Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

Good, decent people don’t point their finger at others while their own government is committing crimes left right and center!

Good, decent people would CONDEMN their government’s criminal acts and demand that they adopt a law abiding and responsible stance on the planet instead of encouraging them with their callousness and utterly shameless finger-pointing at others thus exhibiting their double standards.

Neither you nor Stud are “good decent people” but typically British rotten scoundrels to the bone!

Dobroe utro Tovarisch!

Wow! I don't know what the root cause of your problem is. Clearly you've got a big one though.

All sorts of terrible, man's-inhumanity-to-man things are happening on this planet right now and sadly that's the way it's always seemed to have been. Given how you launch into auto-rant about it at the drop of a hat though you've obviously got some sort of historic grudge against the British in particular. Who it seems, make the likes of Nazi Germany's atrocities pale into insignificance.To paint all citizens of a nation as complicit in your perception of their country's crimes, throughout history, demonstrates something most people who have gotten around a bit know only too well. Being (supposedly) highly educated and a twat are not mutually exclusive.

At the end of the day it seems that you're just a narrow minded racist who gets off on dominating an ever shrinking forum membership. There's a clue to why it's been relentlessly going down the tube in the last sentence.

"Rotten scoundrels" That's a nice touch.

BTW. I didn't know STUD was British. For some reason I actually though he was of Russian origin. But then, I don't tend to post on here much. Can't think why.

Get Well >

[Get Real!]

...I don't tend to post on here much. Can't think why.

I’m wondering the same thing... you sometimes come across like some 15 year old female.

Just move on to FB or something.

[supporttheunderdog]

Good, decent people don’t point their finger at others while their own government is committing crimes left right and center!

Good, decent people would CONDEMN their government’s criminal acts and demand that they adopt a law abiding and responsible stance on the planet instead of encouraging them with their callousness and utterly shameless finger-pointing at others thus exhibiting their double standards.

Neither you nor Stud are “good decent people” but typically British rotten scoundrels to the bone!

Dobroe utro Tovarisch!

Wow! I don't know what the root cause of your problem is. Clearly you've got a big one though.

All sorts of terrible, man's-inhumanity-to-man things are happening on this planet right now and sadly that's the way it's always seemed to have been. Given how you launch into auto-rant about it at the drop of a hat though you've obviously got some sort of historic grudge against the British in particular. Who it seems, make the likes of Nazi Germany's atrocities pale into insignificance.To paint all citizens of a nation as complicit in your perception of their country's crimes, throughout history, demonstrates something most people who have gotten around a bit know only too well. Being (supposedly) highly educated and a twat are not mutually exclusive.

At the end of the day it seems that you're just a narrow minded racist who gets off on dominating an ever shrinking forum membership. There's a clue to why it's been relentlessly going down the tube in the last sentence.

"Rotten scoundrels" That's a nice touch.

BTW. I didn't know STUD was British. For some reason I actually though he was of Russian origin. But then, I don't tend to post on here much. Can't think why.

Get Well >

I am British through and through but I live with Three Russian passport holding ladies and have a son (and mother in law) living in Moscow.

[Robin Hood]

LR you do have the tendency to bring out the worse in people even those of a mild character and not normally users of extreme and offensive language. Maybe it has something to do with your sarcastic and infuriatingly smug attitude? As usual you kick-it off because GR used the term USSR .... he was wrong but just to point out why would have sufficed but not for you. If anyone on this forum is stuck in the Soviet/Cold War era ..... it is you and you show it in every post on the subject of Russia/Putin etc. GR obviously has a thin skin and you certainly are a master at winding anyone up.

So ..... let’s get back to the OP.

Are there Russian soldiers in Ukraine? The short answer is NO but it is not as simple as that.

The first link by STUD:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2016/09/06/russian-combat-medals-put-lie-to-putins-claim-of-no-russian-troops-in-ukraine/

The confirmation that the Russians in Ukraine were not Russian Military personnel is in the author’s first paragraph and is obvious if you remove the author’s personal opinions.

Vladimir Putin declared, on his annual broadcast to the Russian people on April 16, 2015: “I can tell you outright and unequivocally that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine.” The author of the article questions this statement, but in doing so proves that what Putin said was indeed legally correct.

Russian troops signed "separation documents" from the army before going to the Ukraine conflict zone. Thus, they are/were no longer officially part of the Russian military. According to the author this was simply Putin’s “twisted narrative” but this is also only the author’s opinion. The rest of the article is padding from various sources that enhance the author’s opinion and is obviously where the Bellingcat link to MH17 came from.

Putin is a trained Lawyer and he always, as far as I can tell, works within the Law and also International Law ....... which is more than can be said for the US and its allies (that includes the UK).

What he did was legal and allowed Russian Military personnel to effectively suspend their Russian military service ......... I would guess maybe even retaining their salaries, benefits and Pension rights? The ethnic, linguistic, family and blood line links between Russia and the Eastern region of Ukraine is obvious. These Russians then went to help their relatives without actually being in the Russian military. Putin could not legally get directly involved so he found a legal way out to help the ethnic Russian separatists.

All the wild stories about thousands of troops with tanks pouring into Ukraine from Russia all turned out to be false. Although the media covered the original story they went very quiet when the truth came out. If you just rely on the MSM you would still believe the stories were true.

So, there are Russians in Ukraine but they are not officially or legally Russian military as the articles author suggests or under the command of the Russian Military, they are commanded by the separatist military.

So ...... legally there are no Russian military personnel in Ukraine.

Let’s expand the concept? Are there US Soldiers in Ukraine? Well, we know there are and we know that the US is arming the Ukraine military ........ but officially their presence is not acknowledged. I suspect there are likewise Russian military ‘advisors’ in Eastern Ukraine and also I would accept that Russia is arming them to a small extent. The separatists get most of their weapons from the Ukraine army by ‘kettling’ them into a ‘cauldron’ and giving them the option to lay down their arms and walk away or fight to the death. It has served the separatists well!

The Ukraine Army is mainly conscripts. The main fighting units that drive the violence are outfits like The Azov Battalion and other extreme right wing groups with Nazi allegiances and that work for various oligarchs as private armies. The Ukraine conscripts surrender but if they are caught by these fascist thugs, they are shot as deserters and traitors.So the separatists pick them up and offer them a free trip back to Ukraine as civilians or a route out to Russia. Most chose the latter as to return puts their families in danger. So the separatists officially declare them as killed in action and then get news back to their families that they are OK. This was covered on a daily basis by Moon of Alabama and is where he first came to the fore as a very plausible analyst.

Until the US funded and inspired coup in Kiev, the structure in Ukraine remained unchanged and the status quo prevailed. When the leaders of the coup formed their illegal government the US and its allies recognised it immediately ...... it was only then the trouble started.

This fascist government decided to erase everything Russian, threatened Eastern Ukraine and also to throw Russia out of Crimea. It all misfired and the people in the East rose up against the US installed illegal fascists government. Crimea, as an autonomous State with its own government had a vote and the results was that a very high percentage of the population wanted independence from Ukraine. They declared their independence and then had a referendum, voted to be annexed and return to Mother Russia ......... and Putin obliged. The MSM stories about the population being herded to the polls by Russians at the barrel of an AK-47 was also a fabrication.

Once again history shows that an attempt at regime change has failed to deliver and instead has caused thousands of deaths and massive destruction ...... and only one country is behind it ..... and it is not Russia!

[Get Real!]

.... he was wrong but just to point out why would have sufficed but not for you.

I was not wrong at all because I used it as a metaphor.

What the West perceives as “USSR” and what Russia perceives are two different things, clearly proven by Russia’s military campaigns in Georgia and the Ukraine.

[Sotos]

According to Russia and the majority of the people in Crimea, Crimea is now part of Russia so why wouldn't they have Russian soldiers? The majority of the population of Crimea is also Russian, so why should the soldiers there be of some different nationality? The question is if Crimea should be part of Russia. Some facts to consider:

In 1783, Crimea became a part of Russian Empire as the result of Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774). Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, Crimea became an autonomous republic within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in the USSR. During World War II, Crimea was downgraded to the Crimean Oblast and then, in 1954, it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR from the Russian SFSR by Nikita Khrushchev.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

So the only reason that Crimea was part of Ukraine was that Khrushchev gave it to them. The Ukrainians have NEVER been the majority in Crimea (their percentage fluctuated between 10% and 25%) and they don't have any deep historical links with that territory. In fact the Ukrainians were moved there (along with Russians) by the Russians, when the Russians took the territory from the Ottomans. ( and by the way, Greeks and Turks have deeper historical links with Crimea than either Russians or Ukrainians).

So, if the majority of the population of Crimea want their territory to be part of Russia, why not? And why the West rushed to recognize Kossovo, even though the Serbs have far deeper historical links and valid claims to Kossovo than the Ukrainians have over Crimea? The answer is obvious. Let me know if you want me to spell it out.

[Robin Hood]

.... he was wrong but just to point out why would have sufficed but not for you.

I was not wrong at all because I used it as a metaphor.

What the West perceives as “USSR” and what Russia perceives are two different things, clearly proven by Russia’s military campaigns in Georgia and the Ukraine.

Surely ..... as LR pointed out, the USSR no longer exists and all the States that formed that block are now free to associate with whichever block suits them. The problem with Ukraine is that there are two very different perceptions of which way they wanted to go? BUT ....... another country intervened to push for their preferred vision by encouraging (even organising) an illegal coup, rather than recognising that in realistic terms the country should have been divided. But the intent was not for the benefit of Ukraine but to allow the US to extend NATO right up to the Russian border.

Events in Georgia were different. They attacked Sth. Ossetia and the Russians having by invitation a peace keeping force on the border between them, retaliated with force but both UN and EU investigations declared that Georgas started it. The criticism was that Russian retaliation was not 'proportional', whatever proportional means.

[Robin Hood]

SOTOS:

So the only reason that Crimea was part of Ukraine was that Khrushchev gave it to them.

But when you read the Russian Constitution neither Khrushchev nor the Duma had the right to transfer Crimea to Ukraine without the consent of the population. There was no direct land link between Russia and Crimea so the Russians needed to transit Ukraine to get to Crimea. Crimea was not handed over to Ukraine it was considered an autonomous region under Ukraine Administration. So the reasoning behind the argument over Crime being part of Russia, not Ukraine, is valid according to Law.

The people made a choice as is their right under the UN Charter, that gives people the right to self determination. But the US and its Allies decided to ignore that and go for the Ukraine’s claims to sovereignty and imposed their usual regime of sanctions and threats, as presumably, they had their eyes on denying the Russians their only warm water port with access to the Med ......... Sevastopol !!! They should have known the Russians would not stand for that.

The creation of Kosovo from Serbia was never put to the vote as it would not have been accepted, as those that wanted a separate Kosovo were in a minority. But once again the US decided differently. They once again fully recognised the UDI of Kosovo even without a vote although it was an illegal declaration. The US is very much a nation that runs double standards! It seems to be a very similar story in all the conflicts the US has instigated since WWII ..... it has always been to suit US interests, not the interests of the people.