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

Vovin
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 hypocracy is with the US and Europe, when they claim "rights" to everyone EXCEPT russians. Because the people on Crimea are Russians, they are suddenly not entitled to independence.

And what is the US going to do ... deny the Russians loans from bankrupt banks? The US is bankrupt, so is Europe ... Europe is relying on the Russians for gas and oil.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you ... that is always a stupid move.

And I suspect, it's just this kind of stupid move the Russians have been waiting for ...

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

The US/EU did not invade, Russia did. He used military first, then tried using political to cover the actions as something they weren't.

bjarneorn
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.

Yugoslavia was not that simple for starters. Secondly, the UN was involved and third it was an international effort that included Russia and the Russian military (who was in KFOR).

Crimea is a part of Ukraine - something that was recognized by Russia. Russia also signed an agreement giving up their claims on Crimea. There were laws in place for Crimea to hold a valid referendum. They chose to ignore it. Secondly its not relevant if they are Russian or not. The other half of the population of Crimea was something other than Russia.

Ive asked this in 2 other conversations and I will ask you in this one.

Would Germany be valid in invading Kaliningrad and annexing it?

It belonged to Germany for several hundred years and only lost it to Russia at the end of WWII. Stalin force out the ethnic German population...

How do you think Russia / Putin would react to that?

bjarneorn
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.

The dumb move was by Russia and entailed them invading Ukraine. Secondly Russia gave up its claims on Crimea. I was not aware Ukraine could not engage in diplomacy with whomever they wished? Diplomacy requires 2 parties, so constantly trying to blame everything on the US is naïve.

bjarneorn
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)

Im sorry how much oil comes from the north Atlantic?
You need to research US output, specifically natural gas, which is what Europe relies on from Russia (the US can easily supply Europe's needs).

While Russia is an exporter in that area, they are an importer on other sectors of their economy that cannot be easily replaced. While they can affect Europe, that effect wont be long lived and the damage that would occur to the Russian economy would take a long time to recover from.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The US/EU did not invade, Russia did. He used military first, then tried using political to cover the actions as something they weren't.

You're looking and sounding very silly...and desparate. You know that don't you?

You're an ex-policeman..right?

Remove the propaganda goggles for an hour if you think your position is worthy enough to survive without them, then for Christ's sake work the clues and connect the dots man!

If you were a good cop, and probably more importantly an honest cop, you really ought to see that 1) you're wrong about this situation or 2) You're wrong about your position regarding this situation.

Either way...you ought to be able to detect the right answer given the obvious evidence, ex-cop or not.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Would Germany be valid in invading Kaliningrad and annexing it?

If I were Angela Merkel, I would insist Russia withdraw from Crimea or I would use Putin's own example to seize Kaliningrad. That would teach him.

reply to post by DJW001


It is not "bolshe moi." "Bolshoy" means big.
It is "Bozhe moy" - meaning "my God" in a vocative case.

I thank both sides for presenting a valuable background: Xcat for an intelligent critique of the Putin empire, which is sorely needed, but I am also thankful for the materials like the two videos exposing the Ukrainian far right.

It was surprising to see during the February events just how well prepared and armed the ultra-nationalists were, though from a distance it looked like popular discontent of an obviously corrupt leader had been the basic cause of the mass protests.

My feeling at this point is that seeing the faults of one side does not annihilate those of the other. The fervently anti-Russian and anti-Semitic nationalists are indeed scary, but so is the new Eastern Empire. It seems both sides lost sight of a sense of democracy, values and openness, as well as compromise. I am surprised to see how polarized people can be even here on ATS.

It is not as simple as being "pro-Russian" or "pro-Western." The underlying assumption is that 1. these sides are inevitably in conflict and that 2. it is OK to be blind to the problems of one side if you are siding with the other one. In other words, as if you could say anything meaningful about conflicts involving millions of people without being able to be convinced by facts, rational arguments and independent reporting.

I am pro-Russian (meaning that I like and support Russian culture and Russian people), but I strongly dislike the reinstated Eastern Empire, its openly geopolitical goals and its open support of some of the most brutal regimes outside Africa. I am pro-American, I share basic Western values, I still dislike the obvious financing and support of violent and sometimes downright fascist mobs for similarly ignoble goals, which seems to take place time and again in many countries that used to belong to a non-Western sphere decades ago.

It remains to be seen how many people are critical of the Eastern Empire inside Russia and her allies - I heard examples of ethnic Russian intellectuals in Kiev taking a strong stance against Putin.

After the breakup of the Soviet empire, and the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, many had the illusion that the West would actively help these countries, including Russia, to arrive at a better level of social and economic values, developments etc. People were trumpeting that history was over, Communism had lost, democracy and a market-based approach had proven their point.

Well, perhaps they didn't. It seems to me that according to the new Western mode, entire classes of people, entire races, religions and countries are simply designed to be excluded from "decent Western society." Which was no doubt one of the historical reasons of extreme phenomena like the empires of Stalin and Hitler in the first place...

Perhaps it is useful to remember that both World Wars started in Eastern Europe. Auschwitz is also in Eastern Europe. So is Chernobyl and the Holodomor.

Are we ready to solve some of these problems or are we ready to repeat some of the worst chapters of modern history?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra:

I'm not sure it changes my opinion. It was already noted but in 2011 RT ran a story about Soros funding a "Libyan" scenario for Ukraine:

LINK

I think this "secret 2013" talk regarding Putin merely shows that Putin had his finger on the pulse of what the USA and their wealthy/corporate agents of "change" had going on.

Putin saw that it was moving closer to inevitability and started to make contingency plans. I can't blame him for that.

Xcathdra
His motives are primarily political, secondary military ... showing, the true motive of Europe and the US.
The US/EU did not invade, Russia did. He used military first, then tried using political to cover the actions as something they weren't.

How is it we really sit here and discuss Putin as being some mischievous character "invading" Crimea/Ukraine when the USA was behind the violence and the coup that forced the current Ukrainian president out and now the USA sits back and pretends like Putin is the bad guy?

Seriously. This is Syria 2.0. Just like Syrian rebels, MOST of whom weren't Syrian, getting funding and weapons from the USA and/or their allies.

I really do find it laughably ironic.

WCmutant
I really do find it laughably ironic.

Then may I suggest you actually take an in-depth look at the claims surrounding the "coup".

* - Europe / Ukraine government sit down to resolve the issues on the conflicting agendas being put forth by the EU and by Russia. A settlement is reached, which spells out the transition - elections in December, a return to the 2004 Constitution, a joint committee to investigate the bloodshed that occurred in Kiev and some others. The conditions on that agreement, which was signed by the former President, stipulated an immediate return to the 2004 constitution. There was no delay on that condition, it was immediate. It also allows Parliament the authority to appoint the deputies.

* - The return to the 2004 Constitution included all amendments that have been made. The simplified impeachment process being one of them. The simplified process only requires a vote of parliament (like 75% in favor) in order to impeach.

People ignore the fact that the former President had been under investigation since before 2004. Mainly dealing with corruption, floating business to close associates etc. In 2013 there was issues / investigation revolving around the former President about holding secret meetings in Russia. The Parliament wanted more info as to what the meetings were over and never got any.

Russian media, during the 2010/2012 elections noted specifically that the change in how Parliament is elected could cause issues, since parliament could now form a coalition that could possibly gain enough votes for impeachment. This was a concern that was discussed at length in Russian media.

* - Once the document was signed, Parliament held a vote recognizing the reinstatement, and then moved for an impeachment vote. The former Presidents own party turned against him, and the vote passed with a significant amount over what the minimum requirement would be.

* - the same day of impeachment, the former President either -
* - Fled
* - Attended a meeting.

The story has gone back and forth, depending on what version of events were being used to further Putin's justifications. The former President stated he did not flee and that he had meetings. Putin stated during his press conference the former President fled because if he did not he would have been killed.

So you even have conflicting info from those 2.

Under Ukrainian law, once the president is out of power, it requires an election be held within 90 days. That's the reason the vote had to be moved up.

His removal was lawful and within the Constitution.

The issue for Putin now became how to justify taking Crimea. The issue here is Putin used the Ukrainian constitution to justify his actions while ignoring the constitution when it did not. The official's in Crimea have done the same thing.

