Hypocrisy and hysteria from our politicians and media over Crimea
gratuitous
Posts: 1,171
Forum Member
✭✭✭
The fascist skinhead mob has taken over Ukraine - although if our craven media and ridiculous politicians are to be believed, it is 'the people' and freedom loving democrats who have taken over the country by force.
The power on the street - those who are intimidating school teachers and members of parliament alike - is the Euromaidan criminal gang of far right fascists.
It is understandable therefore, that the population of Crimea does not wish these maniacs flown in or otherwise transported to their territory, so they have blocked access.
There is currently no evidence of a Russian military invasion of Ukraine. Under the status of forces agreements between Russia and Ukraine, there is a contingent of Russian military stationed in and around Odessa and other areas. These have been reinforced as one might expect in the circumstances, but we have not seen Russian troops flooding over the border, indeed nor are there Russian troops occupying any part of Crimea or elsewhere in Ukraine.
The fact is however that the majority of eastern Ukraine would like nothing more than a Russian stabilisation force to halt the spread of hooligan mob rule coming from Kiev. This would presage the inevitable breakup of Ukraine, which is probably the best chance for a peaceful outcome to this.
The power on the street - those who are intimidating school teachers and members of parliament alike - is the Euromaidan criminal gang of far right fascists.
It is understandable therefore, that the population of Crimea does not wish these maniacs flown in or otherwise transported to their territory, so they have blocked access.
There is currently no evidence of a Russian military invasion of Ukraine. Under the status of forces agreements between Russia and Ukraine, there is a contingent of Russian military stationed in and around Odessa and other areas. These have been reinforced as one might expect in the circumstances, but we have not seen Russian troops flooding over the border, indeed nor are there Russian troops occupying any part of Crimea or elsewhere in Ukraine.
The fact is however that the majority of eastern Ukraine would like nothing more than a Russian stabilisation force to halt the spread of hooligan mob rule coming from Kiev. This would presage the inevitable breakup of Ukraine, which is probably the best chance for a peaceful outcome to this.
0
Comments
There were no deaths on Crimean streets to prompt the Russian's precipitous invasion, no threat to their facilities or bases - and the Duma's authority to Putin to invade Ukraine extends to all of Ukraine not just Crimea.
Almost as one-sided as a previous post extolling the statesmanship of the Syrian foreign minister.
Where are today's political giants - men or women of courage who are prepared to speak truth to power, real whistle blowers, true international statesmen?
In his speech to the conference on Syria last week, Walid Moallem, the Syrian foreign minister, showed that he was such a man. In the presence of representatives from states who sponsor terror of the most depraved kind imaginable, he confronted them directly - the degenerate Saudis and Qataris in particular - as exporters of brutal wahabist terror among other verifiable charges.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1938824&highlight=
Who had some of their members killed and not a few injured.
Oh, and the previous administration had been elected to power, however corrupt they (together with much of the rest of Ukrainian society) were.
Hitler was elected to power. So was Putin. It's no guarantee of free and fair democracy in more than a few Countries, sadly. Especially if Governments and Presidents aren't willing in any circumstances to abandon suddenly imposed extreme policies - or to have an election about them - to meet changing or unmet expectations causing widespread unrest among the populus.
lulz.
Viktor Yanukovych was as you say elected as President by the people. This new Ukrainian government/President has not been elected as such - and therefore has no real mandate until elections take place.
Looks like the EU's interference has ended up creating a right mess.
I can't help agreeing with the US-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
and Geoffrey Pyatt: the United States Ambassador to Ukraine (see 36 seconds in!):D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
Every time I quoted your post to reply to it, it had been edited, so hopefully this is your final version.
There is no legitimate government of Ukraine at this time. The previous 'discredited' government that you refer to was, and remains, the legitimate elected government of Ukraine.
The Russian military is exactly where it has been since the status of forces agreements were made following Ukrainian independence.
The prime minister of the largely autonomous region of Crimea requested Russian support to keep order following the power vacuum and ongoing lack of legitimate government in Kiev, which prompted the Duma to authorise such.
You probably didn't bother to read Moallem's speech, but I recommend you do, since whether you agree with him on the issues or not, it was indeed a very good example of statesmanship, which was otherwise sadly lacking at that event.
No he wasn't.
But what makes you think the old regime was banning elections?
And if the criteria for justifying insurrection is the implementation of unpopular policies by the government then the present British administration wouldn't have lasted 6 months.
Haha, thanks for posting that and saving me the effort! I'm so sick of people just repeating that as if the scenario was as simple as the fascists winning a majority and walking into office.
Crimea needs to secure its future the best it can, and with mob rule in Kiev, which has a distinctly anti Russian flavour, it should not surprise anyone that they should turn east.
After what the mob did in Kiev, their talk of the 'constitution' is simply ridiculous.
Totally correct. He was appointed as German chancellor by the German President without any election. Once in power he took control of the reins of the state, got the Communist party banned for allegedly burning down the Reichstag and even when he won the rigged vote had to intimidate the newly elected MPs to vote him supreme power.
How is a regime unconstitutional when in the dead of night, within hours of agreeing a mediated agreement for elections in December,
1. President abandons his post and flies off into the sunrise taking with him access to billions of a Country's money
2. Elected Parliament impeaches him for said acts [remember Nixon?], with support of his own party
3. Elected Parliament replaces said ex-President with an acting President
4. Elected Parliament and legally appointed acting president call a General Election to let the people decide, at the earliest opportunity (in 3 months time), also with the support of said ex-President 's party.
- How is that illegal?
- and how does that compare for legality to Russian military without notice or request from the elected Parliament and new acting President invading one of said Country's regions, trapping its armed forces in their bases and taking effective control of that region's administrative and political infrastructure?
Two questions. Answers on a postcard.
That's one version of events; another is that Yanukovych was chased out of town under a hail of automatic gunfire.
The proper legal process for impeachment was not followed (see Natalia Vitrenko's excellent statement here). Parliament exceeded its authority amid reports of intimidation and uninvited nighttime visits from the mob. [Btw, Nixon resigned]
Mob appoints itself a friendly el presidente.
The old president was not legally impeached; the new one was not legally appointed; there is no legitimate government currently in Ukraine.
The legitimate parliament in Crimea are empowered to sack the Prime Minister appointed from Kiev, which they did. In the face an illegal coup in Kiev, they then properly sought to protect their interests and autonomy by appointing an executive and requested the assistance of the Russian Federation.
All this aside, what is the common sense approach to this situation, which respects the wishes of the people of Ukraine rather than that of power blocs like the EU, US and Russia? The people of eastern Ukraine wish to be allied with or even part of Russia; the people of western Ukraine wish to be allied with the West and part of the EU. So be it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
This....
like Stalin he will make whatever he sees best for Russian interest
The missile carrying battle ship, the USS Truxtun is also on the way - part of a pre-arranged training, with the aircraft carrier USS Roosevelt + US Marines nearby.
Putin was elected by the Russian people, so he's not a dictator.
What ever his faults Yanukovych was elected as well.
It seems Putin and Russia have recently become public enemies #1 because of their anti gay legislation, now they can paint him as a war mongering homophobe.
Well if you must nitpick without correcting, and ignore the main point of the post, fine. Came to power as Chancellor legitimately in a Parliamentary Democracy. OK pedants all?
Maybe I'll turn to the response to my other post later. Maybe.
Sounds not far off to me.
In Eastern Ukraine and Crimea It's something like 55% pro-Russians vs 45% pro-EU/Ukraine from what I last heard.
I mean, how do you reach a consensus with that?
If Eastern Ukraine and Crimea were at all comfortable Russian majorities I'd say let the Ruskies have them, but they aren't. Neither are they even remotely pro-Western majority either though..
'Democracy' would suggest in a referendum that pro-Russians would come out on top, but only by a small majority which ignores almost half of the other residents.