Kiev Breaks Minsk Agreement; Reinvades Donbass

a reply to: bullcat

Not officially boots on the ground (just mercs who they can disavow), however, they certainly ARE involved.

So pretty much what Russia is doing with the Chechans. Okay got it.

So they are also fighting amongst themselves now ?

Armed conflicts registered among Ukraine’s army units in Donbass

"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.

Source

So there`s clearly a confusing situation going on.

I was under the impression the volunteer battalions were going to be absorbed in the regular Ukrainian army somehow, but they seem to be defiant.

I`m sorry, but right now I haven`t got a clue about what`s going on exactly.

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.

the brainwashing is strong with some,
doesn't matter if you live there and are seeing it with your own eyes,
'muricans know better than you, and believe their own lies
your posting facts/evidence/proof/pics/video
just gets in the way of their predations...
note how the mercs being there is completely IGNORED.
or vicky's 5billion bux spent in subverting the will of the ukrainian people

a reply to: AdamuBureido

Not ignoring mercs there. Although just because they speak English(england english) dont mean they are American operators.
The vid where he says get out the way was not a american i can assure ya. his accent gave that away at least according to my ear.

a reply to: AdamuBureido

5 billion over the course of a decade primarily from USAid. An organization that has spent more in other countries, including Russia, during that same period. You don't see them overthrowing their government. Do you or do not agree with Yanukovych being brought up on impeachment after learning he stole billions from the Ukrainian people?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

again with the NGO catspaws.*
as if they weren't tools, doing the same as missionaries have and are still doing.

and your leading question regarding Yanukovych is irrelevant and off topic.

*

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.

samvak.tripod.com...

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.

www.boston.com...

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

More Fascist lies from FortRuss? Why are you so keen on spreading this propaganda?

a reply to: AdamuBureido

Western NGOs are the heirs to the Victorian tradition of "White Man's Burden".

In other words, they are dedicated to improving the lot of those who live in less developed nations.

They are missionary and charity-orientated.

In other words, they are not trying to enrich themselves at the expense of the people they serve.

They are designed to spread both aid (food, medicines, contraceptives, etc.) and Western values.

If Western values motivate the sharing of food and medicine, they would seem to offer a better path out of poverty than non-Western ones.

They closely collaborate with Western governments and institutions against local governments and institutions.

Against local government? What legitimate local government would deny food and medicine to their own people?

They are powerful, rich, and care less about the welfare of the indigenous population than about "universal" principles of ethical conduct.

And we can't have dangerous ideas like ethical government corrupt the starving indigenous population, now can we?

a reply to: DJW001

actions speak louder than words
regarding the death, disease, and destruction left in the wake of the "superior" beings of "higher morality" of the west

get over yourself
It's notable that you do not address, much less refute, anything mentioned in the article
just verborheaic bleatings of "moral superiority"

'Take Away Your Opium and Your Missionaries' [and delusions of superiority and lies] with you and get out.

dont let the door hit you on the way out...

a reply to: AdamuBureido

Thank you for your honest hatred; it serves you better than the hypocritical tirades you cut and pasted.

a reply to: DJW001

lol
keep putting words in my mouth...

it only serves to make you look foolish
pfft...
funny, you're one of the top debunkers here normally,
as the paucity and poverty of your posts herein shows;
perhaps you should stick to subjects you can credibly talk about...

a reply to: AdamuBureido

You say he looks foolish, though you rely on cartoonish rebuttals with no actual substance to your words. You didnt actually refute what he said.

You THINK you are doing so well, though like always all you did was attack him and not his argument. If you do think so you are delusional, if not you are just trolling.

Its plain to see that you lost the argument by veering away from actually refuting what he said.

Is this where you insert a sophomoric meme not even applicable to the argument? Is your response going to have a nonsensical reference to some other issue you throw in like a fox news correspondent checking off talking points?


ALSO, how would you know he is a regular debunker? Its like you have been here before but your last account isnt in good standing? OR is it that you just have been studying ATS members like a crazy person in order to systematically attack them. Its weird that you ONLY attack members in threads you spam, and can never get a shot off at the conversation at hand.

Trying to discredit people when you have made ZERO contributions to content, members like DJW001 who have actually enriched the site where as you have only lowered the level of conversation to angry little triads against people over the internet in subjects you didnt even bring to the table. Curious.....

a reply to: AdamuBureido

keep putting words in my mouth...

Where did I put words in your mouth? You cut and pasted two lengthy excerpts from outside sources, apparently without being aware of what they actually said. I systematically pointed out that one of them was anti-humanitarian, anti-compassionate and pro-corruption. It was an ill thought out attack on the arrogance the West sometimes displays when it tries to help people.

Other than providing weapons to corrupt regimes in the Levant to kill separatists, and weapons and food to separatists in Ukraine, what humanitarian activities has Russia engaged in? Has it helped fight ebola in Africa? Sent relief to tsunami victims in Asia? Have they helped build housing in the Caribbean? In its arrogance, the United States has. In your eyes, does that make Russia good and the US bad?