Any BHW members in the Ukraine right now?

Sounds like the rebels got pretty strategic. I also read that they have now given up their occupation of the Kiev City Hall in exchange for the release of over 200 prisoners.


The oppositions ranks are filled with ex military who know exactly what to do. This is not an ordinary unorganized protest. It is a well planned, strategic event by the opposition.

We have one friend who's father is protesting while her boyfriend is a Berkut (riot officer). This is brother against brother.
 
So much talk about violence protesters Vs police in Ukraine and nothing about Venezuelan pacific protesters being brutally killed and tortured by their government...

Maybe because this thread is about Ukraine and not Venezuala?

:detective
 
Do you know how many people live on Kiev and how many people are the protesters and you claim "people want him to leave"? Do the math.

While you may be correct to assume that the people don't want for him to leave, using that kind logic is a flawed logic.

In simple terms, that logic could be translated to :
- Most US citizens agree with the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, because only a small number of people protests the attack.
- Most US citizens disagree with Occupy Wall Street movements, because the number of people participating in it is less than the number of people in United States (per your logic)
- Most US citizens are happy with Barrack Obama's leadership, as only a few number of people do protest against him.
- Most US citizens disagree with LGBT movements, as the number of people who attend LGBT rallies or LGBT supports are less than the number of people in the United States.

The sentiment of the people can't be pictured in how many people are demonstrating on the streets. A lot of the people hiding in their homes may share the protesters vision, but they choose not to join the protests, most likely be fear or because they don't care about politics much. In the 90-s, my country is having a big movement to change the president. Personally, I wishes for the president to be changed. This university students movement then changed into a riot, then changed into a racial profiling riot. I am not participating in any kind of protests, but does it make me a supporter of the president? No, it is not. A lot of people don't participate in the protests, some of them even fleeing to foreign countries, but that doesn't mean that they are supporting the president.

That's why the quickest answer to these kind of problems is the election. That's the only viable way to determine how much is the support for the current president.

The problem is even bigger in Thailand, where the supporters didn't even want an election. They want their own type of government. That's way more fucked up than Ukraine, in terms of possible solution to end the conflict. Ukraine can be solved (hopefully) by an early election. But frankly, for the people to disperse and the election to begin, the masses need trust in government, this trust may be gone. In every protests, there need to be a momentum to be guarded. In this case, the protesters in Ukraine have reached a momentum of time and momentum of people (gathering thousands of people for a protest is not an easy task, notably in more repressive regime).

In short, I would have to say that Ukraine is a battle between Russia and EU. Though the people seems to support EU (again, someone above has clearly stated that Ukraine is controlled by mafia, and the people prefers slavery to the liberal economics/EU than slavery to Russian mafias).

By the way, is this discussion already veered to much into politics?
 
In short, I would have to say that Ukraine is a battle between Russia and EU. Though the people seems to support EU (again, someone above has clearly stated that Ukraine is controlled by mafia, and the people prefers slavery to the liberal economics/EU than slavery to Russian mafias).

Yes, it is a a country torn between two worlds, the West (EU and US) and Russia. There are no good guys in this besides the average Ukrainian citizen. The politicians on both sides are criminals. Go with Russia and you need to sign over your gas pipelines and infrastructure. Go with the EU and the West and open the doors to Walmart and all the other greedy corporations. It is a no win situation.

Russian snipers have now been confirmed in Kiev shooting people. The West is secretly arming the opposition as well I am sure.
 
While you may be correct to assume that the people don't want for him to leave, using that kind logic is a flawed logic.

No, it certainly is not flawed, especially in the context of democracy, as you put it (i.e. most people don't want them, they should leave). Suppose everyone says they dislike Obama (just an example) and then during the elections, 89% votes for him. What does actually count in the democratic context, the action of voting or the "sentiment"?

In simple terms, that logic could be translated to :
- Most US citizens agree with the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, because only a small number of people protests the attack.
- Most US citizens disagree with Occupy Wall Street movements, because the number of people participating in it is less than the number of people in United States (per your logic)
- Most US citizens are happy with Barrack Obama's leadership, as only a few number of people do protest against him.
- Most US citizens disagree with LGBT movements, as the number of people who attend LGBT rallies or LGBT supports are less than the number of people in the United States.

