Ukraine (cont.)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josie_L said:
He’ll believe what he wants to believe, i.e., he’ll take the word of Western media when it suits his purposes, but disparage it when it doesn’t fit his political paradigm.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming you are referring to me, I’m actually a she.

Pot, kettle, black - I’ve already posted a report of a neutral trip made, by a well respected American journalist, to Russia, who saw no evidence of troops - but that source, was no good either - as it did not fit in with others’ political paradigms. There is absolutely no visual evidence of troops on the borders, and ‘intelligence’ sources have been proven to be not too reliable, as evidenced by the WMD in Iraq, in the past. Putin and his foreign minister have stated there are no troops massed on the border, just as Saddam’s foreign minister told the CIA there were no WMD in Iraq.

theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims

*Fresh evidence has been revealed about how MI6 and the CIA were told through secret channels by Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister and his head of intelligence that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.

Tony Blair told parliament before the war that intelligence showed Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programme was “active”, “growing” and “up and running”.

A special BBC Panorama programme aired on Monday night details how British and US intelligence agencies were informed by top sources months before the invasion that Iraq had no active WMD programme, and that the information was not passed to subsequent inquiries.

It describes how Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, told the CIA’s station chief in Paris at the time, Bill Murray, through an intermediary that Iraq had “virtually nothing” in terms of WMD.**
 
“This is not another Cold War that we’re entering into,” President Obama said Wednesday in Brussels, presenting the post-Crimea world order as he sees it after consultations with other NATO leaders. “After all, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology.”
President Vladimir Putin would surely beg to differ. Over the past two years, a new ideology has taken shape at the Kremlin. Insistently pushed out over the airwaves of state-controlled television, it has taken hold as Russia’s national idea — and is the driving force behind its newly aggressive international posture. Russia is remaking itself as the leader of the anti-Western world.

During his annual state-of-the-federationaddress to parliament in December, Putin articulated this ideology. This in itself was novel: For his preceding 13 years at the helm, Putin had stuck to the pragmatic in his speeches. Now he was putting forth a vision for which many Russians had longed in the nearly quarter-century since the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving a giant hole where its citizens’ identities used to be.
In his December speech, Putin said that Russia had no superpower ambitions in the sense of “a claim to global or regional hegemony.” Yet, he said, “We will strive to be leaders.” In explaining Russia’s new identity with relationship to the West and its claim on leadership, he said:
“This is absolutely objective and understandable for a state like Russia, with its great history and culture, with many centuries of experience not of so-called tolerance, neutered and barren, but of the real organic life of different peoples existing together within the framework of a single state.” Putin was placing Russia’s very approach to life in opposition to the Western one. The “so-called tolerance” he mentioned as the key feature of Western civilization is, from this perspective, nothing but a slide into immorality. More likely than not, that includes homosexuality, which is why tolerance is described as “barren and neutered.”

washingtonpost.com/opinions/russia-is-remaking-itself-as-the-leader-of-the-anti-western-world/2014/03/30/8461f548-b681-11e3-8cc3-d4bf596577eb_story.html
 
pepipop said:
I’m assuming you are referring to me, I’m actually a she.

Pot, kettle, black - I’ve already posted a report of a neutral trip made, by a well respected American journalist, to Russia, who saw no evidence of troops - but that source, was no good either - as it did not fit in with others’ political paradigms. There is absolutely no visual evidence of troops on the borders, and ‘intelligence’ sources have been proven to be not too reliable, as evidenced by the WMD in Iraq, in the past. Putin and his foreign minister have stated there are no troops massed on the border, just as Saddam’s foreign minister told the CIA there were no WMD in Iraq.

theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims
Click to expand...
Not even close, i.e., I have never claimed that Western media is without flaws (nor have others), you on the other hand have continually disparaged Western media/sources denying that which doesn’t fit your political point of view, i.e., you refused to believe everything the West had to say thus far, only to believe it NOW, I just think that’s rather convenient.

