Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[ubersonic]

What is it about Putin that appeals to right wingers in Europe? Farage, Le Pen, even people here seem to be fascinated by this autocratic ruler. Is it the emphasis he puts on tradition? The rejection of progressive values? Or maybe you see him as a fighter against the current World Establishment/Order?

Don't forget Alex Salmond.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. I am neither a terrorist or a freedom fighter.

Good point, the Maidan protesters were committing terrorism/treason against the state but in the eyes of many they were fighting for their countries future so it depends entirely on a persons allegiance. Likewise the separatists are called terrorists by the Kiev government but protesters/rebels in the east.

If I had to label the Maidan protestors I would say they were pro-democracy supporters

Yeah because if you don't like the decisions your democratically elected leader is making for your country the best solution isn't to elect a different one in the next election, it's to stage a coup and remove him, that won't upset/anger millions of your co-patriots and threatern to divide your country or decend it into civil war...

it really is a catastrophic failure of an elected leader if his actions are so unpopular that he has to flee the country as a result.

He fled the country due to a coup taking place to remove him which involved a small but powerful number of government officials, I would too TBH.

 

[XeNoN89]

What is it about Putin that appeals to right wingers in Europe? Farage, Le Pen, even people here seem to be fascinated by this autocratic ruler. Is it the emphasis he puts on tradition? The rejection of progressive values? Or maybe you see him as a fighter against the current World Establishment/Order?

It's because he is a strong leader, doesn't take crap from anybody and does what he wants and thinks is right basically.

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is a loon, but when you look at his persona compared to our spineless MPs, you can see why some people like his 'style'

 

[Zethor]

It's because he is a strong leader, doesn't take crap from anybody and does what he wants and thinks is right basically.

Such leaders have terrible and often bloody historical records, particularly in the last 100 years. Aren't the fans considering this?

 

[Zethor]

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. I am neither a terrorist or a freedom fighter.

Good point, the Maidan protesters were committing terrorism/treason against the state but in the eyes of many they were fighting for their countries future so it depends entirely on a persons allegiance. Likewise the separatists are called terrorists by the Kiev government but protesters/rebels in the east.


Yeah because if you don't like the decisions your democratically elected leader is making for your country the best solution isn't to elect a different one in the next election, it's to stage a coup and remove him, that won't upset/anger millions of your co-patriots and threatern to divide your country or decend it into civil war...

You've been told repeatedly there are significant differences. The protests that started in late 2013 involved hundreds of thousands of people that occupied squares and wanted their voice to be heard. It was a typical protest, similar to what we've seen in Ukraine in 2004 or Greece, Spain, even the UK in recent years. The length of the protests and the massacre of the 100 people are the reasons of the escalation and deposion of the leader.

What's happening now is the East consists of small groups of armed men that take over strategic buildings. This isn't a popular uprising, it's organised movement aimed at destabilising the country, with support from another country consisting of firearms, body armour and whatnot.

 

[scorza]

Good point, the Maidan protesters were committing terrorism/treason against the state but in the eyes of many they were fighting for their countries future so it depends entirely on a persons allegiance. Likewise the separatists are called terrorists by the Kiev government but protesters/rebels in the east.

Yeah because if you don't like the decisions your democratically elected leader is making for your country the best solution isn't to elect a different one in the next election, it's to stage a coup and remove him, that won't upset/anger millions of your co-patriots and threatern to divide your country or decend it into civil war...

Since when is protesting a form of terrorism or treason? Yes when your democratically elected leaders make decisions you don't like you should protest, Yanukovych's mishandling of those protests played a major part in his downfall, namely ordering police to use force to remove protestors which just brought more protestors to Maidan, and then ordering the Berkut secret police unit to kill 120+ of them. There's no evidence a coup was planned at any stage.

"People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of the people".

He fled the country due to a coup taking place to remove him which involved a small but powerful number of government officials, I would too TBH.

You keep using the term coup, but it's an emotive term and I'm not entirely convinced that it applies here. What is certain is that Yanukovych lost control of the country and had to flee for his own personal safety, that's primarily his own failure.

 

[ubersonic]

Since when is protesting a form of terrorism or treason?

It isn't, rising up against the democratically elected government, assaulting police, rioting and causing widespread damage and chaos is. Pelting police with Molotov cocktails is not a protest!

Yes when your democratically elected leaders make decisions you don't like you should protest, Yanukovych's mishandling of those protests played a major part in his downfall, namely ordering police to use force to remove protestors which just brought more protestors to Maidan, and then ordering the Berkut secret police unit to kill 120+ of them. There's no evidence a coup was planned at any stage.

Nor is the any evidence that he ordered police to kill people (unless you consider the word of his successor as actual evidence).

You keep using the term coup, but it's an emotive term and I'm not entirely convinced that it applies here.

Coup: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

Convinced now? the only reason it wasn't violent is because it occurred in his absence (he had visited the city of Kharkiv to meet with politicians there that day).

What is certain is that Yanukovych lost control of the country and had to flee for his own personal safety, that's primarily his own failure.

I doubt he ever believed enough members of the government would conspire to execute a coup while he was in Kharkiv or he would not have gone. Or maybe he just thought they wouldn't try illegal means, but your right it's his own fault for being outmanoeuvred politically.

 

[scorza]

It isn't, rising up against the democratically elected government, assaulting police, rioting and causing widespread damage and chaos is. Pelting police with Molotov cocktails is not a protest!

You're completely ignoring the timeline of the protests, they started out peacefully escalated into violence when the Berkut went in heavy handed, putting around 80 protestors in hospital.

500,000 people protesting isn't a coup, it's a popular uprising.

Nor is the any evidence that he ordered police to kill people (unless you consider the word of his successor as actual evidence).

Nevertheless he presided over a regime that did kill people and he fled to a place where he knew he wouldn't face any sort of inquiry.

Coup: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

Proves my point, it wasn't sudden, the violence came from the establishment side, no-one has challenged the legality of the impeachment of Yanukovych. If it was an illegal impeachment, I'd expect Yanukovych to challenge it in accordance with the Ukrainian legal system.

Convinced now? the only reason it wasn't violent is because it occurred in his absence (he had visited the city of Kharkiv to meet with politicians there that day).

Glad you agree it wasn't violent and thus proves that it wasn't a coup.

I doubt he ever believed enough members of the government would conspire to execute a coup while he was in Kharkiv or he would not have gone. Or maybe he just thought they wouldn't try illegal means, but your right it's his own fault for being outmanoeuvred politically.

Well I'd argue it was his own fault for ignoring the strength of feeling of the people who elected him first and foremost.

 

[ubersonic]

You're completely ignoring the timeline of the protests, they started out peacefully escalated into violence when the Berkut went in heavy handed, putting around 80 protestors in hospital.

I'm not ignoring it you misrepresenting it, your post needs a comma like so:

"Started out peacefully, escalated into violence, Berkut went in heavy handed"

500,000 people protesting isn't a coup, it's a popular uprising.

Even assuming that grossly inflated number is accurate (which photos show it is not) 1% of the population is not a majority or popular.

Nevertheless he presided over a regime that did kill people and he fled to a place where he knew he wouldn't face any sort of inquiry.

Tony Blair, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Obama and pretty much any long term world leader has presided over a regime who's police force killed people. And he fled because he had been removed from power in a coup and believed his life to be in danger either from the "protesters" or his political enemies who had assumed power.

no-one has challenged the legality of the impeachment of Yanukovych. If it was an illegal impeachment, I'd expect Yanukovych to challenge it in accordance with the Ukrainian legal system.

Apart from half of Ukraine, Yanukovych himself and the entire Russia Federation you mean? O.o

If was illegal under both international law and the Ukrainian constitution, a motion to impeach him was tabled, it failed, the heads of parliment then decided to just go ahead and impeach him anyway.

Glad you agree it wasn't violent and thus proves that it wasn't a coup.

Not all coups are violent, ever heard of a bloodless coup?

Well I'd argue it was his own fault for ignoring the strength of feeling of the people who elected him first and foremost.

It wasn't the people who deposed him though it was other politicians who knew if they got rid of him they could seize power and the EU/USA would jump in to cheer them on.

 

[Nulir]

It's blatantly obvious to see unless you are blind, stupid or just naive that a number (not all) of these so called 'Pro-Russian' supporters are well trained, well equipped and very co-ordinated. They are well organised and operating in Eastern Ukraine taking strategic points.

There is no doubt at all that a number of these people in eastern Ukraine are Professional Russian Paramilitary or Special Forces.

Look at the building evidence coming out everyday.

I Don't support Russia or NATO, its more likely than not this was Russia's likely next course of action to anyone with half a brain.

Look at thousands of pictures out there. Just ask someone from Ukraine whats really going on out there.

The Nay sayers will continue to deny no matter what evidence is presented
so this is more for those who are not sure what is happening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27104904


http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...hatters-russian-lies-about-troops-in-ukraine/

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/ukraine-submits-proof-russian-covert-action-301601

http://rt.com/news/crimea-defense-russian-soldiers-108/

 

[Nerusy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27104904

This is actually a BBC article that discrdits the "proof" that Ukranian authority provided and Obama administration endores. Quite funny that you didn't actually read the article and think that this proves Russian forces involvement

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/ukraine-submits-proof-russian-covert-action-301601

Quick note on this one, the picture claims to be of the RPG-30 that is currently only available to the Russian forces is actually also false. Google RPG-30 and compare the pictures, there's a tube alongside RPG-30 which is not present in the falsified proof pictures.

The RPG that Ukrainian separatist in these pictures are in fact RPG-26 Ukrainian army standard issue. Here at 8:30 they get them RPG-26

As for armed and organised, first of all, all Ukrainian men go through military training, they still have conscription and if I remember correctly it ended in 2013 and now there is proposition to start conscription again, in any case all men 19+ had military training. Second of all disbanded Berkut has both equipment and training and they joined Russia/Crimea/Eastern Ukraine when the new government disbanded them.

 

[Nulir]

This is actually a BBC article that discrdits the "proof" that Ukranian authority provided and Obama administration endores. Quite funny that you didn't actually read the article and think that this proves Russian forces involvement



Quick note on this one, the picture claims to be of the RPG-30 that is currently only available to the Russian forces is actually also false. Google RPG-30 and compare the pictures, there's a tube alongside RPG-30 which is not present in the falsified proof pictures.

The RPG that Ukrainian separatist in these pictures are in fact RPG-26 Ukrainian army standard issue. Here at 8:30 they get them RPG-26

As for armed and organised, first of all, all Ukrainian men go through military training, they still have conscription and if I remember correctly it ended in 2013 and now there is proposition to start conscription again, in any case all men 18+ had military training. Second of all disbanded Berkut has both equipment and training and they joined Russia/Crimea/Eastern Ukraine when the new government disbanded them.

You didn't read the article or what I said more like..... it does not discredit anything I said, It shows 'some' (operative word) evidence of what I talking about. RPG what? again you missed the point. So you think they are the disbanded berkut or Ex Ukraine servicemen? Commanded by whom? funded by whom? logistically supported by whom? Tell me

 

[Nerusy]

You didn't read the article or what I was saying more like, it does not discredit anything I said It shows some evedence of what I was saying not staements from USA

First of all, that BBC aritcle discredits the set of photoes released by the Ukranin interim government and

According to a New York Times article, the photos and their descriptions were "endorsed by the Obama administration"

Also this from the article:

But it cannot be said for sure that they are actual Russian special forces, as the Ukrainians argue.

I suggest you start reading sources you link and nice of you to ignore my correction of your RPG picture you linked

The Nay sayers will continue to deny no matter what evidence is presented

I've actually personally discredited RPG "evidence" and BBC article discredits the photoes "evidence":

This would be damning evidence indeed but in the 2014 photos, the man's greying beard appears to be black while in Georgia six years ago, the slimmer-looking man shown has a reddish beard.

The Ukrainian government highlights a Russian special forces badge on the sleeve of the gunman in Georgia but such badges can be bought on the internet for less than $5 (£2.90).

Another set of photos purports to show the same masked gunman in both Crimea earlier and in the Donetsk region this month. However, while a similar combat uniform is worn in both photos, the masks are different, as is the way the pistol is worn on his belt.

RPG what? again you missed the point. So you think they are the disbanded berkut or Ex Ukraine servicemen? Commanded by whom? funded by whom? logistically supported by whom? Tell me

When you provide already discredited as false evidence it really does undermine your point does it not.

 

[Nulir]

First of all, that BBC aritcle discredits the set of photoes released by the Ukranin interim government and



Also this from the article:



I suggest you start reading sources you link and nice of you to ignore my correction of your RPG picture you linked



I've actually personally discredited RPG "evidence" and BBC article discredits the photoes "evidence":









When you provide already discredited as false evidence it really does undermine your point does it not.

NO AGAIN read what I said. Its Profesional equipment that demand training and funding. Do You seriously argue that East Ukraine managed to set up a secret government get funding and an organised well equiped army with intellegence and logistical support overnight with no support from Russia? Not likely is it.

 

[Nerusy]

NO AGAIN read what I said. Its Profesional uniforms and equipment that demand training and funding. Do You argue that East Ukraine managed to set up a secret government get funding and an organised well equiped army with intellegence and logistical support overnight with no support from Russia? Not likely is it

I wouldn't call equipment that can be easily bought "professional" nor would I say people in Eastern Ukraine have elite training, they are actually at expected of Berkut/conscription level of training, at least the ones who end up in the media.

I am not entirly sure what secret government you are talking about in Eastern Ukraine. perhaps you mean self appointed Mayor of the people of Donetsk republic who we know is local?

As for funding, I already explained to you that gear and training is not at professional level, at least not the ones we see from reports on the ground.

Finally Russian support, that's the big question isn't it and despite everybody claiming Russian forces are involved nobody can present any concrete proof, how odd. I wish I was as confident as you to claim something without any proof but I am not that brave.

I could go into the whole East vs West oligarch dynamic, what East has got to lose if trade agreement goes through, how corrupt everybody in Ukraine is, including current government, what stakes US and Russia have but I think intellectual debate of a complex situation is a bit too demanding from you seen as you already convinced yourself that Russian forces are behind everything.

 

[Nulir]

First of all, that BBC aritcle discredits the set of photoes released by the Ukranin interim government and



Also this from the article:



I suggest you start reading sources you link and nice of you to ignore my correction of your RPG picture you linked



I've actually personally discredited RPG "evidence" and BBC article discredits the photoes "evidence":









When you provide already discredited as false evidence it really does undermine your point does it not.

Point missed again. I wont nit pick at patches and rpgs. None of those statements from you, point to ANY evidence against what I was saying now does it. It was refuting statements of 100 percent proof which is near impossible in the best circumstances. News, pictures & videos of both sides coming out of east Ukraine points to Russian Involvement more than the latter now doesn't it

 

[Nerusy]

Point missed again. I wont nit pick at patches and rpgs. None of those statements from you, point to ANY evidence against what I was saying now does it. It was refuting statements of 100 percent proof which is near impossible in the best circumstances. News, pictures & videos of both sides coming out of east Ukraine points to Russian Involvement more than the latter now doesn't it

There is no doubt at all that a number of these people in eastern Ukraine are Professional Russian Paramilitary or Special Forces.

If there is no doubt then provide concrete proof. It's remarkable that everybody in the west thinks that there are Russian special forces involved in the eastern Ukraine but it seems that it's just you amazing enough to actually have proof that leaves "no doubt" of that.

All I did initially is point out that some of your confirmation bias sources 1) Go against what you claim 2) False. That's all, if you have some proof present it, if it's false I will call you out.

One a side note, seriously how can you argue we have enough evidence to have no doubt when *official* "proof" of Russian involvement in East Ukraine turned out to be false propaganda, with all the seemly countless evidence why did Ukrainian government tried to portray Russian Cossack with black/grey beard as red bearded Chechen*(Not sure if he was Chechen, he was part of Caucasus regiment disbanded at the end of 2008, so he'd be ossetian/chechen/dagestan etc)?

 

[scorza]

If there is no doubt then provide concrete proof. It's remarkable that everybody in the west thinks that there are Russian special forces involved in the eastern Ukraine but it seems that it's just you amazing enough to actually have proof that leaves "no doubt" of that.

All I did initially is point out that some of your confirmation bias sources 1) Go against what you claim 2) False. That's all, if you have some proof present it, if it's false I will call you out.

One a side note, seriously how can you argue we have enough evidence to have no doubt when *official* "proof" of Russian involvement in East Ukraine turned out to be false propaganda, with all the seemly countless evidence why did Ukrainian government tried to portray Russian Cossack with black/grey beard as red bearded Chechen*(Not sure if he was Chechen, he was part of Caucasus regiment disbanded at the end of 2008, so he'd be ossetian/chechen/dagestan etc)?

Funnily enough it's quite hard to provide evidence of special forces involvement - not leaving evidence behind is kinda the point of special forces. Nevertheless you can take a judgement based on what's happening in Ukraine at the moment i.e. the extremely well-organised and well-equipped pro-Russian mobs who are slowly taking over eastern Ukraine, and what happened recently i.e. the extremely well organised and well-equipped pro-Russian mobs who took over Crimea - and guess what? turned out to be Russian soldiers after all.

If you wait for cast iron proof for everything then you never do anything. President Putin hasn't waited for concrete proof of threats to ethnic Russians before acting has he?

 

[Nerusy]

Funnily enough it's quite hard to provide evidence of special forces involvement - not leaving evidence behind is kinda the point of special forces. Nevertheless you can take a judgement based on what's happening in Ukraine at the moment i.e. the extremely well-organised and well-equipped pro-Russian mobs who are slowly taking over eastern Ukraine, and what happened recently i.e. the extremely well organised and well-equipped pro-Russian mobs who took over Crimea - and guess what? turned out to be Russian soldiers after all.

If you wait for cast iron proof for everything then you never do anything. President Putin hasn't waited for concrete proof of threats to ethnic Russians before acting has he?

Well west is not exactly not doing anything until they get proof do they. The are putting sanctions on Russia due to what is happening in Eastern Ukraine so they are convinced of Russian involved despite not having proof/not showing the proof to the public.

Geneva accord was especially absurd, not a single representative from Eastern Ukraine yet they expected them to lay arms, what kind of nonsense is that, even under the assumption that Russian intelligence services helped and organised Eastern Ukraine militia that does not mean that it would then lay their arms like Russia side would ask, there are also Eastern Ukrainian oligarchs who got sanctioned and who stand to lose everything due to EU trade agreement.

Another stupidity is bunching up everybody in eastern Ukraine as pro-russians, whereas they this large group is made out of anti-maidan, federalists, pro-russians, pro-independence who all have different desires.

 

[scorza]

Even assuming that grossly inflated number is accurate (which photos show it is not) 1% of the population is not a majority or popular.

LOL you don't need >50% of a country's population to turn up to a protest for it to be considered popular. An estimated 1 million people turned up for the anti war march in London in 2003, which is less than 2% of the population. Would you argue that the other 59 million people were in favour of the war? Should the 1m people have just stayed at home and waited for the next election before expressing an opinion on Iraq?

Tony Blair, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Obama and pretty much any long term world leader has presided over a regime who's police force killed people. And he fled because he had been removed from power in a coup and believed his life to be in danger either from the "protesters" or his political enemies who had assumed power.

Tony Blair was forced to resign before his term as Prime Minister was up, partly because of growing pressure over the Iraq war. I'm not going to keep arguing with you about the definition of a coup. The fact is that if Yanokovych had acted in a democratic way rather than an autocratic one then he wouldn't have had to flee for his own life.

Apart from half of Ukraine, Yanukovych himself and the entire Russia Federation you mean? O.o

If was illegal under both international law and the Ukrainian constitution, a motion to impeach him was tabled, it failed, the heads of parliment then decided to just go ahead and impeach him anyway.

Got a source for the legal challenge on Yanukovych's impeachment? Moaning to Russia Today isn't a legal challenge.

Everything I've read about the impeachment process in Ukraine suggests that it is a complex issue, so I love how you have become an expert on the Ukrainian constitution and can judge it to be illegal based on media reports alone.

 

[scorza]

Well west is not exactly not doing anything until they get proof do they. The are putting sanctions on Russia due to what is happening in Eastern Ukraine so they are convinced of Russian involved despite not having proof/not showing the proof to the public.

Geneva accord was especially absurd, not a single representative from Eastern Ukraine yet they expected them to lay arms, what kind of nonsense is that, even under the assumption that Russian intelligence services helped and organised Eastern Ukraine militia that does not mean that it would then lay their arms like Russia side would ask, they are also Eastern Ukrainian oligarchs who got sanctioned and who stand to lose everything due to EU trade agreement.

Another stupidity is bunching up everybody in eastern Ukraine as pro-russians, whereas they this large group is made out of anti-maidan, federalists, pro-russians, pro-independence who all have different desires.

No, the west is taking some long overdue action against Russia. If you're talking about the Geneva accord, then Russia agreed to de-escalate the situation. Do you accept that maintaining some 40,000 soldiers at a combat ready state at the Ukrainian border is not something that is likely to de-escalate tensions?