Thread: Что произойдет в восточной Украине? (Eastern Ukraine?)

could someone who is closer (or more familiar) with the Crimean situation prior to the referendum explain to me the (initial) presence of the military forces that were displaying no country signs. did they come from Russia (as was widely reported in the media where i live)? If i follow the argument of various commentators here, Russia by some agreement had the right to have a presence of 25000 or so forces in the Crimea. If that is so, why then would these 'legal' and organised troops then not display their country identity?

Originally Posted by eisenherz

did they come from Russia (as was widely reported in the media where i live)?

Some of them could come from Russia for strengthening. But anyway it was made according to the agreement. So you can't call it 'invasion.' It's a lie.

If i follow the argument of various commentators here, Russia by some agreement had the right to have a presence of 25000 or so forces in the Crimea. If that is so, why then would these 'legal' and organised troops then not display their country identity?

Because you need to devide these legal troops into three parts: so-called 'folk self-defense', some of the Ukrainian soldiers who took Russian side and, in fact, some legal Russian troops. All of them have been using Russian uniform.
They don't use their identification signs because it's kinda 'ruse of war.' The agreement says that the Russian command has to inform Ukrainian party about the movements of Russian troops. But if one can't recognize an identity, no one can say that the agreement is broken. Although I think it's only 'playing safe', no more. Since the Ukrainian Government is an illegal junta, Russian part must not inform them.