It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Not officially boots on the ground (just mercs who they can disavow), however, they certainly ARE involved.
"We have registered cases of a sharpening confrontation not just between Ukrainian regular army’s units and ‘volunteer battalions’ but also among units of Ukraine’s Armed Forces," the Donetsk news agency quoted Eduard Basurin as saying.
originally posted by: bullcat
originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: bullcat
Russia is not running all over "my" country and has no intention to, quit being overdramatic and hyperbole, We had good economic and political relations with Russia, until all this blew out.
I never said they were now did I?
I asked if you would fight for your country if they did...and it seems you just side stepped that question so I take it you would let them take over without fighting for your own freedom.
It's not being overdramatic...it's called asking a question.
I bet Ukraine didn't think Russia was going to do what they did...but we see how that went now don't we?
Now we are suffering economically due to stupid sanctions pressured by the west.
And all that comes because RUssia refuses to leave Ukraine and remove it's troops from Ukraine...but of course it's all the West's fault because we sent Russia into a sovereign country with the intent on annexing part of that country...but keep believing that Russian fairy tale.
Crimea is no longer in Ukraine, didn't you see the news?
No, the sanctions comes from our government leaders in the EU pressured by Americans to toe their line.
If America is really so concerned about defending the Budapest Memorandum they should not have tried for the past many years to cooerce Ukraine to move (which is in breach of the memorandum) and if they are so in defence of enforcing it (which they broke themselves) why are they not there directly in Ukraine OPENLY, no they are using stealthy techniques and proxies. Those are not the sign of an honest intervention. Same can be said for EVERY unbadged merc on Ukraine, Russian or otherwise. They are all at it, all involved. Simply pointing fingers in one direction is not the right thing to do because the blame does not lay with ONE person or group, everybody is involved in this pie. Nobody is clean. Quit acting like America is the white angel in all this, they are FAR FROM IT.
As usual, anything America gets involved in, Europe pays the price, America is not the one losing out from the sanctions and political fall out, Europeans are, WE are in the front line, not Americans.
Their arrival portends rising local prices and a culture shock. Many of them live in plush apartments, or five star hotels, drive SUV's, sport $3000 laptops and PDA's. They earn a two figure multiple of the local average wage. They are busybodies, preachers, critics, do-gooders, and professional altruists. They are parasites who feed off natural and manmade disasters, mismanagement, conflict, and strife.
Always self-appointed, they answer to no constituency. Though unelected and ignorant of local realities, they confront the democratically chosen and those who voted them into office. A few of them are enmeshed in crime and corruption. They are the non-governmental organizations, or NGOs.
Some NGOs - like Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Amnesty - genuinely contribute to enhancing welfare, to the mitigation of hunger, the furtherance of human and civil rights, or the curbing of disease. Others - usually in the guise of think tanks and lobby groups - are sometimes ideologically biased, or religiously-committed and, often, at the service of special interests.
NGOs - such as the International Crisis Group - have openly interfered on behalf of the opposition in several parliamentary elections in Macedonia. Other NGOs have done so in Belarus and Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Israel, Nigeria and Thailand, Slovakia and Hungary - and even in Western, rich, countries including the USA, Canada, Germany, and Belgium.
The encroachment on state sovereignty of international law - enshrined in numerous treaties and conventions - allows NGOs to get involved in hitherto strictly domestic affairs like corruption, civil rights, the composition of the media, the penal and civil codes, environmental policies, or the allocation of economic resources and of natural endowments, such as land and water. No field of government activity is now exempt from the glare of NGOs. They serve as self-appointed witnesses, judges, jury and executioner rolled into one.
Regardless of their persuasion or modus operandi, all NGOs are top heavy with entrenched, well-remunerated, extravagantly-perked bureaucracies. Opacity is typical of NGOs. Amnesty's rules prevent its officials from publicly discussing the inner workings of the organization - proposals, debates, opinions - until they have become officially voted into its Mandate. Thus, dissenting views rarely get an open hearing.
Contrary to their teachings, the financing of NGOs is invariably obscure and their sponsors unknown. This lack of transparency allowed the finance director of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights to embezzle virtually all its funds and to bankrupt it in the process (in 2008). Tried in a Vienna court, he was found guilty and ordered to serve ... 1 year in prison and 2 years of a suspended sentence!
Indeed, the bulk of the income of most non-governmental organizations, even the largest ones, comes from - usually foreign - powers. Many NGOs serve as official contractors for governments.
NGOs serve as long arms of their sponsoring states - gathering intelligence, burnishing their image, and promoting their interests. There is a revolving door between the staff of NGOs and government bureaucracies the world over. The British Foreign Office finances a host of NGOs - including the fiercely "independent" Global Witness - in troubled spots, such as Angola. Many host governments accuse NGOs of - unwittingly or knowingly - serving as hotbeds of espionage.
Very few NGOs derive some of their income from public contributions and donations. The more substantial NGOs spend one tenth of their budget on PR and solicitation of charity. In a desperate bid to attract international attention, so many of them lied about their projects in the Rwanda crisis in 1994, recounts "The Economist", that the Red Cross felt compelled to draw up a ten point mandatory NGO code of ethics. A code of conduct was adopted in 1995. But the phenomenon recurred in Kosovo.
All NGOs claim to be not for profit - yet, many of them possess sizable equity portfolios and abuse their position to increase the market share of firms they own. Conflicts of interest and unethical behavior abound.
Cafedirect is a British firm committed to "fair trade" coffee. Oxfam, an NGO, embarked, three years ago, on a campaign targeted at Cafedirect's competitors, accusing them of exploiting growers by paying them a tiny fraction of the retail price of the coffee they sell. Yet, Oxfam owns 25% of Cafedirect.
Large NGOs resemble multinational corporations in structure and operation. They are hierarchical, maintain large media, government lobbying, and PR departments, head-hunt, invest proceeds in professionally-managed portfolios, compete in government tenders, and own a variety of unrelated businesses. The Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development owns the license for second mobile phone operator in Afghanistan - among other businesses. In this respect, NGOs are more like cults than like civic organizations.
One must clearly distinguish between NGOs in the sated, wealthy, industrialized West - and (the far more numerous) NGOs in the developing and less developed countries.
Western NGOs are the heirs to the Victorian tradition of "White Man's Burden". They are missionary and charity-orientated. They are designed to spread both aid (food, medicines, contraceptives, etc.) and Western values. They closely collaborate with Western governments and institutions against local governments and institutions. They are powerful, rich, and care less about the welfare of the indigenous population than about "universal" principles of ethical conduct.
Their counterparts in less developed and in developing countries serve as substitutes to failed or dysfunctional state institutions and services. They are rarely concerned with the furthering of any agenda and more preoccupied with the well-being of their constituents, the people.
Western NGOs are the heirs to the Victorian tradition of "White Man's Burden".
They are missionary and charity-orientated.
They are designed to spread both aid (food, medicines, contraceptives, etc.) and Western values.
They closely collaborate with Western governments and institutions against local governments and institutions.
They are powerful, rich, and care less about the welfare of the indigenous population than about "universal" principles of ethical conduct.
keep putting words in my mouth...