He was elected to hold the country together. That’s what he’s doing.
But he’s using lethal force to ‘hold the country together’ and many of you joined the bitch parade in Februaryl because the previous government needed to do the same against the insurgency/rebellion in the west and from the west.
Now no one on the pro-Maidan side but Batistuta has expressed disapproval of the current central government’s firing lethal rounds at its own citizens.
Human Rights Watch is concerned about. Why are you so cool with it now?
You were cool with snipers firing at brick throwers, why so uncool about this?
Again your premise is false. Prior to February 18 when over forty police were shot and six died from bullet wounds, there were two reports of unwitnessed deadly shootings of two protesters. That was on January 22 I believe. The reported mass killings of protesters by government snipers occurred concurrent with tens of police being shot and six of them were fatally shot. Therefore there is a case for police defending themselves from armed rebels and rioters that were intent on killing police and overthrowing the elected government that police normally are sworn to protect.
There is the matter that the central government was falling to the rebellion in the west concurrently with the massive rioting and shooting of police less than a kilometer from the parliament.
But many here argue that even with police being shot no police can be justified to use live ammunition against a riot and open rebellion.
But now those same people apparently are ok with the current government using lethal force to quell a rebellion. Except this rebellion is not shooting police in Kiev trying to overthrow the government.
There is no urgency of self defense or self preservation of the government in Kiev that justifies dropping rockets into a mostly anti-government city of 150,000.
The government in Kiev is not under assault and threatened by police-shooting rioters on their doorstep as it was when Yanukovich was forced to flee from office. Likewise I don’t have a problem with the Chocolate King ordering his troops to use lethal force when the opposition is using lethal force against them.
So on that point I am consistent. On your side the only consistency I’ve seen comes from Batistuta.
You have incredible consistency spotting abilities, I’ll give you that!
Protests that the government tried to shut down are hardly comparable to a full-fledged secessionist movement. Most of us don’t want to see Ukraine violently split up. YMOV (your mileage obviously varies).
But you don’t mind if the west splits first in conjunction with rioting in the Capitol hell bent on toppling the elected government from power.
This means Lviv seceded first: “established a new government autonomous from his administration”.
Just a fact. Other regions in the west too. And they took up arms against the government. All apparently your approval.
You are wrong about Lviv - again. They did not declare independence, and any measures they took were only intended to be temporary. Certainly not comparable to the eastern rebels.
I put up Bloomberg News report dated February 19 and you put up a Ukrainuan commentary dated after the fact, but I thank you for it for several reasons but mostly for this:
“It’s also notable that no mention of this being a temporary or provisional measure was made.”
Of course after the Lviv-backed rioters in Kiev did manage to overthrow the elected government the leaders of the riots and revolt in Lviv would say it was temporary. The coordinated coup d’tat succeeded.
Do you agree there were violent rioters in the east and in Lviv? (see your link)
Your link calls it : “rioters here” smashed their way into the city’s police stations… And set buildings ablaze.
And you expect me to believe that all these rioters and arsonists from Lviv to Kiev actually represent the Russian speaking citizens living in Crimea and Donetsk and Skaviansk? And this autonomy was for unity with Crimea and the east?
Your sympathy and admiration for a lawless broad movement that shot six Kiev City police officers to death in the midst of a mob advance on Parliament is quite telling to me.
Keep providing more info defending these rioters from the west.
Bloomberg interviewed one of Lviv’s extremists on February 17. He was preparing to force the parliament to submit to the will of the rioters the next day.
By the way Batistuta, my statement (This means Lviv seceded first: “established a new government autonomous from his administration”) was confirmed by your first link as accurate.
See it here:
Me: established a new government autonomous from his administration
yours: declaring its autonomy from Yanukovych’s government – finally some accuracy
Yet you wrote to tell me I was wrong. Why did you do that?
autonomy =/= secession. Simple, really
Never said that. Yet another thing that you’ve made up. I’ve lost count now how many fabrications that makes.
You are in error. I did not declare that you said it. Go back and read it. I wrote: (But you don’t mind if the west splits first in conjunction with rioting in the Capitol hell bent on toppling the elected government from power).
I say you don’t mind because if you did ‘mind’ you’d agree with me on this specific point. Do you?
No. Autonomy is the result or ambition or goal of secession. To secede you have to back your ambition up if the departed government has the power and will to fight you. Lviv separated from the soveriegn government at that time, but they also took part in the coup that their side won. You know ‘the rioters’ won as the report you cited calls them:
No. Independence is “the result or ambition or goal of secession”. Not autonomy. When you use these two terms in politics, there is a huge difference.
Do you have a point. The words are interchangeable in the point I’ve made. I can live with either or both in the point I’ve made.
Nothing about politics and huge differences here:
*au·ton·o·my [aw-ton-uh-mee] noun, plural au·ton·o·mies.
- independence or freedom, as of the will or one’s actions: the autonomy of the individual.
- the state or condition of having independence or freedom, or of being autonomous; self-government, or the right of self-government: The rebels demanded autonomy from Spain.
- a self-governing community.
Origin:
1615–25; < Greek autonomía independence, equivalent to autónom ( os ) autonomous + -ia -y3 *
Do you want to address this documented historical fact"
Do you agree there were violent rioters in the east and in Lviv? (see your link)
As the violence in Kiev escalated, rioters here smashed their way into the city’s police stations and the prosecutor’s office, as well as part of an army base in the city. As security forces evaporated, unknown protesters lit the buildings ablaze in a show of anger against anything associated with the regime of Viktor Yanukovych.
Yes. Lviv didn’t demand independence from Ukraine. No secession. No, the words are not interchangeable. Scotland and Wales are autonomous. They are still part of United Kingdom, they are not independent.
They did not need to ‘demand’ it they seized and established it. All along they supported the coup in Kiev by ‘western forces’… They split from the central government before Crimea and the eastern regions did. That is the point.
Crimea a week or so later ‘established a new government autonomous from the coup victors’ in Kiev. And they did succeed in separating from Ukraine. And it is quite fortunate that they are not being bombarded by the Chocolate King ordering Ukraine’s army now. But the bottom line is Crimea did the same thing Lviv did in separating from the central government except Lviv spit off from the constitutionally elected government at the time and Crimea split from militant authorities that seized power in a coup during riots in the capitol and in Lviv which was the western center of the open rebellion.
I’ll believe Bloomberg and other media before I’d believe you.
“established a new government autonomous from his administration”
“established a new government independent from his administration”
“established a new government separate from his administration”
“established a new government outside his administration”
“established a new government apart from his administration”
I didn’t say you did.
Nope. You fabricated a belief you thought I had, and like all your other fabrications, it was wrong.
Nope, I wrote: (But you don’t mind if the west splits first in conjunction with rioting in the Capitol hell bent on toppling the elected government from power).
I say you don’t mind because if you did ‘mind’ you’d agree with me on this specific point.
Do you agree with me or don’t you?