Did anyone expect this? Was he ordered to do this? Was it routine procedure? Were there consequences? Did the students receive apologies and money? Was the officer fired?
Firing tear gas rounds is lethal force? OK.
Mistakes happen and there will always be bad actors. This doesn’t mean that the US approach to protestors is in any way comparable to Yanukovich’s or Russia’s. And if isolated, specific instances let you believe that this is not true, then you must believe that driving today are just as dangerous as driving was in 1950, because people still die in crashes.
So if you go to a protest you expect police-led violence regardless of what you do and yo expect lethal force to be used? You expect to be treated the same way Maidan protestors were? I somehow doubt it.
I’m pretty aware of my privilege, and if something happened at a protest in the US I could use my privilege to initiate legal action that would likely have real consequences and real restitution. I’m pretty sure that none of the Maidan protestors can say the same.
Yes, when fired directly at the head at short range. A civilian doing it would be charged with attempted murder/murder, wouldn’t you think?
Ah, so when someone does we don’t like, it’s violent suppression and murder but when we do it it’s a mistake and bad actors. Keep up the double standard. The US does.
That’s because US protesters have yet to attack the police with clubs and stones and shoot at police. In every instance, our protesters were removed from the place of protest. In Kiev, protesters fought. In the US, protesters did not. If they had, they would have been shot.
Doubt it all you want. In the US, Maidan protesters would be dead, dead, dead.
You could try to initiate legal action but you would first have to answer for various charges such as resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and a host of others that would put your claim in doubt. Charges that you would have been found guilty of.
Most people in the US are well aware of the fact that the police will shoot your ass. That’s why you don’t see protesters in the US carrying clubs.
Evidence for this? If it’s routine procedure how come it doesn’t happen at every student protest? Who ordered him to do this?
Is that what happened? Proof? They aren’t even certain it was a tear gas round.
A civilian arresting someone could also be charged with false confinement. Police are allowed to do things that civilians aren’t. Using tear gas in this kind of situation is probably one of them. Murder is an intentional crime. Unless he intended to kill, murder isn’t an appropriate charge. If he only intended to lawfully shoot tear gas, this isn’t murder and more than killing someone while lawfully driving your car is murder: it’s manslaughter at most.
OK. So who do you sue for Yanukovich’s killings? What kind of redress is possible?
And there is a big difference between doing something intentionally as a matter of policy and things happening because people make mistakes or just suck. Inadvertently getting into a car accident isn’t the same as intentionally ramming things with your car.
Don’t you think it’s telling that in the US protestors don’t feel they have to do this? I mean, if the US is such a bad place and entirely the same as Yanukovich’s Ukraine, as you seem to be suggesting, why haven’t US protestors taken these steps? Maybe because they actually believe simple protest will have some effect?
And no, I don’t think protestors throwing stones or using clubs would be shot with live ammunition. Tear gas, bean bags, water cannons, and other non-lethal devices would be employed.
Oh. So protesters in Ukraine were unaware that they could be shot, and it’s because they were unaware that they were carrying clubs. And they must have been incredibly stupid, because even after people started getting shot they remained unaware that they ould be shot, and so continued to carry clubs.
Maybe people in the US don’t carry clubs because they don’t believe that violence is an appropriate response, either by themselves or by the police. And maybe this explains why police in the US don’t respond the same way that Yanukovich’s police did.
You said you are not American, correct? Yet, you have the audacity to tell Americans what it is like in America?
Have you not noticed that it is Americans that disagree with your vision and expectations of America? Have you noticed that you are the only one defending American police?
You’ve turned yourself into an apologist for American police in which you have little knowledge of in order to hang on to an imaginary moral high ground argument. You move the goal posts constantly. Every time you are shown police actions against protesters in the US after you claim they would not do such things, it went from US police don’t do that to they don’t do it unprovoked, to well you could sue them.
Just come out and say that you believe what you believe and that’s all there is to it. Actual Americans aren’t going to change your mind. Good hell.
And no, after watching the protesters in Kiev beat police and throw molotov cocktails at them, it didn’t appear to me that they thought they would be shot. I didn’t see any firearms on the police being beaten. When the police were armed, they didn’t get beaten by protesters, did they? The protesters got shot, just as they would here.
And I wonder why the police in Kiev armed themselves?
I’m not American, but I’ve lived here for 6 years. I’ve also traveled to a number of former SSRs in the past few years.[quote=“time, post:253, topic:24467”]
You’ve turned yourself into an apologist for American police in which you have little knowledge of in order to hang on to an imaginary moral high ground argument. You move the goal posts constantly. Every time you are shown police actions against protesters in the US after you claim they would not do such things, it went from US police don’t do that to they don’t do it unprovoked, to well you could sue them.
[/quote]
My position has been that the police don’t use lethal force against US protestors and that people who protest in the US don’t expect violence to be used against them. It is not US policy to do so. And since it is not policy to act this way, if something does happen there are ways to get redress.
Now, if this seems like shifting goalposts, these goalposts have shifted in response to the new goal posts you have introduced. I say something about how the US doesn’t use lethal force, and decries such force when deployed by any government against protestors. The “rebuttal” to this is to introduce incidents that happened 100 years ago, individual police shootings unrelated to protests, or individual non-lethal incidents of rogue officers pepper spraying students (who later received compensation, got an apology and an investigation, as well as the officer fired). If I address to these new arguments, apparently I am the one shifting goal posts. OK.
So the protests immediately stopped happening as soon as shots were fired?
You’re right. It’s a strange world where Americans would expect lethal force if they protested with violence but Ukrainians would not, but that is the situation you’ve described. And since according to this mindset the US is objectively worse than Ukraine, as well as being just as bad when it comes to democracy, police excesses, corruption, human rights, and just about everything else, these Ukrainians must be incredibly stupid to even be protesting at all. After all, their country is already better than the West, according to the comments you and other Americans have left here, so why are they complaining and protesting at all? Why do they want to be pro-Western, and not pro-Russian?
Or maybe the fact that they’re protesting the pro-Russian Yanukovich government actually means something, and tells us something about the conditions there. But those would be real Ukrainians trying to tell Yanukovich, Russia, and the world something with their actions and their willingness to risk death. But it seems actual Ukrainians aren’t going to change your mind about how conditions there might differ from conditions in the West. You should tell them they’re wrong and that they’re better off under Yanukovich.[quote=“time, post:253, topic:24467”]
And I wonder why the police in Kiev armed themselves?
[/quote]
Yeah, reports from Kremlin-owned RT probably aren’t the best resource. But note that that report is from Feb 23 (the day the 4-man bobsled medals were awarded, as you can see in the bottom creep). By that date, over 100 deaths in Kiev’s Maidan had already occurred, so it’s not like the police were arming themselves in response to this nutbar’s rhetoric.
And, that position is false. The levels of force used by police start at level one and go to level six to force compliance. The policy is the same for all situations. For instance, when police clear a park of protesters it is under the assumption that the occupation of the park is illegal. Force will be used to get compliance. It is as simple as that. The [levels of force][1]. That is the policy. Just because in our recent history level 6 has not been reached before the parks have been cleared(our protesters tend to lay there and take it or leave) does not indicate that US police will not shoot protesters. It is policy to do so if level one does not work move up the levels to level six,lethal force.
[1]: http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/9728-six-levels-of-force[quote=“bwv812, post:254, topic:24467”]
Now, if this seems like shifting goalposts, these goalposts have shifted in response to the new goal posts you have introduced. I say something about how the US doesn’t use lethal force, and decries such force when deployed by any government against protestors. The “rebuttal” to this is to introduce incidents that happened 100 years ago, individual police shootings unrelated to protests, or individual non-lethal incidents of rogue officers pepper spraying students (who later received compensation, got an apology and an investigation, as well as the officer fired). If I address to these new arguments, apparently I am the one shifting goal posts. OK.
[/quote]
Yes. You make claims. The claims are refuted. You lower the bar(move the goal posts).
Nope. The police were retreating as they fired. The police left.
The Ukraine police were not armed for several months and during the early attempts to roust out the protesters, so no, I don’t suppose the Ukraine protesters assumed they could be shot by unarmed(firearms) police. In contrast, the police that rousted the OWS protesters were armed at minute one. Don’t let the little details get in the way.
Um, as big as the protests were, I think you may be projecting the views of the protesters onto the entire country. The fact is, the active protesters were really a small percentage of the population. It was decided and agreed to that there would be an early election, in December, so that if a majority of people were truly against Yanukovich, he could have been removed. As it is, I don’t see a few protesters as representing the views of an entire country. But hey, you’ve picked your side. To hell with what everyone else thinks, eh? The loud people in the park are right because they are,willing to be violent.
The fact that there are six identifiable levels of force does not mean that it is policy to use them on protestors. I mean, you could say that this link means that it is policy to shoot people who double park, or who take pictures of police.[quote=“time, post:255, topic:24467”]
Yes. You make claims. The claims are refuted. You lower the bar(move the goal posts).
[/quote]
OK. Refute the claim that the US objects when other nations use lethal force to deal with protestors.
Refute the claim that the US doesn’t use lethal force on protestors (something you still haven’t done, and which a link describing six different levels of force doesn’t do, either).
So the police had totally vacated the Maidan after Feb 20? Really? Then why the heck did you post a RT video from the 23rd as some sort of evidence for why the police would use lethal force? And why would the police use lethal force if they were leaving?[quote=“time, post:255, topic:24467”]
The Ukraine police were not armed for several months and during the early attempts to roust out the protesters, so no, I don’t suppose the Ukraine protesters assumed they could be shot by unarmed(firearms) police. In contrast, the police that rousted the OWS protesters were armed at minute one. Don’t let the little details get in the way.
[/quote]
Hmm. So these protestors didn’t get the idea when they finally did break out firearms? In contrast, the police officer who gives me a jaywalking ticket also caries a gun. I don’t expect him to shoot me. Nor do I expect to be shot at OWS just because police there also have guns.
I see. When it comes to rogue officers and isolated incidences of violence by police that prompt investigations, lawsuits, and apologies, you have no problem saying this reflects the official position and policy in the US. And earlier you suggested that because there were two or three other Americans participating in this thread that my thought on the US must be illegitimate and uninformed. But when we have mass protests, you change tunes and say that the protestors only reflect a small percentage of the population, even though they represent at least as much of the country as commenters in this thread represent the US or rogue officers represent US security forces.
Regardless of what you think, however, the fact remains that Yanukovich and his pro-Russia government were deeply unpopular in the country.
So far as I can tell you’ve picked your side, too. Protestors willing to risk death, and who continue to protest after hundreds of their compatriots have been shot by the police, tell us nothing about what anyone thinks in Ukraine because they are only a small percent of the population. I’m sure everyone else loves Yanukovich and Russia, because they give much better protection to protestors, human rights, democracy, and civil liberties than the US does. It’s a wonder you haven’t applied for citizenship there.
Correct, RT is far from unbiased. The video they aired speaks for itself, sans RT’s 2 cents. While the report is from Feb 23, when was the man’s speech?
That nutbar was and is a protest leader and politician. Here he his promoting his views to the government leaders. Somewhere I read he was given a position in gov. I don’t know if that is true though.
You don’t know if he was given a position in government, but you want me to search him? OK.
Funny how all the results come from places like RT, infowars, and Russian Nationalistic sites. But even this RT piece makes it clear that far from being in government, they’re actually looking to put him in jail.
They’re sending armed fascist bandits to Donetsk and Sevastopol, Kharkov and Odessa to sow bloodshed, he said. Just turn on Russian TV. Or have a look on the internet: That’s how Putin said he found out about “provocateurs from the opposition” posing as police snipers who massacred protesters Feb. 20.
It is policy. There is no other separate policy for protesters. Try to find one.
Yes, it is the same policy for people who double park or take pictures of police. Police use the policy of [The Use-of-Force Continuum][1] for all dealings with the public. Level one will take care of most parking tickets but it can result in level six.
[1]: The Use-of-Force Continuum[quote=“bwv812, post:256, topic:24467”]
OK. Refute the claim that the US objects when other nations use lethal force to deal with protestors.Refute the claim that the US doesn’t use lethal force on protestors (something you still haven’t done, and which a link describing six different levels of force doesn’t do, either).
[/quote]
I have. I can lead you to water but I can’t make you drink.
Fight the officer that gives you a jaywalking ticket with a weapon in your hand and see what happens. Video tape it and post it for me. Then we can talk about those six levels again.
