Odd man on the street perspective on the Ukraine issue

[GQBlues]

Whoaaa, slippery slope there my bruddah. Her quote was on the Russian opinion of America and Ukraine being unfavorable. Your response is what the US/EU did to undermine Ukrainian  politics and the obvious incompetence of the U.S. Prez? Have you not noticed what Russia has done to undermine Ukrainian politics? Whatever Nuland conspiracy theories are floating out there, on one hand you're saying Obama couldn't pour piss out of a boot and on the other stating him the architect of Maiden? You can't have it both ways. Regardless, technically Maiden and whatever the U.S./EU involvement isn't any of Russia's business. Russia's open invasion of Crimea and now dark invasion of Eastern Ukraine easily triumphs whatever the US/EU conspiracy theories are out there and may or may not have happened.

Certainly Putin has great concern from an economic and ego standpoint. Perhaps he doesn't want to see an "Arab Spring" type uprising on his doorstep that threatens his own position. But, at the end of the day Ukraine is none of his business. His moves on Ukraine are only the result of a weak brain dead U.S. President. Because he knew he could move on Ukraine without any reprisal from the West. He would have done it in his first term if he thought he could get away with it. He couldn't then, he can now. Stop whitewashing Putin's complicity.

Well, both you and I, at the present time (or anyone else for that matter), can only juggle up, toss around and exchange nothing but entertaining 'conjectures' because the truth is still somewhere OUT there. Up until *we* all get to the actual reason who/what/why this event is what it was and is today - we all have what we have today - conjectures.

That said. We can talk about 'facts' that we know as that.

1. Crimea is an autonomous state. It was officially recognized as the 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea'. Even in Ukrainian law, Crimea was always considered an autonomous parliamentary republic within its borders. An autonomous state can, at any time, vote itself to be under any state's dominion. There are autonomous states in our world today that have the right to do the same. We have one here close to 'home'.

Crimea, in light of the violence seen in Kiev, did just that in February 2014. It voted itself part of Russia.

2. As had been discussed here ad nauseum: 1. The election of Yanukovich was both legitimate and certified by the international community. The ousting of President Yanukovich was both *unconstitutional* and *illegitimate*.

3. It is a known fact, the western energy companies had been busy exploring, cutting deals from since mid-2000s and had finalize signing deals with *Ukraine* late last year, which coincidentally enough were all right around the period of Yanukovich's election to deal with Russia and the civil unrest/protest.

4. It is a known fact, and authenticated by the respective characters, that tapped phone conversation more than paint a *conspiracy* but rather an obvious statement that Nuland's conversation was not about cookie recipes but rather who should be *running* the country now that Yanukovich was chased out. It is also a fact that a 'tapped' conversation between Paet and Ashton denoted shocked revelations that the snipers is actually someone else other than what KIev's interim and illegitimate stooges alleged.

5. Russian military have every right to be IN Crimea since that is part of their lease agreement with Ukraine. Just as we do in Gitmo since that is part of our perpetual lease agreement through the Cuban-American Treaty in the 1900s.

I based most of my perspectives to these known 'facts'. These facts will not changed regardless who actually was *behind* this entire enchilada.

Now, you can say Ukraine isn't any of Putin's business and I will likely agree with you on that. But I will disagree with you if you believe Ukraine's state of affairs means nothing to Russia/Russian and its statehood. Just was we *care* about Cuba or Mexico or any other country that can potentially be a *national concern* if it allied itself to what or who we feel is a threat for our national security.

As for Russia undermining Ukraine's politics...you mean in the same way we undermined others?

As for Obama and his foreign affair savvy...sorry bro, there really is *nothing to talk about* there, no?

[Belvis]

In Russia, the Anti-American sentiment keeps growing and has reached a record high – 71 percent of Russians have a 'generally unfavorable' or 'very unfavorable' view of the US.

Yes, the reason is evident. When we hear each day about the sanctions the anti-sentiment is growing. Well, the real sanctions are ridiculous, nevertheless unstoppable talk about them is doing the damage so many Russians view that Russia is fighting US at territory of Ukraine.
I would not define the sentiment as hate but rather fierce competition for political influence in sensitive for us region. Propaganda will remove any damage in relations in matter of days when political solution is forged.

Crimea was an invasion. The observers you speak of, were those the ones in the Russian tanks or the 97% that voted in favor of joining Russia?

Both claims are true. There was an invasion. And the large majority voted in favor of joining Russia. No contradictions.

[fathertime]

Both claims are true. There was an invasion. And the large majority voted in favor of joining Russia. No contradictions.

This is the way I see it too.

Fathertime!

[Muzh]

Are you educated enough to know who stopped the Wehrmacht? And the asnwer is not USA.

It wasn't the dutch either.


Edit: Actually, the more I think about this the more I feel compelled to answer differently.


First, the dutch [government] just bent over and took it like a man. It was the allies from US/GB/Canada/Poles who actually kicked some German ass and gave the dutch back their country so I can see the resentment.


Now, an educated person should know by now that the Red Army was the recipient of extraneous circumstances that helped them push against the Wehrmacht, namely the weather and Hitler's stupidity, or should I say, insanity. As mentioned here before, IF the German high command would have been left to their devices, I'm sure the outcome would have been different.


I can understand that you see the USA as the devil incarnate, but that is clouding your common sense.

[GQBlues]

It wasn't the dutch either.

I wasn't sure why Shadow doesn't think it is the US. Stalin and Russia was dead on the water were it not for the provisions and support it received from the US enabling them to advance and counter the German Wehrmacht and ultimately advance all the way to Berlin in time for Patton's party.

As a matter of fact, irony and controversy - Roosevelt deemed it more urgent to send billions of support to Russia to help them defeat Germany soon so they can hopefully fill the power vacuum happening in Asia as the US didn't want Mao Ze Dong manning the political landscape after the planned defeat of Imperial Japan. He sent that support to Russia while ignoring support for the abandoned GIs in Corregidor.

I'm telling you that guy Shadow...he's making me root against the Netherlands if he doesn't stop. 

What was the Russian proclamation again? (paraphrased) - "Russia defeated Germany with Russian blood and American steel!" ..and Spam, don't forget *SPAM*.
 

[Muzh]

Both claims are true. There was an invasion. And the large majority voted in favor of joining Russia. No contradictions.

You are still clinging to that piece of propaganda, eh? What was the total estimated by the Russians? Fourteen percent? Something like that?


BTW, I showed that picture to my SIL and she said that is a nice picture of two Ukrainians. I said that a Russian posted it as an example of Russian and Ukrainian cooperation. Her responses were:


a) po-tooie
b) keep dreaming
c) Sure, the Russians keep saying we are sluts so there is an example of ta traitorous slut.

[Faux Pas]

Well, both you and I, at the present time (or anyone else for that matter), can only juggle up, toss around and exchange nothing but entertaining 'conjectures' because the truth is still somewhere OUT there. Up until *we* all get to the actual reason who/what/why this event is what it was and is today - we all have what we have today - conjectures.

That said. We can talk about 'facts' that we know as that.

Yep. Nothing but conjecture bandied about on these boards, in the media and most with a connection to the region(s). There are a number of truths out there and many of them don't necessarily conflict with each other but, I'd be careful to label anything as fact at this juncture.

1. Crimea is an autonomous state. It was officially recognized as the 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea'. Even in Ukrainian law, Crimea was always considered an autonomous parliamentary republic within its borders. An autonomous state can, at any time, vote itself to be under any state's dominion. There are autonomous states in our world today that have the right to do the same. We have one here close to 'home'.

Crimea, in light of the violence seen in Kiev, did just that in February 2014. It voted itself part of Russia.

Yes Crimea was autonomous. But, they lost that distinction with the Russian invasion. If Crimea was actually autonomous of Ukraine, why then the need to leave over what happened in Kiev? Why would they vote to end their autonomy? Especially to be under the heavy boot of Russia? If the vote was not from the barrel of a gun and tanks but an actual freewill election, you would find no disagreement here. Thus, your bolded statement has no merit.

2. As had been discussed here ad nauseum: 1. The election of Yanukovich was both legitimate and certified by the international community. The ousting of President Yanukovich was both *unconstitutional* and *illegitimate*.

No argument the ouster of Yanuko was unconstitutional and illegitimate. That doesn't however make the government of Ukraine illegitimate. Ukraine's Parliament was freely elected. They broke the law seemingly as a desperate measure. They voted to do so and that can in effect make it legal. For comparison, Obama has repeatedly been breaking the law in the U.S. with the help and aid of the Senate yet, they are both still legitimate government

3. It is a known fact, the western energy companies had been busy exploring, cutting deals from since mid-2000s and had finalize signing deals with *Ukraine* late last year, which coincidentally enough were all right around the period of Yanukovich's election to deal with Russia and the civil unrest/protest.

I do not see your issue here or why it's even pertinent. The same energy companies are already heavily vested in Russia. They are looking to, as many other sectors are, looking to invest in Ukraine obviously, fueled by the U.S. and EU's encouragement. Yanuko was looking for more ways to steal obviously, under the guise, protection and encouragement of Putin. Yanuko's ouster was going to make that criminal behavior impossible, wasn't it?

4. It is a known fact, and authenticated by the respective characters, that tapped phone conversation more than paint a *conspiracy* but rather an obvious statement that Nuland's conversation was not about cookie recipes but rather who should be *running* the country now that Yanukovich was chased out. It is also a fact that a 'tapped' conversation between Paet and Ashton denoted shocked revelations that the snipers is actually someone else other than what KIev's interim and illegitimate stooges alleged.

A relatively known fact at best that the Nuland conversation did in fact take place. How much influence or authority Nuland had to "place" someone in charge is fantasy at best. Just the fact that the phone call happened and recorded should give you grave call for doubt. The phone call embarrassed the hell out of Putin. Those phone calls are not subject for tapping unless they wish them to be tapped. Give your State Dept a smidgen of credit even if they do not deserve it.

5. Russian military have every right to be IN Crimea since that is part of their lease agreement with Ukraine. Just as we do in Gitmo since that is part of our perpetual lease agreement through the Cuban-American Treaty in the 1900s.

They have all right to access and use the warm water ports. They had no right to invade the sovereign country of Ukraine. No more than the U.S. has the right to move off of the Gitmo acreage and into Cuba proper.

I based most of my perspectives to these known 'facts'. These facts will not changed regardless who actually was *behind* this entire enchilada.

These known facts you seemingly are banking on all come with a twist. Which negates the "fact" aspect IMHO

Now, you can say Ukraine isn't any of Putin's business and I will likely agree with you on that. But I will disagree with you if you believe Ukraine's state of affairs means nothing to Russia/Russian and its statehood. Just was we *care* about Cuba or Mexico or any other country that can potentially be a *national concern* if it allied itself to what or who we feel is a threat for our national security.

As for Russia undermining Ukraine's politics...you mean in the same way we undermined others?

As for Obama and his foreign affair savvy...sorry bro, there really is *nothing to talk about* there, no?

Ukraine is none of Putin's business. It's none of the U.S. business either but, we haven't invaded it. Look, it's no secret that most of the ills of Ukraine is directly related to corruption. That is the deep seated corruption that was/is a hold over from the Soviet days. Point fingers at Maiden all you wish but, the root cause of Maiden is the corruption of Ukraine. It was a Arab Spring type uprising and it was directed at Yanuko and a direct reflection of his policies. You can blame the U.S. for helping to foment that discord and I would agree with you. But, to do so, you should also recognize the tight grip that Putin has been keeping on Ukraine prior to that. It wasn't until his puppet was removed that he acted.

I think you give Nuland, the State Dept and Obama much too much credit. They could have spent a trillion in Ukraine and it wouldn't have furthered their cause or will.

[Belvis]

BTW, I showed that picture to my SIL and she said that is a nice picture of two Ukrainians.

Lol, never ask woman about men toys. A photo where the soldier was cut off for a collage:


More photos of "Ukrainians" in Crimea :

[GQBlues]

...
Yes Crimea was autonomous. But, they lost that distinction with the Russian invasion. If Crimea was actually autonomous of Ukraine, why then the need to leave over what happened in Kiev? Why would they vote to end their autonomy? Especially to be under the heavy boot of Russia? If the vote was not from the barrel of a gun and tanks but an actual freewill election, you would find no disagreement here. Thus, your bolded statement has no merit...

How, when and why an autonomous state determine on who's dominion they fall under is well within their right. If we are to be cautious of *slippery facts* then maybe you can enlighten me exactly where I can read the people of Crimea were under the *gun barrel* and thus voted for annexation?

...No argument the ouster of Yanuko was unconstitutional and illegitimate. That doesn't however make the government of Ukraine illegitimate. Ukraine's Parliament was freely elected. They broke the law seemingly as a desperate measure. They voted to do so and that can in effect make it legal. For comparison, Obama has repeatedly been breaking the law in the U.S. with the help and aid of the Senate yet, they are both still legitimate government..

You don't really believe if Obama was illegally ousted from his presidency that *WE* will consider any *presiding* government *legal*, do you? I don't think so. Now mind you, I'm referring to the *interim* government Ukraine had PRIOR to the recent election. The *illegitimate* government discussed was for that body of governing stooges.
 

...I do not see your issue here or why it's even pertinent. The same energy companies are already heavily vested in Russia. They are looking to, as many other sectors are, looking to invest in Ukraine obviously, fueled by the U.S. and EU's encouragement. Yanuko was looking for more ways to steal obviously, under the guise, protection and encouragement of Putin. Yanuko's ouster was going to make that criminal behavior impossible, wasn't it?...

I don't see it that way, FP. Neither you or me or anyone are privileged to the details of those dealings. Is Yanu corrupt? hell yeah...but who in Ukraine's parliament is not? Care to take a stab at it? Tymoshenko? Did Yanu's ousting somehow made Ukraine's politician clean? The fact is, Yanu's term is to end early next year. Now care to speculate why, if he is just as bad as everyone else, not just wait until his term is over and elect whomever person Ukrainians feel will serve them best. Euromaidan weren't on the streets of Kiev because Yanu is a corrupt politician. They were in the street of Kiev protesting the decision NOT to subscribe to EU's offer.

...A relatively known fact at best that the Nuland conversation did in fact take place. How much influence or authority Nuland had to "place" someone in charge is fantasy at best...

An assumption or fact? From where I'm seeing this so far, Nuland's choice did indeed made the grade prior to the election.

...Just the fact that the phone call happened and recorded should give you grave call for doubt....

Why? Even Nuland authenticated it. As did Paet and Ashand with theirs.

...The phone call embarrassed the hell out of Putin. Those phone calls are not subject for tapping unless they wish them to be tapped. Give your State Dept a smidgen of credit even if they do not deserve it...

A supposition? You're suggesting that maybe the US dept intentionally 'tapped' the phone to somehow create a controversy where the people MAY think/believe the US was behind all of the turmoil in Ukraine? Will you also say that was the case with the Angela Merkel's tapping phone scandal? The *fock the EU* tirade as well? Now who's talking 'conspiracy'.

They have all right to access and use the warm water ports. They had no right to invade the sovereign country of Ukraine. No more than the U.S. has the right to move off of the Gitmo acreage and into Cuba proper...

They have the right to stage 22,000 soldiers in Crimea, I thought. Is this not correct?

...These known facts you seemingly are banking on all come with a twist. Which negates the "fact" aspect IMHO...

Noted.

...Ukraine is none of Putin's business. It's none of the U.S. business either but, we haven't invaded it. Look, it's no secret that most of the ills of Ukraine is directly related to corruption. That is the deep seated corruption that was/is a hold over from the Soviet days. Point fingers at Maiden all you wish but, the root cause of Maiden is the corruption of Ukraine. It was a Arab Spring type uprising and it was directed at Yanuko and a direct reflection of his policies. You can blame the U.S. for helping to foment that discord and I would agree with you. But, to do so, you should also recognize the tight grip that Putin has been keeping on Ukraine prior to that. It wasn't until his puppet was removed that he acted....

I haven't failed to make the recognition. My appointing of the US/EU intervention doesn't negate my demonized view and opinion of Putin. He's a dick. But two wrongs doesn't make a 'right'.

...I think you give Nuland, the State Dept and Obama much too much credit. They could have spent a trillion in Ukraine and it wouldn't have furthered their cause or will...

On the contrary, I don't really. I really do wish that no mater who was/were behind the crisis, I really do wish that when all is said and done, the Ukrainian people get the very best future they can muster under these dire circumstance. BUT, they also need to recognize, exorcising corruption within the fiber of their society doesn't only start and stop with their politicians.

[Faux Pas]

How, when and why an autonomous state determine on who's dominion they fall under is well within their right. If we are to be cautious of *slippery facts* then maybe you can enlighten me exactly where I can read the people of Crimea were under the *gun barrel* and thus voted for annexation?

Well then you didn't pay attention or just conveniently glossed over that one little factoid.

You don't really believe if Obama was illegally ousted from his presidency that *WE* will consider any *presiding* government *legal*, do you? I don't think so. Now mind you, I'm referring to the *interim* government Ukraine had PRIOR to the recent election. The *illegitimate* government discussed was for that body of governing stooges.

Actually I do. Doesn't mean I would like it or agree with it but, that is a matter for the ballot box.
 

I don't see it that way, FP. Neither you or me or anyone are privileged to the details of those dealings. Is Yanu corrupt? hell yeah...but who in Ukraine's parliament is not? Care to take a stab at it? Tymoshenko? Did Yanu's ousting somehow made Ukraine's politician clean? The fact is, Yanu's term is to end early next year. Now care to speculate why, if he is just as bad as everyone else, not just wait until his term is over and elect whomever person Ukrainians feel will serve them best. Euromaidan weren't on the streets of Kiev because Yanu is a corrupt politician. They were in the street of Kiev protesting the decision NOT to subscribe to EU's offer.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, the Ukrainian people spoke at Maiden. Yanuko ran like his ass was on fire. One could surmise that he abandoned his office and thus the ouster by Parliament was legal and/or justified. To where he ran is very telling of what the Yanuko supporters/apologist wish to deny. Perception is often reality

An assumption or fact? From where I'm seeing this so far, Nuland's choice did indeed made the grade prior to the election.

Why? Even Nuland authenticated it. As did Paet and Ashand with theirs.


A supposition? You're suggesting that maybe the US dept intentionally 'tapped' the phone to somehow create a controversy where the people MAY think/believe the US was behind all of the turmoil in Ukraine? Will you also say that was the case with the Angela Merkel's tapping phone scandal? The *fock the EU* tirade as well? Now who's talking 'conspiracy'.

Yes they admitted it. That doesn't exclude that it was meant to be heard by all that heard it. I have no idea why you play pretend that the State Dept can not have secure phone conversations. I'm not excusing or apologizing that a high ranking State Dept official should or could have such a discussion. I'm saying that when they have high level discussions they are secure from your local Ham operator with recording devices. Call it conspiracy if you wish but, even this inept administration speaks on secure lines.

They have the right to stage 22,000 soldiers in Crimea, I thought. Is this not correct?

Absolutely but, I'm relatively sure "invasion" was not part of that 22K soldier agreement

I haven't failed to make the recognition. My appointing of the US/EU intervention doesn't negate my demonized view and opinion of Putin. He's a dick. But two wrongs doesn't make a 'right'.

In that context, was intervention and fomentation by the U.S. and the EU a wrong? Very debatable and infused with conjecture

On the contrary, I don't really. I really do wish that no mater who was/were behind the crisis, I really do wish that when all is said and done, the Ukrainian people get the very best future they can muster under these dire circumstance. BUT, they also need to recognize, exorcising corruption within the fiber of their society doesn't only start and stop with their politicians.

Ah I knew it. Somewhere like here, we would agree.

[GQBlues]

Well then you didn't pay attention or just conveniently glossed over that one little factoid...

I'm still waiting for the citation.

...Actually I do. Doesn't mean I would like it or agree with it but, that is a matter for the ballot box...

C'mon nowr FP... For a professed *Constitutionalist*, you're not being fortright here.
 

...Like it or not, agree with it or not, the Ukrainian people spoke at Maiden....

They were for almost 4 months...until shots were fired and killed a few of them. Who really shot them and why is, FWIW, anyone's guess, no?

...Yanuko ran like his ass was on fire....

So did Clinton. The legislative branch tried to remove him by way of an impeachment process, but failed...so constitutionally speaking, he stayed and finished his term.

...One could surmise that he abandoned his office and thus the ouster by Parliament was legal and/or justified. To where he ran is very telling of what the Yanuko supporters/apologist wish to deny. Perception is often reality...

One can surmise all they want, of course, doesn't make it legal.

..Yes they admitted it. That doesn't exclude that it was meant to be heard by all that heard it. I have no idea why you play pretend that the State Dept can not have secure phone conversations. I'm not excusing or apologizing that a high ranking State Dept official should or could have such a discussion. I'm saying that when they have high level discussions they are secure from your local Ham operator with recording devices. Call it conspiracy if you wish but, even this inept administration speaks on secure lines....

I can't even venture thinking it was done by an ordinary *ham operator*. Surely you're not suggesting Nuland and Ashton were sharing the same lines to save money, no? AT&T charges up the ying-yang, but that's going a bit too far now...

...Absolutely but, I'm relatively sure "invasion" was not part of that 22K soldier agreement..

Exactly. How can it be an invasion if one already have soldiers INSIDE the territory. Wouldn't you agree something else will likely be a better definition of what really took place? Or using another description loses the 'intended' sensation?

...In that context, was intervention and fomentation by the U.S. and the EU a wrong? Very debatable and infused with conjecture...

As your Russia-version.

...Ah I knew it. Somewhere like here, we would agree...

I'm glad to hear that. 

[sleepycat]

Now, an educated person should know by now that the Red Army was the recipient of extraneous circumstances that helped them push against the Wehrmacht, namely the weather and Hitler's stupidity, or should I say, insanity. As mentioned here before, IF the German high command would have been left to their devices, I'm sure the outcome would have been different.

Totally agree with the above. I read this book years ago and it was a real eye opener.
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-War-Military-Strategy-1940-1945/dp/1854094726/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403826083&sr=1-1&keywords=hitler%27s+war+german+strategic

[tfcrew]

26 June 2014 Last updated at 11:11 ET   
 Ukraine crisis: Kerry demands Russia action 'in hours'
US Secretary of State John Kerry has called on Russia to show "within hours" it is working to disarm separatist militants in eastern Ukraine.
He was speaking to reporters in Paris a day before a shaky ceasefire was due to end in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Russia denies it has let militants and heavy weaponry cross its border into eastern Ukraine.
The US and EU are threatening to impose further sanctions if Russia does not act to defuse the situation.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28033610

[Shadow]

It wasn't the dutch either.


Edit: Actually, the more I think about this the more I feel compelled to answer differently.


First, the dutch [government] just bent over and took it like a man. It was the allies from US/GB/Canada/Poles who actually kicked some German ass and gave the dutch back their country so I can see the resentment.


Now, an educated person should know by now that the Red Army was the recipient of extraneous circumstances that helped them push against the Wehrmacht, namely the weather and Hitler's stupidity, or should I say, insanity. As mentioned here before, IF the German high command would have been left to their devices, I'm sure the outcome would have been different.


I can understand that you see the USA as the devil incarnate, but that is clouding your common sense.

First of all I do not see the US in any way as the devil incarnate. The problem of most US people is that they are unable to think other as in black and white, and any criticism is seen as being hostile.
Europeans think in 50 shades of grey.
As far as the Dutch, they never had and never will have the power to withstand any invasion. Sure at some time we were good at sea, but our land forces did not win anything since the war with Spain.

That does not withstand the fact that the US used the policy of financing the adversaries of those they wanted to beat while trying to stay out of the fight as long as they did not see it as a threat, then going in to claim victory.

Just as Obama has now suggeted to openly help the Syrian rebels instead of hiding...

[Shadow]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28033610

Once again .... the US proposes sanction to Russia for putting its nose in Ukrainian business, and then request Russia to put ist nose in to Ukrainian business or they will put sanctions.

Now can they please make up their mind?

[tfcrew]

Ukraine signs historic EU trade pact sparking Russia ire  Putin advisor labels Petro Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine, a 'Nazi' for signing the deal despite the ceasefire between pro-Russia rebels and Ukraine being extended by three days for more talks...
 Ukraine signed a landmark economic trade pact with the European Union on Friday prompting a furious response from the Kremlin, even as talks were extended over a peace plan to stop violence in the country’s eastern regions.   Petro Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine, signed the accord at a ceremony in Brussels, calling it a “new perspective for my country”.   The leaders of Georgia and Moldova also put pens to EU “association agreements” in a historic step for the three former Soviet countries.   It was a refusal to sign the pact last year by Mr Poroshenko’s predecessor, Viktor Yanukovych, which triggered popular protests in Ukraine, leading to Russia’s annexation of the Crimea peninsula and an armed pro-Russian uprising against government forces around Donetsk and Luhansk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10929792/Russia-calls-Ukraine-president-a-Nazi-ahead-of-historic-EU-trade-deal.html

[Shadow]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10929792/Russia-calls-Ukraine-president-a-Nazi-ahead-of-historic-EU-trade-deal.html

The 'landmark' deal is the one that Yanukovich decided not to sign, starting all the trouble.In most ways it is an extension of the old agreement that was in place. In no way this is a move towards membership, it is even very far from a candidate membership.
All it does is making factories that produce for the EU (like chocolate and car part factories  ) get a better access to the market. of the EU.
One could even say that if someone owns such business and would have promised to sell them, this would substantially raise the price he might receive.

[Photo Guy]

Excellent responses by Faux Pas:

 Quote from: GQBlues on June 26, 2014, 05:44:07 AM<blockquote>Well, both you and I, at the present time (or anyone else for that matter), can only juggle up, toss around and exchange nothing but entertaining 'conjectures' because the truth is still somewhere OUT there. Up until *we* all get to the actual reason who/what/why this event is what it was and is today - we all have what we have today - conjectures.

That said. We can talk about 'facts' that we know as that.
</blockquote>Yep. Nothing but conjecture bandied about on these boards, in the media and most with a connection to the region(s). There are a number of truths out there and many of them don't necessarily conflict with each other but, I'd be careful to label anything as fact at this juncture.

Quote<blockquote>1. Crimea is an autonomous state. It was officially recognized as the 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea'. Even in Ukrainian law, Crimea was always considered an autonomous parliamentary republic within its borders. An autonomous state can, at any time, vote itself to be under any state's dominion. There are autonomous states in our world today that have the right to do the same. We have one here close to 'home'.

Crimea, in light of the violence seen in Kiev, did just that in February 2014. It voted itself part of Russia.
</blockquote>
Yes Crimea was autonomous. But, they lost that distinction with the Russian invasion. If Crimea was actually autonomous of Ukraine, why then the need to leave over what happened in Kiev? Why would they vote to end their autonomy? Especially to be under the heavy boot of Russia? If the vote was not from the barrel of a gun and tanks but an actual freewill election, you would find no disagreement here. Thus, your bolded statement has no merit.
Quote<blockquote>2. As had been discussed here ad nauseum: 1. The election of Yanukovich was both legitimate and certified by the international community. The ousting of President Yanukovich was both *unconstitutional* and *illegitimate*.</blockquote>
No argument the ouster of Yanuko was unconstitutional and illegitimate. That doesn't however make the government of Ukraine illegitimate. Ukraine's Parliament was freely elected. They broke the law seemingly as a desperate measure. They voted to do so and that can in effect make it legal. For comparison, Obama has repeatedly been breaking the law in the U.S. with the help and aid of the Senate yet, they are both still legitimate government
Quote<blockquote>3. It is a known fact, the western energy companies had been busy exploring, cutting deals from since mid-2000s and had finalize signing deals with *Ukraine* late last year, which coincidentally enough were all right around the period of Yanukovich's election to deal with Russia and the civil unrest/protest. </blockquote>
I do not see your issue here or why it's even pertinent. The same energy companies are already heavily vested in Russia. They are looking to, as many other sectors are, looking to invest in Ukraine obviously, fueled by the U.S. and EU's encouragement. Yanuko was looking for more ways to steal obviously, under the guise, protection and encouragement of Putin. Yanuko's ouster was going to make that criminal behavior impossible, wasn't it?

Quote<blockquote>4. It is a known fact, and authenticated by the respective characters, that tapped phone conversation more than paint a *conspiracy* but rather an obvious statement that Nuland's conversation was not about cookie recipes but rather who should be *running* the country now that Yanukovich was chased out. It is also a fact that a 'tapped' conversation between Paet and Ashton denoted shocked revelations that the snipers is actually someone else other than what KIev's interim and illegitimate stooges alleged.
</blockquote>
A relatively known fact at best that the Nuland conversation did in fact take place. How much influence or authority Nuland had to "place" someone in charge is fantasy at best. Just the fact that the phone call happened and recorded should give you grave call for doubt. The phone call embarrassed the hell out of Putin. Those phone calls are not subject for tapping unless they wish them to be tapped. Give your State Dept a smidgen of credit even if they do not deserve it.
Quote<blockquote>5. Russian military have every right to be IN Crimea since that is part of their lease agreement with Ukraine. Just as we do in Gitmo since that is part of our perpetual lease agreement through the Cuban-American Treaty in the 1900s.</blockquote>
They have all right to access and use the warm water ports. They had no right to invade the sovereign country of Ukraine. No more than the U.S. has the right to move off of the Gitmo acreage and into Cuba proper.

Quote<blockquote>I based most of my perspectives to these known 'facts'. These facts will not changed regardless who actually was *behind* this entire enchilada.
</blockquote>These known facts you seemingly are banking on all come with a twist. Which negates the "fact" aspect IMHO
Quote<blockquote>Now, you can say Ukraine isn't any of Putin's business and I will likely agree with you on that. But I will disagree with you if you believe Ukraine's state of affairs means nothing to Russia/Russian and its statehood. Just was we *care* about Cuba or Mexico or any other country that can potentially be a *national concern* if it allied itself to what or who we feel is a threat for our national security.

As for Russia undermining Ukraine's politics...you mean in the same way we undermined others?

As for Obama and his foreign affair savvy...sorry bro, there really is *nothing to talk about* there, no?
</blockquote>
Ukraine is none of Putin's business. It's none of the U.S. business either but, we haven't invaded it. Look, it's no secret that most of the ills of Ukraine is directly related to corruption. That is the deep seated corruption that was/is a hold over from the Soviet days. Point fingers at Maiden all you wish but, the root cause of Maiden is the corruption of Ukraine. It was a Arab Spring type uprising and it was directed at Yanuko and a direct reflection of his policies. You can blame the U.S. for helping to foment that discord and I would agree with you. But, to do so, you should also recognize the tight grip that Putin has been keeping on Ukraine prior to that. It wasn't until his puppet was removed that he acted.

I think you give Nuland, the State Dept and Obama much too much credit. They could have spent a trillion in Ukraine and it wouldn't have furthered their cause or will.    « Last Edit: June 26, 2014, 11:45:12 AM by Faux Pas »   Report to moderator    Logged  Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Mark Twain

[Anotherkiwi]

Photo Guy - I don't know what you're trying to say or quote, but it hasn't worked.    Do you want to try again?