A Sad Farwell to Russia

[Muzh]

Yeah, like I said, they are all corrupt but the idea of the wealthy getting mad at Yanu trying to clean up some of the corruption puts things in perspective for me. 


I just couldn't get past that a demonstration could pull off what they did.  Even if I believed the west was involved it still didn't fully make sense.  The spider sense was tingling.


The demonstration and the wealthy fighting in the background put things in place for me.  Now that made sense to me.  If we all agree that Russian and the western countries interest is financial, then the idea that the wealthy were trying to protect their illegal monies isn't outside the realm of possibilities.

Hold it!!
 
I never agreed that Yanukoncit was "cleaning" Ukraine of corruption. It was more like eliminating the competition. And the competition fought back. Plain and simple.

[Muzh]

Like I said to Muzh, it put a lot of things in perspective for me. 


The whole idea a demonstration could overthrow the government seemed ridiculous even if there was some backing from the west.


Now add some of the wealthy working in the background, well, it does make more sense to me.  It was obvious why Russia and the west was interested, I don't see why we can't follow the money back to the wealthy wanting to keep their cashola.

Back on track!!

[LiveFromUkraine]

Hold it!!
 
I never agreed that Yanukoncit was "cleaning" Ukraine of corruption. It was more like eliminating the competition. And the competition fought back. Plain and simple.

haha My bad for misunderstanding your position.  It wouldn't surprise me if there was a little bit of both going on there.

[Maxx2]

Like I said to Muzh, it put a lot of things in perspective for me. 


The whole idea a demonstration could overthrow the government seemed ridiculous even if there was some backing from the west.

The snipers and the guys wielding baseball bats going into government offices helped with the overthrow. I can understand Ukrainian military leaders standing down so as not to be caught on the wrong side. The West got 96% of Ukraine and Russia got the other 4%. 

[LiveFromUkraine]

The snipers and the guys wielding baseball bats going into government offices helped with the overthrow. I can understand Ukrainian military leaders standing down so as not to be caught on the wrong side. The West got 96% of Ukraine and Russia got the other 4%.

I thought the snipers were shooting at the "peaceful" demonstrators?

[Maxx2]

I thought the snipers were shooting at the "peaceful" demonstrators?

Think provocateurs and "false flag."

[Anotherkiwi]

jone-

The math I rely heavily on tells me these 2 things. 328 is exactly 10 less than 338. 338 represents the three-fourths majority in Ukraine's parliament, thus 328 falls short of it.

Which math do you rely on?

I know this may be thought of as semantics, but where do you (and others) get this figure of 338 as the three-fourths majority?  There are 447 members of the Rada, not 451, so 75% is actually 335.25 (or 336 for simplicity's sake).

LFU...
My observation before, regarding the ouster of Yanu, was that the Rada, and most of the world, thought they had gotten it right.  Did you know that there were a number of Rada members who chose not to participate, so were stipulated as not part of the Rada?  I heard that from a friend of mine but have yet to investigate.  (Have better things to do with my time.)  You are hanging the ouster of Yanu as being legal on a technicality.  Yet you constantly refer to the 'Illegal' ouster.  The guy and most of his minions were run out of town.  By his own party.  You keep on ignoring that simple fact.  Not duress.  Not contrived.  They kicked him out.  You are ignoring the elephant in the room and that makes your arguments specious.

Should this actually be the case then, if ten or more members "were stipulated as not part of the Rada," 328 votes would be enough to pass the motion (as 328 is 75% of 437.33).  If it's anything like our Parliament, the Speaker is out of the equation unless a casting vote is required (highly unlikely).  If others have been granted leave of absence (e.g. illness) they would presumably be included in the stipulated parties.  With such a large number of members it's not hard to imagine that at least 10 are going to be legitimately absent for any session (heck, our Parliament is lucky if it has half its members present in the House  ).

Another thing I find very hard to accept is so many people banging on about the unconstitutional nature of the "new" Parliament after the vote to remove Yanukovych.  WHAT new Parliament?  There haven't been any elections, and the duly elected representatives are the same ones who were there two or three months ago (minus, of course, those who fled the country with Yanukovych).  Why should (or how could) an unchanged Parliament suddenly become illegal?

[Gator]

I know this may be thought of as semantics, but where do you (and others) get this figure of 338 as the three-fourths majority?  There are 447 members of the Rada, not 451, so 75% is actually 335.25 (or 336 for simplicity's sake).

