Ukraine Coalition Government Collapses as 2 Parties Quit

a reply to: Kokatsi

Great. So Donetsk is suddenly a Russian city? Is it in the territory of the Russian Federation? Well, they don't expicitly say that, but either I don't understand English or they are damn sure implying that.

Yes, Donetsk is in Russia.

It is also in Ukraine.

IOW, there are two places, each called Donetsk, one just inside the Russian border, the other we know about.

Here's how the article I quoted above washes together the two Donetsks:

According to Antonov, in this regard “it is totally clear, who provokes whom on the border”. “You had better pay attention to the permanent shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk with projectiles and to the murders of civilians,” the deputy defense minister said addressing to the western military officials.

ITAR TASS article

The Donetsk shelled for months is one of the epicenters of the rebellion within Ukraine, and not the small Russian city that was also hit this month (due to a fighting started by Russian-armed rebels on the other side of the border).

The only clue for non-Russian readers is the word "small" above...

So which of the Donetsks Antonov meant? The small Russian one in Rostov?
Then why does he add Luhansk? Which is in Ukraine, along with the other Donetsk?

Is it a coincidence that this comes out on the day when the Ukrainian government is dissolved?

While Western readers sort out which of the Donetsks the Foreign Minister of Russia means, and which is the one the article highlights, the proxy war can easily change to a direct one.

a reply to: Kokatsi

It is said in the article "the small Russian city of Donetsk".

There's no room for propaganda here. They don't need to care if somebody sees hidden meanings in clear sentences.

a reply to: Xcathdra

A reason they dont like the new government.. they aren't bending to russian demands.

And the shelling of villages, murdering civilians and generally killing the patriots...for some strange reason, they're not too keen on that either.

a reply to: Kokatsi

Because Luhansk was shelled too.

But i see what you mean. I really don't think that's on purpose though. Such things will not make an intelligent reader think that Russia secretly annexed Ukrainian Donetsk.

a reply to: MysterX
I don't like that either. I don't ever condone it - despite the deplorable actions of the armed rebels (or mercenaries).
Nothing justifies the targeting of civilians and it is the end of a government if it bombs its own citizens.

They did not willingly expose themselves like some misguided Arabs to IDF weapons.
I am sure they wanted none of this war.

originally posted by: Kokatsi
Here's how the article I quoted above washes together the two Donetsks:

According to Antonov, in this regard “it is totally clear, who provokes whom on the border”. “You had better pay attention to the permanent shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk with projectiles and to the murders of civilians,” the deputy defense minister said addressing to the western military officials.

ITAR TASS article

The Donetsk shelled for months is one of the epicenters of the rebellion within Ukraine, and not the small Russian city that was also hit this month (due to a fighting started by Russian-armed rebels on the other side of the border).

The only clue for non-Russian readers is the word "small" above...

So which of the Donetsks Antonov meant? The small Russian one in Rostov?
Then why does he add Luhansk? Which is in Ukraine, along with the other Donetsk?

Is it a coincidence that this comes out on the day when the Ukrainian government is dissolved?

While Western readers sort out which of the Donetsks the Foreign Minister of Russia means, and which is the one the article highlights, the proxy war can easily change to a direct one.

Just to clarify a few things;

Those who staged the 'rebellion' as you put it, the bloody and violent rebellion that was over our screens only months ago, have seized control and in Government in Kiev, Kiev being the 'epicentre' of that violent rebellion, not Donetsk, which is the epicentre of the present wave of violence against civilians who object to the first, violent and bloody rebellion and ousting of the original legitimate government.

And Ukraine being Ukraine...EVERYONE is using Russian supplied arms. The rebels who are now ordering the Ukrainian Army to kill civilians who oppose those who seized control, and indeed those who are patriots are using Russian supplied weapons to resist those who are killing them.

Everyone is using Russian weapons, as historically Ukraine has been supplied by Russia.

It's obvious when a Russian minister says a Russian city called Donetsk has been shelled by the rebels in power in Kiev, he's talking about the RUSSIAN Donetsk, not the Ukrainian one. It's not a difficult thing to work out, or it shouldn't be.

I disagree that Antonov meant the Russian Donetsk as quoted in the article above. His words are translated as "permanently shelled" - which is more likely to refer to the rebel Donetsk which was frequently shelled in recent weeks. Also, he says "and Luhansk" which is another center of rebels.

A moot point is that Russian-supplied weapons simply does not mean the same thing as Soviet-supplied. If we allow such discrepancies, we might as well say that Russians are shooting Russians in Russia, that's all that happens, so who cares.

To represent the rebel side and the Russian side in a more acceptable way, in my opinion, in a way that is respectable and one that could win acceptance of readers in English, I would recognise a few things (like Donetsk is formally in Ukraine, and that it is possibly true that the rebels shot down the Malay craft), and voice "my view" - whatever it is.

It is perfectly acceptable if you think that the Ukrainian nationalists started all the trouble, or that they treated civilians in the Eastern regions inhumanly by shelling, and that they have far right squads checking people. These things could be argued for, proven, and the focus of attention can be placed upon them.

But when one side sweeps off all the problems with it, when they take no criticism or make sweeping statements as if they possessed absolute truth (instead of using qualifiers like "I think" "IMHO" "I came to the conclusion" etc.) it is harder to digest their version of reality in this kind of board.

(Perhaps Mr. Putin should pay me for my advice...)
(Phone rings: Zdrastvuyte! You just von a tvoo-day-trip to Sent Petersburg!)

I got about page 3 before I realised hardly anyone even knows anything, but instead are using this thread for the same tired anti-West bashing, for the most part....

The Government coalition collapsed over a budgetary disagreement.

Some parties and MP's wanted austerity cuts to control the budget, others didn't.

That's it.

It has bog all to do with the War in the East, Russia, the US, the West, NATO or the Rebels "winning" (they are not)

As for the same old peeps coming out calling the Government a "junta" or "illegal" - I notice Xcathdra has tried to stop this - how come they weren't a Junta or illegal in November 2012? It's the same Parliament sitting that voted to impeach the former President, who fled.

Why all of a sudden are the Pro-Russians around here so keen to try and paint them as illegitimate when they were perfectly legitimate when their man was in power? (this is a rhetorical question....I know why)

a reply to: stumason

Thank you Stu....much appreciated......
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: stumason

As for the same old peeps coming out calling the Government a "junta" or "illegal" - I notice Xcathdra has tried to stop this - how come they weren't a Junta or illegal in November 2012? It's the same Parliament sitting that voted to impeach the former President, who fled.

Seems to be one of those small details that they like to leave out as it would just not fit their argument.

Also they seem to forget this was a democratically elected government that has stolen billions from the Ukraine people for their own benefits, but that is okay because he was a Russian backed official.

Little details that make a big difference.

some american experts greystoun on the south-east of Ukraine feed the worms and sniffing the roots of sunflower

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: stumason

As for the same old peeps coming out calling the Government a "junta" or "illegal" - I notice Xcathdra has tried to stop this - how come they weren't a Junta or illegal in November 2012? It's the same Parliament sitting that voted to impeach the former President, who fled.

Seems to be one of those small details that they like to leave out as it would just not fit their argument.

Also they seem to forget this was a democratically elected government that has stolen billions from the Ukraine people for their own benefits, but that is okay because he was a Russian backed official.

Little details that make a big difference.

Ukraine has been in deep crisis mode for some time. The reason is not external, it is internal. It is to do with people and politics of Ukraine.

The corruption is deep rooted in Ukraine's society. Blaming a specific individual does not help.

We shall see how Ukraine improves under Poroshenko. If Yanukovich was bad, Poroshenko will prove horrible.

It is just a matter of time.

a reply to: stumason

Yup in Kiev they wanted austerity cuts in other words wanted to be like Greece and Italy what clowns.

a reply to: stumason

Why all of a sudden are the Pro-Russians around here so keen to try and paint them as illegitimate when they were perfectly legitimate when their man was in power? (this is a rhetorical question....I know why)

I am surprised there a few Pro NATO around here judging the fact and considering how NATO has left Libya in an hellhole and what else are you going to be Pro EU and austerity supporter?

The austerity measures hasn't helped Europe. But go on try to defend it.

a reply to: GargIndia

Blaming a specific individual does not help.

And blaming a country does?

Well that one person was the president at the time so he really is to blame.

In fact those who don't like the west blame Obama for pretty much anything that happens in the world, and as a side note I couldn't care less about him but the blame game always seems to end up on Obama.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

I am surprised there a few Pro NATO around here judging the fact and considering how NATO has left Libya in an hellhole and what else are you going to be Pro EU and austerity supporter?

So why do you think NATO has to do anything for a country that isn't part of them?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

I am surprised there a few Pro NATO around here judging the fact and considering how NATO has left Libya in an hellhole and what else are you going to be Pro EU and austerity supporter?

So why do you think NATO has to do anything for a country that isn't part of them?

NATO had an eye sight for Ukraine since 2004 and had contacts within previous pro western governments whom were urging for a NATO membership.

Word. I 100% agree with you that this has been the modus operandi in the past, from Guatemala in the 1950's to Libya and Syria most recently. Ukraine I'm on the fence about. But given the past, when it first started I thought what you just said about what the real goals were by NATO and Ukraine.

You know, people keep calling the US or West a "failure" for leaving places like Guatemala (civil war for 30 years) or Iraq in ruins. Libya now is experiencing chaos again.

However, I think that this assumes that the goal at all was stability and or the well-being of the people, such as democracy, freedom, and an effective government. If in reality the whole goal is removing non-compliant or enemy-aligned regimes and installing ones that will let the west do whatever they want, whether that be controlling a region or extracting resources, then maybe the Pentagon doesn't care?

Side note: yesterday and Thursday I unveiled a lot of this black ops and global chess games stuff to a girl I've been seeing. She's really smart and educated but like most Americans, really have no idea what our intelligence agencies and military have down over the last 60 years. To her credit, she actually really listened. The video that started to open her up a little was Westley Clark's "7 countries in five years" speech.

originally posted by: lightedhype
Don't you get it? The false government in Kiev, Ukraine is losing. The rebels are winning. Seriously - their armed forces are a joke. They are losing dozens of men a day to rag tag drunken rebels. Their false flag did not work. They are throwing in the towel. I guarantee you their US handlers have already abandoned them because of their sloppy work in downing that plane.

As far as the two parties quitting - Bet your ass they are quitting because they do not agree with the new government. I doubt they are quitting because of the rebels.

I truly am sorry for the people of Ukraine. United States intelligence services attempted another takeover of a country and left it in chaos....It has happened dozens of times to dozens of different countries (think South America).

This is simply what western black ops leave in their wake.

Let's just hope come election time the Ukrainians actually get somebody THEY want and not somebody we want.