Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'
Options
Comments
-
Ukraine is different.
I think you MAY be right but where politicians are concerned a treaty is one thing but what they are actually prepared to do is another. Ukraine is only different if the politicians think it is to their advantage for it to be different.
Politicians dither.
voices.yahoo.com/worlds-smallest-countries-population-size-2012-6592524.html
There are some very small countries in the world!0 -
-
Yeah, I don't think I'll be taking a bunch of idiots who call themselves "the Drudge Report for progressives" seriously.
Look there are as many loons on the left as there are on the right, and the left wing loons tend to base all their theories on "Not-America good, America bad". They think they know Orwell when in fact they are falling into the same trap he is warning us of.0 -
The page opened up with a big "It's Crazy" popup for me -- can't disagree with that.
Do you want to provide any actual evidence of how the US is controlling the Kiev government? And assuming the planet's largest superpower is controlling events there, could you comment on why exactly you believe it's US (and EU) policy to portray themselves out-politicked and humiliated at every point?
Here are a few fun links -- State-controlled radio in Russia suggests that Yatsenuk, the acting Ukie PM, is being controlled by the CIA and Scientology of all things. And one of the Maidan info websites provides this handy guide to distinguish between the anti-government Maidan protests and the pro-Russian gunmen currently taking over east Ukraine. And here's Radek Sikorski, the Polish FM, on Russia's activities.0 -
Question for anybody please....
All we have been hearing since this started is the "pro Russian" term...
Can anybody tell me are these pro Russians, Russian or Ukrainian by nationality..?0 -
Advertisement
-
That's hard to know. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence which suggests that the people who are (or in some cases were) leading admin-building takeovers are Russians, or in I think one case, a Ukrainian who had served in the Russian Army. At least one "local commander" guy has admitted on camera that he's Russian (a Cossack to be precise. Cossacks have traditionally supported the Russian government; they last came to prominence during the Winter Olympics in Sochi when some Cossacks were filmed horse-whipping two members of Pussy Riot).jimeryan22 wrote: »Can anybody tell me are these pro Russians, Russian or Ukrainian by nationality..?
Another local commander guy, I think it was Strelkov, admitted that many of the men under his command were Russians and AFAIR, in some cases soldiers. Many Ukrainians have reported that people doing the takeovers have little or no local knowledge (ie, asking the way to the city center and admin buildings; that kind of thing). Putin last week acknowledged, probably by mistake, that his army was roaming Crimea during its "referendum", having previously denied it; so his and Lavrov's current denials of Russian involvement in East Ukraine should be treated with some suspicion. The Ukrainian Security Services have released tapes of phonecalls which they say are evidence that Moscow is controlling some or all of the militant groups, while the Ukrainian border police have displayed devices which they claim are encrypted satellite phones (or something similar) to avoid eavesdropping.
There certainly are some Ukrainian citizens who are taking part in the takeovers, but it's hard to know how many these amount to and what their motives are. Three are plausible suspicions that money from unknown sources is paying for unemployed men -- known locally as titushki -- to join in with the unrest. It's also known that some of the gunmen are simply just local criminals, presumably with nothing better to do just now.
Based upon what I've seen and read over the last while, I believe that the number of genuinely disaffected, honest Ukrainian citizens involved in the takeovers is very small indeed.0 -
That's hard to know. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence which suggests that the people who are (or in some cases were) leading admin-building takeovers are Russians, or in I think one case, a Ukrainian who had served in the Russian Army. At least one "local commander" guy has admitted on camera that he's Russian (a Cossack to be precise. Cossacks have traditionally supported the Russian government; they last came to prominence during the Winter Olympics in Sochi when some Cossacks were filmed horse-whipping two members of Pussy Riot).
Another local commander guy, I think it was Strelkov, admitted that many of the men under his command were Russians and AFAIR, in some cases soldiers. Many Ukrainians have reported that people doing the takeovers have little or no local knowledge (ie, asking the way to the city center and admin buildings; that kind of thing). Putin last week acknowledged, probably by mistake, that his army was roaming Crimea during its "referendum", having previously denied it; so his and Lavrov's current denials of Russian involvement in East Ukraine should be treated with some suspicion. The Ukrainian Security Services have released tapes of phonecalls which they say are evidence that Moscow is controlling some or all of the militant groups, while the Ukrainian border police have displayed devices which they claim are encrypted satellite phones (or something similar) to avoid eavesdropping.
There certainly are some Ukrainian citizens who are taking part in the takeovers, but it's hard to know how many these amount to and what their motives are. Three are plausible suspicions that money from unknown sources is paying for unemployed men -- known locally as titushki -- to join in with the unrest. It's also known that some of the gunmen are simply just local criminals, presumably with nothing better to do just now.
Based upon what I've seen and read over the last while, I believe that the number of genuinely disaffected, honest Ukrainian citizens involved in the takeovers is very small indeed.
Thanks, yeah makes sense alright, it's just funny, as I would have thought that should have been cleared up immediately... Who's who etc...
Sure how are we to know...? They could be all Ukrainian pro Russians for all we know...0 -
As above, some certainly are -- personally, I suspect at the very least, the guys taking over the various prosecutors' offices are almost certainly Ukrainians - probably criminals destroying whatever they can of the casework against them amongst other stuff.jimeryan22 wrote: »They could be all Ukrainian pro Russians for all we know...
Elsewhere, there are reports of looting of historical artifacts in Crimea. And although the tourist season officially opened today in Yalta and while Putin now requires, I believe the majority of Russian civil servants to holiday in Crimea, the place remains strangely empty -- here's what Yalta looked like today.0 -
I wonder how many pro-Russian Ukrainians own shoulder launched AA missiles0
-
The Cossacks are a people native to the region, that is Eastern Ukraine, Southern Russia and Crimea. Their chief loyalty is to themselves, but at the moment they are prominent in the "pro-Russian" camp.At least one "local commander" guy has admitted on camera that he's Russian (a Cossack to be precise. Cossacks have traditionally supported the Russian government......
Criminals always join in with political civil unrest. Look at the the N. Ireland paramilitaries, on both sides. Most of those involved in the takeovers and manning the barricades appear to be ex-military or police types. Some of them have only recently defected.It's also known that some of the gunmen are simply just local criminals, presumably with nothing better to do just now.
Based upon what I've seen and read over the last while, I believe that the number of genuinely disaffected, honest Ukrainian citizens involved in the takeovers is very small indeed.
Those crowds who gather to support them, or who stand in the path of the Ukrainian military convoys to berate the soldiers, are ordinary local civilians.0 -
Advertisement
-
That is ridiculous propaganda. A pretty smiling young wan typifies the Maidan protestor, while a rabid spitting oul wan represents the pro-Russian camp.... And one of the Maidan info websites provides this handy guide to distinguish between the anti-government Maidan protests and the pro-Russian gunmen currently taking over east Ukraine....
It doesn't really fit in with the reality of Odessa, where the pro-Russian protestors who had been camping in tents in the city centre were chased into a building and then burned alive, while the doors were barricaded shut.0 -
If you read your own link, you'll see it refers to the fact that since metal detectors became readily available to the general public, most historical artifacts that are found by the amateur treasure hunters that use them are sold privately rather than being handed in to the museum. The exact same situation pertains in Ireland and the UK.Elsewhere, there are reports of looting of historical artifacts in Crimea. And although the tourist season officially opened today in Yalta and while Putin now requires, I believe the majority of Russian civil servants to holiday in Crimea, the place remains strangely empty -- here's what Yalta looked like today.
