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.
2016/04/27 16:27:46
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Ustrello wrote: You mean Europeans and Asians have a resistance to European and Asian diseases and won't get wiped out by them? Man color me surprised
Are you seriously claiming all native Americans were wiped out by diseases (which were at times spread deliberately)? Most of the Native Americans died of diseases, but millions of them survived and eventually developed immunities. I sure wonder what happened to them? A little thing called "Indian Removal" maybe?
Or this maybe:
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/27 16:28:51
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/04/27 16:36:18
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
I don't know whence you got 45k dead. If that is all that has been documented, then the documentation must be sorely lacking. Fact is that once the entire US was once inhabited by hundreds, if not thousands of different peoples even after (deliberately spread) diseases ravaged most of the population. Now, only about 2 million remain, the vast majority of which have completely lost their culture, language and have for all intents and purposes ceased to be seperate ethnic groups. Only a few hundred thousand "true native Americans" still live where once were millions. This tragedy was caused by a combination of violence, deportation and forced assimilation. In terms of scale it completely outmatches any genocide ever seen in Europe, Russia or Asia save for the Holocaust.
Now that we have both made our points, I propose we return to the topic of this thread, which is about Ukraine and Russia.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/27 16:48:36
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/04/27 17:09:33
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
The Great Leap Forward says hello. The Holodomor could, again, qualify depending on whether one considers it ethnic cleansing or not. The expulsion of Germans from various territories following WWII caused a rather hefty deathtoll as well. The Khmer Rouge also killed more than two million people and so on and so forth. There's no reliable figure about how many native Americans there were before the arrival of the Europeans, because the empires that existed crumbled when disease wiped out much of their population. It's certainly genocide, but no one knows how bad it was.
All of this is beside the point, because it's Iron_Captain once again trying to deflect the issue by bringing up someone else's poor record when Russia's past misdeeds is brought up. Whether the US has treated the native Americans badly (which they have), whether Australia has treated the Aboriginals badly (which they have) or whether Sweden has treated the Sámi people badly (we totally have) is completely beside the point: Stalin is still within living memory.
But then again this is coming from a poster who thinks the holomdor wasn't a genocide
That belief is not unreasonable; there is no consensus among researchers in the field. Some argue that it was, some argue that it wasn't and both sides have valid points.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/27 17:13:39
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2016/04/27 17:13:58
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Great Leap Forward says hello. The Holodomor could, again, qualify depending on whether one considers it ethnic cleansing or not. The expulsion of Germans from various territories following WWII caused a rather hefty deathtoll as well. The Khmer Rouge also killed more than two million people and so on and so forth. There's no reliable figure about how many native Americans there were before the arrival of the Europeans, because the empires that existed crumbled when disease wiped out much of their population. It's certainly genocide, but no one knows how bad it was.
All of this is beside the point, because it's Iron_Captain once again trying to deflect the issue by bringing up someone else's poor record when Russia's past misdeeds is brought up. Whether the US has treated the native Americans badly (which they have), whether Australia has treated the Aboriginals badly (which they have) or whether Sweden has treated the Sámi people badly (we totally have) is completely beside the point: Stalin is still within living memory.
Pretty much. There was a Native genocide, there's little denying that fact, but to pretend that it makes other misdeeds any way less bad is ridiculous.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/04/27 18:03:23
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Ustrello wrote: Sure we got a history of it, but no where on the scale that russia does. Its like comparing a professional league player (russia) to a high school senior (US) in the great sport of ethnic cleansing.
Are you going to provide any evidence of this hypothetical ethnic cleansing or is your only argument in support of this accusation "the Soviets did it decades ago so naturally modern Russians are going to do it too".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/27 18:03:34
2016/04/27 18:05:17
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Great Leap Forward says hello. The Holodomor could, again, qualify depending on whether one considers it ethnic cleansing or not. The expulsion of Germans from various territories following WWII caused a rather hefty deathtoll as well. The Khmer Rouge also killed more than two million people and so on and so forth. There's no reliable figure about how many native Americans there were before the arrival of the Europeans, because the empires that existed crumbled when disease wiped out much of their population. It's certainly genocide, but no one knows how bad it was.
All of this is beside the point, because it's Iron_Captain once again trying to deflect the issue by bringing up someone else's poor record when Russia's past misdeeds is brought up. Whether the US has treated the native Americans badly (which they have), whether Australia has treated the Aboriginals badly (which they have) or whether Sweden has treated the Sámi people badly (we totally have) is completely beside the point: Stalin is still within living memory.
Memory. You said it right. Stalin is nothing but a memory and there is no reason to believe that the Tatars are facing deportation in the present day just because it once happened in the past, similar to the fact that native Americans do not have to fear deportation in the present day despite the fact that it happened in the past. (which is the whole point which started the treatment of native peoples debate). I was not trying to deflect attention (that only happened because it got turned into a who is worse contest), I was merely using it as an example to counter Ustrello's argument that the Tatars have to fear deportation in the present day just because Russia has engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past. To put it simply, the fact that a nation or country engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past, does not automatically mean they will do so in the present day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: You mean the prosecutor of crimea saying she would do it? Or did that slip past you?
If she ever said that, it slipped past everyone in the world except you.
Please provide proof she ever said that, because I am 100% sure she didn't.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/27 18:07:54
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/04/27 18:19:20
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Great Leap Forward says hello. The Holodomor could, again, qualify depending on whether one considers it ethnic cleansing or not. The expulsion of Germans from various territories following WWII caused a rather hefty deathtoll as well. The Khmer Rouge also killed more than two million people and so on and so forth. There's no reliable figure about how many native Americans there were before the arrival of the Europeans, because the empires that existed crumbled when disease wiped out much of their population. It's certainly genocide, but no one knows how bad it was.
All of this is beside the point, because it's Iron_Captain once again trying to deflect the issue by bringing up someone else's poor record when Russia's past misdeeds is brought up. Whether the US has treated the native Americans badly (which they have), whether Australia has treated the Aboriginals badly (which they have) or whether Sweden has treated the Sámi people badly (we totally have) is completely beside the point: Stalin is still within living memory.
Memory. You said it right. Stalin is nothing but a memory and there is no reason to believe that the Tatars are facing deportation in the present day just because it once happened in the past, similar to the fact that native Americans do not have to fear deportation in the present day despite the fact that it happened in the past. (which is the whole point which started the treatment of native peoples debate). I was not trying to deflect attention (that only happened because it got turned into a who is worse contest), I was merely using it as an example to counter Ustrello's argument that the Tatars have to fear deportation in the present day just because Russia has engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past.
To put it simply, the fact that a nation or country engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past, does not automatically mean they will do so in the present day.
hrm, Iron Captain...this line of reasoning is not going to hold water. If such is the case, why are Russians in eastern Ukraine so edgy despite no offical Ukrainian government attempts or policies to enact what they ostensibly are fighting against? Would Russians in Kaliningrad not have fears if it reverted back to Germany? Do Native Americans in the US today not have good reason for not trusting the US federal government? Did Croats and Serbs not do terrible things to each other over fears from events 50 years in the past?
You cant just play it off as "well thats all in the past", especially for a people like the Tartars who found themselves inside a new country overnight as foreign troops invaded and took over. You can't honestly really believe that, and you wouldnt if you were in their shoes.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2016/04/27 22:11:54
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
And how does this article prove your point? Where in this article is Poklonskaya saying she will deport the Tatars?
What she is said according to this article is: "Incitement of ethnic strife will also carry the punishment of deportation"
That is completely different from what you are claiming she said. What she is saying is that anyone (regardless of ethnicity) trying to upset the fragile ethnic balance in Crimea will be thrown out.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Great Leap Forward says hello. The Holodomor could, again, qualify depending on whether one considers it ethnic cleansing or not. The expulsion of Germans from various territories following WWII caused a rather hefty deathtoll as well. The Khmer Rouge also killed more than two million people and so on and so forth. There's no reliable figure about how many native Americans there were before the arrival of the Europeans, because the empires that existed crumbled when disease wiped out much of their population. It's certainly genocide, but no one knows how bad it was.
All of this is beside the point, because it's Iron_Captain once again trying to deflect the issue by bringing up someone else's poor record when Russia's past misdeeds is brought up. Whether the US has treated the native Americans badly (which they have), whether Australia has treated the Aboriginals badly (which they have) or whether Sweden has treated the Sámi people badly (we totally have) is completely beside the point: Stalin is still within living memory.
Memory. You said it right. Stalin is nothing but a memory and there is no reason to believe that the Tatars are facing deportation in the present day just because it once happened in the past, similar to the fact that native Americans do not have to fear deportation in the present day despite the fact that it happened in the past. (which is the whole point which started the treatment of native peoples debate). I was not trying to deflect attention (that only happened because it got turned into a who is worse contest), I was merely using it as an example to counter Ustrello's argument that the Tatars have to fear deportation in the present day just because Russia has engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past.
To put it simply, the fact that a nation or country engaged in ethnic cleansing in the past, does not automatically mean they will do so in the present day.
hrm, Iron Captain...this line of reasoning is not going to hold water. If such is the case, why are Russians in eastern Ukraine so edgy despite no offical Ukrainian government attempts or policies to enact what they ostensibly are fighting against? Would Russians in Kaliningrad not have fears if it reverted back to Germany? Do Native Americans in the US today not have good reason for not trusting the US federal government? Did Croats and Serbs not do terrible things to each other over fears from events 50 years in the past?
You cant just play it off as "well thats all in the past", especially for a people like the Tartars who found themselves inside a new country overnight as foreign troops invaded and took over. You can't honestly really believe that, and you wouldnt if you were in their shoes.
Fear of ethnic cleansing is not the same as actual ethnic cleansing. I did not say that historical actions by a group do not cause some people to fear these groups will repeat them in the future. What I said was that historical actions of a group do not mean that the group is going to be repeating them in the future.
To take the Kaliningrad example, if Germany (re)gained control over Kaliningrad the Russians living there would probably be afraid of ethnic cleansing considering Germany's past ethnic cleansing. Yet that does not mean Germany will actually do that. Germany having done a lot of ethnic cleansing in the past does not mean they are always going to do it in the future.
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/04/27 22:29:29
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
You of all people should realize that the only ethnic minority group of substance in crimea are the tartars and jews correct? So of course it was aimed at them right after she threatened to shut down their council, took away their buildings radio stations etc. Also the tartars oppose the annexation so by opposing it she threatened to deport them
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/27 22:33:22
I fail to see banning an organisation that participates in terrorist activities and has terrorist connections paves the way for seizing people's property because they are Tatars.
Well, let's walk you through how it's gone in other countries.
You declare a ethnic minority organization to be a terrorist group. Then police informants accuse people who are members of that ethnic minority who have things of value of being members of that organization. The government then deports/imprisons/executes those people, and seizes their assets, which are then sold off cheaply, sometimes to the very police informants who testified against the previous owners.
The Constitution provides legal means to impeach a president if his behaviour is undesirable, but these were not followed. Using force rather than elections or constitutional means to change a democratically elected government is illegal.
The argument being that his flight from the country, along with most of his cabinet, equated a defacto abdication from office.
Iron_Captain wrote: and you can't blame Yanukovych for fleeing the capital when a thousand guys with AK-47s and guns were coming to hang him.
I can when they're called 'the police'. If Yanukovych was really worried about a fair trial, nothing prevented him from turning himself in in Donetsk or Crimea and proving his innocence in a court of law. I think it safe to say that he would have been quite safe from angry mobs in Sevastopol. Instead he fled beyond the reach of Ukrainian law, and then proceeded, also in violation of the Constitution, to ask foreign troops to invade the Ukraine and return him to power.
The coup leaders also got rid of the Constitutional Court and any judge that disagreed with them.
No, they didn't. Parliament dismissed 5 judges of the 18 on grounds of misconduct and violation of their oaths. Yurii Baulin who currently chairs the constitutional court has been on the court since 2008. Of other judges, 227 were dismissed, for the following reasons: a criminal guilty verdict becoming final (four judges), reaching of age of 65 [mandatory retirement age] (seven judges), impossibility to exercise powers (two judges), notices of resignation filed (195 judges), oath breaking (two judges), voluntary discharge (17 judges). That's out of 8,000 judges holding office in the Ukraine.
Because Natalya Poklonskaya has already said that's what she plans to do on her facebook page back in 2014. and now that the former Tartar government is officially a terrorist organization, it really swings the door open wide for exactly that.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2016/04/27 23:45:08
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Ustrello wrote: You of all people should realize that the only ethnic minority group of substance in crimea are the tartars and jews correct? So of course it was aimed at them right after she threatened to shut down their council, took away their buildings radio stations etc. Also the tartars oppose the annexation so by opposing it she threatened to deport them
Actually the biggest ethnic minority groups currently are the Ukrainians (about 15% of population), followed by the Tatars (about 12% of population), then the Belarusians (about 1-2% of population). Other historical minority groups like the Jews, Greeks and Germans are really small now nowadays. That aside, what she said was not aimed at Tatars or any specific ethnic group, you are just making that up. It was aimed at anyone regardless of ethnicity who would set up the different ethnic groups against each others. It was just as much a warning to Russian or Ukrainian nationalists as it was to Tatar nationalists.
The shutdown of the Tatar Mejlis happened one and a half year after she made this comment, not right after. Maybe you should have checked the date on the article? It is also unrelated. The organisation of the mejlis was banned for engaging in terrorism and associating with known terrorist and extremist organisations, the mejlis themselves have never denied this. No one is getting deported and this action was not aimed at a single organisation (and its leaders in particular) rather than the Tatar people as a whole, altough there is some valid concerns (as baronlveagh already noted) that this ban could reinforce the already very negative image of Tatars in the public opinion of Crimeans.
Also, with "oppose", she meant people actually taking action against the reunification of Crimea with Russia, not people who just disagree with it. The problem here is with the wording in the article being (deliberately) vague, and misquoting what she actually said. In the original comment she actually said the following:
Now you explain me how this means she is going to deport Tatars. You said that she said she would deport the Tatars. I don't see those words anywhere, please show me.
