Support NeoGAF

[Yamauchi]

New vice dispatch. It's about the stuff in Donetsk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wetleAB1XmY

This was a great report by Vice.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"Pro-EU movement" that also over threw a democratically, albeit corrupt, leader. I guess if you're upset with your government its totally okay to just occupy building and over throw them,

There is a lot of literature on the peoples right to oust their government when it oversteps its bounds. People have been writing about this forever. And its pretty much been been codified in most Western Nations including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There's no democratically elected loophole that lets them oppress people and violate human rights.

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

 

[benjipwns]

There's no democratically elected loophole that lets them oppress people and violate human rights.

Social contract!

 

[Yamauchi]

There is a lot of literature on the peoples right to oust their government when it oversteps its bounds. People have been writing about this forever. And its pretty much been been codified in most Western Nations including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There's no democratically elected loophole that lets them oppress people and violate human rights.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

And this only applies to one side in Ukraine?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

And this only applies to one side in Ukraine?

Huh?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Huh?

The 100% grass roots, politically legitimate and justified glorious revolution of the independent republic of crimea against the brutal tyranical oppression of the fascist government in Kiev.

(lol)

 

[Bolivar]

The Pro-EU movement was extremely popular. If political legitimacy is supposed to arise from the people and you're complaining about something or other being "non-democratic" it's hard to see the Euromaiden movmement as being the bad guy in this situation.

Ukraine has literally been invaded and had part of its territory annexed and all you people can do is point the finger at America, the EU, and the popular mass uprisings instead of the occupying fucking power. This is getting extremely old.

Leaving Ukraine to join Russia was/is also extremely popular in Crimea.

If political legitimacy arises from the people then the annexation of Crimea is totally fine if it's what the people want, which according to polls, it is.

I'm not pointing the finger at only the West, I just think it's funny how people think they're on some kind of moral high-ground.

There is no better side in all of this, it's just a battle for power and influence.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I'm not pointing the finger at only the West, I just think it's funny how people think they're on some kind of moral high-ground.

I do hope you're aware that it was Russian military siezing buildings in Crimea and "securing" the polls for the election. This is in no way comparable to Euromaiden. We're not even sure if it is a popular move because we don't have any trustworthy stats since last year, and back then it indicated only minority support for union with Russia.

 

[ramuh]

The 100% grass roots, politically legitimate and justified glorious revolution of the independent republic of crimea against the brutal tyranical oppression of the fascist government in Kiev.

(lol)

I think he was referring to the fact that after the protesters overthrew the Government (elected) and installed their own Government, isn't it the right of the Eastern and Southern Ukrainians to secede if there best interests (according to them) weren't met or felt oppressed? Add the fact that alot of Russian leaning Ukrainians felt this was a Coup against a legitimate Democracy (albeit corrupt, like the EU-leaning one before it)

It doesn't help that Russia straight up invaded on pretenses that everyone in the international community could see.

 

[kess]

Leaving Ukraine to join Russia was/is also extremely popular in Crimea.

If political legitimacy arises from the people then the annexation of Crimea is totally fine if it's what the people want, which according to polls, it is.

I'm not pointing the finger at only the West, I just think it's funny how people think they're on some kind of moral high-ground.

There is no better side in all of this, it's just a battle for power and influence.

People have posted polls questioning this assertion about a dozen times in this thread. Nihilism is no excuse for ignorance.

 

[Bolivar]

I do hope you're aware that it was Russian military siezing buildings in Crimea and "securing" the polls for the election. This is in no way comparable to Euromaiden. We're not even sure if it is a popular move because we don't have any trustworthy stats since last year, and back then it indicated only minority support for union with Russia.

I don't think 97% of the population wanted to join Russia, but I think its clear is popular among the Russians, which make up 60% of Crimea.

Of course a poll from a year ago would only show minority support for joining Russia because back then Ukraine was cooperating with Russia.

 

[DynamoJack]

The smoking gun for me is the Victoria Nuland leaked phone call

All the people she talked about getting into power before the coup got into power after the coup and you have her and McCain pictured with the opposition party before the coup.

