Ukraine's capital is literally revolting

[Exterminator]

Given enough sentiment on both sides, even an annexation justified "by referendum" can still trigger civil war. The cultural divide must be taken into consideration too.

Also, what guarentee is there that putin will stop at crimea? The ukrainian forces don't stand a chance against russia.
Today they may takeover Crimea, and in the future they might say, hey, that part has russian speakers too. Lets take it all.

[Cofiliano]

What WW3 are you people talking about? WW3 is being fought for years now, with the strongest weapon that countries(actually international corporations) have, money, finance and economy.

World War 3 isn't about tanks, rockets, soldiers, its all about economy. The economic cryses of 2008 was just one big battle in that war that's still going on.
You literately have to be blind and stupid not to see and understand that.

Militiaries and Armies are only used from time to time, in a small areas around the world, and its purpose is nothing else then to spend some of those weapons that hangars are full of in all major weapon producing countries.

@Eterminator, excuse me but unlike some Western Leaders who give huge bullshit when they try to justified some 'humanitarian intervention', Putin is loud and clear about their motives. If they wanted to do that, it would be already over, like you said nothing stands in their way, but they didn't, and those kinda of operations must be done fast, smooth, and swift, so they wont be doing that in the future.

Let me ask a question to all of you, Ukraine has 40mil populations, what if the majority of those people give support to Janukovich, and not to the Maidan protestors (who in order to have legimity of their actions should have at least 2mil people on the streets of Kiev not few thousands), same Janukovich who asked Russia to help and stop the illegal non-democratic taking over the Government, in which him and Russia are in tittle to by international law?
Cause that's the truth here actually, and the people who are called 'separatists' are majority of Ukraine, and of course they don't want to be under a illegal angry mob of few thousand people (in a country that has 40mil population) mostly financed and trained by Western countries, among who you got fascistic leaders as well.

But meh, lets just call Russia a big bad wolf, and the USA our savers like they've been in all other countries they intervene.

Written from a country that got 'saved' by the USA.

[yoske]

"Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders - leaked EU's Ashton phone tape"

http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/

[Exterminator]

While the facts that you pointed out are true, it does not justify putin's invasion of another nation. Putin is not evil, or at least not any more than his Western counterparts.
However, the russian president in all his might and the intelligence of all his advisors, believes the best way to protect a minority in a country recently turned about by a semi armed protest/revolution is to invade the nation in the name of the minority?


As you can see, crimea still forms a relatively small part of ukraine. There have to be russian speaking minorities in other parts of Ukraine too. By invading Ukraine, putin agitated the majority of Ukraine, on valid grounds and in the name of the very minority he aims to protect. If anything, chances of pro-russian supporters getting hurt have been multiplied by the invasion.

Not only that, but was the Ukrainian police (And military if need be) insufficient to protect the people in crimea(Assuming that there is a threat to them in the first place. Correct me if i'm wrong but no proof or incidents have surfaced toward it so far)? Especially taking into account that in crimea, the majority is actually russian speaking. Hence they do not face any threat from insiders. I'm pretty sure people won't pour out into crimea just to try to kill russian speakers.
Not only this, but putin did publicly say that he has not ruled out the possibility of 'protecting' the minorities in other parts of ukraine. If anything, the invasion may very well encourage any racist (minority, hopefully) to attack russian speaking minorities, helping putin justify invasion of other parts of ukraine.

Also, i do dispute you about the part of Russia doing it fast or not at all. If anything, if russia randomly walks into another country guns blazing it is likely to get blasted internationally. The U.N, E.U and NATO would jump at the opportunity to seriously hamper the Russian economy (Much more severely than they claim to do now). Not only that, but it wouldn't be too hard for the U.N to convince other countries to do the same.
However if a gradual buildup in Ukraine to show support and need for Russia arises, it will be much easier for Russia to take Ukraine. Crimea heavily supports Russia, and at the same time makes Eastern Ukrainians mad. A few reported incidents against Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine is all Putin needs to take major chunks of Ukraine.

Also as you said about economy, this whole process is economy fuelled as well. Russia who has been closely linked to Ukraine enjoyed many trade privileges. For a revolutionary government to take charge, which pretty much came to power with the promise of leaving Russia for the E.U probably won't extend those privileges to Russia. Taking a large chunk of a economically healthy country probably helps his own economy too though.

This of course is all based on the theory that there is no real threat to Ukrainian minorities, which is my opinion. I would be persuaded to change my mind if any evidence and/or reports surface about legitimate threats to the safety of Ukrainians.

Edit: Yoske's post is certainly interesting. However this does not signify any threats to minorities, although a strong caution on the new government.

[Borus]

While the facts that you pointed out are true, it does not justify putin's invasion of another nation.

Stopped reading after this sentence. The government of Crimea REQUESTED Russian troops to be send to protect the Russian ethnic majority there. Funny how everything is centered around this while everyone seems to have forgotten that the current Ukrainian self-appointed 'head' of the state is a nationalist who illegally took his power with support of the EU. If Russia would want to invade Ukraine it would've wiped them out in less than 24 hours.

Nothing new though, same happened in Georgia in 2008 when they decided to attack Russian civilians in Abkhazia & South Ossetia, got their asses penetrated and resulted in massive butthurt of the West.

[Vladislav]

[Exterminator]

Stopped reading after this sentence. The government of Crimea REQUESTED Russian troops to be send to protect the Russian ethnic majority there. Funny how everything is centered around this while everyone seems to have forgotten that the current Ukrainian self-appointed 'head' of the state is a nationalist who illegally took his power with support of the EU. If Russia would want to invade Ukraine it would've wiped them out in less than 24 hours.

Nothing new though, same happened in Georgia in 2008 when they decided to attack Russian civilians in Abkhazia & South Ossetia, got their asses penetrated and resulted in massive butthurt of the West.

The government of crimea had no right to ask russia to do anything even remotely of the sort. Let alone the fact that it is the government who upon independence from Ukraine enjoy not only exponential power, but great popularity in any future independent states of Crimea or if Crimea is to be integrated into Russia.
That would pretty much cement the political presence of any crimean leaders and parties leading the revolution.

It should also be mentioned that the act by the crimean government, if anything, is treason and illegal as you seem to be so interested in the legality of things. Crimea is legally part of Ukraine, and it's elected officials have a duty toward their parent nation. Asking for and aiding an armed invasion by another country is an act of treason.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliament-ousts-president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html
The russian revolution was also illegal. The Ukrainian president was removed by a huge majority in his parliament, where the people voting against him were the representatives of the people of ukraine. Laws can and should be overturned when they become obsolete.

Also the question is not of wiping out, that'd be stupid as i pointed out should you of bothered to read. Any such attacks would result in just about the entire western side of the world exploding on Russia, but with the help of most Asian countries as well.
By slowly taking Ukraine, Russia is able to keep a large portion of Ukraine to it's own benefit with minimal cost. It's a game of strategy and money, afterall.

Again, i don't claim that this is necessarily so. However so far there has been absolutely no sign of any actual threat to the crimean people or the Russian minority in any parts of Ukraine (If anything, Russia has practically multiplied the risk of anything like it by invading Ukraine in the name of the Russian Minority).

[Cofiliano]

The government of crimea had no right to ask russia to do anything even remotely of the sort. Let alone the fact that it is the government who upon independence from Ukraine enjoy not only exponential power, but great popularity in any future independent states of Crimea or if Crimea is to be integrated into Russia.

You're wrong. And I'll explain you why:

First of all, it wasn't the Government of Crimea who asked Russia to step in, it was the president of Ukraine, who was elected by the entire population of Ukraine, and not from a group of few thousand people. This is a right by international law, that a legimit Government can ask a country near by to help them when theirs situations like it happen in Ukraine.

Second of all, and this is really important Russia DID NOT send a single soldier, nor did Russia invade Crimea, the Russian soldiers who are protecting the Crimea, are station in Russian bases on the Crimea they got full right to be there, and all they did is exit the bases compound to protected the civilians who are again majority Russians. They didnt went on invading or conquering Ukraine, they just took the responsibility of protecting the citizens that were in danger of everything that's happening in Ukraine. 

Crimea is part of Ukraine last 40-50 years, cause the Soviet Union who was run by Gorbachov, declared its to expensive to finance Crimea as a part of Russia, yet as part of Ukraine.

Cause of this Crimea is a specific region, and it was always just on papper part of Ukraine, while they had offical direct connection to Russia, Russian Government, and army, not to mention a high autonomy, similiar like USA and Hawai actually.

It should also be mentioned that the act by the crimean government, if anything, is treason and illegal as you seem to be so interested in the legality of things. Crimea is legally part of Ukraine, and it's elected officials have a duty toward their parent nation. Asking for and aiding an armed invasion by another country is an act of treason.

Like I said, its not if that aid is called by the offical legimit Government of that country.

The fact that right now Kiev is in the hand of a group of people who were not elected on democratic election, yet took power over the country from the streets is whats illegal here.

All I wrote here is in appliance and allowance by the International Law, and disregard my subjectivity, I'm finishing my studies, in which I passed INternational Law by the highest grades on the toughest law school in the region.

[Borus]

The government of crimea had no right to ask russia to do anything even remotely of the sort. Let alone the fact that it is the government who upon independence from Ukraine enjoy not only exponential power, but great popularity in any future independent states of Crimea or if Crimea is to be integrated into Russia.
That would pretty much cement the political presence of any crimean leaders and parties leading the revolution.

But the official president did, and he had the right to do so.

It should also be mentioned that the act by the crimean government, if anything, is treason and illegal as you seem to be so interested in the legality of things. Crimea is legally part of Ukraine, and it's elected officials have a duty toward their parent nation. Asking for and aiding an armed invasion by another country is an act of treason.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliament-ousts-president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html
The russian revolution was also illegal. The Ukrainian president was removed by a huge majority in his parliament, where the people voting against him were the representatives of the people of ukraine. Laws can and should be overturned when they become obsolete.

Lol pls don't compare the Russian revolution to this. The few thousand protestors of Maidan have the 'right' to decide which law is obsolete and which isn't? For a country of millions?

Also the question is not of wiping out, that'd be stupid as i pointed out should you of bothered to read. Any such attacks would result in just about the entire western side of the world exploding on Russia, but with the help of most Asian countries as well.
By slowly taking Ukraine, Russia is able to keep a large portion of Ukraine to it's own benefit with minimal cost. It's a game of strategy and money, afterall.

The wiping out part was sarcasm, guess you missed it. You seem to forget that this isn't a game between Ukraine & Russia. It's a game between Russia and EU+NATO.

Again, i don't claim that this is necessarily so. However so far there has been absolutely no sign of any actual threat to the crimean people or the Russian minority in any parts of Ukraine (If anything, Russia has practically multiplied the risk of anything like it by invading Ukraine in the name of the Russian Minority).

Multiplied the risk? How so? Before stationing, or how you like to call it 'invasion', there was chaos and fighting all over Crimea. Now, all fights have stopped, no one died and not a shot has been fired. You should look past the blown up statements by the West once in a while.

[Polar]

Just a little curious.. Why do these topics always turn into these arguments? Whether or not it's this persons fault or this persons, I think the point of these topics are to just make people aware.. That's what I view it as at least.

[Jaka_Lah]

Just a little curious.. Why do these topics always turn into these arguments? Whether or not it's this persons fault or this persons, I think the point of these topics are to just make people aware.. That's what I view it as at least.

Because people have different opinions, and reaching that medium where everyone agrees is impossible. The fact that this topic was made to people be aware about a thing that is happening, and while this progressed "slightly" in the meanwhile, you know the whole WW3 threat, I think it's appropriate for everyone to voice their opinion.

[Exterminator]

The ukrainian president was ousted from the country, hence the people of Ukraine who he claims to represent no longer recognize him as the president. He may have the ability to call foreign invasion on paper, but in the end he has just as much power as the queen of england does to ask russia to invade the U.S.

Secondly, i may not be a graduate in international law but Russia's license in sevastopol is only for them to house their fleet. It is not to invade Ukraine with it. Also you mention that they exited their bases and tried to make the Ukrainian forces Turn/Surrender in order for them to protect Crimeans. Yet, who do crimeans face any threat from? If they form the majority there as you say, why would their lives be threatened by EU favoring Ukrainians?
Also correct me if i am wrong, but the president of the country is the speaker for the parliament, and power remains with the Ukrainian parliament, which was elected by the people and was also responsible for impeaching the Ex president of Ukraine. Not just people who roamed the streets.
You keep straining that the president of Ukraine was elected by the whole majority, not by a few thousand people. Yet the people who ousted him were also the representatives of the people, they weren't elected by a few thousand people either. Ukraine's ex president fell out of favor with the people, and people protested against him. That's legal last time i checked. The president is not there to do whatever he feels like, he is a representative of the people and it is his duty to serve their wishes, not his own. Hence he was ousted, any legal powers he has is only the result of bureaucracy and should not be taken over the will of the people.

Lol pls don't compare the Russian revolution to this. The few thousand protestors of Maidan have the 'right' to decide which law is obsolete and which isn't? For a country of millions?

In democracy aswell a few people represent the interests of millions [Even billions in the case of India]. So by that logic, democrazy is useless? The few thousand people protesting were the ones who had the balls and the Ability to stand up to a ukrainian police formation shaped like a spartan war unit. They were the men who had the balls to go and fight instead of going for their job or their families in order to fight for what they believed in. Not everybody can do that. They did have widespread support of the people however, plus it is not the protestors who ousted the president. It was the legally elected parliament which did so.

The wiping out part was sarcasm, guess you missed it. You seem to forget that this isn't a game between Ukraine & Russia. It's a game between Russia and EU+NATO.

Did you even read the very line you just quoted? Guess you missed it. If Russia is to stage a direct armed invasion of Ukraine, they would immediately get blasted by the western side of the world (Or E.U + NATO...) who would advocate bans to the South aswell. However if russia is to slowly take Crimea, it will not give the west  (Or E.U + NATO..) enough momentum to pursuade the U.N and hence the south.

Multiplied the risk? How so? Before stationing, or how you like to call it 'invasion', there was chaos and fighting all over Crimea. Now, all fights have stopped, no one died and not a shot has been fired. You should look past the blown up statements by the West once in a while.

Chaos and fighting all over crimea? Who were they fighting from?
There were protests for crimea to succeed, not riots. And there are still (And a lot more) protests going on in crimea against Russian Occupation. The fighting hasn't stopped, if anything it's going strong. Also no one died, no one died earlier either. No shots fired, there would of never even been the need for a shot fired if Russia hadn't decided to just invade Ukraine in the first place.
Also there were absolutely no reports of the Russian minority in other parts of Ukraine ever being threatened. None. Nobody said anything to them, except small clashes at protests for-against. Clashes that are still going on in both Eastern ukraine and crimea. If anything, by invading Ukraine in the name of Crimea Russia has aggravated any racists in Ukraine and gave them a fallacious means to justify attacking the minority Russia is invading in the name of.

Also, you should note that now all it takes to start a full blown shootout and deaths of many is one hotheaded soldier. One misunderstanding. That's all. If the Ex Ukrainian president had any care for ukrainian lives, why would he ask a external army to invade his own country to 'protect' lives knowing that it is the duty of Ukrainian troops to protect their country's sovereignty? What can Russia do that the Ukrainian Police and army can't to maintain Law and Order? Also what exactly has Russia done since they got there? Protests and clashes are still going strong and have only increased since Russian occupation as most Loyalists didn't bother clashing with the Majority russian speakers before, but now for the love of their country they dare to go out on the streets and protest against the Russian troops and even keep getting attacked for it and hence as the volume of anti russian protestors has increased, so has the intensity of the clashes.


Also, here's Russia accepting to integrate Crimea into Russia
http://time.com/15527/russia-embraces-potential-crimea-split-from-ukraine/

Yep, definitely there for humanitarian purposes.

[[WS]Jacob]

he has just as much power as the U.K's president does to ask russia to invade the U.S.

And who's our President?

[Exterminator]

And who's our President?

The great and powerful, Chuck_Norris!

Typo, fixed. Meant to say queen 

[Borus]

The ukrainian president was ousted from the country, hence the people of Ukraine who he claims to represent no longer recognize him as the president. He may have the ability to call foreign invasion on paper, but in the end he has just as much power as the U.K's president does to ask russia to invade the U.S.

Why would you compare a president asking a country he has no stable political relationship with to invade a country he has absolutely nothing to do with, with the Ukranian president asking for safety and protection of the Pro-Russian majority region within Ukraine.

Secondly, i may not be a graduate in international law but Russia's license in sevastopol is only for them to house their fleet. It is not to invade Ukraine with it. Also you mention that they exited their bases and tried to make the Ukrainian forces Turn/Surrender in order for them to protect Crimeans. Yet, who do crimeans face any threat from? If they form the majority there as you say, why would their lives be threatened by EU favoring Ukrainians?
Also correct me if i am wrong, but the president of the country is the speaker for the parliament, and power remains with the Ukrainian parliament, which was elected by the people and was also responsible for impeaching the Ex president of Ukraine. Not just people who roamed the streets.
You keep straining that the president of Ukraine was elected by the whole majority, not by a few thousand people. Yet the people who ousted him were also the representatives of the people, they weren't elected by a few thousand people either. Ukraine's ex president fell out of favor with the people, and people protested against him. That's legal last time i checked. The president is not there to do whatever he feels like, he is a representative of the people and it is his duty to serve their wishes, not his own. Hence he was ousted, any legal powers he has is only the result of bureaucracy and should not be taken over the will of the people.

All the questions you asked can be simply answered by googling. The illegally empowered politics that are going on now in Ukraine, powered by the EU, are setting laws which are absolutely NOT democratically chosen, but merely by the protesters who represent only their cause, like I previously said. The people protesting against Yanukovich were mainly, well, people, not political leaders of any kinds of movements. The only truly active political party within the mass was the nationalist party, which obviously was a minority, else there would have been a different president. This is just simple logic. Setting up an illegal parliament and pulling laws out of their asses that benefit a party with no democratic elected power whatsoever doesn't sound like the "will of all the people" now does it.

In democracy aswell a few people represent the interests of millions [Even billions in the case of India]. So by that logic, democrazy is useless? The few thousand people protesting were the ones who had the balls and the Ability to stand up to a ukrainian police formation shaped like a spartan war unit. They were the men who had the balls to go and fight instead of going for their job or their families in order to fight for what they believed in. Not everybody can do that. They did have widespread support of the people however, plus it is not the protestors who ousted the president. It was the legally elected parliament which did so.

Actually, the Russian revolution was much more complex than just a few people rioting against the Tsar, and I won't bother explaining it to you and will leave you to look it up yourself, to not derail the thread. The few people who stood up in Ukraine are the same people that firstly wanted an EU integration, then wanted an independent Ukraine and now are split between pro-independance, backed up by EU and NATO and pro-Russian 'movements', backed up by Russia. This easily proves that they don't represent shit but their own personal wish, and whoever supports them. If you're to blame the Russian government for invasion, in this case, it is as much of an invasion as it is of the EU's and NATO's. If they really cared for safety of Ukraine, they wouldn't support a specific group in the first place. Like I said, it's a game between EU+NATO on one side & Russia on the other.

Did you even read the very line you just quoted? Guess you missed it. If Russia is to stage a direct armed invasion of Ukraine, they would immediately get blasted by the western side of the world (Or E.U + NATO...) who would advocate bans to the South aswell. However if russia is to slowly take Crimea, it will not give the west  (Or E.U + NATO..) enough momentum to pursuade the U.N and hence the south.

Yeah just like in Syria, right? I thought the whole 'big WWIII feeling' was already a thing of the past.

Chaos and fighting all over crimea? Who were they fighting from?

Crimean pro-Russian majority vs. the Independent Ukraine minority in Crimea.

There were protests for crimea to succeed, not riots. And there are still (And a lot more) protests going on in crimea against Russian Occupation. The fighting hasn't stopped, if anything it's going strong.

[citation needed]

Also no one died, no one died earlier either. No shots fired, there would of never even been the need for a shot fired if Russia hadn't decided to just invade Ukraine in the first place.

wat
Kiev EuroMaidan protests death toll: 69-100

Crimean protests death toll: 0

Also there were absolutely no reports of the Russian minority in other parts of Ukraine ever being threatened. None. Nobody said anything to them, except small clashes at protests for-against.

[citation needed]
it's not about threatening, it's about non-democratical establishment of a new political power without having heard all the voices of the people.

If anything, by invading Ukraine in the name of Crimea Russia has aggravated any racists in Ukraine and gave them a fallacious means to justify attacking the minority Russia is invading in the name of.

But no one is invading anything. Unless you label every support from outside an invasion, then Syria was invaded by at least 15 countries last year.

Also, you should note that now all it takes to start a full blown shootout and deaths of many is one hotheaded soldier. One misunderstanding. That's all. If the Ex Ukrainian president had any care for ukrainian lives, why would he ask a external army to invade his own country to 'protect' lives knowing that it is the duty of Ukrainian troops to protect their country's sovereignty? What can Russia do that the Ukrainian Police and army can't to maintain Law and Order? Also what exactly has Russia done since they got there? Protests and clashes are still going strong and have only increased since Russian occupation as most Loyalists didn't bother clashing with the Majority russian speakers before, but now for the love of their country they dare to go out on the streets and protest against the Russian troops and even keep getting attacked for it and hence as the volume of anti russian protestors has increased, so has the intensity of the clashes.

Let me repeat the things that were said a dozen times already, but just for the sake of it: The Russian soldiers 'stationed' in Crimea were ALREADY stationed there before all this began for the major part. They are in a state of alertness to protect the ethnic Russian population from getting pulled down the gutter together with the nationalists in Kiev. No one ever forced the people in Crimea to fight for Russia, yet they decided so themselves, and those people are the majority. As you like the term majorities, then what gives the few thousands of EuroMaidan the right to decide the faith of the other thousands who want entirely the opposite? EuroMaidan may overthrow their government, by your logic, as they wish, but people, by definition UKRANIANS who do not agree to that (in this case being the Russian ethnic majority in Crimea) may not? Weird logic.

Also, here's Russia accepting to integrate Crimea into Russia
http://time.com/15527/russia-embraces-potential-crimea-split-from-ukraine/

Yes, just like the majority of Crimeans want themselves.

Yep, definitely there for humanitarian purposes.

And for the 4th time or so, I don't know where you got this from. Russian soldiers in Crimea are there to protect the wish of the Russian ethnic MAJORITY, in Crimea. They don't want their rights being taken away just as much as the EuroMaidan protestors want, being encouraged by the West.

Seeing you like to bring up stuff that don't make sense, pull things out of the blue for the sake of argument, and on top of that, keep repeating the same things over and over again with different words, I won't bother reading your next wall post as basically the whole Crimea situation has been summed up by now.