Ukraine war

[Deadstick]

Zelensky introduces the citizenship bill a few days after Germany passed a law to simplify citizenship.
Undoubtedly a coordinated action.
Ukrainian refugees in Germany will receive German passports and can serve in the Bundeswehr, and German mercenaries will receive Ukrainian passports and become soldiers of the Ukrainian armed forces.

It's simple - soldiers are covered by the Vienna Convention on Prisoners of War.
But mercenaries are not.
So preparations for a big war are under way.

Well maybe it's time those bastards got what they want.

 

[ESay]

That Government under Yanukovych didn't even rule out taking a EU deal, but he dicided the Russians were offering a better deal, and you talk of the Ukrainians not wanting to lean towards Russia, thats the problem many did in the Donbass region, if the Ukrainians wanted Yanukovych out they could have voted a no confidence vote in the Parliament and called new elections, that is what happens in a Democracy, they didn't do that they used violence to overthrow the elected Government.

There isn't such a thing as a 'no confidence vote' in Ukraine. There was and is an impeachment procedure in the Constitution, specifically designed by the Kuchma administration to make sure the impeachment would never happen.

 

[Deadstick]

There isn't such a thing as a 'no confidence vote' in Ukraine. There was and is an impeachment procedure in the Constitution, specifically designed by the Kuchma administration to make sure the impeachment would never happen.

Well they used an AK as a vote of no confidence.

 

[ESay]

Well they used an AK as a vote of no confidence.

Yes, they did. The both sides used such a 'vote'.

BTW, it is quite ironic to complain about legal procedures in that part of the world (Russia and Ukraine) where such a saying is quite common: Everything - for my friends; the law - for my enemies.

 

[Deadstick]

Yes, they did. The both sides used such a 'vote'.

BTW, it is quite ironic to complain about legal procedures in that part of the world (Russia and Ukraine) where such a saying is quite common: Everything - for my friends; the law - for my enemies.

People forget the agreement between Yanukovych and the Maidan leadership all supervised by the EU and Russia, that deal was signed on the 21st of feb 2014, it just about gave the Maidan lot everything they wanted but Yarosh the right sector Nazis didn't like it so some people didn't want that deal to go through, and we know who they were, the deal was signed in the morning by afternoon the Nazi element had taken control of all the Government b
21 February, Parliament passed a peace agreement signed by President Yanukovych and all three opposition leaders that: ordered the withdrawal of troops and banned the use of lethal force; stated that only Parliament could declare a state of emergency; mandated early Presidential elections after the reinstatement of the 2004 Constitution; and declared that antigovernment forces must forfeit any weapons and relinquish control over public buildings.

Parliament then passed a series of resolutions to implement and expand the peace deal, including blanket amnesty for antigovernment protesters and a bill to free former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko from prison.

Later a column of 40 policemen from Lviv arrived in Kiev to declare their defection from the government and their intent to protect the demonstrators.

All security forces had withdrawn from Independence Square by the afternoon.

At the Maidan many activists, including members of Right Sector and Automaidan, denounced the deal as an unacceptable compromise and continued to demand Yanukovych’s resignation. As the opposition leaders spoke, demonstrators held an open casket procession for protesters who had died in the previous days, marching forward to lay the coffins on the stage.

Leaders of two militant nationalist groups interrupted the speeches, blamed the opposition leaders’ for failing to oust Yanukovych and vowed to lead an armed attack.

Late that evening, President Yanukovych fled the capital.

The next morning, 22 February, given the continued absence of riot police, occupiers of the Maidan declared themselves the head of security for Kiev. The presidential administration building near Independence Square remained empty. Protesters carrying makeshift weapons seized Yanukovych’s palace near Kiev and opened it to the public.

In the afternoon President Yanukovych spoke on television from eastern Ukraine, stating that a “coup” had driven him from the capital but he had no plan to resign. Few major institutions in Ukraine still remained under the control of Yanukovych’s administration.

Parliament acted the following day, the 23rd, making Oleksandr Turchynov the new president pending an election, and ousting remaining members of Yanukovych’s cabinet. Members of Yanukovych’s own party issued a statement strongly denouncing the now-deposed President’s use of deadly force against protesters. The military declared support for the new government.

Pro-Yanukovych demonstrators held rallies in several eastern cities.
uildings the police had already withdrawn from the streets, bottom line is it was a coup.

Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine - full text

The full text of the deal signed by Ukraine's opposition leaders and President Viktor Yanukovych, released by Germany's foreign ministry

www.theguardian.com

 

[ESay]

People forget the agreement between Yanukovych and the Maidan leadership all supervised by the EU and Russia, that deal was signed on the 21st of feb 2014, it just about gave the Maidan lot everything they wanted but Yarosh the right sector Nazis didn't like it so some people didn't want that deal to go through, and we know who they were, the deal was signed in the morning by afternoon the Nazi element had taken control of all the Government buildings the police had already withdrawn from the streets, bottom line is it was a coup.

Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine - full text

The full text of the deal signed by Ukraine's opposition leaders and President Viktor Yanukovych, released by Germany's foreign ministry

www.theguardian.com

The problem is much deeper. You talk about 2014, Yanukovych, the Maidan, 'Nazis' etc as though they emerged out of thin air.

Since the day one of its independence proclamation, Ukraine was deeply divided - politically, economically, culturally, socially. There have always been three 'Ukraines' in this regard - Western, Central and South-Eastern. I intentionally omit her ethnical 'enclaves' - to make things simpler.

The Western Ukraine has always been 'Nazis'. It is the part that became Soviet only before the WWI, guys like Bandera and Shuchevich were quite popular there, and the UPA enjoyed the popular support keeping their actions for years after the War ended. They began renaming streets and taking down Soviet monuments long before 2014. Needles to say, that any union with Russia even hypothetical and 'mild' was strongly opposed there.

The South-Eastern Ukraine was predominantly pro-Russian. With centers of heavy industry deeply tied with Russia and the population being Russian speaking mostly. I think I wouldn't be mistaken if I say that a number of oblasts and districts there were 'Ukraine' only nominally.

Naturally, the Central Ukraine was somewhere in between them, with roughly 50% of population being pro-Western (and pro-Ukraine) and 50% being pro-Russian.

Sorry, need to go. Will try to end my point a bit later.

 

[Deadstick]

The problem is much deeper. You talk about 2014, Yanukovych, the Maidan, 'Nazis' etc as though they emerged out of thin air.

Since the day one of its independence proclamation, Ukraine was deeply divided - politically, economically, culturally, socially. There have always been three 'Ukraines' in this regard - Western, Central and South-Eastern. I intentionally omit her ethnical 'enclaves' - to make things simpler.

The Western Ukraine has always been 'Nazis'. It is the part that became Soviet only before the WWI, guys like Bandera and Shuchevich were quite popular there, and the UPA enjoyed the popular support keeping their actions for years after the War ended. They began renaming streets and taking down Soviet monuments long before 2014. Needles to say, that any union with Russia even hypothetical and 'mild' was strongly opposed there.

The South-Eastern Ukraine was predominantly pro-Russian. With centers of heavy industry deeply tied with Russia and the population being Russian speaking mostly. I think I wouldn't be mistaken if I say that a number of oblasts and districts there were 'Ukraine' only nominally.

Naturally, the Central Ukraine was somewhere in between them, with roughly 50% of population being pro-Western (and pro-Ukraine) and 50% being pro-Russian.

Sorry, need to go. Will try to end my point a bit later.

OK some good points there, but i do know they didn't come out of thin air but they were dormant for a long time, i first saw some disturbing events under the Orange guy Yushchenko, he authorized posters celebrating the 14th Galician SS to go up in Lviv and i believe Kiev, that was an earlier attempt as the Maidan that was to follow,

 

[ESay]

OK some good points there, but i do know they didn't come out of thin air but they were dormant for a long time, i first saw some disturbing events under the Orange guy Yushchenko, he authorized posters celebrating the 14th Galician SS to go up in Lviv and i believe Kiev, that was an earlier attempt as the Maidan that was to follow,

Okay, so I will continue.

Quite, natural that regional and nation-wide politicians emerged to exploit such divisiveness for their own benefit. So, in what shape Ukraine came to 2014? Two main parts that literally hate each other, and 'national leaders' that not only didn't try to smooth these divisions, but did their best to deepen them more.

The only way to preserve Ukraine as a single state in 1991 borders was to give far more autonomy for the oblasts, Russian as an official language and Ukraine having a neutral status. Obviously, one part of Ukraine would never have accepted that, because that virtually meant partition of the country with half of it being associated with Russia. And here I even don't mention foreign players trying to use this for their goals.

But. (It always exists this 'but' in every thing). Had Ukraine disintegrated due to internal political processes, it would be possible to say 'you tried and failed, so live with that'. But all that mess in and around Ukraine causes troubles for the entire region. How it can be resolved? Who knows. It is obvious that Ukraine won't be able to restore its territory to the previous border. It is more or less understandable that Russia isn't interested in incorporating all Ukrainian territory (where half of population hates them). It is obvious that Ukraine can't be divided between neighboring countries, because that would leave swathes of 'no-ones' land. So, their aren't too many options.

 

[Silver Cat]

Maybe I should have said you and Deadstick are isolationists but the effects are the same. So what should the US/NATO do about Russian annexations of Ukrainian territory?

In the terms of the currently possible moves - nothing (and it's not our problem at all). If we want to improve our relationships with Russia, we may support democratization of Ukraine and Baltic states (which means equal rights for the local Russians). We should talk about people, not about territories.
What is really important - we must defend the USA, make America great again (in the terms of geopolitic it means, first of all, modernisation and improving of out nuclear arsenal and delivery systems).

 

[Silver Cat]

Nice precedent considering Ukraine did not declare war on Russia or invade them. I accuse you of instigating a war and that allows me to seize and annex your territory. Does any country get to do that if they can?

Kievan regime did attack DPR and LPR, who were recognized by Russian Federation as independent states and were their allies. So, it was, from their point of view, equal to direct Ukrainian attack against Russian Federation itself.
And, you know, Serbia didn't declare war on the USA nor invade us back in 1999, either. So, if you are talking about a precedent - we already have more than one.

 

[alang1216]

In the terms of the currently possible moves - nothing (and it's not our problem at all).

When has isolationism been a good, long-term plan?

If we want to improve our relationships with Russia, we may support democratization of Ukraine and Baltic states (which means equal rights for the local Russians). We should talk about people, not about territories.

Everyone is in favor of equal rights for all but breaking up a recognized country and annexing its territory is not the way to do it.

What is really important - we must defend the USA, make America great again (in the terms of geopolitic it means, first of all, modernisation and improving of out nuclear arsenal and delivery systems).

What good have our nukes been for us?

 

[alang1216]

That Government under Yanukovych didn't even rule out taking a EU deal, but he dicided the Russians were offering a better deal, and you talk of the Ukrainians not wanting to lean towards Russia, thats the problem many did in the Donbass region, if the Ukrainians wanted Yanukovych out they could have voted a no confidence vote in the Parliament and called new elections, that is what happens in a Democracy, they didn't do that they used violence to overthrow the elected Government.

Not quite so simple. Yanukovych signed an agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine but never implemented it. Protests by Ukrainian people forced him to flee the country so the Parliament nullified hit office.

 

[alang1216]

Kievan regime did attack DPR and LPR, who were recognized by Russian Federation as independent states and were their allies. So, it was, from their point of view, equal to direct Ukrainian attack against Russian Federation itself.

These were legitimate, internationally recognized parts of Ukraine. What the Russians recognized was irrelevant.

And, you know, Serbia didn't declare war on the USA nor invade us back in 1999, either. So, if you are talking about a precedent - we already have more than one.

Serbia was committing genocide, something the Ukrainians were never accused of doing. So not analogous.

 

[Silver Cat]

When has isolationism been a good, long-term plan?

Almost always. And, especially, when the alternative is agressive but weak policy, or when we defend not the vital interests of our nation, but mere financial interests of the few corrupted politicians, or when we ignore direct invasion in our own country.

Everyone is in favor of equal rights for all but breaking up a recognized country and annexing its territory is not the way to do it.

Ok. We have a chance to improve situation with human rights in Baltic States right now. Stop discrimination of the local Russians in Baltic states, give them citizenship, and there are pretty good chances to prevent the further Russian invasion in Baltic region.

What good have our nukes been for us?

The better nuclear arsenal gives us an opportunity to raise bets and control the possible escalation. Otherwise, the Russians can win almost every conflict just by raising bets (as they are doing in Ukraine).

 

[Silver Cat]

These were legitimate, internationally recognized parts of Ukraine. What the Russians recognized was irrelevant.

Actually, it's pretty relevant because Russia is the most powerful nuclear state in the world, and, therefore, an important member of the international community.

What is even more important, is that post-Maidan Kievan Junta didn't see more than half of Ukrainian citizens as human being with the equal rights. When you declare "Ukraine for [ethnic] Ukrainians", or " Serbia for [ethnic] Serbs", or "Georgia for [ethnic] Georgians", or "America for [white anglo-saxon protestant] Americans" you have a pretty good chances to fall into a civil war.

Serbia was committing genocide, something the Ukrainians were never accused of doing. So not analogous.

Actually, the Russians have officially accused Kiev of genocide.

 

[alang1216]

Actually, it's pretty relevant because Russia is the most powerful nuclear state in the world, and, therefore, an important member of the international community.

By what measure? Russia is a 3rd world country with a first world military. They're economy is about the size of Texas.

What is even more important, is that post-Maidan Kievan Junta didn't see more than half of Ukrainian citizens as human being with the equal rights. When you declare "Ukraine for [ethnic] Ukrainians", or " Serbia for [ethnic] Serbs", or "Georgia for [ethnic] Georgians", or "America for [white anglo-saxon protestant] Americans" you have a pretty good chances to fall into a civil war.

Got some non-Russian source?

Actually, the Russians have officially accused Kiev of genocide.

Shocker. Any other countries or NGOs do the same?

 

[Silver Cat]

By what measure? Russia is a 3rd world country with a first world military. They're economy is about the size of Texas.

By military measure, first of all. And no, their economy is rising (as well as average household wealth) and all those unprecedented sanctions didn't seriously harm them. That demonstrate the difference between actual (natural) wealth and virtual ones and zeroes somewhere in bank computers. The Russian economy allows them to produce new tanks and nukes from the scratch, and the economy of the Western countries doesn't.

Got some non-Russian source?

Didn't you read our member Litwin ? He is definitely not an Ukrainian, but he is parroting their (Banderovci) propaganda. He say, that the Russians should be discriminated because they are not Europeans, but Mongols and N#ggers.

Shocker. Any other countries or NGOs do the same?

Who cares? If an accusation of genocide is the acceptable justification of invasion (as it was in Serbia), then the Russians have it.

 

[Zebra]

ukraine is lost …..

 

[alang1216]

By military measure, first of all. And no, their economy is rising (as well as average household wealth) and all those unprecedented sanctions didn't seriously harm them. That demonstrate the difference between actual (natural) wealth and virtual ones and zeroes somewhere in bank computers. The Russian economy allows them to produce new tanks and nukes from the scratch, and the economy of the Western countries doesn't.

Actually they can't produce their own tanks since they can't manufacture the electronics that modern tanks require. Most of the tanks they use in Ukraine are much older models pulled from storage.

Their 'actual' wealth is in the form of natural resources, like oil and natural gas they possess. Like other 3rd world countries, they sell their raw materials abroad and import manufactured goods.

Didn't you read our member Litwin ? He is definitely not an Ukrainian, but he is parroting their (Banderovci) propaganda. He say, that the Russians should be discriminated because they are not Europeans, but Mongols and N#ggers.

So your sources are a non-Ukrainian and a Ukrainian who died almost 65 years ago. Not very convincing.

Who cares? If an accusation of genocide is the acceptable justification of invasion (as it was in Serbia), then the Russians have it.

There was plenty of evidence of Serbian genocide before NATO got involved. I have not seen such evidence from Russia.

 

[Deadstick]

Not quite so simple. Yanukovych signed an agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine but never implemented it. Protests by Ukrainian people forced him to flee the country so the Parliament nullified hit office.

Well he didn't have chance to implement it, thats the whole point, Yarosh and the fascists backed by the US and it's vassals didn't want it implemented becuse they may not have had the result from the next election they wanted, so they went into lynch mob mode that is why Yanukovych left.