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

Amp34 · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:14

Zethor said:
Also, I see a lot of complaints about the Western Media, as if it's some sort of huge conglomerate which takes order from...? Who exactly do you conspirationists think gives the orders? The US leaders? The Uk leaders? The Polish leaders? The Canadian one? Romanians maybe? Do you guys seriously think that all of these people from California to Bulgaria are crazy, stupid or part of a huge conspiracy?

While some may be arguing that there is some huge conspiracy most in this thread are generally indicating institutional bias. Whether that be because their reporters have much better access to western leaders and press conferences or because of a slant in their paper. Other examples would be the guardian's disdain for the conservatives and left leaning stories and the telegraphs right leaning stories. Then there is RT and infowars, the former is heavily bias the latter a website with some random guy spewing nonsense he has no idea about...

There are plenty of articles out there from the large established news agents that have lots of useful information in however there is also a lot of bias out there too.

ubersonic · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:18

Zethor said:
Crimea can't hold a legal referendum on independence right now, they agreed to that themselves in the late 90s.

The 90's are not right now, the landscape changed after the leader of Ukraine was overthrown in a coup and a new pro-EU/anti-Russia leader installed in his place.

If the Ukraine are not going to play by their own rules then they cannot expect Crimea to do so.

scorza · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:18

Amp34 said:
End of the day it's a ******* mess, mainly caused by political meanderings from both sides and a country that has staunch pro Europe and pro Russian enclaves. If one doesn't have someone fighting for their ideals they complain and protest, leading to the seesawing that we have seen in the Ukraine for the last 20 years.

Now that I agree with 100%.

oulton · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:20

Devlish said:
Get with the basic stuff. The problem was the democratically elected president acting undemocratically

Facts? Evidence? Proof? Or do you simply deal with naysay these days.

Who has the coupe replaced the old government with? Oh, that right, billionaire corrupt Oligarchs.

Devlish said:
And Crimea was not seeking self-determination before the Russian military started stamping around.

Get with the facts - Russia has had a long standing lease with Ukraine that allows the posting of 25000 servicemen and women in Crimea until 2042. They are not invading anything. They have a legal right to be there. The same goes for the Crimean fleet as Servastopol.

Where’s the respect for the will of the Ukrainian people, or the minorities in Crimea, or the respect for international law which stops the whole shebang slipping into the abyss?

There is absolutely no respect for the will of the Ukrainian people. Mark my words, they are simply the causalities of geopolitical manoeuvring, and will be the ones suffering in the long run.

Their democratically elected president has been ousted by a band of murderous Molotov cocktail throwing thugs, who JUST BECAUSE IT SUITS THE US, have been given the go ahead to rule the country.

You haven't the faintest grasp on the basics of political constitution.

Devlish · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:21

ubersonic said:
The 90's are not right now, the landscape changed after the leader of Ukraine was overthrown in a coup and a new pro-EU/anti-Russia leader installed in his place.

If the Ukraine are not going to play by their own rules then they cannot expect Crimea to do so.

theres a huge difference between internal conflict and inter-state military intervention. If Crimea had done this off their own bat we wouldnt be having a discussion. The fact that they did it soon after the Russians invaded is the problem.

Amp34 · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:21

Devlish said:
Get with the basic stuff. The problem was the democratically elected president acting undemocratically. And Crimea was not seeking self-determination before the Russian military started stamping around. It really is quite simple. If one small part of a country can go around declaring itself part of another country by virtue that the majority of its population think thats a good idea, you will see Eastern Europe and large chunks of the rest of the world splinter hard pretty quickly and with serious consequences.

Of course generally that would not happen because world powers are expected to act responsibly and not accept national defections and especially not encourage it through military interventions. Whats next? NATO marching into the New Democratic Republic of Western Belarus if they flutter their eyelids? How much of that happening before we land in a full on shooting war?

Wheres the respect for the will of the ukrainian people, or the minorities in crimea, or the respect for international law which stops the whole shebang slipping into the abyss?

Its just as well youre saying that on the internet because you cannot be seriously saying that with a straight face.

Ah yes, the crux of the issue. Self determination is fine, unless if benefits a power we dont like.

Where was the respect for the people of the country (and the international community) when we invaded iraq and bombed (and invaded) Libya? Ah yeah...

What we really need is Hague and Obama to stop with the rhetoric and agree that a referendum can take place, with UN oversight. It doesn't appear to be the case at the moment but hopefully that will come if we stop spouting sanctions and rhetoric.

The biggest issue I have with posters like you is what seems the inability to see both sides of the issue. It's just a west is good and east is bad. No one can think that maybe people do actually prefer the Russian way of life (even if we dont, I certainly don't) and that we, the west, are just as underhand as Russia in international politics.

As I said before, I'm guessing we will have to wait 20-30.years for the truth to come out but I bet there is far more to this thing than meets the eye, with the EU being far more involved from the start than we would like to think.

oulton · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:23

Devlish said:
Its just as well youre saying that on the internet because you cannot be seriously saying that with a straight face.

What is your proof to the contrary?

If you are suggesting the BBC has presented a balanced view of the situation then your level of delusion is beyond repair.

Devlish · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:30

Amp34 said:
Ah yes, the crux of the issue. Self determination is fine, unless if benefits a power we dont like.

Where was the respect for the people of the country (and the international community) when we invaded iraq and bombed (and invaded) Libya? Ah yeah...

What we really need is Hague and Obama to stop with the rhetoric and agree that a referendum can take place, with UN oversight. It doesn't appear to be the case at the moment but hopefully that will come if we stop spouting sanctions and rhetoric.

The difference was international sanction. If Russia had gone to the UN and obtained their agreement for the invasion of Crimea to help the russians against the dicatorial Ukranians and got approval, which happened in Iraq and Libya, again no problem. What we are actually sanctioning here is permission for the US to start parachuting troops into any country, or rather part of a country, that wants to join America. Or the Chinese to get an inkling that maybe that bit of next door wants to be Chinese. Its a terrible precedent.

Agree about the referendum but it needs to be Ukrainian wide, according to the constuitution. Also very disappointed with Obama. To me this is a direct result of his indecision on Syria.

Devlish · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:31

oulton said:
What is your proof to the contrary?

If you are suggesting the BBC has presented a balanced view of the situation then your level of delusion is beyond repair.

Oh, youre one of those.

oulton · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:31

Devlish said:
Blah.

Good to see you can't provide a rebbuttal to any of my points. You are in lala land

Amp34 · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:33

Devlish said:
theres a huge difference between internal conflict and inter-state military intervention. If Crimea had done this off their own bat we wouldnt be having a discussion. The fact that they did it soon after the Russians invaded is the problem.

I agree with that, which is why now the Crimean government have given people the vote we, the west should be supporting a balanced and fair referendum. If the overwhelming majority of people vote yes in a fair referendum then it shouldn't matter why the question was asked in the first place. Let's not forget the first referendum was going to be two weeks later and asking if they wanted independence. It was only after the Ukrainian government decided to sign arrest warrants for the Crimean governments leaderd that the crimeans spat the dummy out and decided the referendum question should include a reunify with Russia option.

It's a breakdown of political discussion on both sides that made this worse.

Devlish · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:33

oulton said:
Good to see you can't provide a rebbuttal to any of my points. You are in lala land

Yeah I tend to leave the frothy ranters to their own devices. Enjoy!

scorza · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:33

MeEsH BaKkA said:
It's not about who's right or looking after repressed people this is all about who can throw their weight around the most. Financially Europe and the US are better off but if Russia shuts off the gas Europe is stuffed, hence the non forthcoming financial sanctions from European countrys.

Just to point out again that if Russia shuts off the gas then Russia is stuffed as well. Selling gas to Europe accounts for over half Russia's revenue, so it'd basically be bankrupting itself.

oulton · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:34

Devlish said:
Oh, youre one of those.

Devilish, here is a simple and easy question for you.

In one hundred words or less, please explain how the overthrowing of the Ukraine government by violence is in line with the upholding of the Ukranian constituition.

This is like a GCSE exam question. Since you will probably be taking your GCSE's in the next couple of years this should be good practise for you.

Devlish · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:37

Amp34 said:
I agree with that, which is why now the Crimean government have given people the vote we, the west should be supporting a balanced and fair referendum. If the overwhelming majority of people vote yes in a fair referendum then it shouldn't matter why the question was asked in the first place. Let's not forget the first referendum was going to be two weeks later and asking if they wanted independence. It was only after the Ukrainian government decided to sign arrest warrants for the Crimean governments leaderd that the crimeans spat the dummy out and decided the referendum question should include a reunify with Russia option.

It's a breakdown of political discussion on both sides that made this worse.

Yes this has not been handled well by the new interim government, especially with the russian language declaration and some fairly concerning far right appointments in their government. There is a real quagmire to sort through, but the Russians sticking their size 9s in has dramatically escalated the issue beyond regional problems to international ones.

oulton · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:38

scorza said:
Just to point out again that if Russia shuts off the gas then Russia is stuffed as well. Selling gas to Europe accounts for over half Russia's revenue, so it'd basically be bankrupting itself.

Time for some schooling. Please don't take it personally, I just want to teach you something.

Russia has three sets of pipelines.

The Northern Europe pipeline feeds Germany et al, who having shunned their Nuclear program are entirely reliant on Russian Gas.

The central Pipeline runs through Ukraine. If the Russians shut this off, much of Eastern Europe will be in big trouble.

The Southern Pipeline will carry on, business as usual.

[/IMG]

Combined with the fact that Russia stopped exporting grain to the EU in 2012 (after the grain fires), means that Russia has a food surpluss, while Europe as an energy defecit

Amp34 · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:44

Devlish said:
The difference was international sanction. If Russia had gone to the UN and obtained their agreement for the invasion of Crimea to help the russians against the dicatorial Ukranians and got approval, which happened in Iraq and Libya, again no problem. What we are actually sanctioning here is permission for the US to start parachuting troops into any country, or rather part of a country, that wants to join America. Or the Chinese to get an inkling that maybe that bit of next door wants to be Chinese. Its a terrible precedent.

Agree about the referendum but it needs to be Ukrainian wide, according to the constuitution. Also very disappointed with Obama. To me this is a direct result of his indecision on Syria.

You're missing the point about Libya. We did not have international sanction for what we did there. We had permission to protect civilians with precision air strikes, in the end what we actually did was act as the rebels air wing and land special forces to train and work with the rebels. That is one of the reasons Russia were against the US and UK attacking Syria. We couldn't be trusted to stay within the bounds of the UN sanctions. So whIle this may be a direct result of no invasion of Syria that decision was taken because of NATO overstepping the mark in Libya. As an aside I don't think we should have stepped in the way we were planning there either. Both sides were/are as bad as each other and it wouldn't have ended well for civilians, even if we had taken Assad down.

A Ukraine wide referendum? What would the question be? You can't declare independence from yourself

. Alternatively we have to remember that Crimea is an autonomous region of Ukraine due to the very different nature of its relationship to the rest of the Ukraine. That's shown in the history where in the last 20 years there have been a number of breakaway attempts which invariably ended as failures.

oulton · 7 Mar 2014 at 10:46

Amp34 said:
You're missing the point about Libya. We did not have international sanction for what we did there. We had permission to protect civilians with precision air strikes, in the end what we actually did was act as the rebels air wing and land special forces to train and work with the rebels. That is one of the reasons Russia were against the US and UK attacking Syria. We couldn't be trusted to stay within the bounds of the UN sanctions. So whIle this may be a direct result of no invasion of Syria that decision was taken because of NATO overstepping the mark in Libya. As an aside I don't think we should have stepped in the way we were planning there either. Both sides were/are as bad as each other and it wouldn't have ended well for civilians, even if we had taken Assad down.

A Ukraine wide referendum? What would the question be? You can't declare independence from yourself. Alternatively we have to remember that Crimea is an autonomous region of Ukraine due to the very different nature of its relationship to the rest of the Ukraine. That's shown in the history where in the last 20 years there have been a number of breakaway attempts which invariably ended as failures.

Interesting article for those of you who can read.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/CHIN-02-050314.html

ubersonic · 7 Mar 2014 at 11:05

oulton said:
Interesting article for those of you who can read.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/CHIN-02-050314.html

Well technically speaking the ability to read isn't required as it's so poorly written

Devlish · 7 Mar 2014 at 11:24

Amp34 said:
You're missing the point about Libya. We did not have international sanction for what we did there. We had permission to protect civilians with precision air strikes, in the end what we actually did was act as the rebels air wing and land special forces to train and work with the rebels. That is one of the reasons Russia were against the US and UK attacking Syria. We couldn't be trusted to stay within the bounds of the UN sanctions. So whIle this may be a direct result of no invasion of Syria that decision was taken because of NATO overstepping the mark in Libya. As an aside I don't think we should have stepped in the way we were planning there either. Both sides were/are as bad as each other and it wouldn't have ended well for civilians, even if we had taken Assad down.

A Ukraine wide referendum? What would the question be? You can't declare independence from yourself. Alternatively we have to remember that Crimea is an autonomous region of Ukraine due to the very different nature of its relationship to the rest of the Ukraine. That's shown in the history where in the last 20 years there have been a number of breakaway attempts which invariably ended as failures.

Libya intervention did have UN sanction which became the basis for all military action, specifically UN Security Council Resolution 1973 which included the all measures to protect civvies. You could argue that we went beyond that but I would argue it was pretty wide to start with. the point being that we had a permission of sorts from the international community. Russia abstained, but did not oppose. I do understand to a degree why Russia feels like its been on a losing streak, but after running circles around the US over Syria and leaving the West with egg on its face, this militaristic adventure seems ill measured.

I would argue the reason Russia did not want western intervention in Syria is because Assad is one of the few old Soviet bloc supporters left in the region and without a pro-russian Syria, Hezbollah and all effective opposition to Israel collapses. And of course they lose their last port in the region, which whilst small is still significant. I personally think we should have gone in and gone in hard. Nothing could be worse for the civilians of Syria than what assad is doing to them now, even a government with Hardline Islamic elements.

Im pretty sure I read that the Ukranian constitution requires that any changes to its territorial boundaries be undertaken through a nation wide referendum. The Crimea does have a difficult history but you also have to remember how the Tartars ended up there and the Ukrainian percentage of the population. Im sure you could carve out any section of land and ensure that any specific portion has an ethnic majority. What if the Ukrainian or Tartar dominant parts of Crimea want to remain Ukrainian? Should we suggest they have a referndum for their slice?