Merkel Apparently Fears Devastating Defeat of the Ukrainian Army

I'm not impressed with Mr Farrage, nor his politics.

After the speech of Herman Van Rompuy on 24 February 2010 to the European Parliament, Farage – to protests from other MEPs – addressed the former Belgian Prime Minister and first long-term President of the European Council saying that he had the "charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of low grade bank clerk." Farage questioned the legitimacy of Van Rompuy's appointment, asking "Who are you? I'd never heard of you, nobody in Europe had ever heard of you." He also asserted that Van Rompuy's "intention [is] to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of the European nation states."

 

That's one opinion. As evidenced by the previous reply it is not universal. Indeed I suspect it's quite uncommon.

McCain is hardly a "loudmouth" he does speak his mind however and looking back over his carreer it looks to me like following his advice would have in general been less dangerous than taking the opposite track. Unfortunatly I couldn't get to the site but the implication is that we simply have another opinion reference.

Again I couldn't get to the site care to point out why you consider this important and for that matter the details?

Obviously another opinion post. Unfortunatly again I couldn't get to the site and not sure I could read it if I could so unclear whether or not there are any facts or logic behind the opinion.

This one I could get to and all it contained were the opinions of a private individual with nothing to support them. Now he obviously has studied international relations but I don't see anything to indicate he would have access to information proving the above. Furthermore looking around the site it's pretty clear that they have a strong anti US agenda.

Again we have a bunch of opinions and possibly a fact or two but nothing done to link them logically to the points being made.

 

Taking a step back from the details of this discussion and looking over what's been said one of the things that occured to me is that little has been said to put things in any sort of historical context. Let me attempt to do so. As usual corrections are welcome but pls support them with facts and logic.

If we go back to the election of the previos leader of the Ukraine one of the key planks in the platform that got him elected was an program to move the Ukraine closer to the EU. After he was elected he did just the opposite and when people demonstratd against his actions violence insued. Eventually the military and police reached the point where they would no longer support him and the majority of parliment voted to have him removed from office. At that point he fled the Ukraine for Russia.

Asside 1) Bribery by Russia. It has been stated by many sources that the reason he decide to bring the Ukraine closer to Russia was that he was bribed by the Russians to do so. I have not seen any definite proof of this but there has been liitle or nothing to disprove it and much of what followed is consistent with it. For understanding how people in the Ukraine felt about this however whether or not he was actually bribed is not very relevant. Most believed he was and resented it.

Aside 2) Violent reaction to protest. As a result of the activities of the leader mentioned above considerable antipathy developed among the populace. Voicing it and questioning him on it paraticuarly in the press resulted in considerable violence at first directed at reporters who looked too closely at the matter. As protest developed (and at first these were peaceful) they were eventually met with violence and indeed leathal violence. Some of the protest turned violent (although many of the protestors claimed it was agent provocateurs from the regime that instigated the violence against the police). Violence spiraled upward at this point (there were also so claims during this phase about some of the "police" snipers actually being protestors intent on exerbating the situation) until it reached the point where the leader fled and a new leader was elected. From all the evidence I've seen it's pretty clear that the regime was responsible for the inital violence and much of what followed. I find it unlikely that the protestors didn't respond in kind at some point but how much is an open question and the evidence points to very little especially if you remove the cases of self defence. Another point in this is that it was stated that some of the violence was committed by the regime acting on the advice of the Russians and indeed that some of it was committed by Russians brought in for that purpose by the regime. Again it's hard to tell the truth of this matter but again many in the Ukraine believed it.

Aside 3) Legitmacy of the current leader. While the majority of the Parliment did vote to remove the former leader of the Ukraine the numbers didn't reach the level required by Ukrainian law. The subsequent flight of the former leader could be argued as a defacto resignation or not. On this hangs the only real validity to claiing that the current regime is not legitimate. The fact that he won an election by a significant majority on the other hand is a clear indicator that Ukrainians in general consider the current regime to be legitimate.

Clearly in the run up to the election of the current leader of the Ukraine there was considerable antipathy toward Russia and for good cause. Especially when you consider that Russia instigated a crisis during the fall of the previous leadership and kept the pressure on through to the present time.

Another point I'd like to raise was at one point it was claimed that the majority of the population in the Dubas region were "native born Russians". I presented a source which mentioned that only 38% were native Russian speakers. That rather suggest the claim above is false. Indeed while some of the non native Russian speaker may be Russian born I would expect far more of the native Russian speakers were born in the Ukraine. Furthermore there's no guarantee that just because one is Russian born or a native Russian speaker that one supports the position of the seperatist. Indeed looking at the Crimea and some of the reports by NPR the historical people of that region are very nervous (and with some significant justification) about being part of Russia.

 

Farage is an idiot whose only appeal is to unreconstructed racists and fellow idiots.,

 

Certainly looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage
I don't see anything to indicate that the majority anywhere would consider him "One of the best European politicians" of course any such call is pure opinion and irrelevent to the topic at hand.

 

Lavrov making the crowd laugh and laughing himself also...Can he believe himself even what he says...

A bit long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWsR_nkxfAY

In the span of 45 minutes today, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rewrote the history of the Cold War, accused the West of fomenting a coup in Ukraine and declared himself a champion of the United Nations Charter. The crowd here in Germany laughed at and then booed him, but he didn’t seem to care.

Talking about the possibility of the U.S. giving lethal aid to the Ukrainian military, Lavrov leveled a thinly veiled threat that the Russians might invade Ukraine outright, as they did Georgia seven years ago after what they saw as provocation from President Mikheil Saakashvili.

The crowd took that in stride, but then burst out laughing when Lavrov said that the annexation of Crimea, which was invaded by unmarked Russian troops, was an example of international legal norms working well.

“What happened in Crimea was the people invoking the right of self-determination.” he said. “You’ve got to read the UN Charter. Territorial integrity and sovereignty must be respected. “

But the laughter turned to scorn when Lavrov made a muddled comparison of the Ukraine crisis with the division of Germany in the Cold War. “Germany got reunited without a referendum and we were an active supporter of that process after the Second World War,” he said. “You will remember that it was the Soviet Union that was against splitting Germany.”
He was trying to make the point that Russia supports popular votes to end internal wars — such as the referendums in Crimea and the eastern Ukrainian area of Donetsk — while the West does not.
But that was the moment at which any remaining respect for Lavrov among the largely German audience vanished. Apparently, they didn’t remember the Soviet Union’s actions as particularly helpful in bringing about reunification. There was, for example, the Berlin Wall.

http://toinformistoinfluence.com/2015/02/08/europeans-laugh-as-lavrov-talks-ukraine/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=11122&relatedposts_position=0

-----------

the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the European Parliament Elmar Brok, who said that by joining the Crimea, Russia violated the key international standards. Sergey Lavrov also said that in the Crimea all happened in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

"The UN Charter there are several principles and the right of nations to self-determination stands on a key point, and territorial integrity, sovereignty is obliged to respect," - said the minister. At this point, Elmar Brok and many other delegates from Western countries began to laugh loudly, accompanying ridicule scathing commentary. Among the participants - more than 20 heads of states and governments and 60 ministers of foreign affairs and defense.

Sergei Lavrov responded with restraint: referring to Elmar Brok, he said that when he asked his question, he too was funny, but he was "restrained".

http://ukrainereferendum.blogspot.fi/2015/02/sergey-lavrov-ukraine-civilwar-is-no.html

 

Shorter version of one situation mentioned above , the charter..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4LhVKiEiM

 

@ Green Slime: Well quite a lot of European are impressed with Farrage like me. Let´s hope he and simmilar more progressive forces get stronger.

@ Kai-Petri: See this guy looks quite unimpressive, but even he can joke But Putin is better than him in this regard.

@ Historian: You are now on ignore, cause all your statements I read in some threads in "the stump" are really, let´s say "unproductive" and I use this word only cause I am friendly - you can throw swearwords around. Which shows WHO has no arguments Sorry for you mate.

Well not much too report, guess Hollande & Co. are still talking in Minsk, however Poro threatened meanwhile putting UKR under martial law.

- German state TV (ARD) falsified UN statement reg. UKR crisis to make it sound against Russia: (mm news GER)
http://www.mmnews.de/index.php/politik/36278-wdr-erfindet-anti-russischen-kommentar-von-ex-un-chef

- More provocations by UKR during talks even (this paper calls it "grenade peace") (Junge Welt, GER)
http://www.jungewelt.de/2015/02-12/052.php

 

Still posting non English sources on an English forum I see. It would be nice to see if their is in substance to your claims. I have my doubts though. Claiming the provocations by the Ukraine while the Russians and seperatist increase the tempo of the fighting and the Russians execute military maneuvers on the border is rather one sided is it not?

It seams like you have decided to ignore anyone who challenges your opinion. Not the sign of a very mature individual or one who is really confident of his positoin.

 

That's one opinion. I'd call his position regressive, on too many fronts. So much for progress.

 

Yup one opinion. Why would you call it "regressive" ?


Here are 2 more videos in my folder, however the first one deals only at the beginning and the end with the UKR crisis, most of it is about middle east (so excuse this partly OT post)


America stands in first place among the world’s great powers. But the decisions taken in Washington are seen by many as questionable - even unwise - bringing even more conflict and violence. What governs decision-making in the White House? Who is listened to there? What goal does Washington pursue? Does it even have any particular goal? We ask these questions to a former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bltPALiRT3c

2nd for the MH17 issue and "missinformation" which was apparently spread in the West:

Ukrainian media has posted stories claiming that the separatist guarding the site where Malaysian flight MH17 crashed, are looting the site. Two stories are backed by photo 'evidence' but these photos are taken out of context from videos.
Here is the proof of how cynical the government controlled Ukrainian media really are.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZBSGorpLNc

 

The jungewelt article is nothing new but innuendo. If there were any more "supposedly", "apparently", or "accordingly", it'd be a fairy tale.

 

He clearly doesn't understand how little we are impressed with videos does he? Indeed the most useful video posted in this debate wasn't by him. It was the one that showed the initial shoot down claims of the seperatist. That one also illustrated IMO how to use a video. Why it was posted was clearly defined in the post and the video then confirmed that point there were also enough validation to render claims of fabrication rather tenuous.

 

Farage's stand on Green energy, for starters.

Farage is a hypocrite. He's a professional politician, an MEP standing on an anti-EU platform, travelling to Brussels, all too ready to accept EU-money. It's not like he's having to scrape together a living. According to Nigel, however, he's destitute. At least among politicians. Which wasn't quite true either.

 

Ah ok, well I don´t know much about the inner UK policies and how much the politicians there earn. He may not be a perfect human, but still may be right on some issues. Like his stance on the EU, € and Ukraine. I will give him the benefit of doubt, as long the things he says are agreeable. In the case of named issues, they are. Also he might be a kind of "hero" of the EU sceptics. Don´t confuse this with Europe, the € and the EU are not Europe. It can live good without the € and without EU buerocracy (which costs us a ton btw.) Proof: All the countries who don´t have the € are doing good, but most EU countries are in huge difficulties (even the so called "north" - Austria, NL etc.) But that´s too OT in this thread.

 

Open questions to all: Is Bundesluftwaffe capable of creating a post that isn't mostly opinions? Do you think he has any idea what a fact really is or how to construct a logical argument?

 

I'm sure the Soviets would have been more than happy to see Germany reunited post WWII as long as they were in the Warsaw Pact.

 

Since I've been critisised for only using one site here are some relevant articles from a site on the other side of the spectrum NPR:
First on the Russian takeover of the Ukraine:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/02/10/385197419/with-new-moves-russias-parliament-looks-to-rewrite-history

http://www.npr.org/2015/02/09/384875853/the-latest-on-ukraine

An opinion but does anyone deny it? If not what are the implications?

If Putin's demands are accurately portrayed then McCain is correct.
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/07/384589743/how-should-u-s-europe-respond-to-russian-aggression
Notes that Merkel's objections to sending arms are due to her not seeing the Ukraine winning not because the Russian position has anything going for it other than brute force.
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/02/383214955/war-in-eastern-ukraine-grows-fiercer-by-the-day

Where did they get them if not Russia? Especially sense they were loosing not that long ago. Why does Russia continue to deny it?