Thread: Latest from Ukraine

Who would want to trade with somebody like you. You decide later, on 2nd thought, you don't like how the deal went and then you end up at the door with a gun demanding it back.

Good article about 'Soviet mentality.'

With New Moves, Russia's Parliament Looks To Rewrite History : Parallels : NPR

Note, the Putin regime also sought and changed history text books - and outlaws any critique of Soviet history.

Russian Schools to Teach Putin’s Version of History - Bloomberg Business

Vladimir Putin to have entire chapter on him in Russian history book - Telegraph

Russia Moves to Ban Criticism of WWII Victory - TIME

Russia threatens to bar Europeans who deny Red Army 'liberated' them - Telegraph

Next time, you criticize the Poroshenko regime's policies (which is often justified), make sure to criticize Putin's lest you shall be exposed as hypocrites.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Думаю, что договорённости при Ельцине были более-менее удовлетворительные. Самое важное - ядерное разоружение Украины было достигнуто. При сохранении автономии Крыма в реальности, а не на бумаге, государственная принадлежность, ИМХО, не так уж и принципиальна для людей (и для военных баз, вспомним хотя бы английскую военную базу на Кипре и американскую военную базу на Кубе). Но, скажем так, "имперские амбиции" Киева привели к постепенному упразднению крымской автономии. Вспомним, что первый крымский президент был уволен Киевом в 1995 году, а затем выгнан из Крыма и из страны (ему запретили въезд). Так, что не нужно всё валить на Ельцина (хоть он и не ангел), тем более, что есть прямые виновные. Вообще, меня удивляет как украинская пропаганда 20 лет кричала, что Россия полнится имперскими амбициями, и упорно не хотела признавать свои имперские амбиции. Соринка - бревно, однако. Курим википедию https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C...B2%D0%B8%D1%87

That's funny how you mean by this post what a savage country Ukraine is to have nuclear weapons, while just a few posts earlier, you seriously considered the terrorist organization called "DNR" a country that has a vote on military block issues and such. Potzreotism, anyone? (which is strange as you seem to be far away and thereby detached from its source)

Originally Posted by Eric C.

That's funny how you mean by this post what a savage country Ukraine is to have nuclear weapons, while just a few posts earlier, you seriously considered the terrorist organization called "DNR" a country that has a vote on military block issues and such. Potzreotism, anyone? (which is strange as you seem to be far away and thereby detached from its source)

That has little to do with the patriotism, which I am lacking, but rather with the common sense. Since the outset, Ukraine proved itself politically immature. Consider the latest events - democracy usually works so that to avoids situations that Ukraine had submerged itself onto. But looking at the history since 1991 would demonstrate the political immaturity in many ways. Giving that young democracy the WMD and expecting the country to be a reasonable political player would be naive and irresponsible, if not a crime. So, in light of all that, I think Ukraine should start importing political maturity and not lethal weapons.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Думаю, что договорённости при Ельцине были более-менее удовлетворительные. Самое важное - ядерное разоружение Украины было достигнуто. При сохранении автономии Крыма в реальности, а не на бумаге, государственная принадлежность, ИМХО, не так уж и принципиальна для людей (и для военных баз, вспомним хотя бы английскую военную базу на Кипре и американскую военную базу на Кубе). Но, скажем так, "имперские амбиции" Киева привели к постепенному упразднению крымской автономии. Вспомним, что первый крымский президент был уволен Киевом в 1995 году, а затем выгнан из Крыма и из страны (ему запретили въезд). Так, что не нужно всё валить на Ельцина (хоть он и не ангел), тем более, что есть прямые виновные. Вообще, меня удивляет как украинская пропаганда 20 лет кричала, что Россия полнится имперскими амбициями, и упорно не хотела признавать свои имперские амбиции. Соринка - бревно, однако. Курим википедию https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C...B2%D0%B8%D1%87

Не понимаю, почему это важно (ядерное разоружение Украины). С ядерным оружием у новой страны и ответственность была бы другая, и отношение к ней соответствующее, да и не потянула бы Украина финансово, как мне кажется. Россия с нашими западными партнёрами в таких условиях продавили бы ядерное разоружение Украины, но чуть позже.
При насильственном разделе СССР инициатива всё равно должна была исходить из Москвы, и так наплевать на миллионы соотечественников, которые вдруг оказались в другой стране...
Там можно было совсем о других границах договариваться, и уж Крым, конечно, нельзя было отдавать.

The BBC admits that Parubiy stood up for the snipers on Maidan BBC News - The untold story of the Maidan massacre

c

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

No. I'm saying that Nikita Khrushchev acted illegally at the time. The hammer and sickle represent the working people and the most important principle of communism was to give the power to the working people. ...

glad you found a culprit that would absolve the sowjet union of accountability back then and give justification for annexation now...
so easy... just blame Nikita Khrushchev

you should have told that logic to the Germans - it was Adolf Hitler, not us. Can you see the problem with this line of thinking?

Originally Posted by eisenherz

c

glad you found a culprit that would absolve the sowjet union of accountability back then and give justification for annexation now...
so easy... just blame Nikita Khrushchev

you should have told that logic to the Germans - it was Adolf Hitler, not us. Can you see the problem with this line of thinking?

If you are talking about the annexation of GDR by FRG in 1989 you are right. Hitler has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by SergeMak

If you are talking about the annexation of GDR by FRG in 1989 you are right. Hitler has nothing to do with it.

@ SergeMak, i normally respect your arguments, even if we are of different opinons. Here however you miss the point completely. My point was that you cannot seperate the leader from the system propping him up, be it Hitler with Germany or be it Krushchev with the KPsSU. I was not talking about the merit or not so of any annexation. I was merely pointing out the flaw in logic of a different commentator using the supposed illegal actions of one man (Krushchev) as justification for everthing, and at the same time arguing that the soviet union has nothing to do with the actions of that one man.

Originally Posted by SergeMak

If you are talking about the annexation of GDR by FRG in 1989 you are right. Hitler has nothing to do with it.

I never saw in English texts translated abbreviations. It's usually DDR and BRD.

Originally Posted by eisenherz

@ SergeMak, i normally respect your arguments, even if we are of different opinons. Here however you miss the point completely. My point was that you cannot seperate the leader from the system propping him up, be it Hitler with Germany or be it Krushchev with the KPsSU. I was not talking about the merit or not so of any annexation. I was merely pointing out the flaw in logic of a different commentator using the supposed illegal actions of one man (Krushchev) as justification for everthing, and at the same time arguing that the soviet union has nothing to do with the actions of that one man.

So, continuing your line of thought we come to a conclusion there are 3 objects we must take into account: a leader, a system and the people. So what you are suggesting is to equate all the three. Am I right?

Originally Posted by SergeMak

So, continuing your line of thought we come to a conclusion there are 3 objects we must take into account: a leader, a system and the people. So what you are suggesting is to equate all the three. Am I right?

'Equate' is maybe not the correct word, as they are not necessarily the 'same' or 'equal', but the 3 are inter-connected and do not exist in isolation.

Originally Posted by eisenherz

'Equate' is maybe not the correct word, as they are not necessarily the 'same' or 'equal', but the 3 are inter-connected and do not exist in isolation.

Who argues? Only leaders pass by, systems change and people stay to suffer from what the previous two did and bear responsibility for them. Doesn't look too fair, does it?

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Who would want to trade with somebody like you. You decide later, on 2nd thought, you don't like how the deal went and then you end up at the door with a gun demanding it back.

Sorry. I didn't know we were discussing the Russian Mistrals. Btw, how much did Ukraine pay for Crimea?

Originally Posted by eisenherz

c

glad you found a culprit that would absolve the sowjet union of accountability back then and give justification for annexation now...
so easy... just blame Nikita Khrushchev

you should have told that logic to the Germans - it was Adolf Hitler, not us. Can you see the problem with this line of thinking?

When President Obama issues an Executive Order, that's NOT the fault of the government or the people. Nobody can stop his Executive Orders (Decrees).
Anyway, when I look at Eastern Ukraine I see death and destruction. When I look at Crimea I see life and peace.
So yeah, I totally DO support any country (like Russia) that gives a region (like Crimea) life and peace.

Imo, you should READ the article that SergeMak posted. I was VERY HAPPY to find it.
Who actually annexed the Crimea?

And NO I don't see any problem with my line of thinking.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

And NO I don't see any problem with my line of thinking.

I did not expect you to ...

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Sorry. I didn't know we were discussing the Russian Mistrals. Btw, how much did Ukraine pay for Crimea?

You don't know what a trade is?!?

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

Не понимаю, почему это важно (ядерное разоружение Украины). С ядерным оружием у новой страны и ответственность была бы другая, и отношение к ней соответствующее, да и не потянула бы Украина финансово, как мне кажется. Россия с нашими западными партнёрами в таких условиях продавили бы ядерное разоружение Украины, но чуть позже.
При насильственном разделе СССР инициатива всё равно должна была исходить из Москвы, и так наплевать на миллионы соотечественников, которые вдруг оказались в другой стране...
Там можно было совсем о других границах договариваться, и уж Крым, конечно, нельзя было отдавать.

It (nuclear disarmament) is important because it was believed that Ukraine could be independent and would have Crimea as part of its territory if they didn't not have a nuclear weapon. So, if you look at it from their p.o.v., the evidence is that this arrangement or trade did not work or benefit them in the end. The ultimate result is that they lost this 'deal.' In fact, you pro-Putin people should be thanking Khrushchev. He convinced Ukraine not to have nuclear weapons. If they declined, Russia would not be interfering with the conflict right now.

Originally Posted by SergeMak

The BBC admits that Parubiy stood up for the snipers on Maidan BBC News - The untold story of the Maidan massacre

As much as I respect the BBC in general, this article is not a reliable source of information. There is some guy who said he was shooting because some officer has asked him to. If that is all true and not just made up, we still don't know who is the guy, who was the officer etc. Besides, the most important thing was to find out who was shooting at the protesters and not at Berkut (that we could guess on our own). That, in my understanding, gave 'legitimacy' to the subsequent uncontrolled violence and the ousting of the legally elected President. Had there been some investigation carried out by the BBC and backed by it, that, I think, would be somewhat more reliable.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

Не понимаю, почему это важно (ядерное разоружение Украины). С ядерным оружием у новой страны и ответственность была бы другая, и отношение к ней соответствующее, да и не потянула бы Украина финансово, как мне кажется. Россия с нашими западными партнёрами в таких условиях продавили бы ядерное разоружение Украины, но чуть позже.
При насильственном разделе СССР инициатива всё равно должна была исходить из Москвы, и так наплевать на миллионы соотечественников, которые вдруг оказались в другой стране...
Там можно было совсем о других границах договариваться, и уж Крым, конечно, нельзя было отдавать.

Я понимаю, что у вас там отношение к Ельцину более эмоциональное, чем у меня (и это, возможно, справедливо), но всё-таки, думаю, не стоит вешать всех собак на Ельцина, тем более, что есть конкретные виновные (=Верховная Рада и Кучма) в деградации ситуации в Крыму. Что касается связи украинского ядерного оружия и политической зрелости.. ну вот ты думаешь, что "с ядерным оружием у новой страны и ответственность была бы другая, и отношение к ней соответствующее". Попробую привести тебе пример двух азиатских стран: КНР и КНДР. Китай - пример зрелого политического мышления. Китай интегрирован в мировую экономику, но проводит свою *почти* независимую политику. Китаю позволительно иметь ядерное оружие, т.к. Китай не бьётся чуть-что в истерике. А вот КНДР никто этого разрешить не может, т.к. малейшая неувязочка провоцирует неадекватную агрессивную реакцию, например Северная Корея пригрозила США "смертельными ударами" из-за фильма о Ким Чен Ыне

Вот, с моей точки зрения, Украина с 1991 г последовательно демонстрирует неадекватную реакцию на происходящее и последовательное нарушение договорённостей. Это не по политическим понятиям. Последний вопиющий пример - несоблюдение договора от 21 февраля 2014 г. Как, скажи, можно договариваться о чём-то с такими людьми? Полагаться на слово таких людей - это преступная халатность. Ну, а последующие договоры о перемирии лишь подтвердили правило. А как тебе многократные попытки Украины присобачить неподходящее американское ядерное топливо для АЭС? Ведь чудом чуть второго Чернобыля не случилось. А если дать таким людям ядерное оружие? Вот, ты говоришь Украина не потянула бы, а если бы это рассматривалось как какая-нибудь "необходимая мера безопасности от России", тогда как? Тогда было бы как с ВСУ - полная халатность при полной некчемности и ненужности. А если бы проводок где перегорел? В силу уважения к Украине не буду приводить аналогию с обезьяной и гранатой, хотя она и напрашивается...

Originally Posted by 14Russian

It (nuclear disarmament) is important because it was believed that Ukraine could be independent and would have Crimea as part of its territory if they didn't not have a nuclear weapon. So, if you look at it from their p.o.v., the evidence is that this arrangement or trade did not work or benefit them in the end. The ultimate result is that they lost this 'deal.' In fact, you pro-Putin people should be thanking Khrushchev. He convinced Ukraine not to have nuclear weapons. If they declined, Russia would not be interfering with the conflict right now.

Well, I'm not by all means a pro-Putin, but I must say Ukraine had blown the 'deal' from their end by happily waiving the Crimean Autonomy status in 1995 they had originally agreed upon. Ukrainian government was legally ok with Crimea electing their own President. But, as soon as the newly elected President had said that Crimea will build strong economic and cultural ties with Russia, the Supreme Rada had decided in 1995 that the Crimean Constitution of 1992 is all of a sudden unconstitutional, so they fired the Crimean President and abolished the Crimean Autonomy. The Autonomy status had been a vital condition to the 'deal'. So, since Ukraine had violated the 'deal', the 'deal' is no longer valid. So, unfortunately, IMHO Ukraine can't complain, but should finally grow up and start assuming responsibility for their actions. Dixi.