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/04/27 23:46:42
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Are you seriously claiming all native Americans were wiped out by diseases (which were at times spread deliberately)? Most of the Native Americans died of diseases, but millions of them survived and eventually developed immunities. I sure wonder what happened to them? A little thing called "Indian Removal" maybe?
Eh, it's a lot more complicated than that (we killed each other with some vigor too) but he's right cap, the stunningly vast majority of native deaths were due to disease, upwards of 65 million natives. Much as I resent the US for existing, they were a relatively minor player compared to, say, Spain. When Cortez started in Mexico, there were approx 30 million people living there. By the time he was done, there were 3 million.
Now you explain me how this means she is going to deport Tatars. You said that she said she would deport the Tatars. I don't see those words anywhere, please show me.
Because, and I'm speaking very broadly here, the Tartars have thus far continued to refuse to recognize Crimea's returning to Russia, citing the Ukrainian Constitution, and that fact that Crimea's actions directly violated the existing law in no uncertain terms (as ruled by the Ukrainian Constitutional Court that you claimed was disbanded). That and you can link every single tartar in Crimea to the Mejlis with maybe one degree separation.
Since this is the Tartars more or less as a group, bonus, we can deport them for inciting ethnic strife.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/28 00:04:48
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2016/04/28 00:01:05
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Yeah, by the time the US actually started getting going, most of the native american populations and civilizations had already collapsed, otherwise the US would never have been able to expand as it did (or possibly ever even be founded). There are estimates that 90%+ of the native population of North America had died out before the US was founded. This also helps explain how the US was able to expand as fast as it did, as natural paths, migration routes, natural crop seedings, etc were often already pre-existing (with people of the day simply taking it as "divine aid" and proof of manifest destiny and whatnot). The US in many ways grew into a land that was pre-prepared, that a few hundred years before was *far* more populated.
That said, yes the US certainly did do its best to shaft what people's remained.
Fear of ethnic cleansing is not the same as actual ethnic cleansing. I did not say that historical actions by a group do not cause some people to fear these groups will repeat them in the future. What I said was that historical actions of a group do not mean that the group is going to be repeating them in the future.
To take the Kaliningrad example, if Germany (re)gained control over Kaliningrad the Russians living there would probably be afraid of ethnic cleansing considering Germany's past ethnic cleansing. Yet that does not mean Germany will actually do that. Germany having done a lot of ethnic cleansing in the past does not mean they are always going to do it in the future.
Right, but that fear would be there, and be very real, and when steps are taken to ban certain groups, it feeds into that fear because it's a step that was taken before. Nobody can say for sure a thing will happen until it does, but the concern is very real. Banning groups certainly contributes to that, as does shutting down their radio stations and other such things.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2016/04/28 00:22:46
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
I fail to see banning an organisation that participates in terrorist activities and has terrorist connections paves the way for seizing people's property because they are Tatars.
Well, let's walk you through how it's gone in other countries.
You declare a ethnic minority organization to be a terrorist group. Then police informants accuse people who are members of that ethnic minority who have things of value of being members of that organization. The government then deports/imprisons/executes those people, and seizes their assets, which are then sold off cheaply, sometimes to the very police informants who testified against the previous owners.
So? Again, because things happened in the past, in different places doesn't mean they will happen now, in this place. Also, you are very wrong in that the mejlis were not declared to be a terrorist group, their organisation was just banned. Former membership or association with the organisation is not punishable in any way, so your argument falls flat.
The Constitution provides legal means to impeach a president if his behaviour is undesirable, but these were not followed. Using force rather than elections or constitutional means to change a democratically elected government is illegal.
The argument being that his flight from the country, along with most of his cabinet, equated a defacto abdication from office.
There is no such thing as a de-facto abdication in a democracy. An abdication which is not a de-jure abdication is not a legal abdication at all. The president can't abdicate just by travelling to another country, he has to either make an official statement of abdication or has to be impeached by parliament and the Supreme Court following the procedure outlined in the Constitution.
Iron_Captain wrote: and you can't blame Yanukovych for fleeing the capital when a thousand guys with AK-47s and guns were coming to hang him.
I can when they're called 'the police'. If Yanukovych was really worried about a fair trial, nothing prevented him from turning himself in in Donetsk or Crimea and proving his innocence in a court of law. I think it safe to say that he would have been quite safe from angry mobs in Sevastopol. Instead he fled beyond the reach of Ukrainian law, and then proceeded, also in violation of the Constitution, to ask foreign troops to invade the Ukraine and return him to power.
They were not called 'the police'. Western media called them 'protesters', Yanukovych himself called them 'terrorists'. The police had fled and for the most part was nowhere to be seen. Also, considering the people now in power, there was no way Yanukovych was ever going to get a fair trial.
