Ukraine, Russia and Crimea situation

[j1979]

I have never once said that his Government wasn’t corrupt, but so are lots of other Governments and there is no real argument that his Government wasn’t elected fairly. And the power sharing agreement was signed only after violent and sustained protests. If that were to happen In Britain, no one would seriously consider the interim Government that took its place as anything other than a coup.

The government banned peaceful protest. You keep calling the revolution undemocratic, yet peaceful demonstration is considered almost universally as the rawest form of democracy there is. You can not get more democratic than that.

When Yanukovych banned peaceful protest, bricked 1000's of peoples sim cards, banned people from wearing helmuts and other protective clothing. When the crowd failed to move using his scare tactics and paid thugs (titushki), he moved in with batons and nightsticks, when they still failed to move he used rubber bullets, when they still failed to move, he used real bullets, and when they still failed to move he used AK47's and Dragunov SVD's.

The majority of Berkut riot police in Kiev were not killed by protesters, they were killed by the double agent snipers of unknown origin, that were killing both protestors and police. The next day he signed the power sharing deal, he was not under the gun.

Then he fled, He still had 100's of loyal Police, 100's of loyal Berkut. Kiev if he wanted could still have defended it's self. He either relised it was pointless and only made his situation worse, or he preplanned to leave a few days before the shootings.

You keep calling it a Coup, but Russia actually recognised the February 21st agreement as legal. Russia did not call it a Coup until the next day 22nd February when he fled. So if you want to call it a coup from the Russian point of view, please provide some evidence of this Coup from 22nd. (I have already looked there in none). There is no evidence to back up his claim he was under fire from the "Pravyi (right) sektor". Like I said there were enough Berkut to protect him if needed. It all points at a pre-planned escape.

Who said that the Right Sector were in power? I didn’t. What I said was that members of the Far Right were in Government. Is this not correct? Do Svoboda have members in Government, or not? It’s a simple yes or no answer. You keep going on and on about the parallels between Putin and Hitler, yet make no reference to the what those members of the current Ukrainian Government have gone on record with regards to their Neo-Nazi links and ideology, and simply downplay it by asserting that Russia are worse. From that, I think it’s fair to assume, whilst critical of far-right Russian Nationalism, you are supportive of, or at least indifferent to, far-right Ukrainian Nationalism. That, in my mind at least, is clearly biased.

Don't mistake far-right Ukrainian Nationalism for Ukrainian Nationalism. They are entitled to a national identity, and they should be free to choose whether this is defined by Traditional Conservative Russian influence or Modern Progressive European influence.

Svoboda are a Ukrainian political party that's main aim is to promote the Ukrainian national identity and promote the use of the Ukrainian language. They are anti-USSR and anti-Russia. They have members of the parliament that were elected in the last election. Sure they had there roots in national socialism. However the conservative party in the UK has national socialism connections over the years, Enoch Powell, Oswald Mosley had roots in the conservative party. Parties and there members are defined by their actions since the Svoboda party rose form the ashes of it's national socialist roots in 2004 (this is true), however, it has gained seats in Parliament based on the fact it's more mainstream a decade later. Additionally it's transformation from far-right to center right has been well documented. It also won over 10% of the seats in parliament in the 2012 election. Until they pass try to pass or propose an anti -semetic law you have to take them on face value. Ihor Kolomoyskyi, president of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine, stated in 2010 that the party has clearly shifted from the far-right to the center.[108]

They have not asked or tried to ban Russian as a language, they just don't want it as an "official language". I don't see that as a problem. They don't want their country Russkified, singing and dancing to the Kremlins wishes. Personally I see that as a justified claim.

The Svoboda partys main aim is to roll back the Yanukovych years. His party (the party of regions), who's aim is to promote the Russian identity and language. they posed as a center party but clearly have proven themselves anti Ukrainian and towards the end proved to be anti EU. The party hired titushki to terrorize the maidan protestors and cities in west Ukraine. They are considered to have moved from the center to the right, and based on events this year the far right.

They only have 3 seats in government out of the 21 available. Opinion polls put them at 28% of the popular vote, and they won 10% in 2012. So a 14% share in the current Government looks fair to me.

also, in contrast to Putin's United Russia party, they have not moved to ban "homosexual Propaganda", they have not suppressed minorities. So how can a far-right party in Russia accuse Ukraine of having a far right party in power.

so..

1. they were democratically elected into parliament.
2. they have so far proven they have shifted dramatically from the parties roots.
3. their say in government is temporary, and the people will decide next month, on what party will rule in Ukraine.
4. they only control 14% of government.
5. They are not considered far right any longer by Jewish Community of Ukraine.

I presume it was not dissimilar to this:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-panteleymonov

Let me guess, a one off, or simply Russian Propaganda again?

One incident of a Svoboda party member suppressing the free press? Yes I saw it, and already commented on it earlier in the thread. It's does not help Ukraine cause.

there is no free press in Russia, and non in Crimea now and the kidnapping of journalists has stated in East Ukraine too.

Politicians dead! Journalists dead!

The Treaty of Versailles was one of the most severe peace treaties ever imposed after a war. It included disarmament, territorial concessions to the allies, accepting full responsibility for the war and extreme financial reparations. How much more ‘defeated’ would you have liked? Historians now look back at that treaty and point to it as one of the main causes that allowed Hitler to rise to power.

I would like to see a full collapse of the Russian hierarchy. Because the USSR diversified after humiliation, with many members including Putin that are still full of bitterness. The old ways are still there, they have a lower democracy index than Egypt. The whole democracy thing in Russia is simply in my opinion an illusion.

Democracy map of the world. Ukraine is better than Russia, so who are they to lecture any country on who and who should not rule. Putin's government are hypocritical at every level.

