Zoraptor

On the first point there's very little doubt it was illegal- the vote was made under duress, it was made using an older constitution without the repeal of the newer being made lawfully, and even then they did not have the required super majority as there were insufficient members present to get 75% even with a unanimous vote- they only achieved a super majority of those present. Russia's position is certainly correct in a legal sense there. On the second, it is clear that the Ukrainian constitution was written specifically to stop secession as it requires both central government approval and a referendum across the whole country. To use an example from the last thread that would be like Great Britain refusing Ireland's independence based upon referendum votes from Scotland, Wales and England. Indeed, the current Scottish referendum is Scotland only. Having said that the referendum is clearly illegal under the Ukrainian constitution. The difference in practical terms is that the impeachment/ removal process is designed to be difficult, as you'd expect, but could legitimately have been done- if they hadn't driven off so many Party of Regions and Communist members. The secession process is practically impossible though, as Mr Yatsenyuk etc have made it clear it will not be considered under any circumstances, and the maximum allowed might be more autonomy and reversion to the old Crimean Constitution that Kiev abrogated in 1995.

So what? Facts on the ground. Argentina may not accept that the UK rules the Falklands, but they may as well be blowing bubbles in a gale for all the difference it makes. The west has no balls- if it's easy they'll do it, if it's hard then they'll look for something easy instead. This is hard, so they'll yell and wave their hands, then only bring it up when convenient and they need to remind people how horrible Russians are. Sure is, which is why if it's such a problem pouring a big barrel of oil down the Kosovan hill was pretty moronic of the west. Of course, it only becomes a slippery slope when it's someone other than the west doing it, when the west does it it is Principled. There's a quote from Victoria Nuland that very accurately describes my feelings towards the EU. Sorry Brucey, you ain't going to catch me with that one. I've said repeatedly that the main problem with the west's actions is that they will be used by others to justify their actions and that they undermine 'international law' for whatever that concept is worth- not much, when you're willing to flagrantly ignore it when convenient. It is the slippery slope argument, it's just that people stick their heads in the sand about who exactly started down the slippery slope. You cannot expect only one side to abide by a set of rules, if they do they're morans because the other side has already shown they won't. So far the Russians have been far better than the west has anyway, nobody has died and they've gone for a region which has a long and provable history with Russia, and of opposition to being part of Ukraine. Indeed, it's a region that is only part of Ukraine due to Krushchev and the USSR breaking up inconveniently (Crimea voted to be an autonomous SSR- 95% voter approval- in 1991, but it was only a couple of months before the USSR broke up so it was never implemented). So yeah, I broadly support the Russians here for those reasons, and because the concept of international law is bunkum if only one side adheres to it. If you'd paid attention in the previous thread you'd even have noticed I wasn't implacably opposed to Kosovo either, just its extremely one sided implementation.

Considering that he has, without any doubt, acted and acted decisively that analysis doesn't stand up to even the most cursory examination. He's bitten, he's won, and there's essentially nothing practical anyone can do now except shout and wave their arms in the air while spouting the usual do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do blather about sovereign integrity and the like- ignoring that Crimea has actually voted to separate from Ukraine multiple times previously (1991, 1992, 1995).

Nobody expects Oby to be unbiased, he's not in any way a source of record- plus, I have noscript and video blocked by default, so don't actually see most of what he posts. To some at least the BBC is a source of record though. To be fair, they were not reporting on it entirely seriously, more on the phenomenon, but even that gives it more credibility than it deserves. In any case I find it almost certain that Oby isn't entirely serious either, and is doing it mainly because he finds the reactions of outraged butthurt amusing. Plus it's only ~48 hours since I suggested to Oby that simultaneously ranting about ZOG while praising Jewish newspapers for being unbiased sources was probably not the most consistent approach to take.

All those Russians look the same to me, what with their shifty eyes, the blood of sweet innocents dripping from their mouths and driving their tanks full tilt towards disabled grandmothers trying to protect newborn infants. So difficult to tell them apart they may as well all be the same. Seriously, why would they bother, in a million years, to bus some random woman around for propaganda. And why would the BBC report on it even if it's just one of their moronic social media non events doing it. It's like that running joke about Russia being a Scooby Doo villain, always coming up with an overly complicated, fiendishly intelligent plan that they would have got away with if not for those pesky kids.

Heh, good to see that there's extra propaganda thrown in too, shame it makes me question if their other information is even slightly correct. OMG webcams! OMG more ballots to be printed than electors! As opposed to the digital voting so popular in the US and being brought in in Britain which totally won't tell whoever runs the computers who was voting, and for whom. And if our elections here don't have far more ballots printed than there are electors I will eat my keyboard, computer, monitor and joystick then play no game other than Oblivion for the rest of the year- because you don't know exactly where people will go to vote, you can only estimate maximum numbers and print that maximum number of ballots for each booth. Typical damned if you do, damned if you don't set up, print too many ballots and it'll be for ballot stuffing, obviously, print too few then run out and OMG people's right to vote infringed, fraudulent!

Have to ask Sìle de Wossname from Twitcher2 what those headdress wotsits are called.

Eh? While she's accused of embezzling billions (and has used parliamentary privilege and votes to block prosecution multiple times, like Silvio B) Yulia Tymoshenko isn't a former president, she only made it to Prime Minister. Lol, Yanukovich embezzled 37 billion. It's like some wide eyed 7 year old who is going to make a millionty billionty dollars when they grow up actually grew up to write propaganda. And, amazingly enough, even if true it would represent... about 5% of the corruption over the same time from the organisation they're so keen to join. And, of course, while accusations against poor, dear, not innocent because nobody says that, Yulia are politically motivated accusations against Yanukovich are Gospel Truth from God Himself, from Burning Bush to Graven Tablet and not politically motivated in the slightest.

Israel is more likely to highlight stuff like Svoboda and Right Sector, since Svoboda and its main men have got on various anti semitic lists (Simon Weisthenthal Centre etc). If you want negative coverage of the new government they're more likely to provide it than anyone except Russia and Byelorus, for those reasons. It is a just a bit ironic though for oby to talk about kicking 'ZOG arses' while simultaneously saying Israeli media sources are relevant and useful.

Here's a Ukrainian source.

Looks worse to me than Witcher 3. Witcher 3 insists on applying some sort of sharpness filter in everything I've seen. It'd look better without it. In any case they both look like graphics won't be a problem, the question will be how both handle the practicalities of the more open (or 'open', at least) world approach rather than just pixel pushing.

Strangely enough the SJW stuff doesn't bother me that much at RPS, I can almost always pick the articles and avoid them. It's more that I don't find them to have much of any critical faculty any more, and find that they use absolutely shameless click whoring on a wide range of subjects, of which the SJW stuff is admittedly a part. Stuff like Alec Meer blaming Uplay for his ISP being crap is exactly the sort of thing that annoys me, it's guaranteed to get lots of angry responses in support, but it's a load of bollocks and he must know it is since the problem was that his ISP was blocking access, if you didn't use his BT (more like Bt, insect subscribers) you were fine. And you know- with the absolute certainty of having seen a breathlessly fanboy article about how wonderful it was having Gabe explain how VAC scanning your DNS was a good thing and thanks for taking the time Gabe you're so fascinating and dreamy, and after their incorrect and non factual never retracted crusade against Origin scanning hard drives- that if his ISP were blocking steam it would incontrovertibly be his ISP's fault, not Valve's, and not worth a mention. The whole M&M coverage on RPS was terrible, for that matter. Then there's the Thiaf vs SP wot I thinks, which are, well, not exactly consistent despite being from the same guy. Plus the articles on anonymous indie projects actually do annoy me, as unlike the SJW stuff they're now a majority of their content. Actually I've pretty much talked myself out of going back, except on Fridays. If I'm reading an article and wondering how they're going to spin it for clickbait right from the start I'm probably better off not reading at all as I'm not going to be fair even to good articles.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun has me a little worried: I've been worried about RPS for a while. In all seriousness they're at about Kotaku level now, their concerns can be safely ignored. And, of course, their review of FalloutNV was pretty infamous- they just don't like Obsidian much. Some of their guest contributors are good though, and Tim Stone is, as always, awesome.

