Putin did not order the execution of political opponent

**StarDreamer** · March 18, 2015, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Costin_Razvan

He is talking about the series of events in Ukraine with regards to the negations over the EU association agreement that led to the Maidan and after that to the current Russia/West crisis.

He's also absolutely correct on this. When Nuland was saying: "

the EU." She was saying that as someone who was brought on to fix the bloody mess the EU created. The media has talked about the narrative about the US being responsible for the Maidan, but in reality the US came in to try and fix things.

Even John Kerry has expressed his frustration in private over how the EU acted.

No what is happening is several far-right and some far-left parties are getting financial and other support from Russia. What we see is now some of these are expressing themselves in support of their overlords in the kremlin. Not some thought grounded in any reality. The only thing that provoked this is Russia's sense of entitlement and seeing themselves as superior to other countries. In other words the rampant ultra-nationalism in Russia is the root cause for this.

**Costin_Razvan** · March 18, 2015, 06:50 AM

Farrage is not the French Far Right ( who do get their funding from Russia ) just a point and it's not only them that are making these statements.

**Heathen Hammer** · March 19, 2015, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by snuggans

"We ourselves in the European Union provoked the conflict through our territorial expansionism in the Ukraine."

the hell is farage talking about?

you've got to have a nasty little agenda to literally look at what's happening in Ukraine to then call out territorial expansionism on ... NOT RUSSIA.
he should be thoroughly investigated by state services, especially any business dealings.

If Western states didn't back Maidan and then post-Maidan regime in Kiev, this situation wouldn't have happened. So Farage is definitely right. Plus it is a good thing to see more prominent politicians to oppose the corrupt pro-American governments in Western Europe.

Originally Posted by StarDreamer

No what is happening is several far-right and some far-left parties are getting financial and other support from Russia.

[
Citation needed.
Also how is it different from pro-Western parties getting their funding from Western governments and Western-based NGOs?

What we see is now some of these are expressing themselves in support of their overlords in the kremlin. Not some thought grounded in any reality. The only thing that provoked this is Russia's sense of entitlement and seeing themselves as superior to other countries. In other words the rampant ultra-nationalism in Russia is the root cause for this.

That is pretty much not true.
First of all, one has to know nothing about political climate in Russia to talk about some "ultra-nationalism", in a country where almost any form of Russian nationalism is being portrait as "extremism", while pro-Western politicians get to run around with their silly slogans.
Second of all, Russia started taking part in Ukrainian events way after Western-backed coup when democratically elected government was overthrown. And it were Western countries that supported Kiev in violently putting down pro-Russian opposition - for pretty much doing what pro-Western opposition was doing a few months ago.
Double-think is strong with this one...

**Jom** · March 22, 2015, 06:16 AM

So, Heathen Hammer, when did any troops from any Western nation set foot on Ukrainian soil to effect the "coup" you're talking about, or help "put down" pro-Russian opposition?

**Braindead Colonel** · March 22, 2015, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Jom

So, Heathen Hammer, when did any troops from any Western nation set foot on Ukrainian soil to effect the "coup" you're talking about, or help "put down" pro-Russian opposition?

Coup: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

The change of the Ukrainian government did not meet the criteria specified by the Ukrainian constitution, and thus can be termed a "coup"
http://politics.stackexchange.com/qu...-ukraine-legal

The presence of foreign troops is not necessary in the definition of a coup,
and neither is the term foreign influence restricted to military means, but can of course assume other forms (such as financial).

**Jom** · March 22, 2015, 06:48 AM

Your "source" is the political equivalent of Yahoo answers and even then, not everyone agrees with you. Did you read beyond the first answer? The president fled and refused to exercise his executive duties, so he needed to be replaced as per the constitution.

**Vilkas09** · March 22, 2015, 06:58 AM

Nemtsov was a crook. I bet his mafia buddies killed him because of his debts, but who cares? Let's continue fearmongering about evil Kremlin KGB conspiracy.

**Braindead Colonel** · March 22, 2015, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Jom

Your "source" is the political equivalent of Yahoo answers and even then, not everyone agrees with you. Did you read beyond the first answer? The president fled and refused to exercise his executive duties, so he needed to be replaced as per the constitution.

If you have a source you consider more reliable, then please share it with the rest of us.
In any case, the Ukrainian constitution itself is the only document one needs to determine whether it was a coup or not.

As for the "fleeing" reason, that's prima facie ludicrous.
So if a group of violent protesters (or Ukrainian army battalion for that matter) forces the president to flee,
then that constitutes a valid reason for a change of government?

