On April 20 2014 08:50 Greem wrote: An opinion of the situation which i think is the correct one, which the majority seems to ignore. Gregor Gysi from German Bundestag from Left Wing i believe.
German with English subtitles (be sure to enable this option in youtube player) :
You must be really one blind to not agree with him. Now, he doesn't offer ofcourse a solution, now that both side made they errors , since the speech is dated at 18 march, and the Eastern Ukraine escalation wasn't "active" back then i believe.
Son of East German cultural minister and former member of the ruling Communist Party of East Germany blames the West for 'expanding' NATO, willfully doesnt understand why free democracies on Russia's border terrified of neo-imperialism voluntarily joined. Sure, thats a 'neutral' perspective, if you want to equivocate between a one party corrupt dictatorship advocating a concept of 'state led democracy' and actual democracies.
Just like Crimea voluntarily joined russia
Oh really, were there rigged elections in all Eastern NATO members, where the choices were join NATO now or join NATO next week while all opposition was suppressed?
. And the NATO did not have to expand to the east. They could have just said "We said we won't expand to eastern europe , so we won't". But why say that, when they actually want to join? Why stand by their promise when it is so easy, such a "right thing" to let them join? Because they want to widen their 'sphere of influence'.
Yes. On one hand you can believe that free people in free countries decided to join an alliance of democracies so they can spend less money on defense and minimize chance of conflict between themselves or you can believe its the 19th century and the evil geniuses are expanding spheres of influence because its really important for America to have Hungary and its precious supply of whatever in its sphere of influence.
Additionally, I don't believe that the NATO would go to World War III over countries like Latvia.
Well of course you do.
By your sarcasm you're implying that the reason for any country to have any sort of hegemony and influence is for economic resources. I'm sure you're being facetious, but there's a million other reasons besides raw resources to exert some form of influence over other states. You think there's any super valuable raw resource in Japan worth anything besides weird stuff they're famous for and sushi? Not really, but it is the US's most important strategic asset in the Far East. It is the platform from which we are able to exert most of our power in that region of the world, especially considering China's swift growth and modernization. That combined with the fact that China isn't exactly happy about the history related to Taiwan and Japan is much cause for concern. Our influence in Hungary is actually pretty important in the scheme of preventing future Russian influence from encroaching there. You think the Baltic states are worth a dime to Uncle Sam for raw resources or anything at all (sorry ghan)? Not really. But even those are extremely valuable to American interests when you consider it in opposition of Russian interests. Otherwise, we couldn't give a rat's ass about any of these places, but if we don't "set up shop", then Big Bear does, or otherwise we have more trouble exerting our influence. Yes we have a vested interest even in places like Hungary that serve no economic value to us, but to imply that economics is the only type of value is looking at a tiny part of the picture. But yes, it is important for the US that Hungary is in the US 'sphere of influence'.
because its really important for America Russia to have Hungary Crimea and its precious supply of whatever in its sphere of influence.
Similarly, what the hell is Crimea good for in economic terms in Russia (if we are to assume this is the only reason for hegemonic or territorial imperialism)? It's a poor area in one of Europe's poorest countries. Obviously, the interests go far beyond anything economically related.
On April 21 2014 05:30 LegalLord wrote: Again, wishful thinking, such as the wishful thinking that Russia planted it all, has everything to do with this.
Those do look like newly minted dollar bills (by their design), which is somewhat strange (who would have a stack of new dollar bills handy?). My guess is that it's mercenary snipers paid by the CIA - the same ones that were responsible for the Maidan shootings and many shootings down the line. Would they take that money to the crime scene? Sure, if they don't want to make stops along the way, which is understandable for mercenaries.
Proof about the Maidan sniper shooting being perpetrated by CIA, or it did not happen. I can print $ bills on my printer to look fresh on camera.
On April 21 2014 04:54 LegalLord wrote: They were repelled by the fact that they ran out of time. Local authorities were on their way.
Right, they did not have time to perform a gun massacre on guys armed with bats.
Then Russia says "massacre of civilians by Ukraine's new govt." and makes a march on Kiev. No, what you're implying they do would be incredibly stupid on their part. It would be catastrophic. I'm glad no such thing happened, or else the follow-up would give the inspiration for a novella about VDV guys having tea time in Kievan government buildings. Speaking of which, it's almost 4:20, gotta make my afternoon tea.
On April 21 2014 02:46 Mc wrote: lol lol lol, good job FSB.
So this video was published on APRIL 19th!! The shooting happened the morning of April 20th (3am local time according to some sources). Even, if there was an issue with timezones and such, it was shot in *daylight*. Basically, seems like irrevocable proof that Russia knew this was going to happen (even knowing how many people would die).
WTF WTF!?
Please someone explain to me how this is not irrevocable proof that this was entirely stage by Russia?
p.s. if you want a translation of the video you can get a very bad one by clicking on "transcript" by "about/add-to/etc" and pasting it into google-translate.
Youtube time is California time, a 10 hour difference. The video was published 12 hours ago, putting it at around 8:00 AM - plenty of time to shoot and upload it in daylight.
Everything is staged by Russia when that's what you so very dearly want to believe I suppose.
Everything is staged by Russia when it is staged by Russia. Belief has nothing to do with this. Fresh $ bills, undamaged car plates on completely burned cars (from Dniepropietrovsk and Crimea!), and for fuck sake, prints of satelite google maps of Slaviansk area - ROFL. Add to this conflicting reports such as that the separatists at the blockade were unarmed, yet there was a fire exchange where one of the supposedly Right Sector guys got killed. They were unarmed and exchanged gun fire and killed one of the attackers?
Even though he screwed up with the timezones, this whole "shootout" is a fucking Russian made hoax.
Everything is staged by Russia when you want to believe it was.
According to the video, the dollar bills, weaponry etc was dropped by individuals leaving the area - probably dropped the entire backpack, and the people investigating laid it all out (makes sense to drop it - ammunition is pretty heavy). Everything else you mentioned is speculation, and a video made right after the event is not really suited for answering those questions.
Again, belief has nothing to do with this. I watched the video, my Russian is rusty but I understood well enough what they said there. The video though sounds pretty convincing about who did what, how and why. The problem is I do not buy what they are saying there.
But how were you able to find the undamaged car plates to be a speculation is perplexing at least. Also freshly printed $ bills, what in the god's name was that supposed to be? Do you seriously believe that a Right Sector attacker, paid with USD takes the money to the crime scene? Why, why, and again why?
Again, wishful thinking, such as the wishful thinking that Russia planted it all, has everything to do with this.
Those do look like newly minted dollar bills (by their design), which is somewhat strange (who would have a stack of new dollar bills handy?). My guess is that it's mercenary snipers paid by the CIA - the same ones that were responsible for the Maidan shootings and many shootings down the line. Would they take that money to the crime scene? Sure, if they don't want to make stops along the way, which is understandable for mercenaries.
Edit: Rewatching, the story is something along the lines of the fact that there was a close combat fight (the anti-govt had bats or were unarmed, Right Sector had guns), three people died on the spot, the Right Sector attackers fled, dropping some of their equipment while making a run for it. Among the abandoned equipment was a few weapons, ammunition, a backpack, and a sniper net.
So they repelled attackers armed with guns using bats. Come on, seriously? If it would be like that, there would be no anti-govt left out there to relay the news.
Don't get me wrong, Right Sector would be capable of pulling such stunt, as they are insane nationalist bandits, however it is not the case here.
They were repelled by the fact that they ran out of time. Local authorities were on their way.
On April 20 2014 08:50 Greem wrote: An opinion of the situation which i think is the correct one, which the majority seems to ignore. Gregor Gysi from German Bundestag from Left Wing i believe.
You must be really one blind to not agree with him. Now, he doesn't offer ofcourse a solution, now that both side made they errors , since the speech is dated at 18 march, and the Eastern Ukraine escalation wasn't "active" back then i believe.
Son of East German cultural minister and former member of the ruling Communist Party of East Germany blames the West for 'expanding' NATO, willfully doesnt understand why free democracies on Russia's border terrified of neo-imperialism voluntarily joined. Sure, thats a 'neutral' perspective, if you want to equivocate between a one party corrupt dictatorship advocating a concept of 'state led democracy' and actual democracies.
Just like Crimea voluntarily joined russia. And the NATO did not have to expand to the east. They could have just said "We said we won't expand to eastern europe , so we won't". But why say that, when they actually want to join? Why stand by their promise when it is so easy, such a "right thing" to let them join? Because they want to widen their 'sphere of influence'. Just like Russia is doing now. Well actually Russia is just trying to save a little bit of it. Additionally, I don't believe that the NATO would go to World War III over countries like Latvia.
The Baltics served as a buffer zone in more dangerous times. Russia doesn't really want them anyways.
can any germans relate the findings of the ard report mentioned in this story on liveleak?
i doubt they are what the liveleak story claims, gonna link it instead of quote. by google translate it seems: investigator doubts prosectution, lawyers of victims getting stonewalled by prosecution, confirmable eye-witness reporting shots from hotel ukraine.
Regardless of whether or not you believe the CIA did it in this case, it is a well-documented fact that that is what the CIA does.
Everyone knows the CIA are among the sleeziest guys to ever exist. But we do not know if there is any involvement at all with this case, so we cannot simply assume that they are implicated.
Regardless of whether or not you believe the CIA did it in this case, it is a well-documented fact that that is what the CIA does.
Everyone knows the CIA are among the sleeziest guys to ever exist. But we do not know if there is any involvement at all with this case, so we cannot simply assume that they are implicated.
Agreed. However, given the timing of the Maidan and the response of the United States to its occurrence, I personally have no doubt that CIA meddling was involved.
On April 21 2014 09:43 nunez wrote: can any germans relate the findings of the ard report mentioned in this story on liveleak?
i doubt they are what the liveleak story claims, gonna link it instead of quote. by google translate it seems: investigator doubts prosectution, lawyers of victims getting stonewalled by prosecution, confirmable eye-witness reporting shots from hotel ukraine.
You are right with your doubts... The article states that the protester weren't just shot at from the govt buildings but also from an hotel that was in their back and, as the sources claim, under the firm control of the protesters. There's also a piece of communication between the govt snipers that indicates that there were shots coming from another direction and that they did not know who else was shooting at the protesters.
This leads to the assumption that some other "non govt"-snipers might have been at work that day. This is, however, not backed by any evidence. Partly because the prosecution did not share the results of their investigation thus far.
brennan personally flew to kiev. safe bet that cia is cozying it up with far-right fascists, eh i mean, politically expedient groups, (their favorite past-time), have been for a while and thus are implicated at some level if the shootings indeed were perpetrated by militant far-right fascists.
@nezgar much obliged, that hints at the video being was circulating shortly after of shots being fired from the hotel, taken from the hotel, was the real deal. it's pretty damning that the attorney general is presenting the case in a way that does not agree with the investigation, then again he's a fascist so what do you expect. decency / honesty?
On April 21 2014 09:43 nunez wrote: can any germans relate the findings of the ard report mentioned in this story on liveleak?
i doubt they are what the liveleak story claims, gonna link it instead of quote. by google translate it seems: investigator doubts prosectution, lawyers of victims getting stonewalled by prosecution, confirmable eye-witness reporting shots from hotel ukraine.
You are right with your doubts... The article states that the protester weren't just shot at from the govt buildings but also from an hotel that was in their back and, as the sources claim, under the firm control of the protesters. There's also a piece of communication between the govt snipers that indicates that there were shots coming from another direction and that they did not know who else was shooting at the protesters.
This leads to the assumption that some other "non govt"-snipers might have been at work that day. This is, however, not backed by any evidence. Partly because the prosecution did not share the results of their investigation thus far.
Random people make shit witnesses and are far from being able to pinpoint sniper fire.All of it is just pointing to speculation.
the man / woman referenced as witness is said to feature on video clips from the day of shootings, so not a random person.
if shots indeed came from the hotel it would not be very hard for the ppl being shot at to identify it, here's google maps from location where several ppl were shot, looking up at hotel ukraine. google maps
not many better sources of information than eye witness accounts? note that in the video circulated a guy actually turns away from the direction of the police and starts looking up at the hotel where shots allegedly came from, and were standing a lot closer to it than the google maps location i linked.
On April 20 2014 08:50 Greem wrote: An opinion of the situation which i think is the correct one, which the majority seems to ignore. Gregor Gysi from German Bundestag from Left Wing i believe.
You must be really one blind to not agree with him. Now, he doesn't offer ofcourse a solution, now that both side made they errors , since the speech is dated at 18 march, and the Eastern Ukraine escalation wasn't "active" back then i believe.
Son of East German cultural minister and former member of the ruling Communist Party of East Germany blames the West for 'expanding' NATO, willfully doesnt understand why free democracies on Russia's border terrified of neo-imperialism voluntarily joined. Sure, thats a 'neutral' perspective, if you want to equivocate between a one party corrupt dictatorship advocating a concept of 'state led democracy' and actual democracies.
Just like Crimea voluntarily joined russia
Oh really, were there rigged elections in all Eastern NATO members, where the choices were join NATO now or join NATO next week while all opposition was suppressed?
While I agree that the Crimea elections may have been rigged, it does not seem to be far fetched that the majority of people in Crimea would rather be part of Russia than part of Ukraine. Probably not the 98% or whatever the russians said.
Yes. On one hand you can believe that free people in free countries decided to join an alliance of democracies so they can spend less money on defense and minimize chance of conflict between themselves or you can believe its the 19th century and the evil geniuses are expanding spheres of influence because its really important for America to have Hungary and its precious supply of whatever in its sphere of influence.
Well the world ain't sunshine and rainbows. Things like "Areas of Control" and "Spheres of Influence" are not a thing of the past. It is not 19th Century thinking. To think so would be ludicrous.
Or you know, the thinking of a conspiracy minded, ex-East German communist party member posting, anti-American poster...
There is a reason we have been moving NATO troops east ever since the soviet union fell.
Yes, free people in free countries asked to join an alliance of other free countries and were accepted because it allows them to outsource most of their defense spending to America while keeps them from fighting among themselves.
There is a reason for why the Monroe Doctrine is still in power.
Only in the imaginations of anti-Americans.
There is a reason why Putin did not let the UN intervene in Syria.
Yes, supporting dictators is something he enjoys doing
Why do you think we have troops and missile defence systems all around Russia?
Because America was fighting a war in Central Asia and it was convenient to deploy troop bases there.
Listen, I am all for freedom and the right to national sovereignty and the ability to choose ones own government. But you have to realize that we haven't exactly been very non-provocative towards Russia. I would not go as far as to say that it is the fault of the NATO, but we kind of have been "poking the bear" a little bit. Put yourself in the russian perspective.
Probably most Russians care more about the fact that their oil wealth is being stolen by well connected people or wasted on expensive military projects while their education and healthcare system is at a level behind the Soviet Union less about where foreign bases are being built.
How would the U.S feel if Russia had military bases and missile defence systems in Central America and they were trying to get Mexico to join in. You think the U.S would just sit there and let it happen?
Why would it care? MIRV ICBM means that anti missile systems dont work and you can start a war from anywhere
Yes I would rather have the world to be cuddly and nobody is fighting, but that is not going to happen. Every Country will defend its interests. Even more so world powers.
Well I guess you should give back East Germany to the Russians, after all, spheres of influence and stuff!
On April 21 2014 08:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Then Russia says "massacre of civilians by Ukraine's new govt." and makes a march on Kiev. No, what you're implying they do would be incredibly stupid on their part. It would be catastrophic. I'm glad no such thing happened, or else the follow-up would give the inspiration for a novella about VDV guys having tea time in Kievan government buildings. Speaking of which, it's almost 4:20, gotta make my afternoon tea.
Haven't you seen Russia reaction to this? A rant how Kiev is not able to disarm the thugs therefore not fulfilling the Geneva agreement and that Kiev allows fascist groups to attack unarmed civilians. This is exactly what Moscow wants, a reason to invade. I say this was first of such stagings to give Russia a reason to step in and "protect" the civilians attacked by fascist thugs.
Wow, some people can spout conspiracy nonsense at will with not a shred of evidence. You know, if the CIA were running an entire country in the middle of Europe (despite the fact that Obama is not even remotely interested in the region), I think you'd find some credible sources to prove it... But you can't, because it's nonsense. And coming from people that actually interact with the US admin, your claims are beyond laughable. They don't even have enough eyes on the ground in the region to know who's who... We need to give THEM intel all the time.
That's not the message being reported, though, this is:
On April 20 2014 08:50 Greem wrote: An opinion of the situation which i think is the correct one, which the majority seems to ignore. Gregor Gysi from German Bundestag from Left Wing i believe.
You must be really one blind to not agree with him. Now, he doesn't offer ofcourse a solution, now that both side made they errors , since the speech is dated at 18 march, and the Eastern Ukraine escalation wasn't "active" back then i believe.
Son of East German cultural minister and former member of the ruling Communist Party of East Germany blames the West for 'expanding' NATO, willfully doesnt understand why free democracies on Russia's border terrified of neo-imperialism voluntarily joined. Sure, thats a 'neutral' perspective, if you want to equivocate between a one party corrupt dictatorship advocating a concept of 'state led democracy' and actual democracies.
Just like Crimea voluntarily joined russia
Oh really, were there rigged elections in all Eastern NATO members, where the choices were join NATO now or join NATO next week while all opposition was suppressed?
While I agree that the Crimea elections may have been rigged, it does not seem to be far fetched that the majority of people in Crimea would rather be part of Russia than part of Ukraine. Probably not the 98% or whatever the russians said.
Yes. On one hand you can believe that free people in free countries decided to join an alliance of democracies so they can spend less money on defense and minimize chance of conflict between themselves or you can believe its the 19th century and the evil geniuses are expanding spheres of influence because its really important for America to have Hungary and its precious supply of whatever in its sphere of influence.
Well the world ain't sunshine and rainbows. Things like "Areas of Control" and "Spheres of Influence" are not a thing of the past. It is not 19th Century thinking. To think so would be ludicrous.
Or you know, the thinking of a conspiracy minded, ex-East German communist party member posting, anti-American poster...
Attacking people personally comes off really good in a discussion. It increases your post in wittiness albeit makes you look more stupid.
Yes, free people in free countries asked to join an alliance of other free countries and were accepted because it allows them to outsource most of their defense spending to America while keeps them from fighting among themselves.
But why did we let them join? We did not have to. It's not like you join automatically by asking. Was Poland waging a war with Ukraine before they joined the NATO? Did I miss something? The NATO did not prevent anything after the Soviet Union fell. Just look at what happened in Bosnia. Furthermore, the outsourcing is a grave mistake, because NATO will not go to war for a rather small country (Like Latvia,Lithuania and Estonia). They will not kill billions of people in a nuclear war with Russia because they attacked a small country. I guarantee you they will find a loophole.
There is a reason for why the Monroe Doctrine is still in power.
Only in the imaginations of anti-Americans.
You can't argue against that. That is a fact. Again, whats with the Anti-American? The Monroe Doctrine is good for the USA. Saying it doesn't exist anymore is anti-American. Do you even read and think about what you say?
Why do you think we have troops and missile defence systems all around Russia?
Because America was fighting a war in Central Asia and it was convenient to deploy troop bases there.
Oh yeah, who can forget the terrible war in Kyrgyzstan, in which the U.S had to built a military base including an air base. Oh look it's right on the border to Russia. Oh it has to close in July 2014. I wonder why that is. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the russian government protecting its national interests. Guess Kyrgyszstan has to go back to killing each other.
Listen, I am all for freedom and the right to national sovereignty and the ability to choose ones own government. But you have to realize that we haven't exactly been very non-provocative towards Russia. I would not go as far as to say that it is the fault of the NATO, but we kind of have been "poking the bear" a little bit. Put yourself in the russian perspective.
Probably most Russians care more about the fact that their oil wealth is being stolen by well connected people or wasted on expensive military projects while their education and healthcare system is at a level behind the Soviet Union less about where foreign bases are being built
. I meant it more like "put yourself in the Russian Federation perspective" not "common man in russia". But I agree that the healthcare system is terrible and money goes down the sink.
How would the U.S feel if Russia had military bases and missile defence systems in Central America and they were trying to get Mexico to join in. You think the U.S would just sit there and let it happen?
Why would it care? MIRV ICBM means that anti missile systems dont work and you can start a war from anywhere
Why would the US care if Russia had military bases in Central America and Mexico? Are you serious? Oh I don't know. I Guess your right. USA wouldn't care if they were thousands Russian troops just a few hundred miles away from their border.
Yes I would rather have the world to be cuddly and nobody is fighting, but that is not going to happen. Every Country will defend its interests. Even more so world powers.
Well I guess you should give back East Germany to the Russians, after all, spheres of influence and stuff!
So you don't agree that a country defends it's national interests? What does East-Germany have to do with that? Your comparison does not make any sense. And instead of attack people, claiming they are Anti-American, why don't you stop being a hypocrite and look at the facts. I am pro american (whatever that means) but just as they defend their national interests, so does Russia. If you can't realize that, I think your not old enough for politics.
On April 21 2014 18:36 DrCooper wrote: If you can't realize that, I think your not old enough for politics.
Implying that you need to be mature to be a politician. Someone ring Merkel, the Best Korea Chairman-Grand-Marshall-Emperor-King-General lil' Un, McCain, Yeltsin (in his grave, yes) and Bush Jr. stat!
EPT![[image loading]](http://maloros.ru/new/filestore/lug_res.jpg)