P.S. I will remain mum until there is further evidence.
 
pepipop said:
BBC link regarding Russia partially withdrawing troops from the border also stated:

A Kremlin statement did not mention a partial withdrawal, but said the two leaders had discussed “opportunities for international support for the restoration of stability” in Ukraine.

It’s all a media game, suported by their respective governments. The Russian troops (under Russia’s newly developed ‘invisible shield’) shall now be removed from the border - as the EU/USA has ‘ordered’ them to do so, and the Russians have ‘taken’ their orders.

I posted a link earlier, of three ‘neutral’ observers, one a well respected, American journalist, Jim Maceda, who went to ‘look’ for the Russian troops and couldn’t find them - but then that was not a viable story either, even though it was reported in NBC news.
Click to expand...
This fellow Maceda took a tour of the border, saw Russian troops and equipment, but since he didn’t see troops and equipment that really looked threatening to him within 3 or less to as much as “30-40” miles from a border he often couldn’t tell was a border, wrote a piece suggesting, but not directly asserting, that all western intelligence and eyewitness accounts, photographs, etc, are wrong.

And, of course, Russian troops are in Crimea, Ukrainians are leaving Crimea, Russia annexed Crimea and says so, all of Eastern Europe is very worried, and we’re to believe Russia is no threat to Ukraine because this Jim Maceda didn’t see enough hardware to convince him when he didn’t know where he even was a good part of the time? Not persuasive.

But I agree with this much. There will be some kind of “face saving” device for Obama in this, just as there was with Syria. Russia will refrain from doing something or other that it wasn’t going to do anyway, so Obama can continue to hide his weakness as a leader and so Putin can take advantage of him in other ways.
 
josie_L said:
Not even close, i.e., I have never claimed that Western media is without flaws (nor have others), you on the other hand have continually disparaged Western media/sources denying that which doesn’t fit your political point of view, i.e., you refused to believe everything the West had to say thus far, only to believe it NOW, I just think that’s rather convenient.

P.S. I will remain mum until there is further evidence.
Click to expand...
No, I have not continually disparaged them, I’ve posted numerous posts referencing Western media sources. I disparage, the Western media’s ‘spin’ on factual events, for example the diplomatic talks between the Russian FM and Kerry, yesterday. Yes, they reported there was a meeting, that was true. But they spun their words to infer Russia was ‘demanding’ their ‘conditions’ were met, that they ‘wanted’ federalisation of Ukraine,.etc… which was ‘totally’ untrue. The Russian FM was ‘recommending’ a solution and way forward for Ukraine but said today it was up to the Ukrainians to decide how they wish to proceed. That is an example of Western media ‘spin’.

The other ‘stories’ I would take with a pinch of salt are the ‘Russia are taking over the world’ stories, i.e. they’re going to take over Ukraine, Finland, Alaska you name it - when Russia has made no moves to do anything of the sort, nor IMO have they any intention of doing so. The big, bad, tyrannical, Ruskie stories.

IF Russia does any of the above, then fair enough the story is true - but making it up as you go along, to stir up anti-Russian feelings, is spin.

There is absolutely NO proof, photographs, or otherwise, of masses of Russian troops on the Ukraine borders - so no I do not believe these stories. Putin and the Russian FM have both denied it, if they did have troops at the border, neither would have answered the question and left it hanging, or they would have admitted they did have troops there. Russia does not want to go war with Ukraine.

An American journalist visited and couldn’t find them - so until there’s proof, it’s an easy ‘spin’ story, and I don’t believe it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
This fellow Maceda took a tour of the border, saw Russian troops and equipment, but since he didn’t see troops and equipment that really looked threatening to him within 3 or less to as much as “30-40” miles from a border he often couldn’t tell was a border, wrote a piece suggesting, but not directly asserting, that all western intelligence and eyewitness accounts, photographs, etc, are wrong.

And, of course, Russian troops are in Crimea, Ukrainians are leaving Crimea, Russia annexed Crimea and says so, all of Eastern Europe is very worried, and we’re to believe Russia is no threat to Ukraine because this Jim Maceda didn’t see enough hardware to convince him when he didn’t know where he even was a good part of the time? Not persuasive.

But I agree with this much. There will be some kind of “face saving” device for Obama in this, just as there was with Syria. Russia will refrain from doing something or other that it wasn’t going to do anyway, so Obama can continue to hide his weakness as a leader and so Putin can take advantage of him in other ways.
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph is what I was referring to. Whether it’s a ‘face saving’ device for Obama and the EU, or just being realistic, however is the question. Crimea would have asked for independence, under an EU/Ukraine government, and then they would have asked to become pt of Russia anyway - not something people would wish to go to ‘war’ over. IMO the Crimea/Russian deal was all set up and they no doubt assumed the EU/Ukraine deal would have gone through with Yanukovich, giving Crimea the opportunity, with the EU in the picture to then use Kosovo as an example to ask and get their independence.

It will be seen as a ‘servile’ reaction, by Russia, to obey their international partners and remove/reduce their invisible troops from the border - so everyone else saves face.
 
pepipop said:
Your last paragraph is what I was referring to. Whether it’s a ‘face saving’ device for Obama and the EU, or just being realistic, however is the question. Crimea would have asked for independence, under an EU/Ukraine government, and then they would have asked to become pt of Russia anyway - not something people would wish to go to ‘war’ over. IMO the Crimea/Russian deal was all set up and they no doubt assumed the EU/Ukraine deal would have gone through with Yanukovich, giving Crimea the opportunity, with the EU in the picture to then use Kosovo as an example to ask and get their independence.

It will be seen as a ‘servile’ reaction, by Russia, to obey their international partners and remove/reduce their invisible troops from the border - so everyone else saves face.
Click to expand...
As little as I approve of Obama, I very much doubt he was in on a conspiracy with Putin to strip Ukraine of Crimea. I am inclined to believe Putin just did it, and Obama went along with it very early. Obama’s one “request” in that bogus referendum was that it be supervised by international observers. Putin ignored that, of course, but Obama essentially invited him to go along with the “flawed” referendum.

I think perhaps your theory gives Obama more credit for cleverness than is his due.

Regardless, Russia seized Crimea and that’s the end of that phase of it. What the rest of it might be is known only to Putin and his comrades. It is possible, of course, that he has informed Obama what he intends to do, subject to whatever change of plan Puting might have.
 
Ridgerunner said:
As little as I approve of Obama, I very much doubt he was in on a conspiracy with Putin to strip Ukraine of Crimea. I am inclined to believe Putin just did it, and Obama went along with it very early. Obama’s one “request” in that bogus referendum was that it be supervised by international observers. Putin ignored that, of course, but Obama essentially invited him to go along with the “flawed” referendum.

I think perhaps your theory gives Obama more credit for cleverness than is his due.

Regardless, Russia seized Crimea and that’s the end of that phase of it. What the rest of it might be is known only to Putin and his comrades. It is possible, of course, that he has informed Obama what he intends to do, subject to whatever change of plan Puting might have.
Click to expand...
There were over 70 odd international observers at the Crimean referendum, OSCE were also invited, by Russia, a week prior, to the vote but declined to attend. I’m not sure what you mean regarding giving Obama credit - as IMO this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, aside from the fact the US/EU were both very vocal and in situ when the rioting was taking place, great photo opportunities with the new government - and also evidenced by Nuland’s telling phone conversation, as to who would be the best candidates in the new government.

I think Putin pulled a blinder with Crimea, as he was ‘angry’ at the EU/USA intervention with Ukraine but mostly because of the greater potential of NATO arriving on his back doorstep. Crimea/Russia set-up was definitely on the cards in the near future, but he moved the deal forward with lightening speed - all with Crimea’s support…

But yes, I agree, Putin/Merkel/Obama, et al, have already agreed what they will ‘show the world’, as to the sanctions that will be carried out against Russia, etc. They will now be in damage limitation mode. I read that Boeing and other international businesses were not wanting any sanctions at all, as they have so much business with Russia.

When it’s all said and done, NATO haven’t listened too much either, and keep trundling further and further, East. They did not heed Putin’s concerns, in 2008, at a NATO meeting - hence ‘bye-bye’ or ‘hello’ Crimea, whatever side you’re viewing it from. I personally do not see Putin wanting to annex everything and everywhere at all, if NATO would back off he’d play along with all the international community, and would stay on his side of the fence.
 
This is a brief summary of the financial assistance offered by the US, to Ukraine.

state.gov/documents/organization/140533.pdf

**United States Department of State Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia Foreign Operations Appropriated Assistance Fact Sheet, Dec 2009

Ukraine**

****Peace and Security (PS): FY 2008: $33.43M; FY 2009: $35.29M ****
  1. Counter weapons of mass destruction proliferation and combat WMD terrorism through
    effective oversight of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities, strengthened border controls, and enhanced detection and interdiction capabilities
  2. Encourage security sector reform to reduce transnational crime and promote the alignment of law enforcement training and practices with EU standards
  3. Reform the judicial system to allow full integration into Euro-Atlantic community
  4. Support the transformation of the Ukrainian military into a modern professional force that can train, equip, sustain and deploy NATO-interoperable forces
  5. Combat trafficking in persons (TIP) and reintegrate victims back into society.
In Fiscal Year 1992 23.70 Million dollars in Freedom Support Act (FSA) assistance was
given to Ukraine and total United States Government (USG) 30.83 Million dollars; Total
USG: 117.84 Million dollars

Fiscal Year 1993: FSA: 59.91 Million dollars; Total USG: 177.68 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1994: FSA: 210.71 Million dollars; Total USG: 457.61 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1995: FSA: 189.34 Million dollars; Total USG: 297.44 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1996: FSA: 219.76 Million dollars; Total USG: 333.12 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1997: FSA: 224.91 Million dollars; Total USG: 295.78 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1998: FSA: 223.43 Million dollars; Total USG: 359.98 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1999: FSA: 208.66 Million dollars; Total USG: 288.34 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2000: FSA: 174.75 Million dollars; Total USG: 213.68 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2001: FSA: 172.99 Million dollars; Total USG: 252.24 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2002: FSA: 156.54 Million dollars; Total USG: 201.96 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2003: FSA: 139.93 Million dollars; Total USG: 178.17 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2004: FSA: 96.55 Million dollars; Total USG: 144.83 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2005: FSA: 136.61 Million dollars; Total USG: 198.06 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2006: FSA: 81.88 Million dollars; Total USG: 154.43 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2007: FSA: 80.00 Million dollars; Total USG: 215.02 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2008: FSA: 72.60 Million dollars; Total USG: 175.93 Million dollars
 
pepipop said:
This is a brief summary of the financial assistance offered by the US, to Ukraine.

state.gov/documents/organization/140533.pdf

**United States Department of State Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia Foreign Operations Appropriated Assistance Fact Sheet, Dec 2009

Ukraine**

****Peace and Security (PS): FY 2008: $33.43M; FY 2009: $35.29M ****
  1. Counter weapons of mass destruction proliferation and combat WMD terrorism through
    effective oversight of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities, strengthened border controls, and enhanced detection and interdiction capabilities
  2. Encourage security sector reform to reduce transnational crime and promote the alignment of law enforcement training and practices with EU standards
  3. Reform the judicial system to allow full integration into Euro-Atlantic community
  4. Support the transformation of the Ukrainian military into a modern professional force that can train, equip, sustain and deploy NATO-interoperable forces
  5. Combat trafficking in persons (TIP) and reintegrate victims back into society.
In Fiscal Year 1992 23.70 Million dollars in Freedom Support Act (FSA) assistance was
given to Ukraine and total United States Government (USG) 30.83 Million dollars; Total
USG: 117.84 Million dollars

