Ukraine War Thread

[Kane Starkiller]

For me it's about self determination of Ukraine not Russias sphere of influence.
You talk about a deep divide. How deep is it? How many people want to join with Russia? Are they a majority in any of the regions? How can you support carving up the country without knowing if majority of the people in those regions even want to secede?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

For me it's about self determination of Ukraine not Russias sphere of influence.

That's what you believe, but that's not what your governments believe in.

You talk about a deep divide. How deep is it?

Deep enough that almost all at Maidan were from the Western half of the country?

How many people want to join with Russia? Are they a majority in any of the regions? How can you support carving up the country without knowing if majority of the people in those regions even want to secede?

I never said they should join Russia, though that should be tabled for a vote.

I support the carving up because if that is what it takes to have peace, so be it.

[Kane Starkiller]

That's what you believe, but that's not what your governments believe in.

Deep enough that almost all at Maidan were from the Western half of the country?

Do you have evidence for these claims? Is supporting Yanukovich equivalent to wanting to secede from country?

I never said they should join Russia, though that should be tabled for a vote.

I support the carving up because if that is what it takes to have peace, so be it.

Crushing the rebels can also bring peace. Why do you support carving up the country without any evidence that most of the population supports it?

[K. A. Pital]

Crushing the rebels can also bring peace.

Like in Chechnya? Well then be prepared to raze Donetsk and Lugansk and stop the humanitarian talk entirely.

[Thanas]

I must note that regardless of Strelkov's prior combat history, he has been following rules of war, attacking military targets. It is clearly a question of necessity, though, because rebels only thrive when the general population supports them.

He has not, his troops have attacked numerous civilians in the cities they captured and disappeared many of their political oppositions. Frankly, the notion that armed thugs would stick to any such rules is hilarious.

[K. A. Pital]

He has not

He has. He has not used MRLS against urban environments, despite having the option to do so; the regulars have.

his troops have attacked numerous civilians in the cities they captured and disappeared many of their political oppositions.

His troops may have commited acts of violence, but they have not resorted to artillery bombardments of towns (only of Ukrainian Army units on the move or encamped outside cities), and they are clearly wearing uniforms, taking prisoners and even following prisoner exchange procedures - consider the recent exchange of three prisoner 'Alpha' soldiers for Donetsk's Gubarev.

Frankly, the notion that armed thugs would stick to any such rules is hilarious.

No, it is not ridiculous to expect of paramilitary units to follow rules of war at least partly. And so far they have been following them much better than the throat-cutting islamists who love suicide bombing mosques and hospitals. They carry weapons openly, they build positions, and they didn't booby-trap the entire town of Slaviansk with mines and grenades, like the Chechens did in Grozny and many other towns (which obviously increases civilian casualties).

Then again, the Ukrainian Army has been more reserved in the city shelling thing than the Russian one. So both parties are doing much better than in Chechnya.

[Kane Starkiller]

Like in Chechnya? Well then be prepared to raze Donetsk and Lugansk and stop the humanitarian talk entirely.

But you don't actually have evidence it will come to that?

[K. A. Pital]

Like in Chechnya? Well then be prepared to raze Donetsk and Lugansk and stop the humanitarian talk entirely.

But you don't actually have evidence it will come to that?

Enough people died already; the number of casualties is well in the thousands - many thousands, not hundreds as said before. When it hits 7000, call me again to this thread.

[Thanas]

He has not

He has. He has not used MRLS against urban environments, despite having the option to do so; the regulars have.

his troops have attacked numerous civilians in the cities they captured and disappeared many of their political oppositions.

His troops may have commited acts of violence, but they have not resorted to artillery bombardments of towns (only of Ukrainian Army units on the move or encamped outside cities), and they are clearly wearing uniforms, taking prisoners and even following prisoner exchange procedures - consider the recent exchange of three prisoner 'Alpha' soldiers for Donetsk's Gubarev.

So what? They still commit human rights abuses (and execute people live on camera).

[Vympel]

And if you want to talk about heinous shit, then please remind me which side executed people live on camera and which side is engaged in more human rights abuse in their reign of terror according to Human Rights Watch?

Does human rights abuse include killing hundreds of civilians? Because sorry, I'm not an American politician / pundit - I don't believe you're absolved / less culpable from crimes because you didn't intend to kill them, even though by your actions their deaths were inevitable and foreseeable. The Ukrainian army has killed more innocents than the rebels ever will, nor are their deaths any less shocking simply because I didn't see it happen live on camera. The charred bodies in the streets after they're already dead is bad enough.

That is also the reason you keep missing the point about the fascists. Are there some? Yes. Are they in power? No.

I literally just showed you that there's an entire goddamn battalion of them fighting for the government in the east, complete with Nazi paraphanelia. What sort of wonderful things do you think they're doing while they're over there? Which Nazi fuck that the Maidan put in a position of authority somewhere in the government - of which there are several - do you think signed off on their being sent there? The fact that the Ukrainian government contains fascists and neo-Nazis is in fact true and does in fact matter - they don't need to be President or PM for that to be true.

So, Vympel, if you take such exception to some of the actors on the Ukrainian side, what's your take on fucking Strelkov, who is a war criminal several times over for the shit he pulled in Chechnya, including massacres of civilians?

If he's a war criminal from things he did in Chechnya (of which I'm not aware) then he should be prosecuted.

]It's a civil war and it's going to be ugly as hell no matter which way you slice it and pretending that only the Ukrainians are the bad guys or have bad guys in their ranks is fucking ridiculous. Especially since the overall leader of the rebellion is a bloodyhanded war criminal.

Strelkov is their military leader, not the leader of the entire separatist movement. Second, I never said the Ukrainians were the only villains. But they are the bigger ones, by any reasonable metric. They attacked the east, the easternerns didn't attack them, no matter how many times people may expect me to get angry that a bunch of angry easterners *gasp* took over ... property and refused to accept the legitimacy of a clearly illegal government that disenfranchised them.

Which I'll note for the umpteenth time, was exactly what the Maidan did, with the exception that the government they were protesting was clearly legitimate.

[K. A. Pital]

So what? They still commit human rights abuses (and execute people live on camera).

So who are 'they'? You specifically referred to Strelkov. As it is a war between several paramilitary formations and the government, I would assume you'd talk about him.

The use of MRLS and heavy artillery against towns has been an accusation levelled against both Assad and Qaddafi. The Ukrainian Army has used MRLS and heavy artillery against towns. Where's the outrage? There's none.

[Simon_Jester]

So what? They still commit human rights abuses (and execute people live on camera).

I haven't been participating in this thread for a while, but I have to ask your views on this.

From this comment, it seems almost is if you're thinking in the following way:

In this mindset, there are only two 'numbers' with which we can count human rights abuses: "zero" and "too many." If a group commits zero abuses they are respectable. If they commit one or more they immediately become a vile organization, and the legitimacy of the cause they're fighting for is destroyed.

Now, I may be totally misunderstanding you, but if that's the way a person looks at this kind of war, then that person will have almost no useful ability to understand what is happening in any conflict more profound than a sporting event.

Because it is very hard, in the real world, to organize an armed force that can affect the fate of a nation, and somehow make sure that armed force never does anything wrong. Or to resist the impulse to do things the outside world is wrong.

We can still (rightly) weigh the atrocities committed by both sides. But we cannot simply decide "the side I don't like has committed at least one atrocity, therefore they are irredeemable, and the people I approve of should win."

The reason I say this is not to minimize the consequences or the injustice of shelling towns full of innocent people, or of carelessly shooting down civilian airliners, or anything else.

It's because if we choose to automatically say "X has committed at least one atrocity, therefore X should lose!" we cannot even THINK about armed conflict in a meaningful way. We are trapped in a position of carelessness, ignorance, and willful blindness to the atrocities committed by 'our side.'

[Thanas]

So what? They still commit human rights abuses (and execute people live on camera).

I haven't been participating in this thread for a while, but I have to ask your views on this.

From this comment, it seems almost is if you're thinking in the following way:

In this mindset, there are only two 'numbers' with which we can count human rights abuses: "zero" and "too many." If a group commits zero abuses they are respectable. If they commit one or more they immediately become a vile organization, and the legitimacy of the cause they're fighting for is destroyed.

Now, I may be totally misunderstanding you, but if that's the way a person looks at this kind of war, then that person will have almost no useful ability to understand what is happening in any conflict more profound than a sporting event.

We have had this discussion several times before so I don't know if you simply forgot what I stated numerous times. Nevertheless, this whole armchair psychologist thing manages to be extremely dumb and insulting in the same breath, so I'll not deign it with a reply.

The Ukrainian army has killed more innocents than the rebels ever will, nor are their deaths any less shocking simply because I didn't see it happen live on camera. The charred bodies in the streets after they're already dead is bad enough.

What are your sources for the death toll?

But they are the bigger ones, by any reasonable metric. They attacked the east, the easternerns didn't attack them, no matter how many times people may expect me to get angry that a bunch of angry easterners *gasp* took over ... property and refused to accept the legitimacy of a clearly illegal government that disenfranchised them.

I am sorry, but having a reign of terror in the east does not count as "did nothing except take over property". Did you conveniently forgot the Human Rights watch report I cited in this thread, which credited the seperatists for most of the abuses in the east?

[Vympel]

What are your sources for the death toll?

Do a google search. Even the horrendously biased Kyiv Post says 550 civilians have been killed. The real figure is almost certainly higher. If you'd like to pretend that this is the fault of the rebels, by all means go ahead, but we'd both know that's bullshit. Only one side in this fight is using artillery and aircraft on civilian centres.

The latest in a long line:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2 ... story.html

I am sorry, but having a reign of terror in the east does not count as "did nothing except take over property". Did you conveniently forgot the Human Rights watch report I cited in this thread, which credited the seperatists for most of the abuses in the east?

"Reign of terror" my ass - you can tell yourself ridiculous fairy tales that the east is under the brutal thumb of unwanted militants all you like, its transparently not true. Appealing to unsavory characters in the east committing abuses and crimes on their political opponents (just like what has happened in the west) is not an "out" to trying to pretend that the easterners do not have a legitimate grievance and initially acted just like the Maidan in airing it -and then the military was unleased on them. Which made everything worse and escalated the situation far beyond what it was originally. The only reason that the Maidan got favorable coverage - despite their obvious neo-Nazi components and penchant for violence - is because of their "pro-Western" leanings.

The easterners don't get any of that because of pure western chauvanism - "lol they're puppets of Putin, they should just take it up the ass from the illegitimate government that has been arranged for them!" From the start, the easterners have been marginalised, denied political agency, and deligitimised.

Don't tell me Kiev unleashed the army on the easterners because they were oh so concerned about a fictitious "reign of terror". They unleased the army because they were an illegal government trying to assert their authority over a region that did not elect them.

The most absurd thing about all this is if you're going to use phraes like "reign of terror" one might refer to events like the easterners burned alive by fanatics in the Odessa trade union building. If that had happened to the Maidan we never would have heard the end of it from the punditocracy, and rightly so. But hey, they're pro-Russians. They must be puppets of Putin, so eh. The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.

[Edi]

"Reign of terror" my ass - you can tell yourself ridiculous fairy tales that the east is under the brutal thumb of unwanted militants all you like, its transparently not true.

http://www.dw.de/fleeing-from-home-in-u ... a-17704853

That's from June and Deutsche Welle was a ratehr reputable news organization last I checked.

Enforced conscription

Kolya, 28, from Slavyansk left after separatists started recruiting civilian members of the population by force, in some cases even at gun point.

"They also told me to join but I declined. They left me alone, but that was about a month ago. Since then the situation has deteriorated. Now it wouldn't be possible to [refuse]. They just come to your house with automatic rifles and take the boys away, threatening to kill anyone who resists."

Support for separatists dwindling?

When asked what kind of support the separatists have in Slavyansk, he responds: "In the beginning, I would say about 70% of the population supported the separatists, now you have about 40% or maybe even less. The local population initially saw the separatists as Russian liberators, but then they realized they were in fact terrorists."

But it's not just the fear of being forced to join the ranks of the militants, people are also leaving because they're worried about being persecuted for their religious beliefs and ethnicity. People like Tahir who came to Ukraine from Pakistan more than a decade ago. He married a local Ukrainian, and they now have four children. He used to own a bakery not far from the Enakievo Metallurgical Plant. Being one the largest plants in the area, many mill workers would stop by to buy his produce along the way to work. All that is lost to him now. Tahir sees himself as a Ukrainian patriot, but in the end he left his home town because he feared for his family's safety.

"Of course armed groups are patrolling the streets, they even robbed a bank, robbed shops, they chased the mayor out of town, the schools and nurseries are closed. We have four children, three little ones and a teenage boy. They were afraid of walking the streets."

No place for a Ukrainian patriot

But it was not just his Pakistani background that endangered Tahir and his family. He was also known as a Ukrainian patriot and after word got out about his abstention in the referendum held in the Donetsk region on May 11 he was singled out as an enemy of the Donetsk People's Republic. Now that he's found safety he has no intention of returning home.
Proud IDP's holding the Ukrainian flag

Tahir had to flee after word got out he was a Ukranian patriot.

"We will stay here, for the time being at least. It won't be easy for us, but we won't return to Enakievo anymore. I know what to expect there. The people there know me and there is no law and order. We would be living in constant fear."

The same goes for Tatiana from Horlivka. She like many others - received countless threats over the phone, via text messages, email and social media. Speaking the Ukrainian language openly was too risky with armed Pro-Russian separatists roaming the streets and she even had to be careful when talking to friends, neighbors and people in case she let slip that she was against a split and supported the concept of Ukraine as one nation. In the end she couldn't go to work anymore. That was when she decided to pack up and leave with her son.

Yep, all above board, everything is fine and dandy, move on, nothing to see here. Similar shit was happening in the Crimea before and after the Russian annexation, so it is clear enough that if Ukraine was foolish enough to actually let the separatists secede, it would not take long for the Donbass area to become an ethnically cleansed client state of Russia with few if any non-Russian minorities. Fuck that.

If those separatists love Russia so much, let them go to fucking Russia and stay there.

[Vympel]

http://www.dw.de/fleeing-from-home-in-u ... a-17704853

That's from June and Deutsche Welle was a ratehr reputable news organization last I checked.

Yep, all above board, everything is fine and dandy, move on, nothing to see here. Similar shit was happening in the Crimea before and after the Russian annexation, so it is clear enough that if Ukraine was foolish enough to actually let the separatists secede, it would not take long for the Donbass area to become an ethnically cleansed client state of Russia with few if any non-Russian minorities. Fuck that.

If those separatists love Russia so much, let them go to fucking Russia and stay there.

There's nothing fine and dandy about anything at all in Ukraine, anywhere. That said - give me a break. You've got one anecdote about civilians being press-ganged, and in another article some random guy - a "Ukrainian patriot"* which automatically puts him against the rebels - pulling percentage figures out of his ass and holding out his own personal opinion as a fact amongst the entire population. Not only is it impossible for this kind of rebellion to persist as long as it has without the consent of the populace, but they've actually done legitimate polls you know - back before this shit blew up - and its totally true that the population of those regions didn't want to join Russia. What they did want is a greater say in their own affairs - which is hardly surprising because twice in a decade they've been subject to revolutions that they want no part of. What is also true is that not every rebel was fighting to join Russia either. Just because the media lazily waved its hands and called them all 'separatists' to delgitimise their motives doesn't make it true. Now that they've been bombed for a few months straight, I can't imagine that attitude is very popular as opposed to the hardening of separatist sentiment and hatred of Kiev**.

*Who has relatives in the National Guard, for fuck's sake - clearly an objective commentator on the nature of the rebels

**That's speculation though. As the piece I linked to a few pages ago indicates, there needs to be a ceasefire and they should hold a legitimate plebiscite in the east to see what the majority of the population wants. Its fair. What is not fair is expecting them to just take it up the ass from the Maidan, who lost at the ballot box but won anyway.

Yep, all above board, everything is fine and dandy, move on, nothing to see here. Similar shit was happening in the Crimea before and after the Russian annexation, so it is clear enough that if Ukraine was foolish enough to actually let the separatists secede, it would not take long for the Donbass area to become an ethnically cleansed client state of Russia with few if any non-Russian minorities. Fuck that.

That people would flee their homes if they're scared of the Russian invasion of Crimea / unhappy to live in that country is fundamentally unjust. That doesn't make it 'ethnic cleansing'. The number of refugees from Crimea compared to the entire population is miniscule, and there's no evidence whatsoever of some sort of concerted 'ethnic cleansing' campaign.

If those separatists love Russia so much, let them go to fucking Russia and stay there.

The Donbass is their home. Why the hell should they leave because some cunts from Lvov have all the power in Keiv - illegally? That's what they would say to you.

[Simon_Jester]

So what? They still commit human rights abuses (and execute people live on camera).

I haven't been participating in this thread for a while, but I have to ask your views on this.

From this comment, it seems almost is if you're thinking in the following way:

In this mindset, there are only two 'numbers' with which we can count human rights abuses: "zero" and "too many." If a group commits zero abuses they are respectable. If they commit one or more they immediately become a vile organization, and the legitimacy of the cause they're fighting for is destroyed.

Now, I may be totally misunderstanding you, but if that's the way a person looks at this kind of war, then that person will have almost no useful ability to understand what is happening in any conflict more profound than a sporting event.

We have had this discussion several times before so I don't know if you simply forgot what I stated numerous times. Nevertheless, this whole armchair psychologist thing manages to be extremely dumb and insulting in the same breath, so I'll not deign it with a reply.

This is not an attempt to psychoanalyze you, it is at most an accidental strawman. What I am criticizing is not my perception of your brain, it is my perception of your 'mindset.' Perhaps it would be more accurate to talk about your framing.

It honestly does seem to me that you are framing this conflict in terms of "side X has committed atrocities, therefore, for purpose Y, it is irrelevant whether side Z has committed atrocities, regardless of the size of those atrocities." I have very negative opinions about that way of framing conflicts.

If you're not thinking this way, then I am sincerely confused by your choice of words and statements, and am curious about what you actually do think.

Now, we've had conversations before about various countries committing atrocities, that I know. So far as I know, it is quite possible, even likely perhaps, that you answered this particular question of mine, cleared up this confusion, in the course of one of those conversations. Over the five year period that we've interacted. You remember it quite clearly and precisely, while I with my poor memory do not. Would you mind at least refreshing my memory as to what topic that earlier conversation was on, so I can search for it and narrow down the exact question involved?

Would you care to refresh my memory as to what they were about, so that searching for them in the archives becomes practical?

[Thanas]

Vympel, we already discussed this. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/world ... raine.html]here is a summary of the report I already linked to.

It honestly does seem to me that you are framing this conflict in terms of "side X has committed atrocities, therefore, for purpose Y, it is irrelevant whether side Z has committed atrocities, regardless of the size of those atrocities." I have very negative opinions about that way of framing conflicts.

If you're not thinking this way, then I am sincerely confused by your choice of words and statements, and am curious about what you actually do think.

I think it is a fucking mess, that Russia is using their usual small-dick syndrome to inflict suffering upon their neighbours, claiming things like spheres of influence which is the biggest laugh ever (watch, next Bismarck will rise from the dead and demand Denmark), illegally annexing part of a country and in general behaving like the biggest asshats because they can. The seperatists are generally abhorrent scum that would be more at home in the black shirts, while the other side actually has some real blackshirts fighting for them.

Meanwhile, the biggest winner here is that abominable bastard Putin, who now can pretty much tell the Ukraine jump whenever he pleases to because he will have enough of popular support to cause an uprising. And the west is too toothless to even provide logistical assistance to people that is fighting for their independence from the country which oppressed them for centuries and still does not acknowledge the genocide they caused. Instead of acting in unison, Europe is divided and is once more standing around with its pants down. Not even when hundreds of EU citizens were killed is there even a unified statement on the damn killers (let's pretend that we don't know who they were, k?).

So I think at some point the killing will stop because both sides have run out of cannon fodder to sacrifice or the number of scum on both sides has gone down. Then, unless the Russian minority is heavily crushed, the whole circle will repeat itself unless Putin somehow doesn't feel ignored anymore.

Meanwhile, the civilians are getting slaughtered and nobody really cares enough to prevent it. What happened to the "let's actually risk our forces for good and deescalate by placing ourselves in the middle" part Europe was so proud of after doing it in the Balkans? Oh wait, Merkel doesn't like to get bad PR and we just defunded the military again in the hopes that new military kindergartens will deter the Russians. That's what I think about the whole mess.

