Syria September 2015 ~ What's up?

[Schmelzer]

LOL....so you think a nuclear detonation will set off super volcano do you. I don't think you will find many geologist who will buy into that hope.

I don't even search them.

Yes they are well known, and their several hundreds of them. But you don't know where US naval assets are, and the bases far exceed your 90 missiles.

Most of the bases are quite close to Russia, and there is no need at all to used intercontinental missiles for them. Cruise missiles will be much cheaper, and anti-missile protection will be much harder. Most are not big enough to be worth to use a nuclear warhead for them, a conventional bomb will be sufficient.

And the US is about to deploy a new basaltic submarine.

LOL. by throwing stones into the water?

US military assets track Russian submarines from the moment they leave port until the moment they return to port.

About this http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-06/russian-submarine-fleet-reborn writes: "In late 2012, an Akula allegedly remained undetected for several weeks while conducting operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Later that same year, a Sierra-2-class guided-missile submarine crept within a mere 200 miles of the Eastern Seaboard of the United States."

Missile hardware is easily identifiable.

Yeah, looks like a standard container -> missile hardware. "A Klub-K variant, which is disguised as a shipping container that can be placed on a truck, train, or merchant vessel, was advertised in 2010 and was shown for the first time at theMAKS 2011 air show" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub#Launch_platforms

So Mother Russia had cease fire agreements with Georgia?

No, Abkhasia and South Ossetia had them with Georgia. With Russians accepted by above sides as leading the peace forces.

Except there is real proof. You don't recall the prisoner exchanges where Ukrainian exchanged captured Russian soldiers for captured Ukrainian soldiers?

A very dubious story, not even clear if the SBU has not catched them on Russian territory.

For example, the little green men who showed up in Crimea. At first Putin denied they were his military units, weeks later he admitted they were his men and planning the whole thing weeks in advance. Russia has consistently lied about its aggression.

Except that he has not denied. He has simply refused to admit it. I have checked this carefully, because I have known from the start, from a site you have already named "Russian propaganda media", that there is Russian speznas in action.

Oh, then you should be able to prove that. Where has the US objected to Russia bombing terrorist groups. The Free Syrian Army isn't a terrorist group. It is a revolutionary army.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/john-mccain-cia-russia-airstrikes/ McCain "can absolutely confirm to you that they were strikes against our Free Syrian Army, or groups that have been armed and trained by the CIA, because we have communications with people there."

Who cares that you name your head choppers and cannibals a "revolutionary army"? I name them terrorists.

Your references are simply not credible.

Of course, for you only NATO propaganda media are credible.

 

[sculptor]

This from Jimmy Carter:

Before the revolution began in March 2011, Syria set a good example of harmonious relations among its many different ethnic and religious groups, including Arabs, Kurds, Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians who were Christians, Jews, Sunnis, Alawites and Shiites. The Assad family had ruled the country since 1970, and was very proud of this relative harmony among these diverse groups.
When protesters in Syria demanded long overdue reforms in the political system, President Assad saw this as an illegal revolutionary effort to overthrow his “legitimate” regime and erroneously decided to stamp it out by using unnecessary force. Because of many complex reasons, he was supported by his military forces, most Christians, Jews, Shiite Muslims, Alawites and others who feared a takeover by radical Sunni Muslims. The prospect for his overthrow was remote.
...
I questioned President Putin about his support for Mr. Assad, and about his two sessions that year with representatives of factions from Syria. He replied that little progress had been made, and he thought that the only real chance of ending the conflict was for the United States and Russia to be joined by Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in preparing a comprehensive peace proposal. He believed that all factions in Syria, except the Islamic State, would accept almost any plan endorsed strongly by these five,...
...
Iran outlined a general four-point sequence several months ago, consisting of a cease-fire, formation of a unity government, constitutional reforms and elections. Working through the United Nations Security Council and utilizing a five-nation proposal, some mechanism could be found to implement these goals.
...
The needed concessions are not from the combatants in Syria, but from the proud nations that claim to want peace but refuse to cooperate with one another.

The involvement of Russia and Iran is essential.

 

[joepistole]

I don't even search them.

Yeah, I noticed. You really aren't concerned about facts or folks who have subject matter knowledge. It's all Russian nationalism with you.

Most of the bases are quite close to Russia, and there is no need at all to used intercontinental missiles for them. Cruise missiles will be much cheaper, and anti-missile protection will be much harder. Most are not big enough to be worth to use a nuclear warhead for them, a conventional bomb will be sufficient.

Oh, then perhaps you can prove that. But then again, you can't because it isn't true. Ironically, because of Russia's illegal aggression against its neighbors, Russia's neighbors are actively seeking a US military presence as a defense against Russian aggression.

LOL. by throwing stones into the water?

Ah, the US isn't Mother Russia or in anyway like Mother Russia. The fact is the US Navy regularly upgrades its fleets.

About this http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-06/russian-submarine-fleet-reborn writes: "In late 2012, an Akula allegedly remained undetected for several weeks while conducting operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Later that same year, a Sierra-2-class guided-missile submarine crept within a mere 200 miles of the Eastern Seaboard of the United States."

Here is what you left out, " There was no AKULA in the Gulf of Mexico or any Russian submarine in the Med last year. He doesn't even footnote the source on these claims. Shame on Proceedings for not insisting on more credible sourcing than lousy Russian press reports. Nuclear submarines also cannot stay submerged 'indefinitely'. Crew endurance (they need food!) is a real limiting factor." Oops.

You are doing what Russians always have done, allow bluster to trump reality.

Yeah, looks like a standard container -> missile hardware. "A Klub-K variant, which is disguised as a shipping container that can be placed on a truck, train, or merchant vessel, was advertised in 2010 and was shown for the first time at theMAKS 2011 air show" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub#Launch_platforms

So you are saying Mother Russia is arming civilian shipping. So where is your evidence for that one? And how does that help you? It doesn't materially change any of the relevant details. It doesn't change the fact the Russian navy would lose its naval fleet and nuclear bombers within minutes of a nuclear conflict with the US and or Western nations.

No, Abkhasia and South Ossetia had them with Georgia. With Russians accepted by above sides as leading the peace forces.

Yes, the cease fire wasn't with Mother Russia, so Russia had no legal authority to invade Georgia. As you well know Abkhasia and South Ossetia are Georgian territories. Mother Russia has no legal authority in Georgia. It had no legal right to annex Georgian lands.

A very dubious story, not even clear if the SBU has not catched them on Russian territory.

Except it isn't. It's a fact.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29002147

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-c1-russia-ukraine-burying-bodies-20150324-story.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/...oldiers-Have-Died-Ukraine-Glimpse-Bloody-Toll

Except that he has not denied. He has simply refused to admit it. I have checked this carefully, because I have known from the start, from a site you have already named "Russian propaganda media", that there is Russian speznas in action.

Well then you did a piss poor job of checking, because Putin is on public record of denying and subsequently admitting those little green were his. We have discussed this before, remember? Putin admitted is on public record of first denying and subsequently admitting those little green men were his. The unfortunate fact for you is Russia has made a number of incredulous, inconsistent and contradictory statements with respect to its aggression against its neighbors.

"At first President of Russia Vladimir Putin stated that the men in green were not part of Russian Armed Forces, but groups of local militia who had obtained their weapons from Ukrainians.[8] The SACEUR of NATO Allied Command Operations General Philip Breedlove on the other hand asserted that these "green men" were in fact Russian troops.[9]

In March 2014 Putin continued to back the Russian viewpoint,[10][11] stating "the heavily armed, tightly coordinated groups who took over Crimea's airports and ports at the start of the incursion – they were merely spontaneous "self-defence groups" who may have acquired their Russian-looking uniforms from local [military] shops (voyentorg)".[12][13]According to the Ukrainian Gun Owners Association, Ukrainian law does not allow the selling or carrying of firearms other than for hunting.

On 17 April president Putin admitted for the first time publicly that Russian special forces were involved in the events of Crimea, for the purposes of protecting local people and creating conditions for a referendum.[15][16][17][18][19][20] Later he admitted that Russian Armed Forces had blocked Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea during the events.[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(2014_Crimean_crisis)

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/john-mccain-cia-russia-airstrikes/

McCain "can absolutely confirm to you that they were strikes against our Free Syrian Army, or groups that have been armed and trained by the CIA, because we have communications with people there."

