Ukraine-Where will it end?

[Johnuk123]

Conveniently ignoring the vast number of protests that have been going on there for months from protesters that want to join the EU. Or the fact that the ex-President has emptied the treasury etc. This is not the EU trying to woo Ukraine - they already want to join.

You can blame the EU all you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

On that basis then anybody in this country who doesn't like the Government is entitled to overthrow it by force.

Fortunately we don't do things your way we have more democratic means.

 

[TheKnightWho]

On that basis then anybody in this country who doesn't like the Government is entitled to overthrow it by force.

Fortunately we don't do things your way we have more democratic means.

Yes, which evidently failed in Ukraine. The president refused to hold an election, resign, hold a referendum on the EU or do anything whatsoever for the people. That's why they held protests, which for the most part were pretty peaceful. They only got violent when the government sent in the police and troops.

That is highly undemocratic. Not the EU sending in a few bods here and there. Trying to claim that Russia or the old president held the moral high ground seems like insanity, although I'm not entirely surprised considering your opinion on the EU.

 

[Johnuk123]

Yes, which evidently failed in Ukraine. The president refused to hold an election, resign, hold a referendum on the EU or do anything whatsoever for the people. That's why they held protests, which for the most part were pretty peaceful. They only got violent when the government sent in the police and troops.

That is highly undemocratic. Not the EU sending in a few bods here and there. Trying to claim that Russia or the old president held the moral high ground seems like insanity, although I'm not entirely surprised considering your opinion on the EU.

You are endorsing and advocating anarchy which most people outside of extremists would never support.

 

[ainsworth74]

I hadn't realised that broadly peaceful protests were anarchy? Or do you ignore that they only became violent after the Government used force (including lethal force) against them?

There's plenty of blame to be shared around for certain but any attempt to paint the Ukrainian Government as some sort of blameless victim in all of this reeks of an outside agenda.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You are endorsing and advocating anarchy which most people outside of extremists would never support.

You are endorsing tyranny, dictatorship and an undemocratic government, which most people outside of extremists would never support.

See what I did there? A peaceful protest is not anarchy, and it's clear to anyone that they would have established a new government. You aren't convincing anyone with your ridiculous assertions.

EDIT: The yes at the beginning of my post was not an agreement that anyone can overthrow the government by force, but an agreement that we need democratic means to change governments. If you'd actually read my post instead of replying after reading the first word you would have seen that I said they had failed, and that's why the protests were acceptable.

I hadn't realised that broadly peaceful protests were anarchy? Or do you ignore that they only became violent after the Government used force (including lethal force) against them?

There's plenty of blame to be shared around for certain but any attempt to paint the Ukrainian Government as some sort of blameless victim in all of this reeks of an outside agenda.

His agenda seems to be to blame the EU at any cost. It's pretty obvious if I'm honest.

 

[Johnuk123]

I hadn't realised that broadly peaceful protests were anarchy? Or do you ignore that they only became violent after the Government used force (including lethal force) against them?

There's plenty of blame to be shared around for certain but any attempt to paint the Ukrainian Government as some sort of blameless victim in all of this reeks of an outside agenda.

Nobody is painting anybody as blameless in this mess but it doesn't alter the fact that an outside organised mob of locals and foreigners overthrew a democratically elected Govt.

That's anarchy plain and simple.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Nobody is painting anybody as blameless in this mess but it doesn't alter the fact that an outside organised mob of locals and foreigners overthrew a democratically elected Govt.

That's anarchy plain and simple.

Are you serious? Do you genuinely believe that the protests in Ukraine were organised from the outside?

You're completely deluding yourself.

 

[Greenback]

We will never how how, to what extent or even if the demonstrations were deliberately influenced by external interests. Maybe Russia helped to stir up some dissent somewhere along the lonely to see what would happen? If so, it has worked well for them.

The fact is is that it is a well established tactic to infiltrate groups who may be intending at the outset to just make a peaceful protest. I can imagine that all sides, government, opposition, and external powers may have arranged to have sympathisers join the protest, whether it was just to provide information to take a more active part in events.

I would be amazed if this were not so; the more debatable point for me is what impact did the various infiltrators have on what happened.

 

[fowler9]

At the risk of invoking Godwins law the National Socialists were democratically elected in Germany. Would anyone have anything against people who opposed them?

 

[transmanche]

At the risk of invoking Godwins law the National Socialists were democratically elected in Germany.

But were they?

In the November 1932 elections, the Nazi Party gained 33% of the vote and 196 seats (out of 584) in the Reichstag - a reduction of 34 seats from the previous election.

Hitler was made Chancellor in January 1933.

 

[fowler9]

But were they?

In the November 1932 elections, the Nazi Party gained 33% of the vote and 196 seats (out of 584) in the Reichstag - a reduction of 34 seats from the previous election.

Hitler was made Chancellor in January 1933.

And were the government of Ukraine that the population protested against really democratically elected?

 

[transmanche]

And were the government of Ukraine that the population protested against really democratically elected?

Well, you're not comparing like-with-like. In the Weimar Constitution, the President was more of a figure-head. In Ukraine (at the time of the 2012 election) the President was a directly-elected post with political power.

The largest party in the 2012 election was the Party of Regions, with 42% of the vote and 185 (out of 445 seats). The President (elected in 2010) also came from the same party. But were they free and fair? Well you'll have to make up your own mind, but look what the government did to former PM (and losing 2010 presidential candidate) Yulia Tymoshenko...

 

[fowler9]

Well, you're not comparing like-with-like. In the Weimar Constitution, the President was more of a figure-head. In Ukraine (at the time of the 2012 election) the President was a directly-elected post with political power.

The largest party in the 2012 election was the Party of Regions, with 42% of the vote and 185 (out of 445 seats). The President (elected in 2010) also came from the same party. But were they free and fair? Well you'll have to make up your own mind, but look what the government did to former PM (and losing 2010 presidential candidate) Yulia Tymoshenko...

You said loads of stuff about me not comparing like for like and then somewhere in the last paragraph mentioned what I actually was saying, "But were they free and fair? Well you'll have to make up your own mind" the rest was just fluff and nothing to do with what I said.

 

[transmanche]

You said loads of stuff about me not comparing like for like

Not you personally, but not being like-for-like in how the electoral systems (and method of forming a government) in the Weimar Republic and 2012 Ukraine were very different. Which I then described.

Perhaps it would have been more correct to say "Well, one is not comparing like-for-like". But that would have sounded really poncy.

the rest was just fluff and nothing to do with what I said.

Well thanks for the insult. :roll:

 

[fowler9]

Not you personally, but not being like-for-like in how the electoral systems (and method of forming a government) in the Weimar Republic and 2012 Ukraine were very different. Which I then described.

Perhaps it would have been more correct to say "Well, one is not comparing like-for-like". But that would have sounded really poncy.

Well thanks for the insult. :roll:

To be fair you did reply to me by way of quoting me.

 

[transmanche]

To be fair you did reply to me by way of quoting me.

Because I was responding to the question you posed.

Now let's shake hands and move on...

 

[fowler9]

Because I was responding to the question you posed.

Now let's shake hands and move on...

Ha ha, good point. Indeed mate, will do.

 

[transmanche]

Ha ha, good point. Indeed mate, will do.

Now if only the Ukrainians (and Russians) had managed to do that too...!

 

[fowler9]

Now if only the Ukrainians (and Russians) had managed to do that too...!

Amen to that! Ha ha.

 

[GWRtom]

Russia has allegedly planted minefields on the Crimean border with mainland Ukraine.

Also:
A long convoy of Ukrainian BMP's and BTR's leaving lviv heading towards the Crimean border.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6blKRuLfN84

 

[Jonny]

So, why should anyone (at a governmental level) from Western Europe get properly involved in this?

I don't think that this necessitates the risk of getting our gas cut off which is the situation that Mr Hague could well land us in. John Kerry and his like might want that to happen as an underhanded way of boosting American interests (vs Europe), but it really isn't our problem. At least Russia has presidential elections, that's more than the UK

 

[Aictos]

"If the people of Crimea choose to return to Russian rule after the plebiscite then that should happen."

The plebiscite in Crimea has next to zero chance of being held fairly.

Why not?

(a) the Prime Minister and Government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (which does not include Sevastopol) were overthrown at gunpoint (after gunmen took control of the parliament in Simferopol) a couple of weeks ago: the new "Prime Minister" is the leader of a party (committed to union with Russia) that got 4% of the vote, and 3 out of 100 seats at the last election there. (In all no more then 15% of the votes were for parties that are either openly or ambigiously for reunion with Russia) - although when the population of Sevastopol is added to this the % might be expected to increase by a few percentage points.

(b) Crimea is effectively under armed Russian occupation. Even if Russia had a history of running free and fair elections (which, to state the obvious, it doesn't), this would not be any way to run a fair vote.

(c) Ukrainian TV stations have just been prevented from broadcasting to Crimea: so the main media is now Russian state media, which is putting out incredible, breathtakingly dishonest propaganda

(d) Calling a referendum at 10 days notice hardly allows preparation of an opposition case, even without the factors outlined in points (a), (b) and (c)

Russia will have trouble from the Crimean Tatars/.

I wouldn't rule out Ukraine restarting its nuclear weapons programme in a consequence of all this: it has the means and know-how, and it gave up its (ex-Soviet) weapons in 1994 on the understanding that in return, it's territorial integrity would be protected by Russia, the USA and UK.

Point 1, Putin's claims he's only trying to protect the Russian minority in the Crimea are invalid as in the Constitution of Ukraine - Title II
Human and Citizen Rights, Freedoms and Duties Article 21, 24 & 26 the Russian minorities are protected under the Constitution of Ukraine.

He is simply trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes when he has in fact illegally invaded a country.

Point 2, under the Constitution of Ukraine - Title III Elections. Referendum, it is quite clear that in Article 73 "Alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum" which brings us to Articles 69, 70 but most importantly 72 which quite clearly states "The All-Ukrainian referendum shall be called by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine or by the President of Ukraine in accordance with their powers determined by this Constitution.

The All-Ukrainian referendum shall be convened as a popular initiative at the request of at least three million citizens of Ukraine eligible to vote, provided that the signatures in favour of the referendum have been collected in at least two-thirds of the oblasts with at least 100,000 signatures gathered in each oblast"

This means the Constitution of Ukraine says in effect that any referendum for the Crimea to secede to Russia would be illegal UNLESS The All-Ukrainian referendum is convened meaning every Ukrainian citizen would have to vote to permit or to deny the Crimea to secede to Russia and there's no way the Crimea government which in itself is illegal can hold a legal referendum

In my view, the Ukraine has been invaded by Russia on the pretext of "protecting" it's Russian minority and the Ukraine should do everything to protect it's own territory even if it mean asking the US to help defend a sovereign country and to the point of the Ukraine putting its armed forces on full alert to evict the Russians invaders by force if necessary.

If nothing happens to defend the Ukraine, where will Russian stop? What's stopping them invading other Eastern European countries on the pretext of protecting Russian Minorities?

 

[transmanche]

So, why should anyone (at a governmental level) from Western Europe get properly involved in this?

Because when the USSR broke up, Ukraine was left with the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Ukraine agreed to give up all its nuclear weapons, but in return wanted certain guarantees.

So the UK, the US and Russia (joined later by China and France) all signed an agreement with Ukraine: saying that all parties would respect Ukrainian sovereignty within its existing borders; that all parties would refrain from threatening or using force against Ukraine; and that all parties would refrain from using economic pressure to influence Ukrainian politics.

Now on the fact of it, Russia has used economic pressure to influence Ukrainian politics; Russia has used force against Ukraine (and threatens more force) and by taking control of Crimea, Russia has failed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty.

 

[kylemore]

Well if you're going to instigate an overthrow of a democratic goverment and install scum in their place you have to take the consequences. The real villain here is the US - a dying empire thrashing about in it's death throes.

Putins' running rings round them though - and hopefully backed up by China will continue to do so.

Isolation? I don't think so - it's a declining Europe and a collapsing US that's isolated.

The rest of the world is looking on and hoping the Russians will prevail and that the "West" will have their noses rubbed in the Proverbial

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well if you're going to instigate an overthrow of a democratic goverment and install scum in their place you have to take the consequences. The real villain here is the US - a dying empire thrashing about in it's death throes.

I wonder if the "cunning plans" of the top echelons of the CIA would agree with your summation.

 

[Butts]

If people are keen to support Western Ukranians it might be wise to pause for a moment and investigate what happened in Lviv in 1941 and other events during WW2 which illustrated the extent of their Nationalist position when unleashed.

 

[Johnuk123]

Well if you're going to instigate an overthrow of a democratic goverment and install scum in their place you have to take the consequences. The real villain here is the US - a dying empire thrashing about in it's death throes.

Putins' running rings round them though - and hopefully backed up by China will continue to do so.

Isolation? I don't think so - it's a declining Europe and a collapsing US that's isolated.

The rest of the world is looking on and hoping the Russians will prevail and that the "West" will have their noses rubbed in the Proverbial

Putin certainly has run rings round the US and the EU and he knew full well that the EU is so full of bluster and if it came down to serious action can't deliver.

The ex vice president of Gingerbread is Europes foreign minister I bet the Kremlin couldn't stop laughing when that ridiculous woman was put up to "write a stongly worded letter"

 

[yorkie]

Video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26504449

Pro-Ukraine activists beaten up in Crimea

Violence has erupted at a pro-Ukrainian rally in the Crimean city of Sevastopol.

About 100 pro-Russians with clubs attacked people who were guarding the rally being held to commemorate the 200th anniversary of poet Taras Shevchenko, attended by some 200 people.

Ben Brown reports from Sevastopol.

They threatened the BBC crew too.:roll:

Anyone got a list of Russian products/shops/suppliers we can boycott please?

 

[kylemore]

Video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26504449


They threatened the BBC crew too.:roll:

Anyone got a list of Russian products/shops/suppliers we can boycott please?

What about the snipers shooting the "Protesters" in Kiev who it is now thought were among the more extreme elements of the new regime, shooting their "own side" in order to implicate the Govt/pro Russian side?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Georgia in 2008
Ukraine in 2014

Spot the difference ?