I'm not the one claiming that Ukraine was trying to stop Russians from having the rights they always did before the revolution.
They're Russian speaking Ukrainians and the sources you brought up and the sources I brought up both concur that one of the first things the Ukrainian parliament did was try and repeal the 'On the principles of the state language policy' and it was only after the separatists had already begun rioting and chipping away at Ukraine, after Russian troops had already started moving in that the bill was shot down by the President, who by now had seen what a colossal mistake this was.
So.. he shouldn't have repealed the proposed bill?
He essentially vetoed a repeal, he didn't repeal a bill. The parliament shouldn't have revoked it in the first place. They needed to gain the trust of the Russiaphones.
You're confusing yourself, I'm not confused at all. The bill was a bad thing and stopped by the fascist president. I'm not sure you understand what you're even saying.
I'm not sure you understand what you're saying.
We may as well be arguing over boot types.
You spent over a dozen posts on this whilst all I wanted to talk about was:
I just don't get it though, I make these points:
- Sensationalist news does not make the knowledge of the news any better known, objective or reasoned. It does not produce a collected discussion, only sets the stage for conflict. Sensationalist news leads to the finer points being smothered by simpler fears:
It's USA vs Russia! The cold war is back!
- Sensationalist news helps to drive down what should be getting that attention. Ironically enough in Western media the separatists who actually shot down the plane aren't getting nearly as much scrutiny as they should be getting because the media are framing it as being entirely Russia's fault or Ukraine's fault whilst the separatists themselves are unknown and the Gaza invasion is page-6 news and the Ukraine crisis itself is page-15 news.
- There are the viewpoints of Ukrainians, separatist-Ukrainians, pro-Russia militants, EU, Russia and the USA that need to be taken into account, to ignore them in favour of brushing it over as a conflict between the right and wrong would be to mean no one but the people who want conflict will profit.
- Conflict was inevitable because the current separatist regions hate this government just as much as euromaidan hated the last for various reasons one of which was to do with the bill Yanukovych passed which gave 10%+ minority represented languages a regional status on par with Ukrainian. I also mentioned that Russia was not fighting for the same reasons the separatists were, it was fighting for its own national interests [i.e. keeping its neighbours away from the EU and securing the black sea fleet].
If you weren't enjoying this I honestly have no idea what goes on in your head.
I don't think I can make myself any clearer without just outright stating my views, so I might as well just outright state my views. I don't approve of Putin's actions, I condemn them. I don't think the Ukrainian government are fascists, they've spent enough time trying to fight the actual fascists that it is determinedly clear to anyone who's seen it that their government is not controlled by them. I am trying to point out there actually exists a distinction between Russia, the pro-Russia militants and the separatists. That is all. Thank you for your time.
Not sure why they sent a colonel instead of a government official, but then again, they don't have an agency to specifically deal with crash investigations.
They sent the highest ranking officer they could send without having to send a general, I suppose since it was a military strike they'd send an officer. Also, if they haven't specified, colonel is also a rank in the Malaysian air force as well as the army. They may have sent someone who has experience with air strikes to find any evidence personally.