The Situation in the Ukraine. #23

flamming_python wrote:Of course though Crimea was heading towards war and the situation was deteriorating with each passing day. Russian intervention was a matter of necessity; possibly the situation could have been resolved by convincing the coupist authorities to lay-off and enter negotiations; but hind-sight shows that they would have been unlikely to listen.

Convince them how exactly? How does one negotiate with someone who's ready to use violence as their first option and not as their last? The Russians went in and showed them what's up. It takes guys with bigger guns to fight other guys with guns. That's how simple and to the point this is. It was obvious the situation in Crimea would lead to war. We all saw self defense formations and militias. We'd have the same scenario there (and possinbly even worse) like in Donbass. You suggest Russia should have spectated from the sidelines and let Crimeans get slaughtered? Or wait until blood has spilled and then intervene? I think that's wrong.

UN mandate? Come on now. Do you honestly believe that yourself? When has any UN resolution worked in the face of Realpolitik? If UN resolutions were followed then Libya wouldn't have happened and that goes for every conflict in the past 20-30 years. In fact, Russia at that moment would have lost precious time if it completely relied on the UN. That would lead to possibly the largest geopolitical blunder in its history. Russia has been playing the nice guy all this time starting from 1991 and what did it get? It got Georgia and Ukraine as a "thank you".

kvs wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
I think i know what Auslander is drinking these holidays...


''Kiev cries foul as historic Crimean wines go under hammer''


http://news.yahoo.com/kiev-cries-foul-historic-crimean-wines-under-hammer-211232457.html

Kiev (AFP) - Legendary Crimean winemaker Massandra, once a supplier to Russia's Tsar Nicolas II, has provoked the ire of Kiev by putting 13,000 vintage bottles up for auction on Tuesday.

Massandra described the wines, some dating back to 1935, as "pearls that have endured heavy ordeals including during the war".

One 1944 muscat "was produced in Yalta just after its liberation from German troops," it noted in a statement launching the sale being held at the winery and online.

The Massandra region, which belonged to the Ukrainian state until the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, is now under Moscow's control with the rest of the peninsula.

Kiev immediately reacted to the sale, threatening a criminal probe over "squandering Ukrainian heritage", said Olexandre Liev, a Ukrainian agriculture ministry official.

Massandra was already at the centre of a scandal in September when Russian President Vladimir Putin and ex-Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi reportedly enjoyed a $100,000 bottle of 240-year-old sherry.

Russian media said Massandra director Yanina Pavlenko, appointed by Moscow, uncorked the bottle herself.

It was one of only five extant bottles of Jerez de la Frontera of the 1775 vintage, part of a legendary collection established by Prince Mikhail Vorontsov, who ran Crimea as governor-general in the first half of the 19th century.

A sixth bottle of the same Massandra wine sold for 31,900 pounds (51,000 euros, $56,000) at Sotheby's in 2001. At the time, Ukraine's president authorised its sale, media reports said.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev handed the strategically important Crimean peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in what was then a largely symbolic move since Ukraine and Russia were both part of the USSR.

Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases.

The events unfolded against political chaos in Kiev, where Ukraine's ex-president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by pro-Western protest leaders and fled.

Moscow later made Crimea and Sevastopol into two Russian regions, with the United States and the European Union unleashing sanctions over violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Liev warned: "We want Russian and foreign collectors to realise that they could face international sanctions for illegal economic actions in annexed Crimea" if they buy the prized wines.

Some necessary corrections must be made to every Crimea-related piece coming from Yankistani MSM:

"Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases."

Crimea was NOT annexed - it seceded following the unconstitutional removal of the legitimate elected president after a violent takeover of parliament in defiance of an EU-backed compromise agreement.
Controversial?  It seems that the referendum was only deemed "controversial" because the result didn't confirm to the wishes of the US Elite and their Eurotrash vassals.
Russia didn't send troops to Crimea as they were already there as part of the BSF basing agreements.

Typical yahoo bullshit...

It seemed balanced to me.

Crimea voted to secede and join Russia; legally speaking however it was an annexation by Russia of Ukrainian territory.

The referendum was controversial from the point of view of international law. Illegal in fact. And referendums are not usually conducted under a heavy military presence of what was still then a foreign country.

I dare you to provide a single other example where an independence referendum by the majority population to re-assert the rights they were
robbed of by an illegal territorial transfer to another state is called annexation.    The article seems balanced to you because your views are
unbalanced.   Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991.  

First you'll have to provide me some evidence showing how exactly, the transfer of the Crimea from the RSFSR to the UkSSR in 1954 was illegal. I remind you, that these were but two administrative divisions of the same country, with the Crimea being a territory that was detached from one and appended to the other.

kvs wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
I think i know what Auslander is drinking these holidays...


''Kiev cries foul as historic Crimean wines go under hammer''


http://news.yahoo.com/kiev-cries-foul-historic-crimean-wines-under-hammer-211232457.html

Kiev (AFP) - Legendary Crimean winemaker Massandra, once a supplier to Russia's Tsar Nicolas II, has provoked the ire of Kiev by putting 13,000 vintage bottles up for auction on Tuesday.

Massandra described the wines, some dating back to 1935, as "pearls that have endured heavy ordeals including during the war".

One 1944 muscat "was produced in Yalta just after its liberation from German troops," it noted in a statement launching the sale being held at the winery and online.

The Massandra region, which belonged to the Ukrainian state until the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, is now under Moscow's control with the rest of the peninsula.

Kiev immediately reacted to the sale, threatening a criminal probe over "squandering Ukrainian heritage", said Olexandre Liev, a Ukrainian agriculture ministry official.

Massandra was already at the centre of a scandal in September when Russian President Vladimir Putin and ex-Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi reportedly enjoyed a $100,000 bottle of 240-year-old sherry.

Russian media said Massandra director Yanina Pavlenko, appointed by Moscow, uncorked the bottle herself.

It was one of only five extant bottles of Jerez de la Frontera of the 1775 vintage, part of a legendary collection established by Prince Mikhail Vorontsov, who ran Crimea as governor-general in the first half of the 19th century.

A sixth bottle of the same Massandra wine sold for 31,900 pounds (51,000 euros, $56,000) at Sotheby's in 2001. At the time, Ukraine's president authorised its sale, media reports said.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev handed the strategically important Crimean peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in what was then a largely symbolic move since Ukraine and Russia were both part of the USSR.

Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases.

The events unfolded against political chaos in Kiev, where Ukraine's ex-president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by pro-Western protest leaders and fled.

Moscow later made Crimea and Sevastopol into two Russian regions, with the United States and the European Union unleashing sanctions over violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Liev warned: "We want Russian and foreign collectors to realise that they could face international sanctions for illegal economic actions in annexed Crimea" if they buy the prized wines.

Some necessary corrections must be made to every Crimea-related piece coming from Yankistani MSM:

"Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases."

Crimea was NOT annexed - it seceded following the unconstitutional removal of the legitimate elected president after a violent takeover of parliament in defiance of an EU-backed compromise agreement.
Controversial?  It seems that the referendum was only deemed "controversial" because the result didn't confirm to the wishes of the US Elite and their Eurotrash vassals.
Russia didn't send troops to Crimea as they were already there as part of the BSF basing agreements.

Typical yahoo bullshit...

It seemed balanced to me.

Crimea voted to secede and join Russia; legally speaking however it was an annexation by Russia of Ukrainian territory.

The referendum was controversial from the point of view of international law. Illegal in fact. And referendums are not usually conducted under a heavy military presence of what was still then a foreign country.

I dare you to provide a single other example where an independence referendum by the majority population to re-assert the rights they were
robbed of by an illegal territorial transfer to another state is called annexation.    The article seems balanced to you because your views are
unbalanced.   Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991.  

This x1000

Ukraine got Crimea over a bullshit transfer of land to a jurisdiction in 1954.  Most dont even recognize the soviet union in its entirety, so why should they be selective and recognize the territory transfer?

Kosovo gained its independence through the bombs from US/NATO planes.  Not a word from the people.  NATO decided its fate, and UN went with it as UN is the US rubber stamp to invade whomever with no reprecussions.

Crimean ordeal was far more legitimate and 'right' than most what happened in last 20 years.

Neutrality wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Of course though Crimea was heading towards war and the situation was deteriorating with each passing day. Russian intervention was a matter of necessity; possibly the situation could have been resolved by convincing the coupist authorities to lay-off and enter negotiations; but hind-sight shows that they would have been unlikely to listen.

Convince them how exactly? How does one negotiate with someone who's ready to use violence as their first option and not as their last? The Russians went in and showed them what's up. It takes guys with bigger guns to fight other guys with guns. That's how simple and to the point this is. It was obvious the situation in Crimea would lead to war. We all saw self defense formations and militias. We'd have the same scenario there (and possinbly even worse) like in Donbass. You suggest Russia should have spectated from the sidelines and let Crimeans get slaughtered? Or wait until blood has spilled and then intervene? I think that's wrong.

Will you kindly please just re-read what I wrote?

UN mandate? Come on now. Do you honestly believe that yourself? When has any UN resolution worked in the face of Realpolitik? If UN resolutions were followed then Libya wouldn't have happened and that goes for every conflict in the past 20-30 years. In fact, Russia at that moment would have lost precious time if it completely relied on the UN. That would lead to possibly the largest geopolitical blunder in its history. Russia has been playing the nice guy all this time starting from 1991 and what did it get? It got Georgia and Ukraine as a "thank you".

Ditto

flamming_python wrote:

kvs wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
I think i know what Auslander is drinking these holidays...


''Kiev cries foul as historic Crimean wines go under hammer''


http://news.yahoo.com/kiev-cries-foul-historic-crimean-wines-under-hammer-211232457.html

Kiev (AFP) - Legendary Crimean winemaker Massandra, once a supplier to Russia's Tsar Nicolas II, has provoked the ire of Kiev by putting 13,000 vintage bottles up for auction on Tuesday.

Massandra described the wines, some dating back to 1935, as "pearls that have endured heavy ordeals including during the war".

One 1944 muscat "was produced in Yalta just after its liberation from German troops," it noted in a statement launching the sale being held at the winery and online.

The Massandra region, which belonged to the Ukrainian state until the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, is now under Moscow's control with the rest of the peninsula.

Kiev immediately reacted to the sale, threatening a criminal probe over "squandering Ukrainian heritage", said Olexandre Liev, a Ukrainian agriculture ministry official.

Massandra was already at the centre of a scandal in September when Russian President Vladimir Putin and ex-Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi reportedly enjoyed a $100,000 bottle of 240-year-old sherry.

Russian media said Massandra director Yanina Pavlenko, appointed by Moscow, uncorked the bottle herself.

It was one of only five extant bottles of Jerez de la Frontera of the 1775 vintage, part of a legendary collection established by Prince Mikhail Vorontsov, who ran Crimea as governor-general in the first half of the 19th century.

A sixth bottle of the same Massandra wine sold for 31,900 pounds (51,000 euros, $56,000) at Sotheby's in 2001. At the time, Ukraine's president authorised its sale, media reports said.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev handed the strategically important Crimean peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in what was then a largely symbolic move since Ukraine and Russia were both part of the USSR.

Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases.

The events unfolded against political chaos in Kiev, where Ukraine's ex-president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by pro-Western protest leaders and fled.

Moscow later made Crimea and Sevastopol into two Russian regions, with the United States and the European Union unleashing sanctions over violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Liev warned: "We want Russian and foreign collectors to realise that they could face international sanctions for illegal economic actions in annexed Crimea" if they buy the prized wines.

Some necessary corrections must be made to every Crimea-related piece coming from Yankistani MSM:

"Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases."

Crimea was NOT annexed - it seceded following the unconstitutional removal of the legitimate elected president after a violent takeover of parliament in defiance of an EU-backed compromise agreement.
Controversial?  It seems that the referendum was only deemed "controversial" because the result didn't confirm to the wishes of the US Elite and their Eurotrash vassals.
Russia didn't send troops to Crimea as they were already there as part of the BSF basing agreements.

Typical yahoo bullshit...

It seemed balanced to me.

Crimea voted to secede and join Russia; legally speaking however it was an annexation by Russia of Ukrainian territory.

The referendum was controversial from the point of view of international law. Illegal in fact. And referendums are not usually conducted under a heavy military presence of what was still then a foreign country.

I dare you to provide a single other example where an independence referendum by the majority population to re-assert the rights they were
robbed of by an illegal territorial transfer to another state is called annexation.    The article seems balanced to you because your views are
unbalanced.   Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991.  

First you'll have to provide me some evidence showing how exactly, the transfer of the Crimea from the RSFSR to the UkSSR in 1954 was illegal. I remind you, that these were but two administrative divisions of the same country, with the Crimea being a territory that was detached from one and appended to the other.

Soviet Union was no more.  Technically, it should all have gone back to the 1917 borders.  Crimea would be part of Russia but Kurils could be easily disputed.  But since Japan lost the Kurils due to treaty it signed (but soviets didnt) and Japan was not a USSR colony, their say would be moot anyway.

sepheronx wrote:

kvs wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
I think i know what Auslander is drinking these holidays...


''Kiev cries foul as historic Crimean wines go under hammer''


http://news.yahoo.com/kiev-cries-foul-historic-crimean-wines-under-hammer-211232457.html

Kiev (AFP) - Legendary Crimean winemaker Massandra, once a supplier to Russia's Tsar Nicolas II, has provoked the ire of Kiev by putting 13,000 vintage bottles up for auction on Tuesday.

Massandra described the wines, some dating back to 1935, as "pearls that have endured heavy ordeals including during the war".

One 1944 muscat "was produced in Yalta just after its liberation from German troops," it noted in a statement launching the sale being held at the winery and online.

The Massandra region, which belonged to the Ukrainian state until the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, is now under Moscow's control with the rest of the peninsula.

Kiev immediately reacted to the sale, threatening a criminal probe over "squandering Ukrainian heritage", said Olexandre Liev, a Ukrainian agriculture ministry official.

Massandra was already at the centre of a scandal in September when Russian President Vladimir Putin and ex-Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi reportedly enjoyed a $100,000 bottle of 240-year-old sherry.

Russian media said Massandra director Yanina Pavlenko, appointed by Moscow, uncorked the bottle herself.

It was one of only five extant bottles of Jerez de la Frontera of the 1775 vintage, part of a legendary collection established by Prince Mikhail Vorontsov, who ran Crimea as governor-general in the first half of the 19th century.

A sixth bottle of the same Massandra wine sold for 31,900 pounds (51,000 euros, $56,000) at Sotheby's in 2001. At the time, Ukraine's president authorised its sale, media reports said.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev handed the strategically important Crimean peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in what was then a largely symbolic move since Ukraine and Russia were both part of the USSR.

Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases.

The events unfolded against political chaos in Kiev, where Ukraine's ex-president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by pro-Western protest leaders and fled.

Moscow later made Crimea and Sevastopol into two Russian regions, with the United States and the European Union unleashing sanctions over violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Liev warned: "We want Russian and foreign collectors to realise that they could face international sanctions for illegal economic actions in annexed Crimea" if they buy the prized wines.

Some necessary corrections must be made to every Crimea-related piece coming from Yankistani MSM:

"Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases."

Crimea was NOT annexed - it seceded following the unconstitutional removal of the legitimate elected president after a violent takeover of parliament in defiance of an EU-backed compromise agreement.
Controversial?  It seems that the referendum was only deemed "controversial" because the result didn't confirm to the wishes of the US Elite and their Eurotrash vassals.
Russia didn't send troops to Crimea as they were already there as part of the BSF basing agreements.

Typical yahoo bullshit...

It seemed balanced to me.

Crimea voted to secede and join Russia; legally speaking however it was an annexation by Russia of Ukrainian territory.

The referendum was controversial from the point of view of international law. Illegal in fact. And referendums are not usually conducted under a heavy military presence of what was still then a foreign country.

I dare you to provide a single other example where an independence referendum by the majority population to re-assert the rights they were
robbed of by an illegal territorial transfer to another state is called annexation.    The article seems balanced to you because your views are
unbalanced.   Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991.  

This x1000

Ukraine got Crimea over a bullshit transfer of land to a jurisdiction in 1954.  Most dont even recognize the soviet union in its entirety, so why should they be selective and recognize the territory transfer?

Kosovo gained its independence through the bombs from US/NATO planes.  Not a word from the people.  NATO decided its fate, and UN went with it as UN is the US rubber stamp to invade whomever with no reprecussions.

Crimean ordeal was far more legitimate and 'right' than most what happened in last 20 years.

Russia itself recognized the Crimea as Ukrainian territory; it wasn't in dispute - neither before the Soviet collapse, nor after it.

flamming_python wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

kvs wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
I think i know what Auslander is drinking these holidays...


''Kiev cries foul as historic Crimean wines go under hammer''


http://news.yahoo.com/kiev-cries-foul-historic-crimean-wines-under-hammer-211232457.html

Kiev (AFP) - Legendary Crimean winemaker Massandra, once a supplier to Russia's Tsar Nicolas II, has provoked the ire of Kiev by putting 13,000 vintage bottles up for auction on Tuesday.

Massandra described the wines, some dating back to 1935, as "pearls that have endured heavy ordeals including during the war".

One 1944 muscat "was produced in Yalta just after its liberation from German troops," it noted in a statement launching the sale being held at the winery and online.

The Massandra region, which belonged to the Ukrainian state until the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, is now under Moscow's control with the rest of the peninsula.

Kiev immediately reacted to the sale, threatening a criminal probe over "squandering Ukrainian heritage", said Olexandre Liev, a Ukrainian agriculture ministry official.

Massandra was already at the centre of a scandal in September when Russian President Vladimir Putin and ex-Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi reportedly enjoyed a $100,000 bottle of 240-year-old sherry.

Russian media said Massandra director Yanina Pavlenko, appointed by Moscow, uncorked the bottle herself.

It was one of only five extant bottles of Jerez de la Frontera of the 1775 vintage, part of a legendary collection established by Prince Mikhail Vorontsov, who ran Crimea as governor-general in the first half of the 19th century.

A sixth bottle of the same Massandra wine sold for 31,900 pounds (51,000 euros, $56,000) at Sotheby's in 2001. At the time, Ukraine's president authorised its sale, media reports said.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev handed the strategically important Crimean peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in what was then a largely symbolic move since Ukraine and Russia were both part of the USSR.

Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases.

The events unfolded against political chaos in Kiev, where Ukraine's ex-president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by pro-Western protest leaders and fled.

Moscow later made Crimea and Sevastopol into two Russian regions, with the United States and the European Union unleashing sanctions over violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Liev warned: "We want Russian and foreign collectors to realise that they could face international sanctions for illegal economic actions in annexed Crimea" if they buy the prized wines.

Some necessary corrections must be made to every Crimea-related piece coming from Yankistani MSM:

"Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases."

Crimea was NOT annexed - it seceded following the unconstitutional removal of the legitimate elected president after a violent takeover of parliament in defiance of an EU-backed compromise agreement.
Controversial?  It seems that the referendum was only deemed "controversial" because the result didn't confirm to the wishes of the US Elite and their Eurotrash vassals.
Russia didn't send troops to Crimea as they were already there as part of the BSF basing agreements.

Typical yahoo bullshit...

It seemed balanced to me.

Crimea voted to secede and join Russia; legally speaking however it was an annexation by Russia of Ukrainian territory.

The referendum was controversial from the point of view of international law. Illegal in fact. And referendums are not usually conducted under a heavy military presence of what was still then a foreign country.

I dare you to provide a single other example where an independence referendum by the majority population to re-assert the rights they were
robbed of by an illegal territorial transfer to another state is called annexation.    The article seems balanced to you because your views are
unbalanced.   Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991.  

This x1000

Ukraine got Crimea over a bullshit transfer of land to a jurisdiction in 1954.  Most dont even recognize the soviet union in its entirety, so why should they be selective and recognize the territory transfer?

Kosovo gained its independence through the bombs from US/NATO planes.  Not a word from the people.  NATO decided its fate, and UN went with it as UN is the US rubber stamp to invade whomever with no reprecussions.

Crimean ordeal was far more legitimate and 'right' than most what happened in last 20 years.

Russia itself recognized the Crimea as Ukrainian territory; it wasn't in dispute - neither before the Soviet collapse, nor after it.

It wasnt that they recognized Crimea as Ukrainian. They just recognized Ukraines borders.  Crimea wasnt disputed because of relations wise.  But Russia could have easily disputed it if so be the case.  But since the move of the west in Ukraine, and how far they were willing to go, there wouldnt be much time to act afterwards.  The people also decided for themselves what they wanted.  Those gu.s didnt have clips in them.  Simply put, these men were used as somewhat as a brick wall mixed in with intimidation to the other side, and giving the Crimeans, whom would have been afraid, a chance to show themselves.  Which they did.  The future of a country is to be determind by its people, and both Ukraine and Crimea proved that.  The future isnt and shouldnt be decided by someone else outside of it, or by some South Korean US puppet.

flamming_python wrote:Will you kindly please just re-read what I wrote?

I did and I see you largely agree with me though I have to comment on this part:

You think any Ukrainian government, legal or not, would ever have agreed to Russia annexing the Crimea? No, they wouldn't have, so the point is moot.

Again, nothing would have happened if Turchinov assured the Crimeans of their rights. Perhaps you forgot but I remember the first thing that batshit insane pastor said was about sending "trains of friendship" to Crimea and cancelling that law which would make Russian an official language in Crimea.

PS: sephernox and flamming. Stop chain quotting. Edit your syntax for easier reading.

Minsk II extended to 2016.

Ivan Katchanovski
23 mins ·

Poland would ask the US to extradite a former company commander of the 31st SiPo battalion, which was involved in massacres of Jews, Poles, and Ukrainians. This battalion was organized by the Nazi SD and the Melnyk faction of the OUN in Volhynia.

http://www.rp.pl/Historia/312299879-Polska-zazada-ekstradycji-Wolfa.html

Ivan Katchanovski This battalion was based in a former building of my Pidhaitsi high school. This is a summary of my research on this unit: "The 31 SMdS battalion, or the Ukrainian Legion of Self-Defense, which was organized by local leaders of the Melnyk faction of the OUN (OUN-M) and SiPo and SD in Volhynia in the end of 1943 on the basis of OUN-M units, created to a large extent from the local police, had asimilar record before it was mostly incorporated into the SS ‘Galicia’ Division in March 1945.
Significant numbers of its commanders and members wereincorporated into the UPA before they enlisted in the 31 SMdS battalion orjoined the UPA while serving in this formation. The 31st battalion units anddetachments, which comprised most or significant parts of its servicemen, areimplicated by different sources in numerous mass killings, often conductedunder a pretext of anti-partisan actions. They included mass executions andother similar massacres of Ukrainians and Jews in Pidhaitsi and Ustyluh andPoles in Edwardopole, Korchunky, Ameryka, Smoligow, Laskow, Chlaniow,and Wladyslawin, and participation in the suppression of the Warsaw upris-ing in 1944.

35

For example, analysis of eyewitness testimonies, interviews

flamming_python wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

kvs wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
I think i know what Auslander is drinking these holidays...


''Kiev cries foul as historic Crimean wines go under hammer''


http://news.yahoo.com/kiev-cries-foul-historic-crimean-wines-under-hammer-211232457.html

Kiev (AFP) - Legendary Crimean winemaker Massandra, once a supplier to Russia's Tsar Nicolas II, has provoked the ire of Kiev by putting 13,000 vintage bottles up for auction on Tuesday.

Massandra described the wines, some dating back to 1935, as "pearls that have endured heavy ordeals including during the war".

One 1944 muscat "was produced in Yalta just after its liberation from German troops," it noted in a statement launching the sale being held at the winery and online.

The Massandra region, which belonged to the Ukrainian state until the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, is now under Moscow's control with the rest of the peninsula.

Kiev immediately reacted to the sale, threatening a criminal probe over "squandering Ukrainian heritage", said Olexandre Liev, a Ukrainian agriculture ministry official.

Massandra was already at the centre of a scandal in September when Russian President Vladimir Putin and ex-Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi reportedly enjoyed a $100,000 bottle of 240-year-old sherry.

Russian media said Massandra director Yanina Pavlenko, appointed by Moscow, uncorked the bottle herself.

It was one of only five extant bottles of Jerez de la Frontera of the 1775 vintage, part of a legendary collection established by Prince Mikhail Vorontsov, who ran Crimea as governor-general in the first half of the 19th century.

A sixth bottle of the same Massandra wine sold for 31,900 pounds (51,000 euros, $56,000) at Sotheby's in 2001. At the time, Ukraine's president authorised its sale, media reports said.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev handed the strategically important Crimean peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in what was then a largely symbolic move since Ukraine and Russia were both part of the USSR.

Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases.

The events unfolded against political chaos in Kiev, where Ukraine's ex-president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by pro-Western protest leaders and fled.

Moscow later made Crimea and Sevastopol into two Russian regions, with the United States and the European Union unleashing sanctions over violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Liev warned: "We want Russian and foreign collectors to realise that they could face international sanctions for illegal economic actions in annexed Crimea" if they buy the prized wines.

Some necessary corrections must be made to every Crimea-related piece coming from Yankistani MSM:

"Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014 by a controversial referendum after sending special forces troops there to take over key institutions and military bases."

Crimea was NOT annexed - it seceded following the unconstitutional removal of the legitimate elected president after a violent takeover of parliament in defiance of an EU-backed compromise agreement.
Controversial?  It seems that the referendum was only deemed "controversial" because the result didn't confirm to the wishes of the US Elite and their Eurotrash vassals.
Russia didn't send troops to Crimea as they were already there as part of the BSF basing agreements.

Typical yahoo bullshit...

It seemed balanced to me.

Crimea voted to secede and join Russia; legally speaking however it was an annexation by Russia of Ukrainian territory.

The referendum was controversial from the point of view of international law. Illegal in fact. And referendums are not usually conducted under a heavy military presence of what was still then a foreign country.

I dare you to provide a single other example where an independence referendum by the majority population to re-assert the rights they were
robbed of by an illegal territorial transfer to another state is called annexation.    The article seems balanced to you because your views are
unbalanced.   Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991.  

This x1000

Ukraine got Crimea over a bullshit transfer of land to a jurisdiction in 1954.  Most dont even recognize the soviet union in its entirety, so why should they be selective and recognize the territory transfer?

Kosovo gained its independence through the bombs from US/NATO planes.  Not a word from the people.  NATO decided its fate, and UN went with it as UN is the US rubber stamp to invade whomever with no reprecussions.

Crimean ordeal was far more legitimate and 'right' than most what happened in last 20 years.

Russia itself recognized the Crimea as Ukrainian territory; it wasn't in dispute - neither before the Soviet collapse, nor after it.

What say you about the referendum that Crimea held in 1991 then?

sepheronx wrote:Soviet Union was no more.  Technically, it should all have gone back to the 1917 borders.  Crimea would be part of Russia but Kurils could be easily disputed.  But since Japan lost the Kurils due to treaty it signed (but soviets didnt) and Japan was not a USSR colony, their say would be moot anyway.

No it shouldn't have, that wasn't the agreement by which the USSR dissolved, the treaty signed by Yeltsin, Kravchyuk and Shushkevich. Every newly independent state kept the same territory under their jurisdiction as they had within the USSR; Crimea being part of the Ukraine was no exception.

I believe there are some legal grounds for Russian claims - Ukraine being a UN member even during Soviet times, Ukraine having never verified some territorial treaty in the UN, Khruschev having had no legal powers to have done what he did, etc... but I'm not convinced by them.

There was no need to transfer the Kurils to Japan, it was Soviet territory and part of the RSFSR (what became the Russian Federation). Same with Kaliningrad.

Neutrality wrote:Again, nothing would have happened if Turchinov assured the Crimeans of their rights. Perhaps you forgot but I remember the first thing that batshit insane pastor said was about sending "trains of friendship" to Crimea and cancelling that law which would make Russian an official language in Crimea.

I don't dispute that nor the necessity of Russian military intervention (not necessarily annexation), but my point still stands about how no Ukrainian government would ever have accepted Russia annexing the crimea and thus using the excuse of 'illegal government' as legal grounds for Russia doing so - doesn't fly.

Yanukovich later stated that he appealed for Russian intervention. I didn't hear anything from him at the time, so I believe it's just BS from him to ingratiate himself with his new hosts - but in any case, he never said anything about pressing Russia for Russian annexation of the Crimea.

Russia has to do what it has to do, but there's no need to make up BS to cover for it.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:What say you about the referendum that Crimea held in 1991 then?

The same as what I'm about to say about the referendum Crimea held in 2014 - telling, but not legally binding in any way, shape or form.

flamming_python wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Soviet Union was no more.  Technically, it should all have gone back to the 1917 borders.  Crimea would be part of Russia but Kurils could be easily disputed.  But since Japan lost the Kurils due to treaty it signed (but soviets didnt) and Japan was not a USSR colony, their say would be moot anyway.

No it shouldn't have, that wasn't the agreement by which the USSR dissolved, the treaty signed by Yeltsin, Kravchyuk and Shushkevich. Every newly independent state kept the same territory under their jurisdiction as they had within the USSR; Crimea being part of the Ukraine was no exception.

I believe there are some legal grounds for Russian claims - Ukraine being a UN member even during Soviet times, Ukraine having never verified some territorial treaty in the UN, Khruschev having had no legal powers to have done what he did, etc... but I'm not convinced by them.

There was no need to transfer the Kurils to Japan, it was Soviet territory and part of the RSFSR (what became the Russian Federation). Same with Kaliningrad.

Yeltsin was a traitor though and a scumbag.  Agreements are worth as much as the paper they are written on and this havs been evident for years.  No, there really isnt anything binding in that Crimea belonged to Ukraine.  No matter though, as Kosovo ordeal has proven that none of this international laws actually matter.  UK and US holds Russian criminals that are wanted, and they decide who has a righ to self determination by the looks of it.  Yet apparently Russia does not.  Oh, and they dont need approval to bomb another country like France or US bombings in Syria.  But that is all right....right?

Ohh spare me this bullshit FP.

The only rule that has always mattered and will still matter Might makes right in the entire universe and in each parallel universe that is the highest LAW.

sepheronx wrote:Yeltsin was a traitor though and a scumbag.  Agreements are worth as much as the paper they are written on and this havs been evident for years.  No, there really isnt anything binding in that Crimea belonged to Ukraine.  No matter though, as Kosovo ordeal has proven that none of this international laws actually matter.  UK and US holds Russian criminals that are wanted, and they decide who has a righ to self determination by the looks of it.  Yet apparently Russia does not.  Oh, and they dont need approval to bomb another country like France or US bombings in Syria.  But that is all right....right?

Werewolf wrote:Ohh spare me this bullshit FP.

The only rule that has always mattered and will still matter Might makes right in the entire universe and in each parallel universe that is the highest LAW.

Nice. So what are we hating on America for then?

If a treaty or promise made in earlier times is no longer looked upon favourably by the government of today - tear it up.
If international law gets in the way - just ignore it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly ^^^^^^

Documentary on Russian volunteers with English subs;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYplF9iyuuw

This again... If anyone feels what happened with Crimea was illegitimate then maybe they should go tour the peninsula and tell everyone it was "illegitimate," see how far they get.

In a parallel universe it would be considered a triumph of all things "democratic".

We have our very own Crimean resident here, who can surely tell us what the general consensus is.

flamming_python wrote:Nice. So what are we hating on America for then?

If a treaty or promise made in earlier times is no longer looked upon favourably by the government of today - tear it up.
If international law gets in the way - just ignore it.

America could have shown that it is better than other powers by respecting the rules.
Instead it chose to violate them for no good reasons.

All the talk about respecting international law is worthless if violations by the USA and allies are not punished, but its opponents are punished when they retaliate.

On the other hand, military measures were successful in keeping the USA and its allies in-check.
But alone they are not sufficient.
Russia did not have the means to change the government in Kiev for the better before it was too late for Crimea.
Russia did not have the means to get others to recognize a Crimean Republic separate from Ukraine and Russia and such Crimea would get less support from Russia.
Possibly no (energy) bridges and Ukraine would treat this Crimea just as it treats Russian Crimea.

flamming_python wrote:

Nice. So what are we hating on America for then?

If a treaty or promise made in earlier times is no longer looked upon favourably by the government of today - tear it up.
If international law gets in the way - just ignore it.

Yes, that's exactly what this is. Which country started to ignore international law after USSR's dissolution because it felt nothing could stop it? You know the answer very well to that. You can't expect the other guy to continue to abide by the rules when you're the one who laughs in his face and say you don't give a fuck about said rules.

I'd very much like international law to function but this is not the reality we're living in. The only way UN resolutions could work is if the UN had an independent army, navy and air force (ONLY AND ONLY LOYAL to the UN) to enforce these resolutions.

Neutrality wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Nice. So what are we hating on America for then?

If a treaty or promise made in earlier times is no longer looked upon favourably by the government of today - tear it up.
If international law gets in the way - just ignore it.

Yes, that's exactly what this is. Which country started to ignore international law after USSR's dissolution because it felt nothing could stop it? You know the answer very well to that. You can't expect the other guy to continue to abide by the rules when you're the one who laughs in his face and say you don't give a fuck about said rules.

I'd very much like international law to function but this is not the reality we're living in. The only way UN resolutions could work is if the UN had an independent army, navy and air force (ONLY AND ONLY LOYAL to the UN) to enforce these resolutions.

I disagree. Yes you're right, international law became a joke after 1991, and especially post 1999 and 2003. But the solution to that shouldn't be to abandon international law once and for all, but to make all effort to strengthen it back up once again.
Fighting with one arm tied behind your back, having to respect rules that your opponent does not is difficult, but ultimately it is what will win respect and lead to victory. If you're only able to achieve victory by fighting as dirty as your opponent and not respecting any rules or principles, then perhaps you don't deserve to win any more than the other guy - from an outside observer's point of view.

And let's not dramatize too much - Russia could have quite legitimately intervened in the Crimea, amid a deteriorating situation, and either set up an East Ukrainian republic with Yanuk as its (nominal) head, possibly grabbing the loyalty of other Eastern region governors too; or otherwise just stabilized the situation and forced the new authorities in Kiev to negotiation and compromise.
Acting like it did, annexing the entire peninsula into its own territory - was unprecedented in modern times. Yes Kosovo and Iraq were serious violations, but that sort of thing has happened pretty regularly since WW2.

The fact is that Lavrov spent the last 10 years talking about international law, territorial integrity, inviolability of borders in Europe. The US didn't listen, and went ahead with Kosovo, but Russia kept the same official line and kept promoting it, finding supporters amongst the BRICS, CIS and many other countries besides.
And then in the flash of a hat it has completely betrayed all its own stated principles and its course of diplomacy. And what now? Russia has been busy building up the sanctity of international law but now it turns out that it is ready to violate it if convenient, same as the US. The only major power left that respects it is China. Russia is too fixated on the US and countering it, and not fixated enough on setting a good example and establishing itself as a moral compass for other countries. Why then ultimately, should anyone want to follow its lead? What are other countries supposed to think? That international law is only a battering ram for Russia and the US to use to bash each other with whenever needed?
Yes yes, I know, cause & effect. Let me tell you something else though - in 10 years time no-one is going to remember who started what. What they're going to remember is that both are law-breakers.
No-one takes the US position of moral high-ground over Russia seriously right now. But the problem is that now Russia will have the same credibility problem in the future, when attempting to lecture the US over international law or discredit it.

Anyway, I don't really want to take this argument further. I respect the other point of view, about it being a waste of time playing by rules that others don't hold themselves to, etc... such arguments are quite valid I feel. It's just personally, I'm more inclined to another approach.

flamming_python wrote:
I disagree. Yes you're right, international law became a joke after 1991, and especially post 1999 and 2003. But the solution to that shouldn't be to abandon international law once and for all, but to make all effort to strengthen it back up once again.
Fighting with one arm tied behind your back, having to respect rules that your opponent does not is difficult, but ultimately it is what will win respect and lead to victory. If you're only able to achieve victory by fighting as dirty as your opponent and not respecting any rules or principles, then perhaps you don't deserve to win any more than the other guy - from an outside observer's point of view.

How has "respect" ever helped a country in the geopolitical sphere? Deep pockets and a powerful army is what makes you feared and respected. This "pat on the back" crap hasn't helped Russia in any way. Let me ask you a simple question. What's more important, interests or respect?

And let's not dramatize too much - Russia could have quite legitimately intervened in the Crimea, amid a deteriorating situation, and either set up an East Ukrainian republic with Yanuk as its (nominal) head, possibly grabbing the loyalty of other Eastern region governors too;

Yes and that would mean the Russian army would have to invade and establish order in the Eastern regions. You simply underestimate Europe's reaction that would follow.

or otherwise just stabilized the situation and forced the new authorities in Kiev to negotiation and compromise.

Please do elaborate because again, Russian forces would have to intervene (officially).

Acting like it did, annexing the entire peninsula into its own territory - was unprecedented in modern times. Yes Kosovo and Iraq were serious violations, but that sort of thing has happened pretty regularly since WW2.

Yes, Moscow took a very direct decision: protect Crimeans and protect its interests. No matter how you look at it, the Russian army would have to ultimately intervene at some point and Moscow took the most effective decision. Kosovo was blatantly ripped off from Serbia and you don't mind because "hey, this was normal since WW2". Well I say bullshit to that. Imagine what would have happened if there were no peacekeepers in Kosovo at that time. Serbian army would have invaded.

The fact is that Lavrov spent the last 10 years talking about international law, territorial integrity, inviolability of borders in Europe. The US didn't listen, and went ahead with Kosovo, but Russia kept the same official line and kept promoting it, finding supporters amongst the BRICS, CIS and many other countries besides.

And no one in the world gave a fuck when Kosovo happened. Sure, some countries condemned it and nothing after that.

And then in the flash of a hat it has completely betrayed all its own stated principles and its course of diplomacy. And what now? Russia has been busy building up the sanctity of international law but now it turns out that it is ready to violate it if convenient, same as the US. The only major power left that respects it is China. Russia is too fixated on the US and countering it, and not fixated enough on setting a good example and establishing itself as a moral compass for other countries. Why then ultimately, should anyone want to follow its lead? What are other countries supposed to think? That international law is only a battering ram for Russia and the US to use to bash each other with whenever needed?

I'd love to see you get beaten up by someone and still continue preaching peace and prosperity. No you'll fight for your life because your basic instincts will kick in. Now regard all this in the geopolitical spectrum. That's exactly what happened. Russia's basic instincts kicked in because it regards Ukraine as its backyeard.

Yes yes, I know, cause & effect. Let me tell you something else though - in 10 years time no-one is going to remember who started what. What they're going to remember is that both are law-breakers.
No-one takes the US position of moral high-ground over Russia seriously right now. But the problem is that now Russia will have the same credibility problem in the future, when attempting to lecture the US over international law or discredit it.

And Russia simply won't give a fuck about someone's feelings. Actions speak louder than words. In 10 years time somewhere we'll see European and Russian interests come together again and no one else will give a crap about Crimea.

Anyway, I don't really want to take this argument further. I respect the other point of view, about it being a waste of time playing by rules that others don't hold themselves to, etc... such arguments are quite valid I feel. It's just personally, I'm more inclined to another approach.

Precisely and I'm mad myself that this is the way the world works though you and I are in it.

FP,

Stop spilling the international law bovine excrement. Who writes the rules anyways?

It is up the people of Crimea to decide what's right for them. Whatever 96% of them agreed upon is right and legal. That's it.

Anybody disputing legality of the move is knowingly or unknowingly playing in the hands of the enemy.