Kiev Is Burning

[sunday]

OWS is the your local equivalent of the Guardia Nacional Bolivariana.

[Yama]

It's not the use of force per se, but the amount of it, & how it's applied. Yanukovich went too far. The force used was disproportionate, & the means by which it was deployed. E.g. men in plain clothes attacking the occupiers with no attempt to move them on, as happened earlier in the protests, before the shooting began, & snipers shooting protestors trying to carry away their wounded.

I think you are not very familiar how the situation developed: it was months/week of tit-for-tat between protesters and authorities, which gradually escalated. Your comments imply that the protesters were holding hands and singing 'Kumbayah' until they were shot & brutalized: that's not quite the case. Reactions of the authorities during first couple of months were not particularly aggressive even by Western standards.

 

Also, lets not forget that it was very selfsame parliament which overwhelmingly passed the controversial 'Anti-Protest law' which later impeached Yanukovich.

 

Oh, & the 'occupy this & that' protests haven't been completely non-violent. In come cases there's been a fair bit of property damage, much of it apparently done for fun, & some attacks on vehicles with people in them, & throwing stuff at police, before any police force has been used..I recall reading on one protestors website about windows breaking & other damage, described as if it was spontaneous & a thing of joy.

So in other words, sounds like much less violent than the Euromaidan protests. Seems to rather support my point.

 

Once again, I can't fail to notice deafening silence over Egyptian protests, which were crushed by much greater violence.

[sunday]

Jihadists were behind Egyptian protests.

[Yama]

As for the Western counter-demonstration tactics... How many OWS protesters were kidnapped, beaten and tortured? How many government-criticising journalists were vanished or imprisoned on trumped up charges in UK recently? Or in Finland?

 

Therein lies the difference.

Excuse me, is there any reputable source about these disappearences under Yanukovich regime?

As for suppressing media, yes, I'm one hundred percent sure that in case of serious civil unrest, authorities in ANY western country will take measures to suppress media. Of course one could argue that Western countries don't let things progress so far, but maybe we just aren't there yet?

 

Look at the Greek protests. Several people died, and government pressured the media about reporting the riots and deaths.

[Mr King]

NVM fake

Edited February 24, 2014 by Mr King

[crazyinsane105]

Girl in Kiev hasn't responded to my emails yet on whether it's safe or not to come. I'll probably know by the middle of next week when she does respond. If it's a yes, I'll definitely update you guys as much as I can.

[bojan]

It is still much safer then any bad part of Chicago.

[sunday]

Girl in Kiev hasn't responded to my emails yet on whether it's safe or not to come. I'll probably know by the middle of next week when she does respond. If it's a yes, I'll definitely update you guys as much as I can.

 

The dreaded Revolutionary Cold Shoulder!

[sunday]

and barely more credible

[rohala]

Look at the Greek protests. Several people died, and government pressured the media about reporting the riots and deaths.

 

What? The only people I'm aware to have died during riots were those burned alive in the bank which was torched by the 'protestors'. And the Greek governments cannot control the media. The general feeling is that the Media control politics and manipulate public opinion.

[BansheeOne]

Once again, I can't fail to notice deafening silence over Egyptian protests, which were crushed by much greater violence.

 

Actually, both the US and EU condemned the violence used against the Islamist protests - to complaints of Western conservatives that they were siding with the wrong guys.

 

US Condemns Violence; Kerry Says Egypt at Pivotal Moment

 

WHITE HOUSE — The United States has strongly condemned the violence taking place in Egypt. The White House says violence will make the country's political transition more difficult, while Secretary of State John Kerry says Egypt is at a "pivotal moment."

 

Secretary Kerry had strong words for the events in Egypt Wednesday, saying violence and further political polarization will not bring an answer to Egypt's problems.

 

"Today's events are deplorable and they run counter to Egyptian aspirations for peace, inclusion and genuine democracy. Egyptians inside and outside of the government need to take a step back. They need to calm the situation and avoid further loss of life," said Kerry.

 

Kerry and earlier the White House said the U.S. opposes the imposition of a state of emergency in Egypt, saying it should be ended as quickly as possible.

 

The U.S. has called on Egypt's interim government to respect basic human rights, including freedom of peaceful assembly and due process.

 

Saying "violence is not a solution in Egypt or anywhere else," Kerry urged Egyptian leaders to take up "constructive ideas" he said were "left on the table" by U.S. and partner nations in recent talks.

 

"So this is a pivotal moment for all Egyptians. The path toward violence leads only to greater instability, economic disaster and suffering. The only sustainable path for either side is one towards a political solution," he said.

 

[...]

 

http://www.voanews.com/content/white-house-strongly-opposes-egyptian-military-emergency-declaration/1729663.html

 

EU condemns violence, use of force in Egypt

 

BRUSSELS - The European Union (EU) has called on Egypt's interim government to complete a transparent and independent investigation into the various acts of violence that occurred during protests surrounding the removal of the country's president.

 

In a final communique released after Monday's Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Brussels, the EU condemned in the "clearest possible terms" all acts of violence, in particular those causing loss of life through disproportionate use of force and live ammunition.

 

It included a litany of concerns that it hoped would be resolved and lead to "inclusive, transparent and credible elections."

 

The communique deplored the loss of life during the constitutional referendum on January 14-15, and on the occasion of the third anniversary of the Egyptian revolution.

 

"In this context, the EU takes note that the killing of protesters and security forces during violent events since June 30 have not been investigated," warned the EU as it called on Egypt's interim government to act on its promise and complete the investigation.

 

President Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's first democratically-elected president, was deposed by a military coup last July following protests against his one-year rule.

 

Since his ouster, the country's military-backed interim authorities have cracked down on his supporters, leaving hundreds dead and thousands detained.

 

[...]

 

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=387574

 

It was just not reported by Western media to the same extent, probably mostly because their paying audience couldn't give a damn about it due to "well, what do you expect of a military government", "they're all animals down there anyway", "where is Egypt?", etc. (note that the first media source I found on the EU stance above is Turkish). Which allows critics the selective impression that there was a "deafening silence" of the West.

[sunday]

150 tanks? Are the exhibits of the Tank Museum included in that number?

[swerve]

 

It's not the use of force per se, but the amount of it, & how it's applied. Yanukovich went too far. The force used was disproportionate, & the means by which it was deployed. E.g. men in plain clothes attacking the occupiers with no attempt to move them on, as happened earlier in the protests, before the shooting began, & snipers shooting protestors trying to carry away their wounded.

I think you are not very familiar how the situation developed: it was months/week of tit-for-tat between protesters and authorities, which gradually escalated. Your comments imply that the protesters were holding hands and singing 'Kumbayah' until they were shot & brutalized: that's not quite the case. Reactions of the authorities during first couple of months were not particularly aggressive even by Western standards.

 

Also, lets not forget that it was very selfsame parliament which overwhelmingly passed the controversial 'Anti-Protest law' which later impeached Yanukovich.

 

Oh, & the 'occupy this & that' protests haven't been completely non-violent. In come cases there's been a fair bit of property damage, much of it apparently done for fun, & some attacks on vehicles with people in them, & throwing stuff at police, before any police force has been used..I recall reading on one protestors website about windows breaking & other damage, described as if it was spontaneous & a thing of joy.

So in other words, sounds like much less violent than the Euromaidan protests. Seems to rather support my point.

 

Once again, I can't fail to notice deafening silence over Egyptian protests, which were crushed by much greater violence.

 

I've been following it from the start. You're misrepresenting my stance.

 

I said the state violence was disproportionate. I stand by that. Look at the number of deaths.

 

Yeah, it's the same parliament, but Yanukovich's strongest supporters have gone home, so even without most of his party's MPs who've stayed having abandoned him, there'd now be a majority against him.

 

Who said the violence was at the same level? You gave the impression that the occupy protests were non-violent. Here, they had a lot of recreational vandals taking part.

 

Abductions? Try Yuriy Verbytsky. Beaten & left to freeze to death. Or Vyacheslav Veremyi, beaten & shot. Others have been beaten, but lived, run off the road when driving, etc. See Tatiana Chornovol.

[rmgill]

You forget Grozny, but I don't think the Ukis had the foresight to get access to the heavy weapons before this "disturbance."

 

If America had a government "of the people, for the people" the 2nd Amendment would cover LAW's, ATGM's and MANPAD's. And we wouldn't need them. S/F.....Ken M

 

If the proportion of warships owned by civilians vs the USN is any evidence the 2nd DOES cover them. It says Arms not small arms.

 

Militia cannon equipped units too. Folks would raise money for a town cannon, bell, bridge, what have you as part of their addition to the security forces.

[X-Files]

 

 

Exactly my point (although 2,000 Mujihadeen kept up to 100k Russian troops 'busy' for most of a decade.

 

Yes, they can do that OFC, but w/o outside support any such effort is bound to fail.

 

My bet re Ukraine - whatever happens and whoever gets in power in 5 year opposite hardliners get to power again as "democratic" government will again show to be kleptocracy.

 

 

Scroll back to the 1st page, where I posted an already-published wargame that articulates how that would snowball.

[rmgill]

Not to mention the molotovs were a response to escalation of violence... Which went on for a protracted time already (abductions etc.)

 

I'm having a hard time trying to understand how burning a bunch of random people is going to help with abductions unless it's a matter of getting even, which is hardly a law enforcement occupation, at least in my understanding of how law enforcement is supposed to work.

 

It's more apt for warfare or unorganized/organized crime.

[rmgill]

Data point from my Monkeysphere.

