US-led drills in Ukraine may threaten peace process: Moscow

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: MrSpad
If you are talking about an occupation after invasion that is one thing. That one thing is not a reasonable or likely goal of Russia. Overall militarily, Ukraine is at a complete disadvantage and has no chance of winning. Again that one thing is not a reasonable or likely goal of Russia. I have said before that it is in Russia's best interest to have a non NATO buffer like Ukraine in place. This whole scenario would not be taking place right now if it were not for western intervention and agitation.

It is getting boring to explain that there was no "invasion" by Russia into Ukraine however all of the armchair intelligence agencies in ATS are sure that there is and was. I guess I am the one out of touch and as such I will do my best not to bother with these threads for a while until some time has passed and all the experts here can be proven correct….

bah.

It is hard to support the Russian side of things when half the time the Russian pull your argument from under you without even a warning. At a time when Russia has a problem even convincing its military that is telling the truth and almost no country on Earth even pretends to believe the Russian version of events I can see it not being much fun supporting them.

Thing is, I am not supporting the Russians nor am I supporting Ukraine. I get frustrated with the many Americans that walk around every day saying stupid uninformed things like "F#* the rag heads in Iran. Lets make 'em a glass parkin lot" - or - F#* the Russians. Lets make 'em a glass parkin lot." It is this mentality caused by a false narrative media which is controlled by the very same government which have caused all the problems to exist in these places in the first place!

I am tired of fighting wars because of the BIS! I am tired of watching good people fall into ignorance and that their very own government is putting them in harms way (and they cheerlead for it!). It makes me sad that when I came back to this country after many years of being away, that it has fallen to what is here now and the people that care about it the most, are the underdogs in the battle.

a reply to: MrSpad

To get ready for a real invasion of Ukraine Russia would likely need a year to prepare.

Not really! In 2008 Georgian war, Russia committed both VDVs and regulars and hit the theater with little pre-planning. The Ruskies performed quite well against an American trained and somewhat equipped Georgian forces. Russia lost 60+ troops but a lot of that is attributed to the Russian way of fighting where soldiers are given bold orders despite knowing the dangers of the situation.

In Ukraine, basic preps and intelligence factors are well entrenched. It would much easy for Russians to be in Kiev in two weeks and more so because lots of Ukrops are already with Russians and once the pressure rises, several times more will switch sides and bring a safe and peaceful end to their war.

a reply to: victor7


Russia had actively increased its numbers in south Ossetia and Abkhazia specifically in preparation for an invasion of Georgia to pre-empt any accession to NATO, and had repaired/built rail lines and planned for movement of large numbers of troops into the area - is was not some sort of "scrapped together" force - US analysis believes the Russians had decided on war in April 2008 (see page 9, preparation)

Russian forces available almost immediately outnumbered Georgian regulars by 19,000 to 10,000, plus reserves, police and local militias on both sides.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: TheChrome

not sure NATO has ever done drills in Belarus, nor has NATO simulated any attacks on Russia recently.

I don't think you read my comment. Russia has done drills in Belarus, not NATO.

www.turkishweekly.net...

theaviationist.com...

a reply to: TheChrome

Yeah..sorry

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: victor7


Russia had actively increased its numbers in south Ossetia and Abkhazia specifically in preparation for an invasion of Georgia to pre-empt any accession to NATO, and had repaired/built rail lines and planned for movement of large numbers of troops into the area - is was not some sort of "scrapped together" force - US analysis believes the Russians had decided on war in April 2008 (see page 9, preparation)

Russian forces available almost immediately outnumbered Georgian regulars by 19,000 to 10,000, plus reserves, police and local militias on both sides.

Georgia knew it was coming it wasn't a secret. Russian military is hard to mobilize. Troops were being dropped in ship. Russia is not a quick reactionary force that's why they have no force projection. They could never fight a war any where else but in there bark yard they are dependent on rail and ships to move large forces. It's not all that different for them from world war 2. The west has the capability to fight a way thousands of miles away and set up supply lines.

This is why in Georgia what would have taken the west a couple of days to mobilize takes Russia weeks.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Xcathdra
Maybe I am wrong but when did Ukraine become part of NATO?

Why is NATO training supporting or anything else a non NATO member? Is that how that NATO thingy works?

Ukraine is apart of NATO's MAPS program and has been since 1997 or so.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
No coup, just a pep rally in Maidan that led to a new government; Check.

It did not lead to a new government. It lead to arrest warrants for the then president. That President then fled to Russia and it was uncovered that he was stealing billions from Ukraine and he is now wanted by Interpol. Shortly after new elections where held and 80% or so of the government was re-elected.

a reply to: defiythelie

Indeed - putinista's like to refer to the "coup" - but in reality the parliament remained the same.

What was non-constitutional was that there was no provision for the president to be "unable to carry out his duties" by fleeing his post - which is what the parliament decided he had done.

Actual removal of the president required 338 votes - 328 voted in the vote above....but then it was not actually an impeachment....

so the constitutional legality of it could and can be challenged........but it was the sitting parliament that voted it - and the sitting parliament did not change, so talk of a coup is patently false.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Actually to clarify the Ukrainian system of impeachment is like the US system. There are 2 votes that are required. The first vote lays out the charges / reasons, with a vote in favor of or rejecting the articles of impeachment (charge / reasons). For Ukraine that was the first vote and it passed with the required number of members of Parliament voting in favor of it.

The second vote is essentially the "trial", where enough votes in favor will result in the Ukraine President being removed from office. If the vote threshold is not met, then the President goes on as normal.

We saw this with Bill Clinton, who was in fact impeached however the second round of votes didn't reach the required numbers to remove Clinton from office.

* - Ukraine's 1st vote was successful and met Constitutional requirements = Yanukovych was impeached (I think the required number was like 60% voting in favor of).
* - The second vote, the one that would have officially removed Yanukovych from office, never occurred because Yanukovych fled the country before that vote could occur (in order to remove Yanukovych 3/4 of MP's needed to vote in favor was required).

When Yanukovych fled he effectively resigned his office under Ukraine's constitution. Yanukovych had been under investigation since 2008 if I remember correctly. During one of his Presidential campaigns the courts threw out the voting result of a few Oblasts (or whatever they are called) after finding Yanukovych had rigged some of the election results in his favor.

The other thing that is often ignored was the return tot he previous constitution. It has a streamlined process for removing the President from office, which is what was used. The agreement Yanukovych signed, where he would step down as President, immediately reinstated the previous Constitution.

ATS Thread - Comprehensive thread dealing with Ukraine, impeachment and other events with links.

a reply to: Xcathdra

the official translation of the constitution is here.


Article 108 states:

Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) death.

Note there is no provision for "held to have resigned".

Article 111 states:

Article 111. The President of Ukraine may be removed from the office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in compliance with a procedure of impeachment if he commits treason or other crime.

But he was not inpeached for this - he was "held to have resigned"

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

The problem is Ukraine did not revert back to the 1996 Constitution. They went back to the 2004 Constitution.

a reply to: Xcathdra

AFAIK there was no difference in provisions for impeachment and removal of the President from 1996 and 2004 constitutions.

However the change to the 2004 constitution was passed after Yanukovich fled - it was supposed to be the next thing he did, but he didn't!!

the Parliament subsequently (to him fleeing) reverted to the 2004 constitution, which had been overturned by the Constitutional court in 2010.....

Did I say it was all a bit unclear??

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Some provisions of 2004 were struck but not all. And yes its a huge convoluted mess and the conversations in these forums on their site bear that out.

My intent was to assist in the argument that no coup occurred. The fact Russia has recognized the parliamentary and presidential elections in Ukraine also backs that up.

I know Interpol recently dropped the red flag on Yanukovych since Ukraine has not presented enough evidence to meet their standards. To be honest I think it also has to do with the fact he is in Russia, and Russia is not going to extradite him to stand trial in Ukraine.

If it were to occur it could present major issues for Russia, depending on how much information Yanukovych has about his activities involving Russia. one of the active investigations into Yanukovych while he was still in office was his dealing with Russia and the under the table wink wink nod nod agreements he made without the consent of parliament.. It would also bring to light that while the Kremlin likes to trot out the argument Yanukovych asked for help they would be hard pressed to support their claim when Yanukovych states Crimea belongs to Ukraine and never should have gone to Russia.

If Russia truly believes Yanukovych is the legitimate leader of Ukraine then why did they to invade to restore him to power? We are seeing that occurring in Yemen.