Russian Federation Council Agrees to Putin's Request for military intervention in Crimea

OccamsRazor04

Maybe it happened 3 weeks later because Russia is instigating things in order to make land grabs .. which is what they are doing.

You can't displace a government so it looks legal in a day kid..These things take time.
People power on the street - Rioters paid by a german political group directly affiliated to Angela Merkels party, groups on the street led by ex members of the IDF?


You dont defy the western bankers and walk away unscathed. Look at Americas offer to the Taliban -

"we'll cover you with a blanket of gold, or bury you under a carpet of bombs"..

And this, for example -

Well there you have it :

11:08: Journalist Brian Whelan, who specialises in reporting on Europe's far-right, tweets:
Who is in charge of defence in post-revolution Ukraine? Andriy Parubiy of far-right Svoboda party and Dmytro Yarosh of Right Sector (nazis)

reply to post by Wookiep


I can do that! I'l try to keep away from personal opinion, you are right it doesn't add any weight to what's happening.

Ty

Edit: I have to leave now, so won't be able to update this for the next 10 or 12 hours. For those interested.

www.bbc.com... live feed
and twitter type in search bard #Crimea

US military seize documents raided by Ukrainian radicals – suspected looter

rt.com...
Ukrainian radical activists are conducting organized searches of residences of former government officials and handing over all documents to the US military, a man who says that he took part in some of these operations claims.

The allegations come from a Russian citizen who was detained by the Federal Security Service (FSB) shortly after returning from Ukraine. The 21-year-old, who calls himself Vladislav, says he spent some three days among the ranks of the Right Sector group in Kiev after the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovich, and took part in the raids of his deposed officials.

“They load buses with the self-defense troops and go to MPs’ dachas in the suburbs, to their apartments, and break down their doors. It’s not looting, like in taking furniture and stuff. They take documents and hand them over to special people, who check them,” he said in an interview with the Russia-24 news channel.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

reply to post by MessageforAll


Much appreciated, and thanks again! Your posts have been very insightful, see ya when you return!

reply to post by andy1972

You can't displace a government so it looks legal in a day kid.

So we can both agree that the pro-Russian government that appeared out of nowhere overnight in Eastern Ukraine does not even look legitimate?

andy1972

OccamsRazor04

Maybe it happened 3 weeks later because Russia is instigating things in order to make land grabs .. which is what they are doing.

You can't displace a government so it looks legal in a day kid..These things take time.
People power on the street - Rioters paid by a german political group directly affiliated to Angela Merkels party, groups on the street led by ex members of the IDF?


You dont defy the western bankers and walk away unscathed. Look at Americas offer to the Taliban -

"we'll cover you with a blanket of gold, or bury you under a carpet of bombs"..

So you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever other than rhetoric. When you get EVIDENCE and can point to EXACTLY what was illegal about it, let me know.

Ukraines Constitution outlines what must be done, what did they violate?

Just an FYI: The pro Russian govt. that IS unconstitional appeared exactly as you say can only happen via illegal means.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


The US wanted a deal and the Ukraine said NO...then all hell broke loose.

andy1972
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

The US wanted a deal and the Ukraine said NO...then all hell broke loose.

edit on AM7Sun20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

Correct. The United States wanted to resolve the situation peacefully. The FSB, you know, Russia's spy agency, tapped a diplomat's cell phone and made a private conversation public. Where is the outrage? When the US tapped a German politician's phone, the US was viewed as the most evil country of all time. When the Russians do it, it's okay? The sheer hypocrisy is staggering.

DJW001

andy1972
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

The US wanted a deal and the Ukraine said NO...then all hell broke loose.

edit on AM7Sun20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

Correct. The United States wanted to resolve the situation peacefully. The FSB, you know, Russia's spy agency, tapped a diplomat's cell phone and made a private conversation public. Where is the outrage? When the US tapped a German politician's phone, the US was viewed as the most evil country of all time. When the Russians do it, it's okay? The sheer hypocrisy is staggering.

The deal being the US put another muppet regime in power..you know, as they put it "One more friendly towards American intrests"..
Unfortunately, the Ukraine said no...and were seeing the results now.

andy1972
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

The US wanted a deal and the Ukraine said NO...then all hell broke loose.

edit on AM7Sun20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

She says of her proposed deal: ‘That would be great to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it. And you know, f*** the EU.’

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... html#ixzz2uo4I2JzI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Not F the Ukraine .. F the EU. Who cares? Now, when the Ukraine said no, did the US INVADE THEM and STEAL THEIR LAND?

But Russia who is doing this is the good guy? Are you out of your mind?

ETA: Also from your source ...

The ambassador tells Miss Nuland on the tape ‘I think we’re in play’ about a plan apparently being attempted by the US government to bring the two together, and who should head a new government.

Mr Pyatt adds that he fears if their plan starts taking shape ‘the Russians will try to do something behind the scenes to torpedo it.’


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... html#ixzz2uo56pJpb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The US wanted a DIPLOMATIC solution, bringing BOTH SIDES together.

Russia said no, we want a puppet state, how DARE the people of the Ukraine not bend to our will, and INVADED THEM.

To all those beating the war drum and demanding NATO go in.

Who do you expect to go fight and die in this new great war?

When my "country" comes knocking for meat for there grinder il be telling them to shove it.

I wont be fighting for a treaty signed when I was 5. Nor will i fight and die for the fools in goverment,

You will only get me on the front lines if :
1) obama and david camroon are there with a rifle on the front lines with me,
2) Russians have invaded france and knocking on the uk door

crazyewok
To all those beating the war drum and demanding NATO go in.

Who do you expect to go fight and die in this new great war?

When my "country" comes knocking for meat for there grinder il be telling them to shove it.

I wont be fighting for a treaty signed when I was 5. Nor will i fight and die for the fools in goverment,

You will only get me on the front lines if :
1) obama and david camroon are there with a rifle on the front lines with me,
2) Russians have invaded france and knocking on the uk door

The US does not need to "go in." The Ukrainian people can easily defeat the Russian army. Crimea can be isolated and starved.

OccamsRazor04

andy1972
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

The US wanted a deal and the Ukraine said NO...then all hell broke loose.

edit on AM7Sun20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

She says of her proposed deal: ‘That would be great to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it. And you know, f*** the EU.’

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... html#ixzz2uo4I2JzI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Not F the Ukraine .. F the EU. Who cares? Now, when the Ukraine said no, did the US INVADE THEM and STEAL THEIR LAND?

But Russia who is doing this is the good guy? Are you out of your mind?

ETA: Also from your source ...

The ambassador tells Miss Nuland on the tape ‘I think we’re in play’ about a plan apparently being attempted by the US government to bring the two together, and who should head a new government.

Mr Pyatt adds that he fears if their plan starts taking shape ‘the Russians will try to do something behind the scenes to torpedo it.’


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... html#ixzz2uo56pJpb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The US wanted a DIPLOMATIC solution, bringing BOTH SIDES together.

Russia said no, we want a puppet state, how DARE the people of the Ukraine not bend to our will, and INVADED THEM.

edit on 2-3-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

We have seen once and a thousand times how America, a law unto itself, is NOT BOTHERED by what the world says.
If it doesn't have a reason to invade a country it wants to, it will invent one, for example WMD's in Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin in vietnam...i could go on.

When the Ukraine decide it DIDN'T want to accept aid from the EU, it sealed it's fate.

The plan was then put into action to destabilise the pro Russian friendly government, having paid activists (ex idf aswell) on the street rioting and directing the crowds.
The USA wanted to broker a deal using the UN and NOT the EU, thus opening the doors to a NATO missile shield in Russias back yard a government pro american and not pro Russian.

However, the Ukraine accepted Russias deal and the games began.

Then US wanted to broker a deal to put in place their muppet..however -
Mr Pyatt adds that "he fears if their plan starts taking shape ‘the Russians will try to do something behind the scenes to torpedo it." and they did...They made a move that screwed up the US's plan to take control of the Ukraine..and how.

The Russians had paid for the Crimea until 2042, saving 15,000 jobs in the process. The gave the Ukraine a 30% discount on their gas bill.

The Americans and whoever else wanted to put in their proxy government and it didn't come off, just like the gas attacks in Syria by the rebels (with US help) were meant to provoke an American attack on Syria.

reply to post by andy1972

We have seen once and a thousand times how America, a law unto itself, is NOT BOTHERED by what the world says.
If it doesn't have a reason to invade a country it wants to, it will invent one, for example WMD's in Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin in vietnam...i could go on.

Who invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Georgia...? Russia actually wants the world to think it is aggressive. They love to send troops into defenseless countries. Problem is, if the countries fight back, Russia usually loses.

When the Ukraine decide it DIDN'T want to accept aid from the EU, it sealed it's fate.

Actually the majority of Ukrainians, as represented by their democratically elected Parliament, did want to accept both European aid and closer ties with the EU. It was one man, Yanukovych, who refused to sign the treaty.

The plan was then put into action to destabilise the pro Russian friendly government, having paid activists (ex idf aswell) on the street rioting and directing the crowds.

First of all, the government was not pro-Russian. It was attempting to achieve neutrality by signing trade agreements with both Russia and the EU. Putin found the thought of a neutral state leasing a vital naval base to him threatening, so he bribed the President to refuse to sign the agreement with Europe. Yanukovych is the worst kind of traitor: a bought one. As for the demonstrators being paid, you have produced only propaganda, not proof.

The USA wanted to broker a deal using the UN and NOT the EU, thus opening the doors to a NATO missile shield in Russias back yard a government pro american and not pro Russian.

NATO does not need Ukraine as a missile site. In fact, land based missiles are completely obsolete. But yes, the US and EU did have different approaches to the situation.

However, the Ukraine accepted Russias deal and the games began.

Wrong. A bought traitor refused to sign the agreement the Ukrainian people favored. This was not the only reason for the mass protests. For years, Ukraine was known as one of the most corrupt countries on Earth. Yanukovych's palace should be enough evidence to confirm both his corruption and his treason.

Xcouncil=wisdom
Hey Hey HEy
Lets keep in mind that Crimea's PM welcomes the Russian troops to help stabilize his region :
www.nbcnews.com...

"I am appealing to Russian President Vladimir Putin to provide assistance in ensuring peace and tranquility in the Crimean"
This is from Sergie Aksyonov the regions recently installed PM?

This is almost a carbon copy re-run of what happened in Bosnia-Serbia / Kosovo, part of the former Yugoslavia from the early 90's.

Those of us old enough, should remember clearly what happened to the innocent people there before UN troops went in to protect the ethnic minority in Kosovo...don't we.

Slaughter, genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass graves, rape and torture and murder of Women and Children, inhumanity, Fascism..were among the buzzwords and soundbites of the time used to describe the atrocities being carried out on the people of Kosovo by Bosnian Serbs...we all saw the images and read the accounts of this, if you were too young to remember or have a bad memory, it might be a good idea to read up on that war, and you'll see the eerie similarities to the situation that appears to be unfolding in Ukraine.

Coincidence? Perhaps..

Either way, when or if you read up on that genocide, you will quickly see that there are astounding parallels between what happened back then in Bosnia, and what could potentially, easily happen to Ukraine.

Crimea and it's majority population of ethnic Russians, can now be thought of as being in a similar position to the ethnic Muslims who were mostly in 'Kosovo'.

Ukraine can be thought of as Bosnia Herzegovina.

Russia can be thought of as being a more foresighted, proactive and protective version of what the UN should have been back in the 90's...since during the Bosnian / Kosovo genocide, the UN were procrastinating more than anything else and didn't get its backside moving until MUCH too late to prevent most of the inhumanity and genocidal acts perpetrated on the ethnic people there.

If we have learnt ANYTHING at all from history, especially recent history from the Balkans conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo, it's that these periods of unrest and national turmoil (whoever instigated it, and however it originated) almost ALWAYS result in attempts of or actual genocide against those seen by the majority in that country as undesirable, or enemies.

These victims will be the minority and arer usually situated in an area traditionally associated closely with that ethnic minority...in the Bosnian war that area was Kosovo and the ethnic minority were Muslims, today that area is Crimea and the ethnic minority are ethnic Russians.

The UN moved in troops to protect the Kosovo Muslims MUCH too late to prevent atrocity and slaughter..the RUSSIANS are acting to preempt a slaughter of their people at the hands of those Ukrainians with a far-right political bias, who would move to become what the Bosnian Serbs were during the Bosnian conflict.

I think the Russians should be commended for what they are doing to protect their ethnic people in Crimea.

All of us reading this now would want our own country and it's Government to act in exactly the same way to protect us if we were living abroad in a minority enclave, facing slaughter at the hands of a radicalized majority...to claim otherwise is to be dishonest.

Is there anyone at all who would feel Putin and Russia should wait to move in a protection force of troops into Crimea, until AFTER a slaughter!

Of course not.

If the UN had done the same thing in Kosovo as Russia is doing now in Crimea, and moved in a protective troop force much sooner, things would have gone very differently back in the 90's and many thousands of Men, Women and Children would not have suffered and died in the most terrible of circumstances.

Russia quite rightly wishes to avoid the same thing happening in Crimea, and they're right to do so if for no other reason than a Humanitarian one.

As some have suggested in this thread, Putin may face a coup in Russia for this action, let's put that into perspective...FAR from Putin facing a coup or being ousted himself over sending protection troops and armaments into Crimea, he surely would have faced one (and rightly so IMO) if he did nothing at all to protect the Russians living there and left them to a terrible fate at the hands of a murderous majority.

Does anyone remember Benghazi and the US government leaving their minority of countrymen to be slaughtered at the hands of the murderous majority?

It hasn't YET resulted in impeachment, but can any Americans honestly say they are happy that their fellows were left to be murdered and the US government took no action to prevent it from happening?...Honestly?

Russia is facing the same choice...Obama chose not to life a finger to aid Americans on that occasion...Putin is sending in gunships and troops to aid Russians...i suppose ultimately it will be history who decides who did and who didn't make the correct decision, but if i were an ethnic Russian in Crimea right now...i know without a doubt which i'd prefer Putin to do.

 

reply to post by MysterX


Are you seriously suggesting that there is a genuine ethnic component to this? Granted, the pro-Russian side can't stop itself from making anti-Semitic comments, but otherwise all of the players are almost genetically and culturally identical! Is the language you speak in your home worth killing or dying over? What difference does it make whether you worship at an Eastern Orthodox or a Catholic church? The ethnic angle is an ugly propaganda trick on the part of the Russian invaders. There was no "ethnic tension" until the corrupt government collapsed and the Russians needed an excuse to roll in.

Edit to add: For a moment there I forgot about the Tatars. They are the true minority in Ukraine. They fear they will be the objects of Russian genocide attempts, which is why they side with the Ukrainian government in Kiyev.

DJW001
reply to post by MysterX

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a genuine ethnic component to this? Granted, the pro-Russian side can't stop itself from making anti-Semitic comments, but otherwise all of the players are almost genetically and culturally identical! Is the language you speak in your home worth killing or dying over? What difference does it make whether you worship at an Eastern Orthodox or a Catholic church? The ethnic angle is an ugly propaganda trick on the part of the Russian invaders. There was no "ethnic tension" until the corrupt government collapsed and the Russians needed an excuse to roll in.

I don't agree..and it is clear from your earlier posts in this thread, that our views on this situation are approaching being diametrically opposed, and frankly are probably never going to be in alignment or agreement.

As for your question above, this is an example of how polar our opinions seem to be.

You ask if ones political or religious differences, nationalistic allegiances and alignments particularly matter? (paraphrasing of course)

I would answer that even if no real or actual differences exist, people will act regardless even on only perceived differences if that is calculated to be of strategic importance to one interested party or another in relation to the current situation unfolding in the region.

Internationally, as you know, full-scale wars have historically and are still instigated based on much less provocation or perceived differences than national identity or linguistic differences or preference.

It is basically often an 'opening a boiled egg from the pointed end, or the rounded end preference' thing, since pathetic and often very trivial differences and beliefs are used as a motivation force for the people to fight, by the protagonists and agitators, almost always for political, financial or material gain...yet wars are still fought and people still often die as a result of these pathetic differences nonetheless.

Religious differences, as used as a means or reason to commit war and or genocide on sections of society or specific groups within a region, would arguably speak for itself as being self-evident as a prime motivator for conflict.

Not only is it happening today around the world at large, but it is supposedly and ostensibly the prime reason for the current and ongoing global 'war on terror' or put another way, since extremes of religious views will exist for as long as the concept of religion itself exists and of course makes a useful tool to galvanise and push people into war and conflict.

In other words, of course differences, even pathetic and seemingly petty differences, whipped up and used to marginalize and demonize certain groups and sections, are absolutley used as a motive for slaughter and genocide as is shown repeatedly throughout history.

The fact that the differences used as prime mover for conflict might be trivial, is never any consolation in the slightest to the dead and tortured, the injured and dislocated used as pawns in the whole nasty business.

Incidentally, you think ethnicity equals race...sometimes it does, however, in the context of ethnic Russians residing in Crimea, this refers to their origin or home Nation, not genetic race.

Germans for example, are genetically and in many cases culturally identical to us Anglo-Saxon British, and to you Americans for that matter...that didn't prevent untold millions of us waging war and killing each other during the 20th century, and on many occasions many more millions in the preceding centuries..same goes for the French and other Nations in Europe.

Genetics don't have to factor into slaughter when there is a political power driving war for its own ends, using petty differences between groups as a prime mover to galvanise the pawns.

The government deposed in Ukraine may well have been corrupt, i would say Government and corruption are hand in glove generally around the world, so i would assume that as an axiom. But it is incorrect to say the Ukrainian government 'collapsed', as it did not collapse, rather it was deposed in a coup. An elected Government collapsing and being ousted in a coup are two very different things and deserve the correct language to be used.

The cause of the situation in Ukraine is complex and is increasing in inevitable complexity, as these things tend to do when opposing forces and interested parties are actively propagandizing, however when the 'fog of propaganda' is mentally removed, and the situation is reduced to its basics, it is clear to those without an ulterior agenda or other reason for bias, exactly who is at fault for instigating the Ukrainian situation, and that cannot possibly be Russia.

It is eminently debatable exactly who else would have a motive to destabilise the country, who would have a reason to enable, help and enact a coup to remove a pro-Russian, democratically elected Ukrainian Government and who would benefit and how so by facilitating the installation of a pro-EU/US regime in place of the previously elected Ukrainian Government...it wouldn't take a genius, but yes sure, it's debatable.

We could take educated guesses over who would benefit and who might have been behind this, but in any event it is certainly clear who would not benefit from a coup to depose an elected Ukrainian, and pro-Russian government, and that of course, is undoubtably Russia.

Russia has both the moral duty and the right to protect its people currently in Crimea. All the politicking in the world won't and cannot dispute this as fact.    

reply to post by MysterX

In other words, of course differences, even pathetic and seemingly petty differences, whipped up and used to marginalize and demonize certain groups and sections, are absolutley used as a motive for slaughter and genocide as is shown repeatedly throughout history.

Exactly. So why are you furthering the cynical propaganda that "ethnic Russians" are somehow under threat? The entire issue here is that Putin has gone from attempting to protect legitimate Russian assets (the actual naval base in Crimea with its attendant hard- and wet- ware) to attempting to politically control the entire peninsula. It has nothing to do with protecting "ethnic Russians," because no-one has ever threatened them! Even the Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazis in the Second World War directed their genocidal tendencies towards Jews and Tatars, not Slavs.

reply to post by DJW001

The US does not need to "go in." The Ukrainian people can easily defeat the Russian army. Crimea can be isolated and starved.

I agree the US doesn't need to "go in". It's absurd to suggest on multiple levels. Of course, that's no assurance our current leaders won't still do it.

Suggesting the Ukraine could defeat the Russian army suggests a profound lack of understanding to the situation as it exists there right now. The figures below are taken with a United Ukrainian military and not divided as it's coming to be now. Russia has no such division, in consideration of the figures.

Source

If Russia gets it in their head that they are going to restore power in Kiev to the President who was just run out of town, then Russia will do precisely that and nothing, anywhere close enough to physically interfere, can change that outcome.

Reversing it is a whole different matter and likely requires more than our Pres has in him. However, Ukraine poses no serious challenge to a determined Russian move. Putin won't play games with "just enough" force to do the job and get jammed in a crack, like we do on a regular basis.

If Russia moves...we're all about to see what a job done without question of outcome, looks like. Not a happy thing...but it may be about to happen.

edit on 2-3-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)