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.

 

Rebels in Ukraine's Donetsk plan referendum on joining Russia

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: SerialDrilla




And what does that have to do with the referendum specifically?


Well neither was the question I was replying to.



What possible upcoming "Putin move" could make it a bad thing in your opinion?


So I guess the same question should be asked of your post?




posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




At first glance, the second option seems to offer the prospects of the peninsula remaining within Ukraine. But the 1992 national blueprint - which was adopted soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then quickly abolished by the young post-Soviet Ukrainian state - is far from doing that. This foresees giving Crimea all the qualities of an independent entity within Ukraine - but with the broad right to determine its own path and choose relations with whom it wants - including Russia.


BS.

The choice obviously means being a part of the Ukraine. This makes it seem like having the freedom to determine its own path and choose relations with whatever country, a bad thing. Spin much?


edit on 20-8-2015 by SerialDrilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




Well neither was the question I was replying to.



This is the comment you replied to initially.



So it is a bad thing that they are organising a referendum?


Do you see the word "referendum"

The question that followed was in response to your intial reply. The subject was the referendum and how Putin's move would make it a bad thing.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: TheChrome

No doubt the yes vote has already been decided in Moscow........



And it's "no." Russia doesn't dare expand in the direction of NATO; Poland would lend its Air Force to Ukraine in a fit of rage and drag the rest of NATO in behind it. I can't wait to see the expression"on the faces of the Donetsk Fascists when Czar Vladimir rewards all their efforts with "nyet."
edit on 20-8-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerialDrilla
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




At first glance, the second option seems to offer the prospects of the peninsula remaining within Ukraine. But the 1992 national blueprint - which was adopted soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and then quickly abolished by the young post-Soviet Ukrainian state - is far from doing that. This foresees giving Crimea all the qualities of an independent entity within Ukraine - but with the broad right to determine its own path and choose relations with whom it wants - including Russia.


BS.

The choice is obviously means being a part of the Ukraine. This makes it seem like having the freedom to determine it's own path and choose relations with whatever country, a bad thing. Spin much?



Ignoring the fact that there were 2 constitutions in 1992, the first of which made Crimea effectively independent of Ukraine is also spin.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




Russia doesn't dare expand in the direction of NATO;


So you agree the whole "Russian threat" thing must be propaganda pushed by propaganda pushers.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: SerialDrilla

not me - IMO the Russians and pro-Russian rebels have shown little actual concern for rationality, and there is no reason to expect them to start now.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

The situation was not like you suggested at all, where both choices meant joining Russia.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: SerialDrilla




This is the comment you replied to initially.


So it is a bad thing that they are organising a referendum?


Not with that reply I wasn't.




What possible upcoming "Putin move" could make it a bad thing in your opinion?


I don't know...say trying to take any land from Ukraine, as he did in Georgia.


So the question you asked and I replied to were both not about the referendum, so what is the problem?



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SerialDrilla




So you agree the whole "Russian threat" thing must be propaganda pushed by propaganda pushers.





posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerialDrilla
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

The situation was not like you suggested at all, where both choices meant joining Russia.


Effectively they did.

One option was to join Russia, the other was a confusing option that no-one actually knew the meaning of - and still no-one does!

But in the unlikely event of the 2nd option having been "voted" for by a "majority" that would have left Crimea to decide what it meant while under foreign military occupation and its legitimate government and parliament having been overthrown and replaced by self-appointed people who wanted to join Russia....

So no, I reject your one-eyed viewpoint - the Crimean "referendum" had no option that would have left Crimea as part of the sovereign Ukraine.


(post by SerialDrilla removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SerialDrilla


So you agree the whole "Russian threat" thing must be propaganda pushed by propaganda pushers.


Nope, it just means that Putin's next moves will be in Central Asia. He has successfully destabilized Central and Eastern Europe, thus creating the desired buffer between Russia and NATO. Look for terror attacks against "ethnic Russians" in the 'Stans.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I think he may find he doesn't have the control over the don basin nutjobs that he thinks he has - they may well just force his hand by holding their "referendum" regardless of what he says.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I was refering to the scenarios in which Putin was supposed to invade the Ukraine and other Eastern European countries.

Maybe you missed those being tossed around here......
edit on 20-8-2015 by SerialDrilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I didn't know that... may I see it?



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul




So no, I reject your one-eyed viewpoint - the Crimean "referendum" had no option that would have left Crimea as part of the sovereign Ukraine.


You suggested that both choices meant joining Russia which is simply not true.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: SerialDrilla

I have explained why it is true and you have not actually made any argument against my points other than you saying it is not true.

If you have some REASONS why you think it is not true I would be happy to engage on them....but you saying "not true" isn't a reason.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Because of obvious reasons. The choice obviously says "as part of the Ukraine". Your argument is that the choice also means they have the right of self determinating their future. This is BS because none of this equals "joining Russia".



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SerialDrilla

There are no "obvious reasons" - if they were "obvious" I would discuss them - your reasons are whatever your reasons are and if you do not tell me them I do not know what they are.

Your following sentences are meaningless - what do you mean?




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join