What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[Scott777]

He (and his parliament) wanted an association agreement - closer ties with the EU. Eiaser trading, easier movement of Ukrainians in Europe , easier investment.  Nothing in the agreement meant cutting ties with Russia. The whole.agremeent was lredecated on the relationship.with Russia remaining in place.

Likewise joining PESCO wasn't an option. In 2013 it wasn't possible for non EU states to join PESCO.

But was he elected on a campaign which wanted an association agreement?

I never said joining PESCO was an option in 2013.  But PESCO was written into the Treaty of Lisbon of 2009, and it's aim was military alliance.

[Scott777]

Hang on, you can't just say something, call it fact and give no evidence.

Yes I can.  Not everything requires evidence.  What are you disputing?  The Revolution?  That VY was elected on a neutral campaign with no military alliances, and then removed by force, and a new government installed which was more in favour of the EU?  What evidence do you want?

[Unlucky4Sum]

And then in 2013 here he is urging his parliament to pass laws to help facilitate the association agreement.

And note that the EU was warning that progress on political freedoms needed to be made if the agreement were to be signed in November. Hardly the actions of a body hell bent on forcing Ukraine to sign.

Also note the beginnings of Russian pressure on Ukraine in the form of trade restrictions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-yanukovich

And if Russia had stuck to those trade restrictions it would have been legal and they would likely have got their way.  Ukraine had a history of abusing the Russian gas exports made through Ukraine.

[Scott777]

You are literally doing the thing I said you would do.

The manifesto says they want to join if given the chance

Not what you posted.  It depended on "the right terms", not "if given the chance".  What "the right terms" means is anyone's guess.

[Scott777]

More rubbish

The UK was never in the very limited remit PESCO and it was and is not obligatory on EU members

The UK was brought into the EEC and later EU as a result of democratic votes in General Elections where the winning party made its plan clear.

The UK did contribute to PESCO through funding the EU, so that was the first step, and the plan was obviously full integration.  That was the whole point.  It would not be of any use without full integration.

Whatever the winning party made clear, it's a bit late AFTER they have won.

[BeElBeeBub]

Ok, and did VY say before he was elected he wanted the association agreement?

And then in 2013 here he is urging his parliament to pass laws to help facilitate the association agreement. 

And note that the EU was warning that progress on political freedoms needed to be made if the agreement were to be signed in November. Hardly the actions of a body hell bent on forcing Ukraine to sign. 

Also note the beginnings of Russian pressure on Ukraine in the form of trade restrictions. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-yanukovich

[Unlucky4Sum]

Ok, and did VY say before he was elected he wanted the association agreement?

Yep  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4038803.stm 
 https://www.reuters.com/article/world/yanukovich-vows-to-keep-ukraine-out-of-nato-idUSTRE6062P3/  

"Ukraine's integration with the EU remains our strategic aim."

[Scott777]

Neither was joining the EU on the cards - the EU certainly didn't want Ukraine to join.

Both UKR and the EU were keen on closer ties though an association agreement. Such an agreement might be the first step towards membership but membership is not inevitable or immediate (as witnessed by Turkey who has been an associate of the EU/EEC for over 60 years) and the association agreement did not bind Ukr to participate in PESCO (it is unlikely the UKR forces in 2014 would be allowed to participate in PESCO or NATO as they were widely seen to be corrupt outdated relics of the Soviet era - which proved to be true.)

Ok, and did VY say before he was elected he wanted the association agreement?

[BeElBeeBub]

What does pro-EU mean to you?  As I've said, VY was elected in 2010 on a campaign of being neutral, cooperating with BOTH the EU and Russia, specifically in military neutrality.  Joining the EU would involve joining PESCO, a military alliance, therefore not acceptable.  Did he ever threaten to ally with Russia?  I don't think so.

Joining the EU wasn't on the cards. 

He (and his parliament) wanted an association agreement - closer ties with the EU. Eiaser trading, easier movement of Ukrainians in Europe , easier investment.  Nothing in the agreement meant cutting ties with Russia. The whole.agremeent was lredecated on the relationship.with Russia remaining in place.

Likewise joining PESCO wasn't an option. In 2013 it wasn't possible for non EU states to join PESCO.

So your argument is 100% invalid. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Hang on, you can't just say something, call it fact and give no evidence.

He does though. 

[Nick]

The state of Ukraine was forced into being pro EU & NATO against their will.  That's a fact.

Hang on, you can't just say something, call it fact and give no evidence. 

[Scott777]

Let's pretend the entire revolution was conducted by CIA agents, thry also kidnapped VY and dumped him in Russia before threatening the UKR parliament to remove him. (for the avoidance of doubt and because you are a bad faith debate - this is not what happened - this is a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how absurd you position is)

(let's put aside the parliament and VY had been for the EU deal since 2010 and the protests only happened when he  u turned and didn't sign the agreement).

There was still a democratic (and internationally observed) presidential and parliamentary election held a few months after. And that president and Parliament was (as the previous ones were) pro EU.

Do you want to contrast that process with what happened in Donbas and Crimea at the same time?

What does pro-EU mean to you?  As I've said, VY was elected in 2010 on a campaign of being neutral, cooperating with BOTH the EU and Russia, specifically in military neutrality.  Joining the EU would involve joining PESCO, a military alliance, therefore not acceptable.  Did he ever threaten to ally with Russia?  I don't think so.

There have been serious problems in Ukraine with elections, it's hard to say if they are genuine, or totally rigged.  VY was voted in on a neutral basis, you say a later election won on a "pro EU" basis.  So, what changed, and what does pro EU mean to you?  And whatever changed, it did happen because of the revolution.

[Scott777]

So how was NATO or the CIA responsible for this? And what business is it of Russia's what happens in another sovereign country?

There are 2 separate points.

The state of Ukraine was forced into being pro EU & NATO against their will.  That's a fact.

I believe the CIA were behind the revolution.  That's an opinion based on what I've looked into.  It's no surprise, given the finger is now being pointed at the CIA for blowing up Nord Stream II.  It's always about regime change and power.

[Nick]

Can we get back to Ukraine e (as this thread is. Supposed to be)

It appears that the Russian offensive against Pokrovst has slowed a bit short of the town and UKR has made some successful counter attacks in the area.


This would be a blow to those "russia. Stronk" observers.

If Russia cannot show a success there then it will have waited tens of thousands of me, hundreds of vehicles to capture some fields outside a town whilst the Ukrainian forces have taken a large bite out of Russian territory

And all that whilst Ukraine has been restrained from using it's best weapons to hit targets deep in Russia

Already started that process, your last post is now in your thread in Brexit. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Can we get back to Ukraine e (as this thread is. Supposed to be)

It appears that the Russian offensive against Pokrovst has slowed a bit short of the town and UKR has made some successful counter attacks in the area.


This would be a blow to those "russia. Stronk" observers.

If Russia cannot show a success there then it will have waited tens of thousands of me, hundreds of vehicles to capture some fields outside a town whilst the Ukrainian forces have taken a large bite out of Russian territory

And all that whilst Ukraine has been restrained from using it's best weapons to hit targets deep in Russia

Edit:  it also. Appears that Ukraine is developing weapons of. It's own with deep strike capabilities. These are unencumbered by restrictions and, whilst not as big as a missile with a 250kg warhead, like.ATACMS they pack a big enough punch to destroy a. Weapons depot, a flight line of jets or a barracks. And they are considerably cheaper whilst being (apparently) very hard for Russia to stop.