It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia sinks own ship to block Ukrainian vessels, official says

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   

13th Zodiac

Xcathdra


What is the difference between Chechnya and Crimea?
edit on 7-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


You have asked this several times now. They are spelt differently.


Yes I have and people ignored it. The 2 situations are the same and those defending Russian action would be hard pressed to defend Russia's actions in Chechnya.

As I stated before if pro Russian's are going to try and claim the moral high ground they should make sure that high ground doesn't have a mass grave underneath.

Ukraine crisis: BBC on board blockaded Ukrainian ship


A military stand-off has been taking place in the Crimean port of Sevastopol with sailors from the Ukrainian navy being prevented from leaving their ships by Russian forces.

Christian Fraser gained rare access to the Ukrainian fleet stranded in the harbour.

edit on 7-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
so if they(Russia) get away with "annexing" Crimea does that not set the international precedent that nations can annex other nations to "protect their citizens?" or to protect their interests and global goals in relationship to important economic issues?

seems like this might be why the Israelis have been so quiet on the issue (on a state deparment level as many citizens are split on the matter who are of Jewish decent) i mean(and not trying to get off topic ) would that not legitimize and let them cite it as a precedent in relations to their "occupied territories" ala they just say well we have Israelis that are in danger in the occupied territory that are being threatend so were going to full on annex it(golan heights etc) instead of just keeping it at the status quoe?



more on topic i think it more goes to show the sad state of the russsian navy that they can afford to just scuttle a ship of cruiser class(i think it was a former cruiser right?)that even when the "war" is over they will still eventually have the clear the channel for shipping and unless they plan on sticking ukraine with the bill i see them having to pay for it anyways if that makes sense?



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   

RalagaNarHallas
so if they(Russia) get away with "annexing" Crimea does that not set the international precedent that nations can annex other nations to "protect their citizens?" or to protect their interests and global goals in relationship to important economic issues?

seems like this might be why the Israelis have been so quiet on the issue (on a state deparment level as many citizens are split on the matter who are of Jewish decent) i mean(and not trying to get off topic ) would that not legitimize and let them cite it as a precedent in relations to their "occupied territories" ala they just say well we have Israelis that are in danger in the occupied territory that are being threatend so were going to full on annex it(golan heights etc) instead of just keeping it at the status quoe?



more on topic i think it more goes to show the sad state of the russsian navy that they can afford to just scuttle a ship of cruiser class(i think it was a former cruiser right?)that even when the "war" is over they will still eventually have the clear the channel for shipping and unless they plan on sticking ukraine with the bill i see them having to pay for it anyways if that makes sense?


No, when Russia acts and its media states its ok, its ok.

/end sarcasm.

Hitler originally acted on that question, annexing parts of countries to protect "Ethnic Germans". It didn't end so well for Hitler and wont end so well for Putin.

There actions in Crimea had me asking what the difference is between Crimea, who Russia claims wants independence and should have it, and Chechnya, which is 95% Chechens and only 2% Russian who also want independence yet Russia refuses and invades them. I asked the question in the context of everything Putin has stated to justify his invasion of Crimea - Ethnic Russian / those Russian under threat / self determination / respect the will of the people etc etc etc.

They cant give an answer to that question, for obvious reason, and instead either ignore it or give an answer that resembles the punch line of a bad joke instead. they are all for the actions in Crimea, but when they get called out on the hypocrisy, they go into attack the poster and not the facts mode.

Apparently Russian naval units have scuttled a third vessel now.

Putin mocks the West and threatens to turn off gas supplies - Russian leader says does not want 'new cold war' but threatens to disrupt European gas supplies

I am curious if Putin is still going to go with his lie of no Russian forces in Crimea engaging in this activity. Putin should have shut down all media in Crimea before blockading the port / ships.
edit on 8-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Whilst there are obvious parallels with the annexation of Sudetenland by Hitler, you have to remember that his goal was liebensraum and these early acts were merely a springboard.
Russia doesn't need liebensraum.
I doubt very much that this is a precursor to western expsnsion.
I think it's more likely that once this is settled we'll see some form of action against all the 'stans that are the real thorns in the bear's side.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


Hitler justified actions in Czechoslovakia by stating he was protecting the German speaking people.
Putin justified actions in Crimea by stating he was protecting Russian speaking people.

