LeoIvanov Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 so russia supports the terrorists in slawjansk. no matter if they are russian too - they are fighting agains the government and the osze. they act like terrorists in the name of russia and the citizens of russia. and instead of stopping it, russia criticises ukraine for trying to stop it. Again you with your highly extreme "punch to the head" conclusions. This statement, however, kind of reminds me of certain individuals and things that happened back at Maidan... Hmm. And let's all be clear here - Russia criticizes the current GOVERNMENT of Ukraine, the illegitimate one, for sending military and acting like it has all the rights to rule country like that. Criticizing something doesn't necessarily mean supporting the opposite point of view. If I say that the restaurant makes bad food and the current cook needs to be replaced, it doesn't mean I support whoever decides to eat there for free with the threats of suing them for bad quality of food. What do you think the Ukranian government should do, when it's loosing ground to separatists? What would Russia do if it happened there The separatists seem to be in a hurry to manifest a anti-ukranian public oppinion. Why don't they just use their democratic vote and vote for someone who isn't ultranational. If you paid attention to the other russian guy who left a ton of links in the spoilers you'd see that "democratic" vote just isn't going to work the way it's supposed to. All the companies with "other" goals that have any kind of weight behind them are having their offices/houses burnt down, threatened, or stuff similar to that. There's literally going (if already isn't) a bloodbath around those elections and the new "government" will most likely not allow other candidates to have a free say or get much publicity to get known. What happens if people go to the voting and are (mildly saying) present with a choice of 1 candidate against the second, even worse, and there's no other visible choice? Vote for either and see your country roll to shit? Vote for someone random in hopes he doesn't fuck your country up? Not vote at all and be directed as "separatist" who didn't show up to vote purposefully to create chaos? Are they going to account in the lack of like 40%+ of the votes if eastern Ukraine refuses to go voting because of the candidates presented? If not, are they going to decide a whole country's faith judging by a minority of the country? (Okay, let's count a little here because someone might seem confused right now : 40% of Ukraine doesn't show up to vote because they don't like neither of the candidates. 40% of remaining candidates voted for guy 1, while 20% voted for another, so guy 1 wins the elections, but technically 60% of the country did not vote for him, so he is chosen to run the country by a MINORITY in the end.) Is it a fair way to hold the elections? Is it NECESSARY to run the elections THIS SOON When there's STILL CHAOS AROUND THE COUNTRY and they are on the brink of economical COLLAPSE? Was it NECESSARY to FORCEFULLY overthrow the old president when he SIGNED UP and AGREED to hold elections EARLIER and NEARLY gave up majority of his power to the rada?! Why does the opposition overthrows the president anyway and brings the country into state of near-civil war? AND NOW THEY ARE THE ONES RUNNING THE COUNTRY? Sorry, got a little emotional there for my ethnic-related slavic brothers in Ukraine, but I hope you get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aricane Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Sorry, got a little emotional there for my ethnic-related slavic brothers in Ukraine, but I hope you get the point. n/pBut what Ukraine needs are more candidates then. Someone the 40%-60% people would rather vote for. I acknowledge that candidates and oppinions go hand in hand with the money spent on campaigns, but what is important is that supplying the people with a sense of influence over the candidates. I'd really like to know what Russia would do in Ukraines place. Let's say protestors armed themselves and began rioting in Kaliningrad claiming they wanted to be either independant or belong to Poland. How would Russia tackle armed uprising that set local police enforcement out of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoIvanov Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Sorry, got a little emotional there for my ethnic-related slavic brothers in Ukraine, but I hope you get the point. n/pBut what Ukraine needs are more candidates then. Someone the 40%-60% people would rather vote for. I acknowledge that candidates and oppinions go hand in hand with the money spent on campaigns, but what is important is that supplying the people with a sense of influence over the candidates. I'd really like to know what Russia would do in Ukraines place. Let's say protestors armed themselves and began rioting in Kaliningrad claiming they wanted to be either independant or belong to Poland. How would Russia tackle armed uprising that set local police enforcement out of action. Considering that Russia isn't Ukraine, and in your example "armed rioters" haven't overthrown the current government, it would be something that the rest of the world (west and US in this case) will call "unprofessional", "violent" or "illegal". Political blabber aside, I'd guess they'd be disarmed and sent to prison for breaking several laws. Illegal carrying of firearms and rioting with, well, guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aricane Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Sorry, got a little emotional there for my ethnic-related slavic brothers in Ukraine, but I hope you get the point. n/pBut what Ukraine needs are more candidates then. Someone the 40%-60% people would rather vote for. I acknowledge that candidates and oppinions go hand in hand with the money spent on campaigns, but what is important is that supplying the people with a sense of influence over the candidates. I'd really like to know what Russia would do in Ukraines place. Let's say protestors armed themselves and began rioting in Kaliningrad claiming they wanted to be either independant or belong to Poland. How would Russia tackle armed uprising that set local police enforcement out of action. Considering that Russia isn't Ukraine, and in your example "armed rioters" haven't overthrown the current government, it would be something that the rest of the world (west and US in this case) will call "unprofessional", "violent" or "illegal". Political blabber aside, I'd guess they'd be disarmed and sent to prison for breaking several laws. Illegal carrying of firearms and rioting with, well, guns. And obviously that is what the Ukranien government appears to do. But what they should also do, is hunt down the nationalist who burned down civilians in Odessa and make an example of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123Imirish Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Sorry, got a little emotional there for my ethnic-related slavic brothers in Ukraine, but I hope you get the point. n/pBut what Ukraine needs are more candidates then. Someone the 40%-60% people would rather vote for. I acknowledge that candidates and oppinions go hand in hand with the money spent on campaigns, but what is important is that supplying the people with a sense of influence over the candidates. I'd really like to know what Russia would do in Ukraines place. Let's say protestors armed themselves and began rioting in Kaliningrad claiming they wanted to be either independant or belong to Poland. How would Russia tackle armed uprising that set local police enforcement out of action. Considering that Russia isn't Ukraine, and in your example "armed rioters" haven't overthrown the current government, it would be something that the rest of the world (west and US in this case) will call "unprofessional", "violent" or "illegal". Political blabber aside, I'd guess they'd be disarmed and sent to prison for breaking several laws. Illegal carrying of firearms and rioting with, well, guns. so when the Ukrainian government does this it's just poor people stripped of their rights by those savages! How could they do this! What about the southern area of Russia between the Caspian and Black sea? They want Independence, some have resorted to violence because Russia wouldn't listen to the politics. That area has a overwhelming majority support for succession. But the Russian government will give'em it eventually because the Russian government understands there reasons for supporting annexation apply to everyone. Whooo! Russia! Peace out people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordixi Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Let's say protestors armed themselves and began rioting in Kaliningrad claiming they wanted to be either independant or belong to Poland.Answer (news from 02/05/2014): Activists, who raised the flag of Germany over the building of the FSB in Kaliningrad, were arrested. What about the 2 helicopters that were downed by pro russian forces? Or the 34 people killed when pro russia and pro ukraine protesters got into it? The violence is escalating.Yes, 2 helicopters down. Rumors says that even three. Yes, about 50 people were dead in fire in Odessa after nationalists from "Right Sector" torched the building by Molotov Cocktails. All review in english here and especially (!) here. Survivors from this building were jailed as arsonist but already free. Also there is dead in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. Aricane, Cdr.Keen. Did you read news about Ukraine from December 2013 till February 2014? Your messages says "no". Just compare old and present news: 30/11/2013 The United States condemns the use of force against demonstrators in Ukraine 20/02/2014 U.S. condemns violence in Ukraine in the most decisive form ...but... 02/05/2014 Obama and Merkel supprorts Kiev's doing In December 2013 - February 2014 there were armed protest Middle Ukraine (Kiev) and Western Ukraine (pro-european and pro-u.s. rebels), there were illegal occupying of state buildings. In 22-25 February 2014 there were armed coup. President escaped from the country, it was an attempt to assassinate president and then junta declare themselves as government. Now people in Southern-Eastern Ukraine protests against junta and their nationalistic radicals (if you want to know what is Ukrainian radicals - see video with english subtitles in spoiler). Aricane, in your case in example with Denmark the right will be: if in Denmark there were an armed coup and pro-Soviet-Russia forces declare themselves as government, and only after this regions of Denmark started arming themselves and protests against new "government". Is it right to call the people, who protests against the illegal nazi-like government, terrorists? Short update about OSZE observers: they all live and already in Berlin Ukraine Crisis Today: Democracy caught on camera (with english subtitles) The New York Times did not found "russian trail" in Slavyansk (in english) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/world/europe/behind-the-masks-in-ukraine-many-faces-of-rebellion.html?ref=europe&_r=3 Aricane 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikaelkerensky Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 One man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. When the U.S. broke away from great britain we were terrorists to the british and loyalists and we were freedom fighters to ourselves and france. Once all the chips fall and someone wins, then writes a history of it, then we'll "know" who the bad guy was because the winner writes the history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdr.Keen Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 [...]Is it right to call the people, who protests against the illegal nazi-like government, terrorists?[...] yes, of course. because it isn't necessary what they fight for, if they doing it wrong. violence must be convicted. you can't say "we use violence to make a better world". after ww2, germany was split into 2 countries - west and east germany. west germany was taken by "usa/europe", and east germany was taken by "russia". they split the land into to parts. short story - no one armed himself - the citizens of germany simply forced the government to tear down the wall by protests and demonstration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoIvanov Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 [...]Is it right to call the people, who protests against the illegal nazi-like government, terrorists?[...] yes, of course. because it isn't necessary what they fight for, if they doing it wrong. violence must be convicted. you can't say "we use violence to make a better world". after ww2, germany was split into 2 countries - west and east germany. west germany was taken by "usa/europe", and east germany was taken by "russia". they split the land into to parts. short story - no one armed himself - the citizens of germany simply forced the government to tear down the wall by protests and demonstration. Why weren't activists on Maidan called terrorists and were released from punishment for what they've done to Berkut then? They were burning down and killing them. Because Berkut are "murderers" and were beating up and shooting innocent people? Didn't you say it "isn't neccessary what they fight for if they are doing it wrong"? http://euroradio.fm/en/maidan-activists-released-are-called-dangerous-extremists Why are people so blind sometimes and only notice things their media WANTS them to notice? I don't know which side you are on, Cdr. Keen, but your manner of "heating up" the arguements without doing much research isn't just "keeping the topic alive", it tends to annoy me. And I don't think peaceful debate should spark these emotions out of someone. So please, PLEASE, research a little before posting something as outrageous as this. Aricane 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123Imirish Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Why are people so blind sometimes and only notice things their media WANTS them to notice?. So please, PLEASE, research a little before posting something as outrageous as this. Sorry but Maybe you should take your own advice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viceroy Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Why weren't activists on Maidan called terrorists and were released from punishment for what they've done to Berkut then? They were burning down and killing them. Because Berkut are "murderers" and were beating up and shooting innocent people? Didn't you say it "isn't neccessary what they fight for if they are doing it wrong"? http://euroradio.fm/en/maidan-activists-released-are-called-dangerous-extremists Because they were mostly unarmed civilians being shot indiscriminately by snipers as is very clearly visible on footage from Feb 22nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoIvanov Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Sorry but Maybe you should take your own advice I did a while back and don't direct to sources that aren't part of my research anymore, after the "sieg heil" incident a couple of pages back. Did I not leave the link after making a statement to the article on english? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirrus Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 That's enough. This isn't staying civil, I've given enough warnings, closing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts