Ukraine War Thread

[cosmicalstorm]

Machinegun fire against chopper passing by:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a19_1399018471

Chopper crashing on the horizon:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=12c_1399002090

[EnterpriseSovereign]

More fighting, only this time it was the pro-Russians that suffered- a bunch of them were driven back into a building they'd been occupying which was set alight; the resulting fire killed dozens.

[bobalot]

More fighting, only this time it was the pro-Russians that suffered- a bunch of them were driven back into a building they'd been occupying which was set alight; the resulting fire killed dozens.

A elected government opens fire on demonstrators occupying buildings = Bloody crackdown that is completely unacceptable to West.
An unelected government opens fire on demonstrators occupying buildings = A heroic police action that is completely acceptable to West.

This is hilarious stuff. The ridiculousness one-sided reporting by the media reminds me of the media coverage leading up to the Iraq war.

[Kane Starkiller]

The people in Odesa died during a clash between pro Russian and pro Ukrainian groups not because government forces fired on them. Rebels in the east are well organized armed forces equipped with APCs that are moving to neutralize government control of the towns in the east and blockade roads connecting them. Together with Russian military buildup near the border and Russian threats of intervention this is a setup to replicate what happened in Crimea.

That is the context of the situation: toppling of a government vs separatists supported one way or another by an expansionist country to the east.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

More fighting, only this time it was the pro-Russians that suffered- a bunch of them were driven back into a building they'd been occupying which was set alight; the resulting fire killed dozens.

A elected government opens fire on demonstrators occupying buildings = Bloody crackdown that is completely unacceptable to West.
An unelected government opens fire on demonstrators occupying buildings = A heroic police action that is completely acceptable to West.

This is hilarious stuff. The ridiculousness one-sided reporting by the media reminds me of the media coverage leading up to the Iraq war.

It doesn't help that the weapons the separatists are using are reportedly coming from Russia- no surprises there!

From what's being reported is that this was in a city where the pro-Russians were actually a minority and were outnumbered by pro-Ukranians. And in the wake of yesterday's humiliating defeat, the police were nowhere to be found amidst all this. The media over here are saying it's heading towards civil war, and it's only a matter of when, not if, the Russians move in. They say that while Russia is guaranteed to win it's still going to be a very bloody battle when the shit really hits the fan.

What's hilarious is that Putin will claim it's in the name of protecting ethnic Russians when really he's just looking for an excuse to take more territory.

[ZOmegaZ]

I don't know who are these people who claim that unrest in the east is a complete fabrication of Putin. Clearly there is a portion of the population that wishes to join up with Russia but the question is what is their percentage. Russian actions encourage the pro Russian population while intimidating those that wish to stay within Ukraine.

From the interviews I've heard (which are absolutely not a statistically significant sample, of course) a lot of people in eastern Ukraine believe the new government to be entirely made up of fascists and Nazis. My guess is that they believe this because they consume Russian propaganda. So this unrest exists within the population, but it's arguably still created by Putin.

[Vympel]

From the interviews I've heard (which are absolutely not a statistically significant sample, of course) a lot of people in eastern Ukraine believe the new government to be entirely made up of fascists and Nazis. My guess is that they believe this because they consume Russian propaganda. So this unrest exists within the population, but it's arguably still created by Putin.

The Kiev government consists of fascists and Nazis. That's just a fact, no matter how much the west's propagandists try and minimize it. Together with their obvious disenfranchisement, that's all the easterners need. The notion that the easterners would have to believe the entire government is made up of them in order to be pissed off is ludicrous.

[Kane Starkiller]

The whole "nazis and fashists" is nothing but a convenient excuse on the part of separatists and Russia. Protesters in the east are tearing down Ukrainian flags and putting Russian ones. Suddenly they don't feel Ukrainian any more because the government changed a month ago? This is clearly something planned long ago and now set in motion. Russia is engaging in land grabs: instead of calming the situation they are clearly determined to change the borders before the presidential elections in May 25 and the only excuse is the bad bad fascists in Kiev even though no real crimes were committed by the government.

[bobalot]

The whole "nazis and fashists" is nothing but a convenient excuse on the part of separatists and Russia. Protesters in the east are tearing down Ukrainian flags and putting Russian ones. Suddenly they don't feel Ukrainian any more because the government changed a month ago? This is clearly something planned long ago and now set in motion. Russia is engaging in land grabs: instead of calming the situation they are clearly determined to change the borders before the presidential elections in May 25 and the only excuse is the bad bad fascists in Kiev even though no real crimes were committed by the government.

Crimes? How about overthrowing a democratically elected government through a coup and disenfranchising the entire eastern region of Ukraine of representation in the government?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The whole "nazis and fashists" is nothing but a convenient excuse on the part of separatists and Russia. Protesters in the east are tearing down Ukrainian flags and putting Russian ones. Suddenly they don't feel Ukrainian any more because the government changed a month ago? This is clearly something planned long ago and now set in motion. Russia is engaging in land grabs: instead of calming the situation they are clearly determined to change the borders before the presidential elections in May 25 and the only excuse is the bad bad fascists in Kiev even though no real crimes were committed by the government.

Crimes? How about overthrowing a democratically elected government through a coup and disenfranchising the entire eastern region of Ukraine of representation in the government?

BAH.

Let me summarise the various stances. The Pro-US bloc believes everything the Russians say is false, and vice versa.

But quite frankly, this is a pissing contest between the US and Russia, and it has become rather bloody juvenile and damn irritating. Just carve up the damn country and be done with it.

[Vympel]

The whole "nazis and fashists" is nothing but a convenient excuse on the part of separatists and Russia. Protesters in the east are tearing down Ukrainian flags and putting Russian ones. Suddenly they don't feel Ukrainian any more because the government changed a month ago? This is clearly something planned long ago and now set in motion.

