Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is what I feared with my earlier comment.
I also agree with AFKA, this thread is so full of knowledge and balance it puts the BBC and other mainstream media to shame. Think I'll keep coming here for the latest on the situation
I still can't quite get over the hypocrisy of the press in the way they're painting Russia as the sole bad guys. Some of the more intelligent journalists seem to be acutely aware that the way it's being reported is reducing their credibility and making a stand at least (Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news for one).
There was a western born Journalist reporting on RT that did much the same in the opposite direction. It's funny how people (apart from a very few) never see themselves as being played by the media and yet we all are to varying extents. I've found Al Jazeera to be one of the better news sources funnily enough, although I've been told on here a few times that they are biased.
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is what I feared with my earlier comment.
I also agree with AFKA, this thread is so full of knowledge and balance it puts the BBC and other mainstream media to shame. Think I'll keep coming here for the latest on the situation
I still can't quite get over the hypocrisy of the press in the way they're painting Russia as the sole bad guys. Some of the more intelligent journalists seem to be acutely aware that the way it's being reported is reducing their credibility and making a stand at least (Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news for one).
There was a western born Journalist reporting on RT that did much the same in the opposite direction. It's funny how people (apart from a very few) never see themselves as being played by the media and yet we all are to varying extents. I've found Al Jazeera to be one of the better news sources funnily enough, although I've been told on here a few times that they are biased.
I guess we have to try and do what we do on the internet. If someone comes on here and says, RD is not the real owner of CAFC, the first thing you do is consider who the author is and his/her previous track record. I still respect the top BBC reporters, especially foreign experts like John Simpson, because these people put their necks on the line time and time again, and have seen it all. Czech TV is generally as you'd expect a pale imitation of the BBC but their main foreign reporter on this job is Miroslav Karas who is normally in Moscow and Warsaw. He recently had visa trouble in Moscow because of one of his reports. Last night he was in Crimea, presenting live the evidence that these 'self-defence' forces clearly must be Russian. The uniforms, the trucks, and their numberplates, the weapons. And the report ended with him having a gun pointed at his stomach and being told to piss off. In Russian of course. I listen to him rather than some knob like Liam Halligan who also was in Moscow in his career, but as a fund manager.
well I promised the view of some progressive activists from Lviv, and here it is
---
Personally i support of them, although they have come to power in not completely legitimate way. I believe that we had no other choice but to overthrow our president and his party by physical force. We were under the risk of Ukraine becoming totalitarian state controlled by one family. Furthermore, i believe we may expect a better future for our country under the current government.
Roman Kryvosheia President Lviv Legal Group ___________________________________
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is my issue with the term right-wing to describe extremist views that don't really belong anywhere on the conventional left-right scale. The Tories are right-wing because they advocate smaller government and lower taxes. These people are apparently right-wing because they hate women and advocate nationalist violence. The idea that left means nice and right means nasty is something that gets my goat, especially when it is misused in the mainstream media. The murderous dictators of the 20th century were all largely left-wing in terms of their actual political views.
I understand your point, but I tend to see politics as a circle rather than a spectrum, where extreme left and right actually converge in terms of the society they want. They both hate a transparent, democratic society where the citizens -in all their diversity - hold politicians and those in authority to account. They attract people who need something to belong to. I used to feel at uni that many fellow students attached themselves to the far left parties for similar reasons to why I was already attached to CAFC. And I used to take the piss out of them. But I also learnt from them. I arrived a Telegraph reader and left a Guardian reader, and still am.
The trouble with Britain is that there is no tradition of a party of the centre. There is in mainland Europe. If you watch the Danish series Borgen, it's all about what it means to be a party of the centre.
I guess one could argue that the Lib Dems, are, at times the party of the centre. They are usually more fiscally pragmatic than Labour to the left of them, but they are also more grounded on social issues compared to the Tories to the right of them. However they will never get sole power so it is the case that the UK has flitted between between left and right for decades now. The last 17 years is the closest we've had to having centrism as Blair's government is to the right of traditional Labour values and Cameron's coalition is to the left of traditional Tory values.
I also experienced that the left-wing contingent at uni was far more vocal than the right-wing, although I never really thought that the left-wing really dominated uni life, it just gave that impression because lefties are the only ones sad enough to run for non-jobs within the student union. As I was an Economics student though, converting to the Left would have been much an Evolutionary Biologist believing in creationism - don't think one can follow an ideology that runs completely counter to the facts and science you are disciplined in.
"Cameron's coalition is to the left of traditional Tory values"
Your argument lost all credibility there. This is the most ideologically led Tory party ever.
Anyway I digress... back to Ukraine.
Wasn't really an argument, more a statement of fact. Heyho. The truth is most people who associate themselves with the right-wing hate Cameron on the basis he has thrown out most core conservative principles.
The situation seems to be at an impasse. US seem to be leading the anti-Russia sentiment, Germany appear to be trying to broker a deal so any violence can be avoided. It looks like the UK are trying to appear influential but it speaks volumes about how little we intend to do when not even the opposition can really muster anything of note to say on the issue.
"Cameron's coalition is to the left of traditional Tory values"
Your argument lost all credibility there. This is the most ideologically led Tory party ever.
Anyway I digress... back to Ukraine.
Wasn't really an argument, more a statement of fact. Heyho. The truth is most people who associate themselves with the right-wing hate Cameron on the basis he has thrown out most core conservative principles.
The situation seems to be at an impasse. US seem to be leading the anti-Russia sentiment, Germany appear to be trying to broker a deal so any violence can be avoided. It looks like the UK are trying to appear influential but it speaks volumes about how little we intend to do when not even the opposition can really muster anything of note to say on the issue.
Some times you reply to someone with a quote then think better of it, unfortunately it saves and follows you every time you login thereafter grrr anyone know how to escape this draft haunting?
Some times you reply to someone with a quote then think better of it, unfortunately it saves and follows you every time you login thereafter grrr anyone know how to escape this draft haunting?
I know, baffling, isn't it. Even restarting browser doesn't clear it. But wiping it, and then replacing it with something else as I'm doing here, seems to! :-)
Some times you reply to someone with a quote then think better of it, unfortunately it saves and follows you every time you login thereafter grrr anyone know how to escape this draft haunting?
I know, baffling, isn't it. Even restarting browser doesn't clear it. But wiping it, and then replacing it with something else as I'm doing here, seems to! :-)
Lviv was Polish till the USSR stole it and 140,000km of Polish soil at the end of ww2. Great reward for the Ukrainians in the long run, especially as many fought for the Germans in WW2. Not finished, the Polish coal fields were given to Ussr (now Ukraine) in exchange for some wasteland. Personally have no sympathy for the Ukrainians, the crimea is tartar/russian in all but name.
Slightly specious to put 'Tartar' in there - since they were ethnically cleansed to Siberia yonks ago (although correct that it actually was Tartar homeland). The Ukraine has as much legitimate right to the Crimea as Russia has (i.e. not much).
It's a bit of a poser in general really. If a land used to belong to a people (as much as land can ever really 'belong' to people) but they are then dispossessed by an oppressive regime (in this case the Soviet Union), you'd naturally like to think that when the regime changes, they would have a legitimate right to go back to 'claim' their land. However, where does the statute of limitations end? I note that there hasn't been any mention of the indigenous people of the Crimea being brutalised out of their lands well before the current foofarah.
Edit - just checked - tartar population at the last census makes up just over 12% of the Crimean population. Should make for some 'interesting' dynamics if Putin decides to invade and occupy. Will make what they currently suffer through Chechen terrorism look relatively inconsequential, I would think.
It's a bit of a poser in general really. If a land used to belong to a people (as much as land can ever really 'belong' to people) but they are then dispossessed by an oppressive regime (in this case the Soviet Union), you'd naturally like to think that when the regime changes, they would have a legitimate right to go back to their land. However, where does the statute of limitations end? I note that there hasn't been any mention of the indigenous people of the Crimea being brutalised out of their lands well before the current foofarah.
Well the Tartars might have to get in line behind the indigenous peoples of the continents of Australia, North America and South America in terms of being brutally displaced by the ancestors of those regions current rulers, as well the people of Palestine and what remains of Spain's enclaves in North Africa.
Regardless of whether or not Russia has a legitimate claim to Crimea, it is still sovereign Ukrainian territory and staging an armed invasion under any pretence is not the way to go about stating a claim, especially since the invasion is only in response to Moscow's puppet in Ukraine being deposed by his own people.
It's a bit of a poser in general really. If a land used to belong to a people (as much as land can ever really 'belong' to people) but they are then dispossessed by an oppressive regime (in this case the Soviet Union), you'd naturally like to think that when the regime changes, they would have a legitimate right to go back to their land. However, where does the statute of limitations end? I note that there hasn't been any mention of the indigenous people of the Crimea being brutalised out of their lands well before the current foofarah.
Well the Tartars might have to get in line behind the indigenous peoples of the continents of Australia, North America and South America in terms of being brutally displaced by the ancestors of those regions current rulers, as well the people of Palestine and what remains of Spain's enclaves in North Africa.
Regardless of whether or not Russia has a legitimate claim to Crimea, it is still sovereign Ukrainian territory and staging an armed invasion under any pretence is not the way to go about stating a claim, especially since the invasion is only in response to Moscow's puppet in Ukraine being deposed by his own people.
Law must apply to everyone or no one, we in the west cannot point the finger at others for not following international law when we ourselves have broken it so often (largely at the behest of the USA). There are examples posted above but lets just remind ourselves of some, Iraq, Afghanistan (USSR &USA) and many regime changes in places like Iran/Egypt. Weekly drone attacks on Pakistani targets that go largely unreported here. Does anyone remember Colonel Oliver North and his cocaine import business supplying money to the condenista's (?) using the profits to fund insurgents.
The point is no one has clean hands, unless and until we have the power to make our governments behave and hold them to account we don't have the right to expect others to do the same.
Slowly but surely governments are eroding the freedom of the internet, the one tool people have that is capable of changing that around. The truth is out there (apparently) but even when your looking for it and it slaps you in the face you still cant see it sometimes.
The Crimea is an autonomous region administered by the Ukraine and in a short time the Crimean Parliament (such that it is) will vote to change that. Have they the right to do so? Laws are only any good if they can be enforced, all the while the Russians have control and no one can stop them law is meaningless.
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is my issue with the term right-wing to describe extremist views that don't really belong anywhere on the conventional left-right scale. The Tories are right-wing because they advocate smaller government and lower taxes. These people are apparently right-wing because they hate women and advocate nationalist violence. The idea that left means nice and right means nasty is something that gets my goat, especially when it is misused in the mainstream media. The murderous dictators of the 20th century were all largely left-wing in terms of their actual political views.
I understand your point, but I tend to see politics as a circle rather than a spectrum, where extreme left and right actually converge in terms of the society they want. They both hate a transparent, democratic society where the citizens -in all their diversity - hold politicians and those in authority to account. They attract people who need something to belong to. I used to feel at uni that many fellow students attached themselves to the far left parties for similar reasons to why I was already attached to CAFC. And I used to take the piss out of them. But I also learnt from them. I arrived a Telegraph reader and left a Guardian reader, and still am.
The trouble with Britain is that there is no tradition of a party of the centre. There is in mainland Europe. If you watch the Danish series Borgen, it's all about what it means to be a party of the centre.
This is what I was saying, if we give in to Putin over Crimea who's to say he wouldn't turn his attentions elsewhere? Personally I don't see it but then again I wouldn't put it past him.