Opinion that doesn't lead to any action doesn't count, does it? And by action, I don't mean some heavy thing, I mean anything. For example, can you present some significant (in terms of population percentage) action on any of those events? Did you see a hundred million letters/email/phonecalls to "your congressman" or anything else in such scale?

As far as I know, no. So yea, "sentiment" doesn't mean anything. What means everything is action. Just like in our trade ;)

A lot of people don't participate in the protests, some of them even fleeing to foreign countries, but that doesn't mean that they are supporting the president.

Indeed. So they can vote him out on election day should they chose, no?

That's why the quickest answer to these kind of problems is the election. That's the only viable way to determine how much is the support for the current president.

I consider Democracy to be deeply flawed, but you seem to be a supporter, so here 's my question to you: Why does the previous election (which got him elected) counts less that the new one? ;)

In every protests, there need to be a momentum to be guarded.

???

In this case, the protesters in Ukraine have reached a momentum of time and momentum of people (gathering thousands of people for a protest is not an easy task, notably in more repressive regime).

10 thousand people in a total of ~3 million is ~0.3%. Totally trivial to get it organised.

Massive protests are distinct from tiny protests. In my country, one time, around ~25% of the capital 's population (which would make it ~10% of the country 's population) went one day on the streets in a peaceful protest. Do you think anyone dared to do anything against that mass of people?

That said, people don't have to protest to express their disapproval of the government. What do you think will happen to the government if half the country goes on general strike for quite a while?

In short, I would have to say that Ukraine is a battle between Russia and EU.

The US, not the EU. The EU does not even exist a singular, distinct geopolitical player.

Though the people seems to support EU (again, someone above has clearly stated that Ukraine is controlled by mafia, and the people prefers slavery to the liberal economics/EU than slavery to Russian mafias).

My understanding is that people in Ukraine are split in half. Half pro-Russian and half anti-Russian. I think that no matter how it goes, half of the people will end up being oppressed and the best solution is for the country to split and have both get what they want.

By the way, is this discussion already veered to much into politics?

It 's been decent conversation based on news so far, but if it gets detracted, I 'll remove it.
 
No, it certainly is not flawed, especially in the context of democracy, as you put it (i.e. most people don't want them, they should leave). Suppose everyone says they dislike Obama (just an example) and then during the elections, 89% votes for him. What does actually count in the democratic context, the action of voting or the "sentiment"?

We return again to the flaw of the democratic process.

Opinion that doesn't lead to any action doesn't count, does it? And by action, I don't mean some heavy thing, I mean anything. For example, can you present some significant (in terms of population percentage) action on any of those events? Did you see a hundred million letters/email/phonecalls to "your congressman" or anything else in such scale?

As far as I know, no. So yea, "sentiment" doesn't mean anything. What means everything is action. Just like in our trade ;)

One of our key differences is here, while you think that a person's thought should be backed up by actions, I clearly thought that it is not the case. Some people may prefer A, but they don't want to take the steps to enforce A. And why is that? Maybe they don't want to waste time? Maybe they prefer A but don't want to take action? You can't dismiss a person's opinion just because you don't take action.

In some cases, there are times where small actions will not do anything good. Take the Ukraine for example. Do you think it will do the protesters any good if they send some letters to their president or phone their councilman? I guess not.


Indeed. So they can vote him out on election day should they chose, no?

I consider Democracy to be deeply flawed, but you seem to be a supporter, so here 's my question to you: Why does the previous election (which got him elected) counts less that the new one? ;)

While I am agreeing to a vote, it doesn't mean that I agree with the democracy as a whole. I know that democracy is not a perfect system (it is not even a good system) but that's the best way to proceed now. Even if they wanted to split the country, it must be decided by voting, which is again, a democratic process.

Democracies problem is that the glaring lack of control the people have after the officials get elected. The people have power to choose their leader, but sadly after the leader is elected the leader could just choose to abandon its promises, especially if he is on his final term. Even game theories will teach us in known finite round one should cheat on the final round to get the maximum benefit, because the "people" can't punish the "leaders" again.

All in all, imposing of rules and putting some people over other people to rule them is bad, so I have to say that all government system are flawed to some extent, but I have to add that democracy is better compared to other system, such as totalitarian states.

10 thousand people in a total of ~3 million is ~0.3%. Totally trivial to get it organised.

Massive protests are distinct from tiny protests. In my country, one time, around ~25% of the capital 's population (which would make it ~10% of the country 's population) went one day on the streets in a peaceful protest. Do you think anyone dared to do anything against that mass of people?

That said, people don't have to protest to express their disapproval of the government. What do you think will happen to the government if half the country goes on general strike for quite a while?

Again, not every country have the same case. While in your country you clearly come out in force, they may have different stories. Maybe your country is allowing that kind of protests? Or don't have secret police to break up people? Each of countries have different levels of freedom of speech, and different levels of fear to the government, and different levels of care about politics, so no story is the same between countries.

For example, in 15 years back, while my country is in turmoil, let's say 15% of the people of the people rose up, and topple the government. These protests are ran by university students. Nowadays protests are usually larger, but ran by corporation paying the people. With your logic, surely the current protests have more power than protests in 15 years ago, but is that the case here? No.

The US, not the EU. The EU does not even exist a singular, distinct geopolitical player.

My understanding is that people in Ukraine are split in half. Half pro-Russian and half anti-Russian. I think that no matter how it goes, half of the people will end up being oppressed and the best solution is for the country to split and have both get what they want.

While I agree that US had a hand in this, I think EU have more hand in this, but judging they considerable ineptness to handle the situation I think I agree that US had the stronger hand in this case than EU. I would also agree to your proposed solution, but just don't make it a repeat of West - East Germany and North - South Korea. Splitting up a country (like Indonesia did to Timor Timur) is a good option (maybe the best one).
 
One of our key differences is here, while you think that a person's thought should be backed up by actions, I clearly thought that it is not the case. Some people may prefer A, but they don't want to take the steps to enforce A. And why is that? Maybe they don't want to waste time? Maybe they prefer A but don't want to take action? You can't dismiss a person's opinion just because you don't take action.

If he can't be bothered to send an email, sign up on a petition or make a phonecall (or whatever other simple action) for an issue, it doesn't take a big leap of faith to assume that he simply doesn't care for that issue. Actions (and lack of) speak volumes.

In some cases, there are times where small actions will not do anything good. Take the Ukraine for example. Do you think it will do the protesters any good if they send some letters to their president or phone their councilman? I guess not.

Certainly, I did not claim that it would be enough. Nevertheless, in that case I 'd have to agree that those people have expressed their opinions by caring enough to do something simple as a small action. While now, it 's just your opinion about the opinion of millions of people. ;)

Again, not every country have the same case. While in your country you clearly come out in force, they may have different stories.

It was a one off, when the masses realised they had been duped, woke from their dream and a way for venting frustration had to be realised as an offset. Usually, it 's just tiny fraction-led political/syndicate demonstrations doing their "gimme more loot" dance.

Maybe your country is allowing that kind of protests? Or don't have secret police to break up people?

They have "anarchists" who mingle into peaceful protests, throw molotovs and break stuff and give a lovely excuse for the police to stop it :)

For example, in 15 years back, while my country is in turmoil, let's say 15% of the people of the people rose up, and topple the government. These protests are ran by university students. Nowadays protests are usually larger, but ran by corporation paying the people. With your logic, surely the current protests have more power than protests in 15 years ago, but is that the case here? No.

I find it hard for some corporation to directly pay millions of people to protest. The can simply pay a core of people to organise things in smaller scale hoping to gain bigger acceptance.

While I agree that US had a hand in this, I think EU have more hand in this, but judging they considerable ineptness to handle the situation I think I agree that US had the stronger hand in this case than EU. I would also agree to your proposed solution, but just don't make it a repeat of West - East Germany and North - South Korea. Splitting up a country (like Indonesia did to Timor Timur) is a good option (maybe the best one).

Of course, I was talking about voluntary secession. West/East Germany was a result of war, not a choice of the citizens.
 
Its a whole new level to revolutions I must say.

Yesterday "angry mob" knocked on the gates of the presidential palace, the one that was supposed to be decorated with golden toilets. My first thought was: "now they gong to ruin, steal and burn". Instead, those who fought on Maidan organized a guided tours inside. Nothing was stolen, nothing was broken, journalists documented every official paper that was found.

Today, the same people who fought the police started to.... celebrate? drink? shoot in the air? divide what they stole? Nope. Surprise once again - they are cleaning!! the central square (Maidan) instead.

I'm honestly impressed.
 
So what's new? I've been reading everything in the news, but I'd be curious to hear what people from that area are saying.
 
What really surprises me about the current events is that most people from Crimea do want Putins "help" and be his ally, maybe even a protectorate of Russia. I understand that most part of the population are Russians and that it used to be a part of Russia until 100 years ago, but how can you choose a modern monarch over being part or an ally of the EU? I know so many Russians who paid 6 digit amounts just to get an EU residency visum and leave Russia, and Crimeans want to be a part of it again?

Its sad how nowadays national pride still is the cause for so many people making fatal decisions for themselves and their people.
 
Last edited:
What really surprises me about the current events is that most people from Crimea do want Putins "help" and be his ally, maybe even a protectorate of Russia. I understand that most part of the population are Russians and that it used to be a part of Russia until 100 years ago, but how can you choose a modern monarch over being part or an ally of the EU? I know so many Russians who paid 6 digit amounts just to get an EU visum and leave Russia, and Crimeans want to be a part of it again?

Or, maybe EU isn't all the smiles and roses you think it is for everyone ;)

Its sad how nowadays national pride still is the cause for so many people making fatal decisions for themselves and their people.

Their life, their choices, their responsibility to reap the benefits (or the disadvantages). Since when is people 's choice a bad thing, just because it doesn't agree with your way of seeing things?
 
Generally speaking we don't allow political discussion but I am going to let this one run for the time being as long as everyone can stick to the facts. Best wishes for everyone involved, on all sides of the conflict.
 
Or, maybe EU isn't all the smiles and roses you think it is for everyone ;)



Their life, their choices, their responsibility to reap the benefits (or the disadvantages). Since when is people 's choice a bad thing, just because it doesn't agree with your way of seeing things?

Sure the EU has its disadvantages, but its way better than being part or ally of a police state.

This is not just my opinion, I lived there and many of my family members still do. And I can tell you that every educated Russian hates Putin and the corrupt system in Russia, because everybody suffers from it except those who are part of the system. This is a fact, not just an opinion. Only those support Putin who cant follow mostly independent media from outside and / or dream about "the good old days of USSR".

Of course it is their decision, but the fact that they have much better other options makes their decision not only bad for them, but will effect the current and following generations in Ukraine very negatively.
 
Sure the EU has its disadvantages, but its way better than being part or ally of a police state.

EU is a police state, we just call it regulation here because it sounds better ;)

Of course it is their decision, but the fact that they have much better other options makes their decision not only bad for them, but will effect the current and following generations in Ukraine very negatively.

As long as you don't opt to bomb democracy into their houses and "the right way of thinking" into their heads, it 's ok :)
 
What really surprises me about the current events is that most people from Crimea do want Putins "help" and be his ally, maybe even a protectorate of Russia. I understand that most part of the population are Russians and that it used to be a part of Russia until 100 years ago, but how can you choose a modern monarch over being part or an ally of the EU? I know so many Russians who paid 6 digit amounts just to get an EU residency visum and leave Russia, and Crimeans want to be a part of it again?

I got the impression from news/blog discussions that there is no pro-Russian majority in Crimea. The majority hopes Russia will help them become an independent state/country, and only a loud minority wants to become part of Russia.
 
That is a police state.

That is a corrupt state. And, God bless, I 've seen a lot of corruption to know. I will PM (in order not to derail the thread) you an article showing a striking example for a country you probably don't expect.

Police state isn't just about having a gun and a badge threaten you. Do you know what happens if you post your opinion that happens to be against the members of the ruling class? They beat you to submission by suing you to financial death. You see, in EU, free speech is "free as long as we like what you say". The usual mantra of politicians is that "in democracy every voice should have a name". Now you know why :)
 
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features and essential functions on BlackHatWorld and other forums. These functions are unrelated to ads, such as internal links and images. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock