Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honeywell and General Electric suspended services in Russia today, joining the stampede of Western firms away from Russia. The Kremlin trolls here insist that all of this has no effect on Russia, yet Putin calls the sanctions and shunning by Western firms "an act of war". Sounds to me like he is feeling it, no matter what his propaganda tools here say. https://www.reuters.com/business/hon...us-2022-03-09/
inthis thread in 2014-2016 I didn't realise that this was mainly about Russian;s
(perceived) security, NATO's East-"expansion".
It was not mentioned in the press, by Russia and I did not pay much
attention to Putin's 2007 speech in Munich, having other interests at that time.
Putin claimed it was legal and according to international law in 2014 and he claims now
it's legal by UNO aricle 51. The law-experts disagree.
Now, with Russia's security beeing the issue, Russia demanding legally binding
agreements that Ukraine won't join NATO, why couldn't NATO agree to that ,
if Russia in turn gave legally binding agreements not to attack Ukraine ?
Same for other Eastern NATO countries.
Was this discussed, did Russia or NATO or both refuse that idea ?
Even close relatives in Russia, refuse to believe their relatives in Ukraine who tell them that the Russian army has invaded and is bombing them. Russians are being told that the Russian army is saving the Ukrainians from the Nazis and has brought food and blankets for the - exactly the opposite of what they are doing. But this propaganda is so pervasive in Russia, that mothers, fathers won't believe their own sons and daughters in Ukraine, who ARE there, and whose lives are in danger. A surreal situation.
inthis thread in 2014-2016 I didn't realise that this was mainly about Russian;s
(perceived) security, NATO's East-"expansion".
It was not mentioned in the press, by Russia and I did not pay much
attention to Putin's 2007 speech in Munich, having other interests at that time.
Putin claimed it was legal and according to international law in 2014 and he claims now
it's legal by UNO aricle 51. The law-experts disagree.
Now, with Russia's security beeing the issue, Russia demanding legally binding
agreements that Ukraine won't join NATO, why couldn't NATO agree to that ,
if Russia in turn gave legally binding agreements not to attack Ukraine ?
Same for other Eastern NATO countries.
Was this discussed, did Russia or NATO or both refuse that idea ?
Crimea had a special election on joining Russia. The results were something like 95% of the country wanted to reunite with Russia. The election was monitor and the results were accepted by EU officials. At the time the only country in disagreement was the USA.
Quote:
Some 95.5% of voters in Crimea have supported joining Russia, officials say, after half the votes have been counted in a disputed referendum.
• Partial results indicate more than 90% of Crimeans favor secession, according to an election official via RIA Novosti. Crimean officials say turnout was 83%. Revised numbers are expected late tonight.
President Obama emphasized that the Crimean “referendum,” which violates the Ukrainian constitution and occurred under duress of Russian military intervention, would never be recognized by the United States and the international community. He emphasized that Russia’s actions were in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and that, in coordination with our European partners, we are prepared to impose additional costs on Russia for its actions.
President Obama … asked that Russia support the immediate deployment of international monitors to help prevent acts of violence by any groups.
President Obama reiterated that a diplomatic resolution cannot be achieved while Russian military forces continue their incursions into Ukrainian territory … Secretary Kerry continues to be prepared to work together with Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Ukrainian government to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis.
Ukraine stated it intends to join NATO. Yes, this conflict could have been avoided if Ukraine refused to join NATO and refused to put USA/NATO missiles on its Russian border.
Quote:
You’re still locked into a very knee-jerk defense of nato so that the militarism still goes on—everybody knows if Russia had troops in Mexico or Canada there would be invasions tomorrow. He sends the Secretary of State, telling Russia, “You have no right to have a sphere of influence,” after the Monroe Doctrine, after the overthrowing of democratic regimes in Latin America for the last hundred-and-some years. Come on, America, do you think people are stupid? What kind of hypocrisy can anybody stand?
Both President Obama and President Trump had serious concerns over Ukraine.
Quote:
Ukrainian forces fought a series of battles against Russian-backed separatist rebels in an effort to regain seized territory. But while the West had sanctioned Russia and refused to recognize the Crimean annexation, then-President Petro Poroshenko’s request for U.S. military assistance, ranging from F-16 jets and Javelins to helmets and blankets, gave then-President Barack Obama pause.
At the time, there was a high sensitivity in the White House to avoiding a conflict that could lead to direct confrontation with Russia. Some senior Obama aides initially advocated taking a breather before deciding to arm the Ukrainian military, which only weeks before had been fighting pro-democracy protesters in the streets and was believed to be highly corrupt.
. . . . . jump down to. . . .
Trump first approved the sale of $47 million worth of 210 Javelin missiles and 37 launchers to Ukraine in December 2017. Delivered in April the following year, they were not deployed to the front lines of the still-simmering separatist war. Under the terms of the sale, they were kept boxed in a military storage facility far from the front lines, where they were to serve symbolically as a “strategic deterrent” to Russia.
In the summer of 2019, Trump froze an additional $400 million in congressionally approved security assistance to Ukraine, an action that later became a centerpiece in his first impeachment. Based in large part on a July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that year, in which Zelensky expressed interest in buying more Javelins, Trump deflected the request and instead asked Zelensky for the “favor” of digging up dirt against then Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, and the Ukrainian business dealings of Biden’s son, Hunter.
Ukraine is small potatoes compared to the loss of life in Yemen.
Quote:
The Biden administration also has led a global campaign to support Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates as they continue their brutal seven-year-old assault on Yemen. Washington has again made it a moral crusade, denouncing the Houthi-led insurgents for daring to fight back against the privileged Gulf monarchies. By and large, the world’s governments and peoples have stood mute, happy to profit from their connections to oil-rich Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.
The United Nations Security Council was unable to denounce Moscow’s invasion because of a Russian veto. However, the body approved a resolution, pushed strongly by a belligerent UAE, condemning Yemeni insurgents as terrorists. The Emirates bought Moscow’s support by abstaining on the Ukraine vote.
In an almost hysterical example of hypocrisy, the U.N. body—with the backing of the Biden administration—denounced the insurgents for firing drones and missiles at Saudi Arabia and UAE after the latter two had spent more than seven years bombing Yemeni cities. Despite having already caused thousands of deaths, the royal regimes continue to deliver death from the air without criticism from Washington. According to the Yemen Data Project:
January 2022 was the most violent month in the Saudi-led air war in Yemen in more than five years. Yemen Data Project recorded 139 civilian deaths and 287 civilians injured in Saudi coalition airstrikes in January, taking the casualty toll to over 19,000 civilians killed and injured since Saudi Arabia launched its bombing campaign in Yemen in March 2015. Not since October 2016 have more civilian casualties been recorded in a single month in the air war. Saudi-led coalition airstrikes caused more civilian harm in the first month of 2022 than in the two previous years combined.
. . . . . . jump down to . . .
Since March 2015, over 23,000 airstrikes have been launched by the coalition in Yemen, killing or injuring over 18,000 civilians. Living in a country subjected to an average of 10 airstrikes per day has left millions feeling far from safe. Although the frequency and intensity of airstrikes have fluctuated over the last four years, the Group of Eminent Experts has continued to observe their devastating impact on civilians.
President Biden should be embarrassed at his conduct. As a candidate, he criticized the Saudis and promised to put human rights and democracy at the center of his foreign policy. His subservience to Saudi and Emirati interests in the White House shows Biden’s approach to be similar in substance to the Trump administration’s—but significantly more hypocritical.
Washington’s participation in what the Yemenis call the Saudi-American war demonstrates the U.S.’s systemic foreign policy problem. Three successive American administrations have backed an aggressive war, waged by ruthlessly repressive states that have killed hundreds of thousands of people, displaced millions, and left their populations suffering from malnutrition and disease. Far more people have suffered in Yemen than have suffered and are likely to suffer in Ukraine.
Crimea had a special election on joining Russia. The results were something like 95% of the country wanted to reunite with Russia. The election was monitor and the results were accepted by EU officials. At the time the only country in disagreement was the USA.
Ukraine stated it intends to join NATO. Yes, this conflict could have been avoided if Ukraine refused to join NATO and refused to put USA/NATO missiles on its Russian border.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine leaked the telephone call because it wanted the weapons and were upset with President Trump.
Please note my sources were liberal democratic leaning publications.
There's a reason you're asked under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth....
Quote:
The Crimean status referendum of 2014 was a disputed referendum concerning the status of Crimea, held on March 16, 2014 in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the local government of Sevastopol (both subdivisions of Ukraine). The referendum was approved and held amidst Russia's annexation of Crimea.[2][3] The referendum asked local populations whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine. The official result from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83 percent voter turnout, and within the local government of Sevastopol there was also a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 89 percent voter turnout.[a]
The March 16 referendum's available choices did not include keeping the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol as they were at the moment the referendum was held. The 1992 constitution accords greater powers to the Crimean parliament, including full sovereign powers to establish relations with other states; therefore, many Western and Ukrainian commentators argued that both provided referendum choices would result in de facto separation from Ukraine.[4][5][6] The final date and ballot choices were set only ten days before the plebiscite was held. Before, during and after the plebiscite was proclaimed, the Crimean peninsula was host to Russian soldiers who managed to oversee public buildings and Ukrainian military installations.[2]
Following the referendum, the State Council of Crimea and Sevastopol City Council declared the independence of the Republic of Crimea from Ukraine and requested to join the Russian Federation.[7] On the same day, Russia recognized the Republic of Crimea as a sovereign state.[8][9][10]
The referendum is not internationally recognized by most countries,[11] mainly due to the presence of Russian forces.[12] Thirteen members of the United Nations Security Council voted in favor of a resolution declaring the referendum invalid, but Russia vetoed it and China abstained.[13][14] A United Nations General Assembly resolution was later adopted, by a vote of 100 in favor vs. 11 against with 58 abstentions, which declared the referendum invalid and affirmed Ukraine's territorial integrity.[12] As the plebiscite was proclaimed, the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People had called for a boycott of the referendum.[15][16]
There's a reason you're asked under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth....
The UN vote was 100 in favor and 93 not in favor/abstain/absent. It passed the UN by 7 votes out of 193 votes. In the game of world politics an abstain or absent is a no vote.
Your quote was dishonest as it stated " referendum's available choices did not include keeping the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol".
The referendum gave the choice of remaining in Ukraine as outlined in the 1992 constitution which was the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol.
There was a choice for Ukrainians. There were international voting monitors present.
The UN vote was 100 in favor and 93 not in favor/abstain/absent. It passed the UN by 7 votes out of 193 votes. In the game of world politics an abstain or absent is a no vote.
Your quote was dishonest as it stated " referendum's available choices did not include keeping the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol".
The referendum gave the choice of remaining in Ukraine as outlined in the 1992 constitution which was the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol.
There was a choice for Ukrainians. There were international voting monitors present.
Abstain and absent are not the same, otherwise why the distinction?
My quote was not dishonest.
In 2014, a vote to return to the 1992 constitution did not mean maintaining the status quo. That's just basic English.
A conversation of a Russian nazi trooper with his equally deprived girlfriend in Russia. The trooper brags about murder and rape of civilians in the occupied villages, he views it all as all you can eat safari. On top of murder and rape the troopers expect military decorations as a bonus. The nazi girlfriend is ok with murder but she cautions the trooper against rape, the trooper just sneers. Russia is the land of moral degenerates top to bottom. https://mobile.twitter.com/svecha62/...D1120926.22840
Lots of other links like that. Do you have any links to support your claims?
This has been an ongoing battle of wills.
Quote:
After a referendum on 20 January 1991, Crimea regained its status as an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.
As this was months before the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine on 24 August 1991 — by December 1991 internationally recognized Crimea was at the time part of the Ukrainian SSR which was one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union.
In 26 February 1992, the Crimean parliament changed the name of the region from the Crimean ASSR into "Republic of Crimea" and the Ukrainian government with the objective of allowing them more self-governance.
On 5 May 1992, parliament declared Crimea independent, which was yet to be approved by a referendum to be held 2 August 1992, and passed the first Crimean constitution the same day.
On 6 May 1992, the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution stating that Crimea was part of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian parliament convened on May 15, 1992 annulled the Crimean declaration of independence and gave the Crimean parliament one week to cancel the referendum.
In June 1992, the parties reached a compromise, Crimea would be designated the status of "Autonomous Republic" and granted special economic status, contingent on Crimea's amendment of its constitution including proclaiming the peninsula an autonomous integral part of Ukraine.
The revised Constitution of Crimea was adopted on September 25, 1992.
In May 1994, the Crimean parliament voted to restore the May 1992 Constitution.
In September 1994, President of Crimea Yuriy Meshkov and parliament decided to write a new constitution.
On 17 March 1995, the Verkhovna Rada abolished the May 1992 Constitution and the post of President of Crimea.
From June until September 1995, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma governed Crimea under a direct presidential administration decree.
In October 1995, the Crimean parliament adopted a new Constitution which was not recognized by the Ukrainian national authorities until April 1996 when significant amendments were suggested.
A fifth draft law of the October 1995 constitution was ratified on 21 October 1998 at the second session of the Crimean Verkhovna Rada.
The Verkhovna Rada confirmed this constitution on 23 December 1998.
It came into effect on 12 January 1999.
During the Crimean Crisis, the Crimean authority repealed the 1998 Crimean Constitution after the 2014 Crimean status referendum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
