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

Lemming

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Do I not... Pray tell me how many millions were slaughtered during the Cold War then my friend..? Please do..
I don't seem to remember them..?

Firstly, I am not your friend.

Secondly, you think direct military action & killing is the only way war is waged?

Jonny7

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Do I not... Pray tell me how many millions were slaughtered during the Cold War then my friend..? Please do..
I don't seem to remember them..?

US and USSR never directly fought, however many wars were considered proxy wars between the two, e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Suez, etc

jimeryan22

Lemming wrote: »

Firstly, I am not your friend.

Secondly, you think direct military action & killing is the only way war is waged?

You got that right you are most definately not...
And secondly yes I do... If you start talking proxy wars, I'm not interested...
I was talking about direct conflict between the states and Russia. But sure you know that..

War Is war. Anything else is not

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

US and USSR never directly fought, however many wars were considered proxy wars between the two, e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Suez, etc

Yes jonny. I know mate... The arsehole knew that an all... But proxy war is not war.. Sorry lads

Lemming

jimeryan22 wrote: »

You got that right you are most definately not...

Then extend the courtesy of not addressing me in such a condescending manner please.

And secondly yes I do... If you start talking proxy wars, I'm not interested...
I was talking about direct conflict between the states and Russia. But sure you know that..

War Is war. Anything else is not

Sorry, but that is completely at odds with the patently dishonest and incorrect statement that you made earlier. Allow me to refresh your memory:

jimeryan22 wrote: »

YRussia has done **** all to the world since the end of WW2... The same can't be said about the US... Fact...

That is not the case as Russia has indeed done a great deal of nasty sh*t "to the world" since the end of WW2. And they have done so using direct military action also; unless you don't count the invasion of Afghanistan as a war of conquest for some particularly peculiar reason? And that's ignoring things like the 1956 Hungarian revoltuion, or the Cheychan war. Or the Winter War (1939-40) where the same people in charge of the Soviet Union at the end of WW2 as at the start tried to invade Finland.

And of course the some two and a half to three decades worth of communist "uprisings" after the end of WW2 that were fought by proxy all across Asia, among other activities in Europe.

I've said it twice already and I'll say it again despite your disgusting & barely disguised insults; you do not know your history where the cold war is concerned.

Lemming

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Yes jonny. I know mate... The arsehole knew that an all... But proxy war is not war.. Sorry lads

Also, "proxy" war is still war. Some poor sap somewhere is being manipulated into dying for a cause that he has been sold as his own by someone else. And I doubt anyone caught up in such events would agree with your ridiculously callous & dismissive assessment.

jimeryan22

Lemming wrote: »

Then extend the courtesy of not addressing me in such a condescending manner please.



Sorry, but that is completely at odds with the patently dishonest and incorrect statement that you made earlier. Allow me to refresh your memory:



That is not the case as Russia has indeed done a great deal of nasty sh*t "to the world" since the end of WW2. And they have done so using direct military action also; unless you don't count the invasion of Afghanistan as a war of conquest for some particularly peculiar reason? And that's ignoring things like the 1956 Hungarian revoltuion, or the Cheychan war. Or the Winter War (1939-40) where the same people in charge of the Soviet Union at the end of WW2 as at the start tried to invade Finland.

And of course the some two and a half to three decades worth of communist "uprisings" after the end of WW2 that were fought by proxy all across Asia, among other activities in Europe.

You are a strange person.. Calling someone friend is condescending is it..? Really...? Right o..
And all those things you list. Are not war mate Sorry.. Keep thinking it is. But it's not... No millions of us or Russian troops/ populations were slaughtered so keep banging on about uprisings etc in other country's... That is still not direct war between Russia and America..
And as for your own manners... Get some pal..
"Firstly your not my friend"

This is not rude or condescending..?

jimeryan22

Lemming wrote: »

Also, "proxy" war is still war. Some poor sap somewhere is being manipulated into dying for a cause that he has been sold as his own by someone else. And I doubt anyone caught up in such events would agree with your ridiculously callous & dismissive assessment.

A third party doing a super powers bidding..? More fool them..
Still not war pal.. So carry on

comongethappy

jimeryan22 wrote: »

A third party doing a super powers bidding..? More fool them..
Still not war pal.. So carry on

I don't read a thread for a day and this is what its become?

We can do better.

Jonny7

comongethappy wrote: »

I don't read a thread for a day and this is what its become?

We can do better.

Well if you ever saw the Libyan/Syrian threads it can get worse.. much worse

jimeryan22

comongethappy wrote: »

I don't read a thread for a day and this is what its become?

We can do better.

Sorry happy... Some people can just be so rude.. It gets on my wick and makes me mad... Easy for other users to be condescending to people then accuse them of it...
Yes. We can do better

Eggy Baby!

comongethappy wrote: »

Meanwhile, the avalanche of Putinistas is putting The Guardians workforce under pressure.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/04/pro-russia-trolls-ukraine-guardian-online

Yeah I saw that. While there are undeniably Kremlin (and Kiev) trolls on the Guardian, the site is generalising and painting people who disagree with its huge editorial biases against Russia as paid Kremlin shills. Shameful.

The Guardian's coverage of Crimea has been reprehensible, and so has its coverage of Russia (for example, there was an avalanche of articles about Pussy Riot that criticised Putin, Russia and the "Mafia State". The amount of critical, Pussy Riot-focused articles dwarfed articles on the whole of Russia for several weeks). But then again, with a man like Luke Harding on board, what would you expect?

I myself have had my loyalties questioned and been called a Putinbot many times, its just stupid, idle criticism made by people with no imagination. The only difference here is that this criticism has been made by a media outlet who's reporting on Russia is very much questionable at best.

And they have done so using direct military action also; unless you don't count the invasion of Afghanistan as a war of conquest for some particularly peculiar reason?

The Soviets were requested by the Afghan government, which was having trouble with extremism. Plus, needless to say, the USSR does not equal contemporary Russia.

Or the Winter War (1939-40) where the same people in charge of the Soviet Union at the end of WW2 as at the start tried to invade Finland.

I've seen the Winter War used as prior example of "Russian aggression" even though it was a Soviet invasion which occurred over 70 years ago. Even then, the cause for the Winter War was a legitimate territorial dispute. Ironically, the fact that the USSR expanded its borders into Finland probably saved Leningrad from being conquered almost instantly when the Finns attacked in concert with the Germans, which would have been a huge blow to the USSR and was one of the reasons the Soviets decided to make claims on the Finnish territory.

Lemming

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

The Soviets were requested by the Afghan government, which was having trouble with extremism. Plus, needless to say, the USSR does not equal contemporary Russia.

They were "invited" by the Afghanistan Marxist party (PDPA), whom, having siezed power in 1978, then tried to implement socialist reforms on an predominantly Islamic culture which resulted in general unrest. The PDPA responded with violence, with tens of thousands of people killed or executed. The intellectual elite & those better off fled as the Soviets invaded and then rounded up any that the PDPA considered a threat (which was anyone other than themselves, politically and economically speaking); most of whom were then of course also executed. Shortly after their arrival, the Soviets assumed political as well as military control. That's some invitation ....

I should also point out that Soviet Union, and the Russians before that having being trying to annex Afghanistan (or parts thereof) since the mid 1800s. "Plus ca change" and what-not.

I've seen the Winter War used as prior example of "Russian aggression" even though it was a Soviet invasion which occurred over 70 years ago. Even then, the cause for the Winter War was a legitimate territorial dispute. Ironically, the fact that the USSR expanded its borders into Finland probably saved Leningrad from being conquered almost instantly when the Finns attacked in concert with the Germans, which would have been a huge blow to the USSR and was one of the reasons the Soviets decided to make claims on the Finnish territory.

I'm sorry, but what? "Legitimate" is not a word I would have used. Simple aggressive landgrab is what it was, nothing more and nothing less. I'll be lazy and copy/paste this summary from wikipedia. Bear in mind that the below details are in context of the fact that the Molotov-Ribontrop agreement had already been signed with Germany, placing Finland in the USSRs sphere of influence. Further, the Soviets had already begun mobilising troops towards the Finnish border months before they made any overtures for negotiation. Either the Finns would acquiese to their demands, or they would take what they wanted anyway and Stalin believed the European powers to be distracted by the German invasion of Poland.

On 5 October 1939, the Soviet Union invited a Finnish delegation to Moscow for negotiations. J.K. Paasikivi, the Finnish ambassador to Sweden, was sent to Moscow to represent the Finnish government.[57] The Soviets demanded that the border between the USSR and Finland on the Karelian Isthmus be moved westward to a point only 30 km (19 mi) east of Viipuri and that the Finns destroy all existing fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus. They also demanded the cession of islands in the Gulf of Finland as well as the Kalastajansaarento peninsula. Furthermore, the Finns would have to lease the Hanko Peninsula for 30 years and permit the Soviets to establish a military base there. In exchange, the Soviet Union would cede two municipalities with twice the territory demanded from Finland.[57][60] Accepting Soviet demands would have forced the Finns to dismantle their defences in Finnish Karelia.[61]

The Soviet offer divided the Finnish government, but it was eventually rejected. On 31 October, in the assembly of the Supreme Soviet, Molotov announced Soviet demands in public. The Finns made two counteroffers whereby Finland would cede the Terijoki area to the Soviet Union, which would double the distance between Leningrad and the Finnish border, far less than the Soviets had demanded.,[62] as well as the islands in the Gulf of Finland.[63] From the Soviet point of view the negotiations were finished.

Scofflaw

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Sorry happy... Some people can just be so rude.. It gets on my wick and makes me mad... Easy for other users to be condescending to people then accuse them of it...
Yes. We can do better

I certainly hope you can do better.

Calling people "pal" and "mate" when you don't know them and are arguing with them is rude. Rude enough to get you a punch in real life situations. As I suspect you're quite aware.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Wurzelbert

jimeryan22 wrote: »

[...]But proxy war is not war..[...]

millions of proxy war dead beg to differ...

SamHarris

jimeryan22 wrote: »

And know facts like.. Russia has done **** all to the world since the end of WW2... The same can't be said about the US... Fact...

Wow...


Recently I noticed there is a group of people in Ireland who get their history lessons and politics almost exclusively from Us television and films - which deals almost exclusively with US issues and problems. It seems to have created the impression in these people that "because I have heard nothing about X then X must have never done anything wrong or have any problems"

Also your not "neutral" - the only way to be neutral would be to have no knowledge on a subject. Now that I think about it...

SamHarris

jimeryan22 wrote: »

A third party doing a super powers bidding..? More fool them..
Still not war pal.. So carry on

I don't think you know what a proxy war is. It's not that.

SamHarris

[QUOTE=Eggy Baby!

The Soviets were requested by the Afghan government, which was having trouble with extremism. Plus, needless to say, the USSR does not equal contemporary Russia.
.[/QUOTE]

Why do I have a feeling you would not accept the same reasoning visa vi South Vietnam and the US?

Given the control the Comintern had on official parties "requests" meant little with regard to the populations of any given communist government.

I won't bother addressing anything you said about the Winter War. It was a war of aggression EXPLICITLY. You can window dress it however you like, but I think it's pretty obvious the entire "Russia has done nothing aggressive since WW2" was a non starter, true only to people who know absolutely nothing about Russian foreign policy since WW2. Or domestic for that matter.

And the Russians would disagree with you that there is little continuation between them and the USSR. As would international law. As would geography and demographics. And culture... Really just about everything except the name, bureaucracy and ideology, in fact.

Wurzelbert

jimeryan22 wrote: »

[...]
And know facts like.. Russia has done **** all to the world since the end of WW2.[...]

are you joking? scary to think there are people out there with that sort of world view...

SamHarris

As to a new "Cold War" thats just nonsense (to whoever brought it up, I've seen it in the media to).

For there to be a Cold War Russia would need to be putting forward a new ideology, even in the most shallow sense. It would need to look like a viable alternative to the Western model to a vast chunk of the world - it doesnt even look like that to it's closest neighbor.

And there would have to be some kind of parity in strength - culturaly, economically, militarily (in at least one area). Culturally it's incredibly hard to overstate how dominant the US is worldwide - it's so dominant people don't even think of it as American rather as just "there" - "The way things are". Economically the West as a whole is about 65% of the worlds economy. Russia is about 3%.

It's only a competition to these people who have convinced themselves that the West is incredibly evil (I never got that, but the complete lack of knowledge with regard to any other major system on display here sure would explain a whole lot) and are desperately searching for something they can throw their support behind (how little their dislike of the West has to do with morality or it's apparent disrespect for international law is pretty clearly demonstrated by who they cheerlead)

SamHarris

Wurzelbert wrote: »

are you joking? scary to think there are people out there with that sort of world view...

Honestly I'm convinced I've just seen the reason so many people seem to "hate" the West / US IN the West / US - there is absolutely no knowledge about what the norm is, or what happens elsewhere.

I have a feeling the guy who posted that, though, was kinda young.

Lemming

SamHarris wrote: »

As to a new "Cold War" thats just nonsense (to whoever brought it up, I've seen it in the media to).

For there to be a Cold War Russia would need to be putting forward a new ideology, even in the most shallow sense. It would need to look like a viable alternative to the Western model to a vast chunk of the world - it doesnt even look like that to it's closest neighbor.

And there would have to be some kind of parity in strength - culturaly, economically, militarily (in at least one area). Culturally it's incredibly hard to overstate how dominant the US is worldwide - it's so dominant people don't even think of it as American rather as just "there" - "The way things are". Economically the West as a whole is about 65% of the worlds economy. Russia is about 3%.

I wouldn't go so far as to dismiss the Cold war rearing its ugly head again; it's just evolved into a more sophisticated beast with new players & proverbial battlefields on the stage as technology evolves and China comes to the fore economically and militarily. And whilst Russia has had a resurgence, that has been on the back of gas export which will not last forever, and indeed already has the EU making noise about better energy independence from Russia given its current & recent bellicose rhetoric & activities.

But otherwise your assessment is pretty much on the mark regards dominance by the US; it is the worlds only remaining superpower. That much is indisputable.

na1

Meanwhile in Mariupol:
Specially trained Russian terrorists attacking Ukrainian APC,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BNC8Ns3xqvw

Ukrainian army shooting terrorists on the streets of Mariupol,

(terrorists are screaming: 'fascists')

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kgmGYmR4ZwU

Of course this is all lie and propaganda, everything was staged, including wounds.

The truth is only reported by CNN & Sky News.

na1

Lockstep wrote: »

Yes, he did. He admitted that Russian troops were supporting the separatists, who were wearing RUssian uniforms, carrying Russian issue weapons and in trucks with Russian numberplates

Putin has since admitted that these were Russian troops so I'm baffled as to how you can cling so desperately to an alternative viewpoint.

The Ukrainian president is Yanukovich and since he sent a request for Russian support, this is an absolutely valid action.

What is not legal, is that armed forces took over parliament building in Kiev, and pronounce themselves the new rulers of the country, and most of EU countries have recognized them as a legitimate government immediately (without any public votes or referendum)
And this is the main reason of the civil war in Ukraine now. Because the current 'legitimate government' is not supported by majority of Eastern Ukrainians an Crimeans

Lockstep

na1 wrote: »

The Ukrainian president is Yanukovich and since he sent a request for Russian support, this is an absolutely valid action.

What is not legal, is that armed forces took over parliament building in Kiev, and pronounce themselves the new rulers of the country, and most of EU countries have recognized them as a legitimate government immediately (without any public votes or referendum)
And this is the main reason of the civil war in Ukraine now. Because the current 'legitimate government' is not supported by majority of Eastern Ukrainians an Crimeans

But Putin hasn't based his justification on Yanukovych requesting aid. He's basing it on protection of Russian citizens.

Consent: An alternative justification for introducing troops onto another state’s territory is that you have that state’s consent. This is a puzzle: Why hasn’t Russia claimed that it has the consent of ousted Ukrainian President Yanukovych to introduce troops into Crimea? There is at least a colorable argument that Yanukovych remains the head of the Ukrainian state. The answer seems to be in part that Putin simply doesn’t think much of Yanukovych, and would prefer to rely on the domestically popular “defense of nationals” argument rather than associate with a former leader that he views as a sinking ship. Intervening states often prefer to assemble as many possible justifications as possible, though, so this still seems to be an unconventional decision by Putin.

Source

At any rate, that Yanukovych fled the country and was impeached by the Rada, it is extremely doubtful that he has the ability to invoke such aid given he has no de facto authority in the country and extremely dubious de jure authority.

States recognise new governments all the time when they are in de facto control of much of the country. That's why the KMT lost their seat on the UNSC and the People's Republic of China took over and why the Rwandan government lost their international recognition after they were overthrown by the Kagame government.
Keep in mind that the Kiev government are an interim one. They've promised elections in May so if they deliver on this, the new government will have a high degree of legitimacy (assuming there are no errors in the vote)

Lockstep

na1 wrote: »

Meanwhile in Mariupol:
Specially trained Russian terrorists attacking Ukrainian APC,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BNC8Ns3xqvw

Ukrainian army shooting terrorists on the streets of Mariupol,

(terrorists are screaming: 'fascists')

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kgmGYmR4ZwU

Of course this is all lie and propaganda, everything was staged, including wounds.

The truth is only reported by CNN & Sky News.

Still relying on your Youtube videos as evidence I see.

Also, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that your claims that the rebels in Eastern Ukraine have public support has been shown to be utterly false.Very few support secession.
*The vast majority of Ukrainians oppose allowing regions to secede, even in Eastern Ukraine and among Russian Ukrainians
*A slight majority of Crimeans support seceding.
*Most Ukrainians have a negative view of Russia while a plurality think the EU is having a good impact on Ukraine.
*Most Ukrainians think that the Crimean referendum was illegitimate.
*Most Ukrainians don't trust the Kiev government.
*Most Ukrainians think that both Russian and Ukrainian should be the national languages.
Source

na1

Lockstep wrote: »

Still relying on your Youtube videos as evidence I see.

Youtube videos are nothing against words Pew Research Center in Ukraine and Russia!


I see

BTW: I can show you the links to dozens 'report centers' which tell opposite

Lockstep

na1 wrote: »

Youtube videos are nothing against words Pew Research Center in Ukraine and Russia!


I see

BTW: I can show you the links to dozens 'report centers' which tell opposite

One of the world's most respected research institutions versus some random Youtube videos? I know which I trust more.

If you can show me ones from organisations as recognized as the Pew Research Centre then be my guest.

na1

Also was going to ask: if the protests are "against government, not the state", are they eligible to throw molotov's cocktails at police?

If I don't like Enda's government but support Irish integrity as a country, can I go at the street and start throwing petrol bombs at Garda - Will I be considered by international organisations as a peaceful protestor, and will be visited by Victoria Nuland ("f...k the EU")?
Can I avoid prosecution then?

na1

Lockstep wrote: »

One of the world's most respected research institutions versus some random Youtube videos? .

Did you see any of their personnel on the streets of Donetsk, Mariupol, Lugansk? Really where did they get numbers from?