Ukraine

[Delroy Booth]

Are media reports of Russian troops, tanks, aircraft and helicopters in Crimea incorrect?

Russia's not invading anywhere brogdale, didn't you see, they're simply establishing basic security() who could say fairer than that?

 

[RosyFuture]

guardian shit thread >>

which live thread do you recommend then (besides urban, of course)?

 

[Fuchs66]

if he wants to destroy Ukraine he doesnt need to send in tanks. The tanks are there at the request of the Crimean republic, to keep it stabilised. They havent shot at anyone yet. If they werent there Im quite sure thered be a lot of shooting going on as speak .

which would you prefer ?

Thing is the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea has no power to deal in foreign affairs. Sovereignty over Crimea belongs still to the Ukrainian government. So while the internal administration of the Autonomous Republic is in the hands of the Crimean government they haven't got a legal leg to stand on when it comes to calling in the big boys from the east.

 

[Casually Red]

But do legal "troop movements" extend beyond the land (mostly bases, I suppose) they lease? What link did you read that said legal extends beyond leased land?


Please, again, can we have link to this?

well they have to get in and out of those bases so they are permitted to move accross the land. They are however required to inform the Ukranian authorities in advance of any such movements. Which they have observed to the letter, even though they question the coups legitimacy.

On Thursday, the Russian charge d'affaires in Kiev, Andrey Vorobyev, was summoned to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry and handed two diplomatic notes - one on the latest events in Ukraine and one asking Russia’s Black Sea fleet units to abstain from movements outside their deployment sites.

“The Russian Foreign Ministry has passed an reply to the Ukrainian side on the movement of the Black Sea Fleet armored vehicles in Crimea, which is caused by the necessity to provide security for the Black Sea fleet’s naval deployment areas on Ukrainian territory, which happens in full accordance with basic Russian-Ukrainian agreements on the Black Sea Fleet,” a statement published on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website reads.

http://rt.com/news/russian-vehicles-crimea-comply-agreements-227/


The developments follow an appeal by the Prime Minister of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, who requested that Russia to help cope with the crisis and ensure “peace and calm” in the region.

The tension in Crimea escalated following an attempt to seize the building of the local Interior Ministry by gunmen overnight. Russia’s Foreign Ministry condemned the move in a statement, blaming the new authorities in Kiev for intending to “destabilize the situation on the peninsula

http://rt.com/news/russia-troops-ukraine-possible-359/

 

[RosyFuture]

View attachment 49352


http://flyingrodent.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-cut-out-n-keep-guide-to-ostentatious.html

Nice. Should be in every ministry of foreign affairs.

 

[Casually Red]

Thing is the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea has no power to deal in foreign affairs. Sovereignty over Crimea belongs still to the Ukrainian government. So while the internal administration of the Autonomous Republic is in the hands of the Crimean government they haven't got a legal leg to stand on when it comes to calling in the big boys from the east.

the elected Ukranian government was deposed by force after the breaking of international agreements , by people who werent elected to lead Ukraine by anyone. And now arent permititng free elections to be held and have thrown the constitution in the gutter . Leading to the states overthrow. Interesting concept of legitmacy you have there. It seems to mean who has the most force. If so in this instance its the big boys from the east.

And Russias movement of vehicles falls within the terms of their agreement on the black sea fleets security needs. They were required to inform Kiev in advance in order to respect sovereignty, which they did. So sovereignty definitely hasnt been breached as yet .

 

[RosyFuture]

The chances of them getting into NATO would probably markedly increase as well.

What is your reasoning?

 

[J Ed]

One of the nationalist groups that were part of the demonstrations against former president Viktor Yanukovych has called on its members to mobilise and arm themselves.

According to Ukrainian Pravda, Sector Right called on all its units to mobilise.

This is their statement:


“Being aware of all the dangers that are looming over the Ukrainian state, the headquarters of the Right Sector orderall its units to mobilise and arm, and depending on the specific situation to coordinate with the armed forces.
We remind all citizens of Ukraine regardless of nationality (including Russians ) that our struggle is anti-imperial , not Russophobe . Russian empire will be destroyed. Urge Resistance Movement Caucasus and all liberation movements in Russia to step up their activities.”

Since it's not as if they can challenge the Russian army I don't want to think about what they are going to inflict on people in the West of Ukraine in reprisals

Also http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22133-pravy-sector-the-radical-force-of-ukrainian-maidan

 

[Casually Red]

Are media reports of Russian troops, tanks, aircraft and helicopters in Crimea incorrect?

are the media reports saying anything about what Russia is permitted to do in the Crimea under their agreement with Ukraine ? Kiev have been informed in advance, observing the protocls. Nowhere has been seized or stolen. Basic security cannot be guaranteed by Kiev. In the absence of it Russia is entitled to provide that necessary security, in accordance with their agreement.

 

[Casually Red]

Link on this info that they are paid?

i was being sarcastic, its the Guardian feed thats making that claim

 

[RosyFuture]

Anyone know much about the 1994 nukes treaty and UK responsibilities re: Ukrainian sovereignty?

I read something yesterday (can't remember where) that in not having nukes anymore UA had an agreement that it would be protected by whoever (USA? UK? Russia?). Guess if protection means anything that includes preserving UA territorial integrity, posh talk for 'no-one will be allowed to invade & occupy & then perhaps annex any of UA'.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

For what its worth, the Russian Ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office.

 

[RosyFuture]

Russia's not invading anywhere brogdale, didn't you see, they're simply establishing basic security() who could say fairer than that?

They're learning from others: this is the Israeli Strategy from 1948.

So I'm confused: why don't all imperialist powers support what Russia is doing?

 

[brogdale]

are the media reports saying anything about what Russia is permitted to do in the Crimea under their agreement with Ukraine ? Kiev have been informed in advance, observing the protocls. Nowhere has been seized or stolen. Basic security cannot be guaranteed by Kiev. In the absence of it Russia is entitled to provide that necessary security, in accordance with their agreement.

No, they're not. But then, presumably, that agreement was established by the ousted Ukrainian regime? I've not heard the present, post-revolutionary Ukrainian administration talking about Russian permission; they appear to regard the military incursion as an illegal occupation of their state.

 

[Eastern-Odyssey]

Trust fascists to be logical minded, Right Sector has just called for full mobilization of the Ukrainian army and all their members http://tsn.ua/politika/praviy-sekto...izaciyu-cherez-vtorgnennya-rosiyi-337429.html

In other news 97 people injured in Kharkiv, when Russian protesters stormed the local government building http://nbnews.com.ua/ua/news/114468/

It seems the sectarian divide that happened in Bosnia is already happening.

 

[Mooncat]

never mind

 

[Fuchs66]

the elected Ukranian government was deposed by force after the breaking of international agreements , by people who werent elected to lead Ukraine by anyone. And now arent permititng free elections to be held and have thrown the constitution in the gutter . Leading to the states overthrow. Interesting concept of legitmacy you have there. It seems to mean who has the most force. If so in this instance its the big boys from the east.

And Russias movement of vehicles falls within the terms of their agreement on the black sea fleets security needs. They were required to inform Kiev in advance in order to respect sovereignty, which they did. So sovereignty definitely hasnt been breached as yet .

It's still an internal matter for the Ukraine and the Crimean government has no legitimate right to meddle in external affairs.

 

[SpackleFrog]

theres nowt in the other parts except billions of debt and skint ukranians . The moneyspinners... industries , best agricultural land and tourist resorts are all in the east

btw the fash have now taken to casually spraying russian tourist coaches with gunfire now, one tourist seriously injured

EITHER POST LINKS OR DONT POST FFS. You're like a third of this thread and you don't back up any of the claims you make.

 

[RosyFuture]

well they have to get in and out of those bases so they are permitted to move accross the land. They are however required to inform the Ukranian authorities in advance of any such movements. Which they have observed to the letter, even though they question the coups legitimacy.

On Thursday, the Russian charge d'affaires in Kiev, Andrey Vorobyev, was summoned to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry and handed two diplomatic notes - one on the latest events in Ukraine and one asking Russia’s Black Sea fleet units to abstain from movements outside their deployment sites.

“The Russian Foreign Ministry has passed an reply to the Ukrainian side on the movement of the Black Sea Fleet armored vehicles in Crimea, which is caused by the necessity to provide security for the Black Sea fleet’s naval deployment areas on Ukrainian territory, which happens in full accordance with basic Russian-Ukrainian agreements on the Black Sea Fleet,” a statement published on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website reads.

http://rt.com/news/russian-vehicles-crimea-comply-agreements-227/
(my highlight)

So you have no evidence of legality, only an assertion from Igor & Igorina that it is legal.

That's OK. I just wonder what the evidence is on this, that is, the content of the UA-RU treaty.

The developments follow an appeal by the Prime Minister of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, who requested that Russia to help cope with the crisis and ensure “peace and calm” in the region.

The tension in Crimea escalated following an attempt to seize the building of the local Interior Ministry by gunmen overnight. Russia’s Foreign Ministry condemned the move in a statement, blaming the new authorities in Kiev for intending to “destabilize the situation on the peninsula

http://rt.com/news/russia-troops-ukraine-possible-359/

Thanks, & thanks for both links.

 

[Casually Red]

No, they're not. But then, presumably, that agreement was established by the ousted Ukrainian regime? I've not heard the present, post-revolutionary Ukrainian administration talking about Russian permission; they appear to regard the military incursion as an illegal occupation of their state.

the agreement was negotiated upon Ukraines secession from the USSR . It hasnt been renegoatiated in any meaningful way since, although they have made minor amendments and the like but nothing major .

The Kiev minister has as expected denounced the russian manouvres as illegal . But what he most certainly hasnt elaborated upon in any manner is how they actually are illegal . Theres no elaboration whatsoever in his very short statement .

While Russia appears to be observing the legalities by informing Kiev in advance of its intentions and continually emphasisng their legality under the arrangements for the fleets presence and security . But then again the same minister takes the view that setting fire to policemen , overthrowing the president by force and all of that is legal . So his views on what constitutes legality and what doesnt can be taken with a sizable pinch of salt . His own legitimacy is extremely questionable for that matter . And if Russia had breached any aspect of its Crimea agreement one would expect him to point out which bit of it was in breach of . He hasnt done that . Neither has the united states, EU, NATO, UN Secretary..nobody .

 

[framed]

Trust fascists to be logical minded, Right Sector has just called for full mobilization of the Ukrainian army and all their members http://tsn.ua/politika/praviy-sekto...izaciyu-cherez-vtorgnennya-rosiyi-337429.html

In other news 97 people injured in Kharkiv, when Russian protesters stormed the local government building http://nbnews.com.ua/ua/news/114468/

It seems the sectarian divide that happened in Bosnia is already happening.

Can this be described as a 'sectarian divide' as there appears to be little in the way of a religious element to it?

A clash of political cultures and national identities might be more accurate.

 

[brogdale]

the agreement was negotiated upon Ukraines secession from the USSR . It hasnt been renegoatiated in any meaningful way since, although they have made minor amendments and the like but nothing major .

The Kiev minister has as expected denounced the russian manouvres as illegal . But what he most certainly hasnt elaborated upon in any manner is how they actually are illegal . Theres no elaboration whatsoever in his very short statement .

While Russia appears to be observing the legalities by informing Kiev in advance of its intentions and continually emphasisng their legality under the arrangements for the fleets presence and security . But then again the same minister takes the view that setting fire to policemen , overthrowing the president by force and all of that is legal . So his views on what constitutes legality and what doesnt can be taken with a sizable pinch of salt . His own legitimacy is extremely questionable for that matter . And if Russia had breached any aspect of its Crimea agreement one would expect him to point out which bit of it was in breach of . He hasnt done that . Neither has the united states, EU, NATO, UN Secretary..nobody .

By this logic the Bolsheviks would have had to honour Tsarist international agreements. Obviously it's not in Russia's interest, but there has been a revolution; no?

 

[SpackleFrog]

It's still an internal matter for the Ukraine and the Crimean government has no legitimate right to meddle in external affairs.

Crimea is still part of the Ukraine. For now at least.

 

[RosyFuture]

of course it fucking stinks


fuck off zionist

theyre backing Al Qaeda in Syria and nazis in ukraine . They arent a jewish state, theyre a criminal state of utter hypocrites

What evidence do you have that the Israeli state is "backing Al Qaeda in Syria"?

 

[Theisticle]

http://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.c...-dont-think-russia-wants-to-annex-the-crimea/

 

[framed]

By this logic the Bolsheviks would have had to honour Tsarist international agreements. Obviously it's not in Russia's interest, but there has been a revolution; no?

There has certainly been a movement in Kiev that is seeking political change by extra-parliamentary means, but is it a country-wide 'revolution' and what are its politics, aims and objectives?

 

[Pickman's model]

By this logic the Bolsheviks would have had to honour Tsarist international agreements. Obviously it's not in Russia's interest, but there has been a revolution; no?

you mistake where we are now for a post-revolutionary situation. shame on you.

 

[Pickman's model]

There has certainly been a movement in Kiev that is seeking political change by extra-parliamentary means, but is it a country-wide 'revolution' and what are its politics, aims and objectives?

no, it's the first step in a series of events which will lead to tears before bedtime for a lot of people in the weeks and months ahead.

 

[thriller]

So, Mr President is unhappy with Russian land grab, but is happy to turn a blind eye to Israeli land grab.

 

[Pickman's model]

So, Mr President is unhappy with Russian land grab, but is happy to turn a blind eye to Israeli land grab.

to be fair to obama, it's not like johnson, nixon, ford, carter, reagan, bush i, clinton or bush ii really gave him a sterling example to follow on palestine.