Ukrainian Conflict

[sbg711]

Recently touring Yanukovich's palace became a popular trend, they should definitely tour Poroshenko's palace too http://www.from-ua.com/news/610f232a1b161.html

Originally Posted by Haak

As far as I'm aware of, the only thing the West has actually done is try to facilitate a compromise between Yanukovich and the opposition, and when that didn't work they simply gave diplomatic support the people who were now effectively in power.

That's of course after the west sent its politicians to participate in street manifestations expressing support of the revolution movement.

[Haak]

So basically nothing then.

[konart]

It's a pity I can't find this speech in english or at least with english subtitles (would be nice if someone else could've help):

YouTube

https://youtu.be/rkh5kgk4ZMg

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

This is an old speech, back from 2008, but it is as actual as ever

[Nachtwandler]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

As Ukrainian I would say this map is utterly wrong. Pure Ukrainian is poltavian dialect(spoken in Poltava area between Kiev and Kharkov). "Ukrainian" used in Western Ukraine is hardly polluted by Hungarian and Polish so it's not much better than surzhik.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Nachtwandler

As Ukrainian I would say this map is utterly wrong. Pure Ukrainian is poltavian dialect(spoken in Poltava area between Kiev and Kharkov). "Ukrainian" used in Western Ukraine is hasrdly polluted by Hungarian and Polish so it's not mucxh better than surzhik.

Interesting. Could you find a more accurate map?

[Nachtwandler]

Recently touring Yanukovich's palace became a popular trend, they should definitely tour Poroshenko's palace too http://www.from-ua.com/news/610f232a1b161.html

At least Poroshenko didn't rob the ukrainian people. Just that he is the largest sweets magnat in Ukraine.

Interesting. Could you find a more accurate map?

I'll try but later. The map you posted is more about "which language people think they use more in this part of the country". Western ukrainians think their dialects are "pure" ukrainian while a lot of people use surzik(ukrainian-russian mix) instead of ukrainian.

[sbg711]

Originally Posted by konart

It's a pity I can't find this speech in english or at least with english subtitles (would be nice if someone else could've help):

YouTube

https://youtu.be/rkh5kgk4ZMg

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

This is an old speech, back from 2008, but it is as actual as ever

At times it's necessary to know Russian in order to get a full understanding of Russia's position, translations just don't cut it

YouTube

https://youtu.be/OFFgsrzQrWE

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Russian army “occupied” part of Ukraine’s territory.
Ukraine’s authorities want to respond militarily, but can’t, because they’re broke. And the country is quickly heading towards a financial default.
Russia will not provide financial aid to Ukraine because it doesn’t recognise its government.
IMF can’t provide financial aid to Ukraine, because Ukraine’s current authorities are formally illegitimate, which means there would be no legal obligation for Ukraine to pay back the debt to the IMF.
Even if Ukraine’s current government somehow magically manages to mobilize the country and attack the Russians, Russia will use it as pretext to launch a full scale invasion, which would render Ukraine’s authorities arrested or dead within the first 24-48 hours of the invasion, given Russia’s military superiority over Ukraine’s rustbucket (and as of recent, disorganised) forces.
NATO will not intervene militarily because no one has the balls to start WW3 to protect Ukraine’s dubious leadership.
And Russia frankly doesn’t care about any sanctions since Europe is still reliant on Russia’s energy market and would only hurt itself if having taken any measures in protest against Russia’s actions.
Total checkmate, courtesy of Vladimir Putin.

[Wigwams]

Im no expert, but since when can a non head of state simply call on foreign military for "aid" legitimately?

also by ukrainian law can the president by himself (lets think that yanu is still the president) call on foreign troops by himself without the parliament? do bear in mind putin didnt just officially send troops but first got the vote of approval (well he did send soldiers beforehand unofficially).

also please share any evidence of wide spread threat/attack on ethnic russians by the kiev protesters/pro EU people.

[sbg711]

Originally Posted by Wigwams

Im no expert, but since when can a non head of state simply call on foreign military for "aid" legitimately?

Who are you referring to? Yanukovich or Turchynov?
To be clear.
Yanukovich = still constitutionally legitimate president of Ukraine and commander-in-chief
Turchynov = random guy

[Wigwams]

Originally Posted by sbg711

Who are you referring to? Yanukovich or Turchynov?
To be clear.
Yanukovich = still constitutionally legitimate president of Ukraine and commander-in-chief
Turchynov = random guy

i mean the crimea guy who went on national TV to ask for russian help. was it the crimea governor or mayor, or something like that... the local leader.

also my 2nd question is about yanukovich, does the ukrainiane president have the right to call on foreign troops by himself, without approval of parliament or other branches of govt?

[sbg711]

Originally Posted by Wigwams

i mean the crimea guy who went on national TV to ask for russian help. was it the crimea governor or mayor, or something like that... the local leader.

Crimea is an autonomy, so it can elect its own leaders. Last I checked they're considering to become an independent country.

Originally Posted by Wigwams

also my 2nd question is about yanukovich, does the ukrainiane president have the right to call on foreign troops by himself, without approval of parliament or other branches of govt?

Ukraine, along with Russia and pretty much most other post-soviet states are CIS members. It was claimed that under CIS agreement, Ukraine's president reserves the right to call in military aid of another CIS member to help restore constitutional order. I don't know if that's true, and frankly, it would take a buttload of time to go through all the CIS documents to find that line, but seeing how carefully Russia is protecting Yanukovich (his plane was escorted to Russia by Russian fighter jets, and his security is currently ensured by the FSB), he has to have a valuable function, and this CIS thing is probably one of them.

[Fireminer]

Ukraina is almost like Libya now, except that a number of their people is willing to see Russia's soldiers on their soil. That, and the Bear is always less hypocrite than than the Eagle.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Ukraina is almost like Libya now, except that a number of their people is willing to see Russia's soldiers on their soil. That, and the Bear is always less hypocrite than than the Eagle.

The Bear is only less Hypocritical because everyone know the Bear lies. Is it really lying if no one is suppose to trust a word you say?
I mean, Putin pretended he didn't send Russian troops for a few days despite everyone seeing the troops with their own eyes. That kind of blatant lying is not to be commended, that kind of lying is just proof that Putin doesn't care about anyone's rules but his own. America at least is ashamed of its tyrannical nature, but Putin is rather proud that he can tell bareface lies to the whole world and we can't do anything about it.

[aldw]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The Bear is only less Hypocritical because everyone know the Bear lies. Is it really lying if no one is suppose to trust a word you say?
I mean, Putin pretended he didn't send Russian troops for a few days despite everyone seeing the troops with their own eyes. That kind of blatant lying is not to be commended, that kind of lying is just proof that Putin doesn't care about anyone's rules but his own. America at least is ashamed of its tyrannical nature, but Putin is rather proud that he can tell bareface lies to the whole world and we can't do anything about it.

The Russians have been very consistent from the get-go here, if anyone was lying about involvement and such it was the EU and US, and the US gives even fewer ***** about what's going on as long as they achieve what they want compared to Russia since its in Russia's yard not the US.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Haak

As far as I'm aware of, the only thing the West has actually done is try to facilitate a compromise between Yanukovich and the opposition, and when that didn't work they simply gave diplomatic support the people who were now effectively in power.

What about the recorded phone call of US officials? When they talk about who should or should not be in the new government like appointing the local sheriff, you know they have a lot more influence than someone who only did cheer-leading.

Russian side also accused the west about financial support of the protesters. I think this is very plausible. You have a huge group of people who has done nothing except protesting for months. They have practical needs as well. Where does all those money come from?

Originally Posted by konart

It's a pity I can't find this speech in english or at least with english subtitles (would be nice if someone else could've help):

YouTube

https://youtu.be/rkh5kgk4ZMg

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

This is an old speech, back from 2008, but it is as actual as ever

Do you mind giving a short summary? Or translation of key sentences?

[Fireminer]

Hmm.. Let's see. Tusnia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen... Now Venezuela and Ukraina. If you count Asia too, then it's plus Thailand and Cambodia.

How many are US' allies, and how many aren't?

I wonder why hasn't anyone make a research of the relationship between these "Revolutions" and the 2008 Economy Downfall.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by aldw

The Russians have been very consistent from the get-go here.

Oh, you mean the part where they deny the troops there are theirs, when everyone and their dog knows it is?

