Is Russia about to push toward Kiev?

No, that's what happened. The rest is all just Russia lies and propaganda. RT and Russia are the masters of propaganda since the USSR fell.

 

Thats not what EU Ministers think happened.

 

The Crimeans will be voting on whether they want to be independent or part of Russia. What they don't want is to be under the government in Kiev. The voting will be watched over by the U.S. and some Europeans nations. More than likely they will want to be part of Russia, I mean let's face it, the majority of the people are Russian.

As for the Russian troops, I know there have been threats about the election, and I wonder if those threats might be against the Russians in Ukraine? The volunteer army in Kiev consists of 'nationalists' from Western Ukraine so they might start killing and trying to ethnically cleanse the Russians...which in my opinion is not very smart.

 

Hmmm! Now wouldn't it be smart if some of our own newscasters would start quitting their job because of all the pro Western propaganda.

 

I know the two women who condemned Russia were not Russian. The first one who said it was wrong for Russia to invade was ignored, because she had voiced the same thing whenever the U.S. invaded. The other one who did it blatantly when on TV makes me wonder if she had been bribed? It seems very suspicious.

 

They wont leave Crimea. They will just flood it with forces the second their faux annex happens.

 

Actually they are lying, because the agreement with Ukraine says that Russia can have up to twenty five thousand troops in Crimea. Don't believe everything you read in newspapers of English speaking nations, because they all have the same geo political agendas. This doesn't mean that newspapers of non English speaking people are going to be accurate, but at least you will get a different viewpoint, and you can pick out the facts from there.

 

I'm not suggesting anything. You were making a claim, and I was trying to find out what you mean when you say "overt", which I did.

And you don't have to include links for every fact you state.. If I'm sceptical then I'll just look it up.

Many other countries pardon horrible crimes.. The USA pardoned people for torturing people to death, murdering civilians, they are even pardoning AQ in Syria, not stopping them as they conduct genocide and try to take over the whole country to install a Sharia caliphate.

I never said I support anything. What I said was, what is happening in Crimea is still a hell of a lot better than what happened in Kiev.

So "laughable joke", like I said, is not an argument.. Go back and tell me how you know that no Parliament members were influenced in any way even though there was a new sheriff in town.

No, it's more like you are saying that everything is above board, meaning that absolutely none of them could have their consideration affected based on who is in charge of the entire country now all of a sudden!

Which is it, a plurality or a majority? What's the average?

It's not even relevant anyway, as this was before all hell break loose. You say that it's only now that a fight back occurs. How does the public support it when they let loose with molatovs? Would you allow this in your own hometown? Do you want your own president removed by an armed militia, who, along with much more atrocious crimes, had his NYPD, and other PD's, club a bunch of OWS kids? Would you support OWS if the next day they started attacking cops back, clubbing them even worse than they were, bombing them with incendiaries? Would you support that? Would it be constitutional?

So? That couldn't affect the Sunday vote, could it?

It was not constitutional.. if you look at the Constitution, and you even posted this before, the procedure calls for having the vote, and then, AFTER the yes vote, eject him from power. Not taking over violently using firebombs and guns, driving the sitting president out of his own office and take it over, then have a vote. How about answering my question: what would be the point of voting for the old president? Or even having the vote? What were they going to do if they voted to keep the president, run and fetch him back?

 

RT is one slanted and bent network. But it's no worse than any others. On TV I've recently seen BBC, SKY, ITV, 4, ABC and CBS world news, AJ and RT International...only on line articles from Fox and CNN. The only difference with RT is they are bent in the other direction. That doesn't mean the news on any of them is necessarily useless; you just have to treat them as a secondary source and instead of considering the network, consider the sources of their information. And just tune out when they inject their opinion. BBC and RT are the two worst for that. That's what the pundits are for.

 

Some rioters were saying they got paid to take to the streets, so if people would do that for cash. There were foreigners among "the Ukrainian people" as well.

 

The Western Alliance has no right to do what they are doing to multiple sovereign countries, so as long as they sanction themselves first. Russia invaded after the West demonstrated how it was done so many times before. Russia didn't really follow the example too well though, as they have yet to kill anybody.

