9 ms·

In what world is the democratically elected government of Mr. Poroshenko, a "US-installed junta"?

myth_drannon 12y ago
when one third of the country is under constant bombardment (by both sides) and not allowed to vote, the other third are refugees living in neighbouring countries, what you sadly have is not an election but a farce.
- geoka9 12y ago
  One third of the country? Please get your facts straight. It's not even one third of the Donbass region that's affected by the hostilities, and Donbass is only 2 of the 24 regions ("oblasts") of Ukraine.
Mikeb85 12y ago
Democratic? When they barred the Party of Regions from participating and didn't let the east vote?
- geoka9 12y ago
  The Party of Regions basically rebranded itself as "Opposition Block" and got 29 seats in the Parliament. All of the country voted (including the Eastern regions). A smaller part of the Donbass region couldn't vote because the insurgents didn't let the Ukrainian polling stations to operate.
cbd1984 12y ago
Probably because just coming right out and claiming it's a "Zionist plot" doesn't fly very well around here. /s
xnull6guest 12y ago
In the world where the February 21st deal to keep Yanukovych in power until end of term [1] was reneged on with support by Voice of America and funding and training to Euromaiden groups from the West, prior US knowledge of the ouster and discussions about a suitable replacement [2], and a world where US policy makers suggest covert arming of the Ukraine [3]. It's also important to keep the broader context - that the nine former Warsaw Pact nations have in the past decade joined the EU of NATO and that the very aggressive terms and a near NATO deal with the Ukraine caused the original crisis that led up to the Feb deal. That the West and US armed other conflicts in the region (Moldova and Georgia). That US anti-ballistic missile battery systems have been installed along the Baltic that denies Russia it's anti-nuclear interception capabilities and directly violates Cold War treaties. Russia, too, plays dirty. But we can't pretend the West doesn't. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/agreement-on-the-settlement-of-crisis-in-ukraine-full-text http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/agreement-on-th... [2] http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine... (25:00) [3] http://csis.org/files/publication/150129_Mankoff_RussiaUkraineUSOptions_Web.pdf http://csis.org/files/publication/150129_Mankoff_RussiaUkrai...
- geoka9 12y ago
  > the February 21st deal to keep Yanukovych in power... was reneged It wasn't. The annexation of Crimea started before the deal was signed (Feb. 20) and Yanukovich decided to close shop and flee soon afterwards[1]. > and a world where US policy makers suggest covert arming of the Ukraine With Ukraine undergoing a not-so-covert invasion, and Russian leadership having already laid a claim to half of Ukraine, no less[2], defensive weapons to help stop the aggression are hardly too much to ask. > and a near NATO deal with the Ukraine caused the original crisis European association agreement is hardly a "near NATO deal" and Ukraine had laws that precluded it from becoming a NATO member - so that wasn't even in the plans. The people took to the streets when Yanukovich abruptly reneged on his promise to sign the association agreement after visiting Moscow. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leade... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    AFAICT we don't disagree on any points. Regarding support for Yunukovych, the deal was signed and not followed up on. It's true his authority was fading fast - these things are not mutually exclusive. The Feb 21 deal was struck to resolve the standoff discussed in your linked NYT article - can you point to where it says that annexation began before Feb 21st (the earliest I can find it mention is March)? Similarly with covert armaments - the discussion of 'too much to ask' or 'right or wrong' is orthagonal to whether the West takes covert action in the Baltic to achieve policy objectives. My claim is merely that it is done - not that it is wrong. And similarly wrt the association agreement - it has to do with the context of EU and NATO encroachment and Western action in the Baltic (I would have to admit that it was EU membership, not NATO, in this case). The grandparent may have anti-European or -NATO sentiments. I don't. But I will defend the idea that the West, having heavily polled Ukraine and called for its own elections, and having discussed options for replacing the leadership, and training and funding groups in the Ukraine, and having controlled the election process in Kiev (calling afoul when Russia performed the same in the Crimea) absolutely is not above influencing its own support. Again I am not calling this bad.
fit2rule 12y ago
In the same world where the US' own military junta was installed (Bush) with ease, under the cover of 'democracy'.
trhway 12y ago
>democratically elected government of Mr. Poroshenko interesting how democratically elected Poroshenko is ok while democratically voted separation of Crimea isn't. Democracy is supposed to be a principle not a substitute for the "i like the outcome" label :)
- hurin 12y ago
  The U.S. by some accounts set a bad international precedent with Kosovo. Crimea is not objectively any different from the former. Even the civil war in Ukraine, which is absolutely criminal has international precedent (vis a vis Syria).
  - classicsnoot 12y ago
    ...Russia provided troops and equipment for the peacekeeping force in the Balkans. Also, that operation was planned and executed by NATO ( their first, I believe). Whatever the case, I believe the Kosovo/Serb cold conflict will be the next excuse for Russian expansionism. Either there, or as well as there, in Dagestan/Ossetia/Georgia regions.
- classicsnoot 12y ago
  What part of the helicopter assault and naval blockade of Crimea is comparable to the Kosovo settlement? Which previous war with a genocide chaser primed the put-upon citizens of Crimea to form an army, gov't., etc? There is no comparison between Crimea and Kosovo in terms of extra-national interference. Please keep in mind that preping an assault force of Hinds and thousands of unmarked soldiers takes quite a while. The moment the Yanukovich ceded power, Russia began to act. A better example of western tampering after a 'legitimate' election is in Gaza.
  - trhway 12y ago
    > Which previous war with a genocide chaser primed the put-upon citizens of Crimea to form an army, gov't., etc? why wait for the genocide to actually happen? The new government in Kiev was completely clear with their very first action being the outlawing of Russian language. The international law, UN, recognize the right for self-determination without requirement of a genocide happening beforehand. Crimea used that right. They were just lucky that Putin's interests were aligned with theirs. The people of Donetsk weren't that lucky - the Kiev's "pacifier" operation (manned by the volunteers from Western Ukraine hating the ethnic Russians with their gut) in Donetsk region had gone into full swing and been really succeeding by the August of 2014 and would definitely succeeded if not for the direct Russia's intervention back then when finally Putin recognized that letting the ethnic cleansing happen in Donbass wouldn't be good for his regime. Or lets try it from other side - how many ethnic Russians should have been killed by the Kiev pacifiers before you'd recognize right for self-determination for Donetsk (or Crimea if Russia did let the pacification to happen in Crimea) ?

when one third of the country is under constant bombardment (by both sides) and not allowed to vote, the other third are refugees living in neighbouring countries, what you sadly have is not an election but a farce.

geoka9 12y ago
One third of the country? Please get your facts straight. It's not even one third of the Donbass region that's affected by the hostilities, and Donbass is only 2 of the 24 regions ("oblasts") of Ukraine.

Mikeb85 12y ago

Democratic? When they barred the Party of Regions from participating and didn't let the east vote?

geoka9 12y ago
The Party of Regions basically rebranded itself as "Opposition Block" and got 29 seats in the Parliament. All of the country voted (including the Eastern regions). A smaller part of the Donbass region couldn't vote because the insurgents didn't let the Ukrainian polling stations to operate.

cbd1984 12y ago

Probably because just coming right out and claiming it's a "Zionist plot" doesn't fly very well around here. /s

xnull6guest 12y ago

In the world where the February 21st deal to keep Yanukovych in power until end of term [1] was reneged on with support by Voice of America and funding and training to Euromaiden groups from the West, prior US knowledge of the ouster and discussions about a suitable replacement [2], and a world where US policy makers suggest covert arming of the Ukraine [3]. It's also important to keep the broader context - that the nine former Warsaw Pact nations have in the past decade joined the EU of NATO and that the very aggressive terms and a near NATO deal with the Ukraine caused the original crisis that led up to the Feb deal. That the West and US armed other conflicts in the region (Moldova and Georgia). That US anti-ballistic missile battery systems have been installed along the Baltic that denies Russia it's anti-nuclear interception capabilities and directly violates Cold War treaties. Russia, too, plays dirty. But we can't pretend the West doesn't. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/agreement-on-the-settlement-of-crisis-in-ukraine-full-text http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/agreement-on-th... [2] http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine... (25:00) [3] http://csis.org/files/publication/150129_Mankoff_RussiaUkraineUSOptions_Web.pdf http://csis.org/files/publication/150129_Mankoff_RussiaUkrai...

geoka9 12y ago
> the February 21st deal to keep Yanukovych in power... was reneged It wasn't. The annexation of Crimea started before the deal was signed (Feb. 20) and Yanukovich decided to close shop and flee soon afterwards[1]. > and a world where US policy makers suggest covert arming of the Ukraine With Ukraine undergoing a not-so-covert invasion, and Russian leadership having already laid a claim to half of Ukraine, no less[2], defensive weapons to help stop the aggression are hardly too much to ask. > and a near NATO deal with the Ukraine caused the original crisis European association agreement is hardly a "near NATO deal" and Ukraine had laws that precluded it from becoming a NATO member - so that wasn't even in the plans. The people took to the streets when Yanukovich abruptly reneged on his promise to sign the association agreement after visiting Moscow. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leade... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  AFAICT we don't disagree on any points. Regarding support for Yunukovych, the deal was signed and not followed up on. It's true his authority was fading fast - these things are not mutually exclusive. The Feb 21 deal was struck to resolve the standoff discussed in your linked NYT article - can you point to where it says that annexation began before Feb 21st (the earliest I can find it mention is March)? Similarly with covert armaments - the discussion of 'too much to ask' or 'right or wrong' is orthagonal to whether the West takes covert action in the Baltic to achieve policy objectives. My claim is merely that it is done - not that it is wrong. And similarly wrt the association agreement - it has to do with the context of EU and NATO encroachment and Western action in the Baltic (I would have to admit that it was EU membership, not NATO, in this case). The grandparent may have anti-European or -NATO sentiments. I don't. But I will defend the idea that the West, having heavily polled Ukraine and called for its own elections, and having discussed options for replacing the leadership, and training and funding groups in the Ukraine, and having controlled the election process in Kiev (calling afoul when Russia performed the same in the Crimea) absolutely is not above influencing its own support. Again I am not calling this bad.

fit2rule 12y ago

In the same world where the US' own military junta was installed (Bush) with ease, under the cover of 'democracy'.

trhway 12y ago

>democratically elected government of Mr. Poroshenko interesting how democratically elected Poroshenko is ok while democratically voted separation of Crimea isn't. Democracy is supposed to be a principle not a substitute for the "i like the outcome" label :)

hurin 12y ago
The U.S. by some accounts set a bad international precedent with Kosovo. Crimea is not objectively any different from the former. Even the civil war in Ukraine, which is absolutely criminal has international precedent (vis a vis Syria).
- classicsnoot 12y ago
  ...Russia provided troops and equipment for the peacekeeping force in the Balkans. Also, that operation was planned and executed by NATO ( their first, I believe). Whatever the case, I believe the Kosovo/Serb cold conflict will be the next excuse for Russian expansionism. Either there, or as well as there, in Dagestan/Ossetia/Georgia regions.
classicsnoot 12y ago
What part of the helicopter assault and naval blockade of Crimea is comparable to the Kosovo settlement? Which previous war with a genocide chaser primed the put-upon citizens of Crimea to form an army, gov't., etc? There is no comparison between Crimea and Kosovo in terms of extra-national interference. Please keep in mind that preping an assault force of Hinds and thousands of unmarked soldiers takes quite a while. The moment the Yanukovich ceded power, Russia began to act. A better example of western tampering after a 'legitimate' election is in Gaza.
- trhway 12y ago
  > Which previous war with a genocide chaser primed the put-upon citizens of Crimea to form an army, gov't., etc? why wait for the genocide to actually happen? The new government in Kiev was completely clear with their very first action being the outlawing of Russian language. The international law, UN, recognize the right for self-determination without requirement of a genocide happening beforehand. Crimea used that right. They were just lucky that Putin's interests were aligned with theirs. The people of Donetsk weren't that lucky - the Kiev's "pacifier" operation (manned by the volunteers from Western Ukraine hating the ethnic Russians with their gut) in Donetsk region had gone into full swing and been really succeeding by the August of 2014 and would definitely succeeded if not for the direct Russia's intervention back then when finally Putin recognized that letting the ethnic cleansing happen in Donbass wouldn't be good for his regime. Or lets try it from other side - how many ethnic Russians should have been killed by the Kiev pacifiers before you'd recognize right for self-determination for Donetsk (or Crimea if Russia did let the pacification to happen in Crimea) ?