He will keep trying until the economic costs are too much to tolerate and they begin to threaten his domestic popularity and his inner circle begin to jump off the sinking ship.
Russia Discussion
- Thread starter iSparky
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
He will keep trying until the economic costs are too much to tolerate and they begin to threaten his domestic popularity and his inner circle begin to jump off the sinking ship.
One of the primary goals of arming the Ukrainians would be increasing the cost for him to operate in Ukraine on top of the economic damage. The public in Russia believes what he tells them and would not support a war in Ukraine. 70% of Russians don't want military involvement in Ukraine. If the pile of bodies were to increase and it become obvious even to the well-blinkered masses, Putin would have something of a credibility crisis on his hands. It's clear that economic instability will have a limited effect on his popularity within Russia.
Perhaps but ultimately the Ukrainian army will never be a match for a full on Russian invasion, even if western arms are introduced. Putin will simply intensify his support for the rebels and send more Russian troops into the east. Economic pressure however, will eventually erode his domestic support, which remember is not completely legitimate because its been carefully crafted through a bubble of lies and propaganda, and that bubble will eventually pop at which point he will be finished.
hmm sounds a bit of an overkill if it's just a control thing surely.
As long as he can claim 80% approval rating with no protests to demonstrate he's wrong, he won't face any opposition. The Russian people are demonstrably naive when it comes to believing what the media tells them. I posted elsewhere the poll numbers that are downright farcical--something like 60+% believe their (state) news agencies. Until people actively oppose Putin, the rest will go along with whatever public perception is. With his crackdown on media and civil society groups, popping that bubble is growing more difficult. The West doesn't have to defeat Putin militarily. It just has to increase the cost of his operations there enough that it becomes more visible.
I think it's because he's staked his popularity on being the tough guy. Anything that threatens that image is a big deal to him. Tbh, I don't think he has any idea what he wants out of this whole thing.
A day of bloodshed on Kiev's main square, nearly a year ago, marked the end of a winter of protest against the government of president Viktor Yanukovych, who soon afterwards fled the country. More than 50 protesters and three policemen died. But how did the shooting begin? Protest organisers have always denied any involvement - but one man told the BBC a different story.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021
It's early in the morning, 20 February, 2014. Kiev's Maidan square is divided - on one side the riot police, the protesters on the other.
This has been going on for more than two months now. But events are about to come to a head. By the end of the day, more than 50 people will be dead, many of them gunned down in the street by security forces.
The violence will lead to the downfall of Ukraine's pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych. Moscow will call 20 February an armed coup, and use it to justify the annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine.
The protest leaders, some of whom now hold positions of power in the new Ukraine, insist full responsibility for the shootings lies with the security forces, acting on behalf of the previous government.
But one year on, some witnesses are beginning to paint a different picture.
"I didn't shoot to kill"
"I was shooting downwards at their feet," says a man we will call Sergei, who tells me he took up position in the Kiev Conservatory, a music academy on the south-west corner of the square.
"Of course, I could have hit them in the arm or anywhere. But I didn't shoot to kill."
Sergei says he had been a regular protester on the Maidan for more than a month, and that his shots at police on the square and on the roof of an underground shopping mall, caused them to retreat.
There had been shooting two days earlier, on 18 February. The 19th, a Wednesday, had been quieter, but in the evening, Sergei says, he was put in contact with a man who offered him two guns: one a 12-gauge shotgun, the other a hunting rifle, a Saiga that fired high-velocity rounds.
He chose the latter, he says, and stashed it in the Post Office building, a few yards from the Conservatory. Both buildings were under the control of the protesters.
Under attack, the police retreated from their position near the front line in the square, falling back along the street on the north side of Hotel Ukraine.
Protesters then advanced towards the police, where they were shot by retreating security forces and snipers from surrounding buildings.
More than 50 people were killed, the heaviest death toll of the clashes between protesters and security forces in the Maidan.
When the shooting started early on the morning of the 20th, Sergei says, he was escorted to the Conservatory, and spent some 20 minutes before 07:00 firing on police, alongside a second gunman.
His account is partially corroborated by other witnesses. That morning, Andriy Shevchenko, then an opposition MP and part of the Maidan movement, had received a phone call from the head of the riot police on the square.
"He calls me and says, 'Andriy, somebody is shooting at my guys.' And he said that the shooting was from the Conservatory."
