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.

 

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

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
So... let me get this straight. The people who are claiming that the OP is untrue, believe that Vladimir Putin is so stupid and shortsighted that he would not call emergency meetings to strategize about the Western interference in Ukraine? He would just sit back while American and European backed Nazis fomented a coup in Ukraine, and that when mysterious national defense forces materialized out of nowhere, he ran around flapping his arms shrieking: 'Bolshe moi! Bolshe moi! What should I do? What should I do?' Well, if that's your opinion of Vladimir Illych, I won't try to convince you otherwise.




posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Not at all. What I'm disagreeing in regards to the sources presented is that they are still pushing a rediculous agenda that revolves around Russia aggressively invading Crimea, and that they are obviously not objectively reporting the real situation.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Vovin
reply to post by DJW001
 


Not at all. What I'm disagreeing in regards to the sources presented is that they are still pushing a rediculous agenda that revolves around Russia aggressively invading Crimea, and that they are obviously not objectively reporting the real situation.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Xcathdra

Vovin
reply to post by DJW001
 


Not at all. What I'm disagreeing in regards to the sources presented is that they are still pushing a rediculous agenda that revolves around Russia aggressively invading Crimea, and that they are obviously not objectively reporting the real situation.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Your subjective opinion that Crimean self-defense forces are secretly Russian soldiers is not real evidence of a Russian invasion. Do you have real evidence? I've seen sources that have claimed that the CSDF started off with Berkut officers that were exiled from western Ukraine after violent assaults by fascists.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Vovin

Xcathdra

Vovin
reply to post by DJW001
 


Not at all. What I'm disagreeing in regards to the sources presented is that they are still pushing a rediculous agenda that revolves around Russia aggressively invading Crimea, and that they are obviously not objectively reporting the real situation.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Your subjective opinion that Crimean self-defense forces are secretly Russian soldiers is not real evidence of a Russian invasion. Do you have real evidence? I've seen sources that have claimed that the CSDF started off with Berkut officers that were exiled from western Ukraine after violent assaults by fascists.


Yup its posted in the link I provided.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Where? All I see is your opinion and some pro-western interpretation of international law. In fact your whole logic fails completely when you place it in a step-by-step format and you claim everything that happens after an early step is illegal because you don't agree with the process.

You claim that Crimea declaring independence is unconstitutional within Ukraine... After the democratically elected government was forced out of Kiev by ultranationalist coup forces... You think Crimea is in the wrong for extra-constitutional declarations after the travesty that happened in Kiev? Talk about double standard.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Vovin
 


Then support your counter argument with sources and facts.

If you don't have any to support your position, then your position is not as solid as you might think. Simply dismissing the facts you don't like does not make them untrue.

Again - make your case using facts instead of dismissal and circular arguments. We are getting enough of that from Russia / Crimea.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I'm asking you to prove that there was a Russian invasion. You are posting sources that claim that the CSDF is actually the Russian military and I'm simply going along with the mainstream narrative that has always maintained that the CSDF are Crimean/Ukrainian.

What do you want me to do, post sources that make super duper sure that they are not Russian military? My argument IS the null hypothesis and I am asking YOU to disprove it. You are asking me to somehow disprove your hypothesis that is itself speculation. Even to come up with your hypothesis you are acknowledging my stance as already being the narrative, so why do I need to prove it



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Vovin
 


All the info you need is in the post.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Vovin
 



I'm asking you to prove that there was a Russian invasion. You are posting sources that claim that the CSDF is actually the Russian military and I'm simply going along with the mainstream narrative that has always maintained that the CSDF are Crimean/Ukrainian.


The Geneva Convention requires that military units wear the uniform of their country. Why does the 'CSDF' have full kit, but wear no colors? Who is its commanding officer? Why does he not hold press conferences? Why do they use vehicles with Russian license plates? The men themselves admit they are Russian:


Soldier: What publication do you work for?

Journalist: UkrStream.

Soldier: So it's Ukrainian.

Journalist: Yes. Are you Ukrainian?

Soldier: Us? We are Russian.

Journalist: Then please explain what Russian troops are doing on Ukrainian territory.


www.newrepublic.com...

Please stop insulting everyone's intelligence.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by Vovin
 



I'm asking you to prove that there was a Russian invasion. You are posting sources that claim that the CSDF is actually the Russian military and I'm simply going along with the mainstream narrative that has always maintained that the CSDF are Crimean/Ukrainian.


The Geneva Convention requires that military units wear the uniform of their country. Why does the 'CSDF' have full kit, but wear no colors? Who is its commanding officer? Why does he not hold press conferences? Why do they use vehicles with Russian license plates? The men themselves admit they are Russian:


Soldier: What publication do you work for?

Journalist: UkrStream.

Soldier: So it's Ukrainian.

Journalist: Yes. Are you Ukrainian?

Soldier: Us? We are Russian.

Journalist: Then please explain what Russian troops are doing on Ukrainian territory.


www.newrepublic.com...

Please stop insulting everyone's intelligence.


The fact that the russian troops were already in crimea is inconvenient for you huh?
Since that invalidates you invasion claims Ill do the very thing you do.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



They belonged to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, up to 25,000 Russian troops can be stationed there, it's not like we don't see our own special forces occasionally not wearing official uniforms, while on the ground in certain military theatres. I don't think we can be the judges of the Geneva convention after what we have been up to in Afghan and Iraq, but if your compelled to take the moral high ground, so be it.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Yusomad

DJW001
reply to post by Vovin
 



I'm asking you to prove that there was a Russian invasion. You are posting sources that claim that the CSDF is actually the Russian military and I'm simply going along with the mainstream narrative that has always maintained that the CSDF are Crimean/Ukrainian.


The Geneva Convention requires that military units wear the uniform of their country. Why does the 'CSDF' have full kit, but wear no colors? Who is its commanding officer? Why does he not hold press conferences? Why do they use vehicles with Russian license plates? The men themselves admit they are Russian:


Soldier: What publication do you work for?

Journalist: UkrStream.

Soldier: So it's Ukrainian.

Journalist: Yes. Are you Ukrainian?

Soldier: Us? We are Russian.

Journalist: Then please explain what Russian troops are doing on Ukrainian territory.


www.newrepublic.com...

Please stop insulting everyone's intelligence.


The fact that the russian troops were already in crimea is inconvenient for you huh?
Since that invalidates you invasion claims Ill do the very thing you do.


Russian troops were allowed on Russian bases. The moment they set foot off of their bases under arms they are an invasion. It would be no different than US troops seizing buildings on Okinawa. At least you have dropped the idiotic claim that they are not Russian, and are tacitly admitting that they are violating the Geneva convention.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   

woodwardjnr
reply to post by DJW001
 



They belonged to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, up to 25,000 Russian troops can be stationed there, it's not like we don't see our own special forces occasionally not wearing official uniforms, while on the ground in certain military theatres. I don't think we can be the judges of the Geneva convention after what we have been up to in Afghan and Iraq, but if your compelled to take the moral high ground, so be it.


Since you are British, you are presumably familiar with the term SOFA. Do you think the Russo-Ukraine SOFA allows what these Russian troops are doing?
edit on 22-3-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


You'll have to excuse my ignorance, in this context I don't know what a SOFA is. I thought it was something you sat on.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I don't agree with what has happened in the Crimea, but then I don't agree with the actions of our own governments when it comes to protecting national self interests. I believe the US/UK would act the same in a similar scenario with our numerous military bases stationed around the globe.
edit on 22-3-2014 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   

woodwardjnr
reply to post by DJW001
 


You'll have to excuse my ignorance, in this context I don't know what a SOFA is. I thought it was something you sat on.


It stands for 'Status Of Forces Agreement.' It is the treaty which allows foreign troops to be stationed on another nation's soil. Pretty sure Putin shredded that agreement with Ukraine by invading Ukrainian soil from his bases there.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Geneva convention? I did not realize that people still follow it, or ever really have.

But if we want to get into the legality of the situation (btw all international law is customary), then why are we now ignoring the Responsibility to Protect doctrine only when Russia invokes it? Independent Crimea requested Russian assistance.

Both sides of the argument stem directly from whether people believe in Crimea asserting independence or not. I personally only see hypocrisy when supporters of the Kiev coup faction deny democracy in Crimea.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Vovin
Geneva convention? I did not realize that people still follow it, or ever really have.

But if we want to get into the legality of the situation (btw all international law is customary), then why are we now ignoring the Responsibility to Protect doctrine only when Russia invokes it? Independent Crimea requested Russian assistance.

Both sides of the argument stem directly from whether people believe in Crimea asserting independence or not. I personally only see hypocrisy when supporters of the Kiev coup faction deny democracy in Crimea.


The point of contention was Crimea's validity in asking for it. Simply ignoring the Ukrainian constitution with regards to Crimea does not equate into a justifiable act on their part.

I make that point based on the fact that 2 prior referendums have been held on Crimea's status. If the Ukraine constitution did not / does not apply to them, then this autonomous issue would have been resolved decades ago. Russia would have not needed to invade Ukraine to occupy Crimea. Russia would not have needed to justify their actions in Crimea to the world community and the UN would most likely have not had issues with what occurred. Russia would not have had to justify their actions by challenging the legitimacy of the government in Kiev.

Those are key parts people, for whatever reason, ignore.

If Crimea and Ukraine had nothing to do with each other, that Ukraine's constitution does not apply to Crimea, then we would not be having this conversation, NATO nations along Russia's border would not be invoking article IV, sanctions would not have been justifiable / put into place on Russia.

From the start Russia's entire justification has revolved around Ukraine, not Crimea. It revolved around the issues Russia had with Ukraine's constitution, and how the new government came to power. Russia used the constitution to argue the government in Kiev was illegal. If Crimea was never part of Ukraine, then why did Russia care about what occurred in Ukraine?

What do you think the reaction would be from Russia if Germany opted to make a similar historical justification with regards to Kaliningrad, which was a part of Germany up to the end of WWII, when Stalin "annexed" it and deported the native German population.

The same conditions exist, the same historical argument can be made... Would Germany be on solid footing if they invaded Kaliningrad to right a historical mistake?

ETA - As for the comment about the Geneva convention, it applied to WWII and the treatment towards Russian prisoners from the Nazis. Even today, if a nation violates the Geneva convention (specific incidents), the nation where the violation occurred (victim) has a right under that convention to retaliate in kind. It was used to demonstrate the uncharacteristic number of casualties. The Nazis did there thing, and then Stalin did his. It drew a parallel between Nazi and Communist treatment of soldiers.
edit on 22-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


His motives are primarily political, secondary military ... showing, the true motive of Europe and the US.

When Yougoslavia wants to break away from the Soviet Union, it is the right of the people. When Crimea, who are russians, want to break free from Ukraine, the Russians have no right for their own freedom.

It's called a stupid move by the US, and shows their "non" objectivity in the matter ... and you can say that the Russians have been waiting 20 years for this dumb move.

Europe has no oil, and the US oil reserves is very little ... it's going to get worse now, and the only one it can really hurt, if this gets bad ... is the US, and it will be worse for Europe.

edit on 22/3/2014 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/3/2014 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join