The War in Ukraine

[AlexTr 19,717]

11 minutes ago, jeba said:

THere was a free and fair election, as a result of which Janucovicz was elected. Let´s not forget that. Where do you think the votes came from, seeing that the West of Ukraine seems not to be pro-Russian?

 

Fact check: Yanukovych was removed also by parliamentary process, as allowed in the Ukrainian constitution after having been credibly accused of corruption, vote rigging, encouraging police abuses, excess in his use of state monies, and curbing freedoms, including freedom of the press. At first, Yanukovych agreed to leave, then reneged and fled the country. While there is some technical dispute about the parliamentary vote, it was rendered moot by the subsequent election of a new president. 

[yesterday 1,978]

2 minutes ago, jeba said:

THere was a free and fair election, as a result of which Janucovicz was elected. Let´s not forget that. Where do you think the votes came from, seeing that the West of Ukraine seems not to be pro-Russian?

 

Times change, and so do votes, do you think that because Helmet Cohl was Chancellor was president for 20 years that there is no need to ask the public again in Germany to vote again.

 

I am generally in favour of a free and fair vote, if the people in the East of Ukraine had been offed a free and fair vote, I would agree with you. But Putin has never afored that, he just marched in and said this is mine now, he has made no attempt to offer a free and fair vote, it  was all done at gun point. 

 

Maybe the the majority would vote to been Russian, we will never know, because Putin will never offer and respect a free and fair vote, the only thing Putin offers is, do what I say say or bad things will happen.

 

As already said, even if people think they are Russian, I think they would not vote to become controlled, and have no freedom after that.

 

Maybe you would have seen this if you had lived in the DDR and seen what had gone on there, I think then you would have a very different thinking on being under a dictatorship or not, that is more important to most people than identifying with a particular country or not.

 

[jeba 4,341]

4 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

While there is some technical dispute about the parliamentary vote

Is that another term for unconstitutional removal from office?

[jeba 4,341]

4 minutes ago, yesterday said:

But Putin has never afored that, he just marched in and said this is mine now, he has made no attempt to offer a free and fair vote, it  was all done at gun point. 

Do you think UKraine would have allowed this?

 

4 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Maybe the the majority would vote to been Russian, we will never know,

Thanks for making my point. My problem is that "we" are behaving as if we knew!

[yesterday 1,978]

1 minute ago, jeba said:

Do you think UKraine would have allowed this?

 

Well, Putin will never allow it, will he, Ukraine including the Eastern part had a democracy, they could vote for change, now under Putin they have no voice. 

 

1 minute ago, jeba said:

 

 My problem is that "we" are behaving as if we knew!

 

The west reacted to Putins action, both sides did not know  how people felt.

 

Putin did not know how the people in the east felt because he did not care, he just wanted the good old USSR back again.  What the people wanted was and is the last point on his list. If Ukraine repels the Russians, free and fair elections can take place again, then we will see how people vote in the East of Ukraine, if they vote to leave the Ukraine then I would support it. But it should be the vote of the people not the wim of a dictator. 

 

 

 

[murphaph 9,638]

Who knows if the pre-war elections were actually free and fair in Donbas too. I mean these Russian stooges have been leaning on people there since Ukrainian independence. Did people feel able to vote as they pleased before 2014? We will probably never know for sure but any goodwill there was towards Russia in these parts seems to have evaporated (despite what the 98% car boot referendums say). The Ukrainians didn't completely flatten the place during the conflict from 2014 like Russia has been doing. The people in Donbas finally get to compare and contrast.

[yesterday 1,978]

4 hours ago, jeba said:

Assuming that a majority of residents are identifying as Russian, it is (and given that it used to be Russian until Chruschtschow´s gift that seems highly plausible). Just not important enough to justify a war. Neither to enforce separation nor to reverse it.

 

It may be true that, some Ukrainians what to join with Russia from a language point of view.

