Ukraine PM says Russia wants to 'restore Soviet Union'

[Lite Beer]

Ukraine PM says Russia wants to 'restore Soviet Union'

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has accused Russia of wanting to "eliminate" his country and restore the Soviet Union.

He said Ukraine was "still in a stage of war" with the "key aggressor" being Russia.

Ukraine and Western countries accuse Russia of intervening on the side of pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. Russia denies this.

A fragile ceasefire has been in place since 5 September.

"His goal is to take the entire Ukraine," Mr Yatsenyuk said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

He said Nato was the "only vehicle" to protect Ukraine, although he added he understood Ukraine could not join the alliance in the short term.

Also on Saturday morning, Russian customs officials said that a Russian aid convoy had crossed into eastern Ukraine.

An similar convoy entered the country last month without Ukraine's permission, sparking condemnation from the US and the EU.

Read More: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29188776

-- BBC 2014-09-13

[AGareth2]

more like the Russian Empire

with Putin as czar

[Asiantravel]

Meanwhile, critics of those who are backing the Ukraine could easily accuse the European Union of trying to create a Roman Empire style superstate which is equally as sinister

[lovetotravel]

Meanwhile, critics of those who are backing the Ukraine could easily accuse the European Union of trying to create a Roman Empire style superstate which is equally as sinister

I don't think it's comparable. Russia is nothing like the EU. Completely different form of government, and not an autocracy. Putin is doing some sinister things, the EU would never be allowed to do this. Especially right out in the open, and then lie about it. Never happen.

The EU is interested in gaining partners, that's for sure. But they don't take over countries and absorb them into their own. When you join the EU, sure there are rules that need to be adhered to, but it's citizens still run their country, elect their own officials, manage their own police force, have their own identity, control their own news, etc.

If you ask a Russian, would they rather be a citizen of the EU or Russia, I'm sure I know what many would choose. Just look at the oligarch's of Russia. Where do they send their kids to school? Where are their fancy villas? Many are in the EU and the UK.

[Kudzu]

Meanwhile, critics of those who are backing the Ukraine could easily accuse the European Union of trying to create a Roman Empire style superstate which is equally as sinister

I don't think it's comparable. Russia is nothing like the EU. Completely different form of government, and not an autocracy. Putin is doing some sinister things, the EU would never be allowed to do this. Especially right out in the open, and then lie about it. Never happen.

The EU is interested in gaining partners, that's for sure. But they don't take over countries and absorb them into their own. When you join the EU, sure there are rules that need to be adhered to, but it's citizens still run their country, elect their own officials, manage their own police force, have their own identity, control their own news, etc.

If you ask a Russian, would they rather be a citizen of the EU or Russia, I'm sure I know what many would choose. Just look at the oligarch's of Russia. Where do they send their kids to school? Where are their fancy villas? Many are in the EU and the UK.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Meanwhile, critics of those who are backing the Ukraine could easily accuse the European Union of trying to create a Roman Empire style superstate which is equally as sinister alt=rolleyes.gif>

What European countries has the EU invaded and annexed as part of its empire? None.

What countries has Russia invaded and annexed as part of its new empire? Ukraine and Georgia

What European countries has the EU threatened with military intervention? None

What countries has Russia threatened with military intervention? Most of Eastern Europe.

On the plus side, Russia is driving many many countries into NATO and the EU, just the opposite of its strategic plan to have them voluntarily embrace the new Russian empire.

[Jingthing]

The real question is if Ukraine is lost and it might be lost to Putin, does he STOP there?

[Baerboxer]

Meanwhile, critics of those who are backing the Ukraine could easily accuse the European Union of trying to create a Roman Empire style superstate which is equally as sinister

Only if they were incredibly stupid, lacked education and had no idea about the politics of Europe since WW2.

[Baerboxer]

The real question is if Ukraine is lost and it might be lost to Putin, does he STOP there?

Doubt it. I believe he sees the West has occupied with many other problems at the moment, He probably thinks these countries are easier than trying to get some of the former Asian USSR countries back - they would fight to the end.

Although he has large forces at his disposal, despite all the vaunting, they have not performed well when up against determined opponents.

Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states, possibly some of the former Yugoslav countries would be a nice buffer against NATO and the EU and some cheap labor and goods for the motherland.

[Asiantravel]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Meanwhile, critics of those who are backing the Ukraine could easily accuse the European Union of trying to create a Roman Empire style superstate which is equally as sinister alt=rolleyes.gif>

What European countries has the EU invaded and annexed as part of its empire? None.

What countries has Russia invaded and annexed as part of its new empire? Ukraine and Georgia

What European countries has the EU threatened with military intervention? None

What countries has Russia threatened with military intervention? Most of Eastern Europe.

