Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[boneyard bill]

Rebels leaders themselves have said there are thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine. Only difference is that they say they are merely volunteers and friends who are "vacationing", and somehow got to take their weapons, tanks, and anti+aircraft missile systems with them on their vacation. That sounds plausible!

There's a huge difference between individual men volunteering to fight and an actual well-trained military unit under its normal commanders. Actually, there are volunteers from all over Europe fighting on the rebel side. But those volunteers to not constitute a fighting-ready unit. The oligarchs in Ukraine have lots of mercenaries in their employ mostly from Greystone, the British equivalent of Academi. But these men were unable to relieve the siege at Donetsk because they didn't constitute a cohesive military unit.

Observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) “have registered no troops, ammunition or weapons crossing the Russian-Ukrainian border over the past two weeks” (Itar-Tass)

Is Russian military equipment incapable of crossing the border except at designated border crossing points? Please.

They reported from their crossing points but their claims concerned the entire border, not just their crossing points. Presumable they have reports from other crossing points or aerial photography.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-...ave-crossed-the-russia-ukraine-border/5399457



So the US claimed that Russia has invaded Ukraine which has been disproved.

If you believe everything you read on crank conspiracy theorist sites like Globar Research, then I suppose 9/11 was a false flag operation committed by CIA and Mossad as well.

Labeling a site that reports information you don't like as a "crank conspiracy" site is neither and logical nor well-informed response. Where is the evidence to support YOUR claim. The fact is that is none, nada, nothing. You have no qualifications whatsoever for challenging the claims of the OSCE. The US government DOES have such qualifications, but they have not released anything to contradict OSCE. Admit it. You are believing what you want to believe quite without regard for any evidence.

The US claimed that Ukrainian separatists shot the MH17 which has also been disproven.

No it hasn't, on the contrary despite Russian propagandist attempts to disprove it, it has been shown without shadow of a doutb that there was a BUK in rebel held territory at exactly the same time and place where the plane was shot down. Of course there is some uncertainty whether it was the separatists or straight up Russian military, but they are part of the same command structure anyway.

The Ukrainian government also had BUK missiles in the area so that proves nothing. But it is also irrelevant since the inspectors have concluded that MH 17 was NOT hit by a missile. The plane was shot from below. The SA-11 attacks its target from above. There are other reasons given if you took the trouble to read the post. And where is the US satellite data? Where is the Ukrainian air traffic control data? They haven't been released. Russia, on the other hand, released their satellite data almost immediately. So who do you think has something to hide in this affairs?

The US claimed that Russia invaded Crimea, also untrue.

Only because Russia had military bases already in Crimea, so they did not have to "invade" anything. But even Putin admitted that the unmarked troops that precipitated Crimea's cesession were Russian. Exactly the same ploy was used in Eastern Ukraine.

It didn't take troops to precipitate Crimea's secession. It took a vote of the Crimean parliament. But where is your evidence that "unmarked" Russian troops had anything to do with secession in Luhansk and Donetsk. In fact, Putin refused, and still refuses, to recognize their independence, unlike the situation in Crimea.

Bottom line. You have produce NO evidence whatsoever to support any of your claims? Why, then, do you believe them? Apparently because you mind is completely closed to the facts.

 

[boneyard bill]

There is a rather odd and sometimes eclectic group of adoring Russophiles that have arisen since the end of the the first cold war. Otherwise intelligent and insightful folk, too often from the Paleo-Conservative wing of neo-isolationists, have totally forgotten their prior anti Russian-Soviet imperialism stances and now have an affection for a Russian oligarch of the super-rich (ex-Communist party) functionaries, attracted I suppose to his proto fascism.

If this were a choice between Russian fascism and Ukrainian fascism ... might have a point - but that is not the choice. The choice is between a country trying to become more European in culture and economic systems vs. a country sinking deeper into a dictatorship that is fanning Russian nationalism into hysteria - not unlike Uncle Adolph.

..., this is not difficult.

First, Yanukovych, in the face of a popular Euromaidan uprising fled the country, and was impeached by his own Parliament. Done deal. Were he to return, if he were not arrested, he'd have no basis of support left (starting with the Crimea which was taken by Russia).

Let me begin by labeling this total bullshit. You are simply parroting the US media which is parroting the US state department. First of all, Yanukovich was legally elected by the Ukrainian people and his party held a majority in the Rada. He was never impeached. That takes a 2/3 vote. If he had been impeached, the prime minister would automatically have become President under the Ukrainian constitution, but that did not happen either. The "popular" uprising as you call it was nothing of the sort. It was an armed insurrection by the neo-Nazis. The "popular" protestors wanted new, early elections. Yanukovich had agreed to this the day before the uprising began.

Due to the uprising, Yanukovich FLED FOR HIS LIFE. That's not what I would call a "peaceful" takeover. So did his parliamentary majority. It was a rump parliament that voted to oust Yanukovich. This is entirely illegal since they did not have a quorum and, as I have said, even if it was the prime minister would then have become president.

This was a coup, and it bears all the earmarks of a CIA-sponsored coup. There are taped recordings of Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Sec. of State talking with US Ambassador to Ukraine. (This bitch is so stupid that she didn't use a secure line). She told the Ambassador that she want Yatsenyuk as prime minister and was against a role Klitschko who was being promoted by the EU. (Hence the infamous "fuck the EU" quote)

Of course, after the coup Yatsenyuk, former head of the Ukrainian central bank or course, became the Prime Minister.

Earlier, Nuland had addressed a meeting of oil company leaders and told them that the US had spent $5 billion dollars promoting the "democracy movement" in Ukrainian. $5 billion to promote democracy in a country that already had a popularly elected government? Does that make any sense. It does if you define neo-Nazi coup leaders as your democracy movement which is exactly what Nuland did.

Don't pay attention to the mainstream media. They are not reliable. Don't pay attention to the State Department. They hardly say anything that isn't a lie. If you listen to them, believe the opposite.

Second, Poroshenko, an independent, beat Rada in the May Presidential Election. The only folks who couldn't vote were the Crimeans, annexed by Russia, and the Donbass region where the Russian insurgents did not permit a vote. (A case of be careful what you wish for, you might get it).

That election as a farce. The only candidates were taken from among the coup leaders. Further, it wasn't necessary to have a coup to hold those elections since Yanukovich had already agreed to new elections.

Third, The Parliament under also freely elected a PM. Six of the seven parties (of which Svoboda is a minor member) voted to install Yatsenyuk of the Batkivshchyna Party as PM. Only the tiny communist party refused to vote for him.

And Svoboda, the fourth largest party, got 4 Ministries, including the Interior Ministry and the Defense Ministry. These are the same guys who have presided over Kiev's catastrophe in the East.

Fourth, the PM is not from Svoboda, but Batkivshchyna. In fact 6 cabinet posts are held by Bat. and 3 posts held by Svoboda and 17 posts held by independents. I heard that Svoboda has four. But the really important point is the value of the ministries. With Interior and Defense, Svoboda controls all the muscle in the government.

Finally, Svoboda only holds 36 of 450 seats in Parliament. Going apeshit over this party, regardless of what folks think of it, is a red herring. It's an excuse for Russian imperialism.

You go apeshit over them because they are armed and dangerous. Most of the protestors in Maidan were not armed and were simply demanding new elections. They weren't advocating the overthrow of the government. But if you've go the guns, you can do what you want.

Anyone under the age of 50 in the Ukraine sees a future with the west and western economic systems. Get with it ....

I haven't talked with anyone under 50 in Ukraine and I doubt that you have either. With the defeat of the Kiev forces, it looks like the future of Ukraine will be as a non-aligned federation with friendly relations with both the West and Russia. But that assumes that Poroshenko is serious about negotiations and didn't just agree to the cease-fire in order to stall for time.

Yanukovich rejected the Western offer of help for Ukraine because the IMF demands were too stringent. Putin offered him a better deal.

Before you comment on this again, get on the internet and check out your facts. This sometimes requires some serious research because the biggest bias in the msm comes from the things they don't say.

 

[dystopian]

It didn't take troops to precipitate Crimea's secession. It took a vote of the Crimean parliament.

You mean the parliament that was under armed military occupation when its members were made to vote? Oh yes, very legitimate that. Why on earth would anyone call that into question?

 

[boneyard bill]

Bullshit. Where did they say that?

What motivates you to be transmission belt of Russian propoganda? Think about it, why yell bullshit at news that everyone else is aware of? How is it you have become so emotionally attached to Russia and Putin the ex-KGB Colonel? Are you Russian? A paleo-Conservative? A listener of Micheal Savage? An ex John Bircher or Tri-lateral commission conspiracy loon? Maybe it is the Illuminati vexes you? Do you lose sleep over the black helicopters?

One of the top rebel leaders in eastern Ukraine claims that his forces have recently received 1,200 fighters who had undergone training in Russia. The claim came during a speech to leading rebels, apparently recorded on Friday and posted to YouTube by a pro-separatist media outlet. His language suggested the men had already crossed the border.

Alexander Zakharchenko, prime minister of the self-declared Donetsk People's Republic, also spoke about 150 armoured vehicles, of which 30 are tanks and the rest wheeled or tracked armoured personnel carriers. He said the men and equipment had gathered in an area near a "corridor" to the Russian border...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/16/ukraine-fighters-russia-top-rebel-leader

Given you are a 'true believer' of some sort I am sure you will rationalize it. But "bullshit" is a false charge and you ought to acknowledge your error to Jayjay.

Zakcharchenko did not say that tanks and equipment were provided by Russia as your post implies. And he has acknowledged elsewhere that there were volunteers from all over Europe fighting with them. This does not, by any means, constitute a Russian "invasion" as the msm so stupidly insists.

It isn't "bullshit" to ask Jayjay to back up his claims with actual evidence.

 

[boneyard bill]

It didn't take troops to precipitate Crimea's secession. It took a vote of the Crimean parliament.

You mean the parliament that was under armed military occupation when its members were made to vote? Oh yes, very legitimate that. Why on earth would anyone call that into question?

The Crimean president was on record as favoring a Crimean switch to Russia even before the coup in Kiev, but he didn't have the votes. But now neo-Nazis an ultra nationalist Ukrainian took power in Kiev. They were known as anti-Russian even before they proposed to make Ukrainian the official language of instruction. 60% of Crimeans are Russian-speaking so it should be no surprise when, after the coup, the Crimean president suddenly found that he had the votes for his proposal. The presence of Russian troops was irrelevant.

What you're completely overlooking is the coup in Kiev. That was undertaken by armed neo-Nazis and ultra nationalist Ukrainians. President Yanukovich had to flee for his life and so did the members of his party in the Ukrainian Rada. The Rada which supposedly "ousted" Yanukovich was a rump parliament with only a minority of members present and the others fearing for their lives. Of course the US media never referred to this as a coup d'état. They called it a "democracy movement." What a sad state of affairs the US media is. They are simply the US Department of Propaganda.

 

[dystopian]

The Crimean president was on record as favoring a Crimean switch to Russia even before the coup in Kiev, but he didn't have the votes.

But now neo-Nazis an ultra nationalist Ukrainian took power in Kiev. They were known as anti-Russian even before they proposed to make Ukrainian the official language of instruction. 60% of Crimeans are Russian-speaking so it should be no surprise when, after the coup, the Crimean president suddenly found that he had the votes for his proposal.

Yes, just like it shouldn't be surprising that there was an impressive recorded voter turnout of 123% in Sevastopol! Who can disagree with numbers like that!

The presence of Russian troops was irrelevant.

Right, of course. Occupy parliament, lock the doors, and then force the MP's to vote... totally irrelevant! Just like it was irrelevant that armed Russian troops were standing guard outside and inside the polling stations where voters were expected to vote by marking a giant checkbox on a piece of paper that is visibly deposited into a transparent glass box for all to see. No pressure or anything, just ignore the armed soldiers from the country you're voting to be annexed by!

What you're completely overlooking is the coup in Kiev. That was undertaken by armed neo-Nazis and ultra nationalist Ukrainians.

What nonsense. I followed things quite closely, and while of course there were fascists and nationalists involved in the protests/coup, they did not represent the majority of the movement; and that is a fact. You're falling for Russian propaganda in believing the whole thing was orchestrated and undertaken by what was in fact just a minority.

President Yanukovich had to flee for his life and so did the members of his party in the Ukrainian Rada.

Actually, quite a few members of his own party voted to have him removed, you know.

The Rada which supposedly "ousted" Yanukovich was a rump parliament with only a minority of members present and the others fearing for their lives.

A blatant lie; he was removed from power with 328 votes out of 447. That is not a minority of members, that's 73%. Someone who feels compelled to twist a 73% majority into a minority of scaredy cat loses all credibility.

 

[maxparrish]

(Boneyard's fictional "facts" in red).

...First, Yanukovych, in the face of a popular Euromaidan uprising fled the country, and was impeached by his own Parliament. Done deal. Were he to return, if he were not arrested, he'd have no basis of support left (starting with the Crimea which was taken by Russia).

Let me begin by labeling this total bullshit. You are simply parroting the US media which is parroting the US state department. First of all, Yanukovich was legally elected by the Ukrainian people and his party held a majority in the Rada. He was never impeached. That takes a 2/3 vote. If he had been impeached, the prime minister would automatically have become President under the Ukrainian constitution, but that did not happen either. The "popular" uprising as you call it was nothing of the sort. It was an armed insurrection by the neo-Nazis. The "popular" protestors wanted new, early elections. Yanukovich had agreed to this the day before the uprising began.

Due to the uprising, Yanukovich FLED FOR HIS LIFE. That's not what I would call a "peaceful" takeover. So did his parliamentary majority (flee). It was a rump parliament that voted to oust Yanukovich. This is entirely illegal since they did not have a quorum and, as I have said, even if it was the prime minister would then have become president.

Sorry ..., employing a fog of procedural legalisms and disputed Constitutional processes, pumped up with derogatory characterizations of those you despise cannot hide a core reality that is apparent to the rest of us - Yanukovich's belated agreement came far too late to save him...hours after he signed, the police and security forces refused to defend him, so he disappeared and fled in the face of tens of thousands of protesters seizing control, and quickly the parliament voted 328 out of 447 seats to declare him unconstitutionally absent and his post vacated. (And, by the way, that is more than two thirds in the world of un-fevered mathematics as there were only 450 seats).

The narrative is very complex (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Removal_of_Yanukovych) but your made up 'fict-fact' narrative shows us that whatever the source of your rabid bias for Putin and Russia, facts and reason is bothersome your chosen reality. The parliamentary majority did not flee, most of his former loyalists stayed. It was his ministerial cabinet that high tailed it out of the Ukraine. And, as it happens, it was 3/4's of the vote required for impeachment, not 2/3rds. And the bottom line remains that even English Language Al Jazzera gets:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europ...president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html

The Ukrainian parliament, which decisively abandoned Yanukovich after loyalists defected, declared on Saturday the president constitutionally unable to carry out his duties and set an early election for May 25. Deputies in the assembly stood, applauded and sang the national anthem.

In a television interview shortly beforehand, which the station said was conducted in the eastern city of Kharkiv, Yanukovich said he would not resign or leave the country, and called decisions by parliament "illegal"....

Despite his defiance, the dismantling of his authority seemed all but complete with his cabinet promising a transition to a new government, the police declaring themselves behind the protesters and his jailed arch adversary Yulia Tymoshenko freed.

Ya, he was and is toast. No majority wants him back. His own party rejected him. You need to stop making excuses on move on.

This was a coup, and it bears all the earmarks of a CIA-sponsored coup. There are taped recordings of Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Sec. of State talking with US Ambassador to Ukraine. (This bitch is so stupid that she didn't use a secure line). She told the Ambassador that she want Yatsenyuk as prime minister and was against a role Klitschko who was being promoted by the EU. (Hence the infamous "fuck the EU" quote)

Earlier, Nuland had addressed a meeting of oil company leaders and told them that the US had spent $5 billion dollars promoting the "democracy movement" in Ukrainian. $5 billion to promote democracy in a country that already had a popularly elected government? Does that make any sense. It does if you define neo-Nazi coup leaders as your democracy movement which is exactly what Nuland did.

A lack of understanding of what was intended or spent for a democracy fund, is nothing - except to those vested in conspiracies and the endless search for a confirming bias. Factual ignorance is not an argument.

As for 'the earmarks of a CIA coup', well from what you have claimed only those who have gone over the cliff could take an US State department diplomat's comments over preferences and desires as "earmark" PROOF of being an actual CIA operation. Really ...?

Don't pay attention to the mainstream media. They are not reliable. Don't pay attention to the State Department. They hardly say anything that isn't a lie. If you listen to them, believe the opposite.

I am sure you know, as I, that I do pay attention the the US government as well as that of the many governments of democratic Europe. I also pay attention to a free Western press, in its hundreds of manifestations. As well as the open and unintimated many experts in the West, some of Russian origin, at universities, think tanks, and NGO's. I even pay a little attention to Russian experts in Russia, some of whom echo my points.

Now why would any reasonable person, if given the choice between believing the repressed press organs of a country run by an ex-KGB Colonel, chose that for information over the governments, media, NGOs, and many university and think tank scholars of the free world?

That election as a farce. The only candidates were taken from among the coup leaders. Further, it wasn't necessary to have a coup to hold those elections since Yanukovich had already agreed to new elections.

After Yanukovich fled of course elections were necessary. AND No ..., there were 17 candidates in the elections which were covered by European observers. Moreover, turnout exceeded 50 percent in most regions of the Ukraine, ranging up to 80 percent turnout. Only the Russian proxy's in the Donbass region denied the right to vote (wonder what they were afraid of?)

Third, The Parliament under also freely elected a PM. Six of the seven parties (of which Svoboda is a minor member) voted to install Yatsenyuk of the Batkivshchyna Party as PM. Only the tiny communist party refused to vote for him.

And Svoboda, the fourth largest party, got 4 Ministries, including the Interior Ministry and the Defense Ministry. These are the same guys who have presided over Kiev's catastrophe in the East.

Yes initially, but the Defense Ministry was an acting position for about one month, after which they retained three.

Fourth, the PM is not from Svoboda, but Batkivshchyna. In fact 6 cabinet posts are held by Bat. and 3 posts held by Svoboda and 17 posts held by independents.

I heard that Svoboda has four. But the really important point is the value of the ministries. With Interior and Defense, Svoboda controls all the muscle in the government.

Except they don't. The Minister of Justice as well as the Minister of Defense are not Svoboda. Svoboda's ministers are over the well armed, highly dangerous, fanatical, and horribly suspect posts of Ecology, Agriculture, and Humanitarian Policy.

Finally, Svoboda only holds 36 of 450 seats in Parliament. Going apeshit over this party, regardless of what folks think of it, is a red herring. It's an excuse for Russian imperialism.

You go apeshit over them because they are armed and dangerous. Most of the protestors in Maidan were not armed and were simply demanding new elections. They weren't advocating the overthrow of the government. But if you've go the guns, you can do what you want.

So far all you have shown is that this is an unsupported lurid characterization of a small party. Yes, given the above you are going apeshit over a minor player...but it does serve those who support Russian imperialism.

Anyone under the age of 50 in the Ukraine sees a future with the west and western economic systems. Get with it ....

I haven't talked with anyone under 50 in Ukraine and I doubt that you have either. With the defeat of the Kiev forces, it looks like the future of Ukraine will be as a non-aligned federation with friendly relations with both the West and Russia. But that assumes that Poroshenko is serious about negotiations and didn't just agree to the cease-fire in order to stall for time.

He may be stalling, hoping that a feckless and spineless Obama and Nato will provide him with more sanctions and arms. And regarding your "non-aligned" status, in the cold war we already had a term for that: "Finlandized", where Moscow dictates the terms of a tributary state's home rule.

Before you comment on this again, get on the internet and check out your facts. This sometimes requires some serious research because the biggest bias in the msm comes from the things they don't say.

Pardon? Just who is not checking the Internet? Your reply was saturated with factual error, mainly because you either pulled the fact from your nether region OR failed to "check the Internet". I highlighted the most obvious factual errors in red, and if you wish to convince anyone here (or better yet, to have an open view) I suggest you practice what you preach.

Let's have some cites and evidence for your lurid characterizations - otherwise, may I suggest you become a tad more reasonable and modify your views to that of most of the informed Western world?

 

[boneyard bill]

But now neo-Nazis an ultra nationalist Ukrainian took power in Kiev. They were known as anti-Russian even before they proposed to make Ukrainian the official language of instruction. 60% of Crimeans are Russian-speaking so it should be no surprise when, after the coup, the Crimean president suddenly found that he had the votes for his proposal.

Yes, just like it shouldn't be surprising that there was an impressive recorded voter turnout of 123% in Sevastopol! Who can disagree with numbers like that!

The presence of Russian troops was irrelevant.

Right, of course. Occupy parliament, lock the doors, and then force the MP's to vote... totally irrelevant! Just like it was irrelevant that armed Russian troops were standing guard outside and inside the polling stations where voters were expected to vote by marking a giant checkbox on a piece of paper that is visibly deposited into a transparent glass box for all to see. No pressure or anything, just ignore the armed soldiers from the country you're voting to be annexed by!

I never commented on the popular vote. I don't know if it was a legitimate vote and neither do you. But the parliament had already voted on the issue and they came around to union with Russia for reasons which should be obvious considering the strongly anti-Russian attitude of the usurpers in Kiev. With a 60% Russian speaking population, it is not hard to conclude that the referendum would have passed comfortably with or without the presence of Russian troops.

What you're completely overlooking is the coup in Kiev. That was undertaken by armed neo-Nazis and ultra nationalist Ukrainians.

What nonsense. I followed things quite closely, and while of course there were fascists and nationalists involved in the protests/coup, they did not represent the majority of the movement; and that is a fact. You're falling for Russian propaganda in believing the whole thing was orchestrated and undertaken by what was in fact just a minority.

I never claimed that it was majority. It was only a majority of ARMED protestors. This was not a peaceful revolution. Yanukovich fled for his life and so did his supporters in parliament which constituted a majority of the parliament that was absent when they voted to oust Yanukovich. It doesn't sound to me like you followed this very closely at all or you would know these things. Either that or you do know these things and find it inconvenient to discuss them.

President Yanukovich had to flee for his life and so did the members of his party in the Ukrainian Rada.

Actually, quite a few members of his own party voted to have him removed, you know.

Of course, if you didn't want to flee you HAD to vote that way because the armed neo-Nazis were standing outside.

The Rada which supposedly "ousted" Yanukovich was a rump parliament with only a minority of members present and the others fearing for their lives.

A blatant lie; he was removed from power with 328 votes out of 447. That is not a minority of members, that's 73%. Someone who feels compelled to twist a 73% majority into a minority of scaredy cat loses all credibility.

Source please.

Those who stayed were still voting under the gun and the parliament lacked a quorum. But even if Yanukovich had been legally removed the constitution requires that the Prime Minister should become President. That didn't happen so there's no way that the Kiev government can be considered legitimate. Besides, the mere fact that parliament was acting under duress would make the whole process illegitimate.

This was a coup, most likely sponsored by the CIA since Victoria Nuland admitted the we had spent $5 billion on the "democracy movement" that's what she seems to have defined the neo-Nazi's as being. And lo and behold, she named the new prime minister a month before the coup took place. That coup prevented the coalition government from taking office with a different prime minister and we know that Nuland opposed the compromise government that the EU was negotiating even while she publicly endorsed it.

It's hard to conclude that coup was NOT fomented by the CIA or some related US sponsored agency like the National Endowment for Democracy which is a CIA front group.

 

[dystopian]

Source please.

Ooofcourse that's the first thing you ask. Never mind the fact it's been extensively reported on in the news. No, just as I pointed out before in these ukraine threads; the first and only thing you guys do is ask for a source for any and all claims, then if a source is given, question the source or otherwise try to spread more doubt and uncertainty. It isn't about the truth at all, is it? You want a source, just pick any news agency. Here's one: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26304842

Those who stayed were still voting under the gun and the parliament lacked a quorum.

Let's turn that tactic back on you, shall we? Do you have a source for your claim that those who were voting were doing so under threat of a gun? Because while protestors occupying the presidential office, there's no mention whatsoever of them doing so with parliament. And of course your claim that parliament lacked a quorum is ofcourse demonstrably false; only 226 members of parliament need to be present in Ukraine's parliament in order to carry motions: a quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group, meaning that with 328 members present (actually, I think it was 330 because I seem to recall 2 abstained), parliament easily had a quorum.

But even if Yanukovich had been legally removed the constitution requires that the Prime Minister should become President. That didn't happen so there's no way that the Kiev government can be considered legitimate.

This of course is yet another cheap tactic to try and spread doubt and confusion. Yes, under normal circumstances, when something happens to the president; the prime minister would succeed him. But obviously this does not apply when the prime minister fucking resigns before that could happen. http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/187663.html

Besides, the mere fact that parliament was acting under duress would make the whole process illegitimate.

So let's see, the government in Kiev is illegitimate because its parliament was supposedly acting under duress, even though the only evidence of 'duress' we've found is protestors occupying presidential offices (rather than parliamentary ones). However, when the Crimean parliament gets locked in by armed Russian soldiers and told to vote, that's perfectly fine?

This was a coup, most likely sponsored by the CIA since Victoria Nuland admitted the we had spent $5 billion on the "democracy movement" that's what she seems to have defined the neo-Nazi's as being.

Aaand we're back to this old canard again. No, Nuland did not say what your camp says she did. The US did not spend 5 billion dollars to destabilize Yanukovich's government; it spent 5 billion dollars SINCE 1991 on helping to develop democratic institutions. That's a pittance over a period of more than twenty years, with absolutely zero evidence that this money went to neo-nazis or destabilization efforts other than you and the other pro-russians wanting it to be true.

And lo and behold, she named the new prime minister a month before the coup took place.

Source?

And why would that prove anything, btw? There's only so many senior politicians that could possibly end up in said position, and everyone could see Yanukovych's fall coming so there was plenty of reason to speculate.

It's hard to conclude that coup was NOT fomented by the CIA or some related US sponsored agency like the National Endowment for Democracy which is a CIA front group.

It's only hard to conclude that if you're either a conspiracy nut or an idiot who swallows Russian propaganda whole. For the rest of us, all we have to do to conclude that is to listen to the stories of the ordinary Ukrainians who were a part of the protests... oh, that and not being crazy people who see CIA conspiracies everywhere, I guess.

 

[boneyard bill]

(Boneyard's fictional "facts" in red).

Let me begin by labeling this total bullshit. You are simply parroting the US media which is parroting the US state department. First of all, Yanukovich was legally elected by the Ukrainian people and his party held a majority in the Rada. He was never impeached. That takes a 2/3 vote. If he had been impeached, the prime minister would automatically have become President under the Ukrainian constitution, but that did not happen either. The "popular" uprising as you call it was nothing of the sort. It was an armed insurrection by the neo-Nazis. The "popular" protestors wanted new, early elections. Yanukovich had agreed to this the day before the uprising began.

Due to the uprising, Yanukovich FLED FOR HIS LIFE. That's not what I would call a "peaceful" takeover. So did his parliamentary majority (flee). It was a rump parliament that voted to oust Yanukovich. This is entirely illegal since they did not have a quorum and, as I have said, even if it was the prime minister would then have become president.

You make claims, but provide no evidence. The fact that the prime minister did not become president alone makes this an unconstitutional process, but far more important of course, is the armed gunmen who had taken over the Maidan and the government buildings. Are you seriously going to claim that Yanukovich and his allies fled because everything was peaceful and safe?
[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

Sorry ..., employing a fog machine of legalisms and legislative rules over quorum's, decorated with derogatory characterizations of those you despise in this crisis cannot hide the core reality that is apparent to the rest of us - Yanukovich's agreement came far too late to save him...hours after he signed the police and security forces refused to defend him, so he fled in the face of tens of thousands of protesters seizing control, and the parliament voted 328 out of 447 seats to oust him. And, you know, that is more than two thirds in the world of un-fevered mathematics (there were only 450 seats).

Even English Language Al Jazzera aknowledges the events:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europ...president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html

Al Jazeera acknowledges that there were armed protestors in the Maidan. The claim that police snipers killed the protestors at the Maidan is not proven. The BBC acknowledged that there were snipers on both sides. No one knows who fired the first shots.

Why would Yanukovich order snipers to fire on the crowd when he had just reached an agreement with them?

The Ukrainian parliament, which decisively abandoned Yanukovich after loyalists defected, declared on Saturday the president constitutionally unable to carry out his duties and set an early election for May 25. Deputies in the assembly stood, applauded and sang the national anthem.

Yes. That is not an impeachment. Where does the Rada get the authority to act on this?

In a television interview shortly beforehand, which the station said was conducted in the eastern city of Kharkiv, Yanukovich said he would not resign or leave the country, and called decisions by parliament "illegal"....

Despite his defiance, the dismantling of his authority seemed all but complete with his cabinet promising a transition to a new government, the police declaring themselves behind the protesters and his jailed arch adversary Yulia Tymoshenko freed.

And meantime armed neo-Nazis have taken over the Maidan and all government buildings. To call this a democratic process is absolutely nonsense.

Ya, he was and is toast. No majority wants him back. His own party rejected him. You need to stop making excuses on move on.

Those of his party who rejected him did so under duress. Can't you figure out that that is not the democratic government works? This was the work of armed neo-Nazis and Ultra Nationalist Ukrainians imposing a government that went far beyond the aims of the peaceful protestors whose main objective, new elections had already been achieved.

This was a coup, and it bears all the earmarks of a CIA-sponsored coup. There are taped recordings of Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Sec. of State talking with US Ambassador to Ukraine. (This bitch is so stupid that she didn't use a secure line). She told the Ambassador that she want Yatsenyuk as prime minister and was against a role Klitschko who was being promoted by the EU. (Hence the infamous "fuck the EU" quote)

Earlier, Nuland had addressed a meeting of oil company leaders and told them that the US had spent $5 billion dollars promoting the "democracy movement" in Ukrainian. $5 billion to promote democracy in a country that already had a popularly elected government? Does that make any sense. It does if you define neo-Nazi coup leaders as your democracy movement which is exactly what Nuland did.

A lack of understanding of what was intended or spent for a democracy fund, is nothing - except to those vested in conspiracies and the endless search for a confirming bias. Factual ignorance is not an argument.

So perhaps YOU can enlighten us where that money meant. This is an absurd response. You are saying that you don't know and then claiming that I am arguing from ignorance. But what I DO know is that that $5 billion was not spent on promoting the democratically elected government that was already in place.

As for 'the earmarks of a CIA coup', well from what you have claimed only those who have gone over the cliff could take an US State department diplomat's comments over preferences and desires as "earmark" PROOF of being an actual CIA operation. Really ...?

I have some difficulty figuring out what you are trying to say here. If you're suggesting that the CIA doesn't sponsor coups or that the state department does lie, then I would say you live on another planet. We KNOW these things happen. WE know Nuland's hand-picked choice for PM became PM. We KNOW that the US spent $5 billion for "democracy promotion" in a country that already had a functioning democracy. We KNOW that Nuland regarded the usurper government as a democracy. We KNOW that the US immediately recognized a government that included neo-Nazis.

Don't pay attention to the mainstream media. They are not reliable. Don't pay attention to the State Department. They hardly say anything that isn't a lie. If you listen to them, believe the opposite.

I am sure you know, as I, that I do pay attention the the US government as well as that of the many governments of democratic Europe. I also pay attention to a free Western press, in its hundreds of manifestations. As well as the open and unintimated many experts in the West, some of Russian origin, at universities, think tanks, and NGO's. I even pay a little attention to Russian experts in Russia, some of whom echo my points.

Why bother? There was a time when the mainstream European press could at least give you a little different perspective, but not anymore. They are as bought and paid for, or nearly so, as the American press. You can't believe everything you hear or read on the internet, but you can't believe anything you hear or read in the mainstream media. But you did alert me to one point I had omitted. Think tanks. They're probably the worst of all. Their business comes largely from the government. If you want to know the truth, seek out opposing opinions. When you do that you often discover that the mainstream spin is due largely to omission as was the case in the Kiev where the armed neo-Nazis, if they were mentioned at all, were treated as a quaint minority while omitting the fact that they were the minority with the guns.

Now why would any reasonable person, if given the choice between believing the repressed press organs of a country run by an ex-KGB Colonel, chose that for information over the governments, media, NGOs, and many university and think tank scholars of the free world?

You don't believe one or the other. You listen to both and decide whose position best fits the facts. Peter Lavelle of RT expounded constantly on the armed neo-Nazis in the Maidan while the US press ignored them. Many people on these boards, who follow the mainstream press, have denied that they existed at all. But the crucial fact that nearly all Americans haven't heard is that they were the ones with the guns.

That election as a farce. The only candidates were taken from among the coup leaders. Further, it wasn't necessary to have a coup to hold those elections since Yanukovich had already agreed to new elections.

After Yanukovich fled of course elections were necessary. AND No ..., there were 17 candidates in the elections which were covered by European observers. Moreover, turnout exceeded 50 percent in most regions of the Ukraine, ranging up to 80 percent turnout. Only the Russian proxy's in the Donbass region denied the right to vote (wonder what they were afraid of?)

An election where some people are denied the vote is a farce. So is an election where significant opposition leaders are afraid to run. Did any candidate in those elections advocate independence for Luhansk and Donetsk? Did any even advocate negotiations with the break-away republics? I don't know for sure, but I do know that no candidate who got any coverage in the Western media did.

Third, The Parliament under also freely elected a PM. Six of the seven parties (of which Svoboda is a minor member) voted to install Yatsenyuk of the Batkivshchyna Party as PM. Only the tiny communist party refused to vote for him.

After agreeing only a few days earlier to a different prime minister. It's amazing what a few thousand neo-Nazis with guns can do for the democratic process.

And Svoboda, the fourth largest party, got 4 Ministries, including the Interior Ministry and the Defense Ministry. These are the same guys who have presided over Kiev's catastrophe in the East.

Yes initially, but the Defense Ministry was an acting position for about one month, after which they retained three. And after which they had created the national guard under the interior ministry and co-opted the army for the fight in the east which was led by the interior ministry. That may be the reason they lost. The National Guard were worse that nothing. Mostly they just ended up giving their weaponry to the rebels. Even the rebel leader said the regular army were the only one's who fought.

Fourth, the PM is not from Svoboda, but Batkivshchyna. In fact 6 cabinet posts are held by Bat. and 3 posts held by Svoboda and 17 posts held by independents.

I heard that Svoboda has four. But the really important point is the value of the ministries. With Interior and Defense, Svoboda controls all the muscle in the government.

Except they don't. The Minister of Justice as well as the Minister of Defense are not Svoboda. Svoboda's ministers are over the well armed, highly dangerous, fanatical, and horribly suspect posts of Ecology, Agriculture, and Humanitarian Policy.

The Justice ministry doesn't have much muscle. The defense ministry has pretty much been co-opted by the Interior minister who has been running the war effort. His greatest successes were the massacre of unarmed civilians in Mariupol and the burning alive of unarmed civilians in Odessa.

Finally, Svoboda only holds 36 of 450 seats in Parliament. Going apeshit over this party, regardless of what folks think of it, is a red herring. It's an excuse for Russian imperialism.

What does it matter who is in a parliament surrounded by armed thugs? Those thugs were still there until recently. They may still be there.

You go apeshit over them because they are armed and dangerous. Most of the protestors in Maidan were not armed and were simply demanding new elections. They weren't advocating the overthrow of the government. But if you've go the guns, you can do what you want.

So far all you have shown is that this is an unsupported lurid characterization of a small party. Yes, given the above you are going apeshit over a minor player...but it does serve those who support Russian imperialism.

Not much of a response. You didn't deal with the matter of the guns. Just wave it away as a "lurid charactization." They are the reason this government is in power.

Anyone under the age of 50 in the Ukraine sees a future with the west and western economic systems. Get with it ....

I haven't talked with anyone under 50 in Ukraine and I doubt that you have either. With the defeat of the Kiev forces, it looks like the future of Ukraine will be as a non-aligned federation with friendly relations with both the West and Russia. But that assumes that Poroshenko is serious about negotiations and didn't just agree to the cease-fire in order to stall for time.

He may be stalling, hoping that a feckless and spineless Obama and Nato will provide him with more sanctions and
rms. And regarding your "non-aligned" status, in the cold war we already had a term for that: "Finlandized", where Moscow dictates the terms of a tributary state's home rule.

So now you're going to tell me what I mean by the words I use. How much did Russia intervene in Ukraine even when it had a friendly ally in Yanukovich? How much did Russia intervene during the Orange revolution when the CIA (sorry, National Endowment for Democracy) created discord to steal the election from Yanukovich at that time? Putin did nothing.

Before you comment on this again, get on the internet and check out your facts. This sometimes requires some serious research because the biggest bias in the msm comes from the things they don't say.

Pardon? Just who is not checking the Internet? Your reply was saturated with factual error, mainly because you either pulled the fact from your nether region OR failed to "check the Internet". I highlighted the most obvious factual errors in red, and if you wish to convince anyone here (or better yet, to have an open view) I suggest you practice what you preach.

I haven't addressed your highlighted comments specifically because they are not highlighted on the board that we post on. But I have noted quite a few inaccuracies in your posts, but above all, you simply want to discount the most damaging points against your case. You should work for the mainstream media.

Let's have some cites and evidence for your lurid characterizations - otherwise, may I suggest you become a tad more reasonable and modify your views to that of most of the informed Western world?

You want MORE documentation? I've documented nearly everything I've said. Not necessarily in the post but going back to discussions when the whole thing broke out. It isn't about documentation. It's about interpretation. You want to ignore uncomfortable facts and concentrate on the comfortable ones. I've documented in the past the US role in this coup about as thoroughly as any coup has been documented thanks to the loquacious Ms. Nuland. We don't usually get this much information. But you've not even responded to the implications of this information. You've just ignored. Likewise you ignore the implications of the armed neo-Nazi's in maidan and suggesting that they just a small minority. NO they're not! They are a huge majority of the ARMED citizenry and that makes a huge difference.

Let me ask you. Why are we imposing sanctions on Russia? I suppose you'd say because of the annexation of Crimea. OK. But why the second round and the third and the next round that we are discussing which I think will be the fourth. What has Putin done that warrants all these sanctions?

Other than Crimea, which likely would have voted to join Russia even if Russian troops weren't there, what has Putin done? He hasn't done anything except to continue to propose a federated, non-aligned Ukraine. Think about. We get all this hype from the state department and the news media. Most of it turns out to be lies but we still manage to invent reasons why we need more sanctions (most of which are counter-productive) to be placed on Russia. Meanwhile, Putin is not so popular in East Ukraine where they complain that he hasn't done anything to help them.

The bottom line is that Putin is out to break up Europe. All these sanctions are hurting Europe more than they are hurting Russia or the US. Putin wants Germany to turn to Russia and it is likely to happen if we continue our lying and confrontational ways. Merkel won't likely shift but she's also said that she doesn't expect to finish out her term.

That's why he has been so passive. Face it. He could have intervened in Ukraine immediately after the coup. We couldn't have stopped him and he could have claimed that he was only restoring the legally-elected government. But he didn't do it. Instead he urged, and has continued to urge, a compromise settlement. The US has rejected him at every turn. Now Poroshenko may be serious about negotiations. At least for the moment he has little choice.

You seem to think that there are rules and everybody plays by the rules or they are bad guys. This is incredibly naïve, but it is the usual mainstream spin. In fact, nobody plays by the rules and the US least of all. If the US would leave the rest of the world alone, there would be no wars.

 

[boneyard bill]

Ooofcourse that's the first thing you ask. Never mind the fact it's been extensively reported on in the news. No, just as I pointed out before in these ukraine threads; the first and only thing you guys do is ask for a source for any and all claims, then if a source is given, question the source or otherwise try to spread more doubt and uncertainty. It isn't about the truth at all, is it? You want a source, just pick any news agency. Here's one: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26304842

First of all, I rarely ask for sources so your diatribe in unwarranted. Often when I do ask for a source it turns out that the source actually supports my position. I never denied that the Ukraine parliament did not vote oust Yanukovich so I don't know what your post proves. The BBC report also says the protestors entered the Parliament building. They do not mention that the protestors were armed. Guns can decide a vote very quickly.

Those who stayed were still voting under the gun and the parliament lacked a quorum.

Let's turn that tactic back on you, shall we? Do you have a source for your claim that those who were voting were doing so under threat of a gun? Because while protestors occupying the presidential office, there's no mention whatsoever of them doing so with parliament. And of course your claim that parliament lacked a quorum is ofcourse demonstrably false; only 226 members of parliament need to be present in Ukraine's parliament in order to carry motions: a quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group, meaning that with 328 members present (actually, I think it was 330 because I seem to recall 2 abstained), parliament easily had a quorum.

I have heard otherwise but it is a minor point. The BBC post that YOU just posted says that the protestors entered the Parliament building. But they even need to do that? If they're outside the building with their guns, the parliament is still acting under duress.

But even if Yanukovich had been legally removed the constitution requires that the Prime Minister should become President. That didn't happen so there's no way that the Kiev government can be considered legitimate.

This of course is yet another cheap tactic to try and spread doubt and confusion. Yes, under normal circumstances, when something happens to the president; the prime minister would succeed him. But obviously this does not apply when the prime minister fucking resigns before that could happen. http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/187663.html

Besides, the mere fact that parliament was acting under duress would make the whole process illegitimate.

So let's see, the government in Kiev is illegitimate because its parliament was supposedly acting under duress, even though the only evidence of 'duress' we've found is protestors occupying presidential offices (rather than parliamentary ones). However, when the Crimean parliament gets locked in by armed Russian soldiers and told to vote, that's perfectly fine?

Well, I've already addressed the armed protestors and parliament. Your own source says they were there, although it doesn't say they were armed. But it hardly matters.

I never endorsed the Crimean elections. I never said that process was OK. What I said is that, given the ultra nationalist coup in Kiev and the fact that 60% of the Crimean population was Russian speaking, it is likely that such a referendum would have passed in a fair and proper election. I can neither endorse nor reject the referendum that took place because I have very little information about it.

This was a coup, most likely sponsored by the CIA since Victoria Nuland admitted the we had spent $5 billion on the "democracy movement" that's what she seems to have defined the neo-Nazi's as being.

Aaand we're back to this old canard again. No, Nuland did not say what your camp says she did. The US did not spend 5 billion dollars to destabilize Yanukovich's government; it spent 5 billion dollars SINCE 1991 on helping to develop democratic institutions. That's a pittance over a period of more than twenty years, with absolutely zero evidence that this money went to neo-nazis or destabilization efforts other than you and the other pro-russians wanting it to be true.

You overlook the fact that it is rather pointless to be spending that kind of money (and $ 5 billion is not a pittance), to develop democratic institutions in a country that is already a functioning democracy. If it was to go to "stabilizing" the country then it was obviously wasted. If it went to the National Endowment for Democracy, then it went to a CIA front group.

I am not pro-Russian. I simply look at the evidence. We've imposed several rounds of sanctions on Putin. For what? He hasn't done anything. I would argue that for reasons of Russia's national security he was entitled to do much much more. We claim we have to bomb some far-off country like Libya or Syria in our "national interest," but insist that Putin is an imperialist if he intervenes, even slightly, on serious developments on his own border. The hypocrisy of all this is really revolting.

And lo and behold, she named the new prime minister a month before the coup took place.

Source?

I've posted the source here in previous discussions. If you haven't heard of the controversy over her "fuck the EU" comment, then you haven't given the attention to this issue that you are claiming. This isn't an issue I should have to source. You should know this. It's common knowledge.

And why would that prove anything, btw? There's only so many senior politicians that could possibly end up in said position, and everyone could see Yanukovych's fall coming so there was plenty of reason to speculate.

A new prime minister had already been chosen in the negotiations sponsored by the EU and was scheduled to take effect imminently when the coup occurred. Nuland publicly supported that compromise but was privately trying to prevent it as we know from the "fuck the EU" recording.

It's hard to conclude that coup was NOT fomented by the CIA or some related US sponsored agency like the National Endowment for Democracy which is a CIA front group.

It's only hard to conclude that if you're either a conspiracy nut or an idiot who swallows Russian propaganda whole. For the rest of us, all we have to do to conclude that is to listen to the stories of the ordinary Ukrainians who were a part of the protests... oh, that and not being crazy people who see CIA conspiracies everywhere, I guess.

If you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're not studying foreign affairs. About all diplomats do is get together we each other and their intelligence agencies and conspire. The question to be answered isn't about a conspiracy. The question is about which one. However, I do not appreciate having to respond to contentless posts like this one. Please avoid them in the future. You throw in enough insults as it is. I generally accept that insults are an indication of a lack of content, but I don't like having to deal with a post that contains nothing else.

 

[barbos]

Anyone under the age of 50 in the Ukraine sees a future with the west and western economic systems. Get with it ....

Nope, it's "anyone" under 30. 50 year olds remember Soviet Union and and I would advice against trashing Soviet Union with anyone (from it) that old, you could get punched in the face. Unless of course that 50 year old is someone who turned out to be rather well under new era.
Divide is actually 40 year olds, they still have Soviet Union imprinted on them but they have new era too.

 

[laughing dog]

If the US would leave the rest of the world alone, there would be no wars.

This must be some sort of rhetorical device because there have been plenty of conflicts around the world without US involvement.

 

[barbos]

US should do actual research before start meddling with countries they can't find on the map.

 

[dystopian]

I never denied that the Ukraine parliament did not vote oust Yanukovich so I don't know what your post proves.

Misdirection; you claimed that the vote to oust him was not legal. That is wrong, as my post demonstrates.

The BBC report also says the protestors entered the Parliament building.

No, it doesn't. Do you understand the difference between 'Presidential offices and residences' and 'parliament'? Because the article only mentions protestors being allowed into the former, not the latter.

They do not mention that the protestors were armed. Guns can decide a vote very quickly.

Of course they wouldn't mention that; because there were no protestors inside parliament.

I have heard otherwise but it is a minor point.

No it isn't. If you've heard otherwise, you've heard wrong. Fallen victim to pro-russian propaganda, most likely; pushing this idea that there was no quorum because a 3 fourths majority was required to impeach him; forgetting that he was not actually impeached but rather a resolution was adapted removing him from office on account of the fact he was no longer able to carry out his duties: and only 226 votes are required to carry a motion. This is pretty relevant point that goes to show the questionable validity of anything you may have "heard".

The BBC post that YOU just posted says that the protestors entered the Parliament building.

Again, no it doesn't.

But they even need to do that? If they're outside the building with their guns, the parliament is still acting under duress.

Is the US senate acting under duress because there's armed police outside? Don't be absurd. There are no reports of armed protestors outside parliament threathening those inside. There certainly weren't any armed soldiers locking the politicians inside until they voted a certain way, as is what happened in Crimea.

Well, I've already addressed the armed protestors and parliament. Your own source says they were there, although it doesn't say they were armed. But it hardly matters.

Except that it *doesn't* say that, and it *does* matter.

I never endorsed the Crimean elections. I never said that process was OK.

Oh please. Your endorsement may not be explicit, but it is absolutely implicit in everything you've written on the topic.

What I said is that, given the ultra nationalist coup in Kiev

This of course, is part of why your endorsement for the Crimean vote is implicit; language like this. It was *not* an ultranationalist coup; since the ultranationalists represented only a minority of both the protestors and the new government that was formed. And of course, it also wasn't even a coup, since contrary to pro-russian claims, the vote was perfectly legal and democratic. By insisting on referring to it as an ultranationalist coup, your bias is laid bare for all to see.

and the fact that 60% of the Crimean population was Russian speaking, it is likely that such a referendum would have passed in a fair and proper election.

Bullshit. You can not infer that because X % of a region speaks Russian, that they would therefore all have voted pro-russian in a fair election. Especially not when prior to Russian troops occupying Crimea, polls showed the opposite. Less than third of Crimeans wanted to join Russia in 2013; there is no way the numbers would spike that high without propaganda and foul play involved. And if it was so likely that they'd vote to join Russia, then why the obvious and blatant tampering with the process and results?

I can neither endorse nor reject the referendum that took place because I have very little information about it.

Of course.

You overlook the fact that it is rather pointless to be spending that kind of money (and $ 5 billion is not a pittance), to develop democratic institutions in a country that is already a functioning democracy. If it was to go to "stabilizing" the country then it was obviously wasted.

Oh my god, you're serious. Do you actually believe that Ukraine, immediately following its independence in 1991 was a functioning democracy? Or even since then? You DO know that when Yanukovych was first voted president in 2004 he did so through massive electoral fraud, inciting mass protests, and ultimately leading to the supreme court having to invalidate the results, right? You DO know that when years later, he became president; one of the first things he did was to start undoing the democratic reforms that limited the power of the presidency, and imprisoning his political enemies, right? How on earth could you call that a functioning democracy?

I am not pro-Russian. I simply look at the evidence.

Selectively.

We've imposed several rounds of sanctions on Putin. For what? He hasn't done anything.

Are you fucking kidding me? He *annexed* an area the size of Belgium; a highly illegal act in violation of all international law; and something that hasn't happened in Europe since WW2. It is completely and utterly unacceptable, and something that must carry consequences. And this of course is ignoring the shit he did in Georgia. Putin has done plenty wrong; things that demand an international response. If you can't or won't see this, then you're just blindly pro-russian regardless of what you say.

I would argue that for reasons of Russia's national security he was entitled to do much much more. We claim we have to bomb some far-off country like Libya or Syria in our "national interest," but insist that Putin is an imperialist if he intervenes, even slightly, on serious developments on his own border. The hypocrisy of all this is really revolting.

Bullshit. Countries do NOT have the right to invade their neighbors without cassus belli (no such cassus belli existed); much less annex whole regions from them. At no point was Russia's national security at actual risk. You can say what you want about US bombing campaigns; but two wrongs don't make a right. And at least the US doesn't annex territory like a *true* imperial bully.

I've posted the source here in previous discussions. If you haven't heard of the controversy over her "fuck the EU" comment, then you haven't given the attention to this issue that you are claiming. This isn't an issue I should have to source. You should know this. It's common knowledge.

Yes, the 'fuck the EU' comment 'scandal' is common knowledge. Just as it's common knowledge that your interpretation of said comment has been thoroughly debunked in the same threads you and other pro-russians posted it in.

If you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're not studying foreign affairs.

Shall we blame the illuminati next?

However, I do not appreciate having to respond to contentless posts like this one. Please avoid them in the future.

Why am I not surprised that you try to dismiss it as 'contentless'? I, at least, do not dismiss your posts as contentless. Clearly they have content. Nonsensical content, sure, but content nonetheless.

You throw in enough insults as it is. I generally accept that insults are an indication of a lack of content, but I don't like having to deal with a post that contains nothing else.

Oh believe me, if I was actually insulting you, I wouldn't be this nice about it.

Incidentally, I generally accept that people who generally accept that insults are an indication of a lack of content, only state that they do so in order to convince themselves that because they feel offended they don't have to consider the actual points abd arguments that violate their personal reality.

Because you know, insults actually have no relation whatsoever to the truth or validity of what someone is saying. "1 + 1 = 2" is still true even if you word it as "1 + 1 = 2, you motherfucking dick."

 

[barbos]

Once again (for our EU friends) Crimea voted and left Ukraine.
Same way Scotland is gonna vote or any EU country voted to join EU.

 

[4321lynx]

And once again, as always, Might is Right, whether any of us like it or not. For the time being Russia has the might locally, as NATO will not go to war over the Ukraine, and Putin knows it and the whole world knows it.

 

[Derec]

Once again (for our EU friends) Crimea voted and left Ukraine.
Same way Scotland is gonna vote or any EU country voted to join EU.

Crimea voted while under armed Soviet (uhm I mean Russian) occupation. That vote is not worth damn.

US should have positioned cruise missile submarines in the black sea and threatened to hit Sevastopol if Ruskies don't back off - and then carried out the threat. After all, there is a treaty both US and Russia signed respecting territorial integrity of Ukraine.

 

[dystopian]

Incidentally, did anyone else catch the hilarious fact that the Russian Times is claiming the Fins want to join Russia? Finland, wants to join Russia?

 

[boneyard bill]

If the US would leave the rest of the world alone, there would be no wars.

This must be some sort of rhetorical device because there have been plenty of conflicts around the world without US involvement.

More wisdom from the nitpicking corridor. Of course, there will be wars sometime. But the current round of bloodshed is almost entirely due to US meddling. The only exception would be Israel's attacks on Gaza.