Bullshit. If it was planned, what was the contingency? An anti-Russian coup spearheaded by right-wing ultranationlists like Right Sector and Russophobic Banderite political parties like Svoboda? Its pretty easy to belittle how the people who are actually close to Russia in eastern Ukraine feel about being disenfranchised and treated like second class citizens by their new unelected overlords in the west, but its simply not the case that everyone in the East is a "separatist". Many of them merely want federalization and broader autonomy.

Given the Kiev government's economic plans spell ruin for them, this is hardly surprising

Further, "feeling Ukrainian" is I'm sure for many, especially in the east, a nonsense phrase. Ukraine is a pseudo-country with no real national identity, a territory enlarged by numerous territorial bequests over its history - bequests from Russia's rulers (whether the Tsars or the Soviets). The border between it and Russia was a pure fiction for the longest time until 1991. That separatism and nostalgia for the way things used to be exists and has been inflamed by recent events is not surprising and certainly doesn't tend towards this ludicrous idea that this is some sort of pre-planned concoction.

Russia is engaging in land grabs: instead of calming the situation they are clearly determined to change the borders before the presidential elections in May 25 and the only excuse is the bad bad fascists in Kiev even though no real crimes were committed by the government.

ROFLMAO. Yeah, its solely incumbent on Russia to "calm" the situation. Meanwhile Kiev is sending in the Army to kill people, something even Yanukvoych never did. Jesus Christ.

What I find ludicrous is an unelected government which came to power via a coup, which includes a political party like Svoboda is apparently supposed to be tolerated by a populace which despises it merely because it has committed "no real crimes". Apparently deploying the Army to kill people (oh sorry, Kiev calls them "terrorists" - and no one in the West bats an eye) who have merely taken over government buildings is the act of a rational and just ruler.

The government in Kiev is illegitimate. It comprises ultra-nationalist, right wing fascist fuckbags. These are not controversial facts. These are glaringly obvious facts. And the US and EU is carrying water for them as they deploy military force against the segment of the population that wants no part of them, or their suicidal plan* for the country (read: "terrorists"). It's repulsive, and the rank propaganda seeking to turn an entire segment of Ukraine's population into Putinist stooges is just that - propaganda.

It takes a really gullible people- aka members of the western press - to actually believe that Russian provocateurs could survive in eastern Ukraine if they didn't have significant local support - nevermind that the presence of any Russian government provocateurs remains completely unproven.

*The plan being:

1. Join the EU
2. AUSTERITY
3. ????
4. PROFIT

[Kane Starkiller]

Bullshit. If it was planned, what was the contingency? An anti-Russian coup spearheaded by right-wing ultranationlists like Right Sector and Russophobic Banderite political parties like Svoboda? Its pretty easy to belittle how the people who are actually close to Russia in eastern Ukraine feel about being disenfranchised and treated like second class citizens by their new unelected overlords in the west, but its simply not the case that everyone in the East is a "separatist". Many of them merely want federalization and broader autonomy.

The contingency was any move by Ukraine on a more independent path from Russia. How about you actually present some evidence that everyone in the east is being treated like a second class evidence and how it compares to hundreds of other countries with multiple ethnicities. Should they all fall apart?
And I know what kind of "federalization" Russia has in mind: the ability of regions to make their own treaties with other countries and veto any decisions of the central government.

Further, "feeling Ukrainian" is I'm sure for many, especially in the east, a nonsense phrase. Ukraine is a pseudo-country with no real national identity, a territory enlarged by numerous territorial bequests over its history - bequests from Russia's rulers (whether the Tsars or the Soviets). The border between it and Russia was a pure fiction for the longest time until 1991. That separatism and nostalgia for the way things used to be exists and has been inflamed by recent events is not surprising and certainly doesn't tend towards this ludicrous idea that this is some sort of pre-planned concoction.

Spoken like a true Russian apologist. Every country in the world was 10 years old at some point in its history. It seems to me that 77% of the entire Ukrainian population that voted for independence in 1991 had plenty of self awareness as Ukrainians. The fact that the pro Russian forces immediately went for ripping down Ukrainian flags, getting armored transports, and weapons proves this wasn't some kind of grassrots reaction to "FASCISTS!!!" government in Kiev.

ROFLMAO. Yeah, its solely incumbent on Russia to "calm" the situation. Meanwhile Kiev is sending in the Army to kill people, something even Yanukvoych never did. Jesus Christ.

What I find ludicrous is an unelected government which came to power via a coup, which includes a political party like Svoboda is apparently supposed to be tolerated by a populace which despises it merely because it has committed "no real crimes". Apparently deploying the Army to kill people who have merely taken over government buildings is the act of a rational and just ruler.

The government in Kiev is illegitimate. It comprises ultra-nationalist, right wing fascist fuckbags. These are not controversial facts. These are glaringly obvious facts. And the US and EU is carrying water for them as they deploy military force against the segment of the population that wants no part of them, or their suicidal plan* for the country. It's repulsive, and the rank propaganda seeking to turn an entire segment of Ukraine's population into Putinist stooges is just that - propaganda.

It takes a really gullible people- aka members of the western press - to actually believe that Russian provocateurs could survive in eastern Ukraine if they didn't have significant local support - nevermind that the presence of any Russian government provocateurs remains completely unproven.

*The plan being:

1. Join the EU
2. AUSTERITY
3. ????
4. PROFIT

More lies. Separatists have wrested control of cities and put roadblocks on vital roadways. They have military grade weapons and equipment. Is the government supposed simply to surrender control to these people? Even while Russia is massing its troops at the border and warning Ukrainian government not to intervene in the east? In other words Russia has already taken it upon itself to speak for eastern Ukraine?
And yes it is primarily up to Russia to calm the situation since Russia is the primary culprit: it already absorbed parts of Ukraine and is massing troops near the border and issuing threats.
And again with the strawman. No one is saying that there isn't a widespread support for joining Russia in the east. The question is how many and under what conditions? How can there be any sort of democratic process under these conditions?
Also LOL at your "glaringly obvious facts" that the government in Kiev are "ultra-nationalist, right wing fascist fuckbags". These are not facts. These are your insults which in no way justify ongoing Russian landgrab.

P.S.
I forgot to note the continued tendency of Russian apologists to try and pretend that support for Ukrainian unity and opposition to Russian landgrab equals full and unquestioning support for the current government in Kiev.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The contingency was any move by Ukraine on a more independent path from Russia. How about you actually present some evidence that everyone in the east is being treated like a second class evidence and how it compares to hundreds of other countries with multiple ethnicities. Should they all fall apart?
And I know what kind of "federalization" Russia has in mind: the ability of regions to make their own treaties with other countries and veto any decisions of the central government.

Meh. Be honest. Will you believe anything Russia says at all?

[Vympel]

The contingency was any move by Ukraine on a more independent path from Russia.

I guess that explains why the Russians did the exact same thing as what's happening now during the Orange Revolution of 2004, eh? Oh wait, that never happened. Any more brilliant theories?

The Russians always had the capacity to do what they did / what they are doing (whatever that's supposed to be) in Crimea / east Ukraine. That's just a fact of history. It doesn't mean they had some pre-existing master plan.

How about you actually present some evidence

ROFLMAO. This from the guy who just pulled a gigantic Russian conspiracy completely out of his ass, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. You've got some nerve, you know that?

that everyone in the east is being treated like a second class evidence and how it compares to hundreds of other countries with multiple ethnicities. Should they all fall apart?

Clearly you know nothing about Ukraine's politics whatsoever. Svoboda is a note anti-Russian party, and their anti-Russian rhetoric is a matter of public record. A significant portion of the population in the east doesn't like this rhetoric. They also don't like the idea of an EU association agreement which is going to destroy their economic ties with Russia, and they certainly don't like the status of the language they speak being violated - which was one of the first acts of the new Kiev government.

And I know what kind of "federalization" Russia has in mind: the ability of regions to make their own treaties with other countries and veto any decisions of the central government.

Why is that a problem? Why is it unacceptable that the regions should get to veto the decisions of the central government? Any particular reason?

Spoken like a true Russian apologist.

Uh huh. If there's one thing that's becoming increasingly clear, its that you're a Russophobe. Consider the above comment about the "federalization" Russia has in mind - note you don't even bother to explain what's wrong with this proposal - Russia wants it, therefore in your mind it must be bad, therefore whatever the central government wants - the unelected coup government - mind you - must be good. You're not thinking at all. You're on total autopilot.

Every country in the world was 10 years old at some point in its history.[/qu It seems to me that 77% of the entire Ukrainian population that voted for independence in 1991 had plenty of self awareness as Ukrainians.

Big fucking shit? How does that invalidate a word of what I said? History still matters.

The fact that the pro Russian forces immediately went for ripping down Ukrainian flags, getting armored transports, and weapons proves this wasn't some kind of grassrots reaction to "FASCISTS!!!" government in Kiev.

How does it prove that? And you're so damn clueless - the only "armored transports" they got was from the Ukrainian army unit that gave them up to the forces in Donetsk when Kiev sent them in! Do you follow what's going on in Ukraine at all?

More lies.

What's a lie? What, exactly, in what I just said, is a lie? Can you even say?

Separatists have wrested control of cities and put roadblocks on vital roadways. They have military grade weapons and equipment. Is the government supposed simply to surrender control to these people?

They're supposed to abide by the agreement they signed in Geneva, actually. There's nothing in the Geneva agreement that can be considered to allow Kiev to launch a military attack on them, which is what you're clearly advocating even though you're trying to avoid specifically saying so, probably because your moral reservations are interfering with a default-anti-Russian stance.

Even while Russia is massing its troops at the border and warning Ukrainian government not to intervene in the east? In other words Russia has already taken it upon itself to speak for eastern Ukraine?

How the fuck does this justify Kiev's actions? Russia will go through Ukraine's pathetic army like a wet paper bag if they elect to intervene in Ukraine. Clearly, this is an awesome reason for them to attack the east!

And yes it is primarily up to Russia to calm the situation since Russia is the primary culprit: it already absorbed parts of Ukraine and is massing troops near the border and issuing threats.

Utter nonsense. There's nothing stopping all sides from leaving shit as it is and negotiating, as contemplated by the Geneva agreement. Once all parties are satisfied, they can let go of their leverage - i.e. the levers of state power if you're Kiev, and the seizure of government buildings in the East if you're the anti-Maidan forces. Kiev has far more responsibility to calm the situation than Russia - Russia isn't the one launching military attacks on Ukrainian cities.

And again with the strawman. No one is saying that there isn't a widespread support for joining Russia in the east. The question is how many and under what conditions? How can there be any sort of democratic process under these conditions?

That can be sorted out when the constitutional reforms and the process for implementing them are discussed and sorted, obviously. Which likely won't happen given Kiev's attack.

Also LOL at your "glaringly obvious facts" that the government in Kiev are "ultra-nationalist, right wing fascist fuckbags". These are not facts. These are your insults which in no way justify ongoing Russian landgrab.

They fucking are facts, no matter how inconvenient you find it that the Russians are right and you are wrong. That you're too clueless to google "Svoboda party", or any of its members, is really not my problem.

Get a fucking clue

And here's an article before the west found it convenient to white wash them

In 2004, Tyahnybok was kicked out of former President Viktor Yushchenko's parliamentary faction for a speech calling for Ukrainians to fight against a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia" - using two highly insulting words to describe Russians and Jews - and emphasising that Ukrainians had in the past fought this threat with arms.

In 2005, he signed an open letter to Ukrainian leaders, including President Yushchenko, calling for the government to halt the "criminal activities" of "organised Jewry", which, the letter said, was spreading its influence in the country through conspiratorial organisations as the Anti-Defamation League - and which ultimately wanted to commit "genocide" against the Ukrainian people.

P.S.
I forgot to note the continued tendency of Russian apologists to try and pretend that support for Ukrainian unity and opposition to Russian landgrab equals full and unquestioning support for the current government in Kiev.

Since you're clearly trying to whitewash the coup government by repeatedly calling the facts about their composition "lies" and "insults", this is a humorous comment to say the least. I have enough self-awareness to call Putin out for what he is, as well as explain Russia's actions for what they actually are, not what the Russians say they are. I've done that repeatedly in this thread. The difference is I also don't believe the reams of complete bilge coming out of the west's media-propaganda-complex about what caused this crisis, or what's causing it to continue.

[Kane Starkiller]

I guess that explains why the Russians did the exact same thing as what's happening now during the Orange Revolution of 2004, eh? Oh wait, that never happened. Any more brilliant theories?

The Russians always had the capacity to do what they did / what they are doing (whatever that's supposed to be) in Crimea / east Ukraine. That's just a fact of history. It doesn't mean they had some pre-existing master plan.

The fact that they didn't execute the plan then doesn't mean it didn't exist. It's not a theory. It's already in motion. Crimea is gone, east is the next step. As soon as the new government was in office there was immediate appearance of armed groups in crimea and east with a goal of joining up with Russia.

ROFLMAO. This from the guy who just pulled a gigantic Russian conspiracy completely out of his ass, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. You've got some nerve, you know that?

Russia is in the process of stealing Ukrainian territory. It took Russia a couple of weeks to secure Crimea. What further evidence do you require? And I'm still waiting for evidence of Ukrainian government treating people in the east as second class citizens justifying violent secession.

Clearly you know nothing about Ukraine's politics whatsoever. Svoboda is a note anti-Russian party, and their anti-Russian rhetoric is a matter of public record. A significant portion of the population in the east doesn't like this rhetoric. They also don't like the idea of an EU association agreement which is going to destroy their economic ties with Russia, and they certainly don't like the status of the language they speak being violated - which was one of the first acts of the new Kiev government.

Except the language law wasn't actually implemented. What is left? "Anti Russian rethoric". This justifies violent attempt at secession?

Why is that a problem? Why is it unacceptable that the regions should get to veto the decisions of the central government? Any particular reason?

Because if any decision can be vetoed by any region it's no longer a unified country? Because Ukraine would be paralyzed? But sure if this is something Ukraine were to decide upon internally why not, it's their decision. But not when it's benevolently suggested by Lavrov.

Uh huh. If there's one thing that's becoming increasingly clear, its that you're a Russophobe. Consider the above comment about the "federalization" Russia has in mind - note you don't even bother to explain what's wrong with this proposal - Russia wants it, therefore in your mind it must be bad, therefore whatever the central government wants - the unelected coup government - mind you - must be good. You're not thinking at all. You're on total autopilot.

LOL. You dismiss Ukraine as a "pseudo-country", I reject your statements as obvious Russian expansionist propaganda and suddenly I'm a Russophobe. You also insist on continued strawmaning of my argument: having an unelected government in office is not good nor did I claim it is. In no way does this justify ripping a country at the seams and deliberately escalating the situation before the May 25 presidential elections. There are plenty of multiethnic countries with unelected leadership, should they all be broken apart?

Big fucking shit? How does that invalidate a word of what I said? History still matters.

It is very clear how it invalidates what you said. You said that Ukrainians don't have a sense of self identity yet the independence referendum refutes that. In other words Ukrainians obviously didn't think in 1991 that Ukraine was just a "pseudo-country" or that they are a "pseudo-nation". The only thing that was missing out of your appeal to history is the "Russia is the defender of orthodoxy" argument.

How does it prove that? And you're so damn clueless - the only "armored transports" they got was from the Ukrainian army unit that gave them up to the forces in Donetsk when Kiev sent them in! Do you follow what's going on in Ukraine at all?

I have heard of incidents where militias seized Ukrainian equipment. How does this translate into such incidents being the only venue of acquiring military equipment? They are clearly armed, have military equipment and uniforms. What should be the approach? Simply let them do whatever they want? Move across the country wherever thy want?

What's a lie? What, exactly, in what I just said, is a lie? Can you even say?

The claim that Ukrainian government is attacking people who have taken over some buildings rather than militarily armed men that disrupted control over entire towns and blockaded roads.

They're supposed to abide by the agreement they signed in Geneva, actually. There's nothing in the Geneva agreement that can be considered to allow Kiev to launch a military attack on them, which is what you're clearly advocating even though you're trying to avoid specifically saying so, probably because your moral reservations are interfering with a default-anti-Russian stance.

According to Geneva accords the illegal armed militias must disarm and relinquish control of seized buildings. Did they disarm or relinquish control of buildings? How should a government react when armed men make roadblocks and independence is declared without any referendum? One could suggest patience but Crime was gone in two weeks so that is not really a safe course either.

How the fuck does this justify Kiev's actions? Russia will go through Ukraine's pathetic army like a wet paper bag if they elect to intervene in Ukraine. Clearly, this is an awesome reason for them to attack the east!

How does Russias obvious intent to expand its borders at the expense of Ukraine justify Ukraines desire to end the rebellion as soon as possible instead of waiting for them to entrench themselves? Gee I don't know.

Utter nonsense. There's nothing stopping all sides from leaving shit as it is and negotiating, as contemplated by the Geneva agreement. Once all parties are satisfied, they can let go of their leverage - i.e. the levers of state power if you're Kiev, and the seizure of government buildings in the East if you're the anti-Maidan forces. Kiev has far more responsibility to calm the situation than Russia - Russia isn't the one launching military attacks on Ukrainian cities.

Negotiate with whom? While Ukrainian government is not legitimate at least, say, Oleksandr Turchynov didn't just appear from the street. He was actually an elected member of parliament. Who is the mayor of Slaviansk? Some self proclaimed dude off the street. When the mayoral office is occupied by an unknown guy and roads are blocked things are not "calm".

That can be sorted out when the constitutional reforms and the process for implementing them are discussed and sorted, obviously. Which likely won't happen given Kiev's attack.

Attack was executed by armed militias remember? When they occupied buildings and blocked roads. And now they want to talk about constitutional reforms? But sure talking is better than fighting. If only Russians haven't shown how quickly they can snip off a part of your country.

