• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Ukraine erupts in riots and general strike.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Right now Ukraine operates under a unitary system. It would seem that one apparent impact of the Ukraine crisis is that eastern Ukraine is demanding greater autonomy from Kiev, including the right to select their own governors. Right now, Ukraine has a political system where the President has the right to personally select governors. This has caused a bit of a stir, as most of the people in the new government have right leanings which was quite unsettling for most Ukrainians.

Whatever the distrust of eastern Ukrainians for Russia, it would seem that they share equal distrust of Kiev. This is not to say that separatism will occur, but that autonomy movements are more likely to become important over time.

Another article written by the Kyiv Post.
 
Last edited:
Trust but verify, 2 pages ago is still waiting for Abby Martin to get fired.

She still might. She refuses to be sent to Crimea by her employers to educate her on the situation.

Cleon even "observed" RT moderators "dropping like flies" (Since that hasn't happened yet one could say it's a prediction)

One anchor already quit because she got tired of pushing untruths. Another is having demands put to her by her employers for reeducation. That's one, possibly two, in a very short time span.

Neither of these corresponds with the prediction that "Nobody will therefore say anything critical for fear of loosing their job," so I'd say that's your strawman.
 
Right wing nationalists take charge of key positions in new government and lead Ukraine to an uncertain and potentially xenophobic future.

- CNN News
 
Last edited:
She still might. She refuses to be sent to Crimea by her employers to educate her on the situation.



One anchor already quit because she got tired of pushing untruths. Another is having demands put to her by her employers for reeducation. That's one, possibly two, in a very short time span.

Neither of these corresponds with the prediction that "Nobody will therefore say anything critical for fear of loosing their job," so I'd say that's your strawman.

ok. Let's reformulate "Journalists on RT will not critizise Russias action, and when they do they will get fired or sanctioned" Better? (Hint: You still predict that, with your "possibly two")

While we wait for the firing to happen, can I have some evidence that RT is a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin, in the mold of RFE? Is there an equivalent to MSNBC/Phil Donahue on RT that I am not aware of? (Seriously, I'd be curious if anybody got anything)
 
Ukraine has a unique situation in which older people are beginning to outnumber younger people. The average age of the population is increasing.
And?

Also please provide the relevant population data to support your claim and the uniqueness of situation. Unique demographics sounds interesting.

People are underestimating one serious factor. Russia doesn't not need the popular support of the people.
Russia doesn't even have the popular support of the people - and that was before their invasion which won't add popularity points. That's why they had to install their new PM in Crimea. His party Russian Unity got whopping 4% of the vote in the last election, and apparently he's a shady character with background in organized crime.

It's unlikely that Russia would militarily invade Eastern Ukraine. What they're doing is creating political instability with the aim of weakening the Kyiv government and having more political influence in the east, not annexing the East.

It's also unlikely that any part of Eastern Ukraine would secede to Russia. Such proposition does not have popular support there and it's a minority opinion. In order to annex regions in the east Russia would have to invade them first.

Right now Ukraine operates under a unitary system. It would seem that one apparent impact of the Ukraine crisis is that eastern Ukraine is demanding greater autonomy from Kiev, including the right to select their own governors. Right now, Ukraine has a political system where the President has the right to personally select governors.
That was the Yanukovich constitution, the one he abused to consolidate powers to himself. One of the most important objectives of Maidan opposition was undoing Yanukovich's changes to constitution and restoring the 2004 constitution with more democratic powers. And the parliament voted for the constitutional change. The president's powers have been diminished and moved to the parliament.

It's the parliament that selects the PM, the government, and the regional governors.

Whatever the distrust of eastern Ukrainians for Russia, it would seem that they share equal distrust of Kiev. This is not to say that separatism will occur, but that autonomy movements are more likely to become important over time.
Yep, there may very well be developments in the power balance between Kyiv and regional governments. That needs constitutional changes and I don't think that the parliament would make such changes before the May election. But yes, over time, perhaps.

ETA: Just wanted to add that not much of this is currently very important - what's relevant ATM is the diplomatic game happening elsewhere. Of utmost importance is having Russia engaged in diplomacy and dialogue.

What needs to happen: having Russia to agree to OSCE participation. Won't happen easily, but is the best path available.

