Taking the "U" out of the UK

[FunkyDexter]

Sheesh, I'll procrastinate for two days before closing a thread on this forum because I'm never sure I'm doing the right thing. I'd be pretty inneffective as the president of my local book club, let alone the world.

Mind you, I can think of plenty of presidents who "got the girl". Kennedy, Clinton, Sarcosi, Beeblebrox. Hmmm, it might be worth a try.

[InvisibleDuncan]

You could argue that the coup was "legal" (whatever that means in international politics) under the principle of self determination as it's quite clear that the majority of Ukranians wanted a change of leadership.

I'm actually not convinced that this is true. I would agree that a majority of Kievians wanted a change of leadership, but it doesn't follow that the whole of the country did. It was a case of the Metropolitan elite, heavily pushed and supported by the EU, overthrowing a government which had been voted into power and that was still popular in a lot of the rest of the country. No-one voted the current Kiev government into power, and yet the people who object to the coup that put them there - i.e. the ones who support the democratically-elected government - are the bad guys according to Western politicians and media.

Either way, in a democracy you shouldn't have a coup simply because the current government is no longer universally popular. What you do is campaign for change and put up your own candidates to oppose the incumbents when the next election comes around. Could you imagine the reaction if the Countryside Alliance had overthrown our last Labour government, or if Common Purpose overthrew the current Tory-led one?

[FunkyDexter]

I think I'd agree with pretty much all of that. The point I was trying to make was simply that you couldn't look at Ukraine as a black and White issue. The way it's being reported over here (UK) you'd forget there was a Coup at all and think it was an entirely one sided issue, I just wanted to highlight that it isn't.

I do get the impression that the majority wanted a change (at least that's the way it's being reported but it's always hard to tell when the media is being strictly honest or not) but you're right, the correct thing to do in that case is to campaign for change. However, I do also think that a populace has a moral (though by definition not legal) right to protest and/or revolt, even in a democracy. That's simply because it's the final safety net for the people. Whether Ukraine had got to the point where the people really needed to use that safety net... I have to say, that's a highly dubious proposition.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

but you're right, the correct thing to do in that case is to campaign for change

Hmm this is a difficult one.

Yes there was a coup d'tat or change of government without elections BUT

The Russians have been interfering with Ukraine for some time and one of the main reasons Viktor Yanukovych was in charge was because when Ukraine elected one of its own Russia turned off the Gas!!

The Coup was pretty much Ukraine sticking two fingers up to constant Russian interference.

In the current situation should Crimea be able to hold a Vote on Independence, well there are good Arguments for it ...

BUT its should have been done with out force and with out Troops on the ground, and not in the space of a week. If the citizens of Crimea had been able to have a campaign like the Scottish referendum that would have been fair.

[FunkyDexter]

And again, I think I'd agree with pretty much all of that. Everything that both you and ID are saying is correct. The problem is that folks tend to emphasise just one side.

Russia was definitely interfering and had been for years, no doubt about that But then again that interference was largely precipitated by Nato making overtures to formerly Eastern Block countries, something they've repeatedly assured Moscow they wouldn't do. They've even signed treaties to that effect.

And the coup was illegal (thay all are - that's why they're coups) and perhaps they could have campaigned democratically but Yanukovich was fairly obviously a Russian puppet and it's pretty doubtful that a democratic aproach would have worked even with majority popular support.

And the Crimea would alomst certainly have voted itself independence if given a chance but there can't really be any doubt that there were Russian Soldiers on the ground (despite their continued denials) speeding up the process at the potential cost of peoples lives.

Overall I think the obvious pattern is that most of the problems Ukraine is facing aren't of its own making, they're caused by interference from Russia and Nato. These two power blocks are still competing for dominance in Eastern Europe, they never really stopped. It's just particularly obvious in teh Ukraine because of it's naturally divided populace. But that popoulace would probably get along just fine if it wasb't for Russia and Nato's interference.

[techgnome]

I'm fairly certain if they had gone with a sedan rather than a coups we wouldn't be having this conversation.

-tg