Originally Posted by Fireminer

tinfoilhattery

Feel free to create a conspiracy theory thread.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Russian side also accused the west about financial support of the protesters. I think this is very plausible. You have a huge group of people who has done nothing except protesting for months. They have practical needs as well. Where does all those money come from?

Well the protests against the president DID have allot of popular support in many areas. It's not exactly outside the realm of reasoning they were getting popular support to keep them fed and watnot.


...I suppose it's hypothetically possible the USA was supporting the dissidents, but I think that dramatically overestimates the competence of the CIA, or their ability to predict that something like this would be so effective. Or how much they cared about the seemingly unexceptional anti-government protests (seriously, a few months ago, was ANYONE predicting this would topple the Ukrainian government?)

Originally Posted by sbg711

Ukraine’s authorities want to respond militarily, but can’t, because they’re broke. And the country is quickly heading towards a financial default.

Well technically they could respond militarily in spite of being broke. They do have soldiers, weapons and vehicles that could go rolling...keeping them supplied in an extended conflict would be problematic, but short term they COULD go in shooting...course a major reason the Ukrainians are likely holding back is because they know they can't win a standup fight against the Russians. I think everyone remembers what happened to Georgia when they decided to self-righteously tangle with the Russians.

[lightbringer]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Do you mind giving a short summary? Or translation of key sentences?

The prelude is him calling out the USA on hypocricy and double standards in relation to claims about the importance of territorial integrity / international law / threats of force, citing Iraq, Kosovo, and other cases (he literally says "I'd like to ask the US representative, did you find WMD in Iraq or are you still searching?").

The main thrust is about the situation with Abkhasia and South Ossetia, and the legal and geopolitical historical aspects that have led up to the conflict, explaining why it's more justified for those republics to gain independence than for Kosovo, mainly because they had no say in the self-determination process which led to the formation of Georgia after the break from the USSR, and because they were equal to and independent from Georgia before Stalin and Beria got their hands on them, forcing them into the Georgian SSR framework and causing forced resettlement of ethnicities (he also refers to some Economist article about the topic, which he claims to be quite good, but I haven't read it).

You can draw some parallels to how the Crimea was reorganized into the Ukranian SSR by Khruschev, something that I'd wager most Russians today, whether they live in Crimea or in Russia, consider a grave mistake (what the Crimean Tatars and Ukranians think about this is another matter entirely, however).

But even apart from that, present-day Ukraine is somewhat of an artificial construct, being an amalgamation of two completely opposite forces. The borders are not as distinct today, but generally, the western part, annexed from Poland in 1939, certainly bears no love towards Russia, while the eastern part is basically the fount of Russian culture, with Kiev being the historical center of Russian civilization. That these two parts have relatively peacefully coexisted in one country since the fall of the USSR without falling apart is already a miracle.

Making matters even worse is that we have a situation of kleptocrats taking over for other kleptocrats in the Ukranian government - the old kelptocrats being at least democratically elected, though just how fair that election was is a matter of some debate, and the new kelptocrats just taking power in a coup (how much influence the US and EU had is also a matter of some debate, but they were certainly trying to involve themselves as much as possible, as seen from Nuland's actions) and now acting however they please, going so far as to try to legitimize their power in parliament at gunpoint (as you'd expect from forces supported by ultra right-wingers). And repealing the law on languages, I mean, really? That does not inspire confidence.

Long story short, with or without Russian intervention, Ukraine is fucked right now. And on the verge of bankruptcy. The IMF can't save them, the needed reforms would cost too much and take too much time, the EU certainly doesn't want Ukraine in the EU bloc no matter how sugary the rhetoric gets (we've got enough on our plate, think Greece, Italy, Spain...), and the Russian loan is certainly off the table for now (and gas subsidies with it). I don't see how this is going to get resolved at all.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I mean, what else do you want him to say? Support Putin?

But there are some things that he should not say. Namely, he should not spew hypocrisy by accusing Russia of behaving in exactly the same way that the USA behaves. Even a half-hearted appeal to international commitments or peace would be a better play than this bald-faced bullshit.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by sbg711

Total checkmate, courtesy of Vladimir Putin.

Congratulations on another step towards reclaiming the Sudetenland.

Think long and hard what that really means as Russia Today spouts yet another "fascist" propaganda.