The Situation in the Ukraine. #2

TR1 wrote:Oh stop.

We invaded it.
Blockaded Ukrainian bases.
Held a referendum that we knew would go our way.

The Alamo and the Mexican-American war was one of America aggressively seeking and getting war to expand its territory with Mexico.
You really wanna draw that comparison . I guess Russia did grab land, but thankfully there was no war.

Yanukovitch (democratically elected leader of Ukraine) requested increased Russian military presence in Crimea, the democratically elected leadership of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea requested increased Russian military presence in Crimea, the Ukrainian bases were blockaded because the coup' de' tat govt. in Kiev was dangerous and unpredictable (even advocating the use of nuclear weapons against ethnic Russians), the Ukrainian soldiers were treated sooooooo badly by the Russian soldiers at those bases that 88% of Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea defected to join the Russian military of their own free will just like they did when the Russian base was first commissioned.     Lets not forget to remember that in the 8-8-8 war Ukrainian military had a naval blockade against Russian ships stationed in Crimea which was illegal, they returned the favor. The referendum wouldn't of happened had the coup govt. in Kiev wasn't advocating banning of the Russian language, and criminalizing Russian citizenship, there's a international precedent from the case-studies in Nazi Germany, to Apartheid South Africa...racial discrimination is simply unacceptable. The "Alamo" point wasn't drawing comparisons of military events, but the idea of "remembering" them...the main point was that Russian military presence in Crimea goes back hundreds of years, and the same western news media that made the claim that "Crimea was invaded!!1!" is also claiming that there's a massive Russian military build up on the Ukrainian border, even NBC had to admit that the claim was erroneous and grossly exaggerated:

Not sure how legit this is:
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1434743

Referendum in Crimea plucked U.S. plans in Ukraine
01.04.2014 21:00
Author: Alexander Khristenko
Tweet
Save


32

Coup in Ukraine U.S. intelligence agencies were prepared for 20 years . This was announced by former NSA Scott Rickard , in his interview for one of the channels. This means that the incarnation of the script ideologue Brzezinski began almost simultaneously with the promise given by Washington to Moscow that NATO would not move toward the East.

On the sidelines of the Ukrainian revolution emerges painfully familiar , native handwriting U.S. intelligence says Rickard . For high-class specialist in computer technology and analytics clear - a coup in Ukraine is not spontaneous manifestation of the popular will , and the result of long hard work.

" Of course , the CIA working in Ukraine for decades, especially since the early 1990s . 's Full of non-profit , non-governmental , in quotes , organizations, because they just are funded by the U.S. government . State Department said that Ukrainian democracy invested $ 5 billion ? I assure you that the amount is much more " , - says Rickard .

It's not that the Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland lied , he explains. Just a scheme is much more difficult . In one team - the U.S. state organizations , such as closed in Russia USaid, parastatal research centers , such as Corporation RAND, and private investors in democracy, American billionaires - such as George Soros and Pierre Amidyar investing millions of dollars. The payback is when the power of their people come . " All of these units operate on a single target , in this case - the expansion of NATO ," - said Rickard .

In 2010, the expansion of NATO stood Viktor Yanukovych . He proposed, and Parliament endorsed a law on non-aligned status of Ukraine. 4 years later, the road cleared by removing Yanukovych , but seems to have stumbled on the Crimea . " U.S. intelligence was caught unawares , they did not anticipate that Putin will make a strategic move . They are accustomed to a more sluggish reactions. Meanwhile, the West acts aggressively , destructive, and you are almost forced to respond as Russian replied . You must act quickly and decisively "- says Rickard .

According to him, the big surprise was the referendum in the Crimea conducted in compliance with all democratic procedures and its results - the vast majority for entry into Russia. Not accidentally nonprofit organizations who were backed the United States was much harder to work on the peninsula than in Kiev .

Did not help , and social networks, says former NSA employee . Despite the latest technology to manipulate . The principle is the same as that of the content . Only the content - more. " The desired entry in Facebook , for example, with anti-government appeal , they can do more and more popular , it often show it to see the maximum number of people. This is advantageous if the protest . Or, conversely, reduce the frequency , if it is not at hand. This creates mass effect , and man thinks that's the way most people think , although his friends just tape recording selectively displayed a certain sense , "- says former NSA .

Postrevolutionary future of Ukraine Scott Rickard compares with the present Nigeria. Resource-rich African country - one of the poorest on the continent. Chaos in politics and society , shock therapy in the economy, the oligarchs , and strong pressure from the outside.

Special funds and non-governmental organizations in Ukraine will not disappear , the analyst believes . The goal of the destruction - is done , but the task of monitoring has not been removed .

