Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[thief of fire]

No I am saying that the neo nazi elements were responsible for much of the violence and used by the coup government in that regard. Or more likely the new government (coming after the coup) were unable to control these elements, or showed no interest in doing so.

This is an unsupported claim. The neo-nazi elements were probably esponsible for some of the violence, but pro-Russian provocateurs who shot at crowds are at least equally responsible.

There is no evidence they were pro Russian, and that is unlikely as people from both sides were shot at. Also you can look into what happened when the people were burnt in the Trade Union building by the nationalists. Noithing was done to stop this massacre, by the police , army etc. They are complicit in those murders.

I don't know if Yanukovich himself gave the order to massacre the protestors, or if the order came from FSB, but trying to pin everything on the marginal "neo-nazis" is pure Russian propaganda.

What evidence do you have?

I don't know anything about Spain, i didn't link to that

The post you responded to was specificly about a single incident in Spain, where some youngsters were dubbed "neo-nazis" by pro-Russian media for no other reason than waving flags in a likely Russian-funded propaganda event.

So...? I don't know anything about anything in Spain, nor did I say anything about events in Spain so leave me out of that please.

I did however link to some videos showing people being shot in Ukraine.

 

[Togo]

A reluctance to cooperate with your clumsy attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Nothing wrong with being reluctant. There was no need to claim a case had been made that the government was legit though.

But there was a need to claim that a case had been made that you had not made the point you thought you had.

And to go back over my original point ..again...for the umpteenth time...sigh. Unless you can show the government was legitimate you have no case anyway.

If you're claiming some special status for the kiev governemnt (illegitimacy) then you need to make that case. You can't make that case.

You claimed the Ukrainian government was illegitimate, you can't back it up, let's move on.

I did but the problem is that your original claims need to have a legitimate government in Kiev at that time.

No, they don't. Issues to do with the legitimacy of the government have nothing to do with whether or not a country was invaded, or whether or not Russia broke it's treaty. Why would you pretend otherwise?

If you want to attempt to make a case for invasion then you need to show this.

You want me to make a case that attacking military bases and taking over government buildings, before then annexing territory by force, is an invasion? What exactly is there for me to prove?

 

[barbos]

No I am saying that the neo nazi elements were responsible for much of the violence and used by the coup government in that regard. Or more likely the new government (coming after the coup) were unable to control these elements, or showed no interest in doing so.

This is an unsupported claim. The neo-nazi elements were probably esponsible for some of the violence, but pro-Russian provocateurs who shot at crowds are at least equally responsible.

Speaking of unsupported claims.

I don't know if Yanukovich himself gave the order to massacre the protestors, or if the order came from FSB, but trying to pin everything on the marginal "neo-nazis" is pure Russian propaganda.

What the fuck are smoking?
Right sector did the shooting.
If Yanukovich did that he would still be a president.

I don't know anything about Spain, i didn't link to that

The post you responded to was specificly about a single incident in Spain, where some youngsters were dubbed "neo-nazis" by pro-Russian media for no other reason than waving flags in a likely Russian-funded propaganda event.

Right, it was actually russian KGB with these flags trying to make ukrainians look bad.
Same with Odessa. You are slowly turning dutch.

 

[dystopian]

The post you responded to was specificly about a single incident in Spain, where some youngsters were dubbed "neo-nazis" by pro-Russian media for no other reason than waving flags in a likely Russian-funded propaganda event.

Right, it was actually russian KGB with these flags trying to make ukrainians look bad.
Same with Odessa. You are slowly turning dutch.

At least the Dutch have enough of a mastery of the English language to comprehend that he was talking about the *event* the flag-wavers crashed as being likely Russian-funded propaganda, as opposed to the flag wavers being Russian operatives.

 

[thief of fire]

No, they don't. Issues to do with the legitimacy of the government have nothing to do with whether or not a country was invaded, or whether or not Russia broke it's treaty. Why would you pretend otherwise?

Rubbish. If you want to make a legal case for an invasion then that case has to be weighed against everything else that was happening.
AS there was an illegitimate government following a US and NATO backed coup it's easy to make a legal case against what you are saying

You want me to make a case that attacking military bases and taking over government buildings, before then annexing territory by force, is an invasion? What exactly is there for me to prove?

Everything you just stated.
As I have said many many times now, though for some reason you won't let the idea between your ears, your whole case depends upon the US installed junta being legitimate.

As you refuse to make that case , you don't have a case.

Your tired old story of your NATO and the USA doing good, and its actions leading to legitimacy, whilst those who resist are evil has lost currency.

 

[angelo]

Close analysis of documents related to the recent protests in Ukraine culminating in the ouster of the Viktor Yanukovych-led government suggest probable foreign-orchestration, according to historian and geopolitical analyst F. William Engdahl. The US has vigorously advocated for Ukraine-European Union integration, much as it backed the 2004 failed “Orange Revolution” to split Ukraine from Russia in an effort to weaken Russia. Yanukovych opposed such amalgamation.

http://www.projectcensored.org/us-ngo-involvement-ukraine-uprising/

 

[Togo]

Rubbish. If you want to make a legal case for an invasion then that case has to be weighed against everything else that was happening.
AS there was an illegitimate government following a US and NATO backed coup

But there wasn't. That's the bit that was disputed, that's the point that Sabine made, backed up with supporting evidence. You can't just assume the cornerstone of your case.

To be clear, you've not demonstrated that:
1) The government as a whole was illegal
2) That the government being illegal would somehow justify* a treaty signatory invading the country and helping itself to territory. (*As in make it not an invasion)

it's easy to make a legal case against what you are saying

Then why can't you do it?

You want me to make a case that attacking military bases and taking over government buildings, before then annexing territory by force, is an invasion? What exactly is there for me to prove?

Everything you just stated.
As I have said many many times now, though for some reason you won't let the idea between your ears, your whole case depends upon the US installed junta being legitimate.

How? Please explain. How are you getting from 'illegal government' to 'helping yourself to bits of territory is not an invasion'?

 

[Jayjay]

This is an unsupported claim. The neo-nazi elements were probably esponsible for some of the violence, but pro-Russian provocateurs who shot at crowds are at least equally responsible.

There is no evidence they were pro Russian, and that is unlikely as people from both sides were shot at. Also you can look into what happened when the people were burnt in the Trade Union building by the nationalists. Noithing was done to stop this massacre, by the police , army etc. They are complicit in those murders.

I don't know if Yanukovich himself gave the order to massacre the protestors, or if the order came from FSB, but trying to pin everything on the marginal "neo-nazis" is pure Russian propaganda.

What evidence do you have?

There is some photographic evidence that it could have been SBU, and none of the snipers were caught as far as I know. That's not to say that the nationalists didn't cause some deaths, like the burning of the trade union building you mentioned, but that's the nature of tit-for-tat violence and escalation. Ukraine's government is a basket case and has not been able to properly prosecute the culprits, and it's doubtful they ever will, but it's abundantly clear that Yanukovich and/or Russian intelligence services had a hand in orchestrating a pretext for Russia to invade Crimea and destabilize eastern Ukraine.

 

[Jayjay]

This is an unsupported claim. The neo-nazi elements were probably esponsible for some of the violence, but pro-Russian provocateurs who shot at crowds are at least equally responsible.

Speaking of unsupported claims.

I don't know if Yanukovich himself gave the order to massacre the protestors, or if the order came from FSB, but trying to pin everything on the marginal "neo-nazis" is pure Russian propaganda.

What the fuck are smoking?
Right sector did the shooting.
If Yanukovich did that he would still be a president.

How so? Yanukovich is almost univesally blame for doing it in Kiev, so what makes you think that it would have been successful if you thought he had actually ordered protestors and police shot by snipers?

Or do you think that shooting protestors was the right decision for him to do, even if he says he didn't do it?

What evidence do you have that right sector was behind the shooting anyway? As far as I know, shooting came from government-controlled buildings (despite some Russian testimony to contrary) and none of the shooters were caught. Besides they seemed to be professionals, and when it comes Ukraine, that spells out Russian!

I don't know anything about Spain, i didn't link to that

The post you responded to was specificly about a single incident in Spain, where some youngsters were dubbed "neo-nazis" by pro-Russian media for no other reason than waving flags in a likely Russian-funded propaganda event.

Right, it was actually russian KGB with these flags trying to make ukrainians look bad.

