Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[barbos]

Once again (for our EU friends) Crimea voted and left Ukraine.
Same way Scotland is gonna vote or any EU country voted to join EU.

Crimea voted while under armed Soviet (uhm I mean Russian) occupation. That vote is not worth damn.

Right, these poor crimeans must be dreaming of rejoining Ukraine now

US should have positioned cruise missile submarines in the black sea and threatened to hit Sevastopol if Ruskies don't back off - and then carried out the threat. After all, there is a treaty both US and Russia signed respecting territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Too bad Obama is not that batshit crazy.

 

[boneyard bill]

dystopian writes:

Misdirection; you claimed that the vote to oust him was not legal. That is wrong, as my post demonstrates.

The BBC report also says the protestors entered the Parliament building.

No, it doesn't. Do you understand the difference between 'Presidential offices and residences' and 'parliament'? Because the article only mentions protestors being allowed into the former, not the latter.

They do not mention that the protestors were armed. Guns can decide a vote very quickly.

Of course they wouldn't mention that; because there were no protestors inside parliament.

I have heard otherwise but it is a minor point.

No it isn't. If you've heard otherwise, you've heard wrong. Fallen victim to pro-russian propaganda, most likely; pushing this idea that there was no quorum because a 3 fourths majority was required to impeach him; forgetting that he was not actually impeached but rather a resolution was adapted removing him from office on account of the fact he was no longer able to carry out his duties: and only 226 votes are required to carry a motion. This is pretty relevant point that goes to show the questionable validity of anything you may have "heard".

Yes, you've just admitted that the removal was unconstitutional since parliament doesn't have such authority.

The BBC post that YOU just posted says that the protestors entered the Parliament building.

Again, no it doesn't.

But they even need to do that? If they're outside the building with their guns, the parliament is still acting under duress.

Is the US senate acting under duress because there's armed police outside? Don't be absurd. There are no reports of armed protestors outside parliament threathening those inside. There certainly weren't any armed soldiers locking the politicians inside until they voted a certain way, as is what happened in Crimea.

So armed men posted at Crimean voting booths influence the decisions of voters casting a secret ballot, but they do not influence the decisions of legislators voting in public. You completely contradict yourself. Police outside the US Senate do not influence the Senators because the Senate controls the police.

There were plenty of reports of armed protestors in the Maidan which is where the government buildings were. Why did Yanukovich flee for his life if there were not threats? In fact, those armed thugs remained on the maidan for quite a while after the incident, and some of them may still be there.

I'm not surprised that you haven't read that in the msm however.

Well, I've already addressed the armed protestors and parliament. Your own source says they were there, although it doesn't say they were armed. But it hardly matters.

Except that it *doesn't* say that, and it *does* matter.

I never endorsed the Crimean elections. I never said that process was OK.

Oh please. Your endorsement may not be explicit, but it is absolutely implicit in everything you've written on the topic.

What I said is that, given the ultra nationalist coup in Kiev

This of course, is part of why your endorsement for the Crimean vote is implicit; language like this. It was *not* an ultranationalist coup; since the ultranationalists represented only a minority of both the protestors and the new government that was formed. And of course, it also wasn't even a coup, since contrary to pro-russian claims, the vote was perfectly legal and democratic. By insisting on referring to it as an ultranationalist coup, your bias is laid bare for all to see.

By your own admission, the vote to oust Yanukovich was extra-constitutional.

How often do I have to point out that the neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, although a minority of the protestors, were a majority of the ARMED protestors and that makes all the difference.

and the fact that 60% of the Crimean population was Russian speaking, it is likely that such a referendum would have passed in a fair and proper election.

Bullshit. You can not infer that because X % of a region speaks Russian, that they would therefore all have voted pro-russian in a fair election. Especially not when prior to Russian troops occupying Crimea, polls showed the opposite. Less than third of Crimeans wanted to join Russia in 2013; there is no way the numbers would spike that high without propaganda and foul play involved. And if it was so likely that they'd vote to join Russia, then why the obvious and blatant tampering with the process and results?

I have already said, here or on other posts, that the Crimeans favored continued association with Ukraine even though they elected a President who favored it. But that BEFORE the coup in Kiev. Why wouldn't Russian speaking people want to secede from their government when it had been violently taken over by people who hate Russians?

I can neither endorse nor reject the referendum that took place because I have very little information about it.

Of course.

You overlook the fact that it is rather pointless to be spending that kind of money (and $ 5 billion is not a pittance), to develop democratic institutions in a country that is already a functioning democracy. If it was to go to "stabilizing" the country then it was obviously wasted.

