• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Ukrainian Conflict - Donetsk Boogaloo

Status
Not open for further replies.
It does read kind of sound bite like tbh. For instance this bit : -



The context in which Putin was talking was not with respect to his views on Yanukovych's legitimacy, but more going forward given events.

That kind of contextual removal is the sort of thing you expect from partisan press perhaps. Less so from a government website.

I thought you meant whole response. Not specific sentence. I guess I can give you that. But the fact that he says that Yanukovich "has no future" and then tries to say that he's legitimate president is kind of funny since those things are related :)
 
The main investigation department of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has launched a pre-trial investigation in connection with the adoption by Crimean Supreme Council deputies of the decision to include the autonomy in Russia.

"The SBU's main investigation department has launched a pre-trial investigation under Part 3, Article 110 of the Criminal Code (encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine)," the SBU's press center told Interfax-Ukraine on Thursday.

So I guess Ukraine's government figures they will keep Crimea? Putin does seem to be backing down.
I figured Crimea was transferring to Russia but now I'm thinking Russia is not going to risk a shooting war.
Here in the USA, we would have been bringing out the body bags by now.
 
Feb 21 makes it a constitutional limbo making both sides facts wrong

338 to oust. He was ousted with 328

Putin sees russian naval bases under threat , us does not

Some new members are far right fascists

1. Yes, but Putin acknowledges that Yanukovich has no political future (because he ran away)
2. 338 vs 328 Really doesn't matter at ALL
3. If Putin sees Russian naval bases under threat he is clinically insane. Really that's not an opinion. Russian army is 10 times as big, Russia controls Crimea, and Russia has nukes.
4. "far right fascists" story is completely made up. The party that is supposedly "fascists" is saying that "Ukraine is for Ukrainians". In the US without similar slogan you wouldn't even be allowed to be left.
 
I thought you meant whole response. Not specific sentence. I guess I can give you that. But the fact that he says that Yanukovich "has no future" and then tries to say that he's legitimate president is kind of funny since those things are related :)

I think you'll find that Putin for all the hysterical vilification he receives is a surprisingly practical man if you take the time to read what he says. I get the need to chase words 'because' but it doesn't really advance the discussion.

Putting aside where we may stand of the legitimacy issue. From Putin's perceptive he's putting forward that as far as the Russian government is concerned Yanukovich was still legally the head of state of The Ukraine up to when he fled. Currently the Russians do not recognise the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government. However given the current circumstances Putin concedes that Yanukovich himself has no political future. He's not legitimizing the current interim government in doing so, he's simply recognising that regardless of what happens going forward (elections) Yanukovich is done, he's certainly not looking to see him reinstated or backing him.
 
I think you'll find that Putin for all the hysterical vilification he receives is a surprisingly practical man if you take the time to read what he says. I get the need to chase words 'because' but it doesn't really advance the discussion.

Putting aside where we may stand of the legitimacy issue. From Putin's perceptive he's putting forward that as far as the Russian government is concerned Yanukovich was still legally the head of state of The Ukraine up to when he fled. Currently the Russians do not recognise the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government. However given the current circumstances Putin concedes that Yanukovich himself has no political future. He's not legitimizing the current interim government in doing so, he's simply recognising that regardless of what happens going forward Yanukovich is done, he's certainly not looking to see him reinstated.

It's pretty clear that nothing is going according to his original plan, so there's nothing "practical" about what's he's saying.
 
2. 338 vs 328 Really doesn't matter at ALL

Legally, it matters a hell of a lot. Especially after reading all the other requirements needed for impeachment (the creation of an 'impeachment commission' to investigate, a binding decision handed down by a judge, etc.) which seem to not have been fulfilled, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the impeachment might not have been done in the correct way.

That being said, you're absolutely right that it doesn't matter at all - Yanukovich was removed from the Presidency, wether de facto or de jure, and that's that.
 
Legally, it matters a hell of a lot. Especially after reading all the other requirements needed for impeachment (the creation of an 'impeachment commission' to investigate, a binding decision handed down by a judge, etc.) which seem to not have been fulfilled, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the impeachment might not have been done in the correct way.

That being said, you're absolutely right that it doesn't matter at all - Yanukovich was removed from the Presidency, wether de facto or de jure, and that's that.

Legally they had more than enough. 328 is still constitutional majority in Ukraine.
 
I have been browsing that jackmatlock site and I found this article particularly excelent:

http://jackmatlock.com/2014/03/ukraine-ethnicity-language-and-attitude-toward-russia/
Ukraine: Ethnicity, Language, and Attitude Toward Russia
Posted on March 4, 2014 by Jack

Among the many questions in the current debate about the crisis in Ukraine, that of ethnicity, language and attitude toward Russia has drawn great heat but cast very little light on the actual situation. Simplistic arguments thrown about in the acrimonious debate are usually misleading and sometimes flat-out wrong. They confuse what is a complex and often ambiguous situation by attributing to it implications and contrasts that are far from clear.

For example, one commentator objected to a quoted comment by David Speedie that “In simple terms, half of the people in Ukraine look to Russia, and the other half look to the West.” Misquoting Speedie as having said that half the people of Ukraine wish to “go with” Russia (whatever that is supposed to mean), he observed that this could not be true because only 20% of the population of Ukraine are ethnic Russians.

What are the facts? First of all, one should not assume that all ethnic Ukrainians prefer to speak the Ukrainian language, or that ethnic Russians or Russian-speaking Ukrainians necessarily wish to be part of Russia. Very likely, most do not. The fact is that a substantial proportion of Ukrainian citizens consider themselves both Russian and Ukrainian by ethnicity. (Ever hear of intermarriage?)

The latest survey I can locate at the moment was taken in 1997. It asked whether a person considered himself or herself Ukrainian only, Russian only, or both. Fifty-six percent selected Ukrainian only, 11% Russian only, and 27% both. (The latter 27% could be further sub-divided into 7% who considered themselves more Ukrainian than Russian, 14% who considered themselves equally Russian and Ukrainian, and 6% who considered themselves more Russian than Ukrainian.)

Language preference, however, does not correlate precisely with perceived ethnicity. The same 1997 survey quoted above found that there are roughly equal numbers of Ukrainophones (those who prefer to speak Ukrainian) and of Russophones: 41% preferred Ukrainian, 44% Russian and 14% were equally happy in both. As Andrew Wilson observed in his book The Ukrainians, “…only a minority of the overall population, some 21 million, are actually … Ukrainians who prefer to speak Ukrainian (and only half of those live in urban areas, where Russophones are in a majority).”

Considering these figures for Ukraine as a whole doesn’t tell us much, though in general it is more consistent with David Speedie’s observation than that of the critic who misquoted his statement. The more important issue is that these proportions are not distributed equally throughout Ukraine. Russophones are concentrated in the cities, particularly in the east and south and Ukrainophones in the west and in rural areas. But it is also a mistake to believe that just because one is Russian speaking or ethnic Russian one would prefer to live in Russia. Dmitri Trenin stated it more accurately in a recent book when he observed that, for the most part, Ukraine’s Russians “do not want to be part of Russia but also do not want to part with Russia.”

The attempts of Ukrainian nationalists who live predominantly in the western provinces to privilege the Ukrainian language in the entire country are interpreted by most Russophones, whether of Ukrainian or Russian ethnicity, as a violation of their civil and human rights. Until the Ukrainians can build a sense of nationhood on something broader than the Ukrainian language and culture, the nation will remain culturally fractured rather than a national whole. They should pay attention to how other, more successful, multi-linguistic nations have dealt with the issue. The Finns give their Swedish-speaking minority full and equal cultural rights and have one of the most successful and democratic societies on earth. And what would happen to the sense of Irish identity if it required fluency in Celtic?

Of course the fact that Ukrainian goverment should be more respectful towards Russian language speakers does not justify Russia's actions. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Why do people keep changing the point of the whole thing. Nothing Putin has done is justified or legal. Doesn't matter what the US did/does, doesn't matter what happened in Ukraine prior to his invasion.

That's it, nothing he's doing is right in any sense of the word.
 
It's pretty clear that nothing is going according to his original plan, so there's nothing "practical" about what's he's saying.

Everything is going according to plan. For all the bloviating by the Republicans in the US and statements by Obama and Kerry, nothing was done except sanctions on "individuals", travel bans and asset freezes. But they weren't applied to the State. And until Germany or the UK order strong sanctions against Russian firms and the State itself, these are just symbolic.

Russia holds Crimea, they hold it much better than they ever have, they've fomented dissent in the East. If Ukraine was to stay united West to East, you still have a sizeable Pro-Russian population that will affect elections, reforms etc.

