> Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units.
Or in other words, Russian military forces have invaded a neighboring nation, unless there is permission from Kiev for such uniformed armed forces to be on the sovereign territory of Ukraine?....
As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory.
So, yes, I would suggest Russia should "abandon" the people of Donetsk and Luhansk (and for that matter, Crimea), return to its own sovereign territory, and then the fighting will stop as there will quickly be no hostile forces to launch artillery or air strikes against.
You implied with that link [1] that Russia intervened only after Kiev started committing atrocities against people in Donetsk and Luhansk, but the order appears to be completely opposite.
> I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2].
> And he didn't get fined or jailed for this words, or even challenged by the TV host.
He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"?
Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis.
And either way, are you trying to imply that some random asshole on T.V. spouting their stupid backward opinion about a million people he's never met, is justification enough to invade the sovereign territory of another nation. I mean, even Bush 43 tried to put a better case together than that when he went off to disaster in Iraq...
Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis.
I'll give you a better explanation: the TV host didn't challenge him because it never happened. The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it.
The expert is a journalist, from a newspaper «Тиждень». [1]
Here are the qoutes:
Донбасс – это не просто депрессивный регион. Там дикое количество ненужных людей. Я абсолютно осознанно об этом говорю. В Донецкой области примерно 4 миллиона жителей. И не менее 1,5 миллионов лишних. Нам не надо понимать Донбасс. Нам надо понимать украинский национальный интерес. А Донбасс нужно использовать как ресурс.
[...]
В отношении Донбасса: я не знаю рецепта, как это сделать быстро. Однако наиглавнейшее, что нужно сделать: есть люди, которых необходимо просто убить.
Which means that there is an "excess of 1.5 millions of people" in Donetsk Region, that "[people of] Donetsk Region mustn't be undestood [by the people from the rest of Ukraine], and Donetsk Region [and it's people] must be used as a resource instead" and "I don't know how to solve that problem [to remove excessive civilians], but the main thing is that some people must be physically eliminated".
So:
1. There are 1.5 millions of civilians of Donetsk region that are excessive.
2. People of Donetsk region mustn't be understood by the rest of Ukraine. Which literally means that they do not fit in Ukrainian Nation, they are not part of it.
3. He doesn't know the recipe how to remove the excessive civilians, but some people must be physically eliminated.
In the context of the whole TV show he is talking about elimination of excessive civilians. One could argue if he considers possible to physically eliminate 1.5 million of them, or only part of them and drive others by away by force or by economical means, etc.
> The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it.
So, even though I have already claimed that it was too emotional for me to mention this TV show, I consider myself to have provided reasonable translation of his words.
P.S.
I've actually used pyyaml parser. :)
Edit: here is the relevant part of the show for you to check: [2]
Which means that there is an "excess of 1.5 millions of people" in Donetsk Region, that "[people of] Donetsk Region mustn't be undestood [by the people from the rest of Ukraine], and Donetsk Region [and it's people] must be used as a resource instead" and "I don't know how to solve that problem [to remove excessive civilians], but the main thing is that some people must be physically eliminated".
Wow, this is truly creative editing. None of your insertions are implied from the context and the quotes you picked up are several minutes apart. In particular, he talks about 1.5 millions of people lacking meaningful job prospects as one of the causes of the unrest (which is true). A few minutes later, when he talks about about killing people, nowhere he implies millions of civilians, in fact, it's obvious he means armed militants.
Good to see that you can take facts pipy -- and thanks xi for doing better than I did in discussing.
I -- and probably most people -- have been in the situation where we lost contact with reality, because we have read too much spin, even if the subjects are serious problems.
It is not easy. Good luck pipy. (And good luck to Russia and Ukraine -- they both deserve a break after the last century.)
> As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory.
No, it doesn't. Because there is no evidence of massive Russian troop presence, not to my knowledge. This is why you cannot attribute the sheer scale of Ukrainian Government actions to this issue.
I will quote the article for your convenience:
Poroshenko’s “peace plan” and June 21 cease-fire may have seemed such an opportunity, except for their two core conditions: fighters in the southeast first had to “lay down their arms,” and he alone would decide with whom to negotiate peace. The terms seemed more akin to conditions of surrender, and were probably the real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 and intensified Kiev’s assault on eastern cities, initially on the smaller towns of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which their defenders abandoned—to prevent more civilian casualities, they said—on July 5–6. [1]
The fact that there is a genuine insurgency by the Eastern Ukrainians that is not attributable to Russian influence has been supported by multiple experts from different countries. [2]
Even the sociologist that gets his money from US State Department says that:
"And the polls which were done in the first half of [May--and?] it means after massacre in Odessa and after very brutal attack on Mariupol by Ukrainian forces, they were showing that at least even in Donbass there are various--some sort of support for the claims of separatists, and the people in Donbas saw their seizure of governmental buildings as people's [incompr.] not as a terrorist act, not as a Russian intervention. But this were the public opinion in Donbass." [3]
>He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"?