The main purpose of studying history is so we can avoid repeating it instead of using it as a blueprint.

The same holds for the US Government, the NSA / spying crap and George Orwell's 1984 - The purpose was to prevent government actions. The government instead used it as a blue print.

if you don't mind me asking - I have seen people use the term western expansion. In what context are you using it? Ideology / physical / other?
edit on 8-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree on the similarities, but as I said, the sudentenland and subsequent invasion of Poland were necessary precursors to operation Barbarossa.
There's no Russian desire to expand West anymore so I don't see the crimea thing as preparation.
By Western expansion I meant the old Soviet plan of pushing West all the way to Portugal. I don't see the ideology for that anymore. Russia wants markets and money these days, they get more of both by leaving the capitalist West to govern itself.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
Would we appreciate the Russian Government in our face over a dispute with a Caribbean nation? Say...one of the U.S. Protectorates? If one went against us, they'd have that right...and we'd show absolutely *NO* respect for that, if it happened. Russia showing up in OUR backyard pond to dictate terms to us on OUR immediate neighbors would be as out of place as this is, IMO.
edit on 7-3-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


The west in general isn't obligated to help the Ukraine here but there's a huge incentive for doing so. NATO promised to defend them in exchange for them handing over their nuclear weapons. It's one of the bigger anti nuclear proliferation victories out there. If NATO countries now refuse to defend the Ukraine, how does that look for nuclear policy? It blows it completely to hell. Countries that turned over nukes will begin developing new ones, and countries that do wind up with nukes won't hand them over.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   

SprocketUK
I agree on the similarities, but as I said, the sudentenland and subsequent invasion of Poland were necessary precursors to operation Barbarossa.

Fair point for the Nazi side of the question. What about Russia getting the other half of Poland though? That was part of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. After Germany began their invasion of Poland, Russia invaded Poland from the East.



SprocketUK
There's no Russian desire to expand West anymore so I don't see the crimea thing as preparation.

Russia, according to the Moldova rep to the UN, has been working with several autonomous regions in Moldova in almost the same fashion they did in Crimea. Those regions have "militias" working with Russia. According to him when the incident in Crimea occurred, those forces in the Moldova area went on alert. (M oldova Rep speaks at UN press conference)



SprocketUK
By Western expansion I meant the old Soviet plan of pushing West all the way to Portugal. I don't see the ideology for that anymore. Russia wants markets and money these days, they get more of both by leaving the capitalist West to govern itself.

I can see that point. The one issue I see though are the people who don't like the western method of government / business, something Putin is doing based on your observation (and Putins speech to the Federal Assembly. Why emulate the very system they denounce?



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


Ukraine. Memorandum on Security Assurances


The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:



1.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.


2.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.


3.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.


4.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.


5.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.


6.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.



This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.

Signed in four copies having equal validity in the English, Russian and Ukrainian languages.


Did I miss something in the above about defending Ukraine? (Is there and updated treaty I am not familiar with?

No disrespect - just curious if I overlooked something.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Russia took half of Poland out of stupidity, they'd have been better off with a buffer between the wehrmacht and red army. Stalin was greedy like that.

As for former USSR members, perhaps they do have more to worry about than I first thought.

Ideologies aside, putin and co are far richer and more privileged than anyone was under communism. I can't see them giving that up...



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


We are about politics, about filthy politics...

Untill 2001, Putyin cannot handle the chechen terrorists because of western support and saudi money, and we here in europe knew everywhere about chechen maffia and their brutality (freedom fighters come to europe to stole BMW's for riding to battlefields)... After 911 something changed, and Putyin joined the "antiterrorist world war", but only at home...

Now the revolutions come to his border. Did you noticed, that in the few last years "revolutions" won worldwide only in countries where the new gowernment immidiately asks IMF-loans and sell out the whole country?

Can you tell me the only country that did not fulfill the UN resolution yet?

