**BREAKING NEWS** Senator Suggests Recalling Russia Ambassador over Obama Speech

ToneDeaf

Xcathdra
What does Ukraine want?

'Wants' of corporations is the problem, not only
in Ukraine but globally.
When common people are whipped till they are down on their
knees the elites will easily exploit the people.
The 'turmoil' has been artificially created and funded
by such as these :
www.forbes.com...
The elites of russia/england/u.s/israel are all in bed with each other,
It's the common folk and their children
which are being exploited, sovereignty has lost all meaning with no thanks to the
greed of elites.

_______________________________

Didn't really answer my question though...

What does Ukraine want?

People better stock up on 10 million sun block.. Before sky-net ever gets the chance to become self aware, our politicians in the world will get us all fried anyway...

reply to post by Xcathdra


He did not answer my question either.

alienreality
fried anyway...

Those that have no ethics or morals such as the
cold blooded lizards end up frying themselves, no help
from us common folk needed.
There is such a thing called ethics, obtained without sky-net;
And it's free / and liberating

_________________________________

ToneDeaf

Libertygal
Ukraine is begging us for help

Get real, the average Ukrainian folk (btw I'm Ukrainian) do NOT
consider u.s., england's, or israel's foreign meddling as 'help'.
ON THE CONTRARY ! (with 'friends' as that who needs enemies

Even russia is in bed with the pipe co., the corporations
run and rape the governments. There will be no such thing
as 'governments' when they are through.
Your leaders are shell oil and affiliates.

_____________________

edit on 2/3/14 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)

I'm not exactly sure you know what you're talking about, Why, Shell Oil?
For the Coal deposits? Because the Oil and natural gas deposits were depleted during the Soviet period of occupation.
You might want to rethink your Rant about who is meddling.
The average Ukrainian may just want a little foreign Meddling when Putin gets done with them.

They have a very large collection of natural resources.

Ukraine is rich in natural resources: coal, iron ore, manganese, nickel and uranium, and others. The reserves of sulfur are the largest in the world, the reserves of mercury ore are the second largest. Also more than 5% of world reserves of iron ore are concentrated in Ukraine.

link
Just maybe if you're Ukrainian, you can answer some of the questions asked of you.

Does anyone see this as just another way to generate more fear?
Just ask'n.

reply to post by randyvs


Absolutely it is.
This whole Cold War idea is being generated by both sides because the powers in charge need it. What better way to get everyone to follow blindly than to invent a big bad enemy. I think this is all planned out.
They can have us all scared of nukes coming from the bad guys and do whatever they want while everyone is distracted.

reply to post by Daz3d-n-Confus3d


I doubt its planned out between both nations. Obama cant seem to decide what he wants for breakfast, let alone a foreign policy standard.

I find Russia being contradictory though. For a country that espouses democratic values they sure are quick to stop talking when the people they are talking to don't / wont share the same view point.

Its like the result of Russian illegally annexing Crimea. They demand the world accept their actions while taking those countries to task for imposing sanctions on them.

If people are going to argue Russia had a right, then the same argument applies in the opposite. You want to annex crimea, fine - Don't expect other nations to support it and don't expect them to do business with you because of it.

Xcathdra
reply to post by Daz3d-n-Confus3d

 

I doubt its planned out between both nations. Obama cant seem to decide what he wants for breakfast, let alone a foreign policy standard.

I find Russia being contradictory though. For a country that espouses democratic values they sure are quick to stop talking when the people they are talking to don't / wont share the same view point.

Its like the result of Russian illegally annexing Crimea. They demand the world accept their actions while taking those countries to task for imposing sanctions on them.

If people are going to argue Russia had a right, then the same argument applies in the opposite. You want to annex crimea, fine - Don't expect other nations to support it and don't expect them to do business with you because of it.

Where do you get your info from FOX news? A violent coup is not lawfully removing the government. And the people of Crimea voted to join Russia so Russia didn't illegally annex Crimea. Crimea was an autonomous nation so it had every right to choose their own path whether the Ukraine like it or not. The only thing the Ukraine cared about when it came to Crimea was their oil and natural gas.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Russia can use it to their advantage just as much as the US can. Putin is a smart man. He knows how to manipulate situations and he needs an enemy our size in order to show how strong of a leader he is and to get the people to rally behind him.
A common enemy tends to do that.
You are very correct about our current President, but don't under estimate his ability to use a situation like this to get something he needs.

Hey, on the bright side maybe Stallone can make another Rocky film with another Russian boxer as the bad guy now.

buster2010
Where do you get your info from FOX news?

lol really? You need a new accusation line... That one is getting old.

buster2010
A violent coup is not lawfully removing the government.

And yet Crimea went through with it anyways, supported by Russia. If you are referring to Ukraine, there was no coup. Had you read the agreement the President signed, you would note it stated the 2004 Constitution went back into effect the moment he signed it. That allowed parliament to use Ukrainian law 408 - simplified impeachment process.

Also, if you read Russian media coverage of the 2010/2012 Ukrainian elections you would have noticed they spent some time on the changes that were made in terms of how parliament is elected. Russian media stated right then that the change could result in an impeachment of the President if enough elected groups worked together to form a united front against the President.

The former President had been under investigation for some time, which is the other part Russia likes to lie about. When you investigate a person for 2+ years, and an impeachment results, it does not need another 2 years to reinvestigate the accusations. The report was submitted.

The removal of the former President was lawful and in accordance with the Ukrainian Constitution of 2004. The agreement that was signed also spells that out. Putin has also stated that the former President gave up power during his marathon press conference.

That's the other issue - Go back and look at Putin's reasoning from day 1 up until now and you will see he switches his justification as he goes along.

buster2010
And the people of Crimea voted to join Russia so Russia didn't illegally annex Crimea.

Actually they did. The vote violated the Ukrainian constitution as well as international law / UN Charter. If you actually research the information being used by Russia it would be evident. Since people don't want to exercise independent thought and are just willing to side with Russia for whatever reason, we will continue to have people making claims from Russian media that is supported by nothing but a falsehood Russia has put out.

buster2010
Crimea was an autonomous nation so it had every right to choose their own path whether the Ukraine like it or not.

No really they did not. Autonomous does not mean independent. Read the Ukrainian constitution for the dos and dont's that apply to Crimea. Secondly calling the referendum just that. a referendum, is also a joke since it was invaded by Russian forces.

buster2010
The only thing the Ukraine cared about when it came to Crimea was their oil and natural gas.

The position of the Ukrainian government does not support your accusation.

I am being srerious by the way. Take some time and actually look at the position Russia is arguing from. They, the Russians, use the Ukrainian constitution to support their argument and then dismiss when it does not support theirs.

Daz3d-n-Confus3d
reply to post by randyvs

 

Absolutely it is.
This whole Cold War idea is being generated by both sides because the powers in charge need it. What better way to get everyone to follow blindly than to invent a big bad enemy. I think this is all planned out.
They can have us all scared of nukes coming from the bad guys and do whatever they want while everyone is distracted.

My thoughts entirely.
Good post.

Has anyone else ever wondered if the "collapse" of the Soviet Union might have been a lot more than we have ever been told? Specifically, I have sometimes wondered if the Soviet and American governments did not find they had a lot more in common than they had differences and it was therefore agreed upon to arrange a "collapse" for the world to cheer about.

The treaty the war mongers are referring to is the agreement of the Ukraine government to get rid of their nukes in exchange for "protection" from those wanting them to give up their weapons. They disarmed. Now look at the situation in which they find themselves.
It reminds me once more that giving up your weapons and expecting others to "protect" you is stupid and dangerous to YOU. The Ukraine government made the decision. Now they must live with it for believing the lying, thieving politicians.
But in the end, it's between Russia and Ukraine---we have no dog in the fight.

reply to post by diggindirt


The Budapest agreement does more than you are describing.

Source

According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:
1.Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2.Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3.Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4.Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5.Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6.Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

Also, since you have failed to notice, Russia was the one who violated the agreement, not the west.

Secondly, Russia compounded that with their illegal military buildup in Ukraine. While their is an agreement between Ukraine and Russia and the military facilities in Crimea, what Russia fails to acknowledge is any increase / deployment of additional forces must be approved by Ukraine before deployment. That includes increasing the numbers over the amount that was present prior to the Russian invasion.

Up to 25k troops are authorized, however Ukraine has to agree to the numbers. Russia failed to follow that, resulting in a treaty violation.

The only thing Ukraine is guilty of is taking Russia at its word it would not violate the Budapest agreement.
The other thing Ukraine is guilty of is taking the US / UK's word that they would act to secure their territorial integrity if its threatened.

It's even more helpful to read the actual text and it's a bit of a complex issue. Not nearly as clear cut as it first appears.

Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994

reply to post by ToneDeaf


Thank you.
As a soldier I agree.
I don't wish to anger you but it IS your fight and with the garbage we have somehow elected we have a weak leader,lord knows what kind of idiotic behavior would be attached with ANY such aid.
.Putin WILL NOT give up those ports now any more that we can accept Iran with nukes.I would guess the Crimea with soon have a wall.
I fear for you guys, what has happened to you is a perfect illustration of why Americans maintain small arms is a right.
Please take care and I'll keep praying for you guys.

reply to post by Libertygal


So when did Russia invade through Ukrainian borders?

I've asked this several times on ATS and never got an answer. I've been following Ukraine every day and never saw any Russian invasion. There were some low-key spetsnaz operations conducted to assist the Crimean militias but if this is considered invading then the USA should also be accused of invading all of Africa and most of Western Asia.

Vovin
reply to post by Libertygal

 

So when did Russia invade through Ukrainian borders?

I've asked this several times on ATS and never got an answer. I've been following Ukraine every day and never saw any Russian invasion. There were some low-key spetsnaz operations conducted to assist the Crimean militias but if this is considered invading then the USA should also be accused of invading all of Africa and most of Western Asia.

* - When did Crimea declare its independence from Ukraine? - March 11th 2014 RT News

* - Prior to that illegal action, what country was Crimea a part of? - Ukraine (since 1954 courtesy of the USSR).

* - When did Russia send in troops - Feb 26th 2014 / Feb 27th 2014 (denials aside there are documented interviews with the "non insignia people" where they claim they are Russian.

The basis for action in Crimea was that the Ukraine constitution was violated (which in fact it was not). At this point, the entire argument by Russia / Crimea revolved around violation of the Ukrainian Constitution. That is important because it means they are still observing it. That is important because until March 11th, Crimea was still subject to it.

* - Crimea is prohibited from calling for a referendum since it deals with Ukraine territorial sovereignty (Ukraine constitution)
* - Crimea is prohibited from requesting foreign military assistance.
* - Any change to Ukraine's territory requires an entire nation referendum.

Since Russia sent in forces prior to the date Crimea "declared its independence from Ukraine", it was in fact an armed invasion.

* - What about the military agreement between Ukraine and Russia concerning forces in Crimea?
Under the terms of the agreement Russia is restricted to a set number of military assets (personnel / equipment / types of weapons / etc). The agreement also stipulates the forces are not to move out beyond the bases they are assigned to. Most importantly, the treaty allows for Russia to increase the number of military units / equipment / etc into Crimea, with one caveat people ignore.

Russia is required per that treaty to discuss the movements with Ukraine and any increase / movements must be agreed upon by Ukraine.

Russia failed to do that, and the treaty is between Ukraine and Russia, NOT Russia and Crimea.

That is how and when Russia invaded Ukraine.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Crimea declaring independence was illegal? Why? Because it wasn't recognized by some western states? But Israel is perfectly fine? Kosovo?

And spare me this drivel about how the Crimean self-defense forces were secretly Russian soldiers. It's unsubstantiated heresay, and really, did you expect a newly-independent nation to not form its own defense force?