**k995** · March 22, 2015, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Braindead Colonel

If you have a source you consider more reliable, then please share it with the rest of us.
In any case, the Ukrainian constitution itself is the only document one needs to determine whether it was a coup or not.

As for the "fleeing" reason, that's prima facie ludicrous.
So if a group of violent protesters (or Ukrainian army battalion for that matter) forces the president to flee,
then that constitutes a valid reason for a change of government?

No, but if the current elected parliament and courts aprove then I dont see what the issue would be.

**Abdülmecid I** · March 22, 2015, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by k995

No, but if the current elected parliament and courts aprove then I dont see what the issue would be.

Elected as a result of the "coup/revolution"... Don't you see the absurdity of your argument?

**Braindead Colonel** · March 22, 2015, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by k995

No, but if the current elected parliament and courts aprove then I dont see what the issue would be.

Yes, and the current government would have been elected anyway. And there might have been troubles in the east of Ukraine no matter what. But you don't mess with the constitution; it's the highest authority in any country.
So, I think that the change in power in Ukraine could have been done more evenly, through elections, and that might have helped avoid the current situation in the east.

**Heathen Hammer** · March 22, 2015, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Jom

So, Heathen Hammer, when did any troops from any Western nation set foot on Ukrainian soil to effect the "coup" you're talking about, or help "put down" pro-Russian opposition?

US supported coup in Ukraine. Murreka's Dear Leader Obama admitted it himself. They supported Kiev regime violently attacking opposition movements all over the country. But of course, Western apologists will ignore that and then doublethink about how what US is doing in Ukraine is right, while what Russia doing is wrong.

**Captain Jin** · March 22, 2015, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

US supported coup in Ukraine. Murreka's Dear Leader Obama admitted it himself. They supported Kiev regime violently attacking opposition movements all over the country. But of course, Western apologists will ignore that and then doublethink about how what US is doing in Ukraine is right, while what Russia doing is wrong.

Brokering a deal for transition of power after the President fled the capitol is not anywhere near the same thing as supporting a coup. You have a shockingly bad ability to comprehend something if you think the formulation of a diplomatic means of transitioning power somehow equates complicity in a coup. And what is the US doing in Ukraine compared to what Russia is doing, eh? Providing non-lethal support to a country being invaded versus providing lethal support to an insurgent group while also supplying military assets to combat the Ukrainian government? Yes they are apparently the same in your mind.

**Heathen Hammer** · March 22, 2015, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Jin

Brokering a deal for transition of power after the President fled the capitol is not anywhere near the same thing as supporting a coup. You have a shockingly bad ability to comprehend something if you think the formulation of a diplomatic means of transitioning power somehow equates complicity in a coup. And what is the US doing in Ukraine compared to what Russia is doing, eh? Providing non-lethal support to a country being invaded versus providing lethal support to an insurgent group while also supplying military assets to combat the Ukrainian government? Yes they are apparently the same in your mind.

It is still meddling in country's internal affairs. Given how post-coup regime in Kiev disregarded opinions of people in what used to be South-East of Ukraine, it was clearly done in favor of American interests, especially given how Biden's son ended up leading one of the key energy companies in the country.

**Gaidin** · March 22, 2015, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

It is still meddling in country's internal affairs. Given how post-coup regime in Kiev disregarded opinions of people in what used to be South-East of Ukraine, it was clearly done in favor of American interests, especially given how Biden's son ended up leading one of the key energy companies in the country.

I'm not sure you're catching the point. In fact you're dodging it in favor of throwing out a red herring. Bravo. Golf clap over here.

**Heathen Hammer** · March 22, 2015, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Gaidin

I'm not sure you're catching the point. In fact you're dodging it in favor of throwing out a red herring. Bravo. Golf clap over here.

Point me out to which point am I exactly "dodging"?

**Gaidin** · March 22, 2015, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Point me out to which point am I exactly "dodging"?

I would but you're ignoring his entire post because you think Biden's son is at all relevant to what he said. So I'll just say read his post again. Slower this time.

**Heathen Hammer** · March 22, 2015, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Gaidin

I would but you're ignoring his entire post because you think Biden's son is at all relevant to what he said. So I'll just say read his post again. Slower this time.

So you can't even say which point i "dodged"? I don't understand why did you even bring it up then. I guess you just wanted to say something.

**Gaidin** · March 22, 2015, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

So you can't even say which point i "dodged"? I don't understand why did you even bring it up then. I guess you just wanted to say something.

When you dodge everything he says I can't really point at a single point. My hand isn't a 12-gauge shotgun here. It's that simple.

Simple answer? He said "No, you're wrong and here's why." You still have your fingers in your ears and are going "lalalalala".