http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/...iev-For-Kharkiv

I love the smell of a good uprising against oppression in the morning. I hope this Soviet shill gets his ass handed to him somewhere down the line.....

Zitat

---

Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovych has reportedly fled Kiev for Kharkiv amid "[the loss] of most of his power base following the bloodiest day in a 72-hour period in Ukraine."

According to InterpreterMag.com, he announced "early elections" prior to fleeing, although he did not "[specify] when they might be held."

Tweets coming out of Ukraine on February 21 described the protests that led up to to Yanukovych's departure as "the biggest demo in modern history."

While in Kharkiv, Yanukovych is expected to "take part in a Congress of the 'Ukranian Front.'" The Congress is expected to reflect the chaos in the Ukraine, which will contribute to the idea that "it is politically necessary for the southeast to become a separate entity."

There are "17 buses carrying activists from Right Sector toward Kharkiv," and Yanukovych is expected to "make [a] statement about [a] split of Ukraine."

---

BTW, screw you Putin. Your puppet was just sent fleeing.

Just remember Georgia and Ossetia. Putin's tanks are a lot closer to Ukraine than ours are. And he [unlike the Vacationer in Chief] has the balls to use them. I imagine the eastern [pro-Russian] portion of Ukraine will secede, set up a government, and be recognized immediately by Mama Bear.

But don't forget PzLdr, we have the power to object in the strongest of terms to any aggression that Putin may initiate.

Quote: Rev wrote in post #6

---

Let' send in Secretary of State and war hero John Kerry.

He'll straighten out this entire mess...



"Oh, no! Hold on now!"

---

I am going to take a contrarian view here and offer my support to Putin and the Russians.

Why, you ask? First of all it is in Ukraine's best interest, but I will get to that in a moment. My primary concern is with the beating and bad publicity Putin is getting in the American press. Over the years I have noted that whenever our MSM praises anything or anyone, that thing or person is a Liberal or fits the Liberal agenda. Conversely when they attack someone, or begin to present a negative picture of something or someone, it usually means that person or thing is not Liberal approved. There are a host of examples of this, the latest being how the MSM is treating Christie and so-called Bridgegate compared to Obama/Hillary Benghazi. The former is on the news constantly, the latter spiked.

It would appear, and I do mean appear, the Obama admin opposes Putin and Russian influence in Ukraine. Do you really need any more proof that Ukraine joining with the EU is not in our best interests? In addition, John McCain has been over there publically supporting the demonstrators. Just as with Obama his support of anything causes me to worry.

As to what is best for Ukraine, Pat Buchanan has written his usual good analysis of what is going on, and he notes:

Second, high among the reasons Yanukovych chose Russia's offer to join its custom union over the EU is that Putin put a better deal on the table.

Moscow put up $15 billion in loans and cut-rate oil and gas. The EU offered some piddling loans and credits, plus a demand for reforms in the Ukrainian economy monitored by the IMF, but no commitment to full membership in the EU.

In the same article he points out Yanukovych has made a number of attempts to bring about a peaceful settlement, only to be turned down by the opposition. Yanukovych is no tyrant no matter how he is portrayed in the press (and there they are again).

Something is going on over there which might not result in an outcome favorable to the US. Given the forces that support the dissidents in the West, I believe that is the likely conclusion to the matter.

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchan...t-ours-n1798218

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #9

---

I am going to take a contrarian view here and offer my support to Putin and the Russians.

Why, you ask? First of all it is in Ukraine's best interest, but I will get to that in a moment. My primary concern is with the beating and bad publicity Putin is getting in the American press. Over the years I have noted that whenever our MSM praises anything or anyone, that thing or person is a Liberal or fits the Liberal agenda. Conversely when they attack someone, or begin to present a negative picture of something or someone, it usually means that person or thing is not Liberal approved. There are a host of examples of this, the latest being how the MSM is treating Christie and so-called Bridgegate compared to Obama/Hillary Benghazi. The former is on the news constantly, the latter spiked.

It would appear, and I do mean appear, the Obama admin opposes Putin and Russian influence in Ukraine. Do you really need any more proof that Ukraine joining with the EU is not in our best interests? In addition, John McCain has been over there publically supporting the demonstrators. Just as with Obama his support of anything causes me to worry.

As to what is best for Ukraine, Pat Buchanan has written his usual good analysis of what is going on, and he notes:

Second, high among the reasons Yanukovych chose Russia's offer to join its custom union over the EU is that Putin put a better deal on the table.

Moscow put up $15 billion in loans and cut-rate oil and gas. The EU offered some piddling loans and credits, plus a demand for reforms in the Ukrainian economy monitored by the IMF, but no commitment to full membership in the EU.

In the same article he points out Yanukovych has made a number of attempts to bring about a peaceful settlement, only to be turned down by the opposition. Yanukovych is no tyrant no matter how he is portrayed in the press (and there they are again).

Something is going on over there which might not result in an outcome favorable to the US. Given the forces that support the dissidents in the West, I believe that is the likely conclusion to the matter.

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchan...t-ours-n1798218

---

Frank, I never said either Putin or Yanukovych was a candidate for sainthood. Seriously, who in that area of the world really is? But what I am saying is that when I look at those who support the rebellion and I a distinct feeling of discomfort because that very same group has never shown much commitment to the well being of the US (Obama included, yourself excluded).

I generally disregard, either way, what Zero, Kerry, McLame and the rest of the clown college do anymore. I genuinely believe that Zero and the Regime have no idea what they are doing on Foreign policy because the are focused like a laser on transforming America before he is out of office for good. That is why they show up late to crisis and end up giving mixed and confusing statements. McLame is just looking for any reason to gin up a war. He is a dirty creep.

BTW, if all of the Ukrane was obliterated off the face of the earth, I couldn't care less. What a lot of people forget is that they actually volunteered to work the Nazi death camps back in the day and still celebrate their roll in the extermination of the Jews. They are vile filth. I just see the ambitions of Putin and his new economic confab a dangerous step and see any events that slow or stop it a good thing.

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #14

---

I don't believe that Obama's foreign policy stems from cluelessness on his part, but from advisers chosen for expertise in how to strip power from the US and spread it about in good communist fashion .

---