• 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!

Ceasefire agreed for eastern Ukraine after Minsk summit

DaveFagan said:
Debaltseve is surrounded and the rebels offered the trapped Ukraine troops a corridor out and leave their weapons behind. Apparently Poroshenko figures out those troops would be better off dead because orders from Kiev tell them to fight. If OSCE is allowed in they will be targets if the troops don't lay down their arms. Everybody knew this at the signing and Kiev is trying to this as deception to keep territory that is lost. Obviously, it is not going to work, just get 5-10,000 Kiev troops killed.
Click to expand...

Looks like the Ukrainian army has conceded Debaltseve. Poroshenko needs to come to a conclusion about the reality of the situation.
 
MildSteel said:
The point is that the U.S. did not kill those innocent children for their own good. We did not go there for the good of all involved.
Click to expand...

Montecresto said:
These are just people, Jesus, ok HB. And what are you and what are you spewing?
Click to expand...

I'm spewing hard, unquestionable facts. If the Iraq war was all about oil, or even just our benefit, then we would of put in a puppet into power and more than the majority of the Oil would at least being heading west instead of the ****ing China. It's not, and you know why it's not? Because once we liberated the country from Saddam, we only wanted to hand it over to it's people. Hell, if it were true that we really didn't care, then we would of left the moment things got screwy in 05 and 06 instead of doubling down and committing even more troops to the country in an attempt to restore order. It certainly didn't do us any favors putting our soldiers on the line for someone else's well being.

(Let's try and keep this discussion to the motives of the invasion without spilling over into discussion of the results of said decisions, i.e. the rise of a sectarian government in Iraq. That's already being covered in other threads.)
 
Simpleχity;1064326130 said:
The Minsk II ceasefire went into effect on 00.01 am (EET) 15, February 2015. There were no exceptions to the ceasefire in the Minsk II Accord.

As I've posted previously, and you've simply ignored because it doesn't suit your pro-Russia agenda. Once again...

Ukraine rebels disavow ceasefire at encircled town



Not only have the rebels ignored the ceasefire at Debaltseve in violation of Minsk II, but they have also denied the OSCE (international monitors) access to Debaltseve which is also a violation of Minsk II.
Click to expand...

I repeat. Even knowing the Ukrainians at Debaltseve were surrounded, Poroshenko insisted that they fight. The rebels offered a safe corridor if they left their weapons behind. They were surrounded before Minsk II and it was common knowldge among all that Debaltseve was not settled. The corridor was offerred at that time. The dead troops can be ragarded as Poroshenko suicides because they were avoidable. He will probably have to watch his back in Kiev. I have a pro-Ukraine agenda. It is the common people of Ukraine that have been suffering since the USA/CIA coup installed the current low lifes. This is a war of CHOICE by Poroshenko against Ukrainians who didn't choose to accept the coup that is installed to organize the theft of Ukrainian's patrimony.
 
Last edited:
MildSteel said:
Looks like the Ukrainian army has conceded Debaltseve. Poroshenko needs to come to a conclusion about the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
He has. Withdraw from Debaltseve and save many lives. The sobering reality is that the rebels repudiated the Minsk II Accord in Debaltseve.
 
DaveFagan said:
I repeat. Even knowing the Ukrainians at Debaltseve were surrounded, Poroshenko insisted that they fight. The rebels offered a safe corridor if they left their weapons behind. They were surrounded before Minsk II and it was common knowldge among all that Debaltseve was not settled. The corridor was offerred at that time. The dead troops can be ragarded as Poroshenko suicides because they were avoidable. He will probably have to watch his back in Kiev. I have a pro-Ukraine agenda. It is the common people of Ukraine that have been suffering since the USA/CIA coup installed the current low lifes. This is a war of CHOICE by Poroshenko against Ukrainians who didn't choose to accept the coup that is installed to organize the theft of Ukrainian's patrimony.
Click to expand...
They were not surrounded when the ceasefire commenced. That is precisely why the rebels had to violate Minsk II ... to accomplish the encirclement.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I'm spewing hard, unquestionable facts. If the Iraq war was all about oil, or even just our benefit, then we would of put in a puppet into power and more than the majority of the Oil would at least being heading west instead of the ****ing China. It's not, and you know why it's not? Because once we liberated the country from Saddam, we only wanted to hand it over to it's people. Hell, if it were true that we really didn't care, then we would of left the moment things got screwy in 05 and 06 instead of doubling down and committing even more troops to the country in an attempt to restore order. It certainly didn't do us any favors putting our soldiers on the line for someone else's well being.

