Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Part Deux

[Shofercia]

Looking at the poll:

A plurality in the DPR and LPR want to recognize the independence of the DPR and the LPR: 36% for, 20% against. And they want to be joining the Customs Union: 58% for, 14% against. An independent DonBass in the Customs Union is what the people want. Most Ukrainians are pro-Russian language, suck on that nationalist idiots, and the NATO thing is very iffy, both numbers round up to 41%.

You might also see the last table on the page. It seems the majority of the Donbass do not want to secede from Ukraine, which is surprisingly to me.

Huh?

Are you ready or not ready for the world to agree to... (% among residents of Donbas)

To recognize the independence of the DPR and the LPR: 36% for, 20% against. They don't want to join Russia, (which is fine,) but looks like they're pro-secession to me.

[OccupiedOccitania]

Huh?

Are you ready or not ready for the world to agree to... (% among residents of Donbas)

To recognize the independence of the DPR and the LPR: 36% for, 20% against. They don't want to join Russia, (which is fine,) but looks like they're pro-secession to me.

I refering to this:"Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In my area would be better if it is separate from Ukraine"?" It is the very last table of the page.

Here are the results for the Donbass:
Totally agree: 9,8
Rather agree 13,1
Rather disagree 19,7
Totally disagree 32,0
HARD TO SAY 25,4

Even the part on which you are refering, also about the recognition of Donbass (36% ready while 20% not ready) it is also mentioned that 24,4 it is hard for them to say while 19,5 refused to answer.

[Shofercia]

Huh?

Are you ready or not ready for the world to agree to... (% among residents of Donbas)

To recognize the independence of the DPR and the LPR: 36% for, 20% against. They don't want to join Russia, (which is fine,) but looks like they're pro-secession to me.

I refering to this:"Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "In my area would be better if it is separate from Ukraine"?" It is the very last table of the page.

Here are the results for the Donbass:
Totally agree: 9,8
Rather agree 13,1
Rather disagree 19,7
Totally disagree 32,0
HARD TO SAY 25,4

Even the part on which you are refering, also about the recognition of Donbass (36% ready while 20% not ready) it is also mentioned that 24,4 it is hard for them to say while 19,5 refused to answer.

That's not the statement. That part was improperly worded, so I ignored it. What it says is: "It would be better for my oblast if it is separate from Ukraine"

Not area, but state. An oblast is a state. It's like asking Crimeans if they'd join Russia while Sevastopol remained in Ukraine, or vice versa. Of course you're going to get a stupid result back, because it's a stupid way to phrase the question. The way that question would've been interpreted would be "do you support just Donetsk or do you support just Lugansk leaving Ukraine?" Of course the people don't want a major civil war over their area if they're the only ones seceding. There's power in numbers.

The part that I'm referring to has almost double the support for leaving Ukraine, than it has for staying in Ukraine.

[Anglo-French Republic]

As much as I despise the annexation of Crimea, let's not bring Godwin's into this.

Hypothetically, if Crimea was of the opinion that they needed liberation, the Ukrainian government could have a referendum for peaceful secession/transfer of territory to Russia. Annexation, on the other hand, not only defied international law, but the wishes of all Ukrainian people.

Godwin's doesn't apply if say you are talking about things Nazi Germany did. Which invading other countries under the pretext of protecting local ethnic minorities, is something Putin and Hitler did.

Adding on to that, the Ukrainian Government was on very weak grounds, in terms of both popular support and ability to function as a government. The new government was just forming and taking Crimea like that was a big hit to the gov's legitimacy.

90 percent of Crimeans want to be part of Russia,get your facts right.

[Vassenor]

Godwin's doesn't apply if say you are talking about things Nazi Germany did. Which invading other countries under the pretext of protecting local ethnic minorities, is something Putin and Hitler did.

Adding on to that, the Ukrainian Government was on very weak grounds, in terms of both popular support and ability to function as a government. The new government was just forming and taking Crimea like that was a big hit to the gov's legitimacy.

90 percent of Crimeans want to be part of Russia,get your facts right.

It's hard to vote against something when people have a gun to your head.

[Costa Fierro]

Russia vetoes UN draft resolution to prosecute those behind the downing of MH17.

[Anglo-French Republic]

90 percent of Crimeans want to be part of Russia,get your facts right.

It's hard to vote against something when people have a gun to your head.

This was Before any Russian Soldier saw Crimea.

[Estruia]

It's hard to vote against something when people have a gun to your head.

This was Before any Russian Soldier saw Crimea.

Lol.

[United Marxist Nations]

This was Before any Russian Soldier saw Crimea.

Lol.

Yeah, that wouldn't work very well

[Bratislavskaya]

Godwin's doesn't apply if say you are talking about things Nazi Germany did. Which invading other countries under the pretext of protecting local ethnic minorities, is something Putin and Hitler did.

I don't think they class as a minority when they make up more than half of the population.

[Estruia]

Lol.

Yeah, that wouldn't work very well

I only laughed because the first public poll was taken post-Little Green Men.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yeah, that wouldn't work very well

I only laughed because the first public poll was taken post-Little Green Men.

Well, I laughed because Sevastopol naval base is on the Peninsula, and Russian troops have been there since 1778(?).

[Estruia]

I only laughed because the first public poll was taken post-Little Green Men.

Well, I laughed because Sevastopol naval base is on the Peninsula, and Russian troops have been there since 1778(?).

That, too. Lol

[The balkens]

Russia vetoes UN draft resolution to prosecute those behind the downing of MH17.

Annnnd Russia just lost what little respect i have for them left.

[United Ameritania]

Russia vetoes UN draft resolution to prosecute those behind the downing of MH17.

Annnnd Russia just lost what little respect i have for them left.

Hehe. Yep.

[Quintanilla]

Russia vetoes UN draft resolution to prosecute those behind the downing of MH17.

And now Russia has vetoed investigation of MH17.

At the very least, does the UN have the authority to strip Russia of its veto power?

They didn't veto the investigation of MH17. They vetoed the proscecution of the people the US accused of shooting down MH17. There is 0, 0 credible evidence as to who shot down MH17, just as there was no Evidence of Assad gassing his own civilians or Saddam's WMDs or who opened fire first on Maidan square, yet everyone in the western media was 100% sure about it.

In fact, the Russians supported the idea of an international body investigating into the matter.

From the Replace the UN with something not involving Russia? thread.

[Shofercia]

90 percent of Crimeans want to be part of Russia,get your facts right.

It's hard to vote against something when people have a gun to your head.

Did people have a gun to their heads when asked by Gallup, Pew and Gfk? Are they colluding with Putin when it comes to Crimea? Fuck, this whole "gun-toting-vote-conspiracy-theory" nonsense is getting fucking tiring. It's been discredited, and repeated ad nauseum after being discredited. It's like someone going "Putin has an awesome civil rights record" repeatedly. Crimea's Russian. The people there want to be with Russia. The people there are with Russia. It ain't going back to Ukraine. Western polls confirm this. Russia polls have similar results. So unless the heads of Gallup, Pew and Gfk somehow secretly serve Putin, drop the nonsense.

Yeah, that wouldn't work very well

I only laughed because the first public poll was taken post-Little Green Men.

The one that came in at 75%, that was taken before the polite men? It was a bloodless annexation, something that you cannot pull off unless you have overwhelming local support. The Invasion of Grenada, despite overwhelming force superiority, had 113 deaths. The Annexation of Crimea had none. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Nunca. And again, these polls were taken by pro-Western organizations without anyone holding the gun to the people's heads. Next up: someone argues that the reason for Putin's overwhelming support is because he's a dictator, not because of his demographic and economic policies.

Russia vetoes UN draft resolution to prosecute those behind the downing of MH17.

They didn't veto the investigation of MH17. They vetoed the proscecution of the people the US accused of shooting down MH17. There is 0, 0 credible evidence as to who shot down MH17, just as there was no Evidence of Assad gassing his own civilians or Saddam's WMDs or who opened fire first on Maidan square, yet everyone in the western media was 100% sure about it.

In fact, the Russians supported the idea of an international body investigating into the matter.

From the Replace the UN with something not involving Russia? thread.

Thank you! Finally some common sense is starting to prevail.

[West Aurelia]

Ukraine accuses the separatisits of trying to build a dirty bomb.

[Bratislavskaya]

Ukraine accuses the separatisits of trying to build a dirty bomb.

I highly doubt it. It would have effectively no tactical usage, and would end up being more dangerous for them than for the Ukrainians. Also the SBU is doing the "This is a fact, but we have no evidence" thing again with the apparent conversation in a bar.

[The New Byzantine II]

Ukraine accuses the separatisits of trying to build a dirty bomb.

We all know that the DNR had a guerilla tactics. I looked one of VICE News videos that a DNR soldier shows dirty bombs to the journalist.

[Shofercia]

Ukraine accuses the separatisits of trying to build a dirty bomb.

I highly doubt it. It would have effectively no tactical usage, and would end up being more dangerous for them than for the Ukrainians. Also the SBU is doing the "This is a fact, but we have no evidence" thing again with the apparent conversation in a bar.

It's pretty much the line of the Poroshenko Administration. They've been trying to have that debate with their economy, but the economy continues to listen to the facts.

[Costa Fierro]

Russia vetoes UN draft resolution to prosecute those behind the downing of MH17.

They didn't veto the investigation of MH17. They vetoed the proscecution of the people the US accused of shooting down MH17. There is 0, 0 credible evidence as to who shot down MH17, just as there was no Evidence of Assad gassing his own civilians or Saddam's WMDs or who opened fire first on Maidan square, yet everyone in the western media was 100% sure about it.

In fact, the Russians supported the idea of an international body investigating into the matter.

From the Replace the UN with something not involving Russia? thread.

Yeah, no. Firstly, there is plenty of evidence about who shot down MH17. Everyone has pretty much confirmed it was the rebels using a BUK launcher missile. Vetoing the prosecution of the people responsible for this is still a shitty move from Russia, because these people who had nothing to do with the conflict died as a result of gross negligence from the rebels in their handling of the BUK and not having appropriate recognition systems which would have prevented them from simply firing missiles and asking questions afterwards.

As for the idea that there isn't any evidence to support the other three examples listed, the answers are, respectively, yes, no and yes. But, if you want to dig your proverbial hole, be prepared to lie in it.

[Costa Fierro]

Thank you! Finally some common sense is starting to prevail.

What common sense? The idea that we don't have any idea who shot down MH17 is absolute and utter bullshit and is simply gross ignorance of the facts. Not to mention comparing it to either Maidan or what happened in Syria is also ignorance of the facts in those respective events too.

[Shofercia]

Thank you! Finally some common sense is starting to prevail.

What common sense? The idea that we don't have any idea who shot down MH17 is absolute and utter bullshit and is simply gross ignorance of the facts. Not to mention comparing it to either Maidan or what happened in Syria is also ignorance of the facts in those respective events too.

Let's read what he actually said, shall we?

They didn't veto the investigation of MH17. They vetoed the proscecution of the people the US accused of shooting down MH17. There is 0, 0 credible evidence as to who shot down MH17... In fact, the Russians supported the idea of an international body investigating into the matter.

He's correct in that Russia didn't veto the investigative body, they vetoed an organization that would have the power to persecute, not merely investigate. And considering how far reaching the US interprets these things, (remember the "no fly zone" over Libya, which I, btw, correctly opposed,) the veto might've prevented a witch hunt. The Rebels aren't some monogamous group praying to Putin the Deity, or whatever bullshit the press is trying to peddle around; they're a collection of numerous groups, some of whom aren't very pro-Russian. What's to prevent the US from targeting the most effective, pro-Russian Rebels, irrespective of that group's involvement with MH-17? Absolutely nothing. We can presume that the most likely scenario is that some Rebel faction mistakenly shot down the plane that was redirected to fly over a no-fly zone with captured Ukrainian BUKs. Do you know which faction? If so, please, by all means, inform the rest of us!

[Geilinor]

What common sense? The idea that we don't have any idea who shot down MH17 is absolute and utter bullshit and is simply gross ignorance of the facts. Not to mention comparing it to either Maidan or what happened in Syria is also ignorance of the facts in those respective events too.

Let's read what he actually said, shall we?

They didn't veto the investigation of MH17. They vetoed the proscecution of the people the US accused of shooting down MH17. There is 0, 0 credible evidence as to who shot down MH17... In fact, the Russians supported the idea of an international body investigating into the matter.

He's correct in that Russia didn't veto the investigative body, they vetoed an organization that would have the power to persecute, not merely investigate. And considering how far reaching the US interprets these things, (remember the "no fly zone" over Libya, which I, btw, correctly opposed,) the veto might've prevented a witch hunt. The Rebels aren't some monogamous group praying to Putin the Deity, or whatever bullshit the press is trying to peddle around; they're a collection of numerous groups, some of whom aren't very pro-Russian. What's to prevent the US from targeting the most effective, pro-Russian Rebels, irrespective of that group's involvement with MH-17? Absolutely nothing. We can presume that the most likely scenario is that some Rebel faction mistakenly shot down the plane that was redirected to fly over a no-fly zone with captured Ukrainian BUKs. Do you know which faction? If so, please, by all means, inform the rest of us!

Persecute? Is that a typo or do you honestly think the rebels are being persecuted? There is no witch hunt against them.