Real World Event Discussions

UKRAINE'S BLOODIEST DAY: YET TO COME

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, May 23, 2026 04:54
VIEWED: 8528
PAGE 2 of 7

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:51 PM

Quote:
So how does a civil war in Ukraine benefit the evil "West"? Seems like it would benefit Russia more, as that would give them an excuse to intervene militarily, and either put a puppet regime in place or intimidate the population into toeing the Russian line. They did it before in Georgia.

Geezer, take a deep cleansing breath. You've been brainwashed so heavily that you've stopped noticing that you've been wrong multiple times, due to sheer mental editing of events. (IIRC, you were one of those claiming that the Russians invaded Georgia without cause, when in fact the Georgians had fired missiles into S Ossetia.)

The Russians already HAD a friendly government in place- that was Yanukovych.

Let me reel this back a bit, for context: The Ukraine is divided into two- a Russian-speaking southeast which is characterized by steppes, and a Ukrainain-speaking northwest characterized by forests (a portion of which was formerly Poland).

Quote:
The official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, an East Slavic language which is the native language of 65% of Ukraine's population. Russian is the native language of 33% of Ukraine's population and the rest (2%) are native speakers of other languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine

Yanukovich is a Russian-speaking Ukrainian. He was elected in 2009 with 49% of the vote. (Elections in multi-party countries such as the Ukraine are characterized by candidates with less than 50%). Many people who voted for Yanukovych did so in order to keep Yulia Tymoshenko (she of the braided hair) out of power because it was she- an opposition figure- who had signed a disastrously expensive gas deal with Putin.

Fast forward a few years. Tymoshenko (the braided lady) is now in disgrace. Yanukovych is faced with two options: (1) joining the EU, which insists that the join be exclusive, or (2) signing a trade pact with Putin, who is willing to let the Ukraine trade with both economic blocs. (PLEASE NOTE that it was Putin who was willing to give Ukraine trading freedom, NOT the EU.) Yanukovych dithers, playing one side against the other. The EU is willing to offer nothing to the Ukraine in terms of concessions - no help in discharging its debt, just Greek-style austerity. Russia is ready to sweeten the deal with lower gas prices and an immediate $15 billion cash-on-the-barrel bond purchase. Not too surprisingly, Yanukovych signs a deal wtih Russia.

Given all that.. how could Russia possibly benefit from a coup in the Ukraine? If the west hadn't supported the opposition with money, PR, and political cover, and if the coup had not occurred, Russia would have had a deal with the Ukraine. And the EU - by it's own terms- would have been frozen out of economic dealings with that nation.

With the event of the coup, the deal with Russia is broken, and the EU stands a chance of pulling at least half of the Ukraine into its orbit.

What you say, and (more importantly) what you think just doesn't make sense. I know that in YOUR mind authentic support for Russia just doesn't exist... that any Russian-leaning views don't occur, or -if they do- aren't legitimate. But that's a huge blind spot- people are genuinely patriotic, Russian-leaning, and socialist. It's fact that doesn't compute with you, but it's a fact nonetheless. Once you accept that it occurs, you'll be able to understand more clearly and predict more accurately. Yanukovych had support. He was voted in. More importantly, a significant minority... that same 35% that I keep referring to over and over again... doesn't want to "face west". When deciding the fate of a nation, that minority's interests should be taken into account, or there will be persistent dispute.

Quote:
Strangely enough, the "Rioters supported by the West" meme doesn't come up.

Funny, because there are pictures of it... German and Polish politicians speaking in the Maidan, European politici

1KIKI

Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:21 PM

So I just wanted to throw this in the mix. Geezer et al seem to want to be seen as pro FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. but apparently free and fair democratic elections aren't good enough for them. They are quite happy to see free and fair democratic elections overturned by force to get a political party in power THEY like.

Yanukovych set to become president as observers say Ukraine election was fair
• Yulia Tymoshenko under pressure to concede defeat
• Monitors praise 'impressive display' of democracy

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/08/viktor-yanukovych-ukraine
-president-election

Ukraine's prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, was today under pressure to concede defeat in the country's presidential election after international observers this afternoon hailed yesterday's poll as fair and "truly competitive".

Observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) said there were no indications of serious fraud and described the vote as an "impressive display" of democracy. "For everyone in Ukraine this election was a victory," João Soares, president of the OSCE's parliamentary assembly, said.

(For the record, the US doesn't allow international observers to watch or rate its elections.)

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:28 PM

Yes, now Ukrainians can have "democracy" (which they already had in 2009).

GEEZER

Monday, February 24, 2014 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
(IIRC, you were one of those claiming that the Russians invaded Georgia without cause, when in fact the Georgians had fired missiles into S Ossetia.)

You didn't go back far enough.

"The 1991–92 South Ossetia War between ethnic Georgians and Ossetians had left slightly more than a half of South Ossetia under de facto control of a Russian-backed, internationally unrecognised government.[52][53]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war

Quote:
The Russians already HAD a friendly government in place- that was Yanukovych.

Let me reel this back a bit, for context: The Ukraine is divided into two- a Russian-speaking southeast which is characterized by steppes, and a Ukrainain-speaking northwest characterized by forests (a portion of which was formerly Poland).
Quote:
The official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, an East Slavic language which is the native language of 65% of Ukraine's population. Russian is the native language of 33% of Ukraine's population and the rest (2%) are native speakers of other languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine

Yanukovich is a Russian-speaking Ukrainian. He was elected in 2009 with 49% of the vote. (Elections in multi-party countries such as the Ukraine are characterized by candidates with less than 50%). Many people who voted for Yanukovych did so in order to keep Yulia Tymoshenko (she of the braided hair) out of power because it was she- an opposition figure- who had signed a disastrously expensive gas deal with Putin.

Fast forward a few years. Tymoshenko (the braided lady) is now in disgrace. Yanukovych is faced with two options: (1) joining the EU, which insists that the join be exclusive, or (2) signing a trade pact with Putin, who is willing to let the Ukraine trade with both economic blocs. (PLEASE NOTE that it was Putin who was willing to give Ukraine trading freedom, NOT the EU.) Yanukovych dithers, playing one side against the other. The EU is willing to offer nothing to the Ukraine in terms of concessions - no help in discharging its debt, just Greek-style austerity. Russia is ready to sweeten the deal with lower gas prices and an immediate $15 billion cash-on-the-barrel bond purchase. Not too surprisingly, Yanukovych signs a deal wtih Russia.

Given all that.. how could Russia possibly benefit from a coup in the Ukraine? If the west hadn't supported the opposition with money, PR, and political cover, and if the coup had not occurred, Russia would have had a deal with the Ukraine. And the EU - by it's own terms- would have been frozen out of economic dealings with that nation.

Interestingly enough, the Socialist World article OED posted gives a somewhat different take on this.

For example:

Quote:
Yanukovich is usually seen as pro-Russian but, since his return to power in 2010, he has been pragmatic in his relations between the powers. His first visit was to Brussels, where he confirmed that Ukraine would remain as part of Nato’s outreach programme. Shortly after, he visited Moscow, where he promised to restore previous good relations. He resisted, however, any attempts by Vladimir Putin to recruit Ukraine to the Eurasian customs union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Until December’s shock decision, it seemed that Yanukovich was enthusiastic about the EU’s association agreement.

As the date for signing it came closer, Russia stepped up its restrictions on trade. Trade volume between the two countries fell by 11% in 2012 ($45bn) and by a further 15% in 2013. The trade volume between Ukraine and the EU is about the same but, given the state of the EU economy, it has not been able to increase its trade to make up for the loss from Russia. The €1.8 billion aid over ten years offered by the EU to compensate for such losses was clearly nowhere near adequate. In addition, Russia uses the gas pipelines crossing Ukraine as a further

Or are the Socialists pushing capitalist propaganda as

1KIKI

Monday, February 24, 2014 3:19 AM

"The 1991–92 South Ossetia War between ethnic Georgians and Ossetians had left slightly more than a half of South Ossetia under de facto control of a Russian-backed, internationally unrecognised government."

That leaves the war completely unexplained. What was it about? Who started it? What was the result? Fortunately, wiki contains a link ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991%E2%80%9392_South_Ossetia_War ... And if you're tedious enough to read through it, what you find is that the ruling government of Georgia instigated a civil war with its own province South Ossetia, but that South Ossetia fought successfully for its independence from Georgia. The international community, nervous about uppity regions catching the independence bug, refused to recognize the South Ossetian government. Hence, the 'unrecognized government'.

The 1991–1992 South Ossetian War was fought between Georgian government forces and ethnic Georgian militia on one side, and the forces of South Ossetia and ethnic Ossetian militia who wanted South Ossetia to secede from Georgia and become an independent state, supported by individual Russian troops (uncited), on the other.

In other words, it was largely a civil war where (presumably) individual Russian troops joined in.

In 1989, around 98,000 people lived in South Ossetia. Of these, 66.61% (2/3) were Ossetian and 29.44% (less than 1/3) Georgian.

So, South Ossetia, with a vast majority of South Ossetians, was a province of Georgia. After the fall of the Soviet Union, as happened in many former areas of the USSR, there were many internal political and physical conflicts, in this case between South Ossetians and Georgians. When it comes to "who started it"

... The Georgians made three assaults on Tskhinvali, in February and March 1991 and in June, 1992.

But even though the national government of Georgia started it, the war went badly for the Georgian army. On top of that, other areas of Georgia started to arm and organize themselves. And so ...

As a result, Shevardnadze had an interest in ending the conflict in South Ossetia and signed the Russian-brokered Sochi agreement. The ceasefire agreement left South Ossetia divided into areas controlled by Georgia and areas controlled by the unrecognised government of South Ossetia. It also created the Joint Control Commission and, under JCC mandate, introduced the joint peacekeeping forces, made up of Georgian, Russian and Ossetian soldiers. A small number of Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitors was also deployed in the area.

"Or are the Socialists pushing capitalist propaganda as well?"

You must be counting on people not being tedious enough to click on your link and read from the beginning all the way to the end. WAY TO GO with the selective quoting! What the article concludes really is this:

There is no solution to the problems faced by the Ukrainian population on the basis of the policies proposed by politicians such as Yanukovich or Klitschko, or by joining Russia’s customs union ... or the EU. The only way out is to fight for the establishment of a strong, united workers’ movement ... that can take political power. It would need to establish a socialist economy based on the public ownership of industry, banking and natural resources democratically planned by working people, in a united and independent socialist Ukraine as part of a wider federation of socialist states. .

That sounds strangely anti-capitalist to me.

GEEZER

Monday, February 24, 2014 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
"The 1991–1992 South Ossetian War was fought between Georgian government forces and ethnic Georgian militia on one side, and the forces of South Ossetia and ethnic Ossetian militia who wanted South Ossetia to secede from Georgia and become an independent state, supported by individual Russian troops (uncited), on the other.
In other words, it was largely a civil war where (presumably) individual Russian troops joined in.

Yeah. The Russian soldiers took their summer vacation to fight in Ossetia. Right.

Besides, you left a bit out, didn't you?

Or should I say "WAY TO GO with the selective quoting"?

Quote:
Most of their equipment and arms were former Soviet arms abandoned following the break-up of the Soviet Union. Former Georgian president, Eduard Shevardnadze, accused Russia of military involvement in the conflict. At the same time, the Ossetians claimed that Russian military and police failed to protect the local civilian population during Georgian attacks on Tskhinvali and surrounding Ossetian villages.[6] The Georgian side claimed there was overt help from military units of the Russian Federation.[1]

Quote:
"Or are the Socialists pushing capitalist propaganda as well?"

You must be counting on people not being tedious enough to click on your link and read from the beginning all the way to the end.

What do their socialist goals have to do with the fact they pretty much refuted all SignyM's claims that the West was trying to monopolize Ukraine's business and the Russians were just friendly helpers?

Of course, expecting you to stick to the point is like trying to sculpt clouds.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Monday, February 24, 2014 9:25 PM

Quote:
What do their socialist goals have to do with the fact they pretty much refuted all SignyM's claims that the West was trying to monopolize Ukraine's business and the Russians were just friendly helpers?

You can find all kinds of silly arguments on the internet. The trick is to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. The EU and the USA were very clearly involved in Ukraine's affairs. There are pictures of western officials making speeches to the rioters, handing out coffee and cookies, there are recordings of USA officials picking and choosing the preferred winners, there is the obvious bias in the western media, there are documented proposals and contracts by both the EU and Russia. Clearly, THE WEST WAS INVOLVED IN THE COUP. And yes- IT WAS A COUP. It's been documented and recorded and photographed and is visible to anyone who isn't trying to deny events.

So quite frankly, I don't care what that source says. The reality is that the West is trying to monopolize Ukraine's business.... it was documented in the EU's conditions for joining ... and the USA is probably trying to remove or netrualize the Russian naval base in the Ukraine.

As far as the Russians being friendly helpers, Russian diplomats and politicians were notably absent from the event and silent in their assessments. No speeches in the Crimea, or demonstrations in Sevostopol. When weighed on an even scale (which you will never do, of course) the west was clearly the aggressor in this case, breaking diplomatic protocol and promoting a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government... one elected freely and fairly, and one which was either going to be re-elected or thrown out of office next year.

BY way of comparison, and as a demonstration to you (and others) of the instability of your own opinions: Do you recall when the military took over Honduras because the wildly popular then-President, Manuel Zalaya, wanted to hold a non-binding poll to see whether he could run for a third term (not sanctioned by their Constitution)? Do you recall how your knickers got in such a twist because of the possibilty of a potential violation of Consitutional rules?

Well, would you please apply that same procedural rigor and desire for Constitutional stability to what's going on in the Ukraine? Or are you going to be just as one-sided now as you've always been?

That's OK, I already know the answer to that one!

1KIKI

Monday, February 24, 2014 9:48 PM

Geezer

Just b/c one person CLAIMED there was help from the Russians doesn't make it true.

You DO know the difference between a claim and a fact, or between your opinion and a fact --- right? You DO know what a fact is --- right?

SIGNYM

Monday, February 24, 2014 9:58 PM

No Geezer doesn't know the difference between a fact and a claim. But given his strong biases, he'll choose claims over facts any day, if it matches his opinions.

Meanwhile - little-known fact: the Rada, or Ukrainian Parliament, has been passing laws with approximately 100 of its members missing. Those members represent the Russophones, who felt sufficiently threatened to leave. The Rada is passing laws to make speaking Russian illegal. So much for national consensus!

1KIKI

Monday, February 24, 2014 10:48 PM

Looking at every post, how much did Geezer post that was either unverified, slanted, or flat-out wrong:

This entire post misrepresents the FACT that the Georgian government - of its own volition - initially attacked its own province in the first strike of a civil war in Georgia - which it then went on to LOSE in humiliating fashion, allowing areas of South Ossetia to have their freedom. Maybe Georgia should have left things alone.

So how does a civil war in Ukraine benefit the evil "West"? Seems like it would benefit Russia more, as that would give them an excuse to intervene militarily, and either put a puppet regime in place or intimidate the population into toeing the Russian line. They did it before in Georgia.

This post tries to claim that because information wasn't found in one source it's not fact - despite the fact the information was well and repeatedly documented in many other sources over time.

Strangely enough, the "Rioters supported by the West" meme doesn't come up.

This quote incompletely addresses the topic of Georgia (again) and cherry picks facts, and quotes.

This quote tries to elevate personal opinion into fact.

Yeah. The Russian soldiers took their summer vacation to fight in Ossetia. Right.

This one is simply wrong, as I did include the relevant fact in my post,

Besides, you left a bit out, didn't you?

This is wrong because he ignores multiple reports from multiple sources about the facts. He is also confused about his claim a single article 'refutes' multiple sources.

I have to say, Geezer is an EXTREMELY PARTISAN - and completely dishonest - contributor to this discussion. Every single one of his posts is entirely misleading, cherry-picked, or wrong.