Ukraine Riots

[tinselwolverine]

yes, his title is acting president:
Oleksandr Turchynov

And did he come into that position by any legitimate transfer of power under Ukrainian law? And does the acting president recognize the guy who went off to Russia as the legitimate president?

 

[Michchamp]

And did he come into that position by any legitimate transfer of power under Ukrainian law? And does the acting president recognize the guy who went off to Russia as the legitimate president?

the answers to your questions are I believe so, and no.

I read an article that according to Ukrainian law, Yanukovich is no longer president of the country. I am not sure what laws he violated or how he came to that point, but a few Ukrainian constitutional law professors questioned for the article all agreed on that point.

Also, he (Yanukovich) claimed he requested Russian assistance to regain his office, which is illegal according to Ukrainian law, and requires approval of parliament first, which he did not receive.

I am not sure whether they have as detailed of a succession policy in place as the US does, but I haven't seen anyone outside of Russia question Turchynov's legitimacy at the present time.

 

[zyxt9]

As someone who did not vote for Obama, I fail to understand the criticism he is receiving regarding how the US is handling Ukraine's situation. I think he is spot on.

1. Always go with the political option first. I say this as a very pro-military guy as most on here will attest. There is zero reason to put military personnel at risk when a diplomatic solution could accomplish the same end result. Now, this depends on what one considers an agreeable end result. Some are not ok with giving Crimea over to Russia, but if the people who live there vote to separate from Ukraine and join Russia, who the fuck cares what other people think. If we are going to honor democracy, then we honor it everywhere. Do I think those people are making the correct decision? No! That doesn't mean you send in the military to enforce your will in this type of situation. Would we kick Russia's ass? Yes! Does Russia then resort to nukes or other WMDs??? Can one honestly say beyond a doubt that Putin would not?????????? Is Crimea worth that risk to the world when they would prefer joining Russia to remaining with Ukraine????????????????? Live to fight another day. The economic sanctions and other pressures will eventually cause the collapse of Putin's regime, or he will die and a change toward favorable relations with EU/NATO can happen then maybe. If not, then continue to wait them out. One has to believe the people there will eventually get rid of Putin and his puppets, but if not, that is their choice. They can move out of Russia if they prefer (just please stop moving to Brooklyn, enough is enough already!)

2. When Bush was Commander in Chief, the Left was critical and the Right responded "support the troops". Well, put up or shut up. Support the troops first and foremost. Obama is not deploying the military until they are in the best position possible in relation to the situation at any given moment, meaning don't attack if Russia doesn't. It would not have been wise to launch any kind of strike yet, and still isn't. Political solution first, military solution second. Support the troops and their Commander in Chief, US politics be damned...supporting the troops should always come first. Just because the Left didn't recognize that at times with W in charge there is zero reason for the Right to do the same to Obama now.

Drives me nuts when either side prefers making political complaints to shutting up and supporting the troops. Felt that way about the Dixie Chicks and their ilk, feel the same about anyone else doing it now. Put the political differences aside in times like these, pray/hope for peaceful solution depending on your belief system or lack thereof, and support the troops at all times. If you cannot do that, then just STFU.

 

[Michchamp]

... Some are not ok with giving Crimea over to Russia, but if the people who live there vote to separate from Ukraine and join Russia, who the fuck cares what other people think. ...

this is the only part of your post I don't agree with.

You can find support for secession in the U.S. ... for example these complete morons. That doesn't mean it's legit, or should be granted. As a matter of principle, to deter war and one-nation meddling in another's internal politics, the territorial integrity of a nation should be upheld unless both sides wish to separate (e.g. Czechoslovakia in the 90's) or one side is actively pursuing a policy of ethnic cleansing (e.g. the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina).

Here, there is no evidence Ukraine was doing anything to oppress the ethnic-Russian population of Crimea (which while a majority, is still only 54%), or violate their base-sharing agreement with Russia, and the Ukrainian government is not willing to cede Crimea to Russia.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Would we kick Russia's ass? Yes...!

Support the troops and their Commander in Chief, US politics be damned...supporting the troops should always come first...

Drives me nuts when either side prefers making political complaints to shutting up and supporting the troops...

Support what troops? U.S Troops in the Ukraine?

There are no troops...and there aren't going to be any. Except for the possible slight change of the position of a warship or two way out to sea, there is going to be zero US military involvement in this event.

I'm not so sure I'm confident that "kicking Russia's ass" in its own neighborhood would exactly be a layup...

All the tough talk posturing and bluster that has come from both the administration AND the GOP has been so much bullshit...

And beyond that...how dangerous and fluid is the situation, really - when the US Secretary of State AND the Russian Foreign Minister are openly hanging out together in Kiev - I mean, really?

Notice how nobody is talking anymore about what a fuck up the ACA is anymore all of a sudden?

Putin and Obama have some kind of deal goin' down...exactly what it is, very few people will ever know...I never will...

...but I do know a grift when I see one...

 

[Gulo Blue]

Putin and Obama have some kind of deal goin' down...exactly what it is, very few people will ever know...I never will...

...but I do know a grift when I see one...

More reference to this?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326

 

[Michchamp]

Wake up people!

 

[tinselwolverine]

Fo' sho!'

 

[spockmaster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wauzrPn0cfg

 

[Thumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55izx6rbCqg

 

[tinselwolverine]

She pronounces Putin "Poo in" without the t.

 

[Michchamp]

RT first came to my attention when I went cable-less a couple years ago. It would come in via a PBS-affiliate that showed newscasts from around the world, each for an hour, all night long.

the reason they came to my attention was the that they had notable... uh... talent:

they are a Kremlin shill outlet, but they do occasionally provide a useful counterpoint to our own government's propaganda or misdeeds. I thought their reporting on the Occupy Wall Street movement was good, mainly because so few outlets were covering it in a non-dismissive manner.

 

[tinselwolverine]

From now on, when I refer to Putin on this thread, I'm going to spell it "Poo in"" in honor of Liz Wahl's brave and courageous stand.

 

[Gulo Blue]

From now on, when I refer to Putin on this thread, I'm going to spell it "Poo in"" in honor of Liz Wahl's brave and courageous stand.

That's a very "Meatchicken" thing to do.

I read some more "Ukraine to NATO" talk today. I'd love to see a resolution that weakens Putin's position and hurries up the long-term political evolution of Russia. There seemed to be so much more potential before he came along. I'd love to live to see a global ban on nukes, but that seems impossibly far off today.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'd love to live to see a global ban on nukes, but that seems impossibly far off today.

Yes, because it's obvious now that we need our nukes to protect us against Poo in.

 

[Thumb]

That's a very "Meatchicken" thing to do.

I read some more "Ukraine to NATO" talk today. I'd love to see a resolution that weakens Putin's position and hurries up the long-term political evolution of Russia. There seemed to be so much more potential before he came along. I'd love to live to see a global ban on nukes, but that seems impossibly far off today.

I think the biggest obstacle with a ban on nukes, is if all the nuclear powers gave them up, then likely terrorists/criminal enterprises would work harder on obtaining them, even if they were small yield varieties.

Plus, Israel would never give them up even if everyone else agreed to.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think the biggest obstacle with a ban on nukes, is if all the nuclear powers gave them up, then likely terrorists/criminal enterprises would work harder on obtaining them, even if they were small yield varieties.

Plus, Israel would never give them up even if everyone else agreed to.

What good are our massive nuclear arsenals against terrorist/criminal enterprises anyway?

 

[zyxt9]

I think the biggest obstacle with a ban on nukes, is if all the nuclear powers gave them up, then likely terrorists/criminal enterprises would work harder on obtaining them, even if they were small yield varieties.

Plus, Israel would never give them up even if everyone else agreed to.

They would give them up if Muslims would finally allow them to exist as a state and not constantly try to kill them. .

Sorry, just not sure how to take the comment as it can be interpreted as Israel is the one trying to wipe out the Muslims as opposed to the other way around.

However, I am in full agreement that Israel has brought SOME of the issues upon themselves by not being more willing to create and support an independent Palestine for Muslims along with Israel. If both sides would just allow that to happen and stop allowing "settlers" in the other's land, this would go a long way toward peace. Oh, and I tend to believe there won't be peace until Jerusalem is a completely independent, neutral, and internationally controlled location as opposed to ruled by either Jews, Muslims, or Christians.

Move the UN there if need be...but I don't believe Jews nor Muslims would approve it.

If the situation was reversed, I have little doubt Radical Muslims would have already used nukes on the Jews. The fact Israel has not demonstrates to some degree that the correct and responsible group has the nukes.

 

[Thumb]

What good are our massive nuclear arsenals against terrorist/criminal enterprises anyway?

I'm not saying they're any good at all. Hell, they're not even any good against other Nuclear powers because MAD keeps them in their silos.

I'm just stating that if nobody had them, the scramble to be the only ones that did would be extreme.

 

[Michchamp]

I think the biggest obstacle with a ban on nukes, is if all the nuclear powers gave them up, then likely terrorists/criminal enterprises would work harder on obtaining them, even if they were small yield varieties.

Plus, Israel would never give them up even if everyone else agreed to.

agree. If everyone gives up nukes (which... good luck ensuring everyone complies with that) then the North Koreas of the world have a huge incentive to squirrel a couple away.

What good are our massive nuclear arsenals against terrorist/criminal enterprises anyway?

well, if they're hell-bent on using one AND suicidal, then you're right, no deterrence would matter. if not, then we may no longer have a deterrence factor over any state that would allow them to set up shop there to build a nuke.

Of course, Future Boy, you can't just walk into a store and buy plutonium. It still takes a massive effort to produce. while I assume that while modern enrichment efforts are more efficient than the Manhattan Project days, setting up shop to enrich uranium/plutonium is still a gargantuan task, impossible to succeed at w/out state sponsorship.