Log in

View Full Version : Smoke bombs thrown in Ukraine Parliament in protest over Russian treaty


Angel Man
April 27th, 2010, 11:57 AM
Smoke bombs thrown in Ukraine Parliament in protest over Russian treaty

35vpFAE4n08


4EbnYNsi_ic



Ukraine’s Parliament descended into chaos today as smoke bombs were set off and eggs thrown at the Speaker in opposition protests against a new treaty with Russia.

Clouds of smoke filled the chamber and deputies fought each other in the aisles ahead of a critical vote to ratify an agreement allowing Russia’s Black Sea Fleet to remain in Ukraine until the middle of the century.

The Speaker, Volodymr Lytvyn, was forced to hide under two black umbrellas held up by aides as opposition deputies hurled eggs at him in a bid to disrupt the proceedings. Alarms went off when two smoke bombs were thrown, but deputies continued to debate the treaty even as the chamber filled with fumes.

Despite the protests, 236 deputies in the 450-seat Rada voted to ratify the treaty, allowing Russia to retain its naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea for up to 30 years after its current lease expires in 2017. The deal was signed by Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych during a visit by his Kremlin counterpart Dmitri Medvedev to Kharkiv last week.

Opposition parties led by the defeated presidential candidate Yuliya Tymoshenko denounced the agreement as a sell-out of Ukraine’s sovereignty. They unfurled a huge Ukrainian flag in the chamber and some deputies screamed “shame, shame!” as the treaty was passed.

“Today will go down as a black page in the history of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Parliament,” Mrs Tymoshenko, the former Prime Minister said.

Up to 10,000 protestors massed outside the parliament in Kiev, with pro-western opponents of the treaty shouting “death to traitors” as the controversy threatened to trigger fresh political confrontation in Ukraine’s divided society. Thousands of supporters of Mr Yanukovych’s Party of Regions also turned out at a rally carrying banners describing Ukraine and Russia as “strategic partners”.

Russia has promised to sell gas to Ukraine at a 30 per cent discount in return for being allowed to retain the base. Mr Yanukovych estimated last week that this would be worth $40 billion (£26.7bn) to Ukraine’s struggling economy over the next decade.

Mrs Tymoshenko and Ukraine’s former president Viktor Yushchenko have denounced the treaty as a betrayal of national interests. Mr Yushchenko, who came to power in the 2004 Orange revolution, had insisted that the fleet must leave Ukraine when the present lease expired.

“If society today turns a blind eye to the Kharkiv agreement, it is possible that it will be the biggest loss to our sovereignty and independence,” he warned ahead of today’s vote.

Mr Medvedev broke off relations with Mr Yushchenko last year, accusing him of being “anti-Russian”. But he has moved swiflty to cement relations with Mr Yanukovych, meeting him five times since Ukraine’s new president took office in February.

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s Prime Minister, was also in Kiev today for talks with Mr Yanukovych and Prime Minister Mykola Azarov. He offered an unprecedented deal to create a joint holding company to work on projects for nuclear power generation.

He told reporters that the gas deal would be a financial “burden” for Russia, adding: “The amount that this has cost us is really something else. For this kind of money I could have eaten Yanukovych and your Prime Minister together.”

Russia’s parliament, the Duma, also ratified the treaty today in a parallel session to the one in Kiev, by a vote of 410 to zero in favour. Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said: "The Black Sea fleet acts as a guarantor of security both in the Black Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea. The agreement offers us serious opportunities to promote further military and military-technical cooperation between the armed forces of Ukraine and Russia.”

The Black Sea fleet has been based in Sevastopol since the 18th Century but its future was cast into doubt after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukraine and Russia agreed a 20-year lease in 1997.

Tensions have escalated over Crimea, with some senior politicians in Moscow arguing that they should reclaim the territory. It was transferred to Ukraine from Russia by the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev in 1954.

Whisper
April 27th, 2010, 01:03 PM
they had no choice.
if they hadn't passed it Russia would make them pay dearly.
The strategic importance is to vital for Russia to give up

Thats like japan will never get rid of US forces.
-shrug-

Sage
April 27th, 2010, 05:16 PM
Yeah, that's how we roll back home in eastern Europe.

Richthegamer99
April 27th, 2010, 07:13 PM
We Ukrainains use our fists to do politices ,get those russains boats out of our navy base

Ми краще, що ми отримали кращі військові і військово-морський флот не грайте з нами

Whisper
April 27th, 2010, 09:07 PM
We Ukrainains use our fists to do politices ,get those russains boats out of our navy base

Ми краще, що ми отримали кращі військові і військово-морський флот не грайте з нами
K online translators suck
I wanna clarify that right now
But apparently what you said translates to "We are better that we got the best military and navy do not play with us"
If that translation is even remotely accurate and I'm not saying it is
Using strictly conventional means Russia would obliterate your forces within 24hrs, easy.
Especially with the 4 warships (http://militarytimes.com/blogs/scoopdeck/files/2009/08/tonnerre-at-anchor.jpg) they bought off France, apparently it will help them greatly with deployment. They were pissed it took them a few days to crush Georgia, strictly cause it took them time to get the forces in place.....
Needless to say the rest of NATO was pissed lol
fuckin french.

The fact is Russia's fists are bigger and NATO will NOT help you (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5434301,00.html) if Russia decides to use them
As far as evicting Russian forces
seriously dude....never, gonna, happen. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042703887.html)
Russia wants to maintain power in the Black Sea and they do NOT want Ukraine to become too pro west
Russia is pretty pissed about the American missile defense programme they're putting in place to negate the threat of Iranian nukes.

Richthegamer99
April 27th, 2010, 09:35 PM
K online translators suck
I wanna clarify that right now
But apparently what you said translates to "We are better that we got the best military and navy do not play with us"
If that translation is even remotely accurate and I'm not saying it is
Using strictly conventional means Russia would obliterate your forces within 24hrs, easy.
Especially with the 4 warships (http://militarytimes.com/blogs/scoopdeck/files/2009/08/tonnerre-at-anchor.jpg) they bought off France, apparently it will help them greatly with deployment. They were pissed it took them a few days to crush Georgia, strictly cause it took them time to get the forces in place.....
Needless to say the rest of NATO was pissed lol
fuckin french.

The fact is Russia's fists are bigger and NATO will NOT help you (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5434301,00.html) if Russia decides to use them
As far as evicting Russian forces
seriously dude....never, gonna, happen. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042703887.html)
Russia wants to maintain power in the Black Sea and they do NOT want Ukraine to become too pro west
Russia is pretty pissed about the American missile defense programme they're putting in place to negate the threat of Iranian nukes.



just because they are bigger doesn't mean they are better, large amry's doesn't mean mean they can win a war

Whisper
April 28th, 2010, 03:24 AM
just because they are bigger doesn't mean they are better, large amry's doesn't mean mean they can win a war

I'm not trying to attack you dude, I'm Canadian I hear from my American friends alllll the time about how they can "wipe the floor with us" and it pisses me right off. I see where you're coming from I really do.

But the fact is, in this case, size defiantly matters.
Russia could annihilate your government and occupy Ukraine rather easily and I doubt the international community would do much in response.
You are not a NATO nation and the west won't provoke Russia militarily, you would be on your own.
The Ukrainian death toll both troops and civilians would be very high and the damage you'd receive to infrastructure could effect your nation (IF it remains sovereign...big "if") for decades
Nuclear deterrents aside, Ukraine isn't worth starting another world war over especially considering NATO is already involved in 2 wars that have been going on for the better part of a decade now and we still have Iran on the table.
At the very worst the western world would publicly condone Russia's actions, I doubt it would even lead to sanctions considering Russia itself has VETO and China has a strict none interference policy in fucking 3rd and 4th world nations, never mind Russia, a nuclear power, permanent member of the security counsel aka the most powerful entity within the United Nations, and a resource superpower


What your government did was very wise and frankly they had no other option.
Gas prices have dropped 30% bringing them inline with its legitimate worth (Russia fucked you over I know)
and you're now in the Kremlin's good graces which for a nation in your position is a very good place to be (there are many times when Canada sucks up to the States -shrug-)
You CAN defend your sovereignty and independence through other means such as ensuring a rock hard democratic constitution and eradicating the severe corruption in the energy sector. Supporting strong feelings of nationality via special events (have a kick ass independence day every yr for example) etc....

Not all wars are fought and won in the trenches
Canada won independence from the British Empire without firing a single shot.


Nice sig by the way
you seem like a strong republican lol

Kahn
April 28th, 2010, 10:24 AM
We Ukrainains use our fists to do politices ,get those russains boats out of our navy base

Ми краще, що ми отримали кращі військові і військово-морський флот не грайте з нами

You live in Long Island, NY...

Definitely the Ukraine.

UKRAINE

http://www.freewebs.com/andreapc/Ukraine%20Map.jpg
Long Island

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/Long_Island_US_map.gif

Whisper
April 28th, 2010, 03:06 PM
fuck.
i need to start reading members info, instead of just going off their posts.

Richthegamer99
April 28th, 2010, 03:58 PM
nato has not been in 2 world wars nato was formed in 1949 and ww1 was 1914-1918 and ww2 1939-1945

Whisper
April 28th, 2010, 05:00 PM
nato has not been in 2 world wars nato was formed in 1949 and ww1 was 1914-1918 and ww2 1939-1945

I never said they had been in 2 WORLD wars (it was only formed during the begining of the cold war wasn't it?) i said they're involved in 2 wars at the moment, Iraq and Afghanistan

I mentioned NATO because they are one of the few forces that have proven they can stand up against Russia if it were required
But they would not do that for the Ukraine, it wouldn't be worth the risk of igniting another world war, its not a member nation.
For the record I hope it never is, it shares a boarder with Russia, that would cause nothing but trouble and tensions, its not worth it.

Ukraine IS a sovereign nation
IF they did decide to attack Russia, that is there decision (I highly doubt they're that stupid)
their government has the right to make that call
But they would be alone
and it would be a very short fight

Sage
April 28th, 2010, 09:20 PM
large amry's doesn't mean mean they can win a war

No, but it does mean they can overwhelm the enemy's numbers very quickly and not be affected by massive casualties.

mrmcdonaldduck
April 29th, 2010, 07:04 AM
just because they are bigger doesn't mean they are better, large amry's doesn't mean mean they can win a war

dude, you spelled army wrong, and i think that shows your ignorance. if war was to start between your countries, russias 5000 active nukes would destroy you, as you have none.

apart from that, i do think that the ukraine made the right choice, as they are benifiting from it with a 30% discount on gas. How is that not a good thing?

Kahn
April 29th, 2010, 02:48 PM
The kid isn't from the Ukraine... Read my first post.

mrmcdonaldduck
April 29th, 2010, 05:14 PM
The kid isn't from the Ukraine... Read my first post.

i know that, but he might have a ukraniane background