• 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

IIRC, to be considered a "mercenary" a group must be given independent command with clearly defined military objectives.

In other words, it has to be along the lines of "go take Hill 309 " not "go take those latrines to Hill 309"
 
According to Foreign Policy magazine a few years ago, modern private military contractors are not in fact mercenaries.

I like Foreign Policy. I read their articles as often as I can (near daily consumption). And having been an avid reader of FP for over two years I've come to the inescapable conclusion that they're not infallible. They get it wrong sometimes, which would be evident in this case.

Ever heard this before?: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

Private contractors have a much more pleasant rhetorical ring to it than mercenary. Besides, mercenary has distinct negative connotations whereas private contractor is relatively new terminology and possesses far less negativity in connotation.
 
They aren't and this isn't true. It doesn't even make sense. What is possible is that the Ukrainian government has paid for contractors to help with training and infrastructure security. Scores of countries do it. It's the same thing that happened in Georgia where the Russians tried to say that security contractors were evidence of an insidious American mercenary advance guard. They even made similar claims a few weeks ago. It's nonsense.

If you don't have a source to support your claim, I'm not going to accept on face value your claim that this nonsense.
 
While PNCs can act as mercenaries such as Executive Outcomes actions in Angola and other African nations in the 1990s, I'm very reluctant to characterize their roles in Iraq and elsewhere under western nations directions as being in line with being mercenary.

Besides, people have this image of PNCs as being a bunch of lawless murderous thugs who hired on because they want to kill and terrorize without the oversight of a regular military. When in fact in areas like Africa where the aforementioned EO fought in the 1990s they fought very professionally and did a whole lot of good for the regions they were in.

Remember, during the horrific 1994 Rwandan genocide, Executive Outcomes offered to send their troops in (without prior payment) to help end the killing but they were turned down. It has been estimated they could've saved 200,000 lives.
 
If you don't have a source to support your claim, I'm not going to accept on face value your claim that this nonsense.

You don't have to accept it but outside the bubble of Debate Politics it's the reality.
 
You don't have to accept it but outside the bubble of Debate Politics it's the reality.

Since you know so well, why not take us out of the bubble of Debate Politics and demonstrate your claim. If you can't, just say so.
 
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

Why is it disturbing?
Doesn't surprise me at all.

American mercenaries have been running around making what money they can fighting other peoples wars for centuries.

Just good capitalism.
 
Why is it disturbing?
Doesn't surprise me at all.

American mercenaries have been running around making what money they can fighting other peoples wars for centuries.

Just good capitalism.

It's disturbing because it increases the risk of a military confrontation between Russia and the US over something that's only of marginal US interest.
 
It's disturbing because it increases the risk of a military confrontation between Russia and the US over something that's only of marginal US interest.

Like I said mercenaries have been doing this for hundreds of years and it never led to such a confrontation.
 
I believe the UN may be able to offset some costs by offering security agreements in regions where there may be instability.
 
Like I said mercenaries have been doing this for hundreds of years and it never led to such a confrontation.

IF American military contractors are helping to support the activities of ultra nationalist right wing extremist in Ukraine that actually leads to the fomentation of unrest or a terrorist attack inside of Russia, that is sure to provoke a military incursion by Russia into Ukraine. Things could then spiral quickly out of control. That's the problem with such things. There is no telling where they might lead.

That said, I don't think we are that stupid, contrary to some of the assertions here by some that we should provide Ukraine with a security guarantee.
 
So which countries are going to offer troops to the UN to enforce a security guarantee with Ukraine against Russia?
 
So which countries are going to offer troops to the UN to enforce a security guarantee with Ukraine against Russia?

Hypothetically and in that alternative, would be it "wrong" for the UN to write letters of marque and reprisal, and hire a regiment of Hammer's Slammers?
 
Since you know so well, why not take us out of the bubble of Debate Politics and demonstrate your claim. If you can't, just say so.

It's ludicrous on its face. This doesn't happen. Countries do not acquire contracts with security companies when they are in the midst of inter-state war, nor do companies dish them out. We wont send weapons, share intelligence, or dispatch spare parts to Ukraine but we're willing to allow an American company accept a (shockingly illegal) contract to organize a foreign legion of '150 mercenaries' in the face of a potential Russian invasion? Especially when they don't even provide those services! Which Russia should know because they've contracted with Greystone numerous times for police training and executive private security details. Why would a cash strapped Ukraine even bother to pay what would be an exorbitant fee to dispatch a few score hired foreign guns to eastern Ukraine when they are in the process of mobilizing corps sized formations? It's nonsense.

Everyone from Washington to Brussels, from Greystone to Xe has flatly denied this claim. The only evidence is an errant Russian assertion that there are bands of 'American mercenaries' operating in Ukraine. They have a storied history of lying about this from their claims just a few weeks ago about mercenaries being disgorged by the hundreds into Kiev to their sensationalist claims about fighting American mercenaries in Georgia. They inevitably drop the claim because it's always nonsense conjured up for the purposes of the moment.
 
Of course it's very difficult to try to piece together what is actually happening, but this is of interest

Contractors from private security companies are supposed to do what NATO cannot do openly, they train terrorists who destabilize situation in Ukraine, Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization told RIA Novosti Tuesday.

"Those organizations (private security companies) will do what NATO cannot do openly. They can train people to be terrorists," Chossudovsky said, adding that in Syria private contractors were training al-Qaeda.
"We are talking about the continuation of US policy of military intervention in Ukraine and a preparatory stage for a massacre in southeastern Ukraine," Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of the National Defense monthly Russian-language magazine said, adding that the deployment of mercenaries from a private company Greystone Ltd. may be financed by Ukrainian oligarchs and organized in coordination with the US State Department.
Michel Chossudovsky told RIA Novosti that mercenaries are normally hired by governments, but options are numerous as they operate covertly and do not identify themselves.
"Private contractors could be hired by NATO, or by Ukrainian government or by an intermediary. Anyone can hire Greystone, they operate covertly, they don't identify themselves, and make money," Chossudovsky said.
"Considering that Ukraine's security services show their obvious incompetence, foreign mercenaries are supposed to suppress the protests in the southeastern part of the country," Korotchenko said.
Michel Chossudovsky expects Graystone to recruit Ukrainians for the operation and reminded that the company recruits different nationalities, who are trained by professional military personnel.
"Within the Ukrainian National Guard there are western military advisors, they have senior military people. They are supposed to train protective services, but in fact they train terrorists," Chossudovsky said.
"NATO and the US won't acknowledge the presence of these special forces. What is happening is an influx of special forces in Ukraine which are there with the purpose to sustain the current government, but also to sustain the state of destabilization," Chossudovsky said stressing that mercenaries would infiltrate with grassroots movements to trigger violence across Ukraine.
Canadian expert also said that NATO advisors are already present in Ukraine and have been brought by Kiev authorities.
"We have reports that there were mercenaries in Eastern Ukraine in early March. Some of these mercenaries are used for sophisticated sniper operations which characterize Euro Maidan," Chossudovsky said, adding that the similar operations have been seen in other countries.

NATO trains terrorists who destabilize situation in Ukraine - analyst - News - Politics - The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events, Expert opinion, podcasts, Video
 

When I want accurate information I always pick sensationalist headlines from state propaganda outlets citing the director of the largest conspiracy theory forum on the internet: The Center for Research on Globalization. Christ.

Edit: For those who don't know CRG is your go to place for 9/11 truth theories, stories on US Weather Weapons, Zionist Globalism, the Vaccine Cover-up, and of course the Illuminati. But also much more!
 
It's ludicrous on its face. This doesn't happen. Countries do not acquire contracts with security companies when they are in the midst of inter-state war, nor do companies dish them out. We wont send weapons, share intelligence, or dispatch spare parts to Ukraine but we're willing to allow an American company accept a (shockingly illegal) contract to organize a foreign legion of '150 mercenaries' in the face of a potential Russian invasion? Especially when they don't even provide those services! Which Russia should know because they've contracted with Greystone numerous times for police training and executive private security details. Why would a cash strapped Ukraine even bother to pay what would be an exorbitant fee to dispatch a few score hired foreign guns to eastern Ukraine when they are in the process of mobilizing corps sized formations? It's nonsense.

Here's why

"Those organizations (private security companies) will do what NATO cannot do openly. They can train people to be terrorists," Chossudovsky said, adding that in Syria private contractors were training al-Qaeda.

And please don't just say it's ludicrous on the face. If you really know what you are talking about, please provide some sources to back your claim. IF you are telling the truth, I would like to believe you.

Everyone from Washington to Brussels, from Greystone to Xe has flatly denied this claim. The only evidence is an errant Russian assertion that there are bands of 'American mercenaries' operating in Ukraine. They have a storied history of lying about this from their claims just a few weeks ago about mercenaries being disgorged by the hundreds into Kiev to their sensationalist claims about fighting American mercenaries in Georgia. They inevitably drop the claim because it's always nonsense conjured up for the purposes of the moment.

Governments like about these types of things all the time, so just because Washington has denied the claims does not mean they are not true. Russia could also be lying, but at this point, it's hard for an objective observer to understand who is telling the truth.
 
When I want accurate information I always pick sensationalist headlines from state propaganda outlets citing the director of the largest conspiracy theory forum on the internet: The Center for Research on Globalization. Christ.

Edit: For those who don't know CRG is your go to place for 9/11 truth theories, stories on US Weather Weapons, Zionist Globalism, the Vaccine Cover-up, and of course the Illuminati. But also much more!

Methinks thou doest protest too much
 
Last edited:
Here's why



And please don't just say it's ludicrous on the face. If you really know what you are talking about, please provide some sources to back your claim. IF you are telling the truth, I would like to believe you.



Governments like about these types of things all the time, so just because Washington has denied the claims does not mean they are not true. Russia could also be lying, but at this point, it's hard for an objective observer to understand who is telling the truth.

Ah! So they are there training Ukrainian terrorists. Well I'm glad it's all cleared up. There are no sources to provide I was reciting a litany of logic. As for sources that they deny they have any personal there that is easy to locate.

Security Firm Denies Involvement in Ukraine - Emerging Europe Real Time - WSJ

If you aren't willing to abandon your earlier source and if that is where you are gleaning your information I'd hazard that you actually don't really want to believe me.
 
If you aren't willing to abandon your earlier source and if that is where you are gleaning your information I'd hazard that you actually don't really want to believe me.

At this point as far as I'm concerned it isn't a matter of not wanting to believe you as much as trying to understand why that although I have said Russia can be lying, you want me to believe that you really know the truth. One of these things is possible:

1. You work for the government or know someone that works for the government that has access to sources of information that you cannot share and you are actually telling the truth.
2. You are someone who is foolish enough to believe whatever propaganda that Washington manufactures.
3. You are just doing this for the heck of it.
4. You are representing someone who wants to hide the truth.

What I find of particular interest is your words 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.

That's of particular interest when seen juxtaposed against this

Moscow does not see the revolution in Ukraine as an attempt to create a more democratic or law-based society. Instead, it sees the events in Kiev as an attempt to make Ukraine as anti-Russian as possible. The new government represents a minority of the Ukrainian population. It wants to suppress the Russian-speaking majority and violate their right to representation by holding unfair elections on May 25.

Moreover, U.S. President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel deceived President Vladimir Putin when they pursuaded him to convince Yanukovych to refrain from using force to quell the Maidan, and then to sign the Feb. 21 agreement — which they refused to uphold. Instead, they told Russia to accept the new reality in Ukraine. But why should Moscow accept that reality when it is directed against Russia, democracy and human rights?

What did Russia do to become the focus of so much animosity? Is it because it prevented the West from bombing Syria? Because it persuaded Yanukovych not to sign the Association Agreement — a treaty of little real importance to the EU? Those are trivial reasons for starting a new Cold War.

It seems that the West simply does not like Putin. He is a huge obstacle who prevents them from achieving global hegemony. For this reason alone he must be broken. Nobody in Moscow has any doubt that what happened in Ukraine will be repeated in Moscow in two or three years. Without Putin, there will be few world leaders left who have the power or courage to stand up to Washington. When this happens, the entire world will have to quickly accept the new reality.

Russia is not in Crimea to expand its territory but to oppose the immense power of West and its financial institutions in New York and London. Washington wants to characterize this as a conflict between Moscow and Kiev, thereby forcing Russia to negotiate with an illegitimate regime determined to destroy everything Russian in Ukraine.

Victoria Nuland is the wife of the very prominent neocon, Robert Kagan. Could it be that what people like you and Victoria Nuland really want to do is overthrow Putin in Russia, using Ukraine as a stepping stone? I don't know for sure. Just saying.

Russia Must Stop U.S. Expansion in Ukraine | Opinion | The Moscow Times
 
At this point as far as I'm concerned it isn't a matter of not wanting to believe you as much as trying to understand why that although I have said Russia can be lying, you want me to believe that you really know the truth. One of these things is possible:

1. You work for the government or know someone that works for the government that has access to sources of information that you cannot share and you are actually telling the truth.
2. You are someone who is foolish enough to believe whatever propaganda that Washington manufactures.
3. You are just doing this for the heck of it.
4. You are representing someone who wants to hide the truth.

What I find of particular interest is your words here:



That's of particular interest when seen juxtaposed against this



Victoria Nuland is the wife of the very prominent neocon, Robert Kagan. Could it be that what people like you and Victoria Nuland really want to do is overthrow Putin in Russia, using Ukraine as a stepping stone? I don't know for sure. Just saying.

Russia Must Stop U.S. Expansion in Ukraine | Opinion | The Moscow Times

You've been presented with the blanket denials from every possible actor involved as well as thoroughly explained reasoning for why it is utterly illogical. Your response was to present a propaganda outlet which cited a famous conspiracy theorist regarding 'terrorist training'. Something you have utterly failed to address, though considering how silly the source was I can understand why. You seem positively eager to jump at any conclusion or possibility that sustains this ridiculous Russian position.

I'd love to see Putin overthrown and his fascist ilk dragged through the streets. Pretending that Ukraine is a stepping stone to that goal is, once again, ludicrous.
 
You've been presented with the blanket denials from every possible actor involved as well as thoroughly explained reasoning for why it is utterly illogical. Your response was to present a propaganda outlet which cited a famous conspiracy theorist regarding 'terrorist training'. Something you have utterly failed to address, though considering how silly the source was I can understand why. You seem positively eager to jump at any conclusion or possibility that sustains this ridiculous Russian position.

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.

I'd love to see Putin overthrown and his fascist ilk dragged through the streets. Pretending that Ukraine is a stepping stone to that goal is, once again, ludicrous.

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.
 
It appears that Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria "f*** the EU" Nuland, and one poster here are singing from the same hymn book.

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 Rober Kagan

A hollow 'reset' with Russia

By Robert Kagan
Tuesday, May 25, 2010

It took months of hard negotiating, but finally the administration got Russia to agree to a resolution tightening sanctions on Iran. The United States had to drop tougher measures it wanted to impose, of course, to win approval. Nevertheless, senior Russian officials were making the kinds of strong statements about Iran's nuclear program that they had long refused to make. Iran "must cease enrichment," declared Russia's ambassador to the United Nations. One senior European official told the New York Times, "We consider this a very important decision by the Russians."

Yes, it was quite a breakthrough -- by the administration of George W. Bush. In fact, this 2007 triumph came after another, similar breakthrough in 2006, when months of negotiations with Moscow had produced the first watered-down resolution. And both were followed in 2008 by yet another breakthrough, when the Bush administration got Moscow to agree to a third resolution, another marginal tightening of sanctions, after more negotiations and more diluting.

Given that history, few accomplishments have been more oversold than the Obama administration's "success" in getting Russia to agree, for the fourth time in five years, to another vacuous U.N. Security Council resolution. It is being trumpeted as a triumph of the administration's "reset" of the U.S.-Russian relationship, the main point of which was to get the Russians on board regarding Iran. All we've heard in recent months is how the Russians finally want to work with us on Iran and genuinely see the Iranian bomb as a threat -- all because Obama has repaired relations with Russia that were allegedly destroyed by Bush.

Obama officials must assume that no one will bother to check the record (as, so far, none of the journalists covering the story has). The fact is, the Russians have not said or done anything in the past few months that they didn't do or say during the Bush years. In fact, they sometimes used to say and do more. Here's Vladimir Putin in April 2005: "We categorically oppose any attempts by Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. . . . Our Iranian partners must renounce setting up the technology for the entire nuclear fuel cycle and should not obstruct placing their nuclear programs under complete international supervision." Here's one of Putin's top national security advisers, Igor S. Ivanov, in March 2007: "The clock must be stopped; Iran must freeze uranium enrichment." Indeed, the New York Times' Elaine Sciolino reported that month that Moscow threatened to "withhold nuclear fuel for Iran's nearly completed Bushehr power plant unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council" -- which prompted the Times' editorial page to give the Bush administration "credit if it helped Moscow to see where its larger interests lie." Nine months later, of course, Russia delivered the fuel.

It remains to be seen whether this latest breakthrough has greater meaning than the previous three or is just round four of Charlie Brown and the football. The latest draft resolution tightens sanctions in some areas around the margins, but the administration was forced to cave to some Russian and Chinese demands. The Post reported: "The Obama administration failed to win approval for key proposals it had sought, including restrictions on Iran's lucrative oil trade, a comprehensive ban on financial dealings with the Guard Corps and a U.S.-backed proposal to halt new investment in the Iranian energy sector." Far from the comprehensive arms embargo Washington wanted, the draft resolution does not even prohibit Moscow from completing the sale of its S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system to Tehran. A change to the Federal Register on Friday showed that the administration had lifted sanctions against four Russian entities involved in illicit weapons trade with Iran and Syria since 1999, suggesting last-minute deal sweeteners.

What is bizarre is the administration's claim that Russian behavior is somehow the result of Obama's "reset" diplomacy. Russia has responded to the Obama administration in the same ways it did to the Bush administration before the "reset." Moscow has been playing this game for years. It has sold the same rug many times. The only thing that has changed is the price the United States has been willing to pay.

As anyone who ever shopped for a rug knows, the more you pay for it, the more valuable it seems. The Obama administration has paid a lot. In exchange for Russian cooperation, President Obama has killed the Bush administration's planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama has officially declared that Russia's continued illegal military occupation of Georgia is no "obstacle" to U.S.-Russian civilian nuclear cooperation. The recent deal between Russia and Ukraine granting Russia control of a Crimean naval base through 2042 was shrugged off by Obama officials, as have been Putin's suggestions for merging Russian and Ukrainian industries in a blatant bid to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty.

So at least one effect of the administration's "reset" has been to produce a wave of insecurity throughout Eastern and Central Europe and the Baltics, where people are starting to fear they can no longer count on the United States to protect them from an expansive Russia. And for this the administration has gotten what? Yet another hollow U.N. Security Council resolution. Some observers suggest that Iran's leaders are quaking in their boots, confronted by this great unity of the international "community." More likely, they are laughing up their sleeves -- along with the men in Moscow.
 
It appears that Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria "f*** the EU" Nuland, and one poster here are singing from the same hymn book.



Here's Rober Kagan

I'm intimately familiar with Robert Kagan. You also can't spook me with the Neocon boogieman--I'm a neoconservative. Boom.
 
Back
Top Bottom