« | »

BBC: Russia Vows ‘Troops Will Stay In Ukraine’

From BBC News:

Ukraine crisis: Russia vows troops will stay

March 3, 2014

Russia has vowed its troops will remain in Ukraine to protect Russian interests and citizens until the political situation has been "normalised".

Meaning, they will be there forever. Because most Ukrainians don’t want to be ‘normalized’ back into the Soviet Union.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia was defending human rights against "ultra-nationalist threats".

And the Western news media have been trying to add credence to this shop-worn excuse for military intervention. In fact, ‘protecting one’s people’ is an old tactic that was first perfected by Adolf Hitler. Lest we forget, Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, annexed Austria, invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland under the guise of ‘protecting the German populations’ in those places.

And Stalin learned an important lesson from Hitler. So as soon as WWII ended, Stalin sent colonists, mostly ex-military and ex-bureaucrats, to live in the outlying republics, including Georgia, Belarus, and Ukraine. He also exterminated or deported an estimated million people in the Ukraine, including anyone he viewed as anti-Russian. Including Tartars, Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Turks, Germans, Poles, many of whom had lived in Ukraine for centuries. (The Tartars and Armenian, Bulgarian and Greek who weren’t killed, were sent to Central Asia, where almost half of them died from disease and starvation.)

And, lest we forget, Putin also used the excuse of protecting the local Russian population for his invasion of Georgia, too. Meanwhile, Putin had no trouble freezing the ‘Russians’ in the Ukraine, when he shut off their gas and oil in years past. And he has no trouble charging them the exorbitant prices for gas and oil now. So he is not particularly concerned about the welfare of the local Russian population.

Russia is now in de facto military control of the Crimea region, despite Western condemnation of a "violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty".

Once again, the BBC doesn’t mention that Russia has itself guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty.

No shots have been fired and no treaties signed but Crimea is now de facto under Russian armed control.

What a laugh to even mention ‘treaties’ when it comes to dealing with the Soviet Union Russia. As Lenin once observed, ‘treaties are made to be broken.’

Two large Ukrainian military bases are surrounded, with Russian troops standing alongside local self-defence groups, who demand that the Ukrainian soldiers inside defect from Kiev to Crimea’s new pro-Russia government…

But we thought the Russian troops were only there to protect Russian civilians?

At countless pro-Russia demonstrations, Moscow’s intervention is warmly welcomed…

More BS. In referendum after referendum and poll after poll, the people of the Crimea and other supposedly ‘pro-Russian’ areas have voted to stay with the Ukraine and not return to Russia control.

But away from the nationalist fervour, Crimeans from all sides are profoundly fearful of what comes next…

Nothing is going to come next. At least from the US or the ‘international community.’ Which is the worst possible outcome.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Monday, March 3rd, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “BBC: Russia Vows ‘Troops Will Stay In Ukraine’”

  1. Apparently history does repeat ..

    Half a league, half a league,
    Half a league onward,
    All in the valley of Death
    Rode the six hundred.
    “Forward, the Light Brigade!
    “Charge for the guns!” he said:
    Into the valley of Death
    Rode the six hundred.

    .. because it wans’t the Valley at all they were supposed to charge. It was a neighboring hill ..

  2. BannedbytheTaliban

    Moscow’s intervention is warmly welcomed…

    Those who did not welcome it warmly are now rather cold.

  3. Right of the People

    So this is what it feels like to live in the decline of a civilization.

    Welcome back to the bad old days.

  4. captstubby

    ‘treaties’ ,‘international community.’ and Russia.
    ” a zebra does not changes its spots.”
    Al Gore, 1992

    Russia,Germany and ” the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic states ”

    Finland was an integral part of Sweden. While most continued to speak Finnish, the official language for administrative purposes and use by the upper classes was Swedish. The Swedish empire in the Baltic began to disintegrate after losing its great-power status in the 18th century. However, it was not until 1809 that Finland was separated from Sweden and became a grand duchy of Russia with considerable local autonomy.

    The Finns continued their semi-independence and Western orientation but after 1894 both became increasingly threatened by the drive to centralize the administration of the far-flung Russian empire. Finns were conscripted into the Russian military, new taxes were introduced, and a large number of Russian troops were stationed in the country. The Finns felt their way of life threatened by this centralization.

    There was a respite in the centralization process after the unrest in Russia following the Russo-Japanese war. In 1906 Russia allowed the formation of a Finnish parliament based on universal suffrage and Finland became the first country in Europe to give women the vote. The independence movement that began with centralization continued but did not mature until the Bolshevik takeover in Russia in November 1917. The Bolsheviks’ professed doctrine of self-determination for non-Russian nationalities gave encouragement to those who wanted nothing short of total independence.

    Events appeared to go smoothly after Finland’s declaration of independence on December 6, 1917. At the urging of Germany, then engaged in peace negotiations with Russia, Finland presented a petition for independence to the new Bolshevik leadership. This petition was granted by the Council of People’s Commissars on December 31 and sealed by a handshake between Vladimir Lenin and the Finnish representative, Pehr Edvind Svinhufund.

    On August 23, 1939 the German Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, flew to Moscow where he and the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, signed the now famous non-aggression pact.
    The Soviet Union agreed on the economic accord to provide food products and raw materials to Germany in exchange for finished products. In the non-aggression pact, both countries agreed not to take aggressive action against each other if either became involved in war.

    A secret protocol to the non-aggression pact (its existence was denied by the Soviets until 1989) spelled out the respective spheres of influence of the two countries in the Baltic area. It reads in part:

    In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic states [Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania], the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R.8

    This shows that Germany left Finland within the Soviet sphere of influence.

    This non-aggression pact gave the Soviets the buffer they desired as protection against an attack from the west, something they had been unable to secure from France and Britain in earlier negotiations that summer. For three centuries, the creation of a buffer zone had been—and continues to be—a central goal of Russian security policy.

    The Soviet foreign minister, Molotov, made his much-written-about visit to Berlin in the middle of November 1940. Molotov was a survivor of the many purges in the Soviet Union and the Germans found him to be the toughest negotiator they had encountered. He was known for his no-nonsense approach and an unyielding preference for directness and explicit details that sometimes surprised and dismayed the people with whom he negotiated. They were used to politeness, subtlety, and vagueness—qualities completely missing from Molotov’s lexicon.

    Hitler had never faced a foreign visitor like Molotov, who brushed aside Hitler’s broad generalities and demanded detailed answers to very specific questions. First and foremost on his agenda was Finland and what Germany was up to in that country. The direct, detailed, and uncompromising approach by his visitor apparently caught Hitler offguard and the meeting was adjourned to the next day when full answers to Molotov’s questions were promised.

    The Soviet negotiator was equally persistent when the meeting reconvened. Again, Molotov’s focus was on Finland and he and Hitler,Molotov came right to the point on the issue of Finland, which he had raised on the previous day. He noted that Finland was the only area where the Soviet-German pact had not been fulfilled and he asked if the agreement between the two countries with respect to Finland was still valid. Molotov insisted that the presence of German troops in Finland was unacceptable as were Finnish political agitations against the Soviet Union.
    Hitler disavowed any interests in Finland except for the uninterrupted delivery of nickel and lumber. He told Molotov that the transit of troops would end in a very short time. He stressed the importance of avoiding a war in the Baltic that could strain German-Soviet relations since it could lead to British and Swedish intervention. He labeled the whole Finnish issue as theoretical since Germany had agreed in 1939 that the country belonged in the Soviet sphere of influence.

    The talks between Hitler and Molotov became very heated and Ribbentrop attempted to alter the subject by trying to entice the Soviets with a share in the breakup of the British Empire. Molotov did not take the bait and switched the conversation back to Europe. The Soviets were more interested in northern and southern Europe than in some illusive promise of possible outlets to the sea in India. Hitler apparently grew tired and weary of negotiating with the Soviet Foreign Minister and the session broke up early.

    That night the Soviets hosted a party for the Germans at their embassy but Hitler did not attend. The party was interrupted by a British bombing raid and everyone hurried to the nearest air raid shelters. Churchill claims that the raid was timed for the occasion: “We had heard of the conference beforehand and though not invited to join in the discussions did not wish to be entirely left out of the proceedings.”

    Ribbentrop and Molotov shared the same air raid shelter and Ribbentrop presented Molotov with a draft treaty, which would make the Soviet Union a member of the Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan. He proposed that the extension of the pact, minus the secret protocols, be made public. The secret protocol spelled out spheres of influence and the Soviet Union’s was referenced vaguely as territories south of that country towards the Indian Ocean. This did not satisfy Molotov who pressed for an expansion in the southern part of East Europe towards the Mediterranean and outlets from the Black and Baltic seas by firm agreements that would guarantee his country’s security. He raised a whole series of questions and issues that Ribbentrop was not prepared to answer. Ribbentrop therefore tried to steer the conversation back to the division of the British Empire since that country was defeated. This allegedly resulted in a rather caustic reply by Molotov, “If that is so, why are we in this shelter, and whose are these bombs which fall?”

    In the Winter War (November 1939–March 1940), Finland was left alone to face Soviet aggression with only a modicum of assistance from Western countries.
    …the much longer and bloodier war that Finland fought against the Soviet Union at the side of Germany from 1941 to 1944—and their subsequent campaign to drive the Germans out of Finland in 1944–45.

    Finlands War of Choice

    Henrik O. Lunde,2011

    But here is where i disagree with the authors views..;[captstubby]

    “The war at the side of Hitler was not one that brought pride to the nation and was a period many Finns would rather forget. Due to the lack of impartial and balanced treatment, large segments of the public in the US and Europe continue to believe that Finland found itself at the side of Germany in 1941 because it was attacked by the Soviet Union.”
    “The Finns also refer to the war at the side of Germany as the “Continuation War,” an attempt to depict it as a continuance of the Winter War in order, perhaps, to obtain a more favorable reception both domestically and internationally. Both this attempt and the insistence that it was an independent war waged against the Soviet Union fail to stand up to close scrutiny.”


« Front Page | To Top
« | »