Ukranian army invades Donetsk ... Putin too busy with his own image in Forbes

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
And Russia is such a good little schoolboy that does nothing wrong...gotcha.

It's really quite pointless to even try to discuss the Ukraine/Russia problem here, because there is far too much anti-Americanism and pro-Russian propaganda in every discussion about it.

There are several things we know to be fact, and I want to repeat them for the pro-Russian deniers of reality, just because it annoys them when people are reminded of the truth...

1. The former Ukrainian leader signed a deal that he then rejected, and he fled when the PEOPLE (no outsiders needed, the US did not ship in hundreds of thousands of Americans!) ousted him.

2. After he fled to Russia, he was exposed as a massively corrupt politician robbing his own people.

3. Russia invaded Crimea - YES, THIS IS A FACT. This is a direct breach of all international laws on the integrity of foreign nations.

4. There is a wealth of photographic and video evidence showing a BUK missile carrier entering and leaving Ukraine before and after the downing of flight MH17. Again, the pro-Russians would like to ignore this inconvenient truth, but ALL EVIDENCE suggests that either Rebels or Russian Military deliberately targeted a passenger plane. This is a war crime.

5. The "election" in Crimea was corrupt and criminal, it is not and should not ever be recognized by the international community nor Ukraine.

6. The elections in East Ukraine are illegal and corrupt, without observers, without any credibility, at the barrel of a gun.

There you go. These are facts, and they are the things that the pro-Russian propagandists here will now either ignore completely, or attempt to distract attention from through accusation and conspiracy theory, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

All intelligent people know what happened, what is happening, and what will probably happen in the future. No amount of RT links, quotes from nutty Russian politicians, or anti-American nonsense will change the reality the vast majority are fully up to date with.

Russia is an aggressor, Putin has lost his mind, he will take his delusions of reforming the USSR too far and we will likely end up fighting to stop him from claiming other former Soviet nations. NATO and the international community will end up fighting the Russian army to defend several nations, and Russia will lose.

a reply to: Rocker2013

1. The former Ukrainian leader signed a deal that he then rejected, and he fled when the PEOPLE (no outsiders needed, the US did not ship in hundreds of thousands of Americans!) ousted him.

Who needs men when you have money and the USA certainly spent a lot of that in the Ukraine, all $5bn worth to remove an elected leader even if he was a Russian puppet.

I won't go on to dispel your other allegations but I will say that both the Russians and Germans today seemed quite good friends whilst celebrating the fall of the berlin wall, something that must be burning at the hearts of people in the USA who want to divide Europe up and to fight a war over here in our back garden.

Russia has just signed a second gas deal with China so has no trouble selling its gas if the Germans want to take the side of the USA with more sanctions on Russia.

a reply to: VirusGuard

Who needs men when you have money and the USA certainly spent a lot of that in the Ukraine, all $5bn worth to remove an elected leader even if he was a Russian puppet.

Yes and it started in 1992...

About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).

The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used for some clandestine purpose.

But even if it that were so, the money in question was spent over more than 20 years. Yanukovych was elected in 2010. So any connection between the protests and the $5 billion is inaccurate.

www.politifact.com...

But hey don't let the facts stop you now.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Looks like NATO has been using the cease fire to refurbish the Ukrainian military with better weapons, to kill Russians.

I might be wrong but here is what it seems to have happened.

Ukrops have dug in well in the chosen areas where their troops are concentrated.
Dug-in means they can take lots of artillery shelling and not be hurt much.

With items like counter artillery radars, night visions, body armor, drones etc. they can even inflict some damage to the attacking parties while not even moving few hundred yards forward.

It would be not advised for NAF to launch attacks on really dug in positions. Such positions are usually unrooted via constant aerial bombardment which only RuAF can provide as NAF does not have an air force yet.

Let the Ukrops attack and have them come out of their fortifications and then deal with them and only then launch counter attacks.

Those who signed the ceasefire in Minsk basically betrayed the NAF's cause and gave Junta time and new ammo to become much strong from the position of defeat and hollowness in early September.

Russia needs to provide more intelligence and support to NAF regarding the Ukrops machines and material positions to target.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

There's only ONE BIG FAT glaring PROBLEM with that -

Since 1992, the U.S. has sent $3 billion to $5 billion in aid to Ukraine, with only cursory public disclosure. The U.S. State Department operates an online database, ForeignAssistance.gov, but names of foreign recipients are often left out, and entire sections are blank. Furthermore, the disclosure often comes long after the money has been distributed.

The main channels of U.S. aid are the State Department; the U.S. Agency for International Department; the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit entity funded through direct appropriations from Congress; and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Other agencies may provide further funding.

USAID referred Ukraine aid questions to the State Department, which didn't respond. National Endowment for Democracy did not return a call.

U.S. Obscures Foreign Aid To Ukraine, But Here's Where Some Goes

What was it that you said? Don't let the facts stop you now.

On a more humorous note in regards to “Putin too busy w/ his own image in Forbes”


Ukraine what?

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
And Russia is such a good little schoolboy that does nothing wrong...gotcha.

1. The former Ukrainian leader signed a deal that he then rejected, and he fled when the PEOPLE (no outsiders needed, the US did not ship in hundreds of thousands of Americans!) ousted him.

2. After he fled to Russia, he was exposed as a massively corrupt politician robbing his own people.

3. Russia invaded Crimea - YES, THIS IS A FACT. This is a direct breach of all international laws on the integrity of foreign nations.

4. There is a wealth of photographic and video evidence showing a BUK missile carrier entering and leaving Ukraine before and after the downing of flight MH17. Again, the pro-Russians would like to ignore this inconvenient truth, but ALL EVIDENCE suggests that either Rebels or Russian Military deliberately targeted a passenger plane. This is a war crime.

5. The "election" in Crimea was corrupt and criminal, it is not and should not ever be recognized by the international community nor Ukraine.

6. The elections in East Ukraine are illegal and corrupt, without observers, without any credibility, at the barrel of a gun..

1. no outside help was needed does not mean it wasnt used. it also doesn't change the fact that the west installed their own people into Ukraine once yanukovich was out.

2. cool fact? i feel like you people are under the impression that people who dont agree with your view point must think that Ukrainians president was a good guy and his overthrow was uncalled for. which is never the case.

3. Russia had troops in Crimea and was able to have troops there until 2042. there was no need to invade since they were already there. and please show us where in international law its illegal for an autonomous republic to call for its independence or become part of another country.

4. link it then. from what ive seen the investigators say there is evidence of cannon fire in the plane and russia has satellite imagery of a Ukrainian plane fairly close to mh17. talk about ignoring evidence. ive seen pictures of a buk missle launcher and even a clip from a video game to prove that it was the rebels. oh and dont forget social media, because that is such a reliable source of evidence. so what about the spanish air traffic controller that sent out a tweet about how the Ukrainians had taken over the control tower he was working in?

5. in what way? ive been dying to see some proof of foul play in the crimean referendum.

6. mm thats weird because the observers that you claim aren't there are claiming the elections in east Ukraine as democratic and legal.

a reply to: Rocker2013

It's really quite pointless to even try to discuss the Ukraine/Russia problem here, because there is far too much anti-Americanism and pro-Russian propaganda in every discussion about it.

You are right discussing such matters is absolutely pointless if you just leave out other important facts and simply use only facts which suits your story.

Oh yeah, and you forgot this fact too :

It's really quite pointless to even try to discuss the Ukraine/Russia problem here, because there is far too much anti-Russian and pro-Americanism propaganda in every discussion about it.

Well, maybe next time.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

as far as Russians in Ukraine helping the separatists i don't really need evidence. im sure they are there for a wide variety or reasons. and i support them. i don't know why you have this idea that Russia caused this but based on what actually happened its not the case. nor does Russia have anything to gain from a destabilized Ukraine. Ukraine was in Russia pocket, but even if yanukovich was going to make a run for it i still don't support EU or NATO expansion. the west wouldn't support Russian expansion into mexico or Poland. just as the us didnt just stand by and let russia place missles in cuba. thats ludicrous.

but i suppose if you are an aggressive person that supports an aggressive government then who am i to say you are wrong. i guess its just a matter of perspective. but my perspective is that people shouldn't be hurt because of the agendas of the rich and powerful.

Thats funny. Russias leaders Want ukraine for its natural resources. They took Crimea for its port as well from Ukraine. to add insult to injury russia had a vote for independence in crimea that was NOT RECOGNIZED by ANYONE BUT RUSSIA AND HER ALLIES.

ALso Putin and his government ARE RICH AND POWERFUL WITH THEIR AGENDA AS WELL. SO according to your definition they are also part of the problem.

haha that pretty funny because joe bidens son is in control of ukraines gas company now. and ukraines natural resources? what you mean all their farms? ukraine doesn't really have much going for it.

and not to mention reports of the ukranians gold reserves being taken aboard planes and shipped away. if true all i can tell you is they werent giving it to the russians. thats for sure.

a reply to: APT1Yksnidnak

What was it that you said? Don't let the facts stop you now

And yet it still don't show proof the US spent 5 billion on the protesters to get Yanukovych out of office, which is what was being said and I showed that fact was wrong.

Now where they spent that money since 1992 isn't the issue, but the issue we have is the fact that it was stated and has been many times that the US sent 5 billion to back the protesters and I showed that as wrong.

Now do you have any evidence to back that claim as it was what I was replying to?

And again unless your saying they have been planning this since 92 the money spent before the protests and removal have no bearing on the events in 2014.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

haha that pretty funny because joe bidens son is in control of ukraines gas company now. and ukraines natural resources? what you mean all their farms? ukraine doesn't really have much going for it.

Wrong he is a board member of a company named Burisma Holdings...a privately owned company.

Burisma Holdings announced Tuesday that the younger Biden will join the company as the head of its legal unit.

Burisma is a private oil and gas company founded in 2002, under joint activity agreements with Ukrainian state-owned producers, and quickly grew to become the largest private gas producer in Ukraine. The company’s average daily output stood at 10.5 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day in September 2013, and could double that figure within two years. All of the company’s gas is sold to industrial customers in Ukraine.

www.ibtimes.com...

Far from running and controlling the company.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

you sure do love to nitpick. it still makes my point. the US now has a stake in Ukrainian natural resources.

and as for the 5 billion us has been spending since the 90's dont be so naive. this is how it works, you set up organizations and over time you acquire more and more power and more and more pull within a government. how long its taken is inconsequential. if we really get deep into it western powers have been erecting these organization in Ukraine since before the fall of the soviet union. the US has been overthrowing governments around the world for decades they are damn good at it and to the layman it doesn't even look like they were doing anything at all.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: APT1Yksnidnak
And yet it still don't show proof the US spent 5 billion on the protesters to get Yanukovych out of office, which is what was being said and I showed that fact was wrong.

You showed no such thing.

Ron Paul is on record about this $5bn being spent on backing the overthrow in the Ukraine and we also heard the voice recordings between EU ministers so that should put that to rest.

originally posted by: victor7
I might be wrong but here is what it seems to have happened.
Ukrops have dug in well in the chosen areas where their troops are concentrated.
Dug-in means they can take lots of artillery shelling and not be hurt much.

Yes I think you are right and this allows them to keep taking pop shoots at city's in the area and it will be hard for the rebels to stop them.

Nice plan but what if the rebels just go around them and head straight for Kiev to give then a dose of their own medicine ?

Russia did this in the second world war to Germany and I am sure they have not forgotten that lesson.

Kiev keeps pushing to gain back control of the east but if Russia is provoked then Kiev stands to loose the lot including the heads of the western backed puppets in Kiev and all this would happen in days and not weeks if Russia invades and I for one hope it does go down that way.

a reply to: VirusGuard

Ron Paul is on record about this $5bn being spent on backing the overthrow in the Ukraine and we also heard the voice recordings between EU ministers so that should put that to rest.

Really Ron Paul put's it to rest. Care to provide those recordings so you can put it to rest?

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

you sure do love to nitpick. it still makes my point. the US now has a stake in Ukrainian natural resources.

And you like to make assertions you can't back up.

The US has no stake in Ukranian natural resources except to help them get away from being dependent on Russian oil.

You see when they are dependent on Russian oil it gives Russia the reason to keep strongarming Ukraine, without that dependency Russia has no hold over Ukraine. It's called self dependency something Russia doesn't have as they depend on foreign gas sales to survive.

and as for the 5 billion us has been spending since the 90's dont be so naive. this is how it works, you set up organizations and over time you acquire more and more power and more and more pull within a government.

And yet you have no proof except from Ron Paul...talk about being naive.

if we really get deep into it western powers have been erecting these organization in Ukraine since before the fall of the soviet union. the US has been overthrowing governments around the world for decades they are damn good at it and to the layman it doesn't even look like they were doing anything at all.

And you have proof of this before the fall of the soviet union, because I think your making it up and can't back your claims. The soviet Union doesn't overthrow governments they just go in and take the whole country they especially like the sovereign ones that are their neighbors.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

as far as Russians in Ukraine helping the separatists i don't really need evidence. im sure they are there for a wide variety or reasons. and i support them. i don't know why you have this idea that Russia caused this but based on what actually happened its not the case. nor does Russia have anything to gain from a destabilized Ukraine. Ukraine was in Russia pocket, but even if yanukovich was going to make a run for it i still don't support EU or NATO expansion. the west wouldn't support Russian expansion into mexico or Poland. just as the us didnt just stand by and let russia place missles in cuba. thats ludicrous.

but i suppose if you are an aggressive person that supports an aggressive government then who am i to say you are wrong. i guess its just a matter of perspective. but my perspective is that people shouldn't be hurt because of the agendas of the rich and powerful.

Thats funny. Russias leaders Want ukraine for its natural resources. They took Crimea for its port as well from Ukraine. to add insult to injury russia had a vote for independence in crimea that was NOT RECOGNIZED by ANYONE BUT RUSSIA AND HER ALLIES.

ALso Putin and his government ARE RICH AND POWERFUL WITH THEIR AGENDA AS WELL. SO according to your definition they are also part of the problem.

haha that pretty funny because joe bidens son is in control of ukraines gas company now. and ukraines natural resources? what you mean all their farms? ukraine doesn't really have much going for it.

and not to mention reports of the ukranians gold reserves being taken aboard planes and shipped away. if true all i can tell you is they werent giving it to the russians. thats for sure.

AS to NATO expansion if you review all of their paperwork you will not find a specific promise of non expansion to russia. If you want to get technical that promise was also made to theUSSR not new russia after the fall.

Joe bidens son is a oppurtunistic prick i put nothing past him. Anyway Ukraine has the majority of wheat production there.
The gold was shipped to somewhere other than the US. GOt friends in FOrt knox who oversee shipments. No before you ask ill never disclose them so do not even ask.

Still Putin IS a VERY RICH MAN who seen a oppurtunity to recalim a resource instead of paying for the products from ukraine.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

oil? you mean gas.... and that quite the assertion that bidens son was put there to get ukraine of russian gas (even through thats not how it works) care to back that up?

and why are you talking about ron paul? what does he have to do with this. i didnt bring him up. nuland is the one that stated they had spent 5 billion on Ukraine.

as for the organization that was set up beofre the fall of the soviet i dont remember who it was started by and it doesn't really matter. just pretend i didnt even say it.

a reply to: yuppa

oh ok, NATO is allowed to expand east because it wasnt written down, ok i got that part.

can you explain what exactly Russia gains from a destabilized Ukraine?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Really Ron Paul put's it to rest. Care to provide those recordings so you can put it to rest?

We have a winner !

OK if I give you proof that Ron Paul said that then will you except it as true ?

Don't rush, I am all excited waiting for your answer

The US has no stake in Ukranian natural resources except to help them get away from being dependent on Russian oil.

So all the USA is doing is trying to help someone it didn't know until a few years ago get a good deal down at the gas pumps

How sweet they are and to such ends that they have told OPEC to cut its costs to $80 p/p just so some little old lady across the globe can have a warm Christmas this year, god bless em, I must be fighting on the wrong side