I watched a documentary on how ruthless Putin was to his own, rich Russian businessmen where basically forced to do stuff he wanted, like signing deals Putin wanted or wanted to happen, I was stunned how bad he was yet we all know it.
I heard several experts tonight say the West will not entertain the idea of Ukraine being partitioned. The integrity of Ukraine's borders is paramount. But why? And what gives the politicians in the USA and Western Europe the right to make that decision? It is abundantly clear that Ukraine is not an homogeneous country and that the people in Crimea and many parts of Eastern Ukraine want nothing to do with the elements in Kiev who decided to violently overthrow the democratically elected government. I always thought 'self determination' was the gold standard in these situations ever since the advent of the UN and international law.
Crimea's parliament has voted to hold a referendum in 10 days to secede and join Russia.
Alex Salmond must be fuming that it took him over a decade to get a referendum! Maybe he should have invited the Russian army to sit on Hadrian's Wall.
I heard several experts tonight say the West will not entertain the idea of Ukraine being partitioned. The integrity of Ukraine's borders is paramount. But why? And what gives the politicians in the USA and Western Europe the right to make that decision? It is abundantly clear that Ukraine is not an homogeneous country and that the people in Crimea and many parts of Eastern Ukraine want nothing to do with the elements in Kiev who decided to violently overthrow the democratically elected government. I always thought 'self determination' was the gold standard in these situations ever since the advent of the UN and international law.
Because Ukraine is a eastern European country, it doesn't matter if the eastern part of it is pro-Russia either, after all, these Russians were shipped in by Stalin in the first place to live on Ukrainian soil, it's not for the ethnic Russian people to decide, Ukraine has territorial borders that Russia should respect, but they don't, they are fearful that if Ukraine does slide towards the west for it's own benefits then they will soon have Western defense missiles that Russia just cannot deal with, Russia is too paranoid.
What Putin wants is Ukraine to become unstable, it could still happen.
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is what I feared with my earlier comment.
I also agree with AFKA, this thread is so full of knowledge and balance it puts the BBC and other mainstream media to shame. Think I'll keep coming here for the latest on the situation
I still can't quite get over the hypocrisy of the press in the way they're painting Russia as the sole bad guys. Some of the more intelligent journalists seem to be acutely aware that the way it's being reported is reducing their credibility and making a stand at least (Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news for one).
There was a western born Journalist reporting on RT that did much the same in the opposite direction. It's funny how people (apart from a very few) never see themselves as being played by the media and yet we all are to varying extents. I've found Al Jazeera to be one of the better news sources funnily enough, although I've been told on here a few times that they are biased.
Is that the same western born journalist who has quit her job at RT because of the invasion of Crimea? RT is Putin's puppet and does what he says, it is neither balanced or believeable.
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is what I feared with my earlier comment.
I also agree with AFKA, this thread is so full of knowledge and balance it puts the BBC and other mainstream media to shame. Think I'll keep coming here for the latest on the situation
I still can't quite get over the hypocrisy of the press in the way they're painting Russia as the sole bad guys. Some of the more intelligent journalists seem to be acutely aware that the way it's being reported is reducing their credibility and making a stand at least (Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news for one).
There was a western born Journalist reporting on RT that did much the same in the opposite direction. It's funny how people (apart from a very few) never see themselves as being played by the media and yet we all are to varying extents. I've found Al Jazeera to be one of the better news sources funnily enough, although I've been told on here a few times that they are biased.
Is that the same western born journalist who has quit her job at RT because of the invasion of Crimea? RT is Putin's puppet and does what he says, it is neither balanced or believeable.
Funny you should mention that, I was speaking to a bloke today who were raving on about how balanced and non biased RT was, he went on to slate all the western news channels like the BBC,CNN,SKY etc...it was when I detected a show of support for Putin then I realised why he liked RT so much.
I heard several experts tonight say the West will not entertain the idea of Ukraine being partitioned. The integrity of Ukraine's borders is paramount. But why? And what gives the politicians in the USA and Western Europe the right to make that decision? It is abundantly clear that Ukraine is not an homogeneous country and that the people in Crimea and many parts of Eastern Ukraine want nothing to do with the elements in Kiev who decided to violently overthrow the democratically elected government. I always thought 'self determination' was the gold standard in these situations ever since the advent of the UN and international law.
Because Ukraine is a eastern European country, it doesn't matter if the eastern part of it is pro-Russia either, after all, these Russians were shipped in by Stalin in the first place to live on Ukrainian soil, it's not for the ethnic Russian people to decide, Ukraine has territorial borders that Russia should respect, but they don't, they are fearful that if Ukraine does slide towards the west for it's own benefits then they will soon have Western defense missiles that Russia just cannot deal with, Russia is too paranoid.
What Putin wants is Ukraine to become unstable, it could still happen.
'shipped in'?
You mean like the British population in the Falklands?
I heard several experts tonight say the West will not entertain the idea of Ukraine being partitioned. The integrity of Ukraine's borders is paramount. But why? And what gives the politicians in the USA and Western Europe the right to make that decision? It is abundantly clear that Ukraine is not an homogeneous country and that the people in Crimea and many parts of Eastern Ukraine want nothing to do with the elements in Kiev who decided to violently overthrow the democratically elected government. I always thought 'self determination' was the gold standard in these situations ever since the advent of the UN and international law.
Because Ukraine is a eastern European country, it doesn't matter if the eastern part of it is pro-Russia either, after all, these Russians were shipped in by Stalin in the first place to live on Ukrainian soil, it's not for the ethnic Russian people to decide, Ukraine has territorial borders that Russia should respect, but they don't, they are fearful that if Ukraine does slide towards the west for it's own benefits then they will soon have Western defense missiles that Russia just cannot deal with, Russia is too paranoid.
What Putin wants is Ukraine to become unstable, it could still happen.
'shipped in'?
You mean like the British population in the Falklands?
This is perhaps slightly different since there wasn't a permanent settlement or indigenous people before the British arrived. On that merit France should leave Corsica and Greece should abandon Crete.
I heard several experts tonight say the West will not entertain the idea of Ukraine being partitioned. The integrity of Ukraine's borders is paramount. But why? And what gives the politicians in the USA and Western Europe the right to make that decision? It is abundantly clear that Ukraine is not an homogeneous country and that the people in Crimea and many parts of Eastern Ukraine want nothing to do with the elements in Kiev who decided to violently overthrow the democratically elected government. I always thought 'self determination' was the gold standard in these situations ever since the advent of the UN and international law.
Because Ukraine is a eastern European country, it doesn't matter if the eastern part of it is pro-Russia either, after all, these Russians were shipped in by Stalin in the first place to live on Ukrainian soil, it's not for the ethnic Russian people to decide, Ukraine has territorial borders that Russia should respect, but they don't, they are fearful that if Ukraine does slide towards the west for it's own benefits then they will soon have Western defense missiles that Russia just cannot deal with, Russia is too paranoid.
What Putin wants is Ukraine to become unstable, it could still happen.
'shipped in'?
You mean like the British population in the Falklands?
No, I don't mean like that, nothing like it in fact.
So, David Cameron's announced that we are to despatch a unit from the Metropolitan Police to Ukraine to assist the Interim Ukrainian Government clamp down on corruption..............................no better experts.
Hmm, I must say that I do not like the look of the new Ukrainian government line-up. Too many extreme right types. Cannot believe they represent the progressive people I have talked to.
Extreme right? So you mean libertarian, small government, low taxes etc? Or are you using right-wing in the same way the BBC uses right-wing ie to describe nationalists and the such?
Oleksandr Sych, deputy prime minister; Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company".
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy national security leader; Yarosh heads a militant ultra-rightwing group Praviy Sektor (Right Sector), which surged to prominence during the Euromaidan demonstrations for its uncompromising stance. Many attribute much of the protester-led violence – including throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at the police – to the group. Some western officials have expressed concern over the inclusion of Yarosh in the new government.
In addition Oleksandr Turchynov, the new interim president, is widely seen as a proxy for Julia Tymoshenko. She is not supported by the young progressives who led the protests. She is seen by them as almost as corrupt as Yanukovic, and with good reason as far as I can see.
But I will ask my guys in Lviv what they think.
This is what I feared with my earlier comment.
I also agree with AFKA, this thread is so full of knowledge and balance it puts the BBC and other mainstream media to shame. Think I'll keep coming here for the latest on the situation
I still can't quite get over the hypocrisy of the press in the way they're painting Russia as the sole bad guys. Some of the more intelligent journalists seem to be acutely aware that the way it's being reported is reducing their credibility and making a stand at least (Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news for one).
There was a western born Journalist reporting on RT that did much the same in the opposite direction. It's funny how people (apart from a very few) never see themselves as being played by the media and yet we all are to varying extents. I've found Al Jazeera to be one of the better news sources funnily enough, although I've been told on here a few times that they are biased.
Is that the same western born journalist who has quit her job at RT because of the invasion of Crimea? RT is Putin's puppet and does what he says, it is neither balanced or believeable.
No it wasn't actually that was another one, see link
I heard several experts tonight say the West will not entertain the idea of Ukraine being partitioned. The integrity of Ukraine's borders is paramount. But why? And what gives the politicians in the USA and Western Europe the right to make that decision? It is abundantly clear that Ukraine is not an homogeneous country and that the people in Crimea and many parts of Eastern Ukraine want nothing to do with the elements in Kiev who decided to violently overthrow the democratically elected government. I always thought 'self determination' was the gold standard in these situations ever since the advent of the UN and international law.
Because Ukraine is a eastern European country, it doesn't matter if the eastern part of it is pro-Russia either, after all, these Russians were shipped in by Stalin in the first place to live on Ukrainian soil, it's not for the ethnic Russian people to decide, Ukraine has territorial borders that Russia should respect, but they don't, they are fearful that if Ukraine does slide towards the west for it's own benefits then they will soon have Western defense missiles that Russia just cannot deal with, Russia is too paranoid.
What Putin wants is Ukraine to become unstable, it could still happen.
'shipped in'?
You mean like the British population in the Falklands?
No, I don't mean like that, nothing like it in fact.
The Ukraine has a complicated history and is a recent "country" yet an ancient civilisation. Most of the time it has been dominated by neighbours from the West (mostly Poland and Latvia), it recently within the last 100 years or so chose to look to Russia for religious reasons (being orthodox rather than catholic). It is at this point that the populations of the two Slavic nations started to merge, on the boarders to the south east. They were not planted there by the Russian as has been the case in so many other countries that have been dominated by Russia (Finland Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus etc.). This is with the exception of the Crimea, which had never been part of the Ukraine until 1954 and even then not fully part as it retained autonomous legal status. Prior to annexation by Russia Crimea was a separate Khanate state a remnant of the Mongol empires with a distinct culture.
Comments
I still respect the top BBC reporters, especially foreign experts like John Simpson, because these people put their necks on the line time and time again, and have seen it all. Czech TV is generally as you'd expect a pale imitation of the BBC but their main foreign reporter on this job is Miroslav Karas who is normally in Moscow and Warsaw. He recently had visa trouble in Moscow because of one of his reports. Last night he was in Crimea, presenting live the evidence that these 'self-defence' forces clearly must be Russian. The uniforms, the trucks, and their numberplates, the weapons. And the report ended with him having a gun pointed at his stomach and being told to piss off. In Russian of course. I listen to him rather than some knob like Liam Halligan who also was in Moscow in his career, but as a fund manager.
---
Personally i support of them, although they have come to power in not completely legitimate way. I believe that we had no other choice but to overthrow our president and his party by physical force. We were under the risk of Ukraine becoming totalitarian state controlled by one family. Furthermore, i believe we may expect a better future for our country under the current government.
Roman Kryvosheia
President
Lviv Legal Group
___________________________________
75 Stryiska Street, Lviv, 79031, Ukraine
Tel: +38 097 344 49 30
Homepage: http://lvivlegalgroup.org
I also experienced that the left-wing contingent at uni was far more vocal than the right-wing, although I never really thought that the left-wing really dominated uni life, it just gave that impression because lefties are the only ones sad enough to run for non-jobs within the student union. As I was an Economics student though, converting to the Left would have been much an Evolutionary Biologist believing in creationism - don't think one can follow an ideology that runs completely counter to the facts and science you are disciplined in.
"Cameron's coalition is to the left of traditional Tory values"
Your argument lost all credibility there. This is the most ideologically led Tory party ever.
Anyway I digress... back to Ukraine.
The situation seems to be at an impasse. US seem to be leading the anti-Russia sentiment, Germany appear to be trying to broker a deal so any violence can be avoided. It looks like the UK are trying to appear influential but it speaks volumes about how little we intend to do when not even the opposition can really muster anything of note to say on the issue.
Some seriously good discussions going on here - glad to see both sides of the spectrum can 'argue' in a civilised manner.
Personally have no sympathy for the Ukrainians, the crimea is tartar/russian in all but name.
It's a bit of a poser in general really. If a land used to belong to a people (as much as land can ever really 'belong' to people) but they are then dispossessed by an oppressive regime (in this case the Soviet Union), you'd naturally like to think that when the regime changes, they would have a legitimate right to go back to 'claim' their land. However, where does the statute of limitations end? I note that there hasn't been any mention of the indigenous people of the Crimea being brutalised out of their lands well before the current foofarah.
Edit - just checked - tartar population at the last census makes up just over 12% of the Crimean population. Should make for some 'interesting' dynamics if Putin decides to invade and occupy. Will make what they currently suffer through Chechen terrorism look relatively inconsequential, I would think.
Regardless of whether or not Russia has a legitimate claim to Crimea, it is still sovereign Ukrainian territory and staging an armed invasion under any pretence is not the way to go about stating a claim, especially since the invasion is only in response to Moscow's puppet in Ukraine being deposed by his own people.
Thank you Henry
The point is no one has clean hands, unless and until we have the power to make our governments behave and hold them to account we don't have the right to expect others to do the same.
Slowly but surely governments are eroding the freedom of the internet, the one tool people have that is capable of changing that around. The truth is out there (apparently) but even when your looking for it and it slaps you in the face you still cant see it sometimes.
The Crimea is an autonomous region administered by the Ukraine and in a short time the Crimean Parliament (such that it is) will vote to change that. Have they the right to do so? Laws are only any good if they can be enforced, all the while the Russians have control and no one can stop them law is meaningless.
I watched a documentary on how ruthless Putin was to his own, rich Russian businessmen where basically forced to do stuff he wanted, like signing deals Putin wanted or wanted to happen, I was stunned how bad he was yet we all know it.
Alex Salmond must be fuming that it took him over a decade to get a referendum! Maybe he should have invited the Russian army to sit on Hadrian's Wall.
What Putin wants is Ukraine to become unstable, it could still happen.
You mean like the British population in the Falklands?
: - )
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/russia-today-anchor-liz-wahl-resigns-on-air-ukraine
PS I don't normally read the Guardian ... no, honestly I don't :-)
recentlywithin the last 100 years or so chose to look to Russia for religious reasons (being orthodox rather than catholic). It is at this point that the populations of the two Slavic nations started to merge, on the boarders to the south east. They were not planted there by the Russian as has been the case in so many other countries that have been dominated by Russia (Finland Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus etc.). This is with the exception of the Crimea, which had never been part of the Ukraine until 1954 and even then not fully part as it retained autonomous legal status. Prior to annexation by Russia Crimea was a separate Khanate state a remnant of the Mongol empires with a distinct culture.I hope that helps to clarify.