Ukraine Thread

[Gilrandir]

The EU gave him the perfect excuse by trying to bring Ukraine into the EU, and he couldn't have reacted in any other way because he would have looked weak.

This is his greatest problem - face saving vulnerability. He takes everything personally. It has taken him into the dead end, yet he refuses to own up to it and persists in pushing his cause on and on.

[Husar]

Apparently Putin is now in talks with the inventors of democracy, it seems as though these most democratic people in the entire world prefer Putin as a friend over the fascist EU that's trying to starve them.
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/cit...an-Athens-cash

The plans were discussed as part of a hastened meeting between the Greek Prime Minister and Vladimir Putin today.

The Russian President confirmed that Greece did not ask for cash loans, but that the two countries continue to build a strengthened alliance.

Putin said Greek involvement in the Turkish Stream pipeline project could earn Greece "millions of euros" every year. And that Athens' Western creditors would benefit should the Greek economy improve as a result of closer economic cooperation between the European Union member state and Russia.

So will Putin finally be seen as a supporter of democracy?

And will the Nazis in Germany ever pay the 300 billion they owe Greece (according to Greece) in war reparations?
http://fortune.com/2015/04/07/greece...tions-germany/

“The German government’s categorical ‘Nein’ certainly cannot be allowed to stand. That’s disgraceful 70 years after the end of the war,” Groth said.

Is the EU as led by Germany and France the new oppressor of sovereign nation states? Britain has apparently thought so for a long time already, were they right after all?

[Fragony]

This is his greatest problem - face saving vulnerability. He takes everything personally. It has taken him into the dead end, yet he refuses to own up to it and persists in pushing his cause on and on.

There are probably much more hardline guys in Russia.

I blame the EU, how could he have reacted otherwise on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQnXo2HMriQ

If that it was just stupid it was REALLY stupid. The EU basicly put his position at stake. China is going to eat Russia alive if he isn't strong.

[Gilrandir]

Apparently Putin is now in talks with the inventors of democracy, it seems as though these most democratic people in the entire world prefer Putin as a friend over the fascist EU that's trying to starve them.
So will Putin finally be seen as a supporter of democracy?

Being the inventor of democracy doesn't equal being democratic. Just like England was the inventor of football, yet it has been an age since it was (and only once) the world champion in it.

Is the EU as led by Germany and France the new oppressor of sovereign nation states? Britain has apparently thought so for a long time already, were they right after all?

Here is one of Putin's hopes - to split the EU's unified position on relations with Russia in general and on the sanctions in particular. But I think he can't offer anyone more than promises now - the finacial power of Russia is precarious. It couldn't even find the yearly modicum for Transdniestria this time.
http://www.moldova.org/for-the-first...-transnistria/
And locals complaining of it (sorry, in Russian):
http://ru.krymr.com/media/video/26948753.html

I blame the EU, how could he have reacted otherwise on this
If that it was just stupid it was REALLY stupid. The EU basicly put his position at stake. China is going to eat Russia alive if he isn't strong.

By reacting as he did Putin didn't get what he wanted and is not likely to. Enjoying the reputation of a calculated strategic player he should have known better than to act so emotionally. He may have had tactical gains, but in the long run he considerably worsened his position. This shows him being a tactician rather that a strategist.

[Brenus]

“By reacting as he did Putin didn't get what he wanted and is not likely to.” I don’t know really if Putin had intention and master plan, as I think he reacted more than he anticipated. I think he’s got what he wanted in saving (in his point of view) what could be saved when the mob expelled a more favourable Ukrainian President and put openly adversaries in power. He’s got Crimea, and no one really speak about it anymore. Ukraine will be a buffer zone. In fact, all moves from EU, US and actual Ukrainian Government gave him edges to work on. With NATO troops in Ukraine, he is now sure that Ukraine will never be reunited (without a victorious war for NATO). With EU policy he might have access to Greek Ports soon, or at least, might have someone willing to stop any new EU sanctions (rule of unanimity) and even brake the sanctions actually in place.

“to split the EU's unified position on relations with Russia in general and on the sanctions in particular.” What united or unified EU positions? They agreed on a minimum service and some are quiet keen in seeing them vanished. And thanks to EU policy against Greece, it might explode (or implode) soon.

“Is the EU as led by Germany and France the new oppressor of sovereign nation states?” I have unfortunately to answer yes to this. Germany by its policy and France being the lap dog in this case are responsible of a real human tragedy in Greece (as in Spain, Italy, Portugal) as they forget we are speaking of millions of human being push to extreme poverty in mane of an ideology. Where is the European Union, protecting the poor, creating jobs and building the peace? The only speech coming from EU is pay pay pay, cut cut cut, bleed bleed bleed, die die die. If possible in silence. They killed democracy in sham referendum. They fear the populations. They want sacrifices they won’t impose to themselves.

[Greyblades]

Is the EU as led by Germany and France the new oppressor of sovereign nation states? Britain has apparently thought so for a long time already, were they right after all?

If it was actual competent and well meaning French/German leaders ruling over us, instead of the brain-dead Belgian bureaucrats we have, maybe we would think better of it.

[Fragony]

Here is one of Putin's hopes - to split the EU's unified position on relations with Russia in general and on the sanctions in particular. But I think he can't offer anyone more than promises now - the finacial power of Russia is precarious. It couldn't even find the yearly modicum for .pTransdniestria this time.
http://www.moldova.org/for-the-first...-transnistria/
And locals complaining of it (sorry, in Russian):
http://ru.krymr.com/media/video/26948753.html-

Not asking for any agreement, just for consideration http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/re...ntl-relations/

^ that was the counter, here is the original http://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&l...=onepage&q=six principles of political realism morgenthau&f=false
When taking it as a given that Putin knows exactly what he is doing, the EU-policy looks a bit dumb.
W


By reacting as he did Putin didn't get what he wanted and is not likely to. Enjoying the reputation of a calculated strategic player he should have known better than to act so emotionally. He may have had tactical gains, but in the long run he considerably worsened his position. This shows him being a tactician rather that a strategist.

You can look at the west but I think he is more worried about the east, Russian territories are already Chinese in Chinese schoolbooks. Looking weak was probably the worst decision he could have made, Can't shake the thought that these idiots of the EU forced him into a position. That von Romppuy guy was very clear about the intention of the EU, securing all countries at Russia's borders. How can that be acceptablle, how can it be reasonable? Putin might be acting like a cat in distress but might he just have a very good reason to act in the way he does?

No need to agree, but just because of considerating it http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/re...ntl-relations/

Is he really a cat in distress or playing a better hand

Before anyone says it, I know I posted a counter I did that on purpose.

original text http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en-NL...80.0sYxA2Akpcc < this doesn't work, don't ask me why but it doesn't.

[Gilrandir]

“By reacting as he did Putin didn't get what he wanted and is not likely to.” I don’t know really if Putin had intention and master plan, as I think he reacted more than he anticipated. I think he’s got what he wanted in saving (in his point of view) what could be saved when the mob expelled a more favourable Ukrainian President and put openly adversaries in power. He’s got Crimea, and no one really speak about it anymore. Ukraine will be a buffer zone.

As his "Russian spring 2014" failed attempts showed, he had wanted more than what he has now. By having acted not so hastily, he could have had more than what you think he gained - a still (more or less) friendly nation at its borders, a much more significant percentage of pro-Russian population (and powerful pro-Russian parties) in it, trade benefits, perpetuation of Ukrainian gas addiction, two Mistrals, no sanctions, no need to hype military expenses, no oil price plummeting.... and he finds the Crimea more and more financially burdensome.
Having been more flexible, prudent and far-sighted Putin wouldn't have found himself in the pickle he is in now, or, to be more precise, in the cleft stick of his own cutting.

With NATO troops in Ukraine,

Are there any? I mean except instructors.

he is now sure that Ukraine will never be reunited (without a victorious war for NATO).

Yet what is left of Ukraine is relentlessly (for Putin) moving NATOwards. Just within a year Putin ensured it more that all previous NATO overtures and unsystematic attempts of Ukrainain politicains taken together.

“to split the EU's unified position on relations with Russia in general and on the sanctions in particular.” What united or unified EU positions? They agreed on a minimum service and some are quiet keen in seeing them vanished. And thanks to EU policy against Greece, it might explode (or implode) soon.

The position is still unified since the sanctions are still there. Greece, by its ostensibly pro-Russian stance, is trying to get more money from the EU or/and more beneficial conditions of paying it back (preferably NOT paying it back). It knows very well that others (i.e. Russia) are in no position to offer it anything.

Germany by its policy and France being the lap dog in this case are responsible of a real human tragedy in Greece (as in Spain, Italy, Portugal) as they forget we are speaking of millions of human being push to extreme poverty in mane of an ideology. Where is the European Union, protecting the poor, creating jobs and building the peace? The only speech coming from EU is pay pay pay, cut cut cut, bleed bleed bleed, die die die. If possible in silence. They killed democracy in sham referendum. They fear the populations. They want sacrifices they won’t impose to themselves.

So you believe that the countries you enumerated should be released from the abominable EU slavery and let go about by themselves? The moment they quit they will have jobs aplenty and economies booming? What makes you so sure it will save them from the collapse they are (as you believe) experiencing?

You can look at the west but I think he is more worried about the east, Russian territories are already Chinese in Chinese schoolbooks.

... and that is why he is keeping quite a sizable army in Ukraine, around it, in the Crimea and along Russia's western frontiers?

Looking weak was probably the worst decision he could have made, Can't shake the thought that these idiots of the EU forced him into a position. That von Romppuy guy was very clear about the intention of the EU, securing all countries at Russia's borders. How can that be acceptablle, how can it be reasonable? Putin might be acting like a cat in distress but might he just have a very good reason to act in the way he does?

Being a politician (and purportedly a wise and calculated one) he ought to know that not everything that escapes someone's lips is true and/or obligatory implementable. If you listen to what Zhirinovsky says and take it seriously, you would think that Russia IS at war with all the world. Political leaders ought to know the difference between empty lip service and real actions. Unfortunately for Ukraine, the former is mostly what the EU is now doing and the latter is what Russia is doing.

[Fragony]

I know it affects you directly so please don't seek any harm in what I say, but I think Putin IS acting rationally. The expansion of the EU is something he simply can't sell back home. He would look weak, he would be au revoired by more redical undercurrents. We need to put the EU on a leash and stop putting sanctions on Russia that are counterproductive, just because the way things are just happen to be what they are. Do we really want this, I don't. Why want it.

[Brenus]

“As his "Russian spring 2014" failed attempts showed,” What are you speaking about? What is actually happening is in Putin’s advantage (or Russian). Ukraine is now effectively divided in a Bosnian scenario, as I analysed it few months ago when some of us were speaking of Russian Tanks rolling to Warsaw and NATO tanks engaging the Russian ones…

“By having acted not so hastily, he could have had more than what you think he gained” At what point? Without action, he would have been entangled in negotiation and lost Crimea. In helping the rebels, just enough, he successfully put back the borders (frontlines) where they are now, at the time of some of us were speaking of Ukrainian forces “mopping up” what was left of the Rebels forces qualified as mercenaries and aliens. So, I don’t know where Putin strategy failed, but from here, I think he got quite a good position. He kept Crimea, and Russia will keep Crimea, as no Russian government will be able to give-it up.

“and he finds the Crimea more and more financially burdensome”; Well, if Russia would have allowed NATO (oops, sorry, Ukrainian Western oriented Government) to control the under see pipelines, the cost for Russia would have been much more expensive, as the loss of the Crimean ports for their fleet.

“The position is still unified since the sanctions are still there” For how long? As soon they will be lifted, and they will, Russia (Putin) wins. As long they are enforces, EU loses. And then, all work and effort will turn in order to gain Russia market again.

“So you believe that the countries you enumerated should be released from the abominable EU slavery and let go about by themselves? The moment they quit they will have jobs aplenty and economies booming? What makes you so sure it will save them from the collapse they are (as you believe) experiencing?” Who speak of beliefs? Look at the rate of unemployment in these countries. Even in UK, if you had the figures of "Zero Hours Contract", and contrary of the Tories Propaganda, the economical situation is at least fragile, with a debt increasing steadily.
There are few things I am sure: Where are the jobs now? Where is the prosperity now? Where is the protection for the poor now? Where is the voice of the populations now? Why pensions are going down now? So EU didn’t delivered what it was built for, because EU is actually under the dictatorship of an ideology where human beings are not the priority but the so-call laws of free market, which of course are not law but political implementation of absurd ideas.

“Are there any? I mean except instructors” “Yet what is left of Ukraine is relentlessly (for Putin) moving NATOwards.” You gave the answer to your question.

[Gilrandir]

I know it affects you directly so please don't seek any harm in what I say, but I think Putin IS acting rationally. The expansion of the EU is something he simply can't sell back home. He would look weak, he would be au revoired by more redical undercurrents. We need to put the EU on a leash and stop putting sanctions on Russia that are counterproductive, just because the way things are just happen to be what they are. Do we really want this, I don't. Why want it.

I don't see any harm in what you say, moreover, from the Old Europe trade(profit)-above-all viewpoint you are right. But East European nations don't see it that way. Having experienced what Soviet/Russian occupation means they now know better than to go by simple economics. Knowing that Russia is prone to ovelook its agreements and disregard trade in favor of geopolitics they are genuinely worried about their security. So Europe (the whole of it) is to find a balance between trade profits and security issues.

“As his "Russian spring 2014" failed attempts showed,” What are you speaking about?

About pro-Russian meetings in Kharkiv (with the capturing of regional administration), Odesa (with several dozens dead in a fire) and in other south-eastern cities. They were fomented and financed by Russia - on a video of the Kharkiv events last spring by the side of speaker one can see the notorious now separatists - field commander Motorola (if you don't know him by sight - he is a short black-hooded guy looking over the speaker's shoulder):
http://news.bigmir.net/ukraine/87421...zhili-Motorolu
And see Strlekov's and Putin's confessions.
Unfortunately for Putin, his scenario was successful only in the Crimea and Eastern Donbas - because regular Russian armed forces and/or spetznaz were involved.

Ukraine is now effectively divided in a Bosnian scenario

Your comparison is flawed. Bosnia now consists of virtually autonomous parts and a number of enclaves and has a complex state system. Neither of the metioned parts are directly ruled from the outside. Ukraine has a small (in comparison with the total area) part which is now controlled by Russia and no changes to any laws or the constitution were introduced to give this rump any legality or influence on the policy of the whole country.

as I analysed it few months ago when some of us were speaking of Russian Tanks rolling to Warsaw and NATO tanks engaging the Russian ones…

In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides. So cultural divide is in the middle of Shyrokine village? Or between Artemovsk and Debaltseve? Cultural differences were (and are) not enough to split it. It takes a fraternal neigbor to tear away some of its parts.

“By having acted not so hastily, he could have had more than what you think he gained” At what point?

At the point when Yanukovych legged it. By keeping back his emotions, presenting himself as a peacemaker and envisioning the economic hardships Ukraine was likely to face, he would have had Ukraine at its disposal as late as 2015. His stooges in Ukraine would have kept on saying that the economic ties with Russia can't be broken, at least not in crisis times, and people, especially those in the South-east, would heartily agree.
Now Ukraine has no choice, most ties are broken by Russia itself and it is largely (including in the South-east) viewed as the aggressor.

In helping the rebels, just enough, he successfully put back the borders (frontlines) where they are now.

Do you know how far he has pushed back the borders? 100-120 km. And only in one direction - the southern one. If you are acquainted with the range of modern weapons, that's nothing. At least not what he will be satisfied with, that's why the war there is likely to resume.
Moreover, in other directions, the border is where it was. Plus a lot more troops (and now, unlike a year ago they can be really called an army) are deployed on the Ukrainian side of it now - that's one more reason for Putin to rejoice at his present safety. Plus Nato troops in greater quantities are moving ever closer to his borders - a third reason for merry-making. Plus new alliances brewing:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/ur...n-7975109.html
Again three cheers for Putin the Strategist.

So, I don’t know where Putin strategy failed,

His strategy was to prevent Ukraine from heading for Nato and the EU, to have a friendly government in Kyiv and if these two are not possible to split it. Now tell me where he has succeded?

but from here, I think he got quite a good position.

Why is then he behaves like he doesn't? Perhaps it is only you who considers his outlooks bright.

Without action, he would have been entangled in negotiation and lost Crimea.He kept Crimea, and Russia will keep Crimea, as no Russian government will be able to give-it up.
“and he finds the Crimea more and more financially burdensome”; Well, if Russia would have allowed NATO (oops, sorry, Ukrainian Western oriented Government) to control the under see pipelines, the cost for Russia would have been much more expensive, as the loss of the Crimean ports for their fleet.

It would be good if you read something on how much Russia has to spend on the Crimea and how problematic logistics is. To provide regular communication with it Russia has to make Ukraine more amenable or to build a bridge over the Kerch channel - the former is a wishful thinking at the moment, the latter will take time and money which is Russia definitely short of.

“The position is still unified since the sanctions are still there” For how long? As soon they will be lifted, and they will, Russia (Putin) wins. As long they are enforces, EU loses. And then, all work and effort will turn in order to gain Russia market again.

Until then, Russia is losing. Let's see whose margin of safety is greater.

“So you believe that the countries you enumerated should be released from the abominable EU slavery and let go about by themselves? The moment they quit they will have jobs aplenty and economies booming? What makes you so sure it will save them from the collapse they are (as you believe) experiencing?” Who speak of beliefs? Look at the rate of unemployment in these countries. Even in UK, if you had the figures of "Zero Hours Contract", and contrary of the Tories Propaganda, the economical situation is at least fragile, with a debt increasing steadily.
There are few things I am sure: Where are the jobs now? Where is the prosperity now? Where is the protection for the poor now? Where is the voice of the populations now? Why pensions are going down now? So EU didn’t delivered what it was built for, because EU is actually under the dictatorship of an ideology where human beings are not the priority but the so-call laws of free market, which of course are not law but political implementation of absurd ideas.

Evasive as usual. Can you give a direct answer: Would the countries in crisis benefit if they leave the EU?

“Are there any? I mean except instructors” “Yet what is left of Ukraine is relentlessly (for Putin) moving NATOwards.” You gave the answer to your question.

Again evasive. And watching too much RT. Nato is not giving Ukraine lethal weapons to say nothing of sending troops. Ukraine's movement doesn't automatically mean arrival at the destination.

[Brenus]

Unfortunately for Putin, his scenario was successful only in the Crimea and Eastern Donbas - because regular Russian armed forces and/or spetznaz were involved.” Only? That is what he was saving from a very badly deteriorating situation in his point (Russian) point of view. If nothing done, he would have lost all. Can I remind you that actual negotiations has taken place, that agreement has been reach, and a mob decided to take the Parliament by storm? From Russian point of view, the ink of the agreement wasn’t even dry that the West didn’t give a monkey.
The fact as you as usual refuse to see the facts but are in the Putin Grand Dream conspiracy, your evaluation is flawed from the start.

“Neither of the metioned parts are directly ruled from the outside” You should read Dayton Agreement.

“Your comparison is flawed” Really? Well, tell me when Ukrainian government will be in control of the Rebels areas.

“no changes to any laws or the constitution were introduced to give this rump any legality or influence on the policy of the whole country.” Crimea?

“In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides.” I think. So it is not prophetic. And when did I say that? I might, but I didn’t recall as it is not how I analyse (a thing you have not a clue how to do) under ethnicity lines.

“Do you know how far he has pushed back the borders? 100-120 km. And only in one direction - the southern one. If you are acquainted with the range of modern weapons, that's nothing. At least not what he will be satisfied with, that's why the war there is likely to resume.” Yeap, I suggest you try to walk the 100 km under fire, you might find out it is a long distance… Plus the fact of course that any movement of NATO will be rightly seen a threat. And again, Putin saved what he could. He didn’t start the move… Without it, he would have all NATO troops along all the Ukrainian borders, and lost the only Russian harbours… Putin will not re-start the war, as he has no interest in doing so. Ukrainian government might, as they want to involve NATO in it.

“Again three cheers for Putin the Strategist”: Yeah, because before this, the Baltic States were full of love for Russia and Russians. Ooops, perhaps it is one of your jokes… Sorry if I didn’t get it.

“Can you give a direct answer:” No because I don’t know. I have difficulties to see how it could be worst.

“Again evasive” Blame yourself for this one as you asked and you answered.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Almost 600 posts and you Euros still won't admit that this can all be solved if you just buy your natural gas from us Americans. What's the point of making Pennsylvania's drinking water flammable if you refuse to allow us to liberate you?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Almost 600 posts and you Euros still won't admit that this can all be solved if you just buy your natural gas from us Americans. What's the point of making Pennsylvania's drinking water flammable if you refuse to allow us to liberate you?

Thanks for the chuckle.

I can just see the line-up of LNG tankers at Rotterdam now.....

[Brenus]

Hey, we just want to be able to exploit Ukrainian work (East Germany and Romania becoming waaay tooo expensive) force without you US to intervene...

[Gilrandir]

Unfortunately for Putin, his scenario was successful only in the Crimea and Eastern Donbas - because regular Russian armed forces and/or spetznaz were involved.” Only? That is what he was saving from a very badly deteriorating situation in his point (Russian) point of view. If nothing done, he would have lost all.

As I have said, by behaving more reasonably, he could have still retained indirect control and significant influence over ALL Ukraine without any deterioration of his relations with the West. His dissatisfaction with what he has bears me out.

Can I remind you that actual negotiations has taken place, that agreement has been reach, and a mob decided to take the Parliament by storm? From Russian point of view, the ink of the agreement wasn’t even dry that the West didn’t give a monkey.

Can I remind you that when the ink was still not dry and before any action from the mob, Yanukovych escaped.
Can I remind you that when the ink was not yet spilt upon the paper, Putin started his Crimea adventure. Evidently, his decision to start "saving at least something" was made before the ink was wet, dry or still in the pen.

The fact as you as usual refuse to see the facts but are in the Putin Grand Dream conspiracy, your evaluation is flawed from the start.

I have no desire to reiterate the arguments which you will disregard anyway. So let's agree to disagree on it.

“Neither of the metioned parts are directly ruled from the outside” You should read Dayton Agreement.

Done. No indication in it that would liken the Crimea and occupied Donbas (ruled from Russia) to any part of Bosnia ruled from Serbia, Croatia, Brussels, Berlin, Washington...

“Your comparison is flawed” Really? Well, tell me when Ukrainian government will be in control of the Rebels areas.
“no changes to any laws or the constitution were introduced to give this rump any legality or influence on the policy of the whole country.” Crimea?

Once again: provide any evidence of a treaty between Ukraine and any other party that would grant either the Crimea or Lugandon special rights to change the external policy, the Constitution, or the previously signed agreements.

“In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides.” I think. So it is not prophetic. And when did I say that? I might, but I didn’t recall as it is not how I analyse (a thing you have not a clue how to do) under ethnicity lines.

Ukraine-in-a-thread, # 431, as a reply to Kadagar's post (the bolded is his, the underlined is what I consider your support of his statement):
“MY OFFICIAL BET:
Russia will keep stirring the pot, and then send troops in to restore order.
Ukraine will be split after cultural lines.
Crimea with its strategic ports will become Russian.”
Yeap, a replica of US/NATO strategy in Kosovo. Russia might create a Crimean Liberation Army as well…. You don’t change a winning tactic.

Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours.

He didn’t start the move… Without it, he would have all NATO troops along all the Ukrainian borders, and lost the only Russian harbours…

About starting the move - see Putin's confessions in his Crimean documentary.
About the borders - he managed to provide a friendly Lugandonean regime only along a small portion of it while he endangered his positions elsewhere (for example, with adjacent Nato countries) and united the nation (which had been divided before) on the issue of joining Nato. I don't consider it a worthwile exchange.

Putin will not re-start the war, as he has no interest in doing so. Ukrainian government might, as they want to involve NATO in it.

Little do you know how inefficient Ukrainian army's management is. It is in no position to start any offensive, it can hardly hold its ground. Putin, on the other hand, has all military trumps on his hands and is dissatisfied with his gains. Hearing the offensive rhetoric of Lugandonean leaders and seeing the progress they have made for the previous half-year, it is obvious who will make the next move.
Your evaluation is warped through having watched RT too much.

“Again three cheers for Putin the Strategist”: Yeah, because before this, the Baltic States were full of love for Russia and Russians.

The article spoke not of the unsympathetic Baltic states, but of Scandinavians and Finns, the latter having always been favorably predisposed towards Russia. Putin was successful in scaring them and making them think of joining NATO in future and tightening cooperation with its northern flank at present.

[Brenus]

“the bolded is his, the underlined is what I consider your support of his statement):” This is all you, a summary of your way of "thinking". You give someone else lines, and you consider I support it because I did agree with the concept.
But I never actually said it myself. So you are lying. Again…
Good joke, this one I get it!!!

“Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours.” Mine was good as shown, but you’ve got to make serious effort(s) on your reading abilities, or understanding. Or both.

“Scandinavians and Finns” What? Norway is not in NATO?

“It is in no position to start any offensive, it can hardly hold its ground.” I agree, but the right amount of fighting and good propaganda, Ukraine might be able to drag US/EU and the fight. No a really realistic possibility, but they might try.

“Can I remind you that when the ink was still not dry and before any action from the mob, Yanukovych escaped.
Can I remind you that when the ink was not yet spilt upon the paper, Putin started his Crimea adventure.” Lies:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...722854652.html

Feb 21: Protest leaders, the political opposition and Yanukovich agree to form a new government and hold early elections. Yanukovich's powers are slashed. The parliament votes to free Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister, from prison. Yanukovich flees Kiev after protesters take control of the capital.
Feb 23: Ukraine's parliament assigns presidential powers to its new speaker, Oleksandr Turchinov, an ally of Tymoshenko. Pro-Russian protesters rally in Crimea against the new Kiev administration.
Do note that the first move is with the “pro-western democracy” side.
Feb 24: Ukraine's interim government draws up a warrant for Yanukovich's arrest.
Feb 27: Pro-Kremlin armed men seize government buildings in Crimea. Ukraine government vows to prevent a country break-up as Crimean parliament set May 25 as the date for referendum on region’s status. Yanukovich is granted refuge in Russia.
Do note than in the journalistic jargon, the Pro-Russian protesters became Pro-Kremlin armed men, when the pro-western mob is a “political opposition”
Then, only then
March 2: A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops heads towards the regional capital of Crimea. Arseny Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's new prime minister, accuses Russia of declaring war on his country.
Note: 1st real move from Putin, who everyone though was too busy with the Olympic Games.

This is the chronology. Facts. First mob take power, President fled.
Ukraine started aggressive stance towards Crimean opposition, then Russian troops move (well, the ones who were not in Crimea yet).

“Done”: Lie. If you had you would have notice “ensure the right for entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to establish special parallel relationships with neighbouring countries consistent with sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Meaning Croats with Croatia and Serbs with Serbia.
Perhaps I am too harsh with you. Perhaps you just don’t understand the text.

[Gilrandir]

you consider I support it because I did agree with the concept.

support (səˈpɔːt)
vb (tr)
1. to carry the weight of
2. to bear or withstand (pressure, weight, etc)
3. to provide the necessities of life for (a family, person, etc)
4. to tend to establish (a theory, statement, etc) by providing new facts; substantiate
5. (Rhetoric) to speak in favour of (a motion)
6. to give aid or courage to
7. to give approval to (a cause, principle, etc); subscribe to: to support a political candidature.
8. to endure with forbearance: I will no longer support bad behaviour.
9. to give strength to; maintain: to support a business.
10. (Theatre) (tr) (in a concert) to perform earlier than (the main attraction)
11. (Film) films theatre
a. to play a subordinate role to
b. to accompany (the feature) in a film programme
12. (Theatre) films theatre
a. to play a subordinate role to
b. to accompany (the feature) in a film programme
13. (Theatre) to act or perform (a role or character)

a•gree (əˈgri)

v. a•greed, a•gree•ing. v.i.
1. to be of one mind; harmonize in opinion or feeling (often fol. by with): I agree with you.
2. to have the same opinion (often fol. by on or upon): We don't agree on politics.
3. to give consent; assent (often fol. by to): Do you agree to the conditions?
4. to arrive at a settlement or understanding: They have agreed on the price.
5. to be consistent; correspond; harmonize (usu. fol. by with): His story agrees with hers.
6. (of food or drink) to admit of digestion or absorption without difficulty (usu. fol. by with).
7. to be suitable; comply with a preference (often fol. by with): The climate did not agree with him.
8. to correspond in inflectional form, as in grammatical case, number, gender, or person: In he runs, the third person singular verb runs agrees with the subject he in person and number.
v.t.
9. to concede; grant (usu. fol. by a noun clause): I agree that he is the ablest of us.

Brilliant! You agree with the concept but you don't support it. Doublethink at its best. Carry on. Or follow your own advice:
you’ve got to make serious effort(s) on your reading abilities, or understanding. Or both.

“Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours.” Mine was good as shown

Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours - you don't even remember that at least once I reminded you of your own words:

“You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone” When did I say this?

Voila:
Post #2412 (Ukraine-in-a-thread)

“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…
The bold is mine, then goes your line. You may check it if you don't trust me.

“Scandinavians and Finns” What? Norway is not in NATO?

And now a NAtO member is allied with non-Nato members against Russia. Good news for Putin.

“Can I remind you that when the ink was still not dry and before any action from the mob, Yanukovych escaped.
Can I remind you that when the ink was not yet spilt upon the paper, Putin started his Crimea adventure.” Lies:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...722854652.html

Feb 21: Protest leaders, the political opposition and Yanukovich agree to form a new government and hold early elections. Yanukovich's powers are slashed. The parliament votes to free Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister, from prison. Yanukovich flees Kiev after protesters take control of the capital.
Feb 23: Ukraine's parliament assigns presidential powers to its new speaker, Oleksandr Turchinov, an ally of Tymoshenko. Pro-Russian protesters rally in Crimea against the new Kiev administration.
Do note that the first move is with the “pro-western democracy” side.
Feb 24: Ukraine's interim government draws up a warrant for Yanukovich's arrest.
Feb 27: Pro-Kremlin armed men seize government buildings in Crimea. Ukraine government vows to prevent a country break-up as Crimean parliament set May 25 as the date for referendum on region’s status. Yanukovich is granted refuge in Russia.
Do note than in the journalistic jargon, the Pro-Russian protesters became Pro-Kremlin armed men, when the pro-western mob is a “political opposition”
Then, only then
March 2: A convoy of hundreds of Russian troops heads towards the regional capital of Crimea. Arseny Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's new prime minister, accuses Russia of declaring war on his country.
Note: 1st real move from Putin, who everyone though was too busy with the Olympic Games.

This is the chronology. Facts. First mob take power, President fled.
Ukraine started aggressive stance towards Crimean opposition, then Russian troops move (well, the ones who were not in Crimea yet).

I told no lies, while your source :
1) didn't give all the information - between February 21 (the signing of agreement) and February 23 (Turchinov's appointment) Yanukovych escaped. So the latter decision is natural - someone was to be in charge of the nation. So my first claim holds: the ink was still not dry and before any action from the mob, Yanukovych escaped.
2) is outdated - check the date of your Aljazeera article - it is September 20, 2014. Since then we have had Putin's own (and his medals) confession that he started his Crimea operation somewhere between February 20 (according to the medals) and February 22 (according to Huylo himself in the Crimea movie). So my second claim holds as well: when the ink was not yet spilt upon the paper, Putin started his Crimea adventure. However, if the true date was February 22 then the ink was dry, yet Yanukovych was not deposed.

“Done”: Lie. If you had you would have notice “ensure the right for entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to establish special parallel relationships with neighbouring countries consistent with sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Meaning Croats with Croatia and Serbs with Serbia.
Perhaps I am too harsh with you. Perhaps you just don’t understand the text.

I noticed it. And? Does it say that Serbia or Croatia have any right to interfere military-wise if they don't like something, or appoint any leaders, or change the Bosnian constitution, or influence foreign policy, or introduce their currency on Bosnian territory? Russia tries to do it to Ukraine through their Lugandonean stooges. Was any part of Bosnia annexed by either Serbia or Croatia?
The Bosnia-Ukraine comparison is totally flawed:
Bosnia is divided into two approximately equal parts and one of them further into Croatian and Bosnian subparts. Nothing like that is in evidence in Ukraine. If any comparison could be drawn, then Ukraine -Moldova or Ukraine-Georgia would be closer. Ukraine-Lugandon structure reminds that of Moldova-Transnistria, the Crimean situation is close to Abkhasia or South Ossetia (the difference being that the Crimea was officially annexed by Russia while North Caucasian republics retain virtual independence). But an important difference between Ukraine and any of the mentioned conflicts is that in all of them ethnicity, language and/or confession were an issue. None of those are of moment in Ukraine which is why the conflict in Ukraine is more artificial than having real grounds.

And speaking of Russian nazi-fighters:
Some songs composed in Russia of late are almost complete replicas of the Nazi anthem and Hitlerjugend anthem:
http://by24.org/2014/10/06/russian_s...n_nazi_anthem/

[Sarmatian]

I noticed it. And? Does it say that Serbia or Croatia have any right to interfere military-wise if they don't like something, or appoint any leaders, or change the Bosnian constitution, or influence foreign policy, or introduce their currency on Bosnian territory?

They do, actually, if Bosnia does anything contrary to the Dayton accord.

[Gilrandir]

They do, actually, if Bosnia does anything contrary to the Dayton accord.

Is it stipulated in the agreement - I mean military intervention on Serbian or Croatian part?

[Gilrandir]

On information wars:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015...ion-psychology

[Sarmatian]

Is it stipulated in the agreement - I mean military intervention on Serbian or Croatian part?

Not as such, but both countries signed that they guarantee Dayton accord being respected, so legally they are bound to intervene if it was broken.

In practice, it doesn't mean much, but it is there.

[Brenus]

Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours - you don't even remember that at least once I reminded you of your own words:” Because you didn’t my dear.

But yours were: “ In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides” You claimed in your pedantic way that I had an illumination (prophetic) when I agree with someone. That was a lie, as you showed it yourself. You can now as usual try to catch the branches when falling from the tree, when you’ve just invented “the fact”.

“Brilliant! You agree with the concept but you don't support it. Doublethink at its best.”: Your really have to make an effort to understand. I agree with him on the principal/concept. I sometimes agree with you, doesn’t mean I support you. He had a proposal and I agree. From your definitions: to arrive at a settlement or understanding: This one.

“Since then we have had Putin's own (and his medals) confession that he started his Crimea operation somewhere between February 20 (according to the medals) and February 22 (according to Huylo himself in the Crimea movie)” Nope. Medal never existed, and Putin just said Russia had contingency plan is case of, as all countries do. You failed again… But you probably got the habit now, so why changing?

“is outdated” And this changed the Chronology? Mob took Parliament, President fled, Ukrainian Government try to blackmail Crimea in submission, Russian troops move. The fact that Putin and Russia were ready in case changes absolutely nothing to this. And Putin move because mob took Parliament and expelled (or forced President to flee). A little bit like France and UK declared war to Germany because Germany attacked Poland. It is a reaction, not an action.

[Gilrandir]

Not as such, but both countries signed that they guarantee Dayton accord being respected, so legally they are bound to intervene if it was broken.

In practice, it doesn't mean much, but it is there.

You mean like 1994 Budapest agreement? Then it indeed doesn't mean much.

Man, you gotta do something with that memory of yours - you don't even remember that at least once I reminded you of your own words:” Because you didn’t my dear.

This one is easy to copypaste once again:

“You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone” When did I say this?
Voila:
Post #2412 (Ukraine-in-a-thread)

“And as for me, I don't vote against anyone, I vote for someone.” That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…
The bold is mine, then goes your line. You may check it if you don't trust me.

But yours were: “ In one of your prophetic insights you said that Ukraine will be split according to cultural divides” You claimed in your pedantic way that I had an illumination (prophetic) when I agree with someone. That was a lie, as you showed it yourself. You can now as usual try to catch the branches when falling from the tree, when you’ve just invented “the fact”.

You agree to what another said which is as good as saying it yourself - you both have a common approach to the subject.

I agree with him on the principal/concept. I sometimes agree with you, doesn’t mean I support you. He had a proposal and I agree.

I spoke not of supporting SOMEONE, but of supporting AN IDEA/CONCEPT. The latter means "agreeing to an idea/concept" (in this case the one of Ukraine split along cultural lines).

Medal never existed

This is what you said of Russian weapons in Ukraine, Russian mercenaries in Ukraine, Russian regular troops in Donbas (on a constant basis). Why, you live in the world Lavrov and Churkin have created and are still creating.

and Putin just said Russia had contingency plan is case of, as all countries do.

Did you watch the Crimea movie? Do please. After it you will love the man even more.
In it Putin said that all the night of February 22 he had been holding debates with the top brass and when he went out in the morning, the intervention was agreed upon and kicked into execution.

You failed again… But you probably got the habit now, so why changing?

You are perfectly right. It refers to your Bosnia-Ukraine comparison.

“is outdated” And this changed the Chronology?

The newly discovered developments of the year ago do change it. Now it is like this:
1. Mob took Parliament.
2. Russian troops are started into motion by Putin.
3. President fled.
4. Ukrainian Government try to blackmail Crimea in submission.
As I have said, Putin started the opeartion WHEN YANUKOVYCH WAS STILL THE PRESIDENT.

[Brenus]

This one is easy to copypaste once again:” Can do again, because you didn’t. I could explain why, and how, but it more fun like this… Re-read just what you copy and paste: Hint: My words: “ That is because you don’t have habits of democracy…” These are MY words, not your reading of them.

“You agree to what another said which is as good as saying it yourself “. Not. And your claim was I had a vision… Not that I shared someone bet (even partially). . You are sinking my dear…

“This is what you said of Russian weapons in Ukraine, Russian mercenaries in Ukraine, Russian regular troops in Donbas (on a constant basis)” I answer this lie before, re-read.

“Did you watch the Crimea movie? Do please. After it you will love the man even more.” Why should I watch a movie where a politician said he knew everything before every one? This is politician words. And where did you get the idea I love Putin? YOU have more confidence in what he said than I.

“It refers to your Bosnia-Ukraine comparison” You refuse to see the reality, like years ago… You have in theory a United State, Ukraine, and as Bosnia the Central Power has no power on some areas. And it will probably become a permanent state when finally negotiations will give a peace agreement. Reason why I agree with the bet.

“1. Mob took Parliament.
2. Russian troops are started into motion by Putin.
3. President fled.
4. Ukrainian Government try to blackmail Crimea in submission.
As I have said, Putin started the opeartion WHEN YANUKOVYCH WAS STILL THE PRESIDENT.” Nope. Moving troops doesn’t mean you start an operation. France mobilised before Germany attacked in 1914, still it was Germany that started the war. You can always stop a movement until borders are crossed. Even a little bit after. It is just a hint that Putin had better instinct than the EU/US leaders, and that the Russian Army had better contingency plans.

[Gilrandir]

“It refers to your Bosnia-Ukraine comparison” You refuse to see the reality, like years ago… You have in theory a United State, Ukraine, and as Bosnia the Central Power has no power on some areas.

It may go for a bunch of countries, starting with Japan (which doesn't control its northern territories) and finishing with India (with its uncontrolled northern territories) with Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Moldova, Georgia, Cyprus and others in between. This is the only similarity I see between Bosnia and Ukraine. In all other aspects the divided characters of the two countries in question have nothing in common.

Why should I watch a movie where a politician said he knew everything before every one?

To expose how manipulative he was, or to disprove it. To see if his confessions change the earlier chronology and understanding of events.
Generally speaking, if one is interested in the topic one can't disregard evidence of this kind, even if it is a biased opinion.
Well, I can't believe what I'm doing - trying to persuade others to watch a piece of Russian propaganda!

Moving troops doesn’t mean you start an operation.

Putin was quite explicit in his claim of starting "the Crimean homecoming" on the said date.

[Brenus]

“To see if his confessions” This is your problem. He is bragging, he is not ashamed of it. In using confession, you put a connotation as he pleaded guilty. No, he is trying to convince a domestic audience that he is in control and ahead of the game. Pure and simple propaganda and you bite/welcome it, because for your own propaganda, you need Putin to be evil, as simple as this. As prove (or demonstrated) by “Well, I can't believe what I'm doing - trying to persuade others to watch a piece of Russian propaganda!”. Propaganda, not piece of evidence.

“Putin was quite explicit in his claim of starting "the Crimean homecoming" on the said date.” I am sure he is, as Kosovo was a fight for democracy and Iraqis will welcome the US, and democracy will bloom in Libya… When you are in a process, better to pretend you control it than to look incompetent.

“In all other aspects the divided characters of the two countries in question have nothing in common.” Well, future will tell.

[Sarmatian]

Putin was quite explicit in his claim of starting "the Crimean homecoming" on the said date.

That is not true. I've seen the documentary in it's entirety.

According to the documentary: After Korsun Massacre/Ambush*, they realized that Crimeans are in danger. After that it is explicitly mentioned by Putin that Yanukovich, who was moving from Kharkiv to Donetsk, on the the night of 22nd of February, was in danger. Russian intelligence was sure that he was supposed to be assassinated. His motorcade was shot at, his bodyguard wounded. They moved off road to avoid further attacks. After almost entire night, Russian helicopters located the motorcade and extracted Yanukovich. By that time, Maidanistas already took control of parliament and other government buildings in Kiev. The rescuing of Yanukovich took entire night between 22nd and 23rd February. After the operation was over, around 7 AM, Febrary 23rd, Putin said to his associates that they must take into account what is happening and that they must make sure the people of Crimea are safe and that they must allowed to decide their own future in safety, whether it's staying with Ukraine or joining Russia. The first time Russian soldiers were used was February 27th, to assist local militia in taking over the airport in Simferopol.

Now, you may choose not to believe any of it, but in the documentary it is clear that Crimean operation started after it was clear that there has been a coup in Kiev.

Anyway, the documentary in its entirety, with English subtitles for those interested.

I must say, Russians are getting better and better in propaganda. It's getting to be almost as good as western propaganda. They still tend to be rather blunt, they could use a bit of subtlety.

*Funnily enough, this is the first time I've heard of Korsun massacre/ambush/pogrom. I've relied on western media for just about everything about Ukraine. I've tried googling about it, and I couldn't find anything about it in any of the major media outlets.

[Brenus]

"That is not true" I can't believe it... Gilrandir modifying the truth... I am SO disappointed... My world is collapsing...

[Husar]

"NATO is the most successful peace movement the world has ever known."

But whatever follows after NATO is done bombing a country is not NATO's responsibility, that's to blame on civilians.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...071002520.html