FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / MIKES GRIPES /  Ukraine war: Where are Russia's opposition leaders now?

Ukraine war: Where are Russia's opposition leaders now?

Started by bobbok...14 REPLIES1,517 VIEWS· 06 Apr 2023, 08:48
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
06 Apr 2023, 08:48
#1
06 Apr 2023, 08:48#1

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65113186


Russian critics and opponents of President Putin are often punished - or worseBy Vitaly Shevchenko
BBC Monitoring

President Vladimir Putin now rules Russia virtually unchallenged. Many of the critical voices that once spoke out have since been forced into exile, while other opponents have been jailed - or in some cases killed.

By the time he launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, more than two decades of stamping out dissent had all but annihilated opposition in Russia.

At the very start of President Putin's rule, he brought to heel Russia's powerful oligarchs - immensely rich people with political ambitions.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once head of the Russian oil giant Yukos, was arrested in 2003 and spent 10 years in prison for tax evasion and theft after funding opposition parties. Upon his release, he left Russia.

Boris Berezovsky, another oligarch who even helped bring Putin to power - fell out with him later and died in exile in the UK in 2013, reportedly by suicide.

All key media in Russia gradually fell under the control of the state or toed the official Kremlin line.

Alexei Navalny

By far the most prominent opposition figure in Russia is now Alexei Navalny, who has accused Putin from jail of aiming to smear hundreds of thousands of people in his "criminal, aggressive" war.

In August 2020, Navalny was poisoned with Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent, while on a trip to Siberia. The attack nearly killed him, and he had to be flown to Germany for treatment.

His return to Russia in January 2021 briefly galvanised opposition protesters, but he was immediately arrested for fraud and contempt of court. He is now serving nine years in prison, and was the focus of an Oscar-winning documentary.

In the 2010s Navalny was actively involved in mass anti-government rallies and the many exposes by Navalny's main political vehicle, the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), have attracted millions of views online. In 2021 the foundation was outlawed as extremist and Navalny has repeatedly dismissed allegations of corruption as politically motivated.

Many of his associates have come under pressure from security services, and some have fled abroad, including former FBK head Ivan Zhdanov, former top FBK lawyer Lyubov Sobol and most, if not all, of the heads of the extended network of Navalny's offices across Russia.

Navalny's right-hand man Leonid Volkov left Russia when a money laundering case was launched against him in 2019.

Opposition to the war

Another key Putin critic behind Russian bars is Ilya Yashin, who has been sharply critical of Russia's war. In a live stream on YouTube in April 2022, he urged an investigation into possible war crimes committed by Russian forces and called President Putin "the worst butcher in this war".

That live stream led to eight-and-a-half years in jail for violating a law against spreading "deliberately false information" about the Russian army. The law was rushed through parliament shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022

.

Yashin became involved in politics in 2000 at the age of 17, the year Putin came to power.

In 2017, after years of opposition activism, he was elected head of the Krasnoselsky district council in Moscow, where he continued to voice views critical of the Kremlin.

In 2019, he spent more than a month behind bars for his active role in protests against the authorities' refusal to register independent and opposition-minded candidates for elections to the Moscow city council.

Cambridge-educated journalist and activist Vladimir Kara-Murza has twice been the victim of a mysterious poisoning that left him in a coma, in 2015 and then in 2017. He was arrested in April 2022 following his criticism of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and charged with sharing "fake news" about the Russian military, organising the activities of an "undesirable organisation" and high treason. His lawyer says he is facing up to 25 years in prison if convicted.

He has authored numerous articles critical of Putin in prominent Russian and Western media and in 2011 led opposition efforts to secure the adoption of Western sanctions targeting human rights abusers in Russia.

These sanctions imposed by many Western countries are known as Magnitsky acts after whistleblowing lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian jail in 2009 after alleging fraud by officials.

Fighting for democracy

Kara-Murza was deputy chairman of Open Russia, a leading pro-democracy group set up by fugitive ex-oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. It was officially designated as "undesirable" in Russia and finally closed in 2021. Open Russia's head, Andrei Pivovarov, is serving a four-year jail sentence imposed for his involvement in an "undesirable organisation".

Kara-Murza may be facing a long prison sentence but at least he is alive, unlike close friend and key Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov.

Before the Putin era, Nemtsov served as governor of Nizhny Novgorod region, energy minister and then deputy prime minister, and he was also elected to Russia's parliament. Then he became increasingly vocal in his opposition to the Kremlin, and published a number of reports critical of Vladimir Putin and led numerous marches opposing him.

On 27 February 2015, Nemtsov was shot four times as he crossed a bridge outside the Kremlin, hours after appealing for support for a march against Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

Five men of Chechen origin were convicted of Nemtsov's murder, but there is still no clarity as to who ordered it or why. Seven years after his death, an investigation revealed evidence that in the months running up to the killing, Nemtsov was being followed across Russia by a government agent linked to a secret assassination squad.

These leading opposition figures are just a few of the Russians targeted for showing dissent.

Since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year, independent media in Russia has seen further restrictions or threats. News channel TV Rain has had to move abroad, joining news site Meduza which had already left Russia. Novaya Gazeta remains in Moscow but has stopped publishing its newspaper. Others like talk radio station Echo of Moscow were closed by authorities.

Countless commentators have gone into exile, like veteran journalist Alexander Nevzorov, branded a "foreign agent" in Russia and sentenced to eight years in jail in absentia for spreading "fakes" against the Russian army.

But you do not have to have an audience of millions to be targeted. In March 2023, Dmitry Ivanov, a mathematics student who ran an anti-war Telegram channel, received an eight-and-a-half year prison sentence - also for spreading "fakes" about the army.

Meanwhile, single parent Alexei Moskalev was given a two year jail term for dissent on social media following an investigation sparked by an anti-war picture sketched by his 13-year-old daughter at school.

It took Vladimir Putin more than two decades to ensure no formidable opponents were free to challenge his power. If that was his plan, it's worked.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Apr 2023, 09:23
#2
06 Apr 2023, 09:23#2

Do you know anything  about the Russian constitution?    Anyway - the above article is normal BS by the Anti-Russian  propaganda machine.  I read it to see what is really accurate and one thing that was NOT was there was no Russian Invasion of Ukraine in 2014 - a civil War erupted in 2014 after the USA-organized coup - which was Unconstitutional and resulted in scrapping of the 1991 Constitution of Ukraine.  The USA armed the new Ukraine Government - the Russians supplied arms to the rebels in East Ukraine.   There is a huge difference - since arms provision is not an invasion - get the message?      

In the last Russian election 11 Political Parties took Part in the Duma election and they got 52% of the popular vote.   Since they split the votes badly the Party supporting Putin got a clear majority in the Duma - while 60% of the voters in the Presidential election voted for Putin.   That makes it rather difficult to call Putin a dictator as claimed by his opponents.   There always in terms of the Russian Constitution serious opposition in the country against dictatorial rule as is evident by the latest election results.    The Russian Courts are independent and ha s in cases ruled against the Government on issues.    Whenever there was a court case the law would take its course - it is not Putin who decide on who should be jailed - it is the function of the Courts.   

By the way none of the people mentioned in the article quoted are actually a leader of any of the registered party.   The Navalny case are really problematic.   According to propaganda he was poisoned by the Putin Government - yet he was allowed by the Government to be sent to Germany for treatment.    If the Russian Government was guilty of poisoning him would they have allowed him to go to Germany for treatment?    Weird - not so?             

At least it was not like in Ukraine where all members of the main Opposition Party were arrested - but never charged with any crime, while all Oppisiton Parties opposed to the Zelenzkyy regime has been banned.   Now Stav claims  not all parties have been banned - there are still some insignificant parties operational.    Stav claims that the main Opposition Party has been re-organized and put under new leadership and that only three members fled to Russia.  in an article it was claimed that after arrest the Ukraine Government claimed that they do not know where the  main Opposition Party leader is - there are bad elements in Ukraine and the chances that he and the three members they claimed after arrest "fled to Russia" are dead.   How would they get out of jail in Kiev and then manage to flee to Russia?   Everybody even mildly critical of the Ukraine Government is described as "Russian Collaborators". 

There is on basic difference between Russia and Ukraine - Russia does have a Constitution - the Ukraine does not have one and at present is a dictatorship in real terms.                 

 

                 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Apr 2023, 09:23
#3
06 Apr 2023, 09:23#3

Duplicate

SE
SebPro2,680 posts
06 Apr 2023, 12:08
#4
06 Apr 2023, 12:08#4

More lies, at best, subtly worded half truths taken out of context.

Putin tried to poison Navalny...were you there, did you see it happen?

You only read what the West wants to blacken...imagine if somebody that hated you tried to do sully you with a false accusation. The kangaroo court mentality.

We simply don't know. Human robots with parrot tendencies. Blobble and Squark with egg to stick together.

Incidentally he committed a number of frauds, not a nice person but a thief that steals money from sources that don't belong to him.

 Navalny's party at it's best period only got about 15% of votes, hardly a threat to 80% who support the present government. See Statista.com (Western Source in Hamburg)




ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
07 Apr 2023, 01:36
#5
07 Apr 2023, 01:36#5

Do you know anything  about the Russian constitution?

Do you know anything about literally anything?

I ead it to see what is really accurate and one thing that was NOT was there was no Russian Invasion of Ukraine in 2014 - a civil War erupted in 2014 after the USA-organized coup - which was Unconstitutional and resulted in scrapping of the 1991 Constitution of Ukraine.

And in reality a separatist uprising took place in some eastern regions of Ukraine in response to the Maidan Revolution that toppled the Yanukovych government a revolution that was organized by the Ukrainian's themselves and had widespread support. Likewise the separatist uprising was initially an indigenous Ukrainian response to the Maidan Revolution but shortly there after Russia sent in its own forces to back up the separatist's and to defacto take control of the region while they also took the opportunity to seize Crimea.  Yes the coup was unconstitutional but also an internal matter for the people of Ukraine, not anyone else.

In the last Russian election 11 Political Parties took Part in the Duma election and they got 52% of the popular vote.   Since they split the votes badly the Party supporting Putin got a clear majority in the Duma - while 60% of the voters in the Presidential election voted for Putin.   That makes it rather difficult to call Putin a dictator as claimed by his opponents.   There always in terms of the Russian Constitution serious opposition in the country against dictatorial rule as is evident by the latest election results.    The Russian Courts are independent and ahs in cases ruled against the Government on issues.    Whenever there was a court case the law would take its course - it is not Putin who decide on who should be jailed - it is the function of the Courts.  

Of course Mike would believe Russian elections are free and fair.

By the way none of the people mentioned in the article quoted are actually a leader of any of the registered party.   The Navalny case are really problematic.   According to propaganda he was poisoned by the Putin Government - yet he was allowed by the Government to be sent to Germany for treatment.    If the Russian Government was guilty of poisoning him would they have allowed him to go to Germany for treatment?    Weird - not so?            

They let him go for treatment because they didn't want to be seen actively blocking his treatment as it would have made them look even more guilty in the eyes of the world. They probably also had not expected for Navalny to survive and be in a position to go for treatment of that the treatment would be successful, but frankly whether he survived or not wasn't really an issue to the Russian's. The poising served one of its purposes, to dissuade others from opposing the Putin regime.

At least it was not like in Ukraine where all members of the main Opposition Party were arrested - but never charged with any crime, while all Oppisiton Parties opposed to the Zelenzkyy regime has been banned.

Blatant lie that I've already corrected you on.

Now Stav claims  not all parties have been banned - there are still some insignificant parties operational.

LOL and then you go and contradict yourself by admitting some parties are operational which you have deemed fit to call insignificant.

The main party in government Servant of the People has 239 seats in the Ukrainian parliament There is 3 parties in opposition, with a total of 71 seats in the Ukrainian parliament. There is also 21 independents. There is an additional 4 parties who are supporting the government with an additional 80 seats. Some of those parties are made up of previous opposition parties that where banned and as a consequence of the Russian invasion have switched to supporting the government.  There is 39 vacant seats.

Stav claims that the main Opposition Party has been re-organized and put under new leadership and that only three members fled to Russia.

Correct about the main opposition party. Its leader is one of the founders and leader of the old party. And I don't recall giving a number on how many fled to Russia.

In an article it was claimed that after arrest the Ukraine Government claimed that they do not know where the  main Opposition Party leader is

You mean the guy who formed a new political party and is still in the Ukrainian parliament?

- there are bad elements in Ukraine and the chances that he and the three members they claimed after arrest "fled to Russia" are dead.   How would they get out of jail in Kiev and then manage to flee to Russia?

And evidence that they are dead or that they where arrested in the first place?

Everybody even mildly critical of the Ukraine Government is described as "Russian Collaborators". 

Another spurious claim without merit.

There is on basic difference between Russia and Ukraine - Russia does have a Constitution - the Ukraine does not have one and at present is a dictatorship in real terms.   

As I already said before you have no clue what a democracy is.             


BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
07 Apr 2023, 04:48
#6
07 Apr 2023, 04:48#6

If tennis, Stav once again thrashed ouMaaik  6-0  6-0  6-0

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Apr 2023, 07:11
#7
07 Apr 2023, 07:11#7

Listen logic and fact is simply absent from any comment of both Stav and  BSters like BB and SB.   The explanations given by all of you defies totally logic and just repeat Ukraine Government statements.   I will just simply said 

*   Point one highlighted above is pure BS   -  Russia provided arms to the East Ukrainians like the USA did to their puppets they appointed to run Ukraine.   There were no Russian soldiers in Ukraine at the time of the Minsk agreement in 2015.   

*    Point 2 BS again.   With 52% of the voters voted for Parties other than the oene supporting Putin n Parliament means the election is not free.  Should that be 75% before an election is free.  Laughable BS.

*    Point 3 - all you did was repeat Ukraine Government statements on issues without ever substantiating anything.    Everybody opposed to Zelenskyy is pro-Russian traitors according to Stav.   And some exchange of wounded prisoner of war is now also including opposition politicians and a corrupt nonentity (Boyko) is now the leader of the main opposition party in Ukraine.    Who appointed him as leader?    It is the same Boyko that was claimed to be favored by Putin to be President of Ukraine.   He tried to form a political Party on his own and in that effort got 3% of the votes and then tried to return as an opposition politician representing the main opposition party in Ukraine.   Just go to Wikipedia as to his long list of achievements and references to corruption involving him.    Not one singe fact provided other than to justify Zelenskyy in accordance with Ukraine Government statements.    BS galore.

Then he claims that there are 39 vacancies in Parliament.   So Zelenskyy banned opposition parties opposed to his regime.   Fiddle around with figures - there were 71 opposition party members and a puppet is now leader of a re-constituted party?   Some homework in thinking outside of Ukraine Government statements would help.    More than half of the opposition members are vacant - so where are the members whose positions are vacant?     who appointed Boyko as leader of the main opposition party? 

*     The rest of Stav's statements came from where?    The new leader of the opposition Boyko  formed a new Party to replace the banned main opposition party.    He is nothing bar a Zelenskyy puppet at present.   I said Opposition Parties were banned  and that does not include the list of puppet parties and independents that support the Zelenskyy  Regieme.

*      The last point is equally laughable.   Democratic countries have constitutions that curtail one-party governance.   Does not appear as is the case in Ukraine.   You claimed elsewhere that there were complaints that only 30% of supplied armaments reached the fighting force.   The General in charge confirmed that statement.   Knowing how dictatorships operate - and that includes the Ukraine -  Zelenskyy would not fire his loyalist Minister of Defense, but fire the General in charge who confirm the 30% factual story.   What Zelenskyy feared is that the General concerned will get sick and tired of the corrupt BS in Ukraine and stage a coup to get rid of it more than anything else.   By the way stooge - the absence of a US Army officer to co-ordinate the supply of weapons to Ukraine is still vacant and that was in January this year - irrespective of whether he is a Brigadier or Colonel.   The info of a Colonel going to Ukraine was announced in September 2022 in the US Senate - but never implemented by January 2023.  

Maybe you should stop accepting that Ukraine Government statements as gospel and start thinking whether your statements made any sense whatsoever.       

                            

                       

           

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Apr 2023, 07:11
#8
07 Apr 2023, 07:11#8

Listen logic and fact is simply absent from any comment of both Stav and  BSters like BB and SB.   The explanations given by all of you defies totally logic and just repeat Ukraine Government statements.   I will just simply said 

*   Point one highlighted above is pure BS   -  Russia provided arms to the East Ukrainians like the USA did to their puppets they appointed to run Ukraine.   There were no Russian soldiers in Ukraine at the time of the Minsk agreement in 2015.   

*    Point 2 BS again.   With 52% of the voters voted for Parties other than the oene supporting Putin n Parliament means the election is not free.  Should that be 75% before an election is free.  Laughable BS.

