Ukrainian Government Acknowledges that Some of Its Leaders Are Nazis

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

A free trade deal with Europe would make a richer Ukraine that would be a better trade partner with Russia.

Euro legislation would possibly cause banning of Russian products that don't meet EU standards and it could make the Russian market less attractive with easier acces to the EU market, concerns that have been vocalised by the Russians.

BUT....even if the Russian BS was true, the treaty obliges them to TALK ABOUT IT - as per your own quotes.

The treaty was rendered null when Ukraine broke it. Also they did talk about it and obviously came to an agreement, but then a coup happened.

If there is no strategic and economic disadvantage, then why is Russia objecting? Because they are evil?

a reply to: YouPeople

Except Ukraine didn't break it - there is nothing in the treaty saying that it would be broken by any particular action - there is something in the treaty saying that the parties should TALK TO EACH OTHER if they have any concerns.

Any trade problems from adopting EU standards could be temporary - Russia was then exporting to the EU already so those goods would still be tradeable. any that needed upgrading would then be able to be exported to the EU as well - making a bigger market and expanding Russia's economy.

So it is all still BS.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Except Ukraine didn't break it - there is nothing in the treaty saying that it would be broken by any particular action - there is something in the treaty saying that the parties should TALK TO EACH OTHER if they have any concerns.

They did. They came to an agreement. Yanukovich didn't sign the EU deal. Then there was a coup and the new government did sign it. At that point the treaty was rendered null.

If explained this multiple times now but you are not trying to get it.

Any trade problems from adopting EU standards could be temporary - Russia was then exporting to the EU already so those goods would still be tradeable. any that needed upgrading would then be able to be exported to the EU as well - making a bigger market and expanding Russia's economy.

Russia was exporting to the EU with products destined for the EU. It will cost them more money to also make the products for the Ukraine market meet the same standards, making the Ukraine market less profitable.

It doesn't open up new possibilities for Russia since it doesn't change the way they already traded with the EU. It also possibly gives Ukraine a favorable position compared to them.

a reply to: YouPeople

And even after that agreement where there was disagreement again they were still obligated to talk.......

Echo..echo..echo....

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Except Ukraine didn't break it - there is nothing in the treaty saying that it would be broken by any particular action -

It is written in general terms, since it's hard to predict an exact scenario. What's the point of the treaty if it can't be broken because very specific violations were not expressed in minute detail.

It is not refering to particlar actions, it is for example refering to ANY action that might cause economic damage.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

And even after that agreement where there was disagreement again they were still obligated to talk....... Echo..echo..echo....

No they weren't because the treaty was rendered null after Ukraine broke it by signing the EU deal, after having a coup.

"LALALALALALA!!!!"

a reply to: YouPeople

What's the point of having terms that say "Talk about disagreements" and then having one party unilaterally...and not even formally....saying the other has broken the treaty and they no longer hold to it??

I believe it is certainly possible for one or both parties to exit the treaty - they can do this on their own behalf regardless of what the treaty says........but then that still does not "justify" invasion.

I also note the 1994 Budapest security agreement:

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;

So the Russian Federation agrees to never try to economically pressure Ukraine..........

Ooooppss.....

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

What's the point of having terms that say "Talk about disagreements" and then having one party unilaterally...and not even formally....saying the other has broken the treaty and they no longer hold to it??

Again, they did talk and tried to resolve it. They even reached an agreement. Yanukovich didn't sign the deal with the EU.

But then there was coup and then the EU deal did happen.

Off course the treaty had no meaning anymore after that.

How hard is that to understand? You expect Russia to keep following the agreements in the treaty when Ukraine showed complete disrespect for the same treaty.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

.but then that still does not "justify" invasion.

I was pointing out that Ukraine violated the treaty first, rendering it null, and that any Russian action after that was not a violation of that treaty, since it was null and void.

I wasn't even saying it justifies invasion.

Although I do think it was justified to take back Crimea, the base of their Black Sea fleet. You expect them to have their fleet based in an EU country?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I also note the 1994 Budapest security agreement:

The treaty we are talking about was signed after this one with the approval of both parties.

And,

Following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, the U.S.,[6][7] Canada,[8] the U.K.,[9] along with other countries,[10] all separately stated that Russian involvement is in breach of its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, a Memorandum signed by Sergei Lavrov,[11] and in clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia, however, argued that the Budapest memorandum does not apply to the 2014 annexation because separation of Crimea was driven by an internal political and social-economic crisis. Russia initially claimed it was never under obligation to force any part of Ukraine's civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will. Many observers also claim the US was in violation of the Budapest Memorandum when it helped instigate the 2014 coup in Kiev, which illegally ousted democratically elected Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovch, thereby threatening Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.[12] A press release by the Embassy of the United States in Belarus April 12, 2013 stated that the Memorandum is not legally binding.[13]

en.wikipedia.org...


Btw, can you source your qoutes?

a reply to: YouPeople

You expect them to have their fleet based in an EU country?

Why not? Russia is not planning on invading the EU, is it? Oh! Wait! Yes they are! Carry on.

Ukraine is not joining the EU, the EU is not actually a military pact, Ukraine and Russia are both sovereign states (at least outside Russia they are!!) and so they can agree anything they like.

the quote from the 1994 pact on Security is so obvious I thought it would be easy to find - sorry! it came from here

originally posted by: YouPeople

The treaty we are talking about was signed after this one with the approval of both parties.

And so what? Do you think that therefore Ukraine is now allowed nuclear weapons because the 1997 pact was signed after the 1994 one??

Whatever rationale you think you are using is so unintelligible to me as to be gobbledygook now - sorry about that, but you are literally non-sense-ical!

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Ukraine is not joining the EU, the EU is not actually a military pact, Ukraine and Russia are both sovereign states (at least outside Russia they are!!) and so they can agree anything they like.

the quote from the 1994 pact on Security is so obvious I thought it would be easy to find - sorry! it came from here

originally posted by: YouPeople

The treaty we are talking about was signed after this one with the approval of both parties.

And so what? Do you think that therefore Ukraine is now allowed nuclear weapons because the 1997 pact was signed after the 1994 one??

Whatever rationale you think you are using is so unintelligible to me as to be gobbledygook now - sorry about that, but you are literally non-sense-ical!

He has no point other than cloud the issue. The up has been shown to be false already. Ukraine said no such thing Russian propaganda created a fake story. There reason simple so they can continue to scream Nazi so people want question them. Solicit hate and rationality goes out the window.

Andriy Parubiy, fascist, top commander of the national defense and security council. Dmytro Yarosh, fascist, second in command of the National Defense and Security Council. Ihor Tenyukh, fascist, minister of defense. Oleksandr Sych, fascist, Vice Prime Minister. Oleh Makhnitskyi, fascist, general prosecutor. John Kerry, John McCain and Victoria Nuland all met and helped plan the gov with Oleh Tyahnybok who is a fascist.

This is how you overthrow a government. You need "strong men". The US used "soft power" via NGO's and outright fascists to oust Yanukovych.

The neoliberals at IMF have a long history of forcing austerity. This is not "Russian propaganda". Rational people don't take to the streets in order to demand IMF austerity for themselves. Anyone who has been paying attention to the widespread anti-austerity protests throughout the world knows this. Why would Ukranians take to the streets in order to demand austerity for themselves? Perhaps the ones who did were manipulated? You think? Manipulated by the US funded "NGO's" and the fascist anti-Russian nationalism of the Right Sector and Svovoda parties. This isn't rocket science.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Ukraine is not joining the EU, the EU is not actually a military pact, Ukraine and Russia are both sovereign states (at least outside Russia they are!!) and so they can agree anything they like.

the quote from the 1994 pact on Security is so obvious I thought it would be easy to find - sorry! it came from here

originally posted by: YouPeople

The treaty we are talking about was signed after this one with the approval of both parties.

And so what? Do you think that therefore Ukraine is now allowed nuclear weapons because the 1997 pact was signed after the 1994 one??

Whatever rationale you think you are using is so unintelligible to me as to be gobbledygook now - sorry about that, but you are literally non-sense-ical!

He has no point other than cloud the issue. The up has been shown to be false already. Ukraine said no such thing Russian propaganda created a fake story. There reason simple so they can continue to scream Nazi so people want question them. Solicit hate and rationality goes out the window.

Solicit hate? Like marching through the streets with torches flying neo-fascist flags and spouting off about "the Jews, Poles and Russians" who all "need to go"?

youtu.be...

Ya, the above is just great! No hate there, just "Russian propaganda"!

And what sort of idiot flies Bandera's image with calls of "independence" then immediately bends the knee in front of the IMF?

I'm not saying Russian exploitation or political manipulation is desirable, only that the other "choice" doesn't actually give Ukranians independence.

Their productive capabilities will be sold off to the highest forign bidder. Their public resources will be sold off to foriegn investors. Pensions will be slashed, wages cut, the coat of living will increase. Any actual independence goes away with loans that have MAJOR strings attached. This is neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism has failed. It will fail in Ukraine. "Structural adjustments" and privatization (which lopsidedly benefits foreign investors) is not independence.

A good article:

www.counterpunch.org...

a reply to: JeanPaul

I think the "Ukrainians are Nazi's" has been done to death and is a worn out pro-Russian accusation, long since debunked. Clearly some Ukrainians are far right "neo Nazis", but the same is true in Russia. This is a minority. I am sure I could trade pictures and videos of Russian's doing the "Roman salute" and waving flags with swastika-like symbols.

Ukrainian's are not Nazis. They are not led by Nazis. Ukrainian policy is not Nazi-like.

Ukrainians may have a new found sense of nationalism, but that's not Nazi. If it was then we may as well brand every nationalist a fascist and be done with it. This includes the rise of nationalism in Russia which Putin is keen to nurture. The Scottish nationalists are not Nazis.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: JeanPaul

I think the "Ukrainians are Nazi's" has been done to death and is a worn out pro-Russian accusation, long since debunked. Clearly some Ukrainians are far right "neo Nazis", but the same is true in Russia. This is a minority. I am sure I could trade pictures and videos of Russian's doing the "Roman salute" and waving flags with swastika-like symbols.

Ukrainian's are not Nazis. They are not led by Nazis. Ukrainian policy is not Nazi-like.

Ukrainians may have a new found sense of nationalism, but that's not Nazi. If it was then we may as well brand every nationalist a fascist and be done with it. This includes the rise of nationalism in Russia which Putin is keen to nurture. The Scottish nationalists are not Nazis.

You're beyond disingenuous. I never once said all or even a majority of Ukrainians are NAZI's. I listed some in positions of power, and showed a video with a very large group of the same parties taking to the streets.

Why does this topic bring out such obvious bull crap? Who are you trying to fool with this nonsense? I said the US funded/manipulated some and the fascist parties also pushed rabid anti-Russian nationalism. The two combined propaganda tactics are what ousted the democratically elected government in favor of IMF austerity.

There's obvious manipulation going on here. Denying it is absurd. Just as absurd as your backwards assertion that I said all Ukranians are NAZI's. The reality is, no rational thinking or objectively informed people take to the streets in order to demand IMF austerity for themselves.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: JeanPaul

I think the "Ukrainians are Nazi's" has been done to death and is a worn out pro-Russian accusation, long since debunked. Clearly some Ukrainians are far right "neo Nazis", but the same is true in Russia. This is a minority. I am sure I could trade pictures and videos of Russian's doing the "Roman salute" and waving flags with swastika-like symbols.

Ukrainian's are not Nazis. They are not led by Nazis. Ukrainian policy is not Nazi-like.

Ukrainians may have a new found sense of nationalism, but that's not Nazi. If it was then we may as well brand every nationalist a fascist and be done with it. This includes the rise of nationalism in Russia which Putin is keen to nurture. The Scottish nationalists are not Nazis.

And hell, atop of that I used the term FASCIST. The people I mentioned in positions of power are in fact fascists and you are a fascist apologist if you deny it. "Oh, it's just nationalism". Nonsense! You're pushing snake
oil here. Pure unadulterated nonsense.

Any idiot pushing Bandera as a national hero deserves IMF austerity. Any idiot in the right sector or Svoboda Party deserves austerity. Let them have it. The rest if the nation shouldn't be held hostage to the fascists or to the USA's subversive political machinations. Not should they be exploited by Russia but the thing is, everyone seems to already be aware of the fact that Russia is corrupt. Ah, but the US/EU/IMF are angels!

It's bizzarro world. As if reality doesn't exist. As if the last 30 years of neoliberal globalization hasn't taken place. As if the US has never interfered with a multitude of democratically elected governments. This should all be very obvious to one who doesn't have their head up their ass.

originally posted by: JeanPaul
You're beyond disingenuous. I never once said all or even a majority of Ukrainians are NAZI's. I listed some in positions of power, and showed a video with a very large group of the same parties taking to the streets.

No, you are calling anyone who is a nationalist a “fascist”. With so many “fascist” in power it is an inference that supports the oft-cited accusation that Ukrainian’s are Nazi’s.

Over the last few months we have seen an evolution of words. The term "fascist" is now being used to describe Ukrainian leaders rather than "Nazi". I've also seen "Nazi-like", but at least RT.com has rebranded them all "ultranationalists", at least for the moment.

originally posted by: JeanPaul
Why does this topic bring out such obvious bull crap?

Yes, I have often asked myself that.