You don't invade a nation without planning for all scenarios. Believe me, Putin was actually expecting worse. Yes, how goal of drawing Ukraine into the war didn't pan out, but his end goal is still achieved. He just looks like a bigger asshole/dictator, even to his own people.
 
Legally they had more than enough. 328 is still constitutional majority in Ukraine.

I certainly don't know the extent of Ukranian law, but the constitution - which I linked a couple of posts ago - clearly asks for a 3/4 majority vote to impeach (and 2/3 to bring the impeachment to a vote.)

Considering the Rada has 450 members, 328 is just shy of 3/4.
 
1. Yes, but Putin acknowledges that Yanukovich has no political future (because he ran away)
2. 338 vs 328 Really doesn't matter at ALL
3. If Putin sees Russian naval bases under threat he is clinically insane. Really that's not an opinion. Russian army is 10 times as big, Russia controls Crimea, and Russia has nukes.
4. "far right fascists" story is completely made up. The party that is supposedly "fascists" is saying that "Ukraine is for Ukrainians". In the US without similar slogan you wouldn't even be allowed to be left.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-control-its-far-right-ultranationalists.html





Really
 
Russia doesn't recognize the current government in Ukraine because it's not "legal", right? If so, by that same logic, they shouldn't recognize the Crimea referendum.

Yep, I'm sure Putin will do the right thing.

Good ole Putin.
 
It's rich that Russia goes on about nationalists when their government is nationalist as all fuck and has a huge neo-Nazi movement. Oh, and the fact that they sent this fucking guy to Crimea to whip up separatist sentiment.
 
It's pretty clear that nothing is going according to his original plan, so there's nothing "practical" about what's he's saying.

So much for dialogue.

Also amused at the insinuation that the entirety of events in the Ukraine are some how Putin's fault.

xzBQ71zq.jpg



No doubt Putin will be blamed for those guys as well.

Also slightly O/T but Jesus shit at the article below that about the defence budget. $495.6 billion of which $58.7 billion is for 'classified projects'......
 
Putin's fine with revolutions as long as they fill out the proper revolution paperwork and keep to revolution zones.

Decent with the government is fine as long as you play by the government's rules.
 
So much for dialogue.

Also amused at the insinuation that the entirety of events in the Ukraine are some how Putin's fault.

Once again, doesn't matter what his fault is or not. Once he decided to move those troops over that border he was in the wrong. You know it, I know it, he even knows it more than likely.

But some would rather live in denial or deflect this fundamental truth.
 
Once again, doesn't matter what his fault is or not.

Might not matter to you, but when someone whips out the old conspiracy theory of 'they were behind it all along'. I'm down with that adventure in wonderland in full. I'm all ears for hearing about how Putin is the one secretly behind the rise of the Ukrainian Ultra nationalists, and how his plans for the gradual systematic take over of the entirety of eastern Europe are now in ruin. That's a rabbit hole of 'WTF?' that is just begging to be explored.
 
CHEEZMO™;103425989 said:
It's rich that Russia goes on about nationalists when their government is nationalist as all fuck and has a huge neo-Nazi movement. Oh, and the fact that they sent this fucking guy to Crimea to whip up separatist sentiment.
Curious to see how Eastern Europe will turn out in 20-30 years from now, while the rest of the world moves on towards more "globalism". You can't have a significant portion of your population being Nazi sympathizers without some serious long term consequences.
 
I heard Hitler liked animals, so anyone who likes animals is literally Hitler.

That's basically the level of discussion from people trying to deligitimize the revolution based on the fact that it had supporting from far-right groups, and somehow applying that to the rest of the people supporting it as well.

I'm wondering if these people failed their set theory course.
 
It's amazing to me that it appears Russia will get away with this.

-Wait for neighboring country to become vulnerable through internal conflict.
-Invade with insignia hidden.
-Announce invasion after the fact, revealing that it's Russia, while not calling it an invasion of course.
-Use censorship and propaganda to specifically control what your citizens see and think, so that the entire idea seems to be an honest and caring effort by Russia. Corruption ahoy.
-Hold major political officials and all other political aspects under your thumb so that the "democratic" process will sway in your favor and Crimea will separate.
-Assimilate Crimea to Russia eventually.

And I'm sure Putin will smile and cite that Crimea split-off through these "democratic" means too, probably throwing in some salt about how the Western world should be happy about it. This of course, without mentioning any of the actual reasons why he would want Crimea. And missing the whole damn point behind what a democracy actually means and entails (and this coming from Russia, which is pretty ironic).

All of this right after hosting the fucking Olympics. Piss off, Russia.

EDIT: Maybe not? Either way, this whole ordeal is messed up.
 
So much for dialogue.

Also amused at the insinuation that the entirety of events in the Ukraine are some how Putin's fault.

xzBQ71zq.jpg




No doubt Putin will be blamed for those guys as well.

Also slightly O/T but Jesus shit at the article below that about the defence budget. $495.6 billion of which $58.7 billion is for 'classified projects'......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0ojtS0SKG8&list=UU2oGvjIJwxn1KeZR3JtE-uQ

Who's worse? What does it prove? What looks more fascist?
 
CHEEZMO™;103437083 said:
Man that first segment with the woman pissed me off. What a bunch of arseholes.

It highlights just how terrible this whole thing is. They are so delusional that even after they see what she has they still accuse her of bringing Molotov cocktails etc.

It really is a battle Between the Young and Old. The Old are ready to throw the country under the bus with their delusions of how the Soviet Union was supposedly better.

I will say this These Vice guys are doing an amazing job and deserve some serious recognition
 
It highlights just how terrible this whole thing is. They are so delusional that even after they see what she has they still accuse her of bringing Molotov cocktails etc.

It really is a battle Between the Young and Old. The Old are ready to throw the country under the bus with their delusions of how the Soviet Union was supposedly better.

I will say this These Vice guys are doing an amazing job and deserve some serious recognition
Funny you say that. Really interesting article by a really smart Russian expert says the same thing. Its generational.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116897/eastern-ukraines-history-under-stalin-holding-it-back
 
This is going off topic. I agree with you the US is guided by more than realist motives but I think your missing the fact the US sees humanitarian and geopolitical considerations as intertwined. There's not always a need to divorce them. By doing so your giving ammunition to those that will use quotes out of context to 'demonstrate' the US is purely realist in its outlook.

The US's entire FP since Wilson has been to establish an international regime (New World Order) where countries know the rules and play by them. Our interventions are always to further that goal. One of those norms is human rights, another is economic stability, another democracy, another capitalism, its a mixture of all of these that determines when the US intervenes. Its not simple. The US is very idealistic compared to other nations. It has always sought since the late 19th century to 'fix the world' that's rather unique.
it's like Im reading a 19th century British historian, only its American "idealism" Im supposed to marvel at rather than British. Interesting that you mention Wilson and "playing by the rules", his intervention in Haiti is a striking replica of what the Russians are trying to do in Ukraine
 
it's like Im reading a 19th century British historian, only its American "idealism" Im supposed to marvel at rather than British. Interesting that you mention Wilson and "playing by the rules", his intervention in Haiti is a striking replica of what the Russians are trying to do in Ukraine

You keep pointing to specific examples to try to disprove the over all thrust. And no, this isn't colonialism. There was no attempt to establish international organization that's gave voices to non-western nations. There was no attempt to intervene on behalf small nations without annexation or establishing colonies. There was no attempt to restrain behavior, or abide by international law.

Your evil neocolonial explanation is just as easy to poke holes in.

BTW I'm not gonna keep this going, it keeps veering off topic to condemn the US. Like most FP threads
 
You keep pointing to specific examples to try to disprove the over all thrust. And no, this isn't colonialism. There was no attempt to establish international organization that's gave voices to non-western nations. There was no attempt to intervene on behalf small nations without annexation or establishing colonies. There was no attempt to restrain behavior, or abide by international law.

Your evil neocolonial explanation is just as easy to poke holes in.

BTW I'm not gonna keep this going, it keeps veering off topic to condemn the US. Like most FP threads

what, the United Nations, the organization where 5 permanent security council members, two of them old colonial powers, wield veto power that allows them to torpedo any resolution? I'd say thats a bad example you just picked. But you're right this is offtopic.
 
So how far right wing are these Ukarinian "ultra nationalists"? Golden Dawn levels?

The Ukrainian Right Wing can be as bad as any extreme right groups in most countries but they are allowed to exist and do have representation in the government as they hold some seats in parliament.

Russia is basically playing it up as if this group has seized total control of the government and plans to revive Hitler or something when nothing has changed in the make up of the Parliament.
Russia Claims its an anti-Semite, Nazi revolution yet you have Jews, Muslims, Russians, and Ukrainians all wanting a future where they are not slaves to Russia.

As the Poor women in the vice video put it. There are shitheads and good people in any ethnicity.
 
Everything is going according to plan. For all the bloviating by the Republicans in the US and statements by Obama and Kerry, nothing was done except sanctions on "individuals", travel bans and asset freezes. But they weren't applied to the State. And until Germany or the UK order strong sanctions against Russian firms and the State itself, these are just symbolic.

Russia holds Crimea, they hold it much better than they ever have, they've fomented dissent in the East. If Ukraine was to stay united West to East, you still have a sizeable Pro-Russian population that will affect elections, reforms etc.

You don't invade a nation without planning for all scenarios. Believe me, Putin was actually expecting worse. Yes, how goal of drawing Ukraine into the war didn't pan out, but his end goal is still achieved. He just looks like a bigger asshole/dictator, even to his own people.
I think you're giving the dude too much credit. His Russia friendly pres just fled the country and now he has to save face.
 
Brookings will host a discussion on the crisis in Ukraine, looking at where the crisis might go next and how the U.S. and Europe might respond to and defuse the standoff between Ukraine and Russia.

March 7, 2014
2:00 PM - 3:30 PM EST
source

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad seconds Russia’s position in the Ukraine crisis, reported Syria’s state news agency SANA on Thursday.

In a message addressed to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad expressed his solidarity, on behalf of the Syrian people, with Putin’s efforts to “restore security and stability in the friendly country of Ukraine.”

Assad stressed that Putin’s reaction to the crisis in Ukraine is legitimate and adheres to the UN’s objectives that aim “to create a balanced and transparent world based on respecting the sovereignty of countries and the right of peoples to decide their destiny,” reported SANA.

Assad described the Russian leadership’s stance as a “wise policy” in the face of “coup attempts against legitimacy and democracy in favor of the terrorist extremists”. He reiterated Syria’s commitment to Putin’s “rational approach” which he described as supporting “the right and truth” and applauded Russia for “saving the world from dangerous events”.

Assad’s announcement follows Putin’s press conference in Moscow on Tuesday, in which he also disregarded the movement in Ukraine as an “unconstitutional coup” brokered by foreign players.
[...]
source
 
hey look its everyone's favorite Russian Actress now showing up in another south eastern Ukrainian city as a Pro Russian marcher

BiGEq-HCYAAkLAK.jpg


It is Amazing how she always finds herself front and center for pictures. So far she has been a refugee fleeing Donetsk from violent Nazis, a Pro Russian Supporter from Odessa, and many more
 
hey look its everyone's favorite Russian Actress now showing up in another south eastern Ukrainian city as a Pro Russian marcher

BiGEq-HCYAAkLAK.jpg


It is Amazing how she always finds herself front and center for pictures. So far she has been a refugee fleeing Donetsk from violent Nazis, a Pro Russian Supporter from Odessa, and many more

I wonder if she seeks out camera's out of some sort of narcissism.
 
Putin may have lost Ukraine’s Jews but he will always have Israel.

A Ukrainian citizen stepping in to the lobby of one of Tel-Aviv’s luxury hotels this week would have been surprised to encounter there a wider array of his country’s political and business elite, many of them meeting senior Israeli officials and businesspeople. In this conflict, Israel has become a safe-haven, a neutral zone where Ukrainians afraid to remain in there homeland can rest their heads. Many of them own homes in western Europe, particularly in London, but while the European Union is discussing the freezing of assets of those close to the old regime, why take the risk? Israel is a few hours flight from Ukraine, there are lots of Russian-speakers and there is no need to worry about any sanctions. Israel won’t take any step that will anger either side, including not condemning Putin’s occupation.

Meanwhile, Israel’s ambassador in Kiev, Reuven Dinel, a former intelligence officer, has been holding quiet meetings with leaders of the parties that toppled president Viktor Yanukovych two weeks ago. The meetings have included the ultra-nationalist parties, which are eager to cleanse themselves of the stain of anti-Semitism that has tainted the entire Maidan revolution, at least in the eyes of the Kremlin-influenced media.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.578474
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom