Arming the Ukrainians

[Spud]

Bullshit. The only people shelling civilians on purpose are the Russians.

The AFU have been fighting from residential areas without first evacuating civilians, thus the civilians are effectively human shields.

[Maeght]

Did Ukrainians have the authority to force Yanukovich out without due process? The Donbass regions responded accordingly.

I think I've posted the video below before: it's an interview with Alexander Khodakovsky, who is former commander of Ukraine's Alpha special unit of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBUl now commander of the Donetsk People's Republic's "Vostok" Battalion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOl7Yy7ljwo&t=940s

He explains how the conflict began.

He is pro-Russian and gives his opinion of how it started. Do you know his view is accurate?

[Dicky Underpants]

The AFU have been fighting from residential areas without first evacuating civilians, thus the civilians are effectively human shields.

So the Ukrainians are supposed to politely say to the Russians "Please let us evacuate all our civilians. Then you can start bombing and shelling us, if that's all right by you." As if the Russians gave a monkey's toss whether there were civilians there or not.

[ad_orientem]

Did Ukrainians have the authority to force Yanukovich out without due process? The Donbass regions responded accordingly.

I think I've posted the video below before: it's an interview with Alexander Khodakovsky, who is former commander of Ukraine's Alpha special unit of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBUl now commander of the Donetsk People's Republic's "Vostok" Battalion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOl7Yy7ljwo&t=940s

He explains how the conflict began.

LOL! Paedo Scott Ritter spreading Kremlin bullshit again.

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting stuff about the pipeline sabotage.


https://archive.vn/BUCIs

[Outrider]

The AFU have been fighting from residential areas without first evacuating civilians, thus the civilians are effectively human shields.

They're sat in their own homes whilst a foreign power bombs them you Moderator: direct insult removed. They aren't 'human shields' they're THE TARGET OF INDISCRIMINATE BOMBING BY A HOSTILE POWER.

How the hell can we have a shortage of tomatoes when you're spouting this much fertiliser.

O.

[ad_orientem]

Interesting stuff about the pipeline sabotage.


https://archive.vn/BUCIs

It was NAFO. I provided the saw!

[Spud]

So the Ukrainians are supposed to politely say to the Russians "Please let us evacuate all our civilians. Then you can start bombing and shelling us, if that's all right by you." As if the Russians gave a monkey's toss whether there were civilians there or not.

Video from the initial invasion showed the Russian soldiers trying to avoid hurting civilians.

[ad_orientem]

Video from the initial invasion showed the Russian soldiers trying to avoid hurting civilians.

[Spud]

He is pro-Russian and gives his opinion of how it started. Do you know his view is accurate?

His account from the first 15 minutes agrees with evidence such as Victoria Nuland's phone call to the US ambassador in Kiev  discussing who they would get to replace Yanukovich.

[Maeght]

His account from the first 15 minutes agrees with evidence such as Victoria Nuland's phone call to the US ambassador in Kiev  discussing who they would get to replace Yanukovich.

Or who they would prefer to replace Yanukovich.

[Spud]

Or who they would prefer to replace Yanukovich.

Russia saw it as interference; Sergei Glazyev called it, "unilaterally and crudely interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs" - a breach of the Budapest Memorandum whereby the US was required to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity jointly with Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-russia-glazyev-idUKBREA150XA20140206

I looked through George Eliason's videos and one of his first from 2014 was this one which attempts to prove that some Maidan protestors were armed and shooting at 'Berkot' police, leading special forces snipers to return fire:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-russia-glazyev-idUKBREA150XA20140206

[Dicky Underpants]

Russia saw it as interference; Sergei Glazyev called it, "unilaterally and crudely interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs" - a breach of the Budapest Memorandum whereby the US was required to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity jointly with Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-russia-glazyev-idUKBREA150XA20140206

Oh, the irony of it!

[Dicky Underpants]

Oh, the irony of it!

To clarify my above comment, please refer to point 2 of the Budapest Memorandum.

[Maeght]

Russia saw it as interference; Sergei Glazyev called it, "unilaterally and crudely interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs" - a breach of the Budapest Memorandum whereby the US was required to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity jointly with Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-russia-glazyev-idUKBREA150XA20140206

I looked through George Eliason's videos and one of his first from 2014 was this one which attempts to prove that some Maidan protestors were armed and shooting at 'Berkot' police, leading special forces snipers to return fire:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-russia-glazyev-idUKBREA150XA20140206

Of course Russia did because they want to control Ukraine and keep it in their 'sphere of influence'.

[Spud]

To clarify my above comment, please refer to point 2 of the Budapest Memorandum.

Unless I've misunderstood something, the Right Sector organisation turned Russia's commitment not to use force against Ukraine into a license to mistreat people who were pro-closer ties with Russia.
And if the other agreements are broken, such as the US trying to influence the democratic process, that nullifies the agreement anyway.

Of course Russia did because they want to control Ukraine and keep it in their 'sphere of influence'.

Looking at "Ukraine on Fire" again, at 28:10 (see also the preceding few minutes) Putin says "We said, 'of course, if Ukraine has come to this decision (to have a trade agreement with the EU), this is it's choice and we respect this choice. But we don't have to pay for it' ". He's refering to the fact that the two countries already had a unique economic relationship, thus the EU deal would leave Russia's customs border wide open to EU goods without any negotiations. Yanukovich and co. realised that they would lose this economic relationship if they signed the agreement with the EU. If this is true then it means Russia was willing to let Ukraine go, but that would not be economical for Ukraine, as it would lead to a trade barrier between it and Russia.

[ad_orientem]

Unless I've misunderstood something, the Right Sector organisation turned Russia's commitment not to use force against Ukraine into a license to mistreat people who were pro-closer ties with Russia.
And if the other agreements are broken, such as the US trying to influence the democratic process, that nullifies the agreement anyway.

Another name for you: Vladislav Surkov.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surkov_leaks

[Maeght]

Unless I've misunderstood something, the Right Sector organisation turned Russia's commitment not to use force against Ukraine into a license to mistreat people who were pro-closer ties with Russia.
And if the other agreements are broken, such as the US trying to influence the democratic process, that nullifies the agreement anyway.
Looking at "Ukraine on Fire" again, at 28:10 (see also the preceding few minutes) Putin says "We said, 'of course, if Ukraine has come to this decision (to have a trade agreement with the EU), this is it's choice and we respect this choice. But we don't have to pay for it' ". He's refering to the fact that the two countries already had a unique economic relationship, thus the EU deal would leave Russia's customs border wide open to EU goods without any negotiations. Yanukovich and co. realised that they would lose this economic relationship if they signed the agreement with the EU. If this is true then it means Russia was willing to let Ukraine go, but that would not be economical for Ukraine, as it would lead to a trade barrier between it and Russia.

Let Ukraine go?

[Spud]

Another name for you: Vladislav Surkov.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surkov_leaks

Thanks. This seems to have happened around the same time as the Nuland/US ambassador in Kiev phonecall, when the US were also trying to influence Ukrainian politics.
What started this tug of war?

[Spud]

Let Ukraine go?

Allow it to forfeit (if that's the right word) the economic relationship it had with Russia in favour of closer EU ties.

[jeremyp]

Did Ukrainians have the authority to force Yanukovich out without due process? The Donbass regions responded accordingly.

I think I've posted the video below before: it's an interview with Alexander Khodakovsky, who is former commander of Ukraine's Alpha special unit of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBUl now commander of the Donetsk People's Republic's "Vostok" Battalion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOl7Yy7ljwo&t=940s

He explains how the conflict began.

We know how the conflict began. Russia invaded a sovereign country.

[jeremyp]

The AFU have been fighting from residential areas without first evacuating civilians, thus the civilians are effectively human shields.

1. Russia is deliberately targeting civilians
2. The AFU wouldn't have to fight at all if Russia hadn't invaded in the first place.

[jeremyp]

Video from the initial invasion showed the Russian soldiers trying to avoid hurting civilians.

Do you understand what the bit I highlighted in bold actually means? It's means Russia invaded Ukraine. They didn't have to, but they did. Nobody asked them to invade. Nobody forced them to invade. Russia could stop the bloodshed tomorrow by withdrawing from Ukraine. They won't do it though because Putin's job is more important to him than the lives of Ukrainians and Russians.

[jeremyp]

Allow it to forfeit (if that's the right word) the economic relationship it had with Russia in favour of closer EU ties.

Would would Ukraine want an economic relationship with the murdering bastards that invaded it? Not only that, but Russia's economy is in the toilet thanks to sanctions imposed on it for containing a lot of murdering bastards. Nobody in Ukraine wants anything to do with Russia ever again.

[Spud]

Would would Ukraine want an economic relationship with the murdering bastards that invaded it? Not only that, but Russia's economy is in the toilet thanks to sanctions imposed on it for containing a lot of murdering bastards. Nobody in Ukraine wants anything to do with Russia ever again.

Was talking about pre-2014 economic ties