Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

na1

Lockstep wrote: »

What exactly is your point here, that pro-Ukrainian people are being beaten in Crimea?

That the majority of Crimeans hate Kievans junta (not the Ukrainians)

BTW: there is plenty of evidence with anti-Russian (anti-ethnic Russian) speeches/slogans in the pro-maidan groups. Like 'Kill the Russian' etc. and NONE about anti-Ukrainian as a nation from the other side: like 'Kil the Ukrainian'. All anti-maidan speeches are against particular people & groups

na1

Lockstep wrote: »

It goes both ways by the way

Exactly! This is the video I was talking about. Whom do you think BBC is addressing this b**t?

na1

Lockstep wrote: »

Moving around is fine but its when there are well armed soldiers backing local militias that serious questions need to be asked.

Before going into this discussion and the legal status,
can you admit, that Putin never said about deployment of Russian troops to Crimea? All the troops were always there and never (except regular toop rotation) crossed the border to 'invade' Crimea?

na1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Putin directly admitted Russian troops were in Crimea before the referendum

That was according a 23-year old Russian-Ukrainian agrrement which was never denied nor ever been a secret.
All 20k+ forces where in the Naval bases and have right to travel freely between them.

na1

Lockstep wrote: »

Moving around is fine but its when there are well armed soldiers backing local militias that serious questions need to be asked.

Oh, never mind!
The EU leaders said it was OK, when maidan protestors in Kiev attacked riot police with molotov's cocktails, and made armed raids to state buildings, capturing them and taking hostages.
Furthermore they (US & EU) demanded the riot police to disarm and retreat!

Imaging that during Dublin riots, Russia would demand Irish Garga, and riot-police to retreat, and leave the protestors alone?

So why when other 'peaceful protestors' are surrounding the army bases, without a single shot or molotov'scocktail - why this is a criminal act?

na1

Lockstep wrote: »

Then I won't. No offense to you but anonymous internet sources aren't something I like to base my views on.

So do you base you views mostly on official claims?

SamHarris

Anyone who uses the word "Junta" to describe the government in Ukraine you can tell already that they swallow Russian propaganda without even the most cursory skepticism.



Why? Because junta is a word used very specifically to describe a government that is ran by the MILITARY. It's as though the Russians put a canary in the goldmine for the rest of us to see the ones that follow their line unquestioningly.

It's a little funny that they can be so imprecise with there language and criticism and still have many educated people in the West not even see such obvious failures. Their lack of respect for their own useful idiots couldn't be clearer. But then why would they have any?

SamHarris

na1 wrote: »

So do you base you views mostly on official claims?

Your right the Bush administration lied, must be the case that Russia and it's media is only concerned with the unvarnished truth.

SamHarris

na1 wrote: »

Before going into this discussion and the legal status,
can you admit, that Putin never said about deployment of Russian troops to Crimea? All the troops were always there and never (except regular toop rotation) crossed the border to 'invade' Crimea?

Eh... No in Putin's Q+A he freely admitted the "self defence forces" in Crimea were Russian troops. Thats put to bed already.

Lockstep

na1 wrote: »

That the majority of Crimeans hate Kievans junta (not the Ukrainians)

You're right. Hurling abuse at someone with a Ukranian flag is great evidence. if I get a video of Galway people hurling abuse at someone in a Dublin jersey does this mean that Galwegians hate Dublin?

na1 wrote: »

BTW: there is plenty of evidence with anti-Russian (anti-ethnic Russian) speeches/slogans in the pro-maidan groups. Like 'Kill the Russian' etc. and NONE about anti-Ukrainian as a nation from the other side: like 'Kil the Ukrainian'. All anti-maidan speeches are against particular people & groups

I don't deny that there were extremist elements to the Maidan protests but equally, there are extremists in the separatist movements.

na1 wrote: »

Before going into this discussion and the legal status,
can you admit, that Putin never said about deployment of Russian troops to Crimea? All the troops were always there and never (except regular toop rotation) crossed the border to 'invade' Crimea?

na1 wrote: »

That was according a 23-year old Russian-Ukrainian agrrement which was never denied nor ever been a secret.
All 20k+ forces where in the Naval bases and have right to travel freely between them.

But he did admit that deployed Russian troops were used in support of the Crimean separatists
Troops are permitted to be deployed and move around but this doesn't mean they can take part in insurrection against the host state. Do the American troops in Guantanamo have the right to support Cuban rebels against Castro? Of course they don't.

na1 wrote: »

Oh, never mind!
The EU leaders said it was OK, when maidan protestors in Kiev attacked riot police with molotov's cocktails, and made armed raids to state buildings, capturing them and taking hostages.
Furthermore they (US & EU) demanded the riot police to disarm and retreat!

Imaging that during Dublin riots, Russia would demand Irish Garga, and riot-police to retreat, and leave the protestors alone?

So why when other 'peaceful protestors' are surrounding the army bases, without a single shot or molotov'scocktail - why this is a criminal act?

The issue wasn't with riot police being used. It was the brutality that the riot police used against peaceful protestors who were trying to effect a regime change.
Demanding to secede is a different matter entirely.
I've taken part in protests against the Irish government before, all went well. It'd be a different story if I was occupying Galway city hall demanding that it secede from the Irish government.

One action is against the government, the other is against the state. Huge difference.

na1 wrote: »

Exactly! This is the video I was talking about. Whom do you think BBC is addressing this b**t?

Once again, could you expand on what you're trying to say? Again, I appreciate English is not your first language (I'm guessing its Russian) but I'd appreciate it if you could explain yourself here so I can follow your argument.

na1 wrote: »

So do you base you views mostly on official claims?

Seriously?
I'd take the official line over someone whose source is "inside". Sorry but I'm not a big fan of "Some fella told me secret info" and before you know it we have "purple monkey dishwasher.

SamHarris

na1 wrote: »

That was according a 23-year old Russian-Ukrainian agrrement which was never denied nor ever been a secret.
All 20k+ forces where in the Naval bases and have right to travel freely between them.

So if US troops started occupying German, British and Japanese cities you think that all of it would be covered by their defence treaties? Well, no. You would just be wrong as you are wrong about the legality of Russian troops marching around Crimea because they have a base that covers a few square miles of the corner of it.

na1

SamHarris wrote: »

Your right the Bush administration lied, must be the case that Russia and it's media is only concerned with the unvarnished truth.

Absolutely not. Everyone lies, or, to be precise: 'alter' the truth.
I actually read a lot of news from Pro-Ukrainian propaganda site, with reports quite a lot of b**it. then comparing these news with Russian & other sources make the full picture more understandable.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/new-york-times-admits-russia-sending-pro-russian-fighters-ukraine.html

na1

SamHarris wrote: »

So if US troops started occupying German, British and Japanese cities you think that all of it would be covered by their defence treaties? Well, no. You would just be wrong as you are wrong about the legality of Russian troops marching around Crimea because they have a base that covers a few square miles of the corner of it.

Are you talking from the point of legal status, international laws, general morale, or some consiracy theory or what?
if you are referring to legal status, the Ukrainian president is de jure still Yanukovich, and he asked for Russian peacekeepers to take over the Crimea base. And the junta - is an illegal occupant of Kiev.
If you are taliking about international laws - then if foreing soldiers unlawfully leave their bases and surround a local military base, then they must be arrested by local police, but, oops, the Crimean police 'Berkut' has joined pro-Russian activists and raided the military basese with them.

Wurzelbert

SamHarris wrote: »

Your right the Bush administration lied, must be the case that Russia and it's media is only concerned with the unvarnished truth.

not as much as people have been led to believe, the whole thing was primarily a pr disaster…we know saddam did have (and use!) chemical weapons and i think he did have a wee nuclear program in the 90s…much of iraq’s chemical arsenal was (and is?) unaccounted for and the un inspectors got kicked out of iraq before they were done…even bill clinton had a few interesting things to say about the 3rd gulf war,check out time magazine exclusive “bill clinton explains himself” from june 28, 2004…

na1

This is a famous video about Ukrainian military bases in Crimea, but probably was blindly ignored by western media.

Note, this is a absolutely pro-Ukrainian News Channel and the anchorwoman is calling Russian troops 'occupants' and 'invaders'
and this is recorded as Live video.

The newly assigned defense minister of Ukraine is talking from tv studio directly to the deputy commander of the Crimean Marine's base
(via Skype - LOL!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXIKEs7-F_c

And the deputy commander complaining that the base is fully demoralized, and most of the marines want to join the Russians, with minority wants to leave for Ukraine, and they haven't receive any order or any call from Ukrainian headquarters for about a month or so, and on the other side they are approached daily by Russian commanders with different negotiations.
As a reply the defense minister blames the commander of not shooting 'invaders', and call them pussies.
Even the anchorwoman was indignant and very upset with minister.

BTW: this minister was later dismissed as he appeared to be an absolute useless for the Kievan leaders


This is some western media info about this base:
https://news.pn/en/public/99802

Jonny7

So now Russian troops were surrounding Ukrainian bases

na1

Lockstep wrote: »

Troops are permitted to be deployed and move around but this doesn't mean they can take part in insurrection against the host state.

Lockstep wrote: »

Do the American troops in Guantanamo have the right to support Cuban rebels against Castro? Of course they don't..

US commited so many 'democtatic revolutions' all over the globe, so that is not funny anymore.

Lockstep wrote: »

The issue wasn't with riot police being used. It was the brutality that the riot police used against peaceful protestors who were trying to effect a regime change..

The brutality was coming from both sides, internet is full of evidences. But yes' if you're watching BBC & CNN you won't see it.

Lockstep wrote: »

One action is against the government, the other is against the state. Huge difference.

What is the difference? Really?
Next time if you get beaten by the New York police for participating in occupy wall street protest, explain them that you're not against the state, you are against the government, they should release you immediately and apologize.

na1

Lockstep wrote: »

Y
Once again, could you expand on what you're trying to say?.

let me explain step by step:
1)some injuried guy is in the hospital bed, and the TV reporters (from the company A) are asking him on camera: who you are and what's you name, he replies: -my name is (for instance) Mister Ivan, and I was beaten by maidan activists, and I support Russia.
2)Later some evidence has proven that he was actually helping maidan, and was not supporting Russians, and finally he admitted this.

3)the people who have found this evidence call up for TV company B and showed them this guy in hospital, and aked him, who you are and what's you name, he replies: -my name is Mister Ivan, and I was beaten by soem crowd, and I was supporting maidan.

So why does BBC and CNN blame channels A & B for lie, if the only person who was telling a lie was this injured person?

SamHarris

na1 wrote: »

Are you talking from the point of legal status, international laws, general morale, or some consiracy theory or what?
if you are referring to legal status, the Ukrainian president is de jure still Yanukovich, and he asked for Russian peacekeepers to take over the Crimea base. And the junta - is an illegal occupant of Kiev.
If you are taliking about international laws - then if foreing soldiers unlawfully leave their bases and surround a local military base, then they must be arrested by local police, but, oops, the Crimean police 'Berkut' has joined pro-Russian activists and raided the military basese with them.

No, legally he was removed from power by the Ukrainian parliament. Morally he clearly has no legitimacy any more. Internationally it is STILL considered an occupation.

It is irrelevant if the police believe something, or join a particular faction. That has no bearing on the law. Shouldn't surprise anyone that the more authoritarian groups within Ukraine are supporters of Russia and Putin in particular.

SamHarris

Wurzelbert wrote: »

not as much as people have been led to believe, the whole thing was primarily a pr disaster…we know saddam did have (and use!) chemical weapons and i think he did have a wee nuclear program in the 90s…much of iraq’s chemical arsenal was (and is?) unaccounted for and the un inspectors got kicked out of iraq before they were done…even bill clinton had a few interesting things to say about the 3rd gulf war,check out time magazine exclusive “bill clinton explains himself” from june 28, 2004…

I'm aware of all that (and indeed, the deception went to the highest levels, Powel effectively resigned over that speech, having been outright deceived by others in the administration.

I'm just pointing out that if a particular group lies, or for that matter tells the truth, it really does not mean that they will do the same all the time.

I'm also more aware of how belligerent Saddam was than most, he even said after his capture that he did what he did because he believed that the US were bluffing about an invasion and played his cards with that in mind, including stopping the inspections. It's also in no doubt that he DID have WMDs (up until when we do not know). His use of them against Iranian troops and his own people (particularly Kurds) is well documented.

I'll check out that article, thanks.

SamHarris

na1 wrote: »

US commited so many 'democtatic revolutions' all over the globe, so that is not funny anymore.

I don't know why thats a point even worth making (though it is very telling, the vast majority of people that give (usually very crap) reasons why they support Russia are just doing so because they dislike the US. Scratch the surface with every single one of them so far on this site and we see that the support is given unthinkingly (and with no regard to morality, legality or anything else) for the most asinine of reasons.

na1 wrote: »

What is the difference? Really?
Next time if you get beaten by the New York police for participating in occupy wall street protest, explain them that you're not against the state, you are against the government, they should release you immediately and apologize.

There are many ways for a person who is subject to abuse by the authorities in the West to pursue justice. There is a difference often once the movement becomes large - a revolution against the government wishes to see an election in most cases, a change of leadership. A revolution against the state wishes the bureaucracy and even the system of power replaced.

jimeryan22

Wurzelbert wrote: »

not as much as people have been led to believe, the whole thing was primarily a pr disaster…we know saddam did have (and use!) chemical weapons and i think he did have a wee nuclear program in the 90s…much of iraq’s chemical arsenal was (and is?) unaccounted for and the un inspectors got kicked out of iraq before they were done…even bill clinton had a few interesting things to say about the 3rd gulf war,check out time magazine exclusive “bill clinton explains himself” from june 28, 2004…

Yeah sadam used chemical weapons he'd got from us in the west...
The U.N bit not quite right... Pretty sure the main UN inspector said sadam had no WMD's, but then he, oh, you guessed it.. Suddenly decided to die..
As for "slick willy" Clinton.. Sure you'd want to be a mug to believe one word the man says.. Wouldn't lie straight in bed.. Pathological liar

dnk

Lockstep wrote: »

Then I won't. No offense to you but anonymous internet sources aren't something I like to base my views on.

No prob. I've heard it from a few rebels. They can lie. I didn't pull a trigger. Also another untrusted info. 5 helicopters actually. 3 Mi-24 and 2 Mi-8. Mi-8 were strong damaged by AK shooting.

Lockstep wrote: »

Moving around is fine but its when there are well armed soldiers backing local militias that serious questions need to be asked.

I meant that movements were used as a picture of soljers invided to Crimea. They are not.
It depends what means "backing". It can be from moral support till supply by soljers and weapon. At the moment no evidens that Russia supplied local militans by soljers and weapon.

By law. Did Russia invided to Ukraine by military force? Any proof of invasion? No.

By democracy. Were people in Crimea splitout from Ukraine? Yes. Were they want to join to Russia? Yes.

What's wrong then?

na1

SamHarris wrote: »

There is a difference often once the movement becomes large - a revolution against the government wishes to see an election in most cases, a change of leadership. A revolution against the state wishes the bureaucracy and even the system of power replaced.

What they really want is inside their brains and nobody can tell this for sure, and the police reaction is based on the actions not the wishes of the protestors.
If the protestors are doing something illegal: i.e. shooting at the police, burning them, or capturing the government buildings - this is a criminal action regardless of the protestor goals.
So why capturing the government buildings in Eastern Ukraine must be punished with an army operation, while capturing the government buildings in Kiev is OK, and the offenders must be released?

Jonny7

SamHarris wrote: »

No, legally he was removed from power by the Ukrainian parliament. Morally he clearly has no legitimacy any more.

Not to mention he's also wanted by several countries on serious money laundering charges, along with his son, a dentist, who became one of the (ex)richest men in Ukraine in the space of a few years. Under Yanukovych's watch the treasury was emptied - they think it could be to the tune of 10's of billions, so far it's approx 1.8 billion and counting

He had fleets of classic cars, a galleon, gold collections, a private zoo, etc - on a yearly salary of what, 50,000 euros, and he later said these were "planted"

He fled to Russia

The Berkat police that are accused of shooting protesters? many of them allegedly fled to Russia and were quickly issued Russian passports

Crimean autonomous region of Ukraine? - it's now unilaterally Russian. The hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian protesters that finally got rid of a corrupt president? labelled fascists by much of the Russian media. The temporary interim leadership which has promised full free and fair elections with international oversight in May? labelled fascists by the Russian media.. and government. East of the country? now under a bizarre sudden armed insurrection in favor of.. Russia

Virtually every major power and developed nation supporting the Ukrainian protests, with the exception of .. you guessed it

When most of the international talks and deliberation on the future of Ukraine are being held with the leader of.. and again

Without labouring the point too much, if I was Ukrainian I would seriously be questioning my country's apparent "independence" and "sovereignty" over the last two decades

jimeryan22

dnk wrote: »

No prob. I've heard it from a few rebels. They can lie. I didn't pull a trigger. Also another untrusted info. 5 helicopters actually. 3 Mi-24 and 2 Mi-8. Mi-8 were strong damaged by AK shooting.


I meant that movements were used as a picture of soljers invided to Crimea. They are not.
It depends what means "backing". It can be from moral support till supply by soljers and weapon. At the moment no evidens that Russia supplied local militans by soljers and weapon.

By law. Did Russia invided to Ukraine by military force? Any proof of invasion? No.

By democracy. Were people in Crimea splitout from Ukraine? Yes. Were they want to join to Russia? Yes.

What's wrong then?

Have to agree in with regards to Crimea, sure they're not exactly burning the place to the ground in rebellion of going under Russia...

Jonny7

jimeryan22 wrote: »

The U.N bit not quite right... Pretty sure the main UN inspector said sadam had no WMD's, but then he, oh, you guessed it.. Suddenly decided to die..
As for "slick willy" Clinton.. Sure you'd want to be a mug to believe one word the man says.. Wouldn't lie straight in bed.. Pathological liar

Hans Blix was the main UN inspector and he didn't die, it was Dr David Kelly

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hans Blix was the main UN inspector and he didn't die, it was Dr David Kelly

Sorry that's right... Either way, we know it was bull, and we know sadam was co-operating with the inspections..

Wurzelbert

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Yeah sadam used chemical weapons he'd got from us in the west...
The U.N bit not quite right... Pretty sure the main UN inspector said sadam had no WMD's, but then he, oh, you guessed it.. Suddenly decided to die..
As for "slick willy" Clinton.. Sure you'd want to be a mug to believe one word the man says.. Wouldn't lie straight in bed.. Pathological liar

so what, in your opinion, did happen to saddam’s chemical weapons? hidden? sold? given away? used up? destroyed…? certainly not under un supervision…that much we know.
and clinton is definitely a liar, but he had no reason to lie in order to defend w.

Jonny7

Saddam was notorious for killing workers and destroying any evidence of projects - so it's likely we may never know

Before the conflict, there was a report of an Iraqi ship performing strange maneuvers at sea then returning, the weapons or precursors were probably dumped at sea or buried