Your thoughts on the US are illegitimate and uniformed. Just run right out into the street, declare yourself a protester and disrupt your community. When the police come, arm yourself and resist arrest. Let’s see how it turns out for you. Prove your point and please document it, preferably with video. Let’s make your protest about police brutality, just to make the result,ironic.
I think the election in December would have cleared that up, don’t you?
I don’t have a side, despite what you may think, in Ukraine’s choices. I could care less if they are pro-Russian or pro-EU. I do care that we’ve spent billions of tax dollars telling the Ukrainians what is best for them and I do care that the US State Dept is rigging the election and deciding for themselves who should be Ukraine’s leader. The US does not give two shits about the people of Ukraine any more than they gave two shits about the people in Rwanda. What they do care about is weakening Russia and they are getting Ukrainians killed to do it. Ukraine = Geopolitical hotspot. Rwanda = nothing. Ukraine = International incident. Rwanda = nothing. My rather simple position has stayed the same. The US is involved in Ukraine for US interests not the interests of Ukraine. Your moral high ground argument is hooey. Ukraine can be in the EU or it can be aligned with Russia. I do not care. US involvement getting people killed, whether it is protesters in Kiev or troops anywhere in the world I am firmly against.
I’m afraid that is coming from more people than just Putin.
"Paet: “All the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides. … Some photos that showed it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it is really disturbing that now the new coalition they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened. So there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”
Dang conspiracy nuts those EU Foriegn Ministers are when they don’t know anyone is listening, eh?
OK. Here’s the influential Madison Method for dealing with crowds and protests.
I don’t know if I need to say anything else. I guess you’re right in the sense that it is just as much US policy to shoot parking violators as it is to shoot protestors. If you think this makes the US—which has has not used live ammunition on protesters in a long time—equivalent to Yanukovich’s Ukraine which shot and killed dozens of protestors in the last couple of weeks, then we aren’t going to agree.
[quote=“time, post:259, topic:24467”]
Fight the officer that gives you a jaywalking ticket with a weapon in your hand and see what happens. Video tape it and post it for me. Then we can talk about those six levels again.
[/quote]Hey, do you think anyone has ever fought someone over a jaywalking ticket or being arrested or anything else? How many of them get shot and killed?
As will the election in May. And given the widespread accusations of electoral fraud in 2012, it’s far from clear that elections under Yanukovich would be as revealing as you hope. But I’m sure you probably regard accusations of electoral fraud as being an illegitimate byproduct of the democracy building that the US has tried to support with its aid money.
Wait. So I have to protest in order to have a legitimate thought? Haven’t we had protests here? How many protesters were shot in the Seattle WTO protests? In Toronto for the G20? In any other protests? The evidence already exists. If you want to prove that protestors are shot at with live ammunition in the US, you can become the first protestor in a very long time to do so if you wish, but as it stands it’s pretty clear that this is not part of current US policy.
How are we telling them what is best and how are we rigging the election? Actual evidence, and not aid money spent over 23 years for the promotion of democracy. How is US involvement getting people killed? What is your evidence that these protests happened only as a result of US involvement?
By the way, having an especial interest in geopolitical hotspots is not incompatible with occupying the moral high ground.
Paet is not the EU Foreign Minister: he’s the Estonian foreign affairs minister.
Our correspondent, Damien McElroy, has spoken to the doctor at the centre of the claims that snipers that shot people in Kiev were hired by Maidan leaders:
Olga Bogomolets said she had not told Mr Paet that policemen and protesters had been killed in the same manner.
“Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people,” she told The Telegraph. “I have no access to those people.”
But she said she had asked for a full forensic criminal investigation into the deaths that occurred in the Maidan. "No one who just sees the wounds when treating the victims can make a determination about the type of weapons. I hope international experts and Ukrainian investigators will make a determination of what type of weapons, who was involved in the killings and how it was done. I have no data to prove anything.
"I was a doctor helping to save people on the square. There were 15 people killed on the first day by snipers. They were shot directly to the heart, brain and arteries. There were more than 40 the next day, 12 of them died in my arms.
“Our nation has to ask the question who were the killers, who asked them to come to Ukraine. We need good answers on the basis of expertise.”