Had Ukraine's Constitution never have mattered to Crimea, then Crimea would have been independent / a part of Russia after the cold war. That did not occur. The Ukrainian constitution has a section for Crimea and their self governance / constitution. The moment the Ukraine constitution was invoked by Crimea / Putin, they undermined their argument as it served as proof Crimea was a part of Ukraine and that the Crimean authority was derived in part from their constitution as well as Ukraine's.

Lets look at what occurred in Crimea -
* - Military forces with no insignias took control of the Crimean government. Those men removed the lawful PM who was elected by Crimean's and put their own in place with no referendum / vote on the matter. Those actions were not only a violation of the Ukrainian constitution, they were a violation of the Crimean constitution as well as international law / UN Charter.

* - by extension, any act the Crimean government takes is unlawful, including the vote for "independence" as well as the vote to "join" Russia.

Invasion -
* - to further demonstrate Crimea being a part of Ukraine deals with the military agreement to use the port for Russian naval assets. That agreement is between Russia and Ukraine, not Russia and Crimea. While the agreement states Russia can have so many soldiers and so much equipment, there are stipulations Russia ignored.

* - Any increase in Russian troop strength that is over the amount they had prior to the invasion, in addition to the deployment of certain weapons etc, must be presented to Ukraine and Ukraine must agree to the numbers / equipment.
* - Russian military is prohibited from being outside their bases / prohibited from fanning out across the countryside.

Russia's / Crimean "self Defense" forces also created another legal issue that undermined their argument. The actions taken by the non insignia troops / Russian military occurred prior to Crimean "independence", which means it is a part of Ukraine, which means an armed invasion of Ukraine occurred.

You can't convince conspiracy nuts that they're wrong on the worlds number one conspiracy forum guys

But just a little something for the delusional people in this thread



Then come back and tell us how it's going

reply to post by Xcathdra


We really could go round and round with where the problems began with Ukraine. The fact that there has been meddling in Ukraine by the USA that at least dates back to 2011, potentially prior, doesn't change what has happened.

Your facts/events are sound. But how many of those events have been orchestrated or helped along by foreign interests? The truth is we don't 100% know.

But given history and given recent events the chances are VERY likely that it was inevitable. The Victoria Nuland recording is a perfect example. Plans were already being made and puppets being selected.

Certainly we don't need to go down the USA coup list to know that the USA has a repeat offender history of staging and funding coups.

I must agree with Honey Booboo (TritonTaranis) here, this is a conspiracy site. While I prefer dealing with facts, I also know there are things we may ever know and simply rely on the past behavior as an indicator. The USA has never been to jail or forced rehabilitation, there is no reason to believe it's turned over a new leaf.

As for Russia, my criticism is of my own governments involvement. While I am a citizen of this country I will continue to criticize, scrutinize, and hold their feet to the fire for THEIR actions. I don't give a s#!t what Russia does one way or another.

It is still laughable to believe that somehow that the USA didn't have their hands in the violent coup in February to push the Ukraine in a direction that they wanted. If you watch the way the events play out, there are stages ending with the media blitz - which is used to rally Americans. It's the tell tale sign that we have our hand in the pot. Problem is a lot of Americans are tired of the bulls#!t.

Most people are only paying attention enough to see the media blitz. But we aren't most people, are we?

reply to post by Xcathdra


You're still ignoring key events.

Where in the constitution does it state that fascists can invade parliament in Kiev, scare away any non-nationalist parliamentarians and government officials, then simply impose new leadership without a public referendum? When the new prime minister was voted in, it was done by the remaining nationalist parliamentarians hitting as many voting switches as they could find around them. The result was unsurprisingly decisive.

And what about president Yanukovich? Constitutionally he is still president, you know. So why doesn't the new regime in Kiev and it's western backers recognize this... He did not resign. Emergency elections have not happened since the coup happened.

So why is democracy in Crimea unconstitutional when constitutionally, the coup regime in Kiev is unconstitutional? And remember, Crimea went after independence from Ukraine because of the coup. It's almost like the Ukrainians have a better understanding of their situation that we do.

reply to post by Vovin


Let's try an exercise in editing here:

Where in the constitution does it state that patriotic citizens can take their protest to parliament in Kiev, scare away all the corrupt parliamentarians and government officials, then simply elect an iterim leadership prior to a public referendum? When the new prime minister was voted in, it was done by the remaining patriotic parliamentarians winning as many votes as they could. The result was unsurprisingly decisive.

And what about president Yanukovich? Constitutionally he was removed from office by the parliamentarians who did not flee to Russia, you know. So why doesn't the new regime in Crimea and it's Russian backers recognize this... He did not resign, he was voted out of office. Emergency elections have not happened since the revolution happened, because, unlike the referendum in Crimea, legitimate elections take time to organize.

So why is democracy in Ukraine unconstitutional when constitutionally, the coup regime in Crimea is unconstitutional? And remember, Crimea became part of Russia because of the coup there. It's almost like the Ukrainians have a better understanding of their situation that we do.

There. That's better

WCmutant
We really could go round and round with where the problems began with Ukraine. The fact that there has been meddling in Ukraine by the USA that at least dates back to 2011, potentially prior, doesn't change what has happened.

And the issues with the former President date back farther than 2011. His issues started around / prior to 2004. While it does not change what happened, the events, all of them, must be taken into account to help explain why it happened.

WCmutant
Your facts/events are sound. But how many of those events have been orchestrated or helped along by foreign interests? The truth is we don't 100% know.

I can agree with this.

WCmutant
But given history and given recent events the chances are VERY likely that it was inevitable. The Victoria Nuland recording is a perfect example. Plans were already being made and puppets being selected.

I disagree... Her conversation can also be viewed as a country discussing what leadership in another country would be friendly. The exact same argument can be applied to Russia, who supported Yanukovich from the start of his political career to now. The same argument applies to Crimea.

To think that nations do not have conversations about the political leadership in another country is naïve. Respectfully speaking, you are an intelligent person with a grasp of what's been going. You know those conversations occur and to imply it only occurs with the US is also naïve.

WCmutant
Certainly we don't need to go down the USA coup list to know that the USA has a repeat offender history of staging and funding coups.

Sure - and the same argument, again, can be applied to Russia. Again to assume the US is the only nation that does this is naïve and again your intelligent enough to know better.

WCmutant
I must agree with Honey Booboo (TritonTaranis) here, this is a conspiracy site. While I prefer dealing with facts, I also know there are things we may ever know and simply rely on the past behavior as an indicator. The USA has never been to jail or forced rehabilitation, there is no reason to believe it's turned over a new leaf.

We have another player on the field though - Russia. Again the same argument applies to them.

While I accept, and to an extent agree, with the description of the US above I reject the implication that the US is the only nation that engages in those operations. The Soviet Union did not become a Super Power by Diplomacy towards east bloc nations. Even today Russia engages in activities in former SSTs - with Moldova being a prime example of that *along with Crimea).

WCmutant
As for Russia, my criticism is of my own governments involvement. While I am a citizen of this country I will continue to criticize, scrutinize, and hold their feet to the fire for THEIR actions. I don't give a s#!t what Russia does one way or another.

You should care though... Just as Americans should care about what your government does. Whenever my nation (US) acts, its acting on behalf of the American people. How the US government conducts itself has a direct impact on not only the American people, but our allies, neutral nations and even Russia. Russia has the same responsibility when it acts and its actions are done on behalf of the Russia people.

The only thing that separates two countries are the actions of its government, not its people. Its incumbent on the people to hold their government accountable for its actions.

WCmutant
It is still laughable to believe that somehow that the USA didn't have their hands in the violent coup in February to push the Ukraine in a direction that they wanted. If you watch the way the events play out, there are stages ending with the media blitz - which is used to rally Americans. It's the tell tale sign that we have our hand in the pot. Problem is a lot of Americans are tired of the bulls#!t.

Was the US involved? Sure, just as Russia / EU were involved as well. As for the term "violent coup" this is where we come back to the facts, which you acknowledged above, and yet ignore them here. On the Russian side you have it portrayed as a coup. On the western side you have it portrayed as Yanukovych being removed from office lawfully and in full compliance of the Ukrainian constitution.

One flaw I see in your argument above is the fact no western military forces have been deployed to Ukraine. If the west / US / EU were as involved as they are being accused, one would assume then those actions would be followed up with a military deployment to "protect" Ukraine from Russian aggression. To date, the only military forces involved are Russia's, and they are operating inside Ukraine/Crimea.

While I agree a lot of Americans are tired of the BS, however, when it comes to valid international intrigue the ability to stomach the BS increases. Even more so when the actions being played out are reminiscent of the cold war.

WCmutant
Most people are only paying attention enough to see the media blitz. But we aren't most people, are we?

I just hope there are people on both sides in decision / advisement circles that can see both sides of the coin and act appropriately.


I think all sides have a lot of gall to assume they can divide the world up. For Russia and the US to decide what countries each side can and cannot do business with, who those countries are allowed to trade with, who those countries are allowed to cooperate with, who those countries are allowed to ally with - is the ultimate act of arrogance and stupidity. Even more so when those agreements are reached without the 3rd party even being involved in the discussions.

Vovin
You're still ignoring key events.

As are you my friend..

Vovin
Where in the constitution does it state that fascists can invade parliament in Kiev, scare away any non-nationalist parliamentarians and government officials, then simply impose new leadership without a public referendum? When the new prime minister was voted in, it was done by the remaining nationalist parliamentarians hitting as many voting switches as they could find around them. The result was unsurprisingly decisive.

Where in the Crimean constitution does it state armed men in uniforms with no insignias can seize the Crimean parliament and remove the Prime Minister and replace him with someone who they appointed?

The actions taken in Kiev were lawful and within the confines of the Ukrainian constitution. Simply ignoring those facts does not mean they did not occur and it does not mean they are unlawful. The impeachment was valid. The ability of Parliament to appoint deputies was also valid when they returned to the 2004 constitution.

Classifying them all as "Nazis" or "ultra nationalists" does not a case make. The appointment of the PM for Ukraine was done in accordance with the constitution. That PM resigned to protest Yanukovych's handling of the events. When the PM resigned the former President at that point was without a government.

If you would do me a favor - Can you please explain, in detail, how what occurred in Kiev was unlawful using the 2004 Constitution.

Vovin
And what about president Yanukovich? Constitutionally he is still president, you know. So why doesn't the new regime in Kiev and it's western backers recognize this... He did not resign. Emergency elections have not happened since the coup happened.

According to the agreement he signed he is not lawfully the President. He was impeached under the 2004 constitution. That constitution went into effect the moment he signed the agreement. Since he was impeached and removed, the matter of "did he resign or did he not resign" is not relevant.

I walked people thru the process a few posts back, all of which came from Russian and Western sources. The moment the President was impeached, Ukrainian law requires elections be held within 90 days.

Vovin
So why is democracy in Crimea unconstitutional when constitutionally, the coup regime in Kiev is unconstitutional? And remember, Crimea went after independence from Ukraine because of the coup. It's almost like the Ukrainians have a better understanding of their situation that we do.

Because when armed me with no insignias storm the Crimean parliament and remove the elected PM and replace him with a person they arbitrarily picked is a coup. Crimea is not allowed to hold a referendum that affects the territorial integrity of Ukraine as a whole. Crimea is not allowed to engage in foreign policy / request outside military assistance.

The former President, as stated above, was lawfully removed under the Ukrainian constitution.

Question -
If Yanukovych is still the "lawful President of Ukraine" then why did Russia only deal with Crimea?
If the goal is to protect ethnic Russians then why invade only Crimea?
If Crimea is "independent" then why are all agreements between Ukraine and Russia?

Autonomous does not mean independent. Every action taken has nothing to do with Ukraine and everything to do with Russia rebuilding the former Soviet Union.

reply to post by DJW001


That's some real skillful debating right there. Where I come from, we consider that to be plagiarism and slander, both charges being punishable in a career-ending kind of way.

And moving on .... do we take stories of Putin's Scandinavian ambitions seriously? FInlands apparently beefing up border forces ...

www.policymic.com...

reply to post by Xcathdra


mobile.businessweek.com...

Azerbaijan, soon.

Boscov
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

mobile.businessweek.com...

Azerbaijan, soon.

Its right up there with Russian forces in Transnistria, Moldova. Russia has also started to yell at the Baltic nations about Russia as a second language. The same BS they used to invade Ukraine.

I really wish the Russian people would throw Putins ass out of office and be done with him. Putin is going to get a lot of people killed for his own arrogance and disillusionment about the "hey days of the former Soviet union".