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

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Cuba decides to join a mutual-defence pact with Russia, or USSR to be more precise. The USA isn't terribly pleased by the idea, so it tries to invade and annex Cuba...

OK - the premise here is that it was OK for the USA to invade and annex Cuba. I'm arguing that it wasn't - are you arguing that it was?

Or how about this one;
Ireland breaks away from the UK, forcing Westminster to finally grant Home Rule, in 1920.

As someone who's on record that we shouldn't celebrate 1916, I don't think I want to go down that rabbit hole.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK - the premise here is that it was OK for the USA to invade and annex Cuba.

That's not my premise.
I'm saying that double standards are being applied. The Russians get portrayed as the paranoid, aggressive and warmongering ones by western media. Secession is deemed OK for some, but not for others.
If you want to see paranoia, look into the eyes of Nato chief Rasmussen next time he calls for more action against Russia in one of his rants.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

That's not my premise.
I'm saying that double standards are being applied.

So it wasn't OK for the USA to invade and annex Cuba, and it equally wasn't OK for Russia to invade and annex Crimea?

recedite

USA should give back Guantanamo to Cuba.
N.Ireland and Crimea were large enough to be political entities in their own right, and they made their own decisions re sovereignty.
The Donbas region has done the same. The main dispute now is where exactly the border will be, which is why the fighting was fiercest around Mariopul just before the ceasefire. Separatist rebels would have liked to control a land bridge right across to Crimea, but Mariopul is a Ukrainian nationalist area. This would have been similar to the way Derry county was assigned to N. Ireland for strategic and geographical reasons, making Lough Foyle the boundary and maintaining deepwater access for Atlantic shipping, despite the majority local population wanting to be on the other side. That kind of thing leads to long term civil strife. Secession itself can put an end to strife, but only if the borders reflect the will of the people reasonably accurately.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

N.Ireland and Crimea were large enough to be political entities in their own right, and they made their own decisions re sovereignty.

The Crimean referendum was rigged - does that not concern you? And a UN resolution supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine and rejecting the fake result was supported by 100 countries:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/ga11493.doc.htm

If you're not concerned about vote-rigging, are you concerned that almost nobody accepts the result? Or are you happy to accept that any decision is fully legitimate, so long as some people vote on it?

recedite wrote: »

The Donbas region has done the same. The main dispute now is where exactly the border will be, which is why the fighting was fiercest around Mariopul just before the ceasefire.

Are you claiming that the substantially faker "referendum" held in Donetsk and Lugunsk was in any sense real?

Recall the Pew poll from around the same time which found a clear majority around the same time in favour of remaining united:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

Does Russia invading a country worry you? Or do you support the right of stronger countries to invade smaller ones and murder their citizens without any right of response?

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

You are purposefully conflating understanding with defending.

While the use of "purposefully" in that sentence is unhelpful, the rest of the sentence isn't.

As I've said previously, your position makes no sense to me - you defend Putin's position extensively, you back it up what I will charitably refer to as "Kremlin-aligned or sponsored propaganda" and false soundbites. For example, referring to the "Maidan overthrow", and your assertion that you don't believe that the annexation of Crimea was "fine" while at the same time providing a lengthy, one-sided justification for it.

What is your position? As above, I really can't understand it.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/ga11493.doc.htm

If you're not concerned about vote-rigging, are you concerned that almost nobody accepts the result?

I don't believe it was "rigged", and history shows that Crimeans sought autonomy from Ukaine right from the time Ukraine left the USSR.

You say "almost nobody" but your link shows 11 against and 58 abstentions, so that's 69 who did not support the UN condemnation. A remarkable number given the amount of economic leverage usually deployed by the US and EU in the UN to persuade developing countries to support their point of view.
This contribution seems particularly sensible;

El Salvador’s representative, explaining his abstention, said the text neither reflected the difficulties of Ukrainians, nor helped to resolve the causes of the crisis. It neither called for dialogue, nor set a precedent for handling future inter- and intra-State tensions.

Furthermore, the actions of Kiev in ordering air strikes and artillery bombardments against eastern cities shows that they themselves regard the Donbas region as enemy territory. Compare to the actions of the RAF in WWII; they were quite happy to bomb German cities, and even cities in German occupied France, but they never bombed the Channel Islands. No government bombs its own loyal cities.

BoJack Horseman

The actual result (according to the Kremlin) in the Crimean sham vote was 30% turnout with a 50-50 split.

The attempted vote in Donbass held by the men from Moscow was even more shambolic
No one, not even the Kremlin recognised.

Fact remains, there has yet to be a free & fair vote in either region on secession to Russia.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

I don't believe it was "rigged" [...]

And you believe it was a fair and honest referendum?

recedite wrote: »

You say "almost nobody" but your link shows 11 against and 58 abstentions, so that's 69 who did not support the UN condemnation.

Eleven countries in the world supported Russia's annexation - Russia itself, Armenia, Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Belarus, Zimbabwe, North Korea - like friends, you can tell a country by the friends it keeps.

recedite wrote: »

Furthermore, the actions of Kiev in ordering air strikes and artillery bombardments against eastern cities shows that they themselves regard the Donbas region as enemy territory.

You are aware that there are two sides in this conflict and that there were thousands of Russian troops, and perhaps similar numbers of local gunmen, supported by large amounts of Russian military hardware were operating in eastern Ukraine. And, according to the OSCE and the UN, as a whole, these men were engaged in kidnapping, torture and murder?

recedite wrote: »

No government bombs its own loyal cities.

Unless foreign troops and local terrorists are engaged in the crimes I've mentioned already.

As you seem unconcerned about Russian-backed violence against Ukrainians in both Crimea and Ukraine, it violence against the people of East Ukraine only matter when it's violence committed by the Ukrainian army in defense of the territorial integrity of Ukraine?

Actually, more simply, do you even accept the principle of a nation's territorial integrity to start with?

Old boardie22

robindch wrote: »

And you believe it was a fair and honest referendum?Eleven countries in the world supported Russia's annexation - Russia itself, Armenia, Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Belarus, Zimbabwe, North Korea - like friends, you can tell a country by the friends it keeps.You are aware that there are two sides in this conflict and that there were thousands of Russian troops, and perhaps similar numbers of local gunmen, supported by large amounts of Russian military hardware were operating in eastern Ukraine. And, according to the OSCE and the UN, as a whole, these men were engaged in kidnapping, torture and murder?Unless foreign troops and local terrorists are engaged in the crimes I've mentioned already.

As you seem unconcerned about Russian-backed violence against Ukrainians in both Crimea and Ukraine, it violence against the people of East Ukraine only matter when it's violence committed by the Ukrainian army in defense of the territorial integrity of Ukraine?

Actually, more simply, do you even accept the principle of a nation's territorial integrity to start with?

You mean the foreign troops that there's still been NO proof of...? Or local terrorists..? You mean people who live there..? They're terrorists are they..?

But it's ok the bent EU/US sponsored Kiev puppet regeime uses tanks and the military against its own civilians..? Cause they're western backed of course so that's ok

BoJack Horseman

Old boardie22 wrote: »

You mean the foreign troops that there's still been NO proof of...?

C'mon.

No one buys that anymore, that ship of incredibility sailed a long time ago.

But it's ok the bent EU/US sponsored Kiev puppet regeime uses tanks and the military against its own civilians..?

No one condones it.
It isn't a tickling contest though.

If the rebels hold out in urban areas those areas are obviously going to get pounded.

robindch

Old boardie22 wrote: »

You mean the foreign troops that there's still been NO proof of...?

Well, in addition to innumerable pictures and videos of Russian troops, the leader of the local gunmen has admitted that there are thousands of Russian troops in east Ukraine:

http://www.france24.com/en/20140828-ukraine-russia-nato-military-donetsk-putin-poroshenko/

Here's a more detailed timline of Russia's implausible "Er, there are no Russian troops in Ukraine" line:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/09/05/the_art_of_doublespeak_a_timeline_of_vladimir_putin_s_excuses_and_evasions.html

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

While the use of "purposefully" in that sentence is unhelpful, the rest of the sentence isn't.

As I've said previously, your position makes no sense to me - you defend Putin's position extensively, you back it up what I will charitably refer to as "Kremlin-aligned or sponsored propaganda" and false soundbites. For example, referring to the "Maidan overthrow", and your assertion that you don't believe that the annexation of Crimea was "fine" while at the same time providing a lengthy, one-sided justification for it.

What is your position? As above, I really can't understand it.

You're not following the thread by the looks of things? Just had this exact discussion last page with OB
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92362549&postcount=945


You are extremely misled about propaganda thinking either that it flows in one direction or that Russia's is somehow more sinister than the west.
Both of these viewpoints are naive. The west has won the propaganda war hands down. The west has maintained a resolutely cold war attitude toward Russia with the purposeful intention of dehumanizing Putin and the Russians. This is a standard strategy applied before possible hot war; it is being used in bulk at present as the US attempt to clean up the middle east with more bombs. They are simultaneously pumping anti-Russian hysteria from Kiev that you are buying into heart and soul. The fact that you can't discern the tress from the woods here in terms of my basic contributions and arguments does suggest that you may struggle with the larger issues at play.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

And, according to the OSCE and the UN, as a whole, these men were engaged in kidnapping, torture and murder?Unless foreign troops and local terrorists are engaged in the crimes I've mentioned already.

We should note that the OSCE and UN (although for some reason it took them an inordinate amount of time) have also made several reports about the bombing campaigns by the Kiev Military (like this one) and subsequent Nationalist Guard attacks* on eastern Ukraine.

*This was ta largely volunteer national guard sent from Kiev made up of ultra nationalists with no military training and as I said in a previous post the Kiev press (strongly supported and indeed advised by the US) a bout propaganda 101 has classed all Eastern Ukrainian rebels as terrorists from day one.
A civil war where one side is represented as terrorists. A real coup for propagandists.

We should remember that Russian troops during the Crimean referendum killed no Ukrainian guards and released them all.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Well, in addition to innumerable pictures and videos of Russian troops, the leader of the local gunmen has admitted that there are thousands of Russian troops in east Ukraine:

http://www.france24.com/en/20140828-ukraine-russia-nato-military-donetsk-putin-poroshenko/

The article does not say the rebel leader says "Russian troops"

Russian-supplied tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and multiple rocket launchers have been insufficient to defeat Ukraine's armed forces, so now an increasing number of Russian troops are intervening directly in fighting on Ukrainian territory," the American diplomat, Geoffrey Pyatt, wrote on Twitter on Thursday

Geoffrey Pyatt eh? Could we get a more reliable source please.


