ASIP Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) From what I understand is that the snipers were firing on civilian protesters and police personnel. They were targeting both sides. To me that looks like a third party element. Now the question is, who are they, and who is supporting them? Let's be clear, protesters used hunting and pellet guns, riot police used AK-47-type assault rifles. Those weapons are not accurate and did not cause any significant number of fatalities if any. A certain number of protesters were tortured and killed by pro-Russian thugs that Yanukovich's police used against protesters. Two persons were burned alive when police put fire on the Trade Union Building where protesters organized a rest area. This is the only damaged building in Kiev. Most of victims were killed by two (it's my opinion) snipers. That these snipers were shooting both sides has been known from day one because of a large number of video recording. The number of killed protesters to the number of killed police is approximately 10:1 ratio. They were extremely professional shots from a long distance with a higher caliber bullets. There were some discussions of the situation in Russian and Ukrainian forums. Briefly. There were three groups of snipers on Maidan. They all are government men. 1. Anti-terrorist group "Alpha" from National security service. 2. President security group with the son of Yanukovich, Alexander, as their commander. 3. Snipers from military (I do not remember precise details). More or less clear situation exists with group "Alpha". It seems, they did not shot. But from radio intercept done by a HAM amateur they noticed an unidentified source of sniper fire from deep inside of a room in a hotel. Yanukovich's son, his group, minister of Interior, Attorney General are all fled Ukraine. According to a law, government snipers can shoot only on armed terrorists and only after authorization by at least a minister. It is obvious, that minister should ask president first. Among Ukrainian people there is a strong perception that Yanukovich could not order shooting protesters. He is not so stupid to not understand consequences. He's a big coward. And he had no reason to shoot on riot police. People think that there were rogue snipers, whose goal to spill blood a lot of blood to destabilize the situation. The number one person who benefits from this is Putin. After violence stopped, the new Ukrainian government immediately started an investigation of shootings on Maidan. Best available experts were called for. I think, in some time, results of this investigation will be published. Edited March 11, 2014 by ASIP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 We have no evidence to indicate the residents of the Crimea had any desire to leave Ukraine prior to the Russian government sending in troops and taking over their parliament. They've been trying to separate from Ukraine since at least 1992. They've been asking Russia to intervene since 2009. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 They've been trying to separate from Ukraine since at least 1992. They've been asking Russia to intervene since 2009.cite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASIP Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 They've been trying to separate from Ukraine since at least 1992. They've been asking Russia to intervene since 2009. They - who? Give names, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 They've been trying to separate from Ukraine since at least 1992. They've been asking Russia to intervene since 2009. cite Yes, I'd like a cite too. How strong was this separatist movement? Any polls taken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Harper has jumped on the "sanctions against Russia" wagon. I believe that this move is not only a waste of time but also throws Canada directly into the "me too USA" camp. Meanwhile, all reports indicate that Putin has gained greatly in popularity in Russia. Putin continues to do things that he thinks are good for Russia - that is after all, his job. Looks like Russians also thinks he is doing what is good for Russia. It would be interesting to know what people from the Crimea who now live in Canada think of the events in their previous homeland. Does anybody really think that Putin will reverse what has been happening in the Crimea because of economic sanctions by a few countries in the West? Edited March 17, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 Harper has jumped on the "sanctions against Russia" wagon. I believe that this move is not only a waste of time but also throws Canada directly into the "me too USA" camp. Meanwhile, all reports indicate that Putin has gained greatly in popularity in Russia. Putin continues to do things that he thinks are good for Russia - that is after all, his job. Looks like Russians also thinks he is doing what is good for Russia. It would be interesting to know what people from the Crimea who now live in Canada think of the events in their previous homeland. Does anybody really think that Putin will reverse what has been happening in the Crimea because of economic sanctions by a few countries in the West? Of course not. Remeber our discussion from the other Ukrainian thread, where I said: "Leaders usually do what's best for themselves, the interests of "their people" often overlap but are a secondary priority." Harper is not acting in the best interest of Canada, he is simply trying to pick up the pyrogy vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASIP Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 Of course not. Remeber our discussion from the other Ukrainian thread, where I said: "Leaders usually do what's best for themselves, the interests of "their people" often overlap but are a secondary priority." Harper is not acting in the best interest of Canada, he is simply trying to pick up the pyrogy vote. Can you embrace an idea of doing something to stop a new Hitler? How come "the best interest of Canada" is to bend before Russia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) Can you embrace an idea of doing something to stop a new Hitler? How come "the best interest of Canada" is to bend before Russia? Just what do you suggest that Canada do? Do you really think that Canadians have any stomach to get into a confrontation with Russia - especially to contest a questionable referendum? There is a large diaspora of Ukrainians in North America. If there is a confrontation, then they can travel there to settle the matter of Crimea. As can the large diaspora of Russians and Russian sympathizers in Canada and the USA. Edited March 18, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Can you embrace an idea of doing something to stop a new Hitler? How come "the best interest of Canada" is to bend before Russia? Maybe we could sell them some arms like France is doing with naval helicopter carriers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASIP Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Just what do you suggest that Canada do? At least, condemn the aggressor. Canada must not remain silent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.