On the plus side, Russia is driving many many countries into NATO and the EU, just the opposite of its strategic plan to have them voluntarily embrace the new Russian empire.

" What European countries has the EU invaded and annexed as part of its empire?"

What do you call what they did in Libya ?

[Asiantravel]

Meanwhile, critics of those who are backing the Ukraine could easily accuse the European Union of trying to create a Roman Empire style superstate which is equally as sinister

Only if they were incredibly stupid, lacked education and had no idea about the politics of Europe since WW2.

well we wont have worry soon

[atyclb]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Meanwhile, critics of those who are backing the Ukraine could easily accuse the European Union of trying to create a Roman Empire style superstate which is equally as sinister alt=rolleyes.gif>

What European countries has the EU invaded and annexed as part of its empire? None.

What countries has Russia invaded and annexed as part of its new empire? Ukraine and Georgia

What European countries has the EU threatened with military intervention? None

What countries has Russia threatened with military intervention? Most of Eastern Europe.

On the plus side, Russia is driving many many countries into NATO and the EU, just the opposite of its strategic plan to have them voluntarily embrace the new Russian empire.

" What European countries has the EU invaded and annexed as part of its empire?"

What do you call what they did in Libya ?

No doubt the west meddled to topple libya but the question asks

What European countries has the EU invaded and annexed as part of its empire?"

Has the EU invaded and annexed european countries? libya is not europe the last time i looked at a map.

one could make a case for the west meddling to topple the ukraines democratically elected government, insert a puppet president then appoint the US vice presidents son to a board controlling gas/oil rights.

[istinspring]

The real question is if Ukraine is lost and it might be lost to Putin, does he STOP there?

Doubt it. I believe he sees the West has occupied with many other problems at the moment, He probably thinks these countries are easier than trying to get some of the former Asian USSR countries back - they would fight to the end.

Although he has large forces at his disposal, despite all the vaunting, they have not performed well when up against determined opponents.

Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states, possibly some of the former Yugoslav countries would be a nice buffer against NATO and the EU and some cheap labor and goods for the motherland.

I so lol'd when i read typical westerner posts about post-Soviet countries. Next we come for Poland for sure, our slavic bros pray for liberation.

I wonder when NATO will stop the expansion.

Edited September 14, 2014 by istinspring

[Jingthing]

In any case, what Putin is doing in Ukraine is bad enough even if he doesn't go further.

[iamariva1957]

The Cold War is still alive and well. Anyone who thought it was 'won' by the West is myopic. The Russian Federation is just another title for what it has and will remain to be... a Union. Okay maybe not Soviet... but still the Union of Russian provinces nevertheless. Crimea was just the start but remember that it does have the only big Russian naval base on the Black Sea so I can see the reason for them taking that back and going back on their original offer to the Ukraine. But the question does seem to need to be asked..."What is next?" The answer I fear will need time to sort out. But trust the Russians? Have you seen the way that they seem to drive on You Tube? It is like bumper cars. Okay they all seem to pull over after an accident, but the reason for those accidents are laughable and would never happen on say a UK road or on an American road for that matter... not to mention the orderly German roads and the overly orderly Swiss roads (okay so they are not members of the EU... but what the hell).

So I say, Putin and his gang should be watched and we have to remember that their power is great. No one in teh West will go to war with them for there is far too much at stake. But watch we must do. Economic sanctions are all very well and good (though they need tome to become effective and even then there is no guarantee that they will be). Supplying the 'other side' is not the answer either for that that just causes Putin to do the same and intrinsically makes the situation that much more dangerous). So we have to just keep a calm attitude and hope that reason sees the light of day. It requires patients on our part and clear thinking. Which I know, is not something that anyone can seem to do all the time.

[lovetotravel]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Meanwhile, critics of those who are backing the Ukraine could easily accuse the European Union of trying to create a Roman Empire style superstate which is equally as sinister alt=rolleyes.gif>

What European countries has the EU invaded and annexed as part of its empire? None.

What countries has Russia invaded and annexed as part of its new empire? Ukraine and Georgia

What European countries has the EU threatened with military intervention? None

What countries has Russia threatened with military intervention? Most of Eastern Europe.

On the plus side, Russia is driving many many countries into NATO and the EU, just the opposite of its strategic plan to have them voluntarily embrace the new Russian empire.

" What European countries has the EU invaded and annexed as part of its empire?"

What do you call what they did in Libya ?

Umm...the "EU" didn't do anything. It was the UN and eventually NATO. And they did it to stop the violence, with no troops left behind (and only a few "covert" troops actually in-country). Unlike the Russian troops currently in Ukraine and those staying in the Crimea permanently. The only criticism of the Libya operation coming from communist countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The United Nations Intent and Voting was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute crimes against humanity" ... "imposing a ban on all flights in the country's airspace – a no-fly zone – and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters."

...............

Some critics of Western military interdiction suggested that resources—not democratic or humanitarian concerns—were the real impetus for the intervention, among them a journalist of London Arab nationalist newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, the Russian TV network RT and the (then-)leaders of Venezuela and Zimbabwe, Hugo Chávez and Robert Mugabe.

[billd766]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Meanwhile, critics of those who are backing the Ukraine could easily accuse the European Union of trying to create a Roman Empire style superstate which is equally as sinister alt=rolleyes.gif>

What European countries has the EU invaded and annexed as part of its empire? None.

What countries has Russia invaded and annexed as part of its new empire? Ukraine and Georgia

What European countries has the EU threatened with military intervention? None

What countries has Russia threatened with military intervention? Most of Eastern Europe.

On the plus side, Russia is driving many many countries into NATO and the EU, just the opposite of its strategic plan to have them voluntarily embrace the new Russian empire.

" What European countries has the EU invaded and annexed as part of its empire?"

What do you call what they did in Libya ?

A disaster but the last time I looked it was the Libyans who were (sort of) in charge and running Libya and the EU does not even have a presence there.

[Krataiboy]

I'm getting a bit tired, as a taxpayer, of subsidising the clowns on the BBC who pump out this kind of transparent anti-Putin propaganda on the assumption that they are the only news source anybody in the UK bothers to access. Putin is no angel. But, let's face it, neither is Obama. Or Cameron. Or any of the leaders of leading nations currently locked in conflict and dragging us nearer to the brink of a third world war. We need to know more about what is going on and why.

Getting to the truth about important and controversial events is never easy and I've learned over many years that relying on the Beeb is - well, unreliable. I am not alone. Increasingly, people who care about what is really happening outside their own back yard are turning to the alternative media, notably independent news sources available the Internet, such as therealnews, democracynow, theglobalrealm, truthdig and counterpunch

A trawl of these and other alternative news sources, in addition to the BBC and mass media, may not dot every i and cross every t, but it will unearth valuable additional information, provide deeper insight and enable a far more balanced perspective on unfolding world events and the players - and their motivations - behind them.

The Ukraine situation and current events in the Gulf are two examples of complex situations where the domestic mass media is - how shall I say - economical with the truth, or superficial and biased to say the least. Try Google-ing a few alternatives to get a broader picture - the shortlist I have recommended is just for starters and links will take you to other alternative news sites - and decide for yourself what is believable and what isn't.

Information is power. And, thanks to the internet, it is within everybody's grasp.

[Pakboong]

I'm getting a bit tired, as a taxpayer, of subsidising the clowns on the BBC who pump out this kind of transparent anti-Putin propaganda on the assumption that they are the only news source anybody in the UK bothers to access. Putin is no angel. But, let's face it, neither is Obama. Or Cameron. Or any of the leaders of leading nations currently locked in conflict and dragging us nearer to the brink of a third world war. We need to know more about what is going on and why.

Getting to the truth about important and controversial events is never easy and I've learned over many years that relying on the Beeb is - well, unreliable. I am not alone. Increasingly, people who care about what is really happening outside their own back yard are turning to the alternative media, notably independent news sources available the Internet, such as therealnews, democracynow, theglobalrealm, truthdig and counterpunch

A trawl of these and other alternative news sources, in addition to the BBC and mass media, may not dot every i and cross every t, but it will unearth valuable additional information, provide deeper insight and enable a far more balanced perspective on unfolding world events and the players - and their motivations - behind them.

The Ukraine situation and current events in the Gulf are two examples of complex situations where the domestic mass media is - how shall I say - economical with the truth, or superficial and biased to say the least. Try Google-ing a few alternatives to get a broader picture - the shortlist I have recommended is just for starters and links will take you to other alternative news sites - and decide for yourself what is believable and what isn't.

Information is power. And, thanks to the internet, it is within everybody's grasp.

I figure the mainstream guys are right about as often with the international news as are the football experts in picking winners. Neither group has a sterling record but people refer to their opinion as if it really means something.

[BATHIK]

Urkainian PM has lost his marbles, what else is new?

Ah, yes, their Ministry of Defence said rebels obtained 2-kiloton nukes and even neutron bombs, they are probably competing for the most absurd statement of the month or something.

[Publicus]

Urkainian PM has lost his marbles, what else is new?

Ah, yes, their Ministry of Defence said rebels obtained 2-kiloton nukes and even neutron bombs, they are probably competing for the most absurd statement of the month or something.

Credible link?

[BATHIK]

Credible link that Yaytsenuh has lost his marbles?

Or credible link that rebels have nukes? There isn't one because it's a figment of Ukrainian imagination.

Or do you mean credible link that aide to their Minister of Defense actually said that? How about his Facebook post that is all over Russian speaking internet now? Or wait until BBC or NYTimes translates it for you, we are not supposed to link non-English pages here. here's google translate:

"Against Russian threats to use tactical nuclear weapons: 240-mm self-propelled mortar 2S4 "Tulip" Artillery Reserve Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces who have already instituted and used by Russian troops on the territory of Ukraine, in addition to the active-reactive and landmines have nuclear shells in the ammunition capacity to two kiloton and neutron shells "Pitch" and "veil".

Or how about RT.com article on the earlier threat to restart Ukrainian nuclear program which came from the minister himself? Their title is "Inmates running the asylum: Kiev threatens to restart nuclear weapons program", google it yourself. That idea came to him after he thought Russians have threatened Ukraine with nukes first, and he hopes Nato would help Ukraine, if not, they would have to build their own bomb.

Speaking of Yaytsenuh, there's supposedly a letter from IMF's Lagard telling him to stop printing money or IMF will reduce their rescue package. It came from a hacked e-mail account of an aide to Kolomoyskiy, the oligarch in control of Dnepropetrovsk. Until that aide confirms that it was his e-mail we can't consider it as credible but boy, there are some really juicy bits there which speaks volumes about their mindset and real life problems of Ukrainian billionaires. It's not what you see in the "credible" press for sure.

Is printing money good or bad? I guess there could be arguments for both sides, but another aspect of it is that Ukraine has lost its financial independence and its sovereign right to manage their own currency the way they see fit.

[Publicus]

Russia has given away a quarter of its former land area...granted, it was never really 'Russia'..

The understanding was that the West/NATO would never push too close to Russia's border.

The West reneged on its promise with the missile shield in East Europe and NATO's eastward expansion.

Russia is angry and humiliated.

..of course they will try to claw back lands with Russian majorities.

Russia is simply reacting to the West's advances eastwards.

Russia's atrocious conduct and behaviors are called irredentism and are equally revanchist.

Very old fashioned stuff.

Russia's military assault against Ukraine violates the 1994 Budapest Memorandum nuclear weapons and territorial borders agreement and is the first time since WWII that a country in Europe has had its borders and territory changed by military force.

The former Soviet countries applied for membership to the EU and/or to Nato. They qualified and they were admitted.

It's obvious how and why Russia's neighboring states don't consider Putin and his military general staff much of a neighbor.

[BATHIK]

The understanding was that the West/NATO would never push too close to Russia's border.

There are a lot of people now who deny that promise was actually made, as if this denial would make Russians finally start trusting Nato. Before latest Nato summit German Spiegel reported that there were proposals to direct this missile shield against Russians instead of Iranian missiles, just as Russians argued all along.

Nato Sec General is the dude who at the time believed Iraq had WMDs and supported the invasion, what should Russians expect from this bunch?

[BATHIK]

Russia's military assault against Ukraine violates the 1994 Budapest Memorandum nuclear weapons and territorial borders agreement and is the first time since WWII that a country in Europe has had its borders and territory changed by military force.

Umm, Yugoslavia? Kosovo?

As for Budapest Memorandum, Russian Prime Minister at that time said that they do not recognize post-Maidan government as a legitimate successor to the state they signed that memorandum with. No one expected Russians to honor 15 billion dollar pledge they made while Yanukovich was in power, why demand that they honor Budapest agreement?

[Publicus]

The understanding was that the West/NATO would never push too close to Russia's border.

There are a lot of people now who deny that promise was actually made, as if this denial would make Russians finally start trusting Nato. Before latest Nato summit German Spiegel reported that there were proposals to direct this missile shield against Russians instead of Iranian missiles, just as Russians argued all along.

Nato Sec General is the dude who at the time believed Iraq had WMDs and supported the invasion, what should Russians expect from this bunch?

I don't doubt Russia has WMD.

Do you doubt it?

That's all anybody has been hearing about out of Moscow the past month, how they have a huge nuclear arsenal and that nobody had better "mess with" Russia about anything.

Do try to keep up.

[BATHIK]

Do try to keep up.

From a dude who replies to a wrong post.

Russia has WMD, rebels don't.

"Mess with Russia" is not the same as "nuke Ukraine". Read Russian military doctrine - they reserve the use of nuclear weapons in case survival of Russia as a state is under threat or if their conventional forces are overwhelmed. None of that is going to happen in Ukraine.