Ukraine

[Dashenka]

I agree. The rebels will not win the fight. So the war will be over, the problem still remains.

[Dashenka]

https://twitter.com/poroshenko/status/503976211891367936

I find that hysterical :D

He disbands his government for accepting dictatorial laws but doesn't quit his own post.

Scumbag first class this man. Blaming others for his own shortcomings.

[TheGlyphstone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_parliament

Ukraine's not on the list, but it appears that the ability to dissolve Parliament by the head of state/government is a common clause of parliamentary governments.  There's absolutely no legal reason for him to quit as well.

Now, why he chose to do so, you're free to have opinions on. But the above list seems to include a lot of examples of "the head of state and the parliament hate each other's guts and will do so forever", which sounds like a pretty accurate description of the Ukraine situation, so he's not in exclusive company there either.

[Dashenka]

Oh no I never said he was the only one but as the head of state, he's responsible. If he couldn't deal with them this time, what makes him think that he can do a better job with a different government?

In the mean time the country's economy is being annihilated (a 6.5% drop from last year), the country is still in a civil war and corruption is still roaming freely.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

Off topic here, but how exactly is dissolving parliment in these countries a good idea?  I mean why does the prime minister or president have that power?  Not specifically Ukraine, but just in general.  We have our problems with gridlock in America, but I would never want a President from either party be able to dismiss Congress just for disagreeing.

[gaggedLouise]

Off topic here, but how exactly is dissolving parliment in these countries a good idea?  I mean why does the prime minister or president have that power?  Not specifically Ukraine, but just in general.  We have our problems with gridlock in America, but I would never want a President from either party be able to dismiss Congress just for disagreeing.

In a two-party, winner-takes-all system it would likely not be a wise idea, but if there are multiple parties in parliament, some kind of proportional voting at elections and (often) a rule that the cabinet should have the running support of a parliament majority, the option of dissolving the parliament could be useful when the system lands in a gridlock right after the elections - it proves impossible to set up a viable government - or when a vexing, controversial question plainly breaks up the government (several front-rank ministers exiting) or disrupts some of the support from the party ranks that it was counting on.

Around here, in Sweden, where the government really is supposed to have some degree of solid support by the parliament, and the preferred option is that they get a steady majority behind them, there hasn't been a sudden (unscheduled) dissolution of parliament for almost a hundred years, but there have been times when it almost happened, after a cabinet crisis or an attempt to throw out the government in a vote of no confidence. At those points, either the government survived or a minority cabinet took over until the next elections. There are elections coming up in three weeks from now and the big question at present is, what happens if the far-right "Sweden Democrats" expand their ground and are able to act as kingmakers. At present they're more or less pariahs in the house, which hasn't exactly hurt their campaign  ;) and most people are expecting the current cabinet colition to fall through with a bang at the elections... - so there could be a very embarrassing deadlock afterwards.

[Oniya]

In many cases, the dissolution of Parliament is a standard procedure around the time of general elections.  In other cases, it hinges on motions of 'no confidence', which is basically an accusation that the body of government isn't doing its job.  An interesting thing I came across is that in the Westminster (UK) system, the defeat of a 'supply bill' (a bill that solely concerns taxation or government spending) can require dissolution or resignation, as it hamstrings the government.  I imagine something like that wouldn't go over too well with certain career politicians here.

[gaggedLouise]

If you guys had a law that government shutdown also immediately leads to the dissolution of congress, while the president remains in power and the cabinet stays in as an expeditionary government, I imagine those kinds of tug-of-war would be a good deal rarer. ;)

[Oniya]

That's kinda what I was thinking.  >_>

[Dashenka]

In a normal country it's not a bad thing but in a country as Ukraine, it gives the president power he doesn't deserve. According to him 4 out of 5 Ukrainians want the government to leave. He never gave any proof and since he is head of state and thus directly responsible for the government, he should look in the mirror and bugger off himself as well.

He failed in stabilizing the country's economic down fall, he failed in achieving peace. He failed in every single promise he made so far and he blames his government for that but it's not his fault of course.

Yanukovich did the same and he was overthrown and now the people that blamed Yanukovich do the EXACT SAME thing.

Funny thing now that Crim is the most stable region in Ukraine. Perhaps Russia isn't such a bad choice if that Porochenko is your president.

[Question Mark]

In a normal country it's not a bad thing but in a country as Ukraine, it gives the president power he doesn't deserve. According to him 4 out of 5 Ukrainians want the government to leave. He never gave any proof and since he is head of state and thus directly responsible for the government, he should look in the mirror and bugger off himself as well.

He failed in stabilizing the country's economic down fall, he failed in achieving peace. He failed in every single promise he made so far and he blames his government for that but it's not his fault of course.

Yanukovich did the same and he was overthrown and now the people that blamed Yanukovich do the EXACT SAME thing.

Funny thing now that Crim is the most stable region in Ukraine. Perhaps Russia isn't such a bad choice if that Porochenko is your president.

It sounds like you have an axe to grind here.  In clear and sterile terms, and without emotional extravagance, could you explain exactly why you are so against Porochenko?  What has he done (or not done) that makes him so reviled?  Why is it better that Ukraine be annexed by Russia, or at least become more pro-Russian?

I see you on this thread often, but I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from or why you believe what you do.  All I see is a lot of anger and condemnation.  I'd appreciate a clear and rational insight into your motivations for these opinions.

[Dashenka]

This whole conflict isn't about Ukraine and has never been. It was started and fueled so the world could have a go at Russia and when Russia had a go at the world, they world got mad.

The conflict in Ukraine isn't new. It has been going for decades but only when Russia steps in (illegal or not, that's not the point) suddenly NATO, UN, EU, US and everybody else steps in and has a go at it.

That's what bugs me and what makes me angry. All those politicians saying it's about Ukraine, when clearly it isn't. The people in the east of Ukraine want to be part of Russia or more autonomy, instead they shot and murdered. If this was about Ukraine, why hasn't the world stepped in 20 years ago? Why now? Why now when Russia was becoming more and more of a world player.

I know there's people out there that call me paranoid but this is how I see it. It's not about helping Ukraine, it's about Russia and destroying Russia. Simple as that.

Sorry if that offends people, this is how I see it.

[Dice]

Illegal or not is very much a point here.

I would like to, counter point you, by stating that this really started with Russia putting pressure on the Ukraine to stop them from joining the EU. Someone in a high place has as much ego invested in rebuilding the old soviet block as anyone else has in stopping such an action. This is not about "Destroying Russia", it's about "Curbing the rebuilding of a now defunct system".

At its core, this is about Oil. With Russia using its supply to pressure old soviet states and everyone else going "This ain't good." You can argue this is not the case, but it is. That's why none of the sanctions against Russia have included Oil (The EU needs it too much) and the first thing Russia did with the Ukraine was hike the price of Oil and then cut them off of supply. The EU needs that liquid gold too much to stop it, as do the old states and Russia is using the old satellites dependence to pull them into line. That's what started this. Oil deals and a threat if the Ukraine did not join up with the new RU economic zone.

[Dashenka]

No this started with Ukraine being divided into two camps, Pro-west and Pro-Russia. Much like it is now.

[Iniquitous]

It really isn't worth arguing over - Dashenka is an extreme pro Russian who will not admit Russia is ever at fault. What matters is the fact that a lot of people are dying over egos.

[Dashenka]

What matters is the fact that a lot of people are dying over egos.

I agree.

[Dice]

No, no this started with Russia controlling a satellite though Oil deals. The split was going to happen, in due time. What started the unrest, was the RU saying "Don't you go join the EU" like a father would say "Don't you dare go out in that dress".

The outcome of that was unrest, the annexing of a warm water port (the only one the RU had access to) and the arming of rebels in the east. You know dam well that happened. The unrest did not need to happen at all. The RU could have played nice and gotten whatever it dam well wanted though Oil deals. "We want a vote to happen, here is a sweet deal on you fuel bill." Bet you a fiver that vote would have happened, no guns attached. Instead we have the Annexation of the southern ports, arms supplied to rebel forces and no small amount of issues to arise thanks to someone waving his ego around.

The Ukraine did not want this fight, they where dancing in the streets celebrating the over though of pressure from Russia. They did not want to fight. The east, might have wanted to leave, but that was not the moment to do it. Russia still had more than enough economic power in the Ukraine to push an agenda and although the west of Ukraine would have resented the pressure, they would have given into it as they need to heat their homes and run their businesses. This started not because one side wanted a and the other side wanted b, this started because one country wanted to make a choice on its own behalf and another wanted nothing to change.

A Split Enz song comes to mind now.

Edit:
New news headline. Makes my point quite well for me. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/putin-warns-on-ukraines-ties-with-west-20140826-00710

[consortium11]

Well, if we're going to go with what started this bout of unrest it would be the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, turning down an Association Agreement with the EU. That led to protests in certain major cities (notably the capital), riots (generally pitting the far-right fascist/neo-nazi elements of the opposition against the police) and the country essentially being split in two between the East that supported Yanukovych and the West that opposed him. An agreement was reached between Yanukovych and the opposition for a ceasefire and a way to proceed but the more hardline elements in the opposition continued their assault and forced him to flee. It's suspected there was pretty heavy EU and US involvement in funding and propping up the protests but I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of that and leave it to the conspiracy theorists.

But what about the previous bouts of unrest?

One could look at the Gas dispute of 2006... which undoubtedly had wider issues at play but on at least one level was pretty simple; the Ukranian government wasn't paying for the gas it was using (essentially stealing it). One could point to the issue of gas debts from pretty much the breakup of the Soviet Union to the 2009 crisis.

One could point to the Orange Revolution of 2004 and see many of the same issues; a more European-minded West funded by Western Governments, pressure groups and unofficially exiled Russian Oligarchs against a more Russian-minded East funded by the Russian government. But it was kicked off by the murder of Georgiy Gongadze, a journalist who exposed corruption on all sides (and would have had a field day with many of those who made up the Orange Revolution).

Should we look back to the 2+4 negotiations and the Russian perception that NATO agreed to not expand any further east then Germany, only to see the start of expansion eastwards (including into Ukraine)?

Or should we point back to 1939-1945 where Ukraine was given fairly significant parts of Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland, bringing its borders further West and bringing in large groups with less ties to Russia? Or 1954 where Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine, bringing with it large groups who thought themselves Russian and had much closer ties to Russia?

This tension between East and West in Ukraine has been in existence pretty much throughout its history. One can look back to the Middle-Ages and see the way it was largely cut up between the Western-leaning Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Eastern-Leaning Crimean Khanate and the independently minded Zaporozhian Cossacks. The rise of Russia and the EU/USA as competing power-blocks only exacerbated the issue... and once Ukraine became the main route for natural gas from Russia into wider Europe it became even more significant. The country is, unfortunately, subject to both international economic and geo-political and domestic cultural and national identity issues. As is the way with such things, tragically they tend to occasionally boil over... which may be great for analysts, planners and strategists in offices far from the consequences, be they in Moscow, Brussels or Washington, but is certainly nowhere near as great for those who have to live with them day by day. Blaming any one side for this conflict... or in truth pretty much any of the conflicts over the last 20 years... is naive, as is absolving one side of blame.

[Dice]

So, even more fun:
http://news.com.au/world/ukraine-convoy-of-russian-tanks-weaponry-rolling-in-through-southeast/story-fndir2ev-1227039388911

[Zakharra]

So, even more fun:
http://news.com.au/world/ukraine-convoy-of-russian-tanks-weaponry-rolling-in-through-southeast/story-fndir2ev-1227039388911

  The Ukrainian government should warn Russia that it will bomb -any- convoys from Russia that are not authorized by the Ukrainian government and cleared by the International Red Cross first. Russia shouldn't be doing this sort of crap and should get the fingers it has in Ukraine, cut off or at least smacked hard.

Edit: A caveat here; I think all aid convoys should only enter Ukraine with the Ukrainian governments permission and after being cleared by the Red Cross, anything else should be refused and in the rebel held areas, blown off the roads by bombs and missiles. Ukraine has the right of any nation to keep its territory intact.

[Qt]

It really isn't worth arguing over - Dashenka is an extreme pro Russian who will not admit Russia is ever at fault. What matters is the fact that a lot of people are dying over egos.

Most of this thread is pro US/NATO, even though if you look back in the past 50 years, the US has racked up more countries invaded and body counts than Russia. Yet people are very quick to condemn Russia as some global threat. The US spends more than 7 times as much money on its military than Russia. So tell me why people think Russia is more of a risk to global security?

[Scribbles]

Most of this thread is pro US/NATO, even though if you look back in the past 50 years, the US has racked up more countries invaded and body counts than Russia. Yet people are very quick to condemn Russia as some global threat. The US spends more than 7 times as much money on its military than Russia. So tell me why people think Russia is more of a risk to global security?

Nobody can argue that the US hasn't caused it's share of grief in the world, mostly through wars, undermining the UN, meddling in countries which they have no business in and so on and so forth...

That said, do we really want TWO major powers pulling those stunts now? Are we going to tell Russia, "Hey, you go ahead and annex lands, cause rebellions, and whatever else you feel benefits your country over global stability; it's okay cause the US is bad too!"

As an aside, I don't believe the US or Russia are "bad" and I'm sure they both have the best intentions but, let's be honest, invading countries is a horrible method no matter the intent.

Also, the biggest difference between the US and Russia right now is that the current Obama admin wants to try fix past mistakes while Putin's admin looks like he's gearing up to make a fresh batch of them which we'll probably feel for years and years.

[Dice]

For the record. I am neither Pro US or Pro Russia. I have very little love for both. What I am against is people with Power abusing it. When the British arrived here they killed my people in mass and then took away all our kids. My father was one of the last of the "Stolen Generation", the outcome of those with power doing what they like to those without.

I do not like those with power using it to push around those without. The British are guilty of this, the US is, Germany, China, Japan and Russia. Good god we are and everyone else is too. I am not really Pro anyone these days. Just because I argue against Russia in this does not make me Pro someone else.

[Zakharra]

  It looks like Russian is taking a much more active (and open) role in supporting the rebels in Ukraine.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28967526
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2014/08/15/russian-forces-inside-ukraine/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/08/poroshenko-russian-toops-now-ukraine-soil-2014828133957228974.html

If Russia is doing this, it's not even trying to hide its aims anymore; to absorb parts of Ukraine.

[Dashenka]

So when American troops landed in Iraq, it was to absord parts of Iraq?

Seems legit.