Cow Mengde
Banned
Yeah, let's deliver them some freedom!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Large protests in Ukraine over failure to sign EU trade deal
- Thread starter Mr. RHC
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, let's deliver them some freedom!
There are more options than just invading
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
The protesters are not a homogeneous mass so yes, some of the groups involved are composed of individuals you probably wouldn't invite over for Sunday brunch. This happens in every larger demonstration ever because some people like the fight more than they support the cause. Also, it's not as if the protesters are in any position to police who are allowed to come to the protest. What are they going to do, say no to the people who want to help when the police is lobbing tear gas and firing live rounds at them?
The question isn't whether or not some protesters are thugs and Nazis. They are. The question one should ask is why some groups would like us to think that all of them are thugs and Nazis.
The US has already issued targeted sanctions at regime officials and several EU countries are close to doing the same. We can't really do anything else. Direct intervention is off the table.
dripdripsplash
Member
Jesuuuuuus, take a deep breath son!
No need to go all ad hominem, I asked a fucking innocent question because I was genuinely interested. Fucking hell.
I edited my first post too, seems like they are gov thugs:
dapperbandit
Banned
He didn't insult you.
"why some groups like you to think that all of them are thugs and Nazis"
"Like you" as in, it is desirable for them to have you believe this.
Not "like you" as in "I am labelling you as part of this group"
Sorry, it wasn't meant as an attack. Honest! I'm genuinely sorry it came off that way - I meant "you" in the general sense as in all of us, not you personally
I'll edit the post to "one should ask". Also forgot to add a "would" before like. My bad. I have a tendency for dramatic purple prose, I'm afraid.
dripdripsplash
Member
Passed right over my head, sorry dude i wuv you.
Now let's get back on topic!
lol
Now let's get back on topic!
lol
Ryan242004
Member
Do civilians have access to guns? Not familiar with foreign gun control laws other than the UK.
So what conflicts does this research account for? When they say violent, do they mean sticks and stones, or do they mean a fully armed public (that's a rhetoric question, because we already know this isn't the case).
I'd rather see Copenhagen go down in flames, than seeing the people be squished like bugs. Cities and other material goods doesn't shape a nation. The people within it does.
You feel like it's cheesy, alright, people are free to have an opinion.
Just keep in mind that said freedom of speech wasn't given through non violent means.
It's also a little curious how you take your freedoms here for granted, when people in Syria and other surrounding nations literrally has to die, to even have that option considered.
Generally no. They do have sporting licenses, hunting licenses and some national guards have their guns home.
But to the general public it's not allowed.
The Libyan revolution would have been a massive failure had it not been for armed rebels and a NATO air support. Look at how successful the Egyptian revolution was, or rather lack of success. The Egyptian generals are more entrenched in power than ever.
On a Ukrainian social networking site she wrote: "I'm dying". There's been no more information, but a bullet wound to the neck doesn't sound like it'll lead to the most promising of futures. Poor woman.
https://vk.com/id92352737
CitizenVectron
Member
True, but that's an exception. Historically revolutions/reforms are more likely to succeed if no violence is involved on the part of the protesters. This is categorically shown to be true.
My brother actually lived and worked in Kiev for five years (he came home last summer). He always talked about the unrest and distrust in the country towards the politicians, he knew they would reach breaking point somewhere down the line, which is where we are now :/
I'm not too sure how the situation will develop inside Ukraine at this point, I'm hoping we'll see the country free again with a President who represents their people with as few lives lost as possible. However I really don't see how they can keep Ukraine together at this point, the Russian-Speaking East and Ukrainian-Speaking West have wildly different ambitions for their future.
Seeing Putin so directly linked with the Russian groups is worrying, I remember my brother telling me some time ago that before Russia invaded Georgia, Russian speaking Georgians were given Russian passports and this was their excuse to invade. Russian gave Russian speaking Ukrainians passports some time ago now, I'm of the opinion it's only a matter of time before Russia takes more direct action.
I'm quite curious to see the rest of the worlds (and in particular the EU's) response to what Russia does, they let them get away with Georgia but they were a much smaller state and I don't believe they had much of a European mentality (which the Ukrainians* do).
(*Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians).
I'm not too sure how the situation will develop inside Ukraine at this point, I'm hoping we'll see the country free again with a President who represents their people with as few lives lost as possible. However I really don't see how they can keep Ukraine together at this point, the Russian-Speaking East and Ukrainian-Speaking West have wildly different ambitions for their future.
Seeing Putin so directly linked with the Russian groups is worrying, I remember my brother telling me some time ago that before Russia invaded Georgia, Russian speaking Georgians were given Russian passports and this was their excuse to invade. Russian gave Russian speaking Ukrainians passports some time ago now, I'm of the opinion it's only a matter of time before Russia takes more direct action.
I'm quite curious to see the rest of the worlds (and in particular the EU's) response to what Russia does, they let them get away with Georgia but they were a much smaller state and I don't believe they had much of a European mentality (which the Ukrainians* do).
(*Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians).
Crimea mulls splitting and creating a pro-Russian republic: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_20/Crimea-may-mull-breaking-away-from-Ukraine-5300/ and http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-crimea-rising-separatism/25268303.html
Yes? So it shouldn't be a problem to provide this proof. And I assume all these "violent" revolutions that failed involved a public armed with technologically relevant small arms at the very least?
Not talking about muskets going up against assault rifles. I'm talking assault rifles going up against assault rifles. Bolt action rifles going up against bolt action rifles.
And we can completely ignore the "violent" sticks and stones revolutions, because we know what happens when that goes up against firearms of any kind.
The reason the world didn't do anything about the conflict in South Ossetia was that it was quite clear early on that Georgia initiated the conflict by shelling villages and launching military strikes. No independent post-war analysis has found any evidence of Georgian claims that Russian forces mounted any significant attack on Georgian peacekeepers prior to Georgia's assault on South Ossetia.
I don't know how a European mentality figures into it but Georgia has a huge loathing of Russia and (had maybe) a strong desire to create ties with the west.
While this is true the reality is not one-sided. Not at all.
Also Amjad: it's possible some of those guys are government men, but I doubt most them are.
In this case, what is the expected response from the rest of the world should Russia take action?
I don't see how this conflict can end peacefully.
Ukraine is vastly more militarily competent than Georgia so Russia invading uninvited is unlikely. The only scenario I can see where Russia would send troops is one where Yanukovich asks for it and where the Ukrainian military is on Yanukovichs side. RIght now though there's no telling where the military stand. An invasion would also pretty much destroy any chance of Russia actually achieving their strategic objective of having the Ukraine join the Eurasian Union and just push it further west, unless Russia aims at permanent occupation which I sincerely doubt is realistic.
As for the west, we can't respond. The EU is not capable of deploying any effective force to the area period. The US could theoretically move for an amphibious deployment but that's never going to happen, in part because Russia could very well still win and in part because hey, no-one wants to start WWIII.
dapperbandit
Banned
What about UN peacekeepers? Not a suggestion just a thought. I'm under the impression that UN peacekeepers are generally ineffective but circumstances could be different for them here.
That can't happen unless Russia agrees which isn't gonna happen.
Pretty much out of the question because of Russia's veto in the Security Council which is the agency that approves peacekeeper deployments in the first place. Unless you make the peacekeepers Russian, I suppose.
ComputerMKII
Banned
UN Peacekeepers can only be sent on request of both opposing sides.
Sorry I didn't make that clear, I'm operating under the assumption Russia's military gets involved through Yanukovich asking for assistance.
Most of the Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians are already heavily pro-EU, I don't know quite how much further they can go in that regard.
Although I agree it's unlikely for the EU to get involved, these people want to join the EU and want their protection. Ignoring them is consigning them to more oppression. I do realise WWIII is a very nasty possibility in this regard, but I would hope both sides would reach some agreement for a peaceful solution.
I saw the links to the Chimera offering to join Russia before and a far west Ukrainian region even claiming some form of independence, is a 'split' of Ukraine a possible outcome? Russia was only interested in the mineral wealth of Ukraines South anyway and doesn't need the Northern farmland.
Depends on what we mean by "revolution". Many protests in the west, if reaching critical mass, do have the desired effects. But the west is more democratic where politicians are required to listen to the people's voice, lest they be turfed out at the next election. No such worry exists for despots and juntas in undemocratic regimes. Peaceful protests don't tend to get very far, and those that do inevitably resort to more heavy handed actions. We in the west are lucky that a peaceful protest CAN have the desired effect, but that's not a luxury available in many countries.
This is a lie. An EU sponsored report found that Russian back separatist forces in South Ossetia had been carrying out attacks on Georgian positions for months prior to Georgia's decision to retaliate and mount attacks on insurgents in the breakaway republic, which BTW is still internationally recognised as sovereign Georgian territory.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
What conflicts? 323.
You can read one of her papers here. My guess is that you won't read it or find some anecdotal example or raise a hypothetical not based in reality to continue your fallacy that an unarmed populous will be 'crushed' and 'slaughtered' if they aren't armed. Armed conflict only hurts the oppressor because the oppressor can strike back even more disproportionately and with more legitimacy (they are violent extremists).
So you'd like to see a whole city burn (which would entail thousands or hundreds of thousands dead) so a few people can have guns which isn't really going to protect them?
The ugly truth is that the EU simply can't intervene militarily. And I do mean can't rather than don't want to. To put it this way: the EU would have it's hands full if Russia decided to invade us, fighting in our own countries. Attempting to fight Russia in the Ukraine, which is within Russia's strategic sphere, would be straight up suicide. We would not stand a chance. Period. We lack the manpower, we lack the material and we have nothing that comes even close to the logistical capability necessary to operate that far from home. There would be no need for Russia to reach an agreement because they would crush us.
I'm not really an expert on Ukrainian politics so I don't know if a permanent split is realistic or not. But from the looks of it, thanks to the oblast system, it's probably more doable than in most countries. Although you could probably claim the same thing in reagards to the US.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
And Libya started as a non-violent protest movement. That's not to say it never comes to violence but you need the non-violent start to engage the number of people to give your movement power. Government's have a hard time resisting movements that get about 3.5% of the population actively participating.
I don't want a few people to have guns, I want everybody to have guns. I already have guns. I'm a certified hunter and sporter, got both rifles and pistols. This is not for me, this is for everybody.
And you're putting up a hypothetical scenario where the government can kill this many people, before having to find some kind of resolution, facing an entire armed population.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This isn't true. Non-Violent Protests still, more often than not, lead to reforms more than violent resistance. You guys need to read Gandhi and MLKjr. Non-Violent protest often leads to resistance from a regime and violent reprisals but this in turn only weakens the regime and strengthens the resistence.
One of the greatest examples was the Amritsar massacre and most popular ones was the Boston Massacre or the Brutality on Bloody Sunday in Selma
The UK, France and Germany alone have nearly double the military spending that Russia has; about equal troop numbers and superior equipment. You might be exaggerating the war capacity of the Russians...
Don't think so, in cheer number EU would smash Russia and technologically too, Russian Army is far from a Boogieman, they still lack fighting capabilities in many areas, even with budget cut's over the years, the combine strength of many European countries would be too much for Russia. Also the Russian Winter would be no problem nowadays, NATO spend decades figuring out how to overcome it.
But no one wants a war with each other, especially involving nuclear powers, so let's put that idea aside.
Just had a quick read on the Oblast system, I didn't really understand it but thanks for the information!
EDIT
Deleted the military related parts of my post. Totally derailed this topic, sorry for the warmongering
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Can people stop talking about War? it has a 0% chance of happening, this isn't Civilization.
You're imagining a world which is divorced from reality and history. Giving everyone a gun doesn't protect them. That's not how these things work. You haven't responded to the evidence that presented non-violence works better.
dunno about that, France and the UK alone match the military expenditures of Russia. I recall reading that the Georgia war was a disaster for Russia (the execution of the military operation, not the outcome) and the European nation have access to some of the most advanced weapon technology in the world. Even when it comes to man-power the combined EU forces aren't far behind Russia. Not that there would ever be a realistic chance of an all-out war between nuclear-powered nations, but I highly doubt Russia could win in a conflict against Europe
LanceVance
Member
The libyan revolutionaries would have been crushed if it wasn't for the western powers helping them out by enforcing a no fly zone and bombing key military targets
The EU should be able to mobilize way more soldiers and better equipment than Russia, but it might take a while. And like you said, Russia is obviously much better situated.
Not that this is relevant, nobody wants WWIII, least of all Putin. Worst case, we'll have a nasty proxy war like Syria or worse.
Another little factoid, Ukraine was actually in talks about becoming a NATO member, until you-know-who canceled those talks in 2010.
British withdrawal from India after Britain had been devastated by WWII. Of course India would have been freed, protests or not, as was seen with much of the British Empire. The Boston Massacre was followed by the American Revolutionary War, a most decidedly bloody affair, with 25,000 American dead alone. The civil rights movement occurred in a democratic nation, as I mentioned earlier.
Given that 90 years after the birth of the US there was a very large secession movement, it was feasible (thankfully that secession movement got curbstomped as it was based on evil)
The fact Putin doesn't want WWIII could be used by the Western powers if they wanted to push the issue on this to an extent.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
There would have been no NATO intervention without non-violent protests.
My argument is there is never a point in which one can't take up arms. My point is that you never start out that way. The circumstances might lead you there but its never where it begins.
You're dealing in counterfactuals on India, fact is non-violence lead to independence. The American Revolution was as last resort after non-violent protest, like Libya it never would have succeed without many years of non-violent resistance. The south wasn't democratic to African Americans. For all intents and purposes it was 'outsiders' (northerners and westerns) who intervened.
This is now getting into too many off topic examples.
Bull. The British and French combined would be quite a match for the decrepit Russian Armed Forces, a military that is a far cry from its Soviet, Cold War heyday. And throw in the combined might of European NATO alone (minus the US and Canada) you've got a formidable power that is equalled only by the US Armed Forces.
I appreciate that there seems to be quite a difference of opinion in regards to both the EUs and Russia's military strength, but lets try to achieve a somewhat peaceful political solution first and resort to military use last.
And lets stop this warmongering!
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eTuFAR169s
Edit: Posted already
Edit2: And I deleted my previous post...whatever. Armed protesters wouldn't do anybody good. That's all I said
Edit: Posted already
Edit2: And I deleted my previous post...whatever. Armed protesters wouldn't do anybody good. That's all I said
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked