Iron_Captain wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
So, the question is, were they hired by a faction within the protesters, or did Mr. Putin see an opportunity to cause some trouble and insert some spetsnaz for covert operations?

I would guess that Pravyi Sektor is behind it. It would be very much like them to snipe some people. There would be little point for Putin to send in Spetsnaz at that there, considering the risk attached to that and the fact that Yanukovich's guys were already on the job.

 Jihadin wrote:
Ugh..well.....
Fister/Forward Obsever..13F
Blackhawk Crewchief...67T
Admin Specialist.42A
Movement Coordinator..88N


Cam map read using degree's or mils..
Can crank a nut
I got so abused on PowerPoint
I can find everything in shipment or send anything as shipment.

 Jihadin wrote:
Watch it Scruffy..the Crash Axe aka Pilot Adjustment tool is within reach..

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Watch it Scruffy..the Crash Axe aka Pilot Adjustment tool is within reach..

An MTP is the crew dog's best friend in the pilot world. You know that, I know that, and besides, what are you gonna do? Split my skull in the middle of a max power check?

 easysauce wrote:
UPDATE* estonian foreign minister confirms that leaked conversation about kiev sniper is authentic.

from the tape below,

“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” the Estonian FM stressed.

Ashton reacted to the information by saying: “Well, yeah…that’s, that’s terrible.”

“So that she then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened,” Paet said.

Olga Bogomolets was the main doctor for the Maidan mobile clinic when protests turned violent in Kiev. She treated the gravely injured and helped organized their transportation to neighboring countries, who had expressed a willingness to treat those with severe wounds. From the outset, Olga blamed the injuries and deaths on snipers. She turned down the position of Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine for Humanitarian Affairs offered by the coup-appointed regime.

“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition,” Urmas Paet said during the conversation.

“I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh,” Ashton answered.

The call took place after Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet visited Kiev on February 25, following the peak of clashes between the pro-EU protesters and security forces in the Ukrainian capital.

Paet also recalled his conversation with a doctor who treated those shot by snipers in Kiev. She said that both protesters and police were shot at by the same people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
So, the question is, were they hired by a faction within the protesters, or did Mr. Putin see an opportunity to cause some trouble and insert some spetsnaz for covert operations?

I would guess that Pravyi Sektor is behind it. It would be very much like them to snipe some people. There would be little point for Putin to send in Spetsnaz at that there, considering the risk attached to that and the fact that Yanukovich's guys were already on the job.

Yeah, because the former KGB agent would never engage in something like a false flag operation or anything...

A Russia Today anchor quit live on air Wednesday, declaring she cannot work for a station that “whitewashes the actions of Vladimir Putin.”
...

Another member of state-funded Russia Today made waves on Wednesday -- not by standing behind Moscow, as the news network is wont to do, but by bucking it.

From the anchor chair, Liz Wahl closed a show -- as seen in video which she later tweeted -- talking about the "ethical and moral challenges" she faces working for Russia Today, also known as RT.

She spoke of being from a family who fled to America to escape Soviet forces during the 1956 Hungarian revolution, being the daughter of a U.S. military veteran and being the partner of a physician who works at a U.S. military base.

"And that is why, personally, I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin," Wahl said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I'm proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth," she added. "And that is why, after this newscast, I'm resigning."

Not that she would've necessarily lasted much longer, after her comments. In a statement, RT said, "When a journalist disagrees with the editorial position of his or her organization, the usual course of action is to address those grievances with the editor, and, if they cannot be resolved, to quit like a professional."

"But when someone makes a big public show of a personal decision, it is nothing more than a self-promotional stunt," said the network.

Talking Wednesday night to CNN's Anderson Cooper, Wahl said the idea she did this "for personal gain ... couldn't be farther from the truth." She said she'd "hesitated to speak on this for a while for fear of repercussion," but decided to act now based on her belief "the propagandist nature of RT (had come) out in full force" over its coverage of the Ukraine crisis.

"RT is not about the truth; it's about promoting a Putinist agenda," Wahl told CNN. "And I can tell you firsthand, it's about bashing America."

Wahl, who characterizes herself as a Filipina-Hungarian-American and RT America correspondent on her Twitter feed, became the second personality from Russia Today to defiantly, publicly challenge the government that effectively signs their paychecks.

Her resignation announcement didn't explicitly mention the crisis in Ukraine, though she mentioned it later in her CNN interview. Backed by Western diplomats, officials in that Eastern European nation claim that Russian troops have violated their sovereignty by effectively invading the Crimean peninsula.

Putin, meanwhile, has denied sending any more of his country's troops into the country, or that any of the up to 25,000 troops who are stationed there have played any part in the standoff, according to the state-run RIA Novosti news agency.

But that situation is central to RT's coverage, which leans toward Moscow's point of view. On Wednesday, for instance, its website featured stories with headlines such as "Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders," "'Cold War stereotypes': Russia condemns NATO plan" and "Questions on Ukraine the West chooses not to answer."

Two days ago, another RT personality -- Abby Martin -- referred directly to "Russia's military occupation of Crimea" while seemingly going off this pro-Russia script at the end of her "Breaking the Set" program.

"I can't stress enough how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation's affairs," said Martin, a California native who, like Wahl, is based in Washington. "What Russia did is wrong."
While Martin refused to "defend military aggression," she didn't leave RT.

In fact, she returned to the air the following night and wasn't even reprimanded, according to the network. As RT noted in a statement, Martin called it "kind of a sad commentary that" -- while she's regularly spoken out against military intervention -- "my only criticism of Russia's actions was picked up" by the media.

On Wednesday night, Wahl said she'd recently become upset over portions of one of her interviews being cut, what she called a "very dangerous" segment on neo-Nazi elements among the Ukrainian opposition and "very, very loaded" questions being planted by RT's management.
"I felt that I could no longer work here and go on television and tell the American people that this is what's happening and have it pose as news," Wahl said. "It's something that I don't feel comfortable with."

Both Wahl and Martin's remarks shined a spotlight on what exactly RT is -- in terms of its purpose and its viewpoint, especially for its U.S.-based, English-language programming.

The Russian foreign ministry's website points to the network as a top media source. And the Columbia Journalism Review says it is best "known as an extension of former President Vladimir Putin's confrontational foreign policy."

In its statement on Martin, the network said that "RT journalists and hosts are free to express their own opinions."

What makes Martin's comments different from those of Wahl, according to RT, is that the former "spoke in the context of her own talk show, to the viewers who have been tuning in for years to hear her opinions on current events, the opinions that most media did not care about until two days ago."

"For years, Ms. Martin, has been speaking out against U.S. military intervention only to be ignored by the mainstream news outlets," RT added. "But with that one comment, branded as an act of defiance, she became an overnight sensation."

The network then seemed to suggest that Wahl -- who cheered Martin as "my girl" after her commentary -- paid attention to all the hoopla.

"It is a tempting example to follow," RT said.

Wahl said many who do follow the lead of network management -- the senior members of which are in Moscow -- are young, "inexperienced" and "eager to please" their bosses.

"Eventually, you learn what management likes, what management dislikes," she said. "... They kind of make sure the narrative is delivered in one way or another."

 Jihadin wrote:
Wouldn't it be funny is Sanction is about to be imposed on Russia. That Putin goes ahead and seize all assets of the US/EU first

I’d also raise our gasoline tax, put in place a carbon tax and a national renewable energy portfolio standard — all of which would also help lower the global oil price (and make us stronger, with cleaner air, less oil dependence and more innovation). You want to frighten Putin? Just announce those steps.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is more of a military occupation than an invasion.

Oh well, there you go then. Issue settled, as long as it's just a military occupation I don't know what anyone is getting worried about.

If there needs to be a peace keeping force to oversee elections and referenda on divisions of state it should be an international one to be as unbiased as possible, not solely by one with a strongly vested interest and that is currently waving its dick around by launching ICBM test.

 Ketara wrote:
Well, this is over now I should think. At least, in terms of what Russia is after. If Putin had been planning on moving over that border, he wouldn't have dispersed the army group on it. So he's decided to hedge his bets, keep the Crimea, and wait for the next opportunity to expand again.

It's quite sensible really. The West has yet to pledge anything serious in the way of support to the Ukraine, but if the tanks roll over the border, that might change. The US administration can have a dignified backout (We stopped Russia invading the Eastern Ukraine with our harsh words!), no serious sanctions will be taken towards Russia (as the takeover of Crimea was bloodless and somewhat democratic), and Putin has his new somewhat autonomous province and boosts his popularity at home. Win/win for everyone except the Ukrainians.

 Jihadin wrote:
Wouldn't it be funny is Sanction is about to be imposed on Russia. That Putin goes ahead and seize all assets of the US/EU first

 Jihadin wrote:
Then Putin will call that bluff and lower the flow of natural gas to eastern and western Europe Whembly

 whembly wrote:
Well dang...

A Russia Today anchor quit live on air Wednesday, declaring she cannot work for a station that “whitewashes the actions of Vladimir Putin.”

 sebster wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Well, this is over now I should think. At least, in terms of what Russia is after. If Putin had been planning on moving over that border, he wouldn't have dispersed the army group on it. So he's decided to hedge his bets, keep the Crimea, and wait for the next opportunity to expand again.

It's quite sensible really. The West has yet to pledge anything serious in the way of support to the Ukraine, but if the tanks roll over the border, that might change. The US administration can have a dignified backout (We stopped Russia invading the Eastern Ukraine with our harsh words!), no serious sanctions will be taken towards Russia (as the takeover of Crimea was bloodless and somewhat democratic), and Putin has his new somewhat autonomous province and boosts his popularity at home. Win/win for everyone except the Ukrainians.

The Ukraine has been swinging back and forth on joining NATO for a long time now, afraid of antagonising Russia (and the pro-Russia elements within the country). Guess what this move is going to do?

So it doesn't make any sense to see this move by Russia as step one on a series of occupations. Instead, it's reflective of Russia losing power and influence - unable to keep their man as president, Russia is instead doing what it must to secure their naval base.

 Ketara wrote:
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Putin's been sitting in his evil genius chair stroking fluffy white cats planning world domination.

 Ketara wrote:
The Eastern Ukraine was an extra prize to be seized if it looked like he could do it without causing too many problems. But at the same time, it was an objective that could be quickly abandoned/surrendered if necessary to help consolidate earlier gains (namely, the Crimea). The Russian naval base was the paramount objective, as you yourself stated.

 sebster wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
The Eastern Ukraine was an extra prize to be seized if it looked like he could do it without causing too many problems. But at the same time, it was an objective that could be quickly abandoned/surrendered if necessary to help consolidate earlier gains (namely, the Crimea). The Russian naval base was the paramount objective, as you yourself stated.

Agreed. But I think the main point to emphasise is that this is not so much opportunism from Putin, as the end of Russia's ability to exert strong political influence on the Ukraine, leading it to exert direct force to make sure the most basic of its objectives are maintained.

Not so much opportunism as necessity.

A referendum on the status of Crimea will be held March 16, the region’s deputy prime minister announced. Crimeans will be asked to decide if the autonomous republic stays part of Ukraine or joins Russia.

"The referendum will take place March 16," said the autonomous region’s First Deputy-Premier Rustam Temirgaliev, according to ITAR-TASS.

The new date is two weeks earlier than the one announced last week.

There will be two questions on the ballots.

“The first one: Are you in favor of Crimea becoming a constituent territory of the Russian Federation. The second one: Are you in favor of restoring Crimea’s 1992 constitution,” Temirgaliev said.

According to the 1992 constitution, the autonomous republic is part of Ukraine but has relations with Kiev, defined on the basis of mutual agreements.

Sevastopol residents will take part in the referendum, despite the city enjoying a special status and not officially being a part of Crimea, according to Sergey Shuvainikov, a Crimean MP.

“We will give Sevastopol an opportunity to have its say,” he said, as cited by RIA Novosti.

Meanwhile the Crimean MPs have unanimously voted for the region to become a part of Russia.

"To become part of the Russian Federation as its constituent territory,” says the text of the Crimean parliament’s statement, obtained by RIA Novosti.
When the decision was announced to the people outside the parliament building, they welcomed the news with cheers and screams of “Russia!”

There are currently several thousand people in front of the parliament building, according to ITAR-TASS.

The parliament has also made a decision to ask the Russian leadership to “launch the procedure of Crimea becoming part of Russia.”

Facts you need to know about Crimea and why it is in turmoil

More than half the Crimean population are Russian and use only this language for their communication.

Crimean authorities denounced the self-proclaimed government in Kiev and declared that all Ukrainian law enforcement and military deployed in the peninsula must take orders from them. The majority of troops in Crimea switched sides in favor of the local authorities.

A government minister in Kiev said they believe it would be unconstitutional for Crimea to join Russia.
Ukraine's interim Economy Minister Pavlo Sheremeta, speaking in Kiev soon after the announcement was made, said: "We're not working out what to do if Crimea joins the Russian Federation because we believe it's unconstitutional."

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The question is, what happens if they actually vote to stay in Ukraine?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well dang...

A Russia Today anchor quit live on air Wednesday, declaring she cannot work for a station that “whitewashes the actions of Vladimir Putin.”

So, someone who identifies as an American with strong ties to the American military (now) refuses to take money from a Russian news organization?

Shocking.

 Ketara wrote:

The Eastern Ukraine was an extra prize to be seized if it looked like he could do it without causing too many problems. But at the same time, it was an objective that could be quickly abandoned/surrendered if necessary to help consolidate earlier gains (namely, the Crimea). The Russian naval base was the paramount objective, as you yourself stated.