Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia commits act of war.


danielost
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh, please... it started with hysteric Russian reaction to legitimate Ukrainian revolt after Yanukovich wiped his fat ass with EU association agreement, not with EU agreement per se.

EU really does not mean the same to you and to me. It means even more to an Ukrainian because they were even more isolated.

It’s very important for most of us to return to Europe. When my country finally, hallelujah, joined EU I had a feeling that at least a portion of injustice was set right at last.

The Whole problem started long before it hit the headlines and before anyone on this board give a damn. The foreign policy approach by the EU - the mistake was to offer or even hint at offering Ukraine possible future membership and the situation as grown. the EU knew full well offering Ukraine EU membership would antagonise Russia, hence they offered a watered down version. the EU Association Agreement - they just misjudged the whole situation which snowballed and run away from them.

error in EU expansionist policy caused this crisis and lets not forget that. and for that reason alone the United Kingdom should stay out of it. But we wont and haven't. It seems were standing ready and waiting with mop and bucket to clear up someone else's mess.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just lowered myself to your level, but I dont intend to remain at that level, or else I am afraid I will die of stupidity.

Wow... You must be proud of yourself...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Whole problem started long before it hit the headlines and before anyone on this board give a damn. The foreign policy approach by the EU - the mistake was to offer or even hint at offering Ukraine possible future membership and the situation as grown. the EU knew full well offering Ukraine EU membership would antagonise Russia, hence they offered a watered down version. the EU Association Agreement - they just misjudged the whole situation which snowballed and run away from them.

error in EU expansionist policy caused this crisis and lets not forget that. and for that reason alone the United Kingdom should stay out of it. But we wont and haven't. It seems were standing ready and waiting with mop and bucket to clear up someone else's mess.

How many wars have we been involved in, tried to start, or supported since 2000?

The media give the same old dribble each time, we must go to war as this guy is like Hitler! Lets save our money and sort our unemployment problems out instead. Its not Britain job to spend its days sorting out everybody elses problems (or trying to create problems so that we can intervene sort them out).

The whole situation in Ukraine is manufactured by politcians on two sides. One is expansionst (the EU) and the other is trying to protect its sphere of influence (Russia). Neither seem bothered over how many people are dying as a result of their little games.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] The foreign policy approach by the EU - the mistake was to offer or even hint at offering Ukraine possible future membership and the situation as grown. the EU knew full well offering Ukraine EU membership would antagonise Russia, hence they offered a watered down version. the EU Association Agreement - they just misjudged the whole situation which snowballed and run away from them.[...]

So, why preparations for Ukraine - EU Association Agreement wasn't a problem few years ago? After all, one of the slogans in Yanukovich campaign was "strategic partnership with EU and USA". The only reason he got elected - promise to make Russian language second official language, thats why he got so many votes from Russian speaking voters (those, who couldn't manage to learn language of title nation, while living in Ukraine for decades).
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Whole problem started long before it hit the headlines and before anyone on this board give a damn. The foreign policy approach by the EU - the mistake was to offer or even hint at offering Ukraine possible future membership and the situation as grown. the EU knew full well offering Ukraine EU membership would antagonise Russia, hence they offered a watered down version. the EU Association Agreement - they just misjudged the whole situation which snowballed and run away from them.

error in EU expansionist policy caused this crisis and lets not forget that. and for that reason alone the United Kingdom should stay out of it. But we wont and haven't. It seems were standing ready and waiting with mop and bucket to clear up someone else's mess.

True, it started long before. Only it started loooong before there was any hint of any EU in the remote future. Not to regurgitate the whole history of the area now.

EU can’t have expansionist policy for as long as countries that join it are European, and Ukraine is Europe. Forgotten and abused part of Europe, but never anything else but Europe.

If majority of your countrymen decide so, you will exit EU and no one will send tanks or snipers at you. That’s the crucial and obvious difference between EU (far from perfect) and undead Russian empire (far from acceptable).

No offence, but no one expects you to mop anything. It would be great if I’m wrong and you actually could mop it. Not smear it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many wars have we been involved in, tried to start, or supported since 2000?

The media give the same old dribble each time, we must go to war as this guy is like Hitler! Lets save our money and sort our unemployment problems out instead. Its not Britain job to spend its days sorting out everybody elses problems (or trying to create problems so that we can intervene sort them out).

The whole situation in Ukraine is manufactured by politcians on two sides. One is expansionst (the EU) and the other is trying to protect its sphere of influence (Russia). Neither seem bothered over how many people are dying as a result of their little games.

its exactly that. but i get the feeling Helen thinks if people from a non EU country shows a desire to join the EU, we should all be charging to their assistance. like we have some moral obligation.

So, why preparations for Ukraine - EU Association Agreement wasn't a problem few years ago? After all, one of the slogans in Yanukovich campaign was "strategic partnership with EU and USA". The only reason he got elected - promise to make Russian language second official language, thats why he got so many votes from Russian speaking voters (those, who couldn't manage to learn language of title nation, while living in Ukraine for decades).

The EU association agreement was a problem a few years ago it just didn't make the headlines, Russia was never happy but they had time, - a few years - but time was running out for Russia to use their soft power to influence Ukraine to remain outside EU influence. At this point all was going well for the EU and their expansionist policy, bear in mind they the EU were also using their soft power to influence Ukraine to join the EU. giving Ukraine who's not even a EU member millions of €uros under the guise of the EU's neighbouring country programme, what ensued is a tug of war between the EU and Russia But when it came to the crunch Russia won the tug of war and Ukrainian President Yanukovich decided the money on offer and cheap energy supplies was better than what the EU offered, the EU offered Ukraine a measly 40'odd Billion. Russia multi-billion deal. lets remember the Ukrainian economy was in trouble and the EU never offered enough money to save the economy, but Russia did.

So when Yanukovich decided to postpone the signing of the EU Association Agreement - at this point all bets were off for the EU, they upped their soft power effort and started financing the protests against the democratically elected government/ president Yanukovich. it was agreed by the EU Yanukovich should remain in office but under the condition elections would be held in the near future. when it became clear this was not going to happen. the decision was made Yanukovich had to be removed from office ASAP. so Yanukovich went from the EU's best friend on Monday to someone who a deal can be done with on Tuesday by Wednesday he was the EU's enemy.

And the battle of influence is still on going today, the biggest problem the EU faces is Russia will to use hard power when needed as we seen in Crimea.

Remember is picture, the democratically elected president was still in office. and EU foreign policy chief Cathy Aston was walking amongst the protesters and look whose on her arm. Arseniy Yatsenyuk. the EU's hand picked man, opposition leader and future temporary president and now prime minister. its worth noting Arseniy Yatsenyuk thought he'd play a more important role in the new coalition government. thinking he was going to get the top job President. instead he had to settle for prime minister. but since then hes quit.

Remember this event.

The EU's foreign policy chief was at a summit in Lithuania, wooing Ukraines president with offers of preferential dealings with the world's largest trade bloc. This week, she stood in Kiev's Independence Square with protesters bent on ousting the same man.

76ace13fc6fee93b08a8a778d1cf57301b5108c1.jpg

The EU is seeking to bounce back after Ukraine rejected a deal with Europe in favor of a rival alliance with Russia. What had been a policy of courting President Viktor Yanukovych has become a more nuanced campaign to work both sides of the escalating dispute.

The images of Catherine Ashton clinging to the arm of Ukrainian opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk were a stark illustration of how the EU sees a fresh opportunity in the demonstrations that have divided the former Soviet republic.

But Ashton's gesture also belied the fact that in the geopolitical battle over the direction of Ukraine, the 28-nation EU has so far been outhustled, and outmuscled, by Moscow.

For years, the EU failed to meet the enormous expectations Ukraine vested in it, and Yanukovych made the bloc pay for that when he rejected the EU trade and political cooperation deal he had promised to sign.

The Western Europeans had their best opening following Ukraine's 2004 "Orange Revolution," when popular protests swept away the results of a fraud-tainted election and brought in a new government which sent all eyes looking westward toward the EU. But instead of seizing the opportunity and reaching out in a grand gesture offering the hope of membership, the EU urged caution and a step-by-step bureaucratic approach, frustrating the Ukrainians.

Ukrainian politics soon sunk back into internecine power struggles, and the hopes of EU ascension were dashed.

While the EU sent lower-level officials to push for an "Eastern partnership" with former Soviet republics, Russia's campaign for Ukraine was waged by President Vladimir Putin himself, and Moscow indicated it was ready to play hardball.

http://news.yahoo.co...4--finance.html

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stevewinn puts the recent history of Ukraine in a format that is easily understandable for a reader, such as I, who has not yet followed the political situation closely. I am sure that, if there are alternate opinions out there, we will hear them pretty soon. This narrative makes sense of what I do know--so thanks for the capsule version.

Edited by DeWitz
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that Russia signed a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU back in 1997 (and is still in force) it is somewhat hypocritical for it to undermine Ukraine's sovereign right to sign treaties with the EU. The Ukraine - EU Association Agreement has been signed as of 27 June 2014 so that is the end of the story - or so it should be. The popularly elected Ukraine Govt (and ONLY legitimate authority in the Ukraine) has made it's choice, briefly derailed by the hideously corrupt Viktor Yanukovych who appears to have made millions from bowing his knee before Putin, and that is where we are.

The terrorist actions by Putin supporters in Eastern Ukraine is a treason against the Sovereign Nation of Ukraine. Just who do we all think is giving arms and military supplies to the terrorists? Why are they even creating terror when they have a legitimate mechanism enshrined in the Ukraine Constitution should an area actually wish to leave??

If the terrorists cause was just then they would not fear the Ballot Box- it simply is not just - and I applaud the Ukraine Armed Forces for showing extreme restraint in the situation. If gangs of armed terrorists were openly wandering around the UK then their time on this planet would be measured in hours if they failed to negotiate.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, long post, I don't know if I'll manage to answer in single reply, but I'll try

The EU association agreement was a problem a few years ago it just didn't make the headlines, [...]

If Russia government would have been against that agreement (at that time), you'd have seen headlines, in Russian media, at least.

[...] Russia was never happy but they had time, - a few years - but time was running out for Russia to use their soft power to influence Ukraine to remain outside EU influence. At this point all was going well for the EU and their expansionist policy, bear in mind they the EU were also using their soft power to influence Ukraine to join the EU. giving Ukraine who's not even a EU member millions of €uros under the guise of the EU's neighbouring country programme, what ensued is a tug of war between the EU and Russia But when it came to the crunch Russia won the tug of war and Ukrainian President Yanukovich decided the money on offer and cheap energy supplies was better than what the EU offered, the EU offered Ukraine a measly 40'odd Billion. Russia multi-billion deal. lets remember the Ukrainian economy was in trouble and the EU never offered enough money to save the economy, but Russia did.

Did EU used "soft power"? Yes, with negotiations about agreement . Was Russia using "soft power"? Definitely, through the close ties with pro-Russia politicians, Ukraine's manufacturers (especially in military industry)/energy industry. Why Russkies threw money only when they saw Yanukovich is near the state of 'kaput'? Why not a year ago, when the economy of Ukraine was sliding to the "hell"? Russkies need weak, dependable patsies around them (though, even their best ally Lukashenko spoke quite harshly towards separatists in Ukraine).

[...] So when Yanukovich decided to postpone the signing of the EU Association Agreement - at this point all bets were off for the EU, they upped their soft power effort and started financing the protests against the democratically elected government/ president Yanukovich. it was agreed by the EU Yanukovich should remain in office but under the condition elections would be held in the near future. when it became clear this was not going to happen. the decision was made Yanukovich had to be removed from office ASAP. so Yanukovich went from the EU's best friend on Monday to someone who a deal can be done with on Tuesday by Wednesday he was the EU's enemy.

[...]

Mind you, Yanukovich decided to go against his promises (he managed to fail all short term promises), negotiations with EU started long before Yanukovich. Decision to postpone agreement was just last stone on the scales.

[...] And the battle of influence is still on going today, the biggest problem the EU faces is Russia will to use hard power when needed as we seen in Crimea.[...]

Crimea wasn't "hard power". If Ukrainian forces would have resisted, Crimea would have been battle field. Reminds me of annexation of Baltic states - governments of those countries simply chickened-out (in contrary to Suomies), and the rest is a history.

[...] Remember is picture, the democratically elected president was still in office. and EU foreign policy chief Cathy Aston was walking amongst the protesters and look whose on her arm. Arseniy Yatsenyuk. the EU's hand picked man, opposition leader and future temporary president and now prime minister. its worth noting Arseniy Yatsenyuk thought he'd play a more important role in the new coalition government. thinking he was going to get the top job President. instead he had to settle for prime minister. but since then hes quit.

Remember this event.

[...]

OK, I will remember...

Obama shaking hands with Putin must be a proof of NWO, right?

BTW, A.Yatsenyuk is ex-prime minister already.

Thats just for now.

Edited by bmk1245
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that Russia signed a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU back in 1997 (and is still in force) it is somewhat hypocritical for it to undermine Ukraine's sovereign right to sign treaties with the EU. The Ukraine - EU Association Agreement has been signed as of 27 June 2014 so that is the end of the story - or so it should be. The popularly elected Ukraine Govt (and ONLY legitimate authority in the Ukraine) has made it's choice, briefly derailed by the hideously corrupt Viktor Yanukovych who appears to have made millions from bowing his knee before Putin, and that is where we are.

The terrorist actions by Putin supporters in Eastern Ukraine is a treason against the Sovereign Nation of Ukraine. Just who do we all think is giving arms and military supplies to the terrorists? Why are they even creating terror when they have a legitimate mechanism enshrined in the Ukraine Constitution should an area actually wish to leave??

If the terrorists cause was just then they would not fear the Ballot Box- it simply is not just - and I applaud the Ukraine Armed Forces for showing extreme restraint in the situation. If gangs of armed terrorists were openly wandering around the UK then their time on this planet would be measured in hours if they failed to negotiate.

Now that the association agreement has been signed by a puppet government backed by the EU/west its not the end of the story, how can we forget the events that have led to the situation today? I remember stating in my first post on this subject - when things were only just getting started. a few days after the first protests inside Ukraine - Russia no matter what happens will not allow Crimea to fall into EU hands and said they'll use military force if necessary. so it was widely known and recognised how events would unfold. i actually thought Russia after Crimea would roll into Eastern Ukraine. but after hearing Putins speech where he stated not a direct quote but basically 'why do we want Ukraine when their economy is in crisis, let the EU deal with Ukraine's economic crisis'. we have to remember the Russians are the world best chess players, their always three or four moves ahead of us in the west its why the fear still exists today 20'odd years after the fall of the Soviet Union.

So the question is Keith why was the sensible approach of not antagonising Russia over Ukraine and specifically the region Crimea. The former British defence sectary Michael Portillo said it was unthinkable to offer Ukraine EU membership or Membership of NATO. so the next question is should we be rushing to the aid of Ukraine? If its to over throw hideously corrupt leaders - were do we stop?. we'd have a list as long as our arm. plus Viktor Yanukovych was the EU's best pal when he was playing ball. he didnt turn gangster overnight.

But as we stand tonight we have a situation that's taken on a whole different dimension with the shooting down of the aeroplane, could it still prove to be the RMS Lusitania moment? the turning public opinion. i know for me im laying blame squarely at the feet of the EU, did support the policy of not getting involved at all, but then the shooting down of the passenger plane as slightly changed my opinion. But i know British foreign policy is to limit Russian influence around the world, let alone in europes backyard.

As for the Ukrainian Army they are hopeless, a NATO report i came across on my travels around the internet found that only 5,000 to 8,000 soldiers out of the 86,000 regular would stand and fight. its bloody shocking, but not surprised the day they marched down to the platoon of Russian's outside the base singing their songs in defiance they couldn't even march in order, like a rabble. the restraint they showed when the Russians come through the gate was because they knew if shots were fired they'd be wiped out. it was the same resistance the Admiral displayed when he turned up for work arrived at the base/port headquarters and was told to go home and off he trotted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, long post, I don't know if I'll manage to answer in single reply, but I'll try

If Russia government would have been against that agreement (at that time), you'd have seen headlines, in Russian media, at least.

Did EU used "soft power"? Yes, with negotiations about agreement . Was Russia using "soft power"? Definitely, through the close ties with pro-Russia politicians, Ukraine's manufacturers (especially in military industry)/energy industry. Why Russkies threw money only when they saw Yanukovich is near the state of 'kaput'? Why not a year ago, when the economy of Ukraine was sliding to the "hell"? Russkies need weak, dependable patsies around them (though, even their best ally Lukashenko spoke quite harshly towards separatists in Ukraine).

Mind you, Yanukovich decided to go against his promises (he managed to fail all short term promises), negotiations with EU started long before Yanukovich. Decision to postpone agreement was just last stone on the scales.

Crimea wasn't "hard power". If Ukrainian forces would have resisted, Crimea would have been battle field. Reminds me of annexation of Baltic states - governments of those countries simply chickened-out (in contrary to Suomies), and the rest is a history.

OK, I will remember...

Obama shaking hands with Putin must be a proof of NWO, right?

BTW, A.Yatsenyuk is ex-prime minister already.

Thats just for now.

i hate it when replies are broken up like this, just lump it all in one. it makes it harder to reply because you go from address one thing to the next without filling in the middle which explains why or how situations arise. im going to have to reply in the same way now :rolleyes:

So you think Russia was happy with the proposed EU deal with Ukraine. just because you didn't see it in the headlines you think Russia didn't give two hoots. the moment Russia got wind of the deal they'd have been watching events closely and planning ahead. The Russians were using soft power from day one, they always have, just in the same way the EU was.