OK, for me it was too emotional to claim this and to talk about this TV show.
I don't doubt that there are people in Ukraine actually supportive of, and legitimately participating in, that separatist movement.
But that is not, by itself, justification for Russia to intervene, especially unilaterally. It's not, never will be.
Think of the logic: If there were a group of 5,000 Americans living in Russia (who had been forced to move there 50 years earlier during a period of American rule in Russia), and they rebelled against Moscow (after lengthy exhortations and propaganda from D.C.), would you really be OK with America sending military forces to intervene on behalf of those separatists? Would you be OK with America providing very advanced weaponry, passports, military support, intelligence support, international top cover and more, all to support this separatist movement?
Or would you say that it was an internal matter for Russians to resolve amongst themselves, and that other states should stay out of the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation? I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war.
See, this isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement (however many legitimate aspects it might contain), with Ukraine's bordering neighbor deliberately intervening to tilt the scales as they wish.
> I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war.
So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side? I beg to disagree.
In fact, Kiev has been Washington’s military proxy against Russia and its “compatriots” in eastern Ukraine for months. Since the political crisis began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan and Vice President Joseph Biden (twice) have been in Kiev, followed by “senior US defense officials,” American military equipment and financial aid. Still more, a top US Defense Department official informed a Senate committee that the department’s “advisers” are now “embedded” in the Ukrainian defense ministry. [1]
> This isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement.
This is one way to see it. Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view.
> So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side?
All outside parties have the right to be supportive of whichever side they wish.
The ways in which that support is expressed are not all allowable under international law, however. For instance, Obama supports the "moderate Syrian opposition", yet the U.S. has not invaded parts of Syria and annexed it, and then sent further military forces into the remainder of Syria to fight against Assad.
> Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view.
You didn't need to remind me that there are alternate POVs. I'm sure that Russia has interests in Ukraine that are much different that the E.U., or the U.S., or NATO, or even Ukraine itself.
But having interests is no right to do whatever you wish. I've already expressed Obama's interest in the situation in Syria, yet you don't see him breaking down in a teary-eyed fit in international media about how Assad simply won't listen to him.
Obama is doing what he thinks he can and the situation will either resolve itself in the U.S.'s favor or it won't. But even if it doesn't go the U.S.'s way, he still won't invade. We used to be able to say the same of Putin, until Crimea (something he did finally admit to lying about, after the fact).
"Covert" action is one thing. Sending weapons and money is one thing. These are all things that are generally understood to be allowable ways for outside parties to aid (or not) belligerents. But even the things that are allowed come at the price of responsibility, which is why Obama won't give all the Super Ray Guns to Syrian moderates.
Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation. Russia supported the rest of the world in stopping the last time a tinpot dictator tried that exercise, in Kuwait. But now Russia is the aggressor itself...
Another way to view it, is that the West is waging a proxy war against Russia.
One might say that confrontation started with the West instigating a coup against democratically elected president of Ukraine and installing a pro-Western, pro-NATO regime. Another might say that it started when the West has methodically sabotaged all Russian actions to find peaceful solutions to the crisis in Eastern Ukraine and instead pushed for military options [1]. But these are technicalities.
There are two steps left before the possible direct military confrontation between the West and Russia. One step is the West officially sending troops to Ukraine, and another is Russia officially sending troops to Ukraine. Most probably, neither of them would be taken, but the situation is already dangerous enough.
Many say, that after we have left our military bases in Eastern Germany in exchange of the failed promise of NATO non-expansion, after many other actions of good will by USSR and then Russia, the West has been methodically showing us that it doesn't accept Russia as a peaceful partner.
By sanctioning Russia, by turning the blind eye on atrocities carried out by Kiev government, the West is waging the war against Russians, not only against Putin.
I do not know, how this crisis would end, but it is for sure going to set back our relations with the West for decades to come. And this is not all Putin's fault.
> Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation.
Before the Russian actions in Crimea, there was a popular uprising against coup government.
The main powerhouse of the uprising was the city of Sevastopol, which was home for Russian military bases for hundreds of years. The residents of the city have in 20+ years never been allowed to have democratic elections of the mayor, because all Ukrainian governments felt that they would elect pro-Russian mayor. Instead, for 20+ years, they got mayors appointed from Kiev, some anti-Russian.
Crimea has de facto not been under the coup government control even before the Russian actions and was lost by Ukraine before it was gained by Russia, just after the coup government has started to pass one of it's first laws, the one that revoked the rights of the Russian-speaking regions to use Russian as second official language.
