Vladimir Putin held secret meeting to agree Crimea annexation weeks before referendum

reply to post by Xcathdra


Well there ya' go.

The two videos represent my views, and I trust them more than the NY Times. Link them in your OP.

Go on.

Yusomad
Do you have anything better than hearsay?

Im not sure.. Its one of the reasons I asked people to post pro Russian articles on the topic to compare. That has not occurred.

How can one argue the position of posting hearsay if they were not directly involved in the investigation? The hearsay argument cuts both ways.

Xcathdra

Blister
I assume

That right there is the problem in these forums, specifically with this topic.

The op presents the info from sources I look at. At the end of that post I stated

"If any of our Pro Russian friends can link sources that shows their side of the fence please do. If I can, I will add them to the OP so both sides can be seen side by side."

The problem is people would rather attack the poster instead of attacking the sources / information presented in them. All I have been asking is for people who are Pro Russia to post their media reports / sources that shows that side of the fence, so to speak.

No one has done that....

You act as if anyone had to refute your claims, far from that, you are the one with the burden of proof, and so far its not holding to well to scrutiny you see...

And most of us are not pro-russian, partially because its so far away we dont really see it anywhere, and partly because we are(I believe) anti imperialism, if that is the right term.
Oh and we do attack the source, no UK newspaper is going to give us the unbiased approarch, so cant really see why you would use it, oh wait I can see why...

Blister
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Well there ya' go.

The two videos represent my views, and I trust them more than the NY Times. Link them in your OP.

Go on.

Nah that wont fly, he just says he wants sources, not that he is going to read or pay attention(if he did we would not be having this conversation).

Blister
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Well there ya' go.

The two videos represent my views, and I trust them more than the NY Times. Link them in your OP.

Go on.

The videos have what to do with Putin have a secret war meeting?

Xcathdra

Blister
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Well there ya' go.

The two videos represent my views, and I trust them more than the NY Times. Link them in your OP.

Go on.

The videos have what to do with Putin have a secret war meeting?

They are as credible, if not more, that those articles in your OP. The implied fact is, western powers had their hand in the cookie jar too, even when you dont want to see it.

Yusomad
You act as if anyone had to refute your claims, far from that, you are the one with the burden of proof, and so far its not holding to well to scrutiny you see...

Lets review - I posted an article about a secret meeting with Putin. Not only that I linked to another source as well.

For burden of proof, I posted the source to support the argument. I have seen nothing to support the counter argument from you guys. You say the article is not right, you have the burden to justify that position (based on your logic above).

Yusomad
And most of us are not pro-russian, partially because its so far away we dont really see it anywhere, and partly because we are(I believe) anti imperialism, if that is the right term.
Oh and we do attack the source, no UK newspaper is going to give us the unbiased approarch, so cant really see why you would use it, oh wait I can see why...

This paragraph is a contradiction and completely undermined your argument.

Do you think RT presents an unbiased approach?

reply to post by Xcathdra


1. An above poster has already debunked your assertion of wrong-doing. Any such meeting related to the annexation of Crimea happened after the legitimate government of Ukraine was overthrown.

2. The videos I have presented (and which you do not seem interested in, I note...) are intrinsic to the argument that your pro-coup position is reprehensible and founded upon falsities. In other words the videos put your anti-Russian views and neo-Nazi sloganeering to the sword.

You want to demonstrate a respect for "pro-Russian" opinion? Then link to the two videos in your OP.

Yusomad
Nah that wont fly, he just says he wants sources, not that he is going to read or pay attention(if he did we would not be having this conversation).

Attack the poster instead of the facts. Any chance we can move on from that fall back?

I asked for sources.. The videos posted have nothing to do with the op.

Do you have any videos that address the op?

Yusomad

Xcathdra

Blister
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Well there ya' go.

The two videos represent my views, and I trust them more than the NY Times. Link them in your OP.

Go on.

The videos have what to do with Putin have a secret war meeting?

They are as credible, if not more, that those articles in your OP. The implied fact is, western powers had their hand in the cookie jar too, even when you dont want to see it.

So you don't have any sources to counter the op topic - check.

Blister
1. An above poster has already debunked your assertion of wrong-doing. Any such meeting related to the annexation of Crimea happened after the legitimate government of Ukraine was overthrown.

A claim with nothing to support it..... not gonna fly.

Yusomad
2. The videos I have presented (and which you do not seem interested in, I note...) are intrinsic to the argument that your pro-coup position is reprehensible and founded upon falsities. In other words the videos put your anti-Russian views and neo-Nazi sloganeering to the sword.

They have what to do with the op article?

Yusomad
You want to demonstrate a respect for "pro-Russian" opinion? Then link to the two videos in your OP.

Respect is earned - not automatically granted.
Just as soon as you provide me with a video that deals with the op topic.

Who cares about secret meetings?
Its so bloody obvious that Russia will not let their only winter port slip away from them

Right or wrong, Russia would have been prepared to invade the Ukraine since communism ended, if it was ever threatened. The whole world knows it

Crimea has the only year round operational port, thats worth fighting for.

Europe and the US know it and would have worked a plan to take it.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I'm not a "Pro Russian friend", but a friend of putting things into the right perspective.


When international law violators blame an international law violator to violate international law, then this is not particularly effective or credible. International laws either apply to all, or to none.

A claim with nothing to support it..... not gonna fly.

Brick wall. Bang head.

Facts speak for them selves and do not need a source to justify them. Though, maybe you do... Fact is, that the meeting occurred after the coup which overthrew the legitimate government. WTF was Crimea supposed to do? Surrender to the Bandera lovers? Get real. The involvement in the demonstrations, the coup, and then the government of the far-right/nationalists put the safety and stability of Crimea at serious risk. Faced with a 100% illegitimate government in Kiev, Crimea sought safety through democracy and voted for union with Russia. It was no big surprise given the circumstances.

They have what to do with the op article?

They undermine your neo-Nazi-leaning opinion (you did try to quote a Nazi slogan) that obviously motivates all your recent threads on ATS that preach hatred and anxiety toward Russia and Russians.

Respect is earned - not automatically granted.

You are close to losing my respect. Apologizing for your Nazi quote in the afore-mentioned thread would be a good start in reclaiming my respect.

Just as soon as you provide me with a video that deals with the op topic

If you cannot see why the two videos are key evidence against your assertions then we have an impasse.

reply to post by Blister

OP seems to be taking the position of a Crown Prosecutor in a court case .Problem 1 is that the jury ats members are not as ignorant as Joe Public .OP would like to object to evidence and claim it inadmissible .Problem 2 is that this is not a western court of law where a good attorney can get his guilty clients charges acquitted . I am surprised that such a high ranking member based on their stats and supporting such a weak position would be a party to denying ignorance . It could be when the change over happened on the site that the stats really got messed and I suspect that is what happened .imo

Xcathdra
reply to post by Agit8dChop

 

Its why I asked the pro-Russian side to contribute to this thread with sources that give their side of the story

You post an article loaded with opinions, based off a New York Times article loaded with lies. The NYT article keeps mentioning a Russian invasion of Crimea. When did this happen?

It's funny because when Russia was apparently invading Crimea, I was hanging out with the Cuban ambassador to Canada, who was in fact an ambassador to the Ukraine for decades. He said nothing about the Ukraine, but like most Cuban diplomats I've had council with, he did go on length about how American foreign policy has enforced an economically-crushing trade embargo against Cuba for over 50 years simply because Cuba shifted from American hands to Cuban hands. Interesting how sanctions and conspiracies and imperialist invasion concerns the west when non-west countries are the target, almost as if this is a western strategy that goes back at least half a century.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I think this pretty much speaks for itself... Thoughts?

I think someone is trying too hard to stick the boot in..that's what i think.

You imagine international politics, on a level as serious as we're seeing in Ukraine happens in a vacuum and on the spur of the moment do you?

You cannot fathom a situation where politicians and national leaders speak to one another to discuss what might happen in a tense situation?

You can't understand that 'what if scenarios' are played out in policy departments all over the world, including those of the USA, UK, Germany, France, Israel and yes, in Russia?

Is it really odd or suspicious to you, that conversations over potential moves and possible policy direction between the key parties in this situation occurs if X or Y transpires?

Or what choices open to the leaders' may be and / or their respective positions if indeed Z happens?

Very short-sighted point of view from you yet again OP, and misleading IMO, as many of your threads on Ukraine and Russia seem to be.

OF COURSE forward thinking, planning and communication with and between relevant national leaders, and policy decision meetings are all natural and perfectly normal for ANY government and leadership to conduct, EVERY government in the world does this regularly and continually, and even more so when those national leaders and country's and indeed country folk are directly and immediately affected by events going on in the region.

It would be the greatest political naïvety to imagine discussions and meetings did not happen to discuss policy in the event Crimea demanded independence from Ukraine and closer alignment with the Russian Federation. It's bizarre to think anything else.

The question for me, is why do you seem to think that this natural and normal occurrence for leaders and Governments to engage in is anything but, and why you automatically slanted this thread as though it isn't happening everywhere in every Government on the planet?

Interesting thread so far.

Glad to see everyone deconstruct this speculative propaganda.

reply to post by MysterX


You're right. People who have never actually studied the social science behind politics are so quick to fill the rationale void in their minds with shallow conspiracy theories or shallow propaganda. The case that is most likely would be the case that goes the deepest while still substantiating itself.

I've already run into one poster on ATS that is adamant that Russia is trying to recapture ex-Soviet states because it is apparently still communist, despite the fact that it is doing almost everything by the capitalist play book.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I agree, Moldova is vulnerable, as is Georgia and Azerbaijan. This link expresses NATO concerns, news.yahoo.com...

I have began to research Nagorno-Karabakh, widely known as an Armenian stronhold in Western Azerbaijan. Russian assistance would encourage Armenia to annex NKR. Azerbaijan is another possible hotbed and any incursion into NKR would most likely test the U.S., UN, and NATO military mettle. Again, NKR is another contested ethnic region, once part of the former Soviet State.

Putin will push this, as it is part of his redefining Russia and uniting their ethnic groups by breaking down Democratic walls.

Azerbaijan is the powder keg to start another war, and Putin's strategy may suggest NKR as the ultimate target to square off with the West.