My view of the war

[fathertime]

The West's stance regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has even greater implications.  Namely, any country that does not now have nuclear weapons is prompted to obtain them as a defensive deterrent if one of its neighbors has nukes. 

well Gator, I don't think this is a new idea, aside from the 'neighbor' part.  One thing that has become clearer through this conflict is that the USA is not likely to intervene militarily if the country they are opposing is armed with Nukes, which is also not a new idea....all of this will provide greater incentive for countries to obtain a nuke, as US military intervention has become so commonplace. 


Fathertime!   

[Drew]

The West's stance regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has even greater implications.  Namely, any country that does not now have nuclear weapons is prompted to obtain them as a defensive deterrent if one of its neighbors has nukes. 

The world going MAD as in Mutual Assured Destruction

Completely true, and I think Igor alluded to  this in his postings, perhaps using different words.

As others have said more eloquently, it is surprising politicians and citizens around the world are merely standing by watching events unfold the same as they did prior to WWII. 

Another idea I have heard over the decades is that certain peoples only understand showings of strength and offense. 

Show weakness or even caution; and they take even more aggressive actions against you.

Yes, I understand that by not 'sticking our nose' in here we are saving USA lives in the short run.  But won't it cost us 10 or 100 times more lives down the road?

[lordtiberius]

So only Russia has violated the agreement.

No.  The US-UK have violated the agreement.  The treaty bound them to giving Ukraine security guarantees. 

[Drew]

You are wrong.  In the treaty the USA did not give open end  security guarantees to Ukraine.

We only said two things.  We would not attack Ukraine and we would come to defense of Ukraine if it were attacked by nuclear weapons.

Read the agreement again if you need to.

[GQBlues]

That's a lie. They did not ban it and had no plans like that whatsoever.
This is what happened. In 2012 they adopted a law that envisaged more rights for communities to use a local language. It was not only Russian. It could be Hungarian or Romanian. In February there was an ATTEMPT to cancel that law. The attempt failed: Turchinov quickly vetoed it. To call it an attempt to ban the Russian language is incorrect. I am not sure about the quote of Poroshenko, it might be bad translation or he said something stupid, but this does not influence what actually happened.

You can laugh all you want, but the Rada did not ban the Russian language.  No matter how many times you state otherwise, it won't make it a fact. 

Technically, what occurred was the law introduced in 2012, "On the Principles of State Language Policy", which would have given the Russian language regional language status in 13 administrative territories in Ukraine, was declared void.  The effect of that was that on the state level, Ukrainian remained the language of Ukraine....

Maybe you and Strlitz need to read other medium than just KyivPost. 

...The decision of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine on deprivation the Russian language regional status, adopted in February at the first meeting after the flight of Viktor Yanukovych, was a mistake. The decision was not approved by the acting President Turchynov, but the intention of the legislators caused a huge resonance. "I have always said and I repeat today that the Verkhovna Rada decision on deprivation the Russian language regional status was a mistake. During my election campaign I have repeatedly emphasized that never such a law will not get my approval.  I hope that never in the history of Ukraine the issue of language or culture will not endanger the very national unity".

This statement in an interview published today by the French newspaper Figaro, was expressed by the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko.

>>But the intention of the legislators caused a HUGE resonance<< is damned right. Add to that the toppling of Lenin's statues, the repulsion of the communist party, etc...

Exactly what message was Svodoba Party Kiev sending to ethnic Russians of Ukraine?

So, you guys either have a beef to settle with Poroshenko because he's wrong, or both you and Strlitz are wrong. There can only be ONE right. That's usually me, but in this case I'll toss the laurels over to the chocolate dude.

Especially when he added...

"We are well aware that we never fail to return these regions by military action. We should be out there fighting for the hearts and minds of people". We have absolutely no objection to the use of Russian as the official language, " he stressed. - We are also ready to implement advanced decentralization. We are ready to pay from the state of repair of all the buildings damaged during the conflict. We are ready to immediately start the recovery infrastructures Eastern regions and to invest in industry".

[BillyB]

One thing that has become clearer through this conflict is that the USA is not likely to intervene militarily if the country they are opposing is armed with Nukes,

It's Obama that is showing weakness. The USA traditionally has confronted nuclear armed USSR everywhere in the world supporting groups and nations with weapons to use against them. Bad boys need to be put in their place otherwise things get out of hand.


Angela Merkel is calling for sanctions immediately. The peace plans haven't made any progress. Did anybody expect anything different? Putin is just stalling. I expect Putin to come up with some weird retaliation in addition to increased violence.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/germany-sanctions-russia_n_5796560.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[Boethius]

I would have to see the text of the Ukrainian interview.  But the unfolding of the legislation is as we described it.


The legislation also caused a "huge resonance" when it was introduced by the Party of Regions.  It went through several amendments, and was still convoluted and complex, because of all the objections to it.  It caused a "huge resonance" in each of those stages as well, but it was pushed through by the party in power, and had enough amendments that coalition partners were willing to back it.  So, really, what occurred was not surprising, and you really are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[fathertime]

It's Obama that is showing weakness. The USA traditionally has confronted nuclear armed USSR everywhere in the world supporting groups and nations with weapons to use against them. Bad boys need to be put in their place otherwise things get out of hand.


Angela Merkel is calling for sanctions immediately. The peace plans haven't made any progress. Did anybody expect anything different? Putin is just stalling. I expect Putin to come up with some weird retaliation in addition to increased violence.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/germany-sanctions-russia_n_5796560.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

That is true, there have been cases where the USA confronted Russia....In this particular case and with this particular Russian leader, I'm convinced it will require a much wider war and given what Russia is vying for, I don't see it as worth it for us to get involved. This is too near and dear to them for them to fold up.     If Russia retains influence in parts of Eastern Ukraine, that is not going to be THAT big a deal for us.  Sure, slap some sanctions on them, and let them battle it out...as long as we stay out of it the escalation shouldn't be too drastic.


Fathertime!       

[Belvis]

No, toppled statues were not the reason for the conflict, which was instigated by the Russian FSB and their paid proxies.

Certainly, FSB is not so powerful to instigate civil wars. The ground for conflict was nourished by history trailing back to  SU times.  Former Czech president Vaclav Klaus wrote an extensive essay where he tried to expose the reasons of current conflict. His point of view is not too popular among European politicians but it seems they keep in mind some of his statements.
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3553
Short extract:

The cacophony of commentaries and statements to recent Ukrainian developments misses the point that the first and foremost contribution to the current dramatic situation there is the obvious political, economic and social failure of Ukraine as an independent state.
....
A large part of the European political mainstream (although much less in Germany and even less in the south of the EU) tries, together with the United States, to turn Russia into a “bogey man”  in the East, something that is in the American strategic interest. Ukraine is only a tool in that respect.

[Stirlitz]

Maybe you and Strlitz need to read other medium than just KyivPost.

Maybe you need to learn to read? I have explained before what happened. I did not read it in KyivPost. Please re-read my post.
I speak only Russian and live in Ukraine. For some reason I am interested in this issue and for some reason I know something about it. Do you think you know better?
Russian has not been banned in Ukriane and there have been no attempts to do so.

You are full of shit.

[Anotherkiwi]

...Former Czech president Vaclav Klaus wrote an extensive essay where he tried to expose the reasons of current conflict. His point of view is not too popular among European politicians but it seems they keep in mind some of his statements.
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3553
Short extract:

The cacophony of commentaries and statements to recent Ukrainian developments misses the point that the first and foremost contribution to the current dramatic situation there is the obvious political, economic and social failure of Ukraine as an independent state.

I don't think that too many people, even those who are rabidly pro-Ukrainian, would disagree in general terms with this assessment, harsh though it may be.  However, the departure of Yanukovych and the rise of Poroshenko, together with what seems to be a genuine attempt to address so much of what has gone wrong before, gives at least some hope of a dramatic shift in future policies.

I take Africa as a prime example of what independence means, and how the pace of change can vary wildly from one area to another.  Most of the African colonies became independent in the 1960s - the results range from Congo still being pretty much a "no-go" zone for foreigners to Botswana being acknowledged as the safest country on the continent (even though it borders South Africa and Angola).  Even Rwanda has emerged from the genocide of 20 years ago to now have a healthy economy, although the government still takes too close an interest in the media.

If the intent in Ukraine is to make a complete break with the past, as seems likely, then they may just pull off the miracle that is needed to stay afloat.  The separatists and the Russians, however, seem to be doing their best to destroy any hope of this happening, and then have the nerve to wag their fingers at Kyiv and say that this war is all the fault of the Ukrainian government (and the USA, and the EU...).

A large part of the European political mainstream (although much less in Germany and even less in the south of the EU) tries, together with the United States, to turn Russia into a “bogey man”  in the East, something that is in the American strategic interest. Ukraine is only a tool in that respect.

I agree with this, except that, unlike Mr Klaus, I believe that current events justify this view.  However, I can't see how this is in America's strategic interests at the moment, because nobody in the world is coming to Ukraine's aid.

[fathertime]

Certainly, FSB is not so powerful to instigate civil wars. The ground for conflict was nourished by history trailing back to  SU times.  Former Czech president Vaclav Klaus wrote an extensive essay where he tried to expose the reasons of current conflict. His point of view is not too popular among European politicians but it seems they keep in mind some of his statements.
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3553
Short extract:

Thanks for providing that link Belvis, there is some interesting observations I agree with within it.Among the link's commentary,it states that 1/3 of the Ukrainian population is actually Russian.  That is a large figure.


LINK exerpts:- has millions of Russians living in it (more than one third of its population) and has to find some sort of a modus vivendi with Russia and confirm it again and again.
[/color]This repeatedly surfacing crisis has been chosen as a pretext to bring about a new confrontation between the West and Russia, by all those who have a reason to despise Russia. These people have known full well that destabilization of an important (largest and most populous) neighbor is something that Russia cannot accept easily.
[/color]- that is why they have steered the existing dissatisfaction more and more towards Russia
[/color]- that is why they have backed the arguments coming from western Ukraine
[/color]- that is why they have fostered the conflict between western and eastern Ukraine, something that to a large extent amounts to a conflict between Ukrainians and Russians
[/color]- that is why they have misinterpreted real economic relations between Ukraine and Russia
[/color]- that is why they have painted the picture of Russia as an expanding superpower that is anxiously waiting for an opportunity to occupy Ukraine.

[Muzh]

Back to the war.  This is not my view, but that of Russian soldiers.  You know, the ones many posters on the forums claim were never in Ukraine?


http://www.newsweek.com/2014/09/19/russian-soldiers-reveal-truth-behind-putins-secret-war-269227.html

LOL


You didn't click my link above, did you?

[Muzh]

Certainly, FSB is not so powerful to instigate civil wars.

Ah, but the CIA is, right?

[GQBlues]

Maybe you need to learn to read? I have explained before what happened. I did not read it in KyivPost. Please re-read my post.
I speak only Russian and live in Ukraine. For some reason I am interested in this issue and for some reason I know something about it. Do you think you know better?
Russian has not been banned in Ukriane and there have been no attempts to do so.

You are full of shit.

 

Which part of what YOUR president SAID you are having a difficult time understanding here dude?

Again - this time in BOLD:

...The decision of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine on deprivation the Russian language regional status, adopted in February at the first meeting after the flight of Viktor Yanukovych, was a mistake. The decision was not approved by the acting President Turchynov, but the intention of the legislators caused a huge resonance. "I have always said and I repeat today that the Verkhovna Rada decision on deprivation the Russian language regional status was a mistake. During my election campaign I have repeatedly emphasized that never such a law will not get my approval.  I hope that never in the history of Ukraine the issue of language or culture will not endanger the very national unity".


You can argue as much as what YOU THINK you KNOW but all I'm sharing with you is what YOUR Pressi mumbled about what you apparently DID NOT KNOW.

LMAO! Understand?

[GQBlues]

...
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3553

Ahoj! Mam sa dobre Vaclav! That's what I've been trying to tell the minions, but they're far too deep in the propaganda game!

Spasiba Belvis!

[lordtiberius]

I apologize Stirlitz.  Our culture is more tolerant of homosexuality than yours is.  I am sure in his house, we know who is riding and and who is driving.

[lordtiberius]

You are wrong.  In the treaty the USA did not give open end  security guarantees to Ukraine.

We only said two things.  We would not attack Ukraine and we would come to defense of Ukraine if it were attacked by nuclear weapons.

Read the agreement again if you need to.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

We failed.  You may defend current US policy.  I won't

[Stirlitz]

Which part of what YOUR president SAID you are having a difficult time understanding here dude?

Do you know the difference between a LAW and words of an official, even the president? Whatever he said and how well or poorly it was translated and interpreted, there are WRITTEN LAWS that are more important.
If you live by what your president SAYS and don't care what is in your laws, congratulations. Ukraine is different though.
And, where did you see the word BAN in your quote?

Russian has never been banned in Ukraine. Understand?

[Drew]

We failed.  You may defend current US policy.  I won't

Now you are completely changing your story.

Earlier you posted:  "The US-UK have violated the agreement.  The treaty bound them to giving Ukraine security guarantees. "

I pointed out to you that you were wrong in what you thought USA had agreed to.

Now you have changed to make me at fault for "defend current US policy."

