MH17: Ukraine separatist commander admits rebels had Buk missile system - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Conscript;45478571]Heh, it seems you know my opinions better than myself, or you just blindly rate my posts because I never said that. I don't care if the rebels are supplied by Russia. Good on them if it's such the case, pro-Ukrainians don't get to force their views on half the country just because they have the army & state.[/QUOTE] This whole argument is getting tiresome. You can't justify this whole conflict on the basis that some 'Ukrainians' (assuming they are all actually Ukrainian (doubtful)) oppose the views of the rest of the Ukrainians. That's not how democracy works - you don't go declaring yourself independent every time the majority of your country does something you don't like. It's like with the upcoming Scottish referendum - hypothetically if Scotland was to vote to become independent, would that justify an uprising by all those who wanted to remain British? Hell no. They either should relocate to UK territory, or accept that that is simply the will of the majority.

[QUOTE=David29;45479471]This whole argument is getting tiresome. You can't justify this whole conflict on the basis that some 'Ukrainians' (assuming they are all actually Ukrainian (doubtful)) oppose the views of the rest of the Ukrainians. That's not how democracy works - you don't go declaring yourself independent every time the majority of your country does something you don't like. It's like with the upcoming Scottish referendum - hypothetically if Scotland was to vote to become independent, would that justify an uprising by all those who wanted to remain British? Hell no. They either should relocate to UK territory, or accept that that is simply the will of the majority.[/QUOTE] This is one of the better posts. The problem I have with this comparison is this: 1. Scotland never had any equivalent to Soviet Korenization and the attachment of first Novorossiya, and then Crimea to Ukraine. These areas are historically very pro-soviet and pro-russian (they weren't originally part of Ukraine), unlike nationalist and anti-soviet west Ukraine which was added later. Instead, Scotland's borders are well-defined and have been for centuries. 2. As a result, Scotland is far more homogeneous and does not have an identity problem. Also it is not a frail state vulnerable to outside influence and selected as a battleground for those influences. 3. Scottish independence is not tied to picking a side in a identity problem, it is not inherently 'anti-English' or has to 'prove itself' by hating England and the English. Its history of independence movements do not feature very controversial nationalists like Petliura and Bandera. On top of that, its independence movement never flirted with the nazis. 4. Democracy was thrown out the window on February 21st and with Maidan in general, there is no 'will of the majority', there is just the will of West/Central and East/South Ukraine. One looks to Russia, the other to the West. 5. I doubt Scotland's independence will be accompanied by a nationalist gesture like Ukraine's repeal of the 2012 language law. In light of this divide, which is not respected by neither West Ukrainians nor the West, I don't think this counts as just another example of 'the majority doing something you don't like', it's even hard to speak of one. I think these are two very different areas of Ukraine and history corresponds to that, it ought be respected and Ukraine federalize or just plain split. But having the nationalism of west Ukraine and the economy of the Russophone, pro-Russian East in a 'national unity' government is out of the question. It's disgusting and nothing short of oppression.

[QUOTE=Conscript;45479626]This is one of the better posts. The problem I have with this comparison is this: 1. Scotland never had any equivalent to Soviet Korenization and the attachment of first Novorossiya, and then Crimea to Ukraine. These areas are historically very pro-soviet and pro-russian (they weren't originally part of Ukraine), unlike nationalist and anti-soviet west Ukraine which was added later. Instead, Scotland's borders are well-defined and have been for centuries. 2. As a result, Scotland is far more homogeneous and does not have an identity problem. Also it is not a frail state vulnerable to outside influence and selected as a battleground for those influences. 3. Scottish independence is not tied to picking a side in a identity problem, it is not inherently 'anti-English' or has to 'prove itself' by hating England and the English. Its history of independence movements do not feature very controversial nationalists like Petliura and Bandera. On top of that, its independence movement never flirted with the nazis. 4. Democracy was thrown out the window on February 21st and with Maidan in general, there is no 'will of the majority', there is just the will of West/Central and East/South Ukraine. One looks to Russia, the other to the West. 5. I doubt Scotland's independence will be accompanied by a nationalist gesture like Ukraine's[b] repeal of the 2012 language law.[/b][/QUOTE] Mother fucker every time with this dumb shit. [quote=Wikipedia]"A [b]proposal[/b] to repeal the law was vetoed on 28 February 2014 by acting President Oleksandr Turchynov, [b]who ordered drafting of a new law to "accommodate the interests of both eastern and western Ukraine and of all ethnic groups and minorities."[/b][/quote] Could you stop this. It's fucking tiring. Yes, the Rada approved it, but it was repealed as a veto from the acting President because it was fucking ludicrous. I know English is your main language, how can you fucking believe something was repealed when it was proposed for repeal and shot down? Oh wait because it makes an argument you keep going to sound valid(it's not).

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;45479687] Could you stop this. It's fucking tiring. Yes, the Rada approved it, but it was repealed as a veto from the acting President because it was fucking ludicrous.[/QUOTE] No, because it shows the radicalness of the lower parts of the state, which is inherently more popular in how states work. Think of the difference in behavior between GOP'ers in the House, and those in the Senate. All the ridiculous shit takes place in the house, pretty much. This bill was a focal point of fights in the Rada and a nationalist issue for years. Support for it defined the party of regions, and opposition to it defined the West Ukrainian parties (who all voted in line with each other to repeal this, even Poroshenko voted to repeal it). [b]That cannot be ignored[/b]. It was Ukraine's East-West divide made manifest in the peace-time government, and what happened as soon as one side had exclusive power in the Rada, after Maidan? All this veto proves is that the president was smart enough to realize the radicals in his own base will push the people he wants to stay in Ukraine, out of Ukraine. Of course, then he goes and calls for a ban of the Communist Party. Sorry if I'm pissing you off though. I'm not doing it on purpose, I just find it very significant and it says a lot.

What your saying, comparing the Rada's considering for repealing the language law, is like saying all the House Republican's who wanted to impeach Obama and throw out the Affordable Healthcare Act were successful. They weren't. That's the smoke and mirror connection you're making saying "Oh look at American government for an example". What was the example, that your excuse is shit? I know. Because even here when dumb shit is proposed, it's veto'd by the President.

[QUOTE=Conscript;45479626]This is one of the better posts. The problem I have with this comparison is this: 1. Scotland never had any equivalent to Soviet Korenization and the attachment of first Novorossiya, and then Crimea to Ukraine. These areas are historically very pro-soviet and pro-russian (they weren't originally part of Ukraine), unlike nationalist and anti-soviet west Ukraine which was added later. Instead, Scotland's borders are well-defined and have been for centuries. 2. As a result, Scotland is far more homogeneous and does not have an identity problem. Also it is not a frail state vulnerable to outside influence and selected as a battleground for those influences. 3. Scottish independence is not tied to picking a side in a identity problem, it is not inherently 'anti-English' or has to 'prove itself' by hating England and the English. Its history of independence movements do not feature very controversial nationalists like Petliura and Bandera. On top of that, its independence movement never flirted with the nazis. 4. Democracy was thrown out the window on February 21st and with Maidan in general, there is no 'will of the majority', there is just the will of West/Central and East/South Ukraine. One looks to Russia, the other to the West. 5. I doubt Scotland's independence will be accompanied by a nationalist gesture like Ukraine's repeal of the 2012 language law. In light of this divide, which is not respected by neither West Ukrainians nor the West, I don't think this counts as just another example of 'the majority doing something you don't like', it's even hard to speak of one. I think these are two very different areas of Ukraine and history corresponds to that, it ought be respected and Ukraine federalize or just plain split. But having the nationalism of west Ukraine and the economy of the Russophone, pro-Russian East in a 'national unity' government is out of the question. It's disgusting and nothing short of oppression.[/QUOTE] Having differences and grievances is fine and all, and I can see how Scotland is different to Ukraine (although I don't think that the age of a nation should ultimately have any impact on how its population resolve their differences). However, the fundamental problem I have with your argument is this: you say "Pro-Ukrainians don't get to force their views on half the country just because they have the army & state." What if I flip this around and say: "[b]Anti[/b]-Ukrainians don't get to force their views on half the country just because they have they have Russian support."?

A buk has been seen in eastern Ukraine. A buk was seen crossing the border back to Russia, missing a missile after the incident. There.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;45479807]What your saying, comparing the Rada's considering for repealing the language law, is like saying all the House Republican's who wanted to impeach Obama and throw out the Affordable Healthcare Act were successful. They weren't. That's the smoke and mirror connection you're making saying "Oh look at American government for an example". What was the example, that your excuse is shit? I know. Because even here when dumb shit is proposed, it's veto'd by the President.[/QUOTE] It was just a way to show that lower levels of state are both more grass-roots and radical, and that the Rada's repeal of the language law reflects on its base along similar lines. Your point was the president's veto somehow mitigated this base, this radicalism openly proliferated in west Ukraine. That radicalism is what makes pro-Russians want to split in the first place, and I don't see at all how that concern is addressed by a pro-Ukrainian installed president being forced protect those pro-Ukrainians [i]from themselves[/i], else they'd tear apart the country. Meanwhile he moves the whole country to the EU and rages over Crimea's self-determination. [quote]"Anti-Ukrainians don't get to force their views on half the country just because they have they have Russian support."?[/quote] The issue is anti-Maidan isn't insisting on 'national unity' of Ukraine. It isn't trying to force its views on west Ukraine, it just wants independence and to keep its ties to Russia. Essentially, where pro-Ukrainians want 'unity' in the form of having the nationalism of the West and the economy of the east, pro-Russians just want to piss off and have their own state. One is on the offensive, the other on the defensive.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;45478393]I just gave you direct info from guardian themselfs.[/QUOTE] What you posted was literally the guardian reporting that someone else reported something. That doesn't strength an argument. It provides no more credence than you (or anyone else) pointing out the article on the Russian news site.

[QUOTE]Crimea's self-determination[/QUOTE] Is this what you call Russia's military presence?

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;45479839]A buk has been seen in eastern Ukraine. A buk was seen crossing the border back to Russia, missing a missile after the incident. There.[/QUOTE] Don't go bringing Occam's Razor into this lad, you'll be swarmed by Conscript et al for not providing enough evidence valid in their eyes to support it.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45479955]Is this what you call Russia's military presence?[/QUOTE] Crimea made moves against maidan and towards independence prior to the referendum, and that referendum is overwhelmingly supported by Crimeans. Russia's military presence pretty much just let it happen and insulated the region from the post-maidan chaos. I know you don't believe anything that has to do with Russians and elections, or that an election could be carried out during an occupation (though that makes me wonder how you'd feel about, say, South Korea), but even Pew polls show Crimeans believe the referendum was fair and that Kiev should recognize it. And why not? Crimea is the most pro-russian region of all, and basically [i]is[/i] Russian. Did anyone seriously have any doubts on how they felt about a pro-West movement that brought Russophobic nationalists out of the woodwork?

[QUOTE=Conscript;45479914]The issue is anti-Maidan isn't insisting on 'national unity' of Ukraine. It isn't trying to force its views on west Ukraine, it just wants independence and to keep its ties to Russia. Essentially, where pro-Ukrainians want 'unity' in the form of having the nationalism of the West and the economy of the east, pro-Russians just want to piss off and have their own state. One is on the offensive, the other on the defensive.[/QUOTE] But they are trying to force their views on Ukraine. First, they are taking sovereign land away from that country and claiming it as their own/part of Russia. Second, (as a by-product of the previous point), they are forcing all pro-Ukrainian persons in that area to accept a pro-Russian state. So now they would be in a completely reversed situation whereby the pro-Ukrainians are the minority and the pro-Russians are the majority. How can this be acceptable when this is the exact same type of issue the rebels are fighting over at the moment?

[QUOTE=Conscript;45480011]Crimea made moves against maidan and towards independence prior to the referendum, and that referendum is overwhelmingly supported by Crimeans. Russia's military presence pretty much just let it happen and insulated the region from the post-maidan chaos. I know you don't believe anything that has to do with Russians and elections, or that an election could be carried out during an occupation (though that makes me wonder how you'd feel about, say, South Korea), but even Pew polls show Crimeans believe the referendum was fair and that Kiev should recognize it. And why not? Crimea is the most pro-russian region of all, and basically [i]is[/i] Russian. Did anyone seriously have any doubts on how they felt about a pro-West movement that brought Russophobic nationalists out of the woodwork?[/QUOTE] Why didn't a referendum happen when a pro-Russian president was on duty and yet it only happened when Russia occupied and FORCED a referendum, which later was proved extremely controversial with multiple reports of votes being biased and favored towards Crimean Independence?

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45478209]Not Conscript, mdeceiver79 and Karimatrix.[/QUOTE] forgot laserguided, he believes that this was a ukrainian konspiracy

[QUOTE=David29;45480043]But they are trying to force their views on Ukraine. First, they are taking sovereign land away from that country and claiming it as their own/part of Russia. Second, (as a by-product of the previous point), they are forcing all pro-Ukrainian persons in that area to accept a pro-Russian state. So now they would be in a completely reversed situation whereby the pro-Ukrainians are the minority and the pro-Russians are the majority. How can this be acceptable when this is the exact same type of issue the rebels are fighting over at the moment?[/QUOTE] While most people in the East and South don't want to separate, they don't want Kiev either yet these are probably the only real paths. The Russians are pissed and Kiev doesn't want to federalize or stop the motions towards the West. Inevitably, those caught in the middle will be neglected. However, I think the question is, is that an argument for either extreme's victory? Certainly not Maidan's, which instigated this divide in the first place and neglected the [i]whole[/i] of East and South Ukraine and only seeks to assimilate it. I believe it is sooner one for the other extreme, separatism. It will solve this national divide once and for all and not by making Ukrainians start identifying as Russians, or something, just by asserting self-determination and everyone can go their own paths. Essentially, what you're saying is that separatism is too radical a pro-russian position and will alienate federalization supporters, neutral people, etc. This I agree with, however because of this conflict between the West and Russia, because Kiev so badly wants to be in the EU, I fear there is no alternative. Additionally, being a pro-Ukrainian in a pro-Russian state likely amounts to a Russian speaker that likes the EU and supports maidan, they are not faced with Ukraine's identity crisis. Contrast this to a pro-russian in a pro-ukrainian oblast, they are a hated 'Muscovite' minority that likely speaks a different language and has russian blood, they are different from those around them. Woe to any (pro-)Russian that lives in Galicia. But can you say the same of the Ukrainian in Novorossiya, where Russians view them as east slavic brothers?

[QUOTE=karimatrix;45478410]Oh my god please don't go that path, oufcourse they wil write it this way, they are not suicidal ffs. Remember when i posted about interview with Ukranian Prime Prosecutor stating that rebels never possesed any Buks, right after crash? Gues what, he denies that too now.[/QUOTE] What the Ukrainian prosecutor said was that the military claimed the rebels had no Buks. Surprise surprise, sometimes the Ukrainian military is wrong. That's hardly as shady as what's going on here.

[QUOTE=Sableye;45480141]forgot laserguided, he believes that this was a ukrainian konspiracy[/QUOTE] Laserguided has been disagreeing with most of my and the other guys points and hes done so quite reasonably.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;45478299]Cause RIA is fast and that's why it's good? Not ot mention that i heard of this only jsut now from fp, soo i looked up on news source and here you go. And again, i am calling for your logic - why would high rebel commander give such interview to a foreign journalist?! And Guardian themselfs reported this [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/mh17-day-of-mourning-in-netherlands-as-bodies-arrive-live-updates[/url][/QUOTE] You are a good and persistent troll I'll give you that much.

So, I've already typed this in another thread, but that got closed down, so here goes: Interesting interview they have there... Reuters released the audio, [url=http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-separatists-had-buk-missiles/25468009.html]here it is[/url], "Radio Liberty". You can listen to it if you want. Here's the same thing with transcript, for Russian-speakers: [url=http://www.svoboda.org/content/article/25468682.html]click[/url]. These quotes:[quote] "I knew that a BUK came from Luhansk. At the time I was told that a BUK from Luhansk was coming under the flag of the LNR," he said, referring to the Luhansk People’s Republic, the main rebel group operating in Luhansk, one of two rebel provinces along with Donetsk, the province where the crash took place. "That BUK I know about. I heard about it. I think they sent it back. Because I found out about it at exactly the moment that I found out that this tragedy had taken place. They probably sent it back in order to remove proof of its presence," Khodakovsky told Reuters on Tuesday. "The question is this: Ukraine received timely evidence that the volunteers have this technology, through the fault of Russia. It not only did nothing to protect security, but provoked the use of this type of weapon against a plane that was flying with peaceful civilians," he said[/quote] come from the first part of the interview, before 0:57 mark. These: [quote] "They knew that this BUK existed; that the BUK was heading for Snezhnoye," he said, referring to a village 10 km (six miles) west of the crash site. "They knew that it would be deployed there, and provoked the use of this BUK by starting an air strike on a target they didn’t need, that their planes hadn’t touched for a week." "And that day, they were intensively flying, and exactly at the moment of the shooting, at the moment the civilian plane flew overhead, they launched air strikes. Even if there was a BUK, and even if the BUK was used, Ukraine did everything to ensure that a civilian aircraft was shot down."[/quote] come aright after that. The voice seems different, but the environment changed so that's no problem. What bugs me, is that from that point on the guy being interviewed [b]suddenly[/b] develops noticeable Ukrainian accent that he hadn't had before. Just an observation, can someone (Ukrainian, preferably) confirm or deny? [editline]24th July 2014[/editline] Forgot to add source for quotes, [url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/23/uk-ukraine-crisis-commander-exclusive-idUKKBN0FS1W620140723]Reuters article[/url]