alfa164
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:14 am

anrec80 wrote:
There is no "re-writing history". There was exactly an armed coup in Kiev. Nobody argues with this. Both Obama and Biden later confirmed - "we brokered the transfer of power". Any power transfer outside of constitution (such as legitimate impeachment, which never took place, death/murder of the President, or re-election) - is a coup, or an illegal seizure of power. This is exactly what happened. The government was not the same as was legitimately appointed by Parliament, it was formed from the crowd on Maidan. This has nothing to do with democratic legitimate process. In order for your post to make sense, new Kiev thugs should have at least bothered to kill the guy..


Of course you are trying to rewrite history; that is the only way Russia can distort what actually happened and "justify" its invasion(s). So let's take this step by step:

ADMIT OR DENY: In fall of 2013, President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms

ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 November, 2013, Yanukovych, under pressure from Russia, refused to sign that agreement at the last minute.

ADMIT OR DENY: Yanukovych's about-face set the stage for the protests that led to his departure in disgrace.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 18 February, 2014, some 20,000 Euromaidan protesters advanced on Ukraine's parliament in support of restoring the Constitution of Ukraine to its 2004 form, which had been repealed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shortly after Yanukovych was elected president in 2010.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 20 February, Internal Affairs Minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko announced that he had signed a decree authorising the use of live ammunition against protesters. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, using live bullets and resulting in 82 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, President Yanukovych signed a compromise deal with opposition leaders. It promised constitutional changes to restore certain powers to Parliament and called for early elections to be held by December.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, an impeachment bill was introduced in Parliament.. On the same day, Yanukovych left for Kharkiv to attend a summit of southeastern regions.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 22 February, the Parliament, controlled by Yanukovych's own political party, voted 328–0 in favour of impeaching Yanukovych and scheduled new presidential elections for 25 May.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 23 February, Parliament - the same Parliament controlled by Yanukovych's own party - named its speaker, Oleksandr Turchynov, as interim president .

ADMIT OR DENY: On 28 February, Yanukovych suddenly appears in Russia, denouncing the "coup" and asking Putin to act decisively.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 1 March, Russia's parliament approved a request from President Vladimir Putin to deploy Russian troops to Ukraine, setting the stage for the instability in the region that continues through today.


Facts are stubborn little things, not so easily dislodged by Russian propaganda and disinformation.


anrec80 wrote:
There is nothing called "ran away" in legislature - any Constitution clearly defines when an acting President can be removed from power, and what is the process. The process in Ukraine was never followed. Furthermore, Yanukovich still carries the title of the "President" - something all former Presidents are entitled to, unless they were impeached.


Ahhhh... another attempt to deny the facts. The Ukrainian Parliament - led by Yanukovych's own party - filed an impeachment bill on 21 February, 2014, and voted 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych the next day. That, good sir, is the process - and it was followed.

He may still claim the title of "President" - just as you may claim to be an honest historian - but the facts, in both cases, prove otherwise.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8484
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:46 am

anrec80 wrote:
If the USA military pays - why not trade with them?

Absolutely!

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
WIederling
Posts: 7200
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:51 am

petertenthije wrote:
You may now adress me as king Peter. If you make me a decent offer we are willing to are accept joining your country/union/commonwealth etc.

reminds me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
Murphy is an optimist
 
Scipio
Topic Author
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:38 pm

anrec80 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Kiwirob will tell you, 20 years is not that old for a navy ship.... 40 is about where they start to exit service with 50 being a general max (yes of course it is all dependent on the type of service they see).

Their are not "great ships" but they are good ships, and a good ship is what you need. Yes, of course the Russian navy could easily best them but they will be perfectly suited for and very capable in the Black or Azov Sea coastal patrol duties they are headed to.

Tugg


What I wonder the most - do these ships have any commercial value? Last military aid of value Ukraine has received was all the way back in 2014, and within days the whole thing was sold to Syria (one of Assad’s generals). Since then, the only things they were receiving were of zero resale value. Except Javelins, but even those are supervised by American instructors in a Western Ukrainian base. So I am not surprised if in fact they got these ships because somewhere there is a customer for them already. Maybe even a customer for parts.


I'd be interested to know which valuable military aid was sold to Syria. Anything to back this up?

As to your earlier claim that Ukraine sells weapons to ISIS, this has been debunked as recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation.

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/last-week ... s-to-isis/

The objective of this disinformation is clear: discourage western countries from providing military assistance to Ukraine.
 
alfa164
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:39 am

Scipio wrote:
I'd be interested to know which valuable military aid was sold to Syria. Anything to back this up?
As to your earlier claim that Ukraine sells weapons to ISIS, this has been debunked as recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation.
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/last-week ... s-to-isis/
The objective of this disinformation is clear: discourage western countries from providing military assistance to Ukraine.


Russia's disinformation campaign seems to be in permanent high gear... and, unfortunately, as a part of that, Anet has also attracted its own number of pro-Putin-regime trolls... :roll:
 
tu204
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:56 am

alfa164 wrote:
anrec80 wrote:
There is no "re-writing history". There was exactly an armed coup in Kiev. Nobody argues with this. Both Obama and Biden later confirmed - "we brokered the transfer of power". Any power transfer outside of constitution (such as legitimate impeachment, which never took place, death/murder of the President, or re-election) - is a coup, or an illegal seizure of power. This is exactly what happened. The government was not the same as was legitimately appointed by Parliament, it was formed from the crowd on Maidan. This has nothing to do with democratic legitimate process. In order for your post to make sense, new Kiev thugs should have at least bothered to kill the guy..


Of course you are trying to rewrite history; that is the only way Russia can distort what actually happened and "justify" its invasion(s). So let's take this step by step:

ADMIT OR DENY: In fall of 2013, President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms

ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 November, 2013, Yanukovych, under pressure from Russia, refused to sign that agreement at the last minute.

ADMIT OR DENY: Yanukovych's about-face set the stage for the protests that led to his departure in disgrace.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 18 February, 2014, some 20,000 Euromaidan protesters advanced on Ukraine's parliament in support of restoring the Constitution of Ukraine to its 2004 form, which had been repealed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shortly after Yanukovych was elected president in 2010.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 20 February, Internal Affairs Minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko announced that he had signed a decree authorising the use of live ammunition against protesters. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, using live bullets and resulting in 82 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, President Yanukovych signed a compromise deal with opposition leaders. It promised constitutional changes to restore certain powers to Parliament and called for early elections to be held by December.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, an impeachment bill was introduced in Parliament.. On the same day, Yanukovych left for Kharkiv to attend a summit of southeastern regions.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 22 February, the Parliament, controlled by Yanukovych's own political party, voted 328–0 in favour of impeaching Yanukovych and scheduled new presidential elections for 25 May.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 23 February, Parliament - the same Parliament controlled by Yanukovych's own party - named its speaker, Oleksandr Turchynov, as interim president .



Facts are stubborn little things, not so easily dislodged by Russian propaganda and disinformation.


anrec80 wrote:
There is nothing called "ran away" in legislature - any Constitution clearly defines when an acting President can be removed from power, and what is the process. The process in Ukraine was never followed. Furthermore, Yanukovich still carries the title of the "President" - something all former Presidents are entitled to, unless they were impeached.


Ahhhh... another attempt to deny the facts. The Ukrainian Parliament - led by Yanukovych's own party - filed an impeachment bill on 21 February, 2014, and voted 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych the next day. That, good sir, is the process - and it was followed.

He may still claim the title of "President" - just as you may claim to be an honest historian - but the facts, in both cases, prove otherwise.


It looks like you have a good understanding of English. So you are either trying to spread your propaganda or are too lazy to do a basic search, if it's the latter, let me help you out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_Ukraine
(Click on "President" and poof).

So the due process was not followed. So it was illegal, a coup. Not by Russian or US or EU law, but by Ukraine's own constitution which clearly outlines the process of impeaching the President.
There is absolutely no room for interpretation of the process in this case. This is one of those black and white instances. Either due process was followed, or it wasn't. Here it wasn't.

So you are either nieve or are trying to decieve others, whether you are trolling or doing it for cash is another question. (Heck, you want to accuse others here, so I will return the favour).

And in hindsight: If Yanukovitch was such a bad guy, what do those morons that went out on the Maydan think about Poroshenko? Atleast that guy was looking for the best deal, which at that time was offered by Russia. Poroshenko is sucking the EU and US throat deep while destorying whatever is left of his country's economy while wiping a certain white substance off his face, smiling and asking for more. At the same time shitting on those EU values and freedoms that even Yanukovitch couldn't allow himself to spit on.

Embarassing to have Ukranian roots and a Ukranian last name while looking at that disgrace of a country.
Last edited by tu204 on Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
anrec80
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:07 am

alfa164 wrote:
Of course you are trying to rewrite history; that is the only way Russia can distort what actually happened and "justify" its invasion(s). So let's take this step by step:


Sure.

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: In fall of 2013, President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms

Wrong. Agreement in itself did not offer any funds whatsoever. In fact - it was very one-sided for Ukraine. Ukraine must open borders for EU entirely, while for Ukraine EU has established minuscule quotas for imports, that get depleted within weeks. The agreement was not singable. This was later understood by then-opposition who later came to power, but there was no way back. Yanukovich had full decision making authorities as to whether sign or not.

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 November, 2013, Yanukovych, under pressure from Russia, refused to sign that agreement at the last minute.

See above - that was up to Yanukovich whether to sign it or not.

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: Yanukovych's about-face set the stage for the protests that led to his departure in disgrace.

Right. But the main support for protests was provided by Victoria Nuland with her cookies on Maidan. She also admitted that the Dept of State has invested USD 5 billion into that Maidan affair.

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: On 18 February, 2014, some 20,000 Euromaidan protesters advanced on Ukraine's parliament in support of restoring the Constitution of Ukraine to its 2004 form, which had been repealed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shortly after Yanukovych was elected president in 2010.


And how's that relevant? That now an aggressive crowd takes place of a Constitutional Court?

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: On 20 February, Internal Affairs Minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko announced that he had signed a decree authorising the use of live ammunition against protesters. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, using live bullets and resulting in 82 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries.

Wrong. All the traces to those shootouts lead to Maidan's leadership. Nothing to do with Internal Affairs. Their "activists" were periodically caught with firearms, and shootings were made from windows of buildings occupied by Maidan leadership.

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, President Yanukovych signed a compromise deal with opposition leaders. It promised constitutional changes to restore certain powers to Parliament and called for early elections to be held by December.


True. Also, the agreement was also signed by German, French and Polish FMs, who agreed to be guarantors. Yet, within 24 hours the agreement was thrown out of the window. This will take its place as one of the biggest disgraces of European diplomacy.

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, an impeachment bill was introduced in Parliament.. On the same day, Yanukovych left for Kharkiv to attend a summit of southeastern regions.

Had a right to do that - what's up with that?

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: On 22 February, the Parliament, controlled by Yanukovych's own political party, voted 328–0 in favour of impeaching Yanukovych and scheduled new presidential elections for 25 May.


Wrong. A Parliament on its own cannot impeach a President. It can be done in certain circumstances only, and proper impeachment procedure requires verdicts by both Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. Nobody bothered with this.

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: On 23 February, Parliament - the same Parliament controlled by Yanukovych's own party - named its speaker, Oleksandr Turchynov, as interim president .

Given that the proper impeachment of an active President has never been done, this is exactly the illegal seizure of power. Later replicas by Joe Biden "I called Yanukovich to say 'it's over'" and later Obama "yeah, we brokered the deal" just confirm that this was an aggressive meddling into some other country's internal affairs.

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: On 28 February, Yanukovych suddenly appears in Russia, denouncing the "coup" and asking Putin to act decisively.

As the legitimate President, he could ask Putin to act.

alfa164 wrote:
ADMIT OR DENY: On 1 March, Russia's parliament approved a request from President Vladimir Putin to deploy Russian troops to Ukraine, setting the stage for the instability in the region that continues through today.


alfa164 wrote:
Facts are stubborn little things, not so easily dislodged by Russian propaganda and disinformation.

You stated these facts mostly right, though you clearly lack details and bigger picture. Hence your interpretations of them are mostly wrong. Wishful thinking on your end also played a role here.

alfa164 wrote:
Ahhhh... another attempt to deny the facts. The Ukrainian Parliament - led by Yanukovych's own party - filed an impeachment bill on 21 February, 2014, and voted 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych the next day. That, good sir, is the process - and it was followed.

Wrong again - see above. There is nothing called "impeachment bill" in Constitution. Impeachment process requires decisions by both country's Supreme Court and Constitutional Court, and must include report on constitution violations by Attorney General. That was never bothered with. And even that vote was not an impeachment - the Parliament has "found that President has self-abstained from his duties". Parliament in this case is acting as if they are a court of some sort in addition to that.
 
alfa164
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:17 am

anrec80 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
Of course you are trying to rewrite history; that is the only way Russia can distort what actually happened and "justify" its invasion(s). So let's take this step by step:


Wrong. Agreement in itself did not offer any funds whatsoever. In fact - it was very one-sided for Ukraine. Ukraine must open borders for EU entirely, while for Ukraine EU has established minuscule quotas for imports, that get depleted within weeks. The agreement was not singable. This was later understood by then-opposition who later came to power, but there was no way back. Yanukovich had full decision making authorities as to whether sign or not.


The agreement would have opened borders to goods and set the stage for travel restrictions to be eased, and included an EU offer to lend Ukraine 610m euros, In the words of Ukrainian hero, world boxing champion, and prominent opposition figure Vitaly Klitschko told the crowd: "Today they stole our dream, our dream of living in a normal country."

anrec80 wrote:
See above - that was up to Yanukovich whether to sign it or not.


Of course - but he had promised to sign it, then reneged on that promise. That sparked the protests.

anrec80 wrote:
But the main support for protests was provided by Victoria Nuland with her cookies on Maidan. She also admitted that the Dept of State has invested USD 5 billion into that Maidan affair.


Another lie, perpetrated by (surprise, surprise!) RT TV. It has been debunked numerous times:

https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/201 ... ce/seite-2

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/s ... i-governm/

anrec80 wrote:
All the traces to those shootouts lead to Maidan's leadership. Nothing to do with Internal Affairs. Their "activists" were periodically caught with firearms, and shootings were made from windows of buildings occupied by Maidan leadership..


You totally ignore what I noted: On 20 February, Internal Affairs Minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko announced that he had signed a decree authorising the use of live ammunition against protesters. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, using live bullets and resulting in 82 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries.

Instead, you make the spurious claim that it was the protestors killing their own. Perhaps you can provide some evidence of that?

anrec80 wrote:
Wrong. A Parliament on its own cannot impeach a President. It can be done in certain circumstances only, and proper impeachment procedure requires verdicts by both Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. Nobody bothered with this.


After he deserted his country, the Ukrainian parliament met in emergency session and voted 380 to 0 on Saturday to remove Yanukovych from office, saying he was guilty of gross human rights violations and dereliction of duty. He was disowned by his own Party of Regions. In a statement issued by Oleksandr Yefremov, parliamentary faction leader, the party and its members "strongly condemn[ed] the criminal orders that led to human victims, an empty state treasury, huge debts, shame before the eyes of the Ukrainian people and the entire world. Technically, you are correct the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove him from his post, on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties, rather than by an impeachment procedure. Parliament instead established that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and citing "circumstances of extreme urgency" removed him from office.

anrec80 wrote:
[Given that the proper impeachment of an active President has never been done, this is exactly the illegal seizure of power. Later replicas by Joe Biden "I called Yanukovich to say 'it's over'" and later Obama "yeah, we brokered the deal" just confirm that this was an aggressive meddling into some other country's internal affairs.


Those claims are even more extreme than the rest of Russia's lies; you'd better present some actual evidence of that - not just an empty claim. Keep in mind that RT TV is not evidence!

anrec80 wrote:
As the legitimate President, he could ask Putin to act.


That is his claim... and yours. Nobody else buys it. Instead, he is being sought by (and, of course, Russia refuses to turn him over to) the International Criminal court on embezzlement charges.

So the rest of the story remains to be told...but the truth won't be told by Russian trolls... :roll:
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9415
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:03 am

Kiwirob wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

you´ll find few territories taken by force and kept since WW II.

best regards
Thomas


Really there's large chunks of central Europe that were historically Prussian or German that now reside in other countries, parts that were taken by force.


Those where not kept Patricia....

There's Kosovo taken from Serbia,


Which country has annexed Kosovo?

there's East Timor taken from Indonesia,


East Timor is the first new sovereign state of the 21st century...

here's issues around Indonesia, Borneo and Malaysia.


"Issues"? The topic at hand is taken and kept as an internationally recognised part of the country that took it..

There's whole mess in the Middle East where Israel has taken by force and kept territory from surrounding countries,


Legally not Israel's territory, sanctions are in place.

Seems you found zero examples....So thank you for proving my point, taking territory and keeping is a big no no and will not be accepted.

And if the outcome of a referendum on Crimea had been clear as you claim, Russia could have gotten it without committing crimes against humanity.

Crimea will legally be Ukrainian until hell freezes over, or they voluntarily give it up.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11711
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:13 am

What Crimes did Russia commit against humanity, I think this is your jumping the shark moment Tommy.

Kosovo was taken from Serbia by force. East Timor was taken from Indonesia. Israel has taken by force plenty of bits and bobs of its surrounding countries. You need to get a grip on reality Crimea is now part of Russia, where it should always have been, it's never going back to Ukraine, this will be recognised in a few years time, I'm sure of it. It's probably time the rest of Ukraine was partitioned, it's a made up country after all, parts of it have belonged to all the surrounding nations for far longer than they have ever belonged to Ukraine as a whole.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 9415
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:29 am

Kiwirob wrote:
What Crimes did Russia commit against humanity, I think this is your jumping the shark moment Tommy.


They took Crimea. That is a crime against humanity.

Kosovo was taken from Serbia by force. East Timor was taken from Indonesia. Israel has taken by force plenty of bits and bobs of its surrounding countries.


All nonsense as explained above.

You need to get a grip on reality Crimea is now part of Russia, where it should always have been,


Well, to bad it isn't and it won't. It will just be occupied and like other occupied territories and the criminal that keeps it, there will be sanctions and many international treaties will not happy. Product made on Crimea are for example not made in Russia for customs purposes outside of Russia and some dependencies.
You need to get a grip on reality, Crimea will never be a legal part of Russia and the sanctions will never ever end, no matter how normalized every day life is.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Scipio
Topic Author
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:12 pm

There is no point in discussing anything with Kiwirob. He was writing back in 2014 that the sanctions were going to be lifted soon, that the west was going to throw Ukraine under the bus, that life in occupied Crimea was all rosy and dandy, whereas in free Ukraine it was nothing but hell, and by the way, Ukraine's existence as a state was about to end.

Four years later, he is still writing the same, no matter what the facts are.

Five years from now, he will still be writing the same, no matter what the facts will be.

Because he is a real keyboard warrior. He will continue writing the same lines, no matter what the facts are...
 
anrec80
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:48 am

tommy1808 wrote:
They took Crimea. That is a crime against humanity.


There is no crime anywhere there. It's the right for self-determination.

tommy1808 wrote:
Well, to bad it isn't and it won't. It will just be occupied and like other occupied territories and the criminal that keeps it, there will be sanctions and many international treaties will not happy. Product made on Crimea are for example not made in Russia for customs purposes outside of Russia and some dependencies.
You need to get a grip on reality, Crimea will never be a legal part of Russia and the sanctions will never ever end, no matter how normalized every day life is.


Never say never. Sure, trade between the USA and Crimea is restricted, just as it is with the rest of Russia. But that's also true for American exports to Russia. Russian retaliation measures include, among other things, sanctions against American agricultural exports and machinery equipment. Trump was not too long ago looking for buyers for American beans BTW.

And - the world isn't only USA and EU. Crimea can still sell its products pretty much anywhere else, even EU sanctions aren't that rigorously enforced (Dutch and not only companies were involved in Crimean Bridge design). Also - as soon there are sanctions somewhere, there immediately appears a whole small ecosystems of businesses and even divisions in existing companies that will be happy to help circumvent.

Over time, the desire to keep sanctions fades. In EU, voices to remove sanctions are getting stronger. Earlier, Hollandes and Merkel were happily courting Poroshenko, now they don't. Macron obviously does not need this topic - this mess isn't his, and refugee crisis and collaboration with Russia on that is by far more important to him. In the USA, the priority of this whole Ukrainian mess drops. During Obama administration, Biden and Nuland were handling Ukraine. How, this whole matter handed over to Curt Walker - hardly even official, a "special aide", someone without clear rank and authority. This anti-Russian craze isn't forever. At some point, the desire to sell beef, beans and corn to Russia, as well as invest in oil mining there will prevail.
 
anrec80
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:22 am

alfa164 wrote:
The agreement would have opened borders to goods and set the stage for travel restrictions to be eased, and included an EU offer to lend Ukraine 610m euros.

No. This agreement was about exactly the opposite - Ukraine is to wide-open markets for EU exports, while 2/3 of the agreement's volume were restrictions and quotas on Ukrainian exports to the EU. Of course, such agreement is not signeable. It's just after the armed coup Poroshenko had no choice, but even he wasn't eager to sign it.

alfa164 wrote:
In the words of Ukrainian hero, world boxing champion, and prominent opposition figure Vitaly Klitschko told the crowd: "Today they stole our dream, our dream of living in a normal country."


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

IDK what to say on this even. A hero, a "prominent opposition figure" - who can't even bind two words together. During hos "cadence", many Kievans forgot what hot water is, and he explained it simply: "in order for the water to become hot, it needs to be heated". And this isn't the worst of this then-"opposition".


alfa164 wrote:
Of course - but he had promised to sign it, then reneged on that promise. That sparked the protests.


He had a right to do it. Ukraine back then was a big, diverse 45-million country with many types of businesses and people. Of course everyone's interests, access to markets had to be considered by government. Ukraine consists not only of Maidan.

alfa164 wrote:
You totally ignore what I noted: On 20 February, Internal Affairs Minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko announced that he had signed a decree authorising the use of live ammunition against protesters. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, using live bullets and resulting in 82 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries.

Instead, you make the spurious claim that it was the protestors killing their own. Perhaps you can provide some evidence of that?


Internal Affairs never issued such orders - even bullets were of the kind that Berkut never had. Ample of stuff on the Internet - for example:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-03-14/ ... an-snipers

And a bunch of indirect stuff. Why would new authorities in Kiev chop down all the trees on Maidan the first day? One of their MPs, when asked "who were the snipers?" said - "the history isn't ready for this truth yet!".

alfa164 wrote:
After he deserted his country, the Ukrainian parliament met in emergency session and voted 380 to 0 on Saturday to remove Yanukovych from office, saying he was guilty of gross human rights violations and dereliction of duty. He was disowned by his own Party of Regions. In a statement issued by Oleksandr Yefremov, parliamentary faction leader, the party and its members "strongly condemn[ed] the criminal orders that led to human victims, an empty state treasury, huge debts, shame before the eyes of the Ukrainian people and the entire world.


Nobody says that the situation in Ukraine in 2014 was rosy. And still - even such situation doesn't make seizure of power just by Parliament's vote constitutional and legitimate. And nonetheless - Yanukovich is now considered by Ukrainians the best President the country had.

alfa164 wrote:
Technically, you are correct the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove him from his post, on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties, rather than by an impeachment procedure. Parliament instead established that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and citing "circumstances of extreme urgency" removed him from office.


Parliament is not the Constitutional Court to establish anything. MPs are lawmakers, not judges. Such vote nonetheless does not make removal of the elected President any more constitutional. There is no notion of "circumstances of extreme urgency" in Constitution.

alfa164 wrote:
Those claims are even more extreme than the rest of Russia's lies; you'd better present some actual evidence of that - not just an empty claim. Keep in mind that RT TV is not evidence!



These aren't RT. These are Biden's own memoirs. Quite extreme and blunt, I agree.

alfa164 wrote:
That is his claim... and yours. Nobody else buys it. Instead, he is being sought by (and, of course, Russia refuses to turn him over to) the International Criminal court on embezzlement charges.


Russia did not retify the ICC agreement, and does not recognize it. Just as the USA.
 
Scipio
Topic Author
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:59 am

anrec80 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
The agreement would have opened borders to goods and set the stage for travel restrictions to be eased, and included an EU offer to lend Ukraine 610m euros.

No. This agreement was about exactly the opposite - Ukraine is to wide-open markets for EU exports, while 2/3 of the agreement's volume were restrictions and quotas on Ukrainian exports to the EU. Of course, such agreement is not signeable. It's just after the armed coup Poroshenko had no choice, but even he wasn't eager to sign it.

alfa164 wrote:
In the words of Ukrainian hero, world boxing champion, and prominent opposition figure Vitaly Klitschko told the crowd: "Today they stole our dream, our dream of living in a normal country."


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

IDK what to say on this even. A hero, a "prominent opposition figure" - who can't even bind two words together. During hos "cadence", many Kievans forgot what hot water is, and he explained it simply: "in order for the water to become hot, it needs to be heated". And this isn't the worst of this then-"opposition".


alfa164 wrote:
Of course - but he had promised to sign it, then reneged on that promise. That sparked the protests.


He had a right to do it. Ukraine back then was a big, diverse 45-million country with many types of businesses and people. Of course everyone's interests, access to markets had to be considered by government. Ukraine consists not only of Maidan.

alfa164 wrote:
You totally ignore what I noted: On 20 February, Internal Affairs Minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko announced that he had signed a decree authorising the use of live ammunition against protesters. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, using live bullets and resulting in 82 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries.

Instead, you make the spurious claim that it was the protestors killing their own. Perhaps you can provide some evidence of that?


Internal Affairs never issued such orders - even bullets were of the kind that Berkut never had. Ample of stuff on the Internet - for example:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-03-14/ ... an-snipers

And a bunch of indirect stuff. Why would new authorities in Kiev chop down all the trees on Maidan the first day? One of their MPs, when asked "who were the snipers?" said - "the history isn't ready for this truth yet!".

alfa164 wrote:
After he deserted his country, the Ukrainian parliament met in emergency session and voted 380 to 0 on Saturday to remove Yanukovych from office, saying he was guilty of gross human rights violations and dereliction of duty. He was disowned by his own Party of Regions. In a statement issued by Oleksandr Yefremov, parliamentary faction leader, the party and its members "strongly condemn[ed] the criminal orders that led to human victims, an empty state treasury, huge debts, shame before the eyes of the Ukrainian people and the entire world.


Nobody says that the situation in Ukraine in 2014 was rosy. And still - even such situation doesn't make seizure of power just by Parliament's vote constitutional and legitimate. And nonetheless - Yanukovich is now considered by Ukrainians the best President the country had.

alfa164 wrote:
Technically, you are correct the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove him from his post, on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties, rather than by an impeachment procedure. Parliament instead established that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and citing "circumstances of extreme urgency" removed him from office.


Parliament is not the Constitutional Court to establish anything. MPs are lawmakers, not judges. Such vote nonetheless does not make removal of the elected President any more constitutional. There is no notion of "circumstances of extreme urgency" in Constitution.

alfa164 wrote:
Those claims are even more extreme than the rest of Russia's lies; you'd better present some actual evidence of that - not just an empty claim. Keep in mind that RT TV is not evidence!



These aren't RT. These are Biden's own memoirs. Quite extreme and blunt, I agree.

alfa164 wrote:
That is his claim... and yours. Nobody else buys it. Instead, he is being sought by (and, of course, Russia refuses to turn him over to) the International Criminal court on embezzlement charges.


Russia did not retify the ICC agreement, and does not recognize it. Just as the USA.


Where to start? This pretty much all comes from some factory of alternate realities, just like Ukraine's weapons deliveries to ISIS and to Assad's generals (still waiting for the "evidence" backing up those statements).

Without wasting too much time on all these fantasies, here are some facts from the real world:

- The Association Agreement is very favorable to Ukraine. The EU opened its markets immediately to Ukrainian imports (except for quotas in some sensitive areas), whereas Ukraine only gradually has to open its markets over a 10-year period. The facts are there: Ukrainian exports to the EU are booming.
- Poroshenko was very keen to sign the AA and did so early on in his presidency.
- No trees were chopped on Maydan on the first day after the change in power...
- Lots of alternative theories have been floated on the origins of the shootings on Maydan, but just like the alternative explanations of the shooting down of MH17, these have generally no basis in reality. The one you linked ("the shots came from the Philarmonic Hall") is particularly ridiculous. The laws of physics stand in the way: you cannot shoot someone on Instytutska Street (where most of the killings happened) from the Philarmonic. It is well established by now that most of the people who were killed, were killed by bullets coming from the positions of the security forces.
- I know lots of Ukrainians, but I do not know a single one who thinks that Yanukovych was the best president ever. How can you possibly write this rubbish?

Yanukovich is now considered by Ukrainians the best President the country had.
 
Scorpius
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:45 am

alfa164 wrote:
anrec80 wrote:
There is no "re-writing history". There was exactly an armed coup in Kiev. Nobody argues with this. Both Obama and Biden later confirmed - "we brokered the transfer of power". Any power transfer outside of constitution (such as legitimate impeachment, which never took place, death/murder of the President, or re-election) - is a coup, or an illegal seizure of power. This is exactly what happened. The government was not the same as was legitimately appointed by Parliament, it was formed from the crowd on Maidan. This has nothing to do with democratic legitimate process. In order for your post to make sense, new Kiev thugs should have at least bothered to kill the guy..


Of course you are trying to rewrite history; that is the only way Russia can distort what actually happened and "justify" its invasion(s). So let's take this step by step:

ADMIT OR DENY: In fall of 2013, President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms

ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 November, 2013, Yanukovych, under pressure from Russia, refused to sign that agreement at the last minute.

ADMIT OR DENY: Yanukovych's about-face set the stage for the protests that led to his departure in disgrace.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 18 February, 2014, some 20,000 Euromaidan protesters advanced on Ukraine's parliament in support of restoring the Constitution of Ukraine to its 2004 form, which had been repealed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shortly after Yanukovych was elected president in 2010.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 20 February, Internal Affairs Minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko announced that he had signed a decree authorising the use of live ammunition against protesters. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, using live bullets and resulting in 82 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, President Yanukovych signed a compromise deal with opposition leaders. It promised constitutional changes to restore certain powers to Parliament and called for early elections to be held by December.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, an impeachment bill was introduced in Parliament.. On the same day, Yanukovych left for Kharkiv to attend a summit of southeastern regions.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 22 February, the Parliament, controlled by Yanukovych's own political party, voted 328–0 in favour of impeaching Yanukovych and scheduled new presidential elections for 25 May.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 23 February, Parliament - the same Parliament controlled by Yanukovych's own party - named its speaker, Oleksandr Turchynov, as interim president .

ADMIT OR DENY: On 28 February, Yanukovych suddenly appears in Russia, denouncing the "coup" and asking Putin to act decisively.

ADMIT OR DENY: On 1 March, Russia's parliament approved a request from President Vladimir Putin to deploy Russian troops to Ukraine, setting the stage for the instability in the region that continues through today.


Facts are stubborn little things, not so easily dislodged by Russian propaganda and disinformation.


anrec80 wrote:
There is nothing called "ran away" in legislature - any Constitution clearly defines when an acting President can be removed from power, and what is the process. The process in Ukraine was never followed. Furthermore, Yanukovich still carries the title of the "President" - something all former Presidents are entitled to, unless they were impeached.


Ahhhh... another attempt to deny the facts. The Ukrainian Parliament - led by Yanukovych's own party - filed an impeachment bill on 21 February, 2014, and voted 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych the next day. That, good sir, is the process - and it was followed.

He may still claim the title of "President" - just as you may claim to be an honest historian - but the facts, in both cases, prove otherwise.



1. ADMIT OR DENY: 11 Dec 2013 Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey R. Pyatt on the Maidan
Image

2. ADMIT OR DENY: On December 15, 2013, Chris Murphy and John McCain support the protests at Maidan. To the left of McCain is the leader of the neo-Nazi party " Svoboda - Oleg Tyagnibok.
Image

3. ADMIT OR DENY: Protesters on the Maidan actively used incendiary bombs, throwing them to the police.

4. ADMIT OR DENY: Among protesters on the Maidan the most active participation in disorders was taken by groups of the local neo-Nazi organizations including putting on the equipment Nazi symbolics.

5. ADMIT OR DENY: Ukraine is a state that emerged as a result of separatism in the Russian Empire.

6. ADMIT OR DENY: Crimea and the East of Ukraine have historically been part of Russia and were transferred to the USSR solely for administrative convenience. After leaving the USSR, Ukraine de facto annexed these territories.

7. ADMIT OR DENY: Crimea is a strategically important object for Russia's security in the black sea region

8. ADMIT OR DENY: The population of Crimea is more than 60% ethnic Russian.

9. ADMIT OR DENY: The Crimean Parliament has repeatedly raised the issue of Crimea's withdrawal from Ukraine earlier, since 1999. The status of Crimea has also been questioned since Ukraine's separation from the USSR.

10. ADMIT OR DENY: In 1994, Ukraine illegally abolished the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and abolished the Post of President of Crimea. The then President of Crimea, Yuri Meshkov, was subjected to political persecution and was forced to leave the territory of Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine has carried out an illegal act of annexation and usurpation of powers in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. No international sanctions have been applied to Ukraine for these actions.
 
jordanh
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:56 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:03 am

Scorpius wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
anrec80 wrote:
There is no "re-writing history". There was exactly an armed coup in Kiev. Nobody argues with this. Both Obama and Biden later confirmed - "we brokered the transfer of power". Any power transfer outside of constitution (such as legitimate impeachment, which never took place, death/murder of the President, or re-election) - is a coup, or an illegal seizure of power. This is exactly what happened. The government was not the same as was legitimately appointed by Parliament, it was formed from the crowd on Maidan. This has nothing to do with democratic legitimate process. In order for your post to make sense, new Kiev thugs should have at least bothered to kill the guy..

Of course you are trying to rewrite history; that is the only way Russia can distort what actually happened and "justify" its invasion(s). So let's take this step by step:
ADMIT OR DENY: In fall of 2013, President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms
ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 November, 2013, Yanukovych, under pressure from Russia, refused to sign that agreement at the last minute.
ADMIT OR DENY: Yanukovych's about-face set the stage for the protests that led to his departure in disgrace.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 18 February, 2014, some 20,000 Euromaidan protesters advanced on Ukraine's parliament in support of restoring the Constitution of Ukraine to its 2004 form, which had been repealed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shortly after Yanukovych was elected president in 2010.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 20 February, Internal Affairs Minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko announced that he had signed a decree authorising the use of live ammunition against protesters. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, using live bullets and resulting in 82 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, President Yanukovych signed a compromise deal with opposition leaders. It promised constitutional changes to restore certain powers to Parliament and called for early elections to be held by December.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, an impeachment bill was introduced in Parliament.. On the same day, Yanukovych left for Kharkiv to attend a summit of southeastern regions.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 22 February, the Parliament, controlled by Yanukovych's own political party, voted 328–0 in favour of impeaching Yanukovych and scheduled new presidential elections for 25 May.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 23 February, Parliament - the same Parliament controlled by Yanukovych's own party - named its speaker, Oleksandr Turchynov, as interim president .
ADMIT OR DENY: On 28 February, Yanukovych suddenly appears in Russia, denouncing the "coup" and asking Putin to act decisively.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 1 March, Russia's parliament approved a request from President Vladimir Putin to deploy Russian troops to Ukraine, setting the stage for the instability in the region that continues through today.
Facts are stubborn little things, not so easily dislodged by Russian propaganda and disinformation.
anrec80 wrote:
There is nothing called "ran away" in legislature - any Constitution clearly defines when an acting President can be removed from power, and what is the process. The process in Ukraine was never followed. Furthermore, Yanukovich still carries the title of the "President" - something all former Presidents are entitled to, unless they were impeached.

Ahhhh... another attempt to deny the facts. The Ukrainian Parliament - led by Yanukovych's own party - filed an impeachment bill on 21 February, 2014, and voted 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych the next day. That, good sir, is the process - and it was followed.
He may still claim the title of "President" - just as you may claim to be an honest historian - but the facts, in both cases, prove otherwise.

1. ADMIT OR DENY: 11 Dec 2013 Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey R. Pyatt on the Maidan
Image
2. ADMIT OR DENY: On December 15, 2013, Chris Murphy and John McCain support the protests at Maidan. To the left of McCain is the leader of the neo-Nazi party " Svoboda - Oleg Tyagnibok.
Image
3. ADMIT OR DENY: Protesters on the Maidan actively used incendiary bombs, throwing them to the police.
4. ADMIT OR DENY: Among protesters on the Maidan the most active participation in disorders was taken by groups of the local neo-Nazi organizations including putting on the equipment Nazi symbolics.
5. ADMIT OR DENY: Ukraine is a state that emerged as a result of separatism in the Russian Empire.
6. ADMIT OR DENY: Crimea and the East of Ukraine have historically been part of Russia and were transferred to the USSR solely for administrative convenience. After leaving the USSR, Ukraine de facto annexed these territories.
7. ADMIT OR DENY: Crimea is a strategically important object for Russia's security in the black sea region
8. ADMIT OR DENY: The population of Crimea is more than 60% ethnic Russian.
9. ADMIT OR DENY: The Crimean Parliament has repeatedly raised the issue of Crimea's withdrawal from Ukraine earlier, since 1999. The status of Crimea has also been questioned since Ukraine's separation from the USSR.
10. ADMIT OR DENY: In 1994, Ukraine illegally abolished the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and abolished the Post of President of Crimea. The then President of Crimea, Yuri Meshkov, was subjected to political persecution and was forced to leave the territory of Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine has carried out an illegal act of annexation and usurpation of powers in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. No international sanctions have been applied to Ukraine for these actions.



I see the Russian troll factory is working overtime this week. I am not sure what those photos are supposed to show, but they prove nothing. The rest of the comments are straight from Russian propaganda - which exactly what this is.

Everyone in civilized countries knows this is all a part of Russia's disinformation campaign. The fact is the Soviets transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954:

"Crimea was part of Russia from 1783, when the Tsarist Empire annexed it a decade after defeating Ottoman forces in the Battle of Kozludzha, until 1954, when the Soviet government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR). The transfer was announced in the Soviet press in late February 1954, eight days after the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet adopted a resolution authorizing the move on 19 February. The text of the resolution and some anodyne excerpts from the proceedings of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet meeting on 19 February were published along with the very brief announcement."
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publicatio ... -years-ago

Russia invaded and took Crimea because it wanted Crimea. It had the brute force to do it, but in doing that, it alienated the civilized world in the west. All the fake "facts" and disinformation from the Russian propaganda machine can't change that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/worl ... ctory.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... a-soap-ope

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2237.html

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ssia-today

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/after ... everything
 
Scorpius
Posts: 813
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:14 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:47 am

jordanh wrote:
Scorpius wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
Of course you are trying to rewrite history; that is the only way Russia can distort what actually happened and "justify" its invasion(s). So let's take this step by step:
ADMIT OR DENY: In fall of 2013, President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms
ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 November, 2013, Yanukovych, under pressure from Russia, refused to sign that agreement at the last minute.
ADMIT OR DENY: Yanukovych's about-face set the stage for the protests that led to his departure in disgrace.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 18 February, 2014, some 20,000 Euromaidan protesters advanced on Ukraine's parliament in support of restoring the Constitution of Ukraine to its 2004 form, which had been repealed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shortly after Yanukovych was elected president in 2010.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 20 February, Internal Affairs Minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko announced that he had signed a decree authorising the use of live ammunition against protesters. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, using live bullets and resulting in 82 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, President Yanukovych signed a compromise deal with opposition leaders. It promised constitutional changes to restore certain powers to Parliament and called for early elections to be held by December.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 21 February, an impeachment bill was introduced in Parliament.. On the same day, Yanukovych left for Kharkiv to attend a summit of southeastern regions.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 22 February, the Parliament, controlled by Yanukovych's own political party, voted 328–0 in favour of impeaching Yanukovych and scheduled new presidential elections for 25 May.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 23 February, Parliament - the same Parliament controlled by Yanukovych's own party - named its speaker, Oleksandr Turchynov, as interim president .
ADMIT OR DENY: On 28 February, Yanukovych suddenly appears in Russia, denouncing the "coup" and asking Putin to act decisively.
ADMIT OR DENY: On 1 March, Russia's parliament approved a request from President Vladimir Putin to deploy Russian troops to Ukraine, setting the stage for the instability in the region that continues through today.
Facts are stubborn little things, not so easily dislodged by Russian propaganda and disinformation.

Ahhhh... another attempt to deny the facts. The Ukrainian Parliament - led by Yanukovych's own party - filed an impeachment bill on 21 February, 2014, and voted 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych the next day. That, good sir, is the process - and it was followed.
He may still claim the title of "President" - just as you may claim to be an honest historian - but the facts, in both cases, prove otherwise.

1. ADMIT OR DENY: 11 Dec 2013 Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey R. Pyatt on the Maidan
Image
2. ADMIT OR DENY: On December 15, 2013, Chris Murphy and John McCain support the protests at Maidan. To the left of McCain is the leader of the neo-Nazi party " Svoboda - Oleg Tyagnibok.
Image
3. ADMIT OR DENY: Protesters on the Maidan actively used incendiary bombs, throwing them to the police.
4. ADMIT OR DENY: Among protesters on the Maidan the most active participation in disorders was taken by groups of the local neo-Nazi organizations including putting on the equipment Nazi symbolics.
5. ADMIT OR DENY: Ukraine is a state that emerged as a result of separatism in the Russian Empire.
6. ADMIT OR DENY: Crimea and the East of Ukraine have historically been part of Russia and were transferred to the USSR solely for administrative convenience. After leaving the USSR, Ukraine de facto annexed these territories.
7. ADMIT OR DENY: Crimea is a strategically important object for Russia's security in the black sea region
8. ADMIT OR DENY: The population of Crimea is more than 60% ethnic Russian.
9. ADMIT OR DENY: The Crimean Parliament has repeatedly raised the issue of Crimea's withdrawal from Ukraine earlier, since 1999. The status of Crimea has also been questioned since Ukraine's separation from the USSR.
10. ADMIT OR DENY: In 1994, Ukraine illegally abolished the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and abolished the Post of President of Crimea. The then President of Crimea, Yuri Meshkov, was subjected to political persecution and was forced to leave the territory of Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine has carried out an illegal act of annexation and usurpation of powers in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. No international sanctions have been applied to Ukraine for these actions.



I see the Russian troll factory is working overtime this week. I am not sure what those photos are supposed to show, but they prove nothing. The rest of the comments are straight from Russian propaganda - which exactly what this is.

Everyone in civilized countries knows this is all a part of Russia's disinformation campaign. The fact is the Soviets transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954:

"Crimea was part of Russia from 1783, when the Tsarist Empire annexed it a decade after defeating Ottoman forces in the Battle of Kozludzha, until 1954, when the Soviet government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR). The transfer was announced in the Soviet press in late February 1954, eight days after the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet adopted a resolution authorizing the move on 19 February. The text of the resolution and some anodyne excerpts from the proceedings of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet meeting on 19 February were published along with the very brief announcement."
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publicatio ... -years-ago

Russia invaded and took Crimea because it wanted Crimea. It had the brute force to do it, but in doing that, it alienated the civilized world in the west. All the fake "facts" and disinformation from the Russian propaganda machine can't change that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/worl ... ctory.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... a-soap-ope

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2237.html

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ssia-today

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/after ... everything


You use primitive propaganda methods. "The whole civilized world" is not an authoritative source. At the moment, Crimea is officially recognized as part of Russia in 12 countries: Armenia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe.

Sanctions against Russia are supported mainly by us satellites-EU countries or NATO members. The rest of the country is not carried out in respect of Russia sanctions policy. China-one of the key world States today, de facto recognized Crimea as Russian. I can also say that even those States that nominally joined the sanctions, did it forcedly and under pressure from the United States. As for the United States, they still see Russia as their main geopolitical enemy and do everything possible to prevent Russia from restoring its status as a center of power in geopolitics. Because it will mean the collapse of US influence and will lead to extremely negative consequences for the US.

Total in the dry balance we have: the territory of the former Soviet Union one way or another will again be United around a single center of political attraction - Moscow. This situation is not repeated for the first time, the last almost a thousand years, one way or another, Moscow acts as a center of power, around which geopolitical resources of the continent begin to accumulate.

The United States and Britain are categorically against such a development, since such a scenario means the end of Anglo-Saxon hegemony. We will see for a long time the attempts of the agonizing colonial powers to preserve the world order favorable to them, but over time the current geopolitical formation will collapse, and the next period of development of society will come in the world. This process will take centuries, but over time a new human community will be formed - without countries claiming world domination. The US and the UK will be in every way to prevent this, but in the end it will be.
 
anrec80
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:04 am

jordanh wrote:
Everyone in civilized countries knows this is all a part of Russia's disinformation campaign.


Can we get a bit more details about these “civilized” countries please? What are these countries? And what countries are not civilized then? Yes, there are some “countries calling themselves civilized” - perhaps this is the clause you should use.
 
jordanh
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:56 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:20 am

anrec80 wrote:
jordanh wrote:
Everyone in civilized countries knows this is all a part of Russia's disinformation campaign.

Can we get a bit more details about these “civilized” countries please? What are these countries? And what countries are not civilized then? Yes, there are some “countries calling themselves civilized” - perhaps this is the clause you should use.


Civilized countries, in this case, would be pretty much any country except:
Scorpius wrote:
Armenia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe.


...and liliPutin's Russia, of course... ;)
 
Scipio
Topic Author
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:07 am

NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, speaking yesterday after the meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission:

We are also concerned by Russia’s military build-up in the Black Sea region. Black Sea security is a priority for NATO and for Georgia.



We follow the situation in the Azov Sea very closely and we are concerned because what we see is that Russia is impeding normal civilian traffic, commercial vessels, and, of course, that’s a problem for Ukraine, which has seen that normal traffic from some of its harbours - in Mariupol and other places - has been impeded or there have been problems with the normal traffic in and out. And I think just is one example of a pattern we have seen, that Russia illegally annexed Crimea, then continued to destabilise especially Donbass, but also through the activities in the Azov Sea they continue to try to destabilise Ukraine. So, what NATO does is that we provide support with political support, with practical support, partly within the different NATO programmes, trust funds and so on, but of course NATO Allies also provide support bilaterally to Ukraine, and again this is about partly political, helping to modernise the Ukrainian armed forces, the security institutions, different trust funds, but also about equipment and other kinds of direct support. This was something we discussed when we met President Poroshenko here in July. It was also something I discussed briefly with him when I met him in New York recently, and NATO will continue to provide support to Ukraine, but of course we also strongly support the efforts to find a political solution to fully implement the Minsk Agreement, which is the only viable way to a peaceful settlement of the conflict and the problems we see in and around Ukraine, including the Azov Sea.


https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_158688.htm
 
anrec80
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:33 am

jordanh wrote:
Civilized countries, in this case, would be pretty much any country except:
Scorpius wrote:
Armenia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe.


...and liliPutin's Russia, of course... ;)


So these are uncivilized? And what "uncivilized" did they do? Did they start any wars anywhere? Kill any people anywhere (in a proven manner of course)? Committed any other atrocities? We can, however, mention an immense number of aggression acts, mass murders, war crimes (including against own people), and support of such by countries you mention as "civilized". By far more then these "uncivilized" combined together. Orders of magnitude more perhaps. Perhaps we should from now on call "civilized" countries "uncivilized", and vice versa?
 
Scipio
Topic Author
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:12 pm

One of the apparent consequences of the Azov Sea crisis: the US is reportedly considering giving the Ukrainian Navy Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates.

https://www.unian.info/politics/1030374 ... -seas.html

If this materializes, these frigates would become the biggest warships in the Ukrainian Navy's fleet, exceeding the size of the current flagship, the frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_frigate_Hetman_Sahaydachniy_(U130)
 
UltimoTiger777
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:19 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:17 am

Kiwirob wrote:
East Timor was taken from Indonesia


That's a bit of a strange way to look at it. East Timor unilaterally declared independence from Portugal and was then invaded by Indonesia. The UN never recognised Indonesia's rule in East Timor. Prior to Portuguese and Dutch rule there had never been a single, unitary state or entity called Indonesia which had ruled that area.

In fact, Indonesia accepted the results of the 1999 referendum and repealed the laws annexing East Timor.

Claiming East Timor was "taken" from Indonesia is disingenuous to say the least.
 
anrec80
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:52 pm

Scipio wrote:
One of the apparent consequences of the Azov Sea crisis: the US is reportedly considering giving the Ukrainian Navy Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates.

https://www.unian.info/politics/1030374 ... -seas.html

If this materializes, these frigates would become the biggest warships in the Ukrainian Navy's fleet, exceeding the size of the current flagship, the frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_frigate_Hetman_Sahaydachniy_(U130)


Yeah, interesting development. Plus the source - UNIAN news (Ukraine). Let's see how long will these ships last in their hands. Their Navy is in so horrible state that this Sahaydachniy can't sail far away from Odessa. Their border patrol vessel couldn't even sail around Crimea, and had to use a tug boat to sail around and go under the Crimean bridge (with Russian/Crimean navigators onboard). Let's see if this donation will improve its state.

This is a huge embarrassment and disgrace for Ukraine of course. A country that yet recently had facilities and competencies to build aircraft carriers now has to beg for used old frigates. I wonder when will they get stuck in Odessa due to lack of service, fuel and parts. And Western-made parts will be extremely expensive for Ukraine.
 
Jorg747
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:19 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:05 pm

anrec80 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

Wow, a repair tender commissioned in 1969 and a tug from 1973 which has had it's weapons removed. I'm sure the Russians (rebels and not) are shaking with fear...


Yeah - what did you expect from Ukrainians? They haven’t been getting anything new since their “independence”. Whatever was of any commercial value in their military has been and is being sold. And especially now - anything that’s of any commercial value is being sold, and they aren’t particularly selective of customers. They don’t mind to sell even to ISIS.

Hence for their own tasks, Ukrainian military has to make it work with whatever is of no value.


As if Russian Navy is shining example of global power projection. Much is old, underfunded, and stretch thin by Putin adventuring:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-once-superpower-navy-big-trouble-21796
 
anrec80
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:20 am

Jorg747 wrote:
As if Russian Navy is shining example of global power projection. Much is old, underfunded, and stretch thin by Putin adventuring:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-once-superpower-navy-big-trouble-21796


And nonetheless - the carrier went out into the sea, took part in mimilary campaign, and returned to its port. At that same time Britain - once “ruler of the seas” - haven’t had even one capable to get out there (now they are readying one). French one during Lybia bombings ran out of money and had to return to the home port.
 
Scipio
Topic Author
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:11 pm

anrec80 wrote:
Scipio wrote:
One of the apparent consequences of the Azov Sea crisis: the US is reportedly considering giving the Ukrainian Navy Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates.

https://www.unian.info/politics/1030374 ... -seas.html

If this materializes, these frigates would become the biggest warships in the Ukrainian Navy's fleet, exceeding the size of the current flagship, the frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_frigate_Hetman_Sahaydachniy_(U130)


Yeah, interesting development. Plus the source - UNIAN news (Ukraine). Let's see how long will these ships last in their hands. Their Navy is in so horrible state that this Sahaydachniy can't sail far away from Odessa. Their border patrol vessel couldn't even sail around Crimea, and had to use a tug boat to sail around and go under the Crimean bridge (with Russian/Crimean navigators onboard). Let's see if this donation will improve its state.

This is a huge embarrassment and disgrace for Ukraine of course. A country that yet recently had facilities and competencies to build aircraft carriers now has to beg for used old frigates. I wonder when will they get stuck in Odessa due to lack of service, fuel and parts. And Western-made parts will be extremely expensive for Ukraine.


As usual, you will not let facts get into the way of your Ukraine-bashing.

You forgot to mention that Ukraine lost most of its naval capabilities -- ships, infrastructure, staff, spare parts, ammunition, ... -- as a result of Russia's occupation of Crimea.

And, by the way, there was no "border patrol vessel" that sailed or was towed around Crimea recently...

Aren't they annoying, these things called "facts"?
 
Scipio
Topic Author
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:23 pm

Bellingcat published an analysis of the November 25 Kerch Strait incident:

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... -incident/
 
alfa164
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:47 pm

Scipio wrote:
Bellingcat published an analysis of the November 25 Kerch Strait incident:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... -incident/


Cue the Russian trolls in three...two...one...
 
Scipio
Topic Author
Posts: 917
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:57 pm

Following the Kerch Strait incident, the US stepped up its intelligence gathering in the area around the Azov Sea.

An analysis by The Aviationist:

https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/11/a ... -incident/
 
tu204
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:20 am

Scipio wrote:
Following the Kerch Strait incident, the US stepped up its intelligence gathering in the area around the Azov Sea.

An analysis by The Aviationist:

https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/11/a ... -incident/


Cool. They don't violate Russian airspace and fly around Crimea, so I don't see much of a problem. ;)
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
787Driver
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:14 pm

tu204 wrote:
Scipio wrote:
Following the Kerch Strait incident, the US stepped up its intelligence gathering in the area around the Azov Sea.

An analysis by The Aviationist:

https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/11/a ... -incident/


Cool. They don't violate Russian airspace and fly around Crimea, so I don't see much of a problem. ;)


And even if they did fly over Crimea, that would still not violate Russian airspace ;)
 
WIederling
Posts: 7200
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:17 pm

787Driver wrote:
And even if they did fly over Crimea, that would still not violate Russian airspace ;)


What does the fact that US snooping missions avoid going over the Krim pensinsula tell you? :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
tu204
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:26 pm

787Driver wrote:
tu204 wrote:
Scipio wrote:
Following the Kerch Strait incident, the US stepped up its intelligence gathering in the area around the Azov Sea.

An analysis by The Aviationist:

https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/11/a ... -incident/


Cool. They don't violate Russian airspace and fly around Crimea, so I don't see much of a problem. ;)



And even if they did fly over Crimea, that would still not violate Russian airspace ;)


Well then why don't they? ;)

If its Ukranian airspace, they are welcome to use it, right? :lol:
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
787Driver
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:47 pm

WIederling wrote:
787Driver wrote:
And even if they did fly over Crimea, that would still not violate Russian airspace ;)


What does the fact that US snooping missions avoid going over the Krim pensinsula tell you? :-)


That they don't want another Russian provocation as no doubt, the Russians will keep claiming that their illegal annexation was legal :) What does it tell you though ;)
 
User avatar
787Driver
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:48 pm

tu204 wrote:
787Driver wrote:
tu204 wrote:

Cool. They don't violate Russian airspace and fly around Crimea, so I don't see much of a problem. ;)



And even if they did fly over Crimea, that would still not violate Russian airspace ;)


Well then why don't they? ;)

If its Ukranian airspace, they are welcome to use it, right? :lol:


It still is, but occupied by a criminal occupier :)
 
tu204
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:10 pm

787Driver wrote:
tu204 wrote:
787Driver wrote:


And even if they did fly over Crimea, that would still not violate Russian airspace ;)


Well then why don't they? ;)

If its Ukranian airspace, they are welcome to use it, right? :lol:


It still is, but occupied by a criminal occupier :)


Well if it is, then your guys should feel free to use it at Ukraine's permission ;) :lol:
But for some reason they don't. So the US de-facto regognizes it as Russian airspace I guess. :mrgreen:
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:15 pm

tu204 wrote:
787Driver wrote:
tu204 wrote:

Well then why don't they? ;)

If its Ukranian airspace, they are welcome to use it, right? :lol:


It still is, but occupied by a criminal occupier :)


Well if it is, then your guys should feel free to use it at Ukraine's permission ;) :lol:
But for some reason they don't. So the US de-facto regognizes it as Russian airspace I guess. :mrgreen:


Yup and you got the sanctions in return.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
787Driver
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:26 pm

tu204 wrote:
787Driver wrote:
tu204 wrote:

Well then why don't they? ;)

If its Ukranian airspace, they are welcome to use it, right? :lol:


It still is, but occupied by a criminal occupier :)


Well if it is, then your guys should feel free to use it at Ukraine's permission ;) :lol:
But for some reason they don't. So the US de-facto regognizes it as Russian airspace I guess. :mrgreen:


Yes, the reason is quite obvious actually. Russia routinely prove that they have no respect for international law and agreements and even violate many other countries’ airspace many times a year. Russia is acting like a small spoiled kid crying for attention and by flying over Crimea even with the permission from Ukraine, Russia can then use it for their propaganda domestically to “prove” to its people how “aggressive” the West is.

Since Russia these days is so inferior when it comes to economy, technology etc., all they have left are nuclear weapons and a bullying attitude to stay relevant in the global order.
Last edited by 787Driver on Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
tu204
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 pm

Dutchy wrote:
tu204 wrote:
787Driver wrote:

It still is, but occupied by a criminal occupier :)


Well if it is, then your guys should feel free to use it at Ukraine's permission ;) :lol:
But for some reason they don't. So the US de-facto regognizes it as Russian airspace I guess. :mrgreen:


Yup and you got the sanctions in return.


Let me confirm, you are saying that the U.S. de-facto recognizes Crimea as Russian territory in exchange for sanctions?

What's wrong with that? 8-)
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
787Driver
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:29 pm

tu204 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
tu204 wrote:

Well if it is, then your guys should feel free to use it at Ukraine's permission ;) :lol:
But for some reason they don't. So the US de-facto regognizes it as Russian airspace I guess. :mrgreen:


Yup and you got the sanctions in return.


Let me confirm, you are saying that the U.S. de-facto recognizes Crimea as Russian territory in exchange for sanctions?

What's wrong with that? 8-)


Nope, the US/NATO just doesn’t want to fall to the low level Russia is doing and trying to pull them down to as well.

Ever wondered why Russia has no friends? Even most former Soviet nations dislike Russia.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:41 pm

tu204 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
tu204 wrote:

Well if it is, then your guys should feel free to use it at Ukraine's permission ;) :lol:
But for some reason they don't. So the US de-facto regognizes it as Russian airspace I guess. :mrgreen:


Yup and you got the sanctions in return.


Let me confirm, you are saying that the U.S. de-facto recognizes Crimea as Russian territory in exchange for sanctions?

What's wrong with that? 8-)


It is the same as the police recognize that you have been speeding with a ticket. Crimea isn't worth to steep so low as Russia to start a fight, sanctions are better.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tu204
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:51 pm

787Driver wrote:
tu204 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Yup and you got the sanctions in return.


Let me confirm, you are saying that the U.S. de-facto recognizes Crimea as Russian territory in exchange for sanctions?

What's wrong with that? 8-)


Nope, the US/NATO just doesn’t want to fall to the low level Russia is doing and trying to pull them down to as well.

Ever wondered why Russia has no friends? Even most former Soviet nations dislike Russia.


Plenty of friends. Outside of the U.S. and western Europe that is.
But with friends like those named above, who needs enemies? :lol:
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
tu204
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:09 pm

Dutchy wrote:
tu204 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Yup and you got the sanctions in return.


Let me confirm, you are saying that the U.S. de-facto recognizes Crimea as Russian territory in exchange for sanctions?

What's wrong with that? 8-)


It is the same as the police recognize that you have been speeding with a ticket. Crimea isn't worth to steep so low as Russia to start a fight, sanctions are better.


Meh. As I said, don't care about sanctions and I would say in the end they ended up doing greater good than bad for Russia.

But de-facto Crimea is recognized as Russia. As pointed out, NATO aircraft do not enter Russian airspace over Crimea, Visa cards work in Crimea, hell, there aren't many differences to living on the mainland. Western companies themselves ended up finding way to do business as they did not want to lose the business in Crimea and face obvious consequences of losing business in mainland Russia.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
787Driver
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:55 pm

tu204 wrote:
787Driver wrote:
tu204 wrote:

Let me confirm, you are saying that the U.S. de-facto recognizes Crimea as Russian territory in exchange for sanctions?

What's wrong with that? 8-)


Nope, the US/NATO just doesn’t want to fall to the low level Russia is doing and trying to pull them down to as well.

Ever wondered why Russia has no friends? Even most former Soviet nations dislike Russia.


Plenty of friends. Outside of the U.S. and western Europe that is.
But with friends like those named above, who needs enemies? :lol:


Ok good ahead and name them - I challenge you :D

Also, what I mean by friends are shared interests other than common hate (envy) towards the West because of higher standards of living and more global influence.
 
User avatar
787Driver
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:58 pm

tu204 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
tu204 wrote:

Let me confirm, you are saying that the U.S. de-facto recognizes Crimea as Russian territory in exchange for sanctions?

What's wrong with that? 8-)


It is the same as the police recognize that you have been speeding with a ticket. Crimea isn't worth to steep so low as Russia to start a fight, sanctions are better.


Meh. As I said, don't care about sanctions and I would say in the end they ended up doing greater good than bad for Russia.

But de-facto Crimea is recognized as Russia. As pointed out, NATO aircraft do not enter Russian airspace over Crimea, Visa cards work in Crimea, hell, there aren't many differences to living on the mainland. Western companies themselves ended up finding way to do business as they did not want to lose the business in Crimea and face obvious consequences of losing business in mainland Russia.


No it’s not, we just don’t bother giving Russia the attention they are crying for over Crimea. Russia just isn’t that important to be honest.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 16174
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:05 pm

anrec80 wrote:
There is no crime anywhere there. It's the right for self-determination.


So you support the right of Chechen's to have self-determination? :scratchchin:

It seems like they're doing overtime in the troll factory tonight! :sarcastic:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
tu204
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:14 pm

scbriml wrote:
anrec80 wrote:
There is no crime anywhere there. It's the right for self-determination.


So you support the right of Chechen's to have self-determination? :scratchchin:

It seems like they're doing overtime in the troll factory tonight! :sarcastic:


Yes I do, as a matter of fact.

And looks like you are clocking in late and missed quite a few days. Called in sick, or vacation? :sarcastic:
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
tu204
Posts: 1714
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Struggle for the Azov Sea

Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:17 pm

787Driver wrote:
tu204 wrote:
787Driver wrote:

Nope, the US/NATO just doesn’t want to fall to the low level Russia is doing and trying to pull them down to as well.

Ever wondered why Russia has no friends? Even most former Soviet nations dislike Russia.


Plenty of friends. Outside of the U.S. and western Europe that is.
But with friends like those named above, who needs enemies? :lol:


Ok good ahead and name them - I challenge you :D

Also, what I mean by friends are shared interests other than common hate (envy) towards the West because of higher standards of living and more global influence.


Sure.
Central Asian countries, China, pretty much all of South America and some Central America, half of the Middle East, Northern Africa, India and a few places in Eastern Europe.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abfr1, afcjets, Dutchy, Exabot [Bot], Flighty, FlyPNS1, marcelh, tommy1808 and 22 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos