Russia downs US drone *Breaking*

Exitt
You are missing the point. Because they officially became autonomous Republic they were also officially granted constitutional rights - one of them being they could vote to become independent. It happened in 1991 so Ukraine cannot all of a sudden change their mind 20 years later and evoke Crimea's constitutional rights. Just like it cannot happen in America.

What occurred in 1991 was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Crimea was given to Ukraine by the Soviet Leadership in the 1950's. After 1991, Russia released all claims concerning Crimea.

As has been stated, they were autonomous under Ukraine, NOT independent. They cannot just up and decide to leave Ukraine. Any change in territory requires a nationwide referendum.

Can you please point out in the Ukrainian Constitution is says this about Crimea - Ukraine Constitution

Exitt
Of course autonomy does not equal independence but with Crimean autonomy came a RIGHT to become independent. By a democratic referendum. And it really doesn't matter that you think it's not fair all of Ukraine population doesn't have a vote about it - it is simply how it is and how politicians agreed upon in 1991.

Of course what I say does not matter. just as what you say does not matter.
The ability to become independent requires actions be taken for all Ukraine, not just Crimea via Russian troops.

You really need to read the agreements, from 1953 up to the present in terms of Crimea and its place in Ukraine.

Exitt
I also cannot be completely sure how the voting went down, I'm reading 93% of the voters (80plus percent out of 1,8 million voters in Crimea) said yes to Russia but i know that in my country the number was even higher, 97% of all voters (88%) said yes to independence. I don't find it so hard to believe.

edit on 16-3-2014 by Exitt because: .

I asked because even Russia media cant seem to get it straight. The percent who voted for Russia is misleading without the total number of people eligible to vote and the total number who actually voted.

Like I said, if 9 out of 10 people voted, its hardly a mandate. Even less of one if only 5% of the total eligible voters in Crimea voted. If 90 people voted for Russia, and 10 voted against, out of a population of 1.8 million (and those eligible to vote) does not even give credibility to the election.

Should we look into allegations of people with Russian passports voting in Crimean elections?
How about accusations of pro Ukraine supporters being intimidated to prevent the vote?
While Pro Russian media states a large Tartar turnout occurred, the Tartar population would disagree as they boycotted the elections.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Same story that happened with Kosovo, former Yugoslavia... Why Europe and rest of the world accepted that? You think Albanians really have rights to that land?

I've been there in 1999, when NATO was bombing Serbia and Montenegro... reason? No reasons...

Xcathdra

What occurred in 1991 was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Crimea was given to Ukraine by the Soviet Leadership in the 1950's. After 1991, Russia released all claims concerning Crimea.

As has been stated, they were autonomous under Ukraine, NOT independent. They cannot just up and decide to leave Ukraine. Any change in territory requires a nationwide referendum.

Can you please point out in the Ukrainian Constitution is says this about Crimea - Ukraine Constitution

Of course what I say does not matter. just as what you say does not matter.
The ability to become independent requires actions be taken for all Ukraine, not just Crimea via Russian troops.

You really need to read the agreements, from 1953 up to the present in terms of Crimea and its place in Ukraine.


Should we look into allegations of people with Russian passports voting in Crimean elections?
How about accusations of pro Ukraine supporters being intimidated to prevent the vote?
While Pro Russian media states a large Tartar turnout occurred, the Tartar population would disagree as they boycotted the elections.

Oh my, where do i start.

Crimean peninsula was 'given back' to Ukraine in 53 but it wasn't until 1991 when the Ukrainian government granted people living on the peninsula the special status of autonomous republic. Before that they were simply Ukrainian peninsula called Crimea with no special rights or status.

That changed everything. They did get a right to declare independence. Only people in Crimea, no voting in whole of Ukraine was needed. Why? Because as i wrote earlier they are of different ethnic origin than people in the rest of Ukraine and because they asked (more likely begged and promised to do something in return) for that right. It's really simple and it is written in Crimean constitution which was written and constructed by the Ukrainian government. No ifs or buts. So they can just up and decide to leave.

That my friend happened today.

And i agree Putin or his military should not have been there but people still voted. Allegations of people with Russian passports are probably true, because they are mostly Russians with Russian passports living in Crimea for centuries. Tatar people are probably against Russia so they prob did boycott the referendum. They are however a big minority in Crimea and you know how it goes with minorities and voting. They usually never win do they?

CondorUnit

And for rest, yes, everybody will deny...
But, I won't argue, you know what you know, I know what I know

You mean that you know nothing. Even Rostec have rubbished the story! Ask yourself why group and individuals need to fabricate such stories of a US UAV being brought down? There you have your answer.

It is no different to the aviation fabrications spun during Kosovo in 1999. The Russian media simply fell for them hook line and sinker and republished them as fact. The Yugoslavs came clean at the end of the campaign and admitted to their public that the stories were simply part of the propaganda campaign.

This disinformation campaign was revealed to the Yugoslav public after the conflict. Bojan Bugaric (Senior Advisor on International Affairs to President Milosevice) revealed in book "INAT: Images of Serbia and the Kosovo Conflict" by Scott Taylor. He describes an interview with Bojan Bugarcic on 25th November 1999.

The relevant passage follows on pp 123-124:

"He [Bugarcic] said that, throughout the war, a tremendous, an extremely effective, propaganda campaign had been mounted by the Serbian military. The aim was to keep the populace believing their forces were mounting a spirited defence. "Using the state broadcaster, unofficial 'Russian intelligence' web pages and Army communiqués, the deception had been so successful that many people were fooled. My 22-year-old translator, Vlada Kopric, was one example. While he vehemently denounced the government-controlled RTS media network as spouting 'pure lies,' his explorations on the Internet had led him to the bogus Russian intelligence site. As a result, up until my November interview with Bugarcic, Vlada had truly believed that the Serbian military had successfully shot down 78 NATO aircraft. "He was devastated when he learned the truth."

The claims also extended to NATO aircrew being captured and killed. The Germans were particularly singled out in this respect as part of the disinformation campaign. in fact there wasn't one NATO aircrew combat loss - killed or captured.

You can still see remnants of the original disinfo claims campaign from 1999 at the following link. You can see that many of the fabricated shoot downs were backed up by confirmation of the Russian Ministry of Defence. Many, many people fell for this disinfo campaign just the same as recent claims in regards to Ukraine.

Link

In the end the disinfo campaign spun rapidly into farce with claims of 190 NATO aircraft shot down!

"Belgrade, 01/06/1999 (MPA):

The Deputy Secretary of Information of the Serb government, Radmila Visic, claimed that Yugoslavia has shot down more than 190 NATO aircrafts since March 24, when the Alliance launched air raids against the country, in her interview at the Macedonian Press Agency. Mrs Visic accused NATO of concealing the actual number of its losses during the two-month war in Yugoslavia and reassured that when the hostilities are over, the Alliance will be forced to inform first of all the mothers of the dead pilots, who still don't know the truth. "Of course Americans and the rest of the NATO allies do not admit that they lost 190 aircrafts and they will not admit it in any of their briefings. However, even in the Internet, in NATO's web-site there are data that confirm this number and verify the claims of the Yugoslav army", said Mrs. Visic. "I am certain that when this is all over, then the international public opinion and especially the American one will face the Vietnam syndrome and then the mothers of the pilots of the shot down planes will be informed that their sons where killed in the raids against Yugoslavia", she stressed. When asked about why the Yugoslav authorities do not present photos or videos that confirm their allegations of having downed 190 planes, the Serb minister noted that even NATO itself has admitted that Yugoslavia has a remarkable strategy. "It is part of our tactics, not to show them. I, like a good soldier, will not give more information on this...."

The same type of disinformation campaign is exactly what we see here in relation to the claims of downed US UAVs and hacked e-mails claimed to have been written by US defence employees. Likely there will be many more fabrications to come? It is the nature of the beast!

CondorUnit
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Same story that happened with Kosovo, former Yugoslavia... Why Europe and rest of the world accepted that? You think Albanians really have rights to that land?

I've been there in 1999, when NATO was bombing Serbia and Montenegro... reason? No reasons...

Its not the same.. Especially since Russia worked hand in hand with the UN as well as NATO in the former Yugoslavia. Russian military units were a part of KFOR.

As to the obfuscation on the other question - Despite Russian justifications, this is nothing more than a land grab and nothing else. If it were based on facts and mutual understanding, then there would have been no reason for Russia to invade Chechnya - twice (once under President Putin).

If Russia respects the will of the people to determine their own destinies, why do they deny it to Chechnya?

reply to post by Exitt


The agreement you are referring to is the one Russia violated when they performed an armed invasion of Ukraine via Crimea. The 1991 treaty resulted in the 1994 Budapest agreement, where Ukraine would give up its nuclear weapons left by the Soviet Union. In exchange Crimea would be an autonomous zone, which was formalized in the Ukrainian Constitution. It also stated Russia / US / UK would recognize Ukrainian territorial sovereignty and would do nothing to jeopardize it. It also stated economic coercion could not occur either (IE Russia threatening to shut off the gas supply).

Please link me to the information that supports your position. I have seen nothing that allows Crimea to up and declare independence, in either Constitution.

reply to post by CondorUnit


Not Albanians but Kosova people and yes they do have a right to that land.

Especially because 'neighbors' tried to exterminate them, that's a humongous reason to secure borders, don't you agree.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I linked back to the original post. this is just another article to support my position when it comes to Russia and people who are completely lost on the use of nuclear weapons.

State TV says Russia could turn US to 'radioactive ash'

......................."Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," anchor Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly news show on state-controlled Rossiya 1 television.

Kiselyov made the comment to support his argument that the United States and President Barack Obama were living in fear of Russia led by President Vladimir Putin amid the Ukraine crisis.

His programme was broadcast as the first exit polls were being published showing an overwhelming majority of Crimeans voting to leave Ukraine and join Russia.

He stood in his studio in front of a gigantic image of a mushroom cloud produced after a nuclear attack, with the words "into radioactive ash".

"Americans themselves consider Putin to be a stronger leader than Obama," he added, pointing to opinion polls which then popped up on the screen.

Yup.. the idiotic I win button.

Afraid of Putin? Nope.
Afraid of Putin's scenic walk off the sanity reservation - yup.

While Russia can turn the US into radioactive Ash, he would not be reporting on the story since Russia would be just the same - radioactive ash.

If Putin's position were so credible there would be no reason for Russia / Putin supporters to constantly invoke nuclear weapons into the conversation. Putin's Waterloo is approaching..

Exitt
reply to post by CondorUnit

 

Not Albanians but Kosova people and yes they do have a right to that land.

Especially because 'neighbors' tried to exterminate them, that's a humongous reason to secure borders, don't you agree.

Does that apply to Israel as well?

Any chance of shooting me a link to the Crimean independence vote info?

So Ukraine made a law that Crimea cant leave or vote to leave. Saying that all of Ukraine must vote for that to happen with Ukraine's with its 40 Million people people easily out vote Crimea with its 2 Million people.

In short Ukraine made a law that Crimea cant leave unless Kiev says so. Hardly democracy, more of a bad joke tying Crimea to Ukraine forever.

Remember Crimea was russian before being gifted to Ukraine in the 1950's. Quite a few of those russian people are still alive today.

its like saying scotland cant vote for independance unless all of the UK vote for scotish independance. Including English, Wales and Ireland. or even only english get the vote but not scotish (as it is the UK is not allowing scots to vote if they live overseas even if they have scot passbooks.

reply to post by Reinmax


No its not what it says.

Respectfully, read the Ukrainian constitution before jumping to a wrong conclusion. What it says is the federal government is responsible for territorial integrity of Ukraine, including the Crimea. It states if territory is to be changed, it requires an all country referendum and not just Crimea.

While Crimea is autonomous, there are areas they cannot wade into (Also specifically spelled out in the Ukrainian constitution - like unilateral voting to become independent, requesting foreign nations to send in military units, etc etc etc.

Crimea has had 2 votes over the last decade to become independent / change the relationship, which was voted down by a majority of the people.

Constitution of Ukraine - Title X The Autonomous Republic of Crimea

Xcathdra
reply to post by Reinmax

 

No its not what it says.

Respectfully, read the Ukrainian constitution before jumping to a wrong conclusion. What it says is the federal government is responsible for territorial integrity of Ukraine, including the Crimea. It states if territory is to be changed, it requires an all country referendum and not just Crimea.

While Crimea is autonomous, there are areas they cannot wade into (Also specifically spelled out in the Ukrainian constitution - like unilateral voting to become independent, requesting foreign nations to send in military units, etc etc etc.

Crimea has had 2 votes over the last decade to become independent / change the relationship, which was voted down by a majority of the people.

Constitution of Ukraine - Title X The Autonomous Republic of Crimea

Which I agreed with and which means... All of ukraine must vote of which approximately 40 mill are in ukraine proper and only 2 mill which are in actual Crimea. Now the 40 mill would never vote to allow Crimea get away even through they are not even in Crimea. Crimea should be allowed to decide their own future not voted down by 40 million people that dont even live in the crimea.

reply to post by ausername


If that was the drone taken down. That is a tier 3 one, as in a piece of crap in comparison to the big ones. Even is Russia reversed engineered it, they couldn't copy it. Their economy is a mess as is their manufacturing. I mean they are 30 years behind the west in conventional arms.

Xcathdra

CondorUnit
My question is WHY ARMED if your only taking about recon operations?

I am non American or English, so sorry for any mistake made in writing.

We have yet to see any proof that the drone was -

A - Brought down
B - That is was armed

The media carrying that story have yet to back up the story with any type of photo.

I guess he's asking, assuming the story is true, and they said it was armed in one report, why was it armed?

I don't know why?

Maybe symbolism. Making they were hoping to take out a target.

Maybe the drone was from Another western faction?

I would love done follow up info on this story? It's been 4 days.

AAC

IMHO that "old" UAV is still pretty state of the art gear compared to russian technology in the UAV area. I think that "if" russia did down it in reasonable shape then it would be beneficial to them to reproduce it as a russian copy. I think it is much better than anything russia has got UAV wise.

While the US has moved on to a different (and more capable) model they did put alot of research into this design and infact did keep improving it before dropping it. They still use it in Germany and belgium did purchase this model as well therefore it could have been used by NATO and not the US.

reply to post by Reinmax


It could have even been owned by a Swiss Bank or any other wealthy billionaire.

We will never know.

Xcathdra

Does that apply to Israel as well?

Any chance of shooting me a link to the Crimean independence vote info?

In my opinion it should apply to Palestine. Securing their borders from Israeli theft .. but that is completely another topic.


No chance whatsoever. I've been searching for it but can't find anything.
Maybe you are right about the (new) Ukrainian law after all.

I did find another case of an Ukranian ASSR - Moldova and how they became independent.
Just like Crimea, they based it on ethnic and geographic differences.

Moldova declared itself an independent state with the same boundaries as the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1991 as part of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. A new constitution was adopted on July 29, 1994. A strip of Moldova's internationally recognised territory on the east bank of the river Dniester has been under the de facto control of the breakaway government of Transnistria since 1990.

crazyewok

AnAbsoluteCreation
I see a lot of bashing our president (administration) over their inability to react effectively to Russia.

My question, what do you suppose he do? What options does he have?

AAC

Shut the hell up and stop making empty ultimatums would be a great start.

If you cant back up your threats stop making them.

Exactly, every time Obama makes a threat and then doesn't take any action it makes him look weaker . So if he isn't going to act then he should just keep quiet

whyamIhere

DeadGhost
There's not a thread that goes by without the same predictable group complaining about the current administration. It's really starting to give me a headache, all partisan political beliefs aside. The majority of what I see is twisting, spinning, grasping, and even plain lies. Some things are actually legitimate concerns about Obama's real shortcomings. I just have to accept that some people just enjoy slapping each other on the back and pretending they are informed. It makes them feel just a little bit less powerless. None of these people would measure up as a good president. Most of the crap they spout would lead to a foreign policy nightmare if put into action, with more wars, more death, more of the same. 99% of you would accept huge campaign contributions from lobbyists and then bumble around the white house with your head up your butt for four years trying to push your extremely narrow agenda on a nation that does not agree with you. If you are really so brilliant, please run for president. At least put your actions where your mouth is in some way shape or form. Your words have become meaningless through repetition.

And not a thread goes by when an Obama apologist says "you couldn't do any better".

You have no clue who we are. This is the worst Presidency ever. Look at the polls.

You act like we are the only people against this feckless and worthless Administration.

Maybe for your headache you could sign up for Obamacare...if you can afford it.

Thank you for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Back on topic: the American people will not rally to send the country to war unless the Russians commit an outrage against the US. Downing a drone won't do it, but sinking an American cruise ship that strays into Ukrainian waters certainly will. Stay tuned.

reply to post by Exitt


Thanks for the response and for looking for the Crimea information.

Moldova has been having issues in those provinces for some time, and addressed the issue at a UN press conference on Ukraine. They are accusing the Russians of doing there what they did in Crimea, sending in forces to sow the seeds of discontent in order to place ethnic Russians in danger to meet Putin's "we are here to protect the ethnic Russian" doctrine.