Bharat Rakshak

Suraj wrote:

TSJones wrote:One thing is for sure, the US will never sign another agreement with Russia concerning non agression on another country. You can cancel that nonsense in the future. It is highly doubtful that the US congress will ever ratify anthing with Russia in the future. The US president will be on his own in that regard.

Moralizing positions are completely out of place here. The US reneged its agreement on the ABM treaty when it suited it.

The typical "bad bad Russkies! So untrustworthy! They never follow agreements!" spiel is just a conveniently one-sided portrayal of overall dynamics.

In any case, by interfereing with Yanukovich, the US and UK are both in violation of the Budapest Agreement too, in spirit.

Gerard wrote:That agreement was the fig leaf for Ukrainian disarmament. The US will sign such an agreement tomorrow if it suits it's interests.

Suraj wrote:Did they also give 6 months notice before trying to topple Yanukovich ? If not, why is it Russia's fault to be in Crimea today ? By treaty, they are allowed to maintain forces there.

TSJones wrote:Yanukovich is a russian toady. He refused to cooperate with increasing trading ties to the EU. Not NATO not America. All the Ukraines wanted was more economic activity and a better life.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Suraj wrote:....which means Ukraine gave up a lot for nothing.

Its best Ukraine work out its problems with Russia mutually.
Some redrawing of territory and an agreement with Russia will give it greater stability.

TSJones wrote:
Yanukovich is a russian toady. He refused to cooperate with increasing trading ties to the EU. Not NATO not America. All the Ukraines wanted was more economic activity and a better life.

ramana wrote:US Constitution, Article II Section 2 gives the US President the sole authority in foreign policy with US Senate powers to ratify treaties. It says nothing about agreements and memoranda. So lets not wave red herrings here.

ramana wrote:Looks like you think the President doesn't belong to the country?
What kind of language is that to speak about the head of state/CIC and everything else?


Better start drinking coffee than tea.

TSJones wrote: Not only that, it justified because of America and Iraq or America and Afghanistan for which we are vilified. But if Russia follows suit it is OK and gives a warm fuzzy to Indians. No vilification for them. So they get a free run and everyone is happy. OK, so be it.

Russia will not go to war with the people of Ukraine, but will use its troops to protect citizens, if radicals with clout in Kiev now try to use violence against Ukrainian civilians, particularly ethnic Russians, Putin told the media.

Putin, who was given a mandate by the Russian senate to use military force to protect civilians in Ukraine, said there is no need for such an action yet.

Putin cited the actions of radical activists in Ukraine, including the chaining of a governor to a stage as public humiliation and the killing of a technician during an opposition siege of the Party of Regions HQ, as justification for Russia to be concerned for the lives and well-being of people in eastern and southern Ukraine.

Incidents like those are why Russia reserves the option of troop deployment on the table.

“If we see this lawlessness starting in eastern regions, if the people ask us for help – in addition to a plea from a legitimate president, which we already have – then we reserve the right to use all the means we possess to protect those citizens. And we consider it quite legitimate,” he said.

Russia is not planning to go to war with the Ukrainian people, Putin stressed, when a journalist asked if he was afraid of war. But Russian troops would prevent any attempts to target Ukrainian civilians, should they be deployed.

“We are not going to a war against the Ukrainian people,” he said. “I want you to understand it unambiguously. If we do take a decision, it would only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. Let anybody in the military dare, and they’d be shooting their own people, who would stand up in front of us. Shoot at women and children. I’d like to see anyone try and order such a thing in Ukraine.”

Putin dismissed the notion that the uniformed armed people without insignia who are currently present in Crimea are Russian soldiers. He said they are members of the Crimean self-defense forces and that they are no better equipped and trained than some radical fighters who took part in the ousting of Yanukovich.

Ukraine’s statement at the UN that 16,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to Crimea has caused a frenzy among Western media which chooses to ignore that those troops have been there since the late 1990s in accordance with a Kiev-Moscow agreement.

Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”

It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade.

Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined that the country’s military “strictly executes the agreements, which stipulate the Russian fleet’s presence in Ukraine, and follows the stance and claims coming from the legitimate authority in Ukraine and in this case the legitimate authority of the Autonomous Republic Crimea as well.”

People watch a Russian Navy ship enter the Crimean port city of Sevastopol March 2, 2014 (Reuters / Baz Ratner)
The Black Sea Fleet has been disputed between Russia and Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union back in 1991.

In 1997, the sides finally managed to find common ground and signed three agreements determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea.

Russia has received 81.7 per cent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government a compensation of US$526.5 million.

Moscow also annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequency resources, and for the environmental impact caused by the Black Sea Fleet’s operations.

According to the initial agreement, the Russian Black Sea Fleet was to stay in Crimea until 2017, but the deal was later prolonged for another 25 years.

The 1997 deal allows the Russian navy to have up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm, 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes on Ukrainian territory.


Ukrainian marines look at a Russian ship floating out of the Sevastopol bay on March 4, 2014 (AFP Photo / Viktor Drachev)

In compliance with those accords, there are currently five Russian naval units stationed in the port city of Sevastopol in the Crimean peninsula:

The 30th Surface Ship Division formed by the 11th Antisubmarine Ship Brigade, which includes the Black Sea Fleet’s flagship guard missile cruiser Moskva as well as Kerch, Ochakov, Smetlivy, Ladny, and Pytlivy vessels, and the 197th Landing Ship Brigade, consisting of seven large amphibious vessels;

The 41st Missile Boat Brigade, which includes the 166th Fast Attack Craft Division, consisting of Bora and Samum hovercrafts as well as small missile ships Mirazh and Shtil, and 295th missile Boat Division;

The 247th Separate Submarine Division, consisting of two diesel submarines – B-871 Alrosa and B-380 Svyatoy Knyaz Georgy;

The 68th Harbor Defense Ship Brigade formed by the 400th Antisubmarine Ship Battalion of four vessels and 418 Mine Hunting Ship Division, which consist of four ships as well;

The 422nd Separate Hydrographic Ship Division, which includes Cheleken, Stvor, Donuzlav and GS-402 survey vessels as well as a group of hydrographic boats.

People watch a Russian Navy ship enter the Crimean port city of Sevastopol March 2, 2014 (Reuters / Baz Ratner)

Besides the naval units, Moscow also has two airbases in Crimea, which are situated in the towns of Kacha and Gvardeysky.

The Russian coastal forces in Ukraine consist of the 1096th Separate Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment in Sevastopol and the 810th Marine Brigade, which hosts around 2,000 marines.

Several other coastal units of the Black Sea Fleet are located in Russia’s Krasnodar Region, including the 11th Separate Coastal Missile Brigade in Anapa, the 382th Separate Marine Battalion, and a naval reconnaissance station in Temryuk.

Last week, Russia’s Federation Council unanimously approved President Vladimir Putin’s request to send the country’s military forces to Ukraine to ensure peace and order in the region “until the socio-political situation in the country is stabilized.”

However, the final say about deploying troops lies with Putin, who hasn’t yet made such a decision, stressing that deploying military force would be a last resort.

Authorities in the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea – where more than half the population is Russian – requested Moscow’s assistance after the self-proclaimed government in Kiev introduced a law abolishing the use of languages other than Ukrainian in official circumstances.

TSJones wrote:
You know under normal circumstance I could care less about the Ukraine. It bothers me not if Russia devores the whole country and its aspirations. What concerns me is that it is crouched in the usual anti-American sloganeering and blame game. Not only that, it justified because of America and Iraq or America and Afghanistan for which we are vilified. But if Russia follows suit it is OK and gives a warm fuzzy to Indians. No vilification for them. So they get a free run and everyone is happy. OK, so be it.

I won't even go into the lies about the US military being involved in Ukraine. About how USS Taylor has taken up position in the Black Sea!! What utter BS drivel. The Taylor is in the Turkish harbor of Samsun where it scrapped its prop on the bottom of the harbor docking there. The captain has been releaved of his duties and the ship is confined to the harbor until repairs can be made.

BRUSSELS, March 04, /ITAR-TASS/. The European Union needs Russian gas, EU Energy Commissioner Gunter Oettinger said on Tuesday after a meeting of the European Union’s Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council.

He said that Russian and the European Union depended on each other, since the European Union need Russian gas while the Russian economy needed money from gas sales.

Gerard wrote:Russia reports ballistic missile test amid Crimea tension

A Topol RS-12M missile was launched from Russia's Kapustin Yar test range near the Caspian Sea to the Sary Shagan range in Kazakhstan

Tests of new warheads in Topol launches from Kapustin Yar to Sary Shagan have became fairly common - this is the third such test since October 2013 (the second one took place in December 2013). This suggests that the development of a new warhead (or warheads) is a fairly active program.

Such factual distortions point to two flagrant omissions by Snyder and other US media accounts. The now exceedingly dangerous confrontation between the two Ukraines was not “ignited,” as the Times claims, by Yanukovych’s duplicitous negotiating—or by Putin—but by the EU’s reckless ultimatum, in November, that the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country choose between Europe and Russia. Putin’s proposal for a tripartite arrangement, rarely if ever reported, was flatly rejected by US and EU officials.

But the most crucial media omission is Moscow’s reasonable conviction that the struggle for Ukraine is yet another chapter in the West’s ongoing, US-led march toward post-Soviet Russia, which began in the 1990s with NATO’s eastward expansion and continued with US-funded NGO political activities inside Russia, a US-NATO military outpost in Georgia and missile-defense installations near Russia. Whether this longstanding Washington-Brussels policy is wise or reckless, it—not Putin’s December financial offer to save Ukraine’s collapsing economy—is deceitful. The EU’s “civilizational” proposal, for example, includes “security policy” provisions, almost never reported, that would apparently subordinate Ukraine to NATO.

Rony wrote:

Austin wrote:Interview with Stephen Cohen on Ukraine Crises

http://youtu.be/1z6_5Vd8R5M?t=2m6s

Hear, Hear

US President Barack Obama has commented Russia’s moves in Ukraine saying they would isolate Moscow. This comes after President Vladimir Putin’s televised statement where he described the Ukrainian revolution as an "armed seizure of power" and questioned the legitimacy of the current regime. He also said it was important to live up to the February 21 deal on Ukrainian peace settlement.

Putin stressed that Russia perceived the new government only partially legitimate. He stressed that there was yet no need to deploy Russian troops in Ukraine, although it was possible.

Barack Obama responded on Tuesday by saying “President Putin seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations. I don't think that's fooling anybody.”

Speaking in Washington, Obama warned that Russia’s “meddling” would push nations away from it.

“I actually think that this is not been a sign of strength, but rather, is a reflection that countries near Russia have deep concerns and suspicions about this kind of meddling, and if anything, it will push many countries further away from Russia,” he said.

Earlier, the United States pledged $1 billion in financial aid to Ukraine.