I am well aware... Hence I said "Russia was not happy" ;) That said, that promise was never a signed contract. And after what Russia pulled in Chechnya NATO had basically won without firing a single shot. Nearly every post-SU country rushed to and begged for NATO membership. And the only promise was that NATO does not PUSH beyond it's borders, not that it doesn't accept if post SU countries want to join. Which obviously they nearly all wanted post Chechnya.

The nato defense doctrine was not adapted when these countries joined so technically NATO kept it's word... just saying ;)

And yes, western media has a strong Putin fetish. But you can't blame them, after all Putin makes so many PR mistakes there is no way not to cover him ;p

Nothing selective about it. The agreement had nothing to do with NATO or military at all, which was my main point in my reply. It was Mr. Yanukovych going to the EU about it, not the other way around. Yes, it was a one way only agreement - as much as Mr. Putins counter-offer was.
So with pointing at the EU not wanting a happy threeway, you show signs of a selective view as this wasn't possible to get from Mr. Putin either.

True, it was just verbal, here is the US-ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock from that time talking about it and the current crisis:
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/3/fmr_us_ambassador_to_resolve_ukraine

full transscript below the video if you dont want to watch.

Wow, so there is more and more chances to eventually see here something like "Yes, Russia invaded a sovereign neighbour country and shot down a civil airliner, but it was only because EU was greedy in our opinion, so we lied all that time to punish EU and make them sad" i guess. Would be some real progress, id say.

Again, yes it was a one way only agreement. I fail to see the threeway offer coming from Russia, which would have put pressure on the EU to compromise. Instead, Putin took the EU offer, turned it around and offered that.

I really don't know how a threeway agreement would have been possible, given all the legal crap coming with such arrangements, even less with Russias demands for influence in his "backyards". Though I agree that this would have been the best way - for all sides.
But pointing at the EU as greedy and the root of the problem while ignoring the other sides counter-proposal being the same.... sry, doesn't work for me.

Funny really, how it's always the west that is misunderstood rather than malicious, and how we never break agreements. Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty? Reneged on by the US, but Russia should be cool with that! No NATO expansion eastwards? No problem, it wasn't a 'proper' agreement anyway, and even if the Russians thought it was the expansion of an alliance which had as its entire raison d'être being anti Russian and has gone on one military adventure after another over the past decade or so is not a threat on their borders because it's entirely defensive, just ask Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya etc. Three way agreement over Ukraine? Bah, compromise, we don't want no stinking compromise. Too hard, we want it all, agree, or we'll coup your government. UN agreements? Yeah, we'll use a protection of civilians UNSCR to remove Gaddafi, we'll even bomb civilians who support him because they aren't real civilians, and hey! feel free to use poison gas against Bani Walid while you're about it, rebels. Then we'll pat ourselves on the back and go home, I'm sure everything will be OK and if it isn't, well, it's not our fault!

Bunch of self righteous hypocrites, the lot of them. Not like the Russians aren't as well, but they disbanded their cold war alliance and every concession made has come from Gorbachev and Yeltsin, the west, nary a one- and for some reason the Russians get called on their hypocrisy while westerners, armoured in their sure belief in their superiority and moral rightness, never examine their own eyes for any logs.

Recent Russian history has been of them trusting western good intentions and being let down every single time. We had a chance to have a genuinely 'good' Russia and we let them down badly, the current revanchism has its roots in our triumphalism and short sightedness- plus the need for NATO to have a continuing reason for existence, requiring an enemy, and for imperial powers' need for constantly expanding influence to stave off collapse. Same as it ever was, we just believe that it's something only other, evil, people do when it really isn't.

How did I forget this. Oh well.

The US claims to have satellite pictures of the missile launch that brought down MH17. If true that would be one hell of a coincidence, given that you don't think they were bothered at all and wouldn't retask any satellites. Basically, your whole thesis is debunked by the US themselves, unless you think the US is lying, in which case they then don't have the conclusive evidence of either the shootdown or Russian incursions that they claim to have. And either way I'm ultimately right, they either don't have the evidence or they're refusing to release it.

Plus of course you say they would have retasked satellites to Iraq and Syria in preference (and again, the US claims to have satellite pictures of all sorts there, including chemical weapon launches ad Ghouta, as do other countries such as France) which would have cost energy too and for which in most areas alternatives exist. Maybe not over Damascus and the government controlled areas, but certainly over the ISIS bits.

There are no high quality GoogleEarth like photographs of the plane being shot down which was what we were discussing. there are credible information gathered by satellites similar to credible photos of tanks which crossed the border but are apparently not of sufficient quality.

so you are of course wrong as there is evidence, just it might not be enough for sme poepole to consider them credible just like the evidence for shooting of the plane was not enough.

Ok then the other sides counter proposal wasnt good either, happy? Why always this good/evil thinking? In international politics there is no good side, everyone is looking out for their own gain aka evil. I have no problem saying that both sides fucked up. I am however more concerned with my own side, since that is the one I can influence.

Above posters demonstrate amazing logic:)

- EU is greedy.
- Russia is greedy too.
- Woah, why so "good/evil thinking" bro ?


And yeah, as DarzaR said, that's probably not the most hilarious thing that will be posted in this thread.

In my reply I pointed out that the Ukraine wasn't about to join NATO and that the agreement with the EU wouldn't have made them a proxy state, as Crosmando claimed.
Never did I claim that it was a good agreement that every sane person would want to sign, nor did I claim that the Russian counter-offer was "teh evil" and to avoid at all costs - I claimed that the pro-russian Yanukovych went to the EU about it, not the other way around.... so yeah, I dispute the selective viewing as well as the good/evil thinking, at least about both offered agreements.

Ok good!

Soldiers are secretely being buried in Russia.

How stupid are the Russians? Did they forget that soldiers have families and that there's always casualties? Good luck covering that up.

Edit: Please keep in mind that when I say "the Russians" I usually refer to the government and its most fanatical supporters. Not implying that all Russians are stupid or evil. :P

How stupid "Russian army secretly operates for six months without any proofs from locals in Ukraine, satellite photos and radio interceptions from US and without gossips about it in Russia" sounds to you?
Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor
ten seconds, tons of video.

About this article - it uses material from scavenger-level newspaper and interview with the person which lives on US grants (admitted it in interview on radio).
This photo can only prove that someone died. Can you say that this wasn't photo of someone killed in a car crash?
You know, photos of "young men in tracksuits", taken from afar during long period of time could at least somehow back up this story...

Obviously it's surprising that the presence hasn't been confirmed earlier but it just means that the Russian soldiers are probably not uniformed and blending in with the insurgents (just like the Kremlin is trying to mask any other actions in Ukraine as the separatists'). There, mystery solved.

Anyway, like the article states - your government's stories don't add up and are adjusted as they go. Even Putin has admitted that Russian "volunteers" are active in Ukraine by now. Once the next batch of evidence for Russian military presence in Ukraine pops up you will see another update of this kind. You know, like "yes, there are Russian soldiers in Ukraine but only because the Crimeans requested military support".

Edit: Also this (from this nice article):
"On Tuesday, Russia's presidential human rights council said about 100 wounded servicemen had been airlifted to a military hospital in St Petersburg for treatment. Nine soldiers were killed at a training range in Rostov region, it said.

Military hospitals in Rostov region and southern Russia were "overflowing", a council spokeswoman said."

I'm wondering how much longer it will take before you notice that the way the West presents the conflict is perfectly plausible whereas the Kremlin's version doesn't even make any logical sense.