Mr Paet’s assertion that an opposition figure was behind the Maidan massacre was not one she could share.
“I think you can only say something like this on the basis of fact,” she said. “Its not correct and its not good to do this. It should be based on fact.”
She said the new government in Kiev had assured her a criminal investigation had begun but that she had not direct contact with it so far.
“They told me they have begun a criminal process and if they say that I believe them. The police have not given me any information on it.”
An Officer working a crowd would do well to remember the words of Dalton — the character from the movie “Road House” — who said, “Be nice until it’s time to not be nice.”
You think protesters fighting back with clubs would qualify as “it’s time to not be nice”? I do. Then it goes right back to the force continuum. Doesn’t it? Your confusing peaceful protest where people go home when asked with occupation protests and people that refuse to leave and fight the police. The later one, the one in Kiev, would end with level 6 deadly force applied,right here in the good ol’ USA.
No, we are not going to agree. The US, in many cities in the country, forcibly removed occupation protesters. Those parks were cleared. If protesters had picked up weapons and fought as did Kiev, many would have been shot. The parks would have been cleared.
I don’t know, a few. Are you saying it has never happened? Do you live in New York?
Do you have proof of fraud? I’m sure it’s possible but the inverse is also possible. Frankly, since the orange revolution was precisely about election fraud, same dude even, I would hope that they would have had those bugs worked out. Especially when he ran again. Unless you are claiming they did not learn from prior elections. Hell, there are those that claim Obama won by election fraud. Could be. Who knows, you?
How many of those protesters picked up clubs and fought the police off? Again, you are confusing peaceful protesters to club wielding, cop bashing protesters. The later we have not had in any of those situations you point out. It we had, they would be dead.
Yes, you have to pick up a weapon and protest in order to have a legitimate thought. If you believe that armed protesters would not be shot in the US, show me.
Posted weeks before any talk in the Ukraine for new elections. They are discussing who is going to be in and out. It’s a bit more than the “Fuck the EU” tape that MSM reported. They left out the part about who was going to be leader in their reporting.
And I can’t say what the $5 billion was spent on, because I don’t know, so maybe you could provide me with a line item expense sheet and prove to me it was not spent on bribes, election campaigns, or paying protesters. And yes, I’m shifting the burden of proof to you. Can you prove the money was not used illegally or are you just taking it on faith?
It is when there is no moral high ground to be had. Our own government is highly corrupt, makes up WMD stories to invade other countries, citizens spied on, protesters beaten and arrested, and any one in this country can be indefinatley detained with out accusation or trial(NDAA). 50 years ago, I may have agreed with you. Not so much now.
Percentage of population that believes their government is corrupt.
Ukraine 77%
US 73%
over 1 million people were killed in Rwanda. They got no help from the US. Why? They were not geopolitically significant.
Ah, yes. Seems I Rammed the two titles together. good catch.
Yep. There is no proof that I have seen. I didn’t say there was, only that Putin is not the only one to speak of it.
I suppose you have proof that it was the police and only the police and that it was ordered by the president? I didn’t think so…
Both conspiracy theories are just theories at this point.
So you hope they work bugs out, but the US giving money to help work bugs out is evidence of them interfering with government and causing Ukrainians to get themselves killed. And maybe Obama was elected because of electoral fraud because those claims are just as [serious and widespread as in Ukraine][1], where over 66% of the people believed there would be election fraud. Anything that is objectionable anywhere in the world is at least as bad in the US, where people are routinely killed for protesting and double parking, just like they are in Ukraine.[quote=“time, post:262, topic:24467”]
The US, in many cities in the country, forcibly removed occupation protesters. Those parks were cleared. If protesters had picked up weapons and fought as did Kiev, many would have been shot. The parks would have been cleared.
[/quote]
Shot like all those violent protesters in Seattle in 1999 and Toronto in 2010?
[1]: 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary election - Wikipedia[quote=“time, post:262, topic:24467”]
How many of those protesters picked up clubs and fought the police off? Again, you are confusing peaceful protesters to club wielding, cop bashing protesters. The later we have not had in any of those situations you point out. It we had, they would be dead.
Yes, you have to pick up a weapon and protest in order to have a legitimate thought. If you believe that armed protesters would not be shot in the US, show me.
[/quote]
Again, protestors in Seattle have been armed. Police in Toronto avoided some of the armed protestors and simply let them vandalize property rather than engage them. Police in the US do the same. The police have let protestors overturn and burn cars and vandalize property rather than engage. Police could have instigated violent clashes directly with protestors, but they instead back off in accordance with the Madison Method precept that protecting life is more important than protecting property. Lethal force simply hasn’t been deployed against US protestors in a very long time, and there are reasons for that.
If you want to simply say that it’s because protestors in the US have not attacked the police with weapons, then I would ask you why protestors in Ukraine do feel motivated to engage in violence with police (and continue to do so even after they know the police will shoot them) while protestors in the US do not.
Here are some protesters who were armed and/or attacking police. None were shot.
2008 RNC convention:
1st pic. People hitting a car. Not a cop.
2nd pic. Cop trying to take down a protester, another protester tries to drag the protester away by the foot. Cop using pepper spray. NO WEAPONS.
3. pic. Something burning. People watching. NO WEAPONS
4th pic. One man with his arms around one cop, another cop has ahold of him. NO WEAPONS
5th pic. One bottle thrown and no one else has weapons.
Now compare your pics to video of EuroMaidan on Feb 18. Protesters had shields, threw cobblestones, beat police with clubs, burned police with Molotov cocktails, shot fireworks at police, burning buildings. And,shot at police with,guns. Rifles and Handguns.
Again, Feb. 18. What day did police begin shooting protesters? Hmmmmm? The protesters were shooting at police on the 18th!
When you can find me a comparable video in the states, post it up. If you can look at the images you posted and even remotely make a comparison to the video, there is something wrong with you. Protesters doing that in the US would be shot. Period.
I don’t care why they are doing it. It makes no difference to the conversation. If they did it here for any reason, police would open fire on them. Period. If you do not believe it, go out and try it. It’s that simple.
You have no moral high ground and it’s just plain ridiculous to continue to claim that you do.
People hitting a car because cops retreated and allowed them to hit the car. Police chose not to engage. Only moral high ground if police choose to put life at risk by engaging people with weapons, I guess.
Single police man surrounded by protestors decides to go to his knees because that’s a good idea? I have my doubts.
Something burning. Kind of like at the Maidan shortly before it escalated to all-out violence. Note that US police seem to have been able to peacefully contain the situation, though. But they only get the moral highground if they let things escalate to the point where guns are drawn, apparently.
Arms around cop? Is he giving him a hug? I thought attacking police led to lethal force?
A glass jar isn’t a weapon? I thought cobblestones were weapons justifying shootings. Note that objects are usually thrown from a distance, and not from right in front of the officers, where the visible protestors are standing. At least one protestor was armed, but no one was shot.
If you don’t care why protestors do or do not use weapons, then I don’t care why police do or do not shoot protestors. All that matters is that the US has not shot any protestors in a long, long time, much less killed over 100. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it up. Whatever the US is doing to control crowds and protestors so that lethal force does not become necessary is working.
Again, the US hasn’t shot protestors in a long, long time. Any suggestion that they would or that the Maiden protests would have played out the same way in the US is purely speculative, and almost certainly wrong. Why do you think the US invests in things like directed energy/noise machines, water cannons, tear gas, bean bags, rubber bullets, etc., if not to use them instead of live ammunition? Protestors would almost certainly not get the opportunity to use guns against the police in the US, especially since the police had a long time to prepare for these protestors in the Maidan. Suggesting I try to replicate this is absurd, as it would require assembling hundreds of protestors over multiple weeks before attempting to bring weapons, as only this would invoke a similar crowd-control response from the police. It is extremely unlikely anyone in such a crowd would ever get into the position of being able to raise the barrel of a firearm against the police if this had played out in the US.
Here’s an example of how [police-protestor violence was avoided in London in 2011][1], even when protestors attacked police and [threw things][2] at them:
Pictures of police officers standing and watching as youths smashed and looted shops have puzzled the public.
But Steven Kavanagh, the Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner, denied those images were a sign of the force being soft on rioters: “The Met is not namby pamby,” he told the Guardian.
He added: “The face of policing has changed, 25-30 years ago it would have been a different response, we’d have gone to baton rounds and water cannon straight away. Now we are more measured.”
He said the police faced contrasting demands from the public: “There are two extremes, the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade, and those who say these are frustrated youngsters.”
Twenty-five years ago, Kavanagh said, officers might have “let anger get the better of themselves”, and go wading in, but he said there was now a more disciplined approach, with officers not charging in as they were “holding the line” to protect firefighters putting out blazes that threatened life.
And by your standards, who does have the moral high ground? I guess Israel would be a good example (among many), since security forces there regularly have rocks thrown at them, and whereas you say US police would unquestionably shoot in those circumstances the Israelis typically don’t shoot, much less kill dozens.
Considering most of the thread now talks about the behaviour of Ukrainian Police, it’s interesting to point out that it looks like they might be innocent after all.
Only if you expect Tymoshenko or Yuschenko to be essential, which was clearly not the case. Yanukovitch had to make some hard choices about relationships with Russia and EU that had been kicked down the road for years (by Yuschenko and Tymoshenko, among others) and was shouldering the inevitable unpopularity due to a huge economic crisis. It was a very good opening. Somebody took it.
The Turkish regime was left absolutely free to use direct violence to stop the Arab Spring protests, with no repercussion whatsoever – because nobody in NATO can risk losing Turkey, end of. Same in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain: the US military cannot project across the Middle-East without the Saudis. In many, many ways, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are more critical than Israel, so they will be left alone to do as they please with internal protesters, as long as they allow the US military to hang around freely. This is undeniable. The same happened in Europe in the '70s: US couldn’t do without NATO countries, so NATO countries were left free (or even helped) to annihilate internal leftist movements with all sorts of dirty tricks and brutal repression.
By the way, the difference between Ukraine/Egypt and Iran is social control. The Iranian regime is extremely good at pervasive control and repression, in a way that most other countries are not. They can do this thanks to some indisputable ideological tenets (foreign support for the Sha, religious legitimacy, some degree of democracy and so on) which make the internal opposition structurally weak. The best they can hope for, is to criticise immediate tactical choices in order to elect softer leaders, and hope for some “glasnost” snowball happening at some point.
But I would frame Crimea as a result of RUSSIA’s military-industrial complex. Russia pushed its political dissidents to Crimea starting in the early 1900s. And then, because of its sweet location in the Black Sea yet deep in Soviet territory, it became the likeliest and best spot for Russian Navy bases. Quite the strategic location, this Crimea! Crimea is a jewel in the Russian Military’s crown. Look on a map where it is and what it is proximal to. It is no wonder they are loathe to let it go.
I addressed that above, with extensive quotes from the apparent source of Paet’s claims.
And an Iranian website probably isn’t the best place to get information about the US.
1: Putin calls for invasion of Ukraine; UN security council meets - #261 by bwv812[quote=“toyg, post:267, topic:24467”]
Only if you expect Tymoshenko or Yuschenko to be essential, which was clearly not the case. Yanukovitch had to make some hard choices about relationships with Russia and EU that had been kicked down the road for years (by Yuschenko and Tymoshenko, among others) and was shouldering the inevitable unpopularity due to a huge economic crisis.
[/quote]
The economic crisis predated Yanukovich’s election. Tymoshenko and Yuschenko may not be essential, but surely it would be better if they were free and politically relevant if you wanted to bring them to power. I mean, it seems like an extremely crude plan to wait all this time, to a point when the opposition is weaker and more fractured than before, and then foment revolution even though the current ruler is extremely unpopular and likely would be removed in democratic elections before the end of the year. It’s tough to see why the US would pick this particular time to create a revolution.
You’re still not telling me what the US did to help Ukraine that they didn’t do in Bahrain or Turkey. In both Turkey and Bahrain they complained about the government’s actions. That the same as they’ve done in Ukraine, and it’s about all they’ve done in Ukraine, even though the revolution was successful in Ukraine and wasn’t in Turkey or Bahrain.
I disagree with your analysis of Iran. Lots of people aren’t that religious (although they have to pretend to be in order to be eligible for government jobs/university), and even many religious people have completely lost faith in the political system and the supreme leader after the 2009 election, which was widely seen as rigged by pretty much everyone. Some are nostalgic for the Shah, especially among the younger people who didn’t have to live through his excesses but still see images of Iranians from the '60s wearing miniskirts in the streets and at universities. The strength or weakness of the internal opposition, elections inside, is largely predicated on the fact that the supreme leader and the guardians council have the final say on everything, meaning that the choice is to propose reforms that have no chance of success or to propose very incremental changes that frustrate the electorate. In terms of actually controlling the hearts and minds of the people, however, the government of Iran has failed spectacularly. Sure, they hate Arabs who they consider to be extremely uncivilized and uncultured, and yes they’re skeptical of Israel and extremely frustrated with the West for holding back their nuclear ambitions, but these are about the only features that unite them (along with their pride in being Aryans, which doesn’t translate very well to Westerners). But in most other respects they’re the friendliest and most welcoming people you will ever meet, especially to Westerners.
Edited to include responses to post below:
The call is on Youtube and was reported by various outlets, there’s nothing Iranian about it. PressTV is the only English post I found on Google News, which in itself is sad. And of course one thing is to speak privately (doctor to Paet, Paet to Ashton) and another to speak to a journalist, especially after the government has changed and the people you might have carelessly “grassed out” are now in power and specifically in charge of security.
Hey, I found English reporting on it and linked to it above. However, the English reporting I found actually went to Paet’s source and asked them questions, and the source told a substantially different story and disagreed with Paet’s analysis. It’s no surprise that an Iranian outlet didn’t do the same, or presented an anti-American perspective in its analysis.
"The economic crisis predated Yanukovich's election."
But Yanukovich clearly couldn’t do anything about it. In fact, he couldn’t even bring serious help from his Putin pal.
So what? Your claim was that the economic situation made this a uniquely good time for the US to launch a revolution and solidify pro-Western leadership, despite Yanukovich being in power. That’s simply not true.
"Tymoshenko and Yuschenko may not be essential, but surely it would be better if they were free and politically relevant if you wanted to bring them to power."
But you don’t! That’s the thing: you want the pro-Russia stooges out, but you don’t necessarily want already-discredited leaders in the picture. There were lots of grumbles when Tymoshenko was released, and she couldn’t be appointed in government because she’s just not presentable anymore.
Which was basically my point. It would have made much more sense for the US to have helped them years ago when they were in power and/or still politically relevant instead of waiting until now. It makes no sense for the US to have waited until now to intervene in Ukraine’s politics.
The main forces in the new governments are people who had very public disagreements with her (despite belonging to the same party, they thrived only once she was jailed), some neutral elements, the occasional oligarchs, and a bunch of Svoboda and Pravyi Sektor strongmen. The Orange Revolution is not to be named.
So, in your opinion, the US chose this time to launch a revolution and regime change, and apparently wanted “a bunch of Svoboda and Pravyi Sektor strongmen” to be part of the new regime, because is preferable to having given their assistance when Tymoshenko or Yushchenko were the natural leaders. I’m not sure I understand this logic.
"You're still not telling me what the US did to help Ukraine that they didn't do in Bahrain or Turkey."
Did Kerry tour Turkey to lay flowers or otherwise empathise with protesters? Did they propose financial-aid packages to some government-in-waiting? Of course not. They made a couple of press releases and left it at that. Same (or even less) in Bahrain. Because behind token gestures, there is no real US policy for regime change in Turkey and Saudi Arabia and never will be, as long as US servicemen are welcome.
Did Kerry do any of this before regime change in Ukraine? Was aid money proposed before Yanukovich was ousted? Do you think that if the regimes of Bahrain or Turkey fell that the US would have engaged with the new regimes and visited?
However, a movement that could be perceived as US-backed would still struggle to find sympathisers among people born before 1989. This is not the case in Eastern Europe (in fact, it’s been the exact opposite at least until 2003).
I don’t know why 1989 is a magical date for Iran, when the Shah was overthrown in 1979. About 60% of the population has been born after 1979, and I’m not sure that those born before would have different sentiments. I’ve certainly met lot of older people who disliked the current regime just as much and who participated in the Green movement. Indeed, if the Green Movement had been successful I have no doubt that some would paint it as a being US-backed, just as you are painting the Ukrainian revolution as being US-backed. These claims would do little to change the internal legitimacy of the movement, though.