I have a lady friend here in the US whom I trust implicitly who is from Ukraine. She still has a good friend who's in Kharkov (as I understand it). Little old lady across the street from her went to Kiev for a job to hold signs for the protest. Good money too. Food was included in the deal. Stand around in the cold, make some money for a few days, then she goes home. Next few days she gets really sick. Goes to the Doctor and the determination is that she was drugged in the food with something to keep her "compliant" presumably with all the rest.

Take that for what it's worth as sketchy humInt.

[Marek Tucan]

I'm having a hard time trying to understand how burning a bunch of random people is going to help with abductions unless it's a matter of getting even, which is hardly a law enforcement occupation, at least in my understanding of how law enforcement is supposed to work.

 

It's more apt for warfare or unorganized/organized crime.

 

 

Random people? Or people coming again and again to beat the crap out of you while you are unarmed? Wasn't it you who some pages ago was all for arming everyone and shooting those same random people?

 

As for the HUMINT, seems like a lot of similar bullcrap spouted by supporters of Mr. Y. Similar to many "those protesters were all paid by western capitalist imperialists" from early 1989 protests that prepared way for thew downfall of the commies.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Marek Tucan

[bojan]

Ryan, shovel of salt included?

Edited February 24, 2014 by bojan

[BansheeOne]

It sounds like something somebody from Kharkov would tell. Stories of paid protestors have been spread by pro-Russian sources going back to the original Orange Revolution of 2004, though the drug bit is new.

[bojan]

...

Random people? Or people coming again and again to beat the crap out of you while you are unarmed? Wasn't it you who some pages ago was all for arming everyone and shooting those same random people?

 

Tuccy, for 10 years, 1991-2000 there were opposition protests in Serbia. Never resorted to throwing Molotovs at police. Because everyone was fucking aware that if you do that situation is gonna escalate to firearms quickly. Anyone throwing molotovs is using a lethal force and if he gets shot - well, he started it.

Edited February 24, 2014 by bojan

[Marek Tucan]

Given that there were deaths and beating already, perhaps someone thought there is not much to lose anyway... Generally shows the main "thing" of the situation on Ukraine - Government used enough violence to piss people off and not enough to subdue them. Kinda like Romania 1989.

[rmgill]

Random people? Or people coming again and again to beat the crap out of you while you are unarmed? Wasn't it you who some pages ago was all for arming everyone and shooting those same random people?

No. I very clearly stated that one could and should shoot at THE people effecting illegal/deadly force. Call it Rules of Engagement if you like, but the basic gist is that I can ethically and legally shoot someone that is ACTIVELY engaging in an act that would or could grievously injure someone else. This is of course a very western/english common law concept on self defense but I'm applying my ethics here as is everyone else. I don't think many reasonable folks would dispute that it's wrong to shoot ANY random cop who belongs to a force which is wantonly killing people, vs being ok to actually stopping someone, cop or not, who's actively injuring or killing another with out legal cause.

 

If cops are shooting at a crowd with live ammo, they damn well better be shooting precisely aimed fire at someone who's about to or is already severely injuring or killing someone else. Just shooting at a random group of people, with what amounts to punitive fire or suppressive fire isn't police work any more. It's civil war. If it's not civil war then I call that murder or attempted murder.

 

There is a reason that so many of us conservative types on Tank net have a very dim view of the LAPD and NYPD's concepts of "shooting back".

 

There IS a disparity of force issue/aspect to be had, in the case of say a cop being beaten by multiple people and he fears for his life. That is allowable. In the cases we've seen I'm not sure we have any imminent threats.

 

Watch this video for a specific set of instruction on what this works if you want to see where I'm coming from. It is, as I admit, US expansion based upon old English Common Law principles and might not I guess, be a central or Eastern European concept.

 

There's a clear differentiation between what amounts to justifiable homicide and murder.

 

As for the HUMINT, seems like a lot of similar bullcrap spouted by supporters of Mr. Y. Similar to many "those protesters were all paid by western capitalist imperialists" from early 1989 protests that prepared way for thew downfall of the commies.

It fits more than the "We're for freedom!" distillate we're getting in the western press. Frankly, at this point I figure there are some complicated issues on BOTH sides of this fight. It IS the Ukraine after all.

Edited February 24, 2014 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Ryan, shovel of salt included?

Sure.

 

I trust Tatyana implicity, she's arguably been my best friend for about the past 8 years. Her friend I don't know at all but Tatyana trusts her enough to exchange goods via mail for money and such. The old lady….*shrug*.

[rmgill]

Mind you, if the Eastern European concept of law enforcement use of force is that the cops can do anything up to and including drag you down to the river and leave you there in a pile of your own brains, then it's no small question why the cops were getting what they were getting. Enough people get the stuffing beaten out of them by the cops because they're not cops and you're going to have the pot boil over.

We've had that sort of shit in the US, up to and including police "justice" in the old days where the victims were put on trains going to Detroit, to become Detroit's body to deal with. Usually this was happening to people who didn't matter and frankly, it's not a very good method of policing when you get down to the ethics or the law (then or now).

I'll point to the Peelian Principles as a way of how to do police work properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles