But Putin’s calculations about Ukraine have been wrong every single time since the turn of the century. He backed Yanukovych before 2004, and the Orange Revolution proved him wrong. He backed Yanukovych even more enthusiastically after 2010; the policy blew up in his face again. And here he is yet again, backing Yanukovych as the president-in-exile of his Russia-friendly fantasy version of Ukraine.
Us to Ukraine 5687 miles
Russia to Ukraine 0 miles
ah nearly choke when ah hear muh boy kerry pointing fingers talkin bout "invasion under false claims". babylon have zero shame in dey mout.
this is about Russia's gas supplies to europe and the gas lines that run through the ukraine, the revolution was a way to put an end to a proposed pact by putin and the former pm and Russia's monoploy on europe because reserves were found in western ukraine. so a pact with the eu instead of Russia is the beginning of the end of the monopoly... also cuts revenue to the govt for their defense budget...
Ok lets here your comments to this ...
Russia has invested heavily in Ukraine when it was part of the USSR .
Ukraine biggest problem is debts ..Russia is owed billions . Russia is selling natural gas at
a 50% discount to the Ukraine . Ukraine gas bill not paid is over 6 Billions uS dollars owed
to Russia .
Instead of getting aid from Western Countries 15 Billion with conditions and interest , plus
IMF controls ..Ukraine will never recover from this .
Why not let Russia take control of Ukraine , the debts will be absorbed , no army killings ,
no civilian refugee problems and the people are fed .
I am aware freedom of choice will come up but in the end , human suffering will be saved.
if not an ethnic war will start in the Ukraine ..Russian vs every nationality living in Ukraine.
No one wins....
what ah friggin mess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Allyuh think it worth sending troops to stop Ras-Putin? You know Obama will get blame for that!
babylon (and its overseas spokesperson) - iraq? ...or you pick one. grenada sounds like the lines russia is using. same lines used in panama too.ah nearly choke when ah hear muh boy kerry pointing fingers talkin bout "invasion under false claims". babylon have zero shame in dey mout.
What should he be ashamed of?
babylon (and its overseas spokesperson) - iraq? ...or you pick one. grenada sounds like the lines russia is using. same lines used in panama too.
(aside that kerry vote for the war flip flop debacle) In light of T&T history, Kamla cannot criticize any other caribbean nation right now if she were suddenly gung-ho about Federation. Or Jong-Un cyah set off nuclear tests and expect a clean slate like if Jung-Il never exist. Countries don't get to reset every 4 years. And as far as I know, Obama in no official capacity ever apologize to anyone for any of them things. So he inherit them, just like netanyahu and every other leader in the world inherit the decisions previously made by their office.
What does Iraq, Grenada or Panama have to do with the Obama administration? You might have a point if either Obama or Kerry were supporters of Bush's war in Iraq or if they had anything to do with Reagan's policies, but they didn't. Would it make sense to blame the current PP gov't in TnT for Eric William's ambivalence about the WI Federation? What about for Manning's actions... they culpable for that? Or is that kind of porous logic only reserved for the US?
(aside that kerry vote for the war flip flop debacle) In light of T&T history, Kamla cannot criticize any other caribbean nation right now if she were suddenly gung-ho about Federation. Or Jong-Un cyah set off nuclear tests and expect a clean slate like if Jung-Il never exist. Countries don't get to reset every 4 years. And as far as I know, Obama in no official capacity ever apologize to anyone for any of them things. So he inherit them, just like netanyahu and every other leader in the world inherit the decisions previously made by their office.
Yet an examination of Kerry's words in more than 200 speeches and statements, comments during candidate forums and answers to reporters' questions does not support the accusation (that Kerry has changed his stance on the war).
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Flip-flopping-charge-unsupported-2723125.php
The Bush campaign accused Kerry of flip-flopping on Iraq. Kerry and his supporters pushed back hard at those allegations by insisting the Democrat was “honest, consistent and right.”
It’s not inconsistent for Kerry to authorize Bush to go to war and then criticize the president’s execution of the war. But for Kerry to say he “opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq” ignores the ample record that shows the Democrat agreed with Bush that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and should be forcibly removed from power, and it ignores his vote that allowed Bush to do just that.
– Eugene Kiely
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/kerry-spins-his-record-on-iraq/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/kerry-spins-his-record-on-iraq/)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/world/americas/caribbean-nations-to-seek-reparations-putting-price-on-damage-of-slavery.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/world/americas/caribbean-nations-to-seek-reparations-putting-price-on-damage-of-slavery.html?_r=0)
relevant to us. wonder if cameron gov't would say he have nothing to do with that.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23983036 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23983036) Or I wonder why UK hesitant on acting on Syria based on Iraq. Nobody going to confuse them with Blair now!?
ah nearly choke when ah hear muh boy kerry pointing fingers talkin bout "invasion under false claims". babylon have zero shame in dey mout.
Kerry on Meet the Press on Aug. 31, 2003. "In the resolution that we passed, we did not empower the president to do regime change," says Kerry. That's consistent with Kerry's previous statements calling for "heat," "inspections," "process," and cooperation with "allies."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2004/08/would_kerry_vote_today_for_the_iraq_war.single.html
Kerry wrote in the Times that there is “no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction” and needs to be removed. But he called on the administration to exhaust “all other avenues of protecting our national interest” and to build a broad coalition of “support from the region and from our allies.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/world/americas/caribbean-nations-to-seek-reparations-putting-price-on-damage-of-slavery.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/world/americas/caribbean-nations-to-seek-reparations-putting-price-on-damage-of-slavery.html?_r=0)
relevant to us. wonder if cameron gov't would say he have nothing to do with that.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23983036 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23983036) Or I wonder why UK hesitant on acting on Syria based on Iraq. Nobody going to confuse them with Blair now!?
What is remarkable is that when the west were patting each other on the back for overthrowing a democratically elected govt in Ukraine and celebrating the encirclement of Russia with NATO bases , they gave no thought to the push back that will be emanating from Putin and Russia .
They played into Putin hands for he has not fired a single shot and Crimea is back in Russia hands , rightfully where it belongs as Khrushchev an ethnic Ukrainian had no right to give it to Ukraine in the first place .
Putin is a brilliant strategist and the West is now running around like a headless turkeys basically pleading with Putin to negotiate with the puppets in Kiev
Vlav has them by the balls and Obama , Cameron , Merkel and Hollandia are exposed for the cretins that they are
Are you unaware of the fact that the west spent 5 billion dollars to undermine the legitimate elected govt of Ukraine by hiring these neo Nazis fascists thugs in Kiev . ?
I suggest that you should listen to the Nuland tapes again .
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508
Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?
Russia says it is acting in Ukraine to protect the human rights of its citizens. But what justification does it have for taking de facto control of Crimea?
What is Russia's claim to Crimea?
Its historical links with the peninsula go back to Catherine the Great in the 18th Century, when Russia conquered southern Ukraine and Crimea, taking them from the Ottoman Empire. In 1954, Crimea was handed to Ukraine as a gift by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who was himself half-Ukrainian. Only 10 years earlier, Joseph Stalin had deported Crimea's entire Tatar population, some 300,000 people, allegedly for co-operating with Hitler's Germany.
When Ukraine became independent in 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed that Crimea could remain in Ukraine, with Russia's Black Sea fleet remaining at Sevastopol under lease. That lease was in recent years extended to 2042.
Is there a legal basis for Russia's actions?
Under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the US, Russia, Ukraine and the UK agreed not to threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. They also pledged never to use economic coercion to subordinate Ukraine to their own interest.
Russia says its decision to send troops into Ukraine is necessary to protect Russian citizens.
There is an ethnic Russian majority in Ukraine's autonomous republic of Crimea. Russia's Black Sea fleet is based at Sevastopol, where much of the population have Russian passports. But the US insists there is no legal basis for the Russian move, accusing Moscow of acting unilaterally in violation of its commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty. The G7 group of leading economies agrees.
Under the terms of its agreement with Ukraine, Russia is entitled to have 25,000 troops on the peninsula and currently has an estimated 16,000 deployed there. But these troops have to remain on base. Pro-Russian troops have been deployed across Crimea. Moscow insists they are local self-defence forces, but there are widespread reports that they are from Russia.
So what is Russia's response?
Initially, Russia denied breaching the Budapest Memo. But Moscow now says the situation is continuing to worsen in Ukraine after the seizure of power by "radical extremists", threatening the lives and safety of residents in Crimea and other south-eastern regions. It also points to the new government's "trampling" on the 21 February agreement signed by ousted President Viktor Yanukovych.
What happened to the 21 February agreement?
When the president fled Kiev, the opposition moved in to fill the power vacuum. But earlier that week, in a bid to calm the crisis, both sides had agreed a deal to restore the 2004 constitution and reduce the president's powers. That deal was signed by Mr Yanukovych and opposition leaders as well as by three EU foreign ministers - but fast-moving events soon rendered it out of date. It was not signed by the Russian official present.
What about the role of 'radical extremists'?
Moscow has regularly complained that the protests in Kiev's Independence Square were hijacked by the far right, who have since gone on to take power in a new government that includes "undisguised Nazis". Two groups, Right Sector and Svoboda (Freedom), are frequently mentioned and there are regular references to wartime nationalist Stepan Bandera, seen as a hero to some but accused by others of being a Nazi collaborator linked to massacres of Jews and Poles.
The far right was a minority element in the protests that attracted a wide cross-section of support from Kiev and other cities. They were, however, often involved in the most violent confrontations and nationalist symbols were frequently visible in the square.
The nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party has four posts in the government. Oleksandr Sych is deputy prime minister and Oleh Makhnitsky becomes acting chief prosecutor. It also runs the agriculture and ecology portfolios but its leader, who has been accused of anti-Semitism, is not in the government.
Protest leader Andriy Parubiy has become chairman of the National Security Council (NSC). A co-founder of Svoboda and labelled an extremist by the ousted president, one of Mr Parubiy's deputies at the NSC is Dmytro Yarosh, the head of far-right paramilitary group Right Sector.
Is the government anti-Russian?
Part of the problem is that the government sworn in last week had little connection to Ukraine's more Russophile east. One of its first actions was to repeal a 2012 law recognising Russian as an official regional language. The decision was widely criticised across Ukraine.
Were Russian citizens in danger in Crimea?
Last week, there were disturbances in the Crimean capital, Simferopol, when pro-Moscow protesters and supporters of Ukraine's new leaders confronted each other outside the parliament building. After reports had emerged of Russian troops taking up positions across Crimea, Moscow accused Kiev of sending armed men to destabilise the peninsula. It was already in Russian hands.
Does Crimea create a precedent for other Ukrainian cities?
The circumstances in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Kharkiv are comparable to the situation in Crimea. There have been pro-Russian protests in both predominantly Russian-speaking cities. In Donetsk, some 100 demonstrators stormed the regional administration building on Monday and a businessman, Pavel Gubarev, declared himself people's governor.
Correspondents described how the protesters in Donetsk chanted, "Putin, come". Russian troops have taken part in exercises over the border and President Vladimir Putin has spoken of sending the military onto "the territory of Ukraine" without specifying where. However, he has since said Russia will use force in Ukraine only as as last resort.
So what does Russia want?
In Crimea, Moscow appears keen to strengthen its grip, with a package of financial aid to the peninsula in the form of pensions and salaries. It has also promised that a $3bn (£1.8bn) bridge will be built, linking the Russian mainland to Crimea over the Kerch Strait, a distance of some 4.5km (2.8 miles).
Across Ukraine, Moscow is calling for the 21 February agreement to be implemented. Vladimir Putin accepts there is no return for the ousted president but Moscow is stressing the need for a government of national unity. Russia sees the current government as anti-constitutional and not representative of the native Russian-speaking population. It also wants "extremist gangs" to disband.
Don';t make general statements , Go and read some historyAre you unaware of the fact that the west spent 5 billion dollars to undermine the legitimate elected govt of Ukraine by hiring these neo Nazis fascists thugs in Kiev . ?
I suggest that you should listen to the Nuland tapes again .
I suggest you stop reading conspiracy theory websites... and try to make some kind of sense while you're at it.
On the first... that link supports your position, how? Caribbean nations asking for reparations are blaming Cameron for colonialization? The notion that the UK benefited from its past colonialization of these nations and thus must compensate them, is noble and supported to a certain degree by logic. That however is hardly the same as suggesting that the Obama administration are hypocrites for criticizing an act arguably the same as that committed by Bush.
On the second, it actually proves my point. The Cameron administration is clearly distancing itself and disavowing the mistakes made by Blair. So... this helps your argument, how?
Don';t make general statements , Go and read some historyAre you unaware of the fact that the west spent 5 billion dollars to undermine the legitimate elected govt of Ukraine by hiring these neo Nazis fascists thugs in Kiev . ?
I suggest that you should listen to the Nuland tapes again .
I suggest you stop reading conspiracy theory websites... and try to make some kind of sense while you're at it.
read about when the Soviet union fell when Gorbachev signed agreements with NATO whereas they will not encroach on Russia with military bases .
Everyone of these agreements were violated by the west where right now NATO in encircling Russia with bases in Poland ,Latvia , Estonia , Lithuania and they thought that Ukraine was next but Putin is pushing back and he is pushing back hard ,
Putin drew the line on Ukraine and Georgia .
For the record I don't read conspiracy theory bullshit , I read history .
Don';t make general statements , Go and read some history
read about when the Soviet union fell when Gorbachev signed agreements with NATO whereas they will not encroach on Russia with military bases .
Everyone of these agreements were violated by the west where right now NATO in encircling Russia with bases in Poland ,Latvia , Estonia , Lithuania and they thought that Ukraine was next but Putin is pushing back and he is pushing back hard ,
Putin drew the line on Ukraine and Georgia .
For the record I don't read conspiracy theory bullshit , I read history .
Putin will do what Putin wants and all this theorizing is BS.
Nobody can stop Putin from annexing the Crimea the same way he has done with Ossetia and Abkhazia, next could be Dagestan.
My friend , don't believe all that you read from the mainstream press , look for alternative media sources. Moldova is a divided country and the present pro western govt there has only a 3 seat majority in Parliament .Don';t make general statements , Go and read some historyAre you unaware of the fact that the west spent 5 billion dollars to undermine the legitimate elected govt of Ukraine by hiring these neo Nazis fascists thugs in Kiev . ?
I suggest that you should listen to the Nuland tapes again .
I suggest you stop reading conspiracy theory websites... and try to make some kind of sense while you're at it.
read about when the Soviet union fell when Gorbachev signed agreements with NATO whereas they will not encroach on Russia with military bases .
Everyone of these agreements were violated by the west where right now NATO in encircling Russia with bases in Poland ,Latvia , Estonia , Lithuania and they thought that Ukraine was next but Putin is pushing back and he is pushing back hard ,
Putin drew the line on Ukraine and Georgia .
For the record I don't read conspiracy theory bullshit , I read history .
Ramgoat, I work with a IT manager from Moldova in DC. He said the Russian are ruthless. He said Moldova has to thread carefully. The same goes for Lithuania. The reason for these countries having NATO bases was to protect them from Russian naked aggression. They have felt the naked brutality of the Soviets/Russian for over 40 years. Now is it right for the Russians to strike back now. It depends on which side of the coin you are. For Communist and anti-West, Yes. For Westerners and those who know the Russians. No. The Russians have the advantage of this crisis. They have a huge border with Ukraine. Can move in anytime. Also can use or will use Ukrainian of Russian descent to side with them. The Euros are weary of war. They still shell-shocked from WW2. The country can split further.
Putin will do what Putin wants and all this theorizing is BS.
Nobody can stop Putin from annexing the Crimea the same way he has done with Ossetia and Abkhazia, next could be Dagestan.
My friend , don't believe all that you read from the mainstream press , look for alternative media sources. Moldova is a divided country and the present pro western govt there has only a 3 seat majority in Parliament ..........
Ramgoat, I work with a IT manager from Moldova in DC. He said the Russian are ruthless. He said Moldova has to thread carefully. The same goes for Lithuania. The reason for these countries having NATO bases was to protect them from Russian naked aggression. They have felt the naked brutality of the Soviets/Russian for over 40 years. Now is it right for the Russians to strike back now. It depends on which side of the coin you are. For Communist and anti-West, Yes. For Westerners and those who know the Russians. No. The Russians have the advantage of this crisis. They have a huge border with Ukraine. Can move in anytime. Also can use or will use Ukrainian of Russian descent to side with them. The Euros are weary of war. They still shell-shocked from WW2. The country can split further.
The Tranistria region in the Eastern part of Moldova had semi autonomy just like the Crimea and they are Pro Russian . The next Election in Moldova will see a pro Russian govt being elected and I am sure that your Moldovan friend didn't tell you that
this is about Russia's gas supplies to europe and the gas lines that run through the ukraine, the revolution was a way to put an end to a proposed pact by putin and the former pm and Russia's monoploy on europe because reserves were found in western ukraine. so a pact with the eu instead of Russia is the beginning of the end of the monopoly... also cuts revenue to the govt for their defense budget...
Ukraine is a major gas CONSUMER... in case you didn't know. They are in no position to threaten Russia's monopoly in Europe, even if they discovered these "reserves" that you claim. This is about Russia trying to stem the tide of Western influence in the region. The Ukraine was being considered for membership in the EU. Where there is a border dispute, or a dispute over the legitimacy of the leadership of a country, membership would be delayed. This delay is precisely what Putin has in mind, as it buys him time to influence the leadership of the Ukraine, either thru diplomatic channels, or by actively supporting sympathetic candidates.
Don';t make general statements , Go and read some historyAre you unaware of the fact that the west spent 5 billion dollars to undermine the legitimate elected govt of Ukraine by hiring these neo Nazis fascists thugs in Kiev . ?
I suggest that you should listen to the Nuland tapes again .
I suggest you stop reading conspiracy theory websites... and try to make some kind of sense while you're at it.
read about when the Soviet union fell when Gorbachev signed agreements with NATO whereas they will not encroach on Russia with military bases .
Everyone of these agreements were violated by the west where right now NATO in encircling Russia with bases in Poland ,Latvia , Estonia , Lithuania and they thought that Ukraine was next but Putin is pushing back and he is pushing back hard ,
Putin drew the line on Ukraine and Georgia .
For the record I don't read conspiracy theory bullshit , I read history .
read properly next time, where did I state they were threatening Russia's monopoly? a pact with the EU and nato on russia's doorstep and a step away from dependence on russia for their supply is the threat... you're basically paraphrasing what I stated in your third sentence..
Putin wants alignment and not sympathy.. the major lines for Gazpron that supply the EU are running thru Ukraine..
spend some time re-reading and comprehending instead of assuming and trying to be critical and trying to sound intelligent about an issue you know little about...
the revolution was a way to put an end to... Russia's monoploy on europe because reserves were found in western ukraine. so a pact with the eu instead of Russia is the beginning of the end of the monopoly.
read properly next time, where did I state they were threatening Russia's monopoly? a pact with the EU and nato on russia's doorstep and a step away from dependence on russia for their supply is the threat... you're basically paraphrasing what I stated in your third sentence..
Putin wants alignment and not sympathy.. the major lines for Gazpron that supply the EU are running thru Ukraine..
spend some time re-reading and comprehending instead of assuming and trying to be critical and trying to sound intelligent about an issue you know little about...
Right here yuh f**king dunce...Quotethe revolution was a way to put an end to... Russia's monoploy on europe because reserves were found in western ukraine. so a pact with the eu instead of Russia is the beginning of the end of the monopoly.
dunce the alignment with the eu and nato threatens Russia's power situation.. the above does not state Ukraine is the sole reason for the fall of Russia's monopoly... cutting off their gas lines and reducing dependence is the first step to ending their monopoly by having a govt aligned to the eu and nato... i guess i have to spell out everything to someone like yourself in order for you to comprehend... ukraine is not the driving force behind this initiative...
these are the first steps in destabilizing the foothold Russia has, it relates to nato and the EU controlling the ukraine situation, once again you demonstrate your lack of comprehension.. read again... .. the gas finds in western ukraine can effectively cut down on dependence on Russia, hence the reason it is the beginning of the end... you selectively read and comment without grasping the whole paragraph...
I vividly remember in 1990 when the foreign minister of the USSR , Germany and the USA .. Eduard Shevardnadze , Hans Schroeder and Howard Baker is a joint News conference stated that there would be no expansion in the former Warsaw pact countries .Don';t make general statements , Go and read some history
read about when the Soviet union fell when Gorbachev signed agreements with NATO whereas they will not encroach on Russia with military bases .
Everyone of these agreements were violated by the west where right now NATO in encircling Russia with bases in Poland ,Latvia , Estonia , Lithuania and they thought that Ukraine was next but Putin is pushing back and he is pushing back hard ,
Putin drew the line on Ukraine and Georgia .
For the record I don't read conspiracy theory bullshit , I read history .
Gorbachev cannot preemptively proscribe the rights of sovereign nations to protect themselves. The only "agreement" signed between NATO and Gorbachev-led Russia was the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (later called the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council). . Nothing in that cooperation agreement prevents NATO from establishing bases in a neutral country If you want name these alleged "agreements" that were signed and present some substantiation for this wild-ass claim, then feel free. Honestly, I'm not even sure why I even bothering responding to this bullshit... that you could state with a straight face that this is about Russia being afraid of a NATO base in the Ukraine, tells me you don't know what the ass yuh talking about. That is further underscored by the assertion that the West funded the presence and involvement of the neo-Nazis in the street protests... nothing in the so-called Nuland tapes supports that, it is patent nonsense.
I vividly remember in 1990 when the foreign minister of the USSR , Germany and the USA .. Eduard Shevardnadze , Hans Schroeder and Howard Baker is a joint News conference stated that there would be no expansion in the former Warsaw pact countries .Don';t make general statements , Go and read some history
read about when the Soviet union fell when Gorbachev signed agreements with NATO whereas they will not encroach on Russia with military bases .
Everyone of these agreements were violated by the west where right now NATO in encircling Russia with bases in Poland ,Latvia , Estonia , Lithuania and they thought that Ukraine was next but Putin is pushing back and he is pushing back hard ,
Putin drew the line on Ukraine and Georgia .
For the record I don't read conspiracy theory bullshit , I read history .
Gorbachev cannot preemptively proscribe the rights of sovereign nations to protect themselves. The only "agreement" signed between NATO and Gorbachev-led Russia was the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (later called the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council). . Nothing in that cooperation agreement prevents NATO from establishing bases in a neutral country If you want name these alleged "agreements" that were signed and present some substantiation for this wild-ass claim, then feel free. Honestly, I'm not even sure why I even bothering responding to this bullshit... that you could state with a straight face that this is about Russia being afraid of a NATO base in the Ukraine, tells me you don't know what the ass yuh talking about. That is further underscored by the assertion that the West funded the presence and involvement of the neo-Nazis in the street protests... nothing in the so-called Nuland tapes supports that, it is patent nonsense.
Whether there was a signed agreement , I do not know . I also never stated that Russia is afraid of a base in the Ukraine but the Russians will never allow it as it is a matter of their national security. Same for Georgia . Russia consider these countries as their spheres of influence .
If you do not know that the west and the USA in particular financed these Maidan Neo Nazis fascist thugs who staged a violent coup against a democratic govt in Ukraine then you must have been asleep for these past six months .
You comes across as being badassed in your knowledge of Geo politics but somehow I aint impressed but like you stated dont waste your time with an idiot like myself
Actually the Neo-Nazi component to the protests and newly formed government is well documented. The bbc has a series of articles as well as other news outlets.
Olexiy Haran, a politics professor and a member of the Maidan's organising committee, expressed exasperation at the way the Kremlin's "fascist" trope had taken root in some western minds. "I've had liberal Harvard professors asking me about this. We are talking traditional Russian propaganda," he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/13/ukraine-uprising-fascist-coup-grassroots-movement
[/t][/t]
|
Actually the Neo-Nazi component to the protests and newly formed government is well documented. The bbc has a series of articles as well as other news outlets.
We're not talking participation, we're talking leadership roles... in fact the accusation presently being debated is that the US funded the revolution by having these neo-Nazis stir up trouble. Calling such a charge nonsense would be charitable.QuoteOlexiy Haran, a politics professor and a member of the Maidan's organising committee, expressed exasperation at the way the Kremlin's "fascist" trope had taken root in some western minds. "I've had liberal Harvard professors asking me about this. We are talking traditional Russian propaganda," he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/13/ukraine-uprising-fascist-coup-grassroots-movement
Not just the protests (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25571805) but now in government. "The nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party has four posts in the government. Oleksandr Sych is deputy prime minister and Oleh Makhnitsky becomes acting chief prosecutor. It also runs the agriculture and ecology portfolios but its leader, who has been accused of anti-Semitism, is not in the government. Protest leader Andriy Parubiy has become chairman of the National Security Council (NSC). A co-founder of Svoboda and labelled an extremist by the ousted president, one of Mr Parubiy's deputies at the NSC is Dmytro Yarosh, the head of far-right paramilitary group Right Sector."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508
Not just the protests (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25571805) but now in government. "The nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party has four posts in the government. Oleksandr Sych is deputy prime minister and Oleh Makhnitsky becomes acting chief prosecutor. It also runs the agriculture and ecology portfolios but its leader, who has been accused of anti-Semitism, is not in the government. Protest leader Andriy Parubiy has become chairman of the National Security Council (NSC). A co-founder of Svoboda and labelled an extremist by the ousted president, one of Mr Parubiy's deputies at the NSC is Dmytro Yarosh, the head of far-right paramilitary group Right Sector."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508
All of that is covered in the Guardian article I posted. Again the issue isn't about Svoboda being in Government, it's about who were the impetus of the uprising- specifically whether it was a neo-Nazi led rebellion, and whether the West was behind it. There is no substantiation for either claim.
What sort of substantiation are you seeking regarding Western involvement in destabilising Yanukovych?
Well I was responding to Fishs who was asking about whether there really were Neo-Nazis involved and I think it's a stretch to say there is 'no substantiation' to the claim that the West was involved in the coup.
Where you get confirmation that it is " Neo Nazis" that headed this revolution or coup?
So far to me is only Moscow calling them that. The same Moscow that called Pussy Riot terrorists.
Yuh allyuh like nonsense yes
Well I was responding to Fishs who was asking about whether there really were Neo-Nazis involved and I think it's a stretch to say there is 'no substantiation' to the claim that the West was involved in the coup.Where you get confirmation that it is " Neo Nazis" that headed this revolution or coup?
So far to me is only Moscow calling them that. The same Moscow that called Pussy Riot terrorists.
Yuh allyuh like nonsense yes
Now... you were saying?
Ok, he said 'headed' - well no, haven't seen anything that says Neo-Nazis "headed" the coup but they were certainly involved and are currently part of the government.
Look like Russia decide to take in front before in front take them.When the west and specifically the USA decides to impose sanctions and individuals or a country , they do not telegraph it as in the case with Iran , They just do it
Markets fear Russia has cut US treasury bill holding over Ukraine crisis
Transfer of more than $100bn out of US prompts speculation Russia is moving funds out of reach of possible sanctions
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/14/russia-us-treasury-bill-bonds-ukraine-sanctions#start-of-comments
What sort of substantiation are you seeking regarding Western involvement in destabilising Yanukovych?Exactly Assylumseeker , I guess he expects the West to come out openly and say that they orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected govt. He probably believes the the hands of America was not involved in the removal of Mossagedh in Iran , Allende of Chile or Chavez in Venezuela the first time around.
What sort of substantiation are you seeking regarding Western involvement in destabilising Yanukovych?Exactly Assylumseeker , I guess he expects the West to come out openly and say that they orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected govt. He probably believes the the hands of America was not involved in the removal of Mossagedh in Iran , Allende of Chile or Chavez in Venezuela the first time around.
Look like Russia decide to take in front before in front take them.
Markets fear Russia has cut US treasury bill holding over Ukraine crisis
Transfer of more than $100bn out of US prompts speculation Russia is moving funds out of reach of possible sanctions
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/14/russia-us-treasury-bill-bonds-ukraine-sanctions#start-of-comments
Look like Russia decide to take in front before in front take them.
Markets fear Russia has cut US treasury bill holding over Ukraine crisis
Transfer of more than $100bn out of US prompts speculation Russia is moving funds out of reach of possible sanctions
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/14/russia-us-treasury-bill-bonds-ukraine-sanctions#start-of-comments
I think there is a bigger message here. A debtor is a slave and Putin might be sending a message that "if you push me, I have the ability to call my loan and affect the already fragile US market." People forget that Putin is a keen student of Judo and martial arts and his actions speak volumes to such.
The headline says it all.......Markets - FEAR - Russia.
What sort of substantiation are you seeking regarding Western involvement in destabilising Yanukovych?Exactly Assylumseeker , I guess he expects the West to come out openly and say that they orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected govt. He probably believes the the hands of America was not involved in the removal of Mossagedh in Iran , Allende of Chile or Chavez in Venezuela the first time around.
The headline says it all.......Markets - FEAR - Russia.
The headline says it all.......Markets - FEAR - Russia.
The Markets don't fear Russia... they fear the collateral effects of the implosion of the Russian economy, a very likely prospect at this point.
NON COMPOS MENTIS.... when did I state that there was not genuine discord under Yanukovych?What sort of substantiation are you seeking regarding Western involvement in destabilising Yanukovych?Exactly Assylumseeker , I guess he expects the West to come out openly and say that they orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected govt. He probably believes the the hands of America was not involved in the removal of Mossagedh in Iran , Allende of Chile or Chavez in Venezuela the first time around.
Ignoratio elenchi... the US may or may not have been involved in those incidents you cite, but by themselves they offer nothing by way of proof of the US' involvement in the Euromaidan. What you conveniently continue to do, and what betrays your intellectual lightweight status, is your refusal to address the overwhelming evidence that genuine discord under Yanukovych was the reason for the protests. Rather, you make conclusory pronouncements without proof, that the West was behind the uprising. If I didn't know any better I'd say that Putin himself has his hands up your ass manipulating your lips... you do such a convincing job of parroting Russian propaganda.
What sort of substantiation are you seeking regarding Western involvement in destabilising Yanukovych?Exactly Assylumseeker , I guess he expects the West to come out openly and say that they orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected govt. He probably believes the the hands of America was not involved in the removal of Mossagedh in Iran , Allende of Chile or Chavez in Venezuela the first time around.
Ignoratio elenchi... the US may or may not have been involved in those incidents you cite, but by themselves they offer nothing by way of proof of the US' involvement in the Euromaidan. What you conveniently continue to do, and what betrays your intellectual lightweight status, is your refusal to address the overwhelming evidence that genuine discord under Yanukovych was the reason for the protests. Rather, you make conclusory pronouncements without proof, that the West was behind the uprising. If I didn't know any better I'd say that Putin himself has his hands up your ass manipulating your lips... you do such a convincing job of parroting Russian propaganda.
What sort of substantiation are you seeking regarding Western involvement in destabilising Yanukovych?Exactly Assylumseeker , I guess he expects the West to come out openly and say that they orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected govt. He probably believes the the hands of America was not involved in the removal of Mossagedh in Iran , Allende of Chile or Chavez in Venezuela the first time around.
Wow as far as you guys are concerned people need to be pushed by the US and its allies to seek change. These people are nothing but puppets ent.
What sort of substantiation are you seeking regarding Western involvement in destabilising Yanukovych?
Read the statement again.
COMPOS MENTIS.... when did I state that there was not genuine discord under Yanukovych?
There was also genuine discord under Julia Timoshenko but she lost to Yanukovych in a democratic election
Yanukovich was pro russian and he was elected twice and was brought down twice as well, with violence and huge well orchestrated demonstrations , first with the Orange revolution and then the latest .
If he had signed the association agreement with the EU he would still have been in power but instead he went for a better deal with the Russians for 15billion dollars with no strings attached
If you cant see the hand of the EU countries and the USA in his downfall , then I am wasting my time with you
May or may not have been US involvement in the incidents cited?
May or may not have been US involvement in the incidents cited?
I have no interest in debating whether they are or are not, they are immaterial to the question at hand.
... other than precedent-setting.
May or may not have been US involvement in the incidents cited?
I have no interest in debating whether they are or are not, they are immaterial to the question at hand.
... other than precedent-setting.
They hardly add to the discussion of whether the US played any part in fomenting the discord in the Ukraine in this instance. It is a weak attempt to bolster an already weak argument, but feel free to jump aboard that train if yuh so anxious to ride.
Victoria Nuland admitted that the USA spent 5 billion since 91 to promote democracy and good Governance in Ukraine . What democracy , overthrowing elected govt by Nazi thugs ? Do you expect the EU and the Americans to openly admit that they financed these these criminals ?COMPOS MENTIS.... when did I state that there was not genuine discord under Yanukovych?
There was also genuine discord under Julia Timoshenko but she lost to Yanukovych in a democratic election
Yanukovich was pro russian and he was elected twice and was brought down twice as well, with violence and huge well orchestrated demonstrations , first with the Orange revolution and then the latest .
If he had signed the association agreement with the EU he would still have been in power but instead he went for a better deal with the Russians for 15billion dollars with no strings attached
If you cant see the hand of the EU countries and the USA in his downfall , then I am wasting my time with you
Jackass... ah mean, Ramgoat... try and read for comprehension. Maybe that explains your use of a latin phrase which clearly you don't understand or otherwise lack a meaningful appreciation for its deployment. It is debateable that the US and EU played any meaningful role in deposing Yanukovych, but even if they did, that in no supports your silly ass claim that the EuroMaidan was a Neo-Nazi uprising financed, supported or instigated by the EU and US. You have yet to offer anything by way of substantiation for that spurious charge.
To question the US involvement the incidents cited demonstrates to me that the fool BAKES is not just ignorant but also just plain fcking stupid and by the way the latin phrase .. non compos mentis means not of sound mindWhat sort of substantiation are you seeking regarding Western involvement in destabilising Yanukovych?Exactly Assylumseeker , I guess he expects the West to come out openly and say that they orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected govt. He probably believes the the hands of America was not involved in the removal of Mossagedh in Iran , Allende of Chile or Chavez in Venezuela the first time around.
Ignoratio elenchi... the US may or may not have been involved in those incidents you cite, but by themselves they offer nothing by way of proof of the US' involvement in the Euromaidan. What you conveniently continue to do, and what betrays your intellectual lightweight status, is your refusal to address the overwhelming evidence that genuine discord under Yanukovych was the reason for the protests. Rather, you make conclusory pronouncements without proof, that the West was behind the uprising. If I didn't know any better I'd say that Putin himself has his hands up your ass manipulating your lips... you do such a convincing job of parroting Russian propaganda.
May or may not have been US involvement in the incidents cited?
Look like Russia decide to take in front before in front take them.When the west and specifically the USA decides to impose sanctions and individuals or a country , they do not telegraph it as in the case with Iran , They just do it
Markets fear Russia has cut US treasury bill holding over Ukraine crisis
Transfer of more than $100bn out of US prompts speculation Russia is moving funds out of reach of possible sanctions
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/14/russia-us-treasury-bill-bonds-ukraine-sanctions#start-of-comments
This is a facade or a shell game to give the Russians enough time to move assets so that it cannot be touched .
This is just for show for the gullible people in the west , to pretend as if they are doing something to stop Russian aggression in Crimea ,
The west has basically conceded the Crimea to Russia and the negotiations are really about how to stop the Russians from moving into The east and southern Ukraine to protect Ethnic Russians.
T he Russians has leverage to hit back at Europe because they are an energy superpower .
Right now if I am not mistaken , Coca Cola and GM 's second largest market is in Russia plus Boeing is also heavily invested in Russia . I can imagine the the lobbyists for these companies are working overtime with the Obama administration to proceed with caution . I forgot about the major oil companies .
Victoria Nuland admitted that the USA spent 5 billion since 91 to promote democracy and good Governance in Ukraine . What democracy , overthrowing elected govt by Nazi thugs ? Do you expect the EU and the Americans to openly admit that they financed these these criminals ?
Like another poster stated , don't read the lines read between them for the evidence
If you cannot see this then you are denser than I give you credit for
To question the US involvement the incidents cited demonstrates to me that the fool BAKES is not just ignorant but also just plain fcking stupid and by the way the latin phrase .. non compos mentis means not of sound mind
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question
.. and you are a lawyer ? Have you ever heard of circumstantial or anecdotal evidence ?Victoria Nuland admitted that the USA spent 5 billion since 91 to promote democracy and good Governance in Ukraine . What democracy , overthrowing elected govt by Nazi thugs ? Do you expect the EU and the Americans to openly admit that they financed these these criminals ?
Like another poster stated , don't read the lines read between them for the evidence
If you cannot see this then you are denser than I give you credit for
Tun tun... I mean Ramgoat, pardon de confusion. So in 23 years of expenditure, the only thing that the US have to show for it is the EuroMaidan... is that your assertion?
What is your proof that the "Nazi thugs" are responsible for Yanukovych's ouster? Do you understand Spanish? Maybe I should phrase the question in Spanish... since English eh yielding no answers.To question the US involvement the incidents cited demonstrates to me that the fool BAKES is not just ignorant but also just plain fcking stupid and by the way the latin phrase .. non compos mentis means not of sound mind
You have to be the world's biggest penis receptacle. People does read but cyah understand... no wonder yuh fishing latin malapropisms out yuh expansive kakahole.QuoteIgnoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question
That the US was involved in the incidents you highlight "may or may not be logically valid" but fails, nonetheless to address (read, offer any proof as to) the assertion that the US financed a Neo-Nazi overthrow of the Yanukovych regime. Ah dunce like you I could understand, you was out of yuh depth ab initio... Asylumseeker though should have recognized that the parallel phrasing was deliberate and independent of any substantive treatment of the issue of US involvement elsewhere. More and more I realize I wasting my time with allyuh on this site yes.
Meanwhile, Russia's MICEX index continues its slide, falling 1% today. At it's lowest point today, it was down 5.2%. Year-to-date, it's down 20.4%.
May or may not have been US involvement in the incidents cited?
I have no interest in debating whether they are or are not, they are immaterial to the question at hand.
The question was raised because the comment implied doubt as to credence regarding US involvement in the respective countries. There is nothing to debate. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that there is space for debate on the historical record.
The question stood on itself rather than in cementing commonality vis-a-vis the present situation.
QuoteMeanwhile, Russia's MICEX index continues its slide, falling 1% today. At it's lowest point today, it was down 5.2%. Year-to-date, it's down 20.4%.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-micex-index-falls-2014-3#ixzz2wCyM3zpw
I know dick all about stock markets and finance but I will advise my broker to liquidate
my tiny portfolio and invest it all in the Russian stock market.
These sanctions are a joke because the Russians individuals who were supposed to have their assets frozen has already moved it out of harms way as I predicted and these so called sanctions are about denying visas and I am sure that the Russian are quaking in their boots
Russian stocks has only one way to go and that is up , it might go lower still but ultimately it will skyrocket .
This is the time to be a contrarian
I wouldn't do that Ramgoat, the Crimean crisis won't disappear tomorrow and it's causing Europe to move to non-Russian gas alternatives - the Georgian crisis was a scare, this is a wake-up call. Check this BBC article for imports/exports; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26436291
They buy complex good, we buy simple natural resources, and the EU is their biggest market by far. Without the EU, Russia's gonna go to hell in a hand basket.
I wouldn't do that Ramgoat, the Crimean crisis won't disappear tomorrow and it's causing Europe to move to non-Russian gas alternatives - the Georgian crisis was a scare, this is a wake-up call. Check this BBC article for imports/exports; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26436291
They buy complex good, we buy simple natural resources, and the EU is their biggest market by far. Without the EU, Russia's gonna go to hell in a hand basket.
*sigh* And when Russia imposes its own santions on the EU nations, what then? When Russia locks off the gas flowing through Ukraine, onwards to the rest of Europe, what then? If the EU had an alternative to Russian gas they would have already been using it.
They can't inflict harm on Russia without it coming back to bite them. So now they're just left with nominal "sanctions".
I wouldn't do that Ramgoat, the Crimean crisis won't disappear tomorrow and it's causing Europe to move to non-Russian gas alternatives - the Georgian crisis was a scare, this is a wake-up call. Check this BBC article for imports/exports; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26436291
They buy complex good, we buy simple natural resources, and the EU is their biggest market by far. Without the EU, Russia's gonna go to hell in a hand basket.
*sigh* And when Russia imposes its own santions on the EU nations, what then? When Russia locks off the gas flowing through Ukraine, onwards to the rest of Europe, what then? If the EU had an alternative to Russian gas they would have already been using it.
They can't inflict harm on Russia without it coming back to bite them. So now they're just left with nominal "sanctions".
Europe has other options in the medium term - Russian sanctions will only work in the short-run. So yes in the short run Russian sanctions will bite Europe, but Europe will be busy sorting out other supplies of energy - British gas is only 1% Russian for example. Indeed the most powerful European countries have much less dependency on Russian gas.
I wouldn't do that Ramgoat, the Crimean crisis won't disappear tomorrow and it's causing Europe to move to non-Russian gas alternatives - the Georgian crisis was a scare, this is a wake-up call. Check this BBC article for imports/exports; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26436291
They buy complex good, we buy simple natural resources, and the EU is their biggest market by far. Without the EU, Russia's gonna go to hell in a hand basket.
*sigh* And when Russia imposes its own santions on the EU nations, what then? When Russia locks off the gas flowing through Ukraine, onwards to the rest of Europe, what then? If the EU had an alternative to Russian gas they would have already been using it.
They can't inflict harm on Russia without it coming back to bite them. So now they're just left with nominal "sanctions".
Europe has other options in the medium term - Russian sanctions will only work in the short-run. So yes in the short run Russian sanctions will bite Europe, but Europe will be busy sorting out other supplies of energy - British gas is only 1% Russian for example. Indeed the most powerful European countries have much less dependency on Russian gas.
Oh really? Is there a more powerful European country than Germany? They get 30% of their gas from Russia.
And the UK were very firm on stating that London will be left out of the sanctions - so no Russian assets in London will be affected.
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?
Shortly before President Putin's amazing imperial rant in the Kremlin on Tuesday, another speech was broadcast on a Ukrainian TV channel. Speaking in Russian, the interim Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatseniuk, said that "for the sake of preserving Ukraine's unity and sovereignty" the Kiev government is prepared to grant "the broadest range of powers" to the mainly Russian-speaking regions in the east. This would include giving cities the right to run their own police forces and make decisions about education and culture.
As a side-note, ah starting to feel bad fuh Ukraine yes. Is not like they could do much to retaliate - and all their government could do is mouth off...as they did just instal themselves after a coup...but yeah - feeling kinda bad for Ukraine.I wonder as to why the sudden change .QuoteShortly before President Putin's amazing imperial rant in the Kremlin on Tuesday, another speech was broadcast on a Ukrainian TV channel. Speaking in Russian, the interim Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatseniuk, said that "for the sake of preserving Ukraine's unity and sovereignty" the Kiev government is prepared to grant "the broadest range of powers" to the mainly Russian-speaking regions in the east. This would include giving cities the right to run their own police forces and make decisions about education and culture.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/crimea-ukraine-shooting-pivotal-struggle-heartlands
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?
An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.
Europe will be dependent on Russian gas in the foreseeable future and that is a fact .
If the USA is ever in a position to export LNG , it will never go to Europe but instead to China and Japan where they will get higher prices ,
In spite of all the successes of the gas fracking industry in the USA , it is still a net importer oil and gas .
On a side note, Nitrogen fertilizers are made from natural gas and Trinidad is a big player here . America imports all its Ammonia gas from Trinidad and Tobago .
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?
An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.
Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?
An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.
Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?
Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.
Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?
An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.
Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?
Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.
Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.
More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?
An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.
Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?
Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.
Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.
More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?
Hmmm, let’s see :thinking: I’m smart enough to know yuh can take a jackass to water but yuh cyah make him drink … which essentially leaves you trying to figure out whether this is a feast or famine.
Video has emerged of what appears to the head of Ukraine's state TV company being beaten up in his offices by MPs from the far-right Svoboda party. After roughing up Aleksandr Panteleymonov, the men force him to sign his resignation. Euronews says one of those involved in the assault is the deputy head of Ukraine's committee on freedom of speech.[/size]
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?
An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.
Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?
Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.
Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.
More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?
Hmmm, let’s see :thinking: I’m smart enough to know yuh can take a jackass to water but yuh cyah make him drink … which essentially leaves you trying to figure out whether this is a feast or famine.
Define "ally". I have a sneaky suspicion that you're thinking something incredibly stupid.
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?
An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.
Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?
Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.
Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.
More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?
Hmmm, let’s see :thinking: I’m smart enough to know yuh can take a jackass to water but yuh cyah make him drink … which essentially leaves you trying to figure out whether this is a feast or famine.
Define "ally". I have a sneaky suspicion that you're thinking something incredibly stupid.
Look at that: further evidence of your impaired judgement.
Tell you what, to reduce the challenge, I'll supply the consonants. G_RM_NY. See wha yuh could do with that.
Think before you leap, eh.
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?
An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.
Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?
Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.
Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.
More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?
Hmmm, let’s see :thinking: I’m smart enough to know yuh can take a jackass to water but yuh cyah make him drink … which essentially leaves you trying to figure out whether this is a feast or famine.
Define "ally". I have a sneaky suspicion that you're thinking something incredibly stupid.
Look at that: further evidence of your impaired judgement.
Tell you what, to reduce the challenge, I'll supply the consonants. G_RM_NY. See wha yuh could do with that.
Think before you leap, eh.
Buh wha de arse, asylumseeker how you get your own question wrong? No way can germany be considered an "ally" of russia. Only european country that could say that would be serbia. NATO defines countries that are anti-russia. The only country that might have any sympathies with russia that is in NATO is france purely for selfish reasons.
Deep Russia-Germany Ties Behind a Prisoner’s Release
By ALISON SMALE
BERLIN — Germany and Russia, friends or foes for centuries but always near neighbors, have special, deep ties unlike those between the Kremlin and any other outside power. It was that relationship, and the select few people who enjoy access to it, that won freedom for Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, the former oil billionaire suddenly granted clemency by President Vladimir V. Putin and flown to Berlin.
Chancellor Angela Merkel, a Russian speaker who has a matter-of-fact, occasionally frosty relationship with Mr. Putin, and her Social Democratic predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, who maintains warm ties to the Russian leader, both raised Mr. Khodorkovsky’s case with Mr. Putin over the decade of his imprisonment. But it was a highly experienced former foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who at the age of 86 achieved an agreement with Mr. Putin.
That involved two meetings between Mr. Genscher and Mr. Putin — one at Tegel airport in Berlin at the end of Mr. Putin’s first visit to Germany after he was re-elected in 2012, the other in Moscow, according to the German news media and statements from Mr. Genscher himself.
Ms. Merkel was kept informed of the secret talks, as was the top echelon of the German Embassy in Moscow, which expedited a visa for Mr. Khodorkovsky late last week once it became clear from Mr. Putin’s surprising talk of clemency on Thursday that it would be granted.
...
Mr. Genscher is one of a cluster of older, experienced figures who enjoy great respect in Germany and remain well connected. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who turned 95 on Monday, is another such figure. On a self-described farewell tour of various countries, he was in Moscow recently to see retired officials he knows from the Soviet era, and was then invited to meet Mr. Putin. The two discussed Russian-German ties, and how whether they are enemies, as in World War II, or on the same side, as in rejoicing in Napoleon’s defeat in Russia in 1812, they will always be dealing with each other, Mr. Schmidt said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/world/europe/deep-ties-between-russia-and-germany-on-display-in-prisoners-release.html?_r=0
Reconsidering Basic Strategy
The economic crisis in Europe has caused the Germans, among others, to reconsider their basic strategy. Ever since World War II, the Germans have pursued two national imperatives. The first was to maintain close relations with the French -- along with the rest of Europe -- to eliminate the threat of war. Germany had fought three wars with France since 1870, and its primary goal was not fighting another one. Its second goal was prosperity. Germany's memory of the Great Depression plus its desire to avoid militarism made it obsessed with economic development and creating a society focused on prosperity. It saw the creation of an integrated economic structure in Europe as achieving both ends, tying Germany into an unbreakable relationship with France and at the same time creating a trading bloc that would ensure prosperity.
Events since the financial crisis of 2008 have shaken German confidence in the European Union as an instrument of prosperity, however. Until 2008, Europe had undergone an extraordinary period of prosperity, in which West Germany could simultaneously integrate with East Germany and maintain its long-term economic growth. The European Union appeared to be a miraculous machine that automatically generated prosperity and political stability alongside it.
After 2008, this perception changed, and the sense of insecurity accelerated with the current crisis in Greece and among the Mediterranean members of the European Union. The Germans found themselves underwriting what they regarded as Greek profligacy to protect the euro and the European economy. This not only generated significant opposition among the German public, it raised questions in the German government. The purpose of the European Union was to ensure German prosperity. If the future of Europe was Germany shoring up Europe -- in other words, transferring wealth from Germany to Europe -- then the rationale for European integration became problematic.
The Germans were certainly not prepared to abandon European integration, which had given Germany 65 years of peace. At the same time, the Germans were prepared to consider adjustments to the framework in which Europe was operating, particular from an economic standpoint. A Europe in which German prosperity is at risk from the budgeting practices of Greece needed adjustment.
The Pull of Russia
In looking at their real economic interests, the Germans were inevitably drawn to their relationship with Russia. Russia supplies Germany with nearly 40 percent of the natural gas Germany uses. Without Russian energy, Germany's economy is in trouble. At the same time, Russia needs technology and expertise to develop its economy away from being simply an exporter of primary commodities. Moreover, the Germans already have thousands of enterprises that have invested in Russia. Finally, in the long run, Germany's population is declining below the level needed to maintain its economy. It does not want to increase immigration into Germany because of fears of social instability. Russia's population is also falling, but it still has surplus population relative to its economic needs and will continue to have one for quite a while. German investment in Russia allows Germany to get the labor it needs without resorting to immigration by moving production facilities east to Russia.
The Germans have been developing economic relations with Russia since before the Soviet collapse, but the Greek crisis forced them to reconsider their relationship with Russia. If the European Union was becoming a trap in which Germany was going to consistently subsidize the rest of Europe, and a self-contained economy is impossible, then another strategy would be needed. This consisted of two parts. The first was insisting on a restructuring of the European Union to protect Germany from the domestic policies of other countries. Second, if Europe was heading toward a long period of stagnation, then Germany, heavily dependent on exports and needing labor, needed to find an additional partner -- if not a new one.
At the same time, a German-Russian alignment is a security issue as well as an economic issue. Between 1871 and 1941 there was a three-player game in continental Europe -- France, Germany and Russia. The three shifted alliances with each other, with each shift increasing the chance of war. In 1871, Prussia was allied with Russia when it attacked France. In 1914, The French and Russians were allied against Germany. In 1940, Germany was allied with Russia when it attacked France. The three-player game played itself out in various ways with a constant outcome: war.
The last thing Berlin wants is to return to that dynamic. Instead, its hope is to integrate Russia into the European security system, or at least give it a sufficient stake in the European economic system that Russia does not seek to challenge the European security system. This immediately affects French relations with Russia. For Paris, partnership with Germany is the foundation of France's security policy and economy. If Germany moves into a close security and economic relationship with Russia, France must calculate the effect this will have on France. There has never been a time when a tripartite alliance of France, Germany and Russia has worked because it has always left France as the junior partner. Therefore, it is vital for the Germans to present this not as a three-way relationship but as the inclusion of Russia into Europe, and to focus on security measures rather than economic measures. Nevertheless, the Germans have to be enormously careful in managing their relationship with France.
...
The Germans do not want to lose the European concept. At the same time, they are trying to redefine it more to their advantage. From the German point of view, bringing Russia into the relationship would help achieve this. But the Germans still have to explain what their relationship is with the rest of Europe, particularly their financial obligation to troubled economies in the eurozone. They also have to define their relationship to NATO, and more important, to the United States.
Like any country, Germany can have many things, but it can't have everything. The idea that it will meld the European Union, NATO and Russia into one system of relationships without alienating at least some of their partners -- some intensely -- is naive. The Germans are not naive. They know that the Poles will be terrified and the French uneasy. The southern Europeans will feel increasingly abandoned as Germany focuses on the North European Plain. And the United States, watching Germany and Russia draw closer, will be seeing an alliance of enormous weight developing that might threaten its global interests.
...
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100621_germany_and_russia_move_closer
Unlike Yeltsin, who was overwhelmed by the Soviet past, Putin was profoundly imbued with European history and its historical figures. For him, Europe was a source of historical inspiration in forming Russia‟s domestic and foreign policy. He wanted, similarly to Yeltsin, to create a European Russia, thereby developing a European vector in Russian foreign policy. :banginghead:
Being a Germanophile, Putin adopted a postwar German model for post-Soviet Russia. At the forefront of his new ideology he placed economic pragmatism. President Putin realized, thanks to the German example, that there was no alternative to pragmatic cooperation with the West and, above all, with Europe. Putin saw the latter as the most important strategic partner which could contribute to Russia‟s economic recovery, and subsequently to its restoration of power. In addition to being the main client of Russian energy supplies, Europe was a key to global market integration and Western investments. Europe was perceived as a source of Russia‟s modernization and recovery. Russia sought to regain its international status by rebuilding a new empire which would meet the challenges of globalization – an energy empire or, as Chubais termed it, “a liberal empire.”
Belarus with its fraternal rhetoric but with very hostile relations with the West became an obstacle. Lukashenko‟s populist, pro-integration dithyrambs had no effect on Russia‟s new leadership, which saw integration through an economic prism. Putin‟s pragmatism led to the deideologization of Russo-Belarusian relations, instead basing them purely on market-economy principles. Historical and linguistic commonalities of the two nations were used to the extent that they served Russian interests in either domestic or international contexts.
Although President Putin stressed the close relationship between the two states, he realized that there were advantages in Russo-Belarusian disunion. :banginghead: Putin viewed the Soviet past from a critical perspective, whereby Russia had carried the economic burden of the Soviet empire by subsidizing the numerous “parasites,” which eventually brought about its fall. The Kremlin, therefore, was strongly determined to prevent a recurrence of this scenario. It did not want any territorial annexation but only economic integration, analogous to the EU model, as Putin asserted: “We do not want to include anyone else in Russia because for us it is merely an additional economic burden. However, we want our so-called natural competitive advantages in the global economy to be utilized. We can talk only about economic integration.”
Minsk, however, has always insisted on the implementation of the “Soviet” model of integration, which in the eyes of the Kremlin meant that neither Ukraine nor any other CIS country would ever join. Putin, hence, explicitly warned Lukashenko about trying to revive the Soviet Union. Lukashenko‟s opposition to Moscow‟s new course caused frictions in relations and “Belarus lost its status as the main foreign policy ally of Russia in the CIS and became merely one of Russia‟s partners in the post-Soviet space.”
http://www.academia.edu/1172488/Two_Decades_of_the_Russian_Federations_Foreign_Policy_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Independent_States_The_Cases_of_Belarus_and_Ukraine
Asylum you are even more stupid than you look - seriously how are they an ally? Are you so simple as to not know what an ally is?
As I said - what is your moronic definition of an ally?
Ribbit, Germany has been the chief reason why the "sanctions" against Russia have been so mild.
Not saying that they are "allies" if by "ally" you mean best-buddy or whatever, but still...
Lehwe reset here ...QuoteDeep Russia-Germany Ties Behind a Prisoner’s Release
By ALISON SMALE
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100621_germany_and_russia_move_closer
Ribbit, Germany has been the chief reason why the "sanctions" against Russia have been so mild.
Not saying that they are "allies" if by "ally" you mean best-buddy or whatever, but still...
As to the first line: PRECISELY! (the word I would use is "tempered").
As to the allusion in line two (Toppa ah know you are de messenger, not the sender): This formulation belies how foreign policy is constructed, implemented and exercised. Ribbit, ah lil disappointed ...
Ribbit, Germany has been the chief reason why the "sanctions" against Russia have been so mild.
Not saying that they are "allies" if by "ally" you mean best-buddy or whatever, but still...
As to the first line: PRECISELY! (the word I would use is "tempered").
As to the allusion in line two (Toppa ah know you are de messenger, not the sender): This formulation belies how foreign policy is constructed, implemented and exercised. Ribbit, ah lil disappointed ...
A state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose (Oxford Dictionary)
Alliance, in international relations, a formal agreement between two or more states for mutual support in case of war. (Encyclopaedia Brittanica)
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." --- Aldous Huxley
Try to make sense nah! You use the word "self-masturbatory" and expect to be taken seriously? Even if you were to be taken seriously, you would fall on the definition you provided. :bs: :rotfl: :joker: :heehee:
Try to make sense nah! You use the word "self-masturbatory" and expect to be taken seriously? Even if you were to be taken seriously, you would fall on the definition you provided. :bs: :rotfl: :joker: :heehee:
Your definition of ally is moronic. Seriously if you lack the capacity to even know what an alliance is then you should step away from the computer and read a damn book, 'cause you're too stupid to waste my time arguing with.
Try to make sense nah! You use the word "self-masturbatory" and expect to be taken seriously? Even if you were to be taken seriously, you would fall on the definition you provided. :bs: :rotfl: :joker: :heehee:
Your definition of ally is moronic. Seriously if you lack the capacity to even know what an alliance is then you should step away from the computer and read a damn book, 'cause you're too stupid to waste my time arguing with.
In your most recent posts you seem to have lost your bearing and bearings. It's easy to discern the unsteadiness in your presentation and the utter lack of conviction in your "argument". With each step you are betraying your descent and your proclivities. There's surely a better way of saving face than striking a sophomoric tone.
There is no further need for me to address the substance developed in the topic given your present intransigence.
There's an adage: don't judge books by their cover. You would do well to delve into that proposition in an absorbent way.
I'm sitting here wondering whether you're going to use a rope or a shovel.
Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?
Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?
An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.
Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?
...
I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.
... Lukashenko‟s opposition to Moscow‟s new course caused frictions in relations and “Belarus lost its status as the main foreign policy ally of Russia in the CIS and became merely one of Russia‟s partners in the post-Soviet space.”
And you still either lack the cognition or are too stubborn to understand that you were and still are misusing the term ally, which is the source of this conflict. More than that, your position is that Germany is their "principle ally", which is just complete rubbish, as I've pointed out numerous times. At least Belarus is mobilising its military and accepting Russian Jets (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141048/andrew-wilson/belarus-wants-out). Indeed, Foreign Affairs explicitly refers to Belarus as "one of Russia's closest European allies". This is Belarus, who in the same article is apparently moving AWAY from Russia, is still fulfilling the definition of ally. I challenge you to find an academic source that refers to Germany as a Russian Ally - go head - try to pick a source from after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or if you're feeling adventurous, from the past decade (no, East Germany as a Soviet puppet doesn't qualify, in case you want to redefine ally again).
Asylum, you're just being stubborn now, just admit you're wrong and move on.
*Face palm*. Hitler liked Britain, so was Hitler allied with Britain before and part-way into WW2?
Find me someone with an entry-level understanding of politics who defines an "ally" as two chummy countries. By your definition any number of absurd countries are 'allies', hey ever heard of the Sino-Trini alliance? I mean you've just met each other and got on, so clearly you're allies!
You haven't pointed out anything. In fact, you haven't proposed a substitute PRINCIPAL ;) since the failure of the inadequate Belarus response. Why don't you do that? While you're at it? Try to ponder the relevance of Belarus "moving away" while still effectively a contemporary "satellite state" (in the antiquated construction of reality that you so favour). Again I point you to the language I used in my posts that didn't need to rely on other authority.And you still either lack the cognition or are too stubborn to understand that you were and still are misusing the term ally, which is the source of this conflict. More than that, your position is that Germany is their "principle ally", which is just complete rubbish, as I've pointed out numerous times. At least Belarus is mobilising its military and accepting Russian Jets (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141048/andrew-wilson/belarus-wants-out). Indeed, Foreign Affairs explicitly refers to Belarus as "one of Russia's closest European allies". This is Belarus, who in the same article is apparently moving AWAY from Russia, is still fulfilling the definition of ally. I challenge you to find an academic source that refers to Germany as a Russian Ally - go head - try to pick a source from after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or if you're feeling adventurous, from the past decade (no, East Germany as a Soviet puppet doesn't qualify, in case you want to redefine ally again).
Asylum, you're just being stubborn now, just admit you're wrong and move on.
If there's any progress in this is that you've gone from your Neanderthal adventurism of wrong answers and collective refutation to seeking solace in the turn of one word ... which in itself underscores your underlying misadventure and misdirection.
Indeed, the word "ally" was not the source of your initial confusion. You went down one road, then when reproached opted for another (and that's evident in your inability to engage on the esoterics of the original substance). So don't now come seeking to educate me on Belarus ... I was the one who pointed you to the nuance regarding Belarus. Indeed, there was no question as to Belarus being an ally (the degree/significance of the relationship arose incidentally), but you're unable to grasp that we are speaking of a differently constructed relation effect beyond mere sustainable overt diplomacy.
Dumdum, if we are talking about a Western European state, how can you sensibly assert to leverage a definition through a limited traditional prism? Further, if you were a serious broker with a substantive understanding of this ... you wouldn't have attempted to distract with deprecatory comments such as these rather than address the substance (of which there is ample support, that does not turn on semantics):Quote*Face palm*. Hitler liked Britain, so was Hitler allied with Britain before and part-way into WW2?QuoteFind me someone with an entry-level understanding of politics who defines an "ally" as two chummy countries. By your definition any number of absurd countries are 'allies', hey ever heard of the Sino-Trini alliance? I mean you've just met each other and got on, so clearly you're allies!
You do your thing. I'm sitting here in my SOAS hoodie chuckling. Have you ever been compensated in this arena?
Try to re-read that article. Also, when you find the time, investigate the concept of a "tacit ally" ... when you're done that, you do yuh own investigatory research. Then re-read Toppa. Then read a bit more about the military-industrial complex and security arrangements that with some diligence (or assistance of your friend) you should locate. Then take your shovel and bash it against your thick skull. Doh worry, you'll incur minimal harm.
You have failed to prove or back up your assertions, and are instead engaging in intellectual dishonesty as you try to move the goalposts.
so according to asylumseeker: germany, which still has US military bases, is an "ally" of russia according to some articles he read (in english) from stratfor. take win asylumseeker.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is close to agreement with Ukraine on financial assistance worth $14-18bn (£8.5-£11bn) over the next two years.
An agreement still needs approval by the full board of the IMF.
The stand-by arrangement comes at the end of a three-week visit by IMF officials to the country.
The deal is expected to unlock a further $10bn in loans for Ukraine from the European Union and the US.
"Following the intense economic and political turbulence of recent months, Ukraine has achieved some stability but faces difficult challenges", the IMF's Mission Chief for Ukraine said in a statement.
'Edge of bankruptcy'
The deal goes hand in hand with a reform programme for Ukraine's ailing economy.
A cut in energy subsidies to consumers has been one of the conditions of an international rescue deal and on Wednesday Ukraine's interim government agreed to raise domestic gas prices by 50% in its effort to secure the IMF aid package.
Apart from the rise of up to 50% in the price of gas for consumers, Ukraine's state-controlled natural gas provider announced a 40% gas price increase for local heating companies, starting on 1 July. The government also accepted a flexible exchange rate for its currency, the hryvnia, which has fuelled inflation: an annual inflation rate of 12-14% is predicted.
Sergei Kiselyov, an economics expert from the school of political analysis at the Kiev-Mogilyanskaya Academy, said inflation and higher gas rates for heating companies would "hit a lot harder" than the rise in consumer gas prices, which average only 7.5 hryvnia (38p) per person per month.
The average person pays 200 hryvnia per month to heat a 50 sq metre apartment, but this will now rise to 280 hryvnia. The average monthly wage is 3,148 hryvnia, more than half of which goes towards food.
Combined with the rising prices of imported products, this would cause people's purchasing power and economic position to fall, Kiselyov said.
"I don't think half the population will live below the poverty line, but the majority of the population will be worse off economically – that's understood," he said.
According to Vasily Koltashov, an economist at the Institute of Globalisation and Social Movements in Moscow, the IMF's austerity measures were harsher than those implemented in Portugal and Greece.
They were "aimed at placing all consequences of the Ukrainian economic crisis on the shoulders of the Ukrainian people," he said. "But Ukrainians differ from the Portuguese and the Greeks because they don't have many savings left. Wages now in Ukraine are, as a rule, not enough to feed a family, and the devaluation of the hryvnia will make it totally impossible."
The worsening economic situation would lead to greater social unrest and could even result in parts of southern and eastern Ukraine following Crimea's example and moving to join Russia, Koltashov said. "People won't fall into depression, they'll resist … and this may take on a pro-Russian tone, not because Russia is good and is calling them to do it, but because people see Crimea joining Russia as a way to jump off a burning train, to get out of the Ukrainian crisis."
Vote by U.N. General Assembly Isolates Russia100 in favour, 11 no votes and 58 abstensions .
NY Times
lobal condemnation of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Ukraine and its Western backers persuaded a large majority of countries in the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday to dismiss the annexation as illegal, even as Russia sought to rally world support for the idea of self-determination.
The resolution, proposed by Ukraine and backed by the United States and the European Union, represented the latest effort to isolate President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia over the annexation, which followed a March 16 referendum in the peninsula that has been internationally regarded as Ukrainian territory.
The resolution garnered 100 votes in favor, 11 votes against, with 58 abstentions. The two-page text does not identify Russia by name, but describes the referendum as “having no validity” and calls on countries not to recognize the redrawing of Ukraine’s borders.
Read More (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/General-Assembly-Vote-on-Crimea.html?_r=0)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjvwRoHCEAA-Fe2.jpg:large)
Vote by U.N. General Assembly Isolates Russia
NY Times
lobal condemnation of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Ukraine and its Western backers persuaded a large majority of countries in the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday to dismiss the annexation as illegal, even as Russia sought to rally world support for the idea of self-determination.
The resolution, proposed by Ukraine and backed by the United States and the European Union, represented the latest effort to isolate President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia over the annexation, which followed a March 16 referendum in the peninsula that has been internationally regarded as Ukrainian territory.
The resolution garnered 100 votes in favor, 11 votes against, with 58 abstentions. The two-page text does not identify Russia by name, but describes the referendum as “having no validity” and calls on countries not to recognize the redrawing of Ukraine’s borders.
Read More (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/General-Assembly-Vote-on-Crimea.html?_r=0)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjvwRoHCEAA-Fe2.jpg:large)
... Wisely deploy de lil residue of sense yuh have nah.
It's coming back to what I said before, until half baked come with his bull as usual. It boils down to oil and gas and the dependency on Russia and their natural resources. China will gladly come on board...
... Wisely deploy de lil residue of sense yuh have nah.
yeah attentionseeker, ah will forego your brand of wisdom. evidence indicates it eh really working for you. but i appreciate the unusually direct riposte instead of your typical obliqueness. that is for you a step in the right direction.
Germany standing right by their allies there, not one of whom is Russia :p
Interesting comparing the BRIC and MINT countries - these being the big non-Western countries predicted to be important by Jim O'Neil in 2001 and 2011 respectively. BRIC, Brazil, Russia, India and China all abstained, whilst MINT, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey all voted in favour.
Germany standing right by their allies there, not one of whom is Russia :p
Interesting comparing the BRIC and MINT countries - these being the big non-Western countries predicted to be important by Jim O'Neil in 2001 and 2011 respectively. BRIC, Brazil, Russia, India and China all abstained, whilst MINT, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey all voted in favour.
What's your dilemma?
Germany standing right by their allies there, not one of whom is Russia :p
Interesting comparing the BRIC and MINT countries - these being the big non-Western countries predicted to be important by Jim O'Neil in 2001 and 2011 respectively. BRIC, Brazil, Russia, India and China all abstained, whilst MINT, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey all voted in favour.
What's your dilemma?
I don't have a dilemma? My thoughts are that the BRIC (minus Russia) countries are powerful enough not to have to listen to America, whilst the MINT aren't there yet. Might also be suggestive of the ideological differences between the two, although there's not enough evidence for that.
You should check out Kuziemko and Werker - they did a paper basically showing how America bribes the Security council - http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/06-029.pdf it's the reason I don't donate to UNICEF.
Germany standing right by their allies there, not one of whom is Russia :p
Interesting comparing the BRIC and MINT countries - these being the big non-Western countries predicted to be important by Jim O'Neil in 2001 and 2011 respectively. BRIC, Brazil, Russia, India and China all abstained, whilst MINT, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey all voted in favour.
What's your dilemma?
I don't have a dilemma? My thoughts are that the BRIC (minus Russia) countries are powerful enough not to have to listen to America, whilst the MINT aren't there yet. Might also be suggestive of the ideological differences between the two, although there's not enough evidence for that.
You should check out Kuziemko and Werker - they did a paper basically showing how America bribes the Security council - http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/06-029.pdf it's the reason I don't donate to UNICEF.
Surely you appreciate the significance and effect of abstaining ...
... Wisely deploy de lil residue of sense yuh have nah.
yeah attentionseeker, ah will forego your brand of wisdom. evidence indicates it eh really working for you. but i appreciate the unusually direct riposte instead of your typical obliqueness. that is for you a step in the right direction.
You should happy be to receive ANY brand ah wisdom ... :devil: it beats ... what did Bakes call it? ... oh yes, [yuh normal] pack ah ass!!!
For my part, I jes glad you know the word "riposte" ... the fact that you can spell it is an additional delight. Saves you from another direct one. :rotfl:
Incidentally, yuh figure out the juxtaposition I assigned yuh last week? Or yuh want to sweep that under the carpet?
There's absolutely NO surprise as to the German "vote". Aside from that, hopefully you applied your selective discernment to recognize that no European nation voted otherwise (none abstained and none in the negative) ... what does that tell you? Moreover, look at the expected political composition of the "no vote" and reformulate your understanding of vote alignment in the international arena.
Save the cheap shots fuh when ah run is actually on, and yuh not stranded at the non-striker end.
the once circling the net have the same thrust as this http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/09/201395758918848.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/09/201395758918848.html)ah nearly choke when ah hear muh boy kerry pointing fingers talkin bout "invasion under false claims". babylon have zero shame in dey mout.
What should he be ashamed of?
babylon (and its overseas spokesperson) - iraq? ...or you pick one. grenada sounds like the lines russia is using. same lines used in panama too.
... Wisely deploy de lil residue of sense yuh have nah.
yeah attentionseeker, ah will forego your brand of wisdom. evidence indicates it eh really working for you. but i appreciate the unusually direct riposte instead of your typical obliqueness. that is for you a step in the right direction.
You should happy be to receive ANY brand ah wisdom ... :devil: it beats ... what did Bakes call it? ... oh yes, [yuh normal] pack ah ass!!!
For my part, I jes glad you know the word "riposte" ... the fact that you can spell it is an additional delight. Saves you from another direct one. :rotfl:
Incidentally, yuh figure out the juxtaposition I assigned yuh last week? Or yuh want to sweep that under the carpet?
There's absolutely NO surprise as to the German "vote". Aside from that, hopefully you applied your selective discernment to recognize that no European nation voted otherwise (none abstained and none in the negative) ... what does that tell you? Moreover, look at the expected political composition of the "no vote" and reformulate your understanding of vote alignment in the international arena.
Save the cheap shots fuh when ah run is actually on, and yuh not stranded at the non-striker end.
attentionseeker yuh clearly do not understand how credibility work. you have no credibility. when you demonstrate a better grasp of the material i'll address your comments. until then i will not waste time on your deflection.
Ukrainian officials said as many as 20,000 Russian troops had apparently been moved back from the border in recent days, but that some 40,000 remained.
... Wisely deploy de lil residue of sense yuh have nah.
yeah attentionseeker, ah will forego your brand of wisdom. evidence indicates it eh really working for you. but i appreciate the unusually direct riposte instead of your typical obliqueness. that is for you a step in the right direction.
You should happy be to receive ANY brand ah wisdom ... :devil: it beats ... what did Bakes call it? ... oh yes, [yuh normal] pack ah ass!!!
For my part, I jes glad you know the word "riposte" ... the fact that you can spell it is an additional delight. Saves you from another direct one. :rotfl:
Incidentally, yuh figure out the juxtaposition I assigned yuh last week? Or yuh want to sweep that under the carpet?
There's absolutely NO surprise as to the German "vote". Aside from that, hopefully you applied your selective discernment to recognize that no European nation voted otherwise (none abstained and none in the negative) ... what does that tell you? Moreover, look at the expected political composition of the "no vote" and reformulate your understanding of vote alignment in the international arena.
Save the cheap shots fuh when ah run is actually on, and yuh not stranded at the non-striker end.
attentionseeker yuh clearly do not understand how credibility work. you have no credibility. when you demonstrate a better grasp of the material i'll address your comments. until then i will not waste time on your deflection.
1. Try not to distort your record. Posting an article here and there is no indication you have a grasp of the issue. It merely represents that you recognize that the article concerns the issue.
2. Your actual comments present a superficial to incomplete understanding of the issue and a complete lack of understanding of nuance. (Here, I think you're doing yourself a disservice because you're likely more competent).
3. My position need not be popular to possess value. On the statement we are free to disagree. Ultimately, the subsequent historical record will comport with my expressed position. There is ample support semiotically, despite the semantic meandering.
4. Presenting an escapist response, as you have, does not give you the footing to speak on deflection (of which the cupboard is actually empty).
5. With respect to your distillation on credibility: there is indeed a valuable nugget here ... I shall apply it to suspend responding until you competently address the juxtaposition.
It's funny that the Telegraph is claiming that there are no forces massing along the border when on CNN yesterday they showed the Ukrainians massing their own forces to repel the threat. The Wall Street Journal (which never misses an opportunity to bash Obama) is also reporting that the Ukranians haved spotted troopsQuoteUkrainian officials said as many as 20,000 Russian troops had apparently been moved back from the border in recent days, but that some 40,000 remained.
and that Putin is now saying that he'll withdraw troops (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304157204579473611876116286?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304157204579473611876116286.html) from along the border with the Ukraine. I guess he too fall for this imaginary massing of forces.
Once again, no evidence of a Russian troop build-up. This time from a CNN reporter on a tour of the Russia-Ukraine border.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/04/09/russia-border-search-for-tanks-black-lok.cnn.html
And lol at "The West" posting satellite images of Fighter jets at an airbase (Oh, shocking!!) as evidence of a Russian build-up. ::) Pathetic.
You can't move 40-50,000 troops with no-one noticing.
Putin is now saying that he'll withdraw troops (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304157204579473611876116286?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304157204579473611876116286.html) from along the border with the Ukraine.
Snowden did the right thing in fleeing to Russia . He could easily have ended up like Jullian Assange or Bradley Manning .
Once again, no evidence of a Russian troop build-up. This time from a CNN reporter on a tour of the Russia-Ukraine border.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/04/09/russia-border-search-for-tanks-black-lok.cnn.html
And lol at "The West" posting satellite images of Fighter jets at an airbase (Oh, shocking!!) as evidence of a Russian build-up. ::) Pathetic.
