Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
KillBoY_UK said:
I'm glad you say that but just because there's support for Russia in those parts of the Ukraine does not give permission for Russia to anxieted said parts of the Ukraine. It should have been a matter for the people of Ukraine first, party’s setup etc. and then a agreed referendum on separation in a not to dissimilar manner to how the Scottish indepenance was handled.

Then if/when independent only then Russia should be involved as it would be a matter of a now independent nation if they wanted to join the russian federation and if the russian federation wanted them.

In short if this was about making the east and Crimea "independent" how it went about was not the way.
Click to expand...

The Crimean government tried that. They wanted to set up a referendum. The new Kiev government said no and promptly tried to have them all arrested. In retaliation the Crimean government then said it would be a referendum on whether to join Russia. Kiev stamped their feet even more and everyone decided no matter what the referendum would not be counted. Cue a bias referendum where those that wanted out voted and those that wanted to stay didn't vote at all (because they thought the referendum wasn't going to be valid - IMO anyway).

If the new Kiev government actually allowed Crimea to have a referendum with international oversight in the first place the influence of Russia may not have been quite as strong.

Unfortunately by that point the proxy war between east and west had got out of control and it gave Russia the opportunity to sneak in and annex Crimea, subsequently trying the same thing in the east.
 
Last edited:
Zethor said:
Wake up. America didn't expand anywhere nor did it force anyone to do anything. The Nato countries are indepedant democracies, they can ally themselves with anyone they want and install whatever defenses they want and there's not a thing Russia can or should do about it. no one tells Russia where to put its missile batteries and who its allies should be.
Click to expand...

You remember how the Cuban missile crisis came about right? Russia trying to install nuclear missiles in Cuba after Cuba asked for them, having just been invaded by the US. Prior to that the US had installed a load in Turkey, on the Russian border.

The US almost started nuclear war over it.

The idea countries can install whatever they want is rot and always has been rot.
 
The Crimean government tried that. They wanted to set up a referendum. The new Kiev government said no and promptly tried to have them all arrested. In retaliation the Crimean government then said it would be a referendum on whether to join Russia.
Click to expand...
You are mixed up. As soon as the revolution happened on the 21st, the parliament that was in majority held by a pro-russian group said they would not hold a referendum on joining russia, russian troops then deployed and pro russian protestors barricaded/protested the parliament whilst russian troops from Sevastopol set up checkpoints. Then on the 27th pro russian gunmen stormed the building.
Magically when the building was stormed by heavily armed men they voted to dissolve themselves (only 61 of the 100 apparently did this, all whilst being held hostage in the building and having all outside lines cut, with many later saying their vote was cast whilst they were not there) and elected a man whose pro russian party in the last election held 4% of the vote as leader. This group then set up the independence and joining with russia election for later in may. Which is what happened.

Previous election proposals under the russian backed president were denied funnily enough.

Cue a bias referendum where those that wanted out voted and those that wanted to stay didn't vote at all (because they thought the referendum wasn't going to be valid - IMO anyway).
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with Russian troops swarming the place and the leaders of people who didn't agree with Russian rule turning up tortured and shot? or people just plain up becoming refugees and leaving.

If the new Kiev government actually allowed Crimea to have a referendum with international oversight in the first place the influence of Russia may not have been quite as strong.
Click to expand...
How on earth could they have organised an election in the 5 days between getting to power and having russia invade the region? he fled on the 21st and by the 26th russian troops were in the Crimea. The Ukraine didnt even have a proper Govenment itself at that point. Even the russians had to wait a month to organise a joke of an election.

Unfortunately by that point the proxy war between east and west had got out of control and it gave Russia the opportunity to sneak in and annex Crimea,
Click to expand...
So Russia invades but its the Ukraines fault for not doing something impossible :/
 
Last edited:
We obviously read different sources. I mostly read the BBC and Guardian... What about you?

No, It's both their faults. There is a real issue on this forum with black and white. The world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey. Both sides can be in the wrong you know... If the new Kiev government hadn't started instigating anti Russian policies against their own people, not point blank refused a referendum for Crimea to have more control over their own affairs and not subsequently threatened violence against them if they did hold a referendum then things may have been different.

After that subsequent outburst by Kiev things started getting nasty, with mysterious men appearing and the takeover of the Crimean parliament and subsequent change in referendum question to join with Russia.

There does seem to be a rewriting of history going on before our very eyes, just look back at the beginning the thread for a timeline of what actually happened. Many of those events appear to have vanished from the narrative, especially if they included pro kiev violence.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
You remember how the Cuban missile crisis came about right? Russia trying to install nuclear missiles in Cuba after Cuba asked for them, having just been invaded by the US. Prior to that the US had installed a load in Turkey, on the Russian border.

The US almost started nuclear war over it.

The idea countries can install whatever they want is rot and always has been rot.
Click to expand...

West threw a huge hissy fit when Russians put their missiles in Kaliningrad in Europe...

The way it works is that, West can put their missiles whenever and wherever and it shouldnt concern Russia... If Russia does it everyone looses their poo.
 
Freddie1980 said:
What weapons are those? There was a bill passed which would enable the US to sell militray arms to Ukraine but the only official assistance I've seen is a retraining program of Ukraines regular forces. Certainly Ukraine could do with some tasty western tech the impression I get from reading all the facebook posts and tweets is their artillery pieces aren't accurate enough for their needs.
Click to expand...

Key word "Official"...
 
We obviously read different sources. I mostly read the BBC and Guardian... What about you?
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say those two sources don't agree with that timeline? If it matters I read the BBC as well as the Times, the Independent, Reuters, RT, Vice etc. I use news aggregators and I remember the timing of the incidents.

timelines and the storming of the crimean parliament by russian gunmen 5 days after the new government is in power, including links and times of the russian invasion within a week of the new government taking power, from the bbc and guardian >
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26365780
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26394067
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26248275

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...n-gunmen-seize-crimea-parliament-live-updates
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/crimean-parliament-seized-by-unknown-pro-russian-gunmen
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/ukraine-crimea-russia-secession


No, It's both their faults. There is a real issue on this forum with black and white. The world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey. Both sides can be in the wrong you know.
Click to expand...
Yes but you are saying its the fault of people who physically couldn't have done what you are saying they should have done and elongating and confusing time periods so as to paint them as the cause of the problem. its basic revisionism.

If the new Kiev government hadn't started instigating anti Russian policies against their own people
Click to expand...
A bill was proposed and then vetoed. It never even came into force. It would be akin to saying the conservative government instigated the withdrawal from Europe if a ukip mp put such a bill forward and it failed to pass. That is not how governments work.

not point blank refused a referendum for Crimea to have more control over their own affairs and not subsequently threatened violence against them if they did hold a referendum then things may have been different.
Click to expand...
At what point in the 5 days between gaining power and the russian troops moving in did they refuse a referendum? even if they could have granted one (here's a hint, they couldn't) They didn't refuse anything. The pro-russian majority led crimean parliament refused to hold such a referendum, not because of Kiev but because such a move would have been illegal under their own laws. This only changed when the building was stormed by gunmen and the parliament dissolved after "electing" a russian nationalist who previously only had 4% of the vote.

Again, any refusal previous to this was under the russian backed president.

You are confusing the refusal to acknowledge the vote that was set up for march and may, after the parliament was held hostage and crimea invaded by russia with some mystical refusal that didn't happen in the 5 days at the end of February. As for violence the only violence I can find evidence of in Crimea in the period from 21st to the 27th (when the troops arrived) was when two different protest groups clashed in Simferopol between Tarters (not kiev) and Russians. However when the troops arrived pro kiev supporters especially in the tarter community started disappearing and turning up dead.

just look back at the beginning the thread for a timeline of what actually happened.
Click to expand...
I've looked at the 21st to the 28th of feb (pages 2 to 6 on normal format) and most of it is arek saying "russia stronk" and people arguing over Georgia and then the 28th hits and scorza on post 166 shows the media post about russia invading crimea. absolutely no violence against russians or any refusal of referendums mentioned in between.

So are you entirely sure you want to stick with all those assertions? because so far you seem confused.
 
Nutella33 said:
Are you trying to say those two sources don't agree with that timeline? If it matters I read the BBC as well as the Times, the Independent, Reuters, RT, Vice etc. I use news aggregators and I remember the timing of the incidents.

timelines and the storming of the crimean parliament by russian gunmen 5 days after the new government is in power, including links and times of the russian invasion within a week of the new government taking power, from the bbc and guardian >
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26365780
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26394067
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26248275

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...n-gunmen-seize-crimea-parliament-live-updates
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/crimean-parliament-seized-by-unknown-pro-russian-gunmen
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/ukraine-crimea-russia-secession



Yes but you are saying its the fault of people who physically couldn't have done what you are saying they should have done and elongating and confusing time periods so as to paint them as the cause of the problem. its basic revisionism.


A bill was proposed and then vetoed. It never even came into force. It would be akin to saying the conservative government instigated the withdrawal from Europe if a ukip mp put such a bill forward and it failed to pass. That is not how governments work.


At what point in the 5 days between gaining power and the russian troops moving in did they refuse a referendum? even if they could have granted one (here's a hint, they couldn't) They didn't refuse anything. The pro-russian majority led crimean parliament refused to hold such a referendum, not because of Kiev but because such a move would have been illegal under their own laws. This only changed when the building was stormed by gunmen and the parliament dissolved after "electing" a russian nationalist who previously only had 4% of the vote.

Again, any refusal previous to this was under the russian backed president.

You are confusing the refusal to acknowledge the vote that was set up for march and may, after the parliament was held hostage and crimea invaded by russia with some mystical refusal that didn't happen in the 5 days at the end of February. As for violence the only violence I can find evidence of in Crimea in the period from 21st to the 27th (when the troops arrived) was when two different protest groups clashed in Simferopol between Tarters (not kiev) and Russians. However when the troops arrived pro kiev supporters especially in the tarter community started disappearing and turning up dead.


I've looked at the 21st to the 28th of feb (pages 2 to 6 on normal format) and most of it is arek saying "russia stronk" and people arguing over Georgia and then the 28th hits and scorza on post 166 shows the media post about russia invading crimea. absolutely no violence against russians or any refusal of referendums mentioned in between.

So are you entirely sure you want to stick with all those assertions? because so far you seem confused.
Click to expand...

The problem here is you are putting your own narrative over my post and replying to points I haven't written.

The reason I mention what I read? To head off any "stop reading RT" comments, which usually follow any comment about Ukraine potentially not handling the situation the best it could have...

The 5 day narrative you have created is indeed correct, but then I didn't suggest otherwise in the previous post.

Members of the Crimean government were already making noises about disassociating themselves from Ukraine if things got worse. That was prior to the occupation of the parliament building. Subsequent to the occupation and vote Ukraine then insisted that the government would never agree to any referendum results. Whether the vote was fixed or not the insistence by the Ukrainian government that even an independently overseen referendum vote would not be recognised was a pretty strong statement. This comes after the anti-russian law was passed and subsequently overturned (not akin to your example). Subsequent to the outright refusal and threats by the interim Ukrainian government* the devolution/independence vote was then changed to joining with Russia (quite possibly with some coercion from Russia itself).

Keep trying to answer points I hadn't proposed, it doesn't negate the fact Ukraine cocked up their response to the protests (prior to Russian intervention) and Russia took advantage. There is a significant amount of grey in this situation, certainly not the black and white you are suggesting it is.

As I said a long time ago I'm going to wait a few years until a book comes out that properly analyses what actually went on and just what involvement both Europe and Russia and when it happened. It'll probably be at least 10-15 years before that happens unfortunately. I'd really like to know the intricacies of EU/Russian deals and offers to Yanukovych prior to the troubles. We already know Russia was offering cheap gas and loans in return for Ukrainian support during a period Ukraine was really struggling with debt. I'd also love to know why the compromise deal signed on the 21st collapsed.

*That just so happened to have been installed after after the previous president was deposed and not elected in the first place.
 
Last edited:
The problem here is you are putting your own narrative over my post and replying to points I haven't written.
Click to expand...
I've quoted exactly what you have written and answered that only.

The reason I mention what I read? To head off any "stop reading RT" comments,
Click to expand...
I didn't ask why you mentioned who you read. I was responding to "we obviously read different sources" which indicates you disagreed with what I stated doesnt it?

The 5 day narrative you have created is indeed correct, but then I didn't suggest otherwise in the previous post.
Click to expand...
well you have as you have asserted facts that do not fit into this timeline.

Members of the Crimean government were already making noises about disassociating themselves from Ukraine if things got worse. That was prior to the occupation of the parliament building.
Click to expand...
The only statements to come out of the Crimean parliament in that time period was to state they would not be holding such an election. If Aksyonov "makes noises" why on earth would the Ukrainian parliament attempt to hold elections that they couldn't legally do anyway on the basis of the "noises" of a 3 seat party from 100 in a semi-autonomous region?
I'll say that again there was no legal request for such a referendum from the parliament, kiev and crimea individually couldn't have called such a election legally anyway but you expect kiev to have called it, carried it out and implemented it in 5 days after just of having a revolution itself.

Ukraine then insisted that the government would never agree to any referendum results. Whether the vote was fixed or not the insistence by the Ukrainian government that even an independently overseen referendum vote would not be recognised was a pretty strong statement.
Click to expand...
It couldn't. the referendum was held under foreign military occupancy in a region it no longer controlled (remember, the vote happened 2 months after the invasion) and it was was totally illegal in both Kiev's and Crimea's own laws. Even if it was independent it would still have been illegal. A comparison would be Catalonia's recent vote if you totally ignored the whole...foreign occupation and totally illegal dissolution of parliament with a puppet installed later bit. By all accounts a independent vote but illegal and non-binding.

This comes after the anti-russian law was passed and subsequently overturned (not akin to your example).
Click to expand...
Its in the timelines posted and I also mentioned it was passed then instantly vetoed, so entirely within my example. Small note it was passed but never signed into law. it was never in action and thus never had to be overturned, it was just dropped.

That just so happened to have been installed after after the previous president was deposed and not elected in the first place
Click to expand...
are you trying to say elections could have been announced and balloted and counted on the same day the previous PM fled? You have massively unrealistic expectations of a country that had just fallen apart.

Subsequent to the outright refusal and threats by the interim Ukrainian government* the devolution/independence vote was then changed to joining with Russia (quite possibly with some coercion from Russia itself).
Click to expand...
I've already covered the refusal but I'll ask the question, why was the smallest most pro russian party in the crimean parliament chosen to head the new entirely illegal parliament by the "mysterious gunmen" if it wasn't for joining russia from the outset? The fact that they only waited until official russian units had deployed across the entire region, moved the vote forward and then added joining russia's option all within 2 weeks indicates it was the plan all along.

Keep trying to answer points I hadn't proposed, it doesn't negate the fact Ukraine cocked up their response to the protests (prior to Russian intervention)
Click to expand...
My entire point is that the Ukraine couldn't have done anything else in the time period before invasion (5 days) as you suggested and that you got your timings mixed up. everything I've said is a direct answer to your points, the fact you cant answer them doesn't mean I'm answering points you didn't say. Likewise im not saying its black and white, just that you are proposing things that are not in line with reality. You are trying to pin blame on them not doing the impossible and then stating as if an invasion is the natural response to such "failure".

I'd also love to know why the compromise deal signed on the 21st collapsed.
Click to expand...
It didn't offer Yanukovych's resignation. Which was explicitly demanded by euromaiden/automaiden. It was a deal between politicians to share power and reset a clock to norms with a promise of a election in a year, when the protesters had suffered death and violence for months for the resignation of Yanukovych and a complete change in government.
the opposition leaders begged forgiveness for the deal, The armed police feared of being slaughtered for a government that had already signed its one ace card away and had just a few days shot at those same people, so they left and with them Yanukovych's grip left.. which left the Ukrainian interim government holding the reins until proper elections could be set up.
 
Last edited:
Ooof bit of an explosion in donetsk, rumour has it that artillery hit a parked up "aid" convoy - explosion estimated in the 3-5kt range (non-nuclear).
 
Ukrainian officials have informed on their social network accounts that a powerful explosion has occurred at a chemical factory in the city of Donetsk in southeastern Ukraine as a result of artillery shelling by Kiev forces.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom