Disgusting behavior from the US President and the UK PM.

I think is important to be at least somewhat objective when discussing such matters.

Not everything is as Fox News or BBC would like to portray. There are some high ranking individuals in the U.S. who are very concerned about what is unfolding in Ukraine and the devastating consequences this may have. These individuals aren't so quick to place blame on Russia and call for restraint and better judgment. Below is a letter sent to Chancellor Merkel warning her of the very same thing before the NATO Summit...


http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/08/31/germanys-merkel-needs-to-ask-tough-questions-at-nato-summit/

 

That's certainly not the impression I get from your posts. Indeed much the opposite.

True but also a strawman.

No question about that.

Woops now you are showing your true colors again. The URL or the From line would be enough to bring this this article into serious question tegether they essentially discredit it before it even gets underway.

The fact remains that Russia has broken a treaty it signed just a short period ago. Further more it's clear that they have used their military in acts of aggression against an independent country. Your attempts to deny this and attack the other side with "facts" that range from highlly distorted to out right lies can't change this. Indeed it just further discredits your position.

 

I hold the BBC to quite a higher standard of journalism than Fox News. And on that scale, RT doesn't even register.

In the UK in general, there is a lot of sub-par journalism, sadly. Not from the Beeb. Which although it has struggled occasionally, and sometimes even seriously goofed, is still reasonably independant.

In the US, everything is partisan. But you have to remember what happened to Nixon.

But both in the US and the UK, journalists reporting negative stories on the powers-that-be tend not to get shot on the streets.

Sadly, we can't say that about the working environment for journalists in Putin's Russia. At least 33 journalists have been murdered in connection with their work in Russia since 2000.

Murdered. This does not include those jailed on trumped up charges, harassed, or those incarcerated for charges such as "defamation", "high treason" etc.

You were saying something about objectivity? In Putin's Russia, objectivity is not allowed to exist.

 

It's not the article that I am showing here but the letter.... This letter does exist. The people that signed it exist. The positions they said they held exist. Until anyone here can show me that this letter is a forgery or some kind of hoax I'm inclined to believe it.

Unless somewhere can show proof that the West had nothing to do with the ousting of Ukrains former president I'm again inclined to believe this letter. Victoria Nuland has already been questioned by congressman demanding explanation as to why America was picking the prime minister for Ukraine especially after Nuland herself claimed that it's up to Ukraine not anyone else to decide her fate. This became public after Estonia admitted that the bugged phone conversation did in fact take place...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-bugged-call-catherine-ashton-urmas-paet

 

Was it not BBC along with other Western news agencies that so confidently showed similar satellite images of WMDs in order to justify the war in Iraq? We now know the truth don't we?

Russia has many problems but to discredit Russian news agencies so quickly just because IMO is irresponsible.

 

Wow....

This is one thread where Slonik actually gets to play on the whole propaganda ideal that Russian regular forces are 'liberating' anything in a country they should keep their political snouts out of. If Putin were overthrown by insurgent forces and Ukraine intervened with regular troops, loud would the protests be. But this further example of russian Imperialism is so tranparent even the most soviet style Jornalism cant cover up the facts.

If the Pro Russian "militias" are such a rag tag bunch of heroes with no support from Brother Moscow, where the hell are they getting all the fresh consighnments of AMMUNITION from. Most professional military services only have ammunition stock for a couple of weeks before special measures have to be made by politicians to keep the supply flowing. This conflict passed that point a long time ago, so why haven't the brave Pro Moscow people run out altogether?

Vladimir Putin is the biggest threat to European and therefore world piece since that other idiot Stalin sat in the Kremlin. Thugs and gansters specializing in state sponsored murder.

 

The BBC reported the story (to do otherwise would've been wrong, as the interest around the story was quite large), describing what Pentagon, Powell, etc were saying but the BBC did not say it was the truth. I challenge you to find such a statement from the BBC. There was a reason why so many people were protesting in the streets against the war in the UK. This too, was reported by the BBC. In fact, you can find many news reports criticising the lead up to war, prior to the war, still on the BBC news website.

The RT, on the other hand, is full of diatribe and vitriol such as this sentence, which is not a quote spoken by a politician, but an opinion solicited by the "journalist". From the article you linked:
"Europe now finds itself between a rock and a hard place: What to do as more of its young men sign up to fight against its ally?"

1) The Ukraine is not an ally of Europe.
2) Europe is not in a hard place at all. If a thousand or two adventurers, mercenaries, thrill-seekers, dash off to the Ukraine/Donbas, so what? I'm vastly more concerned about those fighting with ISIS.
3) "More" is hardly a very large number now then is it. Two is more than one. So what?

You have not answered a single one of my questions, but instead choose to wriggle and continue to accuse, and bring up what you see as western "crimes", to lessen the seriousness of what Russia is doing.

You did not question the fact that journalists that ask uncomfortable questions in Russia tend to live very short lives. Which leads to less than stellar reporting. That's not an "IMO". That's a fact.
You haven't explained how the independence of a country has to do with the failure of successive governments. Those governments failed, because the people were tired of Russian meddling.
You haven't said whether you distinguish between the use of force, and the use of normal political manifestations, i.e. funding?
You make no comment on how 10 men from the 331st Regiment find themselves 20 kms inside Ukrainian territory.

Find me a single article questioning the official line from Putin on the RT site. A single article showing someone taking a stand against the official line.

Or is Russia really filled with people with homogeneous opinions and a tendency to get lost in other people's territories?

Russian armed forces satnav equipment has a resolution of +/- 20 kms? SInce when did Russia start using paratroopers as border patrol?

 

Sorry GreenSlime been busy lately and can't comment on all at this present moment but will address all of your concerns as soon as I can.

Meanwhile, the 10 Russian troops ended up in Ukraine, the same way the British Royal Navy accidentally stormed the beaches of Gibraltar 02' or how the Swiss accidentally crossed the border into Lichtenstein.....it was an accident.

If Russia invaded Ukraine, there would be no doubt.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/september/01/top-ten-ways-you-can-tell-if-russia-has-invaded-ukraine.aspx

 

The Royal Navy accidentally invaded British territory?When did that supposedly happen?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1385288/Marines-storm-ashore-in-the-wrong-country.html

 

Sloniksp, that Gibraltar article is a poor example of an international incident. It was done with a political backdrop of Spain and Britain not only at peace, but attempting to come to terms with negotiation. The article quoted the Spanish government as considering the matter "closed", showing you just how seriously they are taking this example of 'aggression' by one of their 'enemies'.

Do you really expect us to take you at your word and see this as a finely balanced incident that could send either country scrambling for the mobilization order?

On the other hand, Russian regular soldiers are sitting on the border of a country they have just 'annexed' a sizable chunk of territory from, with Moscow friendly 'insurgents' carrying on like modern day Storm troopers in a country that clearly does NOT want anything to do with Moscow, or that dangerous fool in charge of the place.

Do I detect the gentle rustle of wool being pulled down over our collective eyes?

Are all Russian conflicts the same? Moscow dictating terms whilst the army skews out of control?

Russian insurgencey in Ukraine = Russian Imperialism by another name. I'm not fooled for a moment!

 

The fact that you can find even more expressions from considerably more people with as great or better knowledge of the facts that are in direct contradiction doesn't outweigh the fact that this conforms to your beliefs though does it.

Of course they had "something to do with it", so did Russia. That's irrelevant to the issues at hand though isn't it. At least until you get into the details of just what impact they had.

The US picked the Ukrainian PM? Got any proof of that? Indeed even any decent evidence. Looks to me like we have a case of a Congressman acting like an idiot hardly an unknown even although fortunatly rarer than we see in some countries.

The fact that there was a conversation doesn't mean that the matters discussed were factual. Indeed given the Russian propaganda efforts to date I have serious doubts as to the facts mentioned much less the spin put on them by this article.

the so call "Russian news agenices" have discredited themselves very thoroughly on any matter that involves Putin's interest many times in the past.

I'm willing to believe 10 Russian troops ended up in the Ukraine. I also am willing to believe that they were caught there was an accident. Indications are a lot more have shown up there as well in spite of Russian denials.

If it was in Russia's interest to acknowlede it certainly. However it clearly isn't. Thus the continuous Russian denials in spite of the overwhelming evidence.

 

Those Royal Marines were "few hundred yards" wrong which, although embarrassing, is totally understandable and a very minor mistake done during peace time.

On the other hand those Russian paratroopers, reserved to special attack operations as a spearhead, were supposedly 20 kms(!) lost while "border patrolling". That is extremely unlikely (= 100 % lie), especially in a war zone.

Your "source" is total bull*, as always. So far Russia has not invaded ALL of Ukraine, which we are all aware of. Still there are already thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine as many different sources, Russian mothers included, have confirmed. Russia has invaded Ukraine, no doubt what so ever.

 

They didn't "invade British territory", they accidentally landed 100 yards on the wrong side of the Spanish border with Gibraltar. There also wasn't a war going on around them at the time.

 

Can you discredit them??

The letter which I had presented described the details and the impact that they had. Can you find a source to discredit it?

The scandal surrounding the tapped phone call between Cathrine Ashton and Urmas Paet became such
a scandal due to the nature of the conversation. This conversation not only discussed the best candidate for Ukrainian politics but also the snipers who the Western media quickly blamed as Yanukoviches assassins... This phone call refutes that.

This was a conversation between 2 high-ranking diplomats on the current events, in a country where they are present and represent their own countries interests. The matters discussed were factual which is why it became a scandal and Ashton was forced to answer questions at congressional hearing concerning the conversation. The pm of Ukraine today is the same man who deputy secretary of State Ashton claimed "was the best choice...."

.

Was it not the U.S. media that sold the war in Iraq based on lies?

What overwhelming evidence? And on what?

 

No argument. The incident did occur tho. Mistakes happen. The Swiss also stumbled into Liechtenstein. Again mistakes happen. Ukrainian troops have come over to Russia by the hundreds for various reasons. These soldiers were provided with whatever required then sent back home without publicizing the issue... Russia is not at war but she has troops in the area and conducting exercises. Im under the impression that the 10 lads that crossed the border did so by mistake not by orders. You think otherwise?

 

Of course not. A news agency pretty much has to discredit itself. The Russian ones have done a very good job of it. Most of the TV news agencies in the US are doing a so-so job of discrediting themselves.

Why would I need to? While the letter makes some valid points it also clearly exagerates things in a number of areas nor does it make any attempt to look at the situation objectivly. Especially since the writers are no longer part of the US government their access to intelligence isn't going to be much more than that of any other US citizen. A fact that they don't mention at all and rather imply the reverse by making comparisons with some of the analysis that lead up to the war with Iraq.

Does it? Certainly not from what I've read.

That's some interesting spin you are putting on things. For instance the matters being discussed may indeed have been factual. I.e. there were various reports as to who the snipers were that doesn't mean that the reports themselves were factual. Nor does the fact that Ashton "claimed" that someone "was the best choice" imply that the US was chooseing them for that position.

 

Got proof of that claim for Ukrainian invasions?
Also, weren't Russian troops conveniently "on exercise" near the Czech border before the Prague Spring?

 

100 yards = a mistake, 2 kms = still likely a mistake, 20 kms = no mistake. Very simple.

In Liechtenstein the Swiss mistake (2 kms) was also very minor, since the border is unmarked and there are no border patrols. Liechtenstein is so small, that if you wander 20 kms you have already gone through it. The Swiss soldiers did not have any ammunition nor was there any war/conflict going on. Also Liechtenstein has very close relationship with Switzerland (and Austria). Liechtenstein participates in a customs union with Switzerland and employs the Swiss franc as national currency. The Liechtenstein National Police maintains a trilateral treaty with Austria and Switzerland that enables close cross-border cooperation among the police forces of the three countries.

The Russian paratroopers of the elite guards division on the other hand were fully armed with ammo, 20 kms in a country in a war representing the invading army. As they themselves very well know:

"A Ukrainian television report that carried the interviews with the men said they were from the 331st regiment of the 98th Svirsk airborne division.
It quoted one man, named as Sgt Andrei Generalov, as saying: "Stop sending in our boys. Why? This is not our war. And if we weren't here, none of this would have happened.""

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28934213

What reasons? When? Where? Supposedly they have been individual Ukrainian army deserters, not fighting units.

"Russia is not at war"...? Only thousands of her troops, tanks, artillery etc. are fighting in Ukraine, but that's only exercising...? Really?!

We KNOW otherwise. Those 10 soldiers, like thousands of their other comrades, are without a doubt fighting in Ukraine on orders.

 

I don't understand the above question? Proof of Ukrainian invasion? Are you doubting Ukrainian troops crossing the border? Elaborate.

As for Russian troops near the Ukrainian border.. They are definitely not there by accident