We invaded it.
Blockaded Ukrainian bases.
Held a referendum that we knew would go our way.

How can you invade a country you are legally entitled to have military forces within, and there is no evidence Russian military forces exceeded the 25 thousand they were entitled to base there.

Where were all the protesters objecting to this invasion?

Where were the freedom fighters standing up to this aggression?

this is the equivalent of the people of the Falklands deciding to be a British colony.

GarryB wrote:

We invaded it.
Blockaded Ukrainian bases.
Held a referendum that we knew would go our way.

How can you invade a country you are legally entitled to have military forces within, and there is no evidence Russian military forces exceeded the 25 thousand they were entitled to base there.

Where were all the protesters objecting to this invasion?

Where were the freedom fighters standing up to this aggression?

this is the equivalent of the people of the Falklands deciding to be a British colony.

Lets not forget that "invasions" tend to have extensive bombing campaigns and missiles strikes, we can't recall too many of those can we?

GarryB wrote:

We invaded it.
Blockaded Ukrainian bases.
Held a referendum that we knew would go our way.

How can you invade a country you are legally entitled to have military forces within, and there is no evidence Russian military forces exceeded the 25 thousand they were entitled to base there.

Where were all the protesters objecting to this invasion?

Where were the freedom fighters standing up to this aggression?

this is the equivalent of the people of the Falklands deciding to be a British colony.

Because Russia has to notify Ukraine when they move forces in.
Helicopters and Tigrs and other forces that were NOT in Sevastopol moved in.

It is shady and violated Ukrainian sovereignty. No amount of logical gymnastics will get around that.

International politics is about hypocrisy and the strong applying their strength when they deem it favors them.
Please guys, stop with this Russia is a saint acting to save ethnic Russians from Nazis BS.
This thread is painful to read, and this is from a Russian's perspective.

TR1 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

We invaded it.
Blockaded Ukrainian bases.
Held a referendum that we knew would go our way.

How can you invade a country you are legally entitled to have military forces within, and there is no evidence Russian military forces exceeded the 25 thousand they were entitled to base there.

Where were all the protesters objecting to this invasion?

Where were the freedom fighters standing up to this aggression?

this is the equivalent of the people of the Falklands deciding to be a British colony.

It is shady and violated Ukrainian sovereignty.

...Because the foreign financed coup that toppled the democraticly elected govt. that happens to be giving Ukrainian pipelines free-of-charge to Chevron is all about maintaining Ukrainian sovereignty.  

Austin wrote:The man who headed Saudi Arabia’s intelligence service for 24 years talks to Edward Luce about equal rights for Saudi women, and which country has the best spies

How is it possible for a Saudi to be in charge of Saudi's "intelligence service"?

magnumcromagnon wrote:

TR1 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

We invaded it.
Blockaded Ukrainian bases.
Held a referendum that we knew would go our way.

How can you invade a country you are legally entitled to have military forces within, and there is no evidence Russian military forces exceeded the 25 thousand they were entitled to base there.

Where were all the protesters objecting to this invasion?

Where were the freedom fighters standing up to this aggression?

this is the equivalent of the people of the Falklands deciding to be a British colony.

It is shady and violated Ukrainian sovereignty.

...Because the foreign financed coup that toppled the democraticly elected govt. that happens to be giving Ukrainian pipelines free-of-charge to Chevron is all about maintaining Ukrainian sovereignty.  

Ukrainians protesting against their gov =/= polite people blocking in the Ukrainian military.
Foreign aid doesn't disqualify the nature of the protests.

Now if Crimeans alone blocked Ukrainian federal forces and carried out the referendum on their own, we could draw the comparison.
But they only did so after Russia took military control over Ukrainian territory. Let's not deny facts here.

TR1 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

TR1 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

We invaded it.
Blockaded Ukrainian bases.
Held a referendum that we knew would go our way.

How can you invade a country you are legally entitled to have military forces within, and there is no evidence Russian military forces exceeded the 25 thousand they were entitled to base there.

Where were all the protesters objecting to this invasion?

Where were the freedom fighters standing up to this aggression?

this is the equivalent of the people of the Falklands deciding to be a British colony.

It is shady and violated Ukrainian sovereignty.

...Because the foreign financed coup that toppled the democraticly elected govt. that happens to be giving Ukrainian pipelines free-of-charge to Chevron is all about maintaining Ukrainian sovereignty.  

Foreign aid doesn't disqualify the nature of the protests.