You can't move 40-50,000 troops with no-one noticing.
You conveniently overlook... or maybe you hope we'd overlook, Putin's own statements about the troops. Here it is again for your benefit:Putin is now saying that he'll withdraw troops (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304157204579473611876116286?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304157204579473611876116286.html) from along the border with the Ukraine.
Supported by satellite imagery showing more than just fighter jets... and showing them not on military installations, but fields near the Ukrainian border. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602132/U-S-troops-sent-Eastern-Europe-NATO-countries-feeling-threatened-Russia-Ukraine-conflict.html
Of course it could all be an elaborate ruse by the evil West. Ah find allyuh type should do like Snowden and defect to Russia, since they so good and the West so evil.
Today Obama issued stern a warning to Putin regarding Russia's interference in Ukraine .The Russian leader now views America as a nation led by a Gay President so he no longer takes anything that Obama says seriously.
I'M sure that Putin is quaking in his boots.
When will Obama and the Americans learn that you can sanction Iran , Sudan, Iraq and North K orea but you deal with Russia . Contrary to the narrative Russia is a military Superpower in addition to being an energy superpower .
Today Obama issued stern a warning to Putin regarding Russia's interference in Ukraine .
I'M sure that Putin is quaking in his boots.
When will Obama and the Americans learn that you can sanction Iran , Sudan, Iraq and North K orea but you deal with Russia . Contrary to the narrative Russia is a military Superpower in addition to being an energy superpower .
Today Obama issued stern a warning to Putin regarding Russia's interference in Ukraine .
I'M sure that Putin is quaking in his boots.
When will Obama and the Americans learn that you can sanction Iran , Sudan, Iraq and North K orea but you deal with Russia . Contrary to the narrative Russia is a military Superpower in addition to being an energy superpower .
Yuh have a link for this? Man does rate Obama's oratorical skills but I haven't seen him convincingly issue a warning. His speech-making is very good when the tone requires eloquence, inspiration, etc. But he cannot put the professor-tone away when it comes to dealing with assad or putin. Really would be better if he had more range. I mean, putin have more range oratorically than obama.
Snowden did the right thing in fleeing to Russia . He could easily have ended up like Jullian Assange or Bradley Manning .
Once again, no evidence of a Russian troop build-up. This time from a CNN reporter on a tour of the Russia-Ukraine border.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/04/09/russia-border-search-for-tanks-black-lok.cnn.html
And lol at "The West" posting satellite images of Fighter jets at an airbase (Oh, shocking!!) as evidence of a Russian build-up. ::) Pathetic.
You can't move 40-50,000 troops with no-one noticing.
You conveniently overlook... or maybe you hope we'd overlook, Putin's own statements about the troops. Here it is again for your benefit:Putin is now saying that he'll withdraw troops (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304157204579473611876116286?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304157204579473611876116286.html) from along the border with the Ukraine.
Supported by satellite imagery showing more than just fighter jets... and showing them not on military installations, but fields near the Ukrainian border. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602132/U-S-troops-sent-Eastern-Europe-NATO-countries-feeling-threatened-Russia-Ukraine-conflict.html
Of course it could all be an elaborate ruse by the evil West. Ah find allyuh type should do like Snowden and defect to Russia, since they so good and the West so evil.
Today Obama issued stern a warning to Putin regarding Russia's interference in Ukraine .
I'M sure that Putin is quaking in his boots.
When will Obama and the Americans learn that you can sanction Iran , Sudan, Iraq and North K orea but you deal with Russia . Contrary to the narrative Russia is a military Superpower in addition to being an energy superpower .
Yuh have a link for this? Man does rate Obama's oratorical skills but I haven't seen him convincingly issue a warning. His speech-making is very good when the tone requires eloquence, inspiration, etc. But he cannot put the professor-tone away when it comes to dealing with assad or putin. Really would be better if he had more range. I mean, putin have more range oratorically than obama.
since you such a good sleuth, how bout you find the reason that a 16 yr old and a couple teenage boys deserved a drone strike in Yemen. and comment on the justice of executions without trials (your forte). instead of this trivial bullshit you lookin up. how many shots fired in crimea? why you don't turn your focus on the 'rebels' you supporting in Syria. what mass mountains of refugees you pile up in Lebanon that have no resources for their own people. 'support' my ass. how many Syrians that you support could claim refugee status in your helping homeland? a million? how many Iraqi and afghan 'friends'? who you all really care bout?Snowden did the right thing in fleeing to Russia . He could easily have ended up like Jullian Assange or Bradley Manning .
Once again, no evidence of a Russian troop build-up. This time from a CNN reporter on a tour of the Russia-Ukraine border.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/04/09/russia-border-search-for-tanks-black-lok.cnn.html
And lol at "The West" posting satellite images of Fighter jets at an airbase (Oh, shocking!!) as evidence of a Russian build-up. ::) Pathetic.
You can't move 40-50,000 troops with no-one noticing.
You conveniently overlook... or maybe you hope we'd overlook, Putin's own statements about the troops. Here it is again for your benefit:Putin is now saying that he'll withdraw troops (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304157204579473611876116286?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304157204579473611876116286.html) from along the border with the Ukraine.
Supported by satellite imagery showing more than just fighter jets... and showing them not on military installations, but fields near the Ukrainian border. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602132/U-S-troops-sent-Eastern-Europe-NATO-countries-feeling-threatened-Russia-Ukraine-conflict.html
Of course it could all be an elaborate ruse by the evil West. Ah find allyuh type should do like Snowden and defect to Russia, since they so good and the West so evil.
I am not overlooking Putin's statement...there's is still no credible evidence that Russia has amassed 40,000 troops on their border with Ukraine. And I don't need to 'defect' to any country to point out hypocrisy and lies.
Today Obama issued stern a warning to Putin regarding Russia's interference in Ukraine .
I'M sure that Putin is quaking in his boots.
When will Obama and the Americans learn that you can sanction Iran , Sudan, Iraq and North K orea but you deal with Russia . Contrary to the narrative Russia is a military Superpower in addition to being an energy superpower .
Yuh have a link for this? Man does rate Obama's oratorical skills but I haven't seen him convincingly issue a warning. His speech-making is very good when the tone requires eloquence, inspiration, etc. But he cannot put the professor-tone away when it comes to dealing with assad or putin. Really would be better if he had more range. I mean, putin have more range oratorically than obama.
Because you're able to discern the virtues of Putin's Russian? Or, would that be his German or English?
I am not overlooking Putin's statement...there's is still no credible evidence that Russia has amassed 40,000 troops on their border with Ukraine. And I don't need to 'defect' to any country to point out hypocrisy and lies.
Again, no evidence of a Russian troop build up
I am not overlooking Putin's statement...there's is still no credible evidence that Russia has amassed 40,000 troops on their border with Ukraine. And I don't need to 'defect' to any country to point out hypocrisy and lies.since you such a good sleuth, how bout you find the reason that a 16 yr old and a couple teenage boys deserved a drone strike in Yemen. and comment on the justice of executions without trials (your forte). instead of this trivial bullshit you lookin up. how many shots fired in crimea? why you don't turn your focus on the 'rebels' you supporting in Syria. what mass mountains of refugees you pile up in Lebanon that have no resources for their own people. 'support' my ass. how many Syrians that you support could claim refugee status in your helping homeland? a million? how many Iraqi and afghan 'friends'? who you all really care bout?
you studyin that dude? the us go'vt paying he to come on this board & type sh!t 24/7
you studyin that dude? the us go'vt paying he to come on this board & type sh!t 24/7
he harmless. he just idle. real idle. de amount of time he spend here tell yuh how serious he wuk does be. is pathetic really.
I am not overlooking Putin's statement...there's is still no credible evidence that Russia has amassed 40,000 troops on their border with Ukraine. And I don't need to 'defect' to any country to point out hypocrisy and lies.
Your words:QuoteAgain, no evidence of a Russian troop build up
"No evidence" you said... despite Putin's own words suggesting that a build-up of some sort was underway. Yet you speciously claim that you did not overlook his words. Or are you saying that Putin's own words is not evidence? Getting harder to untangle yourself from the twisted logic, no? Where is the hypocrisy in the claim that up to 40,000 Russian troops are massing on the Ukrainian border? Or is this more creative reasoning on your part?
(CNN) -- Potentially easing a diplomatic standoff with the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday that he'd ordered a partial withdrawal of Russian troops from his country's border area with Ukraine, Merkel's office said.
Putin made the comment to Merkel in a phone call about Ukraine, her office said. The Kremlin made no mention of a withdrawal in its description of the call but said the two leaders discussed Ukraine, including "possibilities for international assistance to restore stability."
Further details about Putin's reported order weren't immediately available. But a withdrawal may ease tensions simmering since Russia annexed Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula of Crimea this month -- a move that has led to the worst East-West relations since the Cold War.
Earlier Monday, Russian media reported that one Russian infantry battalion was being moved from the border area to its base deeper into Russia.
This is your proof that there at 40-50,000 troops on the border with Ukraine according to NATO?Quote(CNN) -- Potentially easing a diplomatic standoff with the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday that he'd ordered a partial withdrawal of Russian troops from his country's border area with Ukraine, Merkel's office said.
Putin made the comment to Merkel in a phone call about Ukraine, her office said. The Kremlin made no mention of a withdrawal in its description of the call but said the two leaders discussed Ukraine, including "possibilities for international assistance to restore stability."
Further details about Putin's reported order weren't immediately available. But a withdrawal may ease tensions simmering since Russia annexed Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula of Crimea this month -- a move that has led to the worst East-West relations since the Cold War.
Earlier Monday, Russian media reported that one Russian infantry battalion was being moved from the border area to its base deeper into Russia.
Please.
And you know what I'm referring to when I talk of the lies and hypocrisy of the White House - the litany of lies, deception and double-standards that people can now see through.
This is your proof that there at 40-50,000 troops on the border with Ukraine according to NATO?Quote(CNN) -- Potentially easing a diplomatic standoff with the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday that he'd ordered a partial withdrawal of Russian troops from his country's border area with Ukraine, Merkel's office said.
Putin made the comment to Merkel in a phone call about Ukraine, her office said. The Kremlin made no mention of a withdrawal in its description of the call but said the two leaders discussed Ukraine, including "possibilities for international assistance to restore stability."
Further details about Putin's reported order weren't immediately available. But a withdrawal may ease tensions simmering since Russia annexed Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula of Crimea this month -- a move that has led to the worst East-West relations since the Cold War.
Earlier Monday, Russian media reported that one Russian infantry battalion was being moved from the border area to its base deeper into Russia.
Please.
And you know what I'm referring to when I talk of the lies and hypocrisy of the White House - the litany of lies, deception and double-standards that people can now see through.
I never made any assertion as to how many troops there were or weren't. There are enough credible sources about a Russian troop build up on the Ukrainian border, seems the only issue is how many. You are the one who put your neck on the line and said that there is "no evidence" of ANY troop build up, in stark contradiction of Putin's own assertion. Now yuh not even honest enough to admit that yuh was wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV4IjHz2yIoToday Obama issued stern a warning to Putin regarding Russia's interference in Ukraine .
I'M sure that Putin is quaking in his boots.
When will Obama and the Americans learn that you can sanction Iran , Sudan, Iraq and North K orea but you deal with Russia . Contrary to the narrative Russia is a military Superpower in addition to being an energy superpower .
Yuh have a link for this? Man does rate Obama's oratorical skills but I haven't seen him convincingly issue a warning. His speech-making is very good when the tone requires eloquence, inspiration, etc. But he cannot put the professor-tone away when it comes to dealing with assad or putin. Really would be better if he had more range. I mean, putin have more range oratorically than obama.
Because you're able to discern the virtues of Putin's Russian? Or, would that be his German or English?
Vladimir Putin , Is there any thing that this mutha f**ka cant do?
Two presidential candidates, one staunchly pro-Russian and the other a member of former president Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions, have been attacked in Kiev, the English-language Moscow Times reports:
A pro-Russian candidate for the Ukrainian presidency was beaten on Tuesday morning by a crowd in Kiev and remains in critical condition, the politician's press service said.
Oleh Tsaryov, a former Party of the Region's deputy, was attacked by armed men outside the ICTV television station, where the lawmaker had appeared on a live broadcast, Interfax reported, citing the candidate's assistant.
Tsaryov, who was rescued from the mob by government security forces, said that the incident won't force him to withdraw from Ukraine's presidential election, scheduled for May 25.
Mikhail Dobkin, a Party of the Regions member and a presidential candidate, was also reportedly doused in flour and green liquid before he could get to the same television studio, where he was to take part in televised discussions with Tsaryov and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
Ukrainian troops fired shots as they deployed to an airfield as part of an "anti-terrorist operation" in eastern Ukraine, wounding at least two.
The general commanding the operation, Vasily Krutov, told angry locals outside the airfield gates that his troops needed to open fire because armed men had opposed them. But locals said the troops had fired on men armed only with clubs. The Guardian saw a man in the crowd with a wound on his side that he said was from a bullet graze.
Krutov was nearly dragged off by furious citizens after he came out to speak to hundreds of locals who had gathered. After he said troops were there conducting an "anti-terrorist" operation, people shouted, "What terrorists?!"
Oh, and very rich of the US complaining of Russia's involvement, when the Director of the CIA was just in Kiev a couple days ago. lol...:beermug:
And another funny thing is the way the language has changed. The people in Kiev were "protesters" and "demonstrators" while those in the East are being called "terrorists" and "armed militants".
Oh, and very rich of the US complaining of Russia's involvement, when the Director of the CIA was just in Kiev a couple days ago. lol...
And another funny thing is the way the language has changed. The people in Kiev were "protesters" and "demonstrators" while those in the East are being called "terrorists" and "armed militants".
Oh, and very rich of the US complaining of Russia's involvement, when the Director of the CIA was just in Kiev a couple days ago. lol...
And another funny thing is the way the language has changed. The people in Kiev were "protesters" and "demonstrators" while those in the East are being called "terrorists" and "armed militants".
The people at the Euromaidan weren't attacking police or taking over buildings and beating up anybody... they also weren't trying to secede or subvert the government. There are infinite numbers of ways in which the comparison fails... but you need common sense, or in the least, objectivity in order to recognize that.
I think that your head is up your ass or you are willfully being dumb ,Oh, and very rich of the US complaining of Russia's involvement, when the Director of the CIA was just in Kiev a couple days ago. lol...
And another funny thing is the way the language has changed. The people in Kiev were "protesters" and "demonstrators" while those in the East are being called "terrorists" and "armed militants".
The people at the Euromaidan weren't attacking police or taking over buildings and beating up anybody... they also weren't trying to secede or subvert the government. There are infinite numbers of ways in which the comparison fails... but you need common sense, or in the least, objectivity in order to recognize that.
The people at the Euromaidan weren't attacking police and being violent?!?!?! You can't be serious...
In November last year, anti-government protesters peacefully occupied Independence Square in central Kiev after president Viktor Yanukovych’s government ditched a far-reaching accord with the European Union in favour of stronger ties with Russia. Police attacks on protesters, new anti-protest laws, and the abduction and beating of activists caused the demonstrations to intensify.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/ukraine-crisis-protesters-kiev-euromaidan-independence-square
Vladimir Putin , Is there any thing that this mutha f**ka cant do?
Based on the prevailing wisdom being trafficked in these parts ... my guess would be he cyah have sex with Michelle. :whistling:
I think that your head is up your ass or you are willfully being dumb ,Oh, and very rich of the US complaining of Russia's involvement, when the Director of the CIA was just in Kiev a couple days ago. lol...
And another funny thing is the way the language has changed. The people in Kiev were "protesters" and "demonstrators" while those in the East are being called "terrorists" and "armed militants".
The people at the Euromaidan weren't attacking police or taking over buildings and beating up anybody... they also weren't trying to secede or subvert the government. There are infinite numbers of ways in which the comparison fails... but you need common sense, or in the least, objectivity in order to recognize that.
The Neo nazis Euromadian fascists weren't attacking police or subverting the govt ? They overthrow a democratically elected govt for Gods sake through thuggery and violence, .
Common sense and objectivity is something that you surely lacks
The people at the Euromaidan weren't attacking police and being violent?!?!?! You can't be serious...QuoteIn November last year, anti-government protesters peacefully occupied Independence Square in central Kiev after president Viktor Yanukovych’s government ditched a far-reaching accord with the European Union in favour of stronger ties with Russia. Police attacks on protesters, new anti-protest laws, and the abduction and beating of activists caused the demonstrations to intensify.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/ukraine-crisis-protesters-kiev-euromaidan-independence-square
Take yuh time.
So when is a coup acceptable, out of interest? Are there no situations in which it's acceptable to overthrow a democratically elected politician? What if there are doubts over the fairness of the elections? What if the politician has pilfered literally billions of dollars for themselves? What if he is seen as acting for the interests of a foreign power?
Channel 4 News's Lindsey Hilsum was in Kramatorsk as Ukrainian troops went in.
The Ukrainian government may want to force the separatist armed men out of buildings they have occupied in towns across eastern Ukraine, but their soldiers are very reluctant. “I don’t want to shoot anyone,” one said to me. “Actually I was against this mission.”
It looks like the Ukranian attempt to reassert control in Slavyansk has gone awry, with some troops going over to the pro-Russian side. This from Reuters.
At least three armoured personal carriers that were driven in to the eastern Ukrainian city of Slavyansk had been under the control of Ukrainian armed forces earlier on Wednesday, Reuters photographers said.
A soldier manning one of the troop carriers now under the control of pro-Russian separatists identified himself to Reuters as being a member of Ukraine's 25th paratrooper division from Dnipropetrovsk.
He said: "All the soldiers and the officers are here. We are all boys who won't shoot our own people."
Updated at 11.43am BST
The Telegraph's Roland Oliphant has a video dispatch from the scene of the Pchyolkino standoff. Unarmed locals stopped the Ukrainian military convoy. The troops, unwilling either to fire their weapons or give them up, sit stolidly. (Some have dismantled their rifles, however.) Ukrainian jets and helicopters fly overhead in a fruitless attempt to intimidate the locals.
Roland Oliphant @RolandOliphant
Follow
I think I just witnessed my first military debacle today.
10:39 AM - 16 Apr 2014
12 Retweets 10 favorites
The Russian foreign ministry has posted a sharp statement on its web site warning Washington of the "catastrophic consequences" for its "reckless support" of Kiev. Translated by Alan Yuhas (@AlahYuhas):http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/ukraine-on-the-brink-live-blog-16-april
It's important to note that the US State Department is frantically gathering any speculation spread by the acting powers in Kiev in order to justify charges against Russia about inciting and even organizing disorder in south-east Ukraine. [...]
But the important thing is not the distortion of facts, but the stubborn unwillingness or inability to see reality as it actually is, and in striving to impose on the rest of the world a distorted view of what's happening in south-east Ukraine. From briefing to briefing to justify the riots of the "heroes of Maidan" but to describe the protests in Donetsk, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Slavyansk and other cities as actions guided from outside terrorists – It's not simply a double standard, but blatant hypocrisy.
Now, as the ruling regime in Kiev has made an attempt to use force, the official [rhetoric of] the White House and State Department that this is a "maintenance of law and order", indicates nothing less than an endorsement for [Kiev's] war against their own people. Washington must recognize the catastrophic consequences of such reckless support for its Kiev charges."
The hesitancy – or unwillingness – of Ukrainian troops to use their weapons has produced multiple awkward confrontations with civilian crowds Wednesday, including one in Pchyolkino south of Kratamorsk, which seems still to be unresolved after an hours-long standoff. BuzzFeed's Max Seddon hears a Ukrainian commander call his superiors for guidance:
max seddon ✔ @maxseddon Follow
25th Airborne commander in Pcholkino standing on an APC and calling command. "They've captured us and are using dirty tricks." Humiliating
max seddon ✔ @maxseddon Follow
Hard to see even the biggest Russia hawks in the West wanting to arm Ukraine after Pcholkino. Military command has disgraced itself utterly
"We ought to at least, for God's sake, give them some light weapons with which to defend themselves," Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican, said over the weekend.
The administration has said it is considering aid requests from Ukraine, but is not actively considering sending weapons, ammunition or other lethal assistance. [...]
U.S. assistance to Ukraine's military has so far been limited to about 300,000 ready to eat meals, which were shipped in late March. The U.S. has also authorized a $1 billion loan guarantee for Ukraine's fledgling government.
One officer said he had not "come to fight" and would never obey orders to shoot his "own people".
"A column was blocked by a crowd of local people in Kramatorsk with members of a Russian diversionary-terrorist group among them," the defence ministry said its statement.
The military vehicles were then taken to Sloviansk where they are being held by "people in uniforms who have no relation to Ukraine's armed forces," the ministry said.
The Ukrainian troops appear to have been disarmed before being fed by pro-Russian militants at a cafe in Sloviansk and then put on a bus back to their home city of Dnipropetrovsk.
In another incident, several hundred residents of Pchyolkino, south of Sloviansk, surrounded another column of 14 Ukrainian military vehicles.
After the crowd was reinforced by pro-Russian gunmen, negotiations ensued and the troops were allowed to drive their vehicles away, but only after agreeing to surrender the magazines from their assault rifles.
Right. Except the demonstrations became increasingly radicalised and violent with the incorporation of nationalist and far right groups. They were also taking over administrative buildings and police stations. In contrast, the protests in the East have yet to become violent but the Kiev regime saw it fit to deploy the armed forces. However, these armed forces have thus far shown a measure of reluctance to engage the local population, saying they would not fire on their own people and in some instances even defecting.
Confusion continues to reign in eastern Ukraine, where pro-Russia gunmen remain in control of many government offices even as the Ukrainian military sends in troops, tanks and armed aircraft in an attempt to dislodge them.
Right. Except the demonstrations became increasingly radicalised and violent with the incorporation of nationalist and far right groups. They were also taking over administrative buildings and police stations. In contrast, the protests in the East have yet to become violent but the Kiev regime saw it fit to deploy the armed forces. However, these armed forces have thus far shown a measure of reluctance to engage the local population, saying they would not fire on their own people and in some instances even defecting.
Toppa you kicksy yes... the demonstrations became more violent after the police tried to clear Independence Square and started beating, kidnapping and shooting people. If I really want to I could pull numerous eye-witness accounts attesting to the same. All you have to offer in support of what you saying is Russian propaganda soundbites. If you have sources from people on the ground at the time of the protests that would be a different story.
With regards to the protests in Kiev...QuoteConfusion continues to reign in eastern Ukraine, where pro-Russia gunmen remain in control of many government offices even as the Ukrainian military sends in troops, tanks and armed aircraft in an attempt to dislodge them.
Armed pro-Russian protesters have taken over control of government buildings but you claim there hasn't been any violence? What the guns for? What about the image of pro-Ukrainian counter-protesters being beaten... or the clashes with Ukrainian police? You don't think the armed occupation of the buildings necessitates involving the armed forces, especially if the police have been overwhelmed?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/15/303183031/ukrainian-military-moves-against-pro-russia-protesters
You're the kicksy one because I can easily find the articles that show that the "heroes" of Kiev became horribly violent. You accuse me of regurgitating Russian propaganda - except the news sites I read such as the BBC and the Guardian are most certainly not mouth-pieces of Russian propaganda and clearly depict the violence of the "protesters" in Kiev. And I guess the authorities in New York, when they were beating protesters left and right during the Occupy Wall Street protests were what? What would you say about them?
And because there are armed persons in the Eastern Ukraine protests, does not mean they have or are engaged in violence - that's not a difficult distinction to make.
The protests in the Eastern Ukraine are significantly milder than those in Kiev yet the rhetoric against them is starkly different. HYPOCRITES. They bit off more than they can chew when they decided to agitate Ukraine and effect regime change. Now they're trying to make it seem as though the leaders in Kiev are legitimate. What a farce. The population of Eastern Ukraine have just as much a right to protest against those who seized power. You talk of violence? Why were those two 'pro-Russian' candidates for presidency beaten and one is actually in critical condition in the hospital? Please eh.
What about when the head of the media corporation who was beaten by members of parliament - those far right extremists who the EU in previous years have issued several cautionary declarations against - after they beat him on camera and forced him to resign because his station broadcast Russia's absorption of Crimea. And the most ironic part is that he was beaten up by the minister in charge of Media FREEDOM! Where was the condemnation by the White House and the EU? That's the sort of 'government' the West are propping up. Yet they want to talk about "democracy" and "freedom".
Given the sources, I really shouldn't be surprised that is Ribbit and Ramgoat who are leading the chorus on this "coup" talk. I surprise either of them could find the time to stop swinging from each other's nuts long enough to log on and post. The fact of the matter is that Yanukovych's government had a very tenuous hold on power and he relied on the support of the opposition to maintain power. Following the protests he lost the support of 75% of Parliament, who voted for his removal from office, then his own party disavowed him. He subsequently fled the country. No one "overthrow" him, Parliament withdrew its support of him and he was unable to stay in power. It's as simple as that. Anyone calling that a "coup" has nary a clue what they're talking about... but again, considering the sources, that's actually being redundant.Are you dense ? Regardless of whether parliament withdrew their support , the presidency is separate from parliament and he could have still remained president .
Given the sources, I really shouldn't be surprised that is Ribbit and Ramgoat who are leading the chorus on this "coup" talk. I surprise either of them could find the time to stop swinging from each other's nuts long enough to log on and post. The fact of the matter is that Yanukovych's government had a very tenuous hold on power and he relied on the support of the opposition to maintain power. Following the protests he lost the support of 75% of Parliament, who voted for his removal from office, then his own party disavowed him. He subsequently fled the country. No one "overthrow" him, Parliament withdrew its support of him and he was unable to stay in power. It's as simple as that. Anyone calling that a "coup" has nary a clue what they're talking about... but again, considering the sources, that's actually being redundant.Are you dense ? Regardless of whether parliament withdrew their support , the presidency is separate from parliament and he could have still remained president .
Parliament only withdrew their support after he fled .
The president wasn't stupid, he knew the fate that awaited him when the EU and the US are involved .
Remember Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi?.
Subject , object , verb , tence , . mere deflection .. you pretend dat you know everything but in reality you know dick all .Given the sources, I really shouldn't be surprised that is Ribbit and Ramgoat who are leading the chorus on this "coup" talk. I surprise either of them could find the time to stop swinging from each other's nuts long enough to log on and post. The fact of the matter is that Yanukovych's government had a very tenuous hold on power and he relied on the support of the opposition to maintain power. Following the protests he lost the support of 75% of Parliament, who voted for his removal from office, then his own party disavowed him. He subsequently fled the country. No one "overthrow" him, Parliament withdrew its support of him and he was unable to stay in power. It's as simple as that. Anyone calling that a "coup" has nary a clue what they're talking about... but again, considering the sources, that's actually being redundant.Are you dense ? Regardless of whether parliament withdrew their support , the presidency is separate from parliament and he could have still remained president .
Parliament only withdrew their support after he fled .
The president wasn't stupid, he knew the fate that awaited him when the EU and the US are involved .
Remember Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi?.
Listen fella, doh waste yuh time addressing me... you have to at least have some basic understanding of subject-verb agreement if you want to engage in any back and forth with me. That without even addressing the utter shit that you post on the regular.
Subject , object , verb , tence , . mere deflection .. you pretend dat you know everything but in reality you know dick all .
It was you who engaged me from my first posting here to show how smart you is and how stupid I is .
I dont need to engage wid you because you dont impress me , now piss off .
You're the kicksy one because I can easily find the articles that show that the "heroes" of Kiev became horribly violent. You accuse me of regurgitating Russian propaganda - except the news sites I read such as the BBC and the Guardian are most certainly not mouth-pieces of Russian propaganda and clearly depict the violence of the "protesters" in Kiev. And I guess the authorities in New York, when they were beating protesters left and right during the Occupy Wall Street protests were what? What would you say about them?
Post yuh articles about the "heroes" of Kiev becoming violent... just make sure yuh post the entire chronology that shows that the violence started when police started cracking down, beating and kidnapping... AND shooting protesters. That's the third time I mentioning it. Nobody is denying the protests turned violent... yuh need to read better. The issue is that only after the police under the former regime attacked peaceful protesters, that the protesters started fighting back. And all along is the same Guardian and BBC articles I posting. I not even posting American sources... that last NPR article notwithstanding. You CANNOT post one credible source from either the Guardian or BBC that says it was Americans agitating behind the protests, or that the protests was the work of neo-Nazis.QuoteAnd because there are armed persons in the Eastern Ukraine protests, does not mean they have or are engaged in violence - that's not a difficult distinction to make.
The protests in the Eastern Ukraine are significantly milder than those in Kiev yet the rhetoric against them is starkly different. HYPOCRITES. They bit off more than they can chew when they decided to agitate Ukraine and effect regime change. Now they're trying to make it seem as though the leaders in Kiev are legitimate. What a farce. The population of Eastern Ukraine have just as much a right to protest against those who seized power. You talk of violence? Why were those two 'pro-Russian' candidates for presidency beaten and one is actually in critical condition in the hospital? Please eh.
What about when the head of the media corporation who was beaten by members of parliament - those far right extremists who the EU in previous years have issued several cautionary declarations against - after they beat him on camera and forced him to resign because his station broadcast Russia's absorption of Crimea. And the most ironic part is that he was beaten up by the minister in charge of Media FREEDOM! Where was the condemnation by the White House and the EU? That's the sort of 'government' the West are propping up. Yet they want to talk about "democracy" and "freedom".
You are being ridiculous... it really don't make sense for me to go on arguing with you. Everybody acknowledges that there are Neo-Nazis mixed in among the protestors. You choose to harp on one or two isolated incidents where the pro-Ukraine supporters have been violent, while glibly overlooking the fact that for the most part, most of the violence has been perpetrated by those sympathetic to Russia. You have your biased view and that is that.
Toppa , you wastin your time , even if facts bit dat Bakes fella on the ass , he wouldn't feel it because he is ideologically driven and facts matter noneYou're the kicksy one because I can easily find the articles that show that the "heroes" of Kiev became horribly violent. You accuse me of regurgitating Russian propaganda - except the news sites I read such as the BBC and the Guardian are most certainly not mouth-pieces of Russian propaganda and clearly depict the violence of the "protesters" in Kiev. And I guess the authorities in New York, when they were beating protesters left and right during the Occupy Wall Street protests were what? What would you say about them?
Post yuh articles about the "heroes" of Kiev becoming violent... just make sure yuh post the entire chronology that shows that the violence started when police started cracking down, beating and kidnapping... AND shooting protesters. That's the third time I mentioning it. Nobody is denying the protests turned violent... yuh need to read better. The issue is that only after the police under the former regime attacked peaceful protesters, that the protesters started fighting back. And all along is the same Guardian and BBC articles I posting. I not even posting American sources... that last NPR article notwithstanding. You CANNOT post one credible source from either the Guardian or BBC that says it was Americans agitating behind the protests, or that the protests was the work of neo-Nazis.QuoteAnd because there are armed persons in the Eastern Ukraine protests, does not mean they have or are engaged in violence - that's not a difficult distinction to make.
The protests in the Eastern Ukraine are significantly milder than those in Kiev yet the rhetoric against them is starkly different. HYPOCRITES. They bit off more than they can chew when they decided to agitate Ukraine and effect regime change. Now they're trying to make it seem as though the leaders in Kiev are legitimate. What a farce. The population of Eastern Ukraine have just as much a right to protest against those who seized power. You talk of violence? Why were those two 'pro-Russian' candidates for presidency beaten and one is actually in critical condition in the hospital? Please eh.
What about when the head of the media corporation who was beaten by members of parliament - those far right extremists who the EU in previous years have issued several cautionary declarations against - after they beat him on camera and forced him to resign because his station broadcast Russia's absorption of Crimea. And the most ironic part is that he was beaten up by the minister in charge of Media FREEDOM! Where was the condemnation by the White House and the EU? That's the sort of 'government' the West are propping up. Yet they want to talk about "democracy" and "freedom".
You are being ridiculous... it really don't make sense for me to go on arguing with you. Everybody acknowledges that there are Neo-Nazis mixed in among the protestors. You choose to harp on one or two isolated incidents where the pro-Ukraine supporters have been violent, while glibly overlooking the fact that for the most part, most of the violence has been perpetrated by those sympathetic to Russia. You have your biased view and that is that.
Neo-Nazis not just 'mixed in' with the protesters, but now in several high-ranking government posts. And lol@"one or two isolated incidents" of violence...now who is glibly overlooking facts?
Your facts wrong again as usual . . He was driven out of power by the orange revolution paid for by the US state department and in spite of this Yakunovych was re elected again only to be driven out from power by the Euromaidan neo zazis coup and once more paid for by the US state dept.Subject , object , verb , tence , . mere deflection .. you pretend dat you know everything but in reality you know dick all .
It was you who engaged me from my first posting here to show how smart you is and how stupid I is .
I dont need to engage wid you because you dont impress me , now piss off .
You are an irrepressible c**t of the highest magnitude, you know very little about what you're putting your mouth in, but kill you dead is everybody else who schupid. Tun tun... under the 2004 amendment to the constitution more power vested in the Parliament than in the President. Yanukovych pack the Supreme Court and get them to overturn the Amendments... an occurrence which itself was clearly illegal. All of this is what led to the idiot losing the support of the people and of Parliament. The Ukrainian Presidency is impotent without the support of Parliament... Yanukovych knew this... even if your dumb ass can't appreciate that fact. Calling it a coup d'etat doesn't make it so. This is the last I will be responding to you and yuh bullshit conspiratorial rantings.
For those partly or fully in the Russian camps - does the revelation that Putin used special forces to seize assets in Crimea, and not local pro-Russian protesters, change the context of his actions? It's been ignored by you so far, but it's pertinent since at the start of the topic part of your justification for his actions was a perceived support for Russia on the ground. Not that that is at least partially dispelled, do you still see his actions as justified?
Falkland Islands are nothing like this - The population has been ethnically British for two centuries, not half of one. Moreover, when offered a referendum, the residents overwhelmingly voted to stay part of Britain.For those partly or fully in the Russian camps - does the revelation that Putin used special forces to seize assets in Crimea, and not local pro-Russian protesters, change the context of his actions? It's been ignored by you so far, but it's pertinent since at the start of the topic part of your justification for his actions was a perceived support for Russia on the ground. Not that that is at least partially dispelled, do you still see his actions as justified?
So who didn't know that those "little green men" were not the troops from the Russian bases? I guess you missed my tongue in cheek comment about the "local self-defence forces :D" ? The local support for Russian intervention was overwhelming.
It changes nada. The UK and UK would have done the same. BTW, the UK still fighting Argentina over the Falkland Islands? ::)
Crimea was part of russia since 1783. I believe that's longer than the Falklands have been part of Britain. And when offered a referendum, they also overwhelmingly voted to rejoin Russia.
Also, that bloke declared himself the prime minister after the fall of Kiev's elected government and then appealed for Russia's help.
Crimea was part of russia since 1783. I believe that's longer than the Falklands have been part of Britain. And when offered a referendum, they also overwhelmingly voted to rejoin Russia.
Also, that bloke declared himself the prime minister after the fall of Kiev's elected government and then appealed for Russia's help.
Yeah he "declared himself" Prime Minister... same way the "pro-Russia protesters" were guarding the Ukrainian military bases. I ketching real kicks watching yuh contort yuhself.
But he did declare himself prime minister. As legitimately/illegitimately as those in Kiev. I don't see how I'm "contorting" myself. I guess my mild amusement at the irony of this entire "crisis" is too subtle.
Crimea was part of russia since 1783. I believe that's longer than the Falklands have been part of Britain. And when offered a referendum, they also overwhelmingly voted to rejoin Russia.You got it half right . The whole object in gettin rid of Yakovanich by the Americans was to deny tht Russians a warm water port for their Black sea fleet ..
Also, that bloke declared himself the prime minister after the fall of Kiev's elected government and then appealed for Russia's help.
But he did declare himself prime minister. As legitimately/illegitimately as those in Kiev. I don't see how I'm "contorting" myself. I guess my mild amusement at the irony of this entire "crisis" is too subtle.
I'm not denying that he didn't declare himself PM... I'm saying I'm sure the hands of the Kremlin was behind that move as well, they wouldn't allow just "anybody" to declare themselves PM. You're contorting yourself by trying hard to compare this to the Falklands. The two situations aren't even remotely similar. The Falklands were not part of Argentina 30 years ago, they were British. Crimea might have had historical ties to Russia, but it was part of the Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine under fals pretenses to "protect" pro-Russian civilians from a non-existent threat. The Falklands were British for almost 150 years before Argentina (much like Russia) invaded British territory to reclaim some historical claim. Britain wasn't the invaders... Argentina were, so you can't say "Britain still fighting Argentina over the Falklands" and try to compare it to Crimea.
Steups please eh. A throw-away comment about the Falklands to provoke Tiresais is me "trying hard to compare Crimea to the Falklands"? Come again.
And just FYI, it wasn't just 'historical ties' - they were part of the Russian Federation for over 200 years.
Steups please eh. A throw-away comment about the Falklands to provoke Tiresais is me "trying hard to compare Crimea to the Falklands"? Come again.
And just FYI, it wasn't just 'historical ties' - they were part of the Russian Federation for over 200 years.
I find your disingenuity not only stunning, but also out of character. You made one "throw away" comment about the Falklands, Tireasis responded the two were nothing alike and you came back with some talk of Crimea being part of the Russian Federation since 1783. That is not throw away, that is you trying to substantiate your flawed argument... aka trying to be wrong and strong. Crimea has historic ties to Russia... the 60-year separation makes it "historical" as opposed to current/recent.
Why you doh learn to read like yuh always telling everybody else? Nobody said anything about any "ethnic" makeup. What isaid wss that it was part of Russia.
Why you doh learn to read like yuh always telling everybody else? Nobody said anything about any "ethnic" makeup. What isaid wss that it was part of Russia.
Well Trinidad was part of Great Britain for 150 years, does that mean we get to invade and conquer you? Your standards seem arbitrary to me - when do they lose the right? How long makes it valid
Why you doh learn to read like yuh always telling everybody else? Nobody said anything about any "ethnic" makeup. What isaid wss that it was part of Russia.
Well Trinidad was part of Great Britain for 150 years, does that mean we get to invade and conquer you? Your standards seem arbitrary to me - when do they lose the right? How long makes it valid
You retarded yes.
probably if the great majority of trinidadians wanted you to.Why you doh learn to read like yuh always telling everybody else? Nobody said anything about any "ethnic" makeup. What isaid wss that it was part of Russia.
Well Trinidad was part of Great Britain for 150 years, does that mean we get to invade and conquer you? Your standards seem arbitrary to me - when do they lose the right? How long makes it valid
You retarded yes.
No need to get testy - Answer the question. You seem have some arbitrary standard that, when applied anywhere else, falls down immediately. Presumably, simply owning some territory for a long time is not enough for a valid claim, otherwise the world would be a much more anarchic place.
Why you doh learn to read like yuh always telling everybody else? Nobody said anything about any "ethnic" makeup. What isaid wss that it was part of Russia.
Well Trinidad was part of Great Britain for 150 years, does that mean we get to invade and conquer you? Your standards seem arbitrary to me - when do they lose the right? How long makes it valid
You retarded yes.
No need to get testy - Answer the question. You seem have some arbitrary standard that, when applied anywhere else, falls down immediately. Presumably, simply owning some territory for a long time is not enough for a valid claim, otherwise the world would be a much more anarchic place.
Did you ever questioned why Stalin expelled them ?
Ramgoat - Crimea has not always been Russian, as noted above. The majority ethnicity was Crimean Tatar for a thousand years before Stalin forcibly removed them. It's as if 50 years ago all Black Trinidadians were removed from the island and Venezuelans were installed there. Then, Venezuela started promoting unrest on the island and annexed it to "protect ethnic Venezuelans". The comparisons with Hitler's move in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia are entirely justified, especially given his admission of using special forces.
Why you doh learn to read like yuh always telling everybody else? Nobody said anything about any "ethnic" makeup. What isaid wss that it was part of Russia.
Well Trinidad was part of Great Britain for 150 years, does that mean we get to invade and conquer you? Your standards seem arbitrary to me - when do they lose the right? How long makes it valid
You retarded yes.
No need to get testy - Answer the question. You seem have some arbitrary standard that, when applied anywhere else, falls down immediately. Presumably, simply owning some territory for a long time is not enough for a valid claim, otherwise the world would be a much more anarchic place.
Right...when Trinidad is populated by a majority British nationals, and we've just had a coup and a government that now includes racial extremists, followed by a referendum declaring us Independent of (whichever country is in your imagination) and then a part of the British Empire, and invite the British to take over...then you can draw that comparison. Until those things occur, do shut up.
Why you doh learn to read like yuh always telling everybody else? Nobody said anything about any "ethnic" makeup. What isaid wss that it was part of Russia.
Did you ever questioned why Stalin expelled them ?
Ramgoat - Crimea has not always been Russian, as noted above. The majority ethnicity was Crimean Tatar for a thousand years before Stalin forcibly removed them. It's as if 50 years ago all Black Trinidadians were removed from the island and Venezuelans were installed there. Then, Venezuela started promoting unrest on the island and annexed it to "protect ethnic Venezuelans". The comparisons with Hitler's move in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia are entirely justified, especially given his admission of using special forces.
They were aligned with Hitler forces against Russians and Stalin was justified in meting out this kind of punishment . That is what Victors do
As for your Trinidad Venezuela analogy , well it don't make no sense
Why you doh learn to read like yuh always telling everybody else? Nobody said anything about any "ethnic" makeup. What isaid wss that it was part of Russia.
Well Trinidad was part of Great Britain for 150 years, does that mean we get to invade and conquer you? Your standards seem arbitrary to me - when do they lose the right? How long makes it valid
You retarded yes.
No need to get testy - Answer the question. You seem have some arbitrary standard that, when applied anywhere else, falls down immediately. Presumably, simply owning some territory for a long time is not enough for a valid claim, otherwise the world would be a much more anarchic place.
Right...when Trinidad is populated by a majority British nationals, and we've just had a coup and a government that now includes racial extremists, followed by a referendum declaring us Independent of (whichever country is in your imagination) and then a part of the British Empire, and invite the British to take over...then you can draw that comparison. Until those things occur, do shut up.
So now ethnicity matters?Why you doh learn to read like yuh always telling everybody else? Nobody said anything about any "ethnic" makeup. What isaid wss that it was part of Russia.
Would you like to clarify your position? 'cause it's all over the place.
Fascism is like a fashion now with more and more people getting involved.
Sergey Kirichuk
Toppa, I see all the right-wing reporting, are you ignoring the murder of the Ukranian politican and seizing of foreign observers? This is the problem with major news stories like this - everyone picks a side and acts as their own little propaganda machine.well the 'observers' are released. I hear your point about picking sides, but it is so hard when the 'interests' are so clear that the very media we hope will paint both sides clearly for us, buries the truth of the situation deep on page 5 and 6 of a google search, or in a small (almost hidden) passing reference.
Toppa, I see all the right-wing reporting, are you ignoring the murder of the Ukranian politican and seizing of foreign observers? This is the problem with major news stories like this - everyone picks a side and acts as their own little propaganda machine.
Ukraine alert as politician killed
BBC News
Ukraine's acting president has ordered the relaunch of military operations against pro-Russian militants in the east after two men, one a local politician, were "tortured to death".
Olexander Turchynov said the body of politician Volodymyr Rybak was found near rebel-held Sloviansk.
"The terrorists who effectively took the whole Donetsk region hostage have now gone too far," he said.
The move came as US Vice-President Joe Biden was visiting Ukraine.
As he met Ukrainian leaders in Kiev, Mr Biden called on Russia to "stop talking and start acting" to defuse the Ukraine crisis.
The US and the West accuse Russia of using undercover military to back separatists in eastern Ukraine, where public buildings are occupied in at least nine cities and towns. Russia denies involvement.
Mr Biden warned Russia that further "provocative behaviour" would lead to "greater isolation" and urged Moscow to end its alleged support for pro-Russian militants.
In remarks to Ukrainian MPs, Mr Biden said the US stood with Ukraine's new leaders against "humiliating threats" - an apparent reference to Russia.
Read More here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27118875)
Toppa you are ignoring the reports from teh ground that contradict your opinions, focusing heavily instead on those from the Russian side. Both Russia and the US have blood on their hand, given their involvement in urging one side or the other, but only Russia put troops on the ground, annexed a part of Ukraine, and continues to use special forces to foment violence and hatred on the ground. As I pointed out earlier, the admission by Putin of putting paratroopers on the ground disguised as Pro-Russian troops should have really made you at least pause and think, but you seem to be heavily invested in one side. You're doing yourself an injustice in this respect - the parallels with Hitler's Sudetenland really need to be ringing in your ears.
Believe you me we will all live to see and regret what we have allowed to happen; the conversion of modern Russia into a heavily-armed, aggressive, self-pitying, chauvinistic theocracy
The Guardian reported it slightly differently. He is quoted as calling for the referendum to be "postponed" and those in Donestk said they will consider what Putin has said. In Sloviansk some have expressed a feeling of betrayal.
“We were told constantly about concerns over our troops near the Ukrainian border. We have pulled them back. Today they are not at the Ukrainian border but in places of regular exercises, at training grounds,” he said after meeting with Swiss president and current OSCE chief Didier Burkhalter.
Russian President Vladimir Putin took a step back from confrontation with the West over Ukraine, calling Wednesday for pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country to postpone an independence referendum that had been scheduled for Sunday. He also said he had withdrawn troops from the Ukrainian border.
Putin also said he had withdrawn some of the estimated 40,000 Russian troops from the Ukraine border. Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said "we have seen no change in the Russian force posture along the Ukrainian border."
Putin signs law forcing bloggers to register with Russian media office
The Verge
President Vladimir Putin has signed a law tightening the Russian government's already strong hold on the internet. Earlier this week, Putin officially passed what's become known as the "bloggers law," which requires popular internet writers to follow rules normally reserved for larger media outlets. Under it, any blogger with more than 3,000 readers is required to register with the Roskomnadzor, Russia's media oversight agency. According to Reporters Without Borders, the law covers not only traditional blogs but microblogs and social networks. In addition to following existing laws, writers will be responsible for fact-checking any information they post and removing any inaccurate comments, and they're forbidden from harming the reputation of a person or group or using their platform to "hide or falsify information of general interest."
Aleksey Mitrofanov, head of the State Duma legislative body's information policies committee, has denied that this law regulates bloggers as a kind of mass media. "Special legal regulation for bloggers is to be introduced," he told the ITAR-TASS News Agency when the bill passed in April. "It is the other way around, bloggers who have been registered as an online publication are not subject to the operation of that law." But it apparently strips away one of the most basic elements of blogging: anonymous or pseudonymous publishing. Popular writers will be required to publish their surname, initials, and email address, apparently in addition to registering with the Roskomnadzor. Reporters Without Borders has criticized the law's wording as vague, and Global Voices notes that if a writer falls below 3,000 readers, they apparently bear the burden of proactively trying to get their name removed from the register. According to ITAR-TASS, individual violators will be fined between 10,000 and 30,000 rubles (roughly $280 to $850 at the current exchange rate), while "legal entities" will face fines of 300,000 rubles or $8,500.
Russia passed a sweeping internet-filtering bill in 2012, and the Kremlin has increasingly used its power to pressure critical media outlets. In December of last year, Putin dissolved the venerable RIA Novosti news service, putting its remains under the control of a supporter. A month later, Pavel Durov, founder of "Russian Facebook" VKontakte, sold his stake to an ally of Putin. Popular opposition blogger Alexei Navalny saw his blog blocked by ISPs in March; the news site of chess champion Garry Kasparov, among others, was also caught up in the crackdown. Along with the "blogger law," Putin also signed a bill barring profanity in films, theater, and other media, though its full scope is unclear.
The rules' implications for international bloggers seem nebulous, and while the Roskomnadzor will probably use external traffic measurements, some sites are attempting to make it harder to find a blog's readership. In April, ahead of the bill's passage, search engine Yandex shut down its blog search ranking tool. Later that month, LiveJournal head Dmitry Pilipenko announced that all LiveJournal subscription counts would stop at 2,500, with only bloggers and moderators able to see the real number. Page view-based rankings will also stop. "The above changes are based on plans to take measures to optimize the service," Pilipenko insisted. "All coincidences are accidental."
But he's definitely protecting freedom in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine...
The Guardian reported it slightly differently. He is quoted as calling for the referendum to be "postponed" and those in Donestk said they will consider what Putin has said. In Sloviansk some have expressed a feeling of betrayal.
Toppa now you just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. Did you check other sources?Quote“We were told constantly about concerns over our troops near the Ukrainian border. We have pulled them back. Today they are not at the Ukrainian border but in places of regular exercises, at training grounds,” he said after meeting with Swiss president and current OSCE chief Didier Burkhalter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10814096/Ukraine-crisis-Vladimir-Putin-withdraws-troops-from-border.htmlQuoteRussian President Vladimir Putin took a step back from confrontation with the West over Ukraine, calling Wednesday for pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country to postpone an independence referendum that had been scheduled for Sunday. He also said he had withdrawn troops from the Ukrainian border.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ukraine/article18505621/QuotePutin also said he had withdrawn some of the estimated 40,000 Russian troops from the Ukraine border. Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said "we have seen no change in the Russian force posture along the Ukrainian border."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/07/putin-ukraine-referendum/8802277/
I'll stop at three links. You refuse to concede that Russia has massed troops on the border, posted comments from Putin 6 weeks ago and you dismissed them. Same way I remember you dismissing talk of Russian troops being in Crimea.
What Bakes said. You can lead a horse to water....
At the end of the day, you're self-selecting your sources and not critically engaging with them.
An unbiased (IMO) and tempered analysis of the Ukraine crisis
The Folly of Playing High-Stakes Poker with Vladimir Putin: More to Lose than Gain over Ukraine
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-folly-of-playing-high-stakes-poker-with-vladimir-putin-more-to-lose-than-gain-over-ukraine/5381246
Terry Glavin has criticized [the founder of the Centre for Research on Globalisation for] mouthing Baathist propaganda on behalf of the regime in Damascus' and 'his outrageous services to police states.' in reference to Chossudovsky's quotation on the Syria protests in August 2011. Chossudovky said "What we have are Islamists, gunmen, Salafi as well as Muslim Brotherhood gunmen, snipers shooting at civilians as well as police. . .these are death squads which are supported directly by Turkey and Israel. It is an intelligence operation. They come in, they cross the border, they go into communities. . they go into the Christian communities, they intimidate people, they shoot on them, they kill them. . ."
In 2001, Chossudovsky founded the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), located in Montreal, Canada, becoming its editor and director. It is "committed to curbing the tide of globalisation and disarming the new world order".[6] CRG maintains websites in several languages, including the English-language GlobalResearch.ca, which are critical of United States foreign policy and NATO as well as the official explanation of the September 11 attacks in 2001 and the war on terror. They are also concerned with media disinformation,[how?] poverty and social inequality, the global economic crisis, and politics and religion.[citation needed] He has called the Free Syrian Army a de facto paramilitary creation of NATO.[7] The deaths of protesters in Maidan Square in Kiev in spring 2014, according to Chossudovsky, were 'triggered by Neo-Nazi elements' used, 'to break the legitimacy of a duly elected government.'[8] He is a favoured commentator at Russia Today.[9] His opinion is regularly asked for by Press TV.
But a belligerent response aimed at “punishing Putin,” even if confined to economic measures, will probably just escalate the crisis.
If the United States and NATO violate international law as they have in the Balkans, Iraq, and other locales, other states will feel entitled to do so as well.
The prospect of a full blown new cold war, and perhaps even an armed clash, with Russia is all too real, if the United States and the European Union powers do not adopt more sober, realistic policies soon
Although Moscow’s actions in Afghanistan were largely defensive (albeit brutal), that is not how U.S. officials portrayed the situation to the American people and the world.
After the overthrow of pro-Russian Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovich in late February, Vladimir Putin’s government moved quickly to implement ambitious policy goals regarding the Crimean peninsula.
n March 1, 2014, following an appeal by Crimean Prime Minister Sergey Aksyonov, Putin asked Russia’s Federation Council for permission to “use the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the normalization of the socio-political situation in that country.”
There is little doubt that the secession and change of sovereignty was widely popular among the reported 83.1% of Crimeans who voted... ...The presence of Russian troops likely discouraged opponents of secession from voting.[5]
haha Well then it must have been a darn good article if it caused that reaction in you. The fact that from this very in-depth article, of at least three thousand words and touches on so many issues, you could only zone in on about five sentences that caused you such ire, is telling. lol Your qualms are easily refuted though, especially your faux outrage at Russia's violations when the article made the point that with countries like the US showing flagrant disregard for international law, it makes it easier for other countries to do so as well. But yeah, keep up the faux outrage and pretentious, self-righteous indignation. lol
Oh btw, in case you had missed it (or conveniently ignored it) the article called Russia's seizure of Crimea as illegal and a violation of the Warsaw Pact. But keep on chugging whatever it is you're chugging. I bet you're frothing at the mouth right now.
Who are you to claim that his sources are trash . Too much to read here so I wont be bothered but the Russian justification for reuniting with Crimea can be summarized in one word ...KOSOVOhaha Well then it must have been a darn good article if it caused that reaction in you. The fact that from this very in-depth article, of at least three thousand words and touches on so many issues, you could only zone in on about five sentences that caused you such ire, is telling. lol Your qualms are easily refuted though, especially your faux outrage at Russia's violations when the article made the point that with countries like the US showing flagrant disregard for international law, it makes it easier for other countries to do so as well. But yeah, keep up the faux outrage and pretentious, self-righteous indignation. lol
Oh btw, in case you had missed it (or conveniently ignored it) the article called Russia's seizure of Crimea as illegal and a violation of the Warsaw Pact. But keep on chugging whatever it is you're chugging. I bet you're frothing at the mouth right now.
Wow you're not even reading your own biased articles - nowhere does it say that it's illegal, nor a violation of the Warsaw Pact. They note that the UN voted to declare the referendum illegal, but nowhere does it condemn the Russian annexation. Moreover, the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, so your point is just about wrong on every count you could be
I stopped because it was pointless - my position was justified. Your childishness is clear for all who can read and you've carried yourself in an intellectually dishonest manner throughout - I point out your sources are trash, you post a trash source, I point out as much so you challenge that, and I then prove it. In response, you say I "foam at the mouth". Pathetic.
haha Well then it must have been a darn good article if it caused that reaction in you. The fact that from this very in-depth article, of at least three thousand words and touches on so many issues, you could only zone in on about five sentences that caused you such ire, is telling. lol Your qualms are easily refuted though, especially your faux outrage at Russia's violations when the article made the point that with countries like the US showing flagrant disregard for international law, it makes it easier for other countries to do so as well. But yeah, keep up the faux outrage and pretentious, self-righteous indignation. lol
Oh btw, in case you had missed it (or conveniently ignored it) the article called Russia's seizure of Crimea as illegal and a violation of the Warsaw Pact. But keep on chugging whatever it is you're chugging. I bet you're frothing at the mouth right now.
Wow you're not even reading your own biased articles - nowhere does it say that it's illegal, nor a violation of the Warsaw Pact. They note that the UN voted to declare the referendum illegal, but nowhere does it condemn the Russian annexation. Moreover, the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, so your point is just about wrong on every count you could be
I stopped because it was pointless - my position was justified. Your childishness is clear for all who can read and you've carried yourself in an intellectually dishonest manner throughout - I point out your sources are trash, you post a trash source, I point out as much so you challenge that, and I then prove it. In response, you say I "foam at the mouth". Pathetic.
According to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed on December 5, 1994, Ukraine agreed to relinquish its stockpile of nuclear weapons between 1994 and 1996. In return, the signatories (the United States, Russian Federation, and United Kingdom, and later China and France) pledged to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty, refrain from the use of force, and avoid using economic pressure in Ukraine to influence its domestic politics. Putin’s annexation of Crimea is a violation of the Budapest Memorandum, as well as other international agreements. But so, too, was the extensive economic pressure by the United States and EU on and within Ukraine–prior to the Crimean annexation–to influence its domestic politics. While the Maidan revolution was not a “U.S.-backed fascist coup,” as Russian reporters claim, it was hijacked by Right Sector and other radical groups. Moreover, clear evidence indicates that U.S. funds were a force multiplier for several opposition groups on Maidan working to overthrow Yanukovych. Speaking to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation Conference on December 16, 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland announced, “We have invested more than five billion dollars … to promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.”[69] In a Washington Post article on September 27, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman referred to Ukraine as “the biggest prize.”[70] It is hardly surprising that Moscow would react badly to such Western meddling in a neighboring country deemed essential to Russia’s security. That is especially true because such actions occurred on the heels of NATO’s seemingly inexorable eastward expansion.
Who are you to claim that his sources are trash . Too much to read here so I wont be bothered but the Russian justification for reuniting with Crimea can be summarized in one word ...KOSOVOhaha Well then it must have been a darn good article if it caused that reaction in you. The fact that from this very in-depth article, of at least three thousand words and touches on so many issues, you could only zone in on about five sentences that caused you such ire, is telling. lol Your qualms are easily refuted though, especially your faux outrage at Russia's violations when the article made the point that with countries like the US showing flagrant disregard for international law, it makes it easier for other countries to do so as well. But yeah, keep up the faux outrage and pretentious, self-righteous indignation. lol
Oh btw, in case you had missed it (or conveniently ignored it) the article called Russia's seizure of Crimea as illegal and a violation of the Warsaw Pact. But keep on chugging whatever it is you're chugging. I bet you're frothing at the mouth right now.
Wow you're not even reading your own biased articles - nowhere does it say that it's illegal, nor a violation of the Warsaw Pact. They note that the UN voted to declare the referendum illegal, but nowhere does it condemn the Russian annexation. Moreover, the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, so your point is just about wrong on every count you could be
I stopped because it was pointless - my position was justified. Your childishness is clear for all who can read and you've carried yourself in an intellectually dishonest manner throughout - I point out your sources are trash, you post a trash source, I point out as much so you challenge that, and I then prove it. In response, you say I "foam at the mouth". Pathetic.
Actually, not the Warsaw Pact, the Budapest one.
From the article:QuoteAccording to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed on December 5, 1994, Ukraine agreed to relinquish its stockpile of nuclear weapons between 1994 and 1996. In return, the signatories (the United States, Russian Federation, and United Kingdom, and later China and France) pledged to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty, refrain from the use of force, and avoid using economic pressure in Ukraine to influence its domestic politics. Putin’s annexation of Crimea is a violation of the Budapest Memorandum, as well as other international agreements. But so, too, was the extensive economic pressure by the United States and EU on and within Ukraine–prior to the Crimean annexation–to influence its domestic politics. While the Maidan revolution was not a “U.S.-backed fascist coup,” as Russian reporters claim, it was hijacked by Right Sector and other radical groups. Moreover, clear evidence indicates that U.S. funds were a force multiplier for several opposition groups on Maidan working to overthrow Yanukovych. Speaking to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation Conference on December 16, 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland announced, “We have invested more than five billion dollars … to promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.”[69] In a Washington Post article on September 27, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman referred to Ukraine as “the biggest prize.”[70] It is hardly surprising that Moscow would react badly to such Western meddling in a neighboring country deemed essential to Russia’s security. That is especially true because such actions occurred on the heels of NATO’s seemingly inexorable eastward expansion.
Wow. Firstly a strawman argument is when you misrepresent the original position - questioning Putin's credibility can't be a strawman as it's not a misrepresentation of Putin's credibility. Secondly, how am I burying my head in the sand? I read your articles, but they are woefully biased and/or simplistic, and often distort the picture and sometimes even make basic factual errors.
One of us us "burying their head in the sand", but it isn't me. Given your resistance to evidence competing with your narrow view on the matter, there's nowhere else to go - you keep reading the same rubbish conforming with your position, and ignore the overwhelming evidence. That you think anyone "has it in" for Putin is just worrying - you're defending a man with a proven track record of distorting the truth, suppressing the freedom of expression, and invading his neighbours. How have I distorted the laws he has passed? Do you not accept that Russia has passed laws (which you can easily check yourself) making it illegal to question Crimea's independence?
I just can't understand how you totally ignore all contrary evidence, genuinely I can't understand how you can sit there and say everyone has it in for Putin, using the very medium he is restricting both technology (internet) and the method (blogging/forums). You have the whole of the internet, a thousand different sources on the same topic, so why are all yours biased so obviously and why can't you see that?
Wow. Firstly a strawman argument is when you misrepresent the original position - questioning Putin's credibility can't be a strawman as it's not a misrepresentation of Putin's credibility. Secondly, how am I burying my head in the sand? I read your articles, but they are woefully biased and/or simplistic, and often distort the picture and sometimes even make basic factual errors.
One of us us "burying their head in the sand", but it isn't me. Given your resistance to evidence competing with your narrow view on the matter, there's nowhere else to go - you keep reading the same rubbish conforming with your position, and ignore the overwhelming evidence. That you think anyone "has it in" for Putin is just worrying - you're defending a man with a proven track record of distorting the truth, suppressing the freedom of expression, and invading his neighbours. How have I distorted the laws he has passed? Do you not accept that Russia has passed laws (which you can easily check yourself) making it illegal to question Crimea's independence?
I just can't understand how you totally ignore all contrary evidence, genuinely I can't understand how you can sit there and say everyone has it in for Putin, using the very medium he is restricting both technology (internet) and the method (blogging/forums). You have the whole of the internet, a thousand different sources on the same topic, so why are all yours biased so obviously and why can't you see that?
lol Please stop it with your tiresome (and hypocritical) "indignation". 1) I have not ignored any so-called "facts". 2) Have you condemned the West for funding and supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected government? 3) "...you're defending a man with a proven track record of distorting the truth, suppressing the freedom of expression, and invading his neighbours." - Were you talking about America?
I don't even know what you are talking about. What "evidence" am I ignoring? what "narrow" view on the matter am I defending? In your book the U and the UK are justified in anything they do but when it comes to other countries....oh no, how dare they! You are a joke. My "biased" sources - yeah - when 9/10 news articles I quote from are the Guardian and the BBC. They are biased in favour of whom, exactly? Certainly not Russia.
Tiresais, you're an idiot and a waste of my time. I don't know who you're trying to fool here - yourself maybe.
In the meantime Ukrainian forces continue to kill civilians.
Tiresais, you're an idiot and a waste of my time. I don't know who you're trying to fool here - yourself maybe.
In the meantime Ukrainian forces continue to kill civilians.
More deflection, no engagement with my points.
Tiresais, you're an idiot and a waste of my time. I don't know who you're trying to fool here - yourself maybe.
In the meantime Ukrainian forces continue to kill civilians.
More deflection, no engagement with my points.
Didn't I say you were a waste of my time?
Look! More Russian propaganda - but this time reported in the German media! Oh dear, Evil Putin strikes again.
German Media: 400 US contractors fighting against civilians in Eastern Ukraine
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25271/53/ (http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25271/53/)
1) What does Russia's supposed 'anti-freedom' laws have to do with ANYTHING?
2) EVERYONE knows that Russian troops took over Crimea! Why are you beating a dead horse? Are you retarded or something?
3)I already said I'm done going back and forth with you...I don't know why you keep harping on about these nothing points.
Yup - you really are retarded. From the little I've read of your post, I will say that if you were paying attention, you would have realised that Bakes and I were debating whether there was truly a build up of the 40,000 troops on the Russian-Ukraine border. Absolutely nothing to do with Crimea. Anyway, dude - I'm not going to condescend respond to you anymore.
Don't worry Toppa, clearly his secondary career as an Ice Hockey player is secure.
Vladimir Putin plays ice hockey in Sochi
Telegraph UK
Russian President Vladimir Putin plays an ice hockey game in a league he created in 2011
President Vladimir Putin has frequently been seen striking a sporting pose, but on Saturday, the Russian leader played a full game of ice hockey with amateur and professional players.
Mr Putin scored 11 times, helping his team to a 21:4 victory.
The game was organised by the Night Hockey League and took place in the Bolshoy Arena in Sochi's Olympic park as part of the festival of Russian amateur hockey.
Mr Putin created the league in 2011 in an attempt to keep athletes competing over the age of 40.
Speaking after the match, Mr Putin said: “There are no winners or losers here. This is a friendly game. It’s a show and everyone enjoyed it."
Watch/Read More (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/10823024/Vladimir-Putin-plays-ice-hockey-in-Sochi.html)
Like Putin playing against tranqulized tigers or what?
Great goal by Putin . Reminds me of the greatest Russian forward ever..... Valery Kharlamov
Great goal by Putin . Reminds me of the greatest Russian forward ever..... Valery Kharlamov
Nothing to say Tiresais? I'm soooooo shocked. ::) Come at tell us more about Putin this and Putin that.
Look at that, Crimean Tartars being discriminated against. Who knew?Muslims in an unfriendly country are always " those poor Muslims ", anywhere else they are extremists .
Look at that, Crimean Tartars being discriminated against. Who knew?Muslims in an unfriendly country are always " those poor Muslims ", anywhere else they are extremists .
since Toppa has nothing to say about the human rights violations perpetrated under Putin's cronies...In light of your earlier call for more fair-mindedness in the reporting, I guess your strategy is to pick one side (pro-western) b/c she pick the other side (thus creating some sort of balance)? Are you a Cameron / Obama crony?
since Toppa has nothing to say about the human rights violations perpetrated under Putin's cronies...In light of your earlier call for more fair-mindedness in the reporting, I guess your strategy is to pick one side (pro-western) b/c she pick the other side (thus creating some sort of balance)? Are you a Cameron / Obama crony?
I think the situation there is a little too complex to be boiled down to cronyism.
I have to step back and ask you your take on the Libya situation in 2011 since you weren't on the forum yet. When (what day, month, event in that conflict, as an example) does the 'outside world' 'recognize' a group of people as the 'legitimate' government and when not? (I'm asking b/c I believe you study more on this than me...just trying to educate myself).
also your human rights comment remind me of a meme with the michelle Obama bring back our girls sign, juxtaposed with a muslim dude sign saying something to the effect that: her husband slaughter many times more innocent muslim girls than boko. ...point being yes there is wrong, but as Jesus said, you can't be lookin for the speck when the beam in your own.
So when is a coup acceptable, out of interest? Are there no situations in which it's acceptable to overthrow a democratically elected politician? What if there are doubts over the fairness of the elections? What if the politician has pilfered literally billions of dollars for themselves? What if he is seen as acting for the interests of a foreign power?
This is not my view but the narrative of the west and yes Russia is perceived as an unfriendlyLook at that, Crimean Tartars being discriminated against. Who knew?Muslims in an unfriendly country are always " those poor Muslims ", anywhere else they are extremists .
"In an unfriendly country"? Are you serious? They've done nothing wrong - they aren't extremists they're just people like you and me. Moreover, that is their country! The clue is in the name - Crimean Tartars. They were the majority ethnic group in Crimea for 800 years before Stalin forcibly relocated and brutalised the population.
This is not my view but the narrative of the west and yes Russia is perceived as an unfriendlyLook at that, Crimean Tartars being discriminated against. Who knew?Muslims in an unfriendly country are always " those poor Muslims ", anywhere else they are extremists .
"In an unfriendly country"? Are you serious? They've done nothing wrong - they aren't extremists they're just people like you and me. Moreover, that is their country! The clue is in the name - Crimean Tartars. They were the majority ethnic group in Crimea for 800 years before Stalin forcibly relocated and brutalised the population.
country
Stalin was a Georgian and the Crimean Tartars beef should be with Georgia not Russia
Stalin was leading the Soviet Union and not RussiaThis is not my view but the narrative of the west and yes Russia is perceived as an unfriendlyLook at that, Crimean Tartars being discriminated against. Who knew?Muslims in an unfriendly country are always " those poor Muslims ", anywhere else they are extremists .
"In an unfriendly country"? Are you serious? They've done nothing wrong - they aren't extremists they're just people like you and me. Moreover, that is their country! The clue is in the name - Crimean Tartars. They were the majority ethnic group in Crimea for 800 years before Stalin forcibly relocated and brutalised the population.
country
Stalin was a Georgian and the Crimean Tartars beef should be with Georgia not Russia
That's like saying "Hitler was Austrian, so Jewish beef should have been with Austria not Nazi Germany". Stalin was leading Russia, not Georgia, when he forcibly moved those people. Moreover, it's Russia, not Georgia, who has annexed Crimea and started discriminating against them
Stalin was leading the Soviet Union and not Russia
Russia did not annex Crimea , they retook property that was stolen from them
Khrushchev in 1954 with a stroke of a pen ceded Crimea to Ukraine .Stalin was leading the Soviet Union and not Russia
Russia did not annex Crimea , they retook property that was stolen from them
Who stole it? How is this not an annexation?
Khrushchev in 1954 with a stroke of a pen ceded Crimea to Ukraine .Stalin was leading the Soviet Union and not Russia
Russia did not annex Crimea , they retook property that was stolen from them
Who stole it? How is this not an annexation?
The residents of Crimea was never consulted . This historical wrong was corrected by Putin with a referendum and without a single shot being fired .
It so happened that Khrushchev was an ethnic Ukranian
The Russians were allowed up to 25,000 on Crimea to protect the Russian black fleet in Sevastopol and it is not like they moved troops from the mainlandKhrushchev in 1954 with a stroke of a pen ceded Crimea to Ukraine .Stalin was leading the Soviet Union and not Russia
Russia did not annex Crimea , they retook property that was stolen from them
Who stole it? How is this not an annexation?
The residents of Crimea was never consulted . This historical wrong was corrected by Putin with a referendum and without a single shot being fired .
It so happened that Khrushchev was an ethnic Ukranian
Putin conducted a referendum with troops on the ground and minorities boycotting the vote - do you think it was a fair election? How can you tell what teh will of the Crimean people is while they were an occupied nation? Whether with pen or sword it's still an annexation.
The Russians were allowed up to 25,000 on Crimea to protect the Russian black fleet in Sevastopol and it is not like they moved troops from the mainlandKhrushchev in 1954 with a stroke of a pen ceded Crimea to Ukraine .Stalin was leading the Soviet Union and not Russia
Russia did not annex Crimea , they retook property that was stolen from them
Who stole it? How is this not an annexation?
The residents of Crimea was never consulted . This historical wrong was corrected by Putin with a referendum and without a single shot being fired .
It so happened that Khrushchev was an ethnic Ukranian
Putin conducted a referendum with troops on the ground and minorities boycotting the vote - do you think it was a fair election? How can you tell what teh will of the Crimean people is while they were an occupied nation? Whether with pen or sword it's still an annexation.
I will not shed a tear for the Crimean Tatars because they were complicit in Genocide against the Russians through out history .
They helped the Mongols , the Ottoman Turks , Hitler and now they are helping NATO all against the Russians
If the children are acting like their fathers, then yes.The Russians were allowed up to 25,000 on Crimea to protect the Russian black fleet in Sevastopol and it is not like they moved troops from the mainlandKhrushchev in 1954 with a stroke of a pen ceded Crimea to Ukraine .Stalin was leading the Soviet Union and not Russia
Russia did not annex Crimea , they retook property that was stolen from them
Who stole it? How is this not an annexation?
The residents of Crimea was never consulted . This historical wrong was corrected by Putin with a referendum and without a single shot being fired .
It so happened that Khrushchev was an ethnic Ukranian
Putin conducted a referendum with troops on the ground and minorities boycotting the vote - do you think it was a fair election? How can you tell what teh will of the Crimean people is while they were an occupied nation? Whether with pen or sword it's still an annexation.
I will not shed a tear for the Crimean Tatars because they were complicit in Genocide against the Russians through out history .
They helped the Mongols , the Ottoman Turks , Hitler and now they are helping NATO all against the Russians
So the children deserve this? You believe sons should be punished for the sins of the father? Should I be punished for how my forefathers acted? Where does this culpability end exactly? Moreover, they are still Crimeans, are they worth less than others living in Crimea? Were these troops used in accordance with their treaty, or did they violate the treaty and their word?
Khrushchev in 1954 with a stroke of a pen ceded Crimea to Ukraine .Stalin was leading the Soviet Union and not Russia
Russia did not annex Crimea , they retook property that was stolen from them
Who stole it? How is this not an annexation?
The residents of Crimea was never consulted . This historical wrong was corrected by Putin with a referendum and without a single shot being fired .
It so happened that Khrushchev was an ethnic Ukranian
Putin conducted a referendum with troops on the ground and minorities boycotting the vote - do you think it was a fair election? How can you tell what teh will of the Crimean people is while they were an occupied nation? Whether with pen or sword it's still an annexation.
If the children are acting like their fathers, then yes.The Russians were allowed up to 25,000 on Crimea to protect the Russian black fleet in Sevastopol and it is not like they moved troops from the mainlandKhrushchev in 1954 with a stroke of a pen ceded Crimea to Ukraine .Stalin was leading the Soviet Union and not Russia
Russia did not annex Crimea , they retook property that was stolen from them
Who stole it? How is this not an annexation?
The residents of Crimea was never consulted . This historical wrong was corrected by Putin with a referendum and without a single shot being fired .
It so happened that Khrushchev was an ethnic Ukranian
Putin conducted a referendum with troops on the ground and minorities boycotting the vote - do you think it was a fair election? How can you tell what teh will of the Crimean people is while they were an occupied nation? Whether with pen or sword it's still an annexation.
I will not shed a tear for the Crimean Tatars because they were complicit in Genocide against the Russians through out history .
They helped the Mongols , the Ottoman Turks , Hitler and now they are helping NATO all against the Russians
So the children deserve this? You believe sons should be punished for the sins of the father? Should I be punished for how my forefathers acted? Where does this culpability end exactly? Moreover, they are still Crimeans, are they worth less than others living in Crimea? Were these troops used in accordance with their treaty, or did they violate the treaty and their word?
The Russians actions in Crimea were dictated by events in Kiev.
Khrushchev in 1954 with a stroke of a pen ceded Crimea to Ukraine .Stalin was leading the Soviet Union and not Russia
Russia did not annex Crimea , they retook property that was stolen from them
Who stole it? How is this not an annexation?
The residents of Crimea was never consulted . This historical wrong was corrected by Putin with a referendum and without a single shot being fired .
It so happened that Khrushchev was an ethnic Ukranian
Putin conducted a referendum with troops on the ground and minorities boycotting the vote - do you think it was a fair election? How can you tell what teh will of the Crimean people is while they were an occupied nation? Whether with pen or sword it's still an annexation.
Uh huh, and now the West are pushing for an election in Ukraine with Kiev government carrying out an assault on the Eastern Ukraine and unarmed civilians being killed. They want an election in Ukraine but not one in Syria. I wonder why. Oh and I read that UN report - my heart bleeds.
Blah , blah, blah. Now let's hear you justify the US openly and blatantly arming and supporting the Syrian Islamist rebels. You are naive beyond words. It is stunning. Are you autistic or something?
https://www.youtube.com/v/9F9pQcqPdKoThe West will learn , is learning that you don't f**k with Russia and Putin . Bad ass mother f**ker .