Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

robindch · 19-08-2014 4:57pm

recedite wrote: »

Its similar to the statements they made that the airliner was shot down by a "Russian-made" missile, followed up by a later (and much lower key) statement their there was "no evidence of direct Russian involvement".

I don't quite see what the problem here is - if the US or NATO claims that MH17 was brought down by Russians, then they'll have to do something much more serious than the mickey-mouse sanctions they've been implementing so far. While there was lots of circumstantial evidence of Russian involvement, there was no incontrovertible evidence of "direct" involvement, so the statement seems accurate.

recedite wrote: »

What the western public saw was the newspaper headline "Putin's Missile".

That's probably not surprising, given that the gunmen which Putin is backing boasted about having BUK's, boasted about having shot down a large plane, had phonecalls leaked with multiple sources including some in Russia, as well as what the one of the gunmen admitted, quite possibly accidentally.

While all this evidence is compelling, it's not incontrovertible and the EU and US have deemed it insufficient to do much more than sanction a few more individuals and companies. All the newspapers have to do is sell copy. They don't have a responsibility, at least in principle, to act upon what they say, unlike the US and EU.

Are you suggesting that the missile that brought down MH17 wasn't Russian, and was fired -- albeit at the wrong plane -- without the knowledge, help or connivance of Russian soldiers, the military and the Kremlin?

stevejazzx · 19-08-2014 5:29pm

recedite wrote: »

What the western public saw was the newspaper headline "Putin's Missile".

robindch wrote:

That's probably not surprising, given that the gunmen which Putin is backing boasted about having BUK's, boasted about having shot down a large plane, had phonecalls leaked with multiple sources including some in Russia, as well as what the one of the gunmen admitted, quite possibly accidentally.

Hmm... Saddam's WMD's and Putin's Missile -
Neither have materialized and as time goes by alternative motives from the US become apparent i.e war.

Coming from a place where I had firmly believed that the separatists were undoubtedly responsible I now have growing concerns

- The picture of the BUK's that the rebels were supposed to have is now apparently in question. (due to the time of year (trees) and location (poster)

- The phone calls have apparently been withdrawn as evidence as they are apparently spliced together from different times

- No evidence that BUK was launched from rebel area now

- Russia claims to have evidence of Ukrainian BUKs in the area.

This post break down Russia's questions

I just wish that the US and Ukraine would release the flight audio and high res sat imagery. They have it recorded why can't we hear it? Mh17 went on a sudden 14km divergence before it exploded. The audio would likely explain why; it;s crucial.

robindch · 19-08-2014 6:22pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

as time goes by alternative motives from the US become apparent i.e war.

It's sentences like this that really confuse me.

On the one hand, we have the US which has bent over backwards to make it clear that, to a very large extent, it doesn't give a hoot about Ukraine, that it has no interest whatsoever in a European war and has issued sanctions against a small number of individuals and fewer corporations. Putin, on the other hand, has violated the security understanding which has generally kept international peace in Europe since 1945, has legitimized violent ethnic nationalism in an ingroup with members in many European countries, has invaded Ukraine twice, has stolen one province and destabilized the rest, has cheered on clearly fraudulent "referendums" in east Ukraine and Crimea, has initiated, supported and failed to condemn actions by Russian-flagged gunmen and others which have lead to the deaths of thousands, has whipped up his own population into a dangerous jingoistic whirlwind, has lied through his teeth for months, and generally made it clear that the international agreements to which Russia are party aren't worth the paper they're written on.

And you say that it's the US which has stood back and done virtually nothing which wants war?

I really don't get it

stevejazzx · 19-08-2014 7:08pm

robindch wrote:

And you say that it's the US which has stood back and done virtually nothing which wants war?

I really don't get it

Done nothing - in what way do you mean?

- They've spent 5bn on influencing Ukraine democratic process since 1992.
- They've had their most senior staff members on the streets supporting the revolution.
- They are preparing various bailout packages.
- They recently supplied non lethal military gear.
- They have lead the cause in condemning Russian actions and have made Ukraine a non NATO ally and have threatened and implemented sanctions.
- The vice presidents son is working with Burisma to quote "get Ukraine off its dependence on Russia for energy".
- They have given strategic support to the Ukraine directly with CIA and congress has just passed an urgent aid bill for Ukraine.
- The US will train the National Guard and on and on.

It's kind of similar to Brazil in 1964 - the CIA was instrumental in a coup d'etat after which the US ambassador to Brazil said that Brazil's new found freedom (beneath a new leadership of ultra fascists) would greatly improve the climate for foreign investment.
The investment here is related to future energy and preventing Russia's monopoly and growth in the area while at the same furthering NATO's defense installations along Russia's borders.
There's nothing in the above paragraph which is denied by the US.

recedite · 20-08-2014 10:17am

robindch wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the missile that brought down MH17 wasn't Russian, and was fired -- albeit at the wrong plane -- without the knowledge, help or connivance of Russian soldiers, the military and the Kremlin?

^ That is a prime example of the kind of innuendo being put out by the US/Nato spindoctors.
The first part is true; all BUKs were made in Russia/USSR at one time or another, and the plane was almost certainly brought down by one.

The second part, that it follows then that Putin must have ordered or "connived" in the attack is the false conclusion which people are making.
From your own link above;

Khodakovsky said it was widely known that rebels had obtained BUKs from Ukrainian forces in the past, including three captured at a checkpoint in April and another captured near the airport in Donetsk. He said none of the BUKs captured from Ukrainian forces were operational.
While he said he could not be certain where the BUK system operating on rebel territory at the time of the air crash had come from, he said it may have come from Russia.

Assuming this report is genuine and true, this particular rebel commander does not know whether the other rebel commander subsequently got the captured BUKs working.
So what we actually know is that all three; Kiev Ukraine, Rebel Ukraine, and Russia have BUKs in their arsenal. And all BUKs are "Russian made". That's all we know.

Having said that, IMO Rebel Ukraine is most likely to have fired the missile, but not with the intention of bringing down a passenger plane. And speculating that, it still does not make Putin responsible.

robindch wrote: »

It's sentences like this that really confuse me.
On the one hand, we have the US which has bent over backwards to make it clear that, to a very large extent, it doesn't give a hoot about Ukraine, that it has no interest whatsoever in a European war.....
I really don't get it

Take off the blinkers then.

Brian Shanahan · 01-09-2014 2:41pm

Seeing as Russia have made their naked power grab official over the last few days with army units operating openly on Ukrainian soil and attacking Ukrainian troops in defiance of all international law and treaty, are any of the "Russia are the wronged party" crowd going to apologise for their wrongheaded castigation of the rest of us?

Hotblack Desiato · 01-09-2014 7:50pm

The recent silence in here speaks volumes, Brian.

stevejazzx · 01-09-2014 8:55pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Seeing as Russia have made their naked power grab official over the last few days with army units operating openly on Ukrainian soil and attacking Ukrainian troops in defiance of all international law and treaty, are any of the "Russia are the wronged party" crowd going to apologise for their wrongheaded castigation of the rest of us?

Can you link to where Russia made this official?
Not disagreeing with you per se - I'm just not aware they'v admitted it?

Brian Shanahan · 01-09-2014 9:10pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

Can you link to where Russia made this official?
Not disagreeing with you per se - I'm just not aware they'v admitted it?

So instead of facing up to the facts of the situation, you obfuscate and deny.

Very big of you, Steve, I must say.

stevejazzx · 01-09-2014 10:44pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Seeing as Russia have made their naked power grab official

stevejazzx wrote: »

Can you link to where Russia made this official?
Not disagreeing with you per se - I'm just not aware they've admitted it?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So instead of facing up to the facts of the situation, you obfuscate and deny.

Very big of you, Steve, I must say.

No not all - I am genuinely interested in reading where Russia has made this official as you've somewhat stated - if they haven't made this official then perhaps you could elaborate as to precisely what you think is going on - seeing as you have repeatedly refused to justify and stand over your previous soundbite that 'Putin is a Nazi' it would be refreshing if you provided an in depth analysis of what you believe is happening here at which stage your call for an apology can be properly determined.

recedite · 02-09-2014 12:23pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

..seeing as Russia have made their naked power grab official..

The statement is untrue.

But listening to some of the news reports on RTE and BBC, they give the impression that the Russian army have declared war on Ukraine and have openly invaded with columns of tanks etc. so I can see how the mistake can arise.
I don't think any of us here are privy to what extent, if any, the Russian military are helping the separatists. If it is happening, it would be classified as tactical information and would not be released. Claims and "evidence" by the Nato and Kiev authorities about a Russian invasion are still unconvincing.

Brown Bomber · 03-09-2014 10:36pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Seeing as Russia have made their naked power grab official over the last few days with army units operating openly on Ukrainian soil and attacking Ukrainian troops in defiance of all international law and treaty, are any of the "Russia are the wronged party" crowd going to apologise for their wrongheaded castigation of the rest of us?

Yeah...And while I am at it I think I should apologise for doubting that Kuwaiti babies were getting thrown from their incubators by Emmanuel Goldstein/Putin/Hitler/Saddam

recedite · 18-09-2014 2:07pm

Great to see the Scottish referendum underway. Whatever the outcome, its setting a precedent for how a civilised society should behave in the 21st Century. It will have a big effect on how other democracies are expected to deal with their own separatist movements in the future.

BTW there is a load of Polish cheese in Lidl at the moment, presumably we can thank the Russian trade sanctions for that. Morski and Tylzycki aren't bad, but I still prefer good old Irish Kilmeaden, the fillet of cheddar.

robindch · 18-09-2014 5:34pm

recedite wrote: »

Great to see the Scottish referendum underway. Whatever the outcome, its setting a precedent for how a civilised society should behave in the 21st Century. It will have a big effect on how other democracies are expected to deal with their own separatist movements in the future.

Aside from a few reports of scuffles, minor voter intimidation, unevidenced claims of media bias and man unanswered questions -- yes, it's good to see the process being run fairly following a long, good debate in front of a mostly well-informed electorate presented with a simple, clear choice.

Meanwhile, briefly back on forum topic, prominent Putin-supporter Patriarch Kirill -- he of the miraculous, disappearing Breguet watch -- receives a surprising gift from an adoring factory:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/russia-church-fighter-idINL6N0RH4IP20140916?irpc=932

Reuters wrote:

Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, was presented with an unlikely gift for a religious leader this week as he toured a factory in Russia's far-east - a single-seater fighter jet SU-35. Kirill was presented with the jet after giving workers at the civilian and military aircraft plant icons blessed by himself, the church said in a statement on its official website on Tuesday.

The patriarch, with whom President Vladimir Putin has fostered increasingly close ties in recent years, addressed the workers on the importance of protecting Russia. "Russia cannot be a vassal. Because Russia is not only a country, it is a whole civilization, it is a thousand-year story, a cultural melting-pot, of enormous power," RIA news agency quoted him as saying.

"In order for us to be able to live a sovereign life, we must, if necessary, be able to defend our homeland." Kirill's church is aligned with Putin's drive to reunite the former Soviet sphere of countries, with the Russian Orthodox Church exerting considerable influence through its 165 million members in Russia and other former USSR republics. Critics of the Russian Orthodox Church have said it is acting as a de-facto government ministry for Putin, including in foreign affairs, and have warned that such political engagements could backfire.

That also goes for Ukraine, where Kirill's Moscow Patriarchate is at odds with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kiev Patriarchate that seceded from Moscow after Ukraine gained independence in 1991. The Moscow Patriarchate dominates in the Russian-speaking East, where Ukrainian forces have been battling a pro-Russian separatist insurgency since April.

recedite · 18-09-2014 10:40pm

Most of those points on your graphic can be summarised in the one key difference; The UK government agreed to let the Scots themselves decide.
Kiev was never prepared to allow the people in Crimea, or the russophile eastern regions generally, their right to self-determination. All the militarisation that occurred followed on from that one fact.

The last point is incorrect. Scotland will only start the negotiations re divvying up state assets in the event of a yes vote. Of equal importance would be their allocation of UK national debt, which Salmond has said would largely depend on whether they are allowed to continue to print scottish sterling banknotes.

It turns out that Patriarch Kirill is only getting a model fighter jet, something that he can easily keep up his sleeve with his other loot

robindch · 20-09-2014 10:22am

recedite wrote: »

Kiev was never prepared to allow the people in Crimea, or the russophile eastern regions generally, their right to self-determination.

Secession is explicitly permitted by the Ukrainian constitution and could have been done peacefully, had the legal process been followed - do remember that Yanukovich and his Party of the Regions were markedly pro-Russian and had the legal power and political muscle to hold a referendum.

recedite wrote: »

All the militarisation that occurred followed on from that one fact.

Rubbish. Putin violated Ukraine's sovereign integrity because he knew that (a) nobody could or would stop him and (b) within Russia, with sufficient hysterical propaganda, it would bolster his flagging popularity and neutralize what was a growing anti-Putin, anti-corruption movement much in the style of the Maidan protests themselves which led to Yanokovich's departure.

To apparently believe that militarization and the thousands of deaths that followed was in any sense Kiev's fault or doing, or had anything to do with the "suppression of the Russian language and/or the rights of Russian speakers" is to misunderstand what happened at a very profound level indeed.

robindch · 20-09-2014 10:31am

Russia declares that the Scottish referendum didn't follow international law because of "the size of the room" where the votes were counted. While one of the leaders of the pro-Russian gunmen in Donetsk said he believed the result had been falsified because the government did not win by a large margin.

http://ria.ru/world/20140919/1024703912.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum

recedite · 20-09-2014 5:20pm

robindch wrote: »

Secession is explicitly permitted by the Ukrainian constitution and could have been done peacefully, had the legal process been followed - do remember that Yanukovich and his Party of the Regions were markedly pro-Russian and had the legal power and political muscle to hold a referendum.

If the constitution allows secession only with the agreement of the central government, but the central govt. has a policy not to allow it, then you can hardly say "it could have been done peacefully".
In the past, the regions didn't want to secede while the central govt. was pro-russian or neutral in outlook. Crimea sought autonomy from the start (the break up of USSR), but not actual secession. It was only when the American-backed Maidan regime seized power and instigated anti-Russian measures that the russophiles became agitated.

robindch wrote: »

Russia declares that the Scottish referendum didn't follow international law because of "the size of the room" where the votes were counted.

The observers noted that they were confined to the perimeter area of a large aircraft hangar sized room, where they could not see what was going on towards the centre of the "room". They suggested that if international observers had been at a referendum under the same conditions in Russia, with a similarly "improbable" high turnout, the vote would have been said not to comply with international standards. Which is probably correct.
In this very thread, did you not cite the high number of ballots counted in the Crimean referendum as evidence that is was rigged?

stevejazzx · 21-09-2014 4:43pm

Where was it claimed that the militarization that occurred was exclusively in reaction to threats to Russian language and rights of Russian speakers?

Recedite said

recedite wrote:

Kiev was never prepared to allow the people in Crimea, or the russophile eastern regions generally, their right to self-determination.

To which you replied

robindch wrote: »

To apparently believe that militarization and the thousands of deaths that followed was in any sense Kiev's fault or doing, or had anything to do with the "suppression of the Russian language and/or the rights of Russian speakers" is to misunderstand what happened at a very profound level indeed.

This idea that the situation in Ukraine is, in any way, one dimensional; a Putin lead onslaught on international laws and borders, is just balmy. To understand this affair one should have a substantial understanding of; pre and post Soviet union politics, a historical perspective of Russia and Ukraine (hence thread title) - a considerable knowledge of modern Ukraine, it's west east division, a comprehensive understanding of US foreign policy and a good grasp of the current geo-political and economic situations - that are ultimately the base cause of of all modern conflicts and wars.
Your gross over simplification of the affair and the almost exclusive blame you place on Putin in relation to all of this, displays, for any discerning reader, not only a profound misunderstanding of the affair but a fatal inability to navigate the essential external factors involved within it, which in turn automatically invalidates most of your opinion on it.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-09-2014 11:44pm

I am a discerning reader;

and your constant Putinist apologism is wearing really rather thin.

Your post is a nothing; it says nothing other than that you claim by mere assertion that people who disagree with you are ill informed.

How arrogant can one get?

stevejazzx · 22-09-2014 12:56am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I am a discerning reader;

and your constant Putinist apologism is wearing really rather thin.

Putin apologist? What nonsense. If you read the thread you'd know that I'm not a Putin apologist, having criticized him and indeed agreed with most criticisms of him in this very thread no less; it is worrying therefore that you haven't as yet discerned that; in fact this in and of itself invalidates your opening gambit above which claims you are a discerning reader. (BTW haven't we already been over this exact point re Putin?).

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Your post is a nothing;

I am sorry it doesn't fit your agenda. You seem intent on picking me up wrong and labeling me as you see fit - you're going to have make a better attempt at understanding me than that - I'm calling for a more balanced understanding of this extremely complex affair. On a forum where people generally consider themselves as having good reasoning, where a scientific approach to data and information is encouraged it is bewildering how similar to the mainstream news posters in this particular thread sound when offering their views on this affair.

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

it says nothing other than that you claim by mere assertion that people who disagree with you are ill informed.

This again throws grave doubt upon your opening claim of being a discerning reader.
I simply didn't in any way claim that people who disagreed with me were ill informed.
I claimed that people who do not possess the necessary information and understanding of the affair but who nonetheless made sweeping statements about others being ill informed (as Robin did earlier, in a post to which I highlighted and replied to; and the one to which to you now refer) were ill informed; which is a really quite colossally different thing altogether.

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

How arrogant can one get?

In what is surely the final nail in the coffin with regard to your claim of being a discerning reader you offer an insult at a person who is calling for a better understanding of something vastly complicated and someone who has pointed out the clear arrogance of another.

Your problem appears straightforward - you don't seem to believe there is any valid opposing viewpoint in relation the Ukrainian conflict other that that set out by western media. That's fine but there's no need for wayward insults particularly when you aren't even properly digesting the full extent of what is being discussed.

In relation to your repetitive use of the word nothing above - I would like to remind you that I have contributed heavily to this thread and set out my points as clearly and as honestly as I could. Surely it is not expected of me to reiterate my keys points of contention every time I post? If this is now the new status quo then surely this same claim could be leveled at anyone who contributes? If this is not case and the current status quo does indeed hold then these your remarks of yours claiming that my post "is a nothing" is automatically disqualified from being any form of valid criticism.

stevejazzx · 22-09-2014 12:01pm

Robindch wrote:

I sincerely hope there are millions who disagree with what Putin's doing just now, but if there are, they're not making many waves, at least in public.

Well here's a start

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-antiwar-marches-ukraine/26597971.html

Robindch wrote:

...because he knew that it would bolster his flagging popularity and neutralize what was a growing anti-Putin, anti-corruption movement much in the style of the Maidan protests themselves which led to Yanokovich's departure.

See above - it appears that your grasp of the current Russian mood ins't
entirely accurate.

Brown Bomber · 23-09-2014 8:36am

robindch wrote: »

Aside from a few reports of scuffles, minor voter intimidation, unevidenced claims of media bias and man unanswered questions -- yes, it's good to see the process being run fairly following a long, good debate in front of a mostly well-informed electorate presented with a simple, clear choice.

Meanwhile, briefly back on forum topic, prominent Putin-supporter Patriarch Kirill -- he of the miraculous, disappearing Breguet watch -- receives a surprising gift from an adoring factory:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/russia-church-fighter-idINL6N0RH4IP20140916?irpc=932

What your graphic fails to mention is the precursor to the Crimean referendum - The violent coup, spearheaded by anti-Russian nationalists and Neo-Nazis and facilitated by outside powers against a democratically elected and legitimate government. None of this happened in Scotland.

Brown Bomber · 23-09-2014 8:45am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I am a discerning reader;

I am not convinced.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

and your constant Putinist apologism is wearing really rather thin.

For me, Steve (along with recedite) is speaking far more eloquently, objectively and from positions of knowledge and understanding than anyone else by some distance.

I'd like to see you expand on your slur of "Putinist apologism" by a) defining it and b) providing examples.

stevejazzx · 25-09-2014 5:36pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not convinced.

For me, Steve (along with recedite) is speaking far more eloquently, objectively and from positions of knowledge and understanding than anyone else by some distance.

I'd like to see you expand on your slur of "Putinist apologism" by a) defining it and b) providing examples.

Thanks for that BB

Here's a definitively non Putin view of things - from an Americans viewpoint that manages a fair degree of perspective and objectiveness, views that I contest have not been represented fairly here.

If you can stand his accent (it reminds of Charlie Sheen and that makes it very hard to listen to) - then Dan Carlin is a fairly well respected amateur historian who I have had very little exposure to but he covers Ukrainian conflict fairly well here and represents my views on the matter fairly closely.
He also covers the Putin / Nazi angle, the involvement of US and the main stream medias poor coverage.

Btw I certainly don't agree with everything he says but I see can he makes a marked and honest attempt at trying to understand the affair.

You can skip to about 15 mins in as he goes on an ridiculously long and rambling intro first.

stevejazzx · 25-09-2014 6:22pm

Discussion -

Possibility of Ukraine in NATO

http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2014/9/5
(question starts at 26.28)

For people still struggling to understand the complexities of this affair - particularly as referenced by the thread title - have a listen to the answer given here.

Prof. Stephen Cohen wrote:

"Ukraine is linked to Russia not only in terms of being Russias essential security zone but it linked conjugally so to speak - there millions if not tens of millions of Ukrainians married to Russians - put it in NATO and you're gong to put a barricade between millions of families"

With that answer in tow - imagine Russia's reaction to the heavily US supported coup in Kiev in February and now this rapid deployment force that is to be deployed in the Baltic republic, Poland and Romania. A real military expansion of NATO directly on Russian borders. So conveniently for the US they will get what they have been seeking long before this crisis.

oscarBravo · 25-09-2014 6:27pm

Ukraine is linked to Russia not only in terms of being Russias essential security zone...

Why does Russia get to consider a sovereign nation its essential security zone? What if Ukraine doesn't want to be Russia's security zone?

stevejazzx · 25-09-2014 7:10pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why does Russia get to consider a sovereign nation its essential security zone? What if Ukraine doesn't want to be Russia's security zone?

That's very true but the key word here is linked; as in historically linked.
There's a certain symbiosis predisposed or inferred. The mistake here would be to not understand the history.
Even if we remove relationship this wouldn't give NATO the right to use Ukraine as a further defense base. Russia has a real concern on its borders and legitimately so - NATO has none.

obplayer · 25-09-2014 8:38pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

That's very true but the key word here is linked; as in historically linked.
There's a certain symbiosis predisposed or inferred. The mistake here would be to not understand the history.
Even if we remove relationship this wouldn't give NATO the right to use Ukraine as a further defense base. Russia has a real concern on its borders and legitimately so - NATO has none.

What is Russia's real concern? If Ukraine are happy to be used by NATO as a defence base then why, as a sovereign nation, should they not? Just because Russia, as a country, is as paranoid as a mad paranoid thing why does that mean we should build the rest of the world's foreign policy around this?

stevejazzx · 25-09-2014 9:21pm

obplayer wrote: »

What is Russia's real concern? If Ukraine are happy to be used by NATO as a defence base then why, as a sovereign nation, should they not? Just because Russia, as a country, is as paranoid as a mad paranoid thing why does that mean we should build the rest of the world's foreign policy around this?

This is such a desperately ill informed comment and summation that I don't know where to start.
For one there is nothing exceptionally paranoid about Russias mistrust of NATO (particularly after promises that were made after soviet troops withdrew from East Germany). NATO has had needless and reckless expansionist ideals under successive US governments that have directly jeopardized the non proliferation agreement* that took so long to build up. Russia hasn't sought any such expansionism. It has only been diluted. The myth of current Russian expansionism seeps exclusively from a retarded western media that is a direct mouthpiece for US foreign policy; a policy predicated on ensuring economic prosperity for American business through the destabilization of other countries. This is something that used to be considered a conspiracy theory but is now so well established as fact that it has become impossible to offer an alternative. You could literally throw a dart at South America or the Middle East and hit a country that has suffered under such a policy. US FP hasn't been drafted to accommodate for a crazy and paranoid Russia, it has crafted these situations, or at the very least taken advantage of them, mostly for its own benefit or for its own security interest.

Have a look at this

You can't spend this much on defense and not recoup your cost somehow. By exporting democracy the US believes it is entitled to a cut of the infrastructure and natural resources of whatever country it has decided to subvert or simply bomb.

Here's one of many, many Chomsky fact heavy, multi referenced lectures on US foreign Policy history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6WbdYVl3Co

Heres' a little piece that sums US foreign policy amid the drone strike scandal a couple of years ago -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3I8VfXkVrs

*Most of the world’s countries argue the US and its NATO allies have violated Articles 1 and 2 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), because the Pentagon has a NATO nuclear weapons sharing program. In addition, “Through its continued construction of nuclear weapons the US is the chief violator of the NPT and the chief cause for the development of Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons,”

obplayer · 26-09-2014 2:00am

stevejazzx wrote: »

This is such a desperately ill informed comment and summation that I don't know where to start.
For one there is nothing exceptionally paranoid about Russias mistrust of NATO (particularly after promises that were made after soviet troops withdrew from East Germany). NATO has had needless and reckless expansionist ideals under successive US governments that have directly jeopardized the non proliferation agreement* that took so long to build up. Russia hasn't sought any such expansionism. It has only been diluted. The myth of current Russian expansionism seeps exclusively from a retarded western media that is a direct mouthpiece for US foreign policy; a policy predicated on ensuring economic prosperity for American business through the destabilization of other countries. This is something that used to be considered a conspiracy theory but is now so well established as fact that it has become impossible to offer an alternative. You could literally throw a dart at South America or the Middle East and hit a country that has suffered under such a policy. US FP hasn't been drafted to accommodate for a crazy and paranoid Russia, it has crafted these situations, or at the very least taken advantage of them, mostly for its own benefit or for its own security interest.

Have a look at this

You can't spend this much on defense and not recoup your cost somehow. By exporting democracy the US believes it is entitled to a cut of the infrastructure and natural resources of whatever country it has decided to subvert or simply bomb.

Here's one of many, many Chomsky fact heavy, multi referenced lectures on US foreign Policy history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6WbdYVl3Co

Heres' a little piece that sums US foreign policy amid the drone strike scandal a couple of years ago -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3I8VfXkVrs

*Most of the world’s countries argue the US and its NATO allies have violated Articles 1 and 2 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), because the Pentagon has a NATO nuclear weapons sharing program. In addition, “Through its continued construction of nuclear weapons the US is the chief violator of the NPT and the chief cause for the development of Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons,”

You have not addressed two of my questions...
1. What is Russia's real concern?
Showing a graph of America's defence spending is interesting, and I have seen it many times before, but it does not explain what Russia expects America to do with this force. Does Russia expect an invasion? If so where are the American tanks in Europe? I fully realise that America's defence spending is wildly excessive but how are they going to use this force against a nuclear armed power?
2. If Ukraine are happy to be used by NATO as a defence base then why, as a sovereign nation, should they not?
You have simply ignored this question.

As for Russia being wildly paranoid, we know this. Any perusal of their history tells us why (being invaded and destroyed time and again), but that does not mean the rest of have to build our policies around this. We can certainly make allowances, but that is not the same as allowing them a free pass.

robindch · 26-09-2014 10:12am

stevejazzx wrote: »

Even if we remove relationship this wouldn't give NATO the right to use Ukraine as a further defense base. Russia has a real concern on its borders and legitimately so - NATO has none.

I'm sorry, but this is disinformation of a distinctly unpleasant kind as it's the Russian-sponsored disinformation which was used to justify Putin's double invasion of Ukraine and the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian citizens. And even it were true - which it certainly is not - the pride and jealously of a paranoid president and, now, a paranoid nation too, should never be accepted as sufficient justification for invading a sovereign country and causing what Putin has caused in Ukraine. At least not in any world that I'd like me and my kid to live in where I'd like concepts like justice, honor, decency and the rule of law have any meaning.

Rather than retype what I and others have already written, you should spend a few minutes reading the following:

This article which gives a good overview of NATO's activities, treaties and general relationship with Russia since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
This interview with Putin from 2000 in which he rejects the idea of "zones of interest" and suggests that Russia could become a member of NATO and suggests initially working towards a "strategic paternership".
This joint statement from 2010 between Russia and NATO in which both announce that they're actively working towards a "strategic partnership".

Suggesting that NATO, or the EU, or the US are, is in any sense whatsoever, responsible for Putin's one-sided double-invasion of Ukraine and its murderous aftermath is, at best, to misunderstand Putin's aggressive, power-hungry paranoia - and his successful campaign of belligerent disinformation - profoundly.

stevejazzx · 26-09-2014 10:16am

obplayer wrote: »

You have not addressed two of my questions...
1. What is Russia's real concern?

Emm - I did, see above
I'll break it down more for you tough

1. NATO in the Ukraine would be a precursor for WW3 - that's their concern.

oblayer wrote:

Showing a graph of America's defence spending is interesting, and I have seen it many times before, but it does not explain what Russia expects America to do with this force. Does Russia expect an invasion? If so where are the American tanks in Europe?

Russia expects the Americans are trying to buy influence in western Ukraine for both security and economic reasons. The economic reasons include stifling Russias attempt at becoming an energy superpower while concurrently improving their own sphere of influence in the region in relation to such.

obplayer wrote:

I fully realise that America's defence spending is wildly excessive but how are they going to use this force against a nuclear armed power?

They are counting on the philosophy of MAD to hold while they play world policeman and bully.

obplayer wrote:

COLOR=#000000]2. If Ukraine are happy to be used by NATO as a defence base then why, as a sovereign nation, should they not?[/COLOR]
You have simply ignored this question.

No I haven't.
I don't think you really get it

1. By NATO's own rules Ukraine can't be a member see discussion topic linked for a full breakdown.
2. As I said above NATO in the Ukraine is a dangerous precursor to WW3.
3. NATO promised not to expand eastward.
4. It jeopardizes many nuclear treaties - world safety.
5. It's drives a division between millions of Ulkranians and Russians.

Do you need more reasons?

robindch · 26-09-2014 10:22am

obplayer wrote: »

1. What is Russia's real concern?

Russia, per se, doesn't have a concern as the country no longer has an informed electorate or a reliable democratic process. Instead, Putin now claims to speak for Russia alone and his concern is to remain in power for as long as possible and -- as Goebbels found out -- the most reliable way of doing that, in the short term at least, is to create an external enemy and to fight. And while Putin has no noticeable long-term thinking capacity, he is a master at short-term thought.

The message sent to the world by the Maidan protests - that a popular anti-corruption movement could lead to the departure of a massively corrupt, unpopular leader - is not a message that somebody like Putin can tolerate, especially when the departed leader was Putin's man.

obplayer wrote: »

2. If Ukraine are happy to be used by NATO as a defence base then why, as a sovereign nation, should they not?

While most of the world believes that Ukraine is a sovereign nation and is free to sign whatever treaties and agreements it wishes to, unfortunately, Russia - and the Putin apologists on this thread - appear to believe that Ukraine does not have this right. And that the legitimately-elected Ukrainian government should consult and gain agreement with Putin on all significant matters of state.

robindch · 26-09-2014 10:27am

stevejazzx wrote: »

1. By NATO's own rules Ukraine can't be a member see discussion topic linked for a full breakdown.
2. As I said above NATO in the Ukraine is a dangerous precursor to WW3.
3. NATO promised not to expand eastward.
4. It jeopardizes many nuclear treaties - world safety.
5. It's drives a division between million of Ulkranians and Russians.

All either paranoid future fantasies (2, 4, 5) or else simple disinformation (1, 3).

You might recall that Putin recently threatened to invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic states:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11106195/Putin-privately-threatened-to-invade-Poland-Romania-and-the-Baltic-states.html

Putin wrote:

If I wanted, in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw and Bucharest,"

...an eerie echo of a comment he'd previously made to Boroso:

Putin wrote:

If I want to, I can take Kiev in two weeks

Do you feel these are unhelpful statements to make? Or do you believe that Putin's genuinely trying to lower the temperature and seek a peaceful solution?

stevejazzx · 26-09-2014 10:31am

robindch wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is disinformation of a distinctly unpleasant kind as it's the Russian-sponsored disinformation which was used to justify Putin's double invasion of Ukraine and the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian citizens. And even it were true - which it certainly is not - the pride and jealously of a paranoid president and, now, a paranoid nation too, should never be accepted as sufficient justification for invading a sovereign country and causing what Putin has caused in Ukraine. At least not in any world that I'd like me and my kid to live in where I'd like concepts like justice, honor, decency and the rule of law have any meaning.

Rather than retype what I and others have already written, you should spend a few minutes reading the following:
This article which gives a good overview of NATO's activities, treaties and general relationship with Russia since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

This interview with Putin from 2000 in which he rejects the idea of "zones of interest" and suggests that Russia could become a member of NATO and suggests initially working towards a "strategic paternership".

This joint statement from 2010 between Russia and NATO in which both announce that they're actively working towards a "strategic partnership".

Suggesting that NATO, or the EU, or the US are, is in any sense whatsoever, responsible for Putin's one-sided double-invasion of Ukraine and its murderous aftermath is, at best, to misunderstand Putin's aggressive, power-hungry paranoia - and his successful campaign of belligerent disinformation - profoundly.

This is nonsense.

I simply said Russia has legitimate security concerns on its borders and you have used this, again, along with another disingenuous preamble to tie it into some kind of fully fledged backing of Putin.

The murderous aftermath to which you refer is now being described by almost every informed scholar, the UN and OCSE as a Kiev led bombing of eastern Ukraine all this while the US openly advised the Ukrainian parliaments policy on such, a campaign which included getting the entire western media to refer to eastern Ukrainians as terrorists and you have the audacity to call my post disinformation. In relation to this affair you are regurgitating, almost verbatim, the standard blurb of FOX news and ignore the countless well informed experts and historians that tell you you are wrong.
Its a funny irony the side you find yourself on and the depths you need to go to now to argue. Disinformation indeed.

stevejazzx · 26-09-2014 10:39am

robindch wrote: »

All either paranoid future fantasies (2, 4, 5) or else simple disinformation (1, 3).

You might recall that Putin recently threatened to invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic states:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11106195/Putin-privately-threatened-to-invade-Poland-Romania-and-the-Baltic-states.html

...an eerie echo of a comment he'd previously made to Boroso:Do you feel these are unhelpful statements to make? Or do you believe that Putin's genuinely trying to lower the temperature and seek a peaceful solution?

Oh dear lord.
Don't you check any sources anymore?
Talk of paranoia of fear mongering and that's exactly what a half assed story like this does.

stevejazzx · 26-09-2014 10:47am

robindch wrote: »

All either paranoid future fantasies (2, 4, 5) or else simple disinformation (1, 3).

Every historian accepts an agreement was made regarding non eastward expansion of NATO. If you disagree you must have some distinctly unique information but to call this disinformation is another level of subversiveness altogether.

Listen here re part 3 (26.39)
http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2014/9/5
So this disinformation? Unbelievable, a new low in this debate.

robindch · 26-09-2014 10:47am

stevejazzx wrote: »

I simply said Russia has legitimate security concerns on its borders

So you're happy that one country can invade another and cause the deaths of thousands because it suddenly decides that Ukraine is no longer a sovereign nation?

And do you also believe that the legitimately-elected government in Kiev has no responsibility to protect Ukraine's border, nor to protect its own citizens from the thousands of Russian soldiers, Russian gunmen and local terrorists kidnapping, torturing and murdering Ukrainian and Russian citizens in East Ukraine?

robindch · 26-09-2014 10:49am

oscarBravo wrote: »

What if Ukraine doesn't want to be Russia's security zone?

Given what Russia has done to Ukraine, one can't blame Ukraine (as Poland, Romania and the Baltics before them) for wanting to have nothing whatsoever to do with Russia's "security".

BoJack Horseman · 26-09-2014 10:50am

robindch wrote: »

So you're happy that one country can invade another and cause the deaths of thousands because it suddenly decides that Ukraine is no longer a sovereign nation?

And do you also believe that the legitimately-elected government in Kiev has no responsibility to protect Ukraine's border, nor to protect its own citizens from the thousands of Russian soldiers, Russian gunmen and local terrorists kidnapping, torturing and murdering Ukrainian and Russian citizens in East Ukraine?

Invasion is wrong when its the yanks doing it.
Anyone else...... meh......

The classic double standard

oscarBravo · 26-09-2014 11:28am

stevejazzx wrote: »

That's very true but the key word here is linked; as in historically linked.
There's a certain symbiosis predisposed or inferred. The mistake here would be to not understand the history.
Even if we remove relationship this wouldn't give NATO the right to use Ukraine as a further defense base. Russia has a real concern on its borders and legitimately so - NATO has none.

OK, let's try an analogy.

Ireland decides to join a mutual-defence pact with Russia. The UK isn't terribly pleased by the idea, so it invades and annexes Ireland.

By your argument, this would be absolutely fine, because (a) the UK has a real concern on its borders, and (b) there's a historical link; a certain symbiosis.

Apparently "security concerns" and "historical links" override national sovereignty. What a bizarre argument.

robindch · 26-09-2014 12:44pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's try an analogy.

Oddly, I was thinking of just this analogy earlier on this morning - one or two additional analogous elements:

The UK claims that English speakers are suffering "persecution" in Ireland since Irish is an official language, and that this alleged (non-existent) persecution justifies the UK's invasion.
The UK floods the Republic with armed members of the National Front, the BNP and loyalist terrorist groups from the North, as well as thousands of its own soldiers, all of whom David Cameron says "are on holiday" in Ireland.

I genuinely can't understand why fabricated and heavily propagandized "security" and "historical" concerns are seen as sufficient and legitimate justification to invade a country and murder its inhabitants.

stevejazzx · 26-09-2014 1:46pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's try an analogy.

Ireland decides to join a mutual-defence pact with Russia. The UK isn't terribly pleased by the idea, so it invades and annexes Ireland.

By your argument, this would be absolutely fine, because (a) the UK has a real concern on its borders, and (b) there's a historical link; a certain symbiosis.

Apparently "security concerns" and "historical links" override national sovereignty. What a bizarre argument.

I have never said that the annexation of Crimea was fine as you put it; in fact have repeatedly said the opposite. The description and subsequent western perception of the annexation is what is problematic. Issues like this aren't black and white.
The annexation happened after the Maidan overthrow which only happened after the EU agreed a deal with Yanukovych and Yanukovych agreed a deal with Ukrainian opposition leaders which included an early election and a curtailing of the existing Governments powers.
That's extremely important information. Despite contradictory reports the Russians favored a multi-lateral agreement between EU, Ukraine and Russia - such was confirmed in a phone call between Putin and Obama in February.
However the narrative is that western Ukrainian protesters weren't convinced and still wanted Yanukovych gone and the rebellion continued. In the interim considerable evidence now shows that the US played a substantial role in spurring this continuous revolution.
Here is just one article on this
The Nuland tapes show the frustration from the US at the EU's inability to get a Yanukovych to exclusively chose Europe over Russia. Professor Stephen Cohen has repeatedly argued that it was this approach, the one that asks a profoundly divided country like Ukraine to chose Europe over Russia, that is the one of fundamental root causes for all the subsequent trouble. It is important to understated that such a dictate emanated from US policy and not EU policy. Hence the f**k the EU from Nuland.
To understand this political and economic game that was happening have a read of this
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/how-the-eu-lost-to-russia-in-negotiations-over-ukraine-trade-deal-a-935476.html
The shows how dirty Russia were prepared to get in order to keep control of Ukraine during Yankovyvhs negotiations. The Russias viewed an EU deal as proxy US deal - and it has become clear now that that is exactly what it was.
Russia wasn't prepared to allow what it saw as an US manipulated uprising to succeed in dislodging it from the multi-lateral trade agreement that had been reached after long negotiations. The US viewed any Russian involvement in Ukrainian sovereignty as a huge barricade to its ability at entering into future eastern energy markets and to simultaneously prevent the Russians from becoming dominant player in the region.
Russia viewed the US's policy on this, it's contempt for EU process and it's flagrant support for Ukrainian revolution even after agreements were made as an all out political and economic offensive.
This is what directly lead up to Russia's annexation Crimea.
Now I don't support Russia's actions I simply try to understand why they happened. The problem is the conflation of those two things is a purposeful misdirection, fabricated by the intellectually bankrupt Russophobes who inhabit this debate. When you make trite analogies like the one between Ireland and England but omit the endless essential variables involved that make Crimea and Russia absolutely unique* you are either further propagating such tactics, exposing a lack of understanding or simply a lack on interest. I'm not sure which excuse is the more detestable but lets assume it one of the two latters it is no wonder therefore that you find my opinion bizarre.

