Ukrainian Government Acknowledges that Some of Its Leaders Are Nazis

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.

It is logical strategic thinking. Just stop with the feigned naivety. If you can't see how this would be threatening to Russia then you just don't understand global politcs and strategy, and the stakes involved for the different players.

But I don't think that's really the case.

a reply to: YouPeople

It is logical strategic thinking. Just stop with the feigned naivety. If you can't see how this would be threatening to Russia then you just don't understand global politcs and strategy, and the stakes involved for the different players.

By whom?

Russia is no more in danger from the same people they trade with now as they did when Ukraine wanted to join before. Talk about one being naive.

You seemingly forget that Poland ( an EU country) borders Russia and we didn't see anything such as this happen, why is that?

Seems Russia wouldn't be one of the EU's top trading partner if they were so concerned about them now would they?

Simple things like that make your theory just a sad attempt to condone what Russia did to their sovereign nation neighbor.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You seemingly forget that Poland ( an EU country) borders Russia and we didn't see anything such as this happen, why is that? Seems Russia wouldn't be one of the EU's top trading partner if they were so concerned about them now would they? Simple things like that make your theory just a sad attempt to condone what Russia did to their sovereign nation neighbor.

Do we need to start a discussion on the historical and strategic importance of the Ukraine? Why do you think they do it then? Just because they are evil?

And like I said, it seems like the point of this treaty was to prevent losing another neighbouring country to the EU.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

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?

As with most things in this world, current affairs are not usually how they seem. This is largely due to the control over media by the government and it's corporate interests. With regards to the Ukraine situation, it is a fact that the current government is not a properly elected government of the Ukraine.
unconstitutional takeover,

Also, if Russia had attempted to influence the government of a historically EU country assisted in fomenting a coup and then signing an agreement with Russia that was largely unpopular with the citizens of that country, what do you think the EU's response would have been?

The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless.

It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war

So we have destabilization in the Ukraine which is largely focused on the eastern borders with Russia being pushed by an unconstitutional government and Russia is to do nothing?

And when the dust began to settle in Kiev and news emerged that out of the 98 people who died, at least 16 were police officers, the image of a glorious people's revolution somehow lost its initial appeal.

And with the failed attempts by some extremists to spread the influence of the interim government to the east and south, using intimidation and violence, it became clear that a prospect of a civil war looked very real indeed.

So here's the deal then: as Ukraine was slipping into anarchy and chaos, with all sorts of radicals causing mayhem, President Putin's endgame became obvious. He needed to do anything in his power to prevent Ukraine from becoming another Iraq, with a possibility of a civil war breaking out and violence spreading to Russia at some point.

...and here was the response:

So Putin has chosen to use the 25,000 Russian troops based at Sevastopol, reinforcing them with another 16,000 soldiers, to prevent clashes between radicals on all sides erupting and provide stability in Crimea where about 60% of the population are ethnic Russians. Without a shot being fired, so unlike the rest of the country, law and order have been established. All the Ukrainian military installations in Crimes were surrounded by Russian troops with one purpose: to prevent undesirables arming themselves, like it happened in Lviv and some other cities, with disastrous circumstances. Up to now the plan has worked.

West, did you really expect Russia to ignore Ukraine chaos?

'The reality is that after two decades of Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit … '

It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war

You may note that I did not utilize any so called "Pro-Russia" sources in supporting the above unless major media outlets in the US and UK are not acceptable as sources. I am not pro Russian nor do I see Russia as a victim; I see Russia being put in a position that required a response. The response was completely predictable by any and all familiar with the parties being affected. As such, if the West has pushed for these actions while knowing the likely result, the result is likely the result theta the west wanted. Hegelian Dialectic at it's best

originally posted by: dragonridr
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.

I'll stop you right there. I said since the 1990's, including war and sanctions. Even your 114000 number from the last war is sick propaganda. Sick.

originally posted by: YouPeople
And like I said, it seems like the point of this treaty was to prevent losing another neighbouring country to the EU.

Just think that if Russia was nice to its neighbours then Ukraine would not be looking to Western Europe. Russia's actions seem to be designed to make sure that all nations once under the Soviet jack-boot want to find a future elsewhere. There's on Belarus left and that's more authoritarian than Russia!

Anyway, there' no guarantee Ukraine will joining the EU or NATO, at least there was not until Russia started acting like a spoilt brat who has had not been invited to a birthday party.

a reply to: paraphi

Maybe Ukraine shouldn't have signed that treaty with them then.

originally posted by: YouPeople
a reply to: paraphi

Maybe Ukraine shouldn't have signed that treaty with them then.

Why not? Why should Russia get to dictate what other countries do? Russia needs to stay out of other countries business before they get themselves in even more trouble. Putin has already destroyed their economy over ukraine. This is going to end up a huge mistake by historians as they lose control of occupied territories historians are not going to be kind to Putin.

Crimea will eventually leave he's alienated his neighbors and just wait until the check end heat up again since he decided to put them in Ukraine they are getting a lot of combat experience. Wait until they decide to use that on Russian troops it's coming.

a reply to: dragonridr

Why not? Why should Russia get to dictate what other countries do?

Why did Ukraine sign the treaty if they felt it was unfair to them?

originally posted by: YouPeople
a reply to: dragonridr

Why not? Why should Russia get to dictate what other countries do?

Why did Ukraine sign the treaty if they felt it was unfair to them?

Because it doesn't restrict them from making trade agrements. And foolishly they trusted Russia being one if the countries would hold up to their word like others have who signed. Betting Ukraine wishes they kept those nukes now I'm sure.

a reply to: YouPeople

Maybe Ukraine shouldn't have signed that treaty with them then.

Okay now I know you don't have a clue what your talking about.

I even posted the treaty text for you, and you still insist on saying Ukraine broke it...but when asked for the proof of this you seem to go blank, why is that?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

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?

After the coup in 2014, Ukraine did sign the Association Agreement with the EU which started the process of joining the EU, which violated the treaty they had with Russia.

Only after that happened did Russia take back Crimea.

I even posted the treaty text for you, and you still insist on saying Ukraine broke it...but when asked for the proof of this you seem to go blank, why is that?

I explained this at least three times now how they broke it.

a reply to: YouPeople

Why did Ukraine sign the treaty if they felt it was unfair to them?

Because it isn't unfair, but Russia is now making their own rules up for that treaty that specifically states this...

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.

SO exactly how is Russia even remotely keeping good on this treaty annexing Crimea and backing the separatists with troops and weapons, because the last time I checked Ukraine was a sovereign nation that Russia had no right in telling them what to do...and as I have shown enough times Russia violated the treaty first by interjecting their military into Ukraine.

But keep repeating that Ukraine broke the treaty...maybe it will actually come true, but more than likely it won't.

a reply to: YouPeople

After the coup in 2014, Ukraine did sign the Association Agreement with the EU which started the process of joining the EU, which violated the treaty they had with Russia.

Yet again nowhere does it say Ukraine cannot sign a trade deal with the EU...but feel free to show that is says that anywhere in that treaty?

I explained this at least three times now how they broke it.

No you keep repeating something that you cannot prove...as the text of the treaty says nowhere in it that Ukraine cannot become trade partners with the EU...so signing an agreement with them is rightfully allowed as that is a Ukrainian internal affair that by this same treaty Russia violated by sending troops into Ukraine.

SO just show from the treaty where it states Ukraine cannot sign a trade deal with the EU, or with anybody for that fact.

And you know the funny thing about this...Russia is one of the EU's biggest trade partner.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

But keep repeating that Ukraine broke the treaty...maybe it will actually come true, but more than likely it won't.

I will, they did break the treaty by signing another one that integrates them into the EU and would also cause economic disadvantages to their partner.

After that the treaty was considered null and void.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No you keep repeating something that you cannot prove...as the text of the treaty says nowhere in it that Ukraine cannot become trade partners with the EU...so signing an agreement with them is rightfully allowed as that is a Ukrainian internal affair that by this same treaty Russia violated by sending troops into Ukraine.

You keep ignoring that the deal was part of the process of joining the EU. Joining the EU is a violation of that treaty.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: YouPeople
And like I said, it seems like the point of this treaty was to prevent losing another neighbouring country to the EU.

Just think that if Russia was nice to its neighbours then Ukraine would not be looking to Western Europe. Russia's actions seem to be designed to make sure that all nations once under the Soviet jack-boot want to find a future elsewhere. There's on Belarus left and that's more authoritarian than Russia!

Anyway, there' no guarantee Ukraine will joining the EU or NATO, at least there was not until Russia started acting like a spoilt brat who has had not been invited to a birthday party.

How is that Russia was not nice to Ukraine? Built infrastructure, huge investments in energy sector, cheap energy supplies, trade coops and discounts.

I will tell you what went wrong. Since Ukranian independence, US of A heavily cultivated 'national identity' ideas among youth. Only one purpose was minded, to cultivate potential ground for future land grab on Russian boarders.
I just dont understand, you pretending to be that thik or trolling?

And that youth grown up thinking of one thing only, opportunity to leave the country.

D0

a reply to: notmyrealname

It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war

You do understand that is an opinion of the author not the actual article reporting news?

Everybody has opinions...it doesn't mean those opinions are right.

You may note that I did not utilize any so called "Pro-Russia" sources in supporting the above unless major media outlets in the US and UK are not acceptable as sources.

That's fine...but one's opinion is one's opinion not fact.

I am not pro Russian nor do I see Russia as a victim; I see Russia being put in a position that required a response.

So what position were they put in that made them have to invade and annex part of a sovereign nation...and remember Putin had planned Crimea before any referendum was even discussed, but please show us how they had to do what they did?

The response was completely predictable by any and all familiar with the parties being affected.

Really because I am sure if Ukraine was to expect Russia to invade and annex part of their country they would have responded differently...but of course they knew it was coming and just let it happen.

As such, if the West has pushed for these actions while knowing the likely result, the result is likely the result theta the west wanted. Hegelian Dialectic at it's best

WHat was the US pushing that you think they knew what Russia was doing...hell most Russian don't know what Russia did until after it happened.

Do you not think the West would have reacted differently had they known Russia was going to come into Ukraine like they did...Yes they would have.

a reply to: YouPeople

You keep ignoring that the deal was part of the process of joining the EU. Joining the EU is a violation of that treaty.

No it isn't and you have yet to show anywhere in that treaty that states Ukraine cannot involve itself into a trade agreement with another country...It doesn't say that.

a reply to: darkorange

I will tell you what went wrong. Since Ukranian independence, US of A heavily cultivated 'national identity' ideas among youth. Only one purpose was minded, to cultivate potential ground for future land grab on Russian boarders.
I just dont understand, you pretending to be that thik or trolling?

Nobody wants to grab land from Russia...except for the Chinese.