Ukraine (cont.)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Russia did not just attack Georgia without provacation. Georgia first invaded South Ossetia, believing Putin would do nothing. The Russians then drove out the invaders and the fighting not unexpectantly spilled over onto the aggressors territory.
 
Ridgerunner said:
“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.

No it wasn’t, the observers didn’t see anything on toward, all the people were allowed to make their vote freely and fairly.

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.

If I could take a bet on it, I’d bet he definitely will not annex all of Ukraine. Yes, some portions most likely will ‘love’ to be under Russia, just as Irish Nationalists in NI, or some counties in NI, (if given the option to) would wish to be under Irish rule.

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.

I can’t really comment on this theory, most populations in Europe are in decline too. The point being missed though, is that these ex-Russians ‘wish’ to return to Russian rule, or home and/ or wish to economically better off than they are now.

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.

He’s seen it as a threat for years and mentioned the fact, as a guest, at the 2008 NATO meeting, so ‘he’ thinks it’s a threat. Whether it is or not is another matter.

There’s no real persuasiveness in rationalizations for Russia’s conquest of Crimea.
Click to expand...
You have to remember about the individual people on the ground. Nationalists/Catholics in NI, in the 70/80’s, voted to stay with Britain, as that was the side their bread was buttered on, i.e. Ireland was broke. 10 years later - all change due to the ‘Celtic Tiger’ years. People like to have the best living conditions for themselves and families that are available to them. Crimea always wanted autonomy and being with Russia offers financial stability, double their pensions, better wages as well as measured investment into the region, etc … Stop thinking of it as a ‘one-sided’ Russian bully-boy event. The Crimeans (greater majority) are more than happy with the present arrangement mostly for monetary reasons and without doubt nationalist reasons too. But money always outweighs everything else.

Ukraine with the EU will have austerity measures for years to come.
 
pepipop said:
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’.
Click to expand...
So your denial of Russian occupation in Crimea is predicated on what media sources, i.e., they were not Western or Ukrainian media sources? And yes, you have on many occasions disparaged Western media to the point that you consistently denied the reality of occupation by Russian troops in Crimea and the annexation of Crimea by said troops? And now, you wish to believe a “credible” Western source (not sources) that states there are NO Russian troops amassing near Ukraine’s borders (even though many other sources have stated otherwise), but then again, you never believed they were in Crimea in the first place.

Moreover, I never denied that media in general tends to sensationalize and spin things to their liking, however, I’m interested in knowing what you have to say about Russian media spin, i.e, can you give examples?
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Just like you didn’t believe there were no Russian troops in Crimea based on their being NO proof (apparently your understanding of evidence and proof is different from everyone else’s). And what PROOF do you have that Russia does not want war with the Ukraine, i.e., there is proof that they invaded it and violated its territorial intergrity, at the very least Putin felt they could get away with annexing part of a country that is weaker and incapable of defending itself right now (not without the help of NATO).
 
40.png
pepipop:
You have to remember about the individual people on the ground. Nationalists/Catholics in NI, in the 70/80’s, voted to stay with Britain, as that was the side their bread was buttered on, i.e. Ireland was broke. 10 years later - all change due to the ‘Celtic Tiger’ years. People like to have the best living conditions for themselves and families that are available to them. Crimea always wanted autonomy and being with Russia offers financial stability, double their pensions, better wages as well as measured investment into the region, etc … Stop thinking of it as a ‘one-sided’ Russian bully-boy event. The Crimeans (greater majority) are more than happy with the present arrangement mostly for monetary reasons and without doubt nationalist reasons too. But money always outweighs everything else.

Ukraine with the EU will have austerity measures for years to come.

And now it will have Russian dependency for as long as the Russians want to provide it.

I recall that Georges Clemenceau during WWI ended every speech with “et les Allemands sont toujours a Noyon”. (“And the Germans are still in Noyon”…a town in France) He said that lest parliamentarians or ordinary Frenchmen, in going about their other business and pursuits forget that a foreign enemy had seized part of their country.

