Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Thought his grandfather was a fan of Hitler at one point of time.The Romulan Republic wrote:William too? I thought that was just Harry's thing.
If you mean most recent fight, they were not government soldiers. It was volunteer battalion "Donbas" consisting of random paramilitary fighters who decided to kick some separatist asses:Edi wrote:In other news, pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine killed 17 or 18 government soldiers a few days ago.
A chocolate oligarch being non-oligarch... *brain explodes*Vympel wrote:New boss, same as the old boss, etc. I'm sure he'll be a font of non-oligarch-favortism and good governance.
No, I meant that as in he won't engage in favourtism for oligarchs. Sarcastically, of course.Stas Bush wrote:A chocolate oligarch being non-oligarch... *brain explodes*Vympel wrote:New boss, same as the old boss, etc. I'm sure he'll be a font of non-oligarch-favortism and good governance.
How many thousands of refugees were accepted, then?Thanas wrote:Meanwhile, contrary to the claims of Russian-supporters, Crimean tartars have fled the Crimea en masse.
- Tatar activists have been detained and ill-treated by groups of armed men and, in one case, killed;
· The informal leader of the Crimean Tatars and Ukrainian MP, Mustafa Jemiliev, was banned and prevented from entering his homeland;
· Scores of Crimean Tatars have been prosecuted for taking part in peaceful protests;
· The highest representative body of the Tatars, the Mejlis, has been threatened with dissolution;
· Tatars are under pressure to give up their Ukrainian citizenship and apply for Russian passports.
Tartars vs.. Tartars?Stas Bush wrote:That number I can believe. There's also an increasingly tense power struggle in the Tatar organization, with the ones linked to Tatarstan in Russia lobbying the destruction of rival power centers created during the Crimean post-collapse stay in Ukraine - like the Mejlis.
Russian authorities in Crimea are no doubt responsible and aiding the process.Thanas wrote:I think pushing this as an internal tartar struggle is a bit too easy, Russian authorities are at the very least complicit in there according to the Amnesty report and seem to be the worst offenders by far.
I guess better the Tartar you like, than the Tartar you distrust.Stas Bush wrote:Russian authorities in Crimea are no doubt responsible and aiding the process.Thanas wrote:I think pushing this as an internal tartar struggle is a bit too easy, Russian authorities are at the very least complicit in there according to the Amnesty report and seem to be the worst offenders by far.
Like who, specifically? The problem of the fascists in Ukraine's new government never had anything to do with their percentage of the vote, and I don't know that anyone said they did. The fact that their influence in the post-coup government was grossly disproportionate to their popular appeal (again - the entire East was disenfanchised by default in the coup) was the issue.Thanas wrote:However, the elections showed that no fascists ever had any hopes of amounting to much, contrary to the claims of many on this board. 1.4% of votes, surely they are a great threat.
Who claimed that?What's that, somebody claimed that they would be able to control the vote by having only their candidates approved? Yeah, sure looks like it.
Of course.And of course the totally-not-Russia-supported militants in the east prevented voting there.
Again, who claimed this?Meanwhile, contrary to the claims of Russian-supporters Crimean tartars have fled the Crimea en masse. Surely those people had nothing to fear from enlightened Russia?
However, the fascists have not won the elections, contrary to Stas who claimed that they would turn the ministry of culture into their own propaganda piece.Vympel wrote:Like who, specifically? The problem of the fascists in Ukraine's new government never had anything to do with their percentage of the vote, and I don't know that anyone said they did. The fact that their influence in the post-coup government was grossly disproportionate to their popular appeal (again - the entire East was disenfanchised by default in the coup) was the issue.
Stas, by claiming only people who were approved by Maidan (who he said were controlled by fascists) were going to be put on voters list.Who claimed that?What's that, somebody claimed that they would be able to control the vote by having only their candidates approved? Yeah, sure looks like it.
Proving once more why they need to be killed.Of course.And of course the totally-not-Russia-supported militants in the east prevented voting there.
Putin for once, and somebody on this board who thought they would be treated better under Russian than under Ukrainian rule. Don't remember if it was you or any of the other Russian cheerleaders around.Again, who claimed this?
And, I may note, that is a very satisfactory outcome. I hate the oligarchs, but nothing would be worse than straight fascists winning elections. It would be very nice to see them expunged from government positions alltogether now that it is clear Ukrainian citizens do not want them anywhere near power.Thanas wrote:However, the fascists have not won the elections, contrary to Stas who claimed that they would turn the ministry of culture into their own propaganda piece.
Thanas wrote:Stas, by claiming only people who were approved by Maidan (who he said were controlled by fascists) were going to be put on voters list.
Summary execution outside of hostilities is a war crime, I will note.Thanas wrote:Proving once more why they need to be killed.
LOL. They deserve death for the crime of merely disrupting an election they don't think serve their region's interests, run by authorities who do not represent their interests and have been responsible for atrocities against them and people like them? I'd love to know how you'd couch their cause that could possibly allow for this sort of bloodthirstyness. The anti-Maidan forces in the East have significant popular support, borne out of legitimate grievances of the population, both political, cultural, and economic. They could not exercise the degree of control they do in the East otherwise. That's just a fact.Thanas wrote: Proving once more why they need to be killed.
I merely see the conflict for what it is - if it makes me a "Russian cheerleader" to point out the US and EU's obvious responsibility for instigating this crisis as part of a geopolitical contest with Russia, the propaganda they engage in to make useful idiots swallow the "lovely Ukrainian pro-democracy forces wanting a bright shining future in the west" line of total bullshit, and to talk matter of factly about the defence of Russian interests (their real interests - not the propaganda about protecting Ukrainian speakers) then so be it, I'll shed no tears about it. My posting speaks for itself. There are no pom-poms out.Putin for once, and somebody on this board who thought they would be treated better under Russian than under Ukrainian rule. Don't remember if it was you or any of the other Russian cheerleaders around.
What atrocities has the state committed against them? I'd really like to know what atrocities the state committed against them that made them revolt. Did they shoot their children? Did they oppress their language and culture? Oh wait, none of that happened. So what were the great atrocities committed against them? Did Porochenko eat three of their children for breakfast?Vympel wrote:LOL. They deserve death for the crime of merely disrupting an election they don't think serve their region's interests, run by authorities who do not represent their interests and have been responsible for atrocities against them and people like them? I'd love to know how you'd couch their cause that could possibly allow for this sort of bloodthirstyness. The anti-Maidan forces in the East have significant popular support, borne out of legitimate grievances of the population, both political, cultural, and economic. They could not exercise the degree of control they do in the East otherwise. That's just a fact.
Actually, they attacked the state by taking controls of the buildings, shooting down army helicopters and terrorizing the populace by making elections impossible. These are not some angels, they are nationalists and fascists. They have rejected amnesty after amnesty. Heck, the Ukrainian government has to be applauded for their restraint. You only get so many chances.A just attitude, even from a pro-Kiev stance, would be calling for their surrender and offering a general amnesty. Your call for their deaths is absolutely morally repugnant. They didn't attack Kiev, Kiev attacked them.
It takes a lot of gall to say the EU and the USA are responsible for Russia invading another state and stealing their territory.I merely see the conflict for what it is - if it makes me a "Russian cheerleader" to point out the US and EU's obvious responsibility for instigating this crisis as part of a geopolitical contest with Russia, the propaganda they engage in to make useful idiots swallow the "lovely Ukrainian pro-democracy forces wanting a bright shining future in the west" line of total bullshit, and to talk matter of factly about the defence of Russian interests (their real interests - not the propaganda about protecting Ukrainian speakers) then so be it, I'll shed no tears about it. My posting speaks for itself. There are no pom-poms out.
And it takes a lot of gall to say that they will be better off with no evidence of that whatsoever, when all the evidence we have is prosecution and ethnic cleansing so far. That's be like me saying they'd be better off under Ukrainian rule because they will get into the EU then and the EU is richer than Russia. It is completely pointless to speculate like that when there is no evidence the lot of the Tatars will ever change.As to the Crimean tatars being treated better under Russian rule - on balance I'll go out on a limb and say they more likely will be than not. Perversely, Russia retaking Crimea has shone a light on them (since their use as a propaganda club against Russia, since Putin is repsonsible for the crimes of Stalin and the USSR in WW2 or something). Not only has everyone remembered they existed, with decrees / laws being passed to recognise their rights*, but the mere fact is that Ukraine is an economic basket case and will always be more poor than Russia. That's just a fact. Crimea went to pot under Ukrainian rule. Ukraine as an EU-not-member will continue to go to pot under the EU's supervision and its lovely austerity plan. The only question is whether persecution of Tatars opposed to Russian rule will continue.
Don't worry about that, so far the fascists/nationalists/russian repositories in the east have shown a remarkable talent for engaging in hostilities.Stas Bush wrote:Summary execution outside of hostilities is a war crime, I will note.
Who cares about Poroshenko? Poroshenko was elected less than a week ago - Kiev unleashed the army against them when exactly? As to atrocities, people getting trapped in a burning building and getting burned to death is an atrocity, by any definition (the hilarious propaganda that said protesters burned thesmelves to death notwithstanding). It isn't the only incident of its kind, if you've been following this conflict at all, all the civilian casualties Kiev's attack on the East has resulted in are hardly difficult to find. And I didn't say they revolted purely because they had atrocities committed against them. I also said they were disenfranchised by the coup, and that the interests of the Maidan are not there interests - particularly on the economic front, which I've already posted about. As for oppressing their language and culture, I guess you forgot their attack on the status of the Russian language?Thanas wrote: What atrocities has the state committed against them? I'd really like to know what atrocities the state committed against them that made them revolt. Did they shoot their children? Did they oppress their language and culture? Oh wait, none of that happened. So what were the great atrocities committed against them? Did Porochenko eat three of their children for breakfast?
I love it how you go from "taking control of buildings" - an utterly innocuous crime which could never possibly justify lethal violence or your call for their deaths*- to "shooting down army helicopters" and expect me to make no comment on why the army helicopters were there in the first place - oh, that's right, because the army was unleashed on them - by an unelected and clearly illegitimate coup government - for the horrible crime of taking control of buildings. Or are you just going to assert army helicopters were flying above militant positions minding their own business?Actually, they attacked the state by taking controls of the buildings, shooting down army helicopters and terrorizing the populace by making elections impossible. These are not some angels, they are nationalists and fascists. They have rejected amnesty after amnesty. Heck, the Ukrainian government has to be applauded for their restraint. You only get so many chances.
"Remarkable restraint" my ass. They unleashed the military as soon as they could, because the police in Donetsk wanted no part of it (all 17,000 of them are being prosecuted for violation of their oath - which is yet more evidence that your characterization of events is complete bullshit, btw). The army proved itself so unreliable that they had to create a politically reliable "National Guard" filled with street militants from the Maidan. The only thing governing the intensity of the army's attacks was finding politically reliable units to shell their own people with artillery.So, who is more to blame - the person rejecting amnesty and talks week after week, or the one showing remarkable restraint at unleashing the military?
No, it really doesn't. As far as the invasion of the Crimea is concerned, the US and EU aided and abetted an anti-Russian coup on Russia's borders as part of a geopolitical contest against Russia. Part of that coup was signing an association agreement that would've eventually brought a hostile military alliance right on Russia's border, endangered their strategic position in the Black Sea, and potentially placed NATO navies - including BMD-capable warships - in Sevastopol. That's leaving aside the direct attack it was against Russia's Eurasian Economic Union. You don't get to play the great game and then pretend you're blameless when your opponent responds. Unsurprisingly, great powers don't stop vigorously defending their interests from attack just because it involves invading another state and stealing their territory.It takes a lot of gall to say the EU and the USA are responsible for Russia invading another state and stealing their territory.
Well there is evidence of that, because decrees and laws are being enacted to that effect - like I said, we don't know if they'll have any effect. And anyone who thinks Ukraine will become rich because its part of an EU is an imbecile, by the way. The EU doesn't have the political will to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies on Ukraine to make it prosperous, like they did (and continue to do) with say, Poland.And it takes a lot of gall to say that they will be better off with no evidence of that whatsoever, when all the evidence we have is prosecution and ethnic cleansing so far. That's be like me saying they'd be better off under Ukrainian rule because they will get into the EU then and the EU is richer than Russia. It is completely pointless to speculate like that when there is no evidence the lot of the Tatars will ever change.
Their popular support is hard to guage exactly, because you can't really run polls in that environment. We know from events that it is significant enough - you can't operate in that environment without it. Note my comments above re: Donetsk police.Edi wrote:Vympel, you forget that the separatists themselves, as well as the Russian auxiliaries who have been infiltrating across the border while Russian authorities turn a blind eye have essentially left Kiev no choice but to crush them like bugs. They refused all attempts at negotiation and upped the ante, then have repeatedly resorted to violence, including shooting down Ukrainian helicopters and similar actions.
That's why 40 of them were killed when the Donetsk airport was stormed and why more of them will die when the Ukrainian army moves in on them. Ukraine cannot afford to let them simply split off the eastern portion of the country or it's an open invitation for separatists inside and their foreign neighbors to carve up the country. You also overstate their popular support (namely for a separate state or annexation to Russia).
Well of course. You're talking a political environement in which the east has no political structure anymore to represent its interests. Any election would just be a choice of "which douchebag who you hate and who hates you would you like to be President".As far as their disruption of the elections, the separatists are the ones who have the heavy weapons in the east and they control quite a bit of the government there. They could have run the elections themselves, but refused to do so for fear of not getting the result they wanted or being seen to be as blatantly manipulative as they were with the secession referendum earlier.
Yeah - I have no idea how things will end at this stage. I think the insistence that Russia can control the militants in the East is wildly overstating things** - there's been absolutely no credible evidence that they're receiving any material / manpower support from Russia (despite the State Department's embarassing attempts to find some, like their NYT photograph debacle of several weeks ago) though its of course possible that non-state fighters / Cossacks etc could be crossing over. And the militants clearly aren't listening, that's been evident since Geneva.What with all the escalation of violence now moving forward, one would expect harsher rhetoric from Russia, but instead it is almost backing off to a degree. Why? Because the fires it so generously helped light and stoke in eastern Ukraine are now spiraling beyond its ability to control and influence, meaning that if it keeps encouraging and enabling the separatist forces at this stage, things will develop into a situation that will end up being very expensive also for Russian in many different respects.
Nobody wanted this to happen, but the general amnesty thing or something close to it was already on the table earlier, the separatists rejected it and decided to provoke and escalate further. So now they get to surrender or go down fighting.
Um... isn't rebellion when people shoot at military targets? I mean, these rebels are clearly following RoW to the greatest possible extent (they are even executing their own soldiers who were found to be looting stuff). Like I said, summary execution of rebels, outside hostilities, is a war crime. Especially in this case.Edi wrote:Vympel, you forget that the separatists themselves, as well as the Russian auxiliaries who have been infiltrating across the border while Russian authorities turn a blind eye have essentially left Kiev no choice but to crush them like bugs. They refused all attempts at negotiation and upped the ante, then have repeatedly resorted to violence, including shooting down Ukrainian helicopters and similar actions.
Interesting. EU nations are willing to utilize sanctions, as long as its some other EU member paying the price. Brilliant.Russian Dilemma: Why EU Sanctions are a Bluff
By Christoph Schult, Jörg Schindler and Ralf Neukirch
Tension over sanctions: European leaders at a round table meeting during an EU summit in Brussels on Thursday, March 20, 2014.
While the EU currently shows a united front on possible economic penalties against Russia for its interference in Ukraine, that could change once more serious sanctions are on the table. Germany is struggling to maintain the facade.
European Union politicians don't like to be outdone when it comes to showing resolve. Last week, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that if the Russians continue acting like they have, then tough new sanctions will need to be imposed. His British colleague William Hague said that economic sanctions were being planned. German Chancellor Angela Merkel threatened last Thursday that if there were problems surrounding the Ukrainian elections, "there would be further sanctions
These strong words are the West's answer to Moscow's expansionist push. More than any other measure, it's the possible so-called third level of sanctions -- wide-ranging economic sanctions -- that are intended to make Putin back down. Because Europeans have ruled out the use of military means, these sanctions are the most powerful weapon that they have -- the diplomatic nuclear option in the battle over Ukraine's future.
But there's one problem with this weapon: It can only be used if all EU members agree. In the EU, sanctions need to be decided unanimously. This worked for levels one and two, because they were primarily symbolic acts that affected people close to Putin and imposed no real burden on the EU. But level three would be different, making it unlikely that the EU would agree on sanctions that would have a strong effect Russia. Europe's strongest weapon is actually a bluff.
Hawks vs. Doves
In her talk with Sigmar Gabriel, vice chancellor and head of the center-left Social Democrats, last Tuesday, Merkel reported that during consultations about sanctions many EU partners are most interested in talking about how to secure exceptions for their own economies. Others are trying to avoid the subject entirely.
But there's a lot to discuss. On one side, there are the states taking a hardline position -- this includes most Eastern European countries and Great Britain -- who would rather implement sharp sanctions now instead of later. On the other side there are the more cautious countries, like the Benelux states, which are betting on diplomacy, or, like all of Southern Europe, are afraid of the economic costs a trade boycott could bring.
The French and the Germans are taking a middle position: They don't want sanctions, but will support them if Putin continues to destabilize Ukraine. Germany, in particular, is betting on financial sanctions, which would mean using the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to exert pressure on Moscow. At the EIB there's a list of projects that would be put on ice if sanctions were expanded.
Countries like Great Britain or Cyprus are strictly against this, because it would also have an effect on their own financial sectors, and are arguing, instead, for an energy boycott. However, this faces strong resistance from Eastern European countries, like Bulgaria or Slovakia, who depend almost entirely on Russia for gas.
Genuine economic sanctions would clearly be expensive for the Europeans. According to a confidential report by the European Commission, Germany would have to reckon with a loss of 0.9 percent in growth this year, and 0.3 percent next year. The situation looks even direr in other countries.
Sanctions May Not Work Anyways
Many governments are also skeptical that the sanctions could actually get Putin to back down. In German security policy circles, that outcome is considered almost impossible. The thumbscrews the West has thus far implemented "haven't instilled much fear" in Putin and his associates, one security official argued. Russia has little foreign debt and large currency reserves, giving it a transitional period of at least two years -- enough time to find new buyers and distribution routes for Russian gas. "We'll be sitting in the cold before the Russians run out of money," says one security official.
Putin's determination to secure his influence over eastern Ukraine is also related to the region's importance to the Russian armaments industry. The Russian army's airplane motors, gear boxes and rocket equipment are, according to Western knowledge, in large part built in eastern Ukraine. That's why the Kremlin has also, according to the security official, planned painful economic sanctions of its own. "If the Russian leadership sees itself as strong, even if we don't see it that way, then it will also act strong -- and at the moment it feels very strong."
Although the 28 EU member states try hard to project a sense of unity to the outside world, their differences in opinion make themselves felt in internal meetings. Merkel is afraid that, in the end, the Union's disunity could spill into the open and Putin would have accomplished one of his important goals, dividing the Europeans.
Looking for Ways to Avoid the Issue
That's another reason why the German government wants to avoid, at all cost, a situation in which sanctions are unavoidable. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has pointed out that Moscow has recently stopped questioning the legitimacy of the Ukrainian presidential elections, which are planned for May 25. The German government is grasping for these kinds of signals, because they may serve as a reason not to implement the third level of sanctions.
Before concrete steps can be defined, the EU also needs to discuss when the third level should even be implemented -- a way to skirt the delicate situation. "Clearly there will be economic sanctions if Putin sabotages the vote," says a high-ranking government official. "But it's unclear what would constitute sabotage."
One way to at least defer the debate around sanctions would be to push the Ukrainians to delay the vote. But the German government does not want that at all, because it would seem like a capitulation to Putin. "A delay isn't in our script," Markus Ederer, a state secretary in Steinmeier's Foreign Ministry, stated last Wednesday during a session of the German parliament's foreign affairs committee.
