Russia declares war on Ukraine. Live updates from inside Ukraine

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: Xcathdra
Is there any proof to that allegation? that Those little green men are as you say, Russian military.

Putin stated on Russian tv that the green military units with no insignia in Crimea were in fact Russian soldiers. Those same units, including identification of some of the same people from Crimea, are on the ground in Ukraine.

ETA ---> his response works as well - www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: DJW001

"This is typical Fascist behavior" wow so every one who attended Easter Service's,, were/are displaying Facist behaviour,,all 2 billion??? or is it more??

Only the ones who are leading pogroms against gays and women.

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: Xcathdra
Is there any proof to that allegation? that Those little green men are as you say, Russian military.

proof or no proof, the same green men will get the plain clothes and go several notches up in the 'intensity' of the riots and protests in S-E Ukraine. wait and watch.

putin will not back down from NATO expanding to his 'near abroad', even if it comes to trading military blows. Russia will be the first one to use the nukes as per declared doctrine.

once the nukes are loose, then some people here will finally ponder if NATO expansion was even worth it all.

just need 20-30K NATO boys killed in one day and NATO will come back to its senses.

very dangerous times we are living in these days !!

a reply to: DJW001


OHHhhh so u mean, for instance,,



Susan Rice: LGBT rights an essential part of U.S. foreign policy


www.washingtonblade.com...


www.globalequality.org...

Then you feel that world war 3 should be over LGBT rights.

keep poking you will get your wish.

i can see it now,, tell me again,, why they blew up the World,, "well son,, u would not believe me if i told u"

It started with a Pussy Riot,, yup,,ww3. crispy criters,,

a reply to: victor7

When did Russia change their nuclear response over to a first strike doctrine?

a reply to: Xcathdra

way back in 2000 and it was made official a couple of years later

a reply to: BobAthome

Russian GBLT laws are one of the few laws Russia has that discriminate. Not sure who asked me that question a few pages back. Whoever it was stated Russia has no laws that codify discrimination.

Ironically enough the latest laws Russia passed regarding the Russian language and how people must know it to live there made me laugh since its the very thing they bitched about with Ukraine (where the law never saw the light of day, but why quibble over facts).

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Xcathdra

way back in 2000 and it was made official a couple of years later

Got a link? I want to read about that change. The only part of Russian nuclear doctrine dealt with actions in West Germany and Cuba where commanders were given authorization to use battle field nukes. Aside from that, I have never seen a Russian doctrine for first strike.

a reply to: Xcathdra

www.abovetopsecret.com...

watch the video by cohen and he mentions that too, he is a russia specialist

here is wikipedia's information

en.wikipedia.org...

From 2010
Under the new doctrine, Russia continues to develop and modernize its nuclear capability. "Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened."

a reply to: Xcathdra
Russia has had soldiers in Crimea for years no?
But you are alleging there are Russian soldiers in E Ukraine, just asking if there is any evidence/proof to this?

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Xcathdra

www.abovetopsecret.com...

watch the video by cohen and he mentions that too, he is a russia specialist

here is wikipedia's information

en.wikipedia.org...

From 2010
Under the new doctrine, Russia continues to develop and modernize its nuclear capability. "Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened."

Thanks...

A first strike doctrine is the use of nuclear weapons prior to conventional hostilities breaking out. Russia's position is to use them when faced with overwhelming is not a first strike doctrine. The use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for nukes being used on Russia or her allies is also not a first strike doctrine.

I've seen the guy speak on the Russian topic before and I am not impressed. To state he doesn't flow European media only to go back and analyze what's going on makes no sense to be honest. The parts he fails to address is a sovereign nation can determine who or who not it will have relations with and there is nothing Russia or the US can do about that.

His analysis contently leaves out Putin's own admissions of Russian forces on the ground in Crimea, even after Putin constantly lied by stating they were not Russian. We see those same units being employed in East and South Ukraine as we speak. He even talks about the treaty that was initially signed yet he does not know what the treaty states. When he talked about Presidential elections he ignored the fact the agreement reinstated the 2004 Constitution. That reversion allowed for impeachment. With no President, Ukrainian law requires an election be held in 90 days - hence the may election dates.

Russia in fact started this. The problem that we have now is Russia can't seem to explain why they started it. They have lied so many times that they are contradicting themselves.

* - It was to protect Ethnic Russians.
* - It was because they don't recognize the government in Kiev.
* - It was because Crimea never belonged to Ukraine.
* - The East and South parts of Ukraine want to be Russian.

He talks about Obamas comment about US forces verse Russian forces (Which I think Obama was an idiot for stating). Is the statement provocative? No more provocative than Russia's comments about NATO / West.

Issues with NATO troops inside countries that border Russia - tough.
Russia has made it very clear that they will handle their internal affairs on their won and no has the right to question / demand. That same standard then applies to Putin when it comes to NATO nations and what military assets are in country.

Its only prudent to assume Russia's military actions / movements represent a threat to NATO nations in the region. Even more so by refusing to discuss those troop deployments with the west while making statements about going after "ethnic Russian" land.

The analyst should work for RT since he seems to have absolutely no grasp of what's going on.

OSCE monitoring teams in Ukraine hope to get permission to visit the city of Slavyansk in Donetsk region “within several hours,” Michael Bociurkiw, media officer for the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, told Interfax-Ukraine.

"While we are aware of reports of violence in Sloviansk, our monitoring teams have been unable to access the location due to security concerns," Bociurkiw said. "We'll try to visit Sloviansk in the next few hours," he added

Source

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: Xcathdra
But Russia has had soldiers in Crimea for years?
confused

Stop...

Stop with the games... Its getting annoying as piss.

The Russian units located in Crimea, Ukraine were there under an agreement. The Russians then sent in Russian military with no insignias, which are the forces we saw seizing government buildings / airfields etc etc.

Those troops were outside of the agreement and were in place prior to any type of referendum - which in fact makes it an invasion of Ukraine.

Putin admitted on Russian tv those units are Russian, and we are now seeing the same units in East and South Ukraine.

You are not that stupid so please just stop with the bs.

Euromaidan PR ‏@EuromaidanPR · 3m
#Airbourne of #Ukraine deflected attacks near #Donetsk region @DefenceUA | EMPR Post #unitedforukraine

Exactly what Russia was wanting -

Guardian news ‏@guardiannews · 20m
Guardian front page, Monday 21 April 2014: Ukraine shootout threatens to bury Geneva peace deal pic.twitter.com/ZfsEB0UGyr

The same was said by Russia about annexing Ukraine, and about having forces in Ukraine with no insignias.

Breaking Fox News ‏@BreakFoxNews · 21m
Russian ambassador blames Ukraine militia for violence, denies takeover plans www.snsanalytics.com...

English EuroMaidan ‏@EuroMaidanEN · 24m
Appreciative residents of Luhansk greet Ukrainian soldiers on Easter by singing the Ukrainian anthem (video,... fb.me...

Maybe they should have respected the peace agreement -

Agence France-Presse ‏@AFP · 43m
Ukraine rebels call for Russian troops after deadly gunfight u.afp.com... via @YahooNews pic.twitter.com/SfkBzavfa8

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: DJW001


OHHhhh so u mean, for instance,,



Susan Rice: LGBT rights an essential part of U.S. foreign policy


www.washingtonblade.com...


www.globalequality.org...

Then you feel that world war 3 should be over LGBT rights.

keep poking you will get your wish.

i can see it now,, tell me again,, why they blew up the World,, "well son,, u would not believe me if i told u"

It started with a Pussy Riot,, yup,,ww3. crispy criters,,

Your pride in your prejudice disgusts me.

a reply to: Xcathdra
wow
I've simply asked a question, one that would back up your claim as you've so rudely asked of me, but clearly you are above that.
Based on your megalomanic rant There Obviously is NO proof or evidence of Russian soldiers in E Ukraine other than what another surly poster has said is an "assumption".
Until then any further reading from you I will consider as fiction and comic relief

Pro-Russian Forces Kidnap Journalist in Sloviansk, Ukraine
cdn.breitbart.com...

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Xcathdra

www.abovetopsecret.com...

watch the video by cohen and he mentions that too, he is a russia specialist

here is wikipedia's information

en.wikipedia.org...

From 2010
Under the new doctrine, Russia continues to develop and modernize its nuclear capability. "Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened."

Thats not what the first strike doctrine was about. Putin saw the future as the first to control land sea air and space wins. They were modelling themselves after the United States a mobile fighting force run and gun if you will. This means hit first hit hard and above all move to the next. Same tactics US used in Iraq and Afghanistan the Russian lost Afghanistan because they would take an area attempt to hold it which leaves you open to counter attacks. America went in we found targets swoop in destroy the target and leave, If you fight this way limits your casualties and you take out the others assets until eventually they cant fight they have nothing left. The nuclear threat was seen as a way to keep fights regional instead of escalating into all out war.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Euromaidan PR ‏@EuromaidanPR · 3m
#Airbourne of #Ukraine deflected attacks near #Donetsk region @DefenceUA | EMPR Post #unitedforukraine

Exactly what Russia was wanting -

Guardian news ‏@guardiannews · 20m
Guardian front page, Monday 21 April 2014: Ukraine shootout threatens to bury Geneva peace deal pic.twitter.com/ZfsEB0UGyr

The same was said by Russia about annexing Ukraine, and about having forces in Ukraine with no insignias.

Breaking Fox News ‏@BreakFoxNews · 21m
Russian ambassador blames Ukraine militia for violence, denies takeover plans www.snsanalytics.com...

English EuroMaidan ‏@EuroMaidanEN · 24m
Appreciative residents of Luhansk greet Ukrainian soldiers on Easter by singing the Ukrainian anthem (video,... fb.me...

Maybe they should have respected the peace agreement -

Agence France-Presse ‏@AFP · 43m
Ukraine rebels call for Russian troops after deadly gunfight u.afp.com... via @YahooNews pic.twitter.com/SfkBzavfa8

Agreed If russia can create enough conflict it could forestall the elections and i think that will be there goal not so much bring in troops.

'I’m confused. A few weeks ago we were told in the West that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine was a very good thing. These people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media commentators, were ‘pro-democracy protestors’.

The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these ‘pro-democracy protestors’ even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.

Now, just a few weeks later, we’re told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not‘pro-democracy protestors’ but ‘terrorists’ or ‘militants’.

Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why was the use of force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I’m confused. Can anyone help me?'


Great article by Neil Clark about Western hypocrisy and double standards. In details.

see the rest in here

www.globalresearch.ca...

'The mainstream U.S. news media is flooding the American people with one-sided propaganda on Ukraine, rewriting the narrative to leave out the key role of neo-Nazis and insisting on a “group think” that exceeds even the misguided consensus on Iraq’s WMD.

After the Feb. 22 coup in Ukraine – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias – European and U.S. diplomats pushed for a quick formation of a new government out of fear that otherwise these far-right ultra-nationalists would be left in total control, one of those diplomats told me.

The comment again underscores the inconvenient truth of what happened in Ukraine: neo-Nazis were at the forefront of the Kiev coup that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych, a reality that the U.S. government and news media have been relentlessly trying to cover up.

Although real-time reports from the scene in February chronicled armed and organized militias associated with the neo-Nazi Svoboda party and the Right Sektor attacking police with firebombs and light weapons, that information soon became a threat to the Western propaganda theme that Yanukovych fled simply because peaceful protesters occupied the Maidan square.

So, the more troubling history soon disappeared into the memory hole, dismissed as “Russian propaganda.” The focus of the biased U.S. news media is now on the anti-Kiev militants in the Russian-ethnic areas of eastern Ukraine who have rejected the authority of the coup regime and are insisting on regional autonomy.

The new drumbeat in the U.S. press is that those militants must disarm in line with last week’s agreement in Geneva involving the United States, European Union, Russia and the “transitional” Ukrainian government. As for those inconvenient neo-Nazi militias, they have been incorporated into a paramilitary “National Guard” and deployed to the east to conduct an “anti-terrorist” campaign against the eastern Ukrainian protesters, ethnic Russians whom the neo-Nazis despise.'

Another great article, this one is from Robert Parry about one-sided propaganda in mainstream media.
I guess it is not necessary to tell you that much of propaganda we can witness in this thread as well.
Some guys in here are working overtime and I wonder do they even have time for eating, having shower, shaving,etc..

www.globalresearch.ca...