And how does that help your case? It doesn't. As I previously wrote, it Russia wants to attack ISIS in Syria, fine. If Russia wants to be a responsible, law abiding state, great. No one has trouble with that. However, if Mother Russia wants to attack Assad's political enemies, well, that is another story. Unfortunately, Russia under Putin's leadership has shown no interest in being any of those things.

Who cares that you name your head choppers and cannibals a "revolutionary army"? I name them terrorists.

Are you on drugs dude?

Of course, for you only NATO propaganda media are credible.

No, what is credible are journalists and institutions which can prove their assertions with evidence, who have transparency. It's that old science thingy. Can the veracity of reports be verified through independent sources? If it can, then those sources are credible. If they can't, your sources, then they are specious. There are a lot of specious sources on the web, and the ones you cited are among the worst.

 

[Schmelzer]

Here is what you left out, " There was no AKULA in the Gulf of Mexico or any Russian submarine in the Med last year. He doesn't even footnote the source on these claims. Shame on Proceedings for not insisting on more credible sourcing than lousy Russian press reports. Nuclear submarines also cannot stay submerged 'indefinitely'. Crew endurance (they need food!) is a real limiting factor." Oops.

Why should I quote some comment? What I have quoted was not a claim that they stayed there indefinitely. And, of course, if the Russians have been there undetected, then, by definition, the US has not detected them.

So you are saying Mother Russia is arming civilian shipping. So where is your evidence for that one?

I'm not saying it, and there is no evidence for this. But this is an obvious possibility. Once the Russians are, IYO, so evil that one should kill them in a first strike, it would be quite strange if one would expect that they have no weapons on civil ships. Which is, anyway, stupid, there is sufficient piracy to make it useful and reasonable to have weapons on civil ships. By the way, I'm not aware that there is any legal restriction for having weapons on civil ships.

It doesn't change the fact the Russian navy would lose its naval fleet and nuclear bombers within minutes of a nuclear conflict with the US and or Western nations.

Don't worry, I'm aware that your fantasies (which are, of course, the Truth) are unchangable.

Yes, the cease fire wasn't with Mother Russia, so Russia had no legal authority to invade Georgia.

It has not invaded. Except you name self-defense against an aggressor, which can be done, of course, also on the territory of the aggressor, an invasion. (In this case, there are simply cases where invasions are fine and not a violation of any law).

As you well know Abkhasia and South Ossetia are Georgian territories.

No. They have been Russian territories for a very long time, when Soviet territories. The internal administrative boundaries of the Soviet Union are irrelevant, given that Soviet leaders have, several times, simply changed these boundaries by decision in Moscow. After the dissolution all three have declared their independence, and Georgian troops have never controlled the territory of Abkhasia and South Ossetia, only some small parts of it.

"At first President of Russia Vladimir Putin stated that the men in green were not part of Russian Armed Forces, but groups of local militia who had obtained their weapons from Ukrainians.[8]

A dubious ukrainian source, which is, BTW, no longer available.

In March 2014 Putin continued to back the Russian viewpoint,[10][11] stating "the heavily armed, tightly coordinated groups who took over Crimea's airports and ports at the start of the incursion – they were merely spontaneous "self-defence groups" who may have acquired their Russian-looking uniforms from local [military] shops (voyentorg)".[12]

A Spanish, German, and English source - so one would have to expect distortion by translation. But what you quote was even not a quotation. If you want to claim a lie, please give the original quote, and not only in translation, but in Russian, so that the accuracy of the translation can be checked.

What is correct is that at that day he has not openly admitted that these guys were Russian speznas. But he has also not denied it. He has simply answered a journalist who has asked that there have been people in uniforms which remember Russian uniforms, and he has answered that such uniforms one can buy in any wojentorg shop. Which is correct.

According to the Ukrainian Gun Owners Association, Ukrainian law does not allow the selling or carrying of firearms other than for hunting.

The point being? Laughable. It shows only that the guy who has written this knows nothing about what has happened there. Because at the day when the little green men appeared, there was already the special police forces Berkut who have come back from Kiew (they were the main enemies for the Nazis there) and have taken their weapons with them. And supported the locals, who wanted to secede or to become part of Russia. They have taken the power in Sewastopol and other parts of Crimea, and taken control over police and security forces. So these local guys already had a lot of weapons. And these local guys - several thousands (from 5 to 15 000) had, indeed, used what they had which looks like military outfit, usually really bought in wojentorg shops. Not all of them had weapons, I would say around 20% of them if I remember videos from that time.

On 17 April president Putin admitted for the first time publicly that Russian special forces were involved in the events of Crimea, for the purposes of protecting local people and creating conditions for a referendum.[15][16][17][18][19][20] Later he admitted that Russian Armed Forces had blocked Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea during the events.[21]

So, poor Westerners have learned about this only that late. I have known this already in 27. February, from http://thesaker.is/the-kremlins-res...-the-ukraine-gradually-becomes-more-apparent/

The newly elected mayor of Sevastopol has met with the Commander in Chief of the Black Sea Fleet. Both men has declared that no violence of any kind will be tolerated.

You understand the word "declared"? It means, there was an official announcement that, if necessary, the Russian army will be used against anybody who uses violence against the mayor of Sewastopol. And about the speznas being there I have also known already in February.

As I previously wrote, it Russia wants to attack ISIS in Syria, fine. If Russia wants to be a responsible, law abiding state, great. No one has trouble with that. However, if Mother Russia wants to attack Assad's political enemies, well, that is another story.

These are not political enemies, but armed insurgents, and every state is allowed by international law to fight armed insurgents, and to ask other states to help. If the US does not like this, because the CIA, violating international law, has paid and armed those terrorists, this is nothing Russia has to care about.

 

[joepistole]

Why should I quote some comment? What I have quoted was not a claim that they stayed there indefinitely. And, of course, if the Russians have been there undetected, then, by definition, the US has not detected them.

Yeah, why should you quote a valid comment when it demonstrates the deception you are trying to perpetrate. The fact is you have very little if any real and credible evidence to back you your assertions.

I'm not saying it, and there is no evidence for this. But this is an obvious possibility. Once the Russians are, IYO, so evil that one should kill them in a first strike, it would be quite strange if one would expect that they have no weapons on civil ships. Which is, anyway, stupid, there is sufficient piracy to make it useful and reasonable to have weapons on civil ships. By the way, I'm not aware that there is any legal restriction for having weapons on civil ships.

As I wrote before, if you have evidence Mother Russia is militarizing civilian shipping, now is the time to prove it. As for the legality of weapons on ships, it depends on where the ship is and the nature of those weapons. The Australian government has forbidden nuclear weapons within its territorial waters and that applies to civilians as well as foreign governments. Most, governments do no permit civilian use of the kinds of weapons you are describing. So if Mother Russia is doing what you suggest, it is jeopardizing any remaining trade it may have with countries like China, India, etc. So do you think it is worth it to Mother Russia?

Don't worry, I'm aware that your fantasies (which are, of course, the Truth) are unchangable.

Reality, truth and honesty are not fantasies, except in Mother Russia. Ignore them at your peril. And you wonder why the Soviet Union crumbled.

It has not invaded. Except you name self-defense against an aggressor, which can be done, of course, also on the territory of the aggressor, an invasion. (In this case, there are simply cases where invasions are fine and not a violation of any law).

Except Mother Russia has repeatedly illegally invaded its neighbors and annexed their lands. It wasn't self defense. It was an illegal land grab. After the fall of the Soviet Union Russia signed agreements with its neighbors to respect their boundaries. Russia clearly has violated those agreements.

No. They have been Russian territories for a very long time, when Soviet territories. The internal administrative boundaries of the Soviet Union are irrelevant, given that Soviet leaders have, several times, simply changed these boundaries by decision in Moscow. After the dissolution all three have declared their independence, and Georgian troops have never controlled the territory of Abkhasia and South Ossetia, only some small parts of it.

Hmm, well Russia wasn't the Soviet the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union no longer exists. And as I previously pointed out, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia signed agreements with neighboring states to respect their boundaries. This Russian "historical right" has no basis in international law. Russia has clearly violated international law in Georgia and Ukraine when it invaded, occupied, and annexed portions of Georgia and Ukraine. And you don't have to be a PhD to figure that out.

A dubious ukrainian source, which is, BTW, no longer available.

A Spanish, German, and English source - so one would have to expect distortion by translation. But what you quote was even not a quotation. If you want to claim a lie, please give the original quote, and not only in translation, but in Russian, so that the accuracy of the translation can be checked.

What is correct is that at that day he has not openly admitted that these guys were Russian speznas. But he has also not denied it. He has simply answered a journalist who has asked that there have been people in uniforms which remember Russian uniforms, and he has answered that such uniforms one can buy in any wojentorg shop. Which is correct.

Except it wasn't a Ukrainian source, and there are numerous other sources which report the same thing. The source was Wikipedia. You have used the same source many times now all of a sudden when it reports something you don't like it's "dubious".

The point being? Laughable. It shows only that the guy who has written this knows nothing about what has happened there. Because at the day when the little green men appeared, there was already the special police forces Berkut who have come back from Kiew (they were the main enemies for the Nazis there) and have taken their weapons with them. And supported the locals, who wanted to secede or to become part of Russia. They have taken the power in Sewastopol and other parts of Crimea, and taken control over police and security forces. So these local guys already had a lot of weapons. And these local guys - several thousands (from 5 to 15 000) had, indeed, used what they had which looks like military outfit, usually really bought in wojentorg shops. Not all of them had weapons, I would say around 20% of them if I remember videos from that time.

Yes Putin's initial claim that the little green men were Ukrainian civilians who got their assault rifles and military armaments and uniforms and formed an overnight organized militia is laughable, especially when you consider that only hunting rifles are legal per the Wiki article. The point being, those little green men, if they were Ukrainian civilians as Putin originally asserted, didn't have access to modern Russian military hardware or uniforms for that matter.

And here is the point you are missing, Putin has admitted the little green men were Russian soldiers. He admitted to planning this in advance. So we know what actually happened with certitude. And you are still arguing the little green men were Ukrainians. Don't look now, but you have betrayed yourself and your intentions. You really don't care about evidence or veracity.

The developed world didn't buy Putin's story, and has been repeatedly pointed out to you Putin later admitted his lie as he boasted to fellow Russians.

So, poor Westerners have learned about this only that late. I have known this already in 27. February, from http://thesaker.is/the-kremlins-res...-the-ukraine-gradually-becomes-more-apparent/

Oh, I think you need to see past your ego, although that is probably impossible.

You understand the word "declared"? It means, there was an official announcement that, if necessary, the Russian army will be used against anybody who uses violence against the mayor of Sewastopol. And about the speznas being there I have also known already in February. The newly elected mayor of Sevastopol has met with the Commander in Chief of the Black Sea Fleet. Both men has declared that no violence of any kind will be tolerated.

How is this relevant? I didn't bring this up. I didn't write or reference the words you quoted.

These are not political enemies, but armed insurgents, and every state is allowed by international law to fight armed insurgents, and to ask other states to help. If the US does not like this, because the CIA, violating international law, has paid and armed those terrorists, this is nothing Russia has to care about.

And Russian's wonder why the world thinks Russians are gullible and are continually victimized by their own government. Why does the world keep picking on poor little Mother Russia. The problems Russia face are not the rest of the world, it's Mother Russia? The world isn't picking on Mother Russia. You eschew credible journals and sources and believe without question Russian state owned media. You believe without question whatever the Russian state owned media tells you and you deny and dismiss all credible evidence from credible sources in order to do so. That's cult like behavior. Unfortunately for Putin, the cult stops at Russia's borders. Russia became a laughingstock when it offered the excuses you have offered for its repeated military aggression against its neighbors.

At some point reality is going to kick in and Russia will run into another brick wall. Why Russians are intent on repeating the mistakes of its past is a bit odd. But, hey, if that is what they want to do, so be it. It's no skin off my back. Maybe Russians just like running into brick walls.

 

[CptBork]

At some point reality is going to kick in and Russia will run into another brick wall. Why Russians are intent on repeating the mistakes of its past is a bit odd. But, hey, if that is what they want to do, so be it. It's no skin off my back. Maybe Russians just like running into brick walls.

Hopefully the world learns its lesson this time, and doesn't come to Russia's aid until Russia disarms its nuclear arsenal and withdraws to its rightful 17th century borders. Until then, let them starve while they drop all their cruise missiles on Iran.

Oh, I think you need to see past your ego, although that is probably impossible.

Judging by the nonsensical crap he posts in the science sections, your assessment is uncannily accurate.

 

[Schmelzer]

Yeah, why should you quote a valid comment when it demonstrates the deception you are trying to perpetrate.

Why should I quote a comment which you name "valid" only because it fits into your propaganda?

This Russian "historical right" has no basis in international law.

Learn to read. I have never made a claim about any "Russian historical right", but simply rejected your claim about a Georgian or Ukrainian historical right. Above rights are nothing but based on arbitrary decisions about administrative subdivisions useful for Moscow.

Without such historical rights, the claim of Abkhasia and South Ossetia for independence is as good as the claim of Georgia for these territories, so that all what counts is who was able to control the real territory with its military. This appeared to be Abkhasia and South Ossetia. They have "annexed" their own territory, and reached a ceasefire agreement.
This ceasefire agreement has been violated, including an attack of the peace force which above sides had accepted in the ceasefire agreement. The aggressor has been punished, the republics of Abkhasia and South Ossetia have been accepted as independent states, their border with Georgia is now the former Soviet time administrative subdivision. That's all.

Russia has clearly violated international law in Georgia and Ukraine when it invaded, occupied, and annexed portions of Georgia and Ukraine. And you don't have to be a PhD to figure that out.

All one needs is a strong belief into NATO propaganda sources.

Except it wasn't a Ukrainian source, and there are numerous other sources which report the same thing. The source was Wikipedia. You have used the same source many times now all of a sudden when it reports something you don't like it's "dubious".

Wikipedia is as serious as the sources it links, so that I have taken a look at the sources. They are, in this case, low quality. The quality of Wikipedia differs very much. It is ok if there is no disagreement - typically, in scientific questions, or simple facts of life. It is only a collection of common prejudices in politically relevant questions. History is something intermediate, usually one can use it without checking - but only if the question is not controversial.

But even where it is most reliable - in scientific questions - it is clearly only a second order quality source. Sufficient for postings in a forum, but only as long as the other side does not object.

Yes Putin's initial claim that the little green men were Ukrainian civilians who got their assault rifles and military armaments and uniforms and formed an overnight organized militia is laughable, especially when you consider that only hunting rifles are legal per the Wiki article. The point being, those little green men, if they were Ukrainian civilians as Putin originally asserted, didn't have access to modern Russian military hardware or uniforms for that matter.

Here from February 24. http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1429921.html titled "the power has been taken" a nice picture of who has taken the power at Febuary 23. in Sewastopol. Here a video of the arrival of Berkut

You see here nice uniforms - ukrainian uniforms. You see not much weapons - but, in fact, they were simply coming back from Kiew to their home, and have taken control of their barracks and, of course, the weapons there.

And here is the point you are missing, Putin has admitted the little green men were Russian soldiers. He admitted to planning this in advance.

I'm not missing the point, I have known from the 28. February that there is also Russian speznas supporting them. And I have already acknowledged that Putin has openly admitted this only later. So what? He has not lied. He has not denied it. It was inofficial, but open from the start. If it would have been hidden, you would not have seen it.

And, to repeat it, it would be criminal stupidity if there would be no preparations. Of course, there are preparations for the case of a nuclear war, as in Russia, as in the US, everything else would be criminal neglegt.

And you are still arguing the little green men were Ukrainians.

No, I never have. Learn to read. There has been the Russian speznas, and I have repeatedly said that I have known about this from February. And there has been the local militia, 5000-15000 of local guys, with weapons from Berkut police and local army barracks. About this I have known even earlier, namely already 24. February. The speznas has played here a symbolic role: It has given the local people the certainty that, if the Kiew Nazis start a civil war, they will be supported by the Russian army, and, therefore, win. And this was the message - note, a message, nothing hidden from them - to the Kiew Nazis too: Don't try to start a civil war on Crimea.

Here an example how the pro-Russian side has made jokes about the "polite guys": http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1445217.html The nicely speznas-looking guy asks: "Hi, dear lady, please excuse me for interrupting you, may be you can help, can you tell me the way to Sevastopol, our tourist group has lost a little bit the orientation, we would be very thankful if you could help us". The brown T-shirt of the girl has "NSDAP" on it, the name of Hitler's party, and the flag is that of the fascist Bandera movement, in case you don't know.

About the timing: The pro-Russian forces have taken power - in a legitimate, democratic way - in Sevastopol 23. February, in Crimea (Simferopol) 27. February, the Russian speznas appeared 28. February, in agreement with the legitimate Crimean power and the legitimate president of Ukraine.

You believe without question whatever the Russian state owned media tells you and you deny and dismiss all credible evidence from credible sources in order to do so.

LOL. Most of my sources are not at all Russian state-owned media. The Saker is living in Florida, his website is in Island, Colonel Cassad is from Crimea, thus, at that time yet an Ukrainian website. voltairenet.org is french, the source about the Russian submarines was American. I like Asia Times (atimes.com), http://www.moonofalabama.org/ http://www.counterpunch.org/ from Amerika, http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/ from India. And sometimes I use even US military sources, like http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1269.pdf

Of course, I reject NATO propaganda sources (thus, the only sources you accept as credible) as unreliable. But sometimes even such sources contain interesting information. And there are enough credible sources in the net, everywhere, no need to use only the Runet, and even less on the few state-owned media.

What are, instead, your sources? Only NATO-media. Or wikipedia where they cite NATO sources.

 

[sculptor]

Hopefully the world learns its lesson this time, and doesn't come to Russia's aid until Russia disarms its nuclear arsenal and withdraws to its rightful 17th century borders. ...

OMG Bork
I hope that you do not also want the USA to go back to it's rightful 17th century borders.

 

[CptBork]

OMG Bork
I hope that you do not also want the USA to go back to it's rightful 17th century borders.

The US isn't ruling over entire territories that wish to peacefully separate, nor using those territories to invade others and threatening to nuke anyone who opposes them. So no, I don't believe the US owes land to anyone it hasn't already granted autonomy and/or citizenship to, nor are any serious claims being pressed, but thanks once again for not recognizing why your life is better in a US democracy than under Russian dictatorship.

 

[sculptor]

The US isn't ruling over entire territories that wish to peacefully separate, ....

History .......................................READ IT
Maybe, it's just a matter of perspective?

 

[CptBork]

History .......................................READ IT
Maybe, it's just a matter of perspective?

I've read plenty of history. Never heard of terra nullius? Russia can't claim sovereignty over lands inhabited by other peoples, when it hasn't made any meaningful historical use of them itself other than occupying and subjugating them.

 

[Schmelzer]

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/10/two-prominent-promoters-of-the-syrian-revolution-give-up.html
quotes some FSA fan with

This is main problem of FSA in Hama/Idlib: Yes, FSA still exists, but they dont control territory. If they disobey radicals, FSA is out. >
We all remember how Jamal Maruf group & Hazem (both western backed FSA) were destroyed by Nusra (AlQaeda) after they "disobeyed" them.>
So FSA in Idlib/Hama has only HQ's, no territory. Even worse: FSA have no courts. So if FSA-member makes mistake, trial is at Nusra court

and other nice things.

 

[joepistole]

Why should I quote a comment which you name "valid" only because it fits into your propaganda?

Yeah, why should you be honest? The fact is you were and have consistently cherry picked and misrepresented information. The fact is you omitted the fact that there is no evidence to support your assertions...oops.

Learn to read. I have never made a claim about any "Russian historical right", but simply rejected your claim about a Georgian or Ukrainian historical right. Above rights are nothing but based on arbitrary decisions about administrative subdivisions useful for Moscow.

Hmm...well you are being a little disingenuous. You don't remember writing the paragraph below?


"No. They have been Russian territories for a very long time, when Soviet territories. The internal administrative boundaries of the Soviet Union are irrelevant, given that Soviet leaders have, several times, simply changed these boundaries by decision in Moscow. After the dissolution all three have declared their independence, and Georgian troops have never controlled the territory of Abkhasia and South Ossetia, only some small parts of it." - Schmelzer


The fact is Georgia and Ukraine have controlled their territories since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Mother Russia signed agreements recognizing the boundaries of Georgia and Ukraine, agreements it has now violated, decades after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The unpleasant fact for you is Mother Russia has no legal right to invade, occupy and annex the lands of its neighbors.


The fact is you have have on a number of occasions invoked Mother Russia's right to rule neighboring states by asserting they were once Russian possessions.

Without such historical rights, the claim of Abkhasia and South Ossetia for independence is as good as the claim of Georgia for these territories, so that all what counts is who was able to control the real territory with its military. This appeared to be Abkhasia and South Ossetia. They have "annexed" their own territory, and reached a ceasefire agreement.

Historical rights....? And what historical rights would those be exactly? The unfortunate fact for you is Mother Russia has no "historic" or other right to invade, occupy, and annex the lands of....period. The fact is Russia has supported this conflict with troops, money and supplies. And the fact is Russia has in practice annexed Abkhasia and South Ossetia. A cease fire really isn't relevant. It isn't a resolution of the conflict. It isn't a surrender. It's just an agreement to stop shooting at someone for a period of time. It isn't a justification for invasion, occupation and annexation. It isn't what you and Mother Russia need it to be.

This ceasefire agreement has been violated, including an attack of the peace force which above sides had accepted in the ceasefire agreement. The aggressor has been punished, the republics of Abkhasia and South Ossetia have been accepted as independent states, their border with Georgia is now the former Soviet time administrative subdivision. That's all.

As previously pointed out, the cease fire is irrelevant. The cease fire isn't a surrender and it isn't justification to invade, occupy and annex Russia's neighbors as Russia has done. It's just a temporary agreement to stop shooting.


Who has accepted Abkhasia and South Ossetia as independent state? Only 3 states out of 197 state hav recognized them as independent. Can you guess who? Russia, and two states which Russia paid to recognize them, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Don't look now but you have been caught in another lie.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia


Russia's recognition as an independent state was quickly followed by a annexation and integration into Mother Russia.


"Integration with Russia[edit]

On August 30, 2008, Tarzan Kokoity, the Deputy Speaker of South Ossetia's parliament, announced that the region would soon be absorbed into Russia, so that South and North Ossetians could live together in one united Russian state.[108] Russian and South Ossetian forces began giving residents in Akhalgori, the biggest town in the predominantly ethnic Georgian eastern part of South Ossetia, the choice of accepting Russian citizenship or leaving.[109] However, Eduard Kokoity, the president of South Ossetia, later stated that South Ossetia would not forgo its independence by joining Russia: “We are not going to say no to our independence, which has been achieved at the expense of many lives; South Ossetia has no plans to join Russia." Civil Georgia has said that this statement contradicts previous ones made by Kokoity earlier that day, when he indicated that South Ossetia would join North Ossetia in the Russian Federation.[108][110]


The South Ossetian and Russian presidents signed an "alliance and integration" treaty on 18 March 2015.[111] The agreement includes provisions to incorporate the South Ossetian military into Russia's armed forces, integrate the customs service of South Ossetia into that of Russia's, and commit Russia to paying state worker salaries in South Ossetia at rates equal to those in the North Caucasus Federal District.[112] The Associated Press described the treaty as calling for "nearly full integration" and compared it to a 2014 agreement between Russia and Abkhazia.[111] The Georgian Foreign Ministry described the signing of the treaty as "actual annexation" of the disputed region by Russia, and the United States and European Union said they would not recognise it.[113][114] - Wikipedia

All one needs is a strong belief into NATO propaganda sources.

LOL... The truth isn't NATO propaganda. All that is needed is an honest review of the facts, something you are clearly incapable of. Only Russia and the 2 countries it bought recognize South Ossetia as legitimate out of some 197 countries. Russia campaigned long and hard and only manged to get 2 countries desperate enough to sign on. That's pretty bad.

