Ukraine burns

[Zoraptor]

Yanukovych was elected somewhat democratically (passably fair and free isn't fully fair and free), but the right to protest is an inherent element of a democracy and Yanukovych repeatedly attempted to deprive Ukrainians of it (early Euromaidan protests were broken up by Berkut, which only pissed Ukrainians off further and amplified the scale). He acted in violation of the constitution of the state, which guarantees freedom of political expression, including the aforementioned right to protest, and establishes accountability to the common citizen.

Whereas, of course, breaking up the Occupy Wall Street protests in the US, or the various tactics used in the west ("kettling") shows an ultimate respect for political expression and the right to protest. Well no, protests get broken up all the time in the west. Try occupying the centre of Washington or London and see how long they last, bet it wouldn't be 3 months. Try shooting at the police or setting them on fire while you're at it, for the authentic Ukraine protest experience- I'm sure those western police won't respond violently but with a sternly worded letter of censure...

 

The protests aren't instigated by losers.

Yeah, they were. They lost the election; the other guy won. That makes them losers, QED. You want to disenfranchise the majority because you happen to agree with the minority's views, you want to set aside all those- the majority- who voted for Yanokovich, for the people who lost. I know perfectly well you'll argue the point to the death, but that is what you're doing, you're just dressing it up in palatable clothes. George Bush, Tony Blair, Frankie Hollande, more popular leaders, every single democratic leader in history most likely have two things in common, they won their elections and some people, somewhere in their country are right royally peeved that they won.

 

So? In the previous segment and in this one you're asserting the futility of the protests, because it was bad in the past, it is bad now, and it's likely to be bad in the future.

Nah, I'm not. I'm saying that painting the protesters as valiant freedom fighters for honesty, progress and the Ukrainian way is a load of rubbish because their chosen bunch of politicians are as corrupt as the other lot, when they were in power last time things did not change; and "once we rule, everything will be OK, trust us" is a position that has a... somewhat questionable history of accuracy, prediction wise, from General Al-Sisi to Robespierre. To the, uh, Orange Revolution in, uh, Ukraine, after which they still have Tymoshenko and Yanukovich.

 

The difference being that U.S. policemen did not fire into the crowd, did not deploy hired thugs to provoke protesters (one of many links you'll find when you google for titushki), did not shut down lights before a massed attack on the protesters using armored cars, and weren't acting like enforcers of the current regime. Protesters at Occupy Wall Street weren't shot dead. Summary from the Kyiv Post on the Feb. 18 violence.

Oh please, painting the protesters as some bunch of beatnik pacifist kumbaya singing lentil eaters is complete rubbish. They've had molotov roostertails and suchlike from the start, and have had a hard right element that was spoiling for a fight. And most significantly, while 16 protesters in a day weren't killed in OWS neither were 10 policeman killed on that same, metaphorical, day. No doubt those police were unfortunate enough to be hit by a particularly nastily cut slice of papaya, to paraphrase Edmund Blackadder.

 

There's a big difference between Occupy Wall Street and Euromaidan.

True. OWS were generally peaceful, and there were very few fatalities involved.

 

Are you seriously comparing Bush to Yanukovych?

Certainly not. Yanukovich still has support, the vast bulk of the US would happily have fired GWB into the sun a year or so into his second term, Yanokovich also hasn't managed to get thousands of his own people and tens of thousands at minimum of foreigners pointlessly killed in a war fought under knowingly trumped up pretexts.

 

The EU isn't a blatantly undemocratic technocracy. It has its problems with democratic representation, but that's why you have eg. the Treaty of Lisbon implement changes to make it more fair and representative. Seriously, your entire argument boils down to "something's not perfect immediately, SO WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING OKAY."

It's specifically designed to have 'problems with representation' because those pesky 'people' things keep getting in the way of what bureaucrats know to be necessary and beneficial. The EU is run by Sir Humphrey Appleby, for Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

ea

 

 

From reading your other posts and opinions I consider you a highly intelligent and informed person so you don't need to have travelled to particular country to answer the question. You can choose any EU country, I just want to know the reasons why you would choose that country to make your home. I'll explain the relevance once I get your answer

 

I still think that visiting a country is essential for considering whether or not it would be a suitable place to migrate to, but eh. To answer your question, I'd probably choose to live in Monaco. Nah, just kidding, it's not even a real country anyway. But seriously, I'd probably choose Sweden. Insane taxes but great living standards and public services. Now, what does this have to do with anything?

 

Thanks for responding, I need you to answer one more question. If you choose to live in a particular country would any of the following effect how you view if you could live in that country

 

• persecution of the free press
• arrests of journalists who don't tow the incumbent party line
•  blatant discrimination against minority groups, for example homophobia
• lack of rights for immigrants and abuse of there basic human rights
• egregious corruption and nepotism
•  

Its fine if these things don't bother you, the truth is for some people they don't. As long as they aren't on the receiving end some people can live anywhere. So please be honest about if these things would bother you and impact where you could live

 

 

I've decided to make my point around this topic. The first part of this post positions some context and some of this people will know or has been posted already

 

After the collapse of the USSR many countries gained there political freedom and hoped for independent economic prosperity. Fast forward 24 years and we have a mixed bag of results for the previous members of the USSR. Some countries are doing really well economically, like Poland and certain Baltic states, and other countries not doing so well like Bulgaria and Ukraine. But the reality is that the Ukraine wants to align itself with a union of countries to ensure economic upliftment. And they only have two real choices, the EU or the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. So my first point is people shouldn't ask " what makes you think that Ukraine needs to be part of any Union, why can't they just be independent" This is not even part of the debate as we know Ukraine wants to go one way or the other. This is where the political dichotomy comes into the equation and where the protests in Ukraine began.

 

The president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, decided that talks with the EU would end and he seemed to be favouring the Russian union only. People took to the streets in protest and violence has been steadily getting worse over the last few months. So the question we need to ask is "what is the best option for Ukraine, the EU or the customs Union with Russia" because they can't be part of both.

 

This boils down to a subjective debate for some but the reality is it seems the majority of Ukrainians want the EU union. And what is very important to realize is this is not only about the perceived  economic prosperity that the EU may bring, in fact I would say that the average Ukrainian doesn't think of the EU as some sort of financial panacea as we all know the EU is facing an economic slowdown amongst some of its members. This is much more about the ideological union that the EU brings. Ukraine will always have strong ethnic and cultural ties to Russia but for most Ukrainians they would prefer a future that is aligned politically and ideologically with the EU. This is not because the Ukraine will be guaranteed to do better economically in the EU.

 

So the final question may be "but what makes the EU a better choice than Russia ideologically" That question is easily answered if you ask yourself a simple question " where would you choose to live if you could". And as I mentioned many factors influence this decision but for almost all of us the answer is obvious " the EU".

 

That's the way the Ukrainians see it as well

[Fighter]

There is no coming back for Yanukovich from this. Not after today. He will end badly.

 

Some towns in western Ukraine are almost under full control of the opposition/protesters/rebels whatever you want to call them now. This may end up even worse with civil war and pieces breaking away in the east or west depending on what happens in Kiev.

 

That's the way the Ukrainians see it as well

 

Do they? Many do. How many is the question.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Fighter

[BruceVC]

There is no coming back for Yanukovich from this. Not after today. He will end badly.

 

Some towns in western Ukraine are almost under full control of the opposition/protesters/rebels whatever you want to call them now. This may end up even worse with civil war and pieces breaking away in the east or west depending on what happens in Kiev.

 

That's the way the Ukrainians see it as well

 

Do they? Many do. How many is the question.

 

Good question, I don't know. I will have to do some research to find out

[Tagaziel]

http://zyalt.livejournal.com/1003663.html

 

Here's a translated journal entry from a man on the ground. The Kyiv Post article was also a good summary.

 

 

snip

What's your point? Seriously, you're basically ignoring what I say and fashion straw men to argue against. So far I gather your points are:

 

* Yanukovych happened to win elections, so he can do whatever he wants, including killing his own people,

* Euromaidan is criminal, because it's unheard of for popular protests to be composed of different groups of people or for them to turn violent after a baseless crackdown and attempts to disperse them,

* shooting protesters is OK, because... **** if I know what your rationale for that is,

* the EU is bad, mmkay,

* oh, and Yanukovych is a lovable innocent, constantly slandered by those naughty Euromaidan people.

 

For ****'s sake, it seems as if you just want to be contrarian, dressing it up in the guise of "wise" posts. The West supports Euromaidan? Oh, then I must support Russia and Yanukovych, else my hip credentials are threatened!

Edited February 20, 2014 by Tagaziel

[Tagaziel]

double post

Edited February 20, 2014 by Tagaziel

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

Thanks for responding, I need you to answer one more question. If you choose to live in a particular country would any of the following effect how you view if you could live in that country

 

• persecution of the free press
• arrests of journalists who don't tow the incumbent party line
•  blatant discrimination against minority groups, for example homophobia
• lack of rights for immigrants and abuse of there basic human rights
• egregious corruption and nepotism
•  

Its fine if these things don't bother you, the truth is for some people they don't. As long as they aren't on the receiving end some people can live anywhere. So please be honest about if these things would bother you and impact where you could live

 

 

Except for the arrests of journalists and perhaps the immigrants, all the other points sounds like a lot of Western countries.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist

[Tagaziel]

Except for the arrests of journalists and perhaps the immigrants, all the other points sounds like a lot of Western countries.

Do you live in a western country? If so, maybe you should travel to countries were actual repression is present, maybe it can put some perspective in you.

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

Do you live in a western country? If so, maybe you should travel to countries were actual repression is present, maybe it can put some perspective in you.

 

 

I've travelled to quite a few countries. Also, actual repression doesn't happen in Western countries. Okay.

[Mor]

Except for the arrests of journalists and perhaps the immigrants, all the other points sounds like a lot of Western countries.

in what way? as in 10 and 20 inches are a lot alike or as in world ranking in __insert topic__

 

A friend told me that apparently police snipers are targeting medics.

I seen reports that Assad forces have been targeting medical personnel in Syria, but in Ukraine? I am skeptical, unless you can find something more substantial from a reliable source.

[Tagaziel]

I seen reports that Assad forces have been targeting medical personnel in Syria, but in Ukraine? I am skeptical, unless you can find something more substantial from a reliable source.

https://twitter.com/OlesyaZhukovska

 

I've posted her photo (taken after she was shot) earlier in the thread. There's a number of conflicting reports about her, she's either dead or heavily injured.

 

Unconfirmed reports put the number of protesters dead at around hundred, with many more wounded.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Tagaziel

[Woldan]

For gods sake, somebody should tell those people that a shield made of  a few layers of sheet metal and a soft body armor vest does nothing against rifle fire. In fact it makes the wounds even worse. 

Don't they have access to hardened construction steel sheets? 

Edited February 20, 2014 by Woldan

[Mor]

I've posted her photo (taken after she was shot) earlier in the thread. There's a number of conflicting reports about her, she's either dead or heavily injured.

I seen the photo you posted, but one medic shot =/= police snipers are targeting medics.

[Malcador]

For gods sake, somebody should tell those people that a shield made of  a few layers of sheet metal and a soft body armor vest does nothing against rifle fire. In fact it makes the wounds even worse. 

Don't they have access to hardened construction steel sheets? 

 

Obviously they don't, just using looted police gear from the look of it.

[BruceVC]

We

 

Except for the arrests of journalists and perhaps the immigrants, all the other points sounds like a lot of Western countries.

Do you live in a western country? If so, maybe you should travel to countries were actual repression is present, maybe it can put some perspective in you.

 

 

I agree with Tagaziel on this point, even though you can find similarity in some of the points I mentioned in Western countries you don't find it in the degree that you find it in Russia or the fact that's is legalised, for example the latest Homophobic Bill that is now law in Russia.

[Woldan]

 

For gods sake, somebody should tell those people that a shield made of  a few layers of sheet metal and a soft body armor vest does nothing against rifle fire. In fact it makes the wounds even worse. 

Don't they have access to hardened construction steel sheets? 

 

Obviously they don't, just using looted police gear from the look of it.

 

 

Plates crudely cut from an excavator shovel makes really nice armor, the steel is excellent and such plate strapped to the chest will withstand multiple hits from but the strongest rounds without a problem. It should also be readily available if they can raid police stations.  I only wish they knew that. 

Edited February 20, 2014 by Woldan

[Malcador]

Raiding a police armoury is a fair amount simpler than carving up an excavator blade, if just for the ease of finding one and the gear needed to get it.  In any event, rubber bullets were probably their concern up to now, and in a pinch some cover's better than none.