Fiscal Year 1993: FSA: 59.91 Million dollars; Total USG: 177.68 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1994: FSA: 210.71 Million dollars; Total USG: 457.61 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1995: FSA: 189.34 Million dollars; Total USG: 297.44 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1996: FSA: 219.76 Million dollars; Total USG: 333.12 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1997: FSA: 224.91 Million dollars; Total USG: 295.78 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1998: FSA: 223.43 Million dollars; Total USG: 359.98 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 1999: FSA: 208.66 Million dollars; Total USG: 288.34 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2000: FSA: 174.75 Million dollars; Total USG: 213.68 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2001: FSA: 172.99 Million dollars; Total USG: 252.24 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2002: FSA: 156.54 Million dollars; Total USG: 201.96 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2003: FSA: 139.93 Million dollars; Total USG: 178.17 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2004: FSA: 96.55 Million dollars; Total USG: 144.83 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2005: FSA: 136.61 Million dollars; Total USG: 198.06 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2006: FSA: 81.88 Million dollars; Total USG: 154.43 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2007: FSA: 80.00 Million dollars; Total USG: 215.02 Million dollars
Fiscal Year 2008: FSA: 72.60 Million dollars; Total USG: 175.93 Million dollars
Click to expand...
In order to get the Ukraine to surrender their nuclear weapons. We agreed to support them militarily. It looks like we’ve kept our word.

ATB
 
Perhaps Ukraine should have told the US in 96, “No, you get rid of all your nukes, and we’ll stand by you if you need help”. I’m amazed at how many fellow Americans I’ve spoken with, who are making shocking comments like “Well, Putin sure made Obama look like a little blank on this one”. Really ? And what was Obama suppose to do ? Start World War III over Crimea ? I honestly believe that when it looked like Assad was going to be toppled in Syria, had that occured, I think the Russians would have all left Syria, and the loss of there base in Tartous would have been written off as something they’ll just have to live with. Ukraine is a totally different situation, it’s an absolute red line for Russia. NATO moving into Ukraine will be perceived as an act of war against Russia and I believe they’ll respond in no uncertain terms.
 
pepipop said:
There were over 70 odd international observers at the Crimean referendum, OSCE were also invited, by Russia, a week prior, to the vote but declined to attend. I’m not sure what you mean regarding giving Obama credit - as IMO this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, aside from the fact the US/EU were both very vocal and in situ when the rioting was taking place, great photo opportunities with the new government - and also evidenced by Nuland’s telling phone conversation, as to who would be the best candidates in the new government.

I think Putin pulled a blinder with Crimea, as he was ‘angry’ at the EU/USA intervention with Ukraine but mostly because of the greater potential of NATO arriving on his back doorstep. Crimea/Russia set-up was definitely on the cards in the near future, but he moved the deal forward with lightening speed - all with Crimea’s support…

But yes, I agree, Putin/Merkel/Obama, et al, have already agreed what they will ‘show the world’, as to the sanctions that will be carried out against Russia, etc. They will now be in damage limitation mode. I read that Boeing and other international businesses were not wanting any sanctions at all, as they have so much business with Russia.

When it’s all said and done, NATO haven’t listened too much either, and keep trundling further and further, East. They did not heed Putin’s concerns, in 2008, at a NATO meeting - hence ‘bye-bye’ or ‘hello’ Crimea, whatever side you’re viewing it from. I personally do not see Putin wanting to annex everything and everywhere at all, if NATO would back off he’d play along with all the international community, and would stay on his side of the fence.
Click to expand...
“Observers” presence was meaningless since the whole referendum was conducted by Russian agents. Russian occupation began prior to the referendum. The 97% vote was clearly falsified by previous polls in the last three years that showed only a minority of people in Crimea supported unification with Russia.

Putin will annex all of Ukraine, just not all at once. When he cuts the eastern and southern portions of the country, the best agricultural land and industry will be gone.
The Baltic states will, at best, be subservient to Russia if not annexed outright.

You’re correct in suggesting that NATO is a paper tiger. It needn’t be, but it is because western Europe has allowed itself to become dependent on Russian oil and gas despite the fact that it sits on some of the largest reserves in existence; reserves that Europeans will not tap because of radical environmentalism. It is also so dedicated to welfarism that it is unwilling to spend the resources to defend itself.

