Russia Discussion

[rcoobc]

I don't pretend to know Ukraine's democratic system very well, and I can't look it up at the moment...

But those saying that the protesters should have "organised themselves for the next election" are being rather... If Cameron had Milliband put in jail, we wouldnt wait for the next election. And if the current government voted to oust Cameron, that wouldnt be undemocratic either.

Just because they voted him in, doesnt give someone absolute power

Or am I wrong

 

[DOTA]

I don't pretend to know Ukraine's democratic system very well, and I can't look it up at the moment...

But those saying that the protesters should have "organised themselves for the next election" are being rather... If Cameron had Milliband put in jail, we wouldnt wait for the next election. And if the current government voted to oust Cameron, thatvwouldnr be undemocratic either.

Just because they voted him in, doesnt give someone absolute power

Or am I wrong

You may be but if you are, I'm there with you. That is a fair summary of the situation as I've been led to understand it.

 

[711]

I don't pretend to know Ukraine's democratic system very well, and I can't look it up at the moment...

But those saying that the protesters should have "organised themselves for the next election" are being rather... If Cameron had Milliband put in jail, we wouldnt wait for the next election. And if the current government voted to oust Cameron, thatvwouldnr be undemocratic either.

Just because they voted him in, doesnt give someone absolute power

Or am I wrong

Really? For this analogy I suppose you would have to know the judicial systems as well as the political, but in general I think it would be absolutely crucial to look to the next election, or democracy means nothing, and we would be back down the scale towards a feudal system.

Yes, a government should be able to change it's leader, I've only questioned the West's role in what led up to that.

 

[Raoul]

Really? For this analogy I suppose you would have to know the judicial systems as well as the political, but in general I think it would be absolutely crucial to look to the next election, or democracy means nothing, and we would be back down the scale towards a feudal system.

Yes, a government should be able to change it's leader, I've only questioned the West's role in what led up to that.

For something more in-depth, why not question Russia's manipulation of Ukrainian society through the Gazprom dispute, attempts to destabilize Ukraine's development by making it a part of the customs union and thereby a Russian lackey state, supporting a corrupt President who looted the national coffers of something like $30Billion etc etc. If you peel back the onion here, the west has very little to do with this.

 

[Sir Matt]

I don't pretend to know Ukraine's democratic system very well, and I can't look it up at the moment...

But those saying that the protesters should have "organised themselves for the next election" are being rather... If Cameron had Milliband put in jail, we wouldnt wait for the next election. And if the current government voted to oust Cameron, thatvwouldnr be undemocratic either.

Just because they voted him in, doesnt give someone absolute power

Or am I wrong

Nah, as long as you're democratically elected, you get free rein to do whatever. Genocide, vote-rigging/election fraud, rampant corruption, coercion, undemocratic constitutional amendments, criminalizing criticism of the government, etc. Opponents should just wait until the next election and hope they're still alive, able to vote, and that their votes will be counted if the government decides to have elections.

When a government, even one that was originally elected fairly and democratically, abandons democracy for authoritarianism/tyranny/despotism, the people should overthrow the government. In terms of democratic political theory, the "right of revolution" is vital. How else could a population counteract a government that has rigged the "rules" to ensure it stays in power?

From the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[Sir Matt]

The US and Canada have pulled out of the G8 summit in Russia. Canada also recalled its ambassador. The rest of the G8 will probably pull out as well.

 

[Red Dreams]

The US and Canada have pulled out of the G8 summit in Russia. Canada also recalled its ambassador. The rest of the G8 will probably pull out as well.

good.

 

[surf]

It's not clear what the EU and USA can do about Crimea except bluster. Most Crimeans are pro-Russia anyway, so it is a good bet that there will be a fairly bloodless annexation, possibly "legitimised" by some sort of referendum.

 

[Raoul]

That's probably a likeliest scenario. Most people in Crimea claim its Russian land any way.

 

[The Mitcher]

No one should be pulling out of the G8, there needs to be communication on this problem.

 

[DOTA]

No one should be pulling out of the G8, there needs to be communication on this problem.

I'm not sure there's a lot to talk about, really. At some point, once things have calmed down, Russia need to pull troops away from everywhere but their base and Ukraine need to give assurances that they will not stand in the way of the people of Crimea, should the majority wish to go in a different direction. Obama, Putin, the leaders of Ukraine and Crimea all need to all pretend this a wonderful agreement and a personal victory for themselves and then we can all go back to concentrating on interfering in the middle east.

 

[The Mitcher]

I'm not sure there's a lot to talk about, really. At some point, once things have calmed down, Russia need to pull troops away from everywhere but their base and Ukraine need to give assurances that they will not stand in the way of the people of Crimea, should the majority wish to go in a different direction. Obama, Putin, the leaders of Ukraine and Crimea all need to all pretend this a wonderful agreement and a personal victory for themselves and then we can all go back to concentrating on interfering in the middle east.

I guess, but its pointless pulling out of the G8 leaving Russia and potentially China as the loudest voices in the room.

 

[Sir Matt]

That's probably a likeliest scenario. Most people in Crimea claim its Russian land any way.

I'm sure the Tatars who have recently returned from their exile will be happy to have to leave their homeland again rather than be ruled by Russia. Crimea is roughly 42% non-Russian, which will make it difficult to control if they were to annex it.

Page 34-36 are interesting from 2011. I couldn't find a more recent survey.

http://www.iri.org/sites/default/fi...lic Opinion, September 20-October 2, 2011.pdf

I guess, but its pointless pulling out of the G8 leaving Russia and potentially China as the loudest voices in the room.

China is not a member of the G8.

 

[surf]

I'm sure the Tatars who have recently returned from their exile will be happy to have to leave their homeland again rather than be ruled by Russia.

Tatar for now.

Putin may wind up the loser when the deal goes down. From controlling the Ukraine through a proxy he is now struggling to retain anything beyond the eastern part. It's not much of a trade-off for him.

 

[Nucks]

There is some incredible naivety in this thread. The likelihood that this is an invasion is so utterly slim that anyone who actually thinks that is what this is cannot possibly have any clue about military doctrine or geopolitics.

Russia has 150k men on the border. They have already moved men into Ukraine, a few thousand worth. If an invasion was coming, it would have been immediate and with overwhelming force. Nobody could have stopped them. Instead we have a few thousand soldiers who have been deployed defensively around Russian strategic interests.

In addition, if we are playing by the current rules, Russia has every right to do what they are doing. The United States has done this in the past. If the US feels its national security is threatened it reserves the right to do whatever it wants to do to redress that situation.

Perhaps Putin is just a really sneaky guy, and perhaps he is doing everything in his secret invasion of Ukraine in exactly the opposite manner one should leverage military force in an imminent conflict. You know, dribbling troops into the country, losing any element of surprise. Maybe it is all by design, to goad the Ukrainian government to attack his forces defending Russian interests. Of course, that is also the obvious play if he is just securing Russian interests. Put a limited force in country, keep large reserves ready to move if he needs to rescue them.

Any way you want to slice this pie up, we have absolutely no business getting involved. In the west we have a pretty serious conceit about our shit not smelling. It's ok when we break international laws and stomp on the sovereignty of other nations, but when Russia does it they are clearly the big bad wolf.

My prediction? Nothing will come of this. Putin is saber rattling to remind everyone Russia still has a bite behind the bark. The US and the West will admonish Russia, but in the end Russia will simply keep troops in place protecting the naval base and a few other key areas until the Ukrainian government has a firm grasp on the situation. It looks spectacular but there isn't really anything to see here.

I think the only way anything happens here is if Ukraine attacks Russian forces. In which case Ukraine is certainly within its rights to do so, but we have no right to get involved lest we look like ginormous hypocrites.

I'll just remind everyone about Panama. US strategic interests were threatened, so the US invaded. So far Russia hasn't even invaded they've just put troops in country to protect a naval base and some airfields and some smart guys here are saying this is Poland 1939 and likening Putin to Hitler. Hilarity.

If this does turn out to be an invasion, it will be the sneakiest invasion ever, it breaks all rules pertaining to common sense. There is almost nothing to gain by sitting around for a couple days after moving a few thousand troops into country other than to say "get ready here we come". In which case all Putin would be doing is increasing his potential casualties exponentially.

Playing devils advocate for a moment, the flip side of that is the idea that by allowing Ukraine to mobilize forces and engage him when they are "ready" in a war they would have no hope of winning, Putin could effectively crush the Ukrainian center of gravity in a more decisive and conventional conflict rather than having to whack-a-mole a post war insurgency. Certainly an insurgency would arise after an invasion, but its effectiveness would be severely diminished by losing a conventional war before hand.

I still think an invasion is a highly unrealistic situation, too much of a gamble for virtually no gains. It would escalate, and there would be no winners.

 

[Member 60376]

Good post

 

[Lu Tze]

I dunno Nucks. When armed troops have an adventure into another nations territory without permission....what do we generally call that? Hmm...day tripping, having a pleasant stroll....

Oh wait, it's invading!

Perhaps my "incredible naïveté" on the topic of "geopolitics and military doctrine" renders me a slave to dictionary definitions, though.

 

[711]

For something more in-depth, why not question Russia's manipulation of Ukrainian society through the Gazprom dispute, attempts to destabilize Ukraine's development by making it a part of the customs union and thereby a Russian lackey state, supporting a corrupt President who looted the national coffers of something like $30Billion etc etc. If you peel back the onion here, the west has very little to do with this.

I quite agree with you about Russia, nowhere have I indicated otherwise. Just because I have criticised the West doesn't make me a Putin supporter. l have merely expressed my belief in democracy, I don't have your polarised view of the world, where one side must always be right and the other always wrong.

Someone mentioned the Sudetenland, which is interesting. Bear in mind no one went to war over that, they stood by and watched.

 

[Lu Tze]

I quite agree with you about Russia, nowhere have I indicated otherwise. Just because I have criticised the West doesn't make me a Putin supporter. l have merely expressed my belief in democracy, I don't have your polarised view of the world, where one side must always be right and the other always wrong.

Someone mentioned the Sudetenland, which is interesting. Bear in mind no one went to war over that, they stood by and watched.

Of course. The Crimean problem will be settled. We will have peace for our time.

 

[711]

Of course. The Crimean problem will be settled. We will have peace for our time.

'Peace in our time' is one of the more misunderstood events of history. Chamberlain said that in public, and in private began immediately to prepare for war. His secret and illegal military budgets built the hurricanes and spitfires just in time to save Britain.

I'm not quite sure why you're on about it mind, but I'll help if I can.

 

[sun_tzu]

Of course. The Crimean problem will be settled. We will have peace for our time.

Cold war 2... this time Its war
its on!

I think that the eastern states will have a refferendum to join russia and the rest of the ukraine ukraine will let them

long term im sure there will be ongoing border and trade problems but drawing a line on a map for a short term fix is the tried and tested solution ( though it does not always pass the test of time such as mid east)

 

[Member 60376]

There is no comparison between Sudetenland and Crimea - Crimea was a part of the Russian Soviet Republic and gifted to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, Sudetenland was never officially a part of Germany

Secondly, there is a big question over the legitimacy of the new government in Ukraine - it is not elected for a start!
Also it is not representative (it is almost completely pro west like the earlier government was pro Russia) but that is but natural considering the events which led to this government getting into power in the first place so we can ignore that for the moment

Russia has so far not "invaded" Crimea - it has merely moved more troops into it's base in Sevastopol (6000 going by the reports, and up to 25000 is allowed). It is unlikely that they will invade Ukraine, the most likely thing would be a referendum for joining Russia - under the surveillance of pro-Russian militia

That is not really an ideal situation and I am not supporting Russia bullying east Ukraine into joining it, but the same thing has happened over and over in all regime changes over the last few decades - difference was it was the NATO/allies driving that

There are a lot of double standards visible when judging west vs everyone else

 

[Lu Tze]

'Peace in our time' is one of the more misunderstood events of history. Chamberlain said that in public, and in private began immediately to prepare for war. His secret and illegal military budgets built the hurricanes and spitfires just in time to save Britain.

I'm not quite sure why you're on about it mind, but I'll help if I can.

The quotation is "Peace for our time" FYI. "Peace in our time " is a misquote. And while Chamberlain was better than many suggest the primary policy during the period was appeasement. Appeasing expansionist powers(which Russia clearly aspires to be) is fraught with dangers. I don't think military action is the right policy, but if economic sanctions were put in place make no mistake, Europe/the US could exert enough soft power to bring Russia in line. For gods sake, even the UK's economy is stronger than Russia's.

 

[711]

The quotation is "Peace for our time" FYI. "Peace in our time " is a misquote. And while Chamberlain was better than many suggest the primary policy during the period was appeasement. Appeasing expansionist powers(which Russia clearly aspires to be) is fraught with dangers. I don't think military action is the right policy, but if economic sanctions were put in place make no mistake, Europe/the US could exert enough soft power to bring Russia in line. For gods sake, even the UK's economy is stronger than Russia's.

Thanks. Yes, the policy had been appeasement, my point was that peace for our time marked the end of that.

I see an economic war as over-reaction myself. It may be that Russia partitioning the Ukraine is the fairest and most peaceful long-term solution anyway. Starting an economic war could end up easier to start than to stop.

 

[Raoul]

Putin apparently told Obama during their 90 minute phone call yesterday that he reserves the right to protect Russian citizens and interests against "ultranationalists". Essentially, if its easy to walk into Crimea uncontested, it wouldn't be too difficult to manufacture a reason to do the same with eastern Ukraine.

Then Putins office released this: “In the case of any further spread of violence to Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, Russia retains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population of those areas.”

 

[Chabon]

Of course. The Crimean problem will be settled. We will have peace for our time.

ICBMs are slightly more of a deterrent than the Maginot Line.

 

[iSparky]

http://news.sky.com/story/1219658/ukraine-accuses-russia-of-declaring-war

Ukraine accuses Russia of declaring war? Bit much that, however the situation is clearly on knife point at the moment, one foolish move from either side and it could all come crumbling down like a house of cards. Concerning they have surrounded a Ukraine military base and are not allowing soldiers to leave too.

 

[Bross]

Comparing this to Hitler in 1939 is incredibly daft.

Russia has every right to do this, and any other country would do the same in a similar situation. The US would not allow important strategic points of interest where they have naval bases fall into the wrong hands, and neither will Russia. They are just defensively protecting important areas that they already had control over prior to the change of government in Ukraine. Its not an invasion at all. The only way this escalates is if the US and NATO decide they want a war with Russia for some reason, which is obviously not going to happen as there is nothing to gain from a war with Russia not threatening western interests.

Nucks' post is spot on.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

When the old Soviet Union collapsed and the Ukraine broke away the Russians asked for the right to use the naval base and for the Ukrainian govt to give up the nukes it held on its territory. In return the Russians agreed to honour the border and the sovereignty of the Ukrainian state. So much for the word and treaties signed by the Russians.
If you are one of the other and there are many former soviet breakaway states you are going to be watching events very carefully.
The first time it looked like the Ukrainians would vote for someone the Russians didn’t like they tried to kill him by poisoning him. The second opposition leader the Russians didn’t like was thrown in jail.
When we talk about democracy in the Ukraine are we saying that the govt elected by its people can only do what the Russians want them too because that isn’t democracy is it? Whatever happened to the former elected president and however it happened and whichever side you wish to support the best way to put matters right would have been to allow new and free elections for all the people of the Ukraine and then go from there.
The Russians in Crimea will never get to vote for anyone that Putin or his successor doesn’t like. Good luck with that Crimea.
The important questions now are what will the Ukrainian govt do about the Russian annexing of Crimea ( BBC reports demands to call up their reservists) and will the Russians stop there or try to take large part of the rest of the Ukraine ( Russian parliament doesn’t restrict its troops to Crimean operations only) as well.

 

[iSparky]

They have started by moving in to protect important areas to them, but what happens if they decide to go further than that? I know if they planned to invade it would have been swift and with force but what if occupying and protecting interests ended up turning into something more than that?

Speaking about the Ukraine, former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown, who served in the special forces, told Sky's Murnaghan programme: "I think we are a pace away from catastrophe at the moment.

"It would require one foolish act, I don't know, a trigger happy Russian soldier, a Ukrainian guard who acts aggressively at one of these institutions that has been taken over by Russia or Russian supporters.

"A foolish act now could tip us over the edge.

"The one thing that is absolutely essential now is that the West speaks with a single voice."

"The smallest tremor, the smallest act now could take us over the edge."

As things stand people may say that Russia has not really done anything wrong as such and I could see why they want to protect their interests in the region but that could all change in an instant with one careless move couldn't it? NATO says that what Russia is doing in fact violates the UN charter but I'm not familiar with that myself to pass comment, maybe someone else is? Moving into a country which has been in a crisis of late is fairly destabilising all round though and reports are indicating that Ukraine is calling up their army and reserves too. The US or UN don't need to intervene for things to get worse, that could be achieved between the Ukraine and Russia alone couldn't it?

People might say, well what would the Ukraine have to gain from doing such a thing as trying to go toe to toe with Russia? They all take enormous pride in their countries over there don't they? Maybe pride would take over logic and they would do something as silly as that.

In fact as I am typing this now the head of NATO has called on the Russians to scale back military operations too saying that it does indeed violate the UN charter for peace in Europe.

http://www.thejournal.ie/nato-calls-on-russia-to-stop-1340677-Mar2014/?utm_source=twitter_self

 

[Member 60376]

When the old Soviet Union collapsed and the Ukraine broke away the Russians asked for the right to use the naval base and for the Ukrainian govt to give up the nukes it held on its territory. In return the Russians agreed to honour the border and the sovereignty of the Ukrainian state. So much for the word and treaties signed by the Russians.

Well playing the devil's advocate here but

If the Ukraine did join the EU (which was on the cards in the next decade, not now of course) and the NATO (IIRC it is already a member?), then there would be a NATO base right on Russia's borders - which is again a violation of the treaties the NATO/west signed at the time of dissolution of the USSR. The assurance was that there would be no NATO force to encircle Russia. That has already been breached - by the US itself with it's missile shield right on Russia's border

The Budapest agreement that you refer to is a memorandum of agreement and not a treaty - it did not get passed in the US senate

It also limits itself to US, UK, RUS referring any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty to the UNSC - which is a farce as RUS has veto in the UNSC anyway

Though I agree it is complete hypocrisy from Russia if they outright annex a sovereign country's territory by reneging on an agreement with that country - but they are not the first to do it, and certainly not the last

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Well playing the devil's advocate here but

If the Ukraine did join the EU (which was on the cards in the next decade, not now of course) and the NATO (IIRC it is already a member?), then there would be a NATO base right on Russia's borders - which is again a violation of the treaties the NATO/west signed at the time of dissolution of the USSR. The assurance was that there would be no NATO force to encircle Russia. That has already been breached - by the US itself with it's missile shield right on Russia's border

The Budapest agreement that you refer to is a memorandum of agreement and not a treaty - it did not get passed in the US senate

It also limits itself to US, UK, RUS referring any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty to the UNSC - which is a farce as RUS has veto in the UNSC anyway

Though I agree it is complete hypocrisy from Russia if they outright annex a sovereign country's territory by reneging on an agreement with that country - but they are not the first to do it, and certainly not the last

The pro Russian govt fell. That is all that has changed, that is why the Russians have used internal political divisions to invade. The EU is a political and trade organisation and a sovereign state has a right to join these organisations if they choose to. Ukraine isn't a full member of NATO and has every right to join in time if it is the will of the people of the Ukraine. Russia is trying to recover lost ground and doing so in a very obvious way. I find it strange that people think it acceptable and try to defend it.
The Ukrainians have got problems enough without holding them as in some way accountable for the previous actions of the US.

 

[Bross]

The pro Russian govt fell. That is all that has changed, that is why the Russians have used internal political divisions to invade. The EU is a political and trade organisation and a sovereign state has a right to join these organisations if they choose to. Ukraine isn't a full member of NATO and has every right to join in time if it is the will of the people of the Ukraine. Russia is trying to recover lost ground and doing so in a very obvious way. I find it strange that people think it acceptable and try to defend it.
The Ukrainians have got problems enough without holding them as in some way accountable for the previous actions of the US.

Through a non-democratic process. The current government is not legitimate at all, and hardly anyone in the eastern parts of Ukraine, especially Crimea, accept it.

 

[Raoul]

Through a non-democratic process. The current government is not legitimate at all, and hardly anyone in the eastern parts of Ukraine, especially Crimea, accept it.

It fell because the President fled and was subsequently stripped of his powers through the legislative process, so in a way, yes it was through the democratic process. The new Government is, whether some like it or not, the legitimate government of Ukraine and should be recognized as such.

 

[Sir Matt]

So, the Russians have surrounded a Ukrainian naval base and demanded that the Ukrainians surrender their weapons. Hardly defending their own base.

The Russian state run press is fulfilling its duty as the new Pravda as well.

Through a non-democratic process. The current government is not legitimate at all, and hardly anyone in the eastern parts of Ukraine, especially Crimea, accept it.

It was a more democratic process than any future elections could be under Yanukovych and the PR.

 

[Bross]

It fell because the President fled and was subsequently stripped of his powers through the legislative process, so in a way, yes it was through the democratic process. The new Government is, whether some like it or not, the legitimate government of Ukraine and should be recognized as such.

The democratically elected president decided to go against the opinion in western Ukraine and maintain ties to Russia rather than strengthening ties with EU and the west. The unhappy opposition rallied demonstrations in Kiev, located in the pro-EU western Ukraine. Naturally a large amount of people in Kiev sided with the opposition, but that does not mean that the demonstrations reflected the general opinion of the people in Ukraine as a whole.

The opposition were the ones who broke the agreement the parties signed to stop the confrontations. The opposition occupied parliament and made it impossible to solve the situation through negotiations. Yanukovich was forced to leave the country. Just because they then strip him from his powers does not mean theres been a democratic process. The current government is the result of a coup d'etat and only a completely biased person can claim that it is legitimate. It can at best be accepted as a placeholder government until the next presidential election has been held. Until then they should not be allowed to make any major decisions for the future of Ukraine. Right now we have a heavily pro-western government that is strengthening their ties to the EU and distancing themselves from Russia, but without the legitimacy of being elected by the people. That is also why we see certain regions like Crimea distancing themselves from the actions of the government, because they dont feel the government represents them.

 

[Raoul]

The democratically elected president decided to go against the opinion in western Ukraine and maintain ties to Russia rather than strengthening ties with EU and the west. The unhappy opposition rallied demonstrations in Kiev, located in the pro-EU western Ukraine. Naturally a large amount of people in Kiev sided with the opposition, but that does not mean that the demonstrations reflected the general opinion of the people in Ukraine as a whole.

The opposition were the ones who broke the agreement the parties signed to stop the confrontations. The opposition occupied parliament and made it impossible to solve the situation through negotiations. Yanukovich was forced to leave the country. Just because they then strip him from his powers does not mean theres been a democratic process. The current government is the result of a coup d'etat and only a completely biased person can claim that it is legitimate. It can at best be accepted as a placeholder government until the next presidential election has been held. Until then they should not be allowed to make any major decisions for the future of Ukraine. Right now we have a heavily pro-western government that is strengthening their ties to the EU and distancing themselves from Russia, but without the legitimacy of being elected by the people. That is also why we see certain regions like Crimea distancing themselves from the actions of the government, because they dont feel the government represents them.

The opposition may have broken the agreement, but it can't be denied that Yanokovich fled and was subsequently stripped of his powers through a legislative act. If the President goes into hiding, has lost the support of the public because of his corruption, and has his powers stripped by elected representatives, then the rest of the world has to recognize the current government.

Also, Yanukovich is now irrelevant and won't be coming back. This is now about Putin and Russia's internal perceptions of itself and how former Soviet states fit into the current Russian sphere.

 

[Bross]

The opposition may have broken the agreement, but it can't be denied that Yanokovich fled and was subsequently stripped of his powers through a legislative act. If the President goes into hiding, has lost the support of the public because of his corruption, and has his powers stripped by elected representatives, then the rest of the world has to recognize the current government.

If Kiev was located in the eastern Ukraine this would never have happened. This is largely a result of a country that is not united at all. The western regions, including Kiev, supports the EU while the opinion in the eastern parts is to maintain ties with Russia. Its a difficult situation and when politicians on both sides seem unfit to lead with integrity it wont be solved any time soon.

I think the divide in opinion is too big for democracy to work. A large group will feel alienated either way. A splitting of the country into two parts, with one becoming Euro-friendly and another maintaining ties with Russia or even being annexed into Russia seems inevitable to me.

 

[Red Dreams]

It fell because the President fled and was subsequently stripped of his powers through the legislative process, so in a way, yes it was through the democratic process. The new Government is, whether some like it or not, the legitimate government of Ukraine and should be recognized as such.

agree.

and whichever way you call it...Russia has invaded Ukraine. same ol...same ol.

 

[Raoul]

If Kiev was located in the eastern Ukraine this would never have happened. This is largely a result of a country that is not united at all. The western regions, including Kiev, supports the EU while the opinion in the eastern parts is to maintain ties with Russia. Its a difficult situation and when politicians on both sides seem unfit to lead with integrity it wont be solved any time soon.

I think the divide in opinion is too big for democracy to work. A large group will feel alienated either way. A splitting of the country into two parts, with one becoming Euro-friendly and another maintaining ties with Russia or even being annexed into Russia seems inevitable to me.

That's a somewhat irrelevant hypothetical. Kiev is the capital of Ukraine should be treated as such. Yes, Ukraine is not United, but its not as simplistic as some might suggest. There are pockets in Eastern Ukraine that are increasingly pro-Western. There are Russian speaking areas in the south that are somewhat impartial to either side.