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.

 

Trump & Ukraine

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Regardless of claims of Russian hacking I think it is pretty clear at this point that Trump is seeking closer ties with Russia. Considering the fact that he will eventually have to address the Russia-Ukraine situation that kind of puts him in a tough position.

Trump has stated that he is going to seek a reduction in sanctions against Russia. Considering that the sanctions were originally levied because of Russia's annexation of Crimea he will have to address this issue. Currently the vast majority, China included, do not recognize the annexation as legal. The few countries that do are longtime US enemies and notorious dictatorships like North Korea and Iran. This puts Trump in a sticky situation. Does he appease his BFF Putin or does he side with the rest of the world?

A similar question needs to be raised about the downing of MH17. The JIT interim report released earlier this year says that the Ukrainian separatists are the culpable party using a BUK supplied by Russia. It is likely this case will go to court while Trump is president. Once again he will be faced with a hard decision. Side with Putin or side with longtime US allies.

While I think it is safe to say that a Trump presidency will have a large impact on the future of this country I personally think these could be two of the most important decisions he makes. While the diplomatic repercussions are obvious I think these decisions will also indicate if Trump is actually a puppet of Russia.

What do the members of ATS think? How will Trump react? Do you think it even matters?




posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
US sanctions against Russia are fairly modest. The sanctions that have a real impact come from the EU. The US could lift sanctions but if the EU hold firm then Russia will continue to pay a price for their belligerence in annexing Crimea.

On MH17, he will side with due legal process.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Trump will probably side with Russia and then call the rest of the world a bunch of liars about Russia and Crimea.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

While the EU sanctions are harsher they definitely follow the US' lead. If the US starts removing their sanctions the EU will have no choice but to follow suit.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm actually surprised that Hillary didn't go after him on this during the debates. The MH17 JIT report came out in the middle of the GE. It would have been an easy route of attack.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I think Trump believes he could form a new friendlier relationship with Russia and before you can address any of the problems raised in your O.P regarding Ukraine, someone has to act Responsibly and cut the other side some slack. By lifting sanctions, this would allow negotiations to start regarding a peace plan, it's about time someone toned down the rhetoric where Russia is concerned.

edit on 13/12/16 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I read and re-read your OP and it occurs to me that its not a choice between side with Putin or side with long term allies. Trump may be able to thread the needle between the two sides. Trump strikes me as a transactionalist, not an ideologue. Why take sides either way. I'd think he'd say something like this to Putin, "Lets do business together, but understand, we can't do much business together if you make a move on Ukraine forcing me to take a side".

What a lot of people don't understand is that as to Crimea and the Ukrainian city of Odessa, Russia has a legitimate claim, at least from a historical perspective. Russia liberated Crimea and the Tartar tribal enclave that was to become Odessa in 1792. Odessa itself was founded from scratch by Catherine the Great in 1794, shortly after the Russo-Turkish war.

I have a great deal of empathy for the Ukrainians but their situation is sort of pitiful from a historic perspective. Read the Wikipedia entry for Ukraine and you near come away wondering if Ukraine is even a "thing"; for hundreds of years it wasn't even a country as it was split between Poland and Russia. And therein lies a serious rub for Putin, eastern Ukraine, the Donetsk region to the Crimea and Odessa population is largely, from a historic perspective, Russian. West of Kiev, the countries capital, is largely a Polish population. I seriously doubt Putin has any plans to retake the Donetsk to Odessa, although................he might want to bargain for the area to make a claim.

An analyst I saw on TV, an expert on Putin, said something very strange and yet revealing about Putin's view of Ukraine, i.e., that he doesn't see Ukraine's independence has having arisen by virtue of the collapse of the USSR so much as he sees it as having been granted nation-state status by Russia as a pearl thrown to appease NATO and a pearl that benefited NATO because the act of "liberating" or letting go of Ukraine potentially put NATO within 300 miles of Moscow! A major reason Putin is so leery of Ukraine is that Ukraine is the last nation on earth, to my knowledge, in which the "ORIGINAL" NAZI party is still in existence.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

This is a good point. I'm not sure why she didn't either. I remember when this story broke and it barely even gained any traction. Though my guess as to why she didn't do anything is probably because she was trying to avoid going after Trump with stuff that he'd just flat out deny and pretend like wasn't true.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

And yet people had an issue when Obama cut Russia a break. The US is in the position of power right now. Wouldn't it make Trump look weak if he gives that up?



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254
I was arguing at the time of the Crimea crisis that the most practical outcome would be an agreed division, accepting the status quo- the Crimean peninsula to Russia, Ukraine proper left independent.
If they managed to find agreement on that basis, they would be doing a good thing.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

So Ukraine should just give up the most profitable part of its country? Russia illegally annexed Crimea. They shouldn't be rewarded for that.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254
Crimea was never historically part of the Ukraine. It became Russian territory when it was conquered from its previous Turkish rulers. It got connected with the Ukraine through some juggling of the internal frontiers of the Soviet Union.
Yes, it was re-claimed by Russia in a very high-handed way. But sometimes Realpolitik demands a little compromise. Since I'm sure the actual inhabitants want to be Russians more than they want to be Ukrainians, allowing them to be Russians would be a reasonable outcome.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
It will make EU pay for protection for sure, so as a business man he would accept Crimea as Russian this way EU will pay up. If it means my taxes will go down by %10, what already belongs to Russia, keep it.
edit on 13-12-2016 by suvorov because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

If we asked the actual inhabitants they would say they're feeling persecuted. Just like what happened under Stalin, the Tatars are trying to be forced out by the Russians.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




The JIT interim report


And then there's the CTIVD investigation stating they had only SAM capacity. There's that.

Meanwhile the OSCE is watching and both sides don't really care about their Minsk agreement. Trump could be smart enough to use this situation against both sides for a real progress, ya know...


Reforms tied to the Minsk accord include changing Ukraine's constitution to decentralize government, something foreign investors say would greatly speed up decision-making.

Minsk was extended beyond its end-2015 deadline and although it does not have a new, formal deadline it is not open-ended. "Ukraine has a deadline.

They need to push those reforms now, they can't wait," Jensen said.

EU sanctions on Russia at risk without Ukraine reforms: Denmark

Nobel Peace Prize maybe?




posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What you just liked to clearly states that starting on July 14 the separatists had access to something more powerful than MANPADs. MH17 was downed on July 17. Besides, the JIT report states that the BUK from Russia came in that day.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254
The region of the Ukraine will return to Moscows orbit just like Polish land has returned to the orbit of Berlin. Sure as night follows day, Ukraine will go back to the economic orbit of Russia, it's a natural reaction.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So they had something more powerful but kinda lost that stuff 3 days later? Yeah, you didn't think that through...


In the morning of 17 July 2014, the MIVD communicated the results of this investigation in its daily intelligence summary (‘dagintsum’), which had a number of users, including the NCTV and the AIVD. The MIVD assessed it to be unlikely that the Antonov had been shot down by a powerful anti-aircraft system (separate from the question whether this had been carried out from Russian territory). From pictures of the wreckage and eyewitness accounts it was clear that the aeroplane’s right-hand engine had been hit and that 5 to 6 parachutes had subsequently appeared. The Antonov had allegedly crashed only then. On this basis, the MIVD concluded that the appearance of the damage was not consistent with a hit by a powerful anti-aircraft system. The aeroplane would in that case probably have been destroyed in the air. The crew would probably not have survived if this had been the case. According to the MIVD, the wreckage and the eyewitnesses supported the fact that the aircraft was shot out of the air by a MANPADS from Ukrainian territory. This would only have been possible if the Antonov were flying substantially lower than 6,200 or 6,500 metres. Another possibility was that a short-range, vehicleborne anti-aircraft system had been used. The information received from the MIVD does not point to the use of a powerful air defence system.

S.24/38



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Even then, as I said, the BUK in question did not arrive until the morning of July 17 and was moved back over the Russian border on the same day.

We know that it was a BUK that was used. Even the Russians finally admit this fact. The JIT claims they can point to the exact BUK used. Complete with photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony. The Russians on the other hand have provided nothing to support their claim that the Ukrainians shot down MH17.

Let's not forget that there's no reason the Ukrainians should have been worried about aircraft as the separatists didn't have any. On the other hand, as your link do graciously points out, the separatists had a history of downing Ukrainian aircraft. In that same area no less.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




photographic evidence


We'd find said pics in the CTIVD investigation if this wouldn't be just another fabrication...



On the other hand, as your link do graciously points out, the separatists had a history of downing Ukrainian aircraft. In that same area no less.


Self-defense with SAMs is no evidence for a Buk.

I get your sentiment, Bellingcat and SBU are way more trustworthy than the Dutch. Point taken, that's sweet.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join