 

But you should consider that they would be voting to join a dictatorship, under Putin. I am not sure about this, but has any nation every voted to be ruled by a dictator ???  All the nations that were set free from the British empire, have not said no, we want to be controlled by the British again!!!

 

It is frankly insane to think that a free nation would, vote to be controlled by another nation, unless maybe they thought they would be better off, which Russia probably cannot give them, sure language is important, but not as important as the right to decide how your own country is governed. Or can you give my examples, of counties which actively voted to be in a dictatorship. 

 

Most dictators get there absolute power after winning an election and then changing the rules or taking it by force, I cannot think of any dictators getting power because thats what the people voted for. 

 

So why would the Ukrainians want to vote to join a dictatorship ?, just so they chat in Russian, dont think so. 

[jeba 4,341]

36 minutes ago, yesterday said:

So why would the Ukrainians want to vote to join a dictatorship ?, just so they chat in Russian, dont think so. 

Why did they vote for Janucovicz then?  I can´t understand that either, but it´s irrelevant what we think. Also, the question at hand isn´t even what they want, but rather whether they want it badly enough to go to war for what they want, risking their and their families lives, healths and livelihoods along the way. I definitely wouldn´t want to, and I severely doubt that the majority in the East wants it either (maybe Western Ukrainians do, who knows?). As I said before so often: if you have to choose between 2 evils, you better choose the lesser one. Would you have advised East Germans to rise up against Russia? Or was bearing the yoke of Russian occupation the lesser evil?

[murphaph 9,638]

At no point did Yanukovich suggest any form of incorporation into Russia! This is a completely false equivalence. 

[yesterday 1,978]

46 minutes ago, jeba said:

Why did they vote for Janucovicz then?      As AlexTR said, Ukrainian parliament also turfed him out

In elections people can vote for who they wish !

Why did the Germans vote for Hilter ?

Why did the British vote for Boris Johnson ?

Why did the Russians vote for Putin ?

 

Democracy is not perfect, but I still think its the best of all of the worse systems

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

. Also, the question at hand isn´t even what they want, but rather whether they want it badly enough to go to war for what they want

 

Sure if the Ukrainians had enough time to make a vote on it, but Putin was never going to allow enough time for people to vote, maybe because he thought he would lose, which is the opposite of your view. I would have preferred a vote on it, but Putin sent in his troops so fast that a vote could not be organised. In that situation the Ukrainian government had to make the decision, that decision with the help of the West was to fight.

Quote

 

 

 I severely doubt that the majority in the East wants it either (maybe Western Ukrainians do, who knows?),

 

 

Quote

you keep saying that but it can never be proved, no polls were allowed. I say to you again, very few people would vote to join a known dictator.

 

 

As I said before so often: if you have to choose between 2 evils, you better choose the lesser one.

 

I know you keep on saying that, but often in life, you do not know the result of the 2 evils, before you go down one or the other of them, so its kind of irreverent.

Quote

 

Would you have advised East Germans to rise up against Russia? Or was bearing the yoke of Russian occupation the lesser evil?

 

I would not advise.

Its up to the Ukrainian / East Germans ( or their elected government )  to decide what they want given the circumstances at the time the decision was made.

 

 

Still cannot think of any good reason why a person would vote to be lead by a dictator. Which is why  I believe most East Ukrainians, would vote against joining with Russia.

[AlexTr 19,717]

8 hours ago, jeba said:

Is that another term for unconstitutional removal from office?

 

No. That answer is also searchable on Google. Don't be obtuse. You embarrass yourself.

[jeba 4,341]

1 hour ago, AlexTr said:

 

No. That answer is also searchable on Google. Don't be obtuse. You embarrass yourself.

From what I remember without googling his ousting was not in line with the constitution.

[jeba 4,341]

4 hours ago, yesterday said:

I know you keep on saying that, but often in life, you do not know the result of the 2 evils, before you go down one or the other of them, so its kind of irreverent.

No, it´s not. It´s my main point. Claiming that it’s irrelevant isn´t very convincing. It´s not as if it was surprising that war will lead to lots of suffering.

[White Rose of Yorkshire 1,087]

7 hours ago, yesterday said:

 

  All the nations that were set free from the British empire, have not said no, we want to be controlled by the British again!!!

 

 

Strangely enough, they didn't break off all contact. They became members of the Commonwealth of their own free will.

[yesterday 1,978]

1 minute ago, White Rose of Yorkshire said:

Strangely enough, they didn't break off all contact. They became members of the Commonwealth of their own free will.

 

True, but under their own decision, they were just trying to look after their own people by continuing trade, until other arrangements could be made., and with no overall control from Britain. Then Britain dumped the commonwealth to join the exclusive common market.

 

They joined as a free choice, before that they were invaded by Britain and were required, to do what Great Britain said they had to do, not the nicest time for them, still Britain did get extremely rich out of it, so some would say it was fair.

[White Rose of Yorkshire 1,087]

After becoming independent, some member states adopted part of the British way of life, education systems, school uniforms, police and the legal system to name but a few. Why did they do this if they had suffered so much under the British goverment?

 

Britain did not dump the Commonwealth, it is very much still alive , BTW: two new states joined this year.

 

 "The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal countries. 

It is home to 2.5 billion people, and includes both advanced economies and developing countries. 32 of our members are small states, including many island nations. 

Our member governments have agreed to shared goals like development, democracy and peace. Our values and principles are expressed in the Commonwealth Charter. 

The Commonwealth's roots go back to the British Empire. But today any country can join the modern Commonwealth. The last two countries to join the Commonwealth were Gabon and Togo in 2022."   

https://thecommonwealth.org/about-us

 

[yesterday 1,978]

31 minutes ago, White Rose of Yorkshire said:

After becoming independent, some member states adopted part of the British way of life, education systems, school uniforms, police and the legal system to name but a few.

 

I suppose its a bit like when Hitler came to power, he changed certain words for example they changed the word for platform in French to Bahnhof and it just stuck, why change it back ? Just like schools, uniforms etc certain things are just not worth changing back, when they have been around in a new form for a while.

 

 

Quote

 

Why did they do this if they had suffered so much under the British goverment?

 

Check this out, it shows what the British did to India to try and stop India's independence campaign - The British Empire - KS3 History - homework help for year 7, 8 and 9. - BBC Bitesize

 

Read about the The Amritsar Massacre, over 350 were shot dead during a peaceful demonstration, by the British 

 

Again, when independence came for India,  the Indian government wanted to keep things the same as it provided a good level of working services and systems, they would only change stuff they needed when they were happy they could make  a different system or service work better. If they just changed everything that was British, for the sake of it the country would be in a mess.

 

Quote

Britain did not dump the Commonwealth

The commonwealth is at heart a trading system, with of course other good things added on. When the UK joined to common market, it had to act in the common market rules, which meant that Britain, could no longer offer preferential deals to the commonwealth, sorry if I was nu clear, by using the word dump the common wealth, But the UK did turn its back to the common wealth on trade, not on the other bits of the common wealth, like political support etc.

In effect the UK could not longer offer better deals to the commonwealth, because of the new rules of the common market.

 

Quote

 

, it is very much still alive , BTW: two new states joined this year.

I am glad about that, it helps the member states either politically and some times economically.

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Elljay 518]

It's reported that 10.000 Ukrainian children have been taken to Russia and will be adopted by Russian couples. Could this be true?

[optimista 5,838]

I have no difficulty in believing it. Children as exploitable commodities are one of the nicer things that happen in war.

[jeba 4,341]

I do believe it happened, but not the high number. According to Zelensky, there have so far  been slightly below 9000 civilian deaths. It seems unlikely, that given that number, there should have been 10000 (semi-)orphaned children or children without adult supervision who could have been taken to Russia.