And that’s Obama’s vision for America as well, so NATO has no leadership.

Putin, at least, recognizes that his population is in decline and faces virtual collapse soon. He intends to grab as many Russians as possible (along with the minorities that come with them, willy nilly) Western countries have not yet faced that with their own populations. It is interesting that the old Soviet Union was essentially a robber nation. It stole massively, first from its own, then from Eastern Europe, then (through the latter) from western lenders. But for petroleum, it would have collapsed long before it did. Today’s Russia is not really different.

Putin did not react to the prospect of NATO on his doorstep. NATO is no threat to Russia, and never has been. He wanted Crimea for military reasons and still wants the best parts of Ukraine, if not the whole country, for economic reasons. And he will take what he wants, just as he did in Crimea.

There’s no real persuasiveness in rationalizations for Russia’s conquest of Crimea.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Russian occupation began prior to the referendum. The 97% vote was clearly falsified by previous polls in the last three years that showed only a minority of people in Crimea supported unification with Russia.
Click to expand...
I saw an article yesterday asserting that there were approximately 474,000 votes cast in Sevastopol – a city which has an eligible voter base of only 383,000. The Crimean Tatar community (which is very organized) claims that less than 1,000 Tatars of 180,000+ eligible to vote actually voted in the referendum, although the Russian government asserts that 40% of Tatars voted and the majority of Tatars voted in favor of the referendum…
 
AnastasiaRomano said:
I saw an article yesterday asserting that there were approximately 474,000 votes cast in Sevastopol – a city which has an eligible voter base of only 383,000. The Crimean Tatar community (which is very organized) claims that less than 1,000 Tatars of 180,000+ eligible to vote actually voted in the referendum, although the Russian government asserts that 40% of Tatars voted and the majority of Tatars voted in favor of the referendum…
Click to expand...
Found what I was thinking of. It’s actually an op-ed but links to various other news stories in English and Russian as the sources of statistics and facts:

forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/03/26/mr-putin-tear-down-that-potemkin-village/

There’s also some comments on the op-ed that provide further links to stories.
 
AnastasiaRomano said:
I saw an article yesterday asserting that there were approximately 474,000 votes cast in Sevastopol – a city which has an eligible voter base of only 383,000. The Crimean Tatar community (which is very organized) claims that less than 1,000 Tatars of 180,000+ eligible to vote actually voted in the referendum, although the Russian government asserts that 40% of Tatars voted and the majority of Tatars voted in favor of the referendum…
Click to expand...
When a “referendum” is conducted by the occupiers among a people under military occupation, it should automatically be discounted as false. Prior polls and reports of minorities further demonstrate its falsity.

Russia occupied Crimea militarily, captured or encapsulated Ukrainian troops, and now has annexed the peninsula to Russia. No amount of whitewash can erase the fact that Russia took Crimea by conquest. The only remaining question is how much more of Ukraine (and other states like Moldova and Georgia) Russia is going to seize.
 
No sign of Russian troop pullout - Nato

Nato is not seeing a Russian troop pullout from the border with Ukraine, the military alliance’s chief has said.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen again stressed that the best way to solve the crisis was through “a political dialogue”.

Nato foreign ministers are now discussing ways to help Ukraine and also reassure allies in Eastern Europe.

This comes after Russia’s takeover last month of Ukraine’s Crimea region. Meanwhile, Moscow warned Kiev against integration with Nato.

It is the first time ministers from the 28-member Nato bloc have convened since the annexation of Crimea.

The alliance has also bolstered air drills to be held over the Baltic states.

…

In other developments on Tuesday
  • Ukraine’s parliament ordered security services to disarm all “illegal armed groups”, following Monday night’s shooting in Kiev that involved a member of the radical Right Sector group
  • MPs in Kiev voted to allow to hold joint military exercises with Nato and other nations on Ukrainian soil
  • Russia’s upper house of parliament voted to pull out of a treaty with Ukraine on the Black Sea Fleet’s presence in Crimea
bbc.com/news/world-europe-26830336
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top