Ukraine General

And what exactly do we understand under russian media? RT and one or two other magazines which we do happen to know?

I doubt most of us has experience with most of the russian media sources, least of all with the ones in russian.

We follow mostly the well known magazines (RT, RIA/Sputnik, ITAR-TASS), which are meant for the masses.

And as it happens those are the most retarded ones, just like RT, Fox News or the german Bild magazine. Though here I must say that RIA (havent seen much of Sputnik yet) and ITAR-TASS are not comparable with RT.

Anyway shouldnt it be discussed in the recently created Russia thread?

The rest of sources are either more crap (KP, Lenta, RG, thousands of paper ones) or frequently pressed to remove/amend articles for political reasons (RBC, Forbes.ru; recent example - Igor Sechin's 1st position in RUS CEO earnings rating). I live in Russia and regularly compare sources. Yes, it should be discussed in Russia's thread ;-)

Anyway shouldnt it be discussed in the recently created Russia thread?

At the beginning it all started in a piece of news on Ukraine I commented from the Spanish version of RT, but yeah at this point probably this subject would fit better there.

I also agree with you that there are different degrees of bias. RT is pure bullshit, while ITAR-TASS indeed have mostly sound news.

---------- Post added at 16:07 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

( Al Jazeera ) NATO concerned over Russian forces in Crimea

NATO's top military commander has said he is "very concerned" that Russia's military build-up in the annexed Crimean region could be used as a launchpad for attacks across the whole Black Sea region.

US General Philip Breedlove's comments late on Wednesday came amid fears in Kiev that Russian-backed rebels will try to grab more land in eastern Ukraine to establish a land corridor to Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in March.

"We are very concerned with the militarisation of Crimea," Breedlove said, following meetings with Ukraine's top political and military leaders in Kiev.

"The capabilities that are being installed in Crimea ... are able to exert influence over the entire Black Sea," he said, highlighting the influx of cruise missiles and surface-to-air rockets.

Russia's Defence Ministry said Wednesday that it had deployed a batch of 14 military jets to Crimea as part of a squadron of 30 that will be stationed on the peninsula.

Also on Wednesday, an OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in eastern Ukraine was reportedly attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and anti-aircraft ammunition.

(BBC) Ukraine in anti-corruption pledge as parliament meets

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko says he would like a foreigner to head the country's new anti-corruption body.

Mr Poroshenko was addressing Ukraine's parliament, as it convened for the first time since elections in October.

Azov battalion FPDR

Source Profile now deleted.

Original Image

Oh boy FPDR

Azov battalion FPDR

http://i.imgur.com/b8kcDBu.jpg

These guys don't even understand what those flags mean.

BTW what would Putin say about it? Inside the Azov battalion there are Russian Speaking Ukrainians and even few Russian citizens ( remember the Vice News interviews ).

This guys don't even understand what does flags mean.

BTW what would Putin say about it? Inside the Azov battalion there are Russian Speaking Ukrainians and even few Russian citizens ( remember the Vice News interviews ).

Well Putin already did address this issue, I believe.

There is a budhist temple here that has golden swastika in it. I guess hitler was a budhist?

And I guess there are budhist fighters in Ukraine...

And the guy with the brown hoodie is just showing how tall he'd like to be ?

Update on the nazi flag.

(Ukraine@War Blog) Nazis in AZOV battalion?

Lets see what Sputnik is reporting.....the conclusion (neutrality) is the same like several months ago from one of the most famous US Think Tanks organisations.

Neutrality, not NATO Membership, is Ukraine’s Best Bet

President Petro Poroshenko has called for the repeal of a 2010 law declaring Ukraine’s non-aligned status and for formalising its policy course towards joining NATO. Enacting both would further endanger Ukraine’s security and damage Europe's fragile security architecture.

As usual when it comes to Ukraine, one has to ask has anyone really thought any of this through?

Prior to the crisis that the West brought to Ukraine the majority of Ukrainians preferred non-aligned status and that included non-membership in NATO. This policy reflected sensibilities of the country’s history, population make-up, and geopolitical realities.

Ukraine does have a new parliament, but it is missing almost all of the plurality it once had. Parties and political figures that represented those Ukrainian citizens who are against EU integration and against NATO membership have been banished from official politics.

With Crimea safely returned to Russia after a referendum, with the regions making up the Donbass no longer meaningfully part of any Ukraine-wide political conversation, and with the country facing financial meltdown, the Kiev regime wants desperately to become part of the North Atlantic security architecture. Poroshenko needs something to save Ukraine from collapse. He is putting all his money on the worst possible gamble.

Just as Georgia is disqualified from alliance membership due to the legal status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the same applies to Ukraine in reference to Crimea and the Donbass.

Russia will not allow its national security to be degraded by a military alliance that has long lost its purpose to exist. If Ukraine is given some kind of special dispensation to join NATO under current conditions, then Washington and Brussels risk high likelihood of a hot shooting war with Moscow.

However, there is a different path for Ukraine – the path that can bring the country peace at home and security on its borders. It is called official neutrality.

— Ukraine would have to spend very little on defence, thus saving capital for economic modernisation;

— Declaring Ukraine has no enemies could do wonders for the country’s investment grade;

— NATO and Russia would avoid a very unnecessary political and military standoff;

— NATO and Russia could forego needless military expenditures as well;

— Russia could agree not to recognise the Donbass as a political entity outside of a sovereign Ukraine;

— The Kiev government would focus on what is important: careful integration and engagement with the EU and Russia’s Customs Union – all would have to make compromises;

— Neutrality could allow refugees to return home without the fear of continued civil war (and get the economy going again)

At this point in the Ukraine crisis, Kiev should start thinking about the country’s survival and not picking geopolitical sides. Ukraine is not going west and not going east. It will stay right where it is – in the middle. Neutrality would guarantee this. Ukraine has no other good options.

http://uk.sputniknews.com/opinion/20141130/1013257229.html

wasn't Ukraine neutral until now, I mean it's the reason it gave up nukes and not 'rushed' into NATO and EU decade ago

everyone

I think you could not state that Yanukovich policies were neutral, in fact just the opposite. Besides the obvious fact that Russia has had its hand in Ukraine since the fall of USSR, especially with Putin's gov.

But for Putin the definition of Ukraine being neutral means being one of Russia's puppets, like Belarus.

True neutral countries would be Sweden or Finland, but obviously that's not what Putin wants.

True neutral countries would be Sweden or Finland, but obviously that's not what Putin wants.

This is probably a myth when it comes to "true" neutrality and there is the question if such even exist.

'Sweden hasn't been neutral since 1995'

http://www.thelocal.se/20140508/nato-sweden-finland-defence

Katainen: Finland is not neutral, NATO is an option

http://yle.fi/uutiset/katainen_finland_is_not_neutral_nato_is_an_option/7139523

I think the idea about a neutral state when it comes to NATO isnt such a bad idea if it helps to avoid further tensions or conflicts. At least good diplomacy is important instead of heating up.

This is probably a myth when it comes to "true" neutrality and there is the question if such even exist.

So because Finland and Sweden are working out an agreement for mutual defense they are not neutral?

That's precisely the definition. They are not part of NATO nor Russian puppets, they are independent ( aka neutral ).

Lately there have been some talks about what to do next when Russia showed total disregard for neutral countries. That's why both countries are now considering taking side ( read join NATO ); to protect themselves against Putin's imperialist dreams.

And that's also why Ukraine can't be neutral, because Russia won't allow it.

Many people seem to talk about Russia as if it was the only nation controlling its neighbours. Let's have a look at the distribution of seats in the European Parlaiment (sorry for the lack of an English source which shows this as accurate).

From 1990 to 2013, for 23 consecutive years, Germany has had 99 seats in the parlaiment. From 1995 to 2009, it remained those seats while almost every other EU nation had to give away such for the new members.

Would that work in a Europe where Germany had just as much influence as any other "leading" european country? In fact I'd assert that Germany and France are the de facto leaders of Europe. Not because of this seat thing, but because they were the countries which started the whole idea 50+ years ago with the "Montanunion" and we all know that nobody likes to give away power.

And when you live in Europe, as I do, and you care about politics, you realize Germany's power and how it carefully controls this whole ship.

Many people seem to talk about Russia as if it was the only nation controlling its neighbours. Let's have a look at the distribution of seats in the European Parlaiment (sorry for the lack of an English source which shows this as accurate).

From 1990 to 2013' date=' for 23 consecutive years, Germany has had 99 seats in the parlaiment.[/quote']

Exactly the same situation, Germany is threatening with its army and invading the countries that refuse to follow it's directives, that's why Germany invaded Greece or Cyprus last decade... Wait... that wasn't like that...

One thing is to have/exercise influence, the other is to invade your neighbors.

One thing is to have/exercise influence, the other is to invade your neighbors.

To my understanding of politics, there is no way to gain power in a peaceful way. There's ways to co-exist at the status quo (diplomacy), but given the fact that to gain power, somebody has to lose it, France, Germany, Spain gained their power in the past not by signing contracts with other countries, but by invading them.

So what has changed until today? The time, technology, politics and the use of "

To turn the corner back to Ukraine, Russia has way more effective and cheaper ways of getting Ukraine under control. That country's energy supply is 90+% dependent on russian gas and if Russia considers it worth it, they could simply close the valve.

Of course they won't do so unless shit has really fit the fan (because there's huge contracts with huge contractual penalties), but that wouldn't matter anymore if Russia really was to occupy Ukraine.

To my understanding of politics' date=' there is no way to gain power in a peaceful way. There's ways to co-exist at the status quo (diplomacy), but given the fact that to gain power, somebody has to lose it, France, Germany, Spain gained their power in the past not by signing contracts with other countries, but by invading them.[/quote']

To my eyes, you have a really particular idea of how politics work. The military force is only one of the hundreds of tools politicians have in their toolboxes. In fact it's quite an extreme an unpopular one.

BTW if you study a bit of history you'll understand how Spain or France gained their power, most of it was through marriages and deals instead of wars.

In fact, if it was just by bare strength as you said, how could a little country like Spain with just a few thousand soldiers in Central and South America invade most of it? and subdue dozens of millions of people?

During the American Colonization times it was not even Spain, but the Spanish Monarchy ( which contain a lot of countries with their own traditions, government systems, etc. ), and the only ones that had rights over America were the citizens of the Kingdom of Castile. Spain as a country has only existed for a couple hundred years.

BTW as a funny detail was precisely to prevent the lost of most of it's possessions that the Spanish Monarchy decided to fight wars. Obviously with a really awful result, as they lost most of the countries and practically all their wealth.

Concerning Germany, well, it only had truly power invading countries during the Third Reich which lasted for few years so I don't really see your point.

As for Latin America (and that's my final statement to that as this is still a thread about Ukraine), the Spanish were like 400 years ahead, both technologically and educationally so it wasn't that hard for them to overcome Latin America. Same with the Indians in North America which the european settlers (to my knowledge) barely had problems to almost wipe out.

Granted, marriage was also a way to gain land hence power, didn't think about that.

But if you inform yourself about Economic Hitmen and the role of World Bank regarding their "dept relief" program on third world countries, you may soon realize that there's cheaper and way more subtle ways to control a country than invading it.

You should watch a movie called "

The mainstream media won't tell you about Secret Service activities in areas of political conflict, so Ukraine. They only report the obvious "battlefield" news and what officials have to say. But war and secret services is just a too big issue to discuss it in a few lines. Just never ever underestimate the power of them, because banks and secret services are in my eyes the ones which rule world politics. Then comes the military and THEN at some point comes the "official politics".

As for Latin America (and that's my final statement to that as this is still a thread about Ukraine)' date=' the Spanish were like 400 years ahead, both technologically and educationally so it wasn't that hard for them to overcome Latin America. Same with the Indians in North America which the european settlers (to my knowledge) barely had problems to almost wipe out.[/quote']

Well there's a huge difference between how the Castilian Conquerors behaved in Central and South America where the natives were usually more organized and advanced to what was done in the North where there were more tribes, less advanced and more spread.

Mainly the Castilian Conquerors took advantage of the class system basically situating themselves in the top first convincing certain rules to marry their daughters, creating a really complicated social system based on blood lines and racial features. From this position they could manipulate other civilizations until dominate them all. The funny point is that in some wars of that time there were more than one million people in one side commanded by only one thousand Castilians.

That's why nowadays inhabitants from Latin America still keep their biological features and to a certain degree their traditions and languages. Compare Mexicans, Peruvians or Colombians to nowadays Spanish, the only thing they share is language...

Funny fact, that kind of blood-marriage organization had some roots on how the Castilian Kingdom was formed, while other Spanish countries like for example the ones that formed the Crown of Aragon were more based in a more "democratic" way, with what we could call parliaments that decided voting what to do and

In the North the British first and later the US, took another approach, instead of mixing with the locals and manipulating the rules, they decided to "neutralize" them, kill them to a huge degree using different strategies ( from direct wars to infected blankets, etc. ).

That's also why nowadays in North America you barely see native people nor their traditions.

In fact this one is a really interesting subject, but doesn't really fit here.

But if you inform yourself about Economic Hitmen and the role of World Bank regarding their "dept relief" program on third world countries' date=' you may soon realize that there's cheaper and way more subtle ways to control a country than invading it.[/quote']

What he says, is somehow what the US has done for more than a hundred years just a bit more refined. So nothing new under the sun. Although I thing Perkins story is a bit over-exaggerated for self-glorification sake. Just read what the USMC Major General Smedley Butler, that was twice awarded with the Medal of Honor, said:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Which take us to Ukraine, where in this case is mainly Russia who is behaving in the gangster/hitman fashion to defend Putin's, not even Russia's, interests.

To turn the corner back to Ukraine' date=' Russia has way more effective and cheaper ways of getting Ukraine under control. That country's energy supply is 90+% dependent on russian gas and if Russia considers it worth it, they could simply close the valve.[/quote']

This is precisely what Europe/ US is going to work on. Getting rid of dependency of Russian oil/gas for large parts of Europe. Because then Russia has nothing. Just look at the current oil price situation. Saudis deciding "oh whatever, we dont care if it sells cheaper, we totally ment to do that since a long time". Suure.

Also, greece has large gas ressources in the sea. Guess who is going to exploit it? Greece? no. European/US companies... There was a time where Greece bargained with Russia about pipelines/gas deals...

It didnt work out for some reason i dont remember. Russian intelligence forwarded report to greek authorities that there where forces at work to destabilize Greek economy. Greek Prosecution opened a case against unknown for "malicious acts" (forgot what it was actually called) and attempted assasination against it's head of state.

And what happened years later? Greece was declared "unworthy of credit" by US rating agencies because of depts and bad economy. Budget cuts followed, EU dicated it's will, replacement of government parts. Purely incidental? i think not.

Old Ukrainian Government wasn't neutral, it was Russian influenced. Believing the new government would be neutral now... kinda ridiculous notion. As soon as the new government was elected (after the old government was unlawfully discarder [votes didnt surpass limit]) they signed the EU association treaty that was rejected weeks before from the old government. + Massive support from EU for maidan etc.

In summary: pro russian government replaced with pro west government with western help, russia trying to safe what it can and beeing very unsubtle/clumsy about it, damaging itself in the process (also boosted alot by western behaviour and mainly media). You got to give the western strategists credit... they are quite successfull and subtle (to the general public at least). I still despise their expansionistic behaviour.

An entirely satiric german blog/newspaper wrote about a (fictional) new press agency that specialises in aquiring pictures of Putin that make him look bad/stupid. Claiming all those images we see now in media to be of their expert work... I mean really, almost every Putin picture we see today in western media is puting making weird faces, beeing left alone, posing like a militaristic macho, etc.

Which take us to Ukraine, where in this case is mainly Russia who is behaving in the gangster/hitman fashion to defend Putin's, not even Russia's, interests.

Well only after the US hitman and gangsters already did their job. Hitman isnt quite the right job for russian actions. More like drunkard bully? What are the odds of success of leading nations and world leaders going against a single nation (of a large country but instable and imbalanced economy) for the single nation to come out better then before the fight? Then tell me in who's interest it would be to pick a fight. Russia is going to suffer, and Putin along with it. The fate is sealed. Russia is exactly where the US want it to be, in a ever tightening vise. Putin can't open the vise. He can only tighten it himself further.

Believing the new government would be neutral now... kinda ridiculous notion.

I agree in that fact, a neutral position for Ukraine would be a joke. Mainly because Russia would not accept it, and because probably most of Ukrainian population would prefer to have certain protection against Russia's bullying strategies. As did most of the former USSR countries.

And no, it was not NATO that forced or manipulated them to join the organization, those countries did for self-preservation. They didn't want more Russian oppression.

On the rest of what you exposed I disagree.

First people must take into account what most of the Ukrainian people really want. And we can see that even an important part of the Russian-speaking Ukrainians favor an approximation to EU and to the rest of the World instead of being just a Russian puppet. Check statistics, votes, etc. and if you are as lucky as I am, ask your Ukrainian mates / friends.

Of course that external "Western" influences and supports have existed, but just to reinforce an extended believe inside the Ukrainian society: they want to be able to decide what they do with their country not be Russia's puppet.

To my understanding of politics' date=' there is no way to gain power in a peaceful way. There's ways to co-exist at the status quo (diplomacy), but given the fact that to gain power, somebody has to lose it, France, Germany, Spain gained their power in the past not by signing contracts with other countries, but by invading them.

So what has changed until today? The time, technology, politics and the use of "

" rather than going the dull and expensive way of invasion. And remembering Serbia, Iraq, Lybia..., European countries invaded other countries, too. Of course to "protect the civilian population" while 80+% of the victims of their "protection" were civilians. In Iraq it were even 90+%.

To turn the corner back to Ukraine, Russia has way more effective and cheaper ways of getting Ukraine under control. That country's energy supply is 90+% dependent on russian gas and if Russia considers it worth it, they could simply close the valve.

Of course they won't do so unless shit has really fit the fan (because there's huge contracts with huge contractual penalties), but that wouldn't matter anymore if Russia really was to occupy Ukraine.

Ah, see? You are wrong there and you even contradict yourself.

According to you a country can only gain power through wars.

You also said that today Germany is the most powerfull? country in Europe.

Well they were pretty powerless after the second world war and they didn´t invade any neighbouring country since then.

How come they are so powerfull?

Did somebody loose power for them to take over?

There are also other means of projecting power than through wars and diplomacy. Take the US as an example. They didn´t invade the whole world but amercian culture is very popular in most countries of the world.