Ukraine Protest

[Andalusian girls]

I guess Uganda can't be stopped either..

are you being deliberately stupid or are you genetically predisposed to misunderstanding conjunctions

[thetruepandagod]

are you being deliberately stupid or are you genetically predisposed to misunderstanding conjunctions

[BaneTheBrawler]

lol cos that worked out so well last time they led a revolution


edit: bah, forgot to refresh after going afk. in response to "russian people having that authority"

[Twilight Sky]

Russia is just on a high after winning the most medals in the Olympics, it'll pass.

Seems that way. But I don't like how they used the issues in Ukraine as an excuse to exert their military power and occupy the place. Honestly, if they do try to annex Ukraine, this would be a bit beyond a civil war. Russia's allies(or now, enemies, because Putin is pissing off everyone tied to Russia) would have to get involved to stop them. This would be a bigger mess than it already is.

[Cliron]

Haven't been following in depth yet, but has there been input from Asia?

Obviously China's stance is going to be important on a world wide playing field.

[Serra]

Unless someone can correct me, China's stance has usually been "leave other nations alone, it's not our business." It's the typical justification that what goes on in a sovereign state is no one else's business. That's the reasoning they used to oppose UN involvement in Syria and whatnot. However, Russia has also used that same line of thought previously, and seems to have changed it under the guise of a threat to "Russians" so yeah... Although Russia is arguably the country China is closest to in the security council, I'm inclined to believe that China will stay out of it since it doesn't directly involve them.

[RKenshin]

Didn't Putin write an open letter to Americans, telling us how we need to stop interferring in other country's civil wars, uprisings, etc?

[Serra]

Yup, ran in the nyt. I think it was after a state of the union.

[RKenshin]

Indeed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op...yria.html?_r=0

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

[Callisto]

I've been reading Voice of Russia the past week as well, it's oftentimes surprisingly candid for a state-run paper, but it's gone full North Korea the past several days, just total pants-on-head propaganda.

[kuronosan]

It's amazing that Putin has such insight into global politics and yet is still a sorry sack of shit.

[Xajii]

Thought I would share this here, a commenter from reddit with some more insight into what Russia is doing and why:

[Russia is exerting force] because [Ukraine] contains a vital port - Sevastopol.

The Russians have to ask the Ukrainians for permission to use this port, they get a lease on it - they literally "rent" it.

This wasn't difficult with a pro-Russian president in Ukraine, however the Russians are very worried now, because there's been an uprising in Ukraine, and the pro-Russian president was turfed out, they may lose their lease on this port

If they lose the lease, they lose their power in the region. Putin is a very clever man, he knows that he can push a certain amount and there won't be any military repercussions - no one is going to risk a massive war - so in a way he's playing a game of bluff, he'll push forces into Crimea, take Sevastopol all for himself - it'll cost Russia money and international relations - but he obviously thinks that the gamble is worth it to control such a vital port

He doesn't have any strong opposition at home (running in opposition is "difficult" in Russia) and he pretty much runs the media - so he can convince the Russians at home, and those in the Ukraine that he is merely trying to protect them - this is something a lot of them believe

Try not to think of countries as friends, but more as businesses - this is a hostile take-over, internationally it's condemned, but to Putin, that naval port permanently in the hands of Russia is worth it

EDIT: Although, others have mentioned that the desire to collect a post-communist Eurasian Union and keep protests against this from spreading out of Ukraine are another reason, and perhaps more important, because Russia reportedly has been offered another warm water port elsewhere if they aid Syrian protesters

[Kuya]

Indeed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op...yria.html?_r=0

Ha. God putin is such an asshole.

[Outlaw]

I've been reading Voice of Russia the past week as well, it's oftentimes surprisingly candid for a state-run paper, but it's gone full North Korea the past several days, just total pants-on-head propaganda.

Yeah, I've heard this as well. They are just trying to create support for this takeover. They are not fooling anyone outside of Russia. Also this from today. The article is long so I'm only going to quote the good parts.

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin offered a vigorous defense Tuesday of Russian intervention in Ukraine, saying the pro-Russian former government in Kiev was illegally overthrown and that the man he regards as Ukraine’s legitimate president asked him for military help.

But he also asserted that the troops wearing unmarked uniforms in Crimea are local self-defense groups — not Russian forces, as observers on the scene have said.

Russia has not yet sent in troops but has the legal right to do so if it chooses, Putin said in his first public comments about Ukraine since president Viktor Yanukovych was deposed 10 days ago. He repeatedly described the country as chaotic, claiming that armed thugs are roaming the streets of Kiev, torturing innocent people, and that vigilantes in the countryside are capturing and humiliating public officials. Putin blamed much of the disorder he described on the West, particularly the United States.

Putin accused the United States of engineering the country’s troubles, suggesting it was using Ukrainians as guinea pigs in some kind of misguided experiment.

“They sit there across the pond as if in a lab running all kinds of experiments on the rats,” Putin said. “Why would they do it? No one can explain it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...39c_story.html

[ringthree]

Yeah, I've heard this as well. They are just trying to create support for this takeover. They are not fooling anyone outside of Russia. Also this from today. The article is long so I'm only going to quote the good parts.







http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...39c_story.html

At least two Russia watchers and Merkel herself have questioned Putin's grip on reality after the speech today. Normally, he is very calculating and pragmatic but the justifications he gave today were very weak almost to the point of laughable, even to his allies.

[Kuya]

So latest I heard is that Russia pulled out of Ukraine. Any news source?

[Kryssan]

So latest I heard is that Russia pulled out of Ukraine. Any news source?

Maybe Vlad forgot that they put all of their oil in their pipelines instead of in their tanks.

On a serious note, I haven't actually heard anything with regards to updates post ultimatum. It seems like everything is still on hold for now. The BBC is live up ( link ) on Ukraine but atm it's just political talkings and pointing out other news articles that summarise what has been going on.

[Shenrien]

“They sit there across the pond as if in a lab running all kinds of experiments on the rats,” Putin said. “Why would they do it? No one can explain it.”

This had me laughing out loud for some reason.

[ringthree]

So latest I heard is that Russia pulled out of Ukraine. Any news source?

There are still "pro-Russian militias" in the Crimea that no one is currently claiming. Technically, Russia never put more troops in the Crimea to begin with.

[Vixy]

8:20 on:



Nothing to see here.. move along? Wouldn't exactly be surprised if true.