All the western leaders pretending blind/deaf/dumb, the only one who is sane, Václáv Klaus:


The victim of this all is, of course, Ukraine and the people who live there. We thought that such tragedies which happened in Ukraine in 20th century cannot occur anymore, but maybe we were wrong. The normal people of Ukraine, of Europe and indeed the whole world do not need anything of that which is happening in Ukraine today. It seems that no one needs it, yet that’s not true.


Let’s Not Trivialize the Situation by One-Sided Interpretations



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Xcathdra
Did I miss something in the above about defending Ukraine? (Is there and updated treaty I am not familiar with?

No disrespect - just curious if I overlooked something.


Aritcles 1 and 2 of that treaty. Respecting sovereignty effectively means not taking their land (among some other things), and position two is a statement to not use force against Ukraine unless in self defense.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I am just trying to work out if the people who think it's OK for Russia to annex a part of the world on the basis that 60% of the population speak Russian, also think that Mexico should annex California or Texas, or that (ahem) Britain should annex the US and Australia.

This is a silly argument. 40% of the Crimea are not Russian speakers. 15% are Tartars who have a good reason to hate Russia due to the rather crappy history of Russian attempts at genocide.

Russia has no moral high ground. Russia is acting like a bully and if they are allowed to get away with this annexation through their sham referendum, then the world will be a lesser place. Certainly, it's a pretty poor precedent to set and if people think it's OK then they are imbeciles.

Regards



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


A better analogy would be the USA invading the UK or Oz. They had plans to back in the day in the event of too much socialism going on.

This is different though as the Ukraine was a messed up construct after the USSR fell apart. So many people moved back and forth it's hard to tell the difference between native Ukrainians and Russians. Without a clear demarcation between natives and immigrants it's all but impossible to solve this riddle. Whatever happens, there will be large numbers of very unhappy people.

Just from an energy security viewpoint, better the Russians in charge I think.
edit on 18pSat, 08 Mar 2014 08:01:18 -060020142014-03-08T08:01:18-06:00kAmerica/Chicago31uk by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
the E bomb to counter russia


OH now the article above could be onto something. I think it would be awesome to do as the article suggest. But here is the question. WHat will russia and the middle east do IF we are independant of their energy?



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

yuppa
OH now the article above could be onto something. I think it would be awesome to do as the article suggest. But here is the question. WHat will russia and the middle east do IF we are independant of their energy?


Laugh for 5-10 years, then go back to normal. If OPEC takes a big demand hit (which is the point of US energy independence), the first two pieces that become economically unfeasible are shale and sands products. Shale extraction is also extremely damaging to the environment. Makes Alberta's oil sands look like a mecca of environmentalism.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


NATO Absolutely did not obligate itself to go to war with the Russian Federation by signing the Budapest Memorandum.

This isn't a mutual aid and defense treaty and the ones we have with other nations directly that do actually obligate physical support in the event of the worst, read very differently than that. That is quite literally, what it says it is. A Memorandum of agreement. In the world of international law (and that's the other's justification for saying this IS obligation to military support), that distinction from a binding and ratified treaty makes all the difference, IMO.

Specifically though, and to flat out call it like I see it and how this actually happened to watch, WE violated that first. We did it outright and we did it publicly for the world Press corp. The agreement wasn't JUST for the West's benefit, and Russia got their concession in it too. That's what was broken first. Article 3 of it.


3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.


That isn't language to just pass over as if it counts less somehow. It forms the core of a whole article in an agreement which only has 6, in what is a real accomplishment for brevity.


They were joined early in the afternoon by US Republican senator John McCain, who has made a sport of baiting Vladimir Putin at various locations across the former Soviet Union.

"The destiny you seek lies in Europe," McCain told the crowd, to rapturous applause. "People of Ukraine, this is your moment. The free world is with you, America is with you, I am with you."
Source

You or I making that statement (and the rest of what he said there) wouldn't have violated Article 3. Donald Trump or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet making that statement, wouldn't have violated Article 3. John McCain isn't a powerful American citizen. He's a senior U.S. Senator and directly handling policy making for the relevant issues. He's stating US policy, and it has to be done with Obama's approval....or he's also in violation of the Logan Act. So, double that for the critical nature of the setting especially, on it being a statement of policy to those who would effectively replace the Kiev Government a few months later.