I think an awful lot of posters here have shown solidarity. But I think a lot also accept that there are parts of Ukraine that identify more with Russia, and are realistic enough to know that something is going to have to give. On top of that, whilst I’m sure it is magnified for you as you have a personal interest in it, for many of us, Russia’s behaviour is no different to when Russia invaded Georgia in 08.

Yes they have, and for those that have I am grateful. I am also sorry to the people I have shot down in flames, I'm sorry to you if I make you feel you are supporting Putin.

I think, and have stated several times though that the pull towards Russia is not as strong as is being made out. People want the Russian language in several areas of Ukraine. But the right to use the language is not the main question. No one is forcing citzens to speak Ukrainian.

What they want is for the official language to remain as Ukrainian. They reason for this is economic as much as anything else. On almost every single urban street in Ukraine you will find this sign.



It means Notarius (in English Solicitor), The entire system should remain Ukrainian, as there are 10,000's of Solicitors in Ukraine that work in Ukrainian. To make Russian a official language will make the county inefficient and open to corruption via incorrectly translated official documents. Most of the population does not have a high level of education, so Solicitors are used for everything form applying for a passport, legal advice, to getting a residence permit. To change this system is nothing more than an attempt at Russkifiction (if that's a word).

They used to say the same about the Irish in Northern Ireland. A pathetic statement.
Well, if that’s the case, why doesn’t Ukraine call Russia’s bluff and offer the East a referendum?

They have already said about a week ago they can have a referendum on more autonomy via federalisation . It was ignored.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2...kraines-future

It's not about calling Russia's bluff they will move the goal posts as and when they want.


EDIT:
Or as some people are already pointing out this, is merely the side show to Russia's financial collapse. As shale gas gathers momentum in US, EU, India and China, Russia's position looks more and more hopeless. Twice the population of the UK with more land than any other country, the GDP is still less then the UK and will be in recession again soon. Without either mayor political reform (which would mean Putin is either in Prison for corruption and/or war crimes) or diversification from fuel based economy, Russia is up the creek. How Crimea really changes that is cloudy, but Crimea offers a tourism and some of the best unknown vineyards in the world. It also makes Russia project it's self a a great power again, and it has boosted Putin approval ratings (temporary). He's playing a very dangerous game, and it's difficult to see him winning in the long or even medium term. Even if you take Ukraine on it's own, it won't be a push over. The Pro-Russian camp is not as big as Putin wants the world to believe.

Putin is said to have admitted that Russia invaded then annexed Crimea due nothing more than outright survival. Although I can't find a credible source on this.
http://maidantranslations.com/2014/0...omic-collapse/

[opel80uk]

The government banned peaceful protest. You keep calling the revolution undemocratic, yet peaceful demonstration is considered almost universally as the rawest form of democracy there is. You can not get more democratic than that.

When Yanukovych banned peaceful protest, bricked 1000's of peoples sim cards, banned people from wearing helmuts and other protective clothing. When the crowd failed to move using his scare tactics and paid thugs (titushki), he moved in with batons and nightsticks, when they still failed to move he used rubber bullets, when they still failed to move, he used real bullets, and when they still failed to move he used AK47's and Dragunov SVD's.

There are numerous examples of Western Governments, or regimes that had support from Western Governments, supressing democratic, peaceful, demonstrations with violent tactics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_No..._Ireland_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davi...spray_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2010_Greek_protests

It doesn't mean that all those Governments were suddenly deemed undemocratic.

The majority of Berkut riot police in Kiev were not killed by protesters, they were killed by the double agent snipers of unknown origin, that were killing both protestors and police. The next day he signed the power sharing deal, he was not under the gun.

So what you are saying is that riot police were killing protesters, and were aided by ‘double agent snipers’, who also happened to be shooting the police as well. Do you have any facts to back this, seemingly outlandish claim, up?

You keep calling it a Coup, but Russia actually recognised the February 21st agreement as legal. Russia did not call it a Coup until the next day 22nd February when he fled. So if you want to call it a coup from the Russian point of view, please provide some evidence of this Coup from 22nd.

Again, I’m not calling it a coup because Russia did, I’m calling it a coup because I think it is. Even if I agreed 100% with the actions of those that opposed the Yanukovych regime, and wholeheartedly supported removing the regime with any means possible, it would still be a coup.

The Government of the time said that the protests were not entirely peaceful and that the majority of peaceful protesters had been infiltrated by right wing groups. Which came first (the ban on protests, or the involvement of right wing groups) is open to debate, and I have read nothing that is able to definitively confirm one way or the other. That I question the Ukrainian version of events, does not mean I agree with Putin’s.

Don't mistake far-right Ukrainian Nationalism for Ukrainian Nationalism. They are entitled to a national identity, and they should be free to choose whether this is defined by Traditional Conservative Russian influence or Modern Progressive European influence.

Svoboda are a Ukrainian political party that's main aim is to promote the Ukrainian national identity and promote the use of the Ukrainian language. They are anti-USSR and anti-Russia. They have members of the parliament that were elected in the last election. Sure they had there roots in national socialism. However the conservative party in the UK has national socialism connections over the years, Enoch Powell, Oswald Mosley had roots in the conservative party. Parties and there members are defined by their actions since the Svoboda party rose form the ashes of it's national socialist roots in 2004 (this is true), however, it has gained seats in Parliament based on the fact it's more mainstream a decade later. Additionally it's transformation from far-right to center right has been well documented. It also won over 10% of the seats in parliament in the 2012 election. Until they pass try to pass or propose an anti -semetic law you have to take them on face value. Ihor Kolomoyskyi, president of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine, stated in 2010 that the party has clearly shifted from the far-right to the center.[108]

They have not asked or tried to ban Russian as a language, they just don't want it as an "official language". I don't see that as a problem. They don't want their country Russkified, singing and dancing to the Kremlins wishes. Personally I see that as a justified claim.

