Ukraine: As it happens.

robindch

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

No one does it better than the Brits!

Makes a change to hear you try to excuse the disgraceful activities of the current Russian mafia-controlled government by comparing their massive, well-funded troll-factory with something from the UK instead of the USA - in this case, a single, contested incident from almost thirty years ago.

Desperate stuff, Elmer.

robindch

Gatling wrote: »

What has NI terrorist's got to do with Ukraine 2015 /2016

Nothing whatsoever.

Elmer is still at Stage 3 ("Bargaining") in the well-known "The Five Stages of Arguing with a Russian Nationalist":

http://www.photos-albums.com/the-five-stages-of-arguing-with-a-russian-nationalist-album30360/

I'm surprised, btw, that nobody - or almost nobody anyway - on the Kremlin's payroll during this troll-war has mentioned the UK's invasion of Crimea during the mid-19th century. And attempted to excuse Putin's 2014 invasion, landgrab and threat-of-nuclear-weapons by invoking one of the more lethally stupid of the UK's colonial adventures.

IrishTrajan

robindch wrote: »

And attempted to excuse Putin's 2014 invasion, landgrab and threat-of-nuclear-weapons by invoking one of the more lethally stupid of the UK's colonial adventures.

I'm not sure you can really call it a colonial venture. It was more like trying to balance the Ottoman's decline. Soon as they found out the French and Russians were opening an alliance, they bailed.

gandalf

Egginacup wrote: »

Gorbachev also said that there was. As did James Baker. You want to do a bit more digging before you add coughs and rollyeyes, Paxman?

Is there a signed agreement? Cause if you can claim an agreement from verbals alone I have a lot of customers to invoice because they said they were going to buy from me

Verbal contracts are worth the paper they are written on.

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

What has NI terrorist's got to do with Ukraine 2015 /2016

Even you know what I'm saying, I know they weren't in Gibraltar on holiday but why didn't they want the world to know that they shot with their hands in the air?
THE MEDIA DELIBERATELY LIE AND MISLEAD.
They were doing it then and they are doing it now.
Why do you think they have to tell us there have been about 500 "invasions" of Ukraine? This is to cover up the fact that Ukrainian citizens in the east of the country totally reject this far right ultra-nationalist coup.
"Russian aggression" has to be repeated over and over and over to keep the masses indoctrinated.

"Keep those sanctions going Europe, now do as you're told like good little boys!"
We're right behind you!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-17/boeing-s-747-jumbo-boosted-by-7-4-billion-order-from-russia

darkpagandeath

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Even you know what I'm saying, I know they weren't in Gibraltar on holiday but why didn't they want the world to know that they shot with their hands in the air?
THE MEDIA DELIBERATELY LIE AND MISLEAD.
They were doing it then and they are doing it now.
Why do you think they have to tell us there have been about 500 "invasions" of Ukraine? This is to cover up the fact that Ukrainian citizens in the east of the country totally reject this far right ultra-nationalist coup.
"Russian aggression" has to be repeated over and over and over to keep the masses indoctrinated.

"Keep those sanctions going Europe, now do as you're told like good little boys!"
We're right behind you!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-17/boeing-s-747-jumbo-boosted-by-7-4-billion-order-from-russia

The leader must have been mistaken admitting to the invasion of Crimea then. Unfortunately you cannot get around him admitting the invasion. There is even admission on RT about Russian Troops.

Egginacup

gandalf wrote: »

Is there a signed agreement? Cause if you can claim an agreement from verbals alone I have a lot of customers to invoice because they said they were going to buy from me

Verbal contracts are worth the paper they are written on.

Precisely, there was no written agreement. But there was a verbal agreement. But I guess that promise was as much a lie as George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips. No new taxes".

Nobody said there was a written agreement so why are you bringing that up? The Russians trusted the US. It was a mistake.

darkpagandeath

Egginacup wrote: »

Precisely, there was no written agreement. But there was a verbal agreement. But I guess that promise was as much a lie as George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips. No new taxes".

Nobody said there was a written agreement so why are you bringing that up? The Russians trusted the US. It was a mistake.

Was there a written agreement/Treaty after Ukraine agreed to get rid of it's nuclear weapons ?

Egginacup

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The leader must have been mistaken admitting to the invasion of Crimea then. Unfortunately you cannot get around him admitting the invasion. There is even admission on RT about Russian Troops.

And still you try to repeat that Russia invaded East Ukraine. And that Russian troops leaving their post in Crimea in order to prevent the naval base from being overrun by Kiev's puppet militia constitutes an invasion.

There's no debating with you dpd because by now you've demonstrated that you have absolutely zero interest in truth or facts whatsoever.

You're like a Republican who has no interest in rational debate. His most profound stance is to call anyone who might critically think, a "libtard" or some equally genius insult. And that's it. No discussion, no interest in analysis, no interest in dissecting the evidence, no questioning, nothing. Just an entrenched, intransigent, mental brickwall and actually proud of it by the looks of things.

darkpagandeath

Egginacup wrote: »

And still you try to repeat that Russia invaded East Ukraine. And that Russian troops leaving their post in Crimea in order to prevent the naval base from being overrun by Kiev's puppet militia constitutes an invasion.

There's no debating with you dpd because by now you've demonstrated that you have absolutely zero interest in truth or facts whatsoever.

You're like a Republican who has no interest in rational debate. His most profound stance is to call anyone who might critically think, a "libtard" or some equally genius insult. And that's it. No discussion, no interest in analysis, no interest in dissecting the evidence, no questioning, nothing. Just an entrenched, intransigent, mental brickwall and actually proud of it by the looks of things.

The head of the Russian State said Russian Troops were in Crimea and took it over even showed a plan that had been made before it happened. You cannot deny that Or is the leader of the Country mistaken ? Being mislead by his generals ?

robindch

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The head of the Russian State said Russian Troops were in Crimea and took it over even showed a plan that had been made before it happened.

And handed out medals to all the soldiers involved in the invasion and theft of Crimea.

In all fairness, he didn't make much of an attempt to hide it once it had happened.

darkpagandeath

robindch wrote: »

And handed out medals to all the soldiers involved in the invasion and theft of Crimea.

In all fairness, he didn't make much of an attempt to hide it once it had happened.

TBH I have no idea how the shills blatantly ignore anything their own government has said on the topic. Just repeating the same nonsense of Proofs.

gandalf

Egginacup wrote: »

Precisely, there was no written agreement. But there was a verbal agreement. But I guess that promise was as much a lie as George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips. No new taxes".

Nobody said there was a written agreement so why are you bringing that up? The Russians trusted the US. It was a mistake.

Seriously if this was as big an issue as the Russians are making it out to be I would have thought the prudent action was to get that "promise" in writing in a treaty?

Although as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions the Russians signed a treaty with the Ukraine to respect their borders after the Ukrainians handed over their nukes to Russia for disposal. It looks like Russia doesn't even RESPECT formal promises.

And for the nth time. A country has to choose to join NATO. So why are all these former Russian satellites flocking to join NATO. Perhaps to avoid coming under the sphere of Russian influence again.

robindch

gandalf wrote: »

Seriously if this was as big an issue as the Russians are making it out to be I would have thought the prudent action was to get that "promise" in writing in a treaty?

Putin only decided that there were major problems with NATO once he noticed that pretending he had major problems with NATO would pay him major political dividends.

Recall back in 2000 that Putin said "there was no reason why Russia should not join NATO" and that "seeing NATO as an enemy was "destructive" for Russia":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/693526.stm

More generally, NATO has reached out to Russia on multiple occasions over the last 20-odd years without Russia every having made much effort to reciprocate:

http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2014_09/20140901_140901-Backgrounder_NATO-Russia_en.pdf

darkpagandeath

robindch wrote: »

Putin only decided that there were major problems with NATO once he noticed that pretending he had major problems with NATO would pay him major political dividends.

Recall back in 2000 that Putin said "there was no reason why Russia should not join NATO" and that "seeing NATO as an enemy was "destructive" for Russia":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/693526.stm

More generally, NATO has reached out to Russia on multiple occasions over the last 20-odd years without Russia every having made much effort to reciprocate:

http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2014_09/20140901_140901-Backgrounder_NATO-Russia_en.pdf

Having an enemy can be very distracting from your suffering/Internal problems. National pride will let people in power away with loads as long as you have a credible enemy to point at.

Count Dooku

gandalf wrote: »

Although as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions the Russians signed a treaty with the Ukraine to respect their borders after the Ukrainians handed over their nukes to Russia for disposal. It looks like Russia doesn't even RESPECT formal promises.

USA signed similar agreement with Belarus that they never will use economic sanctions against them and after some time declared that " Memorandum is not legally binding"
http://minsk.usembassy.gov/budapest_memorandum.html
So now you can write your own version of "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"

IrishTrajan

Count Dooku wrote: »

USA signed similar agreement with Belarus that they never will use economic sanctions against them and after some time declared that " Memorandum is not legally binding"

A Memorandum isn't legally binding anyway. That's the very definition. However, neither is a "verbal agreement" (that both parties admit never happened).

The fact remains, there was a formal agreement that Ukraine would not be affected. Yet Russia has broke this, and it's not their fault. Yet it's the US' fault for breaking an agreement they never even spoke about?

IrishTrajan

Looks like Russia is gearing up for another offensive, and the Baltics/Poland (or at least Lithuania) has already been trying to counter Russian weapon supplies to Donetsk.

http://news.yahoo.com/nato-warns-risk-return-heavy-fighting-ukraine-122857271.html

Force levels on Russia's side of the border had not changed much in recent months, Breedlove said, but U.S. military officials had observed in Russia a "stocking of important supplies, ammunition, etc, to levels that would support operations".

Ukrainian Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak told a news conference some alliance members might consider sending arms if the ceasefire broke down completely. Lithuania has said it has provided weapons to Ukraine.

al22

Lithuania has said it has provided weapons to Ukraine.



Lithuania did not have their own made weapons. It means weapons from Lithuania to Ukraine must be imported into Lithuania from somewhere else first. Or, they may sell outdated rubbish to Ukraine?

gandalf

Count Dooku wrote: »

USA signed similar agreement with Belarus that they never will use economic sanctions against them and after some time declared that " Memorandum is not legally binding"
http://minsk.usembassy.gov/budapest_memorandum.html
So now you can write your own version of "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"

Ah the old the US did bad therefore RUSSIA CAN DO BAD THINGS as well argument.

Back to the playground please

Also as has been pointed out a Memorandum is not a TREATY!

gandalf

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Looks like Russia is gearing up for another offensive, and the Baltics/Poland (or at least Lithuania) has already been trying to counter Russian weapon supplies to Donetsk.

http://news.yahoo.com/nato-warns-risk-return-heavy-fighting-ukraine-122857271.html

I fully suspect if the Greek crisis escalates that the Russians will use it's distraction of the mainstream news media cycle to push from the occupied territories to create that land corridor to the Crimea.

Elmer Blooker

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Looks like Russia is gearing up for another offensive, and the Baltics/Poland (or at least Lithuania) has already been trying to counter Russian weapon supplies to Donetsk.

http://news.yahoo.com/nato-warns-risk-return-heavy-fighting-ukraine-122857271.html

But haven't you heard? Putin has to invade the Baltic States first.
I wish he would hurry up - I'm getting very impatient for WW 3 to start. It should have started 15 months ago!
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/are-the-baltic-states-next-10103

IrishTrajan

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

But haven't you heard? Putin has to invade the Baltic States first.
I wish he would hurry up - I'm getting very impatient for WW 3 to start. It should have started 15 months ago!
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/are-the-baltic-states-next-10103

Vladimir Putin has already demonstrated that he will not cower in the face of U.S. geopolitical moves in Russia’s neighborhood. That point became apparent already in 2008, when Moscow responded to provocations in Georgia by launching a military offensive. The Kremlin did so even though Washington had increasingly treated Georgia as a de facto ally and spoke openly of pushing NATO membership for that country. Once fighting erupted, elements of the Georgian military and population apparently believed that NATO would come to their rescue. Except for imposing a few largely ineffectual economic sanctions, though, the United States tamely accepted Russia’s move to sever and protect two of Georgia’s secessionist-minded provinces.

The US not coming to the aid of someone they don't have an alliance with is a way to judge the US' willingness to come to the aid of someone they do have an alliance with? Farcical.

NATO’s relevance to the United States declined dramatically with the collapse of the Soviet Union. One cannot legitimately equate today’s Russia, with an aging, declining population, a military with many antiquated components, and merely the world’s eighth-largest economy, to the capabilities the USSR possessed during its heyday. Russia is a conventional, second-tier power that has some regional interests and ambitions, but it is not even remotely a global expansionist threat, much less a totalitarian expansionist threat.

Yeah, I'm sure Russia is going to end the world, when they can't afford to keep the lights on, and the people who maintain their strategic weapons stockpiles will be retiring/dead in 10 years (the mortality age is 60 in Russia, most people with skill in maintaining nuclear weapons and strategic missiles are already in their 50s).

Egginacup

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

But haven't you heard? Putin has to invade the Baltic States first.
I wish he would hurry up - I'm getting very impatient for WW 3 to start. It should have started 15 months ago!
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/are-the-baltic-states-next-10103

One really has to laugh at the likes of Ashton Carter, and John "Beaker Of Muppet Lab" Kerry farting around the world trying to threaten people and dump weapons in Poland and Latvia and all the while they have been completely outsmarted again by Putin.

These dummies tried to take Ukraine and control it and block any business integration between Russia and Europe. What did Vlad do? He bypassed Ukraine to the South via Turkey and Greece and to the North.....a direct gas pipeline straight to Germany, haha:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/mike-whitney/62852/putin-gobsmacks-uncle-sam-again

Germany has struck a deal with Russia to become Europe's petrol station...not only that but the Chinese are building the New Silk Road that will connect Beijing to Berlin via super-highspeed rail.

And this has SFA to do with defending Europe from the Red Army pouring across the plains and taking over every shred of land from Lviv to Lisbon. It has to do with preventing Europe and Russia becoming the most powerful trade bloc in history.

IrishTrajan

Egginacup wrote: »

One really has to laugh at the likes of Ashton Carter, and John "Beaker Of Muppet Lab" Kerry farting around the world trying to threaten people and dump weapons in Poland and Latvia and all the while they have been completely outsmarted again by Putin.

These dummies tried to take Ukraine and control it and block any business integration between Russia and Europe. What did Vlad do? He bypassed Ukraine to the South via Turkey and Greece and to the North.....a direct gas pipeline straight to Germany, haha:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/mike-whitney/62852/putin-gobsmacks-uncle-sam-again

Yeah, straight to Germany... Just as the EU is integrating its energy policy which means Russia has to trade with us as a bloc, and can't give low prices to Germany and high prices to the Baltics, resulting in a net decrease in cost for Europe.

And the same time Europe is pulling Belarus away from Russia, and in talks to build the Caspian Pipeline.

Yes, Russia is truly remarkable.

Egginacup wrote: »

Germany has struck a deal with Russia to become Europe's petrol station...not only that but the Chinese are building the New Silk Road that will connect Beijing to Berlin via super-highspeed rail.

Russia becomes a transit for Chinese goods to reach Europe, somehow makes Russia a major power?

So, your argument of Russia being a clever power is... That is allows China to put goods across it, and has to open the RFE to Chinese consumption?

Colour me surprised, Vlad has outsmarted us again.

Egginacup wrote: »

And this has SFA to do with defending Europe from the Red Army pouring across the plains and taking over every shred of land from Lviv to Lisbon. It has to do with preventing Europe and Russia becoming the most powerful trade bloc in history.

You have heard of TPP and TTIP, right? Europe-Russia trade bloc would not be the most power trade bloc in history. Russia would be an accessory, used only for its uranium and its petroleum... There's pretty much nothing else in Russia worth trading for.

Elmer Blooker

With the media concentrating on Tunisia and Greece it appears the "Are the Baltics next? .... Russian threat ... Russian invasion .... Putin wants to take over the world ... " stories made up by the media have dried up!
I presume when Greece and Tunisia are no longer the big stories the "Russian aggression" tales will start up again. It's like turning a tap on and off!

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

With the media concentrating on Tunisia and Greece it appears the "Are the Baltics next? .... Russian threat ... Russian invasion .... Putin wants to take over the world ... " stories made up by the media have dried up!
I presume when Greece and Tunisia are no longer the big stories the "Russian aggression" tales will start up again. It's like turning a tap on and off!

Ohhh look Russia wants the Baltics back

https://news.vice.com/article/moscow-is-having-second-thoughts-about-giving-up-the-baltic-states

Elmer Blooker

Good old vice, they really know how to spin a good yarn!!
TWO Russian MPs suggested that the independence of the Baltic states was not legal. Its clearly nothing more than an attempt to wind up these hostile NATO states.

Marina Gridneva, a spokesman for the Russian prosecution, said they are required to consider all requests, regardless of content. “In this case, it is clear the matter has no legal prospects,” she said.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he has heard nothing of the case, adding that Russia has diplomatic ties to the Baltic nations.

http://news.err.ee/v/International/1cac0750-1abd-420f-b080-8335ddaa0b4e

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Good old vice, they really know how to spin a good yarn!!
TWO Russian MPs suggested that the independence of the Baltic states was not legal. Its clearly nothing more than an attempt to wind up these hostile NATO states.




http://news.err.ee/v/International/1cac0750-1abd-420f-b080-8335ddaa0b4e

Strange something very similar happened last year in a place called Crimea part of the Sovereign state of Ukraine

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Strange something very similar happened last year in a place called Crimea part of the Sovereign state of Ukraine

Don't forget that Crimea ended up as part of the Ukraine due to an administrative cockup* in the 1950's

*(not strictly true as the USSR was never expected to break up)