The Situation in the Ukraine. #8

Flyingdutchman wrote:
I would blame the defenders no one can use nuclear weapons EVER.

Except for the americans, amirite?

Flyingdutchman wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

I am having a mig-29k aircraft because that is one of my favorite aircraft.

Putin should go because he is a dangerous man.
Who should come? Someone that doesn't want war, doesn't intervene in Ukraine and looks for closer ties with the west cause thats better then whats going on now.

Don't start about the west wanting war cause you are very predictable.

So you figured out yourself the true intentions of the West? Or you still denying that the West has brought the war in Ukraine?
There is nothing Russia need from West and they most certainly need any relationships with the West since they don't have anything of value to offer and are only trying to secure their petrodollar hegemony, because that is the major reason for the crappy genocidal situation in Eastern Ukraine.

And i did not ask you what this person should be but straight who you want to see...i.e the name of that person, but obviously you don't even care for politics, which is very obvious considering your post to hannibal barca.

Putin is dangerousman... to whom and how is he dangerous? Better clearification please, i don't fear him, not for me nor my country, what i fear is the stupidity of my countrymen and the US madness and superiority complex that would immidiatley command and self due atrocities in germany if germany dares to overthrow the current puppet state or the case of nuclear war, since the very first nukes would land in germany for the illegal nukes the US has stored here in germany at Rammstein for first and second strike capability, while russia has no such nukes anywhere near to US in central/south america.

I think the EU triggered the war in Ukraine but i think Russia escalated it.
Putin is dangerous because i think he is reckless and the first thing he is does in a war is push the red button...

How so?  How did Russia escalate things?  He went into Crimea without firing a shot.  People were happy and they got out of Ukraine.  Putin is doing what?  Supplying food to the people in eastern Ukraine?  How evil.  Is he supplying weapons to the separatists?  Probably.  But the ones who are carrying on the humanitarian disaster, the Ukrainian army, are also being supplied by the west.  Is it because they are called the Army, that the rebels should just stand down?  What if they did?  What will happen to them, their families, and the people who don't want to be part of Ukraine?  There are 7M in Donbass region.  You think if they don't like the rebels, they would have kicked them out already.  But there is obviously support for them.  So they have no say or rights?

I think it is a bit odd or strange that you are so quick to label Putin, but you do not provide any reason as to why.  Because you "think" he would push the red button?  You think is key were here.  As well, why would he do that?  Only reason is if Russia gets attacked by NATO that he would push the Red button.  So you would blame him for that?  If Russia gets attacked and they are forced to use nuclear weapons, I would blame the attackers, not the defenders.

I would blame the defenders no one can use nuclear weapons EVER.

A majority in east ukraine didn't want to join Russia :/

That is why you are so eagerly US ass licker, because they did not to it ever even tho they were the attacker?

I consider you as a dangerous parasite in a society that is driven by indoctrinated hatred towards russians, calling defenders evil for defending themselfs with the only possible way how they could defend themselfs against an attack that would look exactly like this nuclear.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

I am having a mig-29k aircraft because that is one of my favorite aircraft.

Putin should go because he is a dangerous man.

According to NATO . NATO's boyscouts could do no wrong, here's some highlights of NATO's existence:

1.) Lying to get in to the Iraq War to get rid of a dictator (Saddam) they helped put in power, and aided his chemical weapons abuse by providing satellite imagery:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

...The Iraq war left 1.6 million Iraqi's dead, and transformed it in to a destroyed failed state.

2.) Turning the most developed country (According to the Human Development Index) in Africa (Libya) in to a destroyed failed state. To get rid of a strongman (Qaddafi) they helped write speeches for:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033327/MI6-British-Government-worked-closely-Gaddafis-regime-helped-write-speeches.html

3. They hepled to put dictator Idi Amin in to power:

Idi Amin Dada craved approval from British officials and seemed to have won the prize when they gave tacit approval to the coup of January 1971 which put him in power. Now he could show his lords and masters he was worthy. "Benevolent but tough," reported British intelligence. "Well-disposed to Britain: perhaps to an extent damaging to him in the African context." Concluding that Amin was in need of their help, the Foreign Office recommended the sale of arms to him. He was one of ours, not likely to kick up about Rhodesia or South Africa, and keen to stem the communist drift of neighbouring states.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/jul/24/fiction.gilesfoden

4.) They put anti-democracy dictator Augsto Pinochet in to power:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/12/16/the-puppet-and-the-puppeteer/

5.) But the worst of it all, MI5 which is valued intelligence agency in NATO's panopticon of intelligence agencies; was Benito Mussolini's original backer and the reason for his rise to power:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy

It predates NATO a bit, however British Intelligence agencies (such as MI5, MI6) played arguably the greatest part in the creation of NATO.

In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

Were those also picked up by NATO satellites?

Feldmarszal wrote:Were those also picked up by NATO satellites?

Yes

Flyingdutchman wrote:In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

Evidence for that?

I've evidence of EU parlaiment members like Ewald Stadler who was in Crimea and observed the elections and all criterias for an fair election were met, not a single of those alleged votes and gun-point, pre-filled urns since they all were transparent for exact that reason so everyone could see if they were pre-filled when the election beraus opened, no securities who escorted people into the voting boxes to make sure they voted for that what they wanted...nothing of all the bullcrap the West spwed was true and observers like Ewald Stadler have confirmed it, licensed as an election observer.

Unlike the ukrainian elections where on daily basis all elections regardless of presidential or some banning of communist party are faked and people vote on pults from other members.

Flyingdutchman wrote:In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

According to Western media... That went out of it's way to edit out the certain key fact in their reports, that the Crimean referendum to join Russia has been around since...*drum roll* all the way back in 1992, predating Putin's presidency by 7-8 years...

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

According to Western media... That went out of it's way to edit out the certain key fact in their reports, that the Crimean referendum to join Russia has been around since...*drum roll* all the back in 1992, predating Putin's presidency by 7-8 years...

Like the alleged invasion of Crimea with thousand russian troops, purposely ignoring the fact that russia can have 25.000 troops on crimea and they had around 18.000 troops at maximum at the point before referendum.

Feldmarszal wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:
I would blame the defenders no one can use nuclear weapons EVER.

Except for the americans, amirite?

No you're not right.

Werewolf wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

I am having a mig-29k aircraft because that is one of my favorite aircraft.

Putin should go because he is a dangerous man.
Who should come? Someone that doesn't want war, doesn't intervene in Ukraine and looks for closer ties with the west cause thats better then whats going on now.

Don't start about the west wanting war cause you are very predictable.

So you figured out yourself the true intentions of the West? Or you still denying that the West has brought the war in Ukraine?
There is nothing Russia need from West and they most certainly need any relationships with the West since they don't have anything of value to offer and are only trying to secure their petrodollar hegemony, because that is the major reason for the crappy genocidal situation in Eastern Ukraine.

And i did not ask you what this person should be but straight who you want to see...i.e the name of that person, but obviously you don't even care for politics, which is very obvious considering your post to hannibal barca.

Putin is dangerousman... to whom and how is he dangerous? Better clearification please, i don't fear him, not for me nor my country, what i fear is the stupidity of my countrymen and the US madness and superiority complex that would immidiatley command and self due atrocities in germany if germany dares to overthrow the current puppet state or the case of nuclear war, since the very first nukes would land in germany for the illegal nukes the US has stored here in germany at Rammstein for first and second strike capability, while russia has no such nukes anywhere near to US in central/south america.

I think the EU triggered the war in Ukraine but i think Russia escalated it.
Putin is dangerous because i think he is reckless and the first thing he is does in a war is push the red button...

How so?  How did Russia escalate things?  He went into Crimea without firing a shot.  People were happy and they got out of Ukraine.  Putin is doing what?  Supplying food to the people in eastern Ukraine?  How evil.  Is he supplying weapons to the separatists?  Probably.  But the ones who are carrying on the humanitarian disaster, the Ukrainian army, are also being supplied by the west.  Is it because they are called the Army, that the rebels should just stand down?  What if they did?  What will happen to them, their families, and the people who don't want to be part of Ukraine?  There are 7M in Donbass region.  You think if they don't like the rebels, they would have kicked them out already.  But there is obviously support for them.  So they have no say or rights?

I think it is a bit odd or strange that you are so quick to label Putin, but you do not provide any reason as to why.  Because you "think" he would push the red button?  You think is key were here.  As well, why would he do that?  Only reason is if Russia gets attacked by NATO that he would push the Red button.  So you would blame him for that?  If Russia gets attacked and they are forced to use nuclear weapons, I would blame the attackers, not the defenders.

I would blame the defenders no one can use nuclear weapons EVER.

A majority in east ukraine didn't want to join Russia :/

That is why you are so eagerly US ass licker, because they did not to it ever even tho they were the attacker?

I consider you as a dangerous parasite in a society that is driven by indoctrinated hatred towards russians, calling defenders evil for defending themselfs with the only possible way how they could defend themselfs against an attack that would look exactly like this nuclear.

A parasite

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

According to Western media... That went out of it's way to edit out the certain key fact in their reports, that the Crimean referendum to join Russia has been around since...*drum roll* all the back in 1992, predating Putin's presidency by 7-8 years...

Like the alleged invasion of Crimea with thousand russian troops, purposely ignoring the fact that russia can have 25.000 troops on crimea and they had around 18.000 troops at maximum at the point before referendum.

And that Russian troops were legally allowed to be stationed in Crimea since 1997. Funny how the "military invasion" of Crimea didn't include rocket artillery shelling, fighter jet sorties carrying out bombing missions, you know...like the normal violence that follows military invasions.

Wow. This thread is really going to sh*t. TR1, can you provide some links for the T-72s and BTR-82s you mentioned? Ive been trying to get the full story for hours. Any media pro-Russian obviously wont have any, and the anti-Russian ones are mostly photos from exercises and whatnot, from well within Russia.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

Feldmarszal wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:
I would blame the defenders no one can use nuclear weapons EVER.

Except for the americans, amirite?

No you're not right.

Well then, you're contradicting yourself. You say that noone can use nukes, "EVER", though the americans used them twice. What, different rules apply when you scream "freedom" the loudest?

Going back to the freedom of elections, nothing is more laughable than the European Parliament. You get to vote on representatives, and then they elect the chief of diplomacy and the "european president" based on who's the most popular. In effect EU's diplomacy (however insignificant and pointless) is run by people like Catherine Ashton, who has the charisma of last year's cabbage, or whomever they're going to chose tomorrow. A populary contest, with winners getting 100% votes, because the only real voting power in an alliance of 28 countries comes from Germany, France and the UK. Or the US, where you get chosen by electoral votes and not by popular vote. Yup, true "bacons" of democracy.

ali.a.r wrote:Wow. This thread is really going to sh*t. TR1, can you provide some links for the T-72s and BTR-82s you mentioned? Ive been trying to get the full story for hours. Any media pro-Russian obviously wont have any, and the anti-Russian ones are mostly photos from exercises and whatnot, from well within Russia.

This thread has been shit from the start, don't kid yourself.

Regarding the vehicles, T-72s have been all over the place. Check it out, Russian sources:

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/967073.html
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/957262.html

And this great database:

http://lostarmour.info/spoils/

You can check trophies, and losses sections. Of course many of the trophies are from...errr...certain foreign sources.
But either way, T-72s suddenly abound.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

According to Western media... That went out of it's way to edit out the certain key fact in their reports, that the Crimean referendum to join Russia has been around since...*drum roll* all the back in 1992, predating Putin's presidency by 7-8 years...

Like the alleged invasion of Crimea with thousand russian troops, purposely ignoring the fact that russia can have 25.000 troops on crimea and they had around 18.000 troops at maximum at the point before referendum.

And that Russian troops were legally allowed to be stationed in Crimea since 1997. Funny how the "military invasion" of Crimea didn't include rocket artillery shelling, fighter jet sorties carrying out bombing missions, you know...like the normal violence that follows military invasions.

Russian military has to get authorization and has to notify Ukrainians of incoming troops, even if they are under troop limits. They can't just cross in without any notification, for obvious mundane reasons during peacetime.

This argument is so asinine it hurts. Yes, transfer of a bunch of Tigrs, Mi-35s, who then blockaded Ukranian military bases is all legal and good, and a proper way to behave.

Rofl.

TR1 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

According to Western media... That went out of it's way to edit out the certain key fact in their reports, that the Crimean referendum to join Russia has been around since...*drum roll* all the back in 1992, predating Putin's presidency by 7-8 years...

Like the alleged invasion of Crimea with thousand russian troops, purposely ignoring the fact that russia can have 25.000 troops on crimea and they had around 18.000 troops at maximum at the point before referendum.

And that Russian troops were legally allowed to be stationed in Crimea since 1997. Funny how the "military invasion" of Crimea didn't include rocket artillery shelling, fighter jet sorties carrying out bombing missions, you know...like the normal violence that follows military invasions.

Russian military has to get authorization and has to notify Ukrainians of incoming troops, even if they are under troop limits. They can't just cross in without any notification, for obvious mundane reasons during peacetime.

This argument is so asinine it hurts. Yes, transfer of a bunch of Tigrs, Mi-35s, who then blockaded Ukranian military bases is all legal and good, and a proper way to behave.

Rofl.

They did notify the ukrainian authority and that was and still is yanukovich by constitution so i expect some consistency ....ohh wait no i don't expect consistency from you about anything scrap that.

Yes that is proper manner to behave, or maybe we should act like the US puppet of fascist ukropy and white phosphour the entire place as soon they don't do what they are told to do.

TR1 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

According to Western media... That went out of it's way to edit out the certain key fact in their reports, that the Crimean referendum to join Russia has been around since...*drum roll* all the back in 1992, predating Putin's presidency by 7-8 years...

Like the alleged invasion of Crimea with thousand russian troops, purposely ignoring the fact that russia can have 25.000 troops on crimea and they had around 18.000 troops at maximum at the point before referendum.

And that Russian troops were legally allowed to be stationed in Crimea since 1997. Funny how the "military invasion" of Crimea didn't include rocket artillery shelling, fighter jet sorties carrying out bombing missions, you know...like the normal violence that follows military invasions.

Russian military has to get authorization and has to notify Ukrainians of incoming troops, even if they are under troop limits. They can't just cross in without any notification, for obvious mundane reasons during peacetime.

This argument is so asinine it hurts. Yes, transfer of a bunch of Tigrs, Mi-35s, who then blockaded Ukranian military bases is all legal and good, and a proper way to behave.

Rofl.

Who said they didn't notify? Kiev never really complained, and we all know how "reliable" they are with their information... Also, "peace time"? Replacing an elected government with violence and replacing them with short tempered neo-Nazis is peaceful?

Is this neo-nazi crap still going on...
Nothing personal mike

Mike E wrote:
Who said they didn't notify? Kiev never really complained, and we all know how "reliable" they are with their information... Also, "peace time"? Replacing an elected government with violence and replacing them with short tempered neo-Nazis is peaceful?

Of course it is, haven't you heared the news in our civilized west about the violent Berkut and Yanukovich the dictator that murders his people like the Spiegel here in Germany wrote and the peaceful protesters getting killed and smashed by Yanukovich regime...

You have always to turn 180° of what the west says and you will have something that fits the truth much better.

TR1 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

According to Western media... That went out of it's way to edit out the certain key fact in their reports, that the Crimean referendum to join Russia has been around since...*drum roll* all the back in 1992, predating Putin's presidency by 7-8 years...

Like the alleged invasion of Crimea with thousand russian troops, purposely ignoring the fact that russia can have 25.000 troops on crimea and they had around 18.000 troops at maximum at the point before referendum.

And that Russian troops were legally allowed to be stationed in Crimea since 1997. Funny how the "military invasion" of Crimea didn't include rocket artillery shelling, fighter jet sorties carrying out bombing missions, you know...like the normal violence that follows military invasions.

Russian military has to get authorization and has to notify Ukrainians of incoming troops, even if they are under troop limits. They can't just cross in without any notification, for obvious mundane reasons during peacetime.

This argument is so asinine it hurts. Yes, transfer of a bunch of Tigrs, Mi-35s, who then blockaded Ukranian military bases is all legal and good, and a proper way to behave.

Rofl.

If yanukovich was dead, yes. Yanukovich back then was still the official president even after he fled to russia. Putin only acknowledged porky(shenko) last week. So you're wrong.

TR1 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

According to Western media... That went out of it's way to edit out the certain key fact in their reports, that the Crimean referendum to join Russia has been around since...*drum roll* all the back in 1992, predating Putin's presidency by 7-8 years...

Like the alleged invasion of Crimea with thousand russian troops, purposely ignoring the fact that russia can have 25.000 troops on crimea and they had around 18.000 troops at maximum at the point before referendum.

And that Russian troops were legally allowed to be stationed in Crimea since 1997. Funny how the "military invasion" of Crimea didn't include rocket artillery shelling, fighter jet sorties carrying out bombing missions, you know...like the normal violence that follows military invasions.

Russian military has to get authorization and has to notify Ukrainians of incoming troops, even if they are under troop limits. They can't just cross in without any notification, for obvious mundane reasons during peacetime.

This argument is so asinine it hurts. Yes, transfer of a bunch of Tigrs, Mi-35s, who then blockaded Ukranian military bases is all legal and good, and a proper way to behave.

Rofl.

Past. Use past tense. Your big nose friends lost it get used to it.

Flyingdutchman wrote:Is this neo-nazi crap still going on...
Nothing personal mike

Yeah I laugh hard every time I see it.

gregoire wrote:

TR1 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:In Crimea before the elections papers were found that were already fill in…

According to Western media... That went out of it's way to edit out the certain key fact in their reports, that the Crimean referendum to join Russia has been around since...*drum roll* all the back in 1992, predating Putin's presidency by 7-8 years...

Like the alleged invasion of Crimea with thousand russian troops, purposely ignoring the fact that russia can have 25.000 troops on crimea and they had around 18.000 troops at maximum at the point before referendum.

And that Russian troops were legally allowed to be stationed in Crimea since 1997. Funny how the "military invasion" of Crimea didn't include rocket artillery shelling, fighter jet sorties carrying out bombing missions, you know...like the normal violence that follows military invasions.

Russian military has to get authorization and has to notify Ukrainians of incoming troops, even if they are under troop limits. They can't just cross in without any notification, for obvious mundane reasons during peacetime.

This argument is so asinine it hurts. Yes, transfer of a bunch of Tigrs, Mi-35s, who then blockaded Ukranian military bases is all legal and good, and a proper way to behave.

Rofl.

If yanukovich was dead, yes. Yanukovich back then was still the official president even after he fled to russia. Putin only acknowledged porky(shenko) last week. So you're wrong.

Yanukovich approved Russian mil to block in Ukranian bases? I look foreward to seeing proof of that.

And given that Yanukovich fled Kiev and his country, using him as justification for the Russian armed intervention is hilarious indeed.

As I see it we are witnessing history now. The world is changing and it will never be the same again.