About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[whYNOT]

21 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Cited approvingly? I don't even know what his argument is. What background he means, what event from history he means to say is being avenged.

Macgregor is a prominent figure who said these things on the show of most watched media personality (Tucker Carlson) in the world. I agree with him that the fervency is spectacularly mismatched to the known circumstances and so there is likely something much deeper going on.

How is openly discussing such a major event of our times and comments by prominent experienced military figures addressing that event, "hitting rock bottom?"

Yeah, the fervency of true believers and everyone is infected.  Russians are sub-human. Period. A western propagandist's wet dream, half his work on the masses is done for him. It follows, we can't ever negotiate with Russians (Appeasement!), any signed treaty is not binding, any atrocities are automatically their doings, we are entitled to treat them with deception, and with impunity commit our own/Ukrainian atrocities on them --etc.,etc.. (all actually being some of the very things and behavior by which Russia has been treated for many years and recently). 

I see Norway scholar Glenn Diesen has a book out titled "Russophobia", which might bring some light on the phenomenon. Ethnic bigotry or Slavic racial inferiority, deep-seated fears of the stereotype, "Russian", and so on, reinforced by decades of the Russian movie villain? Hated for their Christianity (now) or their Communism, then? Can't tell for sure, the common beliefs regarding Russian people are not rational.

Social and professional dismissal and discrimination against ordinary Russians, academics, athletes, artists, employees and the like living and working in Europe (of "the Enlightenment", which Brook claims Ukraine and the West defends) is appalling, denotes the collectivist hysteria.

The English lately are the most virulent Russian haters. I considered that for racist-fascists like some Brits can be, now they have an excuse to be fashionably supremacist and warmongering, to go with an English general nostalgia for the glory days of a lost Empire.

Edited September 21, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

Came up earlier, how did the minority of neo-Nazis, ultra-nationalists, and "Right Sector" come to be "the tail that wags the dog" in Ukraine's politics and military? And why did Westerners post-2014 tacitly embrace them, openly or by association, after first condemning Banderists, etc.

(ah, yes: Putin, aiming to "de-Nazify" Ukraine, he's "Hitler" )

First I've seen the articulate Glenn Greenwald. 7 mins in

https://rumble.com/v3l2rwp-system-update-show1-151.html

Edited September 27, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

The get-out-of-Hell option offered to Ukr soldiers by RF High Command, the "Volga" radio frequency. It's been active for some months and apparently gaining traction. Good: those lives count more. When fighting for one's country involves (especially, but not only) force-conscripted men fighting and being killed for high-blown abstractions - Democracy, Western Values, "Enlightenment Values" - and for others' noble feelings, they'd have to query --

"What - 'values'"?

 

 

[AlexL]

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

[...]

Guess what is the source of Clayton Morris' claim that "Ukrainian forces quitting by the thousands", more precisely that "Approximatively 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers have surrendered [in the last less than 3 months]"?

It is TASS, the state-owned news(?) agency of the Russian Federation (minute 4:24)! No other source is given.

Similar news and images can be seen and heard on the Ukrainian state channels, starting with more then a year ago, saying the exactly same thing about massive RUSSIAN surrenders!

Why should anyone trust a governmental source of ANY warring party??? Only militants, those interested in broadcasting a specific thesis instead of verified facts.

Besides: today (September 29) RIA Novosti reports the above "news" by referring to the above Clayton Morris show, which in fact reproduces TASS ! Thus, RIA Novosti  presents this information (?) as stemming from an independent Western source ! This trick was massively used during the Soviet times... but in a somewhat more refined form.

[whYNOT]

The trouble with the indoctrinated by Western propaganda, they can't/don't want to see that "the brutal war of aggression by Putin" - which was preceded by a brutal war of aggression by a Nazified Ukraine upon Ukrainian Russians - has been publicly used to be the convenient cover for a brutal war of defensive-aggression against Russia by the West's enthusiastic backing of Ukraine--try to get across to them that the Western powers plainly place very little humanitarian worth in Ukraine's lives (as long as their own list of 'selfish' aims, military, geo-political, economic, ideological, etc.,  is eventually met), as evidenced by their sabotage of possible negotiations, the urging of further wasteful offensives that the Ukr AF has zero chance to carry through with success, the blatant exposures of politicians stating exactly how and why prolonging this war is a bargain and 'good for us' - and more - yet they still can't see that ('dictatorial') Russia could be more humane by offering safe surrender terms to its opposing soldiers than has been Ukraine to its captured Russians, and much more humanitarian than the (Enlightenment) nations to its own supposed ally, Ukraine; a denial to absorb the, admittedly disturbing, truth: your leaders are anti-life and anti-freedom, altruist warmongers. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

On today's Russian's news aggregator Yandex:

• "Russia, apart from the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DNR and LNR), should also reclaim its other territories - the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions, believes the Vice-Speaker of the State Duma [Russia "Parliament"], Pyotr Tolstoy." РИА Новости
• "On September 30th, the anniversary of the reunification of the DNR, LNR, Kherson, and Zaporozhie regions with Russia is celebrated." РИА Новости
• "According to the results of processing 100% of the ballots in the DNR, 99.23% of the voters expressed their support for joining the Russian Federation, while in the LNR, it was 98.42%, in the Kherson region - 87.05%, and in the Zaporizhzhia region - 93.11%." РИА Новости
• "The Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council [and former Russia President], Dmitry Medvedev, stated that ' [in the future] there will be more new regions attached to Russia.'" Московский Комсомолец

Sources: RIA Novosti, Moskovsky Komsomolets

Edited September 30, 2023 by AlexL

[whYNOT]

8 hours ago, AlexL said:

On today's Russian's news aggregator Yandex:

• "Russia, apart from the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DNR and LNR), should also reclaim its other territories - the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions, believes the Vice-Speaker of the State Duma [Russia "Parliament"], Pyotr Tolstoy." РИА Новости

But Odessa, Nikolaev, etc. would have to demonstrate their majority willingness to secede to Russia - by referenda best conducted this time under official UN overview, when the time comes. 

Which gives the lie to the fake Narrative that Putin only wanted "a land grab". Who would be so insane to want to forcibly occupy lands and towns filled with your mortal enemy, and a permanent guerilla conflict? (and initially with a hugely-outmanned army?) 

Raises that age old dilemma: "territorial integrity" v. the people's "self-determination". Created by the vagaries of recent (colonial and other) border lines that cut across traditional territories and tribal lands, leaving some people on each side of borders.

No matter, since normally proper nationhood will be the antidote to the dilemma, which means all people, of whichever 'stripe' are equally included in rule of law. Kyiv governments after 2014 messed up their nationhood by their discriminatory treatment of one sector of the nation's people and will have to pay a price. They will lose these lands - and the people.

From Russia's p.o.v., the gain of land, it's become most apparent, is greatly secondary to the security of the inhabitants: they have clear memories of what happens and will happen to ethnic, cultural, Russian speakers abandoned to the tender mercies and hatred shown against them by Kyiv and ultra-Nationalist West Ukrainians.  

The State Duma and Russia's army will not wish to have to return "to liberate" those people all over again, in the near or distant future.

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

23 hours ago, AlexL said:

On today's Russian's news aggregator Yandex:

• "Russia, apart from the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DNR and LNR), should also reclaim its other territories - the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions, believes the Vice-Speaker of the State Duma [Russia "Parliament"], Pyotr Tolstoy." РИА Новости

Expand  

But Odessa, Nikolaev, etc. would have to demonstrate their majority willingness to secede to Russia - by referenda best conducted this time under official UN overview, when the time comes. 

1. There is nothing there about "majority willingness" or "referenda" in the words of the Vice-Speaker of Russia's "Parliament". On the contrary, he uses the verb "вернуть", which means return · restore · bring back · recover · get back · take back something which rightly belongs to Russia.

Neither the Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council and former Russia President, Dmitry Medvedev, mentions "majority willingness" or "referenda", he simply states that "[in the future] there will be more new regions attached to Russia." Note the unconditional "will be attached".

The previous experience suggest that this will happen by Russian troops first taking control of the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions, and only then organize "referenda". And not the other way around.

2. "referenda best conducted this time under official UN overview" About this - only after finishing with # 1. One subject at a time.

Edited October 1, 2023 by AlexL

[whYNOT]

On 10/1/2023 at 8:10 PM, AlexL said:

1. There is nothing there about "majority willingness" or "referenda" in the words of the Vice-Speaker of Russia's "Parliament". On the contrary, he uses the verb "вернуть", which means return · restore · bring back · recover · get back ·

 

The previous experience suggest that this will happen by Russian troops first taking control of the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions, and only then organize "referenda". And not the other way around.

 

Which "way around" would you have it? Hold a disputed referendum in a conflict zone?

Stay with proven reality, facts-on the-ground, not the rhetoric of a Parliamentarian.

Important to recall just what Kyiv/the West originally rejected with contempt: simple "autonomy" and representation within Ukraine for (only) Donestsk/Luhansk.

Thereby, condemning the region's people to the continuing war and without intervention, inevitable defeat.

That makes them bad-faith actors, cheats, initiators of force, evaders. From that point on, there could be no trust in Kyiv guranteeing security of those people in all the cultural Russian-speaking  provinces. The entire region would need to be liberated, then voted for according to the undisputed majority choice.

"They" wanted war with a favorable "zero-sum" outcome, conflict without diplomacy is what they understand, good, the triumphalist morons got what they wished for.

( the contemporary skepticism-determinism holds that a conquered land means a conquered people: that physical dominance ~changes~ minds. They even fight the war this way, believing that a piece of ground, a few kilometers or villages gained here or there because the Russians pulled back their lines - at a horrific, disproportionate cost to Ukr men and machines - is trumpeted to be 'a victory' and the signs of the coming triumph; so, of course, keep throwing in more men and armor. That evidently is not the RAF m.o. At this stage, big advances to gain territory is way secondary, they efficiently conserve their manpower while incapacitating the enemy manpower. Humans take precedence).

Edited October 3, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

Not about NATO: Stoltenberg.

But now the evil Putin-imperialist is the settled meme, one can admit it was. Do these morons in charge of mankind's future not hear themselves? And apologize for the error - or a deliberate mass deception?  Luckily for them, not many out there can hold a thought for long. 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

On 10/3/2023 at 5:06 AM, whYNOT said:

Which "way around" would you have it?

It is simple. „The other way around” with respect to:

Quote

Russian troops first taking control of the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions, and only then organize "referenda".

is:

-  first organize LEGAL [*] referenda in the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions and, if people opt for independence and, afterwards, for joining Russia

- then and only then take control, including military, of those region.

You got it?

[*] as defined by the Russian's "Parliament" itself(!) in connection with the annexation of Crimea (in its document "Legal bases for the recognition of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation"). Further explanations – only on demand; but I guess you won't be interested... as usual. Because facts are your worst enemy and you sense it somehow.

Edited October 4, 2023 by AlexL
Clarity

[AlexL]

On 10/3/2023 at 6:33 AM, whYNOT said:

Not about NATO: Stoltenberg.

Of course the Putin's attack on Ukraine was not because NATO posed a security threat to the Russian Federation's security or territorial integrity! I am, however, surprised, that so many people realized and expressed this. (Thanks for that, @whYNOT)

The well know Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) published just a few days ago a highly interesting study on this subject, entitled Weakness is Lethal: Why Putin Invaded Ukraine and How the War Must End.

This study discusses Putin’s motivations for the invasion and the events that led up to it. Putin’s goal were to expand Russian power, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO. He believed that NATO was weak [hence the title Weakness is Lethal] and that the West would not intervene if he invaded Ukraine. Putin’s decision to invade was also influenced by his false assessments of Ukraine’s millitary capabilities. The authors prove their claims with facts. The study provides over 70 references.

Here is a summary of the key points from the article:

• Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022 not because of NATO expansion, but because he beleived NATO was weak and he had an opportunity to establish control over Ukraine. He had been trying other means unsucessfully for years.
• Putin's goals have always been to reestablish Russian power, break up NATO, and exert control over Ukraine and former Soviet states. He saw NATO and Western influence as undermining Russia's sphere of influence.
• In 2021, after failures of other methods, Putin likely decided a ful invasion was needed to accomplish his long-held goals of controlling Ukraine and weakening NATO. He was emboldened by perceptions of Western weakness.
• Putin issued ultimatums to Ukraine and NATO in 2021 rejecting any compromises short of destroyng NATO and forcing Ukraine to submit to Russia. The invasion plans were already decided.
• Putin's objectives remain unchanged - he seeks a pro-Russia government in Kyiv, neutralization/weakening of Ukraine, and recognition of Russian control. No talks short of Ukrainian surrender will satisfy him.
• A ceasefire now would just be "Minsk III" allowing Russia to rebuild and try again. True peace requires Ukraine to defeat Russia militarily and rebuild strength to deter future aggression. Compromise now stores up bigger risks.

In summary, the article analyzes Putin's actual strategic motives and objectives in invading Ukraine, which have been consisstent and maximalist in nature, seeking control rather than defense. It argues a settlement now would not bring real peace.

Edited October 4, 2023 by AlexL

[whYNOT]

6 hours ago, AlexL said:

It is simple. „The other way around” with respect to:

is:

-  first organize LEGAL [*] referenda in the Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkov regions and, if people opt for independence and, afterwards, for joining Russia

- then and only then take control, including military, of those region.

You got it?

[*] as defined by the Russian's "Parliament" itself(!) in connection with the annexation of Crimea (in its document "Legal bases for the recognition of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation"). Further explanations – only on demand; but I guess you won't be interested... as usual. Because facts are your worst enemy and you sense it somehow.

While those regions are under Kyiv's military control, the identical applies. The intimidation of Russian-Ukrainians by Kyiv and Azov battalion etc., would make a fair election improbable.

It is not as if they haven't a record. Not as if they have not been given a free hand (by the international community also) in abusing and attacking and forcing to flee the residents of the Donbas for 9 years - no?

I'll say again, since you skirted around it, a modern population can not be held down by force. No one can coerce loyalty to a country.

The last thing Russia needs is extending its territories to include a majority anti-Russian and neo-Nazi element.

SO: first the RF has to win and secure those regions - THEN, hold referenda with UN observers.

And it's a certainty those inhabitants will be very pleased to break from Kyiv. As much as everybody in the West is infuriated by this.  

There already was in place a fair, businesslike deal with Ukraine, for Russia sharing and LEASING the Crimean ports. That went obviously out of the window when the government was taken over, and the new puppet regime wanted NATO in. This clearly forced Putin's hand - either claim Crimea and Sevastopol immediately, or see it taken over by NATO and lose the naval and trading sea route to the Black Sea and Med for all time. With NATO's plan successfully closing off Russia to the West and furthering its encirclement.

"It's not about NATO!"

Ha! It was ALL about NATO. They never had a continued raison d'etre but covertly and overtly undermining Russia.

The LEASE agreement and Kharkiv Pact, undoubtedly about to be illegally broken by Kyiv in 2014, like its other broken deals. One more fact not publicized in the spoon-fed propaganda you read.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjs46ixyNyBAxUdzQIHHYW5C0YQFnoECAsQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKharkiv_Pact&usg=AOvVaw1vJjqVSRe2Gqb1fDFdGLli&opi=89978449

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

Of course the Putin's attack on Ukraine was not because NATO posed a security threat to the Russian Federation's security or territorial integrity! I am, however, surprised, that so many people realized and expressed this. (Thanks for that, @whYNOT)

The well know Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) published just a few days ago a highly interesting study on this subject, entitled Weakness is Lethal: Why Putin Invaded Ukraine and How the War Must End.

This study discusses Putin’s motivations for the invasion and the events that led up to it. Putin’s goal were to expand Russian power, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO. He believed that NATO was weak [hence the title Weakness is Lethal] and that the West would not intervene if he invaded Ukraine. Putin’s decision to invade was also influenced by his false assessments of Ukraine’s millitary capabilities. The authors prove their claims with facts. The study provides over 70 references.

Here is a summary of the key points from the article:

• Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022 not because of NATO expansion, but because he beleived NATO was weak and he had an opportunity to establish control over Ukraine. He had been trying other means unsucessfully for years.
• Putin's goals have always been to reestablish Russian power, break up NATO, and exert control over Ukraine and former Soviet states. He saw NATO and Western influence as undermining Russia's sphere of influence.
• In 2021, after failures of other methods, Putin likely decided a ful invasion was needed to accomplish his long-held goals of controlling Ukraine and weakening NATO. He was emboldened by perceptions of Western weakness.
• Putin issued ultimatums to Ukraine and NATO in 2021 rejecting any compromises short of destroyng NATO and forcing Ukraine to submit to Russia. The invasion plans were already decided.
• Putin's objectives remain unchanged - he seeks a pro-Russia government in Kyiv, neutralization/weakening of Ukraine, and recognition of Russian control. No talks short of Ukrainian surrender will satisfy him.
• A ceasefire now would just be "Minsk III" allowing Russia to rebuild and try again. True peace requires Ukraine to defeat Russia militarily and rebuild strength to deter future aggression. Compromise now stores up bigger risks.

In summary, the article analyzes Putin's actual strategic motives and objectives in invading Ukraine, which have been consisstent and maximalist in nature, seeking control rather than defense. It argues a settlement now would not bring real peace.

What a load of rubbish; contains just a few half-truths to 'validate' the remainder for the ignorant reader.

"A full invasion", for one. With a (verifiable) small, and heavily outnumbered force ... Russia can field close to a million troops, if it needed. That would be a full invasion.

Putin thought "NATO was weak". Really? Like he receives no accurate Intel? But the Russians have gone to lengths to not directly provoke or confront NATO forces. Anyway, on its own territory, in a conventional war against NATO, Russia would not be beaten.

"Destroying NATO". "Forcing Ukraine to submit.." "Ukrainian Surrender". Bla bla

Those may have -become- plausibly necessary goals - AFTER the fact, not prior. After - when NATO/the West immorally rejected negotiations Putin was trying to have, and pressured Ukraine to escalate matters, to still now refuse dialogue and desperately keep on "doubling down", ever since.

To Ukraine's destruction

This war is absolutely NATO/the West versus Russia. While Ukraine is the whipping boy. 

Common knowledge, overall, NATO's the aggressive party. In its absence, not much would have occurred, or been resolved peacefully.

 

These are paid-up, ideologically neo-con, think tanks, set upon covering for their bosses' terrible blunders and evasions: cleaning up the record for posterity. A prediction I made, the self-justifiers and buck-passers would emerge when things went sour.

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by whYNOT

[Doug Morris]

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

No one can coerce loyalty to a country.

What about coercing obedience?

 

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

These are paid-up, ideologically neo-con, think tanks, set upon covering for their bosses' terrible blunders and evasions: cleaning up the record for posterity.

It is very easy to establish that ISW study says what it says only because they are "paid-up, ideologically neo-con, think tanks, set upon covering for their bosses' terrible blunders and evasions: cleaning up the record for posterity" and not because they are based on facts: just take 5 of their 40+ claims and show that they are factually false.

[AlexL]

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

SO: first the RF has to win and secure those regions - THEN, hold referenda with UN observers.

So: THIS is your concept of legality !!! It is perfectly stupid (incidentally, it is the opposite to even the Putin's Russia concept of legality - at least for Crimea).

Besides being illegal, it is also illegitimate, that is unjustifiable by moral-political considerations.

UN observers: UN election observation are often criticized over lack of transparency, inconsistent methodology, and potential political biases in evaluation and endorsement of results.

And I doubt that UN will agree to supervise (which implies endorsement) referendums/elections in an country occupied by foreign army which overthrew the previous government... It would mean endorsement also of the overthrow... UN will never do this. Nor any other multinational organization. Not even BRICS or BRICS++ 😁

Edited October 4, 2023 by AlexL

[AlexL]

About the leasing of parts of Ukrainian Sevastopol to Russian Federation you write:

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

There already was in place a fair, businesslike deal with Ukraine, for Russia LEASING the Crimean ports. That went obviously out of the window when the government was taken over, and the new puppet regime wanted NATO in. This forced Putin's hand - either claim Crimea and Sevastopol immediately, or see it taken over by NATO and lose the naval and trading sea route to the Black Sea and Med for all time. With NATO's plan successfully closing off Russia to the West and furthering its encirclement.

[...]

The LEASE agreement and Kharkiv Pact, undoubtedly about to be illegally broken by Kyiv in 2014, like its other broken deals. One more fact not publicized in the spoon-fed propaganda you read.

I am glad you brought this up. Tell me more about the facts. You seem to know nothing. But you can prove me wrong. For example:

Quote

[Leasing] undoubtedly about to be illegally broken by Kyiv in 2014... [Russia would] lose the naval and trading sea route to the Black Sea and Med for all time.

Ukraine and Russia signed the first Sevastopol leasing treaty in 1997, valid until 2017. During the presidency of Victor Yushchenko (January 2005 – February 2010) the Ukrainian government declared that the lease would NOT be extended at expiration and that the Russian fleet would have to leave Sevastopol by 2017.

What did the Russian President do? Did he kill Yushchenko, the neo-Nazi? Did he invade Crimea? Did he bomb Kiev? Not at all ! He budgeted with several billions the extension of the already largest port at the Black Sea, the port of Novorossiysk. which was on the Russian territory.

Thus, in 2005 it was announced that until 2017 two new military naval bases will be created in Novorossiysk, substantially larger than Sebastopol's. The large scale construction project was started. The Black Sea Fleet was to be moved from Sebastopol to Novorossiysk by the end of the leasing.

So much about Russia "losing the naval and trading sea route to the Black Sea and Med for all time" and having "no other option" than snatch Sevastopol and the entire Crimea immediately!

The other option was to build or extend one of the other ports Russia had at the Black Sea along the 700 km coastline. Novorossiysk was probably the best choice, but there were also other ports : Sochi and Tuapse, as well as smaller ones like Anapa, Temryuk and Yeysk.

The Novorossiysk project was abandoned : Putin had larger and bolder projects, of geostrategic scope, so that Novorossiysk, a replacement of Sebastopol, was not needed anymore... 

Edited October 4, 2023 by AlexL

[whYNOT]

More bla bla to distract from the significant facts.

The LEASE, as agreed by the Yanukovych and Medvedev governments, was to be extended "beyond 2017 until 2042"

Wikipeda, tellingly, neglects to supply any context for WHY "Russia unilaterally terminated the treaty on 31 March 2014". Absolutely nothing to do with shortly following a revolt and a coup, of course ...

No, evil Putin annexed Crimea, again, without cause. The Narrative mustn't be disturbed.