Clear enough?

[Simon_Jester]

While that does not actually address the question I asked, it certainly satisfies any wish I might have to know your feelings on this issue.

Personally, I think the root of this horrible vicious brutal mess is that the entire Ukraine SSR was turned willy-nilly into a single independent country. Which creates the same problem we've seen in the Balkans and in Africa after decolonization: one country on the map contains at least two "peoples" in the sense of 19th century nationalism. And where those "peoples" are concentrated in different parts of the country for historical reasons, with different economic interests.

That can work when the two people feel like cooperating. Otherwise...

Otherwise, if Lvov at one end of the country and Donetsk at the other are gravitating in opposite directions, not just because of political differences but because of ethnic ones, it's a problem. The best you can hope for is a situation like that of Belgium, where politics is often influenced by a very civilized tug-of-war between the Flemings and Walloons.

That's in Belgium, though. Unfortunately, the Ukraine has only had a democratic-ish government for about twenty years. In that time they have suffered from both Russian meddling and the same kind of corrupt oligarch problems as other former Soviet republics. So what would be merely an impasse in other countries becomes the grounds for a civil war there.

This weakens the state and makes them even more vulnerable to opportunism on the Russians' part- and if any ethnic or linguistic Russians within the Ukraine want someone to support their rights and interests, it gives them little choice but to support militants, and makes them easy prey for further Russian involvement. Because it would appear that the Russians of the Ukraine no longer really believe they can be adequately represented by the Ukrainian government.

[Vympel]

And the NYT piece is actually a well balanced article. It certainly doesn't lay the blame of everything going on there at the feet of the rebels.

I think it is a fucking mess, that Russia is using their usual small-dick syndrome to inflict suffering upon their neighbours, claiming things like spheres of influence which is the biggest laugh ever (watch, next Bismarck will rise from the dead and demand Denmark), illegally annexing part of a country and in general behaving like the biggest asshats because they can. The seperatists are generally abhorrent scum that would be more at home in the black shirts, while the other side actually has some real blackshirts fighting for them.

Meanwhile, the biggest winner here is that abominable bastard Putin, who now can pretty much tell the Ukraine jump whenever he pleases to because he will have enough of popular support to cause an uprising. And the west is too toothless to even provide logistical assistance to people that is fighting for their independence from the country which oppressed them for centuries

But they were quite happy to provide plenty of moral support and legitimacy for a violent and undemocratic seizure of power in Kiev. That's worked out great, clearly. The people "fighting for their independence", didn't actually win a free and fair election like Yanukovych did, but hey, they got all the power in the end anyway.

and still does not acknowledge the genocide they caused.

Ukraine isn't the only part of the Soviet Union that suffered in the famines, Russians died too, as did lots of other groups. Why the hell should Russia "acknowledge" something of which they were also a victim? Who the hell is alive in Russia today who is responsible for that? Zombie Stalin? This was not a Russian crime against Ukraine.

Instead of acting in unison, Europe is divided and is once more standing around with its pants down. Not even when hundreds of EU citizens were killed is there even a unified statement on the damn killers (let's pretend that we don't know who they were, k?).

It was most likely the rebels. So what? Perhaps it wasn't. There's nothing wrong about actually waiting for a conclusion before you issue condemnations.

So I think at some point the killing will stop because both sides have run out of cannon fodder to sacrifice or the number of scum on both sides has gone down. Then, unless the Russian minority is heavily crushed, the whole circle will repeat itself unless Putin somehow doesn't feel ignored anymore.

Meanwhile, the civilians are getting slaughtered and nobody really cares enough to prevent it. What happened to the "let's actually risk our forces for good and deescalate by placing ourselves in the middle" part Europe was so proud of after doing it in the Balkans? Oh wait, Merkel doesn't like to get bad PR and we just defunded the military again in the hopes that new military kindergartens will deter the Russians. That's what I think about the whole mess.

Clear enough?

You don't need to risk forces to de-escalate this mess. Both sides need to be reined in by their respective supporters. Kiev should offer concessions to the east to mollify them. At the very least, there needs to be new parliamentary elections as soon as fucking possible, and Ukraine's farcical cabinet needs to be compeletely remade. That Andrey Parubiy is actually anywhere near the state's security appartus is a fucking disgrace. The rebels in the east should agree that separatism of any kind is off the table and lay down their arms - subject to an appropriate amnesty for anyone who didn't commit war crimes. After that, they can have a proper referendum in the east as to getting more power on how to decide their affairs.

But the Maidan should not get to benefit from a blatantly illegal seizure of power and then tell the segment of the country that got fucked by it that they can go jump. There will never be peace if that's the position.

[Thanas]

But they were quite happy to provide plenty of moral support and legitimacy for a violent and undemocratic seizure of power in Kiev. That's worked out great, clearly. The people "fighting for their independence", didn't actually win a free and fair election like Yanukovych did, but hey, they got all the power in the end anyway.

See, here we go with the spin again. It isn't like the parliament even dismissed him after the coward fled, it isn't that he pissed of the majority of Ukrainians with his reneging on the deal, no, it is a violent and undemocratic seizure of power.

Ukraine isn't the only part of the Soviet Union that suffered in the famines, Russians died too, as did lots of other groups. Why the hell should Russia "acknowledge" something of which they were also a victim? Who the hell is alive in Russia today who is responsible for that?

Because Russia was the instigator and caused a lot of the consequences. Same way Turkey should acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Only idiots care about pride there - and it is not as if even reparations are necessary.

It was most likely the rebels. So what? Perhaps it wasn't. There's nothing wrong about actually waiting for a conclusion before you issue condemnations.

Why is it that this benefit of the doubt is only extended to the rebel scum by you? Whenever Ukraine does something (like miss with an artillery strike) you are quick to state that civilians were the target. Yet when rebels disappear evidence you then go "benefit of the doubt".

You don't need to risk forces to de-escalate this mess. Both sides need to be reined in by their respective supporters. Kiev should offer concessions to the east to mollify them.

Why? What great injustice did they do to them?

At the very least, there needs to be new parliamentary elections as soon as fucking possible, and Ukraine's farcical cabinet needs to be compeletely remade.

This is comedy gold right here. The murderous rebel scum prevented the elections from taking place (which were considered fair und uninfluenced in all zones but those controlled by rebels) yet now they are supposed to be allowed to decide what is legitimate? No. you don't get to brake your bike because you are drunk and then demand your neighbour gives you his.

That Andrey Parubiy is actually anywhere near the state's security appartus is a fucking disgrace. The rebels in the east should agree that separatism of any kind is off the table and lay down their arms - subject to an appropriate amnesty for anyone who didn't commit war crimes. After that, they can have a proper referendum in the east as to getting more power on how to decide their affairs.

So in other words, you want the Ukraine to completely let the rebels in the east - who got themselves into the mess when they boycotted the election - decide on how they would like to eat the cake they stole. Yeah, sounds fair.

But the Maidan should not get to benefit from a blatantly illegal seizure of power and then tell the segment of the country that got fucked by it that they can go jump. There will never be peace if that's the position.

There was an election. Ukraine has a democratically elected president who should not have to declare himself illegitimate because armed thugs who boycotted and prevented the election in their area don't like him.

[Vympel]

See, here we go with the spin again. It isn't like the parliament even dismissed him after the coward fled, it isn't that he pissed of the majority of Ukrainians with his reneging on the deal

Who fucking cares, even if that was true? Do we just turf out leaders now with angry mobs when they make people angry now? What, they couldn't wait for the early election he agreed to? An orderly transfer of power with everyone getting to vote was too unacceptable to them?

no, it is a violent and undemocratic seizure of power.

Because it was. That's not spin, that's the goddamn truth. He didn't just "flee" of his own volition, he was forced out, under duress. What, he didn't wanna be President anymore? Parliament's impeachment of him was illegal.

That's a fact:

Here

Go on, tell me how you respond to that. I want an explicit response.

Your apologetics for this is precisely equivalent to pretending that the Tea Party "impeaching" Obama with a blatantly farcical and unconstitutional procedure is kosher because they got angry at him for some unspecified public policy of which they disapproved.

Because Russia was the instigator and caused a lot of the consequences. Same way Turkey should acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Only idiots care about pride there - and it is not as if even reparations are necessary.

