Russia invades the Ukraine

[The Coup]

The rebels are the target, not civilians. Unfortunately the rebels are using civilians as human shields.

What a load of horseshit. The rebels living in the community don't count as using the community as human shields. That is called living in their homes, and Ukraine shooting at those homes indiscriminately.

 

[Zidane98]

What a load of horseshit. The rebels living in the community don't count as using the community as human shields. That is called living in their homes, and Ukraine shooting at those homes indiscriminately.

You are suggesting that the rebels are free to attack legitimate Ukranian military assets and that the ukranian military shouldn't fight back because the rebels are basing themselves amongst the civilian population with support from the Russians. Absurdity of the highest order.

 

[The Coup]

You are suggesting that the rebels are free to attack legitimate Ukranian military assets and that the ukranian military shouldn't fight back because the rebels are basing themselves amongst the civilian population with support from the Russians. Absurdity of the highest order.

I'm saying that is not the same thing as saying they are using human shields. What you mean to say is that Ukraine is trying to shoot people where they live, and don't care if they kill non combatants in the process. Israel says the same thing about Hamas all the time.

And the Ukrainian military is free to defend those military targets, if they can, I don't think they should avoid criticism for firing mortars at civilian areas. And why does the Ukrainian military even need to "fight back" against its own people, if it is indeed a legitimate government?

Using human shields is a totally different tactic, Ghengis Khan used to do it. But you don't do it with your own people.

 

[Zidane98]

The rebels are the aggressors here, they were the ones that launched a violent military attempt at taking over eastern ukraine. The ukranian military wouldn't take lightly the decision to shell rebel targets in civilian areas and there is the possibility that they could have minimised civilian casualties. There is absolutely zero doubt that they are targeting rebels attacking them though and not civilians.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The rebels are the aggressors here, they were the ones that launched a violent military attempt at taking over eastern ukraine. The ukranian military wouldn't take lightly the decision to shell rebel targets in civilian areas and there is the possibility that they could have minimised civilian casualties. There is absolutely zero doubt that they are targeting rebels attacking them though and not civilians.

The rebels most certainly aren't the aggressors. Eastern Ukrainians refused to acknowledge the overthrow of the previous government. Various regional government buildings were occupied in protest. The 'caretaker' government that took control in Kiev sent National Guard units - not regular Ukrainian Army forces - to the Eastern oblasts to assert Kiev's control over the area. Violence ensued. Guard units were repulsed. Insurgency was born.

Kiev continued to act as the aggressor ever since.

 

[The Coup]

And as I said, Kiev fascists burned an entire building of trade unionists alive.

Don't hear News Corp talking heads raging about those persecuted socialists in Ukraine though.

 

[The Coup]

The rebels are the aggressors here, they were the ones that launched a violent military attempt at taking over eastern ukraine. The ukranian military wouldn't take lightly the decision to shell rebel targets in civilian areas and there is the possibility that they could have minimised civilian casualties. There is absolutely zero doubt that they are targeting rebels attacking them though and not civilians.

If you are recklessly shelling civilian areas as a mere side effect of targeting the rebels, quite frankly I see that as no different as deliberately targeting civilians. It's the same thing America did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what Israel does in Palestine. Next thing you'll see Kiev using white phosphorous if this keeps up.

And it's not like it achieved much of anything now did it? Kiev couldn't win the firefight, and now they're at the bargaining table, just as Russia wanted. The heavy fighting has slowed and we have ourselves a lovely quagmire.

 

[Zidane98]

Just because you don't agree with the policies of the elected government you don't have the right to violently take over a region of your country with tacit support from Russia who have ulterior motives. Yanukovych was removed legitimately and replaced with a new leader who was voted in by his party. The right way to express your concerns is to run peaceful demonstrations and vote the government out at the next election. The Ukranian military isn't recklessly targeting civilians they are eliminating the scourge of the violent rebels which they were close to doing until the Russians ratcheted up their support for the rebels.

As a direct result of their illegitimate grab for power 298 innocent victims have been murdered who were not even involved in the conflict. Yet we see no apology from the rebels, no regret. The rebel movement is disgusting and will hopefully be quashed for good now. They certainly didn't have the interests of Ukranians at heart, they do what benefits Russia only.

 

[The Coup]

If they do not recognise that government as legitimate, and they have the means to defend themselves. Then yes, they do have that right to revolt.

The Ukrainian military set fire to a building of trade unionists. That's politically motivated murder and terrorism. I don't like either group, but you are clearly cheering for the Ukraine, I just think it's all kind of sad (and the Ukrainian people will again lose) and that Russia is likely to get what it wants.

 

[Zidane98]

That's bullshit. If I don't like what Tony Abbott is doing I have no right to launch a military style takeover of the region with like minded individuals. We'd truly have anarchy if we give in to terrorists like the rebels.

 

[The_Reaper]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markado...questions-ukraine-is-still-extremely-divided/

An interesting article that illustrates the still existing Ukrainian divide.

 

[The Coup]

That's bullshit. If I don't like what Tony Abbott is doing I have no right to launch a military style takeover of the region with like minded individuals. We'd truly have anarchy if we give in to terrorists like the rebels.

They're not taking over anything. They are simply not recognising a leader who wasn't elected. They just staying in their lands and saying they don't want the new guy. They didn't invade Western Ukraine. They defended themselves and claimed Kiev was illegitimate, and objectively that is true.

Do you consider yourself a patriot?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That's bullshit. If I don't like what Tony Abbott is doing I have no right to launch a military style takeover of the region with like minded individuals. We'd truly have anarchy if we give in to terrorists like the rebels.

How were the EuroMaidanites any different? They indeed brought lawless anarchy to the streets of Kiev, my friend. They threw petrol bombs at police, occupied buildings, killed and got killed. With the surety of numbers, why didn't they wait to vote Yanukovych out at the next election?

 

[Zidane98]

Yanukovych was legitimately removed as leader of his party mostly because of his blatant corruptness and abuse of lawlessness. The same government remains in power without a Russian puppet. No different to Julia Gillard being thrown out and replaced by Rudd. Anyone that disagreed with the policies of the newly elected leader in Ukraine is free to vote them out in the next election.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Anyone that disagreed with Yanukovych could have voted him out. And how can you compare the Gillard/Rudd debacle to the far more violent overthrow of an elected leader like we saw in EuroMaidan? Sure, the knives were out in the Labor caucus and it ended up arse-raping the ALP in its entirety but comparing it to the Ukraine?

Apples and oranges, mate.

 

[Zidane98]

The rebels exist only to serve and enforce Russia's interest. They couldn't give a s**t about the people of Eastern Ukraine, they are a mere proxy for Putin. Which makes Russia's actions all the more disgraceful as they were signatories to the 1994 Budapest treaty which some of you could do yourself a favour by reading it.

 

[Zidane98]

How were the EuroMaidanites any different? They indeed brought lawless anarchy to the streets of Kiev, my friend. They threw petrol bombs at police, occupied buildings, killed and got killed. With the surety of numbers, why didn't they wait to vote Yanukovych out at the next election?

They were not involved in the removal of Yanukovych. His own party removed him. They didn't launch a violent military offensive and / or try and take over part of the country. They are not serving the interests of a 3rd party and most if them protested peacefully until attacked under orders by Yanukovych.

Big difference compared to the Russian sponsored rebels in e ukraine.

 

[awaremind]

If you are recklessly shelling civilian areas as a mere side effect of targeting the rebels, quite frankly I see that as no different as deliberately targeting civilians. It's the same thing America did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what Israel does in Palestine. Next thing you'll see Kiev using white phosphorous if this keeps up.

And it's not like it achieved much of anything now did it? Kiev couldn't win the firefight, and now they're at the bargaining table, just as Russia wanted. The heavy fighting has slowed and we have ourselves a lovely quagmire.

Kiev used white phosphorous, there are many videos of it. They are also accused of using chemical weapons.
They only signed the ceasefire cos they were getting thier asses kicked and I expect they will start attacting again in a week or two, we'll see. I hope they don't.

 

[Zidane98]

Kiev used white phosphorous, there are many videos of it. They are also accused of using chemical weapons.
They only signed the ceasefire cos they were getting thier asses kicked and I expect they will start attacting again in a week or two, we'll see. I hope they don't.

Chemical weapons. White phosphorous. Russian propaganda at its finest and you suck it up.

EDIT: The video of Ukranians supposedly shelling Slavansky with "white phosphorous" is actually a video of a battle in Iraq back in 2004. Got to love those Russian propagandists.

http://www.stopfake.org/en/video-of-iraq-in-2004-is-presented-as-that-of-real-events-in-sloviansk/

 

[Zidane98]

If anyone on here thinks Russia is doing the right thing after reading this:

http://maidantranslations.com/2014/...dia-lies-about-the-events-in-eastern-ukraine/

then they truly are beyond help.

 

[awaremind]

If you still use Kiev's media as legit source of info then you are beyond help. I only bring up dubious claims when you do it first. There is no doubt that Kiev's militia's are A ) Nazi wannabes and B) Committing war crimes by deliberately shelling civilians. Your s**t debunking websites fight only strawmen.

 

[Zidane98]

If you still use Kiev's media as legit source of info then you are beyond help. I only bring up dubious claims when you do it first. There is no doubt that Kiev's militia's are A ) Nazi wannabes and B) Committing war crimes by deliberately shelling civilians. Your s**t debunking websites fight only strawmen.

Spoken like a true Russian propagandist when presented with irrefutable evidence that the Russians have been bullshitting.

But we could always believe the Russian story that a SU-25, a ground attack airplane with a maximum operating altitude of 23,000 feet, maximum operating speed less than that of a Boeing 777 airliner somehow gunned down MH 17 despite the effective gun range being 700m. And you would totally have to ignore the separatists themselves boasting they shot down a "AN-26" at exactly the same time MH 17 was shot down.

Oh and it was nice of the Russians to post video game footage as ACTUAL footage of a purported rocket attack by Ukranian forces. Wake up mate, you live in a state of delusion.

 

[awaremind]

Spoken like a true Russian propagandist when presented with irrefutable evidence that the Russians have been bullshitting.

But we could always believe the Russian story that a SU-25, a ground attack airplane with a maximum operating altitude of 23,000 feet, maximum operating speed less than that of a Boeing 777 airliner somehow gunned down MH 17 despite the effective gun range being 700m. And you would totally have to ignore the separatists themselves boasting they shot down a "AN-26" at exactly the same time MH 17 was shot down.

Oh and it was nice of the Russians to post video game footage as ACTUAL footage of a purported rocket attack by Ukranian forces. Wake up mate, you live in a state of delusion.

You yourself have been debunked by me, when you falsely claimed that only 300 refugees were entering Russia per day, when the UNHCR said that 300 Refugees were registering at its St Petersburg Office.
Have you read the crap on that site you just posted, its de-bunking pointless posts of Russian social media. Social Media is not to be taken as fact! Have you never seen a hacked Facebook page ? Didn't you know people can easily falsify their identities on Social media? Are you stupid or just deliberately trying to mislead ?
I don't know what happened to that plane but we will maybe have a better idea soon when the preliminary report is released.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

They were not involved in the removal of Yanukovych. His own party removed him.

Yes, they removed him after the events of EuroMaidan made it impossible for him to carry out his functions as President. The constitutional legality of that very vote remains unresolved. Look at this, from Washington mouthpiece Radio Free Europe no less;

http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html

...A majority of 328 lawmakers of the 450-seat parliament voted on February 22 to remove Yanukovych from power, citing as grounds his abandoning office and the deaths of more than 80 protesters and police in the past chaotic week of violence.

But a legal gap remains. According to the terms of an EU-brokered peace deal finalized on February 21, Yanukovych was due to sign a measure returning Ukraine to its 2004 constitution. (In 2010, Yanukovych restored the country's 1996 constitution, which hands greater power to the presidency.)

Yanukovych, however, failed to sign the measure. The omission appears to leave Kyiv in the kind of legal limbo that may prove fodder for future arguments against the current government transition.

The 1996 and the 2004 constitutions are uniform when it comes to the reasons for removing a president, with Article 111 stating the parliament has the right to initiate a procedure of impeachment "if he commits treason or other crime."

However, it is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i.e., 338 lawmakers.

Pro-Yanukovych lawmakers may also argue that under the 1996 constitution, it should have been the current acting prime minister, Serhiy Arbuzov, who assumed power after Yanukovych's removal...

They didn't launch a violent military offensive and / or try and take over part of the country. They are not serving the interests of a 3rd party and most if them protested peacefully until attacked under orders by Yanukovych.

Big difference compared to the Russian sponsored rebels in e ukraine.

They may not have launched a military offensive per se, but what they DID do was tantamount to a paramilitary operation. Pravyy Sektor militants DID attack riot police as well as aid in storming government buildings.

As for them being backed by 3rd parties - Ukraine is a pie, and there are a LOT of grubby fingerholes in it, from a few different hands.

Feel free to tell me to piss off, but you seem quite passionate about this. Is your family from that region?

I'll disclose my interest in all this too; I see the hand of the United States in all this. I neither like nor trust what rules in Washington, and history shows again and again what a duplicitous lot they are. I see a kind of parallel here to the 'contra' war in Nicaragua in the 1980's, framed as it was by the Monroe Doctrine of the United States which declared that their backyard was off limits to all other world powers. Backyard wars, fought over the spread and limitation of influence. The United States militarily occupied several Central American nations in the 20th century, instigating coups and propped up murderous dictators as they went in an absolute mirror image to what the Soviets did in 'their' backyard of Eastern Europe.

Neither side was right to do this.

Russia for their part are DEFINITELY no angels, and I find many of Putin's autocratic tendencies very worrying. Moscow seems no less duplicitous and two-faced than Washington D.C it seems. I look at what the United States does on the world stage though, how absolutely unchallenged that nation is militarily and diplomatically, and I see a very unbalanced world.

There must be a counterweight to the United States.

 

[The Coup]

Agree GS, but what the yanks did in South America was pretty horrific. It was more similar to the Soviet's in Central Asia than the Soviets in Eastern Europe.

And Putin is a s**t. Already sabre rattling over upgrading his nuclear offensive capabilities.