Ukraine forces destroy most of a column of Russian military vehicles, president says

Washington Post ^ | 15 Aug 14 | Michael Birnbaum

[wetphoenix]

Please, GeronL! Between me and you, it is not me who are a native English speaker. I feel extremely uncomfortable giving you an English lesson like that. You can actually Google for definition yourself.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Yup. ‘Russians invading’ for months, ‘getting destroyed’ on regular basis, but not a single wreck of Russian armor, no POWs etc.

Want to see a photograph of smelly Russkies and Chechens piled up in the back of a truck? (They were smelly before they died.) Not sure if FR would like it though. Quite gruesome, and you might see your cousin. Maybe you should PM me instead.

[wetphoenix]

How are you distinguishing between a Russian and a Ukrainian? Chechens aren’t too much different from for example Tatars too.
And I’m yet to see scores of destroyed Russian armor Poroshenko is bragging about. What about at least a single piece featuring a serial number indicating that an equipment belongs to a Russian military?

[Grzegorz 246]

“Lol...how’s your Polish Chuck?”

His what ?

[1rudeboy]

Let's not forget Crimea just yet. Putin admitted he sent troops into areas that they were not allowed in order to facilitate the annexation.

The area of E. Ukraine has Russian-trained insurgents, trained in Russia (by admission of rebel leaders), and Russian equipment crossing the border (as observed by Reuters and others).

So let's not muddy the water.

[mac_truck]

See the map in post #45

[mac_truck]

Putin admitted he sent troops into areas that they were not allowed in order to facilitate the annexation.

False.

The status of forces agreement with the old Ukrainian government allowed Russia to deploy troops across the entire Crimean peninsula in certain situations. The violent overthrow of a democratically elected government in Kiev was one of those situations.

Russia chose to deploy its troops in such a way as to not inflame an already tense situation in Kiev and at no time did Russian troop levels exceed the numbers allowed by the status of forces agreement.

[Grzegorz 246]

Yes, I see map in #45, which is based on the "proposals" of mongoloids expressed via the mouth of that inbred Zyrinowski. So... ?

We can as well discuss this one:

[1rudeboy]

I figured you were the guy--corrected many times in the past, returning to the false narrative* like a dog to vomit.

Putin admits Russian forces were deployed to Crimea.**

Do you ever stop with the lies?

_____
*note that it is no longer the Kremlin narrative
**note that "deployed to Crimea" does not equate to "deployed to a naval base"

[mac_truck]

“Deployed to Crimea” is a editor's choice of words which misrepresents the Russian troop deployments around the Crimean peninsula, which took place in accordance to an existing status of forces agreement.

Nor does that poorly written media headline represent the Russian President's actual statements about the deployment during a live four hour question and answer session.

If you have something more substantive than editorial sophistry to prop up your argument, by all means present it.

[1rudeboy]

Noted that you cannot be bothered with proving that the Russian "deployment" in Crimea actually is within the boundaries set by the "existing status of forces agreement."

Here's something to chew on:

Russia’s UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, apparently cited a 1997 treaty between Russia and Ukraine as a source of authority for Russian troop movements in the Crimea:

We have an agreement with Ukraine on the presence of the Russian Black Sea fleet with a base in Sevastopol, and we are acting within the framework of that agreement.

The treaty, called Agreement Between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Status and Conditions of the Russian Federation Black Sea Fleet’s Stay on Ukrainian Territory, was extended in 2010. Through the heroic efforts of the University of Chicago law librarian, Lyonette Louis-Jacques, I have gotten my hands on an English translation of that treaty. (The Russian version is available on the web, and you can use Google translate on it if you dare.)

As has already been reported, the treaty unsurprisingly does not give Russia the authority to conquer the Crimea. Nor does it give Russia the discretionary authority to move troops around the Crimea. It gives Russia the authority to locate troops on its bases in the Crimea, and to move them between those bases and Russian territory. But the troops must follow Ukrainian law and respect Ukrainian sovereignty. I paste some of the relevant articles below.

 

Taken from J.L. Black, ed., Russia & Eurasia Documents Annual 1997: The Russian Federation, vol. 1, p. 129 (Academic International Press, 1998).

"Sophist source"

[GeronL]

Russia is invading Ukraine in stages, it is pretty obvious

[1rudeboy]

Obvious to most, but we have at least one who appears to be arguing that the annexation of sovereign territory is governed by a status of forces agreement.

[GeronL]

lol

[mac_truck]

Russia says Crimea deployments based on agreements with Ukraine

"We have an agreement with Ukraine on the presence of the Russian Black Sea fleet with a base in Sevastopol, and we are acting within the framework of that agreement."
-Ambassador Vitaly Churkin at televised UN press conference 3/1/2014

Seems like a straight forward and easily understood position.

-btw legal agreements are looked at in their entirety , not just the sections some Chicago Law blogger deems relevent.

[1rudeboy]

So, the Russians annexed the base in Sevastopol, and not the rest of Crimea. Jeepers, you guys just never give up.

[mac_truck]

The Russians deployed forces around Crimea to secure their base after the democratically elected government in Kiev was overthrown. They chose to do so in a discreet manner that preserved civil order and saved lives, while waiting for the western 'democracies' to regain their senses and force the Maidan radicals to return to the February 21st agreement that had just been negotiated.

They acted with restraint and in accordance with the status of forces agreement they held with the old government. Once it was clear the old government wasn't coming back... all bets were off.

[1rudeboy]

So you admit, at minimum, that the Russians were in violation of Article 6.1. So much for the claim that they were acting within the Agreement.

[mac_truck]

I admit to nothing...besides your being a jerk.

[1rudeboy]

Moreover, I will add that, when a party to an agreement willfully acts in breach of that agreement, they are estopped (legal term) from seeking the refuge of the terms of that legal agreement.

In your case, not only were the terms not met, but breached.