Read more carefully:

Kharkiv Pact

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signing of the deal reached at the Kharkiv summit at 21 April 2010 by Alexei Miller and Yevhen Bakulin (with Dimitry Medvedev and Viktor Yanukovych standing in the background)
Signed	21 April 2010
Location	Kharkiv, Ukraine
Effective	27 April 2010
Expiration	31 March 2014
Parties	Russia  Ukraine
Languages	Russian Ukrainian

The Agreement between Ukraine and Russia on the Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, widely referred to as the Kharkiv Pact (Ukrainian: Харківський пакт)^[1][2] or Kharkov Accords (Russian: Харьковские соглашения),^[3][4] was a treaty between Ukraine and Russia whereby the Russian lease on naval facilities in Crimea was extended beyond 2017 until 2042, with an additional five-year renewal option in exchange for a multiyear discounted contract to provide Ukraine with Russian natural gas.^[5]

The agreement, signed on 21 April 2010 in Kharkiv, Ukraine, by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and ratified by the parliaments of the two countries on 27 April 2010, aroused much controversy in Ukraine. The treaty was effectively a continuation of the lease provisions that were part of the 1997 Black Sea Fleet Partition Treaty between the two states. Shortly after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in March 2014,^[6] Russia unilaterally terminated the treaty on 31 March 2014.^[7][8]

Edited October 5, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

7 hours ago, AlexL said:

So: THIS is your concept of legality !!! 

😁

It is the concept of ... democracy. Heard of it? People get to choose their political dispensation.

That's why your lot gets furious. You well know that the majority of 'the people' concerned will vote to join Russia and leave Ukraine--with the justification of Kyiv's protracted Russophobic repression, for their security, before anything else--and all your protestations about Ukraine/The West "defending Democracy values" are revealed to be self-contradictory hypocrisy.

Whatever the West with its military, economic and indoctrination power can do, the local people will gainsay it by referendum. Those people in their self-interest - morally - appear to prefer Russia and Putin, better get used to it. 

Or else, abandon the pretexts of the democracy concept and force them to stay in Ukraine. Can't have it both ways.

Edited October 5, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

On 10/4/2023 at 10:35 PM, Doug Morris said:

What about coercing obedience?

 

"It is better to be feared than loved--if you cannot be both". N. Machiavelli

I'd estimate that Russians have a strong memory and distaste of fearful obedience to the state, having gone through that cycle. No, I really don't think the Russians and the RF government wish to return there: coercing obedience/loyalty on outsiders or themselves. It's rather Western nations that should presently take a lesson from Machiavelli's cynical dichotomy to avoid repeating the same authoritarian cycle. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Russians have a strong memory and distaste of fearful obedience to the state, having gone through that cycle.

What are the facts that suggest that Russians have acquired a distaste of fearful obedience to the state?

For example, does their (sad) history confirm this?

Edited October 6, 2023 by AlexL

[AlexL]

On 10/5/2023 at 4:24 AM, whYNOT said:

More bla bla to distract from the significant facts.

The LEASE, as agreed by the Yanukovych and Medvedev governments, was to be extended "beyond 2017 until 2042"

The significant fact of MY comment was that your claim that without Sebastopol

Quote

 [Russia would] lose the naval and trading sea route to the Black Sea and Med for all time.

proved to be false.

It became evident that Russia had indeed alternative options to Sebastopol along its 700 km long Black Sea coastline, with Putin as my witness. Indeed, soon after a Ukrainian President, in or shortly after 2005, declared that the lease would not extend beyond its expiration in 2017, construction began on an alternative military port in Novorossiysk, on Putin's order.

In essence, Putin had alternatives to Sebastopol, was aware of them, and immediately initiated preparations for an alternative, with the latest possible target date being 2017. Therefore, the argument that it was inevitable for Russia to permanently lose access to the Black Sea and Mediterranean for naval and trade routes is unfounded.

Furthermore, the recent news highlights the importance of the Novorossiysk port, as a dozen major Russian military vessels were urgently relocated from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk due to its perceived safety from potential Ukrainian threats.

As for whether Putin regrets or not having stopped the construction in Novorossiysk in 2010, your hypothesis that he halted it because the Ukraine-friendly President Yanukovych successfully pushed for a 25-year lease extension is plausible. However, if this assumption holds true, then Putin made a grave error in 2010. Here's why:

Even in your own quote from Wikipedia regarding the 25-year lease extension, it is briefly mentioned that "The agreement... roused much controversy in Ukraine." However, the situation was much more more serious than that. Ratification faced violent opposition, with police having to intervene aggressively to quell protesters outside the Parliament, where up to 30,000 people gathered over several days.

Inside the Parliament, "The adoption of the law was accompanied by protests from deputies of opposition parties. A massive fight broke out in the session hall between supporters and opponents of ratification. The Speaker of the Parliament was pelted with chicken eggs..."

"Despite the protests and unrest, the Parliament adopted the Law... with 236 deputies voting 'for,' just above the required majority of 226 votes." This means that if just 6 out of the 450 deputies (1.3%) had changed their votes, the extension of the Sevastopol lease to Russia beyond 2017 would not have occurred.

Putin was acutely aware that ratification could have easily failed, and he should have drawn the necessary conclusions. If he intended to maintain a substantial military presence in the Black Sea, he couldn't rely on the volatile nature of Ukrainian politics. If he did indeed draw these conclusions, it would have been unwise to halt the expansion of Novorossiysk based on the fragile foundation of a 25-year lease.

Therefore, either he made a misguided decision, which seems unlikely, or he already had more ambitious plans in place to mitigate this risk, as mentioned in a previous comment.

Quote

Wikipeda, tellingly, neglects to supply any context for WHY "Russia unilaterally terminated the treaty on 31 March 2014". 

The context is that, as of March 31, 2014, according to Putin's perspective, Crimea no longer belonged to Ukraine, rendering the Leasing Agreement with Ukraine obsolete.

Edited October 6, 2023 by AlexL

[AlexL]

On 10/5/2023 at 5:51 AM, whYNOT said:

On 10/4/2023 at 11:24 PM, AlexL said:

So: THIS is your concept of legality !!! 

It is the concept of ... democracy. Heard of it? People get to choose their political dispensation.

Let's specify which concept of yours we are talking about. It is this:

On 10/4/2023 at 11:24 PM, AlexL said:

first the Russian Federation has to [militarily] win and secure those regions - THEN, hold referenda... [on independence from Ukraine and on joining the Russian Federation]

And you approve this !!!

Well, I am speechless.

Edited October 6, 2023 by AlexL

[whYNOT]

7 hours ago, AlexL said:

The context is that, as of March 31, 2014, according to Putin's perspective, Crimea no longer belonged to Ukraine, rendering the Leasing Agreement with Ukraine obsolete.

One would first have to question why "the gift" of Crimea to Ukraine (by Khrushchev) in 1952 - back when Ukraine was a SSR - still was legally binding - following the disintegration of the USSR.

The Kremlin might have posed its prerogative to reclaim Crimea, right then. Rather than respect Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea and enter a leasing agreement for the port. At minimum this indicates a modicum of good faith by the RF, to honor the original "gift". 

A fact gone unreported and covered up and so hard to find again, was that straight after the (illicit/undemocratic) coup, Poroshenko unilaterally rescinded the lease agreement made by his deposed predecessor.

He apparently tore it up. Which, like the spurious, ignored Minsk Accords, shows the hostility and bad faith from Kyiv's new regime.

Logical: from the overthrow and that act Putin would see that: either Russia annexed Crimea (and its majority Russian-speaking population) - or it would certainly soon be "annexed" by NATO/etc.

Use it or lose it, in effect. But even without formally tearing up the pact, the outcome for Crimea, Sevastopol, and the inhabitants falling under Ukraine and NATO would be identical.

Chickens coming home to roost, Ukraine and its leaders have been their own worst enemy.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by whYNOT