I have stated in several other threads that I think the USA should do much more, even as we are not bound by any agreements to do such.

[GQBlues]

Do you know the difference between a LAW and words of an official, even the president?

Oh of course I do. Are you implying your president is a liar just like ours? LMAO!

Whatever he said and how well or poorly it was translated and interpreted, there are WRITTEN LAWS that are more important. If you live by what your president SAYS and don't care what is in your laws, congratulations. ...

How'bout a situation where a president doesn't care, nor lives by, what is in our laws? We have one of those right now...

Ukraine is different though.

Yes. The world already knows that.

...And, where did you see the word BAN in your quote?...

Well, like me, English is not your first tongue, so please allow me to introduce you to the word 'synonym'.

1. (of a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.
"fat people is often taken as synonymous with losers"

2. closely associated with or suggestive of something.
"his reliance to government assistance had made his name synonymous with bottom feeders"

So, now we can look for the word they used in the interview, *deprivation*.

1. 'the lack or denial of something considered to be a necessity.'
"fast food deprivation".

Examples of synonyms: dispossession, withholding, withdrawal, removal, divestment, expropriation, seizure, confiscation, and so yes - banning.

One more good example of a synonyms is this: Fat people are often associated with a *loser* mentality. Obese: really, really fat people are often called in our country as *total loser*.

Russian has never been banned in Ukraine. Understand?

Oh I understood it perfectly well but it is obvious you're the one who is clueless about what your own Parliament is doing or tried to do. Had they succeeded with what they wanted to do, and you can only speak Russian not Ukrainian, you would have been royally screwed, right? This new government is supposed to be what you wanted to have, so you better make sure you're aware of what it is they're doing from here on in.

[Shadow]

Russian was never banned in Ukraine and the Kim was always having the option to choose to be part of Russia. Let´s agree on that?

[Stirlitz]

Oh of course I do.

It's very difficult to argue with an idiot becausehe will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. So I am not going to. People like that can prove that we live on the inner surface of the planet.
A lot of words can be said but the bottom line is:
Russian has never been banned in Ukraine. Nor have there been persecutions or oppressions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Whatever laws were adopted, canceled or drafted there, whatever an official said. I guess that’s enough to say.
As for possible deprivation of local languages their status, we had lived without this law until 2012 when it was adopted and were free to use Russian to any extent. The only difference is ads must have translation into Ukrainian (normally in small print) and if I sent a letter to the authorities in Russian, they answer me in Ukrainian. Nothing changed when the law was adopted. I guess nothing would have changed if it had been canceled. It was not canceled, so nothing changed literally. Much ado about nothing. And too much lies.

[GQBlues]

I would have to see the text of the Ukrainian interview.  But the unfolding of the legislation is as we described it.


The legislation also caused a "huge resonance" when it was introduced by the Party of Regions.  It went through several amendments, and was still convoluted and complex, because of all the objections to it.  It caused a "huge resonance" in each of those stages as well, but it was pushed through by the party in power, and had enough amendments that coalition partners were willing to back it.  So, really, what occurred was not surprising, and you really are making a mountain out of a molehill.

It was a French interview, LOL. And the key word used was *adopted*. The Rada *adopted*...

>>The decision of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine on deprivation the Russian language regional status, adopted in February at the first meeting after the flight of Viktor Yanukovych, was a mistake. ...<<

Hence, my use of the word *threat* from the genesis of this particular discussion. The *adoption* of such a legislation was FWIW, a direct threat to the *deprivation, removal, ban,* etc.. (or whatever other words you'd like to use) and was in violation of, the ethnic minority and of the 1997 Friendship Treaty. You can go back upthread and re-read everything if you're uncertain about any of this.

IINM, and solely based on that presidential quoted statement, apparently a decision was already made by the Parliament and only the ensuing approval of the presiding president was the only thing keeping it from becoming *law*. Fortunately, the acting president vetoed it otherwise Strlitz would be in a Ukrainian language learning school by now.

I wasn't the one interviewed by Figaro so I was not the one who made the statement. I merely shared and conveyed it to the board within the stream of a discussion. What you're saying here is that Ukraine's newly elected president, the chocolate dude, is making a *mountain out of a mole hill* for whatever reason when he expressed his sentiment about what apparently occurred in  the Rada soon after Yanukovich's illegal ousting that neither you or Strlitz were even aware of..

That's really all there is. Agree?

[sleepycat]

Russian was never banned in Ukraine and the Kim Siberia was always having the option to choose to be part of Russia China. Let´s agree on that?