After the Orange revolution and the lessons learnt there why if the Presidents promises where broken and the people were unhappy why not show this through the ballot box? they could have voted him out at the next election? not an option? says a lot about Ukrainian political system and governance.

Crimea displayed the difference between hard and soft power, it was for all to see, the use of military forces is hard power, the Ukrainians had no option but to put down arms. if they'd have stood and fought they'd have been overwhelmed the Russians sent in their elite units including paratroopers trained to the equivalent of NATO standard.

im not into the NWO rubbish belongs in another section of the forum and by the way i know Yatsenyuk is now ex prime minister I stated that in a previous post - you must have missed it. post #56 below

Remember is picture, the democratically elected president was still in office. and EU foreign policy chief Cathy Aston was walking amongst the protesters and look whose on her arm. Arseniy Yatsenyuk. the EU's hand picked man, opposition leader and future temporary president and now prime minister. its worth noting Arseniy Yatsenyuk thought he'd play a more important role in the new coalition government. thinking he was going to get the top job President. instead he had to settle for prime minister. but since then hes quit.

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OAnd i'm the one that thinks too highly of myself? Thank you for that psychological analysis, Dr. Freud.

So you're saying that only people actually threatened with invasion at any moment by the great bogey Putin have any right to make any comment? And you consider yourself to be one of them? The great monster is not going to stop until he's swallowed up all of the former Yugoslavia? What would be his reason for doing that? To give him access to the Mediterranean without having to go through the Dardanelles? Well, there might be some logic to that, but it really is heading into the realms of pure paranoia. But then, you do seem to be taking the position that anyone who doesn't automatically assume that Putin wants to create a new Russian Empire that goes much further than the USSR ever did is a Russian agent, so i'm not sure how easy it is to argue from any rational position.

I don't really give a rat's **** about what's happening in between Ukraine and Russia. It's Slav versus Slav and I feel like we're sticking our noses in a dirty little family squabble. However, I'm bemused by your so called, "rational position". Putin laments the terrible tragedy of history that was the breakup of the Soviet Union--but he's and OK guy. Putin sends masked Spetznaz into Crimea pretending to be local militia and illegally seizes territory of a sovereign nation--but he's an OK guy. Putin trains and arms mercenaries and Russian nationals and sends them into Eastern Ukraine to stage a "popular revolt" among the Russian speaking population. This revolt is actually so unpopular that the so called rebels complain they're having a terrible time recruiting locals to fight with them--but Putin's an OK guy. He then sends them convoys of heavy weapons and tech support and other "volunteers" who proceeded to blow a civilian airliner out of the sky--but he's still a harmless amiable dunce who wouldn't hurt a fly.Now he's coordinating artillery strikes launched from Russian territory on Ukrainian military targets with his clandestine forces in Ukraine and preparing to send additional material aid to them, and massing thousands of troops and heavy weapons near the border--BUT PUTIN IS A MOTHER'S ANGEL. Oh, please, regale us again with your rational position! Edited by John Wesley Boyd
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ukraine is yet another example of a failed GOV the US created -Ron Paul

What?!?!? A Canadian bashing the US? Oh, that never happens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 So the question is Keith why was the sensible approach of not antagonising Russia over Ukraine and specifically the region Crimea. The former British defence sectary Michael Portillo said it was unthinkable to offer Ukraine EU membership or Membership of NATO.

2.so the next question is should we be rushing to the aid of Ukraine? If its to over throw hideously corrupt leaders - were do we stop?. we'd have a list as long as our arm. plus Viktor Yanukovych was the EU's best pal when he was playing ball.

3.he didnt turn gangster overnight.

4. But as we stand tonight we have a situation that's taken on a whole different dimension with the shooting down of the aeroplane, could it still prove to be the RMS Lusitania moment? the turning public opinion. i know for me im laying blame squarely at the feet of the EU, did support the policy of not getting involved at all, but then the shooting down of the passenger plane as slightly changed my opinion. But i know British foreign policy is to limit Russian influence around the world, let alone in europes backyard.

5.As for the Ukrainian Army they are hopeless, a NATO report i came across on my travels around the internet found that only 5,000 to 8,000 soldiers out of the 86,000 regular would stand and fight. its bloody shocking, but not surprised the day they marched down to the platoon of Russian's outside the base singing their songs in defiance they couldn't even march in order, like a rabble. the restraint they showed when the Russians come through the gate was because they knew if shots were fired they'd be wiped out. it was the same resistance the Admiral displayed when he turned up for work arrived at the base/port headquarters and was told to go home and off he trotted.

1. You have to ask yourself the fundamental question of whether an independent Sovereign Nation is allowed the freedom to exercise its constitutional power however it likes. It should not be incumbent on any Sovereign Nation – when determining Treaty Accession – to have to second guess a 3rd Party response. I personally could not care less what Michael Portillo says – he is not in the British govt or parliament, he is free to express an opinion as you or I are but it should bear no more weight.

2. Was the EU “rushing to overthrow” Yanukovych? No, I dont believe so at all. There is no evidence of funding for the popular movement that wanted a change of direction in terms of an alliance with Russia.

Yanukovych was elected on the platform of EU Association and had been pursuing that for a number of years, before his staggering Volte Face, without consulting the electorate in Ukraine, and essentially “ripping up” the EU Treaty and signing one with Russia. This led to the demonstrations outside Government House in Ukraine. If Yanukovych had been smart, then he would have called for a referendum on this change of tactic and had he won that vote then I would agree with most of your argument. He did not consult the electorate, therefore he did not have that provenance and power to pursue his private preference.

3. Effectively Yanukovych DID become a gangster overnight., and what was later discovered (after he committed the treasonous act of fleeing to Russia hoping to get support for his own personal agenda) was the millions of euros of personal wealth he had accumulated by robbing the Ukrainian people. This is the action of a gangster that is in the pay of Russia.

4. It is simply wrong to lay the blame at the feet of the EU for giving “moral “support to the protesters. There was no funding; there were no arms or weapons supplied, there were no covert military operations inside from any western Sovereign Nation.

On the other hand it is certain that Russia PAID Yanukovych large sums of money to do their bidding. Do you not believe that Russian Foreign Policy is to limit EU / Western influence around the world and especially in Europe’s backyard??

5. After exhaustive searches for NATO Bulletins that support your statement I have not found any. Please provide a link. As for the Ukraine army being a “rabble” – I would think that the 90,000 troops in the army would take grave offence at that statement. Tell me – what, in your opinion should the Admiral have done other than to leave peacefully when faced with insurmountable odds? Throw himself on his own sword?

Edited by keithisco
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You have to ask yourself the fundamental question of whether an independent Sovereign Nation is allowed the freedom to exercise its constitutional power however it likes. It should not be incumbent on any Sovereign Nation – when determining Treaty Accession – to have to second guess a 3rd Party response. I personally could not care less what Michael Portillo says – he is not in the British govt or parliament, he is free to express an opinion as you or I are but it should bear no more weight.

2. Was the EU “rushing to overthrow” Yanukovych? No, I dont believe so at all. There is no evidence of funding for the popular movement that wanted a change of direction in terms of an alliance with Russia.

Yanukovych was elected on the platform of EU Association and had been pursuing that for a number of years, before his staggering Volte Face, without consulting the electorate in Ukraine, and essentially “ripping up” the EU Treaty and signing one with Russia. This led to the demonstrations outside Government House in Ukraine. If Yanukovych had been smart, then he would have called for a referendum on this change of tactic and had he won that vote then I would agree with most of your argument. He did not consult the electorate, therefore he did not have that provenance and power to pursue his private preference.

3. Effectively Yanukovych DID become a gangster overnight., and what was later discovered (after he committed the treasonous act of fleeing to Russia hoping to get support for his own personal agenda) was the millions of euros of personal wealth he had accumulated by robbing the Ukrainian people. This is the action of a gangster that is in the pay of Russia.

4. It is simply wrong to lay the blame at the feet of the EU for giving “moral “support to the protesters. There was no funding; there were no arms or weapons supplied, there were no covert military operations inside from any western Sovereign Nation.

On the other hand it is certain that Russia PAID Yanukovych large sums of money to do their bidding. Do you not believe that Russian Foreign Policy is to limit EU / Western influence around the world and especially in Europe’s backyard??

5. After exhaustive searches for NATO Bulletins that support your statement I have not found any. Please provide a link. As for the Ukraine army being a “rabble” – I would think that the 90,000 troops in the army would take grave offence at that statement. Tell me – what, in your opinion should the Admiral have done other than to leave peacefully when faced with insurmountable odds? Throw himself on his own sword?

And tens of thousands of first volunteers.

And 1,000,000 in reserve.

And few more millions not officially in reserve, but motivated for active defence, by their own survival instinct if not patriotism.

Anyone doubting that, should rethink the reasons why Russia was not too fast to invade.

(That still is a grim possibility. So, as commies taught us in general population defence doctrine: nothing may ever surprise you. And as my grandma taught me: hope for the best, prepare for the worst :D )

Ukrainian patience was admirable.

