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

obplayer · 26-09-2014 02:00AM

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 01:46PM

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 01:50PM

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 01:57PM

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 01:58PM

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 02:51PM

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 02:56PM

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.

oscarBravo · 28-09-2014 01:43PM

recedite wrote: »

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...

OK - the premise here is that it was OK for the USA to invade and annex Cuba. I'm arguing that it wasn't - are you arguing that it was?

Or how about this one;
Ireland breaks away from the UK, forcing Westminster to finally grant Home Rule, in 1920.

As someone who's on record that we shouldn't celebrate 1916, I don't think I want to go down that rabbit hole.

recedite · 29-09-2014 11:42AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK - the premise here is that it was OK for the USA to invade and annex Cuba.

That's not my premise.
I'm saying that double standards are being applied. The Russians get portrayed as the paranoid, aggressive and warmongering ones by western media. Secession is deemed OK for some, but not for others.
If you want to see paranoia, look into the eyes of Nato chief Rasmussen next time he calls for more action against Russia in one of his rants.

oscarBravo · 29-09-2014 12:15PM

recedite wrote: »

That's not my premise.
I'm saying that double standards are being applied.

So it wasn't OK for the USA to invade and annex Cuba, and it equally wasn't OK for Russia to invade and annex Crimea?

recedite · 29-09-2014 01:29PM

USA should give back Guantanamo to Cuba.
N.Ireland and Crimea were large enough to be political entities in their own right, and they made their own decisions re sovereignty.
The Donbas region has done the same. The main dispute now is where exactly the border will be, which is why the fighting was fiercest around Mariopul just before the ceasefire. Separatist rebels would have liked to control a land bridge right across to Crimea, but Mariopul is a Ukrainian nationalist area. This would have been similar to the way Derry county was assigned to N. Ireland for strategic and geographical reasons, making Lough Foyle the boundary and maintaining deepwater access for Atlantic shipping, despite the majority local population wanting to be on the other side. That kind of thing leads to long term civil strife. Secession itself can put an end to strife, but only if the borders reflect the will of the people reasonably accurately.

robindch · 29-09-2014 01:50PM

recedite wrote: »

N.Ireland and Crimea were large enough to be political entities in their own right, and they made their own decisions re sovereignty.

The Crimean referendum was rigged - does that not concern you? And a UN resolution supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine and rejecting the fake result was supported by 100 countries:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/ga11493.doc.htm

If you're not concerned about vote-rigging, are you concerned that almost nobody accepts the result? Or are you happy to accept that any decision is fully legitimate, so long as some people vote on it?

recedite wrote: »

The Donbas region has done the same. The main dispute now is where exactly the border will be, which is why the fighting was fiercest around Mariopul just before the ceasefire.

Are you claiming that the substantially faker "referendum" held in Donetsk and Lugunsk was in any sense real?

Recall the Pew poll from around the same time which found a clear majority around the same time in favour of remaining united:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

Does Russia invading a country worry you? Or do you support the right of stronger countries to invade smaller ones and murder their citizens without any right of response?

robindch · 29-09-2014 02:05PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

You are purposefully conflating understanding with defending.

While the use of "purposefully" in that sentence is unhelpful, the rest of the sentence isn't.

As I've said previously, your position makes no sense to me - you defend Putin's position extensively, you back it up what I will charitably refer to as "Kremlin-aligned or sponsored propaganda" and false soundbites. For example, referring to the "Maidan overthrow", and your assertion that you don't believe that the annexation of Crimea was "fine" while at the same time providing a lengthy, one-sided justification for it.

What is your position? As above, I really can't understand it.

recedite · 29-09-2014 02:14PM

robindch wrote: »

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/ga11493.doc.htm

If you're not concerned about vote-rigging, are you concerned that almost nobody accepts the result?

I don't believe it was "rigged", and history shows that Crimeans sought autonomy from Ukaine right from the time Ukraine left the USSR.

You say "almost nobody" but your link shows 11 against and 58 abstentions, so that's 69 who did not support the UN condemnation. A remarkable number given the amount of economic leverage usually deployed by the US and EU in the UN to persuade developing countries to support their point of view.
This contribution seems particularly sensible;

El Salvador’s representative, explaining his abstention, said the text neither reflected the difficulties of Ukrainians, nor helped to resolve the causes of the crisis. It neither called for dialogue, nor set a precedent for handling future inter- and intra-State tensions.

Furthermore, the actions of Kiev in ordering air strikes and artillery bombardments against eastern cities shows that they themselves regard the Donbas region as enemy territory. Compare to the actions of the RAF in WWII; they were quite happy to bomb German cities, and even cities in German occupied France, but they never bombed the Channel Islands. No government bombs its own loyal cities.

BoJack Horseman · 29-09-2014 02:18PM

The actual result (according to the Kremlin) in the Crimean sham vote was 30% turnout with a 50-50 split.

The attempted vote in Donbass held by the men from Moscow was even more shambolic
No one, not even the Kremlin recognised.

Fact remains, there has yet to be a free & fair vote in either region on secession to Russia.

robindch · 29-09-2014 02:50PM

recedite wrote: »

I don't believe it was "rigged" [...]

And you believe it was a fair and honest referendum?

recedite wrote: »

You say "almost nobody" but your link shows 11 against and 58 abstentions, so that's 69 who did not support the UN condemnation.

Eleven countries in the world supported Russia's annexation - Russia itself, Armenia, Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Belarus, Zimbabwe, North Korea - like friends, you can tell a country by the friends it keeps.

recedite wrote: »

Furthermore, the actions of Kiev in ordering air strikes and artillery bombardments against eastern cities shows that they themselves regard the Donbas region as enemy territory.

You are aware that there are two sides in this conflict and that there were thousands of Russian troops, and perhaps similar numbers of local gunmen, supported by large amounts of Russian military hardware were operating in eastern Ukraine. And, according to the OSCE and the UN, as a whole, these men were engaged in kidnapping, torture and murder?

recedite wrote: »

No government bombs its own loyal cities.

Unless foreign troops and local terrorists are engaged in the crimes I've mentioned already.

As you seem unconcerned about Russian-backed violence against Ukrainians in both Crimea and Ukraine, it violence against the people of East Ukraine only matter when it's violence committed by the Ukrainian army in defense of the territorial integrity of Ukraine?

Actually, more simply, do you even accept the principle of a nation's territorial integrity to start with?

Old boardie22 · 29-09-2014 03:33PM

robindch wrote: »

And you believe it was a fair and honest referendum?Eleven countries in the world supported Russia's annexation - Russia itself, Armenia, Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Belarus, Zimbabwe, North Korea - like friends, you can tell a country by the friends it keeps.You are aware that there are two sides in this conflict and that there were thousands of Russian troops, and perhaps similar numbers of local gunmen, supported by large amounts of Russian military hardware were operating in eastern Ukraine. And, according to the OSCE and the UN, as a whole, these men were engaged in kidnapping, torture and murder?Unless foreign troops and local terrorists are engaged in the crimes I've mentioned already.

As you seem unconcerned about Russian-backed violence against Ukrainians in both Crimea and Ukraine, it violence against the people of East Ukraine only matter when it's violence committed by the Ukrainian army in defense of the territorial integrity of Ukraine?

Actually, more simply, do you even accept the principle of a nation's territorial integrity to start with?

You mean the foreign troops that there's still been NO proof of...? Or local terrorists..? You mean people who live there..? They're terrorists are they..?

But it's ok the bent EU/US sponsored Kiev puppet regeime uses tanks and the military against its own civilians..? Cause they're western backed of course so that's ok

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

Comments