Russian helicopters heading to Sevastopol, Ukraine

ProfessorT
It's all getting very interesting between Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the world. Russia's blatant invasion of Ukraine will probably lead to war. It's likely David Cameron and Barack Obama have already spoken about military intervention. It is certainly going to be an interesting 24-48 hours - there are reports that military planes with Russian soldiers have landed in the two occupied Ukrainian airports.

The US and the UK signed agreements with Ukraine shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union to guarantee their territorial sovereignty.

Another Video from the Crimea region
it's look more and more like a warzone
www.liveleak.com...

Here it comes...

Ukraine says Russia tries to seize airports, base

SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine accused Russia of a "military invasion and occupation" on Friday, saying Russian troops have taken up positions around a coast guard base and two airports on its strategic Crimea peninsula.

Russia kept silent on those accusations but confirmed that armored vehicles from its Black Sea Fleet were moving around Crimea for "security" reasons as the crisis deepened between two of Europe's largest countries.

Any Russian military incursion in Crimea would dramatically raise the stakes in Ukraine's conflict, which saw pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych flee last weekend after three months of anti-government protests. Yanukovych vowed Friday at a news conference in Russia to "keep fighting for the future of Ukraine," though he called any military action "unacceptable."

Moscow has vowed to protect Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Crimea, where it has a major naval base, and Ukraine and the West have warned Russia to stay away. Russia did not confirm its troops were involved in Friday's action in Crimea, which would be a major escalation.

In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he called Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to warn Moscow against military moves in Crimea, saying they could further inflame tensions in Ukraine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday and expressed concern about any destabilization of Ukraine, her government said. She said any step that could contribute to an escalation should be avoided and "called for restraint with a view to Crimea," Merkel spokesman Steffen Seibert said in a statement.

Click link for remainder of article

MrMaybeNot
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Well, it is their direct neighbour after all, being threatened by NATO, EU, while the United States are funding and organizing regime change in Ukraine. The least they can do is protect their key interest. This is not Ukraine against Russia, it's western interest against Russia. Ukraine is being used right now by outside interest.

Where do you guys keep getting threatened by NATO / EU from?

Secondly please support your claim that the US is funding regime change in Ukraine.

Third - it is Ukraine against Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and Russia has violated that sovereignty.

Contrary to how things might work in Russia / former east bloc countries, if you are going to make claims you need to support them with facts and not propaganda.

reply to post by MrMaybeNot


It's their problem, keep our troops out of it.

Half of Ukraine speaks russian, it will be another russian disaster.

Sit back and watch the show.

PressTV Iran - Russia rejects Ukraine’s call for talks on Crimea

Russia has rejected a call by Ukraine to discuss the worsening political situation in the country’s semi-autonomous Crimea region, saying the crisis is an internal issue.

In a statement released on Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry rejected a call for consultations on Crimea with new Ukrainian officials.

The statement also added that Moscow has not violated an agreement regarding the movement of its troops in the region.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said the movement of armored vehicles belonging to Russia’s Black Sea fleet in Crimea is in line with Russian-Ukrainian agreements.

The ministry continued by saying that the movements were needed “to ensure the security of the places where the Black Sea fleet is stationed on the territory of Ukraine.”

This comes as Ukraine’s new Interior Minister Arsen Avakov earlier in the day accused Russian troops of staging an “invasion” of Crimea’s international airport in Simferopol and the Belbek airfield near the city of Sevastopol, which is home to Russia's Black Sea fleet.

Click link for remainder of article

reply to post by Dolby_X


MI-8 and MI-24 packing rockets sure looks like an invasion force, unless otherwise agreed upon

PressTV - Iran - Russian troops seize military airport in Crimea: Ukraine

Ukraine's new Interior Minister Arsen Avakov says Russian troops have taken control of a military airport in Ukraine's autonomous Crimea territory.

Avakov wrote in a Facebook post on Friday that the Belbek international airport was blocked by military units of the Russian navy.

The troops have reportedly surrounded the military airport near the port of Sevastopol, where the Russian Black Sea fleet has a base. According to reports, the Russian troops have not entered the military base so far but are backed by armored personnel carriers.

However, Russia's Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed source as saying that the country’s Black Sea Fleet forces have not seized Belbek airfield or taken any other action there.

Earlier on Friday, a group of armed men in military uniforms briefly seized an airport in the regional capital of Crimea. Eyewitness said about 50 gunmen in military uniforms arrived at Simferopol international airport in military trucks to search for Ukrainian airborne troops.

The group, however, left after finding out that Ukrainian military forces were not present on the tarmac. According to some reports, the armed men are still patrolling the airport, letting flights go ahead.

Click link for remainder of article.

reply to post by Xcathdra


securing the base before landing helicopters armed to the teeth
setting up/scrambling communications... seams like the first to happen during most invasions
crossing the line?

all2human
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

securing the base before landing
setting up communications etc...
crossing the line?

edit on 28-2-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)

To be honest im not sure..

I would like to find out more about the agreement between Ukraine and Russia with regards to the black sea fleet and the actions that were just taken. Russia is stating they acted within the agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

While I seriously doubt it allows for the take over of 2 airports and media outlets, I would still like to see the agreement.

On the flipside its entirely possible its the start of an invasion. Seizing airports / media outlets are from the basic class take over 101.

What concerns me is the lack of identification of the soldiers on the ground. IF they belong to a nation state then they violated the Geneva convention.

I am also wondering if the soldiers are members of Spetnaz..

This just came in on CNN's web ticker -

(CNN is always slower than ATS so apologies if this has been shown already)

Ukraine's largest telecom company says it is unable to provide data and voice connectivity between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine.

CNN

Xcathdra


Secondly please support your claim that the US is funding regime change in Ukraine.

Whilst not explicitly stated for regime change, Victoria Nuland earlier this month stated the US has spent $5 billion funding 'democracy'.

'“Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. ”

khimbar

Xcathdra


Secondly please support your claim that the US is funding regime change in Ukraine.

Whilst not explicitly stated for regime change, Victoria Nuland earlier this month stated the US has spent $5 billion funding 'democracy'.

'“Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. ”

Providing a country with Financial assistance does not immediately make it some sinister plot to influence events / foment a coup. Insinuating such is a cowards way of trying to justify actions when no lawful basis exists for those actions.

Again its ironic how quickly an action that is detested / slammed by a group of people is very much ok with those very actions when they perceive it as working in their favor.

My question still stands - I would like to see a source that supports the accusation made. If the actions by the US to fund regime change is that pronounced, then there should be no issues of people providing the source / documents / info to support the claim.

Also, Russia has sent aid to Ukraine, so could the same argument be applied to Russian actions?

Also, the US is not the only nation to provide aid to Ukraine. So again, people seem to be looking thru blinders. Are the other nations who provide aid to Ukraine just as guilty when it comes to "regime change"? Or are those nations in a different category because they are not the US?

Xcathdra

seasoul
For those who believe Russia will walk away from the Ukraine-Crimea without engaging in a brutal protracted apocalyptic fight to the death, you'd better think twice.

Ironic... I love how people in this thread are ok with Russia seizing parts of a sovereign nation because of gas resources yet they throw a bloody fit when its done by some other countries.

I'm not condemning or condoning Russia's potential response, simply just predicting it.

There are no winners, in war

To understand Crimea, take a look back at its complicated history

When President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev this week, it was tempting to assume that Ukraine's crisis was over: Euromaidan had won, and the forces of Western-style democracy had prevailed over Yanukovych's Kremlin-led repression.

If only it were that simple. For the past few days all eyes have been on southern Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, and things don't look so rosy. Crimea, which is not only populated by 60 percent Russian speakers but is the base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, has seen some worrying developments in the past few days: On Thursday gunmen reportedly seized government buildings in the capital, Simferopol, barricading themselves in and raising Russian flags.

Crimea's situation is, as with many things in Ukraine's political crisis, compounded by a complicated history. For most in America and Western Europe, however, that history is likely obscure -- wasn't there a war or something there? Let's take a look back.

Click link for remainder of article.

MrMaybeNot
reply to post by seasoul

 

To tell you the truth, I stand with Russia on this. They're not the aggressors here, they're merely trying to protect their assets.

Are you serious? You simply cannot be ok with someone invading a country, just because the other country cancels a deal. You may not like it, but that doesn't give you the right to invade. And, the Ukraine hasn't done anything yet, from what I've read...only thought about it. You can't just send Hinds, ships, and troops in on a whim.

Ridiculous.

Bahrain did have it's own Arab spring, in fact, it's still going on and the US Fifth Fleet did nothing.

reply to post by stumason


True, but I don't think the ruling family in Bahrain was ever in jeopardy of losing control or threatened thier ability to maintain control. I could be wrong, I didn't follow it that closely. My guess, and admittedly it's just a guess, had government buildings been taken over, the ruling family been sent into hiding and so on, the Navy would have taken steps to protect it's ships and crews. I know the situations are not identical and perhaps not worthy of comparison. I only meant that so far my "opinion" is Russia is acting in it's best interests to protect a significantly strategic naval base. I think the US or UK would act similarly given the same circumstances.

seasoul

Xcathdra

seasoul
For those who believe Russia will walk away from the Ukraine-Crimea without engaging in a brutal protracted apocalyptic fight to the death, you'd better think twice.

Ironic... I love how people in this thread are ok with Russia seizing parts of a sovereign nation because of gas resources yet they throw a bloody fit when its done by some other countries.

I'm not condeming or condoning. I'm simply predicting Russia's response.

There are no winners, in war

And I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

Using the logic of some members in this thread would allow for the following -
* - Israel could invade their neighbors in an effort to protect themselves.
* - Iran / Syria could be invaded by the west because they represent a direct threat to allies "sphere abroad".
* - Allowing a nation to invade a sovereign nation solely for resources (China take note...).
* - Invading a nation under the guise of national security.
* - Invading a sovereign nation because there happens to be a large group of foreign nationals who moved in (stealth invasion - again take note China).
* - The insinuation by some that the UN would not be able to respond because Russia and China are on the security council. Apparently those who hold that mindset didn't bother to do their homework since the UN Charter allows for nations to defend themselves as well as allowing nations with treaties for defense to act as well.

All examples that have been used in the past by members to go after western nations.

The people in this thread / site have screamed up and down at one time or another based on the above. Now that Russia is engaged in it, the actions seem to be acceptable.

They are completely lost when it comes to the consequences of a modern war. They invoke the use of nuclear weapons as if the radiation / fallout cant cross international boundaries.

There are no winners in war. I agree, however when people cannot think for themselves and simply act because that is what they are told to do becomes problematic. They acknowledge that fact, then ignore it when, again, its being done by Russia.

Question for Russia -
Anything else in the box Pandora?

heliosprime77

Bahrain did have it's own Arab spring, in fact, it's still going on and the US Fifth Fleet did nothing.

reply to post by stumason

 

True, but I don't think the ruling family in Bahrain was ever in jeopardy of losing control or threatened thier ability to maintain control. I could be wrong, I didn't follow it that closely. My guess, and admittedly it's just a guess, had government buildings been taken over, the ruling family been sent into hiding and so on, the Navy would have taken steps to protect it's ships and crews. I know the situations are not identical and perhaps not worthy of comparison. I only meant that so far my "opinion" is Russia is acting in it's best interests to protect a significantly strategic naval base. I think the US or UK would act similarly given the same circumstances.

edit on 28-2-2014 by heliosprime77 because: (no reason given)

There will always be issue in Bahrain so long as the government in Iran still considers it a part of their territory.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Xcathdra

seasoul

Xcathdra

seasoul
For those who believe Russia will walk away from the Ukraine-Crimea without engaging in a brutal protracted apocalyptic fight to the death, you'd better think twice.

Ironic... I love how people in this thread are ok with Russia seizing parts of a sovereign nation because of gas resources yet they throw a bloody fit when its done by some other countries.

I'm not condeming or condoning. I'm simply predicting Russia's response.

There are no winners, in war

And I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

Using the logic of some members in this thread would allow for the following -
* - Israel could invade their neighbors in an effort to protect themselves.
* - Iran / Syria could be invaded by the west because they represent a direct threat to allies "sphere abroad".
* - Allowing a nation to invade a sovereign nation solely for resources (China take note...).
* - Invading a nation under the guise of national security.
* - Invading a sovereign nation because there happens to be a large group of foreign nationals who moved in (stealth invasion - again take note China).
* - The insinuation by some that the UN would not be able to respond because Russia and China are on the security council. Apparently those who hold that mindset didn't bother to do their homework since the UN Charter allows for nations to defend themselves as well as allowing nations with treaties for defense to act as well.

All examples that have been used in the past by members to go after western nations.

The people in this thread / site have screamed up and down at one time or another based on the above. Now that Russia is engaged in it, the actions seem to be acceptable.

They are completely lost when it comes to the consequences of a modern war. They invoke the use of nuclear weapons as if the radiation / fallout cant cross international boundaries.

There are no winners in war. I agree, however when people cannot think for themselves and simply act because that is what they are told to do becomes problematic. They acknowledge that fact, then ignore it when, again, its being done by Russia.

Question for Russia -
Anything else in the box Pandora?

edit on 28-2-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

And you have on more than one occasion been on the other side advocating that behavior, so by that logic you should be ok with Russia doing this or dare I say are you being a hypocrite as well?