No, it wasn't. Several cabinet members and Yanukovych fled. Of 400 odd MPs, 370(ish) remained in office and set up new elections.
MPs are not the government. The entire Azarov government was dismissed and replaced with the illegimate Yatsenyuk government, none of them remained in office. Also, the exact number of MPs that actually remained is unclear, especially since a lot of important decisions were made while half of the parliament was absent, and many MPs, while they technically remained in office, were not allowed to return to Kiev and thus in practice those seats remained empty until the next elections.
The coup leaders also got rid of the Constitutional Court and any judge that disagreed with them.
No, they didn't. Parliament dismissed 5 judges of the 18 on grounds of misconduct and violation of their oaths. Yurii Baulin who currently chairs the constitutional court has been on the court since 2008. Of other judges, 227 were dismissed, for the following reasons: a criminal guilty verdict becoming final (four judges), reaching of age of 65 [mandatory retirement age] (seven judges), impossibility to exercise powers (two judges), notices of resignation filed (195 judges), oath breaking (two judges), voluntary discharge (17 judges). That's out of 8,000 judges holding office in the Ukraine.
Parliament was not allowed to dismiss any judge, neither is parliament allowed to overturn any decision made by the Constitutional Court. The court, not parliament is the highest authority in Ukraine and its decisions can not be overturned or appealed. MPs are also not allowed to intimidate and threaten judges with violence and dismissal if they refuse to cooperate and parliament is also not allowed to ignore any past decisions by the court. In effect, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ceased to exist as a meaningful and independent authority, it continued in name (and disregarded law) only becoming a rubberstamp factory for the new government. That is what I meant when I said that they "got rid" of the Constitutional Court.
Because Natalya Poklonskaya has already said that's what she plans to do on her facebook page back in 2014. and now that the former Tartar government is officially a terrorist organization, it really swings the door open wide for exactly that.
She never said that. Please back up statement with proof.
Now you explain me how this means she is going to deport Tatars. You said that she said she would deport the Tatars. I don't see those words anywhere, please show me.
Because, and I'm speaking very broadly here, the Tartars have thus far continued to refuse to recognize Crimea's returning to Russia, citing the Ukrainian Constitution, and that fact that Crimea's actions directly violated the existing law in no uncertain terms (as ruled by the Ukrainian Constitutional Court that you claimed was disbanded). That and you can link every single tartar in Crimea to the Mejlis with maybe one degree separation.
Since this is the Tartars more or less as a group, bonus, we can deport them for inciting ethnic strife.
Now you are just making things up. This is your thought process, your logic, not that of any Russian official. Show me were Poklonskaya or any Crimean or Russian official said anything about deporting Tatars or any Russian or Crimean law that would allow for such deportation or any hint that the Tatars are about to be deported. If you can't (and I know you can't) you should just admit you are wrong and throwing around wild assumptions and unbased accusations. You are lowering yourself to the level of a conspiracy theorist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, by the time the US actually started getting going, most of the native american populations and civilizations had already collapsed, otherwise the US would never have been able to expand as it did (or possibly ever even be founded). There are estimates that 90%+ of the native population of North America had died out before the US was founded. This also helps explain how the US was able to expand as fast as it did, as natural paths, migration routes, natural crop seedings, etc were often already pre-existing (with people of the day simply taking it as "divine aid" and proof of manifest destiny and whatnot). The US in many ways grew into a land that was pre-prepared, that a few hundred years before was *far* more populated.
That said, yes the US certainly did do its best to shaft what people's remained.
Fear of ethnic cleansing is not the same as actual ethnic cleansing. I did not say that historical actions by a group do not cause some people to fear these groups will repeat them in the future. What I said was that historical actions of a group do not mean that the group is going to be repeating them in the future.
To take the Kaliningrad example, if Germany (re)gained control over Kaliningrad the Russians living there would probably be afraid of ethnic cleansing considering Germany's past ethnic cleansing. Yet that does not mean Germany will actually do that. Germany having done a lot of ethnic cleansing in the past does not mean they are always going to do it in the future.
Right, but that fear would be there, and be very real, and when steps are taken to ban certain groups, it feeds into that fear because it's a step that was taken before. Nobody can say for sure a thing will happen until it does, but the concern is very real. Banning groups certainly contributes to that, as does shutting down their radio stations and other such things.
True. But fear and people being concerned something might happen still doesn't mean it actually will happen. I can definitely see how banning the mejlis would increase such fears and concerns for the Tatars, but it does not mean that the Crimean or Russian government is actually gearing up for such operations.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/28 00:36:05
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/04/29 00:21:23
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
So? Again, because things happened in the past, in different places doesn't mean they will happen now, in this place.
Actually it has been going on right now, in that place, though just not to the Tartars. At the moment they're still working through the 'separatists' who did silly things like record Russian soldiers in the Crimea doing unflattering things, run blogs the FSB didn't agree with or otherwise drew attention to themselves for disagreeing. For being about democracy, you've deported about 400 (granted, no impartial sources could be found for this number) in the last six months for nothing more serious than having a different opinion than yours.
There is no such thing as a de-facto abdication in a democracy. An abdication which is not a de-jure abdication is not a legal abdication at all. The president can't abdicate just by traveling to another country, he has to either make an official statement of abdication or has to be impeached by parliament and the Supreme Court following the procedure outlined in the Constitution.
Incorrect. It depends on the reasons for his travel to that other country. Fleeing, knowing that the moment the court is back in session he's going to be charged (which he was, and a warrant issued for his arrest), is still 'flight' and a serious crime under law in most countries. After all, the only reason they couldn't follow procedure was that he instituted a two day government holiday, which he then used to flee.
Wow, the historical revisionism is strong with this one. No, the people looking for him really were 'the police', warrants for his arrest were actually issued the moment courts were back in session.
Iron_Captain wrote: The entire Azarov government was dismissed and replaced with the illegimate Yatsenyuk government, none of them remained in office.
Not true. Azarov resigned a month earlier. His government, under the law, was dissolved as soon as Yanukovych accepted his resignation.
Also, the exact number of MPs that actually remained is unclear,
According to the numbers, 375 voted, out of 450. Not great, but more than the 300 needed to pass. And having absenteeism among MPs/Congressmen during very important votes is hardly unheard of (looking at YOU US Congress).
Parliament was not allowed to dismiss any judge, neither is parliament allowed to overturn any decision made by the Constitutional Court.
I seem to recall that the Constitutional Court does, in fact, have a number of judges (5) who serve in Parliament's quota, and, frankly, at their discretion. I grant we're in areas of Ukrainian law I'm not entirely familiar with, but I am aware that the rest are appointed by the President and Council of Judges.
So? Again, because things happened in the past, in different places doesn't mean they will happen now, in this place.
Actually it has been going on right now, in that place, though just not to the Tartars. At the moment they're still working through the 'separatists' who did silly things like record Russian soldiers in the Crimea doing unflattering things, run blogs the FSB didn't agree with or otherwise drew attention to themselves for disagreeing. For being about democracy, you've deported about 400 (granted, no impartial sources could be found for this number) in the last six months for nothing more serious than having a different opinion than yours.
Nonsense. It did not happen, you are just echoing ukr propaganda here. The fact you could not find any impartial sources about it says more than enough. Something like this would not happen without mainstream (Western) press picking up on it.
There is no such thing as a de-facto abdication in a democracy. An abdication which is not a de-jure abdication is not a legal abdication at all. The president can't abdicate just by traveling to another country, he has to either make an official statement of abdication or has to be impeached by parliament and the Supreme Court following the procedure outlined in the Constitution.
Incorrect. It depends on the reasons for his travel to that other country. Fleeing, knowing that the moment the court is back in session he's going to be charged (which he was, and a warrant issued for his arrest), is still 'flight' and a serious crime under law in most countries. After all, the only reason they couldn't follow procedure was that he instituted a two day government holiday, which he then used to flee.
Then show me the relevant articles of Ukrainian law. There is nothing illegal about Yanukovych's actions. Especially since at the time of the vote, Yanukovych was still in Crimea. He did not leave for Russia until 25 February. The argument that they could not follow impeachment procedure because there was a 2-day holiday is ridiculous. An impeachment procedure could have been started regardless of holiday, and they could have waited a few days while all MPs and judges returned to Kiev. Instead, the opposition felt it necessary to rush it through immediately in violation of the Constitution just to ensure their 'victory'.
Wow, the historical revisionism is strong with this one. No, the people looking for him really were 'the police', warrants for his arrest were actually issued the moment courts were back in session.
That was after he fled. The reason he fled Kiev for Kharkov was because armed mobs were coming his way and the police had fled the field.
Iron_Captain wrote: The entire Azarov government was dismissed and replaced with the illegimate Yatsenyuk government, none of them remained in office.
Not true. Azarov resigned a month earlier. His government, under the law, was dissolved as soon as Yanukovych accepted his resignation.
His government resigned, but it was not dissolved. Under law it had to continue (which it did under Arbuzov, who was later forced to flee the country along with a lot of other government officials) until a new government would be appointed. Also, after Yanukovych was removed from power, the Constitution states that the acting prime minister (Arbuzov) should have been in charge of the interim government until the elections, and not the opposition. Yet more evidence that this was an unlawful coup by the opposition, and not just a removal of a bad president.
Also, the exact number of MPs that actually remained is unclear,
According to the numbers, 375 voted, out of 450. Not great, but more than the 300 needed to pass. And having absenteeism among MPs/Congressmen during very important votes is hardly unheard of (looking at YOU US Congress).
Please baron, start doing some actual (unbiased) research. You dissapoint me. 328 voted, not 375. http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/192030.html 338 were needed to pass, not 300 (450 seats, 3/4th majority is neccessary to pass. 3/4th of 450 is 337.5, so 338 are needed to pass.) Also, the vote was held while the parliament building was under de-facto total control of the opposition, having been taken over by armed mobs the previous day. It is unclear how so many MPs could have returned to Kiev on such short notice, and it remains unclear how many of the votes were issued by actual MPs.
Parliament was not allowed to dismiss any judge, neither is parliament allowed to overturn any decision made by the Constitutional Court.
I seem to recall that the Constitutional Court does, in fact, have a number of judges (5) who serve in Parliament's quota, and, frankly, at their discretion. I grant we're in areas of Ukrainian law I'm not entirely familiar with, but I am aware that the rest are appointed by the President and Council of Judges.
Parliament has a say in who gets appointed to the Constitutional Court, yes. But it does not get to dismiss judges when it does not like their decisions. As in any democracy, parliament is not allowed to interfere in judicial matters.
She never said that. Please back up statement with proof.
And where in this video is she saying that? She doesn't say anything at all in this video! This is no proof, this is propaganda (and very obvious propaganda at that). Do you have any actual, credible sources?
Wait a minute. Just making sure I'm getting this right: the fact that the opposition was in control of the Parliament means the vote was held under duress, and thus invalid?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2016/04/29 09:25:05
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Wait a minute. Just making sure I'm getting this right: the fact that the opposition was in control of the Parliament means the vote was held under duress, and thus invalid?
His argument is that people may have been impersonating/standing in for the MPs from those regions. (And he calls my thoughts on what goes on in the Ukraine a conspiracy theory....)
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:Then it's probably a good thing the Tatars recognise Crimea as Russian then...... Oh wait.
Yeah, he's ignoring the obvious hard, in a way only possible in Russia.
The price paiying for a civil war, unleashed by maydowns - is inevitable. Once the chaos is over and all the Nazis, murderers, rapists, looters and extortionists will flee. Maybe to Europe.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
2016/04/30 13:46:26
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Wait a minute. Just making sure I'm getting this right: the fact that the opposition was in control of the Parliament means the vote was held under duress, and thus invalid?
His argument is that people may have been impersonating/standing in for the MPs from those regions. (And he calls my thoughts on what goes on in the Ukraine a conspiracy theory....)
That is what you get when you throw out very extreme theories without any supporting evidence.
I apologise baron. For some reason I must have gotten the numbers on both votes messed up in my head, so apparently I am the one who did not do his research. I dissapoint myself. But do note that the vote was not for new elections (as you noted, they would happen anyway, no vote neccessary) but for the removal of Yanukovych from power, so I thought this was the vote you were referring to. Also, the second link you gave leads to a vote on a corruption law. I still wonder where you got those numbers?
Nonetheless, the vote on the appointment Yatsenyuk government was even more illegal because that is something parliament is not even allowed to vote on at all. Parliament does not appoint governments, the president does. In the case the president is unable to carry out his duties, they are taken over by the prime minister. The correct procudure would have been for Arbuzov to form a temporary government until the elections could be held, not for the opposition to seize all posts of power and make themselves into a government. Also, Yatsenyuk himself was appointed by the Maidan council rather than by parliament: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26359150 ( I probably don't have to mention how incredibly illegal that is) and I just came across an article that said only 331, not 371 voted in favour: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/193222.html. That goes once more to show the chaotic circumstances at the time and that no one really knows who voted and who didn't. There was just no independent control at the time.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/30 14:10:50
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/04/30 17:02:02
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
The largest group to oppose the unification with Russia was the tartars, who continue to not recognize it. That's why so many people who read that second part of her statement about deportations thought of the tartars. She's already deported several of their leaders.
I apologise baron. For some reason I must have gotten the numbers on both votes messed up in my head, so apparently I am the one who did not do his research. I dissapoint myself.
I was sort of scratching my head there going "I know what the numbers that were reported were....'
Nonetheless, the vote on the appointment Yatsenyuk government was even more illegal because that is something parliament is not even allowed to vote on at all. Parliament does not appoint governments, the president does. In the case the president is unable to carry out his duties, they are taken over by the prime minister. The correct procudure would have been for Arbuzov to form a temporary government until the elections could be held, not for the opposition to seize all posts of power and make themselves into a government. Also, Yatsenyuk himself was appointed by the Maidan council rather than by parliament:
Well... if the cabinet has fled (reasons aside) they're no longer able to carry out their duties. And they did flee (even they admit this) and did not make any real effort to set up a 'government in exile' (until recently) and some of them, like the minister of finance, are still tanning their buns on a beach in Spain. Arbuzov also fled.
It's the same issue with the US: there are only 18 people in the line of succession to the office of President of the United States. If all of them are, for whatever reason, unable to serve, there is no 'legal' way to appoint one past the last name on the list. (This became a serious concern during the Cold War but was never actually addressed for some reason).
Yet, for the US Government to function (even as poorly as it does) there still has to be a backside in that seat. What would likely end up happening is the Senate would select one to serve until elections could be held. The legality of it would, almost undoubtedly, be a hot button issue, but in reality someone has to serve in those key positions. You would see power grabs, legal shenanigans, etc. Judges would definitely become involved, and at least one state would, in fact, try and secede in the confusion (as the Army is also decapitated without a President).
Edit:How are things at the May Day parade, btw?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/01 22:26:29
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2016/05/02 15:16:06
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
The largest group to oppose the unification with Russia was the tartars, who continue to not recognize it. That's why so many people who read that second part of her statement about deportations thought of the tartars. She's already deported several of their leaders.
Technically, they were not deported. Just banned from entering Crimea.
Nonetheless, the vote on the appointment Yatsenyuk government was even more illegal because that is something parliament is not even allowed to vote on at all. Parliament does not appoint governments, the president does. In the case the president is unable to carry out his duties, they are taken over by the prime minister. The correct procudure would have been for Arbuzov to form a temporary government until the elections could be held, not for the opposition to seize all posts of power and make themselves into a government. Also, Yatsenyuk himself was appointed by the Maidan council rather than by parliament:
Well... if the cabinet has fled (reasons aside) they're no longer able to carry out their duties. And they did flee (even they admit this) and did not make any real effort to set up a 'government in exile' (until recently) and some of them, like the minister of finance, are still tanning their buns on a beach in Spain. Arbuzov also fled.
It's the same issue with the US: there are only 18 people in the line of succession to the office of President of the United States. If all of them are, for whatever reason, unable to serve, there is no 'legal' way to appoint one past the last name on the list. (This became a serious concern during the Cold War but was never actually addressed for some reason).
Yet, for the US Government to function (even as poorly as it does) there still has to be a backside in that seat. What would likely end up happening is the Senate would select one to serve until elections could be held. The legality of it would, almost undoubtedly, be a hot button issue, but in reality someone has to serve in those key positions. You would see power grabs, legal shenanigans, etc. Judges would definitely become involved, and at least one state would, in fact, try and secede in the confusion (as the Army is also decapitated without a President).
True, but if the Senate itself has caused all those 18 people to be unable to take over the duties of president using illegal means, and then goes on to create a government of its own, you can bet that a lot of Americans (and other people) would think that it was an illegal coup by politicians in the Senate. I am pretty sure this would lead to conflict in the US, even if the US is not so polarised as the Ukraine. Whether it was justified or not is a matter of different opinion and political alignment, but there is simply no denying that what happened in Ukraine was according to the Constitution illegal and that meets the common definition of a coup. It is like a really perfect example of a coup. And that should not be surprising, because after all, coup d'etat is one of the US's favourite weapons and they have lots of experience.
True, but if the Senate itself has caused all those 18 people to be unable to take over the duties of president using illegal means, and then goes on to create a government of its own, you can bet that a lot of Americans (and other people) would think that it was an illegal coup by politicians in the Senate. I am pretty sure this would lead to conflict in the US, even if the US is not so polarised as the Ukraine.
As far as polarization goes, the US is very nearly there. And the senate wouldn't have to, the president pro tempore of the Senate is the 4th in line after Speaker of the House, they'd only have to eliminate 3 to get their man in.
Whether it was justified or not is a matter of different opinion and political alignment, but there is simply no denying that what happened in Ukraine was according to the Constitution illegal and that meets the common definition of a coup.
It lacks the overwhelming participation of the military common to most coups though. I would actually say it's a comparative outlier, as, even by your estimation, the government was overthrown by the opposition, not the military.
And that should not be surprising, because after all, coup d'etat is one of the US's favourite weapons and they have lots of experience.
A US run coup, there would not have been so many people making a successful run for the boarder, and the little green men would have been US special forces ensuring Russian non-involvement. Instead we see massive Russian involvement, Crimea getting carved off, and all the people responsible for escalating things in the first place fleeing to Russian territory where they've been getting rewarded with fat government paychecks. And I'm not talking about former elected officials.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2016/05/02 17:45:03
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
But do note that the vote was not for new elections (as you noted, they would happen anyway, no vote neccessary) but for the removal of Yanukovych from power, so I thought this was the vote you were referring to. Also, the second link you gave leads to a vote on a corruption law. I still wonder where you got those numbers?