Ukraine Crisis II: Electric Boogaloo

[Breadknife]

So, perhaps Putin and Klitschko to go toe-to-toe to resolve the situation?

[Scholmeria]

[quote="Soviet Russia

Way to miss the point, the point isn't the legal status of various nations being right or wrong. Which is irrelevant to the fact Crimea isn't apart Ukraine anymore in any meaningful sense. Ukraine has zero control over it, regardless if it should be legally part of it or not, dose not change the fact currently it is not part of Ukraine. Laws themselves are meaningless when those whom make them or are suppose to upheld do not have the power to enforce them with. Crimea is part of Russia now, morally/legally right or wrong, the fact is it is Russia who controls it again and that is not going to change since no one has the power and willing to prevent that at this time.[/quote]

If Russia currently controls Crimea it does not mean that Crimea is part of Russia nor that Russia owns it. If a robbers gains control over a house and starts living there it does not make him the owner of the house (de facto maybe)

Crimea is still part of ukraine.

[Alien Space Bats]

This is one case where I have no doubt the data is genuine: Two Ukrainians talking about how angry they are that their country has been ass-raped by Russia.

No, their country was not "ass-raped" by Russia. The vast majority of Crimea decided that they want reunion with Russia.

No amount of tap-dancing can avoid the fact that the Ukraine's sovereignty was shamelessly violated. You can't stand up for Syrian, Libyan, and Serbian sovereignty on the one hand and then argue that the Ukraine has no sovereign rights as a nation-state on the other.

Or at least you can't without transforming yourself into a pathetically shameless tool, anyway.

There were no bombings, nor aerial strikes, nor bloody invasion into the "proper" Ukrainian lands followed by the massacre of the civilians. Calling what had happened in Crimea a "ass-rape" of the country is hysterical, childish and really dangerous.

Calling the outright violation of a sovereign state's borders without the slightest justification an "ass-rape" is "dangerous"? REALLY?!?

You have that backwards, Bucky: NOT calling it an "ass-rape" is dangerous, because it legitimizes naked aggression in the name of ultranationalism. If it was wrong when Germany did it in AustrIa back in the 1930's, it's still wrong today; and if it was dangerous to apologize for it back then — as so many Quisling appeasers and collaborationists did back then — then it's just as dangerous today (if not MORE so; after all, there were no nuclear weapons back in the 1930's).

No, I'll stand by that description: It was indeed unequivocally an "ass=rape", pure and simple.

But the amazing thing here is what's to come: Russia and all of its apologists will express outrage over the Ukrainians' outrage and cite this as further evidence of their need to bring the Ukraine to heel. That's the thing about brutes: It's not enough to brutalize their victims; they have to then have their victims express their fawning gratitude over having been brutalized in turn.

Uhm... hello? Did you even listened to the record? Pani Tymishenko:

1) Said, that she wants to kill a head of another state.

2) She called for people to take up the arms and kill not "those damned Russians" (as translated in subtitles), but "chjortovih kacapov". "Kacap" is an Ukrainian derogatory form of calling any Russian. It's like calling an Afro-American "A fuckin' nigga", or calling a Jew "a bloody Kike".

3) She expressed a desire to employ "all her connections", including international ones, to "find a way to kill those a ****es". And the threat of World War 3 be damned - she expressed a desire to totally annihilate Russia, so that "there wouldn't be a even a scorched field left in Russia". She obviously didn't even think, what would be left of the Ukraine in that kind of scenario (or that calling for nukes or foreign invasion in Russia over Crimea is a little bit overreaction?).

4) Finally, she just called for 8 million citizens of the Ukraine (1/6 of the total population) to be "killed with nuclear weapons". So we all are really fortunate, that the Ukraine no longer has nukes.

Now tell me, Westerners and Ukrainian apologists - what would happened to the Western politician, who would be caught expressing racial slurs, calling for genocide of is own citizens and unconditional nuclear war? Or what, as long as the target of hatred is Russia and the hater is one of the Western "allies" the common rules do not apply? Viva hypocrisy and double standards!

If we Americans were to grab Siberia from you Russians (and there IS, shockingly enough, a native independence movement in Siberia that DOES, in fact, seek to break away from Russia and join, of all places, the United States of America), I would imagine that you Russians would be saying far worse about Obama and the United States.

<pause>

It's what's called anger, or (if your prefer) righteous indignation. It's perfectly understandable. Not all of us can control our rage when we've been shamefully wronged, you know.

But then, this is just what I predicted, isn't it? Only a bunch of nationalist buffoons and/or brutes would imagine that they can invade another country and be LOVED by those they have so deeply and shamelessly violated. Few rapists expect to be loved by their victims, but apparently Vlad is SO manly that it's unreasonable for HIS victims to be overcome by anything other than feelings of deep thanks and admiration for becoming the involuntary recipients of his Godly golden seed, right?

Bullshit.

By the way, during the "Orange Revolution" of 2004-5 in the Ukraine, pani [/i ]Tymosheko expressed her burning desire to build a fence with the barded wire around the Eastern part of the Ukraine ("[i]трэба обнэсти цэй клятый регион колючим дротом") and let the people here rot, plus to sunk Sevastopol (in Crimea, if you still don't know where it is) in the Black Sea. But this is also totally okay for the West, isn't it?

Did I say that? Or are you just reaching?

[Lyttenburgh]

Yeah, judging by your posting history, I'm assuming said quotes are either heresay or pure bullshit[*]. And it's not "unthinkable", because expressing views and then carrying them out are two totally different things[**].

*] What quotes? Quotes by Tymoshenko? The record with English subtitles is availible - or you think it was maliciously mistranslated? As for her words about Donbass - Google it (better - in original Ukrainian I provided). And what about my "history"?

[**] You are Australian/New Zealander? Probably for you that analogy won't work. Ok, Situation: some already notorious American politician with megaphone starts to yell "Kill dem Jews!" in front of synagogue in New York. He has no nukes, nor machinegun, so he can't "carry out" his views. Query: even if he don't kill anyone, what should be his political future after that?

The Ukraine and Russia are to democracy what North Korea and Saudi Arabia are to human rights.

What a quasi witty worded pulled out of the ass utter nonsense! Or, of course, you can prove your point.

I really want to know exactly how you came to that conclusion.

Type 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RxSzSWbcxo
I though all the time that she was a corrupt gas princess who had good relations with Putin.

Russia Today.
Ehnope. Conversation either didn't happen, or didn't happen as that 'leak' sounds.

Type 2

But yes, I don't exactly see how it isn't understandable. She's been a large proponent of friendly ties with Russia/Putin in the past, having part of the country conquered by them/him must be a rather brutal wakeup call. Not exactly prone to inspire a fawning attitude for the Russian Federation.

But the amazing thing here is what's to come: Russia and all of its apologists will express outrage over the Ukrainians' outrage and cite this as further evidence of their need to bring the Ukraine to heel. That's the thing about brutes: It's not enough to brutalize their victims; they have to then have their victims express their fawning gratitude over having been brutalized in turn.

What the actual fuck are you rambling on about?

I am talking that politicians should, as we call it in Russia "фильтровать базар", i.e. always think before speaking even not in public, because their words bear more weight and potential consequences then ours, mere mortals/electorate/prols/hoi polloi/demos/commoners etc, words.

PS. I am not "enraged" at the West. It's not worthy any strong emotions.

[Alien Space Bats]

But yes, I guess it makes sense that being angry at Russia for invading your country is "Russophobia".

We must all welcome violation by Vlad. He's just so MANLY!!!!

[Alaizia]

So NSers, what do you think Ukraine should do now based on the current situation?

[Gravlen]

Russian Crimea will be like Northern Cyprus - recognized by it's occupyer and by nobody else.

The big question now is how the situation in Eastern Ukraine and the Baltics will turn one over the coming weeks, and what kind of state Ukraine as a whole will become.

Except Crimean union with Russia has already been recognized by other states. Syria, Armenia, Venezuela, Kazakhstan... hell even Afghanistan recognizes it.

So its not the same at all.

Source?

Because the source you provided before (Wikipedia) did not show that. It only showed those countries being supportive of the referendum, while explicitly stating that only Russia had recognized the Republic of Crimea and by extension the union.

[Oaledonia]

So NSers, what do you think Ukraine should do now based on the current situation?

Not commit suicide. It should bide it's time and make relations with the west stronger, while dismantling it's relations (if it has any) with Russia.
Then, later, Russia will accuse them of "Russophopia" and claim that they are the victim of unwarranted Ukrainian aggression

[Natalia Poklonskaya]

I love how everyone assumes we're going on some imperialistic shopping spree.

"Holy shit, those Russians just stole back land that was stolen from them, we better watch out or we'll be next hurr durr!"

[Alaizia]

So NSers, what do you think Ukraine should do now based on the current situation?

Not commit suicide. It should bide it's time and make relations with the west stronger, while dismantling it's relations (if it has any) with Russia.
Then, later, Russia will accuse them of "Russophopia" and claim that they are the victim of unwarranted Ukrainian aggression

And by suicide you mean....

[Costa Fierro]

*] What quotes? Quotes by Tymoshenko? The record with English subtitles is availible - or you think it was maliciously mistranslated?

I don't believe it was "maliciously mistranslated" but I do believe Russia Today isn't a valid source.

And what about my "history"?

Mindlessly defending Russia and making up bullshit claims about "the West" like some sort of state media "journalist".

You are Australian/New Zealander?

The latter.

Probably for you that analogy won't work.

Ok, Situation: some already notorious American politician with megaphone starts to yell "Kill dem Jews!" in front of synagogue in New York. He has no nukes, nor machinegun, so he can't "carry out" his views. Query: even if he don't kill anyone, what should be his political future after that?

I wouldn't have any issues with him trying to run for public office. The thing about democracy is that everyone has the same rights regardless of their views and have equal opportunity to run for public office. His political future would obviously be limited, as the majority of people wouldn't want to vote for someone like him. But that's how democracy functions. Have opinions the majority agree with? Success. Have views that a minority agree with? Limited support and a lot of public ridicule.

What a quasi witty worded pulled out of the ass utter nonsense! Or, of course, you can prove your point.

Both the Ukraine and Russia have had elections that have been marked with allegations and evidence of fraud during said elections, not to mention Putin and Yanukovych's imprisonment of political opposition figures.

Type 1:

So, you're saying we support Timoshenko and her opinions based on criticism of Russian state media? Seems legit.

I am talking that politicians should, as we call it in Russia "фильтровать базар", i.e. always think before speaking even not in public, because their words bear more weight and potential consequences then ours, mere mortals/electorate/prols/hoi polloi/demos/commoners etc, words.

Err....OK.

PS. I am not "enraged" at the West. It's not worthy any strong emotions.

You seem to be. Everything seems to point that you have an intense dislike of the reactions "the West" have taken.

[Oaledonia]

Not commit suicide. It should bide it's time and make relations with the west stronger, while dismantling it's relations (if it has any) with Russia.
Then, later, Russia will accuse them of "Russophopia" and claim that they are the victim of unwarranted Ukrainian aggression

And by suicide you mean....

Any action against Russian troops.

[Alaizia]

And by suicide you mean....

Any action against Russian troops.

Interesting. Even if the Russians become provocative? Or do you think they have done and accompliced their main goal.

[Costa Fierro]

I love how everyone assumes we're going on some imperialistic shopping spree.

"Holy shit, those Russians just stole back land that was stolen from them, we better watch out or we'll be next hurr durr!"

Stolen? You seem to be one of the masses that buys into the Kremlin's idea that somehow Crimea has been Russian since the dawn of time. And that the Ukrainians "stole" it even if it was historically part of a Ukrainian administered part of the Russian Empire? Crimea has only been "Russian", i.e part of the administrative unit of Russia itself, essentially during the entire period that Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union. Before that, it was part of the Ukraine and after, it was part of the Ukraine.

So don't come in here and make bullshit claims about the land that are merely the fiction of Russian state media. That shit doesn't fly.

[Volnotova]

It seems Tymoshenko did confirm the conversation took place (though she said the latter part of it was edited). Color me a bit surprised.

But yes, I don't exactly see how it isn't understandable. She's been a large proponent of friendly ties with Russia/Putin in the past, having part of the country conquered by them/him must be a rather brutal wakeup call. Not exactly prone to inspire a fawning attitude for the Russian Federation.

In fact, it's almost like having your country invaded can cause an outbreak of nationalist fervor that can even dip into extremism focused against the invaders. Who ever would have guessed (Besides me, like four hundred pages ago, in this thread's predecessor)? Great job breaking it, Putin/Russia. It's perfectly plausible, hell it's downright likely, Svoboda and Pravy Sektor become much more powerful forces in the country (hell, Tymoshenko's admission of the leak as being legit could even be viewed as her VOLUNTARILY associating herself with anti-Russia nationalist Ukrainian sentiment) now that Russia's carved out a chunk of their opposition and proved them entirely correct in their sentiments and concerns over Russian influence in government and designs on Ukrainian territory.

If anti-Russia sentiment takes off to a greater extent in Ukraine than it already had, Russia has no one to blame but themselves.

What makes you think that wasn't intentional? Ukrainian anger at Russia plays right into Russian hands.

I'm calling it right now: Russia's next move will come shortly after May 25th, after the coming elections result in substantial gains by the anti-Russian right. The election of a "fascist" anti-Russian government whose leadership has expressed the desire to hurt Russia for its actions in the Crimea will be used by Russia as casus belli for invading and occupying the rest of the Ukraine, on the grounds that the Ukrainian regime is a threat to Russians, both within its borders and in Russia proper.

Smart move. I hadn't thought of that one yet. I thought Putin might try to rush this (while they are still relatively unprepared), I was already wondering why protests were beginning to die down in the south and east.

It will give him more time to prepare (fact is, there isn't a lot the Ukranian military can do, it would be a curb stomp), give him a casus belli and allow him to march his forces to the doorsteps of Kiev (and the rest of Ukraine).

[Alyska]

So, like how USA convinced it's client states to recognize Kosovo? Face it, Russia is a great power and has allies around the world who will support their stance.

Nations which have recognized the independence of Kosovo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.svg

Nations that have recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abkhazia-South_Ossetia_recognition.svg

As you can see, diplomatic recognition for Kosovo, while far from universal, is greater than for either Abkhazia and South Ossetia, each of which is recognized by only a handfull of states other than Russia itself.

[Volnotova]

So NSers, what do you think Ukraine should do now based on the current situation?

To save its sovereigtny? Prepare for the worst.

Mine and fortify the borders (though this might prove impossible to do effectively with Ukraines limited military resources), try to get Ukraine into the NATO ASAP (or at the very least, guarantee military aid) and prepare for a relentless insurgency.

But yes, I guess it makes sense that being angry at Russia for invading your country is "Russophobia".

We must all welcome violation by Vlad. He's just so MANLY!!!!

The rest of Europe is bending over as we speak...

[Oaledonia]

Any action against Russian troops.

Interesting. Even if the Russians become provocative? Or do you think they have done and accompliced their main goal.

If the Russians become provocative, there is very little that they could do alone to stop them. I'm not an expert on Ukraine-Russian political affairs at the moment, so I can't truly say if they are going to try anything else. I do know, however, some small amounts of military knowledge - and it doesn't take a military expert to see that the Ukraine would lose on their own accord. They need more superior western military equipment, especially aircraft.

[Alaizia]

[Alien Space Bats]

So NSers, what do you think Ukraine should do now based on the current situation?

Begin organizing for guerilla warfare. There are enough forests and marshes in the Ukraine to make prolonged partisan resistance feasible. Better still, protracted asymmetrical resistance will force Russia into extensive human rights violations, which will guarantee that relations between Russia and the West will continue to worsen.

In support of this, begin raising money for Ukrainian resistance in America and Canada. The descendants of Ukrainian immigrants represent a significant percentage of the population in the Canadian prairie provinces as well as the American Great Lakes and Upper Midwest. If the Cuban-American lobby can make the idea of America abandoning sanctions against Cuba untenable, Ukrainian immigrants in North American can ensure that the U.S. and Canada find it difficult to seek a rapprochement with Russia so long as the Ukraine remains a Russian subject state.

[Alaizia]

So NSers, what do you think Ukraine should do now based on the current situation?

Begin organizing for guerilla warfare. There are enough forests and marshes in the Ukraine to make prolonged partisan resistance feasible. Better still, protracted asymmetrical resistance will force Russia into extensive human rights violations, which will guarantee that relations between Russia and the West will continue to worsen.

So bright the future huh?

You think an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine is inevitable?

[Alien Space Bats]

You think an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine is inevitable?

I think the occupation of Kiev by Russian forces and the forcible establishment of a Russian puppet government there is inevitable.

[Volnotova]

Just in: Russian Foreign Secretary of State: Russia not intending to to attack South-Eastern Ukraine. (Link in Ukranian)

Just like Russia did not intend to intervene in the first place?

All too predictable.

[Breadknife]

(Image)

...as if one type of "Bear Cavalry" isn't badass enough...

[Costa Fierro]

Just in: Russian Foreign Secretary of State: Russia not intending to to attack South-Eastern Ukraine. (Link in Ukranian)

Just like Russia did not intend to intervene in the first place?

All too predictable.

Maybe they'll do it by accident and claim it was "self defense militias". Although I've always maintained they haven't marched on eastern Ukraine is because of the clusterfuck it would result in and because Russians do not comprise a majority there like they do in Crimea.