Republican Platform Chokes on Ukraine

[Bigdog]

You have any evidence for those assertions?

Yes, this is the tiny bit we know about Obama's secret collusion with Vlad on military matters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-tells-medvedev-solution-on-missile-defense-is-unlikely-before-elections/2012/03/26/gIQASoblbS_story.html

"March 26, 2012 at 2:25 p.m. EDT, SEOUL — In their joint statement to reporters here, President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev spoke carefully about continuing discussions on the sensitive issues of European missile defense.

But in an unscripted moment picked up by camera crews, the American president was more blunt: Let me get reelected first, he said; then I’ll have a better chance of making something happen.

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space," Obama can be heard telling Medvedev, apparently referring to incoming Russian president — and outgoing prime minister — Vladimir Putin.

"Yeah, I understand," Medvedev replies, according to an account relayed by an ABC News producer, who said she viewed a recording of the discussion made by a Russian camera crew. "I understand your message about space. Space for you . . ."


“This is my last election,” Obama interjects. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev, who last week demanded written proof that Russia is not the intended target of U.S. missile defense efforts, responded agreeably.
“I understand,” he told the U.S. president. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

 

[Bigdog]

You have any evidence for those assertions?



From a british publication:
**

Why did it happen?​

President Vladimir Putin had insisted Russia annexed Crimea to protect ethnic Russians from “far-right extremists” whom Russia claimed overthrown President Yanukovych.

In a 2015 documentary, Mr Putin said he took the decision on 23 February hours after the Ukrainian leader had fled Kyiv.

“I told all my colleagues, ‘We are forced to begin the work to bring Crimea back into Russia’,” he said.
**

Source:

Why did Russia annex Crimea? What happened when Putin invaded in 2014 and how Nato reacted

Russia has long been resistant to Ukraine's move towards European institutions, particularly Nato

inews.co.uk

Even Obama has acknowledged why the annexation was so easy to some extent. RT wrote a good article on some statements Obama made back in 2023:

Russia praises Obama’s words on Crimea

The Kremlin described ex-US President Barack Obama’s remark that many Crimeans felt Russia represented their interests as “rational”

www.rt.com

Quoting from the article:
**
Former US President Barack Obama’s most recent remarks on Crimea have featured some “rational thinking,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has claimed. Peskov was responding to an interview aired by CNN on Thursday, in which Obama acknowledged that a large number of residents on the peninsula supported Russia’s position in 2014.

“There’s a reason why there was not an armed invasion of Crimea [in 2014], because Crimea was full of a lot of Russian speakers,” the former US leader told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, adding that “there was some sympathy to the view that Russia was representing its interests.”

Responding on Friday, Peskov stated that “from time to time such rational thinking finds its way out [in the US].”

“There was indeed a sufficiently large faction of politicians who supported the idea of developing good relations with Russia [and] who spoke out against Russophobia being imposed,” he added.
**

The only issue Russia apparently had with Obama's statements is their view that he was downplaying the amount of Crimeans who wanted to return to Russia:
**
The Kremlin spokesperson, however, took issue with Obama’s estimate on the number of Crimeans who backed unification with Russia.

“It’s not a certain part of the Crimean population, but practically the entire Crimean population that wanted to become part of the Russian Federation,” Peskov said.

The vast majority of Crimeans voted in favor of joining Russia in a referendum held in March 2014, shortly after a Western-backed coup had deposed the democratically elected government in Kiev.

Many Crimean residents refused to recognize the new authorities in Kiev and expressed concern at the potential forced ‘Ukrainization’ of the peninsula, including discrimination against Russian speakers.
**

This statement is backed up by independent American Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett who went to Crimea after Russia annexed it to find out what happened and wrote an article about her time there. Quoting from her article:
**
Since there was so much hype in Western media about a Russian takeover of the peninsula, I ask the burning questions: Were Crimeans forced to take part in the referendum? What was the mood like around that time? Tata replied:
"I never saw so many people in my life go out to vote, of their own free will. There was a period before the referendum, maybe about two months, during which there were two holidays: International Women’s Day, March 8, and Defender of the Fatherland Day, February 23.

Normally, people would go away on vacation during these holidays. But that year, Crimeans didn’t go anywhere; they wanted to be sure they were here during the referendum. We felt the sense of a miracle about to happen. People were anxiously awaiting the referendum.

There were military tents in the city, but they were not erected by the military, but by local men. They would stand there every day, and people could come and sign a document calling for a referendum.

I went one day and asked if I could add my name but I couldn’t, because I have a Russian passport. Only Crimean citizens could sign it. This was the fair way to do it.

At that time, my husband was in America. One day, he was watching CNN and got scared and called me because he saw reports of soldiers in the streets, an ‘invasion’ by Russia.

The local navy came from Sevastopol to Yalta and anchored their ships off the coast, made a blockade to ensure no larger Ukrainian or other ships could come and attack. But I never saw tanks, I never saw Russian soldiers. I never saw any of that in the city.”
**

Source:

Return to Russia: Crimeans Tell the Real Story of the 2014 Referendum and Their Lives Since

Eva Bartlett traveled to Crimea to see how people have fared since their country reunited with Russia and what the referendum was really like

www.mintpressnews.com

So Scott, what did you glean from the political speak in those articles ... in your own words? What is YOUR opinion? That Vlad attacked Ukraine to save Russian speaking Ukrainians? From what, an independent Ukraine without a Russian puppet ruler?

 

[Bigdog]

April 8, 2014
By Jason Bush
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia is getting out its chequebook to bankroll the region of Crimea, newly incorporated into Russia following its rapid annexation last month.

Moscow has pledged to spend billions of dollars on everything from higher pensions to a bridge linking the region to Russia, with almost $7 billion earmarked this year alone.

It isn't all expenses. Russia also stands to save billions of dollars on rent it paid for the Sevastopol naval base of the Black Sea Fleet, and has acquired valuable property and natural resources in Crimea. ... "

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/factbox-costs-and-benefits-from-russia-s-annexation-of-crimea-idUSDEEA3706L/

 

[Scott]

I didn't remember myself, so I skimmed through the movie just now. Turns out, the order was given at the very start of the movie by one General Ripper, who'd gone mad. He also set things up to make it very difficult to recall the planes. That being said, most of the planes -were- recalled, but one plane had its radio damaged and thus couldn't get the recall order. That one plan dropped its nuke on a Russian target, which set off a "doomsday" device in Russia, which instigated World War III.

Thanks. I remember most of that. I don't recall why the General had the authority or what Russian actions triggered the mad General.

He didn't have the authority, he just pretended he got the orders from on high, his second in command believed him, and he then followed with instructions to make it very hard for the truth to get out so that the aircraft wing could be recalled. He wasn't triggered by Russian actions, but rather by his delusions of what Russians, or in his words, the "commies", were doing. This is akin to the whole Russiagate affair, though in that case, I strongly suspect that some perpetuating the lie knew the truth.

 

[Scott]

I didn't ratchet back anything- I said that you've "provided 0 evidence that your gung ho attidude wouldn't have resulted in World War III" and I stand by that assertion.

We'll never know since Biden didn't even try a No Fly zone even tho he knew the invasion was imminent.

I for one am quite happy that we'll never know if the U.S. could have started World War III over trying to institute a No Fly zone in Ukraine.

And you have provided no evidence that Putin would have nuked anything had we shot down some of his war planes attacking Ukraine which we were sworn to defend.

As mentioned previously, the U.S. has not defended Ukraine, they've thrown them to the wolves. The faction within the Obama Administration's decision to back Neo Nazis during Euromaidan precipitated the coup of then elected President Viktor Yanukovych, Russia's annexation of Crimea and the subsequent civil war in the Donbass region, which after 8 years led to Russia's military intervention.

World War III was almost started over innocuous things in the past:

9 times the world was at the brink of nuclear war — and pulled back

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945 marked the end of the World War II, and the beginning of the age of nuclear weapons.

www.businessinsider.com

Seems to me that where we're at now is rivalled only by the Cuban Missile Crisis, which accounts for 4 of the 9 incidents mentioned in the article above. I wouldn't be surprised if there's already been a close call since Russia's military intervention in Ukraine and we simply haven't been told about it yet. Adding these F16s isn't helping.

 

[Scott]

Again, I never claimed that "over half of Ukraine" are Nazis. That being said, the evidence is quite clear that Neo Nazis played an enormous role in the Euromaidan coup. I already provided plenty of evidence for this in post #65.

One guy out of a 450 member parliament.

I think you're referring to is that after the Neo Nazis got Viktor Yanukovych, the elected President of Ukraine at the time, to flee for his life, and beat at least one member of his administration, they also managed to get 1 Neo Nazi member into Parliament. Have you not considered that the ability to get the elected President of their nation would have a chilling effect on future Ukrainian Presidents?

There's plenty of evidence that this was the case with Zelensky:

Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate

In 2019, Zelensky was elected on an overwhelming mandate to make peace with Russia. As Stephen F. Cohen warned that year, the US chose to side with Ukraine’s far-right and fuel war.

scheerpost.com

Quoting from the article:
**
In April 2019, Zelensky was elected with an overwhelming 73% of the vote on a promise to turn the tide. In his inaugural address the next month, Zelensky declared that he was “not afraid to lose my own popularity, my ratings,” and was “prepared to give up my own position – as long as peace arrives.”

But Ukraine’s powerful far-right and neo-Nazi militias made clear to Zelensky that reaching peace in the Donbas would have a much higher cost.

“No, he would lose his life,” Right Sector co-founder Dmytro Anatoliyovych Yarosh, then the commander of the Ukrainian Volunteer Army, responded one week after Zelensky’s inaugural speech. “He will hang on some tree on Khreshchatyk – if he betrays Ukraine and those people who died in the Revolution and the War.”

Along with the threats to his life, Zelensky experienced direct obstacles to his peace mandate on multiple fronts.

When Zelensky travelled to the Donbas in October 2019 to promote elections for the rebel-held areas, he was confronted by angry members of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion rallying under the slogan of “No to Capitulation.” In one exchange caught on video, Zelensky sparred with an Azov member over the president’s calls for a military drawdown. “I’m the president of this country. I’m 41 years old. I’m not a loser. I came to you and told you: remove the weapons,” Zelensky pleaded.


https://twitter.com/DenisRogatyuk/status/1510419008457039874?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1510419008457039874%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpopularresistance.org%2Fsiding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-historic-mandate-for-peace%2F
But Zelensky met continued defiance. The same far-right forces set up an armed checkpoint to delay a Ukrainian military pullback. Thousands of far-right and nationalist protesters, cheered by the liberal intelligentsia and carrying flares as torches, also marched in Kiev.

When Zelensky’s press secretary, Iuliia Mendel, “drew attention to the prevalence of civilian casualties” in the Donbas, “which she blamed on government forces’ injudicious use of return fire,” she was greeted instead with “a prosecutorial summons,” Katharine Quinn-Judge of the International Crisis Group reported in April 2020, one year after Zelensky’s election. Mendel’s recognition of the suffering in the Donbas, Quinn-Judge observed, resulted from “Zelensky’s campaign pledge to treat residents of Russia-backed enclaves more like full-fledged Ukrainians,” – a non-starter for the US-favored far-right nationalists, who harbored no such interest in Ukrainians’ equality.

Although Zelensky dithered on Minsk, he nonetheless continued talks on its implementation. The far-right continued to express its violent opposition at every turn, such as in August 2021, when at least eight police officers were wounded in armed protests outside the presidential offices.

The far-right threats to Zelensky undoubtedly thwarted a peace agreement that could have prevented the Russian invasion. Just two weeks before Russia troops entered Ukraine, the New York Times noted that Zelensky “would be taking extreme political risks even to entertain a peace deal” with Russia, as his government “could be rocked and possibly overthrown” by far-right groups if he “agrees to a peace deal that in their minds gives too much to Moscow.”

Yuri Hudymenko, leader of the far-right Democratic Ax, even threatened Zelensky with an outright coup: “If anybody from the Ukrainian government tries to sign such a document, a million people will take to the streets and that government will cease being the government.”

Zelensky has clearly gotten the message. Instead of pursuing the peace platform that he was elected on, the Ukrainian President has instead made alliances with the Ukrainian far-right that violently opposed it. As recently as late January, amid last-chance talks to salvage the Minsk accords, Zelensky-appointed Ukrainian security chief Oleksiy Danilov instead pronounced that “the fulfillment of the Minsk agreement means the country’s destruction.” At the final round of Minsk talks in February, just two weeks before Russia’s invasion, a “key obstacle,” the Washington Post reported, “was Kyiv’s opposition to negotiating with the pro-Russian separatists.”

Zelensky’s acquiescence to Nazi forces was most recently underscored on April 7th, when an address to the Greek parliament was overshadowed by his airing of a video featuring a member of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion.

“I think Zelensky found out very quickly that because of the Ukrainian right, it was impossible to implement Minsk II,” John Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago professor who has warned for years that US policies were pushing Ukraine into a conflict with Russia, said in a public event the same day. “…Zelensky understands that he cannot take the Ukrainian right on by himself. So basically we have a situation where Zelensky is stymied.”

Echoing his late friend and colleague Stephen F. Cohen, Mearsheimer stressed the centrality of the US role.

“The Americans will side with the Ukrainian right,” Mearsheimer said. “Because the Americans, and the Ukrainian right, both do not want Zelensky cutting a deal with the Russians that makes it look like the Russians won. So this is the principal reason I’m very pessimistic about Ukraine’s ability to help shut this one down.”
**

 

[Scott]

Yes, we do know. Obama got caught on a Hot Mic with Medvedev secretly colluding with Vlad on military matters. Even asking him to keep it a secret from American voters.

You have any evidence for those assertions?

Yes, this is the tiny bit we know about Obama's secret collusion with Vlad on military matters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-tells-medvedev-solution-on-missile-defense-is-unlikely-before-elections/2012/03/26/gIQASoblbS_story.html

"March 26, 2012 at 2:25 p.m. EDT, SEOUL — In their joint statement to reporters here, President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev spoke carefully about continuing discussions on the sensitive issues of European missile defense.

But in an unscripted moment picked up by camera crews, the American president was more blunt: Let me get reelected first, he said; then I’ll have a better chance of making something happen.

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space," Obama can be heard telling Medvedev, apparently referring to incoming Russian president — and outgoing prime minister — Vladimir Putin.

"Yeah, I understand," Medvedev replies, according to an account relayed by an ABC News producer, who said she viewed a recording of the discussion made by a Russian camera crew. "I understand your message about space. Space for you . . ."


“This is my last election,” Obama interjects. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev, who last week demanded written proof that Russia is not the intended target of U.S. missile defense efforts, responded agreeably.
“I understand,” he told the U.S. president. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

Not sure how you consider Obama trying to avoid a nuclear catastrophe as "colluding" with Russia.

 

[Scott]

So Scott, what did you glean from the political speak in those articles ... in your own words? What is YOUR opinion? That Vlad attacked Ukraine to save Russian speaking Ukrainians? From what, an independent Ukraine without a Russian puppet ruler?

My belief is that Crimeans saw the Euromaidan massacre in Kyev, the relatively neutral elected Ukrainian President fleeing for his life (through Crimea, incidentally) and wanted to ensure that these things didn't happen to them. Odessa wasn't so lucky:

Burned alive: How the 2014 Odessa massacre became a turning point for Ukraine

Clashes between opposing activists turned into mass murder. The perpetrators have never been punished

www.rt.com

Crimea was never given a choice on whether they wanted to join Ukraine way back in 1954 by the Supreme Soviet. Crimeans had essentially been Russian for 300 years prior to their brief stint as Ukrainian:
**
In 1954, the USSR transferred the oblast to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Treaty in 1654.
**

Source:

Crimea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As to why Russia gave Crimea away to Ukraine, it basically seems that it was political maneuvering on the part of Khrushchev. There's a long article about it here, but I think a good if not the main punchline is this one:
**
The transfer of Crimea to the UkrSSR also was politically useful for Khrushchev as he sought to firm up the support he needed in his ongoing power struggle with Soviet Prime Minister Georgii Malenkov, who had initially emerged as the preeminent leader in the USSR in 1953 after Joseph Stalin’s death.
**

There's also this bit that I thought was interesting:
**
Khrushchev had been elevated to the post of CPSU First Secretary in September 1953 but was still consolidating his leading position in early 1954. He had earlier served as the head of the Communist Party of Ukraine from the late 1930s through the end of 1949 (apart from a year-and-a-half during World War II when he was assigned as a political commissar to the front). During the last several years of Khrushchev’s tenure in the UkrSSR, he had overseen the Soviet government’s side of a fierce civil war in the newly annexed western regions of Ukraine, especially Volynia and Galicia. The civil war was marked by high levels of casualties and gruesome atrocities on both sides. Despite Khrushchev’s later role in denouncing Stalinism and implementing reforms in the USSR, he had relied on ruthless, unstinting violence to establish and enforce Soviet control over western Ukraine. Occasional armed clashes were still occurring in the mid-1950s, but the war was over by the time Crimea was transferred in February 1954. The repeated references at the meeting of the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium on 19 February to the “unity of Russians and Ukrainians” and to the “great and indissoluble friendship” between the two peoples, and the affirmation that the transfer would demonstrate how wise it was to have Ukraine “under the leadership of the Communist Party and the Soviet government,” indicate that Khrushchev saw the transfer as a way of fortifying and perpetuating Soviet control over Ukraine now that the civil war had finally been won. Some 860,000 ethnic Russians would be joining the already large Russian minority in Ukraine.
**

Crimea's inherent ethnic Russian character was evident after Ukraine became independent. Literally a year after Ukraine's independence from Russia, Crimea started getting into conflict the Kyiv, according to Wikipedia's article on the History of Crimea:
**
In 1992 the ASSR was renamed as the Republic of Crimea in the newly independent Ukraine which maintained Crimea's autonomous status, while the Supreme Council of Crimea affirmed the peninsula's "sovereignty" as a part of Ukraine.[6][7][8] Based on the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea (the parliament) on 26 February 1992, the Crimean ASSR was renamed the Republic of Crimea.[9] The Crimean parliament proclaimed self-government on 5 May 1992[10][9] and passed the first Crimean constitution together with a declaration of conditional independence[11] on the same day.[12]

There was stiff resistance from Ukraine and a day later, on 6 May, the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.[12] A referendum to confirm the decision was not held until 1994 due to the opposition from the Kyiv government. On 17 December 1992, the office of the Ukrainian presidential representative in Crimea was created, which led to a wave of protests a month later.

The Crimean parliament voted to bring in a President in 1993, which the Kyiv government denounced as unconstitutional.[13]: 198  In 1994 Crimea elected the pro-Russian and anti-establishment Yuriy Meshkov. The pro-Russian parties also won the parliamentary election that year.[14] However the president quickly alienated the parliament by asserting strong presidential powers.[15] On 8 September, the Crimean parliament degraded the President's powers from the head of state to the head of the executive power only, to which Meshkov responded by disbanding parliament and announcing his control over Crimea four days later. There were several mostly symbolic attempts to get closer relations with Russia, with a new flag mimicking the Russian tricolor,[16] and Crimean time going to Russian rather than Ukrainian time.[17]
**

Crimea's time as a fairly independent part of Ukraine was forcefully put down:
**

Fall of the Republic of Crimea​

On 17 March 1995, the Ukrainian Parliament intervened in the political crisis in Crimea, scrapping the Crimean Constitution and removing Meshkov and scrapping the office of President for his actions against the state and promoting integration with Russia.[18] Almost 4,000 Ukrainian soldiers and police officers were sent to Crimea.[19] Meshkov was removed from power[20] after Ukrainian special forces had entered his residence, disarmed his bodyguards and put him on a plane to Moscow.[21]

Meshkov was replaced by Kyiv-appointed Anatoliy Franchuk, with the intent to rein in Crimean aspirations of autonomy.[8][13] The Verkhovna Rada, the parliament of Crimea, voted to grant Crimea "extensive home rule" during the dispute.[5][11][21] Its status of being subordinate to Kyiv was confirmed eventually by the remaining Crimean authorities. Its name was changed from the Republic of Crimea to the Autonomous Republic. After an interim constitution lasting from 4 April 1996 to 23 December 1998, the constitution that would last until the Russian annexation was put into effect.
**

So it makes a lot of sense that Crimeans would welcome their return to Russia, which Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett noted in the article she wrote after she visited Crimea following Russia's annexation of it:

Return to Russia: Crimeans Tell the Real Story of the 2014 Referendum and Their Lives Since

Eva Bartlett traveled to Crimea to see how people have fared since their country reunited with Russia and what the referendum was really like

www.mintpressnews.com

 

[Scott]

April 8, 2014
By Jason Bush
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia is getting out its chequebook to bankroll the region of Crimea, newly incorporated into Russia following its rapid annexation last month.

Moscow has pledged to spend billions of dollars on everything from higher pensions to a bridge linking the region to Russia, with almost $7 billion earmarked this year alone.

It isn't all expenses. Russia also stands to save billions of dollars on rent it paid for the Sevastopol naval base of the Black Sea Fleet, and has acquired valuable property and natural resources in Crimea. ... "

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/factbox-costs-and-benefits-from-russia-s-annexation-of-crimea-idUSDEEA3706L/

Clearly, Russia decided to treat Crimeans better than Kyiv. From Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett's article on the subject:
**
I asked Tata about how life had changed after the referendum:
"When I came here in December 2012, everything was dilapidated and run down. The nice roads you were driving on, they didn’t exist when we were a part of Ukraine. I didn’t understand why Crimea was still a part of Ukraine. It was Russian land ever since the Tsars, the imperial time of Russia. This is where the Russian soul is, and the soul of the Russian navy. After the Soviet Union collapsed, it wasn’t the will of the Crimean people to join Ukraine. People were always Russian here; they always identified as Russian. Ukraine understood this well, and put nothing into Crimea, as punishment. Ukraine didn’t build any hospitals, kindergartens or roads. In the past four years, the Crimean government has built 200 new kindergartens. This is the most obvious example of how things have improved. They also built the new Simferopol airport."
**

Source:

Return to Russia: Crimeans Tell the Real Story of the 2014 Referendum and Their Lives Since

Eva Bartlett traveled to Crimea to see how people have fared since their country reunited with Russia and what the referendum was really like

www.mintpressnews.com