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.

 

Crimea human rights 'deteriorated radically' since Russia seizure

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Moscow (AFP) - Human rights on the Crimea peninsula seized by Russia from Ukraine in March 2014 have "deteriorated radically" since Moscow's takeover, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said Thursday.

"Fundamental freedoms of assembly, association, expression and movement have all been restricted by the de facto authorities in Crimea," Michael Georg Link, director of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, said in a statement.


Well it seems Crimea is in some pretty interesting times as they are losing human rights from the new regime there.


Since then the authorities installed by Moscow have clamped down on pro-Kiev activists, local journalists and the area's Crimean Tatar community, the OSCE said in a 100-page report released Thursday.

"We found in Crimea that those Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars who openly supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine, refused Russian citizenship or did not support the de facto authorities were in a particularly vulnerable position,” said the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Astrid Thors.


news.yahoo.com...

Crimea probably wishes now they didn't vote, as they are just falling back into the RUssian way of life...something they wanted to get away from.




posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

This site is crawling with Russian bots, so prepare for an onslaught.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk




This site is crawling with Russian bots, so prepare for an onslaught.


No problem, as many already know I can hold my own...so let the onslaught begin.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
It's no better in the Ukraine either, looks like the whole of Ukraine is getting "that work" as being a chosen battlefield in this game of Risk.

It comes down to which nation state breaks first, Ukraine or Syria, is how I see these hot spots.

For the sake of a good arguement though, "Crimea is doing way better than Ukraine under the ghoulage of the West"



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
The Russians didn't recently seize the Crimea, their Navy has been stationed there for centuries in Sevastopol. Good thing, too. Who wants a Kiev style reviolation of rights from a bunch of tire burning Neo Nazi thugs?

Sevastopol and the Russian Sixth Fleet is the prize for NATO, it overlooks the whole Black Sea region. The propaganda that Crimea is now suffering under Russian domination is designed to cover for how bad US and the EU (NATO) want the Russian Navy driven from its base in Sevastopol.

Everything directed at 'the poor Crimeans" under the boot heels of the Russians is really about that Geographical Political thorn in NATO's side.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I think that Kiev cut the water off to the Crimea awhile back if memory serves me .The latest news from Kiev is that the chocolate king has banned a bunch of journalist .Some from the BBC .



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
The Russians didn't recently seize the Crimea,


2014 seems quite recent.


their Navy has been stationed there for centuries in Sevastopol.


Sevastopol is not the whole Crimea.


Good thing, too. Who wants a Kiev style reviolation of rights from a bunch of tire burning Neo Nazi thugs?



What "reviolation of rights" would that be? AFAIK most of the neo-Nazi thugs in the area are Russian, so it appears that your statement is EXACTLY what is happening in Crimea.......cognitive dissonance much??



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul


cognitive dissonance much??


Here In the West, the propaganda cries for the need to defend against "the Commies", "Putin", and the old Cold War, "Former Soviet Empire", when it is quite clearly NATO that is spreading into that region and elsewhere for that matter.

But you already know that.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

NATO is a voluntary association of sovereign states - no-one forces anyone to join and even Russia toyed with joining in the 1990's!!

Russian invasions of Ukraine are not in the same ball park.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Russia did not invade Ukraine no matter how many times you repeat it .



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul


NATO is a voluntary association of sovereign states - no-one forces anyone to join and even Russia toyed with joining in the 1990's!!


Voluntary, huh? Tell that to the Eastern Ukrainians.

About US / EU (NATO) and Russian cooperation?


On 1 April 2014, NATO issued a statement by NATO foreign ministers that said, among other things: ″We have decided to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia. Our political dialogue in the NATO-Russia Council can continue, as necessary, at the Ambassadorial level and above, to allow us to exchange views, first and foremost on this crisis″.[36]

On 16 June 2015, Tass quoted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksey Meshkov as saying: “None of the Russia-NATO programs that used to be at work are functioning at a working level.

WIKI


Enough Hyperbole. The US wants Russian Navy gone from the Black Sea so it can be turned into a NATO lake, just like the Mediterranean, both Gulfs in the Middle east, etc.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Russia sent its armed forces into Crimea to seize it BEFORE any votes ever occurred. That would be Russian sending its armed forces into Ukrainian territory, which is in fact an armed invasion.



a reply to: intrptr
Yes joining NATO is voluntary. What part of voluntary confuses you?


Secondly the Black Sea is not controlled by one nation. It in fact has international waters not claimed by any of the Black sea bordering nations so the dramatic claim of a NATO lake is based on a lack of knowledge of the Black Sea.

Third if someone wanted to turn it into a lake that would be Turkey considering they control access to the Black Sea and can stop access at any point it wants considering they never ceded sovereign control over the Dardanelles or Bosporus.
edit on 17-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Russia had many troops in the Crimea and they had the right to be there . The same thugs that were operating in Kiev were not going to be allowed to pull the same stuff off in the Crimea and Putin made sure of that . Kiev has a peace agreement with the east and if and when they decide to get down to the finer details of that agreement the civil war will continue . Its a no win situation for Kiev but that is the way the cookie crumbles sometimes .



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1




Russia did not invade Ukraine no matter how many times you repeat it .


Let's look at that shall we...

Russia annexes Crimea...


an·nex (ə-nĕks′, ăn′ĕks′)
tr.v. an·nexed, an·nex·ing, an·nex·es
1. To append or attach, especially to a larger or more significant thing.
2. To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city.
3. To add or attach, as an attribute, condition, or consequence.


Now Crimea was a part of Ukraine ( a sovereign country )

Here we see Putin sent troops to Crimea for sole purpose of annexing Crimea...it had nothing to do with them wanting to be with Russia as Russian media wants you to believe.

Now the fact that Putin admitted to sending troops to Crimea, and they were there for the taking of another countries territory...or by definition an invasion.


invasion
noun in·va·sion in-ˈvā-zhən
Definition of INVASION

1: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder

2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful


www.merriam-webster.com...

So no matter how many times you say they didn't still won't make it true either.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
A report written on the word of the Ukrainian government employees and Western NGO's. Without a single report author having been to the area in question...on the 'bad guy'.

Sounds legit.

You guys should really read the methodology on this...and pray that this doesn't become the standard. Or every single country is screwed.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr
Yes joining NATO is voluntary. What part of voluntary confuses you?

The other "volunteers" like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Kosovo, Syria and Eastern Ukraine parts. You think other countries would just give in to spare them the same Humanitarian treatment, silly them.





edit on 17-9-2015 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Xcathdra

Russia had many troops in the Crimea and they had the right to be there .


yes they did - but they were confined to the Sevastopol base, and allowed out only when exercising with Ukrainian forces - which did happen from time to time.


The same thugs that were operating in Kiev were not going to be allowed to pull the same stuff off in the Crimea and Putin made sure of that


which was what precisely??


Kiev has a peace agreement with the east and if and when they decide to get down to the finer details of that agreement the civil war will continue . Its a no win situation for Kiev but that is the way the cookie crumbles sometimes .


your analysis is pretty shallow - Ukraine is holding genuinely democratic elections, Donbas is not. Ukraine is receiving financial support from a large part of the worl - Russia is finding that it no longer has oil income it used to and is finding supporting the seperatists increasingly problematic.....if there's a "side" that has a "no win" position it is Russia and the seperatists.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Russia is not really known for humanitarian actions and freedom of press. It's just that western countries do their best to be worse.

I think the article points to This document from OCSE which is a follow up of this other report from Mar 25 for who's intrested. Probably this other article from January is the starting point.

The only thing that we must be clear about this article is not that "human rights of everyone", but the human rights of tatar and pro-ukrainians minority, it's bad but it's not an indication of the terrible situation for Crimeans (as the article's title suggests). Being part of the russian federation it's now subject to the sanctions and russian media control laws not sure which ones are different exactly tho.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr
Yes joining NATO is voluntary. What part of voluntary confuses you?

The other "volunteers" like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Kosovo, Syria and Eastern Ukraine parts. You think other countries would just give in to spare them the same Humanitarian treatment, silly them.



None of which are actually in NATO....so WTF are you on about??



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

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


NATO is a voluntary association of sovereign states - no-one forces anyone to join and even Russia toyed with joining in the 1990's!!


Voluntary, huh? Tell that to the Eastern Ukrainians.



Sure - no-one has forced them into NATO, Ukraine is not in NATO...........do try to make some sense some time.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join