US and EU support for Ukraine fascists is sickening
Parts of Ukraine do not want to be part of anti-Russian government that was hand selected by America's ruling elite. Instead of allowing them separate and join Russia or become independent what does the West do? support Ukraine's mass murdering army who take over this region by killing people. At least 2,086 people have been killed in the east since mid-April, including civilians. 468 Ukraine soldiers had been killed with the rebels have reported losing at least 800 fighters. That means then 818 civilians have been killed right? UKIP seem to be the only party who speak the truth on this situation along with other far-right parties.
Nearly 300,000 people have been forced from their homes this year. More than 117,000 are displaced inside Ukraine, 87% of them from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, while a further 168,000 have crossed into Russia. Yet all the media can do is blame Russia and not the Kiev thugs they support. Why is nobody helping these people? they don't need liberating from Russia, it's not Russia who are shelling residential area's it's the US and EU supported Kiev government.
The current Ukraine government is an elected government. There was a presidential election in May which Poroshenko won. An election which pro-Russian separatists disrupted by forcibly closing down polling stations in some areas.
Civilian casualties do not mean mass murder is taking place - some collateral damage is inevitable in conflict. It's only mass murder when civilians are being deliberately targeted, and there is no evidence that this is taking place in Ukraine. And why do you assume that the Kiev government is responsible for all civilian casualties? Is it not possible that the actions of the rebels could cause quite a few of them?
Civilian casualties do not mean mass murder is taking place - some collateral damage is inevitable in conflict. It's only mass murder when civilians are being deliberately targeted, and there is no evidence that this is taking place in Ukraine. And why do you assume that the Kiev government is responsible for all civilian casualties? Is it not possible that the actions of the rebels could cause quite a few of them?
As well as the obvious deliberate targeting of civilians, parties to a conflict also commit a war crime when disproportionate or indiscriminate force has been used.
There is some evidence that the Ukrainian government and pro-Kiev militias have been indiscriminately killing civilians by using notoriously inaccurate rockets, the use of which in populated areas violates international humanitarian law. For example, Human Rights Watch has stated:
Incidentally, the aforementioned pro-Kiev militias are often neo-Nazi groups, as mentioned, almost in passing, by the New York Times, who noted that the town of Marinka now has a neo-Nazi flag flying over it after having been "liberated". What's worse is that this Kiev government is actively sponsoring these far-Right paramilitary groups to go "behind enemy lines".
On this basis, I don't think that the US and the EU should be "supporting" anyone in this conflict, so I do agree, overall, with your premise. Likewise, Russia shouldn't be supporting the separtists, who have also violated international law and committed human rights abuses.
However, if the Kiev government can be persuaded to put a halt to these actions, they can be legitimately supported. Whatever happened in the past (the overthrow of a democratically elected President by militants whose core was comprised of neo-Nazis), this government was also elected and arguing that it's an illegitimate government is a futile exercise: the net suffering in the world can either be increased or decreased by the two parties to this conflict, and the amount of suffering each is producing should determine whether our country supports them. At the moment, neither party is looking particularly promising.
My points above address these objections. In particular, the Kiev government is responsible for its use of indiscriminate rockets, to give just one example, and the rebels, whatever their actions, do not determine the government's choice of weapon. Also, "mass murder" is not the only issue to consider here.
There is some evidence that the Ukrainian government and pro-Kiev militias have been indiscriminately killing civilians by using notoriously inaccurate rockets, the use of which in populated areas violates international humanitarian law. For example, Human Rights Watch has stated:
all parties to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, particularly Ukrainian government forces, [should] stop using Grad rockets in or near populated areas because of the likelihood of killing and wounding civilians.
Incidentally, the aforementioned pro-Kiev militias are often neo-Nazi groups, as mentioned, almost in passing, by the New York Times, who noted that the town of Marinka now has a neo-Nazi flag flying over it after having been "liberated". What's worse is that this Kiev government is actively sponsoring these far-Right paramilitary groups to go "behind enemy lines".
On this basis, I don't think that the US and the EU should be "supporting" anyone in this conflict, so I do agree, overall, with your premise. Likewise, Russia shouldn't be supporting the separtists, who have also violated international law and committed human rights abuses.
However, if the Kiev government can be persuaded to put a halt to these actions, they can be legitimately supported. Whatever happened in the past (the overthrow of a democratically elected President by militants whose core was comprised of neo-Nazis), this government was also elected and arguing that it's an illegitimate government is a futile exercise: the net suffering in the world can either be increased or decreased by the two parties to this conflict, and the amount of suffering each is producing should determine whether our country supports them. At the moment, neither party is looking particularly promising.
Original post by RFowler
Civilian casualties do not mean mass murder is taking place - some collateral damage is inevitable in conflict. It's only mass murder when civilians are being deliberately targeted, and there is no evidence that this is taking place in Ukraine. And why do you assume that the Kiev government is responsible for all civilian casualties? Is it not possible that the actions of the rebels could cause quite a few of them?
My points above address these objections. In particular, the Kiev government is responsible for its use of indiscriminate rockets, to give just one example, and the rebels, whatever their actions, do not determine the government's choice of weapon. Also, "mass murder" is not the only issue to consider here.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by RFowler
The current Ukraine government is an elected government. There was a presidential election in May which Poroshenko won. An election which pro-Russian separatists disrupted by forcibly closing down polling stations in some areas.
Civilian casualties do not mean mass murder is taking place - some collateral damage is inevitable in conflict. It's only mass murder when civilians are being deliberately targeted, and there is no evidence that this is taking place in Ukraine. And why do you assume that the Kiev government is responsible for all civilian casualties? Is it not possible that the actions of the rebels could cause quite a few of them?
Civilian casualties do not mean mass murder is taking place - some collateral damage is inevitable in conflict. It's only mass murder when civilians are being deliberately targeted, and there is no evidence that this is taking place in Ukraine. And why do you assume that the Kiev government is responsible for all civilian casualties? Is it not possible that the actions of the rebels could cause quite a few of them?
Voted in after illegal elections.
Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Voted in after illegal elections.
Were they though? As far as I can see they were legal and judged free and fair by observers.
Original post by RFowler
Were they though? As far as I can see they were legal and judged free and fair by observers.
Well what we see/told isn't always the whole picture. It just seems like a big coincidence these elections are deemed legal because they support the agenda of the US/EU but because the Crimea referendum didn't that was illegal. As much as certain western countries try to refute it's obvious there's a lot of Russian support in Eastern Ukraine so why shouldn't they be free to side with Russia surely they can revolt against the "government" like their pro-EU predessors did.
Original post by RFowler
Were they though? As far as I can see they were legal and judged free and fair by observers.
Ukraine had a democratically elected leader and he was forced out due to EU assistance. I have also read some issues about the number of MP's (not enough voting) voting on issues about the following election and authorising voting etc., but I am not exactly an expert on Ukraine law.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Full GMC registration with Ukrainian Medical Diploma
- I would like some sugestions of schools to go to
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- RA Butler Politics Prize (Cambridge University)
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- Study Medicine in Europe
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- I have no friends, no relationship, nothing, I'm rejected for my Nationality
- Remembrance Day . . . remembering what?
- New search On The Student Room!
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Edexcel A Level History Option 2G Italy
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- How popular is Telegram in the UK?
- Sofia Medical University 2023
- Political Quiz: Are you a fascist?
- gcse english langauge paper 1 q2
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