See, your problem is that you are stating your opinion, that it is insignificant. You don't actually have anything to back that opinion up though, beyond assertion. Repeated assertion. Ad nauseum. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion every bit as much as I am. It's just that my opinion is backed by facts- the opposition thought the repeal was important enough to rush through; human nature says that people dislike having their rights to use their native tongue threatened- while yours is backed by being your opinion and you wanting it to be true, and that is literally all. Sheesh, you even reinforce the point. Albeit the russians were not in any way liberating Crimea at the point the legislation was passed, but the rest is accurate and still they found it necessary and essential to repeal this law, which effects minorities who did not vote for them, as a matter of urgency. And the whole thing is designed to make sure that the west gets a majority in the next elections. Their opponents are disorganised and have many of their leaders enjoying the tender (at present at least) protection of the new Ukraine's Right Sector enforcers while they organise snap elections with their favoured parties free to do what they want. There's not the slightest chance of a fair election, just one that gets the 'right' result for the EU and US. Plus, I think you have me confused, I've never said that the new 'government' is fascist, just that Svoboda, a member of it, is. I'd be careful drawing the nazi parallels though, they've handed the Defence Ministry, Prosecutor General and deputy PM positions to Svoboda (please note, US propaganda issuers, your 'facts' don't even stand up to asterisking wikipedia, morans. OK, so most people will just Believe what they're told, but that's just lazy), plus have their militia running around with the freedom of Kiev. Paul von Hinden^H^H^H^ Yatsenyuk better watch his back.

Oh for the love of... Of course removing the official status of the language is a big deal. It's a big deal to the people effected, it's also a big deal to the new government. It was one of the very first things the new government did, they obviously thought it was of critical importance. Ye gods man, even the people you're defending without question think it's a big deal. The only people arguing that it isn't are people who want to paint the Ukrainian rump parliament in the best possible light, and don't want the burden of having to justify the- minority, per elections- inflicting their vision onto other regions and telling them what languages can be supported. It also gives credence to Svoboda's "Ukraine for Ukrainian" rhetoric, as well as appointing Svoboda members to those most reconciliatory of positions- Prosecutor General (!) and Minister of Defence (!!!). Face facts, there was not going to be reconciliation. Be interesting to see how it still manages to be Putin's fault and him blowing it all out of proportion due to propaganda, when the entire western media didn't even report on it for a week plus. (Plus, nice racism. Good to see the drunken Russian stereotype is alive and well. Can't really object as it just shows how poor your arguments are. At least Tagaziel's ones are topical, if not less biased)

And, of course, no mention of Lithuania. Probably because last time it was independent it was 'invited' but declined to join Poland followed by, wait for it, a 'spontaneous' invasion to snatch areas with a large Polish minority, to, oh the irony "defend the rights of self determination of local Poles and against international agreements". Plus ça change... Crimea is a distinct and integral region geographically, any glance at a map can confirm that. A Paris suburb is not. Using that argument only ~5% of the population of the British Isles is Irish. As such, Britain should still rule Ireland as there is only a local majority of Irish in one particular region. Same for Scotland, only with double the percentage.

What, in circumstances where the only 'protection' provided to the parliament was from the protesters, Right Sector etc? With that you can argue that Oliver Cromwell was a good democrat, what with getting 'elected' dictator for life by parliament. Especially since we have video of one of the goons threatening to hang the new interior minister, their nominal friend. It was also against, wait for it, an international agreement signed by amongst others three EU foreign ministers and the political opposition (at that time), abrogated almost instantly. Ah, so people only want to break away because of propaganda, not because their government got couped- unless they're breaking away from someone you don't like, such as Stalin? Can't say I'm surprised. No, I'm saying it was an arbitrary switch made at the whim of, basically, a dictator, which was meant to have no practical change, which did not take the wishes of the people living there into account in the slightest, and which was made by someone whose decisions would be regarded as questionable by default by the west. If they didn't agree with the decision for political reasons, at least. Crimea should never have been regarded as part of Ukraine. And international agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on, when they become inconvenient. There is, for example, the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, abrogated by the US and the agreement that allowed Germany to reintegrate, also abrogated by the west. Oh, and of course the agreement that said Yanokovich would stay President until new elections, as mentioned above. What's that, irony, again? The only irony here is Obama's PR BS about respecting sovereignty of other states or whatever Obama daily CNN produce to justify its actions. Because the west is perfectly happy to resolve issues through drones/ targeted assassinations, invading Iraq, splitting off Kosovo, aiding this that or the other rebel group, bombing Libya, supporting overthrows of democratically elected governments, supporting Israeli colonisations and annexations, and a host of other examples but they all just Don't Count against them since they are Different, Just Because. The west, as with everyone, talks negotiations only when they're either sure they'll get what they want from them, or they want nothing done at all, or when the stakes are too high for other actions. When they want to take action, even violent military action, they'll pull a Nike and just do it. Maybe not quite as readily as Russia may, but then the list of countries invaded or attacked by Russia recently is- objectively- considerably shorter than that attacked by those issue talking negotiation loving western countries.

Can't remember who said it but Crimea would have no problem as a sovereign nation. It has enough population, indeed it has significantly more than Kosovo, it has enough natural resources and if people were to talk about the ability to defend themselves then Ukraine isn't a proper country, let alone any country with a small population. Such as Kosovo, which still has a- to all intents and purposes permanent- NATO presence. I'm sure, however, that a to all intents and permanent purposes Russian presence in Crimea would be Different, just Different, Because. International politics is perhaps the most ironic of all things. Quite apart from the US saying you don't just run around invading countries there's also Britain holding a referendum on the status of the Malvinas, while they are under their 'military occupation', and using that as a pretext to hold them from their rightful owners* in the Land of Silver, Maradona and financial crises. Oh, and the soft economic sanctions from various South American countries against them are just vindictive! And, of course, Kosovo. The other other side set aside the democratically elected government elected primarily be the east. Not worried at all about their disenfranchisement, are we, after all the side which lost the elections will do what we want, so all's good? Nah, that's rubbish. Everyone has accepted that there is a very strong secessionist or unificationist sentiment in Crimea- everyone, including those in Kiev else they would not have been talking about 'punishing' secessionist sentiment, a comment I imagine the 'president' is regretting now. It suits Russia's interests and they will, of course, support it for that reason, but it is home grown. The comparison to Germany in 1938 is ridiculous anyway, but if we have to do it then who is Neville Chamberlain? Please let it be William Hague, it would make my day if he aimed for Churchill and achieved Chamberlain as well as Shatner. Still not read the OSCE or HRW report, or even the nice easy to read wikipedia article I provided? Ah well, not surprised, you can lead a horse to the fountain of enlightenment, but you can't make it drink. That's sophistry. He gave it to Ukraine, one day it was part of Russia, next it was part of Ukraine. That's like describing Georgian ethnic cleansing as "unfortunate reaction to secessionism" or whatever weasel words Hitchens used. A palatable way to describe something that is unpalatable when someone else does it. And there's the irony again. Decisions made by Uncle Joe Stalin or Nikita Krushchev must be respected! So says the west! But only the decisions we like! *Nah, the population is British and wants to be British, that's enough for me and anyone reasonable. It just, for some peculiar reason, the goal posts shift mysteriously around when it's other people using the same logic.

Well, not since the 17th century at least.

That has always been the case though. On Feb 5 1840 New Zealand's population would have been around 80% Maori, and if the country fairy had waved her magical wand then all things being equal you would have had 'Aotearoa' instead of New Zealand. Now the Maori proportion is only around an eighth of that. Same for any new world country. I'm no fan of sovereign absolutism and borders being immutable and absolute, because they've never been immutable and absolute- and neither have ethnoreligious make ups either. You cannot turn back time to make Crimea majority Tartar/ Cuman/ Greek/ Scythian, or however far back you go. It's isn't like all the russian residents there have been bussed in by Moscow in the last two weeks, the vast majority will have been born and raised there, and most while there was no practical difference between the Russian and Ukrainian SSRs. In essence, most of the arguments against which don't involve sovereign absolutism involve talking of historic wrongs. Well, they're historic wrongs. You're not going to solve them by creating another, current, wrong.

So was Andrew Ryan in Bioshock, which I would never have picked since he sounds nothing like Quark/ Principal Snyder there.

I answered it already. I'm perfectly happy for eastern Ukraine to rejoin Russia- or become The Republic of Novorussia for that matter- if it represents the will of the majority of the people. Even pro western news outlets suggest that is so for Crimea, at very least, and quite possibly so for much of the rest of the south and east. That isn't be any means perfect of course, but then while the new government talked reconciliation their actions did not match the rhetoric, indeed they actively antagonised areas that were politically opposed to them by threatening to ban their political parties, plus the repealing of the language laws. If they wanted territorial integrity then compromise was needed, not triumphalism. These things do not happen in a vacuum. I don't mind if the Caucasus republics secede from Russia at all. I wouldn't object to the South Island seceding from New Zealand, indeed it would be eminently sensible for them to as they're largely treated as a place to generate electricity for the north. I'd just question whether that would represent the will of the majority of the people in either place.

I doubt there will be much violence, fortunately. Mainly because I doubt Ukraine feels it can rely on its own army to fight reliably enough, there are already a lot of rumours about defections. And I cannot see any of the western countries fighting Russia for Ukraine which is what it would take- unless they go for all of Ukraine, which seems very unlikely and would almost certainly be a momentous mistake. RT etc are running lots of video of pro Russia demos in Donetsk/ D'trovsk/ Kharkov/ Mariupol etc... Pretty surprised Putin has gone all in so soon. Would definitely have thought there'd be more stage managing before anything happened. At the moment the contrast with Obama could not be more stark, albeit Obama's wobble was over a far more peripheral and distant issue, and Putin is likely to get broad support from population and politicians. I don't know about that, but he does seem to be enjoying himself rather too much considering things could get very serious, very fast. And I have the knees of an emu, not a spaniel.

Nobody cares about that, they care based on geopolitical goals. If they talk humanitarian or somesuch it's sugar coating for the public. Besides, it's by no means certain that you'd get a majority for secession even if you could hold a plebiscite on it, the autonomous Chechnya was an absolute disaster- for the Chechens. Deflection? Nah, it's pointing out that you can level the charges against everyone, you're just being selective on who is being accused. US supports separatists in Iranian Baluchistan, supported South Sudan, supported Kosovo. That's an enemy country, an enemy country (Sudan) and an ally of an enemy country (Serbia/ Russia). Countries will do whatever they want and can get away with to expand their influence or reduce a rival's whether they be Russia or the US. That's the answer. May not be the one you're looking for, but it's the one based in reality rather than, per John Kerry, Rocky IV. Sigh. You didn't read the link I posted, did you? And I see what numbersman says is, as it usually is, true- you're going to hide your opinion behind the bulwark of authority by, er, citing the first two things you find on google that support your view. Okey dokey, I'll run through Mr Hitchens' points, because he was a momentous goober with all the authority of stating a position, and stating it loudly and repeatedly. Still can't be bothered with the other one. 1) No Russia never had any interest in Abkhaz or Ossetia indepenence prior to the USSR breaking up. It'd be like Surrey county in England getting upset about bits of Cumberland County being given to Northumberland or Lancaster Counties. In the USSR they were part of the same country, the SSR divisions were administrative only. Classic non sequitur. 2)"Kosovo [..] was never manipulated as part of the partition or intervention plan of another country." Well yes, it was never manipulated by the Ottoman Empire. Oh wait, yes it was, for best part of 500 years. And yes, the partition was a plan, of the US/ NATO. They didn't wake up one day and find Kosovo was suddenly 'independent', they actively supported it with aid and political recognition. Ignorance, muppetry 2a) "Whatever may be said of Georgia's incautious policy toward secessionism within its own internationally recognized borders". There was extensive ethnic cleansing in Georgia, 100k + Ossetians ethnically cleansed- according to Human Rights Watch, not the Russians or any other interested party. To give the scale, SOssetia's current population is only around 50k ish. Of course, being Georgia this is "incautious secession policy". Specious, fatuous, selective/ ignorant, propaganda. 3) The Georgians deliberately killed Russian peacekeepers. You don't need a UN resolution to respond to that. OSCE itself agreed to that, indeed OSCE's main gripe was disproportionate response, not the fact there was one. Specious, muppetry, non sequitur. 4) Particularly amusing, since Russia has sponsored independence status for both Abkhazia and SOssetia. And, as comparison, EU members of NATO recognise NATO creation, news at 11. Incorrect, muppetry. 5) Oh those sainted westerners, always with the best of intentions! Oh those hideous eastern beasts, with their squinty eyes and inscrutable morals! Of course, those sainted westerners will never agree that Kosovo's oppressed Serbian minority should have the right to rejoin Serbia... 6) Long meditated is complete asterisks. Again, the OSCE report (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) found there was no evidence of a troop build up by Russia prior to Georgia's- deliberate, planned- invasion, indeed most of the heavy fighting for the first 2-3 days was carried out by the SOssetians themselves, in Tskinvali. Incorrect, also use of shall we say "deflection". Your articles are crap, rubbish. Penned by morons in ignorance or out of malice, unbalanced, specious, selective.

It isn't an example of what not to do. It's an example of how it's OK for us to do something, but not OK for the Russians to do the same thing. You either have an independent Kosovo because they were treated badly by the Serbs (rather a gross simplification of course, but nuance in that case would take hours and a Balkan history lesson) and independent South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh, Transnistria etc because they were treated badly, or you don't have the lot. Going on about territorial integrity being sacrosanct is fine, if you honour it yourself. If it's only a rule for your enemies, not you, then you cannot hardly complain when they ignore it. After all, you've done exactly the same thing. My stance on what exactly? If it's on territorial integrity then it's meh, don't really care. I tend to think that Kosovo should be split with the north going to Serbia and the south to Albania, as that seems to be the best and fairest solution. For Ukraine, it's an artificial country made up on the basis of internal Soviet divisions that were never intended to have any practical consequence at all. Let the people who want to join Russia do so, let the people who want to be Ukrainian do so, let the people who may want to be Polish/ Romanian/ Hungarian be so. No, I don't really find it interesting, I'm afraid, I find it rather humdrum and par for the course. I lack the... belief needed to think that exactly the same thing doesn't and wouldn't happen to countries the West dislikes. After all, you didn't hear politicians and media saying the world would end when Lvov declared independence a couple of weeks ago, because at that stage Ukraine was still in Russia's sphere. Same as you didn't hear the same politicians and media saying that Ukraine should be left to make its own decisions a week or so ago- it's only once you can rely on them to make the 'right' decisions that they should be left alone to make them, whether you're Russia, or the EU/ US. You've got the timeline wrong way around. Both SOssetia and Abkhazia were de facto independent long before Kosovo. It's just that they had not sought formal recognition of that fact, indeed this was something Kosovo only did after years of de facto independence as well. Russia doesn't give a toss about setting a precedent, because nobody will do anything about Chechnya, or Ingushetia, or Dagestan apart from write the odd Strongly Worded Letter. Your articles are garbage by the way, riddled with obvious factual errors. I can go through them in detail, but meh, boring. Just a taster though: Russia didn't complain about Abkhazia or South Ossetia prior to Georgia becoming independent? No asterisks, Sherlock Hitchens. Could, just possibly, maybe a thought be because they were part of the same country before that event. And, of course, neither author has bothered to read anything about prior events because they paint the Georgians in an extremely dim light. They ethnically cleansed 2/3 of the Ossetian population from Georgia outright, albeit according to notoriously pro- Russian group Pravda Itar-Tass, uh, Human Rights Watch?