Foreign aid just so happens be the same aid that the majority of Latin American leaders collectively accused the U.S. state dept. of using NGO's for destabilization, and the "military takeover" of Crimea is quite dubious and exaggerated statement considering the elected leaders in Crimea weren't forcibly kicked out of power, and please be-so-kind to explain to me how a "aggressive military invasion" didn't even have one artillery shell fired, one missile launched, one bomb dropped, one sortie flown for that supposed "military take over and invasion". When President Dwight D. Eisnehower used the U.S. Army to protect students and to keep the peace in places where there was racial integration in schools, was that a violation of the southern former Confederate states sovereignty and a military invasion too? What about the non-existent Russian military build up on the border of Ukraine, alongside those WMD's in Iraq?

TR1 wrote:Ukrainians protesting against their gov =/= polite people blocking in the Ukrainian military.

I really didn't understand this line.

TR1 wrote:Foreign aid doesn't disqualify the nature of the protests.

There was no "foreign" aid; there was only "foreign" control of their terrorist drones.

Without that "foreign" control of the terrorists/drones, there would have been no demonstrations at all.

TR1 wrote:Now if Crimeans alone blocked Ukrainian federal forces and carried out the referendum on their own, we could draw the comparison.
But they only did so after Russia took military control over Ukrainian territory. Let's not deny facts here.

This was aid, but not by a foreign entity, as Crimea, and for that matter Ukraine, have until recently always been part of Russia. (Ignore the "Scaligarian" fiction that there was a tiny period of time, in antiquity, that Ukraine was a separate entity.)

Without the Russian aid, the terrorists would have nuked the reunionists if they could. The terrorists have already admitted to these kind of aspirations.

The bottom line is that TR1 is a Russian, and Russians have always been charitable to all of their enemies, but strict with themselves.

The Real Russian perspective is: that Crimea always was, is and always will be Russian. It was added to Ukraine in a shady decision in 1954, the referendum in 1992 was completely ignored and has been subject to so called "ukranisation" for the last 20 odd years.

The Russian intervention commenced AFTER the Feb 21 deal was broken.

IMO this movie has just begun and there's a lot more to come

Cyberspec wrote:IMO this movie has just begun and there's a lot more to come

Of course. The "world war" is still in its "phoney" phase, but the heat-up has and will be at an exponential rate.

Because Russia has to notify Ukraine when they move forces in.
Helicopters and Tigrs and other forces that were NOT in Sevastopol moved in.

The President of the Ukraine asked Russia for assistance, perhaps Putin told him?

Besides I have yet to see any evidence that Russian forces moved from Russia into the Crimea and "took over".

It looked to me like Military men from the region took action to prevent bloodshed and did not occupy or invade anything. They kept the rule of law, and ensured the due process when the locally elected leadership of the Crimea made the decision to have a referendum... another one... a previous one in the early 1990s was ignored because the result didn't suit the Ukraine... how democratic is that?

It is shady and violated Ukrainian sovereignty. No amount of logical gymnastics will get around that.

It was not shady at all... there were no bombings or shellings... unarmed ukrainian troops were not executed or sent to concentration camps. The rule of local law was respected and local government controlled the situation.

The only objections were from the west, who should have less say in proceedings than the local population don't you think? Claims from Kiev that it was illegal are rich because they care less for legality than for sticking it to Russia like they did in the last referendum in the region.

International politics is about hypocrisy and the strong applying their strength when they deem it favors them.

No... that is the western way of doing things... if this was a western intervention the western forces would first have to defeat the opposition to the local group they favour for power, which always involves bombing and killing. Once they are sure they will win the election they will then hold an election. In the Crimea the election had already taken place and it was outside forces that threatened to change any democratic result.

Foreign aid doesn't disqualify the nature of the protests.

It does when people are only at the protest because they were paid to be there.

It does when that foreign aid pays for snipers to shoot and kill people on both sides of the protest to engineer an escalation that can be used to legitimise the removal by undemocratic means of an elected official by force.

Now if Crimeans alone blocked Ukrainian federal forces and carried out the referendum on their own, we could draw the comparison.

Why would it matter who kept the peace? As long as peace is kept and violence is not used to sway the result how can you claim a referendum is not democratic?

You should not post when you are drinking TR-1...

Or is your pathological hatred of Putin so deep you are going republican on him and sabotaging everything he does like he was the first black president?

The situation in the Crimea is far more democratic than anything that happened in Kosovo or Libya or Syria for that matter. It might not be squeaky clean but the result is FAIR.

I realise in the west fair means they get what they want so this is not FAIR for them but their definition of FAIR is    up.  Too much spin and politician speak... they don't speak English any more.

The bottom line is that TR1 is a Russian, and Russians have always been charitable to all of their enemies, but strict with themselves.

The exact moral opposite to the westerners... who are more do as I say, not as I do sort of people...   

So far I am still puzzled as to why did Putin seize Crimea. Can you elaborate on this?

Cuz it's clear that the seizure of Crimea will not solve any of Russia's problems, it will only create new ones. Suddenly there are 2 millions of new people from a deficit region that need wages and pensions. And Russian economy is facing a huge slowdown, prices of gas have already started falling and maxed out oil prices will start soon. Russians will not create prosperity in Crimea if they can't even create it in their own country. Only two possibilities come to my mind: either Putin is a madman who dreams about being a Tsar or the entire invasion is aimed at internal consumption. This option seems to be plausible - Putin is trying to divert the attention of people away from internal problems of their country, by playing on nationalist sentiments in Russia. By doing it he creates a "Russia str00nk" illusion that his foolish people then swallow.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_04_02/Only-six-people-in-Crimea-asked-to-retain-Ukrainian-citizenship-4857/
Only six people in the Republic of Crimea have asked to retain Ukrainian citizenship in the applications they filed to the Federal Migration Service, Crimeainform agency reported Wednesday with reference to Chief of the FMS passport department Fyodor Karpovets.

As Sa'iqa wrote:So far I am still puzzled as to why did Putin seize Crimea. Can you elaborate on this?

Cuz it's clear that the seizure of Crimea will not solve any of Russia's problems, it will only create new ones. Suddenly there are 2 millions of new people from a deficit region that need wages and pensions. And Russian economy is facing a huge slowdown, prices of gas have already started falling and maxed out oil prices will start soon. Russians will not create prosperity in Crimea if they can't even create it in their own country. Only two possibilities come to my mind: either Putin is a madman who dreams about being a Tsar or the entire invasion is aimed at internal consumption. This option seems to be plausible - Putin is trying to divert the attention of people away from internal problems of their country, by playing on nationalist sentiments in Russia. By doing it he creates a "Russia str00nk" illusion that his foolish people then swallow.

Where you looking at the foreign diplomacy of Poland and the U.S. State Dept. for inspiration for you post lol.   

arpakola wrote:

Translation please.   

Hey, does anyone know if those T-64 are already returned or not?


---------------------
To alfa:

Well, I don't know much Russian, but I think those are mobilised recruits talking about stuff   

As Sa'iqa wrote:So far I am still puzzled as to why did Putin seize Crimea. Can you elaborate on this?

Cuz it's clear that the seizure of Crimea will not solve any of Russia's problems, it will only create new ones. Suddenly there are 2 millions of new people from a deficit region that need wages and pensions. And Russian economy is facing a huge slowdown, prices of gas have already started falling and maxed out oil prices will start soon. Russians will not create prosperity in Crimea if they can't even create it in their own country. Only two possibilities come to my mind: either Putin is a madman who dreams about being a Tsar or the entire invasion is aimed at internal consumption. This option seems to be plausible - Putin is trying to divert the attention of people away from internal problems of their country, by playing on nationalist sentiments in Russia. By doing it he creates a "Russia str00nk" illusion that his foolish people then swallow.

Putin didn't just size Crimea per se. Crimean government officially ask Russia for protection and when Maidan circus started last year, Crimean parliament announced referendum, if they throw government and go to west. When Maidanuts throw Janukovich with their Right sector nazis, Crimeans didn't wait to see, what nazis will do to Crimea, but quickly ask Russia for protection. First they want to have referendum in May, than in March 30th and finally it was in March 16th, because situation become too hot to wait that long. Crimea is for Russia strategically important, not only because in Crimean sea is a lot of oil and gas and as base for Black sea fleet, but also as important defending territory for case of NATO plan Barbarosa 2. They have to protect their way to Moscow from south. Don't worry for the prices of oil and gas, they will stay high and Russia have enough buyers in Asia and Russia have pipelines to Pacific. Russia is self sufficient, so sanctions will not hurt so much, but far bigger fall is waiting for EU and US. Actually it is good, that Russia cut connections with western banking system as fall of western financial system will not hurt Russian economy that much.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-interview-yanukovych-hopes-crimeas-return-125042682.html

ROSTOV-ON-DON, Russia (AP) — Ukraine's ousted president, Viktor Yanukovych, said Wednesday that he was "wrong" to invite Russian troops into Crimea, and vowed to try to persuade Russia to return the Black Sea peninsula.

Ukrainian president invite Russian troops into Crimea, so it was not an occupation.

medo wrote:
Ukrainian president invite Russian troops into Crimea, so it was not an occupation.

And KLA invited foreign troops into Kosovo. It's only a matter of perception.


----------------
Quite an old piece, but not sure if this was posted before:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-19/news/sns-rt-us-ukraine-crisis-donetsk-governor-20140319_1_crimea-ukrainian-nationalist-pro-moscow-activists