The Svoboda partys main aim is to roll back the Yanukovych years. His party (the party of regions), who's aim is to promote the Russian identity and language. they posed as a center party but clearly have proven themselves anti Ukrainian and towards the end proved to be anti EU. The party hired titushki to terrorize the maidan protestors and cities in west Ukraine. They are considered to have moved from the center to the right, and based on events this year the far right.

They only have 3 seats in government out of the 21 available. Opinion polls put them at 28% of the popular vote, and they won 10% in 2012. So a 14% share in the current Government looks fair to me.

also, in contrast to Putin's United Russia party, they have not moved to ban "homosexual Propaganda", they have not suppressed minorities. So how can a far-right party in Russia accuse Ukraine of having a far right party in power.

so..

1. they were democratically elected into parliament.
2. they have so far proven they have shifted dramatically from the parties roots.
3. their say in government is temporary, and the people will decide next month, on what party will rule in Ukraine.
4. they only control 14% of government.
5. They are not considered far right any longer by Jewish Community of Ukraine.

Firstly, the comparison between the Conservative Party and Svoboda is, frankly, absurd. Whilst the Conservative Party may well have had members sympathetic with far right ideals, the party has not aligned itself with that ideology. Svoboda, in contrast, are a party founded with far right ideology at its core.

One only has to read previous statements from Svoboda, and refer to previous rhetoric from their current members, to realise what they are about. To try an paint them as simply a Ukrainian Nationalist party is patent nonsense, and doesn’t even warrant spending much time responding to, to be honest.

I would like to see a full collapse of the Russian hierarchy. Because the USSR diversified after humiliation, with many members including Putin that are still full of bitterness. The old ways are still there, they have a lower democracy index than Egypt. The whole democracy thing in Russia is simply in my opinion an illusion.

What’s that got to do with what I asked? You said that you would have liked to see Germany defeated, and when I pointed out how comprehensive the terms of the treaty were, asked what more could have been done to ‘defeat’ Germany?

Yes they have, and for those that have I am grateful. I am also sorry to the people I have shot down in flames, I'm sorry to you if I make you feel you are supporting Putin.

I don’t object to you making me feel like I am supporting Putin, because you don’t have that ability. I object to you asserting that I, or anyone who tries to look at it from anything other than a Pro-Ukrainian viewpoint is a supporter of the Kremlin, Putin or both. As I said, I think it’s a childish way to debate anything; I’d expect a more reasoned and grown up level of debate from my eldest. And she’s 6.

I think, and have stated several times though that the pull towards Russia is not as strong as is being made out.

Perhaps, but it is undeniable that in large parts of the country, pro-Russian sentiment is strong.

People want the Russian language in several areas of Ukraine. But the right to use the language is not the main question. No one is forcing citzens to speak Ukrainian…………..

I would imagine that, to ethnic Russians, recognition of Russian as an official language is symbolic more than anything else. By refusing to recognise it as such, especially in areas where demographically ethnic Russians are the majority, serves nothing but to firstly antagonise that group and secondly, allow credence to the claims that Pro-Russian people are being ignored by their supposed Government in Kiev. If I was trying to win hearts and minds, I’m not sure I would take such a short sighted approach.

[j1979]

There are numerous examples of Western Governments, or regimes that had support from Western Governments, supressing democratic, peaceful, demonstrations with violent tactics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_No..._Ireland_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davi...spray_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2010_Greek_protests

It doesn't mean that all those Governments were suddenly deemed undemocratic.

With regards to the links you sent, they are from the 60's and 70's. Actually the world has changed somewhat in the last half century, you will struggle to find a modern western government that has not condemned each one of those examples with the exception of Greece. None of the links are anywhere near the scale of the suppression in Kiev.

The only example you sent from this century was the Greek protests. Only 3 died. It's unfortunate, but it's nowhere near the scale of what happened in Kiev.

with 104 confirmed dead on the protest site and another 780 though to have been murdered away from the main protest site via the government forces. That's almost 1000 people dead. 150-300 missing, 230 arrested and 130 imprisoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

So what you are saying is that riot police were killing protesters, and were aided by ‘double agent snipers’, who also happened to be shooting the police as well. Do you have any facts to back this, seemingly outlandish claim, up?

It's not an outlandish claim it's been well documented and was observed by many different sources. No one has openly denied that there were some people killing both sides in Kiev.

The double agent snipers have neither been denied by Kiev or the Kremlin yet. I guess they have bigger fish to fry right now. The source of the double agents has been disputed. But as there is no real proof either way, I have not spoke on this subject too much. I personally believe it was the Russians. Seen evidence has since been uncovered that the Berkut and the FSB of Russia have been working together and FSB agents attended many Berkut meetings.
http://maidantranslations.com/2014/0...nd-gru-agents/

The Kremlin initially had stated these were American blackwater ops, until there was the telephone call that was reported to the Estonian foreign minister from a maidan doctor / protestor , stating the protestors were killing the each other. This information was then passed onto Catherine Ashton again via telephone call, which was bugged and leaked by RT.

The quote from the Estonian minister via (the doctor / protestor)

"What was quite disturbing, this same Olga told that, well, all the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides," Paet said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ton-urmas-paet

And Kiev has accused Moscow that the double agents were Russian special forces. (i mean 0 Berkut dead would have looked bad on the pro-russian government after all).

No one knows for sure who was killing who in Kiev. But out of all the theorys the Russian special forces seems most credible, seen as they were in Crimea and now in East Ukraine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26868119
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-in-kiev.html

If you read back on my post you will see my friends observed snipers on the roofs of Kiev buildings back in January.
http://forums.hexus.net/question-tim...ml#post3179377

Again, I’m not calling it a coup because Russia did, I’m calling it a coup because I think it is. Even if I agreed 100% with the actions of those that opposed the Yanukovych regime, and wholeheartedly supported removing the regime with any means possible, it would still be a coup.

The Government of the time said that the protests were not entirely peaceful and that the majority of peaceful protesters had been infiltrated by right wing groups. Which came first (the ban on protests, or the involvement of right wing groups) is open to debate, and I have read nothing that is able to definitively confirm one way or the other. That I question the Ukrainian version of events, does not mean I agree with Putin’s.

Fair enough! I don't see it as a coup, (a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.) Because, he singed the deal, then he abandoned his post, and under the Ukrainian constitution they were entitled to elect an interim government. That was legal. Therefore it's not a coup by definition.

I see it as the inevitable and desperate last grasp to hang onto power, of a collapsing regime backed by a power with less influence than it want and needs in the area to keep it's own rotten regime from collapse. I also see it as planned because, they knew Kiev would have other things on it's mind, meanwhile leaving Russia free to take Crimea.

I see the whole thing as Russia trying by all desperate means to keep Ukraine from progress. As many problems as the EU has, it's miles better than the USSR for it's members.

Firstly, the comparison between the Conservative Party and Svoboda is, frankly, absurd. Whilst the Conservative Party may well have had members sympathetic with far right ideals, the party has not aligned itself with that ideology. Svoboda, in contrast, are a party founded with far right ideology at its core.

One only has to read previous statements from Svoboda, and refer to previous rhetoric from their current members, to realise what they are about. To try an paint them as simply a Ukrainian Nationalist party is patent nonsense, and doesn’t even warrant spending much time responding to, to be honest.

Sorry where is this proof of a far right ideology the Svoboda party? the national socialist element in Ukraine, last century was that case of the nationalistic Ukrainians siding with what they saw as the lesser of 2 evils. Bandera sided with Hitler out of necessity not choice, the Soviets seemed a bigger threat at the time.

in 2013 Yanukovych, sent a bus load of paid protestors to a rally with t-shirts that said "Hit the Jews" on the front, and "Svoboda" on the back. This smearing of the party is what is still happening. I am sure there are members of the party with anti-Semitic views, I am sure there are probably some in the Tory party and UKIP too.

The Jewish community of Ukraine have said they no longer consider them a far right party or a threat to their existence and way of life.

and even if they are proven in the future to be "far-right" why should it matter when they only have 14% control of the government? Especially when the people complaining (Putin's government) are far-right!

I don't see your point. How can they claim the whole Kiev government far right when they themselves are far right.

What’s that got to do with what I asked? You said that you would have liked to see Germany defeated, and when I pointed out how comprehensive the terms of the treaty were, asked what more could have been done to ‘defeat’ Germany?

I don't want to carry on this talking point personally. I was simply pointing out. Many people at the time saw the treaty of Versailles as storing problems problems for the future. and anything less than total defeat of germany was a mistake.

I don’t object to you making me feel like I am supporting Putin, because you don’t have that ability. I object to you asserting that I, or anyone who tries to look at it from anything other than a Pro-Ukrainian viewpoint is a supporter of the Kremlin, Putin or both. As I said, I think it’s a childish way to debate anything; I’d expect a more reasoned and grown up level of debate from my eldest. And she’s 6.

When I said that it was a kind of olive branch, but you seem not to get it. Keep saying you don't support Putin, yet you assert that the Ukrainian government is illegal, that there are nazi's in government, and that the Russian government has valid concerns, that would justify invasion of it's neighbor.

So let's say you are right and Svoboda want to deport or do worse to the Jewish population. with only 14% of the government do you really see this as a possibility? if Yes, based on what? where are the burning synagogues, torahs and where are they building these gas chambers?

I will tell you now, they are not! It's just a Moscow narrative that no one else buys.

Read this story, about Jewish involvement in the maidan
http://forward.com/articles/195785/t...-street-fight/

You can wave whatever flag you like in Kiev EU, union jack, American, German (even the Russian one before March) without any fear. I can't say the same of pro-russian areas.

Lithuania's U.N. Ambassador Raimonda Murmokaite,
"The systematic and targeted propaganda war against Ukraine and its provisional leadership, is an extremely dangerous game,"

Like I said the UN human rights council and osce reports. have resoundingly agreed that the Kremlin's viewpoint on the Kiev government is not based on facts. France called Russian version of events a "virtual Reality" These are the same points you have been arguing.

As for the comment about your daughter. Ok, I'm sure you are correct on this point.

Perhaps, but it is undeniable that in large parts of the country, pro-Russian sentiment is strong.



I would imagine that, to ethnic Russians, recognition of Russian as an official language is symbolic more than anything else. By refusing to recognise it as such, especially in areas where demographically ethnic Russians are the majority, serves nothing but to firstly antagonise that group and secondly, allow credence to the claims that Pro-Russian people are being ignored by their supposed Government in Kiev. If I was trying to win hearts and minds, I’m not sure I would take such a short sighted approach.

There are no oblasts in Ukraine (excluding Crimea) where ethnic Russians are the majority.
There are 3 of the 24 oblasts where Ukrainian in not listed as the majority first/native language. Donetsk, Lugansk & Odessa. But this is language, still the majority consider themselves ethnic Ukrainians, even if they have some Russian ancestry. Like my wife, who has all her grandparents from Russia, but she considers herself Ukrainian, as this is where she was born and it's the culture she identifies with.

Why should Russian be an official language, or as some want the only official language? people are free to speak whatever they like. It's a valid argument for discussion but not for Russia to invade.

This is just Russia stoking the fire. If Putin wanted to protect people, why doesn't he ask for calm until the election?

I disagree, if there was this massive pro-russian agenda of natural making, why did these pro-russians wait until the Crimea annexation was done and dusted? It was calm there remember 2-3 weeks ago. Of the 8 ring leaders only 3 are from the Donetsk oblast! the rest are either Russian from Russia or ethnic Russian Crimean.

http://inforesist.org/insurgents-ide...takte/?lang=en





Meanwhile Russia Gas price war with Ukraine is backfiring. I feel sorry for the grapes.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busine...st/498895.html

[j1979]

Ukraine on the move today! Looks like Russia's bluff has been seriously called.


EDIT:

Russia to enforce blogging law. Bloggers with 3000 hits a day must register with a government agency... "Blogs will face restrictions similar to those applying to mass media outlets, including bans on extremism, pornography, electoral propaganda, and even obscene language."

those highlighted are very open to interpretation. Russia going backwards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...?utm_hp_ref=tw


In other news.. Ukrainian Security Service have spoken out regarding Russian involvement in Ukraine's unrest in the east.
https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukr...es-344900.html

And involvement with the killing 2 days ago of 1 politician and a student from Kiev.
http://www.matthewaid.com/post/83750...ses-phone-taps
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3N1VE20140424


Simon Ostrovsky set free! His post release interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Yg-Mzh648


Another journalists close shave.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/20...n_ukraine.html

[opel80uk]

……..I was simply pointing out. Many people at the time saw the treaty of Versailles as storing problems problems for the future. and anything less than total defeat of germany was a mistake.

With regards to the links I sent, it doesn’t matter regarding the scale or that more were killed in Kiev than in Greece. The point I am making is that when the Greeks (as with the other examples) were supressing peaceful protests with extreme violence, there was very little, or in some cases no, response from Western Governments, precisely because it suited their agenda (in the Greece case, the country fulfilling its financial obligations to the EU) and what was in each of their own best interests. You take their criticism of the Kiev protest response as evidence of support for the cause, I am simply pointing out that their support for the cause is not because of any deep seated affinity with Ukraine, or because of a moral obligation of right or wrong, but because it’s furthers their own agendas. We saw British and US Government officials tell us that Iraq had WMD’s, when the dog by the lamppost knew that it was highly unlikely to be the case, and you now cite their support as some kind of reinforcement of what is going on in Ukraine? Look at the lack of democracy in China, and the human rights abuses there, yet the West is all over China like beans on toast, so don’t be so naïve; if it had suited the powers that be to side with Russia rather than with Ukraine, they would have turned the faces away in the blink of an eye.

I can’t be bothered replying to each point and I’m sure Hexites are smart enough to be able to go over my previous posts and ascertain whether anything I’ve said remotely resembles me justifying Russia’s invasion, and are able to research whether Svoboda, who only severed its ties with the Alliance of European National Movements, Who count the British National Party and Italy’s Tricolour Flame as members, when the Alliance supported the annexation of Chimera, are a far-right group or not, or whether a deal signed by a Government can be considered constitutionally sound if there is the threat of ever-escalating violence (with no doubt a further, violent, crackdown response) hanging over it, and make their own minds up.

But I must say I am interested in what you said above. Because, given that the terms of the Treaty were considered extremely severe, I come to the conclusion that when you say ‘total defeat’, what you actually mean is the literal destruction of the state so as it does not exist anymore in any independent shape or form. Is that right? It’s important to know, especially in the context of your continual comparison between Nazi Germany and Russia, so as to understand how you think this current conflict should be resolved.

[j1979]

Chimera would need to be ceded, and that the wests posturing and threats (and now implication) of sanctions would ensure that it restricted Russia to just lay claim to Chimera and no more of Ukraine territory.

for simply broadcasting a ceremony from the Kremlin, regarding Chimera.

Do I believe that Russian armed forces were not involved the annexing of Chimera?

Alliance supported the annexation of Chimera

Look as much as I trust the opinion of someone that thinks Ukraine's main peninsula is a monstrous fire-breathing creature of Lycia in Asia Minor, composed of the parts of three animals – a lion, a snake and a goat, You keep dodging the real questions. You simply find one subject that you think you can win a small victory on, and roll with it.

But if you can't even be bothered to find out the correct name of Crimea, then what is the point arguing with you. You claim to have an incite into Ukraine, it's politics and it's geopolitical fault lines, yet you don't even know how to spell Crimea.

May I ask how many times have you spoken to a Svoboda member and how often you have visited Ukraine? What Cities have you visited?

But I must say I am interested in what you said above. Because, given that the terms of the Treaty were considered extremely severe, I come to the conclusion that when you say ‘total defeat’, what you actually mean is the literal destruction of the state so as it does not exist anymore in any independent shape or form. Is that right? It’s important to know, especially in the context of your continual comparison between Nazi Germany and Russia, so as to understand how you think this current conflict should be resolved.

It's off topic. I will say this, there is a direct line of conflict, that lead to today's situation in Ukraine. There are many other factors but the main one is the echos of WW1.

Russia wanted to stick up for Serbia and the people of Sarajevo, fair enough. France and GB, knew that a totally dominant Germany/Austria in Europe as a threat so they allied with Russia. Germany's defeat, humiliation and rise back to strength, coupled with Russia's Revolution both in turn caused the second world war, which lead to the cold war. These are undeniable facts, and many historians agree, that if the end off the first world war was different, the 2nd world war and cold war may have been avoided. Many Russian's (including some members of my family) think the EU is simply the German invasion all over again, that the war is not, and had never ended.

If Ukraine and Russia are not fighting before just wait until May 9th, (Victory Day) in Russia, Crimea and Ukraine, when there will be all sorts of **** will hit the fan.

EDIT:

By the way still waiting for your proof of antisemitism in west Ukraine.

[opel80uk]

...... You keep dodging the real questions.

What are the real questions that you have asked that I am dodging?

But if you can't even be bothered to find out the correct name of Crimea, then what is the point arguing with you. You claim to have an incite into Ukraine, it's politics and it's geopolitical fault lines, yet you don't even know how to spell Crimea.

I think picking up on a genuine misspelling is somewhat childish. For example, I could say that you have used 'incite' when in fact you meant insight, but what does that prove? That neither of us are good at spelling?

May I ask how many times have you spoken to a Svoboda member and how often you have visited Ukraine? What Cities have you visited?

One doesn't have to have been to, or lived in, a particular place to have a view or an opinion on a particular topic. I've never met a Nazi - does that mean I shouldn't comment on them? There are people who have never been to Ireland, yet have commented or voiced opinions on the conflict there, are their views invalid? It's a silly, infantile argument, and you do yourself no favours with that kind of reasoning.

It's off topic. I will say this, there is a direct line of conflict, that lead to today's situation in Ukraine. There are many other factors but the main one is the echos of WW1.

Russia wanted to stick up for Serbia and the people of Sarajevo, fair enough. France and GB, knew that a totally dominant Germany/Austria in Europe as a threat so they allied with Russia. Germany's defeat, humiliation and rise back to strength, coupled with Russia's Revolution both in turn caused the second world war, which lead to the cold war. These are undeniable facts, and many historians agree, that if the end off the first world war was different, the 2nd world war and cold war may have been avoided. Many Russian's (including some members of my family) think the EU is simply the German invasion all over again, that the war is not, and had never ended.

If Ukraine and Russia are not fighting before just wait until May 9th, (Victory Day) in Russia, Crimea and Ukraine, when there will be all sorts of **** will hit the fan.

That’s not what I asked. I asked what you meant when you said Germany should have been ‘totally defeated’?

By the way still waiting for your proof of antisemitism in west Ukraine.

Please quote where I said there was 'antisemitism in West Ukraine'?

[j1979]

What are the real questions that you have asked that I am dodging?

most have a question mark at the end. go back and have a read.

I think picking up on a genuine misspelling is somewhat childish. For example, I could say that you have used 'incite' when in fact you meant insight, but what does that prove? That neither of us are good at spelling?

And saying I am some how less capable than your 6 year old is what? (question)

It just proves you have read little.

One doesn't have to have been to, or lived in, a particular place to have a view or an opinion on a particular topic. I've never met a Nazi - does that mean I shouldn't comment on them? There are people who have never been to Ireland, yet have commented or voiced opinions on the conflict there, are their views invalid? It's a silly, infantile argument, and you do yourself no favours with that kind of reasoning.

You have never met a Nazi yet you are capable of Identifying them in the Kiev government.

That’s not what I asked. I asked what you meant when you said Germany should have been ‘totally defeated’?

the same as the second world war. full occupation may have avoided the 2nd world war.

Please quote where I said there was 'antisemitism in West Ukraine'?

so what are you saying then? That the svoboda voters mainly from western Ukraine (about 30 - 38% of the far west oblasts) are antisemititc yet the don't show it?

if 38% in Lviv oblast voted for a Nazi, like party don't you think we would see a lot of evidence?

Svoboda Voter percentage geographically.




What is your point about Svoboda? (question)

[j1979]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...source=twitter

John McCain, talking openly. I agree with everything he said.



Latvia getting nervous. They say Russian professional provocateurs operating inside it's boarders.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3O1Q420140425



Latest G7 leaders statement on Ukraine
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...tement-ukraine

[opel80uk]

most have a question mark at the end. go back and have a read.

Most of your posts are actually statements, rather than questions, and even so, I still can’t find what the real questions I am avoiding are. If you want to explicitly say what they are, I will answer them.

And saying I am some how less capable than your 6 year old is what? (question)
It just proves you have read little.

Again, nowhere did I say that you were ‘less capable’ than a 6 year old. I said that the specific issue of you seemingly declaring someone to be in support of Russia and/or Putin whenever an alternative viewpoint is looked at that is different to yours, is an infantile way of discussing issues, and I wouldn’t expect that sort of thing from my 6 year old.

You have never met a Nazi yet you are capable of Identifying them in the Kiev government.

Again, please quote where I said there were Nazi’s in the Kiev Government.

the same as the second world war. full occupation may have avoided the 2nd world war.

It may have, but it may not have. Unless there is a plan to permanently occupy a country, it isn’t a long term solution. Besides, that is never going to happen with Russia because of a) it’s size and population and b) it’s allied with China.

so what are you saying then? That the svoboda voters mainly from western Ukraine (about 30 - 38% of the far west oblasts) are antisemititc yet the don't show it?

if 38% in Lviv oblast voted for a Nazi, like party don't you think we would see a lot of evidence?

Again, we see another example of you jumping to a conclusion. Nowhere did I say that Svoboda were anti-Semitic. What I said was that they were right-wing, which they are. There are right-wing Jewish organisations, and they are hardly going to be anti-Semitic, are they? Right-wing extremism can take shape in many forms, it doesn’t have to be simply about Jewish people. That said, some members of Svoboda do seem to have rather interesting views on the Jews, given what I have read. You keep citing that Jewish leaders seem to think they are ok, but there are plenty that don’t, both inside and outside of Ukraine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda..._organizations

What is your point about Svoboda? (question)[/SIZE]

That they are a right-wing, extremist party. That they got x amount of the vote doesn’t overly surprise me; you only have to watch a Ukrainian (or pretty much any Eastern European) football match and wait till a black players touches the ball to realise that there is a sizable group that have a somewhat laissez-faire attitude towards race equality, or read party members openly boasting of attacking gay rights marches, which they described as ‘a Sabbath of 50 perverts’, or see a senior party member complain about a black singer representing Ukraine in the Eurovision as ‘not an organic representative of the Ukrainian culture’ and yet still receiving x amount of the vote to appreciate that it is a culture where right-wing extremism can prosper. I’m from a country where the equivalent party, the BNP, and who Svoboda till recently shared a platform with in Alliance of European National Movements, managed to get less than 2% of the vote at the last general election.
Forgive me if I’m not jumping for joy that Ukraine, with members of a party whose ideals I find truly despicable sitting in Government, are now trying to saddle up to the EU. And whilst you are seemingly free to post on here wildly biased views

[g8ina]

Let's not start getting personal on this guys, keep it civil.

[j1979]

@g8ina. I will try to keep it civil and on topic.

Most of your posts are actually statements, rather than questions, and even so, I still can’t find what the real questions I am avoiding are. If you want to explicitly say what they are, I will answer them.

arr... yes, the statements to your reply's where you claim I'm being "outlandish". yet a simple google search tells otherwise. as for the questions they do have question marks. But lets not dwell on it, I will stick to the point you want to discuss.

Again, nowhere did I say that you were ‘less capable’ than a 6 year old. I said that the specific issue of you seemingly declaring someone to be in support of Russia and/or Putin whenever an alternative viewpoint is looked at that is different to yours, is an infantile way of discussing issues, and I wouldn’t expect that sort of thing from my 6 year old.

And my view point is different to yours, and you are doing exactly the same as me, by saying my view is wrong. How is my arguing, any different from your arguing of the point? I am reading what you write and responding with counter arguments. That makes it somewhat hypocritical on your part. Just as I won't submit to your points, you won't submit to mine. it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

So actually you expect a lot of a 6 year old. Seen as you don't follow these expectations and rules yourself.

Again, please quote where I said there were Nazi’s in the Kiev Government.

I don't know your definition of a Nazi like party. Can you clarify it for me please?

It may have, but it may not have. Unless there is a plan to permanently occupy a country, it isn’t a long term solution. Besides, that is never going to happen with Russia because of a) it’s size and population and b) it’s allied with China.

But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, more pressure should have been put on Moscow to give independence to people / distinct groups who wanted it. For example Chechnya, It's now full of Putin's puppets that claim to die for Allah and fight for Putin, but it was very different before he ethnically cleansed it. Areas that were historically Japanese like Karafuto, Kuril Islands, and areas disputed by other nations along it's boarders.

Again, we see another example of you jumping to a conclusion. Nowhere did I say that Svoboda were anti-Semitic. What I said was that they were right-wing, which they are. There are right-wing Jewish organisations, and they are hardly going to be anti-Semitic, are they? Right-wing extremism can take shape in many forms, it doesn’t have to be simply about Jewish people. That said, some members of Svoboda do seem to have rather interesting views on the Jews, given what I have read. You keep citing that Jewish leaders seem to think they are ok, but there are plenty that don’t, both inside and outside of Ukraine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda..._organizations

That they are a right-wing, extremist party. That they got x amount of the vote doesn’t overly surprise me; you only have to watch a Ukrainian (or pretty much any Eastern European) football match and wait till a black players touches the ball to realise that there is a sizable group that have a somewhat laissez-faire attitude towards race equality, or read party members openly boasting of attacking gay rights marches, which they described as ‘a Sabbath of 50 perverts’, or see a senior party member complain about a black singer representing Ukraine in the Eurovision as ‘not an organic representative of the Ukrainian culture’ and yet still receiving x amount of the vote to appreciate that it is a culture where right-wing extremism can prosper. I’m from a country where the equivalent party, the BNP, and who Svoboda till recently shared a platform with in Alliance of European National Movements, managed to get less than 2% of the vote at the last general election.
Forgive me if I’m not jumping for joy that Ukraine, with members of a party whose ideals I find truly despicable sitting in Government, are now trying to saddle up to the EU. And whilst you are seemingly free to post on here wildly biased views

You have stopped discussing about, most of my views, and as you are not coming back with any arguments I presume, you now have conceded most of my other points and you are now simply focusing on if Svoboda is a racist far right party.

You have already stated you think they are all a bunch of Far-right extremists. I think you judge them by a different set of rules. As for the Euro-vision representative, we will need to agree to differ. With a black population of less then 0.01% It's hardly representative of Ukrainian Culture.

If you deny them to speak out against this (without calling them racist) then well, you need to take a look at your own views imho. Someone who thinks that, this is racist, is living in the thought police, political correctness bubble that exists in the UK. The politics of the UK are so watered down here, it's difficult to form a realistic view of other countries. Almost all other countries in the world have a more wide political spectrum that the UK. Bear in mind we live in a country, where if you fly the St. George cross, you are automatically branded, at best, uneducated & working class and at worst racist or a football hooligan.

Also you only have to go to Italy, southern Spain, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania parts of Germany, Denmark, Poland and even France these days to see exactly the same behavior. As for football hooligans, the ones in Lazio are probably the worlds worst.

I was really asking you what your point is about the Ukraine / Russia situation.

Because Russia say that Svoboda are anti-semetic and that is the threat. You say they are far-right, and that is a threat to who exactly? How in your mind does Svobada having 3 seats in the government effect the situation in Ukraine? The whole of the EU is littered with far left and far right political parties. How does it make Ukraine any different?

What makes this (far-right) party as you call it a threat to Russia or anyone else?

[TooNice]

I would imagine that, to ethnic Russians, recognition of Russian as an official language is symbolic more than anything else. By refusing to recognise it as such, especially in areas where demographically ethnic Russians are the majority, serves nothing but to firstly antagonise that group and secondly, allow credence to the claims that Pro-Russian people are being ignored by their supposed Government in Kiev.

In regards to the official language, I don't know if there is a "right" answer. An example of "why not" would be looking at the Switzerland. Four official languages, including the Romansh language, despite the later being spoken by less than 1% of the population. Then, there are a number of countries who recognise the language used by a significant ethnic minority population, yet many others who do not. So no matter what the Government in Kiev does, it will not be without precedent. I would definitely be against any government trying to suppress the use of the language, but I am not convinced that it is necessarily for a country to have many official languages (even though works out fine that way in Switzerland).

One thing I do feel quite strongly about, is that ethnicity shouldn't (as opposed to haven't) have a place in border dispute / national policies. In my opinion, if a person is from a given country (by nationality), and choose to stay and live in that country, it is crazy for said person to complain about said country not being part of another country, or that it does not officially recognise another country's culture / language. If you prefer something as fundamental as the language / culture of another country (be it related to your ethnicity or otherwise), wouldn't it be better to move there than to try and mess up the lives of those who are content to be there? By the same token, it is also crazy in my mind for country A to get involved in country B on the basis that some of country B's citizens may have some roots in country A. If they are not officially your citizens and then they aren't yours to protect (I make an exception for human rights abuse - but in that case, it would be to defend human rights in general, as opposed to ethnic group X).

Note that while the above comment is applicable to this situation in Ukraine, it is something I feel about in general. Generally, I find the whole concept of ethnicity poorly defined and something that should be made obsolete as soon as possible.

[j1979]

Russia Today's view on current events in Sloviansk... I love the way they sound shocked that there may be 15,000 Ukrainian troops, inside Ukraine. How dare they have troops in their own country!?

They are suggesting Ukraine are fighting without insigia and as Pro-Ukrainians. If true, good on them! I can't beleive it took them so long.

http://rt.com/news/155104-soledar-uk...litary-attack/


They are also air dropping leaflets of how to survive a Russian occupation. I presume the only TV in Sloviansk is Russian. But no friends in this town, so can't be sure. There is a translation of the leaflet in the link below.

http://euromaidanpr.com/2014/04/26/i...-in-sloviansk/

[j1979]

http://20committee.com/2014/04/26/sl...muda-triangle/


This article is of a transcript of a Belorussian journalist in Sloviansk. It tells of one of the first reports of ethnic cleansing of the Roma in Ukraine. if true, no doubt this information will take a week or so to make it to the mainstream media.

I have been looking at and speaking with friends, as to the reasons why Sloviansk is the flash point in east Ukraine. The reasons are apparently obvious. Sloviansk is in the middle of Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk and Dnepropetrovsk. It has an airfield of it's own and is close to the Ukrainian air force base in Kramatorsk.

It has It has rail and main road links to Russia to the north and the south east, it has a forested area, perfect for gorilla warfare, It as a large natural water supply, It has hills for artillery, and the number of rivers would make it harder for an Ukrainian infantry assault.

In short Sloviansk has not been the site where unrest started, but was the area chosen by the Kremlin as the best place to start an invasion. They still deny Russian involvement, but the evidence of Russian special forces in Sloviansk, is overwhelming.

Russia are calling for the release of OSCE monitors publicly, but I am sure behind the scenes they are happy for them to be used as human shields.

It's strange that the west still sit there twiddling their thumbs, when really, we should be arming Ukraine to the teeth, ready for then to defend themselves from the Russian blitzkrieg.


EDIT:

Moldova to get visa free travel from Monday, just to the Schengen zone, so no need for UKIP to cry just yet.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3Q0AS20140427


EDIT2:

one of the OSCE observers has been released on Medical Grounds. (the Swedish member).


EDIT3:

Quotes from Igor Strelkov the main "pro-Rissian" man in Sloviansk.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...49256?mod=e2tw

EDIT4:

Following reports of what Tony Brenton said on the BBC. He should not be given airtime. To say that the extremists in Sloviansk are local, is not true. Certainly their leadership is mainly from Crimea and Russia.

Fuming at the moment on what Tony Brenton said.

He said these are not Russian forces but the "pro-Russians" are mainly made up of local Grandmas!

Well take a look at the youtube video and the photo taken at the entrance of the building a little later that evening.


Clearly the same building, clearly the same guy, clearly Russian standard issue weapons, clearly not an old women, clearly not local people.

Posting the same photo again so that people can see my point.

[j1979]

The Plot thickens....

So the reason Simon Ostrovsky of VICE news was kidnapped was because he had interviewed the guy in the photo above. The guy from the photo above is claiming to be this guy. http://vk.com/spets80



Watch the interview and make up your own mind. He is from Russia, claiming to be a Cossack. As they have started to wear Cossack hats.


He gives the name as Alexander Mozheav, and this is what the passport says, but his VK.com page his name is Alexander Ganichev. Also look at the his photo #397. he has a very similar color to his beard to the special forces guy. And the faces don't look too similar in my opinion. http://vk.com/spets80




Now, a few of them seem to started to where the cossack hats of late, so I decided to look for more photos from Grozny 2008 on the old internet.

I came up with this from Reuters news agency. Grozny 2008

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/0...56844920080623

Who I think looks a lot like this guy in Sloviansk (who also started to where a Cossack hat)
Evgeny “Dingo” Ponomarev http://vk.com/dingo31






Remember the CEO / main guy at vk.com fled Russia this week after refusing to give in to Kremlin demands, for access to data. Well maybe I found the reason. Alexander Mozheav a Kremlin Stooge sent after the cat was out the bag, Alexander Ganichev a special forces guy that was in Grozny in 2008? Who knows for sure, is it the same guy or not? Undecided here , but something does not add up.