It is not even necessary to disagree with you anymore - your links are for the part heavily slanted anti-Russian fodder that fall apart even upon the most cursory of investigation.
It is not inconceivable that eastern Ukraine could be full of Russian volunteers; and from a country where conscription is mandatory they may well be trained.

By the way isn't it remarkable what the leaders of the Rebels have admitted so far

1. They were directly responsible the MH17 disaster on 3 occasions now!
2. Have claimed responsibility for excessive torture and abuse - later debunked/ contested.
3. Have claimed responsibility for mass graves again later debunked - they in fact blamed Kiev forces.

stevejazzx

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The actual result (according to the Kremlin) in the Crimean sham vote was 30% turnout with a 50-50 split.

The attempted vote in Donbass held by the men from Moscow was even more shambolic
No one, not even the Kremlin recognised.

Fact remains, there has yet to be a free & fair vote in either region on secession to Russia.

Yeah we're going to need a link there and please don't post the already debunked link that was taken from Kremlin site purposefully mistranslated and misunderstood about interviewers in Crimea after the election. I've already been over that one. The OP of that claim never responded.

Old boardie22

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

C'mon.

No one buys that anymore, that ship of incredibility sailed a long time ago.



No one condones it.
It isn't a tickling contest though.

If the rebels hold out in urban areas those areas are obviously going to get pounded.

Can you show me this proof on this ship you talk about sailing away...?
Please Love to see it..

Old boardie22

stevejazzx wrote: »

The article does not say the rebel leader says "Russian troops"



Geoffrey Pyatt eh? Could we get a more reliable source please.


It is not even necessary to disagree with you anymore - your links are for the part heavily slanted anti-Russian fodder that fall apart even upon the most cursory of investigation.
It is not inconceivable that eastern Ukraine could be full of Russian volunteers; and from a country where conscription is mandatory they may well be trained.

By way isn't it remarkable what the leaders of the Rebels have admitted so far

1. They were directly responsible the MH17 disaster on 3 occasions now!
2. Have claimed responsibility for excessive torture and abuse - later debunked/ contested.
3. Have claimed responsibility for mass graves again later debunked - they in fact blamed Kiev forces.

Yeah... Good ole Geoffrey. He was of course nothing to do with this American cout

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

You're not following the thread by the looks of things?

Not quite, as you'll notice that in my question to you, I quoted some of the post that you appear to think I didn't read - perhaps you're not following things very closely yourself?

stevejazzx wrote: »

The west has maintained a resolutely cold war attitude toward Russia with the purposeful intention of dehumanizing Putin and the Russians.

In this, you are -- as above, passim -- declaring the existence of international "dehumanizing" policies which you have not substantiated and which are contrary to ample facts, treaties, statements and the like. Moreover, you are imputing motivation (repeated use of "purposeful") to large numbers of people which, since it resides within the minds of the people concerned, can never be supported.

There's a common phrase which describes this kind of social ideation, but introducing it at this point in the conversation won't much help to develop it positively.

stevejazzx wrote: »

They are simultaneously pumping anti-Russian hysteria from Kiev that you are buying into heart and soul.

At this point, I believe it's pointless to continue this particular thread with you - you don't answer the questions you're asked and instead choose to imply repeatedly that I'm propagandized and my viewpoints are naive, despite my spending seven months watching this conflict initially right in front of me in Kiev in February, and since then, via many, many media outlets from all points of view and all degrees of accuracy and honesty; and despite a background, interest and first-hand experience in Russia and the SU/FSU that goes back something like thirty years.

I disagree, as you'd expect , that I'm propagandized and that my viewpoints are naive, but at this point, I think I've lost the interest in trying to convince you otherwise.

Удача и спасибо!

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Not quite, as you'll notice that in my question to you, I quoted some of the post that you appear to think I didn't read - perhaps you're not following things very closely yourself? :)In this, you are -- as above, passim --

But you asked exact the same question ignoring my response; that it should be noted I have given repeatedly throughout. I could go though this thread and find numerous examples where you have failed to answer rebuttals particularly in reference to your drive by linking.

robindch wrote:

declaring the existence of international "dehumanizing" policies which you have not substantiated and which are contrary to ample facts, treaties, statements and the like. Moreover, you are imputing motivation (repeated use of "purposeful") to large numbers of people which, since it resides within the minds of the people concerned, can never be supported.

No. That's just incorrect but again I am not surprised you don't know this.
Such an argument can be well established and dare I say even proven.

* On Aisians / Vietnam mostly by the US
http://www.trinity.edu/adelwich/documentary/c.tallent.2006.hearts.and.minds.pdf

* On Palestinians by Israel and the US
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-most-fearful-weapon-in-israels-assault-dehumanisation-20140805-100qsb.html

On anti Russian Propoganda of late
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9322652/europe-needs-systemic-change/


http://www.yellow-stars.com/2014/04/anti-russian-propaganda-and-ukraine.html

robindch wrote:

There's a common phrase which describes this kind of social ideation, but introducing it at this point in the conversation won't much help to develop it positively.

Your main tactic of late has been to ignore any and all complexities in a post and repeatedly ask the poster if he thinks mass murder and invasion are ok. I could post many specific examples but it is more than apparent to any follower of this thread. This is worse than ideation it's blatant obfuscation.

robindch wrote:

At this point, I believe it's pointless to continue this particular thread with you - you don't answer the questions you're asked and instead choose to imply repeatedly that I'm propagandized and my viewpoints are naive, despite my spending seven months watching this conflict initially right in front of me in Kiev in February, and since then, via many, many media outlets from all points of view and all degrees of accuracy and honesty; and despite a background, interest and first-hand experience in Russia and the SU/FSU that goes back something like thirty years.

