Arming the Ukrainians

[ad_orientem]

The reason it did this was because there were people murdering pro-Russian demonstrators in Ukraine following the insurrection in Kiev. They even attempted to assassinate Yanukovych. Why should Russia 'respect Ukraine's borders' as per the Budapest Memorandum if the democratically elected government is violently forced out?
The Memorandum was not a license for Ukrainians to terrorise the Russian minority - they nullified the agreement.

[jeremyp]

The reason it did this was because there were people murdering pro-Russian demonstrators in Ukraine following the insurrection in Kiev. They even attempted to assassinate Yanukovych. Why should Russia 'respect Ukraine's borders' as per the Budapest Memorandum if the democratically elected government is violently forced out?
The Memorandum was not a license for Ukrainians to terrorise the Russian minority - they nullified the agreement.

What are you talking about? Democratically elected governments are often forced out by elections. Zelenskyy is there because he was democratically elected.

There is no justification tfor the wholesale slaughter that Russia is perpetrating in Ukraine now. People on mainstream Russian TV are openly suggesting that Ukraine needs to be erased from the face of the Earth.

Nothing that Ukraine might have done in the past justifies what Russia is doing to it. Nothing.

[Spud]

What are you talking about? Democratically elected governments are often forced out by elections. Zelenskyy is there because he was democratically elected.

In 2014 the Ukraine parliament voted on whether to impeach Yanukovych, according to he himself on the Oliver Stone documentary. They needed 3/4 of MPs to vote yes for it to go through, and they got less than that. Fearing for his life he had to leave his house secretly and flee to Russia; meanwhile what was thought to be his car leaving his house was fired on. A new government was formed and given the thumbs up by the US. So it was an insurrection, not a legitimate election. What had been peaceful demonstrations concerning the EU treaty prior to this, were turned into violent acts of murder by the Right Sector (iirc).

There is no justification tfor the wholesale slaughter that Russia is perpetrating in Ukraine now. People on mainstream Russian TV are openly suggesting that Ukraine needs to be erased from the face of the Earth.

Nothing that Ukraine might have done in the past justifies what Russia is doing to it. Nothing.

The point of what I have just described is that it only takes a spark to cause a forest fire, and this big war is the result of the above relatively small events. But the original aggressor was clearly the Ukrainian nationalists.

Secondly we cannot look at the current events only from outside Donbass and from the West's perspective. My initial argument here was that we shouldn't get involved because doing so would make Ukraine think it could win with our support (and, it seems no nearer to defeating Russia after 9 months, with hundreds of thousands dead or injured). But I was still hopeful for a Ukrainian victory, like everyone else.

But when they started making up stories of heroism and telling us they were defending Europe, that was the start of a new scepticism for me. Now we have the first public evidence of Ukrainian atrocities, executing prisoners. What else have they done that we don't know about because of censorship? You dismissed the witnesses on the RT documentary as actors. I'm inclined to believe them.

I'm not denying Russian war crimes may have occurred, but we now have to ask how much of what we have been told about the latter is true.

[ad_orientem]

Oh, it's definitely true, Russian war crimes, that is. Now, as for the incident of the Russian soldiers being shot, I've seen the video and this is my opinion as someone who has served in the army. What happened needs to be properly investigated but it was not necessarily a war crime on the part of the Ukrainians. We do definitely see a war crime in the video but on the part of the Russians, or at least the last one who comes out of the building who commits perfidy. This is something we trained quite often. They're very risky, nervy situations for both parties. A group of Russian soldiers apparently surrender. They come out of the building and are ordered to lie on the ground. They have not been searched yet. In the background there is a Ukrainian soldier with a machine gun trained on them. The last Russian soldier comes out and opens fire, a definite war crime called perfidy. Then the Ukrainian soldier with the machine gun opens fire in response. The video cuts off there. As I said, it needs to be investigated but that was not necessarily a war crime. It's very different to the summary executions by Russian soldiers of POW's and civilians which we have plenty of evidence for.

[Outrider]

In 2014 the Ukraine parliament voted on whether to impeach Yanukovych, according to he himself on the Oliver Stone documentary. They needed 3/4 of MPs to vote yes for it to go through, and they got less than that. Fearing for his life he had to leave his house secretly and flee to Russia; meanwhile what was thought to be his car leaving his house was fired on. A new government was formed and given the thumbs up by the US. So it was an insurrection, not a legitimate election. What had been peaceful demonstrations concerning the EU treaty prior to this, were turned into violent acts of murder by the Right Sector (iirc).

I'm not sure you understand what an 'insurrection' is. The duly elected parliament of Ukraine held a vote on whether to impeach a former president - he was already not in power, him still not being in power doesn't turn this into an 'insurrection'. Although he has claimed he was shot at as he left, that's not been independently verified so far as I'm aware. Yanykovych was elected on a mandate to foster ties with the EU, he actively campaigned on attempting to formally join, and then changed tack once he was in power, hence the widespread protests at his attempts to railroad Ukraine into Russian partnership.

And, really, Oliver Stone? Really?

The point of what I have just described is that it only takes a spark to cause a forest fire, and this big war is the result of the above relatively small events. But the original aggressor was clearly the Ukrainian nationalists.

No. The real aggressor has always been Russia - internal political disturbances, even if they escalate to violence, are not an invitation to neighbouring countries to annex territory.

Secondly we cannot look at the current events only from outside Donbass and from the West's perspective. My initial argument here was that we shouldn't get involved because doing so would make Ukraine think it could win with our support (and, it seems no nearer to defeating Russia after 9 months, with hundreds of thousands dead or injured).

We should get involved, because if we don't then millions of Ukrainians suddenly find themselves living in the rampant corruption of Russian systems, and Putin starts turning his eyes towards Finland, or Slovakia or one of the other former Communist satellite states that he wants to create a buffer around the indefensible Russian western plains.

But I was still hopeful for a Ukrainian victory, like everyone else.

You could have fooled me.

But when they started making up stories of heroism and telling us they were defending Europe, that was the start of a new scepticism for me.

You're skeptical that a country verging on the European/Asian border, defending against invasion from a predominantly Asian country that wants to see the retraction or dismantling of the majority European mutual defence organisations sees themselves as defending Europe, but you'll suck on the bullshit-teat of Russia Today like an addict mainlining heroin.

Now we have the first public evidence of Ukrainian atrocities, executing prisoners. What else have they done that we don't know about because of censorship?

We don't know, and if there are such crimes being committed they should indeed be investigated when it's safe to do so, and anyone guilty should be punished accordingly. I'll put good money on the fact that more Russians get found out for that than Ukrainians by the time it's all done.

You dismissed the witnesses on the RT documentary as actors. I'm inclined to believe them.

If you think RT is journalism, and not state-sponsored Russian propoganda, I can see why you'd make that mistake.

I'm not denying Russian war crimes may have occurred, but we now have to ask how much of what we have been told about the latter is true.

Yes we do. Just like we have to ask what's the military purpose of the mass attacks on civilian population centres and vital infrastructure from retreating Russian forces? Even if there are Ukrainian war crimes being committed, and it seems entirely plausible that there are, they still aren't on anything like the scale of the Russian infractions which aren't isolated or individual incidents, they are the explicit policy of the criminal invasion force.

O.

[jeremyp]

In 2014 the Ukraine parliament voted on whether to impeach Yanukovych, according to he himself on the Oliver Stone documentary. They needed 3/4 of MPs to vote yes for it to go through, and they got less than that. Fearing for his life he had to leave his house secretly and flee to Russia; meanwhile what was thought to be his car leaving his house was fired on. A new government was formed and given the thumbs up by the US. So it was an insurrection, not a legitimate election. What had been peaceful demonstrations concerning the EU treaty prior to this, were turned into violent acts of murder by the Right Sector (iirc).
The point of what I have just described is that it only takes a spark to cause a forest fire, and this big war is the result of the above relatively small events. But the original aggressor was clearly the Ukrainian nationalists.

Yanukovych was a corrupt Putin bootlicker who reneged on his election promises. He also tried to turn Ukraine into a one party state along the lines of Russia. He was a bad man.

Secondly we cannot look at the current events only from outside Donbass and from the West's perspective. My initial argument here was that we shouldn't get involved because doing so would make Ukraine think it could win with our support (and, it seems no nearer to defeating Russia after 9 months, with hundreds of thousands dead or injured). But I was still hopeful for a Ukrainian victory, like everyone else.

We had to help them. If we had sat by and done nothing, the Russians would now be genociding Ukrainians. Not only that, Russia would have learned the lesson that the West will let them take whatever territory they want.

But when they started making up stories of heroism and telling us they were defending Europe

They are defending Europe.

[Spud]

I'm not sure you understand what an 'insurrection' is. The duly elected parliament of Ukraine held a vote on whether to impeach a former president -

No that is not the case - he was not impeached. Instead they voted to dismiss him on the grounds that he "withdrew from performing the constitutional powers".

[Spud]

I'm not sure you understand what an 'insurrection' is. The duly elected parliament of Ukraine held a vote on whether to impeach a former president - he was already not in power, him still not being in power doesn't turn this into an 'insurrection'. Although he has claimed he was shot at as he left, that's not been independently verified so far as I'm aware.

If I understand it correctly, the vote did not succeed in impeaching him because over a quarter of them did not vote or were absent. Three quarters would have been needed. So, him being in Russia, they replaced him. It was unconstitutional and brought about by the Right Sector party refusing to put down their weapons or end their siege of government buildings unless he resigned. They violently forced him out of the country, from what I can tell. Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Yanykovych was elected on a mandate to foster ties with the EU, he actively campaigned on attempting to formally join, and then changed tack once he was in power, hence the widespread protests at his attempts to railroad Ukraine into Russian partnership.

He said in the interview that he changed tack because the IMF suggested they increase utility rates while keeping income at the same level. He decided Russian partnership was a better option.
Incidentally, Zelenski was elected on a mandate to make peace with Russia, (?) through implementing Minsk, but received death threats.

And, really, Oliver Stone? Really?

No. The real aggressor has always been Russia - internal political disturbances, even if they escalate to violence, are not an invitation to neighbouring countries to annex territory.

Russia is seeking to protect civilians in Donbass from Ukrainian shelling of them, since 2014. That's what some evacuees in Russia are saying.

Maybe taking over Crimea was pre-emptive, to defend those of its inhabitants who were loyal to Russia from an imminent threat from the nationalists, at the time.

We should get involved, because if we don't then millions of Ukrainians suddenly find themselves living in the rampant corruption of Russian systems, and Putin starts turning his eyes towards Finland, or Slovakia or one of the other former Communist satellite states that he wants to create a buffer around the indefensible Russian western plains.

Our involvement is escalating the war and costing hundreds of thousands of lives.

You could have fooled me.

You're skeptical that a country verging on the European/Asian border, defending against invasion from a predominantly Asian country that wants to see the retraction or dismantling of the majority European mutual defence organisations sees themselves as defending Europe, but you'll suck on the bullshit-teat of Russia Today like an addict mainlining heroin.

I don't agree that they are defending Europe. Putin may want NATO to pull back from Russia's borders, but it isn't about to attack NATO, as NATO is too powerful.

We don't know, and if there are such crimes being committed they should indeed be investigated when it's safe to do so, and anyone guilty should be punished accordingly. I'll put good money on the fact that more Russians get found out for that than Ukrainians by the time it's all done.

If you think RT is journalism, and not state-sponsored Russian propoganda, I can see why you'd make that mistake.

Yes we do. Just like we have to ask what's the military purpose of the mass attacks on civilian population centres and vital infrastructure from retreating Russian forces?

My guess is they are preparing for a winter offensive and reducing the Ukraineian military's ability to manoeuvre.

Even if there are Ukrainian war crimes being committed, and it seems entirely plausible that there are, they still aren't on anything like the scale of the Russian infractions which aren't isolated or individual incidents, they are the explicit policy of the criminal invasion force.

O.

I have read some convincing claims of Russian war crimes, yes. For Ukraine, setting up military equipment around civilian buildings seems the main issue.

[Udayana]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Removal_of_Yanukovych

On 21 February, President Yanukovych and parliament declared 22 and 23 February to be days of mourning "due to the loss of human life as a result of mass disturbances".^[210]

Parliament Chairman Volodymyr Rybak submitted his resignation in parliament on 22 February, citing illness.^[211] Yanukovych's whereabouts were unknown, despite media reports that he had flown to Kharkiv (according to the governor of Kharkiv Oblast at the time, Mykhailo Dobkin, Yanukovych was in Kharkiv that day^[71]). Oleksandr Turchynov said that most of the ministers had disappeared, including Interior Minister Zakharchenko, who was reported to have fled to Belarus.^[212]

In the afternoon, the Rada voted 328-0^[213] to remove Yanukovich from his post and to schedule a presidential election for 25 May.^[74][214] This vote did not follow the impeachment process specified by the Ukrainian Constitution, which would have involved formally charging Yanukovych with a crime, a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and a three-fourths majority vote—at least 338 votes in favor—in parliament. Instead, parliament declared that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and cited "circumstances of extreme urgency" as the reason for early elections.^[215] Lawmakers then elected opposition leader Oleksandr Turchynov to be the chairman of Parliament, acting president and prime minister of Ukraine; this decision also violated the Constitution, according to which the impeached President was to be succeeded by the Prime Minister Serhiy Arbuzov.^{[75][216][217]}

Turchynov claimed that Yanukovych had agreed to resign as president, but after consulting with advisers, he disavowed that and even pre-recorded a resignation statement.^[182] Yanukovych said he would not resign or leave the country and called parliament's decisions "illegal". He added, "The events witnessed by our country and the whole world are an example of a coup d'état", and compared them to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1930s.^[218]

[Outrider]

No that is not the case - he was not impeached. Instead they voted to dismiss him on the grounds that he "withdrew from performing the constitutional powers".

And is that within the defined powers of the Ukrainian parliament, as defined in their 'constition'? I think you'll find it is. So, again... where's the 'insurrection'?

O.

[Spud]

And is that within the defined powers of the Ukrainian parliament, as defined in their 'constition'? I think you'll find it is.

I haven't read all of the Ukrainian constitution just yet. Put it this way: Boris survived his no confidence vote, but people close to him pressured him to resign. Is that okay? Yes. What if members of an opposition party had surrounded 10 Downing Street and said they will not lay down their weapons nor lift a blockade of a single government building until Boris resigns? Then suppose Boris fled to France and the UK parliament continued without him. Is that ok or is it insurrection/coup/violent uprising?

So, again... where's the 'insurrection'?

O.

See 1:00:56 - 1:01:20 of Ukraine on Fire (O. Stone).

Or to put it another way: they charged him with withdrawing from his constitutional duties. Was it ok to force him to withdraw from them on threat of death and then say that "he withdrew from his duties", as if he did so under no physical compulsion?

[jeremyp]

I haven't read all of the Ukrainian constitution just yet. Put it this way: Boris survived his no confidence vote, but people close to him pressured him to resign. Is that okay? Yes. What if members of an opposition party had surrounded 10 Downing Street and said they will not lay down their weapons nor lift a blockade of a single government building until Boris resigns? Then suppose Boris fled to France and the UK parliament continued without him. Is that ok or is it insurrection/coup/violent uprising?

See 1:00:56 - 1:01:20 of Ukraine on Fire (O. Stone).

Or to put it another way: they charged him with withdrawing from his constitutional duties. Was it ok to force him to withdraw from them on threat of death and then say that "he withdrew from his duties", as if he did so under no physical compulsion?

I'm still failing to see how any of this justifies Russia's invasions. If the above hypothetical had happened to Boris, would it justify a French invasion and them systematically shelling all our infrastructure and murdering civilians?

[Outrider]

I haven't read all of the Ukrainian constitution just yet.

But the Ukrainian courts have.

Put it this way: Boris survived his no confidence vote, but people close to him pressured him to resign. Is that okay?

Yes, because that's how our constitution-less system works. They were pressuring him to stand down as party leader because he was bringing their party into disrepute, even while they voted in favour of the government in general to avoid calls for a general election. Rightly or wrongly the UK system is less clear cut in the absence of a formal constitutional framework.

What if members of an opposition party had surrounded 10 Downing Street and said they will not lay down their weapons nor lift a blockade of a single government building until Boris resigns?

Given that didn't happen in Ukraine, either, I'm curious as to how that's relevant. The only place I've seen that happening lately was the US, and the court cases arising from that are still ongoing.

See 1:00:56 - 1:01:20 of Ukraine on Fire (O. Stone).

Much as Oliver Stone wants to be a serious documentary maker, his ability to remain impartial and stick to the demonstrable facts hasn't been reliable since before 'JFK'.

Or to put it another way: they charged him with withdrawing from his constitutional duties.

They didn't 'charge' him, they raised a motion in their parliament that he had breached his constitutional duties, which is part of the job of the Ukrainian parliament as defined in their constitution. The duly elected representatives of the people then decided that the accusations was well-founded, and that therefore he was removed from office. This is how their constitution works - just like if Trump had been found guilty at either of his impeachments (or Clinton at his) he'd have been removed from office, and it wouldn't have been an insurrection.

Was it ok to force him to withdraw from them on threat of death and then say that "he withdrew from his duties", as if he did so under no physical compulsion?

And is that what they did? He claims so, but then he would, wouldn't he. Is there any corroborating evidence?

O.

[Udayana]

No constitution is perfect; There will always be cases where they are undermined and other procedures are adopted to restore democratic power. In Ukraine democracy was undermined by a corrupt president and regime. Also, similarly, in Sri Lanka. 


 

[Spud]

Yes, I was thinking about Sri Lanka as well. But that was different because the country seemed united against the government. In Ukraine half the country wanted free trade with Europe, the other half with Russia. That can be resolved as long as people don't get violent; which the pro-EU side did in Ukraine, causing Russia to step in to protect the other side.

[ad_orientem]

Yes, I was thinking about Sri Lanka as well. But that was different because the country seemed united against the government. In Ukraine half the country wanted free trade with Europe, the other half with Russia. That can be resolved as long as people don't get violent; which the pro-EU side did in Ukraine, causing Russia to step in to protect the other side.

Russian narrative again. There was no seperatist movement in Ukraine. Pre 2014 east Ukraine was pro-Ukrainian in elections.

[ad_orientem]

RuSSian state tv now claiming Zelensky is the Antichrist! Brain damaged, all of them!😂

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1598766707073597440?t=S4r3fWmaTIJj77dCZiZalg&s=19

[Maeght]

RuSSian state tv now claiming Zelensky is the Antichrist! Brain damaged, all of them!😂

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1598766707073597440?t=S4r3fWmaTIJj77dCZiZalg&s=19

Arguing as to whether he is the antichrist or just a small demon working for the antichrist! Bizarre.

[Aruntraveller]

...

[ad_orientem]

Apparently Putin pooped his pants.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/putin-reportedly-tumbles-down-stairs-craps-in-pants-as-health-concerns-spiral

[Spud]

I'm still failing to see how any of this justifies Russia's invasions. If the above hypothetical had happened to Boris, would it justify a French invasion and them systematically shelling all our infrastructure and murdering civilians?

It could justify opponents of the new Ukrainian government in 2014 demonstrating across the country. Since that time Ukraine has been shelling and murdering civilians.

[ad_orientem]

It could justify opponents the new Ukrainian government in 2014 demonstrating across the country. Since that time Ukraine has been shelling and murdering civilians.

You mean fighting an invading army since 2014.

Anything to say about this, btw? This must be the Russian "peace" you're so keen on! Barbarians, the lot of them!

https://twitter.com/sternenko/status/1599309556823097345?t=UJonyjXc0XSLD9PFBrFkhQ&s=19

[jeremyp]

It could justify opponents the new Ukrainian government in 2014 demonstrating across the country.

We are not talking about a demonstration: we are talking about a full on Russian invasion with added genocide.

Since that time Ukraine has been shelling and murdering civilians.

Not on purpose. Sadly, when you're trying to drive an enemy invader out of your homeland, some civilians are going to get caught up in it. This wouldn't be happening if the enemy hadn't invaded, or, having invaded, withdrew.

This is all on Russia.

[Spud]

Crimea, Donetsk people's Republic and Lugansk people's republic have been in a collective self-defense agreement with Russia since they were attacked by Ukrainian far-right militants in 2014.

[Outrider]

Crimea, Donetsk people's Republic and Lugansk people's republic have been in a collective self-defense agreement with Russia since they were attacked by Ukrainian far-right militants in 2014.

Crimea was occupied by Russia in February 2014. That notwithstanding, none of these regions of Ukraine had the authority to make 'collective self-defence agreements' with any foreign nation, and there is no record of any such agreements outside of the Russian statements and the allies they've elevated to positions of 'authority' following their attempted annexations.

Retrospective lies, are still lies. It's still an unjustified bullshit invasion from a failing authoritarian regime looking to reclaim former glories and hoping that the West lacks the resolve to call him on his bullshit.

Generally speaking, the West does. You, on the other, appear to be eating that bullshit up wholesale.

O.