Ukrainian Crisis

[Geilinor]

"If Jimmy occasionally swears in class, then Billy can beat up Susan." -same exact logic, my friend. Why doesn't Russia make the West look like a pack of fools by following the rules and becoming an upright model for the world?

Because in this case Jimmy swearing has the potential to hurt Billy.
What happened in Ukraine was a blatant case of Western-sponsored regime change

It was not. Ukraine changed its own regime.

[Shofercia]

Let's debunk the theories supposedly justifying the Russian military invasion of Ukraine one by one:

Ohhh *grabs cookies*

There is no evidence whatsoever to support claims that Russian nationals or ethnics have been subjected to any significant violence or threats, let alone any directed specifically at them.

I understand that color coding makes your post really purty & all, but shooting at pro-Russian protesters is kind of significant:

1) In Kharkov, an unknown man opened fire upon a pro-Russian rally participants. Again.

An aggressive man in white "Tavria" caught pro-Russia rally participants unaware. Attacker, shouting insults from a car window, pulled out a gun and shot once in the crowd.

According to eyewitnesses, the incident injured two people. "I was hit by a car - continues Artem, who got a chin-cut in the incident. - I've seen more than one victim."

The day before, a peaceful rally in Kharkov also ended in gunfire. Bandits from the "Right Sector." opened fire upon returning to their homes Kharkovites. One person was wounded, the militants fled.

A way to go, Ukraine! Gunning down of pro-Russia rallies today – the EU and democracy tomorrow!

Of course I wouldn't expect the "fair and balanced" media to pick up on that.

[*]The "evidence" can be summarized by small scale civilian violence which has gone both ways, supposedly a drive-by shooting, actions taken to downgrade Russian from its' status of official language and McCarthyist skepticism regarding the allegedly "neo-nazi" Ukrainian government.

So you don't consider shooting at massive protest rallies as significant violence?

[*]If anything, pro-Ukrainians have apparently ended up worst than the other side in terms of casualties by most reports, and who exactly started said civilian violence is debatable.[/list]

Actually it's Svoboda and Right Sector, and one of the bosses of Right Sector, Muyzuychko, committed Russian Prisoner Abuse during the Chechen War.

There is no evidence to support claims that the Ukrainian government is "neo-nazi".

The claim is that the government is partially neo-Nazi. Not fully, but partially. The Minister of Defense, in charge of recruitment, is from Svoboda.

[*]Certain elements of the (should we say, former) opposition are not representative of the entire government and people of Ukraine.

The majority in several regions of Eastern Ukraine doesn't feel that they're represented in Kiev. It's not just about "certain elements". It's about the majority.

The "rightful president" has been formally and officially deposed by the Ukrainian parliament.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Ed ... rrison.htm

Foreign Minister William Hague deceived the House of Commons about the legitimacy of the new regime in Ukraine in a statement on 4 March 2014.

He led the House to believe that the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, had removed President Yanukovich from power on 22 February 2014 in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution and that therefore “it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities” (see here).

It is simply untrue that the Rada followed the procedure laid down in the Ukrainian constitution to impeach and remove a president from power.

* * * *

This procedure, laid down in Article 111 of the constitution (see text below), is not unlike that required for the impeachment and removal from power of a US president, which could take months.

Thus, Article 111 obliges the Rada to establish a special investigatory commission to formulate charges against the president, seek evidence to justify the charges and come to conclusions about the president’s guilt for the Rada to consider.

Prior to a final vote to remove a president from power, it requires

(a) the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the case and certify that the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration has been followed, and
(b) the Supreme Court of Ukraine must certify that the acts of which the President is accused are worthy of impeachment.

The Rada didn’t follow this procedure at all. No investigatory commission was established and the Courts were not involved. On 22 February 2014, the Rada simply passed a bill removing President Yanukovych from office.

Furthermore, the bill wasn’t even supported by three quarters of the members of the Rada, as required by Article 111 for the removal of a president from office – it was supported by 328 members, when it required 338 (since the Rada has 450 members).

The "rightful" president has apparently rewarded himself with $ 37 billion of Ukrainian money.

Name a Ukrainian President who wasn't corrupt. The Russians showed Yatsenuyk's Dacha not too far from Yanukovich's on satellite imagery. For some odd reasons, there are no excursions into his Dacha.

The "rightful" government and president used snipers to shoot at unarmed civilians.

The sniper story was called into question, and is under investigation.

[Lemanrussland]

The "ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries. It's essentially a modern version of what the Germans kept saying during the Czechoslovak and Polish affairs ("ethnic Germans are in danger, this justifies military action!").

Violent incidents involving pro-Russian protestors, ethnic Russians, or Russian citizens does not really justify setting up a puppet government on a sovereign country's territory and then sending troops in to "keep the peace"

[Shofercia]

The "ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries. It's essentially a modern version of what the Germans kept saying during the Czechoslovak and Polish affairs ("ethnic Germans are in danger, this justifies military action!").

Violent incidents involving pro-Russian protestors, ethnic Russians, or Russian citizens does not really justify setting up a puppet government on a sovereign country's territory and then sending troops in to "keep the peace"

You imply that's a pattern. Please name an incident, prior to 2014, when that occurred while Putin, (or Medvedev,) was president.

[Esperantujo 2]

Two people from Kharkiv are murdered by Right Sector terrorists. Instead of condemning the murders the far right Kiev President condemns Borotba as agents of the Kremlin, while in reality these socialists want an independent Ukraine, free of fascists and oligarchs. I will propose at that at the meeting to commemorate comrade Bob Crow, we also salute the two martyrs of Kharkiv.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Let's debunk the theories supposedly justifying the Russian military invasion of Ukraine one by one:

Ohhh *grabs cookies*

There is no evidence whatsoever to support claims that Russian nationals or ethnics have been subjected to any significant violence or threats, let alone any directed specifically at them.

I understand that color coding makes your post really purty & all, but shooting at pro-Russian protesters is kind of significant:

1) In Kharkov, an unknown man opened fire upon a pro-Russian rally participants. Again.



A way to go, Ukraine! Gunning down of pro-Russia rallies today – the EU and democracy tomorrow!

Of course I wouldn't expect the "fair and balanced" media to pick up on that.

[*]The "evidence" can be summarized by small scale civilian violence which has gone both ways, supposedly a drive-by shooting, actions taken to downgrade Russian from its' status of official language and McCarthyist skepticism regarding the allegedly "neo-nazi" Ukrainian government.

So you don't consider shooting at massive protest rallies as significant violence?

[*]If anything, pro-Ukrainians have apparently ended up worst than the other side in terms of casualties by most reports, and who exactly started said civilian violence is debatable.[/list]

Actually it's Svoboda and Right Sector, and one of the bosses of Right Sector, Muyzuychko, committed Russian Prisoner Abuse during the Chechen War.

There is no evidence to support claims that the Ukrainian government is "neo-nazi".

The claim is that the government is partially neo-Nazi. Not fully, but partially. The Minister of Defense, in charge of recruitment, is from Svoboda.

[*]Certain elements of the (should we say, former) opposition are not representative of the entire government and people of Ukraine.

The majority in several regions of Eastern Ukraine doesn't feel that they're represented in Kiev. It's not just about "certain elements". It's about the majority.

The "rightful president" has been formally and officially deposed by the Ukrainian parliament.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Ed ... rrison.htm

Foreign Minister William Hague deceived the House of Commons about the legitimacy of the new regime in Ukraine in a statement on 4 March 2014.

He led the House to believe that the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, had removed President Yanukovich from power on 22 February 2014 in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution and that therefore “it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities” (see here).

It is simply untrue that the Rada followed the procedure laid down in the Ukrainian constitution to impeach and remove a president from power.

* * * *

This procedure, laid down in Article 111 of the constitution (see text below), is not unlike that required for the impeachment and removal from power of a US president, which could take months.

Thus, Article 111 obliges the Rada to establish a special investigatory commission to formulate charges against the president, seek evidence to justify the charges and come to conclusions about the president’s guilt for the Rada to consider.

Prior to a final vote to remove a president from power, it requires

(a) the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the case and certify that the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration has been followed, and
(b) the Supreme Court of Ukraine must certify that the acts of which the President is accused are worthy of impeachment.

The Rada didn’t follow this procedure at all. No investigatory commission was established and the Courts were not involved. On 22 February 2014, the Rada simply passed a bill removing President Yanukovych from office.

Furthermore, the bill wasn’t even supported by three quarters of the members of the Rada, as required by Article 111 for the removal of a president from office – it was supported by 328 members, when it required 338 (since the Rada has 450 members).

The "rightful" president has apparently rewarded himself with $ 37 billion of Ukrainian money.

Name a Ukrainian President who wasn't corrupt. The Russians showed Yatsenuyk's Dacha not too far from Yanukovich's on satellite imagery. For some odd reasons, there are no excursions into his Dacha.

The "rightful" government and president used snipers to shoot at unarmed civilians.

The sniper story was called into question, and is under investigation.

lolwut. So you basically want to justify a 20.000 men-strong military invasion on a a single guy shooting at protesters on 1 or 2 occasions? That's like the US justifying invading Mexico every time one of its citizens gets shot at by a Mexican

[Costa Fierro]

Of course I wouldn't expect the "fair and balanced" media to pick up on that.

Is fair and balanced media only media that paints Russia in a positive light?

[Lemanrussland]

The "ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries. It's essentially a modern version of what the Germans kept saying during the Czechoslovak and Polish affairs ("ethnic Germans are in danger, this justifies military action!").

Violent incidents involving pro-Russian protestors, ethnic Russians, or Russian citizens does not really justify setting up a puppet government on a sovereign country's territory and then sending troops in to "keep the peace"

You imply that's a pattern. Please name an incident, prior to 2014, when that occurred while Putin, (or Medvedev,) was president.

A big part of the defense the Russians present regarding their continued military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is that they are there to protect Russian citizens and ethnic Russians. This is part of the reason why they hand out Russian passports like candy to Russian-speaking people in these breakaway regions. You also had a similar situation in Transnistria, though that was before Putin came to power, so I'll leave it out of the discussion.

These regions are also generally very dependent on Russian financial assistance (Abkhazia gets something like 70 percent of their state budget from Russia), and the leadership often has ties to the Russian political hierarchy. Despite all of this, Russia continues to claim that they are fully independent countries and that they are in no way puppet or client states, or that they are otherwise totally dependent on them.

[Aterna]

Let's debunk the theories supposedly justifying the Russian military invasion of Ukraine one by one:

Ohhh *grabs cookies*

There is no evidence whatsoever to support claims that Russian nationals or ethnics have been subjected to any significant violence or threats, let alone any directed specifically at them.

I understand that color coding makes your post really purty & all, but shooting at pro-Russian protesters is kind of significant:

1) In Kharkov, an unknown man opened fire upon a pro-Russian rally participants. Again.



A way to go, Ukraine! Gunning down of pro-Russia rallies today – the EU and democracy tomorrow!

Of course I wouldn't expect the "fair and balanced" media to pick up on that.

[*]The "evidence" can be summarized by small scale civilian violence which has gone both ways, supposedly a drive-by shooting, actions taken to downgrade Russian from its' status of official language and McCarthyist skepticism regarding the allegedly "neo-nazi" Ukrainian government.

So you don't consider shooting at massive protest rallies as significant violence?

[*]If anything, pro-Ukrainians have apparently ended up worst than the other side in terms of casualties by most reports, and who exactly started said civilian violence is debatable.[/list]

Actually it's Svoboda and Right Sector, and one of the bosses of Right Sector, Muyzuychko, committed Russian Prisoner Abuse during the Chechen War.

There is no evidence to support claims that the Ukrainian government is "neo-nazi".

The claim is that the government is partially neo-Nazi. Not fully, but partially. The Minister of Defense, in charge of recruitment, is from Svoboda.

[*]Certain elements of the (should we say, former) opposition are not representative of the entire government and people of Ukraine.

The majority in several regions of Eastern Ukraine doesn't feel that they're represented in Kiev. It's not just about "certain elements". It's about the majority.

The "rightful president" has been formally and officially deposed by the Ukrainian parliament.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Ed ... rrison.htm

Foreign Minister William Hague deceived the House of Commons about the legitimacy of the new regime in Ukraine in a statement on 4 March 2014.

He led the House to believe that the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, had removed President Yanukovich from power on 22 February 2014 in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution and that therefore “it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities” (see here).

It is simply untrue that the Rada followed the procedure laid down in the Ukrainian constitution to impeach and remove a president from power.

* * * *

This procedure, laid down in Article 111 of the constitution (see text below), is not unlike that required for the impeachment and removal from power of a US president, which could take months.

Thus, Article 111 obliges the Rada to establish a special investigatory commission to formulate charges against the president, seek evidence to justify the charges and come to conclusions about the president’s guilt for the Rada to consider.

Prior to a final vote to remove a president from power, it requires

(a) the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the case and certify that the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration has been followed, and
(b) the Supreme Court of Ukraine must certify that the acts of which the President is accused are worthy of impeachment.

The Rada didn’t follow this procedure at all. No investigatory commission was established and the Courts were not involved. On 22 February 2014, the Rada simply passed a bill removing President Yanukovych from office.

Furthermore, the bill wasn’t even supported by three quarters of the members of the Rada, as required by Article 111 for the removal of a president from office – it was supported by 328 members, when it required 338 (since the Rada has 450 members).

The "rightful" president has apparently rewarded himself with $ 37 billion of Ukrainian money.

Name a Ukrainian President who wasn't corrupt. The Russians showed Yatsenuyk's Dacha not too far from Yanukovich's on satellite imagery. For some odd reasons, there are no excursions into his Dacha.

The "rightful" government and president used snipers to shoot at unarmed civilians.

The sniper story was called into question, and is under investigation.

Aljizeera....you are aware that the Emir of Ba'hrain owns that agency?

[Shofercia]

Ohhh *grabs cookies*



I understand that color coding makes your post really purty & all, but shooting at pro-Russian protesters is kind of significant:



Of course I wouldn't expect the "fair and balanced" media to pick up on that.




So you don't consider shooting at massive protest rallies as significant violence?




Actually it's Svoboda and Right Sector, and one of the bosses of Right Sector, Muyzuychko, committed Russian Prisoner Abuse during the Chechen War.




The claim is that the government is partially neo-Nazi. Not fully, but partially. The Minister of Defense, in charge of recruitment, is from Svoboda.