If it weren’t so sad, one would be tempted to add “And the Russian army is still in Crimea” to every sentence on the subject. Maybe I shall.
 
Ridgerunner said:
And now it will have Russian dependency for as long as the Russians want to provide it.

I recall that Georges Clemenceau during WWI ended every speech with “et les Allemands sont toujours a Noyon”. (“And the Germans are still in Noyon”…a town in France) He said that lest parliamentarians or ordinary Frenchmen, in going about their other business and pursuits forget that a foreign enemy had seized part of their country.

If it weren’t so sad, one would be tempted to add “And the Russian army is still in Crimea” to every sentence on the subject. Maybe I shall.
Click to expand...
Crimea is a republic now and if they want to be part of Russia, then so be it. Their choice, (although you’ll think otherwise), but having lived through a similar situ, in NI, I know what it’s like on the ground in these situations.

What’s wrong with being part of Russia, why should be they be sad :confused: there’ll be plenty rejoicing the fact? The investment opportunities and development are already being discussed. If I’d any money, I’d buy an investment property there myself at current prices - Crimea is a beautiful riviera-like, region.

It’s like saying to a nationalist in NI, ‘You’ll now be stuck with Ireland’ for as long as it wants you? The unionists obviously wouldn’t be too happy, but most nationalists (dependent on their economic reasons) would be delighted.

en.itar-tass.com/opinions/1705

“Social and infrastructure investments in Crimea, given the currently optimistic sentiment, are estimated at 90 billion rubles in the following five years. In reality, Russia may need twice as much. But if the capital is invested skillfully and transparently and if Crimea retains the European system of accounting, in five years’ time the peninsula will reach the breakeven point,” Director of the Institute of Problems of Globalization Mikhail Delyagin told Itar-Tass.
“Agriculture and tourism in Crimea are potentially highly profitable. As tourist flows to Egypt are shrinking and holidays in the Krasnodar resorts remain expensive, Crimean resorts may well hope for operating at a profit,” said the expert.
“All Russian enterprises are now vying for the right to invest in Crimean infrastructure,” he added.
 
josie_L said:
So your denial of Russian occupation in Crimea is predicated on what media sources, i.e., they were not Western or Ukrainian media sources? And yes, you have on many occasions disparaged Western media to the point that you consistently denied the reality of occupation by Russian troops in Crimea and the annexation of Crimea by said troops? And now, you wish to believe a “credible” Western source (not sources) that states there are NO Russian troops amassing near Ukraine’s borders (even though many other sources have stated otherwise), but then again, you never believed they were in Crimea in the first place.

Moreover, I never denied that media in general tends to sensationalize and spin things to their liking, however, I’m interested in knowing what you have to say about Russian media spin, i.e, can you give examples?

Just like you didn’t believe there were no Russian troops in Crimea based on their being NO proof (apparently your understanding of evidence and proof is different from everyone else’s). And what PROOF do you have that Russia does not want war with the Ukraine, i.e., there is proof that they invaded it and violated its territorial intergrity, at the very least Putin felt they could get away with annexing part of a country that is weaker and incapable of defending itself right now (not without the help of NATO).
Click to expand...
Possibly because I view this as a ‘person’ e.g., as an nationalist wishing to link to Ireland, rather than Britain. Or as a Crimean, who’s struggling financially and wants a better standard of living, by linking to the stronger, closer linked country. I do not view this situation, and never will, as big bad Putin coming in to ‘steal’ Crimea and hauled it kicking and screaming, into Russia. They wanted to join, for patriotic and economic reasons!

Yes, and I maintain there were no ‘Russian’ soldiers in Crimea. There were a defense group of men in neutral uniforms, in Crimea, but these were Crimeans and if there were any ‘Russians’ in this group - they would have had dual citizenship Ukrainian/Russian.

Putin is not stupid, he’ll have played it to an absolute tee with absolutely no loopholes. Sinn Fein antics in NI, were of a similar bent and possibly why I do not find it so difficult to believe. Both Crimea and Russia have had this planned for ages. I surmise they had hoped Yanukovich would have signed an EU agreement with Ukraine that would have allowed Crimea to request and obtain its’ independence (which was practically impossible with a Ukraine only government),. Once independent they would then have gone with Russia, based on the Kosovo argument, However due to the overthrowing of the government - plans were then placed on full speed ahead.

Russian media spin, of course there is mostly in relation to some of the USA/UK ‘stories’ they report. They report factual stories, not reported on either UK/USA media, but there is obvious anti-US/UK spin on such.

In relation to the Crimean situ, all they reported was factual information of Russia’s actions/words - with no ‘bias’ towards Putin, just the facts as they were relayed to them by the ‘Kremlin’. Obviously, some reporters did not like what Putin had done and make their opinions known and that’s their right to do so. It was just straightforward reporting, e.g. Putin said there were no ‘Russian’ soldiers in Crimea - and yep, I agree.

I have not heard their reports on more general news issues, i.e. not involving Russia, so it’s hard to detect their ‘spinning’. News media very rarely need to ‘spin’ about issues related to their respective countries, unless it’s to do with politics.
 
Hmmmm…:rolleyes:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
pepipop said:
Crimea is a republic now and if they want to be part of Russia, then so be it. Their choice, (although you’ll think otherwise), but having lived through a similar situ, in NI, I know what it’s like on the ground in these situations.

What’s wrong with being part of Russia, why should be they be sad :confused: there’ll be plenty rejoicing the fact? The investment opportunities and development are already being discussed. If I’d any money, I’d buy an investment property there myself at current prices - Crimea is a beautiful riviera-like, region.

It’s like saying to a nationalist in NI, ‘You’ll now be stuck with Ireland’ for as long as it wants you? The unionists obviously wouldn’t be too happy, but most nationalists (dependent on their economic reasons) would be delighted.

en.itar-tass.com/opinions/1705

“Social and infrastructure investments in Crimea, given the currently optimistic sentiment, are estimated at 90 billion rubles in the following five years. In reality, Russia may need twice as much. But if the capital is invested skillfully and transparently and if Crimea retains the European system of accounting, in five years’ time the peninsula will reach the breakeven point,” Director of the Institute of Problems of Globalization Mikhail Delyagin told Itar-Tass.
“Agriculture and tourism in Crimea are potentially highly profitable. As tourist flows to Egypt are shrinking and holidays in the Krasnodar resorts remain expensive, Crimean resorts may well hope for operating at a profit,” said the expert.
“All Russian enterprises are now vying for the right to invest in Crimean infrastructure,” he added.
Click to expand...
Crimea most assuredly is not independent. It’s now part of Russia, and will remain part of Russia into the indefinite future, by right of conquest.

I would not, and do not, choose to be a resident of Russia, nor would I invest there. Your choice is your choice. Let us know how it turns out.

Russians will undoubtedly vacation in Crimea just as they did throughout the Soviet period; relatively cold though the place is during much of the year. But it certainly isn’t the Riviera or the Dalmatian coast, so I doubt many westerners will build/vacation there. When a regime seizes a segment of a country and ousts many of the citizens, how confident can anyone be in the good faith of that regime as to his own property or person?

This exercise in imperialism will, like most imperialist adventures, be an expensive proposition for Russia while Russia is trying to put a good face on it. After that (and your post suggests it) Crimea, like Russia itself, will be (as Solzhenitsyn described the Soviet Union) “…where capital is dear and labor cheap, unlike in the West, where it’s the other way around…”

But, all things considered, the boost to Russian chauvinism will make up for its citizens’ lack of steak for awhile.

Russia can’t profit from Ukrainian agriculture without taking more of Ukraine. Likely Russia will do exactly that.
 
pepipop said:
Possibly because I view this as a ‘person’ e.g., as an nationalist wishing to link to Ireland, rather than Britain. Or as a Crimean, who’s struggling financially and wants a better standard of living, by linking to the stronger, closer linked country. I do not view this situation, and never will, as big bad Putin coming in to ‘steal’ Crimea and hauled it kicking and screaming, into Russia. They wanted to join, for patriotic and economic reasons!

Yes, and I maintain there were no ‘Russian’ soldiers in Crimea. There were a defense group of men in neutral uniforms, in Crimea, but these were Crimeans and if there were any ‘Russians’ in this group - they would have had dual citizenship Ukrainian/Russian.

Putin is not stupid, he’ll have played it to an absolute tee with absolutely no loopholes. Sinn Fein antics in NI, were of a similar bent and possibly why I do not find it so difficult to believe. Both Crimea and Russia have had this planned for ages. I surmise they had hoped Yanukovich would have signed an EU agreement with Ukraine that would have allowed Crimea to request and obtain its’ independence (which was practically impossible with a Ukraine only government),. Once independent they would then have gone with Russia, based on the Kosovo argument, However due to the overthrowing of the government - plans were then placed on full speed ahead.

Russian media spin, of course there is mostly in relation to some of the USA/UK ‘stories’ they report. They report factual stories, not reported on either UK/USA media, but there is obvious anti-US/UK spin on such.

In relation to the Crimean situ, all they reported was factual information of Russia’s actions/words - with no ‘bias’ towards Putin, just the facts as they were relayed to them by the ‘Kremlin’. Obviously, some reporters did not like what Putin had done and make their opinions known and that’s their right to do so. It was just straightforward reporting, e.g. Putin said there were no ‘Russian’ soldiers in Crimea - and yep, I agree.

I have not heard their reports on more general news issues, i.e. not involving Russia, so it’s hard to detect their ‘spinning’. News media very rarely need to ‘spin’ about issues related to their respective countries, unless it’s to do with politics.
Click to expand...
When one dismisses essentially all western reporting as “spin”, and accepts only what Russia or its sympathizers say, then anything can be excused, even conquest.
 
Ridgerunner said:
When one dismisses essentially all western reporting as “spin”, and accepts only what Russia or its sympathizers say, then anything can be excused, even conquest.
Click to expand...
I have never siad I view all Western reporting as spin and have linked to numerous western MSM links. But I know spin when I see it, and made an example of such with the Russian foerign PM and Kerry re: the Guardian. The facts were true but the spin was not.
 
Seamus_L said:
Serbia Refuses to Back EU Sanctions Against Russia Over Crimea

“We will not be part of this because it would mean going against a country that has never introduced sanctions against Serbia, even when it was pounded with bombs and its territorial integrity was violated by other nations,” the future prime minister underscored.
en.ria.ru/world/20140401/188967552/Serbia-Refuses-to-Back-EU-Sanctions-Against-Russia-Over-Crimea-.html
Click to expand...
It would appear that Serbia is lobbying the EU right see: b92.net/eng/news/politics.php?yyyy=2014&mm=03&dd=31&nav_id=89820

and

setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2014/04/01/feature-02

They seem to be afraid of Russia…and they want to join the EU
 
Ukraine crisis: NATO suspends cooperation with Moscow

Brussels, Belgium (CNN) – NATO will suspend “all practical civilian and military cooperation” with Russia because of its annexation of Crimea, saying it has seen no sign that Moscow was withdrawing troops from the Ukrainian border.

Foreign ministers from the 28 members of the Western military alliance met in Brussels on Tuesday for the first time since Russia grabbed the Black Sea peninsula from Ukraine last month, triggering the worst East-West crisis since the Cold War.

They were discussing ways to boost NATO’s military presence in formerly communist central and eastern Europe to reassure allies worried by Russia’s moves.

After the session, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Russia has challenged truths that only a few weeks ago seemed self-evident: that European borders in the 21st century would not be redrawn by force.

“It is important for everybody in the world to understand that the NATO alliance takes seriously this attempt to change borders by use of force,” he said. “So that is the wake-up call.”

cnn.com/2014/04/01/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and the other ministers, meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels behind closed doors, unanimously agreed Tuesday on a number of measures. A civilian NATO official who attended the meeting and briefed reporters afterward on condition of anonymity said the steps included:
  • The suspension of “all practical civilian and military co-operation” between NATO and Russia. NATO officials said ambassadorial-level contacts will remain open to assure a reliable channel of communication.
  • The possible deployment and reinforcement of military assets in eastern NATO members, such as Poland and the Baltic states, that feel menaced by Moscow’s latest actions.
  • A possible increase of readiness levels for the NATO rapid response force.
  • A possible review of NATO’s crisis response plans, as well as its military training and exercise schedules.
cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-crisis-nato-plans-4-measures-to-deal-with-russian-military-threat-1.2594193
 
gilliam said:
Ukraine crisis: NATO suspends cooperation with Moscow

Brussels, Belgium (CNN) – NATO will suspend “all practical civilian and military cooperation” with Russia because of its annexation of Crimea, saying it has seen no sign that Moscow was withdrawing troops from the Ukrainian border.

Foreign ministers from the 28 members of the Western military alliance met in Brussels on Tuesday for the first time since Russia grabbed the Black Sea peninsula from Ukraine last month, triggering the worst East-West crisis since the Cold War.

They were discussing ways to boost NATO’s military presence in formerly communist central and eastern Europe to reassure allies worried by Russia’s moves.

After the session, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Russia has challenged truths that only a few weeks ago seemed self-evident: that European borders in the 21st century would not be redrawn by force.

“It is important for everybody in the world to understand that the NATO alliance takes seriously this attempt to change borders by use of force,” he said. “So that is the wake-up call.”

cnn.com/2014/04/01/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and the other ministers, meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels behind closed doors, unanimously agreed Tuesday on a number of measures. A civilian NATO official who attended the meeting and briefed reporters afterward on condition of anonymity said the steps included:
  • The suspension of “all practical civilian and military co-operation” between NATO and Russia. NATO officials said ambassadorial-level contacts will remain open to assure a reliable channel of communication.
  • The possible deployment and reinforcement of military assets in eastern NATO members, such as Poland and the Baltic states, that feel menaced by Moscow’s latest actions.
  • A possible increase of readiness levels for the NATO rapid response force.
  • A possible review of NATO’s crisis response plans, as well as its military training and exercise schedules.
cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-crisis-nato-plans-4-measures-to-deal-with-russian-military-threat-1.2594193
Click to expand...
What a great source of information. It’s anonymous, who can say the source was actually a NATO official as he has only talking to the press. Easy enough to fly a plane near and within the Ukraine border with a camera, telescopic lens and take photos, and/or use satellites. But absolutely zilch. If the information is of such a ‘sensitive’ nature, why has it been reported, every day, in the media for weeks?

An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 Russian troops equipped with tanks, other armoured vehicles and fixed and rotary wing aircraft remained positioned near the border with Ukraine, a NATO military official told The Associated Press on Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information.
 
gilliam said:
Ukraine crisis: Russia hikes gas prices for cash-strapped Ukrainians
Click to expand...
Well the Russians know who will now be footing the bill. 😃

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has said that Russia had given Ukraine $11 billion in gas discounts in advance and should claim the money back — a threat repeated Tuesday by Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin.
 
pepipop said:
I have never siad I view all Western reporting as spin and have linked to numerous western MSM links. But I know spin when I see it, and made an example of such with the Russian foerign PM and Kerry re: the Guardian. The facts were true but the spin was not.
Click to expand...
No, the western reporting sources all pretty much say the same thing. So do western intelligence sources. And so do the Ukrainian sources, including Catholic clergymen in Ukraine. It takes a lot to ignore that in favor of the tendered Russian rationalizations.

But no matter who says what, the fact remains that Russia agreed to Ukrainian independence and Crimea as part of Ukraine. It sent in its soldiers and took over Crimea. Russia then annexed Crimea. That being the case, any attempt to disconnect Crimea from Russia is hereafter “treason” on the part of any resident, and any outside attempt to reverse it is an “act of war with an atomic power”. Lots of Ukrainians and ethnic Tatars are leaving.

It’s a conquest by a power that felt itself capable of indulging in revanchism and ethnic cleansing. Sometimes the obvious answer is the real answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top