Bludgeon wrote:People who support Turchynov's non-elected government - what is the reason for this support? The clear and present reason.
I don't think most people have a strong opinion on Ukraine's inner struggle, or the government in Kiev. Only those who have swallowed the Russian state media narrative are energized. Elections are scheduled for May 25, there will be heavy international monitoring. Obviously violence instigated by Putin will make elections impossible in some regions, but this best hope for way forward.
What's unfortunate in my opinion is that you seem to intentionally choose to believe only propaganda. What any objective observer should be doing is working to establish the bare, unadulterated facts. With all the propagandic flare, sussing out the essentials is the only way to have a clear idea what's going on.
Discern the fundamentals; these are the foundation without which there is no understanding. Discern the fundamentals and don't stray far from this foundation until more facts can be discerned. This may sound limiting, but you'd be surprised how much there is to see from this perspective, and how much clearer the view for not being muddied up with pointed diversions.
The truth is, the bare unadulterated facts have never been in question. Narrative, no narrative, fuck narrative, these are the facts:
1. Ukraine held a presidential election in 2010; the results of that election were certified and binding. Party of Regions candidate Viktor Yanukovych won; Batkivshyna candidate Yulia Tymoshenko lost. Result: Viktor Yanukovych is
the legal president of Ukraine. Still.
2. Batkivshyna activists staged a coup in February 2014 in which many people were killed and Ukraine's president had to flee for his life.
3. The presidential elections were only 3 months away but rather than trust their fate to the voters, the Batkivshyna took over the national government, illegally installed an unelected presidential administration, then rewrote the Ukrainian constitution, in stark defiance to the democratic process.
4. Having illegally deposed the people's chosen president, Turchynov, first deputy chairman OF the losing opposition party, has no legitimate authority in Ukraine. He was not elected; the last time his party faced an election it lost. An illegitimate government by it's very nature cannot host a legitimate election. By the way, who do you think is on the ballot, but 2010 Batkivshyna party loser, Yulia Tymoshenko, who's unelected pal is illegally keeping her seat warm for her?
5. Having taken Kiev by mob and by force, the unelected mob in Kiev now sees fit to outlaw protests and demonstrations. They are labeling as 'terrorists', all Ukrainians who rightfully reject the dominion of these Batkivschyna usurpers.
6. Having declared Ukraine's citizens "terrorists", the Batkivshcyna are threatening and killing them with masked men. They've sent in the police, they've sent in the military. Everyone is wearing masks so the truth is no one knows who any of these people are.
7. What is known is that Kiev has had an impossible time dealing with these protests because it has become quite apparent that large numbers of EVEN the police and military will not support their illegal rule.
"I would like to say frankly that at the moment the security structures are unable to swiftly take the situation in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions back under control," he said during a meeting with regional governors.
He admitted security personnel "tasked with the protection of citizens" were "helpless".
"More than that, some of these units either aid or co-operate
with *-"terrorist"-* groups," he said.
You have shown again and again that you're unable to disprove any of this. And, other than the "narrative", the United States doesn't dispute any of these facts either. You're just wasting my time with this extraneous nonsense about Hitler and Milosevic. I want to establish what is and is not indisputable for the purpose of a constructive dialogue; you really seem like you're not going to be happy with anything but an endless tirade of absolutely useless talking points.
You can disagree with the 'narrative'
, but none of the above items are in dispute in any sense other than the tilt of their portrayal. You're trying to pin it all on Russia, but these are Ukrainian police and military justifiably refusing the orders of Kiev.
Translation of 'narrative': the glut of bullshit propagandists lather 'round the facts for eager partisans to understand who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are supposed
to be. Supposed to be. But it all really means nothing. Everything but the facts is a diversion. Everything but the foundation is unsustainable.
You keep falling back on the straw man of what my tilt is 'supposed' to be - is the problem that you're unable to understand anything without tilt? If it isn't something predefined, you have no method of interpretation? You can respond how you like, but it's pretty clear you've got a part for everyone, regardless if they want to play talking points or not. You keep falling back on the straw man, but the truth is you actually have no idea what the Russian media narrative is. You only know what you are told the Russian media narrative is; being a good partisan, you only respond how you're programmed to respond, I guess.
Just get down to the facts and address what's going on in Kiev, or shut up and quit wasting everyone's time with this good soldier, partisan puppet routine.