Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

S.R.

stevejazzx wrote: »

See this
Robins link and its conclusions are unfounded and quite simply incorrect. They stem from a badly researched oped piece in Forbes where the guy failed to read part of the article, perhaps on purpose, and as a result it says absolutely nothing about the Crimean referendum and only serves to confuse people further.

This is what it says at the very beginning:
Russian:
Настоящий обзор подготовлен членом Совета Бобровым Е.А., руководителем сети «Миграция и право» ПЦ «Мемориал» С.А. Ганнушкиной и адвокатом Сети Цейтлиной О.П. по результатам посещения городов Симферополь и Севастополь в период с 15 по 18 апреля 2014 г.
English:
This article was prepared by Council Member Bobrov E.A., co-ordinator of the "Migration and Rights Network" of "Memorial Human Rights Centre" Gannushkina S.A. and lawyer for the Network Tseitlina O.P. based on the results of visiting the cities of Simferopol and Sevastopol in the period from 15th to 18th of April 2014.
Basically, those three people went to two cities in Crimea, talked to a bunch of people, and then published that article.

Never again use w*nkers from Memorial as a source of info. Don't make me laugh. Financed by USA scum they are, not human rights centre!!!!!!!!!!!!

During chechen wars they and their colleagues were screaming about "brutality of russian army, about suffering of chechens etc", but when chechens were cutting soldiers' and civilians' heads off, were raping and killing innocent people, there was no a peep from these so called human rights centres.

S.R.

"Memorial" is Human Rights Centreha............HA-HA-HA!

What's next? Adolf Hitler as Nobel Piece Prize laureate?

S.R.

S.R. wrote: »

What's next? Adolf Hitler as Nobel Piece Prize laureate?

Actually why not? If Obama got it then what's wrong with Hitler?

Hotblack Desiato

stevejazzx wrote: »

If we accept that they reneged on all deals with Russia (which they have) that's fine - but they keep trying to hold Russia to a standard they themselves have broken continuously while at the same time expanding into Russia's backyard which as Cohen says, gives Russia legitimate security concerns on their borders.

Hang on a damn second.

The US has no right to restrict the sovereignty of any nation in Europe, and neither does Russia. Gentlemans' agreement or no.

The US has no right to say that any country cannot join any organisation, and neither does Russia.

The nations of Europe are sovereign. Tough luck if Russia or the US would rather otherwise.

stevejazzx wrote: »

However the current situation is one of great concern for Russia - this is not normal peacetime activity I'm sure you'll agree. They have legitimate concerns about their borders

Pull the other one.

The Americans supported the Goergian's only a few years, essentially giving them a mandate to attack South Osseitia

South Ossetia is part of Georgia FFS.

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

South Ossetia is part of Georgia FFS.

South Ossetia is part of Ossetia.

S.R.

The Americans supported the Georgian's only a few years, essentially giving them a mandate to attack South Ossetia

Americans armed Croatians, supported them in other ways and pushed them to attack Serbs in Srpska Krajina in 1995. As result thousands of Serbs were killed, hundreds of thousands fled their homes and never returned back.

In 2008 americans tried to do same thing to ossetians and abkhazians, arming, helping and pushing georgians to attack south part of Ossetia. After Ossetia it was turn of Abkhazia, but thanks to Russia american and georgian plans failed.

Today americans are trying to do the same thing to russians in South East part of so called Ukraine.

Turtwig

S.R. wrote: »

Never again use w*nkers from Memorial as a source of info. Don't make me laugh. Financed by USA scum they are, not human rights centre!!!!!!!!!!!!

During chechen wars they and their colleagues were screaming about "brutality of russian army, about suffering of chechens etc", but when chechens were cutting soldiers' and civilians' heads off, were raping and killing innocent people, there was no a peep from these so called human rights centres.

S.R. wrote: »

"Memorial" is Human Rights Centreha............HA-HA-HA!

What's next? Adolf Hitler as Nobel Piece Prize laureate?

S.R. wrote: »

If Obama got it then what's wrong with Hitler?

If you can't engage in a civil discussion without such ridiculous hyperbole and expletives then don't post here.

Ta,

Soon we'll be comparing the taste of orange juice to Hitler.

obplayer

ninja900 wrote: »

Hang on a damn second.

The US has no right to restrict the sovereignty of any nation in Europe, and neither does Russia. Gentlemans' agreement or no.

The US has no right to say that any country cannot join any organisation, and neither does Russia.

The nations of Europe are sovereign. Tough luck if Russia or the US would rather otherwise.

Precisely what I have been trying to say.
Once again....
This is a squabble over valuable territory by two big powers who could not care less about the people who live in the territory and the west are at least as responsible for this dreadful situation as Russia.

Hotblack Desiato

At least as responsible ... no. You misinterpret me.

We have rumours - allegations - unproven - of a gentlemans' agreement, a verbal statement which may have been misinterpreted - in relation to the US making commitments about newly liberated countries not joining NATO

It would have been wrong for the US to make such commitments on behalf of other nations. But we don't have proof that they did, and these nations have exercised their rights anyway since then.


But - On the other hand we have very real Russian threats, aggression, and support for separatists. Annexation of territory into Russia with threats to annex more.

You cannot equate the two.

Hotblack Desiato

S.R. wrote: »

Americans armed Croatians, supported them in other ways and pushed them to attack Serbs in Srpska Krajina in 1995. As result thousands of Serbs were killed, hundreds of thousands fled their homes and never returned back.

In 2008 americans tried to do same thing to ossetians and abkhazians, arming, helping and pushing georgians to attack south part of Ossetia. After Ossetia it was turn of Abkhazia, but thanks to Russia american and georgian plans failed.

Today americans are trying to do the same thing to russians in South East part of so called Ukraine.

Let's not reopen this here, but you will find close to zero sympathy in the west for the Serbian cause. Especially if you misrepresent events to ignore what happened before 1995.

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

Let's not reopen this here, but you will find close to zero sympathy in the west for the Serbian cause. Especially if you misrepresent events to ignore what happened before 1995.

Aren't you capable to understand that I am not talking about Serbs or Serbian cause?

Hotblack Desiato

Do you think you'd have the freedom of critical expression you enjoy now if you lived in Russia and the Russian government was your target?

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

At least as responsible ... no. You misinterpret me.

We have rumours - allegations - unproven - of a gentlemans' agreement, a verbal statement which may have been misinterpreted - in relation to the US making commitments about newly liberated countries not joining NATO

It would have been wrong for the US to make such commitments on behalf of other nations. But we don't have proof that they did, and these nations have exercised their rights anyway since then.


But - On the other hand we have very real Russian threats, aggression, and support for separatists. Annexation of territory into Russia with threats to annex more.

You cannot equate the two.

Russia does not annex any territory but re-takes what was lost due to different reasons.
Russia is doing what Ireland should also do.

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

Yet you did, 20 years on.

Yeah, put salt into your mouth and keep saying "it's sweet, it's sweet".

Hotblack Desiato

Oh get a grip.

We should annex Northern Ireland and screw the 1,000,000 people there who don't want us to?

Or maybe we can hold a rigged referendum first, then brutally suppress any opposition and murder journalists who ask awkward questions. That might work.

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

Or maybe we can hold a rigged referendum first, then brutally suppress any opposition and murder journalists who ask awkward questions. That might work.

First you have to wake up to stop dreaming about rigged referendums etc.

ninja900 wrote: »

We should annex Northern Ireland and screw the 1,000,000 people there who don't want us to?

After wakening you have not "to annex", but get back what belongs to your homeland.
There are airports and seaports for those 1,000,000 who are not happy to be under Dublin rule.

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

Do you think you'd have the freedom of critical expression you enjoy now if you lived in Russia and the Russian government was your target?

"NO" of course!
If I lived now in Russian Federation I would be taken away by KGB and fed to bears in Putin's private zoo somewhere in Siberia.

obplayer

S.R. wrote: »

First you have to wake up to stop dreaming about rigged referendums etc.



After wakening you have not "to annex", but get back what belongs to your homeland.
There are airports and seaports for those 1,000,000 who are not happy to be under Dublin rule.

You sound like a very worrying person. You seem happy to talk of ethnic cleansing, rigging referendums, ignoring laws etc. You are not, in my opinion, the kind of person I want involved in any discussion I am involved in. I don't think I want to comment further on your posts.

stevejazzx

S.R. wrote: »

Never again use w*nkers from Memorial as a source of info. Don't make me laugh. Financed by USA scum they are, not human rights centre!!!!!!!!!!!!

During chechen wars they and their colleagues were screaming about "brutality of russian army, about suffering of chechens etc", but when chechens were cutting soldiers' and civilians' heads off, were raping and killing innocent people, there was no a peep from these so called human rights centres.

Who are accusing and of what?
For the record I didn't use them as a source and neither did anyone here.
You need to read the posts and follow whats going on - otherwise you just come across as a bit...misguided*

*That's the safest word I can use to avoid a reprimand..other words do spring to mind.

stevejazzx

ninja900 wrote: »

Hang on a damn second.

The US has no right to restrict the sovereignty of any nation in Europe, and neither does Russia. Gentlemans' agreement or no.

The US has no right to say that any country cannot join any organisation, and neither does Russia.

The nations of Europe are sovereign. Tough luck if Russia or the US would rather otherwise.

I completely agree with these broad generalizations but yet you've formed them as if they make a point against something I was saying? What are you saying exactly?

stevejazzx wrote:

However the current situation is one of great concern for Russia - this is not normal peacetime activity I'm sure you'll agree. They have legitimate concerns about their borders

ninja900 wrote:

Pull the other one.

This thread is descending into nonsense. "Pull the other one" is not a reply. Again what do you mean? Can you explain your point of view and stay on point?
I am not a pro-Russian - I am attempting to make some basic points about the general situation.
You seem so fervently anti-Russian that you cannot even fathom that they are also a people with rights and although they are responsible for propaganda they are also on the receiving end of propaganda. What i am trying to do is make sense of all the propaganda and give the topic some balance.
Tell me who you think has more an entitlement to claim legitimate security concerns in that region NATO or Russia? If you answer NATO then you need to look at the Stephen Cohen links I posted all through this thread and just earlier tonight.

stevejazzx wrote:

The Americans supported the Goergian's only a few years, essentially giving them a mandate to attack South Osseitia

ninja900 wrote:

South Ossetia is part of Georgia FFS.

Yes it is, from what happened at the time this is a regular way of describing it but again you show no understanding of that. In fact it seems that you have really no understanding of any of this because your replies do not target any specific information whatsoever but are just general terms (see your first quoted comments in this post as a great example).
Debunk the wiki-leaks article I posted to back up the claim that the US was involved in Georgia in 2008. That would a far more constructive avenue of discourse.
If you think that that wiki-leaks article is nonsense then post a better source debunking it.
Comments like "pull the other one" and "yeah right" are not intelligible and have no room in any kind of debate.

S.R.

obplayer wrote: »

You sound like a very worrying person. You seem happy to talk of ethnic cleansing, rigging referendums, ignoring laws etc. You are not, in my opinion, the kind of person I want involved in any discussion I am involved in. I don't think I want to comment further on your posts.

Be honest: "don't want" is not a reason, "can't" is.
You can't comment coz there is no proof of rigged referendum except "It was rigged coz USA and servants think/want so". Knowing Crimea I have no doubt that majority of population are for Russia.

To ignore law that do not exist - it's beyond belief. Those "laws" were thrown into bin many times by big powers, especially in post-Soviet era.

And where is ethnic cleansing? Today is Friday, did you have some pints? Don't use word if you don't know what does it mean. Northern Ireland is part of Irish land, must be under Dublin rule. If someone in North is not happy with this, then there are options: 1. stay at home, live, work etc with laws of RoI; 2. pack your staff and move.

obplayer

S.R. wrote: »

If someone in North is not happy with this, then there are options: 1. stay at home, live, work etc with laws of RoI; 2. pack your staff and move.

My last reply to you. That is a near perfect description of Ethnic Cleansing.
Goodbye.

S.R.

obplayer, where was your law when USSR invaded Afghanistan, when USA destroyed Serbia, Libiya, Iraq, Afghanistan, when USA invaded Grenada and Panama, when China occupied Tibet? Can you give me exact geographical coordinates of law's whereabouts in mentioned above cases?

S.R.

obplayer wrote: »

That is a near perfect description of Ethnic Cleansing.

:eek:

Just tell me: are you protestant?
If "yes" then it explains a lot, if "no" then your case is more difficult than I initially thought.

S.R.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Who are accusing and of what?

What do u mean?

stevejazzx wrote: »

For the record I didn't use them as a source and neither did anyone here.

I read posts again, yes, you didn't, I made mistake. My apology.

But why did u say that nobody used them as source of info? Didn't robindch use Memorial's report saying that members of russian government admitted that referendum was rigged?

Bellatori

ninja900 wrote: »

Oh get a grip.

We should annex Northern Ireland and screw the 1,000,000 people there who don't want us to?

Or maybe we can hold a rigged referendum first, then brutally suppress any opposition and murder journalists who ask awkward questions. That might work.

Sorry....? That hasn't happened? I really must try and keep up.

Hotblack Desiato

stevejazzx wrote: »

I completely agree with these broad generalizations but yet you've formed them as if they make a point against something I was saying? What are you saying exactly?

You were claiming that the US and Russia entered into an agreement about the non-expansion of NATO that would violate the sovereignty of eastern European countries. In other words, that Russia was entitled to hold a veto over the foreign policy of these countries. The newly liberated countries are free to join NATO if they wish whether Russia likes it or not.

This thread is descending into nonsense.

Quite.

"Pull the other one" is not a reply. Again what do you mean? Can you explain your point of view and stay on point?

Okay then - what legitimate concerns did Russia have over its border?

I am not a pro-Russian - I am attempting to make some basic points about the general situation.
You seem so fervently anti-Russian that you cannot even fathom that they are also a people with rights

Not anti-Russian, anti-Putin.
Yes Russians have rights, which Putin is increasingly suppressing.
Russia does not have the right to dictate the policy of neighbouring nations.

Tell me who you think has more an entitlement to claim legitimate security concerns in that region NATO or Russia? If you answer NATO then you need to look at the Stephen Cohen links I posted all through this thread and just earlier tonight.

Neither. Ukraine isn't a NATO member and isn't going to be - ironically because it is at real threat from Russia and NATO does not want to be drawn in.

stevejazzx

ninja900 wrote: »

You were claiming that the US and Russia entered into an agreement about the non-expansion of NATO that would violate the sovereignty of eastern European countries. In other words, that Russia was entitled to hold a veto over the foreign policy of these countries. The newly liberated countries are free to join NATO if they wish whether Russia likes it or not.

It was the US who implicitly claimed they wouldn't go eastwards so I am not defending any magical right I think Russia should have in the say of other soverign countries - I am questioning why the US broke its promise so emphatically. Not only this but they (the US) unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty. This is why, as any analyst would agree, Russia now has legitimate security concerns at its border - don't translate that into their right to invade as that's not what it means, obviously.

ninja900 wrote:

Okay then - what legitimate concerns did Russia have over its border?

This is a poorly thought out question. We will skip the fundamental idea of national security and get to what I think you wanted to ask.
If a civil war is going to break out in a country on their doorstep then this will have obvious knock on effects to their country so they are legitimately allowed to be concerned. If that country shares their lineage and indeed harbors their own people then their claim to involvement increases significantly. if they have been subsidizing the entire economy of that country for the last 60 years (and in other ways since the 11th century in a mutual regard) then their claim increases further and so on and so on until you get an idea for the history that unites Ukraine and Russia.
None of these claims of legitimate involvement give them (Russia) any rights or excuses to behave illegally e.g annexation etc. but if they fear the loss of this land through complex foreign subterfuge then a grey area develops. Within this grey area, something which is now approaching war - they are still not afforded any rights to contravene international law nor do I believe they should have any. However, there will need to be at some stage opposition to the mish-mosh of fascist radicals that have somehow got into power the Ukraine and who are fighting against Russian separatists. The main reason why Russia has legitimate concerns is because ethnic Russians are involved en masse in major eastern Ukrainian cities, Donetsk, Karkhiv etc. If you think America, UK or German military would behave differently in similar situations then you're deluded. In that situation the only difference would be better international relations and support garnered through a compliment western media.
So at this stage we have to wade through the propaganda - are Russia using agents to kick off a civil war? It's very difficult to tell if that is their game plan as they were happy with a lot less back in February. To make the jump that they now want this war seems illogical to me. It puts them in an insanely difficult international position and strains their economy massively. I would tend to agree with professor Stephen Cohen that this war has been brought to them but again this this doesn't legitimize their behavior. We need to analyse the events on a large scale in order to correctly judge the behaviors of all involved.
Curiously however, despite the propaganda, the from evidence from the atrocities (Odessa, Odessa burning, Mariupol) so far suggests that it is factions of Ukrainian fascists who are mostly responsible.
I don't for a minute think Russia is innocent.
The country looks to be heading towards totalitarianism with a spout of current ridiculous laws (in relation to gay rights, patriotism and even swearing in movies)
they start to resemble a weird North Korea more than anything else. However this does not legitimize the US or NATO's actions. They have no right to be knee deep in this crisis, no right to have their administration on the ground supporting a revolution, no right to have CIA advising the interim government they helped put there, no right to further expansion of NATO (it increases the volatility of any remaining nuclear agreements and thereby world peace).
Russia were happy with the bilateral agreement negotiated with EU in February. The US didn't want this - in fact it got them really angry (FcuK the EU) because the money that was up for grabs (bailout funds for the Ukraine) would ultimately be originating in Washington and the US knew that with continuing Russia involvement they would have no legitimate means of concluding their Polish missile defense installation, further NATO expansion and subsequently gaining influence in the Ukraine for the installment of future energy pipelines. see also here for more
Its a long term game plan that is being played out.

ninja900 wrote:

Neither. Ukraine isn't a NATO member and isn't going to be - ironically because it is at real threat from Russia and NATO does not want to be drawn in.

Wow. This comment shows your naivety on a very grand scale.
This is a direct continuation of US policy in Ukraine that has been going on since the fall of the Soviet Union - I have posted links in this thread already but
here's snapshot of recent times - dear lord do your homework man before posting any more monumentally incorrect comments.

2004
2005
2008
2008
Overview through 3 administrations

S.R.

Head of Kherson region Yuri Odarchenko on Victory Day said that Hitler was liberating people from Stalin's tyranny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A05s6GrztbQ#t=216

Good man, Yura!

Brian Shanahan

S.R. wrote: »

What is international law?

So you're ok with illegal occupations of other people's countries then. Always good to know.

Hotblack Desiato

stevejazzx wrote: »

It was the US who implicitly claimed they wouldn't go eastwards so I am not defending any magical right I think Russia should have in the say of other soverign countries - I am questioning why the US broke its promise so emphatically.

'Going eastwards' sounds like some sort of US invasion. NATO is a mutual defence pact.
It hasn't been conclusively established that the US indeed made any such promise, and as I've previously stated, IMHO they have no right to give assurances on behalf of any other country.

Not only this but they (the US) unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty. This is why, as any analyst would agree, Russia now has legitimate security concerns at its border - don't translate that into their right to invade as that's not what it means, obviously.

Withdrawing from the ABM treaty was a mistake, but the potential effect is on the strategic balance of power (by potentially impairing the effectiveness of Russia's deterrent.) It doesn't really matter that these installations are in neighbouring countries, they are defensive in and of themselves, what matters is the effect on Russia's deterrent not where they're based.I don't agree with these installations btw.

This is a poorly thought out question. We will skip the fundamental idea of national security and get to what I think you wanted to ask.

It is a 'poorly thought out question' using your exact phrase!

stevejazzx wrote: »

They have legitimate concerns about their borders

So it's perfectly apt to ask what those concerns are, n'est-ce pas?


Now I find this next passage rather troubling:

If a civil war is going to break out in a country on their doorstep then this will have obvious knock on effects to their country so they are legitimately allowed to be concerned. If that country shares their lineage and indeed harbors their own people then their claim to involvement increases significantly. if they have been subsidizing the entire economy of that country for the last 60 years (and in other ways since the 11th century in a mutual regard) then their claim increases further and so on and so on until you get an idea for the history that unites Ukraine and Russia.

Substitute Britain for Russia and Ireland for Ukraine. We share each other's lineage and have strong traditional and cultural links. A great many British citizens live here and many more of British descent. Britain could claim that it subsidised our economy until independence (it certainly does in the North.) 'Their claim increases further' ??? - could Britain use that to intervene in a civil conflict in the Republic, in that scenario??

What went on before 1992 is of limited relevance because until then, Ukraine was effectively a colony of Moscow.

If Russia since 1992 has been subsidising Ukraine then they must have regarded this as in their strategic interest to do so. There are precious few altruists in the world, and neither is the US one.

None of these claims of legitimate involvement give them (Russia) any rights or excuses to behave illegally e.g annexation etc. but if they fear the loss of this land through complex foreign subterfuge then a grey area develops.

Loss of this land? It's not their land to lose!

Within this grey area, something which is now approaching war - they are still not afforded any rights to contravene international law nor do I believe they should have any.

Agreed, but they have already done so, and are believed to be doing so in east Ukraine right now.

However, there will need to be at some stage opposition to the mish-mosh of fascist radicals that have somehow got into power the Ukraine and who are fighting against Russian separatists.

Oh please. Not the 'fascists' line.

The main reason why Russia has legitimate concerns is because ethnic Russians are involved en masse in major eastern Ukrainian cities, Donetsk, Karkhiv etc.

En masse? or activists and provocateurs? It's not hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, is it? I believe that most people in this area do not want unrest.

So at this stage we have to wade through the propaganda - are Russia using agents to kick off a civil war? It's very difficult to tell if that is their game plan as they were happy with a lot less back in February. To make the jump that they now want this war seems illogical to me.

I don't believe Russia wants war, but that they want to gain as much as they possibly can without it.

Wow. This comment shows your naivety on a very grand scale.

We will see.

stevejazzx

ninja900 wrote: »

'Going eastwards' sounds like some sort of US invasion. NATO is a mutual defence pact.

It is not mutual whatsoever.
Take a look at any chart (random example) of current wars/conflicts in which NATO are involved or have been recently and you'll see is about 85% US troops, 5% UK and a watered down mix from other countries. This point is further conflated by spending per country where we see that the US's investment is far greater than any other country. Now simply look at military personnel commitment per country and its apparent that its not really a mutual defense pact but a US led and funded army.

ninja900 wrote:

It hasn't been conclusively established that the US indeed made any such promise, and as I've previously stated, IMHO they have no right to give assurances on behalf of any other country.