The majority in several regions of Eastern Ukraine doesn't feel that they're represented in Kiev. It's not just about "certain elements". It's about the majority.




http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Ed ... rrison.htm






Name a Ukrainian President who wasn't corrupt. The Russians showed Yatsenuyk's Dacha not too far from Yanukovich's on satellite imagery. For some odd reasons, there are no excursions into his Dacha.




The sniper story was called into question, and is under investigation.

lolwut. So you basically want to justify a 20.000 men-strong military invasion on a a single guy shooting at protesters on 1 or 2 occasions? That's like the US justifying invading Mexico every time one of its citizens gets shot at by a Mexican

No, that's actually not what I said. You presented a bunch of bullshit, like "Yanukovich was legally impeached!" I explained why said bullshit was bullshit. You responded with "lolwut". To each, his own.

Of course I wouldn't expect the "fair and balanced" media to pick up on that.

Is fair and balanced media only media that paints Russia in a positive light?

Nope. No media is fair and balanced. I just don't understand why some media gets a free ride, but other media does not.

You imply that's a pattern. Please name an incident, prior to 2014, when that occurred while Putin, (or Medvedev,) was president.

A big part of the defense the Russians present regarding their continued military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is that they are there to protect Russian citizens and ethnic Russians. This is part of the reason why they hand out Russian passports like candy to Russian-speaking people in these breakaway regions.
You also had a similar situation in Transnistria, though that was before Putin came to power, so I'll leave it out of the discussion.

These regions are also generally very dependent on Russian financial assistance (Abkhazia gets something like 70 percent of their state budget from Russia), and the leadership often has ties to the Russian political hierarchy. Despite all of this, Russia continues to claim that they are fully independent countries and that they are in no way puppet or satellite states, or that they are otherwise totally dependent on them.

The Russians initially went into South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Peacekeepers, agreed by Russia, Georgia, and the locals. The second time the Russians went in, was in responses to Saakashvili's de facto declaration of warfare against South Ossetia, where the largely civilian capital, and Russian Peacekeeping Base, were mercilessly shelled with rocket launchers. In TransDneistr the Russians went in as a response to the Romanian and Moldovan armies moving into the region. Yet for some odd reason, the Romanians didn't get criticism over that. Neither one was provoked by the Russians. All served as a response.

Also, anyone who was born in the USSR and speaks fluent Russian can probably get a Russian passport. It's really not that complicated. And yet no one had an issue with Russia handing out Russian passports like candy in the 1990s.

Aljizeera....you are aware that the Emir of Ba'hrain owns that agency?

And? Is that going to bias him in copy-pasting the constitution of Ukraine? Do Arabian keyboards use a different copy-paste process than the rest of the World?

[Lyttenburgh]

The "ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries. It's essentially a modern version of what the Germans kept saying during the Czechoslovak and Polish affairs ("ethnic Germans are in danger, this justifies military action!").

Violent incidents involving pro-Russian protestors, ethnic Russians, or Russian citizens does not really justify setting up a puppet government on a sovereign country's territory and then sending troops in to "keep the peace"

User Lemanrussland! If you are totally. 112% sure that a) ""Ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries" b) That Crimean Referendum is some kind of travesty of international law, I humbly suggest for you completely different sort of news-worthy event, that would transpire in the very same region of the ex-USSR republics. Probably, you (and other NSGers of similar views) will find it much more pleasing to your sight, than voting process in Crimea.

Of course, I'm talking about the annual parade of SS-legionaries in Riga. (2012 year merchandise). Yep, that's right - in the capital of EU country. Annual march since 1994. Since 1999 - a state-wide event.

Despite the fact that this shit event is totally condoned by the EU (always supporting democratic values, with the exception with some silly letters expressing "concern" of such marches) since the Putin's first term of president (even before proud descendants of 15th Waffen Grenadiers Division of SS were admitted into NATO), despite numerous anti-russian slurs and discrimination - Baltic states are still independent and can stage such performance. C'mon, Lemanrussland - watch it!

As for Russia's claim to protect all it's citizens as well as ethnic Russians - by all means if it's necessary - I'm really shocked, shocked, that I have to remind you about the 1983 Grenada invasion. You know, at this time in Grenada (at the University of St George's, as well as on college campuses «True Blue» and «Grand Anse» in the Pearl airport area) were about 630 students from the United States, and the possibility of security threats for them has become the official reason the U.S. government to conduct military operations.

[The North Polish Union]

The "ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries. It's essentially a modern version of what the Germans kept saying during the Czechoslovak and Polish affairs ("ethnic Germans are in danger, this justifies military action!").

Violent incidents involving pro-Russian protestors, ethnic Russians, or Russian citizens does not really justify setting up a puppet government on a sovereign country's territory and then sending troops in to "keep the peace"

User Lemanrussland! If you are totally. 112% sure that a) ""Ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries" b) That Crimean Referendum is some kind of travesty of international law, I humbly suggest for you completely different sort of news-worthy event, that would transpire in the very same region of the ex-USSR republics. Probably, you (and other NSGers of similar views) will find it much more pleasing to your sight, than voting process in Crimea.

Of course, I'm talking about the annual parade of SS-legionaries in Riga. (2012 year merchandise). Yep, that's right - in the capital of EU country. Annual march since 1994. Since 1999 - a state-wide event.

Despite the fact that this shit event is totally condoned by the EU (always supporting democratic values, with the exception with some silly letters expressing "concern" of such marches) since the Putin's first term of president (even before proud descendants of 15th Waffen Grenadiers Division of SS were admitted into NATO), despite numerous anti-russian slurs and discrimination - Baltic states are still independent and can stage such performance. C'mon, Lemanrussland - watch it!

As for Russia's claim to protect all it's citizens as well as ethnic Russians - by all means if it's necessary - I'm really shocked, shocked, that I have to remind you about the 1983 Grenada invasion. You know, at this time in Grenada (at the University of St George's, as well as on college campuses «True Blue» and «Grand Anse» in the Pearl airport area) were about 630 students from the United States, and the possibility of security threats for them has become the official reason the U.S. government to conduct military operations.

I don not see any way in which a parade honoring Latvians who fought to attempt to save their nation from hegemonic Russian oppression has to do with the Ukraine, even if those Latvians used questionable means to do so.

[Lemanrussland]

The "ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries. It's essentially a modern version of what the Germans kept saying during the Czechoslovak and Polish affairs ("ethnic Germans are in danger, this justifies military action!").

Violent incidents involving pro-Russian protestors, ethnic Russians, or Russian citizens does not really justify setting up a puppet government on a sovereign country's territory and then sending troops in to "keep the peace"

User Lemanrussland! If you are totally. 112% sure that a) ""Ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries" b) That Crimean Referendum is some kind of travesty of international law, I humbly suggest for you completely different sort of news-worthy event, that would transpire in the very same region of the ex-USSR republics. Probably, you (and other NSGers of similar views) will find it much more pleasing to your sight, than voting process in Crimea.

Of course, I'm talking about the annual parade of SS-legionaries in Riga. (2012 year merchandise). Yep, that's right - in the capital of EU country. Annual march since 1994. Since 1999 - a state-wide event.

Despite the fact that this shit event is totally condoned by the EU (always supporting democratic values, with the exception with some silly letters expressing "concern" of such marches) since the Putin's first term of president (even before proud descendants of 15th Waffen Grenadiers Division of SS were admitted into NATO), despite numerous anti-russian slurs and discrimination - Baltic states are still independent and can stage such performance. C'mon, Lemanrussland - watch it!

As for Russia's claim to protect all it's citizens as well as ethnic Russians - by all means if it's necessary - I'm really shocked, shocked, that I have to remind you about the 1983 Grenada invasion. You know, at this time in Grenada (at the University of St George's, as well as on college campuses «True Blue» and «Grand Anse» in the Pearl airport area) were about 630 students from the United States, and the possibility of security threats for them has become the official reason the U.S. government to conduct military operations.

I have no problem with those kinds of people organizing and exercising their right to free expression, as long as such demonstrations are non-violent/don't violate other laws. I support the right of any organization to do the same, regardless of their views. Of course, in Europe there are much stricter laws regarding Nazi or quasi-Nazi demonstrations or even associations, which is why that event is so controversial.

The situation in Grenada was different, mainly because the well being of American citizens was the primary concern of the American government when it invaded Grenada, it was not primarily because of geopolitical considerations (which seems to be the main motivator behind the Russian intervention in Ukraine). Russia does not want Western supranational organizations like the EU and NATO creeping right onto its borders, which is reasonable, from a purely geostrategic/Machiavellian viewpoint. Russia has no natural barriers on its own borders, and thus needs a buffer zone of pliant states to give its core regions suitable protection. It's been invaded several times over the Northern European Plain, and doesn't want that to happen again. This is not compatible with democracy in Ukraine, hence the intervention.

It should also be pointed out that the democratically elected government of Grenada had been overthrown in a coup and replaced by a socialist dictatorship (and then overthrown again and replaced with a military dictatorship). This is not the situation unfolding in Ukraine. Parliament impeached Russia's choice for President, appointed the chairman as the acting President, and set a date for new Presidential elections. There has been no neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The "ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries. It's essentially a modern version of what the Germans kept saying during the Czechoslovak and Polish affairs ("ethnic Germans are in danger, this justifies military action!").

Violent incidents involving pro-Russian protestors, ethnic Russians, or Russian citizens does not really justify setting up a puppet government on a sovereign country's territory and then sending troops in to "keep the peace"

User Lemanrussland! If you are totally. 112% sure that a) ""Ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries" b) That Crimean Referendum is some kind of travesty of international law, I humbly suggest for you completely different sort of news-worthy event, that would transpire in the very same region of the ex-USSR republics. Probably, you (and other NSGers of similar views) will find it much more pleasing to your sight, than voting process in Crimea.

Of course, I'm talking about the annual parade of SS-legionaries in Riga. (2012 year merchandise). Yep, that's right - in the capital of EU country. Annual march since 1994. Since 1999 - a state-wide event.

Despite the fact that this shit event is totally condoned by the EU (always supporting democratic values, with the exception with some silly letters expressing "concern" of such marches) since the Putin's first term of president (even before proud descendants of 15th Waffen Grenadiers Division of SS were admitted into NATO), despite numerous anti-russian slurs and discrimination - Baltic states are still independent and can stage such performance. C'mon, Lemanrussland - watch it!

As for Russia's claim to protect all it's citizens as well as ethnic Russians - by all means if it's necessary - I'm really shocked, shocked, that I have to remind you about the 1983 Grenada invasion. You know, at this time in Grenada (at the University of St George's, as well as on college campuses «True Blue» and «Grand Anse» in the Pearl airport area) were about 630 students from the United States, and the possibility of security threats for them has become the official reason the U.S. government to conduct military operations.

Disapprove of Russia?
Obviously nazi sympathizer if not neo-nazi yourself.
Your first "point" bears little relevance to much of anything.

You also realize the US intervention in Grenada was in contravention of international law, and resulted in censure in the UN, don't you? IE: The US didn't actually have a leg to stand on (and I'd add those students were likely in significantly more danger than any Russians or Russophones in Ukraine).
Just like Russia doesn't have a justification.

But your constant failure to justify this action and instead try to pass the buck to what other people did is truly...something.

[Myrensis]

The "ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries. It's essentially a modern version of what the Germans kept saying during the Czechoslovak and Polish affairs ("ethnic Germans are in danger, this justifies military action!").

Violent incidents involving pro-Russian protestors, ethnic Russians, or Russian citizens does not really justify setting up a puppet government on a sovereign country's territory and then sending troops in to "keep the peace"

User Lemanrussland! If you are totally. 112% sure that a) ""Ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries" b) That Crimean Referendum is some kind of travesty of international law, I humbly suggest for you completely different sort of news-worthy event, that would transpire in the very same region of the ex-USSR republics. Probably, you (and other NSGers of similar views) will find it much more pleasing to your sight, than voting process in Crimea.

Of course, I'm talking about the annual parade of SS-legionaries in Riga. (2012 year merchandise). Yep, that's right - in the capital of EU country. Annual march since 1994. Since 1999 - a state-wide event.

Despite the fact that this shit event is totally condoned by the EU (always supporting democratic values, with the exception with some silly letters expressing "concern" of such marches) since the Putin's first term of president (even before proud descendants of 15th Waffen Grenadiers Division of SS were admitted into NATO), despite numerous anti-russian slurs and discrimination - Baltic states are still independent and can stage such performance. C'mon, Lemanrussland - watch it!

1, 80-85% of the Latvian Legion were conscripts, not volunteers.

2. They took no part in the Holocaust, the Nazi's had all ready taken away the Latvian Jews by that point

3. They are honored primarily for fighting to defend Latvia against the Soviets.

And regarding Latvia, it's interesting to note that the bulk of the ethnic Russian population there arrived between 1943 and 1969, in what amounted to a Soviet colonization program, and that almost immediately after independence Russian nationalists attempted a coup, using the exact same reason Putin is now , "The authorities are a threat to Russians!!"

So gee, I can't imagine why the Baltic states don't trust the Russians.

And the fact that the Baltic States are members of the EU and NATO probably explains why Russia is lest interested in poking around, Putin can reasonably calculate that the west isn't going to go to war over Georgia and Ukraine, nations outside their sphere of influence, but it's enother thing to hope that they won't react if he decides to send military forces into EU and NATO member states.

[Lemanrussland]

User Lemanrussland! If you are totally. 112% sure that a) ""Ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries" b) That Crimean Referendum is some kind of travesty of international law, I humbly suggest for you completely different sort of news-worthy event, that would transpire in the very same region of the ex-USSR republics. Probably, you (and other NSGers of similar views) will find it much more pleasing to your sight, than voting process in Crimea.

Of course, I'm talking about the annual parade of SS-legionaries in Riga. (2012 year merchandise). Yep, that's right - in the capital of EU country. Annual march since 1994. Since 1999 - a state-wide event.

Despite the fact that this shit event is totally condoned by the EU (always supporting democratic values, with the exception with some silly letters expressing "concern" of such marches) since the Putin's first term of president (even before proud descendants of 15th Waffen Grenadiers Division of SS were admitted into NATO), despite numerous anti-russian slurs and discrimination - Baltic states are still independent and can stage such performance. C'mon, Lemanrussland - watch it!

As for Russia's claim to protect all it's citizens as well as ethnic Russians - by all means if it's necessary - I'm really shocked, shocked, that I have to remind you about the 1983 Grenada invasion. You know, at this time in Grenada (at the University of St George's, as well as on college campuses «True Blue» and «Grand Anse» in the Pearl airport area) were about 630 students from the United States, and the possibility of security threats for them has become the official reason the U.S. government to conduct military operations.

Disapprove of Russia?
Obviously nazi sympathizer if not neo-nazi yourself.
Your first "point" bears little relevance to much of anything.

You also realize the US intervention in Grenada was in contravention of international law, and resulted in censure in the UN, don't you? IE: The US didn't actually have a leg to stand on (and I'd add those students were likely in significantly more danger than any Russians or Russophones in Ukraine).
Just like Russia doesn't have a justification.

But your constant failure to justify this action and instead try to pass the buck to what other people did is truly...something.

They were in danger. The military council had declared a curfew, and stated any one caught leaving their homes would be shot.

The situation in Ukraine is not even remotely the same. The Russian minority is not being threatened with genocide or even some kind of pogrom. Ukraine isn't under military rule.

[Shofercia]

User Lemanrussland! If you are totally. 112% sure that a) ""Ethnic Russians/Russian citizens are in danger" thing is really a standard excuse the Russians use to get involved in the affairs of "near-abroad" countries" b) That Crimean Referendum is some kind of travesty of international law, I humbly suggest for you completely different sort of news-worthy event, that would transpire in the very same region of the ex-USSR republics. Probably, you (and other NSGers of similar views) will find it much more pleasing to your sight, than voting process in Crimea.

Of course, I'm talking about the annual parade of SS-legionaries in Riga. (2012 year merchandise). Yep, that's right - in the capital of EU country. Annual march since 1994. Since 1999 - a state-wide event.

Despite the fact that this shit event is totally condoned by the EU (always supporting democratic values, with the exception with some silly letters expressing "concern" of such marches) since the Putin's first term of president (even before proud descendants of 15th Waffen Grenadiers Division of SS were admitted into NATO), despite numerous anti-russian slurs and discrimination - Baltic states are still independent and can stage such performance. C'mon, Lemanrussland - watch it!

1, 80-85% of the Latvian Legion were conscripts, not volunteers.

2. They took no part in the Holocaust, the Nazi's had all ready taken away the Latvian Jews by that point

3. They are honored primarily for fighting to defend Latvia against the Soviets.

And regarding Latvia, it's interesting to note that the bulk of the ethnic Russian population there arrived between 1943 and 1969, in what amounted to a Soviet colonization program, and that almost immediately after independence Russian nationalists attempted a coup, using the exact same reason Putin is now , "The authorities are a threat to Russians!!"

So gee, I can't imagine why the Baltic states don't trust the Russians.

And the fact that the Baltic States are members of the EU and NATO probably explains why Russia is lest interested in poking around, Putin can reasonably calculate that the west isn't going to go to war over Georgia and Ukraine, nations outside their sphere of influence, but it's enother thing to hope that they won't react if he decides to send military forces into EU and NATO member states.

Putin had no choice with Georgia. The Caucasus is an integrated region. Whatever happens in Tskhinval(i) affects Vladikavkaz, and there's no way that Putin can break that chain.

[Tahar Joblis]

Putin had no choice with Georgia. The Caucasus is an integrated region. Whatever happens in Tskhinval(i) affects Vladikavkaz, and there's no way that Putin can break that chain.

Putin definitely had a choice with Georgia. Putin had, in fact, a lengthy chain of choices regarding Georgia, and consistently chose a combination of belligerence, provocation, and intervention, in a manner that he could not possibly justify consistently with his stance on Chechnya.

Saying Putin had no choice with Georgia is rather like saying that Mitterrand had no choice with Algeria when civil war broke out there in the early 90s.

... you may notice a distinct historical lack of French intervention in that war...

[Palmyrene Empire]

Putin had no choice with Georgia. The Caucasus is an integrated region. Whatever happens in Tskhinval(i) affects Vladikavkaz, and there's no way that Putin can break that chain.

Putin definitely had a choice with Georgia. Putin had, in fact, a lengthy chain of choices regarding Georgia, and consistently chose a combination of belligerence, provocation, and intervention, in a manner that he could not possibly justify consistently with his stance on Chechnya.

Saying Putin had no choice with Georgia is rather like saying that Mitterrand had no choice with Algeria when civil war broke out there in the early 90s.

... you may notice a distinct historical lack of French intervention in that war...

Relevant to the last part:

https://twitter.com/chessninja/status/4 ... 73/photo/1
Yep. totally nothing wrong with this picture. Nothing disturbing at all.

EDIT: Might be fake, but still a little off putting nontheless.

[Shofercia]

Putin had no choice with Georgia. The Caucasus is an integrated region. Whatever happens in Tskhinval(i) affects Vladikavkaz, and there's no way that Putin can break that chain.

Putin definitely had a choice with Georgia. Putin had, in fact, a lengthy chain of choices regarding Georgia, and consistently chose a combination of belligerence, provocation, and intervention, in a manner that he could not possibly justify consistently with his stance on Chechnya.

Saying Putin had no choice with Georgia is rather like saying that Mitterrand had no choice with Algeria when civil war broke out there.

You may notice a distinct historical lack of French intervention in that war...

Algeria is detached from Europe. Georgia isn't detached from the Caucasus Region. The issue with the Caucasus region is that it's integrated. You cannot chop off parts of it. The Nagorno-Karabakh War in 1988 inflamed the region to decades of warfare. If the Russians could've prevented the N-K War, there wouldn't be the First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Dagestan War, First Ossetian War, Second Ossetian War, Third Ossetian War, First Abkhaz War, Second Abkhaz War, etc, etc, etc. This is key to understand. There were several wars, including one in TransDneistr. Did Belarus go to war after the TransDneistr War? Was there an invasion of Russia from the Baltics? And that shows the key difference between integrated and non-integrated regions.

When Bush hit Iraq, Iran was the beneficiary. Again, that's because the Middle East is an integrated region. What happens in one place, affects all other places. Armenia gets that. Azerbaijan's leadership pretends that they don't get it, but they do. Which is why their recent N-K attacks are limited to drones and chest pumping. Saakashvili didn't get it. If Russia did not act as Russia did in the Ossetian War, then Russia would have to deal with numerous problems on Russian soil. The Caucasus Region is bordered by Russia, Iran and Turkey. It has Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Half of the region is in Russia. The North Caucasus Region, (all Russian,) has an area of roughly 589,200 square kilometers, a population of 23.5 million people, who would be affected by what's going on in the South Caucasus Region.

You speak of Putin constantly being belligerent. When Saakashvili came to power, one of his first acts was to attack South Ossetia in 2004. Putin didn't respond with the military. Saakashvili proceeded to rebuild his army, and hit South Ossetia with a rebuilt army. Only when he mercilessly shelled a large civilian area and the Russian Peacekeeping base, legitimately stationed in the region, did the Russians respond. According to a British source, prior to Saakashvili's brutal attack, listed the population estimates as 45,000 Ossetians, 17,500 Georgians and 7,500 others, mostly Russians and Armenians. The place had de facto autonomy. There were some tensions, but peace was also possible. Instead of working for peace, Saakashvili prepared for war.

I've posted the timeline countless of times. August 4th - Georgia threatens war. August 5th - Russia clearly responds that if South Ossetia is attacked, war will follow. August 7th, Georgia attacks South Ossetia. August 8th, Russia responds. August 16th - war's over. And unlike the case with N-K, the region wasn't inflamed.

[Estruia]

This isn't really relevant, but I saw it and couldn't stop laughing. Putina, anyone?

[The Archregimancy]

Aljizeera....you are aware that the Emir of Ba'hrain owns that agency?

No he doesn't.

The King of Bahrain clearly doesn't own Al Jazeera.

Largely because the Al Jazeera Media Network is headquartered in Doha; which is in Qatar.

Al Jazeera's chairman is Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani, the first cousin once removed of the current Emir of Qatar.

Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government, and its launch was backed by a large loan from the previous Emir, but it would be quite wrong to characterise it as being "owned" by the current Emir.

In any case, while Al Jazeera has its flaws, discounting its reliability solely over the basis of its ownership is a bit like rejecting the BBC because it's a statutory body operating under Royal Charter.

[Palmyrene Empire]

So. Todays the day that...

A) Crimea joins Russia
B) Crimea does that 2nd option, 1992 constitution or something?
C) Ukraine doesnt recognize it and Russia roflstomps Ukraines army and then forcibly annexes Crimea.

[Rich and Corporations]

Aljizeera....you are aware that the Emir of Ba'hrain owns that agency?

No he doesn't.

The King of Bahrain clearly doesn't own Al Jazeera.

Largely because the Al Jazeera Media Network is headquartered in Doha; which is in Qatar.

Al Jazeera's chairman is Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani, the first cousin once removed of the current Emir of Qatar.

Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government, and its launch was backed by a large loan from the previous Emir, but it would be quite wrong to characterise it as being "owned" by the current Emir.

In any case, while Al Jazeera has its flaws, discounting its reliability solely over the basis of its ownership is a bit like rejecting the BBC because it's a statutory body operating under Royal Charter.

i do find the BBC to be a bit pro-british in it's attitudes and perspectives

[Asilian]

And what may those circumstances be?

You don't see the problem with Crimea holding a referendum on whether to join Russia while under Russian occupation?

In a word, "no"

I see the Russian occupation as purely icing on the shit cake their baking over there in Ukraine, a good majority of the people in Crimea want to suceed to Russia because the speak, act, identify culture and customs with, Russia and were in fact under Russian rule for ever 150 years before they got caught up with Ukraine's independence. So if they vote to go back to the Federation, let them, purely because the U.N Security Council lead by England and the U.S-who have heavily vested interests in Ukraine, and all it's territories, remaining sovreign-says "we will not recognize this" dosn't mean hell all! Because, the U.N dose not have jurisdiction in rebelling member-nations and, on a moral note, their reasons as stated above, are not entirely altruistic...