Meanwhile in Ukraine

[Vovka]

(click to show/hide)

That's how media in your country shows the situation. Yes, Ukrainians are so stupid nаzis that they need to provoke even in such days. OH SHIT, WE MUST KILL THEM ALL, HAIL TO GREAT PUTIN.
Funny though how they forget or even turn in inside out: pro-Russian separatists (armed, around 60) tried to capture the main police building in the city. National Guard of Ukraine (which is under Police jurisdiction and not Army) got called to defend the building. Also a chief of DAI (a kind of road/patrol police) got killed there by separatists that day. While NG was trying to get to a place, some certain amount of people tried to stop APCs being aggressive (a lot of people were drunk, but that's not strange for such day as it's a kind of ritual to drink some vodka on 9th of May as a day of Victory).

In this current situation I have double feelings. First of all, it's a pity that people die, no matter separatists or not and especially when they have no guns. But on the other hand, Ukrainians have a bitter experience with these "peaceful protesters" who block NG/army and take their guns. I'll show you one of curious videos which was used by Russian media as a proof of NG shooting at peaceful people. Just noticed one thing myself, that might be exclusive, just give me time to find it 

Edit: found it. And also it looks like I'm not the only one who noticed it 

Look at 12th second. Why would he need this? It's empty though, mb found or stole it somewhere.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

on 1:05 i think operator from video which you mentioned

3:23 3 shoot from left in guy in blue (for sure separatist with rpg)

from another spot

[[ptx]]

Can you list at least major of these offenses? Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to understand, why people in Baltic counties would believe that post-soviet Russia is their enemy. All I can remember is some sprats troubles in the middle of the past decade. And the controversial case of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. If you list the basic diplomatic and covert offenses made by Russia, I'd understand your point of view more clearly.

Fine.

(click to show/hide)

As you know, there is a russian speaking minority of 35% in Latvia from soviet times. Russia has been pushing for LV government to grant citizenship to these people, despite the fact, that they do not speak latvian, nor actually care too much about getting it. State language is Latvian.
In the 90's, there first used to be both Latvian and Russian schools - as in, state-financed schools, that teach in a non-state language. This was changed, so that they would teach at least partially in Latvian. This caused an outrage, from both the local minority and Russia. Soon, we were labeled fascist, Kremlin controlled media was attacking us non-stop and there were protests against this, by the minority. This is also when they first started attacking us financially, by randomly banning various goods, that were being exported to Russia (i guess sprats too?). Anyways, this went through regardless. Still, the information war did not stop there and continued unabated, to the point where Latvia was, according to some poll done in Russia, its' enemy #1, surpassing even USA

Also, there have been numerous disputes over the fact, that Russia refuses to accept the occupation of Latvia during WW2, as well as the repressions done by SU against Latvians. It's not just a matter of history, as this also caused great problems with signing a border pact with Russia, where they didn't shy away from using our Russian-speaking population against us in various ways. Also, obviously a matter of importance for the families of the repressed or the surviving victims.

Recently, however, there have been concerns about Kremlin financing various political and ideological elements in Latvia, in an effort to destabilize the country. The whole deal with the referendum about making Russian a state language, for example, which was really started by an agitator, that was expelled from Russia. A mainly Russian party is also suspected to receive financing from the Kremlin. During the economic recession, there was a protest, that later turned into a brief riot, with mostly russian-speaking people looting shops (liquor stores, lol) and throwing bricks at government buildings, whilst attempting to escalate the situation further. Most of these were detained later, but some of these, that actually began the riot, are suspected to have not been locals. One of these, a picture of who later became a minor internet meme here, bears an uncanny resemblance to one of the pro-russian protesters, that was taken a photo of... in Crimea ;)

Various rhetoric by Kremlin politicians, about how the Baltics should just get occupied again and fucked over and how Latvians are dogs and whatnot... That's just normal every day business here.

[Xant]

Russia is like that with all its smaller neighbors. Their foreign politics with Finland are pretty similar. One of their favorite tactics is getting a general of theirs to make direct threats "in case Finland joins NATO" and then have the government say "they don't support his stance", time after time, and of course no action is taken against the general. They also love to pressure their neighboring countries with economic sanctions and so on.

[Leshma]

@ptx

No need to explain me that, I know how Kremlin does business. Only reason why Yugoslavia managed to avoid the fate of Baltic countries, Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary is USA support. Stalin obviously had an idea to go further, maybe even to Greece but he was stopped. Balance of power assured he can't get what he wanted. His successors follow the same way, but some are less competent than others (Yeltsin, Khrushchev).

But I'm not talking about Russian side here or what they say/do to make current Ukraine government look bad. Ukraine goverment make themselves look bad by siding with the likes of Right Sector and Svoboda. I know it was necessary for them to succeed and overthrow russian puppet of a president, but that doesn't mean they won't be reminded of it and they should get thumbs up for being in company of neo-chocolate chip cookie groups.

What bothers me is lack of objectivity, fueled by personal experience and country of origin (it's very clear who "hates" Russia and who supports it and why). Russia is warmonger just like every other major force in the world. Difference is in approach. Russians have their, blunt approach to conquest. USA has their own perfidious approach and Chinese have another approach (I strongly believe that all these schools of Chinese language and promoting Chinese culture around the world is actually conquest strategy).

[DonNicko]

Yatsenyuk said that everybody will be freed from jail, and everybody will be punished who killed civilians. that was before revolution 23 february. Now they send army to the East, where civilians die. Will he punish himself?

(click to show/hide)

And somebody give me links, where Kiev government condemn radicals who killed civilians and beat them in Odessa and other regions.

[Tovi]

I may be wrong, but I really don't think that Putin wants to invade Ukraine. He wants to avoid Ukraine joining NATO (wich was on the way to be accomplished) and he wants to avoid Ukraine opening his borders to EU and Russia together.
Imagine Spain, for exemple, who choose to open his border to Morroco immigration and trade. What would be the France (and rest of EU) reaction ?
Opened borders from Portugal to Vladivostock would mean the destruction of russian economy wich is not competitive enough to suffer the shock. That's why Putin asked to Ianoukovitch to choose between EU and Russia. And Russia offer was more interesting (Gas price, financial support etc.).
In a federal system, I suppose that the opposition would be strong enough to neutralize the situation (= staying out of EU and NATO).

Divide Ukraine may be another option, but more dangerous. And it won't not so easy to absorb eastern weak economy.

[DaveUKR]

SBU caught a group of armed people who were delivering 100.000 of filled bulletins for tomorrow's so called referendum. Obviously, they were filled "yes". Same scenario as in Crimea? DonNicko, tell me more how there are more people in Sevastopol since 2001 (yeah, with total population of 300k they managed to give 400+k of votes, including children?)

[DonNicko]

About what Tovi said: there was tender of Pentagon to make repair in the school in Sevastopol. Why?

(click to show/hide)

[DaveUKR]

About what Tovi said: there was tender of Pentagon to make repair in the school in Sevastopol. Why?

(click to show/hide)

I once again ask you not to post videos from Russian government's media :rolleyes: They've yelled "wolf" so many times that not even a wolf would believe them. What's the point of trying to persuade anyone that US was trying to capture Crimea when they've already done it themselves?

Here's the link: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb&tab=core&_cview=1

[[ptx]]

I may be wrong, but I really don't think that Putin wants to invade Ukraine. He wants to avoid Ukraine joining NATO (wich was on the way to be accomplished) and he wants to avoid Ukraine opening his borders to EU and Russia together.
Imagine Spain, for exemple, who choose to open his border to Morroco immigration and trade. What would be the France (and rest of EU) reaction ?
Opened borders from Portugal to Vladivostock would mean the destruction of russian economy wich is not competitive enough to suffer the shock. That's why Putin asked to Ianoukovitch to choose between EU and Russia. And Russia offer was more interesting (Gas price, financial support etc.).
In a federal system, I suppose that the opposition would be strong enough to neutralize the situation (= staying out of EU and NATO).

Divide Ukraine may be another option, but more dangerous. And it won't not so easy to absorb eastern weak economy.

It's ever so amusing, when you attempt to think. The results are always so funny. I'm sure Ukraine is totally against NATO now. Why would it seek allies to the West, when it's big brother is ever so friendly?

[DonNicko]

SBU caught a group of armed people who were delivering 100.000 of filled bulletins for tomorrow's so called referendum. Obviously, they were filled "yes". Same scenario as in Crimea? DonNicko, tell me more how there are more people in Sevastopol since 2001 (yeah, with total population of 300k they managed to give 400+k of votes, including children?)

I dont know how, but and you exactly cant say the truth. About video, it can be. And dont you think that it can be provokation? Just imagine. Even if we will take off 100000 of bulletins, it wont change the result - mathematics)

[Tovi]

Ok, here are some biscuits about Russia/Ukraine/NATO relationships :
[ NATO official response to Russia]

NATO’s media note dealing with Russia’s accusations
Russia’s accusations - setting the record straight

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has led to Russia’s international isolation, including NATO’s suspension of all practical cooperation with Russia. To divert attention away from its actions, Russia has levelled a series of accusations against NATO which are based on misrepresentations of the facts and ignore the sustained effort that NATO has put into building a partnership with Russia. Russia has also made baseless attacks on the legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities and has used force to seize part of Ukraine’s territory. This document sets the record straight.
Russia claims that NATO has spent years trying to marginalise it internationally.

