world

West imposes new Russia sanctions; Putin defiant

10 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

10 Comments
Login to comment

"The ruble sank to a historic low and Moscow stock markets fell, fearful of the impact on an economy already teetering on the brink of recession."

Thanks, Putin.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

You mean, Serrano, the West's irrational response holds no part of the blame?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Putin has reasons to be defiant. If a bunch of Western dirtbags continue to make up false accusations against me so they can use those excuses to sanction me, I would be pretty damn pissed.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

So a a truce is negotiated and implemented between Russia and Ukraine and AFTER it goes into effect the West imposes new sanctions? Seems like the West just can't help itself...or is it beacause the ceasefire deal was Putin,s initiative and not theirs so NATO wants it to fail?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"You mean, Serrano, the West's irrational response holds no part of the blame?"

Irrational response? Explain!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I also wonder about what Mr. Kazuaki Shimazaki means with "West's irrational response". Actually, the West took too long time to respond to the Russian dictator and is still being too acquiescent to the Eurasian Movement and its project of hegemony. Better Japan to understand well what would be its place in a world under the dictatorial command of the Russia-China axis.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The West is simply moving on the break down of the BRIC's economic Front/ recently formed. They decided to start with Russia as the first target on the decentralization campaign. The current world order is being challenged and this is the response to the threat. Clearly, the Peace Agreement is of no value and being ignored ! Subsequently, the second level of sanctions are employed. Now how does this end ? Answer: It doesn't until Russian interest is completely broken.The West is insisting that the sanctions remain in place until Moscow pulls out of Crimea.... " from Crimea ! This is Hard Ball at it's best. Major strategic operations. Who started this whole mess ? The West - not Putin !! There is no such thing as an Accident, everything is an Incident......

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Irrational response? Explain!

The entire Ukrainian crisis is due to Russophobia. The West abandoned its principles of peaceful resolution of problems when it failed to criticize the new and unconstitutional government, which was formed in the wake of quite illegal and violent rioting in Kiev. Instead, it lost no time in recognizing it.

Then when the Crimea decided to go independent and side with Russia, the West abandoned its principal of self-determination.

Today, the West continues to support a regime that was illegally and violently instituted and that is using lethal forces, including airplanes to attack those trying to gain more autonomy.

Now, Putin is doing more or less what the West had been calling for and tries to push a cease fire. It is even somewhat holding despite a bunch of incidents. The West still squawks.

I can only see Russophobia as the only cause, and that's not rational.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Kazuaki Shimazaki Sep. 16, 2014 - 02:39PM JST

Russophobia? Are you serious?

In 1994 Russia agreed that Crimea was a legal part of Ukraine and agreed to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine as a whole. A treaty spelling it out was signed by Russia, US, UK and France.

Moreover, do you know the Ukrainian history and what the people from this country have suffered in the hands of KGB, the same KGB which Putin was one of the major leaders? Do you mention principle of self-determination applied to the territory of an independent and sovereign country? The Crimea fraudulent referendum carried out by Moscow sponsored separatists/mercenaries/terrorists with 95% in favor of union with Russia? Almost the same as Kim-Jong-Un 100% rate of approval in NK "elections", huh? Whatever, the referendum itself was illegal. Only the Ukrainian government along its Parliament would be legally authorized to carry out a referendum in Crimea.

The ousting of Yanukovych was perfectly legal and did not violate a single clause of the Ukrainian Constitution, the sacred Constitution of a sovereign country. As well as it is sacred the right of a sovereign country to militarily defend itself and its territories from the invasion of Moscow sponsored mercenaries and terrorists.

Well, perhaps learning from History, respecting signed treaties, being aware of Moscow intentions and standing by its sovereignty would be "Russophobic" in Putin's Russia... go figure!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In 1994 Russia agreed that Crimea was a legal part of Ukraine and agreed to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine as a whole. A treaty spelling it out was signed by Russia, US, UK and France.

You might notice that they were reasonably willing to keep it, though it meant having to lease the Black Sea Fleet base (which means giving Ukraine more say in what they do than they would really like) all the way up until Yakie was pushed overboard.

I am quite aware of the so-called Holodomor. Countless Russians have suffered in Stalin's time too.

The ousting of Yanukovych was perfectly legal and did not violate a single clause of the Ukrainian Constitution, the sacred Constitution of a sovereign country.

The Constitutionality of ousting Yanukovych was sufficiently problematic that even some in the West felt obliged to point it out. Admittedly, it was popular in the Parliament (but how much does that reflect the real opinion versus the thought to end the definitely illegal riots at all costs is unclear), but still not quite enough to beat the supermajority provisions in the Constitution that are there for this very purpose - to prevent short term events and shifts in popularity from having disastrous consequences.

Whatever, the referendum itself was illegal.

Well, so were the riots that led up to it, and as I explained above, the throwover. Technically, by the rules of the Ukrainian constitution, that would have left us with no valid government in Kiev.

Only the Ukrainian government along its Parliament would be legally authorized to carry out a referendum in Crimea.

Here, we get to what is more important - the principle of self determination or the wording of the Constitution. Because reading this literally would mean that a part of Ukraine would never be allowed to secede without the permission of most of the other parts no matter what is happening. This is not exactly in accordance to the principle of self-determination.

The Crimea fraudulent referendum carried out by Moscow sponsored separatists/mercenaries/terrorists with 95% in favor of union with Russia?

On a usual day, a rational Western observer would note that Eastern Ukraine is quite dominated by the Russian ethnicity, and the Crimea is among the most pro-Russian, so given a chance they are quite likely to have gone with Russia. Of course, now that it happened, those hypocrites are going "No, it can't be! It can't be!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites