Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[The United Colonies of Earth]

I thought Parliament voted him out. Granted, his party fled the building, but still...unless the CIA was paying the opposition or they didn't reach a quorum for ousting the president, their procedure sounds legitimate and legal.
And I must hurry for that bloody quote...

There were not enough deputies to vote him out. The whole mess was against he Constitution of the Ukraine. The fact that the West didn't argue against it and immediately recognized couped in government says a lot.

Oh crap...why couldn't they have gotten a damn quorum?

[Lytenburgh]

And what's that (yet again pseudo-witty) commentary suppose to mean?

Are you really that blind or did you black out during the 2nd Chechen war's battle phase?

You mean the one started by now Islamically Radicalysed Chechnya by invading Russia?

[United Marxist Nations]

Balk, with regard to your previous assertion that, prior to Maiden, the Ukraine was "under the Russian boot": in that period, most Ukrainians were pro-Russia, so how is choosing your allies considered "being under a boot", unless, of course, the United Kingdom is under the French boot?

Ukrainians had a very different view. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) named Russia as their most dependable ally, while roughly one-quarter (27%) saw the U.S. as the greatest threat to their country. Meanwhile, among Russians, fully 57% said the U.S. posed the largest threat, while roughly one-third (34%) named Belarus as their closest ally, followed by about a quarter (23%) who named China.



http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/12/05/cha ... nizations/

So, please explain how, in that period, the Ukraine was "under the Russian boot"?

[Dr Freud]

Sphere of influence, the CIS, the "Eurasian Union".

Now answer my question, why didnt the west Pour money into Ukraine like it did the Baltics or Poland?

- No, you haven't answered. You didn't provide any evidence that the Ukraine was "under Russian Boot" in 1990-2000. Try again.

- And why the West didn't invest in Russia on the same levels as it was investing in the New Europe?

Because the possibility that your investment will be expropriated or that you will be unable to get your contracts enforced because your competitors or your customers are politically connected tends to make investors think twice before sinking millions of dollars into a business.

[Lytenburgh]

Wow. Choosing to play dumb are you?

*Never said the majority of Russians don't want him... the fact he's their sockpuppet makes them more willing to vote for him.

What?!

*I wonder where these rebels got their equipment and training?... I mean, there must be a reason they rose up and are battling a trained army without being annihilated... mmm *cough* President Pew Pew *Cough*

Ukrainian Army ... trained

*Russians in Crimea want to join Russia despite Crimean Tatars, being the true natives of Crimean and not the "Novorossiya" bunch. Being... I don't know... deported by Stalin to places like the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic.

Don;t start this crap about Tatars being "native" to Crimea. They stopped being a majority here by the beginning of 19th century.

*The West kickstarted... nope... please stop, you're a broken record.

Yes, it is. By this whole mess with Association Treaty.

[Herargon]

Balk, with regard to your previous assertion that, prior to Maiden, the Ukraine was "under the Russian boot": in that period, most Ukrainians were pro-Russia, so how is choosing your allies considered "being under a boot", unless, of course, the United Kingdom is under the French boot?

Ukrainians had a very different view. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) named Russia as their most dependable ally, while roughly one-quarter (27%) saw the U.S. as the greatest threat to their country. Meanwhile, among Russians, fully 57% said the U.S. posed the largest threat, while roughly one-third (34%) named Belarus as their closest ally, followed by about a quarter (23%) who named China.
(Image)


http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/12/05/cha ... nizations/

So, please explain how, in that period, the Ukraine was "under the Russian boot"?

That source is from 2011, by the way. Before the Ukrainian crisis, so it is not really up-to-date.
Ukrainians nowadays would have a very different opinion of Russia.

[Dr Freud]

Because maybe Russia could take care of its fucking self?

Really? While Poland and Hungary couldn't?

Or, mabybe, it was due to desire to groom this New Europe's country into faithful sattelites?

Or maybe its because one of the main concerns when it comes to overseas investment is the countries risk profile and Russia represents a far more risky investment without a suitable increase in the returns than, say, Poland.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Are you really that blind or did you black out during the 2nd Chechen war's battle phase?

You mean the one started by now Islamically Radicalysed Chechnya by invading Russia?

Also, wasn't Grozny leveled in the 2nd Chechen War?

[Lytenburgh]

Hmm...there must have been a reason 1992 Russia was not investment-worthy. Did the Chechens have anything to do with it? Or the anarchy under Yeltsin?

In 1992 - no, they didn't.

In conclusion, it eludes me why McDonald's doesn't have a restaurant on every Russian urban street corner.

I just... WHAT?! Why?!

[United Marxist Nations]

Balk, with regard to your previous assertion that, prior to Maiden, the Ukraine was "under the Russian boot": in that period, most Ukrainians were pro-Russia, so how is choosing your allies considered "being under a boot", unless, of course, the United Kingdom is under the French boot?

Ukrainians had a very different view. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) named Russia as their most dependable ally, while roughly one-quarter (27%) saw the U.S. as the greatest threat to their country. Meanwhile, among Russians, fully 57% said the U.S. posed the largest threat, while roughly one-third (34%) named Belarus as their closest ally, followed by about a quarter (23%) who named China.
(Image)


http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/12/05/cha ... nizations/

So, please explain how, in that period, the Ukraine was "under the Russian boot"?

That source is from 2011, by the way. Before the Ukrainian crisis, so it is not really up-to-date.
Ukrainians nowadays would have a very different opinion of Russia.

Yes, I know, we're talking about the past, the question was about the past, specifically, the 1990's-2000's period.

[Lytenburgh]

That Putin stuffs more ballet boxes then mass graves.

- Prove that it was done by Putin or ordered by him.
- About what mass graves you are blathering about?

[Malgrave]

1) I'm not your friend.
2) The Russian troops were present in Crimea according to a treaty about the lease of Sevastopol's base.
3) There is absolutely no indication that both self-defense forces and Polite Men in Green influenced the way people voted, and not just guarded the order.
4) There were international observers. Just because the West chose not to consider them kosher - its the West's personal problem.

There won't be any re-votes in Crimea. It is part of Russia. The rest of the world (and, primarily - the Ukraine) has the choice between shutting up or taking actions to return Crimea to the Ukraine.

- Comrade, Colleague? You've gotta spread the love
- I'm talking about the Russian troops that illegally blockaded Ukrainian bases and made it impossible for the government in Kyiv to have any presence in their own territory.
- It does not matter. The very presence of these "self-defence forces" and so-called "polite men" made the vote illegitimate and their very presence on the street and outside government offices was threatening
- I'm talking about internationally accepted observers. I'm rather glad that the West don't consider Jobik and other fascist delegates to be kosher and I would've thought ensuring free and fair elections was an international concern.

I also love how the only "response" is to accept Russia's illegal landgrab or take some undefined actions, like the Russian government is suddenly going to leap to its senses and withdraw from Crimea.

The West stasrted the crisis with its economic meddling, ultimatum like approach to the singing of AT, shameless support of anti-government protests and support of the coup d'etat in the Ukraine. I fail to see how Russia caused the crisis when so far all we've seen are Western provocations and expansion of its sphere of influence.

Yanukovych fermented anti-government protests by delaying the signing of the agreement with the European Union in favour of signing an AT with Russia, aggregating further with his downright aggressive response to the protest movement. It was Yanukovych's decision to dump thousands of documents and leave the country with his cronies that created a power vacuum and required the creation of a transitional government so I don't see the hand of the west in any of this.

All throughout this conflict we've seen Russia's attempt to maintain its sphere of influence. Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and the comments about NATO containment stack up.

You deny the fact that people fighting in such war can learn things or two without Russia?

Yes. It is highly unlikely that the separatists can continue to gain access to military equipment, supplies and retain the organisational strength needed to operate on several fronts without outside assistance.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Lyt, can you explain to me why you've been so adamant in your opposition to the far right in Ukraine but you support Russia using a bunch of far right groups as observers in Crimea?

[Lytenburgh]

That Russia's elections aren't entirely legitimate maybe? Or is that too hard to grasp because 'RUSSIA STRONK'?

Because of Chechnya - all Russia elections mist be nullified? That's your logic?

Should I remind you, that you claimed out of context about Putin getting 107% vote, whic, supposed to mean something?

[United Marxist Nations]

Lyt, can you explain to me why you've been so adamant in your opposition to the far right in Ukraine but you support Russia using a bunch of far right groups as observers in Crimea?

Non right-wing observers were invited, they refused to do so.

[The balkens]

That Putin stuffs more ballet boxes then mass graves.

- Prove that it was done by Putin or ordered by him.
- About what mass graves you are blathering about?

Love to show you, but.......

[Tahar Joblis]

I thought Parliament voted him out. Granted, his party fled the building, but still...unless the CIA was paying the opposition or they didn't reach a quorum for ousting the president, their procedure sounds legitimate and legal.
And I must hurry for that bloody quote...

There were not enough deputies to vote him out. The whole mess was against he Constitution of the Ukraine. The fact that the West didn't argue against it and immediately recognized couped in government says a lot.

A large majority of the Rada voted to recognize that he had already left office, voting 328-0 in favor of going straight to new elections. A unanimous vote with 73% of MPs voting. This followed his using military force to suppress anti-government protests, leaving office, filing a resignation, etc.

Whether or not this was legitimate is, in other words, contingent on whether the Rada was recognizing that he had left office, or whether the Rada was issuing an impeachment. The Ukrainian courts decided the former held.

This was, further, while of arguable legitimacy, an issue of lawyering - not of violent force, which is what a coup implies. Yanukovych had, in fact, already left office and ceased to fulfill his duties as PM before the Rada voted to remove him.

Subsequent elections have demonstrated that Yanukovych did not have the popular support to continue in office. It was not a "coup" by any stretch of the imagination.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Hmm...there must have been a reason 1992 Russia was not investment-worthy. Did the Chechens have anything to do with it? Or the anarchy under Yeltsin?

In 1992 - no, they didn't.

In conclusion, it eludes me why McDonald's doesn't have a restaurant on every Russian urban street corner.

I just... WHAT?! Why?!

1. Oh.
2. Well, it eludes me because in the early '90's, McDonald's would have seized the opportunity to expand into Russia, being a new market to feed French fries that can last months without decay. McDonald's is also a symbol here for Western investment in Russia. Although, given that others have explained that Russia was unattractive because of the business oligarchs and nouveau-riche ex-KGB coming into existence, and the corruption, I understand why they stayed away. Assuming that such is a valid explanation.

There were not enough deputies to vote him out. The whole mess was against he Constitution of the Ukraine. The fact that the West didn't argue against it and immediately recognized couped in government says a lot.

A large majority of the Rada voted to recognize that he had already left office, voting 328-0 in favor of going straight to new elections. A unanimous vote with 73% of MPs voting. This followed his using military force to suppress anti-government protests, leaving office, filing a resignation, etc.

Whether or not this was legitimate is, in other words, contingent on whether the Rada was recognizing that he had left office, or whether the Rada was issuing an impeachment. The Ukrainian courts decided the former held.

This was, further, while of arguable legitimacy, an issue of lawyering - not of violent force, which is what a coup implies. Yanukovych had, in fact, already left office and ceased to fulfill his duties as PM before the Rada voted to remove him.

Subsequent elections have demonstrated that Yanukovych did not have the popular support to continue in office. It was not a "coup" by any stretch of the imagination.

On Wikipedia it says they needed 10 more votes, though, given he was unpopular at the time of the vote, it probably doesn't matter.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes. I don't think you understand that losing Sevastopol naval base is absolutely unacceptable to Russian national security. Nothing nullifies this, not even the slight chance that nukes would have been used in response to a mostly peaceful annexation.

So what youre saying that Russia cant afford to build a new fucking port to accommodate the Black sea fleet?

No other port is large enough to accommodate, or has such a commanding position on the Black Sea. Which is why entire wars have been fought over it.

[Lytenburgh]

- Comrade, Colleague? You've gotta spread the love

If you want some love - go to the balkens. He is constatnly replying with "I love you" to just about eny user.

- I'm talking about the Russian troops that illegally blockaded Ukrainian bases and made it impossible for the government in Kyiv to have any presence in their own territory.

What government? Couped-in?

- It does not matter. The very presence of these "self-defence forces" and so-called "polite men" made the vote illegitimate and their very presence on the street and outside government offices was threatening

Oh, cut the bullshit! "Threatening", seriously? People were happy!

The only thing they did was starying around. As there are police force at the polling stations during the elections, so were they.

Why, during the "revolutionary zeal" the West can cut some slack to the Ukraine's just couped-in government, and close eyes on all the mess that happened here, but not for Crimea?

I also love how the only "response" is to accept Russia's illegal landgrab or take some undefined actions, like the Russian government is suddenly going to leap to its senses and withdraw from Crimea.

Of course Russia won't abandon one of its territories - whether the Ukraine continue to bitch about it or not. So, instead of looking pathetic and miserable, it'd better admit the reality and move on.

Yanukovych fermented anti-government protests by delaying the signing of the agreement with the European Union in favour of signing an AT with Russia, aggregating further with his downright aggressive response to the protest movement.

Don't start this "Онижедети!" crap! And the Treaty with EU was basically shoved down his throat like ultimatum.

It was Yanukovych's decision to dump thousands of documents and leave the country with his cronies that created a power vacuum and required the creation of a transitional government so I don't see the hand of the west in any of this.

When there is an armed mob crying for your blood, what would have you done?

Yes. It is highly unlikely that the separatists can continue to gain access to military equipment, supplies and retain the organisational strength needed to operate on several fronts without outside assistance.

WEll, just because you treat the people of Donbass as if they are some sort of untermenchen that couldn't learn (or lack previous military experience) is not my problem.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

So what youre saying that Russia cant afford to build a new fucking port to accommodate the Black sea fleet?

No other port is large enough to accommodate, or has such a commanding position on the Black Sea. Which is why entire wars have been fought over it.

At least a zillion if I remember correctly.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So what youre saying that Russia cant afford to build a new fucking port to accommodate the Black sea fleet?

No other port is large enough to accommodate, or has such a commanding position on the Black Sea. Which is why entire wars have been fought over it.

Novorossiysk

[Lytenburgh]

Lyt, can you explain to me why you've been so adamant in your opposition to the far right in Ukraine but you support Russia using a bunch of far right groups as observers in Crimea?

Did the "FN" of France celebrate French collaborationist government and stage yearly torchlight processions?

[Lytenburgh]

There were not enough deputies to vote him out. The whole mess was against he Constitution of the Ukraine. The fact that the West didn't argue against it and immediately recognized couped in government says a lot.

A large majority of the Rada voted to recognize that he had already left office, voting 328-0 in favor of going straight to new elections. A unanimous vote with 73% of MPs voting. This followed his using military force to suppress anti-government protests, leaving office, filing a resignation, etc.[/quote]

1) There were no quorum. Period. This makes his ousting unconstitutional and, therefore, a coup.

2) What "military force"? The elusive snipers?

[The balkens]

There were not enough deputies to vote him out. The whole mess was against he Constitution of the Ukraine. The fact that the West didn't argue against it and immediately recognized couped in government says a lot.

A large majority of the Rada voted to recognize that he had already left office, voting 328-0 in favor of going straight to new elections. A unanimous vote with 73% of MPs voting. This followed his using military force to suppress anti-government protests, leaving office, filing a resignation, etc.

1) There were no quorum. Period. This makes his ousting unconstitutional and, therefore, a coup.

2) What "militry force"? The elusive snipers?[/quote]

Snipers tend to be that. Elusive.

If Simo Hayha is anything to be said about.