(Let's try and keep this discussion to the motives of the invasion without spilling over into discussion of the results of said decisions, i.e. the rise of a sectarian government in Iraq. That's already being covered in other threads.)
Click to expand...

Most everybody I quoted were republicans, and all during the Bush administration. Maintaining the free flow of oil out of the region has been US policy for decades.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I'm spewing hard, unquestionable facts. If the Iraq war was all about oil, or even just our benefit, then we would of put in a puppet into power and more than the majority of the Oil would at least being heading west instead of the ****ing China. It's not, and you know why it's not? Because once we liberated the country from Saddam, we only wanted to hand it over to it's people. Hell, if it were true that we really didn't care, then we would of left the moment things got screwy in 05 and 06 instead of doubling down and committing even more troops to the country in an attempt to restore order. It certainly didn't do us any favors putting our soldiers on the line for someone else's well being.

(Let's try and keep this discussion to the motives of the invasion without spilling over into discussion of the results of said decisions, i.e. the rise of a sectarian government in Iraq. That's already being covered in other threads.)
Click to expand...

Stop being so naive about this Buddha.

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil", Carter proclaimed:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. (full speech)

United States presidential doctrines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like Hagel said, "what the hell do you think we're in the ME for, figs"?
 
Montecresto said:
Most everybody I quoted were republicans, and all during the Bush administration. Maintaining the free flow of oil out of the region has been US policy for decades.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between maintaining the free flow, which I agree is a huge part of foreign policy in the region, and say going into a county with the explicit purpose to get more oil. That being that our focus is not to force regional players into doing X, but merely to make sure everyone plays nice. What you and others are accusing the US of doing is moving from a neutral actor to someone who is in it just for the benefits the US will receive. If that was the case, again, we'd be getting a lot better than third in Iraqi oil exports don't you think?

Montecresto said:
Stop being so naive about this Buddha.

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil", Carter proclaimed:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. (full speech)

United States presidential doctrines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like Hagel said, "what the hell do you think we're in the ME for, figs"?
Click to expand...

Refer to previous post.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I'm spewing hard, unquestionable facts. If the Iraq war was all about oil, or even just our benefit, then we would of put in a puppet into power and more than the majority of the Oil would at least being heading west instead of the ****ing China. It's not, and you know why it's not? Because once we liberated the country from Saddam, we only wanted to hand it over to it's people. Hell, if it were true that we really didn't care, then we would of left the moment things got screwy in 05 and 06 instead of doubling down and committing even more troops to the country in an attempt to restore order. It certainly didn't do us any favors putting our soldiers on the line for someone else's well being.

(Let's try and keep this discussion to the motives of the invasion without spilling over into discussion of the results of said decisions, i.e. the rise of a sectarian government in Iraq. That's already being covered in other threads.)
Click to expand...

You say you are spewing hard facts but you are spewing opinion. The U.S. had significant in negotiations about how Iraq's oil resources were to be used. Over and above that, the U.S. gave up support for Maliki, in part due to the whole issue about the oil resources Kurdistan.
 
Simpleχity;1064326351 said:
They were not surrounded when the ceasefire commenced. That is precisely why the rebels had to violate Minsk II ... to accomplish the encirclement.
Click to expand...

They were surrounded before the ceasefire commenced and that is the point. Poroshenko knew they were toast and had no more respect for his own Ukrainian troops than for the Ukrainian separatists he has been offensively attacking. Poroshenko is defending his IMF loan package because Ukraine was not attacked by the separatists. Now, with lots more dead Poroshenko can ponder the wisdom of his collossal igrorance. The Kiev leadership makes pond scum look like a higher life form and the USA supports them. Disgusting!
 
Montecresto said:
Stop being so naive about this Buddha.

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil", Carter proclaimed:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. (full speech)

United States presidential doctrines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like Hagel said, "what the hell do you think we're in the ME for, figs"?
Click to expand...

For real. Even Greenspan said everyone knows the war was about oil
 
Simpleχity;1064326347 said:
He has. Withdraw from Debaltseve and save many lives. The sobering reality is that the rebels repudiated the Minsk II Accord in Debaltseve.
Click to expand...

Yes they did that and I am sure that the Ukrainian government did the same. As I think Dave pointed out, no one really expected that situation to be any different.

My point is that the reality of the situation appears to indicate the Poroshenko is going to have to give Eastern Ukraine a significant amount of autonomy.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
There's a difference between maintaining the free flow, which I agree is a huge part of foreign policy in the region, and say going into a county with the explicit purpose to get more oil. That being that our focus is not to force regional players into doing X, but merely to make sure everyone plays nice. What you and others are accusing the US of doing is moving from a neutral actor to someone who is in it just for the benefits the US will receive. If that was the case, again, we'd be getting a lot better than third in Iraqi oil exports don't you think?



Refer to previous post.
Click to expand...

Refer to the Carter doctrine and stop ignoring the fact that US hegemony since (at least) the Carter administration has been, it's ours, and any attempts at interference WILL BE MET WITH MILITARY FORCE if need be. And indeed, these decades have been full of it, and the side effect is a very powerful and spreading extremist Islamic State!!
 
MildSteel said:
For real. Even Greenspan said everyone knows the war was about oil
Click to expand...

It's the elephant in the room that gets continually ignored. This is a direct result of too many putting their god damn party in front of their country, along with a heavy dose of, our **** don't stink, patronising.
 
Montecresto said:
It's the elephant in the room that gets continually ignored. This is a direct result of too many putting their god damn party in front of their country, along with a heavy dose of, our **** don't stink, patronising.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Actually we can see that this type of thing is very dangerous and has led to the unnecessary loss of life and depleted precious monetary resources that could have been used for something useful like improving education here. It is amazing that we continue these practices. Totally amazing.
 
MildSteel said:
Looks like the Ukrainian army has conceded Debaltseve. Poroshenko needs to come to a conclusion about the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

It's the EU that needs to wake up to reality: You can't make a deal with Putin and expect him (or his proxies) to honor it.

It's time we start arming Ukraine.
 
DaveFagan said:
They were surrounded before the ceasefire commenced and that is the point. Poroshenko knew they were toast and had no more respect for his own Ukrainian troops than for the Ukrainian separatists he has been offensively attacking. Poroshenko is defending his IMF loan package because Ukraine was not attacked by the separatists. Now, with lots more dead Poroshenko can ponder the wisdom of his collossal igrorance. The Kiev leadership makes pond scum look like a higher life form and the USA supports them. Disgusting!
Click to expand...

What's disgusting is that you blame Pororshenko for everything when it is the Russian-backed terrorists who are doing it all.
 
Roadvirus said:
It's the EU that needs to wake up to reality: You can't make a deal with Putin and expect him (or his proxies) to honor it.

It's time we start arming Ukraine.
Click to expand...

No, it decidedly is NOT!
 
Roadvirus said:
What's disgusting is that you blame Pororshenko for everything when it is the Russian-backed terrorists who are doing it all.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. It's very clever the way they got Poroshenko to bring all his artillery and Army to East Ukraine to defend his Nation's honor against those Ukrainians that disagree with him. Now, those pesky rebels keep getting those artillaries and Armies into compromising positions causing them to die of their own ignorance. It's the rebel's fault because they must have created a Nazi magnet that draws these ignoramuses ever closer. It's probably just me, but I would have thought negotiation could have prevented the entire debacle.
 
DaveFagan said:
Ah, I see. It's very clever the way they got Poroshenko to bring all his artillery and Army to East Ukraine to defend his Nation's honor against those Ukrainians that disagree with him. Now, those pesky rebels keep getting those artillaries and Armies into compromising positions causing them to die of their own ignorance. It's the rebel's fault because they must have created a Nazi magnet that draws these ignoramuses ever closer. It's probably just me, but I would have thought negotiation could have prevented the entire debacle.
Click to expand...

There had been no war in Ukraine in the 23 years since its independence and there still would be none now were it not for Russian intervention.

Predictably though whatever the evidence you'll stick to blaming the nasty capitalist bankers and the CIA nonetheless .... ho hum :roll:
 
flogger said:
There had been no war in Ukraine in the 23 years since its independence and there still would be none now were it not for Russian intervention.

Predictably though whatever the evidence you'll stick to blaming the nasty capitalist bankers and the CIA nonetheless .... ho hum :roll:
Click to expand...

Just because Poroshenko is boss, he's probably not the one that ordered his Army to attack East Ukraine. No war, 23 years, and Poroshenko gins one up in a few months. You must be right though, it's a hot dam vortex sucking those armies in from a nice quiet Kiev to the East Ukrainian's shooting gallery. That makes it a billionaire's war against a bunch of coal miners and peasants. Russia spent $35 billion propping up Ukraine in the last 10 years. Along comes the USA/CIA/NED, Nuland, Pyatt, and other various amoeba wannabes to "help out" and now Ukrainians are poorer, everthing is more expensive, taxes are up, pensions are down, the patrimony of the people is going to Corporations to cover the war debt, theft debt, mismanagement debt, IMF debt, corruption debt, ad infinitum. Take a good look at what is really happening. There are many information sources, but they are not on MSM TV. Give it a shot, might surprise you.
 
DaveFagan said:
Just because Poroshenko is boss, he's probably not the one that ordered his Army to attack East Ukraine.
Click to expand...

That must automatically mean the CIA and the bankers did it right ? :lol:

No war, 23 years, and Poroshenko gins one up in a few months. You must be right though, it's a hot dam vortex sucking those armies in from a nice quiet Kiev to the East Ukrainian's shooting gallery.
Click to expand...

No war in 23 years until those naughty Ukrainians wanted to join the EU and hurt Russias feelings

That makes it a billionaire's war against a bunch of coal miners and peasants.
Click to expand...

Hooray. Power to the people down with the kulaks !!! :lol:

Russia spent $35 billion propping up Ukraine in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

And then Yanukovych goes on to steal three times that much in just four years ...... but its still the Wests fault all the same right ?

Along comes the USA/CIA/NED, Nuland, Pyatt, and other various amoeba wannabes to "help out" and now Ukrainians are poorer, everthing is more expensive, taxes are up, pensions are down, the patrimony of the people is going to Corporations to cover the war debt, theft debt, mismanagement debt, IMF debt, corruption debt, ad infinitum. Take a good look at what is really happening.
Click to expand...

Hilariously predictable as ever. You just can't help yourself :lamo
 
Last edited:
Somebodies getting taught a lesson.
 
flogger said:
That must automatically mean the CIA and the bankers did it right ? :lol:



No war in 23 years until those naughty Ukrainians wanted to join the EU and hurt Russias feelings



Hooray. Power to the people down with the kulaks !!! :lol:



And then Yanukovych goes on to steal three times that much in just four years ...... but its still the Wests fault all the same right ?



Hilariously predictable as ever. You just can't help yourself :lamo
Click to expand...

I believe you're finally beginning to notice the details. I can't help your comprehension limitations. I would if I could. Always been willing to help the handicapped, don't ya' know?
 
DaveFagan said:
Just because Poroshenko is boss, he's probably not the one that ordered his Army to attack East Ukraine. No war, 23 years, and Poroshenko gins one up in a few months.
Click to expand...

Are your freaking serious? It was Russia that invaded the Ukraine and then backed mass murdering terrorists who turned Donetsk and Luhansk (which both have majority ethnic Ukrainian populations) into armed camps ruled by murder, kidnapping, rape, torture, and numerous other atrocities and pogroms against non-Russians.




“We are talking of a reign of fear, if not of terror” in the pockets of territory around Donetsk and Luhansk controlled by armed separatists and now experiencing a state of total lawlessness, Mr. Magazzeni said, citing cases of people shot at checkpoints for no reason and members of armed groups who were summarily shot because they no longer wanted to fight.

“The escalation in criminal activity resulting in human rights abuses is no longer limited to targeting journalists, elected representatives, local politicians, civil servants and civil society activists,” the report stated. “Abductions, detentions, acts of ill-treatment and torture, and killings by armed groups are now affecting the broader population of the two eastern regions.”

They further report that pogroms in the Crimea are responsible for ethnic cleansing in the Crimea:

The United Nations refugee agency has reported that more than 34,000 Ukrainians have been displaced. Most were from Crimea, where people who speak Ukrainian or do not want to change their nationality to Russian face discrimination and intimidation, Mr. Magazzeni said.

“They are mostly concerned about security: people report staying in cellars to keep away from the fighting, facing harassment at checkpoints and fearing the increasingly common abductions, threats and extortion,” the monitors reported.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/w...tails-casualties-in-eastern-ukraine.html?_r=0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom