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

Hotblack Desiato

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Interesting read....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-mercenaries-m16-and-ready-meals--evidence-of-western-involvement-or-something-far-less-controversial-9322948.html

When it comes to British soldiers, there is absolutely no evidence that they are here. But it is a tale conveniently fitting in with all the others about “hidden forces” and “mercenaries” that both the separatists and the government are keen to propagate as the violence escalates. This is not, after all, unusual in lands descending into civil war; there is a reluctance, perhaps natural, to accept that compatriots would be eager to inflict brutalities on each other and more comforting to blame outsiders; the raging conspiracy theories in such situations are ideal for disseminating such claims.

Your point?

jimeryan22

ninja900 wrote: »

Your point?

Who you asking mate..? Myself..?

Hotblack Desiato

You posted it and said it was interesting so it would be nice to know what particularly you thought interesting in the article, were there any points in it you particularly agreed or disagreed with, etc. Mate.

jimeryan22

ninja900 wrote: »

You posted it and said it was interesting so it would be nice to know what particularly you thought interesting in the article, were there any points in it you particularly agreed or disagreed with, etc. Mate.

Ahh, you were talking to me... No not really bud, a mate sent it on to me yesterday, just thought it interesting alright.. Wanted to see others feedback

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's absolutely Russia's business what NATO does as during the 90s, the two sides signed several important agreements on cooperation and NATO have broken them all.

Can you point out these agreements and the bits that have been broken?

And regardless of what the EU and NATO countries are (or are not) up to, are you still happy to see Russia interfere directly in Ukrainian affairs and for Russia to swipe a major part of Ukraine completely illegally?

jimeryan22

robindch wrote: »

Can you point out these agreements and the bits that have been broken?

And regardless of what the EU and NATO countries are (or are not) up to, are you still happy to see Russia interfere directly in Ukrainian affairs and for Russia to swipe a major part of Ukraine completely illegally?

You mean swipe back robin. :-)

jimeryan22

President George H. W. Bush promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that – if the Soviets broke up the Soviet Union and dissolved the Warsaw Pact – then NATO would not move into those former Soviet countries. This assured the Soviets that NATO would not encircle Russia. But Bill Clinton broke America’s promise, and the U.S. has pursued a campaign of encircling Russia ever since
Jimmy Carter’s highly-influential National Security Adviser – the architect of the plan to arm the Mujahadin and lure Russia into Afghanistan, later Bill Clinton’s special emissary to Azerbaijan and Barack Obama’s foreign affairs adviser, who was instrumental in moving NATO into the Warsaw Pact nations – argued in 1997 that Russia should not be allowed to regain control of Ukraine......
[From wiki]

Hotblack Desiato

If Russia thinks it can dictate what international organisations other countries can join, it's a violation of their sovereignty. The wikipedia article on NATO says that it is disputed that any such commitment was given, and it would be wrong for the US to offer any commitment on behalf of other nations anyway.

What wikipedia article are you quoting, because a search yields nothing.

argued in 1997 that Russia should not be allowed to regain control of Ukraine

Why, is that supposed to be a controversial statement? Russia regaining control of Ukraine would be just fine, is that it?

jimeryan22

ninja900 wrote: »

If Russia thinks it can dictate what international organisations other countries can join, it's a violation of their sovereignty. The wikipedia article on NATO says that it is disputed that any such commitment was given, and it would be wrong for the US to offer any commitment on behalf of other nations anyway.

What wikipedia article are you quoting, because a search yields nothing.



Why, is that supposed to be a controversial statement? Russia regaining control of Ukraine would be just fine, is that it?

Well with a quick search. I found it...
And no it's not.. I just copied and pasted.. Someone asked about the agreement. Which NATO made, not America... A quick search yielded the statement... What's your point or question or whatever..?

Hotblack Desiato

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Well with a quick search. I found it...

Well come on then let the dog see the rabbit.

recedite

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Interesting read....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-mercenaries-m16-and-ready-meals--evidence-of-western-involvement-or-something-far-less-controversial-9322948.html

Even if British nationals had been there, which is highly unlikely, they would not have left Nato 5.56mm rounds or empty ration packs lying around for local people to find afterwards.
It would seem far more likely that the men and/or the weapons wandered up from Georgia, with or without the blessing of the govt. there.
Georgian troops have also been sent to Afghanistan, where they could easily get to swop small items of kit with the British troops there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/18/us-georgia-army-idUSANT84708020080118

jimeryan22

recedite wrote: »

Even if British nationals had been there, which is highly unlikely, they would not have left Nato 5.56mm rounds or empty ration packs lying around for local people to find afterwards.
It would seem far more likely that the men and/or the weapons wandered up from Georgia, with or without the blessing of the govt. there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/18/us-georgia-army-idUSANT84708020080118

How are you the second person to think I jumped on the band wagon.. I only said interesting read like.. Come on get off me... I would find it hard to believe of any soldiers British soldiers being idle enough to make the mistake of leaving obvious evidence of their being there...
Yanks or anyone else, maybe, not Brits though... Still the best soldiers in the world. ;-)

jimeryan22

ninja900 wrote: »

Well come on then let the dog see the rabbit.

Lol..
Apologies, [as takes foot out of mouth]
Couldn't find it myself, copied pasted from my post and googled.. Turns out not wiki but some blog..

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/americans-dont-know-ukraine-crisis.html

Apologies again for mis info.. Honest mistake

recedite

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Come on get off me... I would find it hard to believe of any soldiers British soldiers being idle enough to make the mistake of leaving obvious evidence of their being there...

Not saying you thought that; but it was mentioned in the article that locals speculated on it.

Anyway, here's an article on the supposed Bush/ Gorbachev agreement not to expand Nato eastward. It seems to have been only "a politicians promise" with nothing in writing. A gentleman's agreement,but nothing "legally binding".

IMO even if there had been a formal written agreement at the time, things change, and it would be unrealistic to stop the eastward expansion on that basis alone. The real problem with the expansion is the tension it stokes. It would be better and more natural to have a buffer zone of countries that could co-operate with both Russia and also western Europe/Nato, without provoking either. That was why Finland never joined. They were too close to Russia. They always managed very well without being in Nato

obplayer

robindch wrote: »

Not true. "Western" interests within Ukraine amount to reliable access to Russian raw materials which requires a peaceful country that pays its bills. Russia, however, wants to control Ukraine and to use it as a weapon, and views the lack of Western condemnation of the anti-corruption Maidan protests as full complicity in arranging them, then helping toss out Moscow's appallingly corrupt man in Kiev. The Russian view is paranoid, divisive and dangerous.

With proper governance over the last twenty years, Ukraine could have been another Poland - successful, vibrant and rich. Instead, with Russian levels of corruption and under the twitchy trigger of Moscow, the country is a pitiful economic and political basket case.

Proof and/or links please? Western interests are all benign but Russian interests are all nasty and horrible? So America is a paragon of virtue in it's foreign policy? And no I am not saying that Russia is all benign either, simply that, as I have said before.....
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

The Finns were forced into signing a very restrictive peace treaty with the USSR after WW2, because they fought for a time alongside the Germans on the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' basis, after being invaded by the Soviets in 1939.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948

This did not explicitly rule out an alliance with NATO but clearly they were fearful of provoking their neighbour, upon which they were significantly economically dependent, as well as obviously vulnerable to any military action (ring any bells?)

Russia still occupies large tracts of traditionally Finnish territory btw - although the Finns are, for now at least, refraining from provoking seperatist sentiment in those areas...

BuilderPlumber

obplayer wrote: »

Proof and/or links please? Western interests are all benign but Russian interests are all nasty and horrible? So America is a paragon of virtue in it's foreign policy? And no I am not saying that Russia is all benign either, simply that, as I have said before.....
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.

Most if not all the current dictatorships are born out of the cold war between the US and USSR. The cold war was supposed to have ended in the Gorbachev era of the late 1980s but in reality never did. Current Ukraine situation is proof of that.

Anyway, both superpowers are equally responsible for things. The US gave us such gems as Saudi Arabia, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Islamic Republic of Iran (especially the much more repressive 1980s version), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan. Meanwhile, the Russians provided us with North Korea plus communist rebels all over the world. They also helped establish Saddam's/Baathist Iraq and Baathist Syria. Along with the People's Republic of China (a poor and repressive country back then). Arguably, both gave us the dreadful Khmer Rouge, a regime that makes the Taliban look like moderates by comparison!

Africa became a virtual playground for their proxy wars. Angola, Mozambique, Congo/Zaire, Ethiopia, Somalia, Chad, Sudan, etc.

robindch

obplayer wrote: »

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.

I'll repeat what I said/implied in earlier posts:

Liberal democracies tend to be peaceful and tend not to invade each other. That stability is good for business and good for society at large - means, peace! Authoritarian dictatorships live to exercise and acquire political power and are much more likely to invade weak countries. The EU and the US are trying to ensure that Ukraine becomes a stable democracy and not an unstable basket case.

While I've seen a wall of Kremlin-funded propaganda which has blamed "the west" for the mess, I can honestly say that I've seen no evidence that this is actually the case - Nuland's tapped phonecall, btw, doesn't say what RT says it says. And I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that the main reasons for the current instability are (a) Yanukovich's monumental corruption, the follow-on corruption within Ukraine itself and popular discontent with both; (b) the total political incompetence and naivity of the interim administration; and (c) the predatory paranoia of Putin and his mates.

To suggest that The EU/US and Russia are even remotely equally responsible for what's gone on there since last November is to adopt a position which really defies reality on a global scale.

recedite

ninja900 wrote: »

Russia still occupies large tracts of traditionally Finnish territory btw...

That is the price of being on the losing side in a war though. Poland and France now occupy part of what was once German territory, and poor old Prussia has ceased to exist altogether. C'est la vie.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Liberal democracies tend to be peaceful and tend not to invade each other.

<<Cough>> USA
<<Cough>> UK
When was the last time either of these were not involved in a war somewhere in the world?

Oh I get it, they don't invade each other. Just other countries.
Both are big supporters of the Saudi kingpin BTW.

Bellatori

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

...Khmer Rouge, a regime that makes the Taliban look like moderates by comparison!.

Not so sure we have seen the full extent of the Taliban's repressive behaviours. They have not been allowed carte blanche anywhere yet. Give them time and I am sure they will live down to the standards set by Pol Pot.

marienbad

recedite wrote: »

That is the price of being on the losing side in a war though. Poland and France now occupy part of what was once German territory, and poor old Prussia has ceased to exist altogether. C'est la vie.

And Russia lost the cold war ... C'est la vie to Ukraine Georgia Poland ... correct ?

recedite

They have lost the battle for hearts and minds in Poland and Georgia, yes.
But in Ukraine, there are mixed feelings. Particularly for today, Victory Day.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Oh I get it, they don't invade each other. Just other countries.

Yes, liberal democracies don't invade liberal democracies - they don't need to since then can do better via co-operation than they can via war. That's the point I was making.

BTW, even members of the Russian government now admit that the Crimean "referendum" was rigged:

http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsionnoy_politike/materialy/problemy_zhiteley_kryma.php

Russian Human Rights Commissioner wrote:

По мнению практически всех опрошенных специалистов и граждан: - подавляющее большинство жителей Севастополя проголосовали на референдуме за присоединение к России (явка 50-80 %), в Крыму по разным данным за присоединение к России проголосовали 50-60 % избирателей при общей явке в 30-50 %; - жители Крыма голосовали не столько за присоединение к России, сколько за прекращение, по их словам, «коррупционного беспредела и воровского засилья донецких ставленников».

Translation (mine) wrote:

According to virtually all the citizens and professionals who were surveyed, the vast majority of the inhabitants of Sevastopol voted to join Russia based upon a turnout between 50% and 80%. Elsewhere in Crimea, around 50-60% of voters to join Russia, from a turnout of between 30% and 50%. Residents of Crimea voted less for joining Russia and more to end the "corruption and lawlessness of the thieves of Donetsk and their henchmen".

I'm not sure whether this changes your view or whether you still believe that it was free, fair and honest.

robindch

ninja900 wrote: »

Russia still occupies large tracts of traditionally Finnish territory btw - although the Finns are, for now at least, refraining from provoking seperatist sentiment in those areas...

The first time I arrived in Russia it was via the train from Helsinki - the drastic change in social conditions from one side of the border to the other still sticks in my mind. As does the image of the first Russian soldier I saw, almost immediately on leaving the border station, who took time out to glance up from stirring his lunch, which was bubbling over a small fire, to give me and the whole coach an obscene gesture.

In the fourteen years since then, I haven't noticed that the Russian government or its servants have made much effort to improve their view of foreigners.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure whether this changes your view....

If that means 50%-80% of Crimean people surveyed confirmed that they had voted to join Russia, then what is wrong with that? How does that make the result "rigged". OK its less than 90% , but how many people did he survey? Still the same result either way though.

Nodin

...if only there was a thread here that people could discuss that Ukraine place.....O well....

marienbad

recedite wrote: »

If that means 50%-80% of Crimean people surveyed confirmed that they had voted to join Russia, then what is wrong with that? How does that make the result "rigged". OK its less than 90% , but how many people did he survey? Still the same result either way though.

Still plugging the gerrymander line I see ,

robindch

recedite wrote: »

If that means 50%-80% of Crimean people surveyed confirmed that they had voted to join Russia, then what is wrong with that? How does that make the result "rigged". OK its less than 90% , but how many people did he survey? Still the same result either way though.

As marienbad suggests - you're happy to accept the results of an illegal vote which the "authenticating" government itself admits was completely inaccurate.

BTW, perhaps for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that if somebody admits that the results of a vote don't actually reflect the votes that were probably cast, that the vote was "rigged" - the assumption being that this was intentional.

S.R.

robindch wrote: »

The first time I arrived in Russia it was via the train from Helsinki - the drastic change in social conditions from one side of the border to the other still sticks in my mind. As does the image of the first Russian soldier I saw, almost immediately on leaving the border station, who took time out to glance up from stirring his lunch, which was bubbling over a small fire, to give me and the whole coach an obscene gesture.

In the fourteen years since then, I haven't noticed that the Russian government or its servants have made much effort to improve their view of foreigners.

He gave you an obscene gesture coz u were foreigners?

About social conditions - 100% truth! Russian rulers have never given ordinary people life of high or at least good standarts except short period during USSR time.

S.R.

robindch wrote: »

As marienbad suggests - you're happy to accept the results of an illegal vote which the "authenticating" government itself admits was completely inaccurate.

BTW, perhaps for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that if somebody admits that the results of a vote don't actually reflect the votes that were probably cast, that the vote was "rigged" - the assumption being that this was intentional.

First you were saying referendum was illegal, now you are saying that numbers were made up.
You, Obama, Nuland, Yats etc can doubt numbers or legality of referendum, but the fact is majority of crimeans and especially residents of Sevastopol don't want to be with Ukraine. Crimeans say: "we are back to our motherland".

robindch

S.R. wrote: »

First you were saying referendum was illegal, now you are saying that numbers were made up.

You perhaps missed the discussion during the first twenty pages or so of this thread.

The "referendum" was illegal under the governing Constitution of Ukraine; the result was rigged, according to the Russian government itself; the result was recognized by, AFAIR, six countries in the world and is being ignored by just about everybody else. Owing to the fundamental simultaneity of existence, these things can all happen at the same time.

S.R. wrote: »

[...] the fact is majority of crimeans and especially residents of Sevastopol don't want to be with Ukraine. Crimeans say: "we are back to our motherland".

Would your fact concerning the "residents of Sevastopol" has anything to do with the enormous Russian military base there and the fact that Russian military were seen to take part in the referendum?

BTW, the Russian government itself disagrees with you about the "majority of Crimeans" wanting to join Russia.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Yes, liberal democracies don't invade liberal democracies - they don't need to since then can do better via co-operation than they can via war. That's the point I was making.

BTW, even members of the Russian government now admit that the Crimean "referendum" was rigged:

http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsionnoy_politike/materialy/problemy_zhiteley_kryma.php

I'm not sure whether this changes your view or whether you still believe that it was free, fair and honest.

Robin,

It is unlike you to post in such a misleading manner so I am accepting that you are unaware of what you posted. This is a survey. The corresponding percentages mean nothing they are not supposed to be or intended as, actual voting results because they aren't.

The original idiotic Forbes article by the same guy who has been posting ridiculous anti Putin stuff from the get go.

Breakdown

native russian speaker from reddit wrote:

Референдум
По мнению практически всех опрошенных специалистов и граждан:
подавляющее большинство жителей Севастополя проголосовали на референдуме за присоединение к России (явка 50-80 %), в Крыму по разным данным за присоединение к России проголосовали 50-60 % избирателей при общей явке в 30-50 %;

Translation: Based on the opinion of practically all interviewed (polled) experts and citizens - the great majority of Sevastopol (main city in Crimea, my insert) residents voted to join The Russian Federation (turnout 50-80%), in Crimea according various different sources 50 to 60% voted for joining the Federation with turnout of 30 to 50%.


Explanation

So, it's a poll or multiple poll analysis, no mention what kind of polls, who carried them out, how many citizens and what kind of experts were interviewed. In other words some plain BS and Forbes should have known better if that's their source. Though this is the Advisory Board of the Russian President they deal with analysis of existing data and they also did a rather shoddy job on the matter.

Conducted after the referendum. The reason the site posted this, and says this is a problem is because they believe that most of the voters came from the Sevastopol region. And from the opinions they gathered the investigators think that Russia should confirm the people's opinion on whether they want to be in the Russian Federation or if they want something else.
I made the same comment on the other post from the Forbes link, which apparently made up it's own numbers (as they don't relate to anything) and idea of the what the Russian website was trying to communicate.

Further
The President Council of Human Rights is an organization where all the opposition opinions are listened.
The article is called (urgent) Problems of Citizens of Crimea. The part about % states the following:
По мнению практически всех опрошенных специалистов и граждан:
подавляющее большинство жителей Севастополя проголосовали на референдуме за присоединение к России (явка 50-80 %), в Крыму по разным данным за присоединение к России проголосовали 50-60 % избирателей при общей явке в 30-50 %;
Based on opinion of the majority of interviewed specialists and citizens:
The majority of citizens of Sevastopol voted on referendum to join Russia (50-80% attending), in Crimea by different estimates favoured joining Russia 50-60% of voters with overall attendance of 30-50
Clearly no sources or methodology stated.
The author is member of Memorial organization. Which is officially a foreign agent funded by USA government and USA NGOs.
Apparently only 2 person from Memorial went to Crimea for 3 days. In those three days they conducted meetings with authorities, priests, journalists, civil rights activists, lawyers and citizens to inquire about the most urgent problems and necessities of the people. Conclusion: with time so limited and so many purposes, activities and meetings it was clearly impossible to conduct any type of detailed investigation on the matter. The numbers were taken from some source which is not listed in the article.

Robin you have claimed that you have been unable to detect any major US propaganda going on and I think I now believe you.

S.R.

robindch wrote: »

You perhaps missed the discussion during the first twenty pages or so of this thread.

The "referendum" was illegal under the governing Constitution of Ukraine; the result was rigged, according to the Russian government itself; the result was recognized by, AFAIR, six countries in the world and is being ignored by just about everybody else. Owing to the fundamental simultaneity of existence, these things can all happen at the same time.Would your fact concerning the "residents of Sevastopol" has anything to do with the enormous Russian military base there and the fact that Russian military were seen to take part in the referendum?

BTW, the Russian government itself disagrees with you about the "majority of Crimeans" wanting to join Russia.

I don't really care about constitutions of Ukraine, Russia, about UN, international laws etc.
Any crimean who doesn't want join Russia should be send to Ukraine or somewhere else. Crimea, Kiev, East and South of so called Ukraine is Russian Territory.
Look what junta in Kiev did today to people in Mariupol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kno4MEp9sPY#t=249
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An2tW4Sp27U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hecoIRFfLxE

Can u see russian soldiers on videos?

S.R.

robindch wrote: »

BTW, the Russian government itself disagrees with you about the "majority of Crimeans" wanting to join Russia.

Can you give me names?

stevejazzx

recedite wrote:

Anyway, here's an article on the supposed Bush/ Gorbachev agreement not to expand Nato eastward. It seems to have been only "a politicians promise" with nothing in writing. A gentleman's agreement,but nothing "legally binding".

IMO even if there had been a formal written agreement at the time, things change, and it would be unrealistic to stop the eastward expansion on that basis alone. The real problem with the expansion is the tension it stokes. It would be better and more natural to have a buffer zone of countries that could co-operate with both Russia and also western Europe/Nato, without provoking either. That was why Finland never joined. They were too close to Russia. They always managed very well without being in Nato

Recedite, it is well known by all those involved in American embassies during the August coup in 1991 that this was far more than a gentleman's agreement.
It was a fundamental part in the process of getting Soviet troops out of east Germany.
Anyways as Stephen Cohen says what does it matter if its not a document it was still their word. Does it mean nothing?
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.

robindch

S.R. wrote: »

I don't really care about constitutions of Ukraine, Russia, about UN, international laws etc.

I think that's kind of the problem really.

jimeryan22

stevejazzx wrote: »

Recedite, it is well known by all those involved in American embassies during the August coup in 1991 that this was far more than a gentleman's agreement.
It was a fundamental part in the process of getting Soviet troops out of east Germany.
Anyways as Stephen Cohen says what does it matter if its not a document it was still their word. Does it mean nothing?
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.

Steve, I find your posts great, you have the literacy and knowledge to basically say what I had been attempting, I always thought myself it was a bit more than a gentlemans agreement.. Thankyou

S.R.

robindch wrote: »

I think that's kind of the problem really.

Why? What's wrong?
========================

Can you answer question about man that gave you an obscene gesture?

Brian Shanahan

S.R. wrote: »

I don't really care about constitutions of Ukraine, Russia, about UN, international laws etc.
Any crimean who doesn't want join Russia should be send to Ukraine or somewhere else. Crimea, Kiev, East and South of so called Ukraine is Russian Territory.

So basically, if Vlad the Impaler decided to invade your home tomorrow you'd be fine with that, because you don't give a **** about laws national and international or treaties?

stevejazzx

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Steve, I find your posts great, you have the literacy and knowledge to basically say what I had been attempting, I always thought myself it was a bit more than a gentlemans agreement.. Thankyou

Thanks Jimmy
I appreciate that. I think if we stick to the history and best facts we can gather we can show a better picture of what's going on. That's why I keep posting.
I appreciate the words.

Watch this its fantastic

Steve

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

And regardless of what the EU and NATO countries are (or are not) up to, are you still happy to see Russia interfere directly in Ukrainian affairs and for Russia to swipe a major part of Ukraine completely illegally?

Am I still happy.....?
I haven't communicated any happiness in relation to this affair?
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 - it's right in their backyard and so they are far more entitled to the claim of legitimate concern than anyone else.

The Americans supported the Goergian's only a few years, essentially giving them a mandate to attack South Osseitia ago and in a similar vein they are doing the same again. You don't believe that but the evidence is growing in that direction.
Nuland>CIA involvement>Funding through Omydiar>NGO funding from the NED to high levels of the Obama administration actually on the ground in Ukraine supporting revolution.

robindch wrote: »

Can you point out these agreements and the bits that have been broken?

Here you go; its broken down really well here by a gentleman who has advised the white house during the cold war and is the current professor emeritus of Russian studies a NYU so yeah I would value his input

recedite

S.R. wrote: »

Look what junta in Kiev did today to people in Mariupol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An2tW4Sp27U

Who are these guys in the black uniforms? They seem to have arrived in the town today in a white bus, shot the place up, and killed around twenty unarmed civilians. Definitely not Ukrainian regular army.

We predicted earlier in the thread that Kiev might try to recruit a special brigade of politically motivated fascists in the west of the country, who unlike the regular army, would have no qualms about killing people in the east. It looks like they have finally arrived.
Russian military intervention cannot be far behind, after this massacre.

S.R.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So basically, if Vlad the Impaler decided to invade your home tomorrow you'd be fine with that, because you don't give a **** about laws national and international or treaties?

What is international law?

jimeryan22

Very interesting audio.. Stephen Cohen being interviewed

http://youtu.be/yNdPUtLDJio

S.R.

recedite wrote: »

Who are these guys in the black uniforms? They seem to have arrived in the town today in a white bus, shot the place up, and killed around twenty unarmed civilians. Definitely not Ukrainian regular army.

I can't say who are these guys.

recedite wrote: »

Kiev might try to recruit a special brigade of politically motivated fascists in the west of the country, who unlike the regular army, would have no qualms about killing people in the east. It looks like they have finally arrived.

That's exately what is happening in different cities, towns and villages in Ukraine. That's what happened in Odessa.

recedite wrote: »

Russian military intervention cannot be far behind, after this massacre.

Should intervened long time ago. Russians did not even organized people in Mariupol, didn't give them weapons. If they did then those vehicles would be burnt in the streets of Mariupol.

obplayer

robindch wrote: »

Yes, liberal democracies don't invade liberal democracies - they don't need to since then can do better via co-operation than they can via war. That's the point I was making.

BTW, even members of the Russian government now admit that the Crimean "referendum" was rigged:


http://www.president-Originally Posted by Translation (mine)
According to virtually all the citizens and professionals who were surveyed, the vast majority of the inhabitants of Sevastopol voted to join Russia based upon a turnout between 50% and 80%. Elsewhere in Crimea, around 50-60% of voters to join Russia, from a turnout of between 30% and 50%. Residents of Crimea voted less for joining Russia and more to end the "corruption and lawlessness of the thieves of Donetsk and their henchmen".sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsionnoy_politike/materialy/problemy_zhiteley_kryma.php



I'm not sure whether this changes your view or whether you still believe that it was free, fair and honest.

What is there in that translation to say that it was not free, fair or honest? The fact that it was a low turnout makes it like virtually every western election.

obplayer

robindch wrote: »

The first time I arrived in Russia it was via the train from Helsinki - the drastic change in social conditions from one side of the border to the other still sticks in my mind. As does the image of the first Russian soldier I saw, almost immediately on leaving the border station, who took time out to glance up from stirring his lunch, which was bubbling over a small fire, to give me and the whole coach an obscene gesture.

In the fourteen years since then, I haven't noticed that the Russian government or its servants have made much effort to improve their view of foreigners.

What has that got to do with whether the west was involved in destabilising Ukraine? And I'm sure the people of Ukraine are aware of differences in social conditions, if they still wish to ally themselves with Russia that is their business, not yours or mine. It would not be my choice but I'm not Ukrainian.

S.R.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So basically, if Vlad the Impaler decided to invade your home tomorrow you'd be fine with that, because you don't give a **** about laws national and international or treaties?

"Today there is no rules."

Stephen F. Cohen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNdPUtLDJio&feature=youtu.be

May be now you and others will get what I have said numerous times.

stevejazzx

obplayer wrote: »

What is there in that translation to say that it was not free, fair or honest? The fact that it was a low turnout makes it like virtually every western election.

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.