Today the EU national leaders meet. Very important meeting. Some sanctions would be in order such as Visa restrictions and suspending some co-operation. But I hope they do not impose economic sanctions, and tone down the sanctions rhetorics a bit. Russia does not respond well if feels left alone and threatened.
 
Last edited:
ok. Let's reformulate "Journalists on RT will not critizise Russias action, and when they do they will get fired or sanctioned" Better? (Hint: You still predict that, with your "possibly two")

Yes, I still predict that. It already happened in one case (being told to go to Crimea to educate herself on the situation is a sanction).

While we wait for the firing to happen, can I have some evidence that RT is a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin, in the mold of RFE?
Is there an equivalent to MSNBC/Phil Donahue on RT that I am not aware of? (Seriously, I'd be curious if anybody got anything)

You could read the wikipedia article on the RT network:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It makes it clear that RT "was a part of a larger effort by the Russian government intended to improve the image of Russia abroad."

RT has continuously treated Putin's view of world events as fact. They call it "counter-hegemonic".

This quote is especially relevant, I think: "In 2010, The Independent reported that RT journalists had revealed that coverage of sensitive issues in Russia is allowed, but direct criticism of Vladimir Putin or then President Dmitry Medvedev is not."

All this is on top of RT frequently pushing conspiracy theories on their shows, having guests like Alex Jones, and pushing Birther and NWO nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine has a unique situation in which older people are beginning to outnumber younger people. The average age of the population is increasing.
But the ones born before 1960 are decreasing, and that is where the pro-Russia support comes from. It's not like people suddenly long for the Soviet days as they age.
 
It's unlikely that Russia would militarily invade Eastern Ukraine. What they're doing is creating political instability with the aim of weakening the Kyiv government and having more political influence in the east, not annexing the East.

It's also unlikely that any part of Eastern Ukraine would secede to Russia. Such proposition does not have popular support there and it's a minority opinion. In order to annex regions in the east Russia would have to invade them first..

Things are still moving fast. The parliament in Crimea (working in a building that is occupied by Russian troops, whose presence is obvious but still denied by the Russian government) has asked to formally join Russia. I have my doubts as to the freedom and representativeness of that parliament.

I think Ukraine might be able to hold on to Kharkiv and other areas of the east, but I doubt they will get Crimea back.
 
Things are still moving fast. The parliament in Crimea (working in a building that is occupied by Russian troops, whose presence is obvious but still denied by the Russian government) has asked to formally join Russia. I have my doubts as to the freedom and representativeness of that parliament..
Yep, and they have also moved the date for a referendum to an even earlier date March 16th. Originally it was to be held May 25th, then the Russian installed PM moved it to March 30th. And now it's only ten days away. What does that imply?

Russia feels they need to hurry. Why?

Is it a sign of weakness in their position? Perhaps their original plan was to have Crimea occupied for longer time, but now have come to conclusion that they need to hurry?

More likely they're posturing for the West here. Upping the ante. Russia is saying: "Look, we could have Crimea whenever we like. Wanna discuss? Or you still going on about isolating us and sanctions?".

And by messing with the UN&OSCE envoys in Crimea they're also saying: "Listen. Don't send these guys here by your own accord. Let's talk about their mandate first."

I think Ukraine might be able to hold on to Kharkiv and other areas of the east, but I doubt they will get Crimea back.
Ukraine will get Crimea back. Or at least that's the best endgame for ALL parties including Russia, and IF there are no big **** ups in diplomacy it will go that way. Now, that may be a big if, for example Kerry's diplomacy has not been very good so far - Russia never responds well to threats. I hope the EU takes more constructive stance today. Russia would give Crimea back, but more importantly wants something else in return.

Russia annexing Crimea does not make sense, and despite all the BS Putin has been spouting I do believe him when he says: "Russia doesn't want to annex Crimea". Putin does not want annexed or even independend Crimea - both have huge risks of instability which is not what you want where your vital naval base is. Also upholding the Budapest Memorandum is in Russia's interests too - despite Russia having breached it on many occasions the territorial integrity of Ukraine would be best outcome also for them.