They fucking are facts, no matter how inconvenient you find it that the Russians are right and you are wrong. That you're too clueless to google "Svoboda party", or any of its members, is really not my problem.

Get a fucking clue

And here's an article before the west found it convenient to white wash them

That is exactly the kind of propaganda I'm talking about. Calling government "fascist or nazi" in the context of justifying the breakup of the country requires more than someone calling Mila Kunis a jewess. Is insulting Jews worse than equating Pedofilia and Homosexuality as Putin has done? Are they whitewashing the crimes of Stepan Bandera who corroborated with Nazis and killed Poles? For Stalin that was Tuseday. How many Russians view Stalin as a positive figure.
Svoboda is not composed of nice people. But using them as justification for breaking up a country is bullshit.

Since you're clearly trying to whitewash the coup government by repeatedly calling the facts about their composition "lies" and "insults", this is a humorous comment to say the least. I have enough self-awareness to call Putin out for what he is, as well as explain Russia's actions for what they actually are, not what the Russians say they are. I've done that repeatedly in this thread. The difference is I also don't believe the reams of complete bilge coming out of the west's media-propaganda-complex about what caused this crisis, or what's causing it to continue.

But Svoboda was elected wasn't it? As bad as they are they weren't picked up from the street after the overthrow of the government. Nor is it whitewashing to point out that overthrow of a government doesn't justify armed secession since there is quite a number of countries today that fits that description.
Russians are clearly using this as an opportunity to expand their borders, this is not the evil media speaking. It happened and we all saw it.

[Vympel]

The fact that they didn't execute the plan then doesn't mean it didn't exist. It's not a theory. It's already in motion. Crimea is gone, east is the next step. As soon as the new government was in office there was immediate appearance of armed groups in crimea and east with a goal of joining up with Russia.

Prove this plan existed.

Russia is in the process of stealing Ukrainian territory. It took Russia a couple of weeks to secure Crimea. What further evidence do you require? And I'm still waiting for evidence of Ukrainian government treating people in the east as second class citizens justifying violent secession.

How is this evidence for your claims? Do you understand the difference between opportunism and a pre-existing plan? You've got no evidence, just give it up. It took Russia a couple of weeks to secure Crimea because - as everyone knows - Crimea is territory highly sympathetic to Russia (since it is historically Russian) with well over ten thousand Russian troops there to impose a new reality.

Except the language law wasn't actually implemented.

Oh! Then that makes it ok! Hey, everyone in the East - don't worry about it, the law was vetoed. What's that? You have no guarantee it won't happen again the moment you stop raising hell? Nevermind, Kane Starkiller is willing to live with it.

What is left? "Anti Russian rethoric". This justifies violent attempt at secession?

What violent attempt at secession? I'm sorry, but taking over government buildings without ever actually killing anyone is not particularly violent. Its about what the Maidan initially did to protest the lack of an agreement with the EU, actually. Before they graduated to tossing molotov cocktails at riot cops. I trust you were ok with that?

Because if any decision can be vetoed by any region it's no longer a unified country? Because Ukraine would be paralyzed?

What rubbish. Since when was Ukraine ever unified? Its history has been nothing but one side of the country imposing its will on the other, and vice versa. The coup against Yanukovych, has broken any illusion of a "unified country" - that much is obvious. This is how you pick up the pieces. You're proceeding from the default position that a decision from Kiev is somehow inherently desireable - but there's no reason to think that's the case.

But sure if this is something Ukraine were to decide upon internally why not, it's their decision. But not when it's benevolently suggested by Lavrov.

That's the whole idea. The proposal is not to unilaterally impose federalisation, its to have a referendum on it.

LOL. You dismiss Ukraine as a "pseudo-country", I reject your statements as obvious Russian expansionist propaganda and suddenly I'm a Russophobe.

It is a pseudo-country, and it has nothing to do with Russian expansionism. The notion that Russia intends to take eastern Ukraine is in and of itself a delusion - Russia has no apparent desire to bear the economic costs of intergrating the east into its economy directly, supporting the population, or copping far more serious economic sanctions as a result.

I say you're a Russophobe because you declare the events going on in Ukraine as some vast Russian conspiracy as opposed to what it is, an opportunistic great power conflict with the US and EU trying to smuggle Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence, and the Russians taking exception; and as previously indicated you're much more interested in preventing anything being construed to Russia's advantage - even if its objectively desireable to do so - purely because its to Russia's advantage.

You also insist on continued strawmaning of my argument: having an unelected government in office is not good nor did I claim it is. In no way does this justify ripping a country at the seams and deliberately escalating the situation before the May 25 presidential elections. There are plenty of multiethnic countries with unelected leadership, should they all be broken apart?

That depends - how much self-determination do you think is acceptable?

It is very clear how it invalidates what you said. You said that Ukrainians don't have a sense of self identity yet the independence referendum refutes that. In other words Ukrainians obviously didn't think in 1991 that Ukraine was just a "pseudo-country" or that they are a "pseudo-nation". The only thing that was missing out of your appeal to history is the "Russia is the defender of orthodoxy" argument.

That's complete rubbish. Ukraine didn't vote to remove itself from Russia in 1991, it removed itself from the Soviet Union, the same as Russia did. Did you forget about the USSR's existence? You've simply falsely conflated the breakup of the Soviet Union with a fantastical "we are Ukrainian!" national identity. And check your history - the situation back then was so confused that many believed that the constituent parts of the Soviet Union would reconsitute themselves as a union of sovereign states.

I have heard of incidents where militias seized Ukrainian equipment. How does this translate into such incidents being the only venue of acquiring military equipment? They are clearly armed, have military equipment and uniforms. What should be the approach? Simply let them do whatever they want? Move across the country wherever thy want?

Don't change the subject - you said that their seizure of military equipment somehow proved that this was something other than a spontaneous popular insurrection. I still fail to see how it does. As for the approach, it should be detente. There's no indication of the anti-Maidan forces moving past the checkpoints in the various cities they control. There ain't no separatist expansionist invasion in the offing.