And I don't think you'll see any more people on an Irish beach on a similarly cold day than you will in Yalta. What is that supposed to prove?0 -
What's your point? Most of the weapons being used on both sides originate in Russia, whether they be kalashnikovs, armoured personnel carriers, sam missiles, or the helicopters that are shot down with them.I wonder how many pro-Russian Ukrainians own shoulder launched AA missiles0 -
What's your point? Most of the weapons being used on both sides originate in Russia, whether they be kalashnikovs, armoured personnel carriers, sam missiles, or the helicopters that are shot down with them.
What is your point...? Where did the pro Russian locals get AA missiles if not from Russia smuggled across the border. i.e. without active Russian support the separatists could not have shot down two copters could they? So Russia claims of not interfering are probably cobblers.0 -
What is your point...? Where did the pro Russian locals get AA missiles if not from Russia smuggled across the border. i.e. without active Russian support the separatists could not have shot down two copters could they? So Russia claims of not interfering are probably cobblers.
Not necessarily, weapons could easily have come via west Ukraine via other neighbouring EU country...0 -
Many of the separatists are/were Ukrainian soldiers themselves; they still have all their military hardware. And presumably there are also weapons arsenals and barracks located within the territory they control.
Even if the weapons were newly purchased from Russia, how is that any different from them obtaining arms made in Sweden for example? There are no internationally agreed sanctions against supplying arms to Ukraine, either the east or the west of the country.0 -
jimeryan22 wrote: »Not necessarily, weapons could easily have come via west Ukraine via other neighbouring EU country...
So you seem to be suggesting that it is the EU that is smuggling AA missiles to the pro Russian separatists?! You think this likely?
Lets think about this a bit. Who has the most to gain by destabilising Ukraine by supplying AA missiles to Russian backed separatists to shoot down Ukrainian forces helicopters?
That's a bit like the old question of 'Daddy or Chips?'.0 -
jimeryan22 wrote: »Not necessarily, weapons could easily have come via west Ukraine via other neighbouring EU country...
So you seem to be suggesting that it is the EU that is smuggling AA missiles to the pro Russian separatists?! You think this likely?
Lets think about this a bit. Who has the most to gain by destabilising Ukraine by supplying AA missiles to Russian backed separatists to shoot down Ukrainian forces helicopters?
That's a bit like the old question of 'Daddy or Chips?'.
However I have to admit that whilst I suspect that the Russians will be supplying the necessary, It is a good point about the sourcing from barracks in the west of the country... so I could be wrong. I am prepared to have a fiver on it that I am not though!!0 -
So you seem to be suggesting that it is the EU that is smuggling AA missiles to the pro Russian separatists?! You think this likely?
Lets think about this a bit. Who has the most to gain by destabilising Ukraine by supplying AA missiles to Russian backed separatists to shoot down Ukrainian forces helicopters?
That's a bit like the old question of 'Daddy or Chips?'.
However I have to admit that whilst I suspect that the Russians will be supplying the necessary, It is a good point about the sourcing from barracks in the west of the country... so I could be wrong. I am prepared to have a fiver on it that I am not though!!
No I don't seem to think that at all...
I just made a point, let's see some proof of Russia supplying the weapons either..?0 -
Why use the term "smuggling"? There are no international sanctions in place to restrict the selling or sending of weapons into Ukraine.So you seem to be suggesting that it is the EU that is smuggling AA missiles to the pro Russian separatists?
USA/Nato. No question about that. To get Nato or even US military bases set up inside Poland and Ukraine, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, would represent the most major redrawing of strategic boundaries since the Iron Curtain descended at the end of WW2.Lets think about this a bit. Who has the most to gain by destabilising Ukraine...0 -
Advertisement
-
Why use the term "smuggling"? There are no international sanctions in place to restrict the selling or sending of weapons into Ukraine.
"Covert" make you happier. I doubt that even the most lunatic fanatic would paint AA missiles for pro-Russian forces of Ukraine on the side of a lorry.USA/Nato. No question about that. To get Nato or even US military bases set up inside Poland and Ukraine, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, would represent the most major redrawing of strategic boundaries since the Iron Curtain descended at the end of WW2.