* Crimea and Russia

The transfer of the Crimea peninsula was meant as an administrative action in a time of Soviet president who was himself partly Ukrainian.

Crimea voted in 1991 to re-establish the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic - 94% voted in favor of this.

Crimea consists of between 60+% peoples who are effectively ethnic Russians

Under agreements made between Russian and Ukraine Russia kept troops permanently stationed in Crimea and effectively gave Russia the authority to locate troops on its bases in Crimea, and to move them between those bases and Russian territory.

No one was killed in Crimea and some non partisan commentators have speculated that Russian presence prevented violence.

*****The points above are intended to show how dissimilar trite analogies between the UK and Ireland really are and are not, I repeat not, for the hundredth time, a justification of Putins land grab.

stevejazzx · 26-09-2014 1:50pm

robindch wrote: »

So you're happy that one country can invade another and cause the deaths of thousands because it suddenly decides that Ukraine is no longer a sovereign nation?

And do you also believe that the legitimately-elected government in Kiev has no responsibility to protect Ukraine's border, nor to protect its own citizens from the thousands of Russian soldiers, Russian gunmen and local terrorists kidnapping, torturing and murdering Ukrainian and Russian citizens in East Ukraine?

You are putting words in the mouth of the straw man you've created.
I've said nothing of the sort. Try to stay on point.

robindch · 26-09-2014 1:57pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

[...] The annexation happened after the Maidan overthrow which only happened after the EU agreed a deal with Yanukovych and Yanukovych agreed a deal with Ukrainian opposition leaders which included an early election and a curtailing of the existing Governments powers.

That's extremely important information.

There was no such thing as a "Maidan overthrow" as I've repeatedly explained previously. And the remainder of your generous hand-waving does not explain why it's fair and reasonable for Russia to invade Ukraine twice and murder thousands of its citizens.

stevejazzx wrote: »

[...] a purposeful misdirection, fabricated by the intellectually bankrupt Russophobes who inhabit this debate

A bit of chill would go down well here - just because some posters are concerned that a nuclear-armed power invading peaceful neighbours and lying about it, does not mean that we are "Russophobes"

robindch · 26-09-2014 1:58pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

I've said nothing of the sort.

Well, would you care to answer the questions? So far, you've defended Russia's opinion quite extensively which I take to mean that you support its opinion. If you don't support its opinion, then you should perhaps make that a little more clear.

robindch · 26-09-2014 2:51pm

Fun titbit from today's Russian media - an MP in Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic Party (which is neither liberal nor democratic, and is frankly, insane) wants the Russian foreign ministry to clarify whether Fort Ross, a former Russian outpost of sorts in California, is still Russian or not:

http://izvestia.ru/news/577183

I wonder will the Russian MFA start claiming that Alaska was stolen, or remains ethnically Russian, or that Alaskans need "protection" from the USA, etc, etc.

stevejazzx · 26-09-2014 2:56pm

robindch wrote: »

And the remainder of your generous hand-waving does not explain why it's fair and reasonable for Russia has invaded and annexed Crimea;

Where did I say fair and reasonable?
You're not hearing the words Robin. You are purposefully conflating understanding with defending.

robindch wrote:

A bit of chill would go down well here - just because some posters are concerned that a nuclear-armed power invading peaceful neighbours and lying about it, does not mean that we are "Russophobes"

From earlier in the thread -

Robindch wrote:

Russia has invaded and annexed Crimea; it has armed its own citizens who have then invaded East Ukraine with the help of local thugs and its own military resulting in the deaths, so far, of somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 people; it was almost certainly indirectly or directly responsible for shooting down MH17; it has legitimized, from the very highest levels, Russian ethnic nationalism at home and abroad from within a country filled with large numbers of red-eyed, semi-fascist thugs; it has radicalized the rest of its own population by feeding them a diet of hysterical, predatory propaganda. But the the US is somehow to blame for the rest of the world being horrified?

recedite · 28-09-2014 12:16am

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's try an analogy.

Ireland decides to join a mutual-defence pact with Russia. The UK isn't terribly pleased by the idea, so it invades and annexes Ireland....

How about comparing to more realistic situations, or to ones that actually happened;

Cuba decides to join a mutual-defence pact with Russia, or USSR to be more precise. The USA isn't terribly pleased by the idea, so it tries to invade and annex Cuba, but fails (Bay of Pigs) The USA still keeps Guantanamo Bay, which it "won" in an earlier war with Spain (the then colonial power)
A year later USSR agrees to a Cuban request to build a missile base as a deterrent shield on the island. Just as the missiles are arriving on soviet ships, the paranoid US president threatens to kick off a WW3 nuclear armageddon unless the ships turn around. The Russians turn the ships around.

Or how about this one;
Ireland breaks away from the UK, forcing Westminster to finally grant Home Rule, in 1920. But within Ireland there is a significant population of people who could be called "ethnic British" especially in the north east region. Britain is sympathetic to their plight and tells them that their region can have a separate parliament.
But nationalists in the south are unhappy with this level of autonomy and fight on until the British agree to set up a 32 county Free State, which they do, on 6th Dec 1922. The next day, 7th Dec, N. Ireland votes to secede from the Free State as controlled by nationalist extremists.

Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

Comments