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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
You do understand this wouldn't be happening had Vlad not decided to poke the hornets nest and run.
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.
originally posted by: victor7
Won't you use nukes over Alaska given it is far away and thus US forces can be outnumbered there?
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.
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.
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 !!
originally posted by: victor7
Regarding the link, do your own homework.
And Russia is not the US or NATO in both terms of power and allies.
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.
Nope - The US nuclear doctrine is no first strike. We also will not use nuclear weapons against nations who do not possess them.