Will Russia come to the "aid" of Ukraine?

[acidhead]

Do two wrongs now add up to right? They did it so, so can we...? The whole situation is an example of lawlessness and it makes for a really bad situation eventually. I suspect the Ukrainians are going to have to fight for a long time IF they want to be out from under the Russian's boot. I wish them Godspeed and I hope we in the west help those who want to be helped. Sanctions, money, support in international forums and even weapons if they need them. Putin's desire for power will be inexorable if it is not challenged. IF the Ukrainians were okay with being a vassal I'd not care at all about this situation but clearly they DO care and want to be free.

If that's how you feel jump off your wallet and send money. Lead the charge.

[+and-then]

If that's how you feel jump off your wallet and send money. Lead the charge.

I'll be happy to. And from the looks of your government it seems you'll be chipping in as well soon enough. I don't advocate some invasion or ratcheting up tensions unnecessarily. Turning your back when people are asking for help to stop such aggression is just cowardice. They aren't asking for troops as AFAIK, just moral support at this point. Putin is a thug and he will take this as far as he is ALLOWED to take it. He isn't going to nuke anyone and the Russian army isn't the army of the USSR. If he puffs up his man tits and tries to stomp on the western part of the country I suspect the Tatars alone will make him think fondly of the Chechen conflict in comparison.

[acidhead]

"You just can't invade a country on false pretenses" -- John Kerry

[acidhead]

Hey bud.. you either stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

[Yamato]

"You just can't invade a country on false pretenses" -- John Kerry

The newest and probably most serious contender for Hypocrite of the Year Award yet.

[acidhead]

Ketchup Kerry needs to be reminded of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It's the only reason he has a voice in poltics.

[Yamato]

My grandfather was Ukrainian and my grandmother Polish so I'd like to personally apologize to both the Ukraine and Russia for letting my political leaders squander the US's political capital and moral authority in the world by launching unprovoked violent aggression on others we couldn't politically agree with.

I'm truly sorry to all the Brits on the board here too; I'm sorry if there's any shame in being BFFs with the US.

[keithisco]

So now he was impeached cause of theft...lol RUBBISH!

So the most wanted political fugitive in Ukraine is nothing more than a thief NOT a political outcast that wanted closer ties to Russia, that the current authorities allowed to run. and the interim president has decided to "impeach" the ex president in absentia. So Keith since when can you impeach someone that has been forcibly removed from office? Due process was denied to him.

And since you find my first source questionable here's another from the west.

"Within 24 hours of a compromise signed between Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders, Yanukovych had fled Kyiv. Then he was impeached. Pro-democratic demonstrators were providing security to abandoned government buildings " http://www.thestar.c...er_capital.html

Mob rule in Ukraine my boy.

You seem to lack, at the most basic level, the ability to understand my post which was in reply to your unfounded statements. Lets try it again:

1. He (the Pres.) FLED the country - this action by itself is sufficient for impeachment

2. The democratically elected representatives had, and have, the absolute right to impeach and remove any Pres. with a 75% majority required. This was a Legally Constitued impeachment and reomoval.

3. His impeachment was NOT based on his theft of the Nation's resources, it was based on his inability to continue governing in the Peoples' interest

4. He was not forcibly removed from Office - there were no tanks or armed Militia outside his palace

5. The will of the people at large was regarded by the Legislators, who did not want to see any more deaths at the behest of their Pres.

6. Your link actually supports my statements - not yours

Now, where is your real debate against these salient facts and timeline?

[stevewinn]

You seem to lack, at the most basic level, the ability to understand my post which was in reply to your unfounded statements. Lets try it again:

1. He (the Pres.) FLED the country - this action by itself is sufficient for impeachment

2. The democratically elected representatives had, and have, the absolute right to impeach and remove any Pres. with a 75% majority required. This was a Legally Constitued impeachment and reomoval.

3. His impeachment was NOT based on his theft of the Nation's resources, it was based on his inability to continue governing in the Peoples' interest

4. He was not forcibly removed from Office - there were no tanks or armed Militia outside his palace

5. The will of the people at large was regarded by the Legislators, who did not want to see any more deaths at the behest of their Pres.

6. Your link actually supports my statements - not yours

Now, where is your real debate against these salient facts and timeline?