Crimea is the bargaining chip here. What Putin actually wants is things I listed couple of days ago: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9877185&postcount=1015
 
Last edited:
Yep, and they have also moved the date for a referendum to an even earlier date Feb 16th. Originally it was to be held May 25th, then the Russian installed PM moved it to Feb 30th. And not it's only ten days away. What does that imply?

I'm assuming you mean March. February's been and gone.
 
Henry Kissinger makes some very good points: How the Ukraine crisis ends

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.
(But I hope it's not cold-war Finland he's referring to...)
 
Last edited:
I'm still behind even on my small portion of this, but for my part I'm wary of these alleged broachings of the false-flag sniper notion. Such things, if done wrong (esp. on purpose) can provoke premature CT gun-jumping followed by public crash-and-burn and credibility deficit. So, watch out.

- I cannot read Voronstov's study yet (I tried), even enough to make sense of his photo work, but it still seems good.

- The Interior Minister and his intriguing hints ... we'll see. I'm not intrigued. Rounds consistent with Russian sniper rifle, which I now expect to be the key, I will take as pointing at someone else who stole Russian rifles. (how many seconds of reflection are required to see why? Too many for some. Pile on the laughing dogs then)

- The Paet-Ashton call: If it's true Yanukovych loyalists hacked and posted it, then I'm hopeful of it as a candid revelation. If somehow actually leaked by Paet or someone, I'm worried. Whoever, I wish Olga's name and ID had been censored. If she was really implying what Paet passed on, that's sensitive and touchy. And if so, and she's right, the publicity will put her in danger (sorta - they wouldn't want to shoot her then, but neither to just let her blab...) It would surely complicate her ability to speak freely.

In all this investigating and not investigating, various leads aside, here's what I find most interesting that I'd need to see explained by any theory anyone puts forth. Why did protesters, but not insurgents, get shot from the hotel? Look at the map and the logic, check the videos for comparison, and see what an obvious problem this is with the Putschist narrative.
 
The Interior Minister and his intriguing hints ... we'll see. I'm not intrigued. Rounds consistent with Russian sniper rifle, which I now expect to be the key, I will take as pointing at someone else who stole Russian rifles. (how many seconds of reflection are required to see why? Too many for some. Pile on the laughing dogs then)

I'll entertain this. Have there been any reports of "Russian sniper rifles" being removed, unauthorized, from armories? Who is responsible for inventorying these weapons?
 
Yes, I still predict that. It already happened in one case (being told to go to Crimea to educate herself on the situation is a sanction).

... and she declined. Nothing more has happened so far. A punishment to which you can simply say "No thanks" with no consequences sounds more like an offer to me....

You could read the wikipedia article on the RT network:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

It makes it clear that RT "was a part of a larger effort by the Russian government intended to improve the image of Russia abroad."

RT has continuously treated Putin's view of world events as fact. They call it "counter-hegemonic".

This quote is especially relevant, I think: "In 2010, The Independent reported that RT journalists had revealed that coverage of sensitive issues in Russia is allowed, but direct criticism of Vladimir Putin or then President Dmitry Medvedev is not."

All this is on top of RT frequently pushing conspiracy theories on their shows, having guests like Alex Jones, and pushing Birther and NWO nonsense.

This is no evidence. This is people claiming that RT is a russia propaganda outlet. Got anything better? A anchor sanctioned for saying something the kremlin doesn't like perhaps? (Like Phil Donahue?)
 
TO miy mind pushing nutjobs like Alex Jones would alone be enough evidence to move a TV network into the "totally unreliable as a source of information" category.
Interesting that the Anchorwomen who quit RT stated in a CNN interview that RT's marketing strategy in the US is based on selling itself as a "Anti Establishment" source of info .
In other words, the kind of people...generally young between the ages of 16 and 22..who like to see themsleves as anti establishment and rebellious are RT's prime target.. No wonder they promote conspiracy theories, slippping in Pro Putin Propganda with the rest of the nonsense,since people in that demo are prone to buy into conspiracy theories.
If people still deny that RT is a pro Putin propaganda site,given all the evidence, they are hopeless. They will simply hand wave away all evidence that conflicst with there beliefs.Arguing them is a waste of time as far as changing their minds goes. But you might have some effect on third parties tuning in to the debates.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom