Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

Aidric

bobcoffee wrote: »

that amount of corruption just does not disappear over night.

No, which is why people like Tymoshenko shouldn't be part of a new regime.

As an aside I saw that Tymoshenko and new Ukranian PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk are in Dublin tomorrow for an EPP congress.

http://www.epp.eu/epp-dublin-congress-6-7-march-list-participants-important-press-information

Jelle1880

Reekwind wrote: »

No it's not. Leaving aside accuracy, there is no contradiction between a democratic government and the forceful suppression of (what was deemed) an illegal attempt to overthrow the government. Similarly, just because someone is on a barricade opposing a corrupt and repressive government, it does not automatically make them democrats or particularly nice people.

If nothing else the Ukraine has demonstrated the difference between real social upheaval and the idealised perception of 'students with Facebook' that often prevails in the popular imagination

Of course it is.

The fact someone is democratically elected is of no consequence when power is abused to the extent it was in Ukraine.

He stole money from the people, he ordered his police forces to fire on protesters, he changed the constitution to suit his own aims,...

Also, the protests did not start as an attempt to overthrow the government. A population have the right to protest against what they deem unjust actions by their government, they simply wanted the government to accept the proposal to get closer to the EU. It only turned into a de facto coup after Yanukovych answered by revoking constitutional rights and allow Berkut troops to attack the media and protesters indiscriminately.

I don't know why some on here keep saying that such a protest is illegal. If anything, it's the right of the people to do it when confronted by state oppression.

FTA69

He stole money from the people, he ordered his police forces to fire on protesters, he changed the constitution to suit his own aims,...

And the government that subsequently took over stole money from the people and have immediately attempted to downgrade the rights of Russian speakers. The people in power now are as bad if not worse than Yanukovych.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/17753-ukraine-new-interim-government-too-many-familiar-faces

If you think this crowd are going to act in the best interests of the Ukrainian people you're codding yourself.

What we are seeing here is a global power struggle for influence over a strategically important area. We are being peddled this ridiculous notion of a Ukrainian establishment representing the people when clearly they represent more of the same with a nice dose of neo-Nazism for good measure. The Russians are just being the Russians i.e. not tolerating any encroachment of western influence on their borders and not giving a flying f*ck about how they're perceived.

As usual the ordinary Ukrainian is now sandwiched between a government steeped in corruption, it's own oligarchs who are backed by the West and a nationalist Russia who views their country as an extension of its backyard.

bobcoffee

well I think your taking his point out of context.
he is comparing both Russia and the protesters at the same time.
technically both are illegal in that sense.

protesters in Ukraine are a beam of light amongst the worlds corruption.
they fought for their lives and their childrens.
went up against a lot of horrible stuff.

the protesters do need out side help and investigations but that kind of level of help into other nationalities in public just isn't legal??
so ye really bad time for Ukraine and since Russia has not plans on firing a bullet (yet) it is the least of their problems.

Jelle1880

FTA69 wrote: »

And the government that subsequently took over stole money from the people and have immediately attempted to downgrade the rights of Russian speakers. The people in power now are as bad if not worse than Yanukovych.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/17753-ukraine-new-interim-government-too-many-familiar-faces

If you think this crowd are going to act in the best interests of the Ukrainian people you're codding yourself.

What we are seeing here is a global power struggle for influence over a strategically important area. We are being peddled this ridiculous notion of a Ukrainian establishment representing the people when clearly they represent more of the same with a nice dose of neo-Nazism for good measure. The Russians are just being the Russians i.e. not tolerating any encroachment of western influence on their borders and not giving a flying f*ck about how they're perceived.

As usual the ordinary Ukrainian is now sandwiched between a government steeped in corruption, it's own oligarchs who are backed by the West and a nationalist Russia who views their country as an extension of its backyard.

Perhaps, that remains to be seen.

Also, I never said that who is in power now will be the best politicians Ukraine has ever had, but at least now the people have shown that if the same stuff happens again they have no problem taking to the street.

Agreed with your last point, I just hope that the upcoming Presidential elections will allow them to vote in someone who has their best interest at heart. It's doubtful, but at least they have a chance now to write their own future.

Reekwind

Jelle1880 wrote: »

He stole money from the people, he ordered his police forces to fire on protesters, he changed the constitution to suit his own aims,...

So he was corrupt. Where's the suggestion that he violated democratic practices? I don't like Bertie Ahern but I'd never suggest that he was a dictator

And what constitutional changes are you referring to? Those anti-protest powers? Voted to him by parliament.

Also, the protests did not start as an attempt to overthrow the government. A population have the right to protest against what they deem unjust actions by their government, they simply wanted the government to accept the proposal to get closer to the EU. It only turned into a de facto coup after Yanukovych answered by revoking constitutional rights and allow Berkut troops to attack the media and protesters indiscriminately.

No revolution starts as a revolution. And, as you admit, no revolution is legal. But is suppressing it anti-democratic? No

The reality is that there is more to democracy than the street. The idea that you can pack out a prominent capital square and therefore enjoy privileged access to decision/policy making (or form your own government!) is itself inherently anti-democratic

bobcoffee

well ye could compare that to Ireland and the FF/FG "regime" in place.
that is you compare both parties as being one entity.. government/opposition.

if that is the case for Ukraine then there won't be any upcoming elections of worth, more corruption.
also time goes by the more info being collected about those who lead the protests.
having another protest to remove another government MIGHT become even harder.

FTA69

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Perhaps, that remains to be seen.

There's no "remains to be seen" about it. The Fatherland Party which dominates the regime has been proven to be ridiculously corrupt; one of their main figures was jailed for blatant graft and cancelling her own private debt. As for the Right Sector and Svoboda; their true colours are there to be seen.

Reekwind

It's worth keeping in mind that much of Yanukovych's popularity (before it dissolved in this latest crisis) was due to the staggering incompetence of the Europe-facing politicians that the Orange Revolution brought to power a decade ago. They made Yanukovych look good in comparison.

I can certainly sympathise with the desire to sweep out the entire corrupt political class but that's not what this revolution has done: the new president, Turchynov, has been in politics for almost two decades

Jelle1880

Reekwind wrote: »

So he was corrupt. Where's the suggestion that he violated democratic practices? I don't like Bertie Ahern but I'd never suggest that he was a dictator

When the anti-protest laws were voted in they were not done properly.
Deputies did not count the votes and despite the law saying so electronic voting cards were not used. Banning public protest was in clear violation of Ukrainian law, how is that not violating democratic practices ? Democracy goes further than what goes on in parliaments.

And what constitutional changes are you referring to? Those anti-protest powers? Voted to him by parliament.

See above.

No revolution starts as a revolution. And, as you admit, no revolution is legal. But is suppressing it anti-democratic? No

The reality is that there is more to democracy than the street. The idea that you can pack out a prominent capital square and therefore enjoy privileged access to decision/policy making (or form your own government!) is itself inherently anti-democratic[/QUOTE]

Again: That was not the initial aim of the protests, people simply wanted to show their disapproval of the government's decision to ignore their will.

45% of Ukrainians favored the agreement with the EU, 15% wanted to join the pact with Russia. The rest was undecided or refused both.

You can't just ignore that and expect to get away with it.

FTA69 wrote: »

There's no "remains to be seen" about it. The Fatherland Party which dominates the regime has been proven to be ridiculously corrupt; one of their main figures was jailed for blatant graft and cancelling her own private debt. As for the Right Sector and Svoboda; their true colours are there to be seen.

Of course it remains to be seen. You're basing your opinion on their ideals, but you don't know how they will run the country.
I admit that the chances are small they will rule with an open mind and won't fall for the same corruption that has plague Ukrainian politics for so long, but until there is proof on the contrary then yes it does remain to be seen if they are as bad as the Party of Regions.

AlekSmart

cerastes wrote: »

.
The thing is, Im not sure of the advantage of allowing the Ukraine immediate access to the EU, with the levels of corruption it has. Added to that it seems very naive of the EU to go messing about on Russia's doorstep.
Apart from the fact Russia supplies the EU with gas and could shut it off at will, makes it appear as if the EU is pushing expansion/integration of the Ukraine and it doesnt seem like that is something Russia would want or be happy with? or could easily use to manage support of nationalistic elements both in Russia and the Ukraine.
Russia is likely more interested in maintaining what it sees as its areas of interest and how that affects politics at home, regardless of the EU turning up,whether that improves the lot of Ukrainians, which isnt going to happen overnight anyway. Any kind of fighting on Russias doorstep wont be an advantage, for most, maybe a small number would profit from managing the whole thing while the greater number of people would suffer.

If I were the Ukrainians, Id be happier not joining the EU, but reducing corruption, and maintaining ties with both blocs, even improving economic ties with EU but no suggestion of anything further, they a key geographical position between the EU and Russia, that other countries cant really fill ie Bellorussia (worse).

I honestly think there is more going on than meets the eye here, can the EU and Russia really go blundering around and not deal with this properly and allow things to deteriorate, even if both of those parties have no direct control over Ukraine internally (although that is probably not entirely true), they would or could have a lot of influence.

Good post Cerastes.

I'm not particularly au fait with the Ukrainian situation,however I am cogniscent of the increasing need amongst many "Western" entities to portray any revolt,rebellion or challenge to an established "Eastern" regime as being motivated only by Good and Gracious principles.

I was keenly aware that for the most part we were seeing (24/7) reportage from a specific location in a single City (Kiev)

Do we,as yet,have a clear and accurate notion as to what was/is going on elsewhere in this fairly large country ?

In this age of Social Media power,i've tended to become a bit of a #Sceptic# ....

http://socialmediatoday.com/philbutler/2213066/ukraine-revolt-observations-social-side

FTA69

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Of course it remains to be seen. You're basing your opinion on their ideals, but you don't know how they will run the country.
I admit that the chances are small they will rule with an open mind, but until there is proof on the contrary then yes, it does remain to be seen if they are as bad as the Party of Regions.

No I'm basing my opinion on the fact that they were in power a few short years ago and were booted out for corruption and graft.

Sierra Oscar

Revelations starting to emerge that the Kiev snipers, who fired on protestors, were hired by the Maidan leaders themselves as a false flag operation.

The information emerged due to the leaking of a telephone conversation between the EU's Foreign Affairs representative, Catherine Ashton, and Estonia’s Foreign Minister.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8&t=8m55s

Reekwind

Jelle1880 wrote: »

When the anti-protest laws were voted in they were not done properly.

Yes, they used a show of hands. As did those parliamentarians who looked to repeal them. Frankly I fail to see how that is any more than a minor point of procedure.

And, more to the point, none of this demonstrates that the opposition, now in government, are democratic. You can be damned sure that those regional assemblies aren't

(Incidentally, these were passed after rioting by protesters)

Again: That was not the initial aim of the protests, people simply wanted to show their disapproval of the government's decision to ignore their will.

Only if by "show their disapproval" you mean 'demand the resignation of the government and reversal of government policy'. That can't be argued: the protesters were articulating such demands as early as November

That's the whole purpose of parliamentary democracy: to ensure that decisions taken at a national are weighted correctly and that structures are in place to contain any fall out. Otherwise you have the citizens of one city (Kiev) determining national policy in a fashion that is unacceptable to citizens of another region (Crimea).

45% of Ukrainians favored the agreement with the EU, 15% wanted to join the pact with Russia. The rest was undecided or refused both.

You can't just ignore that and expect to get away with it.

I'm sorry but when did a minority showing in a poll equate to a democratic mandate?

Jelle1880

Reekwind wrote: »

Only if by "show their disapproval" you mean 'demand the resignation of the government and reversal of government policy'. That can't be argued: the protesters were articulating such demands as early as November

Do you have any proof of that ? Because I can't find anything confirming that even back then the protesters already wanted the government gone.

What I do know is that on 30 November Berkut troops started attacking them, which was the spark that led to the wider riots. After that the mood changed from protesting to revert the decision to abandon the agreement with the EU to a movement that wanted the government gone.

I'm sorry but when did a minority showing in a poll equate to a democratic mandate?

If you have 3 options in a poll (in favour of the EU agreement, in favour of the Russian agreement and abstain/reject both proposals) then 45% in favour of one of the options constitutes a plurality.

FTA69 wrote: »

No I'm basing my opinion on the fact that they were in power a few short years ago and were booted out for corruption and graft.

In power where ? Because it sure wasn't in the national politics. Maybe local, but I have no information on whether they were removed anywhere for corruption etc.

FTA69

Jelle1880 wrote: »

In power where ? Because it sure wasn't in the national politics. Maybe local, but I have no information on whether they were removed anywhere for corruption etc.

Yes it was. Yulia Tymoshenko's bloc were in national government after the Orange Revolution. Today, her bloc is leading the interim government. It's the same faces as last time.

Scofflaw

Jelle1880 wrote:

If you have 3 options in a poll (in favour of the EU agreement, in favour of the Russian agreement and abstain/reject both proposals) then 45% in favour of one of the options constitutes a majority.

Technical term is a plurality. Most governments are elected on a plurality of votes, not a majority.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bobcoffee

really strange Scofflaw that the term "plurality" is not a common word used in Ireland.
not for me anyways, ty for that one.

Jelle1880

Scofflaw wrote: »

Technical term is a plurality. Most governments are elected on a plurality of votes, not a majority.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You're of course right, changed.

Jelle1880

FTA69 wrote: »

Yes it was. Yulia Tymoshenko's bloc were in national government after the Orange Revolution. Today, her bloc is leading the interim government. It's the same faces as last time.

Svoboda was not part of that bloc though, perhaps in local elections but not in the national ones.

They did participate I believe in Yushchenko's Our Ukraine bloc.

But you're right, the people in power now are a lot of the same faces.

bobcoffee

This is a BBC news night report on youtube
Generally it points out some of the "neo-nazi" elements people have been talking about.

Here is another link, it is violent but not "gore".
PLEASE DO NOT VIEW IT AT WORK.

Videos From Ukraine that The U.S. Media Will Never Show You

Jonny7

bobcoffee wrote: »

This is a BBC news night report on youtube
Generally it points out some of the "neo-nazi" elements people have been talking about.

Yup decent video, but can walk into any country and find groups and elements like this, especially in times of economic hardship

constance tench

Protesters shot in the back?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5dc_1393953567

Jonny7

constance tench wrote: »

Protesters shot in the back?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5dc_1393953567

Let me guess, it was a silenced rifle from behind, timed exactly with each clear audible gunshot emanating from in front of the protesters

sounds plausible alright

FTA69

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup decent video, but can walk into any country and find groups and elements like this, especially in times of economic hardship

Oh right, in what other country do neo-Nazis have four ministries and are in charge of defense and security? Your comparison is totally invalid because in nearly every other country, the far right are powerless fringes. This so-called democratic revolution in Ukraine however, has simply installed a new bunch of oligarchs and propelled fascists into government.

Your whataboutery and distraction doesn't change that fact unfortunately.

Reekwind

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Do you have any proof of that ? Because I can't find anything confirming that even back then the protesters already wanted the government gone.

What I do know is that on 30 November Berkut troops started attacking them, which was the spark that led to the wider riots. After that the mood changed from protesting to revert the decision to abandon the agreement with the EU to a movement that wanted the government gone

Except that you've missed an important step. From coverage of the protests

"Nov. 29, 9 p.m. EuroMaidan organizers issued a resolution that outlines their demands and plans for further action.

It begins, “We, citizens of Ukraine, who united to support the idea of Euro-integration, declare: we continue the fight for a European Ukraine and will act so that our main demand of signing an association agreement with the European Union is fulfilled.”

It says that President Viktor Yanukovych “ignored” the will of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who called on him to take Ukraine into a European future that “millions of Ukrainians want…he is taking the nation into the past.”
The resolution proposed the following:

1. Form a coordinating committee to communicate with the European community.

2. To state that the president, parliament and the Cabinet of Ministers aren’t capable of carrying out a geopolitically strategic course of development for the state and calls on Yanukovych’s resignation.

3. Demand the cessation of political repressions against EuroMaidan activists, students, civic activists and opposition leaders."

In short, as far back as November the street protests were calling for the removal of the government and the reversal of its European policy. What mandate did they have for that?

If you have 3 options in a poll (in favour of the EU agreement, in favour of the Russian agreement and abstain/reject both proposals) then 45% in favour of one of the options constitutes a plurality.

Indeed, not a majority. A poll that showed that, say, 80% of Ukrainians would favour policy X would be worth mentioning but a single poll showing a 45% plurality is not worth the pixels its printed on.

If it were then we could give up with the whole 'election' thing and govern via opinion poll

Dannyboy83

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h79v9uirLY

Russia Today Anchor 'Liz Wahl' resigns Live on Air

Dannyboy83

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZolXrjGIBJs
Russia Today Anchor 'Abby Martin' speaks out against Russian intervention

constance tench

Jonny7 wrote: »

Let me guess, it was a silenced rifle from behind, timed exactly with each clear audible gunshot emanating from in front of the protesters

sounds plausible alright

Why not look at the footage, instead of speculating.

sin_city

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZolXrjGIBJs
Russia Today Anchor 'Abby Martin' speaks out against Russian intervention

This was great....more reason to watch her....Its gives even more weight to her previous and future stories.