Russia Reinforces Military Presence In Crimea

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

Posted Mar. 8, 2014 @ 3:00 pm
Updated at 3:25 PM

The Associated Press

SEVASTOPOL, Ukraine — Dozens of military trucks transporting heavily armed soldiers rumbled over Crimea's rutted roads Saturday as Russia reinforced its armed presence on the disputed peninsula in the Black Sea. Moscow's foreign minister ruled out any dialogue with Ukraine's new authorities, whom he dismissed as the puppets of extremists.

The Russians have denied their armed forces are active in Crimea, but an Associated Press reporter trailed one military convoy Saturday afternoon from 25 miles (40 kilometers) west of Feodosia to a military airfield at Gvardeiskoe north of Simferopol, over which a Russian flag flew.

Some of the army green vehicles had Russian license plates and numbers indicating that they were from the Moscow region. Some towed mobile kitchens and what appeared to be mobile medical equipment.

The strategic peninsula in southern Ukraine has become the flashpoint in the battle for Ukraine, where three months of protests sparked by President Victor Yanukovych's decision to ditch a significant treaty with the 28-nation European Union after strong pressure from Russia led to his downfall. A majority of people in Crimea identify with Russia, and Moscow's Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol, as is Ukraine's.


Read more: http://www.pjstar.com/article/20140308/NEWS/140309111

[okaawhatever]

1. Mobile medical equipment is not good. Medical equipment usually means you think you'll be

needing it.

[amandabeech]

5. I hope, but doubt, that the Russians are letting civilians leave.

If I were a civilian, even if I supported Russia, I'd be looking to get the h-e-double hockey sticks out of Crimea and into the western areas of Ukraine, Nazis be damned.

It is so disappointing to see long-time DUers with whom I know I still have much in common ranting about Nazis while the prospect of military strife being perpetrated by troops who still are unidentified increases by the troop transport.

Yes, the US has done some crappy things outside its borders, and almost everyone here has condemned them roundly, including me.

What we need to do is to try to elect presidents who won't do such dumb stuff again, not condone it when it is done by another idiot head of a major power with a similarly bad track record.

I am absolutely dumb-founded.

Can you explain this?

[okaawhatever]

8. Explain which part? The reason so many DUers are saying Nazi's are now in charge and are

showing favoritism towards Putin? Or something else I missed?

[amandabeech]

15. Any of it, frankly.

It's like 3/4 of DU is in love with authoritarianism, armed invasion and a man who can't stand the LGBT community or any dissent of any kind.

I feel like I'm in an altered universe.

[okaawhatever]

19. You are. Some trolls are just now showing their true colors. Just like the multiple threads

advocating Marxism or anti-capitalism. These people aren't Democrats, they're Marxist and socialists. Many of them don't even like the US, and many of them don' live here. There's no doubt in my mind there are posers here to shill for President Putin. The very same things are being said on Canadian media outlet message boards. Apparently they thought the "we don't have the moral authority" would work in Canada too. (They're getting shot down right and left)
It is upsetting to think that there are people pushing the Putin-is-a-God meme, but I'm going to ignore them or call them out when possible. A good indication of how far off the beam DU has been lately is how different the stories being posted here are versus something like Slate, Rolling Stone or even the NYT. Typically our views aren't that divergent. When both the quantity and quality of posts and posters changes that dramatically, it indicates an artificial influence.
Just ride it out and fight back. You represent the typical Democrat, not them.

[blackspade]

21. Sorry buddy, but you are way out of line.

I am a democrat and have been my entire life.
I am also an anti-capitalist and a Marxist.
They are not mutually exclusive.

That is false equivalency at its worst.

[amandabeech]

26. If you are a Marxist, why are you involved with Democratic Party

and an avowedly Democratic (with a Big D) message board?

I'm confused.

[HatTrick]

34. Yes, you do sound confused.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of marxist.

Marxism is a economic theory only. It has nothing to do with government, or democracy.

[amandabeech]

35. But it does have to do with the Democratic Party,

which the avowed affiliation of this message board.

[blackspade]

40. You're very confused.

I'm a member of DU and the Democratic Party because I'm a Democrat.

I'm a firm believer in democracy both in civic arena and at work.

I hope that clears that up for you. Or are you just having fun Red baiting?

[amandabeech]

42. I really think that Marxists deserve their own message board. n/t

[blackspade]

43. Then it's a sad day for you.

[cosmicone]

22. I'm a democrat and I hate CIA installing nefarious characters

by deposing elected governments. It didn't turn out well in Iran, it didn't turn out well in Chile and it will not turn out well in Ukraine.

Putin is 100% justified in what he is doing in Ukraine and to hell with CIA installed, cookie fed, UN glued fascists who are running a puppet government.

As long as Putin moves firmly and decisively, there will be no war.

[okaawhatever]

23. So you don't think Russia installed any characters, but the CIA did? nt

[cosmicone]

25. HUH? Yanukovytch was elected and

agreed to hold early (2015) elections in an EU brokered deal. That was not good enough for the CIA.

[okaawhatever]

27. No, that was not good enough for Putin who refused to sign the agreement, remember? nt

[amandabeech]

29. Actually, the US was involved in brokering the deal and signed it.

The Russians were late to the table and then departed before the signing the deal.

The allegedly CIA-controlled Maidan wouldn't go along with with the agreement, which was no surprise, and Adm. Yanukovich abandoned ship rather than trying to negotiate further, after which the Parliament voted by a large margin to impeach him. Bill Clinton stuck around and fought his impeachment--Yanukovich ran off with a convoy of trucks carrying his loot.

Given that the impeached president is AWOL, the speaker of the parliament became the interim president, as provided by the version of the Constitution now in use. Someone has to run the place while Yanukovich hides out in Russia and elections are being organized.

Early elections have been scheduled for May 23, 2014, several months sooner than the deadline in the original agreement. Considering the situation, the date for the new elections seems extremely prudent.

Early elections were the core of the agreement, and you have them barring an invasion past the outlines of Crimea or civil war.

Your inflexible insistence on adhering to an agreement which by its terms became inoperable when Yanukovich LEFT HIS COUNTRY WITH A CARAVAN OF LARGE TRUCKS is completely unreasonable, and strongly suggests that you have an agenda that you are not disclosing.

[840high]

38. +1

[NickB79]

39. "Putin is 100% justified in what he is doing in Ukraine"

Jesus Fucking Christ, I've slipped into Bizarro-DU-World.

[arewenotdemo]

44. Agree 100%

[another_liberal]

47. We certainly did set the bar pretty damn low . . .

When it comes to interfering in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations, we certainly did set the bar pretty damn low. Our managed overthrow of President Yanukovich's government in Kiev left the principle of noninterference in the dust. It is hypocritical for us to then criticize Russia for doing what she has done in Crimea. At least President Putin's country shares a border with the territory in which his government is interfering.

[Duckhunter935]

2. But Russia

says they have no troops there, this news must be wrong.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Denied they're there

or denied they're active ?

[Duckhunter935]

6. Putin Says Those Aren't Russian Forces In Crimea

Putin made the claims about a lack of involvement by Russian forces even though Russian military helicopters have been seen in the skies over Crimea, Russian trucks have been seen moving the armed men to key locations, and the soldiers in unmarked uniforms speak Russian and in some cases have told reporters and local residents that they are members of the Russian military.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/03/04/285653335/putin-says-those-arent-russian-forces-in-crimea


everybody else must be seeing and taking videos of phantoms.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Most likley a mixture of regulars and irregulars.

Under the terms of the treaty Russia is allowed to have 25,000 there.

Not a defense : just a statement of fact.

[Duckhunter935]

13. nice RT

talking points

http://rt.com/news/russian-troops-crimea-ukraine-816/

here are some other "facts"

Russia has clearly and unambiguously recognised Ukraine and its present borders. This was confirmed in:

The Alma Ata Declaration of December 1991, which consigned the Soviet Union to history,
The Budapest memorandum of 1994, offering security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for removing nuclear weapons from its territory
The 1997 agreement on the stationing of the Black Sea fleet in Crimean ports.

The 1997 agreement, extended for an additional 25 years in 2010, authorises the presence of Russian ships in Crimean harbours, along with the presence of a large military infrastructure, including training grounds, artillery ranges and other installations. However, major movements of Russian forces require consultation with the Ukrainian authorities and the agreed force levels cannot be increased unilaterally.

Contrary to these obligations, Russia has augmented its forces in Crimea without the consent the Ukraine. It has deployed them outside of the agreed bases, taking control over key installations, such as airports, and encircling Ukrainian units.

Seems like they broke this agreement

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26481423

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. The fact is they aren't allowed off-site without Ukrainian government agreement

Here Marc Weller, Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge, examines the legal issues raised by Russia's intervention in Crimea. The territory became part of Soviet Ukraine in 1954 and remained Ukrainian after the Soviet collapse in 1991.
...
The 1997 agreement, extended for an additional 25 years in 2010, authorises the presence of Russian ships in Crimean harbours, along with the presence of a large military infrastructure, including training grounds, artillery ranges and other installations. However, major movements of Russian forces require consultation with the Ukrainian authorities and the agreed force levels cannot be increased unilaterally.

Contrary to these obligations, Russia has augmented its forces in Crimea without the consent the Ukraine. It has deployed them outside of the agreed bases, taking control over key installations, such as airports, and encircling Ukrainian units.

Russia's actions have created space for the pro-Russian local authorities in Crimea to displace the lawful public authorities of Ukraine. Legally, this clearly amounts to a significant act of intervention - indeed, as Russian military units are involved, it is a case of armed intervention.
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26481423

I expect that Lakenheath wouldn't be allowed to send armed troops to occupy Stansted either, without the agreement of the UK government. I damn well hope so, anyway.

[rdharma]

3. Did you notice that the embedded Chicago Tribune video at the link above.....

...... showed file footage of tanks?

Propaganda much?

[Duckhunter935]

7. way not let the observers in, why fire warning shots?

[arewenotdemo]

10. Western "observers" are the pointmen for the Empire.

After the Kiev coup, I'd absolutely keep those ******* out.

[cosmicone]

24. +1000000 n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

41. You're trying to justify unarmed observers being shot at?

Unreal.

[rdharma]

11. Ladies & Gentlemen, let me introduce the director of VICE NEWS......James Murdoch!!!

Rupert Murdoch's son is the director of VICE NEWS! Thanks for the RW propaganda!


"James Rupert Jacob Murdoch (born 13 December 1972) is the younger son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch and the deputy chief operating officer of News Corporation. He is the former chairman and chief executive of News Corp., Europe and Asia, where he oversaw assets such as News International (British newspapers), publisher of The News of the World newspaper, SKY Italia (satellite television in Italy), Sky Deutschland, and STAR TV (satellite television in Asia).

He sits on the News Corporation board of directors and is a member of the office of the chairman. He was made Executive Chairman of News International in December 2007. He has since resigned from the post. He previously held a non-executive chair at British Sky Broadcasting, in which News Corporation has a controlling minority stake. In April 2012, he was forced to resign as chairman of BSkyB in the wake of the on-going phone-hacking scandal, in which he is implicated.

He was formerly an executive vice president of News Corporation, the controlling shareholder of BSkyB, and served on the boards of directors of News Datacom and of News Corporation.

In May 2012, a highly critical UK Parliamentary report said Murdoch had 'showed willful ignorance of the extent of phone-hacking' and found him 'guilty of an astonishing lack of curiosity' over the issue. It went on to say that both Murdoch and his father, Rupert, 'should ultimately be prepared to take responsibility' for wrongdoing at the News of the World and News International.

[another_liberal]

12. Don't bother these good people with disturbing facts . . .

Anything like that which does not support their preconceived biases makes their heads hurt!

(sarcasm intended)

[Duckhunter935]

14. I guess the CBC is also

propaganda

A Ukrainian border patrol plane came under fire while flying at about 1,000 metres near the administrative border with Russian-occupied Crimea on Saturday, border guards said as the crisis in the region deepened.

No one was hurt when gunmen opened fire on the unarmed aircraft, a spokesman said. The Diamond light aircraft was flying three crew on an observation mission, the spokesman said.

Meanwhile, warning shots were fired to prevent an unarmed international military observer mission from entering Ukraine's Russian-occupied Crimea on Saturday.

Why fire weapons to keep unarmed observers out?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-crisis-tension-escalates-on-ground-in-crimea-1.2565033

[rdharma]

17. Who were these "unarmed international military observers"?

And what was their legal authority for demanding an inspection? Huh?

Funny the CBC article didn't mention that, eh?

[Duckhunter935]

28. They were requested and are unarmed. What's to hide?

Acting at Ukraine's request, the United States and 14 other nations on Tuesday formed a military observer mission intended to monitor the tense Crimea region, and a U.S. official said the team planned to leave within 24 hours.

Daniel Baer, the chief U.S. delegate to the Organization for Security and Cooperation, told The Associated Press that each country was contributing two individuals. But with more OSCE member nations expected to join, he said the mission could grow beyond its present strength of 30 people.

The 57-nation OSCE works on consensus, so most monitoring missions would have to be approved by all nations, including OSCE member Russia. But a provision of its regulations allows member countries to ask others to send unarmed military monitors in case of emergencies, and Baer said that Ukraine made use of that rule.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/osce-sending-military-observer-mission-ukraine-22771217

The OSCE has 57 participating States from Europe, Central Asia and North America:

http://www.osce.org/who

http://www.osce.org/what

Why are afraid of free press?

“Extreme censorship, shutting down media outlets and press hubs and attacks and intimidation of journalists must stop immediately,” Mijatović said. “In times of crisis people must have an unimpeded access to a plurality of sources; otherwise they can be subjected to the worst kind of propaganda.”

http://www.osce.org/fom/116240

[rdharma]

31. Requested by the putschists? Oh!

Legal authority? Any type of authority at all?

[another_liberal]

18. Good question.

Perhaps they didn't receive the required permission from the newly installed authorities? Whether or not one agrees with the current governing arrangements, it might be a good idea to make sure your plane or vehicle has the OK before proceeding. Unless, of course, one's purpose is to provoke an international incident.

[Duckhunter935]

30. Ukraine is the country involved

and they requested them. Russia has signed numerous agreements as to the borders and base use rights. They have broken those agreements.

[amandabeech]

33. Newly installed at the point of numerous gunmen.

International incidents are often provoked by invasions, and this is one of them.

I hope that you are young enough to be able to read the verdict of history on this 50 years from now.

It will be called an invasion by Russia of Ukrainian territory, and historians will note with disgust that the borders of Ukraine were guaranteed by Russia in diplomatic agreements.

Nothing put out by RT or Voice of Russia and broadcast here by you will change that.

[another_liberal]

36. And that may well be history's judgement . . .

Or at least a part of how history judges the bigger questions concerning what has recently happened in both Ukraine and Crimea; nevertheless, the people in that plane and the inspectors in those vehicles should still avoid getting killed, if for no other reason than to prevent an escalation of an already far too tense international situation. Right?

[amandabeech]

37. Yes, the inspectors avoided getting killed.

But if you expect me to say anything along the lines of "might makes right" you don't know me well.

What Putin is doing in Ukraine generally and Crimea particularly is nothing but "might makes right."

If you want to go along with that, then I think that you really need to do some thinking for yourself.

[another_liberal]

46. I don't know you from Adam . . .

And I didn't even mention President Putin or his actions. I simply do not want to see the region (and perhaps the entire World) descend into a bloody and avoidable conflagration because someone wanted to try and prove they can go somewhere it is no longer practically possible for them to go.

And, generally speaking, "Ease up on them hammers there a bit, Slim."

[seattledo]

16. Is there any proof this is actually happening?

I mean, other than a few conservative news sources that want it to happen?

[Duckhunter935]

32. Like most news outlets

and bloggers on the ground snapping pictures and posting videos of Russian convoys traveling from Russia into Crimea?

[Igel]

45. Pretty much every news source in Ukraine.

Both those that were die-hard pro-Yanukovich fans and supporters, even allies, as well as those who thought dog shit was heads and shoulders better than Yanukovich.

With video, pictures, interviews.

The Western press is about 24 hours behind the Ukrainian- and Russian-language press.

About the only people who don't believe it are those who rely solely on Russia state-approved sources. Even sources in the Donbas accept it.

The difference is that some pro-Russian sources *approve* of the Russian troops being there and doing what they do. These are few and far between. Most Russian-speakers that Putin says he wants to defend are, oddly enough, ethnic Ukrainians.