Global Implications of the Ukraine Crisis

[Malcador]

[Drowsy Emperor]

And in latest news: Kiev has authorized the use of special forces against the demonstrators. This is the real deal now, damned if you do, damned if you don't for the Russians.

[Tagaziel]

@Tagaziel: The Ukrainian "government"  seized power in an illegitimate coup even though Yanukovich agreed to early elections (and other demands) and practically gave up. Yet they didn't accept that but took power by force (probably afraid of possible election results).

No, no they didn't. Yanukovych bailed on the deal immediately after signing it, which would have caused a constitutional crisis within the country. His flight into the lap of his Russian overlords resulted in an inability to exercise his duties as President, which is one of several instances in which the President can be removed from power.

 

As for the early elections, you do realize that Ukraine is on target for the May 25th early elections, right? The ones throughout the country, on both presidential and local levels?

 

If you take power by force you're fair game in international relations. That's how the game works. Legitimacy isn't found under a rock, its earned, internally and externally.

 

For the Russians, the Kiev government is a non-entity and they're within their rights to do as they please.

No, no they aren't. Unless you believe "Might Makes Right", which means your ridiculous claims about Kiev's illegitimacy are irrelevant.

 

For the west, they're a new client state that they pledged to support, so now they're doing it...sorta.

Ukraine is not a client state. Despite repeated requests to provide sources and evidence, you have presented none that would imply this is the case.

 

EDIT: A peek under my ignore settings indicates the Tu quoque fallacy, in the best tradition of the Soviet Union, is in full swing. Nice.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Tagaziel

[Drowsy Emperor]

Yanukovich bailed because he realized they were going to imprison him or kill him, even though he effectively gave up power. His car was even shot at. The "inability to exercise duties as president" clause in a constitution serves if a president is to fall ill or suffer another mishap as a way to end his term in office earlier than normal but to stay within the law. It does not serve as a justification to remove a president that is healthy and sound of mind from power and cannot be voted in by a parliament besieged and threatened by armed men. 

That you think Yanukovich is Putin's lapdog shows how much you know of internal Ukrainian politics. Putin intensely dislikes Yanukovich precisely because he's playing his own game and is thoroughly unreliable and treacherous. Yanukovich ran there because there was no where else to run and because only the Russians still had any use for him as a tool to bring Kiev's legitimacy in question. So long as he is alive its much easier to claim that Ukraine has a legitimate president and that the coup imposed government isn't legitimate.

 

As for the evidence, read up on it. I'm not here to educate you, even though I've just given you a lesson in constitutional law and Ukrainian-Russian relations. Consider it pro bono.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[obyknven]

US warship visited Black sea but don't prepared for action against Russian empire of trolling.  Two Russian trolls on warplanes  use US destroyer as target for military training. After this incident US warship fastly retreat to Romanian port for replacing of dirty  pants. Pentagon outraged and post own butthurt.

 

"This provocative and unprofessional Russian action is inconsistent with international protocols and previous agreements on the professional interaction between our militaries," said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman.

Russians are happy and want moar.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_RUSSIA_SHIP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Valsuelm]

 

Except that there has been shots fired in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and I would also point out that Germany's invasion in Czech was also quite bloodless, but it was still invasion, as are every occurrence where foreign army goes in country uninvited by its government regardless of do you think that government is legitimate or not, or do you think that country is evil or not, or etc.. 

 

And using wrong doings of others as basis of your own wrong doings is just plainly idiotic reasoning, if you want to be the "good guy"

 

Dude you must really have trouble reading... Who here has said that Russia is the good guy.

 

 

Oby might have, but I'm not sure even he has (over half of what he posts is in Russian, a language I don't read. He could be describing in detail his alien abduction experience for all I know.).

 

In the polarized minds of BruceVC, et al you're either with the U.S./NATO/EU on whatever issue we're talking about or you're against it (in this case you're with Russia). The possibility of an unbiased, unpolarized, objective observer wouldn't cross their minds as they themselves cannot be fully objective, are heavily biased, and very polarized. There were even some posts a bit ago by some stating that everyone is biased all the time. Which of course isn't true, but in the minds of those who are biased just about all the time, it has to be, because they can't imagine the world in any other way, and they think everyone else must suffer the same limitations they do. True empathy is lost on them. They lack either the courage, imagination, intelligence, or some combination thereof to put themselves in the shoes of 'the other side' or a dimension outside of the two sides of the polarized world they're in. In doing so they also have to ignore evidence that challenges their polarized world view, and that the 'other side' might be in the right. They can't even entertain the idea that they might be wrong, or worse, that that which they are so opposed to could be right. Hence the broken record aspect of some of this discussion. It's the same in other threads.

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

 

Consider the validity of the above quote and juxtapose that with the denial and ignorance by some of so much that has been said in this thread. Especially when the idea that what happened on 9/11 might not have been what has been told to the world through official channels was floated. Some folks cannot even entertain a thought or a line of thinking, knee jerk vehement denial is the reaction as their precious world view is threatened.

 

An aside:

 

Note that these days 'education' means something different to most people than what it did to Aristotle. To Aristotle 'education' meant the Trivium, amongst other things. Something which taught critical thinking. What most people consider 'education' today, does not teach the Trivium, or critical thinking skills. Plato and Aristotle would not consider most people who have an advanced degree in the modern world as being educated as the Trivium and what it entails is alien to them.

 

I'd argue that much of what is taught to your average person in modern times actually encourages them to not think critically, attempts to squash the natural critical thinking skills that humans are born with, and sadly does a pretty good job of it. But that's a long long argument. Perhaps another time.

 

 

Polarized people cannot bring themselves to think outside of the polarized box they are in, as to do so would shatter their box and their world. In general, the people that have the courage to do that are in the minority. To step outside the box means thinking for oneself and realizing that they've believed lies while in the box, and most foreboding, accepting responsibility and possible culpability in the deeds one supported while one was polarized. Thinking for oneself takes actual effort and homework. It's much easier to believe one of the 'sides' in any given argument and let those who craft the vernacular for the polarized argument (whatever it is) do their thinking for them.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Elerond]

 

Except that there has been shots fired in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and I would also point out that Germany's invasion in Czech was also quite bloodless, but it was still invasion, as are every occurrence where foreign army goes in country uninvited by its government regardless of do you think that government is legitimate or not, or do you think that country is evil or not, or etc.. 

 

And using wrong doings of others as basis of your own wrong doings is just plainly idiotic reasoning, if you want to be the "good guy"

 

Dude you must really have trouble reading... Who here has said that Russia is the good guy.

 

 

I put everybody who have said or implied that Russia's actions were justified in that category, you are free to disagree with my definition, although that will most likely ignore it.

[Walsingham]

Hold hard there, buddy (Valsuelm). It's not 'Ze West' who have behaved in a polarised fashion. It's quite plain that 'Ze West' hadn't made any plans to act in teh event of a dramatic move West or East by the Ukraine.

 

Conversely Putin has laid claim to 'his' ethnic Russians. Whatever the **** that actually means. It's Russian troops motoring around the Crimea right now, not NATO.

 

You want 'not polarised' how about Ukrainians who - and I'm only guessing - don't want the future their country decided by a handful of armed yahoos?

[Tagaziel]

Yanukovich bailed because he realized they were going to imprison him or kill him, even though he effectively gave up power. His car was even shot at. The "inability to exercise duties as president" clause in a constitution serves if a president is to fall ill or suffer another mishap as a way to end his term in office earlier than normal but to stay within the law. It does not serve as a justification to remove a president that is healthy and sound of mind from power and cannot be voted in by a parliament besieged and threatened by armed men.

Yes, yes it does. The President is the elective representative of the people. If he bails on the people and betrays the very country he was entrusted with, he ceases to be one and, by extension, loses constitutional legitimacy. Constitutional provisions aren't of equal power and in case of unforeseen incidents (such as presidential high treason), you refer to higher level provisions to break the deadlock.

 

That you think Yanukovich is Putin's lapdog shows how much you know of internal Ukrainian politics. Putin intensely dislikes Yanukovich precisely because he's playing his own game and is thoroughly unreliable and treacherous. Yanukovich ran there because there was no where else to run and because only the Russians still had any use for him as a tool to bring Kiev's legitimacy in question. So long as he is alive its much easier to claim that Ukraine has a legitimate president and that the coup imposed government isn't legitimate.

 

Which is irrelevant, as Yanukovych was a tool used by Putin in Ukraine. The fact that he backed out of the EU Association Agreement at moment's notice when a carrot was dangled in front of him and run straight to his masters when he would have to face the consequences for his actions is proof enough. There's also the little problem of betraying Ukraine and asking for a foreign power to commit an act of war against it.

 

As for the evidence, read up on it. I'm not here to educate you, even though I've just given you a lesson in constitutional law and Ukrainian-Russian relations. Consider it pro bono.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

So far, you're basically claiming that the world is wrong and that Russia is correct. Which, given the retardation of Putin's regime (like the anti-homosexual legislation), is a lot to take on faith alone.

[Drowsy Emperor]

No, I'm claiming that you are wrong and I've already proven that.

 

PS: in your dictionary, the world apparently = western media so I draw the conclusion that pointless discussion is pointless

[pmp10]

Interesting opinion piece on the feelings from the Kiev side of things.

 

What's pretty striking is that Kiev government likely expected western aid in holding down the East.

No matter the scale of EU/US commitment that was never going to happen.

While the west did little to help the key reasons Ukraine has failed were lack of resolve and leadership in Kiev.

[Zoraptor]

And in latest news: Kiev has authorized the use of special forces against the demonstrators. This is the real deal now, damned if you do, damned if you don't for the Russians.

 

Meh, Yanukovich tried that as well, and the army refused. Since this is the 3rd (?) 'deadline' that has passed the new boss may be having the same troubles as the old boss in that regard- similarly the western narrative is a strait jacket for them, if they go in and kill a bunch of people it's another new boss same as the old boss, just with the 'terrorist' label switched over. 

 

Besides, if the reports that many of the activists are actually deserted Ukrainian police and troops are true they will not want to end up with a Syria/ Lebanon situation where the army ends up fighting itself, especially if things get mildly unpleasant, and then things will really get unpleasant fast. I'm always slightly amused when some report implies that the well trained first wave protester dudes are spetsnaz or similar when there are plenty of perfectly well trained ex Berkut and deserted Ukrainian military around who can be simply paid to do it, and if things go south you still have deniability- indeed, the protesters in Kharkov who did get rounded up were, in fact, all Ukrainian. Certainly the pictures of a lot of the militia types shown are definitively not spetsnaz, unless their recruitment standards have really slipped.

[Hassat Hunter]

Yes, yes it does. The President is the elective representative of the people. If he bails on the people and betrays the very country he was entrusted with, he ceases to be one and, by extension, loses constitutional legitimacy.

Hey, next time I am in the US I probably should threatnen the president. As he takes off in Airforce One... I am totally legitimate to take over the country.

Or maybe... maybe... it doesn't work that way.

The fact that he backed out of the EU Association Agreement at moment's notice when a carrot was dangled in front of him and run straight to his masters when he would have to face the consequences for his actions is proof enough.

You... take the best deal of the 2 presented to you.

You know... capitalism?

 

That's proof for bias now...?

But yes, you are right, it would be so much better for capitalism if it wasn't for that pesky competition. How dare they counter-offer! And how dare a sitting figure choice between 2 deals for the better one instead of ours. How dares he!

There's also the little problem of betraying Ukraine and asking for a foreign power to commit an act of war against it.

Actually, asking a neighbour for help in matters isn't exactly that uncommon. Nor do I see how it can be seen as betrating or acts of war. Really?

[213374U]

Yes, yes it does. The President is the elective representative of the people. If he bails on the people and betrays the very country he was entrusted with, he ceases to be one and, by extension, loses constitutional legitimacy. Constitutional provisions aren't of equal power and in case of unforeseen incidents (such as presidential high treason), you refer to higher level provisions to break the deadlock.

 

 

Please, please, point out to us uneducated peons the general legal principle that allows for the dismissal of the HoS outside of the legal procedures outlined to that end in the Constitution or ancillary legislation. "Bailing on the people" is not a reason or motive that you will find anywhere in the Ukrainian Constitution, among other things, because it makes no sense. The ****ing Head of State doesn't "bail" on the people unless the "people" (read: fascist militias) are out for his blood, which is exactly what happened. This is the very definition of a coup. The President does not "lose constitutional legitimacy" at your leisure, he is removed from office after he has been impeached, declared medically incompetent, or dies only. So what are these "higher provisions" you speak of?

 

This is a really, really tired debate, especially because the point was already discussed to death in the other thread(s):

 

 

 

 

The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:

 

1) resignation;

 

2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;

 

3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;

 

4) his/her death.

 

The resolution passed by the Rada does not fall within any of the above. There are no other scenarios in which the President's mandate is liable to be interrupted before his term is up. The Rada cannot simply make up new scenarios and majorities where it can lawfully dismiss the President, regardless of the excuses they have come up with post-hoc. Well, of course they are going to justify their actions somehow. That does not change the fact that any actions taken based on reasons outside of those prescribed in the Constitution are unlawful. The Rada is not above the supreme law of the land and they cannot override it, regardless of majorities.

 

[BruceVC]

 

Yes, yes it does. The President is the elective representative of the people. If he bails on the people and betrays the very country he was entrusted with, he ceases to be one and, by extension, loses constitutional legitimacy. Constitutional provisions aren't of equal power and in case of unforeseen incidents (such as presidential high treason), you refer to higher level provisions to break the deadlock.

 

 

Please, please, point out to us uneducated peons the general legal principle that allows for the dismissal of the HoS outside of the legal procedures outlined to that end in the Constitution or ancillary legislation. "Bailing on the people" is not a reason or motive that you will find anywhere in the Ukrainian Constitution, among other things, because it makes no sense. The ****ing Head of State doesn't "bail" on the people unless the "people" (read: fascist militias) are out for his blood, which is exactly what happened. This is the very definition of a coup. The President does not "lose constitutional legitimacy" at your leisure, he is removed from office after he has been impeached, declared medically incompetent, or dies only. So what are these "higher provisions" you speak of?

 

This is a really, really tired debate, especially because the point was already discussed to death in the other thread(s):

 

 

 

 

No offense 2133 but that's not how I remember the debate you and Tagaziel had. I remember you guys discussed various interesting points for several days and despite the fact Tagaziel proved conclusively that he was right around the fact that Yanukovych wasn't removed from power illegally you refused to acknowledge this

 

But you are right, this has been discussed to death. I would like us to focus on the current destabilization of eastern Ukraine by Russia. Is there any justification for it and what is the realistic outcome to the situation? Do you accept that Russia is playing a major part in the protests and occupation of Ukrainian government buildings?

[obyknven]

http://youtu.be/2QSHafYXcoc

 

We really surprised by German people. They use own minds, they are not similar to typical "democratic" brainwashed zombies from Eastern Europe. Sadly they yet occupied by US and Britain, but i think they become free someday.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

Yes, yes it does. The President is the elective representative of the people. If he bails on the people and betrays the very country he was entrusted with, he ceases to be one and, by extension, loses constitutional legitimacy. Constitutional provisions aren't of equal power and in case of unforeseen incidents (such as presidential high treason), you refer to higher level provisions to break the deadlock.

 

 

Please, please, point out to us uneducated peons the general legal principle that allows for the dismissal of the HoS outside of the legal procedures outlined to that end in the Constitution or ancillary legislation. "Bailing on the people" is not a reason or motive that you will find anywhere in the Ukrainian Constitution, among other things, because it makes no sense. The ****ing Head of State doesn't "bail" on the people unless the "people" (read: fascist militias) are out for his blood, which is exactly what happened. This is the very definition of a coup. The President does not "lose constitutional legitimacy" at your leisure, he is removed from office after he has been impeached, declared medically incompetent, or dies only. So what are these "higher provisions" you speak of?

 

This is a really, really tired debate, especially because the point was already discussed to death in the other thread(s):

 

 

 

 

No offense 2133 but that's not how I remember the debate you and Tagaziel had. I remember you guys discussed various interesting points for several days and despite the fact Tagaziel proved conclusively that he was right around the fact that Yanukovych wasn't removed from power illegally you refused to acknowledge this

 

But you are right, this has been discussed to death. I would like us to focus on the current destabilization of eastern Ukraine by Russia. Is there any justification for it and what is the realistic outcome to the situation? Do you accept that Russia is playing a major part in the protests and occupation of Ukrainian government buildings?

 

 

2133 is right and Tagaziel is wrong. Its not a matter of creative interpretation but the letter of the law. There is no lawful way for armed men to overthrow the president or pressure the parliament into impeaching him. Its irregular, outside of the law and therefore illegitimate. 

[obyknven]

Watch how Oleg Tzariov was nearly killed by an insane crowd in Kiev, and ask yourself a grave question — what's wrong with Ukrainian people? Who turned all these youngsters into some imbecile and infernal corn children? Russians? Or predominantly Russian East? Or your hateful propaganda? Your venal and covetous politicians? Or your own inability to tell good from bad, if it is not marked accordingly by your press?

https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/453913005546557440

 

Modern make up. Free of charge to each RU agent, even if he is #Ukrainian MP

PresidentIal candidate Tzarev was beaten to a pulp yesterday by pro Western crowd, consisting of Right Sector thugs, who also gave ultimatum to Kiev govt to finish off East in 24 hours. And Oleg is a registered candidate for the coming Presidential elections. Is anybody still believing that May 25th elections will be free and fair? I am not.

It was Tzariov who said just a few hours ago — "Separatists are those who split their own people [into 'pro-Ukrainian friends' and 'pro-Russian enemies'] ". To me, it was an understatement, though. I'd rather call such people 'fascists', for clarity and brevity.

Yet, one more notion. Look at the stark age contrast. Most of 'pro-Russian rebels' that you see on photoes and videos are mature men who seriously consider the perils of today's political situation. To the contrary, the majority of pro-Ukrainian activists you've seen at Maidan, on Bandera and anti-Russian hop-hop parades, or thrashing the hell out of Tzariov last night, are unruly and aggressive youngsters. Have you read many weighed comments advocating today's Ukrainian policy here, on the Obsidian forum, or elsewhere? Very scarce and poor in both proofs and logic, yet again, utterly hostile towards Russia. To them, like to many of western observers alike, it is suffice to know that Russia is a baddie. That's why I'm under the growing impression that Ukraine is actually seized by some infernal corn kids cunningly manipulated by a devilish mastermind. And of course this wouldn't work without your tacit but strong support.

 

http://youtu.be/5enoW2Y1sRI

Watch how villagers stopped and disarmed army tank. Find Russian soldiers there... Nowhere to be seen.

Russian involvement is a lie

 

By last reports Ukrainian government concentrate tanks, artillery and terrorists from Right Sector for bloody suppres of protests in Eastern Ukraine. I wery impressed how Western politicans can lie so much, they naming this using ofmilitary forces against own peole as democratic and legitemable, but same f***ng politicans blame Yanukovich for using police against  violent rioters few moths ago! They are just unbeliveable liars.

Another sighnificant liar is head of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

http://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/264933--russia-allocates-its-resource-in-vain-rasmussen

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579492950683945762

 

The Kremlin and its Western apologists attribute the shift in Russian behavior to NATO expansion in the early 2000s. Mr. Rasmussen rejects this line of thinking. "I hope that Mr. Putin doesn't believe his own words," he says. "He can't seriously consider NATO as an enemy, as a threat. We have never had an intention to attack Russia."...

Russia is allocating its resource against a non-existent enemy, said NATO's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen over Russia's emplacing nuclear capable missiles in Baltic territory Kaliningrad on Thursday. 

Lie!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-prepares-to-wage-offensive-first-strike-strategic-nuclear-warfare-against-russia-china-iran-north-korea-and-syria/5340299

http://rbth.com/news/2013/04/03/us_ready_for_preventive_nuclear_strike_on_russia_24567.html

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG403.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/030224nukefirst.html

IRL by NATO military doctrine they must attack first and exterminate Russia (or any other powerful country as China ) by single nuclear strike.

 

[Tagaziel]

2133 is right and Tagaziel is wrong. Its not a matter of creative interpretation but the letter of the law. There is no lawful way for armed men to overthrow the president or pressure the parliament into impeaching him. Its irregular, outside of the law and therefore illegitimate.

Yanukovych was neither overthrown nor was the Parliament pressured into impeaching him. Yanukovych committed high treason and while a case can be made that charges should be pressed before the impeachment procedure was pressed, Ukraine was facing a constitutional crisis. It was an emergency measure implemented to ensure that the nation can continue to function.

[Hassat Hunter]

Ah, so that's why Snowden is facing 'high treason'... not allowing yourself to be captured and dissapear that means this day.

Yeah, I totally don't understand why both of them dont let themselves get so easily killed... I mean... that's the right thing for their corrupt country right?

 

...

[Tagaziel]

Ah, so that's why Snowden is facing 'high treason'... not allowing yourself to be captured and dissapear that means this day.

Yeah, I totally don't understand why both of them dont let themselves get so easily killed... I mean... that's the right thing for their corrupt country right?

Are you seriously likening Ukraine to the U.S.? And Yanukovych to Snowden?

 

Wow. Just, wow.

[BruceVC]

Ah, so that's why Snowden is facing 'high treason'... not allowing yourself to be captured and dissapear that means this day.

Yeah, I totally don't understand why both of them dont let themselves get so easily killed... I mean... that's the right thing for their corrupt country right?

 

...

 

Wow, so you really think that such a high profile person as Snowden when he is eventually captured will somehow just disappear? Tinfoil hats anyone....

 

And yes he did betray his country, I fail to see how you can see what he did in any other way

[obyknven]

Eastern Ukrainians are chthonic titans.

 

i predict total defeat of Western Ukrainian alcoholics executors.

[Malcador]

Well, there is the argument when you rat out people doing illegal things it's a good thing. 

 

Also,  you don't think the Parliament was pressured at all into voting him out with the violence in Kiev ? While hard to show a direct cause, it's not like that decision was totally independent of that. 

[Hassat Hunter]

As in both had to flee to Russia to prevent the US/EU to kill them? Yes.

 

Bruce, you might think that, and who knows, they might even give him a public execution for his publicity (ha!) but we both know if the US get its hands on him he's a dead man.

And the entire world will keep it's mouth shut and not complain, even if they have more right to that than what Russia did with Crimea.

 

Welcome to World Politics.

 

Also, I recall the Royal Family of the Netherlands freeing to Great Brittain during WW II. I guess that's betraying too? Oddly enough once the war was over they could simply return and everyone was proud on them and took them back... and didn't put a bullet in his face.

But I suppose it would have been much much better if the Germans killed them right. That's the only way to support a country, by letting invaders murder you.

Wow.