Don't think it's interesting at all to see one fascist talk to another fascist about fascist things but you do you.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Don't think it's interesting at all to see one fascist talk to another fascist about fascist things but you do you.
He makes factual points with regards to the situation in Ukraine leading to the 2014 coup, how the ensuing administration stoked the flames in Donbas, how Russia is willing to negotiate and how the rules-based order sometimes advocated by the West is hot air
Again this nonsense:
How was it a coup?
1) Yanukovych runs on a Pro-EU platform and begins plans to integrate.
2) Ukrainian parliament votes in 2013 overwhelmingly, with a huge majority in every oblast, to enshrine movement into the EU as law, which Yanukovych himself and his party backed the bill.
3) Russia isn't happy about this and sanctions Ukraine.
4) Yanukovych flies to Moscow.
5) Yanukovych goes back to Kiev and suddenly reverses the EU integration (which he didn't even have the power to do, as Parliament had already enshrined it into law. His own party was even fractured on this).
6) Protests begin. People are angry but it's just students protesting, the numbers barely reach 10,000 across the whole country. The rest of the population still don't care enough to do anything about it.
7) Ukrainian state apparatus beats the living shit and kills some protestors (mostly students).
8) Everyone else is now pissed off watching their kids and friends and family get the shit kicked out of them for protesting something that is enshrined into Ukr Law and that the government/party promised.
9) Euromaidan.
Tell me which step is the "coup?"
This framing is insane.
The biggest and primary political party that ran on pro-EU integration had its power base in Donetsk and Luhansk
I listened to about half of it. It’s generally little more than pure Russian propaganda that is easily debunked. Ukraine’s position simply is “get out of our country”, whereas Lavrov is pretending Putin has a right to invade because of NATO and the fact that Ukrainians overthrew Putin’s man Yankovich.
Sorry, do you have links to that 2013 Ukrainian parliament vote because I have never heard about it.
I know it happened post-2014 and mentioned both EU and NATO accession (in 2019 specifically)
February 2013. The first thing the new government did in 2014 was to solidify the already binding parliamentary vote in 2013.
https://www.rada.gov.ua/en/news/News/News 2/73173.html
https://greece.mfa.gov.ua/en/news/1...adoju-ukrajini-klyuchovih-zakonodavchih-aktiv
It's absolutely remarkable you have such strong opinions on this topic yet you didn't even know the biggest reason all the Ukrainians were pissed off -
That the Government promised, put forward legislation on, passed legislation on, joining the EU - before doing a 180 U-turn.
This resolution did not legally bind the government to take specific actions, it was largely symbolic.
How about the vote from 21 November 2013 with 186 votes for the resolution out of 450 MPs ? Did Yankuvoych's Party of Regions not abstain from the vote or voted against?
This is not solely Yanukovich's actions, the party itself was divided after Russia made a counter-offer with regards to customs union (mentioned by Lavrov in the itw), and because some MPs became concerned about the economic cost of the integration.
It legally binded the government to meet the demands that was required for the country to meet the EU entry requirements.
https://web.archive.org/web/2020111...s-to-be-passed-to-facilitate-eu-association-/
Yanukovych was one of the biggest pushers of this.
Again, answer the question - how was this a coup? The party ran in the elections on the platform of, "We will bring Ukraine into the EU."
The vote on the 21st was regarding releasing Tymoshenko from prison - which was one of the key requirements to join the EU. Aka don't jail your political rivals.
So, ultimately, what happened was the country passed a bill that the government must take actions to meet EU requirements, then decided to not vote on meeting one of the said requirements.
Surely, surely, you can understand why this would piss people off and its far from a coup?
Firstly because Yanukovych's removal itself was unconstitutional as it did not follow the impeachment procedure, then because armed groups were occupying government buildings in Kyiv, and finally because the provisional government formed upon his departure was not elected.
Err yes it was.
The Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from power. This power was given to them because Yanukovych himself granted the restoration to the 2004 constitution in the days before his removal.
In said constitution, the role of the government that replaces the ousted leader has to provide elections as soon as possible (which did happen a few months later).
Which part of this was not constitutional.
Stop spreading made up facts.
No it did not, the vote fell short of the supermajority required. It also did not get reviewed by the Constitutional Court.
https://archive.kyivpost.com/articl...es-in-ukraine-feb-21-live-updates-337287.html
386-0 / 450 is not a supermajority? Okay mate.
It's also hard to review the process because Yanukovych himself did a runner.
It's unconstitutional because the man defacto-resigned?
https://archive.kyivpost.com/articl...es-in-ukraine-feb-21-live-updates-337287.html
386-0 / 450 is not a supermajority? Okay mate.
