Russia threatens Ukraine after shell crosses border

Moldova: Criminal Underground Feeds Ukrainian Civil War With Russian Weapons:

reportingproject.net... ons


Washington’s War Crimes Spread from Africa and the Middle East to Ukraine — Paul Craig Roberts:

www.paulcraigroberts.org...


WHITE BOOK
ON VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND THE RULE OF LAW
IN UKRAINE
(NOVEMBER 2013 — MARCH 2014)

www.mid.ru...$FILE/White%20Book.pdf

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Britguy
However one decides to describe the Russian presence in Crimea, the fact remains that they held a referendum and the people voted to remain part of Russia. The whole process was monitored by EU representatives on the ground at polling stations, who all reported a high turnout and free and fair process.

Just to correct you here, but the only observers the Russians and pro-Russians allowed to "monitor" the plebiscite were the Russian press. There was no (that's NO) observers from the UN, EU or the OSCE allowed to be present. I wonder why?

www.osce.org...

Deny ignorance and the propagation of untruth.

Regards

Backtracking to cover the truth perhaps?

www.neurope.eu...

Speaking in Simferopol, the administration capital of Crimea, several members of the 168 monitors who tracked the referendum said they had found no evidence of irregularities or intimidation towards ethnic Ukrainians.

Addressing a packed news conference, one of the monitors, Johan Backman, from Finland, said, "What I saw on Sunday was well organised and I witnessed no violations at all.
"The referendum was, as far as I am concerned, within the framework of international law and was simply a case of the Crimean people exercising their right to vote to determine their future," added Backman, a professor of sociology and law at the University of Helsinki.
His comments were echoed by another monitor, Tasheva Magdalena, from Bulgaria, "The only thing I detected was a sense of joy and elation on the part of those who came out to vote. The referendum was organised well and despite being told to boycott the exercise, people from ethnic Ukrainian background also cast their vote.
"I have of course seen the reports in the media about intimidation and threats of violence towards ethnic Ukrainians in the run up to the referendum. But I heard no one at all complain about any such things taking place. Nor did I see any evidence of it."

That rather flies in the face of your assertion that only Russian and Pro-Russian sources monitored the election process. Of course, it doesn't meet the allegations of the US and EU warmongers, so must be buried and the lies get reported at every opportunity by the corporate media.

a reply to: Britguy
Think it through Britguy.

You said that the Crimean referendum was monitored by EU representatives. There was no such representation.

If a bunch of people living in the EU want to pretend to be representatives of the EU and be promoted as such by the pro Russian press and authorities then so be it. However, it is dishonest to suggest they were official, or had any impartiality, or were not stooges of the Russian agenda.

The sources you cite refer to Johan Backman, who is a rather outspoken pro Russian.
en.wikipedia.org...

He was part of the far right EODE, a self recognised monitoring organisation which has no credibility...
en.wikipedia.org...

Oh, and who is Tasheva Magdalena, from Bulgaria? Ah, there we are, a member of the nationalist Ataka Party who don't like NATO. Nice link.

Like I said, the fact that the UN, EU or OSEC were not invited to monitor the sham plebiscite in Crimea is because they would have reported that it was a sham. Best invite some mates, call them "EU monitors" and make everyone think it was all above board and not what it was.

Regards

a reply to: Britguy

So Russia flew in pro-Russian, anti-west, anti-Nato "monitors" ... and refused to let in UN or EU monitors .. and you find that lends credibility?

As I showed you, Russia mistakenly admitted to lying and acknowledged that as few as 15% of Crimeans voted for annexation.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Britguy

So Russia flew in pro-Russian, anti-west, anti-Nato "monitors" ... and refused to let in UN or EU monitors .. and you find that lends credibility?

As I showed you, Russia mistakenly admitted to lying and acknowledged that as few as 15% of Crimeans voted for annexation.

Why don't you cut this Crimea crap? Russian FM has openly said that any attempt to take Crimea by anyone will result in devastating Nuclear response. When powers like Russia, USA say nuclear then that means the ultimate serious tone. Hence, all attempts to further waste time and energy on the topic will be either futile or worst catastrophic.

End of the Crimea story.

a reply to: victor7

Care to link us to the lie where the foreign minister stated the threat of a nuclear reaction? A foreign Minister does not issue those types of comments. Secondly, invoking that comment would result most likely in sector wide sanctions and immediate military assistance to Ukraine.

The lack of knowledge for the basic fundamentals of a nation threatening the use of nuclear weapons is astounding.

Personally I think the UN / EU / West and NATO should assist Ukraine in removing Russian occupation forces from Crimea. Since only 4 countries actually supported the Russian invasion and illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory, it would not be that hard to make a case to assist Ukraine.

It sounds to me like Russia needs full economic sanctions.

originally posted by: victor7

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Britguy

So Russia flew in pro-Russian, anti-west, anti-Nato "monitors" ... and refused to let in UN or EU monitors .. and you find that lends credibility?

As I showed you, Russia mistakenly admitted to lying and acknowledged that as few as 15% of Crimeans voted for annexation.

Why don't you cut this Crimea crap? Russian FM has openly said that any attempt to take Crimea by anyone will result in devastating Nuclear response. When powers like Russia, USA say nuclear then that means the ultimate serious tone. Hence, all attempts to further waste time and energy on the topic will be either futile or worst catastrophic.

End of the Crimea story.

Even if true, who cares. How does that dispel the fact 15% of Crimea voted for annexation, Russia lied non stop, and they even mistakenly admitted it.

If the UN/Nato told Russia to get, they would get. If they did not, they could be made to leave. Russia would not go nuclear as it would be the end of their country forever.

The problem is America has incredibly weak leadership at the moment and allowed the situation to escalate this far.

The confusion in the Russian government continues -

Kremlin dismisses direct strikes against Ukraine, but debate still rages in Russia (+video)

Moscow — A day after Ukrainian forces allegedly shelled a Russian border village, killing one person, the Kremlin appears to be preparing a tough response.

But "surgical strikes" against Ukrainian military forces deemed responsible for the attacks, as claimed by an anonymous Kremlin official in the major Moscow daily Kommersant? That's "nonsense," Vladimir Putin's spokesman said on Monday.

Experts say the conflicting signals coming out of the Kremlin show just how at odds it is with itself over what to do in eastern Ukraine, as conditions deteriorate and ferocious fighting bumps up against the long and relatively open border with Russia.

As has been stated, Putin is pushing himself into a corner by trying to appease all the groups at the same time, even though some wants are conflicting with others.

Faction A

One faction, they say, advocates direct Russian action to support east Ukraine's beleaguered rebels – either by imposing a no-fly zone over the embattled region, or through pinpoint attacks on Ukrainian artillery units that are accused of firing on Ukrainian civilians and, occasionally, Russian ones too.

Faction B

The other Kremlin faction, which appears to have the upper hand at the moment, favors caution. They argue that direct Russian intervention would only give Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko the rallying point he wants, and a winning argument for greater Western assistance. Instead, they say, Russia holds most of the cards in any long-term settlement for Ukraine. Moscow can afford to wait as the Poroshenko government muddles through what promises to be a long and bloody counter-insurgency in the country's east, even as Ukraine careens toward economic implosion.

Analysis

"The Kremlin does not have a master plan for what to do in Ukraine; it's mostly reacting to events," says Andrei Kortunov, director of the Russian International Affairs Council, a think tank with strong connections to the Russian Foreign Ministry. "The dominant view right now is that we should let Poroshenko reap the consequences of the military campaign he chose to embark on. It's easy to start a conflict like this, very hard to finish it up."

Mr. Kortunov says that Russia needs to stress its role as a diplomatic player, and as the huge neighbor Ukraine needs to rebuild its shattered economy and reconcile with embittered eastern Ukrainians.

"The pendulum will swing back in Ukraine, perhaps in unexpected ways. Russia can afford to wait," he says.

Tuesday is the day to watch apparently according to Ukraine

Kiev denies that its forces shelled the Russian border village Sunday and insists that it was the work of pro-Russian rebels. Ukrainian defense officials warn that Russia is stepping up "provocations" on the frontier, and has been allowing ever more pro-rebel volunteers and military equipment to cross into the embattled territory from Russia. Ukraine's best-known military expert, Dmitry Tymchuk, predicted on his Facebook page today that all signs point to a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on Tuesday.

Click link for remainder of the nightmare.

Apparently Ukraine thinks a full invasion by Russia will come as early as Tuesday. Personally speaking if it does happen steps should be taken to see if there was a coup in Russia. As the articles goes on to state the cost to Russia of direct intervention would be to costly to bear.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: Laxus
a reply to: Xcathdra

Russian "Anexation" 0 = casualties.
American Democratization --> Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Iraq = approximately 150000 deaths (official) only from enemy side, displaced 1000000 + .

I would take Russian annexation any day.

150,000? times that by about 6-7 and your getting closer.

If you guys wish to go tit for tat we can start with Stalin and the 20million people he killed.
Or the number of people killed in the 2 Russian invasion of Chechnya.
or Afghanistan.
or Georgia.
Or Eastern Europe.

Eastern Europe? Eastern Europe? WTF?

Are you really complaining about the Soviet invasion of eastern Europe to destroy the fascists?

Are you really complaining about that? I mean, heck, I know you love Bandera and his mob of Nazi-sympathisers and contemporary Nazis in Ukraine (and their allied "nationalists"), but dissing the liberation of Europe is pretty serious - even for you.

Wow.

a reply to: Blister

Take it up with the person who decided to invoke death counts on issues unrelated to Ukraine.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Blister

Take it up with the person who decided to invoke death counts on issues unrelated to Ukraine.

What are you on about?

originally posted by: Blister

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Blister

Take it up with the person who decided to invoke death counts on issues unrelated to Ukraine.

What are you on about?

If you aren't going to bother reading posts and keeping up with the conversation then maybe you should think before posting. That way we can avoid the conversation from being pulled off topic by those who fail to read.

You have anything about Russia threatening to use airstrikes on Ukraine for a staged border incident?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

You know the "We are protecting Russian speaking citizens from the gov't" without an ounce of evidence to back it up or was that not actually Russia's reason for annexing a sovereign countries territory?

The last leader to speak those kinds of words was a ex WW1 German Army Corporal by the name of Adolf Hitler.

You do understand this wouldn't be happening had Vlad not decided to poke the hornets nest and run.

Well look at what Hitler and the German war machine managed to accomplish from the invasion of Poland to the gates of Moscow and consider the threat the Russians threat with today military hardware and there advantages in manpower and industrial capacity .

a reply to: xpert11

The last leader to speak those kinds of words was a ex WW1 German Army Corporal by the name of Adolf Hitler.

And we all see what he ended up doing in the end didn't we?

Why should Russia be concerned about sovereign nations moving their military assets around inside their borders?

After all Russia has stated time and again that military movements by Russian units inside Russian territory is no one's business but Russia's.

We should not forget that the Soviet Union assisted Nazi Germany in their invasion of Poland and up to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union they were allied with Nazi Germany.

Putin's justifications for action on Ukraine were taken from Hitler's / Goebbels playbook.

Nothing like discussing history as we watch Putin repeating it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The lack of knowledge for the basic fundamentals of a nation threatening the use of nuclear weapons is astounding. Personally I think the UN / EU / West and NATO should assist Ukraine in removing Russian occupation forces from Crimea. Since only 4 countries actually supported the Russian invasion and illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory, it would not be that hard to make a case to assist Ukraine.

Won't you use nukes over Alaska given it is far away and thus US forces can be outnumbered there? Heck Bush was ready to use nuke on 9-11 until few top generals aboard AF1 stopped him or talked him out of it.

Russia is not Iraq or Libya both in terms of power and allies. So do think 100s of time before getting involved with the fascists.

Also wonder, if Berlin, Paris and London would like to get nuked over a failed state like Ukraine. Don't think so !!

Regarding the link, do your own homework.

originally posted by: victor7

Won't you use nukes over Alaska given it is far away and thus US forces can be outnumbered there?

Nope - The US nuclear doctrine is no first strike. We also will not use nuclear weapons against nations who do not possess them.

Any attack on Alaska would trigger article 5 with NATO.

originally posted by: victor7
Heck Bush was ready to use nuke on 9-11 until few top generals aboard AF1 stopped him or talked him out of it.

No he did not.

originally posted by: victor7
Russia is not Iraq or Libya both in terms of power and allies. So do think 100s of time before getting involved with the fascists.

And Russia is not the US or NATO in both terms of power and allies. So do think 100s of time before getting involved with the democracies.

The Soviet Union had a no first strike policy. When the USSR collapsed, they reverted back to a first strike doctrine.
Secondly you really need to get over the perceived invulnerability of Russia.

originally posted by: victor7
Also wonder, if Berlin, Paris and London would like to get nuked over a failed state like Ukraine. Don't think so !!

I was not aware you spoke for those nations.

Do you think Russia is prepared to engage in an armed conflict with NATO with the current state of their economy, military and political leadership?

The cold war mentality of the Soviet Union is not the same as it is now. The USSR would have held their own in a war. Russia would not.

originally posted by: victor7
Regarding the link, do your own homework.

You made the claim, I asked for a source.

Please provide one so we can read about the claims you made. Or is the info you posted based on your opinion instead of fact?

And Russia is not the US or NATO in both terms of power and allies.

Russia might not be as power as NATO but sure becomes a serious game when counting the allies like China, India, Middle East, North Korea etc.

Btw, countries like Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan will be more than happy to change sides at the right time.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

They seem to ignore the fact the US has not annexed any countries. I find it humorous they keep coming back to the US argument though. It means they have no counter argument so the only way to respond is to try and change the topic.

The US / EU / West did not invade Ukraine, Russia did.

Good thing we aren't stupid enough to believe this nonsense. This is the 21st century. Advanced capitalist countries like the USA want economic colonies where American corporations control the economic assets of a colony nation. Formal annexation is not part of this procedure.

Claiming that the USA has nothing to do with Ukraine is equally absurd, considering the mountain of evidence against such a notion.

Nope - The US nuclear doctrine is no first strike. We also will not use nuclear weapons against nations who do not possess them.

LOL Sorry I must have forgot about the 1945 deployment of Japanese nuclear bombers. The only country ever nuked and it was by the USA on a non-nuclear country, targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians, no less.

a reply to: Vovin

Completely agree. This is evidenced by the fact that the US got every last oil contract in Iraq, and we made absolutely sure China got none. Of course if China got more than we did that would sort of kill your theory, so good thing it did not happen.