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

bobs ur uncle

gandalf wrote: »

Why aren't you posting from your normal account?

cos i never normally go on boards.. this is my real account.. and what odds would it make if it wasnt? my arguments are still valid.

bobs ur uncle

Morpheus wrote: »

Ummmm .. maybe Russia f**ked up by breaching the sovereignity of another state through full invasion, annexation and occupation of the Crimean Penninsula and also the supply of personnel and equipment supporting a bunch of terrorists on another countrys sovereign soil?

#JustSaying

"also the supply of personnel and equipment supporting a bunch of terrorists on another countrys sovereign soil?"

where is the proof of this? please provide some kind of proof?

show me the international law that says that the referendum in crimea was illegal. you cant because it was legal under all international laws.

bobs ur uncle

InTheTrees wrote: »

Not to mention Russia outright blackmailing its neighbours over their oil supplies.

Russia has been using its oil as a way to bully the rest of Europe for so long there's little sympathy for them now.

you are kidding right? you do know that europe gets mostly gas from russia and not oil? you know russia literally gave ukraine a shed ton of gas for free?

il also note that not one of you made any comment on the main bulk of my post that contains the most important points/questions that i would like answered if you are all so sure that russia is the evil one in all this. aside from replying to a statement with a hollow argument that cannot come with any proof as there is none.

i will say again.. (il make it easier by spacing them out)

do you know anything about russia moving away from the dollar and how it will affect the US?

do you know about the russian version of the SWIFT banking system they are building and how it will affect the US?

do you know about the currency swap deal with china and how it can/will affect the US?

BRICS bank?

doing deals all over to trade outside the dollar?

who has the most to lose from the dollar not being the reserve currency anymore?

what has happened to literally every other nation that has attempted to move away from trading resources in dollars?

why has america befriended cuba after 65 years?

why are they putting sanctions on n.korea(do you honestly think N.Korea has any interest in hacking sony? LOL)

why has america signed the "The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014" which lets them provide "lethal aid" (arm them to the teeth) when the country is actually stabilizing?

where is the proof that russia has provided weapons/troops to ukraine?

why did the US media instantly with in hours start accusing russia of shooting down MH17 flight before any evidence was collected and not provide a single piece of evidence when doing so and still to this day not give any?

why did ukraine not hand over radar recordings or air control recordings EVER while russia handed over radar recordings straight away?

why was Malaysia not allowed to participate in the international investigation - the owners of the plane? why is ukraine in the investigation when they are a potential suspect in the case? why can any one of the countries veto the release of the findings if they dont like what was found?

why is NATO and the US consistently beefing up troop deployment along russian boarders while continues to request a diplomatic solution?

why can you not see that the US has a very very long history of destabilizing anti-US governments and going to war with countries who attempt to move away from the dollar? why is this time different simply because its russia?

do you have any idea how good putins approval ratings are? cameron and obama would kill to have approval ratings like putins..

why has the FED conveniently stopped QE3 and not commenced QE4 just when tensions with russia(and allies) are mounting? (id be surprised if you can even work out the links in this one)

why has the US government not released on single piece of evidence of russia supplying weapons to ukraine or supplying troops?

why did america lace russia with particular sanctions which they knew well(any one could have guessed) would affect the EU far more than russia?

why were sanctions the main focus of the "ukraine freedom support act 2014" on all mainstream tv, when supplying ukraine with lethal aid is far and above a much more serious article in the bill?

ASSUMING THEY DO ARM UKRAINE, WHY HAS THE USA BROKEN THE NUCLEAR ARMS AGREEMENT(Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) SIGNED BY THE US AND RUSSIA IN 1987 WHICH WHEN BROKEN, MAKES IT FULLY LEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR A PARTY IN THE AGREEMENT TO MAKE A PRE-EMPTIVE NUBLEAR STRIKE ON THE NATION THAT HAS BROKEN THE AGREEMENT?

WHY THE **** HAS THE USA BROKEN AN AGREEMENT WHICH THEY KNOW VERY FULL WELL COULD LEAD TO A NUCLEAR WAR DUE TO THEIR BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT?

theres mountains of evidence to support my argument that amreica is, has, and most likely will always be the aggressor in geopolitical issues and is the main aggressor in the russia/ukraine tensions. how ever you all seem to think that it is russia. as this is your argument, please answer the questions i have posted above and provide some kind of evidence to back up your claims

im not joking, and im not trying to make you all feel uneducated on these maters however i dont have to as you all are clearly not well informed enough to respond to my questions or to provide a solid argument against me. i can rhyme all this off the top of my head yet you guys cant even use google to look up some facts and formulate a response.

bobs ur uncle

InTheTrees wrote: »

Not to mention Russia outright blackmailing its neighbours over their oil supplies.

Russia has been using its oil as a way to bully the rest of Europe for so long there's little sympathy for them now.

actually.. can you explain how they have been "bullying europe for so long"? what have they done to bully europe? if your talking about the southstream pipeline, it was europe that ****ed that deal up.. not russia..

gandalf

bobs ur uncle wrote: »

"also the supply of personnel and equipment supporting a bunch of terrorists on another countrys sovereign soil?"

where is the proof of this? please provide some kind of proof?

There is enough proof in this thread already egg.

show me the international law that says that the referendum in crimea was illegal. you cant because it was legal under all international laws.

I used Google egg it came up on immediately, you should try it.

THE UN ASSEMBLY adopted a Western-backed resolution declaring Crimea’s breakaway referendum illegitimate and refusing to recognise Russia’s annexation of the peninsula.

http://www.thejournal.ie/un-declares-crimeas-breakaway-vote-illegal-1385276-Mar2014/

InTheTrees

bobs ur uncle wrote: »

actually.. can you explain how they have been "bullying europe for so long"? what have they done to bully europe? if your talking about the southstream pipeline, it was europe that ****ed that deal up.. not russia..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia-Ukraine_gas_disputes

bobs ur uncle

gandalf wrote: »

There is enough proof in this thread already egg.



I used Google egg it came up on immediately, you should try it.

gandalf wrote: »

There is enough proof in this thread already egg.



I used Google egg it came up on immediately, you should try it.



<url>

actually it was technically a secession.. which is completely legal.
to quote wikipedia:

Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, military alliance or especially a political entity
[...]
justification of secession:

Economic enfranchisement of an economically oppressed class that is regionally concentrated within the scope of a larger national territory.

Consent as important democratic principle; will of majority to secede should be recognized

Preserving culture, language, etc. from assimilation or destruction by a larger or more powerful group(they are majority russian!!)

Cultural Secessionism: any group which was previously in a minority has a right to protect and develop its own culture and distinct national identity through seceding into an independent state.
[...]

types of secession:

National (seceding entirely from the national state) versus local (seceding from one entity of the national state into another entity of the same state)

that isnt international law. show me the LAW from the "Index of international public law articles" that says that the secession of Ukraine was illegal.

it just means the UN disagrees with the secession.. not that it was illegal.. and the UN is run by the most powerful players being the US and other western nations. that legislation is completely meaningless.. and what is meaningful is that a wide majority of people in crimea peacefully voted to join russia and they seceded to russia of their own accord.

if the north of ireland held a referendum and seceded to join the south of ireland to reunite all the counties of ireland as one republic as it was originally and as would be their right if they so wished to do so, would you call that illegal? because there is no difference what so ever.

also.. please respond to my questions above.

bobs ur uncle

InTheTrees wrote: »

[...]

actually it was ukraine that was the problem.. not russia.. again.. you are clearly not educated on the matter.. this is a case of a corrupt nation(ukraine) playing foul and not at all a case of "russia bullying europe"

A serious dispute began in March 2005 over the price of natural gas supplied and the cost of transit. During this conflict, Russia claimed Ukraine was not paying for gas, but diverting that which was intended to be exported to the EU from the pipelines. Ukrainian officials at first denied the accusation, but later Naftohaz admitted that natural gas intended for other European countries was retained and used for domestic needs. The dispute reached a crescendo on 1 January 2006, when Russia cut off all gas supplies passing through Ukrainian territory. On 4 January 2006, a preliminary agreement between Russia and Ukraine was achieved, and the supply was restored. The situation calmed until October 2007 when new disputes began over Ukrainian gas debts. This led to reduction of gas supplies in March 2008. During the last months of 2008, relations once again became tense when Ukraine and Russia could not agree on the debts owed by Ukraine.

In January 2009, this disagreement resulted in supply disruptions in many European nations, with eighteen European countries reporting major drops in or complete cut-offs of their gas supplies transported through Ukraine from Russia. In September 2009 officials from both countries stated they felt the situation was under control and that there would be no more conflicts over the topic, at least until the Ukrainian 2010 presidential elections. However, in October 2009, another disagreement arose about the amount of gas Ukraine would import from Russia in 2010. Ukraine intended to import less gas in 2010 as a result of reduced industry needs because of its economic recession; however, Gazprom insisted that Ukraine fulfill its contractual obligations and purchase the previously agreed upon quantities of gas.

its quite easy to see from reading this that it is ukraine that is in the wrong compeltely and not russia.. why on eearth would russia continue to pump gas to them when they are not paying bills? why should they just allow them to redact on their agreement?

please use arguments that back up your argument and not mine.. thank you all the same though.

mmmcake

Russia sells oil in dollars then converts to rubles.
Oil price crashes,along with Ruble, before crash ,$100 =R100, now $100= R1000 (simplified)
Russia lets ruble crash, rubles lose value , rubles flow back to Russia from all over world.
Soon oil price rise, Russia ruble now back to $100 = R100, Russia make big profit.
Russia have repatriated Rubles for a fraction of real value.
Ruble backed by worlds largest oil reserves.
Russia play long game. Russia win.

bobs ur uncle

are none of you intellectually capable of answering my questions or something?

InTheTrees

bobs ur uncle wrote: »

again.. you are clearly not educated on the matter..

It was a link to a wiki.

bobs ur uncle

mmmcake wrote: »

Russia sells oil in dollars then converts to rubles.
Oil price crashes,along with Ruble, before crash ,$100 =R100, now $100= R1000 (simplified)
Russia lets ruble crash, rubles lose value , rubles flow back to Russia from all over world.
Soon oil price rise, Russia ruble now back to $100 = R100, Russia make big profit.
Russia have repatriated Rubles for a fraction of real value.
Ruble backed by worlds largest oil reserves.
Russia play long game. Russia win.

its not that simple.. rubles actually fled the country due to the fear of capital controls. russia gave amnesty to all who brought rubles back to the country but that never really works on a scale they would want becuase the rubles are not in the country for a reason what ever that may be.

why would rubles flow back to russia simply because the value of the ruble has fallen? rubles were fleeing the country due to the risk of capital controls growing by the day.

and just because they sell oil in dollars and pay bills in rubles(not always true) does not mean that a crash in price is beneficial to them. dont forget that the price of oil has also collapsed so they are not getting all that much more for their oil even once converted back to rubles. there are far bigger games being played than i think any of us can comprehend.

its damn near impossible to tell how a collapse in oil/derivatives/bonds/dollars/emerging markets/rubles/dollar etc etc will effect each other or to predict the ramifications of them collapsing. but what is easy to do is to recognise the incentive that other nations have for manipulating these markets up/down due to the direct effect these markets have on the nations they are contained or directly connected to (ie. dollar > US economy).

its important to always question what benefits foreign nations gain from the rise/fall of assets/commodities/currencies in or connected to directly/indirectly any given nation. who are the largest benefactors and who are the largest losers in any given situation.

in this whole emerging markets/russia/china situation by which i mean their challenging the dominance of the dollar with their own version of SWIFT, BRICS and trade deals and their vast amount more resources/precious metals.. the biggest loser is by far and a mile if they succeed.. none other than the USA and less directly western nations like those in the EU which includes IRELAND. they stand to lose reserve currency status which would lead the US into hyperinflation like ever seen before, crush their economy and make 2008 look like a boom time and probably lead to civil/international war, food shortages and god knows what other bedlam..

the US is going to do everything in its (dwindling) power to stop this transfer of power from west to east and they will use every dirty tactic in the book to do it.

bobs ur uncle

InTheTrees wrote: »

It was a link to a wiki.

yes i know and the article you linked actually proved your original statement that russia was bullying the west, wrong. so you obviously just said that having seen it on the news a while back and coughed it up as an argument not realising that the "truth" you had been fed was manipulated to the point where you thought the criminal was the victim..

just because you post a wiki link, it doesnt mean you are suddenly educated in the area and that isnt a crime and it isnt your fault either.. the current education system doesnt even touch on these matters because the ones in power do not want the population knowing these facts.

look up the british history curriculum for primary/secondary school and see if they teach anything about the british occupation of ireland, the famine or the 1916 rising. you wont find it and do you know why? because there simply isnt anyway possible to teach the subject with out england coming across as a horrendous country that did atrocious things. the british gov doesnt want to be seen in that light by its citizens and therefore it is ignored in the history books in school.. ever wonder why many many nationalities think we are still part of the UK? lol

InTheTrees

bobs ur uncle wrote: »

are none of you intellectually capable of answering my questions or something?

Seriously?

bobs ur uncle

InTheTrees wrote: »

Seriously?

yes seriously because still no one has replied to my questions which are highly related to the current debate. why would you think i am not serious?

i would not be so up front about it if you guys were open to a different perspective but you seem so brainwashed by the media that you refuse to acknowledge any argument against your side of the argument. i keep asking for evidence to back the anti-russian argument but so far have been provided with none.

Icepick

Sand wrote: »

You have to enjoy the conspiracy theories about Russia's recent troubles. In a fit of rage they attacked a neighbouring sovereign state, annexed its territory, gave the two fingers to the rest of the world with its nonsensical denials, continued to attack and destabilise Ukraine and shot down a fricking airliner.

What exactly did Putin think would happen? That everyone would tug the forelock, go "Right you are sir!" and toddle off? The response so far has been incredibly mild despite huge Russian provocations.

And now the weather is at it too!

Dannyboy83

Sand wrote: »

You have to enjoy the conspiracy theories about Russia's recent troubles. In a fit of rage they attacked a neighbouring sovereign state, annexed its territory, gave the two fingers to the rest of the world with its nonsensical denials, continued to attack and destabilise Ukraine and shot down a fricking airliner.

What exactly did Putin think would happen? That everyone would tug the forelock, go "Right you are sir!" and toddle off? The response so far has been incredibly mild despite huge Russian provocations.

Interesting interview with Khodorkovsky:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cb25bc5e-8448-11e4-bae9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Me901JR8

...
[snip]
In the meantime, says Khodorkovsky, the world may experience further crises in its relations with Putin, after his annexation of Crimea in spring. Though many dispute this idea, he claims that Putin triggered the Ukrainian crisis only because his popularity was sagging following corruption scandals and protests over rigged elections in 2011.

“Crimea won’t see him through to [the next presidential election in] 2018. So look out for some new adventures from Putin, even if he’s not thinking about them today,” he says.
[/snip]

Gatling

Looks like Georgia is on Putin's agenda again
The brakeaway region Abkhazia formerly part of Georgia who recently elected a pro Russian president ,
who announced a new military cooperation with Russia not so much cooperation they're military will now be commanded directly from Moscow , also given russia full access to its ports on the black sea
Which could lead to more unrest in the region

aloyisious

The 10 PM BBC 1 news has reported the Franco/German talks with V Putin have ended without any joy. It seem's war is winning the argument. The next step may well be with the Yanks, re their arms for Kiev statements. The thing is will Vlad and Co (despite the Russian statements about the Yank statement on arms supply being seen as a threat to Russia) actually commit acts to "protect" Russia outside the Ukraine war-zone. Is Vlad willing to impose a continent-wide, or two-continent wide, war on Europe and the world to ensure the security of Russia?

If there have been absolutely no manpower, armaments or necessary military logistics requirements supplied by/from Russia or it's proxies to the "rebels" within Ukraine (which seem's very unlikely) them I'm puzzled as to how "rebels" have managed to continue what has been a high intensity conflict for at least a year now.

Elmer Blooker

aloyisious wrote: »

The 10 PM BBC 1 news has reported the Franco/German talks with V Putin have ended without any joy. It seem's war is winning the argument. The next step may well be with the Yanks, re their arms for Kiev statements. The thing is will Vlad and Co (despite the Russian statements about the Yank statement on arms supply being seen as a threat to Russia) actually commit acts to "protect" Russia outside the Ukraine war-zone. Is Vlad willing to impose a continent-wide, or two-continent wide, war on Europe and the world to ensure the security of Russia?

If there have been absolutely no manpower, armaments or necessary military logistics requirements supplied by/from Russia or it's proxies to the "rebels" within Ukraine (which seem's very unlikely) them I'm puzzled as to how "rebels" have managed to continue what has been a high intensity conflict for at least a year now.

I'm also puzzled how ISIS can continue such a high intensity conflict in Syria, our western media tell us that their weapons were captured from the Syrian army so I presume the same applies in Ukraine and the anti coup forces are using weapons abandoned by retreating Ukrainian forces.
I do find it curious how our unbiased media never bothers to question or show the slightest interest how ISIS came to be so heavily armed yet the arming of the resistance in eastern Ukraine is an obsession.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I'm also puzzled how ISIS can continue such a high intensity conflict in Syria, our western media tell us that their weapons were captured from the Syrian army so I presume the same applies in Ukraine and the anti coup forces are using weapons abandoned by retreating Ukrainian forces.
I do find it curious how our unbiased media never bothers to question or show the slightest interest how ISIS came to be so heavily armed yet the arming of the resistance in eastern Ukraine is an obsession.

Apparently qutar spent millions buying weapons from Russia and china to supply various rebel groups mean while russia supplies Syrian regime with their military equipment and weapons .
Isis did over run numerous syrian military bases and other facilities which happened to be filled with weapons the same on the Iraq side many iraqi army units collapsed or handed them there equipment including heavy armour

Shurimgreat

aloyisious wrote: »

The 10 PM BBC 1 news has reported the Franco/German talks with V Putin have ended without any joy. It seem's war is winning the argument. The next step may well be with the Yanks, re their arms for Kiev statements. The thing is will Vlad and Co (despite the Russian statements about the Yank statement on arms supply being seen as a threat to Russia) actually commit acts to "protect" Russia outside the Ukraine war-zone. Is Vlad willing to impose a continent-wide, or two-continent wide, war on Europe and the world to ensure the security of Russia?

If there have been absolutely no manpower, armaments or necessary military logistics requirements supplied by/from Russia or it's proxies to the "rebels" within Ukraine (which seem's very unlikely) them I'm puzzled as to how "rebels" have managed to continue what has been a high intensity conflict for at least a year now.

If I was sending someone to negotiate a ceasefire with Vladimir Putin, the very very very last person I would send is Angela Merkel. She has no clue about military matters or Russian intentions. Expect the war to continue uninterrupted. I'm pretty sure Putin has no respect for Merkel, even less so because she is from Germany. The Russians don't forget.

aloyisious

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I'm also puzzled how ISIS can continue such a high intensity conflict in Syria, our western media tell us that their weapons were captured from the Syrian army so I presume the same applies in Ukraine and the anti coup forces are using weapons abandoned by retreating Ukrainian forces.
I do find it curious how our unbiased media never bothers to question or show the slightest interest how ISIS came to be so heavily armed yet the arming of the resistance in eastern Ukraine is an obsession.

Landmass location of the borders?

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

Apparently qutar spent millions buying weapons from Russia and china to supply various rebel groups mean while russia supplies Syrian regime with their military equipment and weapons .
Isis did over run numerous syrian military bases and other facilities which happened to be filled with weapons the same on the Iraq side many iraqi army units collapsed or handed them there equipment including heavy armour

I doubt very much if staunch US ally and haven of democracy Qatar spent millions buying Russian and Chinese weapons to arm ISIS.
If it were true the western anti-Russian propaganda machine would be at full throttle!
It's very true about the Iraqi army who were poorly led, had very low morale and ran away to save their lives. I can see comparisons with the Iraqi and Ukrainian armies.
http://www.businessinsider.com/america-sells-patriots-to-qatar-2014-7?IR=T

pablomakaveli

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It's very true about the Iraqi army who were poorly led, had very low morale and ran away to save their lives. I can see comparisons with the Iraqi and Ukrainian armies.

Er thats not true. The Ukrainians have fought back a lot more than the Iraqis did. The Iraqi army was mostly Shia in a Sunni area which is why they turned tail almost immediatly and left it to ISIS.

Gatling

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Er thats not true. The Ukrainians have fought back a lot more than the Iraqis did. The Iraqi army was mostly Shia in a Sunni area which is why they turned tail almost immediatly and left it to ISIS.

Most spent several years been trained by the US and other nations they had the best of equipment , armour , vehicles but ran at the first sight of a pick up truck with several isis nutjobs In the back.

Where in ukraine you have poorly trained and poorly equipped volunteers fighting for there country

Ren2k7

The thread title is quite curious, as in the use of the term "civil war" to describe the conflict in Ukraine. Let's get one thing clear, there is NO civil war in the country. The conflict was born out of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and flooding the country with irregular neo Nazi type militias (such as the Cossack units and Night Wolves) along with regular units of the Russian Armed Forces. What we have here is a classic state vs state war that is threatening to drag the rest of Europe along with it, as Carl Bildt, former FM of Sweden has stated.

BoJack Horseman

"Civil war / Russian invasion" would be more accurate.

Ren2k7

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

"Civil war / Russian invasion" would be more accurate.

No, just "Russian invasion". There's a reason why other Russian speaking parts of Ukraine haven't risen up, looted some surplus rocket launchers and tanks from the local supermarket, and declared their own "people's republics".

Shurimgreat

…you know there is a ten year delay in the Soviet Union for the delivery of an automobile. And only one out of seven families in the Soviet Union own automobiles. There is a 10 year wait, and you go through quite a process when you are ready to buy, and then you put up the money in advance.

This man laid down the money, and the fellow in charge said to him: Come back in 10 years and get your car.

The man answered: Morning or afternoon?

And the fellow behind the counter said: Ten years from now, what difference does it make?

And he said: Well, the plumber is coming in the morning.

Joke by Ronald Reagen..

If the Russians want a return to the Cold War, they are welcome to it.