Shevchenko contacted the man in charge of security for the protesters, Andriy Parubiy, known as the Commandant of the Maidan.
"I sent a group of my best men to go through the entire Conservatory building and determine whether there were any firing positions," Parubiy says.
Meanwhile the MP, Andriy Shevchenko, was getting increasingly panicked phone calls.
"I kept getting calls from the police officer, who said: 'I have three people wounded, I have five people wounded, I have one person dead.' And at some point he says, 'I am pulling out.' And he says, 'Andriy I do not know what will be next.' But I clearly felt that something really bad was about to happen."
Andriy Parubiy, now deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, says his men found no gunmen in the Conservatory building.
But a photographer who gained access to the Conservatory later in the morning - shortly after 08:00 - took pictures there of men with guns, although he did not see them fire.
What happened in Maidan Square: A photographer's story
Sergei's account also differs from Parubiy's.
"I was just reloading," he told me. "They ran up to me and one put his foot on top of me, and said, 'They want a word with you, everything is OK, but stop doing what you're doing.'"
Sergei says he is convinced the men who dragged him away were from Parubiy's security unit, though he didn't recognise their faces. He was escorted out of the Conservatory building, taken out of Kiev by car, and left to make his own way home.
By that time three policemen had been fatally wounded and the mass killings of protesters had begun.
Kiev's official investigation has focused on what happened afterwards - after the riot police began to retreat from the square. In video footage, they are clearly seen firing towards protesters as they pull back.
Only three people have been arrested, all of them members of a special unit of riot police. And of these three, only two - the lower-ranking officers - remain in custody. The unit's commanding officer, Dmitry Sadovnik, was granted bail and has now disappeared.
The three policemen are accused of causing 39 deaths. But at least a further dozen protestors were killed - and the three policemen who died of their wounds.
Some of the dead were almost certainly shot by snipers, who seemed to be shooting from some of the taller buildings surrounding the square.
Lawyers for the victims and sources in the general prosecutor's office have told the BBC that when it comes to investigating deaths that could not have been caused by the riot police, they have found their efforts blocked by the courts.
"If you think of Yanukovych's time, it was like a Bermuda triangle: the prosecutor's office, the police and the courts," says Andriy Shevchenko. "Everyone knew that they co-operated, they covered each other and that was the basis of the massive corruption in the country. Those connections still exists."
Conspiracy theories abound
Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Vitaly Yarema, was dismissed this week, amid harsh criticism of his handling of the investigation.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theories flourish.
"I'm certain that the shootings of the 20th were carried out by snipers who arrived from Russia and who were controlled by Russia," says Andriy Parubiy, the former Commandant of the Maidan.
"The shooters were aiming to orchestrate a bloodbath on Maidan."
This is a widely-held belief in Ukraine. In Russia, many believe the opposite - that the revolt on Maidan was a Western conspiracy, a CIA-inspired coup designed to pull Ukraine out of Moscow's orbit. Neither side offers convincing evidence for its assertion.
The overwhelming majority of the protesters on Maidan were peaceful, unarmed citizens, who braved months of bitter cold to demand a change to their corrupt government. As far as is known, all the protesters killed on 20 February were unarmed.
The leaders of the Maidan have always maintained they did their best to keep guns away from the square.
"We knew that our strength was not to use force, and our weakness would be if we start shooting," says Andriy Shevchenko.
Parubiy says it is possible that a handful of protesters with weapons may have come to the Maidan as part of a spontaneous, unorganised response to violence from the security forces in the days running up to 20 February.
"I did hear that, after the shootings on 18 February, there were guys who came to Maidan with hunting rifles. I was told that sometimes they were the relatives or parents of those people who were killed on the 18th. So I concede that it's possible there were people with hunting rifles on Maidan. When the snipers began to kill our guys, one after another, I can imagine that those with the hunting rifles returned fire."
Sergei, again, tells a different story. He says he was recruited as a potential shooter in late-January, by a man he describes only as a retired military officer. Sergei himself was a former soldier.
"We got chatting, and he took me under his wing. He saw something in me that he liked. Officers are like psychologists, they can see who is capable. He kept me close."
The former officer dissuaded him from joining any of the more militant groups active on the Maidan.
"'Your time will come,' he said."
Was he being prepared, psychologically, to take up arms?
"Not that we sat down and worked out a plan. But we talked about it privately and he prepared me for it."
It is not clear who the man who apparently recruited Sergei was, or whether he belonged to any of the recognised groups active on the Maidan.
And there is much else that we still do not know, such as who fired the first shots on 20 February.
As for conspiracy theories, it is possible that Sergei was manipulated, played like a pawn in a bigger game. But that is not the way he sees it. He was a simple protester, he says, who took up arms in self-defence.
"I didn't want to shoot anyone or kill anyone. But that was the situation. I don't feel like some kind of hero. The opposite: I have trouble sleeping, bad premonitions. I'm trying to control myself. But I just get nervous all the time. I have nothing to be proud of. It's easy to shoot. Living afterwards, that's the hard thing. But you have to defend your country."
This has been going on for more than two months now. But events are about to come to a head. By the end of the day, more than 50 people will be dead, many of them gunned down in the street by security forces.
The violence will lead to the downfall of Ukraine's pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych. Moscow will call 20 February an armed coup, and use it to justify the annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine.
The protest leaders, some of whom now hold positions of power in the new Ukraine, insist full responsibility for the shootings lies with the security forces, acting on behalf of the previous government.
But one year on, some witnesses are beginning to paint a different picture.
"I didn't shoot to kill"
"I was shooting downwards at their feet," says a man we will call Sergei, who tells me he took up position in the Kiev Conservatory, a music academy on the south-west corner of the square.
"Of course, I could have hit them in the arm or anywhere. But I didn't shoot to kill."
Sergei says he had been a regular protester on the Maidan for more than a month, and that his shots at police on the square and on the roof of an underground shopping mall, caused them to retreat.
There had been shooting two days earlier, on 18 February. The 19th, a Wednesday, had been quieter, but in the evening, Sergei says, he was put in contact with a man who offered him two guns: one a 12-gauge shotgun, the other a hunting rifle, a Saiga that fired high-velocity rounds.
He chose the latter, he says, and stashed it in the Post Office building, a few yards from the Conservatory. Both buildings were under the control of the protesters.
Under attack, the police retreated from their position near the front line in the square, falling back along the street on the north side of Hotel Ukraine.
Protesters then advanced towards the police, where they were shot by retreating security forces and snipers from surrounding buildings.
More than 50 people were killed, the heaviest death toll of the clashes between protesters and security forces in the Maidan.
When the shooting started early on the morning of the 20th, Sergei says, he was escorted to the Conservatory, and spent some 20 minutes before 07:00 firing on police, alongside a second gunman.
His account is partially corroborated by other witnesses. That morning, Andriy Shevchenko, then an opposition MP and part of the Maidan movement, had received a phone call from the head of the riot police on the square.
"He calls me and says, 'Andriy, somebody is shooting at my guys.' And he said that the shooting was from the Conservatory."
Shevchenko contacted the man in charge of security for the protesters, Andriy Parubiy, known as the Commandant of the Maidan.
"I sent a group of my best men to go through the entire Conservatory building and determine whether there were any firing positions," Parubiy says.
Meanwhile the MP, Andriy Shevchenko, was getting increasingly panicked phone calls.
"I kept getting calls from the police officer, who said: 'I have three people wounded, I have five people wounded, I have one person dead.' And at some point he says, 'I am pulling out.' And he says, 'Andriy I do not know what will be next.' But I clearly felt that something really bad was about to happen."
Andriy Parubiy, now deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, says his men found no gunmen in the Conservatory building.
But a photographer who gained access to the Conservatory later in the morning - shortly after 08:00 - took pictures there of men with guns, although he did not see them fire.
What happened in Maidan Square: A photographer's story
Sergei's account also differs from Parubiy's.
"I was just reloading," he told me. "They ran up to me and one put his foot on top of me, and said, 'They want a word with you, everything is OK, but stop doing what you're doing.'"
Sergei says he is convinced the men who dragged him away were from Parubiy's security unit, though he didn't recognise their faces. He was escorted out of the Conservatory building, taken out of Kiev by car, and left to make his own way home.
By that time three policemen had been fatally wounded and the mass killings of protesters had begun.
Kiev's official investigation has focused on what happened afterwards - after the riot police began to retreat from the square. In video footage, they are clearly seen firing towards protesters as they pull back.
Only three people have been arrested, all of them members of a special unit of riot police. And of these three, only two - the lower-ranking officers - remain in custody. The unit's commanding officer, Dmitry Sadovnik, was granted bail and has now disappeared.
The three policemen are accused of causing 39 deaths. But at least a further dozen protestors were killed - and the three policemen who died of their wounds.
Some of the dead were almost certainly shot by snipers, who seemed to be shooting from some of the taller buildings surrounding the square.
Lawyers for the victims and sources in the general prosecutor's office have told the BBC that when it comes to investigating deaths that could not have been caused by the riot police, they have found their efforts blocked by the courts.
"If you think of Yanukovych's time, it was like a Bermuda triangle: the prosecutor's office, the police and the courts," says Andriy Shevchenko. "Everyone knew that they co-operated, they covered each other and that was the basis of the massive corruption in the country. Those connections still exists."
Conspiracy theories abound
Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Vitaly Yarema, was dismissed this week, amid harsh criticism of his handling of the investigation.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theories flourish.
"I'm certain that the shootings of the 20th were carried out by snipers who arrived from Russia and who were controlled by Russia," says Andriy Parubiy, the former Commandant of the Maidan.
"The shooters were aiming to orchestrate a bloodbath on Maidan."
This is a widely-held belief in Ukraine. In Russia, many believe the opposite - that the revolt on Maidan was a Western conspiracy, a CIA-inspired coup designed to pull Ukraine out of Moscow's orbit. Neither side offers convincing evidence for its assertion.
The overwhelming majority of the protesters on Maidan were peaceful, unarmed citizens, who braved months of bitter cold to demand a change to their corrupt government. As far as is known, all the protesters killed on 20 February were unarmed.
The leaders of the Maidan have always maintained they did their best to keep guns away from the square.
"We knew that our strength was not to use force, and our weakness would be if we start shooting," says Andriy Shevchenko.
Parubiy says it is possible that a handful of protesters with weapons may have come to the Maidan as part of a spontaneous, unorganised response to violence from the security forces in the days running up to 20 February.
"I did hear that, after the shootings on 18 February, there were guys who came to Maidan with hunting rifles. I was told that sometimes they were the relatives or parents of those people who were killed on the 18th. So I concede that it's possible there were people with hunting rifles on Maidan. When the snipers began to kill our guys, one after another, I can imagine that those with the hunting rifles returned fire."
Sergei, again, tells a different story. He says he was recruited as a potential shooter in late-January, by a man he describes only as a retired military officer. Sergei himself was a former soldier.
"We got chatting, and he took me under his wing. He saw something in me that he liked. Officers are like psychologists, they can see who is capable. He kept me close."
The former officer dissuaded him from joining any of the more militant groups active on the Maidan.
"'Your time will come,' he said."
Was he being prepared, psychologically, to take up arms?
"Not that we sat down and worked out a plan. But we talked about it privately and he prepared me for it."
It is not clear who the man who apparently recruited Sergei was, or whether he belonged to any of the recognised groups active on the Maidan.
And there is much else that we still do not know, such as who fired the first shots on 20 February.
As for conspiracy theories, it is possible that Sergei was manipulated, played like a pawn in a bigger game. But that is not the way he sees it. He was a simple protester, he says, who took up arms in self-defence.
"I didn't want to shoot anyone or kill anyone. But that was the situation. I don't feel like some kind of hero. The opposite: I have trouble sleeping, bad premonitions. I'm trying to control myself. But I just get nervous all the time. I have nothing to be proud of. It's easy to shoot. Living afterwards, that's the hard thing. But you have to defend your country."
Let's see how long this latest ceasefire lasts.
As the Ukrainians pull back, the "rebels" will no doubt use their weapons to advance further into the west through the "buffer" zone. Just like last time.
That's the beauty of it. If they do, it will trigger more deeper sanctions and completely invalidate any future negotiations since Putin's reputations as a bullshitter will be complete.
'One-sided Minsk deal on Ukraine asks nothing of Putin'
Analysis: Emerging agreement appears to meet few of Ukraine's demands and at best will merely freeze conflict when the advantage lies with Russia-backed separatists
By David Blai
12 Feb 2015
Christian Adams cartoon reflects on the Minsk deal
The new agreement in Minsk fails to resolve one of the central issues at stake, namely the presence of thousands of Russian troops on Ukrainian territory.
A Russian force of about 9,000 soldiers, consisting of five infantry battalions supported by tanks and heavy artillery, is believed to have entered Ukraine to help the rebel offensive.
This onslaught has succeeded in enlarging the breakaway statelet under insurgent control.
Petro Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine, had made the “withdrawal of foreign forces” his key demand.
For this to mean anything, it would also need to entail restoring Ukrainian control – or at least outside monitoring – of the country’s eastern border with Russia.
If this could be achieved, then the departure of Russian forces could be verified and they would not be able to re-enter without someone noticing.
Yet the new agreement merely states that "foreign armed formations" and "military equipment" will leave the "territory of Ukraine". No timetable is given and no deadline is set. Nor is there any provision for verification, save a vague line that the withdrawal should take place under the "supervision" of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
If Mr Poroshenko pushed for Russian forces to leave by a given date with a clear method of ensuring compliance, then he has come away empty handed. As presently drafted, the latest Minsk agreement requires no real concessions from Vladimir Putin.
Instead, the proposals for a ceasefire and a withdrawal of heavy artillery impose disproportionate obligations on Ukraine.
The rebels and their Russian allies have already captured a significant amount of territory. With these gains in their metaphorical pocket, they can safely sign a ceasefire.
One of the few ways by which Ukraine has been able to hit back is by using heavy artillery. But if the guns fall silent under the new Minsk agreement, then Ukraine will lose its main way of pounding its enemies in the lost territory.
A withdrawal of forces along the ceasefire line will also provide little comfort. After all, this will mark the de facto partition of Ukrainian territory.
Any palliative words about the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine will mean little, given the stark fact that Russia and the rebels now control thousands of square miles.
On the face of it, the emerging agreement seems to meet few of Mr Poroshenko’s demands. At best, it will merely freeze the conflict at a moment when the advantage lies with his enemies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...flict-and-asks-nothing-of-Vladimir-Putin.html
Analysis: Emerging agreement appears to meet few of Ukraine's demands and at best will merely freeze conflict when the advantage lies with Russia-backed separatists
By David Blai
12 Feb 2015
Christian Adams cartoon reflects on the Minsk deal
The new agreement in Minsk fails to resolve one of the central issues at stake, namely the presence of thousands of Russian troops on Ukrainian territory.
A Russian force of about 9,000 soldiers, consisting of five infantry battalions supported by tanks and heavy artillery, is believed to have entered Ukraine to help the rebel offensive.
This onslaught has succeeded in enlarging the breakaway statelet under insurgent control.
Petro Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine, had made the “withdrawal of foreign forces” his key demand.
For this to mean anything, it would also need to entail restoring Ukrainian control – or at least outside monitoring – of the country’s eastern border with Russia.
If this could be achieved, then the departure of Russian forces could be verified and they would not be able to re-enter without someone noticing.
Yet the new agreement merely states that "foreign armed formations" and "military equipment" will leave the "territory of Ukraine". No timetable is given and no deadline is set. Nor is there any provision for verification, save a vague line that the withdrawal should take place under the "supervision" of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
If Mr Poroshenko pushed for Russian forces to leave by a given date with a clear method of ensuring compliance, then he has come away empty handed. As presently drafted, the latest Minsk agreement requires no real concessions from Vladimir Putin.
Instead, the proposals for a ceasefire and a withdrawal of heavy artillery impose disproportionate obligations on Ukraine.
The rebels and their Russian allies have already captured a significant amount of territory. With these gains in their metaphorical pocket, they can safely sign a ceasefire.
One of the few ways by which Ukraine has been able to hit back is by using heavy artillery. But if the guns fall silent under the new Minsk agreement, then Ukraine will lose its main way of pounding its enemies in the lost territory.
A withdrawal of forces along the ceasefire line will also provide little comfort. After all, this will mark the de facto partition of Ukrainian territory.
Any palliative words about the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine will mean little, given the stark fact that Russia and the rebels now control thousands of square miles.
On the face of it, the emerging agreement seems to meet few of Mr Poroshenko’s demands. At best, it will merely freeze the conflict at a moment when the advantage lies with his enemies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...flict-and-asks-nothing-of-Vladimir-Putin.html
Looks like the best Ukraine can hope for is a permanent freezing of the conflict as it stands and acceptance of a Transnistria/Abkhazia-style entity torn out of its eastern flank.
It's taken more than my lifetime to get here, but once again a German chancellor is centre-stage issuing threats, albeit just economic sanctions, at the moment.
I obviously haven't gone into to this in enough depth, but who exactly is she speaking for? France for sure, whose leader is looking like a bit of a poodle next to Merkel, but what about the rest of the EU, including the UK, and the US too? Who appointed her to this role? Will the entire 'West' follow her lead?
I obviously haven't gone into to this in enough depth, but who exactly is she speaking for? France for sure, whose leader is looking like a bit of a poodle next to Merkel, but what about the rest of the EU, including the UK, and the US too? Who appointed her to this role? Will the entire 'West' follow her lead?
Money talks and Germany is big dog in the EU
WASHINGTON — A delegation consisting of Ukrainian members of parliament, a paramilitary leader, and one Georgetown professor gave a senator’s office photos purportedly of the Russian military invading Ukraine that were later debunked.
Several photos allegedly showing the Russian military in eastern Ukraine that ran on the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday were quickly shown to actually be photos from other conflicts, some from years earlier. A spokesperson for Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe told the Free Beacon that the office had procured the photos from a “Ukrainian delegation” in December.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/h...ion-that-gave-misleading-photos-t#.fpQ2B56NRY
Several photos allegedly showing the Russian military in eastern Ukraine that ran on the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday were quickly shown to actually be photos from other conflicts, some from years earlier. A spokesperson for Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe told the Free Beacon that the office had procured the photos from a “Ukrainian delegation” in December.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/h...ion-that-gave-misleading-photos-t#.fpQ2B56NRY
What is the Washington Free Beacon?
Oh I thought it said Washington Free Bacon I was getting ready to head to Washington.....never heard of it myself.
What are you implying? Germany is one of the largest states in Europe and has benefited from the way things are. They should be active in the security of their neighbourhood.
Not sure what you're implying here ? That Merkel is turning into Hitler ?
Apparently Germany is banned from having a foreign policy or doing anything with other countries and if it does so, it's clearly 'relapsed' while Russia can do whatever it wants.
Don't let your imagination run riot gents, the bit you've bolded isn't meant to be an implication, I'm just acknowledging the sweep of history. It's really not that surprising a thought for someone of my age or older.
Quite where I'm supposed to have said 'Russia can do whatever it wants' is beyond me. Making stuff up doesn't help anyone.
Of course Mrs Merkel can have a foreign policy, my question was who is she speaking for? If the answer is just Germany and France then fair enough, but if it's for the UK, as the example of most interest to me, I would have liked it to have been debated in parliament first. If we're going to return to a cold war world with no gas to boot I'd like us to talk it over first.
Quite where I'm supposed to have said 'Russia can do whatever it wants' is beyond me. Making stuff up doesn't help anyone.
Of course Mrs Merkel can have a foreign policy, my question was who is she speaking for? If the answer is just Germany and France then fair enough, but if it's for the UK, as the example of most interest to me, I would have liked it to have been debated in parliament first. If we're going to return to a cold war world with no gas to boot I'd like us to talk it over first.
Its widely known that Germany leads the EU on most strategic issues and that Britain, through Cameron's policy view, supports what the likes of France and Germany are doing in Minsk.
Your use of the phrases "once again" and "just economic sanctions, at the moment" seemed to imply Germany is turning back into what it was which is ridiculous. If you meant something else, fair enough but it would be idiotic to believe that Germany talking about economic sanctions makes it at all similar to that 'other Germany'.
My point was that any 'normal' country would consider economic sanctions if a country the size of Russia did what it is doing unless you believe Russia is doing nothing wrong. Economic sanctions are entirely justified and to parallel it with 'history' seems ridiculous.
Germany can't speak for the UK. If it tried to, all it would take is for a senior UK politician to contradict her and she'd look like a fool. She can have her own policy without discussing it with the UK if she wants. She can't force the UK to do anything
So, what will it take for Novarossiya to be recognized as an independent state?
I mean, the people of that region don't want to be ruled by what they perceive an oppressive regime, so in the spirit of democracy surely their desire for freedom warrants independence, right?
Anyone who allies with Russia can't really preach about independence or claim the moral high ground over oppresive regimes.
Anyone who allies with Russia can't really preach about independence or claim the moral high ground over oppresive regimes.
He's wumming.
They were never there: Russia's silence for families of troops killed in Ukraine
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...silence-for-families-troops-killed-in-ukraine
"......Yelena Tumanova, a hospital orderly from Russia’s Mari El republic, said her son Anton Tumanov told her by phone on 10 August that his army unit was being sent to Donetsk. On 20 August, a coffin came back to Mari El with a small window through which she could see his face. His legs had been torn off by an artillery strike, his comrades told her. He was 20 years old".......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another unfortunate byproduct of Putin's orgy of lies regarding Ukraine - Russian families whose kids mysteriously disappear only to have their dead bodies return from a mysterious conflict zone. Below is a list of dead Russian soldiers and "volunteers", and where in Russia they came from, which the Russian government seems to think don't exist at all......
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...silence-for-families-troops-killed-in-ukraine
"......Yelena Tumanova, a hospital orderly from Russia’s Mari El republic, said her son Anton Tumanov told her by phone on 10 August that his army unit was being sent to Donetsk. On 20 August, a coffin came back to Mari El with a small window through which she could see his face. His legs had been torn off by an artillery strike, his comrades told her. He was 20 years old".......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another unfortunate byproduct of Putin's orgy of lies regarding Ukraine - Russian families whose kids mysteriously disappear only to have their dead bodies return from a mysterious conflict zone. Below is a list of dead Russian soldiers and "volunteers", and where in Russia they came from, which the Russian government seems to think don't exist at all......
Not really. Explain why a Russian majority living in that part of Ukraine should not be granted the right to self-determination?
I see. Has he been doing that throughout all the discussions over these threads? It would explain alot.
You might as well just take a shot at answering the question.
They should certainly be afforded the right within the framework of the Ukrainian process. If all parties agree and the broader Ukrainian public agree then so be it. Unfortunately, that's not what is happening here. This is a foreign invasion and land grab by a foreign country that is seeking to legitimize itself by the facade of domestic secession.
They were never there: Russia's silence for families of troops killed in Ukraine
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...silence-for-families-troops-killed-in-ukraine
"......Yelena Tumanova, a hospital orderly from Russia’s Mari El republic, said her son Anton Tumanov told her by phone on 10 August that his army unit was being sent to Donetsk. On 20 August, a coffin came back to Mari El with a small window through which she could see his face. His legs had been torn off by an artillery strike, his comrades told her. He was 20 years old".......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another unfortunate byproduct of Putin's orgy of lies regarding Ukraine - Russian families whose kids mysteriously disappear only to have their dead bodies return from a mysterious conflict zone. Below is a list of dead Russian soldiers and "volunteers", and where in Russia they came from, which the Russian government seems to think don't exist at all......
So what's that, about 50-60 names of soldiers and volunteers? Is this the infamous 'Russian invasion'?
That's only those who are recorded as dead. If those are the deaths, just think how many troops must be in Ukraine. It seems Putin is also lying to the mothers of kids he is not sending to die in Ukraine.
You're basically denying the voice of the Russians who reside in Ukraine.
And what do you mean by 'if all parties agree'? You mean the central, puppet government? They will never agree to a secession! But why is this relevant? Hope you're not implying that territorial integrities must be respected or any other such nonsense.
It's hard for a neutral to know who to believe. Are there really areas of the Ukraine where most people would rather be part of Russia, other than Crimea? If there are then I don't see where 'if all parties agree' comes into it, they should be allowed to secede. If there are not then I would support the Ukrainians against a foreign aggressor. The key for me is whether that is actually the case or not. If the West is going to throw it's weight into the dispute then I think it should start by calling for all parties to agree to referenda, and then people can look at facts and not allegations.
Even if. Big deal. You have paramilitary troops from EU member states supporting the Kyev regime.
The central government is democratically elected. If you disagree at how Yanykovich was deposed then that same logic should apply to supporting the current democratically elected government that has not only been voted in at the Presidential, but also at the Parliamentary level - a clear sign that their mandate is to move towards Europe.
It exposes the evil of Putin's web of deceit - not only is he lying to the world about his troops being in Ukraine, he's also lying to his own citizens and the grieving Russian parents whose kids he sent to die for a war he denies is happening - all of which you support. Give yourself a nice pat on the back you moral paragon, you.
