Ukraine burns

[ShadySands]

Still no word from my wife's cousin. Nobody has heard from him in a few days and from what I've heard he has been out there protesting

 

PS what's going on in Venezuela?

[Malcador]

CIA coup attempt it seems.

[Zoraptor]

Yep, Maduro will hide in the basement with his paratroops, just waiting for Obama's spokesman to announce US support before springing back out, like last time. Ah Hugo, you may have been a populist autocrat, but at least you were an amusing populist autocrat.

[Gorth]

Ned Kelly tried the crude metal armour approach. Didn't work for him. Doubt it would work for the Ukrainians other than giving a false sense of security and encourage reckless behaviour.

[Woldan]

Ned Kelly tried the crude metal armour approach. Didn't work for him. Doubt it would work for the Ukrainians other than giving a false sense of security and encourage reckless behaviour.

 

That was in the 1870's. You know what metallurgy was like back then? Lets call it very vague. You simply have to use properly hardened steel. Make a shield out of it and small parts strapped to your body to protect your vitals. It does work, ballistic armor is made of properly hardened steel plates and composite material to stop fragmentation. (You can do that with compressed layers of clothing) 

 

Edited February 21, 2014 by Woldan

[Wrath of Dagon]

Still no word from my wife's cousin. Nobody has heard from him in a few days and from what I've heard he has been out there protesting

 

PS what's going on in Venezuela?

People fighting for their freedom, same as in Ukraine. Ukraine has been under the Russian boot for hundreds of years, no one should expect them to take it lying down. Too bad Germans didn't do the same to the democratically elected hitler.

[BruceVC]

Yep, Maduro will hide in the basement with his paratroops, just waiting for Obama's spokesman to announce US support before springing back out, like last time. Ah Hugo, you may have been a populist autocrat, but at least you were an amusing populist autocrat.

 

Zora I like you and I enjoy your posts but you really need to stop believing in these anti-western conspiracy theories

[BruceVC]

e

Still no word from my wife's cousin. Nobody has heard from him in a few days and from what I've heard he has been out there protesting

 

PS what's going on in Venezuela?

 

 

CIA coup attempt it seems.

 

@ Shady

 

The CIA and the USA has nothing to do with these protests. These protests were a long time coming, the facts are Venezuela hasn't been running there economy well for years. There has been a slow clampdown of institutions like the free press and despite the fact the country has natural resources there are shortages of food and a break down of certain basic services. The reality is there socialist experiment has failed and people in the streets are tired of it

[obyknven]

US support president Yanukovich.

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/20/ukraines-president-viktor-yanukovych-may-be-open-to-early-elections-says-u-s-ambassador-geoffrey-pyatt/?iref=allsearch

Rioting Plebs must known their place

[Mor]

The CIA and the USA has nothing to do with these protests. These protests were a long time coming, the facts are Venezuela hasn't been running there economy well for years. There has been a slow clampdown of institutions like the free press and despite the fact the country has natural resources there are shortages of food and a break down of certain basic services. The reality is there socialist experiment has failed and people in the streets are tired of it

That pretty much always the economy, but if you expect die hard Russians who cry WEST to understand that your bound to be disappointed. Many of them will tell you stories about great Soviet union that has fallen ONLY because bla bla west, bla bla west, our politician sold/betrayed us out.

 

For those who can only point the finger out and cry west, better recite this:

[BruceVC]

 

The CIA and the USA has nothing to do with these protests. These protests were a long time coming, the facts are Venezuela hasn't been running there economy well for years. There has been a slow clampdown of institutions like the free press and despite the fact the country has natural resources there are shortages of food and a break down of certain basic services. The reality is there socialist experiment has failed and people in the streets are tired of it

That pretty much always the economy, but if you expect die hard Russians who cry WEST to understand that your bound to be disappointed. Many of them will tell you stories about great Soviet union that has fallen ONLY because bla bla west, bla bla west, our politician sold/betrayed us out.

 

For those who can only point the finger out and cry west, better recite this:

 

 

Good points raised, but I was talking about the protests in Venezuela ...Shady brought it up in this thread. Sorry for the confusion

[Tagaziel]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26284505

 

Allegedly a settlement has been reached. We'll see what will happen.

 

 

Too bad Germans didn't do the same to the democratically elected hitler.

He did restore their country as a superpower, fixed the economy, and restored national pride lost in the first part of the second Thirty Years' War. They didn't really have a reason to rise up against Hitler and as total information control was implemented, they were kept in the dark about most dark aspects of the war. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

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.

Am I saying it's squeaky clean?

 

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.

Your twisted vision of democracy as a tyranny of the majority is troubling. As is the implicit claim that winning in elections gives a free card to rule the country in any way they want to. Representative democracy is representative. Not an "elect your own dictator" type of affair.

 

Furthermore, polls show that the majority of Ukrainians supported association with the EU, which means that Yanukovych deliberately ignored the nation and made a decision that was beneficial to him, not the Ukraine.

 

Seriously, you are starting to sound like oby, except copy/pasting Yanukovych's government claims. And your logic can easily be used to dismiss every protest as "butthurt losers." Occupy? Butthurt losers. Opponents of the Iraq Invasion? Butthurt losers. Civil rights movements in the 1960s? Butthurt losers.

 

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.

Yes, ignore the fact that before the bloodshed began (at the instigation of government forces, no less), it was a peaceful protest, where the Ukrainians exercised their democratic rights. It wasn't until Yanukovych tried to deprive them of that when problems began.

 

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?

Why wouldn't it be allowed? The Occupy movement you're so fond of using as an example is, well, an example of how they would be allowed. There are also numerous other examples of mass protests that did not turn violent, such as the Iraq war protests, massive in scale, yet peaceful. The common thread is that government forces did not brutally disperse them, unlike Ukrainian forces.

 

You're clinging to the fiction you created in your own head that Euromaidan was a coup d'etat attempt from the very beginning, when it was a peaceful protest since the beginning. It ecame radicalized when government attempts to silence the protests became too brutal (Berkut was breaking up the protests from the very beginning in November).

 

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.

I would, same as I do for other protests that I feel are valid. However, they did not.

 

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.

Then why weren't there dead protesters during Accampata Roma? You know, the 200,000 mass protest in Rome where a group of extremists started chucking Molotov ****tails in Rome, demolishing the city etc.? Or the ongoing Spanish protests?

 

And no, it's not confirmed by everyone as started by the protesters. Only in your head.

 

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.

It isn't a monolithic bureaucratic dictatorship. Y'see, the MEPs are elected directly by us. If you don't exercise that right, it's your choice, but don't bitch and moan that it's a dictatorship because you can't be bothered to participate in democracy.

 

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.

An implicit part of your logic is that winning democratic elections is a "be a dictator for free" card. And yet when I point out that the right to protest and accountability before the people are basic elements of democracy, you ignore that and go off on an irrelevant tangent that some opposition party leaders may be similarly bad. So what is it?

 

Furthermore, one of the goals of the movement are snap elections consistent with the democratic principles outlined in the Constitution.

 

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

And you have it.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Tagaziel

[213374U]

The CIA and the USA has nothing to do with these protests. These protests were a long time coming, the facts are Venezuela hasn't been running there economy well for years. There has been a slow clampdown of institutions like the free press and despite the fact the country has natural resources there are shortages of food and a break down of certain basic services. The reality is there socialist experiment has failed and people in the streets are tired of it

 

"The socialist experiment has failed"? On whose account? Let's take a look at the figures:

 

"During the past decade under Chavez, the income poverty rate in Venezuela dropped by more than half, from 54% of households below poverty level in the first half of 2003, down to 26% at the end of 2008. "Extreme poverty" fell even more - by 72%. Further, "these poverty rates measure only cash income, and doesn't take into account increased access to health care or education."

 

"Datos reports real income grew by 137% between 2003 and Q1 2006."

 

"Venezuela's infant mortality rate fell by 18.2% between 1998 and 2006"

 

"Spending on education as a percentage of GDP (which grew dramatically since 1998) stood at 5.1% in 2006, as opposed to 3.4% in the last year of the Caldera government. Spending on health increased from 1.6% of GDP in 2000 to 7.71% in 2006"

 

"In June 2010 Mark Weisbrot wrote that jobs were much less scarce then than when Chávez took office, with unemployment at 8% in 2009 compared with 15% in 1999. He also stated that the number of front-line doctors had increased tenfold in the public sector and that enrolment in higher education had doubled, noting that these statistics were backed up by the UN and the World Bank."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government

 

That hardly looks like a failure to me. Venezuela is a command economy and one that is absolutely reliant on oil exports. As a result, it's seriously unbalanced. But a failure?

 

And as for the thing that the CIA has nothing to do with what's going on over there, I don't know.

 

http://www.voltairenet.org/article30032.html

 

Disregard the actual connections between Sharp and the CIA, I'm not necessarily buying that either—still, the media attacks and instigation of popular revolts on the streets as a tool to overthrow governments under the guise of morally acceptable "non-violence" is something to think about. Especially under the current public opinion climate where an overt use of force seems to be politically untenable. [1] [2]

 

 

 

Furthermore, polls show that the majority of Ukrainians supported association with the EU, which means that Yanukovych deliberately ignored the nation and made a decision that was beneficial to him, not the Ukraine.

 

Not really, no. A majority is at least >50% of the survey sample. You really need to stop redefining words to suit your purposes at the drop of a hat.

 

"49% of Ukrainians supported signing the Association Agreement, while 31% opposed it and the rest had not decided yet."

 

"However, in a December poll by the same company, only 30% claimed that terms of the Association agreement would be beneficial for the Ukrainian economy, while 39% said they were unfavourable for Ukraine."

 

"45% of respondents believed Ukraine should sign an Association Agreement with the EU, whereas only 14% favored joining the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, and 15% preferred non-alignmen"

 

"58% of Ukrainians supporting the country's entry into the European Union"

 

"39% supporting the country's entry into the European Union and 37% supporting Ukraine's accession to the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia"

 

Only one of the cited surveys shows that a majority supported the agreement, but overall the polls seem to indicate that support was, at best, lukewarm. Which makes this whole thing even more difficult to understand. People are on the streets raising hell... over a trade agreement that wasn't even such a big deal for people to begin with? What's going on here? Anyone else feels we don't have the whole picture?

 

 

edit: ****ing forum software is utter ****ing ****

Edited February 21, 2014 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

 

The CIA and the USA has nothing to do with these protests. These protests were a long time coming, the facts are Venezuela hasn't been running there economy well for years. There has been a slow clampdown of institutions like the free press and despite the fact the country has natural resources there are shortages of food and a break down of certain basic services. The reality is there socialist experiment has failed and people in the streets are tired of it

 

"The socialist experiment has failed"? On whose account? Let's take a look at the figures:

 

"During the past decade under Chavez, the income poverty rate in Venezuela dropped by more than half, from 54% of households below poverty level in the first half of 2003, down to 26% at the end of 2008. "Extreme poverty" fell even more - by 72%. Further, "these poverty rates measure only cash income, and doesn't take into account increased access to health care or education."

 

"Datos reports real income grew by 137% between 2003 and Q1 2006."

 

"Venezuela's infant mortality rate fell by 18.2% between 1998 and 2006"

 

"Spending on education as a percentage of GDP (which grew dramatically since 1998) stood at 5.1% in 2006, as opposed to 3.4% in the last year of the Caldera government. Spending on health increased from 1.6% of GDP in 2000 to 7.71% in 2006"

 

"In June 2010 Mark Weisbrot wrote that jobs were much less scarce then than when Chávez took office, with unemployment at 8% in 2009 compared with 15% in 1999. He also stated that the number of front-line doctors had increased tenfold in the public sector and that enrolment in higher education had doubled, noting that these statistics were backed up by the UN and the World Bank."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government

 

That hardly looks like a failure to me. Venezuela is a command economy and one that is absolutely reliant on oil exports. As a result, it's seriously unbalanced. But a failure?

 

And as for the thing that the CIA has nothing to do with what's going on over there, I don't know.

 

http://www.voltairenet.org/article30032.html

 

Disregard the actual connections between Sharp and the CIA, I'm not necessarily buying that either—still, the media attacks and instigation of popular revolts on the streets as a tool to overthrow governments under the guise of morally acceptable "non-violence" is something to think about. Especially under the current public opinion climate where an overt use of force seems to be politically untenable. [1] [2]

 

 

 

 

You make some valid points about where Venezuela has done well and I'm not disputing that. But there are also several things that under Chavez got progressively worse. Things like the persecution of the free press and a very high inflation, 52 % or so means there are currency shortages and basic food items missing from shelves. There economy is taking major strain. I quoted some of what I said from this CNN article, I also posted a Reuters article that highlights the social and financial challengers that confront Venezuela . The biggest problem IMO that Maduro faces is that he isn't the demagogue that Chavez was so I question if rhetoric will keep protesters happy, they need to make structural reforms which he seems incapable of doing

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/14/world/americas/venezuela-protests/index.html

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/14/us-venezuela-protests-idUSBREA1D19J20140214

 

But lets not derail this Ukraine discussion, I would welcome a discussion on the reasons for the Venezuela protests but you should create a new thread

[Mor]

Good points raised, but I was talking about the protests in Venezuela ...Shady brought it up in this thread. Sorry for the confusion

Yeah it was a general reference, since I seen Hiro Protagonist and zaptor rant about the west, and Malcador cry about CIA coup. Because setting are changing but bottom line is almost always the economy in history or today (even place like the midle east, its not just crazy radicals but people who water/food/jobs e.g. egypt).

 

"The socialist experiment has failed"? On whose account? Let's take a look at the figures:

 

"During the past decade under Chavez, the income poverty rate in Venezuela dropped by more than half, from 54% of households below poverty level in the first half of 2003, down to 26% at the end of 2008. "Extreme poverty" fell even more - by 72%. Further, "these poverty rates measure only cash income, and doesn't take into account increased access to health care or education."

 

"Datos reports real income grew by 137% between 2003 and Q1 2006."

 

"Venezuela's infant mortality rate fell by 18.2% between 1998 and 2006"

 

"Spending on education as a percentage of GDP (which grew dramatically since 1998) stood at 5.1% in 2006, as opposed to 3.4% in the last year of the Caldera government. Spending on health increased from 1.6% of GDP in 2000 to 7.71% in 2006"

 

"In June 2010 Mark Weisbrot wrote that jobs were much less scarce then than when Chávez took office, with unemployment at 8% in 2009 compared with 15% in 1999. He also stated that the number of front-line doctors had increased tenfold in the public sector and that enrolment in higher education had doubled, noting that these statistics were backed up by the UN and the World Bank."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Chávez_government

 

That hardly looks like a failure to me. Venezuela is a command economy and one that is absolutely reliant on oil exports. As a result, it's seriously unbalanced. But a failure?

Funny what BruceVC said is that "Venezuela hasn't been running their economy well for years. There has been a slow clampdown of institutions like the free press and despite the fact the country has natural resources there are shortages of food and a break down of certain basic services." leading him to conclusion that the socialist experiment has failed.

 

While you addressing the comment that "The socialist experiment has failed" [summarizing] noted the increase in Venezuela quality of life after it tapped the arguably biggest oil reserve in the world, and agreed that the economy is unbalanced.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Mor

[Gorgon]

Janukovitj made a terrible call in trying to clear the camp, but as has already been stated. He is the democratically elected leader. The protesters do not represent any clear majority. Say they succeed in overthrowing the government. It would clear up nothing long term. However this plays out it seems likely that the protesters will be rewarded for their efforts. With a surge of negative PR for the incumbent and perhaps early elections. A really bad lesson for a new(ish) democracy.

 

On the other hand it's too late now to pretend one could go back to normal. There will have to be elections. 

[BruceVC]

Janukovitj made a terrible call in trying to clear the camp, but as has already been stated. He is the democratically elected leader. The protesters do not represent any clear majority. Say they succeed in overthrowing the government. It would clear up nothing long term. However this plays out it seems likely that the protesters will be rewarded for their efforts. With a surge of negative PR for the incumbent and perhaps early elections. A really bad lesson for a new(ish) democracy.

 

On the other hand it's too late now to pretend one could go back to normal. There will have to be elections. 

All we can see this as an important lesson for any leader who wants to align with Russia when there citizens clearly don't ?

 

I see an emergency election date is being set, that should hopefully settle the debate around " what do the citizens of Ukraine want?

Edited February 21, 2014 by BruceVC

[Bos_hybrid]

All we can see this as an important lesson for any leader who wants to align with Russia when there citizens clearly don't ?

 

I see an emergency election date is being set, that should hopefully settle the debate around " what do the citizens of Ukraine want?

 

And if Janukovitj was once again democratically elected?

[Malcador]

The CIA and the USA has nothing to do with these protests. These protests were a long time coming, the facts are Venezuela hasn't been running there economy well for years. There has been a slow clampdown of institutions like the free press and despite the fact the country has natural resources there are shortages of food and a break down of certain basic services. The reality is there socialist experiment has failed and people in the streets are tired of it

 

 

Uh huh, and how do you know that for certain, cheerleader ?

 

Wasn't being entirely serious, more pointing out how the US is the boogeyman for anything bad for the government in Venezuela

[BruceVC]

 

All we can see this as an important lesson for any leader who wants to align with Russia when there citizens clearly don't ?

 

I see an emergency election date is being set, that should hopefully settle the debate around " what do the citizens of Ukraine want?

 

And if Janukovitj was once again democratically elected?

 

 

That's not an option and its a silly suggestion   

[Malcador]

 

 

All we can see this as an important lesson for any leader who wants to align with Russia when there citizens clearly don't ?

 

I see an

That's not an option and its a silly suggestion   

 

 

From what I understand this isn't a widepsread uprising, so why isn't that an option ?  Then again, even if he does win, there'll just be claims of corruption and vote tampering.

[Fighter]

Yanukovich was also defeated after the "Orange Revolution" when opposition was riding the wave of PR created by those protests... and yet look who is the president now.

 

Not that I expect he can come back again after blood has been spilled. But don't be surprised if the opposition self destructs again and the so disliked "pro Russian" forces will be back in charge.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

All we can see this as an important lesson for any leader who wants to align with Russia when there citizens clearly don't ?

 

I see an

That's not an option and its a silly suggestion   

 

 

From what I understand this isn't a widepsread uprising, so why isn't that an option ?  Then again, even if he does win, there'll just be claims of corruption and vote tampering.

 

 

 

Yanukovich was also defeated after the "Orange Revolution" when opposition was riding the wave of PR created by those protests... and yet look who is the president now.

 

Not that I expect he can come back again after blood has been spilled. But don't be surprised if the opposition self destructs again and the so disliked "pro Russian" forces will be back in charge.

 

Okay my comment was inaccurate, I apologize. He may win but its unlikely based on how he has handled these protests like Fighter mentioned

[Tagaziel]

Instead of majority, I should've typed "largest group," alphanumerics is correct.

 

Janukovitj made a terrible call in trying to clear the camp, but as has already been stated. He is the democratically elected leader. The protesters do not represent any clear majority. Say they succeed in overthrowing the government. It would clear up nothing long term. However this plays out it seems likely that the protesters will be rewarded for their efforts. With a surge of negative PR for the incumbent and perhaps early elections. A really bad lesson for a new(ish) democracy.

I wouldn't call it a bad lesson. It's a good lesson in humility for politicians in a country whose political class is devoured by corruption. Such a shock therapy might actually be worth it in the long term, as it will serve as a warning to future representatives not to ignore the country.

 

Plus, it shows Ukrainians that the right to protest works, a right that's a fundamental part of democracy.

 

Yanukovich was also defeated after the "Orange Revolution" when opposition was riding the wave of PR created by those protests... and yet look who is the president now.

My friend explained this as the unfortunate result of widespread political apathy and disenchantment after Yuschchenko pissed away his political capital.

[Gorgon]

Yes, protest. But the tipping point wasn't reached with protests, it was reached by an unacceptable bodycount.