Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[Daioh]

Yes, there was no invasion. Presence of Russian forces merely allowed conduction of referendum in peace.
Without russian forces there would still have been a referendum but after a lot of people got killed.

Do you have evidence of the Ukranian military killing Crimean people?
Or planning to?

Is this story anything more then a fantasy?

And I can't really see resident russian forces In Crimea watching ukrainian "army" killing protesters and do nothing.

So when did they see this?

 

[thief of fire]

Which definition?
Because the mere fact of the Russian troops entering another nations territory without permission from the government of said nation

Can you at least do some research before you put your foot in your mouth? Haven't you been paying attention?
Neo Nazis had taken over Kiev in a violent coup.
We know why Obama and Kerry and Brennan wanted to say they were a legitimate government, but why are you supporting the neo nazi's who had taken power?
In other words, yet again you are just parroting the crap you read in the paper

For fucks sake, can you try to follow what was going on in Ukraine at the time. There was coup, a coup orchestrated by the USA and NATO. They backed an illegitimate government spear headed by neo nazis who murdered many people. But you want them to be a legitimate government.
Legitimate governments get elected. The thugs you support were not.

Hiding Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Reality

Ever since serious protest broke out in Ukraine in February the Western mainstream media, particularly in the United States, has seriously downplayed the fact that the usual suspects – the US/European Union/NATO triumvirate – have been on the same side as the neo-Nazis.

In the U.S. it’s been virtually unmentionable. I’m sure that a poll taken in the United States on this issue would reveal near universal ignorance of the numerous neo-Nazi actions, including publicly calling for death to “Russians, Communists and Jews.” But in the past week the dirty little secret has somehow poked its head out from behind the curtain a bit.

 

[thief of fire]

A referendum hastily imposed upon the people by force; while guns were pointed at them and while their votes were public. This was not a true referendum, it was just a thinly veiled attempt to lend legitimacy to the conquest.

You're making that up. You have no evidence of guns being pointed at people while they voted. It just shows your desperation.
Do you seriously think that with over 50% of the population Russian, that any force would be needed? Think about it before you dribble out more crap. A neo nazi coup in Kiev and more than 50% of Crimeans were Russian. Yet you rather pathetically have to fantasize that these people would have needed guns pointed at them. What a joke.
Who are you trying to fool with this nonsense?




[

 

[barbos]

Do you have evidence of the Ukranian military killing Crimean people?
Or planning to?

Is this story anything more then a fantasy?

And I can't really see resident russian forces In Crimea watching ukrainian "army" killing protesters and do nothing.

So when did they see this?

Reading comprehension problems?

 

[Sabine Grant]

What happened in Crimea is no different than if the AFI (American Forces in Italy) were to start exercising control over the local population with check points and occupation of various administrative Italian buildings. While US military personnel would carry weapons and use them as a form of intimidation over the local population to exercise such control.

Bullshit!
There is no part of Italy which was american land but was lost to Italy 20 years ago because US president was a drunk and which is inhabited by english speaking former americans which were born there.

And what about Cuba? US still think that Cuba is guilty of something and should be punished for wanting to get rid of US control. So give me a fucking break!

You really did NOT pay attention to the context of my post, did you? Even though I worded it with accurate and detailed terms explaining why an allowance given by a host nation to have foreign troops stationed in a specific location should not be confused for an allowance given by the host nation for those foreign troops to exercise any form of occupation/control over local nationals.

And directly related to the context of my post(which you either ignored or could not comprehend), to my knowledge US military personnel stationed at the US Naval Station of Guantanamo Bay have no allowance whatsoever to enter Cuban territory and exercise any control/occupation over Cuban nationals.

Now going back to the SPECIFICS clearly stated in my post addressing conditions and terms regarding foreign troops stationed in a host nation and let us examine the content of the 1997 Agreement signed between Ukraine and Russia in 1997, known as the Partition Treaty :

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

I will let you read the content of the linked to document above. Mind you this is not an article from a second hand source but a document which clearly relates terms and conditions.

I will bring your attention to Article 6 :

Article 6

1. Military units operate in places of deployment in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, observe its legislation and do not allow interference in the internal affairs Ukraine. 2. Economic activity of enterprises, organizations and institutions the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation shall not contradict the legislation of Ukraine. 3. Public authorities to respect the status of Ukraine military formations, shall take appropriate and consistent with their command safety measures personal composition, protection of property rights and property military units, and do not interfere in their internal life. 4. Relationships of persons belonging to the military formations and their families with legal and physical Ukraine faces is governed by the relevant locations of the Parties treaties and laws of Ukraine.

Try to pay attention to the introductory sentence. If you need help understanding its intended content, I will gladly (as I am sure other posters will) clarify it for you.

And again (and hopefully for the last time) the above is directly related to the limitations placed on foreign troops stationed in a host nation and their responsibility to recognize and respect the sovereignty of the said nation.

Please, try to not reply with comments loaded with emotional outbursts (as your reply quoted above was) and address what was documented for you.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Do you have evidence of the Ukranian military killing Crimean people?
Or planning to?

Is this story anything more then a fantasy?

So when did they see this?

Reading comprehension problems?

You are in no position to comment on other posters' "reading comprehension problems". Considering your latest reading comprehension problem in view of your emotional outburst based reply which totally dismissed the context of my comments. Now that I have provided you with a copy of the document known as the Partition Treaty, you are given an opportunity to exercise your reading comprehension skills. Let me suggest you read it carefully and reflect at length before clicking on reply.

 

[dystopian]

You're making that up. You have no evidence of guns being pointed at people while they voted.

Proverbial pointed gun, as you know damn well it's supposed to be taken. We DO have plenty of evidence of armed soldiers standing guard outside (and sometimes inside) the polling stations. So even though the guns weren't *literally* pointed at people as they voted, the effect was almost the same. Soldiers affiliated with the country you're voting to join or not standing a few feet from you, armed with assault rifles, while you publically deposit your vote with giant checkboxes, without envelopes, in a clear and transparent box? That is pretty much the same as voting with a gun to your head. It's an obvious attempt at voter intimidation, and everybody but the pro-russians recognize this. The subtext is a clear: "You know what our position is, you know we're armed, you know *we* know who you are, you know *we* know what you're voting."; there is nothing democratic about such a process.

Do you seriously think that with over 50% of the population Russian, that any force would be needed?

Yes, because as I pointed out to you, in 2013, less than a QUARTER of the total population supported joining Russia. That means that even the majority of Russians didn't support joining Russia. You expect us to believe that the numbers would jump from less than 25% in favor, to 93% in favor almost literally overnight. Even assuming that the "coup" (again, there was no coup, but at this point arguing it won't do anything for your obstinence) caused a large number of people to switch over, it is extraordinarily improbable that the numbers would go from 25 to 93. Add to that the fact that there is clear evidence of tampering with the results. Why would they need to tamper with the results if it was so certain that Crimea would vote to join Russia?

The only person here who is trying to fool people with nonsense is you. The rest of us are literate and smart enough to realize the numbers and facts don't add up.

 

[dystopian]

And again (and hopefully for the last time) the above is directly related to the limitations placed on foreign troops stationed in a host nation and their responsibility to recognize and respect the sovereignty of the said nation.

Don't count on it. I've pointed out much the same, repeatedly, literally dozens of times, ever since the whole Crimea crisis began. At no point did any of the pro-russians on the forum show any sign that they understood the importance. They do the same with other facts that run contrary to their narrative. Accepting Russia's actions as an invasion is obviously impossible, because Russia is the 'victim' of western propaganda here; however, even the pro-Russians can't deny Russia deployed military forces in a manner us depraved westerners would consider hostile. Therefore, if they could just convince us that an invasion requires Russia's military forces to cross the border *after* hostilities begin, it "ceases" to be an invasion and becomes a totally grey area which apparently clears Russia of all suspicion and enmity.

The problem with this, of course, is that we're not fucking idiots.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[Sabine Grant]

And again (and hopefully for the last time) the above is directly related to the limitations placed on foreign troops stationed in a host nation and their responsibility to recognize and respect the sovereignty of the said nation.

Don't count on it. I've pointed out much the same, repeatedly, literally dozens of times, ever since the whole Crimea crisis began. At no point did any of the pro-russians on the forum show any sign that they understood the importance. They do the same with other facts that run contrary to their narrative. Accepting Russia's actions as an invasion is obviously impossible, because Russia is the 'victim' of western propaganda here;

Well, what I have presented in my reply to Barbos is the document outlining the terms and conditions addressing the Partition Treaty between Ukraine and Russia. I am not sure what type of evidence Barbos or Thief of Fire would attempt to present that such submitted document is the product of "western propaganda". I realize that there is a trend to emit claims of "lies" escorted by a good deal of emotional outbursts. I am not holding my breath but for the sake of directing this discussion towards an academic approach rather than emotional outbursts, I will not feel that I wasted my time. After all, the designation of the Political Discussions Forum (can be viewed from the Index page) encourages our members towards "The academic discussion of world issues and politics" :

http://talkfreethought.org/forum.php

I suppose the term"academic" has been either dismissed or not paid attention to.

however, even the pro-Russians can't deny Russia deployed military forces in a manner us depraved westerners would consider hostile.

Again, in view of the quoted Article 6 from the Treaty of Partition, there are undeniable limitations regarding the activities of the Russian military forces stationed in territories under Ukraine legislation.

Therefore, if they could just convince us that an invasion requires Russia's military forces to cross the border *after* hostilities begin, it "ceases" to be an invasion and becomes a totally grey area which apparently clears Russia of all suspicion and enmity.

The problem with this, of course, is that we're not fucking idiots.

I will add that some of us will not be so intellectually lazy that we will not spend our time and energy to check the content of a document such as the Treaty of Partition.

 

[Daioh]

Can you at least do some research before you put your foot in your mouth? Haven't you been paying attention?
Neo Nazis had taken over Kiev in a violent coup.

So?
I am arguing the dictionary definition for the situation in Crimea, not the actions of parties in Kiev
By that definition the fact that the leaders had neo-nazis in their ranks is irrelevant to the definitions of Invasion, occupation, annexation etc

We know why Obama and Kerry and Brennan wanted to say they were a legitimate government, but why are you supporting the neo nazi's who had taken power?

I don't care about that
This is irrelevant to the dictionary definitions provided and irrelevant to the fact that what Russia did was (according to your own dictionary) an invasion

 

[Daioh]

Reading comprehension problems?

So nothing to back up the whole "Crimean Army massacre" stories you presented?

 

[thief of fire]

So?
I am arguing the dictionary definition for the situation in Crimea, not the actions of parties in Kiev
By that definition the fact that the leaders had neo-nazis in their ranks is irrelevant to the definitions of Invasion, occupation, annexation etc

You wanted the Russians to get permission from the "government of the region". In other ords you were supporting the neo nazis in Kiev who were murdering people.

We know why Obama and Kerry and Brennan wanted to say they were a legitimate government, but why are you supporting the neo nazi's who had taken power?

I don't care about that
This is irrelevant to the dictionary definitions provided and irrelevant to the fact that what Russia did was (according to your own dictionary) an invasion

No it's not. It was you who wanted permission to be granted by the "government". What you don't want to face is the there was no legitimate government in Kiev.

This what was happening in Kiev to those who opposed the illegitimate government.; The one you support.

Burning Ukraine’s Protesters Alive

Exclusive: For the second time in a week, Ukrainian anti-regime protesters holed up in a building were killed by fires set by pro-regime attackers with ties to newly formed neo-Nazi security forces, reports Robert Parry.


By Robert Parry

In Ukraine, a grisly new strategy – bringing in neo-Nazi paramilitary forces to set fire to occupied buildings in the country’s rebellious southeast – appears to be emerging as a favored tactic as the coup-installed regime in Kiev seeks to put down resistance from ethnic Russians and other opponents.

The technique first emerged on May 2 in the port city of Odessa when pro-regime militants chased dissidents into the Trade Unions Building and then set it on fire. As some 40 or more ethnic Russians were burned alive or died of smoke inhalation, the crowd outside mocked them as red-and-black Colorado potato beetles, with the chant of “Burn, Colorado, burn.” Afterwards, reporters spotted graffiti on the building’s walls containing Swastika-like symbols and honoring the “Galician SS,” the Ukrainian adjunct to the German SS in World War II.

 

[thief of fire]

You really did NOT pay attention to the context of my post, did you? Even though I worded it with accurate and detailed terms explaining why an allowance given by a host nation to have foreign troops stationed in a specific location should not be confused for an allowance given by the host nation for those foreign troops to exercise any form of occupation/control over local nationals.

Trying to compare Italy with the situation in the Ukraine earlier this year is laughable.. There was no legitimate government in Kiev, and it is this point that destroys your analogy. Sorry.

 

[barbos]

Reading comprehension problems?

You are in no position to comment on other posters' "reading comprehension problems". Considering your latest reading comprehension problem in view of your emotional outburst based reply which totally dismissed the context of my comments. Now that I have provided you with a copy of the document known as the Partition Treaty, you are given an opportunity to exercise your reading comprehension skills. Let me suggest you read it carefully and reflect at length before clicking on reply.

I am glad you agree that he/she has reading comprehension problems.
As for me, I don't have such problem. Your Italy analogy is bullshit and I explained why.

 

[barbos]

Bullshit!
There is no part of Italy which was american land but was lost to Italy 20 years ago because US president was a drunk and which is inhabited by english speaking former americans which were born there.

And what about Cuba? US still think that Cuba is guilty of something and should be punished for wanting to get rid of US control. So give me a fucking break!

You really did NOT pay attention to the context of my post, did you? Even though I worded it with accurate and detailed terms explaining why an allowance given by a host nation to have foreign troops stationed in a specific location should not be confused for an allowance given by the host nation for those foreign troops to exercise any form of occupation/control over local nationals.

And directly related to the context of my post(which you either ignored or could not comprehend), to my knowledge US military personnel stationed at the US Naval Station of Guantanamo Bay have no allowance whatsoever to enter Cuban territory and exercise any control/occupation over Cuban nationals.

Now going back to the SPECIFICS clearly stated in my post addressing conditions and terms regarding foreign troops stationed in a host nation and let us examine the content of the 1997 Agreement signed between Ukraine and Russia in 1997, known as the Partition Treaty :

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

I will let you read the content of the linked to document above. Mind you this is not an article from a second hand source but a document which clearly relates terms and conditions.

I will bring your attention to Article 6 :

Article 6

1. Military units operate in places of deployment in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, observe its legislation and do not allow interference in the internal affairs Ukraine. 2. Economic activity of enterprises, organizations and institutions the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation shall not contradict the legislation of Ukraine. 3. Public authorities to respect the status of Ukraine military formations, shall take appropriate and consistent with their command safety measures personal composition, protection of property rights and property military units, and do not interfere in their internal life. 4. Relationships of persons belonging to the military formations and their families with legal and physical Ukraine faces is governed by the relevant locations of the Parties treaties and laws of Ukraine.

Try to pay attention to the introductory sentence. If you need help understanding its intended content, I will gladly (as I am sure other posters will) clarify it for you.

And again (and hopefully for the last time) the above is directly related to the limitations placed on foreign troops stationed in a host nation and their responsibility to recognize and respect the sovereignty of the said nation.

Please, try to not reply with comments loaded with emotional outbursts (as your reply quoted above was) and address what was documented for you.

Your Italy analogy is still utter bullshit, and cubans still want US out of Cuba.
US still supported (if not orchestrated) illegal coup in Ukraine
US are in no position to give long boring lectures to russians about invasions and legality

 

[barbos]

Reading comprehension problems?

So nothing to back up the whole "Crimean Army massacre" stories you presented?

Still reading comprehension problems?

 

[thief of fire]

Your Italy analogy is still utter bullshit, and cubans still want US out of Cuba.
US still supported (if not orchestrated) illegal coup in Ukraine
US are in no position to give long boring lectures to russians about invasions and legality

Yes, his reply is utter bullshit. Had there not been a coup in Kiev and an illegal government largely controlled by neo nazi elements he would have a point.

 

[Ford]

Had there not been a coup in Kiev and an illegal government largely controlled by neo nazi elements he would have a point.

So this Neo Nazi government you speak of...got any evidence?


Photo of a swastika or two outside a government building? Some rounding up of Jews?

I mean Nazis have a pretty distinct look and history, so if you're going to claim they've taken over Ukraine you should be able to provide some evidence.


Perhaps a manifesto written in prison by one of their leaders?

 

[Daioh]

You wanted the Russians to get permission from the "government of the region". In other ords you were supporting the neo nazis in Kiev who were murdering people.

Whether they are neo-nazis or not doesn't change the fact that Russia moved into Ukranian territory without permission from anyone in the Ukranian government
Hence why this is called an invasion

Hence why this fits the dictionary definition of an Invasion and why it is called as such
The government being Neo-Nazis is not relevant to the definition of Invasion

No it's not. It was you who wanted permission to be granted by the "government". What you don't want to face is the there was no legitimate government in Kiev.

Then Russia's actions still fall under the definition of Invasion

The absense of a government does not grant other nations the right to move into the teritories and begin to annex them at will

Thus Russias actions STILL fall under the definition of invasion

This what was happening in Kiev to those who opposed the illegitimate government.

I am arguing the actions of Russian troops in Crimea and how it does (By your own dictionary definition) constitute an invasion of Ukaranian territory
NOT the actions of people in Kiev
NOT the actions in Odessa
NOT some hypothetical referendum (One without russian troops)
ONLY the actions of Russia in Crimea and how it was an Invasion by definition

- - - Updated - - -

So nothing to back up the whole "Crimean Army massacre" stories you presented?

Still reading comprehension problems?

Still nothing?

You having nothing to back up
"And I can't really see resident russian forces In Crimea watching ukrainian "army" killing protesters and do nothing."
or
"Without russian forces there would still have been a referendum but after a lot of people got killed."

 

[barbos]

Even if it was an invasion (which it was not) so what?
US invaded more countries than Russia ever did (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Cuba, pretty much all Central America, Vietnam and around, ....)
Nobody is got killed in Crimea.

Resident supporters of Nazi led coup in Ukraine here should really go to Crimea and explain how they were invaded and should go back to Ukraine.