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

S.R.

stevejazzx wrote: »

See this
Robins link and its conclusions are unfounded and quite simply incorrect. They stem from a badly researched oped piece in Forbes where the guy failed to read part of the article, perhaps on purpose, and as a result it says absolutely nothing about the Crimean referendum and only serves to confuse people further.

This is what it says at the very beginning:
Russian:
Настоящий обзор подготовлен членом Совета Бобровым Е.А., руководителем сети «Миграция и право» ПЦ «Мемориал» С.А. Ганнушкиной и адвокатом Сети Цейтлиной О.П. по результатам посещения городов Симферополь и Севастополь в период с 15 по 18 апреля 2014 г.
English:
This article was prepared by Council Member Bobrov E.A., co-ordinator of the "Migration and Rights Network" of "Memorial Human Rights Centre" Gannushkina S.A. and lawyer for the Network Tseitlina O.P. based on the results of visiting the cities of Simferopol and Sevastopol in the period from 15th to 18th of April 2014.
Basically, those three people went to two cities in Crimea, talked to a bunch of people, and then published that article.

Never again use w*nkers from Memorial as a source of info. Don't make me laugh. Financed by USA scum they are, not human rights centre!!!!!!!!!!!!

During chechen wars they and their colleagues were screaming about "brutality of russian army, about suffering of chechens etc", but when chechens were cutting soldiers' and civilians' heads off, were raping and killing innocent people, there was no a peep from these so called human rights centres.

S.R.

"Memorial" is Human Rights Centreha............HA-HA-HA!

What's next? Adolf Hitler as Nobel Piece Prize laureate?

S.R.

S.R. wrote: »

What's next? Adolf Hitler as Nobel Piece Prize laureate?

Actually why not? If Obama got it then what's wrong with Hitler?

Hotblack Desiato

stevejazzx wrote: »

If we accept that they reneged on all deals with Russia (which they have) that's fine - but they keep trying to hold Russia to a standard they themselves have broken continuously while at the same time expanding into Russia's backyard which as Cohen says, gives Russia legitimate security concerns on their borders.

Hang on a damn second.

The US has no right to restrict the sovereignty of any nation in Europe, and neither does Russia. Gentlemans' agreement or no.

The US has no right to say that any country cannot join any organisation, and neither does Russia.

The nations of Europe are sovereign. Tough luck if Russia or the US would rather otherwise.

stevejazzx wrote: »

However the current situation is one of great concern for Russia - this is not normal peacetime activity I'm sure you'll agree. They have legitimate concerns about their borders

Pull the other one.

The Americans supported the Goergian's only a few years, essentially giving them a mandate to attack South Osseitia

South Ossetia is part of Georgia FFS.

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

South Ossetia is part of Georgia FFS.

South Ossetia is part of Ossetia.

S.R.

The Americans supported the Georgian's only a few years, essentially giving them a mandate to attack South Ossetia

Americans armed Croatians, supported them in other ways and pushed them to attack Serbs in Srpska Krajina in 1995. As result thousands of Serbs were killed, hundreds of thousands fled their homes and never returned back.

In 2008 americans tried to do same thing to ossetians and abkhazians, arming, helping and pushing georgians to attack south part of Ossetia. After Ossetia it was turn of Abkhazia, but thanks to Russia american and georgian plans failed.

Today americans are trying to do the same thing to russians in South East part of so called Ukraine.

Turtwig

S.R. wrote: »

Never again use w*nkers from Memorial as a source of info. Don't make me laugh. Financed by USA scum they are, not human rights centre!!!!!!!!!!!!

During chechen wars they and their colleagues were screaming about "brutality of russian army, about suffering of chechens etc", but when chechens were cutting soldiers' and civilians' heads off, were raping and killing innocent people, there was no a peep from these so called human rights centres.

S.R. wrote: »

"Memorial" is Human Rights Centreha............HA-HA-HA!

What's next? Adolf Hitler as Nobel Piece Prize laureate?

S.R. wrote: »

If Obama got it then what's wrong with Hitler?

If you can't engage in a civil discussion without such ridiculous hyperbole and expletives then don't post here.

Ta,

Soon we'll be comparing the taste of orange juice to Hitler.

obplayer

ninja900 wrote: »

Hang on a damn second.

The US has no right to restrict the sovereignty of any nation in Europe, and neither does Russia. Gentlemans' agreement or no.

The US has no right to say that any country cannot join any organisation, and neither does Russia.

The nations of Europe are sovereign. Tough luck if Russia or the US would rather otherwise.

Precisely what I have been trying to say.
Once again....
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.

Hotblack Desiato

At least as responsible ... no. You misinterpret me.

We have rumours - allegations - unproven - of a gentlemans' agreement, a verbal statement which may have been misinterpreted - in relation to the US making commitments about newly liberated countries not joining NATO

It would have been wrong for the US to make such commitments on behalf of other nations. But we don't have proof that they did, and these nations have exercised their rights anyway since then.


But - On the other hand we have very real Russian threats, aggression, and support for separatists. Annexation of territory into Russia with threats to annex more.

You cannot equate the two.

Hotblack Desiato

S.R. wrote: »

Americans armed Croatians, supported them in other ways and pushed them to attack Serbs in Srpska Krajina in 1995. As result thousands of Serbs were killed, hundreds of thousands fled their homes and never returned back.

In 2008 americans tried to do same thing to ossetians and abkhazians, arming, helping and pushing georgians to attack south part of Ossetia. After Ossetia it was turn of Abkhazia, but thanks to Russia american and georgian plans failed.

Today americans are trying to do the same thing to russians in South East part of so called Ukraine.

Let's not reopen this here, but you will find close to zero sympathy in the west for the Serbian cause. Especially if you misrepresent events to ignore what happened before 1995.

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

Let's not reopen this here, but you will find close to zero sympathy in the west for the Serbian cause. Especially if you misrepresent events to ignore what happened before 1995.

Aren't you capable to understand that I am not talking about Serbs or Serbian cause?

Hotblack Desiato

Do you think you'd have the freedom of critical expression you enjoy now if you lived in Russia and the Russian government was your target?

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

At least as responsible ... no. You misinterpret me.

We have rumours - allegations - unproven - of a gentlemans' agreement, a verbal statement which may have been misinterpreted - in relation to the US making commitments about newly liberated countries not joining NATO

It would have been wrong for the US to make such commitments on behalf of other nations. But we don't have proof that they did, and these nations have exercised their rights anyway since then.


But - On the other hand we have very real Russian threats, aggression, and support for separatists. Annexation of territory into Russia with threats to annex more.

You cannot equate the two.

Russia does not annex any territory but re-takes what was lost due to different reasons.
Russia is doing what Ireland should also do.

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

Yet you did, 20 years on.

Yeah, put salt into your mouth and keep saying "it's sweet, it's sweet".

Hotblack Desiato

Oh get a grip.

We should annex Northern Ireland and screw the 1,000,000 people there who don't want us to?

Or maybe we can hold a rigged referendum first, then brutally suppress any opposition and murder journalists who ask awkward questions. That might work.

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

Or maybe we can hold a rigged referendum first, then brutally suppress any opposition and murder journalists who ask awkward questions. That might work.

First you have to wake up to stop dreaming about rigged referendums etc.

ninja900 wrote: »

We should annex Northern Ireland and screw the 1,000,000 people there who don't want us to?

After wakening you have not "to annex", but get back what belongs to your homeland.
There are airports and seaports for those 1,000,000 who are not happy to be under Dublin rule.

S.R.

ninja900 wrote: »

Do you think you'd have the freedom of critical expression you enjoy now if you lived in Russia and the Russian government was your target?

"NO" of course!
If I lived now in Russian Federation I would be taken away by KGB and fed to bears in Putin's private zoo somewhere in Siberia.

obplayer

S.R. wrote: »

First you have to wake up to stop dreaming about rigged referendums etc.



After wakening you have not "to annex", but get back what belongs to your homeland.
There are airports and seaports for those 1,000,000 who are not happy to be under Dublin rule.

You sound like a very worrying person. You seem happy to talk of ethnic cleansing, rigging referendums, ignoring laws etc. You are not, in my opinion, the kind of person I want involved in any discussion I am involved in. I don't think I want to comment further on your posts.

stevejazzx

S.R. wrote: »

Never again use w*nkers from Memorial as a source of info. Don't make me laugh. Financed by USA scum they are, not human rights centre!!!!!!!!!!!!

During chechen wars they and their colleagues were screaming about "brutality of russian army, about suffering of chechens etc", but when chechens were cutting soldiers' and civilians' heads off, were raping and killing innocent people, there was no a peep from these so called human rights centres.

Who are accusing and of what?
For the record I didn't use them as a source and neither did anyone here.
You need to read the posts and follow whats going on - otherwise you just come across as a bit...misguided*

*That's the safest word I can use to avoid a reprimand..other words do spring to mind.

stevejazzx

ninja900 wrote: »

Hang on a damn second.

The US has no right to restrict the sovereignty of any nation in Europe, and neither does Russia. Gentlemans' agreement or no.

The US has no right to say that any country cannot join any organisation, and neither does Russia.

The nations of Europe are sovereign. Tough luck if Russia or the US would rather otherwise.

I completely agree with these broad generalizations but yet you've formed them as if they make a point against something I was saying? What are you saying exactly?

stevejazzx wrote:

However the current situation is one of great concern for Russia - this is not normal peacetime activity I'm sure you'll agree. They have legitimate concerns about their borders

ninja900 wrote:

Pull the other one.

This thread is descending into nonsense. "Pull the other one" is not a reply. Again what do you mean? Can you explain your point of view and stay on point?
I am not a pro-Russian - I am attempting to make some basic points about the general situation.
You seem so fervently anti-Russian that you cannot even fathom that they are also a people with rights and although they are responsible for propaganda they are also on the receiving end of propaganda. What i am trying to do is make sense of all the propaganda and give the topic some balance.
Tell me who you think has more an entitlement to claim legitimate security concerns in that region NATO or Russia? If you answer NATO then you need to look at the Stephen Cohen links I posted all through this thread and just earlier tonight.

stevejazzx wrote:

The Americans supported the Goergian's only a few years, essentially giving them a mandate to attack South Osseitia

ninja900 wrote:

South Ossetia is part of Georgia FFS.

Yes it is, from what happened at the time this is a regular way of describing it but again you show no understanding of that. In fact it seems that you have really no understanding of any of this because your replies do not target any specific information whatsoever but are just general terms (see your first quoted comments in this post as a great example).
Debunk the wiki-leaks article I posted to back up the claim that the US was involved in Georgia in 2008. That would a far more constructive avenue of discourse.
If you think that that wiki-leaks article is nonsense then post a better source debunking it.
Comments like "pull the other one" and "yeah right" are not intelligible and have no room in any kind of debate.

S.R.

obplayer wrote: »

You sound like a very worrying person. You seem happy to talk of ethnic cleansing, rigging referendums, ignoring laws etc. You are not, in my opinion, the kind of person I want involved in any discussion I am involved in. I don't think I want to comment further on your posts.

Be honest: "don't want" is not a reason, "can't" is.
You can't comment coz there is no proof of rigged referendum except "It was rigged coz USA and servants think/want so". Knowing Crimea I have no doubt that majority of population are for Russia.

To ignore law that do not exist - it's beyond belief. Those "laws" were thrown into bin many times by big powers, especially in post-Soviet era.

And where is ethnic cleansing? Today is Friday, did you have some pints? Don't use word if you don't know what does it mean. Northern Ireland is part of Irish land, must be under Dublin rule. If someone in North is not happy with this, then there are options: 1. stay at home, live, work etc with laws of RoI; 2. pack your staff and move.

obplayer

S.R. wrote: »

If someone in North is not happy with this, then there are options: 1. stay at home, live, work etc with laws of RoI; 2. pack your staff and move.

My last reply to you. That is a near perfect description of Ethnic Cleansing.
Goodbye.

S.R.

obplayer, where was your law when USSR invaded Afghanistan, when USA destroyed Serbia, Libiya, Iraq, Afghanistan, when USA invaded Grenada and Panama, when China occupied Tibet? Can you give me exact geographical coordinates of law's whereabouts in mentioned above cases?

S.R.

obplayer wrote: »

That is a near perfect description of Ethnic Cleansing.

:eek:

Just tell me: are you protestant?
If "yes" then it explains a lot, if "no" then your case is more difficult than I initially thought.

S.R.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Who are accusing and of what?

What do u mean?

stevejazzx wrote: »

For the record I didn't use them as a source and neither did anyone here.

I read posts again, yes, you didn't, I made mistake. My apology.

But why did u say that nobody used them as source of info? Didn't robindch use Memorial's report saying that members of russian government admitted that referendum was rigged?

Bellatori

ninja900 wrote: »

Oh get a grip.

We should annex Northern Ireland and screw the 1,000,000 people there who don't want us to?

Or maybe we can hold a rigged referendum first, then brutally suppress any opposition and murder journalists who ask awkward questions. That might work.

Sorry....? That hasn't happened? I really must try and keep up.

Hotblack Desiato

stevejazzx wrote: »

I completely agree with these broad generalizations but yet you've formed them as if they make a point against something I was saying? What are you saying exactly?

You were claiming that the US and Russia entered into an agreement about the non-expansion of NATO that would violate the sovereignty of eastern European countries. In other words, that Russia was entitled to hold a veto over the foreign policy of these countries. The newly liberated countries are free to join NATO if they wish whether Russia likes it or not.

This thread is descending into nonsense.

Quite.

"Pull the other one" is not a reply. Again what do you mean? Can you explain your point of view and stay on point?

Okay then - what legitimate concerns did Russia have over its border?

I am not a pro-Russian - I am attempting to make some basic points about the general situation.
You seem so fervently anti-Russian that you cannot even fathom that they are also a people with rights

Not anti-Russian, anti-Putin.
Yes Russians have rights, which Putin is increasingly suppressing.
Russia does not have the right to dictate the policy of neighbouring nations.

Tell me who you think has more an entitlement to claim legitimate security concerns in that region NATO or Russia? If you answer NATO then you need to look at the Stephen Cohen links I posted all through this thread and just earlier tonight.

Neither. Ukraine isn't a NATO member and isn't going to be - ironically because it is at real threat from Russia and NATO does not want to be drawn in.

stevejazzx

ninja900 wrote: »

You were claiming that the US and Russia entered into an agreement about the non-expansion of NATO that would violate the sovereignty of eastern European countries. In other words, that Russia was entitled to hold a veto over the foreign policy of these countries. The newly liberated countries are free to join NATO if they wish whether Russia likes it or not.

It was the US who implicitly claimed they wouldn't go eastwards so I am not defending any magical right I think Russia should have in the say of other soverign countries - I am questioning why the US broke its promise so emphatically. Not only this but they (the US) unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty. This is why, as any analyst would agree, Russia now has legitimate security concerns at its border - don't translate that into their right to invade as that's not what it means, obviously.

ninja900 wrote:

Okay then - what legitimate concerns did Russia have over its border?

This is a poorly thought out question. We will skip the fundamental idea of national security and get to what I think you wanted to ask.
If a civil war is going to break out in a country on their doorstep then this will have obvious knock on effects to their country so they are legitimately allowed to be concerned. If that country shares their lineage and indeed harbors their own people then their claim to involvement increases significantly. if they have been subsidizing the entire economy of that country for the last 60 years (and in other ways since the 11th century in a mutual regard) then their claim increases further and so on and so on until you get an idea for the history that unites Ukraine and Russia.
None of these claims of legitimate involvement give them (Russia) any rights or excuses to behave illegally e.g annexation etc. but if they fear the loss of this land through complex foreign subterfuge then a grey area develops. Within this grey area, something which is now approaching war - they are still not afforded any rights to contravene international law nor do I believe they should have any. However, there will need to be at some stage opposition to the mish-mosh of fascist radicals that have somehow got into power the Ukraine and who are fighting against Russian separatists. The main reason why Russia has legitimate concerns is because ethnic Russians are involved en masse in major eastern Ukrainian cities, Donetsk, Karkhiv etc. If you think America, UK or German military would behave differently in similar situations then you're deluded. In that situation the only difference would be better international relations and support garnered through a compliment western media.
So at this stage we have to wade through the propaganda - are Russia using agents to kick off a civil war? It's very difficult to tell if that is their game plan as they were happy with a lot less back in February. To make the jump that they now want this war seems illogical to me. It puts them in an insanely difficult international position and strains their economy massively. I would tend to agree with professor Stephen Cohen that this war has been brought to them but again this this doesn't legitimize their behavior. We need to analyse the events on a large scale in order to correctly judge the behaviors of all involved.
Curiously however, despite the propaganda, the from evidence from the atrocities (Odessa, Odessa burning, Mariupol) so far suggests that it is factions of Ukrainian fascists who are mostly responsible.
I don't for a minute think Russia is innocent.
The country looks to be heading towards totalitarianism with a spout of current ridiculous laws (in relation to gay rights, patriotism and even swearing in movies)
they start to resemble a weird North Korea more than anything else. However this does not legitimize the US or NATO's actions. They have no right to be knee deep in this crisis, no right to have their administration on the ground supporting a revolution, no right to have CIA advising the interim government they helped put there, no right to further expansion of NATO (it increases the volatility of any remaining nuclear agreements and thereby world peace).
Russia were happy with the bilateral agreement negotiated with EU in February. The US didn't want this - in fact it got them really angry (FcuK the EU) because the money that was up for grabs (bailout funds for the Ukraine) would ultimately be originating in Washington and the US knew that with continuing Russia involvement they would have no legitimate means of concluding their Polish missile defense installation, further NATO expansion and subsequently gaining influence in the Ukraine for the installment of future energy pipelines. see also here for more
Its a long term game plan that is being played out.

ninja900 wrote:

Neither. Ukraine isn't a NATO member and isn't going to be - ironically because it is at real threat from Russia and NATO does not want to be drawn in.

Wow. This comment shows your naivety on a very grand scale.
This is a direct continuation of US policy in Ukraine that has been going on since the fall of the Soviet Union - I have posted links in this thread already but
here's snapshot of recent times - dear lord do your homework man before posting any more monumentally incorrect comments.

2004
2005
2008
2008
Overview through 3 administrations

S.R.

Head of Kherson region Yuri Odarchenko on Victory Day said that Hitler was liberating people from Stalin's tyranny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A05s6GrztbQ#t=216

Good man, Yura!

Brian Shanahan

S.R. wrote: »

What is international law?

So you're ok with illegal occupations of other people's countries then. Always good to know.