• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ukraine far right Svoboda attack TV chief and force to resign

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,549
Reaction score
15,452
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Far right Svoboda thugs and pro-Ukraine politician storm office of TV chief and beat him over the head and forced him to write his own resignation because the state owned TV station broadcast Putin's speech on Crimea seccession.

The irony is, the politician sits on the Freedom of Speech Parliamentary Committee......

This is the shocking moment a TV chief in Ukraine was assaulted and forced to sign a resignation letter by far-right politicians who broke into his office.

A chaotic video shows Oleksandr Panteleymonov, who led the Ukrainian state TV company, being shouted at and beaten over the head until he gives into the attackers' demands and writes the letter.

The men from the Svoboda party were angered after a ceremony was broadcast from the Kremlin on Tuesday showing Vladimir Putin signing a bill to make Ukraine's Crimea region part of Russia......see video.....
Read more: 'Sit down, you animal': Angry far-right politicians attack Ukraine TV chief | Mail Online


US better be very careful who they support in Ukraine....or it will look like they're supporting far right nationalists and play right into Putin's hands which would make him look like the real defender of freedom and democracy.
 
Yep, this is the problem with supporting coups upon a democratically elected government. Never know if the replacements might be much worse, as is the case already in Iraq.
 
Yep, this is the problem with supporting coups upon a democratically elected government. Never know if the replacements might be much worse, as is the case already in Iraq.

It's funny that this was available for discussion before when all the riots were going on, and was mentioned in many threads, but it didn't seem to matter to many. It will get much worse there, and the West will hold there hands up, guffaw, and said, "We didn't know anything about this. How could it happen?"
 
It's funny that this was available for discussion before when all the riots were going on, and was mentioned in many threads, but it didn't seem to matter to many. It will get much worse there, and the West will hold there hands up, guffaw, and said, "We didn't know anything about this. How could it happen?"

Oh but a democratically elected government chose to turn away from "western values" and embrace Russia, HORRORS, as if Russia was our enemy which it wasn't, but I guess it is now. Judging by the way we treat other democratically elected presidents that don't suckle at the **** of western and american oligarchy, I'm not surprised. Somehow we have this bizarre idea that if only we help the protesting masses, we'll come to find the are all hungry for the capitalist, oligarchic, psuedo-freedoms we are collapsing under.
 
Oh but a democratically elected government chose to turn away from "western values" and embrace Russia, HORRORS, as if Russia was our enemy which it wasn't, but I guess it is now. Judging by the way we treat other democratically elected presidents that don't suckle at the **** of western and american oligarchy, I'm not surprised. Somehow we have this bizarre idea that if only we help the protesting masses, we'll come to find the are all hungry for the capitalist, oligarchic, psuedo-freedoms we are collapsing under.

I don't think you have a complete understanding on what was happening there.
Yanukovych, under his watch, had over 37bil dollars "misplaced", by which I mean stolen, by him and his cronies. The total economy of Ukraine is around 170-180bil dollars. Ok? And then, he accepted a 15bil $ bribe from Russia to turn down the treaty for trade with the EU. That's not him going to Russia, that's him being bought by Russia and selling out his country.

Secondly, he got elected due to massive fraud and there are numerous other inconsistencies. If such an election, as the one in 2010, would happen in any western country, you'd be outraged. It'll be unacceptable as a democratic standard. So you saying he was "elected democraticaly" is a slap in the face to anything that is fair and democratic elections because if it had happened in your country, you'd be pulling out your pitchfork.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that is something desirable in an elected representative. So of course the people rioted against that and he got deposed.
The first thing the interim govt did is set elections in may. that's not the action of a corrupt administration.

Svoboda is a ukrainian nationalist group and is now part of the administration, yes, but they're a very minor partner. This make-shift alliance of convenience for the interim govt has to hold until election day in Ukraine or else the country will be plunged into chaos again. It's not an optimum scenario but the alternative is to put power back in the hands of the people who supported Yanukovych, of the former ruling regime. Maybe have a few dozen more ukrainian killed by snipers in the streets.

This is the real world. Political crises have consequences especially in less developed nations that are trying to escape the scars of communism.

If you don't understand that world, as clearly many don't, don't be a wise-ass. I think this isn't the first time I'm telling you about how the 2010 election went down in Ukraine and why stating the things you do is bollocks. And this isn't me making **** up, it's what actually happened. Look it up, ukraine 2010 elections.
 
Yeah Fallen showed this video in another thread. Now that the rest of Ukraine is with EU and USA a lot of taming may be required.
 
I don't think you have a complete understanding on what was happening there.
Yanukovych, under his watch, had over 37bil dollars "misplaced", by which I mean stolen, by him and his cronies. The total economy of Ukraine is around 170-180bil dollars. Ok? And then, he accepted a 15bil $ bribe from Russia to turn down the treaty for trade with the EU. That's not him going to Russia, that's him being bought by Russia and selling out his country.

Secondly, he got elected due to massive fraud and there are numerous other inconsistencies. If such an election, as the one in 2010, would happen in any western country, you'd be outraged. It'll be unacceptable as a democratic standard. So you saying he was "elected democraticaly" is a slap in the face to anything that is fair and democratic elections because if it had happened in your country, you'd be pulling out your pitchfork.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that is something desirable in an elected representative. So of course the people rioted against that and he got deposed.
The first thing the interim govt did is set elections in may. that's not the action of a corrupt administration.

Svoboda is a ukrainian nationalist group and is now part of the administration, yes, but they're a very minor partner. This make-shift alliance of convenience for the interim govt has to hold until election day in Ukraine or else the country will be plunged into chaos again. It's not an optimum scenario but the alternative is to put power back in the hands of the people who supported Yanukovych, of the former ruling regime. Maybe have a few dozen more ukrainian killed by snipers in the streets.

This is the real world. Political crises have consequences especially in less developed nations that are trying to escape the scars of communism.

If you don't understand that world, as clearly many don't, don't be a wise-ass. I think this isn't the first time I'm telling you about how the 2010 election went down in Ukraine and why stating the things you do is bollocks. And this isn't me making **** up, it's what actually happened. Look it up, ukraine 2010 elections.

Nicely said. Why are "likes" off?
 
I don't think you have a complete understanding on what was happening there.
Yanukovych, under his watch, had over 37bil dollars "misplaced", by which I mean stolen, by him and his cronies. The total economy of Ukraine is around 170-180bil dollars. Ok? And then, he accepted a 15bil $ bribe from Russia to turn down the treaty for trade with the EU. That's not him going to Russia, that's him being bought by Russia and selling out his country.

Secondly, he got elected due to massive fraud and there are numerous other inconsistencies. If such an election, as the one in 2010, would happen in any western country, you'd be outraged. It'll be unacceptable as a democratic standard. So you saying he was "elected democraticaly" is a slap in the face to anything that is fair and democratic elections because if it had happened in your country, you'd be pulling out your pitchfork.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that is something desirable in an elected representative. So of course the people rioted against that and he got deposed.
The first thing the interim govt did is set elections in may. that's not the action of a corrupt administration.

Svoboda is a ukrainian nationalist group and is now part of the administration, yes, but they're a very minor partner. This make-shift alliance of convenience for the interim govt has to hold until election day in Ukraine or else the country will be plunged into chaos again. It's not an optimum scenario but the alternative is to put power back in the hands of the people who supported Yanukovych, of the former ruling regime. Maybe have a few dozen more ukrainian killed by snipers in the streets.

This is the real world. Political crises have consequences especially in less developed nations that are trying to escape the scars of communism.

If you don't understand that world, as clearly many don't, don't be a wise-ass. I think this isn't the first time I'm telling you about how the 2010 election went down in Ukraine and why stating the things you do is bollocks. And this isn't me making **** up, it's what actually happened. Look it up, ukraine 2010 elections.
I'm not reading past the first paragraph. Bush lost hells more than that in Iraq and Afghanistan corruption, we didn't oust Bush or either of our stooges in those countries. So don't try to turn this into some righteous bunch of bull crap.

Sorry, but the parliament did not oust Yanukovych, so regardless of any fraud or otherwise, his overthrow was illegitimate.
 
I'm not reading past the first paragraph. Bush lost hells more than that in Iraq and Afghanistan corruption, we didn't oust Bush or either of our stooges in those countries. So don't try to turn this into some righteous bunch of bull crap.

Sorry, but the parliament did not oust Yanukovych, so regardless of any fraud or otherwise, his overthrow was illegitimate.

Did Bush sell your country to a foreign power? No? Ok then, your argument and comparation is BS.
 
Oh but a democratically elected government chose to turn away from "western values" and embrace Russia, HORRORS, as if Russia was our enemy which it wasn't, but I guess it is now. Judging by the way we treat other democratically elected presidents that don't suckle at the **** of western and american oligarchy, I'm not surprised. Somehow we have this bizarre idea that if only we help the protesting masses, we'll come to find the are all hungry for the capitalist, oligarchic, psuedo-freedoms we are collapsing under.

I have no doubt that the violence from the far right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Kiev and western Ukraine will only get worse in the months to come. The venom that they spew on the internet is frightening.
 
Did Bush sell your country to a foreign power? No? Ok then, your argument and comparation is BS.

Yanukovych did not sell his country, that's just a bunch of hype. He made what sounded like a pretty damned good deal. Secondly, we are more akin to Russia in this analogy and OH YES we have bought many countries, for example as I mentioned, Iraq and Afghanistan and even though they are heading in directions that have no connection whatsoever to the values of our country, and are not/were not populated by US citizens, and yet we're still paying them outrageous amounts of corrupt payments and bribery.
 
Yanukovych did not sell his country, that's just a bunch of hype. He made what sounded like a pretty damned good deal. Secondly, we are more akin to Russia in this analogy and OH YES we have bought many countries, for example as I mentioned, Iraq and Afghanistan and even though they are heading in directions that have no connection whatsoever to the values of our country, and are not/were not populated by US citizens, and yet we're still paying them outrageous amounts of corrupt payments and bribery.

Buying and selling are 2 different things. I mean, they're still transactions, but the impact is different.

Mubarak in Egypt sold his country to the USA. That is true. You bought them. And that's why a lot of Egyptians are pissed off at the USA and were pissed off when they rioted in the streets. Was the USA sold to someone? Did Bush sell the USA to China? Did he take a bribe from some foreign nation to sell out US interests? No. It's 2 different scenarios, now isn't it?
In Afghanistan, the current president, I forget his name, gets millions of $$$ from the USA to be on your side and he still wabbles here and there. But you can't say that the buyer is in the same position as the seller. The people of Afghanistan are outraged that their president is selling them out and that's why the talibans have a large recruitment base there, they're feeding off that anger. They don't want to be a vassal state. Sure, they have a wrong agenda for the country, I'm not siding with the talibans or whatever, but you can understand how an anti-american message would be popular since it's clear that the president of afghanistan is bought for.

But again, Bush or Obama didn't sell out the USA to any foreign nation.

And it's not a hype. 37 bil $$$ are missing from Ukraine, as in, they've been stolen by Yanukovych and his cronies over the course of his mandate. 37bil where the total economy of Ukraine is just 6x that number.
Ukraine PM says $37 billion went missing under Yanukovich | Reuters

All of it from loans. And Russia decided to loan another 15bil $$$ to the same regime, a large chunk of that would have gone missing again, to bribe them. And it's a double whammy for the people because they'll still have to pay the interest and the loan back but all that money was stolen and not put in place to improve the economy.
You tell me that is a correct thing to do as a govrenment that is supposed to work for the people. To put them 37bil $$$ in debt and steal all that money.

I told you before and many like you. You don't understand what is happening there and you reject the complexity of the matter for a simplistic view based on principles that are not in play and rhetoric that doesn't make sense in the context of Ukraine.
 
Buying and selling are 2 different things. I mean, they're still transactions, but the impact is different.

Mubarak in Egypt sold his country to the USA. That is true. You bought them. And that's why a lot of Egyptians are pissed off at the USA and were pissed off when they rioted in the streets. Was the USA sold to someone? Did Bush sell the USA to China? Did he take a bribe from some foreign nation to sell out US interests? No. It's 2 different scenarios, now isn't it?
In Afghanistan, the current president, I forget his name, gets millions of $$$ from the USA to be on your side and he still wabbles here and there. But you can't say that the buyer is in the same position as the seller. The people of Afghanistan are outraged that their president is selling them out and that's why the talibans have a large recruitment base there, they're feeding off that anger. They don't want to be a vassal state. Sure, they have a wrong agenda for the country, I'm not siding with the talibans or whatever, but you can understand how an anti-american message would be popular since it's clear that the president of afghanistan is bought for.

But again, Bush or Obama didn't sell out the USA to any foreign nation.

And it's not a hype. 37 bil $$$ are missing from Ukraine, as in, they've been stolen by Yanukovych and his cronies over the course of his mandate. 37bil where the total economy of Ukraine is just 6x that number.
Ukraine PM says $37 billion went missing under Yanukovich | Reuters

All of it from loans. And Russia decided to loan another 15bil $$$ to the same regime, a large chunk of that would have gone missing again, to bribe them. And it's a double whammy for the people because they'll still have to pay the interest and the loan back but all that money was stolen and not put in place to improve the economy.
You tell me that is a correct thing to do as a govrenment that is supposed to work for the people. To put them 37bil $$$ in debt and steal all that money.

I told you before and many like you. You don't understand what is happening there and you reject the complexity of the matter for a simplistic view based on principles that are not in play and rhetoric that doesn't make sense in the context of Ukraine.
That's a lot of words to still be wrong. If the democratically elected parliament didn't oust him, it was illegitimate. And what it seems they are about to get will be no less corrupt.
 
That's a lot of words to still be wrong. If the democratically elected parliament didn't oust him, it was illegitimate. And what it seems they are about to get will be no less corrupt.

No but now they are with USA and EU. We should tell them to be more civil now since we are no bullies like Russians.
 
No but now they are with USA and EU. We should tell them to be more civil now since we are no bullies like Russians.
:lamo
:lamo :2rofll: :2rofll:
 
That's a lot of words to still be wrong. If the democratically elected parliament didn't oust him, it was illegitimate. And what it seems they are about to get will be no less corrupt.
Ok, I'm done here.
220px-Fyodor_Tyutchev.jpg
 
Did Bush sell your country to a foreign power? No? Ok then, your argument and comparation is BS.

You could make that claim about several of our Presidents.

In the Ukraine kissing Russian ass gets cheap Natural Gas the Ukrainians couldn't afford at true market prices- that is a continuance of the false economy of the USSR.

The USofA has been kissing desert bandit ass for decades to control massive amounts of oil.

BushI attacked Iraq to stop it from threatening Saudi oil and gaining leverage in the OPEC council.

BushII sunk us in the desert to the brink of financial ruin for everyone but the average American.

Now when it comes to dismissing violent right wing thugs- it doesn't take many thugs to make a nation lawless. If these thugs are not pulled back hard then I doubt the average Ukrainian will feel safer as they shiver without heat.

By Eastern European standards the new leadership may very well be a breath of fresh air- better your own thugs than the other guy's thugs I guess is the line of thought by the new leadership.

In the West- not so much a breath of fresh air just the same stink with a wiff of cheap perfume... :peace
 
That's a lot of words to still be wrong. If the democratically elected parliament didn't oust him, it was illegitimate. And what it seems they are about to get will be no less corrupt.

Great debate technique.

Project1.jpg
 
I have no doubt that the violence from the far right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Kiev and western Ukraine will only get worse in the months to come. The venom that they spew on the internet is frightening.

It's funny how the corrupt Russian lapdog Ukrainian government kills protesters, Russia invades and has now killed one Ukrainian soldier in the name of protecting "ethnic Russians" and you seem most concerned by the Ukrainian far right group who so far has only invaded a TV station.
 
Far right Svoboda thugs and pro-Ukraine politician storm office of TV chief and beat him over the head and forced him to write his own resignation because the state owned TV station broadcast Putin's speech on Crimea seccession.

The irony is, the politician sits on the Freedom of Speech Parliamentary Committee......


Read more: 'Sit down, you animal': Angry far-right politicians attack Ukraine TV chief | Mail Online


US better be very careful who they support in Ukraine....or it will look like they're supporting far right nationalists and play right into Putin's hands which would make him look like the real defender of freedom and democracy.

These are the kinds of criminals the people from the Crimea want to be free from. I guess these are the same kinds of idiots who advised/forced the new "government" (because it was hardly a democratic process by which it got created) to ban Russian as a language in the Ukraine.
 
It's funny how the corrupt Russian lapdog Ukrainian government kills protesters, Russia invades and has now killed one Ukrainian soldier in the name of protecting "ethnic Russians" and you seem most concerned by the Ukrainian far right group who so far has only invaded a TV station.

The democratically elected "lapdog" government you mean. And if this is the kind of people the new regime associates with, do you blame Russian speaking Ukrainians for fearing for their rights in the "New and Improved" Ukraine in which they are no longer allowed to speak or teach Russian.
 
The democratically elected "lapdog" government you mean.

Mubarak and Gaddafi were elected as well, were you sorry to see them go?

And if this is the kind of people the new regime associates with, do you blame Russian speaking Ukrainians for fearing for their rights in the "New and Improved" Ukraine in which they are no longer allowed to speak or teach Russian.

This is ludicrous. The "Russian Speaking Ukrainians" associate with a Russian thug who poisons reporters, jails musicians, invades his neighbors in the name of ethnic protection, and kills Ukrainian soldiers. How about you take a half second to actually look at this rationally? How about you look at the history of Russian rule over Ukraine and open your eyes to who really has reason for concern. The only reason there is a Russian majority in Eastern Ukraine is because the Soviets murdered the Ukrainians there.

The Russian Speaking Eastern Ukraine is just lucky that the Western Ukrainians are actually civilized and haven't paralleled the PLO in militant demands for their land back. The most the Western regions can muster in that direction is a few asshats who took over a TV station.
 
Last edited:

There's nothing in his post that addresses my remarks. Perhaps you see it thusly, I see it as a yammer mouth trying to avoid focusing on what was typed. Some enjoy unrelated yammering, since you do, why don't you just read it twice, once for you and once for me. I note you have no comments about his two long attempts to avoid the point. Did you read them? I think not.
 
Back
Top Bottom