 

[joepistole]

Wikipedia is as serious as the sources it links, so that I have taken a look at the sources. They are, in this case, low quality. The quality of Wikipedia differs very much. It is ok if there is no disagreement - typically, in scientific questions, or simple facts of life. It is only a collection of common prejudices in politically relevant questions. History is something intermediate, usually one can use it without checking - but only if the question is not controversial.


But even where it is most reliable - in scientific questions - it is clearly only a second order quality source. Sufficient for postings in a forum, but only as long as the other side does not object.

The unfortunate fact is there is nothing wrong with the Wikipedia references I used. You have used them when you thought it fit your purpose. But when it doesn't, then it's another story. This is a very clear demonstration of your hypocrisy. The bottom line here is fact and reason do not comport with your assertions. If you could make an honest case you wouldn't need all the obfuscation, and disingenuous arguments and specious sources (e.g. World News Daily).

Here from February 24. http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1429921.html titled "the power has been taken" a nice picture of who has taken the power at Febuary 23. in Sewastopol. Here a video of the arrival of Berkut

You see here nice uniforms - ukrainian uniforms. You see not much weapons - but, in fact, they were simply coming back from Kiew to their home, and have taken control of their barracks and, of course, the weapons there.


I'm not missing the point, I have known from the 28. February that there is also Russian speznas supporting them. And I have already acknowledged that Putin has openly admitted this only later. So what? He has not lied. He has not denied it. It was inofficial, but open from the start. If it would have been hidden, you would not have seen it.


And, to repeat it, it would be criminal stupidity if there would be no preparations. Of course, there are preparations for the case of a nuclear war, as in Russia, as in the US, everything else would be criminal neglegt.


No, I never have. Learn to read. There has been the Russian speznas, and I have repeatedly said that I have known about this from February. And there has been the local militia, 5000-15000 of local guys, with weapons from Berkut police and local army barracks. About this I have known even earlier, namely already 24. February. The speznas has played here a symbolic role: It has given the local people the certainty that, if the Kiew Nazis start a civil war, they will be supported by the Russian army, and, therefore, win. And this was the message - note, a message, nothing hidden from them - to the Kiew Nazis too: Don't try to start a civil war on Crimea.


Here an example how the pro-Russian side has made jokes about the "polite guys": http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1445217.html The nicely speznas-looking guy asks: "Hi, dear lady, please excuse me for interrupting you, may be you can help, can you tell me the way to Sevastopol, our tourist group has lost a little bit the orientation, we would be very thankful if you could help us". The brown T-shirt of the girl has "NSDAP" on it, the name of Hitler's party, and the flag is that of the fascist Bandera movement, in case you don't know.


About the timing: The pro-Russian forces have taken power - in a legitimate, democratic way - in Sevastopol 23. February, in Crimea (Simferopol) 27. February, the Russian speznas appeared 28. February, in agreement with the legitimate Crimean power and the legitimate president of Ukraine.

And you seriously think any of that makes sense...? That is an obfuscation. The fact is Russia gave a blatantly silly story about the little green men which was patently absurd on its face which Mother Russia misrepresented as Ukrainian and Putin subsequently admitting were Russian troops while boasting before Russian TV cameras. The fact is Russia has offered many patently absurd and false statements with respect to its invasions, occupations and annexation of neighboring lands. Russia has contradicted itself. Yet you believe without question anything the Russia state tells you and summarily dismiss information from sources which are inconsistent with the Russian state.

LOL. Most of my sources are not at all Russian state-owned media. The Saker is living in Florida, his website is in Island, Colonel Cassad is from Crimea, thus, at that time yet an Ukrainian website. voltairenet.org is french, the source about the Russian submarines was American. I like Asia Times (atimes.com), http://www.moonofalabama.org/ http://www.counterpunch.org/ from Amerika, http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/ from India. And sometimes I use even US military sources, like http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1269.pdf

As has been previously pointed out to you, what you have done is promulgate Russia state controlled propaganda. You have misrepresented information and cherry picked from legitimate sites, and you have relied extensively on specious sources.

Of course, I reject NATO propaganda sources (thus, the only sources you accept as credible) as unreliable. But sometimes even such sources contain interesting information. And there are enough credible sources in the net, everywhere, no need to use only the Runet, and even less on the few state-owned media.


What are, instead, your sources? Only NATO-media. Or wikipedia where they cite NATO sources.

Except I have never once offered NATO propaganda as sources...oops. Just because credible sources do not support or endorse what is published in Russian state owned media, it doesn't mean they are wrong or part of a NATO conspiracy. NATO doesn't do the propaganda thingy. It doesn't need to. NATO hasn't invaded, occupied, and annexed the lands of its neighbors. Although, given Russia's increasingly hostile and aggressive actions, perhaps it is time to do so.


Here is another thing for you to consider. Russia is a puny nation. It can and never will be able to compete with the West or even just the US. It had a tiny 2 trillion dollar economy and that economy is shrinking. The US has an economy nearly 10 times larger and unlike Russia, the American economy is and has been growing. Russia has a population of 143 million people whose health isn't good or comparable to Western populations. That is less than half the population of the US and even less when you throw in NATO.
For any piece of military hardware Russia adds to it's military, NATO can easily add more than 20. For each combatant Russia adds to its military, NATO can add at least 4. And then there is Russia's technology deficit. There is no way Russia wins.


There is no way Russia wins. As I said before, if Russia wants to repeat the mistakes of the past which it seems intent on doing so be it. It's no skin off my back. But it is a bit of a mystery why Russians like smashing into walls. One would think, Mother Russia would learn something from the mistakes of her past. But apparently that just isn't the case. The world just isn't as dumb as Mother Russia needs it to be.

You flatter yourself to think NATO has any interest in Mother Russia other than the defense of member countries.

 

[Schmelzer]

Hmm...well you are being a little disingenuous. You don't remember writing the paragraph below?

Of course. It was a rejection of your historical justification of these territories as Georgian. It is in no way a claim about some Russian historical rights. Abkhasia as well as South Ossetia have the right to be independent nations.

The fact is Abkhasia and South Ossetia and Ukraine have controlled their territories since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Yes. And, therefore, Abkhasia and South Ossetia have any right to be independent states, as well as Georgia. And if Georgia wants to occupy them, they have the right to self-defense, and Russia has the right to help them.

The fact is you have have on a number of occasions invoked Mother Russia's right to rule neighboring states by asserting they were once Russian possessions.

No. That Russia has in the past ruled a lot of territory, far more than today, is a simple fact. If somebody has fantasies, which have nothing to do with history, I correct them. That I want to use this for some justification is your invention. I do not think that states have any right to rule territories, and certainly not because they have ruled them in some past.

Historical rights....? And what historical rights would those be exactly?

Learn to read. I wrote there are no such rights. I do not accept such historical rights anyway, and in general. Of course, I recognize that many people think that there are such historical rights, and, for the sake of the argument, I may take a look at how much these "historical rights" have something to do with real history. In this case, nothing.

The fact is Russia has supported this conflict with troops, money and supplies. And the fact is Russia has in practice annexed Abkhasia and South Ossetia.

Nonsense. During their fighting for independence in the 1990's, Russia was neutral, and tried to moderate a peace. And, that's why it was accepted as a peace keeping force. By all sides, Abkhasia and South Ossetia as well as Georgia.

Once Georgia has broken the ceasefire at 8.8.8, it was defeated, that's all. If you think that peace forces are there for nothing but being shot by the aggressor who decides to break the ceasefire, which is nothing, you are wrong. At least, Russian peace forces are real peace forces, if necessary they enforce peace. One week was necessary to enforce peace, and there is peace now. Since 2008, and there is no reason to expect that this will change in some future.

Who has accepted Abkhasia and South Ossetia as independent state?

Russia. Which is what matters for Russia. Or do you think it has to matter for Russia if the US has accepted their independence?

On August 30, 2008, Tarzan Kokoity, the Deputy Speaker of South Ossetia's parliament, announced that the region would soon be absorbed into Russia, so that South and North Ossetians could live together in one united Russian state.

Of course, many Ossetians want to live together, not subdivided by an arbitrary border, which was comfortable for the Russian tsar but for the Ossetians it was as arbitrary as the subdivision into West Germany, Berlin, and East Germany for the Germans and the division of Korea. There are plans about a referendum about this question. Do you have any problem with a referendum as a method for deciding if South Ossetia wants to join Russia?

Russia campaigned long and hard and only manged to get 2 countries desperate enough to sign on. That's pretty bad.

Russia couldn't care less. It was only after 8.8.8 they have accepted their independence themself. Before 8.8.8 they have, clearly and openly, preferred some peaceful resolution of the conflict in a single state, like a federation or confederation or so. But after 8.8.8 there was no longer any chance for such a solution, and they have decided to acknowledge their independence.

 

[joepistole]

Of course. It was a rejection of your historical justification of these territories as Georgian. It is in no way a claim about some Russian historical rights. Abkhasia as well as South Ossetia have the right to be independent nations.

Except, they are Georgian, and were recognized by Russia as Georgian and Ukrainan. If you are backing off the historical rights Russia has claimed, then don't use that claim. Don't refer to the fact Georgia or Ukraine were once part of the Soviet Union, stop making the historical rights claim. Because it isn't relevant.

Yes. And, therefore, Abkhasia and South Ossetia have any right to be independent states, as well as Georgia. And if Georgia wants to occupy them, they have the right to self-defense, and Russia has the right to help them.

You have misrepresented what I wrote, this is what I wrote, "The fact is Georgia and Ukraine have controlled their territories since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Mother Russia signed agreements recognizing the boundaries of Georgia and Ukraine, agreements it has now violated, decades after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The unpleasant fact for you is Mother Russia has no legal right to invade, occupy and annex the lands of its neighbors." - Joepistole

No. That Russia has in the past ruled a lot of territory, far more than today, is a simple fact. If somebody has fantasies, which have nothing to do with history, I correct them. That I want to use this for some justification is your invention. I do not think that states have any right to rule territories, and certainly not because they have ruled them in some past. Learn to read. I wrote there are no such rights. I do not accept such historical rights anyway, and in general. Of course, I recognize that many people think that there are such historical rights, and, for the sake of the argument, I may take a look at how much these "historical rights" have something to do with real history. In this case, nothing.

So are you willing then, if that is what you believe, to condemn Russia's aggression? Are you willing to condemn the Assad government for trying to control rebel territories? Using your stated belief here, you should be condemning Assad and supporting the Free Syrian Army. But that isn't what you have done. You are being more than a little hypocritical here.

The fact is the so called so called "rebellions" in Georgia and Ukraine were Russian organized, led, and funded. Many of the so called rebel leaders were in fact Russian State Security officers.

Nonsense. During their fighting for independence in the 1990's, Russia was neutral, and tried to moderate a peace. And, that's why it was accepted as a peace keeping force. By all sides, Abkhasia and South Ossetia as well as Georgia.

Outside Russia, the truth isn't nonsense. For the 70 years the Soviet Union recognized Georgia's borders. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia recognized Georgia's borders. The fact is as previously pointed out, Russia has effectively illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed Georgian and Ukrainian lands.

Once Georgia has broken the ceasefire at 8.8.8, it was defeated, that's all. If you think that peace forces are there for nothing but being shot by the aggressor who decides to break the ceasefire, which is nothing, you are wrong. At least, Russian peace forces are real peace forces, if necessary they enforce peace. One week was necessary to enforce peace, and there is peace now. Since 2008, and there is no reason to expect that this will change in some future.

Russian peace keepers...? That is a euphemism for invasion and occupation troops. They aren't by any stretch peace keepers. They are invaders. And the world has recognized Russia's aggression for what it is. That is a fact. Despite attemtpting to bribe aid dependent nations, Mother Russia was only able to get 2 other small nations to recognize South Ossetia.

Which is what matters for Russia. Or do you think it has to matter for Russia if the US has accepted their independence?

Well, as previously pointed out, this gets back to your dishonesty. You claimed the Georgian lands which Russia subsequently annexed were recognized as independent states. As I pointed out, despite Russia's attempt to bribe aid dependent nations to recognize those states, only 3 states have recognized that independence, Mother Russia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. The UN rejected their independence. So again, by omission, you are not being honest.

Even with bribery, Mother Russia was only able to get 2 other states to sign on and recognize the validity of Russian claims.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...georgia-plays-out-in-pacific-amid-trade-talks

Of course, many Ossetians want to live together, not subdivided by an arbitrary border, which was comfortable for the Russian tsar but for the Ossetians it was as arbitrary as the subdivision into West Germany, Berlin, and East Germany for the Germans and the division of Korea. There are plans about a referendum about this question. Do you have any problem with a referendum as a method for deciding if South Ossetia wants to join Russia?

Well it was a border which was good for the czars and for 70 years of communist rule, but now all of a sudden it isn't? Yes of course the subjugated people want to live together with Russians. I'm sure you Russians tell your children that every night as you tuck them into bed.

Russia couldn't care less. It was only after 8.8.8 they have accepted their independence themself. Before 8.8.8 they have, clearly and openly, preferred some peaceful resolution of the conflict in a single state, like a federation or confederation or so. But after 8.8.8 there was no longer any chance for such a solution, and they have decided to acknowledge their independence.

Russia couldn't care less...? It obviously cared enough to send its troops. It obviously cared enough to engage its troops in combat with Georgian and Ukrainian troops. Mother Russia cared enough to spend blood and treasure in Georgia and Ukraine. Mother Russia cared enough to risk its economy and cared enough to bribe tiny island nations to support it in the UN.

So again, the facts are just not consistent with your assertions.

 

[Schmelzer]

The unfortunate fact is there is nothing wrong with the Wikipedia references I used.

NATO sources we can evaluate only via double translation, and the English one not only translated, but not even a quotation. And this as a justification of the claim that Putin has lied.

You have used them when you thought it fit your purpose. But when it doesn't, then it's another story.

This is the way wikipedia is to be used. It is a medium quality source. One can use it, because it is easy to find and gives information about almost anything. Often enough what is written there is uncontroversial, thus, can be used. But if the opponent objects, one has to do more research. For considering it as a decisive source, wikipedia quality is too low.

This is a very clear demonstration of your hypocrisy.

No, this is my opinion about wikipedia. You can apply the same rules in a symmetric way, I have no problem. If you think that one of my wiki quotes is nonsense, ok, no problem, then we will have to look at it more careful. As long as you accept them, fine.

and specious sources (e.g. World News Daily).

I have no particular opinion about the seriousness of World News Daily. I have some sources which I consider as more reliable than others, but there is no source which I consider to be of ultimate reliability. Usually I consider particular sources as reliable about some questions and prejudiced about others. None of my reliable sources is a mainstream press or TV. So, nor NATO sources, nor Russian state-owned sources.

Of course, I also read NATO sources (for example, the German paper Zeit), as well as Russian sources (like http://sputniknews.com/), even Syrian sources (http://sana.sy/en/), but none of this is what I consider as reliable.

The fact is Russia gave a blatantly silly story about the little green men which was patently absurd on its face which Mother Russia misrepresented as Ukrainian and Putin subsequently admitting were Russian troops while boasting before Russian TV cameras.

The only fact is that all you have provided as evidence for this is indirect NATO press translations, which have been quoted in English Wikipedia. Instead, I have presented you very popular pro-Russian media which have wrote about speznas being there, and who have mentioned clear declarations of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, together with the local pro-Russian government, that it will not allow any violence breaking out in Crimea. All this already in February, on pro-Russian sites.

If you think that some Russians have lied, present the evidence. Given the distortions of quotes by translations of Russian sources by NATO media, I need a possibility to check such claims with the Russian original, else I cannot accept it.

Here is another thing for you to consider. Russia is a puny nation. It can and never will be able to compete with the West or even just the US. It had a tiny 2 trillion dollar economy and that economy is shrinking. The US has an economy nearly 10 times larger ...

All this would matter if the aim of Russia would be, like that of the US, to rule the world. Russia does not have such an aim. Russia wants to be a sovereign state, with a normal living standard for his 143 Mio citizens, not to be ruled by the US, because it has tried this, during Yeltsin time, and not liked it. Russia wants a multipolar world, nor an unipolar, Russian-lead one, nor an unipolar, US-lead one.

So it can, in particular, nicely cooperate with China and India. It has no longer the problem of Soviet Russia which wanted to force its ideology and its economic system on everybody. It doesn't. It does not care if China is confucian or communist, or if Iran is ruled by some Ajatallah or so. They all want to be sovereign states, they all are tired by the US ruling the world, so they are all happy to cooperate with each other, as independent nations, independent on US rule. And what Russia can offer them is, in particular, nice weapons, to defend themself against the US aggression.

You flatter yourself to think NATO has any interest in Mother Russia other than the defense of member countries.

The US wants to rule the world. This is all they want. Russia is the only state able to retaliate against a US nuclear first strike. China is not yet able to do this - it may become, but is not yet. So, Russia is the main enemy of the US, the only state which prevents its world rule. With control over Russia, it could easily control China, because the US would have control over the oil.

And, given that the Chines are not stupid, and know this, they will not leave Russia alone.

 

[joepistole]

NATO sources we can evaluate only via double translation, and the English one not only translated, but not even a quotation. And this as a justification of the claim that Putin has lied.

LOL....well you first have to show it is a NATO source before you worry about translation. The fact is, it has been well documented Putin has lied. Putin's explanations have mad him a laughing stock.

This is the way wikipedia is to be used. It is a medium quality source. One can use it, because it is easy to find and gives information about almost anything. Often enough what is written there is uncontroversial, thus, can be used. But if the opponent objects, one has to do more research. For considering it as a decisive source, wikipedia quality is too low.

The fact is Wikipedia is a fine source. You have used it. Just because it isn't Russian state controlled propaganda doesn't denigrate it in any way.

No, this is my opinion about wikipedia. You can apply the same rules in a symmetric way, I have no problem. If you think that one of my wiki quotes is nonsense, ok, no problem, then we will have to look at it more careful. As long as you accept them, fine.

Yes, it's your opinion when it doesn't back up your assertions.

I have no particular opinion about the seriousness of World News Daily. I have some sources which I consider as more reliable than others, but there is no source which I consider to be of ultimate reliability. Usually I consider particular sources as reliable about some questions and prejudiced about others. None of my reliable sources is a mainstream press or TV. So, nor NATO sources, nor Russian state-owned sources.

Yeah, whenever a source backs your pro Russian beliefs, then you have no problems with it.

Of course, I also read NATO sources (for example, the German paper Zeit), as well as Russian sources (like http://sputniknews.com/), even Syrian sources (http://sana.sy/en/), but none of this is what I consider as reliable.

The only fact is that all you have provided as evidence for this is indirect NATO press translations, which have been quoted in English Wikipedia. Instead, I have presented you very popular pro-Russian media which have wrote about speznas being there, and who have mentioned clear declarations of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, together with the local pro-Russian government, that it will not allow any violence breaking out in Crimea. All this already in February, on pro-Russian sites.

Yes, I think you have clearly demonstrated your love of state controlled Russian media and aversion to the free press. Additionally, the issue under discussion isn't violence in Crimea, it's about Mother Russia's illegal invasions and occupation of neighboring states.

If you think that some Russians have lied, present the evidence. Given the distortions of quotes by translations of Russian sources by NATO media, I need a possibility to check such claims with the Russian original, else I cannot accept it.

I have provided that evidence, you just don't like it. You have spend several posts now unsuccessfully trying to debunk it and calling it NATO propaganda, which is yet another assertion that you cannot support.

All this would matter if the aim of Russia would be, like that of the US, to rule the world. Russia does not have such an aim. Russia wants to be a sovereign state, with a normal living standard for his 143 Mio citizens, not to be ruled by the US, because it has tried this, during Yeltsin time, and not liked it. Russia wants a multipolar world, nor an unipolar, Russian-lead one, nor an unipolar, US-lead one.

Well, Russia is an independent state and has been an independent state. As previously pointed out to you, if the US had any designs on ruling Mother Russia it has had ample opportunity to do so. It had that opportunity after WWII when Mother Russia had lost nearly 1 out every 5 Russians, nearly 30 million people and wasn't a nuclear power. In contrast, the US had only lost 400k people and was the only nuclear power. But it didn't. It had another opportunity when the Soviet Union collapsed. Instead, the US offered Russia financial assistance and was still providing Mother Russia with financial assistance right up until Mother Russia began invading and annexing the lands of its neighbors.

Additionally, if the US had dreams of global domination as you have asserted, the US would not have created democracies and self governance in the countries it controlled after WW II as Mother Russia (i.e. the Soviet Union) did to the countries it controlled after WW II.

Here is the your problem, your stated "belief" is nothing more than Russian state controlled propaganda. It has no basis in fact or reason...other than to allow the Russian government to better control its citizens. It's another page book out of Hitler's history. Fascists need an enemy in order to justify and explain away their misdeeds.

So it can, in particular, nicely cooperate with China and India. It has no longer the problem of Soviet Russia which wanted to force its ideology and its economic system on everybody. It doesn't. It does not care if China is confucian or communist, or if Iran is ruled by some Ajatallah or so. They all want to be sovereign states, they all are tired by the US ruling the world, so they are all happy to cooperate with each other, as independent nations, independent on US rule. And what Russia can offer them is, in particular, nice weapons, to defend themself against the US aggression.

Yeah, because Putin's actions have made Mother Russia a pariah state, Mother Russia is desperate for any sovereign friend it can find. But China and India aren't going to be your messiah. China and India will certainly take advantage of Mother Russia in its weakened state. But that doesn't make them friends.

If things continue, if Russia continues to menace its neighbors and doesn't make amends for its past transgressions against its neighbors, then Russia will have little choice but to sell its oil and natural gas products to China at deeply discounted prices. That hurts Mother Russia. As we say in the US, beggars cannot be choosers.

Additionally, if case you haven't noticed the relationship between India and Mother Russia has become rather chilly in recent years whereas the relationship between India and the US has warmed greatly. And both India and China are heavily dependent upon US trade. And let's not forget, there is no love lost between China and Russia. China and Russia have had long standing border disputes which wasn't fully resolved until 2008 which basically gave China everything it wanted. The China-Russia relationship isn't a relationship of equals.

"But the biggest problem of all may be Russia’s irritation with being forced into an increasingly subservient role in its relations with China. For Russia the partnership with China has become painfully necessary. For China it is nice to have, but far from essential." - Economist

http://www.economist.com/news/china...ng-russia-closer-china-relationship-far-equal

If Russia wants to be China's b..ch so be it. It's another sign of Russia weakness.

The US wants to rule the world. This is all they want. Russia is the only state able to retaliate against a US nuclear first strike. China is not yet able to do this - it may become, but is not yet. So, Russia is the main enemy of the US, the only state which prevents its world rule. With control over Russia, it could easily control China, because the US would have control over the oil.

And, given that the Chines are not stupid, and know this, they will not leave Russia alone.

Except the US doesn't want to rule the world. US actions are not and have never been consistent with that motivation. If the US wanted to rule the world, it would have invaded Mother Russia a very long time ago. It wouldn't have given the Philippines its independence. It wouldn't have removed its military facilities when requested to do so. And you have no evidence the US has those motives. What you are doing is mindlessly repeating Russian state propaganda which projects Russia's ambitions onto the US.

What is true is Mother Russia and China are envious of American hegemony and both Russia and China are autocratic states whereas the US is not. If Russia and China want to rival American hegemony then they need to begin to play by new rules. They need to stop playing the "We win and everyone else loses" game. They need to develop trust and playing by international rules, which is something neither nation can do as long as they remain autocratic and opaque and continue to threaten their neighbors.

Additionally, Russia doesn't have first strike nuclear capability. Your assertion is clearly untrue and delusional. It's so delusional, it's a lie. If Mother Russia were to initiate a first strike, few of its missiles would survive and Mother Russia would be a charred wasteland within minutes and hours of an attack. Russia has no way to deliver enough warheads to prevent a retaliatory strike. Russia, doesn't have enough naval assets or the technology to even track much less destroy US ballistic assets or the US Navy surface fleet. You are piling the bullshit on pretty heavy.

PS:
What is your profession? What is it you are hired to do?

 

[Schmelzer]

Except, they are Georgian, and were recognized by Russia as Georgian and Ukrainan.

As if this would make a difference for the Abkhasians and Ossetians. They did not want to be ruled by Georgians, and they were able to defend their freedom from Georgia.

If you are backing off the historical rights Russia has claimed, then don't use that claim.

I don't use any claims to back up any rights of any states for whatever.

Don't refer to the fact Georgia or Ukraine were once part of the Soviet Union, stop making the historical rights claim.

That they were parts of Russia, then of Soviet Union, is a historical fact, and if you make claims incompatible with this fact, I can use this fact. This does not mean that I make any historical rights claims.

You have misrepresented what I wrote, this is what I wrote, "The fact is Georgia and Ukraine have controlled their territories since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

No, Georgia has not, never. Abkhasia as well as South Ossetia have declared independence immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and have never been controlled completely by Georgian troops. Of course, during the independence wars Georgian troops have been inside the territories of above republics, as usual in secessionist wars, but Georgia have never controlled their claimed terrritories.

So are you willing then, if that is what you believe, to condemn Russia's aggression?

I do not see any aggression to condemn.

Are you willing to condemn the Assad government for trying to control rebel territories?

Why should I? No reason.

The fact is the so called so called "rebellions" in Georgia and Ukraine were Russian organized, led, and funded. Many of the so called rebel leaders were in fact Russian State Security officers.

LOL. Russia was neutral in these independence wars. And it was accepted by all sides as a peace force only because it was neutral.

For the 70 years the Soviet Union recognized Georgia's borders.

During the Soviet time, Georgia's borders were simply internal administrative borders. There have been several reconfigurations of these borders, decided in Moscow, for example, giving the Armenian Karabach to Azerbaidshan (by the Georgian Stalin) and giving Crimea to Ukraine (by Ukrainian Chrushtshov), all this without even caring what the locals think about this. So, these borders were simply irrelevant administrative subdivisions.

Russian peace keepers...? That is a euphemism for invasion and occupation troops.

Nonsense. But, once you consider Wikipedia as so very reliable, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sochi_agreement

Russia brokered a ceasefire and negotiated the Agreement in 1992. The agreement primarily established a cease-fire between both the Georgian and South Ossetian forces, but it also defined a zone of conflict around the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali and established a security corridor along the border of the as yet unrecognized South Ossetian territories. The Agreement also created a Joint Control Commission and a peacekeeping body, the Joint Peacekeeping Forces group (JPKF). The JPKF was put under Russian command and was composed of peacekeepers from Georgia, Russia, and North Ossetia (as the separatist South Ossetian government was still unrecognized; South Ossetian peacekeepers, however, served in the North Ossetian contingent). In addition, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) did agree to monitor the ceasefire and to facilitate negotiations.

You claimed the Georgian lands which Russia subsequently annexed were recognized as independent states. As I pointed out, despite Russia's attempt to bribe aid dependent nations to recognize those states, only 3 states have recognized that independence, Mother Russia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. The UN rejected their independence. So again, by omission, you are not being honest.

What matters for Russia is if Russia has acknowledged their independence. Nobody cares about your claims of Russian bribery. You seem to think that it matters very much if other states acknowledge such independence. It matters to these non-acknowledged states and their citizens, because it makes it hard to travel around with South Ossetian passports. But it does not matter for Russia.

Well it was a border which was good for the czars and for 70 years of communist rule, but now all of a sudden it isn't?

Correct, you get it. To use the main ridge of the Causasus as an administrative border is nice for those who rule in above parts, the tsar as well as the communist party. It is not nice for the Ossetian people, who are artificially subdivided into two parts.

Russia couldn't care less...? It obviously cared enough to send its troops.

Of course, Russia does not like it if somebody breaks a ceasefire and kills Russian peacekeeping forces. This is something Russia cares about. It did not care about these republics being diplomatically recognized.

And, no, Russia has not engaged Ukrainian troops. If they would, the Ukrainian civil war would have been finished in two weeks in Kiew.

 

[Schmelzer]

LOL....well you first have to show it is a NATO source before you worry about translation. The fact is, it has been well documented Putin has lied. Putin's explanations have mad him a laughing stock.

I don't have to show anything. You make defamatory claims, you have to prove them. So, please, the transcript of what Putin has said, in Russian and with translation, and we will see. The press conference which your NATO sources have distorted is online.

The fact is Wikipedia is a fine source. You have used it.

That I use a source does not mean that it is a fine source. If a criminal confesses his crime, this confession will be used by the judge, it does not follow that the judge thinks the criminal is a reliable source. Similarly, I can and do cite non-reliable sources too, if I think that in this particular case the claim is plausible.

Yes, it's your opinion when it doesn't back up your assertions.

No, it my opinion in general about wikipedia. You can copy it and use it if you like.

Yeah, whenever a source backs your pro Russian beliefs, then you have no problems with it.

Whenever I think the claim is correct, I have no problem with it. A tautology. Note, I always think for myself, make an own judgement, if a claim is plausible or not. And I never use the reputation of a source itself as a positive argument. (Ok, with the exception that I value a paper published in a peer-reviewed paper higher than an unpublished one. But even this difference is not that important for me.) Reputation works for me only in the other direction - it is easy to loose reputation in my eyes, and claims made by a source which has been already identified as lying have a negative reputation.

Yes, I think you have clearly demonstrated your love of state controlled Russian media and aversion to the free press. Additionally, the issue under discussion isn't violence in Crimea, it's about Mother Russia's illegal invasions and occupation of neighboring states.

The point was that these pro-Russian sources contained already in February information which, according to your defamations, have been denied by Putin, and admitted only later, in April or so. This shows that you have lied.

And, of course, if the Russian army, in agreement with the legal government of Crimea and Sewastopol, as well as the legal president of the Ukraine, helps to protect the order and to prevent violence, this is not an invasion and occupation of a neighbouring state.

Additionally, if the US had dreams of global domination as you have asserted, the US would not have created democracies and self governance in the countries it controlled after WW II as Mother Russia (i.e. the Soviet Union) did to the countries it controlled after WW II.

The US deep state has long ago learned how to control a democracy - the American one. Once they know how to control a democracy, this is a nice way to control other states too. In fact, all you need to control a democracy is media power. And media power you can simply buy - and, if bought, it gives even profit.

But China and India aren't going to be your messiah. China and India will certainly take advantage of Mother Russia in its weakened state. But that doesn't make them friends.

I need no messiah. And the point is not being friends, but cooperating. It is America which likes to take advantage of other states if those are weak. And Russia is weak only in your dreams. It nicely cooperates even with Germany, Northstream II is already signed, despite all the attempts of the US to use the Ukraine to create a trade war of EU against Russia.

"But the biggest problem of all may be Russia’s irritation with being forced into an increasingly subservient role in its relations with China. For Russia the partnership with China has become painfully necessary. For China it is nice to have, but far from essential." - Economist

Nice try, but who cares? China knows, if the US controls Russia, China is finished and will be killed.

Except the US doesn't want to rule the world. US actions are not and have never been consistent with that motivation. If the US wanted to rule the world, it would have invaded Mother Russia a very long time ago. It wouldn't have given the Philippines its independence. It wouldn't have removed its military facilities when requested to do so. And you have no evidence the US has those motives. What you are doing is mindlessly repeating Russian state propaganda which projects Russia's ambitions onto the US.

Your fantasies of easy invasion of Russia have been discussed already, cheap fantasies. Colonies are too expensive, this is what France and England have learned - they have given up their colonies not because they did no longer like to rule the world, but because the costs were too high. The American model of rulership was better, cheaper, more efficient.

If Russia and China want to rival American hegemony then they need to begin to play by new rules. They need to stop playing the "We win and everyone else loses" game.

Typical case of projecting the own weakness to others. Zero game thinking is the American weakness.

Additionally, Russia doesn't have first strike nuclear capability.

I have never claimed it has. Of course, the US would be able to retaliate if Russia would make a first strike. Similarly in the other direction. So, for above sides it would be fatal to start a nuclear war. This is what has preserved peace during the Cold War, and preserves it now.

What is your profession? What is it you are hired to do?

I'm an independent scientist. I have enough to live for myself, without being hired.