Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

I've heard reports that the blood is actually part of the deal yith Putin: a way to prove to Putin that the bridges yith the EU are severed. They're little more than rumors thoughm but it could explain the use of live bullets.

That or he just hoped it'd frighten the protestors into leaving Maidan.

[scriver]

Posting to watch.

[PanH]

I think punishment of  everyone responsible for deaths

...
Yanukovich is impotent, not retarded.
He would have realized that, if people were to get shot, there would inevitably be an escalation of violence. Which may eventually lead to him dying. So, he probably didn't give orders to shoot people.

And your people probably realize that, too. Of course, it's too convenient an excuse for an escalation to pass up, right?

That's debatable. Suppression can and is successful in plenty of places. It's not the first time a government shoot on their people despite this aggravating their case.
The fact is, government forces shot civilians (violent civilians, but still civilians), several times. Someone (maybe not Yanukovich), at some point, gave the order to shoot. If there is more shootings, it'll be obvious that the government is endorsing it, and it'll be Yanukovich's responsability.

[10ebbor10]

Can we limit the passive aggressiveness  a little? No point in making this thread a literary equivalent of the situation on the ground.

I think punishment of  everyone responsible for deaths

...
Yanukovich is impotent, not retarded.
He would have realized that, if people were to get shot, there would inevitably be an escalation of violence. Which may eventually lead to him dying. So, he probably didn't give orders to shoot people.

And your people probably realize that, too. Of course, it's too convenient an excuse for an escalation to pass up, right?

Actually, in many situations using violence against protestors has worked. The recent Arabian spring was somewhat of an inversion, but in general, the regime that brings out the big guns survives. After all, in most of these regimes the government has a bigger supply of violence than the protestors.((Additionally, at no point UR suggested that Yanukovich gave the order to fire at protestors. In fact, he mentioned Yanukovich4s resignation as a separate point, heavily implying that the mere violence investigation won't be enough to get rid of him.))

Also the escalation of violence agreement can be brought back all the way to the earliest protests, when government troops dispersed a then minor group of pro-European protestors.

On a side note, were the deaths people shot with real or rubber bullets? Can't find any conclusive evidence on that.

So, what is the point of radical core then? I just don't get it. To me, they sound like "down with Yanukovich, then... fuck that, down with Yanukovch"

I think punishment of  everyone responsible for deaths and immediate resignation of Yanukovich  is the minimum to stop ongoing protests. Too many deaths for "OK, let's return to pre-protests situation and run elections"

So... and who is going to rule the country meanwhile? Just promise that there will be no banners holding swasticas over Ukraine. Again.

Interim government. Internationally supervised elections. Stuff like that.

Really, the importance of federal governments to rule a country is often overstated. Most countries can survive for a while without one.

[Comrade P.]

So, what is the point of radical core then? I just don't get it. To me, they sound like "down with Yanukovich, then... fuck that, down with Yanukovch"

I think punishment of  everyone responsible for deaths and immediate resignation of Yanukovich  is the minimum to stop ongoing protests. Too many deaths for "OK, let's return to pre-protests situation and run elections"

So... and who is going to rule the country meanwhile? Just promise that there will be no banners holding swasticas over Ukraine. Again.

Interim government. Internationally supervised elections. Stuff like that.

Really, the importance of federal governments to rule a country is often overstated. Most countries can survive for a while without one.

Well, that thing seldom does good and is usually replaced with something even worse.

[10ebbor10]

I'm calling statistics/sources on that.

[Sheb]

10ebbor10: While we both know Belgium did good without its federal government, I don't know how much Ukraine is reliant on the federal level. Also, you'd need someone at the helm to deal yith possible troubles on the way to elections.

[10ebbor10]

We're going to need international supervision for the elections anyway.

[Sheb]

I agree with you on this. No one would trust the Ukrainian government to run clean elections.

[GlyphGryph]

https://plus.google.com/115165432338337619269/posts/YgJoj2Wudsn

Scott Merrill (A Ukranian) attempts to summarize the entirety of what is happening recently. Offers some worthwhile information I haven't seen yet in this thread about exactly how things are going down.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

ptw

[Guardian G.I.]

I agree with you on this. No one would trust the Ukrainian government to run clean elections.

The Ukrainian Ranger will probably lash at me for being corrupted by totalitarian propaganda, but anyway, the important thing about elections in a non-"free" country involving EU and USA is that if the candidate backed by the USA and EU doesn't win, neither they nor the candidate in question will acknowledge the elections as free and fair. The actual cleanness, freeness and fairness of the elections doesn't matter - a single declaration of the European Commission and the US State Department is enough to turn the elections in the eyes of the whole progressive mankind to be falsified.

The United States of America and the European Union have never accepted the victory of a presidential candidate that is against their policies in countries they try to influence or take control of. In their eyes, candidates that they doesn't like always cheat, and candidates that they like and support are completely incorruptible. Neither USA nor EU are actually concerned for the fairness of elections worldwide, no matter what Euronews and the like might say.

[scrdest]

I agree with you on this. No one would trust the Ukrainian government to run clean elections.

The Ukrainian Ranger will probably lash at me for being corrupted by totalitarian propaganda, but anyway, the important thing about elections in a non-"free" country involving EU and USA is that if the candidate backed by the USA and EU doesn't win, neither they nor the candidate in question will acknowledge the elections as free and fair. The actual cleanness, freeness and fairness of the elections doesn't matter - a single declaration of the European Commission and the US State Department is enough to turn the elections in the eyes of the whole progressive mankind to be falsified.

The United States of America and the European Union have never accepted the victory of a presidential candidate that is against their policies in countries they try to influence or take control of. In their eyes, candidates that they doesn't like always cheat, and candidates that they like and support are completely incorruptible. Neither USA nor EU are actually concerned for the fairness of elections worldwide, no matter what Euronews and the like might say.

Well, the Soviet Union does have a history of rigging the elections in their sphere of influence, and the current president of Russia is ex-KGB after all. This is not to say USA didn't do anything like that, but there's a lot more at stake for US government trying to pull that off.

[10ebbor10]

Actually they did. Several times. The press will complain, perhaps. But elections will be recognized.

[Guardian G.I.]

I agree with you on this. No one would trust the Ukrainian government to run clean elections.

The Ukrainian Ranger will probably lash at me for being corrupted by totalitarian propaganda, but anyway, the important thing about elections in a non-"free" country involving EU and USA is that if the candidate backed by the USA and EU doesn't win, neither they nor the candidate in question will acknowledge the elections as free and fair. The actual cleanness, freeness and fairness of the elections doesn't matter - a single declaration of the European Commission and the US State Department is enough to turn the elections in the eyes of the whole progressive mankind to be falsified.

The United States of America and the European Union have never accepted the victory of a presidential candidate that is against their policies in countries they try to influence or take control of. In their eyes, candidates that they doesn't like always cheat, and candidates that they like and support are completely incorruptible. Neither USA nor EU are actually concerned for the fairness of elections worldwide, no matter what Euronews and the like might say.

Well, the Soviet Union does have a history of rigging the elections in their sphere of influence, and the current president of Russia is ex-KGB after all. This is not to say USA didn't do anything like that, but there's a lot more at stake for US government trying to pull that off.

Well, it's easy to rig an election if the agencies supervising them like OSCE are backed by you.

Actually they did. Several times. The press will complain, perhaps. But elections will be recognized.

Can you provide examples, please?
I wouldn't be surprised if such leaders got accused of violating human rights later on.