Vladimir Putin held secret meeting to agree Crimea annexation weeks before referendum

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Vladimir Putin held secret meeting to agree Crimea annexation weeks before referendum


Russia's president insisted that he had no intention of annexing Crimea - but a secret meeting with his 'war council', held over two weeks before the referendum, suggests otherwise.



Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, took the decision to use military force to annex Crimea more than a fortnight before the question was put to the people living there.


Kremlin observers believe that Mr Putin convened a top secret meeting on the evening of Feb 25 or 26 – from which even his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, was excluded – to map out his plans.


A day earlier, Mr Putin was in Sochi for the Winter Olympics closing ceremony. It is believed he then flew back to Moscow for the furtive reunion – which was not recorded in the Russian press.


At the meeting, according to The New York Times, the four men – Mr Putin, his chief of staff Sergei Ivanov, Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the security council, and Alexander Bortnikov, the director of the FSB, the modern-day successor to the KGB – agreed that Crimea would be brought back under Russian control.


At the meeting, according to The New York Times, the four men – Mr Putin; his chief of staff Sergei Ivanov; Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the security council; and Alexander Bortnikov, the director of the FSB, the modern-day successor to the KGB – agreed that Crimea would be put under Russian control.


Click link for remainder of article...

Original - New York Times 2014- Russia’s Move Into Ukraine Said to Be Born in Shadows

From 2013 - If Yanukovych, Putin held secret talks, president should be impeached – Yatseniuk


I think this pretty much speaks for itself... Thoughts?

If this is indeed the case, does it change anyone's opinion about the actions that have occurred in Ukraine? Does this information, if proven to be true / accurate, undermine Putin's justifications for invading Ukraine? Apparently this has been looked at as a possibility going back to 2013, when the former President was meeting with Putin and no one was told why.


ETA - The New York Times article is in-depth and uses western as well as Russian sources. It offers a political analysis of Putin's actions and, imo, does a good job looking at the details as to why decisions were made and in what context they were made.

If any of our Pro Russian friends can link sources that shows their side of the fence please do. If I can, I will add them to the OP so both sides can be seen side by side.
edit on 20-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Cosmic Technologies capable of destroying the Solar System? Whaaaaaaaaaat?!!!!

Do Tell!
edit on 20-3-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Boscov
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Cosmic Technologies capable of destroying the Solar System? Whaaaaaaaaaat?!!!!

Do Tell!
edit on 20-3-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)


You will need to talk to Victor7 for the details... I don't have a high enough access level


Any thoughts on the articles / information they contain? Any sources to counter the claims in the op articleS?
edit on 20-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


+9 more 
posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Can you show me proof from that article that he indeed decided to annex Crimea weeks before the vote?

I see opinions of best guesses..



Kremlin observers believe that Mr Putin convened a top secret meeting on the evening of Feb 25 or 26 – from which even his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, was excluded – to map out his plans.


I see nothing definitive that speaks for itself.

Also, considering Kiev fell on or around the 22nd Feb it means once again that Russia is speaking the truth.

If these observers are to be believed, putin held this special meeting on the 25/26th. 3-4 days after kiev fell.

makes sense to me?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You are so obvious it isn't even funny, so obvious



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Its why I asked the pro-Russian side to contribute to this thread with sources that give their side of the story, so to speak.

Its also one of the reasons I linked to the 2013 article, where it touches on the possibility of something more occurring at the meeting between the then Ukrainian President and Putin. The new York Times article is a lot more in-depth than the Telegraph article, providing names and dates of the meetings where the decision was supposedly made.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

ZincMag
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You are so obvious it isn't even funny, so obvious


If you do not have anything to contribute to this thread that is on topic, respectfully, please don't post. I am getting tired of threads being dragged off topic.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I pretty much agree with what you say completely


It makes sense. Putin had a meeting with his advisors before military action and didn't make a big deal about it to the press. So what? I forget how transparent Obama is with our media about his every action



Also, apparently our media believes Obama makes military maneuvers without any consultation apparently?

Idk, the only thing significant about this could be the timing. Which honestly, makes sense.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I am concerned that Azerbaijan is next. Crimea is the exhibition, the warm up. Eastern Europe is the fear. Azerbaijan is the prize to secure Iranian/Russian interests to withstand economic sanctions. Nagorno-Karabakh to be specific.
edit on 20-3-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Boscov
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I am concerned that Azerbaijan is next. Crimea is the exhibition, the warm up. Eastern Europe is the fear. Azerbaijan is the prize to secure Iranian/Russian interests to withstand economic sanctions. Nagorno-Karabakh to be specific.
edit on 20-3-2014 by Boscov because: (no reason given)



Possibly... I was thinking Moldova. The Moldova government has not been quiet about Pro Russian separatists meeting with Russian government officials. 3 Provinces in Moldova, according to Vladimir Lupan, are pulling the same cards that were used in Crimea. They also noted Russian military units were present in those territories. The separatist provinces recently asked Russia to "annex" them into the Russian Federation.

The link is to the press stakeout at the UN where Vladimir Lupan discusses Ukraine, Russia and Russian actions inside their country.
webtv.un.org...

Kazakhstan did not support Russian action in Ukraine either, which spoke volumes since its one of the closest former SSR's to Russia.

As for the article - I think their is validity to it. I base that on Russia media that is talking up the changes to the borders of Russia, referencing the old Soviet Union. Couple that with Putin's comments on Ethnic Russians and his recent talk about the old Soviet borders. He has put forward a legal challenge based on the collapse of the old soviet union and the country breakup that resulted. I don't thin his argument has merit based on international law and the UN Charter, but apparently he does which is what matters.

Its evident he is not concerned about international reaction to their actions, so I don't see him putting a lot of stock into the international community reactions or the UN charter.

For now he is concentrating on South and East Ukraine. I think Putin is looking for any incident that they can successfully exploit to "justify" moving into Ukraine proper. I think, based on world reaction, will determine if he takes all of Ukraine and moves out from there.

I did notice Kiev announced the US and UK will be conducting military exercises in Ukraine in the very near future. The UK said it was being discussed but did not commit to anything and I have not seen any comments from the US. With the sudden shift in Merkels position I think something else is going on.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I also see no definitive proof of this so called meeting to plan any invasion. One of the main issues that seems most probable to me is the pushing for Ukraine to join NATO back since 2008. That is a non-starter as far as Russia is concerned and I can't blame them for that.

Also the stench of western interference causing this whole mess to begin with can't be setting well with Putin. They may as well just walked up to him and slapped him in the face.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I also see no definitive proof of this so called meeting to plan any invasion. One of the main issues that seems most probable to me is the pushing for Ukraine to join NATO back since 2008. That is a non-starter as far as Russia is concerned and I can't blame them for that.

Also the stench of western interference causing this whole mess to begin with can't be setting well with Putin. They may as well just walked up to him and slapped him in the face.


Ukraine is sovereign and as such can choose whoever they want to ally themselves with.
NATO expansion east would not have been needed had Eastern Europe not been occupied by Soviet Union for 50 years.
Ukraine might not have considered NATO had Russia not illegally invaded Georgia.
With Putin now calling the collapse of the Soviet Union unlawful while channeling Charlemagne his actions are only going to push non aligned states that were former SSR's farther into the EU / West / NATO realm.

As for interference from the west there was none. The manner in which Ukraine removed the former President was valid / lawful, A fact Russia is desperately trying to portray as something its not. here is the basis from a post of mine In another thread. It uses Russian sources.


The agreement signed by the former President and the parliament, in addition to calling for new elections, immediately reverted back the 2004 Constitution (and by immediate, it means just that. There was no time frame for it and there was no law needed. It became effective once the agreement was signed).

Under the 2004 Constitution, it allowed for impeachment using the existing language as well as a streamlined process, which is the part that people are not familiar with.

Voice of Russia - Constitutional reform may downgrade Yanukovych to figurehead president -


Ukraine’s MPs are due to take up drafts constitutional reform today, the drafts that have been prepared by the Batkivshchina and UDAR party factions. The opposition insists on a return to the constitution of 2004 and on setting limits on presidential powers. Meanwhile, the EU Foreign Ministers are due to meet in Brussels this Monday to discuss the situation in Ukraine. Sweden and Poland will come up with their proposals on changing the stand on Ukraine.


Besides a return to the old constitution, the drafts provide for a simplified system of impeachment and voting, and also deprive the President of any role to play in the Constitutional Court lineup. The opposition feels the Court should be formed by the MPs and a congress of Ukraine’s judges. Unlike the constitution of 2004, which restricted presidential powers, the currently presented draft actually turns Yanukovych into a figurehead President, says the Director of the Institute for Strategic Planning, Alexander Gusev, and elaborates.

“The changes under discussion will largely trim the presidential powers, reducing his function to receiving credentials from foreign Ambassadors. The President’s duties will boil down to representing Ukraine during receptions. He will de facto stop being Head of State, with all powers due to be transferred to Parliament”.


How do we know the 2004 return and simplified impeachment is valid?

Voice of Russia - Ukraine: Yanukovych signs deal on ending crisis, Rada reinstates 2004 Constitution


The following is the text of the agreement signed by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders in the presence of EU envoys to end the ex-Soviet country's three-month crisis.

1. Within 48 hours of the signing of this agreement, a special law will be adopted, signed and promulgated, which will restore the Constitution of 2004 including amendments passed until now. Signatories declare their intention to create a coalition and form a national unity government within 10 days thereafter.