*    Point 3 - all you did was repeat Ukraine Government statements on issues without ever substantiating anything.    Everybody opposed to Zelenskyy is pro-Russian traitors according to Stav.   And some exchange of wounded prisoner of war is now also including opposition politicians and a corrupt nonentity (Boyko) is now the leader of the main opposition party in Ukraine.    Who appointed him as leader?    It is the same Boyko that was claimed to be favored by Putin to be President of Ukraine.   He tried to form a political Party on his own and in that effort got 3% of the votes and then tried to return as an opposition politician representing the main opposition party in Ukraine.   Just go to Wikipedia as to his long list of achievements and references to corruption involving him.    Not one singe fact provided other than to justify Zelenskyy in accordance with Ukraine Government statements.    BS galore.

Then he claims that there are 39 vacancies in Parliament.   So Zelenskyy banned opposition parties opposed to his regime.   Fiddle around with figures - there were 71 opposition party members and a puppet is now leader of a re-constituted party?   Some homework in thinking outside of Ukraine Government statements would help.    More than half of the opposition members are vacant - so where are the members whose positions are vacant?     who appointed Boyko as leader of the main opposition party? 

*     The rest of Stav's statements came from where?    The new leader of the opposition Boyko  formed a new Party to replace the banned main opposition party.    He is nothing bar a Zelenskyy puppet at present.   I said Opposition Parties were banned  and that does not include the list of puppet parties and independents that support the Zelenskyy  Regieme.

*      The last point is equally laughable.   Democratic countries have constitutions that curtail one-party governance.   Does not appear as is the case in Ukraine.   You claimed elsewhere that there were complaints that only 30% of supplied armaments reached the fighting force.   The General in charge confirmed that statement.   Knowing how dictatorships operate - and thaty includes the Ukraine -  Zelenskyy would not fire his loyalist Minister of Defense, but fire the General in charge who confirm the 30% factual story.   What Zelenskyy feared is that the General concerned will get sick and tired of the corrupt BS in Ukraine and stage a coup to get rid of it more than anything else.   By the way stooge - the absence of a US Army officer to co-ordinate the supply of weapons to Ukraine is still vacant and that was in January this year - irrespective of whether he is a Brigadier or Colonel.   The info of a Colonel going to Ukraine was announced in September 2022 in the US Senate - but never implemented by January 2023.  

Maybe you should stop accepting that Ukraine Government statements as gospel and start thinking whether your statements made any sense whatsoever.        

                            

                       

           

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
07 Apr 2023, 11:14
#9
07 Apr 2023, 11:14#9

Point one highlighted above is pure BS   -  Russia provided arms to the East Ukrainians like the USA did to their puppets they appointed to run Ukraine.   There were no Russian soldiers in Ukraine at the time of the Minsk agreement in 2015

So leaving aside Crimea which was seized by Russian forces.

Your argument is kinda of undermined by the fact that Putin later admitted Russia specialists where in operating in Ukraine and engaging in military activities. In 2014 one of the rebel leaders in eastern Ukraine announced on a youtube video that's still available that the Russian's had just sent 1,200 troops and 30 tanks to support them. 5 days later satellite footage showed more Russian units crossing the border. Video of Russian tanks where taken in Ukrainan footage (and these tank variants where not used by the Ukrainan's)

  Point 2 BS again.   With 52% of the voters voted for Parties other than the oene supporting Putin n Parliament means the election is not free.  Should that be 75% before an election is free.  Laughable BS.

No to split hairs but the opposition supposedly won 49.12% of the vote in the last election not 52%. Of course the Putin regime has no issue with those being the official numbers as it looks good and enables them to fool gullible people like yourself into believing the election was free and fair. People like yourself have preconceived viewpoints and will happily accept the result without   looking any deeper than the headline numbers. But of course with the way the Russian election system is set up that results in all the power going to Putin. Putin's party vote share of 50.88% translated into 324 seats or 63% of the seats in parliament. The opposition got 121 seats despite only getting 1.68% less votes.

But of course the vote itself was widely regarded as fraudulent (as with the case with previous Russian elections) with numerous video recording examples of ballet stuffing and carousel voting, clashes between poll workers and monitors and various independent monitors receiving thousands of reports of fraud with one analysis suggesting up to 14 million fraudulent votes went to Putin's party. There was also other such tactics used such as doppelganger candidates and spoiler parties used to confuse and divide opposition voters as well as fraudulent remote and election voting. The 2nd place Communist party refused to accept the results of the Moscow election vote because of this. This says nothing of the role of the Kremlin run state media and the arrest and long ongoing detainment and intimidation of significant opposition leaders.

The idea that Russia has free and fair elections is beyond a joke, but considering you think there was election fraud in the 2020 US election of course you would believe this nonsense.

  Point 3 - all you did was repeat Ukraine Government statements on issues without ever substantiating anything.    Everybody opposed to Zelenskyy is pro-Russian traitors according to Stav.   And some exchange of wounded prisoner of war is now also including opposition politicians and a corrupt nonentity (Boyko) is now the leader of the main opposition party in Ukraine.    Who appointed him as leader?

I'm giving the Ukrainian position on topics where all you do is parrot the Russian position which you present as gospel. I've asked you multiple times to link to evidence to back up your claims but you never do. You go on to some other topic before eventually repeating the same arguments later on.

That opposition leader exchange was a close ally of Putin. Ukraine leveraged that fact to get more of its troops back. As for Boyko who you claim is  non entity. He was a founder and leader of the previous banned opposition party Opposition Platform for Life. He created the new party and thus became its leader no one appointed him other than himself.

It is the same Boyko that was claimed to be favored by Putin to be President of Ukraine

I dunno did he?

He tried to form a political Party on his own and in that effort got 3% of the votes and then tried to return as an opposition politician representing the main opposition party in Ukraine.

Stop being so dishonest and present the whole picture.Yes he did poorly in the 2006 election but did much better in later elections What do you mean tried to return as opposition, that's what happened, he lead his party to second place in 2019 elections which meant his party became the main opposition.

Just go to Wikipedia as to his long list of achievements and references to corruption involving him

I never said he was or wasn't corrupt. Just that he's arrested or banned from parliament and has been legally able to set up a new political party.

Not one singe fact provided other than to justify Zelenskyy in accordance with Ukraine Government statements.

Again you have no idea what the word fact is. You saying something and referring to sources and documents you can never provide links to is the opposite of fact.

Then he claims that there are 39 vacancies in Parliament.   So Zelenskyy banned opposition parties opposed to his regime.   Fiddle around with figures - there were 71 opposition party members and a puppet is now leader of a re-constituted party?

LOL since your so obsessed with facts, provide facts that Zelensky banned opposition parties purely because they opposed his regime and not because they had links to Russia. Provide evidence that the leader of the re-constituted party is a puppet.

  Some homework in thinking outside of Ukraine Government statements would help.    More than half of the opposition members are vacant - so where are the members whose positions are vacant?     who appointed Boyko as leader of the main opposition party?

Some thinking at all might help you mike. You maths aren't great either. Assuming all 39 vaccines where opposition members 39 and 71 is 110. 55 is half of 110.  I have no idea where the people who hold those vacant seats are, neither do you. And again no one appointed Boyko as the leader of this new party, he created the party himself, and he's not in opposition he's backing the government. His political views and that of many other Ukrainian members of parliament has shifted due to Russia's invasion, and he no longer expresses pro-Russian views, which is rather unsurprising giving Russia's barbaric actions in his homeland.

    The new leader of the opposition Boyko  formed a new Party to replace the banned main opposition party.    He is nothing bar a Zelenskyy puppet at present.   I said Opposition Parties were banned  and that does not include the list of puppet parties and independents that support the Zelenskyy  Regieme.

Such a weasel. A short fact check once again debunked another of your claims that all opposition parties were banned. When I was able to prove that was not the case you immediately jump to the position that those parties that remain are puppets with zero supporting evidence. Can you not see how indoctrinated your thinking is. You can never provide evidence to support your claims and instantly dismiss any other viewpoint or evidence as fake.

The last point is equally laughable.   Democratic countries have constitutions that curtail one-party governance.   Does not appear as is the case in Ukraine.   You claimed elsewhere that there were complaints that only 30% of supplied armaments reached the fighting force.   The General in charge confirmed that statement.

Great link to where he confirmed it.

  Knowing how dictatorships operate - and thaty includes the Ukraine -  Zelenskyy would not fire his loyalist Minister of Defense, but fire the General in charge who confirm the 30% factual story.   What Zelenskyy feared is that the General concerned will get sick and tired of the corrupt BS in Ukraine and stage a coup to get rid of it more than anything else.  

Any evidence?

By the way stooge - the absence of a US Army officer to co-ordinate the supply of weapons to Ukraine is still vacant and that was in January this year - irrespective of whether he is a Brigadier or Colonel.   The info of a Colonel going to Ukraine was announced in September 2022 in the US Senate - but never implemented by January 2023. 

Evidence?

Maybe you should stop accepting that Ukraine Government statements as gospel and start thinking whether your statements made any sense whatsoever.

Where ever you're getting your news sources from you need to fact check them because its around 99% bullshit.


SE
SebPro2,680 posts
07 Apr 2023, 11:28
#10
07 Apr 2023, 11:28#10

I think Stav is not Irish

Probably Norwegian. The oil centre in Norway is the city of Stavanger.

Amazing hiking trails, Pulpit Rock. Very expensive there.

Tell me Stav are you happy that Northstream was blown up...it will certainly benefit Norway.

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
07 Apr 2023, 11:51
#11
07 Apr 2023, 11:51#11

No I'm Irish, though the Stavanger alias is Norwegian. I first heard of it from the first mission briefing in the 1998 game Commando's: Behind Enemy lines and just liked the sound of it and used as alternate gaming nick when my first choice was already taken. Have never actually been to Norway. Hope to some day. Scenery is meant to be amazing. Expensive country though.

As for Nordstream, it makes little difference too me. Ireland does not directly purchase Russian energy and Nordstream was not in operation at the timing of the bombings anyway . Norway has benefited from increased energy sales to Europe as a result of the reduction in energy imports from Russia.


CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Apr 2023, 12:19
#12
07 Apr 2023, 12:19#12

Crimea was NOT SEIZED by Russian soldiers  - there were Russian soldiers in Crimea since 1991 to operate the naval bases of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea.   Crimea  had their own Parliament in terms of the 1991 Constitution and that Parliament realizing the impact of the Coup in Kiev voted to ask for incorporation of the Crimea in Russia to be voted for or against in a referndum.   The Kiev regime and their US Allies said the referendum was a farce yet two subsequent opinion polls conducted  by a US company and another by a German Company confirmed the result was accurate.    Why would Russians and Tartars making up 95% of the Crimea population wants to eb part of a Ukraine protectorate of the US in Kiev, especially when the Constitution was thrown out of the window and their were no guarantees protecting human rights under the new Regime. 

You obviously lapped up all the BS imaginable.   First of all I was dealing with the Russian Constitution and mentioned the 5r2% I got from wikipedia.    But then the idiocy took over again.   Russia is by a huge distance the biggest land area country in the world.   Only two parties are actually organized on a national basis - the All Russia Party supporting Putin and the Russian Communist Party - which was banned in 1993 and a Court decision caused them to be unbanned,   The fact that votes are badly split between the smaller parties caused the same result is what ahppened in the UK with the first past  the votes - even getting 35% of the votes in the election.   is that also fraudulent?     Whenever there is an election whose outcome you dislike  the election is fraudulent.    Take the 2016 and 2020 elections in the USA the Democrats refused to recognize he outcome and started a lie campaign to undermine the Trump Presidency - which you supported full time.   When the Republicans did the same in 2020 you condemn them.   However the Republicans did not appoint a Special Council to try and force Trump out.   

I am not parroting any country.  I believe in real evidence and not Government statements.  What comes out of Kiev is as bad as was the case with Lord Haw-Haw in the secind world war.  Ho many times did I condemn the Russians for invading Ukraine  and how many times have i called for negotiations,  I condemn the Russian invasion - I blame the USA for undermining negotiations to prevent the War.

Which Opposition parties have NOT been banned?   Zelenskyy banned all real Opposition parties. Those midget Parties and Independents was NOT banned - but they are of no importance in general elections.      

Your Boyko story is a laugh a minute.    First Boyko re-organized the main Opposition Party  and took over the leadership of that Party - then he formed a new Party and is their leader.   In the real world one has to look at the last time Boyko formed  a new Party he got 3% of the vote.     Do you think that Zelenskyy would allow him to form a party not supporting him.

I get news sources from a number of institutions - definitely not from Russia 1     When I want to hear lies I listen to CNN and MSNBC and look at the Guardian and New Yor Times.   I also looks at Fox News and another few real news agencies,.         

 .                          

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
07 Apr 2023, 13:03
#13
07 Apr 2023, 13:03#13

Crimea was NOT SEIZED by Russian soldiers

1+1 does not equal 2, the sky is not blue and the grass is not green. Mike your away with the fairies.

The fact that votes are badly split between the smaller parties caused the same result is what ahppened in the UK with the first past  the votes - even getting 35% of the votes in the election. is that also fraudulent?

First past the post is a shit system and does not give a fair representation of the people. PR is much better IMO but that doesn't make the UK election fraudulent. Putin just used the first past the post system in Russia to make it easier for him to amass power, but what made the Russian election fraudulent was the various forms of fraud I mention that Putin's party used to make it fraudulent.

Take the 2016 and 2020 elections in the USA the Democrats refused to recognize he outcome and started a lie campaign to undermine the Trump Presidency - which you supported full time.

What pie in the sky alternate reality do you live in. The Democrats did accept the outcome of the 2016 election, and of course they accepted the 2020 results which they won. It was Trump that came up with crazy fraud theories that have been debunked countless times.

I am not parroting any country.  I believe in real evidence and not Government statements.  What comes out of Kiev is as bad as was the case with Lord Haw-Haw in the secind world war. 

You make Lord Haw-Haw sound like a respectable source of information.

Ho many times did I condemn the Russians for invading Ukraine  and how many times have i called for negotiations,  I condemn the Russian invasion - I blame the USA for undermining negotiations to prevent the War.

The condemnations are a weak attempt at trying to look impartial as you parrot every Russian conspiracy theory under the sun such as the USA for undermining negotiations. When you call for negotiations we know damn well you expect the Ukrainan's to make all the concessions.

Which Opposition parties have NOT been banned?   Zelenskyy banned all real Opposition parties. Those midget Parties and Independents was NOT banned - but they are of no importance in general elections.     

European Solidarity, Holos and Batkivshchyna are all opposition parties that are still operating in the Ukrainian parliament. Several other parties consisting of previous opposition members have backed the government as a result of the opposition, and after the war may go back into opposition. Who are you to decree them of no importance in general elections.

Back in WWII all the major opposition parties in the UK backed the government during the war (604 out of 615 member of parliament) and then they went back into opposition after the war ended. No one accused the UK government of being a dictatorship back then. War time can require measures that under normal circumstances would not be considered acceptable.

Your Boyko story is a laugh a minute.    First Boyko re-organized the Opposition Party  and took over the leadership of that Party - then eh formed a new Party and s their leader.   In the real world one ahs to look at the last time Boyko formed  a new Party he got 3% of the vote.     Do you thinl that Zelenskyy would allow him yto form a party not supporting him.

Stop laughing, your just making a fool of yourself.

I get news sources from a number f institutions - definitely not from Russia 1     When I wnt to hear lies I listen to CNN and MSNBC and look at th e Guardian and New Yor Times.   I also looks at Fox News and another few rea news agencies,.

Of course, everything that doesn't support your world view is fake news.

SE
SebPro2,680 posts
07 Apr 2023, 21:40
#14
07 Apr 2023, 21:40#14

Crimea was always Russian since 1783, then Russian Empire under Katherine the Great. In 1954 Khrushchev put Crimea under Ukraine when it was of USSR.  I say put not gave because it was done illegally.

The question is complicated.

How Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine

Stalin was against it, Voroshilov predicted, the head of the peninsula was dismissed

To share

Read us in

19.02.2023 00:00

 

Author: Alexander Mashchenko

 

 

Nikita Khrushchev

© RIA Novosti

On February 19, 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree "On the transfer of the Crimean Region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR". Then, 69 years ago, it seemed that nothing special had happened. The peninsula was only transferred from one fraternal union republic to another, and even " in commemoration of the tercentenary of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia." This step was intended to " strengthen the boundless trust and sincere love of the Russian people for the Ukrainian people." What really happened in 1954, Crimeans understood only after the collapse of the USSR. It was then that it became clear that Nikita Khrushchev's ceremonial gesture distorted the fate of hundreds of thousands of people who suddenly turned out to be citizens of another, hostile state.

 

Economic excuses

"After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for various reasons, may God be their judge, included large territories of the historical south of Russia in the Ukrainian Union Republic. This was done without taking into account the national composition of the inhabitants, and today it is the modern south-east of Ukraine. And in 1954, the decision was made to transfer the Crimean region to it, and at the same time Sevastopol was transferred, although it was then a union subordination. The initiator was personally the head of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev. What motivated them — the desire to enlist the support of the Ukrainian nomenclature or to make amends for organizing mass repressions in Ukraine in the 30s-let historians deal with this, "Russian President Vladimir Putin said in the Crimean speech on March 18, 2014. "In people's minds, Crimea has always been and remains an integral part of Russia."

 

Together with historians and politicians of the past and present, we tried to understand how the decision was made in 1954, which eventually turned into upheavals on a global scale without exaggeration.

 

"Scientists have identified several reasons that could have guided Khrushchev, "Professor Sergey Yurchenko, a well-known Crimean historian, told the Parliamentary Gazette. — Perhaps the most convincing of them is that it was really more convenient to implement such large-scale infrastructure projects for the revival of Ukraine and the Crimea bordering it, such as the construction of the Kakhovsky reservoir and the North Crimean Canal, within the framework of one administrative-territorial entity. Khrushchev had worked in Ukraine for many years and was well aware of both its problems and its potential. The tercentenary of the Pereyaslavl Rada, which made it possible to beautifully decorate the decision, was also very appropriate."

 

American historian William Taubman, who spent many years studying the life and work of Nikita Khrushchev, claims that the idea of transferring Crimea to Ukraine was born in 1944 after the expulsion of Tatars from the peninsula, accused of mass collaboration with the Nazis during the occupation. "Before the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was still ten years away, but already in 1944, Khrushchev tried to do something similar. Crimea needed Ukrainian peasants to take the place of the Crimean Tatars exiled by Stalin. While in Moscow, Khrushchev told a Ukrainian colleague a year later, he turned to Stalin with these words:: "Ukraine is in ruins, and everyone is pulling out of it. But if you give her the Crimea, is it a small intestine?" — said Taubman in the book "Khrushchev: a man and his era".

 

This version is confirmed in his memoirs by Nikita Khrushchev's son Sergey. According to him, Nikita Sergeyevich, who was assigned by Stalin to deal with the restoration of Crimea after the war, was constantly faced with bureaucratic delays and ambitions due to the fact that the peninsula was part of the RSFSR, and the neighboring regions were part of the Ukrainian SSR, and once suggested that the leader "cut all the knots, reassign Crimea to Ukraine." "Stalin refused," writes Sergey. - why? Don't know. My father never told me."

 

 

The age of great achievements and unjustified expectations

 

A matter of fifteen minutes

However, Khrushchev did not forget his idea and returned to it shortly after Stalin's death. "In October 1953, immediately after his election as first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and, in fact, just before the decision to transfer Crimea to Ukraine was made, Khrushchev visited the peninsula. We know about this trip from the memoirs of his son — in-law, the famous Soviet journalist Sergei Adzhubey," Yurchenko said.

 

After getting bored on vacation at the Vorontsov Palace in Alupka, Khrushchev decided to go with the then chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Georgy Malenkov to the steppe Crimea for a couple of days, and Adzhubey asked for it with them. According to him, the trip brought the new Soviet party leader into despondency — Crimea lay in desolation, which was especially striking just in the steppe part. Most of all, Nikita Sergeyevich was allegedly upset by the crowds of immigrants from the northern Russian regions, who complained that they were tricked into coming to the peninsula, where neither potatoes nor cabbage grow.

 

Khrushchev flew straight from Crimea to Kiev without warning. Over lunch at the Mariinsky Palace, Nikita Sergeyevich kept returning to his trip to the peninsula and persuading Ukrainians to help revive the region. "There, southerners are needed who like gardens, corn, and not potatoes," he allegedly complained. At the same time, the formal transfer of Crimea under the jurisdiction of Ukraine was not discussed at the table. Apparently, such a proposal has not yet received its meaning, Ajubey argued.

 

According to the historian Dmitry Volkogonov, by the end of 1953, after dealing with Beria and becoming the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Khrushchev felt like the sole leader of the country.

 

"The first secretary, after talking with Malenkov in December 1953 and meeting no serious opposition on the issue of the transfer of the Crimean region, in the tone of an order, proposed to the chairman of the Council of Ministers:

 

- Let's not delay this decision. We will discuss this issue at one of the next meetings of the Central Committee Presidium…

 

Malenkov immediately agreed. It was clear to him that Khrushchev had already imperceptibly pushed him into the second or third roles, "Volkogonov wrote in the book"Seven Leaders".

 

The question "On the transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR" was submitted to the meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee on January 25, 1954 and was on the agenda under the passage number eleven. The review took fifteen minutes. They decided to " approve the draft Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR."

 

 

 

(Population census data)

 

Titov's demarche

And on February 19, a meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR was held in the Kremlin. His transcript is read today, in the days of a special military operation, with amazing feelings.

 

Mikhail Tarasov, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, says: "The issue of transferring the Crimean Region to the Ukrainian Republic is being considered in the days when the peoples of the Soviet Union celebrate a significant event — the tercentenary of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, which played a huge progressive role in the political, economic and cultural development of the Ukrainian and Russian people."

 

In response, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR Demyan Korotchenko expresses his heartfelt gratitude to the great Russian people for an exceptionally remarkable act of fraternal assistance. According to him, the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine is the greatest friendly act, testifying to the boundless trust and love of the Russian people for the Ukrainian people.

 

Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of Uzbekistan Sharaf Rashidov claims that such a solution is possible only in our country, where there is no national discord and national contradictions. The last speaker is Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Kliment Voroshilov. Speaking about the significance of Crimea for our country, he, of course, without realizing it, prophetically remarks:: "Both in the distant and recent past, enemies have repeatedly tried to take the Crimean Peninsula from Russia, use it to plunder and ruin Russian and Ukrainian lands, and create a military base there to attack Russia and Ukraine..."

 

The short text of the decree adopted at the meeting read: "Taking into account the common economy, territorial proximity and close economic and cultural ties between the Crimean region and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR decides: to approve the joint submission of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR on the transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR."

 

On April 26, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted the law "On the transfer of the Crimean Region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR" and decided to make appropriate changes to Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution of the USSR. Both the February decree and the April law are signed by the official head of the Soviet state, Kliment Voroshilov.

 

The transfer of Crimea to Ukraine went smoothly. The overwhelming majority thought that this was just a technical solution within a single union state. However, there were people in the party leadership who realized that in the future this may turn out to be difficult to predict consequences. Pavel Titov, the first secretary of the Crimean Regional Committee of the CPSU, spoke out against it, for which he was removed from office. True, the times were no longer as harsh as under Stalin, and instead of Kolyma, Titov was sent to work in ... Moscow - as Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the RSFSR. In Crimea, this act is remembered. After the peninsula was reunited with Russia in 2014, the Russian community of the peninsula, led by Senator Sergey Tsekov, launched an initiative to perpetuate the memory of Pavel Titov.

 

"Unfortunately, the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was carried out in a hurry, without calculating the possible consequences and without strict compliance with all legal procedures," says Sergey Yurchenko.

 

Due to his lack of education, Khrushchev simply could not imagine what this would turn out in the future. "Ignorance, like the midwife of adventurism, subjectivism, lightness, more than once put Khrushchev in the position of an inglorious loser and a fool. Historically, this is exactly what his decision on Crimea looks like, " Dmitry Volkogonov admitted.

 

An example of Khrushchev's understanding of the role and significance of Crimea can be found in the book of his memoirs: "There is no forbidden zone and no secrets on the territory of Crimea, except for submarine parking lots. Yes, and these submarines cat cried. In our strategic concept, the Black Sea was not given a significant role. The military disdainfully called him a puddle. It is shot through by missiles, crossed by planes in all directions, so it is almost impossible for ships to survive in it."

 

Contrary to the law

In his Crimean speech, Vladimir Putin noted that "this decision was made with obvious violations of the constitutional norms that were in force even then. The issue was resolved behind the scenes, between parties. Naturally, in the conditions of a totalitarian state, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol were not asked about anything. Just put before the fact."

 

In 1992, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation even passed a resolution on the legal assessment of decisions of the highest state authorities of the RSFSR to change the status of Crimea, in which it recognized them as having no legal force, but Yeltsin and company simply dismissed that document.

 

Chairman of the State Council of Crimea Vladimir Konstantinov also drew attention to legal violations in a comment to the Parliamentary Gazette. "The fact is that under Soviet law, making decisions on the transfer of territory and changing borders fell within the competence of the Supreme Soviets of the USSR and the Union republics — the highest state authorities, and not the presidencies and governments. This follows from articles 49 of the Constitution of the USSR, 33 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, and 30 of the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR. It turns out that the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR "On the transfer of the Crimean Region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR" was issued by an unauthorized body and in violation of the procedure established by the Basic Law, like all other acts of the Union republics ' presidencies devoted to this topic. In legal terms, they are insignificant, " explained Konstantinov.

 

 

Vladimir Konstantinov

© press service of the State Council of Crimea

But this is not all, the politician continued: decisions on changing the borders of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR were not taken at all — neither by the presidium nor by the supreme Soviets, although this is legally the most important and directly prescribed by the constitutions of the USSR, RSFSR, and Ukrainian SSR component of the question of transferring and including the territory into the borders of another republic.

 

At the same time, the acts on the transfer of Crimea do not guarantee the language, cultural, religious and other rights of Crimeans on the part of the host Union republic, Konstantinov noted. This allowed the Kiev authorities to conduct various kinds of cultural experiments on the peninsula back in Soviet times. Well, after Ukraine gained independence, a real cultural expansion began. It was carried out by the method of " creeping Ukrainization — - gradually limiting the scope of the Russian language, trying to oust Russian culture from education and everyday life of Crimeans, and transform their historical memory.

 

Crimeans were forced to defend their right to be themselves within the legal framework of Ukraine — as long as it was possible. It was for this purpose that on January 20, 1991, Crimeans held a referendum on restoring the republican status of the peninsula, developed republican legislation, including their own Constitution. Official Kiev responded to this with a number of illegal actions, narrowing to the limit the possibilities of Crimeans to defend their cultural and civilizational identity by peaceful means.

 

When Ukraine plunged into legal chaos and political arbitrariness in 2014, Crimeans themselves — through a popular vote-decided their fate.

 

????????? ? ??: https://translated.turbopages.org/proxy_u/ru-en.ru.c0106ce9-64306311-faa2df3a-74722d776562/https/www.pnp.ru/politics/kak-khrushhev-krym-ukraine-podaril.html

 


BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
25 Apr 2023, 04:10
#15
25 Apr 2023, 04:10#15

I challenge anyone to read SebKleb's bollocks ....................... quote,  'a transcript delivered with amazing feelings'.

Then I've ouPlum castigating & chastising me for virtue-signalling etc whilst the vocal bent Christian brigade have carte blanche to preach & pontificate about wonderful Russia & their noble quest to denazify their neighbour Ukraine.

— END OF THREAD —

More from Mikes Gripes