Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we should wait until corroborating information comes from supporters of federalization. If this is true, I condole the Ukrainian army. Chechens do not like to take prisoners. But I doubt that they are there.
I think we should wait until corroborating information comes from supporters of federalization. If this is true, I condole the Ukrainian army. Chechens do not like to take prisoners. But I doubt that they are there.
May be. But these speculations about their presence are like a scarecrow - it's definitely a concern.
May be. But these speculations about their presence are like a scarecrow - it's definitely a concern.
Perhaps Avakov need reasons why he can not take the small city two months. If they can not grab Slavyansk, I can not understand how they would storm the Donetsk and Lugansk.
Perhaps Avakov need reasons why he can not take the small city two months. If they can not grab Slavyansk, I can not understand how they would storm the Donetsk and Lugansk.
Because the home guard of Slavyansk will give them hell on the streets of the city. Even if ukr. army will use artillery and bombs.
There were Eastern Ukrainians. But by now, ( that all those accusations wouldn't be in vain any longer I guess,) people of Donbass and Lugansk have un-sealed the borders on their part of the territories.
So now Russians we'll be coming there for real - all who want. And apparently, not Russians only. As the rumor has it, Chechens are already there. ( At least Avakov thinks so.)
I watched an information about serbian chetniks are on the way to Donbass.
All these remind me Civil war in Spain.
1. The fascist coup.
2. Civil war.
3. Military support with weapon, equipment and volunteers from friendly countries.
4. International brigades.
And I hope it won't end with a new world war.
So they are deciding to vote for creation of a new state, ( or rather two states - Donetsk and Lugansk,) without joining Russia. Good for them, that's the only right decision under the circumstances - that's the way I see it.
The one thing I would ask on that two state setup is would it satisfy Russia and would it be dangerous for Ukraine if she acquiesces to that?
I'd think it's a foregone conclusion that 'Kievian' politics will be oriented to having a closer relationship with the West. But I'm not sure if Mr Putin will live with that even if Donetsk and Lugansk pull away. I could see that the two state setup would guive him a strong 'foothold' in the country. But would that then be the end of it? The violence? The hatreds? All the poisons of revenge? Frankly, it sounds to easy to me if that's a solution to this conflagration. Could be like putting a band-aid on a gushing wound.
I guess I'm going to the extreme here and I believe Russia frankly wants ALL of Ukraine under its belt. I wouldn't say in a physically occupied sense but more in a psychological vein where every Ukrainian political and economic national thought would always have to be screened for say its concept of 'Russianess'. If this becomes the mantra then Ukraine will be in an untenable situation as it pertains to her sovereignity which apparently each day it erodes more and more.
Boy, a two state setup or even so-called 'federalization' to me invites a host of many problems for Ukraine in dealing with this seemingly intractable situation. If geography is destiny, Ukraine in the 21st has perhaps come to her Waterloo. She has some decisions to make but unfortunately she's tied with a noose to the one on her east. She may have to make some real unpalatable choices if she and her people expect to survive. And Russia has her foot on her throat, having the initiative and calling the shots.
Well at least here we have a dialogue. We don't shoot and we don't kill because someone has a different point of view.
We are, in a sense, Europe, US, Russia and Ukraine in microcosm. If this goes well might as well pack up and let the world go to hell since we can't even deal with rational discourse. Then surely we've 'lost the plot'. Just my take.
Perhaps Avakov need reasons why he can not take the small city two months. If they can not grab Slavyansk, I can not understand how they would storm the Donetsk and Lugansk.
He is giving the reason - the civil population that they are trying to avoid bombing.
Good reason ( at least officially) particularly after that "fire" in Odessa.
I already put the word "fire" in quotes, because as I see now, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine has confirmed the information of the journalists that about 50 people are "unaccounted for," "missing" after that fire.
80 are still in hospitals, 26 of them - in serious/critical condition.
Someone HAS to make investigation into what really took place there.
The one thing I would ask on that two state setup is would it satisfy Russia and would it be dangerous for Ukraine if she acquiesces to that?
I don't see how this would be dangerous for the rest of Ukraine, other than for a fact that EU/US have already set their eyes upon East Ukrainian industries/resources and now they are not going to get them. Another thing - whether the rest of Ukraine will do just fine without those industries - it's the question. Other than that - I don't see any problems with the rest of Ukraine going its own way and trying their luck with EU ( or whatever this "alignment" with EU can offer them.)
Quote:
I'd think it's a foregone conclusion that 'Kievian' politics will be oriented to having a closer relationship with the West
So let them.
Quote:
But I'm not sure if Mr Putin will live with that even if Donetsk and Lugansk pull away. I could see that the two state setup would guive him a strong 'foothold' in the country. But would that then be the end of it? The violence? The hatreds? All the poisons of revenge? Frankly, it sounds to easy to me if that's a solution to this conflagration. Could be like putting a band-aid on a gushing wound.
This is not 1945 and it doesn't matter what Mr Putin wants or doesn't want with the rest of Ukraine. There will be no military invasions - he is dependent too much on western banking system and Kremlin INC is counting its money.
As far as hostile treatment of Ukraine in economic terms - yes, that's more like it, but then again? Mr. Putin learned his moves from the West.
Quote:
I guess I'm going to the extreme here and I believe Russia frankly wants ALL of Ukraine under its belt.
Not necessarily. They might see what's more feseable for them in economic terms, and it might not be ALL of Ukraine.
As I've said - times have changed.
Quote:
I wouldn't say in a physically occupied sense but more in a psychological vein where every Ukrainian political and economic national thought would always have to be screened for say its concept of 'Russianess'. If this becomes the mantra then Ukraine will be in an untenable situation as it pertains to her sovereignity which apparently each day it erodes more and more.
I have to repeat one more time that Ukraine has never been a homogeneous country and during the WWII its parts were fighting for opposite sides. Now the old wounds have been reopened again.
Quote:
Boy, a two state setup or even so-called 'federalization' to me invites a host of many problems for Ukraine in dealing with this seemingly intractable situation. If geography is destiny, Ukraine in the 21st has perhaps come to her Waterloo. She has some decisions to make but unfortunately she's tied with a noose to the one on her east
.
Well it's a historic fact that Russia started with Ukraine, no matter who and how would love to re-write history now.
There is a reason why Ukrainian society has a lot of the same ills as Russia. Although Ukraine is very different from Moscow, but not all that different from the Southern part of Russia. Generally speaking the word Ukraine originated from the "fringes" in Russian. Earlier I had some doubts that this is the true origin of the name "Ukraine," but recently I've discovered that Ukrainian are frantically trying to change the preposition in Russian language that it would be used now differently, when speaking about Ukraine. I couldn't understand why and what difference it would make, until I've realized that the preposition that has been traditionally used in Russian language for Ukraine before, was the same preposition that was used for the word "fringe." That resolved the question for me that the word "Ukraine" came from the Russian word "the fringe" ( of the country) indeed.
Quote:
She may have to make some real unpalatable choices if she and her people expect to survive. And Russia has her foot on her throat, having the initiative and calling the shots.
It's too simplistic to say that Russia has "her foot on her throat." Ukraine proved to be a failed state on her own, so it's not about Ukraine's freedom, but about Ukraine's desire to change the master.
Needless to say Putin's Russia is not the best master in the world, but that didn't happen without the input of the West. The very West, that is now trying to cut this country off of Russia aiming to weaken Russia, since its initial attempt twenty years ago didn't work out the way it has been planned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