2. Constitutional reform, balancing the powers of the President, the government and parliament, will start immediately and be completed in September 2014.

3. Presidential elections will be held as soon as the new Constitution is adopted but no later than December 2014. New electoral laws will be passed and a new Central Election Commission will be formed on the basis of proportionality and in accordance with the OSCE & Venice commission rules.

4. Investigation into recent acts of violence will be conducted under joint monitoring from the authorities, the opposition and the Council of Europe.

5. The authorities will not impose a state of emergency. The authorities and the opposition will refrain from the use of violence.


*** A portion was removed by me as it dealt with actions taken under part 5 - the link has the full text ***



6. The Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Poland and the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation call for an immediate end to all violence and confrontation.


The simplified impeachment process was valid and lawful under the Ukrainian Constitution.


Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has announced that, to settle the crisis in Ukraine, he will initiate the reinstatement of the 2004 constitution and call early presidential elections. He also called for starting the procedure of forming a government of national confidence. "I am announcing steps that need to be made in order to restore peace and avoid more victims of the standoff," Yanukovych said in a statement available on the presidential website on Friday.

"These tragic days when Ukraine has taken the gravest losses and when people has died my duty is to state that human lives are very important. We should do our best to take joint steps to restore peace in Ukraine," Yanukovych said.

"I declare the steps that should be taken to restore calm and avoid new victims," the Ukrainian president said.

"I state that I initiate early presidential elections and return the 2004 Constitution by redistributing powers from the president to the parliament," Yanukovych said.


Yes the return to the 2004 Constitution was valid / lawful.
Yes the impeachment using the simplified process from the 2004 Constitution was valid / lawful.
The impeachment process followed the law as the bill was introduced by Parliament, and was actually authored by Nikolay Rudkovskiy, head of the Socialist Party in Ukraine, which is part of the ruling Party of Regions coalition. The Party of Regions was the party of former President Yanukovych.

Since people have issues using western sources, the above are all Russian sources. The Constitutional changes were discussed by Russian media in 2010/20/12, noting the changes in how parliament was elected would most likely result in parties coming together to impeach the former President. He had been under investigation for a few years prior to all the mess we have now over corruption charges.

Finally - Library of Congress - Ukraine: Simplified Impeachment Procedures - Link 1
Library of Congress - Ukraine: Simplified Impeachment Procedures - Link 2


(Feb 03, 2009) On January 15, 2009, the Ukrainian legislature, the Verkhovna Rada, adopted the Law on Special Temporary Investigative Commissions, which simplifies the procedure for the legislative body to impeach the President. Previously, the impeachment procedure could be initiated on the basis of a petition signed by three-quarters of the parliamentarians. The new Law provides that the formation of a Special Investigative Commission is the formal beginning of the impeachment process. Such a Commission must be formed upon the request of a simple majority of the Rada's members. The original sponsors of a bill on the creation of a Special Investigative Commission cannot recall their signatures and withdraw the proposed bill. Legal justification and evidential materials must accompany the bill.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
The only way Putin can get around having his justifications for invasion shown to be false, he has to stick to the one issue he has left - the impeachment of the former President.

Since people are not familiar with the Ukraine impeachment process, and since Russia median reports its except for the portion that does not support their claims, here we are.

I think the fact Putin is desperately trying to use the impeachment falsehood is to move people away from the article this thread is about. Putin deciding to reclaim parts of the Soviet Union.

The article makes the claims and cites the sources. Whether people think its accurate or not is up to them but I will state I have not seen anything that contradicts the information other than peoples opinions, which ironically they are accusing the article of using in place of facts.

As I stated in the OP. If someone has a Russia media source that counters the claims let me know.. We can have a mod add it into the OP for people to read side by side and make up their own minds.

Simply saying an article is false / misleading / inaccurate is no longer enough. People need to back their opinion with their sources.

Any chance someone can explain the questions that came up when the former President of Ukraine pulled this stunt back in 2012/2013? Contrary to popular belief and Russian lies, the former President had been under investigation for many years prior to his impeachment and removal.
edit on 21-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


+9 more 
posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




As for interference from the west there was none.


Oh, very good then. I'll just ignore the leaked phone transcripts of Victoria Nuland, the $5 billion the US spent in Ukraine (not counting the black budget stuff) and all the Soros type NGO activity that happened.

I feel much better now.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




As for interference from the west there was none.


Oh, very good then. I'll just ignore the leaked phone transcripts of Victoria Nuland, the $5 billion the US spent in Ukraine (not counting the black budget stuff) and all the Soros type NGO activity that happened.

I feel much better now.

I'm sorry which country invaded Ukraine?

Russia also offered a loan program to Ukraine worth billions as well. What does Neulands phone conversation and opinion have to do with what occurred in Ukraine that translates into interference?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




If this is indeed the case, does it change anyone's opinion about the actions that have occurred in Ukraine? Does this information, if proven to be true / accurate, undermine Putin's justifications for invading Ukraine? Apparently this has been looked at as a possibility going back to 2013, when the former President was meeting with Putin and no one was told why.


I wouldn't describe myself as "pro-russian" as you have indicated, but the short answer to this question (for me at least), is no, it does not undermine Putins justifications, nor does it change my opinion on why he had grounds to be concerned. The west has been steadily encroaching on Russia in a number of ways:

-Attempting to set up the "missile shield" right on Russia's doorstep while using Iran as a convenient excuse

-Overthrowing Russian allies and business partners in the middle east and setting up proxy wars and puppet governments

-Steadily expanding NATO and pushing Ukrainians specifically to join NATO and the EU

-Operating clandestinely to undermine Russia's sphere of influence in the middle east and elsewhere

-Working in the shadows to destabilize the Ukrainian economy in order to bring it under the thumb of the IMF, world bank, and EU to further reduce european reliance on Russian energy (or at least have a bargaining chip to use as leverage)

-Funding and supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-russian government in the Ukraine

-Placing Russian people in the Ukraine as well as Russian business interests and military assets there at risk through a number of the above activities

Given these factors, and the ensuing chaos in Kiev (which was occurring well before the olympics started I might add), It was only a matter of time until Putin moved to secure Russian interests, and even the most pro-western people out there must recognize that he was not going to risk Russia losing it's naval base, which it had just secured with a new lease 4 years prior. Right or wrong in how he went about it, the west should have seen it coming. You can only poke a bear so many times before it mauls you, and you are incredibly stupid if you start poking its cub.

I consider Putin himself to be playing a very risky game, but it would appear at present that he correctly called the wests bluff, instead of wasting his time playing political chess with a bunch of back stabbing power grabbers who never did, or would, have Russian interests at heart.

edit on 21-3-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So, are you still badly-quoting Nazi slogans in Russian ("Work shall set you free"), as you did in a previous thread?




All that's missing in Russia / Crimea is book burning. Russia / Crimea apparently has already put the other Nazi blueprints into effect.


Работа делает вас свободного

edit on 19-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Source: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You seem very much allied to Svoboda (www.svoboda.org.ua...). I assume you are a Ukrainian nationalist, or a supporter of it. If you are, then you surely should know that a massive majority of the world despises and hates fascists and racists, as Svoboda supporters are. And you should be ashamed for even trying to argue for their point of view.

To try and be positive - maybe encourage you to see the lies you probably have fallen for - here is a little report on the facts about Ukrainian Nationalists and Svoboda in particular...



And if you think that video is not accurate, then here's one that shows Svoboda MPs beating up a TV executive who had broadcast Putin's recent speech:



edit on 21-3-2014 by Blister because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Xcathdra

I'm sorry which country invaded Ukraine?



If you ignore the western hand in svoboda and maidan, I guess nobody, because the russian troops were in crimea all along.
Do you have anything better than hearsay? Because the western backed right wingers do have a track record.
Its getting funny this, lets see what they try to pin to russia, the demonization must be absolute...



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Xcathdra

...the possibility of something more occurring at the meeting between the then Ukrainian President and Putin...where the decision was supposedly made...I think this pretty much speaks for itself...


Can you not recognise when you are being played with by the media whom are trying desperately to provide smoke without fire for the consumption of the ignorant public? All this article is relating is nothing more than opinions of suppositions, giving no accountancy for the checking of sources, which makes it very dubious at best.

The New York Times, with this article, believes it can treat the American public as ignorant fools whom cannot see the illusion it is trying to weave in order to enchant the American public to believe anything that would aid support for the sanctions Obama has put in place. Even the act of sanctioning Russian individuals provides an illusion that Russia must be in the wrong, but the sanctions themselves are punitive and very small considering the hue and cry that is being made.

You will probably see a lot more articles like this trying to besmirch the actions Putin has taken, because the West view the Ukraine as Russia's and Putin's 'achilles heel'. With the recent Western-influenced events in the Ukraine failing in their attempt to undermine Putin's power base, the consequence has seen Russia tightening their grip in the area. For the West, it is back to the drawing board to see if they can find other ways to forment discord and chaos in the Ukraine.
edit on 21/3/14 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Blister
I assume


That right there is the problem in these forums, specifically with this topic.

The op presents the info from sources I look at. At the end of that post I stated

"If any of our Pro Russian friends can link sources that shows their side of the fence please do. If I can, I will add them to the OP so both sides can be seen side by side."

The problem is people would rather attack the poster instead of attacking the sources / information presented in them. All I have been asking is for people who are Pro Russia to post their media reports / sources that shows that side of the fence, so to speak.

No one has done that....






top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join