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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
These people just have no place in a democracy.

I hate to point this out, but democracy does, however unfortunately, include these guys. I don't know how they do it in Russia, but part of democracy is not silencing the dissenting voices. No matter how idiotic they might be. (There's just not enough Polonium to go around.)


On the up side, it's clear that Nazis are not running the Ukraine. Otherwise they would not be protesting outside about what the Ukraine is doing.

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/637237443499008000

as you do yeah ?

100 guards injured, 1 died at parlament events. One National Guard lost legs. Protesters left unharmed,
"Svoboda" radicals responsible for throwing grenade, explosives, smoke, flyers and spraying gas. But they said, it's all government's provocation.

Are they treating it as a terror attack?

I fething hope so.

 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/637237443499008000

as you do yeah ?

Not really sure how that's relevant?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Are they treating it as a terror attack?

I fething hope so.

Yes, it's treated as "terrorist attack". Grenade thrower was arrested.

Poroshenko said, that Russia resposible for events at parlament.

Poroshenko announced, that Russia is enemy number one,

Poroshenko asked discounts for gas from Russia.

And asked Russia to help with release ukrainian prisoner in Afghanistan.


Schizophrenia?

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Poroshenko said, that Russia resposible for events at parlament.

Poroshenko announced, that Russia is enemy number one,

Poroshenko asked discounts for gas from Russia.

And asked Russia to help with release ukrainian prisoner in Afghanistan.


Schizophrenia?

Nah, he is just being pragmatic. Apart from bombing civilians, Poroshenko is not all that bad. He has to try and appease both the banderites and pro-Russian Ukrainians at the same time.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
He has to try and appease both the banderites and pro-Russian Ukrainians at the same time.

You're repeating yourself.



And before someone jumps down my throat, obvious joke is obvious.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


And before someone jumps down my throat, obvious joke is obvious.

Not really. Wtfs a banderite?

Oh derp, I misread that completely. A Banderite is a (far) right-wing Ukrainian follower of the ideas of Ukranian nationalist Stepan Bandera, I read it as "bandite" and thus made a bad joke about the pro-Russian side being bandits.

Yeah, banderite was originally the name for followers of Stepan Bandera, a pro-nazi Ukrainian nationalist leader of WW2.
But nowadays it is just a nickname for all Ukrainian nationalists. The opposite nickname for pro-Russian nationalists is vatnik.

These far right Ukrainian nationalist groups. Svoboda? Are they like the Ukrainian equivalent of the IRA and UVF? Are they paramilitaries, or just fringe political parties?

Has it been confirmed that the person responsible for the grenade attack on the Police was a member or sympathiser of one of these groups?

I don't think Svoboda is equal to IRA. Svoboda known for agitations, meeteengs, nazi ideas and some fightings but not shooting.
Right Sector is something like IRA.

Has it been confirmed that the person responsible for the grenade attack on the Police was a member or sympathiser of one of these groups?

It was an Svoboda radical. But Svoboda didn't planned to use grenade. Probably, it was direct order from Tyagnibok to that person.

Who's that?

The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.

"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.

At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."

The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.

http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-military-doctrine-declares-russia-enemy-nato-membership-top-goal-2080133

Think NATO lets them in at this point?

 CptJake wrote:

Think NATO lets them in at this point?

I suppose it depends on who in NATO is backing it. wink wink nudge nudge

Makes sense though, if your basic assumption is that Stalin...errr... Putin is going to invade you.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Who's that?

Oleg Tyagnibok is the leader of Svoboda. He is known for his support of Bandera and the UPA, radical anti-semitism, anti-communism, russophobia and the many controversies he has been involved in. In short, he is the Zhirinovsky of Ukraine.

 CptJake wrote:

The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.

"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.

At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."

The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.

http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-military-doctrine-declares-russia-enemy-nato-membership-top-goal-2080133

Think NATO lets them in at this point?

No, NATO rules don't even allow it. The Ukrainians know this, and they also know that any serious move to joining NATO would be the end of Ukraine. Such public 'doctrines' are usually just propaganda for the most part.

so why exactly would joining NATO be the end of the Ukraine?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Spoiler:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Who's that?

Oleg Tyagnibok is the leader of Svoboda. He is known for his support of Bandera and the UPA, radical anti-semitism, anti-communism, russophobia and the many controversies he has been involved in. In short, he is the Zhirinovsky of Ukraine.

 CptJake wrote:

The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.

"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.

At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."

The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.

http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-military-doctrine-declares-russia-enemy-nato-membership-top-goal-2080133

Think NATO lets them in at this point?

No, NATO rules don't even allow it. The Ukrainians know this, and they also know that any serious move to joining NATO would be the end of Ukraine. Such public 'doctrines' are usually just propaganda for the most part.

so why exactly would joining NATO be the end of the Ukraine?

Because Russia will not and cannot allow it? Putin would rather drop all pretence by launching an all out invasion and occupation of Ukraine, than risk Ukraine joining NATO.

Russia helped instigate a rebellion and sent Russian troops (the numbers of which are debatable) to annex Crimea, fight the Ukrainian army and maintain Russian influence in the east; simply because a pro-Russian government was overthrown and replaced with a pro Western government. What do you think he'll do to prevent Ukraine joining a continent wide military alliance hostile to Russia?

NATO is only hostile to Russia because Russia has been acting so belligerently since the fall of the Soviet Union.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

so why exactly would joining NATO be the end of the Ukraine?

Because Putin et al have been playing the old 'great enemy' card to distract Russians from problems at home. if the Ukraine joined NATO, Putin would fin himself in a position where he would have to go to war or look weak.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Spoiler:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Who's that?

Oleg Tyagnibok is the leader of Svoboda. He is known for his support of Bandera and the UPA, radical anti-semitism, anti-communism, russophobia and the many controversies he has been involved in. In short, he is the Zhirinovsky of Ukraine.

 CptJake wrote:

The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.

"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.

At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."

The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.

http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-military-doctrine-declares-russia-enemy-nato-membership-top-goal-2080133

Think NATO lets them in at this point?

No, NATO rules don't even allow it. The Ukrainians know this, and they also know that any serious move to joining NATO would be the end of Ukraine. Such public 'doctrines' are usually just propaganda for the most part.

so why exactly would joining NATO be the end of the Ukraine?

First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
NATO is only hostile to Russia because Russia has been acting so belligerently since the fall of the Soviet Union.

And Russia has only been acting so belligerently because it is threatened by NATO.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.

Crimea already said it's not part of Ukraine, so why should Ukraine care what they say?


You can't have it both ways.

 Kanluwen wrote:
NATO is only hostile to Russia because Russia has been acting so belligerently since the fall of the Soviet Union.

And Russia has only been acting so belligerently because it is threatened by NATO.

Right, because NATO are the ones which have consistently been doing things like having armed bombers fly into Russian airspace?

Oh wait. That's Russia into the airspace of NATO countries. My bad!

Russia(and the super-patriotic Russian nationalists) think that a country that does not belong to them trying to join NATO is NATO being belligerent.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.

Crimea already said it's not part of Ukraine, so why should Ukraine care what they say?


You can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure you read what he said correctly. Iron Captain is saying that if Ukraine joined NATO, many people could support separatist movements, in the same way that many in Crimea supported separatist movements before it was annexed.

I really fail to see how Russia can say with a straight face that NATO is threatening. Its a collection of small countries who only barely rival Russia in military might, and they have the disadvantage of not being a unified force. And the less they get poked, the less unified they will be.

Its like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Say NATO is threatening you, invade a buffer state, NATO responds to the posturing by buffing its defenses.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.

Crimea already said it's not part of Ukraine, so why should Ukraine care what they say?


You can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure you read what he said correctly. Iron Captain is saying that if Ukraine joined NATO, many people could support separatist movements, in the same way that many in Crimea supported separatist movements before it was annexed.

No, I read what he said correctly.
I just chose to ignore it, because the government in Ukraine was elected by the people of Ukraine. The only non-voter participation came from areas controlled by the separatists, which allowed the separatists and Russia to claim that the Ukrainian government was not really "the will of the people!".

And let's not pretend for a moment that the "separatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass" weren't instigated by Russian forces and later justified as "defending the ethnic population". Most of us have been in this thread long enough to know that's exactly what happened, just like it did in Georgia and South Ossetia.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Spoiler:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Who's that?

Oleg Tyagnibok is the leader of Svoboda. He is known for his support of Bandera and the UPA, radical anti-semitism, anti-communism, russophobia and the many controversies he has been involved in. In short, he is the Zhirinovsky of Ukraine.

 CptJake wrote:

The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.

"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.

At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."

The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.

http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-military-doctrine-declares-russia-enemy-nato-membership-top-goal-2080133

Think NATO lets them in at this point?

No, NATO rules don't even allow it. The Ukrainians know this, and they also know that any serious move to joining NATO would be the end of Ukraine. Such public 'doctrines' are usually just propaganda for the most part.

so why exactly would joining NATO be the end of the Ukraine?

First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.

Which is concerning because an open invasion of a European state by another would very easily spark a wider war, especially with Ukraine's neighbors being intensely concerned about Russian actions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
NATO is only hostile to Russia because Russia has been acting so belligerently since the fall of the Soviet Union.

And Russia has only been acting so belligerently because it is threatened by NATO.

I'm still wondering what NATO did that was so threatening. NATO isn't coercing anyone into NATO by force, if other nations want to join NATO, it's their choice, and often has to overcome opposition from other NATO members. Likewise, NATO, as a military power, was weakening for years, Europe was finally drawing down its armies after many lifetimes of strife, some were even dropping things like Tanks entirely. Europe had never been so poorly prepared for war when the Ukraine crisis started. All Russia had to do was not rock the boat and that would have continued.

Hell, the possibility for Russia to join NATO was even brought up at several points, all actively rebuffed by Russia since Russia couldn't be the boss and Russia will enter into coalitions where it gets to be the boss, and this was openly stated by Russia's envoy to NATO.

Claiming NATO was threatening is somewhat silly in that context.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.

Crimea already said it's not part of Ukraine, so why should Ukraine care what they say?


You can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure you read what he said correctly. Iron Captain is saying that if Ukraine joined NATO, many people could support separatist movements, in the same way that many in Crimea supported separatist movements before it was annexed.

No, I read what he said correctly.
I just chose to ignore it, because the government in Ukraine was elected by the people of Ukraine. The only non-voter participation came from areas controlled by the separatists, which allowed the separatists and Russia to claim that the Ukrainian government was not really "the will of the people!".

And let's not pretend for a moment that the "separatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass" weren't instigated by Russian forces and later justified as "defending the ethnic population". Most of us have been in this thread long enough to know that's exactly what happened, just like it did in Georgia and South Ossetia.

People voting for Poroshenko does not mean that they want to join NATO.
Also, I reccomend you read something about South Ossetia and Abkhazia, or even speak to someone who lives there. Saying that the seperatist movements of the Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples were instigated by Russian forces blatantly ignores their centuries of struggle against the Georgians and the previous war in the 90's.
Also, if you had ever been to Crimea, or even followed the news from there, you would have known that it did not need any instigation. Crimea declared independence even before the first Russians showed up. Russia just took advantage of this development and moved in.
In Donbass, it is the same. People there feel connected to Russia, and never had much love for the West. It may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone in the world likes the West or wants to join it.

Really, it is this complete and utter lack of knowledge about the peoples of Eastern Europe combined with the age old way of viewing Russia as evil and the West as always right which leads to the eternal conflict between the West and Russia. For some reason people in the West can't comprehend that there is actually people out there that would prefer Russia over the West, so they always go: "Putin did it!" 'The Kremlin is behind it!' on every single thing.
The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong. Whether it is Africa, Asia, the Middle East or Eastern Europe, they inevitably mess things up and cause a huge lot of bloodshed in the process.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Right, because NATO are the ones which have consistently been doing things like having armed bombers fly into Russian airspace?

Oh wait. That's Russia into the airspace of NATO countries. My bad!

Russia(and the super-patriotic Russian nationalists) think that a country that does not belong to them trying to join NATO is NATO being belligerent.

Belgrade says ''hi''.


Only a fool would believe that having a hostile military alliance with a history of violence and invasion at the border is not somehow a threat. Especially not if you are a nation with a very, very long history of being invaded by pretty much everyone.

The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong

And Russia's nose belongs in Ukraine I suppose? While at it, please first stop sticking the noses of your nuclear bombers into our airspace.