So Russian forces have taken Slavynsk and Doneskt... anyone who said not past Crimea?

[fleshconsumed]

Here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/world/europe/photos-link-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html

Fern

You should know better than to post a link to the lies. The photographs have been discredited already. NYTimes was even forced to print an unapologetic follow up that admitted mistake (which I think was a deliberate lie) but continued to insist they're right about Russians in Ukraine.

Here you go, just so that nobody tries to bring it up as "evidence" again
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.c...aine-photo-story-shows-need-for-more-caution/

 

[theeedude]

It looks to me like Poroshenko (leading Ukrainian presidential candidate) and Putin are talking behind the scenes, and Putin is liking what he's hearing.
Poroshenko a couple days ago said Ukraine is not ready for NATO and he would not push for it without broad support, and specifically mention the risk of losing Donetsk region.
Now Putin is all of the sudden saying May presidential elections are a good idea, and separatist referendum should be put on hold, and pulling back troops from border.

 

[theeedude]

Uhmm, did YOU even read that poll? 51% of Shia thought the invasion was either somewhat wrong or absolutely wrong.

You claimed that Shia supported the overthrow of Saddam. When I provide you with polling numbers that show this is not so, you decide that opposition only counts among those who said it was 'absolutely' wrong instead of 'somewhat' wrong.

Remember a few posts back when you got all mad when I questioned your honesty? It's for things like that.

"Somewhat wrong" is some seriously strong opposition
If you were against a foreign occupation of your country, would you say it's "somewhat wrong" or "absolutely wrong?"

 

[fskimospy]

"Somewhat wrong" is some seriously strong opposition
If you were against a foreign occupation of your country, would you say it's "somewhat wrong" or "absolutely wrong?"

I don't know, if I wanted to gauge if someone was against the foreign occupation of their country I'd probably ask them like in question 19:

Q19 Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the
presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?

All Sunni arab Shia arab

Strongly Support 5 - 2
Somewhat Support 16 1 15
Somewhat Oppose 26 25 30
Strongly Oppose 53 73 54

So again, just stop.

 

[fskimospy]

It looks to me like Poroshenko (leading Ukrainian presidential candidate) and Putin are talking behind the scenes, and Putin is liking what he's hearing.
Poroshenko a couple days ago said Ukraine is not ready for NATO and he would not push for it without broad support, and specifically mention the risk of losing Donetsk region.
Now Putin is all of the sudden saying May presidential elections are a good idea, and separatist referendum should be put on hold, and pulling back troops from border.

Actually Poroshenko said he wouldn't push for it without at least 50% support within the country.

Interestingly, that's exactly the position of Tymoshenko. Now Senseamp wants us to believe that Putin was so afraid of Ukranian NATO membership that he only decided to call off his actions when a presumptive presidential winner was so bold as to reiterate the same position as they had before.

 

[theeedude]

I don't know, if I wanted to gauge if someone was against the foreign occupation of their country I'd probably ask them like in question 19:

Q19 Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the
presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?

All Sunni arab Shia arab

Strongly Support 5 - 2
Somewhat Support 16 1 15
Somewhat Oppose 26 25 30
Strongly Oppose 53 73 54

So again, just stop.

If Crimeans are opposed to the occupation, where is the resistance? Obviously tanks and APC's alone aren't enough to stop it from emerging if the population is against the occupation, as we have seen in Iraq.

 

[theeedude]

Actually Poroshenko said he wouldn't push for it without at least 50% support within the country.

Interestingly, that's exactly the position of Tymoshenko. Now Senseamp wants us to believe that Putin was so afraid of Ukranian NATO membership that he only decided to call off his actions when a presumptive presidential winner was so bold as to reiterate the same position as they had before.

http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/ukraine_not_ready_to_join_nato___poroshenko_321118

Now he's talking about 70%, and specifically mentioning the risk of losing the southeast, which Russia can ignite again if Ukraine makes steps towards NATO membership.

Poroshenko stressed that the future President must unite Ukraine. “When 70 percent are for NATO in the country - Poroshenko will be the first to lead (to NATO), if 30 percent, then - no, because this is a possible risk to lose Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Kharkiv or Odesa,” he believes.

Interestingly he didn't mention Crimea at all as regions at risk of being lost. Because it's a done deal.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by glenn1 View Post
The U.S. started things by engineering the coup that overthrew Viktor Yanukovich. The Russians followed it up by leaking the Fuck the EU phone call and beginning the operations we're talking about now. This is classic "blowback" in action.

Original post^

Originally Posted by Fern View Post
Where did you get this info?

I've only heard it from RT and it's supporters.

Fern

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957

here you go, please read the complete transcript. The yats they are referring to is the current prime minister of Ukraine. This conv happened a couple of months before 'yats' was made prime minister but as you can see even after the tape he was leaked, he was still made PM. Shows how shameless the US State dept is interfering and protecting the investments it made in Ukraine.

Thanks. I read all of it. I don't see where/how it shows that we engineered the coup.

I'm fairly sure I don't understand everything discussed (can't we find people who can speak intelligently and articulate clearly?) but looks to me like we're doing nothing more than trying to persuade some of the Ukrainian political players to move in the direction we prefer. Isn't that normal diplomacy?

I think to reasonably claim that we engineered the coup I'd need to some stuff far more sinister. E.g., where we're encouraging people to violence, making even paying money and providing supplies and tactics etc. And maybe sending in agents to help foment trouble etc.

Honestly, I'm not seeing it. And IMO the Ukrainians are to take the suggestions or not. I understand that Russia might not like us making suggestions. But tough shiz, Ukraine is a free country and can speak to whomever they like, us included

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

If Crimeans are opposed to the occupation, where is the resistance? Obviously tanks and APC's alone aren't enough to stop it from emerging if the population is against the occupation, as we have seen in Iraq.

Have you forgotten the entire purpose of this example? You are claiming that if there is no resistance there is no opposition. I just showed you how that was false. Now that you appear to have finally given in on that, you just went back and started repeating the same nonsense again.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/ukraine_not_ready_to_join_nato___poroshenko_321118

Now he's talking about 70%, and specifically mentioning the risk of losing the southeast, which Russia can ignite again if Ukraine makes steps towards NATO membership.

He's not saying anything different there than he was saying before. It's a turn of phrase. It is very interesting that you think Russia has been mollified from a stance that embraced possible nuclear war to one of backing off, all because a Ukranian politician reiterated the longstanding position of the Ukranian government on NATO membership.

Interestingly he didn't mention Crimea at all as regions at risk of being lost. Because it's a done deal.

Your continued excitement around Russian aggression is definitely disturbing.

 

[theeedude]

Have you forgotten the entire purpose of this example? You are claiming that if there is no resistance there is no opposition. I just showed you how that was false. Now that you appear to have finally given in on that, you just went back and started repeating the same nonsense again.

I didn't say there is no opposition. I said majority is for joining Russia. But you keep fighting that strawman.

 

[theeedude]

He's not saying anything different there than he was saying before. It's a turn of phrase. It is very interesting that you think Russia has been mollified from a stance that embraced possible nuclear war to one of backing off, all because a Ukranian politician reiterated the longstanding position of the Ukranian government on NATO membership.



Your continued excitement around Russian aggression is definitely disturbing.

Another ad hominem. What else is new? If the substance is lacking, I guess personal attack will have to do.

 

[Fern]

You should know better than to post a link to the lies. The photographs have been discredited already. NYTimes was even forced to print an unapologetic follow up that admitted mistake (which I think was a deliberate lie) but continued to insist they're right about Russians in Ukraine.

Here you go, just so that nobody tries to bring it up as "evidence" again
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.c...aine-photo-story-shows-need-for-more-caution/

Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, acknowledged that the assertion that the photograph in the American briefing materials had been taken in Russia was incorrect. But she said that the photograph was included in a “draft version” of a briefing packet and that the information has since been corrected. This photograph, she said, was not among those presented by Mr. Kerry in Geneva.

Still, Ms. Psaki asserted that there was considerable classified and unclassified information that had led the United States and its Western allies to “make a connection between the Russians and the armed militants” in eastern Ukraine.

“We don’t have a shadow of a doubt about the connection,” she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/w...-russia-units-to-ukraine.html?ref=todayspaper

I'm aware of questions over some of the photos, but it doesn't change the essential fact that there are claims that "Russian forces have advanced past Crimea" contrary to the claim in the post I was responding to:

Originally Posted by Jaskalas View Post
^ This post is still important. Thus far no one has brought us evidence, or even claims, that "Russian forces" have advanced forward past Crimea. Still waiting for the OP to back up the topic title.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't say there is no opposition. I said majority is for joining Russia. But you keep fighting that strawman.

And used a lack of casualties as proof. I just showed you a situation where the majority opposed it with similarly low levels of violence.

Don't blame me for your poor reasoning.

 

[theeedude]

And used a lack of casualties as proof. I just showed you a situation where the majority opposed it with similarly low levels of violence.

Don't blame me for your poor reasoning.

Similarly low? Like dozens or hundreds vs 1?

 

[fleshconsumed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/w...-russia-units-to-ukraine.html?ref=todayspaper

I'm aware of questions over some of the photos, but it doesn't change the essential fact that there are claims that "Russian forces have advanced past Crimea" contrary to the claim in the post I was responding to:



Fern

Still, posting links to an article that has been debunked already is disingenuous. There are far better article choices if you want to provide proof or claims or Russian involvement in Ukraine. That particular NYTimes article is not one of those since it's been proven to be a bold faced lie.

 

[shady28]

Guess what, supporting the overthrow of Saddam and supporting the US occupation are two entirely different things, and polling indicates that even the Shia thought overthrowing Saddam was wrong.

Public opposition to the US occupation frequently topped 75-80%, and topped 80% even among Shia Iraqis.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/09bbciraqipoll.pdf

Go back and look at earlier polling as well. The US was not viewed as a liberator, but as an occupier.

So seriously, just stop. When the facts don't support you, admit it.

Eskimospy, you just did a complete 180 degree turn and are now accusing Senseamp of taking the position you were taking.

Your information backs up his statements completely.

The US invaded Iraq and lost thousands of US lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, because the US was seen as occupiers not liberator.

Russia invaded Crimea and there was 1 casualty, because ... Russia is seen as liberators and not occupiers.

Yes it really is that simple.

 

[theeedude]

LOL. Obama administration now fighting enforcement of its own sanctions on Russia.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...an-in-boeing-lockheed-suit-fought-by-u-s.html

The U.S. asked a federal judge to lift an order temporarily blocking a Boeing Co.-Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) venture from buying Russian-made rocket engines for the Air Force, saying the purchases don’t violate sanctions imposed after Russia’s takeover of Crimea.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Susan Braden in Washington halted the transactions until she receives assurances from three departments that they don’t run afoul of President Barack Obama’s March 16 sanctions against Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who heads the country’s defense and space industries.

The government request to lift the ban includes a letter from a senior Treasury Department lawyer stating that “to the best of our knowledge” purchases from rocket maker NPO Energomash, which is owned by the Russian government, “currently do not directly or indirectly contravene” the sanctions against Rogozin.

The State Department concurred with the Treasury finding and the Commerce Department deferred to the other agencies, according to the government’s filing late yesterday.

 

[zinfamous]

They're NATo like UKRAINE is nato....

are you willfully ignorant?