The U.S. Admits Neo Nazis are fighting in Ukraine

"No need"...?

Yes, I have heard of it. While it is true, that many Austrians indeed supported the annexation and it also might be true, that even the majority supported it, there's no reliable way to know that for sure. What we DO know is that Germany did not give any options.

Somehow that sounds very familiar...

 

I seem to have missed this, sorry.

Unfortunately, me and you are unable to differentiate between truth and fiction. No one except the members of the team can.

Personally I believe we will never know. I for one wouldn't be surprised if the results came back inconclusive... What would your thoughts be then?

I have to be honest lwd, there is a lot going on in Ukraine that (judging by your posts) you seem to be unfamiliar with and not necessarily by your own fault. The events are simply not broadcast here in the states. I know because I live here. You also seemed to doubt the extent of the Nationalist movementl in Ukraine to begin with and then the individuals involved. How may I ask is it that "you would see evidence of such gaining momentum?"

The main clause called for Ukraines independence along with respecting her internal affairs.. When you publicly support, privately fund and physically place Ukraines opposition in office you are in violation of that treaty (no matter who does it). Lucky, to quote the U.S. Embassy, "it's not law binding."

It is here that it becomes murky.

Again, the United States supported and funded the opposition. Not to mention one of the original signatories to the treaty. The US is far from neutral. May I ask, who exactly was this deal "brokered" with?

Medling in Ukraines internal affairs contradicts respecting her sovereignty. Do we really have to discuss why that's not ok? That was the main purpose of the treaty.

I wish it was so but far from it. I will admit that I had a difficult time believing this after I stumbled upon the first article. Something like this couldn't possibly be happening in Europe, I thought. Unfortunately, more articles started to surface....

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/world/europe/ukraine-opens-talks-but-eastern-rebels-arent-invited.html?referrer=

http://tass.ru/en/russia/746692

Then again think about it. How can there ever be representation, when Kiev refuses to even speak with the rebels?

Good over view.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Ukrainian-Governments-Neo-Nazi-Links-20140826-0004.html

I would be very interested to see your sources.

 

Thank you Sloniksp, for getting this catastrophic train wreck of a thread back on the tracks.

 

All this is meaningless moralising :

Putin is not a new Stalin,unless one can proove that Kolyma and Magador have been reopened.

If Putin is a new Stalin, this is not our business,but the business of the Russians .

The annexations executed by Stalin in 1939/1940 were not good for the locals,but that is irrelevant : the question is : were these annexations bad for the West (Britain and France) ? And the answer is : NO .

Is the occupation of Crimea bad for the West ? If no ,the West should abstain from hysterical reactions about this .

That Stalin was a ruthless dictator does not mean that he was a danger for the West . Nikita started a liberalisation of the regime but provoked in 1962 almost a nuclear war .

 

The Austrians voted during the Anschluss: they welcomed the Germans .

In 1919,the Austrian political parties asked the Anschluss with Germany, which was refused by the Allies : thus,if the Austrians asked the Anschluss in 1919 and welcomed the Anschluss in 1938,there was no need for a referendum .

The leader of the Austrian socialists Karl Renner (also an anti-semit) asked for the Anschluss in 1919 ans was one of the first to welcome the Germans in 1938 .

It was the same for the leaders of the ÖVP.

It was the same for the liberals .

 

There are mass demonstrations in Malaysia against a corrupt PM who sent 600 million $ to an other direction; could some one give the hour of arrival of an aircraft coming from the US with as passengers the 2 US senators who were standing on the barricades of Euromaidan?

Of course,they will not let slip from their hands the occasion to do in Kuala Lumpur what they did in Kiew ? Otherwise, suspicious persons could think that their presence in Kiew was not dictated by concern for democracy in Ukraine ?

 

Next year,there will be a Hollywood movie about Euromaidan ,with as title "How two US senators expelled a pro-Russian and thus corrupt president and liberated from prison a pro US and thus honest former Ukrainian president"

with in the role of John McCain John McCain himself (Donald Trump playing McCain would not be good :the ladies would boycott the movie) and in the role of Chris Murphy Chris Murphy .

For McCain it will be a consolation/cold comfort : if he failed to become president, he will be remembered as an actor and as the man who said :It would be good for Europe if Ukraine would join the EU.We had an actor who became president,thus why not a would-be president becoming an actor .

For Murphy, it will boost his presidential aspirations :after all,if Obama could occupy the White House, why not Murphy .

 

The Anschluss happened BEFORE the planned referendum exactly to stop the Austrian people to express their views freely. The "referendum" organized by the Nazies AFTER the Anschluss was totally controlled by them. The "result", 99,7561 %(!) in favour of the annexation tells everything about the trustworthiness of that scam.

After the similar hoax in Crimea no wonder you support the Anschluss...

The situation straight after the WW1 and the views presented by some individuals then (or later) are not relevant to the situation in 1938 - some twenty years later.

 

Maybe for you. For the rest of us it is not.

We don't need new Kolyma to see Putin's similarity to his role model - Stalin. We already know, that he sends his political opponents to prisons and/or has them killed. That's pretty similar enough. So far the difference is only in numbers.

"Our"? You mean you are not Russian yourself...?

On the contrary! When Putin attacks neighbouring countries and/or threatens them (=us!), it's very much everybody's business.

How on earth would that be irrelevant?! Are you trying to say, that no other country mattered?!

And of course those annexations were bad for the UK and France too. Stalin's plans did not stop there, and every new annexation brought him further to the West.

Of course it is bad. Putin's appetite- like Stalin's - is never satisfied; the more hi gets, the more he wants. If the West yields to him, it never ends.

Stalin was a danger to the hole World. The communist goal was the World domination - unlike that of the Nazies.

 

That is hardly correct. There are some elements that are clearly true and others that are clearly fiction and some in between. The Daily Beast post I linked did a pretty good job of analyzing and categorizing the information to date. The official team will have access to more data and will probably be able to more more of the information from the grey area into the truth or fiction catagories but I would be very much surprised if they invalidate much if any of the work in that report.

That depends on what you mean by inconclusive. I would be surprised if they found that Putin ordered the shoot down for instance. Indeed I would be suspicious if they did. The evidence to date IMO points to an accidental shoot down and at what level the orders were generated and/or interpreted may (and likely will) never be public knowledge. I would based on the info to date be just as suspicious of a report that didn't conclude that it was the Russians or forces under their direction that shot it down. The real crime here IMO was the Russian prevarication in response to the charges. It has also done much more damage to Russian credibility than would have been the case if they had been forthcoming and cooperative from the beginning.

??? Have you lost track of the conversation? This was in response to this post:

Which suggested that the shoot down was by Ukrainian fighters. That theory has been very throughly discredited. So it's hardly "gaining momentum" in any conventional sense of the phrase.

I disagree. Supporting and funding is hardly a violation of the treaty if it is done in a way that doesn't break any Ukrainian laws. Physically placing someone in office would but the neither the US, NATO, the EU, or any western European governments did so to my knowledge nor is there even strong evidence that they did so. On the other hand physically taking territory from the Ukraine was in clear violation of the treaty.

"Meddling" is a term that can cover a very broad range of activities. Whether or not they actually "contradict respect for sovereignty" is rather a judgement call and not at all clear. Other countries "meddle" in the affairs of the US all the time. The US doesn't consider it a threat to sovereignty as long as it is within the legal parameters and perhaps not even then. The main purpose of the treaty was to insure the security including the territorial security of the Ukraine. It's very clear at this point that Russia violated that treaty.

That really depends on how much support there truly is for the separatists and whether or not they are interested in peace.

A well written piece of propaganda indeed. Fairly subtle but clearly biased. Rather violates the conditions I would set for a "good overview". I can see how the Russian supporters would like it though.

Unfortunately it was a series of articles I read at the time that indicated the likely Russian involvement and it was clear that the Russians had been careful not to leave any conclusive proof of their involvement so even if I found the articles I doubt you would find them at all convincing.

 

Malaysia and the US are already allies....if you had any idea what you were talking about, that wouldn't be news.

 

Or not. I guess we can translate this as you agreeing that your are loosing and trying to change the topic. Conforms very well to your SOP.

??? Are you saying those are the two signatory events of Stalin's reign? I think you would be hard pressed to get anyone to agree to that. Even if they did it would not support your position.

While it is clearly the buisness of the Russians when Putin starts breaking treaties and international laws it become the business of other nations as well. The comparisons to Stalin and/or Hitler or other previous leaders is clearly to illustrate what one can expect from him in the way of future actions. Did you really not know this or were you just trying to distract us again?

The expectation at the time and the reality of the situation long term was yes they were indeed bad for the West contrary to your opinion. But then one can be correct the vast majority of the time simply by disagreeing with you.

You go on to reinforce my position above. The Russian occupation of the Crimea particularly the way in which it was done (i.e. in violation of treaties and international law) was clearly bad for the west. I agree though that the West whould refraind from hysterical reactions and they have done so even though you imply otherwise.

It didn't mean he wasn't a danger to the West either and his actions certainly looked like he might be. As for provoking a nuclear war an objective look at that would put a lot of the blame on Kennedy as well. Not sure how it's relevant to the topic at hand though. Likely further misdirection on your part.

 

The referendum planned by Schusnigg could NOT be a free one,because Schussnig was a dictator and the results of his referendum would also be 99.7561 % in favour of his dictatorship .

 

This is totally irrelevant .

 

1)Proof that Putin sent his political opponents to prison/was killing them ?

2) Why would "them " be us ?

3)Proof that Putin attacked neighbouring COUNTRIES (= more than ONE ) ?

4)The annexation of Eastern Poland by the SU was a good thing for Britain and France (better Stalin in Eastern Poland than Hitler) and also better for the inhabitants of that region (for the same reason)

 

1)Of course no other country mattered (except for the hypocrites of the State Department) :every one recognized the annexation : the Soviets ruled the Baltics de facto,thus also de jure .

2) That the communist aspiration (not goal) was to dominate the world, does not mean that it was also the aspiration of Stalin: ONE of the reasons why after WWII Stalin did not invade Western Europe, was that he could not dominate Western Europa after a successful invasion : Stalin was not stronger than Hitler and he could not succeed where Hitler failed .

 

Tell that to the Dead at Katyn.

There are still Poles that say it was better under Nazism than under Communism.

 

Gentlemen please. Let's stay on topic.

 

He was not a dictator, because right before the Anscluss his cabinet consisted of all prior and present political parties.

We don't know what his referendum would have been like nor what the result would have been, since the Nazies wanted to prevent it happening - and succeeded with it. Since the Nazies were against it, it's fare to presume that it would have been much more free than that of the Nazies.

"Russia has at least 50 "political prisoners," including a man who has been charged with inciting ethnic hatred for posting photographs documenting the consequences of Russian "military incursions," according to a new list compiled by the country's leading human rights group Memorial.
"This list is by no means exhaustive," Memorial said in a statement Thursday, adding that the 50 people on the list are those who are currently held in custody or under house arrest and who meet the criteria set by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, or PACE, for designation as political prisoners."
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-rights-group-memorial-releases-new-list-of-political-prisoners/523113.html


'POLITICALLY MOTIVATED' ATTACKS DURING PUTIN'S LEADERSHIP

November 1998: Less than four months after Putin took over takes at the KGB, Galina Starovoitova, the most prominent pro-democracy Kremlin critic was murdered.
The politician, who was State Duma deputy at the time, was shot to death in the stairwell of her home in central St Petersburg in what appeared to be a 'politically motivated' attack.
March 2000: Putin was elected as leader and Russian ordered attacks in Chechnya. Opposition leaders, especially those who reported on the conflict in Chechnya were killed.
Reporters Igor Domnikov, Sergey Novikov, Iskandar Khatloni, Sergey Ivanov and Adam Tepsurgayev were all killed in 2000 alone.
April 2003: Sergei Yushenkov, co-chairman of the Liberal Russia political party was gunned down at the entrance of his Moscow apartment block.







+6









+6




Viktor Yushchenko (left), anti-Russian candidate for the presidency of the Ukraine, was poisoned by Dioxin in 2004 and Galina Starovoitova, the most prominent pro-democracy Kremlin critic, was shot in 1998

He had been serving as the vice chair of the group known as the 'Kovalev Commission' which was formed to investigate charges that Putin's KGB had planted support for the war in Chechnya.
July 2003: Yuri Shchekochikhin, a vocal opposition journalist and member of the Russian Duma and the Kovalev Commission contracted a mysterious illness.
Witnesses said he complained about fatigue, and red blotches began to appear on his skin. They said: 'His internal organs began collapsing one by one. Then he lost almost all his hair.'
June 2004: Nikolai Girenko, a prominent human rights defender, Professor of Ethnology and expert on racism and discrimination in the Russian Federation is shot dead in his home in St Petersburg.
July 2004: Paul Klebnikov, editor of the Russian edition Forbes magazine, was shot and killed in Moscow.
Forbes reported that at the time of his death, Paul was believed to have been investigating a complex web of money laundering involving a Chechen reconstruction fund and the Kremlin.







+6


Former spy Alexander Litvinenko (pictured) was killed in 2006, leading to a clouding of relations between London and Moscow.

September 2004: Viktor Yushchenko, anti-Russian candidate for the presidency of the Ukraine, was poisoned by Dioxin.
September 2006: Andrei Kozlov, First Deputy Chairman of Russia's Central Bank, who strove to stamp out money laundering was shot and killed in Moscow.
November 2006: Former spy Alexander Litvinenko was killed in 2006, leading to a clouding of relations between London and Moscow.
The 43-year-old had been an officer with the Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB, but he fled to Britain where he became a fierce critic of the Kremlin.

October 2006: Anna Politkovskaya, author of countless books exposing Russian human rights violations in Chechnya and articles attacking Vladimir Putin as a dictator was killed in Moscow.
She had written: 'I have wondered a great deal why I have so got it in for Putin. What is it that makes me dislike him so much as to feel moved to write a book about him?'
January 2009: Stanislav Markelov, a human rights lawyer, was shot after leaving a news conference less than half a mile from the Kremlin in January 2009.
He was appealing the early release of Yuri Budanov, a Russian military officer convicted of killing a young Chechen woman.
July 2009: Leading Russian human rights journalist and activist Natalya Estemirova was abducted in front of her home in Grozny, Chechnya, taken across the border into Ingushetia where she was shot and dumped in a roadside gutter.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995136/Putin-s-enemies-fear-hit-list-Boris-Nemtsov-killing.html

Of course nobody can PROVE that Putin has been behind of all these murders. However if/when all his political opponents and critics seem to end up dead or being prosecuted and sentenced to prison, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to be able to add two plus two.

I don't count you as one of "us"...

"Us" are we, all the citizens of the countries neighbouring Russia.

Georgia and Ukraine. The cyber attack against Estonia in 2007 is also included. We have been discussing about these many times before.

Naturally you won't admit any of them, no matter what, so I'm not going to bother.

Neither Stalin nor Hitler in Poland was good for the UK or France. The inhabitants of those regions did not agree with you. Those Poles who experienced both dictatorships preferred the Germans.

That's only your twisted opinion.

Not everyone recognized the annexations. De facto is definitely not the same as de jure. E.g. the USA and Finland (accidentally) did not recognize de jure the annexations of the Baltics.

It amazes me - and AFAIK everybody else too - how you seem to get EVERYTHING wrong, even the very basic things...

He was the dictator of the USSR and thus also the dictator of the Comintern. It's goals could hardly be not approved by Stalin.

Stalin did not invade Western Europe because he was too late - the British, the Americans and the French were already there. After the war there was also the A-bomb - which the Russians did not have. There wouldn't have been a successful invasion.

 

How, exactly?