Lunatics. It seems these MPs want a return to the pre-Glasnost days. Putin is trying his best to get there without their help.Russia Discussion
- Thread starter iSparky
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Lunatics. It seems these MPs want a return to the pre-Glasnost days. Putin is trying his best to get there without their help.American politics has jumped in the way-back-machine, why not Russia...
So where the Russians emigrate they take over? Oops watch the Mexicans US
Russia seems to be infected by a rather nasty strain of nationalism at the moment, which is not ideal given they have the world's largest nuclear arsenal and are now playing power politics with oil and gas.
I read an article suggesting that they've also started violating the mid-range ballistic missile agreement the US has with them by developing new missiles. If they've started to research new missiles, they may start putting them closer to Europe as well. It wouldn't be surprising given the age and likely state of their nuclear arsenal. At the end of the cold war lots of their portable missiles were wooden and just for parades.
They're doing all this and are simultaneously protesting the idea of NATO troops in eastern Europe. Putin must be exceptionally delusional if he thinks invading and annexing Crimea is worth the backlash of potential NATO troops on his doorstep, a reconfiguration of energy supplies to Europe, a reemergence of the Czech missile shield, and massive economic sanctions that would strangle the Russian economy - all for the discounted price of a small piece land and a temporary bump in his poll numbers.
What is Putin's mindset here?
Does he truly feel Russia is this massive superpower of forty years ago?
Does he feel his government run by gangsters can topple the Western nations?
Does he truly feel Russia is this massive superpower of forty years ago?
Does he feel his government run by gangsters can topple the Western nations?
He's interested in restoring Russia to a place where the Soviet Union was before it went tits up.
But is this more of a fantasy or a realistic possibility?
In Putin's mind, its likely a realistic possibility. Obviously, bringing the former Soviet states in line with his plans is the first step. If one of them looks like they're leaning towards Europe, well then its time to invade.
Russia thretening gas supplies unless ukraine pays its debts... they may even ask for payment upfront
apparently this is russia bullying ukraine according to some commentators.
now to put it in perspective if I dont pay edf they will cut off my supply as well furthermore they can insist that they fit a pre pay metre if I was to fail to stick to the agreed payment terms
are edf being bullying? Or is it just double standards
apparently this is russia bullying ukraine according to some commentators.
now to put it in perspective if I dont pay edf they will cut off my supply as well furthermore they can insist that they fit a pre pay metre if I was to fail to stick to the agreed payment terms
are edf being bullying? Or is it just double standards
Depend whether EDF's gas pipe line runs through your back garden I suppose.
nuttersRussians warned if they go abroad, US might snatch them
US secret services are actively 'hunting' and jailing Russians in revenge for the annexation of Crimea – or so a warning by the Russian Foreign Ministry says.
http://news.yahoo.com/russians-warned-abroad-us-might-snatch-them-162100712.html
It's not your typical travel advisory.
Russia's Foreign Ministry is warning that Russians should refrain from traveling abroad because they could be entrapped by US secret services who are actively "hunting" for Russians to persecute in punishment for Moscow's recent annexation of Crimea, according to an official notice published on the Ministry's website.
The message seems directed at the approximately 15 million Russians, most of them middle-class, who leave the country each year for tourism.
It says the US, which "unreasonably" refuses to accept the reunification of Russia and Crimea, is seeking revenge by "trying to make a routine practice of 'hunting' for Russian citizens in third countries with the goal of extraditing them to the US, where they will be convicted [and jailed] on what are usually doubtful charges."
And it adds that "justice in America" is biased against Russians, who can be "kidnapped" and taken to the US without even notifying Russian consular officials about what is happening. The two cases cited as examples are old bones of contention between Russia and the US: those of convicted arms trader Viktor Bout andconvicted cocaine smuggler Konstantin Yaroshenko, both of whom were arrested in third countries and extradited to the US for trial.
"I don't get this. The two people named in this statement are not typical Russians. Most who go abroad don't deal in arms or drugs, so what are they being warned about?" says Nikolai Svanidze, a historian and TV talk show host in the vein of Charlie Rose or David Frost.
"What I see here is a wish to construct a new Iron Curtain, maybe not so high or strong as in the past, but part of a propaganda campaign aimed at self-isolation. No good will come of this," he says.
The warning is clearly aimed at all Russians who may contemplate foreign travel. "We strongly recommend Russian citizens refrain from traveling abroad, particularly to countries that have mutual extradition treaties [with the US]," the statement says. It then links to a US State Department list of about 110 countries that have such agreements, which is basically most of the outside world.
"This is a sure sign that there's a propaganda war going on, in which everything is now permissible," says Viktor Kremeniuk, deputy director of the official Institute of USA-Canada Studies in Moscow.
"It reminds me of Soviet times. This is not just anybody saying these things. It's an official organization, the Foreign Ministry, relaying this warning to Russians. That doesn't come from nowhere; it was obviously ordered from the top."
It makes complete sense, though, it's not nutty at all. The more Russians go overseas, the more sources of news they're exposed to. The more assets they have overseas, making them less inclined to support policies that could potentially have consequences for those policies. It's completely sensible, if Machiavellian.
But isnt that why they give them a whopping discount (effectivley paying them for the pipeline)
if Ukraine then decide they cant use it fair enough but I dont imagine they fancy explaining to the rest of Europe why either prices have gone through the roof or there is a gas shortage whilst they have stopped the use of the supply line
I actually have a transmission pylon running through some of the land I own on one of my houses In china
The equivalent of National grid pay me some compensation for this but by your logic should I not pay my electric company for the energy I use they could not cut me off as I would be entitled to then stop them using their infrastructure and in the process probably isolating a few hundred homes.
Ukraine should pay its bills or be cut off - if Europe wants to pay their bills for them in exchange for reforms then thats fine... But somebody needs to pay
Putin is asking Ukraine to repay the money the Russian government fronted Ukraine in the so called "2010 Kharkov Agreement", where Ukraine received money up front in exchange for allowing Russia to use the Ukrainian Sevastopol port for its Black Sea Fleet. Now they've invaded Crimea and are demanding the money back, and are using the agreement they themselves canceled by invading Crimea, to raise the price per 1,000 cubic meters of gas by $100. Its basically a mafia tactic to squeeze the Ukrainian government/people/economy after just having invaded and annexed a part of Ukraine. Therefore the notion that Ukraine is not paying its bills is a simplification of a much more complex and nuanced issue related to Russia playing power politics with its natural resources in order to destabilize Ukraine for Putin's political purposes.
That's the money they're bitching about?
I wonder when Poroshenko needs to start worrying about being fed Polonium-210. In other news, more pro-Russian militants seized another government building in the east.
I wonder when Poroshenko needs to start worrying about being fed Polonium-210. In other news, more pro-Russian militants seized another government building in the east.
German TV Exposes Kiev Regime's Lies Regarding Identity of Maidan Snipers
http://larouchepac.com/node/30453
April 11, 2014 • 9:00AM
German's first national channel, TV ARD, published a blockbuster report on the Maidan snipers affair, titled "Doubts About Reports of Maidan Snipers," on its primetime policy special "Monitor" on Thursday night. The program's team interviewed an anonymous member of the official Kiev investigation team, who said that his own investigations do not back the official version put out by the Ukrainian investigators at their press conference a few days ago, at which they presented a list of 12 snipers allegedly from the Berkut unit.
Tapped phone communication among Berkut officers during the Maidan shootouts made available to Monitor by a Ukrainian amateur radio expert, show, however, that the Berkut were taken entirely by surprise by the snipers' action. One Berkut officer is heard asking his colleagues:"Who fired there? Our people do not fire on unarmed people."Another says a bit later:"He was shot by someone, but not by us... are there more snipers? And who are they?"
Video recordings show that the shots were fired also from the Ukraina Hotel—as Monitor was told by an eyewitness of the events, the shots were fired from the eighth or ninth floor of the hotel, and that the snipers must have been professionals. But the hotel was firmly in the hands of the Maidan movement that day, which just in the morning of Feb. 20 had introduced ID card controls and only let in people who had a key to one of the hotel rooms.
This report coheres precisely with information that our intelligence sources received from qualified Ukrainian sources at the time.
Lawyers representing the relatives of sniper victims also told Monitor that there is stonewalling by the official Kiev investigators, who have so far refused to say what kinds of weapons were used by the snipers, what expertises have been exercised during the investigation, what it actually is that they are investigating.
April 11, 2014 • 9:00AM
German's first national channel, TV ARD, published a blockbuster report on the Maidan snipers affair, titled "Doubts About Reports of Maidan Snipers," on its primetime policy special "Monitor" on Thursday night. The program's team interviewed an anonymous member of the official Kiev investigation team, who said that his own investigations do not back the official version put out by the Ukrainian investigators at their press conference a few days ago, at which they presented a list of 12 snipers allegedly from the Berkut unit.
Tapped phone communication among Berkut officers during the Maidan shootouts made available to Monitor by a Ukrainian amateur radio expert, show, however, that the Berkut were taken entirely by surprise by the snipers' action. One Berkut officer is heard asking his colleagues:"Who fired there? Our people do not fire on unarmed people."Another says a bit later:"He was shot by someone, but not by us... are there more snipers? And who are they?"
Video recordings show that the shots were fired also from the Ukraina Hotel—as Monitor was told by an eyewitness of the events, the shots were fired from the eighth or ninth floor of the hotel, and that the snipers must have been professionals. But the hotel was firmly in the hands of the Maidan movement that day, which just in the morning of Feb. 20 had introduced ID card controls and only let in people who had a key to one of the hotel rooms.
This report coheres precisely with information that our intelligence sources received from qualified Ukrainian sources at the time.
Lawyers representing the relatives of sniper victims also told Monitor that there is stonewalling by the official Kiev investigators, who have so far refused to say what kinds of weapons were used by the snipers, what expertises have been exercised during the investigation, what it actually is that they are investigating.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26987082
BBC version of events and possible impacts if supplies are cut.
BBC version of events and possible impacts if supplies are cut.
Would anyone really be bothered if Russians listened to their government and stopped travelling abroad? Not that most of the fellow Yanks would be missed if they stopped either.
So is this the same agreement that was held up as being proof that it ws not an invasion of the Ukraine, just Russian troops doing what they were allowed to do?
There were obvious legal implications of the covert invasion into Crimea. If Putin sent troops into Crimea, who were easily idenitified as Russian, it would have undermined their moral leverage at the UN, with the EU, and others, to claim the invasion was something that was willed by Crimeans - which was obviously not true. It was a Russian engineered operation to foment paranoia among Russian speaking Crimeans, as a pretext to justify an invasion. The cancellation of 2010 Kharkiv agreement is merely a way to strangle Ukraine in the present, as the money Russia appropriated for the Black Sea fleet having access to Sevastopol is being piled onto exisiting Ukrainian debt, which the Russians are trying to squeeze out through higher gas prices.
Looks like it is kicking off again
I wonder how long before russian troops occupy donesk?
I wonder how long before russian troops occupy donesk?
Crimea is not like Iraq. That's an absurd comparison. If Russia invades Eastern Ukraine then we can at least start talking about those comparisons at a reasonable level, but still wouldn't be the same, as there were no Americans the US were trying to protect in Iraq, which is a crucial difference.
When the US feels the Americans' lives are even remotely threatened, they have no problem invading/bombing whatever country they think they should bomb. Always been like that, always will be. Hell they have been invading/bombing countries without even Americans' lives being threatened.
The comparison we're making here are only to expose the hypocrisy of the US and the people who are defending its position, and not because the comparisons reflect that what Russia is doing is actually (nearly) as bad as what the US has done/is doing.
I'm actually not sure what Russia is doing is bad at all, when I see now what's happening in Eastern Ukraine. People are being murdered there and even called "terrorists" for rejecting an illegal government which toppled the elected government through an illegitimate coup.
Not really. Actually I'm surprised you don't know the meaning of that term.
... so like I said. A coup.
Nah, that would be illegal... I say we just arm them, and send the Mujahideen over to help them out. And if it fails, we bomb Kiev.
Maybe the Russians can just starve the Ukrainians like they did before? Or additional dekulakization?
Urgent Security Council meeting tonight! Let's see what they do...
Well as russia has a security council veto im pretty confident they wont pass any resolution that putin does not like
I was being sarcastic. They'll do nothing for those reasons. Such a useful mechanism.
Ukraine says it has concrete evidence that it will present to the Security Council that the Russian secret services are involved in the recent incidents in the east.
Last edited:
This whole scenario just shows how ridiculous international politics really is. Russia can do what they like and the world will sit there and accept it. Slapping Russia on the wrist and tutting at them! It's mental.
I see. Therefore let us be clear. Where citizens of country A are threatened in country B, A may invade B?
With all respect, do you not see the irony inherent in your position?
Hypocrisy. You call it hypocrisy that the US believes it is entitled to oppose X where it did X in the past. You don't think it's hypocritical to say that Russia is entitled to do Y because the US did Y in the past? Surely they are the one and the same, dude.
This has nothing to do with anything, but I'm quite struck that being called a terrorist seems to be worse than being murdered, for you.
Oxford English Dictionary, right? I like how you leave out the explanatory quote immediately after that:
"(also coup d'état) A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government:he was overthrown in an army coup"
The word has always been traditionally and pejoratively used to describe military takeovers of civilian governments. Words have power, and that is the terminology favoured by the Kremlin for precisely that reason. That is the terminology you have used, with respect, because you have drunk the Kremlin Kool-Aid.
Depends on the circumstances. I never said "they may invade", I merely said "it's a totally different situation from another one where there is no case of Citizens from country A are threatened in country B". Please try to be accurate in what I say and avoid putting words into my mouth.
No, because like I said, the real situation imo is different from the one where the US was involved, however, the way the US is trying to picture the situation is exactly (or even still less bad) than the one where the US itself was involved. In other (simpler) words, I can use what you say as an evidence against you, but you can't use what you say as an evidence against me.
Of course it's more dangerous. When there are clashes between protestors and security forces you do expect casualties, but when the government is calling the protestors "terrorists" instead of "criminals" probably, or just people breaking the law, then it's:
a- completely idiotic (because I didn't see any "terrorist activities", they were just protesting, and if seizing government buildings by protestors is a terrorist activity, then that surely applies to the maidan protestors as well?), and..
b- it gives an indication about the way the government is going to deal with it, which could be far worse than killing a couple of protestors.
Meh, that was an example, an army coup is only one type of it, that's why they call it an "army coup", otherwise they wouldn't have added the word army would they?
Here is a full definition from Wikipedia:
And they even elaborated after that:A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; French: blow of state; plural: coups d'état)audio (help·info), also known as a coup, aputsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a government,[1][2][3][4] usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body, civil or military. A coup d'état is considered successful when the usurpers establish their dominance. When the coup neither fails completely nor succeeds, a civil war is a likely consequence.
Not going to comment about what you're drinking.
Last edited:
I'm going to drop everything else to focus on this point, because it's the crux of this issue.
You said that Russian occupation of the Crimea was a legitimate or justified one. You said that Crimea wasn't comparable to Iraq because American citizens weren't threatened in Iraq. Great. So I assumed your point was that this entitled Russia to intervene (because it is in fact, inter alia, one of their justifications they cited). If that's not it, what is? What justifies the Russian invasion/occupation/action?
Kronenbourg 1664. I swear by it. Haven't drunk any other beer for several years now. Great aftertaste.
No, that was the comparison I was making between East Ukraine and Iraq.
For the situation in Crimea there are a lot of differences, we've discussed extensively before. Two of the main differences are:
1- Whether you like it or not there is a treaty between Russia and Ukraine that allows the presence of Russian forces inside Crimea, and their right to secure the Russian bases there.
2- There was not a single bullet shot in the whole "Russian invasion" thing, hence why there is no hard evidence of military aggression from Russian forces against Ukrainians. Actually there isn't even hard evidence that there was a Russian invasion in the first place (and by hard evidence I obviously don't mean "clues"), and that certainly doesn't give the impression of a "real invasion" or "occupation"..
Both of those two points don't apply if Russia intervened in East Ukraine, and are certainly far from the situation with the Invasion (and occupation) of Iraq, which resembles nothing really that happened in the last few decades.
You still won't accept that the men in Russian vehicles (trucks, APCs, tanks) with Russian military plates, carrying Russian weapons, in Russian uniforms and body armor minus the patches, and surrounding Ukrainian bases were Russian? Even the ones who admitted to journalists, who unfortunately weren't from RT so you won't believe them, that they were Russian? No, you're right. Putin clearly opened a military vehicle/supply rental business. Too bad the Germans didn't take their patches off when they waltzed into Poland. No one could have declared war on them because there was no hard evidence that they had invaded.
All these grassroots pro-Russians sure have a lot of nice kit. I suppose all Ukrainians have military-grade body armor in their closets just for this type thing?
Last edited:
Yes, I was concerned you'd get hung up on the word "invasion", so I edited my post - think you missed it, unfortunately. Still, call it what we want - the Russians sure did something outside the authority the treaty gave them, right? Or does the treaty mandate them to occupy the Crimean Parliament and install their own puppet leader as well? Let's call it the Russian action.
What justifies the Russian action, then?
The treaty doesn't allow a covert invasion by Russian forces masquerading as shadowy troops without flags on their uniforms (but with military vehicles holding Russian license plates). Nor does it allow such troops to lay siege to the parliament, sack any politicians who are not pro-Russian, install a pro-Kremlin stooge as prime minister, and call for a Referendum in 10 days. If you agree, then you should be condeming what they did rather than pointlessly arguinging in circles because you're scared of admitting you were wrong from the beginning.
I already explained that I wasn't talking about "clues". When there is a large military operation that involves invasion and occupation, typically there won't even be such a discussion.. I'm talking here about hard evidences that everybody agrees about, not my own opinion about what was the likely thing that has happened.
Too bad the Germans didn't take their patches off when they waltzed into Poland. No one could have declared war on them because there was no hard evidence that they had invaded.
All these grassroots pro-Russians sure have a lot of nice kit. I suppose all Ukrainians have military-grade body armor in their closets just for this type thing?
Remember, you're not talking here about a small secret operation, like the one Turkey is doing now in Syria.. We're supposedly talking about a typical and full invasion and occupation of a country by another one (or that's how you're trying to picture it). In my opinion if there was such an invasion and the Russian forces didn't even need a single shot to "invade" a whole region in Ukraine, while I see the Ukrainian forces are still struggling to find their way into Eastern Ukraine, surely there is something wrong in our assessment of the situation.
I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but with the picture I have seen on the ground, it's difficult for me to call this a full "invasion and occupation", and put it on par with other historical incidents that happened in the past and carry the same description.
Ok, fair enough. Russian action is a better way to put it than Russian invasion imo.
I want to point out something here. In Eastern Ukraine there are no Russian forces right now (I think we agree on that). However, a similar thing happened there as well. Protestors also stormed into the government buildings, and occupied them. That clearly shows that there didn't need to be a "Russian action" for what happened in Crimea to happen. When you get areas that voted in 80-90+% for Yanukovic, only for him to be toppled by non-democratic means, what do you think the reaction of those people would be?
And by the way, a "puppet leader"?! I can't believe you criticize what happened in Crimea, considering it's the exact same thing that happened in Kiev.
Now how much of what Russia did was outside the treaty is up for debate, but there is regardless of that a treaty that changes a lot in the whole situation, whether you want to admit or not.
Remember here that we're not discussing if Russia was at all in the wrong or not. Otherwise I can also use the US drone attacks to claim that the US is invading and occupying Pakistan every week. The treaty and the fact that not a single bullet was shot in the whole thing clearly makes the way some are trying to upgrade it to a "full invasion an occupation" and those stupid "Hitler comparisons" sound pretty pointless and silly.
Wow. "pro-Kremln stooge"? Russia called for a referendum?! I think you have completely lost touch with the reality there. I know you don't like Russia, but surely you know that 80-90% of the people in those areas democratically elected the "biggest Russian stooge" even under Kiev's rules.. Oh, and I must have missed the Russian forces invading Eastern Ukraine too then, considering a similar thing is happening there..
And of course, I don't need to remind you again how those stooges in Kiev were installed.
Can you quote me where you claim that I was wrong by the way?