How is the number 447 affected if the votes from Crimea are not included in the nation's popular vote?   Is the total number of seats less than 447 because there are fewer voters?  If unchanged at 447, are the seats apportioned differently with the pro-Russia parties receiving fewer seats because their total vote is reduced when the votes from Crimea are subtracted?

[Anotherkiwi]

How is the number 447 affected if the votes from Crimea are not included in the nation's popular vote?   Is the total number of seats less than 447 because there are fewer voters?  If unchanged at 447, are the seats apportioned differently with the pro-Russia parties receiving fewer seats because their total vote is reduced when the votes from Crimea are subtracted?

There are 225 constituencies for 35.8 million voters, although the turnout in 2012 was only 58% overall.  Crimea holds about 4.5% of the Ukrainian population, and has/had 10 constituency seats in the Rada.  Some or all of the elected Crimean representatives would no longer be there because they've defected to Russia, and of course it's possible that one or more parties may not now meet the 5% minimum threshold of votes to be represented. 

Footnote:  I should clarify my earlier post - although there are 447 members at present, there are actually 450 seats.  However, the return to the 2004 Constitution was voted upon unanimously by those present: 386-0.

[ghost of moon goddess]

Another thing I find very hard to accept is so many people banging on about the unconstitutional nature of the "new" Parliament after the vote to remove Yanukovych.  WHAT new Parliament?  There haven't been any elections, and the duly elected representatives are the same ones who were there two or three months ago (minus, of course, those who fled the country with Yanukovych).  Why should (or how could) an unchanged Parliament suddenly become illegal?

''...You know Russia’s position – nobody has deprived Yanukovych of power. He hasn’t been impeached and he hasn’t resigned on his own free will. He’s alive, so he is the president and this is why we don’t recognise the legitimacy of some of the current authorities, at any rate the government and the acting president. However, we do realise that Ukraine has a legitimate parliament''
Russian Prime Minister D. Medvedev
http://government.ru/en/news/12509

[Anotherkiwi]

''...You know Russia’s position – nobody has deprived Yanukovych of power. He hasn’t been impeached and he hasn’t resigned on his own free will. He’s alive, so he is the president and this is why we don’t recognise the legitimacy of some of the current authorities, at any rate the government and the acting president. However, we do realise that Ukraine has a legitimate parliament''
Russian Prime Minister D. Medvedev
http://government.ru/en/news/12509

Thank you to my favourite Ghost  .  Nice to know that Russia recognises the legitimacy of the Ukrainian Parliament, even if various members of this forum do not!

[LiveFromUkraine]

Thank you to my favourite Ghost  .  Nice to know that Russia recognises the legitimacy of the Ukrainian Parliament, even if various members of this forum do not!

I have yet to see anyone question the legitimacy of Ukrainian Parliament.  Please post a link.  I forget I'm talking to a guy who doesn't think the President is part of the government. 


What I have read, from various members (myself included), was the same points Ghost Goddess posted.

[Faux Pas]

I have yet to see anyone question the legitimacy of Ukrainian Parliament.  Please post a link.  I forget I'm talking to a guy who doesn't think the President is part of the government. 


What I have read, from various members (myself included), was the same points Ghost Goddess posted.

You seem to believe those same points of Medvedev she posted. I'm not so sure Ghost does. I would tend to agree with her. Medvedev is only carrying Putin's water. You don't expect he would state anything contrary do you?

[LiveFromUkraine]

You seem to believe those same points of Medvedev she posted. I'm not so sure Ghost does. I would tend to agree with her. Medvedev is only carrying Putin's water. You don't expect he would state anything contrary do you?

Indeed FP and I never intended to make it sound like Ghost's post was her own thoughts on that matter .  Regardless if Mevdev actually believes what he said, I do think his quote on the situation in Kiev is correct.  Everything I have read has led me to those conclusions.


I don't happen to agree with how Putin handled things or think Putin is always telling the truth, however. 

[Faux Pas]

Indeed FP and I never intended to make it sound like Ghost's post was her own thoughts on that matter .  Regardless if Mevdev actually believes what he said, I do think his quote on the situation in Kiev is correct.  Everything I have read has led me to those conclusions.


I don't happen to agree with how Putin handled things or think Putin is always telling the truth, however.

Med is not in a position to state what he might or might not "really" think. He barely was if then when he was president. IMHO, Russia was headed and in a much better place then, than where they are right now. LFU, I realize you've lived in UA and your perspective as an American is a valuable one but, that wouldn't make you an expert on the Russian line of thought. I have a difficult time understanding how you position yourself so squarely with Putin's POV, given your experience.

I have no dog in this fight other than I've married a Russian and travel there often. I hear my wife's concerns along with her family's (which are both sides of the issue). Perhaps it's easier for me to see and understand the manipulation of Putin because I see it so pervasive in the lives everyday Russians. Everybody in the Putin machine is going to march lockstep and mimic what he dictates

[Faux Pas]

Whether or not the UA president is legit is really a moot point. The Parliament is legit and it's the only government UA currently has until they can correct the situation. It's much like the status of Crimea. Putin's annexation of it was illegal but, Crimea is now part of Russia. Like it or not, that is the state of the matter now. Knowwhaddameen?

[LiveFromUkraine]

Med is not in a position to state what he might or might not "really" think. He barely was if then when he was president. IMHO, Russia was headed and in a much better place then, than where they are right now. LFU, I realize you've lived in UA and your perspective as an American is a valuable one but, that wouldn't make you an expert on the Russian line of thought. I have a difficult time understanding how you position yourself so squarely with Putin's POV, given your experience.

I have no dog in this fight other than I've married a Russian and travel there often. I hear my wife's concerns along with her family's (which are both sides of the issue). Perhaps it's easier for me to see and understand the manipulation of Putin because I see it so pervasive in the lives everyday Russians. Everybody in the Putin machine is going to march lockstep and mimic what he dictates

Actually, FP, I never said I was an expert on Russia or Ukraine for that matter.


I agree that Russia was heading to a better place by being a part of the world community.  They screwed the pooch as they say and have now isolated themselves much more.  The typical game the US plays also deserves blame in that regards but Russia should have been smarter.  Maybe Crimea was too important to care.

We will see if Russia gets away with Crimea without any long term ramifications.


I really don't know why my view is hard to understand.  Read the Ukraine constitution and read what happened in Kiev.  I think it is pretty easy to see how things were done was illegal based on their constitution.  If we are talking democracy, then shouldn't the laws be followed to the letter?


I think the actions in Kiev has led to the chaos that we now see.  I understand you and others think the whole blame lies on Putin.  I do think he has his hands in the pot, but I still think the chaos would have still happened even if he wasn't involved. 

As for Putin's manipulation, I don't see it being any different to what we have here.  You think the US causing chaos in other countries (Ukraine included) in the form of "democracy" is being any less manipulative than what Putin is doing?


I just believe every country is out for their best interests no matter what they say.  Either by sending troops or by funding coups, it's all the same.  They both undermine democracy.

Whether or not the UA president is legit is really a moot point. The Parliament is legit and it's the only government UA currently has until they can correct the situation. It's much like the status of Crimea. Putin's annexation of it was illegal but, Crimea is now part of Russia. Like it or not, that is the state of the matter now. Knowwhaddameen?

Is the parliament legit if they break the law?  But yes, like you said, it is done now like it or not.  I just enjoy riling up the Anti-Putins on this forum. 

Sad to say but I don't see the elections stopping the fighting in the east.

[Faux Pas]

Actually, FP, I never said I was an expert on Russia or Ukraine for that matter.

No you haven't. Those are my words, not yours and I based that on the authority of which you seem to speak. I agree with you a lot here hence my pecking around your statements. Except, words from Med or Putin are only what is politically expedient to Putin's cause. Russians and specifically Putin don't give one rats ass about UA or her Constitution. If he did he wouldn't have fomented the civil unrest and invaded Crimea. You can't overlook this aspect . Ukrainians governing outside of their constitution is not Putin's business. Whenever you say that Putin's position is correct, consider that.

I really don't know why my view is hard to understand.  Read the Ukraine constitution and read what happened in Kiev.  I think it is pretty easy to see how things were done was illegal based on their constitution.  If we are talking democracy, then shouldn't the laws be followed to the letter?


I think the actions in Kiev has led to the chaos that we now see.  I understand you and others think the whole blame lies on Putin.  I do think he has his hands in the pot, but I still think the chaos would have still happened even if he wasn't involved. 

