Putin admits Russian forces were deployed to Crimea

[joshcryer]

Source: Reuters

President Vladimir Putin said Russian forces had been active in Crimea in order to support local defence forces, the first time he has admitted deployment of Russian troops on the Black Sea peninsula.

"We had to take unavoidable steps so that events did not develop as they are currently developing in southeast Ukraine," Putin said in a televised call-in with the nation. "Of course our troops stood behind Crimea's self-defence forces."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/russia-putin-crimea-idUSL6N0N921H20140417

---

No shit.

[pangaia]

1. This guy is starting to sound like Kim.

He actually thinks anybody with a computer didn't know this?

[tiny elvis]

2. debating whether a country is invaded nt

[okaawhatever]

3. I think this admission is part of a two step process. He admits that there were troops in Crimea

and then when proof is offered that there are also troops in Eastern Ukraine he claims they were the troops from the Crimea who voluntarily joined the fighters in Eastern Ukraine out of concern for their fellow Russian speakers...blah...blah...blah. Actually, I think there is already proof of Russian troops involved in the government building taking in Eastern Ukraine, that's why he is setting this up now.
My second guess is that he will be saying the reason there wasn't any bloodshed in the Crimea was because Russian troops WERE there. Now, if everyone will get off his back and let him send Russian troops into Eastern Ukraine he can end the bloodshed there, too. He will likely also blame the West for any deaths that happen in Eastern Ukraine because, you know, if there is anything he learned from Andropov it was how to shut down dissension.

[joshcryer]

4. Agreed.

The claim will be that Crimea defense forces are responsible for the current situation in the east.

[okaawhatever]

6. And yet, Svoboda has had their seats in the Rada since 2012 and no ethnic Russians have been

physically harmed. Hmmm.......Not to mention, Yulia isn't a Svoboda party member. She's Fatherland party. Shall we look at the people who have died under Putin vs. those who died under Yulia?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

8. Read and learn

Russia's gov't has plenty of fascist sympathizers: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024782311

[Benton D Struckcheon]

11. Like what? Please be specific. Thanks. n/t

[freshwest]

43. Thanks for linking that OP here, I'd've missed it otherwise. n/t

[freshwest]

18. Yeah, I think that's exactly where this is going. 'Where Russian troops are, there will be peace.'

They can be reached at:

1-800-KRE-MLIN

Join the United Federation of Planets.



Small print:

Uh, Russia, not Planets.

It could always be worse.

[okaawhatever]

60. LOL. Call 1-800-KREMLIN...and if you order now, you'll receive this shirtless selfie from Vlad

at no extra charge.

[freshwest]

61. Not my type. All the repukes and libertarians love him, or want his body. There's a reason:

Jon Stewart Blasts Fox New’s Traitorous, Hypocritical Praising of Putin



On The Daily Show Thursday night, Jon Stewart ripped the Fox News network’s near-orgasmic love-fest with Russian President Vladimir Putin and pointed out the hypocrisy of the GOP propaganda channel calling Putin a “real leader” while referring to President Obama as a “dictator” for supposedly doing the same sorts of things.

Stewart asked, “What happened to these people as children that has enabled this love-hate relationship with authoritarian figures and the inherent cognitive dissonance that goes along with such a schism?”

Stewart also highlighted the embellished stories about Putin’s supposed toughness, mentioning the story about Putin shooting a tiger that had been trapped and put to sleep.

“For God’s sakes,” he said. “How, in a 24-hour news cycle, do you upgrade Putin from wrestling bears to tigers, anyhow? By tomorrow, it’ll be, ‘Putin once smacked the teeth out of a great white shark and made it blow him, while Barack Obama just sat there, wistfully, wearing Capri pants and a baby bonnet.”

He then mocked Sean Hannity for fawning over a picture of a shirtless “big, strong muscular” Putin riding a horse while President Obama is pictured riding a bike with a safety hat on.

http://progressivepopulist.org/2014/03/07/stewart-blasts-fox-news-traitorous-hypocritical-praising-putin-video/

That paragraph there:

Stewart asked, “What happened to these people as children that has enabled this love-hate relationship with authoritarian figures and the inherent cognitive dissonance that goes along with such a schism?”

It's all you need to know. Yup, comething went wrong, and they are determined to pass the dysfunction to the whole world. Is incest part of the picture?

[okaawhatever]

62. lolz. Thanks for that. I have the Jon Stewart shows from last week recorded but I haven't watched

them yet. I've definitely got to check this one out later tonight. Thx again.

[Igel]

29. It's not a clear line.

Putin's blurred it quite well.

Take one example. The Berkut. Some of the Donecchane chant "Berkut" when they see the pro-Russian militants. Some of the militants chant "Berkut" themselves. The ethnic Ukrainians hate them because they were the primary opponents on the Maidan. The police stayed fairly neutral, being mostly peacekeepers.

The Berkut were nearly all pro-Russia Russians, working directly for Yanukovich. After Yanukovich left, the Berkut were welcome in Russia and offered fast-tracked citizenship. They've sort of been reconstituted in Crimea.

There were thousands of them. They were armed. When they vanished, they kept their arms. Many went across the border. If they returned, newly equipped, they'd be "locals" yet working in a real sense for Russia/Yanukovich. If they were moving in from the Crimea, they'd still, in a real sense, be Ukrainians.

Now, some of the militants are clearly not locals. They speak wrong. "Porebrik", indeed. They act wrong. They're from outside the Donecchyna, to be sure. That doesn't mean they're spetsnaz, or even Russian Army regulars. They might be what amounts to volunteer mercenaries, fighting against the nasty Ukrainian fascists for Greater Russia.


But some reports are disturbing. The mayor who says that the militants showed up and distributed about a thousand automatic weapons and/or grenade launchers in his town. That's not just some group with a few weapons. They're funded, they had some sort of supplier. And by arming anybody who agrees to side with them, they're fomenting civil war and enlisting civilians to be cannon fodder. That makes for a very volatile situation, because now we hear reports of "civilians" being killed and we're in the odd position again of saying that an out-of-uniform combatant is a "civilian" and even more so if somebody sees him lying there and removes the weapon from the scene.

[Orsino]

52. He just wants to put the tip in.

Just for a minute, to see how it feels.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

7. I wonder if any of the people who were claiming this wasn't an invasion ...

... will now back off and admit it? Doubt it, but you never know.

[The Magistrate]

12. I Would Not Hold Your Breath, Sir

But it is one more demonstration, as if any were still needed, that 'Russia Times' is no more to be taken seriously than Tom Flocco or Wayne Madsen....

[amandabeech]

30. Yeah, I'm not seeing the usual suspects.

Your analogy to Wayne Madsen is totally apt, Sir.

I'll not be holding my breath, Sir, for any apologies for any apologies, but I do not expect to see certain posters on the Ukrainian threads for a bit.

On edit: I spoke far too soon. I spy an apologist spewing a twisted interpretation about four posts down. My apologies.

[davidpdx]

13. Christ in a handbasket

That's wishful thinking. They've already tripled down on the "fascist Nazis" in Kiev and the Russians aren't invading memes. Expect them to continue to double and triple down.

[freshwest]

19. It's now okay to call Obama 'a neo-con following Bush's plans.' Despite not doing so. n/t

[davidpdx]

22. Yep, that's the new one

[freshwest]

32. And the old canard about PBO wanting war with Syria despite all facts presented, and EarlG's:

Also saw a video posted that blames Obama for more, and finally ended up with the other timeless one about who was at fault, as they always are, doncha know:

Of course Alex Jones will be having his annual Israeli, bankster, Zionist hatefest any day now. Yay, JBS and Libertarianism. Don't forget the Federal Reserve is run by Jews, also, which is why KS mayor agrees with the JCC shooter and echoed other talking points from Infowars. Alex doesn't miss one talking point on their platform:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024806298

Spring is in the air, and it's all Obama's fault. One of our members who works with Randi said he came back to visit and had to leave again, it's sick how very negative it is here during election season, dissing Democrats even after primaries are done in some states.

[davidpdx]

42. Thanks for the reminder on that one

Now that he's bluntly said what we (at least those of us that are sane) know, that the US won't be sending troops to Ukraine maybe Skinner can do another. Seem like a good time for it.

[CreekDog]

16. not unless they get new employment

[nyabingi]

14. Putin is merely stating the obvious...

...but the mere presence of Russian forces inside Crimea isn't the same thing as as "invasion". "Invasion" is the rhetoric of western neo-liberals who are in favor of taking needlessly provocative actions against Russia. If Crimeans felt they were being "invaded" by Russians, they wouldn't have welcomed them with dancing and fireworks, nor would they have voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

The US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and those people weren't celebrating the arrival of American forces. I think Putin ordered Russian troops to Crimea to keep it from falling into the hands of the pro-Western fascists who took over Kiev - he knew Crimea was one of the prizes sought by Western instigators and he stopped that from happening.

There are many apologists for naked US imperialism amongst the ranks of many Democrats and its disheartening.

[awoke_in_2003]

20. I am sure it is all innocent...

just like the pro-Russian forces making Jews register when they come out of their synogogues. Nothing to see here

[nyabingi]

47. Like I predicted when this "story" came out...

...it was a fake. These things are quite predictable, but some of us here in the US like to pretend that we don't dabble in hardcore propaganda like the Russians do...

[Benton D Struckcheon]

21. It's not rhetoric when it's true.

1. They blockaded the Ukrainian navy, and then seized those ships.
2. They laid mines along the Crimean border.
3. They also blockaded the Sea of Azov, making the eastern coast of Ukraine inaccessible, which might still be true; not sure.*

All of those are acts of war. As, by the way, is any Russian moving off the bases being leased and onto Crimea proper, which is what he admitted happened. Terms of the lease did NOT include the right of Russian armed forces to move about freely on Ukrainian territory.
So, regardless of whether or not the Kiev gov't is fascist or infested with neo-liberals or whatever, Russia still waged war on Ukraine. I believe the proper term for that is "invasion".
Russian jurisdiction ends at the Ukrainian border. Putin has no legal standing outside of those borders, and his opinion, legally, counts as much as mine on anything happening outside those borders.
ANY movement of ANY Russian armed force outside of that border is a violation of international law if it does not occur at the invitation of the government of that country. Use of force beyond those borders, which all of the above and the movement of Russian personnel off base and onto Crimean soil are, constitutes waging war. Aggressive war. An invasion.

*If Obama really wanted to make trouble, he could have - and assuming it's still blocked - can now ask Turkey, who is a member of NATO, to block Russian access to the Mediterranean until such time as that blockade is lifted. But everyone here has shown restraint in the face of these acts of war, with the glaring exception of the Russian government, which continues to unapologetically provoke and inflame.

[freshwest]

44. Oops, that's gonna leave a mark. n/t

[nyabingi]

48. C'mon Benton...

...if the Crimeans didn't WANT the Russians there I would be able to sympathize with your viewpoint slightly better, but not only did the Crimeans want the Russians there, they decided to join the country that supposedly invaded them. Think about that for a minute.

Crimea and indeed the eastern industrial centers of Ukraine were what western powers really wanted - another European country to provide relatively stable and cheap labor to manufacture and sell the goods of US-based multinationals. Without a viable port with which to ship from, the idea of western predatory investment in Ukraine lost its glimmer. Plus, Washington would've wanted nothing less than the ability to kick the Russian fleet from their Crimean base.

Just face it, Putin was willing to give up Yanukovich and the west of Ukraine, but he wasn't willing to give up the rest and the "rest" didn't want to be ruled by corrupt oligarchs (which is basically what they had in Yanukovich) and bloodthirsty fascists.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

51. Oh please stop with the bloodthirsty fascist nonsense.

One more time: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024782311
Now, tell me, what is the difference, other than which ethnic group they want to be on top when it's all over, between Dugin and Svoboda?
My patience with this fascist BS is wearing thin.

[nyabingi]

53. It seems to me, Benton, that you went on your...

...intellectual quest to find out the differences between United Russia and Svoboda with pre-conceived notions:

"Given all this, I don't see a whole lot of daylight between the Right Sector and Svoboda, and United Russia. Which is what I thought before I did all this reading."

The problem with forming your conclusion beforehand is seeking only information and evidence that will suit your conclusion, and I think that's what you've done here. If the Russian ruling class sported neo-Nazi symbols, revered Adolph Hitler, and were openly anti-Jewish, the American media would be all over it and we'd all know about it. What you're doing is akin to comparing Right Sector to the Republican Party - both on the right side of political spectrum but one way, way to the right (although there are many Republicans, the Tea Party for example, who are very close to Right Sector in their philosophy).

Why is the fact that people are calling these Ukrainian groups the fascists that they are so upsetting to people like you? Is is the fact that you can't square the fact that they are far-right extremists with the fact that the Obama administration is supporting them?

Please tell me you're not that simple-minded...

[Benton D Struckcheon]

55. Doesn't upset me in the least.

My "pre-conceived" notion (I note that you carefully did not refute any of what I posted, by the way) was formed by simply watching Putin over the years, noting his policies, and noting the name of his party, a name which, as I said right up front in that post, is blatantly right wing. (Imagine a party named, say, "United We Stand" over here? Probably be a Tea Party group, right?)
Dugin makes no bones about his Russian supremacist stance. His ideology is fascist in every way you can think of, save that, as noted, he does what "white nationalists" do here: posit that all they want is "separate but equal" so that their "culture" can be preserved, thereby attempting to sugarcoat his supremacist views. He'd still be right at home on Stormfront.
He has, according to what I posted there, gone on TV side-by-side with United Russia party luminaries, and they apparently don't consider him a liability. They must think it makes them more likely to be voted for by their base. That makes United Russia and its supporters at minimum fascist fellow-travelers.
Why I'm supposed to root for Russia over the current Ukraine government, given this, is beyond my poor powers of comprehension. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the latent leftism inherent in Putin's policies and his party's friendliness to the likes of Dugin? Has to be latent, cause it sure ain't blatant.

[nyabingi]

56. The situation in Ukraine is not really about

Putin or the politics of his party in Russia, it is about the consequences of US meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries, therefore going into a long conversation about internal Russian politics is irrelevant. This never would've happened without the $5 billion dollars of influence-peddling over the years from the US, specifically to install pro-Western, pro-EU leaders in power. We started it, yet don't like the reaction it created.

The focus on Putin and his policies, as abhorrent as they might be, is to divert you away from the fact that we, the US, has once again subverted the democracy of yet another country. The media successfully convinced the American public (you included) that the evil Putin is the cause of all of this because they don't want any focus on who we're supporting over there. Now here you are digging deeper into the pit of confusion they broke ground on lol.

If you see fascism in the word "United", I'm sure you see the even more blatantly fascistic nature of "Homeland Security" (or is it "Fatherland&quot ? You're spending time looking for fascism in Putin's political party when there's plenty to look for right here in the US.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

58. Don't disagree with you about the US.

But you're jumping to a conclusion re US involvement being crucial in what happened in Ukraine. Neither of us were there, there's no way of knowing how US influence played out in those events. But it is prima facie absurd to say that the US would have had more influence than Russia in whatever backdoor manipulations went on prior to and during the ouster of Yanukovych, unless we're just going to admit that Putin and the FSB got rolled by the CIA. I find that highly unlikely.
It is true, and in that referenced thread I said so and cited Kennan, that NATO expansion laid the groundwork for this crisis. But that didn't force Putin to go into and take Crimea without even trying to make what might have been a pretty reasonable case before the UN.
So, no way that I'm going to root for Putin's militaristic response to this. He told us to go to the UN for the Syria situation, and we did, and no US bombs fell on Syria. Then he turns around and does this without any attempt to make any sort of case before the UN. This is flat wrong. Even if he were actually a real leftie it would be flat wrong. It certainly doesn't promote any sort of peaceful resolution to the internal split in Ukraine.

[nyabingi]

63. We can disagree on whether the Russians

move into Crimea was an invasion (I don't think it classifies as a traditional invasion), but my whole problem with this crisis is its similarity to all the other so-called popular revolutions we see happening around the world, sponsored in part by organizations of the US government (USAID and its arms). They play out the same way in the American media (upset people protesting, the evil government reacts to it, US president warns this country not to kill their own people, things turn violent, targeted president forced to flee or is imprisoned, detained or killed). I'm sick of seeing our government trying to control the lives of millions of people around the world in this fashion just to further economic gains and there is hardly no one in government willing to talk about it.

I'm thankful the situation hasn't turned into outright war, but when you look at places like Venezuela, you see people being killed simply because the US doesn't like the country's elected, socialist leader. They are having what would be called full-blown riots in the US but our media calls them "protests".

Back to Putin, why would he think of going to the UN when Bush has already shown the world that if you have big guns and nuclear weaponry, you can ignore the UN and do what you want? Bush's criminality knocked this country backwards in prestige quite a bit, the rest of the world knows this and are following precedent. I didn't like it when Bush did it and I don't like other countries doing it.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

64. Well, that last sentence is kind of my point.

Obama was trying to show quite clearly, in the Syria situation, that he was different from Bush and would let the UN do its work. They came back with a conclusion, and Syria was forced to start giving up its chem weapons. Like I said, no US bombs fell.
His reward was this action from Putin.
I have a feeling, based on some more stuff I read, it may have been an emotional reaction on Putin's part. I'm still trying to digest and verify this new info, but I may put up a new thread on it if it turns out to be true. I mean, I said almost from the beginning that they had a pretty good claim on Crimea. But it's one thing to have a good claim, and another thing entirely to have blockades and mine-laying and ship seizures and all that to make that claim a reality, especially so shortly after insisting on and getting UN involvement in Syria, as Putin had merely half a year before this. They can't throw up their arms at the reaction everyone had to this when they themselves were insisting on and getting action under international law mere months before.

[EX500rider]

23. There are many apologists for naked RUSSIAN imperialism amongst the ranks of many Democrats...

....and its disheartening.

[The Magistrate]

25. Most Of Those, Sir, Are Not Democrats, Properly Speaking

They may at times vote for a Democratic candidate, but their inclinations are more towards extreme views which are far from any expressed within the Democratic Party itself.

[EX500rider]

26. Seems like reflexive anti-Americanism to me. n/t

[The Magistrate]

27. There Is Some Of That Among Our Fellow Leftists, Sir

A shame, but there it is, and clearly on display in this matter.

[freshwest]

46. It's very trendy and popular to be against all things American and government. Like the Koches are.

Just more creative than them. Same results, though. Ain't that a kicker...

[nyabingi]

50. There's nothing

"reflexive" about it. As a voter with a voice in what happens as far as my government goes, it is my responsibility to inform elected officials when they are doing things that I disagree with. These politicians aren't "America", and my disagreement with them and their policies is in no way "anti-American".

You sound like a child of McCarthy.

[freshwest]

45. They are the standard bearers of those claiming the Democrats were never pure enough.

Thus they won't support anything it does and fall under the category of our steadfast sunny day friends.

[nyabingi]

49. The pro-corporate lean of the establishment Democratic Party...

...is the reason people like me (who used to be a registered Democrat and have only voted for Democrats) are registered independent. I voted for Obama twice, yet my vote for him also means I get to hold his feet to the fire and not just go along with everything he does, bad or good, simply because I don't want to see the Party in a weak position come November.

Your typical Democrat is a doormat, always bending over to offer hateful Republicans an opening, becoming spineless when it becomes to standing up to their principles. Look at the way some red state Democrats are trying to run from Obamacare when they should be out singing its praises and changing public opinion. The Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (and the DLC-type groups) spent the entire 90's sucking up to conservative whites (who were NEVER going to change their votes), neglecting their most reliable voting blocks, and generally moving as far to the right as they could without actually leaving the party.

I'm a big admirer of the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party, but they are virtually ignored by the corporate media and most other Democrats. The rest of the Democratic Party only differs from Republicans on social issues.

[jakeXT]

15. They have bases there, so they already had troops there /nt

[joshcryer]

17. They denied "deployment."

This is the first time they admitted it.

[jakeXT]

34. Pretty vague

MARIA SITTEL: We have a text message on our programme’s website: “Who were these young men, after all? They looked a lot like Russians.”

VLADIMIR PUTIN: What young men?