How is Russia the instigator? Because the Communists were in Moscow?

Why is it that this benefit of the doubt is only extended to the rebel scum by you? Whenever Ukraine does something (like miss with an artillery strike) you are quick to state that civilians were the target. Yet when rebels disappear evidence you then go "benefit of the doubt".

That's bullshit. I just said that it was most likely the rebels. What more do you fucking want? I'm not going to say that it was definitely them because I don't have evidence it was definitely them, now do I?

And what the fuck is up with the blatant lying? Where have I ever said that the Ukrainians deliberately targeted civilians? Nowhere. I say that they miss with artillery strikes and kill civilians because they indisputably fucking do.

Why? What great injustice did they do to them?

Disenfranhise them via a blatantly illegal, undemocratic seizure of power.

This is comedy gold right here. The murderous rebel scum prevented the elections from taking place

The Presidential elections. Not parliamentary. You do realise the parliament in power right now was imposed by the coup, right? That it had nothing to do with that election?

(which were considered fair und uninfluenced in all zones but those controlled by rebels) yet now they are supposed to be allowed to decide what is legitimate? No. you don't get to brake your bike because you are drunk and then demand your neighbour gives you his.

ROFLMAO! So in other words, the fuckers in the West get to turf out the democratically elected leader of the country because they didn't like him, and when the easterners take exception and revolt, they lose all rights to representative government?

I shouldn't have to point out how flagrantly unreasonable this is.

So in other words, you want the Ukraine to completely let the rebels in the east - who got themselves into the mess when they boycotted the election - decide on how they would like to eat the cake they stole. Yeah, sounds fair.

Ok, so its more than clear you don't know anything about this issue at all. Honestly, you don't. You've gone and conflated presidential elections with parliamentary elections. That the parliament and cabinet is fragantly unrepresentative and riddled with the far right is apparently not a matter of concern to you at all, its all a matter of sticking it to the "murderous scum" of the east, who must be everyone for your position to make sense.

What the fuck? Honestly. Your thought process is so thoroughly poisoned by anti-Russian sentiment you care not a whit for the legitimate injustice imposed on them and would see them all punished with an illegitimate and unrepresentative government that doesn't represent their interests at all.

There was an election. Ukraine has a democratically elected president who should not have to declare himself illegitimate because armed thugs who boycotted and prevented the election in their area don't like him.

Still doesn't know the differnece between the president and parliament/ prime minister / cabinet, who got elected, and who didn't.

[Mange]

Ukraine isn't the only part of the Soviet Union that suffered in the famines, Russians died too, as did lots of other groups. Why the hell should Russia "acknowledge" something of which they were also a victim? Who the hell is alive in Russia today who is responsible for that? Zombie Stalin? This was not a Russian crime against Ukraine.

Of course it was. The Soviet Union was the direct continuation of the Russian Empire and the 1932-1933 famine was caused by both the forced collectivization as well as a premeditated mean to subdue the Ukrainian population.

[Vympel]

Of course it was. The Soviet Union was the direct continuation of the Russian Empire and the 1932-1933 famine was caused by both the forced collectivization as well as a premeditated mean to subdue the Ukrainian population.

Bollocks. You can't just say "it was a continuation of the Russian Empire therefore the Russian Federation now cops the blame." That's just an assertion. And that it was specifically directed at the Ukrainian population is just a bullshit story Ukrainian nazi collaborator apologists tell themselves to whitewash said collaboration - with the assistance of partisan revisionist anti-Russian historians like Tim Snyder, who seem to appear wherever Nazi collaborator apologists show up. The Ukrainians were not specifically targeted.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, are these the same people who wrote about the suffering of the Chechen nation and the just cause of Chechen separatists while these were cutting off heads, taking slaves and stoning women to death in the name of radical Wahhabist islam? And how Russia was totally wrong to crush them because it is better to have another Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan or Afghanistan on one's borders?

I mean... Wow. Just wow.

'Murderous rebel scum' is a line that fits Darth Vader. And now I hear just 'yap yap yap throw a bomb on Grozny oh no now its Donetsk yap yap yap'. Well, guys, I heard enough warmongering in my life, but that is just so funny.