The claim that Ukrainian government is attacking people who have taken over some buildings rather than militarily armed men that disrupted control over entire towns and blockaded roads.

Are you serious? This is a significant difference to you? So if the Maidan forces had automatic weapons instead of molotov cocktails, would you support Yanukvoych liquidating them with armored vehicles?

According to Geneva accords the illegal armed militias must disarm and relinquish control of seized buildings.

No, the Geneva accords provide that all groups must disarm and relinquish control of seized buildings - that includes the Maidan. But the Geneva statement imposes no timeline on when this is to occur. There is nothing stopping negotiations, as contemplated by the Geneva statement, starting now.

Did they disarm or relinquish control of buildings? How should a government react when armed men make roadblocks and independence is declared without any referendum? One could suggest patience but Crime was gone in two weeks so that is not really a safe course either.

They should react as they said they would react when they signed the Geneva statement, and negotiate.

How does Russias obvious intent to expand its borders at the expense of Ukraine justify Ukraines desire to end the rebellion as soon as possible instead of waiting for them to entrench themselves? Gee I don't know.

Oh please - you're acting as if Ukraine has a choice in the matter if Russia decides to go into east Ukraine, which is my whole point. They don't. Russia has repeatedly threatened that if they launch a full scale attack, they'll send in the army. Russia's forces would wipe their forces out in a matter of a day. And its complete nonsense that what's going on in east Ukraine is "Russia's obvious intent to expand its borders at the expense of Ukraine" - they've made no moves in that regard at all, and there's good reason to expect they won't.

Negotiate with whom? While Ukrainian government is not legitimate at least, say, Oleksandr Turchynov didn't just appear from the street. He was actually an elected member of parliament. Who is the mayor of Slaviansk? Some self proclaimed dude off the street. When the mayoral office is occupied by an unknown guy and roads are blocked things are not "calm".

What about a mayoral office being occupied, or a road being blocked says that things aren't calm? Is he launching mortars at people? These people are operating with the consent of population (not all of them, but enough). As for who to negotiate with, the anti-Maidan forces will have to nominate representatives.

Attack was executed by armed militias remember? When they occupied buildings and blocked roads. And now they want to talk about constitutional reforms? But sure talking is better than fighting. If only Russians haven't shown how quickly they can snip off a part of your country.

You keep talking about occupying buildings and blocking roads is some sort of really scary, unacceptable attack. They're not. They're no different from what the Maidan did in Kiev.

That is exactly the kind of propaganda I'm talking about. Calling government "fascist or nazi" in the context of justifying the breakup of the country requires more than someone calling Mila Kunis a jewess. Is insulting Jews worse than equating Pedofilia and Homosexuality as Putin has done? Are they whitewashing the crimes of Stepan Bandera who corroborated with Nazis and killed Poles? For Stalin that was Tuseday. How many Russians view Stalin as a positive figure.
Svoboda is not composed of nice people. But using them as justification for breaking up a country is bullshit.

Whoever said their existence was a justification for the breakup of the fucking country? Certainly not I. What I said was that east Ukraine had a legitimate grievance in being subjected to these scum. The rest of your paragraph is just a bunch of inane red herrings that again speak to Russophobia - instead of talking about, you know, how the pro-Russian east would and should feel about these ratbags being in government, you launch into a moral equivalence escapade about Stalin. I mean Jesus Christ.

As an aside, does anything justify breaking up a country, in your view?

But Svoboda was elected wasn't it? As bad as they are they weren't picked up from the street after the overthrow of the government.

There's a differnece between having seats in Parliament and positions in cabinet. Svoboda would never get a cabinet seat in any actually legitimately elected government.

Nor is it whitewashing to point out that overthrow of a government doesn't justify armed secession since there is quite a number of countries today that fits that description.

You're speaking as if all countries have the same internal dynamics. We've seen the west support secession even where the government wasn't overthrown, if we're going to talk about what does and doesn't fit the description.

Russians are clearly using this as an opportunity to expand their borders, this is not the evil media speaking. It happened and we all saw it.

Yup, in Crimea. Now we're talking about Ukraine proper, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[fgalkin]

Incredibly, someone in the West is actually saying reasonable things about Ukraine. That's definitely a first

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/20 ... -to-peace/

As the first heavy fighting begins in eastern Ukraine, with an attempt by Ukrainian forces to retake the town of Sloviansk, and as violent clashes spread elsewhere, including now Odessa, in the country’s southwest, there is a growing sense that a larger confrontation, one that could involve Russia and the West, may be unavoidable. Such a perception is a terrible mistake. There is nothing inevitable about the future course of the conflict. It is absolutely essential for Western governments to focus on what they can do to avoid war, preserve democracy, and keep Ukraine united.

What they cannot do is help the government in Kiev to win with military force in the east. The rebel forces that have taken control of cities of the Donbas, the Russian-speaking industrial and mining region in the east, appear well organized, have much local popular support, and are implicitly backed by the 45,000 Russian troops deployed to the Ukrainian border. It would take many months—more probably, many years—for Ukrainian forces to reach sufficient strength to retake the Donbas swiftly and relatively bloodlessly, or to defeat a Russian invasion of the east and south of the country. Moves to raise Ukrainian nationalist volunteer forces should be strongly discouraged by the West. The intervention of such groups would risk repeating what has just happened in Odessa, where dozens of people were killed in street battles on May 2. It would make a Russian invasion a certainty.

And the West itself will not fight for Ukraine. All the blowhard posturing of US and European government officials cannot hide this essential fact. In these circumstances, to give the unelected interim government in Kiev the idea that we are giving it military backing is irresponsible, immoral, and contemptible. Did we really learn nothing from the experience of Georgia in 2008? For that matter, did we learn nothing in the playground at the age of six?

If Ukrainian forces continue their assault on rebel strongholds in eastern Ukraine, then only three things can happen, separately or in sequence: they will be beaten back with the help of Russian weaponry—such as that used to shoot down two Ukrainian helicopters at Sloviansk on Friday; they will retake one or two towns, after which Russia will reinforce other towns with lightly-disguised Russian special forces, making their capture much harder; and if Ukrainian forces resort to heavy weaponry to blast the rebels from their positions, Russia will invade. The only question then will be where the Russian army will stop: whether Moscow would be content to hold the Donbas, as it previously held South Ossetia and Abkhazia as quasi-independent statelets formally still part of Georgia, or whether it would go on to seize half of Ukraine.

What is truly strange and terrible about this looming disaster is that all the leading players already know and agree about what the only solution can be, even if they disagree on the details and the timing: a federal Ukraine with elected regional governments and robust protection for regional interests. This, not further separation, is what Moscow is proposing; and this is what the Ukrainian interim president, Olexander Turchynov, has publicly hinted at for the Donbas. Although the rebels in Donetsk and other eastern cities have declared the Donetsk Republic and are now planning an independence referendum on May 11, many easterners, too, have indicated that they want some kind of federalization and not independence or annexation to Russia. As interviews published in Sunday’s New York Times make clear, even some rebel commanders themselves hope to keep Ukraine united.

It is extremely important to note that regional autonomy—accompanied by a threat of independence—is what the government of the western region of Lviv, controlled by Ukrainian nationalists, declared for itself back in February, when it seemed that President Yanukovych would remain in power and take Ukraine into the Russian-dominated Eurasian Union. If Lviv could demand this as an insurance for its identity and interests when the national government was going in a direction it did not like, it is very hard to argue that Donetsk does not have the right to do the same. Nor is there any moral reason why the West cannot support federalization. The United States, Germany, Canada, and half a dozen other Western democracies are all federal states. Of course, we all know that a fundamental moral principle of Western foreign policy is that sauce for the goose can never under any circumstances be sauce for the gander—but to oppose a federal solution for Ukraine on such grounds is ridiculous.

Indeed, a constitutional solution to the crisis has already been supported by all sides—including Russia, the US, and Ukraine—in the Geneva Declaration of April 17, which called for Ukrainians from all parts of the country to disarm and take part in a national dialogue that would recognize regional interests. The problem with Geneva is that it did not set out an outline of the constitutional settlement—which will have to be agreed in advance before the rebel militias in eastern Ukraine will put down their weapons. There is also of course profound disagreement on the process by which constitutional change should be introduced, and how much regional autonomy should be granted.

President Turchynov suggested a referendum on autonomy for the Donbas to accompany the new presidential elections planned for May 25; but after the latest developments in Odessa and east Ukraine, it must surely now be acknowledged that these elections cannot take place on schedule, or until peace is restored. Nor, given the precedent in Lviv and the current protests elsewhere in Ukraine, can a case be made for a special status for the Donbas region alone. Far better to have an equal federation across the whole territory of Ukraine. (As for Crimea, we will have to content ourselves with formal statements to the effect that we regard Crimea as still legally part of Ukraine, while in practice making Crimea the subject of separate processes and talks—rather as with the northern Cyprus issue in the past. Unfortunately, if we make a peace process in Ukraine conditional on Russia giving up Crimea, there will be no peace process.)

Reality, and the long experience offered by such conflicts, shows that agreement on a new federal constitution for the country as a whole must be reached first, and ratified by a national referendum. The rebel militias in eastern Ukraine and the camp of demonstrators on the Maidan in Kiev should both agree not to use force and not to disrupt such a solution–-since clearly neither regional nor national democracy is possible if governments have to submit for approval to unelected crowds. Elections for the presidency, parliament, regional assemblies, and regional governorships can then be scheduled to take place simultaneously later in the year. Ideally, some kind of observer force would need to be put in place with United Nations backing to report on compliance by all sides.

Since the tragic killings in Odessa, it is no longer possible to deny that the Ukrainian crisis involves a serious threat from extreme nationalist groups as well as pro-Russian ones—and some of the extreme nationalists are sitting in the present interim government in Kiev. On the other hand, Russia undoubtedly has armed local allies in eastern Ukraine, which it has strengthened with some disguised Russian officers. But the masses of civilians who have blocked the path of Ukrainian troops in the Donbas show that the rebels also enjoy a very considerable measure of local support.

What all this reveals is something that should have been blindingly obvious ever since Ukraine became independent in 1991 and that is deeply rooted in Ukrainian history: Ukraine contains different identities, and cannot be ruled unilaterally by one of them alone, or pulled in a single geopolitical direction, without risking the breakup of the country itself. The huge demonstrations in Kiev this winter showed that Yanukovych’s and Moscow’s hope of taking Ukraine into the Eurasian Union was impossible, because many Ukrainians would literally give their lives to prevent it.

Now, events in the east and in Odessa make clear that a Ukrainian state that defines itself purely in pro-Western and anti-Russian terms is also out of the question, because a great many Ukrainians will not tolerate this either. In these circumstances, it is no good for one side to hope for absolute victory. When Russia tried for this with Yanukovych, the result was a fiasco, which among other things destroyed Russia’s influence over Ukraine as a whole. The West is now risking an even greater failure in the opposite direction.

Critics of federalization say that it would allow Russia to block Ukrainian moves toward NATO and the EU. What is surely apparent however is that Moscow and its allies in Ukraine have already done this. The goal of the West must be to get all the opposing forces in Ukraine off the streets and back within a legitimate democratic process that is recognized by a majority of Ukrainians, and that will allow the possibility of economic and political reforms by democratic means. Time is short. We saw again and again, in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and elsewhere in the 1990s, that once fighting begins, previously possible solutions quickly become impossible. This would be a tragedy—Ukraine does not need to be Yugoslavia or Georgia.

Contrary to what is said in much of the Western media, most of Russia’s allies in eastern Ukraine are not separatists. Rather, what many in the Donbas fear is that a government in Kiev—one that is either unelected or elected by a small majority, and which is under the sway of extreme nationalist demonstrators—will be able to decide their fate unilaterally. Thus, they are deeply opposed to the interim government in Kiev, but many of them continue to envision being a part of Ukraine in which they would have greater autonomy and recognition of regional rights and interests, rather than full independence. Until now, every opinion poll and election in the east has also suggested this.

But once a few hundred people have been killed, this reasonable position will quickly be destroyed. To return power to a reasonable majority, the international community must put forward the outline of a constitutional settlement on which a majority of Ukrainians can agree. It is hopeless to expect that the opposing sides themselves will be able to abide by a compromise proposal on their own, without outside help. The question then is whether Russia, the US, the EU, and the various parties in Ukraine including the Ukrainian government can reach agreement on the outlines of a federal constitution, which the UN Secretary General could then put forward. This will be an immensely difficult task in the days and weeks ahead. But the alternative could be catastrophic.

May 5, 2014, 2:15 p.m.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[K. A. Pital]

And too bad this window of opportunity is rapidly closing - just as all the previous such windows.

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/u ... ms/5437162

Tens of thousands of Ukrainians head to army recruitment offices as war with Russia looms

Tens of thousands of Ukrainians are flocking to army recruiting offices as their country prepares for a possible war with Russia.

In one office in the capital Kiev, Europe correspondent Philip Williams spoke to young recruits preparing to take up arms.

Igor Roman, 24, came to the army recruitment centre in Kiev because, as he sees it, the Russians are coming - and have to be defeated.

Igor Roman signs recruitment form
PHOTO: Igor Roman, 24, signs a recruitment form in Kiev to join the Ukrainian army. (ABC)
"War has come to my home, to my street where I live with my mum and my dad, and I must protect them," he said.

It is not just young men like Mr Roman drawn to this fight. Women are signing up too, and age is no barrier.

The paperwork does not take long, neither does the medical check. It is a very short journey to possible war.

Hospital corridors are lined with potential new recruits waiting for the medicals. Dr Alexander Chifruk is in charge of the examinations, and has never seen numbers like it.

The hospital's workload is three times the usual, and his staff are struggling to keep up.

As well as the usual physical checks there is a psychiatric assessment - a few minutes to decide if Igor is balanced enough to kill.

ABC correspondent Philip Williams: You could be killed.
Igor: Yes, of course.
Williams: Are you prepared for that?
Igor: Yes, I'm ready to kill.
Williams: What about your family? How does your family feel about this?
Igor: I don't say this for (sic) my family.
Williams: So, your mother doesn't know, father?
Igor: No, they don't know this.
Williams: Will they be angry when they find out?
Igor: They will not be angry because they understand my position, they understand my feeling for my heart.
Dr Olexander Scherba, an ambassador at large and a member of the Ukrainian foreign ministry's war room, says Ukraine is under threat.

"We are definitely under attack from Russia, that's for sure. There is no doubt about that," he said.

Dr Olexander Scherba
PHOTO: Ukrainian foreign ministry official Dr Olexander Scherba says the country is under attack from Russia. (ABC)
Dr Scherba is a man paid to talk his country out of trouble, but even he struggles to remain positive about the prospect of a negotiated settlement.

"There is no hope for an agreement all sides would be happy with, but maybe someone said a good deal is a deal everyone is equally unsatisfied with," he said.

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov says more negotiations involving the Ukrainian government are pointless given the collapse of a supposed peace deal a couple of weeks ago.

Both sides blame each other for that failure.

The Ukrainian government says Russia is hell bent on destroying the nation - and that means stopping elections, due for May 25 and aimed at creating an elected and legitimate government.

"We are in a desperate situation right now but if there is an invasion we are confronted with a nuclear power and definitely we will be looking forward to all kinds of help," Dr Scherba said.

He implies, but would not actually say, that that includes military support from the West.

"I'm trying to pick my words here," he said.

"We are up against a huge generator of lies and manipulation that's financed by Russia, so every word that I'm saying now might be twisted and turned against my country so please be considerate and understanding."

Expected although people have to realise its going to take time to train up these recruits to face the Bear if any conflict actually occurs.

[Borgholio]

Expected although people have to realise its going to take time to train up these recruits to face the Bear if any conflict actually occurs.

Given how this is likely to degenerate into street fighting very quickly, I'd say a month of training would suffice. Just enough to operate basic radio equipment, basic military commands and terms, and how to use a rifle. Then just dump them into the city and tell them to shoot anything that's Russian.

[Purple]

Expected although people have to realise its going to take time to train up these recruits to face the Bear if any conflict actually occurs.

Given how this is likely to degenerate into street fighting very quickly, I'd say a month of training would suffice. Just enough to operate basic radio equipment, basic military commands and terms, and how to use a rifle. Then just dump them into the city and tell them to shoot anything that's Russian.

Given the ethnic mix in the region that is a very messed up thing to do.

[Borgholio]

Given the ethnic mix in the region that is a very messed up thing to do.

And yet, that's probably exactly what's going to happen.

[K. A. Pital]

Given the ethnic mix in the region that is a very messed up thing to do.

Exactly what happened in Odessa: the "Right Sector" were told they were going to kill some 'Russian invaders'. In the end they ended firing up a building with their own townsmen crammed inside, and they suffocated or burned to death, some were shot, maimed or killed by the crowd thereafter. This is how it happens and there'll be more of it.

[mr friendly guy]

If anyone is interested Russia got booed at Eurovision. People have commented its a combination over Crimea and its homophobic laws.

Not that this would really hurt Putin, but it just makes his detractors look even more impotent. They can't get to him so they target Eurovision singers. Its would be like Free Tibet protesters targeting disabled athletes to get to the PRC leadership.. oh wait they actually did that.

BTW this is opinion is from a guy who wasn't a fan of what Putin did in Crimea.

[Mange]

As Forbes has noted (although the reporter got the figures wrong), a report made by the Russian Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights based on interviews etc. indicates that instead of a turnout of 80 percent for the Crimean referendum, the turnout was 30-50 percent with 50-60 percent voting for joining Russia (instead of the claimed 97 percent). That would mean that only between 15-30 percent of the electorate voted for joining Russia:

Report (in Russian)