Cow Mengde
Banned
With police killing unarmed protesters, what are the chances of the west actually stepping in, in some way?
Yeah, let's deliver them some freedom!
With police killing unarmed protesters, what are the chances of the west actually stepping in, in some way?
There are more options than just invadingYeah, let's deliver them some freedom!
Police sniper shoots young medic in the neck.
Linked due to graphic nature:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...5e37-9763-40cc-8b2e-69c32dc33500-460x276.jpeg
I've been reading around and coming across what might be seen as poor attempts to discredit the protestors but they do have some photographic evidence for some of the things they claim.
Ten pictures that show Ukraine's protests are filled with toxic Neo-Nazi groups
Is there anything to this from any reputable news sources ?
With police killing unarmed protesters, what are the chances of the west actually stepping in, in some way?
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 you should as is why some groups like you to think that all of them are thugs and Nazis.
EDIT: Nevermind guys! The guys wearing yellow bands are apparently government thugs according to :
In the recent footage the government forces seem to be wearing yellow armbands. What do they represent, I don't recall seeing them worn before.
Gov-hired thugs (so called "titushki") were spotted wearing those yellow bands last night. Some kind of mark to avoid shooting on your "friends", since titushki are dressing themself similar to the protesters.
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:
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:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ffective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/
Civil Non-Violent resistence works better than armed resistence
This has been proven time and time again.
And no you don't know shit about the consequences of a civil war. Imagine Copenhagen in flames and everything you've ever held dear ruined because: "More guns is the problem solver".
You don't accept the notion that we must have peace at any cost ? Geez. No, more guns and more killing is the way huh. You have a distorted view on this "honor of the people" thing or something cheesy like that.
Do civilians have access to guns? Not familiar with foreign gun control laws other than the UK.
No man, more people needs to be armed because that'll stop the violence!
/s /armchairrevolutionaire.
And no you don't know shit about the consequences of a civil war. Imagine Copenhagen in flames and everything you've ever held dear ruined because: "More guns is the problem solver".
You don't accept the notion that we must have peace at any cost ? Geez. No, more guns and more killing is the way huh. You have a distorted view on this "honor of the people" thing or something cheesy like that.
Shooting medics? Fanastic....
Also, she is confirmed (?) dead.
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.
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.
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'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 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.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).
While this is true the reality is not one-sided. Not at all.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.
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 attacked Georgian peacekeepers prior to Georgia's assault on South Ossetia.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.