What? It has been without any shadow of a doubt definitively confirmed numerous times by none other the US administration themselves.
It was the cornerstone of all the negotiations which led up to the fall of the Soviet Union and better relations between the US and Russia. Bush and Gorbachev implicitly agreed it as is known by all historians of the era.

Spiegel Online: "What the U.S. Secretary of State [James Baker III] said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's words, 'no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east,' provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachov said, but added: 'any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.'"
Yet, as then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in November 2009, Russia got
"none of the things that we were assured—namely that NATO would not expand endlessly eastwards and our interests would be continuously taken into consideration."
Spiegel Online wrote, "The political leaders of the day are now elderly gentlemen who don't necessarily always find it easy to remember exactly what happened back then." But the record shows, for example, that on Feb. 10, 1990, German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher told Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze,
"We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east."
And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly:
"As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general."

Withdrawing from the ABM treaty was a mistake, but the potential effect is on the strategic balance of power (by potentially impairing the effectiveness of Russia's deterrent.) It doesn't really matter that these installations are in neighbouring countries, they are defensive in and of themselves, what matters is the effect on Russia's deterrent not where they're based.I don't agree with these installations btw.

Yeah you have understand how MAD worked when it was in effect after WW2 and right through (albeit in a far more complex way) and up to the present day.
Missile defense systems have thrown MAD out the window; any documentary on the early cold war will explain this concept well. Nowadays, by their very nature, missile defense installations also becomes bases for a military in general and the idea of a base which contains the very best modern military technology but which is restricted exclusively to defense is a little unbelievable.
Imagine the situation reversed - Russia starts a coalition of countries involved in encouraging the installation of military bases westwards? Would that stand?

It is a 'poorly thought out question' using your exact phrase!

I said it as a statement - as a statement it made sense. Every country is entitled to legitimate security concerns on its own borders. No one would dispute that.
When you asked it as a question using those exact words and no more, or any other condition's, the direct answer was immediately obvious. Hence it was a poorly worded question.

Substitute Britain for Russia and Ireland for Ukraine. We share each other's lineage and have strong traditional and cultural links. A great many British citizens live here and many more of British descent. Britain could claim that it subsidised our economy until independence (it certainly does in the North.) 'Their claim increases further' ??? - could Britain use that to intervene in a civil conflict in the Republic, in that scenario??

What went on before 1992 is of limited relevance because until then, Ukraine was effectively a colony of Moscow.

If Russia since 1992 has been subsidising Ukraine then they must have regarded this as in their strategic interest to do so. There are precious few altruists in the world, and neither is the US one.

No Britain and Ireland are not like Ukraine and Russia.
This argument is hopelessly poor.
You do not understand that eastern Ukraine is full of Ethnic Russians (this point will repeat itself here in your following comments). Britain doesn't subsidize our current economy - The Kiev Rus people started Moscow and then Kazan etc. until the Russian empire was built. Irish people did not begin the British empire. We don't share lineage in that way whatsoever. Nothing in your comparison is relevant.
As to your point about strategic interest - again you completely miss the relationship. the Ukraine, in part, was essentially Russian not by force but lineage and history.

Loss of this land? It's not their land to lose!

If Ukraine is forced into NATO, put under control of the IMF, subject to international military bases at the command of the US (just think of what happening in Poland) then a cold war with Russia will reemerge in force (it is already happening). Russia's legitimate concern in this scenario is the security on its borders. If the US were to then label Russia as a rouge state (it is already imposing sanctions in that direction) ala IRAQ, North Korea, Afghanistan etc. then to this extent Russia will have lost this land. Of course Russia does not own this land but neither does the US. Russia are well aware of what a strategic disaster it would be for them to concede it. This is why we can conclude that this war was brought to them. This is why the comments (made in this thread) about Putin's Nazi expansionist ideals are so off base) this is a military conflict.

Oh please. Not the 'fascists' line.

What do you mean.
It is well understood and without disagreement that supporters of, and some the actual parties themselves that make up the interim government in Ukraine harbor neo-nazi or fascist ideologies.

In an answer to an inquiry made by the Left Party in August 2013, the German government assessed Svoboda as "a right-wing populist and nationalist party with some extreme right-wing positions." The report further states: "The opposition party in the newly elected parliament does not yet show obvious extreme right-wing tendencies in its parliamentary work. In the run-up to the parliamentarian elections in 2012 Svoboda revised its election manifesto and removed extreme right-wing statements."
But it is clear that Svoboda has good contacts to right-wing extremists in other countries. In May 2013 a Svoboda parliamentary delegation under the leadership of representative Michail Holovko paid a visit to the far-right NPD parliamentary faction in the German state of Saxony.
During the current upheaval, Svoboda members also made headlines with some chilling actions. In Kyiv, for example, the director of Ukraine's state broadcaster, Oleksandr Panteleymonov, was attacked by Svoboda representative Ihor Miroshnychenko because he was not satisfied with the broadcaster's coverage. The director was supposed to sign his own resignation. Afterwards, a cellphone video of the attack appeared on Youtube.

En masse? or activists and provocateurs? It's not hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, is it? I believe that most people in this area do not want unrest

.


En masse as in civilians. Parts of Eastern Ukraine, like considerable parts of Crimea are very much a Russian territories (something which you don't seem to have understood). 17.3% of the entire Ukraine is made up of ethnic Russians mostly concentrated in the east
Mix ethnic Russians with other indigenous ethnicities who identify as being Russian and the figure could go considerably higher.

I don't believe Russia wants war, but that they want to gain as much as they possibly can without it.

Not really. They want control of certain aspects of their backyard as they see it and with certain legitimacy.
Again they were happy with the February agreement of bilateral support for the Ukraine with the EU. It was US who scuppered the agreement.
The deal would have meant a degree of loss of their sphere of influence something which their ministers signed off on.

jimeryan22

Lads.... And Ladies.. Calm down will we...?
And to think I'm usually the banned person...
Seen this for the second time, and the beginning didn't half make me think of what's going on in Ukraine...

http://youtu.be/aqIHKWd9rSc

robindch

SR, jimeryan22 - A+A is a discussion board where links to external sites are used to support an argument and not replace one.

Also, most posters here are unlikely to spend much time watching pro-Kremlin propaganda and paranoid conspiracy theorist videos.

jimeryan22

robindch wrote: »

SR, jimeryan22 - A+A is a discussion board where links to external sites are used to support an argument and not replace one.

Also, most posters here are unlikely to spend much time watching pro-Kremlin propaganda and paranoid conspiracy theorist videos.

No1.. I've posted no links.. Since you took my others off without so much a a friendly word..
No2... You don't speak for most posters I'm afraid.. Only yourself

S.R.

robindch wrote: »

SR, jimeryan22 - A+A is a discussion board where links to external sites are used to support an argument and not replace one.

Also, most posters here are unlikely to spend much time watching pro-Kremlin propaganda and paranoid conspiracy theorist videos.

Is there dikc in your head?! Every video or text against today's regime in Ukraine and its masters in Washington and Bruxelles you call pro-Kremlin propaganda and when it's against South-East and Moscow - it's 100% truth? And it's you who has brains to talk about "being paranoid"?!

Ukranians marching with fascist slogans, with fascist signs, with portraits of stepan bandera and roman shukhevich, two fascists, responsible for killing people, partisans, soviet soldiers, responsible for Volyn massacre of Poles, ukranians marching with torches like german fascists did in 30s - this is Kremlin made propaganda? All these people are actors paid by Kremlin?

Every poster will decide himself without you whether watch videos or no. You don't make decisions for others.

S.R.

Freedom of speech, freedom to have different opinion, freedom of blah-blah-blah......)))

I have posted videos on crisis in Ukraine - deleted them. And not for the first time.

I will use this as great example of freedom of speech lesson from West.

Dades

S.R. taking a short holiday for incivility.

Consider yourself drinking in the last chance saloon on your return.

old hippy

jimeryan22 wrote: »

No1.. I've posted no links.. Since you took my others off without so much a a friendly word..
No2... You don't speak for most posters I'm afraid.. Only yourself

In this case, I rather think he does. Most of us want to hear both sides without bias and/or paranoid conspiracy theories which tend to destroy promising debate.

jimeryan22

old hippy wrote: »

In this case, I rather think he does. Most of us want to hear both sides without bias and/or paranoid conspiracy theories which tend to destroy promising debate.

Another person speaking for others.. Well that's 2 so far..
The only thing that destroys debate, is people starting personal veiled stabs at other because of the fact they don't agree with what someone might be saying, that is not debate.. Also to just slap the conspiracy tag on everything one doesn't agree too is also not debating And no, you's don't speak for everybody else

old hippy

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Another person speaking for others.. Well that's 2 so far..
The only thing that destroys debate, is people starting personal veiled stabs at other because of the fact they don't agree with what someone might be saying, that is not debate.. Also to just slap the conspiracy tag on everything one doesn't agree too is also not debating And no, you's don't speak for everybody else

I speak for myself. The Ukraine situation is very messy & I'm not blind to the various far right elements. On both sides. But I refuse to buy into Russian propaganda. Or American, fwiw.

jimeryan22

old hippy wrote: »

I speak for myself. The Ukraine situation is very messy & I'm not blind to the various far right elements. On both sides. But I refuse to buy into Russian propaganda. Or American, fwiw.

So there you go.. Your now saying what I've been saying through the whole thread... Face it... All governments are corrupt and the problem.. Governments no longer representative of the masses but the banks and corporate interests.... Bank bail outs..? Who ended up paying for it..? Us...
Who went to jail..? None of them..
This destabilising country's, in order to rape them for their natural resources etc, will continue as long as people are dumb enough to believe the propaganda..

S.R.

Dades wrote: »

S.R. taking a short holiday for incivility.

Consider yourself drinking in the last chance saloon on your return.

To your knowledge supposed to be smart ass I don't drink.

S.R.

New low for Kiev Junta:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-crisis-un-marked-combat-helicopters-used-government-offensive-against-separatists-1448490

jimeryan22

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-great-power-oil-gas-rivals-pipelines

robindch

Russian Kids Must Prove 'Patriotism' to Graduate High School

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-kids-must-prove-patriotism-to-graduate-high-school/503614.html

Moscow Times wrote:

Here is a list of some things that Russia now wants its high-school students to demonstrate in order to graduate: self-identification as a Russian citizen, responsibility to the motherland and respect for "traditional" values. The Education and Science Ministry has drafted an order that expanding the scope of essential high-school education beyond the "basic" subjects — such as language, literature and math — to include "personal results" that the student must achieve, Izvestia reported Thursday.

The personal results, in addition to the list above, include patriotism, knowledge of the national anthem, respect for Russia's people, and pride for one's home region, the report said. "The [educational] standard is firmly oriented toward building the personal traits of the graduate, who must not only acquire knowledge about certain subjects, but also be formed as a complete and full-fledged individual," a spokesperson for the Education and Science Ministry was quoted as saying.

The ministry's "portrait of the Russian school student" also lists "anti-corruption views," "ecological thinking" and skills in online communication technologies among desirable traits, Izvestia reported. Corruption has been rampant under President Vladimir Putin's rule, with Russia coming in 127th in Transparency International ranking last year, a place it shared with such countries as Nicaragua, Gambia and Comoros.

Meanwhile, as the Russian government has been increasingly blocking access to websites that criticize its policies, it appears likely that students would be expected to demonstrate their online skills by taking to the more acceptable segments of the Internet to communicate "patriotic" views. Schoolchildren would also be expected to demonstrate their respect for "traditional values," a term by which Russia usually designates its dislike of Western liberal ideas and social freedoms such as gay rights.

The ministry order does, however, include encouraging "tolerance" in students, the report said, though it did not specify what areas that tolerance should extend to. "Patriotism" and character-building were essential parts of the Soviet school system, with students required to be familiar with the teachings of founder Vladimir Lenin and the platform of the Communist Party, and be able to describe international news developments in a language that clearly showed their pro-Soviet sympathies. But that ended with the 1991 Soviet collapse.

A co-chairman of the Russian Teachers' Union, Andrei Demidov, appeared skeptical about Russia's new ideas about improving "standards" for students' views, the report said. "We have standards everywhere, and now they have even got around to schoolchildren," he was quoted as saying.

The Moscow Times, btw, is one of Russia's few English-language media outlets and like it's southern cousin, The Kyiv Post, it's liberal and generally reliable.

The Moscow Times is also one of the few remaining media outlets which hasn't been taken over by the Kremlin, probably since it reports in English and few Russians speak English well enough to read it. I can't help but wonder if its days are numbered though.

S.R.

robindch wrote: »

Russian Kids Must Prove 'Patriotism' to Graduate High School

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-kids-must-prove-patriotism-to-graduate-high-school/503614.html

The Moscow Times, btw, is one of Russia's few English-language media outlets and like it's southern cousin, The Kyiv Post, it's liberal and generally reliable.

The Moscow Times is also one of the few remaining media outlets which hasn't been taken over by the Kremlin, probably since it reports in English and few Russians speak English well enough to read it. I can't help but wonder if its days are numbered though.

Is Moscow Times "generally reliable" because it's liberal?

Brian Shanahan

S.R. wrote: »

Is Moscow Times "generally reliable" because it's liberal?

No it's generally reliable because it is not under the paws of a fascist dictatorship, unlike most Russian newspapers.

S.R.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No it's generally reliable because it is not under the paws of a fascist dictatorship, unlike most Russian newspapers.

If you concerned about dictatorship then don't read american and british newspapers.
And generally, don't use words the meanings of which you don't know. In gas-chamber of Buchenwald you would learn for sure what fascist dictatorship really is. Right now you just sound like someone who swallowed FOX channel.

S.R.

Lads, what you think about Boeing shot down by ukranian "freedom from Putin" fighters?

Very strange that plane was shot down when ukranian forces are trapped near russian border and are being destroyed day by day, isn't it?