Ukraine sniping problem...

[icebear]

I haven't really kept up with this one as well as I should have. From what I read the abdication of Yanukovich was precipitated by snipers killing both cops and protesters in Kiev and the claim in the West has been that the snipers were on Yanukovich's payroll somehow or other, sort of like the Reichstag fire thing.

That turns out to be BS and several videos dealing with the leaked phone conversation between Estonian foreign minister Paet and Catherine Ashton have been going viral on youtube over the past three or four days, e.g. at about location 8:20 of this item:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8

A few other takes:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/06/russian-un-ambassador-comes-out-swinging-on-leaked-call/#
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrain...ilians-as-a-pretext-for-regime-change/5370705
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ters-possibly-hired-Ukraines-new-leaders.html

ussia’s U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin came out swinging after Thursday’s Security Council meeting, criticizing the mainstream media for ignoring a Voice of Russia report on a leaked private phone call between EU Representative Catherine Ashton and Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet.

During that Feb. 26 call, Churkin says that the Estonian minister told Ashton the snipers who shot protesters and police in Kiev’s Maidan Square were hired by the Ukrainian opposition.

Under the headline: “Behind Ukraine snipers was not Yanukovych, but new coalition,” Voice of Russia reported what it said was the transcript of the conversation, which had clearly been intercepted by hackers or a foreign intelligence service bent on embarrassing the West and its NATO allies.

Quote:
"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition," Paet said during the conversation, according to a transcript provided by the Voice of Russia.

"I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh," Ashton allegedly answered.

In other words, our rogue government has found yet another bunch of barbarians to support.

I mean, this is several tads beyond your garden variety villainy... Shooting cops is usually a bad thing but shooting your own people to achieve some ulterior political end is unusually nefarious.

 

[fuelair]

I haven't really kept up with this one as well as I should have. From what I read the abdication of Yanukovich was precipitated by snipers killing both cops and protesters in Kiev and the claim in the West has been that the snipers were on Yanukovich's payroll somehow or other, sort of like the Reichstag fire thing.

That turns out to be BS and several videos dealing with the leaked phone conversation between Estonian foreign minister Paet and Catherine Ashton have been going viral on youtube over the past three or four days, e.g. at about location 8:20 of this item:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8

A few other takes:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/06/russian-un-ambassador-comes-out-swinging-on-leaked-call/#
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrain...ilians-as-a-pretext-for-regime-change/5370705
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ters-possibly-hired-Ukraines-new-leaders.html



In other words, our rogue government has found yet another bunch of barbarians to support.

I mean, this is several tads beyond your garden variety villainy... Shooting cops is usually a bad thing but shooting your own people to achieve some ulterior political end is unusually nefarious.

We do not have a rogue government (though we certainly did from2000-2008) at this time - though possibly a few rogue actors and the republickers are working on one.... Obviously, if true, those involved should be found and slowly crushed,,,,,

 

[Caustic Logic]

Good, this might deserve a dedicated thread, here and not in the Conspiracy Theories forum. I've been doing some work already in the Ukraine riots thread, and getting told that subject is settled, the Leftist-pro-Russian government clearly did it, and now the proper subject of discussion is Russia's unprovoked maneuvers in Crimea.

So, here... The Paet-Ashton call is obviously the high point of awareness and a good start point to discuss the "snipers problem," as some are calling it. I think it's a bit overrated, eclipsing all the other information people should be looking at. But it's not so easy to dismiss as some pretend, and it's worth a close look.

The down-playings have included:

Telegraph, March 5 on Paet's named source:

Mr Paet's assertion that an opposition figure was behind the Maidan massacre was not one [Olga Bogomolets] could share.
"I think you can only say something like this on the basis of fact," she said. "Its not correct and its not good to do this. It should be based on fact."
...
Olga Bogomolets said she had not told Mr Paet that policemen and protesters had been killed in the same manner. "Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people," she told The Telegraph. "I have no access to those people."

Paet said she compared photos, and the new Health Minister says he worked with her on the Maidan, and says this:

Musiy, who spent more than two months organizing medical units on Maidan, said that on Feb. 20 roughly 40 civilians and protesters were brought with fatal bullet wounds to the makeshift hospital set up near the square. But he said medics also treated three police officers whose wounds were identical.

So ... ??? That's from an AP report of March 7 that passed on the new health minister Oleh Muisy's version of her observations - the same snipers shot both police and protesters, to "stoke tensions" and encourage the government's overthrow, and they were Russian (or sent by Russia) so they could use that as an excuse to invade Ukraine. For missing the second part, he said of Bogomolets "her comments do not correspond with reality." AP tried to talk to her as well, but she "could not be immediately located by the AP for comment; she did not answer repeated calls to her cell phone or respond to text messages."


And then, Daily Mail, March 5, on Estonia:

Estonia says 'Foreign Minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard the previous day in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground,' it said. 'We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition's involvement in the violence.

If not, then he drew it himself, at least as a valid and worrying possibility.

I have the main text as so:

"...the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides. ... Some photos that showed it is the same handwriting (signature), the same type of bullets, and it is really disturbing that now the new coalition they don't want to investigate what exactly happened. So there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition. ... It already discreditates (sic) this new coalition."

He could have said there were "spreading rumors," or "strange accusations." But instead, he said it was an "understanding" that the snipers were brought in by the opposition. "Understanding" is a heavier word with origins in old English more like inter-standing, standing the middle of, knowing from contact with the details. He seems like someone with a decent grasp of English ("handwriting" and "discreditation" aside), and his choice of what's getting "stronger and stronger" suggests that, whatever Olga said or didn't say, he drew that conclusion and was worried about it. And he picked it up from multiple sources and "all evidence" during his visit, not from one woman who could easily be pressurized into backpedaling.

So it remains an excellent reason to say this belongs in current events, not the CT gutter, even though it will be about different theories about, and evidence for, what might well be a real and highly relevant conspiracy.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Icebar, if you're really (or fairly?) serious about the subject, there's an informal probe going on - the stuff I and a few others have added in the riot thread is one place, and more organized stuff (but not organized enough) is at our research wiki http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Ukraine_2014. Also, I guess some places I'm not involved in are worth checking, but I don't really know which ones exist.

I was thinking of bringing over some of the other thread's info, but I need to be taking that to the Wiki, or organizing that, or updating the Syria part of that Syria wiki, or a hundred other things...

To make this thread most useful, maybe you could skim around, those and other sources, and re-mention anything related and worthy in this thread.

If you're not that serious, you shouldn't have stepped up and started a thread on the issue. (nudge nudge, challenge challenge)

 

[icebear]

Good, this might deserve a dedicated thread, here and not in the Conspiracy Theories forum. I've been doing some work already in the Ukraine riots thread, and getting told that subject is settled, the Leftist-pro-Russian government clearly did it, and now the proper subject of discussion is Russia's unprovoked maneuvers in Crimea.

Russia's unprovoked maneuvers in Crimea.????

The Crimea is historically part of Russia, like for the last several centuries. Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, GIFTED the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 and it didn't seem to matter much at the time with everything/everybody under the CCCP one way or other, but what Russians are doing with the Crimea now is just reality reasserting itself. The only real question is what does Russia intend with the rest of Ukraine?

The official title of the tsars was "Tsar of ALL the Russias", meaning mainly "Great Russia" (Russia), "White Russia" (Belorus), and "Little Russia" (Ukraine). This is the heart of the Slavic Orthodox world and Ukraine is the bread basket of that world. Did anybody really expect Vladimir Putin to just sit there and watch George Soros, Victoria Nulland, Barrack Obama, and Monsanto just walk off with Ukraine?? Have we really been dumbed down that badly???

I mean, PARTICULARLY when a democratically elected government appears to have been taken down by a group of thugs and undeconstructed Nazis???

 

[McHrozni]

The Crimea is historically part of Russia, like for the last several centuries. Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, GIFTED the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 and it didn't seem to matter much at the time with everything/everybody under the CCCP one way or other, but what Russians are doing with the Crimea now is just reality reasserting itself.

Except that Crimea voted to be a part of Ukraine in 1991, and that Russia explicitly acknowledged Crimea is part of Ukraine in 1994 and 1997. Plus the claim is 60 years old with no complaints. Russia has no claim to Crimea whatsoever and Ukraine is under no obligation to relinquish it.

McHrozni

 

[icebear]

Except that Crimea voted to be a part of Ukraine in 1991, and that Russia explicitly acknowledged Crimea is part of Ukraine in 1994 and 1997.....

McHrozni

Russians were literally starving in 94 and 97. "Acknowledging" something while you're starving doesn't count for much.

 

[Cleon]

The Crimea is historically part of Russia, like for the last several centuries.

Repeating this does not magically make it true. Crimea was ruled by an independent Khanate before being conquered by the Ottomans. They traded it to the Russian Empire. Even when it was under the Russian Empire, it was not considered part of Russia itself.

The notion that Crimea is "historically Russia" is simply factually wrong.

Khrushchev, a Ukrainian,

Wrong again.

GIFTED the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954

I've corrected you about this before. Khruschev wasn't in charge, and it doesn't make sense to say that he "gifted" part of the USSR to another part of the USSR.

 

[Cuddles]

The Crimea is historically part of Russia, like for the last several centuries.

Nope. Crimea was part of the Ottoman empire for much longer than it was ever part of Russia. Russia invaded and annexed it in the late 18th century. It was only Russian for around 150 years before it declared independence during the Russian civil war and was again invaded and annexed by what would become the USSR, which then made it part of Ukraine again only 30 years later. Of the last six centuries, Crimea has been part of Russia for less than two.

Of course, history has never been a good way of portioning out countries in the first place, since every modern country has had very different borders throughout their existence. But if you're going to argue about this sort of thing it's worth at least getting your facts right to start with.

 

[McHrozni]

Russians were literally starving in 94 and 97. "Acknowledging" something while you're starving doesn't count for much.

This is neither true, nor relevant. Russia was not starving in 1994 or in 1997, nor was it extorted economically to give concessions.

Furthermore Russia did not protest Ukraininan ownership of Crimea for 60 years. International claims lapse in 50 years. The last time Russia had any right to claim Crimea for themselves based on historic grounds was in 2004. It did not do so. You completely missed this part.

McHrozni

 

[Cleon]

Nope. Crimea was part of the Ottoman empire for much longer than it was ever part of Russia. Russia invaded and annexed it in the late 18th century. It was only Russian for around 150 years before it declared independence during the Russian civil war and was again invaded and annexed by what would become the USSR, which then made it part of Ukraine again only 30 years later. Of the last six centuries, Crimea has been part of Russia for less than two.

Of course, history has never been a good way of portioning out countries in the first place, since every modern country has had very different borders throughout their existence. But if you're going to argue about this sort of thing it's worth at least getting your facts right to start with.

It's also worth noting that "part of the Russian Empire" and "part of Russia" are two different things. Ukraine and Poland were part of the Empire, but were never considered part of Russia itself.

 

[Childlike Empress]

icebear, Caustic Logic has been sarcastic about this being the "proper subject of discussion".

Mods, please stop derailing this thread. Thanks.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I haven't really kept up with this one as well as I should have. From what I read the abdication of Yanukovich was precipitated by snipers killing both cops and protesters in Kiev and the claim in the West has been that the snipers were on Yanukovich's payroll somehow or other, sort of like the Reichstag fire thing.

This isn't true. The original version was that Yanukovic simply sent his "Berkut" special forces who killed random protesters, while the news that also a lot of police men were killed was rarely mentioned. This led to the lately usual "he's killing his own people" narrative.

By now there's not much discussion about the existence of snipers who shot both protesters and police, but that's only a thing of the last week or two. Now the question is "whodunit?".

We few who smelled it from the beginning warned that it will be blamed on Russia by those who were finally forced to investigate what Paet told Ashton was a crime likely commited by their own political friends.

This hasn't happened so far, at least not big time, maybe because it requires too many twists of logic to think that the Russians thought it a good idea to provoke the coup to then have a pretext to mess with Crimea.

The latest information in regards to the perpetrators came yesterday through Russian mainstream TV, an interview with Yanukovic's head of security service SBU. Two reasons already to not believe what he says, right? Well, I suspect it is the Russian official story by now, so taking a look at the English translation might be of interest anyway. Very short essence of a detailed story: He blames two teams of mercenaries, 20 in total, commanded or at least protected in their actions by Andriy Parubiy, the new head of Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council and the guy we all agreed is a Nazi or at least extremely close. With help from an SBU partly infiltrated by the CIA.

 

[dudalb]

I suggest this thread be moved to Conspiracy theories.

 

[icebear]

Repeating this does not magically make it true. Crimea was ruled by an independent Khanate before being conquered by the Ottomans. They traded it to the Russian Empire. Even when it was under the Russian Empire, it was not considered part of Russia itself.

The notion that Crimea is "historically Russia" is simply factually wrong.

I assume you'd also claim that Vladivostok is not part of Russia. What then IS Vladivostok part of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev

Throughout the later centuries, Crimea was invaded or occupied successively by the Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths (AD 250), the Huns (376), the Bulgars (4th–8th century), the Khazars (8th century), the state of Kievan Rus' (10th–11th centuries), the Byzantine Empire (1016), the Kipchaks (Kumans) (1050), and the Mongols (1237).[citation needed] In the 13th century, the Republic of Genoa seized the settlements that their rivals, the Venetians, had built along the Crimean coast and gained control of the Crimean economy and the Black Sea commerce for two centuries.[citation needed] The Black Death pandemic came to Europe in the 14th century, probably aboard Genoese merchant ships from the Crimean peninsula.[20]

The Khazar Kingdom was the beginning of Russian Jewry, likewise Kievan Rus was the pre-Mongol Russian state. All in all Russians have at least as much history in the Crimea as anybody or anything else.

Khrushchev, a Ukrainian,

Wrong again.

YOU're wrong again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev

Khrushchev was born April 15, 1894,[1] in Kalinovka,[2] a village in what is now Russia's Kursk Oblast, near the present Ukrainian border.[3] His parents, Sergei Khrushchev and Ksenia Khrushcheva, were poor peasants of Russian[3] and Ukrainian[4] origin, and had a daughter two years Nikita's junior, Irina.[1] Sergei Khrushchev was employed in a number of positions in the Donbas area of far eastern Ukraine, working as a railwayman, as a miner, and laboring in a brick factory. Wages were much higher in the Donbas than in the Kursk region, and Sergei Khrushchev generally left his family in Kalinovka, returning there when he had enough money.[5]

Kalinovka is two or three miles from Ukraine, the guy's parents were Russian and Ukrainian, his first real (communist) job was in the Ukraine and he returned to the Ukraine after WW-II prior to being recalled to Moscow by Stalin. In other words, given his preferences, he lived in the Ukraine. He was basically a Ukrainian.

GIFTED the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954

I've corrected you about this before. Khruschev wasn't in charge, and it doesn't make sense to say that he "gifted" part of the USSR to another part of the USSR.

[/QUOTE]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...ft-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point

In 1954, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave Ukraine a gift: Crimea. At the time, it seemed like a routine move, but six decades later, that gift is having consequences for both countries.

The transfer merited only a paragraph in Pravda, the official Soviet newspaper, on Feb. 27, 1954. The story was one long sentence and dense with detail. Here's what it said:

"Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic."

And with that, a region that had been part of Russia for centuries was "gifted" to Ukraine.

Anything else you're an expert on?

 

[lopeyschools]

I

YOU're wrong again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev

Kalinovka is two or three miles from Ukraine, the guy's parents were Russian and Ukrainian, his first real (communist) job was in the Ukraine and he returned to the Ukraine after WW-II prior to being recalled to Moscow by Stalin. In other words, given his preferences, he lived in the Ukraine. He was basically a Ukrainian.

Ah being born in Russia makes you Russian... He was a Russian with Ukrainian sympathies, but he was Russian.

 

[icebear]

Ah being born in Russia makes you Russian... He was a Russian with Ukrainian sympathies, but he was Russian.

Living in the Ukraine makes one a Ukrainian.

 

[Donal]

So, living in the US would make one American?

 

[Cleon]

I assume you'd also claim that Vladivostok is not part of Russia. What then IS Vladivostok part of.

A different conversation entirely.

The Khazar Kingdom was the beginning of Russian Jewry,

Oh boy. Yeah...you go on ahead believing whatever. But Crimea being "historically part of Russia" is simply wrong.

 

[Cleon]

So, living in the US would make one American?

Unless you live close to the border with Canada and have a Canadian parent. Then you're Canadian. Somehow.