It's also hard to review the process because Yanukovych himself did a runner.
It's unconstitutional because the man defacto-resigned?
328 while the supermajority was 338.
The supermajority was no longer 338 due to the return to the 2004 constitution a few hours earlier.
A return brokered by the EU... which one may argue was nothing less than a power grab by the opposition-dominated Parliament
What the feck are you talking about?
The Ukrainian parliament voted to return to 2004 constitution by 386-0. Then a few hours later voted to impeach, with only a 300 supermajority needed.
You're arguing that it wasn't constitutional, whilst literally everything here followed the due constitutional process.
Supermajority to return to 2004 constitution -> Supermajority to impeach.
What does any of this have to do with Russia having the right to invade Ukraine ? Even if one were to entertain the notion that Yanukovich was illegitimately overthrown, that’s the business of Ukrainians. Putin doesn’t have anymore right to interfere than Lukashenko, Erdogan, or any other nearby country’s leader.
I reported DT12 ages ago. He never posts anything about Everton on Everton’s fanforum except for a few obvious comments. It took too long to ban him imo.
Last edited:
I wish we could relax the rules a bit in dealing with people like him.
I was 99% certain that he/the account is a paid shill. Any of his time he uses on me trolling him or arguing with me making fun of his obviously ridiculous claims (I know NO RUSSIAN that would claim Russia is a highly structured state with a straight face), he can't influence more impressionable minds on the internet elsewhere.
I was 99% certain that he/the account is a paid shill. Any of his time he uses on me trolling him or arguing with me making fun of his obviously ridiculous claims (I know NO RUSSIAN that would claim Russia is a highly structured state with a straight face), he can't influence more impressionable minds on the internet elsewhere.
Just as his posts didn't convince anyone here, I doubt they would elsewhere on the web.
They convince those who are already inclined to believe the lies and twistings of truth. Including a couple posters in this thread.
I am pretty sure people thanked him for his 'insights' on several occasions.
Those posters were likely already on team Putin without any need for education from a post on the CAF.
Let’s not derail this thread further with talk of a dishonest poster who has been removed. Let it be a warning for any others hiding
Russian troll farms are extremely basic and also don't pay enough to employ an actual British expat (or even a Russian with impeccable English). Also, there's zero point in targeting caf instead of spamming the same points in social media... it also doesn't make sense to try and respond coherently with long-ish messages (they're getting paid per message). Many posters on here stay away from football discussions after getting promoted — for a multitude of reasons. Not to mention that they don't use long-term sleeping accounts that were registered in 2014 (unless they're stolen).
In all likelihood he was what he said he was. A British expat living in Russia... probably benefitting financially from that, I think he said something about doing consulting work for Gazprom (or similar companies)? I may be wrong about the latter point though but there was certainly something along those lines mentioned at some point. And it's easier to switch over to that belief system instead of constantly feeling like you're a hypocrite that is taking blood money.
Edit: sorry!
Last edited:
Going by your views on other topics, especially american foreign policy, I'm curious why you think putin doesn't have the right to invade to protect what he perceives as his sphere of influence?
You have reminded me many times international institutions and international law are meaningless when big players are involved, so there's really no question about rights or legitimacy here. It's just a big dog attacking a smaller one.
Looking it as a sphere of influence issue is not the best framing of what's going on. Ukraine is a sovereign country that can make its own choices on who it prefers to ally with, which international organizations it wants to join, and so on. There's no right for Putin to invade them because he doesn't agree with a choice of the Ukraine people by way of their elected representatives.
As to your dog analogy, that's correct. Just as it is an even bigger dog (the US + Europe) protecting a smaller one. There are therefore penalties for Putin to invade a European country, which he's finding out the hard way at moment. The UN and other international institutions are predictably irrelevant because three of the five security council members are going it alone against a fourth member who themselves are going it alone. It is therefore a non-factor in all of this.
Sometimes I almost give myself the impression I know what I'm talking about, almost, broken clocks and all that.
There's no doubt that strategically Russia will not achieve any meaningful victory. Ukraine has given them a massive black eye, kept it's political independence and will hate Russia for generations to come. Maybe they can keep Ukraine out NATO, but that is completely offset by having provoked Finland and Sweden into joining NATO and getting a long and exposed flank. Poland is on the ascendance and arming itself to the teeth and even Germany is buying more military hardware. Not quite what I think Putin had in mind a couple of years ago.
Slightly off topic but I found it surprising in that graphic that US coalition had 1000+ armored losses during the first gulf war.
Whats happening on the ground, Pokrovsk is about to fall?