MARIA SITTEL: Those polite young men.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: The “little green men.”

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have already spoken about this publicly on several occasions, perhaps not loud enough. However, in my conversations with my foreign colleagues I did not hide the fact that our goal was to ensure proper conditions for the people of Crimea to be able to freely express their will. And so we had to take the necessary measures in order to prevent the situation in Crimea unfolding the way it is now unfolding in southeastern Ukraine. We didn’t want any tanks, any nationalist combat units or people with extreme views armed with automatic weapons. Of course, the Russian servicemen did back the Crimean self-defence forces. They acted in a civil but a decisive and professional manner, as I’ve already said.

It was impossible to hold an open, honest, and dignified referendum and help people express their opinion in any other way. Still, bear in mind that there were more than 20,000 well-armed soldiers stationed in Crimea. In addition, there were 38 S-300 missile launchers, weapons depots and rounds of ammunition. It was imperative to prevent even the possibility of someone using these weapons against civilians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/transcript-vladimir-putins-april-17-qanda/2014/04/17/ff77b4a2-c635-11e3-8b9a-8e0977a24aeb_story.html

[joshcryer]

35. "Russian servicemen did back the Crimean self-defence forces"

ie, they were "deployed." This was denied throughout the Crimea invasion. Including DUers who believed that, laughably, Russia had a "right" to occupy the territory because they had bases there. How asinine.

[jakeXT]

38. They always claimed it was legal and they will increase to the limit

Mr Putin insists that Russian troops were already in Crimea legally. Russia strengthened its forces there, he says, but only up to the permitted level of 25,000. Russia had forces at the Sevastopol naval base, under an agreement with Ukraine.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26625476

And the US/UK demanded the Russians return to their bases on Crimea

13:29:

UK Prime Minister David Cameron warns that "further measures" should be taken against Russia by the international community if it does not move to defuse tensions in Ukraine. His official spokesman says "de-escalation" would include Russian forces returning to base and the Ukrainian constitution being respected.

[joshcryer]

39. It was never legal.

http://ericposner.com/the-1997-black-sea-fleet-agreement-between-russia-and-ukraine/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4661198

It is asinine that because a country has bases somewhere, they can invade their territory legitimately.

[jakeXT]

40. So did he claim they had troops there and will put more in before yesterday or not ?

[joshcryer]

41. He claimed deployment.

[EX500rider]

24. And then they added more...

The 11,000 Russian troops normally stationed in Crimea are mostly support personnel for the naval bases of the Black Sea Fleet. The exception was 2,000 marines. These were reinforced by another 7,000 troops, mostly infantry and special operations forces flown in or arrived by ship by early March. These were followed by 15,000 more ferried across the 4.5 kilometer wide Kerch Strait that separates Crimea from southern Russia. By late March Russia had over 30,000 troops in Crimea, including over a thousand spetsnaz.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/All-Glory-To-The-45th-For-Conquering-Crimea-4-6-2014.asp

[Duckhunter935]

28. and that also

breaks the treaty Russia signed with Ukraine. Some just will never admit Russia invaded.

[joshcryer]

36. Yup, the lease agreement explicitly forbid invasion.

But Russia didn't care about that, so much.

[amandabeech]

31. Don't embarrass yourself any more than you already have lo these many weeks. n/t

[jakeXT]

33. Any quotes? I posted pictures of a Russian minefield in Crimea, I doubt the boy scouts laid it there

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017179943

[joshcryer]

37. Western Ukraine is now counter-protesting.

In weeks you will see a complete dissolution of the minority fascist separatist.

And it should go peacefully.

Russia doesn't have the stomach to actually invade eastern Ukraine.

[Jesus Malverde]

57. Duck and Cover JakeXT

They're coming, be afraid.

[tabasco]

54. Yeah, now that the pictures are on the internet

Makes it kind of hard to deny.

[herding cats]

59. Not really.

People will still see what they want to see. I mean, those troops could have just been on leave enjoying a day of recreation off the base. There's no proof they were there for any type of military actions. Some will still defend Putin on this matter because it's what they need to be the truth.

Never underestimate the ability of humans to reason away what they don't want to address. Sometimes it's just how we make it through the day.