Ukrainian Government Acknowledges that Some of Its Leaders Are Nazis

a reply to: DJW001

Was already posted by me in this thread. I am sure you know what I am talking about.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Putin is Hitler,

Well he may not be Hitler... but he sure has done some things that resemble what Hitler did.

Picking a side is like choosing between AIDS and cancer.

Didn't know you had a choice...I learn something new everyday.

a reply to: YouPeople

Seems like Ukraine is violating a treaty they already had with Russia. It seems that the pro Russian regions appealed to Moscow directly.

What treaty was that?

And as far as the pro Russians appealing to Moscow directly...No they didn't as Russia set up their own people to be in charge and have someone to be the middle man.

It´s not like they invaded and took over the whole country.

Except they did invade and took over Crimea.

Looks like a significant part of the population still wants to belong to Russia though. Obviously, this percentage used to be above 50% so it´s not like Russia never had any business there.

And you have something that backs that...correct?

Actually they didn't.

a reply to: DJW001

I'm not sure where you got this quote,

I do...

www.theguardian.com...

From the link I posted in an earlier post.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: JeanPaul

Putin is Hitler,

Well he may not be Hitler... but he sure has done some things that resemble what Hitler did.

Picking a side is like choosing between AIDS and cancer.

Didn't know you had a choice...I learn something new everyday.

Yes, you can choose not to cheerlead nationalistic war. Maybe see the million plus Iraqi's the USA has killed as human beings who deserve life. Maybe realize the dozens of wars, interventions and subversive regime change's forced by the US have not been to spread "freedom and democracy". Maybe come to the realization that various governments (especially the US) are not representing the best interests of humanity but the best interests of their nations elite, multinational corporations and financial institutions. Russia is an imperialist nation, only difference between the Russian gov and the US gov is the US gov is much more active across the globe with it's hands in far more (supposedly) "sovereign" nations than Russia.

If given the chance Russia would attempt to challenge US hegemony and take all of the wealth that comes along with it. As would China. Competition on a global scale for more sources of cheap labor, more resources, more consumers, more nations to take out loans, more lopsided trade deals etc. Only thing that separates the US and Russian governments is the US holds a disproportionate amount of power and global influence. The US is also very good at subversion and very good at propaganda. You know, "we're here to liberate you" over in Iraq. Or "our gov funded NGO's are spreading democracy". Or, "Vietnam is a threat to US national security". Or, "Venezuela is a threat to US national security". Anyone who thinks Venezuela is a threat to US national security is an idiot. This includes Obama. Anyhow, I can fill up 30 pages with a detailed list of US led/funded insurgencies, terrorist groups, fascist movements and wars. We can't really do the same with post Soviet Russia. This doesn't mean the Russian gov is benign or a force for good in the world. It's not. It's a business just like the USA, a business that seeks to represent the elite in their country.

Here's the thing, too many Americans are convinced US economic/military hegemony benefits them, as citizens. It doesn't. It benefits the top .01%. Most everyone else gets to live in household/consumer debt. If I were selfish and convinced US foreign policy actually benefited me, materially, I'd probably support it too. Is that what all the "team America" stuff is about? What do people think they get out of it? Like cheering for a football team. Is war a sport? Or are people convinced the US is actually spreading "peace and democracy"?

It's all about money. Profits. Wealth that doesn't "trickle down" to the population as a whole, it doesn't materially benefit the majority of the population. In fact, we pay for it. If not for the trillions spent on military/war we would have higher wages, more benefits, more social programs. Western European nations are leeching off US citizens as well. Some nations can afford more social programs largely because the USA's military sets the stage for market expansion. Makes safe conditions for investing the world over. Safe conditions for resource extraction, offshoring, expanding consumer bases in developing countries etc.

If NATO played that role the cost would be dispersed but then US corporations wouldn't be leading the way and Western European nations would have to spend much more on military, which would give the populations worse material conditions in Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Switzerland etc.

You can choose to not play along. There's not much you can do about any of it but you can choose to see it for what it is. If enough people actually do that then there might be something humanity can do about this non stop perpetual war. It's not "human nature", the industrial scale wars since the 19'th century are linked to the economic system. Nationalist competition. With various populations waving the flag, joining the military and being shot in the face or shooting someone in the face so some greedy finger licking pig can fill his bank account. It's rarely about Ideology. Even Hitler's rise to power was funded by big business and a couple financial institutions. They wanted him to go to end the socialist threat in Germany and then go to war with Russia. It was about money and they lost control of him. WW2 was also born of the ashes of WW1, which was an imperialist war (nationalist competition for profits).

Anyhow, since the end of WW2 the USA has been in perpetual war. Slaughtering millions of people. Millions. I'd underline that if I could. Overthrowing countless governments, many democratically elected governments. Assassinating political leaders. Arming, funding and training death squads. Supporting fascist regimes. Bombing multiple nations. What's so disgusting is the fact we've been doing this in the name of peace and democracy. You can choose to stop believing that. I don't, for one minute, think the Russian gov is any better )morally), they simply don't have the same capabilities right now. If given the chance they'd reap just as much death and destruction as the USA does and you can best believe they'd do it behind the facade of nationalism. With a bunch of Russian idiots joining the military, waving the flag, shooting people in the face so some fat lazy oligarch can accumulate billions. Populations have always been the suckers in this game. This long con. Even the right wing General Butler understood this:

www.ratical.org...

He lacked the full view though. How market expansion itself requires violence or the threat of violence. How conditions safe for investing are made. How resources are pushed into the market in ways which benefit western corporations and not the target populations in resource rich countries etc but he has a basic understanding. He couldn't have had a full view until the 1950's. He died in 1940. Anyhow, not much has changed, the manner in which patriotism is generated has changed. The way wars are fought have changed. Proxy forces are now used. Grandiose false narratives manufactured. Enemies in any part of the world that has a potential profit base. Usually resource rich regions. Or regions with a potentially large labor force and productive capabilities. Or nations with strategic geopolitical locations. If it's a place like Rwanda nobody gives a dam. Genocide? Do they have oil? No? Who cares? Ah, but a few terrorists in Nigeria...we have to get them! Think of the children! All those poor little girls! See how that works?

a reply to: JeanPaul

First thing I noticed in your rant is a lot of misconceptions on your behalf. Starting with Iraq civilian deaths where 114000 not millions. Most of those were IEDs built by terrorists. And obviously the Iraq wants US troops back never happens with Russia does it. As far as the US trying to spread democracy guilty as charged every government on the planet tried to make sure like minded people are in charge of other countries. Look at Ukraine the people wanted to remove the guy in Russians back pocket. When they spent billions to keep him in power. So what do they do they try to force Ukrainians back into the fold.

As far as the over used BS of corporations and their agenda I'll make this simple for you. No matter any decision made there are corporations that will benefit. It's what corporations do find needs and fill them to make money. If there is a war one corporation makes money If it's peace another. Bottom line is where ever in the world there is a chance to make money some corporation will be involved.

And last the Rwanda thing tried not to laugh. You know why the west doesn't get involved they learned their lesson. Countries like this their central government has no control its war lords and tribal leaders. Ethiopia showed what happens when you take a military into a country to help with no way to start a central government you end up with dead troops and no ability to change the outcome until the tribes and war lords stop. The only solution in a country like that is to wipe out half the population meaning there isn't a winning scenario.

a reply to: JeanPaul

If given the chance Russia would attempt to challenge US hegemony and take all of the wealth that comes along with it.

It is doing that; that's what the chaos they have created in Ukraine is all about.

As would China.

China is actively challenging American hegemony in East Asia. You really need to pick up a newspaper once in a while and keep up with events.

Competition on a global scale for more sources of cheap labor, more resources, more consumers, more nations to take out loans, more lopsided trade deals etc.

And so it has been for the past six thousand years or so. The borders of modern China are a testament to this process.

Only thing that separates the US and Russian governments is the US holds a disproportionate amount of power and global influence.

Given America's natural resources and human capital, there is nothing disproportionate about it at all. It has simply projected its inherent power to its maximum extent and is now starting to contract as the aforementioned resources tap out.

The US is also very good at subversion and very good at propaganda.

Not nearly as good as Russia. Russia tells bare faced lies and people do not question them. For example, the OP claims that the Ukrainian government admits that it's full of Nazis. Rather than apply critical thinking and doing their own research, even intelligent people like you take this lie at face value.

You know, "we're here to liberate you" over in Iraq.

The sad thing is that the idiots who planned that illegal invasion actually believed that. They did not understand that countries that rely on a cult of personality have insufficient nationalism to overcome the centrifugal forces of tribalism. You would know that if you bothered to read what I have written.

Or "our gov funded NGO's are spreading democracy".

If you don't believe this, you should probably explain why and provide some concrete evidence.

Or, "Vietnam is a threat to US national security".

That was another sincere but mistaken belief. The United States got involved in the Viet Namese Civil War because of a flawed policy of "containment." This military engagement was costly in terms of lives, the economy, and America's society and standing in the world. No-one profited from it and everyone lost something. To anticipate your response: Dow Chemical and Lockheed Aircraft would have made lots of money selling other products if LBJ had the wisdom to pull out in time.

Or, "Venezuela is a threat to US national security".

That is a mere formality:

Declaring any country a threat to national security is the first step in starting a U.S. sanctions program. The same process has been followed with countries such as Iran and Syria, U.S. officials said.

It is a necessary step towards imposing sanctions. What is the real reason sanctions are being imposed?

The White House said the order targeted people whose actions undermined democratic processes or institutions, had committed acts of violence or abuse of human rights, were involved in prohibiting or penalizing freedom of expression, or were government officials involved in public corruption.

"Venezuelan officials past and present who violate the human rights of Venezuelan citizens and engage in acts of public corruption will not be welcome here, and we now have the tools to block their assets and their use of U.S. financial systems," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement.

"We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government's efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents," he added...

The White House also called on Venezuela to release all political prisoners.

"We've seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela," Earnest said in the statement.

Anyone who thinks Venezuela is a threat to US national security is an idiot. This includes Obama.

www.reuters.com...

I agree. What's more, anyone who believes that the United States government considers Venezuela a threat to national security is an idiot.

Anyhow, I can fill up 30 pages with a detailed list of US led/funded insurgencies, terrorist groups, fascist movements and wars.

Excellent! I'm looking forward to participating on that thread!

We can't really do the same with post Soviet Russia.

Oh yes we can. I'll see your Korea and raise you a Hungary....

This doesn't mean the Russian gov is benign or a force for good in the world. It's not. It's a business just like the USA, a business that seeks to represent the elite in their country.

See? We can actually agree on a lot of things.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

All that information was in the article that you qouted.

a reply to: YouPeople

All that information was in the article that you qouted.

Did you actually understand what was said in that article?

And do you even know what the treaty was about, because I don't think you do?

Also you do understand that Russia broke the treaty first with Crimea...

These actions of the Russian Federation represent blatant violations of bilateral treaties and agreements in force between Russia and Ukraine, in particular, of the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (dated May 31, 1997), the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Status and Conditions of Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the Territory of Ukraine (dated May 28, 1997), as well as of the Agreement between the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Use of Airspace of Ukraine and of Airspace Over the Black Sea, Where Ukraine is Responsible for Security of Flights and Organization of Servicing of Air Traffic, by the Forces and Resources of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation (dated July 16, 1999).

Thus, in particular, Article 3 of the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation provides that: “The High Contracting Parties shall build their relations on the basis of principles of mutual respect of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, inviolability of borders, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-use of force or threat of force, including economic and other forms of pressure, non-interference into internal affairs…”.

Article 6 of the same Treaty provides that “Either of the High Contracting Parties shall abstain from participation in or the support of any actions whatsoever which are directed against the other High Contracting Party, and obligates itself not to conclude with third countries any treaties whatsoever that are directed against the other Party. Neither Party shall also allow that its territory be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party”.

mfa.gov.ua... ovimi-formuvannyami-chf-rf-na-teritoriji-ukrajini

SO how about you provide what Ukraine did to violate the treaty?

originally posted by: YouPeople
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

All that information was in the article that you qouted.

Wow after your rant and being corrected this is your response? Well i guess maybe your beginning to see the facts and it hurts that we agree that governments try to promote change in other governments huh? Difference is how you chose to do it in Ukraine the West . And yes Russia spent billions on Ukraine. Where Russia messed up was this Russia spent its billions bribing officials and offering lower energy prices. The west spent its money on education such as helping universities. Environmental clean up such as paying to help clean up Chernobyl and medical. Helped in cancer treatment breast cancer awareness all the things people would notice that improved their lives. This naturally meant the more developed the area the more they saw the advantages of western civilization.

No doubt about it this lead to the ouster of yanuchovich but here is the funny part didn't have to be that way. He chose that path he could have set government initiatives to improve education health and safety in which case he would still be there. Instead he chose soviet politics except bribes and try to maintain the status quo. Look at Poland they embraced change and quickly realized the old soviet method of government failed look what there economy is doing now. The reason Ukraine had a revolution is simple the people want a better life and realized they cant attain that continuing to do things the Russian way.Look at whats happening now Russia released figures and they will be bankrupt by 2017 as they say here we go again.

If Russia wanted to cement ties with its neighbors simple you dont invade them you spend money on infrastructure and creating free trade. Ukraine would have never left Russia if it wasnt for how they were treated every other year cutting off gas supplies restricting Ukrainian products in Russia all the while expecting them to keep their markets ope to Russias, This leads to embargos Russia placed making it harder for Ukrainians to make money. Then forcing the companies with products they do want to close plants in Ukraine to open others in Russia because Russia demanded it. When you look how Russia treats its neighbors its no surprise they are running to the EU with open arms.

Now what happened in eastern Ukraine simple large Russian population and all they have ever known is soviet style government its business as usual there. Wht did the EU not do as well there simple alot of farmers and miners and these people do not rely on government as much as bigger cities. also why the bigger cities are very unhappy under current Russian rule. Unfortunately for them they have alot of Chechens running around making sue they stay in line. I love it when you see people who are obviously not Ukrainian in uniforms fighting but yet Russia claims there not theirs .Im sure Chechens just love vacationing in Ukraine and wearing combat uniforms with Russian insignia's. Betting they bought them at the shop at the airport.

one more thing see whats happening in eastern Ukraine Russia is losing control over the rebels and chechens they are sitting up there own little fifdoms. They have the locals scared to death of them so even in eastern Ukraine attitudes are changing the longer his goes on.More and more Ukrainians are going to want the Russian troops gone so their life can return to normal. Time is on the side of Ukraine not Russia going to take awhile for Putin to figure that out.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Also you do understand that Russia broke the treaty first with Crimea...

But this statement from your article is from 2013 before Crimea.

"But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia."

SO how about you provide what Ukraine did to violate the treaty?

Really? You just qouted the answer.

Article 6 of the same Treaty provides that “Either of the High Contracting Parties shall abstain from participation in or the support of any actions whatsoever which are directed against the other High Contracting Party, and obligates itself not to conclude with third countries any treaties whatsoever that are directed against the other Party. Neither Party shall also allow that its territory be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party”.

Seems pretty clear cut. Signing treaties with the EU would violate these agreements, at least potentially.

a reply to: dragonridr

Wow after your rant and being corrected this is your response?

There was no rant, and I certainly diddn't get "corrected" there.

Look at Poland they embraced change and quickly realized the old soviet method of government failed look what there economy is doing now.

Right, the EU is doing great. No economic crisis here. Nope.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h
Your avatar wears an American flag and portrays clown making a gesture so I guess you are from the US. Please kindly tell me what reason the USA has to be involved in any conflict between Russia and the Ukraine whether it be political, intelligence (oxymoron), finance or military and maybe I will pretend that this is not the sole reason you are on this site. Can you?

Your posts seem to be very anti-Russia and pro-western intervention in my opinion so why is it you care so much about what is happening there?

Just wondering….

a reply to: notmyrealname

Your avatar wears an American flag and portrays clown making a gesture so I guess you are from the US. Please kindly tell me what reason the USA has to be involved in any conflict between Russia and the Ukraine whether it be political, intelligence (oxymoron), finance or military and maybe I will pretend that this is not the sole reason you are on this site. Can you?

SO because I have an avatar that has the American flag that means I have an agenda...wow, can't say I haven't seen that before.

Let me ask you a question...or two...maybe three.

Why do you see it as okay for RUssia to do what they did in Ukraine?

And when the US is asked for help...we give it, and you see a problem with that, why?

My opinion is just that my opinion, and if you agree or don't agree I don't really care...but making me the topic of your posts is a bit derailing and off topic.

And why is it your so interested in me and why I am here...just so you know I am pro American( and damn proud to be one ) but I am not anti Russian but anti Putin and his actions as of late, so in the future if you have a problem with my posts fine...but keep the personal attacks out of it.

And if you looked at my posting history you wouldn't ask such asinine questions.

I have one last thing to ask...

Why do you think it is okay for Russia to do what they have done in Ukraine...are you pro Russian and see them as the victim
in this conflict?

Just Asking...

a reply to: YouPeople

But this statement from your article is from 2013 before Crimea.

You said they broke the treaty...I am still waiting on how they did it?

Seems pretty clear cut. Signing treaties with the EU would violate these agreements, at least potentially.

But wait you said they did violate this treaty...

Seems like Ukraine is violating a treaty they already had with Russia. It seems that the pro Russian regions appealed to Moscow directly.

I showed you the agreement and nowhere does it say Ukraine cannot join with the EU if they want to...Russia is making that up, but feel free to show where this treaty says they have to stay with Russia in the area of trade?

Article 6 of the same Treaty provides that “Either of the High Contracting Parties shall abstain from participation in or the support of any actions whatsoever which are directed against the other High Contracting Party, and obligates itself not to conclude with third countries any treaties whatsoever that are directed against the other Party. Neither Party shall also allow that its territory be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party”.

I see you really don't understand what this means do you?

So exactly how does joining the EU for better trade make Ukraine a detriment of security for Russia?

And BtW your the one who brought up the treaty which Russia violated well before the Ukrainians...and the funny thing is UKraine didn't sign with the EU so that would make Russia's Ukrainian incursion a violation of said treaty.

And potentially doesn't mean it happened...it means it could. Two very different things.

And I should point out that Article 3 was violated by Russia.

Article 3
The High Contracting Parties to build relationships with each other
the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereign equality,
territorial integrity, inviolability of borders, peaceful
settlement of disputes, non-use of force or threat of force,
including economic and other means of pressure, the right of peoples to freely
self-determination, non-interference in internal affairs,
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, cooperation between
States, the faithful fulfillment of international obligations, and
other generally recognized norms of international law.

Article 4
The High Contracting Parties believe that good-neighbourliness and
cooperation between them are important factors in improving
stability and security in Europe and throughout the world. They carry out
close cooperation with a view to strengthening international peace and
Security. They shall take the necessary measures to facilitate the
the process of general disarmament, the creation and strengthening of
collective security in Europe, as well as the strengthening of the peacekeeping role
The UN and strengthen regional security mechanisms.
Parties shall endeavour to settle all
controversial issues was carried out exclusively by peaceful means, and
shall cooperate in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and
situations that affect their interests.

Now pay close attention to the two articles posted above and the bold text as it provides exactly what Russia did to violate the treaty that you so think Ukraine violated.

Here enjoy reading the whole treaty...

kiev1.org...

And you should really understand the fact that Russia is involving itself into Ukraines internal affairs and violated the treaty when they strong armed Ukraine out of signing with the EU...or does that not count as meddling with the other's internal affairs?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Article 6 of the same Treaty provides that “Either of the High Contracting Parties shall abstain from participation in or the support of any actions whatsoever which are directed against the other High Contracting Party, and obligates itself not to conclude with third countries any treaties whatsoever that are directed against the other Party. Neither Party shall also allow that its territory be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party”.

There's your problem. Since it is a known legal fact that every single country in the world is aligned in vicious anti-Russian conspiracy, signing any sort of treaty with any nation but Russia is a flagrant violation of the treaty.

a reply to: DJW001

Neither Party shall also allow that its territory be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party”.

You forgot to bold that part.

This is from the article tsurfer posted,

Russia is making a last-minute push to derail the integration agreement, which is due to be signed in late November.

It was obviously a step towards joining the EU and Ukraine being a part of the EU means that its territory can be used to the detriment of Russia's security.

Seems like this part of the treaty was designed specifically to prevent a situation like this.

a reply to: YouPeople

It was obviously a step towards joining the EU and Ukraine being a part of the EU means that its territory can be used to the detriment of Russia's security.

So you agree that Putin is paranoid and considers any treaty Ukraine makes can be used to the detriment of Russia's security? Reminds me of Uncle Joe Stalin.

a reply to: YouPeople

This is from the article tsurfer posted,

And again you fail to understand what your reading.

It was obviously a step towards joining the EU and Ukraine being a part of the EU means that its territory can be used to the detriment of Russia's security.

And yet other countries that border Russia that are in the EU haven't done anything such as that yet Russia had no problems with them...why now Ukraine?

Seems like this part of the treaty was designed specifically to prevent a situation like this.

Seems you like to make things up as you go now.

And it seems you just don't even acknowledge the fact that Ukraine didn't sign with the EU and Russia still violated the treaty with what they did in Crimea, and before that strong arming of Ukraine so they didn't sign the agreement...why are you ignoring those facts?

And you still haven't shown where Ukraine violated the treaty...why is that?

Since you insist they did then you should be able to show where and how they did...and telling me it's in the links I provide won't suffice...so care to provide that information?

And how do you explain the fact that Russia is one of the EU's biggest trade partner...seems they aren't really worried about the EU if they are big trade partners.

ec.europa.eu...

a reply to: DJW001

So you agree that Putin is paranoid and considers any treaty Ukraine makes can be used to the detriment of Russia's security? Reminds me of Uncle Joe Stalin.

Yep and the fact that Ukraine didn't sign with the EU at the time shows what Putin is doing in Ukraine violates the exact treaty that supposedly Ukraine violated without actually violating.

The thinking of some is amazing.