Thread: Что произойдет в восточной Украине? (Eastern Ukraine?)

Originally Posted by Eric C.

...it's Ukrainians on one side, and "those people" (whoever they are) on the other side.

Eric, those people are actually locals, i.e. Ukrainian citizens. Even Ukrainian biased media doesn't go so far as to claim, that all (or even most) of them are Russians. Kiev just implies, that they are organized by some kind of Russian agents, spies, or whatever.

As for AKs - during Maidan 'uprising' military arsenals were robbed in Western Ukraine - in particular in Lviv (Feb 2014). Among stolen goodies there were 5000 AKs, about 2700 Makarovs, more than 100 machine guns, about 1500 grenades, etc. Some of it eventually spread over Ukraine (Viva la revolution!).
There also were loads of failed attempts, or at least they were reported as failed. So having some kind of weapon isn't a proof of external influence

Originally Posted by Eric C.

How many of them took hostages to achieve their goals? That is all what those "eastern guys" have been doing.

First, sorry, but this comment is rather ignorant. Please tone down your supriority a bit, ok?

Second, as Crocodile already pointed out, there were no hostages.
That's how local (Ukrainian) official media work. They print/post some nonsense, aimed at fuelling overall paranoia. Then after some time they admit that they were mistaken or "misinformed". But the harm is already done. Thousands of people've read it and it changed their attitude in a certain way.

Sometimes they even don't bother to mention their mistakes. There were hysterical articles as of Apr 8th claiming that "Russian tanks will invade Ukraine tonight" (meaning a full blown war at the border). Obviously, there were no tanks. But some people are still reffering to this imaginary tank battles as if they were real.

Frankly, it's ridiculous. It's like Ukrainian government and some "patriots" are living in an AU. They refuse to acknowledge what's happening under their noses (raising disquiet among local people in some regions due to wretched inner policy), at the same time getting fixated on something that have not really happened (or something could've happended, but of which there's no proof).

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Eric, those people are actually locals, i.e. Ukrainian citizens. Even Ukrainian biased media doesn't go so far as to claim, that all (or even most) of them are Russians. Kiev just implies, that they are organized by some kind of Russian agents, spies, or whatever.

I do believe most of those people have the Ukrainian citizenship. But they say it themselves, they don't want to be Ukrainians, they want to either live in their own republic, or be part of Russia. That is why I say they're opposite to the Ukrainians, i.e. people who want to keep integrity of Ukraine. Maybe I misunderstood something? Then tell me please what exactly. =)

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I do believe most of those people have the Ukrainian citizenship. But they say it themselves, they don't want to be Ukrainians, they want to either live in their own republic, or be part of Russia. That is why I say they're opposite to the Ukrainians, i.e. people who want to keep integrity of Ukraine. Maybe I misunderstood something? Then tell me please what exactly. =)

People generally do not want to join Russia. Most of them support an idea of federal Ukraine, demanding more autonomy from Kiev. They also expect to be able to affect national policy a little more (right now regions have virtually no say in important decisions).

I'd say, Russian flags are more of a symbol of not supporting current government policy, since the government itself is viewed by many as illegimate. The same way American, EU and Georgian (!) flags on Maidan were, apparently, symbols of supporting western values, and not a sign of 'protesters' attempting to join Georgia.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

People generally do not want to join Russia. Most of them support an idea of federal Ukraine, demanding more autonomy from Kiev. They also expect to be able to affect national policy a little more (right now regions have virtually no say in important decisions).

I'd say, Russian flags are more of a symbol of not supporting current government policy, since the government itself is viewed by many as illegimate. The same way American, EU and Georgian (!) flags on Maidan were, apparently, symbols of supporting western values, and not a sign of 'protesters' attempting to join Georgia.

Oh right! I didn't understand that at all (about the Russian flag).

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

People generally do not want to join Russia. Most of them support an idea of federal Ukraine, demanding more autonomy from Kiev. They also expect to be able to affect national policy a little more (right now regions have virtually no say in important decisions).

I'd say, Russian flags are more of a symbol of not supporting current government policy, since the government itself is viewed by many as illegimate. The same way American, EU and Georgian (!) flags on Maidan were, apparently, symbols of supporting western values, and not a sign of 'protesters' attempting to join Georgia.

As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems with the legitimate status of the current Ukrainian government, as it's only temporary, and the Ukrainian people are to elect a totally legitimate one in May.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems with the legitimate status of the current Ukrainian government, as it's only temporary, and the Ukrainian people are to elect a totally legitimate one in May.

By that logic why it was necessary to overthrow Yanukovich who was legitimate unlike the current goverment? Just wait less than a year until elections.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems with the legitimate status of the current Ukrainian government, as it's only temporary, and the Ukrainian people are to elect a totally legitimate one in May.

Really? So the fact that it's temporary should negate the fact that it came to power as a result of an unconstitutional take-over?

The main problem, though, is that, while it is temporary, it's hell bent on making as many important and permanent decisions on as many controversial topics as possible - like signing Ukraine-EU Association Agreement (and in haste too, there were articles about Ukrainian side 'being disappointed' that some parts they hoped to see there were absent, but that they had to sign it anyway, because otherwise they'd 'lose face' (what??)), or discussing changing the constiution.

These decisions should be made, but not in haste, and not by politicians, who were not chosen by all of the people of Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems with the legitimate status of the current Ukrainian government, as it's only temporary, and the Ukrainian people are to elect a totally legitimate one in May.

That is technically correct. However, there's another side to it - the temp government has no authority to make long-term decisions, just to maintain some order and drag time until the new elected government would have the full authority. The present Ukrainian temporary government had exceeded their authority by signing a bunch of historic documents, so their actions should be tried in Ukrainian court with the intention of the subsequent cancellation of the signatures as illegitimate. And the power-greedy individuals who totally forgot they are only there temporary to fill in the gap should be prosecuted by Ukrainian law.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That is technically correct. However, there's another side to it - the temp government has no authority to make long-term decisions, just to maintain some order and drag time until the new elected government would have the full authority. The present Ukrainian temporary government had exceeded their authority by signing a bunch of historic documents, so their actions should be tried in Ukrainian court with the intention of the subsequent cancellation of the signatures as illegitimate. And the power-greedy individuals who totally forgot they are only there temporary to fill in the gap should be prosecuted by Ukrainian law.

The thing is, they do have to deal with the situation in the east. And if keeping such a situation under control and stabilizing it takes signing any documents, even if they have long-term consequences, they just have to go on and sign them. Otherwise, the integrity and sovereignty of the entire country might be at stake, and that is the first thing to avoid. They may do some little harm to avoid much bigger harm.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

The thing is, they do have to deal with the situation in the east. And if keeping such a situation under control and stabilizing it takes signing any documents, even if they have long-term consequences, they just have to go on and sign them. Otherwise, the integrity and sovereignty of the entire country might be at stake, and that is the first thing to avoid. They may do some little harm to avoid much bigger harm.

I would have probably agreed with you had there not been quite a few documents that were signed by the temporary government which had nothing to do with any kind of stabilization of the situation. First and foremost, the intention to join the EU is somewhat controversial in Ukraine and as such actually promotes the instability of the situation. Another good example is the declaration of Crimea as an occupied territory which is somewhat destabilizing as it puts additional burden on the existing Ukrainian businesses up to their closures with the subsequent massive layoffs. Also, worth mentioning is the declaration of the acceptance of Mejlis as the legitimate executive body of Crimean Tatars. What does it have to do with the stabilization of the situation in Ukraine? And so on and so forth. So, no, I don't think the actions of the temporary government have anything to do with the stabilization. In my opinion, in order to stabilize the situation the temporary government should actually DO NOTHING. Any protests in Eastern Ukraine demanding referendum? Say: "Oh, sorry, can't do that, only the permanent government could do that, we're really sorry. Just wait." Crimea demanding referendum to extend their local authority? Say: "Oh, sorry, can't do that, only the permanent government could do that, we're really sorry. Just wait." That's really all to it. Or if people demand immediate actions say: "Yes! Your demands are so right! Let's start discussing it now..." And discuss and discuss and discuss until the end of May. Then, let the permanent legitimate government deal with the situation. I think had they acted that way, the situation would have become much less heated than now.