US Senator John McCain said that Ukraine’s future is with Europe and voiced his support for pro-EU protesters after meeting with Ukrainian opposition leaders in the country’s capital of Kiev on Saturday.

“We believe that the future of Ukraine lies in Europe. We’ve met with government officials and with members of the opposition,” McCain told reporters. “I look forward to visiting the square tomorrow and I am proud of what the people of Ukraine are doing, so they can restore democracy to their country.”
Source: RT News

Going by that December article in response to McCain's clear show of US support for the demonstrators, we don't have to second guess with hindsight to see the Kremlin (who owns RT) absolutely did get the intended message sent by it. Unfortunately, that agreement everyone keeps referring to DID forbid exactly this kind of thing from official US delegations influencing the internal economics and politics of Ukraine.

The remedy in the agreement isn't military support outside one specifically outlined exception, and this situation isn't it.


4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.


Even there, it's the UN the agreement says they go to...which..err...Russia holds 1 of 5 seats with and 1 veto in that governing body means a cold stop. 100% dead on arrival to whatever is trying to be done. I.E.....absolutely 0 chance the way the agreement says resolution comes by the UN Security Council, will ever lead anywhere. Russia won't approve action against itself, which of course, was the actual purpose of having the 5 seat council with that absolute veto power. To prevent World War.

What we DO have Russia in violation of.......or do we?......is Article 2, to show any relevance for the agreement at all.


2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Ukraine: The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 (PDF File)

That seems like a gotcha...except for that last 'Except . . . in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations'

I'm still getting through this next one myself as it's long but then..academic type approaches never are short about anything.

The Constitutional Process in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in the Context of Interethnic Relations and Conflict Settlement

So far, that seems to have one of the better and more complete post World War II history accounts for the Crimea and it's deep complexities on politics as well as political/geographic status before all this started recently.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Aazadan

Xcathdra
Did I miss something in the above about defending Ukraine? (Is there and updated treaty I am not familiar with?

No disrespect - just curious if I overlooked something.


Aritcles 1 and 2 of that treaty. Respecting sovereignty effectively means not taking their land (among some other things), and position two is a statement to not use force against Ukraine unless in self defense.


?

Then why did you state there was no obligation for the US / UK to assist Ukraine?



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
Specifically though, and to flat out call it like I see it and how this actually happened to watch, WE violated that first. We did it outright and we did it publicly for the world Press corp. The agreement wasn't JUST for the West's benefit, and Russia got their concession in it too. That's what was broken first. Article 3 of it.



3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.


So what would you consider Russia's actions towards Ukraine and by extension the EU when Russia shut of gas supplies in 2009?

The UN Charter reference is Chapter 7 - article 51- Self Defense. Russias actions violate that provision.
That article also takes into account treaties, including military alliance / assistance provisions.
edit on 8-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Xcathdra

Aazadan

Xcathdra
Did I miss something in the above about defending Ukraine? (Is there and updated treaty I am not familiar with?

No disrespect - just curious if I overlooked something.


Aritcles 1 and 2 of that treaty. Respecting sovereignty effectively means not taking their land (among some other things), and position two is a statement to not use force against Ukraine unless in self defense.


?

Then why did you state there was no obligation for the US / UK to assist Ukraine?


Because it's worded in such a way that we could get out of our NATO obligations by saying we view Crimea as part of Russia rather than the Ukraine. It's not like the situation with Japan's territory and the encroaching Chinese where we've made a clear distinction that the land belongs to Japan.

The whole self determination thing is also a factor. We won't force them to remain part of Ukraine if they wish to join another state.

Now, if they vote to remain part of Ukraine and Russia says no, then we'll have to get involved.

Like I also said though, there's a very big incentive for us to back the Ukraine here, to not do so would be extremely damaging. It would essentially destroy the concept of nuclear disarmament.
edit on 8-3-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join