Oh my god, you're serious. Do you actually believe that Ukraine, immediately following its independence in 1991 was a functioning democracy? Or even since then? You DO know that when Yanukovych was first voted president in 2004 he did so through massive electoral fraud, inciting mass protests, and ultimately leading to the supreme court having to invalidate the results, right? You DO know that when years later, he became president; one of the first things he did was to start undoing the democratic reforms that limited the power of the presidency, and imprisoning his political enemies, right? How on earth could you call that a functioning democracy?

The "Orange Revolution" was a series of protests aimed at keep Yanukovich from taking power. Color revolutions are a trade mark of the National Endowment for Democracy which means it was a CIA operation. No one denies that Yanukovich was corrupt as were his predecessors. But fighting corruption and promoting democracy are not the same thing. Ukraine probably wasn't as corrupt as the US government is, but that's another thing you won't learn from the mainstream media.

I am not pro-Russian. I simply look at the evidence.

Selectively.

Are you kidding? If I'm looking at the evidence selectively, I'm at least the one doing the selecting. You are buying the claims of the US government (who have proven to be liars time and time again) and their lapdog media.

I'm am selecting out the most pertinent evidence such as the fact that the most extreme elements were also the ones with the guns.

We've imposed several rounds of sanctions on Putin. For what? He hasn't done anything.

Are you fucking kidding me? He *annexed* an area the size of Belgium; a highly illegal act in violation of all international law; and something that hasn't happened in Europe since WW2. It is completely and utterly unacceptable, and something that must carry consequences. And this of course is ignoring the shit he did in Georgia. Putin has done plenty wrong; things that demand an international response. If you can't or won't see this, then you're just blindly pro-russian regardless of what you say.

Given the US sponsored coup in Kiev, I'm surprised that Putin didn't do a whole lot more. He invaded Georgia AFTER the Georgians invaded South Ossetia and killed Russian peace-keepers there. What you expect him to do if you killed his troops. He had Georgia. He was in Tbilisi, but he didn't stay there. He didn't even set up a puppet government. The current Georgian regime is anti-Russian. What kind of "imperialism" is that. That's why I say that this canard of Russian imperialism is laughably stupid. But people believe it because they are lied to my the mainstream press.

As for Crimea, the parliament voted for annexation and people ratified it in a referendum. I cannot attest to the fairness of that vote. According to you armed men looking over your shoulder would not influence the voter. But neither you nor I know very much about what took place. But if you persist in this, I would ask you to source your claims regarding the Crimean elections.

As I have noted one would hardly expect a negative vote given the events in Kiev given the response in places like Donetsk and Luhansk which, being oblasts, rather than autonomous republics have had to take arms against the Kiev regime.

However, given the events in the maidan, I think Putin would have been thoroughly justified in invading Ukraine, throwing out the neo-Nazis and restoring the legitimate government of Ukraine to power. He could have argued that he is merely restoring the legitimate government of Ukraine while protecting the Russian speaking people and enforcing the compromise agreement which (unarmed) protestors had reached with the Yanukovich government. We have intervened with far fewer pretexts.

I would argue that for reasons of Russia's national security he was entitled to do much much more. We claim we have to bomb some far-off country like Libya or Syria in our "national interest," but insist that Putin is an imperialist if he intervenes, even slightly, on serious developments on his own border. The hypocrisy of all this is really revolting.

Bullshit. Countries do NOT have the right to invade their neighbors without cassus belli (no such cassus belli existed); much less annex whole regions from them. At no point was Russia's national security at actual risk. You can say what you want about US bombing campaigns; but two wrongs don't make a right. And at least the US doesn't annex territory like a *true* imperial bully.

It certainly does make for a very hypocritical foreign policy to say that we can intervene at will, but others must face "serious consequences" for doing so. Russian foreign policy drew the line at the breakup of the Soviet Union when Russia asserted its right to intervene in former Soviet Republics if they threatened Russian speaking peoples.

But when is the last time you attacked the US for its interventions which you seem to suggest were unjustified, and where does the US get it's legal or moral authority to "punish" the Russians with sanctions for not doing what we desire?

I've posted the source here in previous discussions. If you haven't heard of the controversy over her "fuck the EU" comment, then you haven't given the attention to this issue that you are claiming. This isn't an issue I should have to source. You should know this. It's common knowledge.

Yes, the 'fuck the EU' comment 'scandal' is common knowledge. Just as it's common knowledge that your interpretation of said comment has been thoroughly debunked in the same threads you and other pro-russians posted it in.

The critics misrepresented the context in which Nuland was speaking. In fact, I don't think they even understood what the conversation was about.

If you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're not studying foreign affairs.

Shall we blame the illuminati next?

However, I do not appreciate having to respond to contentless posts like this one. Please avoid them in the future.

Why am I not surprised that you try to dismiss it as 'contentless'? I, at least, do not dismiss your posts as contentless. Clearly they have content. Nonsensical content, sure, but content nonetheless.

You throw in enough insults as it is. I generally accept that insults are an indication of a lack of content, but I don't like having to deal with a post that contains nothing else.

Oh believe me, if I was actually insulting you, I wouldn't be this nice about it.

It isn't up to you to decide what is offensive to other people. They decide that. If you persist in the insults I will put you on my ignore list.

Incidentally, I generally accept that people who generally accept that insults are an indication of a lack of content, only state that they do so in order to convince themselves that because they feel offended they don't have to consider the actual points abd arguments that violate their personal reality.

There were no points. I did not complain about your insults until you entered a post that was nothing but insults.

Because you know, insults actually have no relation whatsoever to the truth or validity of what someone is saying. "1 + 1 = 2" is still true even if you word it as "1 + 1 = 2, you motherfucking dick."

We've discussed this enough. This whole post is mostly repetition of preceding posts. I won't respond to a continuation of this discussion. If you are willing to discuss the actual topic of this thread, which concerns the current situation in Ukraine I would be willing to respond.

 

[boneyard bill]

And once again, as always, Might is Right, whether any of us like it or not. For the time being Russia has the might locally, as NATO will not go to war over the Ukraine, and Putin knows it and the whole world knows it.

Ah, a post that actually addresses the topic of this thread. Yes, Obama is being very foolish here. He is speaking loudly and carrying a small stick. The EU parliament voted very early on NOT to intervene militarily in Ukraine. Such intervention would be very unpopular domestically and would likely be vetoed by the Joints Chiefs of Staff. Not to mention that it risks WW III.

Meanwhile, the cease-fire seems to have fallen apart if it had ever even begun at all. Both sides are blaming the other. So it looks like the Ukrainian military will have to hold the line in Mariupol. So far they haven't looked very proficient. But if the defenders are Ukrainian army rather than National Guard they might have a chance. But what if the rebels simply by-pass Mariupol and lay siege to the city? Does Kiev have any troops available to lift the siege? What limited reports that I have suggest that the rebels should be able to take Mariupol.

Can they go to Kiev or do they even want to? I suppose if Poroshenko is unwilling to negotiate then the only way they can achieve independence or even autonomy is by taking Kiev.

I have always expected that the Kiev regime would have a short life-span, but I expected that it would fall to due economic or financial problems. It looks now like if might fall militarily. Of course, it still might be the case that the rebels will simply hold off and wait for winter. If times are tough for Ukrainians now, wait until winter. It will be horrible, but Russia can be expected to help the Eastern Ukrainians. The West, however, is already broke.

 

[boneyard bill]

Once again (for our EU friends) Crimea voted and left Ukraine.
Same way Scotland is gonna vote or any EU country voted to join EU.

Crimea voted while under armed Soviet (uhm I mean Russian) occupation. That vote is not worth damn.

US should have positioned cruise missile submarines in the black sea and threatened to hit Sevastopol if Ruskies don't back off - and then carried out the threat. After all, there is a treaty both US and Russia signed respecting territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Submarines from countries not on the Black Sea are not permitted in. Even surface ships are only allowed to stay 21 days. Threatening Russia is really not a good idea, especially threatening them with nuclear weapons. You're just inviting a first strike attack from them.

The US is on thin ground when it comes to treaty commitments remember that we promised Serbia at the end of the Kosovo War that Kosovo would never be given independence and would remain as an autonomous part of Serbian. A few years later, we were demanding a promoting independence for Kosovo. Then there also promise that if Germany were united, the US would agree not to expand NATO "even one inch" into former Warsaw Pact countries. Now we have admitted virtually all of them and even admitted former Soviet Republics like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Ukraine and Georgia have been in our cross-hairs for quite some time, but I don't understand why we are wasting our time. Putin will never allow it.

 

[dystopian]

Boneyard Bill, could you maybe learn how to use the quote tag properly? Because it is nigh unreadable right now.

 

[4321lynx]

boneyard bill said

Ah, a post that actually addresses the topic of this thread. Yes, Obama is being very foolish here. He is speaking loudly and carrying a small stick.

Our Prime Minister is a greater loudmouth, carrying an even smaller stick. But it will get his Conservatives the whole of the sizeable Canadian Ukrainian vote in 2015, and that's his game, as well as putting on a show, warning Russia not to grab too much of the circumpolar oil that's up for grabs, or else... Or else what? Don't ask me. The US has its eyes on Canadian claims there as well...

 

[Jayjay]

What will happen is the west will loot the Ukriane. Already money has been loaned to the Ukraine which has likely gone to the Oligarchs (fact is we don't know where it has gone).
Ukrainian assets will be sold or seized. Ukrainians will end off worse than before.

And how does Russia's annexation of Crimea and the Eastern provinces help Ukraine exactly? It's only causing more debt and despair. Arguably, the ethnic Russians who jump ship might turn out slightly better off if rest of Ukraine does go completely belly-up, but Russia isn't exactly free of corruption and oligarchs either.

But even Putin admitted that the unmarked troops that precipitated Crimea's cesession were Russian. .

Where did he say that?

First google search result: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/putin-ukraine_n_5165913.html

 

[Jayjay]

Rebels leaders themselves have said there are thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine.

Bullshit. Where did they say that?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ebels-pro-Russian-separatist-leader-says.html

East Ukrainian pro-Russian separatist leader Alexander Zakharchenko said 3-4,000 serving Russian soldiers, on leave from their posts, are fighting Ukrainian troops alongside the rebels, Russian state television reported.

"Among us are fighting serving soldiers, who would rather take their vacation not on a beach but with us, among brothers, who are fighting for their freedom," said Mr Zakharchenko in an interview posted on Vesti.ru, the website of a Russian state television station.

Mr Zakharchenko added: "There have been around 3,000 to 4,000 of them in our ranks," according to the BBC.

 

[Jayjay]

The US claimed that Russia invaded Crimea, also untrue.

Only because Russia had military bases already in Crimea, so they did not have to "invade" anything. But even Putin admitted that the unmarked troops that precipitated Crimea's cesession were Russian. Exactly the same ploy was used in Eastern Ukraine.

It didn't take troops to precipitate Crimea's secession. It took a vote of the Crimean parliament. But where is your evidence that "unmarked" Russian troops had anything to do with secession in Luhansk and Donetsk. In fact, Putin refused, and still refuses, to recognize their independence, unlike the situation in Crimea.

You have a short memory. Before Crimea seceded, Russia did not openly say that it was going to annex it either. The situation is different because of demographics, geography, and maybe Russia has different plans for the eastern Ukraine, but the tactics used are similar: unmarked soldiers showing up and keeping the peace, a quick "referendum" and a Vichy government to provide political cover.

Bottom line. You have produce NO evidence whatsoever to support any of your claims? Why, then, do you believe them? Apparently because you mind is completely closed to the facts.

Learn to use google and do your own leg work. I have not made any claims that are not matter of public record and easily verifiable.

 

[Jayjay]

Incidentally, did anyone else catch the hilarious fact that the Russian Times is claiming the Fins want to join Russia? Finland, wants to join Russia?

I had not, thanks for mentioning. Interestingly, this illustrates how the Russian propaganda operates... the claim that Finland wants to integrate with Russia came from a "human rights activist" Johan Beckmann who is a known Russia shill. In Russian media they are often guests and experts, providing a false picture of what people really think about Russia outside the country.

 

[Will Wiley]

The mainstream media propaganda that Putin is somehow involved in an "imperialistic" campaign to restore the USSR is too ridiculous a view even to be considered.

I'd have to agree.


Did Putin Just Bring Peace to Ukraine?

Putin’s not a troublemaker. He’s not sticking a freaking first-strike nuclear missile system in Havana just 60 miles from Miami. But that’s what Obama wants to do. Obama want to establish NATO bases on Russia’s doorstep and deploy his fake-named “missile defense system” a couple hundred miles from Moscow. Putin can’t allow that. No one in their right mind would allow that. It’s a direct threat to national security. Here’s how Putin summed it up in a recent press conference:

“Russia is an independent and active participant of international relations. Just like any nation it has national interests that must be taken into consideration and respected…..We stand against having a military organization meddling in our backyard, next to our homeland or in the territories that are historically ours. I just cannot imagine visiting NATO sailors in Sevastopol,” he stressed. “Most of them are fine lads, but I’d rather they visit us in Sevastopol than the other way around.” (Vladimir Putin​

)

Can we really expect Putin and Russia to allow Nato to threaten the security of Russia?

 

[dystopian]

Incidentally, did anyone else catch the hilarious fact that the Russian Times is claiming the Fins want to join Russia? Finland, wants to join Russia?

I had not, thanks for mentioning. Interestingly, this illustrates how the Russian propaganda operates... the claim that Finland wants to integrate with Russia came from a "human rights activist" Johan Beckmann who is a known Russia shill. In Russian media they are often guests and experts, providing a false picture of what people really think about Russia outside the country.

Exactly. To anyone who'se even passingly familiar with Finland and it's inhabitants (my brother-in-law is finnish), the claim would be utterly absurd. You will not find anyone who hates Russia more than a Fin.

Incidentally, you should also consider this in the context of a Putin spokesperson saying that Finland joining NATO could start WW3, a couple years back. Which just goes to show how utterly entitled the Russians feel themselves to be. If the US were to tell Canada that it could start WW3 if it joined the EU (I know that Canada could never join the *European* union, but it's just an analogy), the comment itself would be more likely to start said war than the actual joining part; since you know, it'd incense everyone. Whether Finland does or does not join NATO is nobody's decision but Finland's.

 

[barbos]

Incidentally, did anyone else catch the hilarious fact that the Russian Times is claiming the Fins want to join Russia? Finland, wants to join Russia?

I had not, thanks for mentioning. Interestingly, this illustrates how the Russian propaganda operates... the claim that Finland wants to integrate with Russia came from a "human rights activist" Johan Beckmann who is a known Russia shill. In Russian media they are often guests and experts, providing a false picture of what people really think about Russia outside the country.

I read russian "propaganda" and press daily, and this forum is the first and only place where I heard about Finland wanting to join Russia.
I don't read "Russian Times" though, have never heard about whatever it is before.

....
....
Ok I googled it, it's called "Russian Times" and here is original in russian
http://therussiantimes.com/news/12541.html
They talk about whether or not Finland should take advantage of the sanctions against Russia.
And in one paragraph they mention this Johan Beckmann guy and his Idea of Finland joining Custom Union only. So much for joining Russia, I was hoping so much
Anyhow, Finland does have a lot of trade with Russia. They even bought some russian weapon systems.
And it goes far back in time of Soviet Union.

 

[barbos]

I had not, thanks for mentioning. Interestingly, this illustrates how the Russian propaganda operates... the claim that Finland wants to integrate with Russia came from a "human rights activist" Johan Beckmann who is a known Russia shill. In Russian media they are often guests and experts, providing a false picture of what people really think about Russia outside the country.

Exactly. To anyone who'se even passingly familiar with Finland and it's inhabitants (my brother-in-law is finnish), the claim would be utterly absurd. You will not find anyone who hates Russia more than a Fin.

I think dutch hate Russia more than fins.
On a serious notes, poles hate Russia more than anybody and fins are probably not even in the top 10.

 

[barbos]

Incidentally, you should also consider this in the context of a Putin spokesperson saying that Finland joining NATO could start WW3, a couple years back.

Link please

 

[Jayjay]

Exactly. To anyone who'se even passingly familiar with Finland and it's inhabitants (my brother-in-law is finnish), the claim would be utterly absurd. You will not find anyone who hates Russia more than a Fin.

I think dutch hate Russia more than fins.
On a serious notes, poles hate Russia more than anybody and fins are probably not even in the top 10.

I tend to agree. Finland was spared a lot of the grief that actual former Soviet block countries had to go through during the cold war. But still it seems that the more Russia's neighbours have had to deal with Russia, the more they dislike it.

As for the Dutch...

 

[Jayjay]

Incidentally, you should also consider this in the context of a Putin spokesperson saying that Finland joining NATO could start WW3, a couple years back.

Link please

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15b_1402244703, but it wasn't a couple of years back, it was this summer.

 

[dystopian]

Incidentally, you should also consider this in the context of a Putin spokesperson saying that Finland joining NATO could start WW3, a couple years back.

Link please

http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2014/06/putin-envoy-warns-finland-against-joining-nato-09-06

Originally sourced to a Norwegian newspaper: http://hbl.fi/nyheter/2014-06-08/616261/vill-ni-vara-med-och-starta-ett-tredje-varldskrig

 

[barbos]

Link please

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15b_1402244703, but it wasn't a couple of years back, it was this summer.

Well, that kinda change everything, don't you think?
And given the context it was said in I see no problem with the statement.
Reminded me latest scandal when NATO chief took words out of context too.

 

[barbos]

I think dutch hate Russia more than fins.
On a serious notes, poles hate Russia more than anybody and fins are probably not even in the top 10.

I tend to agree. Finland was spared a lot of the grief that actual former Soviet block countries had to go through during the cold war. But still it seems that the more Russia's neighbours have had to deal with Russia, the more they dislike it.

As for the Dutch...

Fins should build monuments to Lenin
And during Finland's time as part of Russian Empire you had pretty much absolute autonomy.