Russia invades Ukraine - confirmed
- Thread starter Beanie Girl
- Start date
I wouldn't exactly call it an invasion. Crimean militia have taken control of their local area from the national government and Russia has sent in a small force to protect their stationed military assets there - which Ukraine and Russia have current agreements to allow.
Now that the Olympics are over it's time for action in Ukraine, good on the Russians. The US has been invading countries none stop, Putin is the only leader in the world that stands up to them. U.S won't dare get in the way.
Russia has been busy making money selling gas and building its military in the region, good luck to any country getting in it's way while it's protecting it's interests.
Russia has been busy making money selling gas and building its military in the region, good luck to any country getting in it's way while it's protecting it's interests.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just checking the financial money markets ,and the metal markets Gold is just sitting there ,,if one runs the last 50 year statistics backwards and look for the biggest one day moves in world wide stock markets something like this can go way above or below standard deviations..
Whenever there is an international event like this, it's always good to read the other side of the story.
rt.com is Russia's #1 news channel. Obviously biased towards Russian interests, but great to read in conjunction with our US biased media.
The Ukraine is a pretty dire place. Some have described as the closest example of a failed state. The current politications were ex-gangsters. You could imagine Bikies in suits.
Rt.com 'version' of the story.
Very different to what we hear in our media.
The truth usually is somewhere in between.
P.S. Joke of the day:
"The US Secretary of State spoke today of the unacceptability of invading a sovereign country on phony pretexts in order to assert one?s own interests in the 21st century. But no, he was not speaking about the United States, as one might have thought.
?You just don?t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,? John Kerry said during an interview with NBC?s Meet the Press. ?This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It?s really 19th century behaviour in the 21st century.?"
...ummm, you mean like Iraq?
rt.com is Russia's #1 news channel. Obviously biased towards Russian interests, but great to read in conjunction with our US biased media.
The Ukraine is a pretty dire place. Some have described as the closest example of a failed state. The current politications were ex-gangsters. You could imagine Bikies in suits.
Rt.com 'version' of the story.
- A US/EU supported government was undemocratically installed to bring 'peace' and 'normalcy' to the country.
- The mostly pro Russian people reject this government and are protesting in force, raising Russian flags over many key government buildings.
- Russia is trying to both stablise and protect it's interests in the area.
Very different to what we hear in our media.
The truth usually is somewhere in between.
P.S. Joke of the day:
"The US Secretary of State spoke today of the unacceptability of invading a sovereign country on phony pretexts in order to assert one?s own interests in the 21st century. But no, he was not speaking about the United States, as one might have thought.
?You just don?t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,? John Kerry said during an interview with NBC?s Meet the Press. ?This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It?s really 19th century behaviour in the 21st century.?"
...ummm, you mean like Iraq?
This almost reads like like it's inspired by Tom Clancy's latest book, "Command Authority", published 2013.
You could also argue that the ending of his book, "Debt of Honor", inspired the 9/11 attacks using airlines.
You could also argue that the ending of his book, "Debt of Honor", inspired the 9/11 attacks using airlines.
Well Abbott and Shorty Shorten have given Putin a ticking off today, so I'm sure we'll see withdrawal of Russian troops in the next 48 hours.
basically what happened there is a coup led by opposition, supported by US government.
there is a recording on the net of a conversation between two USA government officials openly discussing who from the opposition should take which positions in government after revolution is successful.
the problem is that ukraine is traditionally divided between russian speaking south-east and ukrainian north-west
this "revolution" was mainly driven by people from west, a lot of which are nationalist radicals.
part of their election policies was total ukrainisation of everyone, with some extreme things being mentioned like banning russian speaking people from voting.
so while there was general support for removal of the corrupt government, there was much less support of how it was done, and also of who came to power.
also one of the first things new government did was to repeal the laws which gave russian a status of 'regional' language.
when the country economy is on a brink of collapse and one of the first things they do is introduce language laws, naturally this makes a lot of people in the south east worried.
Crimea is a different story altogether. it was gifted to ukraine in 1956 i think, so majority of population there is russian, and it was never really ukrainian anyway.
currently it has a status of Autonomous Republic, but it's powers have been stripped over the years by the central govrnment, which made a lot of people unhappy.
the people of Crimea refused to acknowledge the new government, and decided to hold a referendum on what to do next.
russian forces are there to protect russian naval bases, as well as ordinary people from the nationalistic militia from the west.
in my opinion, if west stops stirring the situation, it will all end with Crimea voting for greater autonomy, while still remaining part of ukraine, and it will all quiet down. if USA and EU keeps destabilizing situation - ukraine will probably split into two or 3 parts, as there is already a lot of talk in other south-east regions about greater independence.
there is a recording on the net of a conversation between two USA government officials openly discussing who from the opposition should take which positions in government after revolution is successful.
the problem is that ukraine is traditionally divided between russian speaking south-east and ukrainian north-west
this "revolution" was mainly driven by people from west, a lot of which are nationalist radicals.
part of their election policies was total ukrainisation of everyone, with some extreme things being mentioned like banning russian speaking people from voting.
so while there was general support for removal of the corrupt government, there was much less support of how it was done, and also of who came to power.
also one of the first things new government did was to repeal the laws which gave russian a status of 'regional' language.
when the country economy is on a brink of collapse and one of the first things they do is introduce language laws, naturally this makes a lot of people in the south east worried.
Crimea is a different story altogether. it was gifted to ukraine in 1956 i think, so majority of population there is russian, and it was never really ukrainian anyway.
currently it has a status of Autonomous Republic, but it's powers have been stripped over the years by the central govrnment, which made a lot of people unhappy.
the people of Crimea refused to acknowledge the new government, and decided to hold a referendum on what to do next.
russian forces are there to protect russian naval bases, as well as ordinary people from the nationalistic militia from the west.
in my opinion, if west stops stirring the situation, it will all end with Crimea voting for greater autonomy, while still remaining part of ukraine, and it will all quiet down. if USA and EU keeps destabilizing situation - ukraine will probably split into two or 3 parts, as there is already a lot of talk in other south-east regions about greater independence.
oh and here are some pictures of russian "invasion"
https://twitter.com/vezhlivo
compare that to "liberation" of iraq and afghanistan
https://twitter.com/vezhlivo
compare that to "liberation" of iraq and afghanistan
Not sure if this post of serious or not.... Call the US what you want but how on earth do you rate Putin as a hero? Perhaps you've been watching too many of his bare chested, horse riding, gun toting 'hero clips' on Youtube?
He was nominated for a Noble Peace Prize over his role in bringing about a peaceful resolution to the Syrian-U.S. dispute over chemical weapons.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...in-nominated-nobel-peace-prize/#ixzz2uwvIfQ9Q
Imagine what would be going on right now if the US had launched several hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles it had ready to go at Syria? - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-missiles-likely-in-u-s-strikes-on-syria.html ?? Worst case could it have led to an all out war between Iran and Israel?
I would call him a hero in this particular incident. Takes a lot of balls to stand up to the US.
DaveMc you realise that article says he was nominated by a Russian advocacy group - no favouritism there I wouldn't have thought. It's ironic that you're using Putin's Noble Peace Price nomination as justification for his hero status for standing up to the big bad US when the US president actually won one a couple of years ago... Not defending the US here, just making a point.
And don't think he's standing up to the US because he's concerned for the citizens of Syria, he's standing up to them a) to make things difficult for the US on the world stage, b) because Russia has strong financial interests in Syria, and c) the more dictators in power around the world the better for Putin - they have a tendency to stick together. Nothing to do with him being a hero.
Have a look at Putin's human rights record and tell me if you still call him a hero. Have a look at his stance on homosexuals. Have a look at the number of conflicts Russia has been involved in while he's been in politics. If 5% of what he is accused of is true then I'd say he's a monster, not a hero.
I agree, Putin is a tyrant who cares little about human rights. What a joke, effectively nominating yourself for a Nobel Peace Prize while continuing to supply weapons so Syria so it can continue killing it's own citizens.
Look whats happens to Putins political enemies all the time, sent off to the Gulag on trumped up charges.
He stands up to the US any time not giving a damn what terrorist obama has to say. Most of the Russian population love him besides the western brainwashed individuals. What most don't understand is Ukraine is Russia's playground do you seriously think Russia will just sit back and watch how the American/European sponsored Maidan will just get rid of a legitimate voted president? Russia has interests in Ukraine and has for over 100 years, it will do anything to protect it's citizens and interests.
This is what Obama and CO have done since 2000, you can include bush in that years as well.
* Invaded Iraq for no reason
* Invaded Afghanistan for no reason ( most of the hijackers were from Saudia Arabia but we can't target them since oil is there)
* Invaded Libya
* Supporting Terrorists in Syria which has no become a civil war
* Stirring up Iran
* Getting involved in Ukraine and sponsoring the opposition
These are just a few things that has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the name of democracy. If you remember last year Obama tried to play that ''chemical weapons'' bull again in Syria, only for Putin to come and say Syria will dis-arm no need to get involved and bomb it, Smart leader.
Only problem is........Western Media make out Putin as the bad guy wrecking havoc. Putin isn't scared of US/EU, if they put sanctions on him next year in winter most of Europe will pay 3x more for gas good luck.
"You just don't in the 21st century behave in a 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext," says US Secretary of State John Kerry.
Vietnam
Iraq
Iran
Pakistan
Syria
List goes on.
Yes, that's why I added 'in this particular incident', which was the most dangerous and significant incident in the last year.
I'm not saying he's an angel, I'm just saying it's good to question what is presented to us in our mainstream media and form our views based on multiple sources (and being aware of the various biases).
If anything, I am saying they all just as bad as each other - with all the civilian deaths in the Afghan and Iraq wars, the torture of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Guantanamo bay, NSA spying scandal, etc are we the bigger monster? If Edward Snowden seeks political asylum from the US in Russia, you know things are a bit dire...
Thanks for raising the Russian / homosexual debate as well. Most people don't actually know what precisely Russia's stance was on it. The way it was presented to us in our media was almost as if gays were being burned at the stake. I also heard someone say that they had banned gay athletes from competing (which was untrue). I'm sure there were a few heated protests where some violence occurred but you have that in America all the time (extreme Christians protested at gay soldiers funerals, horrible stuff).
The law was that homosexuality should not be promoted to children. Personally, even though I have close gay friends and work colleagues, I don't think it's completely insane (I'm sure that will raise a few eyebrows - until people bother themselves to learn what their stance actually was). Some of it may be lost in translation, but 'being able to practice' and 'promoting' are two different things. I'm not 100% sure exactly which it is, but I don't think anything of a sexual nature should be promoted to children - homosexuality or heterosexuality. I'm sounding old school here but I reckon let's just let kids be kids. Knowing that it's OK to be gay is one thing (and a good thing!) but actively promoting homosexuality (as the 'fashionable' choice) is another.
Why do I think this way? I have a friend who is a sex psychologist who deals with many 14-18 year olds who have gender identity issues (not knowing if they are really a man or a woman, or gay or straight). The poor kids are really confused, some of them to the point of being depressed and/or anxious about 'what they should be' to be cool or accepted. No doubt our media contributes to some of this confusion. I should probably add that this close friend of mine is a lesbian.
Even in my Uni days there was a song by the Bloodhoung Gang 'I wish I was queer so I could get chicks' (it was a song about how being gay is so popular that these guys were considering to pretend to be gay in order to attract women). I also heard of a unusual statistic about the low % of gay couples who actually engage in sex (which confuses me, because I thought that was the definition, the actual intercourse part, not the other lifestyle things we relate to gay people?). I've also heard quite a few young women in their 20's say things like 'Wow, Mike isn't gay? I so thought he was!'.
My best guess is homosexuality is genetically determined and a certain % of the population are born gay (I've heard 10%). These people need and deserve support and understanding of their orientation. It's not my lifestyle, but I respect it is others and feel compassion for past discrimination they have experienced.
I'm not saying he's an angel, I'm just saying it's good to question what is presented to us in our mainstream media and form our views based on multiple sources (and being aware of the various biases).
If anything, I am saying they all just as bad as each other - with all the civilian deaths in the Afghan and Iraq wars, the torture of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Guantanamo bay, NSA spying scandal, etc are we the bigger monster? If Edward Snowden seeks political asylum from the US in Russia, you know things are a bit dire...
Thanks for raising the Russian / homosexual debate as well. Most people don't actually know what precisely Russia's stance was on it. The way it was presented to us in our media was almost as if gays were being burned at the stake. I also heard someone say that they had banned gay athletes from competing (which was untrue). I'm sure there were a few heated protests where some violence occurred but you have that in America all the time (extreme Christians protested at gay soldiers funerals, horrible stuff).
The law was that homosexuality should not be promoted to children. Personally, even though I have close gay friends and work colleagues, I don't think it's completely insane (I'm sure that will raise a few eyebrows - until people bother themselves to learn what their stance actually was). Some of it may be lost in translation, but 'being able to practice' and 'promoting' are two different things. I'm not 100% sure exactly which it is, but I don't think anything of a sexual nature should be promoted to children - homosexuality or heterosexuality. I'm sounding old school here but I reckon let's just let kids be kids. Knowing that it's OK to be gay is one thing (and a good thing!) but actively promoting homosexuality (as the 'fashionable' choice) is another.
Why do I think this way? I have a friend who is a sex psychologist who deals with many 14-18 year olds who have gender identity issues (not knowing if they are really a man or a woman, or gay or straight). The poor kids are really confused, some of them to the point of being depressed and/or anxious about 'what they should be' to be cool or accepted. No doubt our media contributes to some of this confusion. I should probably add that this close friend of mine is a lesbian.
Even in my Uni days there was a song by the Bloodhoung Gang 'I wish I was queer so I could get chicks' (it was a song about how being gay is so popular that these guys were considering to pretend to be gay in order to attract women). I also heard of a unusual statistic about the low % of gay couples who actually engage in sex (which confuses me, because I thought that was the definition, the actual intercourse part, not the other lifestyle things we relate to gay people?). I've also heard quite a few young women in their 20's say things like 'Wow, Mike isn't gay? I so thought he was!'.
My best guess is homosexuality is genetically determined and a certain % of the population are born gay (I've heard 10%). These people need and deserve support and understanding of their orientation. It's not my lifestyle, but I respect it is others and feel compassion for past discrimination they have experienced.
John_ I asked why you rate Putin as a hero and you just bang on about why you hate US.
Invading a defenceless country is not "standing up to the US", it's invading a defenceless country, don't make it out to be some sort of crusade to help the oppressed people of Ukraine. Putin is no saint, neither is the US Gov. You said it yourself Putin is simply protecting Russia's financial interests, he's doing the exact thing that you've criticised the US of doing.
I wouldn't call it an invasion either.
Why do you think it is Jackbak? Could you please share the source of this information?
To me the words 'hero' and 'Putin' are mutually exclusive. He's never been a hero and he wasn't a hero when he tried to protect the Syrian governemnt, he was doing it for his own self interests.
Not really, your enemy's enemy is your best friend, it's natural for Snowden to seek asylum in Russia. How many Russians have or have tried to seek asylum in the US over the years?
You've got to be brave to defend Russia's gay rights record...
You sound like you got the straight off the United Russia website. When you read it like that it sounds harmless - don't promote gay sex to kids. The problem is - what constitutes the promotion of homosexual activity? - two gay people kissing in public or holding hands while a child can see you, or maybe having a discussion about gay right with teenagers? From the doco's I've seen, you don't want to be gay in Russia.