No, what I am saying is that waving flags and crashing in on a Russian-funded propaganda event does not make Ukrainians look bad. Unless you are a pro-Russian who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with you is a neo-nazi and a fascist.

 

[thief of fire]

No, they don't. Issues to do with the legitimacy of the government have nothing to do with whether or not a country was invaded, or whether or not Russia broke it's treaty. Why would you pretend otherwise?

There is a point at which the place is in such chaos that what Russia did becomes a move to defend those being persecuted.
Of course one can make a case it was an "invasion" but that case doesn't really stack up, unless we ignore everything else that was going on. But you are free to see it that way. This is what happens in complex situations. We weigh up all the facts not merely the ones that suit our biases.

"Evil Russians invade"...It makes a good headline.
However we see that where the USA and NATO intervened there is a lot of bloodshed, but not in Crimea where Russia did the responsible thing.

We know from Wikileaks cables from Feb 2001 that Russia had been asking the USA not to intervene here.

Not only does
Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine
Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears
unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would
seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us
that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions
in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the
ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a
major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In
that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to
intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face

.

And this is exactly what we see. The blundering USA and NATO have caused civil war in the Ukraine. But we have the apologists from the west moaning that. Russia "invaded" Crimea or Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

Speaking of unsupported claims.

I don't know if Yanukovich himself gave the order to massacre the protestors, or if the order came from FSB, but trying to pin everything on the marginal "neo-nazis" is pure Russian propaganda.

What the fuck are smoking?
Right sector did the shooting.
If Yanukovich did that he would still be a president.

How so? Yanukovich is almost univesally blame for doing it in Kiev, so what makes you think that it would have been successful if you thought he had actually ordered protestors and police shot by snipers?

Point is, he did not do it. It was almost certainly Right Sector.

Or do you think that shooting protestors was the right decision for him to do, even if he says he didn't do it?

Right or wrong is irrelevant here too. But if he could crash Maidan he would still be in Power.

What evidence do you have that right sector was behind the shooting anyway?

It's been discussed to death previously, go on old forum and reread.

As far as I know, shooting came from government-controlled buildings (despite some Russian testimony to contrary) and none of the shooters were caught. Besides they seemed to be professionals, and when it comes Ukraine, that spells out Russian!

I have not even heard such bullshit.

I don't know anything about Spain, i didn't link to that

The post you responded to was specificly about a single incident in Spain, where some youngsters were dubbed "neo-nazis" by pro-Russian media for no other reason than waving flags in a likely Russian-funded propaganda event.

Right, it was actually russian KGB with these flags trying to make ukrainians look bad.

No, what I am saying is that waving flags and crashing in on a Russian-funded propaganda event does not make Ukrainians look bad. Unless you are a pro-Russian who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with you is a neo-nazi and a fascist.

Suuuuuure.

 

[Jayjay]

"Evil Russians invade"...It makes a good headline.
However we see that where the USA and NATO intervened there is a lot of bloodshed, but not in Crimea where Russia did the responsible thing.

Crimea may be peaceful, but the rest of Ukraine that was likewise invaded by Russia has plenty of bloodshed that more than cancels out the relatively peaceful takeover in Crimea. And NATO is not going to intervene in Ukraine, it has made it very clear that it will not help non-members.

Besides, is peacefulness the only criteria by which a country can break international treaties and annex parts of another? That's a very poor excuse for violating other countries' sovereignty. If you have enough military might that you can coerce your neighbours to give up land without a serious fight, then that makes you right?

 

[Jayjay]

Speaking of unsupported claims.

I don't know if Yanukovich himself gave the order to massacre the protestors, or if the order came from FSB, but trying to pin everything on the marginal "neo-nazis" is pure Russian propaganda.

What the fuck are smoking?
Right sector did the shooting.
If Yanukovich did that he would still be a president.

How so? Yanukovich is almost univesally blame for doing it in Kiev, so what makes you think that it would have been successful if you thought he had actually ordered protestors and police shot by snipers?

Point is, he did not do it. It was almost certainly Right Sector.

Or do you think that shooting protestors was the right decision for him to do, even if he says he didn't do it?

Right or wrong is irrelevant here too. But if he could crash Maidan he would still be in Power.

Exactly, he had every reason to have ordered the massacre.

What evidence do you have that right sector was behind the shooting anyway?

It's been discussed to death previously, go on old forum and reread.

And wade through hundred pages of Russian propaganda just to find out there was no evidence after all? No thanks. If you don't have any evidence that the snipers were right sector, just say so.

 

[Togo]

There is a point at which the place is in such chaos that what Russia did becomes a move to defend those being persecuted.

Can you explain why military intervention wasn't enough, and the territory had to be annexed to Russia, in order to avoid persecution?

Of course one can make a case it was an "invasion" but that case doesn't really stack up, unless we ignore everything else that was going on.

Why not? Good motives on Russia's part don't make it any less of an invasion. Can you be specific as to what we are ignoring that would conceivably turn an invasion into something that wasn't an invasion?

This is a fundamental point. You've been arguing that it wasn't an invasion, but you've yet to come up with a single reason why it wouldn't be an invasion.

As I put in my previous post (which you didn't address, instead replying to an earlier post for a second time):

But there wasn't. That's the bit that was disputed, that's the point that Sabine made, backed up with supporting evidence. You can't just assume the cornerstone of your case.

To be clear, you've not demonstrated that:
1) The government as a whole was illegal
2) That the government being illegal would somehow justify* a treaty signatory invading the country and helping itself to territory. (*As in make it not an invasion)

it's easy to make a legal case against what you are saying

Then why can't you do it?

 

[thief of fire]

Can you explain why military intervention wasn't enough, and the territory had to be annexed to Russia, in order to avoid persecution?

Firstly they did have referendum. That you're unhappy about it isn't my problem. Secondly there is no reason Russia should be expected to trust the US or Kiev. One only gives a proven liar so many chances.

Why not? Good motives on Russia's part don't make it any less of an invasion.

. It's the circumstances that matter more than motives

This is a fundamental point. You've been arguing that it wasn't an invasion, but you've yet to come up with a single reason why it wouldn't be an invasion.

I've listed several which you don't like...

 

[barbos]

Speaking of unsupported claims.

I don't know if Yanukovich himself gave the order to massacre the protestors, or if the order came from FSB, but trying to pin everything on the marginal "neo-nazis" is pure Russian propaganda.

What the fuck are smoking?
Right sector did the shooting.
If Yanukovich did that he would still be a president.

How so? Yanukovich is almost univesally blame for doing it in Kiev, so what makes you think that it would have been successful if you thought he had actually ordered protestors and police shot by snipers?

Point is, he did not do it. It was almost certainly Right Sector.

Or do you think that shooting protestors was the right decision for him to do, even if he says he didn't do it?

Right or wrong is irrelevant here too. But if he could crash Maidan he would still be in Power.

Exactly, he had every reason to have ordered the massacre.

And then immediately run for his life? You are such a dutch.

What evidence do you have that right sector was behind the shooting anyway?

It's been discussed to death previously, go on old forum and reread.

And wade through hundred pages of Russian propaganda just to find out there was no evidence after all? No thanks. If you don't have any evidence that the snipers were right sector, just say so.

You are such a dutch.

 

[barbos]

By the way, Nobel laureate Dr. Doom agreed with russian "propaganda"

 

[Ford]

This is a fundamental point. You've been arguing that it wasn't an invasion, but you've yet to come up with a single reason why it wouldn't be an invasion.

Again, it is worth remembering that for Barbos and Thief of Fire, if Russia does it, it is never, ever wrong.

 

[dystopian]

You are such a dutch.

I should start using this in real life; confuse people with grammatically incorrect 'insults' that aren't insulting at all but rather ironically funny.

"You are such a dutch!"

"Why yes, I am indeed Dutch. By the way, having a decent grasp of the English language; as most us Dutch people do; I should inform you that it would be grammatically more correct to say something along the lines of 'You are so Dutch'. Just thought I'd mention it, in case you didn't know. Well then, slice of cheese?"

 

[barbos]

"Why yes, I am indeed Dutch. By the way, having a decent grasp of the English language; as most us Dutch people do; I should inform you that it would be grammatically more correct to say something along the lines of 'You are so Dutch'. Just thought I'd mention it, in case you didn't know. Well then, slice of cheese?"

Dutch is a noun too, you dutch.