Russian Invasion of Ukraine

  • Thread starter Rage Racer
  • 10,148 comments
  • 613,997 views
There has already been one death in Crimea and yesterday a number of Ukrainian soldiers were taken hostage by a pro Russian mob.
Hostage? :confused: Source?

And not one death. There are reports of two been killed, a Ukrainian army soldier and a "self-defence force" operator. They say it was a sniper, and he's now captured - a "17 year old guy from Lviv, a member of the Right Sector, trained in a nationalist camp". Questionable info though...
 
Hostage? :confused: Source?

And not one death. There are reports of two been killed, a Ukrainian army soldier and a "self-defence force" operator. They say it was a sniper, and he's now captured - a "17 year old guy from Lviv, a member of the Right Sector, trained in a nationalist camp". Questionable info though...

Yesterday there were video on the BBC and video on CNN of a mob of pro Russian protesters and armed thugs who entered a Ukrainian naval base and took a number of soldiers and the base commander into custody against their will. I understand now they were later released.

BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26642169

CNN http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/19/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?iref=allsearch
 
Good post and questions.

My idea stems from the fact that predictable, elementary Russian actions were not factored into the plans of the revolutionaries. Worse, they did not plan on the tasks required for sustained success much after the initial one of toppling the existing regime.
I feel like you are oversimplifying the situation by talking about the "revolutionaires" as a whole.
Now you have revolutionaries, nationalists, oligarchs and simple hooligans arguing like a pack of fools as to what to do.
This looks more like an emotional figure of speech rather than an observation.:sly:
I have no idea where you got the "arguing like a pack of fools" bit from.:D
Of course they're and will be arguing, just like any parliament or ruling institution in any normal country.
Does that mean that Ukraine is in the state of super-awesome democracy and happiness? Nope.
But there's no reason to panic until all the important elections happen.
I hope Victoria Nuland is laughing loudly at her cosmic joke, and that Barack Obama is very satisfied indeed with his State Department. :rolleyes:
I feel like it's a whole different topic... But still, please elaborate.
 
But there's no reason to panic until all the important elections happen.

When will there be elections? It's baseball bats for now.

What is the position of the Ukraine military? They are withholding support for Kiev. Russia has made them an offer. They are thinking it over. They may in fact choose to go with Russia, just stand aside, or even round up the revolutionaries and take over power in Kiev.

I say there will be panic well before the elections.
 
Last edited:
When will there be elections? It's baseball bats for now.
The presidential election will happen May 25th.
Dunno about Rada, but technically it doesn't even need any elections. It actually kinda does, but we'll see when that'll happen.
What is the position of the Ukraine military? They are withholding support for Kiev. Russia has made them an offer.
Whaaaaa?!
They are thinking it over. They may in fact choose to go with Russia, just stand aside, or even round up the revolutionaries and take over power in Kiev.

I say there will be panic well before the elections.
Whoa! Dude, chillax. Looks like you're talking from a complete outsider's perspective.
I've talked to and listened to a bunch of people from Ukraine and specifically Kiev and it's nowhere close to what you're saying.:)
 
The funny (saddddly funny) thing is the two most possible targets for Russian expansion are "our friends" - Belarus and Kazakhstan. Neither of these countries has enough military power to match Russia and if Putin likes to "save Russian-speaking people" there's plenty of them in both countries. Well, especially Belarus - pretty much everyone speaks some Russian there. Not sure if Putin wants to attempt a takeover any time soon, but if he's to do that, some internal changes will need to preface/follow the invasion. At this point, I doubt that there will be any kinda actual war with anyone in the coming decade, but Russia might try to overthrow a governemnt or two.
Nah. Lukashenko and Nazarbayev are good friends of The Crab, no need to overthrow them. Besides, Belarus and Kazakhstan are already in the Customs Union, so there's no much need for annexing them. CU already looks like a "small Soviet Union".

But, if they have revolutions and somebody overthrows Luka and Nazar - there possibly will be something to "protect the Russian people" from.

Yesterday there were video on the BBC and video on CNN of a mob of pro Russian protesters and armed thugs who entered a Ukrainian naval base and took a number of soldiers and the base commander into custody against their will. I understand now they were later released.

BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26642169

CNN http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/19/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?iref=allsearch
Something strange, no footage of the hostage evidence or traces of shooting. Could be fake info.
Neither Russian nor Ukrainian media tells this. If it really happened, Ukrainian media would report the hostage immediately.

This is informational warfare going on, none of the media is 100% trustable. Check the incoming info carefully and don't believe everything your hear.
 
“The big problem with this narrative is that the United States and its western and Ukrainian allies did in fact do something very wrong.”
They broke a vital democratic norm—to wit, that in democracies the transfer of power occurs as a result and in the aftermath of elections or, in extremis, impeachments. There is simply no consciousness in the West that the revolution was brought about by illegal means. Yet it most emphatically was so. Power was seized, not transferred. In this tit for tat contest with Russia, we have focused exclusively on the tit; we have just as resolutely ignored the tat that preceded it.
http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/03/20/...lies-with-unscrupulous-characters-in-ukraine/
 
That's how revolutions are, and on day two the world (apart from Russia) was calling for (and receiving Ukrainian parliamentary support for) open elections.

Russia's movement to seal Crimea came after that time.

Revolutions are never legal, that's why they must be validated with elections. The Russians might have had theirs first but it wasn't the best example of how to conduct one... :D
 
Something strange, no footage of the hostage evidence or traces of shooting. Could be fake info.
Neither Russian nor Ukrainian media tells this. If it really happened, Ukrainian media would report the hostage immediately.

This is informational warfare going on, none of the media is 100% trustable. Check the incoming info carefully and don't believe everything your hear.

I understand your point but I think from your perspective you need to question sources much more than I need to. But I get your point.
 
“The big problem with this narrative is that the United States and its western and Ukrainian allies did in fact do something very wrong.”
They broke a vital democratic norm—to wit, that in democracies the transfer of power occurs as a result and in the aftermath of elections or, in extremis, impeachments. There is simply no consciousness in the West that the revolution was brought about by illegal means. Yet it most emphatically was so. Power was seized, not transferred. In this tit for tat contest with Russia, we have focused exclusively on the tit; we have just as resolutely ignored the tat that preceded it.
http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/03/20/...lies-with-unscrupulous-characters-in-ukraine/

Power was seized when the President fled from Kiev. When the civil protests turned violent, government officials were still trying to maintain parliamentary procedures. When Yanukovych released those in parliament that opposed his use of lethal force, there was no longer effectively a government, it becomes a dictator quelling an uprising by killing his own people. He fled and in the vacuum the uprising spawned an interim government who has stabilized the country and have made plans to move forward politically and economically in positive manners.

I don't see where you get the idea the uprising and subsequent installed government is illegal. The president let go all who opposed him, he created the instability and in turn started to kill protesters, that may very well be illegal.

If Yanukovych had worked to maintain the stability of the country instead of becoming a puppet for Russia this whole revolution could have been avoided. He was well aware the country was seeking change and he avoided it instead of greeting it head on.

If he held elections and allowed people to vote for a new government this would have been avoided. If he had listened to those who opposed him and tried to peacefully change the government this wouldn't have happened.

The west has no culpability here and I find it offensive that you are vilifying the non-Russian participants. This has little to do with the US as well, quit thinking they are a major role player here. You need to vilify those responsible for this and they are all sitting in Moscow.
 
I understand your point but I think from your perspective you need to question sources much more than I need to. But I get your point.

In fairness to @Rage Racer (and I guess @SMfan too) they seem to take a healthy balance of world news and they see Russian state media for exactly what it is. Fox News, in Russian ;)

$75 million Canadian dollars is a lot to spend on propaganda you know, that was the figure on the BBC news when Canada spaffed that amount on the advertising for their Economic Plan, it made the "And Finally" slot on a few channels iirc :D
 
In fairness to @Rage Racer (and I guess @SMfan too) they seem to take a healthy balance of world news and they see Russian state media for exactly what it is. Fox News, in Russian ;)

$75 million Canadian dollars is a lot to spend on propaganda you know, that was the figure on the BBC news when Canada spaffed that amount on the advertising for their Economic Plan, it made the "And Finally" slot on a few channels iirc :D

I'm not saying our media is perfect but on this issue, I see the videos, they don't lie. The Russians are backing men who are doing things that in any other country would be deemed criminal.

To your point, there is plenty of content on the news in many countries that can be considered propaganda, it just depends on how you spin it.
 
The west has no culpability here and I find it offensive that you are vilifying the non-Russian participants. This has little to do with the US as well, quit thinking they are a major role player here. You need to vilify those responsible for this and they are all sitting in Moscow.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/did-team-obama-blunder-or-conspire-in-ukraine/
"While no one ever lost money overestimating the capacity of the U.S. government to blunder, we cannot rule out that American officials knew exactly what they were doing when they helped provoke the crisis in Ukraine.

It is hard to believe that all these officials are so ignorant of Russian history that they could not anticipate how President Vladimir Putin would respond to U.S.-backed machinations in Kiev. These machinations led to the ouster of elected (if corrupt and power-hungry) president Viktor Yanukovych after street demonstrations, which included neo-Nazi elements now represented in the new government.

About these machinations there is little doubt. We have a phone call between Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, in which they talk about who should rule Ukraine next. Nuland says, “I don’t think Klitsch [an opposition leader, Vitaly Klitschko] should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.… I think Yats [Arseniy Yatsenyuk, another opposition leader] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.” Yatsenyuk became the prime minister after Yanukovych’s ouster.

Pyatt responds, “I think you reaching out directly to him [Yatsenyuk] helps with the personality management among the three [opposition leaders].”

The U.S. government worked to replace Yanukovych with its “guy” — which is not what the Obama administration tells the American people.

Pyatt adds, “But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast.… [W]e want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing.”

This phone call made headlines because Nuland used an obscenity regarding the European Union. But the news is that, contrary to public statements, the Obama administration sought to “midwife” regime change.

One need not be a Putin apologist to ask how the Americans failed to see that this activity would provoke the Russian president."
 
@JMR450 you should look through the crisis history in news archives (or this thread for a decent overview), many parties have had a hand in Ukraine's directions (not necessarily in a bad way) over the last year, quite probably even longer.

Ukraine has been helped to see the wonder of democratic corruption and vastly prefers it to Russian corruption.
 
This a pointless effort. I don't agree with the three of you and I don't think my further involvement in this thread serves any use.
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/did-team-obama-blunder-or-conspire-in-ukraine/
"While no one ever lost money overestimating the capacity of the U.S. government to blunder, we cannot rule out that American officials knew exactly what they were doing when they helped provoke the crisis in Ukraine.

It is hard to believe that all these officials are so ignorant of Russian history that they could not anticipate how President Vladimir Putin would respond to U.S.-backed machinations in Kiev. These machinations led to the ouster of elected (if corrupt and power-hungry) president Viktor Yanukovych after street demonstrations, which included neo-Nazi elements now represented in the new government.

About these machinations there is little doubt. We have a phone call between Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, in which they talk about who should rule Ukraine next. Nuland says, “I don’t think Klitsch [an opposition leader, Vitaly Klitschko] should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.… I think Yats [Arseniy Yatsenyuk, another opposition leader] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.” Yatsenyuk became the prime minister after Yanukovych’s ouster.

Pyatt responds, “I think you reaching out directly to him [Yatsenyuk] helps with the personality management among the three [opposition leaders].”

The U.S. government worked to replace Yanukovych with its “guy” — which is not what the Obama administration tells the American people.

Pyatt adds, “But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast.… [W]e want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing.”

This phone call made headlines because Nuland used an obscenity regarding the European Union. But the news is that, contrary to public statements, the Obama administration sought to “midwife” regime change.

One need not be a Putin apologist to ask how the Americans failed to see that this activity would provoke the Russian president."

I don't accept your source as credible and I don't accept the quote as useful information.
 
This a pointless effort. I don't agree with the three of you and I don't think my further involvement in this thread serves any use.


I don't accept your source as credible and I don't accept the quote as useful information.

Too bad. This forum is a haven for libertarians, and Ron Paul's way of thinking carries a great deal of weight around here. In any case, we always respect your right to your opinion, and value your thoughtful input, which we shall miss. Please don't stay away too long. :)
 
"Agreement" :lol:

I think it is this one.
putiy.png
 
What is it about her that makes me think she's the most dangerous woman I've ever seen? These things being relative, obviously...

Russians 'reclaiming' Ukraini-held bases in Crimea, link.
 
Last edited:
What is it about her that makes me think she's the most dangerous woman I've ever seen? These things being relative, obviously...
Something like that. She's fearless. :)
She was prosecuting a dangerous gang from south Crimea, called Bashmaki.

If they mean Pridnestrovie, then - maybe.
Actually, Russian troops are already there (for a pretty long time already), but now there is a law project being developed to annex Transnistria to RF.
 
Last edited:
I wish the Government would stop sabre rattling about how Russia is going to pay etc over this. We won't do anything. War is out the question and so are trade sanctions as we would lose £4bn in trade. Also if Europe stop paying Russia then the gas is shut off.
 
Back