Just comparing their restrain with separatists who loot belongings of the dead civilians they killed should be enough for the most uninformed spectator to come to right conclusions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And tens of thousands of first volunteers.

And 1,000,000 in reserve.

And few more millions not officially in reserve, but motivated for active defence, by their own survival instinct if not patriotism.

Anyone doubting that, should rethink the reasons why Russia was not too fast to invade.

(That still is a grim possibility. So, as commies taught us in general population defence doctrine: nothing may ever surprise you. And as my grandma taught me: hope for the best, prepare for the worst :D )

Ukrainian patience was admirable.

Just comparing their restrain with separatists who loot belongings of the dead civilians they killed should be enough for the most uninformed spectator to come to right conclusions.

My eyes hurt when I read your propaganda, unbelievable. If Russia wanted to invade she could have done so like 20000000 times allready. Eastern Ukraine wanted to join Russia oficially, but Russia refused. The Ukraine government burned civilian alive, bombs cities without discriminating between civilian and "terrorists" and the so called Ukrainian president is from a corrupted mafia clan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My eyes hurt when I read your propaganda, unbelievable. If Russia wanted to invade she could have done so like 20000000 times allready. Eastern Ukraine wanted to join Russia oficially, but Russia refused. The Ukraine government burned civilian alive, bombs cities without discriminating between civilian and "terrorists" and the so called Ukrainian president is from a corrupted mafia clan.

Seriously? Ukraine intentionally burns civilians alive? Next you'll be telling us that the Russian media reports of "Child Crucifixions" are real, that the President eats babies at breakfast, and is an Alien Lizard entity :w00t: ALL of the Eastern Ukraine Terrorists are murderers, every single person they murder is a crime.

Eastern Ukraine did NOT want to join Russia (as you state) the terrorists, thugs, and criminals prosecuting this conflict did - completely different thing altogether. Eastern Ukraine provinces can go about any ceding from Ukraine in entirely peaceful ways through the Instruments enshrined in the Ukraine Constitution. You are simply Trolling to inflame. That is against the Rules as I understand them on this forum

You really ought to learn something about debate - whilst myself and Stevewinn disagree strongly in this thread, at least we both try to provide reason behind our arguments, and links if actual facts and figures are relied on.

You are clearly the one who is intent on propagandising this conflict - not Helen :yes:

Edited by keithisco
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If , what was stated above, the USA wanted a pro-western government in the Ukraine, then why did we stop selling them missile diffence at the demands if russia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

American investigative/political journalist Robert Parry, in Consortiumnews.com, lays out a firm critique of the U.S. media (particularly the 'NY Times') and their rush to judgment of Russia. It's worth a read.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You have to ask yourself the fundamental question of whether an independent Sovereign Nation is allowed the freedom to exercise its constitutional power however it likes. It should not be incumbent on any Sovereign Nation – when determining Treaty Accession – to have to second guess a 3rd Party response. I personally could not care less what Michael Portillo says – he is not in the British govt or parliament, he is free to express an opinion as you or I are but it should bear no more weight.

2. Was the EU “rushing to overthrow” Yanukovych? No, I dont believe so at all. There is no evidence of funding for the popular movement that wanted a change of direction in terms of an alliance with Russia.

Yanukovych was elected on the platform of EU Association and had been pursuing that for a number of years, before his staggering Volte Face, without consulting the electorate in Ukraine, and essentially “ripping up” the EU Treaty and signing one with Russia. This led to the demonstrations outside Government House in Ukraine. If Yanukovych had been smart, then he would have called for a referendum on this change of tactic and had he won that vote then I would agree with most of your argument. He did not consult the electorate, therefore he did not have that provenance and power to pursue his private preference.

3. Effectively Yanukovych DID become a gangster overnight., and what was later discovered (after he committed the treasonous act of fleeing to Russia hoping to get support for his own personal agenda) was the millions of euros of personal wealth he had accumulated by robbing the Ukrainian people. This is the action of a gangster that is in the pay of Russia.

4. It is simply wrong to lay the blame at the feet of the EU for giving “moral “support to the protesters. There was no funding; there were no arms or weapons supplied, there were no covert military operations inside from any western Sovereign Nation.

On the other hand it is certain that Russia PAID Yanukovych large sums of money to do their bidding. Do you not believe that Russian Foreign Policy is to limit EU / Western influence around the world and especially in Europe’s backyard??

5. After exhaustive searches for NATO Bulletins that support your statement I have not found any. Please provide a link. As for the Ukraine army being a “rabble” – I would think that the 90,000 troops in the army would take grave offence at that statement. Tell me – what, in your opinion should the Admiral have done other than to leave peacefully when faced with insurmountable odds? Throw himself on his own sword?

There was a excellent EU-Russia Committee on BBC parliament Channel. learn a few things about events, - Recorded coverage of the the Lords EU Sub-committee on External Affairs' session on the EU and Russia with evidence from Sir Tony Brenton KCMG and John Lough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04db1kn/house-of-lords-eu-and-russia-committee

As for the NATO report Keith i also cannot find it, i did have it saved in my 'bookmarks' like i do when i come across such nuggets of information. i delete them once i post on here using this forum as a archive. so because its deleted i must have posted a link on here at some point, but failing that i have done a search myself and its near impossible Google is throwing up to many finds to search through. but i can state you can take my word on the NATO report. i have no reason to lie or fabricate to support what i said. i remember the report also stating only one in ten had body armour, had poor chain of command, leadership and communications, the structure of the armed forces wasn't sufficient to successfully secure / defend Ukrainian borders. other findings were lack of discipline, alcohol abuses amongst others. in the meantime you only have to look back at events to see these findings to be correct. Russia took over Crimea in three weeks. The Ukrainian bases didn't have communication with their headquarters never had sufficient equipment. i will no doubt came across the link you require when i do i'll post the link. i have a feeling it was on either janes defence or defencetalk which has over 600 pages on Ukraine. it could take awhile going threw that amount of posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a excellent EU-Russia Committee on BBC parliament Channel. learn a few things about events, - Recorded coverage of the the Lords EU Sub-committee on External Affairs' session on the EU and Russia with evidence from Sir Tony Brenton KCMG and John Lough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ussia-committee

As for the NATO report Keith i also cannot find it, i did have it saved in my 'bookmarks' like i do when i come across such nuggets of information. i delete them once i post on here using this forum as a archive. so because its deleted i must have posted a link on here at some point, but failing that i have done a search myself and its near impossible Google is throwing up to many finds to search through. but i can state you can take my word on the NATO report. i have no reason to lie or fabricate to support what i said. i remember the report also stating only one in ten had body armour, had poor chain of command, leadership and communications, the structure of the armed forces wasn't sufficient to successfully secure / defend Ukrainian borders. other findings were lack of discipline, alcohol abuses amongst others. in the meantime you only have to look back at events to see these findings to be correct. Russia took over Crimea in three weeks. The Ukrainian bases didn't have communication with their headquarters never had sufficient equipment. i will no doubt came across the link you require when i do i'll post the link. i have a feeling it was on either janes defence or defencetalk which has over 600 pages on Ukraine. it could take awhile going threw that amount of posts.

Steve, I do not doubt your integrity and honesty in these matters, but I would like to read the Report, and whether it was issued by an ex- General in NATO Command, or whether it was a "Live" report sanctioned by NATO:

Please also understand that there are times when I just do not have access to current reports. In some of the places where I work I have to stay in Military camps for security reasons, without internet or foreign news access.

The same indiscipline you lay at the feet of the Ukraine army is also endemic in the Russian army. Apart from some specialist units (Highly trained, highly motivated, heavily equipped with modern technology) the average soldier does not have access to the same personal, defensive equipment, and the same is true of most, if not all, armed forces in the world. The UK, USA and France have some formidable Specialist Units within their Armed Forces, the majority are nowhere near as well trained or equipped.

Body armour for UK Forces in Afghanistan was also a major issue - budget cuts = dead soldiers when it need not have been that way. I would much rather that the UK really cut down on Immigrant abuse of the Social Welfare Programme and diverted that money to ensure that those folk who are willing to lay down their lives for their Nation and beliefs, in the Forces were properly equipped.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is an "ally"? It's a bureaucratic friend. It's when bureaucrats from one country put another country's name on a Sweetheart List for the appropriation of special treatments so their own political interests get serviced in the deal.

What is so sacrosanct about that? Why don't we question that? Why do we need government to tell us who our friends are? If the people of our respective countries had more to do with the relationships we have with other people from other countries, wars would be a thing of the past. People don't drag their governments into war, it's the other way around. What I think about Venezuela or Cuba because of the trips I took there and the people I met there are what's important to me. Not selfish narrow interests of my government who doesn't know how to get along with people it's not bureaucratically convenient to.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?!?!? A Canadian bashing the US? Oh, that never happens.

Ron Paul isn't Canadian. By the way, it's not "bashing" if it's true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.