December 10th photo


Mccain and Nuland with the Slovoaban leader Oleh Tyahnybok

 

[Bolivar]

People have posted polls questioning this assertion about a dozen times in this thread. Nihilism is no excuse for ignorance.

I tried to find a poll that graphed how popular the protests were. I guess a more accurate poll would be whether Ukrainians wanted to move towards the EU or Russia.

"A May survey by the Democratic Initiatives pollster found 42% of the population supported European integration, while 31% wanted to join the Customs Union."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304644104579193992459983238

48% of people oppose Obamacare, so if they over threw our government in massive protests thats okay?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/at-49-percent-support-obamacare-hits-a-high/

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I think he was referring to the fact that after the protesters overthrew the Government (elected) and installed their own Government, isn't it the right of the Eastern and Southern Ukrainians to secede if there best interests (according to them) weren't met or felt oppressed? Add the fact that alot of Russian leaning Ukrainians felt this was a Coup against a legitimate Democracy (albeit corrupt, like the EU-leaning one before it)

It doesn't help that Russia straight up invaded on pretenses that everyone in the international community could see.

It wasn't the protestor's government, though, it was the government that formed organically after the president and some associated members quit or fled the country. They did immediately call for new elections which are about 2 months away now. Realistically, the window of opportunity for the Crimeans to feel oppressed to the point of breaking away from Ukraine prior to being able to elect a new government was very small, and grievences of the Russian minority would have the opportunity to be resolved diplomatically.

We all know the reason Russia attacked now though, which was because the air of illigitimacy surrounding Kiev evaporates as soon as elections are held. Their golden opportuntiy to annex the territory goes away as soon as this happens.

 

[antonz]

Only one branch of the Ukrainian Government ended up abandoning its post. The other 2/3s didn't change.

Your time as President is generally cut short once you start ordering Police to kill hundreds of people in the streets and use foreign operatives to assist in the killings.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I tried to find a poll that graphed how popular the protests were. I guess a more accurate poll would be whether Ukrainians wanted to move towards the EU or Russia.

"A May survey by the Democratic Initiatives pollster found 42% of the population supported European integration, while 31% wanted to join the Customs Union."

You can't compare support for customs union to support for annexation. They're not the same thing.

 

[Bolivar]

It wasn't the protestor's government, though, it was the government that formed organically after the president and some associated members quit or fled the country. They did immediately call for new elections which are about 2 months away now. Realistically, the window of opportunity for the Crimeans to feel oppressed to the point of breaking away from Ukraine prior to being able to elect a new government was very small, and grievences of the Russian minority would have the opportunity to be resolved diplomatically.

We all know the reason Russia attacked now though, which was because the air of illigitimacy surrounding Kiev evaporates as soon as elections are held. Their golden opportuntiy to annex the territory goes away as soon as this happens.

It absolutely is the protesters government in place. They just over threw the President, you think anyone else they don't support is going to be able to stay in power if even the President can't.

Saying it wasn't the protesters government that came to power is like saying the Crimean elections weren't influenced by Russian occupation and loaded polling questions.

 

[Bolivar]

You can't compare support for customs union to support for annexation. They're not the same thing.

I'm not, I'm just saying 42% of the population isn't even the majority. So your saying its okay to over throw the government if 42% of the population support a policy opposite of the governments policy position? That's a dangerous precedent.

Don't get me wrong, Russia annexing portions of other countries is a horribly dangerous precedent as well.

 

[LiquidSolid]

Only one branch of the Ukrainian Government ended up abandoning its post. The other 2/3s didn't change.

Your time as President is generally cut short once you start ordering Police to kill hundreds of people in the streets and use foreign operatives to assist in the killings.

Pfft, semantics. Obamacare had death panels, so why hasn't Obama been overthrown? They're totally the same.

It absolutely is the protesters government in place. They just over threw the President, you think anyone else they don't support is going to be able to stay in power if even the President can't.

Saying it wasn't the protesters government that came to power is like saying the Crimean elections weren't influenced by Russian occupation and loaded polling questions.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of what happened. The protestors didn't install the current government, parliament did.

 

[Piecake]

I'm not, I'm just saying 42% of the population isn't even the majority. So your saying its okay to over throw the government if 42% of the population support a policy opposite of the governments policy position? That's a dangerous precedent.

Don't get me wrong, Russia annexing portions of other countries is a horribly dangerous precedent as well.

Youre simplifying the situation tremendously. The issue wasnt strictly about EU and Russia customs union, it was also about a corruption and increasingly autocratic policies implemented by the ex-president. Taking the Russia deal because of the large cash payout over the EU deal was just an indication of that. The ex-president made that deal because Ukraine was broke, do to him and his political allies ruining the Ukrainian economy and siphoning off money from it.

That is what they were protesting against. Shit just got out of control when the ex-president passed some serious anti-demonstration laws and started killing protesters.

 

[Bolivar]

Youre simplifying the situation tremendously. The issue wasnt strictly about EU and Russia customs union, it was also about a corruption and increasingly autocratic policies implemented by the ex-president. Taking the Russia deal because of the large cash payout over the EU deal was just an indication of that. The ex-president made that deal because Ukraine was broke, do to him and his political allies ruining the Ukrainian economy and siphoning off money from it.

That is what they were protesting against. Shit just got out of control when the ex-president passed some serious anti-demonstration laws and started killing protesters.

That's a good point. Now lets just hope the replacement government isn't corrupt as well.

 

[antonz]

That's a good point. Now lets just hope the replacement government isn't corrupt as well.

I think going forward the Government has to be a lot more mindful of the people. They are setting up a National Guard and training tens of thousands of citizens on how to fight.

I think sadly corruption will always exist in every government. Its the degree that is important. Yanukovych and his cronies pretty much bankrupted the Ukraine into their personal accounts.

 

[Mr.Mike]

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-blind-to-putins-true-ideology-2014-4

This article/syndicated blog post was certainly interesting to read. It's main thesis is that the Cold War is heating up (freezing?) again, and along ideological lines. It talks about how WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) people fail to see that there is indeed an ideological divide between Western ideology (things like feminism, gay rights, individualism and secularism) and what the author calls "Putinism", which rejects those things as "decadence and sin". Furthermore, the article claims that it is believed that this sin and decadence will be the downfall of the West, and that it will fall to Russia to save what can be saved by doing things like making Europe christian again.

I agree that some skepticism is called for in reading this article, but I think there's some good food for thought in there.

PS.

Resisting Western post-modernism on a cultural level is but one component of Putinism, albeit an important one. What comes first, however, is an emphasis on national sovereignty, meaning a more traditional, indeed Westphalian, view of state power and non-interference in others’ affairs.

That Putin has stolen Crimea indicates that Moscow’s views on this are highly conditional. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Putin’s regular incantation of the need for respect for sovereignty, which are of course aimed directly at the United States, which Russia views as a hypocrite of the highest order in international affairs, is popular among other regional powers who fear U.S. military might, especially China and India.

Moreover, Putin would no doubt argue that his seizing Crimea is in no way a violation of sovereignty since Ukraine is not a legitimate country in the first place (an interview last year where Putin referred to Ukraine as a mere “territory” did not get the attention abroad that it merited).

Turn's out everyone's a hypocrite. Maybe one day we'll come full circle and reach genuineness.

 

[Guileless]

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-blind-to-putins-true-ideology-2014-4

I agree with the argument that Putinism, among other -isms, hates us for our "freedom", i.e. postmodern hyperindividualism that we view as rational and obvious but which destroys traditional hierarchies that have been in place for literally hundreds of years. That's part of why Pat Buchanan and Tea Party reactionaries are siding with Putin.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

I agree, there's nothing odd about these people.

Nothing to make one suspect that there are fascists at all!

A highly distasteful minority, just like the far-right Russian Nationalists that have been involved in destabilising parts of Ukraine, I'm sure you'd agree?

 

[Sneds]

I guess Ukrainian fascists will take over parts of Russia.

Of wait...

Can't we use sightly more specific terms like nationalism?

Nationalism is less specific.

 

[Hypnotoad]

http://www.wdr.de/tv/monitor//presse/2014/pressemeldung_140410.php5

Monitor, one of the most renowned investigative magazines on German public television, will today report on the murders on Maidan square. According to the press release, there is resonable ground to believe that it was not the Yanukovich administration, but that other groups using snipers were involved. Also, the current investigation is being obstructed by the new government, and the official version of events propagated at the moment, e.g. Berkut being the main culprit, is just a front to protect the real murderers.

 

[MacNille]

Nationalism is less specific.

It is at least more specific then fucking fascism. That word has lost it meaning now.

 

[Resident_UA]

Ugh... This discussion is back. Please just go back few pages and read what was said about Nazism in Ukraine already. Worst case scenario just google Russian Nazism and Ukrainian Nazism and compare.

Please STOP believing Russian propaganda! Yes there are far right groups in Ukraine, but nothing more than other European parliaments or even in the US where tea party is taking over Republican party. There's absolutely no evidence of that being a problem in Ukraine.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.wdr.de/tv/monitor//presse/2014/pressemeldung_140410.php5

I've never seen paragraphs with so many 10+ letter words

 

[Hypnotoad]

I've never seen paragraphs with so many 10+ letter words

German in a nutshell.

 

[Resident_UA]

New vice dispatch. It's about the stuff in Donetsk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wetleAB1XmY

The irony there is that their issues are exactly the same as among people that were on maidan. If not for the separatist slogans I would 100% support them.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I've never seen paragraphs with so many 10+ letter words

Heh. Look up the German word for paratrooper.

 

[dapperbandit]

Heh. Look up the German word for paratrooper.

Fallschirmjäger

Parachute-Hunter

German is a cool language.

 

[Jhriad]

If they try, there will be war with Ukraine and the EU is prepared to employ Stage 3 sanctions. As to whether they will, your guess is as good as anyone else's at this point.

Are they? Merkel had been talking softer of late and implementing stiffer sanctions will be tougher to sell without hard proof that the core of the new protests and seizure of government buildings is a paid Russian front. Is it a coincidence that as the talk among some critically important EU nations softened and Ukrainian elections approached these new and extremely organized "protesters" appear and seize government buildings? I have my doubts as to how far the EU is willing to go if Donetsk follows the Crimean referendum model. In this instance there aren't uniformed Russian military personnel and vehicles all over the place and that alone makes it a lot harder to sell the international community on the legitimacy of sanctions.

Donetsk, welcome to your new home in the Russian Federation. The EU won't do more than slap Russia on the wrist.

 

[Chariot]

Heh. Look up the German word for paratrooper.

Pff, not even close to beating the Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän.

edit: my, the english version of this article is even worse.
Fear the power of the Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft!

 

[empty vessel]

4 / 22 cabinet positions filled with Svoboda members is indeed depressing, but there are a new range of elections very soon. I assume all the whining about "undemocratic fascist rule" will finally end when this happens.

It's hard to believe that in 2014 somebody could lament "whining" about the political empowerment of fascists. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that future elections will be legitimate in light of ongoing instability. This is precisely why one should not overthrow a democratic government by force except in extreme circumstances. I don't consider the current Ukrainian government legitimate, and it's unclear whether I will consider whatever government emerges from elections under the current circumstances to be legitimate.

The Pro-EU movement was extremely popular. If political legitimacy is supposed to arise from the people and you're complaining about something or other being "non-democratic" it's hard to see the Euromaiden movmement as being the bad guy in this situation.

This is a naive understanding of how popular movements work. Yes, popular movements are by definition popular, which is to say that they have some base of political support. But that doesn't mean that any given political movement is "extremely popular," and there is no evidence that the Euromaiden movement was, at least to the extent of overthrowing the democratic government. To be sure, certain elements of the movement were undoubtedly highly popular, e.g., anti-corruption and anti-censorship. But that is a far cry from suggesting that the desire of certain extreme elements within the movement to overthrow the government by force was "extremely popular."

The entire point of protests is to make a movement appear to be extremely popular, whether or not it is. The tea party movement does not represent an "extremely popular" opinion in the United States, but it can still make itself appear that way. Again, this is the danger in a popular movement overthrowing democratically elected governments.

Ukraine has literally been invaded and had part of its territory annexed and all you people can do is point the finger at America, the EU, and the popular mass uprisings instead of the occupying fucking power. This is getting extremely old.

One can condemn the overthrow of a democratic government (and Western involvement in said overthrow) as well as condemn the Russian response to it. Obviously, nobody wants bloodshed and if this escalates into further invasion by Russia it will be the worst possible result. But that doesn't mean we can or should ignore how this all started. If we have an interest in avoiding bloodshed caused by a Russian invasion of Ukraine, surely we have an interest in stopping our own governments from assisting in the overthrow of democratic governments that might provoke such a response.

There is a lot of literature on the peoples right to oust their government when it oversteps its bounds. People have been writing about this forever. And its pretty much been been codified in most Western Nations including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There's no democratically elected loophole that lets them oppress people and violate human rights.

The problem is that by the standard applied to Ukraine, every democratic government on earth ought to be overthrown. It is one thing to say that a people may overthrow their own government (this is inherent to popular sovereignty, which I strongly support), even if it is democratic, but it is quite another to justify it, because even a political minority can overthrow a government. By their very nature, democratic governments will have a large base of popular support. Periodic elections occur precisely to allow a non-violent and fair mechanism of choosing government. For these reasons, and generally speaking, it will be very rare that the overthrow of a democratic government can be justified.

Realistically, the window of opportunity for the Crimeans to feel oppressed to the point of breaking away from Ukraine prior to being able to elect a new government was very small, and grievences of the Russian minority would have the opportunity to be resolved diplomatically.

If the person I supported, voted for, and elected in a democratic election were unceremoniously removed from office by force, I would be justified in immediately feeling threatened and I certainly wouldn't have any confidence in an election called by a new undemocratic regime.

Youre simplifying the situation tremendously. The issue wasnt strictly about EU and Russia customs union, it was also about a corruption and increasingly autocratic policies implemented by the ex-president. Taking the Russia deal because of the large cash payout over the EU deal was just an indication of that. The ex-president made that deal because Ukraine was broke, do to him and his political allies ruining the Ukrainian economy and siphoning off money from it.

That is what they were protesting against. Shit just got out of control when the ex-president passed some serious anti-demonstration laws and started killing protesters.

Corruption has been widespread in Ukraine by all governments. There is no doubt that it was a primary driver of the Euromaiden protests. Unfortunately, it is this sentiment that was able to be exploited by people (and governments) who wanted to go further than simply demand political reform to end corruption.

 

[Ty4on]

It is at least more specific then fucking fascism. That word has lost it meaning now.

That was my thought as I wrote that. Fascism to Russia just means bad guys.

Pff, not even close to beating the Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän.

edit: my, the english version of this article is even worse.
Fear the power of the Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft!

Thank God for chemistry.

The problem with composite words is that you can just add stuff so it's hard to know what is really the longest. Ich spreche sehr schlecht Deutsch, but you could probably add learning course -> textbook -> author etc etc.

 

[Resident_UA]

It's hard to believe that in 2014 somebody could lament "whining" about the political empowerment of fascists. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that future elections will be legitimate in light of ongoing instability. This is precisely why one should not overthrow a democratic government by force except in extreme circumstances. I don't consider the current Ukrainian government legitimate, and it's unclear whether I will consider whatever government emerges from elections under the current circumstances to be legitimate.



This is a naive understanding of how popular movements work. Yes, popular movements are by definition popular, which is to say that they have some base of political support. But that doesn't mean that any given political movement is "extremely popular," and there is no evidence that the Euromaiden movement was, at least to the extent of overthrowing the democratic government. To be sure, certain elements of the movement were undoubtedly highly popular, e.g., anti-corruption and anti-censorship. But that is a far cry from suggesting that the desire of certain extreme elements within the movement to overthrow the government by force was "extremely popular."

The entire point of protests is to make a movement appear to be extremely popular, whether or not it is. The tea party movement does not represent an "extremely popular" opinion in the United States, but it can still make itself appear that way. Again, this is the danger in a popular movement overthrowing democratically elected governments.



One can condemn the overthrow of a democratic government (and Western involvement in said overthrow) as well as condemn the Russian response to it. Obviously, nobody wants bloodshed and if this escalates into further invasion by Russia it will be the worst possible result. But that doesn't mean we can or should ignore how this all started. If we have an interest in avoiding bloodshed caused by a Russian invasion of Ukraine, surely we have an interest in stopping our own government's from assisting in the overthrow of democratic governments that might provoke such a response.



The problem is that by the standard applied to Ukraine, every democratic government on earth ought to be overthrown. It is one thing to say that a people may overthrow their own government (this is inherent to popular sovereignty, which I strongly support), even if it is democratic, but it is quite another to justify it, because even a political minority can overthrow a government. By their very nature, democratic governments will have a large base of popular support. Periodic elections occur precisely to allow a non-violent and fair mechanism of choosing government. For these reasons, and generally speaking, it will be very rare that the overthrow of a democratic government can be justified.



If the person I supported, voted for, and elected in a democratic election were unceremoniously removed from office by force, I would be justified in immediately feeling threatened and I certainly wouldn't have any confidence in an election called by a new undemocratic regime.



Corruption has been widespread in Ukraine by all governments. There is no doubt that it was a primary driver of the Euromaiden protests. Unfortunately, it is this sentiment that was able to be exploited by people (and governments) who wanted to go further than simply demand political reform to end corruption.

Dude. Please stop! We already had this conversation. Biggest problem in Ukraine - Corruption. Who can fix it? - obviously NOT Russia.

What are YOU trying to say?!

 

[ksan]

It's hard to believe that in 2014 somebody could lament "whining" about the political empowerment of fascists. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that future elections will be legitimate in light of ongoing instability. This is precisely why one should not overthrow a democratic government by force except in extreme circumstances. I don't consider the current Ukrainian government legitimate, and it's unclear whether I will consider whatever government emerges from elections under the current circumstances to be legitimate.

Has it ever occured to you that you're actually advocating authoritarian paternalism?

 

[TacticalFox88]

*sigh*

We're discussing things in circles, ad nauseum.

 

[ksan]

Dude. Please stop! We already had this conversation. Biggest problem in Ukraine - Corruption. Who can fix it? - obviously NOT Russia.

What are YOU trying to say?!

Basically, he's saying that you guys aren't worth very much, and you don't deserve the chance to decide anything for yourselves.

 

[Yamauchi]

German public-service news outlet ADR will release a report this evening that casts doubt on the Ukrainian government's version of events on February 20, 2014.

http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/maidan-schuesse102.html

The preview report cites evidence that radio recordings suggest snipers that fired on protesters were not members of Yanukovych's forces (paragraph 4). It cites further evidence that witnesses reported snipers firing from the direction of Hotel Ukraina (paragraph 5). Laywers representing the victims suggest the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office is not conducting a fair investigation and has not produced any evidence to lawyers that would incriminate government / Yanukovych's forces (paragraph 7).

 

[Resident_UA]

German public-service news outlet ADR will release a report this evening that casts doubt on the Ukrainian government's version of events on February 20, 2014.

http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/maidan-schuesse102.html

The preview report cites evidence that radio recordings suggest snipers that fired on protesters were not members of Yanukovych's forces (paragraph 4). It cites further evidence that witnesses reported snipers firing from the direction of Hotel Ukraina (paragraph 5). Laywers representing the victims suggest the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office is not conducting a fair investigation and has not produced any evidence to lawyers that would incriminate government / Yanukovych's forces (paragraph 7).

I guess anything is possible, but Yanukovych did not act like an innocent man.
Is ADR conservative news outlet?

 

[Yamauchi]

I guess anything is possible, but Yanukovych did not act like an innocent man.
Is ADR conservative news outlet?

Typo. ARD

 

[Resident_UA]

Basically, he's saying that you guys aren't worth very much, and you don't deserve the chance to decide anything for yourselves.

That what it sounds like...

 

[Aylinato]

It's hard to believe that in 2014 somebody could lament "whining" about the political empowerment of fascists. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that future elections will be legitimate in light of ongoing instability. This is precisely why one should not overthrow a democratic government by force except in extreme circumstances. I don't consider the current Ukrainian government legitimate, and it's unclear whether I will consider whatever government emerges from elections under the current circumstances to be legitimate.



This is a naive understanding of how popular movements work. Yes, popular movements are by definition popular, which is to say that they have some base of political support. But that doesn't mean that any given political movement is "extremely popular," and there is no evidence that the Euromaiden movement was, at least to the extent of overthrowing the democratic government. To be sure, certain elements of the movement were undoubtedly highly popular, e.g., anti-corruption and anti-censorship. But that is a far cry from suggesting that the desire of certain extreme elements within the movement to overthrow the government by force was "extremely popular."

The entire point of protests is to make a movement appear to be extremely popular, whether or not it is. The tea party movement does not represent an "extremely popular" opinion in the United States, but it can still make itself appear that way. Again, this is the danger in a popular movement overthrowing democratically elected governments.



One can condemn the overthrow of a democratic government (and Western involvement in said overthrow) as well as condemn the Russian response to it. Obviously, nobody wants bloodshed and if this escalates into further invasion by Russia it will be the worst possible result. But that doesn't mean we can or should ignore how this all started. If we have an interest in avoiding bloodshed caused by a Russian invasion of Ukraine, surely we have an interest in stopping our own government's from assisting in the overthrow of democratic governments that might provoke such a response.



The problem is that by the standard applied to Ukraine, every democratic government on earth ought to be overthrown. It is one thing to say that a people may overthrow their own government (this is inherent to popular sovereignty, which I strongly support), even if it is democratic, but it is quite another to justify it, because even a political minority can overthrow a government. By their very nature, democratic governments will have a large base of popular support. Periodic elections occur precisely to allow a non-violent and fair mechanism of choosing government. For these reasons, and generally speaking, it will be very rare that the overthrow of a democratic government can be justified.



If the person I supported, voted for, and elected in a democratic election were unceremoniously removed from office by force, I would be justified in immediately feeling threatened and I certainly wouldn't have any confidence in an election called by a new undemocratic regime.



Corruption has been widespread in Ukraine by all governments. There is no doubt that it was a primary driver of the Euromaiden protests. Unfortunately, it is this sentiment that was able to be exploited by people (and governments) who wanted to go further than simply demand political reform to end corruption.

Why do you defend Putin' Russia so much?

 

[Resident_UA]

Typo. ARD

Read (Google translated) article. I don't think it excuses Yanukovich at ALL. It's just saying that Berkut wasn't that involved. Which most people in Ukraine acknowledge. All it says that prosecutors caught people who are easiest to catch.

 

[MacNille]

Why do you defend Putin' Russia so much?

Because "US IMPERIALISM!!!". That Russia does imperialistic action now with invading and annex parts of other country doesn't bother him. Because US is always worse.

 

[empty vessel]

Dude. Please stop! We already had this conversation. Biggest problem in Ukraine - Corruption. Who can fix it? - obviously NOT Russia.

What are YOU trying to say?!

You aren't reading what I'm writing.

Has it ever occured to you that you're actually advocating authoritarian paternalism?

Of course not, because that's utterly ridiculous.