Really?! If the objective were to contain Russia then it would prove more effective to close both the Baltic and Black Sea exits to them! I am sure that there are Hawks in the Pentagon who dream of a full blown SDI and parking Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine but is it realistic? I don't think so. It sounds like something out of Dr. Strangelove.
On the other side, the Russians felt seriously their loss of power and influence when the USSR fell apart and Putin is trying to cover economic woes inside Russia with some external adventure. Putin is an imperialist.0 -
-
-
Really?! If the objective were to contain Russia then it would prove more effective to close both the Baltic and Black Sea exits to them! I am sure that there are Hawks in the Pentagon who dream of a full blown SDI and parking Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine but is it realistic? I don't think so. It sounds like something out of Dr. Strangelove.
On the other side, the Russians felt seriously their loss of power and influence when the USSR fell apart and Putin is trying to cover economic woes inside Russia with some external adventure. Putin is an imperialist.
Not just containment. It's about the US extending it's sphere of influence and indirectly positioning itself for an entry into future energy markets with national defense being somewhere way down on the list.
I've noticed, it hasn't been difficult, that the anti Russian voice as represented here in the majority seeks to make this issue as black and white as possible. I find it odd that a group of seemingly evidence lead individuals (certainly in terms of their religious outlook; at the very least) seek to reduce this issue to something as one dimensional as possible. It's not, this is a hot bed of history and foreign policy - not a falling out between Ukraine and Russia.
The EU, being heavily lead by US, in November issued, essentially, an ultimatum to the Ukraine; accept our deal in exclusivity, Russia cannot be involved. Until this point, Russia had been of course effectively subsidizing Ukraine's energy needs in exchange for having a controlling hand in the country's politics so why make such an unrealistic demand of the Ukraine a country already split by a complex history and why try to unrealistically muscle out Russia?
The answer is simple - with Russia's controlling hand in place there was no route for the US and or NATO (who, as we know are essentially an extension of the American military) into Ukraine for bases>future commerce and energy and or extension of its sphere of influence etc. past Poland.
At the moment they are organizing a fantastic defense shield against Russia in Poland that the international community already essentially vetoed in 2008/2009.
But back to the current crisis; the US, aggrieved (Fcuk the EU) at Yanukovychs' EU deal turnaround started to activate large supporting cells (mainly through NGO's funded by the National Endowment for Democracy see here, here & here) of dissent leading up to the Ukrainian revolution. The money the EU was offering indirectly via Washington is now being offered directly by Washington (or lets just say the IMF) and another crook, Tymoshenko, is now one of the candidates it supports
This is a continuation of efforts that started in the early 90's right through to the Bush administration to influence events in the Ukraine. see here from 2004 where the Bush administration were openly found to be pumping millions into support of Yanukovychs' opponent Viktor Yushchenko. It has certainly hasn't improved under Obama and we know from history that they have been doing in other countries for decades.
So are the CIA involved?
Yes
YES
Is the administration involved?
YES
Here she is handing out cookies | VID!
McCain in Ukraine
So the above is, I hope, is enough to demonstrate the extraordinary involvement in Ukraine from the US. This is not happening because they are worried about the Ukrainian people. This is happening because Military need both immediately domestic and international in relation to the Middle East, Syria and NATO's planned expansion and the corresponding corporate and economic concerns around future (and by direct cause present energy needs, require it.
The US has not ruled out War with Syria over alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian Government. Now factor in Putins intervention last year, current energy supply, the geopolitics of new pipeline routes and the toggle to get some control in Turkey (the EU & US aren't worried this corrupt regime [look into Turkeys recent ban on Twitter etc.)] as its a pawn for them in the ongoing Syrian game.
So, throughout this thread we've heard how Russia is somehow acting in exclusivity and how they have somehow planned out this entire affair in advance i.e they want destabilization so they can send in the 'peacekeeping' troops, force a local referendum leading to further possible annexation.
And there is almost an air of patting each other on the back in this regard - Putin won't fool us with his half-baked imperialism.
But Russia are acting in defense of what they believe to be a US made (at least heavily influenced) revolution and subsequent interim government in Kiev which again they believe is a pathway for the Americans to get the Ukraine back into Europe where American money will be used to gain eventual power and control in the country - backed forcibly by NATO countries and a Ukrainian president that the US has good terms with. This is what American foreign policy is all about.
Its disappointing how many here consider that this conflict started in February. It's frustrating that many believe that the US is not heavily invested and involved in this conflict and it is sad to hear mindless comments like; Putin is a Nazi, US involvement and control are conspiracies and Russia has caused and is continuing to exacerbate this entire affair, single-handedly.
Painfully, it is apparent that the majority of the contributors here have no idea of the actual history of Russia and Ukraine. Putin is so crazy that he negates any historical relationship the two countries have. These people actually believe that the Ukraine is safer in the hands of US based politicians, who at best have wishy washy ideals of democracy and at worst represent multinationals and corporations who will recoup ten fold any bailout investment capital they put in.
What a bizarre situation for a Russian president to be in - the entire Western Ukraine seems to be enthralled by the call of Europe due mainly to misguided notions of some form of intangible instant freedom through travel and the embrace of western norms.
The rest of Ukraine regardless of its actual desire to be a part of Russia or not is now the target of vast American propaganda whose only aim is to grey the recent historicity of area, label Putin a madman and continue to stifle any hope of a Russian resolution to the crisis - meanwhile ingeniously accusing their Russians counterparts of doing exactly what they are doing.
It is of course understood that they (Putin and his administration) are hardly without blame. They have huge questions to answer in relation Chechnya and indeed civil liberties in Russia itself but nothing the US couldn't top at a moments notice.
They also harbor imperialistic ideals and have engaged in a crazy economic pursuits (as to their various personal and moralistic stances, ideologies and stigmas it really depends on how much of the propaganda you can believe at face value, the truth always lies somewhere in between I have found) but don't be under any illusion that they created this crisis. The problem for them is, as this thread testifies, that they are losing the propaganda war hands down.
I am not for a minute suggesting that they deserve our concern, credit or respect but rather that the situation does. This has been the thrust of comments to date in this thread. This has fallen on deaf ears and no doubt will again.
I will reiterate again however - in recent times this is a conflict that started with the creation of NATO and promises made in terms of NATO not expanding east of Germany. You can watch countless Stephen Cohen videos on youtube for more on this (to present an argument from authority maybe isn't ideal but if you think you understand this affair better than Stephen Cohen then please list your rebuttals here accepting that you will keep strictly on point).
rant over - as you were!:)0 -
stevejazzx wrote: »Not just containment. It's about the US extending it's sphere of influence and indirectly positioning itself for an entry into future energy markets with national defense being somewhere way down on the list.
I've noticed, it hasn't been difficult, that the anti Russian voice as represented here in the majority seeks to make this issue as black and white as possible. I find it odd that a group of seemingly evidence lead individuals (certainly in terms of their religious outlook; at the very least) seek to reduce this issue to something as one dimensional as possible. It's not, this is a hot bed of history and foreign policy - not a falling out between Ukraine and Russia.
The EU, being heavily lead by US, in November issued, essentially, an ultimatum to the Ukraine; accept our deal in exclusivity, Russia cannot be involved. Until this point, Russia had been of course effectively subsidizing Ukraine's energy needs in exchange for having a controlling hand in the country's politics so why make such an unrealistic demand of the Ukraine a country already split by a complex history and why try to unrealistically muscle out Russia?
The answer is simple - with Russia's controlling hand in place there was no route for the US and or NATO (who, as we know are essentially an extension of the American military) into Ukraine for bases>future commerce and energy and or extension of its sphere of influence etc. past Poland.
At the moment they are organizing a fantastic defense shield against Russia in Poland that the international community already essentially vetoed in 2008/2009.
But back to the current crisis; the US, aggrieved (Fcuk the EU) at Yanukovychs' EU deal turnaround started to activate large supporting cells (mainly through NGO's funded by the National Endowment for Democracy see here, here & here) of dissent leading up to the Ukrainian revolution. The money the EU was offering indirectly via Washington is now being offered directly by Washington (or lets just say the IMF) and another crook, Tymoshenko, is now one of the candidates it supports
This is a continuation of efforts that started in the early 90's right through to the Bush administration to influence events in the Ukraine. see here from 2004 where the Bush administration were openly found to be pumping millions into support of Yanukovychs' opponent Viktor Yushchenko. It has certainly hasn't improved under Obama and we know from history that they have been doing in other countries for decades.
So are the CIA involved?
Yes
YES
Is the administration involved?
YES
Here she is handing out cookies | VID!
McCain in Ukraine
So the above is, I hope, is enough to demonstrate the extraordinary involvement in Ukraine from the US. This is not happening because they are worried about the Ukrainian people. This is happening because Military need both immediately domestic and international in relation to the Middle East, Syria and NATO's planned expansion and the corresponding corporate and economic concerns around future (and by direct cause present energy needs, require it.
The US has not ruled out War with Syria over alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian Government. Now factor in Putins intervention last year, current energy supply, the geopolitics of new pipeline routes and the toggle to get some control in Turkey (the EU & US aren't worried this corrupt regime [look into Turkeys recent ban on Twitter etc.)] as its a pawn for them in the ongoing Syrian game.
So, throughout this thread we've heard how Russia is somehow acting in exclusivity and how they have somehow planned out this entire affair in advance i.e they want destabilization so they can send in the 'peacekeeping' troops, force a local referendum leading to further possible annexation.
And there is almost an air of patting each other on the back in this regard - Putin won't fool us with his half-baked imperialism
But Russia are acting in defense of what they believe to be a US made (at least heavily influenced) revolution and subsequent interim government in Kiev which again they believe is a pathway for Americans to get Ukraine back into Europe where American money will be used to gain eventual power and control in the country backed forcibly by NATO countries and a Ukrainian president that US has good terms with. This is what American foreign policy is all about.
Its disappointing how many here consider that this conflict started in February. It's frustrating that many believe that the US is not heavily invested and involved in this conflict and it is sad to hear mindless comments like; Putin is a Nazi, US involvement and control are conspiracies and Russia has caused and is continuing to exacerbate this entire affair, single-handedly.
Painfully, it is apparent that the majority of the contributors here have no idea of the actual history of Russia and Ukraine. Putin is so crazy that he negates any historical relationship the two countries have. These people actually believe that the Ukraine is safer in the hands of US based politicians, who at best have wishy washy ideals of democracy and at worst represent multinationals and corporations who will recoup ten fold any bailout investment capital they put in.
What a bizarre situation for a Russian president to be in - the entire Western Ukraine seems to be enthralled by the call of Europe due mainly to misguided notions of some form of intangible instant freedom through travel and the embrace of western norms.
The rest of Ukraine regardless of its actual desire to be a part of Russia or not is now the target of vast American propaganda whose only aim is to grey the recent historicity of area, label Putin a madman and continue to stifle any hope of Russian resolution to the crisis - meanwhile ingeniously accusing their Russians counterparts of doing exactly what they are doing.
It is of course understood that they (Putin and his administration) are hardly without blame. They have huge questions to answer in relation Chechnya and indeed civil liberties in Russia itself but nothing the US couldn't top at a moments notice.
They also harbor imperialistic ideals and have engaged in a crazy economic pursuits (as to their various personal and moralistic stances, ideologies and stigmas it really depends on how much of the propaganda you can believe at face value, the truth always lies somewhere in between I have found) but don't be under any illusion that they created this crisis. The problem for them is, as this thread testifies, that they are losing the propaganda war hands down.
I am not for a minute suggesting that they deserve our concern, credit or respect but rather that the situation does. This has been the thrust of comments to date in this thread. This has fallen on deaf ears and no doubt will again.
I will reiterate again however - in recent times this is a conflict that started with the creation of NATO and promises made in terms of NATO not expanding east of Germany. You can watch countless Stephen Cohen videos on youtube for more on this (to present an argument from authority maybe isn't ideal but if you think you understand this affair better than Stephen Cohen then please list your rebuttals here accepting that you will keep strictly on point).
rant over - as you were!:)
Extremely well said...
And I'm sick of our media calling Ukrainians "pro Russian activists"
They're still Ukrainian...0 -
jimeryan22 wrote: »Extremely well said...
And I'm sick of our media calling Ukrainians "pro Russian activists"
They're still Ukrainian...
It was an excellent post. Quite bluntly anyone who thinks this is black and white is a fool. This is a squabble over valuable territory by two big powers who could not care less about the people who live in the territory and the west are at least as responsible for this dreadful situation as Russia.0 -
stevejazzx wrote: »Not just containment. It's about the US extending it's sphere of influence and indirectly positioning itself for an entry into future energy markets with national defense being somewhere way down on the list.
I've noticed, it hasn't been difficult, that the anti Russian voice as represented here in the majority seeks to make this issue as black and white as possible. I find it odd that a group of seemingly evidence lead individuals (certainly in terms of their religious outlook; at the very least) seek to reduce this issue to something as one dimensional as possible. It's not, this is a hot bed of history and foreign policy - not a falling out between Ukraine and Russia.
The EU, being heavily lead by US, in November issued, essentially, an ultimatum to the Ukraine; accept our deal in exclusivity, Russia cannot be involved. Until this point, Russia had been of course effectively subsidizing Ukraine's energy needs in exchange for having a controlling hand in the country's politics so why make such an unrealistic demand of the Ukraine a country already split by a complex history and why try to unrealistically muscle out Russia?
The answer is simple - with Russia's controlling hand in place there was no route for the US and or NATO (who, as we know are essentially an extension of the American military) into Ukraine for bases>future commerce and energy and or extension of its sphere of influence etc. past Poland.
At the moment they are organizing a fantastic defense shield against Russia in Poland that the international community already essentially vetoed in 2008/2009.
But back to the current crisis; the US, aggrieved (Fcuk the EU) at Yanukovychs' EU deal turnaround started to activate large supporting cells (mainly through NGO's funded by the National Endowment for Democracy see here, here & here) of dissent leading up to the Ukrainian revolution. The money the EU was offering indirectly via Washington is now being offered directly by Washington (or lets just say the IMF) and another crook, Tymoshenko, is now one of the candidates it supports
This is a continuation of efforts that started in the early 90's right through to the Bush administration to influence events in the Ukraine. see here from 2004 where the Bush administration were openly found to be pumping millions into support of Yanukovychs' opponent Viktor Yushchenko. It has certainly hasn't improved under Obama and we know from history that they have been doing in other countries for decades.
So are the CIA involved?
Yes
YES
Is the administration involved?
YES
Here she is handing out cookies | VID!
McCain in Ukraine
So the above is, I hope, is enough to demonstrate the extraordinary involvement in Ukraine from the US. This is not happening because they are worried about the Ukrainian people. This is happening because Military need both immediately domestic and international in relation to the Middle East, Syria and NATO's planned expansion and the corresponding corporate and economic concerns around future (and by direct cause present energy needs, require it.
The US has not ruled out War with Syria over alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian Government. Now factor in Putins intervention last year, current energy supply, the geopolitics of new pipeline routes and the toggle to get some control in Turkey (the EU & US aren't worried this corrupt regime [look into Turkeys recent ban on Twitter etc.)] as its a pawn for them in the ongoing Syrian game.
So, throughout this thread we've heard how Russia is somehow acting in exclusivity and how they have somehow planned out this entire affair in advance i.e they want destabilization so they can send in the 'peacekeeping' troops, force a local referendum leading to further possible annexation.
And there is almost an air of patting each other on the back in this regard - Putin won't fool us with his half-baked imperialism
But Russia are acting in defense of what they believe to be a US made (at least heavily influenced) revolution and subsequent interim government in Kiev which again they believe is a pathway for Americans to get Ukraine back into Europe where American money will be used to gain eventual power and control in the country backed forcibly by NATO countries and a Ukrainian president that US has good terms with. This is what American foreign policy is all about.
Its disappointing how many here consider that this conflict started in February. It's frustrating that many believe that the US is not heavily invested and involved in this conflict and it is sad to hear mindless comments like; Putin is a Nazi, US involvement and control are conspiracies and Russia has caused and is continuing to exacerbate this entire affair, single-handedly.
Painfully, it is apparent that the majority of the contributors here have no idea of the actual history of Russia and Ukraine. Putin is so crazy that he negates any historical relationship the two countries have. These people actually believe that the Ukraine is safer in the hands of US based politicians, who at best have wishy washy ideals of democracy and at worst represent multinationals and corporations who will recoup ten fold any bailout investment capital they put in.
What a bizarre situation for a Russian president to be in - the entire Western Ukraine seems to be enthralled by the call of Europe due mainly to misguided notions of some form of intangible instant freedom through travel and the embrace of western norms.
The rest of Ukraine regardless of its actual desire to be a part of Russia or not is now the target of vast American propaganda whose only aim is to grey the recent historicity of area, label Putin a madman and continue to stifle any hope of Russian resolution to the crisis - meanwhile ingeniously accusing their Russians counterparts of doing exactly what they are doing.
It is of course understood that they (Putin and his administration) are hardly without blame. They have huge questions to answer in relation Chechnya and indeed civil liberties in Russia itself but nothing the US couldn't top at a moments notice.
They also harbor imperialistic ideals and have engaged in a crazy economic pursuits (as to their various personal and moralistic stances, ideologies and stigmas it really depends on how much of the propaganda you can believe at face value, the truth always lies somewhere in between I have found) but don't be under any illusion that they created this crisis. The problem for them is, as this thread testifies, that they are losing the propaganda war hands down.
I am not for a minute suggesting that they deserve our concern, credit or respect but rather that the situation does. This has been the thrust of comments to date in this thread. This has fallen on deaf ears and no doubt will again.
I will reiterate again however - in recent times this is a conflict that started with the creation of NATO and promises made in terms of NATO not expanding east of Germany. You can watch countless Stephen Cohen videos on youtube for more on this (to present an argument from authority maybe isn't ideal but if you think you understand this affair better than Stephen Cohen then please list your rebuttals here accepting that you will keep strictly on point).
rant over - as you were!:)
All of this is pro imperialist clap trap. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Or was. Poland is a sovereign nation. Any of these nations can join NATO or the EU or install defence structures and it's not the business of Russia.0 -
Frank Lee Midere wrote: »All of this is pro imperialist clap trap. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Or was. Poland is a sovereign nation. Any of these nations can join NATO or the EU or install defence structures and it's not the business of Russia.
It is when an agreement made a good while ago has been broken over and over.. Namely when the wall came down.. Not to encircle Russia.. That's what's happend0 -
jimeryan22 wrote: »It is when an agreement made a good while ago has been broken over and over.. Namely when the wall came down.. Not to encircle Russia.. That's what's happend
Nothing to do with it, Russia has a GDP the size of Italy , get used to it . This is a post empire spasm just like Suez was .0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement