady "side" jobs that leaves them with conflicting interests and they also don't systematically sluice tax money to Switzerland. They are probably only half as corrupt as Ukrainian politicians too.
At least I can be happy there is no corruption in Russia.

Well, if nothing else I laughed.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
At least I can be happy there is no corruption in Russia.

Thats...a joke right?

I'm trying to place a single sentence in that reply that doesn't have me questioning whether Poe's Law is in effect...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
At least I can be happy there is no corruption in Russia.

Thats...a joke right?

No. There truly is no corruption in Russia.
Corruption is what happens when businessmen or other wealthy persons bribe government officials for favors. In Russia, the businessmen, wealthy persons and government officials are all the same people. Therefore there is no corruption in Russia. They can hardly bribe themselves no?

Ah. Semantics...

Let me link you to the Wikipedia page defining political corruption as you seem to not be aware of just what it is. You may need to turn down the State Anthem a bit in order to focus on it fully. =P