Obviously your post is correct, factual. the Presidents position was untenable. but before we got to that stage #1

- remember at the very start, when the first protests started, the aim of the peaceful protests was for the President to sign the EU agreement, if he'd signed the agreement this crisis wouldn't have happened and he'd still be the Ukrainian President. when it became clear he was more pro-Russian those peaceful protests turned violent, and the goal post shifted - to the President had to go, removed, replaced. and this is when all the stories of corruption etc started coming out more as a justification for the involvement, or interference of the EU, USA - everyone knew the more involved these became the likelihood of Russia doing what its doing in Crimea was going to happen. but they the EU, USA and NATO seem to be acting surprised by Russia's actions, yet it was all predictable.

Lets hope Russia backs down, agreeing to withdraw once stability returns to Ukraine, in a situation were all side can save face, because the way things are escalating including the language used this could all go pear-shaped very fast. Ukraine better not do something stupid like trying to fight Russia, getting over confident because of the backing their receiving. Russia would wipe the floor with them and us.

[MordorOrc]

Looks like the Russian stockmarket is collapsing. For those who are more familiar with economics than I am, stock indices in Russia have lost between 8 and 10%.

[stevewinn]

Looks like the Russian stockmarket is collapsing. For those who are more familiar with economics than I am, stock indices in Russia have lost between 8 and 10%.

expect gas prices to rise. its a good job were heading into Spring - Summer.

[Harry_Dresden]

You seem to lack, at the most basic level, the ability to understand my post which was in reply to your unfounded statements. Lets try it again:

1. He (the Pres.) FLED the country - this action by itself is sufficient for impeachment

2. The democratically elected representatives had, and have, the absolute right to impeach and remove any Pres. with a 75% majority required. This was a Legally Constitued impeachment and reomoval.

3. His impeachment was NOT based on his theft of the Nation's resources, it was based on his inability to continue governing in the Peoples' interest

4. He was not forcibly removed from Office - there were no tanks or armed Militia outside his palace

5. The will of the people at large was regarded by the Legislators, who did not want to see any more deaths at the behest of their Pres.

6. Your link actually supports my statements - not yours

Now, where is your real debate against these salient facts and timeline?

I lack nothing, i have already provided a basic time line thanks to the two source's provided (Toronto times and Al Jazeera). READ THEM AGAIN!!

1. He the President was abandoned by the security forces when they couldn't/wouldn't guarantee his security. He had NO choice other than to preserve his life from the coup d'état.

2. YES the democratically elected representatives have the right to impeach while the President is in office, but since they undisputedly organised and encouraged violent protests against an elected government using ultranationalist rhetoric and threatened the President with physical harm... it seems a tad strange and hypocritical to claim a democratic right when they have broken the most basic tenet of that democracy. Rebellion and sedition.

3. It was you that suggested that he was a thief and that was the reason he was forcibly removed, not me! IN fact concerning his so called "inability to govern" was a direct result of opposition betraying the democracy...which brings me to my next point... since when is democracy rule by consensus? No president or political leader asks for a referendum before committing to every move. The people elect a leader on a platform and the leader governs on that platform until the next election and on the strength of that governance he is either re-elected or removed by a vote at the next elections. The ultranationalists just decided together with their "overlords" to force him out undemocratically before the next election cause they didn't agree with his close relationship to Russia.

4. That's right NO tanks or militia...just a ravenous mob that just happens to be now guarding state buildings, roads, ports and airports and not to mention the former "impeached" ex-presidents residence. Who gave them that authority?

5. Any deaths that occurred were at the behest of the political enemies of the ex-president. Providing law and order is the job of the President NOT the other way around.

6. NO my link supports my interpretation of the events. I suggest you read them again!

Edited March 3, 2014 by Harry_Dresden

[Harry_Dresden]

Obviously your post is correct, factual. the Presidents position was untenable. but before we got to that stage #1

- remember at the very start, when the first protests started, the aim of the peaceful protests was for the President to sign the EU agreement, if he'd signed the agreement this crisis wouldn't have happened and he'd still be the Ukrainian President. when it became clear he was more pro-Russian those peaceful protests turned violent, and the goal post shifted - to the President had to go, removed, replaced. and this is when all the stories of corruption etc started coming out more as a justification for the involvement, or interference of the EU, USA - everyone knew the more involved these became the likelihood of Russia doing what its doing in Crimea was going to happen. but they the EU, USA and NATO seem to be acting surprised by Russia's actions, yet it was all predictable.

Lets hope Russia backs down, agreeing to withdraw once stability returns to Ukraine, in a situation were all side can save face, because the way things are escalating including the language used this could all go pear-shaped very fast. Ukraine better not do something stupid like trying to fight Russia, getting over confident because of the backing their receiving. Russia would wipe the floor with them and us.

Sorry mate but I strenuously disagree with your view that Keith's opinion is correct or factual...his view is politically skewered by the Fox News network. The President of Ukraine was removed by ultranationalists hell bent on charting a political path for Ukraine without respecting the 50% of Ukrainians that voted for the President. One of the very first acts that they did was racist and undemocratic by attacking the cultural and religious minorities that supported the ex-president. Under any other situation the West would have threatened economic and political boycotts against these coup leaders. Imagine President Obama telling the Latino community in the US that they couldn't speak their language or use it publically. There would riots in the street and he'd be impeached, but not in the Ukraine! double standards!!!

The Ukrainian President did compromise with the opposition. And was then allowed/forced to run, even though they had the power to force him into parliament to start impeachment proceedings. The impeachment was just a way to justify their skulduggery after the fact.

You are correct though by saying that the USA, EU and NATO should not have been surprised since it all occurred during the winter Olympics while western leaders boycotted a peaceful and non-political institution, I wonder why?

Edited March 3, 2014 by Harry_Dresden

[keithisco]

Sorry mate but I strenuously disagree with your view that Keith's opinion is correct or factual...his view is politically skewered by the Fox News network. The President of Ukraine was removed by ultranationalists hell bent on charting a political path for Ukraine without respecting the 50% of Ukrainians that voted for the President. One of the very first acts that they did was racist and undemocratic by attacking the cultural and religious minorities that supported the ex-president. Under any other situation the West would have threatened economic and political boycotts against these coup leaders. Imagine President Obama telling the Latino community in the US that they couldn't speak their language or use it publically. There would riots in the street and he'd be impeached, but not in the Ukraine! double standards!!!

The Ukrainian President did compromise with the opposition. And was then allowed/forced to run, even though they had the power to force him into parliament to start impeachment proceedings. The impeachment was just a way to justify their skulduggery after the fact.

You are correct though by saying that the USA, EU and NATO should not have been surprised since it all occurred during the winter Olympics while western leaders boycotted a peaceful and non-political institution, I wonder why?

Your entire rebuff to my comments is a Litany of mis-information perpetrated it would appear, solely by yourself.

Neither of your sources back up your vitriol, and your received wisdom suggests to me that Fox News is actually YOUR source. Clearly there is absolutely no Ukraine Edict that disallows Russian to be spoken, I refer you to Article 10 of the Ukrainian Constitution (enacted in 2004 and currently the constituion in force source wiki):

Article 10

The state language of Ukraine is the Ukrainian language.

The State ensures the comprehensive development and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social life throughout the entire territory of Ukraine.

In Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed.

The State promotes the learning of languages of international communication.

The use of languages in Ukraine is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and is determined by law.

Also stated here: http://www.president...nstitution.html

The only issue was whether or not Russian should be an Official 2nd language - as Ukraine is an Independent nation then they are at Liberty to adopt a single language as the progenitor language for ALL Official documents, legal and Constitutional. Should autonomous regions such as the crimea, also wish to produce the documentation in Russian, then that is not denied. But, they have to use their regional funding to pay for it.

Adendum: Russia is the only Nation putting forces on the ground - this is illegal in International Law

In future please source reference to the originating body if at all possible, and compare it to the hyperbole that you demonstrate

Edited March 3, 2014 by keithisco

[+and-then]

"You just can't invade a country on false pretenses" -- John Kerry

Yep, it's not a subtle or novel point you make. Iraq was wrong - but using it as a club to delegitimize any future action you might personally disagree with forever is a sketchy and disingenuous approach to the realities of the world also. Kerry is just another political whore and he's doing immense damage - along with his boss - to any gravitas the US might still have when dealing with the world at large. This administration is a bad joke and it's becoming dangerous now.

[+and-then]

Obviously your post is correct, factual. the Presidents position was untenable. but before we got to that stage #1

- remember at the very start, when the first protests started, the aim of the peaceful protests was for the President to sign the EU agreement, if he'd signed the agreement this crisis wouldn't have happened and he'd still be the Ukrainian President. when it became clear he was more pro-Russian those peaceful protests turned violent, and the goal post shifted - to the President had to go, removed, replaced. and this is when all the stories of corruption etc started coming out more as a justification for the involvement, or interference of the EU, USA - everyone knew the more involved these became the likelihood of Russia doing what its doing in Crimea was going to happen. but they the EU, USA and NATO seem to be acting surprised by Russia's actions, yet it was all predictable.

Lets hope Russia backs down, agreeing to withdraw once stability returns to Ukraine, in a situation were all side can save face, because the way things are escalating including the language used this could all go pear-shaped very fast. Ukraine better not do something stupid like trying to fight Russia, getting over confident because of the backing their receiving. Russia would wipe the floor with them and us.

Does Ukraine not have a standing army? If half or more of the country -25 million or so- do not want Russians on their soil as occupiers then don't you imagine that might create a bit of slow going for Putin's plans? I don't think Russia's military is actually all that sophisticated nor motivated. No doubt it will be a bloody mess but I think it is FAR from being a foregone conclusion who wins here long term.

[+and-then]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10672417/Ukraine-live.html

Now they've given an ultimatum for having Ukrainian forces surrender in Crimea. I suspect they will. Once any shooting starts there will be no going back and another civil war might be on the cards.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Dont think they will and its not a civil war as you think. Crimea has its own parliment

[Mr.United_Nations]

Sorry mate but I strenuously disagree with your view that Keith's opinion is correct or factual...his view is politically skewered by the Fox News network. The President of Ukraine was removed by ultranationalists hell bent on charting a political path for Ukraine without respecting the 50% of Ukrainians that voted for the President. One of the very first acts that they did was racist and undemocratic by attacking the cultural and religious minorities that supported the ex-president. Under any other situation the West would have threatened economic and political boycotts against these coup leaders. Imagine President Obama telling the Latino community in the US that they couldn't speak their language or use it publically. There would riots in the street and he'd be impeached, but not in the Ukraine! double standards!!!

The Ukrainian President did compromise with the opposition. And was then allowed/forced to run, even though they had the power to force him into parliament to start impeachment proceedings. The impeachment was just a way to justify their skulduggery after the fact.

You are correct though by saying that the USA, EU and NATO should not have been surprised since it all occurred during the winter Olympics while western leaders boycotted a peaceful and non-political institution, I wonder why?

Putin is homophobic and racists and Russians too and they need to stop threatening minorites

[bmk1245]

[...] without respecting the 50% of Ukrainians that voted for the President. [...]

If he would have promised, he will be Putin's ***wipe, and not "I will seek strategic partnership with EU and USA", he wouldn't be elected as President in the first place. Secondly, he promised Russian language as second official language in Ukraine (which he didn't kept entirely), thus winning in Eastern Ukraine (and cheered by Russian chauvinists). Simple.

Edit: clarification

Edited March 3, 2014 by bmk1245

[RoofGardener]

Well, we discussed this at work, with varying shades of opinion.

My opinion is that the whole thing will blow over within a month, with the Crimea returing to Russian Territory.

Our Senior Designer, who has a wife from that region, reckons that the Russians will invade the Ukraine over the Eastern Border, and swallow up the entire country, Crimea and all.

One of our engineers, who has friends in the Royal Marines, reckons that the Russians will mobilise, cross the Eastern Border, and won't stop untill they arrive at the English Channel.

We have a small wager on the outcome (to be tested on the 3rd April).

[Yamato]

The rioters are not fed up with politicians, they are being fed by them, and the politicians doing the feeding are not Ukranian, apart from the reptile Klitschko. They are not "ordinary" Ukranians, they are not "the people" wanting their voice heard, for if it were, then where are the people from the eastern and southern regions? why are the rioters from mostly the further western regions, not even Kiev itself. Western media is either not capable of telling these differences, or not willing to.....

Reptile? I'd take a boxer, activist and doctor of sports medicine over another oil crook like Yulia Tymoshenko. Who just got out of prison a few weeks ago in another coincidence with impeccable timing.

[Mr.United_Nations]

an ordinary Ukrainian? so if I was Ukrainian and i protested, somehow im not normal? that is very selfish

[SolarPlexus]

21:31 - Yanukovich sent letter to Putin asking for Russian military presence in Ukraine - Russia's UN envoy

Checkmate

Edited March 3, 2014 by SolarPlexus

[acidhead]

Well, we discussed this at work, with varying shades of opinion.

My opinion is that the whole thing will blow over within a month, with the Crimea returing to Russian Territory.

Our Senior Designer, who has a wife from that region, reckons that the Russians will invade the Ukraine over the Eastern Border, and swallow up the entire country, Crimea and all.

One of our engineers, who has friends in the Royal Marines, reckons that the Russians will mobilise, cross the Eastern Border, and won't stop untill they arrive at the English Channel.

We have a small wager on the outcome (to be tested on the 3rd April).

I hear ya on this wager. Never bet on who you want to win. Bet who you think is going to win. Too many bet with their emotions. That's usually a grave mistake.