- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,743
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
January 22, 2015
President Vladimir Putin's new peace proposal for Ukraine is little more than a blueprint for military occupation to secure territory seized by Moscow-backed rebels, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations said on Wednesday. "The plan would seek to legitimize territorial gains made by separatists in September as well as Russian personnel and equipment on the territory of Ukraine," U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told the UN Security Council. "Let us pull the veil away from Putin's peace plan and call it for what it is — a Russian occupation plan," she said during a special meeting of the 15-member body on Ukraine. Power said it was "a plan that would free Russia from the commitment it made in Minsk to withdraw its fighters and return control over the international border to Ukraine." "Time and again President Putin has extended an olive branch in one hand while passing out grad missiles and tanks with the other," she said.
January 22, 2015
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, speaking earlier at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said the upsurge in fighting after a nearly month-long lull was prompted by a new surge of Russian forces and weapons. "We have more than 9,000 troops of the Russian Federation on my territory, including more than 500 tanks and heavy artillery and armed personnel carriers," the pro-Western leader said. "Terror is not the problem of Ukraine, and even not the problem of Europe," Poroshenko told the high-powered audience in English. "This is a global problem. If this is not aggression, what is aggression?"
Kerry accuses rebels of attempting 'blatant land grab'
Simpleχity;1064224721 said:Russia also agreed in Minsk to pull all forces and equipment out of Ukraine.
Not opinion. Fact. Point 10 of 12 agreed to by Russia in signing the Minsk Agreement...Interesting opinion. This was told Ukrainian Nazis?..
10. Withdraw the illegal armed groups, military equipment, as well as fighters and mercenaries from Ukraine.
Simpleχity;1064228819 said:Not opinion. Fact. Point 10 of 12 agreed to by Russia in signing the Minsk Agreement...
The followup memorandum signed by Russia on 19 September 2014...Why do you think that this applies to Russia?
- To withdraw all foreign mercenaries from the conflict zone
Better get used to it. My bet is that Russia will not allow the west to set up camp in their back yard.
I see no problem with Russia taking its proper claim to the Ukraine and to the Crimea because the Ukraine belonged to Russia dating back 250 years to Catherine the Great circa 1764.Simpleχity;1064224721 said:The Moscow Times | U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'
Crimea is illegally occupied by Russia.
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Georgia, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Armenia, Moldova, Transnistria, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and the Arctic. States either already in the Russian sphere or experiencing pressures from Moscow.Better get used to it. My bet is that Russia will not allow the west to set up camp in their back yard.
You forgot... Alaska also once belonged to Russia.I see no problem with Russia taking its proper claim to the Ukraine and to the Crimea because the Ukraine belonged to Russia dating back 250 years to Catherine the Great circa 1764.
Simpleχity;1064233937 said:You forgot... Alaska also once belonged to Russia.
Better get used to it. My bet is that Russia will not allow the west to set up camp in their back yard.
Better get used to it. My bet is that Russia will not allow the west to set up camp in their back yard.
Simpleχity;1064232910 said:Ergo...Russian soldiers on "vacation". Rather than withdraw such forces, Putin has injected even more Russian soldiers and equipment into the conflict.
So Russia won't tolerate the West supposivily acting like a bully, so Putin turns around and acts like the bully himself?
Makes sense! :roll:
I see no problem with Russia taking its proper claim to the Ukraine and to the Crimea because the Ukraine belonged to Russia dating back 250 years to Catherine the Great circa 1764.
Today it is the West being led by the USA who tried to get the Ukraine to pull away from Russia or else none of the present hostilities would have happened.
That is correct if Russia ever wanted to reclaim Alaska THEN then at that time the USA would have a legitimate reason to get involved.Simpleχity;1064233937 said:You forgot... Alaska also once belonged to Russia.
The Eastern side has long history as Russian territory along with the people speaking Russian and belonging to the Orthodox Church and traditions which make the Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea as being a part of Russia.Whats 'proper' about Russias claim to Ukraine then ? The Ukrainians voted en mass to become independent in 1991. I've visited the country a number of times between 2005-12 both East and West Ukraine and believe me when I say the great bulk of them want nothing to do with being a part of some greater Russian empire. Surely its their right of self determination that has first priority ?
No Russia tried to stop Ukraine joining the EU and then potentially NATO. In polls before this happened well over 80% of Ukrainians were in favour of EU membership, this situation was intolerable for Putin who told his corrupt 'poodle' Yanukovych to do a complete U turn against the wishes of his people. The rest as they say is history
The Eastern side has long history as Russian territory along with the people speaking Russian and belonging to the Orthodox Church and traditions which make the Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea as being a part of Russia.
I realize that the USA has been pressuring and bribing the former Soviet Republics into joining the Western alliance and NATO which meant that the USA was instigating the hostilities with Russia and now that hostility has blossomed.
Fortunately for me is that I feel much safer by knowing our fate rest in the competent hands of their President Putin
Whats 'proper' about Russias claim to Ukraine then ? The Ukrainians voted en mass to become independent in 1991. I've visited the country a number of times between 2005-12 both East and West Ukraine and believe me when I say the great bulk of them want nothing to do with being a part of some greater Russian empire. Surely its their right of self determination that has first priority ?
No Russia tried to stop Ukraine joining the EU and then potentially NATO. In polls before this happened well over 80% of Ukrainians were in favour of EU membership, this situation was intolerable for Putin who told his corrupt 'poodle' Yanukovych to do a complete U turn against the wishes of his people. The rest as they say is history
I believe the referendum held in Crimea is much more representative than your "great bulk".
The history of elections in Ukraine - both presidential and for parliament - show your words are lie.
Pro-western parties could win elections in Ukraine only after revolutions and coups.
But in 2010 Viktor Yanukovich, the "evil pro-Russian candidate" wins again.
In 2014 pro-western powers win again. And again after violence and revolution. Now through blood and deaths. Turchinov was declared the president by parliament that was again violation of law. In extraordinary elections, after Yanukovich was expelled, all pro-Russian parties were supressed and many simply refused to take part in election due to safety reasons, Poroshenko has won. By the way, that was the lowest voters' turnout for all presidential elections in Ukraine.
The Eastern side has long history as Russian territory along with the people speaking Russian and belonging to the Orthodox Church and traditions which make the Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea as being a part of Russia.
I realize that the USA has been pressuring and bribing the former Soviet Republics into joining the Western alliance and NATO which meant that the USA was instigating the hostilities with Russia and now that hostility has blossomed.
Honestly I believe that if our USA's petty efforts were to succeed then Russia would launch a first strike against us - and rightly so.
Fortunately for me is that I feel much safer by knowing our fate rest in the competent hands of their President Putin instead of the worries I have from our own American war mongers getting us all killed.
There seemed to be no problem for them before Yanukovych except when Russia tried to poison them of course. Perhaps his locking up of the opposition leaders after he got elected might not have been a good idea with hindsight :roll:
I think his plundering of state coffers, jailing of opposition and his incomprehensible U turn on EU membership before cuddling up to Russia had rather more to do with his downfall than US conspiracy theories. If the West wanted Ukraine they could have had on a plate 20 years ago when Russia was bankrupt ,militarily prostrate and led by a drunk.
ST. PETERSBURG, January 26 /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that Moscow might extend the period of sojourn in Russian territory for Ukrainians of conscription age who can be drafted into the Ukrainian army.
“Many people, by the way, do not want to be mobilized. They are trying to move into Russia and lie low for some time. And they are absolutely right because they are simply being sent under bullets like cannon fodder,” Putin said.
“Under a new law, Ukrainian citizens cannot stay in Russia for more than 30 days. After that they have to return to Ukraine where they are being caught and sent under the bullets again. That is why I think that we are going to change something in that law”.
TASS: Russia - Russia may help Ukrainians of conscription age avoid army service
It's not conspiracy theories, it's well known facts, such as phone conversation between Pyatt and Nuland, for instance
, that shows the USA are completely inside Ukraine's politics. 20 years ago, as Ive said above, Ukraine was ruled by Leonid Kuchma who considered as pro-Russian even though he's never been so. Anyway he was much more independent, this is first. The second, all these so-called "non-governmental organizations" which are funded by US government proxies under cover of CIA - democracy foundations and so on - at that time weren't so spreaded all over Ukraine. Though Russia was bankrupt and led by drunk the USA had much less leverages in the new countries of former USSR. Simply because not enough time passed since Moscow with all its KGB and other special services lost control over Ukraine and over other former Soviet republics. If we talk about Ukraine then this country was ruled by so-called "red directors" - the heads of big industrial plants, Soviet industrial managers (exactly this part of social elite made Kuchma the president). The Ukrainian part of Soviet legacy included 700.000 army, the airforce that was fourth in the world by quantity - after USA, Russia and China, and also nuclear weapons. So, I don't think the USA had a big wish to get involved wich such country. making social experiments like revolutions in a country with nuclear bombs may worth too much. Now it's different. No nukes, no army, no KGB, no red directors, no state actually. I suppose your judgement about "20 years ago" is superficial and not enough thought out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?