I have had myself considerable exposure to Ukrainians and Russians since this started and have followed it just as closely. I have visited Russia almost 6 times in as many years have a Russian wife and Ukrainian Father in law.
I am extremely familiar with and it policies and it's many issues. No argument from authority is going to decide this debate.

robindch wrote:

I disagree, as you'd expect , that I'm propagandized and that my viewpoints are naive, but at this point, I think I've lost the interest in trying to convince you otherwise.

Удача и спасибо!

Ба́ры деру́тся -- у холо́пов чубы́ треща́т.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

Your main tactic of late has been to ignore any and all complexities in a post and repeatedly ask the poster if he thinks mass murder and invasion are ok.

Yes, reason is that in a debate which has gone off the rails and degenerated into thinly-disguised personal comments, I sometimes find it useful to propose a simple, unarguable point that everybody can agree on, then to move forward from that agreement to help build trust and develop the debate into other places where there's disagreement, but where agreement might be reached. That's the ideal.

In your reply above, however, your continued use of unhelpful language - for example, telling me that the sources I link to (the UN, NATO etc) constitute "drive-by" links and that my knowledge on this topic is deficient ("I'm not surprised you don't know this") suggests to me that for whatever reason, you're avoiding debate and discussion as I enjoy it anyway.

stevejazzx wrote: »

No argument from authority is going to decide this debate. [...] Ба́ры деру́тся -- у холо́пов чубы́ треща́т.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, honesty does compel me to point out that other than й and ё, standard written Russian doesn't use diacriticals

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Yes, reason is that in a debate which has gone off the rails and degenerated into thinly-disguised personal comments, I sometimes find it useful to propose a simple, unarguable point that everybody can agree on, then to move forward from that agreement to help build trust and develop the debate into other places where there's disagreement, but where agreement might be reached. That's the ideal.

But you've not budged one inch on the topic from your perspective.
People on the other side of the debate aren't claiming Russia's absolute innocence.
We are claiming that the situation is more complicated than claiming Russia was the aggressor as is solely responsible. It would appear such claims despite the evidence have fallen on deaf ears. I have contended that there has been western complicity and subterfuge involved also but you have taken a stance that rules this possibility out completely irregardless of any shred of veracity it may hold therefore there are no unarguable truths for you in relation to this unless.

In 2008 the west pulled exactly the same stunt. It accused Russia as being the aggressor during the Georgian crisis. For years this position wasn't questioned despite Russia's absolute denial. Putin even gave an interview on CNN claiming the matter, that US special forces had been detected in Georgia during the crisis was factual. The world scoffed and claimed Kremlin propaganda but years later Wikleaks released articles showing that the US had lied. It knew that Georgia had in fact initiated the affair - a 1000 page EU report confirmed as much and Wikileaks articles confirmed the US knew Georgia was going to do it in advance.
Yet look at the propaganda of that affair in hindsight. Now for those that don't know the Russians and the Georgians are very close, again it's a fraternity; an existential connection much the same as Russia and Eastern Ukraine. The fact the US knew what was going on and yet claimed the opposite shows they were prepared to do exactly what they are doing now subterfuge, disinformation and destabilization for political and economic advantage.

robindch wrote:

In your reply above, however, your continued use of unhelpful language - for example, telling me that the sources I link to (the UN, NATO etc) constitute "drive-by" links and that my knowledge on this topic is deficient ("I'm not surprised you don't know this") suggests to me that for whatever reason, you're avoiding debate and discussion as I enjoy it anyway.While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, honesty does compel me to point out that other than й and ё, standard written Russian doesn't use diacriticals

Hi Robin,

In relation to the drive by links.
You have posted a lot links that I have disputed; some were just factually wrong. I was aware of them from other sites before you posted them. It is to these links that I refer the most recent being Krills SU-35.

There's no doubt as to the quality of your general posting but in relation to dehumanization through propaganda and to claim that such a thing is unsupportable this is what led to the comment "I'm not surprised you don't know" as despite your protestations to the opposite you do seem to have been affected, taken in or at the very least been unduly influenced by western propaganda in relation to this affair. There's no doubt that we all have such is the power of the medium and I certainly don't exclude myself. But a considerable knowledge and reading of US and Russian foreign policy really helps in terms of wading through such propaganda after all there is no doubt that the US and Russia are worlds leading abusers of information along with China, North Korea et al.
However the US has been in more wars since WW2 and especially during the technological age of late hence it's exposure to, its need for and its ability to manufacturer said propaganda, along with its military clout and global pressure that that can yield has given it a marked advantage over others particularly in relation to dissemination globally, there is simply no competition.
Again it is to this issue to which my comment referred; why else (other than the fact that they simply did not know) would someone make the claim that such an elemental tool of propaganda i.e dehumanization, was unsupportable?

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

honesty does compel me to point out that other than й and ё, standard written Russian doesn't use diacriticals

I was being generous for the non experts:)

stevejazzx

On one of the more usually informative BBC political talk shows the panelists and host show just how little they know about the whole affair. Embarrassing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjjDKgUDym4

recedite

robindch wrote: »

And you believe it was a fair and honest referendum?

This BBC report is quite funny; the reporter tries his best to look glum as he announces that Downing St. has denounced the overwhelming "Yes" vote. Meanwhile, in the background, crowds of locals cheer the same result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoFZIC1mmWY

You will probably never get 100% of people agreeing that a referendum was 100% fair. In the Crimean referendum, they allowed temporary residents to vote, which wouldn't be allowed here. But in the Scottish referendum, they did that too, and nobody complained it was rigged. And also in Scotland, they extended the vote to include 16 and 17 year olds, knowing that younger people were, in general, more likely to take the risks of independence.
Up until a few years ago, in our own referendums, the govt. normally spent public money on campaigns for their own preferred side in a referendum.

I would say that in the case of the Crimean referendum, the result reflected the will of the people. You could hold it again tomorrow, under different circumstances, and the overall result would be the same. Since the referendum, the place has been very quiet and they seem quite happy.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

I would say that in the case of the Crimean referendum, the result reflected the will of the people.

You could say that about an opinion poll too - but we don't decide election or referendum results on opinion polls. There are standards to which plebiscites are expected to be held, and the Crimean referendum wasn't even close to meeting the accepted standards for a free and fair vote.

To say of an election result: "meh, it was probably more-or-less what the people wanted" is a strange perspective, to put it kindly.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

In the Crimean referendum, they allowed temporary residents to vote, which wouldn't be allowed here.

There were also reports of multiple-votes, there was no voting register, votes were collected in Moscow, Russian soldiers voted all over the place, the vote was illegal under the prevailing law, there were widespread reports of Russian solders and irregular gunmen assaulting and intimidating voters, there was no time for a proper debate, the vote for the "referendum" in the Crimean legislature was carried out at gunpoint, there was no quorum within the Crimean legislature when the vote to approve the referendum was taken after midnight, the "referendum" itself was unfair since neither of the two choices on offer permitted the status quo to continue, there was no agreed plan for the division of state and other assets, campaigning against Moscow was not permitted, the pro-Moscow campaigning was hysterical, aggressive and predatory, the vote was boycotted by ethnic Tatars and it appears by a majority of ethnic Ukrainians too.

I could go on, but as oscarBravo says, claiming that the Crimean vote was fair, honest, representative or similar in any way to the Scottish referendum in anything other than name, is unsupported any facts that I'm aware of.

And claiming, as you appear to, that the entire process must have been grand as the place hasn't descended into a civil war - recall that the war in the east was initiated, funded and sustained and by Moscow - is a belief which defies polite description.

Scuttery underpants

So still NO proof of this Russian invasion then...?
And has Ukraine ceased to exist or what...?
Seen nout on news for a week

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

To say of an election result: "meh, it was probably more-or-less what the people wanted" is a strange perspective

Is it worse than saying "it was probably what the people wanted, but I personally don't like it" and then, like David Cameron, to "denounce" the result and then go looking for technicalities to criticise it with?

robindch wrote: »

..the vote was illegal under the prevailing law, there were widespread "reports" of Russian solders and irregular gunmen assaulting and intimidating voters.....

If by "prevailing law" you mean the law as imposed by Kiev, then your argument is self-defeating, given that the law as imposed by Crimeans is the law that actually prevailed.
If by "reports" you mean reports from Kiev........need I go on?

robindch wrote: »

.. there was no quorum within the Crimean legislature when the vote to approve the referendum was taken after midnight....

Seriously, does anyone care about these technicalities, even in Ukraine?
Answer an honest question. Do you think the majority in Crimea wanted to be in Russia or in Ukraine, given an absolutely free choice?

stevejazzx

Your points below are only somewhat correct and some cases incorrect (I have highlighted the points individually and presented the counter balance / argument in each case - while I agree that they do for the most part invalidate Crimea's referendum, nonetheless as you yourself pointed out (in relation the Interim government in Kiev) the circumstances were extraordinary and as such can hardly be held in the same light.

The right to self determination or fair debate was never going to be an option. Constitutionality, democratic process and rule of law was superseded by the western backed coup. The Ukrainians as a whole including the east and of course Crimea should have had the right to unelect Yanukovych. That didn't happen and what happened afterwards has to be observed with this in mind.

robindch wrote: »

There were also reports of multiple-votes,

There is only one source on this, an unnamed Tatar organizer as quoted by Mcclatchy here - obviously far from being unbiased given it is entirely US/Kiev - not only that but it make no sense if the election was already rigged/controlled?

there was no voting register,

I believe this was impossible as the register was held in Kiev.

From BBC article here
But Ukraine has blocked Crimean officials' access to voter lists, so the electoral rolls will have to be compiled by local councils all over Crimea.

Robindch wrote:

Russian soldiers voted all over the place,

Same point as above.
Why would they do this if the it was all rigged? And then not only do it but openly and so easily recorded?
Doesn't wash to be honest.

robindch wrote:

the vote was illegal under the prevailing law,

The circumstances were not ordinary. The Kiev government was essentially unconstitutional and illegitimate.

robindch wrote:

there were widespread reports of Russian solders and irregular gunmen assaulting and intimidating voters,

This point was repeated a lot in the beginning but was essentially withdrawn upon actual investigation and reports ↓

observers wrote:

“It’s all quiet so far,” Mateus Piskorkski, the leader of the European observers’ mission and Polish MP told Itar-Tass. “Our observers have not registered any violations of voting rules.”

Another observer, Ewald Stadler, member of the European Parliament, dispelled the “referendum at gunpoint” myth, by saying he felt people were free to make their choice.

A BBC reporter does not witness this despite travelling literally all over the place during the referendum and visiting many polling stations; in fact witnesses the opposite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeZH38rjxmE

robindch wrote:

there was no time for a proper debate,

Absolutely agreed. It appears that Putins paranoia caused him to move the referendum twice (possibly a well orchestrated tactic) nonetheless the peoples of Crimea had absolutely no chance to consider the topic in its entirety.

robindch wrote:

the vote for the "referendum" in the Crimean legislature was carried out at gunpoint,

This outlook seems to be mired in propaganda. While certainly there were Russian troops in Crimea, some of them were transferred from bases where they were stationed legitimately. No one was killed not even a single Ukrainian guard. Western witnesses, like Graham Philips as linked above, observed that the troops were overwhelmingly welcomed by the people of Crimea. Philips has much to offer in terms of criticisms of both sides.

Robindch wrote:

there was no quorum within the Crimean legislature when the vote to approve the referendum was taken after midnight,

The referendum was voted on and was passed.

robindch wrote:

the "referendum" itself was unfair since neither of the two choices on offer permitted the status quo to continue,

This criticism makes little sense - seeing as the belief is it was rigged, we may as well say that there was only one vote otherwise voters could have just chosen the status quo by abstaining or marking both options (which was clearly stated would invalidate their vote)

robindch wrote:

there was no agreed plan for the division of state and other assets,

Presumably Russia will suffer economically as a result of integrating Crimea.
I don't think nationalization of Crimean state assets will help.
It will be interesting to see how Crimea fares economically now. I only hope that there are no further conflicts there.

robindch wrote:

campaigning against Moscow was not permitted, the pro-Moscow campaigning was hysterical, aggressive and predatory,

Yes I would agree although no doubt this was blown and up and exaggerated by the west. And with such a blatant anti-Russian presence in the Kiev parliament can you blame them?

robindch wrote:

the vote was boycotted by ethnic Tatars and it appears by a majority of ethnic Ukrainians too.

Unfortunately as in any referendum there is set goal required. The Tatars are such a small number that any referendum no matter how internationally valid on paper was always going to ostracize them in some way. Western media really just used the Tatars as a pawn in this whole debate.
And it was extremely effective; I recently read a comment that described Crimea as being a country filled with a Tatar majority who were enslaved overnight by Putin. Some people are so uninformed in this debate its ridiculous.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Is it worse than saying "it was probably what the people wanted, but I personally don't like it" and then, like David Cameron, to "denounce" the result and then go looking for technicalities to criticise it with?

Just so we're clear: if the next election in Ireland were to be held under similar circumstances, you'd cheerfully go along with whatever government we ended up with?

recedite

In fairness the circumstances were a little bit different to a typical Irish election. The elected govt. in Kiev had been overthrown in an illegal and foreign supported coup. Crimea was cut off from Kiev by roadblocks manned by armed self defense forces. The new regime in Kiev was threatening to wage war on them unless they returned to their homes.

So do you think the majority of Crimeans wanted to stay in Ukraine or join Russia?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

The elected govt. in Kiev had been overthrown in an illegal and foreign supported coup.

You don't seem to have any grasp of any of the facts concerning what happened during the period 17th February to the 22nd of February and I've explained what happened then often enough that I feel that repeating it again is likely to be wasted effort.

Scuttery underpants

robindch wrote: »

You don't seem to have any grasp of any of the facts concerning what happened during the period 17th February to the 22nd of February and I've explained what happened then often enough that I feel that repeating it again is likely to be wasted effort.

Please do for those of us who have not heard what you have explained... Thanks

Brian Shanahan

Scuttery underpants wrote: »

Please do for those of us who have not heard what you have explained... Thanks

Read the thread instead of typing derailing posts.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

You don't seem to have any grasp of any of the facts ...

That may be your opinion. Still waiting for the opinion I asked for; Do you think the majority in Crimea wanted to be in Russia or in Ukraine, given an absolutely free choice?

stevejazzx

Scuttery underpants wrote: »

Please do for those of us who have not heard what you have explained... Thanks

Yes Robin explained this on page one on this thread but it is worth going over now though

robindch wrote:

It was a little more subtle than that, but not much.

On the 18th Feb Yanokovich pulled some kind of parliamentary trick under which the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, was not allowed to vote on whether to return to the 2004 version of a 1996 constitution. Yanukovich had brought in deeply unpopular constitutional amendments in 2010 which granted him almost dictatorial powers. The parliamentary vote was almost certain to have passed, as Yanukovich had little or no support in parliament at that point, his own party having largely abandoned him. On hearing of the trick, protesters took to the street and rioted; Yanukovich deployed snipers against them the following two days, perhaps 100 were killed, including a small number of berkut (riot police); negotiations proceeded regardless and by Thursday, an agreement had been signed by Yanukovich with most of the protesters; one group of protesters (Pravii Sektor, a far-right group) refused to sign and said they'd remove Yanukovich by force. That evening Yanukovich fled. The following day, the parliament voted to return to the 2004 constitution and legal authorities issued an arrest warrent for Yanukovich. The parliament then voted in a rainbow coalition from all parties (including some unpleasant ones), and called elections at end of May. Russia has said that it does not recognise
the current administration (correctly voted in by the Rada), nor will it respect the results of the forthcoming election.

You could argue that the threat by Pravii Sektor to remove Yanukovich and Yanukovich's his disappearance deligitimized the vote on Friday, the following day, but I think it's stretching it a little. Especially when one considers the snipers the previous two days, as well as Yanukovich's dictatorial abuses of power. Yanukovich was essentially out of control and running Ukraine as a murderous personal fiefdom and people do have a right to defend themselves.

The ambassador no doubt also glossed over the fact that the Russian Army has invaded a peaceful neighbour on a fictitious pretext - a far greater abuse of military power than the mildly questionable legality of events in Kiev.

The quote above is represented in its entirety - however some vital information should be noted

1. There is now considerable evidence which throws grave doubt on the purported fact that Yanukovych ordered the snipers as claimed directly in the below text. The evdience came to light in a leaked conversation between Estonia’s Foreign Minister and EU Foreign Policy Chief Cathy Ashton.

This was a game changer at the time. It lent significant weight to the coup as being a west backed and controlled movement. It is my understanding the regime at the time ordered no investigation into the snipers; this is apparently confirmed by the Estonian Foreign minister who was on the ground at time. Berkut officers were suspects
{Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, said 12 members of the elite riot police unit Berkut (since disbanded by the new government) had been identified as suspects in the shooting of 17 people on Instytutska Street}

Yanukovych says

"No power is worth a drop of blood," he said on 2 April, in his first interview since fleeing to Russia.

Estonian FM wrote:

The Estonian foreign ministry confirmed the leaked conversation was accurate. It said: "Foreign minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground.

You can hear the leaked phonecall
here around - sniper bit starts 8.50

You can read more
here

2. Pravii sector threatened force to remove the democratically elected president.
Here is an article from Jan 2013 where Pravy Sektor rejects original protesters' goal of closer links to EU, demanding 'national revolution'
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/23/ukrainian-far-right-groups-violence-kiev-pravy-sektor
I could go into how ultra nationalistic they were but we've been over the Nazi angle. I am therefore unsure as to why it is considered a good thing that ultra national "neo Nazis" essentially ended democracy in Ukraine?

As I said earlier it was the right of a united Ukraine to remove Yanukovych who had already agreed to an earlier election.


3. The Russian army never invaded Crimea as sated above.
It should be clear from my previous text on Robins breakdown of the Crimean Referendum that there were Russian troops were already stationed at bases in Crimea and as far as all discernible and noteworthy sources reported at the time and afterwards (links and quotes in my preceding post folks) people were not only free to vote as they pleased but largely welcomed Russian troops as violence was threatening to break out in many areas. Guns were not drawn and no one died. All that said Russia had no right to do this but if you kept abreast of everything that was happening at the time it very little wonder that they did.

Scuttery underpants

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Read the thread instead of typing derailing posts.

I have Brian... I was making a point you seemed to have missed...
Assumptions being the mother of all f**k ups and all that...

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, gave an interview on the Beeb yesterday which I thought summarized quite well the elements of the crisis that he talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvuWHEU9dVY

Interesting tidbit from earlier in the thread which happens to comfortably line itself up on the side of US backed revolution in Ukraine.

Here is the Radoslaw Sikorski speaking emm, non diplomatically off the record regarding the crisis

“Complete bull****,” the tape purportedly records Sikorski as saying. “We will get a conflict with both Russians and Germans, and we’re going to think that everything is great, because we gave the Americans a blowj*b. Suckers. Total suckers.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/22/poland-foreign-minister-alliance-us-worthless

Interesting aside his wife, Anne Applebaum is respected pultizer prize journalist, was a George Herbert Walker Bush/Axel Springer Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, Germany, in 2006 and moves in big circles in Washington. Her last major book was
Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-1956.

All in all I would say, therefore, that considering his obvious bias and his personal open declaration as being the US's mouthpiece on the affair as well as the by now obvious quid pro quo relationship between Poland and US, that we can throw out any further musings on the affair by this self interested troll.

Scuttery underpants

Convienient that he was banging on about the transfer of Crimea being illegal.. But of course it wasn't in 1954, when given to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev... Even though if one looks it up they were saying it illegal then as there was NO referendum...
But that's different of course

Scuttery underpants

And that guy was about the most brittish sounding and looking pole I've ever seen... Wonder who he actually represents.........

recedite

Sikorsky seems to have been "groomed" by the Nato powers, from the 1980's when he was a student. IMO just in case they ever needed a puppet to parachute back into Poland when the time was right.

After leaving Poland as a young political activist, he was granted political asylum in the UK and studied politics and economics. While there he joined the exceedingly posh "Bullington Club" along with David Cameron and Boris Johnston. How he funded this extravagant lifestyle, as an asylum seeker, is a bit of a mystery.

Then he spent some time as a reporter for the Telegraph, embedded with Islamic fighters in Afghanistan. This was back in the days when they were armed by the US and fighting the Russians, and carried the heroic name "mujahideen".

Later he was given a top job at a Washington "think-tank" established by the neo-cons, whose aim was to encourage the former eastern bloc countries to migrate to Nato and adopt the American way of life.
After 3 years at the US institution, he moved back to Poland and became a Senator, then rapidly progressed to Defence Minister, then was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2007 up until recently.
They say he is quite likely to end up doing a stint as the head of Nato in the next few years.

stevejazzx

recedite wrote: »

Sikorsky......They say he is quite likely to end up doing a stint as the head of Nato in the next few years.

Just the chap for the Job - Washingtons man; a good orator as he says himself.;)

Brown Bomber

recedite wrote: »

Sikorsky seems to have been "groomed" by the Nato powers, from the 1980's when he was a student. IMO just in case they ever needed a puppet to parachute back into Poland when the time was right.

After leaving Poland as a young political activist, he was granted political asylum in the UK and studied politics and economics. While there he joined the exceedingly posh "Bullington Club" along with David Cameron and Boris Johnston. How he funded this extravagant lifestyle, as an asylum seeker, is a bit of a mystery.

Then he spent some time as a reporter for the Telegraph, embedded with Islamic fighters in Afghanistan. This was back in the days when they were armed by the US and fighting the Russians, and carried the heroic name "mujahideen".

Later he was given a top job at a Washington "think-tank" established by the neo-cons, whose aim was to encourage the former eastern bloc countries to migrate to Nato and adopt the American way of life.
After 3 years at the US institution, he moved back to Poland and became a Senator, then rapidly progressed to Defence Minister, then was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2007 up until recently.
They say he is quite likely to end up doing a stint as the head of Nato in the next few years.

Ha, I've said all this 5 years ago. There is some more information on him here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65423078&postcount=21 He is spooky as fuch; how any can believe a word these charlatans say is beyond me.

Brown Bomber

Scuttery underpants wrote: »

Convienient that he was banging on about the transfer of Crimea being illegal.. But of course it wasn't in 1954, when given to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev...

... A drunk Khruschev.

recedite

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ha, I've said all this 5 years ago. There is some more information on him here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65423078&postcount=21 .

That's a good post. It does look like Sikorsky was groomed and recruited by the CIA very early on.
Boris Johnston is instantly recognisable in the photo, he's a bit slimmer, but he had the same "glare at the camera" technique

stevejazzx

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ha, I've said all this 5 years ago. There is some more information on him here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65423078&postcount=21 He is spooky as fuch; how any can believe a word these charlatans say is beyond me.

recedite wrote: »

That's a good post. It does look like Sikorsky was groomed and recruited by the CIA very early on.
Boris Johnston is instantly recognisable in the photo, he's a bit slimmer, but he had the same "glare at the camera" technique

A quick follow up on Sikorsky

He has caused quite s stir this week when he was quoted as saying this

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/polish-ex-minister-putin-offered-to-divide-ukraine-with-poland-in-2008/

It was a tough claim to back up seeing as Putin and Tusk didn't meet at that time and that Sikorski wasn't present.

Its a pity Sikorski was linked here earlier in the thread as some kind champion for the cause against Putin and its also a shame that those who think they're clued into western propaganda are the ones who use those links.

recedite

He seems to have goaded the current Polish PM anyway;

If such a proposal was made by Putin then that's scandalous," Ewa Kopacz, who replaced Tusk as prime minister after his departure for a top job in Brussels, said late on Monday in an interview with public broadcaster TVP. "No Polish prime minister will participate in such a disgraceful activity like partitioning another country", she said, adding she had not heard about such a proposal before

You'd think she would have gone and asked Tusk about it, before attacking Sikorsky's strawman like a mad thing..

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

No one was killed not even a single Ukrainian guard.

As I mentioned above somewhere, you set a low bar indeed for public discourse if it's no higher than "Well, hey, look! Nobody was murdered" (which is not true either, but let's not go there).

stevejazzx wrote: »

Western witnesses, like Graham Philips as linked above, observed that the troops were overwhelmingly welcomed by the people of Crimea. Philips has much to offer in terms of criticisms of both sides.

While I've little interest in taking up this conversation again, I really do have to respond to this comment.

As with much of your input to this thread, I fail to understand what you mean here since Phillips' cock-eyed, "shove a video camera in front of angry people" style of media output would be laughable, were it not apparently treated as serious commentary by many. I'm sure you're fully aware that Phillips does not criticize, in any meaningful sense, the hand that feeds him. And as I lack the time and the interest in lacerating his vile output (as for example, Max Seddon has done; btw, Seddon's report was published before Phillips published some weeks ago videos of the corpses of naked, elderly men and women which I will not link to) all I've time to do here is dip into what he's done recently and see if we can get a flavour and -- lo! -- here's one from yesterday in which he shouts "UKROP!" (an insult used by pro-Russians to describe Ukrainian troops) while shooting a gun. Does he really appear to you as a reliable source of unbiased information?

And just scanning the feeds, briefly, I see that Alexander Zakharchenko, the self-appointed leader of the DPR explained today that he intends to restart the war again with a view to capturing Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and especially Mariupol which would give Putin the land bridge he needs to occupied Crimea. If this happens, I trust the Russian media, and no doubt Phillips, will describe Zakharchenko as a brave man fighting against Nazis in Kiev, rather than as the homicidal war criminal he is.

robindch

Back on forum topic briefly, Putin's cosying up to the Orthodox church has been well documented here and elsewhere.

The multimillionaire Konstantin Malofeev, though, is one of the more interesting players in this game - two of his former associates, Alexander Borodai and Igor Girkin ("Strelkov)", were directly involved in starting the low-level civil war in East Ukraine before they handed control over to locals. Malofeev has said that he's interested in starting up a new conservative "news" station in Russia modelled on Fox News in the USA, but with an orthodox slant. Malofeev is also involved with plans to create an amusement park in Crimea called "Tsargrad" which will presumably tell the world the history of Crimea, from the perspective of Russian truth.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/10/konstantin_malofeev_one_of_vladimir_putin_s_favorite_businessmen_wants_to.single.html