Since the early 1990s the Alliance has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia on areas of mutual interest, and striven towards a strategic partnership.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, as the London NATO Summit of July 1990 made clear (declaration here). In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating new fora, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia (PfP founding documents here and here).

As a sign of Russia’s unique role in Euro-Atlantic security, in 1997 NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002 they upgraded that relationship, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC). (The Founding Act can be read here, the Rome Declaration which established the NRC here.)

Since the foundation of the NRC, NATO and Russia have worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning. No other partner has been offered a comparable relationship.

Far from marginalising Russia, NATO has treated it as a privileged partner.
NATO’s continuation and enlargement

Russian officials say that NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War, and that the accession of new Allies from Central and Eastern Europe undermines Russia’s security.

NATO was not disbanded after the Cold War because its members wanted to retain the bond that had guaranteed security and stability in the transatlantic area, as the London Declaration makes clear: “We need to keep standing together, to extend the long peace we have enjoyed these past four decades”. Upholding the values that have always guided it, NATO became more than a powerful military Alliance: it became a political forum for dialogue and cooperation.

NATO’s Open Door policy has been, and will always be, based on the free choice of European democracies. When Ukraine decided to pursue a “non-bloc policy,” NATO fully respected that choice. Russia’s long-time assertion that NATO tried to force Ukraine into its ranks was, and remains, completely false.

NATO has fulfilled the terms of Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty (available here) which states that Allies “may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”

On six occasions, between 1952 and 2009, European countries made the choice to apply for membership based on a democratic process and respect for the rule of law. NATO Allies made the unanimous choice to accept them.

NATO and EU enlargement has helped the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to tackle difficult reforms, which were required prior to accession. It has helped their citizens enjoy the benefits of democratic choice, the rule of law, and substantial economic growth. These efforts have moved Europe closer to being whole, free, and at peace than at any other time in history.

Russia also subscribed to this vision in the Founding Act. It committed to “creating in Europe a common space of security and stability, without dividing lines or spheres of influence,” and to “respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security.”

Contrary to those commitments, Russia now appears to be attempting to recreate a sphere of influence by seizing a part of Ukraine, maintaining large numbers of forces on its borders, and demanding, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently stated, that “Ukraine cannot be part of any bloc.”
Russian claims that NATO promised not to enlarge

Russian officials claim that US and German officials promised in 1990 that NATO would not expand into Eastern and Central Europe, build military infrastructure near Russia’s borders or permanently deploy troops there.

No such pledge was made, and no evidence to back up Russia’s claims has ever been produced. Should such a promise have been made by NATO as such, it would have to have been as a formal, written decision by all NATO Allies. Furthermore, the consideration of enlarging NATO came years after German reunification. This issue was not yet on the agenda when Russia claims these promises were made.

Allegations about NATO pledging not to build infrastructure close to Russia are equally inaccurate. In the Founding Act, NATO reiterated “in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures.”

NATO has indeed supported the upgrading of military infrastructure, such as air bases, in the countries which have joined the Alliance, commensurate with the requirements for reinforcement and exercises. However, the only combat forces permanently stationed on the territory of the new members are their own armed forces.

Even before the Ukraine crisis, the only routinely visible sign of Alliance forces in the new members were the NATO jets used in the Baltic States for the air policing mission. These minimal defensive assets cannot be described as substantial combat forces in the meaning of the Founding Act.

Since the crisis, NATO has taken steps to increase situational awareness and bolster the defences of our Eastern members. This, too, is entirely consistent with the Founding Act and is a direct result of Russia’s destabilizing military actions.

Finally, the Act also states, “Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe.” Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is a flagrant breach of this commitment, as is its unilateral suspension of compliance with the CFE Treaty.
Russian claims that NATO has ignored its concerns over missile defence

NATO has not ignored Russia’s concerns. On the contrary, the Alliance has consistently sought cooperation with Russia on missile defence. At the Lisbon Summit of 2010, NATO Heads of State and Government “decided to develop a missile defence capability to protect all NATO European populations, territory and forces, and invited Russia to cooperate with us” (declaration here).

This was reiterated at the Chicago Summit in May 2012 (here), where leaders underlined that NATO “remains committed to cooperation on missile defence in a spirit of mutual trust and reciprocity”, and stated explicitly that NATO missile defence “will not undermine Russia’s strategic deterrence capabilities”. NATO also proposed a transparency regime including the creation of two NATO-Russia joint missile-defence centres. Russia has declined these offers.

These Summit declarations are more than political promises: they define NATO’s policies. Rather than taking NATO up on cooperation, Russia has advanced arguments that ignore physics as well as NATO’s expressed policies. Independent Russian military experts have made clear that NATO’s missile defence programme could not pose any threat to Russia or degrade the effectiveness of its strategic deterrent forces. The Russian government has used missile defence as an excuse for accusations rather than an opportunity for partnership.
Russian criticism of the legitimacy of NATO military actions – Libya

In seeking to defend its illegal actions in Crimea, Russia has attacked the legitimacy of some of NATO’s operations.

This includes the NATO-led operation of 2011 to protect civilians in Libyan. The NATO-led operation was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), UNSCRs 1970 & 1973, both quoting Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and neither of which was opposed by Russia. President Putin recently accused NATO of violating the resolutions by bombing Libya. This is entirely inaccurate.

UNSCR 1973 authorized NATO “to take all necessary measures” to “protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack”, which is what NATO did, with the political and military support of regional states and members of the Arab League.

After the conflict, NATO cooperated with the UN International Commission of Inquiry on Libya, which found no breach of UNSCR 1973 or international law, concluding instead that “NATO conducted a highly precise campaign with a demonstrable determination to avoid civilian casualties.”
Russia criticism of the legitimacy of NATO military actions – Kosovo

The NATO operation related to Kosovo followed over a year of intense efforts by the UN and the Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to bring about a peaceful solution. The UN Security Council on several occasions branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting number of refugees driven from their homes as a threat to international peace and security. NATO’s Operation Allied Force was launched despite the lack of Security Council authorisation to prevent the large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians.

Following the air campaign, the subsequent NATO-led operation, KFOR, which initially included Russia, has been under UN mandate (UNSCR 1244), with the aim of providing a safe and secure environment for Kosovo. This led to nearly ten years of diplomacy, under UN authority, to find a political solution and to settle Kosovo’s final status, as prescribed by UNSCR 1244.

The Kosovo operation was conducted following exhaustive discussion involving the whole international community dealing with a long-running crisis. In Crimea, with no evidence of a crisis and no attempt to negotiate any form of solution, Russia bypassed the whole international community, including the UN, and simply occupied a part of another country’s territory.
Russian claims that the Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate

The current Ukrainian president and government were approved by an overwhelming majority in the Ukrainian parliament (371 votes out of 417 registered) on 27 February 2014, including members of the Party of Regions.

That parliament was elected on 28 October 2012. The Russian Foreign Ministry at the time declared that the elections were held “peacefully, without any excesses and in line with generally-accepted standards” and “confirmed Ukraine’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law.” The statement can be read in Russian here.

The parliament which Russia called legitimate then can hardly be called illegitimate now.
Russian claims that the so-called referendum in Crimea was legal

Russian officials claim that the so-called referendum in Crimea on 16 March was legal.

The referendum was illegal according to the Ukrainian constitution (available in Ukrainian here, Russian here, English here), which states that questions “of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum. Crimea, as part of Ukraine, has the status of an autonomous republic, but any issues about its authority have to be resolved by the Ukrainian parliament (article 134) and its constitution has to be approved by the Ukrainian parliament (article 135).

Additionally, the so-called referendum was organized in a matter of weeks by a self-proclaimed Crimean leadership that was installed by armed Russian military personnel after seizing government buildings.
Russian claims that the annexation of Crimea was justified by the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo

Russian leaders claim that the precedent for the so-called declaration of independence of Crimea was the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo (online here).

However, the court stated clearly that their opinion was not a precedent. The court said they had been given a “narrow and specific” question about Kosovo’s independence which would not cover the broader legal consequences of that decision.

The court highlighted circumstances in which claims for independence would be illegal. This would include if “they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force”. An example of “an unlawful use of force” would be an invasion and occupation by a neighbouring country – which is exactly what Russia has done.

Furthermore, the process leading to Kosovo’s declaration of independence spanned years and included an extensive process led by the United Nations. Russian claims ignore all of these facts.

[DonNicko]

I once again ask you not to post videos from Russian government's media They've yelled "wolf" so many times that not even a wolf would believe them. What's the point of trying to persuade anyone that US was trying to capture Crimea when they've already done it themselves?

Here's the link: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb&tab=core&_cview=1

But why they wanted to repair that school?

[Kuujis]

Fine.

(click to show/hide)

As you know, there is a russian speaking minority of 35% in Latvia from soviet times. Russia has been pushing for LV government to grant citizenship to these people, despite the fact, that they do not speak latvian, nor actually care too much about getting it. State language is Latvian.
In the 90's, there first used to be both Latvian and Russian schools - as in, state-financed schools, that teach in a non-state language. This was changed, so that they would teach at least partially in Latvian. This caused an outrage, from both the local minority and Russia. Soon, we were labeled fascist, Kremlin controlled media was attacking us non-stop and there were protests against this, by the minority. This is also when they first started attacking us financially, by randomly banning various goods, that were being exported to Russia (i guess sprats too?). Anyways, this went through regardless. Still, the information war did not stop there and continued unabated, to the point where Latvia was, according to some poll done in Russia, its' enemy #1, surpassing even USA

Also, there have been numerous disputes over the fact, that Russia refuses to accept the occupation of Latvia during WW2, as well as the repressions done by SU against Latvians. It's not just a matter of history, as this also caused great problems with signing a border pact with Russia, where they didn't shy away from using our Russian-speaking population against us in various ways. Also, obviously a matter of importance for the families of the repressed or the surviving victims.

Recently, however, there have been concerns about Kremlin financing various political and ideological elements in Latvia, in an effort to destabilize the country. The whole deal with the referendum about making Russian a state language, for example, which was really started by an agitator, that was expelled from Russia. A mainly Russian party is also suspected to receive financing from the Kremlin. During the economic recession, there was a protest, that later turned into a brief riot, with mostly russian-speaking people looting shops (liquor stores, lol) and throwing bricks at government buildings, whilst attempting to escalate the situation further. Most of these were detained later, but some of these, that actually began the riot, are suspected to have not been locals. One of these, a picture of who later became a minor internet meme here, bears an uncanny resemblance to one of the pro-russian protesters, that was taken a photo of... in Crimea ;)

Various rhetoric by Kremlin politicians, about how the Baltics should just get occupied again and fucked over and how Latvians are dogs and whatnot... That's just normal every day business here.

Adding some

Just a nice recent example of BS that comes from moscow. Lets say, there were french colloborators, who acted willingly and participated in active seeking and destruction of french underground movement during WW2. Then, out of the blue, current German government starts treating them as war heroes and offers special pensions to them. Would you consider that a neutral, friendly or offensive action by Germany towards France? Because putler just named these "fighters" heroes of WW2 from perspective of russia and now they are given these special grants to all members of special internal forces which were formed to fight resistance fighters in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and I'm not sure if Belorussia.

I treat that as fucking offensive and aggressive behavior by an unfriendly neighboring nation.

Another example - various "unclean" products, which periodically get banned from russian markets. They are OK for EU, for US, for everyone else, but russia has SUPREME food standards - thats why the ones who can afford look for imported stuff over the local products. Also - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAgf4MyOb9w.

IF Baltic states were not in EU and NATO - we would be fucked real nice and good by now. Just like Georgia.

You don't have to go to war to be a fucked up neighbor.

Also - that Ivani4 comment, about the need to threaten and beat ones neighbors in order to get "mutual understanding and respect"...

But why they wanted to repair that school?

Only in russia (c) your kids learn in school of pitiful state, some other country offers help/repairs and then the country suddenly "OMFG THEY WILL INVADE AND OCCUPY US"... Really DonNicko...

[DonNicko]

Adding some

Just a nice recent example of BS that comes from moscow. Lets say, there were french colloborators, who acted willingly and participated in active seeking and destruction of french underground movement during WW2. Then, out of the blue, current German government starts treating them as war heroes and offers special pensions to them. Would you consider that a neutral, friendly or offensive action by Germany towards France? Because putler just named these "fighters" heroes of WW2 from perspective of russia and now they are given these special grants to all members of special internal forces which were formed to fight resistance fighters in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and I'm not sure if Belorussia.

I treat that as fucking offensive and aggressive behavior by an unfriendly neighboring nation.

Another example - various "unclean" products, which periodically get banned from russian markets. They are OK for EU, for US, for everyone else, but russia has SUPREME food standards - thats why the ones who can afford look for imported stuff over the local products. Also - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAgf4MyOb9w.

IF Baltic states were not in EU and NATO - we would be fucked real nice and good by now. Just like Georgia.

You don't have to go to war to be a fucked up neighbor.

Also - that Ivani4 comment, about the need to threaten and beat ones neighbors in order to get "mutual understanding and respect"...

lol are you seriuos about Georgia? Nato is a military alliance not about economy