Russia threatens Ukraine after shell crosses border

originally posted by: cerbium
a reply to: Britguy

Where else should one acquire their news from when the whole world is talking about Israel murdering innocent children , got any sources?

I would not respond to Britguy, unless you make a post about hating Israel he will disagree with you.

a reply to: DodgyDawg

Russia did not invade Crimea. Russian military forces were already based there and exercising their historical (and internationally agreed) right to transit through and within the region. They have done this for centuries, because Crimea is Russian and always has been.

Russia did annex Crimea. Get over it.

a reply to: Blister

You just make it up as you go don't you.

The agreement between Russia and Ukraine on Crimea limited the military forces Russia could have - both in numbers AND equipment. Any change in those areas REQUIRES Ukraine to be notified and an only go forward if Ukraine approves it. That agreement forbids Russian military units from doing anything other than coming from the base to Russia or coming from Russia to the base.

Russia military units are prohibited from leaving their base with weapons / equipment and fanning out across the Crimean countryside. Since Russian units invaded Crimea, Putin kept denying that Russian units were anywhere but inside the base. That changed after Russia illegally annexed Crimea, where Putin stated at a press conference that the individuals with no insignias were in fact Russian military assisting "civil defense units".

Armed forces of a foreign nation violating a treaty and assisting in taking control of the Crimean government by force is in fact an invasion. To add to that assertion is the response of the world, where only 4 nations approved of Russian actions. The UN does not recognize Crimea as a part of Russia. The UN does not recognize the Crimean government that Russia put in place when they arrested and removed the government at the outset of their invasion of Crimea. The OSCE does not recognize the Crimean government, nor does it accept / acknowledge Russian annexation of Crimea.

Specifically Russia was allowed -
Sources -
Wiki - Partition Treaty
RT News - Russia’s 25,000-troop allowance & other facts you may not know about Crimea

"maintain up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems, 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes on the Crimean peninsula"

This part is not what's in dispute, even though you and Pro Russians seem to think it is. Even the RT article sidesteps the problem, which is Russian armed military units leaving the base and deploying in areas outside of that base, which is in fact a violation of the treaty. Armed foreign military units on foreign soil is in fact an armed invasion.

Sources for Putin claim -
RT - Putin acknowledges Russian military serviceman were in Crimea

AFP - Putin admits Russian troops in Crimea during referendum

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday admitted for the first time that Russian soldiers were present on the Crimean peninsula before and during the referendum that backed rule from Moscow.

"Our goal was to ensure the conditions for a free vote," Putin said, explaining who were the soldiers in uniforms without insignia who appeared in Crimea in late February, many of them surrounding Ukrainian military bases.

"Behind the local defence forces were our soldiers. They acted correctly, but decisively and professionally," he said. "We had to protect people from possible use of weapons" on Ukrainian military bases.

This is the part you guys fail in your argument. You keep coming back to the treaty, for some reason thinking it allows armed Russian military units to fan out across the Crimea countryside, which the treaty specifically prohibits.

The other failing in your argument would be the presence of those Russian and Self defense force units taking these actions PRIOR to the illegal referendum vote. So I am not sure who Russia or the self defense forces can claim their actions were not an invasion when there was nothing showing Crimea was independent.

So again you have armed Pro Russian and armed Russian military units seizing infrastructure prior to any type of votes. Again, an invasion of sovereign Ukraine territory by Russia.

By the way, since putin and Pro Russian like to invoke internal law standards, holding a vote in the manner it was held in Crimea is actually a violation of international law. When a vote occurs it must be done free of military influence - IE armed military units inside polling stations, forcing people to vote, preventing people from voting, allowing people to vote who are not qualified to vote.

What the RT articles leaves out intentionally, as thus again supports the claim Russia media lies, is the direct participation their forces took in seizing Crimea with the "civil defense" units.

Per RT -

9) Russian naval units are permitted to implement security measures at their permanent post as well as during re-deployments in cooperation with Ukrainian forces, in accordance with Russia’s armed forces procedures.

At no point did Russia cooperate with Ukraine when it launched its invasion of Crimea. At no point did Russia coordinate their movements in Crimea with that of the Ukraine military.

Hence the actions of Russia were that of an armed invasion of Crimea. They even state they have to deal with the Ukraine government, not the Crimean government.

Secondly, another lie in the RT article justifying their invasion of Crimea -
in this lie It had nothing to do to protect ethnic Russians from being attacked. In this case it revolved around the lie that the Russian language would be outlawed. The Russians failed to research properly because that bill failed and never made it out of parliament as a law.

Hopefully this clears up your confusion on this matter.


To bring it back around to the topic at hand Russia is doing everything it can to play both sides of the fence. They desperately want to break up Ukraine to prevent it from doing anything other than what Russia dictates. As has been stated before the number of lies told by Russia to justify their invasion of Ukraine are debunked as fast as Putin can put them out.

Since the chemical weapons claim is not resulting in what they were wanting, now we go for the artillery shell incident. If we look at the history of those 2 nations errant shells crossing the border occurred on both sides.

Only now, with Russia trying to justify a continued invasion, are they making hey out of it.

Why you ask?

Because Putin just went on the fake PR move about having the DUMA revoke Putins use of force in Ukraine. That means the only option left is to force an incident where Ukraine appears as the aggressor, allowing Russia to "act in self defense".

Putin Is playing games and no one is falling for it. Well, with the exception of Pro Russians that is.

originally posted by: Blister
a reply to: DodgyDawg

Russia did not invade Crimea. Russian military forces were already based there and exercising their historical (and internationally agreed) right to transit through and within the region. They have done this for centuries, because Crimea is Russian and always has been.

Russia did annex Crimea. Get over it.

Can you show me the international agreement allowing Russian military to go wherever it wanted, whenever it wanted, with whatever forces it wanted, demanding Ukraine forces surrender?

I missed that clause.

However one decides to describe the Russian presence in Crimea, the fact remains that they held a referendum and the people voted to remain part of Russia. The whole process was monitored by EU representatives on the ground at polling stations, who all reported a high turnout and free and fair process. No signs of the speculated / alleged people voting with guns held to their heads!

Isn't that the very essence of DEMOCRACY? Letting the people decide their future and who governs them? Of course, that IS NOT the accepted level of democracy practiced or promoted by the West. In that version, we get a 2 party system where both are beholden to the bankers. Even countries that have had free and fair elections but voted in a party / government not beholden to the bankers, is pretty much fair game for a regime change via bullets and bombs.

So, Russia annexed Crimea, because the people wanted to remain Russian and part of Russia. Therefore, Russia DID NOT invade and the only Russian forces there were by long standing agreement. All the talk of Russian invasion is complete BS!

originally posted by: cerbium
a reply to: Britguy

Where else should one acquire their news from when the whole world is talking about Israel murdering innocent children , got any sources?

Where did Israel enter the equation?
Strangely, but not surprisingly, the MSM has been silent on much of what is happening on the ground in East Ukraine. There seems to be plenty of news coming out from there and plenty of graphic photos and video of the scale of the Ukrainian shelling and bombing of civilians, yet little or none of it seems to be picked up by the BBC etc.

Yes! Russia did annex crimea, I know this thank you.
And they annexed it after an invasion.

It doesn't matter if you have a treaty saying that you can have X number of troops there peacefully, as the Russian forces were forcefully taking Ukrainian bases, ships, aircraft and other equipment from the Ukrainian forces.

Here is Russia's own constitution on the matter of annexation - en.m.wikipedia.org...

"According to the Constitution of Russia, the admission of new federal subjects is governed by federal constitutional law (art. 65.2).[59] Such a law was adopted in 2001, and it postulates that admission of a foreign state or its part into Russia shall be based on a mutual accord between the Russian Federation and the relevant state and shall take place pursuant to an international treaty between the two countries; moreover, it must be initiated by the state in question, not by its subdivision or by Russia.[60] This law would have seemed to require that Ukraine initiate any negotiations involving a Russian annexation of Crimea."

originally posted by: DodgyDawg] This law would have seemed to require that Ukraine initiate any negotiations involving a Russian annexation of Crimea."

Ukraine's Constitution says the same thing. It does not forbid any sub political area's in Ukraine from wanting to become a free entity. The Ukraine Constitution requires a vote of ALL Ukrainians on the matter though. There have been several votes over the years for Crimea to become independent and both times they lost the referendum.

With regards to the Russian Constitution, I don't think its relevant since the action taken in Crimea is unlawful on several fronts - Ukraine's Constitution was violated, Crimea's Constitution was violated and international law was violated.

Back on topic the Russians are discussing airstrikes on Ukraine. Russia is going to continue its course, to do whatever they can to justify an invasion of Ukraine.

a reply to: DodgyDawg

Crimea was given to the Ukraine as a gift from Russia, guess what? They just got their gift returned... Bad Luck. That's what you get for sh***ing in Russia's face.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Russian "Anexation" 0 = casualties.
American Democratization --> Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Iraq = approximately 150000 deaths (official) only from enemy side, displaced 1000000 + .

I would take Russian annexation any day.

originally posted by: Laxus
a reply to: Xcathdra

Russian "Anexation" 0 = casualties.
American Democratization --> Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Iraq = approximately 150000 deaths (official) only from enemy side, displaced 1000000 + .

I would take Russian annexation any day.

150,000? times that by about 6-7 and your getting closer.

a reply to: DarknStormy

I put the estimate for only combatant fatalities not civilians according to wikipedia , and that me still being stingy.

Fierce fighting near rebel-held city in Ukraine

Speaking of using human shields...

One Luhansk resident, Sergei, who declined to give his last name due to fears of reprisal, told The Associated Press that panic had gripped the city Monday due to reports that Ukrainian paratroopers were intermittently entering the city center and detaining rebel fighters.

Exit points from the city have been blocked and militiamen are confiscating cars and belongings from residents attempting to flee, he said.

The Defense Ministry also said rebels were routinely commandeering cars from civilians in the separatist areas, but it was not immediately possible to confirm those claims.

a reply to: Laxus

Invasion and occupation.

And people did get killed during the Russian invasion / occupation.

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: Laxus
a reply to: Xcathdra

Russian "Anexation" 0 = casualties.
American Democratization --> Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Iraq = approximately 150000 deaths (official) only from enemy side, displaced 1000000 + .

I would take Russian annexation any day.

150,000? times that by about 6-7 and your getting closer.

If you guys wish to go tit for tat we can start with Stalin and the 20million people he killed.
Or the number of people killed in the 2 Russian invasion of Chechnya.
or Afghanistan.
or Georgia.
Or Eastern Europe.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: Laxus
a reply to: Xcathdra

Russian "Anexation" 0 = casualties.
American Democratization --> Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Iraq = approximately 150000 deaths (official) only from enemy side, displaced 1000000 + .

I would take Russian annexation any day.

150,000? times that by about 6-7 and your getting closer.

If you guys wish to go tit for tat we can start with Stalin and the 20million people he killed.
Or the number of people killed in the 2 Russian invasion of Chechnya.
or Afghanistan.
or Georgia.
Or Eastern Europe.

Sure ,Vietnam, Hiroshima and Nagasaki

originally posted by: Laxus


Sure ,Vietnam, Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets. Please research WWII history dealing with Japan and why those cities were selected. While your at it feel free to see how many civilians Japan killed during their Philippines occupation - its upwards of 80k btw.

Secondly the US was attacked and not the other way around. If your going to start a fight don't complain when you get a bloody nose.

Third - Japan changed their requirements near the end, requiring civilians to become self defense forces to repel an allied invasion. When the bombs were dropped Japan had already put 2 million "civilians" into action and issued any weapons they could find.

The moment a civilian picks up a weapon with intent to use it they are not longer protected as civilians under international rules of war, which existed at the time.

Vietnam - LBJ can go to hell for that one.

Here is the list to counter yours - Nations the Soviet Union / Russia have invaded since the 1920's -

The People's Socialist Republic of Albania (Satellite 1944–1960; government extant until 1992)
The People's Republic of Poland (1944–1989)
The People's Republic of Bulgaria (1946–1990)
The People's Republic of Romania (1947–1967)
The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (1948–1989)
The German Democratic Republic (1949–1990)
The People's Republic of Hungary (1949–1990)


Northern Iran 1941–1946
Hungary (1944)
Romania (1944)
Bulgaria (1944)
Czechoslovakia (1944)
Northern Norway 1944–1946 / Bornholm 1945–1946
Germany (1945)
Austria 1945–1955
Manchuria 1945–1946
Korea 1945–1948
Kuril Islands 1945
Hungary1956
Czechoslovakia (1968–1991)
Afghanistan 1979–1989
Crimea 2014

Russia has also annexed many countries like:
Mongolia=1921
Kazikstan= mid 19th c
Belarus= 1920s

Can we come back to the topic at hand now?

Specifically has anyone been able to confirm the Russian claims?

originally posted by: Britguy
However one decides to describe the Russian presence in Crimea, the fact remains that they held a referendum and the people voted to remain part of Russia. The whole process was monitored by EU representatives on the ground at polling stations, who all reported a high turnout and free and fair process.

Just to correct you here, but the only observers the Russians and pro-Russians allowed to "monitor" the plebiscite were the Russian press. There was no (that's NO) observers from the UN, EU or the OSCE allowed to be present. I wonder why?

www.osce.org...

Deny ignorance and the propagation of untruth.

Regards

Russia should stay out of the formal invasion of Ukraine but should supply enough covert support to DPR fighters to not let Kiev Junta gain any firm hold in the S-E regions.

a reply to: victor7

Russia should stay out of the formal invasion of Ukraine but should supply enough covert support to DPR fighters to not let Kiev Junta gain any firm hold in the S-E regions.

It's pretty evident that they already are, and isn't that region still part of a country called Ukraine?