• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia Claims American Mercenaries Are in Eastern Ukraine

Again the words of one poster here

The tack that this administration (begun in part by the last) with Russia could not be more wrong. Russia is not a partner or a potential partner, at least not as its government is currently constituted.

Here's another Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria "f*** the EU" Nuland, piece on Russia

New Europe, Old Russia

By Robert Kagan
Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Russia and the European Union are neighbors geographically. But geopolitically they live in different centuries. A 21st-century European Union, with its noble ambition to transcend power politics and build an order based on laws and institutions, confronts a Russia that behaves like a traditional 19th-century power. Both are shaped by their histories. The supranational, legalistic E.U. spirit is a response to the conflicts of the 20th century, when nationalism and power politics twice destroyed the continent. But Vladimir Putin's Russia, as Ivan Krastev has noted, is driven in part by the perceived failure of "post-national politics" after the Soviet collapse. Europe's nightmares are the 1930s; Russia's nightmares are the 1990s. Europe sees the answer to its problems in transcending the nation-state and power. For Russians, the solution is in restoring them.

So what happens when a 21st-century entity faces the challenge of a 19th-century power? The contours of the conflict are already emerging -- in diplomatic stand-offs over Kosovo, Ukraine, Georgia and Estonia; in conflicts over gas and oil pipelines; in nasty diplomatic exchanges between Russia and Britain; and in a return to Russian military exercises of a kind not seen since the Cold War.

Europeans are apprehensive, with good reason. They bet, massively, in the 1990s on the primacy of geoeconomics over geopolitics, a new era in which a huge and productive European economy would compete as an equal with the United States and China. They cut back on defense budgets, calculating that soft power was in and that hard power was out. They imagined that the world would come to replicate the European Union, and that when it did, the European Union would be a postmodern superpower.

For a while, it seemed to work. With Russia prostrate, the magnetic attraction of Europe, along with the promise of the American security guarantee, pulled just about every nation in the east into the Western orbit. The appeal of what Robert Cooper called Europe's "voluntary empire" seemed without limit.

Today, however, European expansion has slowed and perhaps halted, and not just because Europeans balk at taking in Turkey. They also fear resurgent Russia. They realize that by enlarging eastward, Europe acquired a new Eastern problem. Or, rather, the old Eastern problem, the centuries-old contest between Russia and its near neighbors.

It wasn't a problem when Russia was weak and poor and eager to integrate itself into the West. But Russia is back on its feet, rich and resentful, seeking not to join Europe but to take a special path back to great-power status. Putin laments the fall of the Soviet Union and seeks to regain predominant influence in the Baltic states and Eastern Europe, as well as over Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and the rest of what Russians call their "near abroad." But the former are now formally part of Europe, and the latter are what Europeans call their "new neighborhood."

And so the nations of the European Union find themselves embroiled in a very 19th-century confrontation. After a decade of voluntary retreat, Russia now pushes back against Europe's powerful attractive force, using traditional levers of power. It has imposed a total embargo on trade with Georgia. It has episodically denied oil supplies to Lithuania, Latvia and Belarus; cut off gas supplies to Ukraine and Moldova; and punished Estonia with a suspension of rail traffic and a cyber-attack on its government's computer system in a dispute over a Soviet war memorial. It supports separatist movements in Georgia and keeps its own armed forces on Georgian territory and in Moldova. It has effectively pulled out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, freeing it to deploy forces wherever necessary on its western flank.

Polls show Europeans increasingly take a dim view of their large neighbor. French President Nicolas Sarkozy observed last year that "Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by playing its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality." Even the Finnish defense minister worries that "military force" has once again become a "key element" in how Russia "conducts its international relations."

But Europe may be institutionally and temperamentally ill-equipped to respond. Can it bring a knife to a knife fight?

It is not hard to imagine the tremors along the Euro-Russian fault line erupting into confrontation. A crisis over Ukraine, which wants to join NATO, could bring confrontation with Russia. Conflict between the Georgian government and Russian-supported separatist forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia could spark a military conflict between Tbilisi and Moscow. What would Europe and the United States do if Russia played hardball in Ukraine or Georgia? They might well do nothing. Postmodern Europe can scarcely bring itself to contemplate a return to confrontation with a great power and will go to great lengths to avoid it. In the United States, any fundamental shift in policy toward Russia will have to wait for the next administration. Nevertheless, a Russian confrontation with Ukraine or Georgia would usher in a brand-new world, or perhaps a very old world. Many in the West still want to believe this is the era of geoeconomics. But as one Swedish analyst has noted, "We're in a new era of geopolitics. You can't pretend otherwise."

That was back in 2008. It begs the question, did Victoria Nuland, wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, know that she was provoking a crisis between the US and Russia, but yet did it anyway? Why would she do that?

Interesting.
 
What makes you so suspicious is the fact that you put forward your claims as if they are fact. On the other hand I have clearly stated that Russia could be lying and that I don't know for sure that what is being put forward is fact. You say that you have provided blanket denials from every actor but you only presented one source. Over and above that, the perpetrators would of course deny such activity, even if it was true. You put forward one denial and then it appears that you would have us believe that such a denial is absolute truth that the claims are false.

Over and above that despite that fact that I have said that I don't know for sure if the claims are true, you want to paint me as someone that is promoting a conspiracy theory. That would be typical of someone who is trying to obfuscate the truth. Again I don't know for sure what is happening, neither do I know who you are and why you are trying destroy any notion that this scenario is possible. Like I said, if you have got something please present it. The only thing that you have presented is a denial from a firm that would have every reason to deny this if it were true. It's ok to present such evidence, but present it in the spirit that it's possible that they may not be telling the truth instead of in the spirit that you actually know what is taking place.



Well at least you admit you want Putin overthrown, and that in itself would be motivation enough for you to come here and present suspicious evidence as absolute truth.

I have logic and infinitely more trustworthy actors on my side. You've made no effort to address either. I'm fairly certain that you'd prefer to sustain the Russian position by 'casting doubt' on a situation where no reasonable person has any doubt.
 
Again the words of one poster here



Here's another Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria "f*** the EU" Nuland, piece on Russia



That was back in 2008. It begs the question, did Victoria Nuland, wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, know that she was provoking a crisis between the US and Russia, but yet did it anyway? Why would she do that?

Interesting.

Right. Victoria Nuland, an Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, was masterminding a nefarious plan in Ukraine. Please.
 
I'm intimately familiar with Robert Kagan. You also can't spook me with the Neocon boogieman--I'm a neoconservative. Boom.

So you are INTIMATELY familiar with him. Thought so. Any rate, that's ok. If you have something more to share, please, I would dearly love to hear it. I'm not kidding.

Why don't you lay out a good case for why you feel that Europe was in danger from Russia due to the rejection of the EU association offer. Serious, please do it, but do it properly.
 
These are probably the same US mercenaries who organized, instigated, and are now fighting the uprising against Bashar al Assad.

****ing meddling americans :roll:
 
So you are INTIMATELY familiar with him. Thought so. Any rate, that's ok. If you have something more to share, please, I would dearly love to hear it. I'm not kidding.

Why don't you lay out a good case for why you feel that Europe was in danger from Russia due to the rejection of the EU association offer. Serious, please do it, but do it properly.

I've laid out my case repeatedly. You respond with veiled accusations and abysmal sources from some of the largest conspiracy websites on the internet. Then when confronted with that information you merely restate the claims without addressing your source.

This exercise is fundamentally ridiculous. You cite the Russian accusation that there are 'American' and 'Greystone' mercenaries in eastern Ukraine. There is no 'source' that could refute that other than ones which deny such a claim and which say that there are none present. I've already presented those. What matters more is the logic of this allegation. There is none. It is illogical.
 
Who would read that?

It doesn't count as a retort.

It's a pro-Russian blog and they lie. That's already been pointed out about that source.
 
I've laid out my case repeatedly. You respond with veiled accusations and abysmal sources from some of the largest conspiracy websites on the internet. Then when confronted with that information you merely restate the claims without addressing your source.

This exercise is fundamentally ridiculous. You cite the Russian accusation that there are 'American' and 'Greystone' mercenaries in eastern Ukraine. There is no 'source' that could refute that other than ones which deny such a claim and which say that there are none present. I've already presented those. What matters more is the logic of this allegation. There is none. It is illogical.

Look friend, I'm honestly trying to understand what is going on here. I'm just a black guy with very little information trying to piece together a very complicated puzzle. If I have insulted people who are your friends, I'm sorry about that. I would really love for you to lay out a decent case. You have said:

Allowing Russia to sink it's tendrils into Ukraine again and running the very real risk of a Russo-sphere that extends to the periphery of Central Europe is unthinkable. It would threaten the European experiment in innumerable ways. It would expose countries like Romania, Moldova, Hungary, and Serbia to the beguiling temptations of shifting back into a Russian orbit

That's interesting. Please tell me EXACTLY how you see this "Russo-sphere that extends to the periphery of Central Europe" developing as a result of Ukraine rejecting the EU offer in favor of Russia's offer.

What EXACTLY are the innumerable ways in which the EU experiment would be threatened?

How EXACTLY and what would be the conditions in which Romania, Moldova, Hungary, and Serbia would shift back into the Russian orbit.

Please tell me. I want to learn, if you actually know.
 
"Russia Claims American Mercenaries Are in Eastern Ukraine"

And the U.S. claim that Russian mercenaries are in Eastern Ukraine. Sounds like the U.S. congress.
 
What could be happening here is that the neocon view of Russia has taken prominence in the Obama administration. Likely as a result of Russia outmaneuvering the US, Obama may have felt the need to let a neocon like Victoria Nuland have free reins in the Ukraine. He may have even been hearing advice from people like Nuland that the US was starting to look weak with regards to Russia. Regardless of how it came to be, it has led to a situation in which I feel that the US is surely headed for a military conflict with Russia. I say this because it is well known that the neocon view of the world is that there should be not even the possibility of a competitor on the world stage with the US. The only way for that to happen with regards to Russia is to weaken it and have a regime in Moscow that more of less is willing to obey Washington's demand. And quite frankly, it is my belief that this will eventually lead to a war with Russia.

Perhaps the time has come for the war that people have feared for a while. The US is the only nation that has used a nuclear weapon in war against another state. Karma has a funny way of acting.
 
Agents Provocateurs and the Shadow War in Eastern Ukraine

For weeks, Washington and Moscow have waged a bitter war of words over the
fragile situation in Ukraine. But on Tuesday, the tenor of the discussion
turned tantalizingly conspiratorial.
On the Russian side, Moscow accused the U.S. of plotting a fascist crackdown in
eastern Ukraine with the help of an obscure American contractor and a far-right
nationalist party.
On the American side, Secretary of State John Kerry accused Russian special
agents of orchestrating riots in eastern Ukrainian as a pretext to war.
With no way to substantiate either claim, the press was left collecting denials from
the various cast of characters ensnared in the two conspiracy theories -- an effort
that raised more questions than answers.
The verbal food fight began with Kerry's fiery testimony at the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Tuesday, which reflected the Obama administration's
growing concern that the unrest raging in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Kharkiv,
Luhansk and Donetsk could offer Russian President Vladimir Putin an excuse for
an armed incursion there.

Pro-Russian demonstrators seized an array of government buildings in recent days and demanded the right to secede from Ukraine,
leading Kiev to send troops to retake the compounds. On Tuesday, Kiev forces reclaimed a regional administration building in Kharkiv
from pro-Russian forces while armed men retained control of a security-service building in Luhansk. U.S. officials worry that Putin is
trying to force Ukraine into a clash with the protesters so Moscow would be able to justify an invasion on humanitarian grounds.
That was the same playbook the Russian strongman used before invading and annexing Ukraine's Crimean peninsula earlier this year.

"No one is fooled by what could potentially be a contrived pretext for military intervention just as we saw in Crimea," Kerry said.
"These efforts are as ham-handed as they are transparent, and quite simply what we see from Russia is illegal and illegitimate effor
t to destabilize a sovereign state and create a contrived crisis with paid operatives across an international boundary."

The State Department did not offer evidence to back up Kerry's claim. And Kerry's counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, didn't take the accusations sitting down.

In a retaliatory press conference, the Russian Foreign Minister dismissed claims that Russia played a role in the disturbances in southeastern Ukraine.
"One shouldn't lay one's own fault at somebody else's door," he said at a press conference in Moscow.
The Kremlin proceeded to propagate a separate conspiracy of its own: That the private American security contractor Greystone had joined forces
with the far-right Ukrainian group Right Sector to neutralize pro-Russian residents in eastern Ukraine. The allegation came in the form of a statement
from the Russian Foreign Ministry, but "experts" in Russian media quickly began amplifying the allegation. "We are talking about the continuation of the
U.S. policy of military intervention in Ukraine and a preparatory stage for a massacre in southeastern Ukraine," said Igor Korotchenko, the
editor-in-chief of Russian National Defense Magazine, in an interview.
....................................
 
Last edited:
Some homemade videos



 
I understand that the source is a bit murky, but Ukrainians need to worry about Chetnik's. They specialize in the martial arts of slaughtering the innocent.

Evidently fopreign Russians have deposed and possibly arrested local seperatists in Dontesk and Slovayansk (sp). If so, that would mean that the leaders of the largest seperatist factions are both foreigners. Likewise, the seperatist leader who murdered the Ukrainian hostages is also a foreign Russian. Is there a pattern here?
 
This is a very disturbing development. I hope the US is not paying people like Blackwater to assist in eastern Ukraine. It is known that the very radical ultra right wing group Right Sector is influential very influential in Ukraine right now. If they start staging attacks inside Russia aimed at destabilizing the Russian government, this situation could get very ugly, very fast. I hope this is not true.

Russia Claims American Mercenaries Are in Eastern Ukraine - NBC News

We likely have mercenaries all over the place. I wouldn't doubt we have them in Ukraine, though Russia is not a reliable source in the least.
 
Ironic. Russia practicing Alinsky tactics against our Alinksy-worshipping administration.

Accuse your opponent of doing exactly what you're doing so they have to defend themselves while you skirt by unblemished.
Bingo.
 
US Refuses To Take Back 13 Dead CIA Spies Killed In Ukraine

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

A stunning Ministry of Defense (MoD) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that the United States has refused to repatriate the bodies of 13 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) military operatives killed when their helicopters were shot down by pro-federalist forces on the outskirts of Slavyansk, eastern Ukraine this past Friday.

According to this report, on 2 May the Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion of the 25th Separate Dnipropetrovsk Airborne Brigade of the Ukrainian Army, which had defected to the side of the pro-federalists in April, fired upon and downed two Russian made Mil Mi-17 transport helicopters belonging to the Ukrainian Air Force that had been attempting to land CIA military “command and control” operatives into the battle zone of Slavyansk.

Of the 14 CIA military operatives aboard the two Mil Mi-17’s, this report continues, only one survived, who was initially identified as Captain Savuilov [photo 2nd left], but whose subsequent questioning revealed him to be an employee of the American mercenary company named Greystone Ltd.

US Refuses To Take Back 13 Dead CIA Spies Killed In Ukraine
 
How do you know it's not true though? Just because you don't think it is?

Because Russia made the claim and they never tell the truth, wink wink.
 
Back
Top Bottom