As for Putin's manipulation, I don't see it being any different to what we have here.  You think the US causing chaos in other countries (Ukraine included) in the form of "democracy" is being any less manipulative than what Putin is doing?

I've had this conversation with a friend of ours who is also Ukrainian woman from Mariupol (sp), Quite intelligent and up to date on the events. According to her the Ukrainian constitution was based on corruption and written by corrupt politicians to insure the corruption continued. She's very pro Ukrainian  and corruption is her main issue which according to her is a "Ukrainian problem". Not Russia or the West. I can't argue that logic, can you?

I just believe every country is out for their best interests no matter what they say.  Either by sending troops or by funding coups, it's all the same.  They both undermine democracy.

Sure they are. Why wouldn't they be? It's the lengths they go however that is the difference. Financing for influence and invading are not equal measures. I hate that the U.S. finds this an acceptable practice but we, as well as most every other country has been doing it since civilization. I've no doubt in my mind the U.S. involvement is nothing more than a measure from Obama to show Putin that he can cause him problems and Putin took it to another level. I believe it is that simple and Ukraine is the pawn.

[LiveFromUkraine]

No you haven't. Those are my words, not yours and I based that on the authority of which you seem to speak. I agree with you a lot here hence my pecking around your statements. Except, words from Med or Putin are only what is politically expedient to Putin's cause. Russians and specifically Putin don't give one rats ass about UA or her Constitution. If he did he wouldn't have fomented the civil unrest and invaded Crimea. You can't overlook this aspect . Ukrainians governing outside of their constitution is not Putin's business. Whenever you say that Putin's position is correct, consider that.

Nah, man, I am no expert.  That is why I like to read Bo's posts on Ukraine.  I would say if anyone was, on these forums, she would be the one.


I just type and speak directly which may seem like I am speaking as an authority. I am hardly an authority.  When I mention I lived there, I typically do it to show I have ties to the country.  Some posters are taking these discussions to an emotional level or try to discount the opinions of others based on experience.    I have both an emotional tie and experience there which is why I sometimes point it out.  I may not agree with posters but I certainly think they should post their opinions.  Maybe I will learn something.


Of course Putin used it to his advantage.  Like I said, I don't expect any country to do something because it's the right thing to do. 


Yanu should have taken the illegal ousting to the court systems instead of going to Putin.   I don't blame him for leaving as I would have felt my life was in jeopardy as well. 


I don't think Yanu was Putin's puppet.  Maybe that is where some disagreements are coming from as well.

I've had this conversation with a friend of ours who is also Ukrainian woman from Mariupol (sp), Quite intelligent and up to date on the events. According to her the Ukrainian constitution was based on corruption and written by corrupt politicians to insure the corruption continued. She's very pro Ukrainian  and corruption is her main issue which according to her is a "Ukrainian problem". Not Russia or the West. I can argue that logic, can you?

I say you have to start somewhere. 


You know full well our laws are influenced by lobbyists.  I would hazard to say that is corruption as well.  I don't think stamping out corruption 100% is ever feasible.  You just do the best you can with what you have.  That doesn't mean you stop following the laws in place otherwise you have warfare and chaos that we are seeing in Ukraine.


We, as Americans, are basically voting for the same candidates now.  I don't see Dem'ss and Rep's being much different on the big issues outside of taxes and social expenditures.  Everything else is the same and lucky us we get to vote for one or the other.  The media will black out any other candidate.  Hopefully we can figure out a way to change that but for the time being we are stuck, imo. 


We all have our crosses to bare.

Sure they are. Why wouldn't they be? It's the lengths they go however that is the difference. Financing for influence and invading are not equal measures. I hate that the U.S. finds this an acceptable practice but we, as well as most every other country has been doing it since civilization. I've no doubt in my mind the U.S. involvement is nothing more than a measure from Obama to show Putin that he can cause him problems and Putin took it to another level. I believe it is that simple and Ukraine is the pawn.

I could see your point if the financing didn't lead to violence.


 I agree that Ukraine is now a pawn between Russia and the West.  Too bad, because the people are awesome and deserve much better.


I think Obama got the better end of this deal by a long shot. 


Anyway, great day out and a long weekend.  Got to fire up the BBQ.  Have a good weekend FP and everyone else.  Even the Obamanites. 

[BillyB]

I agree that Russia was heading to a better place by being a part of the world community.  They screwed the pooch as they say and have now isolated themselves much more.  The typical game the US plays also deserves blame in that regards but Russia should have been smarter. 

A girl I once dated did something I didn't like. I didn't call her anymore and she asked me "What is this game you're playing?". I told her it's not a game. Never called her again. Hopefully Obama learned his lesson and future American presidents don't get too cozy with Putin again.

I just enjoy riling up the Anti-Putins on this forum.  [/font]

Earning a reputation as being sympathetic to Yanukovych, repeating yourself like a broken record and pissing people off sound like a good thing to do? As much as Yanukovych sh!t on Ukraine, it's interesting to read more people on the internet backing him than east Ukrainians who actually live there. Most east Ukrainians are ashamed to have voted for Yanukovych.

I think the actions in Kiev has led to the chaos that we now see.

So it's the fault of people who are against an inept and corrupt government led by Putin's puppet? An American president would get shot before the American people would allow him to drive the economy to those levels of Ukraine's. If people around the world would stand up more often and hold their government to higher standards, they would get better results. When a leader uses the constitution against the people instead of for the people, the people have the right to take matters in their own hands.


Regardless if you think the interim government is illegitimate based off an illegal coup, they had no plans in staying in power forever. They are not Nazis as Putin claims in order to stir up anger and a civil war. Instead of fighting so hard for Yanukovych to get his job back on the internet, your energy would've been best served if you encouraged the east Ukrainians to speak their minds at the ballot.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Billy, you accuse me of constantly repeating myself yet I haven't seen any recent post from you that you haven't said over and over again.  Why not follow your own advice?  Or are you like Obama, do as I say not as I do?

[Gylden]

The general nature of a revolution is not all that "legal".
 
I don't think the Boston Tea Party was legal nor the ensuing American revolution, nor was the Febuary Revolution.

[BillyB]

I don't think the Boston Tea Party was legal nor the ensuing American revolution, nor was the Febuary Revolution.

Even more recently, the Arab Spring Revolutions.

The general nature of a revolution is not all that "legal".
 

True, but people vote in good faith that the leader of the nation has their best interest in mind. When those leaders fail at their job, they usually refuse to step aside and let someone else have a shot at the job. Get enough people angry at the government, then revolution happens. I don't see these events as good or evil even if it's against the law. The government has to work for the people, not the other way around. Usually it's the corrupt governments on the edge of getting ousted who cry revolutions are illegal. It's best they step aside, hold new elections, and save lives and their country from a civil war.


With the possibility that a revolution can happen in any nation, it puts pressure on government officials to perform or get ousted. Take revolution out of the equation, governments have less incentive to perform for the people.


If it were a few people upset with the government, I would dismiss their grievances, but when a majority is not happy with a government, then there are valid reasons to change governments. A nation living in poverty under a corrupt government is a worse crime than revolution. You can be sure the next Ukrainian president has on his mind he better do a good job than the last guy. He may have to pay for mistakes with his life.

[Chicagoguy]

Maybe I missed this but I want to complain about the terrible overload of propaganda in Russia itself. One of my best friends is Russian but now lives here and he has two TV's going all the time. One Russian and one CNN.  He claims that the Russian station blames the US all day long. My wife has been back there now for 1 month now and she takes this hook, line and sinker. I try not to argue any longer as it gets me nowhere. She does have sister in Kiev and Aunt somewhere else plus cousins in Crimea. I said they should know more than me - I hope.

But what will the lasting impressions the Russians will have of US after the dust settles ?

[Anotherkiwi]

Maybe I missed this but I want to complain about the terrible overload of propaganda in Russia itself. One of my best friends is Russian but now lives here and he has two TV's going all the time. One Russian and one CNN.  He claims that the Russian station blames the US all day long. My wife has been back there now for 1 month now and she takes this hook, line and sinker. I try not to argue any longer as it gets me nowhere. She does have sister in Kiev and Aunt somewhere else plus cousins in Crimea. I said they should know more than me - I hope.

But what will the lasting impressions the Russians will have of US after the dust settles ?

More to the point, I wonder how this total variance between the two countries' reporting will affect relationships.  I don't think that it would be too much of a stretch to guess that some marriages will go under, simply because of what the wives will choose to believe after what they see on Russian TV (through cable or satellite) or from what they have been told by their family back home.