What is going on in Kiev?

Pages

I saw someone mention this on Facebook and found an article on it but I have no idea of what these protests are about.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...

Yeh. What sparked it off was the pres. not agreeing to a EU free tade deal. I have never seen anybody get so riled up about free trade.

BTW the president in question was the skumbag that was there before the Orange Revolution, so it is not like the guy has a stellar record.

Their President got in power on an anti-Russia platform and then when he got in power changed his mind and they're upset. President did a switcheroo and is getting buddy buddy with Russia again.

To combat the protests they've put out a curfew and that's when things started getting violent.

That's the gist of it, I believe.

Tenebrous wrote:

Yeh. What sparked it off was the pres. not agreeing to a EU free tade deal. I have never seen anybody get so riled up about free trade.

BTW the president in question was the skumbag that was there before the Orange Revolution, so it is not like the guy has a stellar record.

Don't think it's some much to do with the EU as half the people are anti-Russia and Russian influence.

I understand he's passed a number of laws that essentially shut down the rule of law in the last few days.

Vice did a two part video series on what's going on back in December. Vice is not a journalistic organisation and I'm not a fan of everything they do (the Kim Dotcom fluff piece being one example) but this provides a good explanation and on-the-ground perspectives.

Robear wrote:

I understand he's passed a number of laws that essentially shut down the rule of law in the last few days.

Yep - that step turned what was a relatively small, peaceful protest into an all-out battle. At this point it is less about the EU/Russia thing and more about Yanukovych trying to become a dictator.

Also a bit of humor:

https://github.com/fre5h/DoctrineEnumBundle/pull/12

I like Vice as a sort of slice of life type journalism, but most of those kids know more about hair gel than they do about journalism.

This article goes into a lot more depth about the causes:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...

IMAGE(http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ukraine-priests.jpg)

Click for story

Brings back memories of my grandfathers' Russian Orthodox funeral. 8 frikkin' hours standing in the basement of that cathedral. I was high on myrrh.

Miashara wrote:

IMAGE(http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ukraine-priests.jpg)

Click for story

Blessed are the peacemakes for they will be called the childern of God.

garion333 wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

Yeh. What sparked it off was the pres. not agreeing to a EU free tade deal. I have never seen anybody get so riled up about free trade.

BTW the president in question was the skumbag that was there before the Orange Revolution, so it is not like the guy has a stellar record.

Don't think it's some much to do with the EU as half the people are anti-Russia and Russian influence.

Disagree. Every revolution in history is ultimately about standard of living. In 2003, Poland and the Ukraine had roughly the same level of GDP per capita. At the same time Poland joined the EU and the ratio is now four to one. Not suggesting there is a straight line but the Ukrainian people see one. They see their neighbours doing well and want the same for themselves. The details of the trade deal are completely unimportant but it's the perception of where the countries fortunes lay.

To back that point further up, Belarus is worse than Ukraine on a democratic level but Lukashenko has grown the economy reasonably well. Not as well as the former soviet states that joined the EU but well enough to avoid what Yanukovych is facing. Perhaps just enough to avoid poor comparisons with Ukraine.

You simply can't get vast numbers protesting about geopolitical or human rights issues. What they have in their pocket at the end of the week, not a problem.

What about revolutions that *lowered* the standard of living? China, for example, or Cambodia/Kampuchea? Or revolutions that seem to have nothing to do with the standard of living? The English Civil War? The separation of the two Roman empires in 480AD? The Taiping Rebellion?

Maybe instead of "standard of living", "oppression" might be a better word?

Axon wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

Yeh. What sparked it off was the pres. not agreeing to a EU free tade deal. I have never seen anybody get so riled up about free trade.

BTW the president in question was the skumbag that was there before the Orange Revolution, so it is not like the guy has a stellar record.

Don't think it's some much to do with the EU as half the people are anti-Russia and Russian influence.

Disagree. Every revolution in history is ultimately about standard of living. In 2003, Poland and the Ukraine had roughly the same level of GDP per capita. At the same time Poland joined the EU and the ratio is now four to one. Not suggesting there is a straight line but the Ukrainian people see one. They see their neighbours doing well and want the same for themselves. The details of the trade deal are completely unimportant but it's the perception of where the countries fortunes lay.

To back that point further up, Belarus is worse than Ukraine on a democratic level but Lukashenko has grown the economy reasonably well. Not as well as the former soviet states that joined the EU but well enough to avoid what Yanukovych is facing. Perhaps just enough to avoid poor comparisons with Ukraine.

You simply can't get vast numbers protesting about geopolitical or human rights issues. What they have in their pocket at the end of the week, not a problem.

I don't think for a second that being closer to the EU isn't part of what's going on, but I was saying that much of this is because the people don't want more Russian influence. Really, they're two sides of the same coin.

At this point, however, the escalation in protests and violence seems to be more and more about the un-Democratic laws and corruption. Or at least that's what Western media is telling me.

I'ts really a mixed bag. The economic factors are imortant but so are the nationalistic. Russia is viewing former Soviet republics as their lost birthright. I should know, I live in one. They manipulate and strongarm and do so without much finesse, I must say. So people in those countries are really fearing the Russia getting its hooks into them too deep.
Putin has publicly declared that he views collapse of USSR as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. We are all lost children, shunning their benevolent parents, at least in Kremlin view.
Meanwhile, the children are quite happy not being part of a paranoid corruption empire with dreams of grandeur.
Ukraine is pretty torn itself. The regions bordering with Russia are generally poorer and tend to view Russia at least as friends, basking in soviet nostalgia when there was no unemployment, grass was greener and although you didnt have much, neither did your neiggbour. Other half of the country looks toward EU as a shileld against Kremlin's influence. Current governments ham fisted handling of the protests might have tipped opinion balance a bit to the western side. But it's a tad hard to say for sure looking from the outside.

Robear wrote:

What about revolutions that *lowered* the standard of living? China, for example, or Cambodia/Kampuchea? Or revolutions that seem to have nothing to do with the standard of living? The English Civil War? The separation of the two Roman empires in 480AD? The Taiping Rebellion?

Maybe instead of "standard of living", "oppression" might be a better word?

In China it really depends on who you are looking at, e.g. Land reform, which took land from land owners and gave it to the peasants was a definite step up for the rural poor which made up most of the Country's population.

Like the Communist revolution, the Taipings probably would not have had as much success as hey did if the country's rural poor were in a good position.

The English civil war was mostly about the power of the King to tax (and taxation's subsequent reduction in income) without parliament's consent, a theme replayed during the American revolution.

While I would disagree with the sentiment that they are all about standard of living, the economic state of the situation and the cultural perspective on economic issues tend to be strong factors in social upheaval.

I agree - strong factors. But not *the* factor in *all* collapses.

I'm fine with that. Strong factor will do me. However, while there are usually other issues that act as the catalyst, the reality is that without it you simply won't get the numbers in a revolution or uprising in order to actually pressure the incumbent power structure. That is a consistent. Or at the very least in the vast majority. Which basically means we are more of less in agreement

Situation on the ground is very tense. German Foreign Minister calling for sanctions and the German Ambassador gets called for a "friendly conversation". This could genuinely spiral out of control at this stage seeing as the Germans are getting a little hawkish.

To offer a little background here, Germany is the most reluctant of all the EU states to act against foreign states (for obvious reasons). If Germany is shifting, this means the EU could well start to take a more active role, at the very least ape the US sanctions, which may have unintended consequences. Although part of me thinks that at the very least Russia is going to behave seeing as they have invested so much in the Sochi games. That said, I have yet to find anybody offer anything concrete on what will happen the following day nevermind the coming weeks.

At least 35 people reported killed over the past two days. The truce that was under way is not accepted by everyone, but it seems like the opposition wants to work with the current government while radical groups are escalating the violence.

IMAGE(http://well-of-souls.com/civ/images/gak_agents.gif)

One of the things I find facinating about this is the difference in tone of these stories vs. stories about the "Arab Spring" In both cases protesters were fighting rather authoritarian governments but the tone of the AS coverage felt much more "good for them! Way to stand up to the evil dictators" Certainly no one is saying Yanukovych is a good guy but the coverage seems to be much more 50/50 for blame.

Oh and I heard that that Obama warned the government about "crossing a line". That worked out so well last time I wonder why he said something so stupid again. Seriously it has been proven that if a government "crosses a line" against their own people the US will do diddle so why does he keep threatening?

farley3k wrote:

Oh and I heard that that Obama warned the government about "crossing a line". That worked out so well last time I wonder why he said something so stupid again. Seriously it has been proven that if a government "crosses a line" against their own people the US will do diddle so why does he keep threatening?

Sanctions.

farley3k wrote:

One of the things I find facinating about this is the difference in tone of these stories vs. stories about the "Arab Spring" In both cases protesters were fighting rather authoritarian governments but the tone of the AS coverage felt much more "good for them! Way to stand up to the evil dictators" Certainly no one is saying Yanukovych is a good guy but the coverage seems to be much more 50/50 for blame.

That's because with the Arab Spring, the protesters were fighting against governments that the U.S. government had backed for decades; the media spin was damage control to make people think the U.S. was supporting the protesters instead of the repressive governments. The Ukrainian government is Russian-backed, so what you're seeing in the West is relatively realistic coverage flavored with whatever Russian PR leaks out. It's similar to how Al-Jazeera can be relied upon for fairly decent reporting as long its not about Qatar.

It's similar to how Al-Jazeera can be relied upon for fairly decent reporting as long its not about Qatar.

I used to think they were a little too pro-Muslim Brotherhood, but after watching what's been happening in Egypt, I think they were probably right.

I didn't like those guys much, but I like the new guys even less.

garion333 wrote:
farley3k wrote:

Oh and I heard that that Obama warned the government about "crossing a line". That worked out so well last time I wonder why he said something so stupid again. Seriously it has been proven that if a government "crosses a line" against their own people the US will do diddle so why does he keep threatening?

Sanctions.

Well, this time, it is white people dying, so it's possible both sides of the aisle might agree we should fix that.

Malor wrote:
It's similar to how Al-Jazeera can be relied upon for fairly decent reporting as long its not about Qatar.

I used to think they were a little too pro-Muslim Brotherhood, but after watching what's been happening in Egypt, I think they were probably right.

I didn't like those guys much, but I like the new guys even less.

Also, the new regime has binned a bunch of their reporters in prison.

Some of the footage of protesters apparently being fired upon though is....

67 dead since Tuesday, 39 on Thursday alone. EU has voted pretty much unanimously to impose sanctions.

Apparently, there are snipers shooting the protesters. This is horrible and crazy and way too reminiscent of the war in Bosnia.

The good news is that things are quite a bit quieter today after Yanukovych said they would hold early elections and a return to the earlier constitution.

Now, let's see how things turn out as nothing is finalized as of yet.

farley3k wrote:

Oh and I heard that that Obama warned the government about "crossing a line". That worked out so well last time I wonder why he said something so stupid again. Seriously it has been proven that if a government "crosses a line" against their own people the US will do diddle so why does he keep threatening?

He's simply backing up the EU's position.

Pages