 

Exactly. These people planted chaos and upheavel in the first place, they can accept all the (*)(*)(*)(*) that comes along with it. Kinda like how Israel keeps conquering new land and killing the unarmed natives, but then whine and cry when they suffer retaliation.

 

Sovereignty is derived from the people not the state, the countries you are referring to were totalitarian dictatorships one and all even more authoritarian than Putin's Russia (and that's saying something) and the west is and was supporting popular mass revolts against these tyrannies of the minority, the assertion that this was analogous to an invasion of the sovereign territory of a liberal democracy and the annexation of said territory based on a referendum under military occupation is laughable. For the life of me I can't understand some peoples support for overtly authoritarian regimes to the detriment of the citizenry and fellow liberal democracies. If this was 1939 you would be supporting the annexation of the Sudetenland on humanitarian grounds, it's a farcical.

 

Stuff your propaganda straight from the Kremlin's ministry of propaganda, the current government of the Ukraine was installed by the Ukrainian people in free and fair elections in 2012 and derives its authority exclusively from the Ukrainian Constitution which grants the Parliament the right to impeach. Furthermore; entrance into the EU was in the Ukrainian peoples interests but I suppose you know better than a large plurality if not the outright majority of the Ukrainian citizenry who supported that entrance. And once again it was Russia's trade war in response to the Ukrainians right to self determination which started all of this, it was Russian foreign policy which drove this situation from the very beginning. Just have to love the cynical apologetics for the invasion of the sovereign territory of a liberal Constitutional democracy by an authoritarian regime and its annexation through a "referendum" under military occupation.

 

Abby whatsername - the first one - clearly had editorial control to say what she really thought. This is something that is unthinkable as far as the BBC is concerned. Had, for example, a BBC journalist been openly critical of the UK governments intervention in say Iraq live on air, there is not a chance in hell that the said journalist would have remained in his job.

 

A bit more complicated yes, at first Yanukovich was to join the EU but then the Russians instituted a trade war through a full embargo of Ukrainian goods which is a move generally reserved for countries guilty of war crimes and sponsoring international terrorism, then a large plurality (if not an outright majority) of Ukrainian citizens refusing to give into the economic warfare of the Russian Federation took to the streets in their support of entrance into the EU exercising their inalienable rights to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances, and then on November 30th they were violently dispersed and those responsible were granted amnesty by Yanukovich as proof positive that responsibility for these crimes against the Ukrainian people lies ultimately with him, which in turn led to his Constitutionally mandated impeachment under Article 112 by the duly elected Ukrainian Parliament.

 

You've been brainwashed and blinded by Western propaganda.

 

Well nevermind your straw man about what I thought back then if I had a working time machine, what we do know is that you right now, if you support the USA foreign policy, then that involves helping AQ.. So why are they not as bad of an enemy, considering they are the only official enemies in a declared war, while Assad is not.

And once again, I never said I supported the Russian's actions.

And do you have polls to show that those regime changes were all popular?

 

Spare me your nonsense straight from the Kremlin's Ministry of Propaganda, the facts have been presented, they are unequivocal, and you have no rebuttal.

 

The West good, Russia baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad......We get it.

 

Abject nonsense, the Free Syrian Army is not AQ.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), you've been Parroting the Kremlin's party line throughout all of these threads.

Yes:

Support for Euromaidan in Ukraine
Opposition leaders, December 8, 2013

According to an 4 to 9 December 2013 study[121] by Research & Branding Group 49% of all Ukrainians supported Euromaidan and 45% had the opposite opinion. It was mostly supported in West (84%) and Central Ukraine (66%). A third (33%) of residents of South Ukraine and 13% of residents of Eastern Ukraine supported Euromaidan as well. The percentage of people who do not support the protesters was in East Ukraine 81%, in South Ukraine 60%[nb 9], in Central Ukraine 27% and in Western Ukraine 11%. Polls have shown that two-thirds of Kievans support the ongoing protests.[124]

A poll conducted by the Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Fund and Razumkov Center, between 20 and 24 December, showed more than 50% of Ukrainians supporting the Euromaidan protests, while 42% opposing it.[123]

Another Research & Branding Group survey (conducted from 23 to 27 December) showed that 50% of Ukrainians don't support Euromaidan, while 45% did support it.[122] 43% of those polled thought that Euromaidan's consequences "sooner could be negative", while 31% of the respondents thought the opposite; 17% believed that Euromaidan would bring no negative consequences.[122]

An Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation survey of protesters conducted 7 and 8 December 2013 found that 92% of those who came to Kiev from across Ukraine came on their own initiative, 6.3% was organised by a public movement, and 1.8% were organised by a party.[5][283] 70% said they came to protest the police brutality of 30 November, and 54% to protest in support of the European Union Association Agreement signing. Among their demands, 82% wanted detained protesters freed, 80% wanted the government to resign, and 75% want president Yanukovych to resign and for snap elections.[5][284] The poll showed that 49.8% of the protesters are residents of Kiev and 50.2% came from across Ukraine. 38% of the protesters are aged between 15 and 29, 49% are aged between 30 and 54, and 13% are 55 or older. A total of 57.2% of the protesters are men.[5][283]

In the eastern regions of Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv, 29% of the population believe "In certain circumstances, an authoritarian regime may be preferable to a democratic one."[285][286]
Public opinion about Association Agreement

According to an 4 to 9 December 2013 study[121] by Research & Branding Group 46% of Ukrainians supported the integration of the country into EU, and 36% into the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Most support for EU integration could be found in West (81%) and in Central (56%) Ukraine; 30% of residents of South Ukraine and 18% of residents of Eastern Ukraine supported the integration with EU as well. Integration with the Customs Union was supported by 61% of East Ukraine and 54% of South Ukraine and also by 22% of Central and 7% of Western Ukraine.

According to a 7 to 17 December 2013 poll by the Sociological group "RATING", 49.1% of respondents would vote for Ukraine's accession to the European Union in a referendum, and 29.6% would vote against the motion.[287] Meanwhile, 32.5% of respondents would vote for Ukraine's accession to the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, and 41.9% would vote against.[287]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Support_for_Euromaidan_in_Ukraine

And it wasn't a regime change it was a Constitutional Impeachment procedure conducted by a duly elected Parliament.

- - - Updated - - -

Liberal democracy good, authoritarianism bad. You obviously believe the inverse, and you still have no valid rebuttal for the unequivocal facts presented.

 

It is clear that you are much more familiar with Ukraine than nearly anyone else here, and so you should surely agree that the last thing Putin wants to do is to go marching into Kiev! On the contrary -- Putin will simply wait for the Russian majority in eastern and southern Ukraine to vote to rejoin Russia. He will kindly accede to their request, as expressed in an election, and that will be that!

Would you really not agree that when all this big drama is over, we'll see a "divorce" in Ukraine, with approximately the western 2/3rds of it (the Kiev faction included) becoming a separate state, and, the eastern approximately 1/3rd of it (the Crimean faction included) being reabsorbed into Russia?

You know that Russia is not, under any circumstances, going to give up its huge naval base at Sevastopol, or its Black Sea Fleet! I know you don't like Vladimir Putin, but you should at least regard this potentially very dangerous adversary with objectivity and respect. Russians are usually content to keep to themselves, fighting with each other in their own little internecine, selfish disputes. But when they become roused and inflamed against a common, foreign enemy, then there is bloody hell to pay! Hitler and Napoleon could testify amply to the truth of that statement....

 

The Ukrainian constitution says first the parliament votes, and if they vote no he stays and if they vote yes, THEN he goes. It does not say, drive him out by violence and weapons, take over the place as the new leaders, with the president gone, have the parliament vote. If you vote no, run after the president and fetch him back and say sorry for attacking with weapons and have the president ask the armed extremists that just took over his office to please give his office back and stand down.

 

its all vatnik propaganda , the majority of Ukrainian parliament voted him out because many from The Party of Regions has switched side. the truth is that Ukrainians got sick of the old political -economical system (form of governance) they want social orientated economy for everyone , transparency, laws for everyone .
chamberlain said that Hitler ´d be 100% satisfied after Sudetenland occupation , and as we all know chamberlain was very , very wrong ...

 

agreed

it´ll never happened , Ukraine has got united like never before (by Putin´s occupation), you forget 1 thing army on marsh is 1 thing , army lucked in bases an other...

Black Sea Fleet ,the old shoes direct from 70-80s , Moscow has concentrated all naval power in the arctic region