Russia sinks own ship to block Ukrainian vessels, official says

reply to post by Xcathdra

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

Well, whatever we want to call it between two ongoing business partners in a gas contract, it most definitely wasn't "coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty". Russia's playing with the gas prices and pressuring the market in pricing with that did nothing to impact Ukraine's sovereignty any more than it did nations to the other side of it that were also impacted by the 2009 game playing.

I don't particularly like the Russians myself. I absolutely, positively do not trust them where it relates to anything on relations with the West. They shouldn't trust us, either. They work for their own best interests and we work for our own (or that's how our side is supposed to work....seems a bit broken ATM). In this instance, the overall Ukraine *IS* of interest to the West for more than peeing contest issues. A small piece of it, as well as the Autonomous Republic of The Crimea are overwhelmingly more supportive of the Russian side than the Western side. Among the academic pieces I've been posting was one that specifically noted.....as a former vacation and wintering favorite of the Communist Elite during the 'bad old days', the Crimea is very heavily ethnic Russian.


It IS possible (and more than 50% odds, given objective looks at the demographics here in my opinion) that the Crimea wants this by a majority, vs. closer ties to the West. If Putin goes aggressively outside that very small area? Hmm.... It gets interesting I think. For now? He's in what just may be quite happy and open about having him, IMO.

Wrabbit2000
Well, whatever we want to call it between two ongoing business partners in a gas contract, it most definitely wasn't "coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty". Russia's playing with the gas prices and pressuring the market in pricing with that did nothing to impact Ukraine's sovereignty any more than it did nations to the other side of it that were also impacted by the 2009 game playing.

The agreement states economics wont be used as a weapon, which is what Russia has done, twice now, to Ukraine / once for Europe.

Russia's invasion of Crimea has nothing to do with resources. Its about Russia invading / annexing the Crimea. The Russian forces are in violation of their agreement with Ukraine.

Wrabbit2000
I don't particularly like the Russians myself. I absolutely, positively do not trust them where it relates to anything on relations with the West. They shouldn't trust us, either. They work for their own best interests and we work for our own (or that's how our side is supposed to work....seems a bit broken ATM). In this instance, the overall Ukraine *IS* of interest to the West for more than peeing contest issues. A small piece of it, as well as the Autonomous Republic of The Crimea are overwhelmingly more supportive of the Russian side than the Western side. Among the academic pieces I've been posting was one that specifically noted.....as a former vacation and wintering favorite of the Communist Elite during the 'bad old days', the Crimea is very heavily ethnic Russian.

You and others keep using the phrase I highlighted above. Since the media has been booted from Crimea and pro Ukraine people are being attacked / foreign media being attacked, its kind of difficult to make a claim on who supports who when the information flow is cut off. When the question on Crimea going to Russia only has 2 answers, yes, it raises red flags.

Wrabbit2000
It IS possible (and more than 50% odds, given objective looks at the demographics here in my opinion) that the Crimea wants this by a majority, vs. closer ties to the West. If Putin goes aggressively outside that very small area? Hmm.... It gets interesting I think. For now? He's in what just may be quite happy and open about having him, IMO.

If Putin states he doesn't accept the Ukrainian government, when he states he is simply responding to a request from the former President, then why did he stop with the Crimea?

As for demographics, of the 54% who are "ethnic Russians" 2 subgroups of that grouping don't want to go to Russia. That could bring the support to as law as 32%, making the vote risky. I think the vote is irrelevant at this point, since the outcome has already been decided by the Russian military.

Why do people only focus on the Ethnic Russians? Do the other people there not matter?

reply to post by Xcathdra


This is a Good Post Xcathdra! Doesn't surprise me really that they say they are Not doing something, and then we find that indeed they are doing it! Lol! Like ya say, "PriceLess" I Totally agree with that!
I've been thinkin' for some time now about the US/Russia relationship. I think they are Really just Drinking Buddies and all the B.S. that the Main Stream Media, well and others I guess, Is just some More B.S. to keep us in the US and those in Russia on edge/scared so they can more easily control us. I'm not now, or ever really been falling for that tactic.
Syx.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Volatile area, plenty of nukes in that area. A real worry imo.
www.fas.org...

Russia Dumped 19 Radioactive Ships Plus 14 Nuclear Reactors Into the Ocean

As the Norwegian environmental group Bellona Fondation reported last month, Russia has just admitted that it dumped 19 radioactive ships plus 14 nuclear reactors – some of them containing fissible material – into the ocean:

The catalogue of waste dumped at sea by the Soviets, according to documents seen by Bellona, and which were today released by the Norwegian daily Aftenposten, includes some 17,000 containers of radioactive waste, 19 ships containing radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radioactively contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded with nuclear fuel.

reply to post by Xcathdra


oh here is some more info:

Included is the absolute disregard on the part of the Soviet for the potential harm that may result from their dumping radioactive material around the globe, especially including the black sea and the Artic ocean...absolute unforgivable stupidity.

I suspect ' Pandora's box' has been open for years such that gobal food contamination is not an 'if' situation, but a 'when' situation.

Radioactivity in the Ocean:
Diluted, But Far from Harmless

reply to post by SyxPak


reply to post by Thurisaz


Thanks for the contributions to the thread.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Bold non-violent tactic, I might say.

reply to post by Echtelion


I respectfully disagree.

If you knew the amount of dumped nukes in that area. It doesn't get more passive-aggressive than that. If a Govt is going to blow up a ship in a volatile area... that is like setting off one grenade in a ammunition area. They know the risks and still did it.

that should send out a red flag to all other Countries.