Putin's Hmn Rghts Cncil Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results; Only 15% Voted For Annexa

a reply to: Xcathdra

United Nations Development Programme polls from wiki:

Different polls conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea found a 36% support for unification of the entire Ukraine with Russia in 2013 and 41% on 8–18 February 2014 (just days before the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych)

Kyiv institute shows increasing support of unification of ENTIRE UKRAINE.

I hope UNDP has the numbers for 2012, 2013 and 2014, only that numbers show pro-russian tendency, so those numbers "unconfirmed".

After that you trusting ukrainian junta-statistics?

Winston S. Churchill — 'I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself'

Russia isnt "trying" to do anything. Those areas are asking for Russia's intervention. Why doesn't Russia just leave, you ask? Kiev's right sector junta got all the weapons, tanks, and planes. If Russia left we all know exactly how that would play out. Just look at any other country the us fomented a civil war in and left.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for the clauses.
Ok, so we don't have to go back to the matter, Russian forces were in Crimea legally as per the agreement over the Sevastopol naval base. So we can immediately cross Invision, simply because

Invasion is

1.The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.

2.A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.


So if you are there on legal grounds (the Kharkov agreement), it can by no means be called an invasion. I could send you the text of the agreement, but I'm afraid it would be no good to you, because it's in Ukranian and Russian. If you trust autotranslate and bear the gibberish heresy it spills out, you can try. Here's the link. In the end you will see the list of vehicles, equipment, planes, guns and etc. that Russia is allowed to deploy in Crimea. And Russia did not raise their forces. They used what they had.
Anyhow, the agreement.
ppt.ru...
Now, the agreement does not specify, where these "assets" can or cannot go. There is only a list of cities where they are deployed in. "Troops are not to be outside bases except" is not there in the text. If it's not specifically indicated in the contract, it is not an infringement of the contract. Also, transit is a vague term. My car broke down and while it's being fixed, I stepped out to protect the machanic. Transit? Yes. Transit it is. It's all a matter of perspective. As for the rest of the story - we will never know. You can't hit(or file to the int. court) what you can't see. For me, that story with Crimea is not crystal clear. It was dirty in many ways. But it's still innocent compared to the bombing of Belgrad and invasion of Iraq, when the US simply spit on the UN resolution. Hey, they didn't shout half as much as they shouted about Crimea. Bad Saddam? More people die every day now, than they did in the days of Saddam, so I judge by what's worse. Fight fire with napalm is not my style, sorry.

Also, and I've said it before in this thread, Crimea is an autonomous republic. Or in other terms, a Sovereign state, which delegated the burden of governing it's territory to Ukraine (a Rent, If you must). It had it's own constitution back in 1992, until that constitution came into conflict with Ukraine's new constitution. It had a president back then, but again, presidency was abolished due to above mentioned reasons. BUT. The territorial status of Crimea wav never revised. It still remains, even after it joined Russia, an autonomous republic. Autonomous.

Merriam-Webster
Autonomous.
1: of, relating to, or marked by autonomy
2a : having the right or power of self-government
b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : self-contained
3a : existing or capable of existing independently
b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole
4: controlled by the autonomic nervous system
— au·ton·o·mous·ly adverb

So there we go. Right now I'm watching Crimea celebrate May 9...you can't fake something like this. They're happy in their own way. Meanwhile, some couple of humdred kms away, people are dying, assaulted by their own military. The contrast...

Xcathdra, what is the US doing in Ukraine? It has no business there. Leave it to Europe. But they won't. They want it for themselves. This is what worris me most of all. It is a game for some and the suffering living people for others. I can kill. Sure I can. It's not difficult. Psychologically, even. If you must - you must. But it's so vile that I'd prefer not to and leave it as a last and final resort. Seems like it's a no-brainer for some in Ukraine, which is a pity. They seem to be fond of fire over there.
East Ukraine must be a clue to those who think everything is allright in Ukraine and that Crimea is an annexation.

As for the insignias, there is quire a number of Russian PMCs. FYI, so if Putin said these guys were Russian troops, maybe it IS so, but I'm still (honestly, Xcathdra) in doubt. They didn't look to me like ordinary military troops. Maybe they are, I dunno. But the first hand info was about Russian contractors. The vehicles they used are available for purchase by civilians. You need a "heavy truck" class driving license, because it's so damn heavy but that's not the point.
OR
You could dismantle all military equipment and rent them just for this op. There are many ways. I'm just saying that the fact Putin didn't use the "yes we have military in Crimea as per the Kharkov agreement and becuse of instability in the Ukraine, we were forced to widen the perimeter around our bases" card, there may be something more complicated about the "little green men". A smart move. Use and hide. No one needs to know. That would explain the absense of insignias. The Russian Crimea regimen would, IMO wear them. Why hide the obvious, do you agree?

a reply to: thegeck

Where does the treaty specify that the Russian troops are permitted to threaten Ukrainian troops with fireams and seize their assets? Your argument is like saying that it is alright to reach into someone's pockets and take their wallet because technically it is not burglary.

a reply to: DJW001

Is any democracy on Earth had ever any law's allowing throwing bottles filled with gasoline?



Threaten? Sieze? Burn people?

originally posted by: maghun
a reply to: DJW001

Is any democracy on Earth had ever any law's allowing throwing bottles filled with gasoline?

Threaten? Sieze? Burn people?

Maybe you're forgetting about the thousands of pro EU Ukrainian protesters beaten stabbed and injured and dozens killed prior to the when the backlash in your picture shows

There's only so much the people of Ukraine can take from Russia before they start fighting back

a reply to: TritonTaranis

Maybe you forgot leaked call of Ashton and Paet:

In the recording, which was posted to YouTube and picked up by Russian media, Paet talks about his recent visit to Ukraine. He says a doctor named "Olga" told him opponents of Ukraine's ousted President may have been responsible for deadly sniper fire.

Leaked call raises questions about who was behind sniper attacks in Ukraine

(CNN) -- Don't read too much into the conversation.

I understand clearly what you don't: the Majdan's western support is partly responsible for Odessa Massacre (guess who is the other part, yes, "the Russians responsible for everything"), because simple people learnt that THIS IS DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION.

I know I am lunatic but I think after such happenings (Majdan 2014) the NEW DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT have to use MSM for telling people "This was bad behavior, we know that you were very angry because of the thiefs in RADA (ukrainian parlament), but this is over, we are good guys in power now and if we want to join EU, you have to learn behaving good. Throwing Molotov coctails is not the way of negotiating.."

a reply to: maghun

Maybe you forgot leaked call of Ashton and Paet:

How can we forget when you keep referencing it in every post. Why don't you ever print this part of the CNN report?

"Foreign Minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard the previous day in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground. We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition's involvement in the violence," the statement read.
"It is extremely regrettable that phone calls are being intercepted," said Paet in the same statement. "The fact that this phone call has been leaked is not a coincidence."

In other words, they were discussing rumors, presumably being floated by Russian propagandists. Since the Russians are now being open about their phone tapping, why don't they release recordings of calls where a Ukrainian leader orders someone to fire on his own people? Because no such phone call ever happened?

As for the Union building fire, the more Russian propagandists flog it, the more it smells of a false flag.

a reply to: DJW001

Have you ever listened to it? You can hear interesting things about realtime politics...

It takes plenty of time to get the call thru the bureaucracy (we are talking about EU top politicians), but if you want to know anyithing about 21th century political behavior, please listen to it, it worth ten minutes.

Shorter version for you if you want to hear only the relevant part (1:30)

a reply to: maghun

Your link isn't working.

a reply to: DJW001

Repaired.

The fact pro Russian supporters keep saying one thing only should tell you all you need to know

We're against the fascist government in Ukraine

That's all fine calling them fascists but we all know it Russian propaganda banded around by agents in the East on the streets

It's almost like they're totally ignoring the elections to be held soon in the country

So it is clear as day to anyone that there is a Russian push behind these clueless handful of armed separatists

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: pexx421

I love when people use the term "truth" followed up with "it obvious".

If its an American coup Russia would have presented evidence to the UN.
Just as when Russia made all the claims about Ukraine and Russia's justification for what they did. They were given multiple chances by the UN to present their side of the story and evidence to support it - Russia failed to do so.

Putin admitted masked armed no insignia men in Crimea were Russian military.

What's obvious is Russian fingerprints all over the situation in Ukraine.


You tell me -
Putin consistently went on and on and on about Ethnic Russians being in danger and that he would act to protect them.

If he gave a fig about Ethnic Russians why did he stop at only invading Ukraine in the Crimea region? Are the ethnic Russians there more important than those in the south or east. What about the ethnic Russians living in west Ukraine.

This has never been about protecting anything but Putin's vanity. The fact he stopped in Crimea told the world what Putin's game plan is. The only people who seem to be lost is Putin and his blind ch

Probably because everything you post is composed of lies.

Provide some evidence that Russia invaded Crimea. Provide evidence that Putin "admitted" to it. He did no such thing. He reiterated that Russian was already deployed there as part of the Black Sea Fleet.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vovin

The difference is no nation tried to annex Kosovo. Secondly Russia was a part of those missions. Third it occurred to stop mass ethnic killings.

And the point whooshes far over your head.

Economic annexation. Kosovo. EU. Put the pieces together.

And didn't Kosovo declare independence a few years ago? Long after the "ethnic killings"?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: thegeck

International law faces the issues of it conflicting with the laws of a sovereign nation. The laws of the country will trump the international law portion (see international court of justice as well as the non UN International Criminal Court for jurisdictions / adjudications).

While you are correct Article II there is this -

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Most importantly - Article 2 Section 7 - UN Charter

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Chapter 7 Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The info above points out some of the info that also impacts the situation.

invasion

Houghton Mifflin

n.noun

1.The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.


2.A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.


3.An intrusion or encroachment.

The last one is important -
Putin acknowledges Russian military serviceman were in Crimea

The armed men in military uniform without insignia, dubbed “the little green men” or “the polite people,” who were present in Crimea before and during the referendum there, were Russian troops, Vladimir Putin acknowledged speaking at a Q&A session with on Thursday. The president said he never concealed the fact from his foreign counterparts, and explained to them that it was the only way to ensure the referendum on the region’s status would be carried out peacefully.

“Crimean self-defense forces were of course backed by Russian servicemen,” Putin said. “They acted very appropriately, but as I’ve already said decisively and professionally.”

Russia invaded Ukraine and violated the treaty.
RT - Russian Duma denounces Black Sea Fleet deal with Ukraine - agreement details

Armed Russian troops are not to be outside their bases except for transit. While Russia can raise / lower the forces, they cant do it arbitrarily - Ukraine must approve.
Removing insignias compounded that issue.

that's my position.

And you are still so far behind the ball. If you were ever inclined to follow information on the ground and not western MSM then you would know that Spetsnaz were disabling Ukrainian weapons. This is as much as an invasion as the USA invaded Libya, Syria, Iran, etc etc. are you willing to admit that American/Israeli operations to destroy one side's assets was done to assure the victory of another side?

a reply to: maghun

Can you link to your source. I checked Wikipedia and the chart you posted is not there. I also checked the United Nations Development Programme website and was still unable to locate the info you posted.

A point in the right direction of where I can find it would be appreciated.

originally posted by: pexx421
Russia isnt "trying" to do anything. Those areas are asking for Russia's intervention. Why doesn't Russia just leave, you ask? Kiev's right sector junta got all the weapons, tanks, and planes. If Russia left we all know exactly how that would play out. Just look at any other country the us fomented a civil war in and left.

Please link to the source that supports your comment above in bold.

a reply to: thegeck

Again Russia violated the treaty. As I stated AND linked, the green no insignia people are not a part of the Black Sea deal. They were outside their base, they were armed, and they assisted in invading and taking Crimea, all of which is a no no by treaty and international law.

The green army men and their actions were in fact and invasion and act of war.

As for autonomy you need to look at Crimea's constitution and Ukraine's. Crimea had autonomy to an extent, which is to say they cant invite foreign troops in, they cannot hold a referendum on their own dealing with territorial integrity, and any Crimean law that conflicts with Ukraine law, is defaulted to Ukraine (like the Supremacy clause of our constitution - If a federal law and state law are in conflict, federal law trumps.

Secondly Crimea's autonomy was spelled out in Ukraine's constitution.

The information about Crimea (below) is from the 2010 constitution and not the reinstated one.

Constitution of Ukraine

Chapter X: Autonomous Republic of Crimea]Chapter X: Autonomous Republic of Crimea

Article 134[edit]

The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an inseparable constituent part of Ukraine and decides on the issues ascribed to its competence within the limits of authority determined by the Constitution of Ukraine.

Article 137[edit]

The Autonomous Republic of Crimea exercises normative regulation on the following issues:
1.agriculture and forestry;
2.land reclamation and mining;
3.public works, crafts and trades; charity;
4.city construction and housing management;
5.tourism, hotel business, fairs;
6.museums, libraries, theatres, other cultural establishments, historical and cultural preserves;
7.public transportation, roadways, water supply;
8.hunting and fishing;
9.sanitary and hospital services.

For reasons of nonconformity of normative legal acts of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea with the Constitution of Ukraine and the laws of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine may suspend these normative legal acts of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea with a simultaneous appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in regard to their constitutionality.

Article 17
The creation and operation of any armed formations not envisaged by law are prohibited on the territory of Ukraine.

The location of foreign military bases shall not be permitted on the territory of Ukraine.

Anyways the info above are bits and pieces of the respective articles spelled out in Ukraine's constitution. Click the link above for the more in depth information (Wikipedia) for Ukraine and Crimea and their status under the constitution. (again 2010 constitution was used.


Anyways that's my argument / position and hopefully you can see where im coming from on it. Worst case scenario you and I can agree to disagree on this topic since I don't think either one of us are going to move away from our viewpoints (unless some major bombshell drops and changes it all).

Also thank you for the indepth responses. I appreciate it as it gives me an insight into your position.

originally posted by: Vovin
Probably because everything you post is composed of lies.

Provide some evidence that Russia invaded Crimea. Provide evidence that Putin "admitted" to it. He did no such thing. He reiterated that Russian was already deployed there as part of the Black Sea Fleet.

Feel free to post your sources that show I'm lying. Its getting old, even more so, when you make the claim yet never support it.


No Putin did not say that about the Black Sea fleet and the Green men on the ground. What Putin did state was the people in green uniforms with no insignia were Russian soldiers.

Pop quiz hotshot -
If those troops were authorized to be there by treaty (gallivanting across the length and width of Crimea), as you and others maintain, then why did they remove their insignias? Why did Putin / Lavrov constantly state they had no troops in Crimea except for the Black Sea contingent and that the ones roaming around Crimea without insignias are "civil defense forces". Why did the no insignia people refuse to discuss where they were from / nationality? Why did they refuse to provide details to people asking.

After all, if its all covered under the treaty, there would be no reason for the above then right?

There would have been absolutely no reason for Lavrov / Putin to lie about those assets yet they did.

Care to take a guess as to why they lied?



As I stated the troops used without insignias are Russian troops that were not part of the Black Sea agreement. Is there any particular reason you have consistently ignored the provisions in that agreement? You make a lot of claims about that agreement yet I don't think you have read the entire thing. Respectably you may want to as it undermines your position.

Armed foreign troops that cross into another nation for territorial gain is in fact an invasion.

a reply to: Vovin

There is no such thing as an economic annexation.
The only way to gain an economic situation is by either participating in local / regional / global trade or by invading the nation and annexing the territory.

Don't use our case to justify Crimea, Kosovo PM tells Russia

(Reuters) - Russia should stop using the case of Kosovo's independence from Serbia to justify its Crimea incursion because the two cannot be compared, Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci said on Thursday.

Some highlights

"Under no circumstances can the Kosovo case be compared with the case of Crimea. Kosovo is a unique case. The international community intervened after the genocide by Serbia took place," Thaci told Reuters.

"We never demanded to leave one country and join another."

Any chance you can show me an ethnic genocide occurring in Crimea?


Crimea vote: Five reasons why Putin's Ukraine case falls apart (+video)


There is a reason you don't hear Putin using the Kosovo excuse anymore -
Kosovo independence precedent

Russian President Vladimir Putin stated, "Our position is extremely clear. Any resolution on Kosovo should be approved by both sides. It is also clear that any resolution on Kosovo will definitely set a precedent in international practice." Analysts take this as meaning the Russian Federation would come out for the independence of de facto independent breakaway regions in the Former Soviet Union.[23]

According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: "A precedent is objectively created not just for South Ossetia and Abkhazia but also for an estimated 200 territories around the world. If someone is allowed to do something, many others will expect similar treatment."[29] Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee Mikhail Margelov said the precedent set by Kosovo "will inspire separatists not only in Europe, but in the Middle East as well."[30] Contradictorily, Russia recognized Crimean independence, but not Kosovan.[31]

Breakup of Yugoslavia
Kosovo

The "Kosovo precedent" is not a precedent at all being the issues in Kosovo started in the early 1980's. It was 20+ years later when the situation was somewhat resolved by Kosovo, in 2008, declaring an independent state.

Its status is disputed; it is recognised as a sovereign state by 107 UN member states. With the Brussels Agreement of 2013 Serbia accepted the legitimacy of Kosovo institutions and its special status within Serbia, but does not recognise it as an independent country. Under the agreement, public institutions in Kosovo are operated by the Pristina government, rather than Belgrade.

Now, about that comparison between Crimea and Kosovo...