Personally, I don't like how Russia used it's military in Crimea and think that people of Crimea should have been allowed to fight for the independence themselves, possibly with some help. This was important technical issue and Russia has most probably got it wrong.
The situation is complicated by the fact that in reality there are different parts of Ukraine with completely different mindsets, preferences and interests.
But it is the Western Ukraine that has invaded Eastern Ukraine (with the help of US), not the other way around. This is the core point. This is why the people of Eastern Ukraine have the moral high ground in their fight. This is why Russia is not an aggressor.
P.S.
The coup government has also been waging war against the population of Crimea [2], "it's own population". And it also doesn't allow for every citizen from Crimea to freely enter Ukraine, some of them are sent back home [3] [4].
[1] Great article by Stephen Cohen (professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University), which more or less summarizes not only my personal POW, but POW of many Russians and Ukrainians as well:
http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw...
> West instigating a coup against democratically elected president of Ukraine and installing a pro-Western, pro-NATO regime
You're ly... wrong. There was no 'west instigation' and government was elected by Ukrainian people, not by 'West'.
>West has methodically sabotaged all Russian actions to find peaceful solutions to the crisis in Eastern Ukraine
Tell me about these actions? Sending mercenaries and military equipment to Ukraine? Shelling Ukrainian forces across the border? Spreading lies about Ukraine on state TV?
What other 'peaceful solutions' did I forgot? Oh, violating WTO principles by initiating a little trade war with Ukraine? More peaceful, than sending tanks to Ukraine, I must agree with that.
> after we have left our military bases in Eastern Germany in exchange of the failed promise of NATO non-expansion
You're wrong. There was no such promise, and there was no 'exchange'.
> The main powerhouse of the uprising was the city of Sevastopol, which was home for Russian military bases for hundreds of years.
Do you understand how silly it sounds? Cuba was Spanish military base for hundred of years, do you think they mad enough to take it back on a such false premise?
>The residents of the city have in 20+ years never been allowed to have democratic elections of the mayor, because all Ukrainian governments felt that they would elect pro-Russian mayor. Instead, for 20+ years, they got mayors appointed from Kiev, some anti-Russian.
So, in your beloved Russia, governors was not elected for 10 years, so you will blame Putin?
> Crimea has de facto not been under the coup government control even before the Russian actions and was lost by Ukraine before it was gained by Russia.
You're wrong again. Using Latin will not bring more credibility to this statement.
> But it is the Western Ukraine that has invaded Eastern Ukraine (with the help of US), not the other way around.
This is so good fantasy, you can try to sell it as a movie script.
I'm not even sure that I need to debunk this particular myth.
> This is the core point. This is why the people of Eastern Ukraine have the moral high ground in their fight. This is why Russia is not an aggressor.
So you're trying to tell us, that if false statements are propagated in the russian media, then you could hide the facts of Russian mercenaries fighting against Ukrainian forces, Russian tanks and APCs flow across border and FSB/KGB crooks in Ukraine in charge of terrorists?
Do you honestly believe this could be hidden just because it was not shown on kremlin TV?
> The coup government has also been waging war against the population of Crimea [2], "it's own population".
Really? This is considered a 'war' right now?
Ok, in this case Russia is waging war against Ukraine right now, by cutting it's gas supply.
> And it also doesn't allow for every citizen from Crimea to freely enter Ukraine, some of them are sent back home
Yes. It's called 'customs', are you aware what this means?
> real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1
Real reason was that pro-russian bandits continue to fire on Ukrainian forces despite all the arrangements.
And as for "would decide with whom to negotiate peace" this is absolutely acceptable, because there are a lot of bandit leaders in play and it's hard to understand who's responsible for peace negotiating.
Or in other words, Russian military forces have invaded a neighboring nation, unless there is permission from Kiev for such uniformed armed forces to be on the sovereign territory of Ukraine?....
As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory.
So, yes, I would suggest Russia should "abandon" the people of Donetsk and Luhansk (and for that matter, Crimea), return to its own sovereign territory, and then the fighting will stop as there will quickly be no hostile forces to launch artillery or air strikes against.
You implied with that link [1] that Russia intervened only after Kiev started committing atrocities against people in Donetsk and Luhansk, but the order appears to be completely opposite.
> I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2].
> And he didn't get fined or jailed for this words, or even challenged by the TV host.
He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"?
Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis.
And either way, are you trying to imply that some random asshole on T.V. spouting their stupid backward opinion about a million people he's never met, is justification enough to invade the sovereign territory of another nation. I mean, even Bush 43 tried to put a better case together than that when he went off to disaster in Iraq...