[Woldan]

Raiding a police armoury is a fair amount simpler than carving up an excavator blade

 

[Malcador]

Well not raiding an actual armoury, really, but beating up a bunch of cops and taking their gear as a lot of them seem to have done before this is pretty simple in a riot situation. You just need bodies and will in that case.

 

Still, not going to fault them for not running around with ballistic armour.

[Woldan]

All you need for makeshift armor is to go to a random earth moving construction site plus a torch and you can literally make hundreds of crude but very effective body armor plates and shields in no time at all. 

 

Sounds hell of a lot easier and much safer than going to a police station and engaging armed policemen to steal their weapons. 

Edited February 20, 2014 by Woldan

[Malcador]

I'm not sure how close a construction site is from the square where the confrontation's been taking place, or if they have suitable torches handy.   A non-issue and certainly nothing something to cluck your tongue at them for not having, though.

[HoonDing]

Putin should make use of all those security troops stationed in Sochi to take back Crimea for the Motherland.

[Tagaziel]

I'm not sure how close a construction site is from the square where the confrontation's been taking place, or if they have suitable torches handy.   A non-issue and certainly nothing something to cluck your tongue at them for not having, though.

Plus, the point isn't urban warfare.

[Malcador]

Well, certainly seems like it now.  Low level at least.

[Zoraptor]

What's your point? Seriously, you're basically ignoring what I say and fashion straw men to argue against.

No, I'm rebutting what you say. You don't like it, sure, I said you wouldn't because you're emotionally invested. Don't worry, it's an understandable reaction, people don't like being told that their pet cause isn't quite as squeaky clean as they like to imagine.

 

* Yanukovych happened to win elections, so he can do whatever he wants, including killing his own people,

Lol, what was that about straw men? 'His own people' are killing police, what's happening to them is exactly what would happen anywhere else including in the west- and is considerably less than what happened in, say, Egypt. The point about Yanukovich being elected is, of course, that he was elected while those the protesters back lost in the fairest- per OSCE- election Ukraine had. As I said, you, and the protesters, want to replace the duly elected President with one you happen to like, despite losing, despite being the minority, and want to impose their President and their vision on the majority. Can't be spun, it's fact, and you know you cannot refute it.

 

 

* Euromaidan is criminal, because it's unheard of for popular protests to be composed of different groups of people or for them to turn violent after a baseless crackdown and attempts to disperse them

 

No Euromaden is criminal because it's occupied the centre of a city for 3 months and outright killed a bunch of people. That's criminal anywhere, including the EU. Doesn't become non criminal just because you like them. Something the EU and US realise as well deep down, but realpolitik.

 

See, you don't rebut the point that such an occupation and protest would not be allowed in the west, because it cannot be rebutted, everyone, everyone knows it wouldn't be allowed. And yet it not being allowed is suddenly a horrendous crime that would be fixed by, er, joining the EU where it wouldn't be allowed either?

 

Sheesh, if it were south/ eastern Ukrainians doing the occupation you know perfectly well you wouldn't be standing up for their rights, and neither would the US or EU. It'd be the fuzz, cleaning house of violent anarchists/ communists backed by those evil russkies and trying to overthrow a democratic government.

 

* shooting protesters is OK, because... **** if I know what your rationale for that is,

 

You aren't a mere protester when you're biffing a molotov or shooting a gun, you aren't a mere protester anywhere if you do such things. As I said, and unsurprisingly you ignored, if you did the same things in the west there'd be dead protesters. Quid Pro Quo, What is Good for the Goose etc. And this latest flare up is confirmed by everyone as being started by the protesters, after a truce had been agreed.

 

* the EU is bad, mmkay,

 

Well yes, the sky is still blue, water is still wet. EU as a customs union/ border free area sure, EU as a monolithic bureaucratic dictatorship is most definitively bad.

 

* oh, and Yanukovych is a lovable innocent, constantly slandered by those naughty Euromaidan people.

 

Hmm, and you have the gall to accuse me of building straw men? I started by saying that Yanukovich is corrupt and basically Kuchma jr, I just said that your sainted alternatives are no better and have provably been so- and they aren't legitimately elected President.

 

For ****'s sake, it seems as if you just want to be contrarian, dressing it up in the guise of "wise" posts. The West supports Euromaidan? Oh, then I must support Russia and Yanukovych, else my hip credentials are threatened!

 

And yet, you cannot refute anything I've said. There's plenty of refutation possible. If I'm wrong.