Media Frenzy on Crimea

[longknife]

16,000 Russian troops in Ukraine!

Horrors. How dare they?

Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.

Read more @ Russia is allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea?and other facts you didn?t know | tomfernandez28's Blog

And, instead of attacking the messenger, read and then research for yourself whether or not it's correct.

And, here's another read on it from BBC

Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?

Russia says it is acting in Ukraine to protect the human rights of its citizens. But what justification does it have for taking de facto control of Crimea?

Read more @ BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?

And here's a list of Tweets from 65 diplomats, journalists, spies and professionals to help make sense of what's going on in the Ukraine @ Twitter: 65 Diplomats, Journalists, Spies, and Professors Who Will Help You Make Sense of Russia?s Invasion of Ukraine | Blogs of War

 

[oldfart]

16,000 Russian troops in Ukraine!

Horrors. How dare they?

Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.

Read more @ Russia is allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea?and other facts you didn?t know | tomfernandez28's Blog

And, instead of attacking the messenger, read and then research for yourself whether or not it's correct.

And, here's another read on it from BBC

Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?

Russia says it is acting in Ukraine to protect the human rights of its citizens. But what justification does it have for taking de facto control of Crimea?

Read more @ BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?

And here's a list of Tweets from 65 diplomats, journalists, spies and professionals to help make sense of what's going on in the Ukraine @ Twitter: 65 Diplomats, Journalists, Spies, and Professors Who Will Help You Make Sense of Russia?s Invasion of Ukraine | Blogs of War

Of course since Russia claims to have no troops in the Crimea or anywhere else in the Ukraine, the justification for the non-existent troops is moot. It's also interesting that the treaty you note pledges Russia to observe the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and has no mention of any right by Russia to "protect" either Ukrainian or Russian citizens residing in Ukraine, which the Russian government is proclaiming as the reason for their non-existent troops to be in Ukraine. Now I wonder why a government would go to such lengths to create a justification for something they claim they are not doing?

 

[tinydancer]

16,000 Russian troops in Ukraine!

Horrors. How dare they?

Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.

Read more @ Russia is allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea?and other facts you didn?t know | tomfernandez28's Blog

And, instead of attacking the messenger, read and then research for yourself whether or not it's correct.

And, here's another read on it from BBC

Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?

Russia says it is acting in Ukraine to protect the human rights of its citizens. But what justification does it have for taking de facto control of Crimea?

Read more @ BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?

And here's a list of Tweets from 65 diplomats, journalists, spies and professionals to help make sense of what's going on in the Ukraine @ Twitter: 65 Diplomats, Journalists, Spies, and Professors Who Will Help You Make Sense of Russia?s Invasion of Ukraine | Blogs of War

I had a link to the LA times with a statement by John Brennan of the CIA about the existence of this treaty. It's the real deal.

 

[tinydancer]

16,000 Russian troops in Ukraine!

Horrors. How dare they?

Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.

Read more @ Russia is allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea?and other facts you didn?t know | tomfernandez28's Blog

And, instead of attacking the messenger, read and then research for yourself whether or not it's correct.

And, here's another read on it from BBC

Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?

Russia says it is acting in Ukraine to protect the human rights of its citizens. But what justification does it have for taking de facto control of Crimea?

Read more @ BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?

And here's a list of Tweets from 65 diplomats, journalists, spies and professionals to help make sense of what's going on in the Ukraine @ Twitter: 65 Diplomats, Journalists, Spies, and Professors Who Will Help You Make Sense of Russia?s Invasion of Ukraine | Blogs of War

Of course since Russia claims to have no troops in the Crimea or anywhere else in the Ukraine, the justification for the non-existent troops is moot. It's also interesting that the treaty you note pledges Russia to observe the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and has no mention of any right by Russia to "protect" either Ukrainian or Russian citizens residing in Ukraine, which the Russian government is proclaiming as the reason for their non-existent troops to be in Ukraine. Now I wonder why a government would go to such lengths to create a justification for something they claim they are not doing?

Well this first problem you have with your argument is that Russia does not consider the transitional government in Kiev to be legitimate.

This was a coup plain and simple that deposed the lawful President of the UKraine who was elected by Ukrainians.

The opposition forces organized and perpetrated the coup and are constitutionally illegitimate.

And the comments by western nations that after this coup the Ukraine can now return to democracy make me want to bazooka barf.

And I don't even want to hear that Viktor Yanukovych "stole" this election. There were independent observers. He played it straight up this time and won.


Yanukovych set to become president as observers say Ukraine election was fair
• Yulia Tymoshenko under pressure to concede defeat
• Monitors praise 'impressive display' of democracy


Observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) said there were no indications of serious fraud and described the vote as an "impressive display" of democracy.

"For everyone in Ukraine this election was a victory," João Soares, president of the OSCE's parliamentary assembly, said.

With almost all votes counted, the Russian-leaning opposition leader, Viktor Yanukovych, had a clear 2.65% lead over Tymoshenko.

Yanukovych set to become president as observers say Ukraine election was fair | World news | The Guardian

 

[whitehall]

It didn't seem like much of a frenzy, merely a bland reporting of an important story.

 

[tinydancer]

By the way, it has been reported that Putin said he didn't have any troops in Crimea. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

From the pro Obama newspaper comes the truth of what he said.

But he asserted that the troops wearing unmarked uniforms in Ukraine’s Crimea region are members of local self-defense groups — not Russian forces, as observers on the scene have said.

Of course he has troops in Crimea. It is home to the Black Sea fleet. And those troops are lawfully there. BUT and this is a big but he said he hasn't had to send in more troops.

I'm still trying to figure out this "naked agression". And "invading like Hitler".

Putin says he reserves right to protect Russians in Ukraine - The Washington Post

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Manchester]

What have these troops actually done in Crimea? Reports I have read say that they have secured the black sea, taken the 2 airports and surrounded the Ukraine army base in the area. So if Russia sees what has happened as a coup which is what it certainly looks like then what he has done is he has deployed troops in a deniable manner but to stop any troop movements in to the area, troops who would be under the command of a governement that wasn't democratically elected and in a semi automonous region where 40% of people are ethnically Russian.

If you look at how many far right and neo nazi groups were involved in the Ukraine uprising then a small deployment of forces to protect a large ethnic minority that they are likley to be unfriendly to seems not unreasonable. Although I'm not sure how happy I'd be if unmarked troops that I knew to be under the control of The Butcher of Grozny were at the end of my yard.

 

[Decus]

.

All this talk of coup is just wrong. The parliament that was democratically elected ousted an extremely corrupt president that had bankrupted the country and ordered the killing of citizens.

Ukraine's parliament was democratically elected - this same body took measures to protect Ukraine. There was no coup.

"Ukraine recently ousted its corrupt dictator, so many assume that the interim government is inexperienced and without democratic legitimacy. However, that narrative simply doesn’t fit the facts."

"The truth is that Yanukovych’s own party turned against him. The Parliament today is made up of the same members as it was a before the revolution (besides a handful that are now on the run). Interim President Turchynov and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk are both former cabinet ministers and capable, experienced politicians and diplomats."

How The Western Press Is Getting It Terribly Wrong In Ukraine - Forbes

"In December the crowds grew larger. By the end of the year, millions of people had taken part in protests, all over the country. Journalists were beaten. Individual activists were abducted. Some of them were tortured. Dozens disappeared and have not yet been found."

"On January 16, Yanukovych signed a series of laws that had been “passed” through parliament, entirely illegally, by a minority using only a show of hands. These laws, introduced by pro-Russian legislators and similar to Russian models, severely constrained the freedom of speech and assembly, making of millions of protesters “extremists” who could be imprisoned."

"On February 20, an EU delegation was supposed to arrive to negotiate a truce. Instead, the regime orchestrated a bloodbath. The riot police fell back from some of the Maidan. When protesters followed, they were shot by snipers who had taken up positions on rooftops. Again and again people ran out to try to rescue the wounded, and again and again they were shot."

"As specialists in Russian and Ukrainian nationalism have been predicting for weeks, the claim that the Ukrainian revolution is a “nationalist coup,” as Yanukovych, in Russian exile, said on Friday, has become a pretext for Russian intervention."

"Thus far the new Ukrainian authorities have reacted with remarkable calm. It is entirely possible that a Russian attack on Ukraine will provoke a strong nationalist reaction: indeed, it would be rather surprising if it did not, since invasions have a way of bringing out the worst in people. If this is what does happen, we should see events for what they are: an entirely unprovoked attack by one nation upon the sovereign territory of another."

Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda by Timothy Snyder | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

Take the time to look at the facts. You may be surprised. One thing however is clear - Russian propaganda is hard to beat.

.

 

[Old Rocks]

Were there any moves on the part of Ukranians to interfere with, or change the operation of the Russian bases in Crimea? Were there any acts against Russian speaking citizens there? And if Putin believed that the Ukranians were about to make such moves, why did he not publically ask for clarification of their intentions? After all, there are more Russian forces in the area than Ukranian.

No, this is an attempt to recreate the old Russian and Soviet Empire. One that must be resisted for the sake of all of us, including the Russians. The 'Conservatives' in the US that are supporting Russia against our own nation in this matter, simply because they think that anything that might cause President Obama embarrassment is good, are insanely juvenile.