• 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!

Putin admits that Russian Soldiers were in Crimea before annexation or referendum

Wiseone

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jamesrage said:
Of course they were in Crimea,ever heard of the Black Sea Fleet?
Click to expand...

Thats obviously not what he meant

In early March, Putin denied that the well-equipped troops operating on Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and wearing green uniforms without insignia were Russian. Anyone could buy those uniforms, he said. On Thursday, when asked about the soldiers widely known as the green men, Putin acknowledged that they were Russian. Their presence had been necessary, he said, to keep order so that Crimeans could decide their future in a referendum.

“We didn’t want any tanks, any nationalist combat units or people with extreme views armed with automatic weapons,” he said. “Of course, Russian servicemen backed the Crimean self-defense forces.”
Click to expand...
 
Wiseone said:
Putin’s remarks raise fears of future moves against Ukraine - The Washington Post

This is a few days old but did anyone catch this? Where's PeteEU he was very stubborn in his insistence that there were no Russians in Crimea prior to the annexation or the referendum? Does this change anyone's mind about what kind of person is running the show in Moscow?
Click to expand...

I don't believe there was serious doubt about Russian covert forces being present in Crimea, especially as strategic installations were secured, communications cut, etc.
 
How is this surprising considering, Russians in Ukraine form the largest ethnic minority in the country, and the community forms the largest single Russian diaspora in the world.
 
It's been a known fact for a while now, before the "referendum". Was there seriously people who thought there were no Russian troops?
 
Yet another example of how Western media twists facts to fit the agenda and then substitutes its own opinions in for facts. Putin said Russian soldiers were providing support and protection for Crimean militia. There is no indication that this actually differs from what Russia said about the matter back in March. No one ever said Russian troops were not present in Crimea, obviously, and when asked about their potential involvement in the events playing out there they always made mention of something to the effect that any involvement they had was about security. Basically, their argument from the beginning has been that Crimean militia were the ones actively seizing control of territory with Russian forces merely maintaining security in the region in cooperation with them. Whether you believe that is a full and accurate summation of their involvement or not, it is clearly not inconsistent with what Putin said in the Q&A. Unfortunately, Western media have been less-than-forthcoming in providing full and accurate details on Russia's position on these issues, thus leading to these types of "revelations" when they suit the agenda of the Western establishment.
 
Wiseone said:
Putin’s remarks raise fears of future moves against Ukraine - The Washington Post

This is a few days old but did anyone catch this? Where's PeteEU he was very stubborn in his insistence that there were no Russians in Crimea prior to the annexation or the referendum? Does this change anyone's mind about what kind of person is running the show in Moscow?
Click to expand...

I never said there were no Russia troops in Crimea before the referendum. There was thousands of troops based at the naval base for example. And read what Putin said...

He said that Russian service men "backed" the Crimean self defence forces. Now how you interpret that comment is up to you, but based on the fact that there is no evidence of Russian troops going over the border as some claimed, then the only troops it could have been would have been from the naval base.... who were already in Crimea. He is stating the obvious... there were Russian troops in the Crimea and they of course backed the pro-Russian self defence forces. Now this backing could be via actual troops, or material.. that is the real question, that we will have a hard time answering because of the similarities in language of the area... put a Ukranian in a Russian uniform and he looks like a Russian.. and visa versa. But considering the amount of defections happening in the Ukrainian military, then putting on a new uniform supplied by the Russia military would not be a stretch either.

We can bitch as much about the annexation as we want, but the fact is that a large majority of the population wanted it regardless of the flawed referendum and the Russians would never let Ukraine touch Sevastopol... which was ultimately the goal of Kiev and had been since the formation of Ukraine.
 
PeteEU said:
I never said there were no Russia troops in Crimea before the referendum. There was thousands of troops based at the naval base for example. And read what Putin said...

He said that Russian service men "backed" the Crimean self defence forces. Now how you interpret that comment is up to you, but based on the fact that there is no evidence of Russian troops going over the border as some claimed, then the only troops it could have been would have been from the naval base.... who were already in Crimea. He is stating the obvious... there were Russian troops in the Crimea and they of course backed the pro-Russian self defence forces. Now this backing could be via actual troops, or material.. that is the real question, that we will have a hard time answering because of the similarities in language of the area... put a Ukranian in a Russian uniform and he looks like a Russian.. and visa versa. But considering the amount of defections happening in the Ukrainian military, then putting on a new uniform supplied by the Russia military would not be a stretch either.

We can bitch as much about the annexation as we want, but the fact is that a large majority of the population wanted it regardless of the flawed referendum and the Russians would never let Ukraine touch Sevastopol... which was ultimately the goal of Kiev and had been since the formation of Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Look at the entire statement

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.”

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.
Click to expand...

Transcript: Vladimir Putin’s April 17 Q&A - The Washington Post

He wasn't talking about the units already in Crimea, he was talking about the "green men" which is what the media called the uniform men who shut down roads, locked down bases, etc. These were men while wearing camo fatigues did not wear any form of national identification on their uniform, ie a flag.

Also while Russia had a treaty with Ukraine to station troops in its territory, that doesn't mean Russia had free reign in the country. You know if Germany was suffering an insurgent movement and American troops left their bases to support them with material and manpower it wouldn't be perfectly acceptable just because Germany and the US have a Status of Forces Agreement. I really doubt that Ukraine's treaty with Russia which allowed its troops to be stationed in Crimea also allowed it to remove the ability of Ukrainian troops to leave their bases.

Lastly, is supporting an armed insurgency in another country really acceptable behavior anyway?
 
Wiseone said:
Look at the entire statement

Transcript: Vladimir Putin’s April 17 Q&A - The Washington Post

He wasn't talking about the units already in Crimea, he was talking about the "green men" which is what the media called the uniform men who shut down roads, locked down bases, etc. These were men while wearing camo fatigues did not wear any form of national identification on their uniform, ie a flag.

Also while Russia had a treaty with Ukraine to station troops in its territory, that doesn't mean Russia had free reign in the country. You know if Germany was suffering an insurgent movement and American troops left their bases to support them with material and manpower it wouldn't be perfectly acceptable just because Germany and the US have a Status of Forces Agreement.
Click to expand...

Again, no where in his statement does he state that they are extra troops put there and that is the accusation. In fact he states clearly that there were Russian troops there in the first place and they secured the military assets to prevent them getting in the hands of undesirables.

I really doubt that Ukraine's treaty with Russia which allowed its troops to be stationed in Crimea also allowed it to remove the ability of Ukrainian troops to leave their bases.
Click to expand...

Oh I doubt that too, but it also does not allow Ukraine to seize those military assets.. the naval assets, and that is exactly what some in the Kiev government have shown interest in before.

Lastly, is supporting an armed insurgency in another country really acceptable behavior anyway?
Click to expand...

Of course it is, the west has been doing it since forever. Why cant the Russians? Do you really need a list of countries where the US has supported insurgencies?
 
So what?

There were U.S. troops all over the place during Iraq's election's back when. Does that invalidate them?

What about Afghanistan crawling with UN/NATO troops?

What about Germany right after WW2 with millions of Allied troops occupying it?


To say all the above are fine but a few thousand Russian troops in the Crimea invalidates their referendum is hypocritical, IMO.
 
PeteEU said:
Again, no where in his statement does he state that they are extra troops put there and that is the accusation. In fact he states clearly that there were Russian troops there in the first place and they secured the military assets to prevent them getting in the hands of undesirables.



Oh I doubt that too, but it also does not allow Ukraine to seize those military assets.. the naval assets, and that is exactly what some in the Kiev government have shown interest in before.



Of course it is, the west has been doing it since forever. Why cant the Russians? Do you really need a list of countries where the US has supported insurgencies?
Click to expand...

Ukraine never seized any Russian national assets, you're thinking of Russia
Russia seizes Ukraine's last Crimean ship | Reuters

Also didn't your mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? Someone else doing something wrong is no excuse for you to do it.

Why do you have no problem with these people now living as part of the eternally stagnate state that is Russia? A country consumed with corruption where the state exists solely to provide power for those who control it and to guard the power and profits of itself and the oligarchs that it supports? And this nation wants to turn Ukraine into a puppet state which is run the same way, dooming millions of people to hopelessness for want of improving their lives.


Look at Eastern Ukraine now, Russia is systematically attacking the structure of government trying to destroy it to force Ukraine back into its fold. How can you prefer this? What possibly justifies this action?
 
Wiseone said:
Putin’s remarks raise fears of future moves against Ukraine - The Washington Post

This is a few days old but did anyone catch this? Where's PeteEU he was very stubborn in his insistence that there were no Russians in Crimea prior to the annexation or the referendum? Does this change anyone's mind about what kind of person is running the show in Moscow?
Click to expand...

It won't have an impact. The people who were vigorous in their denial will just default to "We're just ethical and demand unbiased evidence." Which of course always means a rejection of most Western sources and a ludicrous deference to the Russian/Iranian/Chinese stated position or narrative. Geospatial intelligence from NATO? Easily doctored. Thousands of photographs and eyewitness reports? Ukrainian propaganda and/or inconclusive.

Or logic that argues the serious improbability of the sudden materialization of thousands of well armed, well organized, paramilitaries from thin air? Like. Just your opinion man.

Just watch. These people will insist until the invasion comes that there are no Russian agents, troops, or proxies in Eastern Ukraine. It's all spontaneous pro-Russia paramilitarism. With RPG-30's and COG's.

PS: My favorite is "It's just part of their basing agreement!" Yes. None of the soldiers who flew in left their bases. None of them participated in the investment of Ukrainian military installations. None of them took any untoward or aggressive action whatsoever. It was just their legitimate right to dispatch troops. Duh.
 
Wiseone said:
Putin’s remarks raise fears of future moves against Ukraine - The Washington Post

This is a few days old but did anyone catch this? Where's PeteEU he was very stubborn in his insistence that there were no Russians in Crimea prior to the annexation or the referendum? Does this change anyone's mind about what kind of person is running the show in Moscow?
Click to expand...

There were Russian bases in the Crimea, just as there is a US concentration camp in Cuba. Obviously there were Russian troops, just as there was a Russian majority.
 
DA60 said:
So what?

There were U.S. troops all over the place during Iraq's election's back when. Does that invalidate them?

What about Afghanistan crawling with UN/NATO troops?

What about Germany right after WW2 with millions of Allied troops occupying it?


To say all the above are fine but a few thousand Russian troops in the Crimea invalidates their referendum is hypocritical, IMO.
Click to expand...

A few things about this:

1. You don't have the right to vote me into an authoritarian state, which Russia undoubtedly is. Your vaunted historical and cultural connections do not trump my rights, you cannot use the majoritarian bullwhip to abolish my democratic freedoms. Even if it's only 20 Ukrainians and a donkey their rights are paramount.

2. The comparisons fall flat. These elections took years to organize and involved the close collaboration of all parties involved. Both Iraq and Afghanistan's elections, if not the invasion of the former, took place under international agreement and mandate. Russia dispatched troops, banned opposition leaders from returning (Mustafa Dzhemilev for starters), and held a referendum within two weeks. This meets no plausible standard.
 
Sherman123 said:
A few things about this:

1. You don't have the right to vote me into an authoritarian state, which Russia undoubtedly is. Your vaunted historical and cultural connections do not trump my rights, you cannot use the majoritarian bullwhip to abolish my democratic freedoms. Even if it's only 20 Ukrainians and a donkey their rights are paramount.

2. The comparisons fall flat. These elections took years to organize and involved the close collaboration of all parties involved. Both Iraq and Afghanistan's elections, if not the invasion of the former, took place under international agreement and mandate. Russia dispatched troops, banned opposition leaders from returning (Mustafa Dzhemilev for starters), and held a referendum within two weeks. This meets no plausible standard.
Click to expand...

Your objections are noted.

Good day.
 
Sherman123 said:
I see my fascist, neoconservative, warmongering perspective has stymied you. I'm ecstatic!
Click to expand...

lol...more like I don't have enough respect for you to take what you say seriously on this subject (plus your points were mostly wrong anyway, IMO)...I was just trying to be polite.

We are done here...I am not wasting more time with you on this.

Good day.
 
DA60 said:
lol...more like I don't have enough respect for you to take what you say seriously on this subject (plus your points were mostly wrong anyway, IMO)...I was just trying to be polite.

We are done here...I am not wasting more time with you on this.

Good day.
Click to expand...

I'm glad everyone else can see how decisively you've been checked. Another victory for the hegemon. Too easy--as usual.
 
Some people will never be convinced. I think the people of western Europe are